The Indian School System through the lens of Ivan Illich’s ‘Deschooling Society’

  

The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) announced the class 10 and 12 board exam results on May 13, 2024. As reported by the The Times of India, this year’s pass percentage for class 10 was 93.60%, while the pass percentage for class 12 was 87.98%. For many, this inflated pass percentage would be a matter of pride, but for at least a few, it is a cause for concern. I belong to the latter group. However, this is not a new occurrence; there has been a similar trend in CBSE’s pass percentages for many years. Let me clarify that it’s not the pass percentage itself that bothers me, but rather the monotony of the evaluation process and the examination-oriented schooling system that promotes rote learning over creativity.

The celebration of high pass percentages often masks deeper concerns about the quality of education. While impressive on the surface, these numbers reveal a systemic issue where the emphasis on exam performance eclipses the cultivation of essential skills for lifelong success. In an education system fixated on rote learning and standardized assessments, students may excel in exams but lack critical thinking, problem-solving, and creativity. This imbalance not only distorts the true purpose of education but also leaves graduates ill-equipped for the complexities of the modern world. As society evolves, so too must our approach to education, prioritizing holistic development over mere academic achievement.

The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) in India, as the largest governing body for secondary education, wields considerable influence over the schooling system. However, recent discourse surrounding educational practices has brought to light concerns regarding the rigid structure and examination-oriented focus of the CBSE curriculum. This essay highlights the issues plaguing the Indian schooling system, drawing parallels with Ivan Illich’s seminal work Deschooling Society. By examining the systemic issues perpetuated by standardized education and the call for a paradigm shift towards learner-driven approaches, this analysis aims to provoke critical reflection on the fundamental purpose of education and its implications for societal progress and equity.

In 1971, Ivan Illich, an Austrian priest, theologian, and philosopher, penned Deschooling Society, advocating for the liberation of education from institutionalized schooling and the separation of schooling from state control. At the heart of Illich’s critique on the schooling system is the notion that institutionalized education perpetuates dependency and stifles individual autonomy. The CBSE, with its rigid structure and standardized curriculum, epitomizes this institutionalization, relegating students to passive recipients of knowledge rather than active participants in their own learning journey. Illich argues for the dismantling of such systems in Favor of a more decentralized, learner-driven approach that empowers individuals to take control of their education.

The entire Indian schooling system is structured to primarily test students’ memory rather than their comprehension and creativity. Students are often encouraged to memorize notes and regurgitate them during examinations. Starting from class X and XII, students are directed by both teachers and parents to focus on scoring high percentages in board exams. Board percentages have become a new status symbol for parents, teachers, schools, and students alike. Parents boast about it to their relatives and friends, teachers see it as a validation of their subject competency, schools view it as a mark of excellence, and students consider it a gateway to higher education institutions and a means to distinguish themselves among their peers.

However, the implementation of CUET for university admissions has led to a decline in the obsession with achieving high marks in board exams among students. Instead, it has given rise to a new trend: a surge in coaching centres aimed at catering to university entrants. These coaching centres have become lucrative markets where aspirations are transformed into commodities. Unfortunately, only those with the financial means can afford their services, thereby perpetuating socio-economic disparities in access to higher education.

Our school education system put an emphasis on academic achievement which perpetuates a culture of competition and performance anxiety. Illich argues that the pursuit of credentials and qualifications detracts from the intrinsic joy of learning, reducing education to a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Consequently, students are driven by extrinsic motivations rather than a genuine thirst for knowledge.

Enforcing a standardized curriculum across a nation with rich cultural diversity and varied talents is inherently flawed. Such an approach by CBSE undermines the potential of future human resources. While natural resources face depletion from overuse, our nation suffers from a scarcity of adequately nurtured human resources, largely due to the neglect of young minds in educational institutions. We must not forget that the human resource does not comprises the entire population of a country; rather, it only includes the skilled workforce who can contribute. If a significant portion of a nation’s populace receives education through a standardized approach, it inevitably leads to a workforce with homogenized skill sets.

Since its inception, CBSE has portrayed itself solely as an entity responsible for conducting board exams and framing the syllabus for them. The acronym ‘CBSE’ stands for Central Board of Secondary Education. However, it seems that the last letter, ‘E’, in the four-letter acronym represents ‘Examination’ instead of ‘Education.’ This suggests that the board may have conflated education with examination. If this is indeed the case, it reflects a concerning state of affairs for our country’s entire schooling system.

In the words of James P. Pitts, “Illich has beliefs about the undesirability of unilateral communication, but in addition feels that the certification of achievement function played by formal schools has destructive consequences. Illich argues that formal schools hold a monopoly over acceptable learning, resulting in several serious issues within the educational system. Firstly, non-school-certified learning is discouraged and considered illegitimate. Secondly, school performance is seen as the primary pathway to entering society’s occupational structure, particularly in industrialized societies. Thirdly, wealthy individuals tend to benefit more from formal education due to their ability to efficiently utilize schools, which increases societal inequality. Lastly, the increasing market value of formal schooling makes it financially burdensome for nations to provide equal educational opportunities to all citizens.” This critique of formal education resonates with the contemporary schooling system in India as it highlights concerns regarding the system’s emphasis on certification, unequal access, and the growing cost of education.

How can autonomy in education be maintained when the CBSE, as the largest secondary board, sets the guidelines and governs the schooling system? What about the autonomy of teachers and their responsibility in promoting joyful learning? Joy in learning is rooted in the concept of freedom, and if that freedom is restricted, education may lose its intrinsic value, becoming merely a task rather than a fulfilling endeavour. In Deschooling Society, Illich challenges the conventional notion of education as a monopolized institution, arguing for the dismantling of formal schooling systems. He argues that institutionalized education perpetuates inequality, stifles creativity, and fails to address the diverse needs of learners. Drawing from Illich’s insights, it becomes evident that the current schooling system under the CBSE mirrors many of these shortcomings.

It is crucial to recognize that the issues highlighted in the CBSE system are not unique to it alone; similar concerns exist within other educational boards such as ICSE and various other state boards. These boards share the common objective of overseeing and managing the learning process. By singling out CBSE as an example, I merely sought to illustrate that the flaws observed within it are indicative of broader systemic issues. Generally, it is believed that the schooling system prepares aspirants for higher education, but the manner in which it prepares is problematic. Most of the students who somehow manage to get an admission in higher education institutions struggle to retain there because they lack the aptitude needed in higher education.

Illich’s vision of a deschooled society challenges us to rethink the very purpose of education and to envision alternative models that prioritize empowerment, collaboration, and community engagement. The present-day school system in India, with its rigid adherence to outdated pedagogical practices, stands in stark contrast to this vision. To truly transform the Indian education system, we must heed Illich’s call to dismantle existing structures and embrace new approaches that promote creativity, critical thinking, and social justice. The contemporary school system in India has significantly undermined the principle of social justice. A child’s societal status is heavily influenced by the type of school he attends.  Illich argues that mere existence of school discourages and disables the poor from taking control of their own learning.  Illich’s critique highlights how the current school system perpetuates social inequalities by reinforcing the advantages of those who attend prestigious institutions while hindering the educational opportunities of the disadvantaged. This systemic issue not only impacts individual agency but also perpetuates a cycle of poverty and marginalization. To address these concerns, a re-evaluation of the education system is necessary, one that prioritizes equitable access to quality education for all children regardless of socioeconomic background.

It is a misconception that Illich opposed schools, as this is not what he meant when he coined the term ‘Deschooling.’ As D.J. Piveteau (1974) rightly points out, “‘deschooling society’ cannot simply mean closing down individual schools, as there are entire school systems in place. This nuance is crucial. Illich does not oppose the concept of a school itself, founded on principles of free association and motivation. Instead, he aims to dismantle the institutionalized school system, which relies on enforced obligations and compulsion.”

Illich’s perspective on the school system is centred around the idea that it is regressive and manipulative. He believes that for any meaningful change to occur, individuals must first recognize the shortcomings of the current system. This recognition is essential because it motivates people to seek alternatives. According to Illich, as long as individuals are complacent with the existing system, they will not actively pursue alternative approaches to education. Therefore, he emphasizes the importance of acknowledging the need for change as a crucial first step towards finding alternatives to the traditional schooling system.

Illich believes that “universal education through schooling is not feasible. It would be no more feasible if it were attempted by means of alternative institutions built on the style of present schools. Neither new attitudes of teachers toward their pupils nor the proliferation of educational hardware or software (in classroom or bedroom), nor finally the attempt to expand the pedagogue’s responsibility until it engulfs his pupils’ lifetimes will deliver universal education. The current search for new educational funnels must be reversed into the search for their institutional inverse: educational webs which heighten the opportunity for each one to transform each moment of his living into one of learning, sharing, and caring.” This statement highlights the limitations of traditional schooling and emphasizes the need for a shift towards more dynamic and inclusive educational systems. It suggests that merely expanding existing educational structures or relying on technological advancements will not ensure universal education. Instead, it advocates for the creation of educational webs that empower individuals to learn, share, and care in every aspect of their lives. This implies a broader conceptualization of education beyond classroom settings, focusing on lifelong learning and holistic development. Such a perspective aligns with contemporary discussions on the need for educational reform to meet the diverse needs of learners and prepare them for the complexities of the modern world.

Many people consider Illich an anarchist who challenged the formal school system. For some, his ideas are deemed too radical and utopian, casting doubt on the very concept of ‘Deschooling Society.’ I, too, believe that he was an anarchist and that his ideas were radical. However, history has shown that societies striving for liberation often require the influence of anarchists. Just as France needed an anarchist like Rousseau for its liberation, and India needed Gandhi to free itself from British imperialism, our school system needed an anarchist like Ivan Illich to break free from traditional hegemony.

Buildings do not make a democracy vibrant

 

      The inauguration of the newly constructed parliament building was preceded and followed by much hullabaloo. Almost all opposition parties are collectively demanding from the government that instead of Prime Minister Modi, the new parliament building must be inaugurated by the President as the President is the constitutional head of India. They even filed a PIL in the Supreme Court which was turned down by the apex court. Following which, they decided to boycott the inauguration ceremony.

Being a citizen of this country, I am neither interested in knowing who inaugurated the new parliament building nor in its design and architecture. My interest lies only in the functioning of the parliament. I am more concerned about the values and ideals it stands for. I believe that buildings do not make a democracy vibrant. The essence of a vibrant democracy lies in the values, principles and action of its citizens and institutions rather than the physical structures that house them.

The old parliament building has a historical significance. Those who believe that it symbolizes the colonial past and therefore a new parliament building was needed, I would tell them that it doesn’t symbolize the colonial past. Rather it has witnessed India become an independent democracy. How can they deny this fact that the debates of constituent assembly took place there which finally gave birth to the constitution of free India. Moreover, those who believe that it was built by the British, they must know that it was not funded by Buckingham palace. They built it only with the money they looted from us.

There are two pertinent questions which can be asked of the government with respect to the new parliament building. First, was it an appropriate time to think of a construction project that requires an expenditure of hundreds of crores? To my understanding, the idea to construct a new parliament building amid a global health crisis can only be conceived by a leader who is not only indifferent to his people but also lacks the basic traits of humanity. Almost half a million people have lost their lives due to the gross mismanagement of the government during the pandemic. They were denied a dignified life and then they were further denied a dignified death. In the words of Prof. Manoj Kumar Jha, “We have witnessed an undignified death during the pandemic.” Instead of helping people in the time of crisis, the Central Vista Project was the top priority of the government. Taking pride in buildings while ignoring the people’s sufferings exhibits the nasty character of the government. You may call it a new parliament building but, to me, it is a cemetery of Indian democracy.

Another question with respect to the newly constructed parliament building is related to its date of inauguration: 28 May. Why has Modi picked this date to inaugurate the building? This date is marked as the birth anniversary of Savarkar. I think it is nothing but an attempt to gradually make Gandhi irrelevant by overshadowing him with Savarkar, the flagbearer of ‘Hindutva’ ideology and the mentor of Gandhi’s assassin Godse. In Modi’s India, you can hail Gandhi and Godse at the same time and you wouldn’t be called a personality of dual character. Despite this, one’s nationalist identity will remain intact. It is also a strange reality that the ideology which took away Gandhi’s life and trampled the democratic and secular values of India, unfortunately became a political majority and people associated with this ideology are projecting themselves as true nationalists.

It is important to note that when the government was busy in constructing the new parliament building, people were struggling to claim their democratic rights. As Prime Minister Modi inaugurates the building, hardly two kilometres away from the new parliament building, at Jantar Mantar, women wrestlers who brought laurels to the nation are protesting in the hope of justice. It has been more than a month and not a single leader from the ruling party met them to ensure justice. Not even Smirti Irani, as she holds the portfolio of Minister for Women and Child Development and considers herself the sole voice of women’s rights. It seems to me that the present government believes that the democratic values can only be preserved by constructing a swanky parliament building. It is mistaken as democracy resides in the hearts of democrats and reflects through their actions, and not in the bricks and mortar of a concrete structure.

With the new parliament building the government’s intention is clear and that is to divert the people’s attention from the functioning of the parliament to its colossal architecture. The parliament has primarily three important functions: to make laws, to be a forum for deliberations on important issues of governance and to enforce accountability of the executive to the people. If one evaluates the nine years of the Modi government, one will find that it only believes in the first function of the parliament, i.e., to make laws. The other two functions have been deliberately put aside.

