"..I think it's fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government…..And they fell through the BJP (Clinton) administration, and the Mulayam Singh (Bush) administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to caste (guns) or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-Brahmin (anti-immigrant) sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
This is from Barrack Obama’s speech at a fund-raiser in San Fancisco. The words in parentheses are the original words of Obama which I have replaced with words that reflect the reality of UP. In the 36 years since 1972, Democratic party has been in power (President’s post) for only 12 years. It is lucky that there is a two party system in the US, and with the Iraq war and looming recession it may win the November election. There won’t be any such luck for BJP (or for that matter Congress) in UP, which is far the largest state of Indian union (no other state has even 50 Lok Sabha seats compared to the 80 from UP). And Obama’s statement above explains much of the reason for BJP’s plight in UP. Being more right of center than left, I am more worried about BJP’s fortunes than Congress, so the BJP perspective here.
Many in BJP presumably feel, after being stung by 2004 defeat, that ‘governance’ or ‘development’ does not make good policy and hence activist Hinduism (and I use it here to mean all the negatives of this movement which has many positives as well – but that’s a topic for another blogpost) is important to create a core votebank. This is where BJP needs to look at UP and listen to Obama. All this ‘core votebank’ has slipped away in UP to the extent that only one of the 5 party candidates who saved his deposit in recent bypolls is a history-sheeter who defected on the eve of the election. The Hindu votebank did not exist as it has not existed in most elections in UP during this decade.
People vote based on caste or religion when they lose faith in Government – this becomes identity politics. BJP benefited by the affirmation of religious identity in 1990s is now being hurt by the reaffirmation of caste identity. The people cannot be blamed when they did not see the neighboring primary school get teachers or District hospital provide the promised free healthcare or new jobs created. So development becomes a non-issue. As does corruption, when BJP politicians are also not seen to be any different.
So what can BJP do then to make development an issue? First get its Obama in UP. A person with charisma to make people believe that there is ‘hope’ for their fortunes to ‘change’ – it isn’t for no reason that his campaign has been called a campaign in poetry rather than prose. Before you say ‘but this isn’t America’, let me remind you that VP Singh made people ‘hope’ that there will ‘change’ in corruption in government, at a time when all of us had accepted corruption to be integral to the system. So it can happen – it requires a mascot (Obama) to carry the message (Hope and Change).
Second, to fight skepticism and create a platform for this mascot to work from, they need to leverage their peer-less grassroots cadre to provide glimpses of what is possible. Fight for the teacher appointed to the primary school to come to the school – village level workers can do it. Attempt something similar with Primary Health Centers. Once on a visit with my son to a private Clinic of a Government pediatrician in my hometown of Sultanpur, I found that most people whose daily wage would by no means be more than Rs. 50 were paying that amount to the doctor for consultation. Is that a very difficult situation for a grassroots organization to redress by creating some kind of vigilance mechanism at hospitals? Ensure that mid-day meals are provided to all children – here the starting point is zero, so anything will be an improvement - Ananth Kumar and his wife’s work in Bangalore is an amazing success story for other BJP district units to learn from (about mid-day meals as public service and way to connect with people).
To some it may sound Utopian, but achieving 5-10% success in two or three such initiatives may not be impossible. In any case it is a more achievable Utopia than BJP winning next elections in UP by working out caste combinations right in the state. A party in as hopeless a state as BJP in UP can only attempt something so unlikely. Barack Obama, ‘the black guy with a name rhyming with Osama’ had no chance of competing with the Clintons had he not campaigned for ‘Hope’ and ‘Change’. He may not even realize that only hope for a right-wing party in a BIMARU state in India, is to emulate him!
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Monday, April 21, 2008
Freedom of Expression – Does it have limits depending on context? (2)
Part (2) of the Post. Part 1 Covers the issue freedom of expression restricted due to religious intolerance
It is my belief that in India intolerance of political expression is a bigger problem than anything which hurts religious sentiments. This also undermines the role of the media and weakens the democratic set-up. As I mentioned in the part (1) of this post, we have lived with what is written about Lord Ram in Kanchi. Arun Shourie’s commentaries about Islam and prophet (which include references to the age of his wives at marriage and consummation) have also survived. It can be argued, though, that many people do not even know about it. Then politicians should be credited for not having used these to create a wedge.
