Neighbours: Private Dosti, Political Demarcations

Islamabad Diary, December 2007

By Sakuntala Narasimhan

The flight from Bangalore to Delhi takes over two and a half hours, while the flight from Delhi to Lahore takes less than an hour. And yet, how little we get to know about the day-to-day lives of the people just across the border, their preoccupations, aspirations and lifestyles! We get media reports, to be sure, about the emergency, about political pronouncements by politicians in Pakistan, and about the forthcoming elections. But that does not portray the lives of the Aam Admi of Pakistan; just as the controversy over the   Indo-US nuclear agreement does not reflect anything about the daily lives of the average citizen of our country. What is it like, to be a resident of Karachi or Lahore, what do the people think, about their “big brother’ next door, or even about the political decisions on either side? We seldom get to know, because getting through the border is not exactly the easiest of exercises in international travel. And for the media, daily lives are not ‘news’, which seems sad, judging by the experiences of those who travel across in either direction.

The ‘dosti’ begins even before one lands on Pakistani territory, on the flight leaving Delhi itself. The young woman in the seat next to mine is a highly qualified surgeon in Karachi. One doesn’t think of a Pakistani woman as a surgeon, right? And yet – in spite of the Islamic restrictions that we have preconceptions about, women across the border are doing exactly the same things as Indian women, taking up careers, traveling overseas, teaching, undertaking research, and breaking social constraints with élan in a manner that mirrors the Indian social scene.

The dosti in fact began even before we emplaned – the invitation for a three-day conference of the Sustainable Development Policy Institute at Islamabad came with two cartoon figures, one waving an Indian flag and the other a Pakistani one. On arrival on Pakistani shores, human hosts took over where those cartoon figures left off, plying us with hospitality and genuine friendship of a kind that left a lasting impression.

Pakistanis who said they had had the “good fortune” to visit India, recalled the friendliness they encountered everywhere they went, and we (ten of us from India, a mixed group of researchers, academics and policymakers) were remarking at the end of our visit, on the genuine, and often overwhelming, affection that the locals showered us with wherever we went. The people-to-people bonds seem vibrant and strong, regardless of the political equations between the two countries.

The emergency was still on during our visit, and we drove past the Supreme Court of Pakistan, parliament house, the intelligence headquarters and the offices of various VIPs. I saw far less barbed wire, sandbags and armed sentries than I find in the VIP areas of Delhi. We moved freely around, strolling through parks and monuments in the evenings after our conference sessions, and went shopping in the markets that could be from anywhere in our own Kolkata or Mumbai. We got invited to participate in a talk show on TV where we were not gagged in anyway, and were free to air our opinions without censorship. Some television channels were blocked, to be sure, but there were plenty of others where the programmes criticized state policy (I watched fascinated as President Musharraf himself was grilled by a questioner in one telecast).

On my first morning in Islamabad, the waiter at the hotel gives me a wide grin, and asks, “Aap India sey?” His grandfather came to Pakistan as a refugee, and he was looking forward to visiting his ancestors’ village “some day, Inshallah”. Some of the locals were insistent about taking us home for “chai” and seemed disappointed that we could not spare the time. The spicy dal and saffron rice and parathas and halwa reminded one of home (that’s silly, we had to keep reminding ourselves – after all, the two nations were a single entity, within living memory).

I went looking for tapes of some classical musicians who had migrated to Pakistan in 1947, but was offered instead, CDs of the “latest hits” –  Om Shanti Om and Goal and a dozen other recent films, and  DVDs of a Jaya Bachchan-Anupam Kher blockbuster. Those, the salesman assured me, were the “fastest moving items”. The music, the language, the cultural strands, the social fabric, are such that one has to keep reminding oneself that one is “abroad”. After all, there is the shared history and heritage of millennia. “We as a people have more in common with India than with other Islamic nations of the Middle East,” remarked a woman economist at the conference. Ponder over that. During my stay there the hotel hosted a typical upper middle class wedding; the saris and salwar suits had come from Delhi, the menu was based on fancy Lucknawi nawabi fare. This was like back home, as nowhere else I have seen.

A shopkeeper at one store, after asking, “Aap India sey?”, shyly asks me to guess his name. I give up. “Sunil Kumar,” he says with a grin. Are you happy here? I ask him. “If insaan wants to live in peace, he can be happy anywhere, he replies. These kinds of nuggets rarely make it to the media. We read in the papers about the rocket attack near Peshawar but not about the amazing work that an NGO here is doing to empower women. Positive stories take a backseat when there are those that showcase violence, trauma and mayhem.

“The polls wont be perfect,” says an American comment on Pakistan – “Look who’s talking”, said an American visitor, recalling the controversy over the election of Bush and the ‘Florida count’. The keynote speaker at one session, a distinguished international consultant, closes his comments with a quote from Faiz Ahmed Faiz. “Mile kuchh aisey…. We met in such a manner that my heart is leaving not with a scar but with a flower…” You can say that again, Shoaib Sultan Khan sahib…

Sakuntala Narasimhan is an award winning journalist-author-musician and academic resource person, specialising in gender and development. She has doctorates in sociology (women’s studies) and in musicology.

 

This article appeared first in The Deccan Herald, Bangalore, on January 3, 2008 and is reproduced here with permission of the author.

 

 

Tags: , ,

33 Responses to “Neighbours: Private Dosti, Political Demarcations”

  1. Vikram Says:

    “We seldom get to know, because getting through the border is not exactly the easiest of exercises in international travel.”

    I dont think that this is solely due to travel restrictions, I feel that many Indians simply dont see Pakistan as a place they would like to visit and vice versa.

    “And yet – in spite of the Islamic restrictions that we have preconceptions about, women across the border are doing exactly the same things as Indian women, taking up careers, traveling overseas, teaching, undertaking research, and breaking social constraints with élan in a manner that mirrors the Indian social scene.”

    Obviously India has massive issues with gender equality but I find this very hard to believe. This is just anecdotal evidence but at my university, the ratio of female to male Indian graduate students would be around 40/60 but I have not seen a single Pakistani graduate student. I am also not aware of a single Pakistani female politician like Mamata Banerjee or Mayawati.

    I dont want to start a shouting match or whitewash India’s massive problems but its about time we see an article of this kind not twist facts just to make someone look better. If someone really wants a more detailed fact based account of an Indian Muslim woman’s experiences in Pakistan, I would recommend Farzana Versey’s A Journey Interrupted.
    http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/a-journey-interrupted-being-indian-in-pakistan/

    • SouthAsian Says:

      Vikram: In some ways your comment drives home the importance of personal interaction to dispel stereotypes. While travel restrictions do have a very constraining impact, you are probably right that there are many who do not think of the other side as a place they would like to visit. This is based on a perception they have of the other side. So the real question is: How valid is this perception?

      Take the example of Dr. Narasimhan. She started with the perception that a Pakistani woman could not be a surgeon. When she found herself sitting next to one, she had to modify that perception. If someone had just mentioned this possibility in the abstract, she might well have dismissed it as an impossibility.

      We have a natural tendency to stay with our perceptions and fit all facts to sustain them. Only direct refutations force reappraisals. The fact that almost nine out of ten visitors to the ‘other’ side find that their perceptions were way off the mark is a very telling indicator of the extent to which the perception is divorced from the reality.

      • Vikram Says:

        SA, there is a class angle we need to consider here. Within certain small subsets of both Indian and Pakistani populations (primarly descendants of people well placed during the colonial era) I see a nearly symmetric post colonial evolution. So it is not surprising that there are female surgeons in Pakistan.

        The real differences seem to be in the class between this 2nd or 3rd generation elite and the masses. The classes predominantly referred to as lower middle classes. I think one will find significant deviations in attitudes towards gender, politics etc. This was the point I was trying to make in graduate student demographics example. A majority of the Indian students in the US come from the class. And the absence of a corresponding Pakistani student population indicates to me deviation from the way India has evolved.

        I will reiterate that people to people contact, though worth pursuing will not achieve much. Will Pakistanis display the same hospitality to a Tamil person who does not speak/understand Urdu ? Will South Indians display the same hospitality to a Pathan ?

