 Hello, welcome to NewsClick, you are watching Present Past in the Future and I am Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay. There is actually nothing wrong if in the political lexicon, new words get added. In the last five years, however, we have a new word in the Indian political lexicon. Now, bhakt in Indian politics for the last five years essentially means somebody who is an admirer of the Prime Minister, Narendra Modi. An admirer I am using this word, not somebody who is a supporter. The difference between being a supporter and an admirer is that an admirer is supposed to be blind. A supporter can be a qualified supporter. There is a tradition of personality cult in Indian politics. However, the BJP, the Bharti Janta Party, was spared of this right from the beginning of its origins, whether as BJP from 1980 or even previously. In the last five years, however, there has become a fashion within this political party to destroy internal democracy and glorify and defy the leader of the party. It is something unprecedented and not very good for the culture of the party, but that is besides the point. Now, when we talk about bhakti, there is a long tradition of bhakti in Indian culture, in Indian mind space. It has evolved, but what we are seeing now is a kind of a vulgarization. What does this show of us as a nation, but more importantly, what does it show what is happening of Indian political leaders who like it when they are glorified, when tables are thumped in their names in most important institutions of this country, most significantly in the Indian parliament. All these is happening in a very unprecedented manner. Now, to discuss this with me, I have today Professor Harbath Mukhiya, very noted historian. Professor Pushotam Agarwal, who is also possibly requires very little introduction, somebody who has also studied bhakti from the critics point of view. His PhD, if I am not wrong, it was on bhakti. So, let me begin with you Pushotam. You know, when we use this word bhakti, it is used very loosely in a political context, but there is a certain huge cultural and spiritual context in the Indian tradition. Could you start by help by locating the idea of bhakti and as to how in the process of vulgarization possibly? Well, if you go into the historical evolution of the idea of bhakti, initially the term bhakti or the term bhakti denoted a sense of participation and sphere. If you go by the nirukthaphyask, there Indra, Agni and Maroth and Varon, all the Vedic deities, they are described as bhakti of each other. Because when you offer something in offering, in a yagya, you offer it in the name of Indra, but then Agni has also his sphere into it and so on. So, Indra is Agni's bhakt and Agni is Indra's bhakt, which means that they are participating in the glory of each other. If you look at Panini, which is slightly later than Yask before Christ, Panini actually defines the use of term bhakt as not someone only devoted and devoted to God, but as someone who loves maybe a dish, maybe a city. So he mentions bhaktap Mathura as well as the bhaktap Krishna and Vasudev. So if you are a lover of Mathura, if you love your city which is Mathura, you are bhaktap Mathura. Or otherwise you are a bhaktap dev or whatever. You can be even bhakt of a person. Yes, of course. But essentially the idea was participation, that was the dominant idea. But to cut a very long story short, historically by and by this idea of participation was marginalized and sidelined and the idea of devotion to a king, to a god, to a cult, to a figure, it evolved. The important role played by the so-called medieval bhaktas starting from Namdev was to reclaim the original idea of bhakti, that is the participative nature of bhakti. And that is why Anant Das described Namdev as the first bhakt in Kalyug. Mind you, first bhakt. I mean Anant Das was aware that Kalyug starts with the end of Mahabharata but he does not count anybody as bhakt in this whole period. Namdev according to him is the first bhakt because if I quote Kalyug prathama namdev bhaiya kesa apne kar kar lehiya Namdev is the person who has kesa in his hand, who controls kesa. So this is the old sentiment of participation. Now when a word like bhakt comes into the political sphere. No, no, I am coming to context. So this was the idea of participation. And not only amongst the near-gold bhaktas but the supposedly conservative bhaktas, the second bhaktas. They are also, one thing is very clear Nilanja. Bhakti does not come without Vivek. Bhakti and Vivek, these are two qualities which they require of a human being. Whether it is Kabirdas or it is Surdas or it is Meera bhaiya or whosoever. Now the current bhakti, the kind of bhakti we are talking about, it has a clearly antagonistic relation to any kind of Vivek. That bhakti was not possible without Vivek. But here you have to negate Vivek. You have to first of all surrender your Vivek. To express bhakti you have to surrender your Vivek. The kind of bhakti we are talking of today, the first condition of that bhakti is to surrender your Vivek. The first condition of that bhakti was to sustain your Vivek. Even if you are supposedly conservative in certain social matters, that does not allow you to completely surrender your Vivek and to justify everything which is offered to you. I mean Tulsidas is also quite critical of certain things which he does not like. He is supposed to be the most conservative of all of them. But he is very critical of our social system which leads to poverty, to hunger, to famine and all that. Let me get in Professor Mukhera on this. What we are talking, we are seeing it in the historical context. Within the political sphere, it is not that what we are seeing now is happening for the first time. If we actually start saying that the warning signs, that we should not really start deifying political leaders. This is something the warnings were set first by Jawaharlal Nehru way back in 1937, when he wrote that famous art. He said the intolerance of others in a certain contempt for the weak and the inefficient. This is what he wrote about himself. There is this also very important speech which was given by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly where he says in India Bhakti or what may be called the path of devotion or hero worship plays a part in its politics unequaled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country. Bhakti in religion may be a road to salvation of the soul, Prushotham, as you were saying. But in politics Bhakti or hero worship is a sure role to degradation or eventual dictatorship. If I may have seen Lohia also, Lohia also was very critical and he actually said that this country has been traditionally a country of Pratimapuja. So now we construct, he was obviously referring to Jawaharlal Nehru. So we also construct the Pratimapuja. Professor Mukhiya, but there is a difference between what we are talking about even within the political sphere and what we are seeing in the now. How would you say that are the essential differences and as to how this will become more vulgar? You know, before I come to that, I think I like to, although we are discussing it in the Indian context Bhakti or devotion or loyalty, these are not specific to a particular space or time. These are quite universal, you know. And I think one quick distinction I like to make between the devotion or what we might call Bhakti in the western concept and the Indian one is that, for example, the great French historian Mark Block once wrote that when you go to the church and pray before the Lord, you bend your knees and even now there is a sort of plank where you can bend your knees and pray to the Lord. He says that this is a replica of a vassal praying to his Lord, submitting himself to the Lord and praying to him to accept his submission. So here is a complete submission here which is unquestioned. And which is, as Purushottam was saying, which is in a way antithetical to any kind of thinking of your own, any question of your own. You have to submit yourself completely, totally. The Indian context, it's very interesting that Bhakti movement as we call it in the medieval Indian context it came as a liberating force rather than an enslaving force. The one that Mark Block is talking of is enslaving. The one that we are talking of in the Indian context is liberating. It liberated, in a way it was probably the first democratic movement in medieval Indian history or probably in Indian history before the national movement and so on. So that it liberated. Now it liberated partly or largely as Purushottam was saying that it doesn't lead to the surrender of your thinking, of your Vivek. But it's a Bhakti grown out of your own thinking rather than your unthinking devotion. It is not demanded from you. It's not demanded from you. Secondly, here is a devotion not to a person but to God, to an idea of God. What it has turned into, not now but for a long time is devotion to a person, to an individual. And it is this devotion to a person or an individual which has now come to a stage where we have this very meaning of Bhakt has changed. The very meaning of Bhakt has become a Bhakt of Narendra Modi. How has it come about? You have the word called Modi Bhakt. People are proud to say, I am a Modi Bhakt. You don't even say Modi Bhakt. You know Pellaj Nehalani who was one time the head of the CBFC. He said that I am not ashamed to be a Modi Bhakt. Yes, several people said that. So it is now a statement. Let me just ask you. It's so significant that we are having this discussion just a couple of days before Smriti Radi made this very famous statement. The day Narendra Modi hangs his boots I am going to retire from politics. Now what does this reflect? At one level this is also Bhakti. But why is it coming up? To my mind there are basically three reasons for this which is happening. One is that the university in the political process, all political parties, you have this universal emergence of the high command. In certain parties it is much more strangulating than in other parties whereas in other parties it is slightly possibly less. Then you also see in parties which were known for organizational structures existing. BJP for instance was categorized before it came to power in 2014 for the existence of a collegiate style of functioning within the party. Now it is being destroyed. 2015 LK Advani and two other senior leaders wrote this letter demanding inner party democracy. It has not been answered, no questions have been given. Also most importantly is that you do not have any more ideological debates within the parties which is what leads Smriti Rani to say she is in the BJP not because of the ideology of the BJP but because of Narendra Modi. Now this is your Bhakti in a very vulgar form which is existing in today's politics. Well, to continue with what Professor Mukhiya was saying that Bhakti for those people in the medieval or early modern period was focused on God, an idea. Whether in the form of an incarnation or in the form of nirvana or whatever and it just brings to my mind a very famous line from Tulsidas which would be rather very fitting description for the reaction of Goddess Saraswati to the statements made by like Mr. Nelani and Ms. Irani and the chopa is like this prakraj janu ki ne gun gana sirdhun gira lagi pachitana when people start adulating the ordinary mortal beings the Saraswati, the goddess of learning, beats her head and repents that what is happening in my name. So let us keep this distinction constantly in mind. Now about, you see, yes there has been high command culture in other parties there has been centralization. Specially from the time Indira Gandhi came and started change the culture of Congress. But let me remind you one thing in the long term. After Indira Gandhi in Indian politics at least and outside communist establishment it is for the first time that being critical of Mr. Modi is equated with being anti-national. This is remarkable, this is very remarkable. To give their, to give them due credit you know me and we know each other for so many years. Indira was India and that is what I am telling you was just in a slogan but here it actually it is in effect and I am talking of BJP itself. I mean I have been active as a commentator or as an academic for years I had occasions of criticizing Mr. Vahri Vajpayee, Mr. Lal Krishnan one and every other political party. And I was never called anti-national for criticizing Mr. Vajpayee or criticizing Gandhi. Dissent has been delegitimized in this particular regime. Dissent not has been delegitimized, it has been demonized. It has been demonized. I mean if you are critical of a particular individual it is exactly what Tulsi Das would really repent. If you are critical of a particular individual you are not only a non-Bhakt, you are a non-Indian. That is the best part of it. I see it actually as a part of what shall I say a displacement of an old structure of polity by a new one you know. In the sense that you know I mean I have been around long enough to have seen Prime Minister from Nehru onwards to Mr. Modi. We have had the fortune of seeing only from Indira Gandhi onwards. And she has also. And she has not in my case. And seen how parliament functions and debates and arguments and so on fears arguments and so on so forth you know. But you know the polity was not centered on the in a way de-legitimization of debates which is taking place now. In fact this is something which I see very interesting you know. We keep on saying in the media we say that we accuse the BJP of water boundary. You ask a question they say. They reply by asking another question. What is happening is we are seeing is that there is a criticism. They don't reply to the criticism. They raise further questions about the critic. Pushottamagar was appointed so and so under this government. Who is Professor Mukhiya? He has written such and such book. For this he received a grant from such and such person. So because he has done this his argument is false. There is a reason for that Nilan. There is a reason for that. Political reasons we all know. We must also understand the psychological reasons. You see I have very personally I mean I am very firmly believe that without being inadequate in your mental and psychological faculties you cannot be a supporter of any authoritarian world. So when these kind of questions are raised which you describe as what about you? It also indicates a deep rooted sense of lack of confidence and kind of insecurity. I mean you cannot. This insecurity is at a personal level in terms of political power that you hold also I think ideological insecurity. It is at the collective cultural level and it is not confined to the present dispensation. See for example you cannot respond to the arguments of the so-called to recall the title of a famous or infamous book the eminent historians. You cannot respond to their arguments. You cannot respond to Arumila Thapar. You cannot respond to Harbansum Kiya. You cannot respond to Irfan Abib. So you raise questions about everything except their work. Their proposal that look this is what I feel about media and India. This is what I feel about this particular incident in ensign and India. You do not talk about that thing. You cannot criticize or denounce that argument with the counter argument with the counter facts because you know that you cannot. This is as simple as that. Just to finish this point. This has reached this has not started with Mr. Modi. This has reached its highest point with Mr. Modi where we have a situation that on the floor of the house a minister uses the phrase intellectual terrorism. So there has been a long process which has resulted in the phrase like intellectual terrorism being used on the floor of the house. Prof. Mukher we are not seeing personality cult for the first time in Indian politics. We have seen it previously also. But there is definitely a growing tendency to presidentialize every election. Even municipal board elections is fought in the name of the leader. In India there has been a tradition of you know bowing to the personalities and but is it there also globally? You know is it a political phenomenon? We are seeing it in the United States also. So is it a part of a global trend? Yes, yeah actually you know I will come to that in a moment but you know I earlier wanted to say that you know there is probably a new kind of structure of polity evolving which is replacing or displacing the old structure of debates and arguments and so on so forth whether in parliament or within your party or outside in public etc. where leaders would come and answer questions you know would participate in debates with people and answer their questions etc. Now a structure is evolving almost has been established that you know leader is not really answerable to anyone. You are answerable to the leader. Leader is not answerable to you you know. Therefore the whole idea of bhakti has been or is distortion has been taken to its highest limit where you don't ask any question only the leader ask question or leaders doesn't even ask questions leaders gives you wisdom you know and you follow it you know. So this whole polity is now evolving not about debates whether you are right you are wrong you are leftist rightist centrist whatever whatever what are your economic policies whatever etc. But the leader is right you know. Therefore this structure of polity that is evolving which is far more disturbing you know because in debates you can you know you can be proven right wrong whatever you can do but you know this thing about bhakti you have to be loyal to me you know. Again not for the first time we have seen it in the Indra Gandhi's case but in Indra Gandhi was you know has a democratic stream in her so she ordered elections and she lost the elections etc. etc. but we don't see that democratic stream here you know not that Modiji can withhold elections you know. Right he has to. He has to you know but given to himself probably or given to their new structure of polity that is evolving probably they would like to do without elections you know they could you know. So I am worried about that part of the bhakti you know rather than and your question now whether it is universal phenomenon to a certain extent yes it is universal phenomenon you know but not to the extent that it is in India I mean Trump has his own Trump is a obvious example which comes to one's mind Trump has his own following very strong following but he you can criticize him to to like help in the USA you know and or Putin and so on so forth you know so that the degree is not the same phenomenon is similar but the degree is not the same as it is in India. For sure the one last question as we get into the final part of this discussion begin to run out of time. Quite often it is said that Indian democracy has a self-corrective mechanism now in India you know we are seeing what we are seeing at the national level of bhakti is also visible at the state levels you have various state leaders also who are requiring their own bhakti you know you are Mayavati, you are Mamta Banerjee you had Jai Lalitha till very recently now in a situation like this when we are in the election season when elections are here you know within a month it is going to be announced and in two months we will be voting in different phases is there any reason for hope? Yes there is a reason for hope there is a reason for hope there is a reason for hope there is a reason for hope certainly and it is because of the awareness which is there and awareness in the sense of the failures of the government of that day I am not attributing any positive value to the awareness generated by the electronic media this awareness is there in spite of that not because of that secondly we must understand that yes there is corrective potential in Indian system but unfortunately and this is a matter of great concern the institutional arrangement here is certainly not as strong as for example in USA so we cannot just sit back and relax that well Supreme Court will do its work University will do its work that is possible in USA not in India so the responsibility rests with every citizen Exactly every citizen has to be aware institutional arrangement is not that strong that we can take some records to that secondly a very important point which we must understand that again it is a question of a certain mindset we were talking of the tradition of personality Carl Tindra Gandhi or even Natal Varivaj or whoever here the more important point or rather harmful thing is that the present God Mr. Modi loves his own voice too much and does not bother about material things like that which is also which also becomes very dangerous when he addresses the students the young students who might believe in some moment of Bhakti that Alexander actually came up to party which he never came I just hope on this note we will conclude this discussion thank you very much for being here because I just hope that the people who are promoting Bhakti do start are actually living in what we call their own eco chambers I just want to before we conclude read out what the Irish patriot Daniel O'Connell wrote about this entire idea of gratefulness to a particular post or to a particular leader he said that no man can be grateful at the cost of his honor no woman can be grateful at the cost of chastity and most importantly here no nation can be grateful at the cost of its own liberty we must be conscious of our own liberty and as we said that we must revive the Vivek in ourselves the conscience in each one of us is much more vocal than it has been to be able to question things which are against the basic culture and our own honor liberty idea that is what we have to protect thank you very much for watching this program