India Positive

by Chetan Bhagat

  This battle for opinion is in full swing in India today. Almost all the recent big controversies—award wapsi, tolerance/intolerance, national/anti-national and the recent India–Pakistan relationship shift—are instances of the Great Indian Opinion Wars.

  The privileged classes still have enormous clout. For instance, look at the furore the English news channels make, and the number of politicians who react to them. In fact, the viewership of the leading Hindi news channels can be a hundred times that of the English channels. Yet, the English media continues to control opinion. Similarly, Indian intellectuals who write in English are more influential. The international media reacts almost solely to them.

  Meanwhile, the battle continues. As aspirational India rises, it clamours to have its say, though it often does so in noisy, sentimental and even crass terms. These new opinion-makers may have merit in their thoughts, but they often lack rationality or eloquence of expression. They want Pakistanis out. They want respect for their traditions, like the beef-eating taboo. They want a strong leader who takes action against terrorism, regardless of consequences. They want nationalism.

  The aspirational set may have sense on their side. However, they can’t logically or persuasively explain their views as well as the privileged set can. They compensate by showing strength in numbers and shoving opinions down people’s throats. In other words, they often behave like a mob.

  Not long ago, many supported a ban on an Indian film that had cast a Pakistani actor. This happened at a time when India had sent peace missions to Pakistan. It’s an instance of how things could go wrong if the aspirational class replaces the privileged class.

  The privileged class is responsible for a lot of wrongs. They are disconnected from reality, monopolise opinion, and have led India into poverty with their left-leaning ideas, nepotism and disregard for true merit. However, this doesn’t mean we can replace them with the mob. It doesn’t mean we can disregard laws, logic, politeness, open-mindedness and individual liberties in the name of nationalism. The true Indian patriot is someone who loves this nation, and has respect for the law as well as the differences in opinion that may exist in a free country.

  Labelling people ‘anti-national’ for not agreeing with you is not going to help. Instead, demolish those who hold a different view with a polite but strong counter-argument. Patriotic emotion is a good thing, but logical thoughts are also necessary if you want a say in public opinion.

  Privileged classes and the new aspirational India need to learn to coexist with each other. The old elite need to understand the new reality where privilege no longer gives you instant entitlement or a monopoly over public opinion. Aspirational India has to learn to articulate and conduct itself well, and remain open-minded to others. In the Great Indian Opinion Wars, may the best opinion for India win, whichever side it comes from.

  Too Many Holy Cows: Let’s Just Stop Mixing Religion and Law

  The law of the land should resist the influence of religion-specific codes and directives

  Before I begin, let me confirm that I am a Hindu. I don’t eat beef. Now, I consider myself a fairly rational person. However, some of my reasons for not eating beef don’t have a scientific basis. My religion tells me that the cow must be revered. So I avoid cow meat in my diet. Yet, I wear leather shoes, watch cricket matches that use leather balls and drink cow’s milk taken against the animal’s consent. Many other Hindus do the same. I eat chicken and lamb burgers. But I won’t eat a beef burger. It may not exactly make sense. It’s ‘just one of those things’; the religious practices we adhere to out of faith in our rituals, traditions and culture.

  Hinduism is not the only religion with taboos and prohibitions. Islam prohibits the eating of pork. It prescribes that an animal be slaughtered in a certain manner if its meat is to be consumed by believers. Jews don’t eat dairy and meat products at the same time. Once again, all these practices belong to the category of ‘just one of those things’. There is no point in trying to find logical flaws in them. They exist since millions of people follow them, and they seem to add some positive value to their lives.

  In theocratic states, religion forms the basis of law. Right or wrong, logical or illogical, citizens of such states have to abide by these rules. Some of these might well be ‘just one of those things’. However, if you break them, you break the state’s law. And you could face criminal prosecution for it. Several Islamic states around the world are examples. In such countries, individuals enjoy less freedom, as religion can’t be questioned by rational thought. To many Indians, this would be a huge setback to the quality of their lives. Freedom is precious to us. It’s who we are.

  Thankfully, and quite remarkably, the people who drafted our Constitution designed India as a secular republic. Despite a majority Hindu population and a violent partition that led to the creation of a separate Islamic state, the architects of our nation had vision. They did not cave in and turn India into a Hindu state. The Indian Constitution has several provisions that protect and treat all religions as equal.

  However, the drafters of our Constitution also made a few provisions, perhaps for good reason, that slanted towards the beliefs of a particular religion. This included Article 48, a directive that asks states to protect cows from slaughter. Yes, ‘one of those things’ made it into the Constitution of a secular republic. So did a few other practices. The fact that different religions follow different civil codes meant that certain laws in our country were opposed to the principle of equality. This made it possible under law for a Muslim man to have four wives, for instance, or to divorce his wife with an oral proclamation.

  Why did the drafters of the Constitution make these exceptions? Perhaps, in creating a secular republic, a relatively alien idea then, they didn’t want to antagonise various religious groups and jeopardise the whole process. Hence, Indian secularism became not only about treating all religions equally but also about protecting existing religious practices. So far so good.