Under the leadership of Prime Minister Modi, the Indian parliament has reduced itself to a podium of a demagogue who only believes in monologue. Opposition parties are not heard, and their voices are lost in the noise of the treasury bench. It has also been accused by opposition leaders that when they speak, their mic is muted. Contrary to this, in the old parliament, as the first Prime Minister of India, Nehru set examples for his successors. He always recognised the due space of dissent. He respected the feeling and sentiment of the opposition members. Even the Speaker used to exercise autonomy at the time, and he used to press the bell whenever Nehru exceeded the time limit while making his speeches in the parliament. According to P. Sakthivel, “Although Nehru commanded absolute majority in the house, he never believed in steamrolling the opposition, and showed utmost respect to them, listened to their views, and tried to accommodate them as far as possible. This is why some of his strongest critics in parliament happened to be his great admirers.” Enough criticism of Nehru has already been done, now it is high time for the ruling party, particularly Prime Minister Modi, to imbibe some of his attributes.

As we discuss the functioning of parliament, there are primarily two issues which cannot be overlooked as they act as impediments to the proper functioning of parliament. The first issue is the criminalisation of politics. Despite the clear instructions from the Supreme Court to stop it, political parties conveniently give tickets to those candidates who have criminal charges against them. As per the report of ADR, 43% Lok Sabha MPs have criminal cases against them and nearly 29 per cent of the cases are related to rape, murder, attempt to murder or crime against women. Expecting policies pertaining to peace, development, and social security from them is fatuous. It is unfortunate that no political party is serious in controlling the criminalisation of politics.

Another significant issue is the regular absence of MPs from the parliament during parliament sessions. As of now there is no mechanism in practice to ensure maximum attendance of the MPs in parliament. Even a record of who is present and who is not, is not maintained by the parliament officials. MPs conveniently skip the parliament session without a sense of accountability. If MPs do not attend the session, how can the voice and concerns of those whom they represent will reach the parliament? Until and unless these issues continue to exist, the purpose of the parliament will remain defeated.

In a country, where Muslims are experiencing existential threat and Dalits and tribals are struggling to survive on the socioeconomic and political landscape of India, the new parliament building is in no way going to strengthen Indian democracy. It is nothing but a self-serving agenda of Modi as he believes that he will be remembered in history as a leader who gave India a new parliament building. However, perhaps he does not know that India is not a monarchy. It is a democracy and in a democratic society, history does not remember those who construct buildings. Rather, history remembers only those who build institutions and formulate the welfare policies. Moreover, he must know that the biggest achievement of a leader is not that he finds a mention in a plaque; rather, the biggest achievement of a leader is how he manages to carve a niche in the hearts of those who believe in him.

I wish to conclude this essay by quoting my professor, Mukul Kesavan’s apt views pertaining to the new parliament building. He says “The new Parliament building needs a new motto to fit the shape of this unfraternal republic better than ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity’ does. ‘Community, Disunity, Impunity’ should be blazoned across its main entrance.” I second his opinion.

Murdered Houses by Mahmoud Darwish

In one minute the lifetime of a house is ended. When a house is killed, it is a serial killing, even if the house is empty: a mass grave of all the things once used to give a home to Meaning, or, in times of war, to a marginal poem.

A slaughtered house is the severing of things from what they meant, from the feelings they inspired. It's the duty of tragedy to change the gaze of eloquence and to reflect upon the life of Things, for in everything there's a being that suffers: a memory of fingers, a memory of a smell, a memory of a picture. Houses are murdered just as their inhabitants are killed and the memories of things are slaughtered: stones, wood, glass, iron, mortar - scattered like human limbs. Cotton silk, linen, exercise books, books - torn apart like the unsaid words of people who did not have the time to say them. Dishes broken, spoons, toys, old records, pipes, doorknobs, the refrigerator, the washing machine, pots, jars of olives and pickles, cars - all broken, like their owners. The two whites - sugar and salt - are trod upon along with matchboxes, medicines, birth control pills, steroids, strings of garlic and onions, dried okra, tomatoes, rice and lentils - all are trod upon as are their owners.

Land-deeds and marriage certificates torn apart with birth papers, water and electricity bills, identity cards, passports, love letters - torn apart like the hearts of their owners.

Photographs are swept away with combs, make-up, brushes, shoes, lingerie, sheets, towels, swept away like family secrets betrayed to others and to devastation. All these things are the memories of people deprived of things, and the memory of things deprived of people .... Everything ends in one minute. Things die like we do, but they are not buried with us.

Translation: Tania Nasir and John Berger

An Open Letter to Shah Rukh Khan

 

  

Dear Shah Rukh Khan,

 

                          Indeed, it is a difficult time for you and your family but like any other difficult time, this too shall pass. I am primarily writing you this open letter to share my sincere concern with you at this hour of crisis. While I am sharing my concern over your personal grief with you, let me also share with you the grief of millions of your followers which you could not see in the meteoric rise to your stardom.  Here I wish to take this opportunity to tell you that it is the right time for you to feel the pain of your millions of marginalised and oppressed followers, fans & countrymen who buy your movie tickets & find a role model in you. During this hard time, you may see that many of them are standing outside your MANNAT carrying placards in their hands to give you a sense of strength & support. They are supporting you, despite knowing the fact that you will never stand for them for their cause whenever & wherever they will need you. You owe them for the selfless love they always shower upon you.  It is also high time for you to come out from the shell of stardom for a moment and think like an ordinary individual whose suffering has now become the part and parcel of his daily life. Since you are emotionally charged now adays, it seems to me that my piece of advice will not go in vain. I do not wish to add insult to your injury, believe me! my intention is pure and noble. I don’t have any personal grudge against you and why would I have? I genuinely admire your acting skill, but I am not your fan. I do not believe in hero worshipping as it disappoints me many a time.

 

Shah Rukh, you must know that a celebrity of your stature is not an ordinary individual, you are the part of that one percent privileged & influential group towards which an ordinary person looks for aspiration and inspiration. Your followers imitate your lifestyle, they feel a sense of association with you whenever they purchase a product endorsed by you. You are one of the most loved Indians across globe. Many people here in India and abroad adore you and these are the obvious reasons which distinguish you from others. Shah Rukh! you are aware of this fact that your voice matters a lot but still you choose to remain silent over public issues due to fear of trolling and witch hunt. You may justify your fear by giving any rationale but let me tell you that your deafening silence has always disappointed those who admire you.

 

Last few years were very disturbing for all of us in many contexts; The political turmoil, mob lynching of Muslims and Dalits, the political effort to disenfranchise Muslim minority through NRC & CAA, police brutality on university students particularly in Jamia (your alma mater), farm bills and many more issues which shook the nation, but you like many others did not utter a single word  against the barbarity of the political establishment rather you always opted to remain as a mute spectator. I genuinely feel sorry for you Shah Rukh!

Shah Rukh, it came to my knowledge that some of the big brands you have endorsed for so many years have also left you in the meantime and they have cancelled the ad contracts. These big brands have not only convicted your son but you too before the court announces its verdict. At this hour of crisis only your followers & fans are with you. You know who they are? They are the same ordinary individuals who buy your movie tickets and genuinely admire you.

Shah Rukh, you may wonder that why I am sharing these things with you at this moment but believe me, it is important, because I think it will help in developing a sense of empathy in you. It will also help you in the process of introspection and catharsis. We know, as an actor, you play different roles on silver screen but as a celebrity, how can you refuse to play multiple roles to meet the demand of the multiple identities which you carry in a macro society? Your constant refusal and denial remind me of someone who once rightly said, “if you have ever wondered what you’d do during slavery, the Holocaust or Civil Rights Movement; You are doing it right now.” A celebrity like you is supposed to take a strong stand and speak your mind on growing injustice and bigotry in the country. Because your silence has always helped the oppressor not the oppressed. You may also understand this with this simple fact that if you are not with the oppressed you are with the oppressor. You can’t remain apolitical in a country like India where political class has become a continuous threat to the idea of India. Protecting the idea of India is way more important than giving a blockbuster movie.  In my opinion, an apolitical individual is far more dangerous than a politically biased individual.

Shah Rukh, When I heard the news about your son Aryan Khan in the alleged drug case. I really felt bad. The matter is still sub judice before the court therefore I refrain myself from commenting on it. My sympathy is with you and your family because I still believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty. I also believe that many Muslim youths who have been arrested by the different agencies in the name of terror suspects are also innocents. Many of them have not proven guilty by the court yet, some of them are missing and few of them have turned their hair grey in the hope of justice. Someday, I do hope that you will raise your voice for them too. Their parents are waiting for them the way you are waiting for Aryan. You are the world’s second richest actor, you may hire top lawyers who can assure you bail for your son but those suspected youths who are behind bars on terror charges, their parents can’t even think of it.   

Shah Rukh, I know that you as an individual can’t address all the existing issues of our society. You have done and are still doing exceptional philanthropic work to uplift the downtrodden. Let me acknowledge the commendable work you are doing through your ‘Meer foundation’ to give a new hope to the acid attack survivors. I know you are doing your bit but since you have an impactful reach, your responsibility towards society is much more than any other individual.

Shah Rukh, at the end, I have an interesting story to share with you and this is about A.J. Muste, an American civil right activist. During the Labor Movement in America, a reporter asked him, "Do you really think you are going to change the policies of this country by standing out here alone at night in front of the White House with a candle?" A.J. Muste replied softly: "Oh I don't do this to change the country. I do this so the country won't change me.” Like Muste, we want you to speak your mind Shah Rukh! before you forget that you too had a voice.  

Shah Rukh, at this moment when you are running pillar to post to seek bail for your son, I know  there is no time left for you to consider my words and respond to this letter, but I do hope that in near future when the dust settles, you will surely ponder over these questions and respond to your conscience.

 

Regards

Shahid Jamal

New Delhi-25

 

COVID-19: Catastrophe reveals our real character

 

             The ongoing threat from coronavirus has brought change to the entire socio-economic and political narrative of India. It has unmasked all the social institutions and their stakeholders. Whether it is the political class, media, bureaucracy, police, and doctors and for that matter an ordinary individual, this pandemic has brought out the best and the worst of humanity. It has unveiled both the beautiful and ugly sides of the human character and we have witnessed both the kind and corrupt sides of human beings.

On the one hand, there is an environment of fear, prejudice, paranoia, humiliation and political bigotry. On the other hand, there is an unprecedented outpouring of love, support, kindness, empathy and charity that has reaffirmed faith in humanity.

I believe that the sense of fear, prejudice, paranoia, humiliation is the byproduct of political bigotry. Though it is true that these symptoms of political bigotry existed much before the outbreak of this pandemic, we have seen and encountered an unprecedented level of these symptoms during this pandemic.

At a time when a collective response was required from us to contain Covid-19, the political establishment with the help of media and the PR agencies divided us in the name of religion and region by spreading hatred and creating fake narratives. Here I don’t want to discuss the Tablighi Jamaat episode as the reader already knows how the members of the Jamaat became an easy target for media and administration as if this pandemic was brought to India by them. Terms like Corona Jihaad have been coined and hatred towards the Muslim community has been amplified. While there were nationwide hullabaloo and media trials over the stranded Tablighi Jamaat members for breaking the norms of social distancing, a crazy crowd has been seen openly flouting the social distancing norms in front of liquor shops during this crisis. People are now silent and enjoying the clash between the crowd and the police near the liquor shops. Memes are flooding the social media.

While this pandemic has exposed the communal faces of many, it has also shown our seriousness towards dealing with the same. Several people from northeast India have faced racial attacks. In the month of March, a woman from Manipur was spat on by a man in Delhi and called ‘corona’. It is shameful that doctors and police personnel have been attacked by the mob. It is equally shameful that in some parts of the country the doctors have refused to treat patients belonging to a particular religious community. The police have arrested civil rights activists on the sedition charges. The real character of the stakeholders belonging to different institutions has been coming out during this pandemic.

During this health crisis, most of us have developed hatred towards each other, instead of developing a sense of empathy and togetherness. This hatred is more catastrophic than the Covid-19. It is indeed a sorry state that during this difficult time, religious biases and prejudices have reached a peak. The gulf among different communities is widening day by day. News anchors from their studios are adding more fuel to the communal fire. Responsible journalism has been overshadowed by the yellow journalism. The situation is alarming and I am afraid to say that we are behaving as ethically deaf and morally blind.

Prime Minister Modi has seen the pandemic almost entirely in personal and political terms. On Feb 12, during the initial phase of the pandemic, Rahul Gandhi had alerted the government about the threat of Covid-19 but the government had dismissed him. Mr. Modi was busy in welcoming Trump and the top leadership of the BJP was busy in the horse-trading of MLAs in Madhya Pradesh. The careless response to the Covid-19 by the Health Ministry in India should not be considered less than a criminal offence because on March 13, while addressing reporters, the Joint Secretary of the Health Ministry, Lav Agarwal, said that coronavirus is not a health emergency and that there was no need to panic. Within just ten days, the Prime Minister and his cabinet realised the threat of Covid-19. Finally, on March 24, Modi announced a complete nationwide lockdown. While this lockdown has managed to pause the spread of the virus, a lack of planning has led to hunger, uncertainty and panic across the country.

