Book Review: The Indian Conservative by Jaitirth (Jerry) Rao

Jerry Rao belongs to that rare breed of Indians who graduated from being a successful businessman to an intellectual, particularly moving to the right of centre. There are quite a few with such orientation. Many of them make an occasional or a flashy appearance through articles, blogs or tweet responses to situations, part-taking in discussions and the like. However, hardly anybody has boldly ventured into full-fledged intellectual space, leave alone representing the entire spectrum of traditional Indian thought. Jerry has stepped in this direction.

This is an important book in many ways. It is ambitious in that it hopes to present the rainbow of Indian Conservative Thought as a legitimate intellectual position and as  relevant in the modern era as well. This grand ambition has in the least resulted in a good survey of sorts - marking the terrain of Conservatism, its conflict with Liberalism, and placing the Indian version of Conservatism in this crowded place - boldly and definitely. 

However, the book leaves a serious reader dissatisfied with insufficiency. Let me state them in the beginning so that rest of this write-up can be placed in the right sphere. 

• Firstly, the grand ambition of the book packed into a few pages results in a not-so-thorough exploration of ancient Indian thought ie., in the entirety of its philosophy and principles.
• Secondly, there is a forced alignment of Indian Conservatism with Western conservatism without sufficient comparison and equivalence. 
• Thirdly, there is a certain obviousness associated with terms such as Conservatism and Indian Nationalism as though they do not need explanation or characterization. Either they must be explained conceptually or empirically in a structured manner. However we learn through examples and author's use of them sprinkled all over and one is not sure whether it is comprehensive or random responses of the author. A theoretical narrative is absent.
• There are bigger problems. He has chosen the word Conservatism to represent the Indian thought that has evolved over the centuries as a complex of unique principles and a definite philosophy. Although sprinkled, he explains Conservatism from the western stand point perfectly through its emphasis on incrementalism, gradualness, problem solving, lived realities, empiricism and so on. Further. he is probably aware of the inadequacy of the term in the Indian context and hence there is a clarification to that effect in Author's Note as well. But I wonder why he stopped at that and did not dare to choose a better term or explain the difference. This may seem nit picking but it is not. We shall explore this later. In particular, the Indian perspective of life is much more than the incrementalism that Jerry strongly associates with both his presentation of Indian Conservatism and the western counterpart.  The book makes the grand mistake of equating Indian system of thought entirely to this version. The essential difference has not even been explored leave alone theorize it.

Nevertheless, the Book is a significant survey of sorts in this great attempt to establish Indian Conservatism in this play-field. Hopefully, this will begin a conversation between people on either side according intellectual legitimacy to each other. To begin with, Jerry puts forth key characteristics of Conservatism in general. He clarifies a few misrepresentations and misconceptions about Conservatism - wittingly or unwittingly by the Liberals - that makes it convenient for liberal bashing. He does not explain them in sufficient measure but makes very critical points that help a beginner get started in this journey - better informed. Some, not all, of them -

1. Conservatism is not about being frozen in time and this criticism by liberals is nothing but a misrepresentation. A general principle of criticism is that it must be based self-descriptions of somebody/something, not transformed versions of it - made easy for criticism/dismissal. He correctly criticizes the simplistic view that conservatism values all that is old and opposed all change.
2. Conservatism concerns itself about how to change constructively without losing things of value.
3. Conservatism explained through essential concepts of horizontal social cohesion, limited geographies, shared solidarity and may not be in conflict with individual freedom.
4. Conservatism is fluid, empirical, local in its manifestation but universalist in basis. (At this stage one would have thought that the book explains the philosophical underpinnings or world view guides this perspective - but the book fails to do). Conservatism's Impulse is universal but it is against Universalist Ideology.
5. Conservatism does not compromise with supremacy of the individual (It upholds svadharma). Conservatives value freedom of individual but they do not uphold it as a universal value in isolation.
6. Conservatism believes in the impossibility of perfection hence it strives to be forever on the road of gradual perfection - kind of an asymptotic imagination of life.
7. Conservatives balance between the tyranny of collective and withering away due to individual freedom. Conservatives are well aware that love for the particular, community, society can become pathological. This is well identified. But they recognize the limitation of the individual.
8. Conversatism recognizes well negotiated change as more sustainable and valuable than drastic change. For eg., Alexander Hamilton in New York getting people to abandon slavery without force. It recognizes the limits of drastic change - where the problem and the solution assume the same levels of tyranny as could be seen in French revolution and Russian revolution.
   
   
   

Jerry also makes a very strong defense of Indian Conservatism and Indian Nationalism. Here are some key observations he makes - let us continue to use the term Indian Conservatism as he uses it.

1. He places Indian Conservatism on a higher pedestal than its much maligned political version of Hindu Nationalism and makes a case for it as a System of Thought. Against criticism, he recognizes Indian Nationalism as a legitimate subset of Indian conservatism and hence in the larger terrain of Indian Conservatism. He recognizes Bankim Chandra Chatterjee's contribution in presenting Hindu nationalism as intellectually legitimate. However, the book does not go beyond making these observations - it does not convert this into a productive intellectual argument with closure.
2. He correctly identifies places of importance in ancient Indian texts where evidence of Indian Conservatism can clearly be found - Shanti Parva of Mahabharata, Chanakya's Arthashastra, that very favourite of liberals  - Thirukkural. Ancient Indians knew that the collective could clash with the individual and vice versa - Allasami Peddanna is am example of that. Ancient Indians are against the brutal Matsya Nyaya where the mighty rule over everything else. They recognize the realities of Yuga Dharma (the way of the times) and the Sukshma Dharma (that subtle righteousness that is accessible only with struggle). But, these references do not evolve further into a philosophy and the principles of thought behind it.
3. He defends Indian Nationalism leveraging its Hindu past - for an enduring renaissance it has to leverage the strength of the society hence terming it reactionary is wrong. 
4. He correctly recognizes the limitation of ways of Subhas Bose, Mohammed Iqbal and Adigal. Their ways were too reactionary without sufficient thought. Although it is an aside, he does not explore the driving force behind minority insecurities of Sir. Syed Ahmed Khan. But these are all an aside.
5. The Book succeeds in explaining extreme nationalism adequately - as we witness it. It is merely a protective stealth against forced change due to an alien thought imposed on us. However, this section on extreme nationalism in India is riddled with  unnecessary apology. An opportunity to explore the difficulty of responding to the assault of Abrahamic thought is missed out (There are many many more misses).

The biggest miss is in not characterizing Indian Conservatism through essential principles of Indian perspective of life. Let us begin by what he identifies correctly but does not provide a philosophical basis for.

The Lack of Philosophy in the Book

Jerry unabashedly presents many essential characteristics of Conservatism in the book that are far less understood in the liberal backlash against it. 

Conservatism is forever on the road of harmony without opposing change. It is in the perspective of Change that it differs from Liberalism and not in opposing Change - which Jerry explains at various places. (Jerry provides a very good narrative of how Indian stalwarts, like true Conservatives, approached the British rule in the initial years by accepting them as ruling and working with them towards change). In this perspective of change as background, he explains how Conservatism accords respect to an independent market and characterizes such a Market adequately. He recognizes the Conservatism prefers tradition, traditional patterns and style even in Change - yes, there is a love of tradition, may be even excess of it. He defends Conservatism's emphasis on Civilizational continuity - for the strength of the society comes from it. Change of water in the bath tub is good as long as the baby is saved.

