Revisiting Ambedkar’s Idea of Nationalism

My article on Dr Ambedkar's views on nationalism was published in India Foundation Journal.
You can read a version of the article below:

Ambedkar stood with the most downtrodden and deprived sections of the Indian society; the sections which had no voice in public life. The social mobilization of these sections by Ambedkar helped in the national freedom movement. As the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, Ambedkar advocated a strong nation-state.

Introduction

Over thousands of years, human civilization organized itself first in the form of family, then as religion and today we are organized as nation-state. It makes you wonder which institution would the future generations be living in? I posed this question to a well-known social scientist during a discussion on globalization. He weighed several ideas but concluded that in the present context nation-state is still the most enduring institution and likely to be the organisational unit for the coming generations too.

Today we live within this institution of nation-state. Foremost of our thoughts and actions, it serves as a centre of gravity, obvious at some time and obscure at others. It is one of the most organised, well designed institutions which has an organic relationship with mankind and where universal ideas like freedom, equality and democracy have a good chance to flourish. Western thinkers like Gellner, Anderson and Hobsbawm dealt with the idea of nation, nationalism and nationhood which developed in the region over the last 400 years after the Treaty of Westfalia in 1648.

The Bhartiya concept of Rashtra could be considered a parallel to the western term ‘Nation’ but both are also different on several counts. The primary difference between the two stems from the fact that Rashtra is more of an ethic-spiritual concept while Nation is a cultural concept.(1)

Many Indian leaders like Sri Arvindo, Gandhi, Nehru, Tilak, Tagore and Deen Dayal Upadhyay delved into the idea of Indian nation and nationalism. Their ideas are either spiritual, meta-physical or statist. In this article we will try to trace Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar’s ideas and reflections on Nationalism. He is the most celebrated Indian leader, thinker and social philosopher of the 21st century who contributed in the 20th century. Large-scale celebrations marking his 125th birth anniversary were concluded recently. Observers felt that these celebrations were more wide-spread than those in his centenary year. One of the leading mainstream magazines termed him as the greatest leader of Modern India. Over the years, ideas of Ambedkar have become stronger and more relevant to the contemporary discourse.

Ambedkar and his Narrative of Freedom

At any given point of time, several parallel narratives can coexist. However, only one grand narrative at a time can push the discourse forward. Before the Indian Independence, the grand narrative was the freedom of India while several other narratives did exist. One such narrative was prescribed by the Congress party. It emphasized on freedom from the British colonisers. It can be said that this was the dominating narrative of the time. There were also other, though weaker or marginalized in comparison. One such narrative was that of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) which saw India as a glorious nation since time immemorial land targeted reconstruction of the Indian nation by strengthening its socio-cultural institutions. It wanted to arouse the national consciousness of every common Indian. The core belief in this case was that once the society becomes strong no one could enslave it.

Another narrative of the time was given by Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar. He talked about freedom of India from social inequality and untouchability. This could be understood as a subaltern narrative about the upliftment of downtrodden, deprived and marginalised sections of the society; the section that did not have any participation in public life of colonial India. Dr. Ambedkar became the voice of these 60 million deprived section known as Scheduled Castes (the term Dalit evolved later). Without emancipation of these deprived people, Indian freedom struggle was not deemed to be complete. The Indian national struggle in the first half of the century was not merely a struggle to wrest political power from foreign rule but also a struggle to lay the foundation of a modern India by purging the society of outmoded social institutions, beliefs and attitudes. Ambedkar's struggle constituted a part of the internal struggle, one of the divergent and sometimes conflicting currents all of which helped to secure 'freedom' from external and internal oppression and enslavement.

Without Ambedkar's opposition to mainstream nationalism, the process of internal consolidation of the nation would not have been carried out sufficiently enough to strengthen and broaden the social base of Indian nationalism.(2)

Ambedkar’s idea of Nationalism

Ambedkar elaborated on the idea of Nationality and Nationalism in his book Pakistan or the Partition of India. He describes nationality as a, "consciousness of kind, awareness of the existence of that tie of kinship” and nationalism as "the desire for a separate national existence for those who are bound by this tie of kinship." It is true that there cannot be nationalism without the feeling of nationality. But, it is important to bear in mind that the converse is not always true. The feeling of nationality may be present and yet the feeling of nationalism may be quite absent. That is to say, nationality does not in all cases produce nationalism.

