Let us get the meaning of "civil society" right. Hazare's group is NOT civil society

The time has come (no this is not what the Walrus said) to get to the bottom of the meaning of Civil Society.  It is a phrase that is being used consistently to describe the group of people who have Anna Hazare at the helm.  First of all let me simply say that the group of people around Anna Hazare are just that, a group of people.  They are not "civil society".  So let me explain why.  Much as people would abhor what I am going to say, civil society as a phrase does have very technical connotations which have been diluted in the context of everyday society in India sometimes by no less a person than the Prime Minister himself.  To call any group of people or non-governmental organizations (especially in India), civil society groups is if anything scandalous.

If one has to get a correct understanding of what "civil society" is, one will have to begin with the British thinker John Locke.  Most political theorists would consider John Locke to be the first person to have used that expression in the modern period and his usage comes from his agreement on a few things that he had with his predecessor, Thomas Hobbes. Thomas Hobbes underlined the need of a powerful state to maintain civility in society. For Hobbes, human beings are motivated by self-interests . Moreover, these self-interests are often contradictory in nature. Therefore, in state of nature, there was a condition of a war of all against all. In such a situation, life was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” . Upon realizing the danger of anarchy, human beings became aware of the need of a mechanism to protect them. As far as Hobbes was concerned, rationality and self-interests persuaded human beings to combine in agreement, to surrender sovereignty to a common power. John Locke agreed to an extent with Hobbes' views but disagreed on the idea of surrendering rights and sovereignty to a common power (the Leviathan as Hobbes called it). In Locke’s view, human beings led also an unpeaceful life in the state of nature. However, it could be maintained at the sub-optimal level in the absence of a sufficient system . From that major concern, people gathered together to sign a contract and constituted a common public authority. Nevertheless, Locke held that the consolidation of political power can be turned into autocracy, if it is not brought under reliable restrictions . Therefore, Locke set forth two treaties on government with reciprocal obligations. In the first treaty, people submit themselves to the common public authority. This authority has the power to enact and maintain laws. The second treaty contains the limitations of authority, i. e., the state has no power to threaten the basic rights of human beings. As far as Locke was concerned, the basic rights of human beings are the preservation of life, liberty and property. Moreover, he held that the state must operate within the bounds of civil and natural laws. So here it is amply clear that civil society was tied to the political society or the state and this was at the time when capitalism was just coming into being and when it held the promise of a society that would be better than the one the feudalism held.

The French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau disagreed with Hobbes and Locke.  In his work Discourse on the Origin of Inequality Rousseau starts by distinguishing two kinds of inequality, natural and artificial, the first arising from differences in strength, intelligence, and so forth, the second from the conventions that govern societies. It is the inequalities of the latter sort that he sets out to explain.  He like Hobbes suggests that original man was not a social being but entirely solitary, and to this extent he agrees with Hobbes's account of the state of nature. But in contrast to Hobbes' view that the life of man in such a condition must have been "poor, nasty, brutish and short," Rousseau claims that original man, while admittedly solitary, was healthy, happy, good, and free. The vices of men, he argues, date from the time when men formed societies. Rousseau thus exonerates nature and blames society for the emergence of vices.  Civil society, as Rousseau describes it, comes into being to serve two purposes: to provide peace for everyone and to ensure the right to property for anyone lucky enough to have possessions. It is thus of some advantage to everyone, but mostly to the advantage of the rich, since it transforms their de facto ownership into rightful ownership and keeps the poor dispossessed. It is a somewhat fraudulent social contract that introduces government since the poor get so much less out of it than do the rich. Even so, the rich are no happier in civil society than are the poor because social man is never satisfied. Society leads men to hate one another to the extent that their interests conflict, and the best they are able to do is to hide their hostility behind a mask of courtesy. Thus Rousseau regards the inequality between men not as a separate problem but as one of the features of the long process by which men become alienated from nature and from innocence.  So for Rousseau there is nothing nice about civil society as such.  But the high priest of modern thinking Hegel had a conception of civil society that was a little different.

Hegel completely changed the meaning of civil society, giving rise to a modern liberal understanding of it as a form of market society as opposed to institutions of modern nation state. Unlike his predecessors, the leading thinker of the Romanticism considered civil society as a separate realm, a system of needs, that stood for the satisfaction of individual interests and private property. Hegel held that civil society had emerged at the particular period of capitalism and served its interests: individual rights and private property. Hence, he used the German term "burgerliche Gesellschaft" to denote civil society as "civilian society" – a sphere regulated by the civil code.For Hegel, civil society manifests contradictory forces. Being the realm of capitalist interests, there is a possibility of conflicts and inequalities within it. Therefore, the constant surveillance of the state is imperative to sustain moral order in society. Hegel considered the state as the highest form of ethical life. Therefore, the political state has the capacity and authority to correct the faults of civil society.  After Hegel, Karl Marx seems to return to what Rousseau was saying.  I will quote Marx from the German Ideology where in his attack on Feuerbach he had this to say.

"The form of intercourse determined by the existing productive forces at all previous historical stages, and in its turn determining these, is civil society. The latter, as is clear from what we have said above, has as its premises and basis the simple family and the multiple, the so-called tribe, the more precise determinants of this society are enumerated in our remarks above. Already here we see how this civil society is the true source and theatre of all history, and how absurd is the conception of history held hitherto, which neglects the real relationships and confines itself to high-sounding dramas of princes and states. Civil society embraces the whole material intercourse of individuals within a definite stage of the development of productive forces. It embraces the whole commercial and industrial life of a given stage and, insofar, transcends the State and the nation, though, on the other hand again, it must assert itself in its foreign relations as nationality, and inwardly must organise itself as State. The word “civil society” [bürgerliche Gesellschaft] emerged in the eighteenth century, when property relationships had already extricated themselves from the ancient and medieval communal society. Civil society as such only develops with the bourgeoisie; the social organisation evolving directly out of production and commerce, which in all ages forms the basis of the State and of the rest of the idealistic superstructure, has, however, always been designated by the same name".  Marx is crystal clear, so I will desist from doing an exercise in paraphrasing or writing a commentary on what he had to say.

What we have seen so far actually shows a  negativity towards the notion of civil society.  That changed a little when the French thinker Alexis de Tocqueville looking at American society believed that there should be a civil society that will stop the political society or the institutions of the state from becoming despotic or autocratic.  Similarly within the Marxist tradition too the Italian thinker Antonio Gramsci attempted to imbue the notion of civil society with some positive meaning.  For Gramsci the state is not to be understood in the narrow sense of the government; instead, Gramsci divides it between 'political society', which is the arena of political institutions and legal constitutional control, and 'civil society', which is commonly seen as the 'private' or 'non-state' sphere, differentiated from both political society and the economy. The former is the realm of force and the latter of consent. He stresses, however, that the division is purely conceptual and that the two, in reality, often overlap.  Despite his claim that the lines between the two may be blurred, Gramsci rejects the primacy attributed to the state that results from identifying political society with civil society, as was done by the Fascists (Gramsci was originally a supporter of Benito Mussolini and the Fascist Party but broke ranks when he realized the true nature of Fascism). He believes that the proletariat's historical task is to create a regulated society and defines the withering away of the state (a phrase used by Lenin in his State and Revolution) as the full development of civil society's ability to regulate itself.  Another disagreement regarding the notion of civil society within the Marxist stream came from Jurgen Habermas (though he is no longer a Marxist) who believed that Marx was making a fundamental mistake in simplifying his thought as per the base-superstructure model and now argues for the creation of a public sphere which is different from the state.  I will desist from writing about things technical and take this discussion to the question on hand "does Hazare's movement qualify to be called civil society"?

