Commentary/Varsha Bhosle
Hawks, doves, pinkos and… toilets
Thanks to a mention in Arena, I read Mr Ashwin Mahesh’s excellent musing on conservatism vs liberalism which I’d missed earlier. ’Course, he’s gently taken me to the cleaners, but we’ll get to that later. Thing is, Mr Mahesh asks the
same questions I’ve been asking myself these last four years; and most of the
conclusions he draws, I endorse. Moreover, I’m elated by the absence of
proselytization that afflicts the rest of us columnists. So now I’ll pose the
question which will make you hit the ceiling laughing: Am I a liberal or a
conservative? OK… OK… conservative. Nay, fundamentalist. You’ve chosen, for
sure. If you ask me, I’m just as easy with
pompous-arrogant-vulgar-neo-capitalist. What one frets over is whether one’s
rationale stays intact, goals remain defined and references hold true.
Am I a defense-conservative? So much so that in A Few Good Men, I was rooting for the villain/general played by Jack Nicholson. Nationalistic? I think
anybody who promotes the ceding of one square inch of frozen earth should be
lynched. Jingoistic? Absolutely; nuke ’em all (just kidding, OK?). But after
that, murkiness fogs my self-conception. For instance, vis-à-vis censorship,
I’m left of liberal – i e, no censorship is still too much. Then, with what
little I grasp of finance and economy, I’m all for Pizza Hut proliferation. Do
I visit temples, or consciously think of God and Virtue? Forget it. How about
Discipline? Gawd, flee from it! Worse, I get convulsions when the VHP even says
gou-mata.
In short, I’ll be the first person the RSS will boot out of its
character-building camp. OTOH, I’m already someone whom liberals and
secularists have disowned. Actually, it’s a blessed state for a writer to be
in: There’s no jhanjhat of toeing a line. Like, I’ve happily written a column
upholding M F Husain’s right to paint a nude Saraswati. But, hehehehehe… watch
my secular colleagues dodge the conversions issue…
Which begs the question: Why don’t I write about drinking water, primary
education, toilets, health care, etc? Simple. Because: a) there’s no point in
carping about souchaalays since not one of you will set out with Mr Clean in
hand; b) till there isn’t a radical change at the Centre, basic policies won’t
change – so I aim for the head; and, c) volunteers of the Swadhyaya group, VHP
and RSS have been and are busy setting up blood banks, schools and hospitals in
rural areas, building homes for tribals, providing boats to fishermen, aiding
the cyclone-affected, etc. The RSS has over 5,000 such projects going currently
– and I think it’s as good a job as any to hinder secularists from slinging mud
at them for their Hindutva. Like everybody else, I merely respond to events as
I see fit.
But I just must be lying, right? Here’s a report on Orissa from The Pioneer of
19 May: “The BJP seems to owe its popularity in the backward districts of the
state, mainly western Orissa, to the sustained social service drive launched in
the region by the RSS and its sister organisations. Most widespread among them
is the network of Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram which has popularised the concept of
one-teacher-one-school in the interior villages of backward districts where the
impact of government-sponsored schemes take a long time to be felt… In some
instances, these organisations have also motivated people to draw the
government’s attention to their problems in an organised manner… The programme
includes distribution of rice and milk powder, construction of tankis, wells
and roads, and supply of seeds and pesticides to the farmers.” Please note the
word “sustained.”
And what was the secular government doing? “Intelligence officials are keeping
a close watch on the voluntary services being rendered by the RSS and its
affiliates which have stepped up their drive in the wake of the drought.”
Right, it was keeping its eye on Hindutva, while secular, concerned columnists
were breast-beating over Hindutva’s insensitivity.
Then I wonder, if we’re talking about basic amenities, where do campaigns such
as those against the Shiv Sena fit in? Does it poison wells or bomb urinals? So
all right, let’s add “justice” to the urgent list. But, if battling for justice
means hounding Bal Thackeray for the cases dropped against him, then why don’t
we also investigate police inaction vis-à-vis the Christian missionaries’s thugs
who assaulted the poor Hindu woman and her nephew in Dharavi…? Which test
applies here?
Now let me digress to Mr Mahesh’s “single most important question”: Does KFC
pose a threat to Indian culture? Frankly, I don’t know; but if a fried leg of
chicken is about to crisp our culture, then we should forthwith abandon the
culture. However, I do know that the KFC isn’t being resisted on “cultural”
grounds. It’s plain old economics, with farmers and businessmen pitted against
multinationals. All of which I refuse to go into since it’s as fascinating to
me as are lavatories: There’s no rule which says that if I have a soapbox, I
must use it for others’ fixations.
