The Quintessential Outsider

Traitors? November 8, 2010

Firstly, I hope all of you had a nice Diwali weekend. In this long weekend, with the Obama visit to India and the India-NZ Test series lined up alongside the festivities, it is an unusual time for me to be writing on such a topic, but it has so happened once again that I have been thinking about some issue, trying to decide whether to write about it, and there came a comment from a friend with a link to an article, which convinced me that I should put down my thoughts.

It happened earlier when I posted on this blog with a link on cases against the Indian Army of human rights abuses in Kashmir, and the very next day, the controversy on Arundhati Roy’s and Syed Ali Shah Geelani’s seminar at New Delhi erupted. I began contemplating a more detailed post on the Kashmir issue and what exactly is Arundhati Roy’s problem, but waited to read more and understand the issue better.

A comment from a friend with a couple of links on Kashmir convinced me to respond through my next post, on the problem with Arundhati Roy and her ilk.

Two days ago, my friend commented again, this time with a link on how India’s elite are the real traitors, not people like Arundhati Roy, which convinced me to respond through this post.

To begin with, if posting links to others’ opinions is a good way to present counter-arguments, then here are some that I found:

Why should India not give away Kashmir, but instead be more assertive in using its power.

How Pakistan and China are exploiting Gilgit-Baltistan and its people, and no one is paying the slightest attention to that issue.

Why should ordinary Indians beware of these shameless activists who have a vested interest in hindering India’s progress.

How India is withering away under attack from all sides.

I know how my friend would respond to such articles – he would look at who the author is, form an opinion based on that, and maybe not even read the article fully once that opinion is formed. I would also look at who the author is and form an opinion, but I would still go ahead and read the whole damn thing, and at times, feel compelled to argue against it on my blog. I did that recently with Tarun Vijay’s article on how India is an “Ayodhya nation”. Tarun Vijay has been the editor of the RSS weekly, Panchjanya, for two decades. On any other day, I might have argued similarly against the last two of the four articles above, which were written by RSN Singh, a former Indian RAW officer.

For my friend, it is not necessary to express his arguments in detail against the words of people like Tarun Vijay or RSN Singh. Their professional or political affiliations are enough for him to not take them seriously, call them names and summarily dismiss their arguments. My friend and I are still very young and unknown, so let’s look at some more well-known people.

That is also the typical approach of Arundhati Roy and her ilk, to form an opinion based on where a person works or has worked, what is his/her socio-economic status or background, what are his/her religious beliefs, or in case of organizations, where are they funded from, among other things. And then, based on this opinion, you call them names and just ignore their arguments. For example, Pankaj Mishra in his article on why the world is silent over Kashmir, uses these terms for the Indian mainstream media – “choleric TV anchors, partisan journalists and opinion-mongers of India’s corporate media”. Or for example, they might look at the author in the second link out of the four I posted above, on Gilgit-Baltistan, an activist originally from Gilgit-Baltistan, but they might see that he is now an expatriate and has been selected as a fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, Delhi. Is that reason enough to doubt his credibility or not take him seriously? If that’s the case, then let us examine Arundhati Roy and her types through the same lens.

Arundhati Roy is half-Bengali and half-Keralite, and both West Bengal and Kerala have been known as bastions of Communism. Her mother was a women’s rights activist, so her critics will argue that rabble-rousing runs in her blood. Her father was a tea planter, she studied at reasonably good and well-known schools, and her Booker Prize winning novel ensured financial stability for her.

Indra Sinha, who talks about how India’s elite are the real traitors, is half-English and half-Indian. He was educated in England and now lives in southern France. Seems like he is one of those Indian elites as well against whom he points fingers.

Similar “background checks” can be done on many other writers, activists and thinkers who have come out in support of Arundhati Roy recently and in the past. Coming from well-off families, products of a privileged education, many of them now residing abroad. This reminds me of the film “Hazaaron Khwaishein Aisi”, where Kay Kay’s character, Siddhartha Tyabji, makes the most noise about a Marxist revolution and people’s rights and so on. Shiney Ahuja’s character, Vikram Malhotra, a typical middle-class ambitious youth, criticizes his outlook, saying that he can afford to think that way because he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Eventually, it is Vikram who ends up in the villages of Bihar, while Siddhartha, faced with torture and disillusionment, gives up his revolutionary ways and goes off to England.

Doesn’t that seem to be the case with all these activists today as well? They can afford to think the way they do, because they have been brought up in fairly insulated and privileged environments, and they always have the choice of going away from India if they find things getting uncomfortable for them here. Whether their obsession with the “have-nots” and their problems is a product of being ashamed at their own privileged upbringing, or a means to seek public attention, I do not know, but I do know that in this quest to paint everything as a struggle between the “haves” and the “have-nots”, they forget that there is a large middle which falls in neither of these two classes.

However, instead of continuing to point fingers at such thinkers/writers/activists, let me say some good things about them as well. Indra Sinha has been a passionate campaigner for justice for victims of the Bhopal disaster, much like Arundhati Roy has actively campaigned for several causes. There is a lot to learn from their experience, but it is lost when they are more interested in rabble-rousing and finger-pointing than in offering any solution or inspiration for others. Why is it lost, on me at least? Let me try to answer that by turning that lens of “background check” on myself, and talk about who I am and how that shapes my thinking.

I am an Indian. I want to see my country progressing, but that progress should be for all Indians, and it should not be at the cost of putting other nations or the entire planet in peril. I am well aware of the challenges that each of these clauses brings, and I respect those who actually work at different levels to deal with these challenges, whether it be a grassroots activist, a bureaucrat, a politician, a journalist, an entrepreneur, or an ordinary citizen who goes about his/her daily life as usual but finds some time out to do some good work. Even those “ordinary citizens” who don’t have the time or inclination to do any “good work”, but do their own job well, are worthy of appreciation.

I have no respect, though, for those who sit in their comfortable cocoons and point fingers at others for sitting in comfortable cocoons.

I am a Mumbaikar. I have lived most of my life in Mumbai and will identify with this city wherever else I may live in future. I have traveled in this city’s crowded trains and buses, and met thousands of its residents from all sorts of social, economic, religious and linguistic backgrounds. Having lived in India’s biggest city, I am aware that I may not know a lot about the most backward regions of India, even though I have traveled extensively, but I would rather know more about it from someone who has actually visited or lived or worked in those regions than someone sitting in a cocooned environment like me and shooting his mouth off.

I am a Hindu agnostic. I have my own beliefs and opinions regarding religion, but I do not force them upon others. And I don’t think anyone else should either. If I am against those who use their definition of “Hindu pride”, “Hindu culture” or “Hindu heritage” to go berserk on the streets, I am also against other types of ideologues, brain-washers, proselytizers or evangelists who find fault with everything “Hindu”, or those who claim to be liberal and secular but ignore incidents like this one.

A couple of days back, on the day of Diwali, my old Christian neighbour rang the doorbell and gave me a greeting card on behalf of the “small Christian community” of the housing society where I live, which has mostly Christian residents. This attitude of mutual respect and tolerance, or to “live and let live”, is also an important part of being Indian, according to me.

I have two tags – IIT and IIM – which apparently put me in the “cream of the nation”. However, my experiences both at an IIT and an IIM have shown me that except for the academic brilliance, these places are just microcosms of India, with all its faults and virtues. And most people in these places, just like elsewhere in India, only want better lives for themselves and for those who matter to them.

What do we mean by “better lives”? It may mean different things to different people, from two proper meals a day to new clothes to a permanent house to a steady job to a range of appliances, gadgets and luxury items. It may also mean a life of dignity and self-respect, and a recognition of one’s legitimate rights, and most people would want to achieve it peacefully. When they do not get it peacefully, they might be forced to try other ways, which is what has happened with Naxalites, but that still does not justify their violence, or calling them “Gandhians with guns”.

Some people in charge of security and administration in Maoist-affected regions have stated that the best way to deal with this problem is to provide the tribal families with television sets and make them “consumers” in the modern sense. That might be an oversimplification, but so is this whole notion of a perpetual class struggle based on the teachings of a two-century-old German thinker.

Arundhati Roy once stated the following, and Indra Sinha quoted the same:

“What we’re witnessing is the most successful secessionist struggle ever waged in independent India – the secession of the middle and upper classes from the rest of the country. It’s a vertical secession, not a lateral one. They’re fighting for the right to merge with the world’s elite somewhere up there in the stratosphere.”