From the technical point of view it is obvious that there is no sustainable way in which Hazare's movement can be called civil society.  Even from the points of view of common sense if civil society groups are to be taken as those that have a reasonably large membership and have a charter according to which they perform, Hazare's group does not qualify to be called civil society.  First of all it is not registered and does not have a name  and does hot have a charter or programmes for the welfare of anyone or anything.  Maybe animal rights groups such as PETA or non governmental organizations working for some form of development among some sections of society will qualify to be called civil society groups.  But the danger is that by that yard stick many sectarian and anti-social groups can also be called civil society which is a contradiction in terms.   It is obvious that Hazare pops out every once in a while with an anti-political society agenda and starts fasting, without even offering his side for discussion and deliberation among members of society in general.  He has a couple of people who will stand by him and dictate terms to a government elected by the people. Before you brand me as a Congress party loyalist or supporter of corruption I ask you to consider this question.  "Have public institutions or institutions of political society been created explicitly for the perpetuation of corruption in any form"?  If that is the case then it is imperative that this whole order itself by dismantled.  If that is not the case then why these institutions become what they have?  It is obviously the people who man the institutions who are corrupt and not the institutions themselves.  So what is the guarantee that a Lok Pal (who is again a person) will be immune to avarice and greed or fear?  And what is the basis on which the Lok Pal comes into being?  Popular election?  In that case anyone can contest and become Lok Pal just as money power can make MLAs and MPs.  If not on what grounds does one justify a person occupying this office in a democracy where people's mandate is required in some form or another?  Can you have an appointed post that overrides posts that have people's mandate?  I know Arvind Kejriwal has made some stupid posers such as "is the prime minister" elected?  Of course he is, not as a prime minister but as a member of parliament who is then chosen as PM by other elected members and not like the draconian Lok Pal that Hazare Team (that is the name that they have given themselves) wants to unleash on the people of the country.  The middle class is willing to be a guinea pig for the Hazare Team's experiments with undermining democratic principles.  When will lessons be learnt?  In India, the answer seems to be 'never'.

The pointlessness of Indian Politics

I know that this is getting to be a bit repetitive, talking about the same old things again and again.  In my defence I shall say that my writing is akin to the rendition of a Hindustani raga.  Each time a new dimension is to be added to the raga the whole cycle is repeated. The same thing can be said about my writing.  Every time when a new thing transpires in politics my writing starts yet again with the all the points that I have covered at some point in the blog.  So dear reader please indulge me a bit.  It hurts me to see my beloved country being so poorly represented by its politics, which are increasingly more opportunistic and less visionary.  That is the problem that rankles me most.  Who have we entrusted our country to and why?

First let us look at the who bit, we will come later to the why bit.  We have entrusted our great country to thugs, goons, scoundrels and rogues.  I have some more epithets but they maybe unnecessary and may offend reader sensibilities.  Let us start at the top with the Congress Party.  I say that because this is the party that is running the country and the state that I belong to, Andhra Pradesh.  If you have been reading this blog you will remember that at one time I said that there is no administration in the State of Andhra Pradesh.  Between that assertion and now, nothing has happened to change my view of things.  It was incredibly funny to see the appointment of Botcha Satyanarayana as PCC President.  He was one of the people named in the now famed Volkswagen case where monies were embezzled but the company did not come to Andhra Pradesh.  His name has been "cleared" but that was bound to happen anyway.  How many of our politicians have not been cleared?  If Kapil Sibal had his way, A. Raja, Kanimozhi et al would have not even been charge sheeted since he was proposing this wonderful new "zero sum" theory according which the nation lost nothing and the politicians gained nothing.  But mark my words, it is just a matter of time before these names too are "cleared" after the fall guys are found.  Or sometimes if you let things stay quiet enough then they die on their own.  I can recall the case of one K. Chandrashekar Rao, the Chief of the TRS and the chief protagonist of separate Telangana who had some cases of passport racketeering and human trafficking pending against him.  Now all is forgotten; so no problems with that.  

But let me come back to Botcha Satyanarayana.  He was not only involved in the Vasishtha Wahan (VW which is also short for Volkswagen) scam but also had claims of nepotism targetted against him in his native district.  Botcha Satyanarayana has been chosen because he is "soft" on the Telangana issue, that is what newspapers have to say.  I do not know what that means but  that now seems to be the reason to choose a person as PCC President.  It was hilarious to see pictures of Botcha S' coronation with caparisoned camels and other wildlife (read that as Congress goons) accompanying him to the venue of his crowning.  What message is the Congress party sending to the people?  Are they saying "we are like this only, leave it or lump it"?  Now if this is not enough the separate Telangana legislator's lobby were summoned by the Prime Minister for a tete a tete.  God only knows what may have transpired in it, but I am sure that it is nothing of any great significance.  After all this was only a sideshow.  The main act was happening elsewhere.

The main act was being staged rather dramatically by Ramdev at the Ramlila grounds in New Delhi before the lead character changed clothes (into a salwar kameez, that women wear) and took to his heels to save himself from the Delhi police who decided that they would drive out the "protesters" asking for "justice" and demanding "bring back the black money into the country" and pass the Lok Pal bill and bring the office of the Prime Minister and the entire judiciary under its ambit.  Ramdev landed up on his own private property in Hardwar where he continued his fast till yesterday.  Ramdev wanted an honourable way out and that was provided by Sri Sri Ravishankar the art of living guru who implored and pleaded with Ramdev to break the fast.  Before this Ramdev had been sent to hospital since there were fears of dehydration and also a faulty liver function.  Linda Goodman, the lady who wrote about astrology and things like that once mentioned the powers of yogis.  She claimed that there was this yogi who could gain weight and strength by not eating for one week.  So from the Linda Goodman point of view Ramdev is no yogi.  Surprisingly Linda Goodman found an ally in the irrepressible Lalu Prasad Yadav who finally called a spade a spade.  He said Ramdev is no Baba, he is no yogi, just a yoga instructor.  But Lalu's reasons were probably more sinister.  Ramdev who is also a Yadav can erode his caste vote base if he becomes too popular, so this was probably a pre-emptive strike by Lalu Prasad Yadav.

Ramdev's hogging of the media space and the mind space of people must have caused sleepless nights to the "Civil Society" consisting of Anna Hazare, the father-son Bhushans, Shanti and Prashant respectively and Kiran Bedi.  So the time was rife for Hazare to make a come back.  Hazare fasts for a day protesting the treatment meted out to Ramdev but also loses no opportunity to tell everyone that Ramdev is "immature" and too individualistic.  He (Ramdev) did not understand that there had to be negotiations between members of civil society.  So in effect, Hazare was chiding Ramdev for not including him and the Bhushans and Bedi in his struggle.  As an aside let met tell you dear reader that I find this less than 10 member Civil Society in a nation of 110 crore people a bit of a joke.  But most of Indian politics is a joke anyway.  

The opposition did not believe in wasting an opportunity.  Ramdev wears colours that the main opposition the BJP loves. So Sadhvi Rithambara, the RSS and all other right wing Hindu parties try to rally around Ramdev and that provides the Congress with a weapon to counter Ramdev and Hazare.  Suddenly Hazare is on the back foot crying foul over Pranab Mukherjee including him and his precious civil society in the RSS, VHP, BJP coalition.  Ramdev needed to eat and so in all this the Congress comes out trumps.  Mukherjee is now aggressive and claims that Hazare and his cronies had no business dictating things to elected representatives and that the office of the Prime Minister and the Judiciary cannot be brought under the ambit of the Lokpal.  In effect what Pranab Mukherjee said makes sense, but then he was using logic to continue the covering up of the dirt that the Congress had accumulated.  In all this it seems Digvijay Singh, Congress Party leader and ex Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh was feeling left out.  So he counters Pranab Mukherjee and says that the office of the Prime Minister and the Judiciary should be brought under the Lok Pal.  Now there will be mayhem with everybody shouting at everyone else.  This will be duplicated in innumerable TV studios where representatives of all groups will shout at each other and in the end the whole Lok Pal thing will come a cropper.  The monied middle class which feels cheated out of its money will sulk and use Facebook and Twitter to cry offside, foul, lbw, no ball, wide and whatever else comes to its mind asking the corrupt to be given a red card and sent off the field.

In Andhra Pradesh, the show must go on.  So the political JAC under the stewardship of an academician decides that Hyderabad has had it too good for too long and therefore gives notice of an agitation that will start with the paralysing of Hyderabad on the 19th of June, 2011.  I think the JAC is sick of fasts and therefore has decided to deploy its usual strategy; disrupt life by cooking and eating on the road.  This time the residents of Hyderabad will be gently persuaded to try out cooking and eating out on the roads and enjoy first hand the joys of such exercises.  Today the ever mischievous Times of India has quoted KCR as having said that he and his followers will turn Hyderabad and Telangana into a war zone.  The Hindu reports that since the agitation has abated the CII (Confederation of Indian Industry) has decided that Hyderabad is good enough to host a global meet of industries and their Captains. So it is up to you to decide who is right in their reporting.  Meanwhile Osmania University waits with baited breath, looking forward to an agitation call so that the fun and games begin again. 

