Rebooting Hindutva

Disclaimer 1: While as a cultural nationalist, I am very much interested in resurgence of India & Hinduism (both being inseparable in my view). The topic is too vast for a single post, as well as too complicated for a single person.

Disclaimer 2: When I say Hindutva, I do not refer to original theory propounded by Savarkar, having never read, but on Hindutva, the political movement, which accompanied Ram Janam Bhoomi movement in 80's 

Note: Throughout the post, whenever I use "we", "us" it is for cultural nationalists.

A Clear Eyed Assessment Of Hindutva

Where we are

In the wake of Narendra Modi's convincing victory, it's easy for us to be complacent, that is why it is a sobering realization that this victory was not about Hindutva, hell it was not even about Nationalism, cultural or otherwise. It was, to cut a long story short, about acche din.

In fact why just stop at this election. Hindutva (again not referring to Savarkar, but the popular movement) has not scaled well. After its decimation in 1984 BJP was resurrected by Hindutva, not only getting most number of electoral support till then in its history (incl its previous avatar as BJS), but also becoming the focal point around which politics contours will take shape. 

That however changed after demolition of Disputed structure in 1992, while BJP did try to revive the movement both locally in UP and nationally, but could never regain the earlier traction, that along with difficulty in attracting allies (as well as hostile secular-establishment) ensured BJP put it in backburner.

All of this is a repeat of what I wrote in the immediate aftermath of BJP's defeat in 2009 elections. (If it is any comfort, these elections are not a mandate for Center-Right either)

Be that as it may, it doesn't leave us at enviable position. A deceptive ascendancy and frail majority after continued hegemony of sec-lib establishment, (with ABV government nary a intervening blip), we are in state of disorientation, both electorally as well as intellectually.

Electorally, for while there still is a core constituency for Hindutva (however, vaguely defined and understood) it is, at best marginal  In fact, if we can afford to be candid to ourselves for a moment, as far are electoral calculations are concerned, not only we might be irrelevant for large swathes of electoral map, we might also be at disadvantage due to "secular" polarization

Beyond the core constituency of course we have a broad spectrum of sympathisers, however for them Hindutva is seldom the first priority, further antics of Hindutva organizations (vandalism & violence) frequently alienate even the sympathisers.

Related to this (even if not apparent) is question of our intellectual bearings. What does contemporary Hindutva stand for ? 370 UCC, Ram Mandir ? Is there nothing more to Hindutva?

At risk of earning ire of fellow Hindutva Vadis, let me suggest, Hindutva as it exists at presents is not much more than a confused cacophony of slogans. It is true that there is real passion behind slogans, but in absence of direction, the passion will degenerate into lumpen behavior.

And then there is question of elections. We can't persuade voters to our side, if our side doesn't have any message or if we ourselves are confused.

Hindutva, could and should, be more than that. This post and this blogger are hardly the right medium to do justice to such a humongous project. However let me suggest that at the least Hindutva should be a civilizational project, meant to rejuvenate our atrophied motherland.

With that context, here is what I think should guide evolution of Hindutva.

1. Independence from Government - I am no doctrinarian libertarian, however there are valid reasons to be wary of government interference,  both general (corruption in proximity of power) and specific (the more we empower government in religious matters, the more likely it is that it will be used by sec-lib establishment to undermine Hinduism and Hindu Dharma )

2. Creation Of Institutions - We must build institutions to support and nurture Hindu Dharma through, documentation, instruction, dissemination, discussion and ideation. These institutions can be conventional as well as unconventional.

3 Creation Of Ecosystem - The institutions created should aim to be as comprehensible as possible wrt all the facets of civilizational project such as spirituality, history, politics, civics, philosophy etc through interdisciplinary exchange.

4. Cultivation of  knowledgeable and motivated supporter. Who can engage and contribute meaningfully in this project.

5. Integration with the existing social institutions, networks and frameworks. We might not know what Hindutva is at this point, but we know what it is not It is not an attempt to recreate the civilization from scratch or upend the existing order for some utopian scheme. Rather it is an attempt to gradually and incrementally heal, nourish and strengthen our motherland.

