Lets begin with two excerpts:

First one:

Then out spake brave Horatius,

The Captain of the Gate:

“To every man upon this earth

Death cometh soon or late.

And how can man die better

Than facing fearful odds,

For the ashes of his fathers,

And the temples of his Gods.”

From Horatius by Thomas Babington Macaulay. 

Second:

“Mardania! eh Ajudhia nagari Sri Ramchandra Ji ki hai. So, chal, iska darshan kari ”, which translates to: “Mardana! This Ayodhya city belongs to Sri Ramchandra Ji. So let us go for his darshan.”

From Bhai Man Singh’s Janam Sakhi which states that Guru Nanak visited Ayodhya.

Considering the aforementioned excerpts it is perhaps unsurprising that it was a Nanakapanthi Macaulayputra who charioted the movement to reclaim the birthplace of Lord Ram in Ayodhya and rebuild the Ram Temple. Additionally it was his organisational and political manoeuvring skills that shifted the political balance of India from the dominant secular leadership of the Congress party to the widely popular and ascendant Bharatiya Janata Party. It was for all that and many other activities that the current regime awarded him the land’s highest honour the Bharat Ratna. What made the moment more momentous was that it came days after the  consecration of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya. 

Though currently, the immensely popular Prime Minister Narendra Modi is synonymous with the BJP’s dominance across India’s political landscape, it was the Lal Krishna Advani who acted as one of the chief characters to shift the political levers of the country. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to give the reason behind his moniker – Nanakapanthi Macaulayputra.

LK Advani belonged to a Sindhi Amil Nanakpanthi family whose religious tradition “used to be Sikh rituals”, the holy book at his home being the Sri Guru Granth Sahib. He was educated at St. Patrick’s High School, Karachi, and by his own admission was unfamiliar with Hindi, preferring to speak his mother tongue Sindhi at home, while preferring English as functional language. Even his introduction to the so-called dreaded Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh was for lack of a better word, bourgeois one, in his own words:

During my vacation and before joining college, I started playing tennis. One of my regular partners on the tennis court was a friend, Murli Mukhi. One day, right in the middle of the game, he said, ‘I am going’. Utterly surprised, I asked him, ‘How can you go like this, without even completing the set?’ He replied, ‘I have joined the RSS a few days ago. I cannot be late for the shakha because punctuality is very important in that organisation’.

A contextual point to mention here would be the view that the RSS also had certain inspirations behind it. Many scholars quote contemporary accounts about how senior political figures of the early 20th Century like Madan Mohan Malviya and Dr Moonje wanted an organisation fashioned after the British boy scout and army, including but not limited to their marching songs. The RSS march as seen today was inspired by that of British voluntary  forces in areas of trouble to warn citizens. Supposedly Sangh leaders borrowed English tunes to train the RSS band. The aforementioned figures, besides celebrating native heroic legends like Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and Peshwa Baji Rao, also stated that Indians had to develop patriotism the way the British developed theirs. Important wars fought by the British like the Battle of Waterloo and Trafalgar were given as examples. 

Considering this scenario, it is not strange for a moderate Macaulayputra like LK Advani to familiarise himself with the organisation. Thus he joined the RSS in 1942 besides attending discourses on the Bhagavad Gita by Swami Ranganathananda the president of the Karachi centre of Ramakrishna Mission.  This shows Advani to be the recipient of the Indian, rather Indo-Anglian renaissance that swept British India from 1850’s to 1930’s. Couple that with his Amil Nanakpanthi family roots which is the recipient of Bhakti movement.

Also lesser known is the fact that he was related to famed Sufi poetess Dadi Ganga , in fact Advani mentions in his memoirs that his wife Kamla along with her sister Sarla published Dadi Ganga’s Sufi poetry. All these make him the ideal reformist as opposed to the Hindu hardliner the media likes to portray him as; or would it be a leap of faith to say in certain cases, Hindu hardliner is the ideal reformist. 

The leap can be taken considering how he organised the political networks connecting the BJP to figures stretching from fiery socialist George Fernandes to Shiv Sena supremo Balasaheb Thackeray.

Besides political networking, what is less spoken about Advani (maybe intentionally) is his penchant for films and the filmmakers. As stated by Vidhu Vinod Chopra whose  An Encounter with Faces was nominated for the Academy Award under Best Documentary Short Film in 1979:

 “When I got nominated for an Oscar I had no money, I had nothing and I read in the paper that I was nominated. He gave me an Air India ticket and $ 20 a day and that I owe it to Mr LK Advani. I want the world to know why he is so special to me. Not because he is a politician but because he is the man who sent me to the Oscars.”