Amidst all this, the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh talks about resuscitating the education system by announcing an education fortnight.  Now all Government schools will teach English from class one.  Great move, but where are the teachers?  The government long ago abdicated its responsibility to provide education.  There are half a dozen universities waiting for new Vice Chancellors to be appointed.  But let me say past experience has taught me that even if there are Vice Chancellors things will not be too different, since the universities have been long taken over by the academic mafia that has powers that equal those of the real mafia.  But life goes on.  Politicians say and do things.  The media writes and sensationalizes it all.  People like me will write diatribes in blogs and the world will go on.  So I say Ca Ira (pronounced Sa eera) or French for "it will go".  And that is the answer to the why in the question that I had raised about the who and the why.  The who is who of Indian politics is a result of the attitude that we have.  In Hindi we say "sab chalta hai" or "chalta hein to chelne do".  English translation "everything goes" or "when it is going let it go".  The Americans said if it ain't broke don't fix it.  In India we say if it is broke no point in fixing it so let it go and therefore "Ca Ira".

Gandhi, Secularism and India - Suman Kalyan vs me

My friend Suman Kalyan likes to call this the debate between a secularist and a fundamentalist.  He jocularly addresses himself as the fundamentalist and me as the secularist, and I am proud of that label since I stand against all kinds of parochialism and sectarianism.  I am posting the second installment of the debate that has taken place between Suman and me because I think there is a situation where others need to know about where these ideas are coming from, especially given the fact that I have been advocating a deliberative democracy.  This thread actually emerged from the previous one where I made my opinions of Ramdev and his ilk very clear.  The moment this debate becomes too personal or hurtful of others, I will stop posting it here and keep it a strictly personal thing between me and Suman.  If anyone already has objections please let me know and I will remove this from the blog.  Thank you.

Satish
P.S: What you may read is not a faithful reproduction of the debate on FB, I have changed a few things for what I thought is more prudent for everyone to read.

______________________________________________________________________________

Suman,
I have posted replies to your questions on my blog. I did so for the sake of other people also participating in this discussion. Hope you do not mind, thanks.

MondaySuman Kalyan

no problem satish...I hope you do not take anything personally..I know you don;t but just wanted to check..
I will continue with the debate..It is getting interesting now..

YesterdayA. V. Satish Chandra

No I did not take anything personally. Please feel free to continue.

YesterdaySuman Kalyan

I have comments on all your observations..I will comment on your observation about spirituality first.
"My understanding of spiritualism you aver is immature and ill thought out. I seek to disagree. The whole idea of spiritualism is the apprehension and cognition of picture larger than the one that is perceived of by the senses. The spiritualist can make Cosmic connections and arrive at what is good and what is bad and what is morally sustainable and what is not. What you have done is to delink the connection between spiritualism based in moral understanding from politics. Politics are what they are today precisely due to their disconnect with all things spiritual. Be it Ramdev or Swami Agnivesh or the RSS; they have all failed here. In fact the brand of Hinduthva that is being pedalled today by the RSS, the Sangh Parivar for me is the Islamization and Christianization of a cosmology that was far superior than the proselytizing religions that I have mentioned. The intervention of the Arya Samaj actually transformed what was a brilliant cosmology into just another proselytizing religion. I also say that by the time the Arya Samaj had intervened there were several other interventions that sublated the cosmology and turned it into a monstrous social schema. I am referring to the intervention of Brahminical religion and its unwarranted intrusion into the Ancient Indian wisdom and cosmology reducing in the process the whole thing to dos and don'ts based in the utterly ridiculous. I stand by my idea that what we have as spiritualism is nothing but a made easy text of dos and don'ts and therefore I will say that any comparisons between the notions of dharma as practiced in the Mahabharatha and what we have today will only strengthen efforts at genocide and launching of pogroms against specific sections of populations."

YesterdaySuman Kalyan

Spirituality is minimal intellectualism and the large part of it is action. You can theorize, give names to concepts, put things into various buckets and so on. From my own experience - both intellectual and experiential, the biggest realization was that intellectual understanding of Spirituality is not of much use. Let's come to your argument. First myth - One does not need to make any cosmic connections, go to Himalayas and meditate for years, become a monk, perform apll kinds of austerities, pretend to do holy things etc etc to be on the path of self / god realization.. Doing the above can certainly lead one down the path of self delusion. Life and everything around us is an expression of the same divine energy and Hinduism has always unambiguously stated this. So saying that something in life conforms to spirituality and something else like politics doesn't is "naive". The sum total of spiritual journey is whether an individual can transcend "I" through all the learnings/ opportunities offered by life.

YesterdaySuman Kalyan

I have not tried to delink but I actually say that Spirituality and politics are intimately connected. Krishna is the best example of this intimate connection. Politics offers an opportunity to make a difference at a level of society/ civilization. So your point about politics they way it is due to a spiritual disconnect is well taken..

YesterdaySuman Kalyan

Now coming to Ramdev, RSS , BJP others who are always the favourite whipping boys in India. I see these ideologies as a response to the shameless brand of "secularism" propagated by Congress whose seeds were sown by none other than Gandhi. I will take this as a separate discussion and not elaborate on this thread. I do not have a problem with their ideology since I believe they do balance the political space. The problem I have with these folks is that they look at Hindutva as a political ploy as opposed to a genuine spiritual movement for creating a unified Hindu society.

YesterdaySuman Kalyan

I also do not agree with your observations on Mahabharata. Dharma is universal and I do not agree that what is Dharma in Mahabharata will lead to pogroms against specific sections of the population now. To me the message in Bhagavad Gita is the highest form of Spirituality that was achieved by man. Not something to be read in books but followed in Action. Spiritual truths and Dharma are not something that are valid at one point of time and then not valid at some other point of time. Then it is paradox for me..It can't be spiritual and not spiritual at the same time..

YesterdaySuman Kalyan

Coming to "specific sections of the populations" by which you mean muslims, I'm not sure why you would hesitate so much to call them as such, since they are very comfortable and proud of their rich heritage that many of them believe to have originated somewhere in the lands of middle east ! I do have a huge problem with "Islam" though which is apolitical ideology disguised as a religion. I do not believe Islam is compatible to Indian ethos and must be fought tooth and nail on an ideological level. Appeasement and concessions to muslims or any other section of society for that matter will not get us anywhere. In this context I would expect RSS, BJP and other of this ilk to fight this ideological battle. Are they doing it ? I don't see it..BJP at one point of time even introduced a green color into their party flag I think..Net net - the point I'm trying to make is what is right and dharma has to be done at any cost ! We won our freedom at a huge cost didn;t we ? Appeasement, concessions etc is a sign of weakness and weakness always leads to ruin and eventual death as history as shown us..

23 hours agoSuman Kalyan

Comments on your observations on Satyagraha
About the philosophical basis of Satyagraha and the answer to the question of what more is it than fasting as a tactic of blackmail. The fasts taken up by anyone and everyone today and the birth of the system of relay fasts has detracted from the philosophical underpinnings of Satyagraha and fasting. A good beginning to a better understanding of what Satyagraha is the dissection of the term itself. Satyagraha is righteous anger or the anger born out of a moral conviction that what the other is doing to you is wrong and unsustainable by any system of morality. A Satyagrahi should first be convinced of the Truth of what he believes after due logical cogitation along the lines of morality and only then should take up an action on behalf of that truth which is universal. So when Mahatma Gandhi undertook a fast it was not to blackmail people. It was to impress upon them the idea that his was so convinced of the Truth of his thought and actions that for the perpetuation of that Truth he was willing to even give up his life. Gandhi was actually challenging the theory of Yuga Dharma, one that changed with every passing Yuga and went into the decline mode. Gandhi believed not in Yuga Dharma but in Sanatana Dharma, a Dharma which will not succumb to a degenerative cycle but remain constant even in the face of great adversity. Gandhi distinguished between Sanatana Dharma and religion. For him all religions are governed by the same Dharma and the tragedy was that people who had forgotten the basic morals of their religion (any religion) had strayed from the path of Sanatana Dharma. For him war, conquest and colonialism were a result of people's alienation from their religion and by extension from Sanatana Dharma

23 hours agoSuman Kalyan

1) Gandhi was completely wrong that all religions are governed by same dharma. e.g: Hinduism and Islam are certainly not. Hinduism and Sanatana Dharma are synonymous with each other. You yourself have commented on nature of Hindu cosmology being far superior to abrahamic religions. Putting abrahamic religions that are not connected to our land on the same pedestal as Sanatana Dharma was misleading, mischievous and down right false..That in my mind was the biggest blunder made by Gandhi. He was shooting at his own foot and we carry this insane legacy to this day..

