Indians: Argumentative versus Opinionated

There are different categories of people in Indian society. These categories I am talking about have got nothing to do with categories or groups that fall under the head - sociological but it is purely psychological. Sociological/Social groups are for example caste groups, religious groups and others. At least arguments or debates with such groups will be blunt and clear as the one who argues with them knows in advance what their stand is on a specific subject, and the possibility of obfuscation is minimal or none.

I shall explain these groups/categories in terms which we can easily understand and relate.

Category 1: Those who say that India is a pathetic country. Every invader who came here for pillage & plunder has helped us improve from being a highly pathetic society to a less pathetic one. Let’s see some clichés which people use who fall under this category.

• Thank god, Greeks invaded and enslaved us. Because of which we have learnt logic. Otherwise we would have been stupid.

• You know, if Mughals did not invade us we would have never learnt how to make Chicken Tikka & Kebab. So I salute Mughals.

• Thanks to Brits, we now have post offices, Railways, bridges & high-rise buildings. Most importantly they taught us English along with morals and a great religion through missionaries. Otherwise we would have been a bunch of idiots worshipping rocks, monkeys and idols. Thanks to Lord, they have given us Jesus. 

Category 2: Those who say that India is a best country in the world, and there is nothing wrong here and they say India is shining. There will be no need for any clichés because for them nothing is wrong with our society. These people will normally will hold their allegiance to a political party. For example, when BJP is in power, if you speak to a hard core BJP supporter he will say that “India is shining” and there is nothing wrong with India because all is well. When Congress is in power if you talk to a hard core congress party supporter, he will say that India has become a super power and all other parties are communal, we are the only secular party in India etc.,

Category 3: Though I am tempted to call this category as neutral, rational and objective, but they are not completely rational. Because Humans will never be completely rational. There is nothing called as rationality, but bounded rationality, says Herbert Simon, Nobel Prize winning Economist. Read his paper here  to understand as to what is Bounded Rationality. So, though in a way people who fall in this category are relatively better than the two categories mentioned above, they are not completely neutral. Because they will have a soft corner to a particular party or ideology, even though they don’t agree with them completely. Let’s take my example I have a soft corner for BJP at the moment when compared to the positions of other parties on subjects like national security etc., I go along with BJP but not on everything, but still have a soft corner. If not on all the occasions most of the times discussions will be driven by facts rather than by unsubstantiated opinions & obscurantism. 

In this occasion I will be my own judge and say that I fall under this category3. Because for most of the opinions I rely on facts. If I say that both LTTE & Sri Lankan establishment are equally responsible for the sufferings of Tamils, I will cite at least few facts to support my argument, instead of making claims out of my hat. If a person who falls under the category1 have to speak on this issue, he will blame either Sri Lanka or LTTE as fully responsible with least regard to facts but not both. LTTE sympathizer might just say that Prabhakaran was a freedom fighter notwithstanding the atrocities for which he was responsible, and a Srilankan supporter would just dismiss him as a terrorist. Truth may be in between? So, I claim that I fall under category3. Jury is out.

In my opinion we’ll be tempted to debate with people who fall under category1, because we fall in to the trap as we feel that they are sane and at first impression appear to be category3, but actually you can reason it out with category2 not with category1.

Let’s me quote few types of people who fall under category1. Most of the people who have secured a good social status through reservation, yes I am talking about a group which was institutionally oppressed i.e., Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe group. For our discussion here I am referring only to those who fall under the definition of category1, not all.

The reason for undertaking this painful exercise to explain the categories is to explain and share my experience of a conversation I have had with a person who falls under category1. Yes, the type who says that we are better off today only because of British. What appalled me was his reluctance to accept facts contrary to his beliefs and passes judgment only based on his experience. I sympathize for the sufferings he might have undergone, but his personal suffering is not enough to pass a judgement on a whole society which is saner, civil and forward looking, at least on a relative basis.

Let me briefly explain the profile of the person with whom I have had such a conversation. He is a Professor and Head of the department in a reputed university and claims to be teaching for the past 30 years or more. He is about to retire say in a year. An SC/ST who reached where he is now partly because of the policy of reservation or quota system. He is bustling with his prejudice towards Caste Brahmins. Of course he claims to be a victim of caste Brahmin bigotry. Normally he does not take pride in anything good about in India, even on our achievements, past & present. Everything that has gone wrong with this country he sees it through the prism of Caste Brahmins oppressing SC/ST groups.

The conversation started with his prejudicial statements that in those days Brahmins would pour melted copper in the ears of Dalits if they dared to study or educate themselves. For a very long time I have tried to find an evidence on this claim as this was not the first time I have heard such a statement, but I could not find any convincing evidence so far. Even if we have to agree with that statement for a moment, is this what India all about?

