Nyaya as a Philosophy of Public Reasoning

September 30, 2025

Rohit Dhankar

Public Reason

The idea of public reason in the current debates is mostly invoked in connection with political and moral issues which have political implications. It is considered necessary for democracy. This strong emphasis on its legitimate space only in political deliberations limits the scope, constituency, and content of public reason. Rawls limits it to the “constitutional essentials and matters of basic justice” (SEP), thereby not even covering the whole sphere of public relationships where citizens exercise power over each other. Similarly, the constituency (the group of people) covered by the Rawlsian idea are the “reasonable persons” (SEP). Reasonable persons are those who are “ready to propose principles and standards as fair terms of cooperation and to abide by them willingly, given the assurance that others will likewise do so. Those norms they view as reasonable for everyone to accept and therefore as justifiable to them; and they are ready to discuss the fair terms that others propose” (Rawls 1996, 49). Second, who “accept their consequences for the use of public reason in directing the legitimate exercise of political power in a constitutional regime” (Rawls 1996, 54). [Interestingly, the people involved in debates in Indian forums—be that the parliament, the legislatures of states, or the mass media—will almost all fail both Rawlsian criteria!]

The content of public reason, it seems, should include:

  1. Some basic political values like the idea of equal basic liberties; the idea of equality of opportunity.
  2. Guidelines of enquiry which should include principles of reasoning and rules of evidence to determine how substantive principles included in point one are to be applied. (SEP, Rawls)

According to a more inclusive view of constituency, based on Habermas’ view “the normative content of public reason is not something that is determined via philosophical analysis or argument. Rather, philosophy provides a set of ideal rules or guidelines for the conduct of public reasoning. The ideal guidelines for public reasoning would ensure that the discussion is inclusive, public, and free from any internal or external coercion,” and leave the normative content to be determined by the public reasoning itself.

In this view, selectively summarized from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, public reason is seen in a technical sense, primarily concerned with political discourse, and contains (a) some normative principles and (b) rules of public debate.

Ganeri’s formulation, though claimed to be based on Rawls’ idea and perhaps intended to remain in the political sphere, leaves inclusion of other areas at least in interpretation open. Ganeri states: “Public reason is the mode of deliberation that brings people of diverse philosophical, religious, and moral convictions into a state of rational accord with respect to a matter of mutual concern and common interest.” Let’s interpret “matter of mutual concern and common interest” in a wider sense inclusive of matters pertaining to truth, knowledge, morals, and good life, even when not directly connected with political issues. This view too will include both aspects of public reason, namely normative content and rules of debate. We will use “public reasoning” as the activity of exercising public reason.

Nyaya and Public Reasoning

Ganeri shows that Indian resources can enrich public reasoning globally, and uses several of his examples from Nyaya. Malcolm Keating favourably compares early Nyaya argumentation theory with the pragma-dialectics of dispassionate discourse, and claims that they both can not only support but enrich each other. My layman’s reading of Nyaya sutras and commentaries convinces me that the whole Nyaya philosophy is developed—though not entirely and in every respect—substantially as a philosophy of public reasoning. And it is of immense value in public reasoning of today, even after thousands of years of its formulation. I will give just a few examples from Nyaya to substantiate my claim.

1. The purpose itself claims so

The first Nyaya-sutra of Gautama enumerates 16 categories, the knowledge of which is claimed to be necessary to reach the highest good. Some people attack this enumeration as just an unconnected laundry list (asambandhita pralapa). Ganganatha Jha defends the list by stating the following:

“Before writing his treatise, Gautama thought that the best way of presenting the subject truthfully would be to imagine two persons, one as the proponent (vadi) and the other as the opponent (prativadi), and to have both sides set forth their arguments before a third, an imagined mediator; and then to have that imagined mediator arrive at a decision as to the real truth of the matter.” (A tentative translation from Nyayaprakash by Jha)

This clearly states Nyaya to be a shastra which can be best understood in a debate. Jha makes it imaginary; however, the details of each argument in Sutras and commentaries clearly indicate possibilities of actual public debate.

2. Five components of Anumana Pramana (inference)

Anumana seems to be the heart of Nyaya in many ways. The very term “Nyaya” is defined by Vatsyayana as “the examination of an object with the help of the instruments of valid knowledge (pramanas).” And the anumana pramana is called “parama-nyaya.” Explaining anumana Vatsyayana says:

“Each of the five propositions (namely pratijna, etc.) with which the desired thesis is conclusively established (siddhi is completed), is called an ‘inference component’ (avayava) in relation to their totality. The four pramanas are collectively present (i.e. underlie) in these five. The preliminary statement of the thesis (pratijna) is verbal testimony (agama). The reason (hetu) is inference (anumana). The exemplification (udaharana) is perception (pratyaksha). The application (upanaya) is comparison (upamana). The demonstration of the capability of all these to combine for the sake of establishing one central thesis is the conclusion (nigamana). Such is Nyaya par excellence.”

Two points in anumana are noteworthy in relation to public reasoning:

  1. It has two forms: swartha (for arriving at a conclusion by oneself) and parartha (for convincing others).
  2. Udaharana, as mentioned above, is an example that is acceptable to both the vadi and prativadi.

Without going into details it is enough to say here that the very structure of anumana, which is called parama-nyaya, is formulated for public reasoning with others in the presence of an audience and moderated by a madhyastha.

3. Samshaya (doubt), conclusion, and open-mindedness

Nyaya is supposed to operate neither in complete ignorance nor when a clear and valid judgment has been arrived at. It operates when there is some knowledge about an issue or thing but that knowledge is not certain—that is, there is doubt regarding its true nature. This means one has an open mind about ascertaining valid cognition about it and is open to discussion.

To remove doubt, vada (discussion to ascertain the truth) is recommended. “Final ascertainment (nirnaya) is the knowledge of truth (tattvajnana). It is the final result of (i.e. acquired through) the instruments of valid knowledge. Discussion for the final ascertainment (vada) ends with this.”

4. Vada, Jalpa, and Vitanda

The three forms of argumentation or debate are specifically enunciated for public reasoning.

  • Vada is the form of debate in which the two contestants argue in favour of their respective points of view and criticise the opponent’s view with valid arguments without contradicting what is already accepted or established. The purpose is the ascertainment of truth.
  • Jalpa (disputation) is a kind of vada in which disputants support their arguments by auxiliaries—chhala (futile rejoinder), jati (casuistry), and nigrahasthana (defeaters or clinchers). The purpose of debate here becomes victory by any means, in view of some Naiyayikas; while some others think of them as tools for safeguarding one’s position by replying in kind. This is not considered a good form of debate.
  • Vitanda (wrangling) is when there is no counter-position to be established. The vitandika just tries to refute the position of the vadi, without having anything to say himself.

Phanibhushana gives the essential characteristics of the three forms of debate as: “Vada is a debate prompted by the desire for the attainment of right knowledge, Jalpa is a debate prompted by the desire for victory, and Vitanda is a debate prompted by the desire for victory where the opponent has no care for establishing any thesis of his own.”

These forms obviously indicate public debate. [Interestingly, present-day public reasoning in our beloved country has very little Vada, and is mainly occupied by Jalpa and Vitanda!]

