On the role of the Grand Alliance in 2021 West Bengal elections: an analysis

 The most awaited election of 2021 in West Bengal is finally over, with quite unexpected results. Most surveys indicated that among TMC and BJP, one will get 150-170 seats and the other, 100-120, while the Left-Congress may win 20-40 seats. Finally TMC swept the election by a margin no one had come anywhere close to predicting, except their own strategist Prashant Kishore, who was ridiculed by almost everyone for his super-confident assertion. The biggest losers in the election are clearly the Left and Congress, who fought in an alliance along with a new party called ISF. For the first time, both of these two former heavyweights of state politics have 0 MLAs. But given the extraordinary circumstances of this election, this should hardly be surprising. 

First of all, most elections in West Bengal have always been bipolar, with a third side rarely putting up a competitive performance. West Bengal has 42 Lok Sabha seats, and each of them consists of 7 assembly seats, thus we have 294 assembly seats. In this analysis, we will consider all elections in terms of assembly seats only. In 1998, 2001, 2009, 2011 and 2016 the winning side won/led in around 190-220 assembly seats, while the runners-up side won 60-80. In 2006 and 2014 there was one hugely dominant side with 220+ seats, while the remaining 70-odd got split between multiple smaller formations. Slightly different were 1999 and 2019, where the winning party was less dominant by winning 160-180 assembly seats, but even then the elections were largely bipolar with third force Congress leading in 20 and 9 seats respectively.

Ever since losing power in 2011, the Left has tended to align with Congress. They had a "seat-sharing deal" in 2016, a partial understanding in 2019, and a full alliance in 2021. If we consider the elections in 2014 and 2016, most of the seats won by these parties were concentrated in the "Middle Bengal" districts of North and South Dinajpur, Malda and Murshidabad, along with some smatterings elsewhere. Incidentally, these are the places with the highest concentrations of minorities in West Bengal. Cut to 2019, and the picture changes completely. Left and Congress fought separately in 2019, but for clarity let us consider them together by adding up their votes (though perfect vote transfer doesn't happen in alliances). In 2019 we saw massive reductions of their vote share everywhere, and in many places like Northern (Jalpaiguri, Cooch Behar, Alipurduar etc) and Western Bengal (Purulia, Bankura, Medinipur etc) their combined vote share was below 10%. This loss was mostly of the Left, as Congress were anyway weak in these places, except Purulia. Only in the Congress bastions of Murshidabad and to a lesser extent Malda we saw the alliance retain winnability, where they won 2 parliamentary seats and led in 16 assembly segments. The only places where the Left was somewhat in the game were in the Jadavpur region of Kolkata, including Behala, Tollygunge, Sonarpur and Baruipur, and to a lesser extent in the Dum Dum region to the North of Kolkata. Incidentally, these are the areas with high concentration of the 1947-era refugees from erstwhile East Bengal, a demographic which provided huge support to the Left since the 1950s.

On seeing the 2019 results, a major question arose - where did the former voters of  Left and Congress go? Empirical and anecdotal evidence makes it clear - muslim voters went to TMC and hindu voters to BJP. The latter has been famously described as the "baam theke Ram" or "left to right" phenomena by many journalists. The reasons for such a shift seems to be twofold: political and social. Firstly, many former leaders and cadres of the Left have been at the receiving end of harassment from the TMC cadre and state police ever since 2011. Understanding that BJP is in a much better position to offer them protection from such violence than their own party, they defected in large numbers. This is especially true in places like Birbhum, Bankura, Purulia and Medinipur where politics is quite violent. On the other hand, the former Left supporters from the marginalized castes (mostly SC and ST) were attracted by i) BJP's money power, ii) religious/communal mobilization by RSS, iii) BJP's promise of resolving citizenship concerns of Matuas in the Bongaon-Ranaghat region and Rajbangshis in North Bengal. These castes had always existed on the fringes of Bengali society, and their presence was hardly ever acknowledged by the  Bhadralok-dominated Bengali society under Left. The BJP and RSS had given them the scope of self assertion (through Ram Navami rallies etc) and dreams of material success. In 2019, this shift from Left to Right greatly harmed TMC, especially in the western and Northern parts of the state where TMCs roots are not deep enough. It may be noted that these places had remained with the Left even in 2009, even as Buddhadev's government became very unpopular. A statistical analysis shows that TMC did much better in those assembly segments where Left-Congress retained some amount of votes, say about 20000 (roughly 10%). But in the places where they collapsed below 10000, BJP often fell heavy on TMC.  On the other hand, the Muslims who supported Congress and Left may have had problems with TMC, but they did not want to vote BJP for obvious reasons. They hung on with Congress wherever it was strong enough (Malda and Murshidabad), and elsewhere they unwillingly voted for TMC.

