My Close Encounter With A Communal Spark

7.30 p.m.
Monday, 16.11.2009
Central Mumbai

"Phod Dalega, Saala. India Se Baahar Phenk Dega Tere Ko, Ra*&wa Saala."

Roughly translated, sans the unparliamentary expressions, it means, "I'll bludgeon you... will throw you out of India."

Travelling in the comfort of an AC bus -- a newly launched government service that many of us here have found to be a god’s gift to our battered souls – we were startled to hear these words yesterday evening.

On an average day, Mumbai's peak-hour traffic is anybody's nightmare.

Taut nerves. Frayed tempers. Edgy people.

In these conditions, people take to fracases and altercations like a chain smoker takes to a cigarette after hours of abstinence.

The frustrating traffic, the stifling train crowd or the desperation to get home as early as possible – any or all of these in various combinations could be the spark that sets off ugly face-offs and, sometimes, brawls.

So, under ordinary circumstances, we in the bus should have forgotten the incident within minutes and gone back to observing the madness just outside on the road from the cushy closed confines of our bus.

But that was not to be.

I could sense a vague uneasiness among passengers following the vitriolic comments.

The incident that sparked the furore in one of our fellow travelers itself was forgettable.

As we approached King’s Circle in central Mumbai’s Matunga locality, vehicles struggled to move at a snail's pace.

I don’t know what exactly happened. Suddenly we heard the bus driver arguing with a biker. Within minutes, a few passengers were already by the driver's side trying to defuse the situation and prodding the biker to move . Hell, we didnt have time to indulge in silly heated exchanges.

But before we knew, an elegantly dressed Maharashtrian burst forth with his acerbic verbal diarrhea, part Hindi, part Marathi.

Besides getting the message from the angry shoving of hands and irritated facial expressions, I am sure the biker, who had a woman – presumably his wife – riding pillion, didn’t hear a word of what the bus passengers were. We, inside the bus, too knew that.

Yet, a strange uneasiness crept into our minds once this madman began venting out his hatred.

That hatred was focused. It was not the hatred for the chaos . It was not the frustration of a man stuck in unending lines of vehicles.

It was purely and unabashedly aimed at the biker. At his white skull cap. At his flowing beard. At his wife’s black burqa.

It was aimed the Muslim. The “other”.

"Phod Dalega, Saala. India Se Baahar Phenk Dega Tere Ko, Ra*&wa Saala."

The rest, spoken in Marathi, was clearly was aimed at everyone else. Every non-Maharashtrian.

Am I losing hope?

Women in Shabarimala: Legends, dogmas and hypocrisies

The 2006 controversy involving a yesteryear actress' claim of entering the Shabarimala shrine–hitherto proscribing women's entry–exposed some redundant but deeply entrenched dogmas and hypocrisies of the society, particularly that of Kerala.

Although it could be a harbinger of a more in-depth understanding of the social and emotional involvement of the society with religion, the actress' claim can itself be safely said to be wishful thinking.

To begin with, it is practically impossible for her to enter the shrine's premises, let alone touch the presiding deity's feet, which in any case is placed inside a single door structure with three footsteps and scores of lamps in between the idol and the devotee.

However, the larger question involved here is this: So what if Jaimala – an adult woman – did enter the temple?

In a day and age where 'equality' - irrespective of religion, gender, caste or creed – as an ideal in the society, the shooing away of sexually active women from places of worship is simply anachronistic.

While some of the arguments to bar women inside the temple could be understood to be a result of the social construct of a bygone era, others are manifestations of sheer hypocrisy and misogyny.

The temple – located at a place called Sannidhanam - is nestled in the heart of the Western Ghats in Pathanamthitta district of south Kerala. The area trekked by the pilgrims is densely foliated, which even now is full of scary giant centipedes and leeches.

One can imagine why women were not "advised" to go for the trek that lasted weeks in the olden days when the jungle was probably infested with wild animals.

Women in that age perhaps were never conditioned for the physically draining climb up several hills. But it sounds stupid today when we have women in the defence forces and in space.

