Democratic principles have been knocked down and dragged out of the political arena in a free for all between presumptuous self-proclaimed “democrats” utterly unversed in the canon they purport to subscribe and a demonised “majoritarians” shut out from the debate and condemned as unlettered obscurantists for attempting to support Citizenship Amendment Act by applying the very principles the “democrats” claim to abide by.

It is the ability to make dialogue across differences which is the stamp of a liberal. This is also the psychological aspect of citizenship creating as it does a sense of belonging and consequently contributing to strengthening of social cohesion. A post-nationalist identity recognised in the norms and values of the Constitution not in ethnocultural markers has been abandoned by these “democrats” to impose a universalist model citizenship which is difference blind.  Celebration of difference is no longer a virtue for such “democrats”. This is apparent in the virulence of their comments on Citizenship Amendment Act.

The Act amends Section 2 of the original Act which defined “illegal migrant” by adding a proviso that Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh who entered India before 31st day of December, 2014 exempted from Passport (Entry into India) Act, Foreigner’s Act or rule or order made thereunder shall not be treated as illegal migrants under the Act. Special provision as to citizenship is made for these persons in Section 6B while excluding tribal areas in the Sixth Schedule and Inner Line identified by Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulations and changes made in The Third Schedule of the Act.

This amendment is the application of differentiated citizenship through acknowledgment of multicultural rights. The exempted groups are admittedly smaller groups in larger societies with unique identity and values fighting against their cultural assimilation into the larger group and the resultant annihilation of their beliefs, behaviours and attitudes. They are disadvantaged groups facing alienation. At risk is their heritage the status of a subaltern in their relationship with the majority.

This is an intelligible differentia distinguishing them from community excluded and their protection through grant of citizenship by India is the celebration of the values of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity and Justice mentioned in the Preamble. If the Preamble has to be waved it is in celebration of its ideals and creed in the Citizenship Amendment Act not in the condemnation of the same. Differential treatment does not per se constitute violation of Article 14 and denial of equal protection arises only when there is no reasonable basis for differentiation. As stated there is a basis for the differentiation. Moreover principle of equality does not mean that every law must have universal application for all persons varying circumstances permitting separate treatment. And remedying of any mischief can always be done in stages. Exclusion of any country (Myanmar) or any community (Rohingyas or Ahmadis) therefore, will not by itself justify the criticism of violation of Article 14. Rohingyas are reported to have created several terrorist organizations and a few terrorist organizations in Pakistan are assisting these outfits. And with no details of a significant number of Ahmadis amongst the refugees in India the necessity to include them in the Amendment Act does not arise. The exclusion therefore is not based on religion alone. In any event the Citizenship Act as originally enacted recognises jus sanguinis thus not making ethnicity is not irrelevant to citizenship. And the sub-classification made by the Amendment Act, as already stated, is legal.

The liberal concept of citizenship after all lies in protection by law and confers on a citizen a legal status and the resultant right to participate in the affairs of the community. It was the absence the absence of this right which made the migrant leave her country. The movement to the destination country was not to seek employment or merely to settle or reside as a migrant; it was instead like an asylum seeker or a refugee who is forced to move across national boundaries and who cannot return home safe. Those beating their chests invoking the principle of non-refoulement – the foundation of international refugee law  while demanding it for Rohingyas, seemed to have forgotten it when it comes to the exempted communities under the Citizenship Act.

It is pertinent to refer to the complaint with regard to change in the cut-off date (25th day of March, 1971) as contained in Section 6A, Special Provision as to citizenship covered by the Assam Accord. The point which such a complaint misses is that the conditions contained in Section 6A(3) are cumulative and require for their applicability, apart from the said date, the detection of a person as a “foreigner” which is defined by the Foreigner’s Act as a person who is not a citizen of India and the Parliament retains the power under Article 11 to make any provision as to acquisition or termination of citizenship. The Amendment Act is in terms of Article 11. There is no violation of Section 6A. Even otherwise there will not be any substantial change in the demography of the State and the cultural insularity which the protests in Assam show conflict with and are detrimental to the principles of equality, liberty and rule of law as not to provide any justification for the opposition to the Citizenship Amendment Act.

