Follow The Money - The Economic Thread Linking Attacks On Indian Muslims

A recent news item, that Muslim artistes were prevented from performing at a Hindu socio-cultural event in Gujarat, brought home to me an insidious element linking the various, seemingly sporadic attacks on Muslims in India since Narendra Modi's BJP took power in 2014.

There has been widespread denial among educated Hindus about the rising level of intolerance since Modi took over. I hope incidents like this are making it clearer that intolerance is not just a creation of the media but a very real phenomenon.

I am also postulating that attacks on Muslims are not random but are being planned and directed. It is not a grassroots phenomenon or a spontaneous reaction, although it may feed on existing grassroots resentments.

If you don't believe this, observe one aspect of all these attacks. They are all *economic* blows at the Muslim community.

Even in prior riots, you would find curious aspects like the destruction of weavers' looms. It is not just a physical attack, which takes place over a couple of hours before peace is restored. What is achieved is a longer-lasting economic blow, since the predominantly Muslim weavers have lost their means of livelihood.

The whole cow slaughter/beef ban controversy has the same characteristic. Muslims are employed throughout the beef supply chain. Shutting down beef immediately strikes at the community economically.

Muslims are also employed in the music industry. Striking at their ability to practise their profession hits them economically.

It's a plan of diabolical genius, and I believe this has been hatched in Nagpur, the headquarters of the RSS. The RSS tends to commit crimes that do not require courage, and all they engage in is Chanakya-style planning. The actual violence is delegated to other organisations within the Parivar umbrella, such as the Bajrang Dal and various senas in different states. The latter organisations provide the stormtroopers who carry out the dirty work of the syndicate in Nagpur.

Someone in Nagpur a long time ago has "followed the money" and worked out how Indian Muslims earn their livelihoods. They are now putting their plan into action. They are going to starve Muslims. What the ultimate aim is, I do not know. Do they hope that Muslims will convert en masse back to Hinduism? Perhaps some of them will. Do they hope that when pushed to the wall, some Muslims will take to extremism, and that will then provide an excuse to physically wipe out many more? I don't know, but I fear the worst.

The Three PR Failures Of The Hindu Right

The BJP's General Secretary and RSS ideologue Ram Madhav recently appeared on Al Jazeera's Head to Head program, to face a tough interviewer and a fairly hostile guest panel and audience. His performance, which can be seen below, was nothing short of dismal, with a couple of needless gaffes thrown in.

It couldn't just be biased editing - the BJP spokesman was on the ropes or on the mat most of the time

While readers of this blog may watch the video themselves to draw their own conclusions, my analysis of Ram Madhav's failure is as follows.

1. On the topic of the interview itself, "Is Modi's India flirting with fascism?", he had the difficult job of convincing the audience that the situation on the ground was no worse than in the past, and that there was no climate of intolerance as the government's critics have often alleged.

2. On India-Pakistan relations, especially Kashmir, he had to sell non-Indians on the legitimacy of the decades-long Indian diplomatic position.

3. On the RSS/BJP's ideology, he had to make the case for "Hindu nationalism", explain what his organisation means by exhorting religious minorities to be "culturally Hindu", and to clarify related concepts such as "Akhand Bharat" (an "undivided India" that includes Pakistan and Bangladesh, on which I have written before), which could otherwise be construed as military expansionism.

At the end of the interview, it can be safely surmised that he utterly failed to communicate his party's point of view and to convince his audience on these three points. The angry buzz of right-wing sympathisers on social media, blaming everyone but him on the debacle (and indeed, blaming him only for being "too soft"), confirms my assessment that he got a shellacking.

What would I have done in his place?

On the first point, I believe there is little he could have done except engage in whataboutery. There is indisputable evidence that intolerance of criticism of the ruling party and its ideology has reached new depths. It would be dishonest of me to even attempt to formulate an argument for him to use, since I believe the allegation is spot-on.

On Kashmir, Ram Madhav had a wonderful opportunity to explain India's diplomatic stand, because a liberal audience such as the one he had is inherently favourable to an inclusive, as opposed to a parochial, philosophy. Madhav should have taken a step back from the Kashmir dispute to discuss its roots in the partition of British India into India and Pakistan.

He should have asked for a voice vote from the audience between Mahatma Gandhi's philosophy of a secular state where all citizens would be treated equally regardless of religion, and MA Jinnah's Two-Nation Theory, under which Hindus were deemed incapable of living together with Muslims under a fair dispensation, and hence required to yield the Muslims their own state.

He should have pointed out how these two diametrically opposed philosophies predictably played out in real-life, since Pakistan's religious minorities decreased from about 23% of the population at independence to about 2% today, and the Muslim population in India increased from 10% in the 1951 census to 14% today.

Having won the voice vote, he should have proceeded to show how Pakistan's claim to Kashmir rested entirely on this parochial Two-Nation Theory, and was thus morally inferior to India's more enlightened and inclusive position.

Further, he should have pointed out that Pakistan made the first, pre-emptive and aggressive move in invading Kashmir in 1948 to take it by force, and that the line of control today dates back to when and where India stopped that aggression.

He should have ended with the hardline position that Pakistan has proven it cannot look after its minorities, and hence all of Kashmir should be with India.

On the Hindutva ideology, Ram Madhav would have faced a trickier challenge, since the Sangh's ideology is self-contradictory. It is true that there is an inherent liberalism of thought within the mainstream Hindu religion with regard to various schools of philosophy, yet the RSS itself has sought to make Hinduism less freewheeling and more rigidly doctrinaire in an effort to coalesce political support for itself. Nevertheless, if Madhav had downplayed the more recent Hindutva philosophy espoused by the RSS, and fallen back on the original pluralistic worldview of the religion that it claims to represent, he could have scored a few points.

From my own discussions with more moderate sympathisers of the Hindu Right, I can attempt to formulate a hypothetical line of argument for Ram Madhav, even if I don't agree with it myself.

The argument is that there are three broad approaches to religious belief:

The first is what can loosely be called the "Abrahamic philosophy" represented by Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Although the three religions have irreconcilable differences among themselves, what they have in common is the exclusivist attitude that their view alone is the right one, and all others are wrong. Others must convert to their doctrine in order to be saved in a spiritual sense.

The second is what can be called "Western secularism", which operates by denying religion any legitimacy in the public sphere. Religion is deemed to be a private matter, which must not influence public policy. The state and church must remain separate, and the state must treat all citizens equally, regardless of the faith they may profess.

The third approach is the "Hindu" one, which neither denies the legitimacy of religious belief in the public sphere, nor claims exclusive validity for its own brand. This can be seen as positive rather than negative when contrasted with Western secularism, since it affirms rather than denies what is dear to a majority of the world's people. It is also inclusive in contrast to the Abrahamic religions, since it respects the beliefs of every individual as true and as a valid path to "the truth" and to their spiritual salvation.

Regardless of the factual merits of the above argument, it will undoubtedly appeal to many. This is the argument Ram Madhav should have used to justify his organisation's socio-religious position.

Flowing from this, he could have argued that an Indian belonging to a minority religion could be deemed to be "culturally Hindu" if they merely accorded others the respect that they expected for themselves. In other words, if they shed the intolerant and exclusivist aspect of their own religion's doctrine and adopted the Hindu approach of mutual respect, then they would be "culturally Hindu". I have no doubt that Madhav would have won over a sizeable proportion of his audience with that argument.

Further, he could have used this to explain Akhand Bharat (undivided India). He did do a half-decent job of explaining it in any case, by saying it was to be a voluntary coming together of the peoples of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh at some point in the future, but it could have been an even more powerful argument had he linked it to the "Hindu" philosophy of mutual respect.

[As an atheist, I personally favour Western secularism, since I don't believe religion has any validity in either the public or private spheres, but we are talking here about what Ram Madhav could have said, not what I believe.]

To sum up, I think the Hindutva organisations need to do a much better job of explaining themselves to a worldwide audience, because they are losing the PR war pretty badly. To a large extent, they do deserve it, because their philosophy is intolerant, and their stormtroopers (both the street goons and the online trolls) have cemented that reputation. However, some of their main ideological opponents, i.e., Islamists and fundamentalist Christians, are no saints either. These latter groups deserve to face a strong intellectual challenge to their intolerance, and this is possible from a position that is rooted in the broader Hindu tradition (See Lisa Miller's Newsweek article "We are all Hindus now").

Unfortunately for the Hindu Right, the BJP/RSS is probably the last entity that can lay claim to that tolerant philosophy. Someone else needs to make that argument. Ram Madhav's comprehensive humiliation before an international audience should have made that amply clear.

India In Danger Of Repeating Sri Lanka's Deadly Error

Pluralistic societies must beware of elevating one group above all others. The day Sri Lanka made Sinhala its state language and Buddhism its state religion was the day it sowed the seeds of its longstanding ethnic strife. The revolt of the Tamil linguistic minority has been put down at great cost. But the Sri Lankan government does not seem at all serious about pursuing genuine rapprochement or providing autonomy to the Tamils within a looser federation. Far from learning a lesson from those lost decades, elements of the country's political class and clergy now seem to have turned towards baiting the Muslim religious minority, and another round of bloodletting appears to be on the cards. As one who has visited that beautiful country and interacted with many of its smart and gentle people, I can only shake my head in sorrow. Sri Lanka's problems are needless ones of its own creation, all because of a fundamental lack of governing wisdom.

