Who was Modi trying to fool?

How many of you have asked for a Promotion, Salary Hike or Change of work (project, department, role) in your career and were denied? How many of you asked for a toy that your father cannot afford, for a bike that your father didn’t want to buy for you at that time or for joining a course or program that your parents considered unnecessary? Do you still remember the ingenious way your parents or manager or HR evaded the question? People resort to tricky words and clever replies when they can’t give an honest answer.

I was made to remember of such instances of my life by none other than our Prime Ministerial candidate Mr. Narendra Modi yesterday. I came late from office and my wife was watching his interview with Mr. Goswami in Times Now. I just joined her, and then happened to hear this cute little statement – that when BJP said in their manifesto that they welcome all Hindu refugees (and not Sikh or Jain or Muslim or Christian refugees), they meant Hinduism as a “way of life” and they were just following the definition of the Supreme Court of India.

Chooo Chweeet of him!!! Vasudaiva Kudumbakam. Vasudha Eva Kudumbakam. Earth indeed is a family.

He made me to do some research. Which is this Supreme Court judgement that he is talking about? What exactly is the statement from BJP’s manifesto?

Mr. Modi is referring to a Supreme Court judgement involving a case against Bal Thackeray. (http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=10197). Mr. Theckeray had made the below statement – “"We are fighting this election for the protection of Hinduism. Therefore, we do not care for the votes of the Muslims. This country belongs to Hindus and will remain so."

Following are some relevant passages from the Supreme Court judgement:

“Words `Hinduism' or `Hindutva' are not necessarily to be understood and construed narrowly, confined only to the strict Hindu religious practices unrelated to the culture and ethos of the people of India, depicting the way of life of the Indian people. Unless the context of a speech indicates a contrary meaning or use, in the abstract these terms are indicative more of a way of life of the Indian people and are not confined merely to describe persons practising the Hindu religion as a faith.”

“Misuse of these expressions to promote communalism cannot alter the true meaning of these terms. the mischief resulting from the misuse of the terms by anyone in his speech has to be checked and not its permissible use. It is indeed very unfortunate, if in spite of the liberal and tolerant features of `Hinduism' recognised in judicial decisions, these terms are misused by anyone during the elections to gain any unfair political advantage.”

“Our conclusion is that all the three speeches of Bal Thackeray amount to corrupt practice under sub-section (3), while the first speech is a corrupt practice also under sub- section (3A) of Section 123 of the R.P. Act. “

So, after all, Bal Thackeray was punished by Supreme Court for using that word for “misusing during the elections to gain any unfair political advantage”.

So, what Mr. Modi claims is that BJP was using the word Hinduism in the sense of “way of life of the Indian people”, not in the sense “persons practising the Hindu religion as a faith”.

Ok. Granted. I am deliberately forgetting the entire history or RSS, BJP and Mr. Modi. Now, let’s see what does the BJP manifesto says. The statement in question comes under the heading Foreign Relations. “India shall remain a natural home for persecuted Hindus and they shall be welcome to seek refuge here.” So, Modi’s claim is that the sentence is to be read as: India shall remain a natural home for persecuted people who follow way of life of Indian people.

Now, I suddenly see another statement in the same manifesto. The very immediately prior statement: “The NRIs, PIOs and professionals settled abroad are a vast reservoir to articulate the national

interests and affairs globally.”

Who is an NRI? Who is a PIO? Are they not “Hindus” in the abstract sense of the word? If yes, why are they not named called as “Hindus”? If not, what is the difference between NRI, PIO and Hindu?

Intrigued by this, I do a search for the term “Indians”. There are 41 places in which the word “Indian” is used in that manifesto. There is only one place where Hindu is used. Why only one reference to the word “Hindu”?  If the intellectually-challenged explanation that the word processor failed to do a Grammar check is set aside, you would have to say that the two terms "Indian" and "Hindu" are not synonymous in the context of this manifesto. Then, Mr. Modi is saying that there are Indians who are not "Hindus (abstract sense)". Who are those people? And how different are those people who are different from "persons who practicing Hindu religion"? (Arnab didn't ask any of these questions, unlike the aggro he showed against Rahul Gandhi. I guess that isn't a surprise for anybody).

