A REPUBLIC AT ODDS WITH ITSELF
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
A republic at odds with itself
By Virendra Parekh
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
You cannot remain young for ever, it is said, but you can remain
immature throughout your life. As the Indian republic turns 60, it
looks like a tired old man suffering from self-forgetfulness, who has
advanced in age but not grown in wisdom.
Each passing day brings fresh evidence of the state's inability to
meet even basic expectations of citizens. We expect it at least to
defend our borders, protect us from violence, protect environment
from degradation, punish wrongdoers and provide us with roads, water
and power. What we get is an apologetic response to Chinese
incursions in Ladakh and Arunachal, spread of Naxalite violence,
pollution of Ganga, parole for Manu Sharma, and numerous instances of
road rage, water scarcity and power cuts. These are not mundane
failures in providing basic services; they give us an insight into
the real nature of the Indian state.
The first thing that strikes us about the Indian state is its
lopsided nature. It is soft to those who merit harsh treatment --
terrorists, proven criminals, tax dodgers, corrupt officials and
leaders, irresponsible trade unions etc; it is harsh on those who
deserve compassion -- the poor, the unorganized, the weak. So it
inspires fear and mistrust among those whom it is supposed to help
and serve, while it is not taken seriously by those who ought to fear
it. It is highly active in areas which it should not have entered in
the first place, while blissfully neglecting the tasks which it alone
can perform. Its patronage is largely enjoyed by those who least
deserve it, even as its burden is borne by those who are least
capable to do so. In short, there is too much of government but too
little of governance.
A striking feature of the Indian state over the decades has been the
divergence between the objectives and the consequences of its
policies. A poor country which needed to grow fast chose to follow
economic policies which stultified its growth. A policy of positive
discrimination which was supposed to put an end to backwardness
created a powerful vested interest in backwardness. A temporary
provision for integrating Jammu & Kashmir into India has become a
seemingly permanent instrument for preventing its full integration.
But the biggest failure of independent India is not economic (loss of
growth opportunities) or military (loss of territory to Pakistan and
China) but cultural and ideological. The State created by the
Constitution has no relation with or respect for age-old civilization
of the country. It has done nothing to end the cultural stalemate
plaguing us for centuries.
It is no secret that the overall structure and several provisions of
the Indian Constitution were borrowed from the Government of India
Act 1935. Like British rulers, the Indian state looks upon India as a
vast conglomeration of castes, communities, religions, languages and
races and seeks to mould them into a modern nation by inculcating
western values. This repudiates the deeper fundamental unity of India
rooted in Hindu civilization. According to this view, India is still
a nation in the making. This separates it from Indianness.
The British government claimed to be a neutral arbiter in the Hindu-
Muslim conflict (which it was not), but overtly promoted western
institutions and concepts. The Indian state after Independence, too,
sought to replicate western institutions and values, first in the
name of modernisation, and now in the name of globalisation. The
resultant political order is characterized not so much by appeasement
of Muslims as by its rootlessness, alienness and its contempt for the
country's cultural past.
The un-Indian character of the Indian state is defended in the name
of secularism, which alone, we are told, can ensure communal harmony
and preserve India's unity and integrity. Numerous thinkers have
debunked these claims by pointing out the perverse, anti-national and
subversive nature of what passes in India for secularism.
As late Ram Swarup pointed out, in the West secularism was creative;
in India, it is imitative. In the West, it was directed against the
clergy and tyrannical rulers, and had, therefore, a liberating role.
Here it is directed against the Hindus who are victims of two
successive imperialisms stretching over a millennium. In the West, it
opposed the church which claimed to be the sole custodian of absolute
Truth, which gave definitive answers to all questions and punished
any dissent. In India, it is directed against Hinduism which never
made such claims, laid down no dogmas, punished no dissent and which
fully accepted the role of reason in both spiritual and secular
matters. In practice, it has been a smokescreen for every anti-Hindu
totalitarian ideology -- Islam, Christianity, Communism -- to pursue
its designs on Hindu society.
