Permanent Conflict Toward Hindu Rashtra Or Peaceful Dialogue For Hindustan?

Permanent Conflict Toward Hindu Rashtra Or Peaceful Dialogue For Hindustan?

                                                                                  Saeed Naqvi

Neither anger nor sadness but a sort of numbness gripped me as a bulldozer was brought into focus, its giant fingers crashing on the roof, scratching the walls and probing deep into the entrails of the house. Within minutes the house was a heap of rubble.

It was impossible to reconcile this image with the bubble taking shape in my mind. The year was 1995. Frank Wisner, one of the most charming of the US ambassadors, looked at me in bewilderment and, without change of expression, pressed the intercom for his counsellor: “I am sending you someone with a case that with tickle you.”

The counsellor was tickled. My daughter was keen to get a US visa stamped on her passport (She had been invited for a seminar in New York) and she was keen to surrender the documents which gave her permanent residence in the US, where she had spent eight years in the groves of academe.

A visa stamped at last on her Indian passport, with an elevated self esteem she went about her duties as a social worker in some remote part of the state which Yogi Adityanath now administers as its Chief Minister. It was once my home state too.

The return journey from her place of work, was in a jam packed second class compartment. She found a seat next to a family having fruit for lunch. The man, a kindly soul, offered her an orange.” Abhi mun naheen hai.” (Thanks, but I don’t feel like having an orange.) The man persisted: “Le lo beti, hum koi mussalman naheen hain.” (Take it, daughter, I am not a Muslim.)

Pride in an Indian passport and the reality of the new emerging India must have hit her like a rifle shot.

I returned to some more bulldozing accompanied by a cacophony of speakers supporting or opposing the spectacle. Then, at Prime Time, Rishika Baruah of NDTV came into focus anchoring a carefully compiled catalogue of atrocities against dalits. The first episode is in Rae Bareli. A group of upper caste boys have encircled a boy from one of the lower castes. The leader of the gang, in jeans and a t-shirt watches the boy being beaten by his friends. Then as a grand finale, the leader, seated on a large high stone, stretches out one leg. The gang then invites the lower caste boy to lick their gang leader’s foot from heel to toe.

The next scene shows a man in shirt and trousers being instructed by middle aged men to lie on his stomach and rub his nose in a circle marked in chalk for clarity. He apparently had the temerity to stand on a stones outside the temple to watch a show.

The third incident shows a girl with a thali full of puja items being turned away by the priest from the temple where she has come to make an offering because her examinations the next day.

The piece-de-resistance is the bridegroom who comes riding a horse. Before the bridegroom is received by his bride and her family, the village influentials encircle him.

One of the village superiors leaps to the height of the horse and administers an almighty slap on the bridegroom’s face, even as the bride watches in horror. How dare a dalit come riding a horse? Oddly this rare focus on dalit atrocities is not backed up by screaming discussants on a long leash.

Provide an instance of hijab in schools, beef in a refrigerator, love jihad and such like provocations: this is the stuff channels instantly divide their screens into four, six or eight windows. From the very start, discussions are a cacophony, with two priceless mullahs thrown in, speaking out of turn.

The hoopla that attends coverage of subject of a communal colour is singularly missing in Rishika Baruah’s impressive catalogue of atrocities against dalits. Each one of the episodes would have yielded a sober discussion on social inequity, the barbarism it can lead to. Remember the dalit girl of Hathras – raped, murdered and cremated under police protection past midnight without as much as informing the girl’s parents. M. N. Srinivas, the great sociologist, asked the pithy question which cannot be easily answered. “What is Hinduism without caste?” Scholar, S. S. Anant introduces another complexity: the three upper castes have relative stability in their enclaves.

The lower castes who are subdivided into a hierarchy of a hundred sub castes live under a firm stipulation: in times of distress they may descend to take up the occupation of those below them but they may never ascend even a notch.

All of this, material is like the categories of Ashraf, Ajlaf and Arzal among Muslims in feudal times. These categories were recognized but treated like family secrets not to be shed light on. Likewise caste during elections is thrashed to smithereens, divided and subdivided into a hundred categories to fulfil electoral needs. But once elections are over, the subject which defines so much of our lives is tucked away in the mind’s most dark caverns.

It has to be left undiscussed because one half of Hindu society does not wish to place its warts before a mirror; the other half can’t imagine a social order without caste. Caste, in other words is an ancient social habit, inextricably woven into our lives. Communalism is a political project which helps contain caste to some extent. The fear of Muslim as an enemy image may result in Hindu consolidation but only politically. Socially that upper caste boy in Rae Bareli still gets the lower caste boy to lick his foot.

On another scale, embers left behind by caste-communal friction can prepare the ground for Savarkar’s or the RSS’s idea of Hindu nationalism. That will also require Kashmir on a boil forever, relations with Pakistan on torrid heat always and Hindu-Muslim enmity, in perpetuity. Are we ready for it? Or should we defuse issues by setting up a permanent dialogue towards Hindustan?

#          #          #          #

Is There Another Cuban Missile Crisis In The Offing?

Is There Another Cuban Missile Crisis In The Offing?

                                                                                       Saeed Naqvi

Is another Cuban missile crisis in the works? The agreement between Nicaragua to post Russian soldiers in the communist country must disturb Washington. What happens to the Monroe doctrine which Trump’s Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson announced “was alive and kicking today”. Will Biden’s Secretary of State repudiate this?

Cardinal Ovando Bravo, if he is still around, must be in a state of feverish anxiety. When I visited Nicaragua’s capital Managua in the 90s, when Daniel Ortego was just about to be crowned President, the venerable cardinal virtually led me by the hand to Mother Mary’s statue in Central Managua so that I could see the miracle with my own two eyes: Mary was weeping copious tears because communist rule was imminent. It reminds me now of another miracle which gripped India in 1995: Ganesh statues slurping vast quantities of milk.

The Nicaragua agreement has been given vast amplitude: seven Latin American countries “to enter the country and participate”, says Fox News. There was more for Washington to worry about. This time the salvo comes from cardinal Bravo’s supreme boss. Pope Francis rubbished the diligently orchestrated western propaganda that Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was “unprovoked”?

In an interview to a Jesuit magazine, the Pope quotes a “wise head of state” who had predicted much before the invasion that “they are barking at the gates of Russia; the situation could lead to war.”

There is no great difference between what the statesman said and what the Pope said some weeks ago. He said NATO may have “facilitated” Kremlin’s invasion by “barking” at the Russian door.

That Russia was consistently “provoked” has been clear as daylight since 1998 when the US senate voted in favour of NATO expansion. The wisest historian of Russia, the one who invented a policy of containing the Soviet Union, George Kennan, announced loud and clear “There will be repercussions.”

At the 2008 Bucharest summit of NATO, to which ironically Putin was also invited, Georgia’s and Ukraine’s possible entry into the fold was announced. It turned out to be a dramatic summit because President G.W. Bush was also in attendance, lobbying like there will be no tomorrow for Georgia and Ukraine to be ushered into NATO. “This would be like a knife on my throat” said Putin. What was suggested, Putin said, was an existential threat to Russia. A deep, dark red line was drawn.

2008 was memorable for two events: Russia-Georgia war which Russia won, and the collapse of Lehman Brothers with $619 billion record debt which hit the US where it hurts most. The expression “US decline” gained currency since this event. It was a dramatic turn of fortune: 1990-91 Soviet collapse brought about the “sole superpower” moment. Who ever imagined that contradictions of capitalism would catch up with the world’s most powerful economy and make it look weak kneed in the boxing ring.

During the West’s build up to the Ukraine expedition I had pointed flaws in the strategy because three of the US’s earlier expeditions, which I had watched from close, had failed. After 20 years of occupation the US left Afghanistan in disorder and unspeakable hunger. On April 3, 2002 it occupied Iraq, for a decade, with gains hard to see unless you see things from the Israeli perspective.

Then the US brought Syria into its focus with an altered strategy. It would not occupy this time but allow Gulf countries, scared of Iran, to break the Shia axis in order to place the knife on Iran’s throat which remains the existential threat for Israel and a fickle cast of characters leading the Gulf States.

When Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, with an imperious wave of the hand, demanded “Assad, get out of the way”, I was moved to question her cocksure demeanour indicating regime change. Within days Assad would fall. The gist of my logic was this: when you failed in Afghanistan and Iraq with extended spells of occupation, where do you derive your certitude from that Assad would full by what looked to me like cross-border terrorism. I can never forget the image of Gen. Lloyd Austin, much before he became Defence Secretary, among whose various tasks was to train “good militants” to plague Assad. A budget of $500 million was set aside. The “good” militant learnt all the drills and, one morning, collected all the weapons they had been trained to handle and walked away presumably to join the “bad” terrorists. The General had to face the Senate Armed Services Committee. “How many of the soldiers you trained are still in battle?” the General looked at the panel with sad eyes, “four or five”.

If Assad could not fall by external pick prick, how did you dream up a proxy war on the turf of Ukraine which would defeat Putin with his arsenal of thousands of nuclear weapons. You have caused the destruction of Ukraine with your weapons because you wished to get at Putin’s jugular. But why do you wish to “weaken Russia” as Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin or “debase Putin”? In an earlier instance also you played this kind of Billiard: your eventual target was Iran but Syria leading the subsidiary Shia arc, stood in the way.

In the instance of Ukraine you are having kittens because China, your eventual target, has held Russia’s hand and announced a “friendship with no limits”. Your hope is that a “debased” Russia will be that much less attractive to China. It is like throwing acid on a woman’s face so that the bridegroom rejects her.

One would have watched the outcome with interest because the complete devastation of Ukraine is not in any one’s interest. But alas your own allies are undermining your war effort. The unofficial line to all “European officials is to accelerate trade with Russia in food grains, fertilizers, oil and gas.” Your media too has fallen silent. Have they seen the writing on the wall?

#          #          #          #

Will Protests In Arab World And India Lead To Something New?

Will Protests In Arab World And India Lead To Something New?

                                                                                          Saeed Naqvi

“Ba Khuda deewana bash-o

Ba Mohammad Hoshiyar”

In plain language, take liberties with God but be careful with Mohammad.

When Chandrabhan Brahmin, Dara Shikoh’s Prime Minister, crossed the red line, the intention was not to insult the prophet or hurt believers. He wrote:

“Punja dar panjay e Khuda daram

Manche parwaaye Mustafa daram”

(My hand is in the hand of God;

Why should I worry about Mohammad?)

This is more in the nature of literary conceit – a tease, a naughty expression designed not to offend but to amuse. Moreover it is meant for a small intimate company, leaving no room for misunderstanding. Chandrabhan Brahmin’s verses were, in fact, cited as evidence of Dara Shikoh’s liberal court, which, incidentally, showed how intellectually indebted Dara was to his great grandfather, Akbar.

It reflected on the widespread popularity of Akbar that the revolt by Sheikh Sirhindi against The Emperor’s experiment with eclecticism in the form of Deen-e-Ilahi or the Religion of God, were no more than pin pricks. If Sirhindi were a larger than life threat, it would not have been possible for Jehangir to have him confined to jail in Gwalior.

The security of the Empire is reflected in Dara’s audacious cultural experiment. He opened the way to Indology in Europe by having the Upanishads translated into Persian. His Majma-ul-Bahrain or the Confluence of the Oceans was an epoch making effort at trying to find common ground between Sufism and Vedantic Speculation.

