Should a rape victim fit a stereotype to qualify for justice?

On September 25, Justice Ashok Kumar of the Delhi High Court set aside a lower court order convicting “Peepli Live” co-director Mahmood Farooqui of raping a US citizen. The judgment said it was doubtful if there was consent for the sexual act and that it was doubtful if that consent was effectively communicated. It said it was even doubtful if the incident ever happened the way the victim narrated it.

Our attitudes towards women and rape have not changed a bit. Take the Delhi HC setting aside a lower court conviction of Peepli Live co-director Farooqui for raping a woman. The judgment does not make sense at all. It makes lots of assumptions; believes in stereotypes and does not believe the rape victim at all. 

If the woman is educated, progressive, liberal, easy-going, does not have inhibitions about sex, has a balanced mien, then she is difficult to believe!!

The victim in this case begins her communication to Farooqui, after the alleged rape, like this:

“I tried calling you, but was unable to get through, I want
to talk with you about what happened the other night. I
like you a lot. You know that I consider you a good friend
and I respect you, but what happened the other night
wasn’t right. I know you were in a very difficult space and
you are having some issues right now, but Saturday you
really went too far. You kept asking me if you could suck
me and I knew you were drunk and sad and things were
going awful. I knew that this wasn’t going to help things
and I told you many times I didn’t want to. But you did
become forceful. I went along, because I did not want
things to escalate, but it was not what I wanted. I was just
afraid that something bad would happen if I didn’t. This is
new for me. I completely own my sexually and I consider
you a good friend. I like you. I am attracted to you, but it
really made me feel bad when this happened. I haven’t
known what to say to you since then, I wasn’t sure if I
would say anything. In the end I consented, but it was
because of pressure and your own force physically on me.
I did not want things to go bad. I have only decided to tell
you how I feel for your own well being. I am afraid that if
you don’t realize that this is unacceptable, you may try
this on another woman when you are drunk and she will
not be so understanding."

Does the tenor of the communication raise doubts about the victim's character and attitude? To me, the opening paragraph suggests she is a solid woman who is mature and who is neither confused nor agitated. She was handling a sexual exploitation issue involving a friend -- that was something that shocked her, but she did not lose he sense of balance and proportion. Nor, at the same time, was she soft on him. Had she raved and ranted, abused him, vandalised his house, in fact behaved like a madcap, would she have stood a better chance of being believed? Pathetic.

So, we have a rape case where the High Court took a diametrically opposite view from the lower court. The judgment raises a number of doubts and throws up an equal number of assumptions – these form the basis of the judgment.

A deconstruction of the judgment, point by point, raises a point: Is there a stereo-type (i) format of rape (ii) format of consent or refusal (iii) format of the victim’s attitudes and reactions after rape (iv) format of no-possibility of rape where the man and the woman are close friends, and so forth? It seems that if the victim does not conform to a “stereotype”, she is in trouble.

Here is the deconstruction, based on the judgment, without attributing any motive either to the judgment or the learned judge:

The victim to Farooqui:

Victim, March 30, 2015: I knew that this wasn’t going to help things and I told you many times I didn’t want to. But you did become forceful. I went along, because I did not want things to escalate, but it was not what I wanted. I was just afraid that something bad would happen if I didn’t. This is new for me. I completely own my sexually and I consider you a good friend. I like you. I am attracted to you, but it really made me feel bad when this happened.

Victim, March 30, 2015: I want the best for you, whatever that is, but I also need you to know doing what you did the other night is unacceptable. I hope this doesn’t affect our friendship, but am willing to deal with the repercussions if it does.”

The victim to Farooqui, which communication was read by the latter’s wife:

Victim, April 12, 2015: You were supposed to be my friend. Instead you manipulated me. You hurt me. I said no. I said no many times. You didn’t listen. You pinned my arms. You pulled my underwear down.

Victim, April 12, 2015: In the past two weeks I have blamed myself. I have spent the last two weeks crying, processing. I have thought about death.

Victim, April 12, 2015: I have been trying to figure out what I could have done differently, but I couldn’t do anything differently…..I have spent the past two weeks protecting you, like I did that night. The only thing I know is I didn’t do anything wrong but that doesn’t matter. I am xxxx scared now. I am xxxx screwed up now.

Victim, April 12, 2015: I used to own my sexuality. You took that from me, you forced me to do something I did not want to do. I stopped struggling because I was scared. I wanted to get out. I did get out. So remember this, what you did that night wasn’t one night, what you did that night continues to affect me and my suffering, my pain. It’s on your hands, when I carry this forward in life. It is your sin that I carry forward. It is you sin that I have to overcome. You disgust me……”

Farooqui’s wife to the Victim:

Anusha, April 12, 2015: I chanced upon your email you sent Mahmood today…I am deeply disturbed by your email. What you have described is an ordeal. I cannot imagine how you have dealt with it so far. Needless to say that I stand with you. If you require any help of any nature including legal, I will assist. This is completely unacceptable behaviour, especially for me since it happened under my roof.  