For nationality to flame into nationalism two conditions must exist. First, there must arise the will to live as a nation. Nationalism is the dynamic expression of that desire. Secondly, there must be a territory which nationalism could occupy and make it a state, as well as a cultural home of the nation. Without such a territory, nationalism, to use Lord Acton's phrase, would be a soul as it were wandering in search of a body in which to begin life over again and dies out finding none.(3)

Expanding Social Base of Nationalism

Ambedkar had immense faith in the bright future and evolution of this country. Even when he spoke of attaining freedom for India, his ultimate goal was to unite the people. He said, “So far as the ultimate goal is concerned, none of us have any apprehension or doubt. Our difficulty was not about the ultimate thing but how to unite the heterogeneous mass that we are today to take a decision in common and march in a cooperative way on that road, which is bound to lead us to unity.”(4)

Ambedkar clearly spoke in a felicitation program of his 55th birth anniversary, “I have loyalty to our people inhabiting this country. I have also loyalty to this country. I have no doubt that you have the same. All of us want this country to be free. So far as I am concerned my conduct has been guided by the consideration that we shall place no great difficulties in the way of this country achieving its freedom.”(5)

Ambedkar was not against the idea of nationalism but against the Congress’s version which entailed freedom of India from British colonialism but not from Brahminical imperialism under which millions of Scheduled Castes had been yoked for hundreds of years. It was Ambedkar’s political challenge which compelled the Congress to appreciate the national significance of the problem of castes and to adopt measures which significantly contributed towards broadening and strengthening the social base of Indian nationalism.

Ambedkar’s Challenge to ‘Congress Nationalism’

Indian nationalism in its initial stages, by the very nature of its historical development, was an upper class (upper castes) phenomenon, reflecting the interests and aspirations of its members. Naturally when nationalists spoke in terms of national interest they certainly meant their own (class) interests. The evocation of 'nation' was a necessary ritual to ensure the much needed popular support for an essentially partisan cause. This sectarian approach to nationalism could be seen in the writings of none other than Pt. Nehru who later singled out as an example of a ‘left liberal’ view. He writes in his seminal work Discovery of India that mixture of religion and philosophy, history and tradition, custom and social structure, which in its wide fold included almost every aspect of the life of India, and which might be called Brahminism or (to use a later word) Hinduism, became the symbol of nationalism. It was indeed a national religion.

The sectarian character of Indian nationalism persisted even after the nascent upper castes' movement developed into a truly mass-supported anti-imperialist national liberation movement enlisting the support of millions of people cutting across the traditional social divisions. And, it is this failure to change its basically pro-upper class/castes orientation despite a basic shift in its underlying social base that Indian national movement in due course helped the rise of new sectarian socio-political currents, running parallel to the mainstream national movement. Ambedkar's emergence on the Indian political scene in 1920s, commencing the advent of Dalit (the scheduled castes) politics, was simply the manifestation of the same process.(6)

Ambedkar's Dalit politics posed no really significant threat to the overall domination of the traditional ruling class, yet it certainly exposed the hollowness of the Congress’s nationalist claim to represent the whole nation. Finally, the unwillingness of the nationalist leadership to attack the long unresolved social contradictions at the base of the Hindu social order propelled people like Ambedkar to contest the claim of the Indian National Congress to represent the scheduled castes.(7)

It was in the backdrop of this escapist attitude of the Congress brand of nationalism that an alternative subaltern nationalism was born through Ambedkar. Ambedkar took up this question from social below and elevated it to a political high by linking this social question of caste with the political question of democracy and nationalism. Such an effort to prioritize society over polity and then linking them together was unprecedented in India before Ambedkar. Gandhi can be said to have made such an effort but his approach was obscure and primitive. According to Ambedkar, “Without social union, political unity is difficult to be achieved. If achieved, it would be as precarious as a summer sapling, liable to be uprooted by the gust of a hostile wind. With mere political unity, India may be a State. But to be a State is not to be a nation and a State, which is not a nation, has small prospects of survival in the struggle for existence.”(8)

Ambedkar’s Faith in ‘Bharat’

Ambedkar had faith in ancient Indian institutions and texts except caste. He was convinced with the spiritual aspect of Indian texts and codes but not with its ritualistic aspects which had developed in last 1200 years. He talked about Annihilation of Caste not Dharma. He understood the importance of Dharma in India and when the time of conversion came as he had declared earlier, he chose Buddhism and not any other Abrahamic religion. He also had the option of declaring him as an Atheist but his rootedness in Indian ethos compelled him to choose Buddhism.

Dr Ambedkar pointed out that historic roots of democracy in India go back to pre-Buddhist India. A study of the Buddhist Bhikshu Sanghas discloses that the Sanghas were nothing but Parliaments and knew all the rules of Parliamentary procedure known to modern times. Although these rules of Parliamentary procedure were applied by the Buddha to the meetings of the Sanghas, he must have borrowed them from the rules of the political assemblies functioning in the country in his time Dr Ambedkar emphasized that Hindus need not ‘borrow from foreign sources’ concepts to build a society on the principles of equality, fraternity and liberty. They “could draw for such principles on the Upanishads.” Even in Riddles in Hinduism, he points out that Hinduism has the potential to become the spiritual basis of social democracy.

Strengthening Nationalism through Constitution

Ambedkar opposed insertion of Article 370 which gives special status to the state of Jammu & Kashmir but Nehru still went ahead with it to appease Sheikh Abdullah. Ambedkar wrote to Sheikh Abdullah on Article 370, “You wish India should protect your borders, she should build roads in your area, she should supply you food grains, and Kashmir should get equal status as India. But Government of India should have only limited powers and Indian people should have no rights in Kashmir. To give consent to this proposal would be a treacherous thing against the Interest of India and I, as the Law Minister of India, will never do it.”(9)

Justice K. Ramaswamy while probing into the legal aspects of nationalism likes to call Ambedkar a true democrat, a nationalist to the core and a patriot of highest order on various grounds.(10) He was the author and principal actor to make the ‘Directive Principles’ as part of the constitutional scheme. When it was criticized that the directive principles could not be enforced in a court of law, Ambedkar answered that though they were not enforceable, the succeeding majority political party in Parliament or Legislative Assembly would be bound by them as an inbuilt part of their economic program in the governance, despite their policy in its manifesto and are bound by the Constitution. Ambedkar, in his Constitutional schema of nationalism, undertook the task of strengthening the Executive in particular and the notion of 'Integrated Bharat' in general.

Rising above the regional, linguistic and communal barriers in a true republican spirit, Ambedkar invented a democratic nationalism consisting of Uniform Civil Code for India. His views of Uniform Civil Code were radically different from his contemporaries including Nehru who in principles accepted Hindu Code Bill and Uniform Civil Code but in practice, failed to get the Bill passed in one go, in spite of being in Government with majority. Ambedkar on the other hand made it a point to add the word 'fraternity' in the Preamble to the Constitution in order to inculcate the sense of common brotherhood of all Indians, of Indians being one people; it is the principle which gives unity and solidarity to social life.

He was also critical of Muslim Personal Law and tried his best to abolish it in favour of Uniform Civil Code. Ambedkar did not agree to the fact that Muslims had any immutable and uniform laws in India up to 1935. Ambedkar emphasized that in a secular state religion should not be allowed to govern all human activities and that Personal Laws should be divorced from religion.(11)

Dr. Ambedkar in his very first speech in the Constituent Assembly on 17 December 1946 had emphasized the need to create a strong Centre in order to ensure that India's freedom was not jeopardized as had happened in the past on account of a weak central administration. His view was hailed by the Assembly and came later to be reflected in the Emergency Provisions of the Constitution. Undoubtedly the states are sovereign in normal times but by virtue of these provisions, the Centre becomes all-powerful and assumes control over all affairs of the nation whenever a situation arises which poses a danger to the security of the state.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that Ambedkar was vehemently opposed to the unjust social stratification in India, but to say that he was against the nation is wholly wrong. He was definitely against the Congress version of Nationalism. Ambedkar says, “I know my position has not been understood properly in the country. I say that whenever there has been a conflict between my personal interests of the country as a whole, I have always placed the claims of the country above my personal claims. I have never pursued the path of private gain… so far as the demands of the country are concerned, I have never lagged behind’.(12)

Last year, In a seminar organised in New Delhi, Dr. Krishna Gopal (Jt. General Secretary, RSS) claimed, “Besides being a champion of the untouchables, Ambedkar was, first and foremost, a nationalist, a virulent anti-Communist and had immense faith in Hinduism; he was against Brahminical structures but some of his closest friends were from upper castes, while Brahmins provided him vital help at key moments in his life; he dismissed the historical theory of the Aryan invasion of the Indian subcontinent. He apparently also promised "shuddhikaran" or purification for those Dalits who had converted to Islam in Hyderabad state in 1947-48.”(13)

It is evident from the above discussion that Ambedkar was neither an anti-national nor just a leader of the Scheduled Castes. He was a national leader who understood the problems of the most exploited communities and tried to bring them into the main stream. He expanded the social base of Indian nationalism which helped first to attain freedom and later to put the country on path of progress. Today, when all thought converges around inclusive politics, Ambedkar has become more relevant than ever.

Nationalism is a dynamic process of social assimilation and therefore nationalism is to receive its perfect harmony in the realization of social brotherhood of men irrespective of caste, colour and creed.  Nationalism is not antithetical to humanism or individualism. One can enjoy complete individual freedom within a nationalist framework. Everyone needs a space to think, to grow and liberate. In the present point in time, Nation is the best institution we have to fulfil this purpose. We do need a grand narrative which includes the last woman in the queue. Dr. Ambedkar did give us a grand-narrative of “equality in socio-economic life along with political equality”.