        • SouthAsian Says:

          Vikram: I have provided a long answer to your earlier comment. Since this comment was a continuation of your earlier observation I will add a brief remark here.

          I think your conjecture that female surgeons in Pakistan belong largely to the elite social class would certainly be proved incorrect. I hope someone with more evidence would contribute to this point. One key difference between India and Pakistan is that the middle class in the former is both numerically and proportionately much larger in the former compared to the latter – of course, the Indian diaspora is also much larger.

          My guess is that an apples-for-apples comparison might show that the values of rich, the middle class, and the poor are quite similar in the two countries. The big difference in the size and proportion of the middle group in the two countries has marked implications for the emerging national ethos. India is on a progressive path while Pakistan is on a regressive one. However, that overall regressive tendency might be masking many surprising facts about the country that can be easily overlooked without the benefit of personal contacts.

      • Vinod Says:

        Will Pakistanis display the same hospitality to a Tamil person who does not speak/understand Urdu? Will South Indians display the same hospitality to a Pathan?

        I’m a south indian Tamilian who has stayed with Pakistanis coming from the class you mention. I stayed with with two such Pakistanis. One of them could not stop ridiculing Tamil and the culture of Tamilians while the other was respectful and tolerant although he could not but occasionally let out his “lack of appreciation” for Tamil culture.

        • SouthAsian Says:

          Vinod: Thanks for sharing your experiences. What you say is very believable. But is it not reflecting a different phenomenon – that of unfamiliarity? If one thinks of India of twenty years back, there were similar stereotypes of regional cultures. Frequent interactions have diluted such prejudices within countries while lack of contact has increased them across countries. So increased contact is a sensible strategy if unfamiliarity has to evolve into familiarity.

          At the same time, human responses are different when you are visiting someone’s home. I know many people who have visited the ‘other’ country and I have yet to hear of a negative account of the experience – leaving aside interactions with public officials. This is an interesting subject in itself – why do people begin to behave differently when they assume an official position?

          You might recall the comment of Mr. Sivaraman on this blog: “I have been to Pakistan at the head of Indian delegations and have been the recipient of warm hospitality everywhere.” The countries are diverse so one should not expect a standard response – we have to make a judgement about the broad trends. I hope other people would contribute their experiences to this discussion.

        • Vinod Says:

          SA, when people are visiting or are hosting visitors they are usually on their best behaviour because, among other reasons, that behaviour has to only be sustained for a short period of time. To see the true colours of a person one has to stay with him/her for an extended period. I stayed with the Paksitanis for one year.

          • SouthAsian Says:

            Vinod: You are right that an extended interaction reveals the true colors of a person but I am referring to a different aspect. The general level of hospitality varies a lot across societies. In all my travels I have yet to come across one so open as in the parts of South Asia I know. When Dr. Narasimhan mentions that total strangers insisted on inviting the visitors to tea at their homes she was not exaggerating at all – this is very common. You will never have similar experiences in, say, East Asia. I am not implying that this is particularly good or bad – simply that this is part of the culture of South Asia. Secondly, there is nothing that compels people to be on their best behavior towards visitors. If they truly dislike the visitors they can just as well be rude to them.

          • Vinod Says:

            SA, If that is what you’re emphasizing then it is only an emphasis on a tiny aspect of the common culture in south asia. It is not a statement on what Pakistanis actually feel about Indians. It is important to recognize that the warmth experienced by the reporters and diplomats of India in Pakistan is NOT an expression of love for Indians.

          • SouthAsian Says:

            Vinod: I agree this is a characteristic of the common culture of South Asia and does not constitute evidence that the inviters love the invitees. At the same time it does constitute negative evidence that the inviters do not hate the invitees. It would be strange for people to invite those they hate into their homes to share a meal. Unless, of course, they are automatons so genetically programmed that they act purely out of habit with complete disregard for personal and emotional considerations. Is there evidence to support such a conclusion?

            Love and hate are not symmetrical sentiments. In the political economy context loving is much less important than not hating. In general, people find very few people to really love during their lives but they acquire a lot of people they dislike or hate. I think it is because the former they really have to discover for themselves while the latter can be acquired by default – the passing on of prejudices or propaganda that need not be personally verified.

