55. POLITICS BY HATRED
Should politics be based on hatred?
If we observe the Indian political scenario, especially during election times, we cannot escape the conclusion that politics is not only based on hatred, but no other way of conducting politics is possible. Our politicians know nothing better, or even nothing else.
But hatred reigns in our public life even in normal times.
LATEST US EXAMPLE
www.indianlink.com.au
We had an example of this in the last US Presidential elections. The leftist crowd and its press made an absolute Devil of Trump, ridiculing him in all possible ways, even questioning his IQ. He was called ' a bully, a racist, a misogynist'. The Conservatives gave it all back, questioning the health, sanity and veracity of Hillary Clinton. They even questioned whether she was not covered by a double! There were several YouTube channels dedicated to this holy enterprise of mutual mud slinging. When Trump triumphed in the elections fair and square,against all expectations, the leftists could not take it with grace, and have not given up their hate games. I think this is the lowest we have seen in the US political behaviour in respect of the polls to the highest office. When someone represents a real change,or threat, the establishment cannot take it!
BLIND HATRED AGAINST BJP
This is what we have been witnessing in India too, ever since the BJP rose to national prominence, winning elections in more states than the Congress ever did. The easiest stick to beat them with is to say loudly that they are communal, even while the Congress is going out of its way to befriend Muslim communal parties and placate the religious minorities in all possible ways.
Image from YouTube.
In Karnataka, it is even planning to create a new 'minority' religious community out of an old Hindu sect just to catch votes. In Kerala, they align unashamedly with Christian groups. But only BJP is communal! No one bothers to criticise them for their economic and other policy contents. There is no informed debate on policies. To call BJP communal is the essence of Indian politics. Even leading English newspapers and media join this charade. How silly it all looks!
TAMIL NADU: MOTHER OF POLITICS OF HATE
But those in Tamil Nadu are used to politics of hatred for over a century now. This hatred was based on the Aryan invasion theory, actively promoted by colonial interests,as part of their divide and rule trick, by which all North Indians were considered Aryan, and the South Dravidian. The South was supposed to be suppressed by the Aryans. But this did not cut much ice outside Tamil Nadu. So, they changed track.
The Justice Party was started to demand more govt jobs for non-Brahmins, as against the dominance of Brahmins. The leaders were well educated persons from the wealthier sections of non-Brahmins, and they were by no means vulgar. They were silently encouraged by the British who too felt that administration had come to depend unduly on the Brahmin employees which was not desirable. They also wanted to foil the rising nationalism among the educated middle class, especially Brahmins, by encouraging non-Brahmin elements loyal to the regime. Justice Party filled the bill admirably as they were totally faithful to the the British, and against the freedom movement. They were in power for 13 years in the old Madras presidency, till they were overthrown in the 1937 elections by the Congress.They could not recover, and the party was dissolved in 1944.
JUSTICE PARTY TO DRAVIDAR KAZHAGAM :
REIGN OF HATRED
The main leaders of the Justice Party were non-Tamils. And they were all deeply religious and orthodox in their own way. Indeed their ways were Brahmanical ie based on Hindu scriptures. Gradually, Tamil elements started asserting themselves. The movement was dominated by E.V.Ramasamy Naicker, a Kannadiga, who started the Dravidar Kazhagam. He took off on the anti-Aryan, pro-Dravidian plank. He in fact started the politics of open hatred in Tamil Nadu. The Aryan-Dravidian divide, till then merely academic, was brought to the streets. His politics was based on the hatred of Hinduism as Aryan, , hatred of the Brahmins as custodians of Hinduism and remnants of Aryans in the Tamil land, , denial of God, rejection of the freedom movement under Gandhi and supporting the continuation of British rule. His politics was politics of hatred, A to Z. His hatred did not stop with words; he incited his followers, who indulged in violence by breaking the images of Hindu deities, by cutting the sacred thread of Brahmins, by cutting off their tuft of hair, etc. He went to the extent of saying that the concept of chastity for women was a non-Tamilian concept imposed by the Aryan Hindus, that the mangal-sutra was a sign of slavery and subjection of women, and should be discarded. There was thus no end to the manifestation of hatred in his politics. He made hatred fashionable in speech, and acceptable in practice!. As the Brahmins were a small minority, and not given to retaliation, they were helpless and even the govt did not afford them protection.
[Though E.V,Ramasamy Naicker adopted the label of 'Rationalism' for his anti-God stance, he limited himself to attacking the Hindus, and never dared to criticise the Christians or Muslims. This is the rationalism of the Tamils even today.]
