Convent culture

“Wanted fair, slim, beautiful Convent-educated Brahmin girl for tall, handsome Kaushik boy”

Convent schools are known for discipline and a ‘premium’ standard of education. So while their stereotyping about Christian missionaries remains well-preserved, parents are obliged to send their daughters into ‘safe’ convent hands. Fourteen years in the close-lid pan and their little angels will become ‘perfect young ladies’, they hope.

A typical convent-educated girl (young lady in convent vocabulary) is expected to be smart-looking(a ‘well-fitting’ dress or a skirt with a perfect hairdo and dainty nails), well-mannered(mannerism from around the world, exception: India) and has a good command over her language(an imported accent in English). Ironically, the convent curriculum lists out two goals- reaffirming faith in god and good, and producing a mature and fully-integrated personality. A lot of emphasis is placed on simplicity and modesty. Strict discipline ensured knee-length skirt, no fancy earrings, no nail paint, a simple hairstyle and a refined language. Following these standards, the ultimate product should have been of a humble-looking woman, an angel not a princess! So what goes wrong then?

It was an English-medium school and so speaking in Hindi was a punishable offence. Infact, even during recess, sisters were on the prowl to ensure that we were speaking in English. Once a sister had become so fed-up that she had asked us to suggest a way out! Ironically or not, English was an off-campus thing. The moment we stepped out of the campus, we started speaking in English! And the English was nowhere near what we call hinglish. Infact, even when we spoke in Hindi (school premises), we avoided words which sounded ‘weird’. It was also ‘cool’ if your Hindi was not that great! Convent schools are also supposed to have their own set of pronunciations (oxford standard, they say!). At home, I was never corrected on pronunciations. But I always made a point to tell them the ‘right’ one! Even in abusing, there was a divide. Hindi abuses were considered cheaper than their English equivalents! Coming to mannerism and culture, I remember a girl from south who used to have food with her hands. She was condemned for this. It was considered ‘rural’ (this has its own share of stereotypes!). Just few days back, I learnt that this practice of eating with hands is actually pan-Indian! It is disillusioning as we were alienated from our own culture. Eating with forks was not a part of our curriculum but we had all learnt it. Now comes the aspect of regionalism, people were not very keen to give the whereabouts of their village (incase, they admitted they have any!). It is a fact that Delhi hardly has ‘natives’ left. A large population hails from UP but the ancestry was hardly ever transcended beyond Meerut! The ‘rural-urban’ stereotyping was very prevalent. All this was not a part of the convent curriculum. This was never encouraged ‘directly’. But this level of elitism is a product of this.

Now comes the fundamental aspect- the gender-specific approach. Here there are two contrasting processes working simultaneously. Convent schools emphasis on ‘simplicity of women’. Women should be elegant. She should be dressed in a simple yet elegant manner(most convent schools still have skirts). Her speech should be polite. She should not shout or talk in a loud voice. This is considered non-feminine or masculine. She should be soft-spoken(society-approved standard). She should always conduct herself in a ‘lady-like’ manner. So on one hand, they oppose ‘objectification of women’ but support feminine standards on the other. A line on the way the other gender was presented may also be useful. A teacher had introduced the other gender by striking a similarity between them and honeybees! Developing crushes deserved capital punishment. There was a student whose parents were called when the teacher had found a love-letter in her bag! If your marks were low, one of the questions that you could be asked on PTMs was, ”do you have a boyfriend?”! Afterall, Good girls do not have boyfriends. The underlying principle here is to have women venture out but within the ‘limits’.

School Life is very important in the respect that it prepares us for the society. Convent schools enjoy a high reputation as it reflects the ideal nature of our society. Hierarchy is what sets this society. Elitism and gender-specific approach is the ideal way. Convent schools have their origin in British Raj. In the Indian context, there is western romanticism. This furthers the elitist approach in language and culture. The reason for the difference between ‘before 1’(during school premises) and ‘after 1’ (after school premises) convent girl is that the society accepts stereotypical girls. Convent school tries to ‘liberate’ them but since they have some demands to meet, they are helpless.

