Hindu Nation, Hindu Rashtra, de facto

There is nothing wrong with a Hindu Nation, and it will not be run by the principles of Hinduism but will be run by radicals who are hell-bent on killing others or forcing others in into obedience.   Nothing wrong with Islamic, Christian, Jewish or Buddhist nation either, but none of them will be ruled by their principles. Among Hindus you have RSS group, Christians you have the Neocons, You have the Settlers among the Jews, ISIS among the Muslims and the radicals among Buddhists.

Religions are beautiful and a majority in each one of them are afraid of the tiny number of radicals and have in effect allowed the radicals to be the poster boys of their respective religions. 

We should look to have democracies and the rule of law where a criminal is a criminal and you don't felicitate them with flowers ( BJP Ministers), or March in the support of rapists, or encourage them with your silence (like Mr. Modi). Religions are personal and we should respect the otherness of each faith, and knock off the arrogance that one is more privileged than the other.

Mike Ghouse



https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/hindu-rashtra-de-facto-bjp-rss-gau-rakshak-mob-lynching-5301083/

Hindu Rashtra, de facto
It is at once a society, civilisation, nation — and state

Written by Christophe Jaffrelot | Published: August 11, 2018 12:16:34 am
Hindu Rashtra, de facto

Most of the lynchings reported between 2015 and 2018 were perpetrated by vigilante militias or the result of the atmosphere they created, often using social media. (Illustration: Mithun Chakraborty)

The media often presents cow-related lynching cases as spontaneous reactions of the mob. Certainly, some ordinary people take part in them. But the perpetrators’ ideological orientation could be surmised from the fact that they often make their victims raise slogans such as “Gau mata ki jai (Hail the cow-mother)” or “Jai Hanuman (Hail Hanuman)”. That the choice of victims for assault had less to do with cow protection than with underlying hostility toward Muslims is clear in the way Hindu cow-breeders and transporters have been spared during attacks — Pehlu Khan’s truck driver got away with a mere slap, whereas the others, all Muslims, were beaten (one of them to death). More importantly, most of the lynchings reported between 2015 and 2018 were perpetrated by vigilante militias or the result of the atmosphere they created, often using social media.

The most visible Hindu nationalist organisation in this domain, the Gau Raksha Dal (GRD), has chapters in Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Goa, Delhi and Haryana. In Haryana, one of the movement’s strongholds, the GRD emblem is a cow’s head flanked by two AK47s. Elsewhere, daggers replace firearms on the movement’s coat of arms. In practice, its members use cruder instruments like cricket bats, hockey sticks, lathis and so on.

In Haryana, the GRD and police have arrived at a division of labour. The president of the Haryana GRD, Yogendra Arya, told Ishan Marvel, the author of a remarkable piece of investigative journalism (‘In the name of the mother’, The Caravan, September 2016): “We have a huge network of volunteers and informants. […] As soon as someone sees something fishy, they call us up, and we then inform the volunteers of the relevant district, and the local police, who then set up joint nakas — checkpoints — to catch the smugglers. […] Police can’t do what we do, they have to follow the laws. They don’t have the resources and network we have.” The GRD thus acts as a community cultural police, with members closely monitoring the deeds of those who deserve not only to be reported, but also punished.

In Haryana, the convergence of two types of policing — official and unofficial — has reportedly been strengthened by the creation of a “cow task force” within the state police. An IPS officer heads this network, which has specialised officers in each district. These officials allegedly work with the GRD: In some respects, the state subcontracts policing tasks to non-state actors, turning them into a para-state force.

The other Indian state that criminalised beef consumption by law in 2015, Maharashtra, has taken similar steps. The state government appoints Honorary Animal Welfare Officers to implement this new law — former gau rakshaks have been hired for these jobs.

In Haryana, the osmosis between vigilante groups and the state goes well beyond this. Yogendra Arya, the national vice-president of the GRD, sat on the board of the Gau Seva Ayog, a Haryana government institution devoted to cow welfare, along with 10 others, who like him are longstanding members of the Sangh Parivar. The lack of distinction between non-state actors and government authorities has probably never been so great.

These developments have triggered a new dynamics of state formation, as defined by Bruce Berman and John Lonsdale. In their study The Unhappy Valley, Berman and Lonsdale distinguish the formation of the state as a social institution and state-building as an administrative process. Reasoning solely in terms of state-building tends to reduce authority only to official agents and their actions. Berman and Lonsdale take into account private actors who work their way into the process of state formation through the “vulgarisation of power”, which involves commandeering public authority to further private ends. This approach has obvious heuristic advantages for the analysis of Hindu vigilante groups and their relationship to the state.

Collusion between police and Hindu nationalist movements is indeed evidence of the start of a transition from a state-building process, in which the administrative and coercive apparatus is supposed to treat all citizens equally, to a state-formation process wherein majoritarian non-state actors impose a social and cultural order. What adds a layer of complexity to Berman and Lonsdale’s model is that in India, these non-state actors enjoy state protection. Though the authority they exercise is illegal, it is nevertheless seen as legitimate by the state in that it is inspired by the values and interests of the dominant community to which the government is accountable. In that sense, the Sangh Parivar is more of India’s deep state than a parallel government, all the more so as the BJP is part of the Parivar. This shift from a neutral state to an ideological Hindu Rashtra illustrates a form of violent majoritarianism that can be observed in all countries where vigilantes bring minorities to heel with the more or less tacit agreement of shadow forces that share their biases or ideology (the relationship between white supremacists’ militias and the police in the US could provide other examples).