It is against this backdrop that Left and Congress approached the election of 2021. Their defeat was so deep in 2019, that it would take a miracle for them to win and form a government. No sane person should have considered this as possible, especially given that BJP was throwing in the kitchen sink for winning the election, and TMC was also fighting a determined war. In such a situation, the aim of Left/Congress should have been fairly straightforward: Bring back as much as possible their former voters who have drifted towards BJP - this would simultaneously solve their selfish need of surviving as parties, as well as the ideological need of weakening BJP. However, this was difficult - as the practical and emotional reasons for voting for BJP were strong enough. It would have required a sustained ideological campaign in the hinterlands - reaching out to those people and convincing them about the need to defeat BJP. It would have taken time, but they had time: 2years. Unfortunately, CPM did not do that. Instead, this task was done by young boys and girls from various progressive/left-leaning organizations, but they lacked the framework which a party like CPM could have provided. Another thing which Left/Congress could have done is to focus on only a small number of seats (40-50) and concentrate much of their strength there - not only for election but also for social activities. While Congress did this to an extent - their leader Adhir Chowdhury put in tremendous efforts in Murshidabad, Malda and North Dinajpur, no such strategic focus was seen from the Left.

So, what all did Left do during this period? In my opinion, they did two good things: maintain a mechanism of social service during the lockdown and Amphan (Shramjeevi canteen etc), and brought forward a number of young candidates to contest the elections. Unfortunately, both have limitations. The scale of their social service was not large enough to translate into votes in such a short time, and similarly the young candidates did not get enough time to establish bases in their respective constituencies, which would have taken at least 1 year of sustained efforts on the ground. The results for the young candidates were partially encouraging. Their innovative campaigns through music and dance, as well as their honesty and sharpness impressed many people. In some cases they translated into votes also. In Bally, Dipsita Dhar increased the alliance's votes from 16000 in 2019 to 22000 in 2021. In Diamond Harbour, Pratik-ur-Rahaman doubled the alliance's votes from 19000 in 2019 to 38000 in 2021. Srijan Sengupta in Singur pulled them up from 19000 in 2019 to 30000 in 2021. Other former MLAs who are popular in their areas, such as Sujan Chakraborty in Jadavpur, Kanti Ganguly in Raidighi, Tanmoy Bhattacharya in Dum Dum Uttar, Ashok Bhattacharya in Siliguri, Nepal Mahata (from Congress) in Baghmundi etc got decent number of votes, but not enough to win.  However, the limitations of this approach got exposed in many cases - most notably in Nandigram. Amid a bullfight between heavyweights, CPM's youth leader Minakshi Mukherjee earned praise from localites for her energetic campaign focussing on jobs, social security etc, in stark contrast to the bluster by the heavyweights. Yet, she got only about 6000 votes, even below the 10000-odd votes in 2019. This illustrates how most people in the state saw the election as a binary: for some it was yes-Mamata or no-Mamata, for others it was yes-BJP or no-BJP. Many people felt that voting for the alliance would be a waste in the larger scheme of things, and even if they got a good MLA from the alliance, this won't help the region as (s)he will most likely be in the opposition. This binarized thinking is consistent with the previous elections in Bengal, most of which were bipolar as discussed above.

Did Left-Congress not understand all these problems? Congress may have understood it, and quietly prioritized defeating BJP while fighting alongside the Left. Their central leadership largely stayed away from the campaign, and when Rahul Gandhi did show up in West Bengal for campaign, he attacked only BJP without mentioning TMC. Even though Adhir Chowdhury did put in a tremendous amount of effort in campaigning, it is not impossible that he strategically laid low just before the elections in the strongholds of Malda, Murshidabad and Dinajpur, thereby allowing his supporters, including many Muslims, to silently transfer their votes to TMC in order to stop BJP. But Left mostly remained confused about strategy and aims, and finally ended up tying themselves into knots. Many of their leaders seemed to believe that they too are potential winners of the elections. They refused to concede that BJP was a bigger enemy than TMC. They even refused to acknowledge the key problem - that their former supporters had voted for BJP in 2019 and may repeat in 2021. Instead, they went along pressing the "Bijemool" theory - that BJP and TMC are essentially the same and one cannot be defeated without defeating the other. This may have actually been an astute campaign slogan - telling the former Left supporters that voting BJP to stop TMC won't help as the same people who tortured them as TMC leaders would return as BJP leaders. This may have been a short-cut way of winning back their former voters, without any sustained ideological campaign on the ground. However, it seems that many Left leaders, especially the younger social media-savvy ones, themselves believed the same propaganda! This disconnected them from the ground realities, and in effect they ended up campaigning in front of the mirror. They even ridiculed senior communist leaders from hardcore groups like CPI(ML)(Liberation) who advised them to distinguish between enemy and competitor. A few senior CPM leaders like Manik Sarkar from Tripura did go around asking people not to bring in a shark (BJP) to drive out a crocodile (TMC). However, it was probably too little, too late. Most of the former Left voters who had voted for BJP in 2019 did the same this time. Those who did realize the danger from BJP, ended up voting for TMC as the most potent anti-BJP force.

