The Culture of Impunity

It is unnerving to even think about the culture of impunity that is taking deep roots all around us. It has not happened overnight but has slowly strengthened itself, step by step, one incident after the next, and has gained enough in size to threaten the very essence of a nation priding itself on its distinct cultural identity. What are these incidents that I am referring to here? I will try to list some here, the list of course not being exhaustive.

The first set of incidents that I would like to talk about here is the exponential rise in casual and stray religiously intolerant remarks by sitting MPs and MLAs of the ruling dispensation themselves. The tacit encouragement to such unworthy and unacceptable behavior by the senior leadership, especially the Prime Minister of the nation, by an avowed silence on the matter, did-not help matters much. The mob lynching of Mohammad Akhlaq for allegedly storing and consuming beef was a result of this culture of impunity, carefully promoted bit by bit. To rub salt on the wounds of the Akhlaq family, the irreversible secular credentials of the nation and the ‘rule of law’ in place (at least on paper), one of the murderers of Mohammad Akhlaq was given a martyr’s treatment after his death, his family being duly compensated.

The mockery made out of the whole incident of Rohith Vemula’s tragic and untimely death, and the treatment being meted out to his surviving mother even today, is out in the open for everyone to see. Again, the Prime Minister of the nation publicly honoured the Vice-Chancellor of the University involved in the entire incident, making the present dispensation’s motives and priorities amply clear.

As if religion and caste were not basis enough for oppression, the excesses committed and being committed on the tribals of Chhatisgarh, especially Bastar, are so unimaginable that it is difficult to even mention them. The sordid tales of rapes, murders, abductions and so on and so forth of these people have become so routine that they have even lost the power to horrify us. Another practice has become routine in Bastar, of late, the illegal threats, arrests and detentions of any and every human right activist who has the courage to stand up for these innocents. It is the State versus the human rights crusaders. When the State itself starts committing excesses, breaking all rules and laws blatantly and openly, then ‘Rule of Law’ turns into a sham, an English phrase of three words that means nothing but all the same is used very often to mean something that is an irrevocable principle for the existence of the State. Numerous rules and laws can also be invented and created by the State to defend all its actions resulting in undue excesses and unmatched suffering for the ordinary, and equally, even the existing rules and laws cease to exist when ordinary men and women dare to question peacefully and legitimately the illegal actions of the State.

The intellectual fraternity, digressing from the dominant perspective and standing up to the bullying of the State has again and again been snubbed in no unclear terms. FTII students protesting peacefully against the dilution of their alma-mater’s legacy of excellence, by the appointment of a mediocre (to say the least) individual to head the institution were worn down by an undue and disgraceful use by the State, of its power. The JNU fraternity, students, faculty, ex-faculty, their sympathizers, all were and are continuously targeted. A JNU student remains missing, vanished into thin air to date, and no one seems to be bothered in the least.

 

Talking of protests, Kashmir has been witness to the worst form of State repression since decades. The impunity with which the civilian population was dealt with in recent times though, blinding many civilians through the use of pellets, and feeling righteous about the same, forces one to shrink with a sense of horror, a deep horror at one’s vulnerability at the hands of a powerful State, adamant on wearing that power as a badge of honour. The multitude of atrocities committed by the State under the complete and unquestioned protection of AFSPA and such absolute laws, do-not even surface that frequently in discussions even, so routinized have they become. Unable to make the deaf State hear her plea for sixteen long years, Irom Sharmila finally decided to break her hunger strike, fully well understanding the futility of her struggle.

The redefinition of ‘patriotism’ is a stated agenda that the present dispensation has embarked on. So patriotism now means standing in attention position whenever you hear your national anthem being played, standing in long queues for withdrawing your own hard-earned money, to the limits that have been fixed for you (through an illegal Executive Order, because fixing of any limits on withdrawal of money from one’s own account does not have any backing in law), indecently celebrating acts of destruction (surgical strikes) as if these were festive, rather than extremely sad and unfortunate occasions, trolling celebrities for voicing their anxieties, or for naming their kids as they wish, demonstrating outrage against those very Pakistani artistes whom one adored and worshipped till the previous day and declaring everyone not agreeing with the status-quo as an anti-national, not fit to be called an Indian national.