I would like to say to them, that what we are actually witnessing is each of these classes fighting for the right to merge with the class above them, and that is part of human nature. You cannot change that, but you can definitely make some positive changes by offering constructive solutions to the problems you claim to know so much about. If instead of that, you choose to point fingers, you only need to remember that the remaining fingers are pointing back at you. You seem to be telling ordinary middle-class Indians that just because they are economically in the top x% of the population, they are traitors. No wonder they are calling you traitors instead.

Arundhati Roy and the Art of Speaking One’s Mind October 28, 2010

In the few days since I last posted on this blog, with a link to an article on human rights abuse cases against the Indian Army in Kashmir, a new dimension has been added to the Kashmir issue – there is now a debate on whether advocating secession from India, as Syed Ali Shah Geelani and Arundhati Roy did in a seminar in Delhi last week, is an act of sedition, or merely an exercise of one’s fundamental right to freedom of expression. Meanwhile, a friend of mine, in a comment on my last post, has shared a couple of links on why the world is silent over Kashmir and whether India should withdraw from this troubled region. I am going to share my thoughts on all of these, one-by-one.

Firstly, let’s talk about the seminar. What was a liberal, free-thinking, staunch feminist like Arundhati Roy doing sharing the stage with Syed Ali Shah Geelani, who dreams of a ‘free’ Kashmir under a strictly parochial rule which will strangle the lives of ordinary citizens, especially women, in the name of ‘Islamic law’? I have put the word ‘free’ in quotes because Mr Geelani is a staunch supporter, not of Kashmir’s independence, but of its accession to Pakistan. You can find a couple of articles by people who attended the seminar and even spoke there, which state that Geelani now has a more moderate stance, but at least one of them also confesses that he is surprised at this changed stance.

For anyone concerned about the status of Kashmir, what Mr Geelani says is not enough, what matters is the opinion of the masses. And these masses do not mean only those who were applauding Geelani or Roy at this seminar, or the stone-throwing mobs on the streets of Kashmir, but also those who wait inside their houses waiting for the endless cycle of stone-throwing, curfews and massacres to end, and also those who have been forced to leave Kashmir and settle elsewhere, e.g. the Kashmiri Pandits, some of whom turned up to protest against Geelani and Roy at their seminar.

If we look at Geelani as a parochial, fundamentalist leader who advocates violence to enforce his will and preaches hatred for others, he seems eerily similar to some leaders here in Mumbai, who have also been in the news recently for their latest attack on a liberal author and his book. They routinely transgress the boundaries of the freedom of expression, both through their actions when they snatch this right from others, and with their words which threaten to disrupt public order. Will Arundhati Roy ever share the stage or nod in agreement with any of them? No, and quite rightly so. Then why share the stage and nod in agreement with Geelani?

Let me state here that from the account of those who attended the seminar, and from reading Roy’s writings or speeches in their entire context, a discerning individual would agree with her at least on some points. However, the masses and even the mass media are not always so discerning. Arundhati Roy has been known for regularly making statements which can be variously termed provocative and outrageous. She might be right in her opposition to nuclear weapons, to the US-led War on Terror, to big dams and other forms of top-down development, to the imposition of draconian laws and heavy-handed armed action against peaceful protesters or innocent civilians, but her utterances often seem to suggest that she is too blinded by her own ideology to see its limitations.

For example, her sympathy for Maoists stops her from seeing that exploitation and abuse is as rampant in the Maoist ranks as outside. Or at least, if she sees this, she does not express it as vehemently as her support for the Maoist cause. The Naxalite-Maoist insurgency may have started as a spontaneous reaction of the most backward groups against neglect and oppression, and the underlying causes still remain unresolved and continue to drive people to extremism, but one cannot ignore that this movement has turned into a perennially violent struggle which refuses to recognize any peaceful or democratic initiatives as legitimate, and is as destructive for those within its fold as for those outside. It is also probably sponsored by rogue elements from outside India’s borders. It has large numbers of deserters and former members who have been disillusioned by its violent ways. It may be spread across some of the most backward and deprived regions in India, but has failed to take root in some other equally backward parts of the country. Most importantly, Maoism or Mao’s ideology has been conveniently sidelined in the country of its origin, and a pseudo-capitalist system has been put in its place.