Without answering that question directly, I brought up the issue regarding the documentary made by BBC on 2012 Delhi gang rape case and the innuendos suggested in that documentary. I told him that, while rapes are bad and it happens in India too but neither all men are rapists or ours is a society of rapists as suggested by that documentary and tried to convince him that his example was also something like that. And apprised him with facts that the incidence of rape is much higher in western countries when compared to India. As per the official figures, every 25 seconds one woman is sexually harassed in US and in every 6 minutes one woman is sexually harassed in UK, by that I don’t mean that we are better off. Even if it is going to be one rape, we are ashamed of it as a society. But that one rape does not define our identity.

I further added that I have completely agreed with him on the question of discrimination of Dalits primarily by caste Brahmins and conversation is sealed as we have no differences on this subject.

But he was not convinced and went on and said that it is only because of British we are here not otherwise. Then came his clichés which I have explained in the introduction about the people who fall under category will normally use, that he is thankful to British for railways and buildings etc.,

I replied that I disagree with him on this and argued that he should read and understand the theories of Brain and Economic drain. The whole budget of England was based on the resources looted from India, such was the amount of limitless resources she had. Not long ago during Vijayanagara Empire Rayala seema (plains of stones) in Andhra Pradesh was called as Rathanala Seema (plains of diamond). Every piece of visible wealth was taken away from here. In 2000 years of recorded history (read Madison project) India was an economic power house for 17 centuries in a straight contributing towards nearly 30 % of global GDP consistently, only as a result of systematic exploitation of British we came down to 1% at the start of 20^th century. Without British we could have been better off. Though the Chinese were colonized by the British the Chinese never say that they are grateful to their colonizers. Why is it in India we have people praise British for what they have done? The answer is we are psychologically still slaves and we need to break these chains of slavery.

By now he is completely lost his posture and shot back that in China there was no caste oppression. I was getting bored by now, as he clearly lacked intellectual depth in his argument and completely handicapped by his casual opinions which is the result of hearsay & anecdotal evidence.

I humbly retorted “Sire, do you know nearly 33 million innocent people were killed in China during the Cultural Revolution! Doesn't that count as oppression to you? He replied, “No that is different”.

I don’t want to elaborate here on every thing we have discussed but only few important ones. Few things he said about Christian missionaries and their assistance to us. He declared that we are stone worshippers and not wise people etc and Christian Missionaries have helped us. I replied that if a religion or ideology has to be evaluated and a judgement needs to be passed we need to consider its history. A woman was not even treated as human being but slave and how the church persecuted scientists is an open secret, some were burnt alive just because they went against church, and you should really have credentials to preach. But in India Science & religion complimented each other, they were never at war with. Ours is an advanced thought process, but we have our own pitfalls and we agree that. Hence we don’t go to Saudi Arabia or Europe and say that Islam & Christianity is non-sense, your gods are false gods, why don’t you accept ours? But every other murderous crook who came here from these countries told us exactly that.

Then came his sexist remark, women in Europe are white and beautiful and that is why they wanted to keep them as slaves and women here may not be that beautiful. That is what he implied. Already it has been two hours since the start of this conversation with him. Only after that sexist remark I have decided that I might be wasting my time and offered him for a full day discussion on another day so that I can prove him wrong. He was not ready for that, as he said that he does not have a full day. He is nearly 55 or 60 years old and a Head of a Department in a university, and his ego is badly hurt. In all these hours I have not heard one single sane argument. In addition to the arguments I have explained in this write-up I have quoted many other examples to prove my points, but not discussed here all of them for the sake of time and space.

I have told him that it is certainly true that caste Brahmins have discriminated Dalits, but that should not become the only reason for him to hate India and I also said that “I disagree with your theory that only because of alien invaders we are better off”.  After that we have said goodbye to each other, as the discussion was reaching nowhere.

In conclusion all I would like to say is, that it is tough to help people who fall under the Category1 to come out of their mental prisons in which they are living right now, but it is not entirely impossible, and we should not stop trying. I have had positive results in the past. Just that this time I was stuck with a rigid old bird. 

