[This is a two part interview with Achut Yagnik. Part I: 'There is no civil society in Gujarat'; Part II 'The Congress is No Match for Modi']
o o o
Part I
rediff.com
THERE IS NO CIVIL SOCIETY IN GUJARAT'
March 7, 2007
Ahmedabad-based Achyut Yagnik, 62, author, thinker and social activist, and co-author Suchitra Sheth are engaged in writing the history of Ahmedabad, which will turn 600 years old in 2011.
Their acclaimed last book, The Shaping of Modern Gujarat: Plurality, Hindutva and Beyond, was shortlisted for the Crossword Book Awards 2006.
Yagnik has also co-authored Creating a Nationality: Ramjanmabhoomi Movement and Fear of the Self with noted sociologist Ashis Nandy.
From 1970 to 1980, Yagnik was a journalist and trade unionist. Then, he became general secretary of the People's Union for Civil Liberties, Gujarat.
In Ahmedabad, he leads SETU: Centre for Social Knowledge and Action, a social organisation working among the vulnerable communities in western India.
Yagnik, who studied religion and nationalism at university, has strong views on the middle class of Gujarat. And he speaks fearlessly against what he says is the dominance of the upper class in Gujarati politics.
Through his writings Yagnik has been trying to explain why Gujarat, which has absorbed diverse people like the Turks, the Portuguese and the Marathas for centuries, today appears insular and parochial, making even the release of commercial Hindi films a difficult issue.
Yagnik debates with Managing Editor Sheela Bhatt his views on the last five years of Gujarat after Godhra.
Five years have passed after the Godhra carnage and the communal riots. How do you evaluate those events?
By and large, Gujarat has remained peaceful, except the incident of violence in Baroda over the issue of the demolition of a dargah.
When I say peaceful, you must remember that it is peace without justice. It is peace without remorse.
The Muslim minority -- who were attacked, harassed and marginalised -- is waiting for justice. You hardly find remorse in the urban middle class of Gujarat. That is very disturbing.
However, we must note that in 2002, except in Rajkot and Bhavnagar, virtually nothing happened in Saurashtra, Kutch and south of the Narmada. The main theatres of violence were north and central Gujarat and urban centres like Baroda and Ahmedabad.
In these areas there is further ghettoisation. In Mehsana and in some villages of tribal Gujarat, Muslim families are unable to go back to their homes. In Himmatnagar, Visnagar and Vijapur, you find that Muslims are being further marginalised in society.
In Ahmedbad, Juhapura has evolved as the biggest ghetto of Muslims. It was continuously neglected by civil corporations and the state government for many years.
The Juhapura area has a Juhapura village but it also includes some other villages like Sarkhej.
It is believed that out of the 300,000 population, 90 percent are Muslims. Nationalised banks are not opening their branches here.
It is not just the state government that is neglecting Muslim areas, even the central government is doing so. It is so because the bureaucracy involved here at the local level has also internalised anti-Muslim images and emotions.
Many buses are not passing through this area. Only in July 2006, Juhapura has become a part of the Ahmedabad Corporation.
Now we will have to wait and see how development activity picks up here. We shall compare it with other areas.
On one hand Muslims themselves are moving towards Juhapura out of fear, anxiety and insecurity, and on the other hand you realise that the majority is neglecting them more and more.
You said it is peace without remorse. Why?
For the riots of 2002, the state government was responsible. The state machinery didn't work at all. Over and above the state government, you also find that the Gujarati middle class is equally responsible. They refuse to analyse the situation. They refuse to look at their own face in the mirror.
Why?
it is an interesting question. You can say it is unfortunate. But I am not in a position to give you the reason why the Gujarati middle class has no remorse.
I can look back 25 years. I know how in the 1980s we saw the emergence of the politics of the upper castes. In 1981, and later in 1985, for the first time we saw violence against Dalits. In 1990, we saw that the politics of the upper castes was fully converted into Hindutva.
The Sangh Parivar played a significant role in Hinduisation. They played an important role in shaping the worldview of the Gujarati urban middle class.
Along with the Sangh, we should also take note of various modern Hindu religious sects. They have not come out against the violence and they are not talking about Gandhiji's Arva Dharma Sambhav.
They are talking about classical Hinduism without the ethical or Bhakti traditions of Gujarat.
The religious sects of Gujarat are playing a very crucial role in inducting Hindutva amongst their followers. They are spreading Hindu cultural nationalism. In that process, non-resident Gujaratis also played a significant role.
Abroad, they are in a minority. Many of them, while living in different countries, think they are second class citizens. Their identity problem shifts here because a large number of non-resident Gujaratis in the Western world have their relatives in urban Gujarat in upper caste society.
The emergence of upper caste politics, which got transformed into Hindutva politics, and the role of religious sects are helping this transformation.
If you analyse their lectures they are talking about the Gita without talking of non-violence. Gujarat's Bhakti tradition spoke about plurality but that message is not highlighted today.
I think the popular religious leaders of Gujarat don't want to disturb their equation with the middle class and also with the political and social establishment.
If central government employees are not opening bank branches in Juhapura, it is not because of the Hindus. The close-knit Muslim community is seen as posing a security problem.
The Muslims in Gujarat are not a homogenous community. All the Muslims living in Juhapura are not criminals.
In the same way, you can't say all Gujarati Hindus are communal.
I have already told you that in Kutch, Saurashtra and south of the Narmada people are living in peace and harmony.
My question was regarding Juhapura. If banks are not opening their branches easily then don't you think the community also has to answer?
The community in Juhapura wants more banks and other government offices. But within the banking world, the authority lies in hands of upper class people. And they are not responding to the demands of Muslims.
You can't say all the 300,000 people living in Juhapura are communal.
Nobody is saying all Muslims in Juhapura are criminals, but questions are raised about the lack of response from the Muslim community too.
What kind of responsibility you are talking about? This is the problem with the perception of upper class banking officers. A city that is divided and segmented like Ahmedabad is not even good for the development of Ahmedabad.
How can you make Ahmedabad a mega city where there are walls within walls? When there are boundaries, some areas known as 'Chhote Pakistan'?
Even Dalits are not allowed within upper caste areas. Now Dalits are forming their own housing societies. Nobody is talking about the marginalisation of Dalits by the same people who marginalised Muslims.
Why is civil society not taking up the issue?
There is no civil society in Gujarat.
At the beginning of the 21st century Ahmedabad is at the crossroads. Godhra changed Gujarat's image for the first time but the changes within Ahmedabad started in the 1980s. Riots occurred frequently through the 1980s and 1990s. You cannot understand 2002 in isolation.
But for non-Gujaratis the earlier riots of 1985 or 1989 or 1990 were not that important. Because the 2002 riots were the first televised riots of India, it became different. The media's reach played a role also.
As a result, large numbers of writers in the Western world are not looking at Gujarat as Gandhi's Gujarat or mercantile Gujarat. From the viewpoint of the image of Gujarat, 2002 was the watershed event. Within Gujarat, the media, academicians and upper caste think outsiders are anti-Gujarat.
Personally, I am worried about intellectual poverty in Gujarat. Take the example of the Sahitya Parishad, which celebrated its centenary in 2006.
A centenary ago the same Parishad was talking about an inclusive Gujarat but now writers are talking in the language of Hindutva.
Professor Ganesh Devi is a professor of English working in the tribal areas of Gujarat and working on the tribal dialect. He criticised the riots, so a number of writers attacked Devi in literary journals. They threaten to boycott the annual event organised at Devi's institute. The Parishad was forced to change the venue. This is very suggestive.
The events of 2002 have not created any new waves in literature. Ranjitram, founder of the Parishad, was talking of an inclusive Gujarat. Poet Khabardar was talking about Hindus, Muslims and Parsis in his poems. The great poet Nanalal gave powerful expression to the plurality of Gujarat. In 1960, the Gujarat state was created. Then, Sundaram and Umashanker Joshi were talking about pluralist Gujarat.
Now, that voice is hardly heard. The cultural leadership of Gujarat has failed in projecting the greatness of Gujarat. Once, the great poet Narmad asked: Koni, koni che (Gujarat? Gujarat belongs to whom?)
He said Gujarat belongs to not only Aryans and Hindus -- but those who came from outside and are settled here and who speak Gujarati are Gujaratis. Gujarat belongs to people who speak Gujarati.
Now, in the universities of Gujarat, top appointments are made only if the educationalists and writers voice Hindutva views. There is a vacuum and intellectual poverty in cultural organisations.
The present generation of Gujarat has only witnessed anti-Muslim or anti-Dalit propaganda and violence. How would they get the correct messages and from where? The youth is not trained to look within.
Don't miss the second part of the interview where Achyut Yagnik decodes Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi.
PART II
(rediff.com
March 12, 2007)
'The Congress is no match for Modi'
After debating the last five years of Gujarat after Godhra, Ahmedabad-based author, thinker and social activist Achyut Yagnik discusses Chief Minister Narendra Modi's contributions to the state in the second part of an interview with Managing Editor Sheela Bhatt.
Part I: 'There is no civil society in Gujarat'
After 2002, what are the changes in the Muslim mindset?
Muslims have realised that they are second class citizens of Gujarat. They have seen the role of the state in the riots and they have accepted their demeaning position.
After 2002, intelligent Muslims think that education is the only way out to survive.
Muslim fundamentalists are also in the fray and playing their role. For the first time in Gujarat, you find that young girls in schools are using scarves to cover their heads.
Muslims are divided on the issue of language. They are debating whether they should stick to Gujarati and Urdu or move to English. In the process of globalisation, more and more are keen to opt for English medium schools.
Where is the Gujarat situation heading?
I don't think some answers can come from within. The Gujarati upper class and middle class is for globalisation, so whatever happens at the global level and particularly in the Western world is more important to them.
When the United States government refused Chief Minister Narendra Modi a visa, people became cautious. A question arose: Why is Modi persona non grata? For upper caste Gujaratis, America is the first home. Everyone looks up to going there. So, the answer should come from the Western world.
How do you look at Modi's leadership before, during and after Godhra?
Before the event in Godhra, when Modi was imposed on Gujarat by the central leadership, he was talking of the 'Unique Gujarat' theme. Then came the Hindutva theme during the riots.
And in the first elections after the riots, he talked about Gujarat's asmita, the great glory of Gujarat's history.
After the victory in the 2002 election he developed two other theories.
He banked on development in terms of the market economy and in the context of globalisation. He talks about foreign investment and SEZs (Special Economic Zones).
He is trying to develop the image of a vikas purush (man of development). He is saying, 'I stand for the development of Gujarat.'
In this development, common Gujaratis are not benefited. In the last survey, Gujarat is far behind in the child mortality rate. The same stands for mother's health during pregnancy.
Many areas of the Human Development Index in Gujarat continues to be poor after 2002.
Modi's development model is not helping the common man of Gujarat.
Another theory he continuously harped on after 2002 was the issue of security. He repeatedly talked about Gujarat being a border state, he is committed to its defence, and so on.
After 2002, he talked about four things; Hindutva, Gujarati provincialism, development and concerns for defence.
His concerns for security were exaggerated.
Thanks to his hype the newspaper-reading urban middle class is cautious about security and terrorism. They are buying Modi's theory that we are insecure.
Why are his theories not contested?
Gujarat has the two-party system. The Congress is a weak party and not a match to his propaganda.
They are not in position to counter Modi's arguments or propaganda because a large number of Congressmen in Gujarat also believe in soft Hindutva.
Congressmen in Gujarat have internalised soft Hindutva. Because of it they are not forceful in fighting for minority rights, (against) the marginalisation of the poor and other connected issues.
Even the Other Backward Classes leadership of Congress is not sympathetic to Dalits and tribals. The state Congress president is an OBC and the Opposition leader in the assembly is also an OBC. As far as the economic policy is concerned there is not much difference between the two parties.
The Congress is not in position to oppose the developmental model proposed by Modi.
How have the 2002 riots helped Modi reach where he is today?
Why shall we talk only about the 2002 riots? Earlier in the mid-1980s, when he was general secretary of the BJP and when he handled (L K) Advani's rath yatra, he was propagating hard Hindutva.
But there is an interesting change after the 2002 riots.
Modi is now realising what kind of damage he has done to his own image after 2002. So, one finds that after 2002, there are no big riots in any parts of Gujarat. The only exception was Baroda.
The Vishwa Hindu Parishad is also under control. From 2003 onwards Modi is emphasising the development issue -- more than Hindutva. This is significant.
But when the elections come, Modi will harden his stand against Pakistan.
The fear in the Hindu mind helps him retain power.
The relation between Kutch in Gujarat and Sindh in Pakistan are as old as the Indus civilisation but Modi is not supporting the efforts of Pushpadan Gadhvi, his party's senior leader from Kutch, to bridge the gap.
Why is Modi a successful leader? What is his charisma?
His charisma is there because the Congress is no match for him.
Second, at the cultural and intellectual level, Gujarat is so poor that nobody is able to stand up to him. Gujarat's music and architectural tradition is the great fusion of Hindu and Muslim traditions. But nobody is talking about it.
You simply cannot write one paragraph in the Gujarati language without using Arabic or Persian words, but nobody is highlighting it.
Talk about our food or dress -- we have strong Iranian and Arabic influences. Modi and the BJP don't have to face the 'counterpoint' in Gujarat. Modi remains unchallenged in Gujarat. And that is the secret of his continuing charisma.
How do you compare the BJP and Congress infrastructure in Gujarat?
It is interesting to note that even though Congress is weak, it is getting a large number of seats -- but not the majority. Because the local power structure in Gujarat is very powerful.
In that power structure, the farmers' lobby and the upper class are all the time trying to monopolise their power.
In Gujarat you will find that an uncle is in BJP and his nephew in the Congress. Certain families control the local power structure. For these families, the party is not important. Their family's hold over power is important.
If they find that state BJP leaders in the BJP are not giving them benefit, they will shift to the Congress. Twenty to twenty-five per cent of Congressmen and BJP district level leaders belong to such power-seeking families. So, in the local power structure, the situation is fluid.
This factor is not taken into account at the national level. Gujarat and Maharashtra have these strong local power bases. This is important for Gujarat because we had white (milk), green (agriculture) and blue (fisheries) revolutions, which have strengthened the districts and village-level power structures. In coastal Saurashtra, Kharvas and other fishing communities are running the show.
How do you see Modi's short term and long term future?
I think in the next election (due in December 2007), Modi may win. But the 2009 parliamentary election will be crucial for him and the entire BJP.
I find that they are not coming out of the old agenda. The combination of Hindutva, development, security and Gujarat's asmita will get the BJP votes.
They are not talking about bhukh (hunger) or bhrastachar (corruption) because corruption is a part of their system and not outside the system.
Hunger is still there because as you know, one in every four Gujaratis is below the poverty line. In Gujarat, the old team of the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) finds Modi flamboyant. They don't like the personality cult.
For the Gujarat BJP also, Modi is dangerous because he selects only those people who are personally loyal to him and not necessarily to the party. This factor will go against the BJP, eventually.
How do you see the massive secular movement carried out by Teesta Setalvad and scores of other activists against Modi, the BJP and the RSS? Their movement led to a legal confrontation and reopening of the riots cases.
The Supreme Court has helped the opening of some 2,000 cases but at the district level the systemic approach is not in place at many places. There is a lack of coordination amongst the social activists.
Secular activists are fighting their own limited battle. They have taken up a few cases but nobody is standing for the entire Gujarat.
Don't you think the secular movement reached a different height after the 2002 riots?
No, I would not say so. Unless Gujaratis themselves start reflecting, no amount of activism by people sitting in Delhi or Mumbai will help the people of Gujarat.
How do you fight the social boycott or the state bureaucracy? What to do about the local courts, the local media? And, what to do about the middle-class mentality?
|