Decoding A Colonial Design

I reviewed Meenakshi Jain's book Sati: Evangelicals, Baptist Missionaries, and the Changing Colonial Discourse for Indian Historical Review (a Sage publication). You can read a version of the article below: 

It is the biggest irony of our times that while all contemporary sociopolitical discourse hinges on multiplicity of arguments, we tacitly agree to see some subjects in absolutes. The practice of sati is an example of the latter. Meenakshi Jain’s tome Sati, however, brings on record historical facts and data that build the ground for a comprehensive picture. She begins with the basics—‘Was sati a religious obligation?’—and has the academic stamina to see each thread through. In this book, Jain works with primary sources ranging from the incident witnessed by the Greeks in 326 BC to that recorded by missionaries in 1820s. This makes her work authentic and her observations pioneering. She is able to lay on the table a great expanse of research that breaks past fallacies and academic bogies.

A Framework for Discourse

Meenakshi Jain’s approach is academic and unbiased. Her key observation is that sati was used by evangelists and Christian missionaries to whet their enfeebled cause both in India and Britain. She begins by building a backdrop which shows an increase in frequency of incidents after contact with Muslim culture. Documenting and analysing the instances of sati as recorded by foreign travellers, Jain observes that by the seventeenth century, the practice of sati had turned into a ‘wonder’ that found a place in any account of India. She contends that the demand for such accounts and voyeurism compelled travellers to include these in their works even if the narratives were second-hand or fabricated. It also traces the germination of the nineteenth-century construct of heroic colonial officers saving Indian women from sati and other such ‘barbaric’ customs.

Her primary sources indicate change in the texture of practice from being voluntary to forced, honourable to disgraceful, with woman being a beatific participant to being passive victim and Brahmins transforming from preventers to promoters of the practice.

It is possible to divide foreign accounts of sati into two broad phases—a pre-and post-Baptist phase. With the advent of the Baptists, earlier sentiments of wonder and astonishment were almost entirely replaced by condemnation. Sati was labeled as murder or suicide and used as a moral justification for the British rule (p. 41).

Jain presents all facets of her research irrespective of whether it is in tune with her premise. She chooses not to whitewash sources or make them comply with the broad theme of her work. For a reader, this approach throws up some surprises, for example, the numerous descriptions of sati as being voluntary and the participating woman as intransigent.

A Political Tool

The missionary problem with the practice of sati, according to Jain, can be seen in early accounts. Unlike the Indian concept of fire, where it is viewed as positive and purifying, missionaries equated the funeral pyre to putative fires of hell. However, towards the end of eighteenth century, Englishmen—led by the likes of Warren Hastings and William Jones—had developed admiration for Hindu religion and philosophy which eventually developed into orientalism. Jain devotes a complete chapter to the ‘State of English Society at Home and in India’. At a time when Britain was witnessing ‘spiritual torpor’, the Evangelical Movement found a place in the upper classes. From this emerged the Clapham sect, which aimed to open up India to missionary enterprise, and Charles Grant, who went on to become the ‘father and founder of modern missionary effort in Great Britain’s Indian empire’.

Jain accesses the ‘Observations on the State of Society among the Asiatic Subjects of Great Britain’ which was prepared by Charles Grant for President of East India Company’s Board of Control. ‘Grant’s Observations “gives a fair exhibition of the Evangelical mentality” (Stokes 1982: 29). It invented the reform agenda for the British and thereby provided a justification for British Rule in India. (Trautmann 2004, p. 99).’

Grant aimed to bring his influence to the renewal of East India Company’s charter. It is to Jain’s credit that she gives due space to views of other Britons who opposed overtures of the Evangelists. However, Grant continued to spearhead the evangelical cause and became the chairman of East India Company in 1805. It is important to note that soon after, in 1806, utilitarian James Mill began work on ‘History of British Empire in India’ which eventually became a textbook for candidates for the Indian Civil Services.

Mills History of British India represented the starting point for the ‘theoretical repositioning’ of India in relation to Europe following the growth of industrial capitalism. It was an attempt at the intellectual subordination of India to the ‘universalist principles’ of European social theory that accompanied European imperial expansion (p. 107).

Jain contends that together the evangelists and utilitarians converted ‘British Indomania’ to ‘Indophobia’ through their sustained campaign against sati and Hindu pilgrimages (like the Jagannath Yatra). She divides the evangelical-missionary campaign against sati into two parts: from 1803 to 1813 when the case was prepared and from 1813 to 1829 when figures were produced to validate claims. ‘Sati was the first “political” issue in which British women were directly involved to gather support for their luckless “sisters” in India (p.185).’

