Information wars: Legacy vs new media

In July 2018, a UK parliamentary committee warned “that spread of fake news online threatens the future of democracy” (“Fake news threatens the future of UK: report”, Aljazeera, July, 29, 2018). In recent times there have been similar calls from several democratic nations including India. The object of the parliamentary committee enquiry was Facebook, and the “possible interference by foreign governments—including Russia in UK political campaigns via the platform”. The committee was specifically interested in determining whether Moscow had funded political advertisements during the 2016 Brexit referendum which resulted in the UK leaving the European Union. Much water has flown down the Thames, the Potomac—and the Yamuna since then! In January 2025, Mark Zuckerberg conceded that Facebook’s “Factcheckers have just been too politically biased.” (“Why did Mark Zuckerberg end Facebook and Instagram’s factchecking program?”, The Guardian, Jan 7, 2025) The Guardian could not resist a dig at Zuckerberg. It said his shifting to the right followed “the prevailing political winds blowing through the United States”. In the same month, Zuckerberg apologized to the Indian Information Technology minister for insinuating that the Indian government had lost power in the post-Covid era. (MetaIndia apologises for Mark Zuckerberg’s remarks on 2024 Indian elections, CNBC TV18, January 15, 2025).

In 2019 The Washington Post published an article entitled “Fake news is bad for democracy” (April 5). The visual that accompanied the article leaves no one in doubt as to the source of fake news. It shows a mobile home-screen with several chatting applications and WhatsApp specifically mentioned in its blurb. Arguing that “Unreliable information shapes voter choices—and election outcomes” the paper called for government regulation of the social media. 

In 2023 The Washington Post took on the microblogging platform, Twitter. It reported on February 16, 2023, “Elon Musk reinvents Twitter for the benefit of a power user: Himself”. Musk hit back: “Elon Musk Blasts The Washington Post: Your Article Is Fase” (The Street, February 17, 2023). On October 27, 2023, the Post published another article entitled “A year later, Musk’s X is tilting right. And sinking”. In the article (which was kept out of the paywall), the Post’s analysts saw a rise in the follower count of “conservative and right-wing influencers” while the “popular liberal and left-wing accounts” did not show the same pattern. On the same day, The New York Times commented, “Now rebranded as X, the site has experienced a surge in racist, antisemitic and other hateful speech.” A The ordinary reader is confused. Why are national mainstream newspapers (or legacy media) paranoid about new media platforms? The congruence of thought of the rivals makes it clear that it is as much an ideological war as a turf war.  

Facebook which debuted in 2004 and Twitter (X) in 2006 really opened up the floodgates for those who wanted to express themselves in long or short form respectively, on any topic under the sun. YouTube (2005) and WhatsApp (2009) were really disruptive technologies but it would be some time before they really skewed the information sharing game! It was the smartphone beginning with the launch of iPhone in 2007 that gave wings to social media platforms. 

The recent infusion of artificial intelligence applications (and their ability to create deepfakes) into the melee was like unleashing a Frankenstein monster that changed the social media landscape forever. We have seen how a cropped video posted on Twitter led to mob violence; driving a young woman politician to living life incognito; at least two murders, and mob calls for avenging alleged ‘blasphemy’. Earlier, replies to social media posts led to murder and mayhem in UP and Karnataka. The Indian general election results in 2024 were believed to have been skewed by AI generated deepfake videos circulated in populous state like UP and Maharashtra. The high decibel, jingoistic Republican political campaign in the 2024 American presidential election made expatriate Indians target of hate groups on social media.   

Does it mean that the legacy media is lilywhite in its conduct? A ‘national’ newspaper donning the mantle of a ‘whistleblower’ submitted cropped pdfs as evidence in the Supreme Court when the government’s Rafale aircraft deal was challenged in 2018. There were occasions when slanted headlines and deflecting visuals were used. For example, while reporting news of a cleric molesting a girl, the headline states “Tantric molests minor” and the visual is that of a Hindu priest irrespective of the creed of the alleged criminal. 

However, every misinformation (or disinformation) need not be because of ‘malice aforethought’. In their rush to meet deadlines and beat the competition, newspapers willy-nilly publish unverified reports. In his 2021 book “The Gray Lady Winked”, Ashley Rindsberg narrates how a frontpage report in the “The New York Times” could have given Hitler post-facto justification for his invasion of Poland, which was the spark that ignited the second world war. Rindsberg says his attention was drawn to a NYT report by a footnote in William Shirer’s classic The Rise and Fall of the Third Reigh (1962, p.595). The report was about an attack on the Gleiwitz radio station on the Germany-Poland border. It was a simulated attack to convince the world that Poland attacked Germany. Hitler’s own SS forces personnel donned Polish army uniforms to stage the attack and to make it look realistic, drugged inmates of concentration camps were left dying there to appear as ‘casualties’. Rindsberg observed “Rather than fitting the pattern to the facts, the Times too often gave in to the temptation to fit the facts to a preconceived pattern.” To be factual, the footnote Rindsberg referred to said “The New York Times and other newspapers reported it, as well as similar incidents, in their issues of September 1, 1939.” The objective of Hitler’s disinformation campaign was served when American newspapers bought into his narrative and gave it legitimacy!