Strong points that they are Jerry does not create a basis for these characteristics from philosophy and perspective of life. That is a huge miss without which things often sound like an apology. While he recognizes - not in as many words - that there is a difference in Theory of Change between Liberalism and Conservatism - he does not characterize the theory. Worse he does not differentiate the Indian Conservatism and its western counterpart through such a Theory. That is the fundamental need of the hour. Indian perspective of Change is best explained by the trinity concepts of Srishti (change/creation through artha and kaama) Sthiti (dynamic stable equilibrium), Laya (the end/making way) and the interrelationships between the three, how the notions of Ruta (Universal Principles of Truth), Dharma (the beholding) come out of the philosophy of Sristhi-Sthiti-Laya,  and how Desha-Kaala-Vartamaana then attain the kind of prominence that it does. Every aspect of Conservatism that he recognizes can then be explained through these unique concepts of Indian philosophy and established for the value that they bring to life in general. The vibrant community life of India can be explained on the basis of this philosophy as an essential way of living these principles. 

Indian Philosophy recognizes Change as inevitable (artha and kaama - part of Purushaarthas) and as a fundamental nature of life, but not as a necessity. In this perspective of change, what is necessary is a trajectory of balance, consistency and continuity - everything else is a striving for it. Hence, you do not strive for change but for a balance in that inevitable change. It is a striving for the most harmonious, safe and enriching route and destination in sailing. It is not a search of better destinations at the risk of disastrous routes. In this harmonious route there is beauty in daily life and hence the importance for grihastha dharma. Water in the bath tub has to change and that is the fundamental need of the baby but it must be changed with beauty and enriching experience - for the baby, for those who change it, the water itself and so on. Its love for the past is not a recreation of the past but a striving for civilizational continuity because healthy change requires that continuity and connect - a disconnect from the past leaves life less rich in general. Collectively these principles can be described as striving for 'saatatya' (Continuity in Change). A life of Community is emphasized because these civilizational aspirations are best achieved through a Community. When Change alone is emphasized and the Individual glorified it is always at the cost of those aspirations that do not serve even the aspirations of Liberalism.

The Indian Philosophy of Saatatya

In the light of all this, terming Indian Conservatism as a branch of conservatism kind of flattens the system of thought that is India. The essential difference is lost. We could even say that the Indian perspective should be referred to by its own terminology - may be Saatatya. The essential difference with Western Conservatism is that the nature of world as ever changing and ever evolving is fundamentally recognized. The 'Sthiti' in India is not a stable unchanging state. 'Sthiti' is defined dynamic stable equilibrium. 'Srishti' is to achieve this 'Sthiti'. The perspective of Change (Sristhi) then is forever to be in that balanced path (Ruta) so that Sthiti is maintained. Harmony in the dynamic is the consideration. Change is inevitable (artha and kaama) but characterization of it and achieving harmony (how not to lose harmony in change) is the concern of ancient Indian thought. This is a grand vision that celebrates change and balance on an equal footing. The essential difference with Liberalism is that the past is not something from which you are desperate to break. The present should be in a healthy state of sthiti, the past strived for it and the future must be so as well - it is not a desperation for progress and development with artificial definitions for it that society cannot relate to. Civilizational Continuity is beauty of life - there is no apology in defending this. 

Another essential difference between Indian Conservatism and the Western one is Market is a virtual entity managed by communities through incremental interventions. It is neither an independent entity as an Institution nor something that must be managed by the state. It should become as much powerful as can be managed by communities without overrunning any community or individual. Neither should it become too powerful nor should it become servile to the state. This is essentially the reason why India had a thriving business community, industry, technology without suffering either capitalism or communism until the British came.

Other minor issues of the book

There are other minor issues I have with the book.

• Somewhere Jerry mentions that the The fourth perspective of moksha in Purushaartha is automatically achieved if first three are dealt with - this may not be correct. The relationship seems to be different. On the one hand it is the objective of moksha that sustains one in the path of dharma too. The story of Kaartaveeryaarjuna and Nahusha is an example how inspite of one being in the right path one can derail gradually if renunciation is not valued. Dharma, of course, sustains artha and kaama. On the other hand, artha too makes dharma possible . Shaanti Parva explains these complexities very well. Dharma becomes sookshma because of this. There are multiple ways in which things can derail.
• The Indian renaissance during the British era being thought in India was nothing so drastically new - if we look at it from this perspective of Srishti-Sthiti-Laya-Ruta-Dharma and Purushaarthas. The leverage of cultural and civilizational capital has continuity. It is part of the ever rebuilding process. It need not be looked at in isolation - neither should it need an apologetic defence.
• There is an excess of listing of people and their position with respect to Conservatism - without deep dive into their positions and the purposefulness of the philosophies guiding them. But, in a small book with great ambition this is bound to happen.
• The explanation of Nazism as misplaced conservatism is too simplistic and not consistent with Indian thought. From an Indian perspective, Nazism is not Conservatism at all. It is akin to very Asuree thought.
• There is an apology of sorts at various places such as references to Hindu extremism etc

Guha's point - What is the difference between Liberalism and Conservatism then? The grand liberal plan

Jerry then brings forth a question raised by Ramachandra Guha. If all those characteristics of Conservatism are the way Jerry puts forth - what then is the difference between Conservatism and Liberalism. Jerry characterizes this difference as

• The emphasis between ideology (liberalism) and lived realities (conservatism)
• The disdain for the wisdom of the common (liberalism) as opposed to respect (conservatism)

This characterization is quite correct. Disdain for the common leads to totalitarian tendencies. While the communists become totalitarian in a literal sense through the state, Liberals are totalitarians in subtly different way that they try to manage society through an intellectual a control over institutions and constitutions. Jerry falls short of saying that but many of his arguments indicate that. Liberalism does not negotiate with society with humility and an equal basis. Instead, Liberalism seeks an exalted platform through which it can wield an invisible control over the society. Liberals pick on the imagination of the past by Conservatism and tend to slightly transform it. This transformed past makes it easy for them to present a narrative of constantly breaking away from it. 

Its not that the Liberals totally ignore collective identities. However, they are leveraged only when are useful for a  political purpose of intellectual control over the society. In that he exposes their hypocrisy. They only create or respect those collective identities that they can patronizingly hand hold. Conservatism on the other hand have a contract with both ancestors and the future. Hence, disdain for society, community and ideologies for drastic transformation into the future are absent. This is nothing but Saatatya. Jerry also correctly identifies the limited and apologetic way in which the liberals support market.

However, this enlisting of differences between conservatives and liberals is a bit too apologetic. Further, the difference between Indian Conservatism and Modern Liberalism is much bigger. The Indian Conservatism questions the modern notions of progress and development of both Liberals and Western Conservatives. It proposes a wholly different Theory of Change based on Sristhi-Sthiti-Laya, Ruta, Purushaarthas and Saatatya. The harmony it visualizes is far more dynamic, sustainable and realistic.


Finally....

In summary, the book is an important step in this important intellectual conflict that India is going through. One wishes that the book serves as a conversational point and each conflict highlighted becomes an independent discussion, argument, debate, theory in discussions and books. The book shows the difference in the shoot but misses the roots.

Let our journey go into the roots.

Book Review: The Lost River - On the trail of Saraswati by Michel Danino

If there is one single book from this decade that picks itself as distinguished in History writing - it is The Lost River - On the trail of Sararaswati. Written by historian Dr. Michel Danino it is a fine book that I wish every single Indian has at home and reads.  

