Bitter vs. Insecure: The Natwar Singh-Sonia Gandhi Saga

Natwar Singh is right about one thing: Sonia Gandhi should have kept quiet. The one-time Congress loyalist and senior minister has written his memoirs in which there are some unsavoury references to the Congress party chief. Irrespective of whether he wrote it out of bitterness (he was made to leave after the oil scam), it would be quite a natural thing for him to talk about his tenure in the government, and it might include his perspective on the people he was interacting with.

Sonia Gandhi told reporters in Parliament:

"I will write my own book and then everyone will come to know everything... the only way truth will come out is if I write. I am serious about it and I will be writing."

This is disturbing. It assumes that her truth is truer. Just as there are people who will not buy all of Natwar Singh's 'truth', there will be others who would question her version. The one incident that seems to have had an impact is that she refused the prime ministerial position not because of the "inner voice", the touted reason, but because Rahul Gandhi gave her 24 hours to refuse because he thought she too might be killed like his father Rajiv Gandhi was.

To any observer, both seem relevant. A son wanting to protect his mother is a most natural emotion, and a woman cast as an outsider might realise that this space has its own niche and abjure overt power. A good sixth sense, or inner voice, has saved many.

She is a politically pragmatic person. As I wrote in The Accidental Prima Donna:

While her slain husband and two children were hesitant to enter the fray, Sonia Gandhi was never a reluctant politician. Her refusal to be the prime minister was also a political act that stood her in good stead. Indians connect emotionally with detachment. She came across as one not ambitious for herself.

Therefore, the Natwar natter would have just fallen by the wayside had she not responded. Now, people with some sense will expect a sanitised book from her. They will read it, but might doubt its veracity even more. For, if he is a "bitter man", then she is a defensive woman. Such statements make it only worse:

"I can't be hurt (by revelations), I have seen my mother-in-law riddled with bullets, my husband dead...I am far from getting hurt with these things. Let them continue to do this, it will not affect me... They can continue to do this if they so please."

By saying this she has exposed her hurt more sharply. Which secure person would in a flash decide to write a book to clarify their own position? And why is former PM Manmohan Singh saying, "Private conversations should not be made public for capital gains"? An expensive book in English reaches a limited number of people.

Dr. Singh probably does not like the fact that he is portrayed as someone who had no real power, and all files went to Ms. Gandhi. In retirement he would want to salvage his reputation. Circumspection is a good thing, but responding to the rash isn't particularly circumspect.

The Congress Party members will all huddle together anyway, and certainly not protest against their leader only because she listened to her son. If anything, they will see him as someone who has real influence on her and is therefore the leader they believed he ought to be.

Natwar Singh quit the party only in 2008; he was forced to resign in 2005 for the Iraqi food-for-oil scam. This itself is revealing. If he was bitter, why did he not leave the party immediately or prove his innocence then, as he claims now?

It would take naïveté of some kind to blindly fall for his interpretation, especially if he comes up with statements like these:

"No Indian would treat a man who was loyal to family for 45 years who had been very close to her and 30 years older. .... It is just not done in India. There is a part (of Sonia) which is ruthless."

And further:

Asked if that was her Italian part, he shot back, asking what else can it be adding, "some part of it is not India. Jawarlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi would not be like that".

He is sounding like a political rookie, treating this as some sort of soap opera. By emphasising his loyalty he is inadvertently justifying her arrogance that he seems to have issues with. The India of his imagination is certainly not real. Age is not respected even in everyday social situations; in this case it was professional. His insistence on making it unprofessional is grating and obsequious, for ultimately he is holding a candle for most of the Nehru-Gandhi family even if it means ignoring their ruthlessness.

Natwar Singh also needs a quick visit to Italy to discover how they uphold family values. Or he can just get DVDs of 'The Godfather' series. The Italian mafia too respected the unit. In Don Corleone's words: "A man who doesn't spend time with his family can never be a real man."


© Farzana Versey

Food for politics: a restaurant and a hug

Does anyone remember those Irani restaurants in Mumbai that had eccentric notes put up — no combing hair near wash basin, no loud chatter, and no talking politics?

The first seemed the prerogative of the owners, the second as a consideration for other diners, and the last must have been the result of some bad experience in the past. Or, perhaps the owners truly believed that eating and politics together are bad for the stomach. It is also possible that they had strong opinions and did not relish the idea that some contrary views would be expressed, leading to a 'rebel clientele'.

