Hiatus

I'm going to take a short break till 2nd June, when my finals shall be over..these are the last ever exams I take, so don't want to mess them up too much. Perhaps on the 30/31, as I revise South Asia, I might blog a bit, for revision purposes, but on the whole, expect to hear from me on the 4th- I'm off to London on the 3rd and the boy wants some attention, post exam!

There is this interesting article, by Nilanjana Roy on how Sonia has been constructed by the Indian media and public. Also looks at Sushma Swaraj's 'I will shave my head' threats in an interesting light- suggesting that it was an oblique slight at the fact that Sonia was a widow.

In other news, there is this article on how since both Kalam and Manmohan are teachers, the teaching profession is now ruling the country. From my own personal experience, as the daughter of two teachers, that's hardly the case. Teachers are paid a pittance, are blamed for everything- from difficult question papers, to poor marks. There is huge political interference especially in West Bengal. This is not to say that our teachers are all uniformly good. But our system is such that innovative teachers are rarely given any credit- only those who fetch high marks are. Further, the 'publish or perish' dictum seems to have hit Indian academia as well. As my father, who has spent 10 years writing a solitary book, argued with me, it is possible (and maybe even desirable) to spend more time on your teaching duties, rather than rushing off to conferences and presenting papers just to boost your CV. In fact, some of my favourite teachers, may not have been big names in academia, but were hugely inspiring in class. And if I was to ever teach, if a student told me that she was inspired to take up a subject/topic because of the way I taught it, that would be a greater compliment to me than a million good reviews of something I'd published.

Post exams, I'll take a look at cabinet portfolios and all that. Till then Tom Paine awaits me.

Feminism and Hindu nationalism

This is part III of my writeups on gender and hindu nationalism. By no means is this comprehensive. But I think I've covered the major issues at stake. Comments, additions and ideas are most welcome. As I keep warning you, I might go off blogging for a while, especially once my exams begin next Tuesday..so do be patient. I've also realised that even if I do enable comments for everyone on blogspot, it only allows to comment anonymously (and you must ignore the 'This blog does not allow anonymous comments' line). So please add your name at the bottom when you do comment. Thanks!

The feminist movement first clashed with the Hindu nationalists in the aftermath of the Roop Kanwar incident. As Amrita Chhachhi says, a number of feminists were horrified by the women marching against them claiming that it was their 'right' to commit sati. Feminists were accused of being deracinated, Western educated middle class women, completely divorced from the reality of most Indians' lives.

The next clash that came was related to the Shah Bano case. I've argued in an earlier post that all that Rajiv did was to empower the more fundamentalist elements through the Muslim Women's Bill, in a piece of legislation that was blatantly against the interests of Muslim women. Now in the recent past the BJP/NDA has demanded that Shah Bano was an 'appeasement' of the minorities (never mind the fact that it pandered to the most fundamentalist of Muslim sentiment, and inconvenienced more Muslims than it helped) and that India needs a Uniform Civil Code. Actually, the idea in itself was not new. Many feminist organizations had been demanding a Uniform Civil Code (India has a uniform criminal code, but religion based civil codes apply for issues such as property disputes, marriage/divorce, inheritance and adoption) which would remove various inequities against women that almost all the current civil codes contain. But the BJP has hijacked the agenda and argued for a Uniform Civil Code, that would then, presumably include, a pro-Hindu tilt. This put many feminists in a quandary, and many withdrew their support to the Uniform Civil Code.

Personally, I think the UCC is a fantastic idea. Laws in India are very anti-women in indeed. And please ignore those men who say that rape laws can be used to victimize men...how many Indian women would actually stand up and say that she's been raped only for vengeance. If you merely compare numbers- you'll probably find that there are far more cases of rape being unreported, because we don't have the structure to deal with it, rather than women misusing rape law. And even the judiciary is complicit in this. In the famous Mathura case, a 16 year old tribal girl, who was raped by policemen saw her rapists go scott free because the judges felt that since she had a 'boyfriend' and therefore had 'habitual sexual intercourse', she was probably lying about being raped. When Mathura argued that the policemen had frightened her into almost passive submission, the judges ruled that this constituted willing sexual intercourse.

