|
|
|
 |
24 February, 2016 --- First draft
05 March, 2016 --- Additions
I said to my mom once, 'Why were you a socialist and not a communist?' And she said, 'Better doughnuts.' ~ From the article 'Richard Dreyfuss on Being Bernie Madoff' at Smithsonian.com, accessible here
They're selling postcards of the hanging, they're painting the passports brown
The beauty parlor is filled with sailors, the circus is in town
Here comes the blind commissioner, they've got him in a trance
One hand is tied to the tight-rope walker, the other is in his pants
And the riot squad they're restless, they need somewhere to go
As Lady and I look out tonight, from Desolation Row
...
Across the street they've nailed the curtains,
they're getting ready for the feast
The Phantom of the Opera in a perfect image of a priest
They are spoon-feeding Casanova to get him to feel more assured
Then they'll kill him with self-confidence
after poisoning him with words
And the Phantom's shouting to skinny girls,
"Get outta here if you don't know"
Casanova is just being punished for going to Desolation Row
At midnight all the agents and the superhuman crew
Come out and round up everyone that knows more than they do
Then they bring them to the factory where the heart-attack machine
Is strapped across their shoulders and then the kerosene
Is brought down from the castles by insurance men who go
Check to see that nobody is escaping to Desolation Row
...
Yes, I received your letter yesterday, about time the doorknob broke
When you asked me how I was doing, was that some kind of joke
All these people that you mention, yes, I know them, they're quite lame
I had to rearrange their faces and give them all another name
Right now, I can't read too good, don't send me no more letters no
Not unless you mail them from Desolation Row.
~ Snippets from the song Desolation Row by Bob Dylan that appeared in the album Highway 61 Revisited (1965)
Jinhe naaz hain Hind par woh kahan hai ~ Sahir Ludhianvi, Pyaasa (1957)
This follows this.
It is important to bear in mind that the second article appeared in late November, 2015, making the events in February 2016 appear as an inevitable logical culmination of a series of events of similar nature that may have been brewing in the JNU campus for quite some time. JNU will be JNU. The problem is that the RSS (and all those wonderful elements and organizations that constitue its ever-expanding universe) is still very much RSS, even after getting a firm foot-hold in the Lok Sabha. Logic dictates that increase in riches should make a man magnanimous. Experience, of course, convincingly demonstrates otherwise. A political largesse only serves to add an abundance of ghee to the fire of cultural monotheism; that too of all places in a land of religious polytheism.
Reason can prompt raising of a simple but logical question: is the cult of nationalism as defined by RSS an addition to the polytheistic melee, or a substitution of the kind that the RSS blames the Abrahamic sects of practising? If the latter, what is the point of differentiation between itself, and its conception of the Abrahamic sects that it so evidently despises? The question will necessitate an answer that is highly round-about and very subtle --- so subtle indeed that it borders on the absurd.
If this was a computer program, it would give an error "Out of memory after running infinite iterations of circular logic". Fortunately, in the post-modern world that we live in today, such circular logic chains are easily caught at first glance even by very commonly used programs like Microsoft Excel. One would have to assume that RSS is either post-post-post-modern (an additional 'post' just to make sure that RSS is situated far-away to its 'right'ful place as can be), or pre-pre-pre-modern (the extreme left where the fascists were fond of sitting once upon a time).
We must correct, nay even apologise for raising the charge of RSS not being magnanimous. Of course the RSS is magnanimous. Caught within the spell of the above pattern of thinking it is very much magnanimous about treating the non-upper-castes and those outside the pale of its world-view as ones who deserve to be very much within its world-view. In fact it is so generous as to not only share its preferences of habits dietary, of habits patriotic, of habits religious, and several others with those whom it considers outside the pale of its world-view. One is sure that those 'outsiders' could not have been more grateful to be at the receiving end of this 'deliverance'.
The remark is not about the superiority of "left" or "right", which is ironical because the RSS is very much "left" in some matters and very much "right" in others. The remark is also not about whether JNU is right or wrong. The remark, or rather the question at hand, is about a consciousness of the context and a sense of balance. Those who are politically -- and otherwise -- priviledged have a lesser reason to raise the temper and tempo of their voice. If they do, they reveal far more about themselves than the imaginary enemy they claim to be fighting.
But let us leave conceptions that are by definition 'political' in nature. They make for a very unappealing and unaesthetic discourse. Let us turn to a pleasanter topic: rock n roll music. And let us understand if we can re-frame the debate through conceptions that are more intuitive and of everyday utility.
