Unban banned books

Good that Gujarat High Court has reversed the state government's decision on ban on Jaswant’s book on Jinnah [Related Post]. But India has been banning books for a long time. What about the books that have been banned in the past? Who is going to unban them?

So far, more than 54 books have been banned by various Indian governments. India has a bad track record of generously misusing its state powers in taking unilateral decisions to ban books it didn’t like or it didn’t understand. India was the first country in the world to ban Satanic Verses, even before anybody read it, and even before any Islamic country decided to ban it. India bans books, plays and movies at the throw of a hat without debate, discussion or reason. 

India has to grow up. One of the sad outcomes of that growing up is to deal with things that are unpleasant. We have to live with the fact that there are homosexuals and lesbians and they have equal rights, just like you and me. We have to live with the fact that people think differently, behave differently, eat differently and dress differently. They go to different places of worship while some don’t worship at all. Some people write books that you may not want to read but that does not mean you have a right to stop him from writing that book or expressing that opinion. And some people paint things that you don’t understand. 

We don’t need to force people into conform to our set of standards, morals and ethics, our set of religious beliefs, superstitions and rituals, our set of dress codes, and our habits of eating. As a nation we need to grow up to live and let live. 

The high court in its ruling said:

Lack of opinion means lack of thinking; lack of thinking means lack of understanding. The state is dealing with the fundamental rights of its citizens and, therefore, a great amount of caution, prudence and care is expected.

Doesn’t that apply to all the books banned previously? Isn’t it a great time to unban all the books we have banned to show that we have grown by a day?

Here’s a list of banned books as compiled by the source listed above. Note that there are many books related to criticism of Kashmir or Indian foreign policy, sex, criticism of Hinduism, criticism of Shivaji, and even books concerning Gandhi and Nehru. 

• Scented Garden (Anthropology of sex life in the Levant) by Bernhard Stern; translated by David Berger. Banned: August 18, 1945

• Dark Urge by Robert W. Taylor. Banned: Dec 29, 1955

• The Jewel in the Lotus (A Historical Survey of the Sexual Culture of the East). Banned: July 20, 1968

• The Face of Mother India by Katherine Mayo. Banned: January 18, 1936

• Old Soldier Sahib by Private Frank Richards (memoirs of a British soldier serving in India whose book Old Soldiers Never Die has been described as ‘‘probably the best account of the Great War as seen through the eyes of a private soldier.’’) Banned: Aug 22, 1936

• The Heart of India by Alexander Campbell. Banned: March 11, 1959

• The Evolution of the British Empire and Commonwealth from the American Revolution by Alfred Le Ray Burt. Banned: Aug 9, 1969

• A Struggle between Two Lines over the Question of How to Deal with US Imperialism by Fan Asid-Chu, Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1965. Banned: Dec 6, 1969

• Behind the Iron Curtain in Kashmir: Neutral Opinion (author not mentioned). Banned: Aug 27, 1949

• American Military Aid to Pakistan (its full implications) by Salahuddin Ahmad. Banned: July 31, 1954

• Captive Kashmir by Aziz Beg. Banned: April 19, 1958

• India Independent by Charles Bettelheim. Banned: May 15, 1976

• Hindu Heaven by Max Wylie. Banned: April 28, 1934

• The Land of the Lingam by Arthur Miles. Banned: Oct 2, 1937

• What Has Religion Done for Mankind, Watch-tower Bible and Tract Society, New York. Banned: Feb 26, 1955

• The Ramayana by Aubrey Menen. Banned: Sept 29, 1956

• Nine Hours to Rama by Stanley Wolpert. Banned: Sept 1, 1962

• Nehru, A Political Biography by Michael Edwards. Banned: Dec 13, 1975

• Who Killed Gandhi by Lourenco De Sadvandor. Banned: Dec 29, 1979

Deny Everything

Nowadays, many countries, many organizations, and many political leaders deny every allegation that is targeting them. Though they take aspersions and insults very seriously all allegations are emphatically denied. When Varun Gandhi made a vitriolic and rabid speech against Muslims of India during the last Lok Sabha elections, Advani and et al of BJP denied everything. If there was a newspaper article giving snippets of his speech, they said it was all fabricated. When a video was shown depicting Varun making that hate speech, they said it was doctored. When multiple videos were shown, they said that there was a big master plan (‘saajish’) behind all this and they intend to find out very soon. Soon the accused, the Hindutva brigade, became the victims of a malicious campaign.