Anyway, rape laws fall within the sphere of criminal, not civil law. But even her, as Mary Roy's lifelong crusade has shown, there are gross inequalities. And these will only be removed if women's organizations can re-hijack the UCC agenda from fundamentalist forces, create their own agenda and space and fight for a uniform code that is fair to women, rather than being biased towards any religion. But since almost no women's organization that I know of, is willing to take up this fight, I fear this might either remain a pipe dream, or if ever enforced will have a communal tinge to it.

A small change..and a request...

I was wondering why many more of you didn't leave comments, when I realised that the formatting was such that it would only allow comments by 'registered users'. Incredibly sorry about that!
So please do go ahead and leave your comments behind. Obviously try not to be abusive, although if you are, I shall be inclined to leave them there to show you up!

One other thing, I am woefully ignorant of the intricacies of state politics in India. In particular, I know very little about politics in the North East. So if you are from the North East, or you are familiar with the region, please message me with a summary of what the election results mean for the region. Also it would be good if you could talk about whether Manmohan as PM would make a difference to Assam.

Manmohan as PM and his Stephanian links!

A very quick roundup of the day's headlines, as colonial American history awaits me rather ominously!

The President of India has invited Manmohan Singh to be the new Prime Minister, and he will be sworn in on Saturday if he can prove that he has enough support. In the meanwhile, the BJP is licking its wounds and planning to review what went wrong in these elections. Some are already criticising Sushma Swaraj and Uma Bharati for their rather theatrical campaign against Sonia. The BJP will now probably focus on assembly elections in Maharashtra later this year, where, if the Lok Sabha poll was any indication, they should give the Congress a run for their money. It might also be a mini referendum for the way Manmohan Singh has run the country till then.

Manmohan Singh will be the first Sikh PM of the country. I am not sure that's hugely important though. After all, the Hindu nationalists believe that Sikhism is an outgrowth of Hinduism. (Nothing could be further from the truth, Sikhism, developed as a response to certain doctrinaire, ritualistic aspects of Hinduism- as did Buddhism and Jainism). So now we have a Sikh PM and a Muslim President. I am going to take just a moment off, and rejoice in our secularism, no matter how tarnished...just a moment.

Anyway, that apart, there is this slightly amusing article in today's Telegraph about how Manmohan's family has reacted referring to his grandson Raghav. I must admit here that Manmohan Singh's daughter Dr Upinder Singh was my professor in college in Delhi, and my favourite professor at that. She taught us Ancient Indian History and a part of the Medieval India course and as generations of Stephanians will testify, she's fantastic! I have therefore, also been on the receiving end of her kids' brattiness....so I think the Telegraph has got it all wrong...I think they mean Madhav when they say Raghav in the article above!! It's a small error, but if I know fierce little Raghav Tankha, he will not be pleased at all. (Also, they don't live in Safdarjung, do they? I thought they lived on-campus in North Delhi...)

Some more shameless plugging for my college- a number of India's new parliamentarians studied history at St. Stephens (ahem..so did I!), and there is this article in the Indian Express where they try to find out about Rahul Gandhi as a student, and guess who they get in touch with....Dr. U. Singh! Incidentally, who the hell is the Mr Neeru in this story?? On a more serious note, some would argue that this is actually not a good thing- that deracinated Stephanians like us should be in charge of the nation's future. And much as I love my college, I will admit that it did encourage a certain distance from reality and everyday Indian life. We lived in this slightly elitist cocoon and even student politics were heavily circumscribed. We were not affiliated to the Delhi University Students' Union, we did not vote in their elections, and even our teachers were quite apathetic. It had its merits- it prevented the college from descending into the kind of dangerous political quagmires that some other colleges did, but it also meant that we insulated ourselves from much of what was going around us...and if we are to be the 'future leaders' of the nation, as many Stephanians are touted to be, surely that's not very healthy?

The op-ed in today's Telegraph has a sensible take on economic reform arguing that the Sensex should not be the sole guardian of our prosperity and it is time we sat down and absorbed the lessons of our election.

Finally, a moment of silence for two people who passed away yesterday- former Kerala Chief Minister and CPI(M) leader E.K.Nayanar and NSG Commando Surjan Singh Bhandari who was injured in the Akshardham attack.

Women and Hindu nationalism (contd..)

