PK hits Hinduism more than Islam: But when religion itself is a lul thing, does it matter?

Conversion row: Right to religion is a basic right. Right to propagate is offensive and should be removed. Nobody should be allowed to propagate faith.

POLITICS  |  BREAKING NEWS INTO PIECES  |   6-minute read |   22-12-2014

Kamlesh Singh      @kamleshksingh

Everybody is talking religion. Everybody has one and nobody needs to be a pundit to talk religion. You don't need logic, reason or any basis to have your say because these things, to begin with, are alien to religion. The war zone starts right at our western border and goes on till Greece. The land of continuous conflict. At home, the reconversion drive in our midst that has pushed us into the middle of another religion-centric discourse. And as if that wasn't enough, Aamir Khan's PK is threatening would have made Rs 100 crores by the time you finish reading this. This sweet film has led to calls for boycott from the ones known as "Internet Hindus". They think it is an attack on their faith. It is time to clear the fog and throw some harsh light on hard facts.

PK as a film is overtly anti-religion, not just Hinduism. It attacks Hinduism more directly than other religions because the story is based in India, 80 per cent of which is Hindu. The story is about an alien trying to get help from God. Hindu hardliners' main peeve is that the film handles Islam with kid gloves. I would call that a smart move by Rajkumar Hirani. Hindus are not at the same level on offence meter as Muslims are. The siege syndrome has just infected Hindus. Among Muslims, it is at a critical level.

The boycott call is behind the support call both on box office cash register and on Twitter trends. Because on a meter of taking offence and ignoring to taking offence and killing people, Hindus are at Level Two. That's Boycott level. To demand a ban is Level Three. To enforce shutdowns is Level Four and going totally mental is Level Five. You can show a scared Shiva character running helter-skelter and get away with it. Showing the Prophet is a sure-shot suicidal move only the Scandinavian have attempted till now.

So, full marks to Rajkumar Hirani for keeping it sane. Hirani thought Hindus could take a joke or two. He has been quite there if not spot on. He hasn't been knifed yet. Lunatics, from all religions, have no sense of humour. But there is a greater chance of getting killed in ridiculing Islam than ridiculing Hindus or Christians. Hindus have too many Gods and godmen for everyone to get offended by one film. Hindus are also really old and settled being Hindus. Christianity, over 2,000 years old, is more settled than Islam, which is in its darkest period right now and is perceived to be at war, within and without. The golden rule of rubbing salt is you don't rub it on a fresh wound.

The film comes at a time when there is a fierce debate going on about conversion. As the Hindu Right wants converts to revert to Hinduism. Christians and Muslims believe conversion is a fundamental human right and a one-way street. The government wants the pitch to rise to a point where it can thrust a ban on conversion down everyone's throat.

The Constitution allows the right to follow one's faith and propagate it. Christians and Muslims want it to stay that way. Their claim is conversion, unless by force, fear or allurement, must be allowed. This is where the problem lies. There is nothing called conversion out of conscience. Luring someone in the name of heaven, or by instilling fear of hell, falls in the grey area between forceful and voluntary conversion. These grey areas will always lead to controversies. Missionaries are called missionaries because they have a mission. We all know what that is. It's called saving the soul. From the wrath of God?

The Hindu hardline calls it ghar wapsi, which itself is a can of worms. How long back do you want to go in history? Hindus were peaceful pagans before organised religion came into this land. They worshipped anything from sexual organs to trees to stones and so on. They had too many books and too many gods to be organised under one umbrella. The king was the avatar of Vishnu, revered and worshipped. The land provided plentiful to people who were busy living than looking for meaning of life. Talking to God was not the in-thing here like it was in the dreary deserts of Palestine where life was tough, the sun was harsh and people wondered about the meaning of life. They had a series of prophets until Muhammad put a full stop to it.

The pagans of this land had no problem in accepting Christianity because adding another man to worship in your pantheon full of gods isn't big deal. Hindus would have got Muhammad too into their fold. Depiction of Muhammad wasn't a big deal either. Persians and Indians drew the Prophet with all due respect when it did not invite instant death. But that was then. Islam spread like an all-engulfing ideology and it ruled lands so far and wide that its decree mattered.

Hindus, unless strictly prohibited, fund nothing wrong in pluralism when it came to worshipping all gods and avatars. Mahavir and Buddha were widely accepted as avatars. Guru Nanak founded a unique amalgamation of faiths and Hindus and Sikhs were visiting each other's places of worship. They continue doing so. Since it was allowed, Hindus worshipped Muslim saints as their own and continue doing so. There was no one Hinduism until Hindus were identified as Hindus, by the others. You know where the word Hindu came from and all that jazz. Besides they were no longer rulers of the land and the newly-arrived religious people were, they didn't want to be left out. They brought out their books. They brought out their philosophies and looked for syncretism within. They accepted the moniker Hindu and began identifying with it. What the people of the book called pagans progressed into a religion, sort of. No longer a way of life. They didn't have a word for religion because dharma means principles, not a sect or faith.

Religion, as it happens, tends to consolidate and all it needs is enough centrifugal force. The centuries when Islam and Christianity spread did not belong to Hindu rulers, per se. The siege mentality wasn't as pervasive so they were fighting among sects, caste or language. Like Islam had/has different versions and a central version, Hinduism began acquiring strengths/weaknesses of Islam. If there could ever be Wahhabism outside Muslims, we see that in action today. There is a great deal of pressure to bring homogeneity. A tradition as diverse as Hinduism is being homogenised in a slow, painful process. The all-new assertive Hindutva has replaced the good old inclusive Hinduism. There is no central authority yet but there is a sustained effort to create one. A centre around which everything moves. The BJP's historic victory is generating the centrifugal force to make the Sangh Parivar the centre of political Hinduism. Political Islam has wreaked havoc in places it held sway. Political Hinduism will be equally destructive, if not worse.

The conversion debate will not end until conversions continue. There is need to snip the right to religion and restrict it to that. Propagating one's religion cannot be a fundamental right. Isn't developing a scientific temperament among our fundamental duties? A nation that insists on rights and ignores its duties is a nation headed for a mess. Every citizen should have the absolute right to follow his/her religion as belief must remain a basic right in any democracy. Propagating your belief, which is ridiculously unscientific and fantastically stupid, is a dangerous luxury if we need to move towards being a rational society.

Source: dailyo 

An unconstitutional proposal

Written by Sanjay Nirupam 2 | New Delhi | Posted: December 20, 2014 12:21 am

 Communalism is the core ideology of the BJP and religious polarisation its main political programme, it seems. To run this programme and prop up its ideology, it has again raked up the issue of religious conversions. This issue, which resurfaced due to the recent Agra conversions orchestrated by persons linked to the BJP through the Dharm Jagran Samiti, has rocked both Houses of Parliament. What happened in Agra was unconstitutional, unethical, immoral and illegal, where Muslims were lured to convert with the offer of BPL ration cards. When the opposition raised this issue in Lok Sabha, the ruling BJP was defenceless. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Venkaiah Naidu jumped into the debate, saying that since childhood, he had dreamt of a ban on all sorts of religious conversions and that the government is ready to enact an anti-conversion law. This was a frivolous argument, a face-saver. But the BJP has succeeded in dragging the opposition into the debate.

The Constitution does not provide for an anti-conversion law. It gives freedom of religion to all its citizens. Article 25(1) states: “Subject to public order, morality and health and to other provisions of this part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and right to profess, practise and propagate religion.” No immoral act is allowed in the propagation of religion and social health has to be maintained. India has been a pluralistic religious society for centuries. Our forefathers, while writing the Constitution, had adopted a structure based on the values of liberal, democratic and secular thought. The aspect of freedom of religion enshrined in our Constitution has been debated in the past. From the lower courts to the Supreme Court, the issue of religious conversions has been dealt with in depth. The SC has upheld the constitutional provisions in the past. In its 235th report, the Law Commission of India dealt with the issue while prescribing the mode of proof for conversions and reconversions to another religion, suggesting a law on conversions rather than an anti-conversion law. It says: “It is well settled that freedom of conscience and the right to profess a religion implies freedom to change religion as well. It is pertinent to mention that Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights specifically lays down that the freedom of conscience and religion includes freedom to change religion or belief.” It has further quoted the judgment of Justice R. Basant in a marriage dispute case: “Religious conversions may appear to many in the Indian mindset to be unnecessary, puerile and a negation of the very concept of respect of both the religions and the followers of such religion. But, certainly, the freedom of faith guaranteed by the Constitution may not justify the negation of the right to pursue the chosen faith by conversion where necessary”. It appears that Naidu has conveniently chosen to ignore this report.

The issue of religious conversion and the right to propagate religion was debated even before Parliament came into existence. On December 6, 1948, in a Constituent Assembly debate, Loknath Mishra expressed apprehensions about the liberal approach. He said, “Indeed, in no constitution of the world [is the] right to propagate religion a fundamental right and justifiable.” He was countered by other members and finally his objection was set aside. Laxmikant Maitra countered him: “Propagation does not necessarily mean seeking converts by force of arms, by the sword or by coercion. But, why should an obstacle stand in the way if by exposition, illustration or persuasion you could convey your own religious faith to others?” Echoing the same view, K.M. Munshi said: “… under [the] freedom of speech which the Constitution guarantees, it will be open to any religious community to persuade other people to join their faith. So long as religion is religion, conversion by free exercise of conscience has to be recognised.”