When someone suggested that LK Advani was aware of the Kandahar terrorist exchange, Advani denied everything. When his personal secretary eventually spilled the beans Advani denied it further.

Recently, there was a footage of Sri Lankan soldiers killing capture Tamil Tigers at point blank range. It was eventually denied by Sri Lankan government as a manufactured video by those who wanted to malign their genuine and humane efforts to reform and resettle Tamils. [The video is only for adults and you may not like what you see: Video.]

Ahmadinejad of Iran, Musharraf of Pakistan lie through their teeth, and deny almost every allegation, every report, and every piece of evidence which suggests their culpability. Almost every Indian politician, regardless of his party or creed eventually denies everything that he said in the previous meeting rubbishing the evidence as campaign of malice from the opposing parties. Indian authorities categorically deny everything when a report suggests it is has not been the best at protecting human rights of its citizens. It also denies blatantly any report that suggests India has very high number of AIDS patients.

Most mature countries and civilized societies ensure that such denials are not done ad nauseam. Eventually, someone has to take credit for what has happened. To ensure one does not deny something indefinitely these countries and societies make sure they don’t resort to fabrication, lying and cheating. This will allow them to question other countries and themselves when someone has to take the blame.

However, when one such country, which is considered a super power and which swaggers around as moral authority, resorts to hoodwinking, the whole credibility factor goes down the drain. The biggest lie of the second half of century was made by Bush Administration when Colin Powell walked to the center stage of UN and splashed pictures of Iraq showing movement of nuclear weapons and arsenal. That lie was used to wage a war against a population against their will, killing them, subjugating them, and throwing them into a brutal civil war. There were no nuclear weapons in Iraq, that’s what we found after the war.

When US can resort to such blatant fabrication, can’t we all do the same? And since any evidence can be fabricated, why not deny all evidence?

A day ago, India accused China of making incursions into India’s territory. Of course China denied everything. They said everything was a lie. There was no truth to these allegations they said. One Indian TV news channel reporting the news showed clips of movement of troops and helicopters. An average viewer would think that it was actual footage of Chinese incursions into India and would even assume that it is incontrovertible evidence. However, upon closer inspection you realize that in first footage the helicopters belong to Indian Army and in second footage they were actually American soldiers. Therefore, the whole video they were showing was spurious. I move to the next channel and here the video was very different. It showed tanks and armored cars moving in. Did Chinese come on foot, by helicopter or by tanks? I was not sure anymore. In the end I was not even sure if Chinese really came into Indian territories. And if we are trying to make a case by showing fake videos, we better be ready when Chinese deny everything. Even I would be one of those who would suspect such news in future.

It comes back to one’s credibility. If you create a society where everyone is faking it, you don’t know what is genuine. Like in a road side bazaar in a tourist place – you have no idea if it is fake or genuine, and hence you assume everything is a bauble.

That’s where we get our strength to deny everything. There is enough number of people ready to believe you when you deny everything because they know of an instance where evidence was fabricated. When media, governments, and political leaders, who we entrust with power and accountability, lie through their teeth you don’t know what is true and what is hoax anymore.

May be Sri Lankan soldiers were real nice to Tamil Tigers after all. May be there is no global warming after all. May be China never invaded India in 1962 after all. We can deny everything.

Gujarat bans Jaswant’s book on Jinnah

Narendra Modi’s government of Gujarat has banned Jaswant’s book, Jinnah - India, Partition, Independence, because it believes that the book shows Sardar Vallabhai Patel in poor light. 

A notification issued by the Gujarat home department on Wednesday banned the book on the grounds that it tarnishes the image of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel.

"The book aims to tarnish the image of the architect of the country's unification and son of Gujarat. The state government has decided to ban the book in public interest," says a press release issued by the state government. 

