Mr Kejriwal, think about Dalits at home before talking on Rohith Vemula's death

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/arvind-kejriwal-dalit-rohith-vemula-aam-admi-party-aap-dalit-rakhi-birla-hyderabad/story/1/8580.html

Dear Mr Arvind Kejriwal,

I write to you as an ex-supporter of the Aam Admi Party and also as someone who has been closely following your politics.

I am amazed that a chief minister of some other state is flying to Hyderabad all of sudden to champion himself as a Dalit rights' activist. Scratching below the surface of your façade one sees only hypocrisy.

There has been no regularisation of safai karamcharis in Delhi. No medical insurance has been put in place for them either. As the betrayer of many a Dalit dream after you came to office, what right do you have to indulge in politics over Rohith Vemula's death when you have killed the trust that the Dalits had reposed in you? Tell me, how many times did you or your cabinet or your party even mention the cause of the Dalits all this while, since you came to office?

It is extremely hypocritical to talk about the Dalit question in Hyderabad today when you have come up with absolutely no affirmative action whatsoever when it comes to giving a fair representation to Dalits in your cabinet, party or ministries.

In fact, Rakhi Birla who was a Dalit woman in your cabinet was sacked on grounds of corruption. You did not oust her from the party solely because she consolidates your voter base, still! By exposing another hypocritical decision, Mr Kejriwal, you showcased a sly motive that reeks of political opportunism and hypocrisy. By visiting Hyderabad in this context, Mr Kejriwal, you express your shamelessness to milk Dalits and the other oppressed sections of society for your sole motive of staying and continuing in power.

No chief minister in the country has flown down to Hyderabad with the kind of limelight management as you have done. I charge you, Mr Kejriwal, for your politics of selective Dalit and/or secular and/or anti-corruption outrage. If you were a true messiah of the oppressed communities, you would have silently fulfilled the debts Rohith died under and as a genuine tribute to the Dalits, regularised the services of some of the most marginalised communities in government offices.

If you were truly secular, Mr Kejriwal, you would have spoken as strongly against the Malda violence as you took to Twitter to express your secular credentials. But perhaps you would not, because your new-found affection for West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee is driven by political arithmetic and vicious anti-Centre chemistry.

If you were a true anti-corruption activist Mr Kejriwal, you would have swiftly exposed the many files and papers against the former chief minister of Delhi, Shiela Dikshit, who suddenly seems expunged of all her sins, which when amplified, led you to the power you hold today.

No one holds you responsible, Mr Kejriwal, because you have an uncanny ability to keep media attention away from the real issues in Delhi. In your classic response to all controversies, you try to climb up the ladder of morality, easily washing away your sins, thinking the janta to be a fool who can be taken for a ride.

Dear Mr Kejriwal, as a citizen of Delhi, I am more concerned about the effects of your Tughlaqian politics like the odd-even scheme at a time when a top official of your government was under CBI scanner, than interested in knowing what you feel and express on an unfortunate incident still under investigation in Hyderabad. I want to see my leader more entrenched in visiting Nizamuddin Basti and Mehrauli slums than one who does graveyard tourism to bake his nascent political bread.

The year 2019 is quite far away, Mr Kejriwal. And after you got rejected on the national stage quite summarily, please have the humility to value what the people of Delhi have voted you for - the development and well-being of Delhi. Prove that as a leader you have the ability to make Delhi a truly secular and egalitarian space and perhaps then show the authority of your "expert" comments on events beyond the grasp of the nation at the moment.

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/arvind-kejriwal-dalit-rohith-vemula-aam-admi-party-aap-dalit-rakhi-birla-hyderabad/story/1/8580.html

Our campuses are suffering: Students must reclaim politics

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/rohith-vemula-suicide-university-of-hyderabad-asa-abvp-dalits-student-unions/story/1/8546.html

Rohith's suicide has sparked nationwide outrage. Some have been hell-bent on proving his death is a case of discrimination against Dalits and few others have been trying to deconstruct it as an episode linked to a more organic flow of events going back to protests against Yakub Menon's hanging and beyond. Now that with Rahul Gandhi's visit and many other insinuations against the current government at the Centre, the death has been politicised despite Rohith's suicide note, it is high time we looked at the possibility of opening up the gates of all colleges and universities in India - whether engineering or medical or humanities or law or commerce or any other stream - to politics.

Let us look at some of the ministers at the Centre. Harsh Vardhan, Jitendra Singh, Sanjeev Kumar Balyan and Najma Heptullah have been medical students. Jayant Sinha, Manohar Parrikar, Jual Oram and Manoj Sinha are engineering graduates. When we readily accept engineers and doctors taking decisions for the larger population on key issues like price rise, tribal welfare, minority affairs, agricultural rights, etc, why do we fail to train students to ask the right political questions from when they are still in college?

Sixty five per cent of India's population is less than 35 years of age and only 53 per cent of our MPs are under the age of 55. It is extremely important, therefore, that our youth start claiming the political space right from their student days and put the right set of questions to the powers that be - beginning from their teachers, lecturers, readers and professors.

Why have Delhi University and colleges like Miranda House, which boast of inaugurating a culture of feminism in the nation through their firebrand lecturers and alumnae, inculcated no culture whatsoever of discussing the regressive "rules" of their women's hostels in classrooms, beyond the rudimentary feminist readings of curricular texts? Why do the grand old "liberal" humanities departments in varsities like DU, JNU and Jadavpur University not question and sustain protests of having more respectable representation of Dalits in their cocoons, which are almost always headed by an upper caste, upper class, Brahmin (in most cases) HoDs?

Why is there a silencing of young voices in campuses, except when there are structured and teacher-instigated protests on issues of curriculum designs and V-C selections? Why and till when should students be the pawns of a generation older to them - represented only symbolically and as mere numerical strengths - to bolster an opinion by a set of politically-motivated individuals who fester the academic atmosphere of campuses only for their own petty power climbs?

Rohith's death is unfortunate. And so are thousands of suicides that have happened in "elite" educational institutions like the IITs of this country over the past two decades. Rather than looking at Rohith's death from an angle which is most obviously casteist, can we take a step back and see why we failed to generate a culture of equality and freedom in campuses and beyond?

Why is it that students must learn political articulations only after attaching themselves to the age-old political wings of traditional political parties? Why can they not have an avenue of training in political disciplines right from the time they realise their voting rights? Why is it that a student's narrative is either dictated by the larger ideology of a couple of big political groups or a very personal narrative of incidents like suicide and self-immolation? Why do the youth not find a stronger assertion in taking the authorities hostage to their opinion rather than falling prey to the loopholes of the educational system?

Why have we never seen a Dalit engineering student inviting a similar outrage over his death as Rohith, is a question that needs a threadbare analysis. But why have we not seen Rohiths up in arms and vociferously raising their voices in campuses secluded from the mainstream academia is the larger question.

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/rohith-vemula-suicide-university-of-hyderabad-asa-abvp-dalits-student-unions/story/1/8546.html

दिल्ली थोड़ी ब्रुटल लगी: शुभ्रास्था

http://www.thepatrika.com/NewsPortal/h?cID=hdbZO0qgCHk%3D

राजधानी दिल्ली को लेकर आपने जो कल्पना की थी और पहली बार इस महानगर को देखा तो उसमें कितना फर्क था? वह फर्क क्या था?

सीधे-सीधे कहूं तो दिल्ली के बारे में यही सोच रखा था कि वह संभावनाओं से भरा शहर होगा। जब ग्रेजुएशन में दाखिला लेने पहली मर्तबा दिल्ली आई तो इसी समझ के साथ आई थी। तब दिल्ली मेरे लिए एक ऐसे प्लेटफॉर्म की तरह थी, जहां मैं अपनी बेहतरी के लिए सोच सकती थी। चूंकि इससे अधिक मैंने कोई कल्पना नहीं की थी, इसलिए जो जैसा दिखा, उसे उसी स्वरूप में जाना और समझा।

हां, जैसे-जैसे मैं इस महानगर को करीब से देखती गई तो यही जाना कि दिल्ली ऐसी जगह है, जहां कई विकल्प हैं। इन विकल्पों में हमें अपने लिए भी एक विकल्प चुनना है। ठीक उसी तरह जैसे हम किसी रेस्तरां में जाते हैं तो वहां के मेन्यू में तमाम चीजें होती हैं, जिसमें हमें अपनी पसंद के जायके चुनने होते हैं।

आप बिहार सरीखे पारंपरिक रीति-रिवाज वाले प्रदेश से दिल्ली आई थीं। यहां की जीवन-शैली से तालमेल बिठाने में आपको कितना वक्त लगा? और इस दौरान आपने दिल्ली को किस रूप में देखा-समझा?

मैं तो यही कहूंगी कि दिल्ली थोड़ी ब्रुटल लगी। आप शहर के कितने भी संभ्रांत जगह पर क्यों न हों, लोग जज्मेंटल होकर ही देखते हैं। दिल्ली में लोगों के स्वभाव का यह हिस्सा है। इस बात को मैंने अपने ही अनुभव से समझा और जाना है। दिल्ली विश्वविद्यालय के मिरांडा हाउस से मेरी पढ़ाई हुई। वहां से मैंने अंग्रेजी साहित्य में ग्रेजुएट हुई। फिर एमएम भी किया। इस तरह किसी भी छात्र-छात्राओं की तरह मैंने अपने जीवन के सबसे महत्वपूर्ण दिन दिल्ली विश्वविद्यालय के नॉर्थ कैंपस में बिताए। अब तो बहुत कुछ बदल चुका है, लेकिन जब मैं पहली बार बिहार से दिल्ली आई तो मेरा पहनावा बिल्कुल अलग था। चूंकि मेरे परिवार में जींस पहनना किसी को पसंद नहीं था, तो मैं पारंपरिक आकार में सिले सूट पहनकर ही क्लास जाती थी, जिसमें दुपट्टे का विशेष महत्व था। मेरी पोशाक का आधुनिकता से दूर-दूर तक कोई नाता-रिश्ता नहीं था। तब मेरे पहनावे को लेकर छात्राओं की तो छोड़िए, कुछ टीचरों ने भी मुझे जज्मेंटल होकर देखना शुरू कर दिया था। हालांकि, वह क्षणिक ही रहा, क्योंकि जैसे-जैसे इंसान खुद को साबित करता जाता और अपनी साख बना लेता है तो बांकी चीजें पीछे छूट जाती हैं। मेरे साथ भी यही हुआ। चूंकि मैं कॉलेज पढ़ाई के लिए गई थी तो मेरी प्राथमिकता में वही रहा।

लेकिन, इसके साथ-साथ न महसूस होने वाली गति से स्वत: दूसरे बदलाव भी आते जाते हैं, जिसे हम लंबे अंतराल के बाद ही समझ पाते हैं। मसलन- एक समय दुपट्टा लेना जहां बेहद जरूरी लगता था। अब नहीं लगता है। दरअसल, ऐसी बातें इंसान के भीतर आए बदलाव को कहीं न कहीं जाहिर करती हैं। इसके बावजूद मैं कहूंगी कि दिल्ली ब्रुटल है और यह बात मुझे पसंद नहीं आई। वैसे एक समय के बाद यह समझ बनी कि कुछ बातें अच्छी न लगे, वह भी अपने-आप में जरूरी है। क्योंकि, इसके बाद ही इंसान खुद को परखने की प्रक्रिया से गुजरता है। वह अपने अंदर झांकता है। फिर यह जानने-समझने की कोशिश करता है कि उसमें ऐसी कौन सी बात है जो लोगों को अच्छी नहीं लग रही है। इस प्रक्रिया से गुजरने के बाद इंसान कुछ पुरानी चीजों को छोड़ता है और कुछ नई चीजों को ग्रहण करता है। मेरे साथ भी यही हुआ। मैंने भी कुछ चीजों को ग्रहण किया, तो कुछ को छोड़ा। कुछ चीजों से चिपकी रही, क्योंकि मैंने तय किया कि इसे किसी भी कीमत पर नहीं छोड़ना है। इस बातों के बरकस आज मैं दिल्ली को एक संतुलित मिजाज वाले शहर के रूप में देख पाती हूं, जो शायद पहले नहीं देख पाती थी।

दिल्ली के खान-पान और बोल-चाल के अंदाज को लेकर आपकी क्या राय है?

बेशक दिल्ली में लोगों की बात-चीत और उनके रहन-सहन का तरीका मुझे पहले-पहल आकर्षित नहीं करता था। मैं दिल्ली में ही यह जान पाई कि दाल भी एक तरह की सब्जी ही है। लोग रोटी-दाल मजे में खाते हैं, जबकि हमारे यहां दाल के साथ-साथ सब्जी एक जरूरी चीज है। दाल और सब्जी दोनों का अपना-अपना महत्व है। दिल्ली में दोनों का महत्व एक है। शुरू के दिनों में यह सब देखकर थोड़ा अटपटा लगता था, लेकिन अब तो कोई फर्क नहीं पड़ता है। बोल-चाल को लेकर भी ऐसे ही उदाहरण हैं।

दरअसल, घर से बाहर आने के बाद जब नई-नई चीजों से सामना होता है या नई संस्कृति से मेल-जोल बढ़ता है तो कई दफा हम उसे बर्दास्त करते हुए चलते हैं। वैसे राजनीतिक परिप्रेक्ष्य से देखें तो दिल्ली आने पर हमें देश को व्यापक तरीके से जानने-समझने में मदद मिलती है। कॉलेज के दिनों में पूर्वोत्तर भारत के दोस्तों से मिलने-जुलने के दौरान यही बात ध्यान में आती थी कि इनका रंग और रिवाज विचित्र है। अब जब मैं असम में हूं तो यही सोचती हूं कि आखिर वे लोग हमारे बारे में क्या राय रखते होंगे? क्योंकि इनके लिए तो हमारा रंग-रिवाज, खान-पान सब विचित्र है। मूल रूप से उनके लिए हम विचित्र थे। खैर, मैं समझती हूं कि लोगों का अपने परिवेश के अनुसार रहन-सहन और खान-पान होता है, उसे देखकर हमें कभी भी जज्मेंटल नहीं होना चाहिए।