            This is the reason why personal contacts are important. Our objective should be to reduce the number of people we hate or dislike. If there is such a core and if our culture has the ability to facilitate its extension we should focus on increasing the numbers. Love is personal, hate is political – I think that is important to keep in mind.

          • Vinod Says:

            SA, I know that Afghans are, by their culture, obligated to provide shelter and food to anyone who asks for it, even if that person be the enemy that they are fighting. Hate does not stop them from fulfilling the obligations of their customs.

          • SouthAsian Says:

            Vinod: You are right about the Afghans but this is not an appropriate comparator. Primitive, kinship-based, non-monetary societies are governed by complex social norms that ensure political stability in the absence of central states. Violation of these norms are strictly enforced through social ostracism. Thus individuals do not have a free choice in making certain decisions that may go against their personal preferences. Any serious anthropological study will make the point that such norms have functional roots. Thus, Fredrik Barth in his classic Political Leadership Amongst Swat Pathans notes (p. 12): “This striking hospitality… only seems intelligible if we recognize that the underlying motives are political… It is a development in some ways analogous to the ‘potlatch’ institutions of many primitive, non-monetary societies.”

            The urban shopkeeper in South Asia has no such social norms enforcing a code of behavior. There are no penalties for not being hospitable to an outsider and no benefits from being hospitable to a disliked person. In this case it is a matter of the exercise of free choice. In the particular case we are discussing, the inviter most probably risks subsequent investigations by the intelligence agencies.

            Therefore, if we have to find a functional reason for inexplicable behavior (i.e., if the inviters are really being hospitable to people they dislike), it cannot be the one that explains behavior amongst the Afghans. In my view, the simpler explanation would be that, given free choice, people would not invite those they dislike.

    • SouthAsian Says:

      Vikram: This is a tricky issue and I wanted to take my time to respond. I feel we might be mixing two issues – that of gender equality and a society’s norms of hospitality to outsiders. They need not have any direct relationship. So even if the situation regarding gender equality in Pakistan is as you posit, it need not negate the experiences of hospitality that Dr. Narasimhan has described.

      Regarding gender, the facts that you have mentioned are correct but they might not be the outcome of gender inequality; they may have other plausible causes. You mention that the the ratio of female to male Indian graduate students at your university in the US is about 40:60 while for Pakistanis is much lower. It would be interesting to track the ratio for Indians 10 or 20 years back. My hypothesis is that it would be much lower. I speculate that the ratio has increased rapidly since the 1990s in parallel with rapid economic growth and the increase in the numbers of the middle class. Pakistan has missed out on any such phenomenon and the result shows in the numbers you mention. More rigorous analysis would of course account for the much larger Indian pool of students; it would also separate out the second generation Indian-Americans now enrolled at universities whose number is a function of the population of Indian-origin parents in the US. Your observation would still remain valid but the explanation might rest in economic growth rather than in gender discrimination.

      Your second point is that there are no female politicians in India like Mamata Banerjee or Mayawati. This too is a correct observation but again I am reluctant to ascribe this to gender discrimination. India has had over 60 years of a democratic political process that has provided opportunities to representatives of previously marginalized groups to rise to the top. Pakistan has not had such a process with the result that you have observed. Once again, your observation is correct but the explanation lies in the diverging political trajectories rather than in gender discrimination. My guess is that once you move out of the middle class, the differences in gender relations in India and Pakistan might not be so stark. It would be interesting to compare gender relations in rural areas and in small towns.

      The divergent political and economic trajectories in the two countries have resulted in significant differences because the middle class is now proportionately much larger in India than in Pakistan and middle class values are the ones that get the most projection. Even so, the middle class is a minority even in India. For the majority in the two countries, old values still dominate and they have the same starting point. Of course, the future scenarios are much more promising In India than in Pakistan.

      The bottom line is that the causality is important. It is not some autonomous change in gender relations in India that accounts for the observations you have mentioned. It is economic and political processes that are changing gender relations. The intrinsic human and behavioral traits are common. And, also, these are unrelated to the norms of hospitality.