Perhaps another argument that could be accepted to a certain extent as being scientific is that women, who undergo hormonal changes during their periods, are not in a mental state to be spiritually active.

But spirituality, ultimately being a purely personal issue, should be left to one's reason and discretion.

The main reason behind the barring of women in that temple is that Ayyappa, the presiding deity of Shabarimala, would have his chronic bachelorhood defiled by the presence of grown up women.

Is it not belittling the character of a god by considering it so fragile that it would be shattered by the simple presence of a woman?

Secondly, the legend of Ayyappa says he had promised to marry goddess Malikappuram - who resides just few metres away from the main temple - the year no new devotee visits him.

In fact there is an elaborate ritual observed every year at Shabarimala where the goddess checks the number of new devotees who have visited the temple that particular year and regularly returns disappointed.

So technically he would marry Malikappuram if the flow of devotees comes down, which in practicality doesn't seem to be happening though.

The most obnoxious bit in this argument, however, is that focused on menstruating women. How can a woman's reproductive functions be considered defiling? There is no reason to believe that the menstrual fluid is any more "unclean" than human faeces or urine.

This in a state whose citizens also patronize a menstruating goddess at the Kodungallur temple in Trissur district, for whom the most important gift taken by the devotees is the 'bharanippaattu' - a series of rhyming verbal obscenities crudely naming sexual organs and acts.

But what does expose the hypocrisy of the devaswom board and the society is the insistence on observation of 'age–old rules' and 'pious norms'!

By that standard a great section of men, who are supposed to observe a 41-day period of penance before going there – beginning with the ceremonial wearing of the beaded chain and coarse black material for clothes - should also be barred.

This is apart from the rule that debars non-vegetarian food, alcohol, sex and contact with menstruating women for the 'Ayyappa Swamis' as the pilgrims are called during the penance!

A good section of of men – at least in Kerala - hardly observe any of these rules. In fact people enter penance just a week before the trip - many a times a day before the trip. Perhaps "instant penance" is the buzzword here.

The night before the wearing of the beads and black cloth is one of festivity in most homes with a generous serving of booze and non-vegetarian food.

The 'swamis' are not supposed to shave their beard and wear footwear. But it rarely happens, particularly among the working class, who conveniently bow to their professional codes of dressing.

The biggest attitudinal change is that no attempt, whatsoever, is made to do all this in a hush-hush manner. These are all well accepted practices in Kerala now.

If all this is not a hindrance to the entry of 'impure' men, then the ban on women is just a nauseating joke.

The most compelling argument, however, women in Kerala themselves are against opening the temple for their fellow beings.

This is not surprising, as for ages, women in Kerala, as in other parts of the world, have been conditioned to think they are impure during their periods.

This has been used as a subtle but effective tool to subjugate the female psyche in god's own country, which ironically prides in having one of the country's best sex ratio and a much-hyped matri-lineal society.

All said and done the age-old norms cannot be changed overnight. The authorities could make a good beginning by opening the doors for women who are not going through their monthly cycles.

Ultimately "god or gods do not discriminate" is a message that the society must inculcate if it has to progress.

'50s & '60s: Mere Nostalgia or India's Peak?

Some say the hour produces the 'Hero'. The era creates the legend. Something of that sort perhaps happened to the generation that peaked to its creative and productive best in the 1950s & '60s in India (some of my friends, US citizens, with strong faith in the US's founding principles too agree about the US on this).

Be it art, political leadership, scientific benchmarks, entertainment, music, agriculture or any possible field. Something stirred the country that led to the creation of a generation that either brought out the best in particular fields or laid the strong foundations for the future.

Of course, I'm sure people will disagree with me and say that every generation has its heroes, who edify that values and aesthetic sensitivities of that era. I am none to disagree. In fact, I would strongly agree with it.

But what would distinguish other eras from the 50s & 60s (+ or - 3 years, so say from 1947 to 1973), is the sheer fecundity of these years in producing the best of the genus and the very fact that so many of the high-fliers and pioneers (in almost every field) together peaked during the years.

