Right wing politics in India

I'd cited Pratap Bhanu Mehta's previous post in his column most approvingly earlier. But In the next instalment, in spite of making some very important points, I find it hard to agree to his critique in its entirety. The points about BJP playing up the victimhood and Advani's remarks on being "hurt" are spot on.

Advani unconsciously revealed more about himself and his party: both thrive on a constant play on the theme of victimhood. The minute the Congress ratcheted up the heat on Advani’s record, he retreated into playing victim. Try as much as it can, the BJP struggles to rise above a discourse of victimhood, one that has increasingly less resonance.....

.....Electoral fortunes depend on a lot of things. But the very longevity of the Congress is a sign that there is something about it that is worth salvaging. But all that remains of the BJP is a long sulk, one that will haunt it even when it is in power. A party whose leader is so quickly “hurt” is a party with no foundations.

But, as he mentioned in his previous post, secularism has taken on quite an insidious meaning. To backtrack on this, and say that "Pseudo-secularism" is irrelevant is hypocritical. To dismiss the "Gujarat" model of development without explanation also reeks of dishonesty. The development seen in Gujarat is just a result of empowerment of the individual and accountability, therefore it is as much a novel model as are freedom and democracy. We classical liberals believe that it is replicable, not just in a country, but in the entire world.

It is a sad reflection on the leadership vacuum, that BJP had to recall Advani( who admitted to thoughts of quitting active politics after the Jinnah incident). But, the same holds for INC which fields as its Prime Ministerial candidate, Dr.Manmohan Singh who is leader enough to sit in the chair, but not a leader enough to contest an election or even lead a campaign.

Infact, it is an apt commentary on the absence of first-tier national leaders that even after five years of such gross misgovernance and incompetence, the opposition finds it so hard to dislodge the incumbent party from power. He mentions Shivraj Singh Chauhan and Narendra modi as the only visible second tier leaders from BJP, but apart from Sheila Dixit(who incidentally doesn't belong to the 30s-40s group he talks about), I don't see any second tier leaders who can grow into their own in INC either. Unless he wants to believe self-endorsed "leaders" like Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi, and Jyotiraditya Scinida are the gen-next, it is like watching a game between two minnows. Also, longevity has nothing to do with desirability.

And a final remark regarding the difference in kind of criticism INC and BJP receives. Just as the columnist sees INC as his ideological representative and criticises it for deviating from its ideal, there are a few who hope BJP evolves into a Right-of-center party in economic terms so that a parity is restored to political and economic discourse at national level. A disenchantment with RSS, growing distance between RSS and BJP and slow-down in recruitment of RSS ranks is a welcome development. At the same time response to initiatives like Friends of BJP both from the people and the party suggests to me that there is hope that BJP may one day outgrow the religious roots and into a right of center party acceptable to a majority.

PS: Why do the intellectuals who never fail to remind us that even the extremists like Taliban, Hamas etc have good and bad factions, find it convenient to club all right wing activism and attribute it to RSS and by extension to BJP?

Hate-Speech and Electioneering

It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.

I had earlier called for the ousting of Varun Gandhi from the BJP candidates list. This despite there being no clear verdict one way or another.(Remember that in judicial issues, accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.) I maintain that NSA and subsequent choking of his freedom to speech was ridiculous. Where are the advocates of free speech today ? The answer to issues of free speech is more free speech, not less. I don't believe in the concepts of offensive or Hate speech, speech should only be free.

Let me add, however, that it is not just Varun Gandhi, A whole bunch of others including Kagodu Thimmappa, Lalu prasad Yadav, D.Srinivas must be removed. But that still doesn't justify shutting them up. If anything, we want the idiots to speak up so that we know who is the idiot and who isn't one. The performance of our media in the backdrop of this issue however, has convinced me of the very heavy left-liberal bias in our media. All our "leaders" should be held to the same standards whether they be from the "communal" or the "secular" front.

