That the Indians have stashed money abroad was known even when I began my journalism career almost 60 years ago. The West German Government once provided us with the list of depositors. But nothing came out of it because the people involved enjoyed political patronage. The much-hidden Swiss accounts were also given to the government when it made an official request. No action followed since it was once again seen that the people who had kept their money were influential.

I recall the Union Home Ministry once making an inquiry into the foreign funding of political parties after a furore in Parliament. The report was never revealed, but it was given out unofficially that all political parties, including the Left, had their accounts in West Germany or Switzerland.

The revelations made now about the offshore investments by Indian businessmen and indus-trialists are in the same category. One must congratulate the intrepid journalists for this. After talking to the journalists, I found that it had taken more than six months for them to collect information and collate it from here and there.

Understandably, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has set up a panel of officials from the Income Tax Department, RBI and Enforcement Directorate to probe the matter and apportion responsibility. Yet, nothing concrete would come out of it because the persons connected with the dealings have a political clout.

Parliament may take up the matter since the entire nation is horrified over the disclosures. Yet again, the matter would not go beyond accusations and counter-accusations since all political parties are involved in some way or the other. Parties have to oil their set-ups and they have to have some source to do so. The bane of the problem is the money needed during elections. Election to Assembly constituencies is estimated to cost Rs 10,000 crores. Naturally, the Lok Sabha elections would need several more crores of rupees. Even individual voters are being paid in cash or kind by different political parties in a bid to woo them. For example, Tamil Nadu, which is going to the polls next month, has already had the maximum number of arrests connected with pre-poll unaccounted money.

Many parliamentary committees have gone into the funding with the purpose of reducing the expenditure. Instead, the expenses have gone up. The Election Commission has banned publicity of several ills which were spotted during electioneering. But the overall situation has worsened, not improved. In fact, all political parties, particularly the ruling ones, use all kinds of methods to win elections.

Power has come to mean not only authority but also money for the cadres. Therefore, no method is mean enough to win. The manner in which caste is used makes a mockery of free balloting. The Constitution debars all these practices but still the parties use castes and sub-castes because this, apart from money, influences the voters the most.

Finance Minister Arun Jaitely's statement that there are no holy cows for them is all right as it goes. Yet, he knows that those who finance political parties cannot be touched because they are the ones who sustain them. How can a political party cut the hand that feeds it?

The Election Commission in its various reports has complained that a candidate spends more than the limit laid down. According to the limits defined, an Assembly candidate should not spend more than Rs 28 lakhs while the Lok Sabha's limit is Rs 70 lakhs per constituency. However, candidates spend many times more. Since there is no limit placed on the expenditure by political parties, the Election Commission is helpless in taking action when it finds that a candidate for the Assembly or Lok Sabha does not stay within the limit.

The accounts which the legislators submit to the Election Commission are all cooked up because they find it not possible to adhere to the rules if they have to cover the constituencies. Several vehicles and volunteers are required to reach every part of the constituency and yet the candidates find it difficult to cover all of them. The television medium has made things easier. But a candidate does not want his message go out as an advertisement. One, it costs a lot of money and, two, the viewers do not like canvassing through advertisements.

If the Prime Minister can live with statements of bogus election expenses, he can very well accept the offshore investments which are unethical but not illegal. After all, this is their way of avoiding paying high taxes in India. High taxation in the country is again the reason why businessmen and others prefer to keep their money abroad. The government has declared amnesty many a time and made it attractive for businessmen and industrialists to disclose their assets abroad. But how to make them keep money at home and pay taxes is the problem.

I recall that India was facing acute foreign exchange crisis when I was the High Commissi-oner at London in 1990. I made a personal appeal to the people of Indian origin living there that the country which they called Bharat Mata required their contribution urgently. But the request fell on deaf ears. They were looking for good returns. Once they were offered bonds, which would ensure high returns in foreign exchange, they were too willing to invest. For them, the love of the country had to be translated into money.

By all means, the Prime Minister should probe the offshore investments. And he is justified in doing so. But he should realise that the investors that found tax havens abroad will find some other ways to evade. In fact, a probe is needed to find out why the Indians prefer money to the interests of their motherland. For this, mere slogans like Bharat Mata ki Jai will not help. The RSS, which has coined the slogan, should find ways how to evoke that kind of love. But how can it do so when it doesn't believe in a pluralistic society, the ethos of India?

The author is a veteran journalist renowned not only in this country but also in our neighbouring states of Pakistan and Bangladesh where his columns are widely read. His website is www.kuldipnayar.com

POLITICAL NOTEBOOK

As the pre-election tension grips several States going to polls to elect Assemblies where electoral campaign is on in full swing, the latest incident in Srinagar's National Institute of Technology (where clashes took place on March 31 when two groups fought over India's defeat to West Indies in the T-20 World Cup Cricket semi-final) has caused legitimate consternation across the country.

The Central Government is currrently being run by persons suffering from an acute sense of political myopia and are completely bereft of vision. It is thus highly unlikely that the Centre would change its attitude and adopt a stance, conditioned by wisdom and maturity, that would help defuse tensions in Kashmir even at this late stage. Yet it is necessary to sound the customary note of caution for whatever it is worth: the country cannot afford shortsighted policies aggravating the prevailing situation in one of the most sensitive areas of the nation. The moot question, therefore, is: is it not high time for persons in power to realise the conseqences of playing with fire in such places as they are doing now?

Lately Raghuram Rajan, Governor of the country's central bank, the Reserve Bank of India, has said that the names of those who have taken loans of thousands of crores of rupees from the public sector banks and defaulted on repaying cannot be disclosed because it will ‘chill economic activity'. Most of these gentlemen are heads of corporate giants. By not repaying the money they had borrowed, they have turned the PSU banks sick. As on March 31, 2015, the outstanding loans—non-performing assets or NPAs of the banks—stood at a staggering Rs 2.16 lakh crores, much higher than the amounts involved in the coal scam or the telecom scam.

Last month, two things happened. First, Vijay Mallya, the man who owes the banks Rs 9000 crores, was allowed to flee from the country with the full knowledge of the government and all its agencies dealing with economic offenders. Second, Alagar, a farmer in Tamil Nadu, was driven to commit suicide because he had defaulted on paying two instalments of his bank loan.

The people are realising that the economy is being run for the rich and the super-rich, for the corrupt and the unscrupulous. The Union Government has not been able to control inflation or prices of essential commodities or the continuous erosion of the real wages of the people. Anger and discontent is rising. In the circumstances, the only way to divert the people's anger is to whip up a hysteria of ultra-nationalism and ultra-patriotism. All the organisations of the Sangh Parivar are diligently at it. The Leftists are too busy winning a seat here or avoiding a loss there to think of the people and their misery. The Hindutva juggernaut moves on relentlessly, crushing everything under its wheels and destroying the country itself in the process.

April 7 Analyst

COMMUNICATION

The BJP, the ruling party at the Centre, has earned notoriety for duplicity, artful demagogy for non-implementation of promises and tall talk. It has been implementing the RSS agenda of transforming India from a secular democratic republic into a Hindu state. It aims at destroying our precious composite national culture.

Its Ministers and leaders have launched a hate campaign against Muslims and deliver highly provocative speeches against them; these speeches are responsible for the outbreak of anti-Muslim communal riots. The glaring example of such riots is the great Dadri tragedy. What is most surprising and lamentable is that the Prime Minister does not prevent his Ministers and leaders of its party from delivering anti-Muslim speeches which lead to horrible anti-Muslim riots.

Dr M. Hashim Kidwai, (Ex-Member of Parliament), C-105, Rosewood Apartments , Mayur Vihar, Delhi-110091

by Arup Maharatna

In this essay we seek to posit that many of the major ills that presently afflict Indian politics, society, and culture are attributable, in a large measure, to its resolute escape from the core ideational and attitudinal influences of the Western enlightenment, the mainspring of the modern industrial democratic civilisational world. We use the term ‘escape', because India has neither wholeheartedly rejected, nor sincerely embraced, the basic insights, wisdoms and messages of the epoch-making Enlighten-ment movement across the West.

No doubt, due to a deformed developmental trajectory, shaped largely by British imperial interests (until independence), India had to miss out the historic opportunity of sharing or experiencing the classic Enlightenment move-ment and its progressive aftermath since the early 19th century. For instance, Japan, having been free from colonial subjugation, did witness a progressive socio-cultural and economic trans-formation at the behest of its native emperors of the Meiji dynasty with its inspired programme for infusing modern ideas and values through rapid expansion of elementary education, culmi-nating into a glorious phase of all-round Japanese progress since the mid-nineteenth century. Arguably, therefore, just after independence, India could have embarked on a prioritised bunch of initiatives/programmes toward inculcating, on a countrywide scale, an unwavering admiration and appreciation of the universal power of reason and rationality, particularly through mass public school education with suitably designed curriculum (which emphasises the fundamental value of reason, rationality and secular attitudes). This could well have made the masses intrinsically or ideationally ‘enligh-tened', but not exactly ‘Westernised' in terms of socio-cultural ethos, spiritualism, lifestyles and so on. This was broadly the conviction with which a sort of ‘renaissance' project was spearheaded by the intellectually enlightened thinkers and reformers—albeit on an elitist scale—in a few pockets of nineteenth-century colonial India.

But as Amartya Sen aptly argues, India's renaissance intelligentsia's self-characterisation and pride in spiritual and philosophical supe-riority were substantially influenced by the contemporary dominant Western perceptions of India full of exotic praise for her old literature, philosophy and spirituality. In the words of the historian Sumit Sarkar, ‘[d]epen-dence on the foreign rulers and alienation from the masses were to remain for long the two cardinal limitations of our entire “renaissance” intelligentsia'. Accordingly, the Swadeshi move-ment was plagued by an ideological conflict between modernism (reason-based attitude/rationality) and traditionalism (existing social mores based on a glorious past). In contrast, the entire Western enlightenment experience shows how ideational modernism won over traditiona-lism by affording centrality and key instrumen-tality to the mass public elementary education.

In his bid to mobilise the native masses for the freedom movement, Mahatma Gandhi utilised a rugged sentimental stance of glorifying traditional India's indigenous lines of thinking, spiritualism, life-styles, and many religious-cultural attributes and norms.Thus, the prime necessity of people's awakening to the profound significance of enlightenment values, objective reasoning and pragmatic rationality was easily overlooked. While the Gandhian project worked well in achieving political independence, it was of little help in enlightening the citizens' minds with rationalistic, scientific and secular spirits and outlook instrumental to ensuring social and political stability, coherence and hence broad-based economic development.

Many Indian authors and political leaders often made explicit the necessity of bringing scientific attitude and objectivity to people's minds, but they typically bypassed the key question of how best could we bring these attitudinal or ideational changes on a mass scale or the question of detailed practicalities of meeting this necessity by redesigning the content of the school curriculum. Pandit Nehru was appreciative of the fruits of modern science and technological advances (and he heralded within a relatively short span several high-profiled institutions for scientific, technological, and nuclear research). But he showed little urgency over the needs and means for inculcating scientific, pragmatic, and reason-based attitudes and mental make-up among the entire populace. This was largely because of Nehru's misper-ception (as time proved it) that rapid industriali-sation along with modern science, technology and techniques of production would almost inevitably perform the job of modernising (and secularising) people's minds and mentalities.

Thus, the Indian leadership chose to leave unstirred or unreformed the peoples'uncritical, unquestioning beliefs in fate, faiths, rituals, caste-based aberrations, superstitions, religious communalities, tribal distinctions and diversities and myriad divisive socio-cultural ethos and religious practices, thereby creating wide room for their great combined potential for invoking deep complexities in course of modern economic development. Even the most influential political and intellectual personality devoted little attention to the question of how best such practical/potential socio-cultural and political anomalies and eccentricities could be tamed in a vast diverse democratic polity like India. As testified amply by now, the politically nurtured sentiment of nationalism/patriotism per se could be of little avail in mitigating endemic internal quandaries, deep-seated perceptual or attitudinal irrationalities or prejudices linked to blind religious faith and related identity-centred bigotry and conflicts and social differentiations. The latter, if one goes by historical experience in the West, have most durably been dampened by the growing grip of reason, spirit of scientific enquiry, and rising influence of humanistic rationality in people's outlook and attitude. It is of much interest as to why India's political leadership failed to prioritise the need for ideational and attitudinal modernisation and secularisation, which could serve as long-lasting antidotes to religious conflicts, eruptions of socio-cultural and political strife, complexities and chaos ahead.

In their sequel, the seeds of fathomless contra-dictions got sown quite early into the post-independence India's vision and strategy of development. On the one hand, the acclaimed nationalist leaders' rhetoric and recapitulations abound both in the Constitution, official reports, speeches, and other forms of media that exalt the dynamic role of Western science and technology in the country's post-independence development schemes and programmes. On the other hand, there has been a stubborn political compulsion to cling consciously to populist glorification of India's past cultural, religious and spiritual traditions.

This envisaged scheme of India's develop-ment, from the standpoint of world history, sounds akin to choosing a short-cut route to arriving at the modern industrial age of capitalist and democratic growth by bypassing the classical phase of ‘enlightenment'. It is true that within a few decades of the twentieth century the death rate of several poor countries, including India, did decline via large-scale application of inexpensive vaccines and antibiotics invented in the West by a gigantic magnitude which the West itself took about a century to achieve. But this experience of abrupt mortality declines through application of cheap vaccines and antibiotics can hardly be a promising analogy insofar as a programme and necessity for making the Indian populace enlightened, rational, prag-matic, and secular is concerned. There has thus been a distinct legacy of India's stubborn ambi-valence toward the critical need as much for appropriate curriculum reform designed to inculcate the primacy of objective reason, secular humanistic values and attitudes as for rapid expansion of school education per se.

In the Indian process of embracing Western commodities, scientific and technological advancements and material standard of living, the fundamental task of enlightening ‘minds' and ‘mentalities' to the Western tune of enlightenment has been perennially bypassed by the national leadership. This, in turn, has left a trail of stagnant piles of ‘unenlightened' minds, irrationally parochial outlooks and pre-modern socio-cultural-religious beliefs, practices, and superstitions across the entire polity and its populace. This culminates into a muddling metamorphosis between incessant flows of new commodities, machinery and sophisticated gadgets or nuclear missiles and a stubborn pre-modern faith-oriented other-worldly frame of mind. Pervasive remnants of puzzling irrationa-lities in almost every walk of Indian life and society are tellingly testified in the pages of daily newspapers and numerous round-the-clock realty channels on television.

In the Indian compulsions of electoral demo-cracy tilting the balance of outlook in favour of (pre-modern) native majoritarian variety of rationality, values and perceptions, the agenda of achieving mass enlightenment continues to remain unfinished. No surprise, therefore, that issues and causes with which large majoritarian populations are sought be mobilised by political parties are rarely in tune with the Western enlightenment values and secular attitudes, but often in consonance with sterile, tradition-bound, parochial temperament, irrational emotions and sentiments. Little wonder, unlike in the West, the rise of Indian capitalism and its spirit could never represent ‘an assault on pre-existing systems of ideas and socioeconomic relations'. The upshot is a state best summarised by the expression ‘plus ca change'. More we change in terms of the outer look, décor, fad, and fashions, more we remain the same (ideationally) in terms of our distance from Western enlightenment values and the rule of reason. The remedy seems to lie inter alia in reformulation of school curriculum on the classical enlightenment lines of the West, notwithstanding angst-ridden attacks on the latter due to several instances of its deviations or aberrations through stark Western imperialism, colonialism and fascism.

Arup Maharatna is a Professor, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, BITS-Pilani, Hyderabad Campus, Hyderabad. He can be contacted at e-mail: arupmaha@yahoo.com

History often teaches through events the lessons not learnt through theory. To forget the serious history of Germany, Italy and Europe of the 1930s and other events is a serious lapse on the part of the progressive forces. The JNU events, particularly those related to Kanhaiya, and events elsewhere in India have once again strongly emphasised the need for the broadest cooperation of the progressive forces. The recent events in fact reflect the deeper processes going on in the political and civil society. The ominous developments of Right-wing communal assault in the country are mainly the result of the disunity of the democratic and progressive forces.

Conflict between Progress and Reaction

A number of events have merged together to create the present situation. At the centre of the crisis is the grave danger to Indian democracy. What is at stake is the very achievement since the country's independence including demo-cracy, freedom, the basic principles of the Indian Constitution, the progressive Nehruvian frame-work of the Indian economy, the public sector, India's self-reliance, secularism, our composite culture, the education system, the very concept of nationalism, and so on.

The history of post-independence India cannot be understood if we do not recognise the conflict between the forces of progress and reaction as the central contradiction of indepen-dent India. It was around the above-mentioned questions that the central axial battle was fought. There were other questions too, like the abolition of the princely states and the feudal relations, nationalisation of basic industries and private monopoly banks, basic land reforms and so on. India is what it is today precisely because these policies could be implemented through zig-zag political, ideological and cultural-economic struggles. This strategic direction has to be kept in view.

The underlying feature has been a large area of unity and cooperation between generally progressive and democratic forces including the Left. Both the reactionary and progressive strategies have largely been formulated around these basic issues. It is the progress which has succeeded in creating a modern nation and nationalism with a strong economic, cultural and political democratic parliamentary base.

Otherwise our country would have become a fragile entity like Pakistan or such other countries.

Therefore, ideological and theoretical battles must not be underestimated by any means.

The Right-wing and the far Right have developed their own strategies keeping precisely these hurdles in their view and have systemati-cally strengthened themselves.

Disunity in the Democratic Camp

The Indian Constitution provides certain basic rights and means to the people of this nation. Its four basic principles are expressive of the endeavour of the nation: republicanism, sovereignty, secularism, and socialism. These four flow from long ideological struggles to develop and sustain the Indian nation.

The Indian Constitution is an unique institution and document in the whole world. It is the concentrated expression of India's freedom struggle. It is also a negation of the concept of nationalism based on communalism. It showed that there can be no nationalism in our country based on religion.

The Indian Constitution is the only one in the world to provide voting rights to whole of the adult population on a single date, that is, January 26, 1950, irrespective of caste, class, community, sex, economic status etc. These rights were at one go. No other Constitution has done so.

Consequently, governments and parties have come and gone, replaced and formed by the popular will. No other country in the world has the phenomenon of so many types of governments in the States and at the Centre with so many parties, including the regional ones, singly or in coalition, and still working.

Popular vote is a powerful weapon of people's aspiration and struggle and of the nation. Along with the public sector-based economy, this constitutes a firm base for India.

It is this identity and the differences within the identity that are under attack today. It is unfortunate that certain elements and thoughts among the sectarian and extreme Left have only helped the extreme Right by consistently refusing to recognise the realities, for example, of the power of the parliamentary structure and path. The Indian Constitution has a great capacity to change our society in the progressive direction. The narrow-minded sectarian tendencies have refused to bring the democratic forces together; they did not understand the social transfor-matory nature of the Indian Constitution. Consequently they made serious concessions to the Right-wing and extreme Right-wing strategies.

It is a strange tactic first to underestimate and bring communal reaction to power, and only then wake up to the situation and wage a rather delayed fight.

Ideological and practical anarchism is no replacement for scientific analysis of social events. Still there is time for all the democrats and the Left to come together.

It is this which is being emphasised today objectively. Democratic and ‘bourgeois' parties and formations were declared ‘untouchables'. They should no doubt be blamed for much of the country's problems in many areas. But no political and ideological force, including the Congress, can be untouchable in certain contexts. Most of these forces are closely related with the traditions of India's freedom struggle. The democratic forces must adjust and cooperate with each other to defend the basic progressive achievements of India, its politics, religious freedom and culture.

It is essential to conceptualise and theorise the strategy and tactics of cooperation and united front. A historic bloc of healthy forces is the only answer to the deepening crisis domi-nated by communalism. Theory encompasses the lessons of history for the sake of the present. If ignored or forgotten, one has to start afresh. This is a serious lapse in the theory and practice of the progressive and democratic forces including those of the Left.

Disunity among the democratic forces always helped Right-wing reaction and the anti-democratic forces. This has been the lesson of history. Let us hope that the lessons are learnt and kept in mind.

The developments around the questions of nationalism, educational freedoms, the JNU affair and West Bengal elections have shown a tendency of the democratic forces, including the Congress, to come nearer to each other and speak with one voice on certain questions.