6. Securing the capital to finance- Last but not the least, such a civilizational effort will need considerable amount of capital to sustain, which is only possible if we also have businessmen and traders, industrialists and financiers onboard this project.

To reiterate what I said few days back on twitter.

"Along with Chatrapati Shivaji, we also need Samarth Guru Ramdas, along with Maharana Pratap, we also need Bhama Shah"

To be continued...

A Conservative Paradox

To be more precise the paradox is that of conservativism  in a democratic polity.

Now conservatism has no single definition, depending on the specific society it also differs,  the quote by Tolstoy about unhappy families* applies to conservatism also. However, broadly speaking conservatism tends to emphasize importance and conservation of existing traditions, customs and institutions, considering this to be key to a life well lived. In short it is democracy of dead.

So what is the paradox, democracy by its very nature is susceptible to mob rule or tyranny by demagogues,  there can be checks and balances in form of republican form of government but ultimately political power, like any form of power is corrosive. It corrodes the moral grain of those entrusted with stewardship of democracy, it corrodes the political institutions, until the checks and balances give way. The ultimate bulwark against this corrosion is an informed public, whose awareness about politics goes beyond palace intrigues, not only zealously tracking the conduct of political officials and the debates on policy but also finer nuances pertaining to political philosophy.

The above sounds nice, and you might be thinking where is the problem. Well, it is this.

Since conservatism is concerned with the society as a whole, it seeks a balance between the various (often competing for power) social institutions, among which state is but one. The engagement described above is nice in theory, but human nature being what it is, the engagement can turn into obsession fairly quickly, this obsession creates imbalance in favour of state. State monopolizes, in order, the discourse, the narrative and finally even the perspective. This monopoly causes gradual decay of all the institutions, with the exception of state, which progressively sucks up more and more power. This social upheaval, needless to say, is diametrically opposite to what conservatism holds to be prerequisite for good life.

 So what is the resolution of this paradox? Unfortunately there isn't any, pertaining as it is to fundamental nature of democracy and human nature itself. However it is possible to mitigate this somewhat.
One by cultivating general scepticism of the state and another by cultivating a  broader sense of civic virtue which strengthens all the institutions and not just state.

* Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.

Why They Hate Narendra Modi

A brief post this

Oldtimer's post on Modi-baiters has reminded me of a point I have been meaning to make since quite sometime, the visceral hatred for Narendra Modi. This hatred, I used to think was analogous to two minute hate, in this scenario NaMo is to lib-sec establishment, what Emmanuel Goldstein was to the party in 1984.
.
However lately I have revised my opinion. While it is not clear whether Emmanuel Goldstein exists (indeed in 1984 it is strongly hinted at the end that he is fictitious), however it is clear within the novel that even he exists he and his organization are an ineffectual resistance against party, either in physical terms or in propaganda, we know this because Winston Smith, the protagonist,  never indicates any presence of Goldstein beyond two minute hate. From this, I think it is safe to conclude that only purpose Goldstein was mentioned at all by Party was to divert and release desperation and anger of public at their wretchedness.

Now in part, lib-sec est does invoke NaMo to consolidate Muslims against Hindus, however there is a crucial difference. Unlike Goldstein, NaMo is a formidable opponent. He has captured the imagination of aspirational middle class against craven venality of a cruel yet buffoonish establishment. He holds the promise, however feeble, of upending cozy consensus of Delhi Durbar, of the false consensus forced upon India by a self loathing and incestuous intelligentsia.

And this is why they hate NaMo because they are afraid that he can't be bought, and that he can snatch the one thing they covet most, the power to maipulate the will.

Social Media Sucks!

 Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa 
Let's get the easy part out, social media has at best limited electoral influence. To be specific twitter has no influence, Facebook has some, Blogs ? ha ha good one. That said, if people are banking on social media for electoral deliverance, Boy, they are for rude surprise!

Social Media can at best play marginal, complementary role. It can't even dream of supplanting traditional political campaigning including voter outreach. But oh, traditional is so boring, let's talk about shiny new things instead.

This misconception about electoral relevance does point to a more serious problem though. That of misunderstanding the role and potential of social media in Indian context. People simply do not understand how to best leverage social media, this is why their participation is at best tactical, at worst  self referential. 

