What Ails The Arts In India I

WHAT AILS THE ARTS IN INDIA

Jawhar Sircar

 Inaugural Jamshed Bhabha Memorial Lecture

  National Centre for the Performing Arts,

Mumbai, August 21^st, 2019

           I thank this prestigious institution, the National Centre for the Performing Arts of Mumbai for giving me this unique honour of delivering the first Jamshed Bhabha Memorial Lecture. Had it not been for the great visionary, this very ground that houses our auditorium and the extraordinary Centre, would still be many feet under the sea. His perseverance and leadership is best exemplified in the amazing reconstruction of his dream theatre, after it was destroyed by fire. I salute both the Bhabha brothers and the Tata family for their interest and munificence — a remarkable quality that distinguishes the Parsee community of India. Succeeding generations of Indians would learn to appreciate their pioneering contribution more and more. I thank Mr Suntook, the worthy successor of Dr Jamshed Bhabha, for executing his vision, will and dream.

        I shall attempt to present just an overview of the world of the arts in India, for a century or more. This is when completely diverse strands were finally woven together into a grand tapestry — that we now call Indian culture. To understand the present, we need to look at the past. Interestingly, most of our arts of today were completely re-shaped from the early twentieth century, when our national consciousness was fully manifest. We can only imagine how difficult it was in 1947, to forge a nation from the 17 British Indian Provinces and 565 Princely States that existed then. Today, we can say that very term ‘India’ expresses the successful realisation of an impossible idea — of uniting so many languages and ethnicities into one astonishing reality called a nation.

         The subject of the arts is ,indeed, so wide and unmanageably big, that I have to seek your indulgence — because constraints of time constrict me from doing justice to important components of the arts. I will not dwell, for instance, on cinema and the folk traditions, or even the visual arts, that ails much less than others.

        The first ailment that I would draw your attention to is the absence of the historical temper in India. This led to the deliberate or inadvertent amnesia about our own past. Our very glorious ancient history, that is now drilled into us repeatedly, was, in fact, gifted to us by British imperial archeology. Even 70 years ago, we really had no idea that our ancient civilisation stretched back beyond the Vedic period, to the Indus Valley — some 5500 years ago. Though Mohenjodaro was discovered in 1921 and Harappa was excavated in 1946, our text books first mentioned the existence of this superior civilisation, only in the 1950s. The Ajanta caves were stumbled upon by accident in 1819, exactly 200 years ago, by a British captain who was chasing a deer. But, we had to wait till 1897, to get a glimpse of its unique art and sculpture, as all earlier attempts had been jinxed by accidents. John Griffiths, Principal of the JJ School of Arts, Bombay, presented the earliest visuals of Ajanta’s art.

       In fact, all the wondrous creations of Buddhism, from the 3^rd century B.C., had all been wiped off our memory — by default or by design. It is only in the second decade of the 19^th century, that we heard that the first major stupa was discovered, at Amaravati in Andhra.  The ancient town of Taxila was rediscovered in 1830. Frankly, had it not been for the untiring efforts of Alexander Cunningham, for half a century from the 1830s, we would never get to see the grand architecture of Buddhist India. The magnificent Buddhist stupas at Sarnath, Sanchi or even the Bodh Gaya temple were completely forgotten, until they were excavated by British archaeologists. Before James Prinsep deciphered the hitherto-forgotten Old Brahmi and Kharosthi scripts, on the Ashokan inscriptions in 1837, we did not have any conclusive evidence that an emperor called Ashoka had actually ruled India. The greatest Mauryan ruler, who spread to the world India’s major and everlasting soft power —Buddhism — was lost in amnesia.

      This ahistorical culture explains how extremely difficult it is for archaeologists, historians, museologists, antiquarians and museum lovers to bring their message to the masses. The consequences of such a world view, where myth is preferred over history, are becoming increasingly clear to us. The ahistorical tradition influences mass level consciousness so severely, that it is almost impossible to explain modern, evidence-driven, linear history. The prevailing concepts of ‘purity’ and ‘pollution’ and of ‘touch’ and ‘defilement’ meant that every object, animate or inanimate, had its own life span — after which it was  consigned to the waters or to flames. Thus, a dead person’s belongings, except perhaps jewellery and valuables, were treated as ‘impure’ and their preservation was not culturally permitted. Museums or collections could, obviously, not come up in India for centuries and millennia. Even now, they are still referred to as jadu-ghar or ajaib ghar, meaning literally the ‘house of wonders’ or the ‘strange house’.

          But then, we have also lived with the imported idea of museums for almost two centuries. We now have an enlightened class that values our past, and tries to ensure that our heritage is restored, preserved and protected. At the same time, we also have another mass, that just cannot make sense of the ruins or sculptures that they come across, as there are no proper explanatory boards at the sites. There is an even bigger number that simply could not care less for history or historical objects. Except those that qualify as World Heritage sites, most of our archeological sites appear to be rather dry, boring or even uncared for. I would like to draw your attention here, to a fact that we could explain to the Prime Minister, when he was also the Culture Minister — between May 2009 and January 2011. We calculated and told him that the Culture Ministry and its fifty plus major organisations, like the Archaeological Survey, the Central Museums, the National Akademis and many others — all put together — received just eleven paise out of every hundred rupees of the Central Budget. That is 0.11 percent. Out of this, we could give only 0.04 or 0.05 percent of the Central budget to the ASI. This is/was hardly enough to look after more than 3500 officially ‘Protected’ National Monuments of India. Most of them are, thus, left unguarded and uncared for.