Saving Democracy and the Nation

The tasks are serious, even grim. First, the achievements of the freedom movement have to be saved. Second, all the progressive achieve-ments and policies of the post-independence India have to be protected and saved; these include those in the field of education, which also is an ideological field; the public sector has to be saved, the progressive armed forces must not be allowed to serve the reactionary forces. In our country the Army has played a glorious role in defending the nation from the US-inspired designs of balkanising India and dismembering it so as to transform it into a Western military base. Our Army has also helped to fight the aggressive designs of the dictatorships in Pakistan and anti-democratic tendencies there and in other neighbouring countries. The Indian Army can now boldly look up even to the Chinese military power. It is also a force defending the Indian nation. The Army is a serious bulwark in the struggle against terrorism.

Third, whatever has been lost in this period is to be restored. Fourth, the democratic forces have to move forward again by uniting all the progressive, secular and Left forces. It is a huge task to set the country once again on a proper democratic course.

It has to be realised by the Left and progressive forces that the nature of government at the Centre is of crucial importance for the future of the country. A progressive and secular dispensation at the Centre creates a favourable atmosphere for advancing ahead, and at the same time for class and mass economic and political struggles.

But if the combination of political forces in power is communal and regressive, that creates disruption and hurdles on the path of progress and much is lost. The agenda of the country then is set along communal, divisive and disruptive lines, in which the urgent political, social and economic issues are thrown into the background. One keeps discussing only religion, culture, caste and community in an obscurantist manner, and not in terms of the economic direction or policies or reorganisation. Much time and energy is wasted thus.

The agenda of the nation should be set by the progressive forces. The democratic, progressive and secular gains that have been registered provide a launching pad for further development.

The author is a Marxist ideologue.

by Shubhra Bhargava

The Association of South-East Asian Nations is an economic and political organisation with ten member-nations. The ASEAN was formed on August 8, 1967. The member-states are: Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam. The ASEAN was set up with the objective to bring economic, political, cultural and social integration among the nation-states and to settle the differences among them peace-fully. The ASEAN is based on the three pillars, ASEAN Political-Security Community, ASEAN Economic Community and ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community.

The main incentives behind the creation of the ASEAN were regional peace and stability; economic, political and socio-cultural growth; development and assistance in matters of common interest; better utilisation of resources; raising the standards of living of the people; maintaining peaceful, heathy, beneficial and cooperative relations with other nation-states as well as other international organisations; protecting the member-states from any external threat and providing them with better security.

After the Vietnam War, the ASEAN, during the 1970s, strengthened its economic conditions. And, after the end of the Cold War, in the 1980s the ASEAN greatly practised political indepen-dence and was one of the leading voices in regional trade and security issues. For example, the ASEAN adopted a declaration to resolve disputes in the South China Sea, promoted dialogue on regional security by establishing the ASEAN Regional Forum, extended member-ship to North Korea, and worked to resolve the conflict in East Timor. In 1992, the members reduced intra-regional tariffs and eased restrictions on foreign investment by creating the ASEAN Free Trade Area.1

The ASEAN came up with the purpose of strengthening its position in the international economy. The ASEAN started from a scratch and today if the ASEAN is considered as one entity, it would be the seventh largest economy in the world, with a combined GDP of $ 2.4 trillion in 2013. It is projected to rank as the fourth largest economy by 2050.2 In terms of com-parable international exchange rate, based on Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), the ASEAN's GDP in 2012 reached PPP $ 3.62 trillion while the ASEAN's GDP per capita amounted to PPP $ 5689.3 With such rapid growth the ASEAN in no time will be the hegemony.

The ASEAN has various committees, which include technical, agricultural, socio-cultural etc., headed by the Foreign Ministers, for develop-ment, betterment and prosperity of every sector as well as the nation-states. For the same, the ASEAN organises an annual summit meeting to bring together the heads of states of the member- countries. The first summit was held in Bali, Indonesia in 1976. This summit resulted in the emergence of several industrial projects and the signing of a Treaty of Amity and Cooperation and a Declaration of Concord. In the early meetings it was decided that the summit would be held after every five years. In 1992, the leaders decided to meet more frequently and as a consequence the gap got reduced from five to three years. But, in the seventh meeting in 2001, it was decided to meet annually to address the urgent issues and find solutions for them as soon as possible. Other than the summit meetings, the ASEAN also has a few topic-oriented meetings which focus on topics like defence, environment, etc.

The member-states of the ASEAN believe in effective information. A committee was formed in 1978 to promote cooperation pertaining to information: the ASEAN Committee on Culture and Information (COCI). The COCI was established with the motive to promote and establish proper cooperation in information and culture through its various projects and activities. The COCI has collaborated with the ASEAN Media Cooperation during the 11th Conference in Malaysia which connected the ASEAN people and helped in removing disparities among the cultures within the region through both new and tradition media.

The primary objective of any organisation is to increase the literacy rate, educate the people, and spread awareness among them. The ASEAN has always strongly focused on education. Unlike the developing countries, the member-states of the ASEAN maximise their contribution towards public education (mainly primary and secondary) but face tough problems regarding tertiary education. South-East Asia does not possess a backbone with respect to academic salaries and research infrastructure. The ASEAN Education Ministers left no stone unturned in determining the four basic priorities towards education (in the context of the ASEAN): 1. awareness among the citizens; 2. strengthening identity through education; 3. development of human resource in the field of education; and 4. strengthening the university network. The ASEAN is currently running various educational and university network programmes to achieve the desired goals and educate the youth to sustain economic growth.

The leaders of the ASEAN member-states aimed for the ASEAN Vision 2020. This is an idea of integration of 10 member-states of the ASEAN into one nation-state. This Vision will not only ensure social and cultural unity but also strengthen political and economic integrity. The idea of integration will uplift and promote tourism in the ASEAN and thus indirectly help in economic growth and development. As discussed above, the ASEAN integration would give a competitive edge to the education side as well. Besides, the Vision will also help in conserving and preserving the rich cultural heritage of the member-states. This Vision may be a step towards increasing the standard of living by providing job opportunities to the poorer sections of the society. The ASEAN integration keeps “One Vision. One Identity. One Community” as the motive.

Happily, the leaders of the ASEAN are paying attention to the small aspects as well. The ASEAN foreign Ministers launched the ASEAN Communication Master Plan (ACMP) on November 11, 2014. The ASEAN Communication Master Plan (ACMP) provides the framework to communicate messages about the character, structure and overall vision of the ASEAN and the ASEAN community to key audiences including local communities of the ASEAN Member-States (AMS), women and children, youth, governments, businesses, Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), influencers, media and global audiences. 4

Not forgetting the issues of common interest, the ASEAN lacks a good power backup or security. Major nations like the US and China are the leading hegemony in every sense (including security); their defence and security are the strong pillars for the nations. The ASEAN is continuously trying to suppress terrorism and attacks, and has also laid urgency on the waterway (South-East China Sea) issue as well.

Looking at different aspects, the ASEAN also tried its best to promote peaceful and healthy relations through sports. The leaders of the ASEAN designed a number of motives for the promotion of sports and their regional culture. Their belief was that sports enhances cooperation and develops a healthy lifestyle. Not only this, it increases the unity among the nation-states within themselves and with other nations too. For them, sports has been a means to execute regional development, peace and stability. They wanted to promote sportsman-ship, competitiveness and excellence in sports at both the regional and international levels.

The ASEAN organises cultural and educational activities as well to integrate the region, for example, the ASEAN University Network, the ASEAN Outstanding Scientist and Technologist Award, etc. The ASEAN is rich in its heritage and colourful cultural diversity. The member- states of the ASEAN help in cooperation and promotion of the above to build an ASEAN identity. The activities that the ASEAN culture includes are: conservation and preservation of cultural heritage, promotion of cultural industry with peace, and showcases of cultural production. To cite some examples, 2009 saw the production of the coffee-table book, Water: A Unifying Force in ASEAN; a workshop that gathered experts from the region to discuss the prevention of illicit transfer and illegal trafficking of cultural properties; a symposium involving ASEAN Museum Directors and their engagement with the community, and the Third Best of the ASEAN Performing Arts series (Singapore production) to raise awareness about the region's rich and diverse cultures.5

Speaking of every aspect of the ASEAN, it would be wrong if the strength of the Association is ignored from its grassroots. In the words of Dato Ajit Singh, the then Secretary-General of the ASEAN, in his report to the Ministerial Meeting: “The elevation of Functional Cooperation to a higher plane fortifies the dynamic interactions between the three facets of ASEAN cooperation. Put simply, political cooperation brings about peace and stability which makes possible economic development and cooperation which, in turn, brings about progress and prosperity. Functional cooperation provides the means for sharing that prosperity. And shared prosperity brings about conditions conducive to peace.”6 His words clearly portray the functioning and trans-parency in the structure of the working know-how. The basic idea of the leaders of the ASEAN was to unite the citizens and strengthen the soul, identity and sense of communication. The leaders are able to cater to the needs of the organisation as also of the citizens to their maximum. Their rigorous and continuous efforts have brought the ASEAN as an organisation to such great heights; yet a lot more has to be done in various other sectors.

In conclusion, at this point of time it is appropriate to record that the ASEAN group of nations has emerged as an important entity from various points of view. Cooperation amongst these nation-states has helped and will continue to help each other. As individual nation-states it was difficult for each of them separately to keep pace with the fast changing economic environment at the global level. A collaboration amongst them has provided a platform to grow, develop and prosper individually as also collectively.

The leaders of the ASEAN members were firm in their policies regarding the political, economic and socio-cultural aspects. They have One Vision, One Identity, and One Community which enables them to stand strongly against any other nation-state. From the past to the present, from what the ASEAN was to what the ASEAN is, there has been a continually rising growth in every sector and sphere of activity.

Considering the increasing cooperation amongst the ASEAN nation-states and today's economic scenario, it is understood that by 2050 the ASEAN's economy shall be the leading economy and may fortunately be the hegemon. It is strongly supported and structured by the ASEAN Economic Community. Foreign affairs and annual summits too play an important role in the efficient working of the ASEAN. Major issues and matters of urgency are discussed among the nations so as to maintain harmony within the region. The ASEAN is successful in establishing cooperative and peaceful external relations with other boundaries as well.

Further, the ASEAN members managed to assemble all the technical know-how so as to realise effective communication. Their strong communication is of special value and importance, it helps in large networking programmes, integrating and connecting the citizens of the ASEAN and also helps the Ministers to exercise their power on the Communication Master Plan. It is a matter of high esteem that the cultural heritage and sport events of the ASEAN are globally recognised. They not only invite tourists but also help in economic, political and social development which facilitates foreign invest-ment. As far as sports is concerned, the only idea behind it is to keep the citizens healthy and bring them closer to each other for the sake of unity. This may in future help towards development of the human capital.

It is often said there are two sides of the same coin; in the same way if we have positive aspects of the ASEAN, we definitely have some negative aspects too. There are two major issues that the ASEAN faces, namely, Education and Security. The ASEAN is still working hard to improve its tertiary education, establish university networks, etc. The ASEAN in a few coming years may increase the salaries of the research scholars, provide them with better infrastructure and establish universities for the same. As far as the security issues are concerned, these are in an alarming state for the ASEAN to ponder over the problem. Nonetheless, the ASEAN is engaged in continuous efforts to suppress terrorism and enhance security. It is high time the ASEAN takes efficient steps with regard to the South-East China Sea issue. It should take proper action to resolve the anti-industrialisation problem in the Philippines caused due to globalisation.

As of now, if the ASEAN is analysed in the proper perspective, it is the most successful organisation among the developing nations till date. It follows utilitarianism. The ASEAN is confident enough to resolve its problems and emerge as one of the principal multilateral organisations by 2050.

REFERENCES

Moon, Chung-in, ‘Asean International Organisation', appearing at www.britannica.com

Vinayak, H.V., Fraser Thompson, and Oliver Tonby. May 2014, ‘Understanding ASEAN: Seven Things You Need to Know', appearing at www.mckinsey.com

ASEAN Secretariat News. October 21, 2013, ‘Asean GDP remains robust, backed by services', appearing at www.asean.org

Asean Organisation. November 11,2014, ‘Asean Communi-cation Master Plan: A Community of Opportunities', Asean Publication, Publication Print, appearing at www.asean.org~

Footnotes

1. Appearing at www.britannica.com

2. Appearing at www.mckinsey.com

3. Appearing at www.asean.org

4. Appearing at www.asean.org

5. Appearing at www.asean.org

6. Appearing at www.asean.org

Shubhra Bhargava is currently a student of MA Final Year (Economics), Banasthali University, Rajasthan.

by Fayezah Iqbal

I am a Muslim and an Indian too to supplement my identity description. Despite knowing the fact that the raging times of minority hatred will add to more alienation of Muslims at every single step, I have felt a strong affinity for my nation since my childhood, for my land, for this soil. Promising job prospects in a foreign country and thereafter a prospective career full of newness awaits me.... but yet these lucrative prospects never ever succeed in appeasing my senses to settle or reside in a foreign land.

When it comes to me and my notion about home it is my land that lures me, that attracts me as always to its mysteries and unrivalled diversities. I feel like roaming and traversing the entire perimeter of my country, infiltrating through its various channels and tributaries which I haven't seen yet... So how could I think of abandoning it with such a dismay when I have not known it well and the quest for it is yet in its pre-natal phases. How can I disappoint myself with the thought of knowing other nations when I know my very own land barely? How can I invest into the unknown risks of a new adventure when the horizons of my land are seemingly more blue and clearly portrayed spectacle of my fantasy?

This is the place where I took birth to deem myself as an Indian, this is the land to whose culture and traditions I feel inclined to and enamoured enough to call it proudly my own traditions though I don't comply with it completely. This is the land where I have seen plenty of frictions and farces amongst the communities and religions and regions, but this is the same land where I witness a commendable spirit of camaraderie in the festivities and gaiety.

Paradoxically, this is the same land where I have known and come across communities rioting barbarically amongst themselves at the sheer political overture without their own discretion of hatred and likes or their true willingness into the violent indulgence. It is the same country where the vote ballots are filled by ensuring a sharp divide between the targeted communities.

It is the same country where I have heard and read across many acts of sheer discrimi-nation and exclusion of Muslims ranging from their employment, accommodation and lodging to the uneasy acceptance of this community as an integral part of this nation having been labelled at every instance as so-called invaders or second-class citizens of the country.

But this is the same country where I practised strongly, strictly and exclusively my religion, that is, Islam, without any inhibition or a feeling of discomfort or slightest disapproval from anywhere. This is the nation to which I owe my freedom as a proud Muslim and an Indian. It has made me proud of its glorious history, of an intrepid struggle for waging a war for freedom, armed with an upright and sturdy patriotic entity of freedom fighters, passionate love for the fellow countrymen. This history has always made me value my country for its worth and feel loyal to its cherished image earned after waging a ruthless and strenuous battle for almost two centuries.

This is the land of my ancestors to whom I owe my blood-line; this is the land where I have grown up lovingly in its climate and tropical aura. In all these years of my life many a time I was caught up in the crossfire about my real identity of that of a Muslim or an Indian.... but despite of the numerous episodes of bloodsheds, carnages and riots cruelly targeting the minorities, I failed to separate myself from the uniqueness of my identity that is of an Indian... maybe because of the sound and cosy atmos-phere I have always seen around me, because of the same old warm company of my friends and people around me since childhood, regardless of their creed or religion, maybe because I dismiss the thought of being segre-gated on the ground of intermittent upheavals and tarnished image of my community, maybe because I refuse to call this a substantial reason to uproot me from my roots, maybe because I would rather prefer to cure these infirmities and deformities and better it (this country), to make it concordant and harmonious as it had been centuries before for every community, maybe because I feel it's more than anything a temporary and ephemeral phase of my nation whose pupils get attuned to the political streaks played upon them since times immemorial, maybe because I still cherish to acclaim myself as an Indian, maybe because I have always had a gut feeling of my originality to this country that is my home which can never be forgotten, never be detested or disliked, never be abandoned no matter how much it disgusts or disappoints at some point or the other. Because this home entails all my members who might get fragmented sometimes but have to accept their integrity and oneness of identity that connects them to be called a family or Indians.

Fayezah Iqbal did her Masters in Spanish from the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Writing being her passion, she has been writing for various blogs since the last three years.

April 14, 2015 marks Babasaheb Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar's 125th birth anniversary. The following article is being published on that occasion.

Sometime in April 2003 a Bengali engineer of the Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC), posted somewhere near the Jharkhand-West Bengal border, met me at Patna with the request to address a seminar to mark the Ambedkar birth anni-versary celebrations organised by their employees' association. I enquired from him if he could relate the leader anyway with the Damodar Valley Corporation, the first ever river valley project of India. He was unaware of it but he told me that Dr Meghnad Saha, the eminent physicist, is remembered in his organisation for planning the river valley project. Ambedkar is not recalled for any role in this respect. To put it very mildly, this is simply the result of intellec-tual profligacy, leading to complete black-out of information about his great foresight and leadership for the pioneering river valley project.

Last November (2015), I met the DVC Chair-man, Andrew W.K. Langstieh, at his head-quarters at Kolkata to gather information if the Corporation has any archival materials throwing light on the role Dr B.R. Ambedkar played in the establishment of the river valley project for water management in the country. The Corporation's librarian, after due search, informed me that no such material was available there. Dr Ambedkar is not known to the employees. This sounds like the case where the children are unaware of their father!

Wavell and Ambedkar Crossed

Swords over DVC

As a member of the Viceroy's Executive Council, Dr B.R. Ambedkar held charge of Labour and Public Works. In present-day parlance, he was the Minister for Labour and Public Works of the Union of India. In that capacity Ambedkar was actually the architect of the Damodar Valley Corporation which was the first river valley project in India. Following successful implemen-tation of the DVC, independent India embarked upon a massive programme for implementation of multipurpose river valley projects all over India in the Five-Year Plans for economic development. Lord Wavell was the Viceroy of India when the first river valley project was taken up for formulation.

The Viceroy had in mind a British engineer for the top slot of the upcoming venture. The veteran journalist of yesteryear, Durga Das, focused on an epic clash of the two titans—Viceroy Wavell and the member of his Executive Council, Ambedkar—were arrayed against each other over the issue:

A chief engineer was needed to head the commission to draw up plans for flood control in the Damodar Valley Corporation in Bihar. Wavell favoured the choice of a British expert who had been adviser on the Aswan Dam project in Egypt. Ambedkar, however, wanted an American who had experience of the development undertaken by the Tennessee Valley Authority. He argued in support of his demand that Britain had no big rivers and its engineers lacked experience in building big dams.1

The Viceroy was the supreme authority repre-senting the British Empire in India, extending from the Khyber Pass to Burma and the Himalayas to Kanyakumari, embracing Pakistan and Bangladesh and Burma of the present-day. India was far larger than the truncated India today. Under the colonial dispensation the Viceroy enjoyed unrivalled power and authority over the subcontinent and hardly anybody was expected to challenge that Supreme Paramount authority; any such challenge was tantamount to indelible audacity.

Can we imagine that a Cabinet colleague in independent India takes a position on any issue of public interest and crosses swords with the Prime Minister or, for that matter, a State Minister with his Chief Minister as Ambedkar did with the Viceroy of India? If anyone at all does, he does not survive as a Minister thereafter even for a minute. But anybody who stands up and presses for ideas different from the Paramount must be a man of indomitable courage and commitment for public cause. As a matter of fact, Ambedkar responded to the call of his inner conscience and humbled the supreme authority of the Empire in India. He could do it because he did not espouse his personal agenda in self-service. What he did was in the best interest of the country.

Commenting on his indomitable spirit and moral courage, Durga Das again noted: “Ambedkar was perhaps the most erudite member of the Executive Council and was a powerful speaker. He was a nationalist to the core.....Once an Indian colleague proposed a Bill to apply economic sanctions against South Africa because of maltreatment of Indian settlers in that country. The European members opposed the measure. Ambedkar thundered the table in anger and said India's self-respect was at stake. His spirited intervention proved decisive and the Council approved the Bill.”2

Nevertheless, Arun Shourie in 1997 had launched a tirade against Ambedkar in his work, Worshipping False Gods. He presented Ambedkar as “the loyal Minister”3 of the Empire to the glee of many loaded with malice against the Executive Member. Ambedkar's only objective in the case of the DVC was that an American engineer with working experience in the Tennessee Valley Authority would be befitting for the assignment in the interest of eastern India where the Damodar was the river of sorrows for Bengal, Bihar and Jharkhand. In the downstream, the ferocity of the Damodar inflicted untold miseries on millions of villagers in Bengal for year after year over decades and perhaps centuries. Devastating floods of Damo-dar having inflicted widespread damages without parallel in 1823, 1848, 1856, 1859, 1863, 1882, 1890, 1898, 1901, 1905, 1907, 1913, 1816, 1923, 1935, and 1843 are on record. He did not fight with Wavell for setting up a river valley project in his home Bombay Presidency as is the norm these days. His difference with the Governor-General was based on principle.