When will we grow mature as a nation? We are already 62 years old but behave like a cry baby. Why do we get offended by anything anyone says? And why do we think we need to ban books at the first sign of hurt feelings?

We have been banning stuff indiscriminately and irresponsibly without even having a debate about it. India was the first country in the world to ban Satanic Verses – even the Muslim countries took some time. Many more books, including book detailing 1984 anti-Sikh riots, two books on Shivaji that purportedly showed the great leader of Maraths in negative light, many movies and plays are all banned at the slightest hint of hurt feelings. 

We need to ask ourselves if we are becoming a mature nation or an immature one. Should a government ban anything at all on its own, especially when it infringes upon the rights of common man? As a democracy, shouldn’t we have a debate about it, or pass a resolution in assembly or parliament, or allow courts to decide such issues, instead of elected leader taking unilateral decisions on behalf of entire government and people? 

What should be the right way of banning a book? 

First of all, banning books should be the last thing we should resort to. Books are not billboards that a person would look at involuntarily. Someone would read a book only because he wants to, it cannot be forced upon, and it would never be inadvertent either. An Indian citizen should be allowed to choose any book he wants to read. No government should think it is protecting its citizens from reading wrong stuff. 

Second, if a book has to be banned for some serious reason then we need to have an agreed method of doing it. Say, a person X is portrayed negatively by an author alleging that this X has done certain bad stuff. The person X can take that author to court if X thinks they are just lies. The court can then judge where these allegations are baseless, hypothetical, or based in evidence. Even if the content is found offensive, there are enough laws already in place to deal with such offensive writing. The court could compensate the person X with money, prosecute or fine the author, command that author to delete certain portions, or in the worst case ban the book completely.

But should an elected leader be given the unbridled powers to override the most fundamental right of all – the freedom of expression? 

Jaswant Singh rightly said:

The day we start banning books, we are banning thinking.

Homosexuality is not a crime anymore

In a landmark judgment, Delhi High Court has pronounced that homosexuality is not a crime. This is a historic verdict that sets the course towards modernizing our country living up to the promise India made to its citizens when it became independent. It is a long journey for India to unshackle itself from the hold and sway of bigotry and prejudice dominated by ignorance, which is the weakness on which religion thrives, to say that it is ready to overturn the opinion of majority to protect a minority. I never thought that India would address the issue of homosexuality in my lifetime. And yet, Delhi High Court has set a precedent that clearly upholds the constitutional rights granted to citizens of India whatever their sex or sexual orientation is.

Section 377 of Indian Penal Code created nearly 150 years ago was borrowed from the moral ethos of Victorian times where homosexuality was considered a crime and was a punishable offense. The ethos was based in orthodoxy of religion compounded by celebration of ignorance. Origins of that law come from long-standing bigotry perpetuated by religion against people who are considered deviants, either in practice or in thought. The modern science and research has thrown light on the subject and has found homosexuality natural, not an aberration, and yet, most religious people continue to consciously remain ignorant and repeat the clichés that are downright wrong and sometimes dangerous.

While the West in general and the liberals and rationalists of the East in particular detest the ideologies, ways and methods of Taliban, many religious and nationalist people of the East love Taliban. It is nothing but an exaggerated icon of their ideals. Taliban loves to ban books, so do the religious and patriotic people of the East when and where necessary. Taliban loves to cover up the women from head to toe all in the name of protecting the women, so do Indian colleges who mandate that women should not wear jeans and t-shirts all in the name of the protecting them from molesters and eve-teasers. Taliban loves to blur the lines between morality and criminality, and so do Indian religious people who believe that anything they don’t like is criminal.

When it comes to homosexuality, all religions of India stand united. The same VHP which is vehemently antagonistic to Indian Muslims now sings the same song. Christian groups who get targeted by Hindu groups are now joining hands to protest in unison. Muslim groups, Christian groups and Hindu groups of India have all agreed to stand united on this issue to condemn the HC ruling.

Baba Ramdev, who is an icon to many religious Hindus, said:

Do these people consider homosexuality natural?... These (Gays) are sick people and should be sent to hospitals. Then they can marry or stay bachelors like me…

According to the HC ruling, homosexuality is no longer considered a mental disorder as of 1973 when it was removed from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for mental disorders. World Health Organization (WHO) removed homosexuality from its list of mental illness in 1992.

