5.INDIA RIDES SOCIALIST DONKEY: An Author and Two Books-5

5. INDIA RIDES SOCIALIST DONKEY
 An Author and Two Books -5


ECONOMICS OR POLITICAL ECONOMY?

We talk of "Economics" today, as if it is an independent entity. The country's annual economic blueprint , the Budget, is as much political as economic.  It requires a political majority in parliament to  pass it.. And many of the programs included in it are political in origin and intent. It is mainly designed for  political impact and gains , the outward justification being economic, which few understand. 
 An older generation knew  better: they spoke of "political economy". The self-styled 'economists', to get counted as scientists, call their indefinite outpourings 'economic science'; but the best of them end up as advisor to some political leader; otherwise they cozy up, warming  some chair in a university, which hurts (or helps) no one.. There is no economics without politics. As they used to say, "economics without politics has no fruits ". Every economic question or solution has a political angle, and a political price.

NEHRU'S SOCIALISM: BITTER FRUITS

Under Pundit Nehru, we had both economics and politics without fruit, or if you like, with bitter fruits! We became politically independent, and wanted to be economically self-reliant. Gandhi had given us a model, but Nehru did not take it. He had visited the Soviet Union in the 1920s and had fallen for their model of centralised  planning.His mind was closed. He was not receptive to new ideas and insights. He stayed with Gandhi but his mind was elsewhere.  As PM, he adopted the Soviet type planning.

 He did not trust foreign capital, and discouraged imports. He formally announced his policy as "socialistic pattern of society" and made the Second Five Year Plan its implementing tool. The State captured the commanding heights of the economy. It inaugurated an era of  import substitution, heavy industries, restraints on consumption, brutal taxation, heavy borrowing. This policy was later labelled by pundits as "import substitution industrialisation". It led to severe shortages, black marketing, tax evasion, black money, red tape, corruption, expansion of public sector without matching productivity, growth of bureaucracy, etc.The common man was asked to tighten his belt, till it snapped.

 External trade was officially controlled. The exchange rate was fiercely guarded as sacred.

Independent economists like P.T.Bauer of the London School of Economics, Gandhians like Richard B.Gregg, Indian think tanks like the Forum of Free Enterprise had warned against such massive investments on long term projects without matching productivity.

The Reserve Bank of India, fiercely more independent then and more  loyal to its purpose than to the political masters, warned of the danger of inflation it posed, and its unmanageability.

Sir Benegal Rama Rau, RBI governor even resigned, rather than support deficit financing on such (then ) massive scale. Nehru and his finance minister did not care.





 All the dire predictions came true. We ate up our sterling balances, inflation crossed historical levels, country suffered from serious shortages and high prices. But the govt did not mind,or bend, nor did its buffalo bureaucrats care.

Multilateral world trade had started expanding fast after the Second World War, but India chose to be inward looking and so did not take advantage. Our share  started shrinking, even as world trade was growing!

STIFLING INDIAN ENTERPRISE

In a way, distrust of foreign capital and capitalists could be justified as they had been instrumental in establishing the British rule. The British govt did not encourage Indian enterprise in a big way, in industry or manufacture. But Nehru's govt proved even worse: it stifled Indian initiative and enterprise at every level and opportunity.  Tharoor writes:

The mantra of self -sufficiency might have made some sense if,behind these protectionist walls,Indian business had been encouraged to thrive. Despite the difficulties placed in their way by the British Raj, Indian corporate houses like those of the Birlas,Tatas and Kirloskars had built impressive business establishments by the time of independene, and could conceivably have taken on the world. Instead they found themselves being hobbled by regulations and restrictions,inspired by the socialist mistrust of the profit motive,on every conceivable aspect of economic activity.

But there was more to it. While Nehru's economic wisdom would not allow him to think of economic life except via state planning and socialist control, these controls were actually administered by the army of bureaucrats at various levels. While the crony and crooked elements could always find a way through, it was only the honest elements which suffered. Even a petty official could thwart an enterprise. This provided the ground for the notorious politician-bureaucrat-businessman nexus which bred corruption. 

R.M.Lala has described in his books on the Tatas how they were troubled by these silly controls and petty officials. He has also recorded that while Nehru was a personal friend of J.R.D. Tata, he would never, never listen to anything about the economy or economics. He would literally look the other way!


COLLAPSE OF THE BRETTON WOODS

Greater  stupidity and consequential tragedy was in store. In August 1971, the international exchange system under IMF collapsed,when US President Nixon announced the suspension of dollar-gold standard. Countries adopted floating exchange rates. But India, under the influence of red comrades guiding Nehru's daughter, chose to defend the fixed exchange rate through a Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, revised in 1973, even as the fixed exchange system had collapsed worldwide! This was how distant our rulers were from economic reality. I always recall a dialogue from a Hindi movie in this connection: 

Raat bhar anda pakaya, phir bhi woh kacha reh gaya;

 mar gaye shayar, lekin ullo-ka-patha reh gaya

The cumulative result of nearly half a century of political dogmatism and economic foolishness , and insensitivity to world events and realities led to the collapse of 1991 when we became almost bankrupt on external account, with hardly enough reserves to finance two weeks' imports and the prospect of defaulting on our external debt. India had to borrow from IMF and like a Shylock, they wanted physical gold as security! 
India faced this humiliation due to Nehruvian policies. But what wise counsel could not achieve, an economic shock achieved: reversal of the rules.

