Aspect of Fundamentalism ( JUSTINPRINT) April 16 - 31 ,2013

Aspect of  Fundamentalism

Fundamentalism is an easily discernible phenomenon in belief-oriented religions like Christianity and Islam which have a simple and exclusive pattern to their faith. They generally insist that there is only One God, who has only one Son or final Prophet, and only one true scripture, which is literally God's word. They hold that belief in this One God and his chief representative brings salvation in an eternal heaven and disbelief causes condemnation to an eternal hell. Muslims daily chant "there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his (last) prophet". Most Christians, whether Catholic or Protestant, regard belief in Christ as one's personal savior as the only true way to salvation.

Fundamentalists are literalists in these traditions who hold rigidly to their beliefs and insist that since their religion alone is true the other religions should not be tolerated, particularly in the lands where members of their religion are in a majority. Fundamentalists generally hold to their religion's older social customs and refuse to integrate into the broader stream of modern society which recognizes freedom of religious belief.

Fundamentalism can usually be discriminated from orthodoxy in these traditions, but tends to overlap with it, particularly in the case of Islam. Most orthodox Christians and many orthodox Muslims tolerate those of other religious belief, though they may not agree with them, and are not involved in the militancy and social backwardness of fundamentalist group.

They usually have little trouble functioning in modern society, though they may keep to themselves in matters of religion and still regard that theirs is the only true religion. The strictly orthodox in these religions, however, may not be very different than the fundamentalists and often support them.

While the news media of the Western World, and of India itself, speaks of Hindu fundamentalism, no one appears to have really defined what it is. Is there a Hindu fundamentalism comparable to Islamic or Christian fundamentalism? Using such a term merely assumes that there is, but what is the evidence for it? Are there Hindu beliefs of the same order as the absolute beliefs of fundamentalists Christianity and Islam? It is questionable that, whatever problems might exist in Hinduism, whether fundamentalism like that found in Christianity or Islam can exist at all in its more open and diverse tradition which has many names and forms for God, many great teachers and Divine incarnations, many scares books, and a pursuit of self-realization that does not recognize the existence of any eternal heaven or hell. There is no monolithic faith called Hinduism with a set system of beliefs that all Hindus must follow which can be turned into such fundamentalism.

Fundamentalists groups insist that theirs is the only true God and that all other Gods or names for God are wrong. Islamic fundamentalists insist that the only God is Allah, even though these also refer to a Supreme Being and Ultimate Spiritual Reality such as Allah is supposed to be. Christian fundamentalists will not accept Allah or Brahman a names for God as they conceive Him to be.

Hindus with their many names and forms for God don't mind accepting the Christian name God or even Islamic Allah's referring to the same reality, though they may not use these names in the same strict or exclusive sense as Christians or Muslims. A belief in God is not even necessary to be a Hindu, as such non-theistic Hindu systems as Sankhya reveal.

Fundamentalists groups insist that theirs is the only true God and that all other Gods or names for God are wrong. Islamic fundamentalists insist that the only God is Allah, even though these also refer to a Supreme Being and Ultimate Spiritual Reality such as Allah is supposed to be.

Christian fundamentalists will not accept Allah or Brahman a names for God as they conceive Him to be. Hindus with their many names and forms for God don't mind accepting the Christian name God or even Islamic Allah s referring to the same reality, though they may not use these names in the same strict or exclusive sense as Christians or Muslims.

A belief in God is not even necessary to be a Hindu, as such non-theistic Hindu systems as Sankhya reveal. For those who speak of Hindu fundamentalism, we must ask the question: What One God do Hindu fundamentalists groups insist upon is the only true God and which Gods are they claiming are false except for Him? If Hindus are not insisting upon the sole reality of the One Hindu God can they be called fundamentalists like the Christians and Muslims?

Islamic fundamentalists consider that Islam is the only true religion, that no true new faith can be established after Islam and that with the advent of Islam all previous faiths, even if they were valid up to that time, became outdated. Christian fundamentalists hold that Christianity alone is true, and that Islam and Hinduism are religions of the devil. Even orthodox people in these traditions may hold these views.

Hindus are not of one faith only. They are divided into Shaivites (those who worship Shiva), Vaishnavas (those who worship Vishnu), Shaktas (those who worship the Goddess), Ganapatas (those who worship Ganesh), Smartas and a number of other groups which are constantly being revised relative to modern reachers around whom new movements may be founded (like the Swami Narayan movement, the Ramakrishna-Vivekananda groups or the followers of Sri Aurobindo).

Those called Hindu fundamentalists are similarly divided up into these different sets. What common belief can be found in all these groups which constitutes Hindu fundamentalism? What common Hindu fundamentalist platform do the different sets of Hinduism shares? is it a Shaivite, Vaishnava or other type fundamentalism? How do such diverse groups maintain their harmony and identity under the Hindu fundamentalist banner? While one can make a code of belief for Christian or Islamic fundamentalism, what code of belief applies to Hindu fundamentalism of all different sets?

No Hindus-including so called Hindu fundamentalists insist that there is only one true faith called Hinduism and that all other faith are false. Hinduism contains too much plurality to allow for that. Its tendency is not to coalesce into a fanatic into a fanatic unit like the fundamentalists of other religions, but to disperse into various diverse sets and fail to arrive at any common action, historically even one of self-defense against foreign invaders.

Fundamentalist groups insist upon belief in the literal truth of one book as the Word of God, which they base their behavior on. Muslim fundamentalists insist that the Koran is the Word of God and that all necessary knowledge is contained in it. Christian fundamentalists say the same thing of the Bible. Again even orthodox or ordinary Muslims and Christians often believe this.

Hindus have many holy books like the Vedas, Agamas, Bhagavad Gita, Ramayana and so on, which contain a great variety of teaching and many different points of view and no one of these books is required reading for all Hindus. Hindus generally respect the holy books of other religions as well. What single holy book do Hindu fundamentalists hold literally to be the word of God, which they base their behavior upon? Christian and Islamic fundamentalists flaunt their holy book and are ever quoting from it to justify their actions.

What Hindu Bible are the Hindu fundamentalists all crying, quoting and preaching from and finding justification in? Fundamentalist groups are often involved in conversion activity to get other people to adopt their beliefs. They frequently promote missionary efforts throughout the world to bring the entire world to their views. This again is true of ordinary or orthodox Muslims and Christians.

Fundamentalists are merely more vehement in their practices. What missionary activities are Hindu fundamentalists promoting throughout the world? What missions in other countries have Hindu fundamentalists set up to convert Christians, Muslims or those of order beliefs to the only true religion called Hinduism? What Hindus are motivated by a missionary spirit to discredit people of other religious beliefs in order to convert and save them?

Fundamentalist groups not only condemn those of other beliefs to an eternal hell, they may even make death threats against those who criticize their beliefs. The fatwa of the Ayatollah Khomeni against Salman Rushdie and of some others against Anwar Shaikh (a name not so well known but not untypical) are examples of this, which many Muslim groups throughput the world, perhaps the majority, have accepted.

What Hindu has ever condemned non-Hindus to an eternal hell, or issued declarations asking for the death of anyone for merely criticizing Hindu belief? Where have Hindus ever stated that it is punishable by death to criticize Krishna, Rama or any other great Hindu leader? There are certainly plenty of book, including many by Christians and Muslims, which portray Hinduism in a negative light.