Women were particularly prominent during the Ayodhya campaign and the 'credit' for this ought to be given to the Sangh Parivar propaganda machinery. Advani's rath yatra was accompanied by the voice of a woman, Sadhvi Rithambra, shrill and shrieking, urging Hindu men, almost shaming them to rise to the defence of their religion. The use of posters with pictures of a smiling baby Ram, and accompanying words suggesting that he had been snatched away from his rightful birthplace, were designed to appeal to the maternal instinct within women.

Participation by women was prevalent even during the pre-Ayodhya phase. In 1989, a huge procession of Hindu women, brandishing trishuls marched through the streets of Bijnor shouting inflammatory slogans. In the ensuing riots, almost 400 were killed. Many of the women who were later interviewed expressed satisfaction at the role they had played. In the post Ayodhya riots, women of fidderent classes- from rural women in Bhagalpur, to Maruti driving ones in Ahmedabad took active part in the riots.

So this raises the interesting question of why women are attracted to Hindu nationalists? First, a vast majority of these women come from the upper middle classes of north India. Many of them were of the age when they were stepping outside the boundaries of their home for the first time. Here they were encountering sexual harassment and opposition. Hence, the RSS emphasis on physical training would appeal to such women. But as Flavia Agnes has argued, these women would be repelled by traditional feminist doctrines. This would encourage them to reject all that they had taken for granted for so long, and would probably have brought upon them oppobrium and ostracism from their family. On the other hand, Hindu nationalists provided a means of making a painless transition from the private to the public sphere. As many of the women interviewed by Sarkar pointed out, they had suffered atrocities within the home, and public political participation was an exhilarating process. At the same time, they were hesitant to repudiate their traditional roles as wives and mothers. Hindu nationalists were providing them with a cocoon within which they could engage only with selective aspects of politics. It shielded them from various harsh truths and would be met with family approval.

Amrita Basu argues that part of the successful strategy for the BJP has involved making a fine distinction between being 'communal' and being 'fundamentalist' on women's issues. So there is no obsession with Hindu women's sexuality or fertility, but the Muslim woman's child rearing abilities are sneered upon or treated with apprehension on the grounds that they will outbreed the Hindus. The BJP has never offered any opposition to issues such as abortion or contraception. Hence, she argues that they are communal rather than fundamentalist. However, these two strands do occasionally come together, revealing the even uglier side of the BJP- as was witnessed during the Roop Kanwar incident in Rajasthan, when many BJP leaders of the state took up a pro-Sati stance.

This raises the next question: why would I argue that Hindu nationalism would not benefit women? This is because they have never really fought for any women's issues. Their obsession with the 'female Hindu body' as a contested terrain over which questions of nationalism are decided is worrying. The equation of the mother(land) with the nation, and the gendered imagery that the RSS wishes to convey through these tactics, again worries me. The women who have been mobilized by Hindu nationalist, have not been mobilized in a cause that uplifts them, they have no been mobilized for any issue that directly concerns their lives, and I suspect when they do mobilize, will be pushed right back to Golwalkar's lakshmangandi. And it is herein that my doubts about the empowering aspects of Hindu nationalism lies.

In my final post on this, I'll refer to Shah Bano, the Uniform Civil Code and the feminist movement in India.

I've just found this excellent archive of material on Hindu nationalism. Take a look!

Women and Hindu Nationalism- revision part II

As I promised, I'll blog some of the stuff I hope to impress my examiners with! So this post is about the gendered aspect of Hindu Nationalism. The next two incidentally, shall be about democratization and Islamicization (is it Islamization?) in Pakistan. Also, I've changed the template of this blog, to make it more readable. Hope this helps...I've changed the name too...it's a bit boring, but I'm not a terribly imaginative person. I'll keep searching for an appropriate name till I find one. All suggestions are welcome!

Let's begin with a quick survey of some of the sources I've used for this: the Bulletin of Concerned South Asian Scholars had an interesting compilation of articles, as does Urvashi Butalia and Tanika Sarkar's book, Women and the Hindu Right. There are also plenty of excellent articles by Amrita Basu and Amrita Chhachhi. Basu's two books, mentioned on her webpage are also extremely useful. I'm not a huge fan of Gail Omvedt, but you could read this article by her. A few other articles that you might want to browse through are:
1. Mother India by Urvashi Butalia
2. Hindu Nationalism and Women in Orissa by Angana Chatterji.
3. Journal of Women's History (Winter 1998)- Women's Activism and the Vicissitudes of Hindu Nationalism,"
Amrita Basu
4. Khaki Shorts and Saffron Flags by Tapan Basu, Tanika Sarkar et al (relevant pages- 72-94)

That I think is a reasonable coverage of some of the important reading material out there. It's not exhaustive but it ought to be useful, in case you're interested. If you want more stuff, do email me.

