June 4th, 2017 marked the 28th anniversary of Tiananmen Square protests, a student protest in China because of the country’s degenerative economic reforms, nepotism in government, and lack in career prospects among other reasons. This protest stood out because of two reasons: it was a peeping hole into the country’s iron curtain policy; and two, the protests turned out to be gruesome when the military fired openly on civilians and ran them over with tanks, in an attempt to quell the demonstrations at the Tiananmen Square killing about a thousand people.

China became a staunch follower of the communist way in the times of Mao Zedong, known as the founding father of People’s Republic of China and the Chairman of the Communist Party of China. He launched the Great Leap Forward and Great Proletarian Cultural revolution to slowly turn China into an industrial economy from an agrarian economy, thus facilitating communism. Over time, the enforcement of communism ideals developed such loopholes that they damaged the economy to a large extent. The administrative class, which should have been free of corruption became even more so. Famines and droughts hit the country side, causing deaths in millions. The communism that was embraced by the country in an attempt to boost its economy resulted in a number of problems and the students, who saw the dark future their country was heading into, marched down the streets, presenting the government with their demands. And the government imposed a martial law.

This was the story of China, we come to India now. Most of the reasons why communism cannot survive in India may also be applicable to other modern democracies. The number one reason that communism cannot survive in India is because of the small working class. The way that our economic reforms took place, our country is making its way from an agrarian economy to a service sector dependent economy directly, without the much necessary industrial revolution. Socialism, which was supposed to bring about an industrial revolution, failed in our country, causing a number of our industrial units to turn into sick ones. Thus the working class always remained less in number to cause the revolution of the proletariat. Our government, as part of a welfare state has also ensured that the working class remains content and expressive of its demands through peace and not violence, basically, keeping them not at loggerheads with the bourgeois, through schemes and laws.

In a democracy, a classless society cannot exist. Even Mao observed this in China; new elite class arising after the old elite had been done away with, despite China not being a democracy. In a country like ours, communism can be achieved through governmental means only, which will lead to the State taking care of possession and distribution of resources. The government will thus become the elite, a small class owning the majority of resources, that communism had sought to replace. The government will thus get richer and lead to more equalities, corruption and nepotism. Furthermore due to colonialism and poor economic reforms, the country could not accumulate sufficient wealth. To become communist, first the country has to be sufficiently capitalist. Due to the economic reforms of the Nehruvian era, the capitalist class could not thrive. This coupled with the small working class, cold not create the dire conditions that could lead to overthrow of the bourgeois and revolution of the Proletariat.

To exist in a democracy, communism can take form of a party, which is what happened in India, but the two sole communist parties failed to maintain popularity throughout India. Most of the political parties in India thrive by building upon the cultural or religious differences, the Left mostly stayed out of the mess like an ideal political party. They focused entirely on economic factors for development and ignored social factors like caste, religion, etc.  Communism goes hand in hand with an iron hand policy, which means curbing certain (read most) fundamental rights the most controversial one is the right to freedom of speech and expression which already is a bone of contention in India and was one of the causes of Tiananmen protests. This is a mechanism to maintain the communist system and prevent mutiny as well as revolution of the ex-bourgeois. Due to the development of the current media and its ever growing reach, it is impossible for India to maintain a communist regime.

The general reasons are the same, when the profit motive goes away, so does productivity and the government has to give incentive again (which leads to one gaining a benefit over the other: alert, capitalism) to rejuvenate the moribund economy. It creates a cozy club or elites (small class controlling most resources: capitalism, again) through corruption and nepotism. Communism, the ideal one at least, basically, cannot be achieved in any modern democratic or intellectual society. Thus, it is no wonders that India failed to espouse communism just as communism failed to espouse the changing needs of India.

The author, Shivani Karnik, is a student of Law at HNLU,  Raipur.


The Story of a Yogi?

As I present to you this article, it would be safe to provide a disclaimer before I end up being a controversy’s child analogous to the very subject of my discussion today. I, through this article of mine, do not intend to hurt any one person, group or religion’s sentiments.

As the timeworn saying goes, and I quote Sherlock Holmes,

“Sentiment is a chemical defect found on the losing side.”

