Why Bashing Mainstream Narratives is Not the Only Acceptable Mode of Viewing the “Truth” (by Karmanye Thadani)

These days, a new phrase has gained popular currency – “liberal fundamentalists”. These are people who are undoubtedly liberals in a certain sense of the term, but their conception of liberalism is not accommodating or engaging, and they are as fanatic about their conception of liberalism as the most conservative or communal person would be about his/her ideology. This article in the American context – http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_2_illiberal.html – rightly describes this phenomenon as “illiberal liberalism”!

In the last few decades, these liberal fundamentalists (including very many left-liberals) have become a growing voice in our media and civil society organizations, and their tendency to monopolize what certain things have come to mean (especially true in the context of their narrative of secularism and Hindutva in India, where only Hindu communalism is, in general, equated only with endorsement of its most radical forms and minority radicalism is subtly rationalized as a reaction to the same, but not vice versa) has done more damage to their cause than good. It is only fair, of course, to question mainstream chauvinistic narratives, if one has a valid counter-argument, but what these people often do, consciously or subconsciously, is to misuse every opportunity to portray themselves as what eminent public intellectual Swapan Dasgupta has described as “members of a privileged club”, the “defining feature of this ultra-liberalism” being “its profound intellectual arrogance and its characterisation of other perspectives as base ‘prejudice’.” Moreover, this club has seldom made any attempt to explain its stand in more simple and concrete terms.

On the 15^th of August this year, I read a piece “What’s There to Celebrate?” (http://www.newslaundry.com/2013/08/whats-there-to-celebrate/), which questions the wisdom of celebrating Independence Day, and I also saw some Facebook statuses talking in similar terms. While I understand that it is legitimate to pose this question, the writer of the piece seems to be taking a dig at all those who celebrate on this occasion. True, as the author of the piece points out, India’s independence may not mean much to those in Nagaland or Manipur who refuse to identify themselves as Indians or to those below the poverty line, but he goes on to portray Independence Day as an elitist affair with celebrities figuring on TV channels. But my question is – what about the schoolteacher in a village proudly hoisting the national flag for his students on this day, the autorickshaw driver in a small town proudly displaying the national flag at the back of his vehicle, the man selling kites for Independence Day celebrations in New Delhi or yes, even an entrepreneur from a rural background who has gone on to become a big businessman celebrating Independence Day or even a social activist who, on this day, seeks inspiration from our freedom fighters to fight all odds for a better India, or people who believe in Indian democracy thronging to see the prime minister unfurl the tricolour at the Red Fort  – are these any less “real” images of India (howsoever this enlightened friend of ours may think of such people as being misguided), and why should these be seen as superficial? What is so very incomprehensible in these people experiencing a sense of pride in the fact that back in 1947, it was on this day that the British made a departure from India, which paved the way for the Green Revolution, White Revolution, electrification of very many villages, freedom from racist abuse, the establishment of more schools, hospitals and canals, and  more accountability by way of a process whereby actions of the government can be freely scrutinized by the judiciary, media and NGOs as also by way of an institutionalized Right to Information, and the abrogation of colonial laws pertaining to tribals’ rights over forest produce? Would all this have been possible under a colonial setup? And starvation levels too have gone down. It is only fair to debate as to whether we have achieved as much as we ought to have, since more than six decades of our independence, and to impartially evaluate our failures as much as our successes, but in the author of that piece, by projecting himself as one of the few who have the sense to understand how there is nothing to celebrate in the attainment of our independence, has yet again claimed the membership of what Dasgupta has described as “a privileged club” and his intolerance to other narratives is clear from his statement – “We’re a xenophobic nation”, where he stands out as being superior to the rest of the xenophobic nation! Of course, he doesn’t care to explain what this xenophobia is all about, when Chinese noodles and Hollywood movies are an all-pervading part of the culture not only of the financially elite, but a much larger spectrum of our urban and semi-urban populace. That Ali Zafar’s movies or Atif’s songs can be hits doesn’t help to make them rethink their claims about Indians being xenophobic.

Futhermore, the self-proclaimed intellectual goes on to claim that-

“The electronic media apparently just never tires of basking in hackneyed past glory and engaging in contrived debates while hardly ever bothering to dissect critically enough something as important as the Prime Minister’s address.”

Speaking of India’s hackneyed past glory is something even I have a problem with, for the imagery created is a chauvinistic one, of a perfect civilization. However, with India emerging as a rising economic power, seeking solace in ancient history for our present failures has tremendously reduced, and historical narratives that point to the good and the bad impartially in equal measure have gained more currency. One is highly likely to encounter educated Indians who would concede the positive impact of British colonialism in terms of modernizing India, while equally being proud of our freedom fighters. This is not to say that xenophobic narratives viz-a-viz the British rulers of India have come to an abrupt halt, and they still remain populist among some, but to present these as the views of the nation per se would be unfair. Indians continue to head to England for their studies, business purposes and tourism, and the Anglo-Indian community, with its icons like Ruskin Bond, still remains a part of our diverse cultural mosaic. And if he has such a problem with chauvinistic historical narratives, why doesn’t he bother to politely deconstruct them to present an alternative perspective to those who haven’t been exposed to the same?

