In the moment of his political triumph, Modi has chosen to defeat India

by Pratap Bhanu Mehta in Indian Express 

The elevation of Yogi Adityanath as chief minister of Uttar Pradesh is an odious and ominous development. It is an odious choice because the BJP has picked someone who is widely regarded as the single most divisive, abusive, polarising figure in UP politics. He is a politician who has, for most of his political career, been the mascot of militant Hindu sectarianism, reactionary ideas, routinised conflict and thuggery in political discourse, and an eco-system where the vilest legitimations of violence are not far away. It is an ominous development because it sends as clear a signal as it is possible to send at this time; the already accomplished political fact of the marginalisation of minorities in UP and elsewhere will now be translated into a programme of their cultural, social and symbolic subordination.

It signals that the BJP will now be dominated by extremes, its politics shaped largely by resentment rather than hope, collective narcissism rather than an acknowledgement of plurality, hate rather than reconciliation, and violence rather than decency. Hubris has set in. The party believes it can get away with anything. It now intends to.

The election results gave Prime Minister Narendra Modi an unprecedented mandate. It is true that most of us who did not expect the mandate are hardly in a position to explain what the results represented. All we know is that for a variety of reasons, people reposed trust in Modi overwhelmingly over his rivals. He got credit for leading from the front. He has chosen to interpret his mandate in a way that licenses and empowers the worst tendencies of his party. This is now not a statement just about UP: It is a statement about the prime minister’s inclinations and judgement. In the moment of his political triumph, he has chosen to defeat India.

BJP supporters are hiding behind the façade of party democracy to legitimise this choice. Yes, the formal imprimatur of the legislative party is behind him. But given Modi’s power, this explanation is hard to digest. If Adityanath was so clearly a popular choice, what was the hesitation in declaring him the chief ministerial candidate before the elections? If it was uncertainty about his ability to win across the state, then the result does not alleviate it. So, the only conclusion is that it was a duplicity of sorts —”of sorts” because the ideological currents were apparent in the prime  minister’s speeches and the BJP manifesto.

But every argument that leads to legitimising this choice bodes ill for the country. If the legislature electing Adityanath is indeed the best interpretation of the mandate, then Indian democracy is corroded to the core: For it is effectively saying that India is now communalised to the point where a figure like Adityanath is the popular choice. We have to then give up the last vestiges of democratic hope in the idea that while the people may misjudge or commit mistakes, while they may occasionally excuse a crime, they will not vote for the wholescale destruction of basic values. It has been hard to resist misanthropy towards the role of citizens in Indian democracy. Many elites have succumbed to it in a self-defeating way. But it is that democratic respect that has perhaps made us underestimate our capacity to legitimise political evil.

Taking a stand against a democratic mandate, without losing democratic faith, is not an easy political act to juggle. If Adityanath is indeed the popular choice, then the crisis of Indian democracy deepens: It will essentially seem like a contest between fundamentalism and democratic misanthropy, both destructive of the idea of democracy. On the other hand, if his elevation is a misreading of the mandate, then too we are in deep trouble: For it will show the limits of democracy in containing sheer hubris. Either way, unless there is some imaginative ideological regeneration, India will become a democracy intoxicated by sheer power.

“Every saint has a past and every sinner a future.” This refrain has often been used to excuse big political crimes in India. And it has to be said, from Rajiv Gandhi to the current prime minister, leaders have got away with a lot of political culpability. But even in the tainted annals of our democracy, sinners have had to keep up appearances of reinventing themselves, positioning themselves to show they had something more than the taint to offer — what is striking about Adityanath’s political career so far is that there is not even a whiff of acknowledgement that he might need to speak to something larger, acknowledge civility, or stay away from fear-mongering and the legitimisation of violence. There is nothing else here, other than a tissue of resentment and hate, unless you think the Gorakhpur model of politics is a harbinger of development.

