Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | THOSE WHO MADE THE RIGHT KIND OF NOISE -Prasenjit Bose

THOSE WHO MADE THE RIGHT KIND OF NOISE -Prasenjit Bose

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Mar 26, 2013   modified Modified on Mar 26, 2013
-The Telegraph


Many Indians stand in solidarity with the protest launched by the academic community in the University of Pennsylvania against the decision to invite Narendra Modi, writes Prasenjit Bose

S L. Rao's criticisms of the academics of the University of Pennsylvania, who had initiated a campaign against Wharton Business School's invitation to Narendra Modi, in his article, "The trip that never was" (March 18), are not only unwarranted but they also defy reason. It is unclear what exactly the author is complaining against - the invitation extended to Modi by the institution, the protest campaign launched by academics of Indian-origin at the UPenn, or the subsequent "disinvitation" by the university administration.

If the author is disgusted by the entire affair, he should have directed his criticisms towards those who had invited Modi in the first place, since the author himself has described Modi as "a deeply divisive and arrogant person". Invitations to such "divisive" personalities have always evoked protests, especially within universities and academic institutions across the world that house an intellectually sensitive and politically conscious community.

For instance, a large number of students and teachers protested against Modi when he came to deliver a lecture at the Shri Ram College of Commerce in Delhi University. In some cases, visits by controversial leaders to academic institutions had to be cancelled because of the enormity of the protests - L.K. Advani's proposed visit to the Jawaharlal Nehru University to release a book on Spanish Grammar in 1996 is one such example. If Indian students and academics have reasons to protest against such "divisive" personalities within India, why can't academics of Indian origin lodge their protests against the same lot in a university in the United States of America?

Organizations like the Overseas Friends of BJP-USA or the Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America, which have a significant number of members among US-based non-resident Indians, freely propagate the Hindutva ideology in the US and raise funds for the Bharatiya Janata Party and other organizations affiliated to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Their high- pitched publicity in favour of Modi becoming the prime minister of India or against non-BJP politicians from India, which often involves distasteful invectives in the social media, hardly raise any hackles back home.

If some US-based NRIs have the right to campaign for Modi, others should also have the right to campaign against him. Why should the protest lodged by academics of Indian origin against Modi be derided? Aren't they simply exercising their democratic right?

That the UPenn administration finally decided in favour of the "disinvitation" implies that a large enough section of the academic community sympathized with the protest campaign against Modi. Perhaps it was this wide spectrum of support that was garnered by the anti-Modi campaign that made the author uncomfortable. In his efforts to question the legitimacy of the anti-Modi campaign, however, two quite fallacious and disturbing arguments have been made by the author.

It has been argued that since Congress leaders accused of being responsible for the 1984 anti-Sikh riots or those alleged to be involved in the Mumbai riots of 1992 have never been punished, there is no point in protesting against Modi. This is because he has not been indicted by any court of law, so far, for his alleged involvement in the communal violence in Gujarat in 2002. But two wrongs do not make a right.

The abysmal record of the Indian State in delivering justice in cases of large-scale communal violence should be a matter of shame. One cannot criticize those protesting against Modi by citing non-action in previous instances of communal unrest. It is precisely this cynical mindset that has prevented the Indian Parliament from enacting the legislation against communal violence that has been pending since 2005. As per the figures provided by the Union home ministry, 855 persons have died and over 15,300 injured in 5,311 "communal incidents" across the country between 2005 and 2011. Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Odisha have witnessed the highest incidences of communal violence, with religious minorities bearing the brunt.

Much like other crimes, the reason why communal violence has also become a way of life in many parts of India is because the perpetrators know they can get away with it. The confidence to kill and maim in the name of religion stems from the fact that high-profile political leaders involved in the biggest communal riots in India, irrespective of political affiliations, have been able to get away with their crimes. The issue is whether we want this situation to continue and deteriorate further or to do something about it.

It is here that justice for the victims of all riots - including the anti-Muslim pogrom carried out in Gujarat in 2002 - acquire significance. Durable communal amity and reconciliation cannot be achieved without justice. And the only forces likely to be strengthened by a deteriorating communal situation are the religious extremists and terrorists that thrive on the politics of communal hatred.