DRAVIDAR KAZHAGAM SPLITS: HATRED CONTINUES
Many of Naicker's young followers left him, appalled by his marriage, at 72 to a 27 year old girl. They were also outraged by the fact that the marriage was mainly to safeguard , by some private arrangement, the wealth he had accumulated, not trusting his followers in the party. They floated their own outfit, the DMK. In course of time, they developed political ambitions and suitably modified their stand. The demand for a separate Dravidastan was given up as it did not find support in other states and as it was unconstitutional.The initial denial of God became denial of many gods and acceptance of 'One God' ; the opposition to Brahmins was restated as opposition to "Brahminism". But in practice it did not make any difference, as the cadres continued to oppose Brahmins in all possible ways, whatever might have been the refinement at some top levels. This continues to be the basic plank of all the outfits which have splintered from the DMK.
Some of them and some new ones call themselves pro-Tamil, instead of Dravidian, espousing separate Tamil nationalism and racism.
Over the years, the idea of politics based on a separate Dravidian identity has not appealed to non-Tamilians in the South. So, the self-styled Dravidian parties really harp on the idea of the Tamils as a separate race, and nationalism based on Tamil identity. However, its practical expression takes the form of opposition to / hatred of other identities, like Brahmins and North Indians. The idea that Tamils are not Hindus is also spread among the youngsters , with the active support of evangelical Christian groups.Thus hatred runs deep in the Tamil psyche, as they have been nurtured in numerous ways in the half century of Dravidian rule. In practice, however, anti-Aryanism is expressed as anti-Brahminism , as if Brahmins alone are Aryans!
As a matter of fact, all social problems in Tamil Nadu today are those among the non-Brahmin communities themselves, and Brahmins are no where involved. Yet, Brahmin-baiting is the staple element in Tamil politics!
INTER-GROUP HATRED
The only new development is perhaps the inter-group rivalry and hatred among the various Tamil outfits. The social media is full of hate messages couched in vulgar, uncivilized language and unrestrained personal attacks full of invective. But they all claim E.V.Ramasamy Naicker as their inspiration even today. And Modi is their common enemy- he is blamed for everything in Tamil Nadu. The groups which do not see eye to eye on most issues, unite against Modi.
DEMOCRATISATION AND DILUTION OF STANDARDS
With democratisation of politics, some dilution of public standards seems inevitable. With the spreading of education (literacy) and wild flare of information of all types, opinions proliferate, and with it quick judgements. Informed decisions are rare. Our media resort to partisan and partial coverage , and a clever mix of news and views that it is so difficult to arrive at the correct position in respect of any matter in public debate. A certain amount of discord is built into the social fabric in this situation. While this is inevitable, should discord necessarily lead to or express itself in and as open hatred?
FREEDOM STRUGGLE:
HATE-FREE POLITICS
Modern India witnessed intense political activity in the first half of the last century, directed against the colonial government. It had three phases: the moderate era of the likes of Pherozeshah Mehta, Dadabhai Naoroji, Gopal Krishna Gokhale; the assertive nationalist era of Tilak, Lajpat Rai, Bepin Chandra Pal, Sri Aurobindo; the mass-action era of Gandhi. Each group criticised the colonial govt in ways appropriate to the stage of development of national consciousness. Perhaps the most intense intellectual attack was by Sri Aurobindo, in language which stunned the British so that the Viceroy himself declared Sri Aurobindo the 'most dangerous man' in the empire. But Sri Aurobindo did not preach hatred against the British; he did not write a single word preaching or justifying hatred against them.
Gandhi emerged as the chief tormentor of the colonial power with a mass base for nearly 3 decades. He expressed opposition in strong words and stern action. But he did not preach hatred against the British or anyone else at any stage.Opposition to colonial rule was a principled stand, but brutal hatred of the British was no part of his agenda or vocabulary. Hatred was not his language of political opposition. Even in matters of social reform, he appealed to the conscience of the perceived wrong-doers, and did not incite hatred against them.
HATRED AND VIOLENCE:
WESTERN LEGACY
With these examples before us, why have our politicians ( it will be too much of a joke to call them leaders) plunged into the games of hatred? Why do we have to tolerate them? How have we developed insensitivity to the vulgarity that accompanies this show of hatred?
But then, is there anything at all the ordinary citizen can do in the matter?
