Buddha aur Ram

My grandmother is 75. And she likes her gods. She did not like it one bit when Jayalalitha got the Shankaracharya arrested in the winter of 2004. Would they dare to do such a thing with the Pope or some Muslim holy man, she asked? And when Karunanidhi questioned Ram’s engineering abilities, that did not make her happy either. Just before someone complains, I have to say that she is not some Hindu ‘fundamentalist’. She is like most Indians, reasonably religious and interested in politics. She sees the Tehelka expose on tv and asks whether Modi is really involved; a rhetorical question; she knows just as well as everybody else what happened. After all, she does get her news from the same television channels and (tamil) magazines. I wonder what she would say if she heard that the West Bengal Chief Minister has reignited the Ram – Real or Fake debate (does he not have enough on his plate already?).

Buddhadeb has said that Ram is a fictional figure. I agree wholeheartedly. And I would have agreed more with him (or Karunanidhi, for that matter) if he had said similar things about Prophet Muhammed’s conversations with Allah during the Taslima Nasreen issue. Why is freedom of expression and feelings of Hindus any less important than the Sethusamudram project and the feelings of Muslims? There is no reason other than the fact that he and most Indian politicians are deeply pseudo-secular and indulge in doublespeak. I would have put freedom of expression miles above any possible benefit derived from the project any day because it is an extremely valuable and scarce commodity now-a-days. But that cannot be done as Muslim fundamentalists have shown time and again. While any sleight of Hindu gods or symbols might make the VHP or any of the numerous hindu fundamentalist groups carry out protests and bandhs for a couple of days, burn a few buses and kill a few people, a sleight of an Islamic symbol might trigger a worldwide protest and might even result in a fatwa by some cleric who has nothing else to do.

The BJP and everyone else who taunt pseudo-secularists should consider this fact and forgive Buddha, other politicians and that part of the intelligentsia which is pseudo-secularist. After all they are so because they are shit scared of the wrath of Islam and Islamic fundamentalists. But that is not going to happen, is it now? So, Buddha should watch out the next time he indulges in doublespeak. On the other hand, let Buddha say what he wants. My grandmother is not going to stop believing in Ram because Buddha said so. And I am not going to start believing in him because Buddha said so.

This incident is so funny that it makes a great joke – Buddha says Ram is fictional. I just hope buddhists don’t take offence.

Secularism and India

The other day, I poured out my displeasure at the way artistic freedom was being trampled in India. After writing that post, I was tag surfing and came across Satyameva Jayate. The blogger, B. Shantanu, blogs about many things, one of them being how Hinduism has been maligned over the years (I read a few posts – most of them related to artistic freedom. Anything religious, I always swallow with a pinch of salt). And it struck a chord with me because I am an atheist who previously followed Hinduism (I still have a soft corner for the religion, particularly its mythology), and I too have been noticing the manner in which mainstream political parties, media and a whole bunch of people have defined secularism. That is the reason behind this post.

India is a secular country. Its constitution says so. And secularism is normally defined as something that is non-religious (secularism). But the Indian definition – that of mainstream political parties, significant portions of the media as well as a small but influential section of educated people (I have my doubts as to whether they are really educated) – has changed over the years to anything that is anti-hinduism. The BJP and other saffron parties have coined a term for it – pseudo-secularism. And as much as I hate saffron politics, I have to say that I am in complete agreement with them on this issue.

In every election, the Congress, Left parties, the remnants of the erstwhile Janata Dal (which itself was a remnant of the Janata Party) and various regional satraps will band together to fight against a ‘communal’ BJP whose only consistent allies have been Bal Thakrey’s Shiv Sena and the Akali Dal. Congress & Co. don’t see eye to eye and are mortal enemies of each other at the state level. But when keeping out the BJP is the preferred result, the age old proverb – your enemy’s enemy is your friend is applied.

Hindus, in spite of accounting for over 80% of the billion plus population, are not a homogeneous populace. The age old caste system (supposedly) based on The Laws Of Manu (which are irrational to the core I must add. If these laws were applied today, every single Hindu would have violated at least ten of them. The lack of an authoritative text, like the Bible for Christians and the Koran for Muslims, has always been a curse – or a possible blessing – for Hinduism, because everything is in the air. While there are the vedas and upanishads, and laws and treatises written by various people – Chanakya’s Arthashastra being a very interesting one, there is no single book that dictates this is what a Hindu should do. The Bhagwadgita is the closest one can come to it. So people did what they thought was right at that time) and the resultant Brahmin vs. Kshatritya vs. Vaishya vs. Shudra duels have resulted in a fracture that runs deep. It is a fact that the lowest castes and out-castes have been denied their rights for too long. And it continues in unenlightened parts of rural India. But it has resulted in the politics of caste which effectively prevents a combined Hindu vote.

The BJP has been able to work around this issue at the state level in some of the northern states. The one time it did come to power in the centre, it did so under Atal Behari Vajpayee who is a well-respected statesman, and by shelving its Ram Temple agenda which was what led to the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992 (and the subsequent riots and terror attacks in Mumbai). The Babri Masjid fiasco has irreparably damaged the saffron colour as every party that even hints at working for the welfare of Hindus in general automatically becomes communal. Other parties, meanwhile can solicit Muslim votes, Dalit votes and votes based on many other criteria without being tainted. Sometimes, this discrimination is used to good effect by the BJP which can approach people claiming double standards (best example being Gujarat 2002). This is the truth of ‘secular’ India.