Hindu nationalism and its gendered aspects has belied certain long held beliefs about the links between women and pacifism. We've seen in the course of riots in Surat, Bijnor and so on, active participation by women, that has stunned many activists. So this then raises the question: why do women join Hindu nationalists? Are they empowered by this? My argument would be two fold- a) they join because this allows them the freedom to move from the private to the public sphere without forcing them to confront some of the contradictions of their existence and hence is a 'safe option' b) yes, they are empowered, albeit in a way that will ultimately conspire to subjugate them.

The first Hindu nationalist women's organization was the Rashtriyasevika Samiti, the women's wing of the RSS. Note that it's not called the Rashtriya Swayamsevika Samiti. The term itself puts women within the RSS at a lower hierarchical level and robs them of the autonomy and self control that the word 'volunteer' implies. The women's wing was formed after opposition from Golwalkar who felt that women should not be allowed to step outside the lakshmangandi. Anyway, the women's wing has not seen the spectacular growth rate that other Sangh Parivar organizations have. Their recruitment methods are modest- each new recruit is made to feel comfortable through certain family based gatherings and is seen as channel to her neighbours and kin. Women are encouraged to pass on what they learn to their children, and are hence equipped with basic pedagogical tools. They are provided with some training in basic Hindu texts, but encouraged not to criticise. The aggressive, supremacist aspects of these texts are emphasised. Further, women are encouraged to have careers but with parental approval. Parental approval also plays a key role in marriages. The idea is simple- it helps reinforce familial and caste bonds without explicit references to caste. Women are not encouraged to divorce and are told that if their husbands are unhappy with them it is their fault. Those whose husbands are unfaithful are told that infidelity in men is a biological fact and they must put up with it.

I will stop here because I need to get back to work! In the next post I'll tackle Women in the Ayodhya movement, and why the feminist movement has found the gendered aspect of Hindu nationalism so hard to deal with.

Rise of Hindutva, the BJP and some exam revision

I am not sure how much I will be able to blog till 2nd June as my finals are looming. Since this is the last ever exam I shall take, I'm hoping not to screw up. I've done a course on South Asian politics, for which I have an exam on the 1st. So for the next few days, I might use this blog to revise some stuff for my exam, but also hopefully, jot down some fairly interesting stuff. I'll also start posting some photos on this blog. I can't access the required programs from my college ethernet, so once again you'll have to be patient till the 2nd!

Today I'm going to blog a bit about Hindutva, BJP and the Congress. If you've read an earlier post of mine, you'll know that I hold the Congress equally culpable for the rise of Hindu nationalism. Now there are various issues to be tackled here. First, what is Hindu nationalism? It is important to remember that many 'nationalists' feel that Hindu nationalism (which we shall now for convenience called Hindutva) has hijacked the nationalist agenda for anti-national purposes. In fact as John Zavos has shown, communalism is not a post independence phenomenon. At the same time in the 1920s when Nehru was enunciating his vision of a 'pure' nationalism, unsullied by the primordial pulls of caste, religion and politics, the communal riot as a staple feature of north Indian politics was becoming prominent. So throughout the national movement and nationalist historiography we see a constant collision and coalescing of these two phenomenon- nationalism and communalism. For the purpose of this post, I'm going to define Hindu nationalism as a)an attempt to create a monolithic version of Hinduism that is intrinsically linked to a 'Hindu' nation as an alternative to a secular and diverse India b)this 'nationalism' then seeks to define itself in terms of the 'Other', ie.e the Indian Muslim.

Now in this context, perhaps it is also wise to point out that the rise of Hindutva and the rise to political power of the BJP are not the same. The former, I would argue is a far more dangerous phenomenon, as it means that parties like the Congress have to toe a 'soft Hindutva' line in order not to marginalize their key vote bank. The rise of the BJP then, could be linked to the creation of political spaces by this ideological shift from the Congress which was effectively harnessed by the Sangh Parivar.