  2. Kabir Says:

    This is a very nice article. It’s so true that people-to-people and cultural ties can often trump the political situation even given the efforts by both states to create a certain view of the “other”.

  3. Vikram Says:

    What lurks beneath the hospitality ….

    http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/1061930.html

    “To my utter disbelief, people started clapping,” says Qureshi. “The crowd melted away, peacefully, out of the stadium. Indira Gandhi was deeply unpopular in Pakistan, but this was a reaction I could never have predicted. I have to say, we were extremely lucky the Indian media had departed before we told the spectators. This coming to light would be the last thing Indo-Pak relations needed at the time.”

    Shakoor has the same memory. “It was surreal. Here we were, telling them they wouldn’t get to watch Pakistan bat against India, that we were offering them no refund, and that India’s prime minister was dead. Yet 25,000 people applauded the news and filtered out onto the street as if nothing of note had happened. I have to say this was quite shameful.”

    • SouthAsian Says:

      Vikram: I would rather ask this the following way: “What lurks above the hospitality?”

      Both phenomena – private hospitality and public hostility – exist simultaneously. The evidence for both is plentiful.

      I look at it as follows: The private hospitality is not coerced by anyone; it is voluntary behavior. The public hostility is built up by decades of relentless state propaganda characterising the other country as enemy number one bent on annihilation. In such a public environment, I consider the survival of private hospitality as no less than a miracle and evidence of a wellspring of good feelings. At the same time one can also witness the very powerful influence the state wields to arouse particular sentiments.

      The real question to ask is why states use their power to arouse negative sentiments, to make enemies of the majority of people who want to be friends.

      • Vikram Says:

        I cant see who was coercing this large crowd of 25000 people to applaud the killing of a popularly elected leader.

        • SouthAsian Says:

          Vikram: A gun to the head is not needed to coerce counter-intuitive public behavior of this type. A number of influences can account for its existence. Early childhood socialization is one – see this research by Latika Gupta: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-sundaymagazine/article1437850.ece

          The content of curricula in state-controlled schools is another – see
          http://unesco.org.pk/education/teachereducation/reports/rp22.pdf
          And endnote 25 in: http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/people/faculty/si105/VidyaVedaVarna.pdf

          Sustained exposure to particular messages especially in the absence of countervailing narratives is another. There are so many examples of this tactic made famous by Goebbels who actually held the office of the Minister of Propaganda. At one time the state used to have almost complete control of the media. Today, in the age of the Internet, we have the phenomenon of people limiting themselves to sources that reinforce their inherited beliefs – look at the Trump supporters in the US.

          So the behavior you have cited is not inexplicable. Not any more than the uncoerced behavior of those in India who celebrate the day of the assassination of Gandhiji as a “festival”:
          http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/hindu-mahasabha-celebrates-gandhijis-death-anniversary/article8172086.ece

          There are a set of people in India who have been convinced that Gandhiji was responsible for the dismemberment of India. Similarly, there are people in Pakistan who have been encouraged to believe that Indira Gandhi was responsible for the dismemberment of Pakistan.

          The paradox still remains. When people meet a flesh-and-blood individual from the other side these abstract biases begin to dissolve very quickly – the evidence for that is considerable. I believe this is one reason why both sides continue to strangle people-to-people contact for fear that years of propaganda would be undermined.

          It might also be the case that the most hospitable people are those who have had little education and little time to consume mass media output, which, if confirmed, would be a truly ironic finding.

        • SouthAsian Says:

          Vikram: A gun to the head is not needed to coerce counter-intuitive public behavior of this type. A number of influences can account for its existence. Early childhood socialization is one – see this research by Latika Gupta: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-sundaymagazine/article1437850.ece

          The content of curricula in state-controlled schools is another – see
          http://unesco.org.pk/education/teachereducation/reports/rp22.pdf
          And endnote 25 in: http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/people/faculty/si105/VidyaVedaVarna.pdf

          Sustained exposure to particular messages especially in the absence of countervailing narratives is another. There are so many examples of this tactic made famous by Goebbels who actually held the office of the Minister of Propaganda. At one time the state used to have almost complete control of the media. Today, in the age of the Internet, we have the phenomenon of people limiting themselves to sources that reinforce their inherited beliefs – look at the Trump supporters in the US.

