Kabir never fails you when you are in need of wise advice, regardless of whether you are an aam aadmi or the Prime Minister of India. All of us, even the most powerful person in the land, have critics. Who in this world can claim that everything they do or say has to be supported by everyone else?
Those who make such a claim are tyrants. History never keeps an honourable place for them.
It’s never pleasant to be criticised, but all those who are not and do not want to become tyrants, should heed Kabir’s words of wisdom when they meet their critics. He says:
“Nindak niyare rakhiye aangan kuti chhawaye,
Bin sabun pani bina nirmal karat subhaye.”
(Keep your critic close to you; give him shelter in your courtyard. Without soap and water he cleanses your character.)
Criticism & The ‘Vajpayee-Ravish Kumar’ Incident
If it’s not easy to listen to criticism then it’s even more difficult to keep critics close to you. And the difficulty level goes up considerably if you occupy a powerful office. This is because, with power comes the tempting realisation that power can be used to silence criticism.
Atal Bihari Vajpayee was not that kind of powerful person. He also followed Kabir’s counsel with conviction.
I know several instances to illustrate this, but let me narrate here an astonishing episode narrated to me by journalist Ravish Kumar. This is long before he became the star anchor of NDTV.
When Atal ji was prime minister, he had done some story that was critical of the government. Some days later, he attended an event where the PM was present. Apprehensive that he might be pulled up, Ravish avoided meeting Atal ji even though other journalists were having a pleasant time interacting with the popular — and incredibly accessible — prime minister. A little later, Atal ji himself walked up to Ravish Kumar and said, “Oh, you are the person who did that critical story on my government?”
The young scribe was fearful of what the PM might say next. But what Atal ji said next would have pleased Kabir.
He said, “Good. Keep it up. It is the duty of journalists to show the government’s shortcomings, so that we can correct them.”
Letter Of 49 Artists Vs Letter Of 62 Artists
This rather longish preface was necessary to contextualise the current polemic in India that has resulted from a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi by 49 prominent artists and intellectuals, and a fiercely strident counter-letter from 62 other members of the same community, slamming the signatories to the first missive.
The letter addressed to the PM has raised serious concerns over “a number of tragic events” — in particular — “the lynching of Muslims, Dalits and other minorities”.
It says: “You have criticised such lynchings in Parliament, Mr Prime Minister, but that is not enough! What action has actually been taken against the perpetrators? We strongly feel that such offences should be declared non-bailable, and that exemplary punishment should be meted out swiftly and surely. If life imprisonment without parole can be the sentence in cases of murder, why not for lynchings, which are even more heinous? No citizen should have to live in fear in his/her own country!”
The letter raises another serious and related concern:
Regrettably, ‘Jai Shri Ram’ has become a provocative ‘war-cry’ today that leads to law and order problems, and many lynchings take place in its name. It is shocking that so much violence should be perpetrated in the name of religion! These are not the Middle Ages!Initial letter to PM by 49 artists & intellectuals
Criticising this letter, the other group in a letter titled ‘Against Selective Outrage & False Narratives’, has levelled some grave charges.
The selective outrage and amnesia of this particular group make us believe that they are working to a certain agenda and are only playing into the hands of those forces that are out to ‘balkanise’ India and to destabilise her.Counter-letter by 62 artists and intellectuals
Furthermore, “This group has also repeatedly expressed disdain for the faith of the majority in India. They have repeatedly heaped derision on those who believe in Lord Ram and who derive strength and solace by chanting his sacred name. This letter is a disguised attempt to pour disdain on the subalterns for whom faith and worship are defining dimensions.”
The first side does not overtly criticise the prime minister. In contrast, the second letter goes out of its way to declare that those who have appended their names on it are strong Modi supporters.
PM Modi Invokes Lord Krishna
The question that naturally arises is — on whose side should Prime Minister Modi be? Should he listen only to his backers, or should he also lend his ears to voices of criticism? The answer given by Kabir is crystal-clear. But there is also an answer given by another sagacious personality — Lord Krishna.
