It is very unlikely that Prime Minister NarendraModi will succeed in reversing or checking the growing alienation of Dalits from BharatiyaJanata Party. Of this alienation, the most palpable evidence was the surprisingly successful Bharat Bandh that the Dalits recently organised to protest against the dilution of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
To ensure that the existing caste chasm does not widen, Modi has given a call for celebrating the birth anniversary of Dr BR Ambedkar on 14 April with unprecedented fervour. A day before, he is slated to dedicate the new Ambedkar memorial at Delhi’s 26, Alipur Road to the nation. In what has increasingly become his signature style, Modi wants BJP MPs to spend at least two nights in Dalit-dominated villages between 14 April and 5 May.
These initiatives are typical of BJP’s Dalit policy since 2014 — lavish praise on Ambedkar; ask its leaders to have meals at Dalit houses; repeatedly cite statistics to show that the party won maximum number of reserved constituencies in 2014; promise, as BJP president Amit Shah recently did, that reservation will never be discontinued; co-opt Dalit leaders such as Ram Vilas Paswan and RamdasAthawale and allow them scope to articulate the concerns of Dalits without being critical of Hindutva.
Modi’s strategy echoes Gandhi’s campaign against untouchability. Like Gandhi, he does not wish to reconfigure the economic basis of caste. But his outreach to Dalits lacks elements of radicalism of Gandhi’s programme — for instance, BJP leaders will not be found cleaning latrines or leading Dalits into those temples where discriminatory practices are still followed. Inter-dining and overnight stay with a Dalit were powerful, meaningful tropes decades ago, certainly not now.
From this perspective, Modi’s measures infantiliseDalits. He presumes they are still stuck in the past and will feel assured and charmed at having a BJP leader spend a night or two in their village and break bread with them.
No doubt, Dalits rail against the purity-pollution principle to which many still subscribe; they rage against the atrocities committed on them; they desire equality of treatment and opportunity. They are deeply offended at a mere suspicion that someone would not drink water from the glass they offer to him or her.
But Dalits also realise that social status is a function of the economic and political power. After decades of social reform and rhetoric of caste equality, they know they will continue to endure oppression and deprivation until they control the levers of power, from the Centre to the state, to the panchayat. Until then, they cannot work laws enacted to protect as well as privilege them.
It is precisely also why Dalits seek to combine and assert themselves against the brazen infringement of their rights, at times meeting violence by violence.
This subaltern consciousness is not reflected in the BJP and Modi’s Dalit outreach. Their appeal is to the Dalits of the past, whose number is fast dwindling. They recoil from today’s Dalits and their rising aspirations.
In their social policies is the message: as long as Dalits remain submissive and do not question the unequal social order, they are welcome in the BJP tent. They will be assigned a place, not in the front row — there is just one BJP Dalit in the Cabinet — but certainly in the rows at back.
The BJP’s Dalit policy is not an outcome of its ignorance of the new social reality. It’s impossible for a party boasting such a formidable grassroots connect. Yet its outreach is circumscribed because of its diverse social base — it cannot alienate the upper castes, the party’s mainstay and its most enduring supporters, by adopting a radical Dalit policy. Those more than equal than others are mostly inclined to favour inequality.
This contradiction has come to the fore, in many ways, over the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. For one, the government seemed to have deliberately looked the other way when the Supreme Court was hearing Subhash K Mahajanvs State of Maharashtra.
AmarendraSharan, amicus curiae in the case, accused the government of agreeing that “anticipatory bail could be given in case there is no prima facie case being made out under the SC/ST (POA) Act”. Sharan also said that it was the additional solicitor general who supplied data to show that the SC/ST Act was misused.
Either the prime minister was oblivious of the stance his legal officers took in the court, a possibility hard to contemplate given Modi’s control over his ministry, or there was a definite political purpose behind it. The prevailing political conditions are such that the latter seemed to have been the principal driver.
Last year, Maharashtra was agog with the Marathas taking out silent marches to demand reservation for themselves and abrogation of the SC/ST (POA) Act. Marathas constitute around 30 percent of the state’s population and are also economically powerful. BJP desperately needs their votes in Maharashtra, which sends 48 members to the LokSabha. It is a state crucial for Modi’s quest to win another innings in power.