          So the behavior you have cited is not inexplicable. Not any more than the uncoerced behavior of those in India who celebrate the day of the assassination of Gandhiji as a “festival”:
          http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/hindu-mahasabha-celebrates-gandhijis-death-anniversary/article8172086.ece

          There are a set of people in India who have been convinced that Gandhiji was responsible for the dismemberment of India. Similarly, there are people in Pakistan who have been encouraged to believe that Indira Gandhi was responsible for the dismemberment of Pakistan.

          The paradox still remains. When people meet a flesh-and-blood individual from the other side these abstract biases begin to dissolve very quickly – the evidence for that is considerable. I believe this is one reason why both sides continue to strangle people-to-people contact for fear that years of propaganda would be undermined.

          It might also be the case that the most hospitable people are those who have had little education and little time to consume mass media output, which, if confirmed, would be a truly ironic finding.

        • Vikram Says:

          Empirical evidence that this kind of hatred is not merely based on some textbooks, but has deeper psycho-religious roots,

          http://gallup.com.pk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Final-Partition-Report.pdf

  4. Vikram Says:

    “annihilation”

    Is there a better word for describing whats happened to Hindus, Sikhs and Jains in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh ?

  5. Vikram Says:

    SA, it is interesting that you have brought out the open admiration of Godse by a section of Hindus, and some more probing will reveal that a large number of urban, English/Hindi medium type Hindus share that feeling, in secret if not in the open. On the other side as well, in leftist/Islamist bastions like JNU, Gandhi is a total hate figure.

    It is interesting that the only people who seem to truly seek to engage with Gandhi and appreciate his role in shaping (or trying to shape) a liberal India are secular Indian Muslims. But this is of course, a rare breed. (among intellectuals: Faisal Devji, Akeel Bilgrami, Shahid Amin).

    In India today, it has become increasingly difficult to explain Gandhi’s role in the freedom movement, and have a serious discussion of his life, death and politics. See for example, note about Arundhati Roy in this interview with Shahid Amin: http://indianexpress.com/article/research/gandhi-jayanti-birthday-how-gandhi-became-mahatma-among-the-sadharan-janta/

    The anti-Gandhi attitude among urban English/Hindi medium Indians has been explained by a mixture of the political rise of the Hindu right and youth’s romantic attraction to political violence. However, there is another angle that has been left out, which I feel is most significant.

    This angle is explored in a comment on Gandhi’s murder by Godse in a recent article (edited a bit for grammar). The basic claim is that the revulsion to Gandhi comes from the realization that his politics and life has absolutely no resonance with the Abrahamic socio-political mind in the subcontinent.

    “There is one element of the whole episode of the death of the Mahatma which is always left out of the debates, discussions, reflections on the meaning of the event and of its background. The most significant feature of the Mahatma’s action consists, during his last phase in Delhi, of his threat to fast unto death, unless the Hindus stopped retaliating against the Muslims of the Muslim League, led by Jinnah, massacring Hindus fleeing from Punjab.

    Gandhi’s threat was an exertion of his will to save the soul of Hinduism from being corrupted by the Muslim compulsion for violence as the favoured instrument to win a moral or political argument. This aspect of the Gandhian movement has not been sufficiently brought forward in the collective consciousness of the nation, and in the sensitivities of all political parties, especially of the Congress.

    There is no other example, in world history, of such a transcendent decision as the Mahatma’s offer of his self-sacrifice for the preservation of the spiritual and moral integrity of a culture for the whole of its futurity. Hinduism dies if it ever forgets and abrogates the two pillars on which the ethics of the Mahabharata stands: “The supreme Dharma is Truth; The Surpreme Dharma is Ahimsa”: adages which Gandhi had already successfully used as the instruments of his action against the Raj based on the false ideology of Britannic Peace.

