Do we need anti-racism law in India?

Nido Taniam's unfortunate death in a scuffle with local shopkeepers of Delhi awakened young India to yet another dimension of contemporary social life: racism. Delhi, which has been always the home to migrating populations of job or education seekers found itself in a conflict that threatened its status. After all if the Capital was not safe for a north-eastern student then which place in India was? Public outrage over the matter has led to another debate: Do we need an anti-racism law in India?

Unlike the US or Europe or South Africa its a difficult debate in India. In other countries all you have to bother about is Black-White interaction. A law that prevents discrimination on the basis of colour suffices. The maximum extension is to protect the original inhabitants of these regions (e.g. Red Indians of America, Aborigines of Australia, Gypsies of Germania etc).

In India, which has always been a melting pot for various races, ethnicities, languages and religions the issue is infinitely more complex and difficult to address. On the one hand India is essentially a very pluralistic and economy driven society so the discrimination is minimal in terms of participation and opportunity. On the other hand, however, Indians are quick to stereotype people by recognisable traits and these generally stick to social interactions. Strangely enough most Indians are not bothered by these unless they are being purposefully used to bother. Examples are: Mallu (Keralites/South Indians), Tambi (Tamil people), Kancha/Chinki (North Easterners and Ladakhis), Jugga (Sikhs that wear a turban), Bihari/Bhaiye/Pundar (people from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh) etc. 

Now it needs to be noted that most of the above stereotypes are region specific in the sense that they are used in some regions by some people and in other places they are not used at all. Also most of them are used amongst friends (telling from my college experience) without anyone taking an offence. Also most of India's government jobs and educational opportunities have region-based quota so the question of discrimination does not arise. From all this we can conclude that what we are addressing to as the problem of racism is in fact the problem of general hooliganism wherein the element of racial stereotyping is added to annoy, ridicule or otherwise gain the upper hand in perfectly routine social squabbling.

So to answer the question: do we need an anti-racism law? I think the real question is: Will it help?

From my limited understanding of the matter I will say that it will be pre-mature to bring in such a law. Cases of such nature can be tried under existing laws and sufficient punishment be awarded to deter the culprit. The problem lies with the fact that this basic exercise is never done and therefore rule of law is flouted in India very blatantly. In such a scenario one law less or one law more will make no contribution to solving the problem. Moreover from what I have observed herein, drafting such a law is impractical because of the sheer magnitude and variety of the problems that will fall under this category. Impracticality must be avoided in legislation. In the heat of the moment (I am specifically referring to the case of Late Nido Taniam) it seems the right thing to do. However it will not curb the crimes. Nirbhaya Act seemed like the right thing to do after the horrific gang-rape, but an year (and a sensationalist's government) later nothing has actually changed. So if we all really want to prevent such things from happening then we must harp on the real issue: police and judicial reforms. This is my conviction.

The Death Penalty Debate

The Hon'ble Supreme Court's verdict on the fate of the assassins of Shri Rajiv Gandhi has opened up a Pandora's box in Indian criminal law debate. Advocates sworn to the law and to serve humanity have seemingly decided that the best way to do it is to save hardened criminals from the noose and allow them the status of free and ordinary men. This, they claim, is what is becoming and expected of a democracy that is committed to human rights. As is to be expected, they line up, and deliver politically and legally correct statements on how they welcome this decision and how it serves to reinforce the ideals of human society. I cannot help but scratch my head in both confusion (that people of their eminence are saying all this) and frustration (if it is so simple as they make it out to be then why can't I bring myself to agree) to the repeated and passionate gushing about upholding human rights (surely there is some mistake?). I therefore decide to broadcast my own insignificant opinion, with the hope that like-minded people will come together. The next generation in my opinion needs people to be more logical and truthful than this one, this is what I think before writing all this (hopefully its not all nonsense).

Firstly, however, let me make it clear, that I am no fan of Rajiv Gandhi. My opinion of him is the same as my opinion for all other members of this family: anti nationals, short-sighted, autocratic and corrupt. However, political differences notwithstanding, I also understand and agree that he was the Prime Minister of India, one elected by popular mandate as it should be in our country. His assassination was, figuratively speaking, beheading of India. As such it is a grave crime, combined with the fact that it was an act of terror. We must understand, since we are arguably, one of the countries which has been worst hit by terror, that terrorism is a political tool to undermine a country's institutions. While it may be so that those who commit such acts consider themselves to be revolutionaries or freedom fighters that does not imply that we begin to consider them that way. They are acting against us, against our country and their acts will weaken our country, demoralize and terrorize its inhabitants (our brothers and sisters) and overall threaten our existence. In light of all this it is not difficult to understand that the death penalty was well deserved. It was not carried out due to politics is overall an unfortunate and telling commentary on how immoral our politicians have become. The worst part may be that the wife of the man who died, herself dragged her feet and postured herself in a manner that made it possible for this day to come to pass. There can be no greater betrayal nor stooping any lower, but then my imagination has always been very limited. In the days to come, if Supreme Court lawyer KTS Tulsi's rambling about human rights is anything to go by, we will see more terrorists being shown clemency this time Bhullar and Rajoana. It is indeed a strange spectacle that we are falling over ourselves to show clemency to those who meted out cruelty and endangered the Nation while we seem to have decided that the victims are certainly not human enough to deserve human rights.

