Pratap Bhanu Mehta - ‘Modi sarkar threatened democracy; that is the most anti-national of all acts’ // Sushil Aaron - The JNU crackdown could be the BJP’s undoing
NB: This is an excellent article on the Modi government's blatant ideological partisanship; and the Sangh Parivar's unrelenting assault on our minds and on democracy itself. The Government of India is fast becoming a manufactory for riot-production - much like the Sangh to whom it owes allegiance. Ultra-nationalism is the only weapon they have in their pre-election propaganda machine. We also need to remember the distinction between the platform of democracy and the politics of the groups occupying that platform. As Professor Mehta says (in his reference to the past record of the Congress and Left on on freedom of expression); dissent will have to be rescued from the politics of opportunism. This means that those who criticise the Hindutva brigade for their totalitarian ideology, violence and politics of intimidation, should remember that they will be judged by the same standards - and should refrain from indulging in similar kinds of political behaviour.
Some people believe a revolution is going on. They may belong to the sangh parivar, one or other jehadi lashkar, 'commando force', or 'people army'. In my view, the only revolution that is happening is the revolution of nihilism.
Some people believe a revolution is going on. They may belong to the sangh parivar, one or other jehadi lashkar, 'commando force', or 'people army'. In my view, the only revolution that is happening is the revolution of nihilism.
All democrats should stand with the resisting students as
long their aims remain constitutional and methods non-violent. At the same time
they should speak out against violations of
democratic norms by leftists and the Congress. The issue is not which parties
are to be seen supporting the JNU academic community. Such parties are obliged
to endorse the students demands if they wish to retain political credibility. What is at stake are the principles of university autonomy and freedom of expression.
We must distinguish the platform of democracy from the
groups that occupy it.
Here are some extracts from an article I had written in 2012:
The term radicalism (going to the root of things) is usually taken in a
positive sense, although ‘root’ explanations can be simplistic. But radicalism
cuts across the political spectrum. What Right, Left and ‘marketist’
radicalisms have in common is dogma and fanaticism. It is not a Party but a
platform of political moderation that is lacking. I do not wish to gloss over
the serious distinctions between various radical doctrines, but will focus here
on the similarities. These include the idea that independence is incomplete
until their dogma attains power; the view that the Constitution and democracy
should be used rather than respected (see below); sustained attempts towards
the ideological infusion of state institutions; a self-fulfilling vision of
civil society as a theatre of civil war; and the maintenance of armed groups
that can be ‘spontaneously’ deployed when required. This is the ground shared
by enemies and it tends to remain unspeakable. All we have is the refrain: ‘my
violence is better than your violence’….
The great delusion of our time is that
‘revolution’ is the totem of historical progress. There is indeed a
revolution underway, but not of the communist fantasy. It is the
revolution of nihilism, wherein ideas and virtues lose all meaning, human
beings become mere instruments, ‘action’ is always imbued with violence, and
everything is subsumed within a quest for absolute power. Those swayed by
Absolute Truths cannot understand that such language leads to an endless
oscillation between domination and chaos. From now on, no left-wing politics
can carry philosophical conviction if it fails to address the scourge of
violence. The sad truth is that a faction-ridden communist movement has proven
itself incapable of self-reflection when it comes to understanding its own
decline..
... what is at issue here is not the definition of patriotism, or who is or is not anti-national. Large sections of the media and intelligentsia are gullibly letting the question of nationalism frame the terms of debate... being anti-national is not a crime.. if the definition of nationalism is narrow and pinched-up, if it does not brook serious criticism, if it is aligned with tyranny, if it trades on an anti-intellectual ignorance, and its purpose is to unleash a frenzy of destructive passion, then being anti-national might even be an obligation... Make no mistake: the purpose of such a use of state power is to put all defenders of liberty, all radical critics of the state, on the defensive. Its purpose is to make traitors of all of us.
