Introduction: AAP the New Party
There
is much criticism of the hypocritical actions and 'U-turns' of the Aam
Aadmi Party (AAP) in New Delhi after it seized power with the support of the Indian national congress. Much of this is justified.
Their:
a) inattention to governance, dangerous calls for a referendum
in border states,
b) a membership consisting of a few misguided
pro-capitalist elements, naive alternative-seekers, amongst a crowd of Marxist activists, and
c) rapidly
mutating behaviors,
is slowly but surely made India
uncomfortable and nervous. One quality of AAP is undeniable. On the
surface, all of (a)-(c), when taken in combination, represents a new politics. The
AAP portrays this novelty as a positive feature, and it's ability to
accommodate diversity as an example of its flexible thinking. The Delhi
Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's life before AAP, as well as the antecedents of other leaders of the party is now being
scrutinized, and the picture is not very pleasant. When the extent of its
Ford-Foundation links become fully public knowledge, AAP will be in further
trouble. It is worth examining the ideological banner under which such anarchist elements have rallied to.
AAP's Guiding Philosophy
Let's
briefly set aside for now their economic/political orientations, and focus on
their core DNA. What is the fundamental "chip" inside that drives the AAP machine? We must be indebted to senior ex-AAP
member Surajit Dasgupta, the whistle blower who has given us a r
ingside view of what happened in the AAP prior to its Delhi 'coup'. In particular, let us focus on the passage where Surajit notes (emphasis mine):
"...The problem
was with the AAP’s erroneous understanding of the fundamentals. The name
of the committee for Muslims figured under the topic, secularism! ...
how do we plan
to reach a different destination by traversing the same path as that of
faltering political parties before us and the British Empire that looked
at Indians as separate electorates? ..."
Yogendra Yadav, AAP ideologue, responds.
"...
we have to avoid
three ways of being secular:
... Congress [secularism] which is often
about selective appeasement of minorities
...BJP secularism which wants to reduce the
formal equality before law just to a formality
...communist secularism that treats anything
religious as untouchable.
We need to evolve a principled approach that
can relate without any guilt to religious and cultural symbols and
discuss the material and community related difficulties of any community
whether it is majority or minority..."
Surajit responds:
"... I
have no objection whatsoever to addressing the concerns of Muslims
under our project of social justice. In fact, I shall extend all-out
support to such endeavours. My case is that it should not be masqueraded
as secularism.
"
Yadav rejects this statement and justifies this approach citing:
...you
might wish to refer to Rajeev Bhargav's body of work on [secularism] that
argues that Indian secularism has its distinct identity and that is not
necessarily a problem..."
"... is a big tactical blunder Kejriwal committed by inviting Yadav and outsourcing policy to him.
... The party continued with its policy of multi-communalism, undeterred by
the corrective suggestions members and supporters kept sending to it"
Thus, ignoring protests, Mr. Yogendra Yadav chose for AAP, Rajeev Bhargava's
new model of secularism based on the state "maintaining a principled distance" from various religious groups.
This, he claims to be superior, fairer, and also a wholly indigenous alternative to the
Congress/BJP/Marxist way. In particular, it claims to be better than
what is universally recognized as pseudo-secularism of India since independence. We will argue that AAP's secularism, like Congress' secularism is just as anti-Hindu, and
in fact, makes things
worse.
Secularism has been universally rejected by Indian thinkers
Bhargava's body of work on an 'Indian secularism' has gained a lot traction within India's westernized
intellectual circles, as well as in some parts of the west. In fact, Bhargava has been presenting these ideas as a universal solution for communal harmony based on a neo-secularism formulated by borrowing from the best principles of India and the west. His ideas are motivated by the failure of 'secularism' to
solve India's communal problems (Bhargava's many essays on this topic invariably start from the events of December 1992). What may be surprising to some is that
the total failure of secularism in India has now been accepted by at least five
different groups, including:
(i) Marxists like Bhargava and the JNU-AAP ideologues,
(ii) so-called Gandhian proponents like Ashish Nandy,
(iii) the Indian nationalist parties, as well as(iv)
objective thinking academic scholars like SN Balagangadhara, and
(v) dharmic
intellectuals like Arun Shourie and 'Being Different' author Rajiv
Malhotra.
All these thinkers have exposed the inherent flaws of secularism in their writings from diverse viewpoints. In particular,
the last two groups of thinkers have in different ways, provided rigorous logical
reasoning to explain why secularism or its derivative
variations (in its most 'genuine' form) are guaranteed to fail in India, even if it is implemented as
intended.
A common reason for
all these groups rejecting
secularism for India can be traced to the Abrahamic origins of
secularism and the context in which it was created and is applicable to, i.e. to prevent
Abrahamic institutions from running a competing government that
undermines the rule of the land, aka "separation of church and state". For example, S.N.
Balagangadhara constructs convincing and consistent logical argument to show that:
b) Secularism can never be neutral when it has to deal with an Abrahamic religious community and an Indian religious community
b) Secularism in India favors Abrahamic proselytizing religions over Indian ones, and consequently,
c) this western/christian model of secularism has not just helped, but has been the primary and active culprit in inciting communal
violence in India.
The extensive body of work of Rajiv Malhotra on this topic
represents the most comprehensive, and original Indian thought (dharmic perspective)
and intellectual contribution in this area in recent times, and is
very briefly touched upon at the end of this
essay. This work is already having a remarkable influence in positively shaping the course
of Indian society and politics and will be covered in-depth in a future
post.
Alternatives to Secularism: Go Indian
Similarly, each of these aforementioned five groups offer alternatives to secularism. Interestingly again,
all their
alternative claims (including, interestingly those of the Marxists) are openly derived from an
Indian basis, which is quite remarkable. At this level of analysis, it
sounds promising: Indian thinkers across the board have recognized and
then rejected the Abrahamic-western model of secularism and have opted
for an Indian replacement. But what does this replacement look like?
-
Bhargava does not reject secularism altogether but proposes a
'redefined secularism' or a neo-secularism that he claims is suitable for the Indian
context, which essentially allows for temporary suspensions of
secularism ostensibly in the interest of fairness and neutrality.
- self-styled 'Gandhians' offer 'Sarva dharma Sama bhava'
- Indian nationalist groups (e.g. pre-Modi BJP) propose Hindutva as an alternative
-
Balagangadhara does not propose a clear alternative but indicates
that a solution is available within Indian traditions of pluralism that upheld
communal harmony for centuries prior to colonial rule
-
Arun Shourie noted that the world 'secularism' has been prostituted,
and suggests 'pluralism' as an alternative in a recent NDTV panel discussion
with Barkha Dutt. In recent times, it appears that he has spoken
publicly about 'mutual respect' being preferable to 'tolerance', which
is the critical idea tied to the approach of:
- Rajiv
Malhotra (independent non-Hindutva Hindu scholar), who provides an in-depth analysis of the contradictions of secularism, and why a 'dharma sapeksha' society is a viable and
sustainable alternative for India, in his book '
Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism'.
His new book '
Indra's Net' emphasizes that such an 'Open Architecture' based on mutual respect is critical to maintaining India's unity in diversity. This approach is not bound to any particular religion, and appears to be the most preferable approach.
But first, to understand AAP's DNA,
we have to study
Bhargava's model which is claimed to be derived from an Indian perspective.
Bhargava's Neo-secularism: a gift to the West
There
are pros and cons to the Bhargava model. The 'pros' being an
attempt to present an Indian way (albeit "Indian" is limited to a
post-1947 world) and a grudging recognition of the potential within
Hindu tradition. A fatal flaw of this model is induced by Bhargava's seemingly
desperate attempts to maintain the illusion of a neutrality of
'secularism' despite recognizing its western origins and Christian
context for which it was designed. He proposes several ingenious
modifications to work around this problem to create a more workable
model.
His first failure is the inability to grasp the irreconcilable differences
between the nature of the truth claims of history-centric religions
(e.g. Abrahamic) and dharmic systems like Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. (which, as SN Balagangadhara mentioned earlier is the key reason why secularism can
never be
neutral in an Indian context (although SNB uses the less precise word 'pagan' instead of dharmic, which is Rajiv
Malhotra's more correct terminology). Rajiv Malhotra's BD provides a more comprehensive comparison of these different truth claims by examining them from a dharmic perspective. He coined the phrase history-centrism to characterize Abrahamic truth claims, which when implemented in practice as a claim of exclusivity, are incompatible with an inclusive, open architecture based on mutual respect. It stands to reason that any modification to "classical" secularism that ignores these fundamental differences will
not be neutral either. The modifications introduced by Bhargava include:
a) the state adopting maintaining a
principled distance from all religious communities "
which
entails a flexible approach on the question of intervention or
abstention, combining both, dependent on the context, nature or current
state of relevant religions"
b) the state adopting a
contextual secularism which "
recognizes
that the conflict between individual rights and group rights or
between claims of equality and liberty or between claims of liberty and
the satisfaction of basic needs cannot always be adjudicated by a
recourse to some general and abstract principle. Rather they can only be
settled case by case and may require a fine balancing of competing
claims".
This results in a "
multi-value
character of secularism [as opposed to a binary separation of church/state]
makes it inherently unstable and necessarily
ambiguous but that this instability is inescapable and given the context
in which it is meant to work, this vagueness is a virtue."