  The problem arose when the Indian Constitution contradicted itself. For its idea of the fundamental rights of its citizens entitles them to live in a free manner. Hence the restriction on beef, a common food item worldwide, is an issue. Similarly, Muslim marriage laws that favour men contradict the right to equality of Muslim women. These fissures remain in the Constitution. Politicians are quick to exploit the hostilities and differences already existing between communities for handles to drag religion into politics.

  If we really want to solve problems like the beef question, we need to discuss the broader issue. What direction should we move in as a nation? Should we work towards a common civil code and avoid the ‘one of those things’ laws that come from specific religions? Or should we keep some of these laws to avoid offending certain groups? I’d like the former to happen. So would many others. However, we also don’t want to force a modern code on traditional people so fast that they just reject it and rebel. In some countries, imposing laws against the will of the people has even led to civil wars. On the other hand, if we allow every ‘one of those things’ to creep into our law books, rationality and logic will vanish.

  Obviously, the Dadri incident was deplorable. Mob killings must be condemned and the law of the land upheld. Yet, according to the law in Uttar Pradesh (and many other states), you could be jailed for killing a cow or eating its meat. And the law comes from a directive of the Indian Constitution, which in turn comes from a Hindu religious practice. Even if Dadri hadn’t happened, does this law seem right?

  We could discuss abolishing the laws that prohibit cow slaughter. But there is a caveat. If we only remove this law and let all the laws that protect Islamic beliefs and practices remain, it will be grossly unfair. Let political parties and religious heads decide to remove all religion-specific laws from our law books. Let us educate people about why it is important to do so. What we see instead is cacophony, posturing and a lot of finger-pointing as political parties whip up controversies to secure their respective vote banks.r />
  The time has come to discuss the idea of a secular republic again, and revise the Constitution to reflect it. It is time we separated governance from ‘those things’. For history tells us nothing good is ever likely to come of mixing religion and law.

  @chetan_bhagat

  Instead of obsessing about linking Aadhar card with PAN card, can we link Dalits to non-Dalits, Muslims to Hindus and Indians to Indians first.

  1,792 replies/ 5,536 retweets/ 24,542 likes

  Creaming the People: Caste-based Reservations Need to Be Recast for the Sake of a More Just Society

  Income-based criteria should replace caste-based ones in our reservation system

  In India, we tend to stay away from certain issues in the name of political correctness. Sadly, those are often the ones that most need attention. One such contentious issue in our society is caste-based reservations. While this is often a dormant concern in people’s minds, it takes little provocation for the issue to flare up over and over again. The Patel community protests in Gujarat are an example. They attracted so many people that the state government had to ban internet and SMS services to contain the wildfire. And while the protests may have stopped spilling onto the streets for now, the issue remains in people’s hearts.

  You cannot ban the internet every time a protest breaks out. If at all the Patel agitation taught us a lesson, it is that the current reservation policy, although formulated with good intentions, needs a relook. This is exactly what RSS supremo Mohan Bhagwat suggested when he asked for a review of existing reservation policies with a view to making them fairer. Of course, his comment was seen as a political blunder, as it might help consolidate the anti-BJP Dalit vote in Bihar. Hence it is no surprise that nobody from the BJP or any other major political party actually concurred with Bhagwat’s view.

  However, we must factor in the long-term interest of the nation. We must have a reservation policy that best achieves its primary objective—to build a more just and equal society. We must also accept that reservation is a shortcut. It is a stopgap, an artificial (albeit quick) way to bring about social equality. It doesn’t create opportunity. It simply takes opportunity from someone who is deserving and hands it to another, purely on the basis of their caste affiliation at birth. In doing so, it divides society, fosters mediocrity and demotivates the talented. Hence, reservation is not victimless; it is achieved at a cost to society.

  Around 50 per cent of the seats in central government educational institutions as well as government job placements is reserved for Other Backward Castes (OBC), Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). Among OBCs, the concept of the creamy layer applies: families with an annual income of more than ₹6 lakh are not eligible for reservation benefits. This does not apply to SCs and STs.

  Historically, and in parts of India even to this day, people from backward castes have been discriminated against and denied opportunities. However, this sentence was true even in, say, 1965. Has nothing changed in the last fifty years? Haven’t the reservation policies, which were meant to create a fairer society, achieved their goal to a certain extent? Of course, things have changed.

  A National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes study reveals that SC candidates alone comprised only around 1 per cent of Class I (the more elite) government jobs in 1965. This share had increased to 10 per cent by 1995. The number is probably even higher today.

  This dramatic rise in numbers of people from backward communities in top government jobs shows that the reservation policy has been successful. However, do note that children of these high-grade SC/ST officers also get reservation benefits. This feudal upper class within the SC and ST categories will inherit the benefits of growing up in an affluent environment from their parents and still be eligible for a quota of seats or jobs like any other below-poverty-line SC/ST candidate.