Muslim clerics in Delhi said:

India is secular, but most Indians are religious and no religion allows this.

Not many people recognize this but it was secular Nehru who emancipated Hindu woman from the clutches of Hindu tradition which treated her as property of man without rights of her own. When Nehru proposed to pass the Hindu Code Bill there was opposition from Hindu groups who insisted that there should be no provision for divorce since Indian culture does not allow it. They also objected to giving property rights to a woman reasoning that it will upset the normal Indian family. They were sure that Indian family as knew it would cease to exist. They were also not happy that Nehru was forcing Hindus to give up polygamy which according to them was sanctioned by Indian mythology. And yet, Nehru prevailed. Being secular doesn’t mean bowing down to a religious sentiment. Being secular means protecting an individual from the religious traditions that seem to discriminate people on their sex or sexual orientation.

Times Now, a news channel, has said that majority in India has favored this verdict. I don’t think so. Indian politicians knew their constituencies more than others, and many of them have come out to oppose this ruling. Also, the support for this ruling seems to be confined to a minority and that too in the urban areas. In most villages, towns and even the cities of India, homosexuality is still a taboo. Here are some of the snippets of readers to THE HINDU.

India is a pluralistic country with a rich ethos and culture. Homosexuality is opposed to the nature and culture. A small minority cannot demand that the country recognise its way of life. Any move to decriminalise homosexuality would be an attempt to destroy the family system for the sake of the sexual minorities. [Selvaraj, Chennai]

On one side we celebrate India’s pluralistic nature, which inherently means that it accommodates people of many faiths, cultures, races, languages, etc, and yet we go on to deprive a group’s identity and way of life demonizing them and criminalizing their private life practices. That shows how much we don’t understand pluralism means.

Homosexuals are not the only marginalised group in India. Not that they should be discriminated against but I think a minority group should not get preference over other groups. [Malni Raghavendran, Chennai]

A modern nation is formed on the basis that an individual’s rights should be protected from authority of a state or any powerful group, and that the interests of minority group should be protected against onslaught of the majority group. Decriminalizing homosexuality is not tantamount to giving them ‘preference over other groups’. How is that deduction possible? Does allowing a person to live the way he wants to live in his privacy translate to preferring his rights over others? There is something grossly wrong with that kind of thinking.

Homosexuality will have a negative impact on society and the traditional family system being followed in India over thousands of years. [Vijay, Bangalore]

For many people, homosexuality is bad because it doesn’t make a family, which comprises traditional mom, dad and kids. Since homosexuals do not procreate they are an aberration and an anomaly. Indulging in sex other than to procreate is a sin and the religious groups want it to be criminalized. So how about masturbation? It does not procreate. Should be it a criminal offense too? Do we always have sex onto procreate? Shouldn’t we ban condoms first?

But legalising things over which we have no control, including abnormal sexual behaviour, may lead to an increase in the incidents of sexual abuse. [Gopala, Hyderabad]

The repeal of Section 377 will only lead to an increase in homosexuality. Children who work for daily bread — not a negligible number despite the ban on child labour — can be subjected to harassment because of the abuse of the freedom gained, in the absence of a law restricting it. It is better to think twice before setting the genie free. [K.C. Joseph, Thiruvananthapuram]

Sexual abuse and child abuse are already taken care of by other set of laws which are not repealed and still in existence. There is no correlation between abnormal sexual behavior and sexual abuse. Are we saying that ‘abnormal’ sexual behavior, such as homosexuality, leads to an increase in incidents of sexual abuse, while ‘normal’ sexual behavior, such as heterosexuality, doesn’t?

Is the sexual abuse of a boy by another man somehow more harmful to society than sexual abuse of a girl by a man? But heterosexuality is legal! So how come we are not banning heterosexuality?