In addition to the Sangh Parivar’s influence at the grass roots and within the state apparatus, another variable needs to be factored in, as evident from the way a police officer recently bowed to UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath on Guru Purnima. In that case, the authority of the saffron-clad chief minister was not only due to its temporal power but also because of his spiritual authority, a status no political leader has had in India. That is conducive to still another type of state, theocracy.

Not only has the prime minister abstained from condemning lynchings, some legislators and ministers have extended their blessings to the lynchers. Only a few of the lynchers have been convicted so far. Whenever lynchers have been arrested, the local judiciary has released them on bail. If the executive, legislature or judiciary do not effectively oppose lynchings, India may remain a rule-of-law country only on paper and, in practice, a de facto ethno-state.

The Hindu Rashtra label, in fact, perfectly describes the process at stake: It refers as much to a people united by blood ties, culture and social community codes, and a political framework. It is at once a society, civilisation, nation and state. In this way, the Sangh Parivar’s work partakes in a new formation of the state, the formation of a de facto Hindu Rashtra based on unofficial, societal regulation with the blessing of the official state. If one day the Constitution of India is amended, it may become a de jure Hindu Rashtra.

Hindutva and Hinduism

Radicals are in every faith tradition without exception, they are insecure men and women who believe their security comes from annihilating others who differ. They believe in their own myths and live in eternal fears that others are out to get them.

Hinduism is a beautiful religion, like all other religions. The problem is not between Christians, Hindus, and Muslims, it the radicals among them, who are few in numbers but extreme and reckless. Sadly since Modi came to power, the radicals among Hindus are emboldened and have resorted to violence and killing of fellow beings.  I bet, those innocent Hindus are taken for a ride by the politicians like Amit Shah and Narendra Modi for their gains. 

Ashutosh Varshney is a respected Scholar and I his scholarship is valued. 

‘A battle between Hindutva and Hinduism is coming’

Courtesy - Indian Express

In a wide-ranging conversation, Walter Andersen speaks of the changing nature of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, how it was influenced by its different sarsangchalaks and the challenges that lie ahead of the organization


Written by Ashutosh Varshney | Updated: August 11, 2018, 2:01:20 pm

Walter Andersen is on the faculty of the Johns Hopkins University, Washington, and Tongji University, Shanghai.

Walter Andersen is, perhaps, the only scholar to have observed, or studied, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) for nearly five decades. In intellectual circles, it is normally believed that as an organisation, the RSS is impervious and impenetrable. Its functioning is not available for scholarly scrutiny, unless one happens to be an insider or a firm sympathiser. That is why the publication of The RSS: A View to the Inside, a new book Andersen has co-written with Sridhar Damle, is a true intellectual event (The duo had also produced a book, Brotherhood in Saffron, three decades back). Andersen is on the faculty of the Johns Hopkins University, Washington, and Tongji University, Shanghai, and before that, he was a leading South Asia specialist of the US State Department for over two decades. At a Gurgaon hotel where he is staying, he recently spoke with Ashutosh Varshney, professor of Political Science, Brown University and contributing editor, The Indian Express.

Let us start in a biographical vein. When did you start working on the RSS and why?

As a PhD student at the University of Chicago, I came to India with a two-year grant to study student politics, but I stayed on for four. I came in the late 1960s and was in India until the early 1970s. Lloyd and Susanne Rudolph, the great India scholars, were my mentors. I was planning to study why students enter politics, focusing on Allahabad, old Delhi and a district in Kerala. That is when I encountered the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), the student wing of the RSS.

When was the ABVP born? You say in the book that it was among the first “affiliates” of the RSS?

The first affiliate was a woman’s group, the Rashtriya Sevika Sangh, going back to the 1930s. Then was born the Jan Sangh, followed by some schools, independently organised. Then came the labor union, the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, and the ABVP, both roughly at the same time in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The model that was developed was as follows: Each affiliate of the RSS would be led or overseen by a prachaarak, a full-time RSS functionary. After the death of Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Deendayal Upadhyay was asked to lead the Jan Sangh and Dattopat Thenagdi led the Mazdoor Sangh. Thengadi was also associated with the formation of the ABVP. By the time I came to India, the ABVP had developed a strong unit at Delhi University. I got very curious about the organisation behind it, the RSS. Through pure happenstance, I met Eknath Ranade, a remarkable man.

The RSS: A View to the Inside is written by Walter Andersen and Shridhar Damle. It is published by Penguin Viking. The book is priced at Rs 699.
What was his position?

He was a senior RSS prachaarak in Delhi. He was interested in western philosophy. At the University of Chicago, Leo Strauss, an influential political philosopher, was one of my advisors. Ranade began to ask me questions about Straussian ideas. We started meeting every two weeks at the RSS headquarters in Delhi. He would teach me Indian philosophy and I would enlighten him on Strauss. One day, he asked me if I would like to meet the head of his organisation, MS Golwalkar. I said yes. A month later, I was informed that I would be escorted to Nagpur. A student of Delhi University, an RSS activist, took me to Mumbai by train. We travelled third class. We reached Mumbai and I spent the night in a Chitpavan Brahmin area of Mumbai. Next day, another person came and took me to Nagpur, again in third class. I was put up in the house of the head of the Mazdoor Sangh, who was away. Then, I was taken to the RSS headquarters, where I met Golwalkar. He set up a schedule for me. I was to come every morning for breakfast for five days and we would chat about a whole range of things. He also talked about the book he had written, A Bunch of Thoughts. It is actually not a book, but a series of speeches.

And what about We or Our Nationhood Defined, the other book by him that a lot of us have read?