While Left and Congress drew a blank each, their new alliance partner ISF managed to win 1 seat - Bhangor. Their presence in the alliance had raised many eyebrows among their well-wishers - from staunch secularists to closet Islamophobes - who contended that the presence of ISF in the alliance would mean that no one (read Hindu) would vote for them. This does not seem to be true. People had many reasons for not voting the Left alliance, but ISF's presence was surely not one of them. ISF actually fielded 50% hindu candidates, and some of them did quite well. ISF remained far away from the news headlines as the election dragged on and on. However, their victory in Bhangor is a point to be noted. This was a seat where there had been a long agitation against land acquisition by TMC government, and this agitation was led by far-left CPI(ML)(Red Star). Like the CPI(ML)(Liberation) which recently won a stunning 12 seats in Bihar, Red Star too is an uncompromising communist party. Had they been invited into this alliance, they could have fought and won Bhangor, and we would have had a dedicated, uncompromising communist leader in the Assembly. Instead, we will have a semi-religious leader from ISF. 

Overall, it can be said that the Left's obsession with their 2011 defeat to TMC resulted in stubbornness and refusal to see the extraordinary context of this election, which led to their downfall. For Bengal's future, it is imperative that they rise very soon. They have to continue to invest in their young promising leaders, but they urgently need to turn away from memories of past and focus on the current context with ideological clarity. Some of their saner leaders have already called for the same.

Why I won't oppose Free Basics

I see a lot of analogies between the Free Basics debate and the Caste-based Reservation debate. I am amused, but not surprised, to see people who support one, oppose the other.

I feel everyone should have equal opportunities in life, irrespective of caste/religion/gender etc. I want the caste system itself to be annihilated. I also want everyone should have equal internet connectivity, irrespective of financial condition. I want financial inequality itself to be annihilated.

Caste-based reservation is an attempt to "assuage" caste-based discrimination, rather than annihilate it. Free basics is an attempt to "assuage" lack of internet connectivity rather than ensure everyone has equal connectivity. Both may spiral out of control and yield undesirable results in the long run. But they can be useful as a short-term firefighting measure.

Free basics violate net neutrality. Caste-based reservations violate secularism (separation of religion/caste from state). I strongly support net neutrality and secularism. But they are both larger-than-life, "holy cow" concepts. If a limited compromise with these can yield better practical results than strictly adhering to them, then I won't oppose.

I am a priviledged person - upper-caste hindu male from reasonably well-off family. I can afford education and jobs, and full internet connectivity. Many others cannot. I do not think I have any "moral right" to oppose an attempt to nominally/temporarily/partially assuage the deprivation of others. So, though I don't like reservations and free basics as policies, I won't say, I can't say I oppose them.

Most internet activists who are opposing free basics are priviledged people like me. I don't like that they are deciding for themselves what is good for the poor and what is bad. Instead of opposing free basics, why do they not unite and work on a technology that will ensure more unconnected people can connect to mainstream internet?? Then free basics will be rendered irrelevant. I would be happy to join such an effort.

I am leftist. I know that most leftists are against free basics. I won't join them. I push for constructive, I want solutions to problems. I don't want to spend time and energy in opposing a flawed solution. For me, my principles and conscience are more important than my nationality and ideology.

How the internet generation got politicized?

When I was an undergraduate student in the mid-2000s, politics was never a popular topic among my classmates. Political matters were hardly discussed, and even if they were, it happened without any great passion. When I moved to Bangalore for masters’ degree, I came in contact with students from all over the country. However, I didn’t see any noticeable change in attitude towards politics. Indeed, some people from older generations would often express dissatisfaction that the current generation does not care for the society or country, and are becoming hedonists addicted to TV, internet, cricket, fast food and sex.

All these changed quickly over the next couple of years. It was perhaps triggered by the Anna Hazare movement in April 2011. Although some political intellectuals derided it, there can be no doubt that it created a huge stir among urban youth- people of my generation or those a few years younger. Very quickly, people became aware of politics, politicians and the various scams they were indulging in. Some of the ministers in the central government had recently been implicated in major financial scams like CWG scam, 2G spectrum scam and coal scam, and this made the ruling party unpopular. The innumerable terrorist attacks and bomb blasts that had taken place in the 2005-08 period, as well as the Maoist strikes in April-May 2010 had created outrage among people- especially the middle class, and the ruling government was now seen as weak and ineffective. RaGa became a butt of ridicule. Much of this outrage was channelized through the internet, and it quite quickly made an impression on our internet-addicted generation. And the main opposition party- the IPP- quickly managed to seize control of the outrage. They offered a panacea called NaMo- an all-powerful  leader who would cure all the maladies of the ruling government. The internet generation is too young to remember NaMo’s shady past, and they readily fell for it. The result: a resounding victory for NaMo-led IPP in the 2014 general elections, along with the decimation of ruling party.

