Introduction
Offstumped’s post attempts to chart a course for the future of what he calls
the “broad political space opposed to Left Liberalism.” As laudable and
difficult the endeavour is, the ideas he espouses in the piece leave many gaps in clarity,
ignores crucial areas, and casually dismisses many vital points that need to be accounted for.
A few words about some specific items on the recently-concluded online debate before getting into
a detailed response of the post. I don’t really have any view on that debate except for
what Offstumped says here:
Untamed Internet Activism remains a sore point [.] There is no clear intellectual leadership
visible on the horizon for taming this Activism and for taking it beyond the Internet
I’m not sure I agree with the usage of “untamed Internet activism.” He probably
means well, but to “tame” generally means “to control, to rein in.” Used
in the context of the Internet, this lends itself to the conclusion that we need to come up with
ways to control what he calls “Internet activism.” If this taming is what is called
for, it’s self-defeating, and it directly contradicts his general principle of upholding
the right to free speech. This is not to argue for having the freedom to abuse/insult somebody
without provocation but it does smack of censorship. However, in the absence of more
information/complete context, I’m not aware what the said activism implies.
I’m all for having clear leadership but everything has its own place. The idea of creating
a common platform is good but “taming” something by trying to bring in some sort of
standardization doesn’t bode well. It could eventually degenerate into toeing some
line—however good or bad the line maybe.
The Future can’t be Separated from the Past
The section titled Its about the future stupid says:
First time voters in 2019 will be a generation born in 2001 around or after 9/11 who are right
now studying in 4th grade
The past maybe an inspiration and a guide, the West maybe a case study,
but end of the day this exercise has to be about the future. Standing where we are today, if we
are not thinking ahead on the challenges, opportunities and the sense of
history with which todays 4th grader and the many who probably are not even in school will
be making political choices 9 years from now, then we will be irrelevant even before 2002 makes
it to History text books [...] We must draw a line to
- #2 make this about the challenges and opportunities of the future and not
about righting history’s wrongs
I broadly agree about the challenges etc that the future presents. However, the “past as an
inspiration” and “sense of history” present some problems. If you want to look
to the past for inspiration, you need to know it thoroughly. Also, a sense of history
means that we know our history really well. What percentage of this broad political space know
it, and more importantly, can understand its impact on the future? Apart from a vocal fringe,
nobody really is interested to avenge (or “right”) historical wrongs. A sense of
history therefore, also means understanding the past accurately so we can discard the wrongs and
vow to never repeat it. Yet, what’s the kind of history that these 4th graders are being
taught?
Also, framing this in terms of votes/voters is shortsighted. The idea is to create an
intellectual climate where everybody is unafraid to openly debate everything without attaching
labels and trying to figure out “which side somebody is on.” And this has to shorn of
concerns such as getting votes. The Nehruvian Congress party—and later, the
Left—created precisely this sort of “intellectual” climate with
eyes always on the ballot box. I’m unsure if this is the approach Offstumped
recommends.
Essentially, this approach—mindshare, 2014 generation,
etc—falls in the realm of strategy, not ideology (a term
I’m both queasy and careful to use) for want of a better word. This note about
generational/age/franchise aspect makes eminent sense if Offstumped was talking about an
electoral strategy. Unfortunately, he seems to mix this up with other things I’ve noted
above.
Denouncing Hindutva without understanding it
After this, interestingly, Offstumped characterizes “political” Hindutva
thus.
#1 at its core was the product of deep insecurity and victimhood
This is quite easy to say offhand but I’d rather Offstumped had given irrefutable
evidence in support. Can he deny that the Indian state actively discriminated (and continues to
do so) against Hindus for the better part of post-Independence India? Can he deny the fact that
Hindu institutions and value systems were systematically derided by the state? Can he deny the
fact that the Indian state spawned an education system that showed Hindu history in unflattering
light? The said insecurity and victimhood are real. The words are not
“insecurity” and “victimhood” but threat and discrimination. But
for this kind of state-sponsored discrimination against Hindus, what was the need for a movement
like “political” Hindutva, where Hindus felt they needed a political voice?
#2 has been tainted by Adharma committed in its name.
I’d be more careful before using words like “Adharma” without understanding its
complete meaning. Adharma is not merely the English equivalent of
“injustice” or “crime.” If you look at the history of violence
perpetrated by Hindus, it has always been in retaliation to an attack/provocation. Plus,
Hindus have taken to the streets because the Indian state has proved beyond doubt that it is
incapable of both preventing original offenders from hurting Hindu sentiments, temples, etc as
well as proved ineffective in punishing the original offenders. Characterizing this as
Adharma shows an ignorance of the meaning of Adharma. This is not to defend
violence committed in the name of Hindutva/Hinduism but there is such a thing as spontaneous,
natural retaliation. A group of citizens picketing and stoning an MLA’s house for his
misdeeds after it has tried all peaceful and legal methods is not Adharma.
#4 was intellectually hollow in its failure to evolve an Intellectual Political Tradition geared
for the challenges of this Century drawing on the rich tradition of Kautilya’s Arthashastra
and others who followed him
In a post that approvingly talks about drawing from Kautilya’s rich tradition, it is
surprising that there’s not a single mention of what that tradition is. Supporting
Kautilya is a double-edged sword for I can show a host of material in the Arthashastra
that’d qualify Kautilya for the selfsame label of the “political” Hindutva
brand that Offstumped asks us to abandon.
