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.

Now is the right time to reclaim the Indian intellectual

I wrote this article on the Indic though tradition for DailyO.

You can read a version of it below: 

A world-renown artist like Anish Kapoor says India is ruled by "Hindu-Taliban" and an academic like Irfan Habib thinks RSS is comparable to ISIS. The factiousness and monotone of these remarks makes one question the sincerity of our present intellectual scenario.

The most obvious yet inconspicuous truth about the academic and intellectual environment in India is that it has for years remained overshadowed by Western thinking while maintaining the façade of "independent" thought. Having accepted another's thought tradition as the benchmark we forgot that each country has its own unique knowledge and experience, in our case it was the Indic tradition.

Anish Kapoor and Irfan Habib are the products of an intellectual sphere with strong imprints of the Biritish and Marxist legacy. British bureaucrat Lord Macaulay designed a strategy to make it easy for the British to rule India. He advocated an education system which would produce Brown British to work as loyal clerks under the regime. The key to this was to make the "natives" disown everything Indian and covet everything that was British. We were made to see how flawed and redundant our traditions were and we were so grateful to learn the spelling of renaissance.

The post-Independence India could not rid itself of this mindset. Nehru-Indira governments gave ample space to Leftist-Marxist discourse and institutions like JNU churned out thousands of bureaucrats, academics, journalists and activists with "left-liberal" leaning. Over a period of time, the Left discourse elbowed out the Indic intellectual ecosystem which was shunned as regressive and backward.

Even today the course on Indian philosophy is not taught in JNU and the proposal for a centre on Sanskrit and Yoga studies is met with stern resistance.

It is this intellectual tradition that convinces people like Anish Kapoor and Irfan Habib that the Indian civilisation has forever been exploitative and hence the need to stitch up a new system with no Indic traces.

According to this line of thought Sanskrit is the road to conservatism and Brahmanical dominance. The theory of a terrible Brahmanical regime thus comes to be accepted as a fact and often dangled as a fearsome consequence of faith in the Indic system. No one, however, cares to question that if the theory holds water, how was it that the two greatest Indian epics were penned by Valmiki and Ved Vyas, both non-Brahmins. Does no one wonder if it is possible for an exploitative civilisation to organically survive for more than 5,000 years?

For Left-liberals, Indic is equivalent to right-wing, Hindu-centric, nationalist or Hindu-nationalist but actually it is more than that. Indic comprises anything that originates from this land, blossoms in this atmosphere and prospers in this geo-cultural territory. An Indic tradition can lead to assimilative points of view, nuanced solutions and the creation of truly "new".

Such an ecosystem can provide the adequate environment to discuss our civilisation background, its legacy and relevance as well as its lessons. Today, when religion is a major area of conflict, very few academic institutions conduct a comparative study of religions. This is because of an academic-intellectual environment that alienates and distances religions from each other. An Indic intellectual environment will provide the necessary insight and compassionate approach needed for such a study. Our ancient texts and writings of intellectuals like Coomaraswamy, Yadunath Sarkar and Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay can provide the ammo to start this intellectual spark.

Respect for local heroes, beliefs and modernization of Indian traditions would be basic foundation of an Indic intellectual ecosystem. It would take inspiration from the past, think about the present and envision a prosperous future for all Indians. We cannot prosperous and develop with a borrowed narrative. We need to have our own story, conceptualised and narrated by our own people.

The creation of an "Indic" intellectual ecosystem does not entail wiping out the Left-Marxist system, but simply balancing it out. It is the responsibility of the academic and intellectual community to create a new "Indic" narrative that springs from intellectual rigour. Very few organisations have been making genuine efforts in this regard and India Foundation is one of them. To this effect it has been organising brainstorming sessions for several years.

The following week will see the India Ideas Conclave unfold in Goa with several academics presenting their views on different aspects of "Learnings from Civilization". This could be among the first major steps to revival of the Indic intellectual tradition.

25 years since Babri Masjid demolition: For RSS and VHP, Ram Temple in Ayodhya symbolises emotional space for Hindus, not anti-Muslim sentiment

My article on 25 years of Babri Masjid demolition was published in Firstpost.

You can read a version of the article below: 

Public sphere is defined as a discursive space in which individuals and groups associate to discuss matters of mutual interest and, where possible, to reach a common judgment about them on a public platform.

Every social identity aspires to have a voice in the mainstream to discuss, to participate, to exercise political power and to influence opinion. But often the mainstream refuses to make way and what happens next is predictable yet hardly ever foreseen. The muted section pushes its way ahead, creating its own parallel space and leading to what can be called a split public sphere.

The emergence of Dalit movement in India could be seen as a good example of a split public sphere which made ground for Dalit art, literature and theatre, and which eventually muscled its way into the mainstream.

Ram Janmabhoomi movement is also an equally apt example of such a split public sphere. It thrust on to national screens the Hindu identity that had hitherto remained banished from public sphere.

Ram Janmabhoomi movement created a space for debate and discussion about issues related specifically to Hindus. Prior to the movement, issues concerning this religious section — from conversion to untouchability, demolition of temples to their trusteeship — were met with stoic silence. Before 1980s, newspaper The Hindu and ‘Hindu’ rate of growth were the only popular references to the term ‘Hindu’ and both had nothing to do with its primary meaning — the geo-cultural identity with a living tradition of thousands of years on the land between Himalayas and Indian ocean.

Ram Janmabhoomi Movement

The story of the birth of this movement and the way it split the public sphere invariably leads us to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its affiliates. The RSS was founded with national rejuvenation as the core and Hindu ethos as the force. RSS and its other organisations like Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Vanwasi Kalyan Ashram started many projects for the development of downtrodden and poor Hindus (in particular) and for everyone in general.