No right of any minority in India is affected by the amendment. Their self-governance and autonomy remains in tact. While the rights of the citizens remain in tact, the rights of refugees (as opposed to migrants) are restored and sought to be preserved. It is a rational application of multicultural politics and egalitarian policies addressing the issue of alienation of disadvantaged groups in certain countries. The rights conferred are non-rivalrous as not to affect the existing citizenry and the classification to restore this benefit is not only intelligible but has a rational nexus with the object behind grant of citizenship. The Amendment Act is clearly the application of universalistic legal principles and not re-enforcement of cultural moorings of those being granted the benefit. All minorities (those covered by the Amendment Act and such as exist in the country) are being treated on par and being conceded the same advantages. It is nothing but triumph of the principles which the country holds dear.

Jai Shree Ram meets Jai Hind…an imaginary conversation with Mamta Banerjee!


A person: Jai Shree Ram

Mamta Banerjee: No! Jai Hind

The person: But Ram belongs as much to Hind

Mamta: Hind is more than Ram

The person: Ram is yet part of Hind

Mamta: Not the Hind I imagine

The person: So the mover is your imagination not Hind

Mamta: I have the right to imagine it

The person: Is there a right to deny Ram in it?

Mamta: I am against reducing Ram to a slogan

The person: Can Hind be reduced to one?

Mamta: Hind cannot ever be reduced

The person: Can Ram be?

Mamta: Jai Bangla

The person: Where did that come from?

Mamta: Bangla is part of Hind

The person: Ram is part of Hind too

Mamta: Shut up…One must not mix religion with politics! Jai Ma Kali


(A needless case of combative politics and competitive sloganeering)

Godse Haasan and Hindus

“Free India’s first terrorist was a Hindu. His name was Nathuram Godse.” Thus spoke the Oracle Kamal Haasan.

Haasan refers to the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi in January, 1948.

Utter novices these Hindus! Despite being the first to adopt terrorism they shockingly allowed themselves to be surpassed by those more adept at slaughter and mayhem!  And what have they to show? Only a Nathuram Godse.

Godse was arrested the same day he shot the Mahatma, his trial concluded by November, 1949 and he was hanged within a week of his being sentenced to death. Compare this with the case of Afzal Guru to understand how a terrorist actually uses the legal process? Afzal Guru, despite arriving on the scene much later, was executed almost eight years after the Supreme Court upheld his conviction and thirteen years after the attack on Parliament! Being the first does not necessarily mean one is the effective. One can yet be outdone by persons and circumstances as has obviously happened.

And yes Godse, the first protagonist of Propaganda by Deed, could not yet let the idea of assassination take root in India and targeted killing failed to become a popular, potent and irresistible form of propaganda in the country. There was no assassination after the Mahatma! Hindu terrorists just failed to kill for common good unlike the quintessential prototypical terrorists. The first yes but no achievements whatsoever thereafter!

Comparison with the more illustrious terrorists is so stark it is embarrassing. ISIS had a reach over more than 21 countries. Al Qaeda has its foot-prints across several continents apart from being involved in several military conflicts. Lashkar which has ties with both is credited amongst other achievements with coordinated shooting at Mumbai over four days and Pulwama attack on the armed forces. And Jaish is headed by a Global Terrorist Masood Azhar. One cannot also forget the involvement of Christians in ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Bosnian War.

Just look at the Hindus!! After giving the first terrorist to the country Hindus have been cleansed from Kashmir! It is shameful that Hindus are not part of the 800 terrorist cells operating in the country. And none of the districts affected by terrorism in India are dominated by Hindus.

In fact what does the first terrorist which India gave to itself have to show for the impact on the country? India gave to itself the longest written Constitution  in the world declaring India to be a democratic republic and assuring to its citizens justice, equality, liberty and fraternity. The Constitution was adopted on November 26, 1949 eleven days after Godse was hanged on November 15, 1949.

A clear case of non sequitur, there is a deliberate use by Kamal Hasan of a charged term “terrorist” to peddle Hinduphobia.