At the same time, I feel perplexed at Ms.Sagarika Ghosh's rants over at CNN-IBN. She laments the fact that EC has slapped notices on Politicians who were seen distributing cash for votes. Coming from a network that covered up the biggest "Cash for votes" scam in our citadel of democracy - it is not a big surprise.

Mr.Sardesai's defense at that time, " we have chosen not to telecast the story yet because we did not feel that the story was complete," rings as hollow as does Ms.Ghosh's whines about the loss of a tradition.

Open-mindedness and Prejudice

A brilliant video on the concept of "Open-mindedness"

Most of the anecdotal evidence ought to be rejected right away. It is subjective in nature, and any subjective experience depends on the individual(who's experiencing it) to explain it.Therefore, its acceptance is contingent on the reliability of the individual as a witness. Unfortunately, due to the malleability of our memory, whenever there is a vested interest, as is the case with an individual using the experience to justify his beliefs, these "facts" are not reliable.

At the same time, I find it amusing when people accuse others of a "prejudice" without knowing what it means. There are a few unpleasant truths that can be uncovered in every society after a thorough examination. It might be politically incorrect to say so, but actually saying it doesn't imply prejudice. I am particularly agitated by the media in "free-world" adopting self-censoring measures just to be "Politically correct."

Being free from prejudice doesn't mean you have to bury your heads in the sand and reject all evidence so that you don't come to a conclusion one way or another. If facts corroborate an argument one way or another, following through to the proper conclusion is the intellectually honest thing to do. After all, based on our studies linking smoking to lung cancer, we do conclude that smoking is injurious to health, instead of accusing the scientists of prejudice against smoking, don't we?

Discussion, Debate and Democracy

Debate, dialogue and democracy are considered cornerstones to establish people's will. Why then is the Congress candidate for Prime Minister's post shirking away from all three - He has refused to debate Advani, refused to take part in the Lok Sabha elections, and time and again refuses to address the public directly.

Mrs.Sonia Gandhi may well be within her rights to voice her opinion that "Disrespect of PM is disrespect of the nation", but let me correct her mistaken notion. It is not disrespect of the nation to criticise the person holding the post, it is a disrespect to the nation indeed when respect is not accorded to the post of Prime Minister. By his non-participation in debate, dialogue and democracy - Dr.Manmohan Singh and Congress have done precisely that.

Mr.Rajiv Dogra writes in The Pioneer:

Among the many splendours of his public discourse, Mr Amartya Sen’s The Argumentative Indian shines through. The image that it evokes is not that of a quarrelsome Indian, but of an enquiring, engaging and a questioning people. Mr Sen maintains that democracy flourishes amid a tradition of dispute, discussion and debate. And to cap his argument he quotes Ram Mohan Roy: “Just consider how terrible the day of your death will be, others will go on speaking, and you will not be able to argue back.” .... Mr Singh can still engage in debate with Mr LK Advani. People will then have the satisfaction of having judged them both, before casting their votes.

I agree wholeheartedly and find it amusing the same media which went into orgasmic frenzy over Mr.Modi's withdrawal from Devil's advocate is now refusing to press for a debate of the Prime Ministerial candidates. Just the TRPs such an event would generate should be enough to send all channels scurrying, unless there is a greater agenda.

While at the issue of criticism of Congress, let me add another point - Repeated reference to the shameful capitulation of Indian Government in the 1999 Kandahar hijack case. Is the media that amnesiac or simply devious? Even as a 14 year old, I remember following with distinct sense of unease, the public outrage orchestrated by the media in trying to get the Government to release the terrorists. Here's Kanchan Gupta on the crisis and its resolution:

