India Positive Read online

  This battle for opinion is in full swing in India today. Almost all the recent big controversies—award wapsi, tolerance/intolerance, national/anti-national and the recent India–Pakistan relationship shift—are instances of the Great Indian Opinion Wars.

  The privileged classes still have enormous clout. For instance, look at the furore the English news channels make, and the number of politicians who react to them. In fact, the viewership of the leading Hindi news channels can be a hundred times that of the English channels. Yet, the English media continues to control opinion. Similarly, Indian intellectuals who write in English are more influential. The international media reacts almost solely to them.

  Meanwhile, the battle continues. As aspirational India rises, it clamours to have its say, though it often does so in noisy, sentimental and even crass terms. These new opinion-makers may have merit in their thoughts, but they often lack rationality or eloquence of expression. They want Pakistanis out. They want respect for their traditions, like the beef-eating taboo. They want a strong leader who takes action against terrorism, regardless of consequences. They want nationalism.

  The aspirational set may have sense on their side. However, they can’t logically or persuasively explain their views as well as the privileged set can. They compensate by showing strength in numbers and shoving opinions down people’s throats. In other words, they often behave like a mob.

  Not long ago, many supported a ban on an Indian film that had cast a Pakistani actor. This happened at a time when India had sent peace missions to Pakistan. It’s an instance of how things could go wrong if the aspirational class replaces the privileged class.

  The privileged class is responsible for a lot of wrongs. They are disconnected from reality, monopolise opinion, and have led India into poverty with their left-leaning ideas, nepotism and disregard for true merit. However, this doesn’t mean we can replace them with the mob. It doesn’t mean we can disregard laws, logic, politeness, open-mindedness and individual liberties in the name of nationalism. The true Indian patriot is someone who loves this nation, and has respect for the law as well as the differences in opinion that may exist in a free country.

  Labelling people ‘anti-national’ for not agreeing with you is not going to help. Instead, demolish those who hold a different view with a polite but strong counter-argument. Patriotic emotion is a good thing, but logical thoughts are also necessary if you want a say in public opinion.

  Privileged classes and the new aspirational India need to learn to coexist with each other. The old elite need to understand the new reality where privilege no longer gives you instant entitlement or a monopoly over public opinion. Aspirational India has to learn to articulate and conduct itself well, and remain open-minded to others. In the Great Indian Opinion Wars, may the best opinion for India win, whichever side it comes from.

  Too Many Holy Cows: Let’s Just Stop Mixing Religion and Law

  The law of the land should resist the influence of religion-specific codes and directives

  Before I begin, let me confirm that I am a Hindu. I don’t eat beef. Now, I consider myself a fairly rational person. However, some of my reasons for not eating beef don’t have a scientific basis. My religion tells me that the cow must be revered. So I avoid cow meat in my diet. Yet, I wear leather shoes, watch cricket matches that use leather balls and drink cow’s milk taken against the animal’s consent. Many other Hindus do the same. I eat chicken and lamb burgers. But I won’t eat a beef burger. It may not exactly make sense. It’s ‘just one of those things’; the religious practices we adhere to out of faith in our rituals, traditions and culture.

  Hinduism is not the only religion with taboos and prohibitions. Islam prohibits the eating of pork. It prescribes that an animal be slaughtered in a certain manner if its meat is to be consumed by believers. Jews don’t eat dairy and meat products at the same time. Once again, all these practices belong to the category of ‘just one of those things’. There is no point in trying to find logical flaws in them. They exist since millions of people follow them, and they seem to add some positive value to their lives.

  In theocratic states, religion forms the basis of law. Right or wrong, logical or illogical, citizens of such states have to abide by these rules. Some of these might well be ‘just one of those things’. However, if you break them, you break the state’s law. And you could face criminal prosecution for it. Several Islamic states around the world are examples. In such countries, individuals enjoy less freedom, as religion can’t be questioned by rational thought. To many Indians, this would be a huge setback to the quality of their lives. Freedom is precious to us. It’s who we are.

  Thankfully, and quite remarkably, the people who drafted our Constitution designed India as a secular republic. Despite a majority Hindu population and a violent partition that led to the creation of a separate Islamic state, the architects of our nation had vision. They did not cave in and turn India into a Hindu state. The Indian Constitution has several provisions that protect and treat all religions as equal.

  However, the drafters of our Constitution also made a few provisions, perhaps for good reason, that slanted towards the beliefs of a particular religion. This included Article 48, a directive that asks states to protect cows from slaughter. Yes, ‘one of those things’ made it into the Constitution of a secular republic. So did a few other practices. The fact that different religions follow different civil codes meant that certain laws in our country were opposed to the principle of equality. This made it possible under law for a Muslim man to have four wives, for instance, or to divorce his wife with an oral proclamation.

  Why did the drafters of the Constitution make these exceptions? Perhaps, in creating a secular republic, a relatively alien idea then, they didn’t want to antagonise various religious groups and jeopardise the whole process. Hence, Indian secularism became not only about treating all religions equally but also about protecting existing religious practices. So far so good.

  The problem arose when the Indian Constitution contradicted itself. For its idea of the fundamental rights of its citizens entitles them to live in a free manner. Hence the restriction on beef, a common food item worldwide, is an issue. Similarly, Muslim marriage laws that favour men contradict the right to equality of Muslim women. These fissures remain in the Constitution. Politicians are quick to exploit the hostilities and differences already existing between communities for handles to drag religion into politics.

  If we really want to solve problems like the beef question, we need to discuss the broader issue. What direction should we move in as a nation? Should we work towards a common civil code and avoid the ‘one of those things’ laws that come from specific religions? Or should we keep some of these laws to avoid offending certain groups? I’d like the former to happen. So would many others. However, we also don’t want to force a modern code on traditional people so fast that they just reject it and rebel. In some countries, imposing laws against the will of the people has even led to civil wars. On the other hand, if we allow every ‘one of those things’ to creep into our law books, rationality and logic will vanish.

  Obviously, the Dadri incident was deplorable. Mob killings must be condemned and the law of the land upheld. Yet, according to the law in Uttar Pradesh (and many other states), you could be jailed for killing a cow or eating its meat. And the law comes from a directive of the Indian Constitution, which in turn comes from a Hindu religious practice. Even if Dadri hadn’t happened, does this law seem right?

  We could discuss abolishing the laws that prohibit cow slaughter. But there is a caveat. If we only remove this law and let all the laws that protect Islamic beliefs and practices remain, it will be grossly unfair. Let political parties and religious heads decide to remove all religion-specific laws from our law books. Let us educate people about why it is important to do so. What we see instead is cacophony, posturing and a lot of finger-pointing as political parties whip up controversies to secure their respective vote banks.