Indeed, Modi himself referred to Krishna’s sage advice in his victory speech on the evening of 23 May after the electoral battle was over, and the results of the Lok Sabha polls were declared.
“Friends,” he told a cheering crowd of BJP workers at the party headquarters in Delhi, “when the battle of the Mahabharata ended, Lord Krishna was asked, ‘whose side are you on?’ Krishna replied, ‘I am not on anyone's side; I am only on the side of Hastinapur."
Is Modi Govt’s ‘Religion’ Truly ‘India First’?
Modi’s Hastinapur is India. He is the Prime Minister of India.
Not of any particular community or political party. On more than one occasion, he has stated that the ‘religion’ of his government is ‘India First’ and the Constitution of India is a ‘holy book’.
Furthermore, Modi has added Sabka Vishwas to his previous promise of Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas. If he is true to his words, he simply cannot ignore the occurrence of many incidents of mob lynchings (mostly of Muslims) during his tenure. Even though he has condemned these incidents, the signatories to the first letter are right in protesting, “but that is not enough!”
Why PM Modi Should Pay Heed To 49 Artists’ Letter
Why is it that the Supreme Court had to step in on 17 July 2018 and condemn the mob lynching incidents across the country? Why did it have to urge Parliament to enact a law to deal with the crime? Why is it that the apex court again had to issue notices — a full year later on 26 July 2019 — to the Centre, National Human Rights Commission, and state governments seeking implementation of its own 2018 guidelines against mob lynching.
If PM Modi stands by the Constitution, he should also pay heed to another incontrovertible point from those who have written him the letter.
“Criticising the ruling party does not imply criticising the nation. No ruling party is synonymous with the country where it is in power. It is only one of the political parties of that country. Hence, anti-government stands cannot be equated with anti-national statements,” the initial letter noted.
The PM would do well to listen to what they say next: “An open environment where dissent is not crushed only makes for a stronger nation.”
Why The Counter-Letter’s Arguments Are Flawed
Against this, the signatories to the second letter have claimed — quite untenably — “the spirit of dissent has never been stronger”. More worryingly, they have painted a picture that actually downplays the gravity of mob lynching by calling it “a social malady”. Well, eve teasing, tax evasion, and bribe-taking are also social maladies. Does mob lynching belong to that category of offences? Which civilised society can tolerate repeated perpetration of this heinous crime?
Instead of urging that the central and state governments need to do all that is necessary to stop it, the second letter contains a meaningless pontification.
It states, “Personalities with a social and public profile ought to generate greater awareness on the need to tackle and eliminate the mindset that leads to lynching.”
The second letter begets another troubling question: what exactly ‘tarnishes’ India’s international image? The incidents of mob lynching, or some well-known Indian citizens questioning their PM about it?
A Red Herring
So, are these citizens abusing and misusing their freedom of expression guaranteed by the Indian Constitution? If you ask their critics on the other side then yes, they are. The counter-letter reads: “For the signatories, it seems the freedom, unity, and integrity of India can be bartered away in the name of freedom of speech and expression. But for us, the unity and integrity of India, her freedom is sacrosanct and anyone who questions these, who works to dilute or destroy these, who conspires to disturb these need to be resisted.”
This is clearly a red herring. There isn’t even a hint of questioning the “freedom, unity, and integrity of India” by the signatories to the first letter .
The same can be said about the other baseless accusation in the counter-letter — “This group has also repeatedly expressed disdain for the faith of the majority in India. They have repeatedly heaped derision on those who believe in Lord Ram and who derive strength and solace by chanting his sacred name.”
This is baseless because the first letter clearly states: “The name of Ram is sacred to many in the majority community of India. As the highest Executive of this country, you must put a stop to the name of Ram being defiled in this manner.”
Neither Hinduism Nor Hindustan Is ‘Khatre Mein’!
