Doctors and the Red Swastika

While I have a soft corner for Hinduism and Hindu mythology, having been brought up in that background, that does not extend to condoning mindless violence or subterfuge in the name of religion. So when I read that about 10,000 doctors have begun using the Red Swastika as an emblem replacing the Red Cross, that too in the state of Gujarat, I thought here they go again.

So I visited wikipedia to get a sense of what the controversy is all about (Red Cross (symbol), Red Cross). To my surprise, I found out that there are restrictions in place on the use of the red cross and the various symbols related to the Red Cross movement. Specifically, the use of the symbol by doctors, hospitals, medical stores etc is not allowed. In fact, it is a crime in India to use them in such a context (an excellent article on the history behind and misuse of the symbols, by Prof. M Lala Singh).

So, what do these people use then? For doctors, the IMA has its own emblem (The New Emblem for Doctors). The Caduceus, the Rod of Asclepius and their variants) are commonly used by many medical associations, doctors and hospitals worldwide. But no one seems to have picked up a symbol with a religious connotation, however positive that might be, to represent themselves, except of course, Arogya Bharti.

Note: The official website of the Indian Medical Association (http://www.imanational.com) seems to be unreachable.

Edit:
April 04, 2008 – Added, updated and corrected post tags.

Modi sweeps Gujarat – The triumph of Moditva

If you are too close to the battlefield, you lose perspective and do not see the bigger picture. This has happened again with a section of the media as well as those who thought that Gujarat will spurn Modi. He has returned with a bang, to the dismay of both pseudo-secularists (not me) as well as those who don’t like leaders with an authoritarian streak (me). In spite of a nonsensical and brain dead campaign run by a clueless Congress, I wanted them to win; the reason being, a change of government, while carrying with it the possibility of derailing development, would have given the state a chance to heal; while there is remote possibility of justice being delivered to the riot victims, a change in government would have been the next best thing. Unfortunately, that did not happen. The people of Gujarat (not all of them, to be fair about 42% did vote in favour of the Congress) would rather have corruption free governance, development and a relatively crime and terror free atmosphere under an authoritarian leader than a Congress government being controlled from Delhi. In this regard, they are not too different from the Russian people who support Putin (who enjoys a status similar to Modi).

Now that he has won, this has set the cat among the pigeons as far as the Sangh Parivar (BJP, RSS, VHP) is concerned. Modi has surpassed them all in rhetoric and actions. He has scripted the election victory on the strength of his own charisma and work. People were voting for Modi and not the BJP. If he were to form a new party, the BJP would cease to exist in Gujarat. The top leadership of the party is living in a fools paradise if they think that they had something to do with the victory. Some wise men in the BJP did see the writing on the wall and have successfully stalled a power grab in the immediate future by coronating Advani as their Prime Ministerial candidate for the general elections. But it is difficult to say at this moment as to how long he can hold on to his post, for Modi is beginning to make an impact on people across the country who are tired of being ruled by octogenarian leaders who care not one whiff about the people, of corruption, of terrorism, and of casteist politics which manifests itself in government sanctioned racism (quota system). Soon, they will start asking if the Modi brand of politics is not the answer. So what if he is a little extreme. He does provide results, doesn’t he.

Politicians who play the game of splitting the vote bank on the basis of class or caste do not have an answer for Modi. For all the sound bytes that people like Laloo Yadav, Mayawati and Prakash Karat provide, they have done precious little as far as Gujarat is concerned. If defeating Modi was their number one aim, why did they not form a grand alliance in conjunction with the Congress and do more. The reason is very simple. They are regional leaders with pretensions of grandeur, but who know their limitations nevertheless.

So what next? Will Modi move out of Gujarat sometime in the next decade? The answer is yes. And people are waiting for him. While it will help development and all that comes with it, this is a bad sign for liberty and freedom of expression. But since Indians don’t have these rights in the first place and don’t understand the meaning of these words either (government after government has successfully stripped them of these rights), people will welcome Modi with open hands. There are two sections of the society who will stand against him, as I said at the very beginning, and they are a strange combination – pseudo-secularists, and people who know what Moditva is really about. It is unfortunate that the first group is opportunistic and brain dead, while the second is either politically emasculated or simply disinterested.

A mirage called freedom

The civilised world likes democracy. And it likes freedom. And India would like to think that it is civilised, democratic and free. Unfortunately, these words don’t mean anything unless put in context. And when you do that, the words sound hollow.

Taslima Nasreen has accepted defeat. The Government of India (through Minister for External Affairs Pranab Mukherjee) issued a veiled warning to her – India has never turned back people who have sought shelter with it. And in return, these ‘guests’ have always taken care not to hurt the sentiments of the people or India’s relations with other countries. Not his exact words, but this is more or less what he has said. One can only feel sorry for Nasreen. She has been hounded, and attacked, and pushed into a corner. She could either withdraw the ‘controversial’ passages or find a new place to live. She chose the path of self-preservation. After all, what does one do with freedom of speech if one is dead? To be fair to the government, it did not have any alternative. The way politics works in India, any support to Taslima would have been used as a stick to beat it during the next elections. The Muslim vote is a prize commodity and the prophet is off-limits to anyone and everyone. Even if it were not for the politics, there is always the possibility of losing face if something happened to her.

Well, Nasreen is just one of the victims of India’s ‘hurt sentiments’. The people of a country with a 5000+ year history surely carry a lot of hurt sentiments with them. It seems that time does not heal wounds and neither does it provide wisdom. People find it convenient to use the stick to achieve obedience, and governments and the law find it inconvenient (or impossible) to provide protection to the victim. The ‘saffron groups’ (BJP, RSS, VHP, Shiv Sena, and whichever one will crop up before I finish writing this post) have appointed themselves defenders of Hinduism. Every book, film, play, painting and artistic expression has to pass through their moral and cultural filter before the public can access it. Court decisions are irrelevant because even if a court lifts official bans (ones applied by governments to further their own political motives), these organisations can always enforce an extralegal ban of their own, which people can ignore at their own peril.

I would so like to say that this problem is limited to one community rather than say that everybody is involved (and appear wishy-washy in the process). But, unfortunately, that is the truth. Dissenting ideas are unwelcome and dissent is treated as an attack on their thought processes or symbols.

To any artist (Indian or non-Indian) working in any field and planning to do absolutely anything India-related or in India, the following guidelines may save you a lot of trouble (and possibly your life):

1. Never raise any questions on or make unflattering remarks about or show any of the following in bad light -
   • Bharat Mata, Jesus Christ, Prophet Muhammed, Lord Ram, Lord Krishna, any Hindu gods and goddesses, any gods of any other religion practised by more than ten people, any religious symbols.
   • Mahatma Gandhi, Chhatrapati Shivaji, Babasaheb Ambedkar, Periyar Ramasawamy, any other major or minor king or political leader – past or present.
   • Women of the country.
   • Any particular caste or community.
2. Never draw or write or photograph or capture on film, anything that might even remotely be termed as lascivious or prurient or anything that might not appeal to peoples sensitivities.
3. Never do anything that might trigger violence between communities and castes.

Salman Rushdie, M.F.Hussain, James Laine, Taslima Nasreen, Deepa Mehta, Khushboo and scores of others have borne the brunt of India’s hurt sensibilities. Not only them, anyone seen to be supporting them in their ‘misdeeds’ are targeted as well – publishers, book stores, theatres, libraries etc. etc. We don’t need to add more victims to that huge list.

However, if you do follow the above guidelines and create a great piece of art, you and your art are more than welcome in India. We would not dream of censoring such art. Censorship does not happen in India. After all, India is civilised, democratic and free.