Anusha, April 12, 2015: You’d obviously wonder why I have not confronted Mahmood with this but instead I am writing to you directly. The reason for that is that Mahmood is in a rehab. I don’t know how and when it would be appropriate to speak with him. The issue is also complicated by the fact that he is a Bi-polar depressive

Anusha, April 12, 2015: I really don’t know how to express how responsible I feel. I have already spoken with his psychiatrist, and we both feel that this matter should be reported to the authorities if you so wish.

Anusha, April 12, 2015: Please find me and his family with you in the process of healing, as I hope the process will be of healing.

Justice Ashok Kumar, at point 19 of his Judgment, refers to the communication between the two women:

19….The wife of the appellant had apologized for what had happened to the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix also replied to the e-mail (Ex.PW3/C-12), telling the wife of the appellant not to blame the bipolar disorder of her husband for the sexual assault on her and that rape and sexual assault is executed with power.

Communication between the two women; the Victim’s proposed action and the Wife’s reaction:

Victim, April 12, 2015: Mahmood is the only one responsible. As you can see I am angry and hurt and processing this is very difficult right now. I cannot do it on my own at the moment and I do not have the resources in India to figure out how to begin the healing process, so I am leaving tonight to go back to New York. I need to be around my family and my colleagues. I need to get help and support for this.

Victim, April 12, 2015: Just please do me a favour and do not blame this on his bi-polar condition, at least in my presence. I know about the condition, but sexual assault has nothing to do with bipolar and everything to do with power. The assertion of power over another human being.”

Anusha, April 15, 2015: I am glad to know that you will be among your friends and family for the moment. I hope that you will be able to overcome this horrible incident. As I said before, his brothers and I will completely support you in whatever you wish to do about it

Anusha, April 15, 2015: I understand how angry you must be and therefore misread my categorical position on such matters. The reason I mentioned Bi-polar is because that is the reason why I don’t have access to Mahmood and therefore I am unable to confront him at present.

The crux of Justice Ashok Kumar’s judgment:

46. The history of intimacy and the unabashed liking/attraction of the prosecutrix towards the appellant may have given an impression to the appellant of consent. The orgasm which was feigned by the prosecutrix, avowedly for the purposes of preventing further damage to her, may have been taken by the appellant as willingness on the part of the prosecutrix because it understood/misunderstood as a non-verbal communication of consent. Absence of any real resistance of any kind re-affirms the willingness. An expression of disinclination alone, that also a feeble one, may not be sufficient to constitute rape.

The judge explains what is feeble consent or feeble hesitation on the part of a victim alleging rape:

47. In the present case, the unwillingness of the prosecutrix was only in her own mind and heart but she communicated something different to the appellant. If that were not so, the prosecutrix would not have told the appellant that he had gone too far on that night. At what point of time, during the act, did she not give the consent for the same, thus, remains unknown and it can safely be said that the appellant had no idea at all that the prosecutrix was unwilling. It is not unknown that during sexual acts, one of the partners may be a little less willing or, it can be said unwilling but when there is an assumed consent, it matters not if one of the partners to the act is a bit hesitant. Such feeble hesitation can never be understood as a positive negation of any advances by the other partner.

The judgment finds that the Victim’s “understanding” disposition following rape is “surprising”:

48…A person who has been violated against her wishes would not be so understanding as to confront the appellant with such simple reproach. No communication on the next day between the prosecutrix and the appellant further buttresses the aforesaid argument. A day after the occurrence, the prosecutrix cannot be said to be under any fear of reprisal or reaction and her not approaching the issue with the appellant is rather surprising.

The judgment makes critical assumptions about the Victim’s attitude on the basis of her post-rape communication:

77. The WhatsApp communication between the prosecutrix and the appellant on 30.03.2015 signifies that what happened in the night of 28.03.2015 was not acceptable to her because it was something which she never wanted. The communication further reads that the appellant, on that night went too far. This obviously means that there were some earlier encounters which may not have been of such intensity or passion but physical contact in some measure was accepted. Under such circumstances, this Court is required to see as to what was communicated to the appellant. It is a matter of common knowledge that different persons have different inclinations for sexual activity and immediately preceding the act, there are different ways of people of responding to the advances, entreaties or request.