This begets yet another question. Do those frenzied mobsters who shout “Jai Shri Ram” while lynching their target “derive strength and solace by chanting his sacred name”? Do they really believe in what Lord Ram stood for? And is asking such questions and urging the prime minister to “stop the name of Ram being defiled in this manner” tantamount to expressing “disdain for the faith of the majority of India”? Certainly not.
It is really high time for Hindus (also Muslims) to stop shouting, “Hinduism (or Islam) khatre mein hai” (Our religion is in danger).
It is this kind of scare-mongering that makes us close our eyes to crimes being committed in the name of our respective religions.
Similarly, “Hindustan khatre mein hai” is also a false narrative that includes the counter letter’s claim — “[T]his particular group [is] working to a certain agenda and only playing into the hands of those forces that are out to Balkanise India and to destabilise her.”
India faces no threat of being ‘balkanised’ or destabilised. And to allege that the likes of Shyam Benegal, Adoor Gopalakrishnan, Anurag Kashyap, Aparna Sen, Mani Ratnam, Ramachandra Guha, and Shubha Mudgal are “playing into the hands” of anti-India forces is just another way of saying they are ‘anti-national’. There cannot be a more ludicrous slur than this.
Let us never forget that, irrespective of whether we support ‘x’ or ‘y’ group, party, or ideology — we are all Indians. It is not up to anyone to question others’ patriotism.
‘Selective Secularism’ Has Given A Bad Name To Secularism
Having said this — in defence of the concerns raised by the first group — is there anything its signatories and supporters, all of whom believe in secularism, need to learn from their critics too? Certainly.
First, the occurrence of mob lynchings should not be exaggerated, as some opponents of the BJP and Modi government tend to do.
For example, actress Swara Bhaskar, while praising those who have signed the first letter (she is not one amongst them), has said, “Mob killings have become an epidemic in our society.”
No, they have not.
Get Rid Of Hyperbole & Let’s Get Our Facts Right
Hyperbole in such sensitive matters is harmful.
Second, knowingly or unknowingly, the signatories to the first letter have introduced a wrong and dangerous anti-Hindu misformulation when they write: “The lynchings of Muslims, Dalits and other minorities must be stopped.”
When did Dalits become a ‘minority’ at par with ‘Muslims and other minorities’?
A vast majority of Dalits in India — except those who have embraced Buddhism and a much smaller number who have converted to Christianity — are Hindus.
They pray to Hindu gods (including Ram) and goddesses and practice Hindu rituals and customs. India is witnessing an insidious attempt to show that all Dalits (also adivasis) are non-Hindus. One would be wilfully closing their eyes if they did not realise that this is causing alarm and anger in the Hindu community.
Let’s Listen To Criticism With An Open Mind
Third, there is indeed an element of truth in the accusation levelled by the second group, that those showing outrage at anti-Muslim or anti-Christian hate crimes are often silent when Hinduism and Hindus are targeted in communal campaigns and crimes.
Most (not all) terrorist attacks in India have been committed by Islamist groups radicalised by toxic propaganda from abroad (including active help from Pakistan).
Similarly, it is also well-known that some Christian evangelical groups, supported by foreign funding sources, indulge in religious conversion of poor Hindus using irreligious and fraudulent means.
Many secular individuals and organisations do not respond to these happenings with the same sense of outrage with which they condemn the crimes of Hindu communal groups.
This kind of selective secularism has brought a bad name to secularism. To deny this is to remain in denial mode about the Modi phenomenon.
In conclusion, what is the lesson for all of us — for PM Modi, the first group, the second group, and for all the rest of Indians — from this polemic ? One, let’s heed the advice by Kabir: Let’s listen to criticism with an open mind and have dialogue with our opponents with an attitude of self-reform. Two, let us heed the advice by Krishna: “Whose side are you on? I am only on the side of India and humanity" (paraphrased).
(The author was an aide to former Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. He has recently founded ‘Forum for a New South Asia’, which advocates India-Pakistan-China cooperation. He welcomes comments at sudheenkulkarni@gmail.com. He tweets @SudheenKulkarni. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)