He never discussed it. I later discovered that it was not his book. The consensus is that even though his name was on We or Our Nationhood Defined, he was not its author.

The consensus you are referring to pertains to the scholarly world, or one shared in Hindu nationalist circles, too?

Their own people don’t know about it. It is my scholarly judgment, though it is based on the opinions of several Hindu nationalists. We or Our Nationhood Defined is, of course, a harsher document about the minorities of India.

What emerged from your meetings with Golwalkar?

What came out was a clearer understanding of Hindutva. Golwalkar was spiritual, not religious. He did not follow religious rituals. He said, as he also did in A Bunch of Thoughts, that for him, India as a nation was a living god. This view was very similar to the one adopted by the romantic nationalists of 19th century Europe – that nation is that unit to which we owe our ultimate devotion, not to a religious God. The RSS is not a religious organisation. That is why, as the idea evolved further, MD Deoras, the next sarvsanghachalak (chief), opened the RSS to Muslims in 1979. His argument was that an overwhelming proportion of Indian Muslims were converts from the Hindu community. They were not foreigners. His idea of Hindutva moved towards a territorial idea. To some extent, the idea came from Savarakar.

But that raises a complex issue. For Savarkar, even if born in India, Muslims (and also Christians) were not Indians/Hindus (the two categories were identical for him), for they could meet only two of the three criteria he laid out in Hindutva: territorial (bhumi, land of India), genealogical (pitribhumi, fatherland) and religious (punyabhumi, birthland of religion). Even in principle, Muslims could not satisfy — unlike the Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists — the third criterion. Their religion was not born in India. Hence, he argued, they could not be true Indians/Hindus. If you have a primarily territorial idea, a la France and US, then Muslims born in India are by definition Indian. I don’t read Savarkar as propounding a territorial definition of nationhood in this sense. How did Deoras handle this issue, while opening the RSS to Muslims?

Savarkar, as you know, was an atheist. He was not religious. For Savarkar, the nation had a cultural context – or icons, traditions, stories with which one could identify, much like England. Anyway, the movement was one towards territoriality. It is not that the cultural definition entirely disappeared. But, for Deoras, everybody, or almost everybody, in India was a Hindu. He was the first one to use the term Hindu to cover everyone. (And Mohan Bhagwat, the present sarsanghchalak, also refers to everyone as a Hindu: Muslims, Christians, everybody.) Deoras was also against the caste system and untouchability. Golwalkar never spoke openly against the caste system. Deoras also started proposing the idea that non-Brahmins could be prachaaraks, the highest position that one can reach after three years of training and the pledge that goes with it.

You say in your book that there are about 6,000 prachaaraks today. What pledge do they take?

They take an ascetic pledge: they give up connections to the family, material wealth and become, in a sense, wedded to the RSS.

Can they be married?

Some do marry, but most do not. It has been described by some as a casteless Hindu monastic order. They perform a vital function. They are made leaders of the affiliate organisations. That, in my view, keeps the RSS family together.

Your book says that by 2015, there were 36 such affiliated organisations.

36 formal affiliates, including the latest one aimed at female empowerment, called Stree Shakti. There are more than a hundred waiting for a formal status, which entails a process and the judgement by the RSS that the organisation has now reached an adequate level of maturity.

Is Bajrang Dal a formal affiliate?

It is an affiliate of the VHP, not of the RSS. However, VHP is an affiliate of the RSS.

Did you have access to all sarsanghachalaks? Did you have conversations with all?

All, except Sudarshan.

How does one become a sarsanghachalak?

The predecessor chooses the successor. There is no election.

How has the RSS mode of functioning changed? You say in the book that it began with an emphasis on character building (charitra nirmaan). And now, it wishes to influence the state and policy process.

Its initial view of social transformation rested on the foundation of character building in daily shakhas (assemblies). But with its number of affiliates rising, it started going in the direction of influencing the state. Its labor union, its farmers organisation, its school system, the Swadeshi Jagran Manch, even religious affiliates like the VHP have to deal with the government, for the government is all-pervasive in India. With RSS prachaaraks leading all these affiliates, positions had to be formed on the domain-specific engagement with the state. For example, not simply the Jagran Manch, but even the labor union, BMS, has been opposed to foreign direct investment (FDI), whereas the BJP, the affiliate that runs governments, has been in favor of increasing FDI since the late 1990s, especially under Modi. Something like that right away necessitates engagement with the government (both when the BJP is in power and when it is not). There have been tussles over land acquisition, too. Character building remains important, but having an impact on policy and the state is now a significant RSS objective as well. The RSS could not have but gone in the latter direction, for the welfare of all of those groups that its affiliates organise critically depends on government policy and state action.

When clashes between affiliates emerge, what does the RSS do?

The RSS proper sees itself as a balancer, a mediator, among the affiliates. If no compromise can be reached, it prefers to postpone decision-making on a particular issue until a later date. But it essentially seeks to craft compromises, when internal family differences arise. In the older days, for example, it used to have diatribes against FDI. But as BJP governments started courting FDI for technology, growth and especially jobs, the RSS toned town its opposition to FDI. The RSS stridently opposed Vajpayee for its FDI embrace. Bhagwat’s response to Modi’s FDI stance has been muted.

What is the RSS view of Modi’s economics, especially foreign economic policy, demonetisation and GST?

The RSS was undoubtedly responsible for Modi’s rise to the top. But it views Modi’s economics with scepticism. Modi is more open to FDI and foreign trade than the RSS would like. His demonetisation and GST directly hurt groups that are the original base of the organisations: the small traders. The RSS, of course, did not pass a resolution against demonetisation or GST. That is now how it works. But it sought to influence how these policies would be implemented – to ease the burden on small traders.

May we return to the cultural issues now? Let us first examine on language and gender, and then turn to caste and religion, which we have already discussed to some extent. On language politics, it is well known that the RSS was originally committed to promotion of Hindi. Now that the RSS has expanded its base in the South and East, can it continue to insist on the primacy of Hindi?

It cannot, and it does not. Apart from the southern and eastern expansion, one issue also is the medium of instruction in its school system. RSS schools teach pupils in their mother tongue, though Hindi might be taught as a subject. The other interesting development is its changing attitude towards English. The aspiring middle class, whose support the RSS seeks, wants to learn English. English also heavily contributes to national power in the international system today. The RSS could not have simultaneously sought, as its goal, a rise in India’s national strength and continued its strident attacks on English. Hindi is not exclusively promoted any more.

On caste, there are several questions. First, what is the RSS view of affirmative action?

In the middle of the Bihar election campaign in 2015, Mohan Bhagwat had said that it was time to review caste-based affirmative action. The RSS had taken that position for long. But a political storm broke out, upon which Bhagwat quickly backtracked. And an impression grew that Bhagwat’s statements had hurt the BJP. So, even if the RSS wants affirmative action reviewed, it recognises it is too politically dangerous in the Indian context.

Another question concerns RSS opposition to the caste system. If it wants to integrate the lower castes in a way that promotes Hindu unity, what is the best way to do it? Sanskritisation (prescribing Brahminical behavioural norms for lower castes) or something else?

Sanskritisation was Golwalkar’s preferred model. But starting with Deoras and his attack on the caste system, it has been decreasing in importance. Deendayal Upadhyay’s writings also spoke of egalitarianism as an ideal.

If so, why not have Dalits or OBCs as sarsanghchalaks? All sarsanghchalaks thus far have been from the upper castes, and actually, excluding one (Rajendra Singh), all have been Brahmins.

There have been Dalit and OBC prachaaraks. Modi, an OBC, was a prachaarak. An OBC or Dalit sarsanghchalak is only a matter of time.

What is the RSS view on BR Ambedkar? We know that the RSS was originally opposed to the Indian Constitution, whose principal architect was Ambedkar. We also know that the RSS opposed Ambedakar’s attempt to reform Hindu family laws.

Whatever the past, Ambedkar is now a hero.

But Ambedkar was anti-Hindu. His writings make it plain that the caste system, an unmitigated evil, is the essence of Hinduism. He also abandoned Hinduism before his death.

That is exactly why, I believe, there will eventually be a battle between Hindutva and Hinduism. Hindutva emphasises the oneness of Hindus, whereas ground realities are very different. Let me give an example. Following the egalitarian ideology, Tarun Vijay, an RSS ideologue and former editor of Panchjanya and Organiser, once led some Dalits into a temple in central India, where they had not been before. He was beaten up, but few in the RSS family vocally supported him. They kept mostly quiet. As one important RSS functionary put it to me, the key question is: how do we keep our organisation intact if we do move towards an egalitarian Hindu society?

Let us turn to gender and family now. What is the RSS view of an ideal Hindu nari (woman)?

Golwalkar writings definitely emphasised that being a wife and mother were the ideal roles for a woman. But there is also a strain of thinking that idolises the Rani of Jhansi, and her valiant fight against the British during 1857. Both images have existed.

What if a woman is gravely unhappy in a marriage? Does she have the right to divorce?

I have certainly known RSS women, who were divorced. But there is no doubt that the RSS
places a great deal of emphasis on the value of the family and a woman’s role therein.

Let us finally return to the relationship of the RSS and Muslims. Your book says that Golwalkar repeatedly used the term “ek hazaar saal ki ghulami” (one thousand years of servitude). Your also say that Deoras changed that, and in 1979, opened the RSS to Muslims. Narendra Modi has often used the term “barah sau saal ki ghulami” (twelve hundred years of servitude), which is more in the Golwalkar vein than in the Deoras mold. At any rate, the implication of the Golwalkar and Modi statements is that India’s colonisation began with the arrival of Muslim rulers either in the 8th century in Sindh or the 11th century in Delhi. This militates against the historian’s argument that it is the British who started colonising India in 1757. The Delhi Sultanate or the Mughal era was not a period of colonisation. However offensive Babur or Aurangzeb were, the other Mughal kings Indianised themselves, even married into Rajputs, and developed commitments to India. The British did not Indianise themselves. They were the real colonisers. How can one justify the term Mughal colonialism?

I don’t think many RSS activists, or even prachaaraks, would disagree with the distinction you are making between the British and Mughals. When Deoras invited Muslims to join the RSS, he did argue that Muslims were mostly India-born, and therefore Indian.

But despite that ideological development, PM Modi returned to the Golwalkar understanding.

There is clearly a generic problem, here. Even those RSS ideologues, who want Muslims to enter the RSS, would like them to accept India’s “historic culture”.

But India’s “historic culture” — the arts, the languages, the everyday manners, the poetry, the architecture, the music — have a lot of Muslim contributions.

I agree. But they continue to argue that South Indian Muslims, or Indonesian Muslims are ideal Muslims. South Indian Muslims speak the regional languages; and Indonesia, a primarily Muslim country, has the Ramayana as its national epic.

But that implies that Urdu, which was widely spoken in North India, is not an Indian language, which is so hard to accept. Urdu was not born in the Middle East.

Yes.

Another important issue ought to be discussed. If, after Deoras, Muslims were accepted as Indians in principle and they were then welcomed in the RSS and BJP, how is it that in the 2014 elections in UP, a state nearly 19 per cent Muslim, the BJP did not select even one Muslim candidate to run on a BJP ticket? They might be welcome in the organisation, but it seems they were not deemed worthy of representing even one constituency.

Winnability is the primary criterion in candidate selection. I have repeatedly asked BJP leaders, shouldn’t you nominate more Muslims for political seats? The response invariably is that they cannot win. But, in my opinion, if they believe in their own ideological evolution, they must represent Muslim interests better.

Let us now turn to the recent lynchings. Your book says that the higher echelons of the RSS and BJP don’t approve of lynchings. But how does one align your claim with the following: ministers in Modi government have expressed sympathy for lynchers, even garlanded those convicted of lynching (though out on bail), but the Prime Minister has not taken them to task. Indeed, though the Prime Minister has spoken against lynchings, his most forceful denunciations came when Dalits were hit. When Muslims are attacked by lynch mobs, he, at best, makes perfunctory remarks, if at all.

I haven’t thought clearly about the Muslim-Dalit distinction you are drawing, nor does the book talk about it. I will think more systematically about it.

Let me ask a final question. What are the major challenges that the RSS and/or the BJP face, moving forward?

I think they face three major challenges. The likely battle between Hindutva and Hinduism is the first one. The second is how to handle vigilantism. A final challenge is how to deal with the urban-rural split in India’s political economy. The countryside is really suffering.

Whitewashing India's Religious Freedom

 Whitewashing India's Religious Freedom

India has an impeccable history of welcoming the stranger and giving refuge to the oppressed, rejected and the evicted. She has welcomed Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and the Baha’is. Indeed the very first mosque built outside of Arabia was in India by a Hindu King in the state of Malabar. The Tibetan Buddhist refugees found a home in India; the Ahmadiyya Muslims felt secure, so were the displaced Bangladeshi and Afghan refugees.

This beautiful pluralistic 5000-year-old tradition of India is in peril now. BJP and its affiliates (The Sangh Parivar) that govern India "currently" are hell-bent on destroying that heritage. They want to force non-Hindus into obedience and tell them what they can eat or believe, and whom they can marry or live as 2nd class citizens. They want to free India from Christians and Muslims, and plan to convert them by 2025 to Hinduism.  Indeed, the ISIS had given similar options to the Christians and Yazidis. 

Make no mistake about it; Hinduism is a religion of peace like all other religions. The problem is not between people of faith, but the radicals.

A few Indian American organizations linked to the Sangh Parivar want to whitewash the situation. They want to portray that everything is hunky dory in India.  

Hunky dory it is not, the  Congressmen and Senators are fully conversant of the harassment, lynching, raping and killing of Christians, Dalits, Muslims, Sikhs, Atheists and others in India. 

It is time for the Indian Americans to save the honor of India and restore her pluralistic heritage that got derailed in the last four years. 

The prosperity of a nation stands on her two firm legs; economic growth and social cohesion, one will not sustain without the other.   

 If the minorities continue to live in apprehension and fear, the whole nation gets engaged in useless battles and the prosperity will come to a grinding halt, and the country will limp until it reaches a new life or loses all that was achieved.  

The confidence of foreign investments in a nation spurs the growth, India’s IT industry,  call centers, and businesses have raised the standard of living for many. As long as the investors feel secure about their investments they will pump in more funds. However, when they see chaos emerging with the nations discriminative practices, harassment, lynching, rapes and killing of the minorities, they will pull out and everyone stands to lose.

It was embarrassing to note the missing presence of India at the religious freedom conference held by the Department of State in July 2018. If the violations continue, India may get stamped as a "Country of Particular Concern” for violations of religious freedom. It will hurt India, particularly the business community and the information technology sector. 

The whitewash report produced by the Hindu America Foundation is understandable. No Indian wants India to lose, but neither should we compromise on the truth to look good. We hope to produce an accurate state of the union; after all, India's emblem includes the phrase, Satyameva Jayate - Truth triumphs.

The majority of Indians of all faiths believe in Pluralism, i.e., respecting the otherness of other.  It is not Hindus either,  but the radicals among Hindus that are causing the problems with the subtle encouragement from the BJP government.

Quotes from the HAF, reported by Jha;

"The Indian government provides "unprecedented" religious accommodations to its religious minority population, says a report by a US-based Hindu advocacy group." 

The truth is far from it. It sounds like the majority is doing a favor to the minorities in 'accommodating' them.  It is like saying "we give equal rights to women" who the hell are we to give them their rights, to begin with, the rights were theirs.  Indeed, every Indian is guaranteed those rights; we are all equal citizens. No one has more privileges than the other. 

"To bring greater stability to the region and prevent the growth of radical Islamist and Communist/Maoist terrorism." This statement is too hypocritical and divisive to exclude radical Hindutva terrorism from the list.  The issue is not with Hindus or Muslims; it is with radicals among them. 

"Overall, it seeks to show the broader story of religious freedom and pluralism in India, which is often not, reflected in the media or US policy circles." Indeed, India was a pluralist nation until the Hindutva brigade took over the country four years ago.  

We need to come together and appeal to the Government of India, to issue visas to the commissioners of the USCIRF to investigate the Sikh Genocide, Massacre of Muslims in Gujarat, killing of Christians, Rapes, and lynching of Dalits, and harassment of Sikhs. If the commission gives a clean certificate, it will help boost the investor confidence in India; on the other hand, if India's record is of particular concern, then it is time to fix it than pretending to be holier than thou.  