Our Constitution is clear about the concept of the propagation of religion and conversions. They are two sides of the same coin, and guaranteed as a fundamental right. But, to my mind, if any conversion is affected by coercion, inducement or allurement, it is unconstitutional. Taking this aspect into account, many state governments have enacted laws to check forceful conversions, like Madhya Pradesh and Odisha, etc. However, interestingly, the names of these acts do not convey the essence of conversion. For example, the MP act is known as the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 1968 and the Odisha act is the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967. Even the name of the laws enacted to check conversion by state governments refrain from using the word “conversion” because it is against the spirit of the Constitution.

On January 17, 1977, the SC delivered a judgment in Rev. Stanislaus vs State of Madhya Pradesh, where it explained the constitutionality of these state acts and denounced forceful conversions. The SC quoted the observation of the high court of Madhya Pradesh: “What is penalised is conversion by force, fraud or by allurement. The other element is that every person has a right to profess his own religion and to act according to it. Any interference with that right of the other person by resorting to conversion by force or allurement cannot, in our opinion, be said to contravene Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India, as the article guarantees religious freedom subject to public health.”

In the final analysis, the BJP must understand and accept the difference between conversions and forceful conversions. The BJP lost its pitch in UP when it raked up the issue of “love jihad” before the by-elections. The Agra conversions are a ploy to polarise the state’s voters, keeping the UP elections in mind. The BJP should focus on the development agenda and refrain from divisive politics on the basis of religion. The sinister design, especially by the BJP fringe, to polarise voters will not yield political dividends but instead ensure the party’s early exit from power. The electorate, particularly young voters, voted for socio-economic development and will not tolerate any deviation from this agenda.

The writer, a former MP, is a senior Congress leader

Source: indianexpress

On Christmas Day BJP MPs will have their hands full

News » National                                                      New Delhi, December 17, 2014
Updated: December 17, 2014 02:17 IST

Smita Gupta

Modi govt. is observing Good Governance Day on that day

The Modi government’s next mega event to showcase its achievements and intentions will be on December 25: in the 281 constituencies that they represent, BJP MPs will be hard at work, celebrating Good Governance Day as a tribute to former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, whose birthday falls on that day.

There will be no Christmas Day for any of them.

Leading the way will be Prime Minister Narendra Modi who will spend the day in Varanasi.

Simultaneously, the Union Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, sources said, has been asked to activate the 2,70,000 youth clubs around the country that come under the Nehru Yuva Kendra — thus named by an earlier government — to also celebrate Christmas Day as Good Governance Day.

So, even as Parliament remained convulsed on the issue of official circulars on Good Governance Day for the second consecutive day, and the Modi government clarified that schools would not be open on Christmas Day, it went ahead with other plans for the day.

When asked how this would be taken by Christians, especially in some States in the north-east where the majority of the population belong to the community, top sources in the Ministry insisted that it was “voluntary,” and that those who did not want to participate in it were free to do so. Surely some other day could have been chosen? It can’t be helped, they said as the government wanted to institute Mr. Vajpayee’s birthday as Good Governance Day.

The day will begin at 7 a.m., said one BJP MP, with yet one more observance of the government’s flagship Swatch Bharat Abhiyan, a half marathon and a slew of other programmes to draw in as many young participants as possible. Everything should end sometime in the afternoon.

Indeed, at the BJP parliamentary party meeting on Tuesday, Mr. Modi told MPs that a range of seminars, conferences, debates and discussions on good governance, addressed by top BJP leaders, would mark the day. Suggestions from the public to improve governance would be elicited and literature on the subject relating to Mr. Vajpayee’s six-year tenure as Prime Minister as well as the initiatives taken by the present government in its first six months will be distributed. Additionally, health, eye-care and blood donation camps, and distribution of blankets and other essentials to the poor in hospitals will mark the day.

Source: The Hindu

Gonds may have migrated from Indus Valley

ADILABAD, December 16, 2014            Updated: December 17, 2014 00:55 IST

S. Harpal Singh
 

CRUCIAL LINK TO THE PAST: The photograph found in a cave in Hampi. 
Photo: Special Arrangement.    The Hindu

On the goddess Kotamma temple woollen market way there is a rocky roof shelter for shepherds and sheep to stay at night up to morning.” This innocuous sounding statement could actually be a revolutionary find linking the adivasi Gond tribe to the Indus Valley civilisation, which flourished between 2500 B.C. and 1750 BC.

The sentence emerged after a set of 19 pictographs from a cave in Hampi were deciphered using root morphemes of Gondi language, considered by many eminent linguists as a proto Dravidian language. Eleven of the Hampi pictographs resemble those of the civilisation, according to Dr. K.M. Metry, Head and Dean, Social Sciences, Kannada University, Hampi; Dr. Motiravan Kangali, a linguist and expert in Gondi language and culture from Nagpur, Maharashtra; and his associate Prakash Salame, also an expert in Gondi.

They were in Utnoor to participate in the 4th National workshop on standardisation of Gondi dictionary when they spoke to The Hindu about their study of the pictographs. Though the ‘discovery’ is yet to be authenticated, Dr. Metry and his associates are very optimistic about their work.

“Instead of looking at the painting from an archaeological or purely linguistic point of view, we took the cultural way to decipher the pictographs. Gondi culture being totemic, has a lot of such symbols also associated with Ghotul schools,” said Dr. Metry.

“Gondi is a proto Dravidian language and gives enough scope for studying the pictographs though its root morphemes,” observed Dr. Kangali. “Application of the root morphemes helped us in deciphering the 19 pictographs,” he added.

If the discovery stands the scrutiny of experts in the field, it would mean that the Gonds living in central and southern India could have migrated from the Indus Valley civilisation. “Meanwhile, we will continue with our work applying it to other paintings in the Hampi area to establish a Gondi-Harappan link,” the Professor said.

Source: The Hindu

Knights in saffron armour

The unique feature of Hinduism is its diversity and fluidity.

POLITICS  |   6-minute read |   16-12-2014

Devdutt Pattanaik @devduttmyth

The unique feature of Hinduism is its diversity and fluidity.

It is easy to use diversity as a tool to stifle all positive conversations on Hinduism, and reduce popular Hinduism to "patriarchal, casteist, hegemonic Brahminism", a noticeable trend amongst many left wing, even secular, intellectuals of India.

Many Euro-American academicians have also been arguing for some time that there is absolutely nothing common in the diverse communities of Hindus and that "Hinduism" is a false construct created by the British who used the word "Hindu" for the first time in the 19th century for administrative convenience to bundle together unrelated groups who were not "people of the book".

This naturally angers those who strive to create a united Hindu political force that the world cannot ignore. Explaining how Hinduism is a complex adaptive system (a phrase used by author Sanjeev Sanyal is tough). It seems far easier to stifle all conversations on Hindu diversity and seek construction of a neo-Hinduism rooted to one language (Sanskrit), one book (Bhagavad Gita), one system (jati), one way of living (vegetarian, heterosexual, patriarchal) and "reverse" conversions (ghar-vaapsi). This institutionalised religion (sangha) is protected by missionaries (pracharak) who function as celibate, saffron-robed warrior knights who need to wield, according to the fiery Yogi Adityanath, the "book" (shastra) and "the weapon" (shaastra), rosary (mala) and a lance (bhala). They call this neo-Hinduism, rather ironically, a timeless faith (sanatan dharma).

Timeless faiths need no protection. But knights need dragons (secularists, Christians, Muslims) and damsels in distress (Bharat Mata). And they end up throwing the damsel in an ivory tower, restraining her with new rules and definitions, allegedly for her own good!

The idea of chivalrous knights in shining armour emerged in medieval Europe and was popularised by bards known as troubadours. The chivalrous knights did not fight for glory, or spoils of war, but for goodness and righteousness. They were imagined as selfless men who believed in pure love – who stayed celibate in the service of a woman they loved, a woman of high rank, a queen usually, who was married off to another and so unobtainable.

Eventually, she was identified with the Virgin Mary. She was Notre Dame (Our Lady, in French). Did Notre Dame inspire the concept of Mother India? Are the preachers and defenders of neo-Hinduism inspired by the idea of the celibate chivalrous knight? We can only speculate.

The difference between Hinduism and Abrahamic faiths is rather stark. For example, in Hinduism, there is no concept of "false" god or "true" god. Ideas like "Satya Narayana" (True God) emerged in India only after the advent of Islam. More popular is instead the idea that all gods (spelt in plural and without capitalisation) are manifestations of God. Or that every god can be God sometime. Thus Shiva is God. Vishnu is also God. They are different to look at. Their stories are different. But in essence, they are same. Further, Hinduism has the concept of the Goddess. And Goddess is not a female form of God. She is independent of God, one who enables the divinity of God. Thus Shiva is shava (corpse) without Shakti. And Vishnu exists to serve as go-pala (cowherd) to go-mata (the earth-goddess).

Hinduism's complexity, fluidity and diversity has always been problematic to many Hindus. Unconsciously there was a need to get validation from the West. Nowhere is the desire to stifle Hinduism diversity more evident than in the obsession with Bhagavad Gita. Few realise that it is but one of many Gitas. There is Guru Gita, from the Skanda Purana, in which Shiva sings in response to a query by his consort, Shakti, about the meaning of one who facilitates spiritual growth; Ganesh Gita, which is part of Ganesh Purana, where Ganesha as Gajanana explains to king Varenya the truth about the world; Avadhuta Gita, in which the mendicant Dattatreya, first guru to all tantriks, sings about the nature of reality; Ashtavakra Gita, in which the hermit Ashtavakra, following a question by king Janaka, explores the nature of the soul; Rama Gita, from Ananda Ramayana, in which Ram, king of Ayodhya, consoles his brother, Lakshman, after the latter has abandoned Ram’s wife, Sita, in the forest; Uddhava Gita, also known as Hamsa Gita, from the Bhagavat Purana, in which Krishna, before leaving earth and returning to his heaven, Vaikuntha, summarises the wisdom of his life to his companion Uddhava; Vyadha Gita, from the Mahabharata, in which the butcher sings a song to explain to an arrogant hermit that being a householder, performing one’s duties, and serving others, is perhaps as important spiritually, if not more, than renouncing the world and serving only oneself; Anu Gita, narrated once again by Krishna to Arjun, but after the war, when Arjun’s brothers, the Pandavas, have firmly established their rule after defeating their cousins, the Pandavas; Devi Gita, where wisdom is given by the Goddess, not God.

In the late 18th century, the East India Company decided to publish the English translation of the Bhagavad Gita. Before that the Bhagavad Gita was known to Indians through songs of poet-saints like Dyaneshwara of Maharashtra (13th century) and Balarama Das of Odisha (15th century), which captured the spirit of the Sanskrit text but focussed on the path of devotion (bhakti marga). The Sanskrit text itself was restricted to Brahmins scholars such as Shankara (eight century), Ramanuja (11th century) and Madhava (12th century) who wrote long commentaries on it and focussed on its intellectual side (gyan yoga). When it was put down in writing, 2,000 years ago, the purpose was to counter the rise of monastic orders such as Buddhism by amplifying the value of ritual duty and social obligations (karma yoga).

It remains a mystery what made Bhagavad Gita more popular than the others. Was it more comprehensive? Was it more dramatic as it is takes place on a battlefield between two armies on the brink of war? Did its monotheistic tilt make it popular when Muslim and Christian rulers dominated the land? Internal correspondence of the East India Company reveals publication of this document was justified on ground that Gita’s monotheistic spirit aligned with the monotheistic spirit of Christianity, and was less confusing than polytheistic Vedas. This made Hinduism more comprehensible, and less fluid, enabling even many of India’s founding fathers, lawyers mostly, who went to London for further studies, connect with the glory of their Hindu past, for the first time in their lives. This naturally led to the meteoric rise of the Bhagavad Gita, transforming this Vaishnava document into the "Hindu Bible" with its own "One True God".

The saffron knights will argue, Hinduism was always monotheistic! We did not need the British, or the Muslim before that, to make it monotheistic. They hate the suggestion that theism itself emerged later in Hinduism, that the Vedas seem rather agnostic in many portions, and that the Hindu concept of God, with Goddess, is radically different from the concept of God in Abrahamic faiths. Such historical analysis of Hinduism angers the saffron knight. They want their neo-Hinduism damsel to be static and stagnant, defined by their needs and their limited knowledge and their desire to measure up to the Abrahamic faiths. They cannot handle the idea that Hinduism is a self-sustaining (swayambhu, in Sanskrit) evolving entity, indifferent to all those who seek to control, conquer or rescue her.

Source: dailyo

Christmas: Why Vajpayee would have given it off to this government

Good governance also means inclusive governance. Atal Bihari Vajpayee knew this. The RSS and Smriti Irani don't.

POLITICS  |   4-minute read |   15-12-2014

Aditya Menon @AdityaMenon22

Lal Krishna Advani seldom tires of narrating how the Bharatiya Janata Party, like Jesus Christ, was crucified on Good Friday but was resurrected on Easter Sunday. On April 4, 1980, which was Good Friday,  the Janata Party passed a resolution expelling all former Jana Sangh members from the party as they refused to give up membership of the RSS, an event that Advani compares to the crucifixion. Two days later, on Easter Sunday, the BJP was formed with Atal Bihari Vajpayee as its first president, which according to Advani was akin to Christ's resurrection.

Advani would be sad today as his party's government at the Centre seems to be keen on making students choose between Christ and Vajpayee.

On December 2, Prime Minister Narendra Modi declared that Vajpayee's birthday December 25 should be celebrated as Good Governance Day. More than eager to implement this order, the Commissioner of the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, who is directly under the HRD ministry, issued a circular instructing all Navodaya Vidyalayas to hold quiz competitions, screen documentaries on best practices in good governance on December 24-25 to celebrate Good Governance Day.

The Navodaya Vidyalaya circular further reveals that CBSE will be organising an essay competition on December 24 and 25, the topics for which will be declared on December 23.

A newspaper report cited the circular to insinuate that the government wants to scrap Christmas as a holiday in government schools. An angry Smriti Irani tweeted her outrage at the report which she termed as "deliberate mischief by the reporter" and demanded a retraction by the newspaper.

The HRD ministry issued a rejoinder to the story stating that the "essay competition is voluntary" and that the quiz competitions, documentaries and other events were restricted to Navodaya Vidyalayas which were residential schools and had holiday cycles based on the seasons.

The minister also stated that the essay competition that the CBSE has instructed schools to organise, is purely an online one.

Now, while the newspaper report might have exaggerated the contents of the circular suggesting that Christmas might no longer be a holiday, the HRD ministry's explanation is far from satisfactory.

Firstly, Irani's assertion that the essay competition will be a purely online one is wrong as the instructions in the circular clearly state that "submissions will be accepted online and offline" on December 24 and 25. So how can students submit their essays offline on December 25 if the schools are closed for Christmas?

Secondly, the HRD ministry's argument that it is ok to hold the celebrations - quiz competitions, documentary screenings and essay writing competitions - at Navodaya Vidyalayas because their vacation cycle is different, is deeply problematic. How are the Christian students who study at Navodaya Vidyalayas expected to participate in these events? As per 2007 figures, Navodaya Vidyalayas have 1.89 lakh students. If even two per cent of them are Christian, it would mean that over 3,600 students would have to make a choice between celebrating their main festival and participating in Good Governance day celebrations. Surely, Christians are within the ambit of Modi's definition of good governance.

But the issue here isn't just the HRD ministry's overzealous implementation of Modi's plan. We must also examine Modi's intentions behind declaring December 25 as Good Governance Day. October 31, Sardar Patel's birthday, was declared as national unity day not just to celebrate Patel's legacy but also to overshadow the other event that took place on that day: Indira Gandhi's assassination. He also tried to delink Jawaharlal Nehru from Children's Day by declaring November 14 as Bal Swachhta Divas.

Perhaps, Modi is trying to do the same thing with December 25 as well. Till now, Christmas has never been a purely Christian festival, particularly for children. Christmas is still very central to the imagination of many non-Christian children, be it through the legend of Santa Claus or Christmas carols or the beautiful Christmas Tree that they enjoy decorating.

The Hindu Right has often frowned upon such celebrations which it believes are subtle ways Christians use to influence others. By making school children write on good governance instead of decorate Christmas trees could be a way of countering this.

But for the Sangh, December 25 will neither be Christmas Day nor Good Governance Day.

This December 25, the Sangh plans to convert at least 4,000 Christian and 1,000 Muslim families to Hinduism in a grand ceremony in Aligarh led by BJP leader Yogi Adityanath.  The Bajrang Dal, the sword arm of Vishwa Hindu Parishad, has been entrusted with the homecoming programme to be held at Maheshwari College in Aligarh. The neo-converts will be sprinkled with holy Ganga water and a havan (sacrificial fire) will be conducted. Needless to say, Vajpayee won't even find a mention in the ceremony, so much for the Sangh's commitment to honouring the former prime minister.

Good governance also means inclusive governance. Vajpayee knew this. The Sangh and Smriti Irani don't.

Source: dailyo

******************

Read also: 

Smriti Irani denies report of school remaining open on Christmas

New Delhi, December 15, 2014            Updated: December 15, 2014 20:54 IST

SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT

......

 The issue was raised in the Lok Sabha by K.C. Venugopal (Congress) and, for the first time, the AIADMK also joined the Opposition in protesting the move. Mr. Venugopal read out from a letter sent by Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS) Commissioner G.S. Bothyal to all regional offices on December 10, listing the activities to be organised in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs) on December 25.