NARASIMHA RAO TO THE RESCUE

Happily, there was no Nehru in power at the time. We had the level-headed and  lion-hearted Narasimha Rao as PM. He had to balance economic realities and opportunities against political prospects, leftist heat, indigenous rightist reaction.He managed to do a remarkable job, rescuing the country from the brink, though he could not go the whole hog in the line of reform. People talk of Man Mohan Singh as the FM, but I give no credit to him. He had his script written by the IMF. It was Narasimha Rao who took the whole risk, staking his political future, reversing Nehru's policies.- not thinkable in a country where Nehru was above criticism.
 I salute the man. It will take another 20 years for us to realise the full extent of his rescue act, against the odds he faced. 
Alas, the dynasty and its running dogs have tried to obliterate Rao's memory and his achievements.

SOCIALISTIC UNPRODUCTIVITY

Tharoor covers these years in chapter 7 of the book ( though I have furnished more inputs here.) It is rather easy to criticise post facto, and language helps a lot! Tharoor writes:

For most of the five decades since independence, India has pursued an economic policy of subsidizing unproductivity, regulating stagnation,and distributing poverty. We called this socialism.

Tharoor provides many instances of such glaring unproductivity, stagnation and waste. For instance, the govt Hindustan Fertilizer Factory in Halda, set up in 1986,employing 1550 workers, had 

"a canteen,a personnel department, and an accounts department. There are promotions, job changes, pay rises,audits, and in-house trade unions. Engineers, electricians, plumbers and painters  maintain the equipment with a care that is almost surreal.."

[ Stephen Wagstyl, Report in Financial Times ]

BUT IT HAD PRODUCED NO FERTILIZER  UP TO 1994, 7 years after it was set up at a cost of $1.2 billion! 

In 1986, SAIL paid 2,47,000 people to produce 6 million tons of finished steel, while 10,000 people employed by the Pohan Steel Company of South Korea produced 14 million tons! [ But then remember, India is also heavily populated, and people had to find work or jobs! The standard western notion of productivity need not be our yardstick!]

STUPID TAXATION, RECKLESS BORROWING 

Tharoor writes with great feeling and wit:

India taxed its businesses into starvation, and its citizens into submission; at one point the cumulative taxes on some Indians totaled more than 100% of their income....

When it could not tax any more, the government borrowed money, piling up higher and higher deficits.

Taxation and borrowing, like the two blades of the scissors cut the pockets and throats of hardworking and harassed Indians, while bureaucrats, politicians, contractors, unscrupulous businessmen could flourish. No wonder corruption reached global levels!



 Economic growth was slow, compared to some other countries in Asia  during the same period and an economist Raj Krishna called it 'the Hindu rate of growth', though it had more to do with unIndian socialism than Hindu religion.

Tharoor surveys the economic scene, showing how successive govts failed,or revelled in folly, how even Rajiv Gandhi "left India's fundamental economic problems unaltered." The so called reform has not been thorough or really substantial.

WHAT TO DO?

When it comes to a prescription, one is not sure of what to do.There are so many conflicting theories and approaches. Ideas are floating that it is an interdependent world we live in, that we can be politically independent but have to be economically interdependent. Reform or liberalization has taken the form of Globalization. But what does it mean? Coca colonisation?One can summon up economists, Nobels and Harvards, and others in between,  on both sides of the argument. But there is now a consensus among independent economists and observers  that globalisation is not a universal panacea, that it has its discontents, that it does not help all countries. Surprisingly, even the US under Trump has found that globalisation hurts  !

I believe conventional economics has become bankrupt.It is like a bottle of medicine, with the date of expiry long past. India's growth will not happen with more KFCs, McDonalds, Cokes and Pepsis, Fords and Toyotas or their Indian equivalents. It will happen only through the capital, enterprise and initiative of India Uninc, as Prof. Vaidyanathan has shown. Provided we do not neglect our agriculture and rural industries like handloom.

Published by Westland,2014. Cover shown for educational purposes,


But this is not what Tharoor covers. He is more on conventional lines, left v right, etc, and he is clueless! ( It was 20 years ago!) But his narrative is engaging. 

DOES DEMOCRACY GUARANTEE BREAD?
CAN YOU EAT FREEDOM?

Tharoor writes quite  a bit on the theme whether democracy in India does or can solve the problem of bread. Indira Gandhi answered it with a NO in the form of the Emergency in June,1975. It was not meant to solve the economic problem, but to end the political opposition to Indira Gandhi. It had its supporters among the educated, the middle class, the bureaucrats, many ordinary citizens who had been troubled by endless and directionless political strife and  empty sloganeering. I remember even Girilal Jain, editor of The Times of India had welcomed it , as he did not want the destabilization of the establishment.But for the excesses of Sanjay Gandhi, the Emergency could have gone on.
As it happened, Indira Gandhi misjudged the mood, called an election and lost. But the Opposition, even with veteran Morarji at the helm, could not last in spite of a massive mandate. Indira Gandhi bounced back, and continued from where she had left off! But the question still is: does democracy solve the economic problem effectively? There is no definite answer. It depends on the quality of the leadership.

POLITICAL CLASS: GOOD AND BAD

Tharoor notes the changes that have occurred in the political class but the quality has fallen. 

"...the poor quality of the  country's political leadership offers less cause for celebration. Our rulers increasingly reflect the qualities required to acquire power,rather than the skills to wield it for the common good. The democratic process has attracted figures who can win elections but who have barely a nodding acquaintance with ethics or principles, and are untroubled by the need for either."

There is deep rooted corruption in all walks of life. Tharoor notes many individuals who fought the system but corruption has stayed.


POST-INDEPENDENCE GENERATION

Tharoor reflects on many things, light and serious, political, social, and economic. He makes many interesting observations on many things. But I would like to conclude this review with two of his interesting observations. 

The independence generation, newly freed of the incubus of colonialism,was deeply mistrustful of the outside world. After all, the British had come to trade and stayed on to rule; foreign investors were therefore seen as the thin end of a neo-imperialist wedge. The result was stagnation and unemployment... India's youth have no colonial hang-ups to hobble them; they can look with confidence, not fear, at what the outside world has to offer them.