But compare this political intolerance in the two instances I have listed earlier:
1. Forced closure of Francois Gautier’s exhibition on Aurangzeb at Lalit Kala Academi, Chennai, supposedly most civilized of Indian metros
2. Dismissal of MJ Akbar as the Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper he founded a few months after it merged with Deccan Chronicle, by its new proprietors arguably seeking Rajya Sabha seat from the Congress
The exhibition on Aurangzeb was based on facts, albeit a parochial view of facts. The intervention was by the government was not based on a public outcry but based on political expediency. DMK government was pandering to a influential supporter (Nawab of Arcot) and a votebank (muslims). Same attitude was evident when the UPA government at the center blamed the Ram Sethu affidavit by ASI on a official making it almost sound like a clerical error. It failed to stand by the affidavit which is based at least on partial evidence. This also happened when UPA felt the heat from the BJP, was afraid of being branded anti-hindu. Both these instances have nothing to do with religion but with politics. Moral of the story being that you can say anything about any religion, hurt anyone’s sentiments but the government would act only if it has electoral implications. So within the same state, no freedom of expression if it is politically convenient (Francois Gautier exhibition) and unlimited freedom with use of whatever language if it is politically convenient (Periyar statue). Intellectual dishonesty on these issues makes it even easier for the Government’s because even a layman like me knows whose freedom Praful Bidwai and Arundhati Roy will fight for (Hussain), and whose freedom BJP idealogues will fight for (Taslima Nasreen). So it leaves us with intellectuals with political agendas, but none with ‘responsible freedom of expression’ as their agenda.
This political intolerance becomes worse in more political matters. MJ Akbar’s dismissal is a case in point. It seems the UPA government was unhappy with his newspaper’s consistent stand against the government on foreign and economic policy. And Deccan Chronicle owner, Mr. Reddy’s attempts to get a Congress Rajya Sabha ticket was being hampered. So the solution was to fire the founder-editor (of Asian Age which merged with Deccan Chronicle). Counter-allegation include MJ Akbar’s attempt to get NDA backing for a Bihar Rajya Sabha seat. Even if this is true, it is immaterial. As is the fact that MJ Akbar participated in a UNPA rally a couple of days back or was Congress MP two decades back. Everyone, including all the editors, have political viewpoints – some are explicit about it others are not. This is not simply a termination of an employment contract as it is a blatantly political act of intolerance of a viewpoint. In a hypothetical situation, if we had BJP government and The Hindu had new owners who decided to fire N Ram for being left leaning, would it not amount muzzling a viewpoint? This happened during emergency and was considered an aberration. It happened with Tehelka, and we forgot about it. It has happened with another newspaper and media has not even raised the issue. Don’t LK Advani’s words about media during emergency ‘began to crawl when they were only asked to bend’ ring true at a time when no such draconian law is in place.
The situation is even worse towns and villages. The local reporters have turned into PR Agencies forwarding to their bureau’s what was dictated to them. Only the really pugnacious one’s are able to risk their lives to publish any news against powerful local politicians. Many have been bought over, in some cases in an institutional way e.g. Patrakarpuram (Journalists Colony) in Lucknow is one such exercise. This is the reason that no issues related to corruption are being fought at a local level, and only cases getting reported these days is when national media runs a ‘sting’. This is making grassroots democracy effete, when vigilance at village, tehsil and district level would have saved so much grief for so many including the Government. UPA’s guarantee card to poll success, its Employment Guarantee Scheme has failed due to corruption and Prime Minister is calling for strengthening an independent audit mechanism. Wasn’t media supposed to play this role at the local level?
Media’s reasons, though unfortunate, are understandable. With lessons from Emergency and Tehelka, they want to play safe. With the objective of ‘maximizing shareholder value’, it is not surprising that public good is compromised. That is the nature of the beast. But political parties have no compulsions – positive media coverage may boost a politician’s ego but doesn’t change electoral fortunes. Had the case been otherwise, Mayawati would not have won in UP or NDA would not have lost in 2004. The evidence from other democracies is also in line. Except for Fox News, every single news channel in the US is left leaning, but all the media together could not prevent George Bush from reelection. So the politicians have an easier solution – let media have a free run. The media, meanwhile, considering political and business reality will have to find an answer to a tougher question – how to run free?