The most disruptive action of the State was carried out with the most impunity, with blatant disregard to any established rules, laws or procedures, in a totally autocratic manner, the best part being that it was disguised and projected as the most virtuous act possible. Millions and billions were taken in by the false narrative, many not for long, when the charade started unravelling. However, the State continues to co-opt the 125 crore population of the nation in its most disruptive and autocratic act, and continues to project the demonetization exercise as an act for the people, with complete support of the people. The culture of impunity is so strong that even a cursory need to maintain at least a semblance of democracy is not felt.

Why is it that this culture of impunity has become so entrenched? Why are we the people allowing ourselves to be led down a path where a conscious attempt is being made to fabricate a false fear of the ‘other’? Why suddenly a culture that prided itself on being like a sponge, absorbing the best of all, co-existing peacefully with all, feels the need of creating binaries out of every situation? So Mughals, all of a sudden, become the hateful outsiders who ruined our civilization, Pakistani artistes become the nationals of an ‘enemy’ country, fit only to be condemned, all the tribal population of Bastar and their sympathizers become Maoist supporters, out to destroy the country from within, the Kashmiris, the eternal outsiders, become even more responsible for their own fate, by wanting to have normal lives for themselves and all of us who do-not agree with the status quo, become the anti-nationals, unworthy of being called Indians, fit to be abused, who should be eternally grateful for not being shorn off their citizenship and being allowed to continue to exist as equal (really?) citizens of this nation, as a proof of its utmost tolerant spirit. What is it that we are insecure of? Have we lost all faith in the values of humanity? Do we really believe all the world to be a horrifying place, so that we need to protect ourselves by delegitimizing and derecognizing the ‘other’, whosoever that ‘other’ might be? I don’t have the answer to any of these questions, but the culture of impunity must stop before it takes the form of a Frankenstein’s monster and engulfs all humanity in its throes.

 

The Fascination with Ram Rajya

In his recent speech in a rally at Faizabad, PM Modi stated, “…When people asked Mahatma Gandhi how good governance should be, he would reply in one word, a welfare state should be like Ram Rajya…”. This fascination with equating ‘good governance’ with ‘Ram Rajya’ is not new, so much so that the two are almost used interchangeably. It would be worthwhile to dig a little deep into this ‘Ram Rajya – Good Governance’ equation. I am interested in examining the following aspects of the PM’s statement, namely, the origin and meaning of the term ‘good governance’, ‘the meaning of the term ‘Ram Rajya’, the justification, or otherwise, of equating the two terms and the current PM’s invocation of Ram Rajya, Good Governance as well as Mahatma Gandhi in the same sentence.

The concept of ‘Good Governance’ found a formal mention in the 1992 World Bank Report titled “Governance and Development”. The term was defined as “the manner in which power is exercised in the management of a country’s economic and social resources for development’. This concept has been variously used and interpreted by various national, international and regional organizations and institutions. Some of the key elements that have been present in most of the interpretations are accountability, transparency, rule of law, appropriate legal and judicial frameworks and participation. This is not an exhaustive list, but a list of certain elements that find a mention most frequently when good governance is talked about.

Accountability, has been used variously to mean the responsibility of the Government, various institutions and the public servants and employees for their actions, towards the public, from which they derive their authority. Talking in context of one of the most recent and major decisions of the current regime, it has definitely not shied away from taking responsibility for the overnight demonetization of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 currency notes. It has presented this exercise with utmost pride, conveniently coopting the 125 crore population of the nation, making it seem as if this was some sort of a national fight against all the possible vices of corruption, terrorism, black money and what not. Some ‘minor’ details have however been overlooked in the process. The government has not bothered to hold itself accountable for the death of between a hundred and a hundred fifty people, the closing down of small businesses, the loss of thousands of jobs, the innumerable difficulties faced by the poorest sections of the society due to cash crunch and the nationwide dissatisfaction and unrest among the people towards the entire exercise. The Government has also failed to hold itself accountable for the daily shifting goalposts, the justification for this exercise sometimes being fighting black money, at other times fighting terrorism, then removal of counterfeit currency, then a push towards digital transactions and so on and so forth. The Government has failed to hold itself accountable for undermining the authority of independent autonomous institutions and acting like a dictatorship in the garb of democracy. The Government has failed to hold itself accountable for misguiding and misleading the public and the complete failure of this totally disruptive exercise. So much for accountability.

Transparency, the next element that is a prerequisite for good governance, has been the forte of this government. The entire demonetization exercise was carried out overnight, without even the stakeholders being in the know, let alone the general public. Further, the Government has very transparently followed the agenda of promoting symbolic nationalism, destroying dissent and dissenters, upholding the ‘’Hindu Rashtra”, coopting historical personalities like Gandhi and Ambedkar, one turned into a crusader for cleanliness (Swatch Bharat Abhiyaan), and the other a crusader for digitalization (BHIM App).