Coming back to Kashmir, it might be right to say that every human being or a group of them has a right to self-determination which overrides the laws or constitution of any nation-state. Arundhati Roy has already exercised that right once when she ‘seceded’ and declared herself an ‘independent, mobile republic’. Similarly, Kashmiris could possibly secede and declare themselves independent, and India might be forced to agree if it sees no alternative. But is the issue as simple as that? As I have written above, what about those who were forced to leave Kashmir due to threats to their lives? Will a referendum, if any, include their opinion as well, or only of the current residents? What if, out of the current residents, say 40% favour secession? The movement will be defeated on the ballot, but will those 40% remain silent? And what if 60%, or even 80%, favour secession? Will the remaining 40% or 20% be forced to go with them? Will such a referendum extend to the parts currently controlled by Pakistan? And if an independent Kashmir is formed out of this entire exercise, how long will it remain truly independent, and free from interference by Pakistan and China? All these questions deal only with Kashmir, but can we assume no trouble for Jammu and Ladakh? After all, militancy-related reports keep emerging from Rajouri, Poonch and Doda as well (all of these are parts of Jammu), and Kargil and Siachen (both are parts of Ladakh) have been at the centre of conflicts between India and Pakistan.

Questioning the present or the future of Kashmir, and making suggestions for the same, even if those suggestions include a possible secession from India, may not be considered seditious. However, an openly provocative and belligerent stance against the nation-state, as has been adopted time and again by Geelani, is not only sedition, but treason, and Geelani should consider himself lucky to be in a tolerant nation like India. The same goes for Arundhati Roy, who can afford to say whatever she wants and some more, and still get away with it, precisely because she’s in India. If her fear is that this right will be taken away from her, then we need to be supportive of her and this right, for it concerns all of us. It is expected, however, from an author and thinker of her stature that she will understand when her words cease to convince and begin to provoke, when her speeches do not exhort people to think and reflect, but fill them with anger and add to the existing complications. With that, I shall move to the two articles on Kashmir I mentioned earlier in this post. Both the authors seem to suffer from broadly the same problem as Arundhati Roy.

The first article, on the silence over the Kashmir conflict in Western circles, makes some good points, e.g. that the Indian mainstream media has not shown enough sincerity in representing the ground situation in Kashmir, and that Kashmiris who have lived through these times will still remember and find ways to express themselves. However, calling that mainstream media “choleric”, “partisan” and “opinion-mongers” in a sweeping, generalized manner does little good to his arguments, and exposes the author to equally caustic accusations by those who disagree with him.

Another example is as follows:

A month before his election, Barack Obama declared that resolving the “Kashmir crisis” was among his “critical tasks”. Since then, the US president hasn’t uttered a word about this ur-crisis that has seeded all major conflicts in south Asia. David Cameron was advised a similar strategic public silence on his visit to India last fortnight. Those western pundits who are always ready to assault illiberal regimes worldwide on behalf of democracy ought not to be so tongue-tied.

Perhaps both Obama and Cameron were advised by their aides that the Kashmir issue was different and more complex than the others they usually comment on, so they decided to reserve their comments until they knew better? Perhaps they also realize that India is not, after all, a typical ‘illiberal regime’.

The author paints a black-and-white picture of Kashmir – of a population desiring independence but living under the oppression of Indian guns. If only things were that simple. Besides the political and demographic complexities mentioned a few paragraphs earlier, it might also be informative to note that the ground situation in Kashmir is a maze of pro-Azadi, pro-Pak and pro-Indian people whose opinions have shifted over time and been influenced by a range of factors. They are caught in a tangle of violence and peaceful struggles, terrorists both home-grown and from abroad, former terrorists-turned-informers, informers who are also double agents or even triple agents. Add to this a cocktail of politicians and leaders of different hues, all fighting to cultivate their own narrow domains, and surrounded by three of the most populous countries in the world, all three nuclear-armed. However, the author simplifies this situation to suit his sweeping arguments, and ends up leaving doubts in the minds of the reader.

