Amit has a post partially in response to this post on Broadmind. Ashok Malik and Arvind Kumar have also weighed in. Amit says:
There is no denying the fact that there is a concerted effort to define what constitutes the Right in India. The economic right which has assumed the intellectual mantle to define alternate (to the Congress’s socialist agenda) policies and governance agenda wants the Right to emerge as a Liberal Nationalist movement. For them anything to do with Hindu Right is taboo…
This is the heart of the issue. What should the Indian right be – firstly in an ideal situation, and secondly given the political realities that we face?
I will certainly be losing accuracy here, but generalization is called for to model the debate. We have the Hindu nationalists on one side, and the liberal nationalists on the other – both disagreeing to some extent with the current government’s economic and foreign policies. But when it comes to domestic, religious and socio-cultural issues, there is an apparent schism. The introspection caused by MF Husain’s death recently is a good case to examine. The liberal side says Husain was an Indian citizen and because of our laws and lawsuits – as well as a small but violent minority – he could not paint whatever he wanted to. That is unacceptable, period – and I could not agree more. The Internet Hindu side says it is not Husain painting Hindu goddesses in nude that necessarily offends them the most, but the double standards when it comes to Tasleema Nasreen’s expulsion, Da Vinci Code movie bans, and so on. And that is a very strong point too.
But if hypocrisy is what really rankles some, then there is an easy way to resolve this. A lot has happened – regrettable or not – but will the Hindu nationalists now support an American-style First Amendment pro-free speech measure in India and lobby BJP to push for it? That is, would they really be fine with people like MF Husain and Arundhati Roy painting and expressing anything? Anything? Even a Ram version of this? Or a tricolour version of this? Because only then would speech like Mohammad cartoons, Bangladeshi genocide tell-alls, and salacious gossip about Christ be protected. With such an amendment, there is no or little chance for any hypocrisy on the part of our politicians as they try to pander for votes. They will simply no longer have discretion to divide-and-rule.
But those who do not support such an amendment, then they are merely complaining about the (real or perceived) inconsistent applications of discretionary power in the hands of government, not really about the discretionary power itself. And make no mistake – laws that can punish you for casteist comments, blasphemous statements, and seditious writings will always be applied in a discretionary manner. Given the reality that pseudo-liberal and left-leaning luminaries are well entrenched in our media, some incidents are more likely to be reported than others. Some grievances are more likely to be stroked than others. Attacks on MF Husain were all condemnable and wrong in and of themselves. But if you so much as even try to contextualize any of these, you will be toast in the public sphere. Fair or not, but that is how it is. Certain songs and movies will be banned, edited or censored – whereas other works of art (which are equally offensive to other groups) would be allowed.
My principles tell me that there is nothing wrong if somebody expresses himself or herself so long as no one else’s liberty or property is physically or financially harmed. But you may not agree with my principles. Fair enough. Yet, my political intuition also tells me that the BJP/RSS junta is never going to win enough votes, seats and media influence to (a) first preserve these anti-speech and other such illiberal laws and then (b) somehow apply them more “consistently” or “fairly”. Therefore, even from a non-principled but more “realistic” point of view, the only way to stop such offenses against the “Hindu community” is to create deterrence. That is, if you want a community to discourage those members amongst them who offend other communities, then those communities need to know that the state will not be able to selectively “protect” them from offensive speech committed by those in other communities either.
But I do not think we need to be so Machiavellian (or Kautilyan, lest I be accused of being inauthentic). The Hindu community not only has no papacy (oops, another “non-Indic” reference) or holy bureaucracy, it has no one correct orthodox theology either. Moreover, non-violence has always been an important part of religions born in ancient India. Our cultural sensibilities at their very best value persuasion and reject coercion. When persuasion fails, ostracizing can be followed – but coercion, no. Therefore, in my humble view, most Hindus should have no problem supporting free speech – and if they do, where is the difference with the liberal nationalist crowd?
Moreover, its not just about speech. On major issues like Article 370 and Universal Civil Code, liberal nationalists and the Internet Hindu crowd are on the same page. The Ram Mandir issue has almost been resolved by the courts. There may be some difference on relatively minor issues like cow protection, forcing people to sing Vande Mataram etc – but by and large there are no major problems. The Hindu right does not care about gay rights (or lack of them), abortion is not a major issue here, the feminism/sexual revolutions in India are proceeding in India in a mature and low-key manner, the Pakistan issue is not half as important for our globalizing and growing economy as it may have been a decade ago. Honestly, where are the substantive differences? Amit had written – to repeat – that “There is no denying the fact that there is a concerted effort to define what constitutes the Right in India”. I want to make that point more specific before we even get to the specifics of liberalism/economics/foreign policy in some future discussion.
