Who is a bad politician, Mr. Salman Khurshid?

When politicians do some introspection, they are planning to quit their party, or have got wind of being thrown out, or they have decided that a little bit of self-whipping adds a tragic edge to their persona, besides being trumpeted as “plain-speak”.

On Sunday, while addressing bureaucrats on Civil Services Day, Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid elaborated on the subject of 'Civil Services: Fit for the Future?' It was a ridiculously-worded subject, to begin with. Does it mean the services are unfit now, or that they will take over the future?

Let us take his words:

"We can make a civil servant fit but the big question is that how do we get fit politicians? It's my opinion that the electoral system we have is actually inclined to find the worst people for politics. Good people stay away from politics.”

The electoral system does not find politicians; it elects what is on offer. It is political parties that recruit members and then, depending on sycophancy, nepotism and, in rare cases, performance, they manage to get a ticket to political heaven.

As usual, the media started discussing the straightforward Mr. Khurshid, who is not quite the perfect politician himself. It turned out to be a smart move, then, for the FM. He was not critiquing political parties that are the root cause of the problem; he used an amorphous idea of politics with the good-bad moral masala to it. If good people are so important, then why are the ones that are proven to be bad allowed to remain in politics and hold important positions? We have criminals who are granted tickets and even contest from behind bars.

Besides, how does one define good people? Are they capable, are they honest, are they team players, are they individualistic? All these questions apply to any profession. Politics is not even seen as profession. You have businessmen, lawyers, doctors, journalists, film stars, armymen being welcomed. One does not appear to need any qualification other than to “serve the people”. Take a look at how portfolios are handed out. Does the industries minister know a thing about industries? Or, the civil aviation, education, environment ministers? These, as the others, would benefit from some knowledge, if not specialisation. Instead, those who are qualified end up in the Planning Commission or such mindless ‘bodies’.

I also have a problem with this ‘good people’ optimism that is floating around. It is clearly an attempt to get hold of the youth/citizens’ groups, assuming that because they are out in the streets fighting for a cause, their heart is in the right place. Goodness, apparently, is about such ‘heartfelt’ expressions.  

Mr. Khurshid chose a non-political platform, and would not dare name the bad politicians. His words were essentially to co-opt the bureaucrats:

"We stopped trusting each other. Both politicians and civil servants can make mistakes but now every mistake is seen as corruption. We need role models in civil servants and politicians for national renaissance.”

There! All those files and scams are now nothing about “good people”, but how every mistake by bureaucrats and politicians gets magnified as corruption. We do not need role models; we need people who can do their job. We do not need a renaissance; we need to clear the garbage.

There was a point when the minister seemed to have become a priest:

He said the idea of 'committed bureaucracy' in some states with civil servants owing allegiance to a particular party was an unwelcome thing and advised bureaucrats to say no to signing files under political pressure. When asked by a secretary-level officer in the audience that he would pay the price since there would be ten other bureaucrats ready to take his place and sign the file, Khurshid said: "Those ten civil servants will not be remembered in history...only that one will be remembered."

For the information on the ‘good’ minister, bureaucrats have a history of being independently corrupt. Mantralaya, and its equivalents in the states and the Centre, is the first stop for businessmen and others who want to get their work done. The “chai-paani” (a little bribe) phrase starts at the peon level and the “kaam ho jaayega” (the work will be done) is the final nod from the boss. This is where files do the good old in-out.

If it is a big ticket passing of orders, it needs government approval.  It does not matter to the bureaucrat who is in power, but who will make him powerful enough or be ignorant enough to ignore what happens. Mr. Khurshid wanted to make the civil servants feel empowered, but putting the onus on a ‘committed bureaucracy’ is like asking a guy to carry a condom in a whorehouse. It is only about saving one’s skin.

As regards history remembering a bureaucrat, the minister might like to take the names of a few. He will find that their achievements are about what they did for which leader. Perhaps, this whole exercise was to prop up one bureaucrat who became a politician and history will certainly remember – our dear Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh.

PS: It is worth noting that there is no Politicians Day.

© Farzana Versey

Of shooting orders, noses, and pictures that brutalise

President Barack Obama can kill anyone. Or, his administration can. Needless to say ‘anyone’ here means persons who pose a “threat”, and for the United States of America it is the al-Qaida. Now that it has done away with Osama, is moving out of Afghanistan, and is a bit strapped for taking any overt action against Iran, the target practice begins at home.

If the threats come from US recruits of the organisation, the President’s office can get rid of its own citizens abroad without consulting a federal court.

US Attorney General Eric Holder said:

“Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a US citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack. In that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the US with lethal force.”

This is dangerous for a few reasons:

• If the US government does not know where the terrorists hide or how they operate, and we have evidence of it by the long-drawn out wars, then how would it assume there are threats?

• If you do not know where they hide and therefore it is not feasible to capture them, then how will it be easy to spot them to kill? 

• If the US knows that there is a possibility of violent attack, its intelligence agencies would know where it comes from. Isn’t it amazing that these agencies can recognise an American citizen as an al Qaida recruit who is a threat, but cannot figure out what to do with him? Has he put up the Stars and Stripes in some hidden location so that people can recognise his nationality?

• How would the American government be so sure that the lethal threat is planned against the US? How many times in the past decade has the country been attacked?

This move is just a carte blanche to do as it pleases, round up the usual suspects and make it difficult for ordinary American citizens whose origins are elsewhere. They may be second generation immigrants who have no links with the country of their parents’ birth.

This is not to deny that young people have become acutely aware of their identity. Part of it is brainwashing, and part of it is most certainly the result of being socially targeted without any cause. These are a few. The US is supposed to know a lot about everything that happens in the world, so why can it not keep a track of its own citizens?

Why did it insist on getting David Headley back for trial? How did this US citizen manage to visit India and Pakistan? The US did not capture him. He was handed over. And the story of what he did and why will continue because the United States of America does not want anyone captured. It wants to kill, and not have to answer inconvenient questions.

- - -

Cosmetic surgery is not halal. An Egyptian member of the Islamic Al-Nour party has discovered. Or, rather, he knew already, that is the reason Anwar al-Balkimy explained away his bandaged nose as the result of being beaten up by gangsters in a robbery attempt.

His fib was exposed and he was expelled from the party and had to issue an apology. However, there will be an official inquiry and if found guilty he might be imprisoned for “creating anxiety among the public” and “worrying public officials”!

Does the public care? If only some of these purist groups took a look behind the hijaabs, they’d find blonde streaks and heavy make-up. Men probably use quite a few things that make them look and feel good.

It is indeed possible that somewhere in the religious texts there is a provision for not tampering with the body. There was no concept of cosmetic surgery until a few decades ago. If a person suffers from severe burns, will there be no skin grafting? This is reconstructive surgery and is meant to repair the appearance, for it does not necessarily hamper the functioning of other organs. So, what is the fuss about? Perhaps, the MP had problems with breathing because of his nose structure. Or, it may as well be that he wanted to alter the shape because he felt like it.

He has not changed as a person, so his nose should concern no one but him and his god, if they insist.

- - -

You are seeing this photograph and are revolted. Everyone is. However, what does come out of this? Today’s Mumbai Mirror had a front page story on this one picture – of a man who survives by begging, has no one and lives on the streets. He was beaten up, and it transpires it was by the cops. The important thing to note is that this photograph first appeared in yesterday’s issue. The writeup expressed remorse and anger, but no one knew who the people beating him up were. In today’s edition, Pritish Nandy says "These brutes must be punished". But, when he states that people just stood there and did nothing, he forgets to ask: did the newspaper’s photographer do anything?

And this is the long caption that went with it:

On a pavement opposite CST, scores of people were momentarily distracted from their vada pavs and chai by the screams of this dishevelled man in the picture. The drama started around 2 pm when a group of six, carrying canes, ordered the man to get into a police vehicle, which already had around 20 others. When he refused, he was thrashed mercilessly; the lashings didn’t stop even when blood started gushing out of his forehead. Shopkeepers by the pavement said the man was homeless, and would often be found looking for food in the garbage bins. There was no confirmation whether the assaulters were policemen; the man was finally bundled into a vehicle, driven away to an unknown destination.

Apparently, somebody wrote this seeing the picture and talking to the photographer. It was a “drama”, and now we have a story.

Is it always about a story, and then the claim of being the first to ‘expose’ how callous we are? Are they not ‘we’? Brutality, anyone?

- - -


Images: Telegraph, The Guardian, Mumbai Mirror

Fifty-fifty and Half-Indians

Rahul, Katrina: the hybrids

He is half-Italian. Why did she have to apologise to Rahul Gandhi?

Actress Katrina Kaif made a harmless comment, primarily because her own origins are questioned:

"Am I supposed to be ashamed that I am half Asian, half European? I mean, no! Rahul Gandhi is half-Indian, half-Italian. So? I am very proud of what I am and I just don’t understand the confusion - as if I’m trying to hide the fact that my mother’s British. Why would I? "

Indians are obsessed with the gori/gora, but when it comes to certain visible professions there is a call for the pure ‘nationality’. We will have pizza with pudina (mint) chutney, but our powerful people must not be hybrids.

Ironically, the person defending Rahul’s purity is dismissive about the real Indian. Congress spokesperson Manish Tiwari said:

"Katrina Kaif kaun hai, main nahi janta. Kal ko aap Johnny Lever ke bayan par pratikriya mangege. Raajniti ko kitna neeche lekar jayenge (I don't know who Katrina Kaif is. Tomorrow, you will ask our reactions on Johnny Lever. To what levels will you bring politics down?)"

He should apologise to Johny Lever. He at least makes us laugh, despite his sometimes over-the-top humour, and does so in his capacity as a comedian in films. Not like the jokers in politics who do not intend to make us laugh but are tragically funny.

I do not understand why anyone had to get a response at all on Katrina’s comment. And Mr. Manish Tiwari (who you?), politics is down already and politicians need film stars to go out and campaign for them. It is lame that you do not know who Katrina Kaif is. Chances are that you would like to. That aside, if having to comment on Johny Lever amounts to bringing down politics, then you are wrong. It really elevates it, for no people’s movement can achieve what a stand-up act can do to expose you straw warriors. Mr. Lever has struggled hard and one knows that he comes from a rather impoverished background. It is creditable that he is where he is today and it is also a fact that he encourages new comedians.

Think a hundred times before you open your mouth about an Indian citizen only to curry favour with your boss, assuming he likes curries.

The Buffett-Gates lot lecture Indian industrialists on philanthropy and it is fine; NRIs who do well overseas are glorified. Foreign labels are coveted. What brand is Manish Tiwari’s watch, his shades, his shoes, his fragrance? So, does he smell half Armani-half Indian sweat? Indian time-Swiss watch; Indian eyes/feet covered with Italian eye/footwear?

Given the manner in which we are obsequious to the foreign aspect, why has Katrina's statement been perceived as almost an insult to Rahul's Indianness? His father was half-Kashmiri, half-Parsi, and since Parsis are originally from Iran it would make him part Iranian. Omar Abdullah is half-Indian, half-British. And are Manmohan Singh and L.K.Advani not full Pakistani?

I wish we were an India where people did not have to hide their identities. Had there been no political opposition to Sonia Gandhi’s origins, although she has survived marvellously well, would her son proudly declare he is half-Italian? It is unfortunate that she took Indian citizenship rather late. But what about the rich Indians who conceive babies in India or wherever and then go overseas to deliver so that the child gets citizenship of that country? Sonia’s nationality now is Indian. Rahul is an Indian, but due to the nonsensical touchiness over this ‘controversy’, he should publicly declare that, yes, his mother is Italian by birth. Such openness is not a mere reaction to some puerile issue; it is about facing facts that we Indians are so adept at skirting.

We want to be like Shanghai and Singapore, so maybe some young Indian leader should find a partner from one of these places. Perhaps, the offspring will have the right genes and we will get to be like the desired city or nation that we so shamelessly flaunt as a national ambition. Then, we may have to say that we are half-India, not just half-Indians.

Side note:

Does anyone like the slightly sweet, slightly salty biscuit Fifty-fifty? Does anyone remember the ad that said, “It’s a toffee, no it’s coffee,” with a mouthful and the tagline: “Melody khao, khud jaan jao” for the coffee-flavoured toffee? Just thought about it because I have these half and half type snacks and sweets. And sometimes I have half a mind…to hit someone.

- - -
Image: NDTV