Maharashtra apart, the Dalit assertion has been a sore point with the upper castes and sections of the Other Backward Classes in Uttar Pradesh as well.
Last year, the Rajputs and Dalits clashed in Saharanpur, leading to the arrest of BheemSena chief Chandrashekhar Azad Ravana, who still languishes in jail under the National Security Act. In the same year, when Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath visited a Dalit colony in Meerut, he was asked by residents to first pay his respect at BR Ambedkar statue in the nearby park. He did not heed their counsel and was roundly booed.
Uttar Pradesh’s caste cauldron has always been on simmer. But it bubbled over the SC/ST (POA) Act, prompting four Dalit MPs of BJP from Uttar Pradesh to speak out against Modi or Adityanath governments.
Smoke billows out of burning cars during ‘Bharat Bandh’ against the alleged ‘dilution’ of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes act, in Uttar Pradesh’s Muzzaffarnagar. PTISmoke billows out of burning cars during ‘Bharat Bandh’ against the alleged ‘dilution’ of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes act, in Uttar Pradesh’s Muzzaffarnagar. PTI
Bahraich’s MP, SavitriBaiPhule, was critical of BJP speaking in forked tongue on reservation. Robertsganj MP ChhoteLalKharwar wrote a letter to Modi accusing Adityanath of scolding and throwing him out when he had gone to him with his grievance. Kharwar’s crib was that his younger brother had been replaced as block president by upper caste BJP leaders who helped a Samajwadi Party-BahujanSamaj Party candidate to take the post.
BJP MP from Nagina, Yashwant Singh, too, wrote a letter to Modi complaining that his abilities have not been utilised only because he is a Dalit. Singh has also demanded reservation in the private sector. The Dalit MP from Etawah, Ashok Kumar Dohre, has written a letter to the prime minister pointing out that the Uttar Pradesh police are targeting Dalits following the violence witnessed during the Bharat Bandh.
Dohre’s charge has credence. For instance, in Meerut, someone put out a list of 83 Dalit “vandals and arsonists” on WhatsApp groups. But for one person, all those named went into hiding. The one who did not was shot dead by a group comprising Gujjars and a Rajput. RakeshSinha, a prominent RSS face on television, was picked up outside a TV channel office. The Uttar Pradesh Police mistook him for a Dalit guest who too had been invited to the studio.
It testifies to the Uttar Pradesh government’s credo — a good Dalit is one who keeps mum, who is not visible.
Indeed, if Dalits stunned the nation by organising an all-India bandh, no less surprising was the spontaneous consolidation of the upper castes against it. They attacked Dalits and fired upon them.
In Rajasthan’s Hinduan city, mobs burnt down the house of BJP MLA, RajkumariJatav. Caste affinity trumped party loyalty. They also set fire to the house of former Congress MLA BharosiLalJatav. In Madhya Pradesh’s Bhind district, Thakurs shot dead a protesting Dalit youth, as they did another in Gwalior.
These incidents of last week underline why Modi’s Dalit outreach is not likely to succeed.
Social groups gravitate towards a party not only because of what its leaders profess; they also judge how accommodating or supportive its core supporters are of them. The BJP’s upper caste supporters rarely refrain from displaying their disdain for reservation. They have also traditionally suppressed Dalits. The incidents of last week will only bolster this impression.
It is not that the alienation of Dalits will necessarily prove disastrous to BJP. In Rajasthan, BJP is clearly on the back foot. In Madhya Pradesh, the party has been in power for just too long as not to spawn discontent. In Uttar Pradesh, BJP can’t hope to repeat 2014 in 2019, more so as there is a distinct possibility of Samajwadi Party and BahujanSamaj Party forging an alliance. In all these three states, BJP has to depend on the solid support of upper castes to fight a good battle.
