CAA: Confusions of a Common Indian
What is it to be an average passive not-so-informed, not-so-opinionated, apolitical Indian today?
You live your life confused the bloody hell.
You know that you do not trust everything the government says. You know that there must be a catch to CAA and NCR.
After all, you know that nothing is easy in real life when it comes to getting things done at the government level, let alone produce non-existent birth certificates and property deeds to prove your Indianness.
Yet, at some level you force yourself to believe that no, the bill and NCR linked, still, won’t leave to what the critics fear will happen: The expulsion of all Indian Muslims.
That, you want to believe, is a ploy, a decoy by all the vehement critics of BJP than the bill per se. You want to see it the protests as a proxy war against the BJP government, because after all, didn’t even the now-celebrity Rahul Kanwal agree that no, the bill says no such thing about expelling Indian Muslims, and that the protests is about the bigger idea of a ‘secular India?’
Why, you scratch your head, is this uncalled-for fear propagated, even by the venerable The Economist in a blatantly half-true article that starts thus: “Last month India changed the law to make it easier for adherents of all the subcontinent’s religions, except Islam, to acquire citizenship.” The sentence is rife with untruths and half-lies, and this is how magazine chose to open the report. How can anything they further write be any credible?
So, you are told by the critics — the Leftists, the intellectuals, the writers and the protesting students -that the bill is against the Constitution and the bigger notion of India’s pride in being a secular, welcoming nation. They say it violates the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution, which earlier was invoked by All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) president Asaduddin Owaisi to state that the Triple Talaq Bill too violates it. No one else seemed to have heeded his words then.
As is the confusion anything to do with legality leaves behind, you find that Article 14, is much like the ‘subject to conditions’ clause on every fine-print. So we read that “Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 was not a standalone provision in the Draft Constitution; it was part of Draft Article 15 which read: ‘Protection of life and liberty and equality before law — No person shall be deprived of his life or liberty except according to procedure established by law, nor shall any person be denied equality before the law or the equal protection of the law within the territory of India.’
Now, you can interpret it whichever way you want to, and suit it to your purpose as both the for- and against CAA lobbies do. The pros cite Article 14 as against the spirit of caste-based reservations, which is a very touchy subject because it is all about ‘abolishing social injustice.’ In the past seven decades plus of Independence, while there is so much still of social injustice left, haven’t those been denied positions because of caste-based reservation also gone back down the ladder of social equality? (How about a social poll on the impact of caste-based reservation on the so-called forward communities? How about a study on the number of Muslims and other ‘backward communities’ who have benefited from such reservation?)
Having never benefited from caste-based reservation, don’t many in the country feel that there are others more rightful to jobs and educational opportunities, and that the right to your equality has already ended at their nose-tip just because their grandfather was a ‘forward caste’ while their father died in penury?
So, if you cut out the ‘equality’ drama, the fight against CAA is the fight, we wre told, to preserve India’s spirit of secularism.
But how is the secular spirit harmed when the bill refers categorically to persecuted minorities from three Muslim nations, where there is no reason for Muslims to be persecuted because of their religion? Now, if we consider the Shia-Sunni and other divides, why is it that India must be the land for anyone persecuted to take refuge in? Which country in the world has such an open-door policy?
And why aren’t the CAA naysayers silent on the implication of opening India’s doors to Muslim refugees and migrants, from Bangladesh and Myanmar, and the potential fallout it can have to the fabric of states such as Assam? Must we disturb our own nation to prove our secular credentials? How many Ahomese are going to welcome more migrants/refugees, who they fear have already taken their jobs? Well, maybe Kerala might be a welcome state — after all, its youth still flock to the Gulf.
Further on, why do Nobel winners such as Venkat Ramakrishnan see CAA as an attack against 20 crore Muslims when he fails to acknowledge the social dynamics of unchecked migration, in a country, where basic infrastructure is still lacking for many a million?
Ok, so you give up, and agree that we are a glorious nation and we must forget such pettiness and welcome everyone (when they already can apply for citizenship through proper channels, which is an aside).
And you think, for heaven’s sake, and for peace’s sake, why can’t the government just abandon CAA as it has cast aspersions on our country’s secular credentials? Why should Modi and Amit Shah take it as an ego issue, and respect the voice of those who dissent?
You then read about the atrocities by police on students who were protesting a fee hike and you are alarmed. What won’t a government resort to do if they can be so harsh on its youth?
And then, you see the youth marching in thundering protest, with the support of the Congress party, and you are alarmed again. Are these students fighting BJP so they can hand over the baton to the very party that exploited religion and fattened on corruption?
You then read about a police officer sharing a vehicle with proven terrorists and was named by Afzal Guru for torturing him? You reread Arundati Roy’s heartfelt essay on the deep state and how Afzal could very well have been a victim.
But no, you dare not voice it because it means you have to go to Pakistan.
After all, did Afzal have a clean past record, wasn’t he a reformed soul, as we are told? Or was he forced to help plan out the attack on the Indian Parliament, a hallowed hall that stands for all that we are — although it also sees everything that goes against every ethic of democracy?
Who do you believe? Facts or emotion? And where is proof for both? Can both be right and wrong? You don’t know because you are confused.
Across the complex web, you also see intellectuals, who flaunt their ‘superior caste surnames’ talking about equality when they still haven’t found the balls to shed their titles. You see the same anger on either side; while the BJP’s coterie is often crude and evokes derision, the so-called reformers (the Cong, intellectuals) are no better with their meanness.
Why is there so much wickedness in words? Why is there so much resentment? What drives a filmmaker like Anurag Kashyap to call the Indian Home Minister an “animal?”
Yes, you are all fighting a ‘communal’ BJP, which you say is Saffronising India, but hey, were they also not voted to power by your own people?
And what about Muslim League? Isn’t it blatantly communal? Even if you argue that money, power and perks got some Muslims to sing peans for BJP, why doesn’t the same money, which Muslim League, at least in Kerala, is awash with, still doesn’t have a Hindu on its membership base?
You set all that aside and try to get a cleared picture, trying to decipher, who is now fighting what.
So, you ask, will the JNU students go back to their classrooms if the fee hike is revoked? Will Aishe Ghosh extol for calm if the obviously misplaced case against her is withdrawn? Will the Congress want that?
What about the other students? Especially in Jamia?
Will they not stop until CAA is revoked? Yet again, why is their voice also being mired with communal sloganeering? Will India be any more secular under them? What is the guarantee they won’t promote their obvious religious interests? What happens to secularism then?
Back then to the leftists and intellectuals. Sure enough, they expose the communal bias of BJP. But will they bring justice for all? Can the JNU students and Roy et al come forth contest elections (like the Mani Ratnam movie) and lead our nation to real progress?
Will Roy in power mean granting back Kashmir its special status? Can the students mobilise any more support from the public or would BJP’s IT call have brainwashed them all, so that they can rightfully claim their place in the Parliament through a democratic process?
If not, aren’t they festering a real divide in India?
Picture this: The protests find result; CAA is revoked, and the nation goes to poll. Who will you vote for? What if the BJP comes to power again? Will you again cite EVP as the problem?
And what about the bad blood all these protests are creating among the people — will the intellects take accountability for any bloodshed?
And can they wash their hands off instigating the young people of India through a disinformation campaign, based on the lofty idea of ‘secularism’ when hard facts relating to the perils of unchecked migration to local communities is unanswered?
You stand divided and torn following all these wise men on social media yet, you realise that on ground, apart from the university-centred conflict zones, life goes in as usual, but for a human chain or two.
So to clear your confusion, you ask:
1. Why doesn’t the government hold a referendum on CAA and promote healthy debate?
2. Can the students put forth an independent manifesto of what their vision for India is and how they will achieve it — which applies more so to Ghosh et al?
3. Why do our intellectuals find such glee when Western media mocks our nation retelling facts, we already know but are coloured with commentary on Hindu fundamentalism when their own nations endorse monarchy and thrive on right wing fanaticism? As eminent writer Anand observes, everyone is highly negative rather than promoting constructive dialogue.
4. Finally, will the Congress stop meddling and not use this muddied water for their political ends? After all, isn’t their appeasement politics that led to the surge of BJP?
If this is a fight for a secular India, let it be truly secular in all its intent mission and purpose.
If one sane voice can assure you — that all the protestors are driving towards a glorious India without pandering to their own vested interests — maybe one confused Indian can understand the meaning of this madness.
Until then maybe it is time to quit social media and follow real people.
