The misuse of state broadcaster (Doordarshan) continues

If someone had told me before the general elections of 2014 in India that if BJP (or to say it correctly Mr. Modi) wins this election with an absolute majority, there will be a live telecast of the RSS chief's speech on Doordarshan (or DD, national broadcaster of India), I would have dismissed this statement immediately. But we all witnessed this event just a few days ago. DD telecasted the speech of the RSS chief live, this was the speech that he delivers every year on the occasion of Vijayadashami (Dussehra). To be honest, I was really surprised if not shocked to read this news. It is not that the national broadcaster of the country was misused for the first time, previous governments also misused it on many occasions to propagate their own party agenda but any previous wrongdoings don't legitimize present mistakes. Unfortunately, this has become the trend, if anyone asks any question about the BJP government they point fingers to previous Congress governments who also did the same things. This never-ending blame game has been going on for years between these two major political parties. Both of these parties claim to be different from each other but in many aspects, they look quite indistinguishable from each other. 

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is a nongovernmental organization. It claims itself to be a nonpolitical, cultural organization but everyone knows about its political affiliation and pro-Hindu ideology. RSS chief neither holds any constitutional post nor is an elected member of any of the houses (Loksabha or Rajyasabha). So, it was an unprecedented move to allow such an organization to use the air time of a national channel that is entirely funded by taxpayers' money. There is nothing wrong in having pro-Hindu, pro-Muslim, or pro-anything organizations; every religion has the right to form an organization and have its gatherings wherever it wants with proper permissions. Many of them including RSS do a lot of good social work in various areas. But at the same time many of them have a very sectarian ideology that heavily favors particular religions and for a central government to allow any such sectarian organization to use national air time was a big surprise for me. Another question is now where do we draw the line? If RSS can get live coverage why not Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP)? Why not Bajarang Dal? Why not the Muslim Waqf Board? Or any other organization that promotes a sectarian ideology of any particular religion but claims to be a cultural organization? Why only RSS? What is so special about them apart from their proximity to the current ruling political party?

Many NGOs (nongovernmental organizations) do a lot of good work in India. At the same time, many NGOs exist only to make money or to spread some sectarian religious ideology. RSS's political affiliation is very well known, BJP is considered as their political arm and there is no secret that RSS controls many things happening at top levels in BJP. If they only allow this particular event to go live on national television and not other events by similar organizations then it is a blatant misuse of government resources. I was amazed to see spokespersons of the BJP pathetically and shamelessly defending this action during many TV debates. They sounded hypocritical as they didn't have any logical explanation for this action and they had a really tough time defending this decision, but they did it anyway. But one really good thing happened because of this event, the mask that was on the face of the BJP finally fell off. They tried to make people believe that RSS and BJP are two separate units, even though they both share the same ideology they claimed that they are different but now this delusion ended. It is good that now people know whom they are voting for and which ideology is going to dominate. It is always better to have a clear picture.

Any government can use or misuse the resources that are at their disposal, it is entirely their choice. The current government made very clear which direction they want to go and which ideology they want to propagate. But there is a remote possibility that all these things are wrong and this was a decision taken by the DD administration on their own without any government pressure as claimed by BJP. If this is true, then I am waiting for them to allow similar air time to all other cultural organizations. After all, any government body cannot be partial towards one cultural organization and ignore all others, they need to give equal treatment to all of them. Either there should be appeasement for all or appeasement for none. I am willing to wait and watch if other cultural organizations get their share of time on national television or not before reaching any final conclusion. I hope I am wrong in my assumption that RSS was favored because of its ideological closeness with the BJP and I will be very happy if the current government proves me wrong, let's wait and watch.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Hinduism is a religion, and all Indians are not Hindus

In one of his recent speeches RSS chief Mr. Mohan Bhagwat asked "why all inhabitants of Hindustan (another name for India or Bharat) are not known as Hindus?" This question is not asked for the first time, especially by anyone associated with RSS or other organizations directly or indirectly associated with it. The logic he puts to support his argument is, if residents of America are called Americans, residents of Germany are called Germans, France-French so why not Hindustan's residents are called Hindus? So, what is wrong with this question? Why all Indians cannot be called Hindus? After all,  they all share some common cultural heritage. Indian Muslims are culturally different than Arab Muslims, and so are Christians and Jews. Sikhism, Jainism, and Buddhism originated in India. So, why can't we call all of them Hindus? The main and flawed assumption for all these assumptions is that Hinduism is not a religion but a lifestyle. Amazingly many even today claim that Hinduism is not a religion but is a way of life. To substantiate this claim they even cite the judgement of Justice Verma's bench in which the bench tried to define the meanings of the terms Hinduism or Hindutwa (delivered in 1995). For some reason this judgement is known as the Hindutwa judgement and Supreme Court panel is going to review it again. Superficially nothing appears to be wrong or mal-intentioned in this statement, but we need to dig a little deeper to understand the real intention behind this argument.