Therefore most of contemporary social media interactions can best be summarized as chasing the news cycle.

Cycle starts with a scandal/outrage/foot in mouth statement, the worthies devour the topic du jour like ravenous wolves, superficial commentary shreds it, until there is a new one, and the cycle continues.

This ceaseless and frankly tedious process obscures other possibilities such as in short term social media can be used to co-ordinate, in medium term it can be used to organize and in long term it can be used for dissemination, thus providing a stable and distributed platform for body politics.

But where confounding narcissism masquerades as profundity, possibility is the first casualty.

Pratap Bhanu Mehta & Art Of (Forced) Equivalence

I confess, I am pretty pissed off at collective orgasm of Internet Hindus over the overrated Pratap Bhanu Mehta's "While we were silent" piece. Here is what galls me, when PBM uses the hackneyed "We were silent" phrase, he doesn't really mean "I", which he should be doing.

I am not saying PBM has never criticized the disaster that is UPA before, he has done ample of time. What I am saying is, even though the article he wrote now might score high on literary scale, an article titled "Holy shit! this government is a disaster! EJECT! EJECT! EJECT!" published, let's say, eight years ago, while scoring considerably lower on the scale, would have been immeasurably more useful because then it might have helped in averted our present "decade of decline" (which threatens to become "decade of darkness").

And please don't say PBM couldn't have foreseen. Its one thing for paid dullards in Indian media, who copy every frickin' trend in US, to say this, but PBM is a smart fellow, he could and should have foreseen this, especially considering that many in blogosphere (incl yours truly).

It is not my contention that those in blogosphere were particularly smart, rather it is that it didn't require particular keen sense of foresight to predict this, considering Sonia Gandhi and her minions were shouting from rooftops, that was the platform on which they fought 2004 elections, that was what they promised and that was what they delivered. Sure they used latest socialist jargon and that could fool the dullards in media, but surely PBM is a smart fellow, he could have cut through the verbiage and seen the reality.

Ofcourse I think he did see the reality, and as I said at the starting he has criticized UPA ample times. However almost all of his articles can be boiled down to either of the two themes.

1. Congress is bad, "lekin saala akhha system hi kaharab hai".
2. Congress is bad, but BJP is worse.

Of course he took far more sentences to say this, and used fancy vocab and sentence construction, but the gist, was always this.

Why would someone as smart as PBM do this. Surely it must have been clear to him, that as flawed as BJP was, in matters of sound policy and in matter of respecting the institutions, it was (and is) far better than Congress.

Let me postulate this, like all liberals PBM is basically a cultural warrior, his overriding concern is the cultural war over soul or rather idea of India. Sure he wraps this in noble sounding rhetoric of apolitical liberalism, don't let it fool you though, this is anything but apolitical.

PBM is a participant in this war, even if he doesn't explicitly realizes this.Sure he may point to the lumpen elements (and there are many) within the fold of cultural nationalism. but he is more than willing to turn a blind eye towards similar element within lib-sec fold. What is more he has no problem being congenial with our intelligentsia which practices intellectual La Cosa Nostra. In contrast you can bet he feels revulsion associating with, even interacting with, any member of nationalist fold, irrespective of the fact how exemplary that member is.

Mr Pratap Bhanu Mehta, you can play or you can referee, you can't do both.

On cults and soft totalitarianism

A short post this

Cults: I am sure anthropologists and the guys who do comparative religion studies have some rigorous definition for cults which no one outside the fields can understand. With the disclaimer let me offer my alternative (?) definition.Cult is any group adhering to a set of belief, who for all practical purposes, refuse to validate or falsify the said beliefs. Even as they insist their beliefs conform to reality or (nowadays) science, they steadfastly resist intrusion of reality. If somehow reality does successfully make a breach, the response is to burrow themselves even more under the certitude of dogma.