VHP was founded on the Krishna Janmashtami of 1964 with Guru Golwalkar, Swami Chinmayananda, Maharaja Vadyar of Mysore as founding members. These were all notable people in their own streams and were brought together by the feeling of a lack of public sphere to discuss issues related to Hindus. Contrary to what many may claim, the interests of these people were neither political nor personal. For example, right after its foundation, the VHP leadership convinced the Sant Samaj of India and passed a resolution against untouchability in the organisation's first meeting that was attended by Shankaracharyas and Mahamandleshawars. Similarly, in 1970s, RSS Sarsanghchalak Balasaheb Deoras declared if untouchability is not a sin then there is no sin in the world.

It is on record that when the structure at the disputed site in Ayodhya was demolished not one of the hundreds of other mosques in Ayodhya and Faizabad were touched.At its Palampur convention, the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) adopted a resolution to build a temple at the birth place of lord Ram. The then BJP president LK Advani started a Rath Yatra from Somnath — where a magnificent ancient shrine had been rebuilt after the Independence — to Ayodhya. The clear message for Hindus, in the growing split public sphere, was that while the Ram Janmabhoomi had been demolished 450 years ago when the country fell in the hands of foreign invaders, time had now come to reclaim freedom and profess and practice Hindu culture and tradition without fear or shame. But, of course, the mainstream missed it all together.

Under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru, Congress had moved away from the ideals of Mahatma Gandhi and tried to formulate new ideals that were more ‘secular’ in tone and texture. Slowly, it came to be observed that this secular fabric was inclined towards minorities and specifically away from Hindu identity. Nehru's understanding was one reason, vote bank compilations was another, either ways it pushed Hindus out of public sphere.

The Hindu cause eloped from the mainstream entirely after the demise of Sardar Patel. It was thought that Nehruvian consensus was antithetical to the Hindu cause. From academic texts, curriculum, public debate, newspapers to art and architecture, the idea of ‘Hindu’ was quietly erased knowingly and unknowingly.

After the cases of conversion in Minakshipuram, the RSS deputed VHP to ensure temple entry and construction of temples for Dalits in Tamil Nadu. They also decided to start a movement for national rejuvenation to enlighten people about the glorious tradition of this civilisation. They took up the issue of reconstruction of Ram Janmbhumi temple as a symbol of national pride (Ram Mandir ka Nirman Rashtriya Swabhiman ka Prateek Hai).

In this backdrop, first the RSS and the VHP, and later the BJP, started the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. Ekatma Yatra was organised by VHP in 1984. In 1989, Ram Shila Pujanstook place in different parts of India in large numbers. These Shilas (bricks) were brought to Ayodhya by Karsewaks. Advani also declared that he will perform Karsewa in Ayodhya on 30 October 1990. But he was arrested by the then Bihar Chief Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav in Samastipur, Bihar. On 2 November 1990, the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh Mulayam Singh Yadav gave order to fire at karsevaks on Saryu bridge.

Hindu in Public Discourse

Since 1989, construction of a Hindu Shrine in Ayodhya became the subject of debates and discussions in different quarters and acquired considerable public attention. Newspapers and magazines began to track developments on the issue while editorials dissected the Ayodhya logjam. In Universities like JNU and DU many talks, seminars were organised by both the sides. The campus which used to discuss virtues of Marx, Lenin and Mao was now discussing secularism and communalism. Vivekanand, Savarkar and Golwarkar also became the subject of discussion on mess tables. Cultural nationalism and secular nationalism emerged as two poles in every intellectual arena. Advani, Malkani and others coined the term pseudo-secularism and minority appeasement which gained much currency.

This was also the time when many intellectuals and journalists, who were not RSS workers or BJP sympathisers stood up for the cause of Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya. Girilal Jain, Karanjia, Chandan Mitra, Swapan Dasgupta are some of the names who began to write heaps in favour of a Ram temple in Ayodhya.

This was the time when BJP won governments in many states and became the principal Opposition party in Lok Sabha. It also became evident in early 1990s that the BJP was going to come to power sooner or later. ABVP, the student wing of RSS, also won elections in many campuses especially in a campus like JNU. In 1993, first ABVP candidate won central panel seat in JNUSU.

It is not as if there were no organisations working for Hindu cause. There were many like Ram Krishna Mission, Bharat Sewashram Sangh, Chinmay Mission and others. But these organisations were dependent on the government for land and grants and chose a somewhat subservient manner of functioning.

It was the Ram Janmabhoomi movement that brought Hindu cause to the light, made way for Hindu awakening by creating a Hindu Public Sphere where debate, deliberation, discussion about the Hindu issues became a norm.

Dear Pratap Bhanu Mehta, If The RSS Cannot Lead The Indic Knowledge Tradition, Who Will?

Huffington Post published my rejoinder to Pratap Bhanu Mehta's article on Bhartiyata. 
You can read a version of it below:

A gathering of around 700 academics last month in Delhi raised many hackles. The academics had reportedly come to attend a workshop aimed at discussing ways to create an ecosystem for the Indic knowledge tradition. The objective of the workshop and the fact that it was being organised by RSS, was criticised.

Among its fiercest critics was Pratap Bhanu Mehta (PBM).

In his article "Yes, Bring on Bhartiyata" on 29 March, PBM wondered if those looking for Bhartiyata would be able to stomach the results of their search at all. He also indicted that discovery of Bhartiyata should lead to autonomy of educational institutions as seen in ancient gurukuls. It is ironic, though, that something similar was voiced at this workshop by a senior RSS functionary, "As per history of Bharat, the education system was completely independent of government control. The society was taking care of education system."