The clergy must have been hopping mad at such excesses. Aurangzeb’s 49 year rule was wobbly in the sense that he spent considerable time in the Deccan campaigns. The clergy wasted no time in climbing ladders around him. The Gyanvapi mosque on the site of an old Shiva temple, is more a function of Aurangzeb’s weakness than his assertiveness. It brought cheer to the clergy burdened by the memory of the Dara years.

The promise of the great civilizational compact Akbar and Dara had given notice of survived the Aurangzeb years. There was a burst of it in Mohammad Shah Rangeela’s court in Delhi, in Wajid Ali Shah’s court in Lucknow until the last Moghul Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar was dispatched to Yangon by the British where he died in the garage of John Davis, a junior officer.

This very amateurish incursion into history on my part has picked up in frequency since May, 2014 when Prime Minister, Narendra Modi made his very first speech in Parliament.

“Hamein 1,200 saal ki ghulami se nikalna hai.” What Modi meant that we have to come out of 1,200 years of subjugation. Most of us had parroted since 1947, that all Indians together had got rid of 200 years of British rule. Modi’s statement makes that stand on its head.

Over the years, one has got used to the Muslim period, indeed the Muslim being underplayed. Take for instance, the UNESCO’s project for elevating Delhi to a heritage city. This story goes back a decade, way before the appearance of Narendra Modi. For years notes went up and down on the subject. An initial stumbling block was that all the seven cities of Delhi but one happen to be Muslim. The seventh is Lutyen’s Delhi. They all fall well within the period which Modi considers years of “ghulami” but I am mixing `up eras. The UNESCO story belongs to the Congress era.

Ultimately, after years of bargaining, the choice was narrowed down to two – Lutyens Delhi and Shahjehanbad or old Delhi.

Dossiers were exchanged between UNESCO, archaeological survey and the Delhi Heritage society. But on the appointed day when the agreement with UNESCO was to be signed a mysterious hand swooped the documents away even as the assembled officials watched.

Enlightenment came through the agency of a group of retired judges and their families on a guided tour of Akshardham temple on the Jamuna. The guide may have exceeded his brief but he informed the stunned group that the history of Delhi starts with the Akshardham temple.

The protests in Arab capitals against remarks on Prophet Mohammed made by BJP spokesperson, Nupur Sharma and Navin Jindal represent spontaneous anger or do they also denote new affiliations in the region. Earlier, the US would have been in the loop at the very outset and played favourites. India’s independent vote at the UN on Ukraine has freed both Washington and New Delhi. They can now play situations according to their own lights.

Internally a stifled Muslim community has found in the protests an opportunity to vent their anger.

Is New Delhi on notice that its anti minority excesses will from now onwards be under scrutiny in the Arab world? I doubt if recent events indicate an irreversible transformation. Once the dust settles on the current protest, I expect it will be business as usual with the Arab world.

For New Delhi it is a wonderful opportunity. It must dismount the tiger – of communalism. This policy will give negative results henceforth because:

(a) In my recent travels within India, I don’t see much traction for high voltage communalism outside the Hindi belt.

(b) The BJP is already in a position to whistle, throw up its cap and celebrate its status as a Muslim-mukt party. Out of 301 seats in Parliament, soon there will not be one Muslim in this galaxy. If Hindu consolidation was required to consolidate BJP votes for Parliamentary elections that has been achieved. This percentage in the assemblies is unachievable.

(c) Beef, halal meat, hijab, love jihad, namaz in the open, mosques as stone pelting stations on Hindu processions – all these and more have been tried to keep communal temperature on a simmer.

In any case, these tricks, by themselves do not galvanize the nation. All these tied to nationalism do. This entails Kashmir always on a boil and Pakistan in a permanent enemy list. Has the RSS and the BJP plugged their ears so firmly that Atal Behari Vajpayee’s whisper does not reach them. “We cannot change our neighbours.”

#          #          #          #