When the Habshi-hunting started, the cat was out of the bag about the ‘politics of the new’, and soon extreme antonyms like fascist and anarchist started flying thick and fast. One thing is granted. Bharti is an early recruit, from the thinner talent pool they had to choose from, out of a smaller catchment area—before the idea of a new kind of party caught on like a bushfire and worthier names signed on. And Arvind Kejriwal, an alumnus himself, would have figured: “Oh, he’s from IIT, so he’ll make a good minister.” For all we know, the man he discarded, Binny, might have been able to handle the swing better but such are the sorry visions of technocracy that animate us today. Anyway, if a swashbuckler like Capt Gopinath represents the saner end of the spectrum of party responses to the Khirki affair, we must ask what sort of an organism we have in our midst.
But this is a diversion. There are even larger questions. For what is this that has emerged out of the January fog in Delhi if not the clear outlines of that old beast, the party line? Not particularly novel, especially for a party whose appeal rested on the promise of a change from command politics. For answers, we must go to the core of the enigma that is Kejriwal, the man who has behind him a long trail of fellow-travellers who fell out. Now the game is bigger, and those who have wagered on him must sink or swim with him. And what do we see? A lean and hungry man, coughing dyspeptically into the cameras. (May we suggest double-action Corex, it calms the nerves too.) A deeply conflicted fascination with power, which is after all axiomatically a bigger source of corruption than money, the only sort he recognises. Pretty shallow tokenism. Take away the beacon, but I’ll keep the car, thank you. And oh, the bungalow too. It’s smaller than Sheila’s. (Exactly what the BJP says about 2002. It’s smaller than 1984.) A concern for the disenfranchised, yes, but of Mother Teresa’s sort, with no sign of thought about the structural causation of want. (Remember, his prehistory carries strong hints of an anti-Mandal stance.) Instead, like philanthropists who leave their name behind on stones, he’s not above advertising it, carrying it like a badge. Or turning it into a fashion symbol. That night on dharna, he made sure he gave off that homeless vibe, with the right kind of blanket. A talent for mainstreaming ideas of the radical chic sort, albeit in a parodic form, merely so as to look sexy.
And all the while there are ideas around him that border on outright status quoist. Traders aren’t bad (but foreign traders are—that is so like his caste-mate, Gandhi). Khap panchayats? Not too bad really. Nigerians? Very bad. If this is Anarchism, I’m Rudolf Rocker. There is no Anarchism Lite, Mr Kejriwal. You have to go the whole hog and dissolve the state. No India. No Pakistan. Just a freely associating network of self-sustaining communities. If the alternative is nuclear war, not such a bad idea? But quite some distance from the endless Bharat mata slogans of Kumar Vishwas, whose poetry, it increasingly seems, is more tragic than comic. (Really, the case can rest on this one guy. If you are okay with Kumar Vishwas, something has to be wrong with you.) Anyway, coveting police powers, even in the name of the abstract masses, is quite the opposite thing from annihilating government. Taken with that looming, all-seeing watchtower called Jan Lokpal, it smells too strongly of a surveillance state.
And from the party faithful, that other argument. Criticism is only from vested interests. BJP agenda or Congress dirty tricks. We hope there’s space in their imagination for an independently derived aloofness from AAP, that they don’t fall prey to Bushisms and see the landscape in binaries (Not with us? Then with the Satan). We hope they have a few Portacabins for homeless critics too, and allow us to slip into one right away, instead of seeking exemption from criticism because that would benefit other parties. Yes, it would. But pray, spell out the difference first. For, it looks like whether Modi becomes PM or not is partly like that idea from Project Tiger—it’s not just about the tiger, after all. It shows the whole web of life under it is in good health. By that token, our fascist ecology is alive...and kicking. India has already had a hanging by public demand, with the judge verily stating it in so many words. Our TV debates are like nightly executions too, with one chosen voodoo doll object and the inquisitor-in-chief and everyone else sticking pins into him—it’s a culture of schadenfreude, and the spectator derives pleasure from this. Our films, if not about mentally blank do-gooders, are full of the fascist idea that one man will come to kick butt on a cosmic scale and restore order in a rotten universe (Kejriwal, by his own admission, is an avid consumer of the genre). Not to speak of the online junta—the Indian corner of the internet is one giant McCarthy tribunal. What we saw at Khirki was the same thing, in cellular form. What next? Mohalla khaps to keep an eye on art exhibitions?
And what of the deeply anomalous, comic spectacle of the government at the barricades? (The one equivalent I can remember is that very elegant Communist, Indrajit Gupta, who was briefly India’s home minister, and appeared on TV in that role to decry police atrocities!) They must move on. If you make as if abdication is on your mind, it’s the best strategy to scare off potential investors in the AAP idea. Instead of lapsing back into agitprop, move into serious theatre. Try critic-proofing yourself with your own conduct. Try winning people the conventional way, with some decent ideas for Delhi. No, not that one—not defining Delhi’s biggest problem as foreigners doing drugs and naked dance. Something better. And by the way, disrupting a film is about the lousiest thing a culture minister can do. A Ray? Hmm...Section 302 will apply.
A version of this appears in print
Apropos Aunty, Call the Police, I grant that such discerning criticism will be invaluable to a rapidly evolving political party like AAP. But I wonder if every previous minister disrupting a sublime Ray film has elicited such a sharp response. Anyway, great article.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
Bharti has betrayed not his lack of trust in the corrupt police, but also his lack of trust in an efficient judiciary to hand out quick justice.
A betrayed feeling, that he shares with every common man.
" Let us not arm this urban khaap sarpanch any more, please"
Cobnsidering the experience from Utterpradesh and Gujarat
this seems to be sagacious. And Menon is absolutely correct
to say that ;participative democracy is a tricky business.
But what is middle path to break the established norms to fulfill
the aspiration of aam aadmi to get justice, leaves unanswered.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT