SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA
ARCHIVES

Varsha Bhosle

Death becomes them

Dear Rajeev rather likes to get me in trouble by introducing not- so-bizarre ideas into my head, and then sits by to watch the sparks fly in Rediff's Arena after I let it rip. For instance: "V, the Chinese and Indonesians have managed to take over hostile provinces simply by flooding them with their own people -- China by importing Hans into Tibet and Xinjiang, and Indonesia by ferrying in Javanese into Kalimantan and Irian Jaya. So why aren't Hindutvawadis flooding into Kashmir to win the battle through demographics? Answer: cowardice. Wouldn't that be an incendiary statement to make?"

Oooh, good one -- but for one tiny detail: The ethnic peoples of Tibet and Irian Jaya have been neutralised by the *governments* of those countries through the resettlement of State-sympathetic aliens in those provinces. Can you guess what would happen if Hindu nationalists were to move into the valley? They'd have to face attacks not only from friendly, neighbouring Pakistan and the Islamic terrorists it sustains, but also our own khichadi government and the tender-hearted supporters of Article 370. Not only can't Indians -- Hindu or otherwise -- move into Kashmir, but Kashmiri Hindus, too, have been driven out from their homeland! Ethnic cleansing of Hindus is alive and well in the state of Jammu and Kashmir...

I have this theory that except for Hindutvawadis, nobody believes that India is a sovereign land within a single historical, cultural and religious framework. British propaganda fostered the idea that each state was a separate, independent entity -- and the rajahs did zilch to dispel it: The Kashmir problem is first and foremost the dithering Maharaja Hari Singh's bastard brat...

Result: there's simply no passion, no do-or-die spirit in Indians to keep the nation whole. Forget pinko columns, but even the mail in Arena bears out my observation that the average secular-liberal is fixated on his paapi-peyt and the evacuation of it. The argument usually goes: India is morally wrong to resist political dissidents; it's a waste of human and financial resources; let them secede and just let me get on with my daal-roti. Apparently, that is the practical, ethical view to take, and the stuff which makes nations great.

If that weren't incomprehensible enough, we have recently been blessed with yet another manifestation of secularist benevolence and mercy -- courtesy, the syndicated column of Pritish Nandy. To wit, murderers, extortionists and kidnappers operating in Assam, Punjab and Kashmir are "The Lost Children of India" who should be shown compassion in *their* moment of need...

I can understand Mr Nandy advocating leniency for a criminal who happens to be pregnant and suffering from blood cancer -- indeed, if asked nicely, I may even acquiesce. What enrages me is his chutzpah in demanding clemency for a terrorist by evoking the citizen's right to medical help. In, what my critics call, the brave new world of Bhosle, when a person seeks to secede, s/he ceases to be a citizen, period. And as far as murderers are concerned, quite simply, death becomes them.

Strange as it may seem, I tend to take my friend and antagonist Dilip Dear quite seriously. For nowhere in his opus do I find a motivation other than his rabidly leftist and minorities-oriented beliefs (what I think of them is besides the point for the moment). However, I go all queasy when I read, "If indeed Tata Tea assisted her (Pranati Deka, ULFA) medically, unwittingly or even knowingly, is it such a crime that we should treat India's most respected corporate group as we would treat a common criminal?" Hey, I thought that Themis, with her scales of justice, was supposed to be blind-folded! Tch, tch, tch... is Tata sponsoring some new media scheme of Mr Nandy's...?

If, as Mr Nandy says, "surely, every individual, every community, every corporate has the right to its own life and security and a government that cannot protect them has no right to punish them either, if they choose to make their own peace with the extortionists," how in heaven's name are we to uphold the laws of the land? (It's another matter altogether that an individual has no right to his own life -- suicide is punishable in every country.) The argument is the same as: Every individual has the right to his hard-earned money and a government that does not leave him with enough income has no right to punish him if he chooses to withhold tax. So what do we do - decriminalize tax evasion? And where does that leave the national treasury?

