तीन अलोकप्रिय टिप्पणियाँ

March 5, 2020

रोहित धनकर

[एक: अराजकता में किसी का भी भला नहीं है।

दो: सीएए, एनपीआर और एनआरसी की तुरंत जरूरत है।

तीन: हर गलत आख्यान की आपको कीमत चुकानी पड़ेगी, जिस भी दुष्टता को आप पुष्ट करेंगे वही आप को डसेगी, चाहे वह हिन्दू-दुष्टता हो या मुस्लिम-दुष्टता।]

एक: अराजकता में किसी का भी भला नहीं है

हमने अपना प्रातिनिधिक-लोकतन्त्र और इस की संसदीय प्रणाली अंग्रेजों से सीखी है। इस संसदीय प्रणाली की सफलता की एक शर्त की विवेचना अंबेडकर अपनी पुस्तक “पाकिस्तान ओर पार्टिसन ऑफ इंडिया” के पृष्ट 291 पर करते हैं। वे इस संदर्भ में वे लॉर्ड बलफ़ौर (Lord Balfour) का उद्धरण देते हुए कहते हैं कि संसदीय प्रणाली की ताकत सब की “इसे सफल बनाने की नीयत (प्रतिबद्धता) में होती है”। जिन लोगों ने अंग्रेजों से यह पद्धती सीखी है उनके बारे में लॉर्ड बलफ़ौर आगे कहते हैं कि “वे हमारी संसद में रुकावट डालने के तरीके तो सीख लेते हैं, पर यह उन्हें कोई नहीं समझाता कि जब असल बात आती है तो हमारी सब संसदीय पार्टियां इस बात के लिए प्रतिबद्ध होती हैं कि मशीन (अर्थात राज्य-व्यवस्था) बंद नहीं हो (यह चलती रहे)”। (They learn about our parliamentary methods of obstruction, but nobody explains to them that when it comes to the point, all our parliamentary parties are determined that the machinery shan’t stop.) अंबेडकर का मानना है कि चलते रहने, अवरुद्ध हो कर बंद न हो जाने, की प्रतिबद्धता के बिना संसदीय प्रणाली नहीं चल सकती। यह समझना सहज है की किसी राज्य व्यवस्था के भंग हो जाने पर अराजकता आती है और अराजकता सिर्फ संगठित गुंडा-गिरोहों का भला कर सकती है।

कल के द हिन्दू अखबार में बंगाल की संवैधानिक रूप से चुनी हुई, और संविधान की सपथ के कर मुख्य-मंत्री बनी सुश्री ममता बनेर्जी का वक्तव्य है कि “जो बंगलादेश से आए हैं, जिन्हों ने पहचान-पत्र प्राप्त किए हैं, और जो वोट देते रहे हैं, वे भारत के नागरिक हैं। उन्हें फिर से प्रतिवेदन देने की जरूरत नहीं है”। इस देश में नागरिकता के कुछ नियम हैं, नागरिकता कानून में अभी के संशोधन से पहले भी थे। सुश्री बनेर्जी कह रही हैं की जिन लोगों ने जैसे-तैसे भी मतदाता सूची में अपने नाम लिखवा लिए हैं वे अब स्वतः ही नागरिक हैं। उन्हें किसी प्रकार के प्रतिवेदन की जरूरत नहीं है।

मैंने अपने 29 फ़रवरी 2020 के ब्लॉग पोस्ट “व्हेर डज दिस इंडियन बेलोंग?” में यही लिखा है। कि नागरिकता (संशोधन) विधेयक का विरोध इस लिए नहीं है कि इस से भारतीय मुसलमानों की नागरिकता को कोई खतरा है, बल्कि इस लिए है कि जिन के नाम गैर-कानूनी तरीकों से विभिन्न राजनैतिक पार्टियों ने मतदाता सूची में लिखवा दिये हैं, उन की पहचान न हो सके। सुश्री बनेर्जी यही कह रही हैं। साथ ही वे यह भी कह रही हैं कि धोखे से नागरिकता लेलेना इस देश में उन्हें जायज लगता है। अर्थात वे देश के नियमों से चलाने की पक्षधर तभी तक हैं जब तक की नियम वे हैं जो उन्हें पसंद हैं।

आप ऐसे बहुत से उदाहरण देख सकते हैं जो देश की कानून व्यवस्था को ठप्प करने के लिए खुली चुनौती हैं। ये राजनैतिक पार्टियां कर रही हैं, समाज-सेवी कर रहे हैं, और कथित-बुद्धिजीवी तो इसी को अपनी महानतम उपलब्धी मानते हैं। लोकतन्त्र विधि-विधानों पर चलता है। संसद और उच्चतम न्यायालय इन विधि-विधानों के बनाने वाले और रखवाले होते हैं। जब आप यह घोषणा करते हैं कि न्यायालय और संसद की बात तभी तक मानेंगे जब तक वे आप के मन के अनुसार चलें तब आप निरंकुश हो रहे हैं, तब आप भारत के दूसरे नागरिकों को अपने आप से कमतर मान रहे होते हैं। आप को कोई कानून पसंद नहीं है तो उसे बदलवाने के लिए बहस का, प्रदर्शन का, शांतिपूर्ण संघर्ष का हक़ तो संविधान देता है; पर उस कानून को ना मानने का और जबतक वह कानून है तब तक न्यायालय के निर्णय को न मानने का हक़ नहीं है। यदि आप ऐसा करते हैं तो आरजकता कि निमंत्रण दे रहे हैं।

*******

दो: सीएए, एनपीआर और एनआरसी की तुरंत जरूरत है

कल एक व्हाटसप्प समूह में किसी ने एक अखबार की कटिंग सब को भेजी। इस का शीर्षक है “मुख्यमंत्री और राज्यपाल के नागरिकता प्रमाण नहीं सरकार के पास, आरटीआई का खुलासा”। यह खबर हरयाणा की है। आगे तर्क दिया गया है कि “जिनके अपने नागरिकता प्रमाण पत्रों का रेकर्ड मौजूद नहीं, वे पूरे प्रदेश और देश की 135 करोड़ जनता से सबूत मांग रहे जो अपने आप में बड़ा ही हास्यास्पद है”।

