A voice with no face

My thoughts on RG's December 12th address to people in Jaipur

Time away from the toxicity of twitter has been a treat.  It has created the space to read and be with myself. [Currently reading Anil Seth’s Being You, a wonderful blend of neuroscience and philosophy of the mind.  Next in line Lea Ypi’s Free: Coming of Age at the End of History.]

After a long time there is heartening news from India:  the faint stirrings of a polity that fell comatose after discovering that it had been captured by fascists.  Indians have long tolerated the inequities of caste, ethnicity, race and religion, while aspiring to liberty, equality, and fraternity.  India’s current problem with minorities, particularly Muslim, has many deep layers, accreted over millennia, willfully purged out of history and collective memory. At the dawn of Independence, the idea of a secular state was to knit together all the historical memories into one collective consciousness, rather than deny reality, and build a nation on palpable lies.  A secular state was the outcome of India’s historical experience that allowed various faiths to coexist, while keeping the state, or sovereign power, out of religious strife.

While Nehru was a Hindu modernist, and rationalist, [much more so that V D Savarkar], impressed by Fabianism, India’s secularism was never a European import.  [On the contrary. RSS’ idea of monocultural nation-state is a German import, inspired by the Nazis]. When the British came to India, circa 1757 CE, they found an intensely religious but plural society, tolerant of many faiths.  They did not impose a secular state on us.  Instead, they consciously chose to continue with the existing tradition of keeping the sovereign power out of any religious fray.  They were not against religion. It is they who first allowed the Dalit voice to reemerge in India with their concern for rule of law.  Christian Missionaries for example, did not have use to of the state’s coercive apparatus for spreading their faith. 

As I explained in my essay here, India created a secular state after 1947, to confer freedom of religion to all its citizens, and not to prohibit religiosity.  The Indian state has never been against any religion, or the religiosity of its citizen.  It has only called for equality of all citizens and Government not discriminating against any citizens based on religion, caste, gender etc.  In India, the state is secular, while the citizen is free to pursue her faith with maximal freedom, consistent with the similar freedom of others. 

Nevertheless, over time, largely due to Communist influence over Congress under Indira Gandhi, secularism gradually morphed into a citizen being secular, rather than the State being so.  This gave secularism an anti-religious flavor that clergy on all sides have used to denounce secularism, with RSS/BJP leading the assault. There is considerable support in India for a secular state but virtually none for a secularism that is anti-religion.  Not only RSS/BJP, but also clerics from other faiths, have used the anti-religion connotations that secularism acquired under Indira Gandhi, to discredit the idea of secular state itself.

Thus, there was a need to redefine secularism, and restore it to its original concept of a secular state.  But the Congress never got around to addressing this issue, either under Rajiv Gandhi, [who muddied waters even more] or PVNR.  By the time the 2 UPA Governments came to the fore, the idea of a secular state, as distinct from a person being secular, [there is no such thing as a secular person], already stood dissolved.

By then, a shrill campaign to make secularism a dirty word in politics was in full swing from RSS/BJP.  They lied to us, claiming they were for “genuine secularism.”  The “secularism” that was supposed to be coded into their DNA appears to have got scrambled.  With copious use of lies, deceit, and disinformation, the RSS/BJP succeeded in rubbishing secularism.  The Communists haven’t owned up the flaw in their idea of a secular citizen, who knows no religion other than Marxism.  The RSS/BJP exploited the flaw to the fullest.  The Congress was too confused to even recognize the problem. 

I wrote about the need to redefine secularism in two essays in 2011. Both can be read here.  So let no one say my stance on secularism, or the need for it, has changed.  I was against locating secularism at the personal level 10 years ago.  And I was in favor of a minimalist definition of secularism, as a secular state, that maximizes religious freedom for all.  My way makes secularism pro-religion, and promotes maximal freedom of choice for an individual, as opposed to imposing a Godless ontology on her according to Karl Marx.  Neither Liberal Airheads, nor communists shouldn’t accuse me of bad faith.  Both essays were 10 years ago. Besides I have often said the same thing in my tweets.

It is against this larger canvas that one should read, and reread, Rahul Gandhis speech to people in Jaipur on 12th December. 

