Hadiya and Love Jihad in the Supreme Court

This week, on Monday, 27 November 2017, the Supreme Court of India directed Hadiya, a 24-year old student to resume her studies, and appointed the Dean of her college as her guardian. The case was launched by Hadiya’s husband, Shafin Jahan, against Ashokan K.M., Hadiya’s father. Hadiya was trapped, against her will, in her father’s house. It was hoped the Supreme Court would let the 24- year old woman reunite with her husband. That didn’t happen. Indian and British Media called it a ‘love jihad’ case and expressed shock at the court’s decision.

The story of Hadiya

For readers unaware of the case, here is a brief synopsis of the sequence of events as reported in the media.

Hadiya was born Akhila Ashokan, a Hindu. Her father Ashokan K.M. is a communist and accordingly, an atheist. Akhila is his only child. She was a homeopathic medical student in Kerala. She shared a house with two Muslim friends, Faseena and Jaseena. On 6 Jan 2016, Akhila disappeared. Her father filed a missing person’s case at the police station. She was found after a few weeks.

As it turned out, Akhila had left the college and joined a two month course to study Islam at the Therbaithul Islam Sabha. Converted to Islam, she had assumed Hadiya as her new name. She started covering her head, wearing a hijab, and reciting prayers. An organisation ‘Markazul Hidaya Sathysarani trust’ was looking after her. Hadiya was found living in the house of A.S.Zainaba, the president of the National Women’s Front. This body was founded to fight for women’s rights. This house was a good 240 km away from her home town.

Shocked, the father filed a habeas corpus petition (one that alleges a person has been unlawfully detained by someone) in the High Court of Kerala. Hadiya, however, testified her conversion was voluntary, and that she was living with Zainaba out of her free will. Since she was an adult entitled to exercise free will, the High Court dismissed the petition.

In August 2016, the father filed another petition in the same court, this time claiming that his brainwashed daughter was likely to be taken out of the country. The High Court passed an interim order to keep Hadiya under surveillance. She was directed to move to a women’s hostel, but Hadiya continued to live at Zainaba’s house. She had no passport, how could anyone possibly send her abroad.

On 21 Dec 2016, Hadiya appeared in the High Court with her husband, Shafin Jahan. Their marriage had taken place two days before, on 19 Dec. Shafin Jahan’s mother was in the Gulf, and he was looking for a job there. (It was possible Hadiya would go with him abroad, as feared by her father.)

In May 2017, the High Court of Kerala annulled Hadiya’s marriage and sent her to her parents’ house. Since then, she had been living there against her will. Indian media and public opinion criticised this judicial tyranny of separating a married adult from her husband and confining her to the parental home against her wishes.

What is ‘Love Jihad?’

Love Jihad is either a conspiracy (if proven) or ‘a conspiracy theory’ (unproven) where young Muslim boys lure Hindu girls by pretending love, and make them convert to Islam in order to marry. The conversions expand the Muslim population. Some people, such as Hadiya’s father, attribute more sinister designs to these acts, such as making the girls join ISIS or other extremist groups.

The Girl in my Gym

Yashvi was a young girl, around 25, whose gym timings coincided with mine. We knew each other for more than three years, and occasionally chatted before moving from one workout machine to another. She said she was planning to get married in a few months.

‘Congratulations!’ I said and asked who the lucky boy was.

‘He is a Muslim’. She added after telling me his name.

I congratulated her again on her courage. Though I had not met her parents, I suspected they wouldn’t be the happiest lot.

‘I’ll have to change my religion.” She said.

‘Why?” I asked. ‘India allows people from different religions to marry under a secular law.’

‘But his family doesn’t allow that.’ Yashvi said.

‘You’re not marrying his family. You’re marrying the boy you love. Why isn’t he converting to Hinduism?’

‘No. It’s a pre-condition for marriage. We’ve already discussed this. He said his family won’t allow him to marry a non-Muslim girl.’

‘Well, you can refuse to marry except under a secular law. That can be your pre-condition.’

‘We’ve already been through this a few times. For me, the choice is to convert and marry him, or not marry him at all. Anyway, he says it’s only a formality. I’m not expected to wear a burqa.’

In India, certain surnames carry an aura of wealth. Yashvi’s surname was among them. It was obvious she came from a rich family.