In essence, the “political” Hindutva of the 1990s didn’t arise from a vacuum.
Hindutva as I suppose he’s aware, has a long history. Ignoring this history and coining a
new term “political Hindutva” is not a good approach. However, because he has called
upon us to abandon it, the burden of proof lies on Offstumped to show
us—by tracing this history—why it makes sense to abandon
Hindutva. Instances of demolishing buildings, disrupting lovers on Valentine’s Day,
burning posters, etc don’t count. I shall respond to him where I stand on this once I get
his response.
And then in a most interesting (and startling) paragraph, Offstumped lays down this
prescription:
Just as Rajadharma as articulated over the Centuries was the Constitution for the
State, the Indian Constitution is the Rajadharma in this day and age. The only
“Warrior Spirit” to protect Dharma is that which the has Constitutional sanction. The
only Right to bear Arms is that which is sanctioned by the Constitution. Even the Kshatriya of
yesteryears had no blanket immunity to use their arms but for the protection of Dharma which in
today’s context is the Indian Constitution.
For the record, Rajadharma was not the Constitution for the State. The Indian kingdoms
of the time Offstumped speaks about had no Constitution in the sense we understand it
today. The definition of a Raja is Ranjanaat iti Rajah (He is the king who
entertains/keeps his subjects happy). The closest equivalent to the word
“Constitution” is Smriti. Till date, we have 40 Smritis, the
earliest dating some thousands of years ago. We can vaguely liken the Indian Constitution to the
41st Smriti but only after it passes some tests as we shall see.
Rajadharma is an entire subject in its own right and very simply, it involved the king
to always uphold Dharma and ensure that his subjects were always happy and that his
coffers were always full. In the times of the Ramayana, it was to uphold this Rajadharma
that Rama had to forsake Sita. The King had sanction to employ any and every means to achieve
these twin objectives and relied on the smritis and his council of ministers to guide
him. The smritis in turn dealt with every conceivable aspect of Dharma in
minute detail including giving us such things as the kind of bodily ailments caused by excessive
gambling. Space doesn’t permit me to elaborate further but equating Rajadharma
with the Constitution of the State is wholly incorrect.
Equally, the Indian Constitution is not the Rajadharma of today. It is one
thing to say that the Constitution is a noble document and one of the pillars of our democracy
and other nice things. However, superimposing Rajadharma upon it is misleading to say
the least. One of the first tests of whether the Indian Constitution is indeed the
Rajadharma of today is to find out whether the Constitution itself upholds Dharma.
A marked feature of a Smriti (I’m using the term very loosely here) is its
fluidity, its adaptability to changing times because Dharma varies from age to age.
There have been pitched battles to amend whole portions of the Indian Constitution to accommodate
the changing needs, and aspirations but such portions have remained in a time warp. However,
amendments that injure both the Constitution and Dharma are passed nonchalantly. The
other test is how a Smriti treats other/minority groups/religions. The Indian
Constitution places minority institutions almost beyond the scrutiny of law. A fourth test is how
it treats the cultural icons, symbols, and literature of the nation. The Indian Constitution
makes it illegal to kill the peacock and the tiger and also punishes an insult to the national
flag. Yet, it doesn’t accord the same status to our epics, which are now reduced to
literary lab pieces for anybody to maul at will. The Ramayana and the
Mahabharata are not merely Hindu epics—they are Indian
epics. They define the Indian way of life and continue to influence people of all major religions
in the country. Neither can you argue that a secular/democratic nation has nothing to do with
religion because as we see, there’s nothing secular about Indian democracy. Additionally,
the word “secular” itself was an ugly aberration that Indira Gandhi introduced and
hasn’t been erased till date. This is the nature of Adharma. I can cite several
other instances but the point remains that the Indian Constitution doesn’t entirely adhere
to Dharma. If Offstumped argues that this is the Rajadharma, we all
need to follow, I have nothing further to say.
Besides, there’s another aspect to this. A king who fails to perform his
Rajadharma properly faces the prospect of his own subjects rebelling against
him—in other words, of taking the law into their own hands. Pretty much
what’s happening today. Successive Indian governments have failed to carry out their
Rajadharma properly, and worse, in many cases, actively encouraged
Adharma—votebanks, subverting the Constitution, the Emergency, etc.
If they had discharged their Rajadharma properly, we wouldn’t have had the “violence
unleashed by the political Hindutva” people.
Offstumped leaves me with no choice except to say that equating Dharma and
Rajadharma with the Indian Constitution stems from a deep ignorance of the concept of
Dharma. As a friendly note, anybody who wishes to talk about Dharma and make
sense needs to invest serious time and effort to understand its basics. Merely being
well-intentioned and supportive of Dharma isn’t enough.
...Continued in Part 2...
Technorati Tags:
Offstumped
Rejoinder,
We Must Draw a
Line,
Dharma,
India,
Indian Politics,
Secularism,
Democracy,
Indian Democracy,
Constitution,
Indian Constitution,
Rajadharma,
Bloggers,
Blogging,
Hindutva,
Political Hindutva
Recommandations
)
and reject those that you are not interested in
(
)