The above cases are of one category, where the actions were political and solely intended for political purposes. In all fairness, it cannot be argued either way as to whether the nameless victims were actually killed intentionally. Even so, to suggest that the culprits had not foreseen that people other than their primary target will die, is in my opinion an insult to the intelligence of some highly meticulous criminals. Let us take the case however where not politics but brutality is in question. Let us take the Nirbhaya gang-rape case. Five of the six accused have been hanged. Yet the sixth accused, argued to be a juvenile is likely to walk free this year in July or maybe August. The reason: when he committed the crime he was 17 years and six months old. Obviously on his eighteenth birthday, which was coming in six months time he would have been bestowed with divine intelligence that would have surely caused him to refrain from becoming an animal on the streets of Delhi. He wouldn't have initiated the rape, wouldn't have tortured the victim by jumping on her hip or plunging a rod in her gut and would have surely stopped the other five since they were drunk and he was not. This is what the legal interpretation of the whole matter is. Believe it or not, there are out there, both men and women, who sit in lush offices wearing pristinely tailored suits and saris and exuding all the air of nobility and responsibility who claim that this is justice and make no mistake it is all for humanity. We are fools, because had we been able to protect Nirbhaya for six months more then we may have saved her. All of this is assuming that he really is that age, since his counsel was quick to strike down demands for Bone Ossification test that would have determined his real age. They say routine does not surprise but I am an exception, I guess, because this is news to me that there was a lawyer who went out of his way to keep this demon alive and I am always surprised when something like this happens although it is routine.

I will not come across to most of these people as a very humane person, since I obviously do not understand the grand concept of human rights which is being followed in all the world and which has been pioneered by the greatest civilisation of all time (that is their opinion not mine), the European civilisation. It becomes a matter of opinion, because seeing the emotional and social hellholes which the Europeans and Americans have gone into, come out of and then gone into newer ones altogether I am convinced that I do not want their models, thank you very much. I prefer to apply logic. My logic screams to me that it is not fair that those who did all this be allowed to get away so easily simply because a piece of paper was not imaginative or thoughtful enough to predict that this is how it will be interpreted. My heart bleeds to think of what those who lost their loved ones go through when the society and laws that swore to protect them and deliver justice mock them in a million ways each more cruel than the last. There is only so long that the public sympathy will last and after sometime it even becomes painful. Above all the person who is lost has gone through something irreparable and irreversible. Nirbhaya is not coming back. Who knows what contribution she may have done for humanity. At the very least she could have kept her parents' hearts from breaking, brought a smile or two on those old and weary faces but she is gone now and not coming back. Just like the fourteen policemen killed in Rajiv Gandhi's defense. Their children had lopsided lives, their wives and lovers only unrequited longings. Those who did all this are well cared for, celebrities even, with people of eminence lining up to save them, help them and applaud them.

I can only conclude that these advocates of humanity are its biggest enemies, words laced with sweetest nectar, so sweet that it is alcoholic, and hearts filled with poison so deadly that I doubt whether Lord Shiva could have held it in his throat to save us and not thrown up. Humanity cannot be served by infesting it with demons and demonic ideas. Ideas are only valid as long as there are people to propound them. In a society where, association with or defense of, criminals is not looked down upon criminality will be the norm and we are already seeing it everywhere. India needs the death penalty to save humanity. Do away with it and you will have more murderers than your jails can hold, more rapes than you have women and men (yes men too can be raped and we will see crime become creative very soon if its not already) and overall a mess of violence and blood-lust that will leave us wondering as to what could have possibly gone so wrong. Murder and rape are crimes which must be awarded the death penalty to safeguard the most fundamental human value: life. As they say dead men tell no tales.

Doniger's work: Alternative history or just regular propaganda?

Penguin India has finally decided to withdraw the book Hindus: An Alternative History. This has given relief to several Hindus and at the same time provided ammunition to media persons and the so called clan of liberals to attack the Hindu Society on grounds of intolerance and media censorship. Naturally, living in a highly media sensitive world and exposed to the very vehement opinions on freedom and its various avatars in all fields of social life, one would wonder as to whether or not, it is a mistake to block the book's publication. It cannot be expected of the Mainstream Paid Media which thrives on Hindu denigration to voice the opinions of those who understand why this flimsy and misplaced work required to be thwarted. However our generation is luckier than our parents' or grandparents' in having the social media to dispense opinions and therefore we must exploit this advantage to regain lost footing. Let us tackle this case from the eyes of a Hindutva Ideologist. I must add that my fairness will make up for my lack of politeness (perceived).