Also, I wonder how our friend, in his bid to portray his intellectual superiority, wrongly stated that no one paid any attention to the prime minister’s Independence Day address, actually overlooking the very many debates dissecting the prime minister’s address, especially in the light of the speech given by opposition rival Narendra Modi, and also how Manmohan did not give much attention to Pakistan in his speech.

As an Indian who feels the alienation of Kashmiris and north-easterners and even the tribals who have resorted to Naxalism, I have struggled to reach out to my fellow countrymen and appeal to them to understand the other side of the story, to think impartially and not equate the actions of the Indian state, the corruption or inefficiency of which we too are victims in some form or the other, as being perfect in such contexts and to cast off overly romanticized notions (especially about security personnel), which may often have no basis in reality. I wrote a piece (http://wordpress-200526-602825.cloudwaysapps.com//we-want-cameron-to-apologize-will-the-indian-state-apologize-for-its-own-crimes/) about how it was hypocritical on our part to want David Cameron to apologize in 2013 for the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in 1919, when the Indian state has not apologized to the victims of human rights violations by our army in Kashmir and the north-east, and how we should focus more on the wrongs that were perpetrated on innocent Chinese nationals in India in the wake of the 1962 war than what the Chinese inflicted upon the Tibetans. I co-authored another piece that lauded Mani Ratnam’s movie Raavan that presented an alternative retelling of the Ramayan, and one which raised its voice for the tribals who have taken to Naxalism. I am working on a project that seeks to address how the north-east is so largely excluded from our school textbooks. I am writing a book on Sino-Indian relations that takes a very impartial stand, but is written addressed to Indians, analyzing squarely even the moral failings of our Indian state in being over-aggressive by way of the Forward Policy, culminating in the 1962 war. I have written pieces on how very many of us tend to simply exaggerate the plight of women and non-Muslims in Pakistan (http://wordpress-200526-602825.cloudwaysapps.com//do-we-tend-to-exaggerate-the-plight-of-the-religious-minorities-and-women-in-pakistan/) and how we are ignorant of the very many intellectuals in that country who largely speak the language we would like them to (http://wordpress-200526-602825.cloudwaysapps.com//do-we-know-enough-about-the-pakistani-liberals/). The idea is to explain, to reach out and make a distinction between patriotism and chauvinistic nationalism, not to ridicule someone for his/her sense of patriotism. We need to take our liberal conception of patriotism to those who have never delved into these questions and have swallowed unconditionally the propaganda offered by the Indian state machinery (and the situation is similar in all countries across the globe), as disseminated through school textbooks and press releases offered to the media, and given that they have never had to confront facts that made them question their notion of the morality of the Indian state (in its dealing with other states or elements making counter-nationalist claims) as being axiomatic and its naiveté or passivity being the only thing to complain about, their conception of ‘patriotism’ evolved in that fashion. Making a mockery of their biased perspective will only strengthen their prejudices, while engagement that stresses initially more on points of convergence than divergence can actually help change their standpoint, as I can claim from my own experience.

Indeed, the double standard of these liberals is all too obvious. While, for such people, Indians (barring their “privileged club”) are a xenophobic lot, they would seldom talk of the xenophobia of very many Pakistani and Chinese people, or even many of those the Indian state considers its citizens but choose to not identify themselves in that fashion. For instance, our friend refers in passing to the secessionist militants in the north-east issuing diktats to their populace to not celebrate Independence Day by hoisting the national flag of India or singing India’s national anthem, and the blame is on Indians for turning a blind eye to the same. Now, the very justifiable criticism of mainland Indians being oblivious to on-goings in the north-east apart, is the use of dictatorial coercion by the separatist militants on their own people something “liberals” who, in other contexts, would ask for the abrogation of the sedition law, can condone? Is it fair for the militants to impose on others to not identify themselves as Indians and to not celebrate Independence Day? Doesn’t this too deserve much condemnation from our self-styled liberals?