The arrest of Kanhaiya Kumar and the crackdown on political
dissent at JNU suggest that we are living under a government that is both
rabidly malign and politically incompetent. It is using nationalism to crush
constitutional patriotism, legal tyranny to crush dissent, political power to
settle petty scores, and administrative power to destroy institutions. The
instigation of this crackdown was the alleged chanting of some anti-national
slogans at JNU, and a meeting to mark the death anniversary of Afzal Guru.
But the government’s disproportionate response smacks of
tyranny of the highest order. It ordered the arrest of Kanhaiya Kumar, whose
speech had nothing anti-national about it. The fury with which the home
minister and HRD minister intoned on defending “Mother India” and wiping out
anti-national events, suggests several things. This was a political decision
taken at the highest levels of government. It represents an open declaration by
government that it will not tolerate any dissent. It clearly put on display
this government’s imperiously presumptuous claim that it has the monopoly on
nationalism. It was meant to be a display of brute force against a speech that
was not in any way an immediate instigation to violence.
The crackdown was an act designed to revel in ignorance of
the law of sedition. Indeed, it was insidious in its remarkable ability to make
ignorance the flaming torchbearer of nationalism. The government does not want
to just crush dissent; it wants to crush thinking, as its repeated assaults on
universities demonstrate.
They want to peddle a patriotism whose condition of
possibility is the wiping out of all thought. It is important not to confuse
several issues. Some of the students may have been deeply misguided in the
beliefs they hold. But a university is the space to debate them: yes, even the
hanging of Afzal Guru. But nothing they said amounts to a definition of
illegality that should befit a liberal democracy. As a society, we are also
losing sight of a basic distinction: the threshold of justification required for
using the coercive power of the state is not satisfied merely because someone
disagrees. In fact, the critique of what the students were doing has been
vitiated because it has resorted to force.
It is also important to remember that what is at issue here
is not the definition of patriotism, or who is or is not anti-national. Large
sections of the media and intelligentsia are gullibly letting the question of
nationalism frame the terms of debate. So, even at the risk of hyperbole, it is
a moment to assert that being anti-national is not a crime. Indeed, if the
definition of nationalism is narrow and pinched-up, if it does not brook
serious criticism, if it is aligned with tyranny, if it trades on an
anti-intellectual ignorance, and its purpose is to unleash a frenzy of
destructive passion, then being anti-national might even be an obligation.
Make no mistake: the purpose of such a use of state power is
to put all defenders of liberty, all radical critics of the state, on the
defensive. Its purpose is to make traitors of all of us. But besides being
malign, the government’s actions are politically stupid. In a narrow sense, the
crackdown fulfils the government’s agenda: polarise and confuse the population
by constantly debating nationalism; give full rein to the politics of
resentment that the government harbours against institutions it has declared
“Left.” But it does long-run damage to the government’s credibility in several
ways. It gives the opposition exactly the pretext to unite that they need. It
is hard to see the government being able to carry much of the country with it,
if it constantly uses such vendetta. It will not be a surprise if another
parliament session is the casualty of such overreaction.
And the opposition would be well within its rights. Dissent
is not something to be trifled with. As atrocious as the Congress and Left’s
record on freedom of expression is, this is an opportunity for them to signal a
new beginning. But they have to learn this lesson. The Congress and the Left
have been hiding behind their own self-declared virtue for far too long, to the
point where they created and used all the legal instruments of suppression the
BJP is deploying with such effect. The politics of dissent will have to be
rescued from the politics of opportunism. The crackdown signals an utter lack
of judgment in the government, where ministers manage to manufacture a national
crisis out of what were always, at best, minor affectations in student
politics.
The ABVP’s constantly seeking government interference in
university affairs on ideological grounds does not portend well for the future.
It has even given all those not on the Left a reason to rally with the “Left.”
