Contextual editorial illustration for the restored article.
PM Modi should be lauded for the efforts that he is putting in to make India an industrial hub and generate jobs for the rising young population. But the efforts beg a question — will Make in India work as a policy and achieve its desired objectives i.e. increase the share of manufacturing and generate jobs? Given the current regulatory environment, the answer seems no. Let’s explore why.
Before understanding whether Make in India will work, look at the historical composition of the Indian economy:
[Chart: Structural change in Indian economy — shares of manufacturing, agriculture and services over time] Source: Rubina Verma, Journal of Development Economics, 2012 — restored contextual visual.
India is an outlier when it comes to structural change of the economy. At India’s level of per capita GDP, most countries would have a higher share of manufacturing rather than services. India is different because it directly jumped from a high share of agriculture to the services sector, bypassing the growth in manufacturing that is seen as an intermediate step in most developing economies. Thus India missed out on pulling its masses from the agricultural sector. Although services contribute more than 50% to Indian GDP, the sector employs a much smaller proportion of the population. On the other hand, the manufacturing share has remained almost constant in terms of GDP, with only a slightly higher share in employment.
The Make in India initiative should be seen in this context — to correct the historical bias in India’s growth story and revive the manufacturing sector to generate jobs on a mass scale as happened in China. Indian regulations have been blamed for this lopsided non-growth in manufacturing. So, can Make in India style initiatives give a boost to Indian manufacturing? To understand this we need to look at the basics without getting carried away by Modi’s hard work and intent.
Although structural change can be caused by preference or income changes in the population, at India’s level of per capita GDP we can rule them out. So we have to look at the supply side and understand why manufacturing did not pick up in India and whether the current government has changed anything on the ground. For any sector to flourish, one needs to look at the input requirements. The inputs are basically three — capital, land and labour — which are often called factor markets.
1) Capital
Capital is needed for setting up any industry. Capital markets have been relatively free and open in India — there is a well-developed stock market as well as banking services to infuse capital into new firms. But what is the current situation on the ground? The banking sector which forms the core of this factor market has been brought to its knees due to unscrupulous lending to crony capitalists. The public sector banks are in dire need of massive capital infusion without which they cannot kick-start the lending cycle. The bad plus restructured loans form 17% of total assets of public sector banks.
This means that an otherwise healthy sector is not working well in the country. One can forget about firms investing in new projects given that banks are not in a position to take risk and lend money. Modi’s initiative to court foreign investors with deep pockets can ameliorate this problem to some extent but FDI and FII are not going to reignite investment in the whole economy.
Summary: Capital market is unhealthy.
2) Land
Land is another crucial factor, but unlike capital it is highly regulated in India. Given problems in land acquisition, serious businessmen who do not have deep pockets to bribe the establishment cannot set up any industry. This factor market impeded the growth of the manufacturing sector because it needs to acquire massive tracts of land unlike the services sector. The Land Acquisition Bill passed by the last UPA government delivered the final nail in the coffin — making acquiring land a gargantuan task, an almost impossible feat for any small investor.
Since the Modi government could not pass modifications to the current land bill in the last few Parliament sessions, the land market is completely strangulated at the current moment. Given policy uncertainty and huge costs involved in acquiring land, no serious player would put his money in manufacturing. Unlike with capital markets where Modi is courting foreign investors, the government does not seem to be doing enough to improve the land market. Probably the land acquisition model of Naidu in Andhra Pradesh can provide some hints to the Modi government on how to bypass this deadlock — but they are all quick fixes rather than long-term solutions.
Summary: Land market is as unfriendly as under UPA.
3) Labour
Labour is the third main factor market and is again highly regulated. A massive number of regulations kick in once a firm crosses employment thresholds. This along with firing costs makes it almost impossible for any firm to shut down loss-making operations, thus putting a brake on the process of creative destruction — an important ingredient of a market economy.
[Chart: Discontinuous decrease in number of enterprises at 10 employees threshold] Source: Amrit Amirapu and Michael Gechter, 2014 — restored contextual visual.
Since many labour regulations kick in at 10 employees, the sharp decrease in the number of enterprises at that threshold is not a surprise. Another important drawback of these labour regulations is that they have forced the manufacturing sector to automate — making it highly capital intensive, which again means there will not be enough employment generation even if firms figure out how to invest and acquire land.
[Chart: Ratio of value added by labour-intensive vs non-labour-intensive sectors in India] Source: Kochhar et al, 2006 — restored contextual visual.
What clearly stands out is that at India’s level of per capita GDP, the share of labour-intensive sectors is too low — firms use more capital instead of labour. China at four times India’s per capita income uses the same labour mix as India. Given labour regulations in India, not only do firms invest in capital-intensive sectors, but they also try to replace labour with capital whenever possible.
Sadly, beyond the slogans, the Modi government has not passed any game-changing laws for labour deregulation either. Even if the Make in India initiative picks up, it is highly unlikely that new firms will invest in labour-intensive sectors — with the end result that there won’t be enough employment generation. Rajasthan under Vasundhara has shown some interest in changing these regulations, but the central government has shied away from pursuing these issues. Unless trade unions and other vested interests are taken head-on to bring these changes, it is highly unlikely that India can generate enough jobs for its youth.
Summary: Labour market is strangulated.
Given these deep problems with factor markets, it will only be a miracle if Modi can deliver ten million new jobs every year through his Make in India initiative. The fundamentals are wrong and it will be plain stupidity to expect otherwise. While big conferences are a good PR exercise, they cannot replace serious policy changes. Everyone knows that BJP does not have a majority in Rajya Sabha, but “Reforms are the art of the possible” as stated by Arun Jaitley on multiple occasions. Hopefully, the Modi government will learn this art before it is too late.
References:
Amrit Amirapu and Michael Gechter, Indian Labor Regulations and the Cost of Corruption: Evidence from the Firm Size Distribution, 2014
Rubina Verma, Can Total Factor Productivity Explain Value Added Growth in Services? — Journal of Development Economics, 2012
Kochhar et al, India’s Patterns of Development: What Happened, What Follows, IMF, 2006
Originally published February 21, 2016 on Yuga Parivartan.
Contextual editorial illustration for the restored article.
PM Modi should be lauded for the efforts that he is putting in to make India an industrial hub and generate jobs for the rising young population. But the efforts beg a question — whether Make in India will work as a policy and achieve its desired objectives i.e. increase the share of manufacturing and generate jobs. Given the current regulatory environment, the answer seems no. Let’s explore why.
Before understanding whether Make in India will work, look at the historical composition of the Indian economy:
[Chart: Structural change in Indian economy — shares of manufacturing, agriculture and services over time] Source: Rubina Verma, Journal of Development Economics, 2012 — restored contextual visual.
India is an outlier when it comes to structural change of the economy. At India’s level of per capita GDP, most countries would have a higher share of manufacturing rather than services. India is different because it directly jumped from a high share of agriculture to the services sector, bypassing the growth in manufacturing that is seen as an intermediate step in most developing economies. Thus India missed on pulling out its masses from the agricultural sector. Although services contribute more than 50% to Indian GDP, the sector employs a much smaller proportion of the population. On the other hand, manufacturing share has remained almost constant in terms of GDP.
Make in India should be seen in this context — to correct the historical bias in India’s growth story and revive manufacturing to generate jobs on a mass scale as happened in China. Indian regulations have been blamed for this lopsided non-growth in manufacturing. To understand whether Make in India can give a boost, we need to look at the three basic factor market inputs for any sector: capital, land and labour.