I also read yet another piece not too long ago, though written back in 2009, that disgusted me no less. Leftist documentary film-maker Sanjay Kak, who has recently made a documentary Red Ant Dream supporting Naxalism, wrote a review of Ramachandra Guha’s book India After Gandhi. (I have never met Ramachandra Guha, though I have shaken hands with Sanjay Kak at the India International Centre once and he came across as a nice person, but the point here is different. In any case, I may clarify that I don’t even remotely come close to either in terms of stature!) The review (http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list_mail.sarai.net/2008-March/012279.html) reflected the same attitude of Kak belonging to the “privileged club”. How dare Guha assert that India has done well to retain its democratic character, Kak seems to ask in his review. After all, of what use is parliamentary democracy? Only books that express solidarity with radical leftist movements like Naxalism need to be appreciated, others must be trashed, Kak seems to be saying. There is nothing to celebrate in elections being held every five years. This is all a statist narrative according to Kak, and he accuses Guha of taking such a stand as though it were blasphemous. Is it not logical for someone to believe that the sustenance of parliamentary democracy, by virtue of which there are checks and balances encountered by the political executive that compel it to respect people’s civil liberties and allow the judiciary to call its actions in question, is worth celebrating, when we all know the fate of those challenging state authority in authoritarian regimes (including those that claim to be Communist, like China where a man, who dares to demand from the State compensation for parents who lost their children due to milk adulteration, is locked up in jail)? Especially considering that democracy in such a form was not indigenous to India as a system of government (though the existence of the Shakyas, Lichcavis and other such republics with some form of democracy back in ancient times is, of course, remarkable)?

It is legitimate to debate whether or not democracy is the best form of government (though perhaps only democracy offers room for such debate!) but must Guha, in his historical account of Indian democracy, explore all other alternative forms of government and explain why he considers democracy, in the conventional sense of the term, to be the best? Guha has an ideological framework different from Kak’s, and is entitled to the same. In his book on the history of Indian democracy, and not on the relevance of different political philosophies for India, he has taken the need for democracy as a basic premise and proceeded to write the book, given that framework.

Kak is entitled to question that framework, but to trash a book merely for having a different ideological orientation smacks of the intolerance Kak wrongly accuses Guha of and it is funny how if the “inherently establishment nature” of Guha’s book is inappropriate as alleged by Kak, equally, by reversing the logic, Kak’s documentary Red Ant Dream can be trashed for its anti-establishment nature and not focusing on the excesses of the Naxalites (in fact, Kak can actually be accused of bias, for while Guha acknowledges the failings of Indian democracy so far, conceding the injustices inflicted upon the people by the state machinery, Kak’s film merely romanticizes the Naxalites as great revolutionaries, overlooking their bombings of  election booths that lead to the loss of lives of innocent civilians who go to cast their vote or the Naxalites’ burning down villages or their crude punishments in their jan adalats). Kak concedes that his film is not neutral (for reference, please see – http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Chunk-HT-UI-EntertainmentSectionPage-Movies/The-revolutionary-ideal-persists-in-India-Sanjay-Kak/Article1-1058157.aspx) and is meant to celebrate the spirit of Marxist revolution; then why can Guha not celebrate democracy?

In fact, such is Kak’s firm commitment to anti-‘establishmentarianism’ that he denounces Guha for calling the violent Khalistani secessionists (who murdered innocent Hindus, Namdhari Sikhs and even pro-India Khalsa Sikhs) terrorists. What, after all, is wrong with the usage of the term ‘terrorists’ in the given context? No, we must be more polite in referring to these theofascist mass murderers and call them “militants” because they took up arms against the Indian state, which must be seen as oppressive and Hindu-majoritarian, even if the Khalistanis had nothing to do with Marxism and were ideological opponents of Kak’s dearest Naxalites who had, by then, made a small base in Punjab.

Kak also wrongly claims that Dalit rights as an issue has not got its due in popular cultural expression. Leave aside literature (like Premchand’s short story ‘Thakur ka Kuan’), even in the sphere of cinema, can anyone overlook Kachra in Lagaan or the Dalit children in Swades?

Kak further engages in ludicrous nit-picking by questioning why Guha bothered to mention the educational background of some prominent political leaders and not others, as though Guha’s book is not meant to be a free-flowing narrative but some form which needs to be submitted with all particulars filled up.

I have read many books and watched many movies that convey messages I don’t fully agree with, but I do not impose my own ideological yardsticks to evaluate them. I am not a Marxist, but I loved Mani Ratnam’s Raavan  for its brilliant Marxist deconstruction of the Ramayan and subtly linking the same to contemporary Naxalism, and as mentioned earlier, I co-authored a piece on the same lauding the movie (http://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/11514445/introduction-mani-ratnam-an-acclaimed-film-maker-who-has-) clarifying that it wasn’t in conformity with our worldview. Yet another example can be the fact that I appreciated the movie Matru ki Bijli ka Mandola, which brilliantly showcases the problem of crony capitalism, even though the film evokes Marxist symbols and icons, though I am not a Marxist.

Tolerance is something these left-liberals claim to yearn for, but they express solidarity with violent, intolerant political movements (!), and how tolerant are they themselves of opinions they consider banal or clichéd, even if with a basis, or those that fundamentally differ from their worldview? Their fanaticism and intellectual arrogance knows no bounds as they try to make a tiny little space for themselves where only they can appreciate each other, while the common man would either despise them or not even bother to understand them, but they claim to speak on his behalf. They are indeed wonderful agents of change!

A lawyer by qualification, the author is a freelance writer based in New Delhi.