The second author, writing on whether India should voluntarily withdraw from Kashmir, seems to have similar problems. He gives excellent arguments about how holding on to Kashmir gives India nothing but false pride, and how a voluntary withdrawal can not only leave India more secure and prosperous, but fatally cripple the undemocratic powers at the helm of affairs in Pakistan. However, through some of his other arguments, he undoes the good work. Here is an example:

Indians are not the leaders of Asia — the Chinese are. If India wishes to be considered a good second to China, it should not fritter away its resources on nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, or Commonwealth Games. India should use its scarce resources where they are most needed, to help people raise themselves out of poverty.

And India should not play dirty pool with China, and harbour Tibetan governments-in-exile. Let it not be forgotten that one of the causes of the India-China border war of 1962 was the covert activities of the CIA from Indian bases. Yes, it is sad, the Buddha lived in India 2,500 years ago, but none are true to his vision; nor are the Tibetans. India should mend its fences pronto with China, and accept the glaring fact that they are bigger, and better — just as it wants Pakistan to acknowledge its leadership.

Firstly, the Chinese might be bigger in many respects, but they are still not regarded as the leaders of Asia by all the other countries. For every country hostile or indifferent to India and close to China, there is some other country which is wary of Chinese ambitions and only too happy to engage more with India. Secondly, despite all its problems and poverty, India does need something for its security, and some spectacles to showcase its sporting and other abilities. There is, rightly so, a lot of debate over how much should be spent on these ventures, if at all, while people continue to live in poverty. When was the last time you heard such a debate in China? Has anyone in China dared to question the Beijing Olympics, or the high-handed measures taken to ensure its perfect execution? Here is an article which tells how the same story is being repeated for the Guangzhou Asian Games.

Thirdly, harbouring Tibetans is not just about playing dirty pool with China, but also about a fundamental commitment to provide asylum to those who have been unjustly driven away from their homeland. Regarding the India-China war of 1962, here is a much better and more detailed story of what exactly happened. It explains in great detail how India was probably more at fault for the war, and not China, but does not make arbitrary comments about how China is good and India is bad, which is what this author can be accused of saying. Indians know quite well that China is bigger in most aspects, but they are justifiably proud of their democracy, irrespective of its faults and malfunctions. Telling them to prostrate before another country for being bigger and better is not exactly a good way to convince them of your viewpoint, however sound it may be.

These examples tell you how liberal and free thinkers who are genuinely concerned for the good of people, or at least claim to be so, leave themselves prone to criticism of being anti-national or seditious, or of being apologists or agents of external powers. Unfortunately, in complicated situations like in Kashmir, it is difficult to find the truth between the lies and propaganda of different sides. As my friend in his comment on my last post states, in cases of human rights violations, it doesn’t really make sense for us to take the word of the accused over that of the victim.

But in a region where you cannot enter safely until you are assured protection from one side or the other, what do you do if you decide not to listen to the Army at all? You can go and meet the “local people”, and listen to their stories, but how do you know that some of those “ordinary people” are not miscreants deliberately planted to spread misinformation? And even if we keep aside the “false allegations”, the 35 cases found genuine also offer enough scope for propaganda. 35 stories of human rights abuses with graphic details and some survivors or relatives to showcase the associated human suffering in each of them, are enough for any separatist leader to further his agenda and foment trouble, to provoke more youth into taking up violent means and adding to the endless cycle of violence and repression. And adding 1,471 “false complaints” to the list only makes the situation worse.

It is highly likely that the actual number of genuine cases is higher, that the Indian Army and government have ignored or brushed under the carpet some of the cases, or unjustly declared them false. It is also well-known that successive Indian governments have committed a series of blunders in Kashmir, which has added to the region’s troubles, and that keeping such a huge region and population under such a heavy siege is not only unfair, but unsustainable. The Indian government already realizes that, which is why it has been willing to engage with even the most hardliner separatists in its bid to find a solution. Equating such a government to its more roguish counterparts from across the border, or to the former colonizing powers, as Arundhati Roy does here, is not exactly a good way of speaking one’s mind.

Some Food for Thought October 20, 2010

Two interesting articles.