The freedom given to individuals is accompanied by responsibility and accountability. Freedom sans responsibility is dangerous. The repeal of Section 377, in the name of respecting the freedom of sexual minorities, will create social disharmony resulting in the disappearance of social values. [K.T. Krishnaswami,Singaperumal Koil]

The court observes: “Moral indignation, however strong, is not a valid basis for overriding individuals’ fundamental rights of dignity and privacy. Constitutional morality must outweigh the argument of public morality, even if it be the majoritarian view”.

India took 150 years to reverse a law that criminalized an activity which is now considered natural though different from the majority point of view. India has come out of its traditional past and colonials shadows to come to terms with creating a modern nation where every individual, however deviant or different, is given the same rights, thereby allowing us to express ourselves in speech, in practice of faith and even in sexual orientation.

We have a long way to go as a nation to educate our masses, our elite and our leaders in understanding basic principles of our Constitution and its interpretations to sway them away from the prevalent opinions that originate in ignorance and prejudice.

Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realize that our people have yet to learn it.

B.R. Ambedkar.

Sri Lankan Tamils

I strongly support Sri Lankan Tamils’ desire and aspiration to establish a separate Tamil state on that island. I believe that they have a right to ask for a political solution to address their political problems. I believe that Tamils constitute a distinct group with a different language and religion and also different historical roots compared to the majority which happens to be Sinhalese Buddhist speaking people.

India has a dubious record of participation in the ongoing political and military crisis in Sri Lanka. In reality, India has lost its credibility vis-à-vis Tamil issue in Sri Lanka. India doesn’t know where it stands because it has started to look at the world and issues through the prism of what’s going on in its backyard. Since India discourages all separatism within its borders without reason or debate, it would like to extend the same logic to every other issue on the planet.

India has changed its stance on Palestine issue because India started to identity itself closer to the nation (called Israel) that suppresses every voice and action that demands a new state (called Palestine). India has changed its stance on Sri Lankan Tamil Issue too. That’s because India has become obsessed with Kashmir. Its obsession is not very different from the obsession of Pakistan with Kashmir. However, these two enemies are only different in their extent of that obsession.

Pakistan’s obsession with Kashmir runs much deeper than that of India’s. They do not apply reason or logic to any issue because they tend to look at the world only through that obsession. That obsession has made Pakistan resort to all kinds of tricks and carry out all kinds of shams, resulting in Talibanization of Afghanistan which is now about to engulf entire Pakistan. Obsession with Kashmir is turning out to be the toxic disease that will eat into Pakistan and consume it completely. The people on this subcontinent, both Indians and Pakistanis, fail to reason and see light only because of their obsession with Kashmir.

When it comes to Tamils of Sri Lanka, Indians are ready to denounce their fight for freedom as a terrorist movement. They are ready to dismiss their aspirations completely. They have gone ahead to support Sri Lankan government which has ruthlessly suppressed this movement using armed forces, blasting its way through Tamil stronghold thereby completely decimating all Tamil resistance. Sri Lankan Sinhalese glee over their success while Tamils have lost everything – their pride, their identity, and their political will to form a distinct entity on that island. Indians celebrate with their Sri Lankan Sinhalese counterparts because they fantasize such incursions into Kashmir, blasting their way to decimate and emasculate Kashmiri aspirations to form a separate nation.

LTTE is a terrorist organization to some while they are freedom fighters to others. Yes, LTTE has conducted innumerable crimes, resorted to killing innocents, used children as human shield, brainwashed kids to become suicide bombers, raped, pillaged, and murdered ordinary people thereby justifiably qualifying as a terrorist organization. I deplore the actions of LTTE. I condemn and reject their methods. It is a terrorist organization, no doubt.

However, what gets lost in the din is the voice of ordinary Tamils in Sri Lanka. What about him? What about his aspirations? What about his idea of freedom? Should he give up now because LTTE is a terrorist organization?

Can we ignore the history of how Tamils were targeted, discriminated, and marginalized in Sri Lanka? Does Sri Lanka have a prior record which suggests they are going welcome Tamils participation in that country? Can a Tamil become President of Sri Lanka the way a Sikh can become Prime Minister of India? In Sri Lanka only a Sinhalese Buddhist can become the President ensuring that a Tamil is never an equal in his own country though he is born there.

