Comments (6)

By Ritwik Agrawal | July 9, 2010 6:17 pm

A few days back, thugs belonging to a radical Islamist outfit called Popular Front chopped off the right hand of Prof. T.J. Joseph, a private college lecturer in Muvattapuzha in Kerala as “punishment” for the  ”offence” of hurting religious sentiments. The Hindu has covered this story in some detail.

Dilip D’Souza has raised some pertinent questions in this regard:

* Why the college management “apologised”.

* Why the Kerala government saw fit to issue “instructions” that the professor should be suspended.

* Why the college followed the government’s instruction and suspended him.

* Why the police lodged a case against the professor.

The following is worth noting as well:

T. Vikram, Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam Rural, who was camping in the area, said: “We have talked to church leaders to convince them that an all-out effort is being made to nab the culprits.” (as reported in The Hindu)

I don’t understand why the police needed to specifically assure church leaders that the perpetrators of this ghastly attack will be brought to justice? Surely these “church leaders” should have been incensed regardless of the religious affiliation of the victim?

Of course, this episode would not have even become a news story had the attackers not committed the tactical error of chopping off Joseph’s hand. As it is, they had him on the run. A little bit of shouting from the rooftops had ensured that:

1. Joseph was suspended from his job. In what capacity did the state Government instruct a PRIVATE institute to suspend an employee is not clear.

2. He was picked up and harassed by the police.

3. After getting out on bail, he went into hiding to escape frequent death threats. In response, the police put out a wanted poster for his arrest

Why exactly were the government and the police so keen to prosecute Prof. Joseph? Why were the charges of “hurting religious sentiments” believed at face value and not investigated properly? What constrained the government to apply the serious charge of “fomenting communal hatred” on the Professor? What about the concept of an educational institution being an open space? Why did the state not defend Prof. Joseph’s fundamental right to expression?

Maybe the secular, progressive and people friendly Left Democratic Front government of Kerala can provide some answers.

Comments (9)

By Ritwik Agrawal | September 15, 2009 6:24 am

The Telegraph (UK) reports that Jon Amiel’s film Creation, a British project about Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution has not found a distributor in America. The film, which has secured positive early reviews, has had no problem in securing distributors in other territories all over the world.

It may be recalled that America has witnessed an acrimonious debate on Darwin’s theory of evolution, which is widely accepted as the best explanation for the origin of life and evolution of various life-forms. Creationists in America refuse to accept Darwin’s theory as it clashes with ideas propagated by Christianity.

However, US distributors have resolutely passed on a film which will prove hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.

Movieguide.org, an influential site which reviews films from a Christian perspective, described Darwin as the father of eugenics and denounced him as “a racist, a bigot and an 1800s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder”. His “half-baked theory” directly influenced Adolf Hitler and led to “atrocities, crimes against humanity, cloning and genetic engineering”, the site stated.

It is difficult to see this incident in isolation, given the increasing intolerance and jingoism shown by vast sections of the American media over the past few years, while covering matters as diverse as Iraq, health care and outsourcing.

It is also interesting that despite the election of Barack Obama, right-wing opinions seem to hold a great amount of sway over the country. This seems to rule out any hope of genuine “change”, at least for now.

For a society that prides itself on being free, America has touched a new low. One can only hope that sense will prevail and at least one distributor will show the guts to stand up for freedom of speech, in the land that is gave us Operation Enduring Freedom

Comments (2)

By Ritwik Agrawal | August 23, 2009 6:26 pm

Jaswant Singh's Controversial Book

Over the last week, there has been much brouhaha over Jaswant Singh’s new book titled Jinnah: India Partition Independence

The former BJP leader has tried to argue that Jinnah was a secular man who was “pushed” towards communal politics due to the inflexible attitude of senior Congress leaders.