‘That makes your decision even more courageous,’ I said to Yashvi. ‘You may no longer be entitled to any of your father’s estate.’

‘What do you mean?’ Yashvi asked.

‘You see, as Hindus your family is subject to the HUF (Hindu undivided family) law. As soon as a family member changes her religion, she becomes disqualified. Your Hindu sister would be entitled to inherit everything.’

‘That’s not possible.’ Yashvi said.

‘Well, I’m not a lawyer. But you better check those things.’

After a couple of months, Yashvi told me her impending marriage had been called off. She was willing to accept Islam for love. But her fear of losing a share in her father’s estate was stronger than that love.

I personally consider religion as man-made fiction. Religion classifies people just like citizenship does. A Hindu girl converting to Islam for marriage is like an American girl marrying a Cuban boy, by giving up the American citizenship and accepting a Cuban one. Love often extracts a heavy price from naive young people who fall in it. Yashvi is a sweet, modern girl. I was glad she wasn’t forced into conversion for the sake of marriage. But the fact she was ready for conversion was surprising for me.

Yashvi’s case is common in India. India has 190 million Muslims. It is inevitable that some of them will marry Hindus. Except those from the elite families, most Muslim boys demand Hindu girls are converted as a pre-condition to marrying them. I am not sure the reverse happens. Apostasy (leaving the religion) is still a crime in many Islamic countries, in some countries (Qatar, Yemen etc) punishable by death. 

Love Jihad is unsubstantiated. It is possible for a Muslim boy to genuinely fall in love with a Hindu girl, and not for converting her. A civilised couple should marry under India’s secular law. When that is not followed and the converted girl needs to abide by Muslim customs, cover her head or recite prayers; that can make the girl’s family uncomfortable. No wonder Ashokan K.M. was shocked to see his daughter wear the Abaya, reciting prayers five times a day, and refusing to attend her own grandfather’s funeral because it was conducted as per Hindu customs.

Husband goes to the Supreme Court 

Anyway, to continue the Hadiya story: incensed by the High Court verdict annulling their marriage and sending Hadiya to her parents’ house, Shafin Jahan filed a case against Ashokan K.M. in the Supreme Court. Hadiya and he were adults, lawfully married. They must be allowed to live together. Hadiya hated living with her parents. The Kerala High Court had forced her to live with them.

The Supreme Court bench was made of India’s chief justice, Dipak Misra; Ajay Khanwilkar, and Dhananjaya Chandrachud, three of India’s best judges in terms of calibre, integrity and experience. They indeed freed Hadiya from her parents’ custody. She has been sent to her college. The Dean has now been made responsible for her, not her parents.

What about the husband who filed the case? He can meet his wife at her hostel with the Dean’s permission. The hearing about the annulment of the marriage will take place in the third week of January. The Supreme Court has let India’s National Investigating Agency continue its Love Jihad investigation.

The Indian media has expressed anger at the order. The Kerala High court forcibly sent a married adult woman to her parents’ house. The Supreme Court has now sent her to college for studies. Where is justice?

*****

The High Court judgement

The Supreme Court judges said this case was one of the most challenging in their career. Despite all of them having a long and distinguished career.

Having read the headlines in popular media, let us now see what the High Court in Kerala has to say in its judgement. The 95 page judgement is available in www for anybody to read.

Hadiya’s conduct

Akhila alias Hadiya has repeatedly lied on oath. In a 2015 affidavit she had put ‘Aasiya’ as her name. In 2016, she renamed herself as Adhiya (in a writ petition) before settling on Hadiya. The court said it couldn’t be sure she didn’t have or won’t get a passport if she had so many names.

She claimed a monthly income of Rs 2000 as a homeopathy doctor’s assistant. It transpired she hadn’t completed her education, so she was not qualified to work as an assistant. She wasn’t working, and wasn’t earning what she claimed to.

She continued to stay at Zainaba’s place even when the court had directed her to live at the ladies’ hostel until the disposal of the petition.

Hadiya deliberately concealed her association with members of the SDPI, the political arm of the Popular Front of India, an Islamic fundamentalist organisation.  

The Kerala court, surprisingly bluntly, describes Hadiya as an ordinary girl of moderate intellectual capacity, who is gullible.

