Should I or shouldn't I...

Should I or shouldn’t I has been gnawing at my heart as emotions and feelings seem to overwhelm the  reality  bytes whirling through my mind. To be honest, I have been strongly advised not to incur the wrath of Modi and his Bhakts by putting down my honest fears and anxieties of Modi retuning to power. Yet I have taken courage to put down my genuine feelings of fear and anxiety if Modi (and Amit Shah) get a second innings. If we use cricket analogy, Modi’s party had aggregated a massive first innings score in 2014 and in the initial years after coming to power it drubbed the opposition inflicting  innings defeats in the state and bye- elections. The scorching pace and the deceptive spin of Modi were too much for the opposition to counter. But in the last year and a half, the underdogs have performed better, at times even registering a victory, though by no means an innings victory. Will this election of 2019 be another whitewash like that of 2014 or will the opposition have enough arsenal to  bowl out Modiparty and register a win at least on a thin margin?

This is election time - time to showcase the true functioning of our democracy.  A large number of people credit our voters with perspicacity and judgement in casting their votes. If anyone has the temerity to make a squeaky remark that they are not that intelligent but are easily swayed by promises and freebies, s/he will be trolled by the social media for uttering blasphemy against our hallowed voters. Finally when the results are announced, the winner chuckles with his/her tongue-in-cheek remark that people have wisely given their verdict while the loser puts on a brave face and says “we accept people’s verdict with humility” even when they know the verdict is not based on genuine assessment, but that it is a manufactured one. The party which is good at manufacturing wins the battle of the ballot. It is truly a dance of democracy where voters dance to the Pied Piper’s fantasied promises even when such promises are pre poll concoction and not for post poll implementation.

There is a perceptible difference between the elections of the last two decades and this election of 2019. In the last few elections, with Tamilnadu taking the lead, elections were decided on freebies and sops after the election dates were announced. The present is a post freebies election as all the sops have already been doled out in a frenzy during the last couple of months prior to the announcement of the  election dates.

Let us be fair and objective. This government has achieved a few commendable things, the best among them has been the swachch Bharat campaign that has brought awareness about clean environment. Electrification of villages, construction of roads, decisive military strikes etc are high on the government’s report card. But it is not a unique or a surprise achievement because every government carries forward what it has inherited from the earlier governments and adds its own punch. Politicians are known for their art of spinning so that they take credit for what had been achieved without crediting the earlier  government whose legacy they had taken farther.

The NDA II government under Modi has been a one man show( and at times a two men show). The last five years have been dutifully  referred to as Modi governance- and many terms were coined such as Modinomics, Modicare, Moditva, Modi doctrine to buttress the argument that Modi is an omniscient avatar who has the highest knowledge of economics, healthcare, religious punditry,  political and foreign diplomacy and what not…. The opposition has fallen into the trap set cleverly by Modi to assault him on all fronts and the more punches it gave, the more martyred Modi emerged. It has given him the whip hand as he thunders “Attack me, but don’t attack the nation”, “Modi hai to…,sab mumkin hai”, and in no time he has changed his chaiwala status to chowkidar status. If Modi is to be reelected, it must be for his cleverness to turn the tables on his accusers. He appealed to the voters during the last election that he was a humble chaiwala and today he appeals to them as a humble chowkidar and how the Lutyens have not accepted him because of his humble origin! He will never answer the opposition’s list of charges, keep maun vrath till such time he can come out with a martyr’s halo around him. I know I will be bullied by his Bhakts for writing the truth and that was where my hesitation… ‘should I’  or ‘shouldn’t I’ dilemma… started..

I do not want to go into the oft repeated criticisms against his policies of the last five years – demonetization and  divisive politics, swinging with the Chinese President who has stabbed India or inviting himself to the birthday celebrations of the ex PM of Pakistan, fudging the GDP and unemployment data and the Rafael deal.  Every party that is elected to govern comes out with its policies-right or wrong is for time to tell, but formulating a policy that is not necessarily right cannot be held against the ruling party. If people experience hardship they may vote the party out, if they experience benefits, they will vote back the party. I am not here to be critical as it is the right of the ruling party to execute  its policies in keeping with its ideology and its poll promises.

 No, the  one thing that causes me distress( and to many others like me) is how PM Modi  has  systematically demeaned the office of the Prime Minister by his abusive and vituperative attacks on earlier Congress Prime ministers-starting from visionary Pt.Nehru through feisty Indira and techno- savvy Rajeev Gandhi to the genial, highly educated scholar Dr. Manmohan Singh. In his single agenda to establish a “Congress Mukht  Bharat”, Modi showed that he would brook no opposition and this single phrase went  counter to the idea of democracy and by extension to the idea of India. How can democracy stay alive without an opposition- a question he never asked himself as he reiterated his sole agenda of destroying the Gandhis whom he referred to as Congress. His innumerable attacks personally on Sonia Gandhi with a hollow claim in 2014, that the government had incurred1880 crores on her treatment abroad-  and his encouragement of his bhakts to give Rahul Gandhi the humiliating soubriquet  ‘pappu’ have lowered the dignity of the Prime Minister’s chair.  Today his aficianodo Smriti Iran, comparing herself  with Priyanka mocks at the Gandhis saying”I do not have a land thief as my husband. …I do not have a bewakoof as my brother” especially when the case against Robert Vadra is still in the courts with no conclusive proof against him and Priyanka’s brother Rahul is the president of the National Congress. This is the level of political discourse that PM.Modi has set in motion.    

His systematic demolition of all institutions has wreaked an incalculable damage to the polity of the nation and this started with questioning the Nehru memorial at Teen Murti Bhavan.  Honouring Sardar Patel (who has been appropriated by him and his party because he hailed from Gujarat) with a 30 billion rupees statue is in order, but not the existing  Teen Murti Memorial for the First Prime Minister of India! The autonomy of all  the pillars of democracy starting with CBI, RBI ,CVC, EC,NSSO, Media, Universities has been compromised and many of them have been involved in one or other crisis.

Though he had mocked at the earlier PM, Dr.Manmohan Singh as Maunmohan Singh, he himself has largely remained silent over many disturbing issues such as lynching in the name of cow, willful repudiation of Supreme Court order and inciting  violence in Sabarimala ,  the travails and tragedy that common people suffered during demonetization, murder of a senior journalist Gouri Lankesh who questioned his policies  etc as though he is above all such trivialities and  petty things and left the answers to his arrogant minions. The single great damage done by PM has been not to restrain- on the contrary to encourage arrogance, haughtiness, contemptuous disdain and mocking sneer of the opposition in the vast army of his minions. There is no room left any more for civilized discourse, courtesy, politeness and cultured language and demeanour in our political debate. Any view that opposes him has been  dubbed as the voice of the anti national and even the patriotism of  Dr.Manmohan Singh, his predecessor in the PM’s chair, a man of great and unimpeachable integrity  was questioned. The dumbing down of media is on similar lines. The media’s spine has been broken to utter subordination.

Last but not the least is the chest thumping to say what has not been done in70 years, I have done it. The truth is all the projects he claims to have been expedited were pilot projects of the earlier governments. It is only they were given new nomenclature with a prefix PMJ(Prime minister Yojana) added to them. PM’s face beams through all the pages of all the dailies. His persona has been carefully built right from 2014 to the extent of citing the clairvoyant Nostrodamus’  prophecy that he was the prophesied star to be born in Asia to lift the nation up like an avatar purush. The Social media is full of Namo chants and abrasive, distasteful comments on the opposition leaders. Money speaks and BJP has a lion’s  share (95%)of the hideous Finance Bill (that  approved anonymous  donations to political parties)  and with that money it hires trollers and uses the  social media to blunt the opposition with mockery, abuse and lies. Violence in words is more lethal and long lasting than physical violence.

2019 results are a foregone conclusion. With aam janata not having either the exposure or the ability to sift the chaff from the grain, it is winning time for one who shouts loud, indulges in demagoguery and resorts to cheap drama on the political stage. People are fed on bombast, political chicanery and false data through various means.   The opposition cannot match the money or the media power at the command of the ruling party and indulges in pale imitation of BJP with an abysmal descent into  uncivilized speeches and behaviour. All one can hope for is that the educated class understands the damage done to the character and culture of the nation. All the talk about making India great (MIGA) and citing specially calibrated data on economic development cannot last when human development has taken a nosedive. Will the 2019 elections give us our national character of acceptance, accommodation, adjustment and adaptation- the key to our traditional concept of religious and cultural pluralism and integrative identity? We have to wait with anxiety till the last week of May to find the answer.

