Hindu vote and the trend

This blogpost was written for centreright.in and can be found here.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah was convinced Muslims couldn’t coexist with Hindus. It’s another matter that he used a different excuse to further his agenda. Something that purportedly went by wanting to protect rights of Muslims in a Hindu majority India. Thus came into existence the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The country’s value add to the world is all too well known now.

Pakistan literally means land of the pure. The purity in this case refers to faith. The Islamic faith. So sincere is Pakistan in its pursuit of purity that it legally discriminates against anyone not owing complete allegiance to Islam. In over six decades of its existence minorities have almost vanished from the land. Ahmadiyyas do not exist for Pakistan and Hindus have been persecuted to extinction. The few remaining Hindus have expressed a desire to migrate to India.

Bangladesh was liberated from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in March 1971 by India. In the 1980s Bangladesh felt the need to declare Islam as its state religion. Since then the Hindu population has been on the decline. As an extra we have a huge illegal migration of Bangladeshi Muslims into India with not so pleasant results.

In contrast demographic trends in India have been different from the ones seen in these neighboring countries. Here the minority population has seen a steady and rapid increase. The majority population has been on the decline. The 2011 census numbers haven’t been released yet. However it is believed that the Hindu population may fall below 80% for the first time.

Statistics are behind the curve. Our secular politicians have seen and actively encouraged this trend for quite a while. We are told Muslims voting en bloc is a myth. We are told Muslims are individuals too. However that is at variance with the way politics and electoral outcomes have played out over the decades. The secular parties compete amongst themselves in actively courting the Muslim vote. This has yielded rich electoral dividends for them. The Muslims too have realized the power of their vote and have exploited it to good effect.

Today the Muslim population in India has reached a point that has given the community greater confidence. This confidence is manifesting in assertive ways. Many times in violation of the law and spirit of our Constitution. Recent events are further proof of the same. There is another effect of this greater confidence among Muslims. They no longer feel the need to seek protection under a benevolent over lordship of the secular parties. They now feel they can form their own political parties and cut the middlemen out.

This demographic trend and the way politics has been played in India have tilted the scales heavily to the Muslim side. Electoral outcomes now almost entirely depend on their vote. The fragmented Hindu vote is of little consequence. Rare are the occasions when Hindus vote en bloc. In fact this may have happened only once so far. With the numerical strength of Hindus set to fall below 80%, time may just be running out for the consolidated Hindu vote, if it ever existed, to assert itself and make it count. The Hindus may very well have succeeded defeating overt onslaughts, but they seem to be on the losing side of this covert trend.

Historians in a bubble

Originally posted here

As defined by its constitution its primary object is the “promotion and encouragement of the scientific study of Indian history”.

That is the main objective of the Indian History Congress, a body with 9,000 members as claimed by its website. What does “scientific study” mean? Here’s what Wikipedia says –

…refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning

The same Wiki link also contains this definition by The Oxford English dictionary –

“a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”

 Yes, the Oxford dictionary says scientific study examines, scrutinizes hypotheses and modifies them accordingly. But should history have its basis in hypotheses? Or should it be based on empirical study of available evidence as seen in the Wiki definition? History, as everyone knows, is a study of past events. And how does one study past events? You may say by examining trails left behind by the bygone eras. Now if we were to do that would the outcome of such an exercise be congruent with the approved and established record taught in schools? We all know the answer to that.

Now when our historians, or at least those historians with a vice like grip over the establishment, claim to employ “scientific study” of history they are implying something. That the study of history needs special skills gained by special training. This automatically disqualifies a large number of people from having the privilege of examining history. It may be safe to assume that only those 9,000 members of the Indian History Congress are qualified and approved to do this.

But why must it be so? Why is the aam aadmi or the enthusiast kept out of this? If there is historical record available from past, why not put it up for examination by all? Is that because certain forcefully established hypotheses will crumble under the slightest scrutiny? This religious guarding of domain by our historians is highly irregular. Especially when science welcomes scrutiny and questions.

And the “scientific temperament” of our historians goes all missing when faced with dissent. Questioning their hypotheses invites curious label pasting and you are branded a heretic for doing so. This is an exercise in convenience and there is hardly anything scientific about it.

And then there is the question of sources. Some of our historians do not understand ancient languages such as Sanskrit. They rely on translations by such people as Max Muller who did not know Sanskrit himself. And such translations were carried out by early Jesuits in attempt to map Indian knowledge and culture. So our historian’s sources are secondary and tertiary reproductions of poor translations of ancient Indian history and knowledge.

In India we have a tradition of oral record keeping and narration of history. The Vedas and Puranas were maintained and handed down using oral traditions. Another example of this oral tradition is folk songs of Maharashtra in the form of Powada that recount the life and times of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. These oral traditions have strict and rigid rules to adhere to when learning and performing. But there is general skepticism towards such traditions among historians.

History is more than study of records kept by Jesuits in India. Much of our history is among the people, in traditions and languages that the Jesuits did not understand. Much of our history lives and breathes among the native people. It is but natural that a large amount of history of our land can be found among our own people. Such an important source of input is shunted out of the “scientific study”. Our historians have been diligently guarding their sanitized bubble from which convenient hypotheses are postulated and propagated for consumption..

The Warped Minority Debate

Originally posted here.

“All of us sitting here on stage have been outspoken advocates of secularism & the rights of Muslims” said a prime time TV news debate anchor on a panel debate at Jaipur Literary Festival. It is quite an interesting quote. Read it again. Much of the debate on minorities and the state they are in is held in a vacuum. One would understand if juveniles did that. But one hardly expects this of career journalists, scholars, intellectuals and column writers. One cannot help but wonder if this is an innocent phenomenon or something else is at play here.

“Minorities are persecuted”

Is that true? Is this assertion based on facts or is it made for drama, for effect? Is the entire minority community persecuted? The prime time talking heads certainly seem to insinuate as much. Almost any debate on the subject is constructed more on a set of assumptions than incontrovertible facts. One is led to believe that minorities suffer untold misery simply because they belong to minority communities. The actors carrying out such a debate have a myopic focus on convenient cases that help make their point. That large parts of the same minority communities enjoy success in almost every field is ignored. Dig a little deep and you will find that minority community members that rejected the victimhood trap and made efforts to better themselves have enjoyed as much success as anyone else. Those falling for the victimhood trap have stayed behind and this is the lot that helps make the case for minority persecution. Interestingly religious zealots among minorities are considered fringe elements. However those forced into backwardness by these zealots make for a compelling case study for minority persecution. Who has prevented parts of minority communities from bettering themselves is a question that is never asked.