My contention, however, is simple. If the RSS cannot lead the Indic knowledge tradition, who will?

Indic traditions in the past have been carried forward like a relay race, with torchbearers through the centuries such as Buddha, Shankaracharya, Tulsi, Kabir Vivekananda, Dayananda and many more. Moreover, there was never a single torch—many ideas cut through the darkness at the same time. Sadly, all that is passé. No one wants to carry that light of Indic ideas now and the curious few are left in the dark fumbling over different limbs of the elephant. The efforts of the RSS are to reignite these lights and others too can do the same.

Why Pratap Bhanu Mehta?

To put things in perspective, PBM is one of the leading intellectual lights of our times. He fiercely writes on current issues and his nuanced views set him apart from others. Besides bringing his uniquely positioned views to everyday issues, PBM's writings include subjects that are not part of the collective sub-consciousness of left-liberals, like Varanasi, Vivekananda, Abhinavagupta and Bharityata. It seems he believes that along with "foreign" theory and ideas, there should be a thriving "Indic" or Bharatiya intellectual tradition. It's very rare to find a parallel of PBM's thoughts in the writings of those who are considered mainstream intellectuals and academics.

He once wrote on Vivekananda, "Vivekananda was central to many of the intellectual undercurrents that made modern India possible. He was the progenitor of projects central to modern Indian identity."

On Abhinavagupta he wrote:"There are moments of intellectual achievement that are beyond measure. They deserve recognition and engagement. In any reckoning of Indian intellectual history, one figure whose achievement is almost unparalleled is Abhinavagupta... He lies at the centre of so many currents of intellectual thinking: Aesthetics, literary criticism, dramaturgy, music, tantra, yoga, devotional poetry, cognitive science, emotions, philosophy of mind, language."

PBM advocates an Indic tradition but on many occasions, he has also criticised the present establishment and its affiliated organisations that profess commitment to Indianness. Besides PBM, there is not one scholar from an academic institution or outside who regularly writes on these issues in the mainstream media. This also accounts for the complete absence of these subjects from popular discourse.

Hence, I don't care about the arguments of the left-liberals from academics, media and NGOs whose outrage is selective and opinions warped. But I do care when one of the most acclaimed "liberal" public intellectuals trashes the intellectual efforts of the RSS and its ideological affiliates including BJP.

Why the RSS?

In the current scenario, the Vivekanandas and Abhinavaguptas do not find a place in our syllabus. There is no Indian philosophy centre in JNU and while all major religions exist in India, there are no centres of comparative religions in Indian universities.

In this light, the RSS emerges as the only organisation that has been making concerted efforts to keep the Indic tradition alive. It is another matter that with the BJP government in power, we get to hear more and more of it, and mostly in the words of the reporter who has been taught to see the organisation as a band of fanatics. The event, Gyan Sangam, too came to the fore like this. It was yet another attempt to "saffronise" education. Period. The words "national values", "colonial ways" and "burnt libraries" in the event's concept note were red flagged. And yet, there were other parts of it that no one wanted to read:

"We need to develop a Bharatiya Drishti—an 'Indian Way' or Indic tradition to look at all the perpetuating problems of the world. Before that we need to understand ourselves - develop a vantage point of our knowledge tradition, study when and how it got weak and how it could be revived. We can reform only when we know the form. Indic comprises anything that originates from this land, blossoms in this atmosphere and prospers in this geo-cultural territory. An Indic tradition can lead to assimilative points of view, nuanced solutions and the creation of truly 'new'. An Indic ecosystem can provide the adequate environment to discuss our civilisation background, its legacy and relevance as well as its lessons."

In his critique of the meet, PBM admits that colonialism and leftist influence on intellectual society of India spelt doom for Indic thought. He, however, asks us to wonder why a worthy rival of Western educational centres like Oxford could not come up in India. He also questions the intent and credibility of the RSS for organising such events.

For the last 70 years, we had governments at the helm those did not want any truck with Indic tradition. But the denudation of trust in Indianness had started centuries ago. However, PBM says we must not fall prey to truisms, and I will listen to him. My contention, therefore, is of the present.

In my view, the RSS is an organisation which believes that Indic tradition should find a place in our modern knowledge system and is working towards it. One could argue that the RSS does not enjoy the sort of intellectual credibility that comes out of having engaged with institutional academic tradition for years. However, this insinuation primarily stems from lack of knowledge about the RSS and its institutions. Moreover, the RSS does not claim to have become the source point for such an intellectual exercise. In fact, its aim is merely to ensure that some of the solutions for the challenges that the world faces today, should come from this soil.

In our country, most of the liberal space in India is occupied by those who called themselves left-liberals. PBM is one of the rare liberal sightings to emerge with new thoughts and propositions and feel no shame in raising subjects like Abhinavagupta and Natyashastra. The blatant lack of intellectuals willing to be identified with such academic pursuits, even if for the sake of sheer intellectual curiosity, makes me wonder: Why shouldn't the RSS organise such a conference? Why did our academic institutions never think of doing it themselves? Why did a thesis appendix full of Western references become an academic insignia? Why are Plato, Aristotle and Marx still more important in our classrooms than Chanakya, Shanti Parva and Vivekananda?

As far as the intent of the RSS in organising the event is concerned, an idea of it can be drawn by taking a look at the resolutions passed by the organisation's supreme body in the past few years. Leftist ideologues have, for years, pinned their aversion of the RSS to a 1939 pamphlet which they claim was written by Golwalkar. I think liberals like PBM should not fall in this trap and try to understand the RSS in today's context. Like any organisation that lives past nine decades, the RSS must have had a journey and it is important to see the organisation for what it intends to be today.