5. Openness to questions

Nyaya, being a philosophical system, is naturally open to all kinds of questioning of its doctrines without any limit or declaring some questions as blasphemy. This is a natural tendency of all philosophy; I am mentioning it here only because in today’s India it may come as a surprise to some. Nyaya is part of the six systems that are often termed Hindu philosophy. As is well known, belief in the truth of the Vedas, existence of the soul (atma), and God (Ishwara) are part of entrenched Hindu religious belief. Nyaya allows questioning of all three and many more without any qualms.

In the discussion on testimony (or shabda-pramana) the sutrakara (Gautama) himself raises a question challenging its validity. In sutra 2.1.57 (in Jha 2.1.58): “[Objection] It [i.e. Veda] has no validity, because it is vitiated by falsehood (anrita), self-contradiction (vyaghata), and repetition (punarukti).” [I have deliberately taken Gangopadhyaya’s translation because he specifically mentions Veda. However, neither Gautama nor Vatsyayana mention Veda directly. But all commentators interpret this sutra as challenging the shabda-pramanya of Veda.]

Though Gautama rejects this objection in the very next sutra through a rather flimsy argument concerning the “imperfections of the ritual performance, of the performer, and of the means employed.” This, however, clearly seems to be a fig leaf. The point I am making is that the question itself is not silenced; rather, it is taken up and dealt with in a rational manner. Almost every contention in the sutras is examined from the counterpoint and hard questions are asked.

Importance in present-day context

One can multiply such examples on almost all claims of Nyaya. All this makes Nyaya almost a philosophy of public reasoning. A large part of public reasoning in the present-day world is conducted in mass media (print media, television, and social media). A careful study of what is going on will show that, as far as India is concerned, this is mostly Jalpa and Vitanda. The most common fallacies used are ad hominem and slippery slope. Pramanas (good arguments and evidence) are usually absent. Assertion is the mainstay of the attacks and counter-attacks. Understanding Nyaya principles and procedures of debate may be very fruitful in navigating through the present-day toxic discussions, and can immensely help in healthy public reasoning.

******

Leave a Comment » | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

लोकतंत्र को ख़तरा किस से है?