Lessons for and from India

Indians don’t know why they don’t have a Rashtra Basha. Some continue to delude themselves into thinking that India has a national language. They want to impose one identity or one religion.

India was born out of a compromise. It was realism that dictated how India would shape itself, not idealism. Every demand for utopia where only one religion, one language, one culture prevailed over all Indians was eventually struck down.

As I argued earlier, the only way India can stay united is by allowing people to maintain their distinct identities. With respect to languages, any imposition of one Indian language over the other will be met with utmost resistance and will lead to break up of this country. This was not ignored by our Indian politicians.

India had a long history of struggle with British spanning nearly ninety years. Indians learnt a lot during that time because they had a working Congress and a working Muslim League. They knew the vagaries of a pluralistic society much before India got its Independence. All those who thought one single identity would unite them all have eventually failed to realize their utopias. Pakistan which got formed on single identity called religion eventually broke up into two nations. Now, it is in tatters. There is a clear message – don’t try to unite a pluralistic country under one identity. Don’t impose one identity while blurring others.

Sri Lanka did not face an ongoing struggle for independence. It had no lessons to learn from. When they got independence, they used the ‘majority’ as a weapon to subdue the minorities. Unlike India, Sri Lanka did not learn that majority is not always right. Even Indians are slowly unlearning their lessons. Nowadays some Indians are conveniently using democracy to promote the will of majority to be imposed onto minorities.

Without any precedents to help them, Sri Lankans did not formulate a system that can safeguard the interests of minorities within their country. Sinhalese Buddhists formed political parties that came to power riding the wave of majority support and passed Sinhala Only Act thereby discriminating Tamils who could either speak Tamil or English. Within fifteen years, Tamils were all kicked out of administrative services to be replaced by Sinhalese. Starting from selecting a flag that was not acceptable to Tamils, then disenfranchising a huge Tamil population because they were of Indian origin, and then kicking out Tamils from capital city, then colonizing Tamil lands with Sinhalese, then suspending Tamil speaking officials from the administration, eventually changing the constitution by repealing an act that guaranteed protection to minorities and promoting Buddhism as state religion, Sri Lanka has ensured Tamils were emasculated, enervated, and completely extirpated from that island. Sri Lankans wanted to impose the might of majority onto minorities believing majority is right.

Some Indians are now using ‘majority’ slogan to wish for Hindi language as national language, wishing for Hinduism as the main ethos of Indian cultural and legal system, all in the name of unifying everyone under one banner. Sri Lanka is a good example of how such imposition of ‘majority’ identity can go really wrong.

Sinhalese rejected all demands for using Tamil as administrative language, not even in those areas where Tamils were in majority. They were bent on imposing their will onto everyone at the cost of everything, though there were many Tamils and Left Parties who suggested that both Sinhalese and Tamil should be given official status throughout the island. Colvin R de Silva, a Leftist who is credited with the famous response to ‘The Sun never sets on the British Empire’ slogan with ‘That’s because God does not trust the British in the dark’ has foreseen the future of this island nation when Sri Lanka passed Sinhala Only Act:

Do we want a single nation or do we want two nations? Do we want a single state or do we want two? Do we want one Ceylon or do we want two? And above all, do we want an independent Ceylon which must necessarily be united and single and single Ceylon, or two bleeding halves of Ceylon which can be gobbled up by every ravaging imperialist monster that may happen to range the Indian Ocean? These are issues that in fact we have been discussing under the form and appearance of language issue.

His foreboding came out to be true. Sri Lanka is ravaged by a civil war which has killed thousands, displaced hundreds of thousands, injured and mutilated many others.

Sinhalese in their blind obsession to wrest control from privileged Tamils who were adept at English, instead of making corrections like ‘reservations’ in India, resorted to completely banning Tamil and English from all institutions of Sri Lanka in order to deprive Tamils of employment and opportunity. Sri Lanka has conducted pogroms to target, maim and kill Tamils, vandalizing and destroying their properties, eliciting mass migrations. They were bent on completely decimating Tamils from that island.