The first one is for those who think that our armed forces are the biggest human rights violators in Kashmir, and also for those who think that they can do no wrong. This one tells you that they have indeed made some mistakes, but thankfully, they still have the guts to admit them, as well as the processes to address them. This also tells you that they have been accused of much more and much worse than what has actually happened. These accusations have been a handy tool for those who want these forces out of Kashmir for their own ulterior motives.

The second one lends an interesting viewpoint to the debate on capital punishment. I do not have a strong opinion on that, but I have heard of people who claim that death might be preferable to a long life in prison. One such person is Gregory David Roberts, the author of Shantaram, who spent years in solitary confinement in Australia and India and saw some of his prison-mates trying hard to kill themselves in any way possible to escape a long life in prison.

Defining a Nation October 1, 2010

I am back on this blog after a long time, almost two years. There is a lot that can be said about these two years, but instead of getting into all that, I shall come straight to the point of what made me get back to this blog. It was an article in yesterday’s Times of India, and I felt compelled to write about it. Here goes:

Ayodhya was never a temple issue to me. Neither was it a Hindu-Muslim problem.

He is right. Ayodhya was never a temple issue. Neither was it a Hindu-Muslim problem. It wasn’t a problem at all, in fact, until the British (or someone in their era) decided to make it an issue. Until then, both Hindus and Muslims in Ayodhya/Faizabad were quite happy worshipping alongside each other at that place. When India finally gained independence, someone else decided to make it an even bigger issue, and a few decades later, some people in their mad quest for power took this issue and blew it up to catastrophic proportions.

The whole story can be summarized in one line. Ram is we; Babar is not. Period.

I do not agree with this. “Ram is we” might be a comfortable statement for a lot of Hindus, but not all, since there are some Hindus who believe in alternative versions of the Ramayana, some who look at him as just another deity and not the focal point of their faith, and some who are openly critical of him as an upper-caste and/or chauvinist icon not worthy of their worship. To me, Ram is just one of many deities from whose stories you can learn a lot, both good and bad. I do not need the word of a judge to convince me whether or not he is a deity, unlike a prominent politician who declared happily on national television yesterday that Ram has been declared a deity by the court. The point is, Hinduism as a system of beliefs has always had a freedom and openness which cannot be summarized in one line or focused on just one person, whether historical or mythological.

The second bit, “Babar is not”, also depends on how you interpret his efforts to conquer India and build an empire here. He stayed on in India unlike many others who plundered and went back, and his descendants made this nation their own for centuries. Their destruction of temples and building of mosques may prove them to be intolerant or fanatics, but not necessarily un-Indian, especially when they also built some monuments and institutions which still stand today.

If this statement was comparative, e.g. Ram is more ‘we’ than Babar, it would probably be OK. But a plain black-and-white statement like this one is not what this nation is about.

If, God forbid, the goons of Osama break the statue of Liberty and there is a movement to restore the statue, would it be called a movement of extreme right-wing Christians? Or a movement of all Americans?

Firstly, the Statue of Liberty is not in any way related to Christianity, but is a symbol of freedom and democracy, values which the United States built itself on while the rest of the world was still ruled by monarchs. These values may have existed in ancient civilizations at different points of time, and on the other hand, Christianity may have a lot of other good values, but correlating a symbol of freedom with Christianity does not make sense. Ram, on the other hand, is in every sense a Hindu icon, and while the Father of this Nation might have desired Ram-Rajya, he did not mean to see it at the cost of destruction and communal hatred.

Secondly, since the possibility of the “goons of Osama” conquering the United States and destroying its monuments like the Statue of Liberty is VERY REMOTE, maybe we should look at some other examples of goons destroying monuments. Perhaps the WTC attack, but those were also symbols of modern capitalism, and not Christianity. Maybe the Bamiyan statues in Afghanistan – now that is a situation very similar to what Babar did, except that the Taliban did not have any significant Buddhist populace under them to bother about. The point is, ALL OF THESE events are worthy of criticism, including the destruction of the Babri Masjid by another bunch of goons.

Movements to restore destroyed monuments are worthy of appreciation, but not if that restoration comes at the cost of human life. To take an example in India itself, the construction of Somnath temple was appreciable, and if the Babri Masjid dispute could have been resolved amicably, then we could have proudly looked forward to the restoration of a temple at that site, or better still, a school, hospital, orphanage or any other common utility. India did not need all the violence that happened in the name of this dispute, violence which took the lives of both Hindus and Muslims.