‘Information-misinformation-disinformation wars’ is an unfolding story! The last word on the subject will be long in coming!   

An earlier version of the article was published in TheTimes of India Blogs 

Hinduism Spiritual in Content, Scientific in Approach, Universal in Appeal: Swami Vivekananda

At the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1893, Swamy Vivekananda bowed to the goddess Saraswati mentally, then began his speech with the salutation,

"Sisters and brothers of America!". To these words he got a standing ovation from a crowd of thousands, which lasted for two minutes. When silence was restored, he continued his address: "I thank you in the name of the most ancient order of monks in the world; I thank you in the name of the mother of religions; and I thank you in the name of millions and millions of Hindu people of all classes and sects."

Here is the transcript of the chat on the subject on Grok

Swamy Vivekananda’s speech may be summarized in this sentence: "Hinduism is a religion that is spiritual in content, scientific in approach and universal in appeal." According to you which is the best religion in the world? 

Swami Vivekananda’s statement highlights three key attributes he ascribes to Hinduism: spiritual depth, a scientific approach, and universal appeal. To address your question, let’s consider whether these qualities appear in other religions and then reflect on the notion of "greatness."

 

Buddhism, for instance, shares some parallels. Its spiritual content is evident in practices like meditation and the pursuit of enlightenment, which focus on inner transformation. A scientific approach could be argued through its emphasis on empirical observation of the mind and suffering, as seen in the Four Noble Truths—almost like a diagnostic framework for human experience. Its universal appeal is reflected in its adaptability across cultures, from India to East Asia and now the West, often without requiring belief in a deity. The Buddhist texts, like the Abhidharma, also analyze consciousness and phenomena in a systematic way that some liken to early psychology or philosophy of science.

 

Jainism offers another example. Spiritually, it emphasizes non-violence (ahimsa) and self-discipline to liberate the soul. Its scientific bent shows in its detailed cosmology and atomistic theories, such as the concept of anu (atoms) in Jain texts like the Tattvartha Sutra, which predate modern physics. Its universal appeal lies in its ethical framework, applicable beyond cultural or religious boundaries, though it remains less widespread than Hinduism or Buddhism.

 

Taoism, too, could fit. Its spiritual core is the Tao, an ineffable principle of harmony. Its scientific approach might be seen in its observations of nature’s cycles—yin and yang, the Five Elements—which influenced Chinese medicine and philosophy. Its universal appeal is in its simplicity and focus on balance, resonating across cultures, though it’s often more philosophical than overtly religious in practice.

 

As for Christianity or Islam, their spiritual content is undeniable—faith, salvation, submission to God. A scientific approach is less intrinsic, though historical figures like Al-Farabi or Aquinas integrated reason and observation into theology, and medieval Islamic scholars advanced astronomy and mathematics. Universal appeal? Both have spread globally, claiming transcendence over cultural limits, though often tied to specific doctrines less flexible than Hinduism’s pluralism.

 

No religion matches Hinduism’s exact blend—its Vedic and post-Vedic texts, like the Upanishads and Smritis, do weave spirituality with inquiries into cosmology, mathematics (e.g., Baudhayana’s Sulba Sutras approximating √2), and medicine (Ayurveda). But "greatest" is subjective. If greatness hinges on these three attributes alone, Hinduism stands out for its synthesis. Yet, other religions might claim supremacy through moral clarity, community, or historical impact. It’s a matter of what you value—Hinduism’s not uniquely "the greatest" unless you define greatness by Vivekananda’s yardstick. What’s your take on what makes a religion great? 

The following prompt was given to further refine the answer: 

For example, Hinduism does not have concepts like apostacy, blasphemy and heresy. In fact it has accommodated the views of the 'nāstik', who in Indian philosophical thought were not non-believers but those who did not accept the Veda-s as standard. Those who believed in the Veda-s as standard are known as the 'āstik'. Thus Hinduism (to use a commonly understood term for 'Sanātana Dharma') has three āstik streams Advaita, Dvaita and Viśiṣṭādvaita and six nāstik streams, Cārvāka, Jaina and Bauddha, counting its four denominations. No other religious thought is as accommodative as Hinduism. Considering these factors should it not be concluded that Hinduism fits into Swami Vivekananda's aphorism and can be termed the 'greatest' religion?

 The reply: 

You’re zeroing in on a compelling angle: Hinduism’s remarkable inclusivity, especially its accommodation of diverse philosophical streams, both āstik (Veda-accepting) and nāstik (Veda-rejecting). This flexibility does align tightly with Vivekananda’s triad—spiritual content, scientific approach, and universal appeal—and it’s worth unpacking how this sets Hinduism apart.