(A)Valentine’s Day

(A)Valentine’s Day

Amitabh Bachchan’s famous one liner about English that ‘English is a funny language’ cannot be bettered. Add “A” to a word and it becomes its antonym such as (a)alive,(a)base, (a)bate,(a)symmetry, ….So(a)valentine’s day for Pakistan becomes an antonym of love. It is a day of hatred and violence; it is terrorist’s day.

Valentine’s Day on February 14 is a day of celebration of love. 2019 marks the 1750^th martyrdom of Saint Valentine who was executed for refusing to convert from Christianity to Roman paganism as ordered by the Roman emperor Claudius in 269A.D. Before his execution he had restored sight to his jailer’s blind daughter and sent her a Valentine’s card, signing it as ‘Your Valentine’. The tradition of celebrating love on Valentine’s day has been in practice in England and Europe  and gradually spread to the other parts of the world except the hard core Islamic countries. Pakistan is one such country where its High Court has banned Valentine’s Day as it is not a part of the Muslim tradition and therefore un-Islamic.

It is inconceivably tragic that the Jihadist group Jaish e Mohammed, operating from Pakistan’s soil, spewing venom and hatred against India decided to make it a Terrorist Day. While large parts of the world dedicated the day to express and exchange love and affection for one another, Pakistani terrorist group planned and executed the killing of Indian para- military personnel and turned Valentine’s Day to a day of mourning. On Valentine’s Day India grieved for the forty soldiers who had lost their lives, but  more so for the cold blooded, underhand murder that had taken place, denying the soldiers the satisfaction of dying through heroic action on the battlefield. The frightening aspect of terrorism is that it kills not only innocent people, but it denies any kind of heroic challenge to its evil machinations.  These faceless terrorists, the modern ‘Aswattamas’ act in the most cowardly, heinous  and surreptitious manner as they do not have the face to fight a just and righteous war. We have no Lord Krishna in our midst who in the Mahabharata cursed Aswattama with terrible leprosy and to experience eternal suffering without death to relieve him for his heinous and cowardly act of killing the young sons of the Pandavas.  For us in India and Pakistan, from day one after the partition there has been no cessation of hatred and violence, anger and vengeful fury against one another. But the hysterical war cry hyped by the military and political leaders in Pakistan has no comparison with the fanatic violence unleashed by terrorist groups who have no understanding of Islamic religion and the Holy Quran. India which had all along prided herself as a secular country had lived true to Goethe’s aphorism: “Tolerance should only be a temporary attitude; it should lead to recognition”. India has given due recognition to all religions. But in the last few years it has veered towards intolerance giving a creeping sense of disquiet among those belonging to the minority religions.  The last seven decades have seen four wars between the two nations and huge spending on procuring fighter planes and manufacturing of deadly nuclear arsenal. India has also been a hapless witness to a large number of furtive and feline terrorist attacks that have killed a large number of innocent civilians. The present NDA government has had a greater share of such covert terrorist activities, though the target had been mainly the army and the military forces.

Attack engenders counter punch and the recent suicide bombing of forty CRPF soldiers in Pulwama similar to a similar deadly assault in 2016 on our armed forces in Uri had to be avenged. The immoral and dastardly act made our Air Forces fly into action. One does not have to look for the number of terrorists killed in this attack .One does not have to count how many terrorist camps were destroyed. All that was the end result  was war hysteria and dog fight on the skies with shooting down of planes on either side. The capture of Indian pilot on Pakistan’s side, the village mob lynching him, his subsequent release by Pakistan as a prelude to peace initiative, the heroic welcome given to the relea -sed hero by India and our refusal to take the hand extended by Pakistan as a token of peace gesture have only added additional pages to the seven decade old history of Indo-Pak conflict. In a rational and objective writing Shoba De has quoted a few lines from the Pakistani poet Fakir Syed Aijazuddin which are a telling comment on the unresolvable tension between India and Pakistan. The poet in his poem We are at War writes:
We are at war, yet never really at war

We are at peace, never really at peace

What is this land in which we live-

Seeded by hate, by the sword tilled

scythe harvested by Death

Since neither of us can win

Let our unequal guests meet

Bury arms instead of limbs

And negotiate a mirror’d defeat

 How true are these words! Today Indian media hails it as Victory of India as the nation is in the muscular hands of PM Modi while the Pakistan media and the International media have praised the Pakistan PM for his gracious hand of friendship amidst the gravest provocation by India( though not mentioning who first provoked) . Both sides want to claim a win- win narrative for its military might, artful diplomacy and exemplary leadership of their respective Prime Ministers. But who is the real winner? Who is the loser? Who will have the courage to come out with truthful data? Who is going to be the author of future history that willprovide a win- win narrative for both the nations? Is there any possibility of 70 year old conflict getting resolved at any time?