Save the girl child...kill dowry

“Hamari existence se itni problem hai toh, bandhu yeh batao ki tum kaha se aaye?”

This was written on one of the boards in the college corridor and everytime i passed through, this struck me. I remember the “save the girl child” march hosted by our school. We were supposed to parade on the road holding placards and shouting slogans. Kalpana chawla and Indira Gandhi appeared on every third placard. This was followed by an essay writing competition. The similarity here and there was that in both cases, we focussed on why the girl child should be saved. The question of ‘why they are killed’ remained unasked and hence, unanswered.

However much illiterate a person might be, he/she knows that women have been granted with the gifting of life. So if we kill women then climatic change and natural calamities won’t be needed to wipe off our race. So raising the issue of ‘their existence for ours’ is illogical. Next we talk about the potentials of a woman. We talk about equality of sexes and give examples of successful women. So their potential is not the issue. How they become successful and who ultimately reaps the benefits is the issue.

Women are raised to be ‘parayadhan’. She is considered to be ‘someone’s amaanat(property)’. Marriage is considered to be the ‘biggest day in her life’. Throughout her upbringing, she is ‘prepared’ for the journey to the ultimate destination- her husband’s place. The playing with dolls serves as the first institute of this concept of burden. The play revolved around the institution of marriage. While in the rural framework, this is more direct as in the gudda-guddi khel where ultimately the gudda and guddi gets married, in the urban space, Barbies teach them the ‘ideal’ way for a woman. Once the ideology is set, the practical part comes. They are encouraged to learn house-hold work and taught how to walk and talk. They and everyone is mentally prepared to accept the ‘fact’ that one day she has to go. So the moment a girl turns 24, the whole world starts worrying about her. It is as if she has some kind of validity! But this is just the beginning. The ‘burden’ has to be set off through a grand ceremony. For the transaction, the ‘product’ draped in a saree, walks in slowly, with trembling hands under a tray of food. Then from ‘kahan tak padhi ho’ to ‘kuch gaake sunao’, all the features of the ‘product’ is clearly mentioned. Then comes the rate at which the burden has to be set off. In legal terms, this is called dowry but personally, this is referred to as ‘riwaaj(z)’. It consists of petty gifts like some dozen silk sarees, one Honda city, bed, TV, AC, and maybe a ‘negligible’ amount of money. They say ‘Shaadi toh janmo-janmo ka rishta hai’ and there is no doubt about this. People take loans to marry off their daughters. The sum is so huge that it takes ages to repay it! So the bride, when she finally goes, drags along the family’s treasury. After all, Marriages are a way to show how much you ‘love’ your daughter. Marriage is not just the union of the boy and the girl but of two families. This is true and so the bond has to be renewed every now and then via precious gifts. So no doubt that brides are considered to be ‘Ghar ki Lakshmi’! And then there is the belief among the bride’s family that ‘beti ke ghar ka paani bhi nai peena chahiye’, even though beti ke ghar ka pani comes from her family’s pockets! And how much of a home is her husband’s place for a woman is another issue.

So the society has made women the burden for her parents. She is a huge financial constraint for them. First her education and then her marriage. Parents prefer investing more for their son’s education because they assume that the money will come back to them. Their son will not go anywhere. He will take care of his parents. But the daughter has to leave. And women have the ‘option’ of being a house-wife. Even if a woman becomes something, the benefits will be reaped by her husband and in-laws. The parents who raised her, did so much for her will get nothing in return. Infact her marriage will only worsen their financial condition. It is easy to say that it is the duty of the parents to raise the parayadhan only if you are financially strong. But what about a poor farmer who cannot even afford three meals a day? So if you save the girl child, then who will save her family later? So the issue is not to save the girl child but to kill such traditions.