Another critical assumption about women in general and their consent or refusal for sex:

78. Instances of woman behavior are not unknown that a feeble “no‟ may mean a “yes‟. ….when parties are known to each other, are persons of letters and are intellectually/academically proficient, and if, in the past, there have been physical contacts. In such cases, it would be really difficult to decipher whether little or no resistance and a feeble “no”, was actually a denial of consent.

The judgment refers to the Victim’s “motherly” feeling and the defendant’s want to “suck her” and links it to the Nirbhaya syndrome:

81….There are some exchanges between the parties regarding their being good persons in their individuals rights. The prosecutrix starts feeling motherly towards the appellant. Then the appellant communicates his desire to suck her. The prosecutrix says “No‟ and gives a push but ultimately goes along. In her mind, the prosecutrix remembers a clip from the case of Nirbhaya, a hapless girl who was brutally raped and killed, when the malefactor had declared that if she (Nirbhaya) did not resist, she might have lived.

The judgment clearly states it is not known if there was consent and if so, for which “particular move”:

83. The questions which arise are whether or not there was consent; whether the appellant mistakenly accepted the moves of the prosecutrix as consent; whether the feelings of the prosecutrix could be effectively communicated to the appellant and whether mistaking all this for consent by the appellant is genuine or only a ruse for his defence. At what point of time and for which particular move, the appellant did not have the consent of the prosecutrix is not known. What is the truth of the matter is known to only two persons namely the appellant and the prosecutrix who have advanced their own theories/versions.

The judgment refers to various “models” of sexual consent but does not take the description to a logical end:

84….There is a recent trend of suggesting various models of sexual consent. The traditional and the most accepted model would be an “affirmative model” meaning thereby that “yes” is “yes” and “no” is “no”. There would be some difficulty in an universal acceptance of the aforesaid model of consent, as in certain cases, there can be an affirmative consent, or a positive denial, but it may remain underlying/dormant which could lead to confusion in the mind of the other.

The judgment makes an assumption about “yes” and “no” not exactly being “yes” and “no”:

85. In an act of passion, actuated by libido, there could be myriad circumstances which can surround a consent and it may not necessarily always mean yes in case of yes or no in case of no…..However, recent studies reveal that in reality, most of the sexual interactions are based on non-verbal communication to initiate and reciprocate consent.

The judgment raises the gender factor in sexual consent without clarifying why it was raised:

85….There are differences between how men and women initiate and reciprocate sexual consent. The normal construct is that man is the initiator of sexual interaction. He performs the active part whereas a woman is, by and large, non-verbal. Thus gender relations also influence sexual consent….However, in today’s modern world with equality being the buzzword, such may not be the situation.

The judgment reiterates (to be read with Point. 46) that the issue of consent is not resolved in the case:

86….However, in the present case, as has been stated, the appellant has not been communicated or at least it is not known whether he has been communicated that there was no consent of the prosecutrix.

The judgment assumes that a person suffering from bi-polar condition may not understand meaning of “communications” of consent, but clarifies it is not probing that angle:  

101. There is yet another aspect of the matter which has caught the attention of this Court. The wife of the appellant had a chance to read the communication between the prosecutrix and the appellant and after coming to know about the alleged incident, she had corresponded with the prosecutrix wherein she had informed her that the appellant had been under a rehabilitation regimen for his bipolar mental condition. The prosecutrix had, but rubbished such an explanation by stating that the occurrence had to do more with the physical power of the appellant than the mental condition. However, it would be necessary to know as to what a bipolar disorder in a human being entails. Though the mental makeup/condition of the appellant may not be a ground to justify any act which is prohibited under law, but the same can be taken into consideration while deciding as to whether the appellant had the correct cognitive perception to understand the exact import of any communication by the other person. Since no evidence has been led on this aspect, any foray into this field would only be fraught with speculative imagination, which this Court does not intend to undertake.

The judgment’s conclusion is not only about doubtful consent and communication of that consent, but also about whether the incident took place at all:

102. But, it remains in doubt as to whether such an incident, as has been narrated by the prosecutrix, took place and if at all it had taken place, it was without the consent/will of the prosecutrix and if it was without the consent of the prosecutrix, whether the appellant could discern/understand the same.