How many of such books are Hindu fundamentalists trying to ban, and how many of their authors are they threatening? Fundamentalists are usually seeking to return to the social order and customers of some ideal religious era of a previous age. Fundamentalists often insist upon returning to some traditional law code like the Islamic Shariat or Biblical of justice and humanitarianism.

What law code are Hindu fundamentalists seeking to reestablish? Which Hindu groups are agitating for the return of the law code of the Manu Samhita, for example (which incidentally has a far more liberal and spiritual law code than the Shariat or the Bible)?

Fundamentalists are usually opposed to modern science. Many Christian and Islamic fundamentalists reject the theory of evolution and insist that the world was created by God some 6000 years age. Even in America Christian fundamentalists are typing to have the evolution theory taken out. What scientific theories are Hindu fundamentalists opposed to and trying to prevent being taught in schools today?

Fundamentalism creates various political parties limited to members of that religion only, which aim at setting up religions dictatorships. What exclusively Hindu religious party exists in India or elsewhere in the world, and what is its common Hindu fundamentalist platform? Who is asking for a Hindu state that forbids the practice of other religions, allows only Hindu religious centers to be built and requires a Hindu religious figures as the head o the country? This is what other fundamentalist groups are asking for in terms of their religions and what they have instituted in a number of countries that they have taken power, like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Fundamentalism is often involved with militancy and sometimes with terrorism. What Hindu minorities in the world are violently agitating for their separate state? What planes have Hindu fundamentalists hijacked, what hostages have they taken, what bombs have they planted? What terrorist activities are Hindu fundamentalists promoting throughout the world? What countries are stalking down Hindu fundamentalist terrorists who are plotting against them? The Ayatollah Khomeni is regarded in the Western World as a typical example of an Islamic fundamentalist militant leader.

Many Western people consider him to be a terrorist as well. What Hindu fundamentalist leader has a similar record? Saudi Arabia is usually regarded as a pious or orthodox Islamic country, and is usually not called fundamentalist even by the news media of India. No non-Islamic places of worship are allowed to be built there. No non-Islamic worship is allowed in public. American troops in the Gulf War had to hide their religious practices so as not to offend the Saudis.

Traditional Islamic law, including mutilation for various offences, is strictly enforced by a special religious police force. If we apply any standard definition of fundamentalism, Saudi Arabia is a super-fundamentalist country.

What Hindu community is insisting upon the same domination of one religious belief, law and social practices like that of Saudi Arabia? Which Hindus are more fundamentalist in their beliefs and practices than the Saudis, whom few are calling fundamentalists?

Hence we must ask: What are Hindus being accused as fundamentalists for doing? Is it belief in the unique superiority of their religion, the sole claim of their scripture as the Word of God, their savior or prophet as ultimate for all humanity, that those who believe in their religion go to an eternal heaven and those who don't go to an eternal hell, the need to convert the world to their beliefs? These views are found not only in Christian and Islamic fundamentalism but even among the orthodox .

There are no Hindu fundamentalist statements of such nature. Can we imagine any Hindu swearing that there is no God but Rama and Tulsidas is his only prophet, that the Ramayana is the only true scripture, that those who believe differently will be condemned by Rama to eternal damnation and those who criticize Tulsidas should be killed?

Hindus are called fundamentalists for wanting to retake a few of their old holy places, like Ayodhya, of the many thousands destroyed during centuries of foreign domination. Several Hindu groups are united around this cause. This, however, is an issue oriented movement, not the manifestation of a monolithic fundamentalism. It is a unification of diverse groups to achieve a common end, not the product of a uniform belief system.

Even the different groups involved have often been divided as to how to proceed and have not spoken with any single voice. Whether one considers the action to be right or wrong, it is not the assertion of any single or exclusive religious ideology.

If it is fundamentalism, what is the fundamentalist ideology, belief and practice behind it? Hindus, along of all people, have failed to take back their holy sites after the end of the colonial era. If they are fundamentalists for seeking to do so, then what should we call Pakistan or Bangladesh, who have destroyed many Hindu holy sites and were not simply taking back Islamic sites that the Hindus had previously usurped?

Hindus are called fundamentalists for organizing themselves politically. Yet members of all other religions have done this, while Hinduism is by all accounts the most disorganized of all religions. There are many Christian and Islamic parties throughout the world, and in all countries where these religions are in a majority they make sure to exert whatever political influence they can.

Why shouldn't Hindus have a political voice even in India? The Muslims in India have their own Muslim party and no can id calling them fundamentalists for organizing themselves politically. There are many Islamic states throughout the world and in these Hindus, if they exist at all, are oppressed. What Hindu groups are asking for India to be a more strictly Hindu state than Muslims are doing in Islamic state?

There are those who warn that Hindu rule would mean the creation of a Hindu theocratic state? Yet what standard Hindu theology is there, and what Hindu theocratic state has ever existed? Will it be a Shaivite, Vaishnava, or Vedantic theocracy? What Hindu theocratic model will it be based upon? Is there a model of Hindu kings like the Caliphs of early Islam to go back to, or like the Christian emperors of the Middle Ages?

What famous Hindu king was a fundamentalist who tried to eliminate all other beliefs from the land or tried to spread Hinduism throughout the world by the sword? Does Rama or Krishna provide such a model? Does Shivaji provide such a model? If no such model exist what is the fear of a militant Hindu theocratic rule based upon?

Traditional Hindus do exist. There are Hindus who are caught in conservative or regressive social customs, like untouchability or mistreatment of women, which should not be underestimated. There are serious problems in Hindu society that must be addressed, but these should be examined as per their nature and cause, which is not some uniform Hindu fundamentalism but wrong practices that are often contrary to real Hindu through.

To lump them together as problems of Hindu fundamentalism fails to examine them adequately but, rather, uses them as a scare tactic to discredit Hinduism as a whole. There are some Hindus who may believe that their religion is superior and want to keep it separate from other religions. In this regard they are no different than orthodox Christians and Muslims.

The fact is that there is no monolithic fundamentalism possible among Hindus who have no uniform belief structure. A charge of social backwardness and discriminatory attitudes can be made against a number of Hindus but this is not the same as the blanket charge of fundamentalism, which misinterprets Hinduism as a religion of militancy which it nowhere is.

The charge of fundamentalism is usually made against various Hindu groups like the VHP (Vishwa Hindu Parishad), who do not support the caste system and other such backward customs anyway. What is called Hindu fundamentalism is in fact generally a reaction to Islamic, Christian and Communist fundamentalism, which are all organized according to an exclusive belief system and a strategy to take over the world.

These three fundamentalisms are attacking India from within, as well as threatening it from without. Islamic terrorist activity continues in India, particularly in Kashmir. India is now surrounded by self-proclaimed Islamic states where Hindus have become second class citizens. Under this circumstance why should it be so wrong for Hindus in India to consider creating a state that rights or traditions of Hindus? Christian and Islamic missionary activity continues strongly in many parts of India.

Do these missionary groups portray Hinduism as a valid religion in its own right? They are sometimes not even teaching respect for India as a nation as the separatist agitation they create once their members become a majority in a region reveals. Hinduism is a super tolerant religion. No other religion in the world accepts such a diversity of beliefs and practices or is so ready to acknowledge the validity of other religions.