  The cream in the creamy layer is only going to get thicker, denying benefits to the truly needy. The solution lies in linking reservation benefits to something more quantifiable as an indicator of denied opportunity: income. The annual income of a household is a pretty good indicator of whether a child in that house would have had the same opportunities and resources to study for an IIT or IAS entrance exam as a middle or upper class child. As a yardstick for reservation, it seems fair. And today, technology allows us to measure, track and monitor household income like never before.

  What is wonderful about basing the system on economic criteria is this: as per capita incomes rise, the pool of people eligible for reservation will automatically shrink. We may even see a day when we won’t need reservation at all.

  Imagine an India where your caste was irrelevant, and only your talent mattered. If you were born to a poor family, you would get the necessary support to develop your talent. That seems like a much fairer system than the one which prevails now, where some castes get reservation, and so-called upper castes kill themselves to fight for the leftover seats.

  Some argue that reservation is not only for economic upliftment but also works towards emancipating the social status of a caste. But wouldn’t it be a better solution to eliminate the caste system altogether? Don’t bring the issue into governance. Let society look down on people who enquire about someone else’s caste for any purpose at all. If it is illegal in our country to make disparaging comments about people from the Northeast or backward castes, why not make it illegal to talk about caste altogether?

  Most of the world operates very well without caste. Surnames are just names; they don’t have to place you in society. What use is the caste system today anyway? A lot has changed and the time has come to recast reservations, using fresh criteria and modern technology. If we don’t do it, the youth that this system steals opportunities from in the name of justice won’t forget it. You don’t create fairness by doing something unfair.

  Hypocritical and Impractical: With the Porn Ban, the Government Has Flaunted Its Control Freak Instincts

  Instead of policing the private lives of citizens with needless bans, the government should pay attention to basic reforms in key sectors

  First of all, let me say that it isn’t easy to take a stance against something like a ban on pornography. We are a hypocritical society, especially so in matters related to sex. Yet, it is safe to assume that most men and several women in our country consume pornography. However, few Indians can admit to this, leave alone come out publicly against the ban.

  However, the purpose of this article is not to defend pornography. Porn can, in some instances, have harmful effects. Overexposure to porn can desensitise and degrade one’s attitude to sex, harm one’s ability to form intimate relationships, encourage objectification of women and lead to motivation and self-confidence issues.

  That said, over one-fifth of the world’s internet traffic is porn. It is clearly a mass product consumed by billions across the globe, satisfying some basic and regular needs. And a majority of its consumers seem to be going about their lives in a fairly normal manner.

  Morally, legally, socially, politically and practically, a ban on porn makes no sense at all in a free society. The arguments that I am about to make on these five counts should be seen not as encouragement to watch porn, but to understand why we should avoid arbitrary state-mandated bans.

  Morally, we in India have a negative attitude towards sex or any form of sexual pleasure. In common Indian parlance, for instance, ‘bura kaam’ and ‘gandi baat’ (‘bad’ or ‘dirty’ thing) are popular euphemisms for sex. Hence, it is no surprise that proponents of the ban view anything related to porn with fear and disgust.

  The same attitude explains several Indian men’s attitude towards sex. In my experience, I have yet to meet an Indian girl who has not been leered at, brushed against, groped, molested or made uncomfortable while she was growing up. Brutal rapes might be rare, but no Indian woman is spared unwanted advances from Indian men. That is what needs to be banned.

  Sex isn’t bad. Non-consensual sex is. There is no ‘buri baat�
�� in two consenting adults having sex. But it is a ‘buri baat’ if a man brushes past a woman in a train or a bus to get a cheap thrill. Preventing people from watching a movie, in the privacy of their homes, about adults having consensual sex, however, won’t solve this problem. In fact, it is immoral to interfere in other people’s private lives.

  Legally speaking, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution lays emphasis on individual freedom. Telling people what not to watch seems to be a clear violation of this principle. Sure, some of our more archaic laws may be cited to support this, but do we have to? Do we have to impose a regressive, control-freak legal regime?

  The argument that porn is detrimental to social welfare is also specious. Sexual frustration amongst Indian men is enormous, partly because our so-called Indian culture denies natural instincts and calls for their repression. This could be one of the factors that leads to uncles molesting nieces, and women being groped in buses or trains. Porn may reduce some of that frustration and prevent repression from spilling out in our households and on our streets. Banning porn will increase frustration levels and make crimes against women worse. Do we really want more hidden cameras in trial rooms?

  Politically too, the ban is not a wise move. The BJP loves pleasing its most regressive and orthodox constituency which is also perhaps the most loyal. However, it is the new, more progressive generation that helped them come to power. It is likely that a good percentage of the younger BJP supporters on social media watch porn. To deny them this choice of recreation is only going to make the party unpopular.

  Finally, at a practical level, even if you want to, you cannot ban porn by blocking websites. I remember VHS days—porn was rampant even when the internet did not exist. You block some sites, and mirror sites pop up or porn gets sold at mobile repair shops in memory cards at every street corner. It’s idiotic to believe that a ban on porn can actually be implemented.