दिल्ली में दो तरह की संस्कृति का गहरा प्रभाव हर तरफ दिखाई देता है। एक ठेठ गंवई संस्कृति है, जो शहर के बीचों-बीच जाठ और गुर्जरों के गांव में दिखती है। जैसे- चंद्रावल गांव, ढाका, मुनिरका आदि। दूसरी संस्कृति पंजाबियता की है। आखिर वह कौन सी बात है, जो इन्हें एक दूसरे से जोड़ती भी है? क्या आपको किसी बिंदु पर दोनों संस्कृतियों के बीच टकराव होता नजर आया?

मुझे लगता है कि अर्थव्यवस्था एक ऐसी मजबूत कड़ी है जो दोनों को एक-दूसरे से जोड़े रखती है। मैं एक उदाहरण देती हूं- जिस चंद्रावल गांव का जिक्र आप कर रहे हैं, उसी गांव के लोग कमला नगर मार्केट में गोल-गप्पे और कई दूसरी चीजें बेचते हैं, जिसे शहर का पंजाबी समाज बड़े चट्कारे लेकर खाता है। यकीनन, इस दौरान दोनों का मेल-जोल होता है। यदि इससे कोई नई संस्कृतिक पनप रही होगी तो जल्दबाजी में कुछ कहना ठीक नहीं होगा। लेकिन, मोटे तौर पर मेरी यही राय है कि बदलते आर्थिक परिदृष्य में दोनों एक-दूसरे की जरूरत हैं। हां, मैं यह कह सकती हूं कि दिल्ली के चंद्रावल सरीखे गांवों से जो लड़कियां विश्वविद्यालय पढ़ाई के लिए आती हैं, वे अपनी ठेठ ग्रामीण संस्कृति के साथ-साथ पंजाबियत से भी प्रभावित होती हैं। जहां तक टकराव की बात है तो वह सांस्कृतिक स्तर पर कहीं दिखाई नहीं देता है। हालांकि, राजनीतिक टकराव जरूर है।

दिल्ली में वह कौन सी बात है जो आपको अपनी तरफ खींचती है?

अब भी मुझे यही लगता है कि दिल्ली एक संभावनाओं का शहरबना हुआ है। दिल्ली शहर की यही बात मुझे अपनी तरफ खींचती है। इसके अलावा ऐसी कोई चीज नहीं है, जिससे मैं दिल्ली की तरफ आकर्षित हो सकूं। मैं तो भारत के हर गांव में दिल्ली को पलते हुए देखना चाहती हूं ताकि लोगों को पलायन न करना पड़े। यह सच है कि पलायन से संस्कृति का मेल-जोल बढ़ रहा है, लेकिन इससे बड़ी बात तो यह होगी कि हम अपने छोटे-छोटे शहरों को भी संभावनाओं का शहर बना दें। यह आज की सबसे बड़ी जरूरत है।

असंभावनाओं के इस दौर में क्या दिल्ली से वापस लौटना संभव है?

बिल्कुल है। सच कहूं तो लोग लौट भी रहे हैं। अब मैं खुद दिल्ली में नहीं रहती। मेरी तनिक इच्छा भी नहीं है कि दिल्ली में मेरा कोई घर हो। यह सच है कि मेरे जितने सहपाठी थे, उनमें से ज्यादातर लोगों को दिल्ली पसंद आई। उन्होंने दिल्ली और मुंबई में ही रहना पसंद किया। यह निजी पसंद से जुड़ा मसला है। मेरी निजी इच्छा यही है कि अपने इलाके में जाकर कोई काम करुं। आप पाएंगे कि ज्यादातर लोग अपनी समस्याओं के निराकरण के लिए दिल्ली आते हैं। जब वे उसका समाधान ढूंढ़ लेते हैं तो उनकी महत्वाकांक्षा दिल्ली सरीखी हो जाती है और उसके साथ ही भटकाव का दौर शुरू हो जाता है। इस बात को हम ध्यान में रखेंगे तो लौटना कठिन नहीं होगा।

एक बात आपको बताना चाहूंगी। वह यह कि बिहार से जब कोई छात्र दिल्ली आता है तो वह आईएएस, पत्रकार या कोई दूसरे सपने के साथ आता है। तब उसके मन में यह बात रहती है कि पत्रकार बनकर बिहार की स्टोरी करुंगा। आईएएस बनकर बिहार कैटर लूंगा आदि-आदि। कुल मिलाकर वह अपने प्रदेश के बारे में सोचता है, लेकिन समय के साथ लुटियंस दिल्ली उसे अपनी तरफ खींच लेती है उसका लौटना मुश्किल हो जाता है। यदि हम अपने जज्बे को बनाए रखेंगे तो ‘वापस लौटना’ एक सहज प्रक्रिया होगी। वैसे भी मैं यह मानती हूं कि गांव या कस्बे को छोड़कर हम कभी आगे नहीं बढ़ते, बल्कि उसकी यादों को हमेशा साथ लिए चलते हैं।

यदि दिल्ली के किसी एक चीज को बदलने का अवसर मिले तो आप किस चीज को बदलना चाहेंगी?

यकीनन, मैं कुछ बदल पाई तो दिल्ली के प्रदूषण को खत्म करना चाहूंगी। लेकिन हां, सम-विषम वाले फार्मूले से अलग हटकर। वैसे संस्कृति के लिहाज से देखें तो मेरा यही ख्याल है कि हर शहर और प्रदेश का अपना मिजाज होता है। अगर मुझे वह रास नहीं आ रहा है, तो भी उसे बदले का हक मुझे नहीं है।

महिलाओं के लिए दिल्ली कितनी सुरक्षित है?

दिल्ली उतनी ही सुरक्षित और असुरक्षित है, जितना असम है। बिहार है। उत्तर प्रदेश आदि राज्य है। चूंकि दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी है तो वहां घटनाएं तत्काल सामने आ जाती हैं। रिपोर्टरों के लिए उसे कवर करना आसान है तो वे उस खबर को दिखाते हैं, लेकिन ऐसा नहीं है कि केवल दिल्ली में घटनाएं हो रही हैं। यदि बारीकी से देखें तो पाएंगे कि एक लड़की के लिए जैसा पटना, लखनऊ या ऐसे दूसरे शहर हैं, वैसी ही दिल्ली है।

http://www.thepatrika.com/NewsPortal/h?cID=hdbZO0qgCHk%3D

Reaction to Ram Madhav's Al Jazeera interview is devoid of facts

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/intolerance-secularism-award-wapsi-ghar-wapsi-bjp-ram-madhav-social-media-congress/story/1/8157.html

Last evening BJP general secretary Ram Madhav was under constant attack from the handles associated to the Congress and others for the interview to Mehdi Hasan on Al Jazeera. Amidst the different arguments made by different Twitter handles, increasing intolerance, rise in communal clashes since Narendra Modi came to power and the idea of RSS as a Hindu organisation seemed to dominate the atmosphere of dissent. This environment on social media was very similar to the situation created on the sets of Al Jazeera. However, if one were to back arguments with data and objective analysis, the atmosphere appeared lopsided in favour of blatantly wrong facts and figures that rolled out from one participant to the other.

According to the published reply to an unstarred question asked in the Lok Sabha over incidents of communal violence from 2012 to 2015, the year 2014 saw an unprecedented decline in cases of violence. There was a stark reduction of 22 per cent in incidents of communal clashes, a 29 per cent decline in cases of killing and 15 per cent decline in cases of injuries owing to communal violence in comparison with 2013.

However, in contrast to the hard numbers and facts, what found repeated mention in the debate, on the sets of Al Jazeera and beyond, and shockingly here in India, was an emotional pitch for incidents of award wapsi in the name of defending secularism and restoring democracy. The tweets and comments showed a hilarious mixture of memes bordering on propaganda and agenda-driven attempt to vitiate the notion of dissent.

Dissent is an intrinsic part of a healthy democracy. But it also comes with responsibilities. It comes with the expectation of justification if dissent is challenged. Dissent in a democracy is based on rational and logical argumentation backed by incidental evidences against high emotional rhetoric and/or good-in-their-own-right arguments.

It is extremely sad that the Opposition and the champions of democracy today border more on hysteria and less on logical facts.

For the viewers of the interview like me, the debate and its aftermath created a mixed sense of despondency, anger and at times intolerance for the utter lack of constructive opposition in the country today. One feels saddened by the complete lack of an informed debate, even within the country, on a lot of issues raised in the Al Jazeera interview.

Why is it that when one allows space to talk about ghar wapsi, there seems an absolute lack of a platform to discuss religious conversions at length? Why is there an utter silence in discussing uniform civil code amidst such rage on social media? Why is there a complete lack of consensus amidst the Indian intelligentsia in discussing issues of the Kashmiri pundits with as much vigour as that of Azad Kashmir when one discusses Jammu and Kashmir?

Why is it that one cries hoarse on the bias in certain media studios but remains silent on the almost staged interview on Al Jazeera where time and space given to raise issues of alleged attack on democracy and factually suspect data on rising intolerance was disproportionately high? And lastly, why as Indians, do we fail to protest against the waste of public money by an Opposition (read Congress) as small as a WhatsApp group by creating a din in the house?

It is unfortunate that in the age of social media, where information flows freely and internationally, we have allowed lies, misrepresentation and selective bias to trend but forgotten to quote facts and logic and failed to ask the most basic questions.

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/intolerance-secularism-award-wapsi-ghar-wapsi-bjp-ram-madhav-social-media-congress/story/1/8157.html

Rahul Gandhi's Barpeta Satra row exposes Congress' communal colours

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/rahul-gandhi-congress-rss-bjp-barpets-satra-narendra-modi-assam-tarun-gogoi-intolerance-bangladesh-migrants-rockybul-hussain-communalism-hindutva/story/1/7971.html

As a massive PR disaster, Rahul Gandhi's Twitter handle revealed his itinerary for Assam visit on December 10 - a day before he was to arrive in the state. There was no mention of any visit to the alleged "temple" in Barpeta.

The controversy centered around a rather impassioned Rahul alleging in front of the national media that the RSS-BJP combine "prevented" him from entering the "temple" premises. And of course, somehow Prime Minister Narendra Modi was to be blamed for it.

Subsequently, in a major embarrassment for the Congress party, their state irrigation minister in Assam, Chandan Sarkar, observed that Rahul was late, could not fulfill the basic ablution rituals required before entering the satra and the satra chief revealed that there was a prolonged wait of four hours before the politician decided to give it a miss.

Ever since then, the debate has been coloured into a communal versus secular argument. However, it is not rocket science to figure that Rahul Gandhi's visit is his typical political pilgrimage in Assam and not necessarily a genuine concern for women SHGs (self-help groups) , young students, leading media personalities and intellectuals, as suggested in his now-removed itinerary on social media.

Also, his choice of audience (population wise) during the choppered-"padyatra" was cherry picked in Barpeta. Any politically conscious citizen could see the vote banks Rahul chose to appease, address and allow his access to in a district seething with Bangladeshi migrants. In such a situation, it is extremely naïve to miss out on the implications of the threads which have laid bare the controversy at hand.

Satra is a cultural entity for Assam. Assamese society has adopted the ways of a satra since its inception some 500 years ago. Satra is now trying to conserve its identity in the wake of illegal migration in the state. Therefore, it is not a temple and definitely not just a religious symbol for Hindus in Assam.

The political severity of mis-representing satra as a temple and imposing a Hindutva identity on it can cost Congress a great deal. By stripping the local sentiment attached to a satra and by trying to communalise the issue to suit a myopic electoral battle, Rahul Gandhi has resorted to a political tactic of revealing his misinformed political personality. Satra is as much a matter of Assamese identity and pride as is the depletion of one-horned Rhinoceros in the state.

Assam chief minister Tarun Gogoi preposterously claimed that he would resign if it was proved that even an inch of satra land had been encroached. However, if one were to believe Asom Satra Mahasabha offcials, more than 7,000 bighas of satra land has been encroached upon. Ali Pukhuri Than in Morigaon district has reduced from 17 bighas to a mere 11. Kubaikata satra has just one kattha of land remaining with the satradhikar.

Just a month and a half ago, in Kalsilla Satra located near Mayong in Morigaon district, a village of Bangladeshi migrants appeared overnight. No tangible action has been taken on the agreement which the district administration, this "new" village and the indigenous residents of the area signed.

Around three years ago, in Batadrava Than, out of six police officers visiting to survey the concern of illegal migration, four belonging to a particular community were lynched. In 2011, in the same satra, a mosque construction preparation overnight alarmed the district administration. The 200 metres of land was declared as a new area under social forestry by none other than Tarun Gogoi and state agriculture minister, Rockybul Hussain.

In this context, it is but natural for satra followers to be angry. It is also natural that they will register protest against the entry of a politician of a ruling party. However, it is more natural for the culturally and ethnically threatened followers to get livid by an outsider who does not want to follow the rituals (because he is late).

Therefore, it is also natural for Rahul Gandhi who had visited his vote bank to throw a crumb of appeasement for the satra followers and publicise his photo op on Twitter after realising that his dereliction has snowballed into a major electoral faux pas.