“Ayodhya” is standing up against Obama when he meddles with Kashmir and asks us to solve the problem before he agrees to our legitimate demand for Security Council membership.

India is greater than the exploitative US, obsessed with its hegemonistic diplomacy of appeasing dictators and insulting democracies.

For Obama, the Saudi king is a great friend. Oil. Oil, my dear. And for the Saudis too, the kafir American security umbrella is acceptable. Money, honey.

Standing up against Obama for your national pride, or against any other leader for that matter, is good if it involves a question of principle, not if it implies a sense of superiority and being judgmental about other nations. India has stumbled from an idealistic non-aligned path onto the pragmatic path of “realpolitik”, but while treading onto the toes of some small neighbours who have, in turn, accused India of trying to play Big Brother, an accusation which some bigger neighbours are now cleverly manipulating against India to extend their own hegemony. The point is, that hegemony and pragmatism are as much a part of international politics as national pride and self-respect, but letting that pride inflate your head into believing that you are “greater” than others is a folly.

I have never ever seen an American leader expressing sympathy with the exiled Kashmiri Hindus. The entire India desk at Capitol Hill has been so overwhelmingly JNU-ized that they will never think of Hindu pain and a Hindu nation still nurturing democratic values and a pluralism that’s so rare in this world of increasingly shrinking human values.

Perfectly valid point. However, while Hinduism as I know it is the best example of pluralism and tolerance among the world’s religions, I am not sure that the “Hindu nation” that some people desire will have place for this pluralism and tolerance.

For the US, Tianenman can be forgotten and the Dalai Lama is just a matter of breakfast honours. The real meat of friendship and business is with the communist rulers of Beijing. Money, honey. “Ayodhya” is genuinely giving shelter to exiled Tibetans and accepting the Dalai Lama.

Realpolitik. The same explanation as in the case of the Saudis.

“Ayodhya” is also opposing the firangs to overshadow the Commonwealth Games that we are hosting at a huge cost and inconvenience to the Indian people. Once they were called the British Empire Games. The queen is permanently made to sully the spirit of democracy and pluralism by heading the games organizing body. And we now have to have a dust-binned ‘Prince’ of the colonial rulers to compete with our President to have the games inaugurated. What a shame these “secularists” bring to the nations that gave birth to them!

If at all, the Congress, Gill sahib and the most revered Kalmadiji thought that the President of India doesn’t deserve to have the honours to inaugurate the games we are hosting, it’s fine. It’s their president, and their levels of respect for her.  Still, they could have managed to have an African President to get he games inaugurated. What stopped them?

Why always a gora whose ancestors looted our nation and bled us like no one else?

The mess that was caused in the run-up to the Commonwealth Games was due to corruption, and I, just like many other Indians, believe that things would not have been any different under any other party, as from our point of view, honest and competent politicians are as few in one party as in any other.

That we accepted the criticism until it was valid and asked them to shut up when it wasn’t is a reasonably balanced approach, unlike our insecure and defiant neighbours who are seeing a conspiracy theory even as their cricketers destroy the credibility not only of their country, but also of their sport, a favourite of the Commonwealth which is strangely absent from the Commonwealth Games.

Regarding the question of the queen heading the organizing body and her son inaugurating the Games, I think they have been rendered titular and ineffective as much in their own nation as anywhere else in the Commonwealth, so having them perform these ceremonial duties is just a matter of convenience, and in that too, we have asked/forced them to share this ceremonial stage with our own titular head-of-state. Where’s the problem?

Our dear anglicized friends would say, oh Tarun, grow up. We are a strong nation, why bother about such trivialities? It is this kind of people who testified against Bhagat Singh in the Lahore court and they are the apologists for the likes of Kasab. They could have well taken care of in a Brtitish colony like insects.