The judgment’s final word:

103. Under such circumstances, benefit of doubt is necessarily to be given to the appellant.

https://barandbench.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/ASK25092017CRLA9442016-watermark.pdf

Media cackles, no longer tackles

Why cringe when some one says the media takes sides? The presence of political free-loaders at the Press Club of India the other day is a fine example. The meeting was to protest the murder of "journalist" Gauri Lankesh. It was a community protest. 
The Press Club management should explain if it indeed invite non-media actors. In the very least, the explanation will prevent further erosion of the media's credibility. 
The second issue is about one of the free-loaders, who goes by the name of Shehla Rashid, asked a tv channel to get lost. "We" dont want you here, she is supposed to have said. We? Is she a journalist? Or we all are free-loaders? Let's decide.
Remember how, some time ago, the ageing loudmouth, Mani Shankar Aiyar, asked a tv channel reporter to get lost? Who is he to say so? What are we to take this shit silently? It is shameful attending the press conference of the likes of Arun Jaitley or Ravi Shankar Prasad on Amit Shah. They treat journalists -- I mean those who ask uncomfortable questions -- brusquely. What right do they have? Why are we silent? The more we bend, the more hurting is the stick.
Three. We need to begin to think big. Today, we think small. So we are becoming small. And we are construed small. Every time a journalist is killed or maimed or tortured, we religiously drum up passion on the social media, and actively collect at the Pres Club or the Jantar Mantar.
The speeches are dour, repetitive, without any emotion. It is an opportunity for the speakers to brush up their public speaking abilities. For TV anchors it is a splendid opportunity to do their natural thing outside a studio. All this is followed by a statement which gets printed in the next day's papers. End of Matter.
What is the point in the media being one of the dozens of protest batches at Jantar Mantar? What is the point in the media talking to itself about the crime? The media is supposed to draw the nation's attention to a crime or a wrong. Draw the attention of the people at large. Through a campaign. A sustained campaign. That is how pressure is built up. Such pressure makes a government take notice and act. 
Is that happening? No. Why? Because it is so easy to cackle than tackle.

The Spies Who Were Left In The Cold

I happened to come across a rare write-up by National Security Advisor AK Doval. It was his reaction to something that appeared in The Hindu newspaper. I have reproduced the letter in full below and my own comments follow thereafter. For those who may be interested in the link to the newspaper, here it is: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/clarification-and-apology/article5674485.ece

"Clarification and Apology

The former Director of the Intelligence Bureau, A.K. Doval, writes:

My friends from different parts of India have drawn my attention to your editorial, >“Moment of truth for India” (Feb. 8, 2014), which stated that I had “candidly said” the operation that led the President of India to award the coveted Kirti Chakra to me involved “the killing of a Pakistani spy, the illegal detention of terrorism suspects and smuggling across international borders.”

This is a totally false and fabricated statement. The reason for conferring the Kirti Chakra on me is no secret and was published in the Gazette notification issued by Rashtrapati Bhavan on January 26, 1989. Your version is in no way related to it.

No one in the last 25 years has ever challenged or even remotely cast any aspersion on the award of the Kirti Chakra to me. Earlier, the Indian Police Medal was awarded to me, as a one-time exception in six years of service — a national record that I still hold. At that point, Pakistan had not even launched its terrorist offensive against India. It has also been wrongly asserted in the editorial that the source of the offending words was my “candid” statement, which is false and baseless. This cannot be a normal slip which occurs in day-to-day and overnight journalism, because editorials are written after careful verification of facts and contemplation. Therefore, the facts on which editorials are based are believed by readers as needing no further verification. In effect, an editorial implicitly testifies to the facts on which it is based. The false statements in the impugned editorial can be quoted by others as “evidence” in future. You can imagine the extent of damage the impugned editorial has the potential to cause to my reputation but, more importantly, to the national institutions engaged in the security of our country and the safety of its people.

Along with me, the Kirti Chakra is also demeaned — which is a national disservice. It must be understood that citations for gallantry awards are approved only after due verification and vetting at various levels in the government. Therefore, questioning the basis for the presentation of gallantry awards not only undermines state institutions, including the highest office in the country, but can also adversely impact the morale of the security forces. Additionally, as one with experience on the subject, I would like to add that the contention in your editorial that “every time” intelligence agencies “run trans-border operations or plant moles in terrorist groups, they break the law,” betrays poor understanding both of law and national security.

I was shocked even more because this editorial appeared in The Hindu, which has a nationwide reputation for reliability and credibility. The more credible a newspaper, the more harm and damage any false statement in it causes to the injured person — which in this case happens to be me.

The Hindu regrets the error and conveys its apologies to Mr. Doval. — Editor-in-Chief"

My remarks:

My little understanding of intelligence agencies and their work notwithstanding, Mr. Doval does have a point and The Hindu did apologise. Details are in the report printed verbatim above.

Mr. Doval was rightly hurt by what the editorial said about the reason for his Kirti Chakra. Such awards come rare, rarer for a non-military officer to win it. The newspaper was its gracious self and printed its apology. 

But that is not my point. 

Over the years, Indian intelligence agencies have done yeoman service in protecting the country. In nearly all cases, their valour goes unrecognised because of the very secretive nature of their work. That is the irony.

Having said that, I bring attention to another point raised by Mr. Doval:

"Therefore, questioning the basis for the presentation of gallantry awards not only undermines state institutions, including the highest office in the country, but can also adversely impact the morale of the security forces. Additionally, as one with experience on the subject, I would like to add that the contention in your editorial that “every time” intelligence agencies “run trans-border operations or plant moles in terrorist groups, they break the law,” betrays poor understanding both of law and national security."

Simply, put, the observation, to my mind, indirectly states two things. One, trans-border operations are run. Two, they are not necessarily illegal. Mr. Doval has been one of the most decorated and daring spies, ever. He will never acknowledge in public, understandably. But he knows these things.

The point I make is this: There are many Indians in Pakistani jails. Many of them have been there for decades. Most of them claim that they were spies. They claim that they entered Pakistan to gather intelligence and got caught. The so-called deniability clause distances such persons from their country's security establishment.

Mr. Doval, if at all the claims of even one of the prisoners are true, what do wehave to say about it? You see, you got hurt by a newspaper's editorial. What about the quantum and depth of hurt of that spy who stands forsaken by his bosses, his so-called intelligence activity unacknowledged? What about his morale?

The Dalit, The Devil and The Deep Blue Sea

The word Dalit, for politicians, signifies a human tragedy to exploit at whim.

Their sizeable population translates into a formidable amount of votes. That settles their fate – they are tethered to their numbers. And they have no choice but to be wooed by political parties. Whether they like it or not.

If the Dalit does not come to the politician, the politician will go to the Dalit. The Dalit is left with a Hobson‘s choice!

The wooing is done at two levels.

At the idolatory level, each party has conveniently gone against its own legacy and appropriated Ambedkar, considered for political purposes the Dalit Messiah.

At the individual level, each party has even breached the privacy of a Dalit home, for a photo-op of a leader sharing a meal with a Dalit family.

The Dalit in today's India as it is has restricted space outside his or her home. The tragedy is the Dalit is not secure within the four walls of his or her home either. 

Rahul Gandhi notched up for himself a unique record: The politician who took off on the Dalit home-visiting-spree has an enviable record of having visited the maximum Dalit homes -- uninvited of course – nearly every year since 2008.

His visits serve the singular purpose of filling photo albums, because nothing was supposed to come out of the visits other than to show the Nehru-Gandhi princeling dabbling easily with the lowest of the lowly and even sharing their food.

The Dalit home is now on the must-visit list of any and every politician.

Amit Shah is one who takes these visits seriously, whether in UP before the last assembly elections, in West Bengal, the latest in Telangana. His colleagues are not far behind, like for instance BS Yeddyruppa in Karnataka. Nitin Gadkari too.  

It is the insolence that stands out during and after the visits. The visits are planned in advance. The unlucky Dalit family told in advance to be ready with food. In one case, the family asked to be excused because it did not have the money to buy rice for the VIP guest. Nothing doing, get it from somewhere, the family was told. The leaders somehow manage to shake hands with the Dalit family members, talk about the weather and their problems, promise to set things right, all the while ensuring the cameras are whirring, and then leave. Never to look at that family again. 

Of late, the visits are followed by rumors that the leaders actually ate stuff bought from a hotel. There is no evidence provided. The rumors spread primarily to insinuate that the leaders still practice untouchability. True or false, it points to the mindset in India about Dalits, going to their homes, eating their food, touching and interacting with them. Such are the humiliating and demeaning circumstances under which these visits occur and are covered by the media.

The ultimate abuse of the Dalits goes beyond all this. Even as these visits are planned and executed, the routine persecution and oppression of Dalits continues. Uninterrupted. Ironical. The suicide of a Dalit youth Rohith Vemula and the consequent national unrest did not in any way deter the visits. Political wooing of Dalits did not stop a mob of lynchers torturing Dalit youth in Una in Gujarat on the false pretext of protecting cows. In Saharanpur in Uttar Pradesh, the Thakurs literally provoked a riot as they competed with the Dalits in taking out processions under various pretexts. The riots were – and are -- bloody and violent, but the VIP visits to Dalit homes, this time in Telangana, came about without raising any sense of irony.

Other tales of Dalit oppression have become too “routine” over the centuries to merit separate mention.

Aren’t the Dalits caught in a cleft stick? They face problems when they leave their homes. They face homes when they are inside their homes. They get it both ways. The carrot and the stick.

There seems no end to this road.

Travails of a Hindutva initiate?

My response to the Nalin Mehta blog in TOI. The blog is pasted after my response.

Dear Nalin,

It is naïve to explain away the BJP’s surge in polarized UP by saying that the young voters of today “vote for what suits them best materially in a given local context”. More than a negative vote for the Samajwadi Party, it was a positive vote for whatever the BJP stands for today. The BJP had its way, the opposition didn’t.

BJP’s Hindutva credentials were never in doubt as far as the media and the people were concerned. The BJP itself was perhaps in doubt. Why else did it shy away from naming a CM candidate who would carry the Hindutva flag with pride? Was the BJP worried that it wouldn’t get into triple figures if it had announced the Mahant as  the CM face before the polls? None of us know the answer. It was not an “audacious” gamble on BJP’s part. In fact I don’t think the truth has really come out on whether the Modi-Amit Shah combine chose the Mahant or the latter thrust himself upon them.

I am at my wit’s end trying to digest your assertion that Hindutva and development go hand in hand. Hindu-ness is not Hindutva. Doing dirty things to Muslims, as the good old Mahant was fond of saying in the past while addressing protagonists of his ilk is not Hindu-ness. It is Hindutva.  I suppose you know that?

A worrisome aspect of political commentators these days is the arrogance with which they talk about stuff they hardly saw first-hand. Caste is not talcum powder for any political outfit to rub off whenever it chooses. It is again naïve to believe that the BJP did not include caste as a criterion for giving tickets. LoL. Homogeneity by definition does away with the need for appeasement and you are right: homogeneity is the message the BJP wants to give to the entire country by 2019. Keep only Hindus in the picture, there’s no question of appeasement at all!

See, even you weren’t able to digest the Hindutva pill all the way. The liberal in you, however small, must have pricked you into saying that Hindutva can do anything “but within the bounds of constitutionality”. You are certainly able to see the possibility of Hindutva cocking a snook at the constitution if it so wishes. Yet.

It must have taken something for you to step out of the confines of dignity to brashly define Muslims as the ”mullah constituency”. But then that is the influence of Hindutva! You seem to be, if I am not wrong, of the view that whoever woos a community on religious lines is secular. So, if Mayawati is secular because she woos Muslims, the BJP is secular too for wooing Hindus! Or what!

I am compelled by your impetuous anger against Muslims and Muslim appeasers to quote the entire paragraph which encapsulates your feelings about them:

“From the notorious Shah Bano case in the1980s to the promotion of stereotyped meat-trader-musclemen candidates in 2017, nothing has been more damaging to the cause of secularism than repeated cynical manipulations of the Muslim vote by avowedly secular leaders themselves. From Azam Khan to clerics whose only aim is to protect a more obscurantist view of the shariah than practised in many Muslim countries ­ witness the debate on triple talaq secularism has long been an empty slogan.

Its degeneration from its lofty origins as a principle to defend cultural plurality , to a fig leaf that ended up protecting the backward-looking Muslim religious right, damaged its legitimacy . Little wonder then that invocations to secularism, like critiques of demonetisation before it, may excite well-heeled drawing rooms in Delhi but elicit little enthusiasm where it matters: on the political streets.”

I leave it to you to explain to your worthy readers, when you are of a calmer mind, what exactly, if at all, you mean by what you wrote. I, for one, a measely liberal, could not make head or tail out of it other than recognize the bile for what it is – bile.

In a couple of more paragraphs you have painted the Mahant not as a poisonous anti-Muslim rabble rouser that he was but as a custodian of common sense and with keen administrative sense to boot. The clue that swayed you, perhaps, is his parliamentary record that includes a question on Bhojpuri. As I gather, the Mahant seems to have kept a tight leash on his anti-Muslim tongue when in the haloed hall of the Lok Sabha. Till date.

As all good things have to come to an end, so does your write-up, concluding with the condition : “…As long as he can keep polarisation from spiralling into violence…” That, I suppose, presupposes the fact that the BJP polarized UP in the run-up to the elections and secondly, that polarization can undauntedly lead to violence. If I got it right, then non-violent polarization is quite okay, isn’t it?

Nobody would have grudged you, Nalin, embracing Hindutva, but it needn’t have been at the cost of abusing liberals! Unless you were prompted to do so.

 VVP Sharma

The Blog:
blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/academic-interest/face-up-on-yogi-liberals-miss-the-point-framing-politics-as-secularism-vs-hindutva-alone-wont-cut-it-politically/

Face up on Yogi: Liberals miss the point, framing politics as secularism vs Hindutva alone won’t cut it politically

March 27, 2017, 2:00 AM IST Nalin Mehta in Academic Interest | Edit Page, India, politics | TOI

Liberals, predictably, are incensed at the anointment of Yogi Adityanath as chief minister of Uttar Pradesh. The sight of the saffron-clad Peethadeeshwar of Baba Gorakshnath Peeth in the top seat in Lucknow has turned their incredulous disbelief at BJP’s massive UP mandate into snorts of self-righteous derision.