The letter says: “This is with regard to celebration of the birthday of Atal Behari Vajpayee and Madan Mohan Malviya as ‘Good Governance Day’ on December 25’’ and lists declamation contest, quiz competition, screening of best practises on good governance and innovative programmes as the activities to be organised to “mark the occasion in its true spirit.”

Regional commissioners have been told to “encourage participation of students” and submit a “consolidated report specifying activities carried out in all JNVs,” with photographs/video recordings, to the Commissioner’s office on December 25 itself.

According to this letter, the Central Board of Secondary Education will also be organising competitions under the CBSE Expression Series on Good Governance on December 24 and 25. However, till date, the CBSE has not sent any separate circular to its affiliated schools.

School principals and parents point out that this is becoming a pattern with school education under the BJP government; earlier instances were Teachers’ Day when Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressed children and the Swachch Bharat campaign on Gandhi Jayanti, October 2. “There seems to be a design to replace the original significance of the day by creating a new one,” noted one principal.

Source: The Hindu

Modi, conversion is a slap in the face of India

It is a shameless mess of anger, bigotry and coercion which threatens our multi-religious nation.

POLITICS   |   4-minute read |   15-12-2014

Rajeev Dhavan

Conversion, reconversion, counter-conversion and victimisation of Hindu converts to any other faith. What a shameless mess of anger, bigotry, threats and coercion.

On December 8, 2014, there was a havan in Agra, by offshoots of the RSS and the Bajrang Dal, who "reconverted" 200 Muslims into the Hindu fold. Muslims were promised Aadhar cards, IDs and registration as BPL (Below Poverty Line). Amidst chants and priestly ceremonies, vermilion was put on Muslim foreheads as they washed the feet of Hindu idols. Most Muslims said they were lured, and asserted that they were Muslims. Farhan, a poor Muslim put it well: “If 40 saffron-scarved persons stand on your head, you do what they want.”

The Hindutva juggernaut is on the roll. The plan is to have 600 conversion sammelans. After Balarampur and Agra will come Ghazipur and Aligarh on Christmas day. The rest will follow. This unrelenting Hindutva crusade in the name of Hinduism is shamelessly subversive by a religion which does not proselyte.

Legislation

The BJP suggested the remedy lay in passing an anti-conversion legislation. Such anti-conversion legislation has been used in the past to terrorise non-Hindus. Before independence it existed in princely states in Rajgarh (1936), Bihar (1942) Sarguja and Udaipur. After independence, the first round of legislation was in Orissa (1967) and Madhya Pradesh (1968). The Orissa legislation was struck down and its MP counterpart upheld by their respective high courts.

In the Stanislaus case (1977), the Supreme Court upheld the acts without examining them. Its logic was that Article 25 of the Constitution specifically guaranteed the right to “propagate” one’s faith, but not to convert. This clumsy judgment was welcomed by Hindu fundamentalists. Unfortunately in the Satya Narayan case (2003), justice Khare and Sinha showed extreme indiscipline, to affirm Stanislaus without a notice to the other side. After Stanislaus, the legislation was passed in Arunachal Pradesh (1978), Chhattisgarh (2202), Himachal Pradesh (2006) and Rajasthan (2008).

When Rajasthan wanted to make its law stricter, governor Pratibha Patil killed the Bill by reserving it for presidential assent. Gujarat’s anti-conversation laws were passed in 2003; with a later proactive amendment by Narendra Modi that conversions between Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs were not conversion because they were part of the same Hindu faith. Governor Sharma ordered reconsideration and Modi withdrew under pressure.

All these statutes decry conversion by force, misrepresentation or inducement. Fair enough. India’s Penal Code (IPC) treats such conversions as cheating and punishes those who promote enmity and outrage religious feelings (Sections 153A, 295A of the IPC). By this test, the RSS and Bajrang Dal initiative in Agra and 600 planned sammelans are illegal as disturbing communal harmony. Anti-conversion acts are not that simple.

Models

The simple model is to introduce criminal consequences, including making them cognisable (investigation by police) and non-bailable. The second model may be called the surveillance model, followed in MP, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Arunachal Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh. Here, prior intimation of a conversion has to be given to the magistrate who can inquire into any “complaint or information”. Significantly, Parliament has refused to pass the Indian Conversion (Regulation and Registration) Bill, 1954 and the Backward Communities (Religion Protection) Bill 1960. A 1978 bill lapsed. The response of the Modi government on December 12, 2014 to the recent conversions in Agra is to suggest an anti-conversion Bill. Such statutes are designed to harass Christians, Muslims and other minorities through surveillance and punishment.

Technically, conversion by Hindus will also come under the proposed bill. But we all know there is a huge difference of application. Such laws are inflicted on minorities and reticent in their use on Hindus. Modi’s strategy is brilliant in its deceit. First, his rank and file create Agra and then his government suggest this odious solution as a panacea. Create a crisis and propose a solution which Parliament has resisted for 64 years. Freedom of religion by threats and criminalisation is not acceptable.

Tolerance

Hindutva adherents must recognise that Hindus left the faith because of some aspects of Hinduism which can be considered offensive. Buddhism posed a threat to Hindus over centuries because of the caste system and Buddhism’s innate attractiveness. It took the Shankaracharya to simplify the Hindu faith to some extent even as lapses continue. Even if conversions took place in the Muslim era (1206 -1857) and the Christian era (1700-1947) to curry favour with the rulers, after many generations today’s Muslims and Christians remain steadfast in their faith.

Recent conversions from Hinduism are symbolised by Ambedkar’s conversion to Buddhism. If Hinduism were to introspect, one would find an apparatus of cruel absurdities in an otherwise creditable faith. What we now have is a political Hinduism backed by arrogance, ignorance and threats. When Gujarat burned, Modi was complicit. Today, he is the prime minister of India. What is expected from him is a severe condemnation of the events in Agra, the one planned in Aligarh and the 600 to follow. Is Modi himself truly a Hindu? I think in name only. The RSS "short pants" brigade was modelled on Nazi lines. Modi needs the RSS and others for political victory, even if at times limits of decency have been crossed.

India is the greatest multicultural, multi-religious nation in the world, with traditions of tolerance and co-existence. Mr Modi — don’t let your electoral supporters spoil this.

Source: dailyo

Sanskrit deserves more than slogans

Vaishna Roy

December 15, 2014    Updated: December 15, 2014 01:31 IST

Illustration: Satwik Gade

Making Sanskrit compulsory does not give us even a glimpse into the immensity of the language’s grammar or its soaring poetry and philosophy

Philologist William Jones famously described it as “more perfect than Greek, more copious than Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either.” Layered and complex, Sanskrit is one of our richest legacies. With its perfect grammar, its capacity for poetry, its synonyms and metaphors, it’s a linguist’s and philologist’s delight. Wanting to return to Sanskrit some of its status is not just commendable but crucial, but as always we are not interested in the big picture. We don’t want solutions that need hard work or academic rigour, just trite and superficial truisms. The idea to make Sanskrit mandatory in schools or to declare the Bhagavad Gita the “national scripture” is along the same lines. It’s important to at least get the premise right before we declare that Sanskrit is “the language of our country. Everything was written in Sanskrit thousands of years ago ...” as Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader Ashok Singhal declared at last month’s World Hindu Congress, when he said ominously that many things would soon be made compulsory in India.

First of all, consider that Sanskrit was never the language of our masses. It’s always been the medium of instruction, the classical and liturgical language in which grammar, science, religion and philosophy were written. The word Sanskrit comes from sanskrita or refined. The everyday language of people was Prakrit from prakriti for natural or common. In fact, several scholars consider that Sanskrit originated not so much as a disparate language but as a superior and polished version of speech (samskrita vak or polished speech). It coexisted with local dialects and these vocabularies intermingled extensively — Hindi, Bengali, Bhojpuri, Telugu, Malayalam all sharing etymological roots.

Language of liturgy

Also, Sanskrit was actually divisive and sowed some of the first seeds of segregation in Indian society. Because it was complex and highly evolved, its knowledge began to mark speakers as belonging to the wealthy and educated classes. From there it was a short step to Sanskrit being taught only to upper castes and then only to Brahmins and priests. If Sanskrit got marginalised, it was not so much because foreign languages wiped it out, but because it chose to confine itself to a narrower and narrower space until it was soon exclusively the language of liturgy alone, learnt only by priests, who grew into an esoteric cabal.

The Bhakti movement was born as a reaction to the priestly class’s appropriation of language and religion. Poet-saints such as Kabir and Tulsidas dumped not just the ritualism and caste system of extant Hinduism, but also Sanskrit, its language. An extraordinary body of prose and poetry in the vernacular mushroomed in this era — Kabir wrote his dohe in Braj Bhasha, Tulsidas in Braj and Awadhi, Tukaram and Namdev in Marathi, Nanak in Gurmukhi. In fact, even the much earlier Mauryan era edicts of Ashoka are in Prakrit.