From the threat of imposing the Hindutva agenda, to backing saffron-gamcha-clad lumpen elements on the streets—one gets the feeling that the RSS is behind it all. The truth, however, is far from this. The RSS believes in a "Samarth Bharat" which has a place for everyone; there is need for people like Pratap Bhanu Mehta to interact with the RSS and then form an opinion.

One thing is for sure—you cannot ignore the activities of the RSS on the ground even if you trash their intellectual efforts. They are not the alternative discourse but the main discourse of this country today. Deal with them. Honest research into RSS and its activities has the potential to throw up astounding facts; the RSS too can learn from the intellectuals like PBM. I am keeping my fingers crossed.

5 reasons Assam voted for BJP

I wrote for DailyO on the result of Assam elections. 

You can read the article below:

In the last Assam Assembly elections, the BJP won just five seats. This time it has made inroads in the state with majority. This is the first time BJP is going to form a government in Assam. Many reasons can be cited for the victory of the BJP alliance but here are the five key factors:

1. Change 

Fed up with the 15-year-rule of Congress party, the electorate in Assam voted for change. The BJP was successful in convincing the people that the future of the state lay safe in the hands of the party and they emerged as the alternative force.

The Congress, on the other hand, did not even try to project a reformed version of leadership which was crucial for the party this time. The BJP weaved a good strategy around this slogan under the guidance of senior leader Ram Madhav, who had been preparing for the Assam elections since last one year.

2. Bangladeshi infiltration

In the last three decades, illegal Bangladeshi infiltrators entered different parts of India, especially Assam and West Bengal. In the border districts of Assam, illegal immigrants are in a majority now.

Earlier, these infiltrators earned a living through menial jobs but eventually they began to either buy or encroach upon the lands of the local people. Today, a big area has been captured by such illegal Bangladeshi infiltrators. These lands belong to satra (temples) and jungles.

For a society like Assam with 85 per cent rural population, these satra and jungles are of key importance. Over the years, the local Assamese population has been losing jobs and livelihood to the rising share of illegal infiltrators. Reduced to a minority in many area of their own state, the people of Assam were fed up.

As a result, there have been frequent clashes among the local Assamese and illegal Bangladeshis where the latter are in a majority. The locals began to perceive that the rise in infiltration had support of the Congress leadership. In fact, senior Congress leaders even went so far as to state in their speeches in this election that there was "no problem" of illegal Bangladeshi infiltration.

3. "Rainbow" alliance

The BJP also formed a beautiful coalition in this election, which represents almost all the social groups, including Ahom, Bodo, Rabha, Kyat, Mishing, North Indians, and Bengalis.

This social coalition translated into political coalition with parties like Assam Gan Parishad (AGP), Bodo People Front (BPF) and other tribal groups. The BJP itself won seven seats in the Lok Sabha elections, while the AGP, which had formed first non-Congress government in the state, has a strong network of activists in different parts of the Assam and talks about "Ahomia asmita". The BPF, on the other hand, is the representative organisation of the Bodo community which affects more than 20 seats.

Besides this Rabha, Mishing, Rajobanshi and other tribal groups were also a part of the BJP alliance. Marwari and other Hindi speaking people have been voting for the BJP for many years and they wanted the party to lead the government in the state. This was not just a political coalition but a social coalition which had all the social groups excluding illegal Bangladeshi Muslims.

4. Leadership

Eighty-year-old Tarun Gogoi, who had been the chief minister of Assam for the last 15 years, was the face of the Congress party in this election too.

One the other hand, the BJP alliance had a relatively young leadership. The alliance had declared Sarbananda Sonowal, who is a minister in the central government, as its CM candidate.

Sonowal has been a student leader of All Assam Student Union (AASU). He has been credited with striking down the IMDT Act 1985. The other young and popular leader was Himant Biswasarma who defected to the BJP from Congress with nine MLAs.

He enjoys popularity among the youth and student community. Together, these leaders held hundreds of meetings in different parts of the state and garnered support for the BJP alliance.

The BJP also had the star campaigners in the form of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and national president Amit Shah who canvassed in different parts of the state and told local people that the central government has been sensitive to the issues in Assam and outlined all that central government had done for the state in last 22 months.

Modi also promised that if the BJP government was formed in Assam, the central government will especially take care of education for young (padhai), job for youth (kamai) and medical for the elderly (dawai).

5. Support of youth and students

If we study the politics of Assam over the last three decades, we will find that essentially the party which had the support of youth and students formed the government in the state.

Assam was the first state where student organisation turned political party formed the government and its 33-year-old leader became the chief minister of the state.

Youth and students supported AGP, whose leadership came from the All Assam Student Union (AASU). Later, the AASU became weak as most of the leaders became part of AGP or joined Congress or BJP.

In the last Assembly polls, youth and students were behind Himant Biswasarma who ran the Congress show. But, in this election, two leaders - Sarbananda Sonowal and Himant Biswasarma - who are popular among youth and students aligned with the BJP.

Sarbananda is going to become chief minister of the state as declared by senior BJP leader Ram Madhav after the win. The youth and students had made up their mind in favour of the BJP alliance. In Assam elections, more than 80 per cent voting was registered in which youth and women participated with great enthusiasm.

Why I am disappointed with Arun Shourie

My article on DailyO on false narratives and Arun Shourie.

You can read a version of the article below: 

The ongoing "intolerance" debate reminds me of my Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) days when leftist organisations (SFI in those days) would come up with a charter of demands and go on hunger strikes. After about five days, the strike would be called off with the mediation of "Left-oriented" JNU professors and a message would be sent out to the student community that the administration had considered many demands which will be fulfilled in the near future. In this backdrop, they would fight elections and win.