The BJP's complicity in the communal violence in Gujarat in 2002 has already been established with the sentencing of its MLA, Maya Kodnani, for a 28- year jail term in the Naroda Patiya case. The court had observed that she was the "kingpin" of the massacre of 97 persons, including helpless women and children. On whose blessings had she become the state minister of women and child development? This is anybody's guess.

The alleged criminal culpability of Modi in the communal violence is, of course, a matter for the courts to decide upon. But his guilt was established in the court of public opinion the day he propounded the "action-reaction" theory to explain the post-Godhra violence. The then prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, had to remind him of his "rajdharma" as the chief minister of Gujarat. A former civil rights activist may have chosen to forget those moments for unknown reasons, but they remain etched as painful memories for millions of Indians.

The other argument offered by the author is regarding Modi's "administrative skills" in simplifying procedures for land acquisition and setting up industries, improving power and water supply, building roads and lessening corruption. Today, most other state governments in India also claim that they are delivering on these heads.

In the absence of any empirical evidence provided by the author in terms of whether Modi's administration has been able to do these better than other state governments, this is at best an impressionistic account. Worse, it seems like sheer propaganda; akin to the encomiums like "the king among kings" that were showered upon Modi during the Vibrant Gujarat summit by those who have benefitted the most from his rule.

As for ordinary citizens, the figures of the 2011 census make it clear that the southern states - Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka - as well as Punjab and Haryana have greater or a similar proportion of households having access to electricity and drinking water compared to Gujarat. Moreover, Gujarat lags behind many other states in human development indicators (its HDI rank is 8 among 20 major states) and poverty reduction (it ranks 11 among 20 states).

The dismal record of employment generation further exposes the skewed nature of growth under the so-called ‘Gujarat model'. Despite being among the fastest growing states in terms of gross state domestic product, employment growth in Gujarat between 2004-05 and 2009-10 has been almost zero. The employment share of the primary sector in Gujarat has grown to over 54 per cent even though the primary sector's contribution to GSDP had fallen to less than 15 per cent in 2008-09. Wages in the manufacturing sector grew by only 1.5 per cent in Gujarat in the last decade in contrast to the all-India average of 3.7 per cent. (Sources - Poverty Amid Plenty, edited by Atul Sood, and Labour and Employment in Gujarat, by Indira Hirway and Neha Shah, Economic and Political Weekly, November 2011).

In the light of such evidence, is it unfair to allege that the so-called "Gujarat model" is "mostly media hype and that the reality was much inferior to the claims"? It is heartening to see that academics of UPenn are much closer to the ground realities in India than the experts at home who make assertions without substantive evidence.

The most bizarre part of the article comes in the end when the author states that "If Modi is guilty of Muslim deaths and uneven development, so are they. These people carry the blot of the Sikh killings in Delhi and the uneven, non-inclusive, unequal, and poor development of India." While one may or may not agree with the political-moral equivalence that the author seeks to draw between the Congress and the BJP, the contribution of the Congress in the making of Modi is undeniable.

The Congress in Gujarat had abandoned secularism and ideologically surrendered to the Hindutva project much before communal violence broke out in 2002. The neoliberal utopia that Modi is selling to the big business class today also logically follows from Manmohan Singh's economic doctrines. Moreover, the popular discontent that Modi is seeking to cash upon is surely an outcome of the unabashed malfeasance and apathy of the present Congress regime.

The problem, however, lies in an underlying assumption that whosoever opposes Modi or the BJP has to necessarily be a Congressman and, hence, answerable for the party's misdeeds. For good reason, a large section of the people - definitely a majority of the Indian electorate as a whole - are not aligned to either of the two parties.

The anti-Modi protesters of UPenn have also not said or done anything to suggest that they are batting for the Congress. Berating them on this count amounts to merely erecting a straw man. It does not diminish the legitimacy of their protest, with which many in India stand in solidarity.

The Telegraph, 26 March, 2013, http://telegraphindia.com/1130326/jsp/opinion/story_16712643.jsp#.UVFzrDfeqSJ


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

Im4Change.org हिंदी वेबसाइट का परिचय. Short Video on im4change.org...

Im4Change.org हिंदी वेबसाइट का परिचय. Short Video on im4change.org...

"Session 1: Scope of IDEA and AgriStack" in Exploring...

"Session 2: Farmer Centric Digitalisation in Agriculture" in Exploring...

"Session 3: Future of Digitalisation in Agriculture" in Exploring...

Objectives | About Us | Workshops | Disclaimer
share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close