Unfortunately,
a combination of (a) and (b) without addressing the inherent bias
within secularism that skews it in favor of Abrahamic religions only
worsens the situation for dharmic religions, because Bhargava allows the
state to
negotiate with Abrahamic institutions (e.g. Church) as needed, while also allowing the state to essentially
dictate to
pluralistic dharmic systems like Hinduism which never had a centralized law-making institution
in its traditions that competed with the law of the land. In other words
not only will a prejudiced (original) secularism be unnecessarily
foisted on dharmic systems like Hinduism, when it was totally
unnecessary to do so in the first place, it will additionally augment
this by mandating that an secular Indian state act as a proxy
quasi-Hindu law-making institution for Hindus from time to time to prevent incoherent groups of Hindu traditions from misbehaving due to the "
caste system, arguably the central feature of Hinduism". Therefore "
in Hinduism, the absence of an
organized institution such as the Church has meant that the impetus for effective
reform cannot come exclusively from within. Reform within Hinduism can hardly be initiated without help from powerful external institutions such as the state". One cannot but ask Bhargava if he has bought into the neo-Hinduism myth that was invented by a group of missionary scholars in the west and was emphatically debunked in 'Indra's Net'. The net result is not principled
distance as intended, but an
unprincipled and increased proximity
to Abrahamic religions. Why does this happen?
Bhargava's second failure: moral relativism
One reason is that Bhargava has:
a)
misappropriated, mangled and relabeled portions of the contextual
ethics of dharma into an ill-defined and ambiguous notion of "contextual moral reasoning" - a
vagueness that he himself has recognized in his exposition, and sees as
its strength
b) erased its Hindu origins to make it palatable to his westernized peers and pass it off as some original contribution
Using Rajiv Malhotra's terminology, these two steps result in the
digestion of the nuanced contextual ethics of dharma into western secularism.
Without fully understanding how dharma-based ethics works, Bhargava has bypassed the universal pole of Indian ethics, i.e. the 'Samanya
dharma' completely, retaining only the contextual pole.
Dharma works well because of the usage of the universal pole as the
definitive scanner that scrutinizes the motive when contextual deviations are requested. This is explained in detail by Rajiv Malhotra in his
book 'Being Different':.
"..
The frequently levelled charge of moral relativism against this [dharmic]
contextual morality is inaccurate, because the conduct and motive are
considered consequential in judging the ultimate value of statements.
The degree of common good is the universal standard, and the well-being
of all creatures, in terms of non-harming (ahimsa), is the highest
truth. For the Buddha and for the sages of the Mahabharata, non-harming
is the universal ideal ('ahimsa paramo dharmah') and truth, the highest
dharma ('satyan paro nasti dharmah'). The contextual morality serves the
universal morality and is an individualized expression of it. In other words, the contextual dharma applies the principles of higher universal dharma of benevolence and compassion to specific contexts.
Thus,
dharmic thought offers both universal and contextual poles – not just
the latter, as that would be tantamount to moral relativism..."
An additional reference is the set of essays of Sandeep Balakrishna
that critique A. K. Ramanujan's
work on this topic. Historian-scholar Sandeep Balakrishna in a series of essays in 2008:
1. Dissecting contextual morality (
part 1,
part 2)
2.
'Dharma 101' series
examines
the differences between dharma-based ethics versus the "unipolar
contextual morality" trap that western thinkers (like Bhargava here) fall into.
Bhargava's contextual morality specifies no
unambiguous anchoring within a universal moral reasoning that will deter unprincipled interference. He rejects dharma-based solutions, as evidenced by his reference to "filth" in India's traditions and the erase of the dharmic origin of his ideas,
leaving its user with no clear universal guidance. Mutual respect is not even mentioned opening the doors to communal tension with a neo-secular government acting as the capricious policeman. Consequently, Bhargava's
interpretation gives the state the right to tactically cherry-pick
and make motivated choices (e.g. votebank politics, populism, foreign support) on when to and when not-to deviate from
dharma. In the case of Abrahamic religions, their powerful
globally-networked institutions headquartered in the west or middle-east
can and will mount a vigorous defence to thwart any interference,
whereas the decentralized open architecture of Hindu/Buddhist/Sikh/Jain traditions are left
relatively vulnerable to such intrusions. Thus, implementation of AAP's
contextual secularism of Bhargava opens the doors wide to moral
relativism in the Indian context.
Breaking India
This
unipolar contextual morality and resulting moral relativism is the core
'doctrine' that the founding fathers of AAP have adopted. It's now
famous 'U-turns', rejection of national interest, alignment with
adharmic forces and distancing themselves from dharmic peoples, invariably followed
by a justification of these actions, may well be a reflection of the moral-relativism in these context-dependent actions.
If the Indian National Congress practiced pseudo-secularism (which is
really no better than 'genuine' secularism, as we have seen already),
AAP has chosen a contextual secularism that is open to moral relativism. It appears that the more sophisticated the secularism model, the more anti-Hindu it is, and the more justifiable these actions seemingly become.