Haasan’s comment reminded me of the attack on the Sari as a conspiracy by Hindu Nationalists! And the intentional removal of the incident of the Mahatma’s assassination from the circumstances which surrounded and followed only to misattribute a role to a community ignoring all exceptions and distinctions relevant to a correct understanding of the issue proves Haasan’s high moral ground notwithstanding living in truth is a capacity he lacks.

There are many firsts to Hindus’ credit. Terror is not in that list. And will never be!







A letter to Naseeruddin Shah


Dear Mr Naseeruddin Shah

There is more to India than deviance and social problems. The expression of fear that its morals, ideals, ethics and scruples are either debilitated or attenuated is clearly irrational. India’s conscience is and will always be intact.

There are deviants in every society. Villainy, wickedness or malefaction can only exist in an imagined society of perfect quality. There is no such utopia in the world. Not being a utopia does not make a society so distasteful, dreaded or distressing to be demeaned in the way you have done.

There is no mob rule in India. Nor are Indians a fickle crowd. And social norms which define human behaviour are very much in tact. Any kind of verbal abuse which delegitimises our institutions and our culture is inexcusable and is indefensible. India can do without this stigma.

Ours is no tribal or closed society. There is cultural and religious pluralism and accommodation for alternative points of view. We are no dumbed down masses, are alert and alive to our situation, critically understand our circumstances and have never allowed knowledge to become political. Our lives are moderated by the Constitution and the laws and we enforce accountability to wrongs. The moral system which the majority community in this country subscribe too is of moral universalism, an ethic which transcends religion, culture or personal whim. You have assumed the role of a moral entrepreneur and using urban legends have tried to create a moral panic, a role which does not behove you or any other responsible person in your position.

Fear is a primeval emotion. All of us know fear. Phobia is however an anxiety disorder. There is an irrationality to it and a deviance from acceptable individual behaviour. Your phobia is your own making which may require therapy or medication. Treat it. Do not indulge in it nor publicise it to create dismay or dread in others.

The folkways, the ways of living, thinking and acting, which are our perennial guide to conduct and which we consider of central importance embodying as they do the fundamental moral values of our society will make us instinctively stand with your children and defend them should the need ever arise. This is India. And this India does not so act as part of a conscious design but as a visceral reflex to the gruesome and horrifying fictional situation you imagined.

Instead of instilling fear in your children educate and empower them with the India of India which you have forsaken. I as an Indian have always seen you only as the versatile actor who carries a famous name. The fact you are a Muslim never factored in my estimation of you. You have insulted every Indian like me with your comment.


Accusing Lord Ram of not doing justice in banishing Sita, Pratap Bhanu Mehta, describes  (The Indian Express, October 19, 2018) vanquishing of Ravana, rescue of Sita, end of exile and eventual enthronement as “pyrrhic” and portrays  Vijaydashmi as “permanent triumph of injustice”! Mehta, in the same breath mentions Valmiki’s “greatness” in leaving questions relating to Lord Ram’s conduct “hanging” and not “sugar coating” the outcome. Mehta ignored the fact that Valmiki was himself a Hindu and Lord Ram an incarnation of Lord Vishnu. Yet Valmiki did not hesitate in presenting the Epic as he did. Authority, Revelation or Dogma did not constrain him. Hinduism thus celebrates freedom from servitude and subjection to creed and articles of faith. It is victory over prejudice and intolerance.

Valmiki was aware about the worth Hinduism attached to  “pramana” as the means by which a person acquires knowledge. And pramana is not confined to the word or testimony of experts alone but includes perception, inference and deduction trusting the wisdom of the person to reach the right conclusion. Thus even a Pratap Bhanu Mehta will not be called an apostate for describing Lord Ram as being “reduced to pathetic self-doubt over truth” and accusing Him of “not doing justice” which incidentally is a gratuitous denunciation made rather insolently with a half-baked knowledge of the scriptures. Hinduism thus celebrates the autonomy of an individual, gives him dignity and worth and trusts his judgment not forcing him to be part of any herd.