JNU’s importance to national intellectual life had been waning; the BJP has
just resurrected it. Even from the point of view of their own critique of the
Left, this is an own goal. It suggests that the BJP is a party that cannot
repress its own base instincts, whose petty politics of resentment will always
subvert whatever long-term goals it might have.
he BJP has still not learnt any lesson from its fate over
the last two years. The toleration debate will overshadow everything else it
does, not because of some congenital anti-BJP conspiracy: it is because the
protection of freedom is the life blood of a democracy. And in this case, it is
the BJP that upped the ante. The BJP does not also understand one subtle point:
that unless there is real and immediate violence involved, a democracy that
cuts “anti-nationals” some slack is a robust democracy. For the fact that even
people who push the boundaries of expression are safe makes us all feel safe.
http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/jnu-sedition-case-kanhaiya-kumar-arrest-afzal-guru-event/
Sandipan Sharma: JNU row is a sham, BJP's nationalism is opportunism
Being a nationalist in the eyes of the 'patriotic' right is
impossible. One has to have the felicity of a chameleon to conform to its
ever-changing definition of nationalism. If patriotism is what the BJP does, if
patriotism is what the BJP patriot says, then the idea changes drastically with
results of elections.
The Sangh Parivar’s student wing across campuses has been
given the responsibility of raising the slogan of anti-nationalism wherever
democratic aspirations are expressed, or filing some complaint on an innocuous
issue & the HRD Ministry swoops in to act.
In the political lexicon of the Right, more dangerous than
the enemies at India's borders is the enemy within. In the rudimentary
shorthand of the sangh parivar, these Trojan horses are generically
described as anti-national or anti-India. Political wickedness in the sanghi
tradition is hyphenated: anti-national, pseudo-secular. The mechanical use of a
qualifying prefix - anti, pseudo - to make political virtue into political vice
has something to do with the poverty of Hindutva's vocabulary.
Rohan D' Souza: When dissent becomes sedition, democracy gasps for breath
The emperor's masks: 'apolitical' RSS calls the shots in Modi sarkar
Sushil Aaron - The JNU crackdown could be the BJP’s undoingRohan D' Souza: When dissent becomes sedition, democracy gasps for breath
The emperor's masks: 'apolitical' RSS calls the shots in Modi sarkar
“Why do holders of
high office so often act contrary to the way reason points and enlightened
self-interest suggests? Why does intelligent mental process seem so often not
to function?” asked the historian Barbara W. Tuchman in her classic, The March
of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam. That’s the question that comes to mind seeing the BJP’s
decision-making in recent weeks. Judging from the arrest of Kanhaiya Kumar, the
student’s union president of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) on sedition
charges amid a crackdown on the university, Narendra Modi’s party and
government seem incapable of clearheaded thinking about their own interests,
let alone the nation’s.
Take the BJP’s situation in recent months for example. The
party was roundly beaten in the Bihar elections in November. The CBI’s raid on
Arvind Kejriwal’s office in December backfired. The Pathankot counterterrorist
operation went badly. Dalit scholar Rohith Vemula’s suicide got the BJP about three
weeks of bad publicity last month, damaging its equation with university
audiences and Dalit constituencies nationwide. On the other hand, the business
class and the urban middle class that led a decisive vote for the BJP in May
2014’s national elections are fast losing hopes they had rested on PM Modi. The
stock market has gone back where it was during the so-called policy paralysis
phase of the previous UPA government. The rupee has been on a slide that
appears unlikely to reverse soon and retail inflation has touched a 17-month
high.
All this would ordinarily force governments to pipe down, to
wait out the adverse news cycle and use the time to make political deals to
conduct legislative business. The last thing a party under such circumstances
needs is to open another front in the perception battle.
Not the BJP. In a desperate bid to recover political
authority, it appears hell-bent on generating events disregarding the potential
for blowback. The government goes after JNU students, characterising dissenting
voices as anti-national, and wants to give police the right to enter the
university campus at any time and install surveillance cameras – while
simultaneously arresting Kumar, an eloquent student leader, whose stirring
speech on February 11 is currently going viral via YouTube.
No one in the party seems to have given a thought to the
optics of arresting Kumar, the son of an anganwadi worker who earns Rs. 3,000 a
month. Have the ABVP leaders who are evidently able to force the hand of
Cabinet ministers even done a background check on Kumar? Barely weeks after it
was perceived as abetting a talented Dalit scholar’s suicide, the BJP and its
government is now arresting the son of a paralysed farmer on dubious charges.