The young generation, specifically the 20-29 age groups today is a lot more politically aware than it was earlier. They are also angry and outraged. I understand their outrage, but not their anger. Most of them are very intolerant of opposing ideas, and look upon proponents of opposing ideas as traitors or enemies. Not all of them have the same set of ideas- maximum are broadly rightists, but leftists and centrists are also not negligible in number. But whatever the beliefs, these “politically-aware” people generally have very polarized 1-dimensional, black-and-white views. They quickly take sides on most issues. But the problems of the country are multi-dimensional, and there no side is black or white- rather there are different shades of grey. If people do not appreciate this fact, they can never hope to solve any problem. What has happened is a strange polarization in this young generation, along with a never-ending vitriolic, polemical rhetoric all over social media. All sides- from left to right- are guilty of such polemic, though right now the IPP followers are far ahead of everyone else in this regard. The top IPP leaders, as already mentioned, have cleverly outsourced the rhetoric to these people, through a few specialist rabble-rousing icons whom the internet generation can easily connect to- like the (in)famous Susu-Swamy. Anyone who feel that India should not be rapidly industrialized, anyone who don’t agree that Hindus are threatened in India, anyone who oppose harsh police activities in Kashmir, Manipur or in the red corridor are quickly labelled as traitors and anti-India. The other political parties have already been painted as anti-India, with varying degrees of success. This reminds me of a breed of “politically aware” people who abounded Kolkata in the eighties and nineties- who attributed everything wrong around them as “capitalist conspiracy”, “American conspiracy” or “Center’s negligence of our state”. Such people have dwindled in number now, but they still exist in isolated pockets. They are no less polemic than the right-wingers, only that their voices are not all-pervasive across the social media. If you somehow chance upon their “discussions”, on social media or elsewhere, you will realize that the anger, arrogance and intolerance is not limited to any party or ideology. 

And the intellectuals- scholars from various institutes, social workers, film-makers, non-mainstream journalists have not been able to stem the tide because they have not spoken a language which people can understand. They have espoused seemingly unpopular causes- farmer suicides, displacement due to industrialization, migration, environmental degradation, custodial deaths and disappearances- issues which those in power do not want to hear of. Their intentions are obviously noble, but they have not tried to understand the popular outrage, much less connect to the outraged and explain their causes. Nor have they offered plausible solutions to any problem. This has caused these people to be ridiculed and hated by most (though worshipped by a few, who in turn may hate the outraged majority!) Some of these intellectuals suffer from a syndrome called “blinded by ideology”- they may be so unreasonable that even those who could have sympathized with their causes, can be repelled away!

Yet another case worth examining is the role of NRIs. They are among the richest, most successful and visible people associated with India. They are also the most aggressively nationalist, and very keen to let the world know that they are so. They want the country to industrialize fast, and build a powerful military force necessarily with nuclear capability- so that the country is counted as among the most powerful ones in the world- alongside USA, China, Russia, Germany etc. They are particularly keen to overtake China. Such desires may stem from an inferiority complex they feel in the first-world countries, or due to real or perceived discrimination and arrogance they may face from the people there. On the other hand, they also feel a sense of guilt-they may be seen as people who have put self-interest above country’s interest and caused brain-drain, while their parents and grandparents may feel that they have abandoned their “traditions”. Out of such guilt, they often aggressively display their attachment to the roots- that they are very proud of their country and their religion. They are keen to have a leader who will try and make India important in the eyes of the first world, but will also stand for traditional Indian culture and traditions. NaMo is almost designed to fit these desires, and no wonder they are over-the-top in cheering him. They are mostly unaware of the poverty and inequality in India. In their eyes, anyone opposing rapid industrialization or pointing out the maladies in any Indian tradition is an enemy, and they will do their utmost to humiliate and isolate him. During the 2014 elections, many NRIs actually quit their jobs and came over to India to help the election campaigns of NaMo and IPP. Admittedly, some NRIs have quite different political views- some are more interested in ridding India of corruption and other problems rather than showing off to the world. On the other hand, those NRIs who are not much into politics and are more interested in enjoying the normal pleasures of life, are often derided or made fun of by these “politically aroused” NRIs, especially the nationalist right-wingers. They try to show off to their countrymen that they are standing up for their country, religion, tradition and culture, while others have forgotten these and enjoying the ugly American culture!