The primary reason, as I have understood, is the uprooting of the British from the country. Suppressed for centuries, the creative and productive energies of a people was let loose in 1947.

1947 itself was, for instance, some kind of “Khul Ja Sim Sim” for Indian cinema. As India awoke in 1947, its tinsel dreams too got a providential thrust that year with the likes of Raj Kapoor, MGR, Lata Mangeshkar, Uttam Kumar and Dilip Kumar either making their debut or finally finding limelight with their first hit.

We all know what these folks went on to do in the next 20-30 years. For details visit http://taarezameenpar-pullaratimes.blogspot.com/

This, of course, is merely a glimpse of an area I am familiar with. However, such stories are not few in other areas.

C Subramaniam, Nehru, Homi Bhabha, Periyar, the Godse brothers, Shastri, Gen Thimayya, Manekshaw, Sukumar Sen, J R D Tata, M S Subbalakshmi, M S Swaminathan, Verghese Kurien, Kushwant Singh, Kuldeep Nayyar, R K Lakshman, R K Narayan, M F Hussein, Vikram Sarabhai, Ustad Bade Ghulam Ali Khan, Ramu Karyat… the list is simply endless.

None of these names can be replaced. Each has had a profound and lasting impact on India.

Of course, many will say that India is yet to peak. It is on its way there. I dare not disagree.

However, as much as I agree with it, I also feel the progress – if at all -- we are yet to see in the country would not be as “personality-driven” or “leadership-driven” as it was during the ’50 & ’60s. It would be more a macro-level change, brought about less by pioneering efforts and more by an interplay of economics, technological advance (bedrock of which was laid in my favourite era I believe) and political environment.

What was it, other than the newfound political freedom, that created wave after wave of talent in the country during those years and since then?

Like they say, they don’t make like them anymore!

Organised Christianity, a fraud played in the name of Christ?

Himself an atheist, the English philosopher Bertrand Russell, in his book "Why I Am Not A Christian", asked what the true meaning of being a Christian was.

The gist of his question was whether to be a follower of Jesus meant being a good, truthful and god-fearing (in its most honest sense) human being or was it merely to follow a set of age old dicta.

Russell in all likelihood used "Christian" as a blanket term for organised religion. So the question obviously is universally applicable.

In the context of Christianity, which this article is concerned with, it becomes pertinent to ask that question as it has often been accused of being used as a tool of social engineering and furthering the numbers-game of an ecclesiastic institution rather than bring solace to mankind as claimed by most of its proponents.

Christianity in India is a case in point.

Going by legend, the onset of Christianity on the Malabar Coast, seeds of which were famously laid by the blessed St Thomas by pin-pointing flaws in rituals practiced by Namboodiri Brahmins, itself is flawed.

Little realising that Hindu rituals are mostly symbolic - or perhaps knowing it very well and hence using subterfuge – he played on the Brahmins' ignorance of their own religion to make inroads into the subcontinent, using that most widespread of all rituals: baptism.

A Hindu-dominated country, India harboured Christ's followers since the days when the religion had not even reached Europe and, even lesser, the Americas. Antagonism for the cross arose only with the advent of aggressive missionary activity during British era.

The Goa Inquisition didn't do a great favour either.

So, in a nutshell the cause for animosity boils down to that one practice – (aggressive?) conversions - a Semitic trademark.

It brings us to the fundamental attitude of Christian philosophy with regards to non-Christians: "Our religion is the sole path to His kingdom. Every other alternative is flawed!"

Now, when one of the basic tenets of Christianity is that all God's creatures are equal, isn't that attitude incongruous?

Or is it that non-Christian's are expected to demurely admit that all "believers" are first among equals like people who claim `In God they trust'?

Further, it would not be wrong to say that in the discourse between missionaries and non-Christians there is little philosophy and depth than use of rose-tinted imagery of the Christian west, tall metaphysical claims and inexplicable and ridiculous miracles, apart from monetary and other material trappings.