As Sumantra Bose (in a fantastic article in Ayesha Jalal, Sugata Bose (ed): Nationalism, Democracy and Development) has argued, the secular state has misinterpreted its mandate. Either it has supported majoritarian tendencies, or it has provided more overt support to communal forces. He then points to the reign of Indira Gandhi when riots swept Moradabad, Ahmedabad and Godhra. IG went so far as to say that minorities must 'adjust' in India- not very far from RSS-speak, I'd say. All of this meant that in this period, the RSS actually asked its supporters to vote for the Congress rather than the BJP.

But there were other subtle ways in which the Congress opened up spaces for Hindu nationalism to emerge. The over centralization of political power under Indira Gandhi allowed fissiparous tendencies in Kashmir and Punjab to develop. This could then be given a communal overtone by arguing that the Kashmiri Muslims and Punjabi Sikhs were 'disloyal opponents' of the Congress, seeking to tear apart the integrity of the nation.

Next, as liberlization proceeded, the middle class in India found itself in a unique position of being able to completely dominate the political agenda. As Thomas Hansen (again, in a few fantastic studies of Hindutva) has argued: ritual congregational activities, provided a sense of community and belonging helping to bridge the gap between economic and social status for the newly economically enfranchised classes. He argues that in a globalized world, the Indian middle class was suddenly made painfully aware of its own marginalization. Here, the BJP's doctrine of an 'Akhand Bharat' (and note that this again plays well with the rise of separatism in this period) and the return to a 'glorious Hindu past' would have obvious appeal. But there is a dichotomy in this. Just as Hindutva derides Western philosophy for producing disharmonious societies, its new proponents were avid consumers of this same Western global culture. Perhaps this consumption made them even more acutely conscious of their marginality, and Hindutva was then seen as the perfect bridge between reality, and the promised glories of a 'Hindu' future, where India would regain her rightful place on the world stage.

The last aspect I wish to touch upon is caste. The V.P. Singh government's proposition that it would implement Mandal Commission recommendations set off upper caste/middle class fury in North India. Worried that patronage dispensing mechanisms in states like U.P and Bihar, would be severely dented by this, many of the upper castes shifted their allegiance to the BJP. But for the BJP this was a difficult time as well. At the grassroots level, the organization is largely upper caste. So while it publicly endorsed Mandal, its grassroots organizations actively undermined it. More importantly, the BJP replied to the caste issue by shifting the agenda- the response to Mandal was mandir. This is evident in what happens in U.P. subsequently. The BJP was able to come to power because of caste issues, but then under Kalyan Singh, it raises the question of a ram mandir, effectively moves attention away from caste politics, and creates a new, incredibly divisive issue which is sure to touch a chord in many of the middle class Indians I've referred to above.

This I hope is a relatively nuanced perspective of how the rise of Hindutva and the rise of the BJP are related but separate phenomenon. Some time later, I will blog about Gender and Hindu Nationalism- and the implications of Hindutva for the feminist movement in India. Incidentally, Sugata Bose, whom I mention earlier on the piece is to be my PhD supervisor! I'll also blog a synopsis of what I'm hoping to work on at some point.

Manmohan looks set to be PM

With the backing of Sonia Gandhi, it seems as if Manmohan Singh will be the next Prime Minister of India. How do I feel about this? Well, slightly ambivalent. Obviously his selection has done wonders for the stock market, which, as I said in my last post, confuses me. But that apart, he has no popular base of any sort. I suspect he will be another Gujral kind of Prime Minister. Also, am not sure what his views on most issues- e.g. Pakistan, allying (or not) with US, and so on are. I guess only time will tell. Take a look at this article, for a good summary of events yesterday- it also contains a potted bio of Manmohan at the end.

In a related development, the DMK has decided to join the government, while the Left still resolutely stays away. This could really be the biggest blunder the Left has made in many years. If they wish to extend their sphere of influence outside West Bengal and Kerala, this was the prime opportunity to do so. I am not sure what calculations the high command has made- perhaps they think keeping out of power will save them from anti incumbency? But the truth is that if you see the last election as a series of smaller local elections, then this argument would fall through. Also, for two states that need development badly, the Left could have pushed some of its agenda through if it had more clout.