The discrimination against Tamils started right from 1948 when they got independence. Sinhalese went around in gangs to target and kill Tamils, kicking them out of their homes, all with support from the government. Like in Gujarat of 2002, the administration of Sri Lanka decided not to intervene when the riots broke up and took its sweet time to stop them. When Tamils got concentrated in camps around the capital city they were eventually shipped to Jaffna. And in 1980s, Sri Lanka carried out programs similar to Israel where Sinhalese were given land and facilities to settle down in Tamil dominated regions.

Like in India where some Hindus target Muslims calling them traitors that have allegiance to an enemy nation, Sinhalese targeted Tamils for being closer to India. One of the Members of the Parliament said:

If there is discrimination in this land which is not their (Tamil) homeland, then why try to stay here. Why not go back home (India) where there would be no discrimination. There are your kovils and Gods. There you have your culture, education, universities etc. There you are masters of your own fate

What came as a freedom movement was a reaction to what Sinhalese did to Tamils. LTTE is a sad outcome of such reaction, equally bloody, equally suicidal.

This large scale civil war of the present day could have been averted had the Sinhalese majority party been rational enough to conclude that they could have two languages instead of one, if they had concluded that they could correct the under-representation of Sinhalese through affirmative action instead of barring Tamils from official positions, if they had concluded that their island nation can accommodate two cultures instead of one by pushing the other culture into wretched submission.

Tamils are marginalized as entire community from the mainstream of Sri Lankan society, vilified as traitors, only to be targeted in future for further discrimination and ostracism. Tamils in Sri Lanka has lost their pride, their voice, their self-respect and now have to live in ignominy.

Now that LTTE is defeated, its leader killed, its forces decimated, Sri Lanka has an immense responsibility. Hopefully, it has learnt its lessons. It should create an environment where Tamils regain their identity, their pride, and their culture. It should allow Tamil as an official language and ensure they are not discriminated against. They should create a federal structure whereby Tamils have their own state. They should set good examples by selecting and electing leaders to the top echelons of the government. Going forward, India should strive to work with Sri Lankan government to create a political platform for Tamils living in Sri Lanka.

Regional Parties and Coalition Politics

There are too many regional parties in the fray for the current Lok Sabha elections in India. For some Indians, that is a not a good thing. Even the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh thinks it is not a good thing. Some parties like Congress and BJP call themselves ‘national’ parties. They like to believe they stand for nationalism.

For many Indians nationalism comes as a virtue while regionalism comes as a nuisance. To them nationalism represents unity, oneness, single identity, grand goals and unselfish interests, where the whole country is under one banner while regionalism represents divisiveness, fragmentation, breakup of the nation, dissent, and parochial interests where regions come under many flags and banners. The slogan is ‘united we stand, divided we fall’.

Many nationalist Indians look at regionalism with derision. The images of Shiv Sena baiting Tamils in Mumbai or MNS chasing away Biharis out of Maharashtra come to one’s mind. The regional parties are known for promoting selfish interest of a region or community while ignoring the common interests of a nation.

Of late, coalition politics has been the norm where one ‘national’ party joined forces with ‘regional’ parties to form the government at the center. However, coalition politics is seen as a negative thing because it lacks decisive punch. There is no single party in power making things really complicated, unstable and slow. Many a times the national party had to bow down to the whimsical and parochial demands of regional parties. They were hijacked and held at gun point constantly. Governments fell before they could complete their full term. Policies could not be implemented and decisions could not be taken- all because of coalition politics that included many ragtag elements with conflicting interests. Many Indians wish it was simpler, like having just 2 or 3 parties. That way we would have a clear winner and then things would get smoother.

Nationalism is a virtue, regionalism a nuisance

This differential treatment was inculcated in us even before India became independent. It was done to unite and create a new nation where none existed. Our country was build from many fragments, many kingdoms, regions, and territories. It was important to promote a common identity to unite India by making nationalism a virtue. For a while, it was a romantic notion worth pursuing. Coming out of colonial rule it was necessary to prove to ourselves and to the world that we can stand as a nation, united and strong.

As a corollary regional ideology was suppressed to ensure there was no dissension. After Independence, Nehru created a strong central authority fearing that regional groups may try to secede from India. The trend continued where each of the successive governments at New Delhi tried to make the center stronger while doing everything to make the states weaker.