23 hours agoSuman Kalyan

The message of Bhagavd Gita is integral to Sanatana Dharma and Gandhi's philosophy was divergent to the very ideals of Sanatana Dharma he claimed to propagate. I do not think he even understood the message of Gita for sure.
I do not care much about the Gandhi's motivations for fasting either. Whatever his truth maybe it was not the eternal truth in Sanatana Dharma. Nowhere does Sanatana Dharma teaches people to be weak and appease a section of the population.
My comments on your observation: " feel sad that Gandhi is so vociferously disowned in his own country, by the very people he fought for. It was his appeal for religious tolerance and fighting for it through fasts that led to whatever harmony we have in this country. For me the belligerence of the Hinduthva forces will destroy the country not build it. It is indeed a great pity that today the Godses of the country are becoming heroes and the Gandhis (the Mahatma type and not Indira, Sonia, Rajiv, Sanjay, Rahul and Priyanka types) are becoming villains."

23 hours agoSuman Kalyan

I also feel very sad that a country that has claims to be democratic cannot express criticism about Gandhi and not be branded as communal, right wing fanatic, hindu fundamentalist..
I beg to differ about the religious tolerance bit as well. To me it looks more like telling Hindus to commit suicide ! Yes in a perverted way this can be construed as religious tolerance for sure.
As I have said before we need to move on as a country from Gandhi era/ politics/ philosophy ! It has created enough damage already..
Gandhi was a great social reformer and let us leave it as that !
I would still say he is the greets social reformer of this era and he did what was necessary to reform in Hindu society..
I would anyway say Vivekananda and Aurobindo are the greatest Indians of the last century and certainly en example worth emulating in nation building..

22 hours agoSuman Kalyan

Have you hear Swami's vivekananda's speech at Chicago.. I think there is a copy of it in youtube. If you have not, then you should. It gives me goose pimples when I listen to it ! This is supreme nationalism infused with spirituality. Is that the vision I get from Gandhi ? Gandhi taught me that I should accommodate all kinds of jokers , bend over backwards and appease "certain sections of society", give legitimacy to alien faiths at the cost of my life and in general give up warrior spirit..I'm sorry that doesn't appeal to me..

22 hours agoSuman Kalyan

Comments on your Chanakya observation: "I do not see a place for Chanakya in the present scheme of things. The reasons are straightforward, it is like saying Niccolo Machiavelli can solve the problems of present day Italy. Chanakya is about as spiritual as Osama Bin Laden and to complicate it all, despite the popular perception of who Chanakya was, historically there is very little to connect three names-Chanakya, Kautilya and Vishnu Gupta; all of whom are presumed to be one person but in reality may not be. The relevance of the Arthashastra is purely confined to its times, present day politics being far more different, complicated and bigger for the Arthashastra to be of any consequence. If you are referring to the fact that he created a "pragmatic" system of governance, even that will be beset by the same problems that I have referred to in the previous sentence. Cunning and astute political strategies are already leading the nation to its demise. You give it 50 years, I give it 10 if things continue like this."

22 hours agoSuman Kalyan

I'm actually shocked to see a comparison between Osama Bin Laden and Chanakya. Chanakya built an India nation unifying all the kingdoms and warded off external aggressions from the Greeks. and you are comparing him to an Islamic thug who wanted to emulate Mohammed and establish an Islamic caliphate by killing as many unbelievers as possible and in modern language called a terrorist. wow !

21 hours agoSuman Kalyan

When I say a Chankya is needed in India today ..I mean the following - Can someone unify and energize an entire nation that is so fragmented right now to make them work towards a common goal ? Can we get our act together and not be labeled as a soft state and be a strong deterrent to our enemies ? Can we get our internal house in order and fix all the fault lines in society ? All of these challenges were faced by Chanakya during his times as well. So the spirit of Chanakya is absolutely valid even in the current times. Of course a pragmatic system of governance will help for sure. Cunning and astute politics by itself is not a problem but has a potential to become one if it is not dharmic. For establishing dharma, if cunning methods and guile needs to be adopted, where is the problem with that ? Sanatana Dharma has again stated in clear terms - "Truth is that which establishes Dharma".

21 hours agoSuman Kalyan

As I previously stated spirituality is not about sitting in a cave and dreaming about the cosmos..It is right action, right dharma and how the "I" can be transcended. Chanakya put every ounce of effort that he had for raising the consciousness of an entire nation and in doing so transcended his self ! an example of how the highest level of selfless, desire less and ego less states can transform a nation. The impact was at the civilizational level. If this is not spirituality what is it ? It is supreme spirituality demonstrated in action and not in words or intellectual monologues. Infact the concept of nationalism is extremely important from a spiritual perspective since it gives a glorious opportunity to transcend "I" . Why do you think the nation has been described as Bharat mata ? Because it is worthy of devotion and one can realize self through dedication to motherland .

19 hours agoSuman Kalyan

I have a few questions for you to ponder about . 1) Is Gandhi bigger than the nation ? 2) Manmohan singh's statement about muslims in India having the first right on resources - Do you smell gandhianism in this statement ? I do and I think if Gandhi were alive he would have made Manmohan singh his prime disciple and given him a medal for religious tolerance 3) Are endless arguments in our democratic nation helping our cause ? Again is democracy more important than the nation ? 4) Is fierce sense of nationalism, pride in one's country and the rich spiritual heritage communal ? 5) Is Gandhianism more important than the survival of a country ? Soon we will be in life support mode in India the way we are headed.6) How many people in India will proudly stand up and say they are Hindus and the followers of the eternal wisdom of Sanatana Dharma ? We still debate about fundamental issues like this in India more than 65 years after Independence going on endlessly about this..It is time to do whatever it takes to see India as a world power and have the political will and courage to take hard decisions ..There will always be some people who will be upset, but that cannot hijack a country's agenda !

19 hours agoSuman Kalyan

Have you heard the national anthem of Israel ? You should if you have not and also read the translation.You will find it in youtube..It is soul stirring http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjfFpFW9OdA

Hatikva-The National Anthem of Israelwww.youtube.com
Hatikva-The National Anthem of Israel
Share

19 hours agoSuman Kalyan

The point is Jews have a sense of history that is unparalleled in the world. They have been abused, spit on, genocide committed against them, still they have survived. Are there any lessons for India considering our short lived memory of our own history ?

17 hours agoSuman Kalyan

I will end this phase of debate with a note on religious tolerance. Gandhi's ideals on religious tolerance did not work even in his own lifetime. Why did the muslims want their own state ? and in the newly created state of Pakistan how tolerant were they towards their minorities ? or even how tolerant is Bangladesh towards its minorities ? Tolerance to me does not mean tolerance towards intolerant. Tolerance is for people who deserve tolerance. People who can live in peace and not create separatist movements. Not for people who will refuse to integrate with the nation, not for people who will eventually want to enslave other people one day. Tolerance for the intolerant is equivalent to suicide

14 hours agoSuman Kalyan

Satish I have an idea..Let's keep this debate going.. I leave it to you if you want to put it on your blog..But we can do something different..we will generate quite a lot of content in the process of debate. we can compile and publish this later as conversations between a secularist and a fundamentalist ! let me know..

14 hours agoSuman Kalyan



6 hours agoA. V. Satish Chandra

Suman,

I never said or implied that spiritualism is the establishment of a cosmic connection by going to Himalayas or sitting in a cave. I am fully aware that cosmologies are established by engaging oneself with the cosmos and not by dissociating oneself from it.

2. The overcoming of the "I" or tatvam asi is possible only through the correct understanding of dhyana and not the "populist meditation" ideas that are freely floating in society today. It also means that one has to go through all the phases of the varnashrama dharma and only then will it be possible to reach that stage of transcendence. Adi Shankara was supposed to have been given divine consent to move to sanyasa by passing grihastha ashrama and vanaprastha. To me that kind of spiritualism is something that only great practitioners of the ashrama dharma are capable of. Also one has to be careful in the definition of the "I".  Do we talk about a collective self or do we talk about an individual self when we say I?  I think the issue is firmly located in a philosophical problematique that throws up a full fountain of problems that cannot be explained away with one big sweep of the broom.