In simple terms, they appeal to the baser senses and not higher ones.

And this leads us to the fact that they appeal to mostly to the lowest strata of Hindu hierarchy – Dalits and tribals – both least educated and thus least enlightened in the society.

Most anti-conversion laws passed by Indian states – particularly those in Tamil Nadu – claim to target the `fraudulent' means of influencing vulnerable sections.

Now, if missionaries do not indulge in malafide methods for conversions what do they fear?

Isn't the concept of a Dalit-Christian, a negation of Christ's ideals? The "Pariah" Church of Kerala is a slap on the face of the Son of God.

Lal Jose's Malayalam movie "Achhanurangaatha Veedu" (2006) made pointed observation about the distinction between the Pentecoastal Church and "higher" denominations, noting that the former was a congregation of "dark" Christians and the latter of "fair" ones.

Was it pure love for humanity and grandiose designs to better the lives of tribals that brought Graham Staines and his family all the way from Australia to India, leading to his indeed abominable murder by Hindu fanatics?

If yes, perhaps he should have chosen a much easier and less risky route to God by tending to the " Stolen Generation" - the Australian Aboriginal children forcibly removed from families by the government and church denying the rights of parents between 1900 and 1969.

Meanwhile, the Church in India shows traits of a typical MNC giant.

Why is Christianity consciously projected as being synonymous with Western values and culture, even though the West, let alone the Vatican, has nothing to do with Christ?

Why are preachers/missionaries invariably in elegant ties, suites and blazers and not in a dhoti?

For some inexplicable reason the "Father" in mainstream Indian cinema – the most influential of the country's media - is always the calm, upright and benevolent soul, clad in white.

Vinod Pande's "Sins" (2005) sparked a furore when that holier than thou image was tampered with.

And yet Kerala-based evangelist M G Mathew had enough vitriol in his book "Haqeeqat", where he made claims like:

1. "Sita was abandoned in the forest as per Ram's wishes... Ram later asked Lakshman to kill Sita. In the end, Ram frustrated with life, drowned himself in Saryu. Such are the teachings of half-naked rishis who are praised by Hindutvawadis." (Page 100)

2. "(Lord) Krishna had a despicable sex life." (Page 391)

The state government, according to Wikipedia, has uncovered evidence of the Baptist Church of Tripura's support to National Liberation Front of Tripura, a violent separatist group that has attacked and killed Hindus in the region and has banned Hindu festivals by force.

The machinations reached a crescendo recently when temple authorities at Tirupati Tirumala in Andhra Pradesh found missionaries promoting the gospel inside the temple premises, allegedly egged on by a significant Christian section among employees of the devaswom board (as reported by NDTV and Indian Express in July, 2006)!

Why is it that no Church of any denomination, who claims to be righteous in its activities and upright in its conduct, has uttered a word against these and other instances of contrivance?

Further, does the Church approve of the unabashed drivel shown by the likes of Miraclenet and God TV? If not, why is no voice is raised?

Apart from deftly marketing the religion, the Church also seems to spearhead the spread of insecurity among native believers by raking up controversial issues where there are none.

The recent "Da Vinci Code" issue, for instance, was a point in case.

On a mere political level, what was the aim of the protest against the movie – screened without as much of a whimper in Christian countries?

More importantly what is wrong if Christ was married and showed traits of a human being?

A true Christian's (The author himself claims to be one thanks to the space provided by Hinduism) love and respect for him should leap manifold if Christ did all that he did being a mere mortal, clearly showing that his kind of "miracles" are not beyond human reach.

But alas, the Church faced with this kind of thinking is, ironically, exactly like the Roman Empire faced with Christ's ideas.

Blasphemous?!

History's little drops of poison

Communalism has been alive and kicking in India ever since the arrival of the Europeans... India has been invaded by several armies through millennia... but these invasions were viewed through the religious lens... Invasions by Muslim chieftains like Chengiz Khan, Mahmoud of Ghazni and others were just part of life during those ages...