मैं तो इन महाशय से उलटे नतीजे पर पहुंचता हूँ इस खबर से। मुझे तो इस खबर से यह लगता है देश में नागरिकता के रेकॉर्ड्स की बहुत बुरी हालत है। यहां लोग बिना नागरिकता के सबूत के मुख्यमंत्री और राज्यपाल बनजाते हैं। हमें क्या पता कितने लोग कहाँ-कहाँ से आकार, किस-किस तरह के अतीत के साथ, किन-किन महत्वपूर्ण पदों पर बैठ कर हम पर राज कर रहे हैं? इस परिस्थिति को तो जल्द से जल्द सुधारना चाहिए। हमें शीघ्रातिशीघ्र एनपीआर और एनआरसी पर काम करना चाहिए जिस से ऐसी स्थिति से निकाल सकें।

अभी तक रेकॉर्ड्स और जानकारियों का ठीक से रख-रखाव नहीं हुआ, नियमों के अनुशार काम नहीं हुआ, तो क्या इस का यह अर्थ है कि आगे भी यही अव्यवस्था रहे? अव्यवस्था और नागरिकों के बारे में अज्ञान है, इसी लिए तो एनपीआर और एनआरसी की जरूरत है।

मेरा दिमाग उलटा काम कर रहा है या इन भाई साहब का?

******

तीन: हर गलत आख्यान की आपको कीमत चुकानी पड़ेगी, जिस भी दुष्टता को आप पुष्ट करेंगे वही आप को डसेगी, चाहे वह हिन्दू-दुष्टता हो या मुस्लिम-दुष्टता

पिछले दो सप्ताह से मैं दो आख्यानों को समझने की कोशिश कर रहा हूँ।

पहला आख्यान (narrative): इसके अनुसार दिल्ली में जो कुछ हुआ वह:

  1. हिंदुओं ने किया, मुसलमानों के विरुद्ध।
  2. इस में सरकार और दिल्ली पुलिस ने मदद की।
  3. दिल्ली में मुसलमानों का ‘जनसंहार’ (genocide) हुआ।
  4. हिंदुओं ने मुसलमानों की ‘तबाही’ (pogrom) किया।
  5. भारत में मुसलमानों का जनसंहार किया जा रहा है, यह जनसंहार हिन्दू सरकार के सहयोग से कर रहे हैं।
  6. भारत के हिन्दू मुसलमानों से घ्राणा करते हैं और उन्हें खत्म कर देना चाहते हैं।
  7. भारत मुसलमानों के लिए सब से असुरक्षित देश हो गया है।
  8. इस सारी चीज में मुसलमान एकदम निर्दोष हैं, भले हैं, शांतिप्रिय रहे हैं और वे सामान्य तौर पर शान्तिप्रिय हैं।
  9. मुसलमानों के जन संहार का ये दौर कपिल मिश्रा के बयान के कारण शुरू हुआ।

दूसरा आख्यान

  1. दिल्ली का दंगा मुसलमानों ने हिंदुओं पर संगठित आक्रमण के रूप में किया।
  2. मुसलमानों ने बहुत मजबूत पूर्व तैयारी कर रखी थी।
  3. यह देश को अमेरिकी राष्ट्रपति ट्रम्प की यात्रा के समय दुनिया भर में बदनाम करने की सजिस थी।
  4. यह हिंदुओं दो डराने और सरकार को बदनाम करने के लिए था।
  5. हिन्दू निर्दोष और शान्तिप्रिय हैं।
  6. मुसलमान सदा आक्रामक और दंगा शुरू करने वाले होते हैं।

मुझे आख्यान शब्द से बहुत प्रेम नहीं है। इस में सदा ही मुझे तर्क और तथ्यों की कमी को काल्पनिक व्याख्याओं से भरने के प्रयत्न की बू आती है। ये काल्पनिक व्याख्याएँ बहुत बार निराधार और गलत आरंभिक मान्यताओं पर चलती हैं, जिन्हें सिद्ध नहीं किया जा सकता। पर यहाँ यह आख्यान शब्द बहुत ही सटीक है। मेरे विचार से इन दोनों आख्यानों में झूठ के साथ-साथ जिसे हैरी फ़्रंकफ़र्ट “बुलशिट” (बकवास?) कहता है उसकी मात्र बहुत अधिक है। फ़्रंकफ़र्ट के अनुसार बुलशिट का सदा ही झूठ होना जरूरी नहीं है। बुलशिटर सच्चाई और झूठ से निरपेक्षा रह कर जो उसे उस वक़्त कामका लगता है वह आख्यान बनाने की कोशिश करता है। और बुलशिट समाज में झूठ के बजाय ज्यादा हानिकारक होती है।

उपरोक्त दोनों आख्यानों के लिए खुदरे ‘प्रमाण’ संचार माध्यमों में, विशेष रूप सेर सोसियल-मीडिया में, बहुतायत से उपलब्ध हैं। उन्हें सिर्फ सुविधा अनुसार या अपने-अपने उद्देश्यों के अनुसार, चुनने की जरूरत होती है। बुलशीटिंग में कथित-लिब्रल बुद्धिजीवियों की महारत मोदी-समर्थकों की तुलना में कहीं ज्यादा है। जब आप सिद्धान्त-निर्माण को आख्यान घड़ने का समानार्थक मान लेते हैं, तो सिद्धान्त निर्माण के नाम पर बुलशिटिंग के अभ्यास के बहुत मौके मिलते हैं। और कथित-लिबरल बुद्धिजीवी अपनी आर्थिक सामाजिक बढ़त के चलते इसके मौके अपेक्षाकृत अधिक पाते हैं। इस लिए पहला आख्यान दुनिया भर में अधिक प्रचलित हो रहा है।

इस बात के कोई भरोसे मंद प्रमाण नहीं हैं कि यह “जनसंहार” या “पोग्रोम” था। पर विदेशी मीडिया यही लिख रहा है, भारतीय बुलशिटर्स की मदद से। इस बात के कोई बरोसेमंद प्रमाण नहीं हैं कि यह एकतरफा दंगा था, पर विदेशी मीडिया यही लिख रहा है। इस में मुसलमानों ने उतनी ही हिंसक-दुर्भावना से हिस्सा लिया है जितना हिंदुओं ने। भारत में शान्तिप्रिय और सबके प्रती सद्भावना रखने वाले लोग मुसलमानों और हिंदुओं दोनों में हैं, पर मीडिया में प्रचार एकतरफा है।