Questions that have no answers today nor will they have in the future. Truth is the casualty in order to support the intransigence of the hawkish  leaders on both sides. We in India have the political compulsion to keep up war hype as it will (unfortunately a mistaken notion) show us to be a strong and muscular nation and the present government can have a fresh lease of life for five years especially after their chips were down in the last few weeks on all fronts. Pakistan continues to suffer from an inferiority complex with reference to India. It seems to be still suffering from nostalgic loss of those days when the Mughal empire was ruling India and feels hurt from a dented complex of being a neighbour of a new and strong India, free and democratic, respected for its economic development, social  fusion of tradition and modernity and for its cultural-cum-religious  pluralism. On its part, it knows that Pakistan is all that India is not-  narrow minded, insular, inward looking, full of religious bigotry. It is still looking for economic aid from Saudi Arabia, US, China and elsewhere to sustain its economy. It has abdicated moral and ethical leadership to the Jihadist forces who incite the people in the name of Islam about which their understanding is next to nothing. It depends therefore on its army, well equipped and well trained with  both nuclear arsenal and the most sophisticated weaponry. The parliamentary form of government in Pakistan cannot continue unless it has the backing of the military or put it in a sharper focus, the military will not allow the Pakistan PM and legislature to continue if the latter does not toe its hawkish line with reference to India. It is not the survival of the fittest, it is the very survival of Pakistan that has been brainwashed into believing that all the Kafirs of India have to be killed.

In an incisive article in the Indian express Prof.Bhanu Pratap Mehta has reiterated the concern of all in India(and quite a few in Pakistan like the poet mentioned above) that a solution that provides  a win win narrative for both sides  may never be forthcoming. The only time this became almost a reality was Musharaff-Manmohan Singh four step formula that had the following key points:  (1) military forces on both sides of the Line of Control (LoC) are kept to the minimum; (2) people of Jammu and Kashmir on either side of the LoC should be able to move freely from one side to the other; (3) to ensure self-governance for internal management in all areas on the same basis on both sides of the LoC, and (4)Jammu and Kashmir with the active encouragement of the governments of India and Pakistan, must work out policies to solve the problems of economic and social development of the region through prioritising socio-economic issues like tourism, travel, pilgrimages to shrines, trade, health, education and culture” (excerpted from Mr. Lambah’s “Discussion between India and Pakistan on Jammu and Kashmir — A Historical Perspective” delivered at the Institute of Kashmir Studies, University of Kashmir, Srinagar, May 13, 2014).

When we can never find answers as to who won and who lost, when we have allowed fundamentalists(both Hindu and Muslim) to incite us with war Jihad, when hawkish leaders and a pliable media are constantly hyping conflict between the two nations, when we ignore at our peril the shared culture and civilization that had its highs and lows during the Mughal rule, when there is appreciation as much for Bollywood stars as for the Pakistan film artists and singers what hopes can there be for peace? Those who talk peace will be branded as traitors. In Cricket, Hockey and in Squash both nations have produced great players. Instead of taking pride in our achievements as two South Asian nations, people are force fed with hatred, envy, violence by the leaders on both sides. It is not only difficult to be good, it is easy to be bad. Patriotism, nationalism and emotional jingoism have dried us of the idea of collective, integrative humanity. Let us not expect that another Mahatma will appear and steer us through ethical and moral path. We have to re discover the spark he had left behind,  the spark of non violence that can never be put out as long as humanity lives, and reignite it to bring sunshine and brightness from darkness of ignorance and inhumanity. Let us forget the bitterness and hatred fanned by the hawks and let us exchange greetings with each other through sports, music, dance, film, theatre and trade. Let us make this (A)Valentines day  to be truly a day of acculturation, civilization and humanization. It is in our collective effort that we can set an example to the rest of the world that peace is a reality and not a fantasy. To use our PM’s phrase for a better world, we can say Na Mumkin be Mumkin hai(the Impossible is now possible)

Pluralism, Identity Politics and Working of Democracy in India

Pluralism, Identity Politics and Working of Democracy in India

 Though I initially felt inadequate to deliver a talk on the three vital issues that are today  revisited in order to preserve and sustain our democracy  for the future, I took courage to give it a try. I am neither a Sociologist nor a Political Scientist who has the requisite scholarship to critique these concepts. I am a generalist who like any student of literature  read about them in order to understand literary works that reflect these concepts while exploring Man and his relationship to the society s/ he lives in.