The idea of the unity of all religions was practically invented by modern Hindus like Ramakrishna, Vivekananda and Gandhi. As Hinduism is a super tolerant religion, even a little intolerance among Hindus is regarded as Hindu fundamentalism. And the charge of intolerance can be used to discredit Hindu groups, who are extremely sensitive to such a negative portrayal.

Throughout history Islam and Christianity, owing to the exclusive nature of their beliefs, have been generally intolerant religions (though there have been notable exceptions). They have not accepted the validity of other religious practices, and contain in themselves little diversity as compared to Hinduism.

What Christian or Muslim leaders proclaim that all religions are one or that Hindus and Buddhists have as valid a religion as they do (and therefore do not need to be converted)? As these religions are generally intolerant, their members have to be super intolerant to be called fundamentalist. Hindus often have a double standard in religion that works against them.

They try to tolerate, accept or even appreciate exclusivism, intolerance and fundamentalism when practiced by those of other religious beliefs. For example, which Hindus are criticizing the far more obvious fundamentalism and exclusivism among Christians and Muslims? Meanwhile any criticism by Hindus of other religions, even when justified, may be regarded by other Hindus as intolerance.

In addition, many Hindus, particularly of the modern socialist-communist variety, brand even pride in Hinduism as fundamentalism. Another related term that we meet with in the Indian press today is that of "Hindu chauvinism," though terms such as "Christian chauvinism" or "Islamic chauvinism" do not occur in either the Indian or the Western press. Chauvinists believe in the special superiority of their particular group.

This term is used mainly relative to white chauvinists, those who think that whites are generally better than dark-skinned people, or in the case of male chauvinists or those who think that men are inherently better than women. Hindus may praise their religion, and Hindus often use flowery and exaggerated language to praise things, but few if any Hindus are claiming that Hindus own the truth and that those of other backgrounds or beliefs cannot find it.

Christians and Muslims routinely believe that only members of their religion go to heaven and everyone else, particularly idol worshiping people like Hindus, go to hell. Which Hindus chauvinists have similar ideas? The Vatican recently toad its monks and nuns not to experiment with Yoga and Eastern forms of religious practice, which it branded as selfish, false and misleading.

Should we not therefore call the Pope a Christian chauvinist religious leader? Yet Hindus who are more tolerant than this may be designated in such a manner. Hindus are not only not chauvinistic they are generally suffering from a lack of self-esteem and an inferiority complex by which they are afraid to really express themselves or their religion.

They have been beaten down by centuries of foreign rule and ongoing attempts to convert them. The British treated them as racially inferior and both Christians and Muslims treated them as religiously perverted. That some Hindus may express pride in their religion is a good sign and shows a Hindu awakening. Unfortunately the groups who may be challenged by this awakening have labeled this pride chauvinistic.

Naturally some Hindu groups may express this pride in an excessive way, just as happened with the Black pride idea in America during the civil rights movement, but this is only an attempt to counter a lack of pride and self-respect, it is hardly the assertion of any enduring cultural militancy and does not have the history like the fundamentalism of Christianity and Islam, which goes back to the early eras of these faiths.

Such terms as "fundamentalist" and "chauvinist" are much less applicable to Hinduism than to other religions and generally a great exaggeration. They are a form of name calling, and do not represent any clearly thought out understanding. It is also interesting to note that many of the people who brand Hindus in this light are often themselves members of more exclusivist ideologies, which have an agenda to gain world-domination and to take over India.

This does not mean that Hindus should not be criticized. Certainly they can be criticized for many things. They have to really look at who they are and what they are doing because in most cause they are not living up to their inner potential or their heritage. On a social level many Hindus are trapped in backward social customs, but those who are not backward are usually caught in the corruption or materialism of modern society.

On an inner level Hindus suffer from lack of creativity, initiative, and original thinking. They want to imitate either their own older thinkers, whose teachings May be entirely relevant today, or, if modern, they imitate the trends of Western culture which are unspiritual.

As a group Hindus mainly suffer from passivity, disunity, and a lack of organization, and they are very poor at communicating who they main problem is that they fail to study, practice or support it, or to defend it if Hindu teachings are misrepresented or if Hindus are oppressed. These are not the problems of an aggressive or militant fundamentalism but the opposite, that of people who lack faith and dedication to themselves and their traditions.

Hindus are not in danger of being overly active and militant but of remaining so passive, resigned, and apologetic that they are unable to function as a coherent group or speak with a common voice about any issue. They have been very slow even to defend themselves against unwarranted attack, much less to assert themselves or attack others. There is no danger of a monolithic or dictatorial fundamentalism in India, like in Iran or Saudi Arabia.

The danger is of a divided and passive religion that leaves itself prey to external forces and thereby gradually disintegrates. A little more activity among Hindus, almost whatever it might be, would be a good sign as it shows that they are not entirely asleep! To brand such activity, which is bound to be agitated at first, as fundamentalist because it causes this sleep to be questioned is a mistake.

In this regard Sri Aurobindo's insight may be helpful (Indian's Rebirth, p. 177). He said," The Christians brought darkness rather than light. That has always been the case with aggressive religions-they tend to overrun the Earth. Hinduism on the other hand is passive, and therein lies its danger. It is time Hindus stopped accepting wrong designations and negative stereotypes of their wonderful religion.

Certainly aspects of Hinduism need to be reformed, and accept any set religious dogma, but there is very little in this beautiful religion that warrants such debasing terms as fundamentalism and chauvinism. If we look at the aspects which are commonly ascribed to religious fundamentalism we find little of them even among so-called Hindu fundamentalists.

Hindus who accuse other Hindus of being fundamentalists should really question what they are saying. What is the fundamentalism they see, or is it merely a reaction to the oppression that Hindus have passively suffered for so long?

Are the people making the charge of fundamentalism themselves following any religious or spiritual path, or is it a political statement of nonreligious people against religion? If Hindus are becoming intolerant and narrow-minded they should be criticized for being poor Hindus, not for being fundamentalist Hindus, as true Hinduism has a universal spirit.

As long Hinduism is devalued and misrepresented we must except some Hindus to take a stand against this in one way or another. Other Hindus should not simply criticize them if the stand they take may be one-sided. Hindus must try to defend Hinduism in a real way, not simply condemn those who may not be defending it in a way that they think is not correct.

This requires projecting a positive Hindu spirit, the yogic spirit, that can attract all Hindus and turn their support of the tradition in a spiritual direction. It requires not condemning other Hindus who are struggling to uphold the tradition as they understand it to be, but arousing them to the true spirit of the religion.

To routinely raise such negative stereotypes as fundamentalist or even fascist relative to Hindu groups, who may only be trying to bring some sense of unity or common cause among wake up and unit, to recognize their common spiritual heritage and work together to manifest it in the world today, just as modern teachers did not speak of Hindu fundamentalism. They recognized Hindu backwardness but sought to remedy it by going to the core of Hindu spirituality, the spirit of unity in recognition of the Divine in all, not by trying to cast a shadow on Hinduism as a whole.

SIDDHARTHA SHANKAR MISHRA,

SAMBALPUR, ODISHA

Rape a social stigma - (JUSTINPRINT ), April 1-15 ,2013

For a long time I had decided not to read about it, or write about it simply because it disgusts me. The thought of the situation itself does. But social networking hasn’t made that possible and the more I read about everyone’s opinions the more angry I become.