We can imagine the scene in the Executive Council's meeting inside the Cabinet Chamber. The Viceroy wanted a British engineer for the DVC. Ambedkar stood up to veto the Paramount's proposal. Not only did he oppose it, but successfully torpedoed the move also. Imagine as well the carping and conspiratorial Anglo-Indian press reporting the event next day for their powerful dailies. The tone and tenor of their despatches were all but venomous. They did not conceal their disdain in hurling insinuation at the Viceroy for his failure to tame a native member of his Council. The Anglo-Indians were joined by the well-heeled loyal Indians, a powerful and privileged class, in hurling abuses in the vilification campaign against Ambedkar.

How come Ambedkar was still not dismissed from the Executive Council? Were the colonialists so generous and accommodative of a rebel in their ranks at the higher echelons of adminis-tration? His courage was fired by his unmixed patriotism that had trounced them not once but twice. He risked his position in the Executive Council with studied nonchalance and calcu-lated objective. In the given circumstances, Dr Ambedkar unleashed an earthquake in the Executive Council's Cabinet meetings. The alien ruling class, together with the Anglo-Indian community, was scarcely accustomed to pocket it. Shourie is a motivated author who lacked honesty about Ambedkar.

Ambedkar's Vision for National Water Policy

His historical role as the Minister of Public Works in creating the Damodar Valley Corpo-ration is all but forgotten. Or has he been swept under the carpet beyond public eyes? We recall his mission and put his vision in the correct perspective.

Dr Ambedkar visited Calcutta at least twice besides Patna. In Calcutta he addressed meetings in January and September 1945 at Rotunda, Writers' Buildings to initiate the groundwork for the DVC project. According to him, “My purpose is to tell you that the Government of India is very much alive to the disadvantages arising from the state of affairs and wishes to take steps to evolve a policy which will utilise the water resources to the purpose which they are made to serve in other countries.”4

Dr Ambedkar wanted the DVC to be a multi-purpose river valley project for utilisation of enormous water resources for comprehensive development of the country. “The project is a welcome one to the Government of India. It very clearly shows a fine prospect of the control of the river, a prospect of controlling floods, of securing a fine area for perennial irrigation with resultant insurance against famine and a much needed supply of power. I am sure it will be more than welcome to the governments of Bengal and Bihar, if they realise what the project will mean to them and their people.”5

The objectives of the project were outlined in the following terms:

1. An aggregate controlled reservoir capacity of about 4,700,000 acre-feed;

2. Sufficient water for perennial irrigation of about 760,000 acres, besides water navigation purposes;

3. Electrical energy amounting to 300,000 kilowatts, and it would promote directly the welfare of five million people and indirectly of many more millions.6

The model Ambedkar had in mind was the best known river valley project in the world. It was the Tennessee Valley Scheme in the United States of America. While addressing a meeting on January 3, 1945, the visionary articulated the objectives as follows: “The Government has very much in its mind the Tennessee Valley Scheme operating in the United States. They (technical experts) are studying the Scheme and feel that something along that line can be done in India if the Provinces offer their cooperation and agree to override provincial barriers which has held up so much of their progress and their prosperity.”7 Ambedkar spelled out further steps in the direction taken by the government. “As a preliminary step for securing the best use of the water resources of the country, the Government of India have created a central organisation—called the Central Technical Power Board, and are contemplating to create another to be called the Central waterways, Irrigation and Navigation Commission.”8 The objectives of “these two organisations,” clarified the Executive Member, “is to advise the Provinces on how their water resources can be utilised and how a project can be made to serve purposes other than their irrigation. The Damodar river is the first project along this line. It will be a multipurpose project. It will have the object of not only preventing floods in the Damodar river but also have the object of irrigation, navigation and the production of electricity.” Here he declared that the authority which “will be in charge of this project after it is completed, will be more or less modelled, as far as may be possible, on the Tennessee valley Authority”.9

“There is only one thing, which the Government of India expects from the Provinces to do. It expects the Provinces to bear in mind the absolute necessity of ensuring that the benefits of the project get ultimately right down to the grassroots, i.e., everyone living in the Valley and some of those in the vicinity. This, in my view, is essential, and it is for this reason that we want the establishment of some agency early enough so that that agency can set about planning at once in which its essential and ultimate object can be secured.”10 Tracing out the constitutional difficulty as he anticipated, he spoke out his mind in no ambiguous terms: “Irrigation has been the only objective of our waterways policy. Further, we have not taken sufficient account of that fact that there is no difference between railways and waterways, and if railways cannot be subjected to provincial boundaries, neither can waterways at any rate those that flow from province to province.”11

The disadvantages of this error are many and obvious. “To give one illustration, a province needs electricity and wishes to utilises its water resources for the purpose but cannot do so because the point at which water dam lies in another province, which being agricultural does not need electricity and has no interest in it or money to finance the project, and would not allow the needy province to use the site. Complain as much as we like, a province can take unfriendly attitude and justify it in the name of Provincial autonomy.”12 Dr Ambedkar sounds absolutely prophetic if we consider the internecine disputes over the Kauvery river running through Tamilnadu and Karnataka. Both the States are at daggers' drawn over its water resources.

Clarifying the Central Government's position, Ambedkar said in the second meeting at Calcutta: “The Damodar Valley Project is a matter of grave urgency, and it would be criminal folly not to come to an early decision, without which it is not possible for us to proceed further in the matter. I, therefore, hope and trust that, with your cooperation, we should be able today to return with our decisions fully and firmly made.” 13 Continuing further he said: “Let me tell you that the Government of India is very keen, very earnest, and is prepared to play its full part in carrying through its project.”14

He committed the Government of India's resources for the project. “The Government of India is prepared to assume direct responsibility for securing staff and organisation necessary to carry out all further preliminary investigations in such manner as will facilitate and expedite construction with assistance as the two Provinces can render without serious detriment to their post-war development works. The Government, however, realise the shortage of engineering manpower in Bengal and will endeavour to find the necessary staff by drawing upon services, if found available, of a military unit and its equipment to assist the preliminary investigation. This will avoid drawing on the strained resources of the province at a large extent that is necessary and will secure a most rapid supply of equipment.”15

There is an element of irony in the authorship of the first river valley project falling into the hands of Ambedkar. He not only laid the foun-dation of the prestigious project but also he inaugurated the National Water Policy. The same man, when a student in school, used to be denied access to the water source or taps for drinking water. His untouchability stood against him driking water from the common source. And yet he was the architect of the National Water Policy, no matter even though the vast DVC and the countrymen have forgotten that historical fact.

Footnotes

1. Durga Das, India—-From Curzon to Nehru and After, Collins, London, 1969, p. 236.

2. Ibid

3. Arun Shourie, Worshipping False Gods, HarperCollins Publishers India, 1997, p. 100.

4. Dr B.R. Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, vol. 10, Bombay, 1991, p. 286.

5. Ibid.

6. Dr B.R. Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, vol. 10, Bombay, 1991, p. 286.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid, pp. 222-223.

10. Ibid. p. 288.

11. Ibid. p. 221.

12. Ibid. 221.

13. Ibid. p. 287.

14. Ibid. p. 287

15. Ibid. p. 287.

Dr A.K. Biswas is a retired IAS officer and a former Vice-Chancellor, B.R. Ambedkar University, Muzaffarpur (Bihar)

India should warm up to Aung San Suu Kyi. The democratically elected government in Myanmar, that took over power on March 30, has received its first foreign dignitary on official visit—Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi. Both in symbolism and content, this is significant. Myanmar's perceived ‘pivot' to the West seems an exaggeration or a contrived misperception. (SCMP)

Equally, the alacrity with which Beijing has adjusted itself to the advent of democracy in Myanmar takes one's breath away. Xinhua noted in a commentary that Wang's visit signified an “active approach to improving its (China's) ties with Myanmar” and signalled China's “undaunted resolve and readiness to renew the bilateral friendship and promote pragmatic cooperation” with the new government. (Xinhua)

China feels confident that Aung San Suu Kyi is committed to friendly ties, although an underlying sense of angst is also there. Compari-sons can be drawn. This was also how Beijing had responded to the emergence of the Right-wing Hindu nationalist government of Narendra Modi in end-May 2014. Wang came to Delhi as a special envoy in early June. But the rest is history. Beijing's notions regarding Modi as a bold, decisive leader capable of new thinking on relations with China had withered away already by end-September. A frost set in, and this only deepened with the passage of time.

On the other hand, Myanmar is not India. The level of interdependency between Myanmar and China is appreciable and neither can afford a frost to blight the relations. China is by far the number one destination for Myanmar's foreign trade and is also the main source of investment, while Myanmar is a strategic gateway for China to the world market and an irreplaceable partner in the ‘One Belt One Road' strategy.

The cooling down of the West's ardour for Suu Kyi lately has been directly proportional to her growing awareness of China's pivotal importance to the political economy of Myanmar, which could be discerned during her high-profile visit to Beijing last June. Wang told the media after the talks with Suu Kyi on Tuesday (March 29) that “China-Myanmar relations are now at a new historical starting point”, while the latter said her country's interests are “inter-linked” with China's and continued support from Beijing is of “great significance”. (Xinhua)

Wang's mission principally aims at setting the right tone so that in the downstream of it the resolution of the discord over the stalled multi-billion dollar worth of Chinese projects in Myanmar becomes easier to handle. Meanwhile, Chinese diplomacy is also visibly adapting itself to the new political environment of a democratically elected government in power in Naypyitaw, which is under compulsion to be accountable to popular sentiments. This involves much greater deployment of ‘soft power' in Beijing's diplomatic armoury. An opinion piece in the Communist Party tabloid, Global Times, candidly acknowledges that Chinese diplomacy simply cannot afford to overlook the role of popular opinion and popular perceptions in China-Myanmar relations. (Global Times)

Surprisingly, though, South Block is in hibernation when such momentous events are unfolding in the neighbourhood, which profoundly affect Indian interests. There has been no effort on the part of the Indian political leadership so far to reach out to Suu Kyi. Not a phone call even, leave aside a visit. South Block seems to be still smarting from the interview Suu Kyi gave to India Today Television last year where she regretted that New Delhi was “overcautious with regard to support for the democracy movement” in her country and “tried to stay away from us”. Suu Kyi was rather frank:

It's saddened me that India, the largest democracy in the world, was turning its back on democracy in order to maintain good relations with the military government. But things have changed. Partly because of changes here and perhaps because of changes in India itself. Somehow I am always confident we will always be friends, good friends, who will be able to help one another. The past is there just for us to take lessons from it. Not to be angry or resentful.

It appears that Suu Kyi might have ruffled feathers on Raisina Hill by comparing Prime MInister Narendra Modi in rather poor light with Chinese President Xi Jinping, as also by her implied criticism of Indian Special Forces' controversial (and ill-conceived) “hot pursuit” on Myanmarese territory in June last year. (Burma Centre, Delhi)

But the bottom line is that no matter the dialectic involving the military and the civilian leadership, Suu Kyi is the tallest leader in Myanmar, and India is a stakeholder in close and friendly relations with the new government she is de facto leading in Naypyitaw. Vanities and ego clashes should not be allowed to come in the way of national interests. The whole world knows that plain-speaking is Suu Kyi's political trademark.

It is a paradox that Communist China can adapt itself with such delectable ease and realism to Myanmar's transition to democratic rule, while democratic India stands transfixed like the deer caught in the headlights on a highway. The government-owned China Daily carried on April 4 an editorial and an opinion piece on Wang's visit to Naypyitaw.

Ambassador M.K. Bhadrakumar served as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service for over 29 years, with postings including India's ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-1998) and to Turkey (1998-2001).

by Aparupa Bhattacherjee

Despite the opposition from those parliamen-tarains closer to the Establishment, the new parliament in Myanmar has passed a bill providing a new position for Suu Kyi. With the NLD majority within the parliament taking a conscious decision not to upset the existing power structure that prohibits Suu Kyi from becoming the President, the move by the National League for Democracy (NLD) is a compromise and acceptance of the reality. This really augurs well for the democratic transition of Myanmar, as the country cannot afford a hostile approach from the elected members and the Establishment.

But the crucial question is: would the parliament also pursue such a strategy of compromise and address one of the most crucial questions that would help or mar the democratic transition process—that is, the one related to the Rohingyas?

Will the New Parliament address the Rohingya Issue?

Of course, the Rohingya question is not the only issue facing the democratic transition of Myanmar; there are numerous other ethnic divides, militant groups and peace initiatives that the new government and Suu Kyi has to address.

But the Rohingya question demands special parliamentary attention for two sensitive reasons. First, unlike the other ethnic groups, the Rohingyas have a large disadvantage: they are not considered to be Myanmarese in the first place and not a part of the process of the Constitution and parliment. Other groups do have issues and faultlines, but the larger Myanmarese nation and parliament accept them as citizens. Rohingyas are not considered as Myanmarese citizens and have no locus standi in any parliamentary discussion. Second, there is no group or section within Myanmar that could project the views of the Rohingya community. The Rohingyas have neither a militia, as most of the other ethnic groups have, that forces the state to respond, nor do they have a political voice within Myanmar. On the other hand, though divided over numerous faultlines, the Myanmar nation is united in terms of their opposition towards the Rohingyas. And that makes this section different from the other ethnic groups and political processes. Neither are the Rohinyags considered as an ethnic group, nor is there a political process.

So an unfortunate answer for this question—whether the new Parliament would address the Rohingya issue— would be in the negative. No, the new Parliament is unlikely to address the Rohingya issue. First, if one has to go through the NLD's electoral campaign, it remained silent on the Rohingya issue. Perhaps, winning the elections and entering the parliament was the primary objective than talking about national reconci-liation. Though the NLD did speak about political and ethnic reconciliation, it remained silent on the Rohingya issue. Second, the majority in Myanmar do not want even to talk about the issue; they are convinced that the Rohigyas are in fact Bengalis and have no place inside the country. With such a maximalist view, the NLD consciously kept a low profile on the issue.

After winning the elections and having taken control of the parliament, the NLD is not likely to speak up. There are larger issues, starting from finding a prominent role for Suu Kyi within the parliament and addressing the national reconciliation processes with different groups. The Establishment is another issue that needs to be appeased for the NLD. Projecting the Rohingya issue is not likely to get any positive response from the Establishment; hence the NLD will avoid speaking on the subject and look into other issues that it considers vital for its survival and further expansion.

Outside the NLD, none of the other parties is likely to bring up this issue inside the parliament. Nor will the regional parties from the Rakhine region, for example, the Arakan National Party, raise this issue with a positive approach.

Will Suu Kyi address the Rohingya Issue?

If the NLD is unlikely to make it an issue and the parliament unlikely to debate it, the other option is Suu Kyi, the Noble Laureate. Unfortu-nately, her position has also been not so convincing. A new book (The Lady and the Generals by Peter Popham) claims that she was unhappy with the questions in a BBC interview on the Rohingyas and apparently lost her temper with the interviewer. Worse, the book reports that she commented off-air after the BBC Today programme: “No-one told me that I was going to be interviewed by a Muslim.” With Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy on the driving seat today, the larger question is: would the Noble Laureate remain silent on the crucial Rohingya issue that is hurting Myanmar's international image?

In Myanmar today, there is so much of hope with the ongoing democratic transition, especially with the NLD taking over power since last month. Although Suu Kyi is barred from becoming the President, Htin Kyaw, her close confidant, has been chosen for the post; hence it could be speculated that the real power will be in her own hands. This is a crucial phase for not only Myanmar's political reforms and democratic transition, but also for its larger national reconciliation process with numerous ethnic groups. There is an ongoing peace process and efforts towards a National Ceasefire Agree-ment with all the ethnic armed forces is the next step. However, this process unfortunately does not include the radical violence against the Myanmarese Muslims, especially the Rohingyas in the Arakan State.

Ethnic solidarity and integration had been given prominence by the NLD in all its pre-election campaigns. Suu Kyi has always stressed on National Reconciliation but, unfortunately, this has not been transformed into action. The newly formed NLD Cabinet seems to consist primarily of the Burmans with only one member from an ethnic minority. On the Rohingyas, she avoids and refuses to state anything when questioned about the problem. When pressed on the Rohingya issue during the above BBC interview, she was reported to have commented: “I think there are many, many Buddhists who have also left the country for various reasons. This is a result of our sufferings under a dictatorial regime.”

The Rohingya crisis has attracted the attention of the international media and leaders. Why does Aung San Suu Kyi refuse to voice her opinion about the crisis that has compelled the entire world to sympathise with the Rohingyas?

Why is Suu Kyi Silent on the Rohingyas?

To appease her vote-bank?

Many interpret her silence on the Rohingyas as a part of electoral politics to appease her vote-bank, a majority of whom are Buddhists. Myanmar is approxi-mately 96 per cent Buddhist and four per cent Muslim. It seems Suu Kyi has chosen the heavier side preferring to retain their support rather being concerned about the plight of the four per cent.

Suu Kyi is worried about taking up the cause of minority Rohingyas largely because of the majority narrative in Myanmar in the last few years. Emergence of radical groups and a violent majoritarian narrative on religious grounds has shifted the larger national political discourse. She is cautious perhaps of this larger majori-tarian “Myanmarese” discourse. Though the Rakhine Buddhist and Rohingya rift has been in existence since the 1990s, post-2012 it took a serious and violent turn. The 969 radical Buddhist movement was led by Ma Ba Tha (Association to Protect Race and Religion), and one of the most controversial monks of Asia, Asin Wirathu. This group and the monk openly engage in anti-Islamic propaganda and preach hatred throughout Myanmar. Their openness indicates the support of the ruling elites; to an extent it might be orchestrated by the Tatmadaw elites as well. Subsequently, it also led to the rise of Burmese nationalism with the use of Buddhism. Today any support for the Rohingyas in Myanmar is considered equivalent to anti-Buddhism and, therefore, anti-national. Perhaps this majoritarian politics is forcing Suu Kyi to remain silent.

Is Suu Kyi Islamophobic?This is a new question that is likely to haunt Suu Kyi after the revelation of her BBC interview mentioned above. Mishal Husain, according to reports during her interview, repeatedly asked her to denounce the violence against the Muslims in Myanmar whereas Suu Kyi continued to retain her stand that not only the Muslims, several Buddhists have also suffered.

Worse was Suu Kyi's comment about being “interviewed by a Muslim”. This statement has not only resulted in numerous international supporters of Suu Kyi being disheartened, but also compels one to raise another question: does she also have misgivings about the Muslims similar to many of her countrymen and women?

If yes, it will be surprising, given the fact that Suu Kyi has grown up in a multicultural atmosphere and her values are perceived to be multicultural. Aung San Suu Kyi, who had been partly educated in India, is quoted to be a follower of Gandhian philosophy which upholds tolerance as its principal value. Both her later education and life in Britain have been in a multicultural environment before she returned to Myanmar in 1988. Furthermore, she has been bestowed with popular awards such as the Noble Peace Prize and the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought. Hence, the above statement from Suu Kyi is not only shocking but upsetting as well.

Is her concern for Rohingyas genuine?There is a different reason for her silence on the Rohingyas. As mentioned by Suu Kyi time and again, if she takes a stand on behalf of the Rohingyas it will make the situation worse for them. The fear here is—it will further infuriate the anger of the Rakhine Buddhists against the Rohingyas. To some extent she is correct. Increasing international focus on the Rohingya suffering has made the Rakhine Buddhists agitated, further deepening the existing rift between the two communities. The anger was evident when Buddhist mobs attacked several international Nongovernmental Organisations including several doctors from Medecins San Frontieres (MSF). Some attacks have also hampered the much-needed aid being delivered to the Rohingyas.