Likewise, when I eat out and check the bill, the last thing I want is the owner to give me political bhaashan, while cribbing about taxes. Even the grocery stores did not do so due to the LBT taxes. They went on strike. The humble vegetable vendor has no recourse and has to put up with haggling.

On Tuesday, a small eatery made news for its bill that had these words: “As per UPA govt eating money (2G, coal, CWG scam) is a necessity and eating food in AC restaurants is a luxury.”

Aditi Restaurant in Parel was forced to shut down by Congress workers for this "defamation". There is anger and there is mirth.

And with these two emotions, there seems to be no room for people breathing heavy about freedom of expression to ask:

• Who made this bill public and why?

• What are the political affiliations, if any, of the owners?

• Do customers have a right to protest against political and social messages at a place where they pay for the services?

• The bill has no tax visible. How much is it fattening the cost of the meal under the guise of taxation and keeping a bit for itself?

• Are customers of various products and services, who have chosen to pay up the extra amount, willing to put up with such a rant?

What made Narendra Modi jump in? Why was he concerned about a little eating place when he has shown scant regard for worse?

The desperation of the BJP is such that it raised the matter in the state assembly: "This is shocking. The ruling party does not want to give the people right to protest against their scams. Why is the Congress so intolerant?"

The Congress is intolerant. These scams are real. The ministers have been arrested and spent time in jail; some got away. We have courts, even if we may not agree with the verdicts. We have the Right to Information.

The restaurant owner has every right to protest against scams when there are protest rallies or through other means. He has no business sneaking in political messages only to complain about taxes. In fact, he has no business passing on his tax worries on the customer, unless a customer specifically asks him about an inflated bill.

A report said:

"The Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association (AHAR) sources said that Aditi restaurant mostly caters to poor people coming to hospitals in the area, so there were complaints about high billing due to taxes. The owner, they said, had given expression to those complaints through a footnote in the bill."

This is lame. It is an aircondioned restaurant and the tax is specifically for AC ones. How many poor people visit such places? Would those coming from hospitals be bothered? And why should anyone? They do not know in advance what to expect and only later does the message hit home while paying.

What if instead of Congress goons a visitor had protested? Some can get rowdy. Would it have made news? Perhaps. If the owner had the instinct to smell an opportunity. On the day it was shut (it reopened on Tuesday) people had already been passing around the menu, planning home delivery and later it made it to their wish list.

The episode shows that anybody can print bills with a message and get instant popularity and martyrdom.

One report in The Times of India sourced its news story from social networks. It was painful to read this:

"Some took up the communal angle. It wouldn’t have been attacked had it been an Italian or a 'Muslim-owned restaurant serving ‘secular’ food', said marketing manager Jayesh Dewana, adding that the reason it had been shut was that it served 'Hindu, pure vegetarian' fare."

Unfortunate as it is, I am sure this is not an isolated opinion. What is secular food? How many vegetarian places have been shut down? Does a restaurant have a religion?

These are people fighting for freedom? Look at how chained they are. They are the ones who run down 'Muslim' eateries for their choice of fare and assume it is some Arabisation plot. These are the ignorant who do not know that in this same city such places were destroyed in the riots of 1993.

So, let us ask some questions:

1. Would Shri Narendra Modi's men permit Muslim-owned restaurants in Gujarat to have a message against 2002 riots on the bill?

2. Would an eatery in Chhatisgarh get away by announcing it sympathises with Maoist ideology?

3. Would a Sikh at his dhabha be able to seek the support of customers to petition against Sajjan Kumar?

You know the answer.

And despite my empathy for all the above, I would not like it. I am going to eat, not be saddled with problems, even though I am more than aware of them.

This would amount to misusing a client's space and proselytising.

Don't 'charge' me for it. Hand me a pamphlet separately, if you must.

This overarching culture of protest that is gaining currency to "reach millions" through short sentences is hot air. Those protesting against the shutdown of a restaurant are usually silent when people are rounded up on 'suspicion' for crimes they never commit. It is so easy to take up the cause of safe underdogs.

The holy hug

On Sunday, at an Iftaar organised by MLA Baba Siddiqui a rather normal greeting became an 'epic moment'. Two Bollywood biggies, reportedly not the best of friends, embraced. Salman Khan and Shahrukh Khan made it to the front page of some mainstream newspapers.

I watched one such barf-inducing clip on TV two days later. This nonsense was still being talked about. Realising how important this was, the host called out to the photographers to capture it.