 What is the justification of rape? Is there anyone who can justify forced invasion of another persons body, and privacy? “Libido” someone said. Some said “the woman was wearing short clothes”. Some even said they are “sex starved and they wouldn’t have done so if their wives/girl friend gave them the sex they needed”. Some said such girls deserved it. “they were asking for it”.

I need to ask one thing. What if you went through the same ordeal, where you were bound, mauled, pinched, hurt in every possible way and molested? Would you be scarred, and lived your entire life with them etched in your mind? With each detail vivid through every moment? Or would you be justifying the men/women who had done this to you.

According to the official statistics of 1991, one woman is molested every 26 minutes. These statistics refer to the reported cases. Whereas, if the unreported cases were to be included, it would be a matter of seconds- rather than minutes. investigation of Most cases are not reported by victims because of various reasons such as family pressures, the manner of the police, the unreasonably long and unjust process and application of law; and the resulting consequences thereof.

 I don’t know why I am writing this. Because I read about men justifying the acts and blaming the girl as much as they can. I can see policemen washing their hands off by saying “it was just an act of prostitution without the full payment”. 

 Central Government Act: Section 155(4) in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

(4) when a man is prosecuted for rape or an attempt to ravish, it may be shown that the prosecutrix was of generally immoral character"

I agree i dont what are the other acts the rape laws have. but a digressive act like this one has to stay speaks volumes of the justice system in place for victims of such trauma.There are times when I agree justice has been given to the victim, but then the justice is delayed for so long that it ceases to have an affect on anybody, especially the victim. And instances such as these are too rare to actually dissuade others to not repeat or do an offence like this.

The Supreme Court has in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Madhukar N. Mardikar9, held that "the unchastity of a woman does not make her open to any and every person to violate her person as and when he wishes. She is entitled to protect her person if there is an attempt to violate her person against her wish. She is equally entitled to the protection of law. Therefore merely because she is of easy virtue, her evidence cannot be thrown overboard."

As observed by Krishna Iyer, J. in Rafique’s case13:

"When a woman is ravished, what is inflicted is not mere physical injury but the deep sense of some deathless shame… judicial response to Human Rights cannot be blunted by legal bigotry."

Therefore rape laws in order to be of great deterrence, must have a cooperative victim, professional investigation, diligent prosecution; and an expeditious trial. For otherwise it shall not be the law, that fails, but the applicants, the process and application.

It is troubling enough that such a small proportion of reported rapes make it to court, worse still that so few victims come forward in the first place. But most disturbing of all is the reason why so many people keep their suffering to themselves: because they do not think they will be believed. That rape is still a dirty secret, hedged about with so much blame and shame that victims feel they cannot come forward, is testament to how far we still have to go.

There are, of course, great legal difficulties in rape trials. Sexual assault is one of the few crimes where proof lies not in the physical facts of the matter, but in the subjective intentions of those involved. One person's word against another's, with no corroborating witnesses, is highly problematic for a legal system predicated on the concepts of innocent until proven guilty and proof beyond reasonable doubt.

This is no call for the wholesale abandonment of basic tenets of justice. But simply to shrug our collective shoulders, blame intractable issues of principle, and thereby leave a swathe of victims of violent assault with insufficient legal protection cannot be acceptable in what purports to be a civilised society.

In fairness, there has been significant progress in terms of institutional procedures. In many areas of the country, for example, there are now specially trained police officers and court prosecutors for cases of sexual assault. But uneven regional conviction rates only underline the extent to which such practices remain an optional extra rather than standard.

Equally, although victims no longer face the prospect of being cross-questioned by their attacker in court, pursuing a case to trial remains a horrifying ordeal. As a witness for the prosecution, the victim has no legal support, and faces intensely personal questioning from defence lawyers, often while face-to-face with their rapist for the first time since the assault. Even within the framework of innocent until proven guilty, there is more that can be done to ease the burden on victims, not least allowing them legal representation in court.

The rape statistics may be higher in the US. But that is because more incidents of rape are reported by women with the confidence that that justice will be done and after the dust settles, they can get back to being a useful and productive members of society as best as they can. They and their families will not have to guard this incident as a shameful secret for the rest of their lives. Instead, there are systems in place which help them (the victims) for as long as they need it. The society in general, continues to treat them with respect and allows them to lead normal lives without the sidelong glances and whispered comments. We, as Indians, need to relise that the consequences of rape do not end with the judgement of the perpetrators.

Here we are making exemplaries of Saudi Arabia and lebanon where men are publically beheaded for rape. So you think countries that dont let their women drive, work or have a right to vote and take insane pleasure at killing others and lynching them publically are good examples of a growing civilisation. What are those men getting killed for? is it a righteous revenge for their misdeed? is it just public outrage at those men's evil wrong doing? or is it just misplaced pleasure at seeing someone else getting tortured? the same kind of pleasure we derive at college ragging. Or looking at a politician getting embarrassed? Have these punishments helped in nullifying rape? or has it just taken another shape?

 The government however does not need a commission to remind it of several submissions to get rid of the colonial, sexist and violent practice of the two-finger test. There is no law, which says that doctors must insert two fingers (sometimes more, some even quibble about the size of the fingers in our courts) in the vagina to figure out whether the hymen is distensible or not. This then leads to the inference that the rape survivor is habituated to sex, introducing past sexual history into rape trials. Past sexual history was disallowed in rape trials since 2003. However, the two-finger test by medicalizing consent allows past sexual history of the raped survivor to prejudice her testimony.

 This is true even in cases of aggravated rape where the burden of proof is reversed. An analysis of judgments pertaining to gangrape and other instances of aggravated rape shows that there is an increased reliance on the findings of the two-finger test since the burden of proof is reversed and the onus is on the accused to prove consensual sex.

If rape survivors experience rape trials as a pornographic spectacle, it is not only the fault of the judiciary—surely the ministry of home and the ministry of health can change medical protocol.

 To treat sexual violence as a public health concern, we do not need judicial reform. We need political will. Can we please shift focus from whether or not to castrate and how to castrate (which incidentally is defined as torture in international law and can only be implemented as a voluntary medical program)? Is it possible for 24/7 television anchors, who dismiss activists making this demand by saying “oh, that’s ok”, to please not be “ok” about this?

What makes rape sentencing different from sentencing for other crimes? Unlike other offences, the crime of rape carries its own baggage. Over the years, stereotypical and patriarchal notions have developed with regard to women’s sexual behaviour. Most of these notions are based on the assumption that the chastity and virginity of a woman are her most important “assets.” Popular notions consider rape as a fate worse than death since it robs women of these “virtues” and casts a stigma over victims for the rest of their lives. In these imaginations, rape is not a crime against a woman’s sexual autonomy or bodily integrity, but an irreparable loss to her chastity, “modesty,” and social standing.

The Justice Verma Committee was set up by the Government of India after the gruesome gang rape incident that occurred in Delhi on December 16, 2012. The Committee was asked to review existing laws and suggest amendments to criminal law to effectively deal with instances of sexual violence. The Committee, however, did not view its mandate as only drafting new laws. It placed its mandate within the framework of the Constitution. The Committee grounded its report in the State’s obligation to secure the fundamental rights of its citizens, which includes the right of every person to assert one’s individual autonomy. In the context of women, if they are denied autonomy, even by actors other than State, the duty of the State does not diminish only on that ground. The failure to secure rights of women results in the State denying the right to equality and dignity that women are guaranteed under the Constitution.