There is an element of truth in Yogi Adityanath’s claim that the BJP is consolidating a politics that goes beyond caste, at least in the way it was conventionally understood. But we are left with the disquieting conclusion that the form of consolidation “beyond caste” he practises will rely on an even more insidious communal politics. The political challenges of this moment are going to be immense. Modi’s rise to power has empowered a lot of nasty characters. Now they get wholescale control of the state apparatus in India’s largest state, and with every intention to reshape it in their image.

A forcing of the hand on the Ram Mandir issue is now an imminent prospect. Visible opposition will be difficult to mount because of the BJP’s total dominance, and this will likely make the situation worse. The usual safety valves of Indian democracy are slowly shutting. We have no idea of what kind of politics this suffocation will spawn. India’s enemies will be exulting that at a moment in world history, when all India had to do was to have a sensible policy, we have chosen to empower the worst of ourselves.

Naths have a distinguished spiritual tradition. But militant Nath yogis have a destructive history in politics: They were even patronised by Aurangzeb. They were influential in Jodhpur, my home town. The 19th century ruler, Man Singh, was a disciple. He called his kingdom an “arpan” to the Naths. Raja Man Singh was talented. He fancied himself a poet, a king and a yogi. The only catch was that he was not the self-possessed ideal king. He had frequent bouts of madness. He was paranoid, had power but could not master it. Now we have been again asked to do a political arpan to the Naths. Madness cannot be far away.

This column first appeared in the print edition titled 'Yogic Madness'. The writer is President, CPR Delhi, and contributing editor, The Indian Express. 

It is said that truth will set you free. Not knowing the truth about the reality is the cause of our being in bondage to different reactionary religious philosophies.  Threads of truth are in all religion but in the light of the latest developments, if the religious philosophy can’t explain the reality (Truth) then there is no other way but that philosophy has to give way to another. So in history religious philosophies always gave way to another. Mithraism and many other religious philosophies are just history today. Hinduism as we see it today was not the religion of Arsha Bharatham. Before that it was a yet another religion. Trying to keep the present practices alive instead of making necessary changes will not help. Destroying the free thinkers questioning its practices or passing laws for it will not help its survival. In history one religion gave way to another if it could not adapt. Just because some or all the people of India changed to a different religion the sky will not fall down the next day. Sun will still rise up at the precise time, and life continues. It is our way of finding security in religion that change. It is insecurity, imaginary threats arising from reactionary religious philosophies that pull back our development as a nation. Knowledge of the truth will lead to love of fellow human beings, unity, development and prosperity instead of selfishness, hatred, intolerance and destruction. We tend to believe our traditions without questioning it that keeps us lagging behind. It is not good for an educated mind to do that. ഇങ്ങനെയൊക്കെ മഹാത്മാ ഗാന്ധി പറയാൻ തുടങ്ങിയപ്പോൾ ആണ് ഗോഡ്‌സെ വെടി വച്ചത്.  Vaayanakkaran’s thought process justifies such actions. What type of a society will be that tolerate such intolerance. Will there be any peace in that society? Any type of development possible there? Have you ever thought why all the discoveries and inventions that took place in western civilization did not happen in India or in the Muslim world? Religion and religious philosophy that bind people’s thought process was an important factor. We were in bondage to a philosophy that did not encourage invention or independent development. When I shared with a day laborer in our farm in India that Americans landed on the Moon, he laughed at me for believing that news as to him Moon is his God and there is no way to land on Moon. For original development in India that others can imitate we have to set our minds free from religion- separation of church and state. In India the state is passing laws to protect religion that keep as in captivity to the outdated religious philosophies. As a nation we will lag behind while other free thinking cultures will march ahead and we will be forced to submit to them. What is considered smart today can become foolish down the road. In Hitler’s Germany all the independent thinking people and opposition were eliminated that led to the destruction of a nation. If we need development we need free thinkers and come out of the clutches of religion.തികഞ്ഞ ബ്രാഹ്മണനായ ഗോഡ്സെക്ക് വൈശ്യനായ ഗാന്ധി പറഞ്ഞത് മനസ്സിലായില്ല. So shooting is the answer for it?ഹിന്ദു മുസ്‌ലിം കൃസ്ത്യൻ എന്നൊന്നും വ്യത്യാസം വേണ്ടഎന്ന്  ഹിന്ദുസ്ഥാനിലെ ജനങ്ങൾ വിശ്വസിച്ചിരുന്നു.  അവിടേക്ക് വന്ന എല്ലാ മതങ്ങളെയും അവിടെയുള്ളവർ സ്വീകരിച്ച്.  പിന്നെ സംഗതികൾ മാറി. ഭൂരിപക്ഷമുള്ള മതക്കാർ അവരുടെ വീതം ചോദിച്ചു.കൊടുക്കേണ്ടി വന്നു. Who gave whom what? What claim you and I have on the land we reside? Did I create it to say that it is my own? The land belongs to God, and God gave it to different people groups in history to hold on (lease) for a time period. You take any country of the world today, the ruling class there is not the original inhabitants of the land. It is lack of knowledge of the truth and the resultant insecurity the reason for such reasoning. If you know the truth then you will love fellow human beings instead of considering them as a threat. The political leaders due to their own lack of knowledge of the truth and their own insecurity pass that insecurity to people to come to power and promise to protect people from imaginary threats. Building the wall here and deportation arise from such insecurities. ഇനിയും അങ്ങനെ ഒരവസരവം വരില്ലെന്ന് ആര് കണ്ട്.  എല്ലാ മതക്കാരും സ്നേഹത്തോടെ കഴിയുന്നത് നല്ലത്. എന്നാൽ നിങ്ങളുടെ മതം ചീത്ത അതുകൊണ്ട് മതം മാറുക എന്ന് ദിനം പ്രതി ആര്ഷഭാരതത്തിൽ  അസ്വസ്ഥതയുടെ ശബ്ദം ഇപ്പോൾ മുഴങ്ങുന്നു. It is natural for free thinkers to ask question about the present set up and need for change. Religious philosophy also will be questioned. If a philosophy can’t answer the questions or accept changes due to insecurity or pride, then trying to protect it from such questioning by passing laws of ‘Mathaninda’ is trying to protect it that can’t stand on its own. How long you can do it? How long you can live in isolation and under protection? Survival of the fittest is true here. If you can’t adapt to changes there is no way you can survive. Prime Minister Modi and his religious supporters are binding our minds in religion and blocking its free thinking ability and thus our long term development.