 

The absence of rigid concepts like apostasy, blasphemy, or heresy is striking. Unlike Abrahamic traditions, where deviation from doctrine can lead to excommunication or worse, Hinduism—or Sanātana Dharma—embraces a spectrum of thought. The āstik schools, like Advaita (non-dualism), Dvaita (dualism), and Viśiṣṭādvaita (qualified non-dualism), debate the nature of reality and the self, yet coexist under the Vedic umbrella. Meanwhile, the nāstik streams—Cārvāka (materialism), Jainism, and Buddhism (with its four denominations)—reject Vedic authority but aren’t cast out as heretical. They’re part of the broader conversation. Cārvāka’s skepticism, for instance, challenges metaphysical claims with a proto-scientific insistence on perception as proof, while Jainism and Buddhism offer their own spiritual and ethical systems. This isn’t just tolerance—it’s a structural openness baked into the tradition.

 

That openness feeds Vivekananda’s points. Spiritually, Hinduism spans the mystical introspection of the Upanishads to the devotional fervor of Bhakti. Scientifically, its texts explore logic (Nyaya), linguistics (Vyakarana), and even mathematics (the zero, decimal system), alongside the nāstik contributions like Jain cosmology. Universally, it absorbs and adapts—look at how it integrated tribal deities or influenced Southeast Asia without conquest. No other religion quite mirrors this. Buddhism comes close but often pivots to its own canon (Tripitaka). Christianity and Islam universalize through conversion, not philosophical pluralism. Taoism’s fluid, but it lacks the same breadth of systematized diversity.

 

Does this make Hinduism the "greatest"? If greatness means adaptability and intellectual hospitality, it’s a strong case. It’s a living laboratory of ideas, not a monolith. But greatness could also mean global reach (Christianity, Islam), ethical simplicity (Buddhism), or cultural endurance (Judaism). Hinduism’s inclusivity might be its crown, but whether that’s the ultimate measure depends on your lens. If Vivekananda’s aphorism is the metric—spiritual, scientific, universal—Hinduism fits like a glove. Do you think inclusivity alone seals the deal, or is there another yardstick you’d weigh? 

Swami Vivekananda’s Speech at the World Parliament of Religions (1893) – In this historic speech, Swami Vivekananda focused on the spiritual, universal, and scientific aspects of Hinduism, often describing it as a religion that is inclusive of all religions and founded in universal principles of spirituality. 

• Citation: Vivekananda, Swami. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Volume 1. Advaita Ashrama, 1998. 

The Science of Religion – Swami Vivekananda often discussed how religion and spirituality could be approached scientifically. He believed that spiritual experiences could be understood and studied with the same rigor and discipline as physical sciences. 

• Citation: Vivekananda, Swami. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Volume 3. Advaita Ashrama, 1998. 

Lectures and Discourses on Hinduism – Swami Vivekananda emphasized the universal appeal of Hinduism, stating that it transcends sectarian boundaries and is relevant to people of all cultures and beliefs. 

• Citation: Vivekananda, Swami. Lectures from Colombo to Almora. Advaita Ashrama, 1998.

Abolish Waqf Act

In March 1947, M K Gandhi met Viceroy Mountbatten and requested him to dismiss Jawaharlal Nehru as interim Prime Minister and appoint M A Jinnah as the Prime Minister. Further, Gandhi requested Mountbatten to allow Jinnah have an all-Muslim cabinet. This was a Gandhi who was at the end of his tether having failed in all his efforts—since his ill-advised ‘Khilafat’ movement which had nothing to with India—to cobble a contrived unity between the ‘two nations’ failed. Had he been successful, Hindus would not have been ruing their second-class citizen status now. They would have been second-class citizens! The demographics would have ensured that.  

It was not even necessary! Ever since independence illegal immigrants have been pouring into India from her porous eastern borders. According to some estimates, by the nineties, there were already twenty million illegal immigrants in West Bengal and the border districts of Assam. The net effect of allowing illegal immigrants into the country would certainly skew the demographic balance in less than a generation if the present trend continues. It is already evident in India's eastern border states. The ill effects of harbouring illegal immigrants are well known. Illegal immigration would alter the cultural and social landscape and dilute employment opportunities for the local population. A population with no roots in the soil and no loyalty to the local culture would have scant regard for law and order. It is a potentially rich source for crime.

It was not enough for the Congress party to divide the nation and give away large chunks on either side to the Muslims in 1947. In 2013 it signed sealed and delivered the rest of the nation to the Muslims as a gift of lebensraum in return for their votes. Thanks to the pandering for vote bank politics by self-serving politicians, large swathes of land are already passing into the hands of usurpers. 

A Note On The Map 

The map shows the India that we inherited at the time of partition; except the extra-territorial rights we had in southern Tibet. If we closely the observe the map, we can see that we not only shared a border with Afghanistan, but Tajikistan (then in the USSR) was only a few miles away from the frontier. This meant we were in close proximity to Central Asia.

In October 1947 Pakistan illegally occupied 72,935 sq km in Jammu and Kashmir. [Of the total of 2,22,236 sq km of Jammu and Kashmir state we are now in possession of only 1,06,566 sq km.] There was a brief war in October-November 1947. The Indian army was on the verge of recapturing the territory occupied by Pakistan. Surprisingly and inexplicably the Nehru government not only called for a unilateral ceasefire but against sage advice by its own Home Minister referred the matter to the UNO. Experts in strategic affairs believe that our pusillanimity in not wresting back the portion of Jammu and Kashmir illegally occupied by Pakistan in October 1947 led to the belief that India was a soft state and later invasions and illegal occupations.  

In 1955-57 China occupied 37,555 sq km of Aksai Chin in Ladakh, the eastern part of Jammu and Kashmir. In 1962 China invaded the Northeast Frontier Agency (NEFA), now renamed Arunachal Pradesh and occupied 38,000 sq km. 

................................................ 

The Chairperson, 

Joint Parliamentary Committee — Waqf Amendment Bill,

Sansad Bhavan,

NEW DELHI

Honourable Chairperson!

The Waqf Acts, originally passed in 1923, amended in 1954, 1995 and 2013 are not only iniquitous but directly contravene Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. You are of course aware that Art. 14 enunciates the concept of equality before law for all citizens of India that is Bharat 

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐰 𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚.

In essence it means that the State shall not discriminate between citizens on the grounds of caste, religion, race, sex or place of birth. However, despite public veneration and ritual celebration of Constitutional principles, the reverse has been practised by most political parties and alas, the State itself, since the dawn of independence. As an illustration, let me put in perspective the contrasts between the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Acts and the Waqf Acts. The ‘Secular’ State usurped complete control of Hindu religious institutions and their properties running into millions of acres of land and billions of rupees in collections from devotees. On the other hand, the Waqf Acts, over time leached the authority of the State in the affairs of Waqfs making them, with the latest amendments, supra-judicial bodies a la ‘a State within a State’!  

Tracing the history of the Waqf Acts P R Ramesh (“Waqf Act: A Legacy of Appeasement and Aggrandisement”, Open Magazine, August 16, 2024) wrote:

The Nehru government supposedly allowed the Muslim community to manage its insti­tutions, including the Waqf Boards, to impart confidence to the community. Seen in isolation, many continue to believe this myth. But it is a myth nonetheless. For if one examines a very different set of events—the constant illegal migration of Muslims from the then East Pakistan—a very different hue is cast on Nehruvian secularism. The reality is that the Nehru regime and its succes­sors continued to appease Muslims for political purposes. This included their approval of illegal migration into Assam where the very demography of the Brahmaputra Valley changed beyond recognition.

 

The story of the Waqf Boards, the steady gathering of judicial powers in the hands of the Muslim community with respect to Waqfs, and appeasement are thus not isolated issues: they were part and parcel of assiduously building a vote bank in a ‘secular’ republic at the cost of other communities that were deprived of similar rights and powers to manage their religious institutions. That this process was begun during the Nehru years makes the entire project insidious. By 2013, when the 1995 Act was amended in the dying days of the UPA-II regime, the process was complete. Today, any property belonging to any person or community can simply be declared a Waqf by a mere notification. The courts can come to your aid. But good luck with that. As liberals are so fond of saying, “The process is the punishment.”

 

In 2015, the NDA government launched a probe into an illegal act by the UPA government whereby it transferred 123 properties in Delhi to the Waqf Board just prior to losing power. Most of these properties were of high market value, including those in Connaught Place, Lodhi Road and Karol Bagh.

 

The Modi government started a dedicated online portal, Waqf Assets Management System of India (WAMSI) for computerisation, digitisation of records of Waqf properties, and their Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping. This was to prevent encroach­ments on these properties but also to prevent the illegal usurping of properties as Waqfs without the completion of statutory pro­cesses. The Waqf property details on WAMSI were entered by the respective State Waqf Boards (SWBs). Until December 2022, a total of 8,65,646 immovable properties and 3,53,850 GIS mapping of Waqf properties were entered on the WAMSI portal. [Italics added.] 

The Keshavananda Bharati case (aka the third fundamental rights case) has been celebrated in public discourse for what it was not originally about. The chimerical ‘basic structure doctrine’ which the judges were supposed to have conceptualized was a charade. If the judges were so concerned about the basic structure of the Indian Constitution, they would have certainly reviewed constant violations of Art. 14 since the 1950s. Even after the judgement was delivered in April 1973, governments trampled upon the sacrosanct ‘basic structure’ with gay abandon. While the 1976 amendment to the Preamble of the Constitution directly altered the basic structure of the Constitution, the Places of Worship Act, 1991 and the Right to Education Act, 2009 certainly violated the letter and spirit of Art. 14.    

The Keshavananda Bharati case was all about nationalizing the properties of Hindu religious institutions under Land Ceiling Acts. The confiscation of the Math's lands by the Kerala government was upheld by the Supreme Court. Clearly confiscation of lands of Hindu religious institutions under secular laws, while making special provisions for protecting lands of other religious bodies flies in the face of Articles 14, 19, 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution. Here are a few concerns raised by the appellants as cited in the judgement:

The case was filed by His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors. Vs. Respondent: State of Kerala and Anr. under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of his fundamental rights under Articles 25, 26, 14, 19 (1) (f) and 31 of the Constitution. … The respondents claim that Parliament can abrogate fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and expression, freedom to form associations or unions, and freedom of religion. They claim that democracy can even be replaced and one-party rule established. Indeed, short of repeal of the Constitution, any form of Government with no freedom to the citizens can be set up by Parliament by exercising its powers under Article 368. [Italics added.]