Under the current Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, a person who “assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty” is punished with imprisonment of upto two years, or fine, or both. The focus of the provision, rather unfortunately is on “outraging of the modesty” of a woman and invariably the defence against the application of such a provision has centred around what constitutes a woman’s modesty, whether the woman in question was of such a character to claim that her modesty was outraged, whether young girls below the age of puberty have ‘modesty’ etc.  Further, under the current formulation the offender can argue that he did intention to “outrage the modesty” of the woman, or that he did not know that his actions would result in the “modesty of the woman” being outraged. Hence, the need for change was palpable, so as to change the focus of the crime from notions of “modesty” to violation of sexual autonomy. The recasting of the provision therefore needed to be wider in scope, cover a range of offences (and consequently provide higher degrees of punishment) and be a gender neutral provision that criminalised unwelcome sexual acts of varying degrees of severity. 

Rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may be for life.

To understand the impact of sexual harassment on women one must listen to the account of its victims as no one conveys the meaning and truth of sexual harassment better than the women who have endured it. In response to the question “What kind of emotional response do eve-teasing /sexual harassment evoke in you”, not a single woman ticked the category of “indifferent”. The survey of the Gender Study Group shows that most women felt disgusted, insulted and scared by any sort of harassment.

Women often internalise male perceptions of sexual harassment and blame themselves for having brought on the harassment. They not only doubt the validity of their own experiences but begin to believe that they themselves must be ‘abnormal’, ‘cheap’, ‘indecent’ or deserving the violence that comes their way.

Sexual harassment is nothing less than the showcasing of male dominance. Given an opportunity, such men (those committing sexual harassment) would try fulfilling their desire. However, it also not true that all cases of sexual harassment are such- where the accused is guilty of conceiving the intention of a sexual intercourse. But it also depends on each individual case and circumstances, because it may well be the case that the woman may also be at fault.

The law of rape is not just a few sentences. It is a whole book, which has clearly demarcated chapters and cannot be read selectively. We cannot read the preamble and suddenly reach the last chapter and claim to have understood and applied it.

However, Justice Verma commission has pointed out some changes, broadening the definition of consent, so a woman’s failure to resist physically can no longer be regarded as consent, and requiring “unequivocal voluntary agreement” to sexual activity; a victim’s sexual history is no longer considered relevant and she cannot be cross-examined about it or her “moral character”; rapes can be committed by more than penises, in that they can include objects used as substitutes for a phallus; while the archaic idea of “outraging the modesty of a woman” remains in the law, there are new sentences of one to three years for offensive touching, gestures or words, treating them as sexual assault.

In another change to existing law, the government upped the maximum sentence to the death penalty for “extreme” rape cases – those that lead to death or leave the victim in a persistent vegetative state – and for repeat offenders.

Though the Verma Committee had recommended against it, calling it regressive when many countries are moving to end capital punishment, the move was popular with much of the public. The government also ordered a minimum 20-year sentence for those found guilty of gang rape.

Organizations working for victims of sexual violence were quick to point out that the new law has serious omissions: Most prominently, it does not criminalize marital rape. A woman raped by her husband continues to have no recourse under Indian law.

Approximations have quoted that every 6 hours; a young married woman is burnt or beaten to death, or driven to suicide from emotional abuse by her husband. The UN Population Fund states that more than 2/3rds of married women in India, aged between 15 to 49 have been beaten, raped or forced to provide sex. In 2005, 6787 cases were recorded of women murdered by their husbands or their husbands’ families. 56% of Indian women believed occasional wife-beating to be justified.

The marital rape exemption can be traced to statements by Sir Mathew Hale, Chief Justice in England, during the 1600s. He wrote, “The husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract, the wife hath given herself in kind unto the husband, whom she cannot retract.”

Not surprisingly, thus, married women were never the subject of rape laws. Laws bestowed an absolute immunity on the husband in respect of his wife, solely on the basis of the marital relation. The revolution started with women activists in America raising their voices in the 1970s for elimination of marital rape exemption clause and extension of guarantee of equal protection to women.

In the present day, studies indicate that between 10 and 14% of married women are raped by their husbands: the incidents of marital rape soars to 1/3rd to ½ among clinical samples of battered women. Sexual assault by one’s spouse accounts for approximately 25% of rapes committed. Women who became prime targets for marital rape are those who attempt to flee.

Marriage does not thrive on sex and the fear of frivolous litigation should not stop protection from being offered to those caught in abusive traps, where they are denigrated to the status of chattel. Apart form judicial awakening; we primarily require generation of awareness. Men are the perpetrators of this crime. ‘Educating boys and men to view women as valuable partners in life, in the development of society and the attainment of peace are just as important as taking legal steps protect women’s human rights’, says the UN. Men have the social, economic, moral, political, religious and social responsibility to combat all forms of gender discrimination.

In addition, the Verma Committee attempted to end the impunity that human-rights groups say India’s armed forces enjoy on matters of sexual violence. The committee recommended the idea of “command responsibility” – that a senior officer be held responsible for the failure to prevent rape by troops under his or her command. The government did not add this to the law.

The Committee has started receiving feedbacks and opinions from the public.In the view of Supreme Court Advocate PP Rao , " Making stringent law is easy but implementing them is a tougher task. Demand for a more severe punishment than life is understandable , but it should not shocking. Civilised society does not accept lex talionis, the law of retaliation, that is , a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye. According to the supreme court, " a barbaric crime does not have to be visited with a barbaric penalty. Castration , without the consent of the person convicted of rape , will be vulnerable to challenge, unless in the event of providing for death penalty, the choice is left to the convict to opt for castration."

If the prosecution in all such cases is carried out in a very efficient and professional manner by specially trained public prosecutor well tuned with female psychology and if specially constituted Sexually Offences Courts headed by Women judges are constituted in every where in India, the conviction rate would surely improve considerably to act as a deterrent for those who often dare to commit such heinous act owing to our slow justice delivery system.

Anyway the anti rape bill got a clear nod in the parliament. The law is still very lenient. 18 years of age is still the yard stick to determine a juvenile and an adult. It is seen that the subject did not arise interest among the members, as many of them were absent. The whole thing seems to be done half-heartedly.

It's not only about creating a law to punish the guilty. It's about preventing such incidents. It's also about changing mindsets of people towards women. When a man respects a woman, He will not misbehave with her at all. So, It's about creating respect in minds of people towards women. Most of the men in the world respect their mothers and sisters. If They are taught to respect other's mothers and sisters in the same way, all the problems are solved. Lack of respect towards women is the root cause of all these problems. Wearing a skimpy dress, being seductive, too much make- up, behaving like a sex object and roaming the city with a lot of boy friends don't create respect in men's minds towards women. Naturally, Men respect women more when sexuality is not involved. Most of the women who give too much importance to their sexuality and dress don't understand this simple natural fact. So, Government must include lessons in school and college books about respecting women. Because, lack of respect towards women is the root cause of this problem. Once men change their mindset to respect women, They will automatically treat them well.

Indian waited for 66 years to bring a strict law for rapists, repeated offence will make him get death sentence is somewhat concession, instead in first offence he should have got death sentence , most of the rapists are the politically backed ,who has no fear of any after effects because of the immunity they enjoy. Can one expect change in such cases where even the police were not entertaining the complainant for registering the cases? Hope is the only answer.

