In Western countries Right-leaning authors, columnists, and commentators often bemoan the cantankerousness and absurdity of political correctness. This is not surprising because PC has become not only an abomination plaguing common parlance and free speech but also a device for the Left to promote its irrationalities and pathologies. In India, however, it is not just the Left but practically all political parties and social organizations that are ardently, and sometime violently, championing PC. At any rate, the casualty is always freedom of expression.
It is seldom that violent PC is successfully checked. In a recent such instance, the country’s Supreme Court came to the rescue of south Indian film actress Khusboo for her statement on pre-marital sex, virginity, and live-in relationships. In an interview in 2005, she had said it was not wrong for women to have pre-marital sex as long as they took precautions. Further, the Tamil actress said, it was “not fair of any educated youth to expect his wife to be a virgin.” She also found nothing objectionable in live-in relationships.
The reaction to her remarks was swift and severe. Many political parties and a few people from the film industry itself castigated her for, what they called, an attack on “Tamil culture and values.” The Dalit Panthers of India (DPI) and another political party, the Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK), protested against her; the protest often degenerated into violence. But it was not the violent protestors and their instigators who were found on the wrong side of the law; Khushboo, on the other hand, faced more than 20 criminal suits filed against her! One reason was PMK was part of the ruling coalition in New Delhi, with its leader A. Ramadoss being the Health Minister at that time.
Hounded by the law as well as the lawless, Khushboo offered an open apology to Tamils, especially women, saying she would never even dream of sullying the image of the Tamil people. “Even in films, I never undertook roles that lowered the image of women,” she said in a statement. “I have the greatest regard for Tamils, especially Tamil women. If my remarks have hurt anybody’s feelings, I tender an apology. I am one among you and will always remain with you.” But her tormentors were unrelenting.
Her trials and tribulations are likely to end as the Supreme Court has made its sympathy for her quite evident. Its three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, did not find anything wrong with live-in relationships, incorporating it in Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the Right to Life with dignity, liberty, and respect.
The relief for Khushboo, however, came after over four years of prosecution, persecution, and vilification. It is interesting to note that the outfits which waged a jihad against her could scarcely be categorized as Rightwing. The DPI claims to be fighting for the Dalits—literally, ‘the oppressed.’ These outcastes were discriminated against in Hindu scriptures. The very name of the party was inspired by that of Black Panther Party of the US. The PMK, too, claims to represent a supposedly ‘backward’ community.
The Khushboo affair underlines not only the threats to the freedom of speech and expression but also the blurring of ideological divisions in India. The parties and groups which are often called Rightist or Right-leaning also promote causes which would elsewhere be considered Leftwing. For instance, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the largest Opposition party for which the terms conservative and nationalist are used, has supported Leftwing measures like increasing the scope of affirmative action and the national rural employment guarantee scheme. All political parties prefer to conform to the dogmas of political discourse, which is clearly Leftist in tone and tenor. The BJP, like other parties, has unquestioningly accepted, even internalized, many premises and principles of the dominant political discourse.
The consequences of ideological straitjacketing have been deplorable. All parties, willy-nilly, end up supporting the causes promoted by the Left: the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005; the reserving one-third seats for women in the Lower House of Parliament and in state Assemblies; the recently notified Right to Education Act; and long goes the list of measures that the Left—though small as far as numbers are concerned—has been able to impose on the nation.
Another group promoting big state measures, and which is often aligned with Leftists or Marxists, comprises political leaders who represent various Dalit or ‘backward’ castes. The ideological straitjacketing is so tight and vicious that even a murmur of protest against any proposal by these parties or leaders is immediately dubbed as anti-poor, anti-Dalit, anti-backward, elitist, etc. Needless to say, reason and commonsense have almost been ostracized from political discourse, which is swayed by sentimentalism.
This brings us to another conspicuous feature of Indian politics: the proclivity of politicians to appeal to the crudest, crassest, and basest of public sentiments. It happens all the time. A Hindi film was named Billu barber; some caste group found the word ‘barber’ offensive. The filmmaker was forced to drop the word ‘barber’ from the name. The lyrics of a Hindi film song had to be changed; Teli ka tel (edible oil made by oil-maker) was replaced by Dilli ka tel (oil from Delhi) because the traditional oil-makers, or Telis, objected to the word. The mere mention of a word denoting a profession becomes politically incorrect.