To appreciate what freedom of political expression means, and how a politician, however powerful, needs to grin and bear an uncomfortable commentary, watch this video
Steven Colbert at White House Correspondent’s Dinner
It is my belief that in India intolerance of political expression is a bigger problem than anything which hurts religious sentiments. This also undermines the role of the media and weakens the democratic set-up. As I mentioned in the part (1) of this post, we have lived with what is written about Lord Ram in Kanchi. Arun Shourie’s commentaries about Islam and prophet (which include references to the age of his wives at marriage and consummation) have also survived. It can be argued, though, that many people do not even know about it. Then politicians should be credited for not having used these to create a wedge.
But compare this political intolerance in the two instances I have listed earlier:
1. Forced closure of Francois Gautier’s exhibition on Aurangzeb at Lalit Kala Academi, Chennai, supposedly most civilized of Indian metros
2. Dismissal of MJ Akbar as the Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper he founded a few months after it merged with Deccan Chronicle, by its new proprietors arguably seeking Rajya Sabha seat from the Congress
The exhibition on Aurangzeb was based on facts, albeit a parochial view of facts. The intervention was by the government was not based on a public outcry but based on political expediency. DMK government was pandering to a influential supporter (Nawab of Arcot) and a votebank (muslims). Same attitude was evident when the UPA government at the center blamed the Ram Sethu affidavit by ASI on a official making it almost sound like a clerical error. It failed to stand by the affidavit which is based at least on partial evidence. This also happened when UPA felt the heat from the BJP, was afraid of being branded anti-hindu. Both these instances have nothing to do with religion but with politics. Moral of the story being that you can say anything about any religion, hurt anyone’s sentiments but the government would act only if it has electoral implications. So within the same state, no freedom of expression if it is politically convenient (Francois Gautier exhibition) and unlimited freedom with use of whatever language if it is politically convenient (Periyar statue). Intellectual dishonesty on these issues makes it even easier for the Government’s because even a layman like me knows whose freedom Praful Bidwai and Arundhati Roy will fight for (Hussain), and whose freedom BJP idealogues will fight for (Taslima Nasreen). So it leaves us with intellectuals with political agendas, but none with ‘responsible freedom of expression’ as their agenda.
This political intolerance becomes worse in more political matters. MJ Akbar’s dismissal is a case in point. It seems the UPA government was unhappy with his newspaper’s consistent stand against the government on foreign and economic policy. And Deccan Chronicle owner, Mr. Reddy’s attempts to get a Congress Rajya Sabha ticket was being hampered. So the solution was to fire the founder-editor (of Asian Age which merged with Deccan Chronicle). Counter-allegation include MJ Akbar’s attempt to get NDA backing for a Bihar Rajya Sabha seat. Even if this is true, it is immaterial. As is the fact that MJ Akbar participated in a UNPA rally a couple of days back or was Congress MP two decades back. Everyone, including all the editors, have political viewpoints – some are explicit about it others are not. This is not simply a termination of an employment contract as it is a blatantly political act of intolerance of a viewpoint. In a hypothetical situation, if we had BJP government and The Hindu had new owners who decided to fire N Ram for being left leaning, would it not amount muzzling a viewpoint? This happened during emergency and was considered an aberration. It happened with Tehelka, and we forgot about it. It has happened with another newspaper and media has not even raised the issue. Don’t LK Advani’s words about media during emergency ‘began to crawl when they were only asked to bend’ ring true at a time when no such draconian law is in place.
The situation is even worse towns and villages. The local reporters have turned into PR Agencies forwarding to their bureau’s what was dictated to them. Only the really pugnacious one’s are able to risk their lives to publish any news against powerful local politicians. Many have been bought over, in some cases in an institutional way e.g. Patrakarpuram (Journalists Colony) in Lucknow is one such exercise. This is the reason that no issues related to corruption are being fought at a local level, and only cases getting reported these days is when national media runs a ‘sting’. This is making grassroots democracy effete, when vigilance at village, tehsil and district level would have saved so much grief for so many including the Government. UPA’s guarantee card to poll success, its Employment Guarantee Scheme has failed due to corruption and Prime Minister is calling for strengthening an independent audit mechanism. Wasn’t media supposed to play this role at the local level?