        Some of us have been advocating that we need to revisit this large number and reduce it. We could drop, say, Nicholson’s grave in Delhi as it commemorates the man who killed hundreds of Indians after the 1857 Mutiny. We may also hand over to local communities, hundreds of protected sites, like so many Kos Minars (milestones), and other unimportant structures. They could look after these uncared-for places and we could instil a sense of pride and ownership of these monuments. As expected, even as the Secretary of that huge ministry, I could not pilot this scheme through — because de-listing of ‘National Monuments’ is a highly sensitive subject. It leads to a lot of heat in Parliament and in the media. The same hue and cry is stoked when the management of a ‘National Monument’ is privatised —even though this often leads to more visitor-friendly facilities. Incidentally, the Culture Ministry’s annual budget has gone down even further, over the years, as several bureaucrats were simply not interested in the subject. Others heaped precious funds on environment-damaging religious sessions on prohibited river beds, or in glorifying our ancient traditions. Consequently, archaeology, museums and the performing arts were deprived of funds.

       To upgrade our government museums, so that they are able to engage in meaningful conversations with the public, we took up a comprehensive action plan from 2009. We called it the ‘Fourteen Point Programme of Museum Reforms’. This continues to be the Government of India’s road map, even now, though regimes have changed so much. Some action points have worked, others need a booster dose now. Much depends on how much autonomy the Boards of the museums enjoy and how involved they are. But the real motivation has to come from the Director and his senior team. I have no hesitation in saying that the Chhatrapati Shivaji Museum is way ahead of all others, where initiative, leadership and innovations are concerned. In government museums, the selection of Directors passes through quasi-political processes. Quite often, we just do not have qualified and eligible museologists, and thus make do with other specialists. When the western world regularly appoints foreigners as the heads of their national museums, we cannot even broach this topic. Pandit Nehru had invited an American, Grace Morley, to set up the National Museum in Delhi, in the 1950s — but then, Nehru is suddenly so controversial. Another hard fact is that most central museums are forced to do with just half their sanctioned strength of curatorial and other staff. Then, their prolonged lack of promotion has resulted in demoralisation and demotivation. To add insult to injury, the Central government has recently ‘abolished’, just vanished, almost 100 posts in Delhi’s National Museum. State-run museums are not any better, but despite all the talk, very few from the private sector are prepared to walk — and set up museums.

       One factor that is inhibiting the growth of museums and collections in India is the retrograde Antiquities and Art Treasures Act of 1972. It was brought in to prevent the Nizam from selling his treasures abroad. It failed in this task, and the Central Government was ultimately compelled to purchase these from him. We paid 65 million dollars — about 450 crore rupees today — only to lock them up in a vault. Under this law, “antiquity” means “any coin, sculpture, painting, epigraph or other work of art or craftsmanship”, which obviously covers many of our heirlooms. The term “art treasure” is defined as “any human work of art.........that the Central Government notifies” as such. These sweeping provisions affect all of us, because most of us did not even know that we are supposed to queue up before the single Registering Officers that the ASI usually has in each state or ASI Circle. We have to fill up complicated forms and then answer so many probing questions. We may all, therefore, technically offenders under the Act and would hardly ever get permission to sell these objects, even to a fellow Indian, within India.  If you recall, the immediate impact of the Act was that in the 1970s and 1980s, Hindi movies just had to have a foreign smuggler in their plots. He was usually blonde haired; he spoke in broken Hindi and he brought an attache full of cash — to take out our idols and sculptures. Obviously, Bollywood films knew that smuggling had become a profitable racket, while the government struggled to appoint Registering and Licensing Officers — from a terribly understaffed Archaeological Survey.

      Many art lovers have been campaigning for a decade and more, to scrap or amend the provisions of this Act, that constrict the free sale and movement of our treasures — within our own country. If we succeed, it would open up the art and antiquities market and ex-aristocrats or collectors would finally get value for the countless items that they have kept hidden — for fear of a dreadful bureaucracy. The art economy would gain, bringing in considerable employment, and Indians would be able to savour their long lost antiquities. Only then, can we expect private museums be set up, with some encouraging tax breaks, of course. Private collectors and collections would go up substantially — bringing into the public domain many historical items.