But silence is definitely not a solution to this problem. Given the present situation, the Rohingya crisis has crossed the national boundaries of Myanmar and is perceived as a problem by both South-East and South Asia. It is high time that Suu Kyi breaks her silence on the Rohingyas. With the NLD in power, the parliament should have a reasonable debate on the Rohingyas. Such an approach will also reduce international tensions and pressure on the Rohingya issue and provide more space and time for the new government. In the long run. Such an approach will also help consolidate Myanmar's democratic transition.

Aparupa Bhattacherjee is an independent researcher and focuses on South-East Asian politics, especially Myanmar, Thailand and Malaysia.

by Velayutham Saravanan

Last three months, Tamil Nadu politics was sailing on floods that occurred in the Chennai city. Interestingly enough, the main reason for the Chennai floods was opening-up the Chembarambakkam tank and not the heavy downpour. In other words, man-made disasters were to be held responsible for the Chennai floods rather than the torrential rain. However, such man-made factors like encroaching the path of natural water courses and water bodies resulted in floods. In addition, lack of infrastructural development added to the distress. At the same time floods in other regions like Cuddalore, Thirunelveli, Tuticorin and other parts of the east coast did not get much attention. However, as usual electoral politics witnessed allegations being ruthlessly lashed against the ruling party/State administration by the Opposition parties. Somehow the reasons behind the floods have got only little attention.

Why did the flood happen in Chennai? Is it because of opening-up of the Chembarambakkam tank alone? Of course, this may be one of the factors. Somehow, the other factors did not at all figure in the game of popular politics. For example, how has the belly of the different rivers flowing in the city, different tributaries and water bodies become diminutive? How have the expansion of the city and ever increasing concrete structure reduced the recharge mecha-nism over the period? How has infrastructure development hindered the natural path of water-flow? To answer the above questions, an attempt has been made in this brief commentary piece.

One can easily discard the view that the Chennai floods could have been easily avoided if Francis Day, the chief of the military settlement located at Bandar near Masulipatnam of present Andhra Pradesh, had refused Aiyyappa Naicken's request to establish the settlement where the present Chennai city was developed during the early seventieth century. The present Chennai city was a couple of decades less than four centuries (Circa 1639). It must be pointed out that most probably Chennai city is the only city in the country that was designed and developed in a planned manner as in the contemporary period. Indeed, this approach was undermined and only very few cities like Chandigarh, Pondicherry have the reputation of being planned cities but these too emerged in post-independent India. But the fact of the matter is that Chennai was the first city to be developed by the East India Company during the early seventieth century. For instance, there are twentyone streets from the Second Beach Line to Mint Street and each one of them was earmarked for specific business activities. For the residential purpose, black town and white town were developed, the former one sewing as the residential area of service-providing commu-nities and the latter one was for the settlement of those of British origin. After the development of black/white townships, the first expansion took place around the Triplicane region. One of the famous and oldest restaurants, that is, the Ratna Cafe, stands testimony to this; there you will be served piping hot idlies submerged in the flood of sambar like the recent Chennai floods.

The geographical area of the Chennai city has increased several-fold over the last three centuries, particularly after it witnessed a phenomenal growth during the second half of the twentieth century. According to the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, the total population of Chennai city was around 19,000 in 1646, and it increased to 40,000 in 1669. In the early nineteenth century, 16 hamlets comprising 69 square kilometres were brought under the Chennai city. The city expanded further about 70 square kilometres with a population of 5.40 lakhs in 1901. The population of the city increased to 8.6 lakhs by 1941. The geographical area was about 80 square kilo-metres. In other words, the geographical area of the city remained the same for more than one-and-a-half centuries. After independence, in 1950 the boundary of the city has been increased to 129 square kilometres and remained nearly the same until the 1980s. Since the 1980s the Chennai city boundary further expanded to 176 square kilometres and remained so until 2011.

Since the 1970s, the Chennai Metropolitan Area had an area of 1189 sq kms and was spread over three districts, namely, Chennai District, parts of Thiruvallur and Kancheepuram District. According to the 1971 Census, the total population was about 35,05,502 and it increased to 86,53,521 in the 2011 Census. The Chennai Metropolitan Area region has more than 3000 water bodies and a large number of the water bodies and water courses were encroached in the process of real estate development during the last three decades. Precisely, expansion of the city and in the process of expansion, encroachments into the natural water courses and restrictions of the natural water recharge mechanism and again putting more pressure on the same water courses due to concrete finish has led to this kind of overflow. There are three rivers that flow in the city, namely, Coovam, Adyar and Kortalaiyar respectively flow in the centre, south and north of the Chennai city and each one them discharges into the Bay of Bengal. The Buckingham Canal, which connects Vijayawada and Marakkanam, passes through the Chennai city; this was constructed in 1806 and the length of the canal is about 418 kms. After the development of the railway network by the East India Company during the second half of the nineteenth century the Buckingham Canal was totally neglected.

The River Coovam collects surplus from about 75 tanks in its catchment within the Cennai Metropolitan Area. The belly of the Coovam River is shrinking everywhere in the 18 kms radius of travel through the Chennai city except near Napier Bridge at the confluence with the Bay of Bengal. It is also noticed to be shrinking in the Chennai Metropolitan Area in recent years. The HSCTC Feasibility Report shows that in most of the areas in the Chennai city limits the belly of the River Coovam has halved at both minimum and maximum lengths. Further, within the Chennai city limit there are 17 bridges on the River Coovam and the length of the bridges vary from 41 metres to 138 metres. Except three bridges, the lengths of the rest of the bridges are less than 80 metres. In fact, the lengths of a sizeable number of bridges are less than 50 metres. In addition, several railway bridges have also been built over the River Coovam. In a nutshell, not only is the belly of the River Coovam shrinking but several pillars on the river are also equally responsible for the hindrance to the natural path of water flow in the river.

The Adyar River collects surplus from about 450 tanks in its catchment, apart from overflows from the large Chembarambakkam Tank. Unlike the River Coovam, the Adyar River's course flows straight, originating about 40 kms away from the Chennai city. In fact, it originates at the outlet of the Chembarambakkam Tank that receives the water from the Kesavaram dam in the River Coovam. Indeed, the Chembarambakkam Tank has its own importance being the main source of drinking water for the Chennai city. Unlike the River Coovam, the artificial hindrance in the Adyar River are few and largely confined to the Chennai city limits and again equally high in the Chennai Metropolitan Area. But the unauthorised settlements along the Adyar River bank are affected whenever floods occur in the Chennai city.

Negligence of the Buckingham Canal between Kortalaiyar and Adyar and further south, known as South Buckingham Canal, is also an important point for study from the standpoint of floods. The long neglected Buckingham Canal had laid down hundreds of pillars for the elevated Metro Train in the canal or along the canal line from the River Coovam to Adyar and further in the south adding to the problem. More importantly, hundreds of pillars laid in the Buckingham Canal, south of the Adyar River, further curbed the diversion of surplus water flow from the Adyar River.

The rapidly increasing real estate develop-ment in the Chennai Metropolitan Area not only reduced the natural rainwater recharge mechanism but also dwindled the water bodies and river water courses adding to the problem. In other words, the emerging concrete jungles across the Chennai Metropolitan Area accumulated the torrential rain leaving little option other than the host of water turning into surging floods; this was somewhat inevitable. Following the latest heavy downpour, within a short span of time opening-up the Chem-barambakkam Tank proved fatal. Whether the decision was correct or not has become a central point of discussion in the aftermath of the Chennai floods. It triggered a hot discussion across the political parties. It is unfortunate that even the natural calamities have become a core theme for Tamil Nadu politics. Hypothetically speaking, if the Chembaram-bakkam Tank had not been opened-up after reaching the maximum capacity, it might have breached its bank and the consequences would have been much more dangerous than what has happened at present.

It seems that the Public Works Department followed its routine procedures. One has to understand that when there is no rain in Chennai or there is no information about the discharge of the Chembarambakkam Tank that may lead to overflow, the administration would have to be blamed and taken to task. In the normal situation, the administration will give notice to the inhabitants of low-lying areas and ask them to evacuate temporarily until the water released from the tank is cleared off. The fact of the matter is that due to the heavy downpour water flow was on the increase in the river and rainwater was also getting collected in the residential areas. For some time, power too went-off and other communications network was not in operation and the adminis-tration was equally handicapped under the conditions to be proactive in the Chennai city. In other words, nature itself had given clear warning of floods a week ahead of time and hence one could not argue that there was no warning and floods happened overnight. The politics should have been focused on the fundamental factors of the floods in Chennai city and how it can be averted and regulated in future. As against that exercise, politicising the natural disaster and that too when the people are suffering, is not a healthy game in sensitive politics.

I must mention here that when Jawaharlal Nehru discussed about the development of the North-Eastern region, he suggested that engineers from Chennai be invited. He also highlighted their credentials. In 1953, Jawaharlal Nehru said: ‘At the present moment most of the engineers come chiefly from two provinces — the Punjab and Madras. They are spread out all over India, because they happen to be the best. Indeed, some of them have a world reputation.' Hence, in popular politics, the vendetta game has little significance. It is better to sit back and reflect. The political parties always have the habit of fishing in troubled waters. As far as popular political games of making merry in the rainwater of Chennai city are concerned, these are bound to drown in the upcoming floods of electoral politics in 2016.

The author is a Professor and Director, Centre for Jawaharlal Nehru Studies, New Delhi.

The following two articles reached us quite sometime back but could not be used earlier due to unavoidable reasons. There are now being published before the Kerala Assembly elections.

Reading the Triumph of the Left in Kerala and Apprehensions for the Future

by Suresh Jnaneswaran

The triumph of the Left in Kerala at the local body elections comes with many charms. The campaign at the hustings was led from the front by a ninetytwo-year-old Communist revolutionary, unparalleled in history, still going strong in his crusade against communalism and corruption. It brought back nostalgic memories of an era when communism was in the air and idealism and ideology united the comrades in their fight against feudalism and colonialism. The masses then stood divided, oppressed, exploited and humiliated beyond imagination. Religion, Brahmanical Hinduism, was said to be the core of the ritualistic ostracising venality. Like its Temples, it was not a mere spiritual symbol but a socio-psychological, politico-economic and cultural architecture defying spatio-temporal destruction. Social reform movements, colonial interventions and Commu-nists in their ingenious manner fought and generated a counter-hegemonic philosophy and praxis to extirpate this hydra-headed manifestation.

The anti-colonial struggles of the pre-indepen-dence era in Kerala had a Communist content far greater than all the other participant anti-imperialist organisations put together. This gave the land and its people a persona that had become part of folklore and romance. A very small chunk of this romance was recreated during the united Left campaign that had acquired an urgency—‘a do or die' campaign to dam the entry of communal forces into the citadel of the Left. The battle at the hustings has been won but the war rages on, communalism like a bruised tiger is at the door. What can the mainstream secular forces do? The realisation of the danger, its agency and nature have to be identified, isolated and damned.

The defeat of the communal forces no doubt is exhilarating and soothing, for all communal forces by their negation erode democratic ideals. Their inherent values of exclusion are detri-mental to a pluralist culture that India represents. Tolerance and accommodativeness towards these forces betray feudal aspirations and longing for a historically discarded sociological garbage anchored in myriad inequities and undemocratic ethos.

It is a historical and political verity that in Kerala, the Muslim League of all hues along with the Kerala Congress, practitioners of camouflaged communalism, are dangerous to democracy and values of secularism as much as the Hindutva elements. These political organi-sations in various crass and subtle ways have toxified the secular political space of Kerala and facilitated the swelling of the Hindutva brigade. If the Muslim League, et al.and the many Kerala Congress parties have any claims to secularism, they should disband and give unto themselves a secular image either by gluing to or joining a secular democratic party of their choice in their respective coalitions, or give up their overt and covert communal and regional identities. The practice of spiritual and religious patriarchs determining their policies at the apex and masquerading as the ultimate high command has to be abandoned. The rationalising secular rodomontade that they indulge in, along with the endorsement of their allies, is only the chicanery of the power-hungry out to destroy democracy.

The Left forces, more discerning and critically conscious, in theory at least, should show the way with the INC following suit if they are serious of extirpating communalism from Kerala. These parties should insist that the communal organisations, with miniscule but decisive vote banks, strutting around as allies, abandon their hypocrisy in word, deed and semantic nomen-clature and submerge their identities and culture with the secular mainstream. It is not as if the devout Hindu, Muslim or Christian is uncom-fortable or less successful in the secular political front. A political party's name, ideology, slogan, geographical space and membership betray its culture and identity more forcefully than the overt propaganda.

The only way of extirpating the anchoring of religious fundamentalism and its concomitant venality in Kerala is the lobotomising of the communal allies within the UDF and LDF. The gravest crime committed by mainstream secular parties against the Kerala society is their readiness to ally with micro- and regional communalism that legitimises the latter, for concerns of power of the former. Fundamental changes imbued with sincere desire demands a fundamental metamorphosis in the perception of the secular parties in the quest for power to dam the deluge of the communal culture in all its imbricated ramifications.

Today it is largely the upper-caste Hindu and the lumpen periphery enamoured with the Khaki shorts that have a penchant for the BJP and its primitive praxis. However, in due course with the power base expanding and progressive, conscious Left leadership in the form of upper-caste comrades dwindling, the Left will find it difficult to stem the gluing of upper-caste aspirations with the BJP and the intermediary classes following suit. Jawaharlal Nehru, Jaya-prakash Narayan, Rammanohar Lohia, et al. were aware of this grave possibility with the weakening of the secular forces.

The causality will come in the form of these majority elements abandoning the Congress more than the Left in Kerala as the former is not sanitised by the ideological shield of equality and revolutionary socialism. The indoctrinated ideological base of the Left has to be assiduously cultivated and expanded to prevent a political cul-de-sac. The comrades require power for the consummation of their ideological dreams no doubt, but ambitions of power at the expense of ideological permeation have to be eschewed. Infightings for positions of power are not only a negation of the basics of Marxism-Leninism but also a manifestation of the abnegation of the ideological space to power and petit bourgeois influences ultimately culminating in the annihilation of ideology and mass aspirations.

The moment you start appeasing caste and communal forces you begin the process of your egregious self-destruction. Hydra-headed forces of reaction have a method of devouring the ideologies of secular parties and reducing them to their status vis-a-vis community and caste. The same can be said about corruption and corporate alliances. There are umpteen instances of these interventions in the pre-independent Congress movement and post-independent era.

Modernity extirpating communalism has become a myth in spite of the plethora of theories and Jurgen Habermas conceding to the inevitability of religious domination in the world of rationality and sciences. The overwhelming fact has been that secular forces have at times in their unsatiated hunger for power and aggrandisement used the machinery and culture of religion to Botox its organisational gluing and immense possibility of using violence for intimidation and annihilation as borne out by history. Religion and power and its pursuit are a devastating cocktail as people tend to cling on to their primitive identities and territories in spite of modernity and transitions in habitus and life-styles. The failure of Gandhiji and many before him lay in the premise that in spite of their political sagacity they gave space to religion and idealised it. This legitimacy proved calamitous to the country in its march towards independence and modernity. Religion has its merit and humaneness only when divorced from power and material gains. That was the climacteric quintessential beauty of Hinduism—negation of power and abnegation. Religion in pursuit of power has throughout history been divisive and destructive, wrecking havoc across continents.

The hypocrisy of the mainstream secular parties in Kerala has penalised and betrayed the aspirations and dreams of its people. This impacts not only the minority religions of the country but also the intermediary castes and Dalits within the fold of Hinduism. In contem-porary Kerala it is not the upper-caste Hindus who keep alive caste disparities but the minority religions functioning as political organisations—IUML, Kerala Congress, et al.—that indirectly, through their activities, impact Hindu commu-nalism and the raison d'être for its existence. All these may appear fallacious to the undiscerning but an objective analysis would prove the appositeness of the averments garnered through exhaustive oral history sourcing.

‘Political analysis without historical pers-pective is as barren as sociological theorising without psychological illumination' and no discipline teaches you more about the use and disuse of power than History does. Kerala as an avant-garde State has to light up the future by shedding its politico-cultural hypocrisy. Communal parties of all hues should be jettisoned and given the option of either submerging their communal identities or existing as communal organisations on their own for the Kerala society and politics to endorse or discard. Political power is profoundly sensitive to religio-cultural nuances and decisively determines the course of political decision-making and consummation. Power differs from culture to culture even though political theories down to Robert Dahl, Daniel Bell, Samuel Huntington, Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault have generally conceived of power as universal phenomena. However, the reality is that it differs profoundly from culture to culture. Power has always been sensitive to cultural subtleties and concomitant religious imbri-cations. Parochialism of culture, most often, happens to be the most sensitive and handy attribute of the politician.

The broad-based resistance against intole-rance and communal fanaticism has come how-ever, not from political parties but from the litterateur and cogitating minds. This by itself is heartening and a sign that the soul of the land still throbs with humanism and egalitarianism.

Professor Suresh Jnaneswaran is the Director, School of Social Sciences, University of Kerala, Thiruvanan-thapuram. He can be contacted at e-mail: dr.sureshj-naneswaran@gmail.com

o o o

Kerala's Local Body Elections, 2015: An Analysis

by S. Mohammed Irshad

Elections are a part of parliamentary democracy. Once elected, every member becomes a part of the ruling elite. Despite all its defects, people still prefer democracy over any other system. The 2015 local body election results in Kerala provide a critical insight into the functioning of the democratic system. It was a straight fight between the Left Democratic Front (LDF) and the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF).

The LDF scored a significant majority in the panchayats, municipalities and corporations. It followed the usual pattern of an LDF victory after a UDF one. The election results and the media analysis corroborate this pattern. But the 2015 local body elections pose some critical questions about the behaviour of the electorate. The present study focuses on three interesting aspects of these elections.

Unlike in the past, this time the BJP registered remarkable electoral successes. The BJP has emerged as an Opposition party in the Thiruvanathapuram city corporation. This gives more visibility to the party in Kerala than ever before. The campaign of the BJP was largely centred on the economic prosperity and public participation of Muslims. The Indian Union Muslim League's participation in the UDF was articulated as the presence of a ‘threat'. It put the Muslim League on the defensive, though the ML did not touch any minority issue in the election and even fielded non-Muslims as candidates. It is perhaps the first time in Kerala that the ‘Muslim threat' was sought to be projected as a visible one.

On top of it the Hindu middle caste organi-sation, Sree Narayan Dharma Paripalan Yogam (SNDP), leaders' open support to the BJP also helped the masses to believe in the threat. However, the most important beneficiary of the Islamic threat is the Left parties. The beef festivals conducted by the Left parties when the Muslim League and Muslim organisations kept them-selves away from such demonstrations really helped the Left parties to consolidate Muslim votes and secular voters in a big way.

Space for Identity Politics

The Left parties have a clear ideological position against identity politics. Their opposition is more against Dalit and Adivasi identity politics and other issue-based movements. The politics of opposition to Dalits and Adivasi movements arises from the failure of the parties to articulate the problems of the communities within the party. The issue-based movements equally challenged the Left parties' ideological opposition to privatisation and liberalisation of the economy. The inability to provide an argument against the capitalists' exploitation of Nature, also weakens the Left parties opposition to the movement to protect environment.

Too much of ‘statism' is the biggest impedi-ment of the Left to reach out to such movements. However, the campaign based on Muslim's religious identity invariably questioned the established position of the Left parties towards identity politics. It forced the party to support Muslim identity politics for the vote-bank.

Apart from the Left parties the other two Muslim parties also achieved remarkable successes. The Welfare Party of Jamat-e-Islami and Social Democratic Party of India, formed by the Popular Front of India, also tried their luck. Unlike the Muslim League, the Welfare Party is quite active in critiquing the statist approach of the mainstream political parties, especially the Left parities. The Welfare Party's articulation of issues is based on identity politics and criticism of the state. Its appeal is often more powerful than that of the Left parties.

It is the second time that they tried their luck in the local body elections. In 2010, they fielded candidates under the banner of the Development Front and won less than ten seats. This time the number has increased. The campaign also put less emphasis on Muslims and more on ‘local development'.

The SDPI's campaign was more on the ‘threat to Muslims'. The national debate on Pakistan, beef and population growth of Muslims contributed to the success of the Left parties, and other champions of Muslim identity politics. But the issue has its own negative features and consequences, especially as it restricts the entry of the Muslims to mainstream politics. Also it sidelines the real problem of Muslims as a poor section of the society. However, the ‘electoral space' which the Muslims get is not available to the Dalits and Adivasis..