 Remember Shriram Raghavan’s Johny Gaddaar, where Neil Nitin Mukesh is shown reading James Hadley Chase and watching the Amitabh Bachchan movie, ‘Parwaana’ before he acts ‘Gaddaar’? A fleeting glance at newspapers might reveal cases where people committed crimes in ‘filmy’ style or inspired by a particular film. It leaves me wondering whether films really provide fodder to criminal minds.

The recent Delhi’s gang-rape (it was Delhi, the capital and the trust in our judicial system that got gang-raped) has ensued many a talkathons on television accusing films for instigating rape. Really? Do you buy the notion that Munnis, Sheelas, Fevicol and Halkat Jawaanis are responsible for such heinous crimes? There surely must be a line drawn, but do you mean to say that the bus driver was high on films perhaps porn films featuring Sunny Leone .

Well, here’s the revelation – the driver was high on alcohol, not filmochol! Pick up any newspaper and you’re sure to conclude that every criminal worth his ‘Malt’ was in an inebriated state before committing the crime. If we have a penchant for banning things, it’s the ready availability of alcohol that must be banned. Sadly, this too, isn’t the solution as the only thing that needs to be banned is the ban.

Instead of focusing on the actual issue, we’ve suddenly started pointing fingers to our films, the soft target. Interestingly, we didn’t choose to do that. What we picked up from the film was ‘candle march protest’ – the safest bet, which was reiterated in Rajkumar Gupta’s No One Killed Jessica. So when an Anna Hazare goes on a hunger strike or a 23-year old gets gang-raped in a bus, we buy candles on our way from office, gang up and jam the streets with candles in our hands and pose at the local news channel’s camera. Dude, candles are for candle-lit dinners, not revolutions. 

The Delhi gang-rape victim would have saved if the passersby hadn’t ignored her lying half-dead and full-naked on the roadside. At this stage where we need to come up with solutions to avoid such dastardly acts, all we end up doing is pooh poohing over the vulgarity shown in movies. We lap it all up during weekends over a three-course popcorn meal and gyrate to the item numbers during New Year Eve parties (how many of us skipped the New Year celebration in mourning of Nirbhaya’s death on 29th Dec?) and dance at the weddings  and then ask censors to snip those scenes and songs, alleging that they instigate rape and molestation.

Have you wondered why Hrishikesh Mukherjee’s films still make for a great watch? Surely, they were well-made and well-written films, but they reflected the society consisting people leading a simple lifestyle and were essentially good-hearted. Perhaps deep inside, we miss those elusive attributes and find solace in watching those films and reliving those days when moral values and respect for women weren’t a part of an Aastha channel, but inherent part of one’s upbringing.

" Crime in India " published annually by National Crime Records Bureau substantiates this amazing fact. As per the latest record, in the year 2011 there were 24,206 cases of Rape across the country, adding to that there also had been 8,570 cases of Sexual Harrasment and 42,968 incidents of Molestatio against women. These figures just reflect the reported cases and exclude those numorous instances where helpless survivors remain silent out of fear of social trauma.

The chronology of events that took place after the shocking Delhi rape incident reveals that the political leaders were the last to react to the issue. Mahatma Gandhi once said that “the day a woman can walk freely on the roads at night, that day we can say that India achieved independence”. The growing incidence of rape and sexual harassment is a pointer to the reality that mere empowerment of women will not ensure their safety either on the roads or at the workplace. The statistics disclosed by the Union Home Minister that in 2011 more than 2.28 lakh cases of rape were registered and 1.78 lakh charge sheets were filed but that only 30,266 convictions were secured underlines the tardy justice system prevailing in the country. It is time for a serious introspection on how to overcome the moral and ethical deficit in our society.

Our parliament can enact or amend a law to make the law more stronger with the contemporary needs and challenges. Finally, it is the role of the Criminal justice system which includes police,prosecution and judiciary to reap its real benifits. The investigation of a rape or sexual violence need to done very fast with the usage of modern technology and investigative techniques.

The government and experts might be talking about punishment of chemical castration for rape convicts. However, good set of society are ready for oppose it - largely males in India. Khap Panchayats in Haryana have already resisted the demand for death penalty for rapists by saying that such laws can be misused. The government has constituted Justice Verma committee to rewrite rape laws and tasked with submitting its report within 30 days after the Delhi gang-rape case that shocked nation and world consciousness but medical experts have said that it is easier said than done.

Sadly, we have no specific laws to deal with child sexual abuse and incest in our country. The cases are still tried under the IPC sections of rape. The conviction rate in such cases is too low due to obvious reasons. The relatives of the victim turn hostile and never turn up in the court to tell truth. Ironically, there are relatives who stand for the abusers in the courts of law.

The crux is nobody stands for you because nobody else has been raped. One needs huge courage to stand for this cause. The victim is on the verge of losing everything. Her social rehabilitation is difficult and her marriage prospects are next to impossible.

We as a society have conspired to leave no other option to our children. Once they fall prey to a sexually perverted relative, they have to accept it and live with this reality for life. Once a victim is married, she becomes more vulnerable. Abusers have access to their houses, they meet them in family functions, and they are always there to ask for their share of her flesh. Now if anything comes to light, it’s all about her chastity and promiscuousness. 

It’s my personal opinion that society will pay a huge price for neglecting their children. As per the citation from the Mahabharata, dharma eva hato hanti dharmo raksati raksitah (It is dharma that destroys when destroyed. It is dharma again that protects when protected.)

We as a society have failed to protect our dharma and we have failed to protect our children. When 53 per cent of our children are being abused, we can imagine the number of abusers roaming free in our society. There is nobody to check their moves and there is no one to stand against them. 

Rape is a topic that makes many people of all ages uncomfortable. Few people think of themselves as potential rape victims, and even fewer consider themselves capable of the rape of another. The natural reluctance to talk about the issue and the widespread existence of mistaken ideas about rape have resulted in a great deal of secrecy, silence, and shame surrounding the subject.

Lack of understanding, awareness, and open communication about rape only adds to the suffering of victims. Since rape affects teenagers more than any other group in society, teens deserve and need accurate information about its causes and effects.

I ask all the men, What have the womenfolk done to deserve such atrocities all over the world at our hands?  Why are we so unfair to half of the humankind? When and how did they wrong us? What right do we have to subjugate and punish them for our mental sickness and false chauvinism? “How zealous are we in punishing and killing those who disrespect our God or country. How shameless are we when we rape a 23-year-old who is studying miles away from home, in hope that someday, she can support her old parents and finance her brother’s education.

It’s not Islam or Hinduism, but the entire womenfolk that is in danger. They care for us; they listen to our rants, bear our kids, and even earn their own bread to ease our financial burden.

And what do we offer them in return? We decide what they should wear, who they should talk to, in fact, whom they should vote for!

One of the biggest failures of the modern society is its inability in making the world a safer place for women folk. Rapes, molestations, harassment at home and work know no territorial or cultural boundaries. While the guilty of such crimes should be handed out the severest punishment, let’s not evade the bigger question – ‘why have women been so marginalised and exploited and what should be done to change the mentality of men?’

I find myself incapable of a perfect answer to this question. I feel there is no single perfect answer. Therefore, I turn to you, I turn to us. Together, can we find the reason? Can we find the answers?