Indian penal code, section 295, says: “Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of 6[ citizens of India], 7[ by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise] insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 8[ three years], or with fine, or with both.” This is the legislation invoked to ban the publication of the book in question. This law has been previously used to ban Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses, Taslima Nasrin's Lajja and Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code.

The book violates religious sentiments of Hindus, that much is certain. As per the legal language what remains to be established is whether or not the attempt was deliberate. If it was deliberate then banning the book was technically correct. To put things in perspective let us study the profile of Wendy Doniger. She is an American Indologist who is well known for suggesting that the Hindu practices are more or less ritualised sex and sex worship. The most striking example of this is the fact that she received a PhD from Harvard University in June 1968, with a dissertation on 'Asceticism and Sexuality in the Mythology of Siva,' supervised by Daniel H.H. Ingalls, Sr.. Her credentials, overall, point out to the fact that her understanding of Hinduism and its customs is very narrow. This is to be expected. Every artist, author or poet has a signature. This signature is affected by the time and environment in which they were born and brought up and work. Miss Doniger's signature is one of fanatic sensualism and eroticism. Everything is judged through the inadequate lens of sexuality and possible carnal connotations. This of course has advantages. Such an approach is always bound to attract censorship from the prudish and highly conservative people that hold high offices in most religious institutions. While Hinduism is not a religion its persecution has caused it to acquire such institutions as are neither required nor are helpful for being a Hindu. As a matter of fact the understanding of most such gurus etc is as limited as Wendy Doniger in matters pertaining to Hindu philosophy. Obviously rebels always get the sympathy vote and major chunks of well-meaning but ill-informed population pitches their weight in favor of one villain to outdo another.

The irony begins when the Hindu Society's greatest strength is subverted and manipulated and made into its weakness. Its pluralism and openness. A culture and civilization which is almost, by modern estimates, eight thousand years old, finds its antiquity challenged and reduced to simply sex and animalistic drives far removed from their understanding or the possible pursuits of spirituality. There is also the angle of superimposition. People like Miss Doniger belong to the cult that actually believes this to be the only possible meaning of life. Obviously, in such cases their attempts are to seek support from the oldest civilisation, no matter what it takes. The result is misinterpretation of texts and portrayal of philosophies in a manner which is either partial or false. Coming back to her work in question, she has sought to present all of Hinduism's worship and rituals in the background of sexuality. Such a description is all too common regarding Hinduism although it is at odds with all of Hindu texts and philosophical tenets. A simple test would be to tell a worshiper that the Siva Lingam is actually a penis and note their reaction. While it may be argued that the modern Hindu is victim to the anti-sexual propaganda, there is no evidence to substantiate that in either Hindu history or spiritual discourse. Doniger has also argued that ancient Hindus had recognised sex as a driving force for all existence. She uses it to justify all types of absurd claims and hardly backs them with legitimate sources, choosing to selectively cite works by contemporary Buddhists and Islamists. Besides her claim is half true and half false. Hindus had indeed noted that the desire to have off-spring was the driving force in the endeavours of all creation. She however conveniently decides to ignore the same texts when they state that the ultimate aim of Human life is to seek moksha and in that approach all such worldly desires are a source of constant distraction. However it is possible to submit to them temporarily and then let go and pursue moksha. This forms the basis of the ashram vyavastha. These aspects have been determinedly downplayed. Her other great folly and one which seals her status as anti-Hindu is the zeal with which she has repeatedly understated atrocities of Islamic invaders of India, at times giving them a better certificate than what even they, as per their court historians, would be willing to take. As a matter of fact the court case filed against her included several factual errors which have been established beyond doubt, pertaining to dates and actions. Of course, eager to play the victim card, there has been no mention of that. That, in her criticism of the ban, she chose to describe it as a Hindu law when it belongs to their favorite category of 'secular' just serves to reinforce that her work was intended to take the shorter but well-trodden path to fame, that of controversy.

In spite of being a free media proponent I feel that the ban was well-deserved. Hinduism has lost the level playing field in the game of religions, ,mainly because it has never sought to compete but to accommodate. It has survived through periods of unchecked and cruel fanaticism through sheer resilience and diversity. Since the sword has failed, the pen which is mightier than the sword has now been employed against us. Centuries of oppression and poverty have deprived the Hindus of strength in this department as well. Most Hindus are ignorant and uneducated about Hinduism and practice its traditions whereas Hinduism was supposed to be free of tradition. The real spirituality and ideas are either lost in the pages of the Vedas or with a select few scholars who mostly study rather than teach. The result is that such malicious works as Doniger's gain undue importance and become basis for argument in social life which further weakens Hindu self-esteem. It also does not help that properly written works neither generate enough controversy nor are advertised by the paid media of India. All in all I see the ban giving back the level playing field to us by punishing a very frivolous and motivated work. The only downside is that Doniger most probably wanted it to be this way and I am wary that we may have played into her hands. Still that does not take away that this book was certainly not our history. It was more like the propaganda that is often spouted by the most motivated enemies of Hindu identity and its assertion.