In Tamil Nadu, where Jayalalitha is probably still reeling from the election results, she has decided to give a number of sops to placate the people. Although the Hindu has praised her for listening to the voice of the people, I am not so sure. She is obviously doing whatever it takes to cling on to power, she hasn't grown democratic tentacles over night. And her withdrawal of cases against the media on charges of defamation proves that- it's not a 'democratic' move, it's just a desperate attemtp to silence her critics.

Finally, what are the implications of what Sonia has done, her stunning political sacrifice?? The Telegraph today suggests that there is a groundswell of opinion from the stock market supporting her decision. She's probably come off better in this exchange with the BJP. It makes her look as if she's not hungry for power, it removes the last real 'issue' that the BJP could have raised and ensures that even her detractors have nothing to say. George Fernandes' comment last night about her 'changing her mind' sounds like sour grapes now- after all she changed her mind, because parts of the NDA threatened to agitate and bring the country to a halt. Further, the NDA decision to attend the swearing in ceremony too looks rather stupid in the light of Sonia's fairly dignified statement. I suspect that underneath her political inexperience, lies a very very shrewd politician.

Sonia declines PM's post

In a development that has taken both the Congress and the BJP by utter surprise, Sonia Gandhi today said that she was going to listen to her 'inner voice' and withdraw herself from the Primeministerial race. This, frankly, like the Left Front staying out of government is quite a joke. I am no Sonia supporter- she has zero political experience. But what the BJP has resorted to through both Uma Bharati and Sushma Swaraj is pure political blackmail. When the BJP after all, threatens 'a countrywide agitation' we know exactly what that means...

This means that in all probability, Manmohan Singh, whose candidature Sonia has endorsed, will be the next PM.

What baffles me in all of this is the fact that those opposed to Sonia think that she will endanger the security of our country. Umm..when did Italy become such a prime opponent of the nation? What good would this do. Also she became an Indian citizen in 1983, well before her husband even became PM...you mean the Italian Mafia has been plotting this all along??

In other news, the Sensex seems to have recovered some ground. Again, I'm a bit mystified. I would assume that with Sonia as PM, she would have Manmohan as Finance Minister. So how would that be less reformist than having Manmohan as Prime Minister? All very confusing...

Sensex update and more election news

The Sensex has ended the day after shedding 565 points, which is the biggest intra day fall since 1992. The bloodbath on Dalal Street was only halted when Manmohan Singh said that the government would not backtrack on privatisation. Surely, this panic is unwarranted. The Congress government looks fairly stable and has the numbers. Is there more to it than meets the eye?

Two other pieces of election related news- the BJP and its allies barring Vajpayee will not attend Sonia's swearing-in. Come on guys, don't be such poor losers. Amusingly enough, they are staying away to express 'people's sentiments. I thought in a democracy, that was expressed through elections..clearly I am wrong! Even more amusing is the RSS condemnation of her election as CPP leader and Prime Minister- this from a political group that has never ever faced an election. What's that word....legitimacy?

Somnath Chatterjee will be the new pro-term Speaker of the Lok Sabha, at least temporarily. The man, despite how boring he is, has won 10 times!

It also seems like we are now moving from the NDA to the UPA- the United Progressive Alliance that is to govern the country now. One hopes that they remain both united and progressive.

Stock market crash

Trading has been stopped twice on the Bombay Stock market as stock prices have crashed by over 700 points. It's an ominous start of the Congress government. Although news is just filtering in, that the stocks have recovered about 300 points. Interesting to note that the brokers are now blaming the media for the mayhem! I think that's a bit rich, considering how many of them have been lamenting the fall of the BJP government and saying in public that reforms will stop. Honestly, the media is such a convenient scapegoat...

Some more on Arundhati Roy, who predicts that the attacks on Sonia Gandhi will continue. Again, some hyperbole from her, but I thoroughly agree with her on one point. If we welcome with open arms, those Indians who have given up their nationality, and make life so much easier for them, why do we find it so hard to accept someone who has willingly taken on the citizenship of our country? Look at the newsreports in the aftermath of the death of Kalpana Chawla- the government was quick to jump on the bandwagon and celebrate her 'Indianness'. I am a huge admirer of Chawla for many many reasons, but I am also conscious that she choose to give up her Indian citizenship, and if she hadn't I am not sure if she would have found a place on that NASA crew. So, when we are willing to claim as our own, those who have voluntarily renounced the country, why all this hostility to Sonia..is it because she is white?