The conflict over the SC/ST (POA) Act has certainly consolidated the upper castes. They might not feel inclined to Congress as it is historically more of a Dalit-friendly party than BJP. For instance, it has mocked BJP for playing a duplicitous game — not taking a position against the dilution of the Act and then filing a review petition.
But the upper castes and the Marathas will think BJP at least tried to water down the SC/ST (POA) Act, which will remain diluted until the Supreme Court pronounces its judgment on the review petition. They will also feel that the review petition was filed because all other formations ganged up to mount pressure on BJP to file it.
Another reason why BJP filed a review application was to ensure that the caste conflict did not intensify and persist. Prolonged instability speaks of the government’s incapacity and alienates even supporters whose livelihoods are unaffected. Then again, with parties forging alliances, it cannot alienate Dalits to the degree it has done with the Muslims. It would mean entering the political area with a minus of 25 percent to 28 percent of votes.
Modi’s Dalit initiatives hope to retain a fraction of the community’s votes it polled in 2014, not by empowering them or by changing the economic base of caste, but by assuming that there are many who remain what they were, say, 40-50 years ago — a people who silently licked their wounds and did not raise their voice to assert their rights, who became visible only when they were killed.
Since it is usually impossible to turn the clock back, Modi’s Dalit outreach will unlikely succeed. You can’t always run with the hare and hunt with the hound.
A prayer for our times
By Rajeev Bhargava
As all of us ordinary citizens recovered from the carnage in Pulwama, and wondered how the government would respond to this latest instance of cross-border terrorism, one television channel showed us poignant images of grieving relatives of the fallen soldiers. While a few, driven by moral hatred for the perpetrators, were understandably crying for revenge, others, even at this moment of utmost suffering, spoke of the futility of retaliation. “It would only bring similar suffering to fellow humans,” said one widow from the rural hinterland. Hers was a cry for peace, not for vengeful violence. “War can only be the last resort, after everything else has failed,” she wisely counselled.
Yes, war is sometimes necessary, especially in self-defence. But one doesn’t have to be an unconditional pacifist to acknowledge the misfortunes it begets or to decry war mongering. Nor is readiness to go to war the only indicator of patriotism. True, patriots must be prepared to die in defence of their ‘patria’, their mother or fatherland. But one is not any less a patriot if one strives for everyone in his country living peacefully, happily, flourishing, leading life to its fullness. Fighting the daily challenges faced by their countrymen, seeking to improve their lot, always loving them and their habitat, and expressing this love in word or deed as the occasion demands is the everyday vocation of a patriot.
A country at war is different. War is disruptive, and because it is lethal and involves human sacrifice, a patriot must eschew any bravado about it. This is particularly expected from contemporary leaders, patriots who never themselves go to war; quite unlike the past where the ruler who declared war was expected to always lead from the front on the battlefield. After all, it is our Army officers and jawans who die, not the ones who call for and support war. Our rulers move about with elaborate security to protect their own lives. If they don’t allow others to play with their lives, they must ensure that no one plays with the life of their countrymen, most of all our soldiers. Decisions on war must then be taken responsibly, without haste, not for spectacular effect or as tactical ploys in a game.
The inner workings of the human mind are mysterious, however. For it is not these thoughts that crossed my mind when I saw those moving images on television. This reasoning is retrospective; thoughts that have occurred to me now, post-facto. At that time, a strange melange of emotions — feelings of grief, despair, shame, nostalgia — curdled up and then suddenly, from nowhere, the lyrics of an immortal song by Sahir Ludhianvi, set to tune by Jaidev and sung melodiously by Lata Mangeshkar in the 1961 Dev Anand classic Hum Dono, came unbidden to mind: “Maangon ka sindoor na chhutey, maa behenon ki aas naa tootey (may no one be widowed; may no mother or sister lose hope of their loved one returning).”
In the film, these lines are part of a prayer for peace led by the wife and mother of a Major of the Indian Army missing in action — a prayer not only that their own loved one returns home safe but that no wife, mother or sister may lose loved ones in war. Death in war is an interruption, an anomaly. It takes away from us young, active, lively persons who have not yet lived their full life. When a soldier dies in the prime of life, he leaves many tasks unfinished, many relationships incomplete, millions of desires unfulfilled. And according to popular belief, when a person at the height of his powers meets a bloody, violent, untimely end, his prana or atman remains in limbo, trapped in no man’s land; it leaves the body without reaching wherever it is meant to go and keeps hovering around us. May this never happen to anyone, says the poet. “Deh bina bhatke na praan (may the spirit not abruptly detach from the body and wander restlessly).”
But this mellifluous song is more than a comforting prayer for peace. It subtly points fingers at those who injudiciously push us into war, at the economically strong and politically powerful who bring war upon us for their own benefit, to serve their own nefarious purpose. “O saare jag ke rakhawaale, nirbal ko bal dene waale, balwaanon ko de de gyaan (jnana) (you, who watch over the entire universe, you who empower the weak, may you also grant wisdom to the mighty).”
Jnana here refers not simply to knowledge, but to wisdom, moral insight, indeed to conscience. May the rulers rule with a conscience! May they be able to distinguish right conduct from wrong. Really, only such people should guide us when we are faced with the dilemma of whether or not to undertake morally retributive action.
And this is not all. The prayer then becomes a plea that we all be endowed with sanmati — to put our intelligence to good use, to have sound judgments, that all have a conscience. Why? Because unsound judgments, faulty moral reasoning and suspension of good sense are not the lot of leaders alone but also of those who support them and legitimise their actions. It is after all we, ordinary folks, who are swayed by war hysteria. Those without good sense get the leaders they deserve. May the gift of sanmati be bestowed on us. For only people with sanmati can rein in leaders who have lost all sense of good and bad, right and wrong.
But who is this prayer addressed to? “Allah tero naam, Ishwar tero naam (You, whose name is both Allah and Ishwar). In this, his masterstroke, Sahir invokes not only Gandhi, but an entire, centuries-old religio-philosophical legacy of the subcontinent in which all traditions are believed to share the same semantic universe that enables the god of one religion to be translated into the god of another. This is inclusive monotheism at its best, where god is one but referred to in different traditions by different names. And so, the prayer is addressed to Allah, Ishwar, and implicitly to the god of every religion.
With men spewing venom, not satisfied with fighting a war with their own fellow countrymen, itching to go to war with others, nothing (empathy, reason, dialogue) seems to work. Helpless spectators, no longer in control of their collective life, in sight of a looming disaster on the horizon, often break into a prayer. What else can those stripped of agency do but hope that somehow good sense may prevail, that all of us be delivered from the collective insanity that shows no sign of loosening its grip? Thus, those who believe in one god, invoke him; those who believe in gods and goddesses, invoke them; and those who believe in neither, hope for some good fortune to fall in their lap! This is why this is a prayer for our times: we offer this prayer to you, Allah to some, Ishwar to others, that you miraculously bring an end to needless killings, wisdom and conscience to the rich and powerful, and peace and good sense to everyone.
(Courtesy: The Hindu)
The ‘Clash of Civilisations’ Thesis Stalks the World
By Ram Puniyani
The horrific massacre in Christchurch on March 15 has shaken the world. The killer, Brenton Harrison Tarrant, is an Australian citizen. Nearly 50 people died in the attack in which Tarrant attacked two mosques. Those killed include nine from India.
Tarrant had fixed a camera on his head so as to live stream the massacre. The Christchurch terrorist was consumed by intense racism and hatred of Muslims. He posted a long statement online, a “manifesto” of “white nationalism” before undertaking the dastardly act.
New Zealand Prime Minster Jacinda Ardern, who at 38 years of age is among the youngest heads of government in the world, was the first to term the shootings an act of terrorism. Arden declared that the victims, many of whom may be migrants or refugees, “are us”, and the shooter “is not”. The overriding theme of the Prime Minister’s statements was that her country represents “diversity, compassion and refuge”.
The Pope in a touching speech said, “In these days, in addition to the pain of wars and conflicts that do not cease to afflict humanity, there have been the victims of the horrible attack against two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand… I am close to our Muslim brothers and all that community… ”
As in India, the phobia of Islam and Muslims is founded on the narrow version of history. This phobia against Muslims around the world gained momentum after the 9/11 Twin Towers attack in New York.