This basic contention fits in well with the old RSS/BJP approach of using any stick to beat Nehru and other Congress leaders, and hold them responsible for all of India’s ills.  Jaswant Singh advocates that Jinnah’s recommendations to the Motilal Nehru Committee (demanding special concessions to Muslims) should have been accepted back in 1929. Singh contends that had this been done, Jinnah would have never orbited towards communal politics.

It is amusing to see a senior (now former) leader of a Hindu nationalist organization like the BJP advocating concessions to Muslims. One can well imagine what the RSS and Hindu Mahasabha response would have been (in the 1930s) had Jinnah’s recommendations been accepted by the Congress. For some reason, I can clearly hear “minority appeasement” echoing in my head.

I’ve always found it incredible how RSS/BJP sympathizers, who otherwise profess a deep hatred for Jinnah and his muslim communal politics, hold that if only Nehru had overcome his personal “greed” and allowed Jinnah to be prime minister, then partition would have never occurred.

These people set no store by the popular will of the people of India, who elected the Congress by record margins in all polls conducted till then. The Congress was the largest political organization in the country [by far], Gandhi was the tallest leader, and Nehru was both a tall leader and Gandhi’s handpicked nominee. None of these things seem to make any impact on the immune-to-logic grey cells of the Hindu nationalist crowd.

This is probably because inspite of public protestations to the contrary, I suspect that the RSS/BJP and their cohorts feel quite comfortable with Jinnah. Believing as they do in identity politics, they deem it natural for a muslim to speak for muslims, as a hindu must speak for hindus. It is incomprehensible for them to see Gandhi, Nehru and other hindus speaking for the minorities, and minority leaders Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan speaking for an inclusive nationality.

Thus, what has done in Jaswant Singh is not his exoneration of Jinnah, or putting the blame on Nehru. The seasoned politician that he is, Jaswant Singh must have realized that holding Sardar Patel equally culpable for the partition of the country would seriously ruffle feathers in the “parivaar”. Over the years, the RSS and its fronts like the BJP have successfully wrested Patel’s legacy from a stupor-ridden Congress, which seems to have forgotten it ever had leaders other than the “first family”. Patel’s aggressive nationalism and “iron man” image fits in well with the RSS idea of India.

In this light, one can well imagine the fury of RSS leaders. Jaswant Singh was identified as a very senior BJP leader, and organizationally speaking, it was extremely irresponsible of him to “tarnish” Patel with the same brush as Nehru, when the RSS has for years been trying to appropriate the former and demonize the latter.

To put it simply: in the RSS fantasy world, Nehru was a Europeanized brat, who tricked Gandhi and wrested the PM-ship to satisfy his personal greed, which led to the partition of the country. Patel was the good samaritan who had to bow down to pressure from Gandhi, but who nonetheless did unparalleled work in unifying the country. Jaswant Singh effectively shows Nehru and Patel to be working together, as a team, and not at cross purposes as the RSS would wants us to believe.

When the BJP says that Jaswant’s contentions are against it’s core ideological beliefs, this is what it is alluding to: a senior leader cannot undermine the years of ideological work done by committed RSS pracharaks, and consequently leave the parivaar in an indefensible position.

Politically speaking, if Jaswant Singh had not been expelled, then the self-styled “Chotte Sardar” Narendra Modi would have been taken to the cleaners by the Congress in Gujarat. Patel is a highly respected leader even outside his home state, and one can well imagine the BJP’s discomfort had it not taken prompt action by expelling Mr. Singh.

Thus, I find it incredible that the media [both print and broadcast] has been typifying the BJP’s action as intolerant. It is amazing that The Hindu faults the BJP for expelling Jaswant Singh, but didn’t bat an eyelid when Somnath Chatterjee was expelled for defying party orders. The latter didn’t even question his party’s core beliefs in marxism-leninism!

The BJP is right in expelling Jaswant Singh because a senior leader cannot publicly question his party’s view of history – that puts the entire ideology under a cloud of doubt.

I completely agree that Mr. Jaswant Singh should have freedom of expression, and thus I think it is reprehensible that his book has been banned in Gujarat [for I believe that no book should be banned], but as far as being member of a political party goes, he cannot continue being a member of a party unless he accepts it’s core ideological position.