On a completely unrelated note, this is a gruesome story. It's not wonder that we've begun to lost faith in our medical profession. I would argue that doctors in India, in many areas, do an admirable job under much stress. But what is lacking completely are ethics. Especially in rural areas, where the doctor is akin to god, the powers that can be abused are enourmous. I will never forget the letters that poured into the Anandabazar following the Kunal Saha decision, that has since been tragically reversed. So many poor people from the villages had tales to tell about their apathy at the hands of doctors- the callousness is mind numbing. And doctors will always stand up for their own ilk, even if they are wrong. You could perhaps argue that there is no ethical training imparted to doctors in India- they are taught their medicine well, but they are not taught to be good doctors, or how to deal with patients humanely. This case however, has nothing to do with that. Dr Ravi Kumar is a criminal, and deserves to be treated as such.

The Politics of Arundhati Roy

There is a less than balanced article by Arundhati Roy on the Indian elections Written in that hyperbolic style of her, that I now find grating, she is right in pointing out that we should be glad at the BJP's demise. But then she takes off on an entirely different tangent. Exploring similar territory as her last article, How Deep Shall We Dig, she argues that tens of thousands of people have disappeared under BJP rule. And then cites Kashmir as the classic example. This is a bit odd, considering that the worst army excesses in Kashmir and rigging of elections took place under Congress rule. Although she does admit early on, that the policies of the BJP and the Congress may not be all that different. I am not sure about her rantings against the failings of the Indian state- as I see it, there is much that we have done right, and much that we have done wrong. And there is hardly ever any attempt on her part to focus on the former. Since I did my thesis on the Narmada issue, I had an opportunity to read Roy on Narmada quite closely. She begins quite well, and is factually correct, and for the most part I agree with her. But then she tends to leave out facts, e.g. not focussing on the reform packages of the Gujarat government that are best ever in India, at least in theory, (this despite the fact that they simply have no land to accommodate everyone from MP and Maharashtra). In fact, as ARCH-Vahini points out, the NBA has often refused surveys in those areas where it has a stronghold, nor has it always told villagers the entire truth about the reform packages, afraid that they will accept it.

She refers to the Narmada Dam as a 'State Secret' saying it's time to reveal some of these. But the unfortunate truth is that these have never been state secrets, and as the length of the bibliography to my thesis will testify, there has been plenty of work done on this. If middle class people like her, were unaware of the problem, don't blame the entire nation! For both the thirsting millions in Kutch and Saurashtra and for the displaced in MP and Maharashtra- whether adivasi or the rich farmers of Nimad, this has been a live burning issue. Also she begins her second article on the Maheshwar Dam, The Reincarnation of Rumpelstiltskin, referring to Cochacomba in Boliva...it's Cochabamba!!

As I argue in my thesis, and I think this is indeed a valid argument, the debate about the Narmada has been misled by the NBA to focus entirely on Big Dams. After all, like it or not, they are here to stay, and in post independence India, they have done some good. (look at Punjab after all). So what does that leave us with? It leaves us with the task of satisfying the people of Kutch and Saurashtra and ensuring that the oustees get a fair deal. For that I think the Joy-Paranjype proposals are excellent. The problem is that the NBA will consider no option where the dam is built. It's no dam or nothing, quite a risky strategy, even from a political perspective. While I think the Supreme Court judgement of 2000 is ludicrous, I can see why the NBA has lost support over the years. A blanket anti-development agenda, as some in the NBA have come to symbolize will do no one any good. In order to educate the public, and to revive support for the Narmada, I think it's time to point out how the project has been bureaucratically messed up for years- figures have been obfuscated, people have been lied to. If there's a real reason to take a second look at the project, that's where it lies. Also, you could take a look at the Verghese's response to Roy and then her counter response.

I will also admit that a lot of the vitriol against her has been personal and if you read the following articles, you'll see what I mean. Not many have a critique of the content of her work, but are more critical of the 'Booker prize winning author' taking up social causes and suggesting that she hijacks them for herself. I am not sure that's true. I don't think, unlike Ramchandra Guha, that she did the Narmada cause a disservice by writing about it. And I don't see why her getting a Booker should disqualify her from writing about political issues?