Sanskrit in school

Studying in a Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) school, we had Sanskrit till Class 8. A bit of an ear for linguistics and you recognised half the words because Sanskrit shares cognates with almost every Indo-European language. Then you learnt by rote the declensions of various common shabdas. You spouted these, did some basic translation and verb matching, and were pretty much guaranteed at least 90 per cent in exams. If Sanskrit is made mandatory, that’s what students will largely experience. Nothing traumatic or difficult but nothing very meaningful either. The point I am making is this: what we were taught did not give us even a glimpse into the immensity of the language’s grammar or its soaring poetry and philosophy.

We Indians love symbolic gestures, and that’s what “making Sanskrit mandatory” is about. It’s another bronze statue, another slogan — the ‘Don’t Horn’ on the back of a truck — that won’t achieve anything real. Students will mug up shabdas for exams and still learn German in private. But, in that narrow sense, Sanskrit is already available from institutes such as Samskrita Bharati, which conduct classes and award diplomas for anyone who cares to look.

We don’t need that sort of shallow familiarity because without social currency, a language cannot survive anyway. It’s more important to preserve Sanskrit academically rather than colloquially.

The same groups that are so quick to ban texts at universities would do well to do something proactive instead, such as demand the inclusion of translated Sanskrit poetry and drama into syllabi. I have friends with fancy degrees in Comparative Literature or Philosophy who would be hard-pressed to identify Bhavabhuti but can spout “Odysseus.” We have Indian publishers who produce handcrafted, collector’s editions of Sophocles’ works — why not something similar for “Mricchakatika”?

In fact, if knowledge and learning were not as Eurocentric as it is today, any self-respecting university would intuitively include Sanskrit texts, as they do Greek, in the canon of world literature. Not only is Panini’s “Patanjali” the world’s earliest work in linguistics and phonetics (and the foundation for most modern linguistics), there is no grammar as detailed or logical. We need Indologists pushing for these quiet, back-end but ultimately significant changes.

A practical approach

Real renewal happens not in shrill sloganeering but here — in funding top-notch translations, textbooks and libraries; in sponsoring research chairs that produce more Sanskritists in India than abroad; in high-paid professorships that encourage the study of Indology rather than English Literature. How about pushing for short courses at prestigious universities worldwide where students can earn extra credits?

Most important, it means divorcing the religious from the linguistic, so that Sanskrit is deconstructed and studied for its intrinsic value rather than as ritual.

We must stop pretending that a perfect Indian culture, preserved in amber, is waiting to be resuscitated intact, with dhoti-clad denizens chattering away in Sanskrit and milking cows. That’s as much a chimera as Gandhiji’s vision of charkha-spinning villagers breeding silkworms. If we want Sanskrit appreciated, let’s get practical for a change.

vaishna.r@thehindu.co.in .

Source: The Hindu

Fifth column: Stop Hindutva now

Why is the Prime Minister not publicly rebuking them for dragging Hindutva 
into his mandate in the ugliest way?

Written by Tavleen Singh | Posted: December 14, 2014 1:33 am | Updated: December 14, 2014 1:39 am
   
Why is the Prime Minister allowing the RSS to steal his mandate? I ask this question wherever I go these days and frankly I have no answer.

When Leftist political pundits harangue me with charges that it was the RSS that helped Narendra Modi become prime minister, I tell them that they do not know what they are talking about. Leftists are usually allergic to dust, heat, poverty and the real India and so rarely travel during election campaigns. This made them miss the fact that last summer’s general election was not about Hindutva. Anywhere. It was about change and development. Without Modi, the BJP could not have won half the seats they did. Besides, if the RSS could help it win elections, what went wrong the last two times?

Yet there exists today the bizarre situation in which our strongest prime minister in decades is allowing Hindu fanatics in the Lok Sabha and Hindu fanatical organisations outside to blacken his image. The MPs who have been most offensive wear saffron robes signifying asceticism and renunciation. So what they are doing in Parliament instead of in some Himalayan cave is a valid question. But since they have found their way into the Lok Sabha, why is the Prime Minister not publicly rebuking them for dragging Hindutva into his mandate in the ugliest way? We barely recovered from that Sadhvi calling all Muslims ‘bastards’ when her brother in saffron pronounced that Nathuram Godse was a patriot. Both these MPs expressed regret when their remarks caused a public furore, but it is not possible to ever apologise for such things.

If we need proof that these fanatics have RSS approval, it is evident in the zeal with which the BJP’s ‘alma mater’ is trying to convert Muslims and Christians ‘back’ to Hinduism. The Sanatana Dharma does not permit proselytisation. But try telling that to those loonies rampaging about the derelict, desperately poor shanties of Uttar Pradesh trying to bring Muslims and Christians ‘home’.

Of course these fanatics harmed the people they are trying to reconvert, but much more than this is the harm they have done Modi and his government. Just as he was beginning to bask in the luminous glow of international approval and domestic election victories, he is now in danger of losing all his support. His votes did not come for Hindutva reasons. I say this with certainty. During the election campaign, wherever I went, I asked if Hindutva and the Ram temple were issues any more. And not even in the dusty halls of Banaras Hindu University did I meet anyone who believed these were issues in the 2014 election.

Everywhere I went, people said that they were drawn to Modi because of his talk of ‘vikas’ and ‘parivartan’. At his first rally in Uttar Pradesh I walked some distance with ordinary residents of Kanpur and when they saw BJP workers ride by angrily shouting ‘Jai Shri Ram’ from speeding motorcycles, they expressed strong disapproval. So why has the Prime Minister remained silent when the worst kind of Hinduism has been unleashed by the RSS and when the ‘love jihad’ proved that it would lose him votes in future?

For his government, the worst consequence is that the RSS has succeeded in changing the subject. So six months on, when we should have been talking about reforms in governance and the economy, we are talking about cow urine remedies and religious tensions. By now his ministers should have put before us a list of proposed reforms for sectors ranging from energy and the railways to policing and healthcare. That these are desperately needed is obvious from the horrible healthcare tragedies in Chhattisgarh and Punjab and from the recent rape in an Uber taxi.

Where economic reforms are concerned, there has so far been only talk. Not only has Modi’s government continued policies that brought the economy to its knees, it has not even rid us of laws (land acquisition, companies law) that have made doing business in India even more difficult than it already was. And if our roads, railways and ports continue to be as bad as they were in the 19th century, we can be certain that India will remain very poor for another 50 years.

It was the hope that Modi meant what he said when he promised ‘parivartan’ that won him a full mandate. For his own sake, he needs to remember this quickly or he will find that the RSS will take it away from him to revive its own fortunes. Incidentally, if it is so keen to play a bigger role in India’s future, why does it not take charge of doing some ‘Swachh Bharat’ activity in temples and holy cities like Varanasi and Hardwar? Why does it not take charge of cleaning our sacred rivers?

Follow Tavleen Singh on Twitter @ tavleen_singh

Source: The Indian Express

English, ticklish

Jatin Gandhi

Illustration by Satwik Gade.                                                                 The Hindu

English is the passport to upward mobility in the modern, aspirational India, but many political leaders seem to be out of touch with this new reality. This disconnect has led to friction in the nation in transition.

During the anti-colonial movement, Mahatma Gandhi’s anti-English stance offered a means of fighting colonialism and the English. In the 1960s and the later decades, the resurgent rural elite stood at loggerheads with the urban elite as cities grew at the expense of the villages and development overlooked the vast countryside. The English-speaking elite became the villains of this lopsided development. The heavily Sanskritised version of Hindi that the Bharatiya Janata Party and its ideological parent, the Sangh, propagate offers a counter-elitism rather than an anti-elitism. It breeds exclusivist tendencies of a different hue found in the Jan Sangh’s slogan of “Hindi-Hindu-Hindustan.” The attempts to impose Sanskrit or Hindi each time a Bharatiya Janata Party-led government comes to power are not merely a coincidence.

“In the mid-1960s, an attempt to impose Hindi was made and Tamil Nadu went up in flames. We ought to have learnt our lessons,” cautions Mridula Mukherjee, Professor of Modern Indian History at the Jawaharlal Nehru University. “National integration in a democracy has to be a voluntary process. There should no attempt at coercion.”

Read full article: The Hindu

******************************************************************************


Hindi is still a thorn in Tamil Nadu's flesh

Sruthisagar Yamunan

 The 1965 anti-Hindi agitation.

When the Centre wanted government departments to use Hindi in social media, protests erupted immediately in the State. The then Chief Minister, Jayalalithaa, in a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, said the decision was against the spirit of the Official Languages Act, 1963.

Perhaps, one of the major reasons the Congress was shunted out of power in the State in 1967 was imposition of Hindi. The State government brought in paramilitary forces and clamped down on the anti-Hindi agitators, and the party never again came to power.

Back in 1937, when the Madras Presidency government led by C. Rajagopalachari insisted on compulsory learning of Hindi in the State, the Dravidian movement, then in the form of the Justice Party, got a major campaign agenda. For three years till the policy was revoked in 1940, the agitations were sustained in almost every part of the Presidency, in the process making its leader, E.V. Ramasamy (Periyar), the tallest leader of the Dravidian movement.