To sum it up: it is right to expel jaswant singh, but wrong to silence him.

Comments (0)

By Ritwik Agrawal | August 19, 2009 3:53 pm

informationisbeautiful.net features an interesting chart which puts into perspective the vast sums of money thrown about by politicians and commentators:

(click image to enlarge)

Comments (0)

By Ritwik Agrawal | August 5, 2009 4:05 am

Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe

Wonder how Indian leftists [in politics, media and academia] will go about defending this.

Hugo Chavez - revolutionary leader of the third world in the fight against American imperialism and messiah of the people, has not had much to say since the end of the Bush Presidency.

After all, George W Bush was everything a demagogue like Chavez could ever hope for.

Over the last decade or so, Chavez cleverly mixed socialist rhetoric & populist economic policies with shrill anti-Bush vitriol to win a cult following all over the world. In India too, Chavez has a committed band of sympathizers, including the entire spectrum of communist parties in the country. For example, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) proclaims:

Under President Chavez’s leadership, a radical transformation is taking place in Venezuela.
-People’s Democracy, December 12, 2004  (link)

All over the world, those inimical to Bush were more than ready to welcome Chavez with open arms, inspite of the fact that his authoritarian streak has become increasingly evident over the years. Even while he spewed venom on Bush, Chavez had no qualms about glorifying fascist Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe.

Chavez has been relatively quiet for the past few months. As Denis Macshane notes in the Guardian, the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States robbed Chavez of his main anti-American plank.

But his enthusiastic supporters needn’t worry any longer, for their maverick leader has found a new enemy: the free press.

Hugo Chavez’s government has introduced a new draft law against “media offences”. Some provisions of this law:

Journalism hostile to the social peace, the security and independence of the nation can be punished by prison sentences of between six months and four years.

Journalists will also break the proposed new law if their writings are seen as an attack on public order or Venezuelans’ “mental or moral health”. Article 5 threatens imprisonment for “false information” that is prejudicial to the interests of the state.

On careful reading, it immediately becomes clear that such provisions can be used to muzzle the media to an almost unlimited extent.

Put simply, it means that once the proposed law is passed, journalists in Venezuela who do the kind of investigative stories that Tehelka excels in would find themselves behind bars.

Distressingly, the wording of the law runs counter to the very nature of journalism, which, in its true sense, is MEANT to highlight systemic lapses, instead of brushing them under the carpet.

One can imagine the [justifiable] protests that would ensue if such a law were ever to be conceived of in India or Western Europe or America.

I hope that our “opinion makers” [especially of the leftist/socialist/communist variety] do not shy away from condemning Chavez’s attempts at taming the media in the strongest possible terms.

After all, if Chavez’s “21st century Socialism” is such a panacea, then the people must not be deprived of an opportunity to hear about it from the press!

Comments (4)

By Ritwik Agrawal | July 28, 2009 3:44 am

Last week there was much drama following the unexpected courtroom confession of Mohammad Ajmal Amir ‘Kasab’.  By owning up to his crimes, the terrorist managed to take the court and the public prosecutor by surprise. Kasab, who had pleaded not guilty on an earlier occasion, wished that he given the death penalty, ostensibly to ease his feeling of ‘guilt’.

Maharashtra chief minister  Ashok Chavan too expressed a desire for the quick completion of the trial, resulting in the hanging of the accused.

The rationale for awarding the death penalty to Kasab is strong. His crime unquestionably falls into the “rarest of rare” category, which is the Supreme Court mandated requirement for a criminal to be hanged unto death.

According to our legal system, Kasab should be hanged for the sheer barbarity, audacity and scale of his crime. For the fact that he and his accomplices crossed into foreign territory, fired indiscriminately at innocent civilians, killed persons in uniform and tried to destroy heritage structures and take hostages.

Hanging Kasab would presumably provide closure to the families and friends of those killed and injured in the Mumbai attacks.