3. My comparison of the Chanakya to Osama was only to the extent of spiritualism in their thought or lack of it. Like I said no one even knows who Chanakya really is.

4. You talk about how tolerance is a weakness. I will quote Gandhi here. "An eye for an eye makes the world blind". I know that Gandhi had his weaknesses yet had his greatness as well.

about an hour agoSuman Kalyan

I would like to elaborate on "Tolerance" since I do not believe that I have articulated it well enough. One cannot and should not judge any actions like tolerance, violence, non violence, benevolence etc without a context and the context is clearly Dharma. India has always been tolerant of new thought processes, new faiths, new cultures and to give you some great examples - communities like jews, parsis (ancient persians) lived happily in India and integrated very well. We integrated muslims too after a massive genocide in India. From a dharma point of view one should always have tolerance for the weak, for the someone who means no harm and protect them. Now tolerance for all and sundry without understanding the dharma behind it, is surely not wise. Let's take the example of prophet Mohammed himself - What happened to all the jews and christians in middle east who were very tolerant about his ideologies ? In his own lifetime, he wiped out a large population of jews and christians in middle east. I have a lot of jewish friends - Try telling them about religious tolerance. They will tell you that they will not have a land to live in anymore. But they do have tremendous respect and tolerance for Hindus since they know India is the only country where they were not persecuted. The point I'm trying to make is we have to be judicious in whom to be tolerant towards. Indiscriminate tolerance is not only not dharma but also a sure way of inviting disaster.

40 minutes agoSuman Kalyan

Let also address why there needs to be discretion in tolerating muslim community in India. Of course what is happening on the ground is open appeasement and dishing out unwanted sops. As most of the muslim world keeps reminding us on a daily basis the condition of minorities in any Islamic country is huge cause for concern. There is a reason why there are no great examples of democracies in Islamic countries. An analysis of Quran explains it. It is a totalitarian political ideology expansionist in nature. It encourages the killing of unbelievers and is very clear about the political motives. It is extremely unfortunate that our great leaders like Gandhi et al either did not understand Islam or deliberately hid the truth. Islam has to be fought ideologically in India since peaceful co-existence with other faiths is not something that Islam understands at all. What is the way forward ? Can you wish away muslim population in India ? No. But surely we can take steps to safeguard the country from a situation where it can become a huge problem and threaten the very existence of the nation. The way out is to take on Islam on a ideological level and open it to rational enquiry. Appeasement is not the solution. Hiding the truth is not the solution..

4 minutes agoA. V. Satish Chandra

The answer to your question about Muslims lies within your question. Let us remember that India has had centuries of Islamic rule culminating in the Mughal Empire.  If all that they wanted to do was to convert India into a Muslim land and tried to do so for centuries why has that not happened?.  The reason is because Hinduism did not fight Islam with Crusades like Christianity did. You have talked about Jews fighting Muslims.  Do the Jews live in peace anywhere in the world?  Look at what America has done in the name of dissolving the Axis of Evil and antagonizing every Muslim in the world.  Now nobody can live in peace, all because of intolerance.  If the Jews want to be intolerant, so be it.  That is no reason to convert India into an Israel. I think communal parties on both sides in India have raised the bogey of one dominating the other community.  But the truth is a majority of Indians irrespective of their religions live peacefully enough. I do not subscribe to the RSS view that Islam has declared war on India. Such utterances in conjunction with religious bigotry will get the nation into trouble which does not exist now.  Anyway you cannot hold Gandhi responsible for the policies of appeasement that the Congress follows. Like I have said, Gandhi believed that the Congress had to be disbanded immediately after attaining independence. The Congress today is only carrying the agenda of Sonia Gandhi and not even Indira-Rajiv-Sanjay Gandhi agenda. It long ago lost its connect with Nehru as well. So what it does today is the outcome of the filth and muck of what the country has today become due to unscrupulous goons and thugs running the country. To me it does not matter which party or person is in power and I do not elect anybody for the simple reason that I see no reason why I have to choose one lout over another. That is why I have been arguing through my blog for a deliberative democracy that supplements the weaknesses of electoral democracy. What we need today is a relook at democratic strategies in India since it is now obvious that the present system enables and empowers only thugs.

Ramdev, Gandhi and who has done what for India

This is a conversation between my good friend Suman Kalyan and me about things such as Dharma, Satyagraha, Gandhi and now  Baba Ramdev.  I have posted it here because I thought this conversation could have an appeal to a greater number of people and also because I firmly believe that my blog should carry comments made on it by others so as to maintain a dialogical process of conversation which will help me and all others concerned at better perspectives about things.

Read some of your blog articles. Its still not clear to me what do u stand for ? Whatever may be Anna's motives, could he have done better, why did he pick politicians like Modi and Nitish ..c'Mon give him a break..he may not b perfect..did touch a chord somewhere in common folks !

April 23Suman Kalyan

Another thought about Modi. Why is everyone so eager to deliver justice in this regard but not show the same enthusiasm doing justice to those unfortunate Sikhs in the riots post madame gandhis's assassination? I can easily understand media blowing up Anna's comment on Modi but why you ?

April 23A. V. Satish Chandra

Suman,

I do not condone what happened with HKL Bhagat and co in the 1984 riots post the assassination of Indira Gandhi. I do not think Anna Hazare even intended to touch any chord in anyone. His target was clear. He wanted to work within the existing framework using the same politicians for reform. That is his choice. My commentary is about the futility of the exercise if one chose to work with the same bunch of crooks. The Narendra Modi comment is not my desire to blow things up like the media does. I am only questioning the media itself when it says Hazare is a Gandhian. A Gandhian is not one who just takes up a fast. He has to live by certain principles that have been repeatedly violated in this country by all politicians. I am not saying that anyone has to be Gandhian at all. But if the tag is attached then it needs to be justified.I was only saying in his scheme of things there was no necessity for him to give certificates of conduct to anyone. I would question him if he did the same with any politician in the country. The common folks you are referring to are the ones that help corruption grow and please remember that these things are not done under compulsion but simply out of choice.

April 24Suman Kalyan

A couple of comments:

I agree with you on the futility of Anna's efforts. However for a different reason - corruption is very closely linked to the cost of fighting elections and the current system will always create crooks out of any new individuals in the system however well meaning they may be..Some will be less greedy than the others and not accumulate personal wealth, whilst the majority will fill their pockets and and also generate funds for political party sustenance. The stakes are too high and moral compass will change ! I do not believe the answers lie in getting honest individuals into political governance. The changes need to be more fundamental..

April 24Suman Kalyan

I'm not sure what really a Gandhian means...What principles are we talking about besides fasts ? Frankly in my opinion fasts are really rubbish. Traditional wisdom has always recommended periodic fasts as a means of improving one's health, but any other reason is "blackmail"

April 24Suman Kalyan

The politicians in this country have violated many principles - but Gandhianism is the last one i would worry about..It's about time that we as a nation laid the ideals of Gandhianism to eternal rest..Most of it never made sense to me..Gandhi was a great social reformer whose contribution to Hindu society to tackle social causes was definitely outstanding and everyone should follow his example in this regard.. His political ideology and political actions are eminently forgettable. Principles like non violence are dangerous ! forgive the oxymoron ! It goes against our fundamental ethos. Dharma is not only to protect the righteous, weak but also to vanquish evil. In other words an act of violence or non violence by itself cannot be judged without the context of a Dharma..So applying a principle of non violence indiscriminately for all situations is rank foolishness and unfortunately Gandhi is a best example for this. Not to take away any of his stellar contributions to the nation for fighting social evils like untouchability. The point I'm trying to make is, it is time to bury Gandhianism.

April 24A. V. Satish Chandra

Suman,

It will take up a lot of time and space if I were to start talking about Gandhian principles that go way beyond fasting. In fact, in the Gandhian scheme of things even fasting has some philosophical insights and therefore it is not just blackmail. I will not extend the commentary simply because as I said in the previous reply of mine, there is no necessity to be Gandhian to fight anything including corruption. There are other equally ethical ways of doing things and should be explored. You are right about Dharma and applying non-violence to all situations. Burying Gandhianism is a choice that people who fight for various things should make. By that I do not mean people like KCR.

April 24Suman Kalyan

Satish, if you have time to write a separate note on some of the philosophical aspects of fasting, request you to do so..I'm interested in knowing about these..I have had so much of disdain for things like fasting being the glutton I'm would love to know a bit more about it..