I would appeal to the Hindu America Foundation to issue press releases condemning the lynching of Muslims, killing of Christians, harassment of Dalits, and Atheists, by condemning each event, it will give them the credibility to be a legitimate pluralist organization for Human rights. 

We will also write a letter urging Prime Minister Modi to speak out forcefully against harassment of any Indian and pledge that no Indian has more privileges than the other. Ambassador Sam Brownback says, if evil acts get condemned as they occur, they will be choked and will not see the light of the day. 

Finding solutions video in Hindi-Urdu Language
https://www.facebook.com/100001262335435/posts/1998170193568372/

Mike Ghouse, is president of the Center for Pluralism and is committed to fostering cohesive societies where no human has to live in apprehension or fear of the other. His India Blog is http://MikeGhouseforIndia.blogspot.com 

Published in the following News agencies:

https://www.theindianpanorama.news/featured/whitewashing-indias-religious-freedom/


https://www.4conservative.com/countercurrents.org/whitewashing-indias-religious-freedom/

http://muslimmirror.com/eng/whitewashing-indias-religious-freedom/

https://countercurrents.org/2018/08/10/whitewashing-indias-religious-freedom/

https://www.thekashmirmonitor.net/whitewashing-religious-freedom/


Whitewash pieces

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-provides-unprecedented-accommodation-to-its-religious-minority-population-report/articleshow/65182770.cms

https://www.lalitkjha.com/apex/f?p=24257:170:::NO:170:P170_ARTICLE_NUM:30416

http://www.indiawest.com/news/global_indian/hindu-american-foundation-holds-briefing-highlighting-india-s-democracy-in/article_d15dfba6-9a8b-11e8-9a64-93691e1ac7da.html

India from Chaos to Cohesion

INDIA: FROM CHAOS TO COHESION | 
Yes, we can make that happen- please feel free to share, let's restore India to its greatness
Video Language: Hindi/ Urdu
An action is required on your part

Video on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MikeGhouse2/videos/1998169576901767/?t=42

India Together - Fostering a cohesive India

I am a volunteer like each one of you, wanting, among other things to do my share of work in contributing towards a cohesive India, where no Indian has to live in apprehension or fear of the other. 

Given the divisiveness we are witnessing in India, we have to take steps to restore the Dharma, the righteousness in a society where people trust each other, live their lives and let others live theirs.

Here is the preamble for an India together Campaign;

India has an impeccable history of welcoming the stranger and giving refuge to the oppressed, rejected and the evicted. She has welcomed Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and the Baha’is. Indeed the very first mosque built outside of Arabia was in India by a Hindu King in the state of Malabar. The Tibetan Buddhist refugees found a home in India; the Ahmadiyya Muslims felt secure, so were the displaced Bangladeshi and Afghan refugees.

This beautiful pluralistic 5000-year-old tradition of India is in peril now.  A few politicians are hell-bent on destroying that heritage. They want to force minorities into obedience and tell them what they can eat or believe, and whom they can marry or live as 2nd class citizens.  We can ignore this if it is a random individual screaming on the streets, but it has the backing of many members of the ruling party.  We cannot compromise on our integrity to satisfy the short-term urges of the radicals.  We cannot let this continue even if someone has pulled a joke, this fire will envelop everyone, and in the end, it will destroy our civilization. 

Make no mistake about it; the problem is not between people of faith, but the radicals. A good Hindu, Muslim, Christian or other will never hurt another individual, let alone kill. As a society we need to invest our time and energy in finding why a few people hate the others so much, much of it is injected by their parents, teachers, friends, and politicians, poor souls need to be free from such influences. 

India together Campaign

When you are watching a movie, invariably you go through a range of emotions, but at the end, there is a sense of joy when you see the family members making it up to each other, or when a couple is reunited or when justice is served. It is because you are inherently good and the sense of goodness is evoked in every human with a few exceptions.  

The new routine for many of us is to watch short video clips on WhatsApp or Facebook. Is there anyone out there who does not feel good when the Indian Army personnel is talking about treating all soldiers fairly, when one needs blood, he does not care if the blood is coming from a Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Dalit, Jain or a Parsee. A good video example;-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5XptU6-Vm0

Don't we feel good when we help each other? When you support a disabled person crossing the street, don't you feel good? Don't you share that clip with your friends?

If you are a Muslim stand up for the rights of Dalits, and if you are a Sikh stand up for the rights of Christians, and if you are a Christian stand up for the rights of Hindus..... in the end, it opens our hearts and minds to stand up for each other. We have to kill the selfishness in us to serve our own, and instead server others for the long-term good.

On the other hand, when you watch a clip full of hate, what does it do to you? Does it make you angry, hateful and revengeful? It zaps your energy. Being at peace is a natural state, getting worked up ain't. 

Humans are drawn to greater good, and they feel good when a family comes together, they feel good when they can stop a bad guy from beating a child or a woman, they feel good when you prevent a woman from being harassed. 

We have a responsiblity now to encourage what is right, not because it is noble or God wants it, but because it makes us feel good and secure and live in peace with each other. 

Dr. Frank Islam has chosen to encourage good news, every week I see an article promoted by him that awakens a sense of goodness. I see Nupur Sharma, Vinod Dua, Ram Punyani, Arfa Khanum, Acharya Laksmishankracharya, Acharya Pramod Krishnan and a whole lot of them committed to bringing about a change.  None of us would know everyone, but those whom we know, we must be appreciated.    I am sure there a many of you out there who are doing great things. If we can pull our resources and invest our time, energy and money in shaping the society, we will find purpose and meaning in our lives, at least it will bring relief from apprehension. 