I think there should be a more concerted effort first to define what constitutes the Hindu right in India. Should we leave the Hindu right to only self described Internet Hindu activists? Their faults have been exaggerated, I do sincerely believe, but even in this post Amit manages to get a nice parting shot incorporated – “Presumably they (the Liberal Nationalists) have been subsumed by left’s contempt for anything native, anything Hindu”. So anybody who disagrees with you about the role of Hinduism and its self-proclaimed vanguard in Indian politics and the Indian state (not the role of Hinduism in our popular culture, private education, and so on) is just another brown sahib?! Unfortunate. But this is exactly what this “debate” has been reduced to – ad hominem from both sides, without any major substantive differences underneath.
If most Internet Hindus are actually not bigots, but simply sick and tired of the double standards they see all around them – their best bet is actually to join ranks with the liberal nationalists. The Hindu right definitely outnumbers the liberal right for now and the foreseeable future. But it must also not be smug about getting only a fifth of the country’s polled votes, and should anticipate future demographic trends. I have not met many (I said “many”, not “any”) young, educated, urban female professionals who are breathlessly waiting for 2014 so that they finally cast a vote for the BJP. You can ignore this group for now, but it is growing rapidly. Nagpur, we have a problem.
If you are complaining about Munnu getting the rosagullah, and not Chunnu (despite the fact that Chunnu is the elder one and does more house work) you have already missed the plot. Chunnu-Munnu in real life are voting adults, and the government is not their mother and should not have the power to dispense or withhold delightful Bengali sweets. India needs a genuinely liberal and nationalist alternative – one that in a happy co-incidence fulfills the political demands of the overwhelmingly moderate yet silent majority of Hindus too.
At the outset, I would like to think of myself as a liberal nationalist. There is one common issue I notice in all the posts about a perceived bias only against hindus. In any “civil” society (not the Anna Hazare version), there has to be a freedom for free expression. I personally may have contempt for all the religions & should be able to freely express the same, whether it is against Hinduism or Islam or Christianity (or Sikhism or Buddhism or Jewism for that matter). When there is a lack of that freedom is when there is an issue. The case being made out against “Internet Hindus” is not because one says intolerance shown by other communities is incorrect, but the fact that irrespective of what other communities think or behave like, there is an intolerance in various sections of the Hindu right.
Religion is not the only source of intolerance either. It can come out in various forms – one example is the furore whipped up against UP/Biharis in Mumbai. Any form of intolerance leaves the fabric of society weaker. A discussion or debate on issues is always welcome, but arguments stating that “someone else’s intolerance is not being commented on, but mine is & hence there is a bias” lead us nowhere. One of this country’s greatest strengths is the ability to co-exist among so much of diversity. By focusing on religion alone, we end up losing the larger picture.
Finally, if we accuse one party of appeasing a minority community, then the case just as blatant when some other party plays up to the majority for political mileage.
“Internet Hindus”….why internalize that framing ?
At th risk of being labeled a internet Hindu, let me voice my opposition against MF and his supporters.
He would have been free to draw my gods in any light if he would potray his in the same. Creativity on my gods and conservatism for his is not the mark of a artist. It is the signature of a bigoted mind which MF is,
He has done a big disservice to the creative field and it is sad to see many well meaning people try and defend his prevertism without bothering to examine the issue from all viewpoints
There are two aspects of MF Husain debate. One, the intolerance of a section of Hindus to some of his controversial paintings. Two, MF Husain’s self imposed exhile. Let’s take the first aspect, any artist writer or painter treading on religious grounds is expected to be aware of the precedences of other artists that treaded on that ground, now, that the constitution itself doesn’t allow absolute freedom of speech and expression is a pretty well known fact, the banning of satanic verses and other such works of art treading on religious grounds is there for all to see. If MF Husain was unaware of these facts, people who objected to his controversial paintings can not be faulted. No I am not justifying vandalism (or fatwas against Rushdie, Taslima, Danish cartoonist etc.), although some people were moved enough to take the legal recourse which they are perfectly entitled to. The reasons why people were opposed to his controvercial paintings could be as many as the number of people themselves, ranging from pure intolerance towards deviation from conformity to equal application of the constitution, attributing one reason as per our convenience to all those opposed would be cherry picking.
Coming to the second aspect, again, the exact reason for his self exhile may not be what we would like to attribute, or what suits our point. The fact remains that, hurting religious sentiments were not the only cases pending against him in courts, he was also being investigated for serious alleged financial crimes that one side of the debate is feigning complete ignorance of.