मेरे विचार से उदारवाद के लिए सत्य और न्याय का पक्ष लेना नैतिक ज़िम्मेदारी है। पर भारतीय उदारवादी दुनियाभर में मिथ्या प्रचार का कोई जवाब देने की जरूरत नहीं समझते, जब तक कि वह प्रचार उनके वर्तमान उद्देश्यों की पूर्ति करता रहे। ये हिन्दू को और देश को अशहिष्णु, क्रूर, मुसलमानों के लिए दुर्भावना-ग्रस्त और बहुसंख्यावादी साबित करने वाले आख्यान जीतने ज्यादा सफल होंगे उतना ही जल्दी पलट कर अपने निर्माताओं पर आएंगे। मुस्लिम अशहिष्णुता, आक्रामकता, इस्लामिक-वर्चश्व की भावना और मुस्लिम-वीटो की मुहिम को जितना छुपाया जाएगा उतना ही वह बढ़ेगी।

दिल्ली दंगों में दोनों पक्षों ने भाग लिया है। दोनों ने क्रूरता की है। अमानवीयता की है। शाहीन-बाग जैसे विरोध-प्रदर्शनों के पीछे जितनी धोंसपट्टी आम जनता के लिए है, जितनी ऊग्रता और दुर्भावना साफ दिखती है, बच्चों तक को सिखाई जा रही है, उसे छुपाने से वह मिट नहीं जाएगी। और बढ़ेगी।

इस बुलशिट आख्यान का एक हिस्सा दुनिया भर में प्रचारित यह है कि दंगे कपिल मिश्रा के बयान/भाषण से भड़के। मैंने कपिल मिश्रा के वास्तविक बयान और विडियो ढूँढने की कोशिश की। मुझे जो मिला वह यह है। कपिल मिश्रा ने कहा कि (1) हम ट्रम्प की यात्रा के समापन तक चुप हैं। (2) “हमने दिल्ली पुलिस को तीन दिन की अंतिम-चेतावनी दी है कि जफ्फराबाद और चंदबाग की सड़कें खुलवादे”। (3) पुलिस के सामने खड़ा हो कर कहा कि “नहीं तो (हम खुलवाएंगे) और आप की (पुलिस की) भी नहीं सुनेंगे”। दंगा कपिल मिश्रा और उसके समर्थकों के चले जाने के एक घंटे बाद शुरू हुआ। सवाल यह है की कपिल मिश्रा के बयान में ऐसा क्या है कि तुरंत दंगे हो गए? इस बयान के अलावा तो मुझे कपिल मिश्रा की कोई कारस्तानी इस दंगों के संदर्भ में कहीं मिली नहीं। तो इस आख्यान में कपिल मिश्रा के बयान को दंगों के लिए जिम्मेदार क्यों ठहराया जा रहा है? कोई तर्क? कोई प्रमाण?

यह सवाल मैं दो कारणों से रख रहा हूँ। एक, मैं समझ नहीं पा रहा कि कि दंगों की कड़ी मिश्रा के बयान से कैसे जुड़ती है। मेरी मिश्रा जैसे लोगों को दोषमुक्त करने की या उनके समर्थन की कोई मानसा नहीं है। पर मैं यह नहीं मान पा रहा कि ये बयान अपने आप में दंगा शुरू करने में समर्थ हैं। दो, मिश्रा के बयान को दंगों के आधार के रूप में स्वीकार करना पहले आख्यान के लिए जरूरी है। यही वह कड़ी है जिस के माध्यम से दंगों का पूरा दोष बीजेपी समर्थक हिंदुओं पर मढ़ा जा रहा है। तो इसे समझना जरूरी है। क्यों की आगे का बुलशिट आख्यान इसी आरंभिक मान्यता पर आधारित है।

अपने आप को प्रगतिशील, लिब्रल और धर्मनिरपेक्ष साबित करने की इच्छा रखने वाले सभी, खास कर युवा पीढ़ी के, भारतीयों को शर्मिंदा होने की बहुत आदत है। वे हर बात पर, हिन्दू होते पर, भारतीय होने पर, इस देश में रहने, पर शर्मिंदा होते रहते हैं। शायद इस लिए की शर्मिंदा हैं यह कह देना सब से सरल तरीका है अपने आप को लिबरल बुद्धिजीवी साबित करने का। मेरी बिना मांगी सलाह है की पहले थोड़ा तथ्यों की जांच करें, सब तरफ के आख्यानों को जाँचें; फिर तय करें कि शर्मिंदा होना है या गुस्सा होना है या दुखी होना है, या कुछ और। और फिर शर्मिंदा, गुस्सा, दुखी या कुछ और हो कर बैठ नहीं जाएँ; बल्कि जहां हैं वहाँ आपने काम में इस समस्या से जूझने की कोशिश करें। वरना आप की कई पीढ़ियाँ शिर्फ शर्मिंदा होती रहेंगी; आप पर भी।

******

5 मार्च 2020

 

 

 

 

4 Comments | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by rdhankar

Thinking about CAA and Intentions

January 14, 2020

Rohit Dhankar

The country is on the boil on the issues of Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 (CAA), possible National Register of Citizens (NRC) and National Population Register (NPR). We need to think carefully in forming our judgment on these issues. The current protesters certainly do not seem to be thinking either clearly or consistently.

Clear thinking demands looking carefully at your facts, assumptions, moral principles and constitutional provisions. If our assumptions happen to be factually wrong and/or morally unacceptable and/or unconstitutional; obviously whenever we use such premises in arguments the conclusions are likely to be unsound. Another possibility of conclusions becoming unsound is that they are logically invalid.

I make a distinction between sound/unsound arguments on one hand and valid/invalid on the other. Validity of an argument is a purely logical matter; and an argument which involves false premises can be logically valid. However, being sound requires that all the premises used should also be true, or at the least accepted as true in the context.

I also make a distinction between logical necessity and contingent factors. Contextual impact and intentions I consider contingent factors. It might be wrong but I first want to decide acceptability/unacceptability based on purely logical/rational grounds. If something fails at that level, one does need to go to the level of context, intentions and impact. If something passes the test of logic and reason; the second necessary part before accepting the conclusion is testing it for intentions, impact and context. If it fails in the second test then in spite of passing the logical test it cannot be accepted. But talking of intentions and impact first and coming to logical/rational correctness later is certainly putting the cart before the horse, an admittedly foolish act. To my mind that is wrong order if one really wants to understand things. This wrong order also opens up possibility of imputing motives and spreading lies; in other words gives full scope to demagoguery. Thus, I find it necessary to examine intentions and impact but am not in favor of mixing the two.

This is the bare minimum and broadest characterization of the style of thinking which is necessary, as far as I can understand. Those who are shouting slogans and repeating others judgments without this minimum work are running the risk of being misled by people with vested interest.

Rational thinking operates on some content—facts, assumptions, principles etc.—all of them cannot be generated by logic or reason alone. They come from various sources of our experience, history, previously agreed upon principles and so on. Below I will try to list the premises relevant in this context, i.e. thinking about CAA, NRC and NPR; and base my conclusions on them. There is a possibility of human error in listing as well as arguments, if that is pointed out and proved one must be ready to correct. I would do the same.

This article begins with CAA. As said above; first on rational grounds and then I will try to look into intentions. But we should not forget that while BJP and RSS may have nefarious intentions that can be understood from their pronouncements and actions; the so-called[1] liberals themselves have to be subjected to the same criteria of looking into intentions. No one can be placed above nefarious intentions; and yes, nefarious.

My premises and arguments

Part One: Moral obligation

  1. All thinking on these two issues should first happen in the framework if Indian Constitution. The values listed in the Preamble and Parts I, II, and III should be taken as primary guiding principles. However, the whole of constitution with all so far made laws under it through due process have to be taken in to accounts. Violation of these is not admissible. (Preamble state the values and vision of a democratic society very clearly, Part one defines India, its territory and importance of integrity, part two talk of citizenship and part three defines fundamental rights.)
  2. We may have humanitarian moral consideration which go beyond the constitutional obligation. While considering them we have to make a difference. Not accepting the humanitarian moral obligation which are not demanded by the constitution may make us “lessor moral beings” but does not make our acts unconstitutional. We are not bound to accept such considerations. Therefore, we are not obliged to accept every illegal migrant or refugee who comes to India. We have the right to decide whom to allow and whom not to allow. Allowing one does not grants the same right to other foreigners.
  3. India was divided on the basis of religion, a separate nation explicitly for Muslims. Finally, that itself divided into two Islamic republics. A religious state is by nature discriminatory, constitutionally discriminatory.
  4. The demand was raised, pushed and finally brought to fruition primarily by Muslims under the leadership of Muslim League. (The idea of two nation theory was first expressed by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan in his lecture at Lucknow and then in another Lecture at Meerut. He also claimed that two nations cannot live on terms of equality in one country. One of them should necessarily dominate the other as Muslims dominated Hindus for more than seven hundred years. He used this argument to convince Muslims that it is better for them that they serve under the English rather than under the Hindus, as the English are at the least people of the Book. In the Lucknow lecture he argues against the Congress demand of competitive examination for jobs so that British and Indians can come to some government jobs on the basis of merit. His argument is that since the Muslims are not ready to compete at that time, therefor no Indian should be allowed. The demand for merit-based appointments was clearly in the national interest, but for Sir Syed national interest was subordinate to Muslim interest. These two things, two nation theory and national interest is subordinate to Muslim internist[2] set the tone of Muslim politics in India and elements of this thinking still persists in Muslims and so-called liberals.)
  5. The Hindus who believed that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together peacefully with equal rights were marginalized and rejected by the Hindu masses. One can count Savarkar and Golwalkar etc. among them.
  6. The Muslims who believed that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together peacefully with equal rights were overwhelmingly supported by Muslim massed and made their leaders. The overwhelming majority of Muslims voted for Muslim League in 1945-46 elections is a clear proof of this. The partition of India was a major election issue in those elections.
  7. After migration from both sides and some going-and-coming back on both sides; by 1951 almost everything was settles regarding citizenship issues.
  8. In the light of points 3, 4 and 7 above, the Muslim population of Pakistan became as good foreigners to India, as any other foreigners, say, Chines Americans, French or Saudi Arabian. India had no legal or moral obligation for their protection or wellbeing. They achieved what they wanted and were a free nation on which India had no claim or command.
  9. The case of minorities in Pakistan was different. They were assured (by the leaders who later formed government of free India) that India will not be divided, so they need not migrate. Later when partition was inevitable, they were assured by the same leaders that they will be safe in Pakistan.
  10. The Nehru-Liaqat Pact is formal recognition of the historical moral obligation of Indian state in 1950 towards the safety and persecution free life of minorities in Pakistan.
  11. Bangladesh separated from Pakistan in 1971. The Indo-Bangladesh Friendship treaty does not specifically mention protection of minorities in respective countries, but does mention adherence to principles of equality between people. However, the historical moral obligation recognized in Nehru-Liaqat Pact remains to Bangladeshi minorities, as far as I can think.
  12. Pakistan and Bangladesh both are constitutionally Islamic states. In both these countries minorities have faced persecution based on religion[3]. Most of the people belonging to minorities in these countries who have come to India came to avoid persecution. Thus, India has failed in fulfilling its historical moral obligation to minorities in these two countries.
  13. The illegal migrants belonging to minorities in Bangladesh and Pakistan are thus due to result of this failure mention in 12 above.
  14. Indian even now is in no position to ensure the safety of minorities in these countries; thus, they cannot go back. Therefore, India is under moral obligation to provide citizenship to these people, though not under constitutional obligation.
  15. Due to premise 8 India is under no moral, historical or constitutional obligation to provide whatever support to Muslims illegally coming to India from Pakistan and Bangladesh. The obligation is only as much as to any other person from anywhere in the world coming to India illegally. Therefore, they have to follow the same path to citizenship in case they want it.
  16. Thus, Rohingyas, illegal Muslim migrants from Bangladesh and Pakistan, Shias and Ahmadis from Pakistan, Hindus from Sri Lanka, all are in the same class as far as India’s obligation is concerned.
  17. Minorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh constitute a class for which India has a historical moral obligation. India has no such moral obligation to others mentioned above.
  18. As far as I can think the moral obligation of India to minorities who came from Afghanistan is only as much as to any other refugee fleeing persecution, they are not at par with the people coming from Pakistan and Bangladesh. The government argument is that people from Afghanistan came when there was Taliban regime there, and the Taliban was installed by Pakistan; therefore, they are also part of the Pakistani persecution. The argument is clearly weak and cannot be accepted.
  19. That however, does not make the whole of CAA obnoxious to me. One, because it includes someone who we do not have a moral obligation but needs the protection, it does not take away anything from any one else. Two, see point 2 above. and three, if one want to oppose CAA in this basis, one should not call it all bad and against secularism; one should demand correction.