Facts and Fallacies

Among the greatest achievements of this work is that it exposes the erroneous figures touted to show that sati was widely practiced in India. She analyses the data collected and estimated by the missionaries under William Carey in 1803. The information was collected by ten people within 30 miles of Calcutta. Each informant was to cover an area of 800 sq. km; the presumption was that they would get to know of incidents even if they were unable to witness each by themselves. This made data collection dependent on local tales and word of mouth. The data hence collected were applied on the rest of the country and it was concluded that several thousands of widows were burnt every year. These figures were widely publicised to raise funds for missionary work and expose Hindu superstitions.

In 1815, the government began to register cases of sati. It threw up skewed figures with a majority of reports coming from Bengal, which had not been historically associated with the rite. Jain points to the essential question if the alleged high incidence of satis in Bengal was a missionary manufacture. She also unveils other inconsistencies in the data related to ‘kulin’ Brahmins and age group of victims.

Conclusion

Packed with facts, analysis and primary sources, this magnum opus by Meenakshi Jain will be an essential companion to any study on the subject. Jain’s book is well researched, cogent and admits a range of views and possibilities. She establishes how the already dying practice of sati was brought in the spotlight to serve specific ends. As she quotes Christopher Bayly,

The British obsession with sati was boundless. Thousands of pages of parliamentary papers dealt with 4,000 immolations wile the death of millions from famine and starvation was mentioned only incidentally sometimes only because it tended to increase the number of widows performing the horrid act (p. 188).

The Right Shade of Saffron!

Review of Kingshuk Nag's book Atal Bihari Vajpayee: A  Man For All Seasons first published in The Book Review. 

In the year 1996 during an election rally in Lucknow when Atal Bihari Vajpayee stepped on the stage the excited crowd chanted, ‘Hamara PM kaisa ho, Atal Bihari Jaisa ho’. Vajpayee retorted in his characteristic style, ‘Arre PM chodo, pahle MP to banao’. What followed was another round of applause and cheers. Such rallies became Vajpayee’s trademark where he used wit and humour to strike a chord with his listeners instead of empty promises. In his sixties, Vajpayee had a huge following of youngsters who had been brought up in Uttar Pradesh and other States of the Hindi heartland of 1990s and had grown up listening to his poems and anecdotes. He could play with words in poetry as well as prose. He used more than just words—body, gestures, eyes, even pauses—to express himself. A number of times his pauses were more potent than his words. This gift went a long way in his journey as a respected parliamentarian and later the Prime Minister of the country. Atal Bihari Vajpayee: A Man for All Seasons is a first concerted attempt in English language to chronologically document the life and times of Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The author Kingshuk Nag has been a journalist for the last 22 years with a prestigious national newspaper. Currently, in an editorial position, Nag had covered events in Gujarat and elsewhere during his role as a political reporter and written books on Prime Minister Narendra Modi as well as the Bhartiya Janata Party.
Nag met several senior politicians, bureaucrats and journalists to bring out the little known facts about Vajpayee. Given the dearth of literature about the man who is today considered one of the key movers and shakers of post-Independent politics of India, this book becomes an important reading for the scholars and practitioners of Indian politics. Though we can find events related to Vajpayee in many books on political history of post-Independent India, few provide such comprehensive and focused coverage about him.  

While this book is more journalistic in nature, it provides a unique insight into the political and personal life of Vajpayee. Due to lack of active documentation, several facts and facets about Vajpayee and his long political journey are not known even to long serving activists of the Bharitya Janata Party (BJP) and Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS). For example, not many would know that Vajpayee had supported the candidature of Jagjivan Ram as the Prime Minister in year 1980. An offer was also made to Vajpayee and others to join the Janata Dal with the leaders suggesting that he will feel more liberated in the new party which was claimed to be closer to the ideas of Jai Prakash Narayan and Gandhi as compared to the BJP.

This book also offers a chapter that reveals details of Vajpayee’s personal life that have so far stayed out of the public view. However, Nag does not allow this part to overwhelm him. It was a proof of Atal’s master statesmanship that he never hid his association with a lady named Mrs Kaul and was never questioned about it too either by media or by his fellow politicians - both friends and foes. Nag sticks to facts in this regard and takes care to not impose words on one of the most inconspicuous yet important equation in the life of Vajpayee.  

The book also takes head on the controversy about Vajpayee being a freedom fighter. Nag chronicles the events that took place when Vajpayee participated in the Satyagrah of 1942 in his native place in Bateshwar near Agra.

Various facets of Vajpayee’s life and personality – as a young student, journalist, parliamentarian, foreign minister, family man, poet, orator, statesman and prime minister - have been dealt with authenticity in this book. However, there are two aspects that could have been given more focus, one of them being Vajpayee as an RSS Pracharak. Vajpayee became RSS Pracharak in mid-1940s and always remained one. He worked in Sandila near Lucknow among other places in this capacity and reiterated ‘RSS is my soul’. However since the dominant discourse finds it hard to see the two together, the tendency is to club his being an RSS man with his refusal to be dictated by the organisation, as this book also does.