Laws, rules and ‘rule of law’ – these terms have been interpreted and re-interpreted to suit the situation and the person. FTII students, Rohith Vemula and his mother, human rights activists fighting for the tribals of Chhattisgarh, Priya Pillai, Nandini Sundar, Mohammad Akhlaq, JNU fraternity, and so on and so forth have had a taste of the Rule of law of the land. In fact, every common man has had a taste of the constantly changing ‘rules and laws’ of the land with respect to demonetization. Every citizen has been sufficiently guided about the rules that govern the modes of showing respect to the National Anthem.

The legal and judicial frameworks have been so strengthened that voicing one’s opinion against the dominant perspective and going against it has become the most serious crime, requiring forceful detentions, refusal to grant bails, years and years spent in jails etc. while causing death of innocents (provided they are ordinary non-influential people, or in some cases, deer), being involved in communally motivated crimes, etc., are not even seen as crimes.

Lastly, participation, which is the hallmark of a vibrant democracy, is in the most strengthened position, because 125 crore Indians are coopted into every decision that one man takes, speech after speech it is made clear that everything that is being done is in the name of those 125 crores, for those 125 crores and with full support of those 125 crores. Autocracy had never before been masked so completely with democracy.

Having discussed ‘Good governance’ and its implementation in the current political regime, it would be useful to turn our attention to ‘Ram Rajya’. What is the reason for such fascination with this term? The term ‘Ram Rajya’ refers to the rule under King Ram of Ayodhya. With our propensity to adduce historicity to mythology, Ram Rajya is talked of as if it was a historical kingdom, existing at some point in history. This, however, is itself a myth, as no concrete historical proof of the existence of any such kingdom has yet been found. On the contrary, we have had in our history, numerous great kings and kingdoms whose administrative competence and other abilities have been recognized and lauded. Yet, these kingdoms have not been made synonymous with ‘Good governance’. Secondly, setting aside the ‘God’ status adduced to Ram for a moment, can and should Ram Rajya be called an ideal state, something worth emulation? Not going into other details of how this kingdom was organized and how it functioned, I would like to point out just one aspect, the treatment that was meted to Queen Sita by the King as well as the citizens of Ayodhya. Can a state in which women are treated in such a disgraceful manner, be called an ideal state? Should it be called so? King Ram justified his actions on the pretext of fulfilling peoples’ wishes. If this was the true meaning of democracy according to King Ram, then why did he not bow down to peoples’ wishes when they were exhorting him to become the King rather than proceeding towards forest, when he was exiled by his father for fourteen years? King Ram, till the very end, stated that re-exiling Queen Sita was in deference of peoples’ wishes, despite him being fully aware of his wife’s chastity. Was it not his duty as a king to protect someone whom he knew was innocent? Can an ideal state justify punishing the innocent in deference to the majority? Is this what the Rule of Law states?

Coming finally to the Modi-Good Governance-Ram Rajya-Mahatma Gandhi combination. How justified PM Modi is in talking about Good Governance is amply clear from his track record of Good Governance as stated above. Equating Ram Rajya with Good Governance is highly questionable to say the least. Taking refuge behind Mahatma Gandhi in invoking Ram Rajya is again a replay of the old tactic of the present regime, of trying to coopt yesteryears leaders for its own petty gains. Even otherwise, Mahatma Gandhi’s stamp of approval on ‘Ram Rajya’ as an ideal state to vouch for cannot be absolute. Even the beliefs and utterances of the great need to be opened up and questioned, if and when such need arises. Lastly, even if the PM truly believes in striving for Ram Rajya, the actions of the current regime, in practicing total autocracy, despite protests by millions, are in complete contrast to those of King Ram, in his practice of blind and unhindered ‘democracy’ (as he believed it to be).