In many ways, for the Congress and its supporters, it was a path breaking speech, in as much as it seeks to redefine the terms of debate on secularism, by making a clear distinction between Hinduism on one hand, and Hindutvawad on the other.  Hinduism, and not Hindutvawad, is a way of life.  And it is Hindutvawad which is a small subset of the larger set of people who embrace Hinduism.  In short, Congress also speaks for those who adopt the Hindu way of life [among many other faiths] while rejecting the ideology of exclusivist Hindutvawad of RSS/BJP.

Rather than repeat all the arguments, I shall refer you to the sharp and incisive piece by Badri Raina here where he explains the significance of Rahul Gandhi’s speech, and critically examines the way forward.  Do read the essay and return here.

The popular media has by and large ignored the salience and import of Rahul Gandhi’s address which is unfortunate.  His redefinition of Hinduism and Hindutvawad, makes the idea of secular state central to the debate ahead.  The RSS/BJP will be hard put to contest the idea of secular state, above religious fray, while giving freedom of religion to all citizens, either at home or abroad. 

This has the possibility of completely overturning RSS/BJP’s pernicious Hindutva agenda.  So it imperative you read Badri Raina’s essay to understand the significance of the change underway in the Congress.  Such reformulation will also help bring the Congress dissenters back into the empty tent.

The significance of Rahul Gandhis address has not been lost on the discerning intellectuals, though not too many have opined on it.  Leading them as usual was P B Mehta, whose rather critical but very important essay may be read here. 

P B Mehta has some very sharp observations, and questions, for Rahul Gandhi, that he [the latter] must take note of and address, if his project of redefining the Congress’ new paradigm is to have real meaning. 

Shri Mehta makes 3 valid points.  Firstly, the redefinition must come with a sincere and serious commitment to mass mobilize people in favor of the new paradigm.  Without such mass mobilization, the paradigm will wither into empty rhetoric. Secondly, RG must be willing to demonstrate that the Congress was, and is, a party backed most Hindus who want a secular state. The party will speak for them, as much as it will continue to speak for all minorities, be they Muslims, or Dalits or whatever.  Thirdly, this determination to fight Hindutvawad must transcend religion, and spearhead a larger campaign of civil liberties, to restore the basic dignity due to individuals and citizens in any society, of which minority rights are a critical part.

The need to transcend religion, [without in any way being against religion] is very important.  Hindus have never been the monolith that RSS/BJP are trying to shoehorn them into.  There is as much diversity within Hindus as there is diversity within India itself.  Hindus need a secular state to be free of an oppressive priesthood [which is what RSS/BJP have become with the added malignancy that they now have use of private lumpen militias, backed by a conniving state] more than the minorities. 

Even if Hindus were 100% of the polity, they would still need a modern secular state because no modern polity can really survive the RSS/BJP medieval anti-science, anti-reason mindset.  The bigots want to dictate what we eat, how we dress, whom we pray to, who we can marry, and what we do in life.  Indian ontology is to be lithographed from a press in Nagpur. It appears we exist only for the greater glory of the State, and the Priesthood that controls it.  They want to be VishwaGurus and teach the world how to run it.  Who would wish to live in state where such choices can be forced on you?  The same is true of clergy in other faiths.  All this needs to be rolled into a movement for greater freedom and dignity for individuals. 

Lastly, whether India remains a secular polity or not will largely be decided by its 83% Hindus.  That is a fact of life you cannot deny because of the sheer tyranny of numbers.  No abstraction or obfuscation can mask this central fact.  It was most Hindu citizens who gave us a secular polity after 1947, opting to carry on with a long-established tradition.  If the challenge to the secular state from Hindutvawad must be successfully fought off, then the numbers dictate that it will be the liberal Hindus who must fight the good fight.  Not the minorities.  They will no doubt be welcome to join the fight as equal citizens.

It is important to understand why the minorities cannot lead this fight for a secular state, and why it is the liberal Hindus who must bear responsibility to see off the challenge from Hindutvawad.  Too often I have seen liberals do the reverse, as during the anti-CAA movement.

First are the numbers.  17% minorities, even if they could unite, cannot deliver a secular state.  They will need the support of at least 35% of Hindus to win.  In fact, to have any credibility, most Hindus would have to support a secular state.  And that should be the minimal goal of the Congress Party.

You cannot ever let this campaign for a secular state become a confrontation between the majority and the minority, as some extremists and bigots on the Right, across the religious divide, appear to promote. 