We must be thankful to England for giving us The Beatles. The Beatles, in turn, were sure to be thankful to The United States for exporting Bob Dylan --- in particular, getting an earful of his "Bringing it All Back Home" at just the right point in time in their trajectory of development as musical artists.
The United States was bound to be thankful to Odessa (erstwhile Russian Federation, now Ukraine) and Lithuania for exporting the paternal and maternal grand-parents of Dylan to The United States. Odessa and Lithuania, one may venture to assume, may be regretful in hindsight for the anti-semitic pogrom that ran on their soil leading to the migration of the jewish grand-parents of Dylan. A pogrom on one soil gave rise to a remarkable son-of-the-soil in another who is now revered as almost a national icon. One can only venture to guess the original jewish ancestry of Dylan.
Of course, Dylan himself will, one is sure, be thankful to the hard climes of Duluth, Minnesota for breeding a certain clear-headedness laced with refined sensitivity and tinged with acerbic sarcasm within him. One that found a most visible expression in 'that mercurial sound' on the album 'Blonde on Blonde'. But Minnesota would not have been enough to produce that gem of an album. It needed the Southern, experienced and famed Nashville, Tennessee musical temper to give it that fine and enduring edge. Further, Dylan would not have been Dylan without Woodie Guthrie and the bohemian climes of New York in late 50's and early 60's playing their predestined role.
Dylan would also have to agree that 'that mercurial tone' may not have been possible without the intrusion of technology in music. A technology that spanned the gramophone, the radio, recording studios, and of course, the memorable switch of Dylan from the acoustic to the electric --- almost a cultural shock for some of his ardent followers and --- a breath of rebellious fresh-air for others. The technology in turn owed its foundations to many scientists, not least to those who gave a fine shape to the theory of electro-magnetism. Now, should we lay the flowers at the doorstep of Maxwell or Faraday or Einstein or the countless and faceless others?
Those who love The Beatles will realize that they did not (and could not) exist in isolation. They were a product of a chain, which if we allow our imaginations to run wild, could encompass so many eras and fields that it would deflect attention from their music. And the latter is precisely where any sane and reasonable individual would focus: the beauty of their music, and avoid getting hung-up on saying 'this is The Beatles' and no one could match them. The statement is both true and false at once. True because it will be difficult to produce another 'Beatles' (and another Dylan), and false because it hardly matters if there is another 'Beatles'. In a way one hopes there is not because that is what makes The Bealtes (and Dylan) so special.
For the die-hard nationalist and card-carrying, black-robe wearing patriot: replace The Beatles by India. At least one could define The Beatles, recognize them once one saw them, clearly analyze their music, discern the influences underying them. Which of these nationalist mortals can as confidently define the term 'India'? The adventurous ones could try: but then they would be missing all the fun. Much like the listener of The Beatles getting caught up in defending them, thinking of them as God (some surely did) and submerging one's own identity in them. He would forsake the immediacy of the music for a made-up-memory. The 'nationalist' is missing the fun of living in India, enjoying it everyday including the tamasha that goes up in the name of 'nationalism', and, by the logic of false rhetoric, its sister, anti-nationalism.
And of course, all of us have to be thankful to Wikipedia for providing all the factual tid-bits. And who should Wikipedia be thankful for? It is a homework for the diligent student to be submitted tomorrow. A far noble homework then one which forces the impressionable mind to memorize the chronology of events comprising the Indian Indepdence Struggle which presumably really came alive with the establishment of the Indian National Congress and ended on 15th of August, 1947.
A thoughtful individual will have to agree that this is a less distasteful thought than the alternative version implied by a supposedly enlightened being and re-inforced by his devoted followers. That one goes something like this: that India was enslaved from 10th century onwards (the purist may perhaps prefer to say when the Gupta period ended) and got liberated on May 2014. Of course, the enlightened being(s) propounding this version have an illustrative set of other enlightened predecessors from which they draw selective inspiration and intellect.
Travesty of a nation and whatever nationalism(s) can be inferred from such a conception of a nation. Is it any wonder then that this stock of ridicule isn't enough fodder for the impressionable intellect --- and in some cases the fledgling politics --- of the student to light a fire to? For it will take quite a dumb-witted student to not notice the profound dumbness in such national narratives. Having said that: there is one category of students who despite understanding may choose to look away --- the ones that spring from the well of narrow self-interest and indifference. These are also the ones that the obliging tax-payer apparently would be very happy to support. After all, what could be more useful to enhance the factor productivity of the country than a bunch of indifferent graduates and post-graduates?
