Modi-fied: After the Victory

Ever since the triumph of Narendra Modi in May this year, there has been a sense of a different kind of ‘communalism’ among politicians, media and the populace. All kinds of remarks have been made which look funny but there are not. Concepts like All Indians Are Hindus, Hinduism is the character of India, Love Jihad, Madrasas are schools of terrorism, and latest revelation that slaughter houses are funding terrorism in India- they all have gained immense currency in Modified era.

To say that all Indians are Hindus could have been true in pre-medieval India but to preach such a theory in the second decade of 21st century is anything but the true reflection of India. The term Hindu originated as a territorial concept but in the last almost one millennium the term has acquired a religious connotation and to still link it with territory only would be negating India's history of past one thousand years during which we built monuments like red fort from the ramparts of which a proud Narendra Modi delivered his maiden Independence Day speech.

The word Hindu meant nothing to ancient or so to say to original Hindus. They thought it a corrupt version of Sindhu, which they worshipped as the giver of life and food. And, in that sense of term accepting and respecting the word Hindu would be an affront to the beliefs of the ancestors of India.

Secondly, Hindu refers to a region which is now beyond our control and in the past 67 years, we have come to the terms of this new reality. And, given the state of affairs of Pakistan, we are happy to see the land purged long ago. Meanwhile, the term itself has ceased to carry the territorial meaning and now it solely represents only one institutionalized religion. Interestingly, the precursor to Hinduism was not institutional and was essentially personal.

(In ancient India religious beliefs were considered to be personal. Buddha attempted to institutionalize it albeit for different purpose. It is altogether a different tale that Buddhism vanished from India. So, the greatest effort at institutionalizing religion failed in the country).

So, even on this count enforcing ‘Hindu’ would not be bringing ancient and traditional identity to the land and people as the concept is relatively new and came into existence in the last one thousand years, which the protagonists of Hindu are more than willing to wipe out from the landscape of everyone's memory.

In a slight deviation, it would not be inappropriate to talk of another theory of the so-called right wingers that the ancestors of Muslims were Hindus. It has two interesting facets. One, we know the term Hindu did not exist in India before the advent of Islam in India. They were happy with what they were. They didn't need any new identity. So, the very premise is wrongly worded. Secondly, it is wrong on the part of the Muslims to deny their ancestral link.

It is impossible to have the entire lot of Muslims migrating from other parts of the world into India. Long before the Muslims became rulers in various parts of India, there were enough Muslims in India and the belief had rooted itself in India- through traders and mendicants. This is why the general populace didn't revolt when Islamic intruders enforced their rule and belief. People were already acquainted with the new belief system. They didn't consider it foreign.

So, for the aam aadmi only rulers changed, as we saw in 1947. But, for some extremely illogical yet unknown reasons the Muslims, in general, don't admit that their ancestors belonged to this very land and changed their belief which offered them better terms of living in a highly stratified society. It is baffling why so many highly placed Muslims feel pride in tracing their ancestry to a land outside India.

These are complicated equations, which have been made more incomprehensible with the theory of Love Jihad. Jihad itself is being debated world over. And, most of the explanations of the term depend on the personality of the exponent and the side of the table s/he is sitting. The term Jihad no longer holds significance in a civilized society because it entails violence, physical or mental or both. May be, in the centuries gone by, it would carry some other meaning and perception. Modern reality of jihad is repulsive.

On the other hand, word ‘Love’ has undergone a metamorphosis in its meaning in the age of global village. Difference between lust and love has always been thin and now in the age of instant technological mindset, barriers are being broken, reported and known with greater frequency than ever before.

With identity by birth taking further deeper roots in general, the instances of trans-religious community love between two individuals can easily become an affront to any of the community-parties. Still, there could be motivated people out there to target susceptible individuals, generally girls because of the very nature of our society. So, whether it is trans-community love or target-love, which amounts to cheating, it is always girls, women who bear the brunt. A ruling dispensation should protect women instead of raising the bogey of concepts like love jihad.

Another point that is being vehemently made is that madarsas are preaching terrorism. There is none who would deny the role of preachers in spreading terrorism within India and without. One can listen to a few gatherings of preachers to get the sense of alienation and resultant hatred towards the rest.

Madarsas need to be modernized and brought under regular teaching curriculum. A regular course should be prescribed on the lines of CBSE and made the affiliated to the board. Madarsas should have the privilege to teach Quran and other Islamic religious text but only in addition to the regular courses. The same policy should be adopted for other religious institutions imparting education. So, the suggestion here is to turn Madarsas into schools with some religious privileges.  

Finally, to suggest that the slaughter houses are funding terrorism is ridiculous. The Minister in the Modi cabinet, who targeted slaughter houses, has been a champion of animal rights. Her objection on this count to the very existence of slaughter houses is understandable but linking them to terrorism smacks of communalism. India has a long history of slaughter houses Kautilyas Arthshastra prescribes for maintaining quality in the slaughter houses.

So, the union minister’s comment not only targets people engaged in this vocation but also serves to dissuade non-Muslims from taking meat trade, and thereby communalizing the entire business. This is preposterous. The Modi government would do well to focus on the cardinal rule of governance that the King's duty is to provide security and exact taxes in a benevolent rule. The sooner it does, the better it is.

