Saturday 13 July 2013

What's So Wrong With Modi Calling Himself a Hindu Nationalist?

Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi said in his interview to Reuters on June 25: "I'm nationalist, I'm patriotic. Nothing is wrong. I'm a born Hindu. Nothing is wrong. So I'm a Hindu nationalist. So yes, you can say I'm a Hindu Nationalist because I'm a born Hindu". BJP spokesperson Meenakshi Lekhi on NDTV yesterday said that 'Hindu nationalist' has wrongly been made into a 'dirty word' by people with a malicious agenda. She said, 'If anybody calling himself a Muslim and a nationalist is not being questioned, why should anybody calling himself a Hindu and a nationalist be questioned?". She asserted that the right to practice one's religion is a constitutional right, 'so why should the same right not be available to Hindus?'

There are at least two things here which need debunking. One, there is a difference between a Hindu nationalist and a nationalist Hindu. Hindu nationalism is an ideology that crystallised almost a hundred years ago. Its founder, V.D. Savarkar, wrote a monograph called 'Hindutva: Who is a Hindu?' in 1922 in which he outlined the definition of the Hindu nation. He wrote that Hindus were those people who loved the territory of Hindustan, shared common blood (this was the Indian version of racism), possessed the same culture and worshiped Hindustan as their fatherland and their holyland. These were the four essential criteria of citizenship of the Hindu nation. This meant that Muslims and Christians - whose holylands were outside India - were automatically excluded from the very definition of the Hindu nation. Muslims and Christians - even if their ancestors had been born in India, and even if they loved it as their own - could never claim full citizenship. According to the ideology of Hindu nationalism, they must live in India as second class citizens and must completely assimilate everything that is Hindu - they must worship Hindu gods, participate in Hindu festivals, give up their customs and even their language; they must not ask for any rights and freedoms because they live on the sufferance of Hindus.

On the contrary, a person who is a nationalist Hindu need not necessarily possess such an ideology: he or she may simply be a Hindu who believes in the ideology of secular nationalism, which does not give any supremacy to Hindu-ness. A nationalist Hindu does not necessarily foreground Hindu identity as an essential criteria for citizenship. He or she can accept that the nation does not just consist of Hindus but also of Muslims, Christians, Parsis, Sikhs and others - who may all have distinct religious identities but yet are equal citizens of the same Indian nation. So when Modi makes the argument of 'Hindu + nationalist = Hindu nationalist, whats wrong with that?', we might ask why he cant instead choose to be 'Hindu + nationalist = nationalist Hindu'? Whats wrong with the former is that it stems from an ideology that has a long lineage of seeing the Indian nation as being exclusively composed only of Hindus. The very definition of the Hindu nation excludes those who belong to other religious communities, people who have every right to call themselves Indian  as much as any Hindu.

The second issue is the following. Yes, Muslims are allowed to proclaim that they are nationalists. But so are Hindus. People are not disturbed by Modi claiming to be a nationalist, it is because they know he is a particular type of nationalist. Lekhi speaks as if Modi is being unjustly denied his constitutional right to practice his religion. But the alarm at his statement does not spring from his assertion that he is Hindu. He proudly proclaimed that he is not just a Hindu but a Hindu nationalist. Lekhi would have us confuse Hindu nationalism with Hinduism, but the two are not the same. Hindu nationalism is not a religion; it's an ideology which  has historically aimed to turn India into a 'pure' Hindu nation at the exclusion of others. This is not guaranteed by the Indian constitution; on the contrary, it is diametrically opposed to its ideals. It is this ideology which made the organisation from which Modi springs (i.e. the RSS) support the colonial state, participate in violent riots, and ultimately assassinate Gandhi. Its history is what makes Hindu nationalism a 'dirty word', not some malicious propaganda by anyone else.

