There Will Be Fisking
Warning: Long post. Also Mandatory
As promised earlier I implore you folks to gather and mock this post. Now as awful posts go this one deserves a special place of its own, for its fuddling mix of intellectual shoddiness coupled with hubris. To briefly give you the background the post was supposed to be a reflection on the panel discussion by persons of the superior intellect meant to offer guidance and issue diktats to humble Internet Hindus. As it turn out it is anything but reflection, with its peremptory attitude and flimsy premises as is evident from the start of the post with the “takeaways”. What are these takeaways? Well.
#1 There is a significant gulf within the broad political space opposed to Left Liberalism
Just so we are clear, as long as we are talking about politics as it exists in real world, and not fantasy politics league, there is hardly any opposition to left liberalism.
Here allow me to launch into a bitter digression, one of the most annoying aspect among Internet crowd of all political persuasion but more pronounced among center right folks is the borrowing of political lexicon from American politics and subsequent indiscriminate application to Indian context.
Now broadly speaking in American context (but not necessarily in European context), mainstream left politics is characterized by cradle to grave welfare policies, wealth redistribution and increased government intervention. In contrast right generally favors, economic freedom, federalism and minimal state intervention. Now this doesn’t correspond with how Indian politics is configured. Since the establishment of republic, the only abiding debate in Indian politics is about how much more can be spent on the vote gathering schemes. Everyone from communists, to socialists, to Congress, to BJP participates in this dance.
Any practical schism that exists between left and right in
#2 Untamed Internet Activism remains a sore point
#3 There is no clear intellectual leadership visible on the horizon for taming this Activism and for taking it beyond the Internet
Excuse me for not taking this seriously. Let’s get a perspective here; Internet is all sound and fury signifying (mostly) nothing. Not to disappoint but for foreseeable future internet activism is the last thing to impact Indian politics. If it were otherwise cartel would be in power and Ravikiran would be Il Duce. Really, it is just some guys venting on the net; let’s not kill all the fun by taking this too seriously. Internet debating societies have this luxury, of talking in abstract terms with no compulsion for any connection with reality. It is once these wonderful theories cooked in ethereal cyberspace collide with the compulsions of the real life, the disappointment comes.
Lastly, the idea of intellectual leadership to tame Internet Activist is fundamentally antithetical to how Internet works. Internet is an open and democratic medium in the sense anyone can publish his/her opinion with little cost and almost perfect anonymity. It is up to the reader to decide which opinions to follow. Accordingly anyone whose opinions find resonance with the general readership gain more prominence on Internet. Which is why Offstumped has readership in hundreds (or thousands?) and mine in single digits. To sum up, the present way of democratic conversation is just fine thank you and there is no to shepherd the unenlightened or issue edicts to the congregation.
#4 Deep confusion over the Identity versus Ideology debate continues to persist
Here is the problem with these kinds of simplistic formulations, idea of nation-state is predicated on identity, unless we decide what underpins idea of
#5 Unclear at this time if this “structured engagement” can be sustained. We may well see some unintended consequences of this raw and untamed activism manifest themselves in the days to come, if we dont draw a line sooner than later.
Whoa, just ease off the hyperbole peddle dude. Seriously the case for center right will be bolstered if exaggerations like this can be eschewed. I will say it again; guys on Internets are just that. They are not the threat. I will like to say something about line later.
Anyway we proceed from “the takeaways”, unfortunately the scenery remains bleak on this fisking trip.
Here is an unsolicited advice to all present and future bloggers. “It’s about the X stupid” is great if you are trying to win elections, if you are trying to engage your opponent in serious discussion, it is boorish, to say the least.
The past maybe an inspiration and a guide, the West maybe a case study, but end of the day this exercise has to be about the future.
Standing where we are today, if we are not thinking ahead on the challenges, opportunities and the sense of history with which todays 4th grader and the many who probably are not even in school will be making political choices 9 years from now, then we will be irrelevant even before 2002 makes it to History text books
This is something one can come to an agreement, past is the key to present and future. And yet as we see later that instead of attempting to define some broad limits to the extent past should be allowed to impact it is pushed away with assertion based on perfunctory understanding.
We must draw a line to
#1 end this Identity versus Ideology confusion once and for all
#2 make this about the challenges and opportunities of the future and not about righting history’s wrongs
#3 make this about capturing the mindshare and the imagination of a generation exemplified who will be making political choices 9 years from now and who’s memory on the most significant political events of his or her life at the age of 18 is right now a clean slate
I think I have replied to these points earlier, so let me just put it in few words. Identity guides politics. Past informs future. It is the danger of these throwaway lines. They distract us from investigating the phenomenon more thoroughly. It is certainly true in this case. Why assume that a generation is a monolith in its politics. Will an eighteen year old in 2018 have different perspective from eighteen year old now? Quite possibly. But there are other factors location, social class, caste, faith. To assume that age can override all this is at best a leap of faith. This is why it is necessary not to base politics merely on public whims.
However the most erroneous part is the following
Where must we draw the line
It is time for us to recognize that the political construct (psuedo-secularism versus Hindutva) of the 1990s is not just an anachronism but also a painful reminder of the baggage of the past.
We must also recognize that Political Hindutva of the 1990s
#1 at its core was the product of deep insecurity and victimhood
#2 has been tainted by Adharma committed in its name.