June 9, 2024

रोहित धनकर
लोकतंत्र के समाप्त होने के, संविधान ख़त्म करने के और अधिनायकवाद या फासीवाद स्थापित होने के नारे पिछले १० साल में बार बार लगते रहे हैं। मैं नहीं मानता कि उन नारों में कुछ सच्चाई थी। वे सब झूठ के पुलिंदे थे। मैं बीजेपी समर्थक कभी नहीं रहा हूँ, अब भी नहीं हूँ। पर मुझे लगता है सत्य, स्वतंत्रता और समानता पार्टियों और मज़हबों से बड़े मूल्य हैं। और जहां वे ख़तरे में होते हैं तब हमें सचेत हो जाना चाहिए। पर स्वतंत्रता और उच्छृंखलता में फ़र्क़ भी होता है। स्वतंत्रता किन्ही सार्वस्वीकृत नियमों (संविधान, क़ानून) के दायरे में स्व-निर्देशित व्यवहार को कहते हैं; और उच्छृंखलता नियमों को ताक पर रख कर अपनी मनमर्ज़ी करने का नाम है। स्वतंत्रता लोकतंत्र का प्राण है, आधार है। उच्छृंखलता लोकतंत्र की बीमारी है, जो हद से गुजर जाने पर लोकतंत्र का अंतिम क्रियाकर्म कर सकती है। लोकतंत्र को ख़तरा स्वतंत्रता के बाधित होने से भी आ सकता है और उच्छृंखलता को बढ़ावा देने से भी। मैं समझता हूँ कि इस वक्त लोकतंत्र को दूसरे प्रकार का ख़तरा है।
प्लेटो के रिपब्लिक में नीचे दिया संवाद इसी उच्छृंखल स्थिति के बाद तानाशाही ख़तरे की बात करता है, इसे थोड़ा ध्यान से पढ़िये:
[“क्या इसी प्रकार जनतंत्र के विनाश का कारण भी उसी वस्तु की अत्यधिक वासना नहीं है जो जनतंत्र का लक्षण बतलाई जाती है तथा जो उस (जनतंत्र) की दृष्टि में श्रेय की कसौटी है?”
“तुम इसका लक्षण या कसौटी किसको कहते हो?”
मैंने उत्तर दिया, “स्वतंत्रता को। क्यों कि तुम कहा जाता हुआ सुनोगे कि यह स्वतंत्रता अपने सुंदरतम रूप में जनतांत्रिक राष्ट्र में ही उपलब्ध होती है, अतएव स्वतंत्र प्रकृति का व्यक्ति केवल जनतांत्रिक शासन में ही रहना स्वीकार करेगा।”
उसने कहा, “सो क्यों नहीं, यह कथन तो तुम सर्वत्र सुन सकते हो।”
मैंने कहा, “तो, जैसा कि मैं अभी कहने वाला था, क्या इसी की अतिशय वासना और अन्य सब वस्तुओं की अवहेलना ही वह चीज नहीं है जो इस शासन प्रणाली में भी क्रांति उत्पन्न कर के तानाशाही की आवश्यकता के लिए पथ प्रशस्त करने वाली है।”
उसने पूछा, “कैसे?”
“मैं समझता हूँ कि जब स्वतंत्रता पान करने के लिए तृषित जनतंत्र राष्ट को नेताओं के स्थान में बुरे चषकवाहक (साक़ी) मिलजाते हैं, तथा जब वह राष्ट्र इस अविमिश्रित शुद्ध मदिरा (स्वतंत्रता) से छक कर मदमस्त्त हो उठता है तो यदि उस के तथाकथित शासनकर्ता उसके प्रति अतिशय मृदुलता और विनम्रता का व्यवहार नहीं करते तथा उसके प्रति स्वतंत्रता का अत्यधिक मात्रा में वितरण नहीं कराटे तो यह यह उनको दंड देता है और उनके ऊपर अभिशप्त ऑलीगार्क (बनियाशाह) होने का दोषारोपण करता है।”
उसने उत्तर दिया, “हाँ, वे ऐसा ही करते हैं।”
मैंने कहा, “यह तो है ही। और जो लोग शासकों की आज्ञा मानते हैं उनका यह राष्ट्र, इन को स्वेच्छादास और निरर्थक व्यक्ति कह कर निरादर करता है, किंतु जो शासक प्रजाओं के समान होते हैं अथवा जो प्रजाजन शासकों के सदृश होते हैं इनको वह सार्वजनिक और व्यक्तिगत रूप में प्रशंसा और आदर प्रदान करता है। क्या यह बात अनिवार्य नहीं है कि ऐसे राष्ट्र में स्वतंत्रता की भावना मर्यादा के छोर तक पाँच जाये?”
“अवश्यमेव।”]
यह उद्धरण मैं इस लिये नहीं दे रहा हूँ कि प्लेटो ने रिपब्लिक में जो कुछ लिखा वह सब सही है, पर वर्तमान स्थिति को समझने के लिए ये सटीक उदाहरण है।
लोकतंत्र क्यों कि स्वतंत्रता, समानता और व्यक्ति-गरिमा पर टिका होता है; इस लिये इस के बने और विकसित होने के लिए लोगों का व्यवस्थाओं में भरोसा होना ज़रूरी है। भरोसे का अर्थ यह नहीं होता कि व्यवस्था के हर अंग (संसद, चुनाव आयोग, उच्चतम न्यायालय, आदि) को हर बात में एकदम सही माना जाये। ये संस्थाएँ ग़लतियाँ कर सकती हैं, इनका दुरुपयोग भी संभव है सत्ता के द्वारा। पर ज़िम्मेदार नागरिक, राजनैतिक दल, राजनेता और कथित बुद्धिजीवियों (यदि इन में अभी भी बुद्धि बची हो) का यह कर्तव्य होता है कि वे इनकी ग़लतियों को सत्य और विवेक के आधार पर बिना इन पर भरोसा ख़त्म किए सुधारें, सुधारने की कोशिश करें। ना कि झूठ फैलाकर इन संस्थाओं में भरोसा ही ख़त्म कर दें।
अभी तजा बात है इस लिये हम सभी जानते हैं कि कांग्रेस के नेतृत्व में विपक्षी दलों ने वोटिंग मशीन में भरोसा तोड़ने की भरपूर कोशिश की। चुनाव आयोग में भरोसा तोड़ने की भरपूर कोशिश की। जब इन को कुछ हद तक अच्छे नतीजे मिले तो अब पूरी लोकतांत्रिक प्रक्रिया को अवैध बताने की कोशिश ज़ोरों पर है। बड़े नेता (जयराम रमेश और ममता बैनर्जी) बीजेपी की आज सपथ लेने वाली सरकार को अवैध कह रहे हैं। योगेन्द्र यादव का फ़रमान है कि इस सरकार के पास जनादेश नहीं है, और नाही इक़बाल (सरकार चलाने के लिये ताक़त)। यह पूरी प्रक्रिया को अवैध ठहराना है। और एक पूरी फ़ौज इन आप्त-वचनों को फैलाने में लगी है।
इन से पूछा जाना चाहिए कि संवैधानिक तरीक़े से चुनी हुई सरकार अवैध कैसे है? यदि गठबंधन के बहुमत से कांग्रेस की कई सरकारों के पास जनादेश माना गया था तो इस सरकार के पास क्यों नहीं? जनादेश चुनाव में बहुमत के अलावा और कहाँ से आता है? इस का वह गुप्त स्रोत क्या है जो श्री रमेश, सुश्री बैनर्जी और श्री यादव जानते हैं, पर भारतीय जनता नहीं जानती? यह कोई आध्यात्मिक चीज़ है क्या को नेहरू परिवार के पास ही सुरक्षित रहती है? इक़बाल है कि नहीं यह तो सरकार बनाने के बाद पता चलेगा।
ये दावे और इस तरह के आख्यान (narratives) लोगों के मन में देश के ढाँचे के प्रति अविश्वास फैलाते हैं। विदेशों में लोगों को यह कहने का आधार देते हैं कि भारत में लोकतंत्र नहीं है। जिस देश में ६० करोड़ से ऊपर लोगों ने मतदान किया हो, हिंसा बहुत कम हुई हो, आराम के अगली सरकार बन रही हो, विपक्षियों को अपनी सरकार बनाने के लिए जोड़-तोड़ (जो दसकों से करते रहे हैं) की स्वतंत्र हो; वहाँ वैधता ना होने, जनादेश ना होने के क्या अर्थ हो सकते हैं? शिवाय इसके कि ‘वैधता और जनादेश वह है जो हम चाहते हैं, जो हमें ना पसंद है वह सब अवैध’। इस के अलावा जनता ने कोई निर्णय किया तो यातो वह मूर्ख है या उस के निर्णय की वैधता नहीं है। अजीब बात है, इस प्रकार के आत्मकेन्द्रित विचार रखने वाले और लोक के निर्णय को अवैध बताने वाले लोकतंत्र की बात करते हैं!
