What is to be Undone
NB: This post deals with the political debate sparked off by the recent events in JNU. It is for the consideration of ordinary students as well as other concerned individuals, in India and abroad. It is offered in the belief that a forthright dialogue on divisive themes is the only way out of an embittered atmosphere. Errors, when pointed out to me, will be gratefully corrected. My regards and best wishes to the students and teachers of JNU - DS
Feb 23: I have received several comments from friends, for which I thank them. One reaction is that I have not stressed the human rights violations suffered by Kashmiri Muslims. Actually that means I have not supplied examples of such violations. I am quite aware of them and have mentioned these elsewhere in my writing. There is also a link to a report on the events in the Valley in 2010. I am aware of the atrocities suffered by people in Chhatisgarh, Orissa and Manipur as well, and have not mentioned these either - they are covered in earlier posts. Here I have dealt with such violations under observations about the politics of the country as a whole. That may appear as a flaw to some readers. This article means to awaken well-wishers of the student movement about problems that have developed in left-wing politics over the years, problems that fuel communal mobilization.
My article has also warned of the implications of
government complicity in the activities of controlled mobs. The so-called Parivar
is busy creating a hate-filled and revengeful atmosphere amongst youth on the issue of 'nationalism'. Those of us who lived through 1984 (see The Broken Middle-30 years after 1984) remember the complete takeover of the streets by ’patriotic’ murderous mobs. This can
happen again –various Sanghi legislators are talking of shooting and hanging
their critics; and the persons who beat up Kanhaiya are boasting about their
violent deeds. State-enabled violence is stalking our cities. It is our duty to
stop it.
University campuses are not islands – they need the immediate support of democratic Indian citizens. All of us should work to stop the slide towards complete breakdown of constitutional governance. I request the academic community in JNU and elsewhere to open up a dialogue with civil society at large, including and especially the moderate people who may not possess revolutionary dreams but who want to preserve Indian democracy. The struggle today is against fascism. Please wake up. DS
University campuses are not islands – they need the immediate support of democratic Indian citizens. All of us should work to stop the slide towards complete breakdown of constitutional governance. I request the academic community in JNU and elsewhere to open up a dialogue with civil society at large, including and especially the moderate people who may not possess revolutionary dreams but who want to preserve Indian democracy. The struggle today is against fascism. Please wake up. DS
What is to be
Undone
Remember your
humanity and rebel! - Slogan on the walls of Paris, May 1968
Indignation is a
bad counselor – Leo Strauss, 1953
What you run away
from runs after you – Roumanian proverb
This comment engages with the issues raised in the current
debate about justice and nationalism. The agitation was sparked off by an event
in JNU highlighting the plight of the Kashmiri people. I will begin with two
names and a question which (to my mind) are as significant as the grievances of
Kashmiris and non-Kashmiris about the Indian justice system. The two names are Mohammad
Maqbool Sherwani (aged 19, died 1947); and Ravindra Mhatre (aged 48, died
1984). The question concerns the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits from their homes in
the Valley. Why are they not a part of left-wing concerns about Kashmir? Sympathizers
of Maoist revolutionary politics may consider four names - Francis Induwar (died
2009), Kenduka Arjun, (died 2010), Lucas Tete (died 2010) and Niyamat Ansari (died
2011). What happened to them and why did they die? These names and the question
signify an experience of injustice. For that reason alone, they deserve the
attention of the defenders of democracy. Now let us take a look at what is
happening in Delhi
Police protection,
Delhi version
The most striking image of the times we inhabit is the
photograph of a young accused person being brutally assaulted in the premises
of a prominent court in New Delhi. He was in the custody of the police, hence under
the indirect protection of the court. His assailants were lawyers, who have
bragged about their deeds, and are known for their proximity to senior leaders
of the BJP. Most of them have not been charged for what is a clear offence
under the IPC Sec 325. Spokes-persons of the ruling party routinely deploy the
platitude that the law will take its course. Typical of its behaviour in
matters such as the murder of Professor Kalburgi, they make a perfunctory
disapproval of hooliganism, and then produce belligerent justifications for
their violence. None of them show the slightest remorse or compunction for what
even a village constable would recognise as a criminal offence.