Ujjwal Nikam, the public prosecutor in the case, has argued that Kasab confessed to win sympathy and somehow avoid the death penalty.

I think he misses the point entirely, or more probably, chooses to gloss over Kasab’s true intentions.

It is an inconvenient truth that young boys like Kasab are systematically brainwashed using a potent mixture of religious and national ‘pride’. Such recruits and their families are assured of the “glory” of the mission and their place in history. It is repeatedly drilled into impressionable young minds that their “sacrifice” would not be in vain and would in fact corner the highest rewards. They would be honoured forever as heroes and martyrs.

Few things match the appeal of the idea of sacrificing one’s life while fighting for a cause.

Thus in many ways, the people and the ideology which converted Kasab into a cold blooded killer would actually want him dead. Used once, he is not of any utility to them; his death though would presumably give them another “martyr” whose “memory” would serve to inspire countless others.

In light of this, though I can see the legal and sentimental reasons which demand that Kasab be hanged, I sometimes wonder, whether Kasab should be given life imprisonment [for the extent of his natural lifetime, without an option of parole]? This would send out a message that we are ready to fight terrorism ideologically, not just legally. This would be one example which would hopefully force terrorist masterminds to ponder and maybe recalibrate their strategies.

At least, we would, for once, be taking the initiative in the so called “war” against terrorism.

Comments (5)

By Ritwik Agrawal | July 22, 2009 2:30 am

The following is a riveting drama possible only in the contradiction that is India.

*a nod to history: all characters & situations in the following work are imaginary. Any resemblence to persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

The players:

The Long Arm of The Law: it is omniscient. It extends everywhere, in every domain, in every direction.

JM Lyngdoh and minions - tasked by The Long Arm of The Law to rewrite the rules of student union elections.

“Student”  ”Leaders” – who are neither one nor the other.

Universities – the canvases on which above artists show-off their wizardry.

Jawaharlal Nehru University – it happens to be an actual university [gasp!] with a functioning and vibrant students union [big gasp!] comprised of people who are students as well as leaders [gasp leading to asphyxiation]

Narrator: at times, a direct victim of aforementioned wizardry; at other times,  a scarcely believing observer of this theatrical production.

AND ….

The Report: it is the final word, to be applied in unaltered form all over the country. Logic, common sense, practicality all be damned.

Synposis:

Act 1

It is felt that student union elections are infested with corruption, overt political interference and unaccountability. The Long Arm of The Law tasks JM Lyngdoh and minions to rewrite the rules of student union elections.

Act 2

JM Lyngdoh and minions tour the country. Write what is already known: student union politics is dirty. Then they visit JNU, and document the election process in that university and immortalize it in the form of The Report. They effect certain cosmetic changes [no printed posters, for example] but otherwise are so impressed by the JNU election process that they essentially plagiarize it. They mention that elections in JNU are vibrant, participative, issue-oriented, non-violent and non-coercive.

Act 3

The theatre shifts to Delhi University. The Report mandates that “Student” “Leaders” must have a certain minimum attendance, otherwise they’d be barred from the election process. This results in established party candidates magically acquiring 90% attendance overnight. A clean independent candidate like the Narrator is conveniently dispensed with through this filter.

Other points of The Report – like campaign expenditure limits, non-use of vehicles, even non-use of printed posters all lie in tatters. Voter turnout plummets to 25%, from 45% an year ago.  Thus, voter participation also lies in tatters.

The Result: DU elections proceed as before, with no qualitative change whatsoever. However, on paper The Report has been implemented. This is to the satisfaction of The Long Arm Of The Law.

Act 4

JNU elections are held. Lyngdoh recommendations are not implemented because they are already in place [Lyngdoh copied from JNU, remember?]. Printed posters and pamphletes are still allowed. Unlike DU, these pamphletes stress on issues and ideology. They are not modelling portfolios of candidates like in DU.