“We want our relatives back. What difference does it make to us what you have to give the hijackers?” a man shouted. “We don’t care if you have to give away Kashmir,” a woman screamed and others took up the refrain, chanting: “Kashmir de do, kuchh bhi de do, hamare logon ko ghar wapas lao.” Another woman sobbed, “Mera beta… hai mera beta…” and made a great show of fainting of grief.
To his credit, Mr Jaswant Singh made bold to suggest that the Government had to keep the nation’s interest in mind, that we could not be seen to be giving in to the hijackers, or words to that effect, in chaste Hindi. That fetched him abuse and rebuke. “Bhaand me jaaye desh aur bhaand me jaaye desh ka hit. (To hell with the country and national interest),” many in the crowd shouted back. Stumped by the response, Mr Jaswant Singh could merely promise that the Government would do everything possible

(Read the entire article.)The only ones afraid to discuss an issue are the ones afraid of truth emerging from it. By skirting the issue and not engaging in direct debate, Congress is playing a dangerous game at undermining democracy and I believe it must pay the price.

PS: I hope this will be the only post taking up such a strong position against one particular party regarding the elections.

Comic

It is a sad commentary on the state of affairs of our fourth estate when comic strips and comedy-show hosts have had to take up the cudgel for accountability from the "serious" folks. If one still has doubts about the importance of units and the context, Here's exhibit 2:

Media and Us

One of my most consistent complaints has been against the double standards in the media. Of course, they are not the perpetrators, merely abettors in the cause that is - the rape of our society. But, why am I more concerned about the media than about our politicians?

The answer lies in (1) accountability and (2) impact.

We are the consumers who pay for the very existence of the media that has been conspiring to such an extent in trying to dupe us. Take a look at this clip



My aim in trying to point out inconsistencies in media reporting are similar in nature. The only way to avoid serfdom is for us to demand quality from our fourth estate and watch out for our own selves. It is also not without reason to assume that they go a long way in shaping the public opinion as has been repeatedly seen by the propagandas in totalitarian regimes.

Mind you, I'm not asking for absolute neutrality and bias free reporting- That would be idealistic and impractical. I'm merely asking for a representation of the entire spectrum of voices so that with forces pulling in all directions, the extremists' and fundamentalists' plans are dampened down and the system may settle in an equilibrium with the domination of moderate voices.

PS: Ruminations brought about by the recent happenings on this episode of daily show.

Objectivity of truth

Orwell writes in the Tribune on Feb 4, 1944 in his column "As I please":

...Up to a fairly recent date, the major events recorded in the history books probably happened. It is probably true that the battle of Hastings was fought in 1066, that Columbus discovered America, that Henry VIII had six wives, and so on. A certain degree of truthfulness was possible so long as it was admitted that a fact may be true even if you don't like it. Even as late as the last war it was possible for the Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, to compile its articles on the various campaigns partly from German sources. Some of the facts — the casualty figures, for instance — were regarded as neutral and in substance accepted by everybody. No such thing would be possible now. A Nazi and a non-Nazi version of the present war would have no resemblance to one another, and which of them finally gets into the history books will be decided not by evidential methods but on the battlefield.....
.

My admiration knows no bounds when it comes to Orwell's insights. Take the recent Israel-Palestine conflict which has produced gems like Pallywood or the "Al-Dura murder":


Or our very own "Godhra riots", one version of truth is vastly different from another. Orwell says later in the same essay:

The really frightening thing about totalitarianism is not that it commits ‘atrocities’ but that it attacks the concept of objective truth; it claims to control the past as well as the future.

A totalitarian regime doing this is not surprising, but a whole bunch of cronies running the media, doctoring the truth to protect their life-long investments into a hollow ideology is catastrophic.

"We are not the sole owners, but custodians of the liberties we enjoy today . We have inherited these liberties which were won by bitter struggles of our predecessors and it is our duty to safeguard them for our successors."[1]

For the past few years(decades?) we have grown complacent and turned into that fat behemoth that is crushed under its own weight. It is high time we cast away our apathy and learn to shoulder our responsibilities.