This phobia has by now constructed its own History, selective and distorted, that centres around Muslim invaders and their alleged crimes in the medieval past. This History generates endless accusations. It singles out and exaggerates, holding a large and diverse group of people collectively responsible for these acts.
It is tragic that Tarrant’s hateful note is being supported by those who believe in this notion of politics and history. Again, taking revenge for the past is one of the dimensions of the agenda governing these ideologues: “To take revenge on the invaders for the hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by foreign invaders in European lands throughout history.”
Again, the radicalisation of the likes of Tarrant is due to the rabid propaganda current in the Western media – and many places besides – where Muslims are constantly presented in a negative light. Many newspapers and media groups – owned by a few – like the Daily Mail in the UK and Fox News in the USA have taken the lead in spreading negative perceptions against Muslims.
Such propaganda, along with many anti-immigrant and xenophobic websites, is spreading hatred against Muslims which in turn is the foundation of the attacks on Muslims. Muslims are also being demonised in terms familiar from anti-Semitism, portraying them as less than trustworthy, lesser citizens and inferior humans or not humans at all.
Many such biases and myths are prevalent in India also. In the Western mode of propaganda Muslims are now being portrayed as people whose wearing of the hijab is sufficient proof that they are against the norms of the West – against the US Constitution, for example. Similarities with prevalent perceptions in India!
One recalls the Norwegian Christian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik at this point of time. In a carefully planned attack in 2011, Brevik killed 69 youth with a machine gun and other assault weapons. He also had issued a manifesto, in which he said his primary goal was to remove Muslims from Europe.
Breivik also called for cooperation between Jewish groups in Israel, Buddhists in China, and Hindu nationalist groups in India to contain Islam. He wrote, “It is essential that the European and Indian resistance movements learn from each other and cooperate as much as possible. Our goals are more or less identical.”
We must note, that there are strong parallels between Tarrant’s and Breivik’s manifestos and the ideology of Hindu nationalism, or Hindutva, on the question of the nature of Islam: Muslims and coexistence with Muslims. Much like rightwing parties in the European mainstream, the BJP in India does condemn the violence for name’s sake, but participates in spreading the underlying ideology which is based on Islam-phobia.
Worldwide, this despicable politics is in a way the outcome of the ‘clash of civilisations’ thesis propounded by Samuel Huntington. At the end of the Cold War, with the collapse of Soviet Russia, Francis Fukuyama stated that now Western liberal democracy would be the final form of political system.
Building on this, Huntington stated that now the primary conflict would be around civilisations and cultures. Nation-states would remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics would occur between nations and groups belonging to different ‘civilisations’.
“The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.” As per this manifesto Western civilisation is faced with a challenge from backward Islamic civilisation, providing the basis for the American policy of attack on many Muslim-majority countries like Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Iran among others.
To counter this thesis the United Nations undertook the initiative for an ‘Alliance of Civilisations’ when Kofi Annan was Secretary-General. The high-level committee he appointed gave a report which argues that all the progress in the world has been due to the alliances between different cultures and civilisations.
Today we are facing times where American politics of ‘control over oil wells’ led to the formations like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State. After the 9/11 attacks perpetrated by men whom the US government formerly supported and armed, the US media popularised the phrase ‘Islamic terrorism’. What we are witnessing today is the fallout of this policy, which was pursued simply to control oil wealth.
The Islam-Muslim phobia this generated, in the West and elsewhere, has led in due course to White Nationalism. Like other forms of majoritarianism and violence, this needs to be countered ideologically, by demonstrating the inherent tendency of alliance between diverse cultures found throughout human history in the world.
The Sikh Empire’s Expedition to Balakot
By Ananth Karthikeyan
A few weeks ago, the Indian Air Force’s Balakot air strike using French-built Mirage-2000s bought India and Pakistan to the brink of war, and perhaps changed the regional dynamics forever. Balakot has a history which has been a subject of much interest in the past few days: it was the site of the end of Syed Ahmad Barelvi’s jihad at the hands of the Sikh Empire. Today we look at this history and another curious fact – this was not the first time that French weaponry has been wielded against Islamist fanatics in this region.
Maharaja Ranjit Singh (r. 1801-1839) was aware of the superiority of Europeans in technology and modern methods of war. He sought to close this gap by importing talent and building an indigenous capability. Ranjit Singh welcomed experienced scientists, engineers, mercenaries and officers from European nations to ensure that his kingdom could withstand any threat. Besides, the Afghan kingdom, the Pathan tribes and jihadis were threatening his western borders. French know-how became a major element in the defence of his realm. After Napoleon lost in Waterloo (June 1815) thousands of French and allied European soldiers were dismissed: the governments of Europe, including the new government of France, distrusted those who served under Napoleon. A few settled into civilian life, but most could not: fighting was all they knew, and they did not wish to waste the skills they honed fighting in three continents. Many offered their services to Asian kings who wished to modernize their backward militaries.
At this juncture, Ranjit Singh accepted talented Napoleonic officers such as Jean-Francois Allard, Jean-Baptiste Ventura, Paolo Avitabile, and Claude Auguste Court into his service. Besides such officers, there were chemists, doctors, engineers and soldiers of American, German, Italian, Polish and Irish extraction also. Many foreigners were given plum roles in the Empire. Claude Auguste Court was a product of the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris and apparently knew the science of artillery. Paolo Avitabile also had considerable experience as an artillery officer. Court and Avitabile, along with the Sikh leader Lehna Singh Majithia (who possessed great skill in engineering), overhauled the Sikh artillery. They established the training program for the gunners. Court re-organized the artillery command structure and established arsenals and magazines on European lines. The existing weapon foundries and workshops (established by Ranjit Singh and Mian Qadir Baksh in 1807) were rebuilt with French know-how to manufacture a variety of high-quality guns and artillery. Ranjit Singh soon possessed a formidable artillery of about 500 pieces, including mobile horse-drawn artillery. Court was bestowed large cash awards and titles when he introduced his new shells, fuses and commenced full-scale production.
The meteoric rise of the Sikhs and the decline of the Muslim kingdoms of India had agitated many Islamic fundamentalists. The most influential of them was the popular preacher Syed Ahmed Barelvi, who hailed from present-day Rae Bareilly. In 1825, thousands of his followers from the Gangetic Plains took up his call for jihad against infidel powers and followed him to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Barelvi’s Jihad was supported by many Afghan chiefs, who were usually suspicious of all outsiders. Barelvi was able to field nearly 100,000 Mujahideen and launched a five-year guerilla war against the Sikh Empire.
However, Barelvi’s orthodox interpretation of scriptures and stern disregard of Afghan tribal traditions soon led to many Afghans leaving his cause. Barelvi suffered a crushing defeat in a battle with the Sikhs near Nowshera in March 1827. Later some Afghan tribes turned on Barelvi and massacred hundreds of his followers in Peshawar in November 1830. Barelvi and his loyalists now decided to move out and try their luck in Kashmir. However, a Sikh army led by Sher Singh surrounded the Mujahideen at a mountain fort in Balakot and annihilated them in May 1831.
Ranjit Singh’s French guns and artillery were widely used in such battles in the turbulent North West frontier. Artillery and firearms which performed reliably enabled the Sikhs to prevail against great odds. Perhaps even more critical was the discipline instilled in the new infantry battalions by the European officers. Officers such as Ventura and Court also led campaigns into the North West frontier. However, after Ranjit Singh died, neither their weapons nor their courage could save the Sikhs from civil war and treachery. During this chaos, the surviving Europeans returned to their homelands. Soon the British defeated the Sikhs and the Afghans also took back some of their lands.
The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa region is still turbulent, and weapons from many nations are still used here in the name of pacification, anti-terror and innumerable internal conflicts. History is repeating in strange ways and there are irony and dark humour in the shadow of the mushroom cloud. India’s French Mirages are the latest entrants in this theatre — let us hope it is not a destabilising element.