In the light of above understanding CAA makes sense and is a necessity for India if it has spine as a nation and moral fiber to fulfil its own admitted obligation to the persecuted minorities of Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Part Two: Constitutional Possibility for special treatment for persecuted minorities of Pakistan and Bangladesh

But this could be done only if the spirit of constitution allows it. If the law made to fulfil this moral obligation goes against the spirit of Indian constitution (of which secularism is a central principle) it should be opposed, repealed. Therefore, we will try to see the constitutional position on this issue. Once we are through with the constitutional position will start looking at the issue of intentions.

Two values of constitution most relevant in this discussion are secularism and equality, which are inseparably connected with each other. Secularism as a state doctrine means separation of state policy and functioning from religious considerations. This directly implies equality of all citizens irrespective of their religion. Therefore, rights, entitlements and protection of low accorded to citizens are not affected by religion of citizens. In other words, a secular state does not discriminate on the basis of religion in any manner.

India as per the constitution is a secular democratic republic. In connection with the CAA debate articles 14 and 15 are most often quoted to establish that CAA is discriminatory against Muslims (a religious minority) and therefore, is against secularism and violates the constitution. Clause 1 of Article 15 states “15. (1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.” Note that it is about Indian “citizens” and that it prohibits discrimination on “grounds only of religion …”. Why is there this word “only” in this article? I am not a legal expert, but as a citizen it seems to indicate to me that there could be other grounds and the totality of grounds may include religion. Though, the basis of discrimination will not be a citizen’s religion alone. (I may be wrong here.) But reading the clause 2(5) of the same article with clause (1) of article 30 one comes to the conclusion that minority institutions established by religious minorities are granted exception from making rules regarding admission of students of educationally backwards communities in them. As we all know, several exceptions are granted to religious minority educational institutions in management, appointment of staff and religious instructions even when the institutions receive grant from the government.

Minorities also have their separate civil laws concerning marriage, divorce, inheritance of property etc. Such laws for Muslim community are: the Shariat Application Act, the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, the Massalman Wakf Validating Act, the Wakf Act, and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act.

All these are examples of provisions in Indian constitution and law of differential treatment on the basis of religion. And they are not considered as violation of the principles of secularism or violation of equality. This is because the principles of secularism and equality are not understood in a dogmatic or absolute sense. It is recognised that special provisions may have to be made for classes of citizens for their upliftment or protection or advancement. The same idea of positive discrimination is used in reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In conclusion then, the idea of positive discrimination used for the benefit of a deprived or otherwise disadvantaged class of citizens which gives them benefits over and above others is considered neither against the ideal of equality nor against the ideal of secularism. This is the position with regard to the citizens of India. But the CAA is not about citizens of India, it is about illegal migrants coming from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. Now we shall consider their case in the light of admissibility of positive discrimination in case of Indian citizens.

For this we turn to article 14 which states: “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” This article is about persons, that is all who are within territory of India, be they citizens or not citizens of India. The illegal migrants from the three mentioned countries are “within the territory of India”. The first part of the act states that “the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law”, and it may look as if the Muslims are denied equality before the law through CAA. This is the version most people are getting agitated about. But the second part says that the “State shall not deny to any person … the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India”.

The idea of equal protection of law depends of equal treatment of equals, but allows differential treatment to unequals in terms of their circumstances. “The varying needs of different classes of persons require different treatment. In order to pass the test for permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely: (1) the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and (2) the differentia must have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.”

The intelligible differentia demanded in the first criteria can be formulated as thus: Those to whom India has a historical moral obligation and who are a persecuted minority in Bangladesh and Pakistan. To my mind it is difficult to justify Afghanistan. Criteria two: the nexus with the objective is obvious—equal protection of law to those who pass criteria one.

Therefore, as far as I can think the CAA is all about providing protection to those for whom India has a moral obligation and there is no violation of the principles of secularism and equality in this. This brings us to the issue of intentions.

Part three: Issue of intentions of the BJP government

A fuller discussion on intentions will require lot of space and therefore will have to wait. This article is already longer than most people read. Therefore, here I will just raise a few questions to understand the issue of supposed to be evil intentions:

  1. If the government is within the bounds of constitution why should it not try to find out how many and who are the foreigners living in this country? There must be an intelligible reason given by the protesters.
  2. If there is some supposed to be legitimate objection to 1 above—is it in principle or dues to practical difficulties or due to intentions? It must be clearly spelt out.
  3. Suppose the government goes ahead with CAA, NRC and NPR, and with very bad intentions for Muslims; what can it do? Try to imagine.
  4. Presently we don’t even know who will be asked to show documentary evidence of citizenship and who will not be asked. Nor do we know what kind of documentary evidence will be demanded. Most of it is imagination of some people. But suppose three crore people living in this country are found to be without any evidence of citizenship of this country on yet to be defined documents. What do you think the government will or can do with them? Try to imagine the worst-case scenario. Can it send them back? Where? Can it eliminate them? Those who say yes to such an horrendous thought should think again. It is possible in todays world? Can it keep them in detention centres? How long?
  5. When I think about it, I am incapable to think anything very bad. It seems to me that the government will be forced to come up with some scheme of citizenship for them.