The Left organisations created a narrative which was in favour of most students and comprised issues like more hostels, scholarships, placement cell, fear of the right-wing and so on. With this they would become "champions of the downtrodden" and saviours of the minorities.

Two important points here are: The SFI-AISF won elections till 2005 but started losing when their parent organisations, the CPM and CPI, joined the co-ordination committee of the UPA government. Second, the issues they championed never got resolved and exist even today. However, they successfully constructed a narrative and the students bought it.

Something similar is happening in India today. Many narratives have been coined in the last few weeks against the backdrop of the Bihar elections. These narratives are of "Hindu Pakistan", "forces of intolerance", and the "situation is worse than Emergency". The people campaigning on these lines are decidedly anti-Modi and have propounded these theories when the formation of a Narendra Modi-led government at the Centre started looking imminent. Many of them had then claimed that they will leave the country if Modi became the prime minister. Like true followers of Karl Marx, these "secular-liberal" intellectual elites started with a conclusion and all their arguments now are directed at proving it.

This same campaign had been run right before the Delhi elections. A narrative of insecurity was created for the middle class and minorities. There were reports of theft at some Delhi churches which became front page news in all the national English dailies and got editorial mention in international newspapers. The "secular-intellectual" elite and NGO activists came out on the streets to save the "secular" credentials of the country. Prime Minister Modi personally called upon the Delhi police commissioner and HRD minister Smriti Irani even visited a missionary school in south Delhi. All this happened in the backdrop of the Delhi elections. Since the poll results, no newspaper has reported a single case of theft or attack on Delhi churches.

The point is simple. First, the narratives like "forces of intolerance" are planted with the intention of creating an environment of fear. Second, the anti-Modi forces are desperate to break the personality cult of Modi who after a year in office has established himself as incorruptible. The aim of these narratives is to trap the prime minister; if he responds he will by implication accept his fault, and if he does not, he acquiesces with the so-called forces of intolerance. Third, the anti-Modi alliance had been a beneficiary of the last regime and the members share a certain level confidence.

They are very uncomfortable under the present government, its lexicon and style of functioning. Fourth, many of them waited for 16 months to make inroads into the present regime and decided to stand in opposition when that did not materialise.

Fifth, many of them are spent forces and are simply paying the price of loyalty to the Nehru-Gandhi family. It is not just a coincidence that the whole debate of #AwardWapasi began with Nayantara Sahgal who is not just a beneficiary but a member of the Nehru family.

While constructing and deconstructing narratives according to convenience is not a new tactic, it is disheartening is to see a fine mind like Arun Shourie getting trapped by it and, knowingly or unknowing, becoming a pawn.

On India Today TV, Shourie claimed that Modi is turning India into a Pakistan, that Modi had failed as the moral leader of the country, that the Dadri lynching was the worst thing to have happened in independent India, and that there is an Emergency-like situation in the country.

What is sad is not that Shourie chose to criticise, but that an individual known for original thinking had to borrow from a ghost narrative in his criticism of the government. The phrases used by him have been the talisman of the "secular-liberal" intellectual elite for the last three to four weeks. With the "secular" narrative losing its old sheen, the buzzword is now "rationalist" and with "Sanghis" failing to evoke either sniggers or disgust the jumla is "forces of intolerance".

It is a rather creative game of words that keeps the unsuspecting constantly in a state of doubt and nodding. It can also be seen that there is no direct or indirect involvement of RSS organisations in the events mentioned by the "secular-liberal elite" as symbol of intolerance.

While the use of such narratives is expected, I am surprised how Shourie could get himself to call Dadri "the worst incident of hatred in independent India". He spent his life writing against a certain brand of politics but has sadly decided to toe the the "secular" line now. With an increasing list of people like Shourie - NR Narayana Murthi, Kiran Maumdar-Shaw, Raghuram Rajan – who have been taken in by the new narrative, it is time for the government to think of engaging those who started as well-wishers and ended up on the other side.

Assam must vote for change this time

My analysis in DailyO ahead of the Assam assembly elections.

You can read a version of the article below:    

Nearly 85 per cent of the population in Assam lives in rural areas where Satras (temples) and lands are an integral part of life and culture of the people. For a common Assamese his/her culture and identity is a defining factor.

At the national level, this land of red rivers and blue hills is crucial from strategic and trade aspects. A few days ahead of the second phase of polls here, the key question is: Why should Assamese people vote for change this time?

Today Assam is caught in a precarious situation because of the illegal migration from Bangladesh. In the last two to three decades, lakhs of illegal migrants from across the border have settled in different parts of the state.

The resultant pressure on resources and struggle for survival has lead to frequent clashes and unrest in the Assamese society.

The indigenous population no longer feels safe in its own homeland. The migrant population has either captured or bought lands of Satra (temple) and forest in last 20 years. With Satras and lands coming under this shadow, the Assamiya Asmita (pride) is also no longer safe.

The issue of illegal migrants from Bangladesh is not just endemic to the state of Assam. In fact these illegal migrants are now travelling to different parts of the country and settling down there, making it an issue of national security.

What was considered one of the most complicated border disputes in the world was resolved by the central government led by Narendra Modi through the exchange of hundreds of enclaves with Bangladesh. The border which had become extremely porous due to nationality and ownership issues was at last given a shape.

Now, as a second step the central government has promised adequate fencing and other security measures which will stop cross-border infiltration.

While BJP leaders have been categorically saying that the formation of the party’s government in Assam will mean reclaiming lands of Satra (temple) and forest, the Congress party has maintained a studied silence. Senior Congress leadership has never duly recognised the problem of illegal Bangladeshi migrants in Assam.

In the neighbouring West Bengal, chief minister Mamta Banerjee had said that no one could touch the Bangladeshi migrants and they are a part of her state now.

This is the core issue that has compelled the Assamese people to vote for change in these elections. With more than 40 seats being heavily dominated by illegal Bangladeshi migrants, this could be the last battle to save Assam. If even half of this slogan stands true, then people of Assam should vote for change this time.

Demography of Assam has changed beyond recognition in the last 15 years when Congress was in power. However, far from finding a solution to the problem, the party and its senior leaders do not even recognise it. Their policy so far has been to stay blind to the effects of migration. Even the Congress manifesto says little on the issue.

Now, illegal Bangladeshi migrants have their own political party in Assam. AIUDF, led by Badruddin Ajmal, stands for the interests of illegal Bangladeshis. The word on the street is that while the Congress does not have a formal alliance with the AIUDF but it has reached a tacit understanding with Badruddin Ajmal.

LK Advani was the first home minister of India who raised the issue of deportation of illegal Bangladeshi migrants from India. This move was vociferously criticised by the opposition parties. Apart from the BJP, no other party has raised the issue of Bangladeshi immigrants with grit and conviction.

The current chief minister Tarun Gogoi claims that there has been enormous "growth" in the last 15 years.

Recently, Sanjoy Hazarika, one of the leading intellectuals of Assam wrote that in several parts of the state, health and education parameters are poor and it has India’s worst MMR figures (Material Mortality Ratio - the number of women dying in pregnancy is 300 per 10000 deliveries).

The state also has the second worst Infant Mortality Ratio (IMR).

Peace and development in Assam will also help in the "Act East" policy of the central government. This will open new doors for trade and cultural exchange with Southeast Asian countries which have long cultural ties with India. This new route to Southeast Asia will also open new avenues of job and business for the people of Assam.

In this election, BJP has floated a mahagadhbandhan (grand alliance) in Assam which also reflects a grand social coalition of all indigenous communities. With such an alliance coming to power in the state, the present sense of fear and distrust will be mitigated.

This Assembly election will see a vote for change because for Assam it has come to signify peace, prosperity and security.

Anupam Kher is the best person to stand up against selective outrage

My article in DailyO on the intolerance debate and Anupam Kher's stand.

You can read a version of this article below:

Since the beginning of the #AwardWapsi and intolerance debate, one man has stood steadfast in opposition of the campaign terming it as a classic case of selective outrage and pseudo-intellectual approach. He thinks that the intolerance debate is being used as a ruse by a certain section of the intellectual class to justify their selective sensitivities. This man is noted actor Anupam Kher who has been working in the film industry for more than 30 years.

Accused of benefitting from a pro-establishment stand, Kher has said that he will not accept Rajya Sabha nomination or another favours from the present government. He is not a BJP man but he makes no bones about being a Narendra Modi supporter and endorses his vision of India.

The question then arises: Who does Anupam Kher represent and why does he care about leading a march on Raj Path taking on the high and mighty of the intellectual class and cultural czars of the country? Typically as a cine star whose partner (Kirron Kher) is an MP from the ruling party, don't we expect him to stay stonewalled to such debates, playing it with caution, making no enemies and keeping out of the sun hidden behind his sunglasses?

But Kher is representative of rare voices from the world of art; of those few who stand firm in disagreement with the dominant intellectual discourse. He represents opposition of the status-quo-ist intellectuals who arrogate to themselves the power to dictate whether you are 'class' or 'crass'. For decades it has been impossible to disagree with the so-called cannons of this class that portrays itself to be the torch-bearer of liberal intellectual thinking. The rules of their game are clear, if you are not with them, you are against them. And curiously, their discourse is unsullied by any dissenting voices.

The truth in fact is that there is no liberal discourse in our country but only Left-liberal and Hindi cinema is not an exception. At the time when the intellectual class should have worked on developing an "Indian Left" idea, they found it convenient to accept super-structures dominated by Classical Marxism. The essential Indianisation of Marxism or Left never happened and we created a false paradigm for our debates and discussions. The current debate is also an extension of that. The only difference being that we have a voice like Anupam Kher to represent the counter-ideas in the changed scenario.

Indian cinema today is one of the important media for popular cultural discourse. There are more voices from the world of cinema (than any other medium)that influence different issues of national importance. These include Javed Akhtar, Shabana Azmi, Mahesh Bhatt, Puja Bhatt, Mukesh Bhatt, Nandita Das and others. Now factor Anupam Kher in this list. He speaks on issues of national importance but his voice does not echo with the others. His take on issues is fresh and you often find him standing on the other side instead of comfortably snuggling in with his co-celebrities. He represents the counter-cultural narrative of the current times which is now shared by millions of youth of this country and which the out-dated intellectual class want to brand as 'intolerant' and crass.

A peek into the time of Partition provides us valuable insight into the Left leanings of the Indian film industry. That was the time when actors like Dilip Kumar and the Lahore Writers' Group became a dominating force of the "Bombay" film industry. Many from the Progressive Writers' Forum (read Communists) also joined the film industry from time to time like KA Abbas, MS Satthu and others. Like the rest of the country, the film industry too was deeply influenced by the wave of Nehruvian-Socialism. The film circuit, as a result, was dominated by Left-liberals and Congress-supporters like Nargis, Sunil Dutta, Amitabh Bachchan, Rajesh Khanna and Shah Rukh Khan. During the Emergency the cinema fraternity was asked by "Yuvraj" Sanjay Gandhi to organise musical nights and create an environment in support of Emergency. The only dissenting voice of that time was of Manoj Kumar who made patriotic films like Upkaar and Purab Aur Paschim.

The first major break in this spell came with the inclusion of Shatrughan Sinha in BJP. Before him no Hindi cine celebrity dared to take a stand opposing the Congress.

Today, Anupam Kher has broken away from the old guards and taken a nuanced ideological position on the intolerance debate. He represents a counter-cultural discourse which has the potential to give birth to a new paradigm of intellectual-cultural tradition free from old ideological shackles and representative of a de-colonized Indian mind.

If the fight is for a truly tolerant society, Anupam Kher is the true flag bearer since he represents opposition to ideological intolerance which has been rooted in the country since Independence. Let Anupam Kher lead this new step towards a paradigm shift.

Reclaiming the Glory of Sri Ram

I reviewed the book The Battle for Rama: Case of the Temple at Ayodhya by Meenakshi Jain for Organiser. You can read a version of the review below:

On September 30, 2010  the Allahabad High Court delivered its verdict on the five suits pending before it. The Court decreed that the area covered by the central dome of the disputed structure “being the deity of Bhagwan Ramjanmasthan and the birthplace of Lord Ram as per faith and belief of the Hindus,” belongs to the plaintiffs (Bhagwan Sri Ram Lalla Virajman and others; Suit 5).” (p. 140)

In an historic judgment, the Allahabad High Court  in 2010  had ruled for a three-way division of the 2.77 acre site. More recently, the Supreme Court, while hearing a plea for day-to-day hearing in the case, observed that the matter should be settled through mediation.  In popular academic circles, the issue of Ramjanmabhoomi is considered as the outcome of 150 years of communalisation; one that culminated in the demolition of the disputed structure in 1992 and turned into a rallying point for secularism. The truth however, is far from this.

In her latest book The Battle for Rama: Case of the Temple at Ayodhya, Meenakshi Jain puts on table certain facts that have been deliberately obfuscated in the debate. The writer looks at archaeological, literary and sculptural sources to get the facts straight. She also calls out the bluff of historians who are bent upon discrediting everything that strengthens the case for a temple at the site. Their contentions are many, desperate and shocking. To them Sri Ram worship is an eighteenth-nineteenth century phenomenon; Present day Ayodhya is not the Ayodhya of the ancient times, which they have located in Afghanistan, even Egypt. (p.82); Word mandira found on an inscription means dwelling house or palace and not a temple; Tulsidas attached no importance to Ayodhya as the birthplace of Sri Ram and many more. In her book, the writer has exposed the impunity with which these historians get away by committing the biggest academic faux pas of Independent India. The most recent of this came in response to the ASI findings. A planned campaign was carried out to misinform the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) that carried out excavations at the site in August 2003 as per the high court order. In its report submitted to the court on September 22, the ASI concluded that there was evidence of “…indicative remains which are distinctive features found associated with temples of north India.” (p.121)  The ASI also took into account carbon dating results and structural remains which suggested that the structure wasn’t built on virgin land and in fact the material from the pre-existing structure was used to build the structure. This set in motion a new batch of claims. Professor Irfan Habib led a group of eight archaeologists who overnight mooted the theory that the pre-existing structure was in fact another mosque or idgah. These academics were presented as experts in the court by Sunni Waqf Board. As this was for the first time that such a claim had been made, the court expressed surprise. On cross examination, one of these archaeologists, Suraj Bhan, admitted that they had given the statement simply to offset the effect of ASI findings and had no other grounds for their claims.

The writer has also exposed the fact that  except Suraj Bhan none of the other archaeologists presented as expert witnesses had done any field work. “RC Thakran professed in court that he was just a table archaeologist… D Mandal admitted that he had acquired knowledge of archaeology and had never obtained any degree or diploma in archaeology.”  Shereen Ratnagar also accepted that he had never done any digging and excavation work.

Case of the temple

The writer has devoted   an entire chapter to examine a crucial inscription which came to light after the demolition of disputed structure in 1992. The stone inscription comprised 20 lines on slab diagonally broken into two. The inscription was in chaste Sanskrit and mentioned the name of King Govinda Chandra of 1114 AD. It also referred to “Saket mandala” and “temple stone for the God Vishnu Hari”. Left historians jumped in to discredit this evidence. Some said that the inscription belonged to later date while others tried to prove that Vishnu Hari referred to an individual and not Lord Vishnu.

Besides debunking such attempts to falsify facts, the book goes a long way to establish the historicity of the temple at Ramjanmabhoomi complex. The writer  looks at evidences ranging from foreign travellers and British administrators to Hindu sources. The book also points to some crucial evidences and aspects that have been conveniently left out of the debate. The writer has discussed Hans Bakker’s critical examination of three main parts of the Ayodhya Mahatmya, the chief work extolling the sacred sites of the city and relating them to the incidents from the life of Sri Ram.

Getting the facts right

In  the later chapter writing about the Left historians joining the debate, the writer points out how these had scholars tried to whitewash the violence by Muslim invaders against Hindu art and religion. Professor Sharma, for example “lamented that a lover of Hindu art and architecture (Babar) should be credited with the destruction of a Ram temple, which in any case, did not exist.” An attempt has been made to put history in right perspective breaking the myths of soft, art-loving invaders who just happened to stumble upon India. Another attempt to obfuscate facts was made by Professor Romila Thapar, who censured the projection of Valmiki’s Ramayana and Tulsidas’s Ramcharitmanas as the sole authentic rendition of  Sri Ram’s story.  The writer’s greatest merit is that she sticks to facts and allows them to tell their own story.   The writer establishes how Valmiki’s work served as the basis for any further retelling. She argues that the future versions were retellings of the Valmiki’s Ramayana that everyone was familiar with. She writes, “It was around the core of Valmiki’s story that subsequently developed the view of Ram as God incarnate… No other version ever matched the repute of Valmiki’s Ramayana.” (p.80) She also puts on record the three early Buddhist and Jain texts that mentioned Ram.

