Arundhati Roy on Kashmir and Azadi: The voice too precious

This week there has been fury over Kashmir and Azadi. Arundhati Roy in a conference in Srinagar, called India a colonising power, and supported the demand for awarding self rule to Kashmir.
The statements of Arundhati Roy and S Geelani have evoked wrath. BJP has called for their arrest on charges of sedition. The Congress led government has treaded more cautiously; calibrating the response of the global village, that we are desperately trying to join and lead, to such an action. The acute anger has left blogs, e papers and televised discussion flooded with comments. More measured and intellectual opposition has come from “modern rational” columnists. In fairness to them all – Ms Roy’s essays on the subject has biased research at its core. She has oversimplified a complex problem. Made it too black. And this is not to be expected from some one of her stature. Crusaders for humanity can not at this stage afford this error of coming across as partial. Her readers admire her voice of fact based dissent but will be equally unforgiving of her opportunistic data collection and interpretation with a nihilistic foregone conclusion.
So where does the tale of Kashmir lead back to?
The story of human plight in Kashmir, just like the the story of life is not black and white. This is a complex tale of living. Of needs and suffering torn between nations and identities. This narrative should not be simplified. To either a tale of young men and women fighting for the freedom of their land from the oppression of armed excess. Or a foreign nation sponsoring revolution and terrorism in sweeping masterstrokes of covert foreign policy. Both would be true in bits and pieces. But neither can exclusively be the entire story. We as Indians shall be comfortable relating to the latter version, just like some hot blooded Pakistani youth would with the former.
I have a problem with the importance given to history as a tool for decision making.
This has come up a few times in the discussions in various blog. Since 1947 – until early 1990s the demand for Azadi in Kashmir has not really been heard. Bollywood movies from 70 and 80s abound in scenes where a beaming Rajesh Khanna woos Mumtaz against the tranquil backdrop of paradise on earth. Tourists have flocked to Srinagar, Gulmarg and Pahelgaon.
Yet this seeming order has gradually changed in the last two decades. There has been proof of over the border influences from Pakistan and even China. At the same time the noose of Indian army enjoying special powers has tightened around the life of the ordinary Kashmiri. Addressing both these factors is a challenge. Almost like a see – saw if you relax army presence the foreign influence gets out of hand. And if you tackle the border infiltration with an iron hand the outcry against greater army presence gets louder.
Another tool that we often use in our judgement is comparing one history against another: Even in the traditional narrative of the Indian freedom movement - the demand for self rule has not been throughout the 200 years that the British colonised India. What were patches of armed rebellion in 1857, evolved into demands for greater representation in policy making and then only in early 1900s and more definitively in 1942 did the demand for self rule emerge as a cohesive national demand. Even then the Indians were evoking an united nation from the ghosts of autonomous princely states that the English traders of East India company had found themselves in, in mid 18th century. Even historically from the Guptas and Mauryas in ancient India to the Mughals in Medieval India, the borders in the subcontinent have always been fluid . And this again brings us to the central questions - how far do we go back? Which parts of history do we cherry pick to rationalise or reject the demands of 2010? Probably none.

In more modern time: there has been comparisons of dissent elsewhere in the country. The now “solved” Punjab - Khalistan movement of the 80s seems to be a particular favourite. But not much is being said about Gorkhaland, Far eastern states like Manipur and Nagaland, or the issue of Maoist discontent . It is not wise to have an expectation for Kashmir to behave the Punjab way. Every revolution is unique in its evolution and therefore demands individual solution. However, in way of introspection we should probably revisit the few common strands that connect them. Does a Kashmiri or Manipuri or a villager in Dantewada have a life comparable to a Mumbaikar or a Delhiite? Where do we go wrong as a nation when we fail to establish and maintain equality for our citizens? Relevant though these issues are: this is for another day.
Misdirected national pride in India is as holy as Religion. Beyond criticism.
In India the average middle class city dweller is indoctrinated to sit comfortably in their world of subsidized comfort. Stand and weep with the national anthem. Salute the fluttering Tricolour. Clutch on to the land within our seemingly rigid borders. And observe a dry day on the birthday of the “father of the nation”. These are acquired reflexes that most never question. National pride is a faith – almost like religion. The concept of putting human life before nation is evolutionally “bad” for the survival of the herd. And inherently perceived to be selfish.
And this is exactly where the nation needs to mature. Evolve from faith into reasoning.
Humanity is absolute and should be prioritised over borders, flag and anthems.
In this revised view of life - nothing artificial: not even the notion of a nation or a constitution half rigid and rarely revised over the last half century, can be or should be held sacred over human life. But this is asking too much of the nation that is probably growing the fastest in the world.