This is fair enough, written twenty years ago.. But the quality of our education is poor. The brighter ones go abroad, while over 60% of our college graduates are stated to be unemployable. And I fancy to think, if the quality of our education improves, even more will be found unemployable, for job comes with quota, not quality of education!

Today, we may not have objection to foreign investment on grounds of political dogma. But what about the economics? What are the ground realities? What do companies like Coke or Pepsi do? Exploit our ground water and sell it at unconscionably high prices, while the citizen lacks safe drinking water? What does KFC do? Sell stuff fried which the youth of America revolted against- that is why it changed the name to KFC- this is a case in Management text books! The American style departmental stores drives the local grocers out of business. Is this the kind of development we want for our youth in the name of reform or globalization?

SOFT POWER

Tharoor makes another interesting observation. It is about "soft power".

India must determine where its strength lies as it tries to make the twenty-first century its own.Much of the conventional analyses.... rely on the all- too -familiar indices of the GDP.... But if there is one attribute of independent India to which observers have not paid enough attention, it is a quality which India would do well to cherish and promote in today's world: its "soft power."

"Soft power" consists of those attributes that attract and persuade others to adopt the country's agenda, rather than relying purely on the dissuasive or coercive "hard power" of military force.

He gives examples such as Bollywood cinema which is popular across the globe;our classical music,dance and art; work of our fashion designers;Indian cuisine; Indian film winning Oscar nomination or Indian book winning a foreign prize. These are all valid examples. Tharoor does not mention, but our family system, marriage rituals , our philosophy, and above all  Yoga and Hare Krishna are also examples of our soft power!

Soft power is a concept developed by Joseph Nye of Harvard University to describe the ability to attract and co-opt rather than by coercion (hard power), using force or giving money as a means of persuasion. Soft power is the ability to shape the preferences of others through appeal and attraction.

Joseph Nye coined the term in a 1990 book, Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. In this book, he wrote: “when one country gets other countries to want what it wants-might be called co-optive or soft power in contrast with the hard or command power of ordering others to do what it wants.”

He further developed the concept in his 2004 book, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. The term is now widely used in international affairs by analysts and statesmen. 

[ Published by KW Publishers Pvt.Ltd. Book cover shown here for educative purposes. The above extract is from Wikipedia ]

Come to think of it, this is not so novel. After all, the British made many of their things attractive here by indirect and gentle persuasion! How many of us read English literature in preference to our own, even now! We still sing of the Daffodils or the Brook. How many sing of our jasmine or Jamna now? The avowed objective of Macaulay's education system was to make Indians ape the Englishman- this without coercion, violence , but with the simple and single instrument of education, and linking it to employment! [  Linking it to job-was that not indirect coercion, still?]

Teddy Roosevelt quoted a West African proverb : talk softly, but carry a big stick. It has been so in many cases we have known. It will be interesting if India can be only soft and yet successful! Right now, India's soft power is nowhere near what the Western countries wield.

PLURALISM TARNISHED?

But when Tharoor says that our famed pluralism has been tarnished by the Gujarat incidents or Ayodhya, he is off the mark, talking without thinking. The pluralism of which he talks is the one obtained by bullying the majority by  governments - foreign and Indian- which exalted minorityism for political gains, and just tolerated or suffered the majority. Hindus have run for a thousand years without unity  and protection. Ayodhya and Gujarat are messages that Hindus will not run further. They will take no more insults. Hindus cannot be taken for granted anymore. Hindus do not want to take  historical revenge, but they do not want perpetration or repetition of historical injustices and insults, either. 

CONCLUSION

But for these few kinks, which arise from his need for political correctness, the book is interesting and makes engaging reading. Many parts are not so relevant now but  we interact with a thinker, a rare breed among Indian politicians.  Let us see how long  he lasts in our politics, and in the party he has chosen to be with, given his critical and unflattering views on Gandhi, Nehru and the Gandhi family. He already lost his ministerial position.

For those who have followed our economic discourse and public affairs for  60 years, Tharoor's book is only a refresher of some of the elements;it provides no new insights. Its criticism of Nehruvian economics is rightist, but a pale echo of what Rajaji used to write from the mid 50s. While Tharoor has the benefit of hindsight, Rajaji was reacting as things were shaping up. Rajaji could also see the rising totalitarian trend, culminating in the Emergency though a kind providence had spared him the agony of actually witnessing it. The social criticism of Tharoor is standard left-pseudo secular stuff. But Tharoor excels in his assessment of the dynasty and its misdeeds and missed opportunities. The value of his book is that it provides a continuous narrative on the first half century of post-independence life, whose study would benefit the post-independence and post-1991 generation, provided the pseudo secular rant is moderated by a more balanced approach..

4. MINORITYISM AS SECULARISM :An Author and Two Books -4

4. MINORITYISM AS SECULARISM: An Author and Two Books-4
     
FOUR MAJOR DEBATES

Sashi Tharoor mentions 4 major debates facing India at the end of the 20th Century: 

- bread versus freedom debate : Can democracy which is supposed to confer freedom also guarantee bread for everyone ie freedom from poverty? Should democracy be dispensed with in pursuit of economic prosperity?

[ Indira Gandhi imposed Emergency!]

- Centralisation versus federalism debate : how much of state or regional autonomy and how much central control? How to tackle fissiparous tendencies based on language, region, etc?

[This issue has cropped up as our Constitution makers were basically admirers of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, and they continued what the British had provided. The British had destroyed our own systems of republican governance, which gave full autonomy to local units, up to village level.]

- pluralism versus fundamentalism debate: 

- Coca-colonisation debate or globalisation versus self reliance.