Protecting Cow is a Gandhian Ideal

On the other day I have been talking to a journalist on the subject of new law that has been passed in Maharashtra and has received a presidential assent, yes a law that bans cow slaughter. The journalist with whom I was talking to declared that the act to ban cow slaughter was illegal and it is taking away her fundamental rights. But then I pointed out to her that stopping cow slaughter is something that is enshrined in our constitution, i.e., in the section of Directive principles of state policy. For which her response was right to eat anything was her fundamental right that right trumps Directive principles of state policy. Though I have tried to convince her by arguing that there is something called as judicial review and Directive principles trumping fundamental rights is inherently a flawed argument but she dismissed me as a person incapable of having a conversation on this subject. This is because I have questioned her beliefs. The purpose to explain this conversation is to highlight how less informed or partial our so called intelligentsia in their assessment before passing judgements. 

Those who question this act should ask themselves one question. Have I accepted Gandhian principles? If the answer is yes, then there should be no objection to the ban on cow slaughter. Though it is a different matter that by the very word “Ban” people who are inspired by imported ideologies like communism go ballistic and shout over their voices that it is against their dietary habits etc., we shall conveniently ignore such a nuisance as it is completely democratic to ignore them.

Though it is not justiciable in any court for its non-adherence by state but the government in conducting its affairs must consider the Directive Principles as its guidelines based on which it should frame its policies. So any policy decision or act that is borne out of DPSP (Directive Principles of State Policy) is legal and stopping the cow slaughter is part of DPSP additionally it is also a Gandhian ideal, if we condemn this ideal we are essentially condemning Gandhi. In addition to banning cow slaughter there are other ideals that were close to Ganhi’s heart which are added in to DPSP by the constitution makers, creation of village panchayats for example.

During constitutional assembly debates Giani Gurmukh Singh Musafir (Representative – East Punjab) said:

I would like to say with all the emphasis at my command that these Directive Principles should be inserted under the Chapter on Fundamental Rights 

Such was the intention of our leaders on DPSP. Hence the arguments such as ban on cow slaughter taking away some one’s fundamental right are not only illogical but bereft of historical purpose envisaged by the legal luminaries who drafted our constitution

The fact that we have built our constitution by picking up the best available in the world is itself our expression of our power of assimilation, hence the incorporation of DPSP from Irish constitution. This is in line with our Vedic culture “let noble thoughts come to us from every side” – (Rig Veda 1.89.1)

Of course it is possible to see banning of cow slaughter through religious lens, but this debate is not restricted to just that. We shall understand the economics behind it. In his speech on Cow Protection in Bettiah on October 9 1917, Gandhi said:

This is not merely a religious issue. It is an issue on which hinges the economic progress of India. Economists have furnished irrefutable figures to prove that the quality of cattle in India is so poor that the income from their milk is much less than the cost of their maintenance. We can turn our gaushalas into centers for the study of economics and for the solution of this big problem. Gaushalas cost a great deal and at present we have to provide the expenses. The gaushalas of my conception will become self-supporting in future. They will not be located in the midst of cities. We may buy land in the neighborhood of a city to the tune of hundreds of acres and locate these gaushalas there. We can raise on this land crops to serve as fodder for the cows and every variety of grass 

He further stated that :

Cow protection is an article of faith in Hinduism. Apart from its religious sanctity, it is an ennobling creed

Such was the stand of Mahatma Gandhi as far as cow slaughter is concerned, so to call it as a violation of fundamental rights is not only incorrect but tantamount to calling Gandhi a violator of people’s fundamental rights

Individuals & groups with political motivations are bent up on to politicize what is essentially an apolitical issue by whipping up Muslim apprehensions and trying to equate it with Muslim rights or  minority rights, this not only amounts to political immorality but intellectual dishonesty. By and large Muslims are indeed willing to appreciate the religious sensitivities of Hindus with regard to cow slaughter as Hindus have been appreciating Muslim’s reservation about certain animals. Many states in India have laws that ban cow slaughter. It is a great tragedy that Congress led state governments play politics with this issue for the sake of vote banks. Also it is a greatest insult to Muslims as congress thinks that by such silly manoeuvres it can secure Muslim votes.

Ban on Cow slaughter will give a facelift to village economy and its self-sufficiency in addition to assisting the poor to pull themselves out of poverty and hunger, this will also lessen the burden of state in providing employment guarantees etc.,

Cow is rightly considered as mother; after all we drink her milk, even though we might have stopped feeding ourselves through our mother’s milk at an early stage of infancy, but we are fed by another mother - Cow through her milk until our death, also after death. The last thing we should be doing is to slaughter someone who has been feeding all of us like mother throughout our life. It is time to move beyond petty agonies and politics.

Other states in India should take the cue from Maharashtra and introduce state level laws banning cow slaughter or the central government should initiate the discussion for a central law banning cow slaughter.

Also Published in Niticentral Portal - http://www.niticentral.com/2015/03/15/maharashtra-cow-slaughter-ban-directive-principles-state-policy-306887.html