The thing that amuses me is this – none of them are satisfied. The Brahmins feel discriminated against because of the reservation policy applied by successive governments. And they do not enjoy speeches given by leaders of various Dalit and other caste based parties which target them. The Dalits and other backward castes are not satisfied as they feel they have not been given their due in spite of continued efforts. Hindus resent the government’s pussyfooting on the issue of Islamist terrorism. Muslims feel threatened in spite of forming such a huge part of the population because of terrorism being connected with Islam as well as because of the feeling that they are still made to swear allegiance to the country even 60 years after partition. The only people who seem to benefit are the politicians. But even they have been targeted on numerous occasions (the attack on parliament in 2001 being one of them). Considering all this, any rational person would mend his ways. But since politics and religion thrive on irrationality, expecting them to change is a waste of the time.

A secular country will not make decisions based on a person’s religion and the citizens of such a country will be free to practise any religion of their choice. While the second part is more or less true in India, it still has a long way to go as far as the first part goes. It would be nice to see the change happen within my lifetime. But I am not holding my breath.

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.

Karunanidhi and the Malay rebuke

Karunanidhi is the grand old man of Tamil politics and anything he says or does should not be taken lightly. But this time he has created a diplomatic problem for the Indian government (and he has been ably assisted by Nazri Aziz, a Minister in the Malaysian government).

Karunanidhi wrote a letter to PM Manmohan Singh complaining about the violent manner in which a peaceful demonstration by ethnic Indians (mostly Tamil Hindus) outside the British High Commission in Malaysia was dealt with by the police. This letter, an internal matter between the Chief Minister of an Indian state and the Prime Minister of India (albeit about matters pertaining to Malaysia), sparked off a strong response from Nazri Aziz. ”Do not meddle in our affairs. This is Malaysia, not Tamil Nadu … lay off,”, he has said.

Karunanidhi’s love for Tamils is nothing new (he, and most Tamil parties, did the same thing with the issue of Sri Lankan Tamils). His position, after all, is derived from the feelings of his constituency. But he and everybody else in India need to get one thing straight – these people are not Indians. They may be Tamils and they may be Hindus. But they are Malaysian citizens. If Malaysia wants to continue with its discriminatory policies, let it deal with the headache that accompanies them. India should not poke its nose into these matters. We have many problems in our own backyard and surely don’t need another one. Not surprisingly, the BJP has jumped into the fray demanding that Malaysia be expelled from the Commonwealth (like it matters). After all, Hindus are being targeted and Malaysia is an Islamic state.

Another issue that has been raised is the double standards being practised by the Indian government. It seems that the Indian state will complain if the issue affects Muslims (the strong message to the Danish government during the Muhammed cartoons fiasco), but it won’t lift a finger if the matter concerns Hindus. The only fallacy with this argument is that the prophet is revered by Muslims around the world, and we have 150 million of them. There might be a small truth in the matter, however, because the present government is known to walk on egg shells as far as Muslim issues are concerned.

The question that still remains is – how should the Indian government handle the situation? Should it stay silent while persons of Indian origin are treated shabbily by other countries? The answer is a difficult one and I pity the diplomats who have to deal with it. Human rights, democracy, peaceful protests etc. don’t make a good diplomatic argument as it can be thrown back at us over ten of our own problems. Whatever the government decides to do, it has to consider the fact that Karunanidhi is one of its major allies and the Malay response to his letter might not be taken too kindly to by his party.

As far as coverage of the issue by television channels goes, Times Now set the ball rolling sometime in the afternoon, and CNN-IBN picked it up in the evening – Kanimozhi being present on both channels defending her father.

Freedom of speech, violence and India

News channels had a lot on their plate today as a protest against Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen in Kolkata by some outfit named All India Minority Forum turned into a riot when extremists joined in bringing the Nandigram issue with them. Stone pelting and torching of vehicles followed, which is a normal progression as far as these events go. What is not normal, however, is the army being summoned to control the situation.

India is not a stranger to violence. It is an everyday phenomenon in most parts of the country. However, threats and violence have been used too often as a weapon to suppress freedom of speech and expression. And, unfortunately, this phenomenon is religion-agnostic. This time, the protestors are predominantly Muslim and their target, Nasreen, who has become the next Muslim author after Salman Rushdie to court the ire of intolerant people from her own religion. In fact, she was attacked a few weeks ago in Hyderabad by another group who had more serious intentions.

The fact that incidents such as these happen so frequently only goes to show that people are free to speak only if their views are in tune with those of a violent group who hide behind their religion or some favourite cause. It was just over a year ago when a few Christian groups (Catholic Social Forum in particular) protested over the exhibition of the film ‘The Da Vinci Code’ because it hurt their sentiments as it dealt with the subject of Jesus being a mortal and him being married. The Tamil Nadu and Punjab governments immediately banned the exhibition (till the Supreme Court of India intervened in the matter). So did other countries in the neighbourhood such as Pakistan and Iran (India does have esteemed company in matters such as these). As for hurting Hindu sentiments, M.F. Hussain is the person who regularly finds himself in the eye of the storm.

The Government of India does not consider such matters to be very significant. Neither do courts in the country (their decisions on ‘hurting sentiments’ and censorship of the legal kind have not been very inspiring). Other worrying demonstrations of intolerance include the fact that any state in which the BJP comes to power on its own tries to pass laws making religious conversions extremely difficult.

Films, books and plays are regular targets of organised as well as unorganised protests, which turn violent too often. And laws do not help victims of such actions. In fact, successive governments have been very active in the censorship game themselves.

The right to unbridled freedom of expression is one of the most important rights that any human being can have. Any curtailment of that right should only occur after it has gone through a rigorous process. Even then, such a thing should not be done too often and if done, should only be for a limited period of time.

Communities, nations and their people should have thick skins that can take any criticism of their theories and actions. If every pinprick results in a violent backlash, what is the difference then between living in a democracy and living under an authoritarian ruler?