A new students union is chosen. It does good work, like raising the issue of labourers on campus not being paid minimum wages. [contrast this with illustrious "Student" "Leaders" in other universities].

But The Long Arm Of the Law is unamused. Criticizes JNU for not implementing The Report. Suspends the union.

Result: Union is still suspended. The country’s most vibrant and effective students union movement has suffered a massive setback. Nobody knows what is going to happen next.

Act 5 – Conclusion:

The Report set out to duplicate the JNU model in other universites. Other universities function as before; the report is implemented only on paper.The JNU election process is on life-support, desperately seeking blood transfusion.

The Law is satisfied in its glory.

Comments (20)

By Ritwik Agrawal | July 17, 2009 4:59 am

Recently there has been a fair bit of comment on the Mayawati government’s decision to build statues and memorials to “Dalit icons” [including herself] at a cost of thousands of crores of taxpayer money.

While the commentary on this matter has been relatively recent, large scale edification has been on Mayawati’s radar ever since she first assumed chief ministership of India’s largest state, back in the mid nineties. Over the last two decades and more, erecting statues of Ambedkar and other Dalit icons has been seen as a potent symbol of the shift in the dynamics of power. Like all manifestations of identity politics, Dalit leaders sought to give their followers “pride”, as a substitute for real improvement in the ground situation.

Much of the reporting and “analysis” regarding the latest statue building exercise, in newspapers and on TV [between such vital topics as "dhoni ke dhurandar" and "rakhi ka swayamwar"] hasn’t touched upon the topic of electoral gain: will this statue building spree benefit Mayawati electorally? A happy exception is Gautam Bhatia’s article in Open magazine, in which Bhatia lambasts Mayawati for wasting not only vast amounts of money, but also a real opportunity of providing change.

Bhatia’s piece aside, the lack of electoral speculation is hardly surprising – the Indian media [particularly of the English language variety] has a terrible record of predicting electoral outcomes.

We must not forget that this is the same media which was projecting no more than 150 seats for BSP in the 2007 UP assembly elections [BSP finally got 200+ for a simple majority]. After that stellar performance, the media pendulum swung the other way, with commentators falling over themselves projecting 40+ parliamentary seats for the BSP. Some went so far as to project Mayawati as a viable candidate for Prime Ministership.

The people, sadly for the commentators and happily for the country, gave Mayawati a total of 19 seats, way less than any opinion poll prediction.

The media, still licking its wounds, has apparently decided not to stick out its neck once again, and is thus refusing to speculate about the electoral dividend [if any] generated by what one reporter has charmingly called the ‘BSP School of Architecture’. The reporter, an avid propagandist of the BSP movement, seems to have temporarily stopped writing on Dalit issues ever since the Lok Sabha results. Now, he wisely devotes his attention to matters such as LGBT rights and persecution of Uighurs in China.

Since I am not a journalist, nor connected to the media in any way, I will go ahead and do what most Indians are very happy doing in their drawing rooms/paan shops/offices/playgrounds etc etc – predict the fate of politicians and political parties.

I contend that this grand architectural exercise is not going to help Mayawati in any way. The fact remains that BSP candidates lost 15 out of 17 reserved constituencies in UP in the 2009 Lok Sabha elections. This clearly implies that BSP’s trustworthy core votebank of Dalits deserted it in large numbers. It is my hunch that non-jatav dalits didn’t vote for Mayawati this time as enthusiastically as 2007.

Mayawati seeks to win back these sections through the tired old formula of “pride”. I firmly believe that his formula is now past its sell-by date.

How will I prove my assertion?

Well, certainly not through a “caste based voting pattern survey”, or whatever the hell it is called, brought out by comedian-in-chief Yogendra Yadav and his team at CSDS, election after election. In a secret ballot, how the hell does the CSDS team know that 33.67% leuva patels voted for BJP? Were Mr. Yadav and his cohorts hovering as invisible angels near the voting machines?