Media’s reasons, though unfortunate, are understandable. With lessons from Emergency and Tehelka, they want to play safe. With the objective of ‘maximizing shareholder value’, it is not surprising that public good is compromised. That is the nature of the beast. But political parties have no compulsions – positive media coverage may boost a politician’s ego but doesn’t change electoral fortunes. Had the case been otherwise, Mayawati would not have won in UP or NDA would not have lost in 2004. The evidence from other democracies is also in line. Except for Fox News, every single news channel in the US is left leaning, but all the media together could not prevent George Bush from reelection. So the politicians have an easier solution – let media have a free run. The media, meanwhile, considering political and business reality will have to find an answer to a tougher question – how to run free?
To appreciate what freedom of political expression means, and how a politician, however powerful, needs to grin and bear an uncomfortable commentary, watch this video
Steven Colbert at White House Correspondent’s Dinner
Freedom of Expression – Does it have limits depending on the context? (1)
Two incidents happened recently which, while central to the argument about freedom of expression, did not manage to make headlines or initiate a necessary debate about Freedom of Expression:
1. Forced closure of Francois Gautier’s exhibition on Aurangzeb at Lalit Kala Academi, Chennai, supposedly most civilized of Indian metros
2. Dismissal of MJ Akbar as the Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper he founded a few months after it merged with Deccan Chronicle, by its new proprietors arguably seeking Rajya Sabha seat from the Congress
Compare these with the hue and cry over Prophet Mohammad’s cartoons by Danish Cartoonist and MF Hussain’s self-imposed exile in relation of his painting Hindu Goddesses in the nude. If debate about freedom of expression takes place when public property is damaged and hooligans take charge then mainstream media and intellectuals are certainly abdicating responsibility. Is is also because some expressions should be defended but others not? Who decides that? On what basis? Does media respond only to controversies as it is linked to TRPs and political expressions (Aurangzeb exhibition and MJ Akbar issue) are not as controversial as those about religion/religious symbols?
Prima facie it appears important to separate the political and religious issues related to freedom of expression. While both are interlinked many a times, towards seeking some of these answers I would prefer to deconstruct and separate the two.
First the expressions linked to religious issues/symbols. Let me hypothesize. It is a rudimentary argument, and will never achieve consensus but may lead to a healthy debate. I believe that ‘freedom of expression’ cannot be a right without limits. There would some expressions which would test these limits. In such cases a cost-benefit analysis, not of money but of individual and social good, should determine which side of the boundary that expression falls. What would this cost-benefit analysis be? Let me try some such issues.
Anything which is a scientific or historical fact or viewpoint, howsoever arguable, is within limits even if it causes public disturbance (cost), because it would stall the process of learning and evolution (benefit). Copernicus’ contention about revolution of earth around the sun falls in this category. So is the recent debate in India about Lord Ram being a historical figure or mythological character. In both these cases the side being accused of hurting sentiments (and by extension creating unrest (cost)), have some scientific evidence to stand on. You can argue with them but not shut them up. For me Bill Maher’s (liberal commentator and host of Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO) repeated expression of Old Testament being a book Jewish folk tales would fall in this category as well. Thankfully, even in the Bible-belt of the US, he has not received death threats, yet! In all such cases, it is the duty of the state to protect the ‘right to freedom of expression’. If such expressions are muzzled, our future generations would not know better than we do – as we know better than our ancestors about so many things in the world.
So what about paintings by Hussain and Prophet’s cartoons? What public good do they serve? What scientific evidence are they based on? Fine, a painting is not a science but a piece of art. What does it endeavor to achieve (benefit) that the cost (compromising peace and harmony) should be accepted? Why should it endeavor to achieve anything at all? Ideally there should be tolerance of such expressions as well, and that is what should be propagated and hoped for in the long-term. But in the short-term state should not be held responsible to protect the right of such an expression, ignoring the costs. Intellectuals can debate and probably that is only way a climate of greater tolerance would be created. You can create a caricature of Christ in many western European countries and it will not create any unrest. Bill Maher himself pokes fun at Christ and still continues to host a popular TV show.
