By Nitheesh Narayanan
An expert in biomedical engineering and a former professor of the same, Ram Puniyani is a known figure in the progressive political circles of India, because of his sharp positions against the growing right-wing and the oppressive government led by it in the country. For as long as 27 years, Puniyani taught at several Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT), besides having authored and edited various texts on the socio-political fabric of the country, including ‘Indian Nationalism versus Hindu Nationalism’ (2016) and ‘Deconstructing Terrorist Violence: Faith as a Mask’ (SAGE, 2015).
In this exclusive interview with Student Struggle, Puniyani speaks to Nitheesh Narayanan about what he feels are the many issues that are currently plaguing Indian society — including of course, Hindutva, the NEP, Ayodhya, CAA-NRC, caste, and much more. Read on to know.
Nitheesh Narayanan (NN): Looking at the development in the past six years in the country, it is very safe to say the Indian political spectrum has largely shifted towards the Right. Several commentators have even argued that we are far from being a liberal democracy and are moving towards a majoritarian democracy, with the latter being reduced to the rule of a religious majority. How do you analyse these recent developments in Indian politics and society, especially in the context of the ascending Hindu nationalism?
Ram Puniyani (RP): The shift has been there for a few decades. For the last six years, it has been a gross shift towards the Right. Democratic freedoms are being undermined in very blunt ways: the major indicators of this being how criticism of the government automatically leads to being labelled an ‘anti-national’; human rights workers being put behind the bars on any pretext; the State assuming an authoritarian character. In fact, Justice A. P. Shah put it aptly when he said that it is like ‘elected autocracy’ at the moment. Even before that, many, including L.K. Advani of the BJP, called it an ‘undeclared emergency’. Hindu Majoritarianism is used as a cover to undermine democratic freedoms here and it is a political phenomenon from which the majority community suffers as well. Despite the issues taken up being emotive and in the name of the majority. The issues are fundamentally divisive.
NN: Various observers have highlighted the implicit push for commercialisation of education contained in the New Education Policy (NEP) 2020, especially its emphasis on vocationalisation. But what is less discussed is the valorisation of ‘Indian tradition’ (often expressed through ‘Hindu’ idioms) and the thrust on an uncritical framework of our past and present. The NEP is silent on various issues including our colonial history, and have imbibed several colonial notions regarding ‘Indian culture’ and ‘tradition’. Most importantly, RSS affiliates have already welcomed the document, saying that around 60% of their demands have been met. What’s your take?
RP: The New Education Policy (NEP) aims at promoting ‘Indian values’, which is a cover for imposing an ideological ground for sectarian nationalism. Through privatisation and giving entry to foreign universities, it will make good education inaccessible to the marginalised in society. With giving less importance to English as a medium, it will promote elites and deprive the poor from the opportunities that the English medium provides. As far as content is concerned, the curricula will promote faith-based knowledge and bypass scientific temper. The Hindu right wing is already trying to promote a communal view of history by glorifying Hindu traditions and rulers. Now with NEP, it will promote brahmanical values in the curriculum itself. Subjects like ‘Paurohitya’ (priest craft) and ‘Karmakand’ (religious rituals, astrology), which were introduced by Murlli Manohar Joshi will make a comeback. Education will promote the RSS’s agenda of Hindu Nation, will be divisive, and exclude religious minorities from the narrative of Indian nationalism.
NN: You have written vastly exposing the Hindutva’s many claims about Sivaji, the Mughals and the like. You have shown how different cultures and beliefs have co-existed for years in India. However, NEP tries to project that traditional Indian education and knowledge belong to a single stream. There is no mention of how different religions and philosophies have contributed to the development of a knowledge society in the country. Can you tell us something about this?
RP: India has made rich contributions to astronomy (Aryabhat), surgery (Sushrut), and medicine (Charat), to name the few. During the medieval period, when some parts of country were being ruled by Muslim rulers, (in collaboration with Hindu rulers and vice versa), there was a vast exchange of values, rituals and cultures between the two communities. The Hindu right wing, however, presents this period as an assault on ‘Indian’ (Hindu, as per them) tradition. People from different religions and literary traditions flourished and co-existed during these periods. All of that is being put under the carpet and instead, what is presented is a period that witnessed the “oppression of Hindus”. The blame for ills like ‘Brahmanism’, caste and the varna system are put on “foreign invaders”, in addition to attempts to show that all kinds of knowledge existed in an “ancient Hindu India”. This is a decoy for imposing ‘Manusmritic’ values on today’s society.
NN: India has always enjoyed the image of being a successful democracy, notwithstanding social and economic inequality. However, we are witnessing a visible crisis of political democracy in India, most importantly of central democratic institutions. The credibility of the Election Commission of India is being increasingly questioned, the introduction of electoral bonds has legalised corporate funding for elections, and many central agencies are being politically manipulated. Do you think the recent Ayodhya verdict could also be understood as part of this general crisis? How do you analyse the verdict and its implications?
The Babri verdict echoes the dominant discourse which has been made popular in the Indian society for some years now. This was one of the planks on which the ruling party came to power. In the 2010 Allahabad Court judgment, the popular belief that Ram was born at the precise spot was made the base. Now, despite registering that the imposition of Ram’s idols in the mosque and the very demolition of the Babri mosque were crimes, the court has given the entire land to those who were responsible for these crimes.
The executive wing of the State is casting its shadow on all the institutions in the country — those that are supposed to act as corrective forces of the Executive are meekly following their diktats. This is very worrisome, as a democracy can thrive only if the Judiciary comes forward to defend the values and principles of the constitution.
NN: Two important legislations, the abrogation of Article 370 and CAA, have drastically altered the secular, democratic ethos of the nation. Strikingly, the idea of recuperating ‘historical injustice’ has been effectively used by the Hindutva network to legitimise these atrocious legislations. How do you understand this dual move by the BJP government and what are your thoughts on the political articulation of ‘historical injustice’ used in Hindutva discourse?
RP: The abrogation of Article 370 has been done without consulting the citizens of the country. History has been put on its head in this case, as Article 370 was the base on which the state of Jammu and Kashmir was acceded to India. The Citizenship Amendment Act too violates the constitution, which refuses to look at the idea of citizenship on the grounds of religion. In conjunction with NRC, CAA can be a definite tool in disenfranchising the Muslims of the country. And that’s precisely why we saw one of the biggest mass movements in recent times, the one at New Delhi’s Shaheen Bagh. In a way, the very history and legacy of the Indian freedom movement, which was based on pluralism and diversity, are being undone through such measures.
NN: The idea of minority rights is antithetical to the Hindu nationalist idea of the nation as a homogenous cultural unit. One can foresee that soon, the BJP could implement a Uniform Civil Code. It often uses the language of ‘positive secularism’ to delegitimize minority rights. What are your thoughts on the prospects of a Uniform Civil Code, in relation to minority rights and secularism?
RP: Affirmative action for minorities is part of any democratic system. A Uniform Civil Code, has been popularised immensely, but what needs to be brought about is a Gender Just Civil Code. For the last several decades, the Muslim minority has been traumatised due to communal violence and lack of facilities for education to sections of it. It feels besieged and so wants to stick to their identity. They see UCC as an assault on their identity. Violence, ghettoization, and sticking to identity based issues further worsen the plight of the minorities. So in a way, the attempt to bring in UCC is simply another tool in the hands of communalists. What should be striven for in our ‘Code’ is gender justice, which can come only by providing adequate sense of security to the minorities — something totally missing in the present discourses on the subject.
NN: For years now, you have worked to strengthen the secular fabric of our country. As you have written, Independent India is a product of the secular anti-colonial movement in which RSS didn’t participate. You have also written about the secular ethos and religious pluralism that have existed in India even in pre-colonial times. How would you describe our secular heritage which perhaps has the potential to overcome our current crises?
RP: The discourse which began with interactive mechanisms of the society in all spheres of life is the key of the narrative. Medieval India saw a thick interaction between Hindus and Muslims primarily, along with other communities. It is this interaction that gave rise to ‘Indian culture’. In this culture, the Bhakti-Sufi tradition has central significance. Additionally, the very ethos of the national freedom movement was the integration of people of all faiths in a fraternity of ‘Indian-ness’. I think this narrative of a Bhakti Sufi-Gandhi-Maulan Azad legacy will be crucial in overcoming the divisive communal narrative of current times. The Indian Constitution emphasizes on equality across religion, caste, gender and language differences. Gandhi gave utmost importance to Hindu-Muslim unity, and it was this that the Hindu nationalists of his time detested, and due to which he was killed. So today, the central narrative which draws from the diversity and pluralism of our land has to be promoted. The richness of this interaction has to be made the thread around which we can promote fraternity, one of the central pillars of our country.
NN: There is a critique, especially from a Dalit political standpoint, that any attempt to find resources for religious pluralism and secular ethics in the Hindu tradition will in effect reinforce Hindu nationalist and Brahmanical hegemonies, as it is impossible to find anything untouched by caste in Hinduism. On the other hand, it is very important to highlight and historicize the plurality of ‘Hindu’ belief systems and epics. As someone who has always made a distinction between Hinduism and Hindutva, how do you respond to this critique?
RP: I do think that Brahminism is the dominant tendency within Hinduism. For BR Ambedkar, Hinduism is Brahminic theology. At the same time, he considered Kabir as his second guru. Now, Kabir broadly belongs to the Bhakti tradition of Hinduism. The other traditions of Hinduism — apart from Bhakti — Nath, Tantra, Shaiva, Siddhanta and the like also harp on equality. Even though Gandhi begins with a faith in the varna system, he does take up the cause of untouchability and its eradication, and gives great importance to Ambedkar in matters related to caste. In fact, I believe that Gandhi practiced a ‘Hinduism’, which was in some ways detached from the Brahmanical tradition.
Hindu nationalism, on the other hand, draws mainly from Brahmanical values, and puts it to political use. I recognise the existence of groups that talk of Hindus in a way that is not associated with Brahmanical notions of Hinduism. Therefore, plurality within Hinduism, and the emphasis on diversity within it need to be foregrounded. Gandhi did it, and despite all the criticism against him, he did endorse a kind of Hinduism which promoted equality as its major principle.
NN: Hindu nationalism has also risen in parallel with the neoliberalisation of the Indian economy. The post-LPG world has witnessed increased ethnic-nationalist mobilisation, implying a connection between the two. Do you think a secular movement against Hindu nationalism should also have a commitment for social and economic equality, and therefore, be necessarily opposed to neoliberalism?
RP: As such, the neoliberal economy was unleashed in India in the 1990s. Hindu nationalism has been on an ascendance from the 1980s; it was born more than a century ago. Surely, neoliberalism has created a fertile ground for its politics. The widening gap between the rich and poor, the rise in the economic clout of big corporations has taken place in parallel to the rise of Hindu nationalist politics. These corporates can also flourish with secular politics, but communalism has been more pliant for them. So, today, what we have to struggle for are policies of welfare for the people — the MNREGA, Right to Education, Right to Health and the like. Of course, neoliberal policies need to be opposed and we need to fight for more welfare measures.
NN: Has the pandemic made things difficult for the Modi regime? For it has revealed all sorts of crises, most importantly the economic, and foregrounded the incompetence of the BJP govt to face its challenges. Simultaneously, we have seen that governments like Kerala’s have successfully resisted the pandemic to an extent. Do you think the pandemic has posed a challenge to the legitimacy of the current BJP government? How do you see the future of Hindu-right in a post-pandemic India?
RP: The Indian government, since it does not have people’s welfare on their minds, has brought the economy to total ruins. It has created infinite suffering for an average section of people. Still, BJP has seen an opportunity in this and, with the help of a section of the media, has projected the image of a ‘great leader’ yet again. The contrast between the policies of the Kerala government and the Central government is very striking. What a government can do if it sympathises with the poor and marginalised becomes obvious here. To the great advantage of the BJP, it enjoys a totally controlled public that glorifies the great leader irrespective of its follies — it is the political success story of the Hindu right wing, which can present a massive failure as a great success. The future will tell us whether people will remember the heartlessness of this government, or will again come under the sway of ‘nationalism’.
Nitheesh Narayanan is the editor of Student Struggle, a Central Secretariat member of SFI, and a PhD scholar at the Jawaharlal Nehru University’s Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy.
Cover Art: By Sreelakshmi Santhini Bahuleyan, IIT Guwahati
Follow us for regular updates:
Telegram
t.me/studentstrugglein
Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/studentstrugglemonthly
WhatsApp
https://chat.whatsapp.com/BvEXdIEy1sqIP0YujRhbDR