PHILOSOPHY SYMPOSIUM - September 20 and 21

India - The Most Dangerous Country for Women

I was shocked to read that India is the most dangerous country for women in the world. for the first time USA has also made an appearance in the list of 10.

We need to become the topper in the list of the safest countries for women in the world.

We have to remember that we all had been given a chance to see this beautiful world, because of the love of one woman - Mother.

If we often remind ourselves of that, probably we can make this place the safest place for them.

Read the following News:

"The survey noted that Indian government data shows reported crimes against women were up 83 percent between 2007 and 2016. During that year, there were an average of four rapes reported every hour in India." 

We are Confused - Are we really?

Mr. Narendira Modi is the most searched politician in (GOOGLE) India. People in the last six months have started searching news related to election.

While Mr. Modi is said to be a politician who follows the dictates of the RSS which advocates fanaticism, still he is seen to be a charismatic leader. The citizens of the country know that his silence in the killing of many innocents in the riots. However even the secular citizens wish this time to be on the side of Mr. Modi because he is seen to be a wonderful, powerful, and a productive chief minister in Gujarat - in Gujarat they talk about job opportunities, lot of foreign investments, etc. What is hidden in this illuminated Gujarat is the fact that many things are veiled from the eyes of the public. For example, they say that every third child in Gujarat is underweight.  One can add many more things like this. One may look to clear one's prejudice or to know the fact. People search the internet for all sorts of things - unfortunately this may be credited to the favour of Modi - as the most searched politician. 

Jokes apart, any state, any country which runs on debts, will be a country that seems richer, brighter and modern. one can think of America - the most sought country in the world - the most advanced country in the world, the measure of the world; It had to shut down all of its public offices, parks because it does not have money to pay to its workers. Every month it borrows and pays - well this is how the economy works. Experts will advise me to shut my mouth - they will say everything will be alright soon... This is how I think Gujarat works. This is how Mr. Singh wants it to work for India!

Well Gujarat is like this... what has this to do with the confusion?

We confuse advancement, modernity, with technology and capitalism and foreign investments. We forget that every country has to develop its own modernity. We think that development has to be in the same way as it happened in America or it happened in Britain. For us economy means, multinational companies, markets, ultimately capitalism. America and other multinational companies come to India not as 'Good willed people' who want to help the Indian economy but to improve their wealth. The fact is that these multinational companies take money from the developing countries to their homeland. Without realizing the fact (at least masking it in the name of development) the government welcomes them with a red carpet, gives them hundreds and thousands of acres of land, gives them water, etc... but for what? - well that is another area that has to be explored.

Imitating the western modernity, we want to see our country develop. All of us want to see our country to develop. But the politicians are in the hands of the West, in the hands of the media, in the hands of the corporate companies. They fund the party and in return the politicians welcome them without ever creating job opportunities for its citizens. 

When Mr. Prime minister opened the gates to the corporation companies, the media, the america and everybody saw that he was the man who is ready to help the multinational companies to enter India, now that he has completed his two terms and not much (in spite of all that he has done to the USA and its corporate companies), everybody starts projecting Gujarat's Modi as the efficient leader who can still open the borders for free marketing.
We are blinded by one type of development - we do not see any other.

Mr. Singh was seen to be one of the 100 most influential figure in the world by TIME. Later when he has not reduced (?) subsidies, not done the reforms as they expected it to happen to India, sing becomes an unwanted figure.

The same people who cast doubt about Modi and his innocence in the riot, think that Modi means business.. (One has to ask whose business? and What business?).

The western mind is fed up with the present prime minister for not letting them as they expected to be. The Indian citizens are not in favour of the present prime minister not because he has not developed the country but because he was not able to provide work, not able to reduce the price hike for food, gas, and light. Therefore the citizens see Mr. Modi and Gujarat as models for the country. 

The Westerners and capitalists look for Mr. Modi.

If we as citizens of the country look for Mr. Modi because of price hike, we will have it still higher, because Modi will follow more intense globalized economy than that of Mr. Singh.
Mr. Modi does not have any economic policy that is different from Congress.

Even when secular Hindus, Christians and Muslims look up to Modi to avoid congress, they do not understand that the country will be darker still, not mainly because of religious fanaticism but because of capitalistic fanaticism. 

Amartya Sen on Secular India

Nobel laureate Amartya Sen confirmed his hope in secular India that he wishes that a secular person who can make all the citizens of the country feel more secure in the country. He complained that Modi, who is said to the be next prime minister candidate for the BJP in the forthcoming national election in India.

Sen said: "“No, I don’t approve of it... I don’t think the record is very good. I think I don’t have to be a member of the minority in order to feel insecure... We Indians don’t want a situation where the minority feel insecure and could legitimately think that there was an organised violence against them in 2002. I think that is a terrible record and I don’t think Indian Prime Minister as an Indian citizen... Of who has that kind of record. No, I do not.” [the Hindu]

While there are lot of political scientists were critical of secular India, Sen has been on the other end that India should be a secular country. He has confirmed his hope in secularism once again.

