Connect with us

Opinion

Sushma should lead the fight against hate in India

The Kashmir Monitor

Published

🕒

on

IST

By Ajaz Ashraf

Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj has been praised for the dignity and quiet elegance with which she shamed those who criticised her viciously for intervening in a passport matter involving an inter-faith couple in Uttar Pradesh last month. Singed by the fury of Hindu radicals – luckily only on social media – Swaraj should now script a fight against the politics of hate, which has been gathering intensity across India every passing week.
Swaraj no longer has the option of remaining silent on hate crimes occurring around the country. Her silence would imply that she is either indifferent to the goings on, or lacks the empathy to feel the pain of those who are attacked, even lynched by groups who share the ideology of those who have abused her on social media.
Swaraj is most likely aware that she will needle her Bharatiya Janata Party, and even invite its displeasure, if she speaks out against the politics of hate. Yet, philosophically, politically and personally, it makes immense sense for her to now take a position against that strand of politics.
As Swaraj battled vitriolic abuse on social media following her intervention in the passport matter related to a Hindu-Muslim couple, she tweeted on July 1:
In a democracy difference of opinion is but natural. Pls do criticise but not in foul language. Criticism in decent language is always more effective.
But as an intelligent politician, Swaraj would know that trolls are not just about abusive language.
Ideas produce the language they articulate. Indecent ideas determine an indecent choice of words. An idea propagating hate sounds hateful – even if it is not peppered with expletives. For instance, the politest of anti-Semitic or anti-Black statements will be categorised as hate language in most western democracies. In India, to object to the state providing help to an inter-faith couple reeks of hate. When accompanied with abuse, the vilification is worse just in degree.
The relationship between language and ideas was vividly illustrated in a piece BJP national general secretary Ram Madhav wrote for the Indian Express on July 6. In the piece titled Trolling Sushma Swaraj, a champion of nationalism, on passport issue is unacceptable, Madhav convolutedly defended Swaraj, putting the blame for the passport controversy on Muslim clerics, who, he said, insist that Hindu women marrying Muslim men adopt Muslim names. “The social media activists should have taken on the clerics who insist on writing a different name in the nikahnama…” wrote Madhav.
Madhav’s piece could be called criticism in decent language. Yet his choice of words suggested that he would not have minded if Muslim clerics were abused on social media in the manner Swaraj was. Madhav’s choice of words was perhaps subconsciously determined by the idea behind them.
From this perspective, it will be hypocritical of Swaraj to treat abusive language and the ideas it stems from as separate categories, as she seemed to have done in her July 1 tweet. Perhaps Swaraj is aware of the link between idea and language, but thinks it is judicious to not criticise the ideas of hate. After all, some of these ideas have been deliberately constructed by her own party leaders, spawning a climate in India in which trolls will abuse and people will resort to violence.
But her cautious pushback will have no purchase in her party. This is why her ministerial colleagues, barring Union Ministers Rajnath Singh and Nitin Gadkari, did not defend her. They knew that to condemn the language employed by social media trolls against Swaraj was to also tacitly criticise the Sangh.
In the post-2014 BJP, careers can be built by endorsing ideas, words and actions dripping with hate. Union ministers Jayant Sinha and Giriraj Singh possibly know this all too well. If Sinha and Singh feted and defended men convicted for lynching and accused of fomenting communal tension last week, it was because they knew their party would not condemn their actions and might even appreciate it.
The transformation of the BJP since 2014 underlines Swaraj’s disconnect with the growing lumpen support base of her party. In a poll she conducted on Twitter last month, 43% of 1,24,305 Twitter users approved of the foul language used against her. Though the majority 57% comprised those who disapproved, they presumably also included those who are ideologically opposed to the BJP.
Philosophically then, Swaraj’s silence on hate crimes in the country can be seen as an example of double standards. Politically, her silence does not fit in with her party’s growing extremism and will not win her support among the BJP cadres. Personally, her silence will erode her image as a sensitive and caring politician.
For all these reasons, Swaraj can remain silent on hate at her own peril. The alternative to speaking against hate implies risking marginalisation in the BJP. But then, Swaraj has reached that point in her career where she does not have much to lose – and everything to gain.
Like many senior ministers in the Modi government, Swaraj’s potential has not been allowed to flower. Over the years, the External Affairs Ministry has been increasingly run by the Prime Minister’s Office. This is especially so during the tenure of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has a penchant for centralising power in himself.
Perceived to have been sidelined, not least because she was among those who opposed Modi as the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate in 2013, Swaraj has shown extraordinary skills to endear herself to the public, deftly using Twitter to provide relief to many. Swaraj has been praised for her creative humanity, although some uncharitably call her India’s Agony Aunt.
Swaraj’s image has given her equity that she perhaps hopes to invest in occupying the Prime Minister’s Office. But as far as the BJP goes, there is no vacancy for that post, such is Modi’s domination and so focused his tactics to beat back competitors.
Political pundits think Swaraj could become a prime ministerial contender if the BJP’s tally in the 2019 elections slides to 200-220. They say in such a scenario, the allies who are part of the National Democratic Alliance and those outside it whose support the BJP might need to form a government could demand that Modi be replaced.
But such a replacement cannot just be the call of BJP allies. It will certainly require the approval of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. In that scenario, it is unlikely that the RSS will back Swaraj over Nitin Gadkari and Rajnath Singh. Gadkari has been an RSS favourite for long. Like Swaraj, he is considered amiable and accommodating across political parties.
It is therefore Swaraj’s best bet to speak against the ideas, language and actions of hate. Swaraj should become the face of contradiction to power. This should work in her favour as Indians love politicians who take an ethical position against the government of which they are a part.
There are compelling examples of such politicians in the past. For instance, Jagjivan Ram’s departure from the Congress in 1977 after the Emergency galvanised the Opposition, which also got another infusion of energy when VP Singh rocked the Congress government over the Bofors scandal. Singh grew even stronger when he was ousted from the Congress in 1987.
Now that Swaraj has spoken against the abusive language directed at her, logic demands that she might as well go the whole hog and question the ideas of hate her party leaders peddle. This might imply scripting her departure from the party.
This might seem a problem for Swaraj cannot possibly drift to the Congress against which she has fought many a battle. But there is little doubt that a large segment of the Opposition will enthusiastically welcome her, seeing in her a catalyst for their politics. It will be particularly true of the socialists, with whom she has worked and continues to have warm relations.
Swaraj was 25 years old when she became a minister in the Devi Lal government of Haryana in 1977 and was appointed the president of the Janata Party (Haryana) two years later. Her husband, Swaraj Kaushal, defended socialist leader George Fernandes in the Baroda Dynamite case during the Emergency. In addition, a clutch of regional outfits will be more than eager to have her on their platform.
For this, Swaraj must redefine her role beyond the BJP. She must cultivate a persona beyond party affiliations. This may even be her best bet to become the prime minister. The alternative is to continue to oversee the External Affairs Ministry. Many before her have done this too, rarely leaving their imprint on Indian politics.
Obviously, Swaraj cannot play this role if she does not believe that foul language flows from vile ideas. Swaraj needs to show that her celebrated pushback against trolls is not restricted to her Twitter timeline.