Sunday 10 March 2013

Modi and the Animal Song


In 2002, there occurred the mass killing of more than 3000 people in India. This was violence on a scale unprecedented in Independent India. Women were stripped, made to run naked, tortured, then killed and burned. They were tortured by inserting metal rods into their vaginas, and were then set on fire. A pregnant woman’s stomach was slit open and her unborn baby paraded on a trident. The chief minister under whose watch it happened has been re-elected again and again. He is still in power.

Despite the fact that there are charges that the chief minister was involved in a state-sponsored massacre of citizens of his own country, let us forget that for now. The disturbing fact is that he has not apologised to this day for what happened in those 6 weeks  - when citizens of his own state were brutally raped and killed by what he claims were spontaneous, frenzied mobs. How much could it take to make a simple apology for what at any rate was a complete collapse of law and order, and an utter failure to protect the citizens of his own state – 3000 of his very own Gujaratis? Is an apology too much to ask for? But the chief minister has stubbornly refused to apologise for ten years. Does this not show a lack of warmth, sympathy and compassion? The dictionary describes such a person as ‘inhuman’.

But there is serious talk among many Indians of making this chief minister the next Prime Minister of India. This is a very real possibility in 2014. According to one poll, 43% Indians want Modi as PM. How are we, as a nation, so eager to bring to power a man under whose watch 3000 Indians died? How are we so eager to bring to power someone who was unable to prevent rape and mass murder and has not cared even to apologise for it? I wonder what that says about us, as a people. And I think the answer is: we do not really care that 3000 citizens died. We do not care for justice as long as it’s not us to whom the injustice is done.  We too are inhuman, for that is the word for such blatant lack of sympathy and compassion for our fellow-citizens and fellow-humans. These are the values we have apparently inherited from our culture and tradition.

And we also lack respect for basic rule of law; we are not really bothered if killers and rapists are put behind bars. We do not care to know or respect our own constitution (the law of the land), which guarantees rights and freedoms to our fellow-citizens. We do not care if these constitutional and fundamental rights are violated, as long as it’s not us to whom this is done.   

Is compassion for others too much to ask for? Asking for this vital, essentially human emotion is portrayed as 'sentimentalism'; one is accused of being 'too emotional', 'not pragmatic'. But why must must reason and emotion be mutually exclusive? One can be pragmatic and compassionate.  One can be determined to build a strong India and have compassion for others at the same time. But Modi pretends that both at the same time are not possible. He hides his lack of compassion in his emphasis on making India into a superpower. And that is exactly how many of us hide our lack of it. Recognising this lack of humanity is not a sign of sentimentality; it is recognising a hard fact

Perhaps we will ultimately reach our goal of building a militarily and economically strong nation of hypocritical, inhuman individuals. A nation whose citizens are utterly self-interested and care neither for the law of the land, nor for their fellow-citizens. This is the vision we clearly desire and this is the nation we shall ultimately choose to build. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Modi repeatedly refuses to answer questions about/apologise for/say that he regrets the mass killings of 2002. Video links to 2 such occasions:

Friday 25 January 2013

My Talk at the Oxford India Society: Course of Action for the Indian State and Its People in the Aftermath of the Delhi Gang Rape


Below is the script of the talk I gave at the Oxford India Society to discuss the future course of action that the Indian state and its people need to take in the aftermath of the Delhi Gang Rape in December. 

***

At the outset I’d like to clarify - that I am not a legal expert and I have never thought of calling myself a feminist. I speak here as an ordinary citizen who feels strongly about the issue of women’s safety... Strongly enough to take part in the recent protests, to ponder over and articulate my thoughts on this horrific event. And strongly enough to feel compelled to go along with some friends - to Sandeep Dixit (an MP from Delhi) with a list of demands and suggestions to ensure safety for women. We then sent this list to the Justice Verma Committee that was set up in the aftermath of this gang-rape to propose amendments to laws relating to crimes against women.

Neither of us works full-time on this issue. Our demands and suggestions are therefore based on our own intuitions, past experience, knowledge and understanding. But we did try to inform ourselves as much as possible through dialoguing with those who were more informed than us, and by reading as widely as possible - within the given time constraints. I would like to share with you our suggestions regarding the future course of action that can be taken. I divide these in 3 parts: 

1) Judicial reforms, 
2) Measures to increase security for women, and 
3) The most difficult - but also the most important --– tackling the misogynistic attitude in our society.