“Justice demands affirmative action”

Having established an assumption for a fact the next logical step follows. Demand for justice. Minority community leaders can be heard in TV studios arguing “justice demands that reservations be made for Muslims”. Lacking a strong case for persecution, apologists resort to rhetoric to further their case. Religious minorities are hardly denied opportunities owing only to their religion. Minority groups remaining backward is largely due to the opposition by community leaders to assimilate, to seek modern benefits. The minority leaders have a vested interest in keeping their community members segregated in bubbles. This allows them to claim leadership of such groups and leverage the same for personal gains.

Reservations, quotas, packages have been handed out to religious minorities for decades now. However desired outcomes still elude us. Whose failure is this? Shouldn’t we stop and re-evaluate this? Could the reason for failure be something else? Is the answer more of the same? The state hasn’t failed minority communities but the community leaders have.

It is always the other’s fault

Those claiming victimhood can be found blaming everyone else but themselves. It is quite evident that they refuse to take any responsibility for their own destiny, for their own plight. Their own dogged refusal to move with the times is blamed on others. There is no cure for this mindset. All the reservations, all the packages in the world are doomed to fail when the minority communities refuse to take any responsibility for their own condition.

Those claiming to speak for the rights of minorities would do well to pause and reflect for moment. Are their arguments helping the minorities or are they pushing them further into darkness? And having witnessed such debates for long we too should stop and question if this is indeed innocent or by design. The same prime time TV news debate anchor quoted in the beginning said that media is guilty of focusing on the fringe and helping perpetuate a negative stereotype of religious minorities. But curiously the same TV news anchor never takes own advice. Religious zealots continue to be her guests representing minorities and she has a history of conducting debates in a convenient vacuum.

Book review: Lies with long legs

Originally posted here.

 came across this title last year while I was looking for a book on the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT). There is plenty material exploring the scientific, geological, archaeological evidence debunking the theory. However I wanted something that examined those who proposed this theory, scrutinized their scholarship and saw how the theory held its own against such an examination. This book does exactly that and I am glad I came across this book.

Prof. Prodosh Aich embarked on a journey to find out who the “Aryans” were. Who the “Indo-Europeans” were who had given birth to the curious AIT theory and had launched a lucrative career industry, both in terms of money and awards, in Indology.

In his painstaking research spanning almost a decade Prof. Aich, along with those who assisted him, examine a breathtaking amount of material about (and by) almost every prominent Indologist, or anyone who claimed scholarship in Sanskrit and ancient Indian knowledge. The objective of this exercise was very simple. To put the alleged “scientific” scholarship to, well, scientific test. And much of the book is about how this scholarship holds up against such scientific scrutiny.

Among the people examined in the book include such luminaries as Max Muller, William Jones and Macaulay. What Prof. Aich finds is rather familiar to what we have seen happen in the scholarly circles of Marxist variety. The nature of their scholarship was anything but scientific. Prof. Aich encounters such techniques as disingenuity, progressive myth making, selective quoting, truth by repeated assertion, mutual admiration etc. And all of this went unchallenged in the “scientific” pursuit of scholarship in Indology.

There is one contrast that is impossible to miss as is evident in the book. The writings on India before the advent of Christianity were markedly different than the writings after Christianity was installed in Europe. Where earlier Greek writings about India come across as remarkably free from prejudice, the writings after Christianity took root are dramatically different in tone and attitude. (Covered in some detail here).

Almost every Indologist who studied or wrote about India exhibited one common trait. They were all Jesuits. This is not a conspiracy theory but is abundantly clear from the writings, letters etc. as produced in the book, by the scholars themselves.

Another thing in common among almost all Indologists was their spectacular lack of knowledge of the language they claimed expertise in. Sanskrit. (See this post on Max Muller). By the time these European Indologists started writing about or visited India, Sanskrit had vanished from daily life in India. It was confined to the Brahmins who preserved ancient Indic knowledge through the oral tradition of reciting Sanskrit hymns handed down through the generations.

The Indologists found it difficult to gain access to this critical knowledge owing to obvious cultural and language differences as well as obvious apprehensions the Brahmins had in allowing access to hymns. So the Indologists compiled a rudimentary Sanskrit dictionary from whoever they could talk to and this formed the basis of their scholarship in Sanskrit.

The quality of this dictionary was naturally far from acceptable. The Indologists transcribed whatever they could lay their hands on and sent it back to European institutes where the field of Indology had begun flourishing. In the absence of any authoritative scrutiny or validation, what the Indologists passed was held valid. Thus took birth a “scientific” branch of scholarship. Indology.

The circumstance under which these Indologists either came to India or took up studying India is worth noting. Almost every scholar examined in the book was driven not by a hunger for scholarship but something else. They all were desperate to better their own financial situations. Writing was popular during their time and almost every other field was taken. “Oriental studies” was nascent and emerging. The budding Indologists sensed their chance to strike big here knowing there would be hardly anyone to put their work to test.

The Jesuit influence on the scholars and visiting luminaries like Macaulay meant that their supremist tendencies held Indic beliefs, knowledge in contempt declaring them wrong and invalid. The Indians had to be introduced to the “correct” belief system and saved from catastrophe. Macaulay designed his program for what Prof. Aich calls manufacturing “cultural clones”. (Covered in more detail here). These “cultural clones” were Indians with European minds. Indians uprooted from their own culture and moulded to be more like the likes of Macaulay. Our first Prime Minister was a product of this “cultural cloning” program and the results are all too evident now.

Put to scientific test, popular scholarship in Indology fails miserably. Prof. Aich uses nothing else but material, the writings, memoirs, letters, speeches and other such trails left behind by the scholars themselves. The hollow edifice comes crumbling down as do myths like the “Aryans” built upon “lies with long legs“.

“Meaningful autonomy” and article 370

Originally posted here.

“Meaningful autonomy” is the considered recommendation of the three interlocutors appointed by the UPA government for Jammu and Kashmir. This is according to what we have gotten to hear from the media and other sources so far. The report has not yet been made public. Until that happens we will have to wait to know how exactly they arrived at this. Since autonomy is synonymous to independence it goes in the direction opposite to integration. Our constitution has a provision to eventually integrate the state of Jammu and Kashmir into the union of India. While the interlocutor’s report is made public, let us revisit the Lok Sabha debates when Jawaharlal Nehru was our Prime Minister and see what his position on the matter was –

“Our view is that article 370, as is written in the Constitution, is a transitional, in other words a temporary provision. And it is so. You can see how much change has come about in so many things since it was enacted. And that is continuing to happen. The Home Minister has just mentioned two or three things in which changes have recently been made. I do not regard it as permanent.

As a matter of fact, as the Home Minister has pointed out, it has been eroded, if I may use the word, and many things have been done in the last few years which have made the relationship of Kashmir with the Union of India very close. There is no doubt that Kashmiris fully integrated…” [Reproduced from “A Secular Agenda” by Arun Shourie. Part of Lok Sabha debate on 27-11-1963.]

The longevity of article 370 may give one the impression that it is permanent provision. And with the debate on “autonomy” to Jammu and Kashmir being carried out based on “human stories” the important issue of integration of the state gets completely divorced from what the Constitution says. Discussions on our sovereignty and territorial integrity cannot be held in such a vacuum. The very article begins with the words “Temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir” [link]. Where is the question of autonomy here? Like Jawaharlal Nehru said the article ought to have eroded into oblivion by now. However the latest report by the interlocutors seems to suggest the exact opposite. It is time the debate on the state of Jammu and Kashmir was rescued from the trap of “azadi” and “autonomy” it seems to have fallen into and reconciled with what the Constitution of India provides for the state. Indeed Jawaharlal Nehru himself promised that article 370 was temporary, the Congress party should honour it.

AFSPA and the debate in vacuum

Originally posted here.

A new storm is brewing over the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA). We can credit this development to the young Chief Minister ofJammu and Kashmir Mr. Omar Abdullah who could not help but “think out aloud” wondering if he could lift the AFSPA from certain areas. The purported rationale behind this is the claim that relative calm has returned to some parts of the state. The numbers certainly do add up. But do they tell the complete story? That, however, is a different question.

Many parts of Jammu and Kashmir have not seen extended periods of peace for at least two decades, courtesy non state actors from our western neighbor who wander into the state with a regularity matched only by the day night cycle. And because non state actors are not burdened by the laws regulating state actors they feel free to act their mind. We have seen what they have in mind over these two decades. The magnitude of this problem is such that our army has to be deployed to reign in these non state actors from the neighboring nation state. The state of Jammu and Kashmir alone is unable to gain control over the situation. Under trying conditions our army has done a brilliant job each time we sought help. This leads to the relative peace we hear being spoken about again.

However, sustaining this relative peace has proved difficult. Why? Because a familiar sequence plays out each time we manage to gain control over terrorism in the state. The terrorists go about carrying out their sworn duties disrupting lives and causing mayhem. The problem gets out of hand. The army gets called in to gain control. The army begins to gain control of the situation. Signs of relative peace become apparent. We hear demands for scaling back army presence citing this relative peace. When that happens we go back to square one and the sequence repeats. Where is the problem? It is in the premature demands for lifting army presence in the terrorism infected state. The army is asked to go back leaving the job half done each time. Following a brief hiatus terrorism begins to bloom again as spring arrives. This sequence is set to repeat again, it seems, if recent events are any indication.

We have seen a glut of debates over the issue of army presence and the AFSPA act. In fact we have seen these debates so many times, for so long that they have started to become repetitive. Out of the many features of these debates one shines through. Rhetoric. No debate on Kashmir, the army and AFSPA is complete without generous helpings of hysteria filled rhetoric. We hear stories of human rights violations by the army. When facts decimating these allegations are cited we see the goal posts promptly shift to “human stories” aimed at tugging on our heartstrings. “Human interest stories” are useful when facts such as these [1] [2] are not on your side. They help create distractions and hijack debates. Armed with these “human stories” our career activists can be seen queering the pitch for Kashmir. We can see these same “human stories” again feature prominently in prime time television news shows. The utility of these stories does not end there. They help revive sagging careers of activists looking to piggyback on the latest rage after their previous campaigns reach their expiry dates.

Opinion making too is not immune to these temptations. Reams of column space and hours of television time are devoted in trying to make a case against the AFSPA. Most of this takes place in a convenient vacuum. Relevant facts, inconvenient contexts must be shunned for they act as an impediment to a certain ideology. When talking of life in Kashmir a fleeting reference to the erstwhile residents of the state, the Kashmiri Pandits, is enough to maintain a façade of objectivity. Stressing the ethnic cleansing of the Kashmiri Pandit community, forced exile from their land, cold blooded murder of those who stayed back is deemed offensive for the current residents of the state. When it comes to comparing similar events in different states schizophrenic characterization is on full display. While a “pogrom”, “state sponsored mass murder”, “genocide” takes place in a certain state, a similar thing taking place on a massive scale over a number of years in a different place is due to “genuine differences”. Juxtapose this dogmatic refusal to term the ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits as a “pogrom, “genocide” with the generously creative label making for riots in other states and you will no longer need conspiracy theories.

The army is not the local police to operate under laws governing the police. The army is also different from the police. Take away the AFSPA and you will neuter the army. It will lose the lethal edge and suffer the same handicaps like the police. The very fact that the army got called in indicates that the situation is not normal. Abnormal situations call for abnormal measures. The state of Jammu and Kashmir does not face an ordinary law and order problem. It faces a proxy war launched by a hostile neighbor. Wars cannot be fought with both hands tied in the back. Removal of AFSPA does exactly that. It ties the hands of our lethal army against a hostile enemy. An obviously asymmetrical situation. The AFSPA and the army must be repealed after we have neutralized the threat of terrorism, reinforced out hold, equipped and trained the administration to carryout duties efficiently and independently. Until then it is premature to talk about it.

Secularism - The definition

Originally posted here.