I have a much more reliable formula on which I base my political predictions. My weather vane is our ever unreliable Indian English media. Much as when the Met department predicts rain, I apply sunscreen, when I see a topic garnering massive attention in the English language press, it is clear that the issue has no great resonance with the masses.

For example, almost nobody wrote about Mayawati’s “social engineering” [going on since at least 2003] before the 2007 UP elections. After her stunning victory,social engineering was the buzz in town. This time, the English press focused only on social engineering, forgetting about such petty matters as crime and ganglordism, and the BSP was swept aside. In much the same way, statues had resonance in the 80s and the 90s, when the press was busy elsewhere [high number of beauty queens from India, for example]. Now that the press focuses on statues, I am sure the real issues lie elsewhere, such as water scarcity in Bundelkhand.

Comments (0)

By Ritwik Agrawal | July 8, 2009 3:34 am

Appliepiecrust has written a strong rejoinder to Swapan Dasgupta’s diatribe against gay rights.

You can read it here

Excerpts:

Mr. Dasgupta is concerned about “in-your-face-gayness” and militant gay activism, and believes all gay activism to be defined by this “perverseness.” This concern can be addressed with two brief points. The first is that some amount of what he terms “in-your-face-gayness” isrequired for increasing the visibility of an otherwise invisible minority. The second is simply that not much gay activism is militant or “in-your-face” at all – a lot of this activism is happening in the courtrooms, on editorial pages such as these, and in day-to-day lives of people living their lives honestly and openly.

Comments (14)

By Ritwik Agrawal |

Danish friends of a friend were recently in town.

They decided to go on a bus trip.

Just before boarding their bus, in Connought Place, they had their first encounter with poverty

poverty, of the killing kind

the one that kills you, and kills your dignity.

They were shocked, and moved to comment:

In denmark, we don’t have such things

In our country, we tax the rich

and give to the poor, and

thus nobody is really poor.

we have free education, world class hospitals

and no crime, grime and grimness.

my friend, listened, with envy

and also rattled, by jaw dropping naivete

small problem, he said,

really minor, indeed

the only thing is: you were never, in fact, a colony.

Comments (0)

By Ritwik Agrawal | July 3, 2009 4:31 am

Everyone knows that the left parties in India [ie, CPI, CPI-M, RSP and Forward Block] are passionate supporters of caste based reservations.

We see this here and here and here

Why then, is the CPM-led Left Front Government in Bengal dithering over reservation for other backward classes [OBCs]  in higher education? According to a report in the Indian Express, V Hanumantha Rao, the convenor of the parliamentary OBC forum of MPs has done some plain speaking in a letter written to the state government:

Even though the matter relating to providing reservation to backward classes in higher education including medical and engineering has been under discussion for years in your government but so far no order has been passed

According to West Bengal minister for backward classes Jogesh Burman, the government is busy deciding the extent of quota to be provided to OBCs in state funded higher education institutions.

The problem: deliberations on this have been going on since 2001, with no signs of a speedy resolution on the horizon.

What one fails to understand is, given how convinced they are of the benefits of OBC reservation, why have the “ideologically committed” Left forces been wilfully delaying implementation of the Mandal Commitee recommendations at the state level?

And here I thought that  the Left’s  hypocricy extended only to matters such as SEZs and nuclear agreements.

(read full Indian Express report: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/cpm-govt-sleeps-on-obc-quota-centre-not-happy/434393/0)

Comments (3)

By Ritwik Agrawal | July 2, 2009 3:42 pm

The following is a critique of Jean Drèze’s article Interpretation of Dreams published in the Times of India [April 28,2009]. Read it here

——————-

In an article published in the Times of India, noted economist Jean Drèze has launched a stinging attack on the BJP [‘Interpretation of Dreams’, Apr 28], calling the preamble to the party manifesto an “exercise in obfuscation”.  Undoubtedly, the BJP’s politics is based upon deception. BJP ideologues, if given a free reign, would love to rewrite Indian history to suit their own world view. But in pointing out the excesses of the BJP’s rhetoric, Jean Drèze has swung to the other extreme. His article has ended up sounding, perhaps unwittingly, like an apologia for colonialism.