I would like to add a comment in the concept of fighting evils like corruption, I think the best example that should be imbibed in our country is the example of Chanakya which in my opinion is more relevant than Gandhianism.. To fight evils and uphold Dharma, any means is fair game..So some of the means employed may not thrill your ethical senses..prostitutes, poisons, elaborate system of spies, etc anything that upholds Dharma...

April 24Suman Kalyan

In fact some of these means should not even give rise to ethical dilemmas - Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is very clear in stating that Truthful action is one that establishes Dharma and goes ahead to state that Dharma and Truth are synonymous with each other..

To me this has a staggering implication - Truth does not imply a record of facts and truthful action does not necessary imply trying to be a saint !

April 24Suman Kalyan

Three people in Indian History understood this very well - Krishna, Chanakya and Samarth Ramdas and their contributions speak for themselves..

and of course everyone of had an impact at a civilizational level !

I do not see how true change will be ushered in our country without someone providing leadership of the stature of Chanakya !

45 minutes agoSuman Kalyan

I think making comments on Ramdev's physical afflictions with the eye is in poor taste..

Ramdev made his intent to enter the political arena very clear when he announced his political party. If street thugs, hooligans, convicted criminals can enter the politics why not Yoga gurus !

I agree with your observations on Satya Sai Baba..Another individual who should be added to the list of tricksters is Gandhi himself who caused more harm that Sai Baba to the country with his bizarre religious tolerance where it was okay for one community to get killed peacefully without retaliating but the parity ended there...I don;t need to get into the details, but history bears this out...Sai Baba made lot of money tricked lot of people, but never made a civilization impotent..

Your comments on "Spiritualism" are without any basis and reflects an immature understanding. Spiritual empowerment goes hand in hand with political and economic empowerment of society. The essence of all Vedas, Upanishads from the perspective of spirituality is all about transcending "I" and ways and means to achieve that. claims about Spirituality - everything falling into place when things are cleansed at the spirit level is incorrect. 

You seem to have a problem with spirituality and politics. I see an intimate connection between the two. Two great examples - Krishna and Chanakya. They gave a very correct and holistic meaning to spirituality and hence their impact on society at a civilizational level.

Ramdev may not be the best example of a warrior saint in the league of Swami Vivekananda, but I see nothing wrong with his strategy. You can fault the methods he uses, question his personal motives, but I see spiritualization of a society with political and economic empowerment as a great strategy.

The comparison to Madrasas again doesn't make sense. The things that you casually mention as "people are told to do things for the society" has created a worldwide Islamic terrorism problem. I don;t want to get into a debate on why should terrorism be labeled as Islamic - the same standard debate points terrorism has no religion, this is actually a religion of peace but there are some misguided individuals who are giving the religion a bad name etc etc...

Hazare is in idiot who thought he could pull a rabbit out of a hand and corruption would magically go away. The political class is too smart for him and as expected they out maneuvered him. I didn't keep awake on any night with a remote hope that Hazare would succeed....RSS, BJP, Bajrang Dal may have their own problems as with any organization, but not supporting Hazare was a smart move in not wasting political capital on a losing proposition. Hazare at least is a harmless guy, but can;t the same for Gandhi who was dangerous...So I think the comparison with Gandhi is actually a disrespect for Hazare and the best thing is he actually wears a Gandhian cap ! This is ridiculous..

Once again your comparison of Satya Sai Bab and rammed is again inexplicable. Ramdev for all this flaws, played a significant role in resurgence Yoga in India - a land that was slowly losing the Yoga tradition. I 'm a Yoga practitioner for a long time and he definitely wasn't teaching BS. I do have a problem with him charging a huge sum of money (10,000 - 50,000 Rs), but I do not question his capabilities in Yoga. Sai Baba was a poor magician at best and duped lot of people..Of course he was a master of financial management and psychology for sure..I don;t see the basis for this comparison..

I do agree with you that some of his suggestions like capital punishment may not be sound...

As far as a monster that will consume us all, Gandhi created the monster called Congress 50 years back... I'm not sure if he created it, but he certainly nurtured it for sure according to his whims and fancies. Congress ruined our country over the last 50 years and you think Ramdev has enough talent to create more damage than this !

What the country needs is another Chanakya. Some one who has the right vision for the Rashtra, fierce sense of nationalism as his core philosophy, astute political skills, unite everyone through a common thread of spiritualistic ideals, do what it takes to eliminate evil elements in society..Is there such an individual or will someone step up ? If there is none, I don;t need to be a soothsayer to predict the demise of this nation in the next 50 years...

__________________________________________________________

What I have posted are comments made on what I have written yesterday and some a few weeks ago.  As you may have gleaned these are by Suman Kalyan a good friend of mine with whom I share a love for the same kind of music but apparently not for same kind of politics:-).  In the in interest of equity and fairness I have put all his comments here from Facebook and it is up to you now to decide on things.  I will respond to a couple of things about his comments on my post of yesterday and also I had promised to write about the philosophical underpinnings of Gandhi's Satyagraha sometime ago and did not due to preoccupations with all things useless; and so I will write that bit out too.  What can be a personal debate, I have made public so that I can perhaps benefit from perspectives that I may be wrong about or failing to see.  It will be nice if more people can contribute to this.

First let me agree with Suman that my remarks about Ramdev's physical affliction (his eye) are in poor taste. Now let us get down to a few disagreements.

1. The Congress is not the creation of MK Gandhi.  Gandhi also did not want the party to continue post independence by anticipating precisely the things that Suman has pointed out about the Congress party and the damage that it has done and continues to do to this nation.

2. The Satya Sai Baba and the Ramdev comparison is explicable.  Both have organized their popularity among the masses through the overt and covert support of finances of the rich and also of the politicians.  Though it is said that they also helped in storing the corrupt money of businesses and politics, I will not comment on that because there is no concrete evidence to support the same.  Satya Sai Baba was a facilitator of political deals and Ramdev could end up the same if he does not end up becoming a full time politician.  Also I have pointed out the differences between the two of them and why I was writing about them in that piece in the first place.

3. I do not see a place for Chanakya in the present scheme of things.  The reasons are straightforward, it is like saying Niccolo Machiavelli can solve the problems of present day Italy.  Chanakya is about as spiritual as Osama Bin Laden and to complicate it all, despite the popular perception of who Chanakya was, historically there is very little to connect three names-Chanakya, Kautilya and Vishnu Gupta; all of whom are presumed to be one person but in reality may not be.  The relevance of the Arthashastra is purely confined to its times, present day politics being far more different, complicated and bigger for the Arthashastra to be of any consequence.  If you are referring to the fact that he created a "pragmatic" system of governance, even that will be beset by the same problems that I have referred to in the previous sentence.  Cunning and astute political strategies are already leading the nation to its demise.  You give it 50 years, I give it 10 if things continue like this.

4. Ramdev may be a Yoga practitioner of great repute but that does not entitle him to get into politics.  You are right when you say that there are goons and thugs in politics already so why can't Ramdev get in.  I am bemoaning the fact that politics in India is becoming an exclusive prerogative of the unenlightened; be they goons, thugs, yoga gurus, pahelwans or communally minded people. Often this has left me with a feeling of disgust for democracy but then I prefer the evils of democracy to what may be if it is other forms of government.  So while I criticize Ramdev and his ilk I prefer them in a democratic system than having someone lording over everyone in a dictatorship.

5. My understanding of spiritualism you aver is immature and ill thought out.  I seek to disagree.  The whole idea of spiritualism is the apprehension and cognition of  picture larger than the one that is perceived of by the senses.  The spiritualist can make Cosmic connections and arrive at what is good and what is bad and what is morally sustainable and what is not.  What you have done is to delink the connection between spiritualism based in moral understanding from politics.  Politics are what they are today precisely due to their disconnect with all things spiritual. Be it Ramdev or Swami Agnivesh or the RSS; they have all failed here.  In fact the brand of Hinduthva that is being pedalled today by the RSS, the Sangh Parivar for me is the Islamization and Christianization of a cosmology that was far superior than the proselytizing religions that I have mentioned.  The intervention of the Arya Samaj actually transformed what was a brilliant cosmology into just another proselytizing religion.  I also say that by the time the Arya Samaj had intervened there were several other interventions that sublated the cosmology and turned it into a monstrous social schema.  I am referring to the intervention of Brahminical religion and its unwarranted intrusion into the Ancient Indian wisdom and cosmology reducing in the process the whole thing to dos and don'ts based in the utterly ridiculous.  I stand by my idea that what we have as spiritualism is nothing but a made easy text of dos and don'ts and therefore I will say that any comparisons between the notions of dharma as practiced in the Mahabharatha and what we have today will only strengthen efforts at genocide and launching of pogroms against specific sections of populations.