Secularism Hanged !

India is known to be a secular country which does respect all religions, their worldviews. The ‘neutrality’ can be seen to be the best options available for a secular state. Many events in Indian politics have shown that this neutrality of the government is in theory rather than in practice. One could argue that it is better to be in papers than nothing at all. Confidently some may argue that a ‘kind totalitarian’ is better than a ‘ruthless secular state’. However, it is unthinkable for a modern man to think of monarchy, or totalitarian regime however kind and loveable the rulers are. It is a [?] historical impossibility to throw away the democratic elements of our polity. It is then important that we constantly purify the brutal aspects of theoretically democratic and practically undemocratic elements of the State.

One issue to show how sometimes most respected secular states can fail to establish its own secularity is the case of Afzal. Afzal Guru was hanged recently in Tihar Jail in India without the knowledge of his wife and his son. What is important here in the case of Afzal Guru is to pay attention to the verdict: “In its over300 page judgement the apex court said, ‘The incident, which resulted in heavy casualties, had shaken the entire nation and the collective conscience of the society will only be satisfied if the capital punishment is awarded to the offender.’”[1]

The invoking of the collective conscience is important because it means that whole nation is traumatized at what happened in December 2001 – an Attack on the Parliament when the B.J.P. was ruling the country. Afzal Guru was seen to be the culprit although there were no evidences to suggest that he was either directly or indirectly involved in the attack. The judges invoked the ‘collective conscience of the society’. The collective conscience of the society does not definitely include the Muslims of the nation but mostly of the Hindus. The point is when one raises voice against the verdict or the brutal hanging of Afzal, those citizens will be seen not to belong to the ‘collective conscience’ and therefore not as members of the country. Should I consider myself to be part of the collective conscience? It was invoked because the case was one of the rarest of its kind in the country – an attack on the pillar of the nation and Democracy.

In order to satisfy the majority collective conscience, the government / Court has executed the verdict soon after the refusal of the mercy petition by the President of the country. The B.J.P. leaders had earlier raised slogans like “Desh abhi sharminda hai, Afzal abhibhi zinda hai", which means (in stirring rhyme), "Our nation is ashamed because Afzal is still alive.”[2] The B.J.P cannot raises slogans like this in the coming election, because Afzal is no more. The congress will gain popularity also among the Hindus. While all others will keep silence since it will be against the collective conscience. What has been done openly by the B.J.P is done quietly by the Congress: the difference between both kinds of ‘Hindutva’ is the mode of operation – open and secret.

Going beyond evidence and to invoke collective conscience is not new. In the Ayodhya case the honorable judges invoked ‘faith and belief’. To this many like Ashgar Ali  have responded who said: “Tomorrow other judges motivated by their faith may use this judgment as a precedent and deliver other judgments invoking faith….Thus, stretching the argument … in a democracy after all numbers count and so faith of majority community will play greater role than faith of minority community and court of law will thus become majoritarian in their attitude and all the legal values and protection of minorities and their faith in the constitution may be ultimately subverted.”[3]

This raises the question whether a secular state can really be secular forgetting one’s own faith at all in the functions. Will it be possible for the citizens or the responsible office holders to use ‘the veil of Ignorance’ of John Rawls? It seems not... Our deep and ultimate concerns keep coming in different ways.

Although there were gaps in the evidences and arguments, the country needed a perpetrator who will be hanged and in whom the vengeance can be thrown. It can mean that what is stake is the ‘scape goat mechanism’. Girard says: “In the evolution from ritual to secular institutions men gradually draw away from violence and eventually lose sight of it; but an actual break with violence never takes place.”[4]

For the unity and to satisfy the collective thirst for revenge a perpetrator was hanged and our thirst is quenched. May be joining with Arundhathi Roy, one may rightly ask: “Now he has been hanged, I hope our collective conscience has been satisfied. Or is our cup of blood still only half full?”[5]

---

[1] http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_sc-on-afzal-guru-hanging_1798220

[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/10/hanging-afzal-guru-india-democracy

[3] Asghar Ali Engineer (2010): “Ayodhya judgment – triumph of faith or constitutional legality?” accessed on 19th October on http://www.csssforum.org/default.as…As quoted in http://www.lebret-irfed.org/spip.php?article450

[4]Rene Girard, Violence and the Sacred, trans. Patrick Gregory(Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press, 1972 [4^th1984]), p. 307.

[5] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/10/hanging-afzal-guru-india-democracy

MODERN AND PRE-MODERN

The former prime minister of Britain, Mr. Tony Blair, who is a Roman Catholic, has reacted to the recent violent protests that caused the life of many people all over the world, saying, “I think what we shouldn't do is lose sight of what the real issue is, and the real issue is how do people actually think it is justified to react in a way that ends up innocent people being killed. […] So no, this is a profound problem; it’s a problem, as I say, which is about the struggle of modernization. The good news is, in the end, the modernizers will win incidentally, but it will take a long time to do.”[1]

One can well agree with Tony Blair that no one can justify the death of innocent persons. He is right in asserting that demanding the persons behind the film should be held responsible. But I am interested in his comment about modernity.

Modernization for most westerners means that it is about the freedom of the individual. A society is considered to be modern only when the individual freedom is attained. There should not be a major issue with this understanding. The further explanation at the comment of Blair is to indicate that one should be able to respect the views of others. This means that the modern people will be more tolerant and magnanimous in accepting the view of others even if it is a false view.

But how is that the individual who expects that everybody’s view should be respected does not respect the view of others even if it is a false one. I explain: sorry to use the name of Blair. If Blair thinks that the modern notion of freedom is to respect the view of others, then the Muslims should be able to respect the view of the director of the Movie. That is the sign of being modern. Because they are not modern, then they react violently.

My question is – if the views of others should be respected, why the director, who is a modern, does not respect the view of the millions of Muslims. 

Who is pre-modern – the director or the Muslims? Or Both?

*****

The irony is that the sister-in-law of Mr. Tony Blair 

converted to Islam 

three years after his conversion to Catholicism.

***** 

---

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09/17/tony-blair-reaction-to-anti-islam-film-absurd_n_1889232.html

Extreme Individualism

It was shocking to watch a short movie titled ‘innocence of Muslims’.  The title had, as far as I am concerned, nothing to do with the so called ‘a short movie’. It was neither a documentary nor a movie in the technical sense of the term. It was not a documentary because it never stated any facts, it had no coherence, and it was not well presented. What one sees in the movie is the hatred towards a particular religious community while praising or attempting to praise Judaism.

One man in the United States had produced such a devastating movie irresponsibly deceiving even the actress in such a way that it is a movie on some clash between some clans in ancient Egypt. If this is what he had done with making of a movie, one can understand well how the movie itself has lots its credibility. Although a particular country cannot be held responsible for one man’s fault, it is high time that a country such as the United States revalues and redefines its understanding of ‘the free individual’. It is not only for the United States but also for other countries which are attempting to replicate the U.S. Model in their own country.

A lot has to do with the historical events and the development of understanding the Individual. One can see it in differences between the Europe and the U.S. Model. There are lots of differences between the two in many respects. The main one that is often noted of Europe is its secular character understood in terms of the rise of unbelief. The majority of them are not believers in the traditional religion, and more not active believers in any religion for that matter. On the contrary United States has more active believers statistically. The former, in spite of having less believers, respects the believers and their system of beliefs that give value to the individual, whereas the latter in spite of its religious character at large displays hatred towards other religious beliefs. It does not mean that I favor secular contents and want to promote secularization. 

What I see much more important is the difference between the conception of the individual understood in terms of rights. While the element of sociality is still operative in the Europe although very mildly, even the milder connection between the individual and the society is cut off in the U.S. Model. One could say that it has taken the path of extreme individuation where sociality is almost invisible. 

[I who am neither an European nor an American acknowledge that I may be wrong and I need to substantiate it with facts, for now it may be seen hypothetically.] Freedom has to be understood as an "Exercise concept" as Charles Taylor puts forward. 

Democracy and Demonstration

India is a country partly ruled by the majority, partly ruled by the law. It gives an equal status to all the citizens of the country yet it tries to fulfill the wish of the majority. In the synchronizing model [of both Republic and democracy], the sufferers are the people because they do not have either control over the rulers or do not receive what they are supposed to receive by the benefit of the law. It is also because the law is in the hands of the few and sometimes dictated by the rulers themselves. 

In the continuous protest that we witness in Tamil Nadu, one can hope to explain the complexity of the phenomenon. The rulers see the manifestation of the people as irrational and as a divisive factor that goes against the rational decision of the majority. The vast majority of the people are made to rationally believe that the nuclear plant is the only option available to the continuous 'power cut' they experience in the country.  Joining hands with the rational belief of the government and the indifferent majority, the 'media' [some of them]     makes a propaganda writing against the protests of the people for their‘collective good’, say the safety of the present and future generation. They write that these manifestations do show that the protesters are against the unity of the country. 

The truth is that some rulers, and a pillar of democracy in fact do not understand that India is also a country that values the protection of every citizen. They think that demonstrations and protests are dangerous to the unity of the nation. They are against the demonstrations only to create an opinion of the majority. They do not understand that these protests are the sources that strengthen the system of the Indian governance in which every body’s right can be protected. It is only the recognition of these protests that strengthen the unity of the country. 

Only when the voices of protests such as these are not respected and the recognition is suppressed, then there emerges a danger of division. The voice for fragmentation may become stronger when the collective rights of the people are not respected. 

Therefore those who oppose a legitimate protest should understand that by supporting a majoritarian decision or the silent acceptance of the decision made by the majority, they are only perpetrating the system of tyranny and not of ‘democracy’ which seems their conviction.