In a document where a set of people are referred to as “Indians” 41 times, what if there was a 42^nd reference that says: “India shall remain a natural home for persecuted Indians and they shall be welcome to seek refuge here.”

OH, NO. THIS IS NOT GOING TO GET ANY VOTES. THIS IS NOT GOING TO PLEASE THE RSS CADRE.

Mr. Modi, who are you trying to fool here? In a general sense, everybody, of course. He can't say that he means what he really means and get away from possible constitutional repercussions. So, he just took the only way out. But that's not really fooling anybody. It is just an open trick. When a magician explains you a magic trick, you may appreciate the cleverness of the trick, but you are neither fooled by nor amazed at the trick itself anymore.

But, I am more intrigued by the question- are there anyone who will get really fooled by this?

Your party cadre? They already know that when you said Hindu, you meant exactly that “persons practicing the Hindu religion” (as opposed to the 41-time-reference to Indians), and they are happy to hear that. No need to fool them. Your detractors? Well, they are also already aware that you meant exactly the same. So, who else?

Ok. Now, I get it. There are a set of facebook-educated political activists that support you. They don’t want to see the obvious. Yet, they worship you. And you can’t let them down. They are like a 9-year old boy who saw a nice red-colored toy car in a shop (that his neighbor uncle owned) which his father cannot afford. He asked his father, and he said no. He cried. He cursed. He didn’t eat. Then the father said he will buy the toy for the boy the next day. Next day, they both went to the shop and the car wasn’t there. The uncle told that it was damaged and the entire pack was returned. Boy believed him. And was happy because he didn’t buy the car the day before. He didn’t know then that the car was still there, undamaged. He didn’t know then that his father asked the neighbor to hide it. He didn’t know then that he was fooled.

Mr. Modi knows that India is full of such people who can’t see the obvious, or don’t want to admit the obvious. He also knows that they are 9-year olds intellectually and can be fooled. He is playing a magic in which both the right and the left can see what the magician is doing. There are some kids at the center whom he is hoping to amaze. And, so far, he is doing a good job in the magic show.

Quality of Political Discourse in 2014

There are three things nauseating about the ongoing election campaign:

1. Extreme partisanship filled with hatred. While partisanship is something you would expect in an election season, the amount of hatred spewed out would surprise even a King Cobra. If you happen to be a not-infrequent visitor to Facebook and if you have some 100 friends there, this would be self-evident for you. If you watch TimesNow channel at 9 PM everyday, you will get visual & auditory proof.

2. Focus on petty personal matters and absolute silence on policies, ideologies and action plans. Of course, relevant topics do appear once in a while, but you get to hear about them in bits and pieces, just like the side performance of Jokers in Circus when the main artists are getting prepared for the main items. When Narendra Modi spends time arguing with Priyanka Gandhi (who is neither a contestant nor any party leader, at least officially) over I-don't-know-what, I think the point is self-evident again. Of course, when the party that is projected to be in power, publishes their election manifesto on the exact day the voters went to polling booths, what else can we expect to happen? While dense debates have never been a norm in Indian politics, my memory (going back to 1991) tells me that the discussions were never this petty in the recent times.


3. Emergence of the voice of a large section of de-politicized, de-historied and frustrated youth and middle-aged men as the default voice of Indian politics. I am not differentiating between urban and rural youth here. In terms of the general characteristics of this population, I don't think that such a differentiation holds sufficient ground.

I find the third phenomenon very peculiar as compared to the other two and, in some sense, as the driving force for the other two. There is a case for arguing that it was this factor that introduced venom into partisanship and frivolity into the debate. This is the case that I argue, and my case rests on the characteristics of this section of society.

This is a strange category of people.