Social media has become the most powerful medium to communicate ideas, and Whatsapp and Facebook have become the vehicles to carry the chosen message. 

We have an opportunity to mitigate chaos spread by a few and flood the market with excellent videos and positive news to build up positive energy. If the people around us are secure, our security is guaranteed. 

Proposal

Produce one to two minutes videos and share it on the social media - and see how you can bring about the change.

It's easy to produce videos that we can cheer, but the purpose is to for the angry ones to see the goodness. We can cause them to dig in their heels or we can work on having them see another point of view - that of getting along and live their lives and letting others live theirs.

You can bring a gradual, sustainable and positive change through this campaign

It takes thinking, commitment,  effort, and money to do this, if you can, welcome. Come up with ideas, write the script, discuss with friends and produce it.  

Mike Ghouse
www.TheGhouseDiary.com

Thank you

What do we do at the Center for Pluralism

Pluralism studies in Religion, politics, society, culture and workplace

http://centerforpluralism.com/what-do-we-do-at-center-for-pluralism/ ;

Mike Ghouse
Center for Pluralism
Washington, DC
(214) 325-1916
Mike@CenterforPluralism.com
www.CenterforPluralism.com

Hindu Pakistan

Rahul Gandhi is useless, my apologies for the language.

He is a chuwwa, bloody scared of the Billi even at a hiss. He should not apologize or discourage Shashi Tharoor or Mani Iyer’s stand against BJP.  BJP does not understand grace and civility, they understand bullying back. The billi will pause if chuwwa shows strength. Did this weakling ask Modi and other creeps to apologize for the bad things they have said? 

Rahul is bad for the nation, need a strong leader like Shashi or Aiyer to lead, they have the balls.

Mike Ghouse
https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/hindu-pakistan-not-quite-5290928/

Hindu Pakistan? Not Quite

Fanaticism has grown in India, but not been sanctified in its constitution, penal code
Written by Khaled Ahmed | Updated: August 4, 2018 11:29:43 am

Hindu fanaticism has spread under the BJP to alarm the world. (Illustration by C R Sasikumar)

Shashi Tharoor said India will become a Hindu Pakistan if the BJP wins elections in 2019. The BJP was deeply offended because in India, Pakistan is no model to follow. It wanted the Congress party president Rahul Gandhi to apologise for the remark by his partymen. 

Alarmed, the Congress distanced itself from Tharoor. But similarities on the surface can’t be ignored. Pakistan’s major living poet, Fahmida Riaz fled General Zia-ul Haq’s religious tyranny and sought refuge in India. If she thought she had walked into a secular paradise, she was mistaken and wrote a poem, “tum toh hum jaise hi niklay” (you turned out to be just like us) to express her disenchantment.

Hindu fanaticism has spread under the BJP to alarm the world but it is still not like what Pakistan has done to itself through its constitution and the penal code. Yet, India’s extremism will tend to shock more because of B R Ambedkar’s Constitution and how it is becoming irrelevant on the Indian street. Mamata Banerjee’s “Talibani Hindus” will become germane if India removes the word “secular”, put into the Constitution through an amendment by Indira Gandhi.

Islamabad High Court’s Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, who is under challenge by the Supreme Judicial Council for misconduct, thinks that the Ahmadi sect — already declared non-Muslim by the constitution and barred from voting together with Muslims and non-Muslims under a system of joint electorates — will have to be purged. The National Identity Card already requires identification by religion and Ahmadis are not supposed to declare themselves Muslims. What more does the judge want? You can guess. Maybe he wants them to walk around in special clothes so that they can be targeted by pious Muslims to earn paradise.

Pakistan is constitutionally unkind to its non-Muslims and women because the Islamic Law of Evidence gives them an unequal status. It is an ideological state which must converge through constitutional amendments to the “purity” attained by Iran, where formal opposition is not allowed and women are coerced to wear hijab. It is true that embracing a totalitarian version of Islam is what the Muslim states are converging to, provided the clerics know how to run the national economy and make people prosperous in their inhumanity. Pakistan is lost on the way but remains hopelessly path-dependent.

In many ways, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Recep Erdogan are comparable. They are taking the state back from constitutional pluralism to an order where human rights will be violated in the name of religion. Indian Muslims will suffer, as will the Kurds of Turkey. The erosion of democracy will be accompanied not by poverty but high growth rates, and a kind of apathy will spread with prosperity. Will India follow the “Muslim model” of Turkey or will it evolve its own “Hindu model”, which will make India look like Pakistan? The BJP will win the 2019 polls and Modi will keep on travelling away from the Nehruvian model that had kept India poor. He is definitely not like Erdogan or like a Pakistani general. He will be pragmatic and will not throw India into the isolationism that seduces most Muslim leaders.

But the rare Tharoors of our day will go on protesting. In Pakistan too, some people have a conscience and speak out. Tharoor began by embracing Indian nationalism and its anti-British Raj narrative and now resists India’s process of “going back” to the nationalism of its “real identity”. Tharoor will have a tougher time in Pakistan than in India. In Pakistan, the “quality of man” is much worse today than it was in 1947; and this is owed to the ideology the state had to embrace. Literacy has damaged the Pakistani man through textbooks that fail to help in the transfer of technology, given that an engineering university in “nuclear” Pakistan may boast a strong Islamiat department but is of no help in indigenising car manufacture like India.