इस के साथ अब कुलविंदर कौर के दुष्कृत्य को मिलने वाले समर्थन, उसे दंड से बचाने के लिए चलाई जाने वाली मुहिम और विपक्षी दलों तथा कथित बुद्धिजीवियों की इस मामले पर चुप्पी को मिलाकर देखिए। एक तरफ़ सरकार को अवैध बताना, जनादेश विहीन और इक़बाल-हीन बताना; और दूसरी तरफ़ जातीवाद (जाट वाद) और किसान-वाद के नाम पर ऐसा महोल बनाना कि सरकार को कुलविंदर के साथ नरमी बरतनी पड़े। कुलविंदर को विधि सम्मत दंड ना देपाने पर सरकार इक़बाल-हीन सिद्ध हो जाएगी। दंड दिया तो जाट किसान-वाद के नाम पर झूठा आंदोलन खड़ा हो जाएगा। इस आंदोलन में ख़लिस्तानी तत्व मुखर रूप से सामने आयेंगे (पिछला किसान आंदोलन याद करिए)। इसे देखते हुए सरकार को कड़ाई करनी पड़ेगी। कड़ाई की तो, लोगों को आंदोलन की स्वतंत्रता नहीं है के नारे लगेंगे। साथ ही चुनी हुई सरकार के अवैध होने और उसके पास जनादेश ना होने का आख्यान आपने चला ही रखा है। तो आप अराजकता और झूठे आख्यानों के आधार पर लोकतंत्र की जड़ों पर कुठाराघात करेंगे।
यह ज़िम्मेदार नागरिकों, दलों और बुद्धिजीवियों का व्यवहार तो नहीं है। सत्ता के लिए ललचाये हुए, और उसे किसी भी क़ीमत पर हथियाने की कोशिश करने वालों का ज़रूर है।
इधर कुछ अतिउदारों को यह बात समझ में नहीं आरही कि ड्यूटी पर तैनात सुरक्षा-कर्मी का अपने व्यक्तिगत, या सामूहिक, आक्रोश के आधार पर किसी पर आक्रमण (१) भारतीय नागरिक के नाते अपराध है, और (२) सुरक्षा-कर्मी के नाते अनुशासनहीनता है। उन्हें अपने भावनात्मक लगावों के कारण यह नहीं दिख रहा कि कुलविंदर और सातवंत सिंह के दुष्कृत्यों में फ़र्क़ सिर्फ़ मात्रा (डिग्री) का है, श्रेणी (category) या गुण-अवगुण (quality) का नहीं। आप थोड़े आक्रोश (धरने पर बैठने वालों को पैसे के लिए आये बताना) के लिए थप्पड़ मारने को जायज़ बतायेंगे तो बड़े आक्रोश (धर्म पर आक्रमण) के लिए हत्या को भी जायज़ बताना पड़ेगा। या फिर विवेक का पल्ला छोड़िए और यह कहिए कि आप के लिये आपकी भावना ही अंतिम कसौटी है। पर याद रखिए, यह कहते ही बाक़ी सभी को भी सिर्फ़ भावना के आधार पर निर्णय और कर्म का अधिका मिल जाता है। आप ऐसा समाज चाहते हैं तो ज़रूर उस के लिये कोशिश करें, आप का हक़ है। पर फिर बौद्धिक होने, सुविचारित बात कहने, नागरिकता और समानता आदि की लफ़्फ़ाज़ी बंद कर दीजिए। ये दोनों वैचारिक धाराएँ एक साथ नहीं चल सकती।
दूसरी तरफ़ बीजेपी और उसकी सरकार है। इन के पास १० वर्ष थे। इस दस वर्षों में उस ने बार बार सिद्ध किया कि उसके पास वैचारिक दृढ़ता नहीं है। वह डरपोक है, सुविधा के अनुसार निर्णय लेती है; न्याय और सत्य के अनुसार नहीं। इस में कुछ अच्छे निर्णय लिये: धारा ३७० हटाना, नागरिकता (संशोधन) अधिनियम (Citizenship (Amendment) Act), मुस्लिम महिला (विवाह अधिकार संरक्षण) अधिनियम, आदि। भारतीय कृषि अधिनियम 2020 सरकार में हिम्मत की कमी के कारण वापस लेना पड़ा। यह मैं इस लिये कह रहा हूँ कि उसे वापस लेने के बजाय सुधार बेहतर रहता। राष्ट्रीय नागरिक रजिस्टर (जो कि निहायत ज़रूरी है) के मामले में इतना डर गई सरकार कि उसकी बोलती ही बंद हो गई।
पर बीजेपी सरकार ने ग़लतियाँ भी की हैं। राम मंदिर को अत्यधिक महत्व देना और प्रधानमंत्री का पद पर रहते हुए अतिशय धार्मिकता का प्रदर्शन। सभी गौहत्या बंदी संबंधी अधिनियम (राज्यों में) और गौ-हत्या पर होने वाले बवालों को ना रोक पाना, आदि। लेकिन इन से ना तो संविधान को कोई ख़तरा था नाहीं लोकतंत्र को। संविधान में अब तक सौ से कुछ ऊपर संशोधन हो चुके हैं। इन में से निन्नावे तो २०१३ से पहले ही हो चुके थे। यदि इन सशोधनों के बावजूद संविधान और लोकतंत्र ज़िंदा रहे तो कुछ और हो जाने पर भी रहते, और रहेंगे; क्यों की संशोधन तो होंगे।
बात का लब्बो-लबाब (वह जो कुछ भी होता हो) यह है कि सरकार के नूर्णयों और कार्यों के गुण-अवगुण देखे बिना हर निर्णय का विरोध लोकतंत्र को ठप्प करने की साजिस होती है। संस्थानों के हर उस निर्णय का विरोध जिसे आप ना पसंद करते हैं, उन संस्थानों के प्रति विश्वास को कम करता है। यह लोकतंत्र की जड़ों में तेल देना है; और ऐसा करने वालों की अलोकतांत्रिक मानसिकता को उजागर करता है। जनता और प्रक्रियाओं का अपमान है। देश की छवि को अकारण धूमिल करता है, जिसका नुक़सान हर भारतीय को होता है।
इस वक़्त भारत में दोनों बड़े राजनैतिक दल बुरे हैं, कोई भी अच्छा नहीं है। बीजेपी में बुराइया हैं, उसमें मुसलमान विरोध का स्वर भी है। पर वह मुसलमानों को दोयम दर्जे के नागरिक नहीं बनाना चाहती। बस उन्हें विशेष रियायतें देने से उसे परहेज़ है। और मुसलमानों में एक बड़े तबके की उग्र-आक्रामकता को वह सहन नहीं करना चाहती। कांग्रेस में भी बुराइयाँ है। वह रीढ़विहीन चापलूसों की अधिनायकवादी पार्टी है, जो नेहरू-गांधी परिवार की जेब में बैठी है। उस का हिंदू विरोध अल्पसंख्यकों के तुष्टिकरण का नतीजा है; जो कि कांग्रेस की १९२० के बाद की स्थाई नीति है। लंबी अवधि में भारत में लोकतंत्र को हिंदुत्व से नहीं तुष्टिकरण से ख़तरा है। अभी कांग्रेस का आख्यान (narrative) संचालन में पलड़ा भारी है; इस लिये नहीं की उसकी नीतियाँ बेहतर हैं। बल्कि इस लिये की उस के पास आख्यान-संचालन को समझने वाले बौद्धिक है। अतः आम जनता यह सब ठीक से देख-समझ नहीं पा रही। बीजेपी को अपने ही छिछारों में और स्पष्टता की ज़रूरत है, उसे अभी अपनी सैद्धांतिकी दुरुस्त करनी है; और इस काम के लिए उस के पास बौद्धिक-क्षमता नहीं है। तो हम भारतीय नागरिक अभी बहुत ख़तरे में हैं। इस लिये हमें बहुत सावधानी की ज़रूरत है।
हम नागरिक के नाते अपनी विचारधारा के अनुसार समर्थन-विरोध करें, खुल कर करे; पर व्यवस्था में अविश्वास और अराजकता का साथ ना दें। बाक़ी दो या अधिक विचार धाराओं में वैचारिक संघर्ष लोकतंत्र के लिए शुभ ही है।

