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.

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.