Pandering to the lowest common denominator has put sanctimoniousness on premium and has made reason a useless virtue; it has also ensured that PC in India fashions a trajectory for itself quite different from that in the West. Spewing gross sentimentalism brings immediate publicity which, in turn, sometimes also translates into political and pecuniary gains. Unsurprisingly, most attacks on the freedom of expression are made on the pretext that the movie, book, etc, “hurt the sentiments” of this or that community.
In the US, there are writers and groups fighting PC; they regularly point out the ludicrousness and menace of PC. In India, PC is wreaking havoc with all political parties—the Leftist, the Rightist, and the Centrist—seeking to capitalize on it.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Others also do it?
If anybody claims that Islamic terror is doctrinally justified (which is a fact), they are confronted with the fallacious argument that other religions are no better. There are portions in the scriptures of Christianity and Hinduism that are not exactly in consonance with the ideas and ideals of the Enlightenment. Since all religions have preached violence—and their adherents have slaughtered non-believers, the blasphemous, and heretics—Islam should not be singled out for doing so. QED.
The fallacy lies essentially in blurring the timeline, misinterpreting the impact of various theologies, and leveling religions. It is true that the scriptures of other religions also preach violence. In the Bible, Lord sanctions the enslaving of strangers or heathens; He also exhorts the faithful to kill anyone who worships a different god .
Similarly, in a famous verse, the sacred Hindu epic, Ramacharitamanas, says, “A drum, a rustic, a Shudra (an outcaste), a beast and a woman—all these deserve to be beaten. Similarly, Manusmriti, the book by the preeminent lawgiver, Manu, makes derogatory remarks about women and Shudras. In short, it is not only Islamic scriptures which preach violence and intensify prejudice; the religious texts of other faiths are no better in this regard.
For centuries, Hindu texts have not only molded legislation and social mores in India—in the same fashion that Christian dogma and prejudice have been the cause of witch-hunts and atrocities on Jews and heretics. In India, religious bias still sometimes results into unspeakable atrocities.
But the point is that today Hindus and Christians are not doing the terrible things that their forebears did in the medieval period. Nor are they demanding that the polity and society should be reorganized according to their religious texts. In the case of Islam, however, such demands are forcefully made—and accepted partially or fully. A large number of Muslims, including many educated and apparently Westernized Muslims, want Shariat to be the fount of jurisprudence.
Worse, liberals compare the atrocities perpetrated by the Hindus and Christians in the medieval period with jihadi terror in the 21st century, and try to show that there is nothing exceptional about such terror.
The fact is that Islamic terror in this day and age is exceptional: while the adherents of other faiths have discarded the distasteful elements of their religions, Muslims refuse to follow suit. A vast majority of them believes that the Koran is the Word of Allah and, therefore, is unalterable. Exegesis has found little space in Islamic theology—at least, till date. Other religions like Hinduism and Christianity have evolved over the centuries. The way Hinduism was practiced in the 14th century—myriad rituals, degradation of Shudras, subjugation of women, elaborate caste rules, rigid customs—is not how it is done today. Ditto with Christianity. It is not that nothing has changed in the Muslim world but the change has come in spite of, not because of, Islam.
Muslim scholars and many non-Muslim experts on Islam do not deny the lack of evolution in the Islamic world, but they refuse to see anything wrong with Islam. For instance, Mohamed Charfi—a Professor of Law in Tunis, Minister for Education (1989-94), a great reformist intellectual who was sentenced to two years' imprisonment—says, “Islam is no less capable of evolution than Christianity or Judaism. But whereas, over the past few centuries, Europeans have undergone profound technological, economic, cultural and political changes, often amid considerable suffering and with major ebbs and flows, the Muslim peoples have fallen greatly behind in all spheres. This is not a fate to which they are doomed for ever; it is possible for them to close the gap.”
The unwillingness to look beyond the “technological, economic, cultural and political” factors, the reluctance to examine Islamic theology is at the root of problem. Hinduism, Christianity, and other religions have been subjected to thorough scholarly scrutiny. The loathsome practice of female feticide is (rightly) attributed to certain Hindu beliefs. But when it comes to Islam… well, we have to be careful.
Then there is the issue of religions leveling. Well-known Islamic scholar Karen Armstrong wrote, “Every fundamentalist movement I’ve studied in Judaism, Christianity and Islam is convinced at some gut, visceral level that secular liberal society wants to wipe out religion.”