The writer is consulting editor, Newsweek Pakistan

Gandhi’s talisman for Rahul

Mahatma Gandhi's talisman was strengthening the weaker parts of the society so the nation can stand firmly on all its columns. Otherwise, India would be stressed and limp along. If people around you are doing well, you will do well. The myopic men of BJP may look to it as charity rather than investment in human development. 

Years-ago, i wrote a piece called the nation is a bus that’s on a journey, imagine each tire is a community, and each tire has the necessary air to assure safe journey. In the 2nd bus, the tires with full air can scream at low air-tires, look I  worked hard to be full, you need to pick the slack and come up to our level  ... whose loss is it if they cannot? It behooves the majority to uplift the minority, not for charity but for parity and preventing a drag. The more people we pull out of ditches onto a level playing field,  the bigger the consumer market would be, all will gain from it.

Obviously, the bus with full air in the tires will have a safe journey over the limping one.
Whose journey is assured? 

We need to make a short video clip contrasting the difference to bring cohesion in society and get rid of the nonsensical idea that it is appeasement of minorities.


What do you think?
Mike
Thank you

Thank you

What do we do at the Center for Pluralism

http://centerforpluralism.com/what-do-we-do-at-center-for-pluralism   

 
Mike Ghouse

Center for Pluralism, Washington

Pluralism studies in religion, politics, culture, workplace and society.
(214) 325-1916- Cell
(202) 290-3560 -Office

Mike@CenterforPluralism.com
www.CenterforPluralism.com
www.PluralismNews.com

Gandhi’s talisman for Rahul

Courtesy - Indian Express

It is good that even when an imaginary Hindu fear has paralyzed the Indian political mind and Muslims are being invisiblised, Rahul Gandhi and the Congress are returning to their Gandhian roots, even if their steps are yet not that firm.

“How can you be a party of Muslims?”, the leaders and ministers of the Bharatiya Janata Party fumed after an Urdu daily Inquilab reported Rahul Gandhi saying that the Congress was a party of Muslims. It turned out that it was a gross misrepresentation of his conversation with a group of intellectuals with Muslim names. This meeting was also decried as a partisan and divisive move. The BJP demanded an explanation from Rahul Gandhi, taunting that on the one hand he claimed to be a pucca Hindu, a Shiv bhakt, and on the other, he was meeting Muslim intellectuals and declaring the Congress a party of Muslims.

As if my Hinduness is defined by its opposition to Muslims or my standing up for the rights of Muslims presupposes disowning Hindus. Only a small mind can think like this. But India is now being ruled by a very narrow vision. In more democratic and normal times, one would have dismissed the attack by the BJP on Rahul Gandhi as absurd. But these are viciously extraordinary times. Keeping company with a Muslim or Christian can turn you into an anti-Hindu and anti-national.

It was good that Rahul Gandhi was not unsettled by the assault on him. He repeated that he and his party stood for all marginalised people, irrespective of their religious or caste identities.

Muslims, all of us know, are among the most marginalised communities in India according to all social and economic indicators. They continue to be Indian citizens with equal rights. But since they are like the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, who have been pushed behind other communities, they would need a supporting hand from the state to give them a sense of equal citizenship. That is why former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that the minorities had the first claim on national resources. Sadly, this statement has been twisted into a weapon against the Congress and no independent analyst or intellectual has thought of defending the ex-PM. For what he was saying was truly Gandhian.

It also gave you solace to see the Congress regaining that old, forgotten Gandhian courage. It was, in fact, the talisman he had given. When in doubt about the appropriateness of your action, you should think how it would impact the last person in the line.

Since the new mascot of the BJP is Gandhi, if we leave Ambedkar aside, let us remind the party of what Gandhi had said in the most difficult days of his life. His last days were the most trying times. He himself admitted that his battle with the British was not as difficult as the one that he was having with his people. Failing to persuade the Hindus and Sikhs of Delhi to end violence against Muslims, Gandhi decided to go on fast to cleanse himself and also the hearts of the hate-filled Hindus and Sikhs who wanted to make Delhi Muslim-free. While on fast, he was charged with partisanship: The fast was on behalf of the Muslims and he was pro-Muslim. Gandhi, as was his habit, discussed and responded to the charge in his daily deliberation.

I am fasting for Muslims and since the fast in on their behalf, it is against Hindus and Sikhs, Gandhi said. As polite and non-polemical as he was, Gandhi never believed in mincing words. He was fighting against those who called themselves Hindus and thought that they had not just the first but the only claim on India. All others had to live according to their wishes. Gandhi rejected this claim emphatically.

Gandhi saw himself as a man responsible for both Pakistan and India. So, he added that in India this fast was for Muslims and in Pakistan, it was for the Hindus and Sikhs.

A simple principle of statecraft to remember — minority rights are the foundation of a democracy. Always stand for the rights of the minorities because majorities tend to hegemonise the political, social and cultural space of a nation. This applies to all countries, religions and ethnicities. Had Gandhi been in Pakistan, he would have fought against the Sunni Muslim majoritarianism and in Sri Lanka, he would have stood up against the Buddhist Sinhalese majoritarianism. He wrote that he had learnt it from a European friend while he was in South Africa that when in doubt you must side with the minorities.

It is good that even when an imaginary Hindu fear has paralysed the Indian political mind and Muslims are being invisiblised, Rahul Gandhi and the Congress are returning to their Gandhian roots, even if their steps are yet not that firm. When in doubt, stand with the persecuted and the minorities. Do not fall into the trap of false equivalence. Would it win Congress seats? What this conviction did to Gandhi, we know. The walk back to Gandhi may not take the Congress to power. But it is a process of recovery of its conscience. No small gain.