Soft totalitarianism: Instead of redefining totalitarianism I will like to shift the focus, totalitarianism refers to a polity where state controls every socio-politico-cultural institution, thus controlling every aspect of social and individual life. While there have been totalitarian regime in the past (Stalin, Mao, Hitler) and exist in the present (North Korea, Saudi Arabia), text book totalitarian regimes are the exception and not the rule. Instead we have a more subtle and hence also more invidious (because it gets ignored)  soft totalitarianism. I define soft totalitarianism as the political situation where while in theory both individuals and social institution have freedom as well as rights, and where state doesn't control all aspects of life, there does exist a intellectual monopoly over key social institutions including academia and public discourse such that dissent beyond a certain point is ruthlessly delegitimized and the person who dare to cross the boundary of shibboleth is hounded mercilessly, career destroyed, his right to civil discourse revoked, humiliated, and finally excommunicated.

Zeroth Law

Consider this post as addendum to previous one, while I don't think much of first principles, I do defer to what I modestly like to refer as Gaurav's zeroth law. It is simply this, in my opinion in order for any social theory to be taken seriously it must be non nihilistic. That is to say, assuming human nature to be what it is, society ordered on the basis of that particular social theory must not annihilate itself and must survive and thrive

Cylindrical Elephants & Spherical Cows

Nowadays political discourse, whether online or in mainstream, evokes sadness tinged with a feeling of Sisyphean futility of it all. Earlier when one fancied oneself young the feeling that this evoked was of rage.

Political commentators when not perpetually chasing the breaking news in a manner reminiscent of street mongrels,  remind one of the parable of blind men and elephant, with discourse focussed on specific issues.

Now there is something to said about this approach, focusing on a small specific part and studying reducing the complexity of problem, divide and conquer in technical lingo.

Problem though is that human condition does not yield to convenient, clean division, on the contrary it is messy, one part running into other. The result, all the well constructed theorems and model assuming the isolation and independence of  parts are ruined by the intrusion of totality.

So may be going piecemeal is not correct, may be our reasoning should be anchored on first principles. A tempting thought no doubt, and one which many do succumb to. Unfortunately this too is deceptive, a dialectical siren song for those chasing intellectual certainty, and the results as predictable, intellectual wreck on treacherous shoals of reality.

Every scientific query proceeds within the framework of assumptions. Assumptions simplify problem domain and make working on problem earlier. This is useful as long as care is taken that simplification do not filter anything essential. This is next to impossible in study of social affairs.

First principles are dangerous precisely because they cloak incompleteness of assumption in intellectual certitude. Hence spherical cows.

So what is the solution. Short answer, there aren't any. Longer answer, it is not possible to completely eliminate the complexity, it is possible however to mitigate it somewhat, by not focussing exclusive on one domain, by making it a habit of stepping back and taking it all in.

Unless we understand elephant's nature we can't hope to tame it.

SHOW DONT TELL

(Originally posted on CRI)

Much of my original posting on CRI has been in way of criticism without offering any positive alternative or solution, one  reason for this, as the cliché goes, criticism is easy, other is my own political views are still work in progress (As Oscar Wilde said, “I am not young enough to know everything”).

That said I will like to qualify my humble appeal in which I objected to pretending that right exists in India, in any meaningful way. I will like to note following criteria to admit existence of right.

1. Define right in a broad but coherent way.  (And again no, you can not just import definition of American Right)

2. Identify the set of philosophical/policy positions in Indian context which can be classified as right.

3. Locate in politics a serious faction or movement which identifies with said position. Or,

4. Identify a serious strand among contemporary Indian discourse which can be identified with said position.

5. Note emphasis on “serious”, by which I mean not twitter, or blog, or any other part of web.

HUMBLE APPEAL

(Originally posted on CRI)

Not that anybody is going to listen to me but still…

Please, for love of God, stop pretending/deluding yourself that we have some intellectually coherent “right” in India. I know why you are doing that, you have a ready-made template of political categorization in American politics, it is so much easier to just import it and build an edifice of superficial punditry to satisfy that irresistible urge for self affirmation.

However just because it is easier doesn’t mean its correct, it is useless, scratch that it is worse than useless in that it is misleading, it is obfuscating instead of clarifying.

If you have to do it, do it the right way.

And remember the only difference between drunkard and a pundit is whereas drunkard looks for the keys under the lamps, a pundit insists that keys should have been misplaced under the lamps in the first place.