The very basic assumption is that the girl has to go to her husband’s place. This is seen as a ‘universal fact’. But no one knows who set this as a fact and why. Why it is that only a woman should leave her parents and go. Why is she so portable...Doesn’t she have any attachments? This is also ironical because women are said to be ‘emotional fools’. There are parents who only have daughters or who have sons who are as good as daughters (leaving their parents). So if they all go, then who will take care of the parents? Calling them up every night is not the solution to anything. There is a concept of gharjamai but it is not widespread. The reason is that it is not respectable as this concept alters the ‘natural’ set of orders. Who sets these orders is again a question. Combining both the families is another feasible solution if the invisible hands of the society are ignored. Let ‘Marriage is the union of two families’ be literal. A part of the income of the girl can be given to her parents even after her marriage. This can help them economically. This is the least that she can do to pay some kind of gratitude to them. The marriage should not be a big affair. We have to realise that marriages are arranged in heaven, not done there! Where is the need to make it such a lavish and unforgettable (the loans) affair? And why is that only the bride’s side has to arrange everything? Pinky weds bunty and Bunty weds Pinky. So both should pay. Similarly, the rivaaj(z)s of petty gifts also has to change. But all this can happen only if we stop treating women as ‘goods to be delivered’. The society will change...but only if u do! Don’t save the girl child, kill the murderers- kill dowry!

Who is a feminist?

I asked my aunt if she is a feminist. She surveyed me for few seconds and said, “Feminist? I mean, there are differences between men and women. “When i posed the same question to a male friend he said, “How can i be a feminist? I am a MAN.” A famous Bollywood actress refused to be a feminist because she says, “I don’t hate men”. Half of the times, people do not know who a feminist is. Some end up summarizing feminists as ‘non-feminine’ women. Others view feminists as frustrated females who have no clue about what they are suggesting. There are even a few who even dare to confuse feminists with ‘feminine’ women. I know people who prefer to be called ‘women activists’ than ‘feminists’.

The word ‘Feminist’ means someone who demands equal rights for women. However, a new definition suggests a feminist to mean a woman rebel who wants to live like a man, altering the order of the nature. They believe in utopian idealism of equality of the sexes. The web of stereotypes which was the main target of the feminists has caught the feminists as well. A typical feminist is supposed to be an ugly-looking female with short hair, hairy legs. She is supposed to be a bra-burner. She has to hate men. Feminists were sometimes mistaken to mean lesbians. They are supposed to behave like men. So even when a feminist is actually trying to break free, she/he is only creating new boundaries.

A feminist is anyone who considers women as human beings. Contrary to the popular belief, one does not have be born a female to become a feminist. Feminists do not discriminate against the opposite sexes. A feminist is anyone who thinks that women have the right to decide for themselves. There is a difference between nature and culture. Women give birth. This is nature. Women have to take care of the kids alone. This is culture. Other than the fact that women can procreate, all other stereotypes are debatable. But society has made them appear as ‘facts’. Feminists target these assumptions. Every stereotype has an underlying cultural theory. ‘Girls like dolls and boys like cars’- This can be explained. Feminists are only appealing to the society to treat men and women as human beings, to respect their individuality. But feminism is being seen as a force destroying the family, the society.

Feminism is degraded because it is seen as a movement for the women and ‘by the women’. Women have been suppressed for centuries. Whenever they tried to raise their voices or break free, they have been silenced, either by force or through ideologies. Prostitutes who are financially independent met this fate. So the degradation of this ideology should not come as a surprise. Women’s chains have been forged by the society, not by the anatomy.

I have found that men are far more willing to discuss feminism than women themselves. The reason being that women have grown up believing that the society has different roles for men and women and that women have certain limitations. They have a gendered upbringing. A girl infant is given pink or light-coloured clothes. She is given a doll and she grows up to imitate that doll. Girls are home birds because they do not enjoy the same amount of freedom to go out as their brothers do. The restriction of movement is matched with the restriction of their thinking. So later when some ‘rebel’ tries to talk it out, their little world is threatened.

A very common perception about feminism is that it means equality with men. This perception challenges the very essence of feminism as even for equality, the parameters are male ones! Feminists challenge the institution of femininity but that does not mean it wants to adopt masculinity. There is a difference between femaleness and femininity. It is similar to the difference between nature and culture. Girls have to dress, talk and behave in a certain manner. This is femininity. Feminism does not say that women should not wear skirts or apply make-up. She has the right to do what she wants to. But feminism steps in when this becomes a social stigma. The symbols of femininity are also based on underlying principles. So women should know about this. Inspite of it, if she wants to, she has the right to. Some assume that feminists are against household work. Feminists do not discriminate against any kind of work but when people talk about ‘natural instincts’ then it becomes a duty to retaliate because they do not undermine the capability of the other sexes. Males can cook and sweep the floor with equal efficiency.