In 1965, when the 15-year timeframe to make Hindi the only official language was about to expire, Tamil Nadu again led the agitations. By this time, with the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) gaining ground, imposition of Hindi was part of the narrative of the Aryan-Dravidian divide — the northern Aryans attempting to invade the cultural space of the southern Dravidians. It took an assurance from the then Prime Minister, Lal Bahadur Shastri, that English would continue as the second official language as long as non-Hindi-speaking people wanted it, to quell the protests.

--------------

Writer A. Marx says politically, the Tamil language issue has ceased to be an electoral issue, though it continues to be an emotive issue.

In 1965, the DMK was the only face of the anti-Hindi agitations, giving it the full benefit of the anti-Congress mood. In 2014, all Tamil parties have a common policy on the language issue, giving no one a clear advantage.

Mr. Marx says the anti-Hindi mood is actually more vigorous in the North than in the South at the moment. “It is people speaking non-Hindi languages in the North who have come down heavily on the BJP this time,” he says.

While the Dravidian parties opposed Hindi, he says, they had a logical language policy nevertheless with the constant emphasis on learning English, ensuring that Tamils were not left behind in the development story.

Read full article: The Hindu

******************************************************************************

Blogger's Comment:

Hindi will never become official language in the five Southern States of India. We have our own distinct mother tongues, Telugu (A.P., Telangana), Tamil (Tamilnadu), Kannada (Karnataka) and Malayalam (Kerala) (first language), English (second language) mouth piece to the world. Hindi will have third language status as we have now, no further change in the status quo.

Our history, culture, literature are tied to our mother tongues and we are identified by it as Telugus/Andhras, Tamils, Kanarese and Malayalis. BJP Hindutva activists RSS, VHP. Bajrang Dal may campaign as much as they can for Hindi/Sanskrit and their efforts will be futile in the Sourthen India.

Explained: QUESTION OF CONVERSION

Written by Utkarsh Anand | New Delhi | Posted: December 13, 2014 2:11 am | Updated: December 13, 2014 8:25 am   

Amid chaos in Parliament over alleged forced religious conversions in Agra, Parliamentary Affairs Minister M Venkaiah Naidu on Thursday called for central and state anti-conversion laws.

What does the Constitution say on freedom of religion?

Articles 25-30 guarantee citizens freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. They also guarantee freedom to manage religious affairs, monetarily contribute to promotion of any religion, and to set up and administer educational institutions.

Was there a law on conversion before Independence?

The British did not enact any law. But many princely states did. Examples: Raigarh State Conversion Act, 1936, Patna Freedom of Religion Act, 1942, Sarguja State Apostasy Act, 1945, Udaipur State Anti-Conversion Act, 1946. Specific laws against conversion to Christianity were enacted in Bikaner, Jodhpur, Kalahandi and Kota.

What happened after Independence?

In 1954, Parliament took up for consideration the Indian Conversion (Regulation and Registration) Bill. Six years later, another law, the Backward Communities (Religious Protection) Bill, 1960, was proposed to stop conversion. Both were dropped for want of support. However, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and Arunachal Pradesh passed anti-conversion laws in 1967, 1968 and 1978 respectively. Later, similar laws were passed by the state assemblies of Chhattisgarh (2000), Tamil Nadu (2002), Gujarat (2003), Himachal Pradesh (2006), and Rajasthan (2008). The laws were intended to stop conversions by force or inducement, or fraudulently. Some of the laws made it mandatory to seek prior permission from local authorities before conversion.

What offences do forced conversions attract?

These laws made forced conversion a cognisable offence under sections 295 A and 298 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertain to malicious and deliberate intention to hurt the religious sentiments of others. They attract a prison term of up to three years and fine. The punishment, in some cases, is harsher if the offence is committed against a minor, a woman or an SC or ST person.

What legal challenge have these laws faced?

The first major case in which the Supreme Court ruled on the freedom of religion and on conversions related to petitions challenging the conversion laws of Orissa and MP in 1967-68. In 1977, a constitution bench headed by then Chief Justice of India A N Ray upheld the validity of the laws, saying freedom to propagate one’s religion, as stipulated under Article 25 (1), did not grant a fundamental right to convert another person. The bench ruled that a purposive conversion would impinge on the “freedom of conscience” guaranteed to all citizens.

What are the other significant judgments on conversion?

In the Sarla Mudgal case (1995), the Supreme Court held that conversion to Islam was not valid if done only in order to be able to practise polygamy. It was held to be an act of bigamy prohibited u/s 17 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and punishable under Section 494 IPC. The second marriage would be void, the SC observed. This position was reaffirmed by the judgment in the Lilly Thomas case (2000), which clarified that prosecution for bigamy was not a violation of the freedom of religion under Article 25.

In the Vilayat Raj case (1983). the court said that if both parties were Hindu at the time of marriage, provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act can apply even after one of them or both converted to Islam.

In the Chandra Sekaran case (1963), the court had observed that a person does not cease to be a Hindu merely because he declares that he has no faith in his religion, or if he stops practising his religion.

When was the last attempt made at a central legislation?

In 1978, an All India Freedom of Religion Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha. However, it was never discussed, and was dropped after the government fell in July 1979.

Source: The Indian Express

Satyarthi loses Nobel acceptance speech page

By: Press Trust of India | Oslo | Posted: December 10, 2014 10:22 pm

Kailash Satyarthi, winner of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize along with Pakistani teenage activist Malala Yousafzai, lost a page of his speech and wondered whether this had happened before to any other Nobel laureate.

“Solutions are not found only in the deliberations in conferences and prescriptions from a distance…Friends what is missing now of course is my (speech) paper,” he said to peels of laughter in the Oslo City Hall where he received the the coveted prize.

“But, no problem, I will continue without that,” the 60-year-old said, quickly regaining composure.

Minutes later a Norwegian official came on stage with the missing page of his lecture and Satyarthi once again had the audience in splits saying, “Thank You so much! I don’t know whether it has happened to some Nobel Laureate before or not.”

“But many things are happening today and the best thing that happened is that a young and courageous Pakistani girl has met an Indian father and the Indian father met the Pakistani daughter,” he said.

Delivering the speech, Satyarthi said, “Friends, the Nobel Committee generously invited me to deliver a ‘lecture’.

Respectfully, I am unable to do that. I represent here the sound of silence. The cry of innocence. And, the face of invisibility. I have come here to share the voices and dreams of our children, our children, because they are all our children.”

He started off his speech by reciting a mantra from the Vedas.

Satyarthi also invoked other religions to impress upon the importance of child rights, saying “all the great religions tell us to care for children.”

“Jesus said ‘Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to them.’ The Holy Quran says: “Kill not your children because of poverty,” he said.

In his concluding remarks, Satyarthi said “I call upon you in this room, and all across the world. I call for a march from exploitation to education, from poverty to shared prosperity, a march from slavery to liberty, and a march from violence to peace. Let us march from darkness to light. Let us march from mortality to divinity.”

“Let us march!” he signed off.

Satyarthi’s NGO Bachpan Bachao Andolan (Save Childhood Movement) prides itself on liberating over 80,000 children from bonded labour in factories and workshops across India.

Malala, who was nominated in the peace prize category last year also, became the youngest ever Nobel laureate.

Source: The Indian Express

Sushmaji, our Constitution is our National Book

A country once divided upon religious lines, cannot afford to exalt into statecraft, any holy text, majority or minority, into an identity marker of nationhood.

POLITICS  |   5-minute read |   09-12-2014

Sanjay Hegde @sanjayuvacha

Minister of external affairs Sushma Swaraj has called for officially notifying the Bhagavad Gita, as India’s “Rashtriya Granth”; a phrase which loosely translates as “National book/scripture”. At the very outset, there are a few conceptual problems. Reducing the Gita to a mere book, albeit with national status is problematic to say the least. It is even more problematic  to treat it as national  scripture, and imply that scriptures of other religions are anti-national or at any rate non-national.

Secondly, designating anything as the national definitive is to condemn the object to ritual meaninglessness and perpetuate a neglectful protection. Our national game is hockey, our national calendar is the Saka Calendar, our national animal is the Royal Bengal Tiger, our national aquatic animal is the river dolphin and our national river is the Ganga. The national appellation has neither guaranteed their existence nor any continued engagement by this country.

Semantics aside, the Gita is a book by which nearly 80 per cent of India is expected to swear by. Its eternal philosophy of performance of duty irrespective of reward is an ideal which if nationally emulated would build a strong country of ever dutiful citizens. Why should then anyone object to a national status being conferred on it?

I object, because we do have a national book, it is called the Constitution of India. It was fashioned out of the debris of an empire, the aspirations of a new democratic nation and the hopes of a post-colonial world. In 1947, as we got rid of the empire, former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill on March 6, 1947, warned his fellow British parliamentarians: “ In handing over the government of India to these so-called political classes we are handing over to men of straw, of whom, in a few years, no trace will remain.”

Probably in response, in the very first address of the chairman of Constituent Assembly, Dr Sachidanand Sinha ended with a reiteration of the founding fathers’ faith in the immortality of the destiny of this country, best summed up by the Urdu poet Iqbal in these lines:

Yunan-o-Misr-o-Roma sab mit gaye jahan se,

Baqi abhi talak hai nam-o-nishan hamara.