Excluding Dalits and Adivasis

Muslim dentity politics got wider visibility in the elections. But Dalit and Adivasi identity politics could not get the same extent of visibility. The Dalit and Adivasi movements are quite active in Kerala. The Adivasi Gothramasabha is a tribal movement which was instrumental in the 2000 tribal land struggle that started the movement for ‘land for the landless' Adivasis. The movement and its leaders could articulate the Adivasi issues with much more clarity and acceptance than any other political party in Kerala.

The struggle initiated by the Adivai Gothramasabha was instrumental in spending the Tribal Sub-Plan (TSP) money effectively. It forced the government to spend Rs 42 crores from the TSP fund to buy 12,000 acres of farm land owned by the Farming Corporation of India. Half of the farm land was distributed among the landless Adivasi communities. Everybody accepts that it was the Adivasi Gothramasabha which was instrumental in distributing the land.

However, this acceptance did not convert into votes for the Adivasi Gothramahasabha candidates. In power politics, the voters favour the mainstream political parties. This is also due to the tendency of excluding Adivasi politics from mainstream politics. An Adivasi can win an election if she or he belongs to any major political party and it is true that mainstream political parties seldom articulate the Adivasi issues in the manner in which the Gothramaha-sabha articulates.

This is applicable to Dalit politics as well. For instance, Ms Girija, a committed social worker in Kasargode district, contested on the Dalit Samrakshna Samithi ticket in block panchyat polls but she was sidelined. She is quite active in community mobilisation and educational support to Dalit and adivasi children. But such work did not help her to win an election.

All six candidates who contested under the Adivasi Gothramasabha banner got less than 100 votes. These candidates belonged to the depressed sections and had a commitment to their cause. It is a fact that even the presence of an adivasi woman as the State Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare Minister could not stop the death due to malnutrition of adivasi children and atrocities against Dalits and adivasis. That shows the unimportance of Adivasi and Dalit politics in the State.

The Minister had to work within the existing power relations which have no room for the depressed sections' specific issues such as land rights and other matters of social justice. The Minister has no power except to provide the minimum general support to the adivasis such as rice for one rupee etc. So, a movement and its candidates articulating larger adivasi and Dalit issues would definitely disturb the public. This is quite evident in the case of another Panchayat, where the people do accept a dominant force and ideology. The case of Kizhakambalam, where a private company captured power democratically, strengthens the aforesaid argument.

Company Rule and Democracy

The Kizhakkambalam Panchyat experienced a new form of political alliance. The alliance has been named after the popular cricket format Twenty-20. This Twenty-20 alliance was initiated by a private business group, Anna Aluminum Company, and its sister concern, Kittex Cloth manufacturing company. It is one of the largest business houses in Kerala.

Prior to the election, the company started a general store which sells commodities at a price less than the market price by spending their corporate social responsibility fund. It functions even better than ration shops; hence it is obvious that it can attract larger public support than any other initiative. The Twenty-20 alliance was a result of this corporate initiative and it got wide mass support. The corruption and nepotism of political parties also created favourable conditions for them to win public support. The local people were in search of an alternative to political parties and the company offered them one.

The Twenty-20 alliance won 17 out of 19 seats and is now ruling the Panchayat. The success of Twenty-20 could be attributed to the failure of conventional political activism and the success of transparent administration. Twenty-20 followed these norms and hence the capital interest of the company could be getting a better deal from the administration. The faith the people had on a private company could be attributed to the corruption and nepotism of the political parties. As a business house the company cannot compromise its interest and in such a scenario the best deal is to create a political rationale based on market rationality. It is too difficult to run a government in such a case, so the market rationality would determine the future of this experience. The governance of the Panchayat would be both choice-driven and demand-driven.

The interesting aspect of all these experiences is that the people have accepted an alliance based on a company's interest. However, such public concern was missing in the case of Dalit and Adivasi candidates. A company's articu-lation of development and transparency got accepted but the voter preferred to keep the Dalit and Adivasi candidates out of power. Twenty-20 also prefers not to raise critical questions on social justice but articulate issues from the perspective of corporate social responsi-bility.

In the whole process one can read the politics of exclusion and inclusion of the market in the public sphere and also the changing mode of identity politics. The result is that basic issues are sidetracked in electoral politics.

Dr S. Mohammed Irshad is an Assistant Professor, Jamsetji Tata School of Disaster Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai.

IMPRESSIONS

For the first time in history a woman of colourful reputation, backed by a jail term, has become the fulcrum of power in the State, holding the Chief Minister, several Ministers, MLAs and police bosses to ransom. To understand the enormity of this achievement, we must remember that the present Chief Minister, Oommen Chandy, is the shrewdest political manipulator Kerala has ever seen. He plotted the ouster of the influential K. Karuna-karan and of the popular A.K. Antony from chief ministership, thus clearing the way to his own rise to the top. He also subdued his alliance partners, K.M. Mani and Kunjalikutty, masters of machinations in their own right, the moment they showed signs of asserting themselves. Such a genius of intrigue being upstaged by a charming cheat?

But Sarita Nair is no ordinary woman. A B.Com graduate and mother of two, she dances and a film or two featuring her are in the works. She began life with a bank job which she used to take loan-seekers for a ride. Articulate, intelligent and bold to a fault, she seems ready for a fight whoever the adversary. She was made for politics.

But she went into business. With a partner (now in jail for, among other things, killing his wife), she floated a company to provide solar energy to all kinds of enterprises. Finding shortcuts through political influence was the preferred modus operandi of the company. Chief Minister Chandy was one of her early contacts and she used the link to line up some big deals. When the bubble burst she said vast sums of money were paid to VIPs while some VIPs tried to exploit her as a woman.

In the initial stages Sarita never made any charges against Oommen Chandy himself. But he must have been rattled within. He made two uncharacteristic mistakes. The first was to say that he did not know Sarita Nair and never met her. In no time photographs appeared on screens and in newspapers showing Sarita whispering things into the ears of the Chief Minister. Subsequently Chandy said he might have seen her two or three times. Against published and telecast evidence, the Chief Minister sounded like telling untruths. In the eyes of the public, he lost.

His second mistake was another untruth. Commentators started saying that Chandy was reaping what he had sowed when he used the ISRO spy case of 1994 against K. Karunakaran. Chandy challenged the media to cite a single instance of his attacking Karunakaran over the ISRO case. In no time, the channels showed a young Oommen Chandy softly but in strong words saying that the ISRO case had so badly damaged Karunakaran's and the Congress' reputation that his continuance in office would be fatal for the party. When the news-clip was brought to his attention, he smiled and brazened it out by denying any link between ‘then' and ‘now'. In the eyes of the public, he lost heavily.

Sarita Nair, having initially “protected” the Chief Minister, later turned against him because, she said, there was no sign of his returning to her, as promised, the money she had paid to his nominees at various times. Indicating that there was some truth in her claims, a couple of the Chief Minister's close personal aides had to abruptly leave their jobs in the early stages of the scandal. Now, openly and directly, Sarita said she had paid a bribe of Rs 1.9 crore to the Chief Minister's personal representative in Delhi. Denials by party spokesmen filled the air. Then, before a jungle of television cameras, raising her finger as well as her voice, Sarita challenged the Chief Minister (without mentioning his name) to file an FIR against her. People were stunned.

In the last week or so the master tactician in Oommen Chandy seems to have recovered. Vigilance and police reports have come out exposing “conspirators” behind Sarita Nair. The needle of suspicion points to government leaders, primarily because some of the Ministers are known for corruption. But counter-disclosures help fill the air with confusion, giving the Chandy group some breathing space.

The real tragedy is Kerala's. Till a decade ago the “Kerala model” was internationally lauded for its achievements in the social sector. The State's educational advancement and village-covering health services were the envy of others. All that is gone. Now money rules. Perhaps Kerala will fare better if Sarita Nair becomes the next Chief Minister. It certainly will not fare worse.

From N.C.'s Writings

In just about a year's time, we shall be celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the country's independence when power was transferred from the unwilling hands of the British rulers to the leaders of our freedom struggle. And it is exactly fifty years now that in the last general election under colonial rule, in 1946, the leader of the Indian National Congress toured the length and breadth of this vast land promising the public that once the power was transferred, he and his party would hang every black-marketeer from “the next lamp post”.

Fifty years have passed and today the leader of the very same Congress party is facing charges of cheating and large-scale corruption before the court of a Delhi Magistrate. And he still has not given up the august post of the President of the party that was at the vanguard of our country's freedom struggle.

Not only is this a solitary case of shocking misdemeanour on the part of a political leader who was until three months ago the Prime Minister of this great country. A whole array of political personalities—former Ministers and other leaders including the Presidents of two largest Opposition parties—face arraignment before the law court on charges of having been involved in mega-size hawala transactions. The rich harvest of political big-wigs who have figured in the Jain hawala diary reads like a VIP court circular.

Nowadays as the lid is being removed from the cesspool of corruption in public life, one is at a loss to make out how the malaise has overtaken our body politic in these five decades since independence.

The quantum of black money in circulation and how to deal with it have been discussed from time to time by economists from Kaldor downward, but no succinct analysis has so far been made by our pundits in sociology or political science or by the media seniors how this degeneration has come about, its history, its magnitude stage by stage, and what it really means for our democracy and its future. Individual monographs have come out from time to time such as the one on the ramifications of the Birla House by a journalist from Calcutta in the fifties, while the late D.R. Mankekar brought out a gallery of guilty men in the sixties. In the old days, the peponderating influence of the Birlas over the Congress leadership was widely known. That was more in the nature of an open liaison between the top leadership of the national movement and one of the nationalist-minded business houses who despite the frowns of the Raj stood by Gandhiji, who ironically breathed his last within the precincts of the Birla House.

When independence came, the Congress leadership was particularly keen on jealously guarding its own image before the public as leaders who could not be corrupted even if the new situation required a continuous demand for financial help for the party. The multifarious activities in which the Congress and other political parties were engaged required a good amount of funds flowing in regularly. Many of these activities became part of the new government's agenda but the parties required big money to fight elections, the Congress being the largest of them had a bigger budget.

If the political parties needed funds, the business community needed government support and patronage. Thus was provided an opening for fresh opportunities for acquiring funds which the ruling parties, particularly the Congress, could thrive on. At the same time, the Congress leadership of those early years after independence, was alert about the need to retain their image of being averse to all the means of securing unearned money from the business community.

As a result, an interesting division of labour was maintained by the first generation of leaders, from 1947 to 1969, that is, upto the time of the Congress split. By this arrangement, leaders like Nehru, Sardar Patel, Pant and others who could sway the public politically, preserved their image as being above corrupt or underhand dealings, while others like S.K. Patil or Atulya Ghosh were expected to do the dirty job. And fund collection for some consideration was certainly one of them. This came out very sharply in the Mundhra scandal, over which T.T. Krishnamachari resigned because he had winked at the LIC giving him a loan which he would not have otherwise got. Mundhra did pay a good amount as quid pro quo to a senior Congress leader who was never mentioned in all the preceedings; instead, TTK took the onus upon himself for having done something irregular. The reason why the name of the actual recipient of the Mudhra bribe was held back was that the Congress party leadership was anxious that its own image before the public must not be smudged, as these top leaders were the main vote-catchers for the Congress party.

This neat division of labour within the Congress leadership, however, collapsed with the Congress split in 1969. When Indira Gandhi assumed the leadership of the Congress, she did not bother about that delicate division of labour; instead, she herself approached the business magnates and funds came from them direct to her, or through her trusted henchmen like Rajni Patel and others who were her underlings. By this arrangement, the resources of the Congress were concentrated only in Indira Gandhi's hands who became the omnipotent dispenser of all favours and concessions while the business world too could exercise more direct influence on the government through her and her retinues. Secondly, it was not a deal between the government and the corporate sector as a collective, but one between the head of the government and specific elements of the business world whom she would favour. In the bargain, the distinction between party fund and the leader's coffers was blurred, and individual businessmen or houses became the favourites of the establishment.

This had its impact on the shape of politics. Instead of the party holding the purse-strings, the leader became the sole dispenser of all funds, and through it came his or her power. Thus the leader's family and favourites became all powerful. The unwholesome rise of Sanjay Gandhi as an extra-constitutional authority could be ascribed in a large measure to this new development. The early days of Maruti and the mafia that grew around it bear eloquent testimony to this. The hereditary dispensation enjoyed by Indira Gandhi's progenies can certainly be ascribed to this new style of political financing.

Another stage was reached in the eighties, that is, when Indira returned to power after the devastation she had brought upon herself during the Emergency. This time a new style was followed for clearing the target for raising funds. So long the traditional style of the Congress fund collection for the election was to approach the business houses on the eve of the election campaign. However, in 1984-85 this seasonal drive for funds was far less conspicuous. Under the new style of fund collection, the leader in authority turned more to mega-purchases on government account, and would charge a cutback on such purchases. For obvious reasons, this involved dealing with foreign companies, particularly in the field of defence. This way came the kickback from the German submarine deal (which is yet to be unearthed) and after this came the Bofors scandal under Rajiv Gandhi. Such deals are transconti-nental by nature, and despite exposures, and the establishment of the fact of kickback money having been given to individual operators, nobody has been punished, as the matter is supposed to be still under investigation.

The importance of the Bofors scandal in the evolution of political corruption in our country needs to be understood in all its implications. First, it directly involved the Prime Minister, as the needle of suspicion has been definitely pointed at some of his cronies and members of his family. Secondly, it involved arms supply. Although the Bofors gun is widely established, the fact that kickbacks from a foreign arms company could have major political repercussions contributed to a large extent to the ruling Congress party having lost the elections in 1989. Thirdly, it opened up tremendous possibilities for foreign companies intervening in our politics through the sordid channel of bribery and kickbacks. The fact that even to this day the Bofors scandal has not been fully unearthed enhances the danger of foreign firms intervening in our politics.

It is important to note that just in this period, agents of big foreign interests have become conspicuous in our politics. To comprehend this, one has only to recall the enormous clout that the Italian giant, Snam Progetti's local agent could wield in the Rajiv establishment in the eighties. What role Quattrocchi has played in the inner recesses of the Rajiv establishment is yet to be assessed, but nobody doubts that it is of far-reaching consequence.

It is precisely in this background that one has to take into account a phenomenon like Chandraswami. Despite several warnings, Narasimha Rao did maintain close relations with him. This could be seen not only in the recent disclosures about Chandraswami's misdoings, but in the fact that he kept close to Narasimha Rao, despite the gentle warnings that the then Prime Minister received from friends and well-wishers. And Chandraswami's circle of devotees is a very extensive one—comprising not only Narasimha Rao but former Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar, and even T.N. Seshan, the Chief Election Commissioner, who has been talking about our countrymen having lost their character. It is not enough to say that Chandraswami dabbles in politics: within the network of his shady activities on an international scale, one finds Adnan Khasoggi, the Sultan of Brunei and Tiny Rowlands—a worldwide mafia involved in a variety of excursions from high finance to arms sales and one would not be surprised to find it having been involved in drug trafficking. The infamous St Kitts cook-up to frame V.P. Singh's son, which was designed by Chandraswami during Rajiv Gandhi's term, in which Narasimha Rao was involved, brought out the type of dangerous politics that was being pursued behind the facade of the so-called godman. It is after years of notoriety—when he got protection and immunity from his political patrons—Chandraswami is now finding himself in difficulty before the law court, and he would have no hesitation today implicating his VIP political patrons.

It is not in the least surprising that in the very period in which Chandraswami's antecedents are coming to light, the country has learnt a lot also from the Jain hawala deal which has taken a heavy toll of politicians. What needs to be stressed is that the exposure of these rackets of Jains and Chandraswamis and their tribe tells us that not only were big money deals involved, but these are into-related with harbouring terrorists and underworld characters who could be a threat to our security. The fact that persons occupying high offices in our democracy have not hesitated to make use of these shady characters makes it clear not only that they themselves have been wallowing in corruption but also that they allow the country's security to be endangered through such contacts. Corruption is not just a moral issue but equally involves a threat to the country's interest and security.

What is disturbing is that the allegations of corruption have ceased to be a matter of disgrace in public life. Hence, one sees the Congress leaders have yet to insist that they could not afford to have as their leader one who is facing charges of corruption in the company of the disreputable Chandraswami and that a hawala-tainted politician could sneak back into the present government as a full-fledged Cabinet Minister. What is yet to be realised by our political leaders is that in the public eye, corruption is looked down upon and anybody tarred with it carries no authority whatsoever in the judgement of the common public. Politicians may look at corruption as a manageable private affair but the wider public, getting more and more awakened, regards corruption of Chandraswami and the hawala dimension as an undoubted curse to be purged out of our politics.

(Mainstream, July 20, 1996)

One key debate in the Indian Constituent Assembly was on the appointment of Governors. Many argued that a State's High Court Chief Justice could fulfil the ornamental role when required. Equally fierce was the demand that a Governor should be elected, not appointed. In a democratic polity, a head of the state should be a person who is directly returned by the people. This was the argument.

Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru intervened to state that an elected Governor would become a parallel authority to the elected Chief Minister. This would hamper the normal functioning of the State. However, Nehru wanted the Governor to be an eminent person, respected in his field, whether in academics, science or art. He did not favour a political appointee, a person whom the ruling party sought to give the office.

But he never imagined that even the constitu-tional head could be used by a political party to serve its ends. The bane was Article 356 which gave the Centre power to dismiss a government if there was a “breakdown” in the law and order machinery in a State. The normal procedure, however, was to wait for the Governor's report and then act.

Today, this practice is only on paper. Nehru's dream was shattered by his daughter, Indira Gandhi, when she was the Congress President in 1959. She was against the Kerala Government, ruled by the Communists, for having passed an Education Bill brought out by the E.M.S. Namboodiripad Government. He appealed to Nehru against the Congress protests which Indira Gandhi had initiated. Nehru must have spoken to his daughter about the agitation although the media did not say so.

Nehru publicly and privately told Namboo-diripad that he was helpless. Since it was the decision by the Congress President, the Prime Minister had to obey because he was the party's nominee. Subsequently, President's Rule was imposed and a democratically elected govern-ment was ousted. This became a precedent.

Over the years, the reluctance to dismiss an elected government has got diluted. The Governor now, although a constitutional head, obeys the wishes of the party ruling at the Centre. The only Chief Minister who put up any kind of resistance was Jyoti Basu in West Bengal and he could get away with it because one, he was too tall in politics and, two, he was too popular in the State where he could organise a revolt of sorts.

Now the stature of politicians has diminished so much that the ruling party at the Centre gets away literally with murder. And this is undemocratic because the State has autonomy in the federal system we follow. But what can a State do when the Centre is determined to have its own way?

Take, for instance, the case of Uttarakhand ruled by the Congress. Nine MLAs defected reducing the Congress party to a minority. As laid down by the Supreme Court in the S.R. Bommai case, a date was fixed for the government to prove its majority on the floor of the House. Apparently, the Narendra Modi Government at the Centre was not sure whether the defected members would stay out or rejoin the party.

So, 24 hours before the floor-test was to be conducted, the government was dismissed but the Assembly was not dissolved. Obviously, the BJP thought that it could form the government with the help of the defectors. Then the Congress Government went to the High Court and got a verdict in its favour as the floor test was ordered.

The lesson to be learnt from the entire episode is that the office of the Governor has got mixed up with politics. He is no more an independent entity and follows what the Centre tells him to do. As Home Minister Govind Ballabh Pant once put it, the Governor is a civil servant and has to act upon what the Centre tells him because he is New Delhi's appointee. In fact, there were several instances in the past where a Governor was not able to complete his tenure because a new government at the Centre wanted its own trusted loyalist for the post.

Nehru's emphasis in the Constituent Assembly that a Governor should be a person of eminence is now a pipedream. A political party wants a trustworthy person in States, particularly where it is not ruling, and it makes no secret about it by crowding out the serving Governor. The Congress party, which had laid down high norms during the time of Nehru, is as guilty as the other parties are.

Probably, it is difficult to force a ruling party to appoint a non-political, independent person to the office of the Governor. Therefore, the country should seriously consider abolishing Article 356 which is undemocratic since a democratically-elected government in a State should only be dismissed by the people who have returned it. Even otherwise, in a federal system like the one we have, the States enjoy independence in their own sphere. The Constitution-framers could have opted for a presidential form of government if they did not want to give autonomy to the States. Instead, they preferred a parliamentary system which allows interplay of different political parties and States. When a party loses majority in the Lower House at any time, it has no option except to quit.