As for the other stereotypes about feminists, it should be notes that feminists do not constitute new specie. Men may be for Mars and women from Venus. But Feminists are on earth. At the end of the day, feminists are individuals. Whether they wear a bra or not, they shave or wax, it is the individual who will decide that. Feminism comprises of many schools of thought. So the ideas may not be uniform but the pillars for equal rights and the right to decide for themselves stands firmly. So if you support humanism, individualism..then why not support feminism?

You know you are patriotic when...

*You think Hindi should be our sole national language- There are eighteen official languages and thousands of minor languages. The states are formed on linguistic bases. Hindi is spoken in mainly two parts of the country- North and West India. South India is completely opposed to the use of Hindi. Political parties like DMK and AIDMK are famous for their anti-hindi campaigns. South Indians argue that Hindi is foreign to their culture. Hindi(not Sanskrit) was never a part of their history. Similarly, the North-East has nothing to do with Hindi. Their languages are tibeto-burmese languages. Inspite of this condition, Hindi is to be the language of the Indians. Hindi is expected to bridge the gap even though English is more-suited for the purpose. The problem with English is that people think it is ‘foreign’ to ‘Indian’ culture. Sanskrit belongs to the Indo-European linguistic family. The other languages are all European(except Persian). So how is Sanskrit indigenous?? Sanskrit is the mother of many Indian languages. How does a language become ‘Indian’? When people speak a language, it becomes their medium of communication. So When Indians speak any language of anywhere, it becomes their language. English has been spoken for a couple of centuries now and it is as Indian as any other Indian language. This Hindi concept is a political construct. Hindi is used for supremacy. It is being used in the battles of regionalism and communalism. Hindi may be the language of majority but India is also proud to call itself a subcontinent. Therefore, Hindi should not be imposed on any grounds. Hindi is just another Indian language. It should be our official language besides English. But giving it the honour of the national language does not make much sense. It is as important as any other Indian language. The majority and minority concepts should not play a role in a diverse country like India.

*You think Kashmir belongs to ‘us’- The first thing that comes to our mind when we think of Kashmir is its scenic beauty. The second thing is Terrorism. What is the third thing? Nothing. We care about Kashmir only because we have an issue over it with Pakistan. Kashmir makes us very patriotic. But do we know that Kashmir is not just a landscape but the land of kashmiris. The situation of Kashmir is nowhere near normality. In Kashmir, Internal terrorism- secessionism is far more dominant than external terrorism. Part of the secessionist group wants Kashmir to join Pakistan and the other part wants it to become independent. What is our reaction to this? We feel these secessionists are terrorists. But are they? These terrorists are people who rightfully possess the right to decide their own fate. India has never been fair to Kashmir. The outcome is the secessionist feelings. Who are we- the non-Kashmiris to decide for them?

*You support the war with Pakistan- What is war? It is a dispute between the political leaders. The repercussions of which are faced by common people. What has war given us? Wounds which take centuries to heal. Saying ‘Pakistan’ is like initiating a rapid-fire of abuses. Indians believe that Pakistan is the bed of terrorism. Pakistan hates India but India is a very peaceful country. Is violence the sole parameter for Peace? India is no less. The fact that we hardly know of any Indian attacks to Pakistan is the part of the untold story. The views that people have about Pakistanis are far more deadly than nuclear weapons. It is our thoughts that lead us to action. In no way can one justify terrorism. But the roots of the terrorism are these thoughts. The views of the few are used by us to generalise the country. Pakistan and India share a cultural affinity. The need of the hour is to respect each other as different countries. No one denies the fact that recent terrorist activity was organised by some Pakistanis. The Pakistan Government should take action. To start with, they should atleast accept this fact. But war is no solution. It is the Pakistani Government who is to be blamed. Not every Pakistani deserves our views. People of evil thinking are present in both countries equally.

*You dismiss certain concepts as ‘western’- To start with, this whole idea of ‘east’ and ‘west’ or orient and oxidant is itself ‘European’ or ‘western’. In India, ‘west’ is usually synonymous with something very world-changing. It is seen as destroying our society, our Indian values. But the fact that we permit these ‘western’ values shows that we are becoming open or rational. Jeans must have been a destroyer of the ‘Indian’ culture in its time. But today, it is a necessity of our Indian wardrobes. Jeans for women is still seen as the destroyer of ‘Indian culture’. But for women, it is a symbol of liberation. Issues of sex, homosexuality and prostitution have come to surface in Indian society. Many dismiss these as ‘western’. This ofcourse shows their ignorance of their own ‘Indian’ culture. But more importantly it highlights their fear of opening up of the society. ‘Western’ concepts are emphasising on personal liberties. This is what is considered as being against the ‘Indian’ culture.

Being Patriotic in India is proving to mean stagnancy in thought. The concept of patriotism is being embedded in the forces of regionalism, communalism and Casteism. We are being blinded by the society. We are able to see the invisible boundaries because we have been made inhuman. Patriotism means love for your country. But in our case, it means hatred for the other countries. This is not patriotism. India makes us proud. We are proud of just one thing and that is our diversity. So we should preserve and not suppress this diversity. India is a democracy. Alternative voices makes up this democracy. India is known for its patriotism. The Freedom struggle is not over. India is of the Indian people and whenever their voice will get suppressed, they will retaliate. Being a true Indian, it is our duty to provide them with the platform because this is the true spirit of patriotism.

Scraping the E-scrap

We live in the Electronic Era. Our lives consist of wires and rays. Computers have revolutionalised the way we think, work and live. Everything is just a click away. In the light of economic development, users and usage of computers is increasing. Life without TV or computer seems a nightmare. But this nightmare may become a reality if we continue ignoring our Environment. Economic Development and Environment Conservation does not go hand in hand. Environment is seen as a hurdle for achieving economic success and so is often ignored. It’s only when the situation becomes out-of-control that the poor Environment gets some light. The e-scrap or e-waste of our e-world is not environment-friendly.
E-scrap refers to the discarded old and broken electronic devices. They are non bio-degradable. When they are not disposed properly, they harm the Environment as they contain toxic substances such as lead, cadmium, nickel, antimony etc.
E-scrap is imported to India illegally as the other countries don’t want to take the risk involved in recycling it. After China banned the import of e-scrap, India has emerged to be the World’s e-scrap dumping ground. In India, e-scrap is not handled properly. They are treated in informal and unorganised scrap yards. The workers are not trained. They don’t wear any mask and so are exposed to dangerous chemicals. It has adverse effects on their health. Nickel leads to skin damages and asthma. Antimony leads to heart and fertility problems. Breathing high levels of cadmium can lead to severe lung damages and can cause death. Lead affects the nervous system. They try to retrieve metals from the equipments. They burn these equipments which then release dangerous gases into the atmosphere. Land filling is another way of disposal. It’s not safe either. Chemicals present in e- scrap like, mercury, lead, cadmium or plastics are dumped on the ground. These chemicals then pollute soil and underground water. Landfills are generally unorganized. E-scrap is often dumped in open grounds.
E-scrap management is under the informal sector. But in recent years, Government has tried to improve things. It has instituted a number of regulations for management of e-scrap but they have been ineffective. There is only one Government-run e-scrap Recycling System in India. Fortunately, some private companies are taking charge of managing the e-scrap. Manufacturers like Wipro, HCL, Nokia, Acer, and Motorola have initiated recycling of their products. Wipro has 17 collection centres, HCL has 500 and Nokia has 1,300 collection bins.
But e-scrap recycling in a proper manner is still meagre. The main sector handling it remains the ignorant scrap-dealers who have no technology to handle e-scrap. The Government should enforce a law that makes it compulsory for the manufacturers of the Electronic goods to take responsibility for their recycle. A Government official should visit scrap yards to make sure the working conditions are proper and that the workers are wearing masks. We, as individuals, can do our part by handing our e-scrap to authorised recycling systems. Dell is one company which can recycle e-scrap without charging any fee. Get the electronic device repaired if possible. Try not to dispose it. We can also donate it to someone who needs it. She/he can get it repaired. We should make efforts or one day we’ll suffocate in our own scrap.

Hindustan or Hindusthan?

India is proud to call itself a subcontinent. It is a land of diverse religions , languages and cultures. The Constitution of India hoped to preserve this uniqueness. India was declared a Socialist Secular Democratic Republic. Everyone is free to profess and promote the religion of their choice. However, in recent decades Politics have become a-constitutional. It has become religious. Bharatiya Janata Party(BJP) , a Hindu Nationalist Party has emerged to be the strongest opposition against Congress. Its formative policy , Hindutva , is a-secular in nature. The base of communalism , however , was set up in pre-independence era.

The British policy of ‘divide and rule’ is well-known. The formation of Muslim League and the separate electorates were products of this policy. History as a discipline emerged in the British era. The Aryan theory was of prime importance for both Indians and Europeans. Sanskrit was classified in the Indo-European linguistic family. For a period of time it was believed that Aryans spread from India. However , it was soon refuted. The superiority of Aryans had suited Indian sensibilities. It was in this background that V.D. Savarkar propagated his theory of Hindutva . It rested on two pillars , one of ‘land of birth’ and the other of ‘land of worship’ or birthplace of religion. He defined hindu as anyone who considered this Bharatbhoomi as his fatherland. He gave the concept of Hindusthan or Hindu Rashtra. He remarked, “In Hindusthan , hindus are a nation. The rest are communities , numerically minorities”. Herein the roots of the famous two-nation theory can be found. Dr. Hedgewar founded the Rashriya Swamasewak Sangh(RSS) with the goal of promoting Hindutva or hinduness. Archaeological , literary and genetic evidence now claim Aryans to be immigrants from Iran but as this theory is not compatible with Hindutva , Hindutva propagators refute this with baseless theories. Muslim Fascism did not lag behind. The Muslim League’s two-nation theory comprising Hindusthan and Pakistan is famous. Both Hindu and Muslim fascism led to the partition of independent India. The riots that followed severed hearts deeply. The pain became hereditary in nature. Only a spark was required to ignite the communities. In 1990s BJP Leader L.K. Advani came up with a flame torch. He drew attention to a mosque which was originally a temple. He demanded the liberation of ‘Ram Janmbhoomi’ by demolishing the Babri Masjid. RSS and other affiliated parties supported him. The Ayodhya Dispute became the platform for BJP. In 1992 , when BJP was the State Government , thousands of communalists (they called themselves..karsewaks) attacked the mosque. There was unprecedented rioting across the country. In 2002 , there was another communal earthquake known as the Godhra riots or the Gujarat Carnage. Terrorism was the answer to these attacks. The Islamic terrorists claims to take ‘revenge’.

But BJP and its affiliated groups still raise the ‘Ram Mandir’ issue incessantly. BJP and other fascist groups use the religious sentiments of the people for its political motives. BJP is seen as the preserver of ‘Indian’ culture. It is seen as a saviour in the light of increasing cultural globalisation. But there is a need to redefine Indian Culture. Hindus believe it is their religious duty to vote for BJP. The evil of revenge is back. The policy of hindutva is a political construct. BJP, however, is not the only party to be accused of communalism. Congress is criticized for ‘appeasement of minorities’. While BJP counts ‘Hindu’ votes , Congress is considered for ‘Muslim’ votes. But Congress has only taken advantage of the communal platform created by BJP. There is a competition among BJP and Congress supporters. While Congress supporters accuse BJP of anti-muslim riots , BJP supporters criticize congress for 1984 anti-sikh riots. Though the motive of sikh riots was not hindutva , it was a national shame.In the midst of struggle , both parties’ supporters end up justifying the riots. Politics which was already a dirty game is now smeared with blood. Mixing communalism with Politics is a-constitutional. India is a secular democracy. The Constitution provides no space for religion in political activities. Things have changed but not for good. The demand of Hindutva is one language , one religion and one culture. This policy is not compatible with India’s ‘unity in diversity’. Hindustan will become Hindusthan. This process will also require huge human cost. India will lose its shine.

Things have gone bad but it can be controlled. It’s a democracy. People should think beyond religion. Country has to come first . This is what true patriotism is. People should influence Politics instead of getting influenced and manipulated by politicians. Religion is personal . Lets not make it political.

Bhartiya Janata Party: No more the Janta’s party

The 2009 general elections were a landmark in the political history of India. United Progressive Alliance (UPA) had come to power with a clear majority. Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) suffered a humiliating defeat. The verdict was unexpected as there was a stiff competition between Congress and BJP. Both had an equal potential to win. Controversies had tensed both sides. Issues of Inflation and Terrorism were an additional source of tension for Congress. BJP bragged about a strong leader. The votes could swing in any direction. The result was shocking. A general tendency of people is to vote for the other party when dissatisfied by the Current Government. Congress was criticized on grounds of inflation and national security. But even then people showed immense faith in it. What was the problem with the other party? Why had BJP failed to act as an alternative? BJP announced a meeting the day after the verdict was out. The meeting was to inquire into the defeat. L.K. Advani, the leader of the opposition had proposed to resign even though he had won in his constituency. Some blamed it on negative campaigning. L.K. Advani had called Manmohan Singh a ‘weak PM’. When Congress used ‘Jai ho’ as its campaigning song, BJP changed it to ‘Bhay ho’. BJP also tried what it called ‘Soul searching’. BJP’s formative policy is Hindutva. Hindutva stands for ‘one country one religion one language’. It recognises Hindu culture as Indian culture. BJP is often criticized for communalism. The ‘Ram Mandir’ issue is communal in nature. Varun Gandhi’s hate speech was one of the controversies surrounding BJP during the elections. Some BJP leaders blame it for its defeat. They regret lending support to it. The Moderates within the party had suggested giving away the Hindutva ideology as a solution to BJP’s lost status. But Rashtriya Swamasewak Sangh (RSS), BJP’s supporter group which also had a major role in its formation, warned BJP of taking such a step. It blames BJP for failing to propagate the Hindutva ideology. BJP also witnessed internal factionalism. Some perceived L.K. Advani as the next PM while others bragged for Narendra Modi. L.K. Advani failed to match the most popular leader of BJP, Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
For a democracy, it is important to have atleast two parties competing. BJP was the only party which could give Congress real competition. But it has also failed. History might repeat itself. The pre-1977 era might come back if BJP does not regain itself. Left without a competition, Congress can also turn into a dictator. BJP will have to reshape itself by shedding its communal side. The policy of Hindutva had been responsible for its success but the same policy can now dissolve it. People have come up with the concept of Hindu talibanisation to define BJP. This policy which is a-historical as well as a-secular cannot survive in India for long. The Ayodhya Dispute does not appeal to the educated. In the light of Cultural Globalisation, BJP had come as a saviour of the Indian culture. But it had narrowly defined it. People consider it a Hindu party. Though Varun Gandhi won in the Pillibhit constituency, he is rejected by the Seculars across the country. BJP has won in states which are socially-backward. In Delhi, BJP did not win a single seat. BJP has been unveiled. The educated have realised how BJP uses religious sentiments for votes. BJP has lost even the ‘Hindu’ votes. BJP’s agenda did not have anything concrete. On economic matters, it did not have a stand. BJP cannot compete with Congress on the grounds of Youth Mobilisation. Rahul Gandhi is perceived as the inspiration for Youth. BJP could not win the support of Youth. Communalism is an out-dated phenomenon. The Youth stands for equality. It stands for humanity. Religion does not count. To become an effective nationalist party, BJP will have to become Bhartiya in true sense. It will have to respect the diversity in India. India is not a Hindu’s Rashtra. BJP will have to become secular to reflect the true nature of India.

Reference:-
*Frontline Magazine, Reading the Verdict, June 19, 2009.
*Times of India Articles