Haraamkhor (Film)

It was a lonely place where she had called him to meet. The place had to be lonely as they wanted to maintain anonymity to the world. Anonymous because they were respectable in the society and to maintain that identity they had chosen a lonely place where all their wrongs will be blown with the wind. And he did come because his hunger and satisfaction knew no boundaries. And as they met, the wind turned violent and the sun hid itself under the clouds. Slowly, he pulled her closed to himself and looked her in her eyes. The hunger in his eyes was so frightening that she surrendered herself in his arms transitioning into a state of complete satisfaction. It was as if, she had got what she expected and was now sure to feel it. And he hugged and kissed her, thrashed her completely in act of a savaging attack on the 15 year old minor girl. She had to be a part of this act because she had reached the age of adolescence and wanted to feel everything that can be labelled as “adult”. And he, a 35 year old adult had to do this because he knew she was vulnerable and would surrender to him. During this act of utter disgrace, the word “INTERMISSION” appears on the screen…

The lights were switched ON and I felt like vomiting. The film takes you to a very uncomfortable zone and who else other than Nawazuddin Siddiqui can do justice with this kind of role? Shweta Tripathi was equally phenomenal and did complete justice to her role. It was especially difficult for her because she being a 30 year old female played a character half her age. Before the movie started, I tried to avoid using the word "Haraamkhor", but during the movie, I must have used this word at least 10 times.

There were schools kids who add some light to this dark movie but in summary, the film handled the subject very delicately and did not cross over to obscenity. I felt the movie was somewhat dark for me but I also think that it had to be like that to pass on the message. After all, we do live in a dark world and the film just shows the reality!! The realities have a tendency to be darker than they seem!!!

Caste Question in India: As I understand it

What follows is not meant to be an academic analysis of caste and its operation in India. Such an analysis has been done time again by experts who have studied the operation of caste in India in great depth and are thus qualified to engage in a worthwhile discussion in the matter. What follows is, thus, my personal understanding of caste in India from the vantage point of belonging to a well-off Hindu Brahmin family. Why I felt the need to put across my point of view on this issue and even if I did, why anyone should bother about the same, are both important and very relevant questions which need to be answered. To answer the first part of the question, I felt like putting across my point of view on the caste question in the public domain because this issue (like many others) has and continues to trouble me immensely. This discomfort led me to read more on the subject and even a minimal study on the question would necessitate one to read about Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi’s views on the subject. The exposure to these views coupled with the current status of different castes, decades after these two stalwarts had debated the issue intensely, pushed me to look at this question in the current context. The second part of the question is a bit more complex. Why should anyone bother to read anyone’s personal views on any subject? There are two arguments that I can give to convince people to even attempt to read what follows. The first is that I think it is important that the voice of ‘non-experts’ is given due space and credence, for it can immensely contribute in enriching the understanding and debate on any issue, and also because it should be of utmost importance to the experts to know and understand the doubts and questions that a common person might be grappling with, while forming an understanding of an issue. This will help both the non-experts and the experts, the former in at least getting across their understanding, doubts and questions and hoping to get at least some of these redressed, and the latter in further refining their knowledge and ensuring that their expertise does-not remain a mere academic exercise, and reaches the masses. However, as a note of caution, I should mention here that while propounding any such views, it is the duty of both the expert and the non-expert alike, to back the views propounded with reason, and not indulge in mere rhetoric. The second reason that I want to give in order to convince people to give a hearing to my views is the social background that I come from. My writing below follows from a complete understanding and acknowledgement of my privileged social background and the knowledge that anything I put forward on the question of caste will always lack the authoritative voice and backing of personal experience. However, this lack of the authoritative dimension of personal experience is not something that I ever had any control on, and hence, I refuse to surrender my right of voicing an opinion on this subject for this reason alone, or for my opinion to be delegitimized on this sole account.

Caste, as I understand it, is a hierarchic division of society on the sole basis of birth. One is thus, born into a caste by sheer accident and is ordained to bear the name of that caste, for good or bad, throughout one’s life. It can be argued that primarily the Hindu religion is the progenitor of the caste system, and has legitimized the same, so a conversion to any other religion would nullify one’s caste identity. However, in practice, this theory has not quite worked, firstly, because the caste label is so deeply entrenched in our society that it refuses to go away by any act of voluntary or involuntary renunciation of a religion and secondly, because almost all the religions have somehow managed to legitimize and adopt the institution of caste, as if it was a very emancipatory and progressive institution and hence required emulation. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s rejection of the Hindu religion and conversion to Buddhism was an act of rejection of the ghastly principles on which the abominable caste system is based, yet it is doubtful if merely this act could have granted him a freedom from his caste label (if we assume that it did) and the indignities coupled with the same, if he had not been the authority that he was. The voice and the social standing that he acquired resulted from the education he pursued and from the intellectual ability that he developed, in the face of all adversities that he was subjected to by virtue of being born into an untouchable caste. That he (and some others) could acquire this social standing despite all odds is many a times used as an argument for maintaining the illusion of merit. It is argued that if one, or a few, individual(s) can succeed despite odds, what is the hindrance in others doing the same? The hindrance, it seems, is not one but many. First and foremost, it is a lame argument in justification of a totally irrational system that guarantees certain privileges to some solely based on their birth, and vehemently denies them to certain others for the same reason. Secondly, the sheer grit and determination of one can surely be lauded and celebrated, however, it cannot be used as a constant reminder for the others of their worthlessness, for the sole reason, that it is not so. One individual’s success or failure is the culmination of a multitude of factors that form a part of that individual’s struggle. Other individuals have to tread their own individual paths. The law of justice would say that the state and the society should ensure that this path has equal obstacles, if their presence is necessary, for every individual, no more and no less, for any reason whatsoever. If this is not the case, and all the obstacles of all the paths are combined together and put on one path, and if still the individual on that path is able to cross all those and achieve success, it is not a legitimization of this inherently unjust system, but only an ode to that individual’s perseverance.