My views on political iftaars are not new. I abhor them. Worse, this one was at a five-star hotel. What sort of austerity is it? Then to make it into a photo-op. I was shocked when the host, obviously on asked how he felt, said he had nothing to do with it. It was all Allah, he was merely a means. I would like to know why, in that case, Allah did not intervene when they had that big fight.

Leave religion alone.

© Farzana Versey

BJP's Backroom Boy: Kejriwal

The only person who is probably surprised that Nitin Gadkari’s name has come up in the grand Arvind Kejriwal expose would probably be Nitin Gadkari himself.  

Not because of the accusations of financial deals, which no politician likes exposed, but due to not being even recognised as a politician at all:

“Gadkari is not in politics, he is not a politician. He is using BJP to further his business interests. It is sad that BJP amended its constitution to give a second term to the BJP President.”

So, cry hoarse as much as you want to. Kejriwal is the BJP’s backroom boy. After outing Robert Vadra and Salman Khurshid, he had to portray a semblance of parity in corruption. His India Against Corruption (IAC) is not breaking new ground. In fact, his target is the UPA. Here:

Kejriwal said that Gadkari was illegally favoured by Maharashtra government in allocation of farm land and also alleged quid pro quo with the ruling political party in this land allotment. Kejriwal said that Gadkari was in league with Congress-NCP to get undue personal favours. “Is BJP the opposition party or the partner of the ruling party?" Kejriwal questioned.

When he accused Robert Vadra, it became a Gandhi family and Congress issue. When it was against Salman Khurshid and his Trust, it again became a Congress issue. Now that it is the BJP President, why is he not as scathing against the party?

One has to be naïve to imagine that when it comes to making a political choice Kejriwal will not join hands with the BJP. His revelation against Gadkari has two purposes:

1. Show that he is non-partisan
2. Choose the out-of-favour BJP man as target

Neither works as intended. 

Gadkari has a business empire. So does Sharad Pawar. Why has he not named Pawar? Why has he not named other BJP leaders who stashed money? Is corruption only about acquiring wealth or also about ensuring that you stay in power by disbursing wealth and permits? In the Vadra and Khurshid cases, he was certainly more clear.

Everyone knows that certain people in the BJP want Gadkari out. Kejriwal is playing for them. More importantly, he has made the BJP into some sort of martyr trapped into making this tough choice. There are the usual noises in the BJP. It seems too pat, in some cases rehearsed.

Would he like to stretch the argument and ask how the BJP president, by denying the farmers of what was theirs, managed to hold on to his seat in the ‘clean’ party? Was he possibly keeping some people happy within? Does it mean that every single person who is in a position is capable of doing so?

It is unfortunate that every single day for a few months now, Indians are being treated to this bizarre tantalising show. After the Anna and Ramdev tamashas, Kejriwal – the most self-righteous among the lot – is indulging in what he accuses others of: playing politics. That is his aim and that is what he has always been from the very start.

Forming a political party on the basis of exposing others is churlish. However, we give him space and time because we are spoon-fed this sort of weak ideology of uprightness in contemporary times. It is essentially an advertisement for the man. He is selling himself.

Why are we buying him? Does everyone believe him? Is he the new messiah?

The answer to all is an emphatic no. Arvind Kejriwal will be swallowed into the big party and sent off to handle farmers.For all his concern about them, he knows that in the Indian political scheme this is "chillar" (small change), a word Nitin Gadkari used for his expose.

Sonia Gandhi Too Can Be Prez

The race for the President of India has probably never been as enthusiastic as it is for the new term.

Why has the 'rubber stamp' become important? Or, is it just so much noise? Both. This time, however, the latter feeds on the former.

President Pratibha Patil has been embroiled in land deals. Not all presidents have had a clean record; they've also played along with the ruling party's stand. Did Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed have a choice when Indira Gandhi declared Emergency?

Constitutionally, yes. Article 53 says that the President can act on her/his own, being the head of state and of the legislature, executive and judiciary wings as also chief of the armed forces. Yet, how often has the President intervened?

The names being thrown around have turned it into a farce. Why is it imperative to break the mould now, if we've lived with titular heads all along? Would it not be counterproductive to have a politically-active president?

That's the point. It is a proactive position and not akin to a Rajya Sabha seat given to some film star, cricketer, mediaperson, or even a person qualified in jurisprudence.

It is no surprise that political parties as well as the junta has joined in. Madame Patil's foreign jaunts have brought out the citizens, many with lame jokes about her demeanour.

This is a political process and should not be outsourced to populist movements and their satellites.