Mehta seems to be oblivious about hermeneutics – the science of interpretation of scriptures – and the use of semiotics including allegories as an aid to interpretation. What is expressed carries a moral meaning, different from what a literal reading may convey, to drive the mind towards lessons of right and wrong as a guide to acceptable standards of behaviour.  The message conveyed is that life can never be purged of conflict between values and criticism of a choice of one amongst clashing and sparring values will is inevitable. One must yet show character and have courage of conviction – cultivate a quality of mind as can face difficulty and pain. As a king deferring to the will of the people is obligatory even if it involves sacrificing personal happiness. Mehta calls this “rubbish” as Lord Ram went into exile “against his subjects wishes” ignoring the fact that at that time his father Dashrath not Lord Ram was king! In resolving an ethical dilemma between two choices neither of which can be called immoral  a king must assume a transformative role as a leader displaying a commitment to the larger good and derive legitimacy from the trust of the ruled rather than merely from his position as king. Hinduism thus acknowledges there cannot be any empirical truths in the real world. It celebrates independent thinking.

“Triumph turned to tragedy” as Mehta mentioned belittling the significance of Vijaydashmi.  It was tragedy for Lord Ram and Sita alone. And it was not only “Sita’s battle and Lord Ram was as much a part of it. For Lord Ram’s kingdom, however, there was no tragedy. Ramrajya –  equal rights alike for the prince and the pauper- still prevailed. After all it was a washerman whose comment led to Lord Ram sacrificing his personal happiness and “practising austerity”  and maintaining his “absolute fidelity” towards her which according to Mehta “amounts to nothing”! The movement away from absolute monarchy and divine right to are more liberal creed and rejection of authoritarianism – Lord Ram could well have cut the washerman’s head – and caste prejudices amounts to “nothing” for Mehta!

Sita’s banishment is called “reducto ad absurdum of the epic”. If there is a single statement running through Ramayana it is of self sacrifice. I fail to understand how this is disproved by Sita’s banishment. On the contrary it is re-enforced. If there is any argument ad absurdum it is that advanced by Pratap Bhanu Mehta.

Mehta’s piece is a typical example of what is known as a “framing effect”. He framed the presentation to concentrate only on Sita. This is but an instance of attribute framing. The author just concentrates on one facet of an entire epic and does not give equal chance or importance to other aspects which alone can complete the picture. Perhaps he wanted his article to be relevant for the Metoo environment of today and compromised accuracy by adopting a shortcut of focussing on one aspect of a complex issue.

The “battle” is duly joined ON Dussehra Mr Mehta. It will surely continue “after Dussehra”. And the battle will be with mindsets like yours. Vijaydashmi has been and will always remain triumph over injustice!



Indophobia is often a default position.

Cringing Indians apologetic about their roots re-enforce these phobic attitudes.

Why talk about Mill, Macaulay, the Evangelists and others when we have people like Priyanka Chopra to defame, disparage and denigrate India.

Apologists for Priyanka may say that the episode is a work of fiction but the choice of the storyline reveals a normative bias and subscription to beliefs and values antagonistic to India.

Even if we ignore the fact that the give away of the plot was Rudraksha beads – a demonising of religion reminiscent of Macaulay’s odious comment that all that is hideous, grotesque and ignoble about Hindu Pantheon – on the specious plea that Muslims are portrayed as terrorists too, can we ignore the suggestion in the plot that Kashmir is a disputed territory whose fate legitimately depends upon intercession of a third country and while national interest lies in conceding  that position , those who are opposing it are terrorists?? And what is worse is that the sense to oppose this untenable position on Kashmir is shown to be in Hindus only! Do Muslims believe Kashmir is disputed, that Pakistan has a stake in it and a third country shall decide its fate?

While the producers “inadvertently” stepped into a complex political issue was Priyanka Chopra only in a state of partial parousal out of excitement at performance as Alex Parrish and had otherwise no awareness of the storyline?

Or is she one of Kipling’s animals…Kipling after all had more love for animals than humans in Indian homes and perhaps she must be enjoying being feted as a healthy specimen.

No one can fictionalise India.

Priyanka’s forefathers were the white man’s burden. She and people like her are ours!


Right to Privacy – Now Public!

Alan Westin who defined privacy as “the claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to others” explained that “just as a social balance favoring disclosure and surveillance over privacy is a functional necessity for totalitarian systems, so a balance that ensures strong citadels of individual and group privacy and limits both disclosure and surveillance is a prerequisite for liberal democratic societies. The democratic society relies on publicity as a control over government, and on privacy as a shield for group and individual life.”