The other aspect that could have received more attention is of Vajpayee a futurist who envisioned the ambitious National Highway Development Project (NHDP) project. The coming generations will know Vajpayee as the leader who planned the Golden Quadrilateral project that entailed a highway network running through major financial and cultural centres of the country. How this project was conceived and pushed past cynics could have been an interesting and informative read.

While ‘Atal Bihari Vajpayee: A Man for All Seasons’ successfully fills the gap in information about Vajpayee and emerges as among the best available books in English on the subject, it does not clearly answer the question of Vajpayee’s stand on Ram Temple. The book does, however, document Vajpayee’s statements in this regard given at different time, locations and contexts.

“Atal was able to balance the Ayodhya issue very finely….on 6th December 2000 – the anniversary of the Babri demolition – he said that the Ram Janmabhumi movement was the expression of national sentiments that was still to be realized’…….He told parliament, ‘I never asked for building a Ram temple at the site of the disputed mosque.’”

Nag credits Atal as pioneer of the politics of governance who contested the general elections of 2004 on that agenda. Though Vajpayee lost those elections but he set the tone of new politics for the 21st century India. Atal also harbingered the second generation reforms in the Indian economy and widened the gate for private companies to work in India.

The book establishes Atal as being the right shade of saffron, something that was accepted within the RSS cadres and also among non-Congress parties. It makes an interesting point for those who argue that BJP is essentially an extreme Hindu Right wing party that Vajpayee was chosen by RSS Sarsanghchalak Golwalkar over Balraj Madhok who was an extremist Right wing leader. The RSS leadership knew and understood that Vajpayee had the capability and the right mix of vision to lead the party and later the country.

Classical Political thinker Plato in his work ‘The Republic’ talks about the Philosopher King as ruler of the Ideal State.  In the contemporary scenario in India the closest version of a philosopher king would be a ‘Philosopher Democrat’ and Nag’s work establishes Vajpayee as the one. Despite not being a member of the Congress party which dominated the unipolar political set up for forty years, Vajpayee rose to greatness and became the first non-Congress Prime Minister of India in the 20th century who served full term. This book is written keeping this in mind and is a good read for all those who follow, observe or analyse Indian politics.

Countering the 'one man show' charge on BTVI

The invisible (first) citizen of India!

This article on election of President was used by TOI Online.

You can read a version of the article below:

When Ram Nath Kovind was declared as the Presidential candidate of the BJP and its allies, Bengal chief minister Mamta Banerjee reportedly asked journalists: Who is this Ram Nath Kovind?

And she was not the only one asking.

Many people on social media said that he is a social ‘nobody’ and a political ‘lightweight’. They had not heard of him and they felt that the BJP had compromised the post of President and nominated a Dalit simply for vote bank politics.

Ram Nath Kovind is the Governor of Bihar. He has been the Personal Secretary to former Prime Minister Morarji Desai. He was a practising advocate in High Court and Supreme Court for almost two decades. He was a Rajya Sabha Member from BJP for two terms and actively participated in parliamentary committees. He was the president of BJP Dalit Morcha. He was a Board member of Indian Institute of Management and he has represented India at United Nations.

You can, of course, have an opinion that this is not an exceptional resume to become the President of India but the fact is that it still Better than some others who have served in this august office. What seems to be not working in his favour is that he is simply not as well-known as other leaders.

He is not ‘one of us’.

But why has he remained unknown despite having served in political echelons? What made him invisible to media and public eye? How did we fail to notice him?

Since Kovind’s announcement as a presidential nominee, several social observers, intellectuals and journalists have raised these questions.

Political scientist Swapan Dasgupta wrote on Twitter: “The question “Kovind who?” is a commentary on the state of political journalism in India. An ecosystem based on babalog & inheritor “sources”.”

What I did not mention earlier is that Kovind was also the national spokesperson of the BJP in 2010. Being a spokesperson meant that he was available for comments and interviews. But, we saw very little of him, heard very little of him even as he sat in the BJP media room available for anyone with a mic, camera or notepad. He was the party mouthpiece but his voice still did not matter.

Perhaps those who were in the business of deciding what is news did not see him as a voice that mattered. Senior journalist Nitin Gokhle wrote on twitter: “There is an unwritten hierarchy for guests in news TV. Call it race or caste bais, that’s the harsh reality.”

In those years, many journalists avoided Kovind. Perhaps, for media persons, he was not as cool and up market as other spokespersons. Perhaps reporters themselves had made opinion that few will be interested in Ram Nath Kovind when he would appear on TV.