One is sure that shareholders of every company would love a management which simply does what the shareholders tell them to do: not more, not less. If that was the case, then the list of Fortune 500 would appear a very different one than what it is today. And it is not preposterous to take a guess as to what such a list could look like: it would be more on the lines of Chinese capitalism than the Anglo-Saxon one as the Anglo-Saxon one requires dissent, competition, innovation and destructive creation. And not group-think, one-child policy, media-control, a single-party political set-up, and an attitude of: either you are with us or against us. Though in all fairness, one must say: even the Anglo-Saxons are guilty of the last one, and heck, even the one before that. Two among several reasons why they happen to be in such a capitalist soup now-a-days. But why restrict ourselves to only Anglo-Saxons? Even the ones close to our home and, indeed within our homes, have breached the fine line once too often.
However, to use a phrase of Eco, we must not be so dogmatic after all. A categorical denunciation of RSS, or for that matter the Left, is neither possible nor preferable. An example of hardened dogmatism leads to the following:
---
"The recent debate on nationalism brought the RSS to the centre of the discourse. The nature of the debate hasn't changed since the 1960s. A convention (December 28-29, 1968) organised by the Sampradayikta Virodhi Committee, headed by Subhadra Joshi, had said: "Ideology of the RSS is opposed to the values of nationalism and democracy as adopted by the Indian people in the Constitution." The same accusation has been repeated by RSS's critics during the JNU row. It's indicative of the lack of substantive debate on the RSS and dominance of polemics.
Repeated accusations have created a secularist definition of the RSS as "fascist" and "majoritarian". As a natural corollary, its presence and intervention in the discourse have been considered illegitimate. Its ideology, dynamics and propositions remained undebated. Its understanding of nationalism, Hindu rashtra, decolonisation of the Indian mind were lost in sloganeering. Such an intellectual onslaught also gave pro-RSS academics an opportunity to camouflage the intellectual lethargy to change the direction of the debate. Moreover, the highly charged polemical debate occassionally led fringe elements to hijack ideological positions of the Hindutva movement. People began to evaluate the RSS on its statements. On all such occassions, the RSS leadership, from M.S.Golwalkar to Mohan Bhagwat, decried these as "reactionary Hinduism". But critics shrewdly use such statements to categorise entire Hindutva movement as the "Hindu Right", a most inappropriate term for the RSS --- whereas the Sangh's social base and socio-economic philosophy are replete with progressive virtues...
The secularist discourse on the RSS suffers from an infantile disorder --- because of the empirically wrong premise that the RSS and Hindu Mahasabha constituted a monolithic Hindutva movement during the colonial period. This produced a lot of ambiguity in understanding RSS philosophy. The Mahasabha couldn't accept the RSS as anything more than a volunteer body of trained cadres, to be used for its political agenda. Unlike the Mahasabha, the RSS extended unconditional support to the Civil Disobedience Movement in the 1930s. K.B. Hedgewar led a march in Purad. He was arrested and awarded a year's rigorous imprisonment. It led the Mahasabha to deliberate on its relationship with the RSS and it decided to form a parallel volunteer body, the Hindu Militia (Ram Sena).
There's a fundamental difference between the two on Hindutva. While the Mahasabha accepted the categories of majority and minority created by the Western mind and pursued a majoritarian politics, the RSS rejected the majority-minority dichotomy as a colonial ploy and considered majoritarianism as anathema to cultural nationalism. Cultural unity is key to the Sangh's philosophy. It believes religion can't be absolute in a given context, which mandates close interactions with other cultures, histories and faiths. Accepting culture as a part of nationalism acknowledges the limitations of religion.
...
The RSS attracted all kinds of Hindu activists. It's this organisational skill and flexibility --- an ideological melting pot --- that created its hegemony in the Hindutva movement. This also prevented the growth of reactionary Hinduism. The deterrence exercised by the Sangh causes discomfort to such tendencies. The discourse on the RSS needs a serious empirical correction. An honest engagement would benefit the discourse, but it's unlikely to be accepted by the Marxist elite and academics groomed in anti-RSSism."
--- A chunky reproduction from the article A Melting Pot by Prof. Rakesh Sharma which appeared in The Indian Express dated 04 March, 2016, accessible here.
