Narendra Modi's Fatwa

It is no less than an edict, one which has prompted me to say, "yes, Prime Minister, but..."

Narendra Modi's advise to the ministers sounds school-marmish. Do they have any merit? Some do, some don't. His media-related comments are more important than the rest. Here are two quotes from separate reports:

• Sources said the Prime Minister also asked the MPs not to talk to the media as spokespersons of the party but raise the issues of their own area and constituency with them instead.

• The Prime Minister also advised the parliamentarians to refrain from giving comments to media on national issues. He said they should be polite while dealing with the media.

I completely agree. In the past few years, ministers have struck out on their own during primetime and hurt the party they represent. The ill-timed sound bytes have only given anchors a 'debate', and the issue those remarks are for is soon forgotten. The cacophony coterie thrived in this environment, and became known for outspokenness or idiocy, depending on which side they were on.

The fallout was retraction the morning after. More debates on being misquoted. More TV and print time. It did not matter what the subject was. From coal to land sharks to rape, these made up the rogues gallery. Other panelists, mainly from the media, shared a camaraderie with them. This ensured both got what they wanted — a story.

Most of them lacked expertise in the subject, and were there only due to their availability on speed dial. Why did they come to the studios night after night to be shouted down by anchors? And what did they do? It invariably ended up with the spokespersons protecting their leaders. A Catch-22 situation, no doubt.

It served no purpose. Even offending ministers were back, smiling or sneering, after being anointed/insulted by a media person whose own expertise came from the research done by her/his team. People elect leaders, not journalists. The former owes them responsibility and self-respect. They represent us.

In sensitive cases, there is also the danger of a preemptive remark interfering in a judicial probe. Not everybody is in a position to discuss national or international issues with any degree of conviction, unless they are directly handling that portfolio and have hands-on experience or have worked in the department.

What we know now is which party members are the favoured ones on what channel, which ought to be anathema for freedom of the press. We recall their quotes. Let us not forget how Mani Shankar Aiyer's "chaiwalla" comment gave the BJP and its then PM candidate a new identity, an emotional handle. The quotable quoters are elitist, as is the media that projects them.

Is there a flipside to this? Yes. Since the media is not terribly interested in work done in constituencies, for want of ministers to pin down they might not cover issue-based controversial news as much. Or, if they do, it might become a free-for-all with decoys speaking on behalf of the party. This will provide an easy exit for the head office. A shrug will suffice. If the PM is serious, he should have a team of dedicated spokespersons who do as much homework as he expects from Parliamentarians.

Another reason I welcome this media 'layoff' is that the ball will be in the court of the PM. It is his diktat, his choice to stay away, his ministers are responsible for everything they say.

The media, in fact, has the upper hand here. For every Giriraj Singh utterance, they can go straight to the PMO.

Is the directive dictatorial? No. It would be if there is a complete disconnect between the media and ministers. The media is not being muzzled. As someone who has been right in there, as also an avid objective and, need I emphasise, cynical observer, newspaper and TV journalists will have to rely on independently-investigated stories. It is no secret that 'sources' are often dissenters or opponents. The information is fed to the media, and that becomes a 'scoop'.

Is there a flipside to this too? Yes. The ministers who won't talk about national issues might try and whitewash a few glaring stains in order to please their leader. They might then not feel the need to address the problem because it is not visible, and there are no checks on it.

This does not sound simple because it is not. Therefore, I've tried to give two arguments.

Regarding the other diktats, they are self-evident. Except that doing away with sycophancy is not restricted to dissuading feet-touching. It is good as symbolism, though. We did see Modi during his campaigns touching the feet of elderly voters, and on his first day in Parliament touching the steps of the "temple of democracy". Such gestures are unnecessary, precisely because of the nature of our democracy.

His comment on 'service providers' is interesting: "Before you know it you will find yourself beholden to these people. And it will be difficult to shake them off even if you want to."

Is this restricted only to the ministers in his cabinet? What about the industrialists? He does know there is no free lunch, right?

One cannot also ignore the fact that his short lecture to the ministers came after he superseded them to meet the bureaucrats alone. It is one thing to help streamline procedure and quite another to be the sole authority. I am afraid, but a mindset cannot alter overnight. Bureaucrats are accustomed to pretending to take orders. You give them a carte blanche to handle things and they might change, but only superficially. Instead of going through a layer of benefactors, they will now feel empowered to be answerable only to one.

Narendra Modi is a man in a hurry. That is the problem. He is too busy cutting off branches and painting flowers on the trunks of trees.

© Farzana Versey

---

Image: TOI

Report sources:
Indian Express and IBN

Sunday ka Funda

What’s going on here under the garb of promoting the idea of voting as a right?

Young man stands before visa officer at the US consulate. She is impressed that he has got admission into Boston University. He tells her the date of travel. “Isn’t that the voting day?” He does not know. “Is it?” Then he shrugs that one vote won’t make a difference. To which the stern lady says:

“If you cannot make a difference to your own country, how can you make a difference to another? Why should they have you?”

Fool. The US is ‘having’ him because of his grades, and not because he is voting. And voting does not translate into making a difference. He is projected as some sort of dimwit, which is a bit strange. How did he get into a big university? He is going there with the hope that they make a difference to his life, add to his education. After which, in all likelihood, they will use his brain for their technological benefit, among others. If not, they will not suffer him.

The last thing we need is for Indian democracy to be upheld via the American route.

Third Front or Facade?

How many Third Fronts will we have? Promiscuous political relationships are not likely to last simply because they are not meant to.

What do Nitish Kumar, Sharad Yadav, Naveen Patnaik, Deve Gowda, Om Prakash Chautala and Mulayam Singh Yadav have in common? Does the need to “form this anti-Congress, anti-Modi block” suffice? The BJP also wants a “Congress-mukt (free) Bharat” and the Congress does not want a “communal” party. Therefore, each can qualify as a Third Front if the idea is to oppose a bloc.

It is worrying that parties are coming together at this stage, for the stakes for horse-trading are high now. Rather than an anti-anything move, it appears to be one garnered to make themselves relevant. Many of them have been made irrelevant or have been snubbed. The CPI may not have high ambitions, but it is on the list of all these parties for an alliance. It has already tied up with the AIADMK.

Jayalaitha stated: “AIADMK and CPI have decided to enter into an alliance to face the upcoming Lok Sabha elections together.” Therefore, how would they dethrone Congress to form a “secular and democratic alternative” when the alliance itself if purely electoral?

Nitish Kumar had said, “It’s not exactly a merger of parties, but we can federate these parties.” Given that all of them have only a regional presence, how would they federate? What role would Odisha have in Bihar or UP in Haryana? How much of a presence do these parties have in states where the Congress or BJP are ruling? For that matter, do they even count in Delhi where AAP is holding fort?

Nobody quite knows what such a tie-up entails. Are these alliances designed for the Centre should the results be skewed? Who all would jump in and what happens to the different manifestoes and ideologies of the parties? How many ambitions will they have to deal with?

A small detail has been ignored. The Congress government is a UPA government formed with people like them. The BJP too had ruled as the NDA. Instead of working against the two big parties, the Third Front will in fact give them an opening to pick and choose based on their stated objectives. Did not AAP, which started as pretty much a Third Front prototype, without alliances, end up with ‘support’ from the Congress? Recall the Anna Movement hobnobbing with rightwing parties. What came of it?

There will be more middlemen who will help these alliances for their own ‘cuts’. The Third Front will be fractioned into many smaller groupings and some of these fighters will emerge as victors after joining forces with those they started out opposing.

© Farzana Versey

Why display Tipu's Sword?

Should culture be a denial of history? And what history ought to be remembered?

When Karnataka decided to celebrate Tipu Sultan in their Republic Day tableau, the opposition did not really think about this. For them it was ‘murderer of Hindus, temple destroyer”, and the Congress government was chided for fake secularism. Some even called Tipu, “the Tiger of Mysore”, a Mughal king. This is par for the course for the Hindutva agenda. To be noted is that we never seem to have an issue with the British. Has there been any move to demolish the Gateway of India?

Having said this, the opponents of the opponents are using Tipu’s bravery against the Raj colonial rule, and his death in battle as an example. All very well, but the Indian National Congress cannot take credit for that.

I do indeed have an issue with Tipu Sultan in the January 26 float for the simple reason that India was already an independent nation when it chose to become a republic. We do not need to commemorate kings. And what is this obsession with his sword? Can we forget that it was brought back to India by business tycoon Vijay Mallya in 2003 by paying from his "personal funds" of Rs. 1.5 crore? (The second sword was auctioned in London in 2013.)

At the time it was seen as a political move, and like many political moves it was explained as "rightful legacy" by "a proud Kannadiga". If anything, this is parochialism. Which is also what the tableaux are about.

For us culture seems to be a mish-mash of song and dance from various regions. This is static. It does not convey the growth of a nation. It is as much of an anomaly as display of weapons. Who are these shown off to? What does it convey? That we are prepared to deal with any enemy attack.

It is not too different from Tipu's sword that Karnataka owes to a corporate house, which represents in some ways how we view the enemy of dislocated people today. What about other enemies within? Is it not the duty of the Republic to address these issues?

And if we want an exhibition of culture, then this is one area where we could do with fusion. Why not bring two or three regions to create something together?

History is killed by crude and ostentatious statues of dead heroes used opportunistically. Tipu Sultan is now included in the pantheon. There will be dissonant voices. Why play into them? Why not celebrate what can be instead of what was?

© Farzana Versey

---

Image: India Today

Is the CIA on a leash regarding Benghazi?

One would probably do a double-take thinking of the Barack Obama administration intimidating the CIA operatives who were in Benghazi, when the consulate was attacked.

From this report — welcome, CNN, to the world of tough questions instead of the toeing-the-establishment-line — it seems there is a huge secret and all the agents who were there that night are subjected to polygraph tests, to ensure they do not leak out any information to the media.

You will watch this clip, but the threat is not small. They are worried about their families, they know they cannot get away.

And they are not even Edward Snowden, who had access to so much more.



---

In September, 2012, I had written this:

»Can you imagine Libyan pro-democracy group overtaking the headquarters of an extremist organisation, that too to protest against the killings at the American Consulate? This is what happened in Benghazi against the Ansar al-Sharia:

"Thousands of protesters took to the street earlier on Friday, declaring loudly that they represent the real sentiments of the Libyan people, not those who were behind the deadly attack 10 days ago, reports CNN. One man stated: 'I am sorry America. This is the real Libya'.”

At first I was baffled and elated by turns. It sounds nice. In many ways, it is. But, is this the real Libya? Can we forget that the anti-Gaddafi rebels were looting property and striking poses in his and his family’s homes, making a mockery of the democracy they were claiming as their own?

This is probably to gain international attention. The signs read: “The ambassador was Libya’s friend” and “Libya lost a friend.” Christopher Stevens was known to be a good person. However, the United States at one time was quite comfortable with Col. Gaddafi. They, too, were friends, although he was friendlier with others.«

---

Given what's happening with the CIA, one wonders whether it is not just a civil war in Libya after all.

Sunday ka Funda

“Democracy don't rule the world

You'd better get that in your head

This world is ruled by violence

But I guess that's better left unsaid

From Broadway to the Milky Way

That's a lot of territory indeed

And a man's gonna do what he has to do

When he's got a hungry mouth to feed."

— Bob Dylan

Whistle-blower Edward Snowden leaves for Russia. A 'non-democracy' will protect him. Who would have thought? The answer my friends is blowin' in the wind in this delightful snap clip:

Naya vs Purana Pakistan?

Beep-beep. Early morning. Text message from a friend in Karachi. So, bleary-eyed, I read that “My party has won. It is 5 am here and I am going to sleep!" Big smile. But before that there was a swipe about the fate of Musharraf — he knows I do not dislike the former president, which is of course putting it subtly.


Since Pakistan broke my sleep, I jotted down a few quick thoughts on the election results:


1. For all talk of democracy, it boiled down to the Punjabi, Sindhi, Mohajir, Pathan votes, and Balochi, Ahmadi non-votes.


2. There is always talk about a sympathy wave. If that were the case then the ANP that lost quite a few members to murderous devils would not have been routed.


3. Imran Khan is now a leader, so it's time he behaved like one. And not a tribal chief, even though Khyber Pakhtunkwa gave his party the votes.


4. I can already see the gleam in a certain Indian anchor's eyes as his voice quivers while screaming, "The nation wants to know if Nawaz Sharif will take action against Pervez Musharraf for crossing over to Kargil during the war"!


5. Nawaz Sharif has inherited a huge problem - his brother, Shahbaz.


6. Asif Ali Zardari has too many opponents within the PPP, including his son Bilawal. One of them will grow up.


7. Pakistan will continue to be important to the United States, China, Afghanistan and India for the same reasons as it has been for many years.


8. Imran Khan's slogan of 'Naya Pakistan' was the most potent one. Good varnish job, as happens in almost every country.


Let me end with an appropriate couplet by Faiz Ahmed Faiz:


"har chaaraagar ko chaaraagari se gurez tha
varna humein jo dukh the bahut laa-davaa na the"

(The healer avoided healing, but my troubles were incurable anyway)


© Farzana Versey

Sanjiv Bhatt's Lost Rebellion

Sanjiv Bhatt with wife Shweta

There is a school of thought about fighting the system from within. It rarely works. The system eats you before you can even bring out your fork or finger it.

There is also the halo-giri, where it is assumed that the fight is being done for honour. One such instance is now before us.

Suspended Gujarat IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt’s wife Shweta on Friday announced that she will contest the State Assembly elections on a Congress ticket against Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi from Maninagar constituency in the city.

This is most certainly not a decision she took on her own. She has the backing of her husband, who in turn is backed by the Congress now. I emphasise ‘now’ because he did depose before the Nanavati Commission against Narendra Modi when he, Bhatt, was part of the IPS cadre in Gujarat and wrote to the Supreme Court indicting Modi for complicity. He was suspended.

Shweta Bhatt says:

“We have moved far away from democracy in Gujarat and to restore it, everyone has to do whatever they can. Fighting election against Modi is the logical step in our quest for democracy and to curb anti-democratic forces.”

Electoral democracy means people going to vote and whoever wins is accepted. So Gujarat is a democracy in that limited sense. She could have chosen a word like secularism. Or even dictatorship. But, these are loaded terms and can apply to the party she is now with. By pitting his wife against Modi, he has lost the moral spine of a real dissenter. He stands bare, as one more opportunist willing to sleep with the enemy’s enemy.

Despite some obfuscation and delay on his part, Sanjiv Bhatt did offer a little hope for those who do believe the chief minister owes responsibility for what happens in the state he governs. In a state where Modi is master, the Congress has had no major role to play and, therefore, prove. It knows Modi will win. It does not matter whether they put up a lamp-post against him or Sanjiv Bhatt’s wife. That should concern the officer and gentleman. It will in no way help diminish the crimes he has been fighting against. If anything, he has placed himself in an awkward position where his wife losing could well be used by the Congress as evidence of martyrdom, of having suffered because her husband is a hounded creature.

Well, that is not the case. And Bhatt is probably doing this to keep his options open. A quid pro quo cannot be ruled out, with the Congress promising a Rajya Sabha seat or other goodies. These are political gains.

Modi must be happier than usual. The man who ‘took him on’ on a matter of principle is now playing ball on another court. 

(c) Farzana Versey

Blurred Lines and American Votes

Barack Obama has not won. He just defeated the traditionally bad guy, like burning the symbolic Old Man year after year to herald a new beginning that would arrive anyway.

We had been saturated with analyses in the run-up, and the ones after the elections are not much different, except perhaps for the trivia and the jokes. For example, the one about Ann Romney heaving a sigh of relief that now she wouldn’t have to live in a smaller house.

Indeed, Mitt Romney was too rich for his own good. He could have been Donald Trump. In fact, he could have been so many things.  Even Sarah Palin, if one goes by his performance in the discussion on foreign policy. Or, at least, how the debate was perceived.

In an incisive piece in the form of a note to the Republicans asking them to cheer up because they’ve just elected a moderate Republican, William Saletan wrote in Slate:

“Remember how Democrats ridiculed George W. Bush’s troop surge in Iraq? Obama copied it in Afghanistan. He escalated the drone program, killing off al-Qaida’s leaders. He sent SEAL Team 6 into Pakistan to get Osama Bin Laden. He teamed up with NATO to take down Muammar Qaddafi. He reneged on his pledge to close Guantanamo Bay. He put together a globally enforced regime of sanctions that is bringing Iran’s economy to its knees. That’s why Romney had nothing to say in last month’s foreign policy debate. No sensible Republican president would have done things differently.”

The good thing about the American system is that it has two political parties. For those of us who have to deal with so many conflicting choices, this appears focused. The debates also tend to reveal a level of transparency. The ‘no more than two terms’ rule is also great.

However, what happens when the lines get blurred between the two major parties? Would people not have other options – independents are, well, independent? Aren’t the debates essentially reality TV, and a charade for the most part? Do people really decide based on banter?

President Obama has talked about finishing his work: “the best is yet to come”. While it is true that no political leader can complete the work, it does also imply an element of failure. It may be attributed to circumstantial factors, stubbornness or an attitude of trying to please some or please too many. This sort of optimism is a straw to hang on to when the winds are harsh.

Romney in his concession speech said:

“The nation, as you know, is at a critical point. At a time like this, we can't risk partisan bickering and political posturing. Our leaders have to reach across the aisle to do the people's work. And we citizens also have to rise to the occasion. We look to our teachers and professors. We count on you not just to teach, but to inspire our children with a passion for learning and discovery.”

Think of the months when the two leaders were flinging accusations at each other, of the lies that were tabulated, and of the humongous amount of money spent to prop up much-raking instead of anything concrete and you know that the people vote for what they think is their belief. It is this belief that will bring them out to celebrate, to stand up for what is good, to protest and to occupy, to get beaten up. Because, casting their vote is only the start of the battle. Promises do not ensure rights. For those, it is an ongoing fight.

© Farzana Versey

Libya syncing

Can you imagine Libyan pro-democracy group overtaking the headquarters of an extremist organisation, that too to protest against the killings at the American Consulate? This is what happened in Benghazi against the Ansar al-Sharia:

Thousands of protesters took to the street earlier on Friday, declaring loudly that they represent the real sentiments of the Libyan people, not those who were behind the deadly attack 10 days ago, reports CNN. One man stated: “I am sorry America. This is the real Libya.”

At first I was baffled and elated by turns. It sounds nice. In many ways, it is. But, is this the real Libya? Can we forget that the anti-Gaddafi rebels were looting property and striking poses in his and his family’s homes, making a mockery of the democracy they were claiming as their own?

This is probably to gain international attention. The signs read: “The ambassador was Libya’s friend” and “Libya lost a friend.” Christopher Stevens was known to be a good person. However, the United States at one time was quite comfortable with Col. Gaddafi. They, too, were friends, although he was friendlier with others.

The report has thrown up one interesting fact, though:

Tribal leaders are the strongest social force in the country and have come forward to demand that the militias disband. Tribal leaders in Benghazi and Darna even announced this week that members of their tribes who are also militiamen will not have protection from the tribes when faced with anti-militia protests, meaning the tribe will not avenge them if they die.

And they say the civil war is over in Libya…

Symbols and the Poll Cabaret

Vote the hell! Acting as spoiler, the Election Commission is going to make Uttar Pradesh pardanasheen (veiled). So Mayawati and her saathis, the haathis will be covered:

"The Commission has decided that statues of the CM and elephants (her party symbol) will be draped," Chief Election Commissioner SY Qureshi told reporters here.

Apparently, it is poll time and no such promos are allowed.

Those statues are gross anyway, but why is the EC spending so much time, money and effort when the CM looms larger than the jumbo? Is a statue more representative of the person than she herself is? Will all Congress candidates have to wear gloves to cover their hands, their party symbol?

People are bribed with everything from trips to pilgrim sites to CCTV cameras. Indian democracy can wait; let the fun begin.

It is like Moulin Rouge in the streets. Elections in India are a combination of dance, drama, pantomime, jugglery, and the acrobatic skills of purveyors of false hope. You will hear of the new voices raging like matadors towards bulls, but the red rag is often a cloth of blood. Or a clot. If this is pessimism it is internalised by the very karmic feed from the environment.

But that does not matter. We care little about who is in power and more for getting them there. The pre-ballot ballets are what make it so very interesting. You might find a cow with slogans scrawled on its body or an elephant with posters stuck on it; loudspeakers in open jeeps belt out patriotic songs to Bollywood tunes and film dialogues pass off as socially-relevant messages; election symbols can make you chuckle – would you vote for an independent candidate who thinks a balloon represents her/him? Flowers, birds, animals, vehicles, body parts are on display as party symbols.

Promises are made for rose gardens…yes, they do promise you a rose garden…in a country where people need a place to defecate, where women squat near drains with umbrellas hiding their faces to cover their shame as they extricate remnants of malnourished meals and contaminated water.

These people will be taken in trucks to vote, with bait of a little money or a little ride. The rich will celebrate in fancy bars and watch exit polls as they drink their gin and tonic. The glossies will flash pictures of them showing us their inked index finger, the nail varnish a bright fuchsia.

Gods are brought out in the streets – every faith is pandered to, no god should be unhappy. The people? They are god’s slaves. They are the slaves of leaders. They are the slaves of helplessness. They are we and we are they and we know the difference so well. That is why someone sits on a high chair and gives speeches about the horrible state of affairs. These people get elected and stay behind barricaded walls, eat beneath the light of chandeliers as large as ceilings and from crockery with gold rim, and drink off glasses so fragile that when they break they make no noise.

This is not the only silence you will hear. The silence of people with no voices but feet that can be dragged to the booths to put their stamp on someone’s name, never their own. The faceless ones who live for those days when life is a cabaret.

Coronation Skit: Saif Gets Co-opted

Just suppose Saif Ali Khan had refused to be anointed the new Nawab of Pataudi and instead gone to the district and nearby villages, spoken to the people and said that he would continue with the work in the charitable hospitals: would there have been turmoil? The people there vote for politicians; it is the government that provides the basic infrastructure, the roads, the health plans, the schools, the water, the electricity.

Saif had said that this business of royalty is not applicable anymore; India is a democracy. He should have stood his ground. We do still have these princes around, especially in Rajasthan, transforming their palaces into fancy luxurious hotels while playing on public sentiment. Some enter the political fray and while in Parliament they are the epitome of modernity, what with their western education, but once they reach home turf they are quite willing to be addressed as “Your Lordship”. They get married mostly within the clan or with other royal blood and we still see these princesses, graceful rajkumaris, in special editions of glossy magazines. Even if these royals are running restaurants or designing high street clothes or, of course, promoting the gay cause dressed in pink feathers on their turbans, they still get this halo treatment.

Many bring out their antiques and heritage garments in the name of promoting tradition. This is self-promotion. Not one of them has the courage to shun the pomp and pageantry. To make it seem that it is the junta that wants to keep the symbolism alive is only a small part of the picture. Does the junta, often quite conservative, have a say when these rajahs and nawaabs indulge in their extra-curricular activities? Is the junta allowed to voice an opinion when there are fights over wealth in these regal families? Who represents the junta to anoint the princes? The panchayat? It is a political body. So, these men are just ensuring a constituency.

Since Saif had clear opinions about Indian democracy, he should have not gone ahead with the pagdi (turban) ceremony. It is too soon after his father Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi’s death, anyway. If this is a democracy and he was not ruling, why the hurry to fill the space?

Someone tied a turban and he now has a title. It means nothing, he believes. It would be a fine initiative if he stepped up and said that he had respected the views of the people (if indeed there were such views) and now as their prince they must respect his and follow the government directive. Many of these princes talk about how they are upholding both tradition and modern values, when all they are doing is ensuring that Godiva chocolates are placed at bed-turndown time in the rooms that have an odd ode to culture with a miniature painting or ‘theme’-based furniture and upholstery.

And the media that goes on about the new India, the India that has come out of the stereotype, has been covering this ‘small’event with television interviews on the coronation. If you want the rights of a democracy, then do not make a farce of what it does not stand for only because you get to see blue blood. Of course, the channels will also benefit by getting the ads of the 'prince' endorsing a vest.

Democracy is, I suppose, a fleece market. 

A South Asian Parliament: Killing Us Softly

When was the last time that SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) nations made any significant contribution to solve issues in the neighbourhood? It has not been possible because there is way too much bad blood between us. Besides that, all the nations are internally fractured; some have western troops stationed within their borders. Is idealism, then, a practical solution?