The most candid admission comes from a journalist who wrote in a Facebook post recently that reporters at that time were not interested in taking a sound bite from Kovind. He writes, “But we — folks with the all powerful mike — would wait all day for Ravi Shankar Prasad or Rajiv Pratap Rudy or even Prakash Javdekar. And we would never take Kovind’s byte.”

He went on to say that the blame did not just rest with the reporters. Those sitting in media offices and deciding the direction of debates were also equally responsible. “On desperate days when others could be unavailable, I would check with my desk and they would still refuse his bite,” he wrote.

Kovind, however, was neither the first nor the last to be thus ignored. Another senior journalist Mritunjay Kumar Jha said that the now Prime Minister Narendra Modi too faced a similar situation in his political career. “I remember when Narendra Modi used to stay in BJP HQ, everyone used to take his byte but editors in studio wouldn’t allow to put it on air,” he wrote on Twitter.

While Kovind today is poised to sit in the highest constitutional seat of the county, there are thousands others like him who are waiting to be seen and heard. We often relegate caste-based biases to institutions that profess traditional lineage and norms but forget that these biases in fact permeate all levels of social structures, including institutions that may look modern and claim to be neutral.

The only way to be sure is to question, without fear or bias.

Today, Ram Nath Kovind truly represents the aspirations of the country’s neo middle-class which is constantly pushing and breaking the old boundaries. By choosing Kovind as the presidential candidate, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the BJP leadership have chosen one who waded his way through the margins into the mainstream despite all odds.

Kovind fought off the dark realities of our society and made his own place. His nomination as the presidential candidate of the ruling alliance is a tribute to all the invisible citizens stranded at the margins and striving to join the mainstream – waiting to be heard and known.

UP elections: Modi breaking stereotypes of politics

This analysis of UP elections was used by TOI Online

You can read a version of the article bellow: 

What appears beyond our imagination is seen as miraculous and what happened in Uttar Pradesh elections was no less than a miracle.

On one hand, the social media is replete with jokes – a cycle with a flat tyre, a hand bringing a cycle to halt, Rahul Gandhi saying his work is now done and he can go on vacations – and on the other hand many self-proclaimed social scientists and analysts are still calculating that what exactly happened in UP. How did BJP get more 320 seats and more than 40% votes? Which community voted for Bjp and what with what belief?

On a lighter note, I can say these people are writing the wrong exam. This election was not about the maths of getting a majority but about the right chemistry. In maths, typically, two plus two is four, whereas in politics, two plus two can sometimes mean five, and sometimes even three. In chemistry, a small drop of a chemical can change whole reaction. This assembly election in UP brought all calculations to a naught. And the man who transformed this political maths into chemistry is Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Since the beginning, Modi was confident of a resounding victory. This confidence resonated in his campaign speeches. He reasserted, time and again, that the modern-day UP has gone beyond mere assertion of identity. Though a large chunk of the new generation in UP is still fighting for identity it also wants development. Today’s UP does not want BSP but B-S-P (Bijli-Sadak-Pani).

Modi understood this nerve of India. He has been trying to ensure participation and involvement of every section of the society in public life and uplifting their living standards. He also understands the needs of different sections of the society and their perception of development.

To begin with, unrepresented sections of society were given a place in BJP organisation. Several schemes were designed keeping in mind specific requirements of different  marginalized social groups. At the time of ticket distribution, attempt was made to give representation to every section of the society.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi tried to understand the issues of every social group that had been kept out of the growth net so far. Once voting data surfaces it will reveal how these sections of society joined the BJP in these elections. Though, there would be hardly any sections of the society who would not have voted for BJP in this election.

In the last 25 years, urban space has increased drastically in UP. There are over 125 assembly seats which could be considered as urban seats. Most of the youth here – irrespective of their caste – have unique needs like education, employment, scholarship and Wi-Fi. This youth electorate is connected to the pool of information through internet and has taken a liking to the hardworking and untiring Modi who is constantly working for them.

More than two decades have passed since Mayawati and Mulayam Singh first became the chief minister. There is a whole new generation now that includes educated youth from Dalit and backward communities. Their requirements are not the same as in the 1990s. A large segment of these youth also voted for Modi in this election.

Our politicians never made any serious attempts to understand the issues pertaining to women. However, PM Modi repeatedly talked about girl child and women empowerment in his rallies. You can hear the ripples of Ujjawala scheme in villages across the country where more than 15 million LPG cylinders have been distributed in less than 12 months. One can say that some of this would have also reached villages in UP with the message that the PM is looking after people’s needs.

