The Free Voice: On Democracy, Culture and the Nation

by Ravish Kumar

It is your responsibility that after you vote a party into power, you step back and become impartial once more. If you think something is right, and good, call it so; and if something is wrong, call it wrong, too.

When we no longer remain the people, we are reduced to being just numbers. The movement had no impact whatsoever.

Whenever others raise their voice, encourage them. Even if you do not always agree with their endeavour, support them to the extent that they are able to speak and others are able to hear them out.

The Hindu-Muslim framework has become the sole benchmark for any and every issue. Bogus nationalism is another.

The falsehoods about India’s first prime minister, Nehru, have resulted in no arrests. Not long ago, Amit Malviya, of the BJP’s IT cell, posted a tweet about Nehru hugging several women. Since when has hugging a woman become a bad thing? It turned out that one of the women was Nehru’s sister, the other his niece.)

As per my count, from 2014 till late 2017, forty-two citizens had either been arrested or had cases filed against them for making objectionable remarks about the prime minister or any BJP chief minister or leader. The number of Muslims was the highest, but there were Hindus on the list, too, and Sikhs and Christians. Every one of them was a citizen. That is what we need to understand.

Corporates have never had any interest in democracy. But we don’t examine the link between governments and corporations, we don’t question it. We don’t protest the electoral bonds scheme introduced by the government that will turn political donations completely opaque, making it easier for big business to capture the electoral process and impossible for the public to know how and to what extent government policies are tailored to benefit the big donors.

In December 2017, the winter session of the Lok Sabha, the country’s highest legislative body, was postponed because of the high-stakes Gujarat Assembly elections where Prime Minister Modi was scheduled to campaign extensively.

To have faith is a good thing, no doubt. But that faith should rest on the foundation of facts, not emotions.

The respondents would have been asked one question: ‘Do you think military rule is good?’ Over half of them would have said yes. I would have asked them a second question: ‘Would you support a military rule where someone knocks on your door at two in the night and whisks you and your father away and locks you up in a dungeon for ten years without recourse to any lawyer or defence?’ Would the same respondents have answered yes to that question? I don’t think so.

how would we describe Gandhi, Mandela, Lincoln, Martin Luther King and Vinoba Bhave? Strong leaders, wouldn’t you say? The man with the frail frame who wore nothing but a dhoti and challenged the might of the British Empire—was he a weak or a strong leader?

The question of whether astrology is itself valid or invalid is now past debate. Barring one or two people, I don’t know anyone who doesn’t consult an astrologer as routinely as they would a doctor. It clearly has an iron grip.

When a poor person takes refuge with a baba for the sake of spiritualism, it becomes superstition; when the rich take refuge with their babas for the sake of spiritualism, it becomes a stress-management course.

In contemporary India, political leaders and ministers conduct secret pujas which cost lakhs of rupees.

Baba also recommended that Leos should eat vitamins to improve immunity. By Bajrang Bali, I swear that I heard this statement with my own ears and typed it with my own fingers. I didn’t know that our great scriptures of astrology scriptures actually recommended antibiotics, and vitamins!

India is a country where people depend predominantly on astrology—just at the economy depends predominantly on agriculture.

Honour killing is a cocktail made of prejudice, hate and misogyny to which the colour red is contributed by religion, caste, father or brother as the occasion may demand.

This is the truth of a community, a religion—are we prepared to accept which one? It is the truth of a country and its society. In such a country, what can the rousing slogan ‘Beti bachao, beti padhao’ mean? Save the daughter, educate the daughter. From whom exactly should we protect our daughters? Our daughters have so many killers facing them—first and foremost, their own mothers and fathers.

Love can save us. But we never really let it bloom in our society. Now we’ve raised an army to police love and to kill it. Youngsters who do not know what it is to be in love and marry the person of their choice remain cowards forever, timid for life.

First we extinguish any possibility of love that we may have—we kill our love. Then we target someone else’s love.

Since 2014 the prevailing political atmosphere has been such that any criticism of the government is frowned upon. If you disagree with the powers that be, you are against the leader, against the government, against the country, and against development.

By this ruling, the Supreme Court has not only dismissed the government’s anti-people argument but also removed the contradictions and blots of its earlier judgments. It overruled two of its previous verdicts—given in the M.P. Sharma case of 1958 and the Kharak Singh case of 1961—which had said the right to privacy was not protected under the Indian Constitution. And it has done so in powerful and memorable words—Justice Chelameswar says, ‘The right to privacy consists of repose, sanctuary and intimate decisions’; Justice Chandrachud writes that ‘development consists of the expansion of people’s freedom’ and that ‘to live is to live with dignity’; Justice Nariman defines privacy as ‘an inalienable human right which inheres in every person by virtue of the fact that he or she is a human being’. The manner in which the nine judges have unanimously interpreted privacy stands out like an exquisite poem in a prosaic law book.

The corporate sector, too, is increasingly intruding into our lives in almost infinite ways, and often in collusion with governments. Giving this aspect considerable thought, the Constitution bench has extensively cited the prophetic novel 1984 by George Orwell, an author acclaimed for his unparalleled understanding of authoritarianism and power-crazed despots. The reference to this work is a slap in the face for all those who either opposed the right to privacy or ridiculed the demand for it. As the Constitution bench states, while 1984 was set in a fictitious state, it could very well be portraying our present reality. The manner in which technology has developed provides the potential for not only states but also big corporations and private institutions to assume the role of ‘Big Brother’.

One hopes that this nonsense will finally come to an end—the country’s highest court has given love the means to defend itself against the bigotry and violence of governments, panchayats and the police.

We cannot be a part of economic progress without being consumerist and we cannot be spiritual while remaining consumerist. We can, of course, achieve a balance between the two.

It is only he who seeks to spread hatred who can take a criminal act and make it part of a ‘war’ for religious ‘pride’.

No one can be religious without compassion. A person without compassion is a savage underneath the veneer of piety and religiosity. For him, religion becomes a means to establish domination. Religion ultimately teaches you to be tolerant.

If you don’t hate another religion or community, you can celebrate Fifteenth of August. If you have raised your voice against hatred, or faced a conflict, a war, within yourself, you can celebrate Fifteenth of August. If you understand that Bhagat Singh was martyred for you, Khudiram Bose stepped on to the gallows for your sake, and Mahatma Gandhi took bullets in his chest for you, you should indeed celebrate the Fifteenth of August.