Kuch bat hai ke hasti mit-ti nahin hamari,

Sadion raha hai dushman daur-e-zaman hamara

It loosely translated into: "Greece, Egypt, and Rome, have all disappeared from the surface of the Earth; but the name and fame of India, our country, has survived the ravages of time and the cataclysms of ages. Surely, surely, there is an eternal element in us which had frustrated all attempts at our obliteration, in spite of the fact that the heavens themselves had rolled and revolved for centuries, and centuries, in a spirit of hostility and enmity towards us.”

With the horrors of partition still continuing, the attendant transfer of nearly ten million humans, the violence and riots that cost us hundreds of thousands of lives, capped by  the assassination of the Mahatma, India seemed well on the way of making Churchill’s direst predictions come true. In that atmosphere of fear and promise, a constituent Assembly came together, with people drawn from every province, representing every interest and finally fashioned a document that has bound the nation together, as a modern, democratic unit. We adopted the Constitution on November 26, 1949, gave it to ourselves from January 26, 1950. Ever thereafter, we have as a nation, lived by its guiding light in all matters of state.

Our Rashtriya Granth was conceived in hope, carried though grave deliberation and delivered to an expectant nation as a child to be nurtured through a hostile world of decaying imperialism and cold-war conflict. We did not give ourselves this Constitution to merely keep it on ceremonial display. Time and again we resorted to it, to elect rulers, to throw them out, to keep a check on dictatorial tendencies, to fashion for ourselves a minimum charter of fundamental rights and to define the mechanics of operation of each organ of government. From the post-Emergency era to the Supreme Court, Election Commission under TN Seshan and JM Lyngdoh and the CAG in the times of Bofors and 2G scandals, every authority that attempted systemic reforms, found its raison d'être and its powers, in the relevant provisions of the Constitution. Justice VR Krishna Iyer, in Sunil Batra’s case put it best, when he said: “The Indian human has a constant companion - the court armed with the Constitution.”

It must be conceded that our Constitution is the one national book for India; that all citizens can identify with. It does not represent only a dominant section, and thus impliedly exclude the rest.

The Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind had strongly opposed the demand for a separate Pakistan. Despite its opposition, Partition happened. Post Independence and Partition, the Jamiat propounded a theological basis for its nationalistic philosophy. Its thesis is that Muslims and non-Muslims have entered upon a mutual contract in India since independence, to establish a secular state. The Constitution of India represents this contract. This is known in Urdu as a Mu'ahadah. This mu'ahadah is similar to a previous similar contract signed between the Muslims and the Jews in Medina in the times of the Holy Prophet. Accordingly as the Muslim community's elected representatives supported and swore allegiance to this modern day Mu'ahadah, so it is the duty of Indian Muslims is to keep loyalty to the Constitution.

No contract is one sided, no loyalty can endure neglect and repudiation. It behoves all children of mother India, in matters of nation and state to adhere only to the constitution. Religious texts are for matters of worship, an individual’s communion with his particular God. A granth is a guru for the seeker of God. In matters temporal, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's", is not a mere biblical injunction, but states the sound political doctrine of separation of church and state.

A country once divided upon religious lines, cannot afford to exalt into statecraft, any holy text, majority or minority, into an identity marker of nationhood. To stand together, this country does not need a religious text as a “rashtriya granth”. We have the Constitution of India as our enduring creed of citizenship, a charter for nationhood, all enveloping, all encompassing.

Source: dailyo

Everyone loves a good slut-shaming, including women

In India, a woman's body is never her own. We love stereotyping.

LIFE  |  Below The Belt  |   5-minute read |   06-12-2014

Sreemoyee Piu Kundu @sreemoyeekundu

I don’t remember much about my gym. Considering I work out for approximately every six months, every few years. Except, this one, glaring incident. There used to be this bombshell of a woman. Late 40s. 

"Kya, rap-chick figure, bidu!"

"Full item. Kya mast honth. Perfect breasts. Sexy abs. The whole health club fida over the shape of her ankles. Paisa wasool. Baby doll", the trainers sniggered amongst themselves. Taking bets on who she would beckon. Kiska number, pehle.

"Madam... c’mon some more abs… or chest. Pehle chest karte hain," they would raise their hands, as she breezed past them. Her hips swinging.

Dance Basanti.

"You must be really killing it in training," I remarked one morning, from the next treadmill, mustering up some courage. She was in a tight spandex shorts. Her arms chiseled. A tattoo just over her navel. An angel, with just one wing.

I tried to stop myself from staring.

"Issh…. who dresses like this? We are all family people. Obscene. Must be a Punjabi, husband must be home, screwing his maid… or drunk from last night… the men I’ve heard drink regularly. Party, party, party," I heard someone whisper.

"I’m 46. Thanks, I’ve always looked after myself. I have two boys. My husband is a shippie. Come home, someday. I’m in CR Park, too. Our body is our biggest source of strength," she smiled, plugging back her earphones.

"She always comes in the morning, so that she can fall all over these trainers. "Madam. Madam." As if we don’t exist. Slut! Must be then calling them home, in the afternoons, paying them. It’s a big racket in Delhi. Society people. Horny housewives, hubby in merchant navy, apparently…" another allegation, arose.

"I like your shorts. You should have been a model… an actress…" I passed her a hand towel.

"You’re good for my ego," she patted my back.

"Stay away from her. All dirty women."

Last month, it was her older son’s birthday, she was telling one of the trainers. Wanted to wear a fully backless gown. Was showing him the picture on her WhatsApp. He showed us, later. "Badi aayi Sunny Leone," a pot-bellied lady cackled, as soon as she had walked away.

"But, aunty…" I tried defending her.

The woman, sans a name.

The next week she left.

"She surely has implants… always dhakdhak… God she was one horny woman. I spoke to the manager, we, we hardly get any attention once she entered… and did you notice how she always monopolised the treadmill, cross-trainer… carried her own music… bloody angrez," another angry woman hissed.

Let’s get this straight; men are not the only enemy. And neither is any particular religion. Those, believe it or not, are the easiest to blame. So, incase you’ve been smarting after the Gauahar Khan tamacha or were violated when India’s top sportswoman, Sania Mirza, had drawn flack from Muslim religious groups for her skimpy tennis skirts, with a Muslim scholar even issuing a ruling that declared that women’s tennis attire was not suited to Islam. Or feel nauseous each time a minister, maharaj or maulawi claims that tight jeans cause rape. Take the case of right wing Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, for instance, which recently demanded that a dress code for girls be introduced in schools and colleges while banning the use of cell phones; they must also wear "dupatta," it added.

It’s easy to stereotype women, I guess. I mean how many times have you questioned a woman's character only because she was skimpily clad. Labelling her a tramp, in your own head. The kind of woman who sleeps around. With younger men. Gym trainers. Gigolos. On the side.

Or is single. Beyond a certain age. A divorce, perhaps. What if she’s queer, you ask? Pointing to someone you claim you may have seen in the newspapers today. Gay parade, Delhi? A woman who exposes too much. Is also a muffat aurat. Maybe, a feminist, you allege. Gets laid by the boss. A corporate honcho who slept her way to the top.

A woman’s body is never quite her own? Our womb our destiny in some way. Our every body part crucified for mass consumption. Objectified in umpteen films, popular ads, item numbers, porn videos, posters, ramps...? Never safe, never sacred. Always in need of a certain degree of social sanction...? Always crying out for protection. In other words, put a label, on me and tuck me away in cold storage.

The way millions of Indian mothers forewarn their desi girls to wear "dhang ke kapde," while leaving for college. A call centre. A café.

"Aise behude kapde mein nikli toh tange tod dunga…samjhe? Tumhara dupatta kahan hain? Achcha pala hai tune beti ko…" screams a father. An uncle. An older brother. A parched patriarch, of some sort. Speaking in a misogynistic mother tongue.

The one you tie rakhi to. Every year. The same man who later ties a mangal sutra around your neck. As you look towards the moon, and wait.

"Mein moti toh nahin lag rahi hoon iss mein, na?" you pause, pouting, sucking in your stomach. In a mall trial room, somewhere. Guarded by male vanity. Built on centuries of fragile feminine self-confidence. Body images. Size zero. Tall. Fair. Convented. Her janamkundli.Her first line of defence. A matrimonial ad. A marriage market. A manglik.

"Thoda kam khayakar, shaadi se pehle dus kg kam karna hain…" you remember your bestie. Shuddering at your stretch marks. After your second C-section.

A daughter again.

As your arthritic mother-in-law points fingers accusingly, hollering, "log kya kahenge? Do bacchon ki ma ho ab tum. Hamare ghar ki bahuyein aise kapde nahin pehenti… Bunty apni wife ko sikhao…"

You cover your shoulders, at once. The Kellogs, 13-day challenge clearly gone to waste. The Zumba DVD you bought online. The first you shopped on Flipkart. The neighbour's wife you can’t tolerate. The one your husband letches at in secret, playing songs as he watches her change. Her full figure, a torment, a threat. The way she can get away.

