Polinomics: Dissent is now a crime

The report of the Intelligence Bureau on the “impact” that non-government organisations have on India’s “development” is a case of extreme paranoia on the part of a section of the country’s establishment. This section believes that those who are opposed to their notions of development — which include the proliferation of nuclear energy and widespread use of genetically modified organisms in agriculture — are not just anti-national but also acting at the behest of foreign powers who do not want India to develop.
Interestingly, many of those opposed to the activities of foreign-funded civil society organisations as well as those who actually run such NGOs belong to the country’s elite. One group which spares no effort in extolling the virtues of foreign direct investment, also conjures conspiracies when it comes to ascribing motives to those who speak up for those displaced by mining, irrigation and industrial projects. The first group firmly believes that growth is the mantra for the country’s economic problems. The other section espouses environmentally-friendly policies and believes that inequalities must come down if sustainable development is to take place.
The two groups represent contrasting worldviews. To use simplistic catch-phrases, one is Right-wing, neo-liberal and market-friendly while the other is Leftist, Luddite and emphasises redistribution before growth. One believes that encouraging the private sector is the best way forward while the other is in favour of government-sponsored welfare schemes for the poor. Both sections want to engage with the West and the rest of the world, but on different terms.
The current debate on the role of NGOs is reminiscent of the polarised discourse on Christian missionaries who “convert” tribals and poor Hindus by “alluring” them. The anti-missionary viewpoint can be found in the books written by Arun Shourie, including one entitled Harvesting Our Souls. The contrary view is that if the Indian elite have been less than fair to society’s underprivileged, why should they grudge the activities of those (including missionaries from India and abroad) who have tried to organise the poor. Many missionaries are perceived as activists. One such individual named in the IB report is Thomas Kochherry, who fought relentless to safeguard the interests of Kerala’s traditional fisherfolk and who passed away recently.
By criticising NGOs allegedly opposed to the “Gujarat model of development”, the IB — which one of the world’s oldest internal security agencies — may have sought to please Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In fact, one paragraph in the report seems to have been inspired (if not plagiarised) from a speech that Mr Modi made in September 2006 during the launch of a book with a rather revealing title: NGOs, Activists and Foreign Funds: Anti-Nation Industry.
On that occasion, Mr Modi had lashed out against those he described as “five-star activists” by remarking: “Funds are obtained from abroad; an NGO is set up; a few articles are commissioned; a PR (public relations) firm is recruited and, slowly, with the help of the media, an image is created. And then awards are procured from foreign countries to enhance this image. Such a vicious cycle... no one in Hindustan dares raise a finger, no matter how many the failings of the awardee...”
Mr Modi is in illustrious company. His predecessor Manmohan Singh was suspicious of NGOs using foreign funds who were opposed to the establishment of the Kudankulam nuclear power plant. Dr Singh and former agriculture minister Sharad Pawar were both opposed to NGOs who were resisting field trials for genetically-modified food crops. In January 2013, speaking at the centenary session of the Indian Science Congress in Kolkata, Dr Singh described the issues of nuclear energy and GM foods as “complex issues” that “cannot be settled by faith, emotion and fear but by structured debate, analysis and enlightenment.”
The tone of the IB report is not very different from the raving and ranting against an unseen “foreign hand” during the Emergency regime of Indira Gandhi between June 1975 and March 1977. It was during this period that the government enacted the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, which was amended during the second UPA government in 2010. While there are more than a million NGOs operating in the country, roughly 50,000 are currently registered under the FCRA. After the law was amended, the permission granted to some 4,000 NGOs to receive foreign funds was revoked.
It is nobody’s case that all foreign-funded NGOs are run by bleeding-heart activists who only have the welfare of the deprived and the indigent on top of their minds. There is no dearth of people who abuse their association with international civil society groups to go on expensive junkets across the world and live a rather good life. Such individuals can be found across different strata in Indian society. If anyone, including those who run NGOs, is found to be violating the law of the land, the law should be strictly enforced against such people and organisations.
But why is the voluntary sector being targeted at present? The IB report appears to have been written and deliberately leaked with a specific purpose — to create an atmosphere that would encourage some in the government to come down hard on dissenters and those whose views and activities they don’t like. It’s as simple as that.
This writer’s name figures in the IB report for having produced and directed a 45-minute documentary film in English and Hindi entitled Coal Curse/Koyla Ya Kala Shaap in 2013 which was financially supported by Greenpeace India. Both versions of the film are available for free viewing on YouTube. The film juxtaposes the Coalgate scandal (which was, incidentally, highlighted by the ruling party) with the larger socio-political and economic issues surrounding the use of coal. It includes a case study of the Singrauli region in central India, often described as the country’s “electricity hub”. The film argues that what represents an investment opportunity for both public sector and private corporate entities is a “resource curse” for local populations whose livelihoods have been devastated together with the ecology of the region. It is a separate matter altogether that I have been writing about and making documentary films on this subject for many years now.
In conclusion, one must assert that there are always certain exceptions to the rule and no action will ever be taken against particular NGOs. These are the now-defunct National Advisory Council headed by Sonia Gandhi and the nearly-90-year-old Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. There are also two other organisations that have received funds from foreign sources (including the Vedanta corporate group) whose activities are unlikely to be scrutinised by the ministry of home affairs, under which the IB operates. These are the Indian National Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party.