To start with judicial reforms, I am wary of aligning myself with demands for death penalty & chemical castration which gained shrill popularity during the protests. I personally do not support this form of retributive justice. And arguing from a different viewpoint, when enforced - neither form of punishment has been proven to be a deterrent.

The very fact that the victim was brutalised with an iron rod, makes it clear that rape is not just about sexual pleasure for the perpetrator, but is an assertion of power and dominance. Apparently one of the accused in the recent case categorically mentioned that it was the defiance and resistance of the victim that angered him the most. If indeed that is the case, then, chemical castration, quite apart from being morally questionable, isn’t an effective deterrent at all. 
As for capital punishment, I personally feel the debate around it is too complex – both morally and practically - and going into the details of it will only divert the issue at hand.

I strongly feel that what is needed is not more brutal punishment, but CERTAINTY of punishment i.e perpetrators must feel that they WILL be caught, quickly tried and punished if they commit a crime, and that there is NO way out.

Therefore we must demand certainty of REGISTRATION OF CRIME. There have been innumerable instances of the police being unwilling to register crimes against women or discouraging the filing of complaints. We need to demand a zero-tolerance policy on non-registration of crime, as without registration, how can the investigation begin? Then, we need thorough and honest investigation by the police. Many cases are damaged by shoddy investigation and evidence-collection. ‘Fast-track courts’ can only lead to fast-track acquittals without these measures. Finally, we need efficient trials and speedier delivery of justice where cases do not drag on for years with the accused out on bail. Yet we must remember and ensure that speedy trials don’t occur at the cost of FAIR trials.

Regarding a change of law, given my limited knowledge, I can only say that apart from enforcing a strict prohibition of the antiquated “two-finger” test to establish rape, two other extremely important measures are needed. These are a) the rectification of the current ‘peno-vaginal’ definition of rape to include other forms of sexual assault such as peno-anal or by means of objects and b) the inclusion of MARITAL RAPE within the legal definition of sexual assault. This oversight needs to be corrected as marital rape is the most pervasive form of rape in India. The Indian state needs to take into consideration, the informed opinion of eminent lawyers who have been working for years on such legal reform.

Some measures that have been suggested to increase security for women  are the following: better surveillance (for instance more functional CCTVs with regular analysis of data), the adoption of modern methods of hiring and training the police, upgraded technology for it, incentives for the police so they find their job fulfilling and remain honest and motivated, a regular audit to weed out non-performers, plain-clothes policemen in buses and the Metro, more police women in PCR vans and in police stations, allocation of funds to a special cell for crimes against women that must be present  in every police station... And so on. However, while ensuring women’s safety DOES require these measures, I feel there is little point – and even grave danger – in simply putting more police out into our streets. This is because, currently, there is a massive trust deficit in citizens vis-a-vis the police. When we think police, we think ‘thug’, ‘corrupt’, ‘extortionist’, ‘intimidating’, ‘dishonest’, ‘prejudiced’, ‘conservative’ -  a force that exploits the vulnerability and legal illiteracy of ordinary citizens. So before the state puts out more police onto our streets, we must demand and insist that this be a SENSITISED police force.

This brings me to my 3rd point about tackling the deep-seated misogynistic attitude in India and increased SENSITISATION of people in positions of authority as well as of ordinary citizens. This change is the MOST difficult to bring about: It requires long- term commitment and sustained efforts by the Indian state and its citizens. I believe the state can play a crucial role here by starting at the INSITUTIONAL LEVEL.
·        Apart from gender (and indeed, more GENERAL) sensitisation of the police force through initial and regular training, the state perhaps needs to make a course on gender equality and citizens’ rights a permanent part of the school curriculum from an early stage. In addition, regular gender sensitisation workshops and self-defence classes need to be held for both boys and girls. Compulsory sensitisation of teachers is another important step - as they have an indelible impact on a child’s life.
·        At the college level, we need EFFECTIVE gender sensitisation committees which will hold regular and mandatory workshops - and, here too, a sensitisation of the administration is imperative: authorities like Girls Hostel Wardens often resort to blackmail to coerce victims of sexual harassment to NOT file a complaint.
·        At all schools, colleges AND indeed workplaces, contact numbers and addresses of local, verified NGOs must be publicised so that students and employees have somewhere to go if their administration is unresponsive.

A gender sensitisation and rights awareness drive by the Government needs to be pursued through media such as TV, radio and newspaper ads, through posters and hoardings in all our different languages, through collaboration with local community leaders, and through social education packages for families.

The sensitisation and awareness campaign, in my opinion, needs first to be against the idea that after a sexual assault the woman has been ‘dishonoured’ and has nothing to live for. The campaign must emphasise that she still has reason to live a normal life: she can and should be helped to re-build her life. Second, the campaign needs to be strictly against any association of blame with the victim, and must shift it to the perpetrator. It needs to emphasise that NOTHING JUSTIFIES sexual assault and a violation of rights – no specific clothing worn by a woman nor any behaviour on her part... Be it drinking, going to a nightclub or being out in the evening with male friends. Therefore the campaign must NOT promote a flawed concept of ‘protection’ i.e. It mustn’t promote the idea that women can be protected by keeping them indoors or by wearing particular kinds of cloths. Third, the campaign should emphasise the fact that women are EQUAL to men and therefore are entitled - to the same rights and freedoms as them– to go wherever they want, whenever they want and in whichever clothes they want to wear. And that these rights must not be violated in the name of their ‘safety’. It must highlight - as abominable - all acts and norms that violate the principle of gender equality – these include preference for sons, female foeticide, inheritance inequality, dowry, wife-beating, forced widowhood etc. Finally, it needs to educate citizens – men and women – on:

a) What constitutes sexual assault and harassment; what is meant by consent and what constitutes its violation,
b) what are OUR fundamental and legal rights and what is the course of action that can be followed when these are infringed.

I feel such a campaign should involve collaboration between the state and ‘civil society’ – roping in survivors of sexual assault, women’s organisations, keen students from schools and colleges, local community leaders, the newsmedia, advertising gurus, designers and artists. This would make it collaborative, inventive and effective.

I think the way forward - on part of the state - should consist of a multi-pronged approach - which needs to include short and long-term measures. As of today, many of our demands and suggestions have found a voice in the recommendations announced by the Justice Verma Committee yesterday. These include: a rejection of the death penalty & chemical castration but the enhancement of the minimum sentence for rape from 7 to 10 years and a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for it...  Making touching-without-consent, voyeurism, stalking and other forms-of-sexual harassment punishable offences, making marital rape a punishable offence, establishing a protocol for the medical examination of the rape victim, and punishment of officers who fail to report rape. These are far-reaching recommendations and now it’s up to the parliament to implement them.

As for citizens, I feel that - at this point - we must be extremely vigilant. First, with regard to a clampdown on liberties in the name of ‘security for women’. Instances of this include the discriminatory rule that girls living in college hostels need to return by 10pm, and other measures taken in the aftermath of this rape - such as discotheques being closed at 1am, the Puducherry Govt prescribing compulsory overcoats for girls, and Eastern Wing of Delhi Police advising girls to ‘go straight home after school or college’.  We must insist that the police make the streets safe for women at all times, and does not absolve itself of its duty by enforcing such ‘cop out’ measures. Second, we must be extremely wary of tokenism and knee-jerk populism.

Indian citizens need to remain consistently engaged with this cause and persisten­tly demand that the media and Govt remain committed to it. Equally urgent is the need for them to increase their knowledge of the rights and values enshrined in our constitution, and of our legal and political processes - in order.. That they don’t resort to ill-informed, knee-jerk responses.. But instead - become capable of making demands which are informed, practical and morally defensible.