The current batches of twenty-somethings have gone through massive changes over the last few years. It is true that many have shed their apathy and hedonism, and are more interested in making a difference for their country. But they are outraged and angry, and intolerant of opposition. They have become strongly polarized. They do not have the patience or the broadness of mind to examine and understand various aspects of the complex problems of the country, but want to jump forward. Their main medium is the internet, and they are overzealous in making their presence felt there. The question arises- how are these changes going to affect our country and society in the near future? Will there actually be any improvements, or will there only be increased polarization and intolerance? Will the next batch of twenty-somethings be even more angry and polarized, or will they learn to see things more holistically? Or will they just give up, and go back to hedonist enjoyment? And is that really such a bad thing after all?

From nation-states to states: towards a peaceful world

The current world is partitioned into nation-states. Almost all nation-states have a central national government, and a national armed defence force.  Some, like India have regional governments also, though these governments do not have their own forces.  Also, the nation-states have well-defined geographical boundaries, demarcating the regions of influence of these governments. Of course, in some cases the locations of the boundaries are disputed by the neighboring nation-states, leading to some armed conflicts. The question is: what is the basis of such partitioning of the world?

Country is a geographical concept, nation is a cultural concept, nation-state is a political concept. Countries have natural, but often not strictly defined, borders. For example, Australia and Great Britain are well-demarcated by seas all around; Indian subcontinent is well-separated from the rest of Asia by the Himalayas etc. But such borders are quite small in number, and are interpreted as continents or sub-continents rather than countries. Geographical countries have less clear borders- which could be a river, a hill range, a bay or gulf, change in soil nature etc.

Cultural nations are even more difficult to demarcate on the globe. It is true to some extent that people in certain geographical regions have some characteristics of their own- in terms of language/religion/art/cuisine. But since thousands of years, people from one place have interacted with another, and have migrated or settled elsewhere. This has inevitably resulted in cultural mixing. Some cultures have merged with others and evolved into new forms, while some cultures have died away. Culture has always been very dynamic. It is even more so in modern times, due to globalization brought about by mass media. To stick to one particular set of cultural practices and militantly oppose influence of other cultures is called chauvinism.

Finally comes the question of governance. Since historic times, almost all groups of people have some form of government or the other- monarchy, theocracy, military rule, various forms of democracy and so on. All governments need to have a geographical limit within which they would have their influence, but not outside.

Since historic times to the early 20^th century, it was usual for governments to try and extend their geographical sphere of influence, mostly by military expeditions. Such tendencies could be due to economic, religious or strategic reasons, or simply for the lust of power. Ever since the Second World War, it has been agreed upon to make such expansions illegal, and partition the world into nation-states with permanent fixed boundaries. There are still many instances where adjacent nation-states do not agree on where their boundaries are, like India and China do not agree about Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh. Again, such disputes may arise due to economic or strategic reasons, or simply due to “pride”. The current nation-states are demarcated by either geographical or perceived cultural boundaries, or by a mixture of both. Some demarcations may exist only for historic reasons, like at the end of WW2 if two regions were under different governments, they have been retained as different nation-states. Most nation-states claim to represent a homogenous cultural nation, and attempt to celebrate them with concepts like national flag and national anthem. And then comes a curious nation-state: India.

India encompasses lots of religions and languages, as well as other characteristics like art and cuisine. As already mentioned, it is very difficult, and probably useless, to demarcate geographical boundaries of cultural nations. Nevertheless, India is currently demarcated into zones based on languages- a cultural concept. Needless to say, it is very common for people from one linguistic zone to move and settle in a different linguistic zone in India. Federalists say that India the nation-state encompasses many cultural nations. Alternatively, one can also say that all these so-called cultural nations are linked by the so-called “unity in diversity”. It is quite easy to spot cultural similarities and differences across India.  The question is, how we will interpret them. It all depends on perspective.

 One may harp on the differences more and say that there are many cultural nations- Bengali nation, Tamil nation, Hindi nation, Marathi nation and so on. Regional politicians routinely play up chauvinistic sentiments to polarize people and garner votes. The limitations of this idea are easily exposed by polyglot people- who may be born in Punjab, move to Mumbai for livelihood, marry someone from Bengal who also has moved and settled in Mumbai, and so on. Moreover if we are really looking for diversity, it is always possible to further split these so-called cultural nations also! This is proven by movements for creation of Telengana out of Andhra Pradesh, Vidarbha out of Maharashtra, Kamtapur and Gorkhaland from West Bengal and so on. Many people in Kashmir valley, Manipur and Nagaland do not even want to stay inside the Indian nation-state. They claim to be separate nations and demand nation-states for themselves. But even among them, there are tribes and factions intolerant of each other. For any modern nation-state government, territorial integrity is a prestige issue. So the Indian government refuses to accept their demands of secession, and this has resulted in a never-ending cycle of violence in these regions.

