[Reader-list] Mallika Sarabhai's Public Meeting in JNU on 31stMarch

[Rakesh Iyer]

Dear Bipin ji (and all, especially Pawan ji)

First of all, I am sorry if the tenor and some part of the content I used in
my previous mail has hurt you, which makes you say that this is your last
mail to me. I respect your opinion, but my point is the same as that of
yours, which is that one should also go with the present. However, having
said that, the principles of natural justice and human rights must also be
considered while taking decisions, so also the principle of reason.
Otherwise we may be blinded by happenings around us.

Now, let me come and answer the few important points you have put across:

1) There is only one particular reason for which I find Advani appealing as
such, which is that he was the man who showed (or publicly pointed out)that
Muslims are actually appeased in India. Yes, Muslim appeasement is rampant
among today's 'secular' parties. But in my mind, appeasement only means
'pleasing someone for the sake of pleasing'. In other words, Laloo, Mulayam,
Mayawati, Chandrababu Naidu, Left (Communists too), and others also appease
Muslims, as they only wish to win their votes, rather than doing something
for the benefit of Muslims which can help them in the long term. The same
thing has been pointed out in the Sachar Committee Report.

My problem with the BJP is that they use the wrong meaning of appeasement.
According to their tenor and content, Muslim appeasement means only Muslims
are benefited. My contention is that Muslims are not benefiting at all from
the measures supposedly directed at them, by parties supposedly getting
their votes by and large.

As for Advani, his Rath Yatra had led to second biggest riots in India.
Nobody can forget the kind of politics his party, as well as the so called
seculars played in order to rally behind their vote bank around them.

2) I feel the issue of Bangladeshi immigrants is being mixed up with
secularism. It is certainly true that in today's era of states in the world,
citizens from one state should not be allowed to migrate to other states to
turn as voters, and change demographies in order to vote. However, I think
this issue has been mishandled quite a bit. So, let me clarify my view on
this.

Most of these immigrants would be travelling to India, primarily on account
of improving their economic situation. I don't think they would be voters
who migrate to India only to vote and then go back to Bangladesh. Their
plight is made use of by possibly Indian politicians in order to change
demographics of constituencies and thereby win votes.

Since there are certain procedures to secure citizenship of India, based on
which you can get voting rights, it's certainly true that this is quite
wrong and illegal. However, that does not mean we as a state should not
strive to be responsible towards these citizens. While such immigrants
should not be granted right to vote unless they secure Indian citizenship, I
believe that since these immigrants come to India to better their economic
status, we too should strive to improve conditions of livelihood for them as
far as possible.

As far as secularism is concerned, I don't feel these issues are
inter-related.

3) I have no objections with a party like BJP saying that Congress only
plays politics for minority benefit, and hence we want Hindu votes to be
behind us.  But why organize riots for that, like post-Godhra? What is the
logic behind that? Moreover, are their concerns based on reason? When the
Sachar Committee report concludes that Muslims are poor even after 50 years
of Congress rule, then how have Muslims benefited from the Congress rule?
And how is then the BJP's allegation tenable?

My second allegation comes from misusing religion. Religion can be used to
build societies and even bring together people across different faiths, or
even for improving the unity of India, as Gandhi showed. Instead, we have
situations where BJP fights for Hindu vote bank and Congress/some other
secular party fights for Muslim vote bank after creating riots, and ensuring
police don't administer the situation properly. So, religion is now being
used to destroy India, rather than to build it. Is this right?

4) I think you didn't get the importance of what I said Bipin jee. Suppose
you have been living in a house belonging to your family since say about
100-200 years ago, and you have been now asked to leave that because either
a temple/mosque existed on that place supposedly (not proven) and it was
destroyed later, only to result in your house being built, and you have a
family, would you leave it, without any compensation? And even if
compensation were given, would you leave it?

The fact is that today, Nandigram people didn't wish to leave their lands on
which they worked, in the name of industrialization, because it affected
their livelihood, and the way governments ensure rehabilitation of displaced
people is known to everybody. Similarly, Sardar Sarovar dam oustees have yet
not been rehabilitated properly. And most of these oustees have to be
rehabilitated by the Madhya Pradesh govt. (not Gujarat govt.), and yet this
has not been done properly, so much so, that the SC had issued an order to
do the very same thing.

