The Fallacy of the “Two Sides” - Part VI

Part V

The two sides of a cause, or a narrative, or an ideology are like the two sides of the same coin, which has no value without either of them. But still one thinks it’s superior to the other and the other dismisses it as though its existence is inconsequential. But one thing that comes about, seen holistically, is that both the sides are adamant, arrogant and insensitive to each other. The reality is that, one exists because of the other and if one hadn’t been there perhaps the other wouldn’t be there too. There’s a “Bhakt”, only because there’s also a “Sickular”. There’s a “Sold Media” because there’s also a “Modia”. And in the melee, the coin seems meaningless.

To give an example, let’s go through a conversation between “Any One” and “Other One”, who represent the two sides. They both are friends and come from similar backgrounds. But still they are on the two sides and here goes their conversation, about the recent CAA, Citizenship Amendment Act.

Any One: So your argument is they [the persecuted Hindus from Bangladesh who have entered India illegally] should not be made to go through any process [for Indian citizenship]. Understood.

Other One: Something which seems default to me is not easy to explain others. And there lies the chasm between the two sides of the story. Of course, no one has been wronged like them. The Jews have been rehabilitated worldwide. But the second most persecuted religious community in the world is still not being rehabilitated and we are still debating. That’s really painful. And isn’t it just amazing that despite such level of persecution not a single of them have yet become militant or even taken to any form of violence, both in Bangladesh and also in India.

Any One: Understood. I am not convinced about rehabilitation for past wrongs at the cost of others who are very much in the present. I don't know if it's [Hindus not taking to militancy] amazing. You could think of various reasons. Divisions within Hindu society, lack of leadership, who knows. They are all theories. But i understand your viewpoint. Even though i don't agree with it. I guess that's important.

Other One: There’s a persecuted community who were ready to adjust to anything that came along and struggle to do whatever best they managed to get. And see, most successful Bengalis worldwide are among those persecuted people. It’s indeed something to study for the whole world. But they never even came to the radar of anyone. No one is asking to do any wrong to others. I’m just saying, keep them aside and create rules for others. Don’t mix them with other persecuted people at all. Isn’t it ironical that we are ready to understand why someone can become militant but we say “don’t know” when there’s an example of such a huge persecuted community who stayed away from militancy? By the way, Parsis and Tibetans too never became militants and they too were not less persecuted. It’s indeed worth studying why certain people – Sri Lankan Tamils, Maoists, Kashmiris – took to militancy but many others didn’t.

Any One: It would be worth studying why militancy did not develop among the Hindus in Bangladesh or Tibetans in China while it did among Tamils of Sri Lanka, or Sunni Muslims of Kashmir. Maybe it will help prevent militancy among other marginalized groups, of which there are hundreds. But as a matter of urgency, when faced with militant violence, the state reacts with violence, academics try to ask why is there militancy, and perhaps forget to ask the question of why there isn't militancy elsewhere. I am certain the answer if there is one cannot be simplistic (e.g. Tibetans are fundamentally peace loving) and should not be seen through the prism of race or religion, but needs to be dug out from the specific political and social circumstance. Maybe at a people to people level, the Hindus of Bangladesh didn't consider their Muslim neighbors to be sufficiently different from them, given the abundance of cultural commonalities, in order for them to wage war on them. Or maybe there was no wealthy diaspora willing to fund them with arms. It will require serious research to understand why. It might be easier to answer questions of why there is militancy elsewhere. Because it's there, and causal links can be established. Understanding absence of something is fundamentally harder I think. But I'm no expert.

Availability of arms is fundamental I think. Presence of Pakistan is an obvious factor in Kashmir. India fortunately didn't fuel an insurgency in Bangladesh. But just academically speaking, if India did, do you think the Hindus would have seized the opportunity? It's possible, isn't it? E.g. the LTTE got some of their power and legitimacy from an arguable level of endorsement from some South Indian parties. All I'm saying is, we can theorize about this stuff. But the pain and suffering that people and kids are going through right now, today, is something we are all complicit in. Just as our parents were complicit in Nehru's mistakes. In our times if there is something I can do to raise my voice against injustice that moves me, I will. And I agree I can't do it for everyone. So the argument of what about the community X in such and such place doesn't hold for me. We are not super humans that we have to stand up for every injustice. If we raise our voice for any cause, we believe in, I think we are being good citizens, irrespective of what side of the debate we are on, as long as it is sincere and not agenda driven.

Other One: These are very interesting discussions and I wish people actually indulged into this rather than attacking the other side and landing nowhere. As you said, yes, there’s a bias in everyone and people should accept that. You stand for something doesn’t mean that someone else can’t stand for something else. And “my standing” is the only high “standing” is also not acceptable. Today’s problem comes exactly from this attitude. I love Gandhi like a God and always hated Nathuram Godse but when I read what he told to the court in his trial I was firstly so shaken that I couldn’t sleep for [a] few days. Not that my love for Gandhi came down, rather it increased, but I learned a very big thing – that the other perspective is also equally strong as mine, and that the ethics and moralities are only relative. At the end, Nathuram Godse took arms, very much like a Kashmiri terrorist, and the adamancy and arrogance about the absoluteness of my ideology never allows to pardon a militant, come what may. Hence, at the end I can’t take Nathuram’s side though he also stood for what he felt was right. All our standings are like that. If I stand for Gandhi I must demonize Nathuram, and if I stand for Nathuram I must demonize Gandhi. But in reality, both sides become demon – the Gandhians might feel appalled at the thought that Nathuram could be right, and vice versa.

The moment you demonize one side too much, there’s a retaliation and in most cases it’s very severe. There are very solid grounds, supported by facts and figures, that Hindus have been wronged in many ways. But that’s normal – anyone could be wronged. So there’s perhaps no exception about the wrongs done towards the Hindus. But for a very long time the side that stood for the Hindus were demonized so much that one day they retaliated. If the demonization didn’t happen, perhaps the retaliation also wouldn’t have happened. Terrorism is also one form of fascism. In fact, fascism is terrorism. So if you think why the BJP has such enormous support base in [what your side refers to as] its [own] form of “terrorism”, it’s perhaps because of the same reason why Kashmiris have also come to support terrorism – the feeling that they haven’t been heard enough, that they have been demonized in many ways. So basically the problem is always in demonizing the other side. Whenever I call someone fascist or communal I’m demonizing him, not understanding why he’s behaving like that. [For the sake of argument, it could be said that] there’s no difference between a Kashmiri terrorist and may be Amit Shah or Modi or another Nathuram. One has more power so he’s doing more harm. So unless this looking down on others, taking a moral high ground that “my stand is higher than yours”, this will never end. As I told, BJP will lose, Congress will come, they will also do some other form of harm and then again BJP will come and it will go on and on like a vicious circle – unless we learn to listen otters, stop demonizing others.

Part VII