Both the way the problem is posed and answer attempted  are dictated by the intellectual prejudices of the person . There is hardly a neutral debate.

SECULARISM DEBATE

Taking the third debate for the present, Tharoor poses the question:

Is the secularism established in India's Constitution, and now increasingly attacked as a westernized affectation, essential in a pluralistic society, or should India, like many other Third World countries,find refuge in the assertion of its own religious identity?

I think Tharoor here is confused, terribly confused. Is secularism the same  as pluralism?  Is the secularism as found in the Constitution the same as what is being practiced? Are critics of secularism attacking it for its  supposedly western roots or for its grotesque application in practice? What is fundamentalism? Are the  so called critics of secularism demanding asserting religious identity for all?
Here, Tharoor exhibits all the prejudices of a conventional Indian   self-styled  political secularist . So, some fundamental points are in order.

1. What does he mean by secularism? Is it of the negative Nehruvian type - being west oriented agnostic indifference? Is it the State being separate from religious influence, equally distant from all, and allowing space for all? Or is it like what the Indian masked leftist-secularists practise: attack Hindus by all means , but exalt other religions and placate them in all possible ways?

Tharoor knows that Hindus have always welcomed people of all religions and given them shelter here. They have never persecuted any one on the basis of religion as the Christians did and do, as the Muslims did and do? Does this not amount to de facto secularism in practice long before we got a written Constitution ?

Respect for all faiths is the true Indian form of secularism. It is indigenous. It faces problems because the other 'faiths' especially the two major monotheistic religions do not accept it and reciprocate the spirit. 

2. Tharoor's use of the word 'fundamentalism' calls for condemnation, if it is sought to be applied to Hindus. Tharoor himself writes that Hinduism has no one code, no one interpretation, no one authorised intepreter, etc. Fundamentalism is a phenomenon of the Muslims, where it is the Wahhabi way that is sought to be imposed on all Muslims with Saudi money power. Does it then make sense to talk of Hindu fundamentalism?

3. It is the fundamental belief of the two monotheistic religions - Christianity and Islam- that they alone are true, and all others are false. They claim it as their fundamental duty to convert others. Does Tharoor agree with this? If so, how does he reconcile this with the Hindus' right not to get converted or resist conversion?  Will he agree with reverse conversion? Why then are the secularists shivering and shouting at "Ghar Wapsi"?

4. Can he cite one leading Muslim or Christian authority in India who admits openly that all religions are true and valid, that Hinduism is true and valid? It is only Hindu fools who are pleading for the other religions! 

5. If the secularism that is practised now is according to the Constitution, why is the govt running /controlling Hindu temples, and not the mosques and the churches? Is this secularism Constitutional or Tharoorian, or Nehruvian ?


6. Tharoor, like all pseudo secularists, is misrepresenting the nature of the debate. I am not sure whether it is deliberate, or a slip.
The current controversy is about fundamental nationalism, not religious fundamentalism. 
He should introspect why this is happening now.

FUNDAMENTAL NATIONALISM V RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM 

When our national leaders fought for Freedom, they fought for all, including Muslims in India. Up to 1937, Indian Muslims were also nationalistic, supporting the Congress. Jinnah and the Muslim League could not garner support. But the foolishness of Gandhi in withdrawing from the Provincial Govts in 1939, the Quit-India Call, ill-advised parleys with Jinnah in 1945, the open and clandestine support of the British for Jinnah- all resulted in boosting the prospects of Jinnah-led Muslim league whose only demand and program after 1940 was the creation of separate Pakistan for the Muslims.   They eminently succeeded. 


Now, it can be presumed that all those who were more conscious of their Muslim identity than their Indian heritage and identity opted for Pakistan. And all those who remained in India were Indian nationalists.
 However, to secure for itself a solid vote bloc, the Congress indulged in pampering  and placating them, not because they were Indians, but primarily because they were  Muslims and minorities. They thus had two privileges combined. Has the Congress at any time reminded the Muslims that they have a duty to be nationalistic?  Tharoor himself records (on page 122):

"Atal Behari Vajpayee, the BJP leader,... put it bluntly to The New York Times : "If you go on talking about "Muslims. Muslims", and 'minorities, minorities', you injure the Hindu psyche. People start asking, 'Is it going to be a crime to be a Hindu in this country ?'"

 secularissuesindia.wordpress.com
To seek votes of Muslims as Muslims  is  Congress secularism!

So Tharoor should know that the fundamentalism, if any,  that Hindu nationalists are harping on, is about fundamental nationalism ie about basic national identity and not Hindu religious fundamentalism.

 Even this is a reaction to circumstances. For the last thousand years, Hindus have only been reacting.But this is how the so called self-styled leftist loony secularists deliberately misstate the terms of the debate.

The question then is about our national identity, It is: "Who is an Indian?",  and not, "Who is a Hindu ?".

WORLDWIDE CRISIS OF NATIONAL IDENTITY
DUE TO MUSLIM INFLUX

This question of national  identity is not peculiar to India. It is troubling all Western nations in various degrees due to the problem of Muslim immigrants and refugees and their attitude to secular governance. 
The secular liberal nations do admit them but after an initial stage, the Muslims refuse to integrate with the local population, follow the local civilian laws,even as they enjoy the fruits of modern welfare states, and assert their religious identity above national loyalty and demand administration of justice and civil law according to Islamic principles.
 In short, the presence of the Muslims in secular countries leads to the existence of two nations in each State.
 "Two nations" : does it sound familiar? That is what Jinnah said about Hindus and Muslims living together! It is now happening all over the world! The true Muslim colour is showing!

All over the world,  for the Muslim, his religious identity stands above all else! His very minority status is to assert his religious identity! A Muslim never forgets he is a Muslim first. He has no loyalty to any country, for his source is Mecca, his language is Arabic. Sir V.S.Naipaul put it bluntly:

Islam, he claimed, had both enslaved and attempted to wipe out other cultures."It has had a calamitous effect on converted peoples. To be converted you have to destroy your past, destroy your history. You have to stamp on it, you have to say 'my ancestral culture does not exist, it doesn't matter.

Sir Vidia claimed what he called "this abolition of the self demanded by Muslims was worse than the similar colonial abolition of identity. It is much, much worse in fact... You cannot just say you came out of nothing.

www.theguardian.com/world/2001
4 October 2001


All countries where Muslims live in some numbers face this problem- conflict of identity. One reason why Britain decided to exit the European Union is that British people did not want to accept Muslim refugees in unlimited numbers which they saw as threatening their core identity as Britishers. 

Professor Anna Bono of the University of Turin, an expert in African migration, revealed, “In the countries of sub-Saharan Africa there are advertisements inciting people to go to Italy, explaining that everything here is free.” Half of the prostitutes in Italy are Nigerian.

The left-leaning European leaders who authorized the flood of refugees in the interests of forced “diversity” are now experiencing the consequences. Compelling two cultures to merge, where one’s holy book instructs its believers to destroy nonbelievers, will ultimately destroy Western civilization.

Townhall.com December 27, 2016.

Samuel Huntington had said at the end of the cold war that there would indeed be a clash of civilizations. Every religion and even every system that opposes religion does embody a way of life. They could be incompatible in practice, as Muslims are proving.

INDIA'S BLIND POLITICIANS

Indian politicians calling themselves secular refuse to see the problem, as Gandhi in his day refused to see the problem.This is a peculiar blind spot  of Indian politicians.
 Hindus and Muslims had fought the British together as Indians  in 1857. But barely after 60 years, Gandhi was instrumental in fostering and strengthening the separatist Muslim identity by supporting the Khilafat movement. Khilafat went phut , but the Muslim identity stayed, and grew to get Pakistan within 30 years.

 In the same way, Indira Gandhi fostered Bindranwale till the Khalistan movement grew and she had to engage the army to suppress it, but paid for it with her life.

 Indian politicians have fostered and strengthened the separate Muslim identity for their own narrow electoral purposes. They have not understood that according to Muslim law  Muslims cannot be subject to non-Muslim rulers ie infidels.
 I challenge Tharoor or any other self-proclaimed secularist to disprove this statement.

The obstacle to genuine secularism in India is therefore the pampered attitude of Muslims themselves, their obstruction to the smooth flow of civil law. The Shah Banu case and the subsequent legislation, and the ban on Salman Rushdie's book Satanic Verses,[in obedience to conservative Muslim elements ], the hesitation about Common Civil Code, the reluctance to ban beef ( which even Akbar did ) are all obstacles in the way of true secularism. They stem from the fact that the Muslims do not want to integrate, gracefully accepting the natural majority.

MINORITYISM IS NOT SECULARISM

What Indian nationalists demand is not that Muslims and Christians become Hindus, but that they become Indians ie citizens with loyalty to India as their country.
 The Christians have a problem because of their conversion. The Muslims have their problem because they do not want to be subject to non-Muslims who are infidels.
India is Hindu country with Hindu majority, and it is both foolish and dastardly for so called secularists to ask the Hindus to forget, dilute or give up  their identity, while strengthening the minorities in theirs! What results is minorityism, not secularism. 

socialissuesindia.wordpress.com


Ask Muslims whether they accept India as their fatherland or motherland. Ask them whether they sing Jana Gana Mana as the national anthem. Ask them whether they sing Vande Mataram as the national song. Ask them whether they salute the national flag. And then talk of secularism.

NATIONAL IDENTITY : 
Problem created by the Congress Party

The question of national identity cannot be ignored. After the states of Italy in the peninsula were unified into modern Italy in the 19th century, the novelist-statesman Massimo  D'Azeglio wrote: 
"We have made Italy. Now we must make Italians."






Congressmen have reduced us to such a situation today. Indians fought for freedom as Indians. Congressmen classified them as Hindus and Muslims. Even after the Muslims separated with Pakistan, Congressmen persisted with catering to the separatist Muslim identity.

They divided the country into linguistic states so that Hindu Indians are first asserting their identity on linguistic basis: Tamil , Malayaali, Bengali, Kannadiga, Gujarati, Marathi, etc. It is only the NRIs who talk of themselves as Indians first (Tharoor is a great example!)

All that nationalists are asking is for all Indians to  assert themselves as Indians first. Does this amount to fundamentalism, Mr. Tharoor?

HISTORY AND CULTURE

In any consideration of nationalism and national identity, history and culture play a part.Ernest Renan, 19th century French savant who wrote on the subject deeply wrote:

A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things, which in truth are but one, constitute this soul or spiritual principle. One lies in the past, one in the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is present- day consent, the desire to live together, the will to perpetuate the value of the heritage that one has received in an undivided form. Man, Gentlemen, does not improvise. The nation, like the individual, is the culmination of a long past of endeavours, sacrifice, and devotion. Of all cults, that of the ancestors is the most legitimate, for the ancestors have made us what we are. A heroic past, great men, glory (by which I understand genuine glory), this is the social capital upon which one bases a national idea. To have common glories in the past and to have a common will in the present; to have performed great deeds together, to wish to perform still more-these are the essential conditions for being a people. One loves in proportion to the sacrifices to which one has consented, and in proportion to the ills that one has suffered. One loves the house that one has built and that one has handed down. The Spartan song-"We are what you were; we will be what you are" -- is, in its simplicity, the abridged hymn of every patrie. (homeland)

Ask the Muslims whether they agree with this view. Ask the Muslim clerics whether they agree. And then talk of  true secularism.