Those who testified against Bhagat Singh were probably anglicized loyalists, but the apologists for the likes of Kasab are a different breed altogether. They are the ones who raise the bogey of human rights only for selective causes while conveniently ignoring others like the plight of Kashmiri Pandits, or the variety of hostile conditions which our soldiers have to face. Unlike the anglicized loyalists who would probably have been happy under foreign rule as long as it fulfilled their material desires, these “human rights” type apologists think of themselves as revolutionaries, much like Bhagat Singh did. And even they haven’t uttered a word in support of Kasab as far as I can remember.

Life is not just “roti” and a chained splendour of “durbarism”. If that was the case, Soviet Russia won’t have collapsed and Gandhi won’t have fought against the British with a loin cloth and Hedgewar would not have started a movement to ensure we never got enslaved.

The reasons for Soviet Russia’s collapse were entirely different from the reasons that drove Gandhi to stand up against the British. And Hedgewar? He doesn’t even belong in that sentence.

“Ayodhya” is to stand up with the patriotic Indian soldier defending the motherland in Kashmir and demanding severe punishment to the Pakistani agents of separatism who sponsor stone pelters.

Many of those patriotic Indian soldiers defending the motherland in Kashmir will probably not agree with your definition of Ayodhya. And as for the stone pelters, they might be provoked and sponsored by some Pakistani agents, but at least some of them do have legitimate grouses against the Indian state and the Indian armed forces, and stone pelting is probably what they had to resort to when all else failed.

The problem is not the British. They are patriotic people. The problem is those self-defeating Indians who love white racism so much, their souls beaten up by Macaulayism. They love to be the slaves of the empire and get some leftover bones.

They are facilitated by the Indians who crave for some cosmetic positions and an allowance to register their presence in the gora-land.

“Ayodhya” is all about standing up against such pusillanimous attitude of the neo-raibahadurs.

When you say that the British are patriotic people, do you know that the British consist of four different nationalities – the English, the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish – who have not necessarily been in agreement about their patriotism, even in recent history? Meanwhile, there is a small section of people in Britain, India and elsewhere in the world, which wants to look forward with an internationalist and humanist outlook, not backward with a narrow jingoistic outlook. Do you include these “world citizens” in your definition of neo-raibahadurs?

Say no to anything that’s against the grain of our nation, her pride and her sovereignty. That’s Ayodhya spirit to me.

The nation, our dear Bharatvarsha, is a replica of Ayodhya. The symbol of Rama’s nobility and virtuous regime. Those who destroy Ram Setu and go against the Sarayu’s soul are denationalized Indian passport holders.

India is an Ayodhya nation. Ram Rajya nation of Bapu.

No to violence and yes to inclusioveness. Where is Hindu-Muslim discord in it?

Except for the mention of Bapu, I do not see anything in those last few sentences which says yes to inclusiveness. As for the Ram Setu, it is a pity that we did not consider the ecological impact of the project to be of as much significance, if not more, as the impact on our religious sentiments, whatever they might be.

To me, India is much more than a replica of any one place, the rule of any one individual (however great he might have been), or the home of any one identity. India is one of the few places in the world where faith and rationalism can coexist together, where secularism does not mean that you cannot display your religious identity in public, where you can question even your gods and deities. That the space for such openness has been reducing is problematic, and this space needs to be protected, not just for certain faiths or ideologies or as a matter of political convenience or appeasement, but as a core value on the basis of which any free and democratic nation is built.

I disagree equally with the “human rights” apologists who perennially oppose our armed forces, the hawks who believe that these forces are the answer to every insurgency, the paranoid communists who see a Western conspiracy in every economic reform, the “slaves of the empire” who find fault with everything in their own country while heartily appreciating everything foreign, the “vote-bank” leaders who conveniently ignore illegal immigration and put our national security in peril, and the fundamentalists and jingoists who define India/Bharat in their own narrow ways, and often resort to violence against their own countrymen in the name of religion, language or caste.

Each of these groups of people has some valid arguments to make, and they deserve to be respected for that, but they often stretch those arguments to fit their respective ideologies, much like this columnist has done here. And that is where problems occur. Many of these problems often have a simple straightforward path which leads to a solution, but we are so often blinded by our ideologies and beliefs that we cannot see that path. Just like the path of building a school, hospital or some such utility at the disputed site in Ayodhya was a solution which so many ordinary folks on the street could think of and discuss, but not the powers that mattered.