It was, therefore, surprising to have the former Attorney General assert that privacy is not a Fundamental Right. Privacy is a guarantee of due process providing an assurance that the government operates within the law and guarantees a fair procedure.

In fact whether the Constitution was read as a textualist would (Justice Scalia defined textulaism as an interpretation “guided by the text and not by intentions or ideals external to it, and by the original meaning of the text, not by its evolving meaning over time”) or whether it was construed as a Living Constitution that favours a broad not a conservative or mechanical approach “not condemning civilized society to remain under the regimen of its barbarous ancestors” the conclusion is inescapable that privacy is in fact guaranteed by the Constitution.

Privacy can be best understood by identifying an “intruder”. N A Moreham,Senior Lecturer in Law, Victoria University of Wellington in a scholarly article on privacy quoted Stanley Ben who described an intruder as one who “fails to show a proper respect for persons; he is treating people as objects or specimens — like “dirt” — and not as subjects with sensibilities, ends, and aspirations of their own, morally responsible for their own decisions, and capable, as mere specimens are not, of reciprocal relations with the observer. These resentments suggest a possible ground for a prima facie claim not to be watched, at any rate in the same manner as one watches a thing or an animal. For this is to “take liberties”, to act impudently, to show less than a proper regard for human dignity.”

Denial of privacy thus robs one of dignity. But the right to live with dignity has been held to be a core constitutional value by our Supreme Court and guaranteed by Article 21. And as privacy is an assurance of dignity the guarantee of privacy cannot but be implicit in the Constitution.

Even otherwise as Edward Bloustein says: “The man who is compelled to live every minute of his life among others and whose every need, thought, desire, fancy or gratification is subject to public scrutiny, has been deprived of his individuality …. Such an individual merges with the mass. His opinions, being public, tend never to be different; his aspirations, being known, tend always to be conventionally accepted ones” Visibility itself provides a powerful method of enforcing norms and as Westin tellingly puts it “naked to ridicule and shame they will be put in control of those who know their secrets.” As Moreham said freedom of expression – again guaranteed by the Constitution – would lose much of its value if people do not have the chance to learn to think for themselves and have anything unique, creative and controversial to express. Similarly freedom of action and belief – also guaranteed by the Constitution – will be lost where one is kept under the spotlight and on the stage in perpetuity robbing life of its spontaneity sparkle and exuberance, pillaging imagination of its resourcefulness, curbing individual genius and even idiosyncrasies, and enforcing conformity.

The right to privacy though unspecified is yet clearly reflected in the language of the Constitution and the existing state of law also clearly showed that the society believed that such a right existed. Merely being alive and alert to this fact even without being activist was sufficient to acknowledge the same.

The utter incongruity of the exercise of constituting a Bench of Nine Judges to decide if Privacy was a Fundamental Right at the instance of the Government which denied the proposition is apparent in the wholehearted endorsement of the decision as a vindication of its stance. What then was the need to rely upon the judgments on M.P.Sharma and Kharak Singh to insist that larger benches of the Supreme Court had held privacy not to be Fundamental Right, insisting that the framers of the Constitution had expressly excluded the right from the list of Fundamental Rights and asserting that the right was merely a common law right – an argument of the Attorney General which sat rather uncomfortably with that of the Additional Solicitor General that the right was recognized in different statutes? It could have been conceded that Sharma and Kharak Singh did not lay down the law correctly, that on a contemporaneous not historical exposition of law the want of explicit inclusion of privacy as a Fundamental Right could not be considered decisive and that a common law right was elevated to the status of a Fundamental Right and clearly emerged from the guarantee of Article 21 and other facets of freedom guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.

Split verdicts often create doubts about verdicts and are open to criticism of policy and expediency trumping law. The Supreme Court spoke in one voice in recognizing the right to privacy. The unanimous decision of the Supreme Court is a momentous moment in India’s legal history decisively showing that existence of the right to privacy as an undisputed reality and vindicating India’s position as a confident, mature and vibrant liberal democratic state.