This is a great decade for Indic writing. Firstly, Indian society has gained immense confidence in itself and its civilization that is thousands of years old. Secondly, it has gathered courage to question history written after 1947, primarily by the leftists, without being shrill or suffering from inferiority complex. Thirdly, it is now writing for itself, its own society, its own people, without the need to convince established post-colonial historians, institutions and the west. It now has the means to directly reach out to the society and Indic writers are doing so. Fourthly, Internet has given so much power to the society thereby making a lot of online scholastic and intellectual interaction a reality and great experience. It can no more be ignored and denied that enriching and meaningful dialogue happens on the Internet, in-spite of all the ugly battles of ideology.

The stars of this decade of Indic history and tradition writing are Dr. Michel Danino, Dr. Konraed Elst, Shrikant Talageri, Dr. Nicholas Kazanas, Sanjeev Sanyal, Bibek Debroy etc., Each has brought one's own style, substance, flavour and dimension to history writing. Dr. Danino is exemplary even in this genuine elite of scholarship. He is no stranger to the discerning Indian readers of alternate narratives in Indian history. A French national by birth he lives in Coimbatore since 2003 before which he spent significant time in Auroville, Pondicherry. A recipient of Padmashri award from the President of India he has graced important positions in Indian institutions as an academic historian. More importantly, he has championed the cause of an alternative narrative of Indian history in Universities such as IIT Gandhinagar and IIT Kanpur. Universities dominated by the left such as JNU are yet to wake up to his contributions and even offer honorary positions.

The book is about...

This book is extremely important for every Indian as it unravels the mystery of River Saraswati. This great river has 72 references in Rigveda and is most prominent in the initial Mandalas of Rigveda. It is described as having Yamuna to the east and Sutlej (Shatadru) to the west flowing all the way from Shivalik in Himalayas to the Seas. Saraswati is also one of the three Great Goddesses in the Rigveda. From there Saraswati gets mentioned in multiple Vedic civilization texts all through Ramayana and Mahabharata after which its prominence fades and becomes a mythical river. 

However, the average Indian has never forgotten River Saraswati. It is revered as the invisible (guptagaaminee) that meets Ganga and Yamuna at Prayaag forming a Triveni Sangam. What a beautiful metaphor - it is invisible but without which the Sangam is not the exalted Sangam, it would only be one of the many. Among all the Prayag-s, this becomes Prayaag Raj because of River Saraswati where the greatest congregation of Indian tradition occurs every 6 years once as Ardha Kumbha Mela and Purna Kumbha Mela.

This books unravels the mystery of River Saraswati all the way Rigveda to the modern times. It establishes that it is not just a mythical river as is presented in the text book history. Stunningly it reveals the great extent to which it was already known during the colonial times as a once living river.

A Summary of the Book

The book is organized in 3 sections. The first section presents a detail of the precolonial and post colonial research on River Saraswati. These findings match with the descriptions of ancient Hindu texts. The second section brings Indus Valley Civilization into the picture and establishes its relationship with the River Saraswati. The third section studies the possibility of Indus Valley Civilization having never completely vanished and how it may have simply moved to the Gangetic plan. This requires some elaboration.

• In the very first chapter Danino reveals to us that in the colonial era an incredible amount of research was conducted in the desert of Rajasthan finding evidence of a dried river from Shivalik hills of Himalaya to Arabian Sea in Gujarat. The very inspiration for this research was the description of River Saraswati in tradition and the researchers concluded that the river was not mythical at all. Much of this is the topographical survey matching local traditional descriptions.
• In the second chapter he elaborates on the textual description of River Saraswati from Rigveda, other Vedas, Mahabharata and the Puranas - the very inspiration behind the research. And he presents, with detail, a stunning consistency in the descriptions of different texts and how they match with research done during the colonial era described in the previous chapter.
• In the third chapter he jumps to the latest research in the post colonial era using heavy duty advanced technology that further corroborates these evidences. 
• The only missing piece is the 100 years of history written by leftist historians which both hid the colonial era history and maintained that the river was merely mythical or simply eliminated River Saraswati from the text book history and mainstream literature. Now faced with evidence from multiple disciplines their position has significantly weakened.
• The next 3 chapters give an in-depth introduction to Indus Valley Civilization. The initial discoveries in the colonial era were mostly on the Sindhu river. The chapter presents the essentials of the civilization such as the cities, urban life and the beauty of the culture. After 1947, for obvious reasons, India's search for Indus valley sites within the nation territory led to a huge number of sites and all of them were on the banks of river Saraswati, which was a huge surprise. In this way, River Saraswati then becomes an integral part of the narrative of Indus Valley Civilization. The chapter also presents what the latest discoveries throw light on. 
• The summary of these chapters is that we have the greatest number of Indus Valley civilization sites on the banks of the erstwhile River Saraswati which went dry at a time that coincides with the decline of the civilization. In this - we also have an explanation for the decline of the civilization and its immense dependence on the river. With this, these chapters make a case for the civilisation to be renamed as Indus-Saraswati Civilization. [At this point, it is important to remember Dr. S. Kalyanaraman whose painstaking and dogged research rekindled the interest of educated Indian in the River Saraswati - he often referred to the Civilization as Indus Saraswati Civilization].
• The last 3 chapters make a case for how the civilization has essentially continued rather than completely vanished after the drying of River Saraswati. Its distinguishing features have largely been transferred to life in Gangetic basin in particular and larger India in general. Many civilization features of Indus Saraswati civilization appear even today in the society such as brick dimension, weights and measures, many practices in the society and so on. Many more sites may be hidden beneath the densely populated Gangetic plains and excavations may throw more light. These chapters present immense detail that makes it easy for the reader to appreciate this possibility. 
• It ends with how modern leftist historians of the post colonial era paint a picture that is totally in contradiction with all evidence that emerges from textual descriptions, archaeology, astronomy etc. In summary, Denial, Dismissal and Elimination of the evidence of river Saraswati is no more possible.

Why is the book so important for India

The book is important for so many defining reasons for Indians. It firmly establishes a continuity in Indian history from Vedic Civilization to Indus Valley and post Indus valley. The civilization is a stream of immense continuity. It also gives a model for how Indian history could be written in the future with relevance, firmly dealing with conventional history of the left and adding value to the cultural life of Indians. 

Some distinguishing features of the book are as follows.

1. The book creates a historical narrative that common man can relate to without history being compromised. The historical narrative it weaves is a text book case for how history should be presented to a general society. It picks a substance - the river Saraswati and presents all information available in academics but revealing complexity in stages woven into a accessible narrative. At each stage the story is independently interesting and engaging. Every new piece of information adds to the previous, sheds more light around the previous and constructs a large complex which the reader becomes aware gradually. By the end, the enormity and importance of the story narrative is unmistakable, along with the process of the construction of history. It does not obfuscate the process of construction. It is both a fascinating wonder of truth as well as mystery demystified. 
2. At the same time it interesting to a discerning history reader, it provides every piece of historical information available - it is comprehensive. Textual, archaeological, modern imagery, astronomy from multiple sources are presented within a narrative establishing credibility as well as richness of experience. A discerning reader can easily place any future development about River Saraswati in the right context without an expert assistance, with a reading of this book. Achieving this without harming an engaging narrative is quite an achievement less seen in India.
3. It places the narrative in the cultural context of the society, making it very relevant for both times and the general life. Living in India for long and within communities deeply rooted in the ancient traditions of India Prof. Danino understands what is the importance the river holds for the culture as a spiritual entity in the Vedas and as a devotional inspiration in its invisible form. The narrative brings physical evidence to the culture context and with narrative forms a triangle that makes history an emotional experience for the reader.
4. It brings out all the contradictions in conventional history presented in universities as a result of ideological conflicts and politics in a most civil and academic manner but without mincing words. The balance of argument, debate and confrontation is remarkable and exemplary. Conventional historians have begun to spin narratives aiming to discredit the mountain of evidence emerging, at times even through un-academic rhetoric. It is now a shrill cottage industry of ideology based abuse. However, the book very calmly and composedly exposes it. 
5. Apart from establishing the existence of River Saraswati and historical importance of ancient Indian philosophical texts, it also demolishes Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory as an implication. Rigvedic descriptions matching River Saraswati and the River drying up by 1800 BC makes Vedas a contemporary of Indus Valley Civilization the so called Aryan Invasion/Migration a fully non-issue.
6. It now provides a model for alternative history writing for the future, one that can successfully challenge the conventional leftist history and encircle it with evidence and narrative and incapacitate it. 