1) Capital
Capital markets have been relatively free and open in India — there is a well-developed stock market as well as banking services to infuse capital into new firms. But the banking sector which forms the core of this factor market has been brought to its knees due to unscrupulous lending to crony capitalists. The public sector banks are in dire need of massive capital infusion without which they cannot kick-start the lending cycle. Bad plus restructured loans form 17% of total assets of public sector banks. One can forget about firms investing in new projects given that banks are not in a position to take risk and lend money. Modi’s initiative to court foreign investors can ameliorate this problem to some extent but FDI and FII are not going to reignite investment in the whole economy.
Summary: Capital market is unhealthy.
2) Land
Land is another crucial factor, but unlike capital it is highly regulated in India. Given problems in land acquisition, serious businessmen who do not have deep pockets to bribe the establishment cannot set up any industry. The Land Acquisition Bill passed by the last UPA government delivered the final nail in the coffin — making acquiring land a gargantuan task, almost impossible for any small investor. Since the Modi government could not pass modifications to the current land bill, the land market is completely strangulated at the current moment.
Summary: Land market is as unfriendly as under UPA.
3) Labour
Labour is the third main factor market and is again highly regulated. A massive number of regulations kick in once a firm crosses employment thresholds. This along with firing costs makes it almost impossible for any firm to shut down loss-making operations, thus putting a brake on the process of creative destruction.
[Chart: Discontinuous decrease in number of enterprises at 10 employees threshold] Source: Amrit Amirapu and Michael Gechter, 2014 — restored contextual visual.
Since many labour regulations kick in at 10 employees, the sharp decrease in the number of enterprises at that threshold is not a surprise. Another important drawback of these labour regulations is that they have forced the manufacturing sector to automate, making this sector highly capital intensive — which again means there would not be enough employment generation even if firms figure out how to invest and acquire land.
[Chart: Ratio of value added by labour-intensive vs non-labour-intensive sectors in India] Source: Kochhar et al, 2006 — restored contextual visual.
What clearly stands out is that at India’s level of per capita GDP, the share of labour-intensive sectors is too low. China at four times India’s per capita income uses the same labour mix as India. Sadly, beyond the slogans the Modi government has not passed any game-changing laws for labour deregulation either. Unless trade unions and other vested interests are taken head-on, it is highly unlikely that India can generate enough jobs for its youth.
Summary: Labour market is strangulated.
Given these deep problems with factor markets, it will only be a miracle if Modi can deliver ten million new jobs every year through his Make in India initiative. The fundamentals are wrong and it will be plain stupidity to expect otherwise. While big conferences are a good PR exercise, they cannot replace serious policy changes. Hopefully the Modi government will learn the art of the possible before it is too late.
References:
Amrit Amirapu and Michael Gechter, Indian Labor Regulations and the Cost of Corruption: Evidence from the Firm Size Distribution, 2014
Rubina Verma, Can Total Factor Productivity Explain Value Added Growth in Services? — Journal of Development Economics, 2012
Kochhar et al, India’s Patterns of Development: What Happened, What Follows, IMF, 2006
Originally published February 21, 2016 on Yuga Parivartan.
Editorial illustration for “The RW reaction to JNU”.
For the first time since 2014, the Modi government seems to be on an offensive against the anti-national elements. Although some vigour was shown to cut down international NGO funding, that happened behind closed doors and the message did not travel fast and wide — with the result that the anti-nationals got some time to put their act together and mount one attack after the other, with the intolerance debate and award wapsi being prime examples. Modi government seems to have now finally woken up from its deep slumber and did not avoid acting on anti-national activities in its backyard. The complete silence on Malda had otherwise put even its best supporters on the backfoot.
There are two arguments doing the rounds on social media lately and need instant attention. Both of them are the result of a lack of understanding on these issues by the RW. The slapping of anti-sedition laws on some JNU students has caused a furore among their benefactors, which was more or less expected — but a lot of self-proclaimed RW persons also seem confused in their response. There are many intertwined issues here, but let’s look at the confusion of the RW.
The first point being raised in defence of anti-nationals is that these students raising the slogans in JNU form a fringe minority on the campus. The left will obviously raise this point but some on the right have also bought it without any background check. JNU has been a hotbed of anti-national activities since the time of the Naxalbari movement and this was not a stray incident. Look at the poster above, which forms the normal discourse inside the JNU campus. Can anyone in his sane mind claim that this agenda is driven by fringe elements? The arrest of the president of JNU’s student union, Kanhaiya Kumar, should clear anyone’s doubt on the acceptance of this anti-national behaviour on the campus. Had it been otherwise, the president of the student wing would have been much more careful before lending his support to such secessionist sloganeering inside the campus. The support these students got from their faculty members should clear any other remaining doubts about the support for such activities in JNU. The fact of the matter is that it is the first time that media has decided to raise this issue — otherwise support for such anti-India views has been mainstream in JNU campus under SFI and AISA, the left wing organizations which have controlled the student union for most of JNU’s history. So it would be completely wrong to push this issue under the carpet by claiming that these are fringe elements on the JNU campus.
The second issue which has found more resonance among the RW is that the sedition laws are illiberal and have colonial legacy.
If there are non-violent, non-terrorist activists, liberal society should tolerate them. Unwise use of sedition law.
— Rupa Subramanya (@rupasubramanya), February 12, 2016
Did you hear even a single voice from the left give a similar analogy in favour of Kamlesh Tiwari’s freedom of speech when he was hounded by using another British-era law? The hate-speech laws are even more abominable and much more difficult to prove in court than sedition laws. Also, both of them are British-era laws — but hate-speech is misused rather frequently to support Islamists and the leftist agenda, while the sedition law is hardly ever invoked. Does this mean that the RW should take a moral high ground and become the sole guardian of liberal ideas in this country and give a free pass to leftists to carry out their agenda? Probably they need to learn the rule of golden silence from their leftist compatriots.
There is no reason for the RW to be apologetic about this issue and it should embrace sedition laws, especially in cases where the left wants to compromise the territorial integrity of India. No country can allow free speech on a secessionist agenda, especially when such elements wilfully play as useful pawns in the hands of foreign enemies. If anything, the RW should use this issue to highlight the hate-speech laws and brow-beat the left on their duplicity. It is high time that the RW learns some realpolitik from the left and stops taking moral high ground on each and every issue. The public mood has backed the action of slapping sedition laws against these parasitic students and the Modi government should use this opportunity to further increase pressure on leftist groups and build on its offensive posture. The intolerance debate has been in the limelight for too long — so it is high time to show some real intolerance.
But whether slapping charges on students, who are mere pawns in this game, serves the RW purpose is a valid question that one should ask. The real masters behind the “Idea of India” brigade are not really affected by the arrest of some youth who were in any case disposable assets. But this action at least sends the signal that the RW is on offence now and would not mind some collateral damage. If Modi thinks he can win the next elections by playing Goody Two Shoes, then he is under grand delusion.
Editorial illustration for “Religion and the Rise of Capitalism: The Case of Japan (Richard L. Rubenstein)”.
By Richard L. Rubenstein. Originally published at Amerika.org and republished here with permission.