(ചവിട്ടു നാടകഗാന രീതി)

അവറാനെ നിന്നെ കുത്താൻ
പോത്തുള്ള വരുന്നുണ്ട്
മോന്ത കുലുക്കി കൊമ്പ് കുലുക്കി
പോത്തുള്ള വരുന്നുണ്ട്
പോത്തിന്റെ മുകളിലായ്
ഇരിപ്പുണ്ട്
കൈയ്ക്കുള്ളിൽ ബൈബിളുണ്ട്
കഴുത്തിൽ കുരിശുണ്ട്
ഇടയ്ക്കിടെ പറയുന്നു
വേദവാക്യം നിറുത്താതെ
"വന്നീടാൻ സമയമായി
വീണ്ടും ഭൂവിൽ ദൈവപുത്രൻ
ക്രൈസ്തവരല്ലാത്തോരെ
തരം മാറ്റി നിറുത്തീടും
ഉടലോടെ പിന്നെയവർ
സ്വർഗ്ഗത്തിൽ എത്തിച്ചേരും
കട്ടുറുമ്പുകളായി വന്നു
ഇടയ്ക്കിടെ കടിക്കുന്ന
അന്തപ്പൻ ആന്ദ്രയോസ്
അവിടില്ല ഭാഗ്യംതന്നെ
അവിടെ ഞാൻ കർത്തോവൊത്തു
ആയിരം വർഷം വാഴും:
അവറാനെ നിന്നെപോലുള്ളോർ
നരകിച്ചു ചാകും ഇങ്ങ്