On the other hand, we may harp on the similarities more, and say there is really one cultural nation. That is what national political parties preach, but try to impose a majoritarian cultural identity to the Indian nation-state: the so-called Hindu-Hindi nationalism. This hurts the sentiments of the minorities, and more importantly causes practical disadvantages for them in day-to-day life. On the other hand, if we argue that the Indian nation-state is a distinct homogeneous cultural nation, then comparisons must arise with neighboring Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh. After all, these also have strong cultural similarities with the Indian nation, then why are they separate nation-states? But surely that does not mean they should be integrated into the Indian nation-state: in fact many people in these nation-states look upon India with suspicion and hostility- for some valid and some invalid reasons.

 In our subcontinent, the three concepts: geographical country, cultural nation and political nation-state, have got entangled peculiarly. The result: never-ending disputes, violence and mistrust among people. These disputes are related to the question of individual identity. Should I look upon myself as a Hindu, or a Bengali, or an Indian, or a global citizen, or only myself? It is very possible that many or most common people do not really care about this question. One can live a life without answering it, or with the indisputable answer like “I am myself”. If that is the case, then the disputes and conflicts in Kashmir, Nagaland, Telengana, Vidarbha, Gorkhaland,  etc are explained as-frustrated power-hungry politicians are raking up divisive sentiments to polarize people and gain followers. But it is equally possible that people actually do take the question of identity very seriously, and the separatist leaders and parties are only a reflection of popular sentiments. It is impossible to say which is true- it is a chicken-and-egg problem. But either way- the Indian nation-state is faced with a big dilemma: handling these disputes.

The federalist's point of view is that, nation-state is an artificial hence flawed concept, it is the cultural nation that is real. This is wrong because, as already pointed out, cultural nations may not even exist due to the inevitable dynamic nature of culture. On the other hand, it is probably true that nation-state is a flawed artificial concept, due to the fact that it has rigid, well-defined boundaries which can cause tremendous inconvenience to people living in border areas.  They find their natural mobility restricted due to presence of borders. Even if there is a forest or a river that is geographically close they may not use it for their livelihood if it belongs to a different nation-state. They may not visit relatives and friends across the borders without detailed official procedures. And if the nation-state tries to impose a majoritarian identity on them through religion, language or rules like mandatory saluting of a flag, standing up to an anthem or being servile to arrogant border security forces, it is even worse.

But then, for meaningful and effective governance, boundaries and demarcations cannot be wished away. Otherwise there will be inevitable confusion and conflicts. What needs to be understood is that, rigid and strict borders are inconvenient and problematic for all, and fewer the borders the better. Also, it should be realized that creating separate nation-states on the basis of cultural nationality is never a good idea. Not only are such nation-states unsustainable due to the dynamic nature of culture, but more nation-states means more borders, and more problems. The aim should rather be to gradually reduce borders all over the world, and encourage the merging of nation-states. This should be a natural process, not coercive. And states should exist only for purpose of governance, not for cultural nationhood. Governments should realize the differences between geographical country, cultural nation and political nation-state, and respect these differences. Anyone should be free to live in a nation-state, assume any cultural identity (s)he wants to (including none) and live life the way (s)he wants as long as basic laws of the land are not violated. And these basic laws should be close to universal, and as much unintrusive as possible. The only aim of laws should be to have peace, justice, equality and sustainability in the society- not promote beliefs and practices related to a culture.  In other words, nation-states have to become simply states- strictly political entities. States may continue to have armed forces, but their duty should be maintenance of security- internally as well as around borders, rather than fighting wars. State forces should not be associated with old-fashioned romantic nationalist ideas like defending the honor of motherland, instead they should act as an administrative service. If a secessionist/separatist movement arises for governmental negligence of a particular region, the government should be obliged to address their grievances. But if secessionist/separatist movements are for issues related to culture and identity, they should neither be entertained nor suppressed. Suppression usually leads to cycles of violence. Nor should they be entertained because one successful secession may well lead to others, resulting in more nation-states, more boundaries and more problems. State forces should treat cultural secessionist violence as a law-and-order issue- people can be arrested only if they commit violence. The states should emphasize the fact that they never enforce any cultural identity on anyone, and the creation of a new nation-state is redundant. This way, the cultural and ethnic conflicts, and eventually the existing borders will gradually die natural deaths, paving the way for a unified and peaceful world.