Therefore, let us leave the lawyers, the foreign policy analysts, and other professionals out of this. A.P.J.Abdul Kalam, a scientist, was chosen because of the Indian bomb and not due to our acknowledgement of science. And, anyway, the post is not a sop. Acceptance by all clearly reveals that the President has to be impartial. This is not the impartiality of one who has no stand, but whose own position on issues can run parallel to the demands of democracy.

Despite the political machinations by different parties, I still believe we need a political President. More importantly, someone who can use the powers vested in the role when needed. The three pillars are often at odds and a political strategy can come to good use.

Every party is fighting over their choice. Mamata Banerjee has vetoed the idea of Pranab Mukherjee and suggested Lok Sabha speaker Meira Kumar, saying, "I love her. She is soft-spoken." It's a curious reason, but not a bad choice.

I'll skip other probables, though I do get a kick imagining defence minister A.K.Antony as Prez and former Army Chief V.K.Singh as Vice Prez.

I am not sure whether anyone has suggested it, but think about Sonia Gandhi in that role.

The reasons?

She has proved that she is a fine strategist.

The UPA needs to let go of the apron strings. Such obsequious behaviour will not benefit the party or the ministers.

The dynasty does not stand a chance, and must not. If Rahul Gandhi has to make a mark, then he has to be left on his own.

The Congress may get brownie points, but only if she remains impartial.

The BJP is priming up for a prime ministerial candidate, and propping up Sonia for a presidential role might get it more points than developing water parks and malls and relying on one man seeking a US visa.

Regional parties will have a 'rootless' person as head of state, so no conflict.

In fact, it would be in the fitness of things if M. Karunanidhi or Arun Jaitley became Vice President.

Of course, many would baulk at the thought. But think about it: She has the experience of being closely involved with the work of three prime ministers with very different ways of managing and thinking.

This might end up being a sop after all, but Indian democracy might learn a few lessons in managing contradictions and contra-indications

Reservations, Minorityism and the UID Threat

Do not expect the UID (Unique Identity) scheme to track absconders and the corrupt. It will see to it that the backward remain where they are with a mid-day meal and an occasional trip to the local Disneyland ensured.

Reservations, Minorityism and the UID Threat
by Farzana Versey
Countercurrents, March 17

Who is really exploiting the reservation policy? If this is the constant fear, then there is more going on than we know. If politicians back certain groups for electoral ends, then those groups are not to be blamed. It was indeed shocking to read the Times of India editorial pick on the Gujjar and Jat communities that have demanded reservations and pass a blanket verdict:

“Today, reservation has ended up creating ‘creamy layers’ in targeted sections. The Supreme Court’s 50% ceiling on quota has been breached as well, as in Tamil Nadu. Quotas were meant to facilitate upward mobility in terms of jobs, livelihoods or status.”

What about sectors where the real 50 per cent are not considered? This has not happened because of more reservations, but due to the nature of nepotism and promoting one’s own, and it starts at the lowest level of bureaucracy to the highest power centres. On what grounds can it be stated that quotas are about upward mobility when public visibility ensures that they are recognised as the downtrodden? How many top positions have been filled with this reservation policy? How many candidates standing for elections are given this opportunity, unless it is to woo the constituency, and this is done by all sections – the Brahmins, the Rajputs, the Muslims, the Christians in their respective majority areas?

The editorial goes on to say that “six decades ago, it was thought that ostracised and marginalised groups needed reservation only as a time-bound instrument of socio-economic levelling. India has come a long way since then”. If that were the case then there would be no need for other groups to downplay their status, not in a country where recognised as heirs and designated with labels is so very important. There was much media attention paid to an over-the-top wedding of the children of two Gujjar politicians in Haryana. It does not reveal prosperity of the community as a whole, although it does make the upper castes uncomfortable to see their ostentation mimicked. It therefore acts as a convenient stick to beat the issue with:

“Clearly, if we’re to have reservation, it must be based on the economic criterion. More important, quota-based positive discrimination must make way for affirmative action in the form of efficient services delivery to the poor across the social board.”

While economically-backward people from all communities must benefit in terms of opportunity, how will such action be carried out? In the unorganised sector where daily wage is the mode of earning, there is no talk of reservation. Those are among the poorest people irrespective of their caste. Where has this great economic leap reached them? The definition of welfare does not have to be relegated only to paper.


It is pathetic to see the media playing the role of government spokespersons. The UPA gets a pat on the back for its food, health and “need” based schemes:

“Whereas quotas create social friction by building coddled niches, welfare-for-all has unifying potential, and hence can help bridge caste divides. The midday meal scheme in schools – encouraging community eating at a young age – is a case in point.”