When people attach value to the land on which they live because of their
livelihood, and don't want to leave it on account of industrialzation or
building dams, how are you expecting them to leave their land on account of
religion?

Secondly, as far as Babri Masjid is concerned, I agree that the Muslim elite
had a role to play in ensuring that the Masjid was not given and thus
communalize the situation. But equally, it was the VHP's stubbornness in
only asking for the Masjid site as the place to build the Ram Mandir. After
all, Ram is of Ayodhya. Why not have his temple built anywhere in Ayodhya?
Why only the Masjid site? Is there any proof that Ram was born there? And
even if a temple was there which was destroyed, is it so big a compromise
that one would lose his head were he/she to shift the temple site?

Thirdly, I am not interested in this mandir-masjid imbroglio. After all,
there are much more important issues to look at. But these are questions I
have for the VHP and the Babri Masjid Action Committee which want to
communalize the situation in the name of this fight. And hence I use reason
to argue upon this.

As far as faith in Ram/Krishna is concerned, I have my faith in Ram and
Krishna as well. And I like the Gita. For me, it's an important piece of
literature which has its effects all across the Indian society. However,
that does not mean we misuse the name of Ram and Krishna, or misuse the
message of Gita, to direct 'anger of Hindus' against 'Muslims' for vote bank
purposes, superceding the question of development. And no Ram/Krishna/Gita
would approve killing of innocents, be it for whatever purpose. And unlike
you, I think Gita is a piece of when should war be conducted. The
Mahabharata as a whole stresses on peace; the Gita stresses on the times
when war is required unfortunately.

By the way, Paigamber and Christ are considered sons of God, not God
themselves. According to Islam, there is a distance between God and humans.
About Christianity, I don't know.

5) Sir, you have stated that people should be taken as guilty if they are
named by the police. I can't accept that simply because that way, the police
can frame anybody. Now the UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act,
Amendment) has been passed in Parliament, if I tomorrow protest on a simple
issue of increasing wages under NREGA, the police can arrest me and impose
an anti-terror case against me under this act. Then I would be declared a
terrorist, when I was none. Is that acceptable?

You may say, this is far-fetched. In the Hyderabad Mecca Masjid blasts case,
the investigative agencies had argued for 124 (not sure about exact number,
but around 120 or so) people arrested to be convicted. Not a single one of
them faced conviction, as they faced some very absurd charges. Infact, I
read somewhere that the judge had commented that the police should first go
and learn how to investigate cases before actually taking up such cases.
What a shame!! In one of the PUCL meetings in Chennai here, which I
attended, one man related his own harrowing experience, where his fathers'
taxi was said to have hidden a bomb inside it, and policemen spread the
rumour to arrest his father, and then he was made to pay a bribe, in order
to secure the release of both his father and taxi, and the case closed
without any knowledge of the media.

My point is that with today's police, it is very easy to frame cases against
people. And when our police doesn't have the capability to solve murder
cases like 'Aarushi Murder case', how can I believe it has the capability to
solve tough cases like those related to bomb blasts. Hence, Muslims can't be
accused of having actually undertaken all these blasts (Ahmedabad,
Bangalore, Guwahati etc.) until proven guilty. Similar goes the case of
Sadhvi Pragya as far as Malegaon blasts is concerned. There can be no double
standards on this.

As far as Afzal Guru is concerned, on the basis of the police reports
against him, the Delhi High Court and even the SC had stated that Delhi
police have investigated the matter in a very shoddy way. Moreover, it isn't
as if Afzal hasn't accepted that he hasn't done anything. However, the kind
of evidence on which he has been charged, is what the human right activists
have been against. Since, you would not believe me, I would like you to read
the following link (by Arundhati Roy. Now for one moment, forget that you
don't like her as her ideology is very different from that of yours. Read
the content, and then tell me what your questions are. At least for once,
read that with an open mind as well):

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20061030&fname=Cover+Story+(F)&sid=1

I hope all read this link, and then decide for themselves whether he should
be hanged or not. For me, I believe that let us re-investigate the case
within 5 months, and if he is found to be guilty, hang him on 13th December
2009. That would be the perfect day for him.

6) Any law, whether it should be introduced or not, should be determined by
all the constituents affected in the process. In the case of POTA, it should
include experts of law, experts from police and law & order dept, those from
the home ministry related to internal security, as well as human right
experts (because the act is said to infringe on human rights). They should
in totality decide whether the law is right or wrong.