Nationalism is an ideology

Most of us inherit certain ideas as kids and many of us do not outgrow them. That’s why religion catches them young. You convert them as kids, and most often they are the followers for the rest of their life. An ideology like nationalism works similarly. A country catches people young, instills the ideas of a nation - how great it is and so on, asking them their devotion, their allegiance, making them take a pledge or an oath, and you have a convert who will be loyal for the rest of his life.

Our leaders introduced nationalism to create one identity, one theme that runs through all Indians so that they can stay united. Central authority was strengthened while the regional authorities were weakened. They tried to blur the local and regional identities imposing a national identity. They tried to impose a national song and a national language. These Indians fascinated by nations that had single identity – like in Germany or in Japan.

India is like a group of nations

In this jingoism and fervor of nationalism what gets lost is an essential attribute of India - that it is not a single nation, group, language, or religion. It doesn’t have a single culture, history, or empire. To understand India, one has to look at present-day Europe which has come together to form European Union. The only way that Union can survive is making sure all participants are represented fairly where no single nation imposes its identity onto others. Though we fail to admit it, India works similarly – like a group of nations. Since we do not recognize this essential attribute we never take measures to protect the interest of each region or group – either in the government or in our political system. Indian cannot equate itself with Germany or Japan.

India has never embraced a single identity – it has rejected all such attempts. The signs were there all along. We just failed to accept them. Tamils rejected imposition of Hindi as national language. States got aligned along languages. Lower castes got reservations in education and employment. It was clear right from the time of Independence that India had to deal with multiple identities.

India failed to accept group identities

This reality did not get translated into working mechanism to address regional and groups’ aspirations. When India conceded to these group demands it did so reluctantly, without a comprehensive and proactive strategy. India still tries to solve most of its problems assuming India is a monolithic entity.

India, like most constructed nations, works as a homogenous entity only in certain special situations, like when it faces a common enemy. Thankfully, India found such enemies (in Pakistan and China) right from the beginning. Later, in 1970s the sanctions following Pokhran-I became the rallying point for a wave of nationalism. 1980s saw Pakistan meddling in Punjab and 1990s saw Pakistan intervening in Kashmir thereby keeping the enemy of the nation alive. Nowadays it constructs such enemies where necessary. The last decade, we went about creating enemies internally, out of those who looked different, thought different or those who practiced a different religion.

While India kept its momentum on constructing a single identity, some regional and other group identities lost out, some of them were neglected, some felt they got unfair share, some were snubbed, some had to take an inferior position. There was no forum or platform where such regional aspirations could be addressed. If a state got unfair share there was no way it could express it because our political and administrative system did not recognize such group identities. Eventually, such groups came together to form regional political parties to represent their vested interests.

India, Indian people, Indian political parties do not openly accept the legitimacy of group politics and group identities. They do not take provisions to cater to the demands of group identities. They don’t know how to take care of proper representations. They still carry utopian dream of creating a meritocracy. And democracy is not a meritocracy. Regional and other group identities will eventually voice their opinion, and join the power struggle to get a fair share by creating a political party.

Its inability of Indian political system, its democratic setup, its government structure to recognize group identities that has led to so many regional parties in India.

Emergence of regional parties

These regional parties have come about because the so-called national parties failed to recognize regional aspirations. Like in Europe, each region in India has its cultural identity that it likes to preserve. They expect their requests to be heard, their demands to be met, and their share to be fair.

DMK and AIADMK represent Tamil’s Dravidian sentiment. TDP represented Telugu people’s identity, while TRS represents Telangana sentiment. Shiv Sena and MNS represent Marathas. BSP represents Dalits. SP represents lower castes and Muslims. So on.

Future

Indian democracy will mature only when national parties start recognizing the aspirations of groups and regions in India. National parties have to balance nationalism with regionalism and create structures that allow for proper regional and group representation.

Only when these so-called national parties allow for recognizing regional and group identities would we see a reduction in regional parties. That may eventually lead to 2 or 3 parties in India. Till then, national parties have to work closely with regional parties if they have to form government. Regional parties and coalition politics are here to stay.