Few, if any, developments in the postwar era possess as great a significance as the rise of Japan. Normally, Japan’s rise is discussed in economic or political terms. Its religious significance, especially for a nation such as the United States whose cultural inheritance is so deeply rooted in biblical religion, is seldom discussed, much less understood. Japan is the world’s most successful nation with non-Christian roots. Even the Soviet Union has Christian roots. Marxist atheism is grounded in the very biblical tradition that Marxism negates. Moreover, the apparent conflict between the Western proponents of a biblically grounded attitude and a secular ethic takes on the appearance of a family quarrel when seen against the horizon of Japanese religion and culture. Far from being the antithesis of biblical religion, the secular spirit that pervades so much of Western life is its unintended consequence. Wherever the biblical faith in a unique, exclusive, extramundane God penetrated, it was utterly destructive of indigenous gods and traditions. Sooner or later this polemical, desacralizing faith was bound to give birth to a consciousness that would not rest until all the gods without exception were dethroned. Under the circumstances, it is hardly surprising that a civilization as determined to preserve its own integrity as Japan should marshal all its forces to resist both the believing and the secular manifestations of biblical religion.
The Japanese have created a thoroughly modern, highly technological, capitalist civilization whose religious foundations rest upon animistic and polytheistic traditions that adherents of the biblical religions normally assume to be discredited, primitive, and idolatrous — a remnant of a far earlier stage of religious “evolution.” From the Japanese perspective, such views are, of course, utterly without substance.
We can perhaps best understand the long-range significance of the religious aspects of the challenge of Japanese capitalism if we consider the role of religion in fostering the rise of capitalism in both Japan and the nations of the West. In the case of the West, no one attempting to understand the role of religion in the development of capitalism can ignore the work of the German sociologist Max Weber. As is well known, Weber set forth the thesis that the modern Western bourgeois-capitalist world is an unintended consequence of the rise of ascetic Protestantism in the aftermath of the Reformation.
Weber did not hold that religion by itself was the cause of modern capitalism. He regarded religion as a necessary but not sufficient factor in the origin of modern economic rationalism. Weber stressed that material conditions alone could not have produced the peculiar form of economic rationalism in which the impulse to accumulate was combined with disciplined restraints upon consumption. Nor could capitalism by itself have produced the kind of economic ethic needed for its development. Weber held that the economic ethic which fostered the development of capitalism was an unintended consequence of the work of the great reformers, especially John Calvin, and their followers.
Predestination and Power
According to Weber, Calvin’s doctrine of double predestination was of crucial importance for the development of modern capitalism. By insisting that the issue of personal salvation had been settled at the very first moment of creation, Calvinism had the effect of radically devaluing the religious significance of all earthly institutions, including the Church. The believer was thrust back upon himself with no assurance of where he stood before an awesome, inscrutable, and utterly sovereign God. The believer’s situation was further aggravated by the fact that there was no longer any credible mediating agency authorized to prescribe the conditions under which an individual, aided by God’s grace, might merit salvation. Concerning the impact of predestination, Weber observes that the doctrine produced “a feeling of unprecedented inner loneliness of the single individual.”
Under the circumstances, it was inevitable that the believer seek for some hint of where he or she stood in the divine order. According to Weber, at this point economic activity took on a new meaning for the believing Protestant. Service in one’s worldly calling, even if it involved deriving profit from money itself, soon came to be regarded as offering the believer a sign of where he or she stood before the Creator. A believer who had prospered in his calling could reasonably assume that the God who had predestined all things from the beginning had been the ultimate cause of his or her well-being. The sober, methodical accumulation of wealth took on a religious meaning it had never before possessed. Thus, methodical work within the profane world became the path to overcoming anxiety concerning one’s ultimate destiny that prayer, ritual, and mystical contemplation had been in other traditions.
The radical devaluation of the normal religious media of redemption by ascetic Protestantism was part of a process identified by Weber as the “disenchantment of the world.” According to Weber, the roots of this disenchantment — which was indispensable to the development of the distinctive rationalism of the modern world — were to be found in the monotheistic exclusivism of biblical Judaism. By affirming a unique, supramundane, creator God, biblical Judaism denied any inherent sacrality to the natural world or to the political order. Of particular interest with regard to Japan is the fact that biblical religion was especially vehement in its rejection of the institution of divine kingship. The Bible’s radical desacralization of both the natural and the political order was an enormously significant step toward the rational mastery of the world.
Nevertheless, before the rationalizing activities of the modern era — the creation of an impersonal market economy, scientific investigation, and bureaucratic organization — could become culturally predominant, these activities had to be given a religiously legitimated, positive valence. Weber argued that this only became possible after ascetic Protestantism had redefined worldly activity, including the taking of interest, as a way of serving God. Only the combination of rationalization and Protestantism’s interpretation of worldly activity as a sacred calling could have provided the “take-off” energies that made capitalism possible in the West.
The development toward a purely secular, rationalized society can thus be seen as an unintended sociological consequence of biblical Judaism’s “disenchantment of the world.” The full force of biblical “disenchantment” was felt only after Protestantism elevated the authority of the Bible over that of the Church.
Divine Authority and Filial Piety
From a social-psychological perspective, Protestantism’s rejection of the authority of the church can be seen as a revolt of the sons against the fathers. A similar revolt was indispensable for the successful displacement of traditional society by modern civilization. According to sociologist Robert Bellah, biblical religion provided the legitimation that made these revolts ethically and psychologically acceptable.
Bellah’s argument takes as its starting point a comparison of the father-son symbolism in Christianity and Confucianism. Although the father-son symbolism plays a decisive role in Christianity, the natural family has little or no religious significance in biblical religion. By contrast, the father-son symbolism is inapplicable to the Ultimate in Confucianism, whereas the natural family has overwhelming religious significance.
Contrary to both popular and Freudian belief, the biblical God was not originally a father-god but the ultimate Suzerain of a political association. The Bible depicts God’s relationship with Israel not as a natural family but as a political treaty — a covenant. In such a pact, the superior party stipulates the conditions under which he will protect the inferior party as well as the penalties incurred for lack of fidelity to the terms of the treaty.
Isaiah ben-Dasan, a perceptive Japanese writer who took an Israeli pseudonym, has also argued that the divine-human relation in biblical religion could not be understood through the analogy of the relation between a natural parent and child. He argued that the relation was that “between adopted child and adoptive parent.” By thus depicting the divine-human relationship, biblical religion introduced an element of insecurity and anxiety into Western religious life. Unlike the unconditional relationship between a natural parent and child, that between an adoptive parent and child is likely to be conditional upon the fulfillment of contractual obligations.
As ben-Dasan reminds us, adoption is a parent-child relationship established by contract. This is in fact how the Bible depicts God’s relationship with Israel. The conditional character of the relationship is repeatedly stated. By contrast, ben-Dasan points out that the Japanese find the biblical idea of God as an adoptive parent distasteful. They regard their relationship with their deities as one of blood, like that of mother and child, as in the tradition of the descent of the emperor from the sun goddess, Amaterasu-omikami.
In biblical traditions, religion and the family are represented by a common set of symbols, yet they are institutionally differentiated. While filial piety is a supreme virtue in Confucianism, both Christianity and Judaism tend to devalue filial piety when it conflicts with the imperatives of religion. Before the Reformation, only the celibate clergy and monastic orders were in theory expected to hearken to this injunction in its full severity. The Reformation radicalized and universalized the injunction by its doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. Without realizing it, the Reformers had unleashed the full revolutionary force of biblical religion’s subordination of the natural sphere — the nuclear family and the extended family we know as the nation — to a supramundane principal.
In general, traditional societies can be understood as more or less autonomous, religiously legitimated, extended kinship groups in which far greater emphasis is accorded to collective than to individual interests. As we shall see, in spite of its modernization, Japan remains such a society. An enormous psychic effort is required to reject traditional society for the individualistic, depersonalized professionalism of the modern capitalist West. Weber believed that only a religiously legitimated redefinition of the sacred could have fostered the transformation. The Reformation’s assertion that all things human are to be subordinated to the sovereign Creator God gave Protestants the moral and emotional leverage to turn away from old ways and begin anew — not once but continually.
By contrast, filial piety is at the heart of the Confucian ethic. Unlike biblical religion, the Confucian system has no point of leverage by means of which disobedience to parents could be justified. Without willingness to breach the ethic of filial piety, as was done in Western religion, there does not seem to have been any way in which the revolutionary new beginnings necessary for modernization could have been initiated within a Confucian civilization.
Nevertheless, not only has East Asia modernized and adopted capitalism, but it has done so with far greater success than Africa, the Middle East, or Latin America. Hence, the question arises whether Weber’s Protestant-ethic hypothesis has been disproven. In reality, Weber did not hold that the non-Western nations were incapable of modernization or capitalist development. He did, however, believe that the process could only have been initiated in the Protestant West.
A Tradition is Challenged
Perhaps the most fundamental insight offered by Weber is that, in addition to appropriate material conditions, traditional societies can only be transformed into modern societies by a radical redefinition of the sacred. The case of Japan would appear to confirm this insight. Even before the appearance of Commodore Matthew Perry and his “Black Ships” in 1853, word of China’s humiliation in 1842 at the hands of Great Britain had reached Japan. Shortly after China’s defeat, a questionnaire was addressed by an official of the shogunate to one of the Hollanders living in Nagasaki. The European was asked why the Tartars had lost. The Hollander replied: “Bravery alone is not sufficient, the art of war demands something more. No outlandish power can compete with a European one, as can be seen by the great realm of China which has been conquered by only four thousand men.”
When China’s humiliation was followed by the forcible opening of Japan by Commodore Perry in 1853 and the unequal commercial treaties forced upon Japan between 1858 and 1866, Japan had the choice of either radically restructuring her society or suffering defeat and humiliation by the predatory Western powers. Japan was threatened economically as well as militarily. With tariffs on goods imported to Japan set by foreigners and with Japan’s handicraft industries incapable of competing with Western factories, Japan soon found herself flooded with manufactured foreign goods that ruined much of her domestic handicraft industry at a time when her currency was rapidly depreciating and high inflation was dangerously distorting her domestic economy.
As we know, the foreign threat was met speedily and successfully by perhaps the most radical restructuring of any society the world has ever known. One of the most remarkable aspects of Japan’s modernization is that it was carried out with relatively little bloodshed. The samurai elite responsible for the Meiji Restoration of 1868 were genuine revolutionaries who had largely emerged from a group of dissidents from the lower strata of their class. Crucial to the success of their revolution was the transformation wrought in the imperial office, whose sacred charismatic character is deeply rooted in Japan’s earliest history. Just as religion had played a crucial role in the modernization of the West, so too a very different kind of religion — one that rested upon the archaic institution of divine kingship — played an equally important role in Japan’s modernization.
Reestablishment of the Emperor’s Authority
The final step in bringing the shogunate to an end was taken with the Meiji Restoration and the proclamation of the sacred character of the imperial office. The first article of the constitution of 1889 reads: “The Empire of Japan shall be reigned over and governed by a line of Emperors unbroken for ages eternal.” The third article reads: “The Emperor is sacred and inviolable.”
Perhaps the most important interpreter of the Meiji era was Prince Ito, who was largely responsible for drafting the written constitution. His Commentaries on the Constitution appeared in 1889. In the Meiji period the emperor lost the ability to speak independently of his counselors — he spoke, if at all, through the oligarchs who governed in his name. No longer could dissidents claim to speak on his behalf in opposing the policies of government. Power was exercised in his name while the ceremonial aspects of the imperial institution were exalted.
In spite of the loss of an active political role, the imperial institution gained overwhelming new importance. As a direct descendant of the sun goddess Amaterasu-omi-kami, the emperor symbolized national continuity, identity, and sovereignty at a time when foreigners threatened these values more profoundly than at any other time in Japan’s history. The Meiji oligarchs were thus able to utilize the imperial institution to “give unprecedented policies the color of great antiquity” and “to make it appear that what was in fact an administration by relatively lowly placed new men proceeded instead from the most highly pedigreed and unquestionably legitimate of all possible sources.”
When we compare the extreme social and political disorders that accompanied the transformation of traditional into modern capitalist societies in the Christian West with the relatively bloodless transformation that took place in non-Christian Japan, the Japanese achievement appears truly impressive. Unlike their modernizing counterparts in the English Revolution of the seventeenth century and the French Revolution of the late eighteenth century — who purchased the transformation of their respective societies with regicide and civil war — the modernizing elite of Japan succeeded in rationalizing the economy and society of their nation with a minimum of domestic violence or alienation of elite classes and institutions.
By utilizing a seemingly conservative doctrine — that of the emperor’s divinity — to legitimate a radical social and political revolution, the elite was able to create a strong central government, abolish all estate distinctions, eliminate warrior privileges, open military service to commoners, establish a system of universal public education, and facilitate the entry of members of the samurai class into the world of business and commerce. All this was done without the transformation of traditional elites and institutions into embittered enemies of the new social order as was so often the case in Europe.
Modernization and Tradition
That thoughtful Japanese leaders of the Meiji era were concerned lest too great a reliance on Western ways lead to the destruction of the value of filial piety is evident in the “Imperial Rescript: the Great Principles of Education, 1879,” written by Motoda Eifu, the Confucian lecturer to the emperor. The rescript states that the push toward Western ways had “a serious defect: it reduced benevolence, justice, loyalty, and filial piety to a secondary position.”
The Imperial Rescript on Education of 1890 gives expression to the determination of Japan’s leaders to preserve the historic continuity of Japanese civilization and its values at a time of the most revolutionary socioeconomic transformations in all of Japanese history. Whereas the West initiated modernization with a rejection of the highest religious and political authorities — not excluding regicide — and tended to equate modernization with secularization, Japan undertook modernization under the authority of its supreme religio-political authority and in defense of the values of its traditional civilization.
The religious traditions fostering modernization in Japan and the West can thus be seen as polar opposites. Where one is Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, it is impossible to worship the God of Abraham without rejecting the gods of one’s earliest ancestors. In order to worship the God of the Bible, somewhere in history a drastic uprooting process had to have taken place. The old pagan gods had to be forsworn and the ways of one’s oldest ancestors abandoned.
The contrast with earthbound, non-nomadic Japan — a nation that has never forsworn her most ancient gods nor thought of these spirits as separate from nature — could not be greater. Japan’s modernization was predicated upon unconditional reaffirmation of the sacred connection between the modern state and its most archaic roots. Unlike every nation of Judaeo-Christian inheritance, the Japanese alone remain in contact with their oldest sources of religious and cultural values.
Two Paths to Modernization
When in 1945 the victorious Americans used their political leverage to secure the emperor’s denial of his divinity, they were responding to the institution of divine kingship in a way that accorded with their age-old biblical tradition. MacArthur favored the return of Christian missionaries in large numbers to Japan and saw the occupation as an unparalleled opportunity for the conversion of the Japanese to Christianity. In spite of apparently favorable circumstances, the postwar missionaries who came to Japan quickly discovered that few, if any, free countries offer less promise to Christian missions than Japan. After more than a century of strenuous efforts, with one of the world’s largest concentrations of foreign missionaries — almost 5,200 in number — Japan remains more resistant to Christianity than any other developed country. Less than 1 percent of the population is Christian and the numbers are declining.
Apart from the fact that Christianity is rejected as “un-Japanese” by a population with a very strong sense of group identity and a strong distrust of anything foreign that cannot be readily assimilated, the Japanese find the biblical conceptions of an omnipotent, extramundane Creator who establishes a covenant with a non-Japanese group utterly lacking in credibility.
It is precisely that which a “disenchanting” religion rejects — namely, animism and polytheism — that Shinto affirms. Moreover, it should be noted that, in spite of its animism and polytheism, Shinto plays a significant role in contemporary Japanese business, science, and technology. Among the leading corporations that have Shinto shrines at their headquarters are the Sanwa Group, Toyota, the Mitsubishi group, Hitachi, Toshiba, and Matsushita. Groundbreaking ceremonies for new factories usually involve a Shinto ritual, as was the case at the groundbreaking ceremonies for Mazda’s new automobile factory in Michigan and the jointly owned Chrysler-Mitsubishi American factory.
Biblical religion and indigenous Japanese religious tradition have thus provided alternative paths to the modern capitalist world. Biblical religion alone, with its denigration of filial piety and its tradition of relativizing human institutions in the light of the ideal of service to a sovereign Creator God, possessed the psychic mechanism to begin the monumental breach with the past implied in modernization. One can say without exaggeration that the modern Western world is largely an unintended consequence of the cultural triumph of a biblical understanding of the nature of things.
Nevertheless, if Japan did not have a value system capable of initiating a fundamental breach with the past, it did have the religious and cultural resources necessary to defend its civilization against the West — and it has done that with astonishing success. Japanese modernization was essentially a defensive strategy: first, to secure Japan against Western military aggression; second, to defend Japan against Western economic aggression; and ultimately, to defend Japanese civilization against the destruction of its historic values that would most assuredly have ensued if Japan as a nation had been converted to any form of biblical religion.
The majority of Japanese have interpreted their postwar economic and technological achievements as confirming the superiority of their civilization over that of their trading partners and competitors. If ever the Japanese were amenable to conversion to a biblical religion, that time has passed. In a dialogue between Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone and Professor Takeshi Umehara, the prime minister offered the following comment on Japanese religion:
The Japanese tend toward polytheism rather than monotheism. We believe in many gods and consider ourselves part of nature’s unending cycle. There is broad and general acceptance of the idea that a man’s fate is inseparable from that of every animal, tree, and blade of grass. Japan’s ancestor worship is thus quite different from Christianity’s contract between man and his monotheistic god. In the process of honoring our forefathers, we create the harmony which is such an integral part of our life-style.
Unlike most allegedly primitive indigenous religions, Japanese religion has demonstrated its power to inspire a capitalist civilization capable of competing successfully with the West in almost every significant sphere of human activity. Seldom, if ever, has the monotheistic exclusivism of biblical religion been challenged as successfully as it has by modern Japan.
It should be obvious that this writer has a very profound respect for the achievements of Japanese civilization, especially in the Meiji and post-World War II periods. Nevertheless, he feels constrained to conclude by raising an issue that may prove to be of considerable importance in the years ahead. Those who fault biblical religion for its exclusivism tend to overlook one of its principal strengths, namely, its ability to unite men and women hitherto strangers to each other in a new community of worship and moral obligation. By contrast, while Japan has been most successful in defending the integrity, continuity, and organic character of its civilization, its indigenous traditions offer little basis for a wider base of community than that which rests on kinship and common descent.
In view of the overwhelming international importance of Japan, one must ask whether she can any longer ignore the problem of finding a more universal basis for community than offered by her indigenous traditions. Whatever shortcomings can be discerned in biblical religion, it has repeatedly demonstrated its capacity to enlarge humanity’s sense of community. The question of whether Japan has the indigenous spiritual resources to enlarge her sense of community may be the most important confronting her in the coming Pacific era.
Contextual editorial illustration for the restored article.
Arvind Kejriwal jumped on the national scene in 2011 when Anna Hazare launched his anti-corruption movement against the UPA government. It has been a roller coaster ride for him since then, with few downs and more ups. He has been in the limelight and covered in a large number of newspaper columns. Here is our take on what makes him special:
1. Ambitious
Politics is for ambitious people and Kejriwal has shown a knack for it since his early IRS days by jumping from one job to another to reach where he is today. Given that he immersed himself head-on into the Varanasi Lok Sabha election against Modi without any preparation should clear doubts in anyone’s mind that he aims for the top position in this country.
2. Result oriented
Kejriwal wants to win at any cost and is ready to shake hands with anyone to achieve this objective, whether it is bigoted Maulana Taseer or Khalistanis. Are you listening Lalu and Mulayam — here is your replacement! The love that he gets from Pakistanis is not unreasonable after all.
3. Unapologetic
Although he pleaded sorry in front of Delhi citizens after his 49-day stint as Chief Minister to get re-elected, in general he does not care when saving his real ass-lickers or himself. He fought alongside Somnath Bharti after the Khirkhi raid as well as threw out BJP MLAs from the Delhi Assembly. If still not convinced, just look at his complete silence at the MCD worker strike and the resultant garbage mess in Delhi.
4. Master of forming social coalitions
He is the true inheritor of Congress social engineering skills. He has used auto-wallahs, Muslims and slum dwellers to form his core support base in Delhi. He has now added Khalistanis in Punjab to this list and will expand it as he goes into other states.
5. He knows that socialism sells
Who would have expected that one can fool Delhites with free wi-fi and electricity, but Kejriwal did it. He will sell other dreams in the future as nothing sells more than freebies during elections.
6. Knows how to play the victim card
Without knowing how to play the victim card, point 5 cannot be used again and again. Right now he blames the Government of India for all problems in Delhi. He will find new enemies to blame as he rises in political stature.
7. Knows how to use people
Poor Anna must be feeling left out today as Kejriwal has grabbed all the headlines from him. The way he chewed and spit out Yadav and Bhushan will form a textbook example on how to dispose of political rivals after achieving your objectives.
8. Makes his followers feel special
A leader is no leader if he cannot summon a charged group of followers. Every comrade wants to think that he is important and essential to achieve the grand objective of the beloved leader. Kejriwal ensures to give proper chances to his storm-troopers to feel important — sometimes in the form of enforcing the odd-even transport rule or in delivering mob justice. Do you now understand why Aaptards act crazy?
9. Master at deflecting issues
What did the CBI think before raiding the office of the Chief Secretary of the Delhi Government? They did not expect that Kejriwal would throw muck on Jaitley by alleging a DDCA scam and deflect attention. He is good at shoot-and-scoot, which gives him enough time to gather his thoughts and mount a counter-attack. Just ask Jaitley how he feels about it!
10. Messiah image
He knows that Indians put the dhoti-wearing Gandhi on a pedestal and this is the image he tries to live by every day. He does not wear a dhoti, but the muffler and slipper give him the perfect Aam Aadmi look he wants to cash upon. Also he does not mind getting slapped every now and then to get some sympathy and donation. There is no doubt that Indians are gullible and will fall for these cheap tricks.
All the above qualities mean that Kejriwal is there in politics for the long haul. BJP and Congress might reject him as a fool but he knows very well what he is doing. This misunderstanding will cost them a lot in the future — but the worrying part is how much will India have to pay for electing him? Since he is openly unapologetic and used his followers to enforce odd-even law and other policing duties, it means he would not mind unleashing them in the future to deliver mob justice. Also, his complete silence on the pro-independence stance of his old comrade Prashant Bhushan on Kashmir can make any nationalist uncomfortable about his belief in upholding the territorial integrity of India.
Given that Lok Sabha elections were marked by fractured mandates in the last three decades before Modi’s election, it would not be a surprise if Kejriwal gets the PM position in next elections if AAP does reasonably well in a few northern states and cities. The right ecosystem in India should form a reasonable strategy to contain him now — else he can prove to be a real threat in the future. He called himself an Anarchist once and it will be a grave mistake to not take him on face value about it.
Originally published February 10, 2016 on Yuga Parivartan.
Contextual editorial illustration for the restored article.
Modi was chosen as the 14th Prime Minister of India with great aplomb and his elevation was finally seen as the return of a strong PM after ten years of weak-kneed Manmohan Singh in the PM’s chair. While it was common knowledge that MMS was driven by the kitchen cabinet of the National Advisory Council (NAC), it is far from clear who is running the current PMO. Is it the same strong-willed Narendra Bhai from Gujarat or just a faded copy of him? While there are some areas where Modi and his ministers are doing well and deserve rightful credit, there are a large number of issues which his government has not touched even with a bargepole. There are a host of secular issues like repeal of RTE, freeing temples from government control and illegal immigration of Bangladeshis where his government has shown absolute silence or disinterest. But what is more worrying is that now the government has also started playing to the gallery and trying to win over city-bred liberals, who were never his core supporters.
The TRAI ruling on Net Neutrality is the latest gaffe which can be added to the list of policy blunders under Modi’s watch. Once again, the Modi government caved in to pressure and tried to please the generation of urban activists — the same crowd who held monopoly over public policy under Congress. If the rural areas had been so happy with Congress top-down policy making, Modi would not have got the massive mandate that he got from the hinterland. In one blow, the minuscule population who have grown up on a regular Facebook feed decided that such low prices for consumers would be bad for poor people because their western masters said so — and forced their own government to do away with Free Basics. The last line of a screenshot circulating on social media gives away the superiority complex of the urban activists, who are more than happy to use all these services themselves but have a problem if they get extended to the poor, even for free. Sadly, they have found support from Modi to pursue these initiatives which in the long run will hurt the rural folks — simply because they could not register their voice through online activism.
But Net Neutrality is not the first issue where the Modi government has tried to woo the city-bred liberal crowd. The decision to induct women in combat duties in the IAF is another appeasement policy by the government. It has been a failed and controversial policy everywhere in the world, but the MoD justified this decision by citing trends in other developed countries. Since India has many other pressing issues, it is a big mystery why Modi agreed to pursue this issue when it hardly comes up for debate in India. Is it just another attempt to play to the liberal gallery by picking up some of their pet issues?
The solar energy initiative is another wasteful effort by the Modi government and can seriously jeopardize the energy security of the country by diverting investments away from serious and time-tested energy solutions. While most developed countries have failed to cash upon solar energy because it is expensive and inefficient, it is surprising why Modi is still pushing for it. While it would have been understandable if the private or public sector made R&D investments in solar energy, given the current technology it does not make sense to set up expensive solar plants when other cheaper options are available. So it would not be far-fetched to say that PM Modi is trying to court the environmentalists — yet another group of liberals who derive their inspiration from the west.
These are only three policy initiatives out of a big list of policy blunders which show that Modi is trying hard to win the sympathy of the liberals while ignoring his core support base. Sadly the issues raised in this article do not even cover the so-called Hindu issues like temple management — which are actually secular issues — where Modi has maintained complete silence. If Modi continues to go down this path of appeasing non-entities, it would be a great waste of the historic mandate that he got in the summer of 2014. Unlike Vajpayee, who ran a coalition government, Modi would not even have the excuse of blaming coalition partners for his mistakes. It is high time that he wakes up and stops taking the endorsement of his core supporters for granted.
Originally published February 9, 2016 on Yuga Parivartan.
Rajiv Malhotra’s new book, The Battle for Sanskrit, which is going to be launched soon is a great attempt at rescuing the discourse on Indology and Sanskrit from the clutches of western pay masters, who strictly guard the academic debate on interpretation of Sanskrit texts and have completely boxed out the traditional Indian schools. But while Rajiv Malhotra is busy in dismantling the western hold on Indology, an equally important question that one should ask is about the continued use of English as the national language of India.
The need for national language
What defines a culture, if not its own language. The reason that the national language formed the most controversial topic during Constitution debates, should itself explain the important role of language for national polity. Given the high passions that marked these debates, the constitution assembly agreed to use English for fifteen years and then switch to Hindi. But when the time came for this switch, Lal Bahadur Shastri buckled under the pressure from Southern states.
Given that language evokes raw passions even today and forms an important part of identity, the debate on national language is even more relevant. English cannot embody the ethos of Indic civilization and is fast eroding native cultures around the world and not just India. It would not be an exaggeration to state that if you lose your language, you lose your culture.
The new language policy
Before starting any debate about national language, one needs to ensure that the existing local languages are given their proper due and the national language is not forced upon people in a top-down fashion.
The current policy that is used in the country is Local language+English i.e. people start with learning their local language and use English for administration and business purpose. But given the difficulty people face to learn a foreign language, the number of people actively using English fluently is still less than 10% of Indian population.
Given that learning outcomes are best in local language, it would be good to stick with local language as the first choice in every region. The new language policy should aim towards (Two Indian languages)+English as the goal for future students. Among the two Indian languages, the first should be the local language and second should be a choice among other Indian languages.
Sanskrit as the national language
The one language which best captures the ethos of Indic civilization is Sanskrit. The battle for Sanskrit will reach its definite conclusion only by adoption of Sanskrit as the lingua franca of India and its rejuvenation on national level.
Apart from the accolades showered on Sanskrit by modern linguistics, Sanskrit forms the bedrock of all Indian languages. It is only Sanskrit which breaches the language divide between North-South India.
Giving primacy to one language and imposing it on other regions usually generates hatred and seems imperialistic. But since Sanskrit is not spoken anywhere in India, it resolves this issue by default because unlike Hindi, even north Indians will have to make an effort to learn Sanskrit.
What makes this plan for Sanskrit really difficult is the feasibility and implementation since there are few Sanskrit speakers today and everyone else would have to learn it from scratch. There would be a backlash from people who already use English as according to many of them it would be a wastage of effort and energy when everyone else is switching to English in the age of globalization. This argument makes sense from an efficiency point of view but is efficiency a good measure when it comes to preservation of culture and nationhood?
No amount of GDP growth can compensate for the loss of culture and treasure trove of wealth that is currently hidden from Indians due to lack of Sanskrit knowledge. Also, revival of Sanskrit is one of the best ways to keep local languages alive due to its overlap with other languages while simultaneously fulfilling the goal of adopting a national language other than English and finally breaking away from colonial legacy.
Contextual editorial illustration for the restored article.
The old debate has been reignited once again as an angry mob attacked a Tanzanian girl during their protest against a road accident. As is natural for Indian media honchos, the self-flagellation has already started and rims of papers have been wasted on explaining the racism among Indians. There are two big issues that need to be addressed head on in this context — over-hyped individual incidents, and buying the racism dictionary from the west. The first is a more pressing concern as the second will need changing the whole victimhood discourse copied by local coolies from their western masters.
So, let’s analyse the angle that MSM trumpets only negative stories about India. If you look at all the stories highlighted in the past, they were of very local nature and would have been brushed aside as stray incidents by any sensible media — Church attacks, Dadri and now this Tanzanian girl. All of these events were reprehensible but in no way a sign of collective malaise or failure and should have been reported sensibly without any stereotyping, as mentioned by Rupa Subramanya in her tweets:
“Need to accept we’re racists” bs is a convo few people have on social media & news TV. Avg Joe not involved. Navel gazing. Fix governance.
— Rupa Subramanya (@rupasubramanya), February 4, 2016
If you look at the current incident involving the Tanzanian girl, there was a policeman on the spot who decided to look at the incident as a helpless bystander rather than act. It is a failure of the state machinery but given that Karnataka is currently ruled by Congress, it is given a free pass. Instead the blame has been completely shifted to the whole Indian society rather than parading the inefficient Karnataka government — because that does not fit in the “Adarsh liberal” scheme to bash anyone other than the Modi-led government or the people who elected him. The identity of the mob has also been completely whitewashed by the media, but given that the accident victim was Shabana Taj, it is hardly any surprise for anyone to guess why MSM removed this fact from public attention.
While the event should have been used to build some pressure for changing the current state of law and order in India, the usual TV honchos have refused to notice the elephant in the room. The frequent interference of politicians has completely eroded the reputation as well as the functioning capability of the state police. But there is hardly any discussion on police reforms or the judiciary. Any attempts at serious reform will die down as quickly as they rose up and the prime time debate will go on throwing more muck on Indian society.
This brings us to the second and more important point about importing and super-imposing western concepts on India. Unlike the western imperialistic nations, India does not have a history of racism or slavery and there should be no guilt associated with it. For example, most Indians of the past and even the current generation have grown up facing the choicest of terms — kaala, patlu, motu (black, skinny, fat) etc. — and did not have any psychological breakdown. Rather than run away from their identity, Indians have learnt to not take them too seriously and grow out of it. Now Indians too have started to give too much importance to these western psychiatry concepts which has fuelled the victimhood narrative among western people and increased the number of depression patients. There is a perfect reason for Americans to feel guilty about calling their own blacks as niggers, but Indians do not have such past and there is no reason for them to associate themselves with this same guilt. Indians have known very well how to live in a diverse society and these imported terms that fuel victimhood narrative only vitiate the atmosphere and do not help in mutual respect and coexistence.
Although all Indians would love to have a white bride, given most brides in India are not white, this fetish for white colour is only apparent in the matrimonial and skin cream adverts and should not be blown out of proportion and equated with racism. Similarly the terms used for south, north or north-east Indians can be broken down easily and proved to be perfectly harmless. Sadly it is not true any longer as the politically correct crowd came and beat up everyone with their irrationality into submission. So next time you call your miser friend a “bania”, you have to be very careful.
But denial of racism in India also brings one directly in confrontation with people who will chant casteism at the top of their voice and equate it with racism. But even in the case of casteism there is no race involved — except in the mind of AIT proponents who think Aryans were a different race and constituted the current upper caste. There is discrimination there but it is not similar to racial discrimination as seen in the US. Indians need to take care of it, but should not use every incident to build fake victimhood as happened in the case of Rohit Vemula.
The way forward from here is to stop choosing the worst highlight of the day from stray incidents around India. It is a big country and has a much lower crime rate than the “so-called” developed countries of the world. Self-criticism is good but self-flagellation over non-issues does not help either. When the country should have been mourning the death of ten brave soldiers in Siachen, it is a shame that the top media houses decided to highlight this one incident for the whole day. Any other self-respecting country would have definitely chosen to give proper dues to its lost soldiers.
Originally published February 4, 2016 on Yuga Parivartan.
Editorial illustration for “Why India should not have a secular Army”.
One of the oft-repeated proud facts about the present Indian Armed Forces is that it is secular in nature and has no religious connotations associated with it. But is this a good thing? The question is — does religion and composition of army play any role in the defence of the nation? After all, religion is one of the strongest binding forces for any nation. From the North East to Kashmir, every state in India where Hindus are in a minority has an insurgency problem — a fact which cannot be brushed aside as a statistical anomaly. If not for the lack of geographical continuity with Pakistan and the role of Sardar Patel, Hyderabad would have definitely ended up with Pakistan due to the religion of its ruler.
The secular ayatollahs in India claim, without any sense of reason, that the Indian nation state is secular and hence the army of the nation — which is supposed to preserve and protect it — has to be secular as well. It should not discriminate on the basis of religion and allow Muslims among its ranks, even though our primary national threat is a Muslim majority Pakistan which positions itself as the caretaker of the Muslim world. But the question is — should the army continue with its secular hiring policy and appoint Muslims in high-ranking positions? To answer this question one has to look at the history of betrayals by Muslim soldiers when fighting against other Muslim armies, in cases where their own country was non-Muslim.
Evidence from Soviet-Afghan war
The Soviet Union is the best case study to look at Muslim behaviour, given it was the pinnacle of a secular and godless society — something India cannot ever hope to achieve. They monitored the mosques and used state-appointed bureaucrats to oversee the operation of all mosques in their country to ensure that Muslim kids raised in their schools got secular education and were taught to put Soviet interests over their own religion. However, despite their strong efforts, this secularization crumbled as soon as they entered the Soviet-Afghan war and got betrayed by a large number of Muslim soldiers.
At the start of the war, the Soviet high command bet heavily on its Muslim units of Central Asian origins and deployed them in Afghanistan to help their Afghan Communist allies — to ensure better coordination among the Soviet and Afghan soldiers in their fight against the Jihadis, given their language affinity. This was a huge miscalculation because desertions and betrayals from their Muslim units started as soon as the war broke out. The incompetence of these units was so high that the Soviet Union decided to pull them out just after three months into the war and replaced them with units formed by Slavic soldiers.
The threats posed by the Muslim soldiers were on different levels — some of them fraternised with the locals, while others were reluctant to fight and some outright showed open disloyalty and joined the ranks of the Jihadis. According to some estimates, the desertion rate was as high as 60–80% during the first year of the war. Since the Soviets had to replace all their Central Asian units with European units, it severely reduced the size of Soviet forces deployed in Afghanistan and left a long-lasting impact on the war. Although the Central Asian Muslim troops played a crucial role as interpreters on the field, post initial desertions they were only deployed in mixed units and formed a very small part of counter-insurgency operations. In hindsight one can say that the Soviets learnt their lessons the hard way.
Evidence from Medieval India
When the Islamic forces were running amok over entire India, the Vijayanagara Empire in the south held on to India’s Hindu roots. The Hindu kings of the empire were fair to all their subjects and did not discriminate on the basis of religion in their day-to-day activities — so much so that they even hired Muslim soldiers in their ranks. But they were in for a surprise and were betrayed at a crucial moment in the war with the Deccan Sultanate at the Battle of Talikota. The battle — which was going in favour of the Vijayanagara Empire — was lost when there was confusion in the middle of the Hindu army, as they got attacked from the back by their own Muslim commanders and soldiers.
Despite all these disadvantages, the greatest factor was the betrayal of the Vijayanagara Army by two Muslim commanders (Gilani Brothers). At the critical point of the war, Muslim officers in the Vijayanagara army launched a subversive attack. Suddenly Rama Raya found himself surprised when the two Muslim divisions in his ranks turned against him. The Muslim troops of the Vijayanagara army had opened a vigorous rear attack on the Hindus and captured several artillery positions. Several cannon shells landed near Rama Raya’s elephant and he fell from it as his mount was struck by a cannon shard.
These Muslim soldiers were all well decorated in the Vijayanagara army and were treated as equals — but that was not sufficient to stop them from betraying at the crucial moment. All that was needed to turn them against the kafir Hindu king was a call to safeguard Islam by their fellow Muslim army a day before the battle. The results of this war were far-reaching as the Muslim armies then marched and sacked the capital city of Hampi — which now lies in ruins — and set in motion the decline of the Vijayanagara Empire.
The same mistake of trusting Muslims was repeated by the Marathas and was one of the chief reasons for their loss at the Third Battle of Panipat. In the previous wars, Shuja-ud-Daula’s father was helped by the Marathas against his enemies and was supposedly one of their allies. However, when the Marathas needed his help against the invading Afghan army, Shuja-ud-Daula instead of helping the Marathas decided to backstab them and attacked their supply lines. This act of betrayal is also an interesting case study from the point of view of exploiting Shia-Sunni rivalry. Shuja-ud-Daula — a Shia — was often ridiculed and mocked by the Sunni Afghans and Rohillas for his un-Islamic beliefs, but he brushed aside these differences when the opportunity came to prove his loyalty to the Ummah and fight against the Kafir Marathas, despite constant goading from his mother who suggested he join the Marathas given the constant help they had given to his father.
Evidence from Indian National Army (INA)
The Hindu-Muslim riots form a crucial part of pre-partition history of British India. Since the political dispensation in post-independence India has belittled the role of the INA in the Indian independence movement, it ensured that people did not take a deep look at the INA’s shortcomings — especially the behaviour of its Muslim soldiers. To give some background, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose was a big Islamophile himself and went out of his way to make Muslims comfortable, often claiming that Hindus being in the majority should be magnanimous while dealing with Muslims. However, Muslims being what they are only saw this magnanimity as a sign of weakness.
Muslims formed a core part of the INA led by Netaji and were present in most of its units. A large number of them joined the INA because the Allies were fighting against Turkey, which was still seen as the remnant of the old Ottoman Caliphate. Since Netaji ignored this fact, he was in for a big surprise during the latter stages of the war when the INA experienced Muslim desertions and betrayals on a large scale. The event which triggered this desertion was the change in Turkey’s stand as it joined the war on the side of the Allies. While some of them deserted the INA, others went on to rejoin the British army.
Netaji tried to give geopolitical reasons behind the change in Turkey’s stand but failed to stop this desertion. Once again the Muslims proved that they preferred their pan-Islamic identity over national identity and chose to be slaves under the British — an ally of Turkey — rather than fight for their national independence. Not to forget the fact that the newly minted Pakistani army in 1948 made a good harvest from these former Muslim soldiers in the INA. This is in sharp contrast with the behaviour of Tamil Hindus of Malaysia — most of whom had not even seen India — but joined Netaji in his fight against the British army and remembered him as their hero till the end.
Present and Future
Even today, there are many examples of Indian Muslims in the army working as spies for Pakistan. Despite being only 2% of the Indian army, Muslims contribute a much larger number of spies that are caught working for the Pakistanis. This is because nationalism is almost identical with iconoclasm in Islam. This was the reason why Deobandis at the time of partition did not want partition of India — as there is no concept of nation state or nationalism in Islam, only allegiance to Islam and Allah. This is the reason that we hear in everyday news about Muslims opposing even secular slogans like Jai Hind, as Islam does not allow praise of any other entity other than Allah.
This is not to say that all Muslims serving currently in the armed forces are traitors. There are brave Muslim martyrs who have won the highest military honours like the Param Vir Chakra. However, those numbers are too small in the grand scheme of things. Is the benefit of having a few Param Vir Chakra-capable nationalist Muslims worth the risk of betrayal that comes from assuming Muslim trust — especially when the risk is so huge that we might lose parts of our country to the Islamic barbarians in the west? In modern days the war is decided by intelligence reports rather than slug matches, which makes unit integrity even more important.
In the wake of the Sachar Committee report, there has been a debate about changing the religious composition of the army and increasing Muslim representation. But given the long history of Muslim betrayal in the past, this policy change will be a big compromise on Indian security. Instead of trying to create artificial secularity and give pseudo-justifications based on a false sense of moral righteousness, India should be pragmatic and limit the number of Muslim soldiers in its ranks. To quote George Fernandes:
The Muslim is not wanted in the armed forces because he is always suspect — whether we want to admit it or not, most Indians consider Muslims a fifth column for Pakistan.
— George Fernandes
If India disregards history and fails to learn from the experiments of Vijayanagara and the Marathas, it will soon join them as an entity in the history books of tomorrow and museums.
References:
Subhas Chandra Bose – Another Look Part 1: “The Seeds of Islamophile Secularism”
Christian Bleuer, Soviet Muslim Soldiers in Afghanistan
Contextual editorial illustration for the restored article.
The below video is a perfect example of Dhimmitude exhibited by the Hindus. Mohan Bhagwat was speaking at an event when a student posed him a question linking poverty and Ram Mandir.
[Embedded video: Mohan Bhagwat responds to student question on Ram Mandir and poverty] — restored contextual visual.
Random kid: Does making “Ram Mandir” ensure food for the poor? (Kya Ram Mandir banane se garib ki thali mein roti aayegi?)
Mohan Bhagwat: Ram Mandir has not been made yet — did it ensure food for the poor? (Kya ab tak nahi bani, to garib ki thali mein roti aa gayi?)
The above question had the spirit similar to The Economist’s cartoon when India launched the Mars Orbiter Mission two years ago. Then the theme was that India is so poor that it should not pursue space activities. Now the same logic is applied to building the Ram Temple.
Mohan Bhagwat explained it well in the last few seconds of the above video — that Ram is a cultural icon of India and his temple is just one way of remembering him and honouring our past. The Hindus need to stop chanting “Sarv Dharam Sambhav” in every situation and need serious lessons in nationality and religion to be able to answer such pointless questions.
There is an important story from Hitopadesh, where one of the characters reciting the “Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam” shloka is shown to be a brotherhood-preaching shrewd subversionist. It gives a clear warning against blindly welcoming any idea, individual or group without due diligence of studying their history, nature and intent. The story is about Subuddhi the Crow, Chitranga the Deer, and Ksudrabuddhi the Jackal. The moral of the story is that one should not blindly fall for calls of universal brotherhood.
A variant of the story from the Mahabharata is even depicted in Mahabalipuram, sculpted under the Pallavas, with an ascetic cat mimicking Arjuna’s devout pose.
While Babri Masjid is just another mosque for Muslims, the significance of Ayodhya for Hindus is very different — it being the birthplace of Ram. The only reason that this issue has dragged on forever is probably due to the Dhimmitude shown by Hindus and the iconoclasm of Muslims. While Muslim iconoclasm has been bolstered by various laws passed by the Indian state since independence, the Dhimmitude of the Hindus is the plain and simple result of too many “Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam” style shlokas that are often repeated in popular parlance. It is high time that Hindus teach their kids some solid worldly lessons from Panchatantra and Hitopadesha!
Originally published January 29, 2016 on Yuga Parivartan.