On multiple occasions other Hindutva icons like Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Balasaheb Thackeray have been lauded as poets and artists, but Advani as the admiring film buff has been less talked of. Be that as it may, 2024 can be now seen as honouring a Nanakpanthi Macaulayputra who charioted a saffron trail across India’s political landscape and who also liked going to the movies. 

The essay has been published in the following blog as well.

On one occasion, a joke was made on television about how Fidel Castro survived attempts to have him removed by US presidents as well as the  downfall of USSR, who served as his main supporter. In 2023, a soon-to-be centenarian Dr. Henry Kissinger would be grinning and telling Castro’s soul to, as they say, “Hold his beer.” If the AI generator were asked to picturise “American foreign policy”, it would not be shocking if Henry Kissinger’s portrait or painting appeared. 

For decades, he was open and honest about his opinions on American foreign policy based on the pursuit of both national interest and power. In his own words: “A country that demands moral perfection of itself as a test of its foreign policy will achieve neither perfection nor security.” Kissinger has proven to be rich ground for historians and publishers. Along with business books about him as a deal-maker, there are also personality studies, tell-alls from former coworkers, and collections of his quotes.

Simultaneously, Kissinger had long been criticised by many as a ruthless realist. The critics would often quote Kissinger’s own words “when policy becomes excessively moralistic it may turn quixotic or dangerous”. Those words don’t seem all that offensive in retrospect after seeing so-called American moralist decisions made in places like Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The critics would respond by citing Bangladesh and Chile as examples of how Kissinger was no better.

Weimar-Chile Connection 

For the last few years, Kissinger seems to no longer arouse widespread contempt. Instead, some individuals have since expressed some sympathy for him, tying Kissinger’s ruthlessness to his status as a former resident of Weimar Germany. Born Heinz Kissinger on May 27, 1923, to an Orthodox Jewish school teacher in Fürth, Bavaria. In 1938,  shortly before Kristallnacht, Kissinger and his family escaped to America, as did several German Jewish families. 

Jumping ahead in time, some authors frequently link this incident to his participation in the 1973 Chilean coup. Salvador Allende, a socialist, was elected president of Chile in 1970, but the US viewed him as a threat: Allende decided to introduce a “socialist humanist” curriculum for schools, nationalised some major corporations, imposed rules in support of ardent labour unionists, and even declared that they and Fidel Castro’s Cuba were “marching toward a common goal.” Point to note would be if this happened a decade after the Cuban Missile Crisis.  

The reaction of the American establishment can be underscored by Kissinger saying “I don’t see why we have to stand by and watch a country go Communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people.”  But it’s also possible to say that this statement comes from someone who witnessed the fall of the Weimar Republic and the rise of the Third Reich. The obvious criticism is that the pro-American dictator General Augusto Pinochet’s actions were more reminiscent of events in Germany during Kissinger’s childhood. However one can see in a twisted manner Kissinger’s view being of some worth as earlier this month the pro-Pinochet party came first in an election to choose 50 members of a committee that will rewrite Chile’s constitution.

Assimilated American

Rewinding back, it was not very long before Heinz revisited his country of birth. In 1945, while serving in the 84th Infantry Division, he took part in the liberation of the Ahlem concentration camp located outside of Hanover. For his assistance in dismantling a Gestapo sleeper cell, Kissinger was awarded the Bronze Star. He also seemed to have become culturally compatible with his Infantry Division, as evidenced by his fellow soldier’s statement, “He was more American than I’ve ever seen an American…”.

Kissinger enrolled at Harvard two years after this military feat and pieced together his own theory of statecraft  there, while continuing to become increasingly culturally compatible with the then WASP American intellectual elites. For the majority of the country’s history, White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, or WASPs, have dominated American society, culture, and politics.

Later in 1954, Kissinger received a recommendation for a position at the Council on Foreign Relations, where he began overseeing a nuclear weapons study group. The result was seen in 1957, in the form of the book “Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy.” where Kissinger had written that ‘with a new generation of smaller, more transportable atomic weapons, a limited or little nuclear war was not as outlandish as it sounded.’ This ‘not as outlandish’ view was an alternative to the one advocated by John Foster Dulles, who served as secretary of state at the time. The latter advocated that ‘an aggressor state risked an atomic barrage’, in other words a very large nuclear war. During this time Kissinger captured the attention of American aspirants to political high-offices. Kissinger being culturally compatible with the American aristocracy resulted in him advising the top WASP  leader of the Republican Eastern Establishment, former governor of New York Nelson Rockefeller in foreign policy.

So it was surprising for many when Henry Kissinger went to work with Rockefeller’s rival Richard Nixon who won the 1968 United States presidential elections. For the boorish Nixon, Kissinger would have seemed out of place as the former was called unfit to rule by the latter. However, many observers pointed out that Nixon needed someone who would give his Presidency a touch of scholarly flair, and help him feel like a significant player in global politics, so the pairing was ideal. For his part, Kissinger once jokingly told an audience that the ideal way to work for a President is to support his opponent; sounds like a stereotypical American dealmaker, some would say. 

Kissinger’s ‘not as outlandish’ view of ‘ a limited or little nuclear war’  has been one of the subjects discussed decades later, becoming one of the dreaded possibilities in case America gets directly involved in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. The aforementioned conflict has shown sharp divisions within the so-called international community, with one camp led by the US insisting the only way out is the decimation of Russia while other nations are in favour of negotiated peace. The pro-negotiation nations are mostly the ones belonging to the developing world. Kissinger at one point was in favour of negotiation though recently he had altered his views on the conflict. In this case it might be helpful just to look back at two instances of what Kissinger did in the 1970’s in context of two notable wars: the Yom-Kippur War and the Bangladesh Liberation War. 

Scuttling Through Shuttling 

The Egyptian and Syrian forces attacked the state of Israel unexpectedly on Yom Kippur, the Jewish holy day, on 6 October, 1973. Following the onset of hostilities, both the US and the USSR provided extensive resupply operations to their respective allies in the conflict. This war brought the superpowers almost into a direct conflict but as someone put it in a lame pun, Kissinger scuttled the conflict by engaging in “shuttle diplomacy,” a term created by the US media who followed Kissinger on his numerous brief flights between the capitals of the Middle East as he made an effort in laying the foundation for further measures to settle the conflict. Richard Nixon’s involvement in the negotiations was minimal because he was mired in the escalating Watergate scandal. 

With Kissinger’s assistance, the first Egyptian-Israeli disengagement agreement was negotiated in January 1974, and in May, following a month of difficult negotiations, he organised the Syrian-Israeli disengagement. Kissinger’s shuttle diplomacy succeeded in concluding one last agreement in September 1975 with the signing of a second Egyptian-Israeli disengagement agreement. Following the conclusion of this Egyptian-Israeli disengagement agreement, commonly known as Sinai I, U.S. attention moved to Syria. Negotiations for a Syrian-Israeli disengagement proved to be much more difficult and time-consuming than those that resulted in the relatively quick agreement on the Egyptian-Israeli disengagement.  

Learning from the Syrians, the Egyptians grew more difficult regarding negotiations with Israel for a second agreement which, unlike the previous one, lasted several months. In the end, Kissinger completed the Sinai II disengagement agreement, which was signed by both Egypt and Israel. Israeli forces were withdrawn from the Sinai further east as a result of this agreement. and a U.N. buffer zone was created.  These agreements were precedents to the 1977 Camp David Agreement which established diplomatic relations between Egypt and Israel. Though many of Kissinger’s critics accused him of being a Zionist, his handling of the negotiations showed that the priority for the realist Henry was to maintain a ‘balance’ in the Middle East with both militarily powerful countries becoming reliable American allies. 

Enabling Genocide?

Since the Russia-Ukraine conflict commenced in 2022, many of the Western nations who are loudly proclaiming support for Ukraine have been equally loud at lecturing the pro-negotiation nations of the developing world. Primarily many are quite moralist with regards to India, seen as a friendly nation to Russia. When the former was buying Russian crude oil at a discount price, there were many questioning the decision as very insensitive to which the Indian political establishment  responded that the decisions were taken keeping Indian national interests in mind. Not satisfied, many political as well journalistic figures from the anti-negotiation Western nations even went as far to accuse India of having blood in her hands and making it possible for Russia to carry out a genocide in Ukraine. To this many in India would not hesitate to respond how Russia (as USSR) aided India in 1971 while the United States supported the genocidal acts of the Pakistani military in its Eastern Wing in what is Bangladesh today.