Notice the dangerous syllogism. All fundamentalist movements are illiberal; Islamic fundamentalism is also illiberal; ergo, it is no worse than other fundamentalist movements. The danger lies in confusing the magnitudes: Hindu and Christian fundamentalists might have been involved a few, sporadic violent incidents, but neither the scale and scope has been as vast as evident in the case of jihadis nor the level of organization and commitment as exhibited by al-Qaeda.
The entire Muslim and liberal enterprise is oriented around the unexamined axiom that the violence by jihadis is not about Islam. But, as Salman Rushdie said in a famous post-9/11 article, this is about Islam.
The fallacy lies essentially in blurring the timeline, misinterpreting the impact of various theologies, and leveling religions. It is true that the scriptures of other religions also preach violence. In the Bible, Lord sanctions the enslaving of strangers or heathens; He also exhorts the faithful to kill anyone who worships a different god .
Similarly, in a famous verse, the sacred Hindu epic, Ramacharitamanas, says, “A drum, a rustic, a Shudra (an outcaste), a beast and a woman—all these deserve to be beaten. Similarly, Manusmriti, the book by the preeminent lawgiver, Manu, makes derogatory remarks about women and Shudras. In short, it is not only Islamic scriptures which preach violence and intensify prejudice; the religious texts of other faiths are no better in this regard.
For centuries, Hindu texts have not only molded legislation and social mores in India—in the same fashion that Christian dogma and prejudice have been the cause of witch-hunts and atrocities on Jews and heretics. In India, religious bias still sometimes results into unspeakable atrocities.
But the point is that today Hindus and Christians are not doing the terrible things that their forebears did in the medieval period. Nor are they demanding that the polity and society should be reorganized according to their religious texts. In the case of Islam, however, such demands are forcefully made—and accepted partially or fully. A large number of Muslims, including many educated and apparently Westernized Muslims, want Shariat to be the fount of jurisprudence.
Worse, liberals compare the atrocities perpetrated by the Hindus and Christians in the medieval period with jihadi terror in the 21st century, and try to show that there is nothing exceptional about such terror.
The fact is that Islamic terror in this day and age is exceptional: while the adherents of other faiths have discarded the distasteful elements of their religions, Muslims refuse to follow suit. A vast majority of them believes that the Koran is the Word of Allah and, therefore, is unalterable. Exegesis has found little space in Islamic theology—at least, till date. Other religions like Hinduism and Christianity have evolved over the centuries. The way Hinduism was practiced in the 14th century—myriad rituals, degradation of Shudras, subjugation of women, elaborate caste rules, rigid customs—is not how it is done today. Ditto with Christianity. It is not that nothing has changed in the Muslim world but the change has come in spite of, not because of, Islam.
Muslim scholars and many non-Muslim experts on Islam do not deny the lack of evolution in the Islamic world, but they refuse to see anything wrong with Islam. For instance, Mohamed Charfi—a Professor of Law in Tunis, Minister for Education (1989-94), a great reformist intellectual who was sentenced to two years' imprisonment—says, “Islam is no less capable of evolution than Christianity or Judaism. But whereas, over the past few centuries, Europeans have undergone profound technological, economic, cultural and political changes, often amid considerable suffering and with major ebbs and flows, the Muslim peoples have fallen greatly behind in all spheres. This is not a fate to which they are doomed for ever; it is possible for them to close the gap.”
The unwillingness to look beyond the “technological, economic, cultural and political” factors, the reluctance to examine Islamic theology is at the root of problem. Hinduism, Christianity, and other religions have been subjected to thorough scholarly scrutiny. The loathsome practice of female feticide is (rightly) attributed to certain Hindu beliefs. But when it comes to Islam… well, we have to be careful.
Then there is the issue of religions leveling. Well-known Islamic scholar Karen Armstrong wrote, “Every fundamentalist movement I’ve studied in Judaism, Christianity and Islam is convinced at some gut, visceral level that secular liberal society wants to wipe out religion.”
Notice the dangerous syllogism. All fundamentalist movements are illiberal; Islamic fundamentalism is also illiberal; ergo, it is no worse than other fundamentalist movements. The danger lies in confusing the magnitudes: Hindu and Christian fundamentalists might have been involved a few, sporadic violent incidents, but neither the scale and scope has been as vast as evident in the case of jihadis nor the level of organization and commitment as exhibited by al-Qaeda.