The BJP seems to have no idea how many social forces it is lining up against
itself in the course of the culture wars it is waging across the country.
There are other reasons why the crackdown on JNU will
backfire on the BJP. First, taking on
university students is bad for Modi’s image abroad. Amnesty has already issued
a strong statement. Expect The New York Times, The Guardian, The Economist and
others to follow. Having weathered the cloud over his past; he will not want
the present to be the cause for more interrogation.
Two, and more crucially, it isn’t easy to bully JNU -- it is
not Kashmir, for example, where the State can aim to end student activism and
impose surveillance without too many noticing or objecting. The right-wing
pro-BJP army on Twitter, which has a little idea about how social science works
and relentlessly lampoons JNU as a place for left-wing loonies, underestimates
the university’s influence and reach. Over the decades, JNU has produced
historians, economists, sociologists and political scientists who are highly
rated the world over.
Because India is a major object of research for academics
globally, the university’s academics and students have strong international
networks. The JNU campus is widely recognised as a space where a critical
temperament is nurtured, where young people mingle freely, encounter India’s
diversity, seek love, nerdily discuss ideas, and rail against organised power.
It is a distinct subculture forged within four walls, a place that the academic
elite has affection for and will want to protect, particularly when it is up against
State brutality. Hundreds – perhaps thousands – of JNU alumni work or have
previously worked in universities abroad and at home, not to mention those in
the media, industry and government. The BJP should weigh the merits of rousing
this collective. For brand visibility, cracking down on JNU is no different
than repressing the Sorbonne or the London School of Economics — a potential
world news event that can become a headache for governments.
Three, this crisis will further galvanise anti-BJP forces across
the country, including within the bureaucracy. It will further polarise student
opinion along Left and Right lines in major universities. Rahul Gandhi is
already getting a better reception from students than, say, a year ago. The
anti-JNU measures seems particularly thoughtless especially when it is
difficult to anticipate where the BJP’s next electoral victory will come from.
Excepting Assam, where it has some chance, the party is expected to lose in
West Bengal, Punjab and Kerala. It is up against anti-incumbency pressures in
Gujarat, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh, while the BSP is consolidating in UP.
Because of the university’s pan-India student body, developments in JNU will
feed into discourses in UP, and should the BJP lose there in 2017, we can
safely expect the country’s bureaucrats to hedge their bets, stall work and
look to new political masters on 2019’s horizon. Corporate India will also
sense the changing wind by then.
Four, the BJP cannot afford to be seen as using State power
to serve the purposes of its student body, the ABVP. Stoking unrest in various
universities on contestable grounds is to scare away the middle class and
underestimate the value the latter places on education. Part of India’s middle
class may be entertained by pro-BJP television news anchors, but the majority
of parents sending children to higher education do not have the luxury of
watching culture wars break out in universities, especially when they are being
orchestrated by muscle and State power rather than emerging through elective
choice and academic process.
To pursue this confrontational path with those who disagree
with it is to create a yearning for civil peace and a less intense public
sphere – which the Congress and regional parties will eagerly tap into even if
constituents are fully aware of their past dysfunctionality and hypocrisies.
The BJP has not only been unable to deliver on the economic
front but it is consistently finding ways to aggravate liberal sections of the
middle class each time they put on the TV. It is one thing to criticise
politicians for failing to deliver on promised services, quite another to
encounter those who offend sensibilities, activate moral frameworks on a daily
basis, and those who couldn’t be bothered to pay lip service to the ideals of
plurality, harmony, togetherness, and diversity which Indians instinctively
relate to. The BJP seems to be getting its social and cultural policy
dictated by the right-wing loonies that its Cabinet ministers follow on
Twitter. It is a bubble that will ultimately be the party’s undoing.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/editorials/why-the-jnu-crackdown-will-be-the-bjp-s-undoing/story-O71HsNH7z2aeC7B1OdzlZO.html
Also see:
RSS men attacked us, police forced us to forego legal action, say Sonepat Dalits