The unplanned lockdown has pushed thousands of migrant workers to destitution. They are stranded far from their homes in cities with no food and money. As per the report of a survey published in The Hindu, “More than 90% of stranded migrant workers did not receive rations from the government. Close to 90% of those surveyed did not get paid by their employers. From March 27 to April 13, 70% of the surveyed workers had only less than Rs. 200 left with them.” Who is responsible for the distress among these workers? Is it not the failure of the government? It was expected from the Prime Minister that he would help the nation during this difficult time; instead of helping the countrymen, the PM himself started begging before the people for help.

This pandemic has also unveiled the hypocrisy and ugliness of the big business tycoons, corporates and owners of companies. While they have donated hundreds of crores to the PM Cares Fund, many of them have also fired employees and reduced their salaries. The PM Cares Fund has been receiving small donations too and we all know who have offered these donations. On the instruction of their bosses, the government employees willingly or unwillingly agreed to donate one day’s salary to the PM Cares Fund. Ordinary people have been donating their hard-earned money with the belief that it is only the government that can co-ordinate and effectively manage relief work. They have completely ignored the fact that these funds are being controlled by the same government that ignored the initial warning of the pandemic and left them in complete confusion by imposing an unplanned lockdown.

Due to this unplanned lockdown, India’s unemployment rate has skyrocketed. It’s estimated that over 14 crore people, especially in the unorganised sector, may have already lost their jobs. The uncertainty of livelihood is causing more harm to the common people than the pandemic. Unfortunately, Modi considers the lockdown as a cure for Covid-19. He has no plan to deal with the economic repercussion of the pandemic. In this difficult time, the less we talk about the government aid the better because the government aid has not reached the needy. Even if the aid reaches the needy, it is like a drop in the ocean and doesn’t cater to the basic need of food and medicines.

It is good to see that Modi is boosting the morale of the Covid-19 warriors in this difficult time by urging people to appreciate and applaud them. However, besides appreciation and “Mann ki baat”, there has been no real efforts to meet the demands of the doctors, who are running out of protective gears. If the PM can’t even make sure of the safety of the health workers, how can he ensure the safety of the common masses? Shortages of protective health gears are forcing some doctors to use raincoats and motorbike helmets while fighting the coronavirus, exposing the weak state of the public health system in India. The earlier deflections of taali, thaali, diya and mombatti, in addition to the army jamboree of showering rose petals, are not going to help us to combat Covid-19. Who will make the PM understand that totka is not the solution? Providing the doctors and health care workers with the essential protective gears and the logistical support are the only way out.

I am flabbergasted that the terms like ‘curfew’ and ‘social distancing’ have become normal during this pandemic. The excessive use of the term ‘lockdown’ makes me feel that we are living in a strict military zone and the common use of the term ‘social distancing’ makes me realise the abusive and exploitative social division of the varna system. Instead of using the term ‘social distancing’, I would rather prefer to use the term physical distancing and that too when it is needed.

I have learnt from history that pandemics like Covid-19 have caused less disaster on earth than the unforgivable blunders committed by people. While the deadly Spanish Flu of 1918 killed 20 to 50 million people, the total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I (1914-1918) was about 40 million. Estimates range from 15 to 19 million deaths and about 23 million wounded military personnel, ranking it among the deadliest conflicts in human history. In 1942, Hitler killed 1.7 million Jews during the Holocaust. Almost 85 million people perished during World War II, which was even more brutal than the World War I. We know very well that these killings were not caused by any pandemic or natural calamity.

For a few moments, ignore the World War I and the World War II and the casualties resulting from these wars. Let us take a look at examples of communal clashes and attendant bloodbath. In January, 2020, while replying to an RTI query, the Home Ministry said that India witnessed 10,399 incidents of communal violence from 2004 to 2017 wherein 1,605 people were killed and 30,723 were injured. Almost three months ago, the communal violence that engulfed the North-East Delhi for four days – mobs killed innocent people and destroyed property – left 53 dead. As per a report, “Apart from those killed, over 200 have sustained serious injuries due to gunshots, sharp-edged weapons, stone-pelting and even falls sustained from buildings during the violence.” Now look at the Covid-19 graph and see the number of deaths in Delhi caused by the virus. You will find that only around 66 people have lost their lives due to the Covid-19 till date. Covid-19 has caused less disaster on earth than the unforgivable brutality committed by people during the course of history.

I don’t want to convey the sense that all human beings are bad or convoluted. Indeed, this pandemic has shown us the most beautiful traits of humanity too which is worth mentioning. When the government failed on all fronts, many individuals and NGOs came together and provided the essentials to the needy. People associated with different organisations are tirelessly serving those who are in need. It is also worth appreciating that the NGOs are feeding more people than the government during this lockdown. I have witnessed two sides of the human character: while some people are busy in petty hoarding of supplies, many others have selflessly and generously helped the poor and needy. I believe helping those in need is not charity; it is humanity. As long as selfless, generous and kind people exist among us, our society will remain intact and strong. We must understand that kindness promotes solidarity and solidarity makes a society better and worth living. Needless to say, if we do not leave hatred and communal bias behind, it will make our survival difficult during this health crisis. A sense of togetherness and a collective response are the need of the hour.

(Published in Cafe Dissensus, 08 May, 2020)

وہ جو خونِ دل سے لکھا گیا تھا، وہ حاشیہ بھی تو دیکھتے

      

شاہد جمال

        تاریخ بیک وقت کئی سارے واقعات و حادثات کا مشاہدہ کرتی ہے۔ اور پھر یہ بہت حد تک  ہم عصر مؤرخین  پر منحصر ہوتا ہے کہ وہ تاریخ مرتب کرتے وقت  کس واقعے کو  مرکزی موضوع بناتے ہیں، کسے حاشیہ پر جگہ دیتے ہیں اور کسے شعوری طور پر نظر انداز کر دیتے ہیں۔  ہر دور میں تاریخ نویسی کا جو طریقہ کار اپنایا گیا ہے وہ بہت ہی سلیکٹو رہا ہے۔ آخر کس بنیاد پر مؤرخین یہ طے کرتے ہیں کہ کون سا واقعہ اہم ہے اور کون سا غیر ضروری؟ کسے مرکزی موضوع بنایا جائے  اور کسے حاشیہ پر جگہ دی جائے؟ کیا یہ سچ نہیں کہ تاریخ  لکھنے والے منافق اور متعصّب تھے؟ اور صرف مؤرخین ہی کیوں؟ بحیثیتِ قاری منافق اور متعصّب تو ہم بھی ہیں۔ کیونکہ ہم بھی سیلیکٹو ہیں، ہماری دلچسپی بھی انہیں واقعات سے وابستہ ہے جو قومی نصاب کی صورت میں ہمیں رٹا دیا گیا ہے۔ ہم اتنا ہی دیکھ اور پڑھ پا رہے ہیں جتنا ہمیں دکھایا اور پڑھایا جا رہا ہے۔ ہم میں سے کوئی بھی تاریخ کی کتاب کے حاشیے پر لکھی عبارت کو پڑھنے کے لیے تیار نہیں ہے اور نہ ہی ان  واقعات و حادثات کی تلاش و جستجو  میں کوشاں ہے جسے غیر ضروری سمجھ کر نظر انداز کر دیا گیا ہے۔ 

15 اگست 1947 کو ہمارا ملک ہندوستان انگریزوں کی حاکمیت سے آزاد ہوا۔ آج، آزاد ہندوستان کا جشن مناتے ہوئے سات دہائیاں بیت چکی ہیں۔ لیکن یومِ آزادی کے پسِ پردہ ملک کی تقسیم اور اس کے نتیجے میں پیش آنے والے  کربناک واقعات کو یکسر بھلا دیا گیا۔ لاکھوں لوگ بے گھر ہوئے اور لاکھوں جا نیں تقسیم ہند کی نذر ہو گئیں۔  ملک کے کئی حصوں میں لاشیں بکھری پڑی تھیں۔ سڑکوں پر بکھری مردہ لاشوں سے کہیں زیادہ تعداد زندہ لاشوں کی تھی جو اپنوں سے بچھڑنے کی وجہ سے سکتے میں آ گئے تھے۔ راہی معصوم رضا اپنے مشہور اپنیاس 'ٹوپی شکلا' میں لکھتے ہیں کہ "لاش! یہ شبد کتنا گھنونا ہے۔ آدمی اپنی موت سے، اپنے گھر میں، اپنے بال بچوں کے سامنے مرتا ہے تب بھی بنا آتما کے اس بدن کو لاش ہی کہتے ہیں اور آدمی سڑک پر کسی بلوائی کے ہاتھوں مارا جاتا ہے، تب بھی بنا آتما کے اس بدن کو لاش ہی کہتے ہیں۔ بھاشا کتنی غریب ہوتی ہے۔"  

15 اگست کی شب، نہرو کے خطاب کو سننے کے لیے  اور جشن آزادی منانے کے لیے دلّی کے لال قلعے میں جتنے لوگ جمع تھے اس سے کہیں زیادہ لوگ پنجاب اور بنگال میں تقسیمِ ہند کا ماتم منا رہے تھے۔  مہاتما گاندھی، جنہوں نےانگریزوں کے خلاف  تحریکِ آزادی میں اہنسا کو بنیادی اصول کے طور پر پیش کیا تھا، تقسیمِ ہند کے وقت انہوں نے اپنی آنکھوں کی سامنے ہنسا ہو تے ہوئے دیکھا۔  15 اگست 1947 کو گاندھی جی آزادی کا جشن منانے کے لیے دلّی میں نہیں تھے  بلکہ تقسیمِ ہند کے نتیجے میں ہونے والے فرقہ وارانہ فسادات کی آگ بجھانے کے لیے نووا کھلی، بنگال میں تھے۔ اور لوگوں سے ہاتھ جوڑ کر امن کی اپیل کر رہے تھے۔ 

جب بھی ملک میں کوئی فساد ہوتا ہے تو اس کا زیادہ تر شکار عورتیں اور  بچے ہوتے ہیں، تقسیم ہند کے نتیجے میں جو فساد ہوا اس میں بھی سب سے زیادہ ذہنی و جسمانی تشدّد کا شکار عورتوں کو ہی بنایا گیا، لاکھوں عورتوں کی عصمت دری کی گئی اور بچّوں کو قتل کر دیا گیا۔ کاش ہم یہ سمجھ پاتے کہ آزادی کی تاریخ ترنگے سے نہیں بلکہ لہو رنگ سے لکھی گئی ہے، یہ دن جشن کا نہیں بلکہ ماتم کا ہے، یہ موقع نہرو کے بھاشن کو سننے سے کہیں زیادہ   گاندھی کی اپیل پر دھیان دینے کا ہے۔  

ایک طرف جہاں وزیراعظم کے ہاتھوں سے ترنگے کی پرچم کشائی کے منظر کو دیکھنے کے لیے، ہر سال 15 اگست کے دن پورے ملک کی نگاہیں لال قلعے پر جمی ہوتی ہیں، تو وہیں دوسری طرف پنجاب کے امرتسر کے پارٹیشن میوزیم میں محفوظ لاکھوں یادیں آج کے دن  چیخ چیخ کر ہم سے یہ  کہ رہی ہوتی  ہیں کہ ایک سیاہ پرچم تلخ یادوں کے اس مقبرے پر بھی نصب کیا جائے تاکہ ملک کی تقسیم کو دہرانے کا خواب دیکھنے والے اس سے عبرت لے سکیں۔

 میں جشن آزادی نہیں مناتا اور اس کے لیے میں آپ میں سے کسی کے سامنے جوابدہ نہیں ہوں،  فرض کیجئے چند لمحے کے لیے  میں تقسیم ہند کی تکلیف دہ یادوں کو  فراموش کر کے آپ کے ساتھ جشن آزادی منا بھی لوں تو کیا یہ سچ بدل جاۓ گا جو ہمارے اور آپ کے سامنے ہے۔۔ آپ کے نزدیک آزادی کا مطلب محض انگریزوں کی غلامی سے نجات ہے تو آپ کو لازمی طور پر جشن آزادی منانے کا حق ہے۔  میرے نزدیک آزادی کا تصوّر بہت ہی وسیع ہے۔ کیا ہمارے ملک کے مسلمان مسلکی تعصّب سے آزاد ہیں؟ کیا ہندو ذات پات کی تقسیم سے آزاد ہیں؟ کیا ہمارا ملک جہالت، بد عنوانی، مذہبی جنون سے آزاد ہے؟ کیا ہمارے ملک میں مظلوم ظالم کے ظلم سے آزاد ہیں؟  اگر میرے ان سوالوں کا جواب نفی میں ہے تو پھر سوچیے کہ آپ کون سی آزادی کا جشن منا رہے ہیں؟

ٹیگور نے جس آزاد ہندوستان کا خواب دیکھا تھا اس میں وہ چاہتے تھے کہ  فرد کا ذہن  ہر طرح کے خوف سے آزاد ہو اور  ہر شخص کا سر فخر سے بلند ہو۔ لیکن افسوس کے آج ملک کی تصویر بلکل اس کے بر عکس ہے۔ ہمارے ذہن خوف سے مفلوج ہو چکے ہیں اور سر شرم سے جھکے ہوئے ہیں۔

اس ملک کی تقسیم 14 اگست 1947 کو نہیں ہوئی تھی۔ زمین پر

سرحد کی لکیر کھینچنے سے بہت پہلے لوگوں کے ذہنوں میں مذہب کی بنیاد پر نفرت کی لکیر کھینچی گئی۔ انگریزوں نے مذہبی تفریق کی بنیاد پر ہماری ذہن سازی کی اور جب ملک میں خونی تماشہ شروع ہوا تو انگریزی حکومت کے نمائندے خاموش تماشائی بنے رہے۔ کملیشور'کتنے پاکستان' میں لکھتے ہیں کہ "بھارت مها دیش بھارت ہی رہا۔ دشمن اور دوست اسی بھو کھنڈ کا حصہ رہے۔ سکندر، محمد بن قاسم کسی نے اس ملک کونہیں توڑا۔ دوسرا ملک ایجاد نہیں کیا۔ غوری، نادر شاه ابدالی تک نے اس دیش کے نقشہ کونہیں بدلا، افغان آئے،  وہ چاہتے تو  اس دیش کو توڑ کر ترکستان یا کوئی دوسرا افغانستان بنا لیتے۔ مغلیہ سلطنت نے ہمیشہ اس دیش  کی اکھنڈتا کو پہچانا اور منظور کیا۔ انہوں نے اس مہادیش میں اپنے کسی  دیش کی تعمیر نہیں کی، یہاں تک کہ اورنگ زیب چاہتا تو اپنی سلطنت سے غیرمسلموں کو اپنی طاقت اور تلوار سے خارج کرکے ایک اسلای دیش کو الگ کر لیتا اور اسے اسلامستان کا نام دے دیتا لیکن وہ تا زندگی اسی انیک ہندوستان کے لیے لڑتا، جیتتا اور ہارتا رہا۔ آخر ایسا کیوں ہوا کہ انگریزوں کی سوداگر قوم کے ہاتھوں پانچ ہزار سالہ پرانا یہ مہا دیش اپنی تاریخ میں پہلی بار تقسیم در تقسیم کا شکار ہوا؟"

ملک میں انڈین نیشنل کانگریس کے ہوتے ہوئے مسلم لیگ اور ہندو مہا سبھا کا جنم دراصل اسی  مذہبی تفریق کا نتیجہ تھا جس کی بنیاد انگریزوں نے رکھی تھی۔  گاندھی جی کے ساتھ خلافت تحریک میں شامل ہو کرہندوستانیوں نے جس اتحاد و یکجہتی کا مظاہرہ کیا تھا وہ قابل رشک تھا اور تقسیم ہند کے وقت جس نفرت اور درندگی کا مظاہرہ کیا گیا وہ اتنا ہی قابل افسوس تھا۔ ہماری تاریخ رشک اور افسوس دونوں کا مرکب ہے۔ آج المیہ یہ ہے کہ اول الزکر ہمارے نصاب کا مرکزی موضوع ہے  اور آخر الذکر کو نصاب کے حاشیے پر جگہ دی گئی ہے۔ 

19ویں صدی میں انگریزوں نے جس مذہبی تفریق کے نظریہ کی بنیاد ہندوستان میں رکھی تھی، تقسیم ہند کے وقت اُنہوں نے اس  نظریہ کو ہند و پاک کے سیاسی لیڈران کو ورثہ  میں عنایت کر بر صغیر کو ہمیشہ کے لئے نفرت کی آگ میں جھلسنے کے لیے چھوڑ دیا۔  یہی وجہ ہے کہ تقسیم ہند کے اتنے سالوں بعد بھی ہمارا ملک نفرت و تعصّب سے آزاد نہیں ہو سکا۔  مذہبی جنون تھمنے کا نام نہیں لے رہا ہے، اقلیتوں کو یہ احساس دلانے کی کوشش کی جا رہی ہے کہ  وہ اس  ملک کے دوئم درجے کے شہری ہیں۔ ایک ایسی فضا بنانے کی کوشش کی جا رہی ہے جس میں  ملک کی مشترکہ تہذیب کا دم گھٹ جائے۔ ملک سے محبت کا نیا معیار قائم کیا جا رہا ہے، ایک ایسا معیار جس میں حب الوطنی کو محض دیش بھکتی گیت اور ترنگے تک محدود کر دیا گیا ہے۔ 

 یہ سچ ہے کہ جب کسی ملک کی  مذہبی اکثریت، سیاسی اکثریت بن جائے تو جمہوریت اور پلورلیزم کا وجود مٹنے لگتا ہے، بد قسمتی سے ہندوستان میں گزشتہ کچھ سالوں سے مذہبی اکثریت، سیاسی اکثریت میں تبدیل ہو چکی ہے۔ جس کا اثر آئے دن دیکھنے کو مل رہا ہے۔  جمہوری ملک کو نیشن اسٹیٹ میں تبدیل کرنے کی پرزور کوشش کی جا رہی ہے۔ تاریخ گواہ ہے کہ دنیا میں کہیں بھی جہاں نیشن اسٹیٹ کا قیام عمل میں آیا اس کی بنیاد ہمیشہ جبر و تشدّد اور خوں ریزی پر رکھی گئی۔ اس سلسلے میں یوروپ کی مثال  ہمارے سامنے ہے۔

یقیناً یہ ممکن نہیں کہ ہم تاریخ کی لیباریٹری میں محفوظ اپنے اسلاف کے تلخ تجربات کو مٹا سکیں لیکن کم سے کم یہ تو ممکن ہے کہ ہم ان تجربات سے عبرت حاصل کر سکیں۔   تقسیم ہند کی تاریخ کو سمجھنا اسلئے بھی ضروری ہے تاکہ  ہمیں ہمارے ملک کے نقشے پر کوئی اور لکیر کھینچنے کی ضرورت پیش نہ آئے اور اس کہ لیے ضروری ہے کہ نفرت و تعصب کی جو سرحدیں ہمارے ذہنوں میں تعمیر کی جا رہی ہیں ہم پہلے اسے مسمار کریں۔

ملک کی تقسیم سے جڑی لاکھوں کہانیاں ہیں اور اُن لاکھوں کہانیوں میں کچھ کہانیوں کو سنانے والے اب بھی زندہ ہیں۔  یقین جانیے اب اگر یہ ملک تقسیم ہوا تو  نہ کہانیاں ہوں گی، نہ سنانے والے ہوں گے اور نہ  سننے والے۔  اسلئے ضرورت اس بات کی ہے کہ ملک کی آزادی کے بیانیہ کے ساتھ ساتھ تاریخ کی کتاب کے حاشیے پر مرقوم تقسیم ہند کی  کہانیوں کا بیانیہ بھی ہو۔

یہ دھواں جو ہے یہ کہاں کا ہے، وہ جو آگ تھی وہ کہاں کی تھی

کبھی راویان  خبر زدہ  پسِ واقعہ  بھی تو  دیکھتے

یہ جو آبِ زر سے رقم ہوئی ہے، یہ داستان بھی مستند

وہ جو خونِ دل سے لکھا گیا تھا، وہ حاشیہ بھی تو دیکھتے

                                                     (افتخار حسین عارف)

AAP’s victory in Delhi should make us more vigilant

The landslide victory of the Aam Aadmi Party in the Delhi assembly election has caused a major political setback to the Bhartiya Janata party. After Jharkhand, Delhi has further managed to stop the BJP in acquiring political power and space in India. Political analysts believe that the entire political campaign of Delhi assembly election was bipolar in nature, i.e. performance versus polarization. On one hand, the leaders of the AAP campaigned and advertised about the developmental work that they have done in the last 5 years in the health and education sector. On the other hand, the leaders of the BJP tried to win the Delhi election by polarizing and dividing the votes. The speeches of the BJP leaders started and ended with Shaheen Bagh. The ugly utterances of the ministers and politicians of the BJP have left no room for ethics and morality in electoral politics.

Majority of the exit polls predicted on the evening of the polling day that the AAP was going to win with a huge margin. The final election results matched the prediction of exit polls and psephologists. Delhi voters chose performance over polarization. They acknowledged the developmental work of the AAP by bringing it back into power. They rejected the polarization and divisive politics of the BJP by giving it a shock through the EVM button.

The BJP leaders including Narendra Modi, Amit Shah and the newly elected party president JP Nadda, along with many other ministers and members of parliament, left no stone unturned to build support and draw votes for the saffron party candidates contesting the elections. But they failed miserably.

After seeing the trend of exit polls, a pro-BJP journalist, Sudhir Chaudhary, shamed Delhi voters on his prime time show. In his dejected and sarcastic tone, he said that “to the people of Delhi, the issues of free electricity, free water and free rides matter more than the issues such as nationalism, article 370 and Ram Mandir. The people of Delhi are Muftkhor (spongers).” It is important to mention here that Chaudhary is one of those fortunate journalists to whom the Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, has given a personal interview. One should not be surprised with Chaudhary’s dejection and frustration. But he forgot to mention the promise of freebies of the political party whose ideology he subscribes to. In its manifesto, the BJP too had promised free bicycles and e-scooters for girls and women in schools and colleges. Such blatant airing of prejudiced views happens only when the journalist deliberately acts as a Public Relations Officer of a political party.

I fail to understand the problem with the freebies. Every government gives freebies and subsidies. In fact, it is a process through which the taxpayers’ money is used to give direct benefits. So where is the problem? Those who are criticizing the AAP for freebies should know that despite its freebies Delhi is a surplus Union Territory as per the report of the CAG.

The reader should not think that I am a die-hard fan of the Aam Aadmi Party. Becoming a staunch fan of a cricketer or a Bollywood celebrity is something which is normal. But becoming a strident fan of a politician is dangerous and unhealthy for a person living in a democracy. Like Dr. Ambedkar, I too don’t advocate for hero-worship in politics. Ambedkar said, “Hero worship is endemic in our country and personality cult flourishes. There is nothing wrong in admiring our leaders as heroes, but the risk is that in the process, the tendency is to entrust such persons with vast powers and uncritically accept the exercise of these powers, without insisting on accountability, which is a sine qua non of any genuine democracy.”

I appreciate the AAP for inserting a new narrative of development into Indian politics as it has initiated a discussion on fighting an election on the sole agenda of development. In fact, it is a good sign for a democracy. My appreciation for the AAP is not to claim that it is a party without flaws. Like any other party in India, the AAP too is a flawed party.

The AAP has gradually become personality-centric in its nature as the entire political campaign revolved around one face, i.e. Arvind Kejriwal. Unfortunately, the AAP follows the same pattern as the BJP where everything revolves around Narendra Modi. Like Modi, Kejriwal has also sidelined many important faces such as Yogendra Yadav and Prashant Bhushan from the party.  Is it possible for a party to counter its rival by following the same strategies of the rival? Absolutely not.

Though Kejriwal has defeated the BJP in a political battle, would he be able to defeat the same in an ideological battle, too? In the last couple of months, the AAP has not taken a strong stand vis-à-vis the Hindutva ideology of the RSS and the BJP.

In a recent published article, Monobina Gupta corroborate this when she writes: “Where does this electoral tactic place Kejriwal on the ideological and political spectrum? His invocation of Hanuman, visit to a Hanuman temple, and recitation of the Hanuman Chalisa have all been made out to be the markers of BJP-like politics. Kejriwal, his critics have said, did not fight the good ideological fight. In other words, what they seem to suggest is he should have fought that very fight that would have pulled him down and brought the BJP to power in Delhi. Put differently, according to this confounding logic, Kejriwal should have virtually campaigned to ensure a BJP victory.”

Even Yogendra Yadav criticizes Kejriwal for imitating the BJP style of politics. He writes “The Delhi elections also underscore how the popular imagination of a good CM candidate (or for that matter a good political leader) is being shaped. By reciting Hanuman Chalisa, Kejriwal didn’t just exhibit his piety, he opened up new tests for future politicians.” Yadav further adds, “This insistence of holding your faith on your shirtsleeves characterises the BJP’s Hindutva.”

To stop the politics of hatred and polarization, ideological defeat is far more important than the political defeat of the BJParty. The AAP is celebrating the number of seats it has managed to secure, while the BJP is celebrating the percentage of increased vote share in the election. It is only a political defeat for the BJP not an ideological one.

In his book, Communalism, noted historian Bipin Chandra writes, “Unfortunately, in India the secular forces have not realised this truth sufficiently. They have opposed communal forces and parties politically but not exposed and opposed communal ideology. They have become complacent every time communal parties have suffered political setback. For example, even though BJP was defeated electorally in 2004, yet communalism remains as strong as it was before 2004.”

It is true that the victory of the AAP is spectacular. Hence the leaders of the party have every right to celebrate it but they should not pretend that they have uprooted the politics of hate and polarization from the capital. The continuous ideological attack along with political setback are the need of hour to eliminate the toxic polarization of the RSS and the BJP. The AAP must understand that it will never pose a challenge to the BJP and the RSS as long as it follows the same path.

The politically dying Congress in Delhi should also understand that it cannot hope to revive itself by providing easy passage to the AAP. In democracy we cannot rely on a single party. A party once having political mandate for three consecutive terms is now happy without opening its account. This is a dismal political scenario for the Congress and it should seriously introspect its political position in Delhi.

I want to appeal to all the voters of the Aam Aadmi Party to stop following it blindly. As a voter we must not celebrate the political victory of any party naively because our mandate and trust is at stake for next five years. It is our responsibility to make the newly elected government more accountable, transparent and welfare-oriented. It is also important to continuously put a check on it whether it lives up to our expectation or not.