The intellectual response to the Yogi has ranged from dire predictions of a looming end of the republic, to renewed calls for a hallowed battle in defence of secularism versus Hindutva, to Rajmohan Gandhi’s evocative invocation of Tulsidas and his portrayal of a ‘virath’ Raghubeera (chariot-less Ram) girding up in the Ramayana’s final battle against a ‘rathi’ (charioted) Ravan.

Talking chiefly to the converted, these angry responses – calling for a renewed defence of what liberals see as a huge breach in the great wall of Indian secularism – may make them feel better about their notions of resistance. But, politically speaking, they miss the plot entirely.

First, highfalutin talk of ideological battles is always intoxicating and comforting to one’s own self-image. But election after election has shown that a large section of Indian voters are not ideological any more. They, and especially the younger ones who make up the bulk of our electorate, vote for what suits them best materially in a given local context.

BJP’s Hindutva credentials have never been in doubt. With its audacious gamble on Adityanath, who was among its most popular state leaders in pre-poll internal surveys, the party has done nothing more than pin its own colours to the mast, making a clear play for a Hindu consolidation leading up to 2019. Critics saying with horror that the saffron party is Hindu don’t tell voters anything they didn’t know already.

With Yogi as its political UP mascot, BJP’s political signalling couldn’t be clearer. Hindutva is not something we use only instrumentally to get votes, the party seems to be saying, and then junk after winning elections. It is intrinsic to its development focus too, with a notion of progress that is intertwined with notions of Hindu-ness. The two are inseparable, not separate compartments to pick and choose from.

No appeasement, no apologies, no double meaning: this is the political message. The collapse of UP’s caste praxis and the Mandal vote has led to a hard calculation that the party has very little to lose from such a gambit.

It is betting that those who don’t like it ideologically will never vote BJP anyway and the rest of the voting public won’t care as long as developmental gains keep coming, and as long as Hindutva aims are pursued within the bounds of constitutionality.

Second, the secular versus Hindutva fault line has lost its power as a rallying cry because of the sheer hypocrisy of the secular side of the argument. Mayawati’s unambiguous pursuit of the mullah constituency, politically discredited clerical voices like the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid and criminal types was a case in point.

From the notorious Shah Bano case in the 1980s to the promotion of stereotyped meat-trader-musclemen candidates in 2017, nothing has been more damaging to the cause of secularism than repeated cynical manipulations of the Muslim vote by avowedly secular leaders themselves. From Azam Khan to clerics whose only aim is to protect a more obscurantist view of the shariah than practised in many Muslim countries – witness the debate on triple talaq – secularism has long been an empty slogan.

Its degeneration from its lofty origins as a principle to defend cultural plurality, to a fig leaf that ended up protecting the backward-looking Muslim religious right, damaged its legitimacy. Little wonder then that invocations to secularism, like critiques of demonetisation before it, may excite well-heeled drawing rooms in Delhi but elicit little enthusiasm where it matters: on the political streets.

Third, a saffron-clad monk holding political office is not new by itself. Uma Bharti preceded Yogi Adityanath. In the end, he will be judged by what he does in office.

From leading the love jihad campaign to asking those who didn’t do the surya namaskar to leave India, the founder of Hindu Yuva Vahini has long been seen as embodying the fringe. But his parliamentary record is interesting.

The five-time Lok Sabha MP has participated in 55 debates since mid-2014 and asked 284 questions. The documented record shows only eight of these debates (14.5%) and two questions (0.7%) were related to Hindutva-related causes. The majority pertained to other issues, on topics ranging from inclusion of Bhojpuri in the Constitution’s Eighth Schedule to encephalitis.

This indicates that the firebrand political monk is more than a one-trick pony. The real question is, which side of his will be dominant in running UP?

From chasing illegal slaughter-houses to setting up Romeo squads, Adityanath has done nothing so far that BJP did not promise in its manifesto. His publicly stated course-correction after the negative feedback on harassment of couples by Romeo squads shows tactical awareness and most of his first detailed speech since taking office focussed on BJP’s developmental objectives, including Rs 6,000 crore of farm loan-waivers.

As long as he can keep polarisation from spiralling into violence, like that seen at a meat shop in Hathras, demonising the Yogi plays into the old anti-Modi model. The more you criticise, the more it strengthens his vote base.

Liberals need a new narrative and a fundamental rethink, that goes beyond the old secular rhetoric.

Sentiment Versus Settlement on Ayodhya: Judiciary Versus Fringe-Flexing

The fringe organizations of the RSS think they now have the best opportunity to build a Hindu temple for Lord Ram on the spot where the Babri Masjid stood till its destruction on December 6, 1992 in Ayodhya.