#3 was spineless in its failure to stand up to violence committed in its name
#4 was morally ambiguous in taking a clear stance on the primacy of Rule of Law and Justice in response to violence committed in its name
#4 was intellectually hollow in its failure to evolve an Intellectual Political Tradition geared for the challenges of this Century drawing on the rich tradition of Kautilya’s Arthashastra and others who followed him
This is, not to put too fine of a point, weapons grade nonsense. First, a distinction has to be made Hindutva* as political theory, and Hindutva as a movement. Now it is true that the movement as witnessed in 90’s could be characterized as a reaction to perceived onslaught at and marginalization of the Indic tradition and culture, but this no more invalidates Hindutva then any popular movement from Indian struggle for freedom to conservative movement in America. This kind of Freudian analysis is tempting because well it is less work, but on the whole it will be misleading of the phenomenon of popular movements. Here it is necessary to have an important caveat Hindutva in
Other points are equally without merit. If violence is the sufficient reason to discredit Hindutva, then shouldn’t the police and army atrocities be the sufficient reason to discredit Indian state. If Hindutva is to be discarded for not standing up to violence or being morally ambiguous, then fine, but first let’s discard Indian democracy for failing to prosecute the perpetrators of violence.
The last point deserves a separate critique. Let’s take the charge of not being able to evolve the intellectual political tradition which is true for Hindutva but also for Indian politics in general, why then Hindutva alone must be prosecuted for it is something that I can’t figure part. The second part is to say the least bizarre as we will see shortly.
Some have to tried to rationalize Hindutva as the Warrior Spirit needed to protect Dharma, while others have fantasised about Hindu thought in an Islamic body. This line of thought has been critiqued extensively by this blogger before. It suffices to say that
Just as Rajadharma as articulated over the Centuries was the Constitution for the State, the Indian Constitution is the Rajadharma in this day and age.
The only “Warrior Spirit” to protect Dharma is that which the has Constitutional sanction. The only Right to bear Arms is that which is sanctioned by the Constitution. Even the Kshatriya of yesteryears had no blanket immunity to use their arms but for the protection of Dharma which in today’s context is the Indian Constitution.
First “warrior spirit” is not something “fantasized”, or “rationalized” by Internet Hindus, rather great Hindu revivalist like Swami Vivekananda and Guru Aurobindo have emphasized that Hindus must shun their fatalism and meekness, and instead embrace an attitude of confidence and confrontation both spiritually and socially. All this Rajdharma and Constitutional sanction dropping is just so much chaff intended to obscure and not to enlighten. Author, ofcourse is free to mock Swami Vivekananda and Guru Aurobindo, but then should be ready to get mocked himself
Anyway for all the protestation, this is what is bizarre; by arguing that Hindutva in terms of scripture, author himself is trying to “Islamize” Hinduism. This is problematic.
Now I haven’t completely read Arthashastra, but for most part it deals with monarchy, which is not applicable in case of republic. This is not to suggest that there is nothing to be learned from it, on the contrary many of the concepts and analysis in Arthashastra especially those dealing with ethics and politics, relate to the fundamental nature of any state and its interaction with people. Even conceding the genius and insight of Arthashastra the dynamics of republic are fundamentally different from that of monarchy. This is not to say that Arthashastra has no relevance only that any theory dealing with republic, as Hindutva must, can not be based and it certainly can not solely rely upon Arthashastra.
Further at risk of repeating myself Hindutva is more of a matter of identity and history, and less about adherence to scriptures.
It is ironic that those who claim to protect Hindu interests have done little to nothing in freeing Hindu Institutions from State Control.
Instead they have cynically accorded legitimacy to State Interference in Religion by advancing an overtly religious political agenda.
.
While it is indeed lamentable that Sangh Parivar didn’t do much beyond symbolism, it is disingenuous to say the least that it was they who accorded legitimacy. Control of Hindu institutions was already a well established fact before BJP even gained prominence, with acquiescence of sec-lib establishment.
Yes there is a legitimate competition to Centuries of Hindu Thought in the modern marketplace of Ideas.
To compete in that marketplace
Hindu Institutions must be free of State Control
the Hindu Community must put its money where its mouth is
invest in bringing Modern Technology, Modern Governance and Management Practices to those Institutions
focus on creating Intellectual Assets, Social Programs for the future
- for that 4th Grader who will grow up in the world of Twitter, Facebook, iPhone and iPAD and
for that 4th Grader peers who will probably never see the face of a school and will likely suffer from deep Information Asymmetry
Let the 40,000 crores of TTD work on creating those Intellectual Assets and Social programs. Let us free TTD from Government and Political control.
Again there is not much to disagree except to reiterate Hindutva is more than Hinduism, specifically it relates to identity and politics. Hindutva is necessary because contrary to secularists a republic can never be divorced from society. So to assume that state exists in isolation and is not influenced by the culture is to commit a fundamental error.
Time to Say No
But that can only happen when we draw the line and say no to Political Hindutva.
Political Hindutva’s biggest contribution has been to legitimize a role for Political Parties and hence by extension a role for the State in within Hindu Institutions.
This has only ensured a stake for politicians in maintaining status quo within Hindu Institutions thus making them uncompetitive in the 21st Century’s marketplace of ideas.
It is time to draw a clear line by saying NO to the Political Hindutva of the 1990s.
Not to beat a dead horse, but this is again disingenuous, not to say churlish, for state interference and its legitimacy precede rise of Hindutva.
In conclusion while there are legitimate grounds for criticizing Hindutva, this post is little more than dissimulation and rhetorical trick, all with an eye towards bien-pensant.
* Originally defined by Veer Savarkar, it has assumed much broader meaning of cultural nationalist politics, in that respect Hindutva is more of a placeholder now