Like a hyper-energetic baby on a sugar-rush, the national outrage factory burns itself up and settles down into its warm blanket, sucking on a pacifier. The politicians go back to their day jobs—making money for themselves and those that give them money. Police reform ,  a national sex-offenders database for convicted sex felons (and yes not just rapists but convicted street-sexual-harassers) are not pursued because they are all difficult concepts that difficult to get angry about. People will keep opining on message boards, on and off, as to why rapists are not being hung by their testicles, but, in general, that will be their level of their engagement.

SIDDHARTHA SHANKAR MISHRA,

SAMBALPUR,ODISHA

Why Pardoning ?

The Supreme Court of India in its recent judgement found film star Sanjay Dutt guilty of possessing automatic weapons of prohibited bore without a valid license and sentenced him to five years imprisonment. It also transpired that the weapons had been delivered to him by notorious gangsters behind Mumbai blasts of 1993. Indeed, it was a tragedy that had claimed 257 lives and 713 persons were injured and maimed.

There was unimpeachable evidence of violation of the Arms Act and under TADA the Court had no option but to impose the minimum sentence of five years imprisonment. Indeed the convicted man,Sanjay Dutt had already spent 18 months in prison during pendency of the case and was entitled to a remission of that period. Thus, now the fact of spending three-and-a-half-years in prison stared him in the face.

Here come his friends and sympathizers opening a campaign asking the government to grant him pardon. It has led to a debate in the society whether it is a fit case for pardon or is just propaganda for the cause of terrorism, if it could be called a cause.

Why did the matter suddenly spring up and made headlines in the national dailies. The electronic media was not to be left behind. Times Now, an English news channel, stole the limelight by fielding Justice Markandey Katju, Press Counicl Chairman and a retired judge of the Supreme Court of India , Mahesh Jethmalani, an eminent advocate of Mumbai and Delhi who were later joined by Majid Memon, an advocate from Mumbai.

The immediate provocation to hold a TV discussion with the channel editor, Arnab Goswami as the anchor was a letter written by Justice Katju to the governor of Maharashtra, K. Shankar Narayanan pleading for pardon for Sanjay Dutt because he had committed the crime two decades ago and is now a reformed man doing social service.

Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani opined quite articulately that Justice Katju’s plea of sympathy for Dutt, a convicted man now, was misplaced and misconstrued. He brought out a legal point that the governor of a state had neither authority nor legal powers to grant pardon to the convict who was sentenced to a prison term for violation of provisions of the Arms Act by a TADA court.

Justice Katju cited Article 161 of the Constitution of India under which the governor enjoys constitutional powers that cannot be curbed or over ruled by other Acts of legislatures and, therefore, he had petitioned the governor. I must appreciate Jethmalani’s erudition and insight into the constitutional law that he promptly cited Article 162 of the Constitution of India that the powers of a governor to grant pardon are restricted by this over-riding Article applicable to cases of violation of the Arms Act. Justice Katju was gracious enough to concede the point to Jethmalani and said that now he would write to the President of India making out a case for pardon for Dutt.

Let us leave aside the legal aspects of the case and take up the social repercussion as an offshoot of the grant of pardon or otherwise to the so called “bad boy now turned a good boy”.

The laws are enacted by legislatures for smooth governance of the society. The prosecution brings criminals to courts of law with the assistance of police, and judiciary decides on the question of conviction or acquittal, based on the evidence on record. After the judicial process is over, the convict is given a chance to appeal to the Head of the State for grant of pardon that is decided on merit. The Head of the State takes many factors into consideration while making up his mind whether the particular case deserves to be pardoned or not. What social impact will the ultimate decision have? After all, it is the social system that has to be protected. In a democratic society all citizens enjoy Equality before Law. The age-old maxim goes thus: However high one may ever be, the law is above him.

It is clear that the law of the land treats one and all, be he an actor or a labourer, as equals. Had there been an ordinary farmer or a labourer in place of Dutt, will the legal system and the bigwigs therein go all out to make out a case for pardon and present it to the Head of the State? If not, why should there be a special treatment given to actor?

As far as reviving Gandhigiri is concerned, the convict in question did his job as an actor and was paid for it. Like a farmer reaps what he sows, an actor should get a reward or a punishment for an act or omission and he does not deserve a special treatment. There is no need to raise brouhaha and grant the convict pardon.

Have we gone to the bereaved families and ascertained their views? Many a family lost its bread winner and now lives in penury. The loved ones became victims of acts of terror and the 34-year-old man, Sanjay Dutt was no innocent kid then that he knew not impact of his acts and omissions. It is on the Mumbai police’s record that Sanjay Dutt was hob-nobbing with notorious terrorists, and was indirectly instrumental in causing a trauma to fellow Mumbaikars. Does such a man deserve pardon after his conviction by the Supreme Court of India?

Lastly, has Dutt expressed regrets for his role in the serial bomb blasts? No, none of the terrorist gangs expressed remorse about their role in that sordid act. If they are not sorry for whatever role they played in executing their devilish designs, why should some social activists fall head over heels to seek pardon for the convicts? Frankly speaking, there is no cause that merits attention of social and political workers. Let the case rest where it is now.

Far right to far left -( JUSTINPRINT) March 1 - 15, 2013

The article involves a lot of stereotyping. For someone marking me out as a Congress puppy, here is a small background.I have never been a huge fan of democracy, and I spent my early childhood dreaming of the day when I will become dictator of the country and set this country alright. As a young boy, I was convinced that democracy is a failed notion, and the sad state of the country can be attributed by a great deal to the electoral pleasing politics played by leaders. I was probably agitated by the Rajiv Goswami incident, despite being only seven years old, and seeing pictures of protests all over the country over the Mandal recommendations. My fertile imaginative mind worked in full swing back then - I wanted to take seize power from the useless leaders, who had sent the country to dogs, and create a new India, which would be corrupt-free and meritorious. There would be no place for reservations or minority appeasement  I would rule the country with an iron-hand, giving full chance to the deserving and rooting out the non-meritorious. Anyone disputing my calls would be severely punished. In short, I would wield absolute power, and use that power to make India what it historically was - the bird of Gold (sone ki chidiya). To put it otherwise, I was a right winger. However then I grew up and was able to argue things on my own, and come to the conclusion that democracy, while being the far-from-perfect model, is probably the best one given India’s position as a socially, culturally and religiously diversified society.

The movie was fabulous. Or I have heard it was. The spoof, being currently played out in the aptly named Ramlila Grounds, is anything but. A 74 year old apparently senile man who plays the major part in the new spoof, playing both the title parts. On the one hand, he is a tender voice against the corruption and the evil government (Anna), and on the other, he is the king who is holding the government, and the people of India to ransom through what can at the very modest, be termed blackmail.

A lot of people not supporting Anna Hazare's movement have been doing so because they take exceptions to the method that he is taking. A lot has been written about it, and I will therefore bypass that point and discuss something else, which is probably much more far reaching with effect to India as a country and a heterogeneous society. 

I have basically two objections to the Anna Hazare demand for corruption - other than the one about the method. Both of them are fairly controversial and I am ready for a debate on both: One has to do with the need for corruption, and how people are being entirely hypocritical while ganging up with Anna, while the second objection, which I am going to discuss first, is the impact of the agitation.