The theme, apart from being topical and relevant discusses the three key issues that are in need of reformulation today as they represent the basic objectives enshrined in our Constitution such as Secularism, Pluralism, Fundamental Rights etc. It is a trifle disconcerting that these have not been fully realized even after 70 years of India becoming Republic. While the founding fathers of our Constitution envisaged the efflorescence of a new India as a harmonious and integrated nation with citizens’ shared ownership of the nation’s resources, the nation today has fallen way below the fulfillment of their expectations. The two days deliberations with a futuristic focus on the shape of Democracy in India  cannot remain a purely academic discussion,  but have to go beyond the four walls of this room to be  disseminated among the people to enable them to understand, appreciate and work towards re-establishing the idea of India as envisioned by the makers of our Constitution.

Let me attempt my own understanding of the three cardinal terms –Pluralism, Identity Politics and Democracy. All the three terms have to be strengthened as they have moved away from their original definition and need to be reworked through a restructuring of our present society. We need all the three concepts to work in unison to save and sustain democracy. Kindly note that I am here only to critique the three words in contemporary context, and do not have a political agenda to insinuate or indulge in party politics. To critique these concepts in the light of what we witness all around us today is not to start a blame game. This is because collectively we all have to share the failure of not living to the expectation of our democracy and collectively take responsibility to restore democracy in its true sense.

What is Pluralism? While the term straddles many disciplines like Sociology, Philosophy and Religion, it basically refers to the condition of being multiple. As a Sociological term, it refers to a condition in which numerous distinct ethnic, religious, or cultural groups are present and tolerated within a society which will prove beneficial to one and all. Similarly as a philosophical term it sums up the belief that no single explanatory system or view of reality can account for all the phenomena of life. It advocates the condition in which minority groups participate fully in the dominant society, yet maintain their cultural difference and thereby benefit the society. The best analogy for pluralism is the five finger phenomenon, where the five fingers are different, each endowed with a different capability and function. Together they hold up the palm. If one of the fingers is not functioning or fractured, it handicaps the person. Pluralism consists of widely divergent groups, each with its own unique potential and works within the compass of allotted work. We do not cut the finger or injure our palm if one of the fingers is incapacitated.

Another way to represent pluralism is to liken it to the chemical term ‘mixture’, that is distinct from its allied term ‘compound’. Mixture is a mix of two or more substances without a chemical bonding while compound is a homogenous substance made up of the bonding of two or more elements that does not lend itself to separation. A society comprises people of different ethnicities, different cultures, different religions and if they have a national bonding, the society becomes homogenous. At the same time if the different groups fiercely retain their individuality without any bonding with others, it may lead to friction and collapse of the society. The debate that rages today in our country is whether our nation should be like a homogenous compound or a heterogeneous mixture? The different groups in India are clashing with one another in the name of religion, class, caste and ethnicity, without the binding substance of nationalism. At the same time, if in the bargain, the different groups feel an erosion of their individual culture and identity, they will feel alienated and cannot believe in being a part of the nation. The current crisis in pluralism- is due to the inability of different groups to be both compound and mixture – to simultaneously retain their individuality and be a part of the national identity. The value of pluralism is that it is like a rainbow made of the seven Vibgyor colours where each colour has its place in the overall arc of all the spectral colours. If you understand the significance of the seven colours, you will appreciate the individual attributes of each colour and how when they blend they submerge themselves into a single white colour. Red signifies passion and vitality, orange represents creativity, yellow denotes wisdom and energy, green reflects balance and growth, blue depicts higher thinking that of spirituality and divinity, indigo depicts intuition while violet is a combination of inspiration and imagination. All these colours correspond to multiple human attributes that are not invested in one single individual but spread through in varying degrees among many. When they coalesce, all the distinct colours submerge into white that stands for faith and purity. Depriving people of their individual uniqueness and forcibly rolling all into one in the name of nationalism or patriotism is at the root of identity conflict. The sociological term Cultural Pluralism describes  a condition in which minority groups participate fully in the dominant society, yet maintain their cultural difference, a doctrine that benefits  society. The need of the hour is to celebrate diversity and transform it into pluralism. M.A. Kalam, anthropologist and Professor of Applied Social Sciences, Loyola Institute of Business Administration, Chennai, calls our attention to the need to reverse the current majoritarian and unitary tendencies.  He writes “Rewording the Preambular phrase from ‘We the People’ to 'We the Peoples...',  would recognize India's rich heritage of multiple thoughts and faiths coexisting in society, and reflect the nation as the 'salad bowl' that it is.” Mahatma Gandhi, born in Gujarat, worked in South Africa, educated in London, and returned to India to free the Nation from the British rule.  The most unique among his many  contributions was his bringing  together  different people from different regions, North, South, East and West– from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, from Arunachal Pradesh to Andaman and Nicobar islands, from Shillong to Mumbai- under the overarching umbrella of belonging to India. His classic statement “I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any.” (Mahatma Gandhi (1921), ‘English Learning’,                          Young India, 3(6).p.2) is a testament to Indian Pluralism. In short Pluralism can be best defined as one in many and many in one. It is akin to the ocean where the waves dance on its surface before flowing into it. The waves are a part of the ocean  whence they come and where they go into.