The entire Muslim and liberal enterprise is oriented around the unexamined axiom that the violence by jihadis is not about Islam. But, as Salman Rushdie said in a famous post-9/11 article, this is about Islam.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Rule by law: Delhi minister harasses hotel
Delhi’s Social Welfare & Labour Minister Mangat Ram Singhal’s vindictiveness against a five-star hotel demonstrates how government agencies are used and abused by politicians to serve their personal ends.
The security staff of the hotel committed the cardinal sin of checking Singhal’s car. Since most politicians consider themselves as above law, the honorable got so furious. So, he unleashed eight inspectors on the hotel. Even by the standards of Indian politics, the display of might was so disgraceful that Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit felt ashamed. She decided to rein in the wayward minister and his men. She reprimanded Singhal; she also pulled up senior officers of the departments involved such as Labour, Excise, Health, Finance, Prevention of Food Adulteration and Electrical. She is said to have castigated the officers for “wasting government resources” and ordered them to apologise to the hotel individually.
It was a big hotel, run by a leading company. The ill-treatment meted out to it was righted by a sensible chief minister. One wonders about the plight of smaller enterprises which are always at the mercy of our political masters and the paraphernalia that they have under them to dictate terms.
This is not the rule of law; this is the rule by law. Aristotle favored the rule of law, writing that “law should govern”; those in power should be “servants of the laws.”
One of the prerequisites of modern democracy is the rule of law. A prominent political scientist, Li Shuguang, illuminates us by distinguishing the rule of law by the rule by law. “The difference.... is that under the rule of law the law is preeminent and can serve as a check against the abuse of power. Under rule by law, the law can serve as a mere tool for a government that suppresses in a legalistic fashion.”
The Singhal episode clearly shows that we have the rule by law. It has also highlighted the fact that the government officials are putty in the hands of politicians. A few days ago, the then Indian Premier League Commissioner, Lalit Modi, was interrogated by officials. The timing made it all obvious: it came just after his well-publicized fight with former minister of state for external affairs Shashi Tharoor. The high and mighty in New Delhi were offended: how could an upstart cricket czar take on one of us. So, the empire struck back. Unfortunately, non-Congress regimes have been equally bad on this count. The Atal Bihari Vajpayee government, for instance, vengefully persecuted and prosecuted the promoters and financiers of Tehelka after the Bangaru Laxman affair.
The politicians are unlikely to promote the rule of law. We, the people of India, will have to do that.
The security staff of the hotel committed the cardinal sin of checking Singhal’s car. Since most politicians consider themselves as above law, the honorable got so furious. So, he unleashed eight inspectors on the hotel. Even by the standards of Indian politics, the display of might was so disgraceful that Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit felt ashamed. She decided to rein in the wayward minister and his men. She reprimanded Singhal; she also pulled up senior officers of the departments involved such as Labour, Excise, Health, Finance, Prevention of Food Adulteration and Electrical. She is said to have castigated the officers for “wasting government resources” and ordered them to apologise to the hotel individually.
It was a big hotel, run by a leading company. The ill-treatment meted out to it was righted by a sensible chief minister. One wonders about the plight of smaller enterprises which are always at the mercy of our political masters and the paraphernalia that they have under them to dictate terms.
This is not the rule of law; this is the rule by law. Aristotle favored the rule of law, writing that “law should govern”; those in power should be “servants of the laws.”
One of the prerequisites of modern democracy is the rule of law. A prominent political scientist, Li Shuguang, illuminates us by distinguishing the rule of law by the rule by law. “The difference.... is that under the rule of law the law is preeminent and can serve as a check against the abuse of power. Under rule by law, the law can serve as a mere tool for a government that suppresses in a legalistic fashion.”
The Singhal episode clearly shows that we have the rule by law. It has also highlighted the fact that the government officials are putty in the hands of politicians. A few days ago, the then Indian Premier League Commissioner, Lalit Modi, was interrogated by officials. The timing made it all obvious: it came just after his well-publicized fight with former minister of state for external affairs Shashi Tharoor. The high and mighty in New Delhi were offended: how could an upstart cricket czar take on one of us. So, the empire struck back. Unfortunately, non-Congress regimes have been equally bad on this count. The Atal Bihari Vajpayee government, for instance, vengefully persecuted and prosecuted the promoters and financiers of Tehelka after the Bangaru Laxman affair.
The politicians are unlikely to promote the rule of law. We, the people of India, will have to do that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)