Of Burkha, minarets and women bishops: Part1

While we in India struggle on with ourselves – a different war wages in the west.
Towards the end of last year the Swiss voted out loud prayer calls from Minarets. This year the French are steadily moving towards legislation banning covering of face in public. And after much deliberation the British church have finally allowed women to be promoted to be Bishops.
Who owns the soul, if there is any such thing? The central question remains if you can decree revolution.

There is a debate about whether Burkha is essential part of Islam – as apparently there is no compulsion for covering face in the Quran. The other logic is from symbolism – covering face being an image of thousands of years of female subjugation. In a Sunday morning televised debate broadcast from BBC there was an interesting exchange where a burkha clad participant was questioned about the rationale for covering herself. She answered that the Islamic perspective would be that women should not stimulate lust in male onlookers (obviously presuming that the entire class of female onlookers are heterosexuals and none in the world is given to the voyeur of being turned on by covered women). The co ordinator asked what about men..........is it acceptable for women to be turned on by men, because clearly the requirement to cover up the face, do not extend to men.

In primitive societies, the time when most of the religious texts would hail from: it would be generally presumed that while men have the strength to resist and take charge of themselves, women were clearly too weak to do so. Polygamy was allowed. Men were mostly excused from not being able to resist temptation. Clearly women did not enjoy the same privilege. In the present day and age there is a need to move away from such male centric world.

In yet another televised discussion programme another burkha clad woman, probably brought up in the west from her accent, had yet another logic. She felt that covering her face gave her a sense of identity. There was no compulsion involved – she wore it out of her own free will. This does bring us squarely back to the logic: which of the primitive practises are we allowed to carry into our current century, because they impart a sense of belonging? Witch hunt, Crusades, Stoning adulterers, blinding scientists, burning down libraries.........the list is endless. But covering face is different. It does no harm, which the others clearly do. Except to the countless women who are forced to wear them, whose silent protest has no means of reaching the public space!

Yet I firmly believe – you can never sponsor a revolution. You end up creating defiance. This is an evil that needs to change. But probably the state is not the best catalyst.

Of minarets and women bishops another day

The maoist struggle : Solution may be too simple for a national government: Part2

This update has been overdue.
Things have moved on since March.
There has been more casualties on either side. You would almost pause and think whether you can call this a change. Or an update or an evolution. It would certainly seem that it is a state of perpetual war. The only numbers that change is the number of fatalities. The stands do not. The government hardtalk waxes and wanes past cabinet meetings and televised debates. The collective demand for tougher action emerges and disappears between issues.

The issue is grey - and yet the approach presumes a black and white problem. The impossible ambition is to solve the issue. As if it were a riddle. To render a master stroke after which all would be well. Perhaps by annihilation. As was done in ‘70s. That would be a victory. And historically victory is not peace. At every defeat is the beginning of a new battle. Hence here we are. Long after we had thought we had wiped the slate clean in ‘70s.

A modest beginning may probably be the recognition that there is no “solution”. Management is a more correct approach. In small baby steps every single discontent has to be addressed. Poverty, lack of education , lack of health and hygiene - each region has its own set of discontent. In some dark depth of a forest in Andhra some corporate is exploiting natural wealth and the gullible dependents of the forest – is a issue splitting the community in that corner, but cannot be addressed by an all encompassing “national solution”.

When the national and local society starts addressing these issues at every pocket of discontent – the “ solution” will begin to emerge. I am too simple, to make sense of large steps taken in National parliament, that in some distant future in some concocted logic is expected to touch my life. Only when I find that the society is interested in the upkeep of my backyard, do I start to feel the urge to participate in the process.

The execution of this is far from simple. Local problem solving is impossible without universal participation. And sacrifices. This is very tricky indeed. Here the line is thin between the exploiter and the representative of the state. We expect generations of deprived government workers and election winners, used to prosperity out of corruption and exploitation of their poorer neighbours, to be the prime movers in this venture. Convincing them is not easy. Once you get used to profit from exploitation, it is difficult to wake up one morning and walk away from it all.

We survive on hope. Once this impossible mountain has been scaled -in the way of managing : there will be mistakes. In a country where political point scoring from failures is a way of life – there has to be enough tolerance to allow to learn from mistakes. And move on. This is yet another seemingly impossible task.

Only then we, the state as well as Maoists, can “win” this grey war.

Anyone is replacable does not imply he is dispensable: Root of Maoist violence in the current context: Part 1

Maoist violence in India is a major internal unrest. The Indian government recognises it as the greatest threat to internal security since Independence. As I write the Maoists have requested for intellectuals to mediate talks with the nation. The response of the Indian state is awaited.
Violence has no colour. It is self defeating and regressive. Yet let us open this discussion with whether there is any necessity for root cause analysis in dealing with this violence. Suppression of violence by brute force without analysis of background is return by the state to might is right rule of the jungle. At the present day and age when we talk of inclusive and fairer administration – such attempts are oppressive. They have no place in democracy.

Prevalence of inequality and injustice – with no adequate means of expression available
Justice is a dynamic idea. We aspire to establish a just society, in India. In a democratic system this is execution of majority will. Which at its very basic and probably over simplified interpretation is choosing in favour of the majority group against minority desires. This means that in a democratic system it is inevitable for unfulfilled desires to exist. For sacrifices to have been made for “greater good” or alternatively “good of the majority”. In a country as diverse as India with several conflicting points of interest the magnitude of this unavoidable inequality is larger.
So how do we manage this inequality? By facilitating expression of dissent is the easier said than done answer. Even more difficult is provision of accessible and legal frameworks for redressal. In such social fabrics as ours, it is often a challenge to allow expression of less popular view points. And we have so far been discussing only the theoretical difficulties of minority expression in a democracy. So now add to this obstructive factors like the desires of giant corporate organisations - with enough money and might to manufacture public opinion and subvert political will. With enough power to erase expression that it finds unfavourable to its interests.
This is in brief the unavoidable complex root cause of the tragedy of the marginalised indigenous population of India. Their interest is the ignored minority desire of jungle people. For centuries their dissent has not been expressed – let alone redressed. Whatever little their assets have had to be sacrificed for the greater good of the more privileged majority.
The tribal population of Bengal – Bihar(including current Jharkhand) - Orissa at various points in recent past has found themselves on land necessary to the nation for its mineral resources, industrialisation, good roads, power stations and what not. They have hardly ever been recognised as necessary stakeholders when such decisions have been discussed or executed. The price of displacement has been inadequate. This too has been often left to the mercy of corrupt officials, with little attention to monitoring what fraction of the sanctioned money actually reaches the victim. Often the ownership of land in such areas have been more by rote, with no existing formal record. This has made the task of being compensated almost impossible.
This is only a quick snapshot of the systematic state sponsored marginalisation of such communities. The tales of depravity are endless. The displacement has been chronic, and the loss has over decades fuelled subsidization of comfort commodities for privileged urban dwellers. Cheap minerals and land has kept the prices of our air conditioners reasonable – labour affordable. These people have been condemned to be dispensable by governments and clever corporate organisations. As part of a democratic society it leaves blood on your hand and mine. Without our knowledge. Irrespective of our consent.

Salwa Jurm – The Government sponsored civil war. Pitch the hungry against the thirsty.
So how has the government dealt with this so far? This is yet another shocking story.
In the ’70 s this was dealt with a “firm hand” as some would still boast. In exterminating violence the state had assumed the right to erase perpetrators. The details of the cruelty in name of collaterals is not the scope of this discussion. The details have been partly captured in numerous novels, short stories and films from this period. The attempts had secured peace. The quiet that you only hear in open air crematoria. And it had driven deep, a discontent. That was only destined to build up and erupt – decades later. Now.
Perhaps the state had not realised. The tribals owned India. From long before India started existing. Before the Aryans strated percolating down the Indogangetic plains. And since then, they had withstood – Invaders of every size, shape and colour. Theirs was a way of life – designed to last. Not change. In today’s fast moving India, what could be a greater audacity than this? Life that stands resolute. Feet on some of the richest resources, that can fuel the speed of this juggernaut nation. Yet refuse to play. We do not take very kindly to kids that stand by the playground. They who do not want to participate in our games. We forget their right to “not be a part”. They are too few. They do not vote...............they are dispensable!
The state of India woke up to this ingenious plan. Lets arm the villagers with weapons. Lets distribute some ranks to a few too. Then lets leave them to oppose tribals. They called it Salwa Jurm. Let the thirsty fight the hungry. The state can sit at their protected colosseum and watch the twentieth century gladiators battle it out. Who qualified for a rank and an official weapon. Who would be officially a maoist .................was beside the point. Even today after the salwa jurm has been abandoned at most places, we leave the ill equipped state police to lead guerrilla warfare. The inevitable casualties only the prove the point: Maoists are bad, bad people............and I told you so!

Thousand nations

Over the last month – The agitation favouring division of Andhra Pradesh to create Telengana has gained momentum. The Shiv sena is all poised to put up a brave fight to achieve a comeback after its poll debacle – and has revived its once worryingly successful divisive politics of aggravating anti Maharashtrian feelings in Mumbai.
In days when we are steadily moving towards a world without walls, it is important to be aware of divisive forces. In a country as diverse as India there is no dearth of such forces.
Let us spend some time on the evidence base supporting the presumption that big and united is better. Historically large empires have lasted longer, at least in the context of the Indian subcontinent. The chunk of history occupied by Guptas, Mauryas or Mughals prove the point. Typically they had under their rule large geographical areas of the subcontinent. The quality of life under such inclusive regimes have been better compared to more turbulent, and relatively lawless parts of history.
However dynamics of society are quite different in the present time. A careful and unbiased exploration of issues surrounding fragmentation of a big country will reveal that there can be equally plausible arguments for and against creation of smaller states with decentralisation of power and responsibility. This does mean that the drive behind division should be carefully considered. If this is administrative convenience – in terms of more fair resource distribution, or greater ease in policing: it would make sense. Obviously in such exercises there must be a careful risk benefit assessment.
In India usually passions speak before reason. The drive for division often originates from narrow interpretations of cultural identity and historical existence that should ideally have made way for borders dictated by administrative needs. Telengana has been a historical state with Hyderabad as its capital – and hence should be reborn. If you go further back into the history of India the entire country has been cris-crossed by borders. How far do you go back in history and who decides which part of historical existence you accept and which parts you don’t?
Worse still when covert intentions like political ambitions of individuals or parties lead them to generate mass dissent – which is never hard work in a country like India. Typically they feed on the inherent weakness of a resource limited mass - There are only a handful of jobs to be had in Mumbai, so it is convenient to cut back the competition by excluding non Maharashtrians from participating in selection. And we can conveniently dress it up as Marathi manoos – Mumbai for Maharashtrians first. You are guaranteed to find buyers. Division sells.
And then there are secret beneficiaries. The congress NCP led government in Maharashtra has hardly ever demonstrated a honest intention of barely fulfilling their constitutional duties of punishing Shiv sena for promoting ill will amongst communities or destroying peace and tranquillity. The film industry has hardly succeeded in masking their true colours. When it comes to the business of protecting financial interests they have stood out as divided, and spineless. The democracy in India, especially in states like Maharashtra, is largely theoretical.
We would like to project an united India. However despite all our intentions, historically the age of such unity is only a century old. Before that there have been thousands of years of living in pockets of vested interests, under regimes of all sizes and colours. It is hardly surprising then that divisive forces exist in India. If we have to take steps forward it is important that before we create frther divisions in the shape of Telengana or Gorkhaland – we carefully analyse the motive behind the division and its fall out.

Reinventing atheism: My resolution for my country

We have celebrated the 150th anniversary of publication of Darwin's seminal work On the Origin of Species and his 200th birthday
The impact of the work still reinvents itself in various avatars to influence life – from science to religion, or the absence of it. Darwin’s work is all poised to become the greatest tool yet in the hands of non believers – championed on both sides of the Atlantic by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Denett. By providing a scientific explanation of how life came about and evolved into its current form, finally the need for faith in an all powerful God to have designed everything with tools beyond human comprehension, has begun its ending. The statistics reveal an ever increasing number of non believers, despite desperate attempts from all faiths, to hold on to their ground.
The faithful seem to have metamorphosed from their original stance of believing in a supernatural being. The God of yesterday was an omnipotent, ever vigilant, rewarding – punishing entity, in the sky. In the current “more scientifically acceptable” form the hero of yesterday has degenerated into an impartial intelligent designer, who apparently retired the moment his task ended. With very little agreement in place about the form of this divine being, between the various religions or even the earlier and more modern proponents of the same religion – the disillusionment in faith is hardly surprising.
Atheism is not an entirely new concept in India. The search for the evidence base behind traditional custom goes back a long way in time. The earliest steps towards making the shift away from conventional beliefs in the world of millions of Hindu gods was taken by Gautam Buddha. The brave middle path preached by Buddha, unfortunately lost a lot of its atheist central concepts - as it spread and mingled back into several forms of Hinduism in medieval Asia. Jainism was yet another step in the same direction, marking ancient shifts from what would have been rigid, unforgiving faith in the Indian subcontinent of their time.
In the more recent times the work of Gora (Goparaja Ramachandra Rao) in Andhra Pradesh is important. The Indian atheist centre established in 1940s was a relevant but often ignored organisation. Besides there has been freelance atheists, so to say............challenging the usual swindling business of India’s numerous Godmen. Their voice still has to go a long way to match up to the mass appeal of the evil they aspire to uproot.
In the current climate the concept of atheism is very relevant in India. Almost essential for the survival of its people. Religion, more now than ever before, is the opium of the Indian middle class. And worse still it is a weapon that the more privileged, influential and manipulative sections of the society utilise to manufacture dissent within the middle class masses of the country. It challenges the functioning of a democracy – as it takes away the evidence basis of decision making. The nature of being led by traditional belief and passions is regressive, yet the predominant tool of opinionating in India.
In the age of resource limitation – the vast amount of funds that goes into building religious structures, and organising religious programmes, is inexcusable. And we have not yet started on the visible damages that militant religious extremism can cause. But that is common knowledge and we shall not go there. The purpose is to speak of the less visible but definite harm from any form of faith whatsoever. Human life, is too precious to be even touched, let alone harmed or lost by something so completely devoid of evidence base as religion.
India needs active atheism. To direct our energy and wealth to where it is most needed. To stop inequity at all stages – from the most backward villages to the advanced cities. To stop misleading Godmen and politicians. To destroy the breeding ground for damaging extremism.To emerge as the nation that bears its allegiance to truth alone.