The beginning of conflict

The book also busts the myth that communal flare up over the issue came only in 1991 riding the wave of political communalisation. The book documents the riots in Ayodhya in 1912, 1934. In both the years the riots broke out on the occasion of Bakr-Id over animal sacrifice. In 1913, chief secretary R Burn stated in a letter that the existence of the mosque at the traditional site of  Sri Ram’s birth was “one perpetual cause of friction”. The writer notes that the earlier evidence of conflict dates back to 1822. A note in judicial records submitted to Faizabad Court indicates this. Later, in 1855 British Resident James Outram sent a letter to Awadh Nawab Wajid Ali warning him that a Sunni troublemaker had assembled a force of Muslims near Faizabad and was bent on ruining Hanuman Garhi. A more serious conflict is recorded in 1855 over instance of some Muslims to offer prayers inside Hanuman Garhi.  The writer notes the attempts to reclaim the lost scared spaces as the geo-political realities changed over the years. Such attempts were particularly made under Maratha rulers and Amer ruler Sawai Jai Singh. The writer also documents the resurgence of Ramanadis who organised themselves into akharas and repaired and restored  some of the structures in Ayodhya. This information is critical in understanding the history of the fight for Sri Ram Temple. It also busts the notion that Sri Ram Temple cause is a creation of the nineteenth century.

 It is ironic indeed that the birth place of the most revered God Sri Ram was destroyed, questioned and debated for years. This book provides a strong academic and theoretical foundation to reclaim the glory of Sri Ram.                                      

Indianising Policy Studies

I reviewed the book National Policy Studies in the Light of Ekatma Manav Darshan, Edited by Ravindra Mahajan, for Organiser.
You can read a version of the review below:

Policy Studies is a new emerging academic field in India which helps to understand the issues of governance and public policy planning. Ravindra Mahajan and his team have come up with a compilation of its own kind through this book on policy studies in the light of Integral Humanism (Ekatma Manav Darshan). This work is a result of gigantic academic exercise which  was taken up over a long period time where such policies that affect Indian state and its society were discussed.

Many organisations and individuals of Maharashtra have worked on this for long. The Editor clearly states that this is the first document on public policy and would be followed up with a deeper study on public policy planning of India in future.

The title of the book itself explains that the book aims to undertake an understanding of public policy studies in the light of Integral Humanism (Ekatma Manav Darshan). While there have been efforts in the past to understand politics in the light of Integral Humanism, yet no one has come out with such study on policy till date.

Integral Humanism is an ideology propounded by a RSS Pracharak, great thinker and one of the founding members of Bharatiya Jan Sangh Pt. Deendayal Upadhyaya, who had dwelt on the idea of Integral Humanism while giving his discourses in Mumbai. Integral Humanism was accepted as core idea by the BJS first and later by the BJP.

Integral Humanism tries to decipher different related issues with an Indo-centric approach. It is rooted in the concept that ideas for mind and values for soul are as much important as food for stomach. While the two dominating ideologies of the Western world in last 100 years —Capitalism and Communism— keep the individual and his material needs at the core of its thinking, Integral Humanism on the other hand makes welfare of every living being its core.          

Any thought process gets enriched only when it is propagated, discussed and expounded by intellectuals and academics in given space and time. Efforts to this effect have been put to prepare this document which has come out in the form of a book by Centre for Integral Studies and Research, Pune.

The Editor of the book has accepted that this is not a detailed policy document but only salient points and a comprehensive document is yet to come. However there is no doubt that this is a noble beginning. Inspite of this being a starting step, one can safely say that no documentation of such comprehensive nature has been done in the light of Deendayal Upadhyaya’s ideology in the academic field in last few years. Next step should be in the form of separate comprehensive volumes on each policy issue with proper proof reading, referencing and bibliography which would give the work more academic worth.

This book contains seventeen chapters discussing different policy issues. The Editor has tried to elaborate on two dominant ideologies—Communism and Capitalism—that influenced human race most in last 100 years and the idea of the State before going into the main part of the content. However, it is clear that the views of the writer and readers could differ on these two ideologies. In the later chapters policy issues like governance, education, economy, industry, service sector, science and technology, land acquisition, cooperatives, labour, security and foreign policy, etc are discussed in the light of Integral Humanism.

Two broad policy issues which did not find place in this document are issues of youth and social justice. Caste system and social justice discourse need to be seen as part of policy studies. It has been witnessed time and again that last man standing in the row belongs to the caste that falls lowest in the caste hierarchy i.e. Dalit. It has also been studied as a part of the public policy analysis that 70 per cent of the total population of the country is youth and can be used as a major resource. We could positively hope that these two issues would be discussed in the next detailed volumes.  

In our country, different policies were practiced and propounded by different rulers and thinkers. In this book many of those ideas have been given space and consideration viz. security policy of Shivaji Maharaj, Spying policy of Chanakya and different issues discussed in our shastras.   

This book is written with an emotional touch. It is also a matter of study that how much we should allow our emotions to guide us while working on a policy issue. However, we shall not forget that emotion is the also the best calculation.

This compilation edited by Ravindra Mahajan has been published in the light of this unique ideology. This book would not only be beneficial for academics but would also help activists engaged in the significant task of national reconstruction and people influencing policy making from outside and inside the government. This book will also help those groups and individuals which are associated with gigantic task of developing models of alternative development.  As it is said in this book that this is ‘beginning of the beginning’, we will see deeper study by the same academic group in near future till then this book is worth a read.