The key in this kind of thought experiment is precision. One has to think in terms of actual acts of injustice rather than in nebulous terms like ‘they will be persecuted’. Try to think actual acts of persecution. If one cannot, then there is a possibility of being victim of some demagoguery.

*******

14th January 2020

[1] In last about 10 years the liberals have proved to be the most intolerant to difference of opinion in India. Their proves in language cannot hide their intolerance of counter views. The people who talk the most about freedom of expression, right to dissent and questioning have been the most prompt in attacking and stifling dissenting voices. Since, the very first principles of liberalism is recognizes the freedom of every citizen to order his/her own life as s/he thinks fit, and which includes freedom of speech. Therefore, I will consistently refer to the this particular group of Indian liberals as ‘so-called liberals’.

[2] Those who want to understand this mindset in greater detail should refer to the following:

  1. Speech of Sir Syed Ahmad at Lucknow (1887), http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_sir_sayyid_lucknow_1887.html
  2. Speech of Sir Syed Ahmad at Meerut (1988), http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_sir_sayyid_meerut_1888.html
  3. Presidential address of Rahimatulla Sayani to the Indian National Congress, 1896, particularly section 15 on Alleged Mohamedan Objections to the Congress
  4. Sir Muhammad Iqbal’s 1930 Presidential Address (Muslim League), http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_iqbal_1930.html
  5. Tiderbox: The Past and Future of Pakistan by MJ Akbar

[3] Those who doubt this can look at the population figures of Bangladesh and almost continuously coming reports of persecution of minorities in Pakistan. This persecution is very often with the tacit support of the state.

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

Reflection on some slogans-1

January 8, 2020

Rohit Dhankar

Protests against Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 (CAA) and possibility of National Register of Citizens (NRC) are wide spread across the nation. The CAA has passed through a democratic procedure by a democratically elected government. NRC at the moment is ambiguously understood issue with claims and counter claims regarding it being already initiated and not initiated as well as its criteria. The people of a democracy always have a right to peaceful protest, and Indian citizens are using that with vigor. All mass protests use variety of slogans to express their core concerns and ideas. The current protests also use many slogans. In this piece I am trying to reflect on a few of such slogans.

In the current protests two general formats of slogans are very popular. They can be named as “azadi” format and “kabr khudegi” format. The azadi format has two sub-formats: one, azadi (freedom) from format. This runs like “X se azadi”. A lead protester should “X se” and the body of protesters shout “azadi”. Examples; Lead: “Manu-vad se”, Protesters: “azadi”. Another sub-format of the azadi slogans spells who wants azadi. The lead shouts “X mange”, supporters should “azadi”. Example; Lead: “Dalit mange”, Supporters: “azadi”. Here we will discuss only the first sub-format. That is: “X se”, “azadi”.

Second popular format is “X ki kabr khudegi, Y ki dharti par”. Here the lead shouts “X ki kabr khudegi”, Supporters shout “Y ki dharti/chhaati par”. Example; Lead: “Jati-vad ki kabr khudegi”, Supporters: “Rajasthan ki dharti par”.

Both these formats are very powerful and versatile. Versatility comes from naming all the ills that one wants to oppose or remove one by one in the same format. Power comes from the speed and vigor with which these slogans are shouted. An experienced lead-protester (we have even professionals) can slowly raise the emotions and can take it to a frenzy leaving mind far behind. The supporters become simple followers without thinking and feel a swell of emotions which gives a high of feeling virtuous. The slogans are not only used to raise temporary frenzy, but also create permanent indoctrination when someone is subjected to this treatment repeatedly.

In this background, we will examine some of the slogans used in these and many other protests these days. We will not discuss the formats anymore, but the content of slogans. A tentative list of slogans to be examined:

  1. “Hindutva ki kabr khudegi, Dilli ki dharti par”. (“Dilli” is just a place-holder, one can change it with AMU, JNU, or any other place.)
  2. “Brahmanism ki kabr khudegi, Dilli ki dharti par”
  3. “Manu-vad ki kabr khudegi, Dilli ki dharti par”
  4. “Jati-vad ki kabr khudegi, Dilli ki dharti par”
  5. “Sangh-vad ki kabr khudegi, Dilli ki dharti par”
  6. “RSS ki kabr khudegi, Dilli ki dharti par”
  7. “Bahusankhya-vad ki kabr khudegi, Dilli ki dharti par”

Of course, there are many more slogans, some of them are used only in the ‘azadi-format’, some used in both formats. But we will focus only on the above listed ones.

First, let’s note that all these slogans mention something that is associated with Hinduism. Not necessarily with the philosophy and ideals of Hinduism, but as practice of Hinduism is perceived by the so-called-liberals (SCLs).

Second, all that is mentioned in the slogans are supposed to be the evils of Hinduism. Therefore, it is assumed that no sane democrat may have any objection in digging the graves of these evils of Hinduism. Actually, this can be seen as retrieving a more benevolent form of Hinduism by purifying it of these ills. Therefore, before going any further let’s have a look at the meaning of the terms used here.

Hindutva: everyone considers Savarkar as the inventor of Hindutva, which is considered a political ideology. But this idea and ideology is also articulated and rearticulated by others. Particularly RSS leaders. Right from Golwalkar to Mohan Bhagawat. Savarkar, Golwalkar and Bhagwat (and others) all deny that “Hindu” means a religion, according to all of them the term Hindu has got nothing to do with what God or gods you worship and how you worship them. What your imagination of the fruits of that worship has no connection with being Hindu. To Savarkar anyone who is born in India, who considers India as the land of her/his forefathers (matri-bhoomi), and who considers India as the land of his/her heroes and holy people and respects its culture (punya-bhoomi) is a Hindu. Irrespective of what and how s/he worships for what purposes. But all said and done, Savarkar definitely does not consider Muslims as Hindus and Savarkar’s Hindutva is divisive as well as very suspicious of Muslims. Golwalker to me seems to be a step ahead and thinks of them as divisive force in the country and often loyal to Pakistan. In a more recent articulation Bhagwat seems to be attempting to be more inclusive; as reported by The Economic Times, 18th September 2018, he says: ‘Hindu Rashtra’ does not mean it has no place for Muslims as this concept is inclusive of all faiths and religions. “The Sangh works towards universal brotherhood and the cardinal principle of this brotherhood is unity in diversity. This thought comes from our culture, which the world calls Hindutva. That’s why we call it a Hindu Rashtra,” he said. Asserting that the RSS’ philosophy is to take everyone along, he said, “Hindu Rashtra doesn’t mean there’s no place for Muslims. The day it is said so, it won’t be Hindutva any more. Hindutva talks about Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam.”

But yes, there could be, and is, a justified suspicion of this ideology. Therefore, one may consider a wish to dig Hindutva’s grave a progressive and secular slogan. But why in a protest against CAA and NRC? We will come to this question a little later.

Brahmanism: Encyclopedia Britannica defines Brahmanism as an “ancient Indian religious tradition that emerged from the earlier Vedic religion. In the early 1st millennium bce, Brahmanism emphasized the rites performed by, and the status of, the Brahman, or priestly, class as well as speculation about brahman (the Absolute reality) as theorized in the Upanishads (speculative philosophical texts that are considered to be part of the Vedas, or scriptures). In contrast, the form of Hinduism that emerged after the mid-1st millennium bce stressed devotion (bhakti) to particular deities such as Shiva and Vishnu.

During the 19th century, the first Western scholars of religion to study Brahmanism employed the term in reference to both the predominant position of the Brahmans and the importance given to brahman (the Sanskrit terms corresponding to Brahman and brahman are etymologically linked). Those and subsequent scholars depicted Brahmanism either as a historical stage in Hinduism’s evolution or as a distinct religious tradition. However, among practicing Hindus, especially within India, Brahmanism is generally viewed as a part of their tradition rather than as a separate religion.”

To me it sounds like faith of many Hindus today. The distinction between Brahmanism and Hinduism does not seem to be very clear. Kancha Ilahiya declares on the authority of Dr. Ambedkar that “Hindutva is nothing but Brahmanism. And whether you call it Hindutva or Arya Dharma or Sanatan Dharma or Hinduism, Brahmanism has no organic link with Dalit-Bahujan life, world-views, rituals and even politics”. Thus, Brahmanism starts looking like a term devised to deride Hinduism; to be used as a fig-leaf of defence when someone objects for insult to majority religion. The most of the slogan shouting protesters will easily accept Ilahiya’s authority I think.

Which means that digging grave for Hinduism is fine. Since Hinduism does have so many evils in it, let’s accept this premise for the sake of argument.

Manu-vad: Manu-vad is even more deserving of pushing into grave than Brahmanism and Hindutva. It directly preaches lower position of women and shudras in the society. Completely against equality. Therefore, a perfectly deserving candidate to push into the grave.

Jati-vad: no need to discuss. We don’t need casteism, therefore, fine to dig its grave. Though many Hindus may still be clinging to some or other form of Jati-vad. Often, I think the Dalits and OBCs are more attached to jati-vad in present day India than the higher castes. But let that be as it is.

Sangh-vad and RSS: They are the same thing. Rashtriya Swayam Sevaksangh (RSS) is seen as a Hindu nationalist body which is against Muslims and secularism. It is also considered the parent body of BJP which is directing its politics. Therefore, lets accept the wish to dig its grave a legitimate wish in a protest that is ostensibly to protect secularism and equality of Indian citizens.

On the basis of very scanty indications above, one may understand Hindutva, Sangh-vad and RSS as political ideology guiding BJP’s push for CAA and NRC. And therefore, it may be considered legitimate to raise slogans against them in protest against the same. But why include Brahmanism, jati-vad and Manu-vad? What these three have to do with CAA and NRC?

The clue may be found in the 7th slogan listed above. That is “Bahusankhya-vad ki kabr …”. The whole agenda is seen as majoritarianism. The majority community has put the BJP in power. Majority community is Hindu. Hinduism in practice has been characterised by Brahmanism, jati-vad and Manu-vad. Therefore, through these slogans some recognised evils of Hinduism are recounted, even if they are not directly involved in the present context. This is to create atmosphere against those who put such a divisive party in power.

These slogans were shouted in many large gatherings in the course of current protests with the kind of frenzy I have claimed above, to take supporters on an emotional and virtuous high, leaving their reason far behind. And therefore, may be used as a device for mass indoctrination against the target ideology and community supporting it. Above I have argued that all these are political and social evils of the majority religion in the country. Since they are ‘evils’, wishing to dig their grave even if not directly relevant to the issue should be fine. That seems to be the argument.

I hope readers of this long and dry piece agree with the above argument. Still request all to express their opinion.

Part 2 of this article will be posted tomorrow (as this has become too long) with reflection on some more slogans.

*******

8th January 2020

 

 

 

 

 

6 Comments | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by rdhankar

CAB[1] and NRC

December 18, 2019

Rohit Dhankar

I have argued elsewhere[2] that CAB 2019 is not against secularism, does not make India a Hindu Rashtra, and not against any Indian citizen, including Muslims. But many people point out that together with National Register of Citizens (NRC) this can be used against Muslim citizens of India. What stand should one take in such a situation?

First, CAB does not include necessity of NRC, it stands alone. I read a statement somewhere “CAB is toothless without NRC”. This viewpoint comes from a mindset that assumes that CAB is designed to ‘punish’ or ‘harm’ someone, and by itself it cannot punish if ‘that someone is an Indian citizen’. According to such thinking it gets teeth only in combination with NRC.

I would like to point out that CAB may not have teeth (even if above assumption is accepted, for the sake or argument) without NRC, but it still can benefit lakhs of Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis and Christians by removing illegal migrant tag on them and allowing them to apply for citizenship. And as far as this much goes, it harms no existing Indian citizen. Thus, without NRC it is not fruitless. It may be ‘toothless’ because it is not designed to harm anyone, but to help some people.