According to a number of scholars, one of the US officials responsible for enabling this genocide was then National Security Advisor Dr. Henry Kissinger. However, a sizable number of historical observers assert that General Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan, who was in power at the time, would not have listened to US criticism of the atrocities his army committed in Bangladesh. As per them:

U.S. military and economic aid to Pakistan in 1971 was not of a magnitude to provide Washington with much leverage to pressure the leadership in Rawalpindi to change policies in East Pakistan to avoid the loss of aid. . . . By 1971 Washington lacked much clout in Rawalpindi, particularly on issues that, in West Pakistani eyes, struck at the very basis of their national existence.

Point to note here would be that under Nixon and Kissinger, the United States was one of the leading donors to East Pakistan’s cyclone relief in 1970, along with providing emergency assistance to prevent a famine. Interestingly the mismanagement of cyclone relief was one of the reasons that angered East Pakistani residents against the Western wing and led to victory of the Awami League, and the consequent political complications that led to the infamous and bloody Operation Searchlight on 25 March, 1971 which made the Bangladesh liberation war inevitable.

Nixon and Kissinger repeatedly urged the Pakistani military at that time to scale back its domestic policies and look for political parity. In May 1971, Nixon wrote to Yahya Khan:

.. I feel sure you will agree with me that the first essential step is to bring an end to the civil strife and restore peaceful conditions in East Pakistan. . . . It is absolutely vital for the maintenance of peace in the Subcontinent to restore conditions in East Pakistan conducive to the return of refugees from Indian territory as quickly as possible.

The then-U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Joseph Farland, would confirm Nixon’s concern mentioning that “without the creation of normal conditions in the East, a renewed sense of physical security among the Hindu community, and a patent movement with substance behind it toward a peaceful political accommodation . . . the refugee problem will continue.” 

This war couldn’t have happened at a worse time as Pakistan was an important player in one of the most consequential decisions that the US took in order to get a step ahead in the Cold War race. During that time, Nixon and Kissinger sought to fundamentally alter the world order and power structure in the United States’ favour by opening up diplomatic channels with the People’s Republic of China. By striking a strategic deal with Beijing based on China’s genuine concern that the Soviet Union’s continued military build-up in the Far East might be the harbinger of an attack on China, the duo hoped to strengthen the position of America. It would also persuade Moscow to adopt more sensible policies toward the United States and ease tensions in Asia. This is underscored by Kissinger in White House Years: The hostility between China and the Soviet Union served our purposes best if we maintained closer relations with each side than they did with each other. The rest could be left to the dynamic of events.

It was in this aim that Pakistan came in as the nation most suitable to enable conversation between the US and China. Through the Pakistani channel, China gave its first direct indication that a personal envoy of Nixon would be welcomed in Beijing in December 1970, with Chinese premier Zhou Enlai insisting that Pakistan was a close ally of China. How would China have responded if the United States had told them that their decision to normalise relations was misguided as President Yahya Khan was an unsuitable representative of Washington?  It can be safely assumed after the Vietnam imbroglio, Washington would be unwilling to even risk imagining such a scenario.

Thus Pakistan served as the secret tunnel for Uncle Sam to reach China. And this secret trip was taken by Henry Kissinger in July 1971. By this time the Liberation War was in full steam with millions of Bengalis fleeing to India (while a similar number was dying at the hands of a ruthless Pakistani army). Kissinger was aware of this tragedy and reprimanded Pakistan’s foreign secretary saying: 7 million refugees are an intolerable burden. They overload an already overburdened Indian economy, particularly in eastern India. The Indians see enormous danger of communal riots.

Unless Pakistan takes action to restore normalcy and ensure the return of refugees in peace, he warned, the likely outcome would be a conflict with India, which the latter could win. A point to remember here would be that at the time when Washington-to be crude-was checking out Beijing with Islamabad as the wingman, Moscow had already been on a few dates with New Delhi. So in case India engaged in conflict with Pakistan the USSR would be more likely to support the former. To add another point, last time India and Pakistan clashed in 1965 the Indian army had arrived in the area around Lahore and was thinking of launching an assault on the city before a ceasefire was announced.

If anyhow this war saw any scenario remotely close to 1965, the Indian subcontinent would have seen major disruptions which might have favoured India but would have increased problems for America. It is debatable whether India would have done any such disruption but one has to keep multiple scenarios in mind during a crisis, however implausible/impossible they are. 

In this situation it would be instructive to quote scholar Gary Bass who is also a known Kissinger critic: Even if a president or prime minister has credible information about atrocities . . . there must still be a cold realpolitik calculation about the costs of intervening. . . . If a humanitarian intervention would lead to a broader international crisis, or plunge the country —or the world—into a massive war, then most cabinets will decide that it is just not worth it. . . . Believing in human rights does not make one suicidal.

One can argue that it was suicidal when Nixon deployed Task Force 74, led by the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, into the Bay of Bengal to help the losing Pakistani side but was countered by the Soviet Navy. However in the context of not taking sides in the Bangladesh war, it would be correct to say while many countries expressed sympathy for the Bengali victims and refugees, with some providing relief assistance, the bulk of the international community were not willing to take active steps to put pressure the Pakistan government to halt their activities. The US establishment may be the main antagonist for the Indians and Bangladeshis but other leading nations were no saints. More importantly, the local collaborators of the Pakistan Army in their atrocities called Razakars were not prosecuted by the Bangladeshi authorities after the country gained independence. These collaborators functioned as citizens of the country and even were influential politically till the war crimes tribunal was established in 2009. 

During the 1971 war, Kissinger was focussed on his goal to have another important Asian ally for America to counter the Soviets and he was willing to take risks to pursue that goal. And the criticism of Kissinger forgetting his childhood tragedy is not fully correct as the global powers of the 1920’s-30’s did not actively deter the excesses of Nazi Germany minus issuing condemnations and in some cases accepting refugees; it was only after Poland’s invasion did the same inactive nations become defenders of freedom against tyranny. 

The aforementioned  ‘cold realpolitik calculation’ of Kissinger led to Nixon’s highly successful trip to China in February 1972 and the signing of the Shanghai Communiqué, which set the foundation for bilateral relations between both nations along with increasing USA’s influence over Asia. As Kissinger had written, the ‘dynamic of events’ following Shanghai Communiqué played out in the form of the Nixon-Brezhnev summit on 25 May, 1972, in Moscow where the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the first Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty and the ‘U.S.-Soviet incidents-at-sea agreement’ were signed. The ‘Communiqué’ and the aforementioned agreements were notable achievements of a détente that decreased the likelihood of a conflict between superpowers. If one looks at the US-China-Russia tensions in recent times, it is easy to scoff at Kissinger but historical context would be kinder to him. During his tenure, Henry Kissinger hardly swayed from his goal of maintaining global power balance tilted in favour of the United States. The paraphrased extract from this review would be fitting:

..a friend of mine went to visit Kissinger….“ You know,” my friend said, “perhaps a more useful way to look at you is as a footballer.” “How so?” Henry wanted to know. “Well,” continued my friend, “in football, you have a clear goal…but the situation is very dynamic. And in heading towards that goal, you may pass, dribble, foul, get fouled, fall back, surge… But none of it changes the goal…. 

The essay has been published in the following blog as well.

The Era of Realisation- Late 1950’s to 70’s

After independence in 1947 the first prime minister observed that the bulk of the nation still relied on agrarian works to feed themselves and hence took measures inspired by the ideology of Socialism which he believed would benefit the farmers most. However, in this case though the underdogs were the agriculturalists, the machines were looked upon with suspicion. But all changed as the 50’s came to an end ushering in the 1960’s.  The focus now shifted from agrarian reforms to industrialization due to urbanization gaining more ground as many farmers and rural workers in general realized the limitations of agriculture and advanced towards the city with hopes of earning a living. Also noticeable in the middle of the decade were the technological methods used in the Green Revolution. As more farmers and villagers flocked to the city joining those who were already the underbelly of urbanization the message of socialism reached its most important receiver: The Indian Middle class. 

But even the privileged section of the society started getting influenced by socialist ideals. The villainous machines of the preceding decades became the means of earnings for the underdogs as the factories became the driving force for industrialization with the identified have-nots getting employed to work the machines. The laborers in factories became more vocal than before since they had more importance in the said era compared to the farmers (who were lionized in the fifties).

Yet the afflictions remained the same for the have-nots as the oppressors changed from landlords to rich entrepreneurs and the shift to industrialization did not reduce the large gap between rich and poor retaining the same sort of social inequality. To check this inequality or at least reduce them the more cautious and informed workers formed unions with a hierarchy of leaders to counter any injustice brought about by entrepreneurs. Strikes by unions became an expression of dissent by the have-nots who in this context were the factory laborers. The new shift also saw the effects and realities of poverty prevalent nationwide. Now since the union strikes occurred in the urban centers the young urban residents observed the inequalities in their surroundings more thoroughly and some became resolute to apply socialist schemes the government spoke of while becoming disillusioned with the image of their nation simultaneously. The preceding generation of Indians encouraged the youth while having mixed feelings about the disillusionment factor. With this new realization the youngsters were divided into two groups: one group willing to change the prevailing conditions while the other saw the growing consumerism as a way of life. The preceding generation felt the pangs of disappointment as both groups denounced the idealist socialism of the Nehru years creating two extreme poles widened more aggressively in the 1970’s. Veteran director Hrishikesh Mukherjee captured these sentiments in the classic Namak Haram.

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxVBdF8v6sAUFlm7CJ7Sb_eD1b5ZfoLQ2H

Guns replace sickles: 

As 1970’s kicked off the importance swung back to the farmlands in India due to massive economic loss caused by union strikes and catchphrases like ‘cultivators own the land’ were propagated by the Indira Gandhi-led government. The cultivators as well as the farmlands however were still in pitiful conditions.

Unlike the previous decade the new generation of youngsters from privileged backgrounds felt responsible to change society by violent methods if required. These youngsters fell in love with the thought of uprisings and saw parallels in the conditions of their times with that of colonized India. The Cold War events like the wars in Vietnam and uprisings in Cuba spiced their viewpoints more. To the angry youth the state was now a draconian entity determined to repress its own citizens hence it was time to dissolve it by necessary violence. 

Political movements like the satyagraha led by Jayaprakash Narayan in Bihar as well as public opposition to the Indira Gandhi administration made those romancing revolutions more intense. Indira Gandhi’s strident response to free speeches and clamping down on her opponents during the imposition of National Emergency was the final straw. The budding but violent pro-peasant movement fermenting in the small village of Naxalbari in West Bengal had its resonance felt in different parts of the nation due to the activities of the said rebels. Unlike the ideal socialists of the 60’s these revolutionaries believed in do or die philosophy and attempted to bring about a total revolution to enforce their own version of ideals. Revolutionaries Mao Zedong, Trotsky, Kanu Sanyal became the role models of the youth in place of Nehru and toiling peasants. 

The administration on seeing the intensity of the attacks decided to give an equal violent response. Now the lovers of uprising had a heart attack with the stringent measures administered by the state. And almost all admirers as well as participants of the radical Naxalite movement were punished by the authorities. The end of this saga saw the replacement of the Indira Gandhi government by the Janata Party in the Centre during the 1977 elections as well the beginning of three decade rule of the Left Front in West Bengal. This matter was sensitive for a long period of time but there were few cases of comprehensive documentation done on this barring the ones with heavy political connotations. Same could be said of its visual presentations. However an entertaining yet effective example was seen in 2003 with the release of Hazaaron Khwaishein Aisi directed by Sudhir Mishra.   

Deteriorating Stagnation: 1980’s to 1990’s:

One thing that was always present in the 60’s and 70’s was the involvement of the students as a group of political advocates. From the days of the freedom movement the students have been the most active participants in any political turmoil. The careers of national leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, Jayaprakash Narayan and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar started as student leaders. But the rise of Sanjay Gandhi during the emergency era in 1970’s changed the concept of youth leadership as he used the youngsters as cronies for the administration. In the aftermath of Sanjay Gandhi’s death and Indira Gandhi’s assassination India had a charismatic young leader in the form of Rajiv Gandhi becoming the youngest Prime Minister of India. 

However, unfortunately the perception of youth leadership changed from that of young firebrands to petty power seekers as political parties used them for the sake of expanding their base (there were some exceptions though). Such instances were said to have affected the ‘Student Unions’ in states like West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, and Maharashtra often leading to violence in university campuses hampering the functioning of the institutions. The liberalization of the Indian economy as well as changing of ideologies did have its impact on young political leaders but most of these young guns couldn’t match the charisma of their predecessors. Also many dedicated youngsters had to confront their own mentors, many of whom became either disenchanted or authoritarian. According to some social observers the opening up of the economy made the youngsters more materialistic, taking the political zeal away from their psyche.

This new era saw the youngsters in three different avatars: those seeking power by hook or by crook; those running after material benefits; and lastly those willing to become agents of change. One can take a look at  Mani Ratnam’s Yuva to see the different shades coming together.

The ever present anti factor: 

‘To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction’ Newton’s third law was every bit true in all the three eras mentioned above. There were always forces that consistently rose up against the trend of the era and became a trend by itself. Of all such movements that happened nationwide I have decided to highlight the one established in the nation’s financial as well as entertainment capital Mumbai: the Shiv Sena. Founded on June 19, 1966 by former political caricaturist Bal Keshav Thackeray who stated the party’s avowed intention is to fight the alleged injustice in employment and other matters being faced by the Maharashtrians in Mumbai.

The reason cited for this injustice was the influx into Mumbai of people from other states, amongst whom the Shiv Sena mainly targeted South Indians. Even though this catapulted the Sena into national headlines I believe it was their role as anti-trendsetters that made them unique. During its early years the Shiv Sena was engaged in frequent struggles against the trade unions. Prior to the formation of the Shiv Sena, the Communist Party of India played a dominant role in labour politics in Mumbai. According to journalists of the then era the Shiv Sena was supported by elements inside the Indian National Congress, who hoped that the new organization would be capable of weakening the communist party’s influence on trade unions. 

Soon Shiv Sena cadres were involved in a series of violent conflicts with the communist trade union activists. The Sena saw the union and communism as distractions for the disgruntled local Maharashtrians preferring the youngsters to toil and join the authority to gain an efficient and wholesome lifestyle. This sentiment was narrated by Bal Thackeray in his caustic speeches against trade union leaders and socialist hardliners. Though it was Balasaheb Thackeray’s belief that the “people” were supreme, he argued that the institutions of liberal democracy and the administration were engineered against it. 

The defense of its interests required direct action:  Laws had to be broken. Violence and intimidation were necessary to bring the people’s enemies to heel. “Wake up, wake up, before it is too late,” he would urge his admirers. The educated yet unemployed young men were among the most loyal members of the Sena. It was the triumph of assertive rhetoric over economics. This anger turned local Maharashtrians of Mumbai into angry rebels conflicting with the state machinery. Anything that resembled closely knitted authority like municipalities and trade unions faced the ire of the Shiv Sena. Bal Thackeray’s political rise was fitted together with the cinematic rise of Amitabh Bachchan’s angry young man on the silver screen. This trend of angry young men dominated the political as well as cinematic landscape throughout the last years of 1960’s till 1970’s. 

https://youtu.be/fYu43KDltVU

As the 1980’s ushered in and disruptive student politics was taking over, the Sena supremo decided to play defense. But this defense was not to create ideal student leaders as that move did not succeed in the preceding decades but to counter it with the belief that this disruptive system is fit for the privileged section. The underdogs must become more vigilant and ensure that their interests are not exploited by the misguided leadership of privileged students. If necessary resort to ‘goondagiri’ the Senapati opined. It was easily said and done: the students from a certain strata of society came together with the struggling ones in the underbelly of society and acted as a barricade to the inflow of any kind of student movement into their midst. Instead through rowdiness they marked their territory and the unemployed youth became a type of guardian as well as a bully of his area. This was captured in starring actors like Jackie Shroff, Nana Patekar, Anil Kapoor among others donning the role of a popular young vandal. As the economy liberalized the hold of the Sena on Mumbai stayed strong as Bal Thackeray further fortified his role as the sole guardian of the disadvantaged residents of Mumbai carrying out what he felt was correct for them wheedling the government apparatus as he saw fit becoming a definite ‘parallel government’.

References:

1. Purandhare,V(2012).‘The rise & fall of SHIV SENA’.  Third edition. Mumbai. Roli Books Private limited   
2. Virdi,J(2003). The Cinematic ImagiNation: Indian Popular Films as Social History.  Second edition. Rutgers University Press.
3. Rediff Movies (2005, April 15^th ). Hazaaron Khwaishein is overwhelming. Retrieved 13^th February 2013 from http://www.rediff.com/movies/2005/apr/15hazaaron.htm.
4. Prasad, M. M (2000). Ideology of the Hindi film: a historical construction. Oxford University Press
5. Shekhar,M. (2006). Bombay talkies: 2004-2005. Frog Books.
6. Times of India (2012). With Bal Thackeray’s death, are Shiv Sena’s best days over? Retrieved 13^th February 2013 from : http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-11-20/edit-page/35204690_1_shiv-sena-uddhav-bal-thackeray.

Note: This is an old essay written during the writer’s time in college and has been published in his personal blog also(click here).