PLURALISM DOES NOT MEAN
PRIVILEGING SOME MINORITIES

A  pluralistic society can flourish only when the minorities respect the history and culture of the majority and are prepared to make adjustments. They cannot say that their religion is all, and the majority has to keep adjusting ! A Nationalist cannot sacrifice national identity on the altar of so called secularism, as defined by the west oriented leftists or minorities and their champions. There is no question of minority in respect of national identity.
 If you want to live in Switzerland or England, you adopt and respect their national identity, while practising your religion as permitted in law. If you don't like their law, don't stay there ! It is that simple. Should it be different in respect of Indian National identity?

Minorityism in the guise of secularism should be kicked out.

IS GANGA A MERE CULTURAL SYMBOL?

Tharoor cites  how Nehru converted Ganga's  religious significance into a force for cultural unity and states:

There is nothing in Nehru's use of the Ganga as  a symbol that could alienate an Indian Muslim or Christian.

He accuses the forces of Hindutva of  "narrowly appropriating such powerful national metaphors  for a dogmatic version of their faith". This is height of stupidity.
 Hindus do not have to appropriate a thing which is already theirs for ages.
 It is invaders and conquerors like Muslims and Christians and their descendants, followers of  alien faiths,  who have to accept them as THEIR cultural rather than religious symbols.

 A Hindu has no hesitation in regarding Mecca or Lourdes as their  religious symbol, and does not deceive himself that they are mere cultural symbols.  Many a Hindu instinctively venerates them, even if he does not follow those religions !  A Hindu does not hate or deny other religions. Followers of  the two monotheistic religions cannot do that because they are officially taught that theirs is the only true religion. They will not fall to the subterfuge of regarding Ganga as a cultural symbol. What is the culture of which it is a symbol? These are the ways in which the pseudo secularists deceive themselves and fool others. Are they so blind that they cannot see this plain truth?

 I really wonder in what mood or under what stars Tharoor wrote this stupid stuff! Tharoor should also know that for Hindus, Nehru is no authority to interpret their religious symbols or to tell them how it should be done. Ganga represents the inseparable unity of Hindu  religion and culture.  Nehru was an agnostic, not a practising Hindu. He had no business playing with Hindu religious matters. A thousand Nehrus cannot divest Ganga of its religious significance.


This part of the book is regular pseudo-secularist rant and unsatisfactory. Tharoor bats for the Muslims and Christians. He takes them for granted. Let him show how many Muslims and Christians accept this stand. 

For a thousand years and more, Hindus  (and India )have been losing because they did not consciously  assert or pursue their common Hindu identity for political purposes.  Gandhi and company destroyed the common Hindu identity. Now some vested interests are preventing even a common national identity from asserting itself. They misuse the name of secularism to disguise their agenda. Nationalists should beware. 
Fundamental Nationalism cannot be compromised.

2. INDIAN THALI: An Author and Two Books -2

2.  INDIAN THALI : 
An Author and Two Books -2
     

An Era of Darkness is Tharoor's latest book.

The other book I take up is one of his early ones, the twenty year old " INDIA: From Midnight to the Millennium and Beyond".
It deals with India at the time of the fiftieth year of Independence.


Cover from the HarperCollins edition, 1997. Shown here for educational purpose.







MIXED BAG

If the earlier book was objective and factual, this book combines history, personal anecdotes , subjective reflections, and personal prejudices. Naturally, it is like sand and sugar mixed.
Tharoor is unduly disturbed by some events (Ayodhya ). rightly indignant about others (Shah Banu, ban on Sa,man Rushdie's book), unreasonably antagonistic (Hindutva.)  .
 His judgement on Gandhi, Nehru, Indira and her family is fair and  historically correct. His treatment of other issues is  well-informed but coloured by his secularist prejudices (or pretensions) and out of date scholarship. And some plain muddle-headedness as in dealing with Antonia Maria, called Sonia Gandhi.

GLARING SLIPS

Can  Sonia  Be Indian, really?

Some of his slips are glaring. For instance, he reveals in the Preface to the 2007 edition his annoyance at the opposition in the country to  the idea of Sonia Gandhi's elevation as PM on the ground of her foreign origins. 
In this connection he says that some Indian nationalists convened Indian National Congress in 1885 and even chose  a Scotsman, Allan Octavian Hume as its president. Actually, it was Hume and his friends in the Theosophical movement who thought of the INC. It was not a political party at that time demanding freedom. 
Its aim was to obtain a greater share in the government for educated Indians, and to engage in some dialogue with the Raj. [Hush puppy syndrome ] The first meeting was convened with the approval of the Viceroy, Lord Dufferin. 

Tharoor also refers to Annie Besant. True, foreigners like Annie Besant and Sister Nivedita were accepted and revered by Indians because they genuinely loved and fought for India!

What did Sonia do for India?






 MARIA: HOW DO YOU SOLVE THE PROBLEM?

The problem with Sonia is that she is an Italian national and citizen which is inalienable. She might have married an Indian and acquired Indian citizenship- that is by the way. But she is enjoying dual citizenship. She is not really or solely Indian by birth or citizenship. She is riding two horses.
 We Indians do not want a foreign citizen to become our PM.

Mother of Sri Aurobindo Ashram surrendered her French citizenship to become an Indian citizen. Has Sonia or her children done that? Have they at least surrendered their Italian passports?  If Tharoor does not understand this simple point, all his education is a waste.

HINDI, NATIONAL LANGUAGE ? NONSENSE

He  refers to the then PM Deve Gowda  delivering the Independence Day address in 1996 in Hindi  " India's national language". This is pure bull shit. Hindi never became the sole national language. If Deva Gowda made his address in Hindi, it was to keep his gaddi; it shows his lack of courage to address the nation in his mother tongue Kannada which is also a National language! This shows how south Indians have to succumb to Hindi imperialism.
 Independence has changed our masters, not really conferred freedom! 