The other argument that arises from Mr Nandy's passionately pacific plea is that since every individual has the right to his own life blah blah, he can take the law into his own hand and set up vigilante groups to gun down those threatening him. Needless to say, I'm ALL for it. But, is Mr Nandy...? Hehehehe... I seriously doubt it.

He then says, "If the Bombay cops were to look away when gangsters came with AK-47s and tried to extort you, can they (thereafter) punish you for paying up to save your life?" Then may I ask, by whose good grace are the security forces not able to protect citizens? We -- the Nazis -- who back TADA and advocate stronger measures against transgressors? Or the secularist/liberal/leftists who do not...? Forget about giving Bombay's sakharam an Uzi to battle the AK-47, the chattering classes go after him when he does gun down the extortionist...

It's strange, the way some people would bend the Constitution to suit their purposes. As I see it, either one follows the law, or one gets it changed in Parliament via rousing the public opinion -- true democracy permits no other way. As Rajiv Gandhi did after the Shah Bano alimony case, one does not summon a caucus of parliamentary sycophants and make overnight amendments in order to contravene a Supreme Court judgment: The effects of such asinine arrogance are always detrimental and far-reaching. Nor does one exhort people to ignore an active law simply because it does not rise to the high moral standards of a media mahatma... Whether the house of Tata is a victim of a political vendetta or not, the fact remains that it committed a crime -- and the "sense of proportion and self respect" was lost by it.

To have faith in the State is to obey the law, however harsh it may seem in its execution. Thus, if we are being asked to condone Tata Tea for harbouring a terrorist, we are, in effect, being cajoled to sanction the crime committed by the terrorist -- to cock a snook at the laws which proscribe the sheltering of a known terrorist. If there is another explanation, do tell.

Now, before you jump up in triumph screaming: "but you advocate police encounters, you're against civil rights groups, how can you talk of the Constitution," etc, let me make one thing clear: The above does not apply to me since I do not have faith in the Indian model of democracy, anyway. More significantly, I do not believe that we are or have ever been a true republic. Since King Nehru, we have had a dynastic rule, interspersed by that of various vazirs, and are simply waiting for the day when Prince Rahul takes up the reins. Actually, most of us are ready for Regent Sonia -- the Indian populace understands and is inclined towards monarchy. My thrust is that the holy secularist-liberals, of which group Mr Nandy is a specimen, claim that they believe in the Indian Constitution and the democratic process. Therefore, I am simply indicating their forked-tongues as based on their beliefs.

For instance, take this line: "The thin dividing line between terrorism and patriotism cannot be drawn by you and me. It is drawn by history." Oh yeah? Then why haven't I ever seen a neutral study of the RSS which the likes of Mr Nandy put in the docks for its so-called Nazism? How are the chattering classes so easily able to draw this "thin dividing line" between patriotism and nationalism? Tell me more.

Honestly, it's amazing how much liberals luh-ove the violent dissident. If India is not supposed to, quote, "treat every militant, every political activist as an enemy of the state," if we have "brought Bengal and Andhra Pradesh to the brink of a civil war, when we stopped thinking of Naxalites as human beings," what are Mr Nandy's thoughts on the Bajrang Dal? (Incidentally, would somebody oblige me with a list of hits carried out by the Bajrangis, and also a roll of Hindutvawadi militant orgs? Do please resist the temptation to add the Shiv Sena to that -- it's a political party elected by a constitutional process by Maharashtrians.)

Mr Nandy then asserts, "Does a State that has failed to protect you from the militants have the moral right to punish you for succumbing to extortion? I say no." I retort, Does an opinion- maker who has failed to look objectively at the laws of the land have the moral right to drub the government for taking the right stand, even if it be against a respected corporation? I say, NO. I know it's a lot to expect, but I hope you do, too.

RELATED COLUMN:
The Lost Children Of India

Varsha Bhosle