Thursday, September 30, 2010

The Indian GREY Code of Justice

AFTER 60 years, of continuous proceedings, several hundred testimonies, and many missed deadlines, an inquiry into one of modern India’s darkest episodes, THE DESTRUCTION OF A MOSQUE BY HINDU FANATICS, court today at last presented its judgment. The six decade old , Ayodhya issue has twice witnessed communal disaster (Demolition of Masjid in ’92 and Gujarat riots in 2002) which has stained Indian politics.

The Indian judiciary which is supposed and expected to work without any fear or favour has sketched out the solution which clearly reaffirms the Indian image as a grey nation. Partition of motherland “India-Pakistan”(where the very cause of partition is defeated by the fact that population of Muslim in India is more than in Pakistan) or India’s foreign policy towards neighbouring nations or Bhopal Gas tragedy all have one thing in common, that India as a nation and its judiciary has failed to take a clear “black or white” stand.

Judgement appears more like a compromise (which communities have failed to achieve in the past sixty years) wherein court has its stake in interest of all the stake holders. Court has played a role of father who is mediating clash among his sons, for him mutual harmony is of prime concern than to decide what is wrong and unlawful.

Its high time for a booming Indian nation which is placing bid for a permanent seat in Security council, to be more mature and assertive in decision making by embracing BLACK or WHITE. Government should take staunch and absolute actions on issues of national and international concern. India must pose itself as a true secular nation which is beyond the dark shadows of cast religion and vote bank politics.


Anonymous said...

The Ayodhya verdict and the aftermath [that never came]. The ruling party had tight security all over expecting a big showdown. However, nothing happened~!

The term Hindu has been used to define an ethnic, cultural, and political identity. This is not contested by Indians including prominent far-right Hindutva-centric or Islamic political parties in India. Therefore, “Hindu fundamentalist” is a dubious term — perhaps with origins in the clever statecraft of the Congress Party’s divisive politics, all in the name of secularism. If it indicates RSS Sevaks, I’d dismiss their practicing bamboo swirls as an Indic form of Kung Fu. Nothing fundamentalist about that in contrast to Kalashnikov bearing Islamic fundamentalists.

The five thousand years of Indian history is about assimilation, and not imposition or division. India has been very open in the past e.g. welcoming Zoroastrians from Persia when they landed in Gujarat and assimilated as Gujarati parsis. Then a large number converts of Islam along with Muslim invaders also assimilated into the Indian way of life. Somewhere along the lines, the term Hindu is used for followers of the Hindu religion. Hinduism even as a religion can be best described as a compendium of scholarly transtheistic philosophies. The term Hindu does not even exist in those scriptures. How can Hinduism be a “religion” when there is no prophet and no two Hindus ever seem to agree on what Hinduism really is? Amartya Sen is an atheist ( and Srila Prabhupada a follower of Krishnaism and yet both are Hindus.

Much like the term Anglosphere, the term Hindu is assimilative. It reflects more of a cultural connotation though. I’d lay it out as follows:
1. Culturally assimilated into Indic heritage, traditions, thought, or
2. Those who adhere to parts of the vast Indic philosophical canon, or
3. Geographically belonging to the Indian subcontinent, or
4. Ethnically of Indic origin.

There are a billion other more important problems India needs to solve. It is high time that journalists (at a bare minimum) resist the bait of divisive politics or try to induce an “aftermath” sought after by some vested political interests. Let there be peace and harmony and let’s focus on the economy in order to eliminate the scourge of poverty once and for all.

Post a Comment