[Reader-list] english: a Rant

[Joy Chatterjee]

Dear All,
In the context of discusion about English and elite, I found the following 
article very interesting. What fascinates me the way Mr. Balbir Punj has 
cleverly isolated the elitist leadership of VHP and constructs english 
usage as elite and religious faith as non elite practice.

If we look back at the history of religion in Indian sub continent, there 
had always been a hierarchy of god and goddesses. Upper cast hindus used to 
hate gods of the lower caste. Worshiping such god was supposed to be 
derogatory act by brahmins, one could become out caste by such act. So 
hindu religion by itself is not a homogenous classless practice. In the 
present world of populist politics, complexity of religion has  been hidden 
under the rhetoric of elitism and non elitism. And what disturbing is hindu 
brand and other politicians trying to capitalise on the segregation and 
discrimination in social exposure (education, culture and other social 
practices) created by whole elite society whether english speaking or not.

Best

Joy


Children of lesser gods
Balbir K Punj
http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/180402/detide01.asp

Looking back on the incidents of last month, two contrasting images stand 
out in my mind. First, Arundhati Roy smilingly accepting flowers after 
spending 24 hours in Tihar Jail in a contempt case. Second, innumerable 
armed policemen stalking the streets of Ayodhya to ensure the VHP's 
compliance with the Supreme Court order.
While the 'goddess of small things' received honours, the children of 
lesser gods, innocent Ram sewaks were lampooned and turned into monsters by 
the elite, the media and the 'secularists'. Thanks to the demonisation of 
Ram sewaks, a Muslim mob felt enraged enough at Godhra to set ablaze 58 
innocent people returning by Sabarmati Express from Ayodhya, which 
ultimately led to communal riots all over Gujarat.
 From the rousing reception Roy received on her release, and the spate of 
articles and discussions on various channels that followed, it appeared 
that the lady had spent a lifetime behind bars for a great national cause. 
Interestingly, those who feted Arundhati Roy for her 'great sacrifice' (a 
symbolic imprisonment of 24 hours), cried hoarse to coerce the 
establishment to use the entire might of the Indian State to ensure that 
the VHP did not have its 'symbolic puja' for a day on a piece of land in 
contravention of any court orders.
Finally, they had their way following the March 13 Supreme Court order. But 
those rejoicing the 'victory of secularism' or 'the court rising above Ram' 
are not doing so out of any deference to the judiciary. Their track record 
is replete with instances of upturning court verdicts, of silencing all 
dissent by sending the opposition to jail, and subverting judgments to suit 
their ideological preferences or sectional interests.
Nationalisation of banks, abolition of privy purses, the Shah Bano case, 
quota for SC/ST in promotions in government services are some such 
instances. Court orders were overturned through constitutional amendments. 
Remember the unseating of Indira Gandhi by the Allahabad High Court and how 
the law was changed under the dark cover of Emergency to circumvent the 
judgment and legitimise her election.
It was Indira Gandhi in 1975. Today, it's Arundhati Roy. In the same vein, 
the 'liberal and progressive' legal experts and commentators ganged up in 
no time in Roy's defence and termed the Supreme Court judgment convicting 
Roy as "highly illiberal". They saw in her conviction the 'misuse' of the 
criminal contempt provision, portending a threat to the freedom of 
expression and of the press.
But what about the Ram sewaks? Trains and buses were stopped miles away 
from Ayodhya forcing them to trudge along long distances to reach the holy 
city. On the way, they were searched, roughed up and in several cases sent 
back unceremoniously. Scores of monkeys and cows starved to death in 
Ayodhya with no pilgrims to feed them. Leave alone protests from either 
human rights activists or animal lovers, the administration was 
continuously accused of not being ruthless enough with the Ram sewaks.
Mark the difference. When it is between Roy and the court, she is the 
victim. When it is between the Ram sewaks and the judiciary, the Ram sewaks 
are the villains!
What happened in the Supreme Court on March 13 left me perplexed. Let us 
have a quick recall of the dispute. Mir Baqi demolished a temple and built 
a mosque out of its rubble to humiliate the vanquished Hindus. Hindus have 
been struggling to regain for the last 400 years what they consider to be 
the birthplace of Lord Rama. In December 1992, a section of Hindus lost 
their patience and demolished the structure. Subsequently, the Narasimha 
Rao government acquired the adjoining land totalling 67 acres, most of it 
from Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas/VHP.
All that the VHP wanted to do on March 15 was to perform a symbolic puja 
for a few hours on a small part of that 'undisputed' land which it owned 
and the government now holds as trustee. The 'secular brigade' saw the VHP 
puja plans as a grave threat to the Constitution and majesty of the law. 
Thanks to the hype created by the elite and the media, the commitment of 
the establishment to civil society became directly proportional to the 
extent it trampled upon the civil liberties of unarmed Ram sewaks.
Following the March 13 order, Hindus who have been fighting to reclaim the 
Ramjanmabhoomi site for the last four centuries have now no right to offer 
even symbolic prayers for a day on a piece of land which had belonged to 
them till the government acquired the land about a decade back. All this in 
a country where multifarious social and religious activities (including 
namaaz, particularly on Fridays) are allowed on public lands without any 
questions asked.
Mark that Muslims had never claimed this piece of 'undisputed' land. 
'Undisputed' was one of the adjectives the Supreme Court's Constitution 
Bench had used repeatedly for this land in its judgment delivered on 
October 24, 1994. The bench had classified the land adjacent to the 
'disputed land' as 'undisputed' only because the Hindus had challenged the 
acquisition of this acquired land.
It was only the government which had contested the challenge by the Hindus. 
The Muslims never challenged it. Earlier, the dispute was confined to 2.77 
acres, and now thanks to the Supreme Court order, it now extends to the 
entire 67 acres.
In fact, the 1994 judgment is a law declared by the Supreme Court under 
Article 141 of the Constitution and binds all courts including all smaller 
benches of the Supreme Court. Could such a binding judgment be rendered 
ineffective by a subsequent court order by a smaller bench?
And why does the elite treat Arundhati Roy and Ram sewaks so differently? 
Maybe it is the PLU (People Like Us) syndrome. Roy is a noted writer of 
English fiction and comes from an elite background. The elite can easily 
identify itself with her. Most Ram sewaks, on the other hand, are rustic, 
lack articulation, knowledge of English and exposure to a western way of 
life that Roy shares with the ruling class.
The Ram sewaks normally come from a class which carries on with its mundane 
existence without any rancour thanks to its unstinting devotion to the 
Indian traditions of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. Most of them fear 
the law and have deep respect for their faith. The elite generally 
manipulates the law and has faith in none including in itself.
Does this explain such paradoxes and their impact on society and how this 
will all end? From what I understand, I can only quote here Martin Luther 
King Jr's celebrated statement, which the civil rights activist wrote from 
Birmingham Jail on April 16, 1963: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to 
justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, 
tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects 
all indirectly."
Can we treat the likes of Arundhati Roy and Ram sewaks so differently and 
yet survive as a civil society? If so, for how long?