All these ideas are being bandied about ignoring the undeniable fact that dharmic religions have been at the receiving end of ethnic cleansing
pogroms and depraved indifference of colonial rulers in several parts of India for the last several centuries that
has resulted in catastrophic geographical and demographic losses that dwarf the Jewish holocaust and the genocide of the Native Americans. All these adharmic models being proposed ignoring the fact that the open architecture of dharma has been the
sole
working exemplar for sustainable communal harmony in the history of the world.
Yet, every such secularism model is justified on the never-materializing
threat of the oxymoron of Hindu fundamentalism and the reductionism of the ever-evolving and self-reforming open architecture to either a fossilized Smriti or a neo-Hinduism myth. Not surprisingly,
Koenraad Elst has severely condemned the Bhargava model that has now been embraced by the AAP:
"...
In fact,
India is not a secular state at all. Casanova is a well-meaning but unforewarned
Westerner swallowing and reproducing what he is spoon-fed by Bhargava. The
latter is a cunning representative of India’s rulers, who has an interest in
pretending that India practices “secularism”, and that anything that might seem
unsecular to Westerners is due not to a defect in India’s secularism but to the
observers being Westerners who don’t understand India’s unique approach to
secularism. Well, he would, wouldn’t he?
... India does
not satisfy a minimum definition of a secular state (which means Bhargava and
all the other self-described secularists are wrong)..."
One can only wonder how many of AAP's members have been seduced by this "progressive Indian" version 2.0 of secularism.
AAP's DNA
Let us now apply Rajiv Malhotra's analysis presented in his book 'Being Different' to decipher AAP's DNA.
1. The Aam Aadmi party in its current form is dharma-nirpeksha, just like the Congress.
Proof:
Whereas the original movement of Anna Hazare and Baba Ramdev was
dharmic (dharma ~ that which upholds, sustains, and maintains in
harmony), i.e. arose from a sustainable grass-roots movement to solve problems common to people of all faiths, the AAP
has digested this movement by misappropriating the goals, embraced a
virulent version of secularism,
erasing its entire dharmic basis,
thereby making it dharma-nirpeksha, i.e. indifferent to dharma. It
follows then that AAP's objectives are unsustainable and prone to
adharma and corruption.This is an
entirely predictable outcome of embracing dharma-nirpeksha governance methods.
Those who foolishly believe that secular parties will somehow reform themselves for India's sake first need to
educate themselves by reading the essays and books linked above.
2. The AAP is also anti-Indian.
Proof:
It maintains strong and open links to the Ford Foundation that features
prominently in the 'Breaking India' book of Rajiv Malhotra. Ford
Foundation has never denied its links to the CIA. This angle has been
investigated in-depth by any websites and agencies, including
intelligence personnel, so we will not cover this very important topic
in this post.
3. Secular parties are an example of an unstable, synthetic unity
Proof:
The diversity of groups like the AAP does not enhance but weaken's India's unity since
their constituent ideologies are all exclusivist. Consequently, any alliance formed by these
contradictory power-centers can only be based on the temporary notion of
mere tolerance rather the sustainable mutual-respect that promotes an integral unity within diversity. Such alliances
are one of tension-filled convenience that limit such secular parties to being an inherently unstable
entity held together solely by unprincipled internal
compromises. The promotion of AAP and similar clones to a national stage
therefore represents a clear and present danger to India's unity.
This concludes our analysis of Rajeev Bhargava's model of secularism that AAP's ideologues have adopted. We conclude with a brief postscript on a viable alternative to such secular or overtly religious models.
Postscript: A dharma-sapeksha society based on mutual respect.
Rajiv
Malhotra's book "Being Different: India's Challenge to Western
Universalism" provides detailed and logical arguments for why a
dharma-sapeksha society based on mutual respect is the best available
alternative to secularism for India. 'Indra's Net' presents this an 'open architecture model'. In other words, it demonstrates the
a dharma-sapeksha open architecture based on mutual respect represents both a necessary and sufficient alternative to the biased incumbent model of secularism. In fact, Bhargava's essays on secularism run into a road-block when he talks of inter-religious dialogue because of his limited understanding of the differences between their truth claims,
which can be resolved elegantly and fairly
based on the dharmic concept of mutual respect. Readers are referred to Rajiv
Malhotra's books on this topic to understand the complete picture.
Dharma
is a universal law of the cosmos that was discovered in India, which is
not limited to any religion, location, or sect in India and is thus
acceptable to all. A society without dharma is unsustainable. The state
as well as the religious and a-religious communities, as well as every
individual entity (including the environment and animal life) in India will
interact in an open architecture on the principle of
mutual respect and ahimsa (the principle of minimum harm). This bi-directional
respect is far better placed than the uni-directional mode of mere
tolerance on the basis of which secularism and history-centric faiths
interact in the western societies.