The last three  points are of seminal importance. For 70 years generations have been fed with the hoax of Saraswati being a mere imaginary river although the traditional Indian mind has never accepted it being an unreal myth. Hence it is stunning to know that from 1750 onwards colonial era researchers had piled on significant evidence about its existence. They knew it as being a living river in the past. They also knew the cultural importance the river held for Indians and for that very reason enthusiastically indulged themselves in this research. That such an immense and seminal piece of history did not inspire conventional leftist historians is stunning and disheartening. That they kept it away from the common education curriculum is criminal. 

As if that was not enough, a huge number Indus Valley sites were found on the Paleo channel of the dried bed of the river did not trigger any civilizational imagination in these historians. It should have naturally led to the questioning of conventional history in a more important area. The existence of the River Saraswati, its drying up in 1800BC, its descriptions in the tradition matching the geographical, topological research imply that the Vedic civilization becomes parallel to Indus valley. Civilization ought to be called Indus Saraswati and Vedas ought to be dated before 1800BC. This is a complete blow to the Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory - it rather demolishes the theory completely. This again was hidden in the history of educational curriculum. Interestingly, this evidence of river Saraswati is so much in consistency with Shrikant Talageri's Rigveda research of 1990s that time has come for all academics of India to re-date Vedic Civilization in history books and acknowledge the continuity of Indian Civilization through Vedic and the Indus/Saraswati Valley.

The net summary is - this multidimensional evidence of the river clearly establishes that

1. The great Vedic River Saraswati was physically too alive once.
2. That is where Indus valley civilization grew and hence should be called Indus-Saraswati Civilization if not Saraswati Valley Civilization.
3. Vedic civilization was older than 1800BC atleast by a thousand years.
4. As a result, Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory is a myth
5. There is a great deal of historical information hidden in our ancient texts - even in the philosophical ones. 

For creating this clarity to the common reader, Dr. Danino deserves immense respect and credit. I look forward to times when this book gains mainstream acceptability, becomes part of formal education at all levels. The real victory is when there is no university in India that does not acknowledge this as a seminal book and Indian geopgraphical maps proudly present River Saraswati as a special river - albeit dried. Further, Government of India should seriously consider establishing an Institution to create a comprehensive alternative reading of Indian History that is shaped by a visionary academic group consisting of academics like Dr. Danino.

This book brings that confidence to demand and imagine such a future.

Book Review: The Third Pillar by Raghuram Rajan - A lost opportunity

At last, a modern academic and bureaucrat/technocrat is writing a serious thesis on 'Community' and that is a matter of celebration in itself. That it is an economist trying to factor in Community into the system of economics is a bigger reason for joy. That it is an  Indian writing should have been a matter of greater significance. But we shall see whether the third promise holds or otherwise. Irrespective of all, that it is somebody of Raghuram Rajan's stature, fame and prominence is not any less important in the scheme of things.

Rajan rightly identifies the weakening of Community as a fundamental reason for the imbalance and inequality in the economic world. For this he deserves special credit, as arguably the first liberal (well one atleast propheses so), non-socialist, capitalist economist of great stature to elevate Community and provide it a formal status in the modern system of economics. 

In summary, Rajan makes the following claims.

1. There are three Pillars that support Society - Community, Markets and the State.
2. The Community is a critical Pillar in realizing a balanced dynamic created by Markets and State and ensuring equitable Economy or Economic Progress.
3. Any imbalance in one of three has some aspect of the society suffering such as progress, equity/equality and security.

Rajan visualizes the three Pillars as each being independent of the other with the ability to influence and partially control. However, he does not explore possible relationships between them. For eg., he does not ask the question if Markets can be merely a virtual entity shaped by every community through negotiated incremental action - rather than being an independent establishment, the security of which is guaranteed by the State. The two lead to very different realities with different implications but Rajan does not go into those unchartered territories.

The book is organized at three levels

1. How the Pillars have Emerged
2. The Imbalance of Today
3. How do we restore the balance by strengthening the participation of communities in Economy

The First Section

The first section is quite weak to say the least. It provides a very simplistic narrative on how the pillars have emerged. It is way too simplistic and paints all the world in one narrative of evolution. At one level, it is an economist writing about sociology and that lack of exposure to the discipline is clear. At a certain level, this section is organized  to present convenient hypothesis towards the end. The Eastern Civilizations - India in particular is wholly absent from the narrative and in that the book misses the opportunity to explore the great evolution of Economy and Community in India until the British snuffed life out of it in the last 300 years. His point of how tribal communities functioned is utmost laughable and way too simplistic. His view that Market separated from the community is purely a western reality of arguably recent times driven by the modern western state and through separate philosophy. In India, in spite of Nehru and later capitalism, neither the state has had absolute control over the market nor has community withdrawn itself from it, has always remained complex. In the eastern world the state has partially separated from the Community because of the influence of western models but it is partially invested. 

It is true that the Markets and States have confused the Communities. Some rights have been simply taken away, needlessly, and weakened their functioning. Eg., Communities cannot establish schools for education according to their world view with ease. However, it is to be noted that the real culprit is not only the State but the very philosophy driving the Modern State that we conveniently celebrate and praise elsewhere at other times. Modern Liberal States fundamentally aim to transform and change societies. They do not want communities on the ground to have absolute freedom to run their affairs. For eg., they want the state to regulate Education so that all communities conform to a stated ideology. Progressively, this taking away of autonomy of the Community, has reduced the community into a heap of individuals. It has built a lack of trust leading to inactivity in these communities and dependence on state to deliver certain services. This is not a result of merely the authoritarian, greedy state wanting control. It is the very liberal state wanting to transform societies into the modern world that is leading into this problem.

The best part of this section is Rajan recognizing why the Community still matters. Real life is still that of one lived in a community. An isolated individual is weak and insecure. If that insecurity drives economy, then creating equity and balance in distribution is never going to be easy. Much of what Market runs outside of the community today could in reality be dealt within the community even if that means nothing to the GDP numbers. Rajan presents Case Studies of success and impact. Sadly once again not a single Case Study comes from India. Rajan recognizes the need for both Centralization and Decentralization but fails to elevate it into a hypothesis. It has remained at the level of Centralization equated to State and Decentralization equated to Community. The healthy interaction between the two, one pushing the other - their sinusoidal relationship, their being visualized as part of the whole - these are totally absent from Rajan's imagination in the book.

The deeper disappointment is the real missed opportunity. In Rajan's world view, Community is merely viewed as a pillar for the economy. There is no greater central role imagined for the Community. It is as though the purpose of life is economic development and growth. What if the purpose of life is to live a certain way imagined by a community and economy is subservient to that? Markets are then subservient to community or atleast a negotiated entity between various communities. The state then is not an equal protector of community and market. It is merely the protector of all communities. Rajan simply refuses to imagine it this way because for the modern educated mind in the Liberal education this is simply anathema. The liberty of the individual is most supreme to the modern liberal intellectual. However, this is exactly what makes the community weak and in turn makes the state and market strong. That Rajan fails to even recognize this contradiction, much less resolve, is a greatly missed opportunity. 