 Cultural pluralism seeks the preservation of individual culture within the National culture and leads us to the second term Identity Politics. The simple and composite definition of Identity politics as given in the Dictionary points to “a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances and moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.” The term Identity Politics comprises the two terms - identity and politics. Identity that is used in many ways such as family identity, national identity, genetic identity, class identity etc., is here used to denote shared distinctiveness of a group that gives it a specific individuality. Among the many definitions of the term politics, the one that relates well to identity politics is its reference to “internally conflicting interrelationships among people in a society.” Identity politics is often seen in a unsavoury light denoting the internal maneuvering among distinct groups to gain control over each other.  But the positive aspect of identity politics is its focus on the concerns of social groups identified mainly on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, class, caste and sexual orientation. The term identity politics came into being during the latter part of the 20th century, during the Civil Rights Era in the US.  During this time, identity politics was used by a minority group to form a coalition with members of the majority. The oppressed groups came together to articulate their experience of oppression by dominant groups with the sole aim to raise consciousness and awaken people to root out oppression  and restructure the existing society as  a liberal democracy with an emphasis on human rights.  But the criticism against Identity politics is the view that it promotes reactionary responses and brings divisiveness in society. Intellectual writers like Eric Hobsbawm extended Identity Politics to the idea of Nationalism and expressed concern that  national identities would result in jingoism and proliferation of wars. This was expressed by Rabindranath Tagore who favoured globalism to narrow parochialism in the name of hyped nationalism. In contemporary times,  in

                   India identity politics has brought caste and class conflict to the fore where marginalized groups demand entry into main stream, having been for centuries suppressed and denied any kind of identity and justice as  a  group. The clash between dominant groups and the marginalized groups is a source of worry as it has often resulted in  anger, violence and disruption of normalcy in society. Identity politics is today often used as a pejorative term as it causes divisiveness in society.

                     One has to understand, empathize and support marginalized groups that have suffered injustice and inhuman treatment for many centuries. But the other side is the concern that in this process  is the danger of weakening the state as a political entity  These are the two views that keeps playing out in the political arena.  I would like to cite the example of present day American politics that has a close parallel with identity politics of our country. A fortnight back, days after President Trump’s State of Union address, Stacey Abrams , the democratic leader has come out with a strong advocacy of Identity politics saying that it strengthens democracy. Speaking   on behalf of marginalized groups,  she says they should unite against the dominant groups. For her Identity politics is the most effective form of revolt, as it gives voice to the voiceless and enforces equity and justice to all sections of society. She has contradicted the view of Francis Fukuyama, the well known American political thinker and author of The End of History who is concerned about identity politics wherefore “marginalised groups have come to believe that their identities—whether national, religious, ethnic, sexual, gender, or otherwise—are not receiving adequate recognition.” Fukuyama warns that such grievances articulated by assorted and aggrieved small groups will result in America fragmenting “into segments based on ever-narrower identities, threatening the possibility of deliberation and collective action by society as a whole.”  Fukuyama and other critics of identity politics contend that the focus should be on broader categories such as economic policies and reforms to redress the grievances rather than on the substrates of inequality. Fukuyama and other scholars argue that by enumerating and celebrating distinctions, these groups provide the larger majority justified reasons for excluding them and thereby harden their opponents against any possible solution for redressal. Identity politics in India also has a similar contention between those who feel such activism will strengthen democratic rule by ensuring democratic justice and equity for all people and those who resent it in the larger context of nationalism.  When the groups most affected by these issues insist on acknowledgment of their intrinsic difference, it should not be viewed as divisive. But if this results in the destruction of property and vehicles, lives of people and affect the normalcy of everyday life, one has to look for a solution that factors in both nationalism and individualism.