      We started with how our deep rooted amnesia was cured by epoch-making historical discoveries, from the 1830s to the 1950s. This revised and ‘retro-fitted Indian history’ gave an unprecedented fillip to the nascent idea of nationalism. In the closing decades of the 19^th and the early decades of the 20^th century, the new English-educated middle class and enlightened regional leaders seized this rediscovered history of India, to strengthen the nationalist cause. Archeological finds were flaunted by Indians to counter the overt British racialism, that was so evident in these very decades. But we must also be alive to the pitfalls of exercises in self-glorification, as this narrative may lead to the over romanticisation of India’s history. We have seen recently, how many claim that ancient India was far, far ahead of the rest of the world, in every discipline. The obverse side of this coin insists that India fell, because foreign conquerors and their descendants destroyed our rich culture and legacy. 

       The unique pride that archeological discoveries instilled in us also provoked national and cultural leaders to demonstrate that India’s living cultural traditions were equally ancient. We quote Bharata Muni’s Natya Shastra all the time, to demonstrate the ancient roots of the performing arts, but, frankly, we are not even sure when it was composed. While the origin and development of the classical performing arts do go back  several centuries, we must remember that we have departed from traditions. After the 1930s and ‘40s, and after Independence, classical dance had practically to be re-invented — to suit the front-facing proscenium stage The stigma attached to these dances performed by the Devadasis, was broken only when dancers from the upper castes and classes dared to perform them. In December 1935, Rukmini Devi Arundale shocked her Tamil Brahman community in Madras — that  walked out of the hall in disgust — as soon as she got up on stage, to dance like a “low class Sadir”. Coming to the North, we find Kathak had to extricate itself from being branded as the sleazy dance of nautch girls —thanks to the efforts of pioneers like Kalkaprasad  Maharaj. This was also in the early part of the 20^th century and Birju Maharaj belongs to the third generation of this — so recent was the revival. Odishi is definitely ancient, but for centuries, the Mahari dancers and little boys, Gotipuas, had to gasp for survival. It was only in the late 1940s and the ‘50s, that four Gurus led by Kelucharan Mohapatra, could rescue it. In fact, Laxmipriya Mohapatra’s dance in Cuttack in 1948 is regarded as the first performance of classical Odishi, after its revival. In the last 70 years, these arts were appropriated by the upper classes, and cleansed or sanitised. But most traditional dancers have disappeared

     To be fair, however, not every great dance form was degraded in public esteem — as some had continued for centuries, on their own strong traditions, like those in many parts of the South. Sri Vallathol's campaign to extend Mohiniyattam from small pockets in Kerala, led to the establishment of Kala-mandalam and to the spread of this dance form. In the 1930s, an American lady, re-born as Ragini Devi, revived the skills of Kathakali through ingenious re-packaging. She performed before Indian audiences and also introduced the dance form in the West. Around the same time, Tagore patronised the obscure dance of tiny Manipur, and gave it nation-wide publicity and recognition.

         Dance recitals had to be restructured to suit a front-facing proscenium stage, modifying performing protocols that were meant for audiences seated all around — as in the dance halls of temples and palaces. Lack of audiences and patronage are said to be the biggest ailments in this arena. But even in the past, the Natya-mandapams or dance halls were usually quite small —  as after all, the term ‘classical’ means that it was restricted to connoisseurs. Some feel that the phenomenal expansion in the size of audiences today, and the democratisation of classical forms in post-Independence era, has led to the ‘poly-packing culture’. Modern audiences just do not have so much time. The success of the top artistes in the revived classical forms meant that the number of practitioners has gone up substantially. The  Ministry of Culture’s annual salary grants and production grants can hardly meet these expectations. However, despite losing the patronage of earlier maharajas and nawabs, it was possible to sustain the Guru Shishya tradition in the performing arts. I feel pained to hear that these government grants have now been reduced and delayed, for years. Well known artistes and dance troupes earn enough, but nobody really looks at the vast army of low-paid technicians, without whose support the performing arts would have collapsed. In post-Liberalisation India, philanthropists need to step in and imbibe from western capitalist societies, the great virtue of ‘giving back’.

          Before moving naturally to classical music, we will take a little detour through theatre. India does not have any single recognised national theatre form as such, traditional or modern. We have, however, thriving regional theatre traditions in many languages, like Bengali, Kannada, Malayali, Marathi and even Manipuri. Each one revolves around its own cultural ethos — like contemporary issues, political protest, existentialist problems, mythological tales, sheer laughter, regional historical memory, and so on. Any attempt to foist one language over others will be retrograde, and instead of thinking of cultural homogenisation, we must tackle the real ailments. These are finance and audiences that are moving away to the cinema and television. Many of us are aware of how so many dedicated directors, playwrights, actors and supporting staff work for a pittance — for the love of theatre. Yet, several regional theatre traditions need immediate help, before they die out.