My Socio-political Identity and Position (as of now)

Going through the socio-politically opinionated articles on the internet and such posts on social media has become a harrowing experience for me these days. While I cannot ignore these because I am seriously interested in these matters (particularly if they concern Indian affairs), I am also unsatisfied by much of what I read (even leaving out the ones that are visibly  junk, and concentrating only on the more thoughtful ones). I feel that most people are greatly prone to taking sides about various issues, and sticking to their guns ignoring the other side's opinions. Such people are prone to "validating" their "arguments" with partial information, and conveniently leaving out other information that does not conform to their "arguments". In such cases, arguments get reduced to rhetoric, and the situation becomes like that of six blind men (from Hindostan, coincidentally), each of whom touched one random part of an elephant's body, and drew ridiculous (and contradictory) conclusions about the elephant's appearance. Holistic analyses, that tries to understand the thoughts, viewpoints, prejudices, limitations etc of all the concerned parties are pitifully scarce. Moreover, accurate news on various issues are hard to obtain. While sources of news are plentiful (perhaps excessive), not a single one is known to be fully reliable. Some of them have vested interests and others suffer from the same one-sided-ness discussed above. Amusingly, people from all ideologies across the multidimensional political spectrum are united in criticizing the Indian media, often for contradictory reasons. In such a situation, taking stands on socio-political issues is impossible for a rational person who refuses to marry him/herself to any fixed ideology/viewpoint or constrain him/herself by any identity/bias/prejudice. But even if I cannot take a stand on every micro-issue, or declare myself as a firm follower of any "ism" at a macro level, I can attempt to locate my positions on various broad matters of debate in India, and try to see what patterns emerge. I can also answer the question of "identity"- a question often asked in India. This is what I will attempt to do in this essay.

1) Social identity: This is about the question "Which persons do I relate to more strongly than others?". It is usually answered in terms of attributes like language, religion, nationality, race etc. I do not like to identify myself this way, since these are attributes which I obtained by accident of birth, and have no conscious control on them. First and foremost I am myself, an individual. I can relate to other people on the basis of the values mentioned below, or tastes, personality etc. Regarding the above-mentioned attributes, I give importance to my nationality- I am an Indian. This does NOT mean I am a strong nationalist- see below. My linguistic or religious identities have absolutely no importance to myself- I do not want myself to be classified as a "Bengali" or as a "Hindu". I cannot say why it is this way- but this is the way I have always felt.

2) Position on economic policy: I am an egalitarian, I believe in equality in terms of income, access to basic amenities and social status. I generally favor state socialism, and believe this is the most practical way of achieving the society I want. I cannot relate to the notions of capitalism, big business, wealth building etc. That does not mean I am a staunch socialist. If in any particular case a capitalistic approach is found to be a better way to my goal, I will endorse it.

3) Position on religion: I am supposed to be a Hindu by birth, but I am agnostic by faith. I am sceptic towards religion, but not overtly critical. I do not worship, but participate in some rituals (like pushpanjali in Saraswati Puja, lighting candles in Diwali) as a social practice rather than religious. I have no problem with any religion as long as it does not 1) Attack people of other beliefs (including no belief) 2) Does not involve environmentally wasteful rituals 3) Does not place restrictions on the natural behavior of its followers.

4) Position on nationalism: I regard myself as an Indian, and I love to see people rising above their regional boundaries, and identifying themselves as Indian. I love the idea of an unified India, but that does not mean that I am a staunch nationalist. I am not in favour of forcibly imposing Indian citizenship on unwilling people, like in Kashmir valley, and parts of Manipur and Nagaland. I do not support their demand of secession from India, but nor do I support militarily repressing them. I realize that "nation", "nation-state" and "country" are all different things, and want governments to understand and respect these differences. I have no hatred towards any other nation- not even Pakistan, China or USA. I am ambivalent towards the Indian armed forces. I feel happy about their heroic exploits during wars and natural disasters, but cannot ignore the atrocities committed by them (sometimes in the name of nationalism, sometimes for the sake of promotions and medals, or sometimes from sheer arrogance of power). I do not like India building weapons like ICBM, nuclear submarine etc, which are irrelevant to national defence.

5) Position on nature and environment: I feel that nature and environment should have higher priority than "development" and industrialization. I love the idea of Radical Ecological Democracy (RED) proposed by Ashish Kothari.

6) Position on marriage, sexuality etc: I am in favour of leaving these as matters of individual choice. Indeed I think our society should be more permissive about sexuality. I am in favour of revising marital norms to remove the deeply-entrenched patriarchial overtones.

Festivals and Environmentalism

The festivals of Diwali, Holi, Durga Puja, Ganesha Puja etc are celebrated with a lot of pomp in India. Durga Puja and Ganesha Puja celebrations include construction of huge pandals on roads that house larger-than-life idols made of clay. Diwali celebrations involve firecrackers, and Holi celebrations are around spraying of coloured water and “abir”. These festivals are celebrated by great many Indians, of all social statures, often by religious minorities also. However, these celebrations involve massive utilization of natural resources. Burning of Diwali crackers also causes sound and air pollution, huge pandals for Durga Puja and Ganesha Puja often cause tremendous civic inconvenience, especially for people whose priority is different from celebration. That is why, in recent years we hear environmentalists appeal to people before these festivals to avoid usage of firecrackers, coloured water etc., on the grounds of pollution, wastage of resources, civic inconvenience etc. Another ground is that, the firecracker production industry is a notorious employer of child-labour, where children have to work in unhealthy conditions with toxic matter.

I am generally environment-conscious. Nor do I have any great passion for celebrating the above-mentioned festivals, not any more. I find the sound of crackers very irritating, though I do enjoy fireworks. I agree with all that environmentalists have to say in this matter. They are definitely correct. But somehow it appears strange to me that specific festivals, which occur over only a few days of the year, are targeted, though in our day-to-day life throughout the year we harm the environment in a multitude of ways. Be it usage of use-and-throw paper cups and glasses (sometimes justified for hygene), establishment heavy industries/dams in ecologically sensitive areas, unnecessary usage of electricity to decorate shops, malls etc, use of personal vehicles instead of walking/public transport even for short, solo drives- the list is endless. Diwali crackers do come with unnecessary packing which is not eco-friendly, but so does Dominos Pizza. The current neo-liberal growth pattern in India encourages consumerism and materialism shamelessly, trying to convince people that greater consumption stands for “economic development”. Similarly, our society stands on child labour and exploitation of the poor, probably in every aspect of life. The environmentalist activism before festivals indicates that there are people in the country who are aware of these issues. That is no doubt a positive sign, but I don’t see why these thoughts are attached to the festivals only. I doubt whether it even makes any difference to the environment if we only change the way to celebrate a few festivals, while our day-to-day lifestyle becomes more and more profligate. Indeed, I would rather suggest that if we can live an austere, eco-friendly life daily, and build an inclusive society with dignity of labour and free from exploitation, then it is probably not harmful to celebrate a few days of festival with some amount of pomp!

Jay Ganesh Baba??

Taking up the “pen” today, after a long time to write about one of my favourite themes- regionalism/racism within India. In the recent past I was particularly disturbed to read a series of Facebook posts by “progressive, liberal Bengali-s”. Many of them took exception to the fact that Bengali youngsters are posting “Ganapati Bappa Moriya” on their Facebook walls during Ganesha Puja in Mumbai, or celebrating “Dhanteras”, but they do not celebrate traditional Bengali festivals like “Sindur Khela” after Durga Puja, Haalkhata on Bengali New Years’ Day (Nababarsho) etc. Many of these devout Bengali-s were distressed to see Bengali-s forgetting their own culture, and blindly copying others’. Some saw racism in it- that non-Bengali-s (whatever that means) are working overtime with their grand conspiracy to systematically wipe out Bengali culture by propaganda through television, movies etc.

Racism, really? I wondered who are being racist. In a democracy, which India is supposed to be, isn’t every person free to choose which festival (s)he wants to celebrate? Even if we assume that modern Bengali-s have scant regard for their Bengali tradition (my own experience suggests otherwise), isn’t it totally a matter of individual choice? If a particular person is born in a Bengali-speaking family, but finds Ganesha Puja more attractive than Durga Puja, what exactly is wrong with it? The community into which (s)he was born was chosen just by chance, isn’t it? By expecting a person to follow the tradition of the community into which (s)he was born, one puts communal identity above individual identity. Isn’t  that itself racism???

And then regarding the issue of blindly copying others, isn’t that what everone does anyway? A child born in a Bengali family does not know either Durga Puja or Ganesha Puja to begin with, it is not a genetic thing. (S)he learns what others around her do, and copies them. If others around her celebrate Durga Puja, she may learn to celebrate it. If some people around her are celebrating Ganesha Puja also, then she may celebrate whichever she finds attractive, or maybe both! In any case she is copying others. To say that it is correct to copy some (those in her community), but wrong/bad to copy others (those outside her community)- is complete bigotry.

Moving away from the philosophical premise that individual preference is above racial/regional stereotyping, I would like to make a few observations. Some Bengali-s are upset that in all-India institutions like corporate offices, “non-Bengali” festivals like Dandiya etc are celebrated but never the Bengali festivals. Again, they find racism in this. My own experience suggests that most (not all, say myself) Bengali people, on coming to any new place, seek out other Bengali-s, and form a closed sub-community among themselves, considering others as different or outsiders, by labelling them all with that one attribute: "non-Bengali". That’s the reason they get isolated from the rest, and their festivals do not  get known to the others! And somewhat anomalously, many people who shout “racism against Bengali-s”, identify themselves as “liberals”, and consider nationalism as vile. They hate it when right-wing parties or organizations denounce “westernization” or “foreign influence in India”. I do not approve of such parties/organizations/jingoist sentiments either, but isn’t these liberals’ way of thought at the regional level equivalent to the militant nationalism of the right-wing parties?