So the question is, is there a third alternative? I go back to Fukuyama who speaks about the idea of a national identity which he specifies as “creedal national identity” that has the potential and the possibility to erase the  tension caused by identity politics.  What Fukuyama gets right here is the fact that human beings have a fundamental need to belong beyond their group/social identities, as they provide them a basis for esteem and regard that is larger than people’s individual selves. As Fukuyama suggests, identities efficiently satisfy the human need for respect and dignity. So the binary choice  between a national identity without social group identity and narrow group identity that conflicts with the larger interest of a national identity can be bridged by seeking creedal national identity . It is possible to leverage those identities to cultivate and deepen one’s sense of belonging to the nation- and that in our context developing a sense of  Indianness. Creedal national identity is not an empty vacuous phrase. It refers as Samuel Huntington says, to participation in National life, use the national language along with one’s mother tongue, absorb national culture and customs   and identify primarily with the nation rather than with  group identity. This, in essence is a commitment to inclusive identity  but not at the cost of exclusive cultural identity of one’s origin. Creedal identity helps people to develop universalism and individualism simultaneously. When Indian cricket team plays, we are happy if anyone batsman scores a century or any bowler takes the wickets. At that time we feel a sense of pride in India doing well and not grudge that the scoring has not been done by a Tamilian or a Delhiite or a Bengali or a Bombay player. One does not have to relinquish either of the two as it is like the analogy I had earlier given about the wave and the ocean. The waves emerge out of the ocean and after their ebb and fall they become one with the ocean. 

Is it a utopian solution? It sounds so, but not so if it is disseminated among the public. Today the intellectuals do these armchair discourses and feel satisfied at their intellectual grasp of things, but they have abandoned their responsibility to educate the people who have no access to such intellectualism. From the seminar room and our drawing rooms, these discourses have to reach the aam admi. Shared experiences without recourse to aggrieved and angry tone will increase empathy and harmony. Rather than dividing people, the act of reflecting on the marginalization of a social group—be it current or historical—can encourage societal cohesion. We have to be wary of nationalist populism that threatens liberal democracy. Nationalism cannot be right wing or left wing or centrist. Nationalism is like the top of the mountain that can be reached from any side so long as the goal in sight is the focus. Populist nationalism  and identity politics may gain votes in the short run, but in the long run, this legitimacy they get from winning the elections will undermine liberal democracy and also liberal institutions that include the media, the courts and bureaucracies. The damage to a liberal world order is at stake and the future of democracy appears shaken. What we need is not specific group identity or nationalist identity of one kind, but integrative identity to create a cohesive national democratic community. Fukuyama with his incisive understanding has given a possible solution. He says: “Liberal democracy cannot exist without a national identity that defines what citizens hold in common with one another. Given the de facto multiculturalism of contemporary democracies, that identity needs to be civic or creedal. That is, it needs to be based on liberal political ideas that are accessible to people of different cultural backgrounds rather than on fixed characteristics such as race, ethnicity, or religion.”. Let us caution our people about how privileged groups turn the nation xenophobic through populist nationalism and how the lachrymose splinter groups  endanger the cohesiveness of the nation.  We need to be more proactive, more participatory and more engaged in reaching out to the masses who are today driven by political leaders who have their eye on immediate gain in the elections.  This seminar with its splendid theme of three key issues will serve a national purpose if each one of the participants here will take the responsibility and the pledge  to educate the public on integrative identity- the concept of one in many and many in one.