The genuine and really serious problems arise when it is combined with NRC, we assume that the process of registration in NRC will be very difficult and that the government is going to behave in a mala fide manner with Muslims. We should remember that this combining is not inherent to CAB, it will become possible through the further actions of the government, if it does. NRC carried out in the whole country can only identify illegal migrants, but cannot confer legitimacy to apply for citizenship without CAB, nor can the exercise provide for fast-track citizenship. NRC done without CAB can declare the persecuted minorities illegal migrants, but can give no respite to Muslims. The opponents of CAB, in such a case may have the satisfaction of not allowing any benefits to the six communities mentioned in CAB, but can provide to benefit to Muslims who are illegal migrants. This is one-way dependence between CAB and NRC, not mutual.

As per the newspaper reports the NRC has been a mess in Assam. It put many Indian citizens through hardships and no one believes that its results are accurate. The Home Minister Mr. Amit Shah declared in the parliament that the exercise of NRC will cover the whole of the country. If the exercise is done in a manner similar to Assam then this might be genuinely alarming. This is a huge problem without explaining to the public (1) the procedure, (2) providing a guarantee of fairness, (3) assuring that it can be done without too much trouble to people. The government has not done all this, and its actions and pronouncements do not inspire confidence, at present.

As an example of recent pronouncements one can consider Prime Minister Modi’s statement in Dumka, Jharkhand election rally where he said that those who are involved in arson during anti-CAB protests can be recognised by their cloths. People are objecting to this remark, rightly so, but the full story Modi weaves in that speech is much more objectionable. He builds a very diabolical narrative from 33rd to 43rd minutes of this[3] video. First, he singles out congress for working only for the family. Then points out that while criticising BJP and Modi, they start criticising Bharat, and cross the “seema rekha”. Then he points out arsonists as Muslims through their cloths. With a stern face and warning tone reminds Congress that they are supporting these people, and the nation is watching. Claims that the BJP has saved the nation through CAB (desh ko bhi bachaliya hai), a hint that making more Muslims (illegal migrant Muslims) citizens is a serious danger to the country. And then reminds the audience what Pakistanis did in the England in their protest in front of Indian Embassy. Says congress is doing the same here. In this narrative, he is declaring protesters as aligning with Pakistan and antinational; without saying so much in words. Setting up a thought chain in the minds of the listeners and leaving it to take its own course to become antimuslim. This from a PM is very bad, and erodes confidence of people, makes “sabka vishwas” unbelievable. In a democracy people have a right to protest, though no right to violence can be granted. Still protest sometime get into such situations, associating this with a particular religious community with designs to harm India on the basis of cloths cannot be an innocent act, particularly when people from all communities are protesting. This is but one example, BJP functionaries provide many such examples, with repeated calls to send Muslims to Pakistan. All this raises apprehension, regarding NRC.

Still, I don’t think summarily rejecting NRC is a good Idea. If the citizenship register of a country is in mess, no one knows how many foreigners are living there, no one can identify them, then there could be many problems including issues of security. Resources in the hands of foreigners which could be used for harming the country and so on. I don’t see such a situation good for the citizens of the country irrespective of their religion.

If NRC is found to be necessary for the whole country it can be done only if a fair and efficient procedure can be assured. If the public cannot be taken in confidence regarding accurate, fair and reasonably achievable procedures, then NRC has to be abandoned. I have not seen the authentic procedure documents (did not get them), eligibility criteria and list of acceptable documents. There is an article on Wikipedia on this issue. The criteria and documents as per that article do not seem to be too difficult. For example, if the government says that if you have a passport or if your name is in the voters’ list before such and such date then that is good enough as a proof, I don’t think anyone should find it too difficult. But one cannot make Wikipedia article basis for an argument. On the other hand, if the procedure demands that I should produce the name of my grandfather in a voters’ list, and from there on prove ancestry right down to me, with correctly spelled names; then it might be a lot of trouble. And will be a huge problem for poorer sections of the society.

The fact is, we do not know presently what the nationwide procedure and eligibility is going to be. If someone has authentic information on this, I would like to know that. Therefore, before we allow our minds to swing in any direction, we should also know whether NRC can be started throughout the nation just by an order of the government. I do not think that at this moment, but am not sure. If that is not possible and a law is required; then one should wait for that law and decide to support or oppose it when it is available, rather than imagining things and start opposing CAB on the basis of a law which is not even there yet.

The argument I am making is: if the CAB by itself does not do any harm to any Indian citizen and if it passes the test of ‘reasonable difference’ in the supreme court; then we should consider it a case of positive discrimination to minorities in our neighbouring countries, and not against the principle of secularism. Because we do use the principle of positive discrimination on the basis of religion in our own country.

In such a case we may oppose the NRC but not the CAB. Even if the NRC procedure finally turnout to be such that it can be used to discriminate against Muslims citizens of India, we should oppose NRC tooth and nail, and reject it. I see no justification for opposing CAB in the name of NRC. If we oppose CAB in the name of NRC without first knowing about eligibility criteria in NRC, then we are not trying to defend the rights of Indian citizens but are arguing against the lakhs of illegal migrants from three neighbouring countries belonging the minorities there. And we are being unfair.

We know that sooner or later we have to find a solution to the problem of persecuted minorities from ABF already in India. Citizenship seems to be the most suitable solution. We also know that in spite of all the rhetoric the illegal migrant Bangladeshi Muslims cannot be sent back to Bangladesh. Even if the laws demand deportation, it is not practically possible.  Leaving them stateless and without citizenship for ever is neither possible, nor humane. Keeping them in detention camps for ever is also an impossibility. Therefore, India has to develop a long-term policy about gradual citizenship to these people. And that policy should be known to the public. Neither the strategy of denial of their existence or admitting reduced numbers followed by erstwhile governments is good for India, nor the hard attitude of throwing them out is possible. If the government had thought through all these issues before embarking on CAB they could have gained public confidence. Adequate planning to CAB, NRC and a plan for solving the problem of illegal migrants together would have been much more acceptable to the people.

******

18th December 2019

 

 

 

[1] Though CAB 2019 is passed by both the houses of parliament, I am not sure it has become an Act. If I am correct, it will become an Act when approved by the president and notified in the Gazette of India. But I am not sure on this, so will check.

[2] In my blog “Is Cab against secularism?”

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlo8QJBTa2E

 

3 Comments | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by rdhankar