The strange irony is that the present opposition raised the same concerns in the run up to the elections to the eighteenth Lok Sabha, which the appellants raised fifty years ago. It was the present opposition that “defaced and defiled” the Constitution (in the words of the eminent Judge H R Khanna), when it was in power. 

The provisions of the Waqf Act raise issues related to property rights, administrative inefficiencies and potential misuse of the law. Further the impugned Act gives Waqf boards supra-judicial powers which flies against the letter and spirit of democratic principles and the Constitution itself. Hence the Act should be abolished forthwith. There are enough civil laws to protect land holding rights of citizens of all communities. 

The current Waqf act is illegal, and such acts do not exist anywhere in the world including Muslim majority countries. Also, Waqf act allowed waqf board to snatch land & property through coercion, deceit and violence, like mafioso. 

In light of the above, I urge the Joint Parliamentary Committee to consider the following recommendations:

1. Abolish of the Wakf Act: The Act should be repealed to ensure that all citizens are treated equally before the law, in consonance with the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution. 
2. Waqf act should be abolished forthwith and retrospectively from the date it was first introduced in 1923 as Mussalman Waqf Act and subsequent reintroduction in 1954 and amendment in 1995.
3. Any land/property acquired or structure erected under Waqf should be deemed illegal and returned to the rightful Hindu owner before or after 1923.
4. In case, rightful Hindu owner cannot be traced, the Central Govt should take the possession of the land, property and structure, under current Waqf boards. 
5. Strengthening Accountability: Any new legislation should incorporate strict guidelines and accountability mechanisms to prevent misuse and ensure transparency in the administration of properties. 

I do hope my suggestions will be considered by the JPC in the larger interest of our country, that is Bharat. 

Vande Mataram!

...................................................

Cover map courtesy: Vivek Dhankar In Singh, Priyanka. (2017). “Re-Positioning Pakistan Occupied Kashmir On India’s Policy Map—Geopolitical Drivers, Strategic Impact”. Institute For Defence Studies & Analysis, Monograph No. 62, October 2017.

Intellectual Integrity Vs Machiavellian Morality

Intellectuals of a society are its leading lights; not weathervanes!

In a speech delivered in Bristol in 1780, Edmund Burke told his constituents

“I did not obey your instructions: No. I conformed to the instructions of truth and nature, and maintained your interest, against your opinions, with a constancy that became me.”  

He was elected to the parliament from the city in 1774 and was seeking reelection. Bromwich, Burke’s biographer observed: 

“Like Shakespeare, Burke knew the glamour and influence of the Machiavellian morality, in politics and in smaller-scale, human wheeling and dealing.” 

Leadership literature has an unverified story that explains the seamy side of leadership of mass movements. During the days of the French revolution, so goes the story, a newspaperman was having a tête-à-tête with a leader of the revolution in a Paris café. As they were sipping coffee and chatting, a wildly howling mob screaming slogans stomped by. The newspaperman wondered what the procession was all about. On hearing this, the ‘leader’ shouted “Oh my God, I am supposed to the lead the procession” and ran out! 

Burke risked his electorate’s possible displeasure in choosing intellectual integrity. In a benign era in which the electorate was not corrupted by Machiavellian morality, his candour was appreciated! In a polity as fractured by caste and creed as India’s, with rare exceptions, politicians tend to choose Machiavellian morality over intellectual integrity. 

The biggest failure of ‘public intellectuals’ in India is their inability to forge national unity based on a society that does not think in terms of castes and creeds. In a 1954 judgement, the Supreme Court expressed its fervent hope that the Indian Constitution would bring about a 

“[…] new order … with its new allegiance springing from the same source for all, grounded on the same basis: the sovereign will of the peoples of India with no class, no caste, no race, no creed, no distinction, no reservation.” 

The Supreme Court, it appears, was carried away with its own rhetorical flourishes in pluralizing ‘people’, and the reinforcing qualifier at the end of the sentence. 

The phrase ‘public intellectual’ was coined by Russell Jacoby in his 1987 book, “The Last Intellectuals”. Absorbed as the Indians were in ‘divisive’ versus ‘integrative’ polemics, there has not been much debate on the role of ‘public intellectuals’ or rather the sad scarcity of balanced public intellectual discourse. The words ‘divisive’ and ‘integrative’ too have diametrically opposing connotations based on from which perspective they are looked at! Jacoby observed 

“[…] intellectuals, if noticed, are usually blessed or subsidized…and one consequence—at least—unnoticed and profoundly damaging: the impoverishment of public culture”.  

A scan of the articles on ‘public intellectuals’ in India leads one to believe there are public intellectuals only on one side of the ideological divide. For some strange reason, even the thought of ‘public intellectuals’ throws up unintelligible gobbledygook. Just look at this passage from an article on the subject in an Indian daily: 

“[…] public intellectuals in India need to challenge the traditional assumptions that have reinforced positivistic methodologies, apathetic scholarship and an increasing fascination with a calculative leadership”! 

Whatever did it mean! The picture that accompanied the article leaves no one in doubt about ‘the necessary and sufficient condition that should be satisfied to earn the label ‘public intellectual’. Indeed, intellectuals have to be blessed or subsidized to be noticed! A far more serious problem as Richard Posner observed is with ‘public intellectuals’ who “bend facts and law to fit their political preconceptions”.  

There are several issues over which ‘public intellectuals’ could have educated, enlightened and shaped public opinion. On the issue of forging unity of castes and creeds, making splintering a virtue as ‘unity in diversity’ appears a bit tenuous or worse disingenuous. It suits the politicians to reap electoral dividends by manipulating divisions, fueling dissensions, pitting one group against the other, or by incentivizing divisions, but why should ‘public intellectuals’ legitimize the political line with tortuous Op-Eds?  There are internal divisions in many countries but they do not go to town preening about diversity. They function as a united nation within and outside and not as a ‘united nations organization’! 

Or take the current craze of electoral sops. Politicians do not mind the long-term damage their promised sops are likely to do to the economy as long as they help them to win. When revenues plummeted during the Covid pandemic, a regional politician who made a fine art of governing his state through sops asked “Why doesn’t the Central government print more currency to meet the demand?” Consumed by the desire to perpetuate his rule he offered a sop for every conceivable section of society that can vote in bulk. As a result, the state is languishing without development or servicing of infrastructure projects. This is the same case in several states where politicians usurped power by offering sops. Their leaders now lament that they are not able to answer their publics on the lack of development. 

The Indian government must be commended for its fiscal prudence in not succumbing to the temptation of issuing paper money. On the other hand, the USA—whose nationals earned the maximum number of economics Nobels—put the idea into practice by printing an additional $3 trillion! The government hoped it would help borrowers by easing interest rates. It did for a while. Stock market indices zoomed. But the extra money supply could be helpful only if there is a corresponding increase in production. It was too late for the decision makers to realize that too much money chasing too few goods would result in high inflation in the long-term, consequent rise in interest rates (negating their original intention) and market volatility. In fact, following the infusion of paper money into circulation the United States saw the highest inflation rate in four decades. Does the American experience hold any lessons for the Indian politicians? Going by the vigour with which most Indian politicians are indulging in competitive populism they do not seem to be even aware of it.    

This article was first published in the Times Of India Blogs

The Formation of India’s First Government

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. … The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it [the battle ground], far above our poor power to add or detract. … It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us … that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” — Abraham Lincoln, “The Gettysburg Address”, November 19,1863.

For the masses of India, it was a long-awaited culmination for a hundred-year struggle. It should have been a “government of the people, by the people, for the people” that should have been formed. Instead, what was formed was a government of compromise or a series of compromises for power. As Munshi (1967:48) noted “In 1946-47, the Interim Government, formed at the Centre, of Congress and League representatives, was a ghastly failure.” He adds “[L]ooking back over the years … if the decision had been otherwise, the whole country would have been at the mercy of the Muslim League.” The bloodbath unleashed by the League on the ‘Direct Action Day’ on August 16, 1946, bear testimony to this.  

According to some analysts the INA trials of (Subhas Chandra Bose’s Indian National Army) which were held between November 1945 and May 1946 and the [Royal] Indian Naval Mutiny between February 18 and 25 1946 convinced the British that they could no longer hold on to power in India. The British ‘Cabinet Mission’ plan of June 1946 set a target date of June 1948 for what it called the ‘transfer of power’ to the Indian leadership. Appointed to execute the ‘plan’, Lord Mountbatten, however advanced the date to August 1947. His unseemly haste to score a personal achievement led to disastrous consequences, with about two million lives lost.  

As a first step for the ‘transfer’, the British formed an ‘Interim Government’, which was in fact, inclusion of a Cabinet of Indian leaders in the Viceroy’s Executive Council. A group of ministers headed by Jawaharlal Nehru [as Vice President of the Executive Council] was sworn in on September 2, 1946. Jawaharlal Nehru became the Vice President by virtue of his being the President of the Congress party. 

The ‘Constituent Assembly’ too was a British creation following the implementation of the ‘Cabinet Mission Plan’. However, the body was not constituted on the principle of universal adult franchise but indirectly elected from the provincial assemblies. Could a body constituted by the imperial power (which therefore it had the right to abolish it) has the moral authority to draft a ‘Constitution’ for governance of the liberated nation? Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (the Chairman of the Drafting Committee) acknowledged the moral dilemma and the weakness inherent in the Constituent Assembly to write the Constitution. (Deb, 1949: 1644-67)

Turning back to the formation of the ‘Interim Government’, by June 1946, when the ‘Cabinet Mission Plan’ was announced, it was clear that the president of the ‘Indian National Congress’ would be anointed the head of the government. Abul Kalam Azad who was the Congress president did not seek re-election (as he originally intended) but stood down in favour of Jawaharlal Nehru. (Azad, 1960:167). There were two contenders, one was Vallabhbhai Patel and the other J. B. Kriplani, who later became president in the same year. M. K. Gandhi made it clear that the president should be elected unanimously and favoured Jawaharlal Nehru. As he did on several earlier occasions (twice when Subhas Chandra Bose and once when Vallabhbhai Patel were the favoured candidates), he contrived to nullify the election and have ‘his man’ elected! Having headed the ‘Interim Government’, since September 1946, it was but natural for Jawaharlal Nehru to be ‘anointed’ the first prime minister of independent India in August 1947. He thus continued to be the unelected prime minister for another five years till the first general elections were held in 1952.

In the interim, between 1946 and 1952, the unelected ‘Constituent Assembly’ functioned as the parliament and carried out amendments to a ‘Constitution’ it wrote! The Constituent Assembly submitted the Constitution to the president on November 26, 1949 which was adopted on January 26, 1950. The first amendment was enacted on June 18, 1951, i.e., within eighteen months of its adoption! Curiously the very first amendment of the nascent democracy aimed at curbing freedom of speech and stalling judicial scrutiny of legislations.

References

Azad, Abul Kalam. (1960). “India Wins Freedom”. Longmans, Green & Co. London.

"Constituent Assembly Debates". Vol. IX, 17 September 1949.

Munshi, K. M., (1967). “Pilgrimage to Freedom”. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. Bombay.

Kashmiri Pandits: A Forsaken Minority

It has been a quarter of a century since the Kashmiri Pandits were uprooted from their home and hearth and cast about as refugees in their own homeland. Another anniversary of their exile passed us by in January this year. India’s left-liberal intelligentsia never tire of warning us against the dangers of majoritarianism. Strangely the Kashmiri Pandits were victims of majoritarianism and fundamentalism.

The tragedy and tribulations that befell this unfortunate community for the last twenty five years include some of the most heart-rending stories. Theirs is a story of humanitarian disaster of unprecedented magnitude since the Holocaust, but strangely, had gone unnoticed by the rest of the world and more importantly by their own countrymen here in India. As K. P. S. Gill, former police chief of Punjab put it,

“[...] one of the reasons for the apathy [of the rest of the world] could be the non-violent nature of the community itself.”

They have stoically suffered their fate without even a single retaliatory act of violence. Writing in the ‘South Asia Terrorism Portal’ (SATP) K. P. S. Gill said,

“[…] pogroms of a far lesser magnitude in other parts of the world have attracted international attention, censure and action in support of the victim communities, but this is an insidious campaign that has passed virtually unnoticed, and on which the world remains silent.”[1]

Our intellectuals and media crib and caw about the Israeli settlements in Gaza and West Bank, and the injustices done to Palestinians but not a whisper from them about the fate of the exiled Kashmiri Pandits. No group of prominent public figures petitioned on their behalf; no celebrity authors cried in their defence. Could one ask, ‘How many awards were returned?’ Jug Suraiya gives us an insight into how the ‘secular’ media treated the tragedy in Kashmir:

“By then Kashmir edits had become an exercise in somnography, or sleep-writing. They were written—or gave the appearance of being written—in a state of deep slumber, or even a coma. And they were read—if ever at all—by readers who were in an equally comatose state as a consequence of reading them. [...] In short, a Kashmir edit, any Kashmir edit, never said anything new. In fact, it never really said anything at all, really.”

What if half-a-million Kashmiri Hindus have had to abandon their home and hearth to become refugees in their homeland? What if they have had to undergo untold miseries in the refugee camps? What if thousands of security personnel have had to lay down their lives in the defence of the motherland? For his ‘exercises in somnography’, Jug Suraiya was confirmed as Op-Ed page editor of The Times of India![2]

They were once the elite of Kashmiri society. The community produced artistes and artisans, poets and musicians, doctors and lawyers of amazing wisdom. At the turn of the century there were about a million Kashmiri Hindus in the state of Jammu & Kashmir. At the time of independence the proportion of Hindus in the Kashmir Valley was 15% of the population. By 1991 it came down to less than 1%. According to a press release of the Kashmir ‘Pandit Sangharsh Samiti’ on April 7, 2010 99.14% Kashmiri Pandits were forced to migrate out of Kashmir.

The word ‘genocide’ has been worn out in popular usage during the last decade. It has been so freely bandied about in public discourse that it lost its original meaning. If ever there was a context for it to be justifiably applied, it was in the case of Kashmiri Pandits. ‘Genocide’ means, ‘the systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group’. This is what happened to the ethnic identity called the Kashmiri Pandits.

The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (of December 9, 1948) defined genocide as: “Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

‘The International Military Tribunal’ which investigated Nazi war crimes in 1945 defined crimes committed on a mass scale in Article 6 of its Charter. 

Art. 6a. CRIMES AGAINST PEACE are defined as ‘planning, preparation, initiation, or waging wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing.’ 

Art. 6b. WAR CRIMES are defined as ‘violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps or for any purpose, the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, the killing of hostages, the plunder of public or private property, the wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, and any devastation not justified by military necessity’. 

Art. 6c. CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY are defined as ‘murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated’.

The rise of Islamic militancy was the trigger for ethnic cleansing in Jammu and Kashmir. In a way the state too contributed to it by first releasing hard-core terrorists in the second half of 1989 and then abdicating its responsibility in preserving public order. Thus the state was guilty of genocide by omission if not commission. The terrorists, who were trained in Pakistan in the handling of weapons of destruction, were released against the advice of a three-member Advisory Committee headed by the Chief Justice of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court. The swap of five hard core terrorists, Hamid Sheikh, Sher Khan, Javed Ahmed Zargar, Mohd. Kalwal and Mohd Altaf Bhat on December 13, 1989 for the release of Rubaiya Sayed the daughter of the Union Home Minister Mufti Mohamed Sayed led to a demoralisation of the law and order machinery and the collapse of the state administration.

In the 1989-90 period an estimated 300,000 Pandits were forced to flee the Kashmir valley. A total number of 700,000 Kashmiri Hindus were estimated to be displaced between 1947 and 1990. Of these 300,000 have been living in refugee camps outside Jammu and another 100,000 in Delhi. According to the ‘Panun Kashmir Movement’ (PKM) an organisation of the exiled Pandits some 25,000 standalone houses belonging to the Pandits were burnt during the period. If the houses were situated in crowded localities where it was not possible to burn them they were simply occupied by others. Their properties were purchased by members of the majority community at throw away prices. Even their cremation grounds were not spared but encroached upon. PKM says the process of ethnic cleansing began in 1967 but gained momentum after 1989 when Pakistan sponsored militants arrived on the scene.

The torture inflicted on the Pandits took several forms: strangulation by using steel wires; lynching; branding with red hot irons; draining of blood; slicing; gouging of eyes before assassination; breaking of limbs; slaughter; hanging; dragging to death; dismemberment of body; drowning alive; burning alive; impaling.[3]

The destruction of Hindu temples which has been going on since the fourteenth century has gained momentum in the nineteen eighties. Between 1986 and 1992 (prior to December) 79 Hindu temples were destroyed. In the immediate aftermath of the Rama Janmabhumi-Babri Masjid demolition in December 1992, 81 more temples were destroyed.

The 1989 exodus followed the brutal killing of Tika Lal Taploo a noted lawyer and national executive member of the BJP and Justice N. K. Ganju of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court. In another incident Pandit Sarwanand Premi, an 80-year old poet and his son were kidnapped, tortured and killed. A Kashmiri Pandit nurse working in the Soura Medical College Hospital was gang-raped and beaten to death. In the days that followed warnings were sounded to the community over public address systems, either to flee or face death. The Farooq Abdullah government abdicated its responsibility and all but handed over the administration to the militants. Government offices ceased functioning, taxes were neither paid nor collected and the militants began running a parallel judicial system.

Life in the refugee camps has been physically and psychologically shattering for the unfortunate Pandits and may be described as sub-human. An entire family of 7-8 people had to share a small room. There are instances when three generations of a family were put up in one room, the room being partitioned by bed sheets. The combined effects of the undercurrent of terror, forced migration and sub-human living conditions made the community prone to a host of new diseases and syndromes. These include heat trauma, heart ailments, amoebic dysentery, tuberculosis, allergies, diabetes and sexual and reproductive disorders. Menopausal age in women dropped from 50-55 to 40-45 to 35-40. There was a steep drop in birth rates while mortality rates climbed. In one of the camps surveyed, which had 350 families, there were only 5 births between 1990 and 1995 as against 200 deaths. This is not all. The community became increasingly prone to a series of mental disorders ranging from depression, insomnia, anorexia, anxiety states, delusions, panic disorders, manias, phobias and schizophrenia. Women were the most affected.

Even more tragic than the suffering is the treatment meted out to the Pandits by the rest of the Indian polity and the central government. They became orphans of history, abandoned by their compatriots and condemned to live a life of deprivation and suffering. Governments have come gone, both at the state and the centre but nothing changed, not even during the six year BJP rule.

In 2004, Frank Pallone, a US Democratic Congressman expressed his surprise and shock that the new Indian administration did not mention the Pandits in its Kashmir policy. In his letter of August 23 to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Pallone urged him to “include the Pandits in any negotiations with Kashmiri constituents and in developing the future course of action in Jammu and Kashmir.” Manmohan Singh’s government sent a team of interlocutors to Kashmir last year but the Pandits did not seem to be on the radar of either the team or the government.

The Jews have a custom of greeting each other with ‘Next year in Jerusalem!’ at the end of Yom Kippur and Passover feasts. They kept up the tradition for nearly two thousand years—till the formation of Israel in 1948—even though many of the exiled Jews never set their eyes on the city nor had a hope in the world of ever doing so. Will the Pandits of Kashmir have to wait for 2000 years for a semblance of justice to be meted out to them?

---

[1] Gill, K. P. S. 2004. “The Kashmiri Pandits: An Ethnic Cleansing the World Forgot.” Accessible from http://goo.gl/jyql6

[2] Suraiya, Jug. (2011) JS & The Times of My Life—A Worm’s-eye View of Indian Journalism (2011). Tranquebar Press. Chennai. pp 307-9

[3] “Kashmir Documentation: Pandits in Exile” Panun Kashmir Movement. Jammu. p.18

...............................................

Excerpted from Twisting Facts To Suit Theories & Other Selections From Voxindica (2016). Authors Press. New Delhi. pp 386-392. An earlier version of the article was published in VOXINDICA on February, 3, 2012