 

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

Advertisement
Loading...
Comments

Opinion

Being fair and transparent

The Kashmir Monitor

Published

on

By  Navin B. Chawla

Two phases of the 2019 general election have been completed. Polling has finished in 186 out of 543 parliamentary constituencies. Polling in Vellore, Tamil Nadu, has been cancelled for corrupt practices. Five phases still remain till counting is comprehensively undertaken for all the seven phases of the election, on May 23. The reason to complete all the phases is that the result of any one phase should not influence the choices that electors may make.

Having served the Election Commission of India (EC) for five-and-a-half years during which I conducted the 2009 general election, I have an insider’s view, but of course am not privy to the inputs that the EC has and on which its decisions are made.

 

As I have argued in my recent book, Every Vote Counts, several negative features of our electoral scene have worsened. Since the Model Code of Conduct came into effect, in just the first two phases this time, money power has so reared its ugly head that seizures made of unaccounted cash, liquor, bullion and drugs amounting to ₹2,600 crore have already surpassed the entire seizures made in the nine phases of the general election in 2014. Most depressingly, this includes huge hauls of drugs, the vast majority smuggled into Gujarat. Uttar Pradesh is awash with liquor. Tamil Nadu has seen the largest seizures of illicit cash —over ₹514 crore.

These vast sums intended to bribe or influence voters prove several things. The first is that these sums almost certainly represent only a fraction of current illegal spending, a tip of the iceberg as it were. They have been detected by the EC’s machinery acting on the basis of tip-offs, or else by the vigilance of electoral officials in the States. Unfortunately, the bulk of illegal tranches of money, liquor or freebies would have reached their destination. Second, political players have refined their methods in being many steps ahead of the EC’s observers and their vigilance teams by moving their funds to their destinations even before the elections are announced.

Does this not make a mockery of the statutory limit of ₹70 lakh that each Lok Sabha candidate has as his poll expenditure limit?

As a country we need to ask ourselves some hard questions. When every rule in the book is being broken, when there is no transparency on how political parties collect or spend their funds, when limits of candidate spending are exceeded in every single case, then the time has come to debate whether we need to re-examine our rule book. In order to supervise the matches in play, the EC has had to deploy over 2,000 Central observers for the entire duration, drawing them out from their ministries and departments at the cost of their normal work at the Centre and in the States. Thousands of vigilance squads are set up and must act on the information they receive, which is why the current level of seizures have already made this India’s most expensive general election yet. An intelligent guess may lead us to a final tally of spending in excess of ₹50,000 crore, the bulk of which is made up of illicit funding and spending.

It is by now clear as daylight that electoral bonds, far from enabling a legitimate and transparent means of political funding, have proved to be the reverse. The EC, in its own affidavit before the Supreme Court, has admitted as much. The Supreme Court’s order has made sure that full disclosure, albeit to the EC, has already effectively killed further funding along this route. Nothing is a better disinfectant for camouflaged funding than sunlight itself.

With my experience this compels me to say that any serious reform with regard to funding must come from the EC itself, for it is very unlikely that any government will take an initiative in this direction. The EC must take stock after this election is over. It should convene a conference of all stakeholders, including of course all recognised political parties, both Central and State. But this should not be exclusively confined to them, for they will tend to support the status quo or they will be unable to reach consensus. The list of stakeholders must also include the best constitutional and legal minds in our country.

In my book I have also raised the twin problem of candidates fielded with criminal antecedents. The 16th Lok Sabha that has now passed into history, saw almost 30% of its members declaring, in their compulsory self-sworn affidavits, the list of criminal cases registered against them. They are also legally obliged to declare their wealth and their educational qualifications. This is the result of two vital orders passed by the Supreme Court in 2002-2003, the result of a battle that the Association for Democratic Reforms fought tenaciously. Unfortunately, in the first phase of this election, 12% of the candidates perforce declared that they had heinous cases pending, while in the second phase the figure was 11%. It may be noted that these cases include murder, attempt to murder, dacoity, kidnapping and rape. Have we forgotten Nirbhaya and 2012 already?

The matter of the Model Code of Conduct and its administration by the EC has been the most frequently reported single issue in this election. For those of a certain generation, the 10th Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), T.N. Seshan — he once famously declared that “he ate politicians for breakfast” — was the man who made the country sit up and take note when he decided to level the playing field as never before. There is little doubt that he reminded the EC that it had powers inherently enshrined in Article 324 of the Constitution — powers so great that there is arguably no other electoral management body with similar powers.

I learned this during my years as Election Commissioner, and these are the powers I exercised during the course of the 15th general election in 2009; I was successfully able to confront three Congress-ruled State governments and one Congress ally too. One of them even convened a special press conference to declare that his government would move the Supreme Court against the EC’s “arbitrariness”, but I personally had no doubt about its outcome. As it happened, he chose not to in the end.

The point I seek to make, by virtue of my own experience, is that the powers of the EC are so enormous and so all-encompassing that they exceed the powers of the executive in all election-related issues during the course of the election period. Of course, these must be exercised judiciously, fairly and equitably, not least because every decision is analysed in every “adda”, every home, every street corner and every “dhaba” across the country, where the EC’s decisions must be seen to be fair and transparent. During the years precedent to becoming CEC, I was fortunate that Mr. Seshan advised me whenever I called on him. As a result I never felt any need to make reference to government or court, once the process was under way.

If there is anything for me to applaud thus far in this election, it is the decision made by two political parties which have selected over 33% women candidates — Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress (41% for 42 Lok Sabha seats) and Naveen Patnaik’s Biju Janata Dal (33% for 21 Lok Sabha seats). After years of patriarchy or at best lip service, these parties have taken a vital step towards empowering women politically.