India has a 4000 years of Civilization with science, industry thriving alongside alive traditional communities until the British flattened them through immense brute force. If Rajan were to have the open mindedness to view India differently (unlike the simplistic 10 pages of an apology) he would have seen a different model.

The Second  Section

The simplified imagination of the problem in the first section makes it easy for Rajan to characterize the problem as merely one of economic inequality imbalance. If he had recognized the contradiction of individualism of Modernity in turn weakening the Community - then the problem would be in the realm of philosophy and perspective of life, a greater problem that is almost the real crisis of modernity. Nevertheless, the second section presents the imbalance of today and obviously how the ICT revolution - that very revolution of possibilities - contributing to it unwittingly. He correctly diagnoses weakening of the community as the problem. He has captured the disruption and characterized it realistically and meaningfully to establish the importance of a Community. In particular, the reverse spiral of negative impact cascading is well presented when the community weakens.

In the process he employs too many terminologies without adequately defining and characterizing them. There is an over glorification of mixed communities. Community is used as a too loose a term. He seems to have a greater affinity to loose organization or weakly coupled organization of people for a shared purpose - calling it a community. This arguably comes from his being guided by liberal philosophy where the individual is supreme. This looseness makes reading easy for the reader but with loss of insight. At the same time, the writer has the luxury in indulging in easy generalizations at the cost of deeper investigation. 

Like most intellectuals of our times, Rajan praises technology for having catapulted us into where we are today in history and continues to believe that it holds the biggest promise to solve the imminent problems of poverty and climate change. At the same time, Rajan recognizes the imbalance it can create in terms of wealth distribution if factors such as 'values' and 'institutions' (they are in the realm of Civilization - not economy or technology) are not adequately positioned to balance the disruptive ability of technology. However, Rajan also does not peel out the imbalance and inequality and characterize it further. Further, Rajan disappoints by not going into what aspect of humanity drives technology development and what drives the design and realization of civilization values and institutions. He does not explore the relationship between the two. With this Rajan loses the opportunity to explore a critical element - what commonly drives humanity's technology ambition and civilization aspiration are also the reason for this imbalance. He fails to locate the root of the problem. Why did the Community weaken in the modern world? Was it a chance? Was it merely the State or is it the greed or is it fundamentally rooted in any philosophy that is guiding the modern world itself? What is the root of such a philosophy and how did such a philosophy evolve? This lack of curiosity in somebody who is considered an intellectual is quite disappointing. End of the day he is not writing a manual but a book of enquiry.

What is worse, however, is - Rajan, in a simplistic fashion, dubs the emergence of populist nationalism as a consequence of weakening of the Community. In this, he wholly brings down and disappoints a serious reader looking forward to deep reading. He simply accepts handed over theories of the left-liberal sociologists and simply does not apply his own independent mind to peel if there is merit  or if there are other possibilities. The very simple example of India must make it clear that this hypothesis is hallow. It is the strengthening and leveraging of the community that has made a cultural nationalism possible and successful. Its fundamental motivation is outside the economy. Any frustration with economy has the potential to distract people from such nationalism, not sustain it. What more, in years of seeming economic slowdown, its the strengthening of the community that is providing security and cushion to the common man. Merely attributing it to Populist Nationalism is viewing things with a Nelson's eye. 

Another aside is important here, It is partially related to this book. Rajan would do well to distinguish between Civilizational Nationalism and Populist Nationalism if he is seriously interested in looking at this problem deeper. A Nationalism that is based on Civilization will at once be both popular and nurturing of the community. While there is no evidence that such a nationalism would weaken the liberal market democratic system (as professed by Rajan), it may be compensating for the weakening of the community that resulted from the glorification of the individual by the Modern Liberal Philosophy and in turn may be strengthening the community. Such simplisitic dismissal and characterization of Nationalism is nothing but lazy intellectual behaviour not expected from Raghuram Rajan.

The Third Section

In this section, Rajan dwells upon restoring the Community to play an active and balancing role in the economy. That a modern intellectual came this far in itself is reason for celebration. In this Rajan disappoints big-time.

1. He correctly identifies that communities must have the freedom to fulfill their essential functions. But the world view of the community is still an entity that is shaped from the top. This comes from a world view of centralization where visions are, handed over to people to form communities. This means there is an indirect control over how the purpose of a community should be, possibly through an intellectual class if not through the state or market. This in reality is no freedom at all. This is a highly reduced vision of community - a Master-Slave version, where the Slave is visible and the Master is not. For eg., Liberals continue to want a control of education even in communities to shape those communities according to their world view. Rajan has to recognize the problem here. It is the Liberal democracy that has taken away this freedom from the community in the garb of protecting the individual and individual freedom. Until this is set right there is no real progress possible.
2. Rajan conceptualizes a new term - Civic Nationalism in opposition to what he contemptuously calls as Populist Nationalism - which in reality is the respectable Civilization Nationalism unnecessarily, unjustly vilified. What he defines as Populist Nationalism is nothing but a euphemism for Secularism. The sheer scare to use the word secularism itself is interesting and a half admission of guilt. The so called Civic Nationalism restores the community only to the extent of playing a role in equitable distribution of wealth and avoiding imbalance. The philosophy is still the modern liberal world view where the community is philosophically weak and is a slave in the receiving of world views from an invisible Master. A Civilization Nationalism on the other hand gives community a greater autonomy and does not view it with suspicion of trampling the individual liberty. A case in the making is the Khaps of Haryana. How much ever the modern media derides it, they have played a positive role in the evolution of the society and people continue to value them much to the chagrin of the missionary zeal of the liberals to liberate people within. In this world view, Nation is a collective communities bound of a shared philosophy that has evolved through negotiation between communities on the ground, not thrust by an elite sitting elsewhere.
3. Because of Modern Liberalism and Statism that Rajan is guided by, he simply does not ask bigger questions that such as - What are the essentials for Communities to thrive all by themselves in a society? Do they need a unique philosophy, ecosystem? What is the fabric that keeps a community or communities together? Can they be divorced by the culture and civilization elements of the land? Can mere Civic Nationalism ever bind a community or communities in country like India? If they have to be shaped from outside then that amounts to the formation of an Elite such as Modern Secularists - then is this whole project about they creating a navigation and arbitration space for themselves in the nation? Is that just at all - These are absent from the book altogether. The whole remedial approach the book takes, to restore communities, is way too economic and fixing an existing system approach, not a whole reimagination. This means Rajan thinks the current world order, view, philosophy is not the problem - it is merely tweaking of it. He presents no defence of why it is so because he characterizes the problem only in one way. It may also be because he is an Economist and not a Sociologist, Philosopher or Cultural personality. But a genuine intellectual is partially all of that. At a certain level, to make an uncharitable comment, it is possible to argue that it is a sociology book on economics with extraneous political considerations in mind. This in summary reduces the scope of the book and hence is a lost opportunity. 

The most disappointing aspect of this book is that India is not a case in consideration at all in this book. The 10 pages he dedicates does not sufficiently distinguish India and is like side-track to his main thesis. This means either the intellectual Rajan does not consider India as a land of successful communities or his upbringing in India has been so elite that he is not touched by ground realities of India at all or his international exposure has created such inferiority about India in him that he does not access any of his Indian experiences to qualify/evolve his hypothesis. This in summary is a great tragedy of this book. 

Nevertheless, thank you Raghuram Rajan for elevating Community into the conversations of economy elite. But can you go further into unchartered territories? For starters, you should begin with a reading of works of Dharam Pal and his hypothesis on communities of India. You may well end up rewriting the book. 

Civilization: Mahabharata as a key to our Civilization

I am writing Mahabharata and that is an exciting thought in itself. Well, I am not writing it in the real sense of it -  for Sage Vyaasa alone can claim that distinction. Every writer who subsequently touched Mahabharata is merely indulging in a deritvative reimagination or partial or complete retelling. My language, Kannada, has an amazing and absolute retelling of it by Naranappa of Town Gadag, known to Kannadigas a Gadugina Naranappa. He is also glorified as Kumaravyaasa - the junior Vyaasa and rightly so. He lived sometime in 15th Century. No child of Karnataka, studying the language of Kannada at any level, is left untouched by Kumaaravyaasa - his impact on successive generations for 500 years is such. The text is reverred and read at home...well until recently I must say. The literature of Kannada itself has atleast 3-4 different versions of the epic in the classical era between 10th Century to 16th Century - such has been the love for Mahabharata in my language that every major poet touched it in a major way. Naturally I am a victim of this great tradition of being smitten by the work.

If you take the country at large, Kavi Bhasa wrote an adaption of Mahabharata in the 3rd Century AD. Kalidasa's Shakuntala elaborates short story of Shakuntala into a full-fledged play. Indonesia has one of the earliest known retellings of Mahabharata from the 10th Century AD. In the recent times, Kisari Mohan Ganguly produced the first English version in the Victorian prose of English during colonial times. It has captured the imagination of innumerable number of modern writers who have used it to dwell upon the tradition, the modern and their own philosophical explorations - sometimes throwing light and at other times twisting. If you go to ancient times there are references to characters of Mahabharata right in the Sangam age Tamil poetry.

In the 20th Century, 3 versions are noteworthy from the stand-point of children and story telling - which are my primary areas of interest. 

1. The great C Rajagopalachari has packed the entire Mahabharata into a small book that is a must read for elders and the young alike. He has made it palatable to the modern mind without abdicating the traditional concern and tenor of Dharma, Artha, Kama, Mokha. 
2. Upendra Kishore Roychowdhary, the grand father of Satyajit Ray, has composed a retelling in modern English for children. But the book lacks the traditional tenor - the purpose of the book is not just in words but in the tone. For those who simply want to be engulfed by the story, this book may sound interesting. Yet it may not make a lifetime impact. 
3. The third, of course, is Amara Chitra Katha. That amazing 42 comics is incredibly faithful to Vyaasa, distills the very essence of it with maximum detail - most impactful on children and equally lovable by the elders alike.

Yet here I am retelling Mahabharata and there are reasons for the same.

1. The Personal Ambition: The first is an absolute unadulterated selfish reason. The sheer pleasure of writing and the ambition to belong to a great tradition of Mahabharata writers. If I manage to leave a unique voice of my own that becomes a legacy it is fulfilling. If I fail, what better way to fail than this. Let this be the first reason, unabashed, selfish, personal reason. I am not ashamed of it, rather proud of it. 
2. The Story Telling Ambition: There is an immediate purpose beyond me though. There is a want to convert my story telling experience into a unique retelling of the epic. I firmly believe that there is a dhvani (tone) that emanates from any book of words. Every generation loves a certain tone - that is the sensitivity of that era. The challenge is to ensure that the purpose and the perspective is retold in the tone of the times. I propose to write Mahabharata in a tone that appeals to kids of this generation and kindles the story telling instinct of parents without abdicating the purpose of tradition. That is my endeavour.
3. The Perspective Ambition: Every verse of Mahabharata is an exposition into a unique perspective of life that Indian Civilization strived for - a balanced realization of Dharma, Artha, Kama, Moksha - the puruShArtha-s. Mahabharata is a brilliant presentation of the kind of ethical challenges humanity faces in life and the analysis of choices made by characters in Mahabharata, within the framework of Purusharthas. In it, it produces the best awareness and warning to future generations. It is my ambition to present a retelling where this perspective can be savoured at each stage without philosophical hairsplitting and is accessible even to the first time reader.
4. The Artistic Ambition: Beyond this, I propose to create a Mahabharata version with all the splendour and glory of every single story within the main story. Mahabharata is a repository of a huge number of stories that are less known or not known at all. A version of Mahabharata containing all that could become voluminous, overloaded and impossible to read. A version is needed that abstracts the main story and adequately presents other stories without becoming very heavy. It must present the richness and it must not lose the larger perspective in its load.
5. The Political Ambition: There is a political ambition too. The larger purpose though is to be able to reimagine the entire history of India through Mahabharata. Mahabharata has an incredible wealth of historical information. The modernists have completely ignored this historical wealth so that it is easy start the Indian history from Buddha - paying merely a lipservice to the Vedic past. For eg., It has more than 200 references to astronomical observations of those times that can throw more light on the time period - Nilesh Oak is an exemplary researcher working in this space. It has very interesting descriptions of River Saraswati that correlates with a certain time in history well into the times of Indus Valley Civilization atleast. Dr. Konraed Elst, Dr. Michel Danino are important academics who have shed immense light on the River Saraswati references in Mahabharata. This list is endless. 
6. The Civilization Ambition: In reality, Mahabharata is the key to our Civilization. While the war is the pinnacle of it, it narrates the entire legacy of Puru-Bharata Kings to which Pandavas and Kouravas belong. The Puru-Bharata lineage of Chandravamsha is the most important Kingdom of India for multiple reasons. It is this lineage that is most prominent in the Vedas - referred to as Aryas. Puranas refer to the subsequent kings post Mahabharata War until the modern Magadha Kings. Although the historicity of this is denied by the modern historians, recent research has rekindled our interest and there is a definite reason for us to be happy about Mahabharata's historicity. It has immense reference to Vedic era deep into RigVeda. It has references to Ramayana as well. At the same time through the Puranas its future too can be visualized. It entangles itself with so many other works of importance through multiple references and the Civilization can be much better understood through Mahabharata. It is my endeavour to produce a Mahabharata for children and parents that is complete with references that truly makes it a key to the Indian Civilization.

It is quite an ambition to produce a version of the book that covers all of these - in as much a concised form as possible and with the concern of story telling. It must both be a reading experience as well as an aid for all story tellers of our times.

My salutations to Sage Vyaasa, Sage Ugrashrava Shouti, Sage Janamejaya and all the later retellers of Mahabharata. Hope they will include me into this tradition of Mahabharata writers even as a simple leaf in a large tree. 

Current Affairs: Ayodhya Verdict - An Analysis of Indian Express Articles - I

[The Ayodhya Verdict passed by the honorable Supreme Court of India is most important among the landmark verdicts it has delivered in the recent past. It is so because the very conflict has an incredibly long history, has created in immense conflict in the present, is a great challenge for Law and has enormous implications for peace and harmony in the immediate and future. Its resolution may have implications on how we interpret law and visualize the nation culturally and civilizationally. Naturally, every literary agency is interpreting the Ayodhya Verdict and creating perspectives around that to influence every single endeavor around it.

In this blog series, I will add my own bit in shaping this civilizational future. I shall analyze every single article that appears in prominent newspapers.

This entire series should be ready with my introductory explanation as the First Read. ]

The Indian Express is one of the prominent News Papers of India. Its history is very interesting and its journey is something that every student and observer of Journalism would have studied in some measure. It has immense milestones in this journey such as the kind of opposition it mounted during Emergency and so on. In the recent, it is among the few newspapers that has Opinion pieces from diverse ideologies, disciplines and political orientations and has avoided collapsing into either pro or anti government to an extent. In the light of this, I pick Indian Express articles on Ayodhya as first in my series of review of Ayodhya articles. In particular I pick 3 articles that summarily help appreciate the overall verdict against which all other analytical articles can be read and understood.

In this first article, the IE tried to explain all the fundamental aspects of Ayodhya Verdict to a beginner. A summary of the points made by the article from the judgement stand-point is worthy of listing and given here. It helps us get a sense of how the SC approached the resolution of the law suite and deliver a verdict.

• Fundamentals
• The SC explains the fundamental principles through which it made justice in this case - Equity, Good Conscience, Applicable Legal Regime and Good Conscience to create ultimate balance for a just society
• The Fundamental Questions that SC asked were
• Who owns the title and who has the possesion
• Did the Outer Courtyard include Ram Chabootara and Seeta ki Rasoi
• Was the mosque built on an ancient Hindu temple
• The SC recognizes the centrality of evidence over faith and belief. At the same time, SC recognizes that the very faith and belief that Ram was born in that place and its historicity. (This distinction is very subtle and most havent grasped it. This is central to the resolution).
• The SC concludes the entire 2.77 acres of land as a single title
• Critical conclusions
• The SC accepts that the structure over which the Masjid was built was non-islamic, was very old and prior to the existence of the mosque
• The SC terms the demolition of Masjid as in egregious violation of the rule of law
• The SC concludes the exclusive occupation and use of the Outer Courtyard by the Hindus
• The SC concludes that the Muslims occupation of the Inner Courtyard was always contested by the Hindus. Hence, the conflict and dispute exists since Babur.
• The SC also considers the 1858 wall separating the two spaces was a British attempt to manage the conflict and hence not a final reality. The site is still one single entity and does not suggest any division of the site. It is this approach by the SC that paved the way for the site to be granted to Ram lulla for greater occupation and use of the land.
• The SC accepted Ram lulla as a juridical entity. The land was awarded to Ram lulla based on higher occupation and usage of the land by Ram lulla

It is an extremely good summary of these points as it also quotes original text from the final verdict.

As a next step it is useful to read this article, where IE summarizes all the questions raised by SC to resolve this dispute and answered by the SC itself. These questions are important and deserve to be succinctly listed. It gives a background to the final judgement and the conclusions mentioned in the previous article.

• How realiable are the accounts of travellers
• The SC has used the travellers accounts with great care and as not concluding evidence. Faith and belief evidenced merely in the travellers accounts have not been used as concluding evidences.
• The Significance of ASI Findings
• On a preponderance of probabilities, the underlying structure seems to be of Hindu nature of 12th century
• The mosque was built over the pre-existing structure and uses the material from previous construction
• Does an ancient Hindu temple exist beneath the Masjid
• The underlying structure seems to belong to 12th Century and of Hindu religious nature
• What transpired between 12th to 16th Century is difficult to conclude
• No concluding evidence that a Hindu temple was destroyed in 16th Century to build Babri Masjid
• The Legal status of Ram Lulla
• A detailed explanation of why Ram Lulla is a justicable legal entity
• Why SC rejected the 2010 Ayodhya Verdict by Allahabad High Court
• Who had the possession of 2.77 acres of land
• The most important reason is despite the existence of the mosque, the Hindu worship of the site has never been restricted as the birth place of Ram, even prior to 1856-57 and all the way goes back to Babur's time
• Evidence of offering of Namaz only commences from 1856-57
• The establishment of Ram Chabootara demonstrates assertion of rights
• The wall erected in 1856-57 by the British does not stop the Hindus from contesting the use of the Inner Courtyard
• There is no exclusive use of the Inner Structure by Muslims at any point in time
• All the Lord Ram related festivals were celebrated at the same place by large crowds visiting the place
• How placing idols under the dome and the demolition deprived Muslims
• It was done in violation of the law
• It denied Muslims a place of worship
• What HC erred in its judgement
• Why was it necessary to give Muslims an alternative piece of land
• Because for atleast a 100 years there was a place of worship however less it was used. Hence an alternate mosque was necessary.

This last question is important. In this article, the IE explained why the SC gave an alternative piece of land of 5 acres to Muslims and which article in the Constitution did it invoke - Article 142. The beauty of Article 142 is that it provides a space for Supreme Court to pass very special orders in order to create a balance of justice when it feels the need even when mere application of law does not need it. In this of course, it cannot obviously violate any existing law or measure. Fundamentally, Article 142 agrees that mere application of law is not sufficient to deliver justice in the immediate and at times extra-ordinary action is necessary. Generally invoked in human rights cases, in this case SC invoked in the Ayodhya case because the SC considered it as a Civil Dispute - any one of the side losing would obviously also lose a space of worship. In order to make a complete justice, SC recognized that atleast since 1858 the mosque is used for prayer however sporadically and continuity in place of worship is to be ensured. It was important for this article to be explained and IE deserves to be appreciated for the same. Most newspapers left out that Nirmohi Akhara being added into the Board of Trustees to manage Ayodhya Temple by SC is also a result of invoking the same Article 142, in order to do complete justice, as Nirmohi Akhara lost the land case but it has been part of managing Ram Chabootara for centuries. Fundamentally, SC is compensating for the case being a Land Dispute and keeping the place of worship outside of the purview of the case.

This summarization and reference to these articles are important as they help to appreciate the overall judgement, the context, the resolution methodology. My own analysis also can be appreciated in the background of these elements.

Current Affairs: What the media won't tell u about Ayodhya verdict

The Supreme Court of India delivered a historic verdict on 9-Nov-2019 settling the centuries old conflict referred to as the case of Ram Janma Bhoomi – Babri Masjid. The verdict, apart from settling the case and relieving the common man of India from the burden of an immense conflict, has also paved the way for reconciliation between Hindus and Muslims of India. Both are eagerly looking forward to it and Hindus are immensely looking forward to the Ram Temple, the hurdles for which is all but removed.

The Verdict is simply brilliant in its methodology and in its adherence to settles principles of law. It has been resolved

• Absolutely within the framework of Indian Constitution
• In much conformance and respect to Secularism the way a modern liberal secular appreciates secularism
• Without using faith and belief as direct evidence and judicial instruments

The International Media and the Ayodhya Verdict

International Media, on the contrary, has failed to appreciate the resolution of the conflict. It should have hailed the methodology adopted by the Supreme Court of India. Instead, International Media is indulging in insinuation as though it is decided on religious basis. At times, it is not saying so directly but indirectly painting such a picture.

In this article by CNN, the author gives an extremely sketchy description of the case and mentions that the site was given to Hindus – as though the case was decided using religion as basis. That those who demonstrated a higher use of the physical space were Hindus and that nobody could clearly establish the title is completely absent in the report. This report by Bloomberg, apart from making the headline sound as though the case is resolved on the basis of religion, throws many an innuendo on PM Modi’s administration decisions arguably favouring Hindus, which are completely unrelated to the case at hand – thereby unabashedly painting picture of religious resolution and manipulation. It further says the case will test India’s secular nature – something both unrelated to the case as well as without any basis. In addition, it quotes an Indian academic living abroad with a biased orientation and paints a picture of injustice to Muslims without caring to elaborate reasons behind it.