Firstly, Context: India is a truly remarkable country. Growing up,our books described India as "unity among diversity." I was not very sure about what the expression meant, and while the unity part might still be up for discussion, there is no doubting the diversity of the country. It is perhaps amazing that India is one country. There is no other country with the kind of diversity that India has, and at such different levels. Most of the states are separated on linguistic lines, and often have their own culture. No other country has the kind of linguistic and cultural diversity that India has. Spain is the only other country that comes to mind, but it has had its history of civil wars, and the peace existing in the country is very fragile, as the occasional brawls between Barcelona and Real Madrid in football often proves. The Catalans hate Madridistas, and the less said about the autonomous Basque county, the better. And in Spain, there is no divide across religious and racial lines, unlike in India. Belgium is on the verge of breaking up only because of the linguistic issue. India, moreover, also has a number of significant minority religions in different states, and within Hinduism, there is further subdivision across castes and sub-castes. All in all, the heterogeneous structure of India is a very thin fabric, and the fact that the fabric is holding up fine so far is a testimony to the strength of the country. 

In every political system, there are two extremes across the political spectrum : the far right and the far left. The right wing is generally more conservative, more business-friendly, less individual freedom and more nationalistic, while the left wing is more radical, more socialist, and more individual freedom. The right wing is also more polar, and tends to create economic and social classes, while the left wing seeks to abolish them. While there are many differentiating factors that separate the two extreme positions, they can be summed up thus: The far right believe only what they do is right, while the far left is of the view that what everyone else does is wrong. Arundhiti Roy and her paranoia about everything is an example of far-left activism, while those of the temple and cocksureness about the location of the Ram Mandir is far-right. As a consequence, an extreme right government will probably do or seek to do a lot of work in its own way, but at the cost of freedom and probably subversion of certain elements, while a far left government will probably regress, unless the far left itself takes the far right position, for the two positions are not as different as they seem. Animal Farm or the USSR government would probably be good examples. 

In the Indian context, far right would probably mean pushing reforms and promoting Indian nationalism and Hinduism, probably at the cost of the minority religions and/or the "lower" castes. The Gujarat government, which has ensured a Vibrant Gujarat, but is also charged with abetting the Gujarat riots and failing to ensure inclusive growth, is an example of far-right, while the erstwhile West Bengal government, which changed the face of Kolkata from that of Hema Malini to that of Jyoti Basu, is an example of far-left. The West Bengal growth, or the stagnation, has been pretty much inclusive. Everyone has come to the same level of poverty. In between, you have the different left-of-centre to right-of-centre combinations and different governments in India can possibly be mapped on the axis. In the Indian context, BJP is the right wing party, Congress is the centre party, while the Left Parties are well, left parties.

Similarly, most voters fall on either side of the centre: the far-right to far-left depending on your political ideals, and your moral and religious values. The right winged voters, who had been identifying themselves with the BJP for so long, are suddenly lost, for the BJP has regressed remarkably as a party since its 2004 loss. The loss was totally unexpected, but even its most adherent critics would not have predicted the rudderless ship it now resembles. The name of the party has been planned to be officially changed to Bhartiya Joker Party, if reports are to be believed. But I digress.

Secondly: Impact: The failure of BJP as a party, has alienated the right wing electorate of the country. The right wing electorate generally belong to the Hindu, upper and middle classes and the non-Schedule Castes. They are generally well educated, and are active on social media. They are generally against reservations and pro-meritocracy. A large number of these right wing electorate who feel let down by the BJP do not really care about the temple, but about ensuring a transparent society, where everything works well. Most of them also support Narendra Modi, despite him being implicated in the riots, for the reason that their only concern is development, and they feel that no price is enough to achieve it. They are pro-reforms, and believe that corruption is the biggest threat to India. They do not want to understand the viewpoint of the other side, and are adamant that their demands, and wants are entirely justified. However, despite being sizable in number, the right wing voters are particularly known to skip election day as the size and heat of May sun gets to them, which probably explains why BJP lost the two elections in May. 

On the other hand, the Congress government at the centre has made no overtures to them. In fact, the government has taken a decisive left-turn, and Congress has changed from a centralist party to a left-of-centre party. The Congress public motto of inclusive growth does not hold much weight with the right wing voters. Moreover, the reservation issue is another key thorn. This, and other policies of the government, has led this electorate to believe that Congress is not for them, which is probably true. 

And so we come to the issue of corruption. The right wing needs an outlet to the rage at the inability of BJP to launch a proper attack on the Congress. Baba Ramdev tried to capture that space, but his pro-religious antics were never going to cut much meat with the mainly secular right wing, middle class electorate. Enter Anna Hazare, and the right wing electorate has finally found a messiah to deliver them from evil. They finally feel they have an option to partake in the decision making process, which had been taken away from them by the left and centralist leaning Congress governments. And the issue of corruption has managed to unite every right-wing voter into one under Anna Hazare, and makes them feel empowered. So this right wing electorate, in true right wing style, has made a draft believing only they can do a great job of it, and are trying to impose it on the government. Why is their version better than the government? Who says seven years imprisonment is not enough punishment? Why should ministers suffer more punishment as compared to the common man? Why shouldnot bribing be made legal? There can be many questions that can be asked from them. However, being the burning issue of corruption, which most people believe to be an illness, the movement has also found support with some of the traditional central and left-wing supporters. That it is basically a right wing movement can be made out by the fact that masses of Scheduled Castes, Muslims and many other societies have stayed away, fearing backlash.

Thirdly: Why is it bad?: Historically, whenever the right wing has emerged enmasse, it has often resulted in historical tragedies. The frenzy that is generated by such movements often prevail everything else, and creates absolute power. Moreover, right wing also means giving more power to the majority, and hence can totally alienate minority. A left wing uprising, while theoretically equally potentially damaging, has atleast equality as its basic tenet. A right wing uprising on the other hand, increases the diversity.In a country like India, this can lead to dangerous consequences. The Gujarat riots united the Hindus to vote for Modi, just like German nationalism united Germans under Hitler, and we all know how that went. I am not saying that Hazare is comparable to either of the two, but going forward, if the present movement is a success, the rejuvenated right wing can plan further uprisings, to impose their will on the government - through democratic or undemocratic means - and we never know how that will impact India. Why should a few people who are up there, and have conjured up a draft of the bill, be allowed to hold the government hostage? Who gives them the right? It is not a matter of them thinking what they are thinking is right, it has to come from the people. And the people choose the Parliament. If people like Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal really want to do anything, they should take the right path and fight elections. However, they know they will lose if they stand in elections, and hence have taken unconstitutional ways to hijack the government into accepting their demands. It does not matter if their demands are right or wrong? The thing is, who are they to decide that their demands are right? This right wing tendency of always being right needs to be stopped as soon as possible, else it can have grave consequences. As mentioned earlier, India is a great country because the social fabric is holding up. With a rejuvenated right wing, if the revolution now starts, I see the fabric stopping. Hence the revolution must fail. 

 I am not against corruption. I get my Gas connection illegally, I used to drive a car when I did not have a driving licence and I drove when drunk. I save as much tax as I can, some of it unethically. I give bribe to the ticket checker when travelling on a WL ticket in train so that I can reach home earlier. I dont like standing in lines for filling up government forms and hence bribe the government official to allow me my permits. I love corruption as it makes my life easier. I am not sure we Indians are ready for a honest government as this will mean making ourselves honest. So Mr. Hazare enjoy the limelight while people forget about lying on their CVs and putting kids through schools via bribes. In short, the Indian right winger is a hypocrite, who is always ready to blame the system for his vows. And it is exactly these people who should not be at the forefront, for it will make India another Animal Farm. Hence the revolution must fail.