‘I’ am truly democratic. Are ‘You’?

The way certain words and actions of some are interpreted, distorted and misrepresented to mislead people and carve out alternate realities in India political arena, it is important to establish certain definitions of those words which represents its acceptable usage elsewhere in the world. Those that depart from these agreed usages of terms, using them to mean something other than what they are intended to represent, therefore stand guilty of being fomenters of social mistrust and hatred. Such people often come in the garb of the ‘educated’ or ‘expert’ voice, belong to certain political backgrounds and entertain personal and political ambitions that go beyond their stated purpose in life.

In the age of social media driven politics and campaigns, where episodes like an Arab spring or a Muzzafarnagar riots are created with rapid-fire speed, it is imperative that such words that have the power to singe, scald and burn, be clarified. Readers can then ‘interpret’ the ‘codes’ that are used to keep the nation divided and suspicious of one group or another. ‘I’ represents all those who are feeling oppressed and marginalized by how words have been hijacked and used as throw-away ‘labels’, lapped up by others who have little or no inclination to make their own minds up based on evidence available. ‘I’ tries to turn sheeple – people who behave like sheep - to people with an independent mind and thought. 'I' also tries to identify those individuals who pretend to be sheep in wolves' clothing; those that use words wrongly to mislead 'sheeple'.

First, ‘I’ am no supporter of religion in politics for I believe religion is a personal matter and should never enter public life of people, which is what politics deals with. I reject the type of 'Hindutva' that involves building temples where mosques used to be or insist that Hinduism has answers to all of Indian society's modern day problems and needs. Religion has no place in public policies other than as a right that needs to be safeguarded in a secular democracy. Whoever uses religion for any point-scoring exercise is guilty of the same charge they make on the other side. To say that terrorism where the culprits are Hindus is ‘saffron-terror’ is as terrible as calling all terrorism carried out by Muslims as ‘Islamic terror’. Terrorists have no religion and whoever makes such statements is not secular but is using the word to hide his/her inherent bigoted nature.

Second, ‘I’ don’t buy the rhetoric of all those opposed to 'Hindutva' that anyone who is a Hindu and supports a person or party automatically becomes a right-wing nationalist. That is stereotyping and social hatred at its worst. Bush's doctrine of 'You are either with us or with the terrorists' is an example of such warped thinking. All those who abuse and misuse this term are guilty of a social crime - that of fragmenting the society on religious lines - crimes that they allege right-wingers engage in. Why? Because ‘Hindutva’ according to a 1995 Supreme Court of India judgement, means "the way of life of the Indian people and the Indian culture or ethos". There is nothing religious about it. Those living in India as its citizens live the Hindutva way of life - Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs and of course Hindus. Much like those who live in the west live predominantly a western form of life, which you may as well call a ‘Christian’ way of life.

Third, ‘I’ also dont believe that people should be allowed to use double standards for all those who are considered 'communal' in India. For those who continue to hold Modi for Gujarat riots should also open their mouths about the Congress role in Sikh genocide. Such folks will run to Supreme Court for the slightest affront to their sense of right, but refuse to accept court's verdict when it suits them. These same people are the ones that either support explicitly or keep quiet when a political party overturns the judgement of the Supreme Court in India that grants women the right to receive alimony from their husbands after divorce for their maintenance and that of their dependent children. ‘You’ are appalled? Well, you should be. For these folks who claim to be ‘secular’ and not ‘communal’ did this to Muslims. No other religious group in India is subjected to this social abuse and destitution that the divorced Muslim women undergo. This is the worst form of hypocrisy and double-standards. Who are these people? Supporters on the largest party that calls itself ‘secular’ and is in power in India today.

‘I’ am democratic for ‘I’ don’t misuse words to justify my beliefs, distorting the words to pretend I am something that I am not. ‘I’ also have the courage to say what I believe in rather than being a coward that hides behind distortions. ‘I’ am a truly democratic for I say what I believe in, rather than whisper or say something that I don’t. Do ‘you’ consider yourself to be entirely democratic after reading this?