A review of #NLHafta from Dikshant, Nishant and Swati

Letter from Dikshant

Hi NL team,

I’m a subscriber (in case it helps the mail reach the top of the pile).

This email is regarding the mob attack on Mr Vardhan on the last Hafta for his contentious comment on “feminization of Hinduism” and the “courage of a rioter”. I’m astounded by the inability expressed by the panel to address his argument and their reduction of it to “semantic nit picking”. Had you seen his point through to the end, it would’ve probably been a more accurate and sensible disagreement.

The first point of attack was for his use of the word “feminization” and imagining a morality to it that he did not intend. This even after he repeatedly clarified it’s usage as a metaphor, a problematic one at worst as Manisha observed. As a listener who has the experience of Mr Vardhan’s sensibilities from the past episodes, it was evident to me that he meant the word as a reflection of the values of the feminine and the masculine in culture and in common thought. It was obviously not an indictment on the feminist cause as many in the panel made it out to be. Feminization was short hand for the values of restraint, passivity, timidity and not a commentary on women, the way masculinity was short hand for courage and aggression. It was frustrating to see how everyone’s focus on the vocabulary of expression, made us lose out on the opportunity to debate the underlying idea, which was probably much more problematic- Why does he think Hinduism needs a martial reorientation?

Madhu furthers this comedy by a casual remark about how no man she’s ever met has really internalized feminism and in fact we’re all rather just saving ourselves from the embarrassment of political incorrectness. Without diving into the credibility of this worldview, maybe it is time to think that the problem is not with every man you’ve ever met but rather… *just joking*!

Second point, about the courage of a rioter. Again, it was very evident that his conception of a riot was not 100 men descending on 1. That is lynching. As he tried to clarify in whatever window he got, his conception was of a physical conflict between sizeable teams (or even against odds) and the courage required in physically fighting that fight. It comes from a rock of conviction. Courage does not have to always be moral. I’m surprised Mr Sekhri was unable to grasp this idea since it is very similar to the one espoused by Bill Maher about those terrorists who flew the airplane on 9/11. The sheer courage required to inflict violence is not a kind of courage we should celebrate, but courage it still is.

Lastly, a bit about Mr Sekhri’s rant. His tone was nauseating. If not for anything else, Mr Vardhan gets brownie points only just for maintaining his composure throughout. The fact that Mr Sekhri failed to engage in the argument because of being stuck on his idea of a riot being “100 men raping a woman” pretty much till the end, makes it unnecessary to critique his content.

The entire discussion in the end unfortunately reduced to who has more courage? A man? A woman? Women journalists? Women who give birth? Ardhanaresh? Someone who stands to a mob on the street? Someone who stands to a mob in a podcast studio?

I’m sad we were robbed of a genuine discussion about Mr Vardhans idea of the masculinization of hinduism. It would be great if he could write it down so that we are able to read it in peace.

Thanks

Letter from Nishant Shrivastava

Hi NL team,

Let me begin by conveying a big thanks to Abhinandan for suggesting the S-Town podcast on The Awful and Awesome. Everything about it from the fascinating real life story to the technical aspects of storytelling and the background music was fantastic. I wish such podcasts could come out of India too and tell stories which need to be told.

Also, kudos on the Science desk podcast. 

Initially I was planning to keep this light hearted about how Abhinandan is overdoing his hate cricket bit and how Madhu mam can’t “Explain why she loves the nationalistic jingoism.”, but then Anand Vardhan happened. In the first few episodes since he has been a regular member on the Hafta, it felt good to have a sane conservative voice on the panel.

But then, came his comments about the Hindu way of living, detesting beef eaters, feminization of Hinduism and he finally fell off a cliff when he said that a rioter has courage. No matter however he wants to defend it by saying that it was an extreme example he simply can’t. But I also thought that Abhinandan should not have used so many ‘fucks’ while replying to him. Honestly, I was literally mouthing the same words while listening to Anand Vardhan’s comments but what Abhinandan did in the spur of the moment would just further strengthen Vardhan’s views on liberals despite the gist of what Abhinandan said made total sense. 

I know the word ‘liberal’ has been totally demeaned in today’s world (excluding in may be a couple of Scandinavian countries) and politics but for Vardhan to say that “The right should not even bother writing and fighting intellectual battles” gives you the answer that why the right all over the world has been unable to come up with the “correct” versions of history if they feel so strongly about the current version of history. 

And what is with these conservatives that they always keep living in the past and not think about improving the present and the future? I agree that all the Muslim invaders destroyed thousands of temples which was clearly wrong. But the problem with these conservatives is that they can’t comprehend a simple fact that this happened in a world where destroying opponent’s religious symbols was the norm. The British did the same everywhere they invaded. Can the conservatives please explain how is destroying a mosque in 1992 in a democratic country the answer to a medieval invader destroying temples thousands of years ago? 

Overall, most of the issues for conservatives everywhere are just selfish issues based on fiction like The Bible, The Gita and The Quran. And the irony here is that while they despise the history allegedly written by the left today, they are totally fine with stories (not history) written in these books which was also written by the people who were in power then. I am no fan of Mr. Guha or Ms. Romila Thapar and don’t just believe what they write, but the Indian right’s version of history is basically “Hindus were the greatest. Muslims and Christians invaded and destroyed our greatness.”

Anand Vardhan also brought up how great the Magadh Empire was and that a very few artifacts of it have survived because the Muslim invaders destroyed them. This is what used to happen back then when you lost a war. Will conservative Hindus like Mr. Vardhan also stand up for the numerous Indian tribes who were pillaged by Hindu rulers?

I know there is no end to this debate and honestly harping about the past which you can’t change is just a waste of time. I am not demeaning any historian in any way and realize it is important. I am trying to say that this will just keep going to and fro forever. 

Letter from Swati Puri

Hi NL team and Hafta cast and crew,

A few responses to the latest episode of Hafta and other NL content – 

1) If you do assemble a team to scan tweets by troll cadres of various political parties – count me in! The idea is fascinating. Not just to establish whether or not Right wing tweeple are uniquely vile and vicious but to more broadly understand the troll discourse on Twitter – themes covered, narratives invoked and tropes mobilized. I LOVE looking for patterns in all sorts of data – numbers and words – and I have some training to do this. I’d love to help!

2) To Anand V’s point about the Left’s NCERT textbook fundamentalism – The Left isn’t alone in using History textbooks to construct and disseminate an ideologically coloured version of History. Rajnath Singh did it as Education Minister of UP in 1991. In 1994, the National Steering Committee on Textbook Evaluation called out state governments of Assam, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan for doing the same. Murli Manohar Joshi as Human Resource Development Minister in the NDA government did it too. History textbooks in BJP-run Gujarat have been criticized for containing communal and divisive content and for an all too charitable treatment of Nazis.

Don’t get me wrong – this isn’t whataboutery. I just want to make the case that no political party or ideology has a monopoly on the use of education as a project for their particular brand of nationalism or in the case of states, sub-nationalism. The Left does it, so does the Right… ‘secularists’ and ‘hindutvavadis’ and everyone in between. And this is not unique to our part of the world. What we today take for granted as linguistic and cultural homogeneity in France, is the result of a sustained campaign in the 19th century to establish the supremacy of the French language and a uniquely French interpretation of secularism (strict separation of Church and State for example).

3) With regards to the conversation about the failure of the Right to produce credible intellectuals – Why does Anand V. advise the Right against engaging in intellectual battles? And why are intellectual battles meaningless? If, in fact, the Left upholds the hegemonic discourse in academia, doesn’t the Right need intellectuals to contest it? Shouldn’t people selected to head institutions like the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) and Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) be required to demonstrate a strong track record of academic achievement or in other words… be credible intellectuals?

I am not trying to be provocative – I am genuinely confused. I suspect there is a nuance to AV’s argument that I’ve missed. 

At any rate – I think Anand V. is an intellectual and I hope he continues to be one. And I don’t mean that as a pejorative. 

4) In his interview with NL, Saket Bahuguna of the ABVP (great interview by the way) said that it is important to acknowledge that the ancestors of all present day Indians were originally Hindu. Or something to this effect – please correct me if I am misquoting him. 

I would love to hear what the Hafta team have to say on this. Better still, invite responses from Indians of different faiths as well as atheists. What purpose does the “all Indians were originally Hindu” narrative serve and for whom? Is it at all justified? Is it fair to say that it is problematic? And what makes it so? 

Set aside for a moment the historical accuracy of this claim – there are simply too many definitions to reconcile – what is India, what is Hinduism etc. 

Big thanks to all of you for your work. I am a subscriber and I do my bit every once in a while to plug your work . 

I don’t think this email will get read during your podcast – it is neither sufficiently effusive nor critical. But I trust your editorial decisions, and I won’t take it personally 😀

More power to you.

Best wishes,

Swati