As a last word, Dilip D'Souza has an excellent book called The Narmada Dammed, which far more eloquently argues what I've said in this post. It's a great book, and I would urge you to read it. And here's an interesting review of the book.

How secular is the Congress?

If you read my Oxblog post, you'll notice that I display no fondness for the secular credentials for the Congress. Some of the worst riots in Indian history, took place during Indira Gandhi's reign and her son Rajiv allowed the ram shila puja to be held at Ayodhya and was responsible for pandering to obscurantist sentiment through the Shah Bano case. But I would still argue that the BJP was much worse- this is particularly true in light of Gujarat and their more explicitly majoritarian philosophy. What is more worrying of course, is the news that the RSS believes that dilution of its ideology caused the loss in these elections, which might mean a return to more hardcore ideological politics.

Further, I think a number of commentators seem to conflate the rise of the BJP with the rise of Hindu nationalism. The two are related but separate phenomenon, and I would argue that the latter is far more dangerous than the former. It's worrying to see that the Congress too feels the need to adopt 'soft Hindutva' tactics in state elections, something that has even the RSS worried. Although perhaps it doesn't always pay off- as in Kerala. For a more detailed argument on the Congress, BJP and secularism, read this.


A short quick post- the Janata Dal (S) and the Congress seem ready for a tie up in Karnataka.

A good editorial in the Hindustan Times about Sonia's foreign origins.

Znet has three articles on India's elections. The one by P.Sainath is particularly good as it focusses on the disconsonance between 'mass reality' and the 'mass media'. It also helps to counter some of Drezner's argument about economic reforms in the country. The truth being that yes, while most of us, the English speaking middle class, are indeed better off, that can't be said for a vast majority. Naidu may convert Hyderabad into cyber city, but he will also remain culpable for the highest ever suicide rate among Andhra farmers.
response. They make good reading.

Quick election update

This is going to be a very quick post on the elections. Post 2nd June, I will blog more extensively. Till then, here are some of the major headlines.

Sonia Gandhi has been elected as leader of a Congress led alliance and now looks all set to be the next Prime Minister of India. A number of BJP leaders have made comments criticising her choice as PM citing her 'foreign' origins. My views on this are quite clear- as long as she's a good PM (and her lack of political experience suggests she might not be), I don't care. The people of the country have rejected the BJP's xenophobic campaign and the party should now have the grace to admit this. Although I have to admit that in the past few days, I've met a number of Indians, who while pleased that the BJP has lost, are not pleased to have an Italian born PM. You can read the rest of my comments on what I think of the BJP's victory here (check the post for the 15th of May) and here. Read this if you're still not convinced.

The CPI(M) and the DMK have decided against joining the government, which I think is a serious mistake. This seems like historic Blunder II.With a mandate of this size, there is no reason to stay out of government. Also I would argue that Dan Drezner's fears about the Communists changing the tone of economic policy is not entirely justified. Look at how much the Communists in West Bengal have been wooing foreign investment..even IBM is setting up shop there.

What do our friends from across the border have to say about the elections? The NYT and the Dawn both have interesting pieces, contrasting the process of democratization that seems to have proceeded relatively smoothly in India to its absence in Pakistan. Sometime later I shall post a longer thing on why I think democratization has failed in Pakistan.

In neighbouring Pakistan, Musharraf has called for a review of Islamic Hudood laws introduced under General Zia. While some authors, like Charles Kennedy have argued in the past that the laws are not as damaging to women as they might seem, and that, they were used against political dissidents, this is certainly a brave stance. Musharraf has tried in the past to abolish the blasphemy laws, but failed to stand up to the Jamaat-i Islami. Let's see if he succeeds this time.

That's all for today. I might not be blogging for the next few days, but the topics that I hope to cover in the future include: the Sri Lankan peace process, caste politics in UP and what this election means for the SP and BSP, a look back the BJP government in power, and the role of Islamization in Pakistan. If you have any expertise on any of the above, feel free to get in touch.

Welcome to my world...

I'll try and spend an hour everyday blogging about the most important political developments from India. Having looked at the dearth of websites on Indian politics, I think this is necessary. There's a selfish reason as well- as someone who wishes to specialize in South Asian politics in the future, this will be an extremely useful exercise. I invite all forms of constructive comment, so please feel free, as this blog develops, to express your views.