We are being intimidated in broad daylight by persons who
do not care a whit for reasoned speech – let alone the law. All we hear these
days is a reminder of the heavy price we shall pay for opposing Modi, the Sangh
and their ‘development agenda’. The Delhi police operate under the Union
Government, and was responsible for the raids on the JNU campus as well as the acts
in the court premises. Some of its decisions have now been shown to have been taken
on doctored evidence. The National Human Rights Commission has declared the
assault on Kanhaiya to have been planned. The Home Minister’s utterances were
akin to those of a con artist, so we need not be surprised by those of his
followers. We may also assume that these acts have the approval of the Union
Cabinet, and that we are now under the grip of a government that has no respect
for the rule of law.
The situation will worsen, because the private army that
controls the government is bent upon revising the foundational statutes of the
Indian Republic. It also adheres to an ideology that justifies violence in the
name of patriotism. Violent attacks, disruptions and dire threats by Hindutva-oriented
vigilantes and legislators are occurring on a daily basis across India. The
ruling party has shown itself to be no different from the Maoists whom it
routinely condemns. But whereas the Maoists have proven incapable of capturing
state power, the Hindutva ideologues believe they have done so. Let us see if
the Indian public will endorse this belief.
This is serious enough to bear repeating: the Government
of India is enabling, condoning and encouraging vigilante violence and
hooliganism. Controlled mobs now operate under state protection.
‘Anti
-nationalism’ etc
Most of the slogans heard on the JNU campus expressed unobjectionable
left-wing and feminist demands. However there were some that spoke of a long
war for the break-up of the country. There were other calls that could be
confusing to anyone not familiar with the term “oppressed nationalities” which
has been part of communist vocabulary since 1917. So the current political
agitation marks the intersection of many controversial themes, ranging from
definitions of the nation to constitutional and legal matters.
Some bare facts need recapitulation. Some students
attracted to Maoism and including those who believe in ‘self-determination’ for
Kashmir, and were agitated over the execution of Afzal Guru, held an event to
commemorate the latter. Denied permission due to objections from one student
group, they used the good offices of the union, whose president belongs to the AISF,
student wing of the moderate wing of the communist movement, the CPI. This is
the party of the late Satyapal Dang, one of India’s staunchest secularists and
fighters against terrorism in Punjab in the 1980’s and 90’s. (I wonder if our
Home Minister has heard of him). As the event unfolded some began shouting
belligerent slogans – let us leave aside the question of who started it. As
often happens, when ideologues wish to hurt each other by methods short of physical
assault, they say things designed to cause maximum emotional pain. Both sides -
the ultra-nationalists and those rooting for ‘self-determination’ proceeded to
do this. Some persons alleged to be
outsiders also shouted the objectionable slogans referred to above.
The ultra-nationalists used their contacts in the central
government to facilitate police intervention. Some of them now regret the
consequences of what has ballooned into a nasty confrontation. I appreciate the fact that the three ABVP
office-bearers who resigned from their posts disagreed with the habit of painting
all left-wing students with the same brush. Similarly all people who object to
slogans calling for the break-up of India also cannot be painted with the same
brush. I too object to such a slogan – although I don’t think it calls for
police action unless there is a direct incitement to violence. We know many
people calling for and indulging in violence who seem to have no fear of police
action.
Something similar took place at the Press Club, where
persons who stand for Kashmiri self-determination used the good offices of a
lecturer who booked the venue for them, but who does not share their political
vision. He is now been targeted – along with three other retired teachers from
DU – for collusion with so-called anti-national elements.
In both cases, persons of democratic persuasion were used
to facilitate expressions of extreme beliefs. As far as I can tell, they had no
idea of what was about to transpire, and their own statements at these
gatherings were attempts at lowering the pitch and calming the atmosphere. A
kind of verbal ‘guerilla action’ was undertaken by some radical activists who –
it would appear – were unconcerned with the repercussions. They did not care that
people who do not support their politics, but helped them because of their commitment
to free expression, would be paying the price.