        Finding theatrical spaces, at reasonable costs, is the biggest problem for most groups, as commercial auditoria are beyond their reach. This is where the Ministry of Culture and many State governments stepped in, right from 1961, the centenary year of Tagore’s birth. Numerous Rabindra theatres were set up all over India, that offered performing spaces — at affordable costs, in towns, big and small. By the 1980s, however, this scheme petered out, but we managed to revive it again in 2011, with good funding as it marked the 150^th birth anniversary of Rabindranath. Though India could get a second round of auditoria, that could cater to medium and larger audiences, what most experimental plays required were smaller or more intimate spaces. These ‘Studio Theatres’ or ‘Black Boxes’ facilitate close interaction between actors and the audience and the Ministry made a special scheme to assist this concept. But where we completely failed was to set up world-class multiplexes for the performing arts, like the Lincoln Center in Washington DC or the Getty Complex in Los Angeles. Mumbai is lucky to have such an NCPA, while Kolkata has a reasonable large but unplanned complex, in its Rabindra Sadan-Nandan Cinema precincts, where good cinema and vibrant performing arts jostle for space. It is sad to note that Delhi, the national capital of India, has nothing comparable. There is not one theatre hall with the size, acoustics or depth of the stage to host an international symphony or ballet group. We pleaded with everyone for years together, but then we had no Jamshed Bhabha with a big vision or his successor.

        Let us now move to classical Hindustani and Carnatic music where traditions run as deep, but be honest enough to admit that the real boost came mainly in the 18^th century. The major breakthrough in Hindustani classical was made only in the early decades of the 20^th century — when stalwarts like Paluskar and Bhatkhande tried to bring this traditional but elitist music closer to the common man. Organisers of music conferences or soirées in the 1930s and 1940s also played their role — to take it out of temples, palaces and baithaks. The real quantum leap took place, however, in 1952, when BV Keskar assumed charge as the first Information Minister of India, for one long decade. He was obsessed with the idea that the new nation needed only classical Indian music, Hindustani and Carnatic. He banned Hindi film music from All India Radio altogether, and may have shut down Western music as well, had Pandit Nehru not been around. On the plus side, he organised massive Akashvani Sangeet Sammelans in major cities. It was really Keskar who was instrumental in reaching classical music to the masses, over the State Radio.

       From the early part of the twentieth century, classical and semi classical Indian music had to adapt to new inventions, like the gramophone — which brought in drastic reduction in the time per song, until the LP arrived. Microphones were not allowed or required by connoisseurs in their baithaks, but it was mandated by both the radio and music conferences. Vocalists and musicians had now to be careful, as every drop would be magnified in the whole hall. The gramophone, and then the radio, sliced up performances into time-clocked  bits and pieces, and classical music was hardly its former self — when pandits and ustads had enthralled audiences through the night, well past dawn. But there was a persistent demand for bringing popular Hindi film music back on radio. As Keskar refused to oblige, lovers of popular film music turned to Radio Ceylon, where our own Ameen Sayani captivated millions, right from 1952 with ‘Binaca Geetmala’. Then Parliament took up this issue, and finally the government capitulated after five years. It began its own programme of Hindi film and popular music, on Akashvani, called Vividh Bharati. With the rapid expansion of the radio network connecting remote corners of India, like Jhumritalaiya, popular Hindi music gained the most. Then, during the three wars of 1962, 1965 and 1971, the entire nation turned to the radio, which also soared to unprecedented heights, by organising programmes like Jaimala where patriotic songs were broadcast, with film personalities.

        In the 1970s, the transistor replaced the old clumsy radio valves, and instantly, the radio became portable and cheaper. Within a decade, every roadside pan shop in India was blaring out Hindi film music. This brought colloquial Hindi to most Indian homes, even in the deep South, where opposition to the imposition of Hindi was most acute. The short point is that popular Hindi songs managed to unite all categories of Indians, who spoke different languages, especially the generations born after Independence — through a musical lingua franca. Many of us have objections to several ludicrous or garish film songs, but we can hardly deny that many old Hindi film songs have reached iconic status among the common people. Their unforgettable lyrics, haunting voices and exciting music are now part of modern India’s popular culture. We must also remember that while a limited number of Indians could actually pay to see a movie in a hall, the masses could always hear these film songs, as our public spaces reverberated with them. But we also need to address separately, whether this is destroying our linguistic plurality or public tastes.

         We must remember that culture is a powerful tool, that needs to be handled with care, or else it may stir emotions that run out of control. The state television, Doordarshan, also played a big role in bringing Indians together in a shared memory, especially in the last quarter of the 20^th century, when it had a monopoly. Academics have, however, started drawing a nexus between the two DD epic serials, that were so immensely popular, between 1987 and 1990, and the sudden upsurge of one community pride that followed. Without more serious work, we cannot be sure whether these serials actually led to the unprecedented aggression and riots of the 1990s. We bring this proposition only to highlight the inherent dangers that lurk in influencing the human mind. One must also compliment DD and AIR  for seriously catering to different sectoral, regional and ethnic demands — and for bringing the nation together, as also maintaining a cultural equilibrium. With the opening up of the radio and television market to the private sector, which was inevitable and necessary, market forces started dominating tastes — often catering to the lowest common denominator.

