Karan Thapar in his 'Sunday Sentiments' dated February 6, 2011, revisits the oft-debated issue of the socio-economic disparities in India. He reflects upon what the possible consequences of these injustices could be, against the backdrop of the current turmoil in Tunisia and Egypt. He suggests that India must watch her step, lest she should suffer a similar revolution. While the article does address extremely pertinent issues, the author’s analysis leaves much to be desired and a rather sour aftertaste.
First of all, most of the facts and figures presented in the article are either inaccurate or approximations. For example, the statistic that 65% of the Indian population is below thirty-five years of age was an axiomatic approximation based on the numbers from the 2001 census. The author incorrectly states "that culturally or philosophically India has never done revolution". Aren't the 1857 mutiny and our principally non-violent freedom struggle against the British Raj both examples of revolutions? In fact, the latter reaffirmed, perhaps for the first time since Christ, that a revolution need not be equated with violence. However, these are only but minor problems with the article.
The most disturbing element of the author's soliloquy is when he draws a distinction between "Hindus" and "the rest of the world". All through the article it seemed to be an approximate revaluation of Indian society on the whole. However the penultimate paragraph confuses the reader and can potentially be interpreted to mean that author alienates non-Hindus as non-Indians! It would be worthwhile to reproduce this paragraph:
"The answer, that culturally or philosophically India has never done revolution, doesn’t sufficiently preclude the possibility it might one day. After all, we can all reach the end of our tether. Or do you really believe Hindus are different from the rest of the world?"
What is the author trying to convey by drawing this distinction? There are three possible alternatives I can think of. 1. Those practicing the Hindu religion are an essentially peaceful people and are most unlikely in the world to resort to a violent revolution. They would find a more peaceful and pragmatic solution to the ills of the system. 2. Those practicing the Hindu religion are an essentially weak people and will tolerate injustices. 3. Nothing. The author indeed wanted to draw the distinction between “Indians” and “the rest of the world” and the use of the word "Hindus" was a typographical error for "Indians".
One understands that the Hindu way of life has historically been tolerant and assimilating and it is these aspects that have characterized India as a melting pot for such a wide range of cultures, languages, and religions for centuries. However, it would be highly inaccurate to suggest that this trait is exclusive to those practicing the Hindu religion. It wasn't only the Hindus that chose to assimilate the foreign invaders; it would not have been possible had the then foreigners not chosen dissolve themselves into the Indian milieu. On the other hand, it would be rather naive to mistake this Indian virtue for a weakness. In any case, irrespective of the reasons, the distinction drawn appears to be utterly out of context for the purposes of the discussion of the possibility of a revolution in India, which is the central theme of Mr. Thapar's article.
I do not think the Hindus are the sole, or superior, representatives of India; nor does the Constitution of India. And I believe this sentiment is shared even by a majority of Indian Hindus. There appears to be a severe communal undercurrent to Mr. Thapar's article - something, one least expects from a journalist of his stature who is otherwise perceived as secular and pro-integration. There may have been a good reason for drawing the distinction, but the article leaves much to the reader's imagination. It suffers too many loose ends - even for a rhetorical opinion piece. While one may be willing to give the benefit of the doubt, it would be most appropriate that an explanation or, in absence thereof, a corrigendum is issued by the author.
No comments:
Post a Comment