Why is there always a problem regarding coddled niches where the SC/ST groups are concerned and not when the fat cats are? How does school children sitting and eating together result in a feeling of community? How many schools do not discriminate in matters of admission and, more importantly, attitude? What mid-day meal schemes are there in the rural areas?

These are camouflages that only serve those in power and probably let the middle-men make some money on the food-packets. Also, eating in a Dalit house does not unify anyone when we know who is eating where.

The worst part of the debate is regarding “fasttracked” development. This will work at the level of lining the roads with potted plants when a foreign dignitary visits. There is a rather vile motive and that is to promote the government’s UID scheme.

“The underprivileged have a sense of powerlessness and low self-esteem precisely because they’ve been treated as a faceless collective to be swayed by political populism, rather than as individual citizens with distinct identities and entitlements. Here’s where UID and financial inclusion come in. By giving the poor identity, financial agency and provable claim to social benefits, such projects can do more good than quotas ever could.”

Okay, so now that they have a face and a card, instead of a broom trailing behind them to clear the path for the others, will they get equal benefits? Or will their identity, stamped and marked, exclude them from certain areas while keeping up the pretence of welfare in others? Won’t their recognised identities help even small politicians trace them and use them for populist reasons, all at the click of a button? Is it not possible that were the younger lot to progress on their own and seek positions they will be tracked and prevented because those wonderful opportunities have been reserved for years for the privileged? Will not such a government-sanctioned identity, where everything from their source of food to their birth control methods are on record, not in fact work as a process of elimination quietly in the background?

Do not expect the UID (Unique Identity) scheme to track absconders and the corrupt. It will see to it that the backward remain where they are with a mid-day meal and an occasional trip to the local Disneyland ensured. India’s economic policy is a showcase, not an internal buffering system. It is about Forbes not welfare.


In this fairytale version of progress, one of the sops that has been thrown in is to give a well-settled institution like the Jamia Millia Islamia minority status. One might well ask where all the talk of welfare is now. In an article Najeeb Jung, the vice-chancellor, mentions that when it became a central university in 1988 with all the relevant faculties working, it had about 50 per cent Muslim students. In 2011, it has the same number. Unfortunately, he sees the positive aspects in what is clearly negative demarcation.

“First, over the last 90 years Muslims have had a sense of ownership and a fierce attachment with Jamia. They believe it is an institution of higher learning set up by their forefathers, to further in essence the cause of Muslim education, and declaring it a minority institution makes them secure in this feeling. Two, with the introduction of reservations for OBCs, the level of reservations in the university would go beyond 50% and therefore over time Muslim numbers will decline.”

Jamia is seen as a secular institution and promoting it as a minority one defeats the purpose. Citing the example of Christian-run colleges does not quite work because most of them have a missionary background and yet a ‘convent’ education is considered prized. The Christian community did not feel any ownership and having studied in such institutes one can say that except for the occasional superficial religious dimension, it was the elite students who felt more of a sense of belonging irrespective of their caste or religion. What the government has done is to make Jamia work as a double OBC unit, in a way.

On the subject of women’s education, Jung writes:

“Today, one of the glorious achievements of the university is that within its campus one frequently sees groups where girls in hijab mix easily with all others.” 

He is playing into a stereotype. Delhi has Muslim students in other universities who go without the hijab. Why does he assume that Muslims do not mix otherwise? The criticism that this could well be a ghetto, as much as is the UID scheme, is valid. And it is proved when he declares:

“While this is a huge affirmative action on the part of the government that the Muslim community must accept with grace and gratitude, I believe the government has put an onus on the Muslims to prove that they can look beyond common perceptions of ghettoisation, fundamentalism and so on and understand that imbedded in this initiative is the challenge to be tested at the altar of competence, professionalism and, above all, commitment to fierce nationalism and secularism that has been the bedrock of Jamia for the past 90 years.”

Technically, the Jamia is anyway entitled to 50 per cent quota for Muslims, so giving it the minority tag is a trap and it is easy to fall into it. Why should there be an onus on one community to prove not only its capability to be professionally qualified but committed to fierce nationalism, which incidentally is at the core of contemporary disparities and communalism?

The devious double dhamaka of minority certified as minority is to push a group into the corner. It is not surprising that an established institution has been chosen for this ‘honour’. It will be used as an example to throw more crumbs at lesser people, be they minorities or the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, all in the name of welfare and unification. The fact is their every footprint is being marked to make certain that they can only walk thus far and no further.

(c) Farzana Versey