There are some expressions that I am more ambivalent about. Expressions on the base of a Periyar statue in Kanchipuram which are insulting towards Lord Ram, are one such example. The phrases used are in bad taste and if you were to say same thing about the Prophet it woukd certainly invite a death warrant! But it is expression of anger as part of a movement against Brahminical hegemony which brought about a social change in Tamil Nadu. Cost-benefit? I throw my hands up. I have no idea!
1. Forced closure of Francois Gautier’s exhibition on Aurangzeb at Lalit Kala Academi, Chennai, supposedly most civilized of Indian metros
2. Dismissal of MJ Akbar as the Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper he founded a few months after it merged with Deccan Chronicle, by its new proprietors arguably seeking Rajya Sabha seat from the Congress
Compare these with the hue and cry over Prophet Mohammad’s cartoons by Danish Cartoonist and MF Hussain’s self-imposed exile in relation of his painting Hindu Goddesses in the nude. If debate about freedom of expression takes place when public property is damaged and hooligans take charge then mainstream media and intellectuals are certainly abdicating responsibility. Is is also because some expressions should be defended but others not? Who decides that? On what basis? Does media respond only to controversies as it is linked to TRPs and political expressions (Aurangzeb exhibition and MJ Akbar issue) are not as controversial as those about religion/religious symbols?
Prima facie it appears important to separate the political and religious issues related to freedom of expression. While both are interlinked many a times, towards seeking some of these answers I would prefer to deconstruct and separate the two.
First the expressions linked to religious issues/symbols. Let me hypothesize. It is a rudimentary argument, and will never achieve consensus but may lead to a healthy debate. I believe that ‘freedom of expression’ cannot be a right without limits. There would some expressions which would test these limits. In such cases a cost-benefit analysis, not of money but of individual and social good, should determine which side of the boundary that expression falls. What would this cost-benefit analysis be? Let me try some such issues.
Anything which is a scientific or historical fact or viewpoint, howsoever arguable, is within limits even if it causes public disturbance (cost), because it would stall the process of learning and evolution (benefit). Copernicus’ contention about revolution of earth around the sun falls in this category. So is the recent debate in India about Lord Ram being a historical figure or mythological character. In both these cases the side being accused of hurting sentiments (and by extension creating unrest (cost)), have some scientific evidence to stand on. You can argue with them but not shut them up. For me Bill Maher’s (liberal commentator and host of Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO) repeated expression of Old Testament being a book Jewish folk tales would fall in this category as well. Thankfully, even in the Bible-belt of the US, he has not received death threats, yet! In all such cases, it is the duty of the state to protect the ‘right to freedom of expression’. If such expressions are muzzled, our future generations would not know better than we do – as we know better than our ancestors about so many things in the world.
So what about paintings by Hussain and Prophet’s cartoons? What public good do they serve? What scientific evidence are they based on? Fine, a painting is not a science but a piece of art. What does it endeavor to achieve (benefit) that the cost (compromising peace and harmony) should be accepted? Why should it endeavor to achieve anything at all? Ideally there should be tolerance of such expressions as well, and that is what should be propagated and hoped for in the long-term. But in the short-term state should not be held responsible to protect the right of such an expression, ignoring the costs. Intellectuals can debate and probably that is only way a climate of greater tolerance would be created. You can create a caricature of Christ in many western European countries and it will not create any unrest. Bill Maher himself pokes fun at Christ and still continues to host a popular TV show.
There are some expressions that I am more ambivalent about. Expressions on the base of a Periyar statue in Kanchipuram which are insulting towards Lord Ram, are one such example. The phrases used are in bad taste and if you were to say same thing about the Prophet it woukd certainly invite a death warrant! But it is expression of anger as part of a movement against Brahminical hegemony which brought about a social change in Tamil Nadu. Cost-benefit? I throw my hands up. I have no idea!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
