Connect with us


Indian intellectuals hate Rahul Gandhi as much as they hate Narendra Modi

The Kashmir Monitor





By Kumar Ketkar

Almost all intellectuals have come to the conclusion that the so-called opposition unity is impossible. This outright rejection of the idea of “Index of Opposition Unity (IOU)” is particularly shrill after Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) supremo Mayawati slammed both the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Congress last week for failing to check rising fuel prices. It’s also because the BSP, the Trinamool Congress (TMC), the Samajwadi Party (SP) and the Left did not join the Bharat Bandh on 10 September.
Some intellectual-columnists blame Rahul Gandhi for failing to build an opposition front. Some others say that the Congress party, irrespective of Rahul, is responsible for this situation by being too arrogant, insensitive and stubborn. Then there are those who interpret this failure in sociological terms and say that it is inconceivable that Yadavs and Dalits can come together.
Some pundits view the incompatibility of the opposition parties in personality terms. They feel that Mamata Banerjee, Mayawati, N. Chandrababu Naidu, and even Naveen Patnaik and Sharad Pawar have prime ministerial ambitions. Therefore, they cut into each other’s ambition. Some speculate that in case of a hung Parliament, even Pranab Mukherjee can throw his hat in the ring.
Will 1977 repeat itself?
There are also “optimists” who visualise a split in the BJP, blessed by L.K. Advani himself! They speculate the breakaway group of the party will join the motley opposition. These “rebels”, they feel, will draw courage from Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie, both ministers in the Atal Bihari Vajpayee cabinet, who have launched a nationwide campaign, attacking Narendra Modi and Amit Shah over the Rafale deal, rural distress and dictatorship.
Their argument is that in 1977, the rebellion by Jagjivan Ram, Nandini Satpathy and H.N. Bahuguna against Indira Gandhi convincingly nailed the Congress. The hastily carved out Janata Party and even the popularity of Jayaprakash Narayan could not have brought down the Emergency regime! Indeed, there were leaders like George Fernandes who advocated not to fight the elections because there was little chance that the Janata alliance could win.
This group of intellectuals have a similar assessment of the political situation today. But these intellectuals, self-styled or otherwise, do not belong to any organisation or any party, nor do they have any ideology and neither do they follow any individual leader. These intellectuals, almost by definition, are individualists.
They cannot be brought under one banner or one ideology. The defining characteristic of intellectuals is that they are highly opinionated, with often uncompromising opinions, even if they do not have facts to back them. “Don’t give me facts that distort my opinions” was an anecdote attributed to one US President.
Most intellectuals are known to have detested the Congress, except during the Nehru era. They hated Indira Gandhi the most. Some techno-intellectuals did join Rajiv Gandhi, but later deserted him. The intellectual-columnist community often advises Congress in general and Rahul in particular. But that also comes with a lot of doubt and disdain. Some of them expect (and even want) the Congress to win a respectable number of seats, but don’t like Rahul. Many of them did not have a high opinion of Sonia Gandhi too. However, some among them prefer Sonia to Rahul!
The Jana Sangh, and later the BJP too, was never a favourite with the intellectuals. The RSS outfits are known to have been either ridiculed or demonised as medieval in their worldview. The so-called “Right wing” intellectuals were few in number back then but they too did not prefer hobnobbing with the ‘Saffrons’. The Swatantra Party had a top intellectual-founder like C. Rajagopalachari but it could not gather a similar class of people around it, except the retired ICS and some ‘bohemian’ aristocrats.
The Communists did attract some intellectuals, but the liberals among them hated their dogma, their Stalinist past, their so-called unmannerly and, some would say, even uncouth and loud behaviour.
The fellow travellers, who were not part of the Communist parties, got associated with the “Left Congress” during the Indira period. Their mentors were P.N. Haksar and Mohan Kumaramangalam among other such British-educated elite. Many fellow travellers like Romesh and Raj Thapar became hostile to Indira after the Emergency.
Then of course there was a large, disparate, self-styled liberal-Left intellectual class who vacillated between Ram Manohar Lohia, Acharya Narendra Dev and Jayaprakash Narayan. They became socialists, environmentalists, educationists, Gandhian of sorts, sarvodayees, and anti-corruption crusaders. Most of them were known for their hatred for the Congress, even Nehru and certainly Indira.
These disparate “socialists-Lohiaites” were the makers and breakers of the Janata Party.
After the splintering of the Janata Party, various “Janata outfits” like the SP, the SJP, the RJD, the JD(S), the JD(U) and half a dozen other parties in that genre were born. But most liberals, well-settled in life, and the private sector (corporate) executive class had no love lost for these parallel Left parties. Members of these parties were often ridiculed as “Jholawalas”! Many would argue that some of these “Jholawalas” were also loose cannons or self-indulgent intellectual nomads.
The point to note is that none from the “intellectual class” felt close to the Congress or to the BJP.
However, some years ago, there was a cry in the wilderness that there was no “genuine Right wing” intellectual community. Therefore, the term “intellectual” seemingly got associated with the Left or even Marxist Left! The “intellectuals” seemed to occupy a “liberal, secular, progressive” space. It was believed that this kind of space was closed to any Sangh-affiliated person.
This is the psycho-sociological reason why the Saffron Parivar perhaps hates and detests “intellectuals”, particularly the Left and the secular ones! Since the space for a “Right wing” intellectual was vacant, many pro-market, pro-American, pro-consumerism, pro-corporate individualists turned to the BJP. Although they did not appreciate the strident Hindutva, they had no option but to become the ‘Saffron fellow-travellers’. Their hatred for the Congress, utter dislike for Nehruvism or the dynastic culture, their contempt for welfarism and social activism brought them within the larger BJP circle.
Many of them are uncomfortable with Narendra Modi’s style, and crave for Vajpayee and his seemingly ‘Right wing’ liberal legacy. But they know that Modi cannot become Vajpayee. They are now intellectually trapped because they cannot join the mahagathbandhan or a unified opposition’s ship.
And, they certainly don’t want to be anywhere near the Congress. They detest Modi but they detest Rahul more. They don’t like ban on cow slaughter, ban on beef, lynchings, or Mandir Movement, but they tolerate it, even occasionally defend it, for a larger “cause of keeping the Congress out”.
The other assorted Left and liberal community also hates the Congress, but it regards the Sangh Parivar as mediocre, regressive, close-minded and non-modern. So, it has started gravitating towards the Congress, notwithstanding its dislike for the “dynasty”.
Therefore, just as there is no proper mahagathbandhan or a new UPA, there is no integrated NDA either. As a result, the cry for a ‘Right Wing’ intellectual space persists. On the other hand, the Left-liberal intellectual is still in search of a party, and perhaps a proper ideological positioning. The Left-Liberal does not want to admit that s/he is confused.
It is in this intellectually barren land and ideologically vacuous atmosphere where the BJP is looking for intellectual sanction and the Congress is seeking a new respectful identity!


The Kashmir Monitor is the fastest growing newspaper as well as digitial platform covering news from all angles.



A prayer for our times

The Kashmir Monitor



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)

Continue Reading


The ‘Clash of Civilisations’ Thesis Stalks the World

The Kashmir Monitor



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.

Continue Reading


The Sikh Empire’s Expedition to Balakot

The Kashmir Monitor



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.


Continue Reading

Latest News

Subscribe to The Kashmir Monitor via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to The Kashmir Monitor and receive notifications of new stories by email.

Join 1,000,432 other subscribers


March 2019
« Feb