Secularism: a doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations

That is how the Princeton University dictionary defines it. That of course is a short description. But who coined the word? Why did he/she coin it? What did he/she mean by it? The various encyclopedias tell us that one British writer by the name George Jacob Holyoake coined the word secularism in the early 1850s. The entry for secularism in The Oxford Companion to British Historytells us that Christians in the 19^th century believed that atheists lacked morals and therefore were incapable of exercising civil rights and thus were looked down upon. To circumvent this unfavourable connotation Holyoake came up with an alternative. And that alternative was to define secularism as a school of thought that was not concerned with religious beliefs but entirely with our own world. He argued that humans were capable of ethical life because they were inherently inspired to do good for our own sake. This is how Holyoake described secularism –

Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life, founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three: (1) The improvement of this life by material means. (2) That science is the available Providence of man. (3) That it is good to do good. Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good.

Thus came about a definition for a long held set of beliefs – stripped completely of religious considerations – which sought to argue that ethical life was possible outside of religion.

Secularism has been the basis for most modern political movements that sought to isolate public policy making from religion. During the course of this struggle, secularism has been interpreted and applied in various ways. Modern secular political movements in the west worked towards replacing laws based on religion with laws based on good for all people governed by them i.e. civil laws. Keeping religion private is a large part of secular movements. Thus the influence of “Church” over governments waned over time. A society is said to be secular when there is religious freedom and politics is not influenced by religious leaders.

We have witnessed perhaps the most amount of debate on secularism since our independence. Certainly it is one of the most debated topics. Thanks to the 42^nd amendment, the preamble to the Constitution of India now reads as –

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a _1[SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC] and to secure to all its citizens:

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;

and to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the _2[unity and integrity of the Nation];

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION. [Words in bold are result of the 42^nd amendment].

The Constitution does not define the word secular. This has led to varied interpretations and definitions by various individuals and groups. Add to that the qualifications of social order to freedom and rights provided by the constitution and we have a perfect recipe for heated debates. And we have seen more than one of such debates. This debate gathered steam in the 1980s and 1990s. To understand what was being debated, how it was debated, what was the outcome we need to follow them. There was plenty discussed in public, in political rallies, in the courts, during policy making etc. Let us look at some of them in the upcoming posts.

Follow rest of the debate at centreright.in

Shubh Deepawali

Diwali greetings to one and all. शुभ दीपावली!

Image from here.

Why cries for “no death penalty” are bogus

This post originally appeared here.

President Pratibha Patil confirmed the death sentence awarded to former Prime Minster Rajiv Gandhi’s assassins. The sentence itself came about after a long trial process in our courts. One would think that law being followed to its logical conclusion would be welcomed by all. But this is not the case.

For their own political reasons, Tamil Nadu politicians have asked that the death sentence be commuted. Our human rights activists and liberals do not have to worry about votes, but they have joined the clamour. “No death penalty because it is inhuman” they say. Curiously one sees a sudden rise in such campaigns by human rights activists and liberals only at opportune moments. At all other times such cries are nowhere to be heard. If they were indeed so passionately against capital punishment they would have been more consistent. Needless to say that is not the case.

This concern for human rights is lacking in balance. In the case of a murder or an assassination the first human rights abuse is by the perpetrator who takes life of the victim. The victim suffers loss of life. Any and all human rights of the victim cease to exist with loss of life. It would only be natural to expect that those violating rights of the victim be made to face the full extent of law and suffer any consequences provided by the law. After all, a civilized society is governed by rule of law. And death sentences are handed out by courts after following laws laid out by civilized societies. Yet we seem to have a problem.

The human rights clamour seen for convicts invariably reaches fever pitch but in contrast we hardly hear anything by the same group for victims. Victims are the ones who have lost and suffered the most. They are in need of justice for suffering loss of rights. But one does not see any such campaign worth talking about for the victims. Justice being done to victims following the course of law is being denied by the human rights activists in their opportunistic cry for “no death penalty”. That irony is lost on them.

When one sees this convenient cry for abolishing capital punishment one cannot help but question principles of such rights activists. Sincere intentions would have been evident if campaigns were sustained, consistent which would have resulted in either starting a meaningful debate or having death penalty abolished. Instead we have these intermittent cries at opportune moments.

Looking at the conduct of some of our career human rights activists and liberal opinion makers it seems that their campaigns are designed, calculated with possible benefits in mind. Some of them have indeed succeeded in benefiting from their calibrated campaigns and also have earned patronage from expected quarters. What is lacking is an objective scrutiny of their record as activists. Such a scrutiny is likely to show their failure in bringing about any meaningful change to human rights issues.

Debate or driving a wedge?

This post originally appeared here.

That our TV and newspaper debates have become didactic is increasingly apparent. But are they without any purpose? Without any motive? Why do opinion makers feel compelled to lead people in a certain direction? And does this direction lead people to a certain political choice while steering them away from others? The answer can be found in what transpires in these debates.

Baba Ramdev started a campaign against corruption. This campaign gathered so much momentum that the government sent four union ministers to meet the Baba. Things did not go as the government had hoped. The Baba’s campaign acquired a deeply Saffron character. Soon after that we heard TV studios sing in chorus disparaging the Baba and his campaign. We saw TV studio invitees echoing exactly the same thoughts as that of the anchors who themselves echoed thoughts of the government. Switch to a debate in another TV studio and one could not help but think one was hearing an echo of the debate in the other TV studio. This was in sharp contrast with the almost approving nod Anna Hazare’s campaign received. The difference between the two was that Anna’s campaign was strictly “apolitical” while Baba’s was “political” and not just “political” but “Saffron” too.

Take a more recent example. The Karnataka Lokayukta came out with a report on mining scams. Yeddyurappa of BJP was the Chief Minister heading a majority government. Congress and JDS are the political opposition. Yeddyurappa and his family find mention in the report and every TV studio asked for his ouster. Yeddyurappa resigned. A similar thing happened in Delhi. Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit of the Congress party has a more serious involvement in the Commonwealth Games corruption. The Shunglu Committee and CAG reports have listed the scam in detail and questioned her role in the same. An equivalent level of campaign for her ouster is nowhere to be seen in TV studios or newspaper columns. The reaction has been disproportionately muted. It was said that the BJP would strengthen its moral standing against corruption by making Yeddyurappa resign. Now we hear the CAG had exceeded its mandate in indicting Sheila Dikshit and that its findings are not final but must be put under scrutiny.