The NY Times report takes ideological battles to a completely different level. In its headline, it says SC has backed Hindus, has handed victory to PM Modi and enabled him to remake India. It has packed 3 misrepresentations in a single headline. At the least it is demonstrating an extraordinary ability to indulge in any manipulation to achieve a short term high in an ideological battle. It leaves no stone unturned in representing the religious conflict between Hindus and Muslims in as much hyperbole and exaggeration, painting a disadvantageous situation for Muslims. But it does not analyze the verdict with all of its nuance and legal sophistication in way. Through its selective detail it paints a picture of a Hindu majority wanting to subjugate Muslim minority. It quotes Ram Madhav selectively and triumphantly whereas Ram Madhav has all along taken nuanced stance and created many conversations of high intellectual standards. Further, it quotes an Indian researcher from US, a couple of sentences from him, talking about a possible conflict in the future – worst kind of speculation, when what one should have done is presented the case and the verdict, and a critique of the jurisprudence used to deliver the latter. So, everything except the crux of the matter has been used to paint a wholly incorrect picture. In all this, how can Kashmir be left out – there is blatant and unabashed use of Kashmir and Article 370 abrogation to further create fear psychosis.

This article on scoopwhoop presents many more reports by the International Media. The BBC report exaggeratedly mentions some lawyers shouting Jai Shri Ram after the verdict was delivered. This was such a marginal event in the larger scheme of things and wholly irrelevant. Washington Post again talks of the decision being in favour of a Hindu temple, painting a religious picture, but not presenting the grounds of the verdict and their irreligious nature. Less said the better about the picturization Middle East media such as Al Jazeera and Gulf News.

In summary, the International Media has only painted a picture of religious conflict and insinuated that the resolution is religious, faith and belief based. The verdict delivered by the Supreme Court of India though is extraordinarily sophisticated, sound in established principles of law and in conformance to secularism and constitution of India. Clearly, the International Media is capable of better representation.

We shall now see why this Verdict is a brilliant one.

The Brilliance of the Judgement

That this case is a landmark historical one, of enormous implications, is a given. It is also a historical landmark in its resolution. The honourable Supreme Court of India has demonstrated exemplary judicial brilliance in resolving it. It seems to have innovated within the framework of settled principles of law and explored a resolution path that few could have imagined. It is a testimony to the depth of knowledge, commitment to settled principles of law and the Constitution of India, clarity of thought and ability to find a path of resolution in the complex maze of the case, apart from the determination to reach a destination of resolution that delivers justice to all. It is necessary to appreciate the substantial nature of the path and resolution.

At a high level the methodology adopted by SC can be summarized as follows.

1. Firstly, Faith and Belief as instruments of determining justice have completely been kept aside. No matter of faith has been used as evidence in the resolution of the conflict. Much as I wish that matters of faith too deserve to be brought into the framework of law and justice, the SC has steered clear of it and that is for the Sovereign Parliament of India to determine if matters of faith and belied need to be brought into the framework of law. For eg., that the Hindus of today consider a certain place as the place of birth of Ram has no bearing over the case whatsoever is important to be noted.
2. Secondly, SC has also steered clear from ruling over any matter related to faith and Belief. For eg., It has refused to get into whether Ram was born in a certain place.
3. After eliminating all aspects of faith and belief, SC has delivered justice where the sole question is who does the land belong to, from the consideration of settled principles of law – which means it has considered as matter of sheer Land Dispute.

Essentially, the enormity of the case may be coming from matters of faith/belief and even politics. But the considerations for jurisprudence and judicial resolution do not come from such matters. How has it then resolved the conflict? The Supreme Court as approach it as follows. Faith and belief may not be the instruments of justice, but existence of practices around faith and belief are part of history. Such practices could be used to resolve complex cases such as this. In this context, since this case was resolved as a Land Dispute, the following emerged.

• There was absolutely no clear title document at any stage that absolutely bestowed the title one way or the other.
• However, there is continuous use of the physical space of Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid – by both parties. Evidence of usage the physical space comes in handy to determine who owns the space in the absence of a clear title. It is important to note that this is so only because

a.       There is no clear title

b.       There are structures in that space though

c.       There is clear evidence of usage of the space by both parties

This lends the case to be resolved using a combination of b) and c).

Structures and their Construction as Evidence

In the absence of a clear title, the context of the structure and construction of the structure could then be explored as evidence in the resolution of the case. There are two possibilities that can be explored to decide the title.

• Evidence of one structure being older than the other
• Evidence of one structure being erected without infringing upon anything existing on the land ie., without destroying that represents the other party

However, this too complicates the matter.

• Ram Chabootara is constructed after the mosque was built
• The mosque was not built on an empty land. There is a clear evidence of a Non-Islamic construction beneath the Mosque.
• There is no explicit evidence of a temple or anything being destroyed to build the mosque. But the probability of it being constructed over some other structure is very high given the ruins beneath and they are non-Islamic.

Hence, merely the structure and their construction context alone cannot be used to determine the title.

Practices and Usage of the space as evidence

The last piece of evidence available is the existence of religious practices based on faith or devotion or belief and how the physical space itself has been used by the parties for such religious practice ie., the historical antiquity of the use of the physical space for such religious practices and the antiquity of those religious practices itself. Let us see how this turns out.

• Both parties have been using physical space of Ram Janma Bhoomi-Babri Masjid.
• Hindus believe that Ram was born exactly within the mosque space.
• That belief itself may or may not be true in the historical sense, but the belief’s existence is historically very old - much before Babar came to India - as is evidenced from multiple sources listed by the court.
• This itself is not enough. Based on this belief, the usage of the Ram Janma Bhoomi – Babri Masjid space for religious practices built around this belief itself is very old. A traveler in 1608 has written that the space was used by Hindus to worship Ram however he is surprised that there is no namaz in-spite of the building being a mosque. The evidence of such use is older than Muslims offering Namaz within the structure.
• Hindus have used the outer courtyard exclusively and the court lists the evidence in this favour.
• Hindus have demonstrated shared use of inner courtyard with Muslims after 1858 and with sporadic exclusive use before 1858.
• Muslims have demonstrated uninterrupted usage of the space, since 1858 as a place of worship as per Islamic religious rules. They have certainly not abandoned the space as claimed by the other party.
• In particular, Muslims have demonstrated a shared usage of the Inner Courtyard since 1858 but not before.
• Muslims have not established any use of the Outer Courtyard.

In the balance of proportions, Hindus have demonstrated a far higher usage of the space and much longer in history, going right till the time Babur’s chief constructed the mosque. In-spite of the mosque’s presence Muslims use of the mosque for religious prayers are much less in proportion.

It is this the court has used to decide who should own the space in future. It terms the demolition of the mosque as illegal because no person or group has the right to bring down any building much less a religious structure, however illegal the structure itself is. However, that cannot decide who owns the title. If a structure is illegal then the structure or those who believe in the structure lose their rights over the property.

The approach taken by the court is based on standard and settled principles of law. It is called as preponderance of evidences (preponderance of probability or balance of probability). Courts use this to deliver justice when there is no Evidence beyond Reasonable Doubt. In the final Verdict, SC has referred to this standard principle more than 25 times.

In summary, the Court has not decided it as a matter of conflict between Hindus and Muslims in religion. It is a conflict between A and B for reason C. A has got the title only because A has demonstrated greater usage. Usage though is based on practices that are built around faith and belief. However, faith and belief themselves have played no primary evidence role in the verdict. Practices and Usage have played and that is very much within the settled principles of law in the absence of clear title in favour of either parties. One can criticize the verdict, but it has to be through an appropriate representation of the verdict not by convenient misrepresentation and indirectly painting a wrong picture.

With respect to misrepresentation of the verdict, This is just the beginning. In the first few days, a negative picture has been painted in an indirect manner. More direct accusations are likely to follow in the coming days. This blog will continue to keep a vigil in all such articles both in Indian and International media. We shall analyze the analysis and enable a better appreciation of both the verdict and its dissect. We shall do it for either side – the appreciating and otherwise.