"Sarika, Mummyji thik bol rahin hain," you know the rest….

The battle has started.

Source: dailyo

Sad, sorry state of Indian liberals under Modi sarkar

The need of the hour is to save the Indian liberalism from its Left-liberal elite.

POLITICS  |   Long-form |   05-12-2014

Shekhar Gupta  @ShekharGupta

National interest

By the time this week's India Today hits the stands, one thing would have become clearer: whether Narendra Modi is essentially an old-style politician under an extroverted modern gloss or a game changer. Because an old-timer would be a partisan to the core, defending the indefensible to the very logical end, that is, the loss of an argument and some political capital. If he is an original new phenomenon, one of a kind, or sui generis as the more scholarly people prefer to say (my venerable first news editor, late DN Singh, had banned the use of "foreign" words), he would have fired Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti. Earlier she is sent back to prayer and penance, rather than waste public money in the ministry of food processing, making a pickle of the BJP's image, the better it will be.

But really? Think again, and think hard. Do we, the currently besieged and cornered minority of Indian liberals, even want the story to end that way, and this soon? Do we want it to end at all? A sadhvi in the BJP ministry, even if a junior minister in charge of achar and chutney, while I presume her senior, Harsimrat Kaur of the Akali Dal, takes care of jams and juices, brings such solace to us liberals. It is living proof that we are intellectually right and morally superior. And most importantly, that we are losing. Poor us. Is there any future left for the Indian liberal with the rise of Narendra Modi? Why isn't the rest of the world feeling sorry for us? How can we, such a small, brave but increasingly disenfranchised community of liberals, be expected to rectify the consequence of the stupidity of crores of voters? The future is lost, a mythical past is upon us, the barbarians are at the gates. Where is my ticket to a genuinely liberal American East Coast campus or think tank?

Even for a bout of self-flagellation, this sounds harsh. If Modi lacks the political wisdom to cut his losses early enough, it is his problem and not that of his critics. In fact, the longer he perpetuates this, the more the Indian Left-liberal, will say, I told you so. From Niranjan Jyoti to Adityanath, the new saffron-robes are welcome evidence of all our warnings gone unheeded. Just as Sadhvi Rithambhara and Ashok Singhal were in the early 1990s, and Praveen Togadia and Pramod Muthalik of Sri Ram Sene in the interregnum. It would be such disappointment if Modi did the right thing now and sent Sadhvi Jyoti home. He can't deny us this living, walking and talking evidence for our unheeded warnings.

Credit must be given where it's duly deserved. In this case to American liberal academic Steve Almond, whose June 8, 2012 article ("Liberals are ruining America, I know because I am one") in the New York Times triggered this week's central thought of liberal masochism, self-isolation, mourning or, in the more apt Indian usage, rona-dhona, or even better, in Punjabi, syapa. Almond talked of how he briefly acquired liberal martyrdom in 2006 by resigning his teaching job at Boston College to protest the selection of then secretary of state Condoleezza Rice as commencement speaker. His biggest reward, he said, was an invitation to appear on an abusive Right-wing chat show on Fox News, and he thought then that he had paid his liberal dues by standing up to sour-mouthed, shouty anchor Sean Hannity. By 2012, he said, he saw that action as less heroic. "I hadn't spoken truth to power or caused anyone to reassess secretary Rice's record. I merely provided a few minutes of gladiatorial stimulation for Fox News. In seeking to assert my moral superiority, I enabled Hannity."

If you recall 2012 America, the Right-Left polarisation cut across American society. But in 2014, six months into Modi's reign, India sounds quite similar. Almond's self-diagnosis seems to fit us too now: "This, to be blunt, is the tragic flaw of the American liberal," he said. "We choose to see ourselves as innocent victims of an escalating Right-wing fanaticism. But too often we serve as willing accomplices... and to the resulting degradation of our civic discourse." Then, turning the sword into his own belly he said: "We do this, without even meaning to, by consuming conservative folly as mass entertainment."

It is challenging for me to delve deeper into the marginalisation of the liberal in western democracies because I do not know those societies enough. But in India, the issue is compounded by the deeprooted, terminal elitism of the liberal. I have fretted for years that politically our liberal constituency is shrinking because it had become, post-independence, hyphenated with the word Left. Our national ideology emerged from the freedom movement, which was very liberal. The Congress then was a political umbrella wide enough to give room to liberals of the Left as well as the Right, and also intellectual space for them to argue. Remember, Syama Prasad Mookerjee was even a member of Nehru's cabinet, and Sardar Patel his deputy. But over the next two decades, the right was purged, artfully by Nehru and then crudely by his daughter. India's only truly liberal party therefore morphed into a Left-liberal party. You need to read Ramachandra Guha to learn more about it. But people of my generation do remember the "star" symbol of C Rajagopalachari's Swatantra Party, where much of the old Congress right collected and which once was a formidable opposition force, netting 44 Lok Sabha seats in 1967. Indira Gandhi destroyed it, and thereby India's liberal right, with her post-1969 "revolutionary" push.

This reduced liberalism to a Left monopoly as the right merged into saffron. It lasted as long as Indian politics and popular mind were dominated by old, anti-imperialist, non-aligned, West-phobic ideas of the Cold War. But it did not have the flexibility to change with new realities as the Cold War ended, global power and economic equations were rewritten and successive generations of aspirational, ambitious, impatient and post-ideological Indians rose. I am not sure Dr Manmohan Singh quite looked at it this way, but post-1991, he was probably the only famous liberal of old who thought it was time to delete the hyphenated left. By the middle of 2009, with a bigger second mandate, he was winning this campaign of ideological correction. But he was defeated by the party's embedded pinko immune system.

Pop sociology has its hazards, but I have got away with it often enough in the past, so here we go again. While Singh had the intellectual honesty to acknowledge, or to borrow the words of his political mentor Narasimha Rao, do "what to do when the ground under your feet is moving", he failed to see the very formidable elitism underpinning this left-liberalism. To be liberal, you had to be left, and to be left-liberal, your parents should have done very well, given you Doon-Stephen's-Oxbridge education, a Delhi Golf Club membership and definitely a home in the capital's Little Kremlins, Diplomatic Enclave and couple more neighbourhoods to its immediate south, in bequest. Singh and Rao didn't check out on this, and failed. That is why the liberals are back in their lefty, but also elitist, hole, or rather their ivory bunker. Why bunker, not tower, we will just get to.

It is now an uch-koti (superior) brahminical club (I use that purely in its intellectual manifestation, not a Manuwadi one). "Outsiders" are rejected. And so what if its ranks continue to shrink. A reminder was served on me very recently in a very exhaustive profile of me in a self-avowedly liberal publication that traced my apparent success over four decades and marvelled that I could get here despite being the son of a "minor bureaucrat from Haryana" and "lacking the eloquence" of my Oxbridge peers. Now, the second is a fact, but the first an exaggeration. My late father, in fact, would have been quite flattered to be described as a minor bureaucrat. He slogged all his life to rise to become one, a gazetted officer, even if a day before his retirement, so he would also have the "power" to attest somebody's certificates. He was mostly a clerk, or rather an assistant, despite his relatively high education. He struggled with money, with his tiny salary sent his children mostly to sarkari Hindi medium schools and colleges, but still made sure we bought two English and Hindi newspapers, three magazines and listened to cricket commentary on BBC regularly in English.

I say all this not to praise him, or to write belatedly an obit he was not famous, powerful or rich enough to deserve when he passed away in 1998, but to provide the sociological point of this week's National Interest.

I say this because I now believe that my parents' generation (my father would have been 85 today) was not atypical of post-independence liberal Indians, mostly Congress voters, who were willing to challenge earlier acceptance of elite domination with "Bhagwan teri maya, kahin dhoop kahin chhaya" resignation. They believed early enough that education would bring equality. Economic reform brought opportunity and then suddenly, it was no longer so life-and-death, that your parents should have done very well for you to be taken seriously. That is the reality India's elite liberals have failed to understand or embrace. In defining liberalism as an exclusive "brahminical" value of the intellectual, economic and academic upper crust, they have closed their doors to the enormously more numerous rest, as our ancestors had shut them out of Sanskrit scholarship and even science. If Mahabharata is a reality, so is the legend of Eklavya.

One of the most stirring speeches in defence of Indian secularism was once made by Ram Vilas Paswan when Vajpayee's short-lived government was seeking a confidence vote. How many Muslims came with Babur, he asked, and then answered, only 40. So how did they swell to crores? Because "people like us", he said, Dalits and lower castes, were not allowed entry in the temples, "so we went to the mosques". This is precisely what today's liberal elites have done to the tens of crores of rising, aspirational, we-don't-owe-nobody-nothing Indians, children of poorer parents like mine who beg, steal, borrow, scrounge, starve, deny themselves that pack of cigarettes to give them opportunity, if not houses in Shanti Niketan or Kautilya Marg or Golf Club memberships. Instead, Modi has embraced them and now enjoys power that no Indian prime minister has since Indira in 1971. They are now coming, smashing the defences of the elite liberal ivory, well, bunker.

Source: dailyo