These are but two recent and more popular examples. Scores such examples can be witnessed if one go through most of our debates. The resulting narrative of such debates disadvantages a certain political formation and by default this benefits the grand old political formation. The political formation at advantage has been given the highly desirable character of being secular. With secularism being spoken of favourably and rewarded in TV studios and columns, parties associating themselves with secularism enjoy good word of mouth.

With such debates it becomes difficult for anyone to put the favourable political formation under scrutiny and not attract criticism. The result of such debates is to drive a wedge between the fence sitters and political formations not identified with secularism. Such debates consolidate the committed and make it difficult, almost impossible for the uncommitted to choose anything but the secular choice.

Why so didactic?

This post originally appeared here.

What is the overwhelming feeling one is left with when one has just experienced yet another primetime TV news debate or has read a column by our star TV journalists? Does one feel having experienced a debate? Does one feel all points of views were expressed? Does one feel the moderator or the columnist was being impartial and trying to keep the debate balanced? Or does one get a feeling that we were being guided in a certain direction. That we were being instructed on what the appropriate questions ought to be and who was really guilty of some wrongdoing.

Surf through almost any of our top national TV news channels and you will witness a rather cagey debate going on shows with grand titles moderated by the leading stars of TV news industry. More often than not these shows are anything but debates. We get to witness some extremely sanctimonious sounding characters imparting lessons on morality to us. Apparently those watching these shows lack sound judgment and lack the capacity to evaluate facts on merits. Therefore the viewers must be helpfully guided in making the correct choices and ask the correct questions. This was on ample display during the Karnataka land mining report debate. If an aam aadmi is left alone he may ask such obvious questions. However they would be inappropriate, incorrect and morally wrong for the extremely sanctimonious characters have already identified where the guilt lies. To help guide the people we are presented with debates fixing responsibilities and lengthy, sermonising columns such as these do the trick. It is of course irrelevant that all this debate and column writing prejudges issues even before full facts are before us or appropriate procedures are carried out.

Curiously all these moral sermons, all these helpful moral instructions are invariably directed at a particular set of set of people while all this is deemed unnecessary when it comes to a certain other set of characters. Take all the recent happenings in our country and revisit the debates and columns around them and one cannot help but think our debates have become very didactic.

Secularists and their fanatical secularism

Secularism is the belief that government or other entities should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs.

In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief. In another sense, it refers to the view that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be unbiased by religious influence. Some scholars are now arguing that the very idea of secularism will change. [Link]

That is how Wikipedia describes secularism. There is an India specific section describing secularism as –

The Preamble to the Constitution of India declares that India is a secular state. The original preamble did not mention the word “secular”. It was added later by 42nd amendment in 1976. The term secularism in politics refers to the governmental practice of indifference towards religion. Though such bifurcation is not totally possible, still, secular politics attempt to prevent religious philosophies or bodies from influencing governmental policies. The philosophy that the Indian constitution upholds is a kind of secular humanism made relevant through a historical development of the ideology within the context of religious pluralism in India. [Link]

It is admitted that politics cannot be completely isolated from religion or religious beliefs but secular politics strives to separate government policy making from being influenced by religion. We hear almost every politician and self described secularists swear by this principle. Yet what has transpired since our independence is contrary to this. Secular principles have been abandoned at the slightest hint of threat from religious groups. We saw this in the Shah Bano case where a court verdict based on secular law was subverted by letting religion influence changes in law. We see this principle being jettisoned routinely the moment vote banks revolt on religious pretexts.

If a secular state is supposed to be agnostic on the matters of religion then the Indian state describing itself as such is an anomaly. In fact the Indian state contradicts the Indian Constitution to an extent that necessitates re-evaluating inclusion of the word “secular”.

One could cite the articles for fundamental rights in the constitution allowing freedom and propagation of religion. That is certainly the argument of religious groups. These freedoms have led to varied interpretations by secularists and the courts alike resulting in heated debates between various groups. The continual bowing down of the state on matters of religion and the manner in which this has been done has completely altered the purported meaning and intent of secularism. Secularism in India has been watered down to such an extent that it has now attracted the label “pseudo secularism”. Champions of Indian secularism have had a great part to play in this. On every occasion self described secularists have exploited the concept to further their own narrow agendas. This is evident from the fact that under secular campaigns only one set of groups have benefitted almost always. Having seen this go on for years a feeling of resentment has set in among those adversely affected by secularism. When religious institutions of one group benefit at the expense of the other, when certain institutions enjoy immunity while other institutions are constantly under scrutiny and state interference, when predatory proselytising techniques enjoys secular sanction secularism acquires a fanatical character. The heated disputes and confrontations between the affected parties is an example of how fanatical secularism has driven a wedge between communities.

Wikipedia also says this –

Under feudal system there was no competition between different religious traditions as authority resided in sword and generally there were no inter-religious tensions among the people of different religions. They co-existed in peace and harmony though at times inter-religious controversies did arise. However, there never took place bloodshed in the name of religion.

…

In a multi-religious society, if politics is not based on issues but on identities, it can prove highly divisive. Politicians are tempted to appeal to primordial identities rather than to solve problems. The former case proves much easier. The medieval society in India was thus more religiously tolerant as it was non-competitive. The modern Indian society, on the other hand, has proved to be more divisive as it is based on competition. [Link]

It is not too difficult to see that predatory proselytisation is seen as a competition and threat by the affected communities. A diverse country like India cannot afford this threat. When fanatical secularism is invariably seen to favour one set of groups and when these groups flourish at the expense of others, discontent brews. When fanatical secularism refuses to address this discontent, it manifests in unpredictable ways, including violence. As you can see from the Wikipedia entry religious competition has threatened peaceful coexistence of various communities in India. Fanatical secularism aids religious competition favouring one set of groups at the expense of other. Fanatical secularism drives a wedge between communities and it is a threat to our national integrity.

This post originally featured in Centre Right India.

Some popular myths revisited

This post first featured in Centre Right India.

Manmohan Singh is a paragon of honesty.

That was true in 2004. But boy, does this sound ridiculous now or what! He was a very clever choice for the Congress party high command that could not become the Prime Minister herself. But as the past 7 years have proved, he has worked wonderfully well for his party leaders alone. The incessant scams getting exposed with each passing day under his watch means cheerleaders can no longer chant “Singh is King”.

Congress ka haath aam aadmi ke saath.

This slogan is quite funny. It is also quite brazen. The Congress party’s record on this count is dismal to say the least. It’s fetish for socialism in the early days had driven millions to poverty. And it’s policies are no better now. Millions still continue to suffer. None of it’s “garibi hatao” slogans or programs have actually worked. The only garibi they ever managed to eliminate is that of the partymen. NREGA is the latest name of one such scheme which has wrecked havoc with the rural economy. Thousands have died on account of terror, runaway inflation is robbing food away from the poor and all the party has to show for it’s 7 year rule so far is gargantuan scams. In light of all this and more, the slogan needs to be re-calibrated as Congress ka haath aam aadmi ke gaal par.

Rahul Gandhi is our destiny deliverer.

When Rahul Gandhi first flashed his photogenic dimples for the cameras you had to see the raptures in secular media to believe it. Fawning media coverage and gushing columns continue to this day. And Abhishek Manu Singhvi would have you believe that Rahul Gandhi is indeed divine. But what does the alleged “destiny deliverer” have to show for his 7 years in public life so far? Nothing. Much of this was covered in an earlier post. Not only is Rahul Gandhi not a destiny deliverer but his dangerous cluelessness will cost us dear. And the soundness of his mental faculties too is being questioned as seen through wikileaks.

Sonia Gandhi is the most benevolent leader.

A yet another assiduously crafted image of a person who is anything but that. Please do readearlier post on this topic from the archive and this one by friend S Sudhir Kumar. For an alleged benevolent leader, Sonia Gandhi is surprisingly callous to the sufferings of her aam aadmi voters. She doesn’t even deign to spare a few minutes facing the media and the public.

“Inclusive growth” with a human face.

This is a rather funny coinage. This marketing technique worked very well in 2004. But what has transpired since then is hardly “inclusive growth”. Perhaps the only growth the Congress party has achieved since of that of the UPA coalition itself. Crores of Rupees have made way to the UPA constituents and they still haven’t burped yet. “Inclusive growth” is the mother scam. All other scams are a result of this.

Criticising the Congress party is communalism.

This is one of the funniest ploys the self declared champions of secularism resort to. When you cannot defend your own record, when you find yourself facing inconvenient questions, when you are caught red handed in an inconvenient act, it is always useful to use the “communalism” charge. This allows the Congress party to escape scrutiny of it’s record and deflect all debate to the secular versus communal cacophony. What is missed in this theater is that the Congress party itself is rabidly communal.

Tangential journalism

You would think that when a political party assumes power promising inclusive growth with a human face and fails miserably to do so, the media would hold those failing their promises accountable. You would think the media would ask tough questions and demand explanation of the party’s leadership for its failures. But apparently that is not the right way to think. Instead we are lead to believe the entire political class is a failure. The ruling party could not be held accountable because, again, all politicians are bad. What are we to do in such a situation? Apparently we must watch prime time TV news shows disparaging all politicians. We must light candles at national monuments to show our disgust. We must write lengthy columns expressing similar sentiment. But what we must absolutely not do is politicize any issue in an electoral democracy. We must not encourage people to be more aware politically and urge them to participate in the electoral process. This logic is at play in large, influential sections of our mainstream media.

Every time there is a raging issue confronting the nation we find our newsmen asking exactly the wrong questions. Rather than question the ruling party for their failures, political opponents are pitted against each other and we are expected to watch this believing this is serious debate. These scenes are repeated with unfailing regularity each day. A typical scene involves a newsman posing cagey questions to a member from the ruling party. The ruling party member promptly shifts goalposts to the opposite end without losing any time and the opposition party member is left defending himself.

This script works very well in a wide range of situations. It is a template that fits everything. Take terrorism for example. The perpetrators of terror harbor no illusions on what and why they are doing. They are quite upfront and candid about it. But it would be unsecular and inhumane of investigating authorities to carry out any profiling, to carry out any serious investigation simply because it involves a disproportionately large number from a certain religion. It is only a minor inconvenience that perpetrators of terror happen to be in disproportionately large numbers from a certain religion. But prime time TV newsmen tell us it is abominable to carry out logical investigation and that we must feel guilty for doing so. To drive home this point shows are conducted posing such existential questions as “are we unfairly targeting minorities?” or “has the majority failed the minority?”.

Lets take corruption. That the issue has hit the roof is an understatement. And again here a certain political party has a disproportionately large share in it. Now see the questions being posed by our newsmen. See the pattern?

But it should not surprise anyone who has observed the media and our homegrown opinion makers. Over the years a convenient equation has been bandied about. A certain political party by the virtue of a certain type of characters being at the helm are automatically secular. Something very desirable, something young people should aspire for we are led to believe. And then of course what is left is very undesirable. A certain other political party naturally falls in this category. A very communal party, highly undesirable trait, we are told. Now when you have your very desirable, very secular political characters getting caught in seriously compromising cases it becomes well nigh impossible to criticize them squarely having cheered such characters for decades. Thankfully we have the other undesirable party to direct all the public anger at. So we have this strange situation where the secular party - in face of never-before-seen-in-history mismanagement - claim the moral high ground and question the communal party for its failure to check all ills while it was briefly in power. While all this happens almost none on the media puts things straight.

One cannot help but notice that most of our star journalists seem to consistently miss hitting the mark. Instead our media is a willful facilitator helpfully taking viewers and readers on the tangent lest logical questions be asked leading to obvious, inconvenient answers.

Sonia Gandhi and her carefully crafted saintly aura

Sonia Gandhi entered politics with a touching story of how she could not let herself escape the inevitable responsibility of leading the Congress party. After all it was crying to be led by the only family divinely ordained to do so. The way in which her declaration as party high command came about and what happened to the immediate predecessor is but a matter of fine print.

Her being a rank outsider, both in politics and nationality, a woman, widow of the assassinated Rajiv Gandhi meant she was the proverbial underdog in Indian politics. Thirteen years later she has proved she is no underdog. In fact she is in the top 10 of the world's most powerful list. Nine places ahead of the Prime Minister (PM) of the world's largest democracy. And the political opposition could only be wishing if only it did not make the mistake of underestimating her.

