Some unanswered questions for secular India
By Jawed Naqvi
WHEN we watched TV in the Gulf 25 years ago we saw that virtually every transmitting station offered one or two mandatory channels with a mullah as staple fare, relentlessly gesticulating with both hands, fiercely pontificating on the virtues of his faith.
We accepted this as a cultural hangover of a region that was suddenly, even rudely, sucked into the vortex of the 20th century from a mediaeval slumber, thanks largely to the great social engineer called the petrodollar.
Colour TV came to India in 1982 piggybacking on the Asiad mini-Olympics held that year in Delhi. The event also heralded Rajiv Gandhi as a key player in national affairs. The youthful premier-to-be not only supervized an impressive Asiad, albeit under his mother’s watchful eye, but also became the nation’s hope for a change in public discourse away from a raging religious strife.
But even before he could fix the searing Hindu-Sikh fissures that dominated the national politics of the time, Rajiv Gandhi, quite unwittingly let us admit, plunged headlong into a Hindu-Muslim discourse. His tinkering with the Shah Bano divorce case to placate orthodox Muslims followed by the unlocking of the Babri mosque to allow Hindu worshippers were not viewed kindly by his liberal supporters.
Insidiously, without doubt, Indian TV too set about abusing its newly unleashed prowess across the remotest parts of the country. It broadcast television programmes that began to draw on religious atavism of the people rather than serving as a vehicle for the unfettered liberal dialogue promised by Jawaharlal Nehru.
The advent of private broadcasters, some of them acknowledged to be gifted with a farsighted worldview, also proved to be a major let down. Their TRP ratings were driven by everything except a rational discourse. If it was mindless soap operas here, it was the bustling bourses there that occupied the space, and determined their earnings.
Thus religion has remained the dominant ingredient of Indian TV, showing up in odd places like the marketplace or the world of entertainment, or politics. Major news channels, including NDTV, initially seen as a progressive platform, find all the time to run live programmes on India’s perennial religious pilgrimages wherever they could find one. Obviously, there must be something in it for everyone.
After all in India today there are dozens of 24-hour TV channels exclusively dedicated to religious discourses. And there is a fair division of spoils. They cater to everyone, be they Sikh, Muslim, Christian, or Hindu viewers. On the other hand there is no public place, much less a single platform for dissent, nor any for the ubiquitous cynic, the atheist or the agnostic. There is virtually no room for the questioning spirit. It looks as though yet again in time, the dice is loaded adversely for Galileo against the awesome might of the Pope.
It was in this stifling atmosphere that free thinking poet Javed Akhtar got his chance recently to breach the fortress of suffocating axioms. His quarry was Shri Shri Ravi Shankar, the globe-trotting spiritual guru. The occasion was India Today magazine’s international symposium on India’s progress. It was an unlikely platform to discuss faith or spirituality, when Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and Senator Hillary Clinton and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh were competing for attention.
But Javed Akhtar just had to have his way, and how. And as he began punching holes into the arguments for spiritualism put forth by Shri Shri Ravi Shankar, even Javed Akhtar was surprised by the applause he got. Shankar’s case was that spirituality was a virtue. Javed claimed that it was a hoax.
“It has become a fashion with journalists to blindly continue the colonial tradition of calling Hindu spiritual leaders a hoax,” said a miffed Ravi Shankar in a signed article shortly after the debate debacle.
“They called Mahatma Gandhi, Vivekananda and Sri Aurobindo godmen and hoaxes, and their contemporaries continue to do so. Would they say this to Mother Teresa or the Dalai Lama? No! Only Indian spiritual leaders are singled out.”
Javed Akhtar argued that as a scriptwriter for movies, he creates illusions for his audience. But then after three hours he puts up the sign, The End. Spiritual gurus sell illusions too but they forget to put up The End sign after their discourse.
“The hatred and frustration were obvious from his body language,” thundered Ravi Shankar in the article. “It’s not just Mr Akhtar. Many journalists, communists, atheists and naxalites live in that state of mind, of being anti-religious, anti-rich, anti-famous, anti-business.”
What did Akhtar say that riled the guru so much? “Let’s not be confused by this word spirituality,” he argued. “You can find two people with the same name and they can be totally different people. Ram Charit Manas was written by Tulsidas. And the television film has been made by Ramanand Sagar. Ramayan is common but I don’t think it would be very wise to club Tulsidas with Ramanand Sagar.
“When Tulsidas wrote Ramcharit Manas, he had faced a kind of a social boycott. How could he write a holy book in such a language like Avadhi? Sometimes I wonder fundamentalists of all hues and all colours, religions and communities are similar. In 1798, a gentleman called Shah Abdul Qadir, in this very city, for the first time translated the Quran in Urdu, and all the ulemas of that time gave fatwas against him as to how could he translate this holy book in such a heathen language.”
The audience was glued to his every word. But the point that evidently hit the bull’s eye was searing. “Gautam Buddha came out of a palace and went into wilderness to find the truth,” said Akhtar. “But nowadays we see modern age gurus come out of the wilderness and wind up in palaces. They are moving in the opposite direction. We can’t talk of them in the same breath.” Applause. Applause.
But was it the last time that a confirmed atheist was allowed to speak his mind before a revered Indian guru? Time will tell. However, the dice is loaded.
* * * * *
THEIR treacherous journey from guarding mediaeval harems to earning a living by singing and dancing may not yet have ended, but Indian eunuchs intending to travel abroad now need not pass off as male or female.
They will now be issued passports that specify their true gender identity. Eunuchs applying for passports have just to fill ‘E’ in the gender box on the forms. A capital ‘E’ in any of the tiny ‘M’ and ‘F’ squares meant for male and female applicants.
E-mail: jawednaqvi@gmail.com