          Before I end with a few comments on western classical music in India, I must point to another major affliction, i.e., the indifference with which we treat our cultural archives. This stems from the same a-historical gene in us. We have photographs that go back to over one and a half centuries, and except piecemeal efforts, taken by private individuals and trusts, like the Alkazi Foundation, we have no coordinated or comprehensive effort to digitise and preserve them. The Archeological Survey’s earliest photographs of India in the second half of the 19^th century, were whisked away to the British Library in London. But frankly, we could not even take care of what the Empire left behind. The same fate awaited the radio recordings, that began only in the late 1940s, on a selective basis. Some of the silver coated and acetate discs of All India Radio have survived and have been digitised —as have some music recordings on wax cylinders, that the primitive gramophone used. But many precious spools of radio archives, containing masterpieces, have simply disappeared. Many were overwritten, to meet the shortage of tapes in the 1950s and 1960s. Film preservation is in a little better stage, with the setting up of the National Film Archives, and the later, the National Film Heritage Mission. But world class professionals feel that we are still miles behind. These are not like architecture, because once music or film records are destroyed, we can hardly rediscover or excavate them later on.

            It is a lasting tragedy, however, that the radio and domestic television have moved away so far from western music. For several decades after Independence, All India Radio popularised different genres of western music, from Jazz and Rock to Pop and Country Folk. Radio carried popular programmes of Western Classical as well. It was in the radio archives, that one came across Satyajit Ray’s talks on ‘What Beethoven Means to Me’ and ‘The Music I Live By’. But then, over the years, All India Radio has deliberately been cutting down Western Music programmes, and it is really too minuscule now. I remember the uphill task we faced when Doordarshan and our Radio recorded Zubin Mehta’s ‘Concert for Kashmir’ in September 2013. Had it not been for the public competitions of western music in Goa, Mumbai, Kolkata, etc, and the internet, our youth could hardly sustain their interest in this domain. Sadly, the western music schools or societies in Kolkata, Delhi, Bengaluru and Chennai have their limitations. The north-east has also its own form of western music, especially in the choral category, and this seems to have struck deep roots into the culture of states like Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland.

        I have bemoaned the fact that Delhi does not have a world class size stage in any large auditorium, with the state-of-the art acoustics and lighting equipment. But frankly, neither does any other city, except Mumbai, where audiences can savour the excellence of western classical music or ballet dances. We hear that while China has countless

western orchestras, but  India has only one full-fledged one, here in NCPA. Had it not been for the Symphony Orchestra of India, that fructified thanks to the inspiration of Jamshed Bhabha, and the untiring efforts of Mr Suntook, we would not have even this one. I take this occasion to congratulate Marat Bisengaliev, Zane Dalal and the whole team for their dedication. The present neglect and abandonment of western classical music in India is an ailment in our arts scene, that has to be addressed, if leaders are really serious in projecting India as a world power. It is the SOI that is keeping our flag fluttering.

          What is clear from the narrative is that the arts of every generation require not only creative and extremely talented persons to rejuvenate each tradition and appreciative audiences — but also patrons, who are rather rare. Most American billionaires of the last one and a half centuries are almost all forgotten, but the names of those who made handsome grants to culture and education —like Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Guggenheim and Getty — will never be forgotten. They remain immortalised through the institutions they helped to create. The names of the Tatas, Bhabhas and other families that contributed to education, science or the arts, are similarly engraved in public memory — and will continue to remain so, for generations to come. My forty one years in government service, both in the Central and State governments, have made one fact clear to me — that governments have severe limitations, in terms of funding, expertise and commitment to the arts. The saturation point has already been reached, and government is struggling to find several million crore rupees, required for its absolutely essential critical sectors. India has now to seriously decide on how the arts are to be sustained, so that finer instincts are honed in our countrymen. We need to combat the lure of colourful but mentally-debilitating forms of entertainment, to the extent possible. I would appeal to those, who are fortunate to have been endowed with abundance by the Almighty, to come forward. They need to lend a helping hand to institutions like the NCPA, that require as much support as possible, to carry on their mission and enrich humankind.

       I end, by complimenting this august audience for your patience, and my gracious hosts for giving me this great opportunity. My humble salutations to the memory of Jamshed Bhabha, who made a dream come true, in the arts scene of Mumbai, India and the world.

Love All Religions Was Mahatma Gandhi’s Mission

Love All Religions Was Mahatma Gandhi’s Mission

Jawhar Sircar

Tashkent, 27^th June 2019

     India, as you know, is a multi ethnic, multi lingual, multi religious country which is vast and populous. Of the 1 billion 300 million people in India today, some 170 million are Muslims, which is the second largest Muslim population in any country of the world. Though Muslims are in a minority, they have lived in peace with Hindus and other religions for centuries. In the 20^th century, India was under the control of the British for almost the whole of the first half. During this period, Indians rose in revolt against the British and intra-ethnic and intra-religious unity among Indians was essential if the Indian freedom struggle was to succeed. This is when the British began to “divide and rule” by playing upon the differences between Hindus and Muslims, so that a united opposition was made difficult. It succeeded partly as religion is a highly sensitive subject but, by and large, it failed because the leader of the Indian freedom struggle, Mahatma Gandhi was not only secular or equidistant from all religions, his religion was one of peace and brotherhood among all religions. We shall go over this subject briefly. 

        In his autobiography Gandhiji clarifies that without religion the idea of polity is quite unimaginable. “In fact religion should remain method and medium of our work but one should be very careful about the word ‘religion’. It doesn’t refer to the extremist ideologies; it means faith in a particular moral system. It is abstract but by that its importance can not be overlooked. It is miles away from the Hindu, Islam or Sikh religions. It is not to out root these religions but to find common minimum co relations between them, and make it a real religion.” He reiterates that this unique religion is different from the violent ones. He believed, however, that polity and religion can coexist if religion is a moral doctrine. His religion is sovereign and tolerative, away from superstitious’ and traitors. He doesn’t call it a religion which spreads hate, but one that fights on morality.

    By the 1920s, however, the British strategy to divide Hindus and Muslims had started working and bitterness spread among the two major communities. Gandhi made it the mission of his life to preach the essential oneness of both religions that believed in one Supreme Being. Gandhi’s faith was essentially in peace and co-existence and thus the need of the hour was to ensure that the imperial power should not split up a nation and a people who had lived together for a millennium and more. In 1948, NK Bose quoted Gandhi in his Selections From Gandhi when he explained “the aim of my mission of Fellowship should be to help a Hindu to become a better Hindu, a Mussalman to become a better Mussalman, and a Christian a better Christian.”

         Gandhi showed his commitment to upholding the cause of Indian Muslims when he strongly supported the Khilafat movement in 1919 to fight the designs of western imperial powers to destroy the Ottoman Caliphate after the First World War. Many Hindus and Muslims were surprised at this bonding that the movement brought about between the two communities and both jumped together on Gandhi’s call. The Sunnis were convinced that Mahatma Gandhi was not just a political leader but that he was first a secular national leader and also a genuine lover of all humanity. They actually requested Gandhi to lead their historic movement and thus began his long journey of agitating against the imperial powers with moral strength but by completely non-violent means. 

     Later, when Gandhi began his “Constructive Programme” for the Indian National Congress, he insisted that “equal respect for all religions the first step towards national reconstruction. He exhorted every member of the Congress party to cultivate "personal friendship with persons representing faiths other than his own”. (Collected Works, volume 75, p. 109). Gandhi began holding his dialogue between different religious groups as a significant dimension of the practice of religious pluralism in South Africa, where he had begun his struggle against colonial excesses, even before he came to India in 1915. Other than his essential policy of inter-faith dialogue, the other crucial element of his philosophy was the renunciation of violence in any form as a legitimate means of religious or political expression. (Collected Works, volume 16, p 312).

         Gandhi used the language and idiom of religion in explaining his political vision as the masses understood this approach — when he couched his moral mission in terms of religion. This endeared him to the people more than other leaders like Pandit Nehru who kept a safe distance from anything to do with religion. His moral courage was so strong that he faced the brutality of the British police, sticks and guns without ever retaliating with violence or hatred. Let us see the most extreme example of his courage and conviction. In 1947, when Punjab and Bengal, the two provinces that were artificially partitioned into India and Pakistan, riots broke out between the two major communities, as they were provocateurs on both sides. This is when Gandhi’s moral force proved to be stronger. While several battalions failed to stop violence in Punjab, Bengal remained largely peaceful because Mahatma Gandhi walked for miles among riotous mobs, pacifying them — as a single man non-violent army. 

           In fact, he paid the ultimate price of his love for Hindus and Muslims when he was killed by a misled fanatic who complained that he loved the Muslims more.

Trinamool Must Check Its Own Intolerance to Counter the Rise of BJP in Bengal

Trinamool Must Check Its Own Intolerance to Counter the Rise of BJP in Bengal

By Jawhar Sircar

(Published on 29.07.2019 in The Wire)

I have no love lost for any of the four major political parties that I have interacted with in Bengal in the last half-century. I joined the Indian Administrative Service in 1975 during the Emergency, and I have seen at close quarters how democracy was trampled by the Congress in Bengal – with the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, arbitrary arrests and detentions by the police and widespread clampdown on free speech and political rights.

I worked under the Left Front for 23 of its 34 years and witnessed firsthand the growth of a one-party state and how the opposition was ostracised and hounded at every level.

Our initial enthusiasm for the land reforms introduced by the Left for establishing socioeconomic justice dampened when we saw the devastating effects of their depredations at the village level. Every opponent was crushed by ruthless party cadres on motorbikes and the emerging mafias. Their extra-cosy relation with dubious businessmen was an open secret.

I was in Delhi when the tragedies at Nandigram and Singur happened and Mamata Banerjee swept the polls in 2011, but I kept very close track of my home state and its happenings. By the time I returned to Kolkata in 2016, the Trinamool Congress (TMC) had been in power for over five years and already a veritable terror. It had not only mastered the art of crushing all opposition from the Leftists, but had even bettered all in this game. Naturally, my conscience did not permit me to join their government in any advisory position in spite of hints and offers.

I say all this because I fear for my state and my country more now than ever before. Has Bengal really and decisively voted for communalism like the rest of India, except perhaps Kerala and Punjab? Has it finally succumbed to the lure of Hindutva and right-wing intimidation?

The rise of BJP

Many have been trying to understand what really happened in the Lok Sabha polls of April-May 2019, where the Bharatiya Janata Party secured 18 of the 42 Lok Sabha seats, going up from its 2014 performance of just two seats. This gave the TMC chills, as its seat count went down drastically from 34 to 22. Had it not managed to claw an additional 3.5% vote share this time (its earlier share was 40.3%), the BJP may have overtaken it. After all, the BJP caught up with the TMC’s vote share, going up from its 22.2% of 2014 to 40.2% this time around.

The Left was wiped out, losing both the seats it held in 2014. Its vote share went down to a miserable 6.3%. The Congress lost two of its earlier seats but managed to win two. 

However, before we declare that the BJP is surely going to drive Banerjee out in the next assembly polls two years from now – if not earlier – we need to understand that it is not a Hindu communal wave that is sweeping Bengal at present, as the yes-sir media is making it out to be. The BJP is winning not solely because of the Modi factor but because of some terrible mistakes that Banerjee has made.

In Bengal, the BJP is now, in fact, a conglomerate of desperate Leftists, Congress and even ex-Trinamool supporters who have regrouped under its protection, on the comfort of immunity that they figure they will get because of the party controlling the Central government and the para-military forces. TMC’s hitherto-unchallenged muscle power everywhere is facing an equally violent challenge – for the first time.

The sheer belligerence of the sword-wielding goons on motorbikes carrying saffron flags and fearsome blood-red tilaks on their forehead may gladden many, because finally, some group is giving the ruffians of the Trinamool Congress a run for their money. But we must also realise the long-term implications.

TMC versus BJP

How on earth can Banerjee blame the Congress of dynastic politics when she herself foists her own nephew as her successor and the most powerful man in Bengal? She is single and lives in humble circumstances, making the poor man’s hawai chappal her trademark, but if half the stories one hears about the other person are true, well, he sure lives it up.

Her government is certainly no less autocratic than Modi’s, so many voters prefer one over the other. At least the BJP puts up an attitude of zero tolerance to corruption. The TMC, however, has no such pretensions. The Saradha and Rose Valley scandals are just two glaring examples, and the timely exposé by some Machiavelli’s Narada channel sting operation revealed that the TMC leaders who were caught on camera took raw cash quite nonchalantly. Instead of taking action against them – many of them have been sent to jail thanks to the unrelenting pursuit of the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate – Mamata defended them tooth and nail. They win elections anyway, but the party’s image is bruised.

The BJP also manages its funding with more finesse and does not make a fetish of picking up petty lakhs from shady businessmen, because the real big fat cats come to it, laden with booty. It was recently reported that the BJP received nearly Rs 600 crore in six years from DLF, a controversial realty behemoth (derogatorily called a ‘promoter’ in Bengal), and a Bharti-backed trust of the Airtel-Mittals.

Other RTI-based reports indicate that nearly 95% of the highly opaque donations under the controversial electoral bonds scheme went to the BJP from 2016 onwards, and the remaining crumbs were thrown at all other parties put together. A fresh report by the Association for Democratic Reforms suggests that in the last two years, the BJP has received a maximum donation of Rs 915.6 crore, which forms 94% of the total donations to political parties in the last two financial years.

TMC’s high-handedness

One can have absolutely no objection to a democratic rightist government like Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s, but it is frightening to see how dangerous communal forces are actually being propelled to power in Bengal by the TMC’s high-handedness. In spite of all odds, my first submission is that there is still hope left for a tolerant, secular state. But tolerance must first come from the ruling party as, on the one hand, it professes this where religious communities are concerned and practices complete intolerance where democratic politics is concerned.

The manner in which the ruling party hounded every political worker from the opposition parties over the last eight years is quite unparalleled. We must remember that while the Congress’s excesses brought in the Left and the Left’s ‘terror’ brought in the TMC, all of them were – or are – steadfast believers in pluralism and secularism.

It is a different matter altogether that the cult of political violence never seems to leave this state, once bombs and pistols were taken up by nationalist radicals called the ‘Bengal Terrorists,’ and then against the British – more than a century ago. All said and done, none of the three secular parties has ever threatened to split this nation down the middle – with swords and trishuls – as the BJP-RSS combine does, and drive us to a permanent state of emergency and terror.

The four decades that my generation of administrators worked for the nation were those that began with Naga and Mizo insurgencies, which are quite fearsome to recall; through the upheavals when Assam and Punjab were determined to secede from India (we faced “Indian dogs, get out!” in both states), while Kashmir and Naxalite areas were always on the boil – but state repression was less.

We had to tackle many other threats to the Indian union, in our own different ways. Quite a few in my batch of IAS officers died in service, mainly from stress and suicide, while some paid the price with other breakdowns. This happens with other civil servants and more with policemen as well, especially those who follow the constitution and their conscience. It is now incumbent on us to hold India together.