6. About the philosophical basis of Satyagraha and the answer to the question of what more is it than fasting as a tactic of blackmail.  The fasts taken up by anyone and everyone today and the birth of the system of relay fasts has detracted from the philosophical underpinnings of Satyagraha and fasting.  A good beginning to a better understanding of what Satyagraha is the dissection of the term itself.  Satyagraha is righteous anger or the anger born out of a moral conviction that what the other is doing to you is wrong and unsustainable by any system of morality.  A Satyagrahi should first be convinced of the Truth of what he believes after due logical cogitation along the lines of morality and only then should take up an action on behalf of that truth which is universal.  So when Mahatma Gandhi undertook a fast it was not to blackmail people.  It was to impress upon them the idea that his was so convinced of the Truth of his thought and actions that for the perpetuation of that Truth he was willing to even give up his life.  Gandhi was actually challenging the theory of Yuga Dharma, one that changed with every passing Yuga and went into the decline mode.  Gandhi believed not in Yuga Dharma but in Sanatana Dharma, a Dharma which will not succumb to a degenerative cycle but remain constant even in the face of great adversity.  Gandhi distinguished between Sanatana Dharma and religion. For him all religions are governed by the same Dharma and the tragedy was that people who had forgotten the basic morals of their religion (any religion) had strayed from the path of Sanatana Dharma.  For him war, conquest and colonialism were a result of people's alienation from their religion and by extension from Sanatana Dharma.

7. I feel sad that Gandhi is so vociferously disowned in his own country, by the very people he fought for.  It was his appeal for religious tolerance and fighting for it through fasts that led to whatever harmony we have in this country.  For me the belligerence of the Hinduthva forces will destroy the country not build it.  It is indeed a great pity that today the Godses of the country are becoming heroes and the Gandhis (the Mahatma type and not Indira, Sonia, Rajiv, Sanjay, Rahul and Priyanka types) are becoming villains.

And now let us welcome another great dimension to the already murky world of Indian Politics. This one goes by the name of Baba Ramdev

It has only just been a few weeks since the death of one of the most powerful Babas that independent India produced, Satya Sai Baba.  The man (God to his followers) managed to do what no one else could do; organize the rich and the famous around himself and do charity.  He sat on a throne (later a wheel chair also) and let his benevolent gaze fall on the humble and the miserable.  The latter drew great solace from his generosity (which was not to individuals but to entire regions) and his kindness and also from his message of love all (no that is not the tennis score at the French Open).  Great cricketers such as Sunil Gavaskar and Sachin Tendulkar worshipped his lotus feet while (former) Prime Ministers such as P.V. Narasimha Rao prostrated to him in obeisance in full public view.  The Baba was a know all.  He even claimed that he was Krishna in the Mahabharatha and of course, Shirdi Sai Baba as well.  So when this divine cosmic being left earth one day, it was the end of an era.  However, the world cannot be without great people, especially in India.  So in the land of many Suns when one sets, another rises.  Now all hail the New Baba, Baba Ramdev.

Strictly speaking Baba Ramdev is not new.  He has been around a while.  As is usually the case with people of his ilk he was at many a times at the centre of various unsavoury controversies.  At one time it was reported that what he sold as herbal medicine actually contained extracts from animal proteins and later the Baba courted controversy by advising his followers to give up Western medicine.  He started with the idea that Statins such as Atoverstatin should not be used every day and that they did not help in anyway (he may have been right there).  He then started Christian evangelist type camps that would have made faith healers such as Billy Graham feel small.  The Baba preached the merits of yoga and of Pranayama and while he was listening to his pious devotees he kept performing Pranayama in public.  People stood up and narrated how his methods had led to weight loss, cure for hypertension and diabetes.  The Baba benevolently thanked the narrators for sharing the stories and exhorted the other people in the camp or those watching the proceeding on Aastha TV channel to follow those examples.  To some Baba Ramdev was just an eccentric figure, to some others he was a facile fraud but to most he was manna from heaven.  

This manna from heaven has been behind the revivification of the spiritual realm among the Hindus in India, with ever greater numbers flocking to his side in order to discover or re-discover their own spiritual side.  You had a problem, Baba Ramdev had a solution.  You are overweight, go to Baba Ramdev; you are asthmatic, go to Baba Ramdev; you are hypertensive/diabetic, go to Baba Ramdev; you have aches and pains in your body, go to Baba Ramdev; you are confused by your existence and are a restless soul, just go to Baba Ramdev.  So whatever Baba Ramdev may otherwise be, he is a larger than life figure, one who has the panacea for all bodily and spiritual problems.  Now however, this larger than life figure is not only providing solutions to problems pertaining to the body and the soul but for problems pertaining to society and politics as well.  A quantum leap into a new thing as far as some people are concerned, but just a logical extension of what he has been doing thus far, to most of his followers, who are in crores.  You see that is the beauty of spiritualism.  Spiritualism claims that cleanse things at the level of spirit and automatically you can see the cleansing of other things as well.  Even though to his followers what Ramdev is doing is just an extension of spiritual cleansing, it is in effect a move away from the spiritual realm and straight into the heart of the temporal realm.  This gives us the right to drop the Baba prefix and from now on address him as Ramdev simply.

Before moving further ahead, we need to clarify one thing.  Ramdev's Babathva (like in Hinduthva) is significantly different from the Babathva of Satya Sai Baba.  While latter claimed divinity and the ability to effortless navigate the entire Cosmos whenever he felt like, the former tied himself to Yoga.  Ideally he should have been called Yogi Ramdev but for some reason he preferred Baba.  Ramdev's appearance which is lean but strong and his confident demeanour have made people believe that he is one who practices what he preaches.  The mythical Greek character Achilles had a heel which was his weak point and Ramdev has an eye that opens and closes at its own bidding.  So he has the Ramdev eye which is his weakness.  The eye weakness is metaphorical and not literal.  What is undeniable is that Ramdev has started enjoying the spotlight or the limelight or whatever light.  Apparently with this growing enjoyment is also a growing ambition and to move into newer areas of fame, fortune and glory.  Though he claims he is a saint he loves all the three things that have been just mentioned.  So this saint owns an island in Scotland, has thousands of crores of rupees and many other temporal entitlement.  But the saint is no longer content with his saintliness and has decided to become a warrior.  So Ramdev has transformed into a Warrior-Saint (an oxymoron but people don't see that) and has launched himself into politics.

The whole process began a bit like what one finds in Madrasas  or in Friday prayers in Masjids when people are told to do things for society.  This practice was once common even in Christian Churches where the members of the congregation were advised to act in a particular way when confronted with certain types of situations.  The daring and open corruption followed by the UPA Government (Raja and the 2G Telecom Scam, Arjun Singh's deemed universities, Suresh Kalmadi's Common Wealth Games scam, the Adarsh Housing Society scam to name a few) provided Ramdev with the ideal opportunity to pontificate during his Yoga meetings.  Slowly the Yoga content in this meetings came down and the political content increased exponentially.  Ramdev used his meetings to carry out his variety of political propaganda first by asking people to fight corruption and then joining the fight himself.  The opportunity to actively join the fight was presented to Ramdev by Anna Hazare who launched his fast unto death at the Jantar Mantar in Delhi fighting for the Lok Pal (Ombudsman) Bill to be introduced in the Indian Parliament.  Among many of the people who pledged support to Hazare was Ramdev.  I guess it was no coincidence that a number of the supporters were from the right wing politics and Hazare whose credentials are unknown has now been pushed into the back and Ramdev has come right to the forefront of things.  So apart from the legion of followers that he has, who is supporting him?

The RSS, the BJP, the Bajrang Dal, the Shiv Sena and all such right wing Hinduthva parties are supporting him.  In fact, it is claimed by some that he is actually fronting for them.  The right wingers have been wise in their choice of front man if that particular claim is true.  Hazare claimed he was a Gandhian and Gandhi has never been a favourite of the right wingers since he preached religious tolerance.  So Hazare could not be the figure to rally around unless he gave up his public posture of Gandhianism.  Anyway he is also an old man.  Not so Ramdev.  Young and dynamic, forceful and with a large following of people already is the right figure. It also helps that the middle class of the country feels cheated of its wealth (that much is evident from the debates on Facebook) and are looking for a figure around whom they can rally.  It also helps that many from the middle class are Hindus and therefore do not really find his call for traditionalism very disturbing.  