One would think that after having been at the top of the Congress party for over a decade and having manufactured a convenient power center for herself under the United Progressive Coalition (UPA) chairmanship for about 6 years now, our media would take some time to evaluate her leadership, her politics. But try as you might an honest, independent review of her years in public life is impossible to come across. Instead what we have is some fawning soft focus features in mainstream media commemorating such momentous occasions as her 10 years in politics.

The only image of her that is allowed is that of a suffering, reluctant person who was forced to bow to public pressure to lead the nation. Election posters of course follow a carefully crafted image. But what has happened under her command, what has transpired in both the UPA governments is completely ignored by opinion makers. That cronyism, nepotism is prevalent in Congress party culture is not news but one of the identifying characters of the party. Sonia's leadership since 1998 has done nothing to change that. Instead she appointed her son, Rahul Gandhi, to important post in the party. The son too has been lending sound bytes of trying to change the rotten system of ours but little has come of it since his entry into public life seven years ago.

Under Sonia Gandhi's leadership we had the bad precedent of the unelected Manmohan Singh being appointed as our PM. Our democracy is being subverted ever since. Playing with gubernatorial appointments in states ruled by opposition parties, intimidating non-Congress rules states through the federal government, using extra constitutional routes for law making have been happening since 2004. Analysis, scrutiny of such acts however is missing. Instead we have the curious coincidence of only benefits accruing to Sonia Gandhi and all criticism being absorbed by other Congressmen. When the erstwhile "honest" Manmohan Singh was chosen for our PM, Sonia Gandhi was hailed for her sacrifice and excellent choice. Now that Manmohan Singh is being severely criticized for raging scams on his watch no questions are being asked of her. When her appointees like ex Chief Minister of Maharashtra Ashok Chavan get caught in scams, again no questions must be asked of her. When UPA coalition partners are accused and being investigated for severe scams Manmohan Singh should shoulder blame. No blemish should ever reach Sonia Gandhi.

Then we have the case of her being personally involved in scams. Bofors is perhaps the longest running scam story. The brazenness with which Bofors cases were closed was open for all to see. Personal allegations against her may have been in the realm of conspiracy theories in the past but that may no longer be the case. Almost every major scam hitting the headline these days has some link tracing to Sonia Gandhi. The Commonwealth Games scam has a Robert Vadra link. The 2G spectrum scam has links going to her. Yet stories in media on such links are no where to be found.

The other image of Sonia Gandhi is that of a caring, sensitive leader who has the aam aadmi's interests close to her heart. Yet victims of the horrific 2008 attacks on our soverignity on 26/11 are yet to see justice being done to them. PM Manmohan Singh promised that to the nation in his televised address immediately following the attack. But now we have him trying to make peace with the nation that blatantly refuses to take responsibility in face of a mountain of evidence. The UPA power center is unmoved. A nation housing vast numbers of poor people suffers continued price rise burden. Inclusive growth promise that apparently has a human face is not questioned here.

Sonia Gandhi herself and her inner circle seems to have carefully crafted a certain image of her. She has the habit of maintaining complete silence when the going gets tough, instead letting some members of her inner circle do the dirty job of discrediting all criticism. But when there is a slight opportunity for media worthy sound byte we have the benevolent, saintly Congress high command get out of her meditation and let a few words of wisdom out. When more questions are raised she conveniently goes back to her meditation.

No opinion maker worth his/her salt has shown the courage to question and hold Sonia Gandhi accountable of all that is wrong in the Congress party and the UPA government. She is allowed to enjoy leadership without the accountability that should go with it in a constitutional democracy. This continued mismanagement is doing incalculable harm to our nation's interests. But when wanting to be seen on the right side of power holder trumps need for honest scrutiny, such abominable cruelty will go unnoticed.

"Internet hate" label misses the point

Cries of "internet hate, abuse" are being heard again. But such arguments miss the point completely. First of all this "hate phenomenon" is not exclusive in "right wing circles" as is being insinuated. It happens outside such "circles" too, so such convenient label pasting is unimpressive to say the least.

Secondly Twitter, Facebook, blogs, discussion forums and the internet in general is akin to a street corner. All kinds of folks frequent this place, as they should and one hears all kinds of voices here just like one would in a street corner. Including the downright ugly ones. But internet is a place where people should come to listen to voices. If one does not like the abusive ones, and no one does, they must be tuned out if they don't add anything to any debate. Why insist on exercising editorial control over the internet? There are other well established forums for that.

It would be unwise to call for moderation or regulation of voices on the internet. The aam aadmi is not always nuanced or articulate in making his point. Which is exactly why he is not an influential member of opinion makers. But the internet allows him the space and freedom to rave and rant on everything under the sun. Listen to what he has to say. If you don't like it, tune it out. Opinion makers have their pulpits to make their points. Calls for moderation on the internet deny the freedom of voice. It defeats the purpose of an open, free from rigid editorial controls medium.

Opinion makers have their TV studios and column spaces to make their point. Leave the internet free for the aam aadmi to rant.

See earlier post on similar topic here.

The nature of scholarship in Indology

"To (William) Jones and to the many other European scholars, India owes a deep debt of gratitude for the rediscovery of her past literature... At last he (William Jones) had seemingly discovered the key to just colonial government in the Orient, for which the Indian people people should forever love and be grateful to Europe."

That was the first Prime Minister of independent modern India, Jawaharlal Nehru, in his book "The Discovery of India" paying tribute to British colonizers who wrote on Indian literature. Nehru, of course, was the product of British education and had famously declared, on more than one occasion, he was more an Englishman than an Indian. Macaulay would have applauded at that for Nehru is a prime example of his success in engineering a class of Indian people who would be completely detached from India (see this post for more on that).

To understand the nature of this scholarship, let us go back in time and try to trace it. Some of the earliest foreign records on India can be found in writings of early Greek ambassadors to India. Writings of Megasthenes (350 – 290 BC) are a rich source of such records from the Hellenistic period. His writings recorded India in great detail during the Maurayan period (see previous post on this). The general nature of writings on India began to change during the 1400-1500s AD. This was the time when Europeans began coming to India. On hearing of the rich trade possibilities, European ships began making way to India. By then Christianity had come to Europe and was in full force. Men on these ships to India were not immune to Christianity. This in evident from the writings of the time.