India has long escaped such a fate, thanks to the abundance of wisdom on the part of its founding fathers. The early tussle with the Muslim League on the one hand and the Hindu Mahasabha on the other must have convinced the leaders of the Congress of the desirability of establishing a secular state that treated all its religions equally. And while Nehru came perilously close to imposing a single language (Hindi) on a country where over 60% spoke another language, he wisely stepped back from the brink in the face of protests. India has enjoyed rare harmony in its public life because religion has largely remained a private matter, and its unique "three language formula" has given individuals, governments and private organisations pragmatic ways to communicate.

Over time, a remarkable sense of Indian nationhood has begun to develop (even if it has frayed slightly around the edges thanks to vote-bank politics). Free of heavy-handed imposition, Hindi has spread even to traditionally non-Hindi regions, often thanks to the subtle charms of Bollywood. At the same time, English has spread among the relative elite, forming a link language for the educated class. All wholesome developments, one would think.

The party, however, seems to have come to a rude and abrupt end with the election of Narendra Modi's BJP in May 2014. At first, the focus of the government seemed to be on economic development, and in that endeavour, the prime minister won quick support, including from many erstwhile critics. A potential sour note was religion. The BJP has always been known as a Hindu party, and most public attention has been on the likely relationship between a BJP government and its non-Hindu citizens. While Modi has been careful to project an inclusive image, there have been some disturbing incidents of violence carried out by radical fringe groups with a more hard-line Hindu agenda. The old fault-line of religion has therefore come under renewed strain.

Disturbingly, another old fault-line has been needlessly opened up.  Initially, Modi's preference for Hindi over English in his official communications was ascribed to his relative lack of fluency in English and his understandable preference for a language in which he was more at home. But continuing reports of the government's edicts in favour of Hindi over English have begun to raise eyebrows. The home minister, Rajnath Singh, who was noted for his past statements that the English language has destroyed India's culture, has begun to crack the whip to ensure that the sole language in which his ministry does business is Hindi.

It's clear where the Hindu right is coming from. They are aware that opposition to their Hindutva ideology comes primarily from two broad groups of people - religious minorities and the English-speaking urban middle class. Nothing less than a culture war is now on to undercut the power of these groups. In terms of religion, language and class, the Hindu right wing has identified its foes and begun its offensive.

The world has its eyes on India's old religious schisms, so the government will probably tread carefully there. But the other war (the linguistic/class war) is equally dangerous, and here the government has fewer checks on its actions. 

There are at least four problems with the Modi government's lurch to a majoritarian agenda:

1. The mandate that the BJP received in the recent election was for its plank of economic development. Starting a culture war when there are pressing economic problems to be solved is not just a betrayal of that mandate but a luxury the country cannot afford.

2. The purpose of language is communication. The existing three language formula has served India well, allowing people and organisations to negotiate a suitable common language to communicate in without coercion. There is no reason to ram a language down people's throats unless the motive is to disenfranchise a group of cultural enemies. In addition, insistence on an "official" Hindi, quite different in flavour from the everyday Hindi favoured by most speakers, is counter-productive. Official Hindi is often unintelligible even to Hindi speakers, and is an impediment rather than an aid to communication.

3. Then there is the whole hypocrisy angle. Politicians who rail against the English language, such as Rajnath Singh and Mulayam Yadav, see no contradiction between their public stand and giving their own offspring an English language education and sending them abroad to study. They obviously know which side of their bread is buttered (or if they so prefer, which side of their roti is makkhandaar), but will not acknowledge that English is an aspirational language for millions of their countrymen and could help to improve the career prospects and living standards of the next generation. It's one rule for them and another rule for the masses.

4. Finally, although English is in many ways a "foreign" language to India, its very foreignness makes it neutral. It does not belong more naturally to one group of Indians than to another. If English is to be replaced by Hindi, all Indians who speak a different Indian language automatically become second class citizens, because their own languages are relegated to secondary status behind Hindi. When one Indian is forced to speak to another in a language that is not their own but is native to the other, it creates a power asymmetry that will be deeply resented. It is no way to build a nation.