That would be ruinous because it will lead to majority consolidation along communal lines on one hand, while frustrating any chance of success that the liberal Hindus may have.  On the other hand, such a confrontation will lead to a deep and irreparable rift in the polity, that PB Mehta calls a “fracture” in the polity; an outcome we all thinking Indians need to prevent. [The video interview with Karan Thapar, where he does so, is linked later in this essay.] The minorities should not have to fight for their basic rights and dignities.  If they do, we have already lost.  This should not diminish the right of minorities to voice their case as they deem fit.  And the case they make should be evaluated on its merits by all.

My acute discomfort with PB Mehta’s essay arose from the fact that we liberals are not holding RSS/BJP responsible for the minimal obligation to preserve the unity and stability of the Union.  No Government can ever be absolved of this responsibility.  Yet our discourse has become so one-sided and dangerous, that it lets every irresponsible act of omission and commission of the ruling party go unchecked, while it hold’s the opposition’s feet to fire. 

RSS/BJP were recklessly irresponsible while in the opposition.  They even frustrated crucial bills that had bearing on national security, like the nuclear bill. [They passed the same bill on coming to power, but the delay lost India membership of the NSG.]  Their stance on Bangladesh was ridiculous and anti-national.  As far as implanting their ideological agenda is concerned, they continue to be just as reckless even when in power, being accountable to no one.  On the issue of secular state, it is crystal clear that we need one, and that the ruling party’s strategy of communal polarization is not in national interest.  Yet both intellectuals and media have failed to call out the ruling party.

Maybe I spoke too soon in a private exchange of messages with PBM on the day his essay was published.  Here is Karan Thapar’s interview of P B Mehta on YouTube that is worth watching from start to finish.  P B Mehta doesn’t mince words in holding that Modi’s communalization of politics can lead to a “fracture” in the polity.  This is good start to a national conversation among us, following RG’s Jaipur speech.  I hope more intellectuals join Mehta in speaking and writing on the issue.

The conversation should be about [if and] why we need a secular state, what the idea implies, and what obligations the idea places on politics and political parties.  Today, RSS/BJP are not ready for a serious conversation on this issue because they are not being called out for the harm they cause to the long-term integrity and stability of the polity.  They are burning up social capital and equities at a rapid clip without being accountable.  Unless they are called out, and the onus for responsible behavior is placed on them, they will not feel the need to join the much-needed conversation.

Further this conversation cannot happen without the Congress.  So the party needs to give further depth and clarity to RG’s speech of 12th December.  It must publish a white paper on the issue.  And the idea of a secular state must be debated thoroughly in the Parliament.  Put the RSS/BJP on the mat.  What do they want?  And if they too want a secular state, in keeping with Indian traditions, why is their politics on the ground etching away at the very foundations of such a polity?

Yes, it is time to call a spade a spade.  RSS/BJP’s politics of communalization is not in National Interest.  If that is crystal clear, why is it allowed to persist with such a strategy of communalization of politics?  We as nation are entitled to clarity on the ruling party’s intentions and strategies.  On the opposition side, RG has signaled a significant shift in perspective. Serious conversation has now become possible.  It is a conversation Liberals of all hues can help win, by insisting that the nation come up with consensus, and that it is the ruling party’s responsibility evolve one. 

If you don’t call out lies, you will be ruled by liars.

Sonali Ranade,

12.19.2021.

PS for friends.

I hope you can recall my tweets [and DMs] when I cautioned you that I was neither a Lefty, nor a Congress supporter.  Much less a fan of the Congress’ first family.  Yes, I support the Congress for the nonce because it is the only credible force that can check the excesses of RSS/BJP. I told you that if the Congress ever wins, you will still find me in the opposition, ever critical of mistakes that it makes.  I did this not once but many times, asking you not to accuse me of bad faith when I turn critical of the Left or the Congress.  What happened?

I began these series of essay in my Sub-stack with 2 essay on Karl Marx.  The links are here.  You may have wondered why. 

I wanted to be it to be crystal clear to Lefties that when I speak of or write about social issues, my advocacy stems not from Marxism but my conviction as a liberal who favors Capitalism over Communism. 