Hatred and violence in politics started with the Communists for whom there is no ethics other than power. In religion, hatred and violence were started by the Christians against the pre-Christian religions that lived peacefully in the Roman empire. As Edward Gibbon said, people believed all the religions to be equally true; the philosophers called them all false; but the administrators found them all useful, and allowed them. There was no hatred until the Christians came along. The Christian then passed along the baton to the Muslim, whose ultimate aim is to win the world by Jihad. Thus we see that the origin of hatred and violence is due to the two proselytizing Abrahamic religions and leftist political cults.
NEGATIVE ROLE BY PRESS AND MEDIA
The usual institutions of a democratic society such as the Press, the Academia, the body of senior statesmen, wise elders etc do not carry any weight in India. The press is a party to this hatred, perhaps unwittingly, by reporting every development as it happens, even sensationalising some. A politician is sentenced to prison in a criminal case- that is reported with lot of fanfare. The politician bribes his way to special treatment in prison.That is covered in detail. She comes on parole- that too is widely covered. When she reports back to prison, that too gets prominent space. The same treatment is given to a convicted film star. Thus the press keeps the memory of convicted criminals green in the public mind. It turns the figure into a sort of hero or heroine! This same type of reporting about the politicians who indulge in hate speech gradually insensitises the public to the hatred involved. It becomes a sort of celebration! It becomes the norm. People forget that there were better times, and better people, and better standards! Our youngsters have absolutely no chance to know how things were before the rise of Dravidian politics.
JUDICIARY TO THE RESCUE?
I feel only our Judiciary may have some power to stop this trail of hatred. For that, somebody has to find a legal or Constitutional key to the problem and then move our judiciary. Law will have to stop this hatred, or hatred will swallow the law.
54. DISSENT AND PROTEST
In all societies, differences of opinion develop in course of time between the rulers and the ruled. Such differences were expressed in a wide variety of ways, depending upon the sensitivity of the rulers. Generally under Indian monarchy, the kings had a system of assessing the public mood on important issues. They were also surrounded by men of wisdom and experience, who could correct them. Above all, there was a basic bond between the rulers and the ruled. The king was bound by dharma, and his subjects were not enemies. They had a dharmic or moral right over him.
WISE COUNSEL AND CRITICISM
In Sangam Tamil literature, we have the instance of a wise poet
( Pisirantaiyar) advising the king (Pandya, Arivudai Nambi) about how he should tax the people:
காய்நெல் அறுத்துக் கவளங் கொளினே
மாநிறைவு இல்லதும் பன்னாட்கு ஆகும்;
நூறுசெறு ஆயினும் தமித்துப்புக்கு உணினே
வாய்புகு வதனினும் கால்பெரிது கெடுக்கும்;
5 அறிவுடை வேந்தன் நெறியறிந்து கொளினே
கோடி யாத்து நாடுபெரிது நந்தும்;
மெல்லியன் கிழவன் ஆகி வைகலும்
வரிசை அறியாக் கல்லென் சுற்றமொடு
பரிவுதப எடுக்கும் பிண்டம் நச்சின்
10 யானை புக்க புலம்போலத்
தானும் உண்ணான் உலகமும் கெடுமே.
If we gather the ripe paddy, and make rice balls and feed the elephant,even a small field will supply the food for many days. But if we let the elephant free to graze the field on its own, more will be spoiled by its feet than what goes into its mouth. If the wise king knows the proper method to gather his tax, he will get much and the country will also prosper. If,prompted by greedy and ignorant relatives, he forces his way to collect high taxes, he will not get much, nor will the land prosper, like the field run over by the elephant.
Thus these wise men performed the function of informed critics and counselors. Therefore Tiruvalluvar advised the kings to be surrounded by men who could criticise and chide them!
அறன் அறிந்து மூத்த அறிவுடையார் கேண்மை
திறன் அறிந்து தேர்ந்து கொளல்.
Esteem the men who have grown in righteousness, and acquire their friendship.
இடிக்கும் துணையாரை ஆள்வாரை யாரே
கெடுக்கும் தகைமை யவர்.
Who can ruin the man who commands the association of men who can reproach him?
இடிப்பாறை இல்லாத ஏமரா மன்னன்
கெடுப்பார் இலானும் கெடும்.
The king who does not have men who can rebuke him- he will perish even when he has no enemies.
DISSENT AND PROTEST IN DEMOCRACIES
Photo source not known. Given here for purely educational purposes.