A new election is too expensive and too cumbersome. How many times can fresh polls be held? Had there been a constitutional provision for a plebiscite, the lacuna found could have been overcome. When Justice Hidaytullah was the Vice-President and Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, he complained that the Constitution-framers have not provided any method to associate the people's wishes on an amendment to the Constitution.

He, in fact, suggested a plebiscite. But this was turned down by the political parties. So the nation was back to square one. And there it stands even today.

The author is a veteran journalist renowned not only in this country but also in our neighbouring states of Pakistan and Bangladesh where his columns are widely read. His website is www.kuldipnayar.com

by Navneet Sharma and Pradeep Nair

Trident (Trishul)is a symbol of Hindu religion and not a weapon.... its distribution is a movement to realise our goal of [the] Hindu Rashtra. —A Hindu fanatic leader

The mobilisation of people on communal lines has been the oldest trick in the politics of the world and nations. In Hindu mythology ‘trishul' is wielded by Shiva and Durga. Trishul is a polyvalent (trifold or having multiple usage) symbol. The trishul wielder symbolises a virulent and powerful god. The distribution of tridents is hailed as ‘trishul deeksha' by the organisers. The question is: why ‘trishul'? If it is about god and mobilisation for the religion's sake, it could have been a damru (triangular conical drum). The distribution of trishuls is not just to abide by the idea of religion or expression of faith, but it creates a jingoistic religious nationalism and politics.

In this article we attempt to understand and appreciate how the semiotics of Hindu nationa-lism works and is employed for vote-bank politics. Another strikingly similar movement was created in the mid-1980s as the Ram-shilaandolan (the stone carved with the name of Ram). It was the brainchild of another veteran leader vociferously steering the Ram Janma-bhoomi movement, who now stands margina-lised, retired and hurt. Every household was expected to donate a brick with the name of Ram; another similar idea is in trend where every household is expected to contribute ‘iron' for the giant iron statue of the ‘first' iron man, Sardar Patel, coming up in Gujarat. According to an RSS pracharak, these ‘movements' not only mobilise people as a cohort or vote-bank but provide for an ‘identity' or conscience to the ‘Hindus' in deep slumber for centuries. The question is: who are these people and how would they benefit by ‘awakening' the Hindus? And the possible answer is: probably to get hold of the monolithic power of the state. This requires a stratagem. This kind of politics creates myths and misnomers like the idea of ‘ideal' Hindu women, men and nation. In this commentary, we attempt to deconstruct to clarify that: how the semiotics of Hindu nationalism works and is exclusionary and divisive to the core.

Ideal Hindu Woman

The relationship of women to religious politics is mostly paradoxical and complex. Gender in Hindu nationalism is always viewed as a political entity whereby Hindu women are depicted as the repositories of religious beliefs and custodians of purity and integrity of the Hindu community. Hindu nationalism in its core aims to Hinduise politics by constructing a Hindu self—a virile and masculine self which challenges the political assertion of Hindu women on the nationalism agenda. The ideal Hindu woman propagated by Right-wing extremists symbolises the face of the Hindu nation wearing traditional dress (mostly sari) and marching for the nationalistic cause. Ideally women are visualised and symbolised as Sita (the wife of Rama in Ramayana) to be upheld as the national ideal of Indian womanhood. This mostly helps to influence the sentiments of Hindu women in the nationalistic ordeal to serve the ideological purposes. Mother India is consecrated as a goddess modestly dressed in a sari, seated on a lion and holding a saffron flag. The image helps to propagate the message that the Hindu nation is in crisis and it is time for male Hindus to reorganise to defend the Hindu religion and the Motherland. This also helps the religious extremists to legitimise political Hinduism as a vehicle for nation-building— laying the foundation for a Hindu Rashtra.

The Indian national politics till date included women only symbolically into the national body politic and never allowed them the same access to the resources of the nation-state as in the case of men. It only legitimises the dominance of men over women. The images of woman as Mother and nation-as-woman only intensify the male-male arrangements and an all-male history. The Right-wing political organisations support women's independence only when they find it politically convenient; otherwise they prefer to defend the conservative Hindu conceptions of women's place. An example of this is the stand of the BJP in the case of the sati of Roop Kanwar in 1987 where they sought justification for sati in Hindu scriptures and idealised women's role as dutiful wives as Sita and Savitri. The Right-wing political organi-sations many a time had shown their concern towards the inequalities of Muslim law, but at the same time remained silent about the discri-minatory traits of Hindu law. During 1991-92, the Right-wing political organisations claimed women's electoral support only to affirm their religious commitment and idea of Hindu nation as the organisations found them more devout than men.

The gender ideology of Hindutva and Hindu nationalism reinforces the ‘supremacy of the family over the individual' with the implication that ‘family considerations should reign supreme', not only in marriage, but in ‘career'; thus the ability of a woman to assert herself politically is limited by the philosophy it is based on. The World Hindu Council (VHP), founded in 1964 by Golwalkar, asks Hindu NRI women, especially mothers, ‘not to opt for professional careers'. The idea of woman in a Hindu nation is manifested in the concept of motherhood and the creation of Ma Bharati iconography and ideal. The woman is perceived as a chaste mother, victimised by the funda-mentalists (Muslims and Christians) and in constant need of protection by her sons, who at once are virile, physically strong, celibate, and fanatically Hindu nationalist. The women are expected to teach their sons the essentials of Hindu nationalism, fight the Hindu nation's enemies but, most significantly, desist from being ‘modern'. The very idea of motherhood is the biological act of producing a strong male child like Shivaji. The ‘ideal' Hindu woman must be dedicated and loyal to religion rather than the self. This ‘ideal' woman must be pious (vegetarian?!), brave (veerdhatri... an ability to produce virile and brave male child), courageous (to be sati on the husband's pyre) and chaste (like Kunti and Rohini were). The idea seemingly suggests that if this nation is not becoming the great nation/Akhand Hindu Rashtra, it is because of women. The practitioners (male) of Hinduism and Hindutva are making all the efforts to save and protect Ma Bharati but because of women (who do not have the above characteristics) they are unable to do so.

The ideal Hindu woman is then camouflaged as ‘bhartiya nari' and embodies the idea of cultural nationalism. The ‘adarsh' bhartiya nari is a political euphemism to hide bare facts that Indian women suffer from the second highest maternal mortality rate in the world and 88 per cent of expecting mothers are found to be anaemic, so much so as not to produce and participate as strong and able citizens of this nation. Forty per cent of child marriages in the whole world happen in India because this kind of cultural nationalism propagates and survives upon the idea of an ideal chaste Hindu woman who has to seek heaven in her husband's feet and should contribute to nation-building by further producing virile Hindu males.

Ideal Hindu Man

The ideal (Hindu) man is a man of restraint, a virile male—a man who is respected by his community and emulated by other men and is extremely self-disciplined. A Hindu man should strive to be like the God Rama. By abandoning desire (materialistic), a man can be above that which is basal, mortal, and profane. In a prescriptive sense, Hindu masculinity rejects the self-centred wielding of power. The ideal Hindu man holds his power humbly, rather than forecefully. Rama, and thus the normative Hindu conception of the ideal man, is both strong and passive at the same time. Coded within an early and pervasive philosophical cosmological doctrine, the ideal for masculine in Hinduism is passive whereas feminine is active. Hindu masculinity is associated with inaction and spiritual knowledge—that is, to transcend the world by preserving the superior race—the Hindu Brahmins in this case.

The ideal Hindu man is a ‘dwija' (twice born) who has knowledge and valour. This man should be a ‘bull' in behaviour; should know how to satiate women and control them and be ready to take on fights to protect the honour of the country (from the ‘mleccha' Muslims in this case). The ideal Hindu man's imagery though suffers from many paradoxes, like he must be strong but Dalits who grow physically strong in due course of survival are not considered as Hindu enough, should be a one-woman man but takes pride in robbing the ‘honour' of other (religion and caste-wise) women and prevents Love-Jihad. This Hindu man has to be Hindu in simultaneity of being an Arya Samaji. This ideal man should support ‘Hindutva' and the political idea of ‘Hindi', ‘Hindu' and ‘Hindusthan'. This ideal man has to be celibate (Brahmacharya makes one stronger physically) and should produce more children also (the Hindu population is dwindling). This ideal Hindu has to protect many things like his women, cow, country and sperms from enemies (Muslims and Christians). Only a ‘strong' Hindu, wielding the trident, a Ram-nami and a member of the mighty cultural organisation can alone realise the dream of an Akhand Hindu Rashtra. Obviously no such men are born, they are to be created and crafted by indoctrination and hate-mongering which is done at more than 15,000 shakhas.

Ideal Hindu Nation

An ideal Hindu nation looks at the Hindu community as consisting of all castes, sub-castes, out-castes along with Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains—all ‘indigenous' religions except the ‘foreign religions' adhering to Islam and Christianity. The extremists visualise it as a nation whose numerical majority has not translated into a political majority until the 16th Lok Sabha elections held in 2014. But in reality, it is an imaginary nation as it is a celebration and affirmation of Hindutva, an idea which derives its meaning only from a negation of the minorities. The geo-politics of this nation has been created since the late 19th century starting with the Revivalist movements and the beginning of religious-category-based enume-ration through Census. In contrast to the mainstream Indian nationalist movement, the Hindu nationalist movement focused more on the Hindu Self and tried to present it as the Indian Self—rendering non-Hindu Indians as the untrustworthy anti-Hindu, thus anti-Indian. A country having religious, cultural and linguistic heterogeneity, this concept of religious nationalism has many issues. The concept and conflict both took place when the colonial power was about to leave. Before that nationalism was associated with the shared history, culture, language and ethnicity. The two-nation theory was born more out of political considerations rather than religion. The competition for power among both Hindu and Muslim extremists viewed Hindus and Muslims as two different nations—instead of territory, religion formed the basis of nationalism. The Muslim League demanded partition, whereas the Hindu Maha-sabha stood for ‘Akhand Bharat' under Hindu hegemony.

In the formation of a nation, the question of identity always has prime importance. In an ideal democratic sense and situation, identity is based on a shared sense of history, culture and language. Religion may or may not be common. Religion alone can never be able to provide a viable and cohesive base for nationalism. In Europe, nations were formed on the basis of language and culture; thus in the formation of a nation, common language, culture and a sense of shared history play an important role. Religion shall be always kept in a spiritual and moral category whereas nationalism shall be kept in a political-cum-territorial category. It is always better for a nation-state to fix these two domains separately—religion for common spiritual experiences, shared moral and ethical vision—and nationalism for shared political concerns, cultural practices and historical heritage.

The Crafted Semiotics

In the Indian context the domineering ‘cultural' organisation propagates otherwise that the adherents of a peculiar religion alone are ‘pure' Indians and thus only nationalists. The argument is simple: “if you are not Hindu you are not a nationalist” and if you are a Hindu and do not believe in ‘Hindutva' (the political philosophy of Savarkar and Golwalkar) then either you are a Macaulayputra (son of Macaulay —a product of English education) or a ‘Communist' which again makes you a traitor to Hinduism and thus to Indian nationalism. A ‘true' Indian is the one who takes membership and vows that “in the name of almighty god and our ancestors, I hereby vow that I have become a unit of RSS in order to protect the sacred Hindu Dharma, Hindu culture and to achieve the all-round development of the Hindu nation”. The adherence and loyalty to a religion is translated to and directed as loyalty to the nation and vice-versa. The question whether nations are a construct by its citizens or citizens make the nation is of no value in this case.

The imagery of the ‘Akhand Hindu Rashtra' is created as territorial nationalism from Kandahar to Kamrup and from Kashmir to Kanyakumari and men and women who should be ‘native' of this land are to be crafted and created. The slogans to be chanted are: ‘Hindustan mein rahna hoga to Vande Matram kehna hoga' (if you want to live in India, hail mother india—bharat mata—a Hindu imagery) and ‘jo Hindu hit ki baat karega, woh desh par raj karega' (only those shall rule the country who are concerned with Hindu welfare). The implication is that national welfare is nothing but Hindu welfare. For long this cultural organisation did not accept the tricolour as the national flag and the Indian Constitution, its founders and mentors always believed and had faith in the saffron flag and Manu Smriti as the Constitution until their allegiance was made conditional for lifting the ban on it in 1949— post-Gandhi assassination.

Similarly, physical training is imparted at shakhas seemingly to save the nation as it functions as a para-military organisation which can lead to civil strife and communal conflicts in the country. This organisation shies away from the issue of caste. For sheer numbers though it claims that all Dalit Bahujans are Hindus, yet one is hard-pressed to believe it. It would be beyond imagination that this organisation would even take a stand on the Dalits' entry into the temples. It skirts this issue by a plaintive and simple argument that whosoever raises this is a non-Hindu and thus non-nationalistic or in the trending idiom, a JNUite. The gender construct is Western, according to this organisation. The ideal Hindu woman (wearing bindi, manglasutra and sari pallu) should submit and surrender to the task of building an Akhand Hindu Rashtra by producing male children and telling them stories of valour of Shivaji (who fought the Muslims) at bedtime and thus inculcating and instilling pride into them about the idea of Akhand Hindu Rashtra where he grows with the ethos of ‘tel lagao dabur ka, maaro bacha babur ka' (use the oil of Dabur and kill the sons of Babur).

References

Banerjee, S. (2006): ‘Armed Masculinity, Hindu Nationalism and Female Political Participation in India', International Feminist Journal of Politics, 8 (1): 62-78.

Basu, A. (1998): ‘Hindu Women's Activism in India and the questions it raises' in A. Basu and P. Jeffery (ed.), Appropriating Gender: Women's Activism and Politicised Religion in South Asia (pp. 167-180), London: Routledge.

Doniger, W. and Smith, B. (2000): ‘Laws of Manu' in G.E. Kessler (ed.) Eastern Ways of Being Religious, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Jafferlot, C. (2007): Hindu Nationalism, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Kalyani, M. (2010): Everyday Nationalism: Women of the Hindu Right in India, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Mazumdar, S. (1995). ‘Women on the March: Right-wing Mobilisation in Contemporary India', Feminist Review, 49: 1-17.

Sarkar, T. (1998): ‘Women, Community and Nation: A Historic Trajectory for Hindu Identity Politics' in A. Basu and P. Jeffery (ed.), Appropriating Gender: Women's Activism and Politicised Religion in South Asia (pp. 97-102). London: Routledge.

Wadley, S.S. (1977): ‘Women and the Hindu Tradition', Signs, 3 (1):113-125.

Navneet Sharma, Ph.D, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Teacher Education, School of Education, Central University of Himachal Pradesh, Dharamshala. Pradeep Nair, Ph.D, is an Associate Professor and Dean, School of Journalism, Mass Communication and New Media, Central University of Himachal Pradesh, Dharamshala.

POLITICAL NOTEBOOK

The polling and campaign for the State Assembly elections are in full swing. Even though the States where elections are being held do not have any strong presence of the ruling party at the Centre, the BJP is making a desperate bid to wrest power in Assam, the key North-East State in the poll-fray.

However, the latest news from Assam is not that hopeful from the BJP's standpoint. Its full-throated campaign for communal polarisation alongwith calls to seal the India-Bangladesh border in order to stop the immigration of Muslims from that neighbouring state appears to have heightened the sense of insecurity amoing the minorities, who are thus preparing to strike hard by consolidating their support to the Tarun Gogoi-led Assam Government of the Congress. If that really happens then the BJP's poll strategy will boomerang and Narendra Modi would be compelled to bite the dust in Assam as he did in Bihar and Delhi.

Meanwhile the Kollam fire tragedy in Kerala with explosions killing over 100 persons and injuring nearly 400, some of them seriously, has once again brought into focus one basic issue: how far the law is subverted to appease religious sentiments. Significantly, as has been highlighted in several media reports, permission for conducting fireworks display at the Puttingal Devi temple in Kollam was denied by both the District Collector and Additional District Magistrate who underscored the potent danger of such fireworks going awry by quoting from inquiry reports of fire, environment and police officials. But, as The Times of India has editorially pointed out, not only did the temple management, with full support of local politicians, go ahead with the fireworks display disregarding the opposition from the district authorities, “communal motives were attributed to the objection” as both the DC and ADM happen to be Muslims, “in itself a communalised way of seeing”. But a few other points need to be reflected upon: there have been around 750 firecracker-related incidents in the State and many deaths in the last two decades; the police could not implement the law in the State since police reforms are in limbo despite the Supreme Court ruling upholding reports of commissions of inquiry advocating such reforms. The Time of India aptly stresses, “as long as political heavyweights prevail, police will never be truly responsive to community needs”.

While such events in the domestic sphere cause legitimate concern, what has happened on the Indo-US front is no less alarming. The details of the talks between Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar and US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter and the decisions arrived at have not been made public but it has been officially stated that India and the US ‘have agreed in principle' on the Logistic Support Agreement which will allow the US to control our civil and military airports and seaports.

Such a development will have wide-ranging diplomatic implications as well. Allowing the US to use our air and seaports will not be to the liking of Russia, a time-tested friend of this country. Already, US economic sanctions on Russia following the Ukraine controversy have brought Russia closer to China. If India appears to be totally under US influence, it will also further antagonise China.

Beijing has made formidable logistic build-up on India's northern borders. Two of China's seven Military Regions (MRs) face Arunachal Pradesh and span the entire North-East of India from Arunachal in the west to India-China-Myanmar border trijunction in the east. India has done precious little to counter this threat. Even the raising of a Mountain Strike Corps specifically to defend the North-East against a possible Chinese attack has been shelved on cost consideration. Does the Modi Government intend to hand over the task of defending India's borders to the US?

Of more concern is the fate of India's nuclear arsenal. Reactors producing material for weapons production are not at present under IAEA supervision. Will Washington now supervise our nuclear arsenal and the production of fissile material? India has so far steadfastly refused to sign the iniquitous FMCT (Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty) despite strong US pressure. What is going to happen to all that? Signing the FMCT will mean India will lose the right to make nuclear weapons in future.

India's independence and sovereignty is getting eroded by the day without the people being hardly aware of the fact and those who were to make the people aware and mobilise them against the policy of the government, that is, the Left, cannot see beyond their electoral gains and losses. Political myopia has severely restricted their field of vision. What is expected of them is not the adoption of a resolution or the issuing of a press statement but mass mobilisation. They are either unwilling or unable to do what their obvious duty is. Trying times, indeed, for a country with a population of one thousand and two hundred million people.

April 13 Analyst

BOOK REVIEW

by Amna Mirza

Autumn Of The Matriarch: Indira Gandhi's Final Term In Office by Diego Maiorano; Publisher: Harpercollins Publishers India; 2015; 261 pages; Price: Rs 599.

History has narratives and as great historian Santayana said, ‘Those who ignore mistakes of the past are condemned to repeat them.' In a similar vein, it also becomes important to question what history has to offer and whether any ideation was hitherto uncovered. It is one thing to learn history by teleological dates but all the more interesting is to analyse the past with the contour of the ‘problematique of what actually made history so'. In the same pedestal, one can place the book Autumn of the Matriarch: Indira Gandhi's Final Term in Office by Diego Maiorano, wherein the author attempts to understand Indira Gandhi's final term in office.

It goes without saying that the strongest woman Prime Minister of the country, Indira Gandhi, had many shades to her persona: an avid leader, a strong parliamentarian, a committed nationalist, amongst many others. What adds more to this, as the author notes, is that after the backdrop of the infamous Emergency how her last term become an important yardstick to understand politics of the years to come.

The book calls the 1980s a ‘strange decade'—wherein the churnings of politics and economics made the leader of the nation, Indira Gandhi, and her acumen an interesting read. The narrative picks up Indian politics and society in the 1970s as the starting point to begin the discourse where towards the end of the decade the country was increasingly difficult to govern owing to its immense complexity.

The general elections of 1980—realignment of domestic political equations, coalition-building juxtaposed with international factors like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan—have been aptly captured by the author in an attempt to render a right link between compulsions of electoral politics and the bargaining involved within. The writing also highlights how Indira Gandhi galvanised by cropping new ways to harness support. The chapter on ‘Institutions' makes an intriguing read in terms of encapsulating it by three notions of politicisation, erosion and informalisation. A leader of her stature, who was compared to being an institution on her own, led to a paradox where too much influx of politics resulted in loss of faith in institutions and state thereof.