They are not really wrong. The BJP has a brute majority in the Uttar Pradesh assembly: 312 seats out of 403.

They have as chief minister Yogi Adityanath who personifies Hindu fringe aggression in his home region of Gorakhpur in north-eastern Uttar Pradesh.

The UP government has a patron in the Union government which is run by the Narendra Modi-led BJP, which too has a brute majority in the Lok Sabha.
Good man Subramanian Swamy already has a solution with him even before a court verdict: Mandir at the spot where the Masjid stood and the Masjid on the banks of nearby Sarayu river.
They have the temple plans ready, literally next door to the disputed site in Ayodhya, where the Vishwa Hindu Parishad workshop – Ram Nandir Karyalaya -- has stored marble and stone columns and carvings.

In fact the VHP says of its readiness that the temple can be ready in just four months.  Each stone and column in the workshop is numbered and stored in order of need.

They will not need construction labour: the VHP expects millions of Ram devotees to donate their labour.

So what if the All India Akhara Parishad, the umbrella body of Hindu sadhus and sants, does not  see eye to eye with the VHP?

So what if the Muslim bodies as also large groups of liberals and secular Indians are intent on (a) a legal resolution and (b) a just ruling?

What are they the builders waiting for?

“Aadesh of the court to begin construction.” That’s the cry of the RSS and its affiliates.

That this sentence makes a mockery of Indian judiciary by trying to steer the court towards only one outcome does not matter to them.

“Aastha ka vishay hai.” It is a matter of sentiment. That’s the second cry.

What they are saying, simultaneously telling the courts, is that the judicial verdict has to satisfy the sentiment of the people. Which people? Obviously, the Hindus.

Come to think of it, nobody could do anything when hordes of Hindu activists brought the Masjid down in 1992. Kalyan Singh was ecstatic when he was removed as UP chief minister for the destruction. Will it be any different if hordes of Hindu activists come together again to build a temple over there? Will Adityanath even bat an eyelid in dissent if he is removed from office for allowing the activists to defy the court order?

What sentiment, a liberal will ask. The liberal should think twice. Because the liberal lives in a country whose judiciary recognizes a mythological god as a legal person! The presiding deity of Ayodhya, Ram Lalla, is a legal person who is one of the parties in the Ayodhya-Babri dispute.  As Ram Lalla cannot be present in court in person, this country’s judiciary allows him to be represented by a human being, in the form of a legal friend!

It is in these circumstances that the chief justice of the Supreme Court on March 21 suggests informally that the dispute be settled out of court, adding that if needed he is willing to mediate. It’s a sentimental issue, the justice said as well.

The last out-of-court settlement involving a major case issue was the Union Carbide case, also known as the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. But that became possible because the government of India became party to it, representing the interests of all the victims.

That is not the case with the Ayodhya-Babri  dispute.

The Muslim bodies protested, the Hindu bodies welcomed, the chief justice’s observation. For obvious reasons.

It is deemed and believed that the court made this observation in absolutely good faith. However, one wonders if the court should have first ensured that a ground was created for such an observation to sound practical.

The supreme court had in May, 2011 stayed an Allahabad high court judgment on the dispute. A special full bench of the high court had on September 30, 2010 awarded two-thirds of the Ayodhya site to Hindu parties and one-third to the Muslim waqf board. Both sides moved the supreme court challenging the verdict. The apex court promptly stayed the verdict.

That status quo remained till March, 2017 when the apex court said it was taking up the pending cases for hearing.

Could the apex court have formed a special bench to hear the case on a daily basis? Because, until it disposes off of the high court stay, there cannot be any progress in the case at all.

In fact, the right fringe organizations are already beginning to grumble at the judicial delay in arriving at a verdict.

Adityanath himself issued a subtle warning about alternate solutions at his command that are outside of the courts.

On February 4 – when UP was in the run-up to the elections --  he went to Chattisgarh to inaugurate a Ram temple in Raipur.

Speaking to the media on the sidelines of the event, he said:  “Chhattisgarh was Lord Ram’s ‘nanihal’ (his mother Kaushlya’s maternal home). According to ‘jyotishi manyata’ (astrology), when the Lord will settle at his ‘nanihal’, it would automatically pave the way for the construction of a (Ram) temple (in Ayodhya). The hurdles on the path of construction of a grand Ram temple will be gradually removed and its construction will soon start in Ayodhya."

Make what you will of this statement.

Certainly pressure is being built on the Ayodhya temple issue.

The pressure now has the potential to drum up enough sentiment to force the issue.

Whether the political forces that are arraigned in favour of the temple give credence to the people’s sentiment or the court’s verdict is still a matter of speculation.