In modern democracies, dissent, opposition and protest are all recognised in theory; but in practice, there are limits within which dissent can be expressed, and the forms which protest may take. In countries with true two party systems, the Opposition watches and checks the govt, though from mainly ideological angle. The United States experienced unprecedented protests by youngsters in the 1960s, and in novel forms, which cut across party lines. The society as a whole has taken a leftist turn since then- in any case the administration, the Press, the Academia are all generally leftist now. The government is ever growing bigger in the so called freest country, which began with a distrust of big government and monopoly power. It is difficult to express openly, or find space for truly liberal or conservative thoughts in the public space. Our freedom of expression and dissent is subject to leftists' pleasure. Freedom there really means the duty to be leftist!
But today on many issues, people are divided across party lines in both the US and the UK. The differences are not only between the rulers and the ruled , but among the different social, religious and economic groups in almost all democratic societies. Any solution on any issue is bound to produce dissent. The government changes periodically by election, but dissatisfaction and dissent develop under all governments.
A separatist Tamil poster.
source: https://Scroll.in
In Tamil Nadu, we can see how the anti-Hindi agitation of the 60s has spawned separatist tendencies, and promoted hatred of the Central govt and the very concept of United or Federal India. Though the demand for a separate Dravida land has been outwardly given up due to political expediency, the same forces are feeding the flames of separatist Tamil nationalism. This is the undercurrent of the state's educational machinery and administrative apparatus under half a century of rule by local Dravidian parties.
[The Centre does not appear to have taken serious note of this issue.Just imagine the number of youngsters passing through the state's education system, raised on a diet of Tamil nationalism, nurtured on the belief that North Indians have subjugated them. What began as anti-Aryan movement has taken the form of Tamil nationalism. The youth are taught that the Tamils are a separate race, and have nothing in common with North Indians ( and Brahmins) who are Aryans.
Ironically, both the main all-India parties have kept electoral alliances with parties which foster separatism ( Tamil nationalism) in some form.]
MODERN INDIA BORN IN PROTEST!
Image from: The New Indian Express
Modern India's journey as a nation begins with dissent and protest against British colonialism. The British government of India was not legitimate- it was forced on us by brutal military power and sustained by cunning, savage taxation and repressive measures. The moderates who began with mild desire for greater part in the administration and some reforms and concessions, and believed in achieving this through prayer, pleading and petitioning, did not realise the true nature and intent of imperialism. They talked of lawful or constitutional means, but this law was that of the colonial power; it was illegitimate, and it would never recognise the ruled except as economic and political slaves. Happily, this was understood by younger elements like Tilak and Sri Aurobindo who taught us to demand full freedom- Swaraj. This was to be accomplished by adopting Swadeshi, boycotting foreign goods, boycotting foreign courts, taking to national education and generally by Passive Resistance ie not cooperating with the colonial government. These methods were tried in 1905 when Curzon partitioned Bengal. These methods were so successful that the partition was annulled. [ The revolutionary fervour among Bengalees was so great that the British eventually shifted the Capital out of Calcutta!]
GANDHI'S THREE PLANKS
But the real era of total opposition to colonial rule began under Gandhi after 1919. There were three main elements in his approach:
- Non Cooperation, Civil Disobedience, Passive Resistance or Satyagraha as the chief method to express our dissent. This involved more suffering on the participants and no violence on the opponent. It preached no hatred.
- Making it a mass movement, making every Indian feel part of the movement, overcoming the earlier limited appeal to the English educated middle class.
-Including many elements of a constructive nature which would help revive the economy and enliven society without depending upon govt support.In these spheres, Indians could be free despite the foreign govt! Gandhi thus taught people how to be independent even under British rule. Swadeshi, Khadi, Village Industries, New Education, Village Sanitation, focus on agriculture,etc were all elements of such constructive activity. This was truly revolutionary in that people could recover their autonomy at least in some spheres.
Leaders like Tilak and Sri Aurobindo before the Gandhi era had defined Indian nationalism on the basis of India's long historical past and continuity as a living civilization. True nationalism was based on recovery of basic national identity. 'Bande Mataram' captured this identity. However, with the coming of Gandhi, the question of national identity was obscured, though in his 1909 book "Hind Swaraj" he spoke about Indian civilization. India is still struggling, unable to face this question honestly and boldly.
THE DOWNSIDE?