Koch Brothers have distorted Capitalism in the US to make it look like being pro-business tycoon or Capitalists, far beyond what Adam Smith ever intended.  The Communists under Lenin, Stalin, and Mao have spent equal time, money, and energy, to distort Communism from what Karl Marx intended it to be, to use it as doctrine to win power through propaganda. Besides there are some very flawed assumptions in Karl Marx’s philosophy that I highlighted in the essays.  Why accuse me of bad faith and abuse me as a Sanghi? Did I not put you on notice beforehand itself?

Both Sanghis and Communists are fascists.  One glorifies the State, the other the Commune, which is for all practical purposes is the State itself. Both are willing to sacrifice the lives of millions of citizens for the greater glory of the collective without compunction.  RW fascists and Communists have indeed killed millions across the globe; from Italy, Germany to Latin America; from Russia, China to Cambodia.  Sure, they are mutual enemies.  But their methods and philosophies are similar, being two sides of the same murderous coin.

While in opposition, the two fascists don liberal petticoats, and hide among liberals, and pretend to be champions of democracy.  Their fangs show only when in power.  As I said before, the CPI [ML] were murdering farmers in West Bengal to distribute their lands to party cadres.  Democracy holds the moderate Marxists [CPI(M)] in check in Kerala because the Mallus take good care to alternate parties in power. More power to Mallu liberals.  It is the way to go to tame fascists.

The only difference between Left- and Right-Wing fascists is in the movement of wealth.  The Sanghi RW fascist will squeeze the poor, to funnel their wealth to the tycoons, in the false belief that concentration of capital in a few hands leads to faster growth, and hence the poor can be sacrificed.  Growth is constrained by exclusion of entrepreneurs by those already entrenched.  When you favor established tycoons, you diminish, not enhance, growth.  Inclusion is what creates faster growth. This thesis is amply validated in that excellent classic, Why Nations Fail.  Reading it is must.

The Communists take the opposite view of things in their naiveté.  They believe growth happens “automatically” and better equity results from appropriating the wealth of tycoons, to give it to the poor. They forget Karl Marx who identified that enhanced productive capacities of an economy come from accretion to knowhow, and it is accumulated knowledge that creates the productive base that in turn creates accelerated growth in an economy.  And it takes hard labor to accumulate knowledge.  The Communists have been poor managers of growth everywhere.  Those citing China shouldn’t forget that growth to China came following liberalization of Communist controls.  And is slowing as Xi reimposes them.

In practice, behind the elaborate facade in both systems, the powerful in the realm, walk away with all the wealth, and the poor suffer the most.  If in doubt read Animal Farm.  It may have been written in the context of Communism, but its genius lies in the realization that it is power that exploits the powerless the most in both systems. Old fashioned slavery has been monetized by both.  Communists pay you well but don’t provide the stuff you can spend it on.  The Russian labor lived on black rye bread and Vodka.  The Capitalist provide all the stuff you want without the wages needed to buy it.  The only valid test of how you better off you are in the two systems, comes from the philosopher and jurist, John Rawls.  Google for it.

The only check on power is of course a liberal constitutional democracy.  I have consistently held this view.  So what’s new?

Last but not the least, now that RG has indeed made the paradigm shift that I have been advocating, viz., to recognize that it is the Hindus who have spearheaded the move for a secular state - whether as qua Hindus or not, is an irrelevant issue - and that it is Hindus who must win the argument for it again, are you going to call him a Sanghi as well? 

Nor have I once said we should not take the Left/Communists’ help in fighting RW fascism. All I said was liberal advocacy on social issues, while it overlaps that of the Left, stems from a different paradigm.  As liberals we outnumber Communists 10X to 1; - perhaps more - so liberals must think for themselves, and not let Communists herd them as sheep.  RG’s reformulation of the Hinduism-Hindutvawad equation could never have happened under Communist tutelage.  It is the most significant pointer that Congress is once again thinking for itself.

So you see, the change - it came on 12th December - was after I had said the same thing qua liberals on 8th, and in 2 essays after that.  Nope, I had no inkling such a change was coming.  My only point in the 2 essays was to argue for such a change.  I told some of you to read “liberals” as “Congress” in my essays.  Was I so off the mark?

I hope Congress is serious about the new paradigm and will further etch out the details as we go along.  Liberals can take some heart from the shift.

I am not sure I will continue with the sub-stack. Will let you know when I decide to sign off from there as well.  Good luck.  My best wishes for you.

SR