" there is nothing on record to suggest that any provision has been made or order issued declaring Hindi as a national language of the country.”

 " in the constitution, Hindi was declared as an official language and not a national language."

This is from a judgement of Gujarat High Court in 2010.


 DO INDIANS LACK IDENTITY ?

Talking of an Indian identity, Tharoor says that "there has never been an archetypal Indian to stand alongside the archetypal Englishman or Frenchman."  If America is called a melting pot, he says India is a" thali, a selection of sumptuous dishes in different bowls ".

This is an outrageous statement to make. It shows how completely alien to true Indian tradition Tharoor is.

The problem of identity is a modern one, created by foreigners and westernised Indian loonies.
Indian religion has no name. Foreigners called us Hindus, and our religion became Hinduism. 
Those who lived in India, Bharatvarsha, from Sethu to Himalayas are Indians.Does one assert one's identity in one's one home? This problem of identity vexes foreigners and foreignised Indians.

G.K.Chesterton once said that one is defined by one's critics. Your critics say something , so you have to define your position.
Likewise, nationalists have to react.

 The thali is not only the many bowls it contains. Even the thali contains the main dish which is rice or roti or puri, the other bowls only containing side dishes. So, the question is who is Indian in India?

This is what Hindu nationalism is trying to address. This is what the self-styled secularists pretend not to understand.

 Can someone who refuses to sing the national anthem or the national song or salute the national flag be considered Indian by any definition? Does someone who has his loyalties and sight fixed on a foreign land or foreign authority be considered Indian? Does anyone who does not respect its history and culture become an Indian?
 The so called Hindu nationalists do not say every one should embrace Hinduism ( as Muslims and Christians demand that everyone be converted to their faith) but that everyone should accept India as their motherland. 
Tharoor quotes Veer Savarkar  as describing a Hindu as one "who regards this land ...from the Indus to the seas as his fatherland as well as his Holyland." What is wrong with this?

 Today, this question of national identity is troubling every Western country where the Muslim refugees are flooding because Muslims have no notion of loyalty to any motherland or fatherland! This question is real, and cannot be brushed aside by secularist pretenders or preachers.

HINDU NATIONALISM

Why has there been a resurgence in Hindu nationalism or assertion of a Hindu identity?
 After the Mutiny in 1857, when Hindus and Mulsims joined together  as Indians, and fought them,the British govt deliberately created a divide between the two communities , setting the Muslims against the Hindus.
 Gandhi foolishly supported the Khilafat movement (which had nothing to do with India's independence) and thus strengthened the separatist Muslim identity.
 Govts after Independence catered to the Muslim identity to catch their votes. The term minority  used in the Constitution is applied  mainly to religious groups. Thus the Muslim identity as a separate group has been carefully preserved, nurtured and strengthened by the ruling clique.  The majority Hindus are discriminated against. All social legislation has been aimed at the Hindus.

But there has also been another phenomenon. All over the world  Wahhabism- the fundamental form of Islam has been on the rise since the 70s. This is promoted by the Saudi regime. They are up in arms against the Shias , and also against other forms of Sunni Islam. They are also against other religions. They are also against 'secular' regimes of the West. This has created a base for assertion of  identity in most countries. Hindus alone do not consciously assert their identity.  This is what the Hindutva movement seeks to address.This is a historical moment in the evolution of modern Indian republic. 
It is simply foolish for some writer to say that in  a country where 80% of the people are Hindus, there has not been  an archetypal Indian!. The problem is that the looney secularists do not want to admit the existence of the archetype because it is HINDU! 


Before Gandhi entered the scene, the country was reverberating with the cries of Bande Mataram, as at the time of the Bengal Partition in 1905. After Gandhi came, the slogan became Mahatma Gandhi ki Jai, Bharat Mata was forgotten. Then even Bharat  was cut. That is a tragedy. Nationalists will not tolerate further meddling with the national identity in the name of Gandhi or any ism.

 Time has come for Indians to be conscious of being Indians!

INDIA : SECULAR STATE OR SECULAR COUNTRY ?
Do Hindus have a country for them?

To call India a secular country makes Hindus Stateless persons. Hindus are deprived of their natural, historical motherland. 
Govt may be secular- in the sense of being neutral about all religions. But how can a country which is historical home to Hindus, constituting 80% of the population be secular? England is the home of Anglo-Saxons though its govt may be secular, ie not affiliated to any religion. In fact, the so called secular govt of India runs Hindu temples, but calls the country itself secular! 
The Hindutva idea covers all these aspects though its advocates do not articulate matters well.
 To say that there has been no archetypal Indian is a travesty of facts. This is the idea of those who say that India has never been a nation. India has been the land of Indians, the Hindus. The others have all come here as adventurers, conquerors, looters, traders,refugees, wanderers, etc. Hindus have accommodated all who chose to settle here. They are all Indians provided they accept India as their all, and not look beyond its borders for veneration or inspiration. Europe divided long ago on the question of loyalty to an extra-territorial Pope.

Time has come for Indians to assert their identity precisely because some so called west-oriented scholars question it or even deny it!

AYODHYA : LEFTIST LIES AND DAMNED LIES

Tharoor has three other aberrations. One is about Ayodhya. He cites some so called Hindu historians without naming them that Ram never existed as a historical person, that there is no historical evidence that the Babri Masjid existed on the exact spot of Ram's birth, etc. This is the height of idiocy and unhistorical arrogance.