The problem is not with the question itself but the intention behind it. Today Hinduism is considered as third largest (after Christianity and Islam) and oldest practiced religion in the world. Its followers are spread all over the world, majority of them live in India. The term "Hindu" refers to a particular group of people who follow a particular faith, Hinduism, is like any other religion with rituals and gods. A Hindu can be from anywhere in the world, there are American, German, French, or even Pakistani and Bangladeshi Hindus. As far as the argument of 'Hinduism not a religion but lifestyle is concerned', aren't all religions fit into this definition? In fact which religion is not a lifestyle? Just look at the people who practice any religion, it dominates their lifestyle. It controls the way they think, behave, and treat their family and other people, most religions including Hinduism have rules about what food to eat, what clothes to wear, etc. So, every religion can be considered as lifestyle, rather it can be said that they were designed to be a lifestyle and that is why they are so popular. This argument of lifestyle and not religion is conveniently used whenever it suits to broaden the base of Hinduism by RSS. When they want to label an entire country using a single term (Hindu) then it's not a religion but it is a cultural term or a lifestyle. However, when a cow is slaughtered or a temple is demolished then only the religious sentiments of Hindus get hurt. Now there must be a difference between these two Hindus, right? If not, then why communal riots are termed as Hindu-Muslim riots, why not Hindu-Hindu riots? So it is very easy to understand the game of words here. The truth is that Hinduism is a religion and Hindus are people who follow Hinduism. Hindu is not synonymous with terms like "Hindustani," "Hindavi," "Bharatiya," or "Indian." These other terms indicate the regional or cultural identity of a person but the terms "Hindu" or "Hinduism" are religious. It would be inappropriate for anyone to try to force this label on citizens of a secular country like India. No matter how inclusive or tolerant Hindus claim to be people may not like to be associated with this label. Like every other religion Hinduism also has many dark chapters in its long history. Once it was a dominant religion or faith in Southeast Asia but this is not the case anymore. Today there are many religions and cultures that exist side by side in this region, one just cannot label all of them as "Hindu cultures." It is not only wrong but also insulting to all other cultures to merge their identities with Hindus because they have separate identities.

If the intention of Mr. Bhagwat was to propose some term that can unify or define all citizens of India then what is wrong with terms like "Bharatiya" or "Indian" or "Hindustani"? Why didn't he use any of these terms which may not have created any confusion among people from other faiths and in the minds of his detractors. This is why his intention behind this statement is questioned. I am sure he was well aware of what he was saying and what impact it would have. I am sure he also knew that being BJP in power his statement would be interpreted differently. I hope that Mr. Bhagwat and RSS now accept the reality that the term Hindu represents a single religion and it can not be used to label the cultural heritage of a diverse country like India. We have many other terms that could be used to represent the cultural heritage of India, let's use them if required. I hope the leaders of India won't try to create unnecessary controversy and communal tension in a country that is already struggling to deal with this problem.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Dr. Vedik's case - display of double standards by BJP

A recent meeting between Dr. Ved Pratap Vedik (known to be close to Baba Ramdev, BJP, and RSS) and 26/11 terrorist attack mastermind Hafiz Saeed created a lot of controversy and uproar in Indian media and political circles. This event was heavily politicized just because of the involvement of these organizations. As a reporter Dr. Vedik has the right to meet anyone and conduct an interview, this view was expressed by almost everyone involved in this discussion. But he should tell for which newspaper or magazine or channel he conducted this interview? Where did he publish it so that people can know the contents of that interview? Is he an active journalist, if yes, associated with which journal? He was part of some delegation when he visited Pakistan, I assume that this delegation must have got the Indian government's permission to visit Pakistan as Pakistan is not like any other country where any Indian can go and visit without going through a rigorous review process. Did he inform anyone from the delegation about his plans to conduct this interview? It will be also interesting to know who sponsored his trip to the residence of Hafiz? This guy Hafiz Saeed is an internationally wanted terrorist, and he is accused of carrying out some major terrorist attacks on India which killed hundreds of people. If Dr. Vedik was aware of all these facts then he also must have been aware of the repercussions of this meeting in India, so what was his purpose behind interviewing this terrorist? Why did he publish a photo of his meeting before publishing the interview? He needs to give satisfactory answers to all these questions.

Another interesting thing was the response of the Indian government headed by the BJP. For some reason, they responded by defending Dr. Vedik's actions indirectly. This is the same party that reacted very aggressively when Kashmiri leader Yasin Malik shared the stage with the same terrorist in 2013. They demanded strong action against him (like revoking his passport and arresting him), but they didn't say the same things about Dr. Vedik. Dr. Vedik also gave one interview to some Pakistani media in which he talked about the possibility of granting independence to Kashmir. I have no problems with his personal views about Kashmir or any other issue and he has the right to express his thoughts, he should be able to share his views without worrying about any intimidation from the government or anyone else. But it seems the BJP and its supporters don't believe in the existence of freedom of expression when it doesn't suit them, and I am saying this based on their reactions to such statements in the past. Many times in the past they tried to vandalize homes and public buildings or even attack people who made controversial statements related to Kashmir or said anything that didn't align with their stand on any sensitive issue. Their silence in this case was a pleasant surprise. It is not that I would have liked their violent reactions but I am surprised to see that they base their reaction on who is making the statement but not the content of the statement. So, it seems to them the person who is making the statement is more important not the content of the statement. If the person is from their party or a supporter of their party or someone close to their associates (which Dr. Vedik is) then it is fine if they say anything but the same courtesy is not offered to other individuals (the example of Mr. Prashant Bhushan must be very fresh in people's memory). 