With Assam elections drawing close, even a cursory look at the Congress strategy reveals how communal inclination scripts the overall narrative of the incumbent government. Whether they are "swanky" hoardings with elite, polished "looking" youth raking up the romantic notion of choice and growing intolerance in the state or the recent Barpeta controversy involving INC heir, Rahul Gandhi, the overall atmosphere in Assam Congress politics reeks of communal tendencies.

It is within this light that Barpeta Satra controversy needs to be analysed and conclusions drawn.

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/rahul-gandhi-congress-rss-bjp-barpets-satra-narendra-modi-assam-tarun-gogoi-intolerance-bangladesh-migrants-rockybul-hussain-communalism-hindutva/story/1/7971.html

Stop glorifying Muslim victimhood

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/paris-attacks-terrorism-isis-islamophobia-muslim-sharia-quran-secularism/story/1/7503.html

The two camps emerging out of the debates since the attacks in Paris seem to discuss the issue in either of the two frames - the first damns Islam and the other denounces power structures. The common thread running through both these mutually exclusive arguments is the circularity of the cause-effect or chicken-egg phenomenon.

The debate around Islam and extremism has been confusingly conflated with the debate around Islamophobia. The merger of these two separate discussions on a skewed and borrowed platform of Western secularism dilutes the seriousness of two independent concerns. So each time someone tries to raise the issue of Islamic fundamentalism after these acts of terror, the arguments are systematically sidelined through a linear narrative of Muslim victimhood. Therefore, while there is enough discussion on Islamophobia, for instance, there is almost none on Kafirophobia. This organised lopsidedness of the debate is so pronounced that even if there are attempts to prise open debates around the sharia or interpretations of the Quran, those endeavours are thwarted by ideologically motivated monolithic voices glorifying Muslim victimhood in perpetuity.

The recently concluded India Ideas Conclave 2015 in Goa, for instance, attempted to define the ambit and direction of the Islam and extremism debate in the wake of the Paris attacks through the session on "Rise of Radicalism - Future of Civilisations". However, in a day and age of increasing intellectual intolerance from the "other" side of the government, this conclave, by and large, went unnoticed by most of us. Some self-proclaimed and politically aligned media pundits categorically denied any discussion on the content of the conclave and instead merited attention to hypothetical conjectures on what the conclave could mean. Even when boundaries of coverage were pushed, sound bites from ministers made guest appearances here and there.

There are three situations that one cannot ignore while discussing the growing scourge of religious intolerance. First, most of the reported acts of terror are rooted in the manipulation of Islamic laws. Second, after an act of terror, heavy criticism of the act comes primarily from non-Muslims with an increased pitch on the need for more and more "moderate Muslim" voices. And third, Muslims across the world have suffered far greater damage to their lives and identities because of the acts of terror and their aftermath.

It takes much gumption for radically progressive Muslim intellectuals like Tarek Fatah to not just speak against their religion but also express something as blasphemous as "ban the sharia". It is our collective shame that despite the symbolic and representative gestures of outrage against acts of terror, we fail to do justice to the few moderate Muslims who choose to speak and express logically against the preposterousness of the various religious diktats. It is deplorable that the liberal intellectual space where there should be excruciating clash of arguments on religion, there is instead a systematic and systemic alienation of any dialogue around Islamic verses -their layering and wrinkling over the ages gone by.

In the book Islam and the Future of Tolerance: A Dialogue, authors Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz quote an independent survey that 40 million Muslims across the world support active jihad. It implies that the entire population of world's 31st and 32nd most populous country - Argentina or Sudan - might be seething with the agenda of blowing up the world and/or themselves in the name of one of the fastest spreading religions of human race.

No religion, in essence, teaches to kill and maim others. Historically, religion has been misused and abused by the powers that be, to suit the supremacy of one ideology over the other. These two articulations have become increasingly tautological in the recent past. In the event that a space for a liberal and scathing critique of various interpretations of the Quran is almost absent, the highly emotive and rhetorical lamentation over millions of lost lives has not achieved much - either in abetting these acts of terror or even softening the positions of the hardliners within various power structures or beyond.

The liberal sensibilities in us must warrant the actual progressive thinkers and rebels within Islam at least one concrete gesture - a free, responsive and unbiased debate platform without the haste to bracket and slot the articulators for our short-term and myopic political (most often electoral) motives.

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/paris-attacks-terrorism-isis-islamophobia-muslim-sharia-quran-secularism/story/1/7503.html

The perceptive, plotless story of the Facebook generation

http://scroll.in/article/755567/the-perceptive-plotless-story-of-the-facebook-generation
At first sight, what absolutely fascinated me about Kaushik Barua’s No Direction Rome was a tastefully conceptualised and designed book cover – understated, subtle, symbolic and stylish. Sombre and dark, it embraced a patina of lost time. Little did I know that this beautiful cover housed a carefully crafted plotless narrative of love, loss, longing and life, enmeshed in the ageless chaos of time – almost as a curse on our incidental birth. What began as a reading meant to satiate my thirst for good literature ended up as food for thought for many days to come.