One of the earliest such Europeans was Filippo Sasetti, a Jesuit missionary from Italy. Upon landing in India he saw people different from his own. Indian culture and way of life too was very different for Sasetti. His letters back to his Church are some of the earliest records of that time. He first noticed some similarities between some Indian words to European words. He also writes of it taking 6-7 years for Indian people to learn the dead language (Sanskrit).

Then came Roberto de Nobili, another Italian Jesuit missionary. He took the duty to spread Christianity seriously. So seriously in fact that he was not above using unscrupulous tactics. He realized the heathens of India were not easy to convert. He struck up a plan to disguise himself as a Bramhan, calling himself "Sanyasi from Rome" to spread the word of his one true lord. He even forged a book called "Azur veda" and tried to sell it as the lost veda to Indians. Thus continued the Jesuit campaign in India with forgery and writing about India despite of lack of proper training in local culture or the language which captured ancient Indian knowledge, Sanskrit.

The European Jesuit missionary began colonizing India from Goa and some south Indian sea ports. The Britishers too took to it. They established East India Company and soon began consolidating their hold over India. Some of the earliest British colonizers too tried to learn ancient Indian languages. The trouble for all these European colonizers was that Sanskrit was no longer spoken. It was only alive in the oral recitations of the Bramhans handed down to successive generations through verbal training. Try as they might they did not have much luck in gaining access to this Indian knowledge. That did not deter them from trying to come up with a dictionary of Sanskrit words. In the absence of proper training and expert guidance, the quality of such dictionaries can only be doubtful. With the help of such imperfect tools, British colonizers tried to copy any ancient Indian knowledge they could. These hand written manuscripts began landing in Europe which gave birth to a lucrative new industry of Oriental studies.

One such student of Oriental studies was William Jones. He came from a humble background and wanted to improve his situation. After much effort managed to get employed by East India Company. In Kolkatta he founded "Asiatic Society" to publish ancient Indian literature. But he never managed to get any native Indian with authority in Sanskrit or ancient Indian knowledge. He simply recruited lower rung from the East India Company and directed them to send dispatches from ground of what they saw, heard from the locals. These dispatches found their way into annual publications of the "Asiatic Society".

Then came Friedrich Max Muller. Like William Jones, he too came from a humble background in Germany. He got employed by the East India Company in London and like Jones, he too took to the lucrative industry of translating Sanskrit manuscripts copied by hand and brought to England by British colonizers. Muller was employed by Thomas Babington Macaulay and would later invent the "Aryan Invasion Theory".

Translating Sanskrit was lucrative because East India Company would print them and pay only those papers that would be published. There was no one of authority to verify these publications. All other ancient languages were already worked upon by earlier scholars. Sanskrit was yet unexplored and each of these Jesuit scholars sensed an opportunity to be the first to do so. Their lack of training, knowledge of the languages they worked on, unfamiliarity of the culture they wrote of, indeed with no one to question, critique them, did not deter them from positioning themselves as foremost scholars in Indology and enjoying all benefits accruing from it. They established an entire industry by writing favourably about each other thus forming an exclusive club of Indologists.

Later scholars, historians eulogised them in writing their biographies, books on them. Through the years quite a few inventions slipped in. And with the passage of time became established truths. The unquestioning adoption of poor scholarship of early European Jesuits on India is evident when modern day scholars, historians rely on their work without scrutiny. This is surprising especially since they insist on "scientific study of history". The Indian History Congress - the largest professional body of it's kind in South Asia consisting of over 9000 members - says it's objective is "promotion and encouragement of the scientific study of Indian history". Some of it's past General Presidents include Romila Thapar and K N Panikkar who insist on "scientific temperament in history scholarship". How then fabrications like "Aryan Invasion Theory" have slipped past this scientific analysis is a mystery. As are curious explanations for Mughal excesses on Indians. Or how can William Jones, Max Muller attain scholarship in Sanskrit when in fact they did not even understand the language? How could they have attained scholarship in Sanskrit when it took Indians 6-7 years of training in the language no longer spoken in India? Why does Romila Thapar's self admitted lack of knowledge in Sanskrit not stop her from perpetuating dubious history? Why does K N Pannikar devise innovative explanations for Mughal excesses? Simply because that is the established norm in Indology. Their sources, the people they greatly admire have themselves devised such questionable ways of scholarship. Their history is based on such questionable construct. And of course there is an even bigger reason for this dubious scholarship. Nehru himself established this practice as seen in the beginning.

(With references from Lies With Long Legs by Prodosh Aich)

Sceptical of success expected of Baba Ramdev

There is some excitement about Baba Ramdev's Bharat Swabhiman movement. It is easy to understand this and was articulated recently in this post at Centre Right India. However I am sceptical of this.

One of the reasons for this scepticism, double dip cynicism due to probable failure of Baba Ramdev's movement has been written about by Gaurav again at Centre Right India. Such a failure will be a severe setback and will further disappoint middle India driving it further away from participating in the policial process.

But there are other reasons as well. The Congress party can never be underestimated. It is the oldest political party in India and has seen many ups and down, has gone through many political turmoils and yet has managed to retain it's massive footprint on electoral politics. It may be tempting to dismiss Digvijay Singh's charges against Baba Ramdev's movement. But we must not forget the Congress party knows it's politics in and out. Better than any other party in India.

It senses the futility in taking on Baba Ramdev on his turf. So it may have deployed Digvijay Singh in laying a trap for Baba Ramdev in drawing him into something it is most adept at. Politics and dirty tricks. It may be trying to bury the Baba under an avalanche of controversial charges. If it works, Baba will be left expending most of his energy in fighting these charges just to come out clean, just to retain his credibility among people. If that does not work, Congress will draw him into the world of politics where it fancies will be easy to defeat him. And it will. Like I said, no one knows politics better than the Congress party. The Baba seems to be dangerously unarmed here.

Baba Ramdev is the ace in the Bharat Swabhiman movement. There are risks in exposing your aces in such a high stakes games against such players as the Congress party. A possible defeat will be detrimental to opposing forces, middle India's psyche.