This is a blatant display of double standards by the BJP. If they believe in freedom of expression, it is really great news and I congratulate them for this. But they should show it in their behavior towards everyone irrespective of their party affiliations or political ideologies not only for selected individuals otherwise it is called double standards or hypocrisy. Surprisingly they are doing this when they have no pressure of coalition politics (this excuse was used by Congress on many occasions). The BJP has an absolute majority on its own in the parliament. It is easy to be harsh and critical about people from the opposition party or other people not related to you but when a person from your own group does something serious and you keep mum or try to justify their actions then it is hypocrisy. So far, the BJP's attitude is the same as Congress which used to justify each and every action of their leaders in the past. I hope the BJP realizes its mistake as they have a long way to go, these are just the initial days of their new government so I hope that they will take necessary corrective measures not to repeat these types of mistakes. If not, then we all know what happened to Congress same thing will happen to them sooner or later.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

India and Bharat - are they different?

Recent remarks by RSS chief Mr. Mohanrao Bhagwat that rapes are prevalent in India (by this he means a more liberal and modern population), not in Bharat (a rural, more conservative, or traditional part of India) created a lot of controversy in the media. Many people found it very controversial. Even Asaram Bapu said something very stupid in this regard. Personally, I was not very surprised after reading this comment as this type of mindset is still prevalent in even educated people in India and Mr. Bhagvat is representative of that conservative mindset. I have seen a lot of good work done by RSS, they try to instill a feeling of patriotism among people at the same time they are heavily biased toward Hinduism and are instrumental in spreading communal divide based on religion. They don't hide their close association with Hinduism. This is one of their major handicaps like many other organizations that associate themselves exclusively with a particular religion and feel the compulsion to defend each and everything mentioned in their scriptures and try to reinforce their traditions and culture. This particular comment comes from that mindset, where they believe a traditional, conservative society is better for women. Women should stay indoors, they are supposed to take care of their homes and families and cover themselves. Earning or doing a job is not considered a woman's responsibility. 

This statement by Mr. Bhagwat clearly doesn't make any sense. Actually, this shows that he is totally out of touch with reality. Every society has rich (more affluent) and poor sections, in India the difference is more contrast. Very often rich people follow a more liberal lifestyle, and this is somehow blamed on the Western influence. There is no logic behind this, it's a pathetic attempt to blame some outsider for things that one can not avoid or control. In today's world with modern and sophisticated modes of communication interaction between different cultures and societies is more common. People adopt whatever suits them. The exchange of ideas, traditions, and customs is very easy and common and no one can stop this. Whatever is good and relevant to people's needs will survive and other things will go away. Some bad elements will also creep in and will stay, but this was the case all the time. At every point in time in every society in our history, we had good customs and traditions and also bad ones. Today's society is not very different in that way. We are much more well equipped as far as technology and resources are concerned and it can do wonders if we can use it to our advantage.

This logic of India and Bharat is an indirect attempt to criticize the more affluent section of Indian society for their more liberal lifestyle. Women are generally more independent in these societies and also more outgoing. This criticism is mainly directed towards these independent women. According to his statement, such independent women only live in India but not in Bharat. It sounds very illogical and weird but it seems this is how Mr. Bhagwat thinks. While making this comment I wonder how Mr. Bhagwat conveniently forgot the situation of women in his so-called Bharat, where they are raped, molested, burned, and killed every day. Their situation is not very different than other parts of the country. The law and order situation is even worse in these places compared to cities. Just because women stay mostly indoors, do conventional jobs, they don't wear Western clothes doesn't mean they are safer and well-protected or well-cultured than women who do these things. I really wonder how people still believe and live with these types of illusions.

What type of world do they want to live in? Why are they so against independent and strong women? Why do they feel that women are supposed to do only certain types of work? Why are they not willing to give them equal treatment and the respect they deserve? There are many questions like this and I know what answers these people will give to most of these questions, but even then we need to ask these questions and argue with them because these people who think like this are part of our society and we can not neglect or ignore them. We need to question them. We need to argue with them and try to convince them. We should share our views about equality and women's empowerment with them. We all need to pay our part in bringing this change, unless the whole society is transformed this change will not come and our job is not done. If we brand them as conservatives and backward, ignore or neglect them, then we will be making the same mistake that organized religion did with nonbelievers. We need to talk with them, understand their views, and show them the other side of the coin, sounds very tough but there is no other way.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

References:
1. Rapes prevalent in India not in Bharat- The Hindu
2. Rapes occur in India not Bharat-Bhagwat-TOI
3. Marriage is like contract between husband wife-Mohan Bhagwat (TOI)
4. Delhi gang rape victim as guilty as her rapists-Asaram Bapu (TOI)