How TMC is digging its own grave

The TMC has to realise it is digging its grave with its political intolerance. The same police that currently does its every bidding – including filing false cases against opponents – will be the first one to hound them if the government changes. Only an immediate relief from concocted police cases to its political opponents, including the BJP, would allow thousands of Left and Congress workers to return home.

Many political workers who left their own parties to take shelter under the BJP banner may even return to their natural political inclinations. Unless the secular parties reach some sort of understanding, the saffron wave looks unstoppable. And no one will heed Banerjee’s appeal to the non-BJP parties to come together unless she gives up her policy to exterminate all opposition, including parties wedded to secularism long before she arrived.

The chief minister must also stop going overboard in her attempt to appear pro-Muslim as this is being misunderstood by the majority Hindu community. The BJP pounces on her as being anti-Hindu and this impression is being systematically encouraged and amplified by a ruthless social media and whisper campaign. As the last election proved, and she is almost powerless against this new tsunami.

Many a time, her party and government have been accused of sheltering Muslim terrorists and extremists – which is unforgivable, if true. Some news items reported that even Bangladesh had asked India to investigate links between the Muslim radical Jamaat-e-Islami and the Trinamool Congress.

In the greater interest of Muslims and all others, she must stop being so tolerant of the ‘excesses’ and criminal activities of a handful of Muslims, who find no support in their own community and only give the TMC a bad name. This powerful charge against her is damaging the cause of secularism in Bengal and will ultimately harm the same Muslims she walks that extra mile to protect. She may also like to cut down on her optics of wearing a ‘hijab’ and plastering this visual everywhere, as no one is challenging her secularism. Only this will save the Muslims of Bengal from sure doom. Other visible measures like covering beef and pork meat that are openly on sale from public view may actually help the state retain its sanity.

TMC’s fragmented structure

Besides, the TMC is badly, and perhaps deliberately, fragmented into dangerous rival camps. At the level of an assembly constituency or the Panchayat Samiti (erstwhile block), the party has at least eight to ten rival leaders and camps that are at daggers drawn position. It is only the ‘high command’ that is holding the peace and it allocates to each warlord which section of voters’ support they must procure during different elections, or quit. 

Many feel that the chief reason for making a dreadful mockery of the panchayat elections last year was the TMC’s fear of losing even a single grassroots vote bank, because that would mean that money from schemes and muscle-power would move away. Banerjee has to find a way out of this and she appears to have taken the first step with her ‘cut money’ announcement. She has recently directed her supporters to return the ‘cut money’ that they squeezed from beneficiaries of the welfare schemes, which is, indeed a bold but desperate step.

But this may take care of only a part of the problem. Political observers say that the very political structure of the TMC depends on local satraps, many of who extort money from businessmen and even common citizens, while her party’s panchayat leaders defraud her much-publicised government schemes.

Unlike the Congress, the Trinamool (as its name ‘grassroots’ suggests) could build up grassroots support through local clubs and by procuring the backing of most organisers of community pujas – to challenge the all-powerful ‘local committees’ of the Left Front. This helped her finally remove the invincible Marxists who ruled Bengal for 34 long years.

She had to encourage some puja or the other every month so that these clubs and the various factions of her local base could raise ‘donations’ and please their voters with gala evenings of songs and feasting. Though she pampered these clubs with more than Rs 600 crores of doles and permitted their excesses, this solid support base may switch to the Hindu party if they enrich and empower them more. While she extended her single-party rule more and more every month, with assured grassroots support of the party and police.

When I go to villages, I am told of well-organised rackets of siphoning money from the NREGA scheme that ensures a hundred days’ employment to the poorest, through false or dubious ‘job cards’ of beneficiaries. Many spoke of corruption in possibly all anti-poverty schemes. The illegal mining of coal in western Bengal and sand from river beds everywhere is done in broad daylight. Officers look the other way, as they have no choice – no one wants to be a ‘martyr’ by standing up to the government. Many are wondering how to get out of this mess, as this habit of making money appears to be unstoppable.

The richest party in the history of India is adding fuel to the fire by throwing money all around in this do-or-die battle in Bengal. It is common knowledge that local businessmen and those from the ‘up-country states’ sponsor Ram-Hanuman pujas and will do anything for the Hindu cause. There is proof of more electoral bonds being sold in Kolkata than elsewhere, obviously to finance this operation in Bengal.

Even so, Banerjee has to give up her recent temptation to arouse Bengali nationalism to counter the BJP’ Hindu-Hindi image. Bengal is one of the very few states where parochial movements were never encouraged or popular, and the respect that its people have for plurality and secularism should remain unsullied and non-negotiable.

The BJP in Bengal is basically a conglomerate of all disgruntled political leaders, workers and local toughs of all shades who are against the TMC for their own reasons – rife with internal tensions and quarrels. The only way to tackle the terror and counter-terror that rocks the state every day is to realise what is the ‘primary contradiction’ and what is really secondary.

Only if democracy is restored in Bengal can all healthy secular parties fight communalism as a joint campaign. That campaign must be won, to save Bengal and India.

(Please Click Here to read the article on website of The Wire)