@Ajay,
People in a free society should be allowed to selectively insult one belief system, without being forced to insult all belief systems.
Yes, M F Husain was selective – and yes, it does not speak very highly of him. But people, unlike governments, in free societies have the right to be hypocrites.
@sanjay, fair points.
My naya paisa
I have always been curious about this phenomenon of “liberal nationalism” and how it can remain liberal if it were linked to a majority’s culture. In my considered view, there can be liberalism and nationalism, but not “liberal nationalism” unless one twists the very meaning and essense of nationalism.
Be that as it may, I do support a 1st amendment-like right in our constitution. However, I think it is a bit naive to assume that just because there is a “1st amendment”, there will be freedom to paint or draw as one wishes. Please think again.
Btw, Hindus don’t normally take to violence against any excercise of free expression.
The case of M.F Husain would probably have taken a different course if he were to challenge his would be Muslim antagonists, just like he did his Hindu ones?
For a shining example just look at Taslima Nasreen on twitter or elsewhere. The lady spews her bile on all things Hindu and although a number of Hindus challenge her, perhaps even heckle and ridicule her, she still commands the respect that a courageous human being should. I would like to wager anybody on the fact that Taslima Nasreen can walk into any “Internet Hindu”s home and have dinner and a hearty laugh at the end of it.
The UCC is the logical conclusion to the so called “Hindu” Code. There is hardly anything Hindu left in that Code. A lesson there for Hindus to consider before they entrust “liberal nationalists” with their interests again
More later. Nice post btw.
Palahalliji,
I liked the “nice post btw” flourish at the end
Harsh – I meant it sincerely. I’m a rotten writer.
Harsh: Your post finally prodded me into digging deep through my “Drafts” folder for some slides on “Hindutva” that I have been hoping to put up for debate…
They should be up on my blog early next week..Stay tuned. Jai Hind, Jai Bharat!
I think more than MF Hussain, Taslima etc that you have mentioned It is Naredra Modi on whom the major battles between the Hindu and liberal nationalists are fought. The liberals consider him an organizer of genocide and shudder at the thought that he could be PM, the other side “internet hindus” consider him a natural born leader, rake up the issue of Sikh riots and character assassinate anyone who speaks against him.
He is the major divisive issue between the two groups with no solution in sight
Thanks varsha, I think you maybe right about that. I consider myself a classical liberal – and Mr. Modi, like all other citizens and politicians, should be seen as innocent until proven guilty w.r.t the riots. Yes, some of his rhetoric initially was most definitely communal and inflammatory, but he has for the last 6-8 years reduced that (if not stopped it altogether – and when required he has not shied away from destroying temples to widen roads etc., and take on the local VHP etc units).
His corruption-free fast growth and inclusive development record in Gujarat speaks for itself. He is not the perfect candidate – and there are many others equally qualified withing the BJP (Shourie/Jaitley/Sinha/Jaswant Singh), but I am not one of those to whom Mr. Modi’s very name is anathema.
Perfect candidate?? I have always wondered how people are able to dilute (if thats the correct word)the act of mass killing in this manner. Its like saying -oh I’ll kill your family but I’ll help to build the road outside your house to atone for it.
anyway,how disappointing to live in a country where a person accused (even an accusation is a big deal) of genocide can be a leader with a mass base and where economic development over-rides the concepts of justice in many minds. In India, people who talk like this are called “bleeding hearts” . In more civilized countries they are called normal human beings.
Harsh: Thanks to your trigger, here is bold (foolhardy?) attempt at redefining the debate: http://satyameva-jayate.org/2011/07/13/hindutva-liberalism/
When I see that MF Hussain has painted in the nude the goddesses (whom I worship, consider as ‘mother’)and also painted the godesses copulating with animals, I feel deeply disturbed and angry. But once the initial reaction is over, I can console myself thinking that the senile bas***d must have been an incest and suffering from bestiality and therefore he deserves sympathy only. I also thought that it is a matter of time that he would attempt making similar drawings of the Prophet or his wives and daughters, with the result of some self-respecting Muslim coming forward and cutting off his filthy head.
However, the so called ‘liberal’ Hindus or secular intellectuals of our country (who are the admirers and apologists of MF Hussain) certainly do not deserve any sympathy or mercy. I am sure many of them may not be so tolerant if the subject of the great painter had been their own biological mother. Of course there are also those who pimp for their own mother or sister, or willing to eat sh*t to appease the powerful ‘minorities’ for their own personal benefits. They are poison. Extremely harmful to the society and culture. They must be identified and the Government must eliminate them or at least keep them isolated from the public.