To use well-meaning people for your purposes via
subterfuge can bear terrible consequences. It is unfair to those well-meaning
people, and typifies the belief that the end justifies the means. Some of us are
so consumed by anger that we feel justified in doing this, but it is not an
ethical course of action, and brings your politics into disrepute. It is similar
to what happened in Kandhamal in 2008, when the Maoist party murdered the VHP’s
Swami Laxmanananda and left the common people to face the communal violence
unleashed by the Sanghis, who blamed ‘the Christians’ for the murder. In the
spiral of violence unfolding in so-called insurgent districts, the state
utilises the opportunity provided it by extremists to suppress opposition from
all quarters. It targets all democratic protest for being anti-national,
seditious, etc. This is what is
happening now in India’s capital. Unscrupulous TV anchors are adding fuel to
the fires of ‘patriotic’ indignation – some of them behaving as flag-bearers for
a hysterical version of nationalism. As an SC bench said recently, ‘moderation
is a forgotten word today in all spheres of life’.
Self-determination
and violence
There is also the tangled issue of ‘self-determination’, a
term many people use as if it were an axiom. It is not. The idea of democracy
is linked to the concept of identity. ‘Demos’ is the term for ‘the people’ in ‘the rule of the people’.
The slogan of ‘self-determination’ carries the implicit presupposition that we
know who “the people” are before we speak of their right to
‘self-determination’. Ideologically defined boundaries of the ‘self’ are presupposed
in the practice of democracy. This issue is related to the birth of the
nation-state and the notion of sovereignty. Let me add here that the
multiplication of sovereignties is not a solution to the violation of human
rights, nor should it be conflated unquestioningly with the concept of
democracy. In some cases it might worsen the situation.
Identity is a matter of power, interest and definition. For
example, the slogan that Kashmiris have a right to self-determination implies
that the identity of Kashmiris is self-evident. The moment the identity of
Kashmiri Pandits and Sikhs, Ladakh’s Buddhists and Jammu’s Dogras, Gujars and
Bakerwals, is brought into the argument, the presumptive nature of unilateral
definitions becomes evident. Who is
included in, and who is excluded from the ‘self’, and why? Is it all very clear
to us, or does it deserve a discussion?
Given that this agitation has highlighted the plight of
the Kashmiri people, let us examine some facts that tend to get left out of leftist concerns. Some amongst us remain aggrieved by the execution of Maqbool
Butt on February 11, 1984. They need to remember the kidnapping and murder of
the Indian consular official Ravindra Mhatre, in Birmingham, on February 6 the
same year. It does not behoove a state to make vengeful decisions, but it does
not help matters if we forget significant facts. We may also mention in passing
the names of BJP politician Tikka Lal Taploo, Judge NK Ganjoo (who had tried
Maqbool Butt); and journalist, PN Bhat – all three murdered in late 1989 by
warriors of Kashmiri self-determination.
I have often reiterated my belief that the question of
violence is – or should be - the crux of political debate. Militarism has
emerged as the ground shared by enemies. The militarist appropriation of
martyrdom is a deeply patriarchal gesture. Violence is a never-ending spiral.
The best metaphor for violence is a black hole – the place that swallows up
everything in its vicinity. Once again, therefore, I will remind all ardent
supporters of political causes that violence feeds on itself. Apart from their
other numerous ‘actions’, the Maoists murdered two policemen who were in their
custody, both of them tribals – Francis Induwar (beheaded in 2009) and Lucas Tete
(shot in 2010). Kenduka Arjun, secretary of the Chasi Muliya Adivasi Sangh in Orissa,
was murdered by Maoists in 2010. They also beat to death Niyamat Ansari, a
NREGA activist, in front of his family in 2011. I will not go into the
implications of the derailment of the Jnaneswari Express in 2010, which cost
148 lives.
On communal issues, let us remember Taslima Nasrin, the author
who defended religious minorities in Bangladesh, and was hounded out of Kolkata
in 2007 by fanatics who browbeat the Left Front government. Perpetually under
threat, she finally had to leave India. On the price paid for dissent, let us
remember TP Chandrashekharan, a dissident CPI (M) leader in Kerala murdered in
2012 for setting up an alternative left group. A week ago, on February 15, an
RSS cadre named Sujith was murdered inside his house in front of his parents.
The accused in both these cases belong to the CPI (M). There are many more examples, cutting across
party lines. Whatever we might think of our political opponents, do not such
actions undermine democracy? Do they not indicate that we live in a dangerously
authoritarian culture?