However, it is quite ironic how sentiments are stirred within the gullible population of the nation by our ingenious polity. With respect to this statement, which many might consider to be superfluous, clarity of thoughts and expression (which is clearly absent in our political system today) is required. But my writing shall not disappoint you.  I cannot possibly pen down my intellect without being politically incorrect, because that would be HYPOCRISY, which is something I am yet to major at. So, I hope you shall pardon my callous use of language and a naïve approach towards the harsh realities we are bordering towards in the literary format that I present to you.


Once upon a time, INDIA- my BHARATA MATA, your HINDUSTAN, and our BHARATA DESH was a golden bird whose wings were clasped to the ground by the British Raj. They robbed us of our glory, they plundered us of our wealth and treasury, and they ransacked us of our faith from fraternity. It is easy to shrug off a matter by saying “let bygones be bygones”, but it is these past horrors that come to haunt us. Here, I mention the ‘Divide and Rule’ policy as formulated by the British which has blemished the very sense of solidarity among us. The ending of British rule in India was to be the advent of a new era, but who knew that old grievances would tailgate further coherence of independent India.

We are no longer bound by a foreign force, but are fettered by the distinct ideologies of ‘dharma’ and ‘jaati’, the seeds of which are deep rooted and watered in the many political parties  that have varied political prejudices which further determine the fate of our polity. BJP adheres to the very ideology of Hindutva and Hindu Nationalism. Thus, the very façade of loathing the CM of Uttar Pradesh should be ruled out if at all we have voted for Bhartiya Janata Party in the first place, and thus, I skip right to the man of the hour- Yogi Adityanath. However stern and focused a politician he may be, there is a huge miss in this influential CM.


This saffron-clad sadhu turned politician appears and claims to be the flag bearer of Hindutva. With his razor sharp tongue, Yogi Adityanath has a strong foothold over Uttar Pradesh, which has already led to a hue and cry among the Muslims with the bizarre comments that have been made by him attacking the Muslims.  A strong mascot of the Ram Mandir issue, his influential and robust leadership will lead to a deepening of the crack between the Hindus and the Muslims into an abyss, after which, there will be no turning back. His vigorous speeches are fanning the fire of communalism, keeping it alive among the myriad of other problems our country is facing. We call ourselves a SECULAR state, however, the government, or to be precise, this particular leader is swaying the whole crux of his substance on a theocratic basis, instinctively libeling Islam or Pakistan.

In one of his recent speeches in Lucknow, he made a hostile remark which raises a very prominent question on how such a type of leader will lead India’s most populous state with such venomous intolerance and biased prejudices that the state of Uttar Pradesh has ever seen-

“Akbar, Aurangzeb and Babar were invaders. The sooner we accept the truth; all the problems of our country will vanish.”

Such judgements have been passed by this man who is entrusted with the precarious future of the many citizens the state contains. To further analyse his statement, it ridiculously means that by demeaning one caste, we all can fight poverty, violence against women, religious conflicts, and the varied troubles our country is foisted with.

Having mentioned ‘violence against women’, this saint of a person once commented –

“If they take one Hindu girl, we will take 100 Muslim girls”,

Justifying even further how violence against women is inevitable where the leaders harbour such opinions.

Another arguable sin which a high priest like him committed was to incapacitate our belief in the phrase – ‘sab moh maya hai’, because when he went to give his condolences to the family of the Border Security Force soldier who was mutilated by the Pakistan army, he brought with himself an air-conditioner, a sofa and carpet which were conveniently and immediately removed from the house after his departure. This shows a sheer lack of humanity, but a serious penchant for materialism which takes precedence over the jawan’s precious life. Here, on one hand, where yogis are supposed to shun power and worldly pleasures for a life of meditation and spiritual quest, this man has preached and invoked violence.

Thus, to dream of a utopian country where our leaders avoid the power politics and begin to sincerely preach Hindu-Muslim harmony is to live in a bubble, but I guess, it is in this bubble where we are safe, where we have the sensible notion of Right and Wrong, where we are united towards our outlook for a peaceful nation.

For the dearth of words, I would like to add to my article a minute variation of the classic combination of words that has, of late, caused a phenomenon on social media (Thanks to Dr. Shashi Tharoor).

Exasperating farrago of distortions, misrepresentations and outright lies being broadcast by a votary priest masquerading as an abhorrent meteoric hypnotic.

There cannot possibly be a happy ending to this, because the situation is only to worsen. The irrational need to indoctrinate their particular ideologies among others does not stand a strong ground and is not acceptable in a country where we are promised the freedom of thought and the freedom to practice, preach and perform different religions.

“A dhoti clad priest
In the garb of an inexorable beast;
The vast shaved head
Many evils which it’d embed;
Wisdom which the saffron tilak exudes
Crimson which his brainchild may produce;
Enthralling mantras his tongue rolled
Caste-based differences which he evoked;
‘Dharma’ and ‘Jaat’ as we all smear,
The inevitable end is near.”



The author, Mahima Maniar, is a student of Political Science at Loreto College, Kolkata.

How Feminine is Feminism?

What began as a social theory or rather, a political movement arguing that legal and social restrictions on females must be removed in order to bring about equality of both sexes in all aspects of public and private life, is now quite a celebrated topic for numerous debates and discussions which marks the rise of a different form of nouveau, enlightenment in the development of human understanding and widening of human thoughts and actions.
There have been numerous claims and counter-claims of what is “true feminism” and what should be the scope of its matter. I will, however, present my own interpretation of feminism and try to distinguish between the different parts of this topic.
In order to attain a “true” understanding of feminism, we have to delve deep into its matter and observe its beginning, in the 18th and the 19th century, marked as the “First wave” of Feminism.
The growth of logical thinking, scientific ideas and the enlightenment period, fall of the Church, the Industrial Revolution, the French Revolution and the rise of the Nation State and democracy in the Western European countries signalled a new development in the socio-political aspect of human history and modern civilization. Men were given the right to vote their leaders, who will lead their country. Leaders, who were elected by the people, of the people and for the people and hence, represented the ‘public’ opinion.
The irony lies in the fact that, the word “public” which was coined in the 14th and the 15th century, necessarily referred to the views of the ‘general masses’ and that of ‘everyone’ and stood opposite to the word “private” and at the same time, women, who formed half of the population, were deprived  of the membership of this “public” sphere. Women were denied the right to vote, voice their opinions, or the opportunity to understand the working of this nouveau enlightened, democratic era, which ironically stood for “everyone”, “public” and the “people”. It was the MEN who formed the rights, laws and rules which would not only guide their welfare, but also that of the “lesser humans”, the “other sex”, the women, whose welfare was thought to be “naturally” placed at a position lower to that of men. It was as if women were different creatures or sub-humans. This struck many enigmatic women like Mary Wollstonecraft.
This led to the successful first wave of Feminism or the Suffragette movement, which took up the issue of Democracy, for ALL, and protested against the male domination, leading to the granting of voting rights to women.
The second wave of Feminism was simultaneously carried out along with the Civil Rights Movement. Betty Friedan, in her book, ‘The Feminine Mystique’ has elucidated how educated women were growing sick of their daily chores. It was as if their destiny to give birth to children, take them to school, take care of her husband, and stay in the kitchen for the rest of the day, even after a sufficient education, which made them elligible for jobs. Friedan also mentions how the working ladies were made fun of being “unable to produce babies” in the workplace and were hardly given any promotion. The movement led to the passage of ‘The Equal Pay for Equal Work Act’ and many such other Laws, throughout the globe, which called for women’s empowerment. Mention must also be made of the women in music, who were encouraged by the movement, such as Laura Nyro.
The third wave had a wider scope and aimed to recognise the various identities that is inherent among humans and accommodate all these in the society. Third-wave feminists had a more broad goal, focusing on ideas like queer theory, and abolishing gender role expectations and stereotypes, that is supported by the patriarchal society and hetero-normativity.
The thing is, ‘modernity’ is thought to be a harbinger of equality among the sexes. It is thought that modernity has brought about women’s empowerment and it is sufficient to bring about an upliftment of women’s position in the society. However, the present situation is not as heavenly or romantic as socialism or capitalism thought modernity would be.
There is inherent a sense of oppression, which deprives women of several opportunities and the whole sex is socially tagged as something very weak, dependent and lacking confidence. It is a fact that the modern society is a patriarchal society where families still prefer a male child and though property seems to be equally divided among the male and the female child, it is the former who gets the most of it.
There is a reason why even after the three waves of feminism, there is necessary a fourth wave, which aims to charge at the present oppression that hinders not only the opportunities of the female sex, but also that of the minorities, the LGBTQIA+ groups and several oppressed classes and castes.
It is a fact that till date, doing something “like a woman” is considered to be negative. It is as if someone is making fun of the individual if he/she is doing something “like a woman”. This is quite a sad occuring and I believe, that the presence of this fact itself is a proof that oppression of women is inherently present and women’s empowerment needs to be emphasized upon.
The complexity of inter-sectionalism lies in the fact that, where some feminists argue that the ‘Burkha’ and the ‘Hijaab’ is disgraceful for women and imposes male dominance on them, some Muslim Feminists argue that it is quite empowering as they can look at a man’s skin, or gaze at their faces but the man cannot do so. However, not going into such complexities, it can be said that Feminism is a necessity in bringing about a humanitarian development of the society as a whole. It is a necessity to recognise and give place to the various identities and diverse human beings that are present in the society who need to be given equal rights irrespective of any of their identities.
Moreover, many men just assume that the maintenance of a household is a woman’s job. This is an extremely selfish claim which arises due to them, being born in a society which programs them to think in that way. There are men who say things like, “I am busy babysitting my kid tonight”, when actually he is caring for his own child, because it is his offspring too! It’s not his wife’s job and he isn’t babysitting when he is doing it… it’s both their jobs!
Then, is feminism a completely feminine theory? Is it different for different people? What is the role of men in Feminism?
In order to answer these questions we need to delve deep into the liberal understanding of Feminism and observe how intersectional feminism talks about equality of all the sexes and genders and looks at them as an inevitable part of humanity and societal reality.
Feminism transgresses its feminine boundaries and steadily creeps into the realm of gender, sexuality and asserts their multiplicity. It points out to the quiet mass of people who do not identify them either as male or female, or pose a behaviour, different to the normative behaviour assigned to the sex they are born into.
Feminism also stands strong while questioning the official notions of masculinity which vehemently rejects and denies the identity of a ‘Man’ to any male individual who does not adhear to the official notions of hetero-normativity.
Feminism also questions, with the help of social evidences, ‘logic’ and ‘scientific claims’ which have historically brought about women’s oppression and has given women a weak and dependent position.
There is a preconceived notion that feminism is essentially a feminine ideology, that women use to empower themselves in various walks of their lives. However, it should be stressed, how feminism has transgressed it’s feminine boundaries, into that of masculinity and a transition area between the two conditions. A movement that had begun for the granting of certain civil rights and legal rights for women for their opportunitues, has now evolved to question the official notions of what is masculinity and has given a strong voice to many men, who have been discriminated, socially disregared and rejected by the larger group of not only, the “masculine” men but also women, who have been socialised into believing the patriarchal norms and it’s dominance.
Feminism gives a voice to those men who do not fall into the celebrated category of “masculine” men who project a certain behaviour, not similar to that of a woman, who possesses neither emotions or sensitivity. Feminism claims that there is present not one, but various forms of masculinity. Only one form of typical male behaviour is thought to be masculine, male-like, in the patriarchal society  Coincidentally, the word ‘masculine’ was itself coined around the 15th-16th Century, and it related to only a typical form of behaviour professed by the heterosexual, white, English educated, European men, who set the limits and standards for men to be identified as behaviourally masculine. Hence, the word masculine is actually quite restricting and does not have a space for all those men who do not toe the lines of the “normal, masculine, men” and are tagged as “queers”, or even “homosexuals”. Mention should be made of the oppression that this form of masculinity caused all around the world. The Britishers tagged the Bengali, young men or the ‘Babu’ as effeminate and undeserving of the ‘masculine’ tag since they were earned their income through the Zamindari system and were generally, pot-bellied. Even among various African and North American tribes, the men were tagged as effeminate since they lived in a matriarchal society, or had a queen as their tribal leader. Even in the modern era, men who don’t behave in certain ways, or don’t watch sports or are not into sports, who don’t educate themselves in the scientific subjects are treated as effeminate and are socially disregarded during socialization. This had led many men to grow to be un-social individuals and some have grown to hate their own sex.
As a concluding note, it can be stressed that the various parameters that are set in the society should not affect an individual’s life if she/he fails to meet them. Differences and uniqueness should be accepted and regarded in the society and I believe, feminism strives to achieve such a society where humans will be accepted for who they are, what they believe and their liberty should be regarded as a norm. It should also be said that one’s liberty should not hinder another’s opportunity or the right to yield her/his liberty. True feminism believes in inter-sectionality, humanism, liberalism, egalitarianism and has been a product of a several decades of struggle and I believe, it is necessary to facilitate the process of reaching that stage where human nature will be more accepting, open minded and will not disregard uniqueness or difference of the human race.
The author, Meghjit Sengupta, is a student of Sociology at St. Xavier’s College, Kolkata.

Why We Don’t Want To Sound Too ‘Political’

‘I don’t want to sound too political.

Having grown up hearing this sentence thrown around, I’ve used it many times myself, even as a (rather ignorant) student of political science in the twelfth grade. I’ve heard teachers, friends, and people around me use it, as though issuing this disclaimer would really separate them from the innately political subjects they follow that sentence up with. But, instead of pointing this out, I would be better advised to uncover the roots of why ‘politics’ or ‘being political’ is so repulsive- repulsive enough to warrant such disclaimers.

This inability to acknowledge politics and its effects manifests itself every single time someone’s beaten up in a university for voicing their opinions, every silent glare or click of the dislike button at the outspoken ‘activist type’ at the table or in the online forum, and the very tense hush that sweeps across the room when a ‘sensitive’ subject is brought up. Political differences are characterised as ‘mood-killers’ and of course, every person who takes an active interest in politics is subject to a variety of (rather unflattering) labels. The perceived discomfort with politics permeates every level of society, even among people who confess not knowing very much about politics. To know why exactly this happens, is not very difficult. Two very pertinent reasons come to mind- the fact that we don’t know how much politics involves itself in our daily lives (and refuse to learn), and the fact that we, collectively, really can’t discuss anything.

Addressing reason number one is easy, because this can be blamed on the system. We’re made to believe that politics isn’t something basic, ordinary and everyday, but something that only stays with politicians and governments, something that is out-of-reach and difficult. In reality, the very premise of living in a democracy makes the ‘political’ accessible to every citizen. With the right to vote, the easier access to information and the improved infrastructure in the twenty-first century, politics should be easier to digest. Granted, democracy is not implemented very well- but it is the closest we have ever come to playing an active role in the future of society. Moreover, politics has so many other forms- the hierarchy at workplaces, the power structure at colleges and schools, and even families. This crucial point is overlooked by how our society, through education, defines politics.

Reason number two is a lot more difficult to grapple with, because we have nobody else to blame for the fact that we cannot discuss anything. We view discussion as something that can only take place between equals- the rather Confucian notion of obeying seniors and respecting ‘values’ passed down to us is the largest impediment to discussion. This is something inherent in us, due to social conditioning, and isn’t something easy to remedy. However, the more confounding reason is our inability to accept new concepts because of how different they are. This is a problem with both the right and the left- the inability to accept alien concepts, or even any form of nuanced debate. It is very convenient to create a narrative- a rather divisive narrative, vilifying the other side. But what is easy isn’t always necessarily what’s right.

Politics isn’t simply the study of power relations or resource allocation, but an evolving entity that evolves only with genuine, well-placed debate. Debates about feminism, environmental causes, the issue of caste and poverty are the reason they’re acknowledged today. What we simply refuse to understand is that discussing something need not devolve into a battle of superiority or acceptance. FOX News, NDTV and Aaj Tak don’t really represent nuanced political debate- and simply contribute more to the collective apathy and borderline dislike that surrounds the word ‘politics’.

The very fact that people talk about their jobs, their bosses, their schools, families, countries- all indicate their involvement in some form of politics or the other. Keeping this basic assumption aside, even if we belong to opposite ends of the political spectrum, politics shouldn’t be the sensitive subject that it is, simply because politics implies the ability to debate rationally (emphasis on ‘rationally’).