Other politicians are savvy and have already started throwing their weight behind Ramdev and his much publicized fast at the Ramlila Maidan in Delhi.  This is an ideal setting; this is the ground on which Ravana the arch enemy of Rama is burnt on the Vijaya Dasami Day, a day when good triumphed over evil.  Ramdev the good will now have to triumph over the first of the evils, corruption.  Ramdev has placed a list of demands in front of the Government; demands that range from the silly through the bizarre to the obnoxious.  I am sure all of you have seen them so I shall spare you of the details.  But I shall discuss one or two things which are of some significance.  The first of these is the idea of Capital Punishment for the corrupt.  Ramdev is getting ready to unleash a Goebbels and also inaugurate an era of McCarthyism in India.  Just imagine how much burden there will be on ombudsman bodies when everybody points a finger at the other.  It could even lead to the "guilty until proven innocent" system of justice delivery.  The other deals with his demand for technical education in vernacular (here I request you to read that as technical education in Hindi).  The reason behind the demand is very clear.  Ramdev is articulating a demand that will warm the cockles of the Hindi heartland where he chooses to become a leader first.  In various posts of mine, I have already talked of how in India this kind of jingoism led to the emergence of rubbish in the form of social sciences and humanities.  Now Ramdev wants to do the same thing to technical education.

This myopic vision of his (no doubt influenced at least in part by his uncontrolled eye lash) can not only doom education in this country and make it completely inefficient.  Vernacular education will mean that two people in the same discipline cannot converse anymore since they speak different languages (I would like to point out here that translating relevant bodies of knowledge into vernacular is a task that even Hercules and Atlas will not be able to accomplish).  This is in addition to the pitfalls of traditionalism.  We could have the legitimation of Khap Panchayats that will dole out punishments the way they like without any concern for the law of the land, of likes of Pramod Muthalik and his followers who will ask that girls stay indoors and cover themselves in ghoonghat, of month long Ganesh and Durga navratris, communal intolerance and righteousness of one culture over others and finally disintegration of nationalism.  In all this there will be increase of corruption; designated custodians of morality will police the streets and take their mamools apart from the regular police; extortion will widen and deepen so that traditional festivals can be celebrated with vigour and those who oppose the extortion will face instant punishment.  Ramdev knowingly or unknowingly has an agenda that can unleash a reign of terror that may embarrass Robespierre and the Jacobins.  Ramdev is what this country does not need at this juncture or any other.  I hope and pray that my countrymen and women can see through him and nip his aspirations in the bud, otherwise we could end up creating a monster that will consume us all.

P.S: Please bear with mistakes since I have not proof read the piece.

The unbearable heaviness of Being.

I know that I haven't been writing this blog for sometime now.  It is not as if there is nothing to say.  Very much to the contrary there are too many things playing on my mind and sometimes the whole thing is so depressing that one feels that exercises such as making blog posts are futile.  I have realized that my blog is essentially a rant, perhaps nothing wrong with that in itself.  But somewhere down the line I have been feeling that as a person I have done precious little constructively and therefore I have taken up an initiative called socialsciences.in on the web.  This is meant to be a resource for students and perhaps even teachers and I have successfully roped in some academicians of repute to contribute to the site, even if it meant that they will send me only their old articles.  The website is up and running and what has been heartening is that a few people are actually reading up things put on that site.  I would request readers of this blog also to have a look at that site and come up with suggestions and if you are academicians yourself please send material that can be put up on the site, for that would immensely benefit students of universities such as mine (Osmania University) where teaching is a rarity owing mainly to the incompetence of the faculty.  As I have repeated ad nauseum there are many such universities in this country and I am sure the students of those universities will benefit as well (though I have no idea exactly how, I am just going by the idea that good researched material or well written lessons will somehow benefit students).  However, even doing something "constructive" like this and planning for more such initiatives has not in anyway lifted the unbearable weight that I feel on my shoulders.  There are reasons for that.

When I go to my university what I see is just rot and the smell that I get is that of academic putridness.  Let me substantiate this point.  It really hurts to see that the Government of Andhra Pradesh treats education as the last of its priorities.  Universities have been around without full time Vice-Chancellors and therefore people within the universities are doing what they please.  Universities in Andhra Pradesh have become drift wood in the cesspool of dirty politics.  I read of the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of the Central University of Hyderabad and was quite happy to see his qualifications and what he did in terms of research.  I was a student of that university in the days when I was doing M.Phil and initially registered there for my Ph.D as well.  What was impressive about the place was that Vice-Chancellors were people of stature, those who were internationally renowned in their disciplines.  They were also committed to excellence.  Some of the Vice-Chancellors of that University also continued publishing research papers even though they were fully caught up in the administering of the University. The same is true even of the Jawaharlal Nehru University of which I am an alumnus, having done my M.A. there.  When I compare the calibre of people who have been Vice-Chancellors of these universities and other Central Universities with that of the Vice-Chancellors of the state universities what I see is the difference between heaven and hell.  While the former might not exactly be heaven, the latter is most definitely hell, a veritable nightmare for anyone wanting to do something useful for society.

I have always lamented the amount of dead wood in my university which goes in the name of teaching staff.  Like the Vice-Chancellors (there have been some exceptions to this, I request you to note), the teachers of the university have no business even administering or teaching students in kindergarten.  I say this because they will teach young minds how to look at another person as entity belonging to a certain caste or religion or region and will make them divide themselves on those lines.  The casteism that one sees in university campuses of Andhra Pradesh will shock even those who think they have seen the worst.  One university puts up not only the names of faculty members but also appends the names with castes.  When I asked why this was done, I was told that this would facilitate people of one caste inviting other people of the same caste to selection committees and such things in other universities.  But all this is old hat, so why do I fee this unbearable burden on my shoulders?

To understand that you will have to pay attention to this anecdote that I will now narrate.  I crave your indulgence in this matter.  Under severe pressure from bodies such as the NAAC and the UGC, the Osmania University last year, finally introduced the now universal academic credit system which makes it easier for students to be evaluated by other universities in different parts of the world and also provides possibilities of not having to repeat certain courses.  The then Vice-Chancellor for reasons best known to him projected this as his own innovation.  Osmania University has been inbreeding for decades now.  So most of the teachers believed him and arraigned themselves into two groups; one supporting him and the other opposing him.  The opposition or the support had nothing to do with the Choice Based Credit System (CBCS from now on).  It had everything to do with the personal likes or dislikes towards the Vice-Chancellor, of people in the teaching community of university.  The teachers union President once a lackey of the former Vice-Chancellor has been fighting for the removal of the CBCS system without even knowing that the system is now mandatory and the university has little choice about its implementation.

The acting Vice-Chancellor of the university called for a meeting a couple of day ago, of the Heads of Department and some other faculty members to iron out the issue.  I was deputed by my Head of the Dept to attend the meeting on his behalf.  And I wish I never accepted doing that.  The meeting was just a political meeting with everyone talking about all things except the CBCS system and when the system was discussed it inevitably led to flared tempers and name calling.  Another issue was admissions to PhD courses.  Just a couple of months ago the university completed admissions into the PhD courses and gave admissions to more than 1700 students!!!!This is over and above those who are already registered for the same in the university.  This number could be reached due to successfully bringing down qualifying mark for eligibility to 15 out of hundred.  And one Dean was saying that we have to give more admissions.  Already the PhDs from Osmania University have become cut and paste jobs thanks to the internet and now the process will gain impetus.  I don't want to continue in this system but if I quit I lose my livelihood.  And now under the stewardship of an academician from my department the political joint action committee is planning agitations again from the end of June.  This means the continuation of the no work situation.  But we take salaries and that makes me feel guilty as hell, for I know there are people who work twelve hours a day and don't earn as much as I do and there those who are laid off even when they are willing to work.  Everyday when I see vegetable vendors, street side hawkers, construction workers and such others braving the summer sun and taking a pittance home, my very being cringes with guilt.  I think I am due for some severe punishment in my next life and that punishment will be well deserved.

P.S:  Have not proof read so please excuse me.