To take just one example, Drèze cites the Ramayana, Mahabharata et al to prove that famine existed in India and thus India was not a “land of abundance”. Famine has existed in all societies. What is pertinent is not just the occurrence of famine but the rate at which successive famines occur. W. Digby, noted in “Prosperous British India” in 1901 that :

stated roughly, famines and scarcities (in India) have been four times as numerous, during the last thirty years of the 19th century as they were one hundred years ago.

In Late Victorian Holocausts, Mike Davis points out that here were thirty one serious famines in one hundred and twenty years of British rule compared to seventeen in the two thousand years preceding British rule.

It is generally accepted that this was because of the mercantilist economic policies thrust upon India by her colonial masters. Wikipedia tells us:  “British policies led to the seizure and conversion of local farmland to foreign-owned plantations, restrictions on internal trade, heavy taxation of Indians to support unsuccessful British expeditions in Afghanistan, inflationary measures that increased the price of food, and substantial exports of staple crops from India to Britain.” (Dutt, 1900 and 1902; Srivastava, 1968; Sen, 1982; Bhatia, 1985).

In view of this, it would be difficult even for an eminent economist like Jean Drèze to prove that economically, India was better off under the British than without them. It seems that Indians knew how to manage their agriculture better than their “advanced” colonial masters.

Does Indian nationalism exist? Do Indians have a sense of national pride, some sense of the history of their civilization?  Reading Drèze’s article, one would think that such sentiments would by and large be restricted to the so called upper castes. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Even though the BJP’s manifesto talks of the “hurt pride” of India, Drèze considers it appropriate to substitute India for “upper castes”. In doing so, he denies the freedom movement, which derived its strength from the support of various sections of society. In contemporary times, the BJP, according to Dreze’s argument, should be the natural party of so-called upper castes. But it derives its strength from so-called other backward classes [OBCs]. Examples of OBC stalwarts like Narendra Modi, Kalyan Singh and Vinay Katiyar can be cited and multiplied, but will it open Dreze’s eyes to the fact that the hurt pride of India does not constitute the hurt pride of upper castes only but also that of the under classes?

Colonial rule contributed not only to misery but also to cultural stagnation of Indian society. Most non-European societies had to undergo the painful experience of colonialism which didn’t allow indigenous modernity to grow organically. European ideas were thrust upon non-European people with minimum regard to their histories and experiences. Apart from pauperizing the colonies, colonialism broke the continuity of civilizations. In matters of caste too, colonialism wasn’t a silent spectator; it played an active role in altering caste dynamics. Thus, Indian society is unequal today both because of its own ills and because of the ills perpetuated by colonialism. Any comment on Indian society which fails to note this point, as Drèze’s intervention appears to, can hardly be deemed fair.

Medieval European society was characterized by widespread inequality and cruelty. Europe was witnessing “witch” burning on a massive scale; hundreds of thousands of women were most mercilessly put to death, often with the authorization of the Holy See. Europe’s dark past does not prompt scholars to dismiss achievements of European Civilization out of hand. Similarly, Drèze should not flippantly disregard Indian thought and tradition because society was (and is) unequal and discriminatory.

The problem with Drèze’s approach is that it concedes the patriotic space to the BJP – which in turn does not hesitate in making pernicious use of it. Undoubtedly, India has many failings, but at the same time there are real achievements to the credit of the Indian civilization. More than occasionally, Indians have been known to take pride in the achievements of their countrymen even if they are not related by caste. People may be attracted to support aggressive votaries of India “pride” when they see famed scholars casually dismissing the glories of India’s past.

The BJP is definitely given to constructing a romanticized ideal of ancient India as a society free from all defects. But equally, Drèze must examine his position and determine whether by denying the achievements of Indian civilization, does he manage to successfully ridicule the BJP or does he end up making himself ridiculous in the eyes of the average Indian?