The backward communities in the state, that were not as powerful as the Yadavs, also found a voice and hope in Modi. BJP fielded representatives from these communities on more than 140 seats in the assembly elections. Modi also ensured more than 50 seats for non-Jatav communities which had been living under the shadow of Jatavs for many years. If Modi brought the ideas of Deendayal Upadhyay’s Antyoday into action on ground, he also used Ram Manohar Lohia’s social engineering which ensures people’s participation.

In all, the Prime Minister is breaking stereotypes that have been a part of the political narrative for the last 70 years and put spanner in India’s development. He understands the social fabric of the country and has the uncanny ability to grasp its spirit, sense and scene. After all, a government doesn’t just decide offhand to increase the price of LPG in the sixth phase of voting.

In the end, in a state where BJP is known for Lord Rama and Ayodhya, PM Modi spent three days in Kashi, the city of Baba Vishwanath. Now analyse that!

Leftists at JNU pose the gravest danger to India

I wrote about the extreme views peddled by the Left in JNU. The article appeared in DailyO.

You can read a version of the article below:

There was a time when the political atmosphere of the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) was dominated by the communists. The burning question for them was, who among Lenin, Mao Zedong and Karl Marx was the best. But after the emergence of the right-wing Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), the ideological discourse at the university transformed into one of Left versus Right.

It forced the leftists to discuss Bhagat Singh and Kabir in place of solely Lenin and Mao. While this has been an ideological victory of sorts for the nationalist forces at the campus, there is still a long and difficult road ahead.

The JNU has three leftist organisations which contest student union elections - the Students' Federation of India (SFI), All India Students' Federation (AISF) and All India Students' Association (AISA). These are the student wings of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Communist Party of India and Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) respectively.

The parent organisations of all the three student bodies believe in the democratic system of India and participate in elections, though their views on issues like nationalism, nationality and secessionist movements are not clear.

Besides these, the JNU has always had many small Left organisations known for their extreme views on different national issues. The programmes, seminars and campaigns organised by these organisations revolve around ways to oppose the Indian nation state and Hindu dharma.

Some organisations which come under this category are the Democratic Students' Union (DSU), New Materialists, Revolutionary Cultural Front (RCF), Campus Front of India, Krantikari Naujavan Sabha, Janrang and so on.

The most active among these is the DSU, the student wing of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), whose goal is to capture India through an armed rebellion by 2050. The Indian government, led by the UPA in 2013, came up with a report which claimed that there were 128 organisations active in urban areas which worked as frontal organisations of the CPI (Maoist) that had waged a guerrilla war against India. The DSU was one of the organisations named as being active in Delhi.

While it is beyond doubt that everyone in the JNU does not support such secessionist ideologies, except a handful of students, it is also a fact that the JNU provides the most fertile ground in the capital for such forces to flourish.

In the JNU, the DSU regularly comes up with anti-India pamphlets, abusing the army, the state and the idea of India. In 2010, when the country was mourning the killing of 76 Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) jawans in Dantewada, in Chhattisgarh, the DSU thought it fit to celebrate the occasion with a cultural programme. This move had led to resistance by the nationalist forces at the campus.

The programme and ideas of these small organisations are pretty clear: open and loud support to all the secessionist movements in India with special focus on the liberation of Kashmir, celebrating the martyrdom of demon Mahishasur and the portrayal of goddess Durga as a sex worker, active support to armed rebellion by the CPI (Maoist) against the Indian state (police have captured a JNU student as a conduit of the Maoists), branding the Supreme Court verdict of Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru's execution as judicial killing and establishing Afzal Guru, Mumbai blasts convict Yakub Memon, and other terrorists as martyrs.

The recent controversy at the JNU also sprang after DSU activists attempted to mark the day of Afzal Guru's hanging as martyr day. The DSU had circulated a pamphlet before the programme which said, "This is not a nation; it is a prison house of oppressed nationalities - held under duress by the use of the army jackboot... Join the cultural evening in rage against the occupation of Kashmir by the Indian state".

While the recent programme on Afzal Guru was organised by activists of the DSU, JNUSU office-bearers were also present at the programme with their supporters. They actively participated in the programme and led the march that was conducted after it.

The emergence of these anti-national forces are against the idea of India, and they get full support from secessionist forces from both inside and outside India. A thorough inquiry of the matter by intelligence agencies and heavy crackdown on these forces is the need of the hour.

Besides the DSU, several other organisations in the JNU also hold anti-India and anti-Hindu programmes. In many of these cases, the finances and funding of parent organisations are not known. Neither do they fight student union elections, nor does their core agenda include student-centric problems.

A fact that gets overlooked time and again in the flux of this debate is the difference between the Indian government and the idea of India. While criticising or abusing the Indian government is well within the bounds of dissent, abusing the idea of India is not, because we the people are the basic constituents of this idea of India.