Leave a Comment » | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

Lok Sabha Elections 2024: A common citizen’s take

June 6, 2024

Rohit Dhankar
“A democracy of people who can think only confusedly can neither make progress, nor even maintain itself, because it will always be open to the risk of being misled and exploited by demagogues who have within their reach today unprecedentedly powerful media of mass communication and propaganda.” [Report of the Secondary Education Commission (Oct.1952 to June 1952), Published by Ministry of Education and Social Welfare, GoI, 1972 (7th Reprint), p.24]
Lok Sabha Elections 2024 have given a blow to Narendra Damodardas Modi’s conceit—Modi ki guarantee, Modi ka pariwar, I am sent by the God for a purpose, He will not recall me before I complete that purpose, etc.—soaring high in the sky are brough down to the ground of reality. Good for Indian democracy.
These elections also have given a lease of life to the dynasty, with a mindless crown prince at the helm, and a train of spineless greedy sycophants behind. Bad for Indian democracy.
Elections have also given more power to ideologically blinded false narrative setters, who tell deliberate lies. Bad for Indian democracy.
The false narratives of democracy in danger, constitution in danger, Hindu majoritarianism, dara hua musalman, etc. have made deep inroads in the minds of the people. Caste division has flared up, Muslims are almost completely consolidated, maligned Hindus are at each-others’ throats. Given the fact of “people who can think only confusedly” and “demagogues who have within their reach today unprecedentedly powerful media of mass communication and propaganda”; and know very well how to build narratives over time; one wonders if these ills will go away in near future.
Now a coalition government will be formed in the centre; given the history of coalitions in India it will be weak and indecisive. I am neither given to forecasts nor am knowledgeable enough for them. But as common Indian citizen feel that certain things are likely to happen. My benchmark is 2019-24 and in comparison what might happen in 2024-29 worries me on the following points. This does not mean that 2019-24v was great and all good. I only saw it only as a counter push to decades old ills, the push which may not be all good in itself, but stimulates thinking in the minds of people as well as forces of the wrong doers to correct course. Which eventually may come to a more reasonable position politically.
Economic progress will be slowed down, because of indecision and emphasis on freebees. Welfare state will be interpreted as ‘free distribution sate’; and not as a state which works for people’s empowerment and socio-economic improvements.
Caste competition will intensify further. The millennia old problem of Indian culture is nurtured by all parties, politically institutionalised by congress, is here to stay. Now caste has transformed into a political entity; eradication of unteachability and even inter-caste marriages will not eradicate it. It is likely to destroy Hinduism and with it, Indian democracy, which survives because of Hinduism.
Secularism will be further distorted into minority appeasement, which has already killed the true spirit of secularism, that of religion having nothing to do with state policies. We never had true secularism; it was always a name for granting special privileges to minorities, especially Muslims. Ambedkar’s idea of ‘settlement rather than appeasement’ has become more distant now.
Our history is deliberately distorted through cherry-picking and misinterpretations. There was a counter force and push was building up to swing the pendulum in other direction; that of Hindus all great and good, Muslim all bad. This push of the pendulum in itself is no good thing; but it was putting pressure on the historians to correct their deliberate anti-Hindu stance. Now it will stop, and history writing will create two narratives; antagonistic to each other, both cherry-picked and both wrong. Since a proper truth-based settlement between Hindus and Muslims will become impossible the historical injustices and mandir-masjid issues will intensify.
Pakistan will become belligerent again and terrorism in Kashmir may increase again. Our ‘public intellectuals’ will of course call it ‘resistance’, give it cover fire. They will intensify their campaign world over to justify terrorism. Similarly, Khalistan movement in India and abroad may intensify. The half-finished job of eradicating Naxalite problem may not be completed. Kuki terrorism is already supported by the ‘public intellectual’, it may intensify.
BJP could hardy do anything to stop infiltration of Bangladeshi Muslims and Rohingyas, now it will become even more difficult. Demography in border districts will change, and we are likely to see more fools like Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury in many more places.
Because of appeasement nothing concrete will be done on Uniform Civil Code, serious problems of Waqf Act and general aggressiveness of Muslims. Citizenship Amendment Act will not be properly implemented; and National Citizenship Register will be abandoned completely. The ‘public intellectuals’ protect these things as minority protection. The Muslim intelligentsia who may recognise these problems will keep mum as usual because of political correctness and fear of their own community. Speaking of the ills of Islam, Quran and Muhammad will invite more intensified sar tan se juda slogans and acts. Hindus who mention these problems will be called communal with greater vehemence.
No independent body to manage Hindu temples will be created; they will remain in the control of the governments and their land will keep diminishing. On the other hand, the encroachment efforts of Waqf Board will be protected by the governments and are likely to intensify.
Propylitization from Missionaries will intensify and any resistance to it will be called atrocities on Christians.
Our institutions of judiciary, law enforcement, investigation agencies and education were never free and fully autonomous in last 75 years. Earlier leftists and congress controlled them. In last ten years BJP tried to control them. Now the coalition will control them. They cannot be set free by the government alone. You need individuals with spine and intellect to manage them. This commodity is in short supply in our country.
Our education system was always an ineffective system of indoctrination. Autonomous rational thinking was never its strong point. It was always ideologically tilted endeavour. It will continue producing people with confused thinking, somewhat inefficiently though, but enough to give the reigns of our democracy in the hands of “demagogues who have within their reach today unprecedentedly powerful media of mass communication and propaganda”.
Sorry for this pessimistic write up. Readers might think that I was hoping for BJP to remove all these ills. I know that it comes out like this in this short writeup. But no, my hope was that BJP’s push in the opposite direction with equal vehemence and on many issues perhaps equally wrong, will act as a stimulation for more rational thinking for the general public as well as for ideologically blinded so-called liberals. Now that push has become very weak, thus the faulty narrative, wrong definition of secularism, minority appeasement, anti-Hindu biases et all will go as usual.
I would like to reiterate that my care for Indian civilisation and Hindu-dharma is not at all motivated by any religious considerations. Rather, I believe that democracy, open society, secularism, equal citizenship rights to all; etc. all depend on the strength of Indian culture and Hindu-dharma in this country. Weaken or dismantle this and democracy will extinguish like a lamp which has burnt all its oil.

******

1 Comment | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

Rampant ad hominem and dogmatic warriors

December 20, 2019

Rohit Dhankar

Currently India is going thought a particularly difficult phase in its constitutional history. In the particularly vicious struggle between political ideologies, the society is in a turmoil and citizenry is getting polarised day by day. One hears every day that the very democracy is at stake. Or that secularism is in danger.

Secularism is an essential principle in a democracy. No democracy can ever be non-secular; or no non-secular state can ever be a democracy. Simply because democracy is premised on the worth of individual, freedom of individuals and wellbeing of each citizen is equally important in it. Discrimination by the state on the basis of religion of its citizens contradicts the above-mentioned principle; namely, wellbeing of each citizen is equally important.

The quality of democracy depends heavily on the quality of its citizens. “The first requisite in this connection is … the capacity for clear thinking and a receptivity to new ideas. …. which is the distinguishing mark of an educated mind. A democracy of people who can think only confusedly can neither make progress, nor even maintain itself, because it will always be open to the risk of being misled and exploited by demagogues who have within their reach today unprecedentedly powerful media of mass communication and propaganda. To be effective, a democratic citizen should have the understanding and the intellectual integrity to sift truth from falsehood, facts from propaganda and to reject the dangerous appeal of fanaticism and prejudice.”

Together with clear and independent thinking; democracy necessarily requires freedom of expression. Without freedom of expression a fair dialogue is not possible. Because rational persuasion is the only legitimate way to achieve agreement in a democracy when faced with divergent view points and conflicting interests. Without freedom of speech free and genuine dialogue is impossible, and thus rational persuasion does not get a chance.

A concerned citizen in democracy does not only speak his/her mind truly, clearly and fearlessly; but also listens to opposite views calmly, carefully and responds rationally. One who does not have a capability to listen to and understand the views of his/her opponent objectively can never be a critical and clear thinker, and his/her voluble spouting of views does not help democracy, nor saves any of the democratic values.

Usually, the people who can not listen to an argument against their views and become angry when faced with opposition have imbibed ideas without properly understanding and/or without having proper arguments to support them. They usually are aping some guru, ideologue, intellectual icon, or even vacuous celebrity. The lack of properly understood justification of their dearly and dogmatically held position makes them feel internally vulnerable when faced with well argued opposition. Since they are incapable of countering the argument, they become angry and attack the person who had committed the sin of presenting opposite idea, with arguments beyond their intellectual capability. This attack on the person, rather than countering the argument is a very wide spread logical fallacy, and is called ad hominem.

Some blatant examples of ad hominem can be as follows:

“Some people were talking. Ram and his friends believed very strongly that the earth is cuboid shaped. Krishna was surprised and said: “Well, if earth is cuboid then how come we see the mast of approaching ships from sea shore first, and the rest of the ship appears later? How come the shadow of the earth on the moon in lunar eclipse is round? It seems the earth is round in shape.”

Ram: You don’t know language. You pronounced “letter” for “later”.

Krishna: Ok. But you understood what I am saying. So, what is wrong with my argument?

Ram: And you don’t like cuboids, that’s why you are saying this.

Krishna: Fine, but what is wrong with my argument, as such?

Ram2: we have to look into your history, you also said moon is round.

Krishna: Ok, but what is wrong with my argument about the earth?

Ram3: You have a sick mind.

Krishna: Thanks. But what is wrong with what I am saying?

Ram4: Oh my God, he says earth is round. What abomination.

In the present-day CAA and NRC debate too many people are talking like this. That does not mean that there is no serious and genuine discussion going on. Yes, there is good and genuine debate as well. And that is helping the democratic processes. Layers of the issues and argumentation are being continuously unravelled.

On the other hand, people like illustrated above are also masquerading as defenders of democracy and secularism. Most such people cannot read properly, cannot understand an argument, are completely closed minded on important issues. Spout out what have listened from their masters, and think that they are doing great job. Initially, such mindless shouters were only with the Sangh Parivar. Now, both sides have such armies.

