LETTERS

Ever since the rst issue in 1966, EPW has been Indias premier journal for comment on current affairs and research in the social sciences. It succeeded Economic Weekly (1949-1965), which was launched and shepherded by Sachin Chaudhuri, who was also the founder-editor of EPW. As editor for thirty-ve years (1969-2004) K rishna R aj gave EPW the reputation it now enjoys.

Unorthodox Elite Secularism

his is with reference to Kumkum Roys paper (Issues of Faith, EPW, 11 December) on the Ayodhya verdict of the Allahabad High Court. If Roys account of faith is a viewpoint from the faithful, I do not have difculties in accepting her thesis. But if Roys account of faith is a viewpoint from secularism, which is what she claims in the end of her paper, I do have a major difculty with her thesis. Roys thesis upholds all forms of faith among Hindus except the temple form of worship, especially the idea of a Ram temple. First, she argues that the court verdict has narrowly interpreted the diversities of faith in Hinduism by valorising the idea of incarnation of god in a specied site and more particularly the idea of Ram. Nowhere does she offer evidence to prove that the court verdict does deny diversities of faith in Hinduism. The court verdict is generally bound by claims and counterclaims. In the present case, the dispute is between a specic mandir and masjid. So the court has adjudicated on that aspect of faith which appeared before it in dispute. It does not follow from there to show that the said verdict has denied all other aspects of faith among Hindus which may have relevance for secularism. Second, I have a major dispute with her thesis from the point of view of secularism. She disengages from the usual claims made for a temple form of worship inherent in the idea of a birthplace of Ram. She is noncommital on this issue as she juxtaposes idol worship with two other forms of faith such as some Hindus may not believe in Ram and some may believe in Ram residing in their hearts but not in a particular birthplace. Some of her case studies illustrate her claims. Against her thesis, I would like to argue that secularism is supposed to evolve a framework that recognises, respects and protects diversities of faith among Hindus, including the temple form of worship. It is not the business of secularism to identify with Narayan Guru, the temple builder, or with Gandhis faith in Ram staying in ones heart or with Nehrus atheism. Thus, any political, legal and ideological privileging of these forms of faith may lead to the erosion of secularism. On the

editor

C Rammanohar Reddy
Deputy Editor

Bernard DMello
web Editor

subhash rai
Senior Assistant Editors

Lina Mathias aniket Alam Srinivasan ramani ashima sood Bharati Bhargava
Editorial Staff

Prabha Pillai jyoti shetty

Editorial Assistants

P S Leela Tanya Sethi

Editorial Consultant

Gautam Navlakha
production

u raghunathan s lesline corera suneethi nair

Circulation

Gauraang Pradhan Manager B S Sharma

Advertisement Manager

Kamal G Fanibanda
General Manager & Publisher

K Vijayakumar
editorial
edit@epw.in

Circulation
circulation@epw.in

Advertising
advt@epw.in

Economic and Political Weekly

320-321, A to Z Industrial Estate Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai 400 013 Phone: (022) 4063 8282 FAX: (022) 2493 4515

EPW Research Foundation

EPW Research Foundation, established in 1993, conducts research on nancial and macro-economic issues in India.

contrary, secularism in India must respect these diverse or syncretic faiths of the popular and the philosopher from among Hindus as well as non-Hindus. Kumkum Roy does avoid the usual binary opposition to faith which is a central feature of orthodox elite secularism, but that is not enough. Thus, her thesis falls within the rubric of what may be called unorthodox elite secularism, for it fails to recognise a temple form of worship with reincarnation of god or goddess in a specic site which is the most popular form of worship among Hindus. By challenging these popular forms of faith of ordinary Hindus, secularism can only create the seeds of its own destruction. Only by recognising and respecting popular Hinduism is it possible to negotiate with the sites of temples for relocation, if the need arises, and rebuild secularism. Third, she cites from justice S U Khans verdict but does not refer to its epilogue where he reminds both Hindus and Muslims to settle this Ayodhya dispute through a moral order of sacrice or tyag. The world since 1992 has moved faster than before. Therefore, there are implicit lessons for both communities in his judgment. One of them is that the present cannot be compressed by harking back to the events of 1949 or 1992, as it amounts to a denial of history in the present tense. This dispute thus should be seen as more than a land title dispute, as the language of hate/terror has expanded phenomenally since 1992. Thus the present history has been altered since 1992, in view of which a model of reconciliation has acquired a certain urgency. Can our secular intellectuals and politicians learn anything from justice Khans verdict to develop a model of reconciliation, instead of waiting passively for another verdict from the apex court?
Arun K Patnaik
Hyderabad

Director

k kanagasabapathy
C 212, Akurli Industrial Estate Kandivali (East), Mumbai 400 101 Phones: (022) 2887 3038/41 Fax: (022) 2887 3038 epwrf@vsnl.com
Printed by K Vijayakumar at Modern Arts and Industries, 151, A-Z Industrial Estate, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 and published by him on behalf of Sameeksha Trust from 320-321, A-Z Industrial Estate, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013. Editor: C Rammanohar Reddy.

Yojana Bhavan and Public Reasoning

he Planning Commission has recently sought the engagement of civil society in drafting the Twelfth Plan, asking them to identify the challenges and areas that require special focus, so that the Plan
vol xlv no 52
EPW Economic & Political Weekly

december 25, 2010

LETTERS

document is more holistic in nature and could help in yielding the desired results. It is apt to recall that the Planning Commission has been doing this for several decades now. Extraordinarily well organised, both regional as well as special, specic consultations with civil society have been held in the preparation of every one of the last Five or Six Plans. However, the experience has revealed that these consultations and especially the hard work put in by the NGOs, civil society groups with such optimism are of no avail in how the nal document and the proposals emerge. There are many reasons for this mismatch. In most cases the rst drafts of the sectoral chapters of every Plan are prepared by the concerned ministries and provide the basis for the Plan. These are embedded approaches, for example, the ministry of women and child welfare brings up almost with the regularity of a pump its ongoing programmes and goals, and adds or modies some of it. It does not necessarily take on the macroeconomic framework within which a large majority of women are grinding out their lives or the related sectors like health or education links. A second and signicant constraint is the fact that in the context of the post-reform macroeconomic policy framework and allocations, where private players and international agreements, apart from the states, have a major role to play in policy as well as investment choices, preparing a detailed Plan with allocations and suggestions is like whistling in the dark. Drawing up a ve-year plan at the centre, as was recognised even as we went into the Eighth Plan can only be indicative and not what it was earlier. The critical point is that the macroeconomic framework of planning has to change for it to become what is called holistic, what the policymakers call inclusive. The players and their power have changed over the last two decades. This understanding needs to be brought into public debate as a huge structure such as the Planning Commission with sectoral experts churning out informed chapters and informed papers, is wasteful. Yojana Bhavan has not been and cannot be the vehicle to deliver inclusive growth. The players of the Indian economy are outside the Yojana Bhavan. On the other hand, Yojana Bhavan can transform itself to becoming a centre for
Economic & Political Weekly EPW

knowledge and have public discourse and public debates, engage in what Amartya Sen in his book, The Idea of Justice calls public reasoning. Open minded engagement in public reasoning is quite central to the pursuit of justice, he says. Yojana Bhavan can draw attention to the aspirations of the marginalised groups, further draw their arguments, their facts, their struggles, and achievements into public consciousness through interface conferences. They could use the Constitution as a touchstone in ghting for the rights and ideas of the excluded. In other words it can bring in a just political economy rather than draft chapters and print reports which often cannot be negotiated as we are nding with most ministries and state governments.
Devaki Jain
New Delhi

Noor Mohammed Bhatt

he Peoples Union for Democratic Rights expresses its concern at the arrest of Noor Mohammed Bhatt, lecturer of English at Gandhi Memorial College, by the J&K police on 9 December 2010 under S 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and S 153 of RPC for setting an examination question paper considered as being antinational and anti-establishment. The examination paper for students of BSc was set in August and was one of the three question papers set by Noor Mohammed from which this particular set of questions was selected. The question which raised the ire of the authorities was Are stonepelters real heroes? and the translation of a paragraph which dealt with what was happening on the ground in Kashmir Valley, which in ve months claimed the lives of 112 persons. To read incitement and abetment of unlawful activities in such a question reveals a mindset of paranoia among authorities. The mere posing of such questions, which pedagogically was a creative way of getting students to test their skill and apply themselves to write coherently in essay writing and translation in English, is a blatant attack on the freedom of expression and academic freedom which encourage students to think critically. But what is most alarming is the propensity of the authorities, and especially the J&K police, to censor, curb and silence critical thinking in the name of national interest. In a state which in the past has seen agitation against a power hike, meat price hike, non-payment of wages and justice for victims of state violence all characterised as anti-national, this arrest should come as no surprise. What is signicant is the fact that this incident reveals the desperate level to which the authorities stoop in order to not only manage and control peoples lives but also their thought processes. In this sense, every person and aspect of life in J&K is a matter of politics not just any politics, but politics born out of a policy of military suppression and what Indian authorities call perception management. Equipping people to question this, or posing a question about it, can invite retribution.
Moushumi Basu, Asish Gupta Secretaries, PUDR
Delhi

Factual Errors

his refers to G P Deshpandes review of The Hindus: An Alternative History by Wendy Doniger (EPW, 4 December 2010). There are many aspects that the reviewer could have handled but he has conned himself mainly to the literary issues. Whatever be ones opinion of Wendy Donigers voluminous work, there are a few factual errors, generalisations, and omissions which none may ignore. To give one example, she says (pp 537-38), In 1708, Govind Singh was assassinated while attending the emperor Aurangzeb. It is a known fact that Aurangzeb died on 3 March 1707; then how could the Sikh guru who died on 7 October 1708 attend upon him after his death? How could again the event spur Sikhs, Maharashtrians(sic) and Rajputs to outright deance, as she says. Another example: she mentions (pp 610, 616) that Rammohan Roy founded the Brahmo Samaj (Society of God) in 1828. In fact, what he had founded on 20 August 1828 was the Brahmo Sabha which in its rechristened version became Brahmo Samaj on 23 January 1830. There are a number of other misstatements, generalisations, wrong inferences, and points of omission which mar the value of this work.

Satish K Kapoor
Jallandhar
vol xlv no 52

december 25, 2010