Source: http://www.asianage.com/columnists/polinomics-dissent-now-crime-385

HRD: It’s not Hindu Resource Development

The Modi government seems to believe that a change should be brought in school curriculum by re-working the text books that NCERT brings out. To this effect the ministry of human resource development, it appears, is taking steps. According to reports in the media, lessons from Vedas and Upanishads will be incorporated in the text books to educate the student community about ancient Indian civilisation and culture. There is not just one view of ancient India. The so-called Vedic view is nothing but the Brahminic view.
No one should have any objection if those sections of Vedas and Upanishads which focus on human equality in the realm of spiritual systems of India are included in the text books. But along with such portions from Vedas and Upanishads, the egalitarian teachings from the Buddhist Suthas and Pitakas, and Jain theories of non-violence should also be included. Equally important are the materialist discourses of Charvakas, which injected the earliest rational thinking among our ancestors. The Dalitist narrative of ancient India, which focuses a great deal on production and science, is also extremely relevant to the discourse of development today.
Ancient India, for example, was known for producing scientific tools and instruments that enhanced the country’s productivity. The Vedas and Upanishads don’t just ignore the production process and its contribution, but in certain sections negated “production” as pollution. Labour classes were the lower castes, and that’s why they were invisibilised in these text written by the brahmins.
For a comprehensive view and understanding of ancient India, it must be studied from the point of view of dignity of labour. And the contemporary development debate has to be linked to the question of dignity of labour even in ancient times because our under-development is closely associated to the notion of indignity of labour in Indian civil society.
For example, the earliest pot and brick was made in ancient India. The Indus Valley Civilisation was built on the advanced skills of brick making and pottery. But those who make bricks and pots today are considered to be people of “neech jati” by Vedic pundits. Even the secular, academic understanding holds a similar opinion of labour. Today a Vedic pundit is not one who respects the brick and pot maker, but one who bathes several times if a potter touches him/her. School children, who need to be part of the contemporary developmental discourse, should know that treating production as pollution is a socially constructed wrong. Such a spiritual, social notion hampers development.
One of our glorious ancient heritages is the shaving blade (or, the barber’s knife). If the clean shaven faces of Hindu divine figures like Rama and Krishna are any indication, by Kritha and Dwpara yuga India had created what was, perhaps, the sharpest blade in the ancient world. At a time when no nation in the world seemed to know about it, Indian ironsmiths were hammering shaving blades and surgical knives that made advancements in other fields possible.
Realistically, a definite time frame of when the blade/knife was invented and used could be drawn from the timeline of Jain and Buddhist schools, both of whom had the compulsory practice of shaving their head, including for female monks.
We also have enough evidence to show that Indian leather technology was also very advanced in ancient times. But leather technocrats began to be treated as untouchable by the Vedic forces and the situation has not changed to date. Is it not necessary to deconstruct a mindset that still exists, not just of our school going population, but also the teachers themselves?
The present set of NCERT books were prepared when Prof. Krishna Kumar was the director. They adopted a so-called secular approach to rewrite the text books, to undo the communal overtones introduced under the supervision of Dr Murali Manohar Joshi, the National Democratic Alliance’s HRD minister. But the so-called secular view isn’t without its inherent prejudices. A friend of mine had taken a children’s book I had written on dignity of labour, Turning the Pot, Tilling the Land: Dignity of Labour in our Times, to Prof. Krishna Kumar, who, it appears, looked at it with disdain. Nothing was incorporated.
The so-called communist scholars claim that they are champions of labour, but they too refuse to understand that religion and caste in India are real. When a religion treats the labouring castes as impure, naturally the indignity of labour becomes the essence of the nation. Does not this situation need to change? How can it change without incorporating a heavy dose of dignity of labour in our schools?
Yet another important aspect of ancient Indian life that needs to come into text books is the food culture. No social group in ancient India was vegetarian — not even the Jains and Buddhists. Now the Vedic pundits and Hindutva forces are hegemonising vegetarianism, ignoring plural choice based food cultures, particularly meat eating. This will be an exercise in exceptionalism which no nation can suffer. If Mr Modi’s development model is couched in vegetarianism, future Indians will suffer from huge nutrition deficiencies.
Any selective teaching of ancient India is harmful because a multi-cultural, modern society cannot be connected to any one set of values. If a government takes a position on religious ethics, it cannot be partisan. If text books need to contain some aspects of Vedas, the Bible, Quran and Guru Granth cannot be left out. Rewriting what India studies and learns cannot be driven by Hindutva nationalism.
If God and religion are universal, the core books of all religions are also universal. It is a different thing that one religion has more following and another has less. India, thus, cannot treat Hinduism as the only Indian religion.
HRD minister Smriti Irani should not commit the same mistake that Dr Joshi committed by converting the ministry of human resource development into the ministry of Hindu resource development. Let the Prime Minister keep a watch, as he, hopefully, knows the difference.