They may have imbibed some ideas, formed some beliefs which are widely appreciated in the society. But have imbibed them without rational analysis and understanding their true meaning and proper justification. Now, the views happen to be so wide spread in the society and the icons are so vehement on these ideas for their own agendas, these foot-soldiers who do not know how to argue feel virtuous and self-important in getting angry and attacking people who happen to question such them.

This brigade does not understand that in a liberal democracy defending your opponent’s freedom of expression is an important value. You allow, and even defend you opponents right to speak, and then critique it in civilised language. When we start attacking and attempting to shame people for their ideas we already have lost the ground.

Moral decisions are not about applying a principle dogmatically. There is no real moral dilemma that does not involve at the least two conflicting values in the same situation. Therefore, moral decision is about carefully arriving at a judgment regarding which value should get precedence. This is different from always following a rut. A moral judgment may demand abandoning the well-trodden path and creating a new trail.

Those who genuinely believe in democracy, secularism, freedom of speech and equality can not afford to attack people for their ideas however wrong they may be. Wrong ideas necessarily require analysis, resistance and should be discarded. But all through a civilised discussion. Those who can not criticise and discard an idea without attacking the person who expressed it, do not know even the first principle of public dialogue.

******

19th December 2019

 

 

 

 

 

1 Comment | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

On community identities: sundry thoughts

November 13, 2016

Rohit Dhankar

The very idea of a community is premised on relatively greater affinity and acceptance among a set of people. It necessarily requires another set of people with whom the affinity and acceptance is seen to be relatively of a lesser degree. That much is a conceptual requirement of the very idea of community, and one can do nothing about that unless is ready to completely junk this very idea.

So far this idea cannot support universal democracy at the national level. To be a democrat one has to recognise the rights and ways of living of people not belonging to one’s own community. On the basis of just being human. This requires recognition of areas of social and political behaviour where affinity and community based acceptance are not only invalid criteria for decision making; but are positively harmful and morally wrong. That means going beyond the bounds of one’s community, and creating an identity which is not circumscribed or limited by one’s own community ethics.

Human affairs are not neat and clean, ideas are not accepted and understood uniformly by all members of a nation or a community. Even when an idea or principle is understood and accepted acting according to it may not be equally possible for all and in all circumstances. Therefore, the principles of justice, equality and public space for every one and for all communities may not always operate in an ideal manner. Because of the sheer numerical weight of majority community minorities and less privileged communities may actually face discrimination or develop a perception of discrimination. It may or may not involve any active effort and conspiracy from the majority and more privileged communities; still the discrimination remains equally real and perception remains equally distressing.

In any case this is something undesirable and a way has to be found out to do away with discrimination as well as the perception of discrimination. When an aggressive identity politics is used to fight against this real and perceived discrimination the fundamental principle of democracy “operating without one’s community identity” is violated. Then in reality there is a demand on the majority to weaken their community identity while at the same time there is a process of strengthening community identities of the minority and less privileged sections. In other words it is demanded from the majority to ‘de-comminitize’ itself; while simultaneously support aggressive ‘communitization’ (deliberately not using the term “communalize” in both cases 🙂 ) of the minorities and less privileged communities.

To deal with this democratisation process the majority community has to grow mentally in order to understand the demands of democracy. This is the job of the ‘intellectuals’ in the society to help the majority understand this process. The minorities and less privileged also have to understand the mental and moral limits of their communitarian demands. This moderation is also the job of the intellectuals in the society.

When the very same intellectuals start weaving theories where all community-based thinking and action of the majority is derided, discarded and attacked without intellectual engagement at the level of the masses it’s logic escapes the massage in majority. At the same time if spacious theories are spun to obfuscate and support each thought and action of the less privileged and minority by the voluble cacophony through various captured means of communication the majority starts feeling marginalised, right or wrong. This brings about an anxiety in the majority and a backlash starts.

When these concerns are not addressed the political and thought leadership in the society leaves the ground open for the rogue elements to capitalise on the slow festering unaddressed discontent of the majority. That is what is happening in India for a long time by now. An is the main strength of BJP, it is a ‘negative strength’ curtsy thought leaders of our country.

If you see yourself as a thought leader in the political arena you have the responsibility to deal with the unsophisticated crudely expressed bigoted and self-centred concerns of the people who did not have the opportunity to learn your obfuscating language. If your theories did not prepare you to engage with that person without quoting ten irrelevant books and without using rarefied terminology which you yourself do not understand, you are spewing crammed junk and the people at the ground level engaged in menial tasks know intuitively when you are talking nonsense.

Those who are interested in democracy in the country have to engage with those crudely expressed ideas and concerns at the level of the people who are effected by them. Deriding them as fools and misguided by some army of the devil is not going to help.

More evolved and sophisticated your understanding is better equipped it should become to communicate with the genuine and simply expressed fears and anxieties. If it does not happen you are mistaken in seeing yourself as a sophisticated thinker and an intellectual; you are only re-producer of crammed junk.

*********

2 Comments | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

Threats to Democracy and Secularism: Part 3/4—Ideological 2

August 24, 2014

Part 3: Ideological basis for direct threat-2
Rohit Dhankar

Part 4: Ideological tools to counter the treat

Mohan Bhagwat continues …

But ‘unity of India’ is a difficult idea to grasp. Bhagwat obviously is not talking of the geographical India of today; what he has in mind if more likely to be akhanda Bharat, which is roughly the Indian sub-continent. In what sense the sub-continent has been ‘united’ since ancient times? Three candidates come to mind immediately: united as a geographical area (whatever that might mean), as a cultural entity, and as a political entity.

Geographically the sub-continent has been somewhat demarcated, if not isolated, from the rest of the world due to the Himalayas, Hindukush range and the sea. The area has a range of climatic conditions, flora and fauna. Still perhaps Indians are prone to see a continuity from proverbial Kashmir to Kanya Kumari and now from Baluchistan to Myanmar border. It could of course be debated. But in any case human belief systems, be they religious or otherwise, could have had no impact on the climate etc., this geographical demarcated-ness, then, cannot be attributed to Hinduism or any other faith.

As a political entity one wonders when has India—in the sense of sub-continuant—been united before the Britishers ruled it? Nation states as we know them today are a comparatively modern phenomena. India became an independent nation state only in 1947, and that covers only part of the sub-continent. Whether we realise or not the project of building a nation state of India is still incomplete. The debate Sangha parivar is raising is actually part of that process. More precisely speaking, whether this nation of ours should remain secular democracy or convert into a Hindu Rashtra is one of the main issues today. If the Sangh Parivar wants to give credit to Hindus for keeping India as secular state after Independence, it seems to me, it is not entirely true, even if may have a grain of interpretative truth. Of course all Indians—Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, and Parsis—wanted a secular democratic state and so they created it. But one has to give credit to the majority of Hindus and Sikhs on one side and Muslims on the other, as they were actively fighting each other during the partition. And the partition itself came about on religious basis. Denying the contribution of sanity of majority Hindu population in crafting a secular state immediately after partition would be erring on the other side. Also explaining it away purely in terms of political and economic necessity as if there was no other way available would be rather stretched. This certainly constitutes at least the part of Bhagwat’s intent in the unity statement. Even if the secular intelligentsia of the country does not like it, or even if this is not a politically correct position, it is debatable without calling names to parties on either sides of the debate.