It could be seen by a keen observer that the negative aspects of protest were offset by the constructive activity, so that people's energy was not frittered away in mere opposition. But in reality, it is easier to gather people against something , than to make them engage in constructive work, especially for prolonged periods. As the possibility of Independence neared, more people took to the show of protest, than to the path of constructive action; more out of opportunism, than out of conviction.
This prospect had indeed worried some thoughtful leaders even in those days. Masses could be incited against a foreign govt. But how could the masses be contained? How well could they be directed? What would happen if people adopted the same methods after freedom was won, and when we had our own govt?
It so happened that in spite of Gandhi's insistence on non-violence, instances of violence happened, and Gandhi had to call off some agitations. His individual Salt Satyagraha in 1930 was nonviolent, but the British let loose a reign of terror. The Quit India Movement in 1942 was a complete fiasco, as the British had out-foxed Gandhi, and he was arrested along with the other leaders, before he could give any detailed instructions. The masses were without direction as to what to do. The resulting chaos and violence came in handy to the British, who completely snuffed out the movement within 6 months. Thus, in the final analysis, Gandhi's method of Civil Disobedience did not succeed against the British.When Gandhi was released from prison in 1944 due to ill health, he was a spent force, and he could make no positive contribution to the situation, on any issue thereafter.
INDEPENDENCE HASTENED BY:
India's freedom was hastened by-
-the changing geo-political reality in the subcontinent after the Second World War and the enormous defence expenditure that it entailed on Britain;
- Britain emerging as a debtor
-the rise of Netaji Subhas Bose's Indian National Army. It electrified the nation, enthused the youth, and captured the imagination of Indians in the Army and Navy. There were even mutinies by Indian Navy men. The British could no more take the loyalty of Indian soldiers for granted.
Netaji and INA
Thus, though Gandhi awakened the Indian masses as no leader before him had done in modern India, he did not successfully conclude the movement. The British suddenly decided to leave, and leave in a hurry. They did not even give the Congress leaders time to think and prepare. They were caught in a daze. Even the details of partition- the exact boundaries were not known to Indian leaders even on the day of Independence. Thus, freedom came to India in spite of Gandhi, not because of him. .
Indian writers, especially the text-book writers generally do not see and adhere to facts. They simply promote the Gandhi image.
GANDHIAN METHODS MISUSED
While Gandhi did awaken the masses, the methods he adopted have proved to be handy for people who do not share his philosophy after Independence. Gandhi struggled against colonial powers who did not allow us any civil liberties, or methods to voice our grievances or effectively participate in our governance. Constitutional or lawful means in those days meant acceptance of colonial rule, which lacked legitimacy. The standard method of protest against it would have been violent revolution. Gandhi avoided that deliberately, and adopted Civil Disobedience as the non-violent alternative. That was the best he could do under the alien government.
But today, we have our own Constitution and government . We have adult franchise and elect our own govt. We float parties on different philosophies or ideas or demands. We have constitutionally provided methods to get the Constitution itself amended!
VIOLATING CONSTITUTIONAL METHODS
Protesters hurling stone during a bandh
Yet we find Indian political parties and other groups abandoning Constitutional methods and taking to the streets, and indulging in acts of violence in support of any demand. Unfortunately, both the Central and State govts also remain totally insensitive to peaceful protests. They cannot deal with peaceful protests. They respond only when there is prospect of violence or widespread public disorder. Often, they act only when their supporting vote base is affected. Any leader can gather a mass of people and drum up support for any local cause or grievance. The police deal with the mobs brutally, as if we are still in colonial days, while the leaders who incite them go scot free. In a federal set-up it is so easy to create animosity against the central govt, or another state, to please local mobs.
The recent disturbances in Tamil Nadu, the so called Cauvery agitations, are of this type. The Supreme Court has given a final judgement in an inter-state dispute which lingered on for decades. It has provided for creation of a machinery to enforce the judgement. The Central govt is on the job, but has sought certain clarifications from the Court. The Tamil Nadu govt, one of the parties, has also gone to the Court, with a Contempt of Court petition against the Centre. The Court has already fixed a date for taking it up. Thus the matter is sub-judice. Where then is the need for a mass agitation at this time? In the Press and the media, no one has pointed out the facts, but everyone is either feeding or succumbing to the public frenzy. The so called social media is full of vulgar, unrestrained and uncivilized abuses against the Centre and its leaders. Truth has been conveniently brushed aside. No avenues are open for the ordinary citizen to express a view, which goes against the current frenzy.
This is a glaring instance of how in Independent India, people have no regard for Constitutional methods.
