In good old days this blogger always
used to make the mistake of confusing conscience and conscious, and never could
tell the difference nor did I ever got the spelling right. So the best way to
deal with these was to avoid it altogether or look for spellable substitute. Very
soon I realised that these are important words and really cannot be ignored,
the substitute don’t really measure up. So here it is; Conscience refers to a “person's
moral sense of right and wrong” while Conscious means “being aware of and
responding to one's surroundings”. I also realise that these two words are
quite interlinked since without conscience conscious is hollow, it’s a world of
moral ambiguity and convenient ethical values. While without conscious
conscience is meaningless, morality in the absence of awareness of surroundings
is self-obsession, a crude reflection of oneself as also motivated. The latter
is the context here: the sparkling conscience without conscious. The matter of
conscious becomes quite blatant when Deshpandes and Vajpeyis descend to express
their conscience.
It is a well-documented fact the way this society cannibalises on its weak. After the so called independence it was expected that the rule of law and institutions of democracy would create an egalitarian society, but that really hasn’t happened. There have been systematic atrocities committed on the weakest, specifically the dalits and the tribes, or whoever fills in the space of the vulnerable in the context. Squatter’s barbarism is replicated as desired ways of mobility, the reason why this society is amazingly brutal minded and discriminatory, all depravities are kept intact and celebrated in non-violent ethos, constantly searching the nuances in semantic jugglery to appear civilised. Hence there is tremendous enthusiasm in fawning to the powerful and exploiting the weak. As the squatter’s crude hold gets weaker (or as some move to sickular liberal pastures) the next in line strengthens the framework and establishes cruder attitude in all its viciousness. With the advent of divisive politics in the name of democracy and market greed in the name of development, the exploitative ethos gets channelized into next opportunity. The act of dehumanisation is random but the mechanism is same. This society is adept in classifying human beings and has a ravenous delight in exploiting the marginalised while constantly showering encomiums on itself.
Vajpeyi writes “One of the most ancient in the world, this tradition belongs to a
civilisational enterprise called India. It is perhaps the largest in the world,
unique in its plurality of language, religion, custom, cuisine, costume, craft
etc. Nothing in India has remained singular for long, everything sooner or
later turns plural or becomes part of a large plural. Not god, nor language,
not system of philosophy and reflection, nor faith and worship, not to speak of
belief and value. There have always been forces amongst us who do not like this
deeply enriching plurality and who would see it replaced by some kind of
uniformity which they believe would be more manageable. Our tradition has not
only been one of plurality but also of dialogue and accommodation,
interrogation and dissent, of public debate, innovation and scrutiny. The
shastraarth, one of the unique institution of public testing of ideas and
insights used to take place in public between contesting view points. The
Indians have never been afraid or intolerant of dissent or debate”.
Obviously it has some truth but I
firmly hold that these ideas were not confined to India, to elevate it as “civilisational
enterprise called India” –the Jagathguru syndrome,
is an exaggeration the kind the Vajpeyis and Deshpandes are very prone to, and
something we are tolerating for long time. The angst here being that this
superior understanding of oneself are now being hijacked by right wing
hooligans lock stock and barrel all intact, even Gandhi, with such desultory ease
that this in itself should have raised eyebrows. But they lament for the past. The
tolerant accommodative idea of India was always threatened by the very forces
that Vajpeyis (bahuvachan is a
celebration on camaraderie and casteist pits that he signifies) burdens as his
identity, the shining beacon. Argumentative Indian and accommodative nature
were necessarily vibrant presence outside squatter’s grip, and that is
definitive ethos of this society without stressing it as something unique. Those
ensconced in squatter were a constant threat to common people and their ways, these
severely dwindled liberal spaces and attempted at replacing with crude world.
This attempts at usurping the vibrant nature of society and placing within
squatter is devious and will not be allowed to go unchallenged. It is also
not ironic that even likes of Amartya Sen seem unaware of these myth building
by liberal masquerading elites, he seem oblivious of casteist putrid pits from
where these charades emanates.
The squatter ensconced elite have
been having firm control over narration for time immemorial, and therefore this
contemporary reconstruction (with amazing expertise on myth building) as
egalitarian benevolent creature is an absurdity and mocking on the misery of
the people. The depravity and the horrendous nature of the society is all there
for the world to see. These are the facts, easily verifiable from the skewed
nature of this society and its ways. They systemically degraded the people and
attempted at destroying the soul of the society. It is thanks to some great
souls/saints and their compassionate ways that this society was able to keep
its ethical fibre and egalitarian ethos intact. Squatters were consistent threat to
this intricate social fibre, and constantly ployed to dehumanise, degrade and divide people. Vajpeyis and Deshpandes therefore are the part of the system that was
always threat to these egalitarian ways of this society and their self proclamation
as “conscience-keepers of the country” is severely questioned. We surely don’t want
them to ‘reclaim space’.
When Vajpeyis exalts Indians for
the tradition of “dialogue and accommodation, interrogation and dissent, of
public debate, innovation and scrutiny”…“Even gods have been questioned and
some of them have been punished” he is again talking of two distinct, mutually exclusive, worlds. It
is clear that this is about squatters and their camaraderie, this vaad samvaad parampara of the elite was
very narrow and worked within select and limited frame, wherein the intruders
were severely dealt. This sanctum sanctorum driven speculation of exaggerated
selves and souls were of not of much interest, indeed absurd ideas and wasteful
ways in most cases. The real nature of Indian society was working against these
mediocrities and crude ways that constantly sought to engulf it. Romilla Thapar
puts an interesting postulate in this context: if it was Buddha instead of
Krishna how different Bhagvad Gita would be? Indeed that is the crux of the
matter, this clever use of gods and rituals to trap people into squatter’s
nefarious ways. Compassionate Mahabali (a king condemned by squatter’s clever
ploy, hence myths and stories to cover up what is clearly a murder),
Mahishasura (benevolent soul condemned as demon, therefore killed)…these are
minor examples of the ways in which narrations were controlled to gain the
primacy, meanwhile degrade society and severely infect collective conscience. Eviction
of Buddha and negation of his amazing understanding was the beginning of the
putrefaction as squatter tightened their grip, while societies that understood
Buddhism gained immensely and progressed in this rational spiritual impetus
that spread compassion and blossomed. Meanwhile, since common people had great
respect for Buddha, he was conveniently converted to a god while his teachings
were pushed aside with alacrity. It is the tradition that questioned the
degrading ways of squatter, that very much precedes Buddha and can be traced to
Upanishads, produced many saints and seers who have been the saviours. They helped
to work on righteousness and moral fibre of this society, and kept the ethical ethos and its plural
accommodative nature as the abiding ways and basic
characteristics of the people.
Deshpandes and Vajpeyis are not
part of this egalitarian narration, they are masquerades who are working out
their sickular liberal credential, trying to opportunistically distinguish
from their brethren and sinisterly attempting to usurp the tolerant nature of society into squatter (i am acutely aware of some cultural lafangas who expertise in these and act as strict gatekeepers into hallowed circle). They are firmly tethered to the exploitative system that
constantly tries to engulf Hinduism to putrid pits. That these people have firm
control over narration and have amazing myth building expertise doesn’t really change the reality. Pleasing mullahs/elite
muslims is part of this game, it gives them the credibility as liberal
accommodating souls and claims to some great tradition that nobody seem much
aware. It needs to be strongly reiterated that there is a huge gap between
vulnerable muslims and elite muslims (that includes the regressive mullahs on
one side and the liberal hedonists, known for their wanton ways, on the other).
This is an elitist game hence the vulnerable people and their varying contexts are
constantly pushed into these camps, therefore the elites play spokesperson.
This camaraderie of elite acting as spokespersons –essentially feudal lords, is
qualified as tolerance and celebrated among this clique. New entrants into
political frame seem to have disturbed this cosy setup.
It is also not surprising that
for the Vajpeyis of the world “the Emergency, Sikh Riots, demolition of Babri
Masjid, Punjab terrorism, Nandigram violence and naxalite and state violence in
tribal areas, Gujarat pogroms etc have all provoked writers and artists to
protest against and condemn the damage done to social fabric, communal harmony
and creative life” is the narration. This is the gist and a brave attempt on what
troubles the sickular liberal elite. It is amazing and telling that nowhere
there is a mention of caste related atrocities that severely degrades this
society that is the root of most of the ills of the society. Apart from demeaning
pits and traditions herein, there is blatant violence against the most vulnerable
of Indian society, that encompasses all religions, indeed what is described as communal
riots many times have seeds in this context. It is therefore much sinister and depraved
than religious divisions. That this is conveniently ignored is what defines
this nexus and shows the angst filled protagonists as fake. Statistically 27 acts
of atrocity are perpetrated on dalits every day, 13 dalits murdered every week
and 3dalit women raped every day…not to forget discriminations faced every living
moment, as also biases from the so called democratic institutions, the lackadaisical
law&order machinery, judiciary (Court
movie quite effectively depicts this biases and clever nonviolent ways that is
used to brutally subjugate voices, as also the entrenched discriminatory attitudes).
All because some are born into something that is part of squatter’s cruel imagination,
and that this is very much endorsed by Deshpandes and Vajpeyis is what makes
the deceit compelling. Lakshmanpur Bathe massacre, Bathani tola massacre, Khairlanji
massacre…the list is long, these brutal killings seemed to have awakened no one,
probably not many are even aware. That is because angst on these matter will
quite easily strip their mask, it is a big hole in the business of conscience keeping
that the Indian elite are well aware of. 