    The ancillary to this supreme gift is the utter unresponsiveness of the Muslim mind, in particular the Muslim mind enshrined in the history and politics of Pakistan and Bangladesh as has been evident since 1947, to the sublime gesture of the Mahatma. Till today, there is no record of even elite Muslims like Abdul Kalam Azad, Zakir Hussain, Humayun Kabir, M. C. Chagla, et al, expressing a due appreciation of the Mahatma’s exposing his vulnerability to a certain Hindu extremism, which was itself bred by Muslim violent exclusiveness. One does not find any expression of appreciation on the part of any Muslim, across the entire range of the political spectrum, then and today, of what the Mahatma saw into the future of the sub-continent.

    In that threat to fast for the protection of the Hindu soul, the Mahatma was putting in tragic form his late belief that Truth was God, not as he early in his life thought that God is Truth. In that moment the Mahatma was a Yuga distant from all the forms of Hinduism, inclusive of the RSS, the Maha Sabha, and in particular the Congress Party itself, and light-years of light-years from the mentality of the Muslim, then best represented by Jinnah who claimed representation of all Indian Muslims.

    Such can be the right measure of Gandhi’s ‘Mahatma’. I have no reason or argument to defend Godse or approve of his action, which crippled the vigour of Indian politics along the path which Gandhi had indicated in his dream of an independent India. But Godse was a better man than Jinnah who launched a Direct Action against the Mahatma’s ahimsa mode of doing politics.”

    This is not an easy idea to agree with, certainly not for a person like me, who has tried to understand the complexities of Hindu-non-Hindu interactions in the subcontinent, and the sophisticated culture it gave rise. I realize how dangerous it is to label an entire community as naturally violent or backward.

    However, there is too much data for the specific point that the Muslim elite of the subcontinent, especially in the North reflexively moved to violent politics once its power was threatened. And even if the Muslim masses did not share this predilection, it was deployed as a bulwark to carry out this violence. And this has gone on for such a long time that political violence and dramatic support for religious extremism is now a default position for the entire Muslim politics of the subcontinent.

    Take for example, the destruction of a Mahavira (Jain) murti in Lucknow (a Hindu majority city) by a Muslim mob recently,
    https://janamejayan.wordpress.com/2012/08/18/violent-protests-by-peaceful-muslims-in-lucknow-kanpur-and-allahabad-against-assam-riots/

    So put together these two facts,
    1) Indian Muslims are doing such things in a secular country where there are no restrictions on their religious observances and political organizing,
    2) Wherever Muslims are the majority, non-Muslims have been reduced to a miniscule minority with diminished rights.

    A lot of Hindus feel (with some justification) that annihilation even in India is really on the cards with the demographic trajectory we are on currently, and the coming together of various other forces that seek to annihilate or subjugate Hinduism.

    • SouthAsian Says:

      Vikram: It is natural for there to be intellectual disagreements about Gandhiji’s contributions. In fact, serious academics will not take a black and white approach – they will find some things to agree with and some to disagree with. All major personalities are complex and bundles of contradictions over long lives through turbulent times.

      However, the point in this discussion is whether disagreements are enough reason to ‘celebrate’ the assassination of such major figures with ‘festivals’. Are these people being coerced in any way? If not, how does one explain mindsets that, for some, deem disagreement sufficient cause to murder, for others to celebrate the murder, and, for yet others, to find justifications for the celebrations?

      • Vikram Says:

        SA, I would argue that they are being coerced because they feel that Muslims are by and large, not at all moved by Hindu sacrifices made in the interest of the nation at large.

        The real emotion here is not the admiration of an assassin, but the repeated betrayal of fellow countrymen.

        http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/MIM-leader-in-trouble-over-remarks-on-Mahatma-Gandhi/articleshow/18080977.cms

        • SouthAsian Says:

          Vikram: Just as ‘annihilate’ was used incorrectly, so is ‘coerce’ in this case. The meaning of coerce is to “persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats”. When you say the people in question are being coerced you are implying that they actually do not wish to celebrate the assassination of Gandhiji as a festival but are being made to do so unwillingly by force or threats. This is not the sense that comes across at all from Mr. Alok Sharma’s comments.

          • Vikram Says:

            I dont think individual actions and comments are whats important. There is a socio-political environment that has been created and people will have a spectrum of reactions. These instances are only useful as signals to realize that there is an underlying problem.