The assassination of Indira Gandhi has been one of saddest aspects of Indian political history. The law and order crisis, anti-Sikh riots, succession aspects were testing times for the nation and Congress party alike. Mrs Gandhi's major contribution was party-oriented cohesion and national unity. Any analysis of her cannot ignore the realist yardstick of her understanding of power and national interest. Her direct appeal in the 1971 elections gave proof of the demand and supply constraints of a democracy. Regardless of what a few political commentators talk of weakly institutionalised, rarely accountable, elitist bias of her rule, one cannot stop from giving her credit that the idea of Nehruvian consensus and welfare state was brilliantly carried on by her in all the churning times.

The author makes an interesting use of primary and secondary data to justify the canvas of the time framework of study. However, the book lacks in terms of a comparative approach, namely, anecdotes from other national or international leaders—as what they had done in their times of crisis and use those as analogy to judge or understand Mrs Gandhi better. The book also falls short of suggesting reforms: what the Congress party should learn or unlearn from her last term.

However, to conclude, the book is a significant study of Indian politics and the Congress party. It is essential to understand from where we have come in order to rationalise the arguments of the present. Leadership is complex dynamism and this book aptly depicts that. Democracy requires profound characteristics of meticulousness and an analysis of Indira Gandhi's last term in office definitely demonstrates that.

by Diptendra Raychaudhuri

Many years ago, I went to Punjab to cover an election held in the backdrop of terrorism tearing apart peace and prosperity of the State. That was in 1992. I was young, still not 30, and my perceptions about the world and India, about politics, about different developments, were mostly in black and white. The Khalistan movement was bad and anti-national, and I assumed anyone having sympathy either for the movement or for those who joined it were all anti-national people. But in Amritsar, when I was discussing the problem with a group of elderly citizens, I received a shock. They said the kharkus were their children, and they could think of only one way to defuse the tension: bringing back their children to the mainstream by continuous persuasion. And then they started talking about the reasons behind the desperation of the young generation and the ways to address those.

All this was so far away from the image of a patriot I had in my mind! Later, I rebuked myself for my dullness: Why it did not occur to me that the terrorists had not fallen from the skies! How could the parents let their children—there were thousands of them—wiped out from the face of the earth because they had been misled? Only a satanic mind could think of such a purge. Isn't it?

From that day onwards, gradually, the world began to turn grey in my eyes. And now, after twentyfour years, as I remember the words of those Punjabi parents (some of whom were then of the age that I am of now), one sentence resonates in my mind: “They are our children.” I know for sure, and all sane and sensitive people will agree, those men were not anti-nationals, not non-patriots.

I recall those days now as I believe India's liberal democratic structure is now facing early threats from an anarchic Hindu ‘Taliban' force. The BJP-RSS combination, in its desperation to switch over to a secular agenda like ‘nationa-lism', has unleashed this diabolical force. They played with fire by stoking up the nationalism jihad after a condemnable incident at JNU where supposedly some anti-national slogans were raised by till-this-date unidentified persons, and the fire is refusing to die down (as evident from the attack on Kanhaiya in the Mumbai-Pune flight as late as on April 24, two-and-a-half months after the ‘nationalism' polemics exploded).

The RSS leadership has tried to distance itself from the bizarre attempt to make chanting ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai' mandatory, but it has come too late. The anarchic forces are now on the prowl. Unfortunately, this is not for what a new section of people of this country voted for the BJP and its allies in 2014, jacking up the vote percentage of the BJP by about twelve per cent. They voted for Narendra Modi to get rid of the so-called ‘secular forces' that have exploited the people of this land for many decades. But by inviting the Hindu chauvinists the BJP-RSS combination has let down those voters and spoiled a great opportunity of becoming a real nationalist force (perhaps with a tinge of soft Hindutva that does not exhibit teeth and nails).

The anarchic forces can be contained still, if only there is genuine introspection in all the three major camps of our polity—the political ‘Hindutva' force (BJP, Shiv Sena etc.), the pro-minority ‘secular' force (Congress, CPM, RJD and SP) and the opportunistic fence-sitters (who swing between the two camps mentioned earlier). Otherwise, the Frankenstein the Sangh has created and Narendra Modi is giving indulgence to by staying mum may smudge the image of a resurgent India and create chaos in the coming years.

Imminent Danger: Hindu Chauvinistic Aggression

Young boys and girls are easily peeved with the deficiencies of a system. They have less patience for they have seen little. Because of their immaturity they are often inclined to think of adopting radical means to solve the problems. And, like all of us who are fifty-plus now, they too will become more rational and flexible as they experience life. They too will realise the futility of fundamentalism of any sort. Only a handful of morons do not grow up, others do. But below-thirty is not a mature age. That is why we do not see a High Court judge aged below thirtyfive, or a Supreme Court judge aged below fortyfive, or a Prime Minister below about fifty (Rajiv Gandhi, the only exception, got the throne as a gift at a younger age thanks to his lineage and his mother's tragic assassi-nation). Kanhaiya or their friends, all below thirty, are still immature people, and can easily be weaned away from misguided influence. Persuasion and mild punishment is enough to deal with 99.99 per cent of them. The rest may still go astray, and it is not only JNU or JU or Hyderabad University where it happens. It happens everywhere.

Not only Rohith Venula or Kanhaiya, the young ones in Kashmir, in the North-East, or those who have joined the Maoists are our children too. When they take up arms, the boys in the armed forces have to retaliate. That creates the most unfortunate situation where our children, be that a paramilitary jawan or a young extre-mist, die. But we have time upto the point they have gone too far. Use of force, bigotry, and hysteric reaction aggravate any problem. Violence begets violence, and it bears the seed of ruination. The only way to solve a problem is too address the root cause, which can be underdevelopment, could be a sense of depri-vation and alienation, or a sense of empathy for the ‘brutalised' others. Seven decades of independence, emerging out of the Emergency days, and demolishing the era of absolute dominance of the Congress (with all its undemocratic evils)—all these have injected in us the courage to speak up, and it is the most valuable asset of a liberal democracy. An open, egalitarian, and liberal system appreciates free initiatives in the economic sphere, freedom of speech in the political sphere, and the right to be treated equal with any other citizen. The young ones have grown up in this atmosphere (except in a State like Bengal where the three-decades-long communist rule thrived in an atmosphere of fear, a pattern later followed in Gujarat) and they may often go overenthusiastic on it. These students are not a threat to the nation, the adult ones ravishing the sanctity of a court premise are. Does it call for a mind of Einstein to understand this?

Like those Punjabi parents I alluded to at the beginning, civilised nations propose to persuade back their children from going astray. According to the PTI, on February 24 a judicial magistrate in Usilampatti (Tamilnadu) granted bail to an 18-year old involved in a group clash with the condition that he had to memorise 100 couplets from a Tamil treatise ‘Thirukkural'. The Magistrate, Vivekanandar, did not want to hand him over to the police because he was of ‘tender age'. This is the true voice of justice. The correctional system aims at reformation, not for scratching and mauling an offender. It is not so that Narendra Modi does not believe in making efforts to wean away people from wrong influences. He does, and that was evident by his signing a draft treaty with those Nagas whose aim is to make Nagaland a free nation. He is planning to sign another treaty with the surrendered and arrested ULFA leaders who fought for long years for a sovereign Assam.

It is, therefore, strange that aged BJP leaders can be so insensitive about the young boys and girls of JNU or JU, or Rohith Vemula and his friends. All of them, including the ABVP boys and girls, are our children. If they are misled, or some of them are, they have to be weaned away from bad influences, and if someone goes too far some legal measures should be taken. But, why was there an organised attempt to stir up hysteria with fake videos, prejudiced investigation and an irate lie-campaign after a meeting at JNU where unsavoury slogans were raised? More importantly, how can the court premises turn into akhadas of hooligans in black robes who act with impunity? How can older people attack them physically in the name of patriotism? It brings to mind something Samuel Johnson stated in 1775: Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

A mindset that does not allow space for rational thoughts, does not care for justice or truth, and is swayed by emotional tinkering (like Islam is in danger, Hindustan is in danger) is a mindset akin to that of the Taliban. We knew of this mindset dominating our social sphere—manifested in communal attacks, caste bigotry and honour killings—and the elite that governed independent India never even made any attempt to fight it in a meaningful way. They were sensitive about their prospect in the polls, not about the welfare of their voters. And now, it is spilling over to the political arena. This anarchic force is still weak, but it has the potential of spelling doom for the process of all-round progress India is making in this new millennium.

Unfortunately, Team Modi has encouraged hooliganism and relished what happened over the month of February. This is evident from what is being said and written in the papers by persons like Venkaiah Naidu. Ironically, in his article in The Times of India, published on March 17, Naidu talked of ‘harassment by the authority' and ‘insensitivity of the system' towards the Dalits and the need for ‘initiating corrective measures' in respect of Hyderabad University, and yet supported those measures that led to Rohith Vemula's suicide! Now, if we see all these together—action against Rohith after being prodded by Smriti Irani, patriotism jihad in respect of JNU, an overenthusiastic Police Commissioner's overzealous acts to nab Kanhaiya while making no real effort to nab those who chanted anti-India slogans, and Team Modi's effort to spread the untruth that Kanhaiya and his friends chanted anti-national slogans—a grand picture emerges. It seems Team Modi has lost confidence in themselves on their development agenda, and is now trying to live on falsehood and hysteria. True, after huge criticism Team the Modi has retracted for the time being, but it seems the Modi-RSS combine is keeping open an alternative easy way out of their failure on the economic front.

This option of inciting frenzy to bring in a narrow, Brahminical version of Hinduism through the ‘Bharat Mata' has the potential of ruining India. The Hindu chauvinists not only betray antagonism towards people of other faith, but are also opposed to change through the assertion of the OBCs, Dalits and tribal folks. Traditionally, these forces were for Hindu Hindi Hindustan, and now apparently they are trying to create unrest to invoke distorted versions of certain high ideals. The attempt has shocking similarity with the efforts to propagate politically-packaged Wahabi Islam exported from the Arab world to India and other countries. The present version of Wahabi Islam teaches how to wage war against not only the non-Muslims but also other sects of Muslims.

HRD Minister Smriti Irani's speeches in Parliament are clearly indicative of this game-plan. Madam Irani has many talents—a good actor, an eloquent speaker, a fighter—but certainly education is not her forte. It is not my point that she would saffronise education. For long years, the ‘secularists' and Leftists have tinkered with our education system, and that is why we have educated people who are ignorant of the glorious points of our past. M. M. Joshi, the erstwhile NDA's HRD Minister, was a ‘Hindutva' face too; but the scholarly politician was neither out-of-sync with the happenings and developments in modern education and research, nor unfamiliar with various facets of Indian culture. But Madam Irani is a different proposition. Her overzealous acts, followed up by the Hyderabad University bosses, culminated in the death of Rohith Vemula. But, even a tragic death of a budding talent from the deprived section evoked no sense of sympathy in her mind (even Modi said a mother lost her son, though it now sounds hollow as he failed to follow it up with any meaningful action). She again evoked ‘Bharat Mata' as soon as the JNU incident came to the fore. And then, she betrayed her real intention by poking her nose in the Durga-Mahishasur controversy. To show how bad the JNU students were, Ms Irani read out a pamphlet that reflected the faith of Asura and some other tribes who believe King Mahishasur was treacherously killed by Durga, a form of the Mother-god in Brahminical Hinduism. Now, does not Madam Irani know that our land, the ancient cauldron of civilisations, has different versions of the same stories on almost all gods and goddesses? The indigenous ‘Asura' population (almost extinct, the present count is of about ten thousand) still mourns the death of Mahishasur during the same period when Durga and Basanti are worshipped in early autumn and spring. It is said that Mahishur, now Mysuru, derived its name from Mahi-shasur. In Bengal, when Durga is worshipped, Mahishasur is worshiped alongside the Mother god.

So, evidently, Smriti Irani and her mentors wanted to invoke a blasphemy wagon against those who do not abide by Brahminical Hinduism. But, in a liberal democracy like ours, Madam Irani has no business deciding who will worship Durga and who will worship Asura. The way Rajnath Singh and Narendra Modi hailed her speech smacks of a bigger plan: of a Taliban-style attack on the diversity of Indian culture and civilisation. Modiji tweeted after Iran's speech ‘satyameva jayate'. We are all sure truth will prevail, be it today or tomorrow (like the truth about Ishrat Jahan now after more than a decade), be it the truth of 1984, or 2002, or 2015-16. History will judge whether there was a concerted attempt to create social unrest by the killing of an innocent Muslim man on the pretext that he was eating beef and an ensuing attempt to create a ruckus on eating beef in general, thus striking terror in the minds of the Muslims and Christians. History will judge whether attacks on the freedom of universities and then attempts to cause terror in the court premises of the Capital city of India were an orchestrated attempt to weed out dissent. History will also judge the Prime Minister's role in it, no doubt.

It seems an attempt to polarise, to vitiate the atmosphere in every household, in every locality, in every college and university, in every club, and every other assembly and institution, was made deliberately, and that is why this bogey of patriotism was raised.

If what some extreme elements said in JNU is not checked, according to Naidu, the “nation's sovereignity and integrity will stand imperiled”. Let us, for a while, agree with that. Then, what about Syed Ali Shah Geelani, the man who roams freely though he regularly incites people with his anti-India rants? He gave an ‘Azaadi—the only way speech' in Delhi along with Arundhati Roy. He still gives consultancy to Pak leaders on how to break up India. Or, what about Asiya Andrabi? Will Mr Naidu explain? Does he not know that the party (PDP) with whom they have formed a government in J&K tacitly supports these people? After Afzal Guru's hanging this party said: ‘The PDP is disappo-inted at the hanging of Afzal Guru.' Even after that the BJP had no qualms in forming a government with the PDP. And the BJP-supported CM released Masarat Alam, a prominent separatist leader, from jail. So, what is the logic behind branding JNU students as unpatriotic because they criticised the hanging while sticking with the PDP? Does Mr Naidu agree that Kashmir is a special State and that is why, as argued by Arun Jaitley in the Rajya Sabha, they adopt a different strategy there? Is it not defeatism, not an unpatriotic act by the yardstick they are using against young boys and girls?

Come over to Punjab. Let us check some facts on the Akali Dal with whom the BJP has aligned in the State. The SGPC, that manages the Golden Temple, observes October 31 as the Martyrdom Day of Bhai Beant Singh, the killer of Indira Gandhi. Anyone interested to know more about it may check with The Times of India of November 1, 2012 (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SGPC-pays-homage-to-Indiras-killer/articleshow/17040056. cms). The same report also mentions that the SGPC performed bhog of Akhand Path in memory of Harjinder Singh Jinda and Sukhdev Singh Sukha (names of former Army Chief Arun Vaidya's assassins) inside the Golden Temple on October 9. For young readers, it needs to be mentioned, the SGPC and Akali Dal have a more symbiotic relationship than the RSS and BJP. So will Mr Naidu explain why the JNU students organising a programme to protest the ‘judicial killing of Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhat' is an unpatriotic act while the SGPC honouring those who killed Indira Gandhi and General Vaidya is patriotic? Or what about releasing the 1993 Delhi blast convict Devinder Pal Bhullar on a 21-day parole? Will Mr Naidu explain all these logically so that no one can allege that the BJP lives on sheer double-standard?

For a somewhat neutral observer, the whole thing is clear. The BJP and RSS were playing a political game. They were trying to polarise people because they got with them only one-fourth of the adult population in 2014 (of the total adult population only 66.4 per cent cared to vote, and those who voted for the NDA were 40 per cent of them). To trap some innocent minds they are raising the bogey of patriotism. The question is whether intelligent and intellectual minds in the BJP or RSS will reconsider this mean, callous way to garner votes at the cost of the nation. We all know what is taking place is a product of the RSS' thoughts. However, I refuse to believe that the RSS is a club of homogenous backward-looking people. Atal Behari Vajpayee too was in the RSS. Govindacharya, an RSS pracharak, started ‘social engineering' in UP and put Kalyan Singh on the saddle. And in the beginning of March, while answering questions on JNU, the second-in-command of the RSS, Suresh ‘Bhaiyyaji' Joshi told the PTI something that is heartening. He said: “However, the greatness of Hindu culture is that our society, unlike others where fatwas and commandments govern social codes, works on the basis of the ideals shown by visionaries.” And so, I believe, the RSS is amenable to change.

The RSS is free to propagate its ideas peacefully. Everything can be debated. Even whether India will become a Hindu Rashtra can be debated, though a large section may think it is anti-national. In the same way whether the right to self-determination is applicable to Kashmir can also be debated. No harm in a debate. The RSS must understand this and try its best to control the anarchic forces (those who talk of beating and killing people) within its ranks. The problem is: this section within the parivaar and outside it is trying to divide the Hindus by propagating a form of Hinduism that thrives only by undermining the backward castes (Dalits and OBCs), by dividing the society and by destroying India's progress which is possible only under a liberal democratic system. The RSS or BJP is losing control over this force who they do not want to antagonise for some cheap votes. It is not for nothing that Anupam Kher, a staunch Modi-supporter, said Sadhvi Prachi and Yogi Adityanath should be jailed. (Telegraph debate, 2016) Unfortunately, Modi himself does not have the courage to spell out what he thinks: does he agree with Anupam Kher, or does he endorse Yogi Adityanath who has said Kher is a real-life villain?

I am confident the RSS-BJP leadership does not think violence, chaos and anarchy is the best way forward. It is time they realise their duties and try to rein in the chauvinistic and anarchic forces. In their bid to fight it out with Rahul Gandhi and the so-called secular brigade, they should not make the young ones their pawns. They must not play with the future of the country.

Other side of the Coin: Dark ‘Secular' Politics

What the RSS and BJP bosses are failing to understand is that people have voted them to power not for what they have traditionally stood for. A large segment of the one-fourth of the adult population that voted for them voted for an India free of corruption, nepotism, appeasement of the minorities, and empty supercilious rants of the fake seculars.

Before the 2014 general elections I was sure that the BJP might secure about 30 per cent votes and 200-220 seats. The NDA, I thought, would get something like 230-250, and the margin of error could be five per cent. In reality, the BJP got 31 per cent of the votes polled. But they succeeded, unprecedentedly, to strike the magic number with so small a percentage while the Congress got only eight per cent of the seats after securing 19.3 per cent of the votes. Never before did any party securing less than 40 per cent votes enjoy absolute majority in the Lok Sabha. It simply means the BJP has reaped an unimaginable benefit of a fractured polity.

It shows the hollowness of the so-called secular camp. In 2014, it was known that the NDA could make it, and still the ‘secularists' failed to stop the “communal” Modi from wresting power. A simple seat-sharing arrange-ment in UP and Bihar among the so-called secularists could have stopped the BJP at 200. The figures are a burning example of the deceit, hollowness and insincerity of the so-called secularists. Their failure to unite against Modi's BJP shows they are power-hungry people who cover their hunger with a coating of secularism to pull the wool over the ordinary people's eyes.

For long years, the ‘secularists' are displaying their utter insincerity in dealing with politics. Many of these secularist leaders are corrupt to the core. This camp boasts of clusters of leaders whose only point of relevance is the ‘family'. While the Gandhis pass on the baton to a single person of the next generation, someone like Laloo Yadav gets in all his family members in the ring to corner the maximum. Again, most of the people in this camp take to secularism for appeasing the minority communities, often at the cost of the minorities themselves (for instance, bypassing the Shah Bano verdict by enacting a law in Parliament through brute majority). Most amusingly, they forget that they have in the past repeatedly attacked freedom of expression. From imposing Emergency to banning of The Satanic Verses and banishing Taslima Nasreen from Bengal—all these are glowing examples of their misdeeds. Their police force brutalised the students, smashing one's knee-cap, just to break a gherao and then arrested hundreds of students of JNU in 1983. It is also to be noted that if Modi is condemned for 2002, in the same breath Rajiv Gandhi has to be castigated for 1984. A conscientious observer has no means to differentiate between 1984 and 2002.

For long, people have suffered at the hands of these ‘seculaists'. Every party (the offshoots of which are now ruling different States) in this camp, except the Congress, has in the past joined hands with the BJP at some point of time, directly or indirectly. Someone allies with the BJP, and then, after coming out due to political expediency, starts abusing the BJP as ‘communal'! For decades, people have seen the treacherous stands and unprincipled politics of these parties. During their regimes, the leaders of this camp have allowed loot and given indulgence to the people amassing huge black money while the people rotted in poverty and ignominy. These parties turned democracy into rule by the elite and for the elite. The last UPA Government was the most corrupt one in the history of free India.