Now that this ghastly inhumane and unjust system is the basic infrastructure on which our societal structure is standing, what is it that can be done to change the situation? Dr. Ambedkar, as I understand, would argue in favor of uprooting the entire structure and rebuilding it on more egalitarian terms, whereas Mahatma Gandhi would argue for reforming it and fixing the cracks that have emerged with time and faulty execution of a project that was otherwise intended to be a pretty strong structure. In line with his thought process, Dr. Ambedkar denounced the Hindu shastras, renounced the Hindu religion and argued for separate electorates for the untouchables. Mahatma Gandhi, in line with his thought process, denounced untouchability and called for its abolition but upheld the Hindu religion and shastras, as also the Varnashramdharma, which he differentiated from the caste system. (It has been argued by some that he changed his belief in varnashramdharma also at a later stage, but I could not find any conclusive proof of the same). According to Gandhi, the Hindu shastras talk of varnas and not castes. There were, according to him, four varnas, which were meant for the purpose of hereditary division of labour, and this system, was as such desirable for maintenance of a stable society. The work prescribed for each varna, according to him, was equally respectable and a Brahmin’s work was no more or no less worthy and respectful than that of a Shudra. The argument for a pre-ordained hereditary division of labour, even if not hierarchical in nature, cannot be justified to any reasonable extent. Every individual has a different aptitude and inclination and should have the complete freedom of choosing the work through which one wishes to earn a living. Secondly, equating the work hereditarily prescribed for Brahmins, with that hereditarily prescribed for Shudras and calling them equally respectable can at best be considered as an individual opinion, and not a statement of fact. The facts are entirely to the contrary, and speak for themselves. I, for one, if I was born into a Shudra family, would never be convinced into cleaning and doing such menial jobs to earn my living, by the argument that this job was equally respectable as reading, writing, teaching, trading etc. Neither am I convinced with this argument now, having being born into a Brahmin family. Thirdly, whatever the correct interpretation of the shastras, the fact is that these have been used to propagate and justify the caste system since time immemorial, and people with contrary interpretations have always been outnumbered. I am no authority on Hindu shastras. Though I wish to read them first hand and form my own opinion, I haven’t been able to do so as yet. I also don’t know if denouncing the shastras would mean an end to the caste system, or any improvement in the social status of those who still suffer the injustices of this system. One thing, though, is aptly clear to me. Even those who have left the fold of the Hindu religion are no better off than they were before. They continue to suffer the same indignities as they used to earlier.

Could separate electorates for 10 years as desired by Dr. Ambedkar, have led to real emancipation of the untouchables? With the benefit of hindsight, I feel it would have further solidified the caste system, and segregated and isolated them forever. The higher castes would have found out a way to keep them perpetually as a separate category of people, not worth mingling with the rest of the society. Would this have been desirable? Would they have had the political strength at least, so that they could improve their social and economic standing? For them, may be yes. But for the society as a whole? I am not so sure. Are we happy to perpetually live with this unjust, hierarchical and abominable mind-set forever? At least I am not. I am not prepared to live in a society that treats some of its members as lesser human beings, by the sole virtue of their having been born in a particular home, which was anyway never of their own choosing. Dr. Ambedkar was pessimistic about the situation ever changing, Mahatma Gandhi could not convince the higher castes of treating the lower ones as their equal human beings; as a common individual, should I harbor any hope of truth and realization dawning upon the many, any time soon?