The truth is that all attempts to divorce Indian nationalism from
Hindu civilization have failed. If we take out the Hindu element from
Indian society, history and culture, it will no longer remain Indian.
History shows that every part of India where Hindu civilization was
eclipsed and Hindus reduced to a minority, has eventually seceded
from India. Every separatist movement in the last hundred years
(Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Dravid, Communist or tribal) has been anti-
Hindu in character. In contrast, there is not a single leader,
organisation or movement that called itself Hindu and yet was
secessionist. Hindus cannot secede from India because they constitute
India. It is they who have imparted Indianness to India. No other
group can claim this for itself.
Secularism was the westernised Hindus' response to anti-Hindu
separatism and animus. They sought to deflect the attack by disowning
Hinduism. Secularists thought and still think that by de-Hinduising
the polity they would be able to neutralise Islam also. It has not
worked. Hindus may cry hoarse that they are secular, but for their
enemies they are still too Hindu to be left in peace.
In fact, perverse secularism has confused the intellect, clouded the
vision and paralysed the will of the Indian state to grave challenges
such as overt secessionism, infiltration, Islamic separatism, and
even terrorism. Club these political and ideological failures with
secular failures in the realm of governance and foreign policy, and
the picture is complete.
Since we tend to expect a lot from the state, we have allowed it to
assume very wide-ranging powers. Today we have a state which is all-
pervasive but weak, corrupt and inefficient and lacks a clear set of
priorities. Instead we need a smaller, less intrusive but strong
state, with a clear set of priorities. It would draw inspiration from
Kautiliya Arthasastra, Mahabharata and such treatises, rather than
junk ideologies and think tanks of the West.
Such a state would never allow the country's borders to shrink at any
cost, would curb internal violence with an iron hand to regain its
monopoly of use of force, and would carry out police, judicial and
administrative reforms to provide speedy justice at affordable cost
to the people. It would use public resources for creating public
goods (environment protection, public health, primary education,
sound money, basic infrastructure etc.) which cannot be left to the
market mechanism. It will protect the right to property and enforce
contracts. Remember, farmers in Nandigram or tribals in Orissa did
not ask for jobs or sarkari welfare schemes, but the right to retain
what they possessed. Its economic policies will be aimed at
encouraging and facilitating growth rather than controlling it.
Above all, such a state would be rooted firmly in the civilisational
ethos of the country. It would regard India as the cradle of an
ancient civilization, which the Indian state is expected to protect
and nourish. It would recognise the reality that after the secession
of the Muslim component of the state (provinces, bureaucracy, police
and army) what remained was Hindu Rashtra. This recognition would
mean an assurance to the Hindus that they have finally come into
their own, that Indian nationalism is rooted in Hinduism, and that
the State would protect Hindu society and culture against predatory
creeds.
Secularist intelligentsia has spent six decades telling Hindus that
this is not their state, although they may be manning and funding it
by far. The Hindu response is visible in their indifference to all
the values espoused by the State, including composite culture and
secular (i.e. non-Hindu) nationalism. The loss of national character
in independent India has a lot to do with that. It also explains why
Indians are respected abroad, but India is not.
The author is Executive Editor, Corporate India, and lives in Mumbai
End of forwarded article from Murli
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
harmony
thanks maharishi virendra parekh ji.
as rishi of the old time said you can never give it all your away and be
poor enough to help a poor, you can't get sick enough to cure the sick, you
can never get secular enough to de-mummudize or de-kirastanize or
de-communisalize the 3m.
thanks again for a fantastic view.
<use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote in
message news:20100126U14Cqa45zc3Vdy9ZDLgl3dE@SX7yW...
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
In article <4b5f5fe1$0$12464$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net>,
"harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> posted:
>
> this one is a keeper.
> thanks maharishi virendra parekh ji.
> as rishi of the old time said you can never give it all your away and be
> poor enough to help a poor, you can't get sick enough to cure the sick, you
> can never get secular enough to de-mummudize or de-kirastanize or
> de-communisalize the 3m.
>
> thanks again for a fantastic view.
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted: