As soon as Kafeel Khan was ordered to be released immediately by the Allahabad HC after finding no substance in the charge levied against him under the NSA, there was a genuine rejoicing of the judgement among a certain political section and rightfully so. In a matured democracy the court’s decision is assumed to be the final word – subject to the right of appeal if applicable – unless compelling reasons direct to the serious miscarriage of justice. And so when the people celebrated the release of the Doctor, they were well justified; but then, there was a curious subtext to it – it was dubbed as a triumph of justice over communo-fascist ruling elite. Interestingly the same bunch sulked when the Ram Janmabhumi issue was finally settled in the Supreme Court after following all the necessary procedures of the Law of the Land and having exhausted all the avenues of the appeal. Their responses to the judgement betrayed a sense of discomfiture when it swayed away decisively from the narrative they laboured hard to propagate all these years. And so they adjusted to new normal where the triumph of the Ram Janmabhumi movement was craftily portrayed as perversion of Hinduism by the Hindutva right. They lamented to the loss of the genuine principles of the beloved Lord Rama – whose even existence was consistently denied – when the Ram Janmabhumi Pujan was done and it was marked as the born of a new republic defined by religious majoritarianism. Even political parties appropriated Lord Ram and the allied discourse to establish a new found affinity with the changing popular discourse.

The reason to cite the two seemingly incomparable incidents is twofold – one to highlight the culture of convenience in accepting even the court judgements in the political class of Left Liberal. The judgements which suit individual political positions are hailed while the others, despite the compelling evidences and exhaustion of necessary legal scrutiny, are seen as political projects. And second, which flows from the first, is these instances reveal the deep problem in the discourse of the Left in general which oscillates between conditional and opportunistic appropriation of contrarian view to suit political ends on one hand to the concerted vilification of the Hindu history and symbols on the other. Partha Pratim SHil’s recent article in the Wire is an interesting case where the other extreme is taking dig at its earlier variant. Interestingly, Partha Shil’s recent article in the Wire is a shallow critic of the first variant of the class from the later. While Partha angst against the so called Liberals may be winning him some praise for his blunt retort to the liberals, it’s a classic case of how distorted narratives draped in bigotry are passed as scholarly pieces. A close scrutiny of such articles is needed to keep the discourse on track.

Apart from apparent disregard to the judicial institution and its judgement, Partha’s article is riddled with two other serious problems. First is ‘Crude Reductionism’ where every contrarian expression is explained away through its caste ascriptions. Indeed, the entire spirituo-philosophical value system of Hinduism is reduced to Caste dynamics and people are pre-emptively reduced to their caste identities. The contrarian position – no matter how soundly it is rooted in logic, academic rigour or based on hard facts -it  will never be acceptable because it is coming from so called ‘caste-Hindus’.  The entire scholarship is disregarded by this singular attribution.  Notice how disparagingly Partha notes

“The truth is that only a savarna man can look back longingly at the loss of some pristine Hinduism as some liberals are doing today. After all, it was that ‘lost’ Hinduism that had bestowed them with privileges of a lifetime as caste Hindu men”.

The rigid social stratification that denied a vast section of Hindu society the basic human rights on the basis of caste is indeed the biggest blot on the Hindu society. But is not also the truth that many from this so-called savarna Hindus have toiled hard to fight this very system, often from within the confines of Hinduism? Or efforts by them have always to be viewed by coloured eyes of scepticism? But this doesn’t end here. Observe how Bhakti movement is very cunningly mentioned in the follow-up paragraph where he says –

“the poets of the medieval Bhakti movement such as Kabir and Chokhamela, had restructured elements of Hinduism to chart new modes of religiosity, one imbued with a social critique of the caste order. But they were disowned by the orthodox Brahmanical establishment and later sometimes opportunistically incorporated into Hindu pantheons to neutralise their threat.”

Indeed, Bhakti movement challenged the caste rigidity and the monopoly of the rituals – which is supposed to have emerged during the Smriti period – and it certainly did offend the so called high caste then. But that’s the very nature of reform – it offends the beneficiary of the system. But eventually, the Bhakti movement and various saints associated with were revered in the Hindu households irrespective of caste. This ‘acceptance’ is an indicator of not just openness in the society in general but also the will to reform from within. This wilful acceptance is conveniently dubbed as ‘opportunistic incorporation’ by the author without any evidence. But that’s the crux of it. Evidence is immaterial as far as it is buttressed with other assertion. But does this amount to a serious scholarly article?

The second serious problem which article suffers in is conflating Indian Liberal tradition with crude Orthodoxy. Firstly, at least with the limited reading of this article, it comes out at prominently that Partha’s understanding of genuine Liberal tradition in India is rather weak. Otherwise, his judgemental observation –“in the Indian case, it (Liberalism) was picked up by caste Hindus to defend their enchanted citadels of privilege” – fits no parameters of scrutiny. Right from Ram Mohun Roy, Justice Ranade, Gopal Gokhale, to Agarkar (all so called caste Hindus) heavily revolted against the caste supremacy, often irking the orthodoxy within the Hindu fold. The scathing criticisms of Savarkar of the established order and passionate appeals of Swami Vivekanand all were directed towards addressing this entrenched evil of caste system. How does this square with rather baseless assumption that “Liberalism was picked up by caste Hindus to defend their enchanted citadels of privilege”.  The assumption, bereft of any sound evidence, on which Partha bases his arguments, is no meaningful reform can come from within Hinduism because of the appropriation of the reform efforts by the so-called caste Hindus. This is how he puts it bluntly

“these figures from the medieval world had sought to carve out critical spaces within the enchantments of Hinduism. The genealogy of disenchantment is not to be found in these religious battles, even as they reveal a world of resistance in the past.”

Partha’s article is symptomatic piece of a major problem in the discourse of the Left today which is the inability of get over the ensconced colonial narrative on Indian society. The colonial narrative which was sown in to divide has been unapologetically carried forward with a veneer of intellectualism. Partha’s article attests this once more.  The commentary is not on the merits of the Ram Janmabhumi case, neither does it even attempt to academically enquire into the Liberal critique of Cultural Right discourse in India. It is a divisive and bigoted piece which is tactfully disregarding the complexities of caste-religion dynamics and positing personnel arguments as facts.

Caste discrimination is a reality in India and it needs to be fought with all might. This requires a genuine critique of the society and the system which is not coloured with prisms of ideological prejudices. The Dalit Disenchantment which the author mentions is no doubt a reality and situation that occasioned such disenchantment emanated because of the religious fault lines. These fault lines were exploited by the British to sow in the seeds to perennial distrust which carried forward by a few even today. This ‘nostalgia of distrust’ breeds contempt to every alternative position, even if they are genuine and rooted in reason. Partha article smells of the same contempt to the contrarian viewpoints. This contempt will breed only bigotry and divide society further.

Today with a constitutional framework and guarantees we should strive for genuine reform effort which will attempt to bind society and not divide it for political and/or ideological purposes.  And it will begin with a thorough discourse and dialogue rooted in objectivity and truth which is devoid of self-serving political objectives.