Hadiya’s husband

Shafin Jahan is an accused in ongoing cases, where he is charged with rioting, mob violence, restraining others. His Facebook posts show his radical inclination. He is a member of the SDPI and Popular Front of India.

The Kerala High Court had said they would issue an order to send Hadiya to a ladies’ hostel. To avoid that, two days before the order, the marriage happened. While the marriage registration said people from both sides attended the marriage, not a single person from her side attended. The High Court concluded it was a ‘sham’ marriage effected to bypass the possible court order. In all court hearings, not a word was mentioned about Hadiya’s planned marriage, and suddenly on 21 Dec 2016, Hadiya produced a husband in the court. The Court was unhappy about it.

The court called the marriage ‘null and void’. The judges did not annul it as portrayed by the media; they simply said it didn’t happen.

The expenses

More intriguing is the amount of money that has been spent on Hadiya by complete strangers. She was able to live and travel without parental support and own income for months. The lawyers who represented her side in the High Court were expensive.

The lawyers in the Supreme Court, including the senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Ms Indira Jaising are extravagantly expensive. Where did Shafin Jahan get the money to pay for them?

It is evident that right since her conversion Akhila alias Hadiya has been supported with huge amounts of money by strangers. This defies logic.

Not Love Jihad

This is not a ‘Love Jihad’ case. The judges clarify that a marriage between a Muslim boy and a Hindu girl is not uncommon. If the girl converts to Islam, it is her prerogative, and the court has no right to interfere. In Hadiya’s case, she had converted much earlier. The organisational support by strangers has raised doubts in the court’s mind, not love jihad.

Spirit of the law

One can, of course, say it is none of the court’s business to enquire as to where the support money came from. (Leave it to the Income tax authorities). However, spirit of the law requires that judges handle cases not pedantically, but humanely. A father files a petition suspecting the daughter may be radicalised by extremists. Judges are bound to ask questions, and if anything is suspicious, take steps to protect the girl, whether she is a minor or otherwise. There have been enough cases in the world where gullible young girls, technically adult, have been enticed to commit crimes. (Read my diary: helter-skelter).

Media and sloppy journalism 

The case is important not only because of its complications, but because it shows how media manipulates us, the readers and viewers, through sloppy journalism.

Here is the 95-page judgement of the Kerala High Court. In places, the language is patriarchal and conservative. However, this document clearly shows that judges base their judgment on the evidence available before them. Since they invest their time and expertise into the case, often they are the best (or only) people to judge. A responsible journalist should read the judgment and then criticise it. What media has done in Hadiya’s case is to not bother to read the judgement, but criticise the superficial sensational points. Each case is different, but a newspaper’s agenda is the same.

We will now wait for the January 2018 verdict. The Supreme Court will need to decide what to do with the marriage the High Court said never happened.

Ravi  

Checks and Balances

Power is intoxicating. It is capable of corrupting the noble; of bringing out the worst in men. Men like Hitler and Stalin were born human; power turned them into monsters.

In democracies, people delegate political power to their leaders. A well-designed democracy dilutes that power by dividing it. The trick is to create many power centres which can regulate one another. Like in a truly democratic household; the husband, the wife, and the children all have their say in a debate. The master of the house will sometimes have the last word; at other times his wife may overrule him. The children can often persuade or force the parents to give them what they want. This power struggle is evident when the family shops together or decides which movie to go to.

On a national scale, restrictions are placed on powers of a single leader or a group to minimise or eliminate the possibility of a dictatorship.

Civilised societies have five centres of power, each controlling the others and acting as a counterbalancing force.

1.       Legislative: The lawmakers. The Congress in the USA, parliament in the UK or India, ‘Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union’ succeeded by the ‘Federal assembly of Russia’ are all examples of bodies that have the power to make laws. Such legislative bodies can be split into an upper and a lower house. In the UK, the lower house is the House of Commons, similarly translated in India (Lok Sabha). Though called a lower house, it is more powerful than the upper house, the House of Lords (Rajya Sabha). The Senate is the upper chamber in the USA, and House of Representatives the lower. ‘Soviet of the nationalities’ and ‘Soviet of the Union’ were the odd-sounding Soviet equivalents. Their successors are the ‘State Duma’ (lower) and ‘Federation Council’ (upper). The two-house system was historically introduced to offer one chamber to the aristocrats and the other to common people.

2.      Executive: Donald Trump, Theresa May, Narendra Modi, Vladimir Putin and their cabinets belong to the executive branch. To confuse everyone, India has a President who is the Head of State. I suspect this was in lieu of the monarch (UK’s Head of State) India lost at the time of gaining independence.

3.      Judiciary: The courts. While legislative branch makes the law, and the executive branch enforces it, the judiciary is responsible for interpreting it. Soviet Union had and Russia has courts that look similar to courts elsewhere. I will discuss later what makes them different.

Legislative, executive and judiciary are the three official power centres in the modern civilised world. At one time, Religion as represented by the clergy was a key power centre. Only a few Islamic societies like Iran are still ruled by theocracy.

4.      Media: Television and press, although not official, can be extremely powerful. Through reports, investigation, stories and at times persistent campaigning, media is capable of damaging the reputation of or bringing down anybody.

5.      Social media: This is a relatively new power centre, born after the internet revolution. Social media represents public opinion. Joined as a force, people are capable of counterbalancing another power centre.

In India, due to overpopulation, human beings and vehicles are constantly fighting for space on the roads. When a mob patiently waiting to cross the road reaches its tolerance limit, it simply decides to cross. The vehicles capable of killing them stop and wait until everyone crosses. Sometimes a similar ‘people power’ is exercised by groups (activists, lobbyists) to provoke actions from the government or parliament.

United States of America

United States of America is a great, possibly the greatest, country in this respect.  In a mind-bogglingly complex but beautiful design, the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches are given power over one another so that no action can be unilaterally taken. Trump repeatedly issued executive orders to ban entry of people from seven Muslim countries into the US. Various courts stayed those orders. Trump pushed through the health bill to replace Obamacare. His own party members in the Senate rejected it. On the other hand, Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court, tilting the balance in favour of the Republicans. A Supreme Court judge is nominated by the president and grilled by the Senate before approving him. The president may veto laws made by congress, and the congress may override the veto. Confusing?

While all this is happening, CNN is running a sustained campaign to topple Trump. Late night comedians are now full-time anti-Trump and their shows are posted and shared on Twitter and Facebook. FBI is investigating the Trump family’s connections to Russia and the election fraud. To top it all, in an unprecedented move, the Air Force General John Hyten said a week ago that he will resist any illegal nuclear strike order from Trump.

This is one country where the checks and balances work in practice. There is no way Trump can become dictatorial or get anything nasty done during his term.

The maximum term of eight years for a president is another thing the Americans should be proud of. UK and India don’t have it. Mexico has only one term of six years. It functions so well that since 1934, each president has enjoyed six years, not a day more, not a day less.

As far as I know, only Uganda had an upper age limit of 75 years. Its current president is 73 years old. In order to retain power, he has managed to scrap the upper age limit this year. It is to America’s credit that the 8-year term has not been violated (even when it was felt that retaining Obama would have been better than electing Hillary or Trump).

India

I don’t think any other country has as many political parties or candidates as India. An election can be won by a candidate getting 5% votes, outsmarting the other forty candidates. Coalition is the norm. The partners bicker, fight, causing a downfall of the coalition at times.

The current Indian government has a strong mandate. They have managed to push certain reforms that weaker governments couldn’t. This is excellent.

However, over the past two years, India’s ruling party (BJP) has attempted to remove or dilute the checks and balances. The finance minister long argued that the government should be authorised to appoint the judges (like in the USA). The Indian judiciary has preferred to appoint the judges itself. This inbreeding is not good in itself, but is a lesser evil compared to a political party appointing them. (Ideal would be a third party, a committee of independent competent assessors, appointing them).

The Governor of the Reserve Bank of India was supposed to be independent. In 2016, the independent governor was let go prematurely, and was replaced by a yes-man who allowed the blunder of demonetisation to take place. Checks and balances didn’t work in practice.

The two year emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi in 1975 had to be signed off by the president of India. He signed it, and allowed India to fall under dictatorship. The post of the President of India has failed to control the executive branch. It is aptly called a ‘rubber stamp’. India should consider abolishing the post.

Free media and a very vibrant social media, therefore, are India’s saviours. No other country on earth occupies so much space on Facebook and twitter, or so overwhelmingly criticises their own government.

The independent judiciary, though occasionally incompetent or corrupt; the aggressive media; and an overpowering freedom of expression on social media make dictatorship in India improbable.

United Kingdom

United Kingdom similar to the USA has many checks and balances. Brexit was fought tooth and nail by the public (Gina Miller), the courts (The Supreme Court in Jan 2017 made parliamentary approval mandatory for triggering article 50). The UK parliament has now ensured it will scrutinise the final draft before approving it. Theresa May’s plan to usurp power and push for a hard Brexit is already foiled by the competing power centres.

The anomaly in the UK is that a monarch is its Head. In theory, the Queen is above everything. The courts, the church and the government report to her.

One acid test to verify whether the checks and balances work is to see not its theoretical formulation, but practical functioning. The queen could have stopped Brexit by not signing. (Read my short story: The Royal Assent).  Not only she, but all the queens and kings in the last 300 years, have signed every document they are asked to sign. The institution of monarchy doesn’t function as the Head of the State, it’s a farce. Monarchy should be abolished not because republicans want its abolition, but because it has become a farce.

Soviet Union

Little to write here. Soviet Union was a totalitarian society, where the power of the General secretary and politburo was unchecked and unrestricted. Frightened by the cruelty of Stalin and whimsical autocracy of Khrushchev; Brezhnev and his successors tried to enforce a “collective leadership”. This is attempted in China as well. Collective leadership generally means the group of leaders (politburo) backing the opinions of the supreme leader; in the case of the Soviets, the General Secretary. 

Russia

Yeltsin was a democrat. He still ruled by decrees and when the occasion demanded silenced the parliament by bombing it.

In Putin’s Russia, the parliament and the judiciary conform to the president’s line. If an opposition candidate (e.g. Navalny) is uncomfortable, a speedy court process holds him guilty and gives a minor sentence that is major enough to disqualify him.

Putin has abandoned the principle of ‘collective leadership’. His politburo has frequently changed.

Russian media is state controlled. Except a radio station ‘Ekho Moskvy’, and a few small-circulation newspapers, the media rarely speak against Putin or the government.

On Facebook, the only Russians who criticise the political rulers are those living out of Russia. Fear is in the DNA of older Russians. And the younger Russians, like the young anywhere, are not interested in politics. (They will be if Russia were to become totalitarian again, but by then it will be too late).

Violating the two term restriction by making Medvedev a puppet president for four years was an unconscionable deception. Extending the consecutive maximum from 8 years to 12 years was a political fraud. I don’t know why the Putin critics think he will step down in 2024. He is a fit judo player and will be only 72 in 2024. He can once again invite Medvedev for a brief period before assuming presidency himself. When no checks and balances exist, this process can be continued till the end of his life.

To decide if today’s Russia is a dictatorship, it is irrelevant how competent or conscientious or great Vladimir Putin is. Political power is concentrated in his hands with no checks or counterbalancing power. 

It is indeed unfortunate that 100 years after the revolution, the Russian state continues to be classified as a dictatorship.

If the choice is between ‘progress under dictatorship’ and ‘stagnation under democracy’, I personally prefer stagnation, even chaos, under democracy. (Worse is stagnation under dictatorship, which is what happened in Brezhnev’s time). 

Summary: (a) Essential to study the checks and balancing power centres that exist in your country.

(b) Fictitious power centres such as the British monarch or the President of India contribute nothing (as a control mechanism), but are a huge cost centre. They should be scrapped.

(b) Concentration of power in the hands of a single person or a small group is dictatorship, irrespective of how good or competent the person is.

(c) Social media, the fifth power centre, is one the common man has access to. For those willing to maintain democracy in their country, that power centre should be used by fearlessly writing against dilution of checks and balances.

Ravi 

Russian Revolution Centenary: Part Four

Vladimir Lenin had associated imperialism with capitalism. Soviet Union declared itself as an anti-imperialistic State.

Many intellectuals were impressed by the anti-imperialist stance of communism. It appealed to Indians in particular. Before 1947, imperialists had ruled over India for at least 400 straight years. Babur, from today’s Uzbekistan, had established the Mughal Empire in India in the year 1526. (Babri mosque, demolished in 1992, was named after him). Mughals, weakened by the middle of the nineteenth century, were replaced by the British Empire. My parents and grandparents were born in British India, and some of my earlier ancestors presumably had Muslim rulers.

The two empires operated differently. The Mughal Empire began in Central Asia (Uzbekistan, Turkey, Iran and other Muslim land). It kept expanding by attacking territories in the south. At its peak, near the end of the 17^th century, it had conquered most of India. The Indian continent was, in some sense, contiguous (adjoining) to the land the Mughals came from. The distance from Samarkand to Delhi was 2000 km. With no sea between them, cavalry could cover it in a few weeks.

The Mughals began to spread across India, marry the locals (Rajputs), and impose their language, music, and religion on the local population. Their rulers ruled from Agra, Lahore or Delhi. Today, the Indian continent (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) has more than half a billion Muslims. This is the result of the Mughal rule several centuries earlier.

British Empire, on the other hand, ruled through remote control. No British king or queen Victoria ever shifted base to India. The British simply meant to exploit India as a colony, plunder its wealth. Those who naively think that British rule was good for India should watch the 15-minute clip of Dr Shashi Tharoor’s celebrated debate speech at the Oxford University.

Which of the two empires had a greater impact on India? In terms of damage, certainly the British. As Tharoor points out in his speech, when the British came to India, India was one of the richest countries in the world with 23% of the global GDP. India was the world leader in textiles, steel and shipbuilding. Poverty was unknown. After 200 years of exploitation, expropriation and looting by the British, it was reduced to one of the poorest countries by 1947.

Imperialism is War ! 

The Soviet Union was more like the Mughal Empire, contiguous, and there was much exchange and inter-marriages as a result of the union. Unlike the British leaving India, or French leaving Africa, Russians were not expected to leave the non-Russian republics when the empire ended. In 1991, twenty-five million Russians found themselves on the wrong side of the Russian border. Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) were always strongly anti-Russian. They had won independence in the First World War and considered Russia occupying them illegally after the Second. Those republics denied or made difficult citizenship for those Russians living within their boundaries.

Soviet Union had simply replaced the Russian empire. Lenin’s calling it an anti-imperialist state was as duplicitous as Donald Trump saying nobody has more respect for women than Trump does.

In 1991, due to its prolonged economic failure, USSR was ripe for a breakdown. It could have adopted market economy, and continued its existence. This didn’t happen. It is remarkable that along with its collapse, the union disintegrated into fifteen sovereign states. The disintegration was proof that Soviet Union was an empire, the constituents of which sought independence for a long time. This was further corroborated by the formation of a “Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)” among those nations. The British formed ‘Commonwealth’ as a proxy term for their empire. This was to pretend the empire’s continuation. Both the British Commonwealth and the CIS are powerless bodies. They are like a divorced couple trying to maintain cordial relations.

*****

The Soviet Empire replacing the Russian Empire 100 years ago had fifteen official republics. A staunch Russian nationalist may argue it was a voluntary union in that the Soviet constitution, at least on paper, allowed any republic to secede.

Then what about Poland? Hungary? Bulgaria? Romania? East Germany? Czechoslovakia? (Possibly Afghanistan from 1979).

Russian language, the state planning system, government owning everything, the Soviet way of life, politics, secret police force were all forced on these foreign states. I visited Poland in 1987. It was in a worse shape than the USSR. One of my most memorable memories is a Polish man with a garland of coarse toilet papers around his neck. He was going around displaying that as a trophy. (Toilet paper was also in shortage). Another memory from that trip is my near-death on a Warsaw- Szczecin train in which people were crammed like cattle. For over eight hours, I was squeezed in a mass of flesh, unable to move in any direction, trying desperately to breathe properly.

Poland and other Soviet satellites undoubtedly looked at the USSR as an imperialist power. Twenty-five years after its end, all have joined the EU; some have allowed their territory for American military bases, and all have extinguished Russian language from education.

*****

The British Empire, Islamic empire and Soviet empire were the three largest empires in history, in terms of the landmass they occupied. While my parents’ generation saw the fall of the British Empire, I witnessed the fall of the Soviet. (I celebrated as heartily as my parents must have).

Interestingly, Soviet Empire, in one respect, differed from both the British and the Mughal empires. During the existence of the USSR, Russian population suffered as much as the Estonians, Uzbeks, Armenians, Poles, or East Germans. When the empire came down, Russians in Moscow forcefully brought down the massive statues of Lenin.

You may remember the image of Yeltsin standing on a tank in front of the parliament and declaring independence from the Soviet tyranny. If the Russian people celebrated the end of the USSR, who were the imperialists?

To understand this, we need to discuss bullying in schools.

*****

In a school class, a single boy or a small group of boys are bullies. That small group is capable of dominating the majority, occasionally terrifying them. The remaining students in the class are either the victims or neutral. Some are forced to join or support the bullies in order to protect themselves. The source of the bully power is the bully himself.

In most societies, political power is similar to that of the school bullies. You will notice that even in democratic societies a very tiny section of politicians are elected by millions. India’s lower house, the more powerful body, has 545 individuals (one of them is India’s prime minister). The upper house has 245 individuals. This bunch of 790 people together has all the federal political power over the 1.3 billion Indians. It’s a minuscule percent, one person out of 1.5 million in central power. In absence of additional checks, such power can always be abused. The power of school bullies is limited by strong teachers or rigorous anti-bullying school policies. Without such checks, the school bullies will cause havoc.

The Soviet dictators were like school bullies with no checks on them. Lenin and Stalin legitimised unfettered dictatorship of the communist party and its General Secretary. For seventy years, a small group of Communist dictators ruled unashamedly (the talk was about a dictatorship of the proletariat, but in reality it was a dictatorship over the proletariat). The power of the politburo was absolute, not subject to external checks or criticism. Just like they suffered under Tsar, many Russians suffered under the Soviet rule. Though the Latvians and Czechoslovakians looked at Russians as the imperialists, it was not the Russian people but this small section of Soviet bullies who had formed the empire.

This point is valid in most democratic and dictator societies. I have close friends in Russia, America and England. Should I blame them for Putin or Trump or Brexit? Absolutely not. When I am critical about the British Empire it has nothing to do with my British friends or their ancestors. It has to do with a few British thugs (one may add people like Winston Churchill to that group) keen to build and expand the empire.

Masses are generally apathetic or helpless. In the USA, a democratic icon, nobody can any longer become its president without having access to some 2 billion dollars.  Financial power, also concentrated in the hands of a small group, operates in collusion with political power. What is an average American voter, given a choice between Trump and Hillary, supposed to do? He is almost as helpless as an ordinary Russian under Tsar, Stalin, Brezhnev or Putin. The only difference is that the helpless creature in America is free to shout or protest. The Soviet citizen never was.

Soviet Communism experiment: Lesson no. 4A: One should not judge a person or people by the political situation or leaders in their country. It is wrong and nonsensical.

*****

An empire tries to expand its boundaries, primarily by conquering foreign lands and subjugating foreign people. Usually the vanquished belong to a different race, different religion, speak a different language, have their own customs, traditions, and folktales.

Ukrainians and Belarusians were Slavic people, closer to Russians. (That doesn’t always help as shown by the current Russia-Ukraine conflict). But people in the six Muslim republics and the three Baltic republics were very different. Forcing them into the Soviet Union didn’t work out.

Is that a danger for the European Union? No doubt, European Union is voluntary; far more civilised and has enough checks and balances. However, perception rather than reality that people different than you are ruling over you is likely to cause EU’s downfall in future. Brexit leaders managed to convince sections of population that Britain was reporting to Brussels. I am in Poland at the time of writing this essay. Poland is now in the clutches of vicious ultra-nationalists. Modern Nazis are the rulers in Austria. Though they didn’t seize the power, nationalists also have a strong mandate in France. It is possible that European Union may disintegrate much before celebrating its own centenary.

Soviet communism experiment: Lesson no. 4b: European Union is as abstract a concept as the Soviet Union was. No such homogeneous nation or people exist. If perceived as an Empire ruling over its subjects, it can collapse and disintegrate in the same way the Soviet Union did. That is the unfortunate lesson from the Soviet case study.

Ravi