At the current SAARC Conference of Speakers and Parliamentarians in Delhi, Pakistan's National Assembly Speaker Fehmida Mirza came up with a suggestion that sounds good at the coffee table:

“I would like to propose that this forum graduates to the next level where eventually the idea of a South Asian Parliament becomes a reality. Through this idea, I am envisioning a Parliament that commands the trust of 1.7 billion South Asians —- the largest forum of its kind anywhere in the world. I am envisioning a body of legislators, which enables our respective countries to negotiate sustainable solutions to our numerous bilateral and multilateral problems. I am envisioning a forum that will, in fact, infuse a new life into SAARC exactly in the same manner as the European Parliament remains the driving force behind the European Union.”

This is pretty much a repetition of the echoes of “If Berlin can do it then why can’t we?” It is true that Germany has managed to coalesce and the European Union is the tangible face of such a possibility. However, while their histories reveal animosity, there were alignments with other nations during the two major world wars. Their independence, when it happened, was complete. We are still tied to the apron strings of the Commonwealth and run to the UN, where not all the South Asian nations have a say.

Ms. Mirza’s optimism about the 1.7 billion chooses to ignore that India will be the superpower by sheer dint of numbers. Together with this, we also have an India that is significantly more stable and has greater clout. It is also an India that is not particularly interested in its neighbours except as nuisance value, and with sound reason. In such circumstances, when one nation is protecting its borders from three sides, how will it play an important role without keeping in mind its own delicate position?

We have always negotiated bilaterally. Are we ready for Nepal or Bangladesh to pipe in with their views, given that we have problems with them, too?

Ms. Mirza is looking at the future through rose-tinted glasses:

“The lessons of past help us plan our future. In Pakistan, we learnt these lessons the hard way. So when democracy made a comeback in 2008 in our country, the democratic forces pledged to protect and consolidate it by building a strong Parliament, capable of delivering on decades old promises.”

Again, democracy is a pennant that is held up. It does not change the ground realities. Since she has mentioned Pakistan’s example, has there been any attempt to build a strong Parliament? Is democracy about a group chattering away when there are bomb blasts killing civilians every other day? Who has stopped the countries from being “vibrant democracies”?

There is internal strife and there are forces among these countries that try to cause problems for the other. The South Asian Parliament may confabulate but it will be a nice whitewash job while the dirt remains under the carpet. It can also prove to be a sneaky means of scoring points and diverting attention from the backdoor moves being made. Moreover, it will certainly not replace each nation’s government and its policies, so there could be a conflict of interest built into this white elephant Parliament itself.

Interestingly, Ms. Mirza quoted from Nandan Nilekani’s book ‘Imagining India’ to discuss our common shanties and school dropouts. Seriously, it was an ironic moment when she said:

“And when he lamented the tendency of the governments towards repression, I found answers to our people’s disenchantment with the entire democratic process.”

Perhaps it is time to send her a dossier on how the Manmohan Singh government hired Mr. Nilekani to tag people in a manner that Rupert Murdoch would have liked to take tips from.

There are kinds and kinds of repression and right now all the SAARC nations need to put their own houses in order and throw shoes, break chairs and scream in the well of their respective parliaments. We cannot afford fireside chats and legislators who work like comfort men and women. Open travel, open trade, open doors are wonderful but we know what happens and even if it does not the ghosts stalk and doubts are raised. We cannot manage bus services without running metal detectors and security personnel, so all this talk amounts to nothing.

What we need to examine and get into our dense heads is that apart from the electoral process, none of our countries is a practising democracy in the truest sense.

(c) Farzana Versey

The Republic of Ramdev

‘Midnight drama’, ‘Midnight drama’ kept flashing on the screen. Since I had not kept up with the news at midnight, I had no clue. Why do the channels not specify what the drama is? Because that takes away from the TRPs.


The news:

At 1 am, the police landed at the Ramlila ground and took Baba Ramdev to his ashram in Hardwar. Delhi Police served an externment order under Section 144 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which prevents unlawful assembly of five or more persons. The process of doing so resulted in stone throwing, destruction of props and injuries. Should we be surprised? Not at what happened but how it happened and why. My parodic take now seems tragic.

Meanwhile, the Baba is going on and on in a choked