Which naturally begs the question: What do I find crucial? Obviously,
everything that my liberal, secular colleagues do not. Thing is, no matter
which topic we may write on, sooner or later, we betray our biases. So, all of
us end up sounding like stuck records. For instance, I wonder, since when has
corruption become a negligible problem for India? If Mr L K Advani decides to
make corruption his plank, why must his rath-yatra be made to espouse toilets…?
I agree that I’m out of touch with current PC, but… Why not have Jyoti Basu,
Kesri & Co shed their mitthu mia vote-bank platform and embark on
commode-installing?
Take Rediff: Would you like to read eight columns whining about sandaas and
paani? Is the editor nuts to plant them there? No. Because he knows that you
want to know what’s on India’s mind apart from daily morning do’s, what the
various opinion trends are… and also because of that unsettling concept called
plurality of choice. But that’s not something easily grasped by the, er… Animal
Farm mind. If you’d have gone by the views of my pacifist colleagues, would you
have guessed why Dr Bhabani Sengupta had to resign? Right or wrong is not the
issue here – simply that there are other critical debates raging in India,
which can’t be rinsed down those crucial, nonexistent wc’s.
Actually, one is very worried about the danger from within, the threats from
right here in India: Take the bonded labourers in Bihar… yes, Secular Laloo
Prasad Yadav’s Janata-Dal-governed Bihar! You see, Maharashtra’s problems will
disappear the minute Mr Thackeray lands in jail for tormenting Muslims during
the riots. OTOH, we aren’t quite ready to file public interest litigations
against the Yadavs and Bhagats. Geddit? *This* is the biggest danger from
within: Forget external/internal security, even the welfare of people is
sacrificed at the altar of secularism. Why not divert Laloo’s millions into
sanitation? Hey, isn’t the onus on those who cheered in that administration?
For no matter how much “grassroots” one chants, the laathi must come from
above. And that’s why a clean government is the first requirement.
See? It isn’t easy to hide one’s bias. Take Mr Mahesh’s “liberals resorting to
the kind of exclusion that I’ve normally associated with conservative opinion”,
and, “conservatives may be biased, but they stand for something.” Well, my
right-wing pals and I don’t think we “exclude” or that exclusion should
“normally” be associated with us – we believe in Maanav-vaad, not
Manuvaad. But
then again, we know that the rest were never free of bias against us.
Now for Mr Mahesh’s Laundromat: “Talking about terrorism, territorial rights,
illegal immigration and ISI-funded activities in the same breath as roadside
namaaz is unforgivable. Roadside namaaz, whether or not it is a law and order problem, is an affair that pertains essentially to the rights of Indian
citizens and their religious habits. To equate that with Muslim-connected
problems which are mostly derived from non-Indian citizens not only sends the
wrong signal, it is downright mean. In grouping Muslim Indians with Pakistani
and Bangladeshi citizens, Ms Bhosle strays from the realm of finding solutions
to India’s problems, to subtly disguised minority-bashing, even if not
intentionally.”
Well, when both are citizens of the State, the dividing line between a
terrorist and a law-breaker is only the magnitude of the infraction. But I
suppose that since Islamic terrorism is a problem suffered and recognized by
the US, it is PC to group the Indian Muslim terrorist with “Muslim-connected
problems derived from non-Indian citizens.” Why is that forgivable? And,
encroaching on roads is “whether or not” a problem…? What’s it, different
strokes for different folks? The terrorist can turn around and rightly say that
Khilafat is his religious duty and that it’s within his rights to subvert the
government for pan-Islamisation. Therefore, where do the religious rights of a
Muslim Indian end, and a law and order problem begin? And, why must I make
leeway?
“Unforgivable” and “downright mean” this may be to you, Mr Mahesh – but it
ain’t “minority-bashing”. Nor has “subtly disguised” ever been an option for Ms
Bhosle. Roadside namaaz *is* a law and order problem, and mine was a statement of fact. What other signals you catch from the grouping, merely betrays your
own defensiveness. It’s easy to moan and groan about toilets and drinking water
– for that is safe. For it gains international PC points and press junkets
abroad. And it keeps the mirage of Indian security under wraps – while the
morale of the majority is flushed down those damn toilets.
Tell us what you think of this column
|