Thanks to the Congress rule spread over 56 out of 69 years of free India, the society got divided into three segments: the ‘elite' (who have flourished immensely), the ‘common man' (the middle class, who got a small pie of benefit), and the ‘invisible man' (half of the population who suffered the ignominy of poverty, lack of facilities of treatment and education, and absence of social security). Still now 29.5 per cent of people live below the poverty line which is a euphemism for subsistence line. (Rangarajan report, 2011-12 estimate) The present Prime Minister, accused of being pro-rich, was bang on point when he stated in Parliament that the need to provide work under the MGNREGA even now is shameful. We should have solved the problem of poverty long ago instead of organising an insignificant event called the Commonwealth Games. While about one-third of the people remained below the subsistence line, these people merrily spent billions of dollars for organising the Commonwealth Games and made way for a huge loot. According to Business Today, an estimated Rs 60 thousand crores were spent for the Games and beautification of Delhi. And all these happened under a very honest Prime Minister who stalled for years implemen-tation of the nationwide NREGA claiming that he had no money to allot.

How could a modern nation go on supporting these insensitive regimes full of deceit, conceit and greed that sometimes bordered on vulgarity? Again, these are the people who forgot to condemn the dastardly killing of karsevaks in a train at Godhra. Later, even attempts were made to concoct facts that the attackers were not Muslims! These secularists remained mum about the Hindu exodus, out of fear of persecution, from Kashmir. In the recent past, tens of thousands of a minority community went on a rampage including burning down a police station in Maldah district of Bengal. No meaningful action was taken. In the case of the Muslim man killed for eating beef in Dadri, the secular Samajwadi Party Government sent the meat for testing, as though if it turned out to be beef the action would have been justified. While M.M. Kalburgi, an eminent author, was killed in Karnataka, a Congress-ruled State, people started shouting against Modi! Again, we may appreciate Nayantara Sahgal's (an eminent author related to the Gandhi family) protest against intolerance by returning the Sahitya Akademi award, but a question remains unanswered. If the Sahitya Akademi award has something to do with the Central Government's policy, one wonders how she accepted it in 1986, just two years after the genocide of Sikhs in 1984? The question arises, because all of us are sure that none of the icons who have returned awards believe the Sikh genocide was an instance of tolerance.

The darkest deed of the secularists, apart from imposing the Emergency and organising the 1984 killings, is reversing the Supreme Court verdict on the Shah Bano case through the legislative process. This single act blocked the path of modernisation of the Muslim community. The Muslim fundamentalists of the community got further strengthened with the banning of The Satanic Verses. As the Congress followed a process of grand appeasement, regional ‘secular' leaders rose to bask in the glory of being called a Mollah.

Finally, one wonders, if there ever existed a single secular party why did it not uphold the Constitution and demand implementation of a Uniform Civil Code. How can we become truly secular if the legal system delivers justice on the basis of religious laws framed thousands of years ago? Those who have failed to demand a uniform legal system have harmed the future of the nation. Those against the uniform civil code simply believe in the perpetuity of injustice against women. And they try to describe themselves as progressive! In reality, opposition to the Uniform Civil Code is itself a manifestation of intolerance to the rights of women.

The secularists have given us a reservation system which is being increasingly usurped by people who have a lot while the poorer sections of all the backward castes (both SC/STs and OBCs) are being deprived of the facilities. When Mohan Bhagwat talks of a review, he wants to dilute it by the people of the dominant castes like the Patels or Jats. While that cannot be accepted, exclusion of the elite from the present beneficiaries is a crying need. Ironically, it is the same RSS that has appealed to the creamy layer to forsake the facilities of reservation. The young generation will not tolerate for long students coming to college in posh cars snatching away seats from them by flaunting a caste certificate. It is sheer injustice to the others. The secularists have done a great disservice to the nation by not reviewing the system from time to time out of fear of losing votes.

People of this country have become fed up with these fake secularists. It will not be surprising if the votes for the NDA increase in percentage in the coming years (though the alliance may get lesser number of seats due to an improved OUI or Opposition Unity Index). A Rahul Gandhi fighting for freedom of expression is welcome, but he must also explain the Shah Bano case, the banning of The Satanic Verses, banishing of Taslima Nasreen, and, of course, the brutalisation of JNU in 1983. While blaming the BJP for Vijay Mallya's escape, Rahul Gandhi should also explain how Mallya got so much loan during their regimes despite defaulting, and why their Prime Minister offered his Airlines a bailout package though it was known that this was an extravagant man prone to lavish spending. They should explain their conducts on the Commonwealth Games, on the 2G and coal scams.

If the so-called secular camp cannot purge corruption and aggrandisement from its ranks, cannot give up the appeasement trends, cannot stand for a secular liberal welfare system, it cannot hope to attract votes on a positive note.

On the Misguided Students and our Education System

Unfortunately, a section of students of some elite institutions have stepped into the trap of the fake secularists. They are influenced particularly by the Communists of the parliamentary brand or the Maoists, though all Communists all over the world are known for stifling dissent.

While we must stand for freedom of expression, there should be no hesitation in stating that trying to harm India, if even by speech only, is not a healthy trend. Pointing out the deficiencies of the system is always welcome, for it helps in making the future better. But demands of independence of Kashmir, Manipur and so on are abominable, to say the least. Mass graves of those killed by the security forces do dot the Kashmir Valley, true, but do not such mass graves dot Balochistan, the Hazara-dominated areas of Afghanistan, the Kurdish regions of Iraq and all the places the IS rules? Do we know what is happening inside the so-called Azad Kashmir in Pakistan? If the Kashmiri militants and their mentors attack our civilians and our soldiers, are they supposed to hurl flowers at the attackers?

This whole thing should make us, the elders, introspect. If the students who admire Afzal Guru do not realise that Guru (even if we agree, for the sake of argument, he was a freedom-fighter) had to die because of the situation Pakistan created, whose fault is that? We have failed to build up an education system that explains, in the proper perspective, the nature and depth of the problems we face. We must overhaul the system to present undistorted facts before our children. When told that history has not begun from the hanging of Maqbool Bhat or Afzal Guru, probably they will be able to see a broader picture. Our children should be told that Kashmir could have lived as an independent state had it not been invaded by the Pakistanis who looted and raped their way through just after our Independence. The accession to India was a reaction to that invasion.

Kashmiris never considered themselves as Indians or Pakistanis, but till the mid-1980s there did not exist gun-totting terrorists, and consequently there was no AFSPA and no mass graves. Pak machinations based on radical Islam vitiated the minds of the Kashmiris. It all started after the Congress rigged one election after another in the State for its petty interest (particularly the infamous one of 1987 after which Shabbir Shah and others decided to take up arms). We must shout for a better life free from terror (of the radical jihadis and the Indian Army) for our Kashmiri brothers, but can we succumb before the nefarious Pak designs? The students who proclaim to be atheists should be told that the demand of freedom for Kashmir is tantamount to surrendering before the ugliest Islamist propaganda being carried on by Pakistan backed by Saudi Arabia. They should be told how much money Pakistan injected to feed some of the so-called separatists. Independence of Kashmir, even when argued in the name of the right to self-determination, is not substantial for two reasons. First, why should Kashmir go to Pakistan? Because they are Muslims? That is continuation of the logic of partition of India. It endangers the whole Muslim population of India. Secondly, what about the right to self-determination of all the Hindus and Buddhists who are living there, as well as those who lived there before they were forcibly evicted (against which the students do not utter a word)? Surely the non-Muslim population of the State called Jammu and Kashmir cannot be thrown to the wolves called the ISI, LeT, Jaish and so on. And the Hindus and Buddhists living there too have the right to self-determination. So then you have enclaves, even enclaves within enclaves, hundreds of those, within Muslim areas and Hindu areas. It will be the most tragic development in human history.

India is at a juncture when nefarious tendencies are raising heads all over the world and the effects of those are threatening our people. The IS, for example. A war between civilisation and barbarism has already begun. India is vulnerable because it is situated in the midst of the Islamic world. Again, within India, a medieval caste-community war is threatening to stage a comeback. A movement for reservation is culminating in the rape of people of other communities. The ugly caste rivalry and assertion of dominant castes, fundamentalism, Maoist guerrilla war—all these are indicative of a dark future, no less dark than the takeover of the country by the Hindu chauvinists. All these dent, quite severely, everything that India is respected for: liberal democracy, progress, and a secular polity.

The situation is too complex to be understood by young students of JNU or JU or other universities because of our educational system. The system must be overhauled in an honest way.

Before concluding this section, a word for Kanhaiya Kumar. His rant after getting bail may sound sweet for a while to young minds and seasoned Leftists, but actually what he says is just a load of cliché. Ask anyone in Kerala or Bengal, and he will bail me out. Almost hundred years ago the Indian Communists started saying all these things. Their rule in Bengal for uninterrupted 34 years came to an end after Nandigram and Netai killings. In Nandigram, the police killed 14 and wounded 70 farmers who were not willing to give up their land. In Netai, the comrades of Kanhaiya Kumar fired upon unarmed villagers and killed nine of them. Kanhaiya should know that at the backdrop of these dark deeds (except for 2002 genocide in Gujarat, no BJP Government has gone so far till now) his words sound like a new trapping for deception. He belongs to a party that was a constituent of the Left Front in Bengal when all these were happening, and his party did not leave the Front in protest. The Left ruled Bengal for 34 years (1977-2011), and still, the credit of being the first State in India to fix wages for the domestic worker goes to the BJP-ruled Rajasthan. Kanhaiya must know another fact. When the Supreme Court ordered to make the Mid-day Meal Scheme mandatory, only a few States opposed it, and one of those States was the Left-ruled Bengal. If he shouts his azaadi slogans (from hunger etc.), at the same go he should also disclose what his mentors had done in the past. Otherwise he would be treated as a hypocrite. He should tell the people that after the regime changed skeletons were dug out from deep under the soil in Bengal, skeletons of those who dissented. They were killed by his comrades, and Kanhaiya should explain it.

Conclusion: A Note on the Way Forward

Intolerance and efforts to curb freedom of expression did not start with Narendra Modi. It has resurfaced during Modiji's regime.

Last time, being fed up with the fake seculars, a sizable chunk of the population voted against them. It brought the Hindu chauvinists to power. But they have reneged from their promise of building a modern India, and are taking recourse to dangerous, regressive ideas.

If we want a system that is politically tolerant, socially egalitarian, and on the economic front striving to establish a real welfare economy, we have to put pressure on the rulers belonging to different parties. Democracy flourishes in a liberal environment, and liberalism stands for freedom of individuals in every walk of life: freedom to dissent, freedom to make money, and freedom to get justice from the legal system. Justice here includes, among other things, right to food, right to education, and right to a minimum decent living. When all these are achieved, we will have a Welfare Democracy. I do not think people, in general, can have any objection to the establishment of a welfare democracy, except for those who believe in different forms of dictatorship (be that of the proletariat, of chauvinists, of theologists and so on). We have to rise and bring sanity without taking sides in the political fight between the Hindu Chauvinists and Fake Seculars. We must tell both the camps that they should realise the no Indian is their enemy, and should try for establishing a welfare democracy. We have to impress on them that reign of terror of any sort or insensitivity to criticism is anathema to all those wedded to democratic values.

Reign of terror cripples the mind and sucks the vitality of a nation. After the Kanhaiya controversy the authorities of Presidency University (formerly the prestigious Presidency College of Calcutta), a famous liberal institution in a city famous for its liberal thinking, withdrew permission for a seminar on film-making, freedom of expression and the role of the students. Anuradha Lohia, the Vice-Chancellor, was seen on TV screen telling a correspondent: “Why here? There are many places to do these things.” This is, apart from being a telling example of Bengal's cultural decadence, an instance of how the reign of terror cripples the minds of the best intellectuals. This is how the doom of a nation starts. This is what the Taliban did in Afghanistan. We must ask the RSS bosses whether this is what they want.

We must also ask the secular camp whether they are ready to shun the corrupt, the family-rulers (at least those like Mulayam Singh and Laloo Prasad who bring the full family in politics to grab the facilities), and the insensitive people like those who organise a Commonwealth Games.

Along with it we should build an education system that gives the students a proper perspective of our past and present without, as much as possible, any bias. While it is true that our history precedes the advent of Muslims by thousands of years, we must not thrust any Hindu religious idea or identity on them. But for every Indian, at the macro level, India must come first, and everything later. And as adults, we must learn to empathise with those poor parents whose sons or daughters have been misled. That is what Narendra Modi has done when his government signed the draft Naga Treaty.

It is time for the civil society to take the lead.

Diptendra Raychaudhuri is a freelance journalist and author. He can be contacted at dip10dra[at]gmail.com

by Vivek Kumar Srivastava

Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar (April 14, 1891-December 6, 1956) was not a socialist in the typical term though he had an inclination towards evolutionary socialism; he developed his own ideas and emerged a socialist in his own way. He dissected the economic inequality and exploitation in an empirical manner. His socialism is innovative and indigenous as he analyses the exploitation of the people within the country with a social world approach. It is pragmatic, not dogmatic. It is humane, not violent.

He was an esteemed academic intellectual having earned the top qualifications from prestigious universities. He therefore looked at social problems from an academic perspective also; but to discover practical applicable solutions for these problems was his major aim. His socialism therefore is integrated with his efforts for practical social equalisation; but economic equalisation was a major prerequisite and a base in the whole of his ideational-philosophical approach which he employed for the study of Indian society.

Land reforms and taxation have always remained a critical issue in Indian political economy and agricultural society. He analysed levying of land taxes and found it to be discriminatory. During a Budget debate in the Bombay Legislative Council in 1927, he raised a relevant question. “Every farmer, whatever may be his income, is brought under the levy of the land tax. But under the income-tax no person is called upon to pay the tax, if he has not earned any income during the year. That system does not exist as far as land revenue is concerned. Whether there is a failure of crop or abundance of crop, the poor agriculturist is called upon to pay the revenue. The income-tax is levied on the recognised principle of ability to pay. But under the land revenue system, a person is taxed at the same rate, whether he is the owner of one acre of land, or a jahagirdar or an inamdar. He has to pay the tax at the same rate. It is a proportionate tax and not a progressive tax as it ought to be. Again, under the income-tax, holders of income below a certain minimum are exempted from levy. But under the land revenue, the tax is remorselessly collected from every one, be he rich or poor.”1

The Congress Ministry had come into power in Bombay on August 17, 1937 and had issued a statement on ‘Labour Policy of the Government'. Ambedkar examined it critically during the Budget debate and elaborated the concept of a social welfare state which was more extensive because he emphasised introduction of a social security system in the then colonial India. He stated that the government had accepted what “are called the essential services—education, public health, medical relief, and water supply—there are, by common standards now prevailing in all modern countries, other duties which the Government must undertake. These duties, are unemployment benefit, sickness insurance, old-age pensions, maternity benefits and premature death benefits to dependents. Therefore, we have got to start with this position that my Government who claims to have the reins of office in its hands must look upon these duties as part of their functions.”2

He expanded the role of government in eradicating poverty, the major economic problem which had made India into a ‘country of beggars and coolies'. He knew that lower castes were poverty-stricken as they were deprived of the educational opportunities and social equality and were forced to live a life of destitute and servants. He defined the role of government by proclaiming that “I do maintain, and I state it emphatically, that one of the principal duties of this Government must be to tackle the problem of poverty. The Government must see that they do adopt ways and means whereby the national income of this province (Bombay) rises to some substantial level, whereby the majority of the people can live in amenities which rightly belong to all modern and civilised men.”3 Ambedkar's understanding is pragmatic as he visualises a close link between the class structure and poverty, a fact which still dominates Indian society where lower-backward castes are still trapped in the vicious cycle of poverty. To break it he analysed several policy tools. For Ambedkar, taxation was not only a fiscal tool but a tool for economic equality as well for collecting the revenues for providing the basic amenities to the people.

He therefore emphasises that more taxes need to be imposed on the rich classes, because the “poor man wants more and more. The rich man can afford to be independent of the Government. A rich man needs no school: he can keep a schoolmaster and give his son education up to B.A. or M.A. without sending him to school or college. A rich man needs no dispensary: he can call in a doctor, pay him Rs 30 and get himself, his wife and his children examined if suffering from any disease. It is the poor man who wants the Government to come to his succour; it is the poor man that needs more service. No Government worthy of its name, no Government with any sincerity, can tell the poor classes that it cannot provide these amenities because it has not the courage to levy taxes. The sooner such a Government abdicates the better for all.”4

Socialism has several variants and multiple interpretations. Usually it is linked to the equalisation of wealth but has a deep meaning for the crisis-ridden social world. Ambedkar and Nehru looked at it from a social perspective, Nehru talked about providing equal opportunities to all the people as socialism but Ambedkar introduced the concept of equality of castes as an ingredient of socialism. He treated this aspect when he contrasted his views with Gandhi and inferred that the “reorganisation of the Hindu Society on the basis of Chaturvarnya is harmful because the effect of the Varna vyavastha is to degrade the masses by denying them oppor-tunity to acquire knowledge and to emasculate them by denying them the right to be armed; that the Hindu society must be reorganised on a religious basis which would recognise the principles of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity”.5

Thus his social ideas touch the basic tenets of socialism which are common to all of its variants. Socialism focuses on the mundane world, there is no role of the divine order to establish the social world. This is a real and practical contribution of the doctrine of socialism and communism to human thought. Ambedkar too believed in the same manner. He stated that in order to achieve this object “the sense of religious sanctity behind Caste and Varna must be destroyed; that the sanctity of Caste and Varna can be destroyed only by discarding the divine authority of the Shastras.”6

Ambedkar thus established that social construction was the result of the human actions and the caste system was its glaring example. He thus differed from Marx who advocated that economic forces were the only causative factor in determining the social life. Karl Marx had presented the economic interpretation of history as the defining theory of human life. “According to him history was the result of economic forces (and) as to Buckle and Marx, while there is truth in what they say, their views do not represent the whole truth. They are quite wrong in holding that impersonal forces are everything and that man is no factor in the making of history (and) this seems to me to be quite a conclusive answer to those who deny man any place in the making of history. The crisis can be met by the discovery of a new way. Where there is no new way found, society goes under. Time may suggest possible new ways. But to step on the right one is not the work of Time. It is the work of man. Man therefore is a factor in the making of history and that environmental forces whether impersonal or social if they are the first are not the last things.”7

Ambedkar thus looks at the caste system as a social problem, a product of human thinking; illogically supported by rotten religious texts. Marxist analysis fails to explain this problem.

Ambedkar accepts that state and government are real entities for human development, rejecting the stateless society conception of Marx. He defined the socialist roles for these and accepted the establishment of equality and sovereignty of people their major work objective. He argues that “a Government for the people, but not by the people, is sure to educate some into masters and others into subjects; because it is by the reflex effects of association that one can feel and measure the growth of personality. The growth of personality is the highest aim of society (and) to be specific, it is not enough to be electors only. It is necessary to be law-makers; otherwise who can be law-makers will be masters of those who can only be electors.”8

Ambedkar's ideas are reassertion of the socialist ideals but he takes a novel approach; he fuses socialism with the social evils of the Indian society and thereby expands its scope. Ambedkar is not a doctrinal Marxist or socialist. He evolves his own brand of socialism in which not only the economic aspects but also the social aspects are emphasised. This is his seminal contribution to the ideology of socialism.

References

1. B.L.C. Debates, Vol. XIX, February 24, 1927.

2. B.L.A. Debates, Vol. 3, March 2, 1938.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. A reply to the Mahatma by Dr B.R. Ambedkar.

6. A reply to the Mahatma by Dr B.R. Ambedkar.

7. Ranade, Gandhi and Jinnah, Address delivered on the 101st Birthday Celebration of Mahadeo Govind Ranade held on January 18, 1943 in the Gokhale Memorial Hall, Poona.

8. Evidence before the Southborough Committee on Franchise, Examined on: January 27, 1919.

(quoted primary references from Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches Vol. 1 and 2).

Dr Vivek Kumar Srivastava is the Vice Chairman, CSSP, Kanpur. He can be contacted at e-mail: vpy1000[at]yahoo.co.in