Beyond this what could be called ‘unity of the sub-continent’ politically? The region has been governed by different kingdoms and empires throughout the history. The only two empires that came close to covering the whole of the geographic region were Mauryan Empire under Ashok and Mughal Empire after Akbar. Ashok became a Buddhist, and so one has to accept Buddhist contribution to that empire; Mughal Empire clearly was a creation of Muslim rulers, even if some of them were remarkably secular for their historical age. Most of the time in the history, then, the region has been divided into various kingdoms and empires and political unity of the whole region has been a rare phenomenon.

That leaves us with the third candidate: cultural unity. We have already mentioned above that the sub-continent has been a cauldron of ethnicity, social and cultural practices, and religious beliefs. So if one has to seek cultural unity, it has to be sought more in the family resemblances rather than strictly defined cultural practices. If one considers Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism as one, intermingling of practices and knowledge sharing across the region, then perhaps one can imagine the sub-continent as one cultural region. But then one has to share the claim for keeping it united with various ethnic groups and faiths. Hinduism as we use the term today cannot claim this credit alone.

If this understanding is acceptable then a factual analysis of Bhagwat’s statement shows it to be false. But perhaps the real purpose of the statement is not to state a truth at all. The real purpose might be to create a certain emotional impact among the Hindus to give them confidence and prominence in the Indian nation today. This might be a statement designed for hegemonic purposes rather than to establish truth. We should remember that partially true statements serve such purposes better than plain lies. Simply because when opponents summarily reject such statements without shifting truth from falsehood the small grain of truth in them gets magnified and those who reject summarily are seen as biased. It becomes easy to label these people as anti-Hindu.

Another statement, as reported in The Hindu, by Bhagwat is designed to achieve the same purpose through it ambiguity, he says “[A]s long as dharma exists in India, the world will continue to respect this country. But once dharma is gone, no force on earth can stop the country from crumbling”. What does ‘dharma’ mean here? The term in Sanskrit is used for meanings as diverse as physical properties to moral duty taking in its stride true-nature and even coming close to religion. Modern use mostly connotes religion. So is he saying that as long as the ‘Hindu-dharma’ exist India will continue, but if Hindu-dharma is gone the country will crumble? The context seems to suggest this interpretation unmistakably.

One simple truism is that if there is a large scale change in the belief systems of a population the country does not remain the same, one can say that it ‘crumbles’ in the sense that even if exists as a political entity it becomes a different country. Hindus now comprise slightly above 80% of the Indian population. The present character of the Indian society and democracy certainly will change if Hinduism disappears from India. But that, as mentioned above, is simply a truism. Why mention it? The purpose seem to be to indicate that Hinduism is actually under threat, an old claim of the Sangh Parivar. And the second purpose seems to be that if no Hinduism in India, no secular democratic India. This second claim also has a hint that if Hinduism goes, the second largest minority in the country, Islam, will become a majority. Therefore, it seems there are at the least four claims packed in this statement: one, Hinduism is under threat; two, it is under threat mainly from Islam; three, if Hinduism goes it will be Islam which will come to majority; and four, the secularism and democracy will not survive in a Muslim majority country. These are standard Sangh Parivar ideas being used for creating a political Hindu identity; other name for Hindu consolidation. The standard secularist response to these ideas is that they are paranoid imagination of a lunatic fringe in Hindu population and are patently false. This standard response is not serving the purpose; actually, right or wrong, it is discredited in the minds of now sizable Hindu population and secularists are considered either anti-Hindu or, more charitably, unconcerned morons who can’t even see their own interest. So if the secularists are concerned with the democracy and secularism in the country they have to change the discourse and take on the Hindutva brigade with more vigour and better tools. A victory of Hindutva will be certainly fatal to democracy as well as secularism, as we know it today.

This provides the ideological basis to Singhal’s statement. Without challenging this ideological basis simple condemnation of statements like Singhal’s will not work

What could be a set of better intellectual and ideological tools to counter Hindutva then? I believe Hamid Dalwai’s writings have more than a hint at how to fashion such tools.

Leave a Comment » | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

Threats to Democracy and Secularism: Part 2/4—Ideological 1

August 19, 2014

Rohit Dhankar

Part 2: Ideological basis for direct threat-1

Mohan Bhagwat

Bhagwat, as is expected of RSS chief, is providing the ideological basis for Singhal’s Hindu belligerence. His statement, as in the news report in The Hindu on 10th August 2014, is based on a carefully created logical confusion in the meanings of terms “Hindu”, “Hindutva”, “Hindustan” and “Hinduism”.

Bhagwat’s rhetorical poser “[I]f inhabitants of England are English, Germany are Germans and USA are Americans then why all inhabitants of Hindustan are not known as Hindus?” uses the terms “Hindustan” and “Hindu” as geographical terms. And that is how these terms are believed to have been originated. They were a reference to a river, and the land ‘beyond’ that river seen from the west to east. It is not necessary that any cultural essentialism or religious significance was part of this early use of the terms. Bhagwat should also remember that these terms were given to us by foreigners who knew very little about the people living on this side of the river. Another point he should pay attention to is that the terms ‘India’ and ‘Indians’ are also connected with the same river, given by foreigners and no one objects to their use today. Because India and Indian were never associated with a particular religious or cultural essentialism. The issue is: why Bhagwat is asking this question regarding ‘Hindustan’ and ‘Hindu’ instead of his beloved Bharat and Bharatiya or ‘India’ and ‘Indian’? The reason becomes clear in what he says further down.

What he wishes to rub in is “[T]he cultural identity of all Indians is Hindutva and the present inhabitants of the country are descendants of this great culture”. In this statement obscurantism and lies make their appearance with full force.

“Hindutva” is a term more recently invented to essentialize Indianness and equate it with Hinduism. The most commonly known definition of ‘Hindutva’ is a mix of geographical and cultural elements. According to Hindutva ideology anyone who is: 1. an Indian national (the geographical element); 2. considers India as his ‘pitribhoomi’, that is land of forefathers; and 3. also considers India as his ‘poonyabhoomi’, that is the holy land; is a Hindu. So if someone thinks that his/her forefathers came from some other part of the world or if his/her holy land or pilgrimage land lies outside what Sangh Parivar consideres ‘akhanda Bharat’ is not a Hindu. This cultural identity fits the Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs quite well. But the believers of Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism. Many of them consider themselves descendants of people who came from outside and have their pilgrimage places outside imaginary akhanda Bharat.

In today’s situation the proclamation that cultural identity of all Indians is Hindutva might mean one of the two things only. One, those who consider themselves descendants of outsiders and have their pilgrimages outside akhand Bharat are not true Indians, this is insinuation of disloyalty. Or alternatively, they should start believing that their forefathers were inhabitants of akhanda Bharat and stop their pilgrimage outside that geographical area. Both alternatives are obnoxiously hegemonic and divisive. Go against people’s freedom of belief systems and faiths. If accepted will destroy secularism and democracy.

The second half of his statement that “the present inhabitants of the country are descendants of this great culture” squarely jumps into the cultural identity. The recently invented term ‘Hindutva’ has become an ancient culture and it is claimed that Indian subcontinent had only this culture in the ancient times. Anyone with a smattering of historical knowledge understands that: one, ‘Hinduism’ itself is a term of relatively recent origin. Two, there was no time in Indian history when any one culture was the only culture.
Whether Indus valley culture was the same as Vedic culture is still being debated. The subcontinent always has had the Dravidian culture, and various other indigenous cultures. India was always a cauldron of ethnicity and cultural ideas; and that is its beauty. The jump Bhagwat makes from a geographical claim to cultural claim is patently false.