 The vital question is not whether Ram existed, but whether belief in Ram existed! [Is it not so in respect of, say,  Jesus Christ , too? ]

Obviously, it has existed for at least 2000 years as evidenced by Valmiki's Ramayana and its versions in the regional languages including Tamil, references to Rama in more ancient sources, the Ramayana story in Buddhism, and in other countries! And its representations in arts, music, folk culture, etc.

 Besides,enough archaeological evidence has been unearthed about the existence of an ancient structure on the spot of the Babri structure and it was submitted to the court by ASI - Archaeological Survey of India.
 All those so called historians who disputed the facts were ill-informed, prejudiced leftists and their bluff was called in the Court proceedings. 
Mainstream newspapers like The Times of India or The Hindu
 [ which are committed to the leftist cause of the pseudo intellectuals and secularists] did not have the courage or honesty to report the full facts or court proceedings.
 Tharoor should simply look at the court proceedings before he talks on the subject.

The ASI proceeded with its excavations and submitted its findings to the court in September 2003. Its report revealed the presence of a circular shrine, dateable to 7–10th century and a "massive structure", 50 metres by 30 metres, built in three structural phases during the 11–12th century.

In its 2010 verdict on the Ayodhya dispute, the Allahabad High Court criticised the professionalism of the expert witnesses who had appeared on behalf of the pro-mosque parties. On Suraj Bhan, the court felt that he had made vague statements and had failed to provide a proper reason to challenge the conclusions of the ASI. It dismissed as baseless his technical observations on matters such as the use of lime mortar which had been established to have been in use in India from at least 600 BCE, well before the Sultanate period. The court noted that Bhan had a predetermined attitude against the ASI and believed that rather than being condemned, the Survey deserved commendation and appreciation.

[The above extract is taken from a Wikipedia article on Suraj Bhan, who appeared as a witness for the Masjid supporters and the Court dismissed his evidence.]

GUJARAT RIOTS-2002

Burning of the S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express at Godhra in which 59 Hindu pilgrims were burnt alive. Loss of Hindu lives means nothing to our secularists!

Then there is this canard about the Gujarat riots of 2002. Tharoor writes about "the retaliatory pogrom against Muslim civilians". There was an unpremeditated, unplanned reaction to the deliberate killing of Hindu pilgrims, by burning the railway compartment in which they were travelling, after locking the doors and exits. No self styled secularist talks of the violence done to unarmed, civilian Hindus who were returning from a pilgrimage!

 To talk of a "pogrom" is patent misuse of the word which does not have an agreed definition.
 The Special Investigation Team appointed by the Supreme Court has and  subsequent court proceedings have given a clear picture of what happened.
It is only self-serving leftist loony elements who talk of pogrom and all that. Their special ire was aimed at the then BJP Chief Minister Narendra Modi. He and his govt have been cleared of all charges of prejudice or inaction. Modi has gone on to become the PM. And the Muslims continue to live and prosper in Gujarat, as elsewhere.
In fact, riots have taken place in Gujarat since 1969 when Congress ruled the state. Riots have occurred in other states ruled by Congress and others. Here again the left-leaning newspapers like The Hindu or The Times of India did not report full or correct facts. Tharoor has to brush up his reading and widen his sources.

ARYAN INVASION? MIGHTY FABRICATION

Book cover shown here for educational purpose

Tharoor again shows his idiotic side when he talks of Aryan invasion. This Aryan invasion theory is now so thoroughly discredited, only an imbecile will take it as authority. 
Here too Tharoor should read unbiased up to date literature.
Here is a sample from an author from Delhi University, usually a leftist 'liberal' den:

” One of the most popular explanations of the decline of the Harappan civilization is one for which there is least evidence. The idea that the civilization was destroyed by Aryan invaders was first put forward by Ramprasad Chanda (1926)- he later changed his mind – and was elaborated on by Mortimer Wheeler (1947 )……..

Many scholars such as P.V.Kane (1955),George Dales (1964), and B.B.Lal (1997) have refuted the invasion theory….There is in fact no evidence of any kind of military assault or conflict at any Harappan site.The 37 groups of skeletal remains at Mojenjodaro do not belong to the same cultural phase and, therefore, cannot be connected to a single event…..

Moreover, K.A.R.Kennedy’s analysis (1997) of the skeletal remains does not show any discontinuity in the skeletal record in the north-west at this point of time., making it clear that there was no major influx of new settlers with a different physiognomy. The Harappan civilization was not destroyed by an Indo-Aryan invasion.”

[From: A History of Ancient and Medieval India by Upinder Singh,(Delhi University). page 179
Published by Pearson,(Dorling Kindersley India Pvt ltd, New Delhi. 4th Impression,2013.]

"ARYA" - CULTURAL, NOT RACIAL EXPRESSION

In the Indian tradition, the word "Arya" was used in a cultural and not racial sense. The Manu Smriti speaks of areas of the country such as Aryavarta, Brahmavarta etc as being the places inhabited by people with some special cultural habits and practices, never as racial centres .Ancient Tamil literature even speaks of Lord Shiva as Arya! Both Tamil and Arya ie Sanskrit are supposed to have originated from Shiva! Kali is spoken of as "Arye". In the Ramayana, Sita addresses Rama as "Aryaputra ". These are not racial expressions. It was only ignoramuses like  Max Muller and colonial interests who invested the word with racial connotations and spoke of an invasion, no one knows from where. It is high time  Tharoor brushed up on his  history and rid himself of such concocted nonsense as the Aryan invasion.

Tharoor's preface opens up a Pandora's Box. The rest of the book is not so bad. Tharoor does not write like some foreign observers do; he is an Indian and obviously his heart is here.  But he is under the influence of  old theories promoted by foreign vested interests.We may disagree with some of his views and interpretations, but we do not question his motive! These are areas where Tharoor has to update his information.