They are very educated and intelligent, yet not informed and wise. They have conquered the abstract heights of mathematics, mastered various fields of applied science, or are proficient practitioners of social sciences. They hold many certificates, diplomas and degrees and have studied in many institutions during their learner-ship. Prestigious or otherwise. Domestic or Foreign. Yet, they find it difficult to understand what holds a society together. The abstract words of constitution does not appear meaningful to them. Not for them the inductive reasoning from history (of this nation or anywhere). They think that civilization only moves forward. They are not able to see the large black patches in the human timeline.

They are very communicative, yet not introspective. They are proficient in many languages and can talk about anything for hours. Neither the occasion nor the stage choke their throats. They like to have endless discussions and they don't fall short of topics ever. Yet, they can't seem to sit quietly for an hour and contemplate. Not for them the silence of the sages. Not for them the dark hours of confusion. Not for them hard research and painful readings from references.

They are very ambitious, yet not patient. They want to achieve growth, progress & harmony now. They want to see Autobahns across the country yesterday. Now or Never is their slogan. They prefer to sit on the road and scream for change. Sprint is what they prefer, not Marathon. Yet, laying a foundation and patiently arranging the building blocks is not for them. Acknowledging heavy cultural baggage hanging on their shoulders is even unthinkable. They can't stop during the run to acknowledge that the baggage is dragging them down. They don't have time to put the baggage down and separate the shoes from the stones. They don't want to throw out the stones and put on the shoes and then begin to run.

They are very patriotic and brazen, yet not civil and fearless. They love their families, their surroundings and their nation. They vociferously defend their positions in media and sing loud songs. They demand respect for the country, family and self and go any stretch to ensure it. Yet, they do not respect the other. For them, the other is a filthy pig, to be scorned, beaten to death and be fried and eaten. They are brazen enough to call colleagues abusive words in Facebook for a political position, but afraid of even raising the topic when they go for coffee together. They are audacious to debate and reach conclusions in 140 characters, but avoid reading a 1000 word article lest it could change their 140-character perception. They regard civility very highly, yet they don't think it is applicable to self. They assume that a nation can be built by applying your agenda on the other.

And they are frustrated. By scams. By looters. Frustration has fired up their intelligence, but the calming guidance of wisdom is not available. Disappointment has hurt their ambitions and that makes them even more impatient. Lost dreams have pushed them to the brink of audacity, but the courage to face the truth is not present. Sadness makes them wail, yet they can't contemplate.

In a nation building exercise like election, hatred is a paradoxical presence. In an evaluative and corrective exercise like election, frivolity is a paradoxical presence. Long before the campaign kick started, this section of people occupied the center of Indian politics with thoughts resulting from the their own inner paradoxes. Paradox raises from paradox. When your major voter-base is paradoxical, what else the discourse be expected to be?

Update 1: Just saw that NYT editorial also has expressed similar thoughts. "The intolerant, anti-intellectual mood sweeping the nation is frightening." Hatred and Frivolity, that is. Read NYT. 

Eagerness to communalize

I will have to note a very curious phenomenon in the media (mainstream as well as social) regarding the Western Ghat protests. There is an eagerness to pain the protests as if coming from the Catholic church.

I happened to watch a news channel in which the reporter was asking a priest about the position of the Church in this whole thing. The priest corrected him saying, "it is not the Church; it is the farmers. Just because I am a priest does not mean that I am talking for Church right now". The reporter meekly nodded and quickly moved away.

I find this obsession to communalize this whole thing very nauseating, especially coming from those quarters who allegedly uphold the secular tradition of India. In every protest, you can see people from every community gathered together. But the media do not want to see it. They want to project as if it is a communal issue. Same case even with social media.

What could be the reason? In my mind, there is only one thing behind it - divide and conquer. The same tactic that British used against Indians during the freedom struggle. The hope is that, by discrediting the protests as communal, it would die down. Nobody wants to acknowledge the most obvious fact that the most organized community in that area is the Christians, hence it is very natural to see them leading the whole thing.