---
Those well-versed with the ideology and history of RSS would be better placed to assess the accuracy of the above assessment. However, the article does indicate that the conception of 'cultural unity', among possibly others, is important to understand the core of the RSS ideology. Likewise, the conception of the Marxist understanding of history and society is important to understand the Left/Communist ideology. It is always an interesting discourse that can accomodate different, and possibly, opposed conceptions. Unfortunately, the art of such a discourse is what is sorely missing. Further, multiple conceptions (those who are of a hardened temper may prefer the term ideology) are always good for the potential voter when she is standing in front of the voting machine. It is another matter that many voters are even struggling to correlate the symbol with the party, let alone the specific conceptions (ideology) the parties stand for.
Indeed, the definition of the conception of 'choice' implies the 'existence of alternatives'. For one alternative to decry the FoE (freedom of existence) to another alternative, is in some manner an example of conceit --- by some accounts the highest chargeable human crime. Maybe the courts may want to focus on this other FoE as opposed to Freedom of Expression and sedition. Let no man decide what alternatives have a right to exist in front of the voter. If the Constitution could be compressed into a single sentence, this is what it would prefer to say. In some ways, then, the Constitution, would prefer free-market politics over 'socialist' politics. Though, those of detached temper would not fail to note the irony in the fact that sometimes those who are voted on the plank of free-market (or its 'pseudo' cousin) economics seem to block free-market politics, and, sometimes, those with an avowed socialist orientation seem to argue vigorously for a free-market politics.
So we come back to the writer's favourite question adapted to the present context: the pertinent question for the voter is should I do this, that, a mix of this and that, or altogether something else? One would hope all the political actors and those professions that rely on politics to earn their daily bread would focus on this question and leave it to the voter to figure it out for herself. The duty of the political actors and their associates is to give an honest, detailed and transparent exposition on the following: a) core conceptions underlying each political alternative, b) genesis of these conceptions, c) history of their institutionalisation, and most critically, d) the gradual downward distortion, manipulation, usurpation, revision and whitewashing of these original conceptions reflected in the steady decline in the quality of institutions and leaders that the voter is left to see today.
And the exposition should clearly put all of the above in the context of what it 'really' means for the voter today. For there are only two broad group of instincts that force a man to vote (leaving aside for a moment the infertile political opiate of 'voting is a duty'). Arrayed on one side is a combination of instincts of 'preservation, promotion and procurement'. On the other hand, very sadly, is the instinct of desperation and begging. The former concerns itself with objects of fame, status, power, pleasure and ideas (or ideology). The latter, concerns itself with the humiliating prospect of having to literally beg for means of subsistence, means of self-dignified existence, means of protection (from the passions of mass-murder and ravages that grip the masses (or you could say the majority, depending on your conceptual orientation)).
The former set of instincts grip a man when he has built a foundation and is not happy living on the first floor but would want to move to the next higher floor, if not the pent-house. The latter, on the other hand, is about those 12-feet-under-the-ground trying to at least reach a semblance of respect of standing outside the gate of the mansion, if not be allowed to dwell on its basement (the floors are very much outside their world-view).
There are moments when the distinction between the two breaks down. What are these moments? These are the moments when those who are in natural possession of the first set of instincts can ask themselves a simple question: preserve+promote+procure for whom? Addition of that little innocuous phrase at the end is enough to change the direction of the flow of thought. Though it is also a fact that such a change is so transitory and illusive. Nonetheless, even for that fraction of a second when the mind of a man is in the grip of such a question, the man can feel happy at being in a state of mind that befits a human being.
When do such moments arise? Usually, they arise in quiet seclusion or the tumult of a university campus. If for nothing else but just for enabling production of these transitory and elevating moments where the rigid duality between the two voting instincts ceases to exist, and which makes the first instinct willingly hold itself at account to the second one, the tax-payer should feel a moment of 'blameless-gladness' that his money was indeed well spent.
Provided the political actors and those who share a symbiotic professional relationship with them are willing to put up an honest exposition of the alternatives, the voter (and the tax-payer) whether he (it is usually a he) be of RSS-orientation, of communist orientation, or a rank opportunist (which by the way is not to say that the RSS and the Communists are not rank-opportunists) may prefer a regular churning in the political pond which makes sure that, sometimes, a small fish can disrupt, and potentially permanently damage, the evening siesta of the big fish.
The intelligent voter (if there is one) would (or should) hope for a more regular churning.
For myself, I prefer Let It Be. A poignant album, that one.
Or, if that seems too much of an effort: listen to Sweetheart Like You from Dylan tuning your ears to latch on to that nasal intonation hitting the words They say that patriotism is the last refuge, To which a scoundrel clings.
| |
|