05.10.2009

I acknowledge the more serious concerns raised by those with a voice in the public sphere in India with regard to the potential cultural significance and ramifications of the most private acts of the most public individuals, particularly when India is passing through a time of exciting change and dramatic flux, both within its borders and also within a wider global context.

I also acknowledge that the spheres of the public and private are strenuously contested in the modern world, as I believe they should be and should always be so, open to change and modification of their boundaries. This is essential for the sake of transparency against corruption and also to maintain a healthy culture of civic ethics. Public identities are always thus contested, between the public and private spheres, and within the public sphere itself. The same applies to private ones, for that matter. But public and private identities simply cannot be wholly collapsed into each other, for that would create injustice: they are two distinct kinds of identities for good reason.

I believe in the collective right to freedom of information as much as I do the individual right to privacy. But it is the ambit of our democratically elected representatives to debate the particular balance of these rights at any given time and adjust them to correspond, in formal law, with the particular values and circumstances of our civic culture.

I am not in a position that would give justification to my personal views on the subject. Thus I remain silent.

I am, all the same, aware that it is for all of us our duty as citizens to preserve a civic ethic of responsibility to protect these defined rights. I have thus tried to act accordingly as an individual, with what success I do not know. By contrast, I do feel that we owe much gratitude to the professional media in this country. Its individual journalists, writers and reporters are the greatest champions of our freedoms. I do believe that the Indian media is responsible to our democratic and liberal way of life in this great nation. A free media must also be a just and fair media, where there is a clear distinction between private opinion and public rational argument, where their information is soundly verified by factual evidence, where there is a judicious balance of debate. I salute their ideals and achievements.

I would also like to say that I do take note of the particular focus of some in the media on my private religious practice and beliefs. I am always keen to learn, but regardless of its welcome personal educative content on the subject of more abstruse rites and rituals, I can appreciate the greater concern regarding the possibility of their wider cultural ramifications, although I would add that I have absolutely no intent to set a wider example by my private acts of devotion. However, I am also aware that intent is not enough.

It is more than a possibility that all complex and diverse societies with a secular state are equally fragile, where the principles of mutual tolerance and mutual respect that sustain peaceful co-existence between different religious and cultural communities within the whole must be renewed constantly in practice. Eternal vigilance is indeed the price of freedom, of all manner of freedoms, and so any apparent sign of public sectarian tendencies must indeed be treated as a serious concern. Nevertheless, I am aware that one must equally guard against the pursuit of vigilance with excessive enthusiasm.

Therefore, to strengthen mere intent and clear any misunderstanding on the issue, I would like to take this opportunity to publicly affirm my loyalty, not only to the profoundly democratic society and liberal culture, but also to the secular state, of India. As I think a secular state a necessity in order to preserve the right of the individual to their private religion or to none at all, so I will refrain from discussing my own religious beliefs and practices in my public capacity. And so, I remain silent.

The public in general is free to draw what conclusions it may, based on accurate fact, or hearsay, or even the most surreal rumour. They are free to choose whom they believe and trust, for after all, there is more than one newspaper, journal, news channel or website at their disposal. They are free to seek the truth, or to seek entertainment, as they wish.

These practices show a medieval element, show a problem that runs through our society strengthening it with comments.

Quite obviously the observations are defeated at the very outset because the very nature and premise of the thoughts emanate from a wrong base. In the absence of any “practices” alleged to have been committed and strongly denied by us, the question whether it shows a “medieval element” or not is irrelevant. Your fear that this is a problem that “runs through out society” may be relevant. It could perhaps be entertained as a subject for debate.
But it is beyond the reach of my intellectual capacity to comment upon.

-- Vinit Vijay .

(vinitvijay@ymail.com)