[1] I cannot recollect who said this

Standards

Take a look at the interview. By her own admission, Mrs. Shabana Azmi had a very secular upbringing and she was only questioned about her "Muslim origins" after the Mumbai riots.("It is only when they were affected that they woke up" ) She claims that this led to her "digging in her heels". Let us turn that around for a moment. Let us discount the earlier part of her statement which provides a rationale for the discrimination she had to face(not judging the validity of it), Isn't it entirely plausible that most of the "Right-wing" activism taking place these days maybe a reaction to the way anything and everything to do with "the majority's way of life" is vilified as regressive and pre-historic?

Here is Mr.Arun Shourie writing in "Strong to the weak, weak to the strong"

Many Hindus also notice the other thing -- the one I mentioned as the reason as against the rationalization for no artist ever being galvanized by the creative urge when it comes to painting the features of the Prophet. They notice that the artists do not do so, not because these masters cannot do so, nor because their muse never goads them in this direction, but because they know that, were they to do so, they would be set upon. And that the State -- which is weak, and which also has internalized the same double-standards to rationalize its weakness -- will not come to their rescue. Therefore, more and more Hindus are concluding that we too should acquire the same reputation, we too should acquire the same capacity. In a word, three things are teaching the Hindus to become Islamic: the double-standards of the secularists and the State, the demonstrated success of the Muslims in bending both the State and the secularists by intimidation, and the fact that both the State and the secularists pay attention to the sentiments of Hindus only when the Hindus become a little Islamic.....
Finally, a forecast : the more the secularists insist on double-standards, the more Islamic will the Hindus become.

I wonder if people like Mrs.Azmi have ever heard of "Cognitive dissonance"
It is alright for the youth to take on a radical ideology because they were boxed into that corner by discrimination, but it is not right for the majority to associate that ideology has anything to do with the actions of these youth. In other words, "victimisation of the aggressor."
Correlation does not imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively to 'look over there' (xkcd). Perhaps it is important to take a look at why there is such a high correlation between certain ideologies and acts.

Pensions

and incentives for terrorist activities (in Kashmir):

I cannot decide whether I should laugh or cry:

"किसी के साथ मानवी चेहरॆ से पॆश आना अपने देश का नागरीक है और इस्के साथ हम आशा करते है की हमारे देश मै शांति स्थापित होगी "

"To deal humanely with anyone is our culture, and we hope that this step will lead to greater peace in our country" Indeed!
(Please note this was around sometime late January, 2008 when the great goat Mr.Shivaraj Patil was still our home minister) Link from here

Words and Meanings

Taken from Orwell's Politics and English language :

" The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable." The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. "

In combination with Goodwin's law - we have a "perfect recipe for nauseous cliches" from the media. Anything opposed to the "liberal" interpretation is labeled "fascist" and the actors are Nazi-incarnates.
Of course, GenX cannot fathom the horrors perpetrated by the Nazis (in no small part thanks to our education), so the next best crutch to hang on to is Taliban. So, we have our Hon'ble minister for women's welfare Renuka Chowdhary beating on about "Talibanisation of India" on the Mangalore attack(at the same time mum on the acid throwing incident.)

Reminds me of:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Bill O'Reilly's Right to Privacy

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Funny Political News
Joke of the Day

Nothing less is expected from a professional politician, but the media has been the worst offender. Just because the goons involved in Mangalore incident were organized thugs with manifestos which could be used to corner all right-wingers, it made into the front pages. The more dangerous attacks like the ones here 1, 2, (not just in terms of intrusion into society but also due to the apathy on display from the bystanders) are relegated to back pages if not completely ignored. One may shrug away this unscrupulous behaviour from the media giants as profit driven, but the buck doesn't stop there.

As much as we may like to deny it, media goes a long way in shaping the public perceptions. It is important to call its bluff whenever it peddles propaganda or half-truths as news. Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4 among many many others.

Freedom of speech

"Take away all my freedoms, but the freedom of speech so that I can win them back"
Watch the video, "Ezra Levant" a conservative on The Micheal coren show. The interview is about "Free speech" and well worth your time, but this particular segment is relevant to what's happening across the world right now.