(The Hindu)

Continue Reading

Opinion

Why Imran bats for Modi

The Kashmir Monitor

Published

on

By  Ayesha Siddiqa |

It seems that people from very odd quarters — such as Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan — want Narendra Modi to win the upcoming elections. Khan’s recent comments, in which he desired victory for his counterpart as good for the future of a peace initiative, may be driven by pragmatic reasons, but it indicates the separation that exists between the two countries. Following comments by the Opposition and in segments of the social media, the federal information minister intervened and pretended that Khan, who can often open his mouth before engaging his brain, was misunderstood.

Intriguingly, despite India being the most significant country in the neighbourhood, its election outcomes have marginal impact on the region. Khan’s statement, in fact, indicates that disconnectedness in which the head of the government of a neighbouring state refused to measure the implications beyond tactical effect. It seems a right-wing government in India does not matter to Pakistan. Or, perhaps, a Modi-led right-wing government is a wish come true for the ideological right-wing in Pakistan. For the first time since 1947, people do not have to convince each other of how right Muhammad Ali Jinnah was in creating Pakistan: Not that Pakistan was ever designed for all Muslims of the Indian subcontinent, but it now sees its formula for ideological nationalism justified in the face of rising religious-ideological nationalism next door in India. I have lived through the times when Pakistan’s intelligentsia was confused in the face of Indian secularism and democracy. Despite having their own country, there would be an internal conversation about the Indian experiment being better. The last four to five years has brought about a change in that thinking.

 

The BJP leadership of the last five years cannot be held entirely responsible for all the political and sociological change. If anything, the last four years have helped expose the true colours of the rising Indian middle-class that does not necessarily think very differently from the Hindutva supporter on certain issues. There is no sign that the Congress under Rahul Gandhi would have the gumption to change the course of society. Hearing the young Congress leader speak at a university in London, he did not seem to possess the temerity to deviate markedly from the ideological path that the BJP has chosen for India. However, there is an opinion in Pakistan that a Congress-led government, or any dispensation other than the present formulation, may be more cautious in how it approaches issues in the region.

Meanwhile, the general sense is that with Modi at the helm of affairs, war and conflict will mark the tone of relations between the two countries. However, this would be beneficial for Pakistan’s nationalist project that gets strengthened with every news of mob lynching of Muslims and other minorities, from India. This is not to argue that the state of minorities in Pakistan is any better: But New Delhi no longer represents a secular ideal. For Islamabad, a non-secular India is easier to contest.

The only limitation that Pakistan faces in fighting a BJP-led India is its own internal problems, like the dearth of financial resources, and not the intent. This also means that conflict cannot remain the only shrill refrain: A resolution would have to be negotiated for which the establishment in Rawalpindi prefers a BJP-governed India. Khan’s statement basically means that he, and others who share his thinking, believe that a strong right-wing government is the only credible element with which Pakistan could settle its matters. The question then is, what happened after the Lahore declaration? Wasn’t it a BJP-government that was willing to talk peace? Or, what happened to the peace initiative between the A B Vajpayee and Pervez Musharraf governments?

Seen purely from the Pakistani establishment’s perspective, Kargil happened because the military wanted an equaliser at a time when the political government had not taken it into confidence. As far as the breakdown of talks at Agra are concerned, the right-wing in India was divided at the time and the segment represented by L K Advani did not want peace. For Rawalpindi, Modi represents a neat synthesis of India’s right-wing. Hence, the negotiations would be more comprehensive than ever before. The only problem, however, remains that how does one predict Pakistan’s deep state — whose contours, today, are even more difficult to define.

This understanding goes hand in hand with the thinking that the pragmatism of the Hindu right-wing would not stop Delhi from talking to Pakistan despite the latter’s habitual U-turn from peace initiatives. While the emphasis following most track-II dialogues, particularly after a bilateral crisis, is on the Indian members of the group to apprise their counterparts of the anger in India, the Pakistani side has always maintained that it is possible to pick up the conversation thread from where it was dropped. A decade into this behaviour, there is barely anyone on Pakistan’s side with the capacity to remind their own the highly problematic nature of this approach.

Not unlike today’s India, the cost of dissent in Pakistan is very high. There is little traction in the corridors of power towards an alternative approach to resolving the conflict. The deep state in Pakistan — which is not necessarily the entire military, but is symbolised by it — has gained excessive control of all discussions and dialogue. There is also the confidence that international and regional geopolitics allows Rawalpindi the opportunity to continue with its old approach. Money matters are critical, but it will not force a course correction unless Pakistan reaches a breaking point.

Continue Reading

Opinion

The Violent Misuse of a Sacred Symbol

The Kashmir Monitor

Published

on

By  Manash Firaq Bhattacharjee

A friend had pointed it out to me, in an Arya Samaj Mandir. It was more than a decade ago, when a roommate in JNU, who hailed from Haryana, was entering into an inter-caste marriage with his long-time, Bengali girlfriend. The wedding was taking place against the wishes of their respective parents. There were only friends from the university, who were present to take part in the couple’s happiness. Such is the price of love, in a society where the celebration of “family values” and “religious values” have for generations, meant the celebration of patriarchy, caste interest, and economic interests. It inevitably meant the refusal to accept, the free laws of love. We were in the middle of the short ceremony when my friend drew my attention to a poetic line written on the wall: “Om means a thousand things. One of them is, welcome to the abode of the gods.”

Growing up in a Hindu household, I was of course aware of the symbol. It used to be drawn in red, on small urns made of copper, and placed before a deity. On the urn, Dūrvā (or Darbha, or Kusha) grass would be dipped in water. The Dūrvā grass comprises of three blades, which symbolises the sacred trinity for Hindus. Om, I slowly learnt, was considered the primordial sound, the sacred syllable, that would precede all chanting. The word has been associated with cosmic significance in the Aitareya Brahmana of the Rig Veda, as something that connects the liberated human spirit with the universe, as “essence of breath, life, everything that exists”.

 

It shook me from inside, to see the photograph of the Om symbol, being violently engraved on the back of a man I learnt is Nabbir, an undertrial Muslim prisoner in Tihar jail. Nabbir was forcibly marked and denied food for two days on April 12, allegedly by the jail superintendent. This is not just a terrible incident, but marks of a sickness that can quickly, if unchecked and not punished by law, spread into a fascist method of torture and humiliation. This is a bizarre act of classifying a non-Hindu victim.

It is necessary to pay attention to what is taking place in this incident. A language of horror is being established through this act of power. By engraving the symbol, the Muslim prisoner’s body was robbed of its sovereignty. Sovereignty here is political in the religious sense. The invisible presence of the sacred exists in the prisoner’s body.  The marking of the Hindu symbol on his back, is a violation of the prisoner’s sacred world, where the meaning of sacred becomes territorial. The body is no longer the body of a man who can exist within his ‘human rights’, despite his lack of political rights as a prisoner.

What is ‘human’ within the man’s belief system is intrinsically his ability to exist as a man who belongs to a god. It is a spiritual relationship that belongs to the realm of another law, where governmental power is marked off, and ideally has no control over. What has occurred in this case is precisely this ‘human’ breach between governmental power and sacred power. The superintendent did not limit himself to the task of holding juridical authority over his prisoner. That limit was overcome by a violent superimposition of another authority (or power) that the superintendent had no right to use over the prisoner.

The act of marking a Muslim prisoner’s back with a Hindu symbol is not a sacred but a territorial act, where the mis/use of power involves marking someone with sacred symbols as proof of dominance. The act of marking the prisoner’s shoulder with the sacred symbol that does not belong to the world he inhabits within, is to humiliate his inner sense of sacredness by deliberating implanting an alien symbol on his body. That symbol is also torn from its own sacred universe, and made to symbolise something territorial.

In the Tihar jail incident, everything is reduced to the trembling of a body, where the sacred is turned into a mark of horror. It is a space where everything corresponds to nothing, where symbols are reduced to bones, where the holy is reduced to what in the Book of Revelation (13: 16-17) is called “the mark… of the beast”. The “essence of breath, life and everything that exists”, what is symbolic of Om, is violently taken away from the prisoner. He is left to breathe, and live, only his humiliation.

Whether you believe or not in the human soul, we can name the soul as an invisible entity that remains in correspondence with something unnamable. It is this soul that all forms of barbaric power want to control and humiliate, in order to reduce the human to a nonhuman status. Even in the Germany of 1938, Jewish prisoners were marked by a yellow star, which was a perverted form of the Jewish Star of David. When history repeats itself, it is not just as tragic or farce, but sometimes pure horror.

(Courtesy: thewire.in)

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 965,894 other subscribers

Archives

April 2019
M T W T F S S
« Mar    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  
Advertisement