Because, within India too Hindu kings invaded each other regularly, and plundered and looted each others' wealth. So those rampages by Muslim armies were not given the communal hue by natives... They were just another set of looters and invaders.

But things changed with the arrival of the Europeans, and if I may add, the accompanying Christian missionaries. The reason why I think so is simple. The Europeans arrived with the idea trade and then graduated to creating captive markets and raw material sources. This later acquired hues of racism, brought about by the brutal use of gun powder to subjugate the natives.

The moment the Indo-European relationship inculcated identity issues, there arose the need to in racial comparison and subsequently the need to show the White as superior... Thus began a systematic and diabolical programme of reinforcing identities along with generous doses of inferiority complexes and insecurities (Kipling's "White Man's Burden" et al.).

In the Indian context, this process was accompanied by the need to split the society into smaller parts so that each could be handled sperately. Religion was the easiest available social unit that could be seprated into meaningful entities. "Divide and Rule" was born.

This is not to say that Muslims did not carry the sense of superiority or Hindus were devoid of it. The imposition of Jaziya by most Muslim kings proves otherwise. But almost always they were minimal measures to split the society. And almost always the goal was to bring about a harmony in -- be it by the Mughals or Tipu Sultan or various artistes (Ghalib, Faiz, Khusrau, Kabir et al)... they all sought to evolve a syncretic culture...

Like almost everything in this country, the Indian polity has inherited divide and rule in unhealthy measures too.

After the British policies led to the country's dismemberment in 1947, India took a more courageous, long-sighted and sane path as compared to Pakistan. Yet, despite Nehru's unflenching, dedicated and visionary approach towards democracy, secularism and liberalism, the one misake he committed was not breeding leadership in the Congress--perhaps the one and only bastion of the ideals of India's founding fathers.

Lack of leadership--the Nehruvian variety--led the way to his daughter Indira getting into his saddle. Though cast in the same secular, patriotic dye as her father, Indira lacked his democratic vlaues. She shunned criticism, destroyed opposition, sought ultimate control.

It is not surpising that the deterioration of the Congress into a bootlicking party, decaying of the process of appointment of Congress chief mininsters in the states, seeping of corruption into the Indian judiciary etc coincide in their timing with Indira's rise.

While this was happening to the Congress and its spirit, it was the communal forces that were gaining. 1975 could be considered the watershed year for Indian secularism when Indira, with the Congress's deterioration into an autocratic entity, succumbed to the temptaions of emergency and within two years the rightwing, cobbling up a rag tag coalition with the Congress rebels, for the first time made their presence felt in Indian politics.

Ever since it has been a cat and mouse game of who outmaneuvres the other in religious pandering, often nuanced, often not. The rise of Bhindrenwale in Punjab, the devastating effects of the Shah Bano case, the attempted counterbalancing move of opening up the Babri Masjid for the rabid Hindus etc have acted like individual drops of poison.

The populist version of the Hindu righwing's ideals--The Ramayana and the Mahabharata--were "benevolently", and inadvertantly if you please, transmitted via airwaves by the Congress on Doordarshan! But what has exacerbated the communal atmosphere of India are the global changes.

With the unleashing of LPG forces, Indians, as any other nationals, got sucked into the churning of identities that accompanied LPG in 1991 (actually mid 1980s). With an already heavy plate of various communal "starters", the "maincourse" of globalisation simply overawed India.

And, as in the case of almost all other nationals, many Indians began to find refuge in their traditional identities. Hindus being the overwheming majority in India did the biggest damage by getting on to this bandwagon of hardening identities.

Today every aspect of history is looked at by many Indians as a religious issue.

J N Dixit once rightly said, "India is secular because of its Hindus."

If majority Hindus cease to be genuinely secular in future, we can say goodbye to India as we know it.

I may have omitted several issues and for that reason whatever I have written may sometimes feel disjointed or illogical and even biased... Its purely my understand, which itself is, I hope, still evolving...