I can only say, how pathetic the media & pro-report forces have become. Once this whole episode ends, I hope they will sit back, think over this ugly game they played and at least feel shameful. So that they won't repeat this for another issue.

A critique of Kasturirangan Report - Interim Conclusion

Let me conclude (an interim basis) and understand the views of my friends (if anybody cares to give feedback).

I am told that we live in a democracy. My understanding of conflict resolution within democracy has the following logical steps: Understanding the issue through dialogues => Looking for proposals for resolution => Resolve (through iterative dialogues and revisions) => Implement.

In the case of the Western Ghat reports, I see a different trend. This is how it happened: A few experts came up with recommendations => Elite politicians thought they understood the pulse of the people => Elites and Experts discussed within themselves and refined the proposals => They went for Implementation (Of course, feedback from the public was requested and it was given. It is a different matter altogether that nothing changed before and after inviting public feedback).

There is a term for this kind of governance. ARISTOCRACY.

I belong to a city where a metro rail is being planned. I did not see many people getting into streets protesting it. Why? It is not that there was no property issues. But people were compensated REASONABLY. If crores can be spend as compensation for a mere railway project in a City, then why is it that nobody is talking about it in such a big project in the Rural area? Again, when a project is planned in the city, appropriate consultations were done before going ahead with it, and people, realizing the importance of the project supported willingly. Why is it that nothing is done when it came to the Western Ghat reports? There could be only a few reasons 1) Authorities realized they cannot convince people because it is anti-people and cannot be compensated enough 2) Authorities did not care because they thought the people are stupid 3) Authorities knew the risk, but thought of playing a cheating game so that if they get away, they can save a lot. You may find the correct answer for yourself. For me, it is a combination of everything at some levels. Now that it has backfired, still I think they will get away with Option 3, simply because the people in the Ghats cannot protest beyond a level. And there is always an option to suppress it with media, other powerful lobbies and ,worst case, force.

My humble suggestion is this. Lets put both the reports on hold. Let the discussions begin through proper channels, let there by proposals and revision and finalized action plan. Then go for implementation. Let us go back to the democratic way of doing things.

Whatever I have suggested is just from my thought process. What the larger community in those places want may be something more or less or different. I am not a mouthpiece for them. For example, if ESA is redefined in a manner that addresses a lot of concerns, probably there need not be any change to other recommendations.

A note: there are arguments flying around if the government has actually implemented the report or not, whether this is a law or not. Some people quote some section of law, other people quote a different section of law. I don't have a damn clue which is what. All I know is that, only after people started getting into the streets that the authorities has woken up and started discussing it. As far as I am concerned, all these arguments are just peripheral.  My critique is not on any notification issued by MoEF, it is on the Kasturirangan report, and it holds whether the final notification is already issued or if it is going to come in another 2 or 4 or 6 months. I don't have a dog in that political race.

A last note:
The funniest takeaway from this whole episode for me is the realization that those living outside India in centralized AC homes, spending their entire weekends shopping in larger than life shopping malls in cities, spending entire day in air-conditioned offices and commenting on facebook claim that they are the people who loves Western Ghats; while those who wake up everyday to work on their land in those hills with vegetables, crops and domestic animals are the enemies of Western Ghats. Wow!!!

A critique of Kasturirangan Report - Part 5

Recommendations 12 through 17

No comments.


Recommendations 18 through 29 (Green incentives)

No comments, although incentivizing organic farming (28) is not an easy task. There is every chance that people will be either inadequately compensated or will end up stopping farming altogether. HLWG can simply state that the Organic outputs should be branded and sold. But who will create the market for these organic output, and how will the farmers access it? There are a lot of implementation hurdles around this recommendation and this can potentially derail a lot of livelihoods. Since this recommendation is vague on its details, I can't comment any further. But that itself is a problem. In principle, I don't have an issue, but I don't see how it can be put into practice without creating livelihood troubles for the people. And should I even talk about the track record of the governments in implementing any incentive scheme successfully?

Recommendations 30 through 36

No comments