Henderson-Brooks-Bhagat report: Is it a news?

The Henderson-Brooks-Bhagat report seemed to have the potential to create flutter in the highly fragile politics of India and even more brittle news TV. But, proving to be a rarity, the leaked news got only what it deserved. Perhaps, it deserved even less. 

That the 1962 war was a debacle for India is not doubted by anyone. Pt. Nehru was, theoretically, responsible for the loss of honour of the Indian nation is also not countered by anyone. Nehru himself admitted that he was wrong in his Chinese policy. So, Henderson-Brooks report was not at all a news and far less an expose. It was not worth a coverage except for the story about the timing of its leak.

We all know that what we present as leaked report is actually a willful act of making the chosen part of an information. It is not really a leak in strict sense of term. The leak is a mutually agreed sharing of information at some level. So, the only news-point in the leak was timing. 

One reason for the leak could have been giving a promo for the book to be released. The book is being released at a time when India is going to the polls and the first prime minister of the country happened to be of the party which is facing a huge anti-incumbency of ten years of sedate rule, which has more miss opportunities than achievements to its credit. The second possible reason behind the leak lies precisely here. It seemed to have been intended to gain some popularity in the politically surcharged India, especially when the parochial nationalist forces are fancying their chances.

But, then the entire episode has raised once again a valid question as to why the original report still remains extremely classifies document? Why did the defence minister say after 50 years of the war that the report could not be made public because it might have operational ramifications. Isn't it worrying that 50-year old flaws and loopholes have not been plugged successfully? 

Most of the defence experts believe that India of 2014 is not the India of 1962 though neither has China stagnated. But, that India would not suffer a similar humiliation is agreed to by all. Then, why have all the successive governments not dared to declassify the original report, after all we have now. as Congress vice-president says, right to information? These questions are valid ones and the reality pertaining to these questions defy all logic. And, perhaps this defiant ground reality causes an essentially non-news item occupy space in news media as prominently as it did.

Kejriwal Protest: Anarchy Or Campaign for 2014 Polls

A tug of war between the states and the centre is neither new nor uncommon nor unexpected but what happened in New Delhi was something definitely fresh for a student of politics in India. Even the Constitution makers were aware of the complexities and hence provided for a detailed layout for the Centre-State relationship. Despite that Ajoy Mukherjee of West Bengal and M Karunanidhi of Tamil Nadu sat on dharna while occupying the chair of the chief minster of the respective states. But, there is one notable difference between Kejriwal and the rest. That is, he runs government whose jurisdiction criss-crosses with that of the centre over the same territory. This is what precisely becomes the favourable ground for Kejriwalian brand of politics.

In the last ten years almost all the non-UPA chief ministers have accused the centre of adopting a biased attitude to their states. But, non of them sat on dharna for this. Petitions and letters were considered sufficient. But, then Arvind Kejriwal claims to bring a newness in Indian politics. True to his claim, Kejriwal has resorted to quite a few new tactics to push for his demands. The latest manifestation was his dharna at the Rail Bhawan in New Delhi.

Though his government is new and no judgement should be passed on Kejriwal government, it is clearly visible that he has found it more difficult than he might have imagined to run a government. This becomes more difficult for him because he promised almost everything under the sky and that too in a flash if he won the elections. Congress's defeat and support to AAP later propelled him into the chair of chief minister. But, even in the chair, he leads a pack of agitators not administrators. The biggest proof of this is that even the ministers ensure that media especially the TV media is there when they are out in the public. This clearly shows that they don't want to work without being noticed- a sign of credit hungry people- an aam aadmi trait. Performing one's duty under the PR lenses is not what is ideal for running a government.

Secondly, the Team Kejriwal thinks that it is the sole custodian of righteousness. Whatever Kejriwal says or does is right and everything else is incorrect and corrupt. They have went on to say that people in Congress and BJP are actually "pimps". One may have the right to claim whatever s/he wishes to but how can one justify labelling everyone else as despised. This can not be what they claim to be champions of, democracy.

The latest showdown-followed-by-climb-down episode emanated from the political expediency of Team Kejriwal for saving its face and its errant minister. There is no doubt that Kejriwal wanted to save his minister because he could not possibly have been so naive not to understand that what Somnath Bharti did was wrong and constituted a crime under the IPC provided he still believes in this code. He claimed that one of the reasons for his dharna was the rape of the Danish woman. But, I don't think we need to revisit his statement just after the incident came to the light. He was not at all forthcoming as to what should be done. But, when Somnath Bharti incident happened, he thought of exploiting the situation for his benefit.

There is no denying that Kejriwal does not find his job a cakewalk and also knows that after six months there is any guarantee for its longevity. He has to achieve at least two objective before the candle goes off. One, to showcase a couple of populist decisions- water and electricity have done a part of it for his followers, though critics may disagree. Second, to gain sympathy which may help him in the Lok Sabha polls. So, his nationally televised showdown-followed-by-climb-down dharna was perfectly designed for the Lok Sabha polls while his managers were touring the nation. The dharna also proved that he has mastered the art of camouflaging. He proclaimed victory and made even many of journalists to believe that the Centre knelt down before the might of Kejriwal, while he knew that he was pushed to the wall. So, in his retreat he announced victory!