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.