It is ironic that the conservatives are fighting for free speech whereas the "liberals" are bedfellows with those who want to regulate "offensive speech".



Something in our very own backyard to match it. Here's the background : the UN(or rather its oil-peddling puppeteers) introduced a legislation banning the defamation of "religion". Johann Hari had published an essay criticizing this erosion of free speech in "The Independent" which was reprinted in "The Statesman".

The UN’s Rapporteur on Human Rights has always been tasked with exposing and shaming those who prevent free speech – including the religious. But the Pakistani delegate recently demanded that his job description be changed so he seeks out and condemns “abuses of free expression” including “defamation of religions and prophets”. The council agreed – so the job has been turned on its head. Instead of condemning the people who tried to murder Salman Rushdie, they will be condemning Salman Rushdie himself.

Of course, we get the entire media crowing over how the freedom of an artist is being compromised when there is outrage over paintings of naked Hindu goddesses, but we don't get quite the same squeaks from our esteemed media when their fellow editor gets arrested for hurting the religious feelings. The editors had to bend over backwards and beg to be released from prison(and they have my sympathies here).

I am heartened to see that at least the author could afford to stand by his views.

What should an honest defender of free speech say in this position? Every word I wrote was true. I believe the right to openly discuss religion, and follow the facts wherever they lead us, is one of the most precious on earth – especially in a democracy of a billion people riven with streaks of fanaticism from a minority of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs. So I cannot and will not apologize..... Nothing worth saying is inoffensive to everyone....

They are people like Sayed Pervez Kambaksh, the young Afghan journalism student who was sentenced to death for downloading a report on women's rights. They are people like the staff of Zanan, one of Iran's leading reform-minded women's magazines, who have been told they will be jailed if they carry on publishing. They are people like the 27-year old Muslim blogger Abdel Rahman who has been seized, jailed and tortured in Egypt for arguing for a reformed Islam that does not enforce shariah law.

It would be a betrayal of them – and the tens of thousands of journalists like them – to apologize for what I wrote. Yes, if we speak out now, there will be turbulence and threats, and some people may get hurt. But if we fall silent – if we leave the basic human values of free speech, feminism and gay rights undefended in the face of violent religious mobs – then many, many more people will be hurt in the long term. Today, we have to use our right to criticise religion – or lose it.

Read the complete article here .

Libertarian thoughts

I've often described myself as a libertarian. It pains me to see what shallowness passes for libertarian thought. I do believe that outlawing cannabis is restriction of personal freedom and that it is yet another act of "paternalism" showered upon us by government. But, he says

" Tomorrow night, I will not be celebrating. No Boom Shankar for me. Not if it is criminal. I despair for the Hindus. All pious, all cowardly."

Accusing people of cowardice because they don't fight for your cause in which most of them have not an iota of interest is libertarianism?

In another context, he had written :

"I sincerely doubt whether such a brazen strike by just 25 armed men would have caused so much damage and lasted so long if all decent Mumbaikars had guns of their own. In fact, if they did have guns, such an attack would have perished at the thought itself. It would not have been even contemplated."

Forget the terms "Economies of scale" and "specialization of trade" that are central to the very theme of development, but even an idiot could see that citizens with hand guns and pistols would be mincemeat in the hands of trained (specialized) operators using AK-47s , grenades etc. Of course, how can I not tip the esteemed libertarian's latest offering:

"In the old days, prosecution was the individual’s prerogative. He collected the evidence himself and argued his own case."

return the jungle-law? "Ban the police", Indeed!

Remember children, any ideology and ideologue is to be mistrusted. True libertarians do not argue that their ideology is the best, but only argue that it is the ideology that descends the most gracefully into "real world". In other words, they are set aside by their pragmatic world view.
I think instead of his vocation as a "psuedo-intellectual" he should just admit to being a hipster who wants his freedom - I'd have way more respect for him that way.