Those who point to countries like Japan, Korea and Germany to argue that India should have its own national language are missing an important distinction. All of these countries have a single language of their own, so it is natural for that language to be the national language. India has 22 official languages, all of them equally Indian. How can any one of them be termed the "national" language without making the others seem less national? In the same vein, wouldn't anointing India a "Hindu" country alienate citizens of other religions who are every bit as patriotic? It is for this reason that majoritarian politics is dangerous in pluralistic societies, and it is highly inadvisable for a country to create second-class citizens out of its religious and linguistic minorities. Sri Lanka is a warning to the world, but it appears that India cannot see what is, in a geographically literal sense, right beneath its nose.

The Modi government and its ideological fountainhead (the RSS) appear to have overreached themselves. They have turned the country's colourful diversity into ugly difference. And with their roughshod tactics, they have brought their government's honeymoon to an abrupt end.

The Presumption Of Innocence Applies In Criminal Court, Not In The Polling Booth

For a while now, a friend of mine has been making the very persuasive argument that it is defamation and character assassination for people to keep accusing Narendra Modi of involvement in the 2002 Gujarat riots, since the accusation has been examined in great detail by the courts and dismissed as being without merit. What's more, since the prosecution has been supported by a very hostile Congress government and an investigative agency (the CBI) coopted by this government, the clean chit he has received should be all the more convincing.

Of course, the court in question is the Ahmedabad court in Modi's own state of Gujarat where his writ runs unchallenged, so one does not have to be a cynic to imagine the heavy hand of the state government tipping the scales of justice. Such things are not unheard of.

Nevertheless, my friend's argument has been weighing on my mind. Is it unfair to persist in making accusations once a court has ruled a person innocent?

It now strikes me that he overstates his case.

In a criminal case, a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and such proof has to be "beyond the shadow of a doubt", not just circumstantial or "on the balance of probabilities".

However, in civil cases, there is no concept of "guilt". The person being accused is not called a "defendant", nor is the opposite side called the "prosecution". The players in a civil case are the "plaintiff" (the person making a complaint) and the "respondent" (the person responding to the complaint). The judge does not rule on the guilt or otherwise of the respondent. The judge either "finds for the plaintiff" or "finds for the respondent". To reach this conclusion, the judge does not require proof that is "beyond the shadow of a doubt". The conclusion can be reached "on the balance of probabilities" based on evidence that may be circumstantial. Further, if the judge finds for the plaintiff, the respondent is not "punished", but only pays "damages". An adverse judgement in a civil court carries no danger of jail time, only a fine.

An excellent example of this distinction was seen during the OJ Simpson trials of the '90s. After a lengthy trial in a criminal court, Simpson was acquitted since the charge of murder (of his wife Nicole) could not be proven "beyond the shadow of a doubt". Shortly after his acquittal, Nicole's family took him to civil court, where, "on the balance of probabilities", a charge of "wrongful death" was sustained and Simpson had to pay damages to her family. The outcome pleased many, because while everyone "knew" that OJ Simpson was guilty, the evidence available was insufficient to punish him according to the law. However, a degree of justice was done.

I think we are in a similar situation today with Narendra Modi. The fact that Modi has been a lifelong member of the RSS, an organisation not known for its amity towards Muslims (or Christians), will forever colour the way he is seen with respect to the riots. Like in the OJ Simpson case, it is a matter of "knowing" he is guilty while being unable to legally prove it or ensure punishment.

But does this mean, as my friend seems to suggest, that there can be no reason now for anyone to refrain from voting for Modi? The answer, I think, lies in the analogy with the civil court.

Modi has been acquitted in a criminal court and therefore cannot be punished with a jail term. But the court of public opinion is more like a civil court where every voter is a judge. Here, circumstantial evidence and the balance of probabilities may be reasonably applied to reach a conclusion. If a voter finds against Modi, he may impose a penalty on him - his vote.

In 1960, the Democratic Party ran a brilliant campaign that cost Richard Nixon the election. The poster that did the trick turned out to be prescient, since later events proved that Nixon was indeed untrustworthy.

In retrospect, this was not character assassination at all but a friendly warning to the electorate

Yes, Narendra Modi cannot be sent to jail for the Gujarat riots, and it may be time to give up efforts on that front. But there is no reason why a voter cannot deny him a vote. It is entirely reasonable to do so "on the balance of probabilities". Unlike former prime minister AB Vajpayee, a known softie who remained largely neutral in spite of his membership of the RSS, there is nothing soft about Modi. Indeed, his toughness is one of the bragging points of his followers.

Do you trust this man to be an inclusive leader?

On the balance of probabilities, the social fabric could be damaged beyond repair with this man as PM. All of his economics and all of his efficiency cannot put a broken country together again.