The next claim is a good example of deliberate obfuscation. He claims “that Hindutva is a way of life and Hindus could be of any religion worshipping any God or not worshipping at all”. First, he is replacing ‘Hinduism’ with ‘Hindutva’. Hinduism is a relatively open term; Hindutva a more closed and harder version of Hinduism, an ideological term. Hindutva is a politico-religious ideology, adopted by fundamentalist Hindus. Hinduism is an umbrella term that includes several religious sects and can plausibly be considered a way of life.

If one claims that “Hinduism is a way of life” then it can be defended. There are Hindus who worship various gods, have a variety of religious beliefs, a plethora of rituals, idol worshippers and considering idolatry unacceptable; and even atheists. They call themselves Hindus, and beyond that there is nothing which can pin point anything common in their belief systems. Most of them throughout the history have been quite eclectic regarding their belief systems and what the others believed did not bother them much. But they also have had their fanatics and indulged in wars with other religious faiths. Still the claim that Hinduism is a way of life and not a religion at the least is debatable; personally I think defendable. But not so ‘Hindutva’.

Even if one replaces ‘Hindutva’ in Bhagwat’s claim with ‘Hinduism’ and says that “Hindus could be of any religion worshipping any God” it has problems. Hindus mainly have been worshippers of the gods in Vedic pantheon. But Hindu gods breed and new gods from other groups are adopted. The oldest examples of inclusion of non-Vedic gods in Vedic pantheon is supposed to be the Shiva family. The objects of veneration in other faiths are included in gods, Buddha and Mahavir are examples. Loved and respected human beings are elevated to the status of gods. This has been the historical nature of Hinduism. But we should note two things. One, that no god of non-subcontinental origin has ever had a large following as the main god for any section of Hindu people. However, they have no objection to elevating Christ and even Muhammad to the position of their gods. However, such attempts do not have a large following. Partly this could be because of the resistance from Muslims and Christians themselves, they never wanted their God and prophet to be one of many in the pantheon. But it is partly also due to the distance between the concept of godhood between the subcontinental ideas and ideas in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The irony, however, is that the most ominous threat to this openness and eclectic nature of Hinduism is posed by the Hindutva brigade itself; and Bhagwat is the most important figure in this brigade who is now invoking this very openness. They don’t seem to realise that creating ideologically closed and divisive concepts do not go well with eclecticism and openness; and that one cannot use both strategies simultaneously.

Bhagwat also claimed that Hindutva has been the only basis to keep India united since ancient days despite having plenty of diversities. We have already talked about Hindutva and its antiquity. For the sake of arguments let us suppose that what he really means is that “Hinduism has been the only basis to keep India united since ancient days despite having plenty of diversities.” Hinduism, even if it is difficult to define precisely, can be said to be an ancient Indian family of religious sects which share a wide range of beliefs, rituals, ethical principles and ways of looking at the world; and thus a way of life. However, no single religious idea is common across all Hindus. The unity is Hindu ism is created by overlapping family resemblance. [Continues …]

Leave a Comment » | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

Threats to Democracy and Secularism: Part 1/4—From Hindu consolidation

August 18, 2014

Rohit Dhankar

Part 1: Direct threat of Hindu Consolidation

On 17th July according to a news item in Hindustan Times Ashok Singhal issues a thinly veiled threat to Muslims, saying “[I]f they keep opposing Hindus, how long can they survive?” Less than four weeks later Mohan Bhagwat declared that “[T]he cultural identity of all Indians is Hindutva”. These kinds of statements are not sporadic, they make a thought through pattern. What has appeared in small news reports in the above mentioned two cases is worth paying attention to for their carefully crafted mix of truths, misinformation, acceptable principles and totally condemnable intentions.

Indian liberal attitude to such pronouncement is not helping. The liberals either condemn all in such statements simply on the basis of their origin or ignore them considering beneath their dignity to respond to such rubbish. Neither of these attitudes help; the first simply makes them look like totally biased anti-Hindu, and the second leaves the Hindutva forces free to manipulate public opinion. Also, both these attitudes undermine the importance of dialogue in public life; thereby destroying the only means of countering propaganda available to them.

I would like to take whatever information is available to me seriously in this article and analyse these statements in order to shift acceptable from condemnable.

Ashok Singhal

Singhal presents his analysis of Indian politics. According to him the Lok Shabha polls have proved that Hindu polarisation can win elections without Muslim support, that it is a setback to Muslim politics and that if the rift between Hindus and Muslims continues further polarisation at the level of states will happen. He also claims that Ram temple movement and Godhra incident have made this possible.

It seems to me that this understanding is earthy, simple and accurate. Those who are still denying Hindu polarisation are deluded. In spite of calling Muslim polarisation a myth the public at large believed in it. The political parties bending backwards to play vote bank politics and willing participation of Muslim religious leaders in their politics did not help dispel the myth of Muslim vote consistently going in favour of a certain brand of politics, even if not to a single party. The repeated calls for consolidation of secular votes did not help; it only aided to the call for Hindu consolidation by Sangh parivar. And Lok Sabha polls are certainly a setback to this brand of politics.
Singhal does not stop here; he also insinuates that the Muslim politics was being used by “foreign and divisive forces to destroy our identity”. This is his Hindutva card, the Sangh Parivar has created a victimhood mentality in the sizable Hnidu population. A selective use of history of what is still called Muslim era in Indian history, partition and repeated communal riots are used for this purpose. The Muslim is being painted as ‘the enemy within’ and the seculars have not been able to counter the canard.

The confidence generated by the fact that Modi has been a RSS swayam sevak and that the BJP has majority on its own is belligerently expressed. Singhal expresses confidence that the Sangh Parivar agenda of Ram Temple, uniform civil code and abolition of article 370 will be implemented. Let’s note here that the latter two of these demands have their independent justification in a democracy and to support them one does not need to be a Hindu communalist. Declaring all those who consider these later demands reasonable and debatable in a democracy as communal people will help the Sangh Parivar; the mistakes which secularists have been making for last 50 years.

The majoritarianism in the statement is unmistakable. The cursory promise that “Muslims will be treated as common citizens — nothing more, nothing less” is immediately bellied by the threat that “they must learn to respect Hindu sentiments. If they keep opposing Hindus, how long can they survive?” In his thinking it is the Muslim who has to learn to respect Hindu sentiment, and not vice-versa. No such reciprocity is demanded from the majority community. The love that the Muslims will get from the Sangh Parivar is conditional in respect of their sentiments and giving up “claims over Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura and also accept a uniform civil code”. If they do accept, no further demands on Masjids that according to Snghal are built by Muslim rulers in medieval era on Hindu temples be made. And then comes the threat: if they don’t, further consolidation of Hindus will happen. Consolidation of Hindus in the light of “[I]f they keep opposing Hindus, how long can they survive?” is as ominous a threat as could be.

Singhal here is not talking of dialogue, resolving of issues through negotiations, this is no commitment to democracy; it is a statement of terms in a belligerent manner and a direct threat.

If this cursory analysis is correct then Singhal’s statement is based on an earthy understanding of politics, contains threats, is belligerent, makes a pretention of democratic values, and has a mix of legitimate and illegitimate demands. The legitimate ones, perhaps, to serve as smoke-screen and tools of manipulation.

[next ideological threat]

Leave a Comment » | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

« Previous Entries