As regards Afzal Guru, like many others, I too felt that
the trial process and submission of evidence raised several disturbing questions;
that life imprisonment would have been a fairer sentence, and that he should
not have been executed. I was severely perturbed by the phrase ‘collective
conscience of the nation’ appearing in a court judgment sentencing a man to
death. I wrote about this well before the execution, and about the death sentence,
which I oppose in principle, whether it is handed out by judges or
revolutionaries, sanghis or jehadis. People have every right to criticise judgments
without being accused of contempt – have not the ultra-nationalists also
criticised judgments they did not like? Such criticism should be couched in
temperate language, but we remain within our rights to make it.
The Pandit issue
Going on from this, doesn’t the plight of Kashmir’s
Pandits also deserve consideration in a debate about Kashmir? At the time of
their enforced exodus from the Valley, concerns were expressed by some human
rights activists and leftists. On the whole however, the so-named ‘left and
democratic’ bloc has remained silent about that enormity. I do not believe the ‘Jagmohan did it' theory
on this although I am aware of Jagmohan’s role in Sanjay Gandhi’s slum-clearing
activism during the Emergency. A great deal of evidence has been supplied by
those who experienced the exodus – evidence that needs serious debate, not
outright rejection. All Kashmiri Muslims cannot be blamed for the plight of the
Pandits, nor for desiring their exodus. But neither are all Hindus supporters
of Hindutva. Acknowledgement of injustice is the first and essential step
towards reconciliation – this is as true for the injustice suffered by the Valley’s Pandit population as
it is for the suffering of its Muslims. Activists for human rights should also note the presence
of a large number of migrant labourers in the Valley –numbers of whom have been
victims of terrorist acts.
Be that as it may, conflicting views on what caused the
Pandits to depart need an airing, not silence. Why have the victims of the
largest (the number could be 3 lakhs) communally-driven migration in
independent India’s history been the target of barely-concealed animus from leftists?
Kashmiri’s have undergone terrible suffering ever since militancy began, and
they include Pandits as well as Muslims, residents of the Jammu region as well
as those of the Valley; Kashmiri speaking people as well as others.
Apologists for the status quo ask us to stop talking
about caste-based discrimination – as if it will go away by pretending it does
not exist. The same attitude has been exhibited by many of us with regard to
Kashmiri Pandits – as if we can get rid of a mountain of pain and injustice by
looking the other way. If we stand for
giving voice to suffering humanity, we must stand for all the victims of
oppression in the Valley, regardless of their faith. If we stand for free
expression and dissent we must ask why the Pandits have been treated with indifference
and worse, by leftists (given some honourable exceptions). Failure to conjoin
the plight of the Pandits with all other victims of insurgency and state
repression is a betrayal of our humanity and weakens our political integrity. Furthermore,
it drives victims to other kinds of extremism, or to cynicism and despair. Why should
we abandon good causes to bad politicians?
Defending
democracy and the constitution
Indian politics has entered a phase of extreme danger –
from the standpoint of the laboring citizens who need democracy the most. It is
disturbing to see a section of India’s ruling class seeking to bypass and
undermine constitutional rule by validating a politics of hatred and
intimidation. Hindu Rashtra and Akhand Hindustan are mutually contradictory
ideals: if you want one you will automatically rule out the other. The relentless
tirade against Muslims, Christians and Communists by the Sangh Parivar will produce
the contrary of what they wish for (or say they do). The theories of Savarkar,
Hedgewar and Golwalkar are recipes for India’s disintegration. Extremism feeds
on itself by appearing in different forms.
Whatever be its flaws, the Indian Constitution is the
best consensual statute upon which to base a defence of democracy. Revolutionaries
should consider the possibility that a section of the Indian ruling class is
already bent upon doing away with democracy. So rather than a violent
revolution to overthrow the constitution, we need a non-violent mass awakening
to defend and implement it. But that will require serious re-thinking on
socialist politics. Since the ongoing student movement is committed to
defending the freedom of thought, there should be no problem with this.
The current student movement in JNU has received welcome support
from students and academics all over India and the world, in addition to the
support of many political parties. It can make a difference to Indian politics,
but politics is too important to be left to specialists of revolution. Authoritarianism
and hatred of dissent may be witnessed across the political spectrum - right,
left and ‘marketist’. It would be best if students made up their own minds
about political issues, and inaugurated an open dialogue with society. Incidentally,
the term ‘revolution’ means the completion of a circle. If you want
transformation, close the circle and get out of it. The only answer to
extremism is moderation, truthful speech and non-violence. Jai Ho.
Dilip Simeon
See also
