Saturday May 25, 2019
Home India Aham Bhaktam:...

Aham Bhaktam: the dimensions of Bhakts on political spectrum

0
//

Kishore Asthana

The word ‘Bhakt’ has been lately made an epithet by some on the left side of our current political divide. This is dismaying. I wish these name-callers had selected some other word to give vent to their angst. However, that they chose this ancient word reveals what is actually behind their mind-set.

In this mood, let me explain to those who wish to learn what a real Bhakt is, at least from my perspective.

Yes, I am a follower of the Dharm, an unequivocal Bhakt. Do not take ‘Dharm’ in the religious sense. My ‘Dharm’ is ‘duty’ and my bhakti is all encompassing. It includes those who agree with me and those who don’t.  It also includes all others in between. I do not get viscerally riled if someone says things against my faith, my idols, or my nation, or my environment, or my friends. I think about their motives and whether what they have said and done harms my society. When I say ‘society’ I mean my family and friends, my countrymen, my India and my Earth. If it does, I oppose them logically, with the required amount of vehemence, in the spirit of my Dharm.

I oppose even those who agree with my political leanings if they do something that is harmful to my society. I ignore dissent or negative comments if they do not result in short or long term harm to my society.

Viewing the current agitation and allegations and counter-allegations from both sides, I ask myself, “what does my Dharm dictate under the circumstances? Who is on the side of the right and who is on the side of the wrong? Who is Dharmic in this chaos and who is Adharmik?

I can find Dharmik people on both sides of the ideological spectrum. Imagine a long band. One end is white and the other black. In between, there are shades of gray. All those within my conscience are ranged along this band. Their positioning depends upon whether, in my view, they are Dharmic or Adharmic, with the real Dharmic ones aligned on the lighter side.

On the real dark side of this band, I find all terrorists, regardless of their nationality or religion. Here I see those who initiate anti-India slogans and those who engineer and lead anti-India demonstrations. I also find those ‘right-wingers’ who resort to death threats or threats of rape etc. against those who they oppose. I find everyone here who seeks to divide India, physically or metaphorically, for whatever reason.

Just a few millimeters away from them towards the darkest grey, I find those agitators who burn national and private property and stop normal lives in pursuit of their political demands – demands for reservations for example. Here are those, too, who resort to physical violence against those who voice views they are opposed to.

Just a smidgeon more towards the greyer side, but still fairly dark, I find those influential people in the media, politics and society who actively support and defend these dark forces. They do this by writing articles, giving speeches and recirculating posts on social media that further the agenda of dark ones.

These people are not ‘misguided’. They are conscious believers in the discourse of these anti-Nationals, on both sides of the political divide. Often, they resort to chicanery. They use the power of the media and the power of their social status to spread the message of darkness everywhere they can.

Yes, I consider them merely a fraction better than the ones in real darkness. These people harm the society in two ways – firstly by spreading the message of the dark and secondly by distracting the country’s attention from real issues like poverty, education, farmers, employment, health, economic development etc.

Many other Adharmic are here too, including industrialists who blatantly pollute my rivers, builders who illegally chop down forests and those who undermine society through corruption. All those who promote superstition also populate this area.

Then come the masses, mostly young people who gather and shout slogans. It does not matter who they are supporting or who they are reacting against. They are in the grey area on both sides of the ideological divide. They are easily moved and they rely on others to form their opinions. They are puppets with their puppet-masters hiding in the dark, convincing them that their views are entirely their own. I do not consider them anti-national. They are merely guided by the dialogue fed to them. They are bhakts, too, in a naïve, twisted sort of way. They pray with their faces towards the dark.

At this stage, I wonder why the authorities do not realize this difference in shades of motivation and work out a different strategy for countering each segment. Force is appropriate against some on the darkest side, regardless of whether they support or oppose the regime. Social shaming, exposure and financial pressure are better for the social supporters of the dark. A gentler approach, proper communication and understanding is more suited to those who are being manipulated puppet-like.

Problems escalate when the same strategy is used for people populating all shades of gray.  Furthermore, when this is perceived to be especially targeted only against those holding anyone mindset, it makes the situation worse. A true leader will not take sides and deal in an appropriately firm manner with all the dark ones.

As my vision moves more towards the lighter grey side, I increasingly find more and more logical people. These people, regardless of their socio-political leanings, rely on analysis of events and their real implications for our society. They may believe in a certain ideology but are not blind slaves to it to the extent of seeing everything rosy in it.

Such people react in a measured manner, addressing issues rather than personalities. There are quite a few here, too. There are some defense services officers, some corporate executives and some retired people populating the light grey. I espy a very few social activists but hardly any journalists and politicians here.

Having had my fill of the dark, I turn around and look towards the brightest side of the band. I see my ancient India here, the fount of my Bhakti. I sense sadness in her heart and tears in her eyes. I bow my head, partly in reverence and partly in shame at what past generations of my countrymen have done to her and so many in the present generation are intent, even now, on doing to her. Our propensity for divisiveness and a warped sense of what is right and what is wrong have brought her to this pass.

Through good thoughts, I try to assure her that all will be well but, knowing the resolve of foreign and domestic dark forces, the mindsets of the opinion-makers, the gullibility of the puppet majority amongst my countrymen and the cynical vote-bank politics and frequent ham-handedness of our politicians, there is not much conviction in my thoughts.

All I can do is affirm to my India that, whatever happens, I am and will remain her Bhakt. I will not take sides except against anyone who attempts to harm her. I will not react in a knee-jerk manner to any provocation. I will willingly lay down my life for her and will respect others who do so too, both at our troubled borders and inside. I will analyze issues and look below the obvious to see where they originate. I will cut the strings if anyone tries to make a puppet out of me. Then I will determine my own action.

Yes, as a true Bhakt, I will be my own man – and my India’s.

Mr. Asthana is a resident of Gurgaon. Twitter: @kishoreasthana

asthana1@yahoo.com

Next Story

U.S. House Judiciary Committee Tries To Resolve Dispute on Holding Barr in Contempt

U.S. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell says it is time for lawmakers to move on from the Russia investigation.

0
Washington
House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., gavels in a hearing on the Mueller report without witness Attorney General William Barr who refused to appear, on Capitol Hill in Washington, May 2, 2019. VOA

The U.S. House Judiciary Committee is proceeding Wednesday with its consideration of whether to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress over the Justice Department’s refusal to provide an unredacted copy of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on his investigation of Russian election interference.

Committee leaders and Justice Department officials met Tuesday to try to resolve the
dispute, but the two sides each issued statements late in the day indicating they remained far apart.

In short, the Justice Department threatened to request that President Donald Trump invoke executive privilege over the materials the committee asked for in its subpoena, if it goes ahead with the contempt vote Wednesday.

Nadler responded by saying the Justice Department’s legal arguments lack credibility or legal basis, and further accused it of conducting “dangerous” obstruction.

FILE - Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., right, speaks with Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., center, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, at the Capitol in Washington.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., right, speaks with Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., center, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, at the Capitol in Washington. VOA

​The Justice Department’s positions came in the form of a letter to Nadler from Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd who accused Nadler’s committee of making “unreasonable demands” and provoking “an unnecessary conflict between our respective branches of government.”

Boyd said the Justice Department had acted within the law and regulations by offering a copy of the Mueller report “with as few redactions as possible,” but said committee leaders escalated the dispute by demanding all committee members be allowed to review that version, something he said would “risk violating court orders” in some ongoing cases.

Boyd asked Nadler to put the Mueller report subpoena on hold for now and to delay Wednesday’s contempt vote.

Nadler in his statement said the White House had long ago waived its executive privilege over the materials requested in the subpoena, which include not only the full Mueller report but also the underlying documents from the investigation of Russia’s interference with the 2016 election, whether members of Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia, and whether the president obstructed justice.

“The Department’s decision reflects President Trump’s blanket defiance of Congress’s constitutionally mandated duties,” Nadler said. “I expect that Congress will have no choice but to confront the behavior of this lawless administration. The Committee will also take a hard look at the officials who are enabling this cover up.”

If the Democrat-controlled Judiciary Committee approves the contempt citation for the attorney general, it would be taken up by the full House of Representatives. In theory, someone held in contempt could eventually be tried and, if convicted, face up to a year in prison. The Justice Department rarely pursues such referrals from Congress.

Nadler’s committee is also considering whether to hold Donald McGahn, the former White House counsel, in contempt of Congress if he refuses to testify before the committee later this month about the Mueller probe.

McGahn on Tuesday refused to comply with a subpoena for documents related to the investigation. The White House had demanded he ignore the subpoena, and his lawyer said the documents were property of the White House and as such McGahn had no right to them.

Nadler rejected that argument, saying the White House had also not invoked executive privilege over those materials.

House Democrats are pushing for Mueller to testify about his handling of the investigation.

Barr has said he had no objection to letting Mueller testify before Congress about his investigation. But Trump on Sunday changed his mind, saying, “Bob Mueller should not testify. No redos for the Dems!” No agreement has been reached for Mueller’s testimony.

Barr last month released a redacted copy of the Mueller report, with the prosecutor concluding neither Trump nor his campaign colluded with Russia, but reached no conclusion whether Trump, as president, obstructed justice during the 22-month investigation. Barr decided the findings did not warrant obstruction charges against the president.

Donald Trump
In short, the Justice Department threatened to request that President Donald Trump invoke executive privilege over the materials the committee asked for in its subpoena, if it goes ahead with the contempt vote Wednesday. VOA

In an online statement under the name DOJ Alumni, more than 700 former federal prosecutors, so far, who worked in Republican and Democratic administrations said evidence Mueller uncovered would have resulted in obstruction charges against Trump, were it not for the long-standing Justice Department policy that a sitting president cannot be charged with a criminal offense.

U.S. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell says it is time for lawmakers to move on from the Russia investigation.

Also Read: New York Times Report Claims, Donald Trump’s Businesses Lost More Than $1 Billion During Early 90’s

“Case closed,” McConnell said on the Senate floor. McConnell derided what he said was the “outrage industrial complex” of Democrats and television news show pundits over special counsel Robert Mueller’s conclusion that Trump did not collude with Russians to help him win.

“The investigation went on for two years,” he said. “It’s finally over.”

Top Democratic leaders immediately disputed McConnell. Senate Democratic leader Charles Schumer called McConnell’s remarks “an astounding bit of whitewashing,” while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “That’s just not a fact. The case is not closed.” (VOA)