          • SouthAsian Says:

            Vikram: Do read that news item again. It is not about an individual action or comment. The celebration is organized by the Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha:

            “Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha celebrated Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination by distributing sweets on his death anniversary on January 30 at its Meerut office on Saturday. Workers of the Hindutva group danced to the tunes of drum and Bollywood songs outside its office. This comes days after its workers observed Republic Day as ‘black day’ and protested against the Indian Constitution.”

            The National Vice President of the ABSP confirmed that the day is celebrated every year with the distribution of sweets and dancing at which he is not the sole participant:

            “We celebrate the fact that this country’s hero Nathuram Godse eliminated Gandhi on this very day in 1948. Every year we distribute sweets, hire professional bands and invite people to dance to express our happiness at Gandhi’s killing,” said Pandit Ashok Sharma, national vice president of Hindu Mahasabha.”

            I agree with you that “There is a socio-political environment that has been created and people will have a spectrum of reactions. These instances are only useful as signals to realize that there is an underlying problem.”

            That is what I have been saying all along.

  6. Vikram Says:

    “This comes days after its workers observed Republic Day as ‘black day’ and protested against the Indian Constitution.”

    This only shows that a very small number of Indian Hindus do not accept the Indian Constitution.

    What do you think the proportion of Indian Muslims who accept the Indian Constitution is ?

    • SouthAsian Says:

      Vikram: Do you have an estimate for the number in the first case and the proportion in the second?

      • Vikram Says:

        SA, opposition to India’s Constitution comes from two sides. On the one hand, there are extreme right wing Hindus who feel the country must be a kind of ‘Hindu state’. On the other, we have extreme leftist Hindus who seek to establish a communist dictatorship.

        It is hard to guess numbers in this regard.

        With regards to the proportion of Muslims who accept the Indian Constitution, let me just say that I have seen BJP leaders acknowledge the Constitution and its vision far more times than Muslim leaders. When it comes to community relations, very rarely is the language of Muslim leaders couched in constitutional secular terms. One example is the stiff opposition to placing women’s rights in a Constitutional framework, and insisting on its interpretation from a Quranic standpoint.

        Even the ‘secular’ Muslims insist on a joint Islamic and Constitutional program. This is problematic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-VbjX1WHi4

        • SouthAsian Says:

          Vikram: There are two claims in the preceding arguments:

          1. “It is hard to guess numbers in this regard.”
          2. “This only shows that a very small number of Indian Hindus do not accept the Indian Constitution.”

          Both of them cannot hold at the same time. This is a classic example of motivated reasoning or confirmation bias described, in passing, by the psychologist Jonathan Haidt in this short video: https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_can_a_divided_america_heal

    • SouthAsian Says:

      Vikram: You have made a number of statements that have implied that opposition to a country’s Constitution is an offence tantamount to disloyalty. This needs to be debated.

      The Constitution of a country is a man-made document reflecting the conditions of the time when it was drafted. As the conditions alter segments of the population can become opposed to certain provisions and demand change. This is a right of citizens and as long as the demands are pursued within the law they are considered legitimate. It is through such demands that amendments are made to constitutions.

      To take some well-known examples, the US Constitution as drafted protected the holding of slaves. Many were opposed to this provision and after much opposition and struggle it was repealed by the 13th Amendment in 1865.

      Similarly, the original Constitution denied the vote to women many of whom refused to accept the provision. Would one consider them disloyal to the US? The provision was repealed under the 19th Amendment in 1919.

      See the list of all amendments to the US Constitution:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

      Much in the same way, there is opposition to certain articles of the Indian Constitution. Of these, those pertaining to reservations are quite controversial and there have been many agitations to either abolish reservations or to extend them to other segments of the population. There was and remains a great deal of opposition to the redefinition of India as a ‘socialist secular republic’ in the Constitution by the INC government in 1976.

      The 7th Amendment pertaining to the reorganization of states along linguistic lines also had many people for and against. Such demands are a normal part of the democratic process and cannot be interpreted in the frame of loyalty and disloyalty.

      See the list of all the amendments to the Indian Constitution:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_of_the_Constitution_of_India

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: