VOXINDICA

It is all about charisma

2012-01-17T09:09:00.006+05:30

“Have we as a nation properly understood the theory of charisma as originally proposed by Max Weber (1864-1920) in his ‘The theory of social and economic organisations’ or are we merely confused between charm and charisma.”

* * *

“The [Congress] party which considers the nation a family heirloom never hesitated to destroy democratic institutions to cling on to power. Jawarhalal Nehru had the constitution amended to circumscribe the inconvenient freedom of speech. His daughter Indira wished to do away with the fundamental rights including the right to life. For the current crop ruling the nation by proxy, the constitution appears to be a mere nuisance. Its more important objective is coronation of its prince in 2014, banking on the premise of charisma.”

* * *

The following article, entitled, “It is all about charisma”, appeared in The Hans India of January 17, 2012. (Emphasis added.)

............................................................................................................

Thomas Jefferson, the third president of America is credited with the aphorism: “A politician looks forward only to the next election; a statesman looks forward to the next generation.” One of the founding fathers of the American nation, he played a major role in its expansion and consolidation beginning with the acquisition of Louisiana.

The wise men who drafted the Indian constitution envisaged the concept of affirmative action to bring certain disadvantaged sections of the society on par with the rest. The provision of reservations in legislative bodies, employment and education was to be a temporary measure even in the case of the most disadvantaged classes such as the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The original Article 334 of the constitution limits the provision of reservation of seats for SCs and STs in legislative bodies to sixty years. Additionally, the first part of Article 335 has a curious proviso. It states that the “claims of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts…” Unfortunately, India has been condemned to be ruled by politicians - not statesmen - for whom the next election has always been more important than the next generation. Compelled by the politics of competitive populism they have not only been extending the provision of reservations thus negating the original sunset clause but have been bringing in more and more sections into the ambit of reservations.

As an ideologically bankrupt Congress party falls back on the family ‘charisma’ to return it to power in UP in 2012 and eventually at the centre in 2014, it has come up with another round of reservations as an electoral sop.

The party which considers the nation a family heirloom never hesitated to destroy democratic institutions to cling on to power. Jawarhalal Nehru had the constitution amended to circumscribe the inconvenient freedom of speech. His daughter Indira wished to do away with the fundamental rights including the right to life. For the current crop ruling the nation by proxy, the constitution appears to be a mere nuisance. Its more important objective is coronation of its prince in 2014, banking on the premise of charisma.

Have we as a nation properly understood the theory of charisma or are we merely confused between charm and charisma?

The theory of ‘Charismatic Leadership’ evolved from ideas originally proposed by Max Weber (1864-1920) in his ‘The theory of social and economic organisations’. Weber, known as an economist and historian in his time may be said to be the father modern sociology. He was the first to use the word ‘charisma’ to describe ‘leadership’ that emerges in crisis situations.

In Greek, the word ‘Charisma’ means ‘divinely inspired gift’. Charismatic leadershipis neither traditional nor based on formal authority but based on followers’ perception that the leader is gifted with exceptional qualities. A charismatic leader, as conceptualised by Weber is gifted with a radical vision that offers solutions to crisis situations. He attracts followers who believe in his vision. The followers experience success that makes them trust their leader’s vision as attainable. This makes them perceive the leader as extraordinary.

What then are the traits of a charismatic leader? Literature on leadership defines precisely the attributes, traits and behaviours of charismatic leaders. Thus charismatic leaders have a strong need for power, high self-confidence and conviction in their own beliefs and ideals and are able to influence the attitudes and behaviours of their followers. But first a charismatic leader must have a vision that is both ennobling and appealing.

The leader must be able to make his followers visualise the ennobling vision by expressive language and communication. The leader must be able to take exceptional personal risks and make self-sacrifices to attain the vision. The leader must consistently communicate his confidence in and high expectations from his followers. The leader must consistently ensure that both he and his followers observe role-modelling consistent with the vision.

The leader must be able to build identification with the vision and finally he must be able to empower the followers to achieve the vision.

So what is the ennobling vision that a charismatic leader should have had and communicated to the people of a newly liberated nation? Why, it is the vision of a strong and resurgent nation, for the building of which the leader takes personal risks and makes sacrifices. A strong and resurgent nation, the concept of which every citizen identifies with and believes in. In order to be labelled charismatic did any of our leaders since independence believe in and communicate such ennobling vision? Did any of them take personal risks and make sacrifices for realising such ennobling vision? Does every citizen identify with and believe in such ennobling vision?

TAILPIECE: Malcolm Gladwell calls the misconception of ‘charisma’, the “Warren Harding Error” (‘Blink’, 2006. Penguin Books, New Delhi). Warren Harding was elected president because his electors could not distinguish between charisma in its popular misconception and charismatic leadership. The 29th US President (1921–1923) was tall, broad-shouldered and perfectly proportioned, had a bronzed complexion and a resonant masculine voice. Harding came to be described a ‘Roman’ for his good looks. He was affable and had an implacable desire to please. His father once told him that it was good he hadn’t been born a girl because, “You would be in the family way all the time. You can’t say no”. During his presidency, he busied himself with golf, poker and his mistresses while his cronies looted the exchequer ‘in a variety of creative ways’.

Harding had the dubious distinction of being the second of ten ‘Worst Presidents’. Jay Tolson says that he was an ‘ineffectual and indecisive leader’ and his ‘claim to infamy rests on spectacular ineptitude’. (US News & World Report, February 16, 2007. Worst Presidents: Warren Harding, accessible from http://bit.ly/a3bRER).

The versatile genius

2012-01-08T21:55:00.011+05:30

“If intimacy with Islamic scholars stimulated him to learn Arabic andPersian, kinship with Hindustaniclassical singers made him cultivate their style. The cultivation ofthe Hindustani style added a rare andunique hybrid timbre to his music not usually found in the rendering of Carnatic singers and won him manyaccolades including those from the Maharajah of Mysore and Rabindranath Tagore.This is because it was unusual for Carnaticsingers to be able to sing Hindustaniand vice versa. The hybrid style he developed left an indelible stamp on theprogress of Carnatic music. It wasadopted by later musicians including some of the greats of Carnatic music, marking it as the sui generis of Vizianagaram music. Eventuallywhen Narayana Das became the first principal of Sri Vijayarama Gana Pathasala(the first music college in South India) it became part of the curriculum. TheMaharajah of Vizianagaram established the Music College in 1919 to honour thePandit and enable enthusiasts to learn music from him. The college producedmany great musicians. Pandit Narayana Das inducted violin maestro DwaramVenkata Swamy Naidu as a lecturer in the college. Dwaram succeeded PanditNarayana Das as principal after the latter relinquished office in 1936.”

The following article on Pandit Srimadajjada Adibhatla Narayana Das appeared in The Hans India of January 8, 2012. The original may be seen here: The versatile genius

............................................................................................................

Sri Narayana Dasu

Sir Cattamanchi Ramalinga Reddy, eminent litterateur, educationist and founder Vice Chancellor of Andhra University described Srimadajjada Adibhatla Narayana Das (1864-1945) as a ‘university’. Sir Ramalinga Reddy was not exaggerating, for Narayana Dasu was a linguist with proficiency in as many as eight languages, poet, philosopher, writer, composer, dancer, actor and the creator of the unique art form, Hari Katha.

It is well nigh impossible to find a parallel for him in the history of Indian literature. Adibhatla Narayana Das was the only scholar who had mastery over four classical languages (Sanskrit, Telugu, Arabic and Persian) and translated from Persian and English into Sanskrit and Telugu; the only litterateur who wrote a comparative treatise on the works of Kalidas and Shakespeare; the only writer-composer who translated into Telugu and set to music Rig Vedic hymns and the only writer-composer who composed a geeta-malika comprising 90 Carnatic ragas. As a writer-composer who composed music in all the 72 Carnatic ragas, he was next only to Saint Thyagaraja.

His literary output was voluminous. He wrote over 50 books in Telugu, Sanskrit and Atcha-Telugu (Desyandhramu or Telugu unmixed of Sanskrit). His works included original story-poems (Kavyas and Prabandhas), Harikathas, prose works, musical works, dramas, translations, treatises in philosophy and Vedic studies and children’s literature. For want of space, only a few of his works are introduced here:

Navarasatarangini (1922): A study that compares, contrasts and critiques the treatment of the nine rasas or moods in the plays of Shakespeare and Kalidas. A voluminous work, with a lengthy preface, it vetted the entire of body of dramatic literature of the two writers.

Rubaiyat of Omar Khaiyam (1932): Narayana Das felt that Edward Fitzgerald’s English renderings of Omar Khaiyam’s Rubaiyat were not literal and did not do justice to the spirit of the Persian poet’s philosophy. In order to demonstrate his thesis, Narayana Das translated both the original Persian and the English renderings into Sanskrit and Atcha-Telugu. “Hyderabad Bulletin”*, a prominent newspaper of the time felt the book merited a review - Here are some excerpts from the editorial entitled, “A Monument of Scholarship”: “[...] a careful perusal of the book fills us with admiration at the astounding scholarship of the learned Pandit […] In these degenerate days when scholarship has fallen on evil times, it is incredible to learn that a Hindu, with Telugu as his mother tongue, should have been so filled with admiration for a Persian poet that, after he had passed his sixtieth year, he took the trouble to master so alien a language, and translate the masterpiece not only into Telugu but into another classical language, Sanskrit.”

Jagajjyothi (1942-43): It was his magnum opus in which he analysed, discussed and critiqued ancient Vedic lore and tried to apply his theories to everyday life. It contains the quintessence of Narayana Das’ philosophy and outlook towards life. In this he was at once heretical and traditional, rational and religious. He distilled all that is good in all Indian philosophies and brought about a synthesis and propounded a new philosophy of humanism.

Dasavidharaganavati Kusumamanjari(1938): An outstanding musical work of unparalleled erudition, it is a Devi stotram comprising 90 Carnatic ragas. The first half is in Sanskrit and the second half in Telugu.

Vizianagarm of the late nineteenth century was a haven of literary and artistic talent and was - to borrow a phrase from renaissance literature - in a state of intellectual ferment. Narayana Das’ innate artistry blossomed and flourished. Narayana Das used to absorb knowledge the way sponge absorbs water. If intimacy with Islamic scholars stimulated him to learn Arabic and Persian, kinship with Hindustani classical singers made him cultivate their style.

Gajarohanam at Singareni

The cultivation of the Hindustani style added a rare and unique hybrid timbre to his music not usually found in the rendering of Carnatic singers and won him many accolades including those from the Maharajah of Mysore and Rabindranath Tagore. This is because it was unusual for Carnatic singers to be able to sing Hindustani and vice versa. The hybrid style he developed left an indelible stamp on the progress of Carnatic music. It was adopted by later musicians, including some of the greats of Carnatic music. Eventually when Narayana Das became the first principal of Sri Vijayarama Gana Pathasala (the first music college in South India) it became part of the curriculum. The Maharajah of Vizianagaram established the Music College in 1919 to honour the Pandit and enable enthusiasts to learn music from him. The college produced many great musicians. Pandit Narayana Das inducted violin maestro Dwaram Venkata Swamy Naidu as a lecturer in the college. Dwaram succeeded Pandit Narayana Das as principal after the latter relinquished office in 1936.

Pandit Narayana Das’ literary and musical accomplishments left him peerless in his time. The literary and musical elite of his time joined to honour him with the title of “Sangitha Sahitya Sarvabhauma.” The musical maestros of his time honoured him with titles like “Laya Brahma” and “Panchamukhi Parameswara” for his ability to sing to five talas, beat with two arms, two feet and head. Five musicians used to keep time with him when he performed “Panchamukhi.” The versatile genius breathed his last on January 2, 1945.

.............................................................................................................

*To read the editorial review of Pandit Narayana Das' Rubaiyat of Omar Khaiayam by Hyderabad Bulletin please click here: A MONUMENT OF SCHOLARSHIP

Transforming Capitalism

2012-01-04T10:37:00.002+05:30

Book Review

Therewere two diametrically opposing theses about business. The first assumed thatthe prime interest of business was mercenary and intended only to fatten itsowners at the cost of the general public. The theory originated in an era when business meant only the production anddistribution of goods in brick and mortar factories. The theory held that itwould be in the larger interest of society if the state controlled the means ofproduction and distribution of goods. This was the principle behind the ‘second world’ governance. It held swayfor over seventy years beginning with the proletarian revolution in Russia in1917.

‘From each according to his ability to eachaccording to his needs’ was (is)an indisputably lofty ideal but to quote an old cliché, ‘human nature being what it is’, simply did not work. This was becausethe first part of the dictum was immeasurable and the second part highlyelastic! In the end, governance required mammoth bureaucracies which acquired dynamics (or inertia if you will) of their own. The state had to increasinglyintrude into the private lives of citizens to make the system work, as Orwellso vividly depicted in his NineteenEighty Four. But still it did not work and the utopia of Marx’s dreams simplyimploded.

Marxmust be spinning in his grave in capitalistEngland but Maslow’s theory of the hierarchy of needs amply explains the reasonfor the implosion. A human being, unlike an animal, can not simply remain satisfiedif his most basic needs are met. After the basic needs are satisfied, there is acraving for needs in a higher plane to be satisfied. It was this upward spiralof ‘need, satisfaction & higher need’ that helped human evolution anddevelopment.

Theother thesis is based on the principle of free market economy, on the premisethat ‘wants are the prime movers of all economic activity’. Theproduction of goods is to satisfy consumer needs. Therefore the premise ofdemand determines the sustainability of businesses. The incentive for theproducer is the profit. But to sustain in business the producer has tounderstand the continually evolving and ever changing needs of the consumer.The system has its own checks and balances but is essentially based onindividual freedoms. Theoretically anyonecan start a business or exit from abusiness. It is the consumer who determines whether a business is successful or not. Sustenance depends on individualcreativity and enterprise. But even successful businessmen who grow rich byvirtue of their creativity, enterprise and may be luck are also partof the society. Are they free to enjoy the fruits of their labour irrespectiveof the vicissitudes of the lives of the others surrounding them? If they did, wouldn’t they be accused of vulgarity of greed and indecent exhibitionism? Wasn’tthis – the huge disparity between the haves and the have-nots - the root causeof the proletarian revolution?

Thateven in the utopia of Marx’s dreams ‘some animals’ felt that had a divine right to be more equal than others, was a different matter. The recent march onWall Street is a form of societal disapproval of the concentration of wealth insome individuals. As long as the common people were able to lead their livesnormally they did not grudge the one percent of Americans owning (cornering?)eighty percent of the nation’s wealth. But after the collapse of the economicsystem when savings of a life time vanished overnight, when they suddenly foundthe future holding no promise and life insufferable, they suddenly woke up tofind the grim reality of huge disparities. However it did not lead to America witnessingà la Russian revolution of 1917 because people are only too aware of whathappened in that nation between 1917 and 1990. A revolution of the type was nosolution. The harsh reality is, wealth not created can not be shared, no matterwhat the left liberal chatterati might crib about the inequities of thecapitalist system.

Whatshould businesses do to mitigate the situation? As a tentative solution, Maira puts forth theopinion that ‘values are not measured by thewealth produced but by the means considered acceptable’? (p. 192) And moreimportantly managers should operate in two ecosystems: the ‘professional system of the business governed by the financial markets’and the ‘wider system of people outsidethe company’s core activities’. (p. 91)

Whilethe main thesis of ‘TransformingCAPITALISM’ is all about whatbusinesses like to call Corporate SocialResponsibility (CSR) Maira devotes a chapter to NGOs. The term NGO isloosely applied to all organisations from the International Red Cross to thosefunded by self-serving business and religious interests. The (Hindi) movie, Corporate provides a good example of howbusiness interests fund and make NGOs subserve their not-so-honest interests. Itmight be bad manners to look the gift horse in the mouth but certainly oneshould err on the side of caution when looking at NGOs. Gulam Nabi Fai’s ‘Kashmiri American Council’ (KAC) was arespectable NGO which attracted quite a few Indian intellectuals till it was unmasked as a front organisation of thePakistani intelligence agency, ISI and Fai arrested by the FBI. Curiously while Indian intellectuals did not have anyqualms about being wined and dined by an organisation like the KAC, which overtly seeks topromote secession of Kashmir from India, India’s largest and most patrioticNGO, the RSS is persona non grata!

Muchof what Maira says in ‘TransformingCAPITALISM’ may not be entirely new but it is cogently argued and well-written. The book is certainly worth reading. Someof the chapters in the book appeared as newspaper columns earlier.

Maira, Arun. 2011. Transforming CAPITALISM – ImprovingThe World For Everyone. NIMBY Books. New Delhi. pp 210. Price Rs 295/-

This review is part of the Book Reviews programme at Blogadda.com

Will Indians Against Corruption win?

2011-12-29T09:49:00.003+05:30

Will Indians Against Corruption win? appeared in The Hans India on December 29, 2011

............................................................................................

As a tumultuous year winds down to become history, the one issue that seems to resonate with the common folk is that of corruption and the government’s insouciance to combat it. The year opened with the unravelling of the 2G scam and the fall of the high and mighty. There were other scandals, such as the CWG and Adarsh Society scam, as venal as the telecom swindle, but it was the magnitude of perceived corruption and the nexus between politics, big business and the media involved in 2G scam that shocked the nation.

The clamour for democracy in the Arab street was a distant thunder. The ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement energised the anti-capitalists and perhaps briefly the communist ethos in its death pangs. But it was Anna Hazare’s first hunger strike that struck a chord and truly awakened the citizenry of this country. The groundswell of public anger against corruption fuelled the movement that was reminiscent of Mahatma Gandhi’s mass Satyagrahas.

The most redeeming feature of Hazare’s movement is that the youth of our country have been at its vanguard, giving the lie to the popular perception that today’s youth are selfcentred and uninterested in political movements. Taking a cue from Hazare’s campsite in Delhi, hunger strike camps across the nation displayed pictures of Bharat Mata in the background. This was because today’s youth is proud of our rich and ancient culture, history, philosophy and spirituality. Unlike their counterparts of a few generations ago, they are not burdened by the tugs and challenges of ‘intellectual fashions’, which demanded disavowal, denial, denigration and negation of anything remotely connected with India’s glorious past.

However, this was where the first sign of discord in the coalition against corruption surfaced. The naïve Gandhian that Hazare was, he did not understand the importance of symbolism and nuances in India’s ‘secular’ political discourse. Hazare was advised by the ‘secular’ members (it is needless to point out that the ‘secular’ members in any ‘civil society’ group are ‘more equal’ than others) of his entourage that displaying Bharat Mata at the campsite would offend the ‘secular’ ethic of the nation as it amounted to crass majoritarianism. He meekly obeyed and banished Bharat Mata.

Be that as it may, Hazare was successful to the extent that he forced the government to bring in a bill that had eluded political consensus for over 60 years. As this piece is being written, the Bill as conceived the UPA was passed by the Lok Sabha, though many feel that it was not a strong weapon to fight corruption. However, the UPA failed to provide a constitutional status to the proposed Lokpal as it failed to garner the required number of votes. And it is yet to pass the test in the Rajya Sabha.

It would be unwise to assume that corruption, so deeply ingrained in the body-politic, could be excised with a single movement, howsoever popular the movement might have been. A small battle has been won but the major war is still ahead. The demon, so long used to feasting on the common weal of the populace like a gigantic parasite, is not going to give in easily.

It is going to fight back with magnified virulence, which can take many shapes and forms. We can already see the ‘dogs-of-war’ let loose by the principal Opposition - in this case, the ruling clique - attacking the fight against corruption on many fronts. These include smear campaigns against the movement’s principal protagonists and dilatory tactics like calling for reservations in the Lokpal, something which was unheard of in the constitution of Constitutional bodies. Even if the government gets the Bill passed through the Rajya Sabha, the reservation part might yet come under judicial scrutiny.

TAILPIECE: The kickbacks involved in the Bofors scam were peanuts compared to the magnitude of today’s scams. But the subject of corruption in third-world countries inspired Geoffrey Archer enough to include it in his anthology of short stories, ‘A Twist in the Tale’, published in the aftermath of Bofors. Here are two snippets from it:

The finance minister of a third-world country approaches a Swiss bank, ostensibly to investigate the account one of his country’s politicians had with the bank. The senior official of the bank whom the minister approaches refuses to confirm or give any details of the account. The minister’s pleas in the name of ethics, morality, humanity and what have you and threats to close down all his country’s accounts with the bank were of no avail. Even his threat to kill the official drew a blank. The minister walks out but suddenly hoists his brief case on to the table and says ‘how about opening an account?’

Two ‘third-world’ government ministers meet in an international conference held in one of their capitals. They become friends and the minister of the host country invites the other minister to his mansion for dinner. The guest was amazed to see the opulence of his host’s mansion and wonders how he could build such a mansion in so poor a country. The host takes him to the top of the building and shows him a nearby river and a dam on it. He asks him ‘do you see the dam?’ The guest replies he does. ‘Well! Ten percent of it’, he says.

The next conference was held in the guest’s national capital and naturally the earlier guest now plays host and invites his friend to dinner. It was the turn of the other to marvel at the opulence of his friend’s palace. So the host takes him to the top of the building and points at the panoramic expanse of the nearby river. ‘See the dam there?’ he asks. ‘But I do not see anything there!’ replies his guest. ‘Precisely!’ says the host, ‘Ten per cent of it!’

How to tackle black money menace

2011-12-23T18:36:00.001+05:30

The following article, How to tackle black money menace appeared in The Hans India on December 22, 2011

............................................................................................

In its report released in November 2010, Global Financial Integrity (GFI) a global watchdog of corruptionand illegal money flows across nations estimated that India lost US$ 213billion between 1948 and 2008 due to illegal outflows. If interest accruals areadded, the figure rises to US$ 462 billion, twice the size of India’s externaldebt @ US$ 230 billion for the same period. GFI agrees that in all likelihoodthe figures could be understated. Additionally, the figures did not take intoaccount smuggling, mispricing and gaps in available statistics. If these areadded India’s losses due to illegal money flows in the sixty-one years between1948 and 2008 could cross the half a trillion mark. The story does not endthere. The estimated US$ 462 billion stashed abroad represents only 72% ofIndia’s black economy, the remaining 28% being held within India. With thatIndia’s underground economy reaches US$ 640 billion (till end of 2008) andrepresents – 50% of her GDP! The more worrying aspect of the report is thateconomic liberalization did neither halt nor reduce illegal outflows. On theother hand it accelerated them with increased number of high net-worthindividuals (HNWIs) and companies brazenly resorting to stashing money abroad.

We might inch closer to the truth when Julian Assange (of WikiLeaksfame) makes his promised sensational revelations about Indian black moneyhoarders abroad in early 2012. According to media reports Assange warned thatsensitive information relating India’s illegal wealth is being intercepted bothby China and the West.

It must be noted here that although Switzerland has earned notoriety asa secret haven for parking illegal funds there are many others includingAustria, Luxembourg and Lichtenstein (a small town in Germany) which offer thesame services. GFI identified 70 suchhavens.

Corruption and black money may be said to be two differentmanifestations of the same disease. While corruption affects populations withina country, money-laundering may have more pernicious effects on a global scale.Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary General found a cause and effect relationshipbetween the two. In his foreword to the 2004 report on “United Nations Convention AgainstCorruption”, Annan said,“Corruption is an insidious plague that … undermines democracy and the rule oflaw, leads to violations of human rights … erodes the quality of life.” Whileconceding that it is a global phenomenon, however, Annan felt its destructiveeffects were more harmful to developing nations as it was a “major obstacle topoverty alleviation and development.” But it was Annan’s observation relatingto transnational money-laundering that was more significant from a globalperspective. He said that it aided and abetted organized crime and terrorismand allowed other threats to human security to flourish.

Recognizing this pernicious aspect of transnational money-laundering,the UNGA’s report to the Secretary General (“Uniting against terrorism: recommendations for a global counter-terrorism”- Sixtieth session, Agenda items 46 and 120 of April 27 2006) ratified the nine recommendations of the Paris-basedFinancial Action Task Force (FATF) on terrorist financing.The most important of these is the one relating to denying financial support toterrorism. It demands that “[e]ach country should criminalise the financing ofterrorism, terrorist acts and terrorist organisations.” And that “Countriesshould ensure that such offences are designated as money-laundering predicateoffences.” The US Patriot Act, passed in the aftermath ofNew York WTC bombing on September 11, 2001 has a specific section for “International Money-launderingAbatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism.” Othernations of the developed world made similar legislations to deny financialsupport to terrorism.

Till recently it had beenimpossible to make the Swiss or other tax havens divulge information relatingto money stashed in their banks. Even legal measures did not help. ‘Suing aSwiss bank in a Swiss court’ had been no-go in a nation obsessed with protectingcustomer anonymity in its banking transactions. But thanks to the American andother nations’ legislations cited above to discourage financial support toterrorism and the pressure they have been exerting, the tax havens began seeingillegal money flows in a different light, much as they contributed to theirnational economies. As a result the US was able to pressurise Swiss bank UBSnot only to agree to provide information about American citizens illegallyhoarding money in it but also pay a fine of US$ 780 million being loss to theUS exchequer. Even small countries like Ireland were able to collect backmoneys illegally deposited by their citizens abroad.

The Indian government has beensaying that it has been taking active measures to bring back illegally stashedmoney abroad by signing double taxation treaties (DTT) with various countries.This only amounts to sidetracking the issue. The ideal course would be to makestashing money abroad a criminal offence not just tax evasion. The governmentis also guilty of being not fully transparent even in signing the DTTs. Forexample, the revised Indo-Swiss double taxation treaty enables India to seekinformation on black money and tax evasion only from January 2011 and has noretro-active effect. Therefore we can kiss goodbye to the US$ 462 billionalready lost!

The GFI report mentioned abovemakes two pertinent points: one that the illicit financial flows from Indiapose a grave challenge to national security. It cites the FATF report to saythat the anti-money-laundering (AML) / combating terrorism regime in India isweak as a result of which the country faces many risks.

Secondly it says that countrieswith strong governance (e.g. Norway) have smaller illicit financial outflowswhereas countries with weak governance (e.g. Nigeria) have larger outflows. Thekey to the conundrum lies in making tax compliance easy and tax evasion costlyand attracting exemplary punishment. Only confiscating the culprit’s wholeproperty and sending him/her into long imprisonment would meet the case ofexemplary punishment. Why is the government baulking to do so? Whom does itwant to protect?

‘Big brother’ wants to watch!

2011-12-13T22:35:00.001+05:30

“The government’s stand on the issue of ‘freedomof expression’ may be termed as ambivalent and dependent on politicalconsiderations from time to time. Thus while functionaries of the governmentjoined the votaries of ‘free speech’ in defending M. F. Hussain’s ‘freedom ofexpression’ to paint Hindu gods and goddesses in the nude, the ruling party atthe centre had no hesitation in forestalling the publication of “The Red Sari”, Spanish writerJavier Moro's biography of SoniaGandhi. Isn’t Sonia more sacred than Bharat Mata, Sarawati or Sita?”

*** *** ***

“Internetas an open democratic medium has earned the wrath of both the politicians andmedia persons for obvious reasons. If the politicians hated it because it doesnot respect their ‘more equal’ status, it has become bete noir for the mediapersons as it did away with their monopoly over dissemination of news. Now theynot only have competition but the easily accessed, 24/7 medium subjected theirconduct to relentless scrutiny.”

'Big Brother' wants to watch! appeared in The Hans India of December 12, 2011.

................................................................................................................

Kapil Sibal has certainlyset the cat among the pigeons when he demanded executives of Google, Yahoo and Microsofttoscreen content posted on social networking sites. The InformationTechnology (Electronic Service Delivery) Rules, 2011, the government notified earlier this year in April, areconsidered to be the most stringent compared to those in any democraticcountry. The rules require ‘the intermediaries’(like Facebook, Google, Orkut etc) that provide a platform to users to postcomments and create their own content to remove ‘offensive’ content based on ane-mailed complaint from an aggrieved person.

The immediate provocation forKapil Sibal’s demand appears to be a cartoon posted on Facebook lampooningSonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh. Sibal termed it ‘unacceptable.’ In a partythat lays great store by loyalty to ‘the’ family, Kapil Sibal, as InformationTechnology Minister cannot be seen to be deficient. In addition to loyaltySibal has another reason to be chagrined with the internet, especially the roleplayed by Facebook and Twitter in bringing the government to heel in the recentIndians Against Corruption (IAC) movement.

The government’s stand on theissue of ‘freedom of expression’ may be termed as ambivalent and dependent onpolitical considerations from time to time. Thus while functionaries of thegovernment joined the votaries of ‘free speech’ in defending M. F. Hussain’s‘freedom of expression’ to paint Hindu gods and goddesses in the nude, theruling party at the centre had no hesitation in forestalling the publication of“The Red Sari”, Spanish writer Javier Moro's biography of Sonia Gandhi. Isn’t Soniamore sacred than Bharat Mata, Sarawati or Sita?

Indian politicians, who strongly believe in the dictum ‘someanimals are more equal than others’, have rarely taken kindly to criticism.They certainly could do with eulogy, thank you. Like Kapil Sibal in 2011, in1987, M. G. Ramachandran’s government wanted to teach a lesson to irreverentjournalists. S. M. Balasubramanian the editor of ‘Ananda Vikatan’ was summonedby the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly on April 4, 1987 to tender an apologyfor a cartoon the magazine published in its issue dated March 29, 1987. TheEditor refused to do so because he was not given an opportunity to explain hisstand in the matter. The assembly passed a motion by voice vote to award threemonths rigorous imprisonment to Balasubramanian. The sentence elicited strongreactions from the press and other quarters. Known for hunting with the houndand running with the hare, the Congress party played a curious role in theaffair. After supporting the motion in the state assembly, its Home Minister atthe centre, P. Chidambaram wished to defuse the crisis by offering an apologyto the assembly - on behalf of Balasubramanian! The issue was resolved after M.G. Ramachandran appealed to the assembly to rescind the sentence.Balasubramanian was released after spending two nights in prison.

A similar drama was enacted in Andhra Pradesh during thereign of N. T. Rama Rao as Chief Minister. In 1985 the state legislativeCouncil summoned Ramoji Rao, Editor of ‘Eenaadu’ over the caption of aneditorial the paper published criticizing a ruckus in the Council. Ramoji Raoapproached the Supreme Court for redress and the issue would have blown into alegislature-judiciary spat. N. T. Rama Rao, already unhappy with the Council’sintransigence over legislative business, resolved the crisis by abolishing theCouncil.

Internet as an open democratic medium has earned the wrath ofboth the politicians and media persons for obvious reasons. If the politicianshated it because it does not respect their ‘more equal’ status, it has becomebete noir for the media persons as it did away with their monopoly overdissemination of news. Now they not only have competition but the easilyaccessed, 24/7 medium subjected their conduct to relentless scrutiny.

Much as Kapil Sibal and his government would wish to governthe internet to ensure ordinary folk show due respect to the politicians at alltimes, it is easier said than done. There are an estimated 100 million netizensin India. We are the third most populous netizen country in the world afterChina and the US. But how does the Indian government police content postedoutside India? If every article, cartoon, video and comment posted on theinternet had to be screened and cleared before publishing, the process wouldsimply crash the system.

Secondly, regulating information flow had never worked. Theerstwhile Soviet Union did It for 70 years deluding itself that the ‘worker’sparadise’ was really popular with the masses. Nearer home, though Indira Gandhibowed to international pressure and ended the infamous emergency in 1977, shecalled for elections with the smug satisfaction that her regime was popular,which was the impression fed to her by her own propaganda machinery. For it wasshe who disbanded four private news agencies and created her hand-maidenSamachar!

TAIL PIECE: There are many ‘iron curtain’ jokes but this oneon the popularity of Russia’s mouth piece PRAVDA, though seemingly apocryphal,has a tell-tale lesson for the Kapil Sibal’s of this world: After the collapseof the Soviet Union, a citizen of Moscow went to his favourite coffee shop andasked a waiter to bring him a cup of the brew and the day’s PRAVDA. The waiterpolitely informed him, ‘Sir, I will bring you your coffee, but I am afraid Ican’t bring PRAVDA because it was closed down.’

As the waiter deposited hiscoffee cup, the man asked him again to bring the day’s PRAVDA. The waiterpolitely replied again that the PRAVDA was closed down. However the mancontinued to ask for PRAVDA every five minutes. Finally, the exasperated waiterlost his cool and shouted, ‘How many times do I have to tell you Sir thatPRAVDA was closed down?’ The man replied with obvious relish, ‘I want to hearit again and again and again!’

Memoirs of a man of letters!

2011-12-01T20:57:00.001+05:30

This toungue-in-cheek take on ‘memoirs’ appeared in The Hans India on November 25, 2011.

........................................................................................

‘Guruji, I need your help’, gushed a breathless Subbu. He has this habit of barging in on me with news of ‘earth-shaking events’ or ‘momentous’ requests. Subbu is a decent sort of chap, helpful to others and eager to learn but when he gets a ‘bee in his bonnet’ he is quite a bother. Considering his nature, it would perhaps be a little unkind to say he is exasperating at times.

‘What’s it?’ I asked politely, adding sotto voce, ‘this time’ with a silent sigh. ‘Guruji, I want to publish my memoirs’, said he eagerly. I understood. This is the season for publishing memoirs. Everyone who is anyone is up to publishing them. Some do this to get ‘it’ off their chest; some because they want to bitch on their colleagues and others with whom they want to settle scores. And some do it to make a quick buck by cashing in on salacious tidbits they are privy to, before signing off. But Subbu? I couldn’t imagine the editors of Penguin, Harper-Collins or other publishing houses queuing up before Subbu’s residence to buy off his memoirs. ‘Why do you want to publish your memoirs?’ I asked politely hoping that I might be able to dissuade him. ‘I have so many memorable events in my life, which I want to share with the world.’ Of course, everyone thinks so. Only the cynics call it human weakness or vanity .

‘OK’, I said, ‘let’s begin with your childhood’. Why does everyone who writes a memoir include a chapter about childhood? “As a child, I and my friends used to play in the dusty and muddy by lanes of a small village in the outback of rural Bihar….I used to walk four miles every day to school….Our class teacher was a tyrant and he used to make us stand in the hot sun all day as a punishment.” This will help the reader understand, (a) the writer was a poor boy; (b) his heart is in the right place because he did not forget his humble beginnings and is not ashamed of speaking about them; and (c) he made it big in life although he came from a very humble beginning.

Subbu said, ‘As a boy, I used to steal my father’s cigarettes to smoke with my friends.’ I forbore to say, show me any boy who didn't do it, for it would kill his enthusiasm. I told him, ‘we will make it cigars in the memoirs; but not the country variety. Havana or Cheroot would look classy.’ He considered it a moment, and then nodded.

‘What else did you do as a boy?’ I continued. He said, ‘I kissed Meena’. I exclaimed, ‘who’ but then added, ‘she would be old enough to be your grandmother’. ‘Oh no, I didn’t mean Meena Kumari. This girl was our neighbour in Tamil Nadu.’ ‘You couldn’t have done it’, I said, ‘because Meena is young enough to be your daughter now.’ ‘Guruji, you are mistaken’, Subbu said with a little impatience, ‘I was not referring to either the Hindi tragedienne or the Telugu movie queen; I was referring to a sweet little girl, my friend’s younger sister.’ Then his ‘kiss’ would not excite readers, sending their pulses racing. However, I did not want to dampen his enthusiasm, so I continued. ‘What made you do it?’ He said, ‘I saw my uncle, my father’s younger brother kissing our maid behind the haystack and thought I would do it too.’ Freud might be able to explain this impulse, or is it Jung? Anyway it was not up to me.

‘What next?’ I asked. ‘I would like to devote a chapter deriding the editor of…’ He named prominent English daily. Privately I was a little disappointed. I thought he would have more of the ‘kissing Meena’ stuff. There would be no queer men or naked women, which would go down well with readers and, more importantly, reviewers. For instance, no reviewer who reviewed the memoirs of a celebrity (I do not remember whose memoirs it was) left out this bit: “…and then she removed her clothes and lay completely naked before me on the carpet.” The reviewers did not tell us what happened afterwards.

‘What do you have against the editor?’ I asked. Subbu nonchalantly replied, ‘He never published my letters. You know, I regularly write letters to the editors of various newspapers, mostly on topics of national importance.’ ‘But the editor of that newspaper doesn’t even get to see your letters’, I explained. ‘The letters are vetted by the junior most trainee sub-editor. He is directed to choose letters that broadly follow the paper’s editorial policy. His job is to correct spelling and grammar and slash the letters to make them concise.

Indo-Pak relations - Lessons from history

2011-11-21T11:43:00.009+05:30

The following article, ‘Indo-Pak relations – Lessons from history’ appeared in, ‘The Hans India’, an up and coming English daily published from Hyderabad and other centres in its issue of November 15, 2011.

..........................................................................................................................................................................................

Dr. Manmohan Singh’s ‘conduct certificate’ to his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani, as a ‘man of peace’ last week is one of a piece with the series of diplomatic blunders India committed in its engagement with Pakistan during the last sixty years.

We fought three major wars and a comparatively minor one over Kashmir during the last sixty years. These conflicts were all at the behest of Pakistan and not India. Some analysts believe that at least a part of the genesis of the Kashmir conflict was due perhaps to Nehru’s flawed Kashmir policy. They argue his reluctance to take the 1948 war to its logical conclusion, his approaching the UN for a resolution, his offer of a plebiscite and finally his according the state a special status within the Indian union were inexplicable in terms of realpolitik. The more uncharitable ones attribute his approach to an overweening ambition to win a Nobel peace prize. But that was history and so much water had flowed under the Jhelum.

The real tragedy has been India’s inability to convince the world community of its point of view or correct misperceptions which amounts to a monumental diplomatic and PR failure. For instance, writing in 2010, Stanley Wolpert says that J. K. Galbraith, then US ambassador to India confided in him that he ‘failed to persuade Nehru to agree to an UN-sponsored plebiscite’ . Wolpert adds that a plebiscite was Pakistan’s ‘preferred solution’! (“India and Pakistan - Continued Conflict or Cooperation?” University of California Press, London. p.4 )

However, this contrasts with Indian accounts of the conflict, many of which suggest that it was Nehru who took the matter to the UN and offered a plebiscite. As a result the UNSC passed its Resolution 47 of April 21, 1948, which called for an UN-supervised plebiscite in Kashmir. The resolution laid down certain preconditions to be observed by both sides. For example, it said that Pakistan should “secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purposes of fighting, and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the State…” Further on December 22, 1949, Gen. A. G. L. McNaughton, the President of the UNSC proposed that Pakistan should not only agree to demilitarization of occupied Kashmir but also in the ‘Northern Area[s]’ as Gilgit and Baltistan are referred to. This proposal was ratified by the UNSC Resolution 80 of March 14. 1950. The UNSC’s call for a plebiscite fell through because Pakistan never fulfilled the most basic UNSC precondition, viz. demilitarization of occupied Kashmir and Northern Areas.

Both Lal Bhadur Shastry and Indira Gandhi fell to Pakistani wiles and agreed to unconditional withdrawal from territories occupied in the 1965 and 1971 wars. Indira Gandhi agreed to not only returning 5000 square kilometres of territory but also release of 93000 prisoners following the signing of the illusive ‘Simla Accord’. They had failed to recognize the bargaining power of holding on to them.

But it was Inder Kumar Gujral, who reigned as prime minister for a brief while, who did the maximum damage to India’s security efforts. Giving effect to his infamous ‘Gujral doctrine’ he had India’s entire intelligence apparatus in Pakistan dismantled and ‘burnt’ assets cultivated in that country which it took decades of hard work to put in place. The Pakistanis would certainly have captured and killed India’s ‘assets’ after prolonged torture.

Manmohan Singh’s gaffe at Sharm-el-Sheikh about Indian spying in Baluchistan ranks next only to Gujaral’s horrific blunder. Every sophomore knows that in international relations, diplomacy and spying go hand in hand, sometimes even in friendly countries. But no nation openly admits it. Diplomats when caught spying are declared persona non grata and expelled. The other nation retaliates in kind by expelling a similarly placed diplomat of the first nation. This tit for tat is standard operating procedure in international diplomacy. How the good doctor who is not only a heir to the legacy of the original Chanakya but also a disciple of the modern day Chanakya, P. V. Narasimha Rao committed such a gaffe beats anyone’s imagination. In another gaffe Singh empathized that Pakistan is as much a victim of terrorism as India. One can only hope Hillary Clinton’s admonition to Pakistan that it would be foolish to nurture a snake expecting that it would only bite one’s enemies, made Singh wiser!

Left-lib romanticists who wing their way to international peace seminars to be wined and dined in five-star luxury might crib about ‘electrified fences and high concrete walls erected to divide people’ but the situation on the ground defies a solution as long as Pakistan continues to harbour anti-India terrorists.

M. C. Chagla, jurist, diplomat and then foreign minister eloquently rubbished the mischievous idea of ‘self-determination’ for Kashmir. Addressing the UNSC on February 5, 1964 he said “…the ‘self’ contemplated in the enunciation of this democratic principle is not, and cannot be, a constituent part of a country. It can be operative only when one is dealing with a nation as a whole and the context in which it can be applicable is the context of conquest or of foreign domination, or of colonial exploitation.” Chagla argued that it would be disastrous to apply the principle to parts of a country or sections of population to enable them to secede. For when extended further it would only lead to fragmentation of the country. He cited the example of the United States of America which “fought a bloody civil war to prevent not a small part, but the whole of the south of the United States from seceding and constituting itself into an independent country.”

The call for ‘self-determination’ is heard in many nations. But the UN certainly doesn’t expect Russia to cede Chechnya; Spain to consider the demand for a Basque Country; or Canada to forego Quebec. Mountbatten who was as much behind the genesis of the Kashmir problem as the Indian and Pakistani leaders who could not wait to enjoy the spoils of power, was killed in an IRA bombing but Britain did not concede the demand for an independent Ireland.

The international community would certainly be receptive if India stood firm in its just demands for dismantling terror training camps in Pakistan aimed at destabilising India and conducting a fair trial to punish those who were responsible for murder and mayhem in this country.

Manmohan Singh and Yousuf Raza Gilani may yet get their joint ‘Nobel’ prize but Singh should not forget the sacrifice of the thousands of soldiers who had laid down their lives for the idea of India!

7 Secrets of Vishnu

2011-11-17T17:35:00.020+05:30

Book review

Pattanaik, Dr. Devdutt. 2011. 7 Secrets of Vishnu. Westland. Chennai. Pages xii + 219. Rs 250.

Hinduism's beliefs and values, rites and rituals have always mystified and intrigued people within and outside the faith. While common people within the faith have accepted them as divine ordinances and eternal, those outside have either tried to decipher their meanings or ridicule them. Christian evangelical interests tried to dismiss them as pagan practices not worthy of a civilised world.

This makes us wonder, ‘what is civilised?’ The words ‘civilisation’ and ‘culture’ are often used synonymously. Thus, ‘civilisation’ is defined as the ‘advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions’. Hinduism stands the test of this definition without doubt in view of its highest attainments in philosophical thought. In point of fact, for Hindu sages arts and sciences were a mere means of philosophical pursuit rather than material progress. This is the reason why they did not keep records of their achievements, the only aspect of the above definition which they fail. And, ‘culture’ is defined as ‘the totality of socially transmitted behaviour patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought’.

Hindu sages realised early on that attainment of higher philosophical goals is a long drawn process which may be daunting for the laity. They felt that rigorous self-discipline and years of pursuit without any material goals in sight, is not for every one. Therefore they devised a series of pyramidal processes in which the aim is to reach a plateau and then aim for a higher one, thus reaching the ultimate goal one step at a time. The principle behind the thematic was to lead the individual from understanding simple practices to grasping abstract concepts.

The sages also felt that for society to advance it should first create an atmosphere in which there was love for fellow human beings and the temptation for crime, lust and other vices was absent. The society they envisaged was a society steeped in righteousness and virtuosity, a society in which good triumphed over evil. They termed the atmosphere the ‘Dharma’ which ‘others’ came to term as Hinduism, which simply means the practice of ‘Dharma’. As the ‘Dharma’ defined by the sages is eternal, it is the ‘Sanatana Dharma’. The rituals and practices of Hinduism are designed keeping these objectives in mind and form the first plateau of the pyramid mentioned above.

Critics of Hinduism find its caste-structure a convenient stick to beat it with. We, ‘who know’ do not point out that God’s incarnations were not into the highest social order, the Brahmans but as Yadav (Krishna the cowherd) or Kshatriya (Rama the prince). We also do not pause to think that the scriptures themselves were written by sages who moved from the lowest social order to the highest, viz. Brahmans. Sage Valmiki who wrote the Ramayana and Sage Veda Vyasa who wrote the Mahabharata were born into the tribal community of hunters but graduated into Brahmans, by their learning and practice. In other words the caste-structure was originally not based on birth but merely a division of labour. There was both upward and downward mobility in the social order.

According to Hindu scriptures being born dark was not a curse, as was presumably the case with the Abrahamic faiths. Sri Rama was blue and Sri Krishna was black. In fact the word ‘Krishna’ means black. In the epic Mahabharata, on occasion, Krishna addresses the Pandava queen Draupadi as Krishna, meaning she was dark skinned! If western ignorance describes the Siva Linga and Vinayaka’s elephant-trunk as phallic symbols why should we tamely acquiesce and accept it as ‘divine wisdom’?

Devdutt Pattanaik’s book, ‘7 Secrets of Vishnu’ aims to unravel the symbolism behind the practices and rituals of Hinduism in simple language to enable everyone to understand them. In the process it clarifies certain misconceptions behind the symbolism that the critics of Hinduism avidly seek to criticise it. For example in metaphysics, material reality is Prakriti and spiritual reality is Purusha. Critics of Hinduism might argue that this amounts to gender discrimination. Why not the other way round? The reason for this is less to do with gender discrimination and more to do with the nature of the creative process. The male creates life outside the body but a female creates life inside the body and both are equally important for creation. One can’t say one is more important and the other is less important. It must be understood that in mythology all forms are symbolic. Vishnu himself incarnates as Mohini and Siva as artha-narishwara (half male and half female).

Similarly the Hindu sages worshipped nay celebrated all life forms, humans, animals, birds and plants and all of them had a place in Hindu mythology. Thus we have a Suka Maharishi (parrot sage) and the most familiar elephant-headed god, Vinayaka. If Garuda is Vishnu’s vehicle, a Peacock is Subrahmanya’s chariot.

Why does god incarnate as a human being (Rama or Krishna), animal (Varaha or wild boar), amphibian (Kurma or turtle), and a fish (Matsya or fish)? What is the significance of worshipping the Hindu trinity, Brahma, Vishnu and Maheswara? What is the symbolism behind the sacred mark of Vishnu (Sri Namam) which Vishnu devotees wear on their forehead? What is the symbolism behind intimate postures of gods and goddesses in temple sculptures? To find out answers for all these questions, please read ‘7 Secrets of Vishnu’. It is a must read. And at Rs 250 it is inexpensive!

This review is a part of the Book Reviews programme at http://www.blogadda.com

The first three estates

2011-11-11T17:08:00.000+05:30

'The first three estates' appeared in The Hans India, an up and coming English newspaper published from Hyderabad and other centres, in its issue dated November 10, 2011. Click here to see the original: The first three estates

...........................................................................................................

‘What are the first three estates?’ screamed the woman police officer in Tamil-accented Telugu, in a scene in a popular Telugu movie. For some inexplicable reason, the Telugu people seem to love it if their speech is disfigured. In movies, Telugu is often spoken by Tamil, Kannada, Marathi and north Indian actors in their own accents. ‘Accented speech’ is used as a comic relief in movies in other languages, but in Telugu movies it appears to be de rigeur. If one goes by the movies made of and for the ‘younger’ generation, Telugu is often spoken in them in anything but a Telugu accent. As Telugu movie script writers are not partial to any language they mutilate English too - and not just in pronunciation but also in meaning - in their ‘Telugu’ dialogues. Then there is this ‘Telugu’ television presenter who conducts interviews with film celebrities and politicians in English-accented Telugu. And why not? If English can be spoken with a Telugu accent, why not the other way round?

‘I don’t know madam’, mumbled the cowering television journalist. ‘The first three estates are legislature, executive and judiciary’, the police officer pompously informed the journalist in a spirit of imparting wisdom, sweetly addressing him as ‘scum’. What she ‘endearingly’ called him doesn’t translate well into English, nor is ‘very’ printable, but that was the gist of it. One might wonder whether in real life senior police officers treat television journalists with such contempt or whether general knowledge quizzes forms part of police interrogation. Does the scene reflect a dumbing down of values in the highly competitive movie industry? But these questions are besides the point.

There was a time when movie scripts were well researched for accuracy. Therefore they were generally devoid of factual errors. Now everyone works to tight schedules and tighter deadlines. This is the electronic age; the age of SMSes and e-mails, and the need for instant gratification in everything. If anyone bothers to ‘research’ at all, Google is the gospel and Wikipedia the Veda. There is of course nothing wrong in using the internet but only as a starting point. A factual error in a dialogue in a minor scene in a movie may not raise an eyebrow. But it certainly does if it is repeated by the editor of a national news magazine. The north Indian editor of an English magazine could not have picked it up from a Telugu movie. But he made the same error in a last page editorial. Watch out, for there may be many more such pearls of wisdom in his much publicised memoirs slated to be released this month. In another last page editorial he referred to P. V. Narasimha Rao’s autobiographical novel, ‘The Insider’ as ‘The Outsider’. Deadlines, bloody deadlines! It is precisely for this reason, nowadays many newspapers run a ‘Corrections’ column.

All this confusion about the first three estates arose because of the use of the expression, ‘the fourth estate’. In the movie scene described earlier, the television journalist whimpers that he is from the ‘fourth estate’ adding helpfully as we Indians do when groping for words, ‘you know’. The officer would have none of it. She had time only to imparting wisdom and mouthing obscenities.

The coinage of the phrase ‘the fourth estate’ is attributed to Edmund Burke. In his book, ‘On Heroes and Hero Worship’ (1841) Thomas Carlyle says, Burke used it for the first time in a speech in the British House of Commons in 1787. Burke’s speech marks a very important occasion, that of opening parliamentary proceedings to the press. Looking up at the press gallery he said, “There are three Estates in Parliament, but in the Reporters’ Gallery yonder sits a Fourth Estate more important far than they all.” The three estates Burke referred to were the Lords Spiritual (the 26 Bishops in the House of Lords), the Lords Temporal (the secular members of the House of Lords) and the House of Commons. There is some dispute however to the quote attributed to Burke but the definitions of the first three estates were well established. In any case the phrase ‘the fourth estate’ connotes that the press is the fourth pillar of democracy, whose function is to provide checks and balances to the parliament and the executive. The first amendment to the US constitution specifically prohibits making any law that infringes on the freedom of the press. In India every time our rulers feel insecure – because of some expose or other - the first thing they look askance is at freedom of the press. They seek to weaken the fourth pillar!

The expression ‘fourth pillar’ might have led to the misconception that the other three pillars nay estates were the legislature, executive and judiciary. Then there is a fifth estate with various meanings attributed to it but generally refers to a class that is none of the four estates.

Historical Dilemmas

2011-11-06T17:54:00.000+05:30

Historical Dilemmas appeared in The Hans India, an up and coming English newspaper published from Hyderabad and other centres, in its issue dated November 5, 2011. Click here to see the original: Historical Dilemmas

............................................................................................................

‘Which one of us is an Aryan and which a Dravidian?’ whispered my cousin Krishna. He and I were together in the same class till Class VIII and in the same school till Class XII. Krishna was always inquisitive and used to question almost everything that was put to him. But it was difficult to dismiss his question out of hand. We were in the ‘Social Studies’ class in Class VI at the time and our teacher was teaching us about ‘Aryans’ and ‘Dravidians’. He explained, ‘the Aryans were fair, tall and well-built’ and the ‘Dravidians were dark, short and lean’. Our confusion was because Krishna was fair, short and plump and I was dark, tall and lean. Additionally our community was known as ‘Dravidian-Brahmin’. Wasn’t it an oxymoron if Brahmins were ‘Aryan’ by origin? We owe the prefix ‘Dravidian’ to our emigration from Tamil Nadu. History was therefore a dilemma to us then and the question ‘are we Aryan or Dravidian’ continued to nag.

My father who was a member of the ‘Praja Socialist Party’ and an avid fan of the poet Sri Sri added to the confusion by making me read his ‘Desa Charitralu’ (Histories of Nations) when I was ten. Weren’t these lines, “An account of the amours of a queen or the expenditure on a siege does not make the essence of history” confusing enough? For the history we were taught was full of incursions and battles: Ghazni and Ghori and Panipat and Plassey etc. If that were not enough we studied Tennyson’s ‘The charge of the light brigade’ (“Theirs not to reason why; theirs but to do and die!”), as an English lesson.

To be frank, we used to like ‘History’ because it was easy from an examination point of view. All that we had to do was remember, “… had roads laid; trees planted along the roads; built rest houses for travellers and dug ponds for providing drinking water and irrigation”. This generic statement was as applicable to the Mauryas and the Guptas as to Kanishka, Sri Harsha, Akbar or Sri Krishna Deva Raya. We had to pad it up a bit to suit individual emperors and we were done. The more the padding the more marks one got!

Coming back to the confusion Sri Sri caused, he did not stop with his questions about the ‘amours of queens’ and ‘expenditures of sieges’. He wanted to know, “Who were the bearers of the King’s palanquin; who the coolies that carted the stones for building Taj Mahal?”

I could not question this as my father introduced the lyric to me. In those days, we never questioned our parents’ or other elders’ wisdom, much less a father’s. “Ours not to reason why; ours but to do and lie!” True, as children, we had to lie at times of what we did or what we did not do. In fact, recalling my childhood, I do not remember ever to have stood directly before my father to speak to him but did so only standing beside grandfather or grandmother. So I put it to my cousin Krishna. He could question Sri Sri’s lines. He could not have questioned his father nor my father in his presence but it was a different matter when neither of them was present.

Krishna pondered over the question, “…who [were] the coolies that carted the stones for building Taj Mahal?” He said introducing all those coolies into history would pose problems. Firstly, even if we had collected the names of all the 20,000 workers who toiled for twenty two years to build the Taj Mahal, which was well nigh impossible after four hundred years, publishing a book with all those names would make a four hundred page book, at fifty names a page. Secondly, we could not use the generic statement mentioned above to answer questions in history examinations. For whoever had heard of a coolie, who “had roads laid; trees planted along the roads; built rest houses for travellers and dug ponds for providing drinking water and irrigation?” It was a different matter with kings and emperors!

Krishna and I separated when we finished school and joined college but the ‘Aryan’, ‘Dravidian’ question continued to haunt me. This was much before the ‘Aryan Invasion Theory’ (or ‘Aryan Migration Theory’) divided historians along ideological lines. It had nothing to do with whether some colonial or evangelical interests planted the AIT/AMT in our history text books. It had to do with the origins of our community as depicted by my great-grandfather in his incomplete auto-biography. According to him we fled from Saurastra at the first wave of Mohammedan invasions around the tenth century, traversed the west coast and entered Tamil Nadu through the Palghat gap in the Western ghats. We remained in the lush Tanjavaur delta for about five hundred years. However if the community felt that it was safely settled there it was mistaken. Five hundred years after it arrived there it had to be on the move again this time because nature intervened in the form of a famine. The community had to migrate again in search of greener pastures and to cut a long story short, moved north to settle in various places of Andhra. So, are we ‘Aryan’ or ‘Dravidian’; Sanskrit speakers (which we presumably were in the distant past) or Gujaratis or Tamilians or Telugus? And to add to the muddle, are we now Telanganites or Andhras?

Democracy, free speech & secession

2011-11-04T17:42:00.000+05:30

Democracy is a funny thing which is more coveted in its absence. India enacted the first amendment to its Constitution barely eighteen months after it was adapted. It was intended to - among other things ‘place reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression.’ Surprisingly, it was piloted by Jawaharlal Nehru who is considered to be an epitome of democratic values. It was enacted not to ward of anything as serious as secession or external aggression but because Nehru felt that 'free speech' was an impediment to something as mundane as abolition of the Zamindari system!

Contrast this with the first amendment to the American Constitution. It prohibits the making of any law that ‘abridges the freedom of speech, infringes upon the freedom of the press, interferes with the right to peaceable assembly, or prohibiting petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.’ However it must be noted that the American Supreme Court did not recognise obscenity as a part of freedom of speech and generally refused to give obscenity any protection under the first amendment.

The following article entitled, Democracy, free speech and session appeared in The Hans India, an up and coming English newspaper published from Hyderabad and other centres, in its issue dated November 3, 2011.

..........................................................................................................................................................................................

For the middle classes who toasted Prashant Bhushan as a champion against corruption till only a few days ago, he suddenly became a ‘villain’. They were able to willy-nilly excuse his ‘demeanours’ in defending certain ‘elements’ in court room battles, because of his association with Anna Hazare and his movement against corruption. The reason for the disenchantment of the middle classes with Prashant Bhushan is quite obvious. He uttered the social and political equivalent of a four-letter word by calling for a plebiscite in Kashmir. In his defence, Bhushan of course says, that he did not actually ‘call for a plebiscite’ but only opined that the people of Jammu & Kashmir had a right to it. It makes no difference to middle India: he crossed the Rubicon or in Indian idiom, crossed the Lakshman Rekha, as Kashmir is a sensitive issue with a bloody history attached to it.

This is not the first time that someone openly took a position against India’s historical stand on Kashmir. Other bleeding-heart liberals spoke about the ‘occupation army’ and human rights violations in Kashmir. Pakistan could not have asked for more.

It is because of the sixty-four year bloody history since the state’s accession to the Indian union, voices like Prashant Bhushan rankle the majority of Indians. To the majority, it appears, these people are oblivious to the sufferings of one section of the state’s populace. Have they forgotten the half a million Kashmiri Hindus who were exiled in their own country? Have they forgotten the thousands of soldiers and policemen killed in defending the state since 1947? Have they forgotten the thousands of crores of rupees that were spent as aid on Kashmir?

Kashmiri separatist leaders like Mirwaiz Farooq and Syed Ali Shah Jeelani have been openly advocating secession from India. In the perception of a majority of Indians, Prashant Bhushan is taking sides with the separatists, by talking of a plebiscite in Kashmir. Bhushan being an erudite advocate practising in the highest court of the land could not have been unaware that a plebiscite in Kashmir is untenable in view of the UN preconditions attached to it. Even Pakistan, the other party to the dispute, had abandoned this position long ago. From all indications, Pakistan would be happy to agree to recognise the ‘de facto’ border between J&K and PoK as ‘de jure’ international border. When asked a hypothetical question, Prashant Bhushan could have apprised the questioner of the situation on the ground and the position of the UN and more importantly that of Pakistan.

It might be argued that free speech is the essence of democracy and hence Prashant Bhushan has a right to voice his opinion. But then, democracy is a funny thing. When you don’t have it you yearn for it. When you have it you are not happy with it. True. We had fought for nearly six decades to attain independence from the British. Yet, ask anyone who was born at about the time of independence and they would remember their elders yearning for the ‘good old’ British days when things ‘were better’. In 1975 when Indira imposed an internal emergency, for reasons that have nothing to do with any internal disturbance, there were sections of the populace – not affected by midnight knocks and summary arrests – who welcomed it, at least in its initial stages. Their reasoning was, there was discipline in government offices and ‘trains were running on time’. It could not be dismissed out of hand as silly, for trains used to run so late, if a train ran two to three hours behind schedule, it raised no eyebrows. In my home town, we used to joke that if the Bokaro Express (running between Bokaro in Jharkhand and Madras) was on time, it was probably the previous day’s train! There was an instance, when a gentleman was asked if his train was on time, he replied ‘yes it was on time; just twenty minutes late’. Funnily enough, ‘trains running on time’, was also one of the reasons officially adduced to justify the emergency. During the nineteen-month emergency Indira’s government used to issue large advertisements in newspapers, with the caption, ‘Let us consolidate the gains of emergency’, whatever it meant.

Coming back to democracy, in essence, it is rule by consensus. In India’s case the consensus was codified into a constitution, to draft which, many wise men expended hundreds of hours; each clause of which was then debated and finally adopted. The process took nearly three years, and produced the longest written constitution in the world, which accommodates the divergence and plurality of the constituents of the nation.

However, codifying principles of governance is one thing and following it in letter and spirit, is another. Leaders, however democratically minded they are, do not like to be tied down to a code of conduct however sacrosanct it may be, not necessarily because they are selfish or venal but because they have such immense confidence in their wisdom and their ability to determine what is good for their constituents. Therefore no sooner than the ink on the draft was dry we began amending it. The constitution was adopted on November 26, 1949 and the first amendment was enforced on June 18, 1951 barely eighteen months later. It was, incidentally, moved in the parliament by Jawaharlal Nehru, the epitome of democratic values and was intended to, among other things, ‘place reasonable restrictions on the citizen’s right to freedom of speech and expression’!

Jawaharlal Nehru resorted to the amendment for nothing serious like session or external aggression. He did it because he felt that ‘freedom of speech’ was impeding something as mundane as the abolition of the Zamindari system!

TAIL PIECE: During the American Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787, a member moved a motion that the standing army of the United States should not exceed 5000 men at any given time. As George Washington was presiding over the convention, he could not move an amendment. So he turned to another member and whispered, ‘move an amendment that no foreign power should attack the United States at any time with more than 3000 troops’.

Does this anecdote from the life of George Washington have a message for our bleeding-heart liberals and Prashant Bhushan?

Between black and white...!

2011-10-27T16:55:00.000+05:30

There is a third India between the India of the rich and the ‘other’ India that is the darling of the prophets of doom, the ‘raison d’ etre’ of our bleeding heart liberals. Between the black India that can stow away cash on the black in those famed Swiss banks and the white or the ‘other’ India that sets hearts racing to bleed there are a myriad shades of grey.

'Between black and white...!' appeared in The Hans India, an up and coming English newspaper published from Hyderabad and other centres, in its issue dated October 26, 2011. ..........................................................................................................

To those who are familiar with the ways of working class women in the north coastal Andhra districts, it is no surprise to see them carrying their cash, notes and coins in a small cloth bag tucked into the sari at the waist. The small bag that can be closed with a draw string, tucked into the waist is safer than a man’s pocket. Also to those familiar with the area it is no surprise to see cigars smoked with the burning end held in the mouth. Perhaps the nicotine intake provides the necessary physiological relaxation from back-breaking manual labour under a blazing sun but nobody could ever explain how the weird habit of smoking with the burning end in the mouth came about. Both men and women indulge in this rather bizarre habit that is cause for statistically significant incidence of oral cancer in the region.

However I was pleasantly surprised to see a woman take out a mobile phone and a battery charger from her receptacle at the waist and seek a socket to plug it in. She was the maistree for women manual labour. She has on call a number of women workers. They assist masons in construction work by carrying in bricks and cement mortar and carrying out debris in large metal basins as a head load. This was in 2008 when I spent a couple of months back home for renovating our ancestral home. The masons and the coolies commenced their work between 9 & 10 AM and broke for lunch at 1 PM. The men went to the terrace for a smoke and a snooze and the women retired to the hall. Unbidden, they switched on the ceiling fan and lied down for a brief rest. It appears they have fans and colour televisions at home and on the days they didn’t work, watched the telly, especially the ‘serials’.

But according to the mason-contractor (having graduated from mason to contractor he didn’t do manual work any more!) who engaged them there were no days when they didn’t work. During summer they were busy in construction work. In early monsoon, they worked as farm labour. And there was construction work again between the monsoons. He said thanks to the rural employment guarantee scheme nowadays it was difficult to engage them.

Rajiv Gandhi had the candour (or naiveté) in his early days as a professional politico to confess that of every rupee the government spent only eighteen paise reached the intended beneficiaries. That his acolyte Mani Shankar Aiyar – who is never tired of singing Rajiv carols - put a new spin on the economics of poverty alleviation in a recent television debate is another matter. According to Mani, who can spin words as well as the next man the eighty-two paise which fall through the cracks in the system were actually ‘administrative’ expenses. You can’t beat Mani in ‘spin’. He loves the sound of his voice, can pontificate in a phoney Oxbridge accent and make the most inane utterance sound ‘intellectual’ as if to say, ‘I’m Sir Oracle; let no dog bark when I speak!’ He quotes Marx and Engels and many others with unpronounceable names to make a point that India would be better off without computers and blue jeans. For him it would be best if the stock markets were closed as they were the play-fields of only the super rich; that Pakistan is really a ‘saint’ state and an ally.

The rural employment guarantee scheme may be full of chinks and the system might be leaking like a sieve making many middle men rich but their hard work did enable the working class women (and their men) to watch colour television and loll under a ceiling fan on a hot day. These people may not have been aware of a gentleman called Pramod Mahajan whose tenure as telecom minister made it possible for the woman maistree to carry her cellular phone (and charger). They may not also be aware of a gentleman called A. Raja who milked the same telecom for his ‘social justice’ projects. He is a part of the society, isn’t he? What’s wrong if he did some ‘social justice’ for himself? It is true, not all of us were aware of the enormity of A. Raja’s ‘social justice’ projects, back then.

But then this is the third India between the India of the rich and the ‘other’ India that is the darling of the prophets of doom, the ‘raison d’ etre’ of our bleeding heart liberals. Between the black India that can stow away cash on the black in those famed Swiss banks and the white or the ‘other’ India that sets hearts racing to bleed there are a myriad shades of grey.

‘War speech’ cost Gandhi his ‘Nobel’?

2011-10-10T18:42:00.000+05:30

The following is the reproduction of an article that appeared in The Hans India, an up and coming English newspaper published from Hyderabad, on October 11, 2011. Click here to see the original: Why Gandhi was not awarded a Nobel

There appears to be a sterner, scarcely understood side to Mahatma Gandhi’s personality. What he preached was non-violence but it was ‘non-violence of the brave’ not non-violence of the meek. It was steeped in the philosophy of the Bhagavad Gita, as was quite evident from his speech delivered at his daily prayer meeting and reported by the 'The Times', London the next day, September 27, 1947. (See the portion highlighted in blue in the last part of the article.)

..........................................................................................................................................................................................

‘Why wasn’t Gandhi awarded a Nobel peace prize?’ is a question that puzzles every Indian this week as names of the current year’s winners are announced. The question is as puzzling as Barack Obama receiving it in 2009. For Obama was in office for all of two weeks by the time the ‘Awards Committee’ recognized him for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

Doesn’t it make one wonder about the objectivity of the people who decide the winners for the world’s most coveted prize(s)? Do they sometimes have feet of clay after all?

Alfred Nobel was explicit in expressing his wish that “in awarding the prizes, no consideration whatever shall be given to the nationality of the candidates, so that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be Scandinavian or not.” Nobel judges appear to have contravened this provision of his will on many occasions for political reasons or personal predilections.

The most controversial of Nobel Prizes were among those awarded for literature, peace and economics. By the by, the prize for economics was not established as per the provisions of Alfred Nobel’s will. It was established by Sveriges Riksbank (Sweden's central bank) in 1968. During the World Wars I & II and in their immediate aftermath Nobel committees adopted a policy of strict neutrality and excluded nominees from the warring nations. The third world nations also got a short shrift.

In the literature section, great writers like Marcel Proust, Ezra Pound, James Joyce, Leo Tolstoy, Mark Twain, Anton Chekov, Emile Zola and André Malraux did not make the Prize. So were others like Louis-Ferdinand Céline, Vladimir Nabokov, Jorge Luis Borges, Henrik Ibsen, John Updike and August Strindberg who did not make it. Only one Indian, Rabindranath Tagore had ever been awarded the Prize for literature! On the other hand, light weight and virtually unknown writers like Gabriela Mistral and Pearl Buck were honoured.

These are not the only faux pas by the Nobel judges. They first ignored Albert Einstein’s famous theory of relativity but rewarded him for his relatively less important work in photo-electric effects to compensate for their oversight, eight years later. Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis was altogether ignored.

The most controversial award of the Prize was of course in 1994, when it was awarded to Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin and Simon Peres, for working towards peace in the Middle East. ‘The prize itself became meaningless when it was awarded to Arafat. Who cares?’ posted a commentator on Timesonline in 2009, commenting on its premature award to Barack Obama.

Gandhi was indeed nominated for the world’s most prestigious prize five times between 1937 and 1948. For the record The Nobel peace committee did apologize for its oversight and did not declare a winner in 1948, the year of his assassination as reparation. Other Indians who were nominated and rejected for the prize were Jawaharlal Nehru, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Maharshi Aurobindo.

When Gandhi was nominated in 1937, his nomination was shot down by the critical comments of the committee’s advisor, Prof. Jacob Worm-Müller. Müller called into question, what he called Gandhi’s ‘sharp turns in his policies’ and vacillation between a ‘Christ and an ordinary politician’. He also referred to the criticism of several members of the international peace movement who felt that some of Gandhi’s non-violent methods led to violence and terror. The Chauri Chaura incident during the 1920-21 non-cooperation movement was cited as an example. In it, a crowd attacked a police station, set fire to it and killed several policemen. Prof. Müller also cast a doubt on the universal applicability of Gandhi’s methods of Satyagraha. He specifically mentioned that his movement in South Africa was on behalf of only Indians and not the blacks who were living in much worse living conditions.

When his name was subsequently nominated in 1947, the partition of the country, the horrors of partition and more importantly nature of India Pakistan relations in the immediate aftermath of partition were factors that ruled him out. It is probable Norway did not want to offend Pakistan by choosing an Indian leader at a time like that.

When the committee met to consider him in October that year, a statement Gandhi reportedly made appears to have been the clincher in ruling him out.

‘The Times’ reported on September 27, 1947: “Mr. Gandhi told his prayer meeting to-night that, though he had always opposed all warfare, if there was no other way of securing justice from Pakistan and if Pakistan persistently refused to see its proved error and continued to minimise it, the Indian Union Government would have to go to war against it. No one wanted war, but he could never advise anyone to put up with injustice. If all Hindus were annihilated for a just cause he would not mind. If there was war, the Hindus in Pakistan could not be fifth columnists. If their loyalty lay not with Pakistan they should leave it. Similarly Muslims whose loyalty was with Pakistan should not stay in the Indian Union.” ("Mahatma Gandhi, the Missing Laureate". Nobelprize.org. 7 Oct 2011 http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/gandhi/)

Gandhi was only reacting to a precipitous situation, more in anguish than in intention, and was not directly involved in any war. If it were the criterion for rejection, then how did Theodore Roosevelt (1906) and Henry Kissinger (1973) who were more directly involved in war efforts considered for the prize? But then Gandhi was not an American!

A worm’s-eye view of ‘The Statesman’ & ‘Times of India’

2011-09-16T19:21:00.000+05:30

What is the role of the media in reflectingpublic thought? Should it merely reflect or attempt to shape it? Should it orshould it not play the role of an Ombudsman in exposing venality and corruptionin public life?If Arun shouries’s debut as a journalist at Indian Express provided some answers tothese unremitting questions, there are others who differed with him. GirilalJain of the ‘Times of India’ describedhim and others of his ilk at the IndianExpress as the ‘Galahads of the press’. If we suspected that for the ‘Times of India’ the issue was more ofrevenues and advertising rather than exposing the venality of the politicalclass, Jug confirms it: “Thundering was bad for business, it was bad foradvertisers who did not want their products associated with all that negativesound and fury explicit in Thundering” (p. 207). “Slowly the Express began to be seen as a newspaperfor the professional malcontent […] through sensational and fearless exposés.” (p.208). Jug grudgingly admits that the ‘Express’under Shourie was ‘fearless’ in its ‘exposés’. But pray, what the hell is a ‘professional malcontent’? Anyone whodoesn’t kowtow to the powers that be?If the editor with the ‘secondmost important job in the country’ is not a ‘professional malcontent’, is that what he does - kowtowing to the powers that be?

Although the initial chapters of “JS& The Times of my life – a worm’s-eye view of Indian Journalism”appear a bit laboured, Jug writes with an easy Wodehousean humour and anoccasional turn of phrase (“in the ordernamed” or “or the other way round”)in most parts. Jug himself pulls quite a few pranks like Galahad Threepwood (uncle Gally)in one of Wodehouse’s novels. He did not resort to anything like putting a pigin anyone’s bedroom (uncle Gally put LordElmsworth’s prize pig in his bedroom). But he and his wife sneaked into the(ToI) Jains’ Calcutta mansion posing as the Maharajah and Maharani of Malabar. Thereappear to be quite a few other Wodehousean characters in Jug’s life. Wonder whoJeeves is?

When Gautam Adhikari, who came to recruit himfor ToI, assumed he wrote the day’s third editorial, Jug didn’t correct himthat in fact it was written by Bachi. Uncle Gallywould approve. ‘No need to complicate mattersmy dear chap’! Nor did Jug have any hesitation is saying ‘Kayasth’ when queried about his ‘caste’ by the ToI editorial team. Itwould help if everyone felt ‘at home’.

As ‘TheStatesman’ was only one of two newspapers which did not ‘crawl when merely asked to bend’, oneexpected Jug to give a ring-side view of how the paper fought Indira’s infamousEmergency. One would have loved tosee how CushrowRussy Irani, popularly known as C. R. Irani, stood up tothe imperious lady in Delhi. However Jug could never get to excuse ‘the MD’ who closed down JS (originally the Junior Statesman), the staid Statesman’sirreverent offspring which gave Jug his footing in Indian journalism. Therefore,in Jug’s book, Irani comes out as imperious and overbearing as one of thosefire-breathing aunts in Wodehouse’s 'Freddie Threepwood-Jeeves’ novels. To Jug,JS was some kind of childhood love,and he could never get over his separation from her - or is it the other wayround? Hasn’t JS inventedeverything that became staple for Indian journalism (both print and electronic)later, such as debates, sting operations, opinion polls etc? (p. 45)

One can understand jug’s compulsion to wear hissecularism on his sleeve. “I refuse to live in a place called...GreaterKailash...I refuse to live in a place with a name like that.’ ‘….Nizamuddin East, a name to which I had noobjection.” (p. 181). Or his ‘secular’compulsion to patronize a ‘Muslimmendicant with two rupees but a Hindu mendicant who sat alongside, with just onerupee’. Jug, who is not a Muslim but a Hindu in spite of being a Suraiya, explains his reasons for doingso at length. (p. 221-222). It is the curse of our times that a Hindu has torepeatedly proffer proofs of his ‘secularvirginity’, lest he is considered ‘communal’.In the discourse of our political correctness there is no middle course. Onecan call it inverted social snobbery,but there it is. On the other hand, Muslims who have benefited from India’sliberal democratic institutions and made it big in various professions have thefreedom to rant against Hindu ‘zealotry’and how it is ‘destroying the secularfabric of the nation’. Therefore while a Seema Mustafa or a A. G. Nooranican rail at the Sangh Parivar withimpunity, a Jug Suaiya can not do likewise at the Muslim Personal Law Board. It is simply not done. This is thereason why if a writer accepted into the secularclub has to write something about, say the Indian Mujahedeen (IM), he has to perforce balance it with a stronger denunciation of the Sangh Parivar.

Calling Jug’s book a ‘worm’s-eye view of Indian journalism’ is perhaps a bit over thetop. It would be more appropriate to call it a ‘worm’s-eye view’ of the ‘TheStatesman’ (and a bit of Calcutta) and the ‘Times of India’ (and a bit of Delhi). A wee bit more of the ‘Times of India’, a paper at which, for Badshah Samir Jain (SJ), writing was ‘Class III’ activity (p. 209) DilipPadgaonkar (Paddy) would be none too happy to know that he got the top job onlybecause SJ felt Gautam Adhikari wrote better than him! A paper for which Madhuri Dixit’s marriage merited a lead editorial (p. 306). A paper which booted out Vinod Dua for writingabout the prospects of the monsoon and its impact on the lives of the common peopleon the front page. (p. 311). Jug got his own against Vir Sanghvi by taking adig at him about Niira Radia but he willy-nilly conformed to the taunt of chamchagiri by accepting SJ’s suggestionabout the title of the book although he disagreed with it in his opening ‘Statutory Warning’!

Suraiaya, Jug. (2011). JS & The Times of my Life. Chennai. Tranquebar Press, Westland Ltd. Pages: x + 340. Price Rs: 495.

The review is part of the Book Reviews Program at BlogAdda.com

Gujarat riots and the ‘secular’ Galahads of justice!

2011-09-13T19:14:00.000+05:30

‘Thelaw will take its course’ is an oft heard cliché, when politicians explainaway the misdeeds of their comrades-in-arms.But political discourse in India has a new norm for Hindus and Hinduorganisations in general and Narendra Modi in particular. When it comes toNarendra Modi, the law can not takeits course; should not take its course. It has to instantly convict him and sendhim to jail. The norms of jurisprudence do not apply to him.

The inhuman burning of 59 Karsevaks do notmatter to the secular jihads. The 254 Hindus killed in the riots as against 790Muslims do not count.

The fact that the number of Hindus arrested, 27,901, was almost four times the number of Muslims (7,651) detained during thepost-Godhra riots is of noconsequence! That a large number of the detained Hindus are still in jails fornine years does not matter. But if they are Muslims, they are ‘languishing in jails without trial. What inhuman justice system?’

As the Gujarat government wrestled with angrymobs during the fateful three days before a modicum of normalcy was restored,police fired 10,000 rounds of bullets killing 93 Muslims and 77 Hindus. We weretold of Muslims sheltering in relief camps but how many knew that during theriots some 40,000 Hindus also sought refuge in relief camps.

These are some of the vital statistics of the ‘genocide’, ‘pogrom’ orwhat have you, according to ‘secular’ commentators who allowed theirimagination and their ability to spin yarns run riot.

An NGO for Jihad!

Can we ever imagine a scenario in whichPramod Muthalik (of Sri Ram Sene) is as much indulged as the foul-mouthed headof a discredited NGO is feted? She ison a jihad mission. Her jihad is to see Narendra Modi safelybehind bars. It is her end. The meansdo not matter. To achieve her end she will stop at nothing. She coerceswitnesses. She locks them up till they are tutored to spew venom. She perjures.She suborns discredited police officers. She insists honest police officersshould be fired. She casts aspersions on a Supreme Court appointed specialinvestigation team. She is a law unto herself. She is the gospel. She screams. She swears. Obviously screaming andswearing and a private jihad pay. She is awash with funds.

Truth doesnot matter!

The ‘goddessof adultery and incest’ spun yarn after yarn and spread canards aboutbarbaric acts perpetrated by Hindumobs in Gujarat. In the aftermath of the tragic killing of Iqbal Eshan Jaffri, sheinvented the story of his daughters being stripped and burnt alivein the attack on his residence. Only, Jaffri had only one daughter not daughtersand she was not in Ahmedabad on the fateful day but in far away US. Jaffri’sson who was also away on the day confirmed this. But for your writer, facts donot matter. She is in any case a writer of fiction. She did not bother to pauseand think what her canards could to the already inflamed passions and spawninghatred between the two communities.

The Gulmargincident

What happened on February 28, 2002 at theJaffri residence in Ahmedabad’s GulmargHousing Society?

A mob gathered there even as a number ofMuslims took refuge in it. Jaffri called a number of authorities but beforeanyone could respond the mobs outside and inside the house began pelting stonesat each other. The numbers of people that were inside the house (200-250) andoutside the house (200-20,000) vary according to different sources.

In panic, Jaffri opened fire on the moboutside killing two and injuring thirteen. Jaffri’s panic reactionvirtually brought the seize to a head. The frenzied mob set fire to the bungalowkilling 42 people including Jaffri.

‘Glassceiling’ has a new ‘secular’ meaning!

But what followed the tragic incidents wasthe bizarre reaction of the left-lib crowd, human rights wallahs and the media.Human Rights Watch a New York basedNGO published a dossier (how else do they collect their doles?) in April, writtenby a Smita Narula. She wrote of an eyewitness who was hiding in the third floorand “had been observing in minute detailall that was going on in the ground floor”. Nicole Elfi wonders whether the“floors between the third and the groundfloor were transparent”. Well, haven’t we heard of glass ceilings? Narula seems to have hit one in New York. Hereyewitness saw ‘four or five girls wereraped, cut and burned…two married women were also raped and cut’. All thiswas supposed to have happened at 3.30 P.M. although the building itself was seton fire at 1.30P.M. (See Godhra: The True Story by Nicole Elfi )

And after the Supreme Court judgment ofSeptember 12 the script is being re-written for the actors to play their partsyet again: the NGOs, the fiction writers, the bleeding heart liberals. For themthe law simply can not take its course. It has to take their intended course!

See also:
A Requiem for Godhra
NARENDRA MODI, GODHRA, GUJARAT RIOTS: IBN-Live 'DISREGARDS' TRUTH!

Enemies of the State or ‘Gandhians with guns’?

2011-09-02T11:27:00.000+05:30

By a strangetwist of irony, as a review ‘Hello, Bastar’, Rahul Pandita’s ‘untold story of India’s Maosist movement’was being written, television channels across the country were celebrating AnnaHazare’s Gandhian victory over themight of the Indian state. It is difficult to comment whether the phrase ‘Gandhians with Guns’ was coined with extremecynicism, or extreme irreverence (to the original Satyägrahi) or extreme facetiousness. Be that as it may, it hasbecome a paradigm – not so much todescribe the enemies of the state for whom ‘politicalpower flows from the barrel of a gun’ – but to describe the mindset of ‘mischievous Cadillac communist[s]’, to quote Bharat Karnad’s mordant phrase, who hate the very democratic institutions that gave them the freedom to rant and rave.

Why is theintelligentsia – not just the deprived people at the lowest stratum of society –attracted to the idea of armed rebellion; to overthrow the state machinery andusurp power? Do they really envisage that the underground guerilla militia they created, will be able to shed thedeficiencies that they accuse the state machinery is plagued with? Will itcreate the utopia, the land of milkand honey that the underground intelligentsia and their overground supporters –the Cadillac communists – envisage?Or will the movement end up as a caricature of the very society it seeks toreplace, a caricature so vividlyportrayed by George Orwell in his AnimalFarm? Are there or are there not some ‘equal’and some ‘more equal’ comrades in theunderground kingdom they have createdfor themselves? Aren’t the protagonists of the classless revolution resorting to drug running, extortion andmurder of innocent civilians as a means to subvert organs of the ‘other’ society which they seek toreplace? Aren’t they running a parallel economy which undermines the welfare oftheir citizens too along with therest of the population that does not subscribe to their philosophy of governance?Is it really possible to achieve a classless, self-governing, egalitariansociety of ‘each according to his abilityto each according to his needs’ aspredicted by Marx? If it were possible, why did the Soviet Union collapse injust seventy years of proletarian revolution? Weren’t corruption, laziness andinefficiency the root causes that led to hunger, poverty and unemployment inthe socialist panacea? Pandita’s book answers the first question, at leastpartially, but glosses over the others.

The Naxalite movement is as old as theindependent Indian state. It had originated in Andhra Pradesh in 1946, althoughit was not known as the Naxalitemovement then. Known as the ‘Telanganapeasants’ armed struggle’ (Telangäna raithängasäyudha porätam), it was originally a movement against the oppressive zamindäri system. However, there is asub-text to it, which is often airbrushed by the left-lib commentators as itdoes not fit into their meticulously fabricated secular themes. It is that the peasants’ struggle coalesced with the Hyderabad liberationmovement led by Swamy Ramanand Tirtha’s AndhraMaha Sabha.

After 1945 when his administration collapsed, the Nizam acquiesced to pressures from the Muslimelite to start the Razzakar movement.The inappropriately named ‘movement’ letloose by Qasim Razvi’s rabid conscript militia – hence thename Razzakars – was intended to terrorize the state’s populace intosubmission. The Razakars (precursorto the present day Majlis-e-IttehadulMuslimeen, or MIM) resortedto extreme violence, extortion and forcible religious conversion to subdue thenationalist aspirations of the people. The Hindus of the state, under the aegisof the ‘Andhra Maha Sabha’ led bySwamy Ramananda Tirtha fought back, resulting in bloody feuds, which ended whenHyderabad was liberated in 1948. The peasants’ movement, however, continuedtill 1951 and petered out thereafter as the agrarian reforms of the nascentIndian state took effect.

But thestory did not end there. The movement made its metastasized manifestation in the Naxalbari area of West Bengal in 1967 and re-entered Andhra Pradeshthe same year, this time as the Naxalitemovement, in the Parvathipuram agencyarea of Srikakulam district. Fromthere, with Parvathipuram and Telangana as the foci the movementspread to neighbouring states, Orissa, Maharashtra, Chattisgarh, and from WestBengal to Jharkhand and Bihar forming what has come to be known as the redcorridor. Along the way it morphed many times with the latest manifestationbeing named the CPI (Maoist). It forged alliances with various insurgent groupsespecially in the North-East. For the CPI (Maoist), it could be ideologicalcohesion but for its Chinese facilitator (of various types of inputs, not leastbeing munitions) it could be more. China couldn’t have possibly asked for more.It serves its policy of realpolitik andkeeping a potential competitor (or a potential enemy) at bay, allows itunhindered dominance in Asia.

Pandita’s bookis well researched and narrates in racy style the origins and growth of theNaxalite/Maoist insurrection from its inception in Telangana till the present time. Pandita travelled extensivelythrough Maoist-land, quite an arduoustask and spent a considerable amount time in their company to gain first handinformation about the insidious ideology and its practitioners. But,familiarity breeds affinity. Therefore, do we sniff at places in his book, amodicum of sneaking sympathy nay admiration, something akin to the Stockholm syndrome, for the ruthless insurgents?Was it the comrades’ ‘self righteousness’that prevented them from seizing arms offered to them by police constables in1968? (p. 30-31). Was it because of their innate magnanimity that they let offlandlords or policemen ‘found guilty ofminor offences’ like ‘refusal to payheed to the guerillas’? (p. 32-33). Aren’t we reminded of the leftisthistorians’ glossing over Aurangazeb’s imposition of the punitive zaziya tax with a dismissive affirmationthat ‘the Hindus were allowed to practisetheir religion and live peacefully by paying a small tax’!

One canunderstand the author’s difficulty in understanding Telugu and therefore errors in transliterating terms like Pilupu meaning ‘The Call’ (not Pillapu,p.38), Bathukamma (not Dakamma, p. 44) festival but surely the Kakatiya (not Kakati, p. 37) Medical College, named after the famous Kakatiya dynasty is well known. Similarlyhis commendable effort to research and collate facts is marred by the omission of akey ideologue of the Naxalite movementin its sixties phase in Srikakulam. Itwas Nagabhushanam Patnaik, a lawyer in Srikakulamwho fought many legal battles on behalf of his ‘comrades’. He was awarded death sentence in five murder cases, butwhich was subsequently commuted to life. He died of renal failure, in Chennaiin 1981.

The CPI (Maoist)party’s strategy to extend its reach from rural and semi-urban areas to themetropolises, presented in its ‘Strategyand Tactics Document’ in 2007, as detailed in the Chapter, ‘The UrbanAgenda’ makes for scary reading and is a wakeup call for our complacentinternal security mandarins and their political masters. Hitherto, politicianshave been playing fast and loose with the Maoists depending on their immediate electoralinterests; now being tough with them and now hobnobbing with them for politicalgains. If the Maoists are serious about their ‘The Urban Agenda’, thenperhaps it is time our internal security managers did some serious thinking. Orelse the nation is sure to slip into the quicksand of anarchy from which itwould be difficult to extricate itself for a long time!

Pandita,Rahul (2011). Hello, Bastar – The UntoldStory of India’s Maoist Movement. Chennai. Tranquebar Press, WestlandLtd. Pages: 202. Price: Rs. 250/-

The review is part of the Book Reviews Program at BlogAdda.com Participate now to get free books!

‘Chanakya’s Chant’ – An intelligent man’s guide to governance and foreign policy!

2011-08-04T18:39:00.086+05:30

Had Chānakya been a Western philosopher (like Plato or Aristotle), history probably would have treated him with much more respect. His Arthaśāstra is easily the Earth's first treatise on statecraft, which dealt with economy and governance, foreign policy and war strategy. Indian history, written first by the aliens and then by the left-liberal crowd, with its obsession with a nebulous ‘composite culture’, has not done justice to the great political-philosopher. Westerners, in their ineffable arrogance, used to refer to Chānakya as the Indian Machiavelli although the former preceded him by about two millennia.

Writing a novel steeped in history is no easy task, because the author has to balance historical accuracy with an engaging plot. Ashwin Sanghi's Chānakya's Chant is a fascinating saga of two Chānakyas, the original political-philosopher of the fourth century BCE and his modern incarnation, Gangäsagar Mishra. As the story swings to and fro with a gap of 2300 years, the reader is gripped by its enthralling narrative, delicious irony and accurate rendering of Indian idiom into English, without losing the flavour of either, which is no mean task. The novel is characterized by meticulous research, great felicity of expression and suave story-telling.

The story of the original Chānakya runs parallel to the known history of the political philosopher with subtle adlibbing to make it an interesting read. As Chānakya fulfills his vow to banish Dhanananda and coronate Chandragupta, he meets his childhood love, Suvasini after prolonged separation but sacrifices his love for the sake of Bharat, which he strove hard to build. For the great political philosopher it was country before self. In return he earns her wrath and curse. She however offers him a means of redemption that was to come several thousands of years later. It ordains that a man should meditate upon a mantra Suvasini cites, and ‘use it to advance a woman’. Two thousand three hundred years later Chānakya’s modern incarnation Gangäsagar Mishra, a professor of history, chances upon the mantra (Chānakya’s Chant) in the form of an inscription on a granite block.

Gangäsagar enthrones his protégé, Chandini Gupta, the daughter of a poor pan vendor as the prime minister of the world’s largest democracy by clever manoeuvring. The novel begins with Chandini’s swearing in as the Prime Minster of India, watched on television by her terminally ill mentor from a hospital bed. The rest of the story was told as a flash back. It lays bare every nuance of contemporary politics: caste, gender and religion and of course the Indian brand of secularism. Careers were made and broken; reputations made and willfully sullied. Human life is worth nothing if does not suit someone’s political ascendance and no strategy too mean. Favours were granted and called; honeytraps laid to bring enemies into submission and hemlock flowed to eliminate them. If a fellow politician were to be sacrificed to swing public sympathy and electoral gain, well, it was worth doing it. There is a hijacked plane, engineered riots and stage-managed shootouts. There is the nexus between industrialists and politicians. Industrialists were used to bankroll elections and the recalcitrant ones were brought into submission with the aid of pliant trade unions and law enforcement agencies. Secret service personnel were used for political ends. Honest journalists were trapped and manipulated to perform sting operations on political enemies. And there is even mention of land allotment to SEZs and the telecom scam. The rumour about a former prime minister’s illegitimate child, sensationalized by his political secretary in a tell-all book about palace intrigues and amorous exploits, was used with thin disguise.

India did pay a great tribute to the author of Arthaśāstra by naming the diplomatic enclave in Delhi ‘Chānakyapuri’, but, how one wishes India had a foreign policy mandarin of the calibre of Chānakya or his modern incarnation, Gangäsagar! While Chandini as the suave foreign minister wows her own party and opposition members on the floor of parliament, her mentor pulls ‘RAW’ strings to play China against Pakistan by having the Chinese arrest a Pakistani spy who was ‘about to foment trouble in China’s Uyghur minority province’. It is certainly feasible, for Xinxiang is China’s ‘Achilles’ heel’ and Pakistan is the world’s crucible and exporter of Jehadi terror. Another stratagem pulled off by the wily Gangäsagar was to have adopted Russian designs for gas centrifuges (presumably for nuclear reactors) sold to North Korea and Libya, both pariahs for the US, making them believe they were actually buying them from Pakistan. If only India could pull off such a stratagem to sow dissension between Pakistan and the US!

Contrast these coups with Jawaharlal Nehru’s starry-eyed idealism in being obsessed with NAM (a body comprising of tin-pot dictators and banana republics) or I. K. Gujral’s idiocy in giving away India’s ‘assets’ to Pakistan. It takes years for intelligence agencies to place and cultivate assets in the higher echelons of an enemy nation, not to speak of great personal risks its officers take.

Sanghi’s otherwise meticulous research was marred by a few factual errors. Uttar Pradesh and Bihar used to send eighty five and fifty four representatives respectively to parliament (p.392), but before these states were bifurcated in 2001. After the creation of UttaraKhand (5) and Jharkhand (14) the no constituencies in UP and Bihar were reduced to 80 and 40 respectively. Similarly, in the Indian constitution, there is no provision for President’s rule at the centre (p. 404). However, this error was corrected two pages later with a reference to a ‘caretaker prime minister’.

Sanghi did not bother to please the left-lib crowd by highlighting filth, poverty and squalor. Nor did he use ‘adultery, incest and masturbation’ to make it to a Booker’s list, although the novel is not devoid of sex. There is just a modicum of it, natural and otherwise, that is germane to the story and no more. But is it necessary for India's woman prime minister to have a fling with her male British counterpart?

Chānakya's Chant is the story of contemporary India told boldly with sardonic humour. And for once, the blurb about the book being ‘cracker of a page-turner’ is true! As the story winds down to a stunning dénouement it makes readers hold their breath.

Chānakya's Chant. Ashwin Sanghi. 2010. Westland. Chennai. Pages x + 448. Price Rs 195

The review is part of the Book Reviews Program at BlogAdda.com Participate now to get free books!

UPA’s NAC RULE - DICTATORSHIP IN DISGUISE?

2011-06-17T12:11:00.018+05:30

Leaders, however democratically minded they are, do not like to be tied down to a code of conduct however sacrosanct it may be, not necessarily because they are selfish or venal but because they have such immense confidence in their wisdom and their ability to determine what is good for their constituents. Therefore no sooner than the ink on the draft was dry we began amending it. The constitution was adopted on November 26, 1949 and the first amendment was made on June 18, 1951 barely fifteen months later. It was, incidentally, moved in the parliament by Jawaharlal Nehru, the epitome of democratic values and was intended to, among other things, ‘place reasonable restrictions on the citizen’s right to freedom of speech and expression’!

Democracy is a funny thing. When you don’t have it you yearn for it. When you have it you are not happy with it. True. We had fought for nearly six decades to attain independence from the British. Yet, ask anyone who was born at about the time of independence and they would remember their elders yearning for the ‘good old’ British days when things were better. In 1975 when Indira imposed an internal emergency, for reasons that have nothing to do with any internal disturbance, there were sections of the populace – not affected by midnight knocks and summary arrests – who welcomed it, at least in its initial stages. Their reasoning was, there was discipline in government offices and ‘trains were running on time’. It could not be dismissed out of hand as silly, for trains used to run so late, if a train ran two to three hours behind schedule, it raised no eyebrows. In my home town, we used to joke that if the Bokaro Express (running between Bokaro in Jharkhand and Madras) was on time, it was probably the previous day’s train. There was an instance, when a gentleman was asked if his train was on time, he replied ‘yes it was on time; just twenty minutes late’. Funnily enough, ‘trains running on time’, was also one of the reasons officially adduced to justify the emergency. During the nineteen-month emergency Indira’s government used to issue large advertisements in newspapers, with the caption, ‘Let us consolidate the gains of emergency’, whatever it meant.

From then on, whenever the rulers found it difficult to adhere to the code of conduct prescribed by the constitution, they have been amending it with gay abandon. The amendments include the thirty-ninth, passed on August 10, 1975 which retro-actively placed the election of the empress of emergency above judicial scrutiny. Of course an amendment, in constitutional parlance means that ‘the said clause shall be deemed always to have been enacted’ - in the amended form.

In addition to amending the constitution whenever required to suit the express purposes of the executive, it has been resorting to other means, which, in so far as they were not mentioned in the constitution may be termed extra-constitutional. Jawaharlal Nehru’s government resorted to this course of action in right earnest in March 1950, by establishing the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission website tells you its history, but does not tell you whether it was constituted under an act of parliament, if any. It lists its members but does not tell you how they were selected. So how do they get into it in the first place, in a system in which there is a due selection process even for recruiting the lowest cadres of employees? Based on the whims and fancies of the government in power? The Planning Commission, we are told, functions under the overall guidance of the National Development Council. Now, what the hell is, the National Development Council? However, we are told that the lofty objective of the Planning Commission, functioning under the Chairmanship of the Prime Minister, was to ‘promote a rapid rise of the standard of living of the people by efficient exploitation of the resources of the country’. How well did it do so in the next fifty years needs no elaboration! Is it not possible for the Finance Ministry to perform the functions of the Planning Commission and any residual functions relating to other ministries transferred to them?

Fast forward to 2004 and we come to ‘Chapter II’ of governance by executive fiat. This time around, the institution of the Chairperson of the UPA is created. Though not stated, its intent was to bypass national resentment and objections to a foreigner becoming the Prime Minister of India. The new institution of Chairperson of the UPA wields untrammeled power - without responsibility – and, in fact functions as the Super Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was nominated by her and is all but a figure-head. The Chairperson of the UPA is neither responsible nor answerable to the parliament, the supreme political body of directly and indirectly elected representatives in the country.

In 2009, the ‘National Advisory Council’ (NAC) was established as an – hold your breath – ‘interface with civil society’. This time around we moved a step ahead because unlike the Planning Commission, and the invisible National Development Council, the duties of which were merely confined to executive inputs to the government, the NAC would provide ‘policy and legislative inputs’. We are told that the NAC ‘comprises distinguished professionals drawn from diverse fields of developmental activity’. We are, as before, not told whether there was any due process by which these ‘distinguished professionals’ were selected but that through them, the government will have ‘access not only to their expertise and experience but also to a larger network of Research Organisations, NGOs and Social Action and Advocacy Groups’.

NAC, the Super Prime Minister's kitchen cabinet, which in fact is its latent function, comprises of a motley crowd of left-liberal intellectuals and sundry individuals who represented non-Hindu religious interests. It derives its power (again without responsibility or answer-ability to the parliament) from the Super Prime Minister but unlike the Planning Commission, whose sole function is allocation of resources, it drafts legislation. In view of its status in the scheme of things, its arbitrary nature of functioning is not questioned nor can be questioned by the sycophantic ruling party or its coalition partners. However the silence of the opposition in not questioning it or demanding its abrogation is strange.

Ever since its institution, the NAC got down to business without losing time and what gems did it draft? Thanks to its ‘Mahtama Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme’ (MNREGS), instead of producing an industrious work force, which a developing nation requires, we are spawning a breed of lazy layabouts. In rural areas farmers complain of shortage of labour because of this perverted scheme. Therefore, agriculture which forms the mainstay of our economy is suffering. So is the burgeoning construction industry.

As is clear from its many reviews, the Communal Violence Bill (PCTVB), drafted by the NAC is totally one-sided and dangerous in the extreme if ever it becomes an act. Under one of its far-reaching clauses, for example, if a Hindu male sexually assaults a woman of the minority community it is 'rape'. But if a male member of a minority community sexually assaults a woman of the Hindu community is not ‘rape’! A small - even informal - formation of Hindus is an 'association' whereas a 'group' could only be of members of a minority community. These definitions assume importance because under the proposed act members of an 'association' can only be assaulters and members of a 'group' are always victims. There is no bail available for offences cognizable under the act and the onus of proof is on the accused, not on the prosecution. A government official can be punished for 'dereliction of duty' by imprisonment of up to two years if he/she does not act on a complaint. You can imagine the consequences of such a provision. By the way, under the act, the executive has judicial powers too.

Another instance of over-reach by the NAC is the recent drafting and promulgation of internet regulation rules in April 2011. The entire exercise seems to have been done keeping in view only one small community, viz. the pejoratively called 'Internet Hindus'. It is only because of its intolerance of criticism that the ruling cabal has gone to great lengths to control internet content. It flies in the face of the vaunted 'freedom of expression'. If this isn't an undemocratic act, one doesn't know what else is! To give two instances of how the rules can be misused: Seema Mustafa can call a duly elected Chief Minister, the 'ugly Indian' in print, but to describe her as a 'Pakistani Agent' on the internet would be an offence. She can complain and the service provider should have to remove the offensive content. Similarly, Vir Sanghvi can describe the duly elected Chief Minister, a 'mass murderer' in print, but to call him a 'political prostitute' on the internet is an offence.

Yes, political parties do have ideological coteries but these do not have a direct hand in governance. Only in communist regimes do they overrun parliaments. For example in the erstwhile USSR, the CPSU, the Politburo and the Central Party Presidium were more powerful than the Duma, which was a rubber-stamp parliament. The creation of the two institutions discussed above appears to be a throwback to the USSR type of governance. The USSR has abrogated such institutions as anachronistic. But we seem to have put the clock back.

In western democracies there are such bodies but they function in an open and transparent manner and are answerable not only to the executive, but even the parliament. For example, the appointment of members to the Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) by the US President, need ratification by the Senate. The role of the CEA is limited to provide advice to the executive. It does not draft legislation.

Is the UPA’s NAC rule, dictatorship in disguise?

COMMUNAL VIOLENCE BILL REDUCES HINDUS TO THE STATUS OF JEWS IN PRE-WAR GERMANY

2011-05-27T19:54:00.036+05:30

A casual glance at the opening parts of NAC’s “PREVENTION OF COMMUNAL AND TARGETED VIOLENCE (ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND REPARATIONS) BILL, 2011” (PCTVB) is unnerving. The range and sweep of the draft bill is awesome to say the least. It is diabolical in design and appeared to be intended as CongI’s 2014 election manifesto. For in the aftermath of a plethora of corruption scams and the self-goals it scored in Andhra Pradesh which returned 33 MPs each in 2004 and 2009, nothing but nothing is going to prevent its decimation in the next election.

Indira Gandhi began diluting the processes of democratic institutions in 1969 culminating in their complete subversion in 1975. She had then ‘incarcerated the nation’, figuratively speaking, all for pelf and profit. Her daughter-in-law decided to reduce the status of 85.5% of the nation’s population to that of Jews in pre-war Germany, all for pelf and profit. The analogy of Jews and pre-war Germany seems perfect because the NAC appears to draw parallel’s from Hitler’s rubber-stamp Bundestag.

Only in this case the NAC is nominated but in a nation where the highest political office is nominated, it is no surprise. The greatest irony of India, trumpeted as the world’s largest democracy is its rule by an extra-constitutional body like the NAC. Second, in India, SoniaG’s extra-constitutional kitchen cabinet seeks to subjugate the majority population into submissiveness by stamping it under its legislative jackboot. If the chapter on definitions makes the bill’s invidious intentions unambiguously clear, the twist in the tale comes in Clause 129, which unveils its diabolical designs.

TARGETING HINDUS

Without any subterfuge, Clause 3 (e) makes it abundantly clear that the bill seeks to protect only “religious or linguistic minorities.” The insertion of the word “linguistic” is clearly a diversion, for there were no instances of serious strife between one linguistic group and another in the past, unless the NAC wants to send Bal Thackeray to spend what little is left of his life as Azmal Kasab’s neighbor in Mumbai’s Arthur Road jail.

The next part of the sentence, “in any State in the Union of India” does not mean anything, because, for any Central law to be applicable to Jammu & Kashmir, concurrence of the state legislature is necessary. Therefore Clause I (2) is simply superfluous. If the naïve believe that it is possible to extend the law to Jammu & Kashmir, perish the thought. The sleight-of-the hand Clause 3 (m) negates any such possibility: “In the event this Act is extended to the State of Jammu and Kashmir” (please note the conditional clause at the beginning of the sentence, not ‘when’, for the NAC knows that the state legislature can sit tight on it till Kingdom come!) “…any reference in this Act to a law, which is not in force in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, shall, in relation to the State, be construed as a reference to a corresponding law, if any, in force in that State.” In plain English, shorn of legalese, the law will never be applied in Jammu and Kashmir. This is not surprising in view of the derision that an exalted member of the NAC has for the state’s minorities, the Kashmiri Pandits. She wrote in an article in Deccan Chronicle some time ago that the issue of Kashmiri Pandits has been ‘highly romanticized’ (sic).

Please also note the capitalization of ‘S’ every time there is a reference to Jammu and Kashmir ‘state’ which means that Jammu and Kashmir shall remain a separate nation for ever, loosely attached to India only to drain its coffers. This also means ‘religious minority’ has one meaning in Jammu and Kashmir and quite a different meaning in the rest of India. More importantly, the act creates a group of ‘more equal’ citizens, giving ‘equality of justice’ that the Constitution promises all, a go by.

If the objective of the bill is to protect the religious minorities, from whom does it seek to protect them? The definition of ‘association’ in Clause 3 (b) is scary and makes you and I shudder to think when the policeman knocks. You don’t have to be an enlisted member of any association ‘whether or not registered or incorporated under any law’. For if the ‘association’ need not be legally constituted to be accused of an offence, where is the question of ‘enlisted’ membership? If you are ipso facto a member of an ‘association’, it is enough for the act to take cognizance. [Of what, you may wonder. Please hold on for the nonce.] But it needn’t be organisations like the RSS or the VHP that may be described as an ‘association’ under the law. By implication, even the street-corner youth welfare association, which celebrates Ganesh Chaturdhi every year, is covered under the ambit of the proposed law.

In view of the slant, words like ‘group’ and ‘association’ have in the act, all its clauses can be applied only one way and not the other. For instance, under Clause 3 (f) (i) of the act, a member of an ‘association’, causing ‘hostile environment’ against a ‘group’ as defined above, by ‘boycotting of the trade or profession of such person or otherwise making it difficult for him or her to earn a living’ – is a cognizable offence. Clause 3 (f) (v), which reads, ‘whether or not it amounts to an offence under this Act, that has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment’ tightens the noose further. Consider the following scenarios:

Example 1:

You have had a tiff with the neighbourhood grocer belonging to a minority religion for underweighting or passing off substandard goods. You informed your neighbours of this and they stopped buying from him. Does it amount to ‘boycotting of the trade or profession of such a person or otherwise making it difficult for him or her to earn a living’ [Clause 3 (f) (i)], or ‘mental psychological or monetary harm?’ [Clause 3 (j)]?

Example 2:

Alternatively if employees belonging to the majority religion strike work in an establsihment being run by a person belonging to the minority religion, and as a result of which the establishment closes down, does it amount to ‘boycotting of the trade or profession of such a person or otherwise making it difficult for him or her to earn a living’ [Clause 3 (f) (i)], or ‘mental psychological or monetary harm?’ [Clause 3 (j)]?

If you think these are extreme examples, the product of a feverish imagination, please think again. The first act of UPA upon coming to power was to repeal POTA under the pretext that it would be misused against the minorities.

By the nature of definitions of ‘group’ and ‘association’ as defined by the act, Clause 8 (Hate Propaganda) can only be indulged in by the majority religion and not vice versa.

Clause 9 (1) could be interpreted to mean mere membership of an impugned organisation is enough for cognizance of an offence under the act, irrespective whether an individual member has committed the offence or not. The onus of proving innocence is on the accused.

Clause 9 (2), which enunciates, ‘…reasonably presumed that the public servant charged with the duty to prevent communal and targeted violence has failed to act to prevent’ read with Clause 13 (Dereliction of duty, punishable by imprisonment of up to two years under Clause 120), is sure to make officials over zealous in their ‘treatment’ of real or perceived offenders of the majority religion.

On the other hand Clause 12 (Torture) makes police officials wary and lenient if the offenders happen to be from the minority religion. For if the charge can be proved, the official/s could be punished with rigorous imprisonment of up to seven years under Clause 119.

It is difficult to understand what ‘non state actors’ in Clause 15 means but a reading of the lengthy provisions in the clause makes one wonder whether it was not intended to ban Hindu organisations like the BD / RSS / VHP at the first available opportunity.

Clause 20 empowers the Central government to invoke Article 355 and dismiss any state government, except of course Jammu and Kashmir. Clause 21 empowers the Central government to constitute a supra-judicial ‘National Authority’ which has both executive and judicial powers. However, a person who has ‘in any manner, exhibited bias against any group, by acts or in writing or otherwise’ is not eligible to become a member of the ‘National Authority’. By implication this might mean only persons with a left-liberal agenda could be appointed to the supra-judicial body – a permanent meal-ticket for some of our jholawallahs.

A contentious issue in the Jan Lok Pal bill being discussed is about confiscation of property of a person accused of corruption. Whereas the Santhi Bhushan Committee wants such a provision, the government argued that it would amount to ‘needless harassment’ of the accused as litigation in India is a long and slow process. No such compunctions hamper the National / State Authority from not only confiscating but auctioning property of the accused under Clauses 81 & 82 of the PCTVB.

TWIST IN THE TALE

The twist in the tale comes almost at the end of the lengthy draft in Clause 129 (Non-applicability of limitation). According to the clause the statute of limitations shall not apply to offences cognizable under the act. The implications of this clause are far-reaching. If for instance cases being investigated by the SIT in Gujarat fail to convict the well-known target of any complicity in the 2002 riots, a revision of the cases may be sought in a superior court – and to be tried under the new act. It is important to note that ‘offences’ under the act are non-bailable.

NARENDRA MODI, GODHRA, GUJARAT RIOTS: IBN-Live 'DISREGARDS' TRUTH!

2011-04-27T22:15:00.028+05:30

Years ago, I came across a book of the “Learn English in 30 days” variety. I am unable to recollect its title, but one of the exercises in it was to ‘rewrite a given passage to give it an opposite meaning’. The book indeed advises the reader to assume that he is “editing a rival newspaper” and that “the idea is to strip the passage of its context and meaning.” It helpfully adds, “Never mind the ethics. It is purely a technical exercise.” I am reminded of the book and the exercise, after reading an IBN-Live report following some tweets posted on it.

This is the stuff that makes an essential case study for students of journalism. Firstly, it teaches students, what one tweeter, Narayanan (@visaraj) put as “Secular School of Grammar and Headline Writing”. Secondly, it demonstrates the power of the ever vigilant social media like Twitter, reason enough for the MSM to hate ‘tweeple’. Another tweeter, Anil Kohli (@anilkohli54) unearthed an old Economic Times report (it dates back to 2003) to nail a haughty, self-styled human rights activist on whom the “Secular School of Grammar and Headline Writing” relied on to ‘put together’ its story.

This is about the latest twist to the SIT investigation into the post-Godhra Gujarat riots, specifically with reference to the allegation of Narendra Modi’s ‘pro-active’ role in controlling or ‘not controlling’ them. In an affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court that is closely monitoring the investigation ordered by it, Sanjeev Bhatt, a Gujarat IPS officer claimed that he was present at a meeting of senior police officials in which Modi ordered them to allow Hindus to “vent their anger”.

LIES, DAMN LIES AND SECULAR TRUTHS

On April 26 IBN-Live posted on its website, a report titled, SIT disregards Bhatt's statement against Modi written by its staffers Ashok Bagriya and Meghdoot Sharoon. There is an accompanying video which has an interview Karan Thapar had with K. S. Subramanium, who according to the report was, ‘part of a citizens (sic) tribunal inquiring into Gujarat riots.’

Now, it does not require the intelligence of an Einstein to understand which side the ‘citizen’s tribunal’ is on, for the main stream media to treat it like gospel. Please take a look at the relevant portion of the IBN-Live report:

“CNN-IBN has learnt that the SIT, which has submitted its findings to the Supreme Court, says that there is no documentary or supporting evidence to prove that Sanjeev Bhatt was present in the February 27 meeting, or that the Chief Minister issued instructions as claimed by Bhatt.

“The SIT also claims that all other senior officers it had spoken to had discounted Bhatt's version.

“Among the senior officers SIT has relied upon is the former Gujarat DGP K Chakravarthi. On saturday, Chakravarthi told CNN-IBN that Bhatt was not present at the Feberuary 27 meeting.”

From this, we – the ordinary mortals - understand that the SIT found “no documentary or supporting evidence” to prove Bhatt’s version of the story. But evidently, IBN-Live does not want us to come to such an understanding. Hence the word “disregard” in the headline. Does it not make a subtle difference to the story: it seeks to convey that the SIT ‘found’ evidence that proves the veracity of Bhatt’s version but deliberately “disregarded” it? For, where is the question of “disregarding” something that was not found?

How then to ‘rewrite the passage to give it an opposite meaning’? Why, by bringing in more credible (as in ‘more equal’) evidence. So, IBN-Live fished for ‘another senior IPS officer KS Subramanium who was part of a citizens tribunal inquiring into Gujarat riots’. We are not told from where Subramanium crept out of the woodwork, but he told Karan Thapar “I had the opportunity to speak to Mr Chakravarthi and Commissioner PC Pandey in 2002 and they both admitted to me that these are the instructions of Narendra Modi in his meeting.”

We are now helpfully reminded of the contents of the affidavit that Bhatt, whose conscience awoke nine years after the riots, filed in the SC: “In his affidavit, Bhatt has claimed that the SIT, headed by a former CBI director RK Raghavan, is acting in a partisan manner. Bhatt also said that the SIT does not appear to be living to the enormous trust reposed in it by the Supreme Court to conduct and impartial and thorough probe into the allegations of larger conspiracy and administrative complicity behind 2002 Gujarat riots.” How else will we know what Bhatt stated in his affidavit – which according to law is just a ‘written declaration made under oath before a notary public or other authorized officer’. It may or may not be evidence yet and not even necessarily be the truth. Remember Teesta Setalvad’s affidavits?

IBN-Live had to admit that the SIT ‘dismissed Bhatt's charges as baseless’ but subtly prefaced its admission with, ‘No SIT officer was willing to come on record’. Isn’t this sleight of hand preface similar to the subtle ‘disregard’ in the title? Or did IBN-Live seriously expect the SIT to comment on its confidential report to the SC?

‘THE MORE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE’

On January 16 2003, the Economic Times (with impeccable secular credentials) filed a report titled Eve-teasing blot on Modi-basher. The report refers to some extra-mural activities of the self-same K. S. Subramanium - on whose ‘more credible’ evidence Karan Thapar (or Ashok Bagriya and Meghdoot Sharoon) relied to give credence to Sanjeev Bhatt’s version of ‘truth’ as against that of the whole SIT.

It appears Subramanium who happened to be a former DGP of Tripura was one of the authors of a ‘charge-sheet’ called ‘Gujarat Carnage 2002’ on behalf of a ‘Citizen’s Tribunal’, whose members included ‘such luminaries as Justice V R Krishna Iyer and Justice P B Sawant’.

However the January 16, 2003 Economic Times report was neither about the ‘Citizen’s Tribunal’, nor about the ‘charge-sheet’ called ‘Gujarat Carnage 2002’ nor even about the riots. It was about Subramanium’s arrest on a charge of ‘allegedly soliciting sexual favour’ from a woman. The report further adds that the ‘alleged’ incident took place in front of a Delhi University women’s college, ‘where the wife of the accused is the principal.’ And as ill luck would have it, the woman from whom our member of the ‘Citizen’s Tribunal’ ‘allegedly solicited sexual favour’ happened to be not an ordinary woman but a female cop. Of course Subramanium professed innocence claiming that it was all a frame-up. In another of those mysterious explanations which people come up with when copped (of which he might not be unaware of) Subramanium claimed he was only testing the alertness of Delhi police. And for Subramanium at least, the happy ending came when senior police officials (he is after all one of them) intervened to get him released.

The Economic Times report ends with this query: “Do the companions of Mr Subramanian think that the women on the roads of Delhi are also worthy of human rights?” on behalf of the skeptics of human rights activists. Well, do they?

.................................................................

See also on Media in India...

MEDIA & ETHICS IN BRITAIN & INDIA

ANGRY JANES, MAD TOMS & INTERNET HINDUS - 1

ANGRY JANES, MAD TOMS & INTERNET HINDUS - 2

AN LeT OPERATION IN J & K AND A DETENTION IN THE US

THE LETTERS THEY REJECTED - 1

THE LETTERS THEY REJECTED - 2

MANAGRAMS, MEDIA & SONIA MAINO-IA

ANNA HAZARE & INDIANS AGAINST CORRUPTION

2011-04-21T22:57:00.025+05:30

DRAMA AT JANTAR MANTAR

Anna Hazare’s hunger strike, reminiscent of Mahatma Gandhi’s mass Satyagrahas, has truly awakened the citizenry of this country. A moribund citizenry has at last come alive to fight corruption and venality in public life. The groundswell of public anger against corruption that fuelled the movement ensured Hazare’s self-less Satyagraha has not gone in vain.

At first, the ruling dispensation tried to deflect the issue hoping public attention would move on to other issues. The ‘Adarsh Society’ 2G, CWG et al. don’t evoke the kind of emotional responses now as they did only a few months ago. Who remembers Bofors’? It was anyway minuscule in scale compared to the twenty-first century scams. The spokes-persons of UPA were so cock-sure of the ‘public-memory-is-short’ dictum, that they now claim they have initiated all the criminal action in the 2G scam: ‘‘Who is Dr. Subramanian Swami?’’ and ‘‘What has the Supreme Court got to do with it?’’ Diggy Raja huffed and hawed and saw in Hazare’s movement an RSS conspiracy. Kapil Sibal smirked and called it an anti-democratic movement. In the end when it became clear that instead of petering out, the movement was spreading from cities to small towns and was likely to irretrievably bury its political fortunes, the UPA government agreed to Hazare’s demand to constitute a joint committee to draft the (Jan) Lok Pal Bill.

If Hazare and his cohorts thought that they had scored a hit they were to have another think coming. Their troubles were in the offing as UPA’s marionettes and mercenaries were yet to be unleashed on the scene.

A coalition of motley individuals calling themselves, ‘Indians Against Corruption’ (IAC) jumped on the bandwagon to bask in Hazare’s after-glow. Hazare’s naïveté and inability to converse in English was godsend for some of these gadflies, ranging saffron commies to socialite butterflies, to have their moments under the sun (or strobe lights if you will); to appear on 24x7 news channels to air their worldview and to pontificate on the evils of corruption.

For the 24x7 news channels the movement was manna from heaven. They instituted round the clock coverage delivering ‘every-hour-on-the-hour’ bulletins on Hazare’s health. They insisted that for once the ‘middle classes’ shed their stoicism (euphemism for ‘why should I care; it’s not happening in my house but next door’ attitude) and joined the movement. From cities to small towns, from Jammu to Kanyakumari, IAC chapters have sprung up overnight to conduct dawn-to-dusk (in most places ‘dawn’ begins at about 10 AM; in Hyderabad there is a saying that ‘subeh-subeh is gyara baze!’) hunger-strikes and candle light vigils.

CYNICS AND INTELLIGENTSIA Vs CIVIL SOCIETY

Cynics wondered whether any member of the IAC can truthfully claim that he/she never paid a bribe (say for a berth in a train or for jumping a traffic light), never submitted inflated travel bills to their employers, never claimed anything but a genuine mediclaim, never under-valued property to pay reduced stamp duty while purchasing it or did not indulge in any of a myriad modes of corruption that a citizen of this country is compelled to resort to just to survive. And according to the received wisdom of OUTLOOK magazine, the new pall-bearer of secularism, corruption has been ingrained in the Hindu way of life. No, there were no nazaranas in the composite culture. Sample this gem from Sheela Reddy:

“Corruption, after all, has been a way of life since ancient Hindu times, gradually evolving from the gifts offered to those in power in return, hopefully, for favours, to this passive-aggressive beast, which demands without actually asking.” (Corruption: Blind Men Of Hindostan. OUTLOOK. April 25, 2011.)

Another objection to the movement came from a section of the nebulous entity called intelligentsia, to the manner in which legislative business is sought to be hijacked by a nebulous entity called civil society. In fact a tweeter on the tweepledom wondered whether ‘civil society’ in India meant just people inhabiting South Delhi! They too have a point. If a motley crowd of ‘civil society’ activists today demand that legislative business be outsourced to them what will stop another motley crowd of ‘civil society’ activists from demanding the judicial system be outsourced to them tomorrow?

The ‘one-woman-republic’s tirade against the Supreme Court could indeed be a subliminal if camouflaged demand for closing down all criminal courts (from trial courts to the Supreme Court) and outsourcing the justice system to her. She would name her team with the possible inclusion of Teesta Setalvad and some comrades like Binayak Sen.

Similarly there could be a demand for closing down central investigation agencies and outsource all their work to Tehelka. Shoma Choudary who speaks in non-stop paragraph-long sentences could be appointed ‘Chief’ of the agency with her invisible team-mates continuing their role as invisible investigators. The government could save a lot of tax rupees in the process. Besides, both of them seem be to doing the same work – fixing Congress party’s political opponents – anyway.

All these appointments would also fulfill the necessary and sufficient conditions of secularism and gender justice.

However the most redeeming feature of Hazare’s movement is that the youth of our county have been at its vanguard giving the lie to the popular perception that today’s youth are self-centred and uninterested in political movements. Taking a cue from Hazare’s campsite in New Delhi, hunger-strike camps across the nation displayed pictures of Bharat-Mata in the background. This is because today’s youth is proud of our rich and ancient culture, history, philosophy and spirituality? Unlike their counterparts of a few generations ago they are not burdened by the tugs and challenges of ‘intellectual fashions’ - which demanded disavowal, denial, denigration and negation of anything remotely connected to India’s glorious past. This was where the first sign of discord in the coalition against corruption surfaced. A news channel pithily wondered whether the bonhomie was over. The naïve Gandhian that Hazare was, he did not understand the importance of symbolism and nuances in India’s secular political discourse. Hazare was advised by the secular members (it is needless to point out that the secular members in any ‘civil society’ group are ‘more equal’ than others) of his entourage that displaying Bharat-Mata at the camp-site would offend the secular ethic of the nation as it amounted to - crass majoritarianism. He meekly obeyed and banished Bharat-Mata.

It would be unwise to assume that corruption, so deeply ingrained in the body politic could be excised with a single movement of a few days - howsoever popular the movement might have been. A small battle has been won but the major war is still ahead. The demon of corruption, so long used to feasting on the common weal of the populace like a gigantic parasite, is not going to give in easily. It is going to fight back with magnified virulence, which can take many shapes and forms. We can already see the ‘dogs-of-war’ let loose by the principal opposition - in this case, the ruling dispensation - attacking the fight against corruption on many fronts, including smear campaigns against its principal protagonists and dilatory tactics. We must remember, with its unlimited resources and vast arsenal, it hopes to weary the warriors in the fight against corruption, in a Fabian strategy and in the end win the war. Time is on its side.

A TALE OF TWO CHIEF MINISTERS

2011-01-21T10:52:00.008+05:30

“A famous surgeon in Patna was kidnapped. His kidnappers demanded a ransom of two lakh rupees for his release. He informed his kidnappers that they had better release him as he was one of Lalu Prasad Yadav’s personal physicians. The kidnappers laughed and told him that if he was so confident that Lalu would come to his rescue he could call him. The surgeon called Lalu and requested him to get him released. Lalu simply asked him to tell him how much they were asking to release him. When the surgeon told him the figure Lalu reportedly advised him he had better pay up and get his release. The surgeon was nonplussed and wanted to know why as Chief Minister he could not obtain release of his own personal physician. Lalu replied that if he intervened the ransom would only be hiked. So it was best the surgeon arranged for the money and obtain his release.”

It was during Lalu Prasad Yadav’s heyday as Chief Minister of Bihar, that a colleague in Patna told us these stories, the first as one of those Lalu jokes and the second as a real life incident:

“A famous surgeon in Patna was kidnapped. His kidnappers demanded a ransom of two lakh rupees for his release. He informed his kidnappers that they had better release him as he was one of Lalu Prasad Yadav’s personal physicians. The kidnappers laughed and told him that if he was so confident that Lalu would come to his rescue he could call him. The surgeon called Lalu and requested him to get him released. Lalu simply asked him to tell him how much they were asking to release him. When the surgeon told him the figure Lalu reportedly advised him he had better pay up and get his release. The surgeon was nonplussed and wanted to know why as Chief Minister he could not obtain release of his own personal physician. Lalu replied that if he intervened the ransom would only be hiked. So it was best the surgeon arranged for the money and obtain his release.”

“A big burly ‘dada’ stopped what is generally known as a ‘shared auto-rickshaw’. He found a thin man sitting in the back and ordered him to move into the front seat alongside the driver as he a ‘dada’ would like to ride alone in the back. The ‘thin’ man protested saying as he had boarded the auto in an earlier stop he found no reason to vacate the seat and move forward. The ‘dada’ picked him up by the scruff of his neck and bodily pushed him into the front seat. The ‘thin’ man silently moved forward but did not alight in his intended stop. He rode on till the ‘dada’ alighted at his stop and followed him on foot till they reached a secluded spot. He took out a pistol from his pocket, shot him through the back and walked away.”

These stories did not seem apocryphal in view of what some of our colleagues experienced. And they were all real life incidents:

“We were staying in Hotel Maurya located on Patna’s main road that runs parallel to the railway station and on which major political parties have their offices. At about 10 P.M. a colleague wanted to go to the STD booth across the road to call home. (The boss wouldn’t approve long distance calls from hotels as they were loaded with exorbitant service charges.) The hotel security staff warned him against crossing the road as it was not safe to do so at night.”

“After a sales conference a colleague returned to Patna one summer morning when dawn was breaking. As his residence was only a short distance he thought he would take a walk in the pre-dawn coolness. Suddenly a guy emerged from one of the by-lanes and relieved him of his briefcase, purse and hand-phone at gun point.”

“In another replica of the same incident a couple of our colleagues were relieved of their personal belongings as they were retuning from a meeting in the sales office. Only it was dusk that time on another day.”

“A colleague boarded a AC II Tier compartment of the Patna – Hyderabad Express which left Patna at about 8 P. M. The conductor promptly locked all doors as soon as it left the station. When it stopped at the next station forty-five minutes later a passenger on the platform banged on the door shouting for it to be opened. While no one showed any inclination to open it our colleague went to the door seeking to open it. Another passenger rushed after him shrieking not to open it. When our colleague wanted to know why, the other passenger simply asked him whether he was from South India. Informed that he was the other passenger advised him never to open doors in a train at night.”

All these incidents occurred around the turn of the century and not in any rural outback of backward Bihar but in the state capital. No wonder the central government’s national highways projects ran aground in Bihar. It may be difficult to believe this but it was said that Universities in Bihar declared examination results at least two years after they were held.

This was what fifteen years of rampant misrule characterised by nepotism and criminalisation did to a state that had a hoary past – a state that could boast of the Guptas and the Mauryas, Gaya and Nalanda, Rajendra Prasad and Jaya Prkash Narayan. Lalu found the psephological formula for success in his Muslim Yadav (MY) combination and it would work (endlessly, he hoped) if only the denizens of the state were kept in darkness. Education and development would be a nuisance. While he basked amidst his buffalos and dung televised by helpful television channels for all the world to see, it was rumoured that he educated his children in an exclusive school in far away Mount Abu. Such expensive education – denied to ordinary mortals of the state – cost a whopping `1 lakh per child per month and probably charged to fodder.

When in 1997 he had to step down as Chief Minister after the fodder scam broke, Lalu chose his barely literate wife as his successor although his party had a two thirds majority in the Assembly. This champion of social justice did not find any other MLA suitable to lead the state. Strange things came to light in the investigation of the `950-crore fodder scam. When the registration numbers of some of the vehicles which transported the fodder were screened they turned out to be those of two-wheeled scooters and not six-wheeled trucks.

In spite of all this Lalu was feted by the media first as chief minister of India’s second largest state (in terms of population) and then as railway minister. His rustic humour was avidly lapped up. The media needed such secular champions of social justice to cock a snook at what it calls the Hindutwa forces. Media portrayal of his success as railway minister was another chimera - either born out of its fertile imagination or gullibility or the effectiveness of his PR. The business schools in India and abroad which feted him for his success as rail minister were either naïve or done in by some cynical but masterful PR wok.

The contrast between media’s darling Lalu and its bête noire Narendra Modi can not be starker. Our sanctimonious MSM may not be amused but Google returned 30,000 jokes including videos for Lalu plus of course 286,000 general results. On the other hand there were 4,860,000 results for Narendra Modi.

Ever since the party seconded him to Gujarat as Chief Minister, Narendra Modi set a brisk pace for development and only development. The bachelor CM who leads a Spartan life practically lives on the job. Goebbelsian media lying in its teeth or perjuring NGOs did not deter him. In every aspect of governance –agriculture, employment generation, educating the girl child, improving literacy / reversing school drop-out rates, prevention of female foeticide, inculcation of work culture, rural electrification or water harvesting - his state surged ahead leaving behind all others.

MEDIA & ETHICS IN BRITAIN & INDIA

2011-01-03T21:16:00.007+05:30

On May 14, 2004 Piers Morgan was ‘fired’ as editor of Britain’s ‘biggest selling newspaper’, “DAILY MIRROR” over the issue of some pictures he published in the paper on Saturday, May 1. The pictures were of British soldiers of the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment abusing Iraqi civilians, more specifically one of which published on the front page of a British soldier in full modern battle-gear urinating on a hooded Iraqi.

The pictures instantly raised a furore in the political establishment as well as the media. The concern was not only about the veracity of the pictures but their effect on the morale of British soldiers in Iraq already under fire from the Al Qaeda. Alastair Campbell, Director of communications at No. 10 Downing Street advised Morgan:

“When you decide it’s no longer enough to be a national newspaper editor, and you want to be a political player…when you decide to be a player, then sometimes you have to face up to the rules of the political game as well.” (The Insider: The Private Diaries of a Scandalous Decade. Ebury Press, London 2005. p.9)

Fast forward and Campbell could be advising our celebrity journalists caught with their hands in Niira Radia’s cookie jar in late 2010?

Even after being shown the door Morgan insisted that the pictures he published were real and were in fact provided by a soldier of the QLR serving in Iraq. But Morgan had the candour to confess:

“There were times in my editing career when I was sanctimonious or hypocritical…Journalists are notoriously thin-skinned when it comes to our own failings. But much of what we do is notable for its conceit, moral double standards and occasionally downright nastiness.” (Ibid. p.ix)

DAILY MIRROR may only be a tabloid given to purveying salacious gossip. Still the paper fired Morgan once it became known that the pictures he published were crude fakes.

Morgan says that during the two weeks in which the controversy originated, peaked and climaxed he was constantly stalked day and night by newspaper reporters and TV crews shouting questions like ‘Are you going to quit Mr. Morgan?’

And that is the big difference between Britain, the ‘mother of democracy’ and India, still unable to shed its feudal past, where two different standards co-exist: one for the clichéd common man and another for the high and mighty.

Here it is not about an editor paying the price for publishing ‘crude fake’ pictures, probably himself done in and publishing them in good faith.

Here it is about a famous ex-editor and columnist supplicating before a corporate lobbyist begging for instructions on what should go into his next column almost as obsequiously as a waiter in a restaurant taking an order.

Here it is about a puffed-up television diva lobbying for a political crook - whose malfeasance was all too apparent because a number of other journalists’ exposes in reams of newsprint eloquently detailed it - to be re-inducted into the national government.

All would have ended well and the whole issue sanctimoniously submerged except for OPEN and OUTLOOK which published transcripts of their secret conversations. (Privacy be damned; the only thing private in the conversations was about Niira Radia’s gown a graphic description of which she delivered to Ratan by golly Tata). And the abhorred Internet Hindus who would not give up! They texted a million (according to some estimates two million) tweets, focused the attention of the world’s press and brought the demigods down to the earth with a thud.

Morgan was summoned to the Chief Executive Sly Bailey’s office to be informed that it was ‘no longer appropriate’ for him to continue as editor. His security pass and handheld Blackberry computer were instantly confiscated and he was escorted out of the office by burly security personnel.

In minutes as he was driven home by his official chauffeur for the last time, Morgan’s in-car TV crackled into life and he was ‘breaking news’! He says his phone went into ‘meltdown, with calls and text messages pouring in relentlessly from colleagues, other editors, family, friends. Even the odd foe, presumably just to make sure it was true’!

Here in India, let alone stalking the two journalists shouting questions like ‘Are you going to quit?’ the media first went into denial and then put in place a massive cover-up exercise.

In the case of the freelancer, he was allowed to withdraw his column on his own volition and escaped to, of all places Bangkok; probably to have a massage to soothe the bruised ego for having been exposed, with hefty wenches holding neem twigs?

In the case of the puffed-up television diva, at whose desk all bucks (including the famed American?) stop, her security pass and handheld computer were not confiscated nor was she escorted out of office by burly security personnel. On the other hand she was allowed to stage her own trial live (and unedited as her chosen moderator-judge claimed and we have no reason to suspect otherwise!) for prime-time entertainment (what else?) with herself participating as a juror at her own trial that was almost surreal if it were not so comic.

For once, on the issue of journalistic ethics (or lack of them!), the Internet Hindus and some of the editors are on the same page. One couldn’t possibly agree more with one of them when he says that if these journalists were employed by the Financial Times or New York Times or The Guardian it would have been curtains for their careers.

..........................................................

See also on Media in India...

NARENDRA MODI, GODHRA, GUJARAT RIOTS: IBN-Live 'DISREGARDS' TRUTH!

ANGRY JANES, MAD TOMS & INTERNET HINDUS - 1

ANGRY JANES, MAD TOMS & INTERNET HINDUS - 2

AN LeT OPERATION IN J & K AND A DETENTION IN THE US

MANAGRAMS MEDIA AND SONIA MAINO-IA

ONLINE PETITION TO NDTV AGAINST BLATANT ANTI-HINDU COVERAGE.

2010-10-18T11:23:00.001+05:30

A group of concerned citizens aggrieved by the blatant anti-Hindu bias of the English language media in general and NDTV and its star anchor, Ms. Barkha Dutt in particular have filed the following online petition appealing to the channel to be objective in its coverage. The petition seems to have been an instant hit. Within an hour of filing on Sunday (October 17) night more than a hundred people signed it and this morning by the time this piece is being posted the number is approaching three hundred. The petition may be viewed and signed here: ONLINE PETITION TO NDTV AGAINST BLATANT ANTI-HINDU COVERAGE

Dr. Pranoy Roy,

Chairman & Managing Director, NDTV Ltd.,

NEW DELHI

cc: Ms. Barkha Dutt,

Group Managing Editor, NDTV Ltd.,

NEW DELHI

We the signatories of this petition, as concerned Indian citizens (resident and non-resident) would like to register our strong protest for the way in which your channel conducted debates hosted by Ms. Barkha Dutt on the judgement of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on the Ayodhya dispute.

We do hope, as a responsible news channel watched by millions of Indians world-wide, you are not oblivious to your social responsibilities, which include fostering a climate of amity between communities, especially between India’s two major religions. Sadly, we have to point out, that fostering such a climate of amity between the two major religions is not possible by harping on the victim-hood of one side alone. Unfortunately this is the net effect of the debates you telecast and could only widen the chasm between the two, exacerbate tensions and lead to a climate of mutual hatred and ill-will.

We as concerned citizens interested in fostering a climate of amity and goodwill between various communities in the country take strong exception to the following aspects of the post-verdict debates and do hope you will remedy them in future:

1. For instance if your moderator, Ms. Barkha Dutt allows one side to harp on ‘December 6 1992’ ad nauseum, as if India’s history really began on that day or as if that was the only incident responsible for Hindu-Muslim tensions, she could willy-nilly appear to be taking sides in the debate.

2. The other side could equally well argue that ‘December 6 1992’ was merely the culmination of a process of alienation of Hindus aggrieved by centuries of victimisation under alien rulers and decades of discrimination under pseudo-secular Indian rulers. But the fact of the matter is that they don’t get to voice their side of the argument because they are not allowed to, which gives one an impression that Ms. Barkha Dutt is taking sides.

3. One could ask with equal legitimacy, why the 1989-90 events should not be considered a watershed in Hindu-Muslim relations as it was during this period the Kashmir valley was cleansed of its Hindu population, leading to the exile of between 350000 and 400000 Pandits in their own homeland?

However Ms. Dutt and the panellists on the show stubbornly refuse to countenance the question as for them the concept of ‘secularism’ means one thing in Jammu & Kashmir and quite a different thing in the rest of India.

Of course Ms. Dutt is entitled to her views but if airing her views is likely to add to the belligerence that is already prevalent in the air should she not restrain herself from airing them?

4. We are pained to observe that those who advised that ‘everyone should respect the judicial verdict’ and ‘the country has moved on’ till the day of the judgment suddenly began denouncing it as soon as it was delivered. Legal experts say that it would take at least a few weeks to read and digest the 8000+ pages verdict but panellists on your channel were allowed to denounce it almost as soon it was delivered.

5. Panellists who oppose the construction of the ‘Sri Ram Mandir’ were asked loaded questions like “were you disappointed with the verdict?” As you are aware, in legal parlance such questions are characterised as ‘leading’ calling for a ‘conclusion’ from the witness. This obviously means that the panellist would have to take a stance from which it is impossible to reconcile later even if one wanted to. As Ayodhya is a sensitive issue and is likely to inflame passions on both sides of the divide could such provocative questions be not avoided?

6. In some instances Ms. Dutt was animatedly participating than moderating the debate. She could have opposed or at least protested voicing diatribe as comment, like describing the verdict as a ‘Panchayat settlement’.

7. We believe panellists who support the court verdict could have been given more time. The court has indeed given an opportunity to the two sides to bury their differences and come to an amicable solution. Would not an amicable solution at this stage help the ‘nation to move on’ as indeed it should?

8. The moderator on several occasions used the word ‘dissenting judge’ while alluding to one of the judges on the bench, which gave the verdict. As different judges agreed / differed on different aspects of the complex issue, it would be unfair to selectively use the word ‘dissenting judge’ depending one’s view point and convenience.

9. As the verdict is being slowly digested and excerpts appear on various Internet fora it is now abundantly clear that the Honourable justices have in fact based their judgment on hard evidence and not on faith of the majority religion as large sections of the media seem to imply.

10. Transcripts of evidence tendered by the historians, archaeologists and other expert witnesses of the BMAC, their cross-examination by the defendants’ lawyers and the observations of the Honourable justices should leave no one in doubt that the BMAC has no case at all and that the Masjid was in fact built on the ruins of a temple or a existing temple was destroyed to build the Masjid.

In spite of overwhelming evidence supporting the claim of a temple having either existed or demolished on that site should the media harp on its ‘faith-prevailing-over-evidence’ line thus tarnishing the image of the judiciary, the ‘court of last resort’ for the common citizen? Will it not weaken the common citizen’s faith in the democratic institutions of the country?

On the other hand will not awarding the suit in favour of the Muslims irrespective of the merits of the case be akin to some kind of ‘road justice’, in which the smaller vehicle or pedestrian in a road accident is invariably sympathised? Will it not weaken the majority religion’s faith in the judiciary?

The Ayodhya debate was but one example of the prevailing political culture – which your channel typifies – that defines secularism as anti-Hinduism.

We are of the humble opinion that the country can ‘move on’ only if every concerned citizen – not least the opinion-shaping bodies like the media - work in tandem for fostering amity and goodwill between various sections / groups of citizenry.

The Honourable Court has indeed accorded the nation a wonderful opportunity to bring about a climate of amity and goodwill between India’s two major religions. Whether the nation seizes it or fritters it away largely depends on the opinion-making institutions like the media.

Will NDTV help or hinder the cause?

Thank you for listening.

Concerned Citizens of India

AYODHYA: HAS THE COUNTRY MOVED ON?

2010-10-03T14:35:00.037+05:30

In reply to a tweet on September 29, this writer replied that he was a firm believer and hoped that a grand temple for Bhagavan Sri Ram would be built at His birth place. He added that the issue was very complex, likely to extend the sagacity of the Honourable judges to the very limits. But in the end everyone hoped for a judgement that would make all parties exclaim “A Daniel come to judgment...” as both Shylock and Portia did in different scenes of “The Merchant of Venice.” Incidentally the central theme of the Shakespeare play, according to literary critics, was a plea for toleration!

MSM: ‘REWIND, FREEZE FRAME’

Till 4 P.M. on September 30 our main stream media – the Pravdas and Izvestias of the print medium and the electronic equivalents of Radio Moscow of the

USSR

days - educated us that

1. The higher judiciary is seized of the Janmastahn - Masjid a. k. a Sri Rama Janma Bhumi – Babri Masjid dispute.

2. The issue concerns merely the title of the land on which the disputed structure stood.

3. Courts can not resolve issues based on matters of faith.

4. What concerns courts is evidence and only evidence.

5. “The country has moved on”. What was left unsaid was in its view ‘the pro-temple movement has no case’, and hence the “exhortation”to the “intransigent” pro-temple movement.

6. Everyone should respect the verdict of the Honourable High Court.

7. The losing side, which they have already determined was the pro-temple movement should understand that the hearing by / verdict of the Honourable High Court is only another step in the judicial process to resolve the issue.

Although they have been exhorting the wining side not to gloat about victory, it was merely for form. Champagne bottles were ready as were proclamations to be issued of their “eternal faith” in the Indian judicial system.

Remember, in its view ‘the pro-temple movement has no case’.

8. Even after adjudication by the Supreme Court, the pro-temple movement should understand that the country has moved on. Remember, in its view ‘the pro-temple movement has no case’.

9. As the country has moved on what concerns the youth of this country are more mundane matters than Mandir & Masjid.

The chivalrous concession of mentioning Mandir first was because in our MSM’s view, ‘the pro-temple movement had no case’. Remember Winston Churchill’s famous quote, “Magnanimity in victory; courage in defeat and balance in adversity…”

The English electronic media crowed on and on, ad nauseum that ‘the country has moved on’ till the newscasters’ voices became hoarse and throats ached.

It is reliably learnt that NPIL, the company that makes Strepsils throat lozenges sold out all stocks of the brand in the last two weeks. When last heard, in order to meet the unprecedented demand, the company commissioned running extra batches paying its workers overtime wages.

At about 4.30 P.M. all hell broke lose on the electronic media. The country stopped moving on, rewound to December 6, 1992 and the frame froze.

The print progressives had to wait for the morrow. To be fair the two newspapers that this writer reads, The New Indian Express and the Deccan Chronicle had balanced coverage and editorials on the next day.

If for secular historians

India

’s history began after Mohd. Ghaznavi’s first “visit” to Somnath, for the modern pall-bearers of secularism,

India

’s history began on December 6, 1992.

If a panellist tried to point out that the issue before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court was not December 6, 1992 but “merely the title of the land on which the disputed structure stood”, he was shouted down. The fact that all the three judges unanimously threw out the “title suit” was submerged in an avalanche of denunciations of the judgement.

The earlier edict, “everyone should respect the verdict of the Honourable High Court” was discarded. Those who cried “

India

has moved on” till just thirty minutes before now cried a halt and reversed the engine like time-travellers zeroing in on a moment in time. Like the proverbial four blind men describing an elephant, the dissection began without any of the dissectors reading the eight thousand page verdict. The three judges comprising the bench chose to deliver their own independent judgments and the smallest of these delivered by Justice S. U. Khan ran into 285 pages.

DISMISSAL OF TITLE SUIT CONCLUSIVE

Before we proceed any further, since the original dispute was about “merely the title of the land” let us try to understand what a “title” means to the layman. If one understands correctly, title means ownership. Thus when a property is sold or purchased the ownership or title is transferred, by executing a title deed. A title can thus be sold or purchased but also bequeathed or gifted by executing a title deed.

There appear to be many litigants claiming title in the instant case but let us confine ourselves to the three principal litigants. They are the Hindu Mahasabha representing if one understands correctly the “Ram Lalla Virajman”, the Nirmohi Akhara, which some believe is a proxy for the Congress party and the Sunni Wakq Board which have been fighting for a title for the 1500 square yard piece of land on which the mosque was presumably constructed in 1528, by Babar’s commander Mir Baki, a Shia – after destroying the pre-existing temple. This is the reason why it was always referred to as the Janmasthan-Mosque, till the pseudo-secular historians and their fellow-travellers in the media began calling it the Babri - Masjid or more charitably the Rama Janma Bhumi - Babri – Masjid.

Now the question arises as to how Mir Baki came into the title or to simplify the language who gave him the title? Did he simply plant a few flags in the four corners of the land and staked his claim as the Anglo-Saxons did when they moved to America in droves after Columbus set out to discover India but stumbled upon the West Indies instead. If Columbus hadn’t lost his way the Anglo-Saxons would have had done their staking here in

India

and history would have been different. But the question remains, “who gave Mir Baki the title to the land?” Or are simple legal principles not applicable to invaders and conquerors and they can usurp any land anywhere?

It is not that the Hindus have given up hope or title. They have been claiming / fighting for title to the site of the destroyed temple, whenever they had some strength although they were fighting a far superior enemy. The original suit or suits in the RJB-BM dispute concerning the title or ownership of the land were filed in the Faizabad District Civil Court. The modern litigation began as far back as in 1885 during the reign of the British administration. However it appears the British-India Civil courts which adjudicated the matter in 1936 a full fifty one years since the litigation began and awarded the title to the Sunni Wakq Board.

Now the second question arises, ‘how come the Sunni Wakq Board came into the title?’ Who gave the SWB the title to the land? If Mir Baki did, why did he give to Sunnis rather than Shias which was naturally to be expected?

Now the third question, how did the British simply adjudicate the matter and award the title to the SWB? Did they too stake claim as did the earlier conqueror, Babar / Mir Baki or did they think they had come into the title by simply usurping all land and therefore were eligible to gift it to the more favourite claimant? Why did they not ask, “How did the SWB come into the title?” They simply seem to have proceeded on the “possession is title” principle and awarded it to the SWB, thus creating another legal landmine.

Now in 2010, the three Honourable judges too applied the same principle “possession is title” in magnanimously awarding the three claimants equal share of the disputed land having first dismissed the title suits on the principle of ‘limitation of time’ in filing the suits.

ISN'T IT TIME TO MOVE ON

One should understand that once the title claims of two of the three litigants were dismissed on the principle of ‘limitation of time’, the third party, in this case “Ram Lalla Virajman” ipso facto becomes the automatic winner of the title. The learned judges therefore could have declared “Ram Lalla Virajman” the winner of the title but in their infinite wisdom have gone beyond that. They wanted

India

to win by bridging the deep chasm between Hindus and Muslims that is likely to tear civil society asunder.

There is no need to go into the ample archaeological evidence that bespoke of the existence of a massive temple under the mosque. The archaeological evidence points to a grand Vishnu Hari temple that was in existence much prior to the Sunga Dynasty which Babar himself proclaimed to have defeated. In fact the evidence gathered dates back to the Gupta Dynasty. This evidence of a pre-existing temple was clinching enough for the majority judgement to conclude that the mosque was built on the ruins of a destroyed temple.

This is the time for

India

’s two major religions to bury their differences and historical baggage and to move forward in a spirit of mutual trust and goodwill. The Shias, to which sect the original protagonist of the mosque saga Mir Baki belonged, offered an olive branch to the Hindus. They even offered a donation of Rs 15, 00,000 for the construction of the ‘Bhavya Mandir’.

It is now for the country to decide whether it intends to ‘move on’ or remain hostage to the machinations of a bigoted media which abjured all moral values in pursuit of social snobbery!

TAIL-PIECE

The panel discussions on most English language television channels were more or less on expected lines, the only difference being the degree of rabidity of views expressed. Some friends point out that the Hindi news channels STAR and ZEE had more balanced coverage. The star on the Hindu side was undoubtedly Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad (also a lawyer representing “Ram Lalla”), who roundly ticked off the puffed-up television divas, who anchored the shows.

But the debates on NDTV were more rabid than others. The prima donna of these debates is of course Ms. Barkha Dutt and the more notable panellists were Mr. Zafaryab Jilani, the Lawyer of the Sunni Wakq Board, Mr. Assaduddin Owaisi, an M.P. from a Muslim religious party and Ms. Farah Naqvi a minority religious activist. The first two featured on all channels. Another feature which NDTV shares with all others was that it did not have any lawyer representing the other litigants, something which has parallels with TV debates on the M. F. Hussain case.

In one of Barkha’s panel discussions, after Ravi Shankar Prasad roundly ticked her off, Mr. Javed Akthar pointed out that only Hindus could be accused of pseudo-secularism but not Muslims, who can only be 'fundamentalist'. He was only trying to be jocular but unwittingly stumbled upon some element of truth. This is not to say that all Muslims are fundamentalist or all Hindus are pseudo-secular. By the strange logic of social snobbery, in the perception of the intelligentsia, all Hindus are considered communal till they prove their secular credentials by denouncing Hindu culture, Hindu traditions, Hindu religion and all fellow Hindus who avow their faith in them. But by the same logic of social snobbery, all Muslims are considered secular irrespective of their precept and practice. It is not too difficult to understand why this should be so.

Firstly for Barkha, Mr. Soli Sorabjee who must be twice her age was just Soli but Owaisi was always ‘sab’! Aren’t some animals in Orwell’s Animal Farm, ‘more equal’ than others? And at least in one debate she prefaced her question to Owaisi, with ‘Insha Allah’.

Secondly, every one knows the provenance of MIM, which Owaisi represents, as the successor to the Razakars. It still follows some ‘Razakar’ methods. In the 2009 general election, Owaisi himself was caught on camera chasing and thrashing an election agent of the TDP. His brother Akabaruddin was in the group that thrashed Tasleema Nasreen and at least one MIM MLA ( the same, who headed the group that thrashed Tasleema Nasreen) brandished a gun and fired in the air when GHMC employees went to demolish an unauthorised building (not a mosque) in Abids. Akabaruddin openly professed, on record on camera, that if Tasleema ever set foot again on the soil of Hyderabad, she would be beheaded. That’s right, ‘beheaded’. Mr. Kasu Krishna Reddy, the Civil Supplies minister in the erstwhile YSR government was booted out when he went to inspect government-run fair price shops in the old city. The old city of Hyderabad is MIM bailiwick and nobody should doubt it.

This then is the secular Muslim face that is often seen on Barkha’s debates. That the methods adopted by MIM work, no one need doubt. Begum Barkha and her cohorts in other news channels are only too aware that the party or for that matter any Muslim organisation is not to be trifled with. Hence the deference, nay reverence to them. On the other hand the merest of protest earns the Hindus the endearing epithet, ‘goons’.

One occasionally sees Farah Naqvi as an articulate, fluent-English-speaking female Muslim face on TV. But she should be remembered more for an article she wrote in Deccan Chronicle some time ago. In it, she rather breezily advanced the theory that the issue of Kashmiri Pandits has been ‘highly romanticised’. According to her, the Pandits have been doing rather well – in the camps or out of them - having assimilated into civilian life during the last twenty years.

Both Owaisi and Naqvi dispel the popular misconception that only bearded Mullahs and impoverished Muslims take to militant religious activism. For, Owaisi belongs to the upper crust of the society being a part of the ruling establishment of the erstwhile Nizam State. He studied law in London. And from all appearances Naqvi must belong to at least the upper-middle class if not above.

P.S.: See The Ram Janmbhoomi Verdict: News and Discussion for reading interesting excerpts from the LB-AHC judgement. They include cross examination transcripts of the evidence tendered by the 'secular' historians, archaeologists and other witnesses and also the judges' observations which nailed the 'Eminences' and exposed their lies. Special mention must be made of the contribution of “Chaanakya” who has painstakingly waded through the voluminous judgement and pieced together relevant excerpts to enable us to understand it.

See also:

AYODHYA, IS IT JUST A TITLE DISPUTE?