While undertaking the journey with the protagonist, Krantik, No Direction Rome reminds one of Amit Chaudhuri’s Ananda in Odyssesus Abroad. Undertaking a plotless rumination on an expatriate experience – dealing with questions of identity, meandering in the ennui of a modernist creation – they are similar but not congruent.

Chaudhuri’s Ananda is different from Barua’s Krantik in the sense that Ananda has a vision for his redemption – he craves for an idyllic situation in life, seeped in nostalgia and family camaraderie. Barua’s Krantik, on the other hand, rebels (kranti) without reason, asks directions to fancy places without any intention of a visit.

Krantik hates his job, imagines he has a severe medical condition, attempts to love out of boredom, destroys every shred of stability that his life seems to offer him and embraces a condition where he is forever hanging on with a deeply vacant, grim and glum mindspace. However seedy the narrative appears, Barua’s mastery of an exquisite prose, cultured in the inconsequential details of everydayness, architectured by the banality of ambitions, introduces a beautifully and artfully crafted piece.

All the while, a causal hangover and/or a “high” from this borrowed experience from Krantik belies the intense interiority of the protagonist’s mindspace. In fact, the long drawn, sleepy description that Barua sketches while narrating Krantik’s scatological fascination of observing his shit-pot and imagining the crimson of blood painting this scene for him, the writer touches something very deep in a very profound yet offhand way – that which is the running ‘theme’ in the novel.

Going somewhere while going nowhere

The purposelessness of this “Facebook generation”, as Barua prefers to call this frenzied madness, is a subject of intense introspection in No Direction Rome. There is scatology, invective, violence, love, sex, boredom, romance, weed, alcohol. There is life, meaninglessness, repetition, circularity – all making a heady cocktail of something which cannot be missed. It is right there staring at our faces – something that all of us have faced at some point in time or the other. This book offers that which is real, in the most unquestioning yet unbelieving of ways.

Cocooned in the comforting capsules of our timelines, tweeting and dubsmashing fragments of our lives – moments, thoughts, feelings – this book is a quiet refuge for us, “this generation”.  One can identify with the pictures of that lady with Somalian kids, inviting the observer into her intimate world. At the same time it also acts like the other lady in the book who slashes her wrists and never lets anyone in beyond physical penetration – the unreconciled dualism of human experiences. One can identify with Krantik, who meets Pooja, cannot muster up the courage to say no to her, but finds release and mystery in Chiara – the unresolved binaries of a singular identity.

This generation which is the raison d’etre  for Kaushik’s creation, has nothing to grasp and clasp – no ground, not twig. It is a generation lost in the ever dynamic whirlpool of transition and change, bereft of an ideal to decide, whether “to be or not to be”. This is a book which while dealing with existential questions of this generation, generates a steep flip in readers’ consciousness. It is similar to the rise or the fall of a trip the reader undertakes – curled within a smoked-up journey with Krantik, in the alleys of a directionless Rome.

Consuming the reader without a plot

It is remarkable how despite the seeming half incompleteness of the directionless plot, Barua manages to keep the scattered narrative tightly snug and “held up” in peculiar ways. The uselessness of everyday existence and its repetition like Sisyphus, the purposelessness behind a full knowledge that “nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes”, like in Waiting for Godot, keeps a consistent hold over the narrative.

It is, as if by embracing the essence of postmodernism, Barua rejects the very idea of postmodernity in a strange structural symmetry. While merging the twin demands of form and formlessness of style, he audaciously challenges the discussed and the accepted “norms” of a postmodern craft.

The book is a self-conscious narrative struggling to remain unexposed behind a plotless plot.  By a seemingly maverick rumination on issues so disjointed yet connected, Barua tickles the faculty of imagination, perception, appreciation and analyses, establishing a “method to the madness”. Its effect is so deep yet unnoticed that all through this fascinating trip, the reader feels consumed with sensations of an artfully articulated cursive craft.

It is this daring experiment that makes Barua noticed among the many writers who slip in and out of today’s literary limelight. No Direction Rome is Kaushik Barua’s second book. Markedly different from his debutant novel, Windhorse, which fetched him the Sahitya Akademi award, this book adds another dimension of discussion on “ways of seeing” the world.  While Windhorse was about research and analyses, No Direction Rome is about feeling and becoming.
http://scroll.in/article/755567/the-perceptive-plotless-story-of-the-facebook-generation