The writer is director, Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy, Maulana Azad National Urdu University, Hyderabad

Indian Christians struggle for legitimacy

The Christian community, barring pockets of influence in Kerala and the northeastern states, has never been seen as relevant to Indian political discourse. Official census statistics put Christian numbers at 2.3 percent of the population. It was always a small number, far behind Muslims whose population is variously estimated from 13 to 15 percent of India's 1.2 billion people. It is not just the minuscule numbers that impact on the social, economic and political fortunes of the Christian community. 

 

Their dispersal across India is very skewed, with the small northeastern states of Mizoram, Nagaland and Meghalaya having a Christian majority, and the tribal areas of central India between at 2 to 4 percent. Goa at 27 percent and Kerala with 19 percent are the other major concentrations. The southern states of Tamil Nadu and Andhra also have sizeable populations, especially among Dalit Christians. But the population in the rest of the country would be invisible if not for the spires and crosses of the various churches that dot the skylines. This geographic demography has major political implications for the community, which reflects in their abysmal strength in parliament and state legislatures. In fact, in most north Indian state legislatures, there are no Christians at all. 

 

In the national Lok Sabha, or Lower House of parliament, the number of Christians has been steadily declining. There were said to be less than 10 Christian members in the Lower House after the last general election. Contrast this with the other small minority, the Sikhs, who represent about 2 percent of the population. The Sikhs are concentrated largely in the Punjab, where they constitute the dominant social and economic groups, and all but monopolize political power. Because of Punjab's proximity to Delhi, they also wield tremendous clout with the national government. Muslims have traditionally been politically important, although economically they are among the most backward in the country. Though their numbers too have declined in parliament, their concentrations in a large number of parliamentary constituencies have made political parties woo them assiduously. 

 

The right wing Hindu nationalist groups, particularly the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, calls this "vote bank politics" presuming Muslims to be some sort of a pocket borough for the Congress Party and such socialist groups as the Samajwadi Party and the Janata Dal. Bharatiya Janata leaders have consistently accused Congress of pandering to Muslims, describing it as "minority appeasement". In political battles, the party and its associated cadres of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh have used this argument to polarize the people and consolidate a collective Hindu response, alienating Muslims in the recent electoral campaign. The Hindu consolidation was a major factor in the rout of Congress, despite the populist policies and development programs during its 10-year rule. 

 

The new government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has in a way tried to wave an olive branch, if only to soothe fears among religious minorities from emboldened Hindu fundamentalist groups, who have already started shouting for an extremely nationalistic agenda that includes dismantling personal laws of Muslims, and the construction of a Ram temple at the disputed site of the Babri mosque in the holy city of Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh. Modi has tried to reach out to Muslims without alienating his core group of supporters. In his inaugural speech in the Lok Sabha, Modi said, "If one organ of the body remains weak, the body cannot be termed as healthy. We are committed to this. We don't see it as appeasement. We have to do focused activity to change lives of Muslims; they cannot be left behind in development." Modi did not mention the Christian community in his long speech. He has not appointed a Christian minister to his cabinet. His party has not indicated that it even knows about the needs of the community, whose tribal, Dalit and rural poor are among the most deprived segments in Indian society. 

 

An utter lack of unity among the Christian community and Church leadership is a major reason that the community has not been able to assert its rights within the government. The Congress regime was also guilty of ignoring Christians. Barring a few cronies among the Congress leadership, the community found little representation in government or the development discourse. The Congress turned its face from the long standing demand of Dalit Christians to constitutional rights given to those professing other faiths. Congress governments passed several anti-conversion laws in the states. And although the perpetrators were members of the notorious Sangh Parivar groups, Congress governments did little to check the persecution of Christians and violence against churches and pastors in many parts of the country. 

 

The Christian leadership is yet to fully understand the long term implications of the Bharatiya Janata Party coming to power. There is little discussion or reflection on the political changes the country has seen. It will have to hone its tools of advocacy to make some space for itself in the national development discourse. Above all, it would perhaps have to participate more fully in grassroots political processes, training its youth in civil rights, and aligning itself with civil society. There is little it can do by itself. 

 

John Dayal is the general secretary of the All India Christian Council and a member of the Indian government's National Integration Council.
Read more at: http://www.ucanews.com/news/indian-christians-struggle-for-legitimacy/71199