My issue with POTA is that firstly, it doesn't stop suicide bombers from
carrying out bombings. Secondly, the low conviction rate when it was
implemented, meant that mostly innocents were framed under POTA, and the
proper criminals were caught rarely. Thirdly, from the media reports, it
comes out that it was misused, mainly against Muslims. And the low
conviction rate only proves this. Inspite of this, if police officials think
it stops terror acts, then they should provide ample proofs of the same. And
I agree with you on this, that ultimately all these experts should combine
together to decide whether we require such a special law on terror or not.

Anyways, most of the amendments introduced in POTA (or even its sections)
are already there in the IPC/CRPC. Then I don't understand what is the need
of a separate law.

7) Any root based development does not only mean sadak, bijli and
infrastructure. It means proper water supply, health and sanitation
facilities, proper education, and more importantly, the major issues of
'roti, kapda and makaan'. When all these mails came in that Gujarat was
worse on some of the major social indicators of development (like female
literacy, health programmes for women and children etc.), so much so that it
was being compared to poor nations of Africa, then how can we claim that the
development, even if it has taken place, is just and equal? As I said, any
government must be judged on the basis of whether it has allowed efficiency
and equity in the growth of the people.

Modi and the BJP govt. in Gujarat may have done very well when it comes to
efficiency, but in case of equity, they have failed to a certain extent. And
as for power and sadak, my issue is that when people are below the poverty
line, neither would they be receiving any power nor would they use vehicles
for which sadak is important.

Moreover, while some credit for efficiency can go to Modi and his govt, a
substantial portion of credit should go to Gujaratis as people for being
good entrepreuneurs. After all, if Modi is such a good CM, then let him go
and be the Bihar CM's post. That can tell us how good is he. To a certain
extent, your point also reflects this, when you say he speeded up
development. I appreciate that.

8) About the Narmada dam, the first problem I had with this issue is
regarding the rehabilitation of displaced people. Not for nothing does SC
periodically remind the MP govt of rehabilitating these people properly. Not
for nothing do these people come to Bhopal regularly and sit on dharna for
proper rehabilitation. After all, it's their own homes which are dealt with.


Sir, everybody has a name. And that name should be respected. How good would
it be if you were to be referred to derogatorily by your caste/religion? A
name gives a respect, and one can certainly give it for a woman who is elder
to us, even if in your view, she is doing a wrong thing.

Secondly, while I can agree that I don't have 2009 data, since you are
chiding me for this, I would kindly request you to give me the 2009 data (or
even 08) to prove me wrong. I would be very happy for this. After all, for
me the more important issue is whether this dam project is actually useful
for Gujarat or not. The observations made from 1993 to 2004 make you have
pity on me. Hence, I would like you to at least put the recent data to prove
that I am incorrect. After all, even I can correct my stand on this issue if
I were wrong. And I am willing to change my stand if found to be wrong.

And anything foreign may not be bad. After all even the VHP receives a lot
of funding from American Hindu societies and businesses, which it then uses
to distort history and get arms for violence. And Medha Patkar has not
practiced any violence either in Gujarat or Madhya Pradesh to the best of my
knowledge. As for the part that she has toyed with funds, that is something
which can be investigated, provided anyone launches a case against her on
that account.

9) Here again, I have been chided for producing data of older times (I don't
know 4 years is past, but again past is quite relative). See sir, the data
is based on the 61st National Sample Survey Scheme, which was conducted in
2004. My contention is that as of now, I didn't get any research based on
the sample surveys conducted after this. While I accept my fault that I am
using data based on 4 years ago, the fact is that you have not shown any
data of upto 2009 or 2008 to prove that I am wrong grossly. Since you
yourself say that things or policies of any govt, can start taking affect
only after 2.5/3 years, the UPA  govt would have shown its effect only after
2007, and even then as the CAG report goes, the NREGA implementation is only
about 14% or so. And even the World Bank had stated that about 80% of Indian
people earn less than $2 per day (this $2 is not in American dollar terms,
but in PPP or purchasing power parity terms) as per 2006 data.

My contention is that if you think I am wrong, I would like you to present
data from the recent years ahead of what I have presented, for those are the
data sets available to me, from which I made the assessment. And if your
theory of leakages in public funds is right, there is hardly any incentive
for me to believe that things can be very much different from what they were
3-4 years ago.

I have no regrets other than that. And even I would be glad if you could put
up such data as required.

10) I have no way to say that the subsidy Tatas got is justified or not.
What I wished to say there was that when business houses get double or
triple the subsidy bill incurred on food and agriculture, they should not be
cribbing about it. After all, the latter is a way of bringing about equity
in the system in a certain way (especially the populist schemes, if properly
implemented, actually ensure equity), whereas can't even ensure winning of
elections, though on a long term could bring about development and
prosperity if properly channeled.

11) Nationalism and Patriotism are different for me in one sense: patriotism
is love for the land because the land you love is the place related to your
culture, your way of life, your language, your religion, your values etc. In
other words, you connect to yourself through the land. On the other hand,
nationalism is just love for your land (even if none of these are same),
just because somebody tells me that this belongs to my state.

For example, a person living on the Tripura -Bangladesh border would be much
closer culturally to Bangladesh rather than New Delhi or Maharashtra. Even
then, the Tripura person has to believe that India belongs to him (or even
Maharashtra land belongs to him) because he is an Indian, and Bangladesh is
foreign to him. This is a googly for me. After all, what is closer
culturally, you can have more affinity only with that. Not with something
with which you don't share anything.

12) I am not a Communist, and neither do I own or run the CPI or any other
communist party. Hence, please do not refer by statements like ' your
communists' or other phrases like this.

13) I would have agreed to your point that 60% voting is a referendum.
However, when I heard news items that candidates were paid by intelligence
agencies to contest elections and get their supporters to vote (with the aim
of ensuring that the J & K elections could be termed successful), I was
stumped. And the biased way in which our army behaved during the Amarnath
protests (no killings by Army in Jammu but many killed in Kashmir) makes me
suspicious about the way they control these protests. (Thanks to Perveiz
Bukhari who is a member of this forum)

Hence, I would like to have a referendum. From your statement, it seems we
are confident that Kashmiris want to stay back in India. A referendum would
be an excellent way to confirm that. After all, if they do want to stay
back, I would be happy as it is a shot in the arm for our Indian democracy.
Why are we so afraid of it. It won't require much expense to have a
referendum, when compared to costs incurred for national elections.

14) You hit the nail on the head as far as the efficiency part is concerned.
Since private companies are very efficient in creating capital, let them do
so and hand over a part of their revenue as taxes to the government. Let the
government use these revenues in order to ensure that through schemes like
NREGA and other employment generation schemes in the urban sector, not only
the necessary infrastructure is created, but moreover, poor can also earn in
their villages, don't have to migrate to urban areas in search of
employment, and their livelihood improves. And certainly, here is where we
have to plug leakages.

The government would have to take over the role of ensuring equity in
development and growth, because the private model of development feeds on
efficiency only and hence they won't bother about equity or employment of
poor people. And populist schemes can be undertaken to help the poor people,
but ultimately the idea should to be to combine the two and ensure that
people earn well and pay for their buying so that ultimately they can live
with pride instead of just being dependent on the govt totally for food.

And dekhiye jee, what I said in the previous mail is that we need to look at
issues from micro based. That's something I like in Dreze. Here too, in our
mails, both of us have looked at issues only from macro angle. But that
can't help the situation.

I never meant to demean you or your view. But I thought we need to shift
from discussions on macro based figures to micro based realities of India,
for that can signal a different kind of situation in our country.

Thanks to Aashish for the last point which I have put up here. Aashish is
someone who is a member of this list, and a great person to discuss issues
with. Sometimes I wonder how skewed my outlook would have been if I hadn't
met him and discussed these issues with him.
My only issue with this is that I would like to experiment at sectors where
the govt can intervene. That would be interesting to see as well.

And for Pawan jee, you have not mentioned anywhere about Mallika jee. My
thoughts on that account were with respect to Bipin jee's mail, so please
don't get angry.

Bipin jee, you have your views with respect to Mallika jee, but I would say
that let us first look with open mind at the kind of prospects she brings to
her constituency, and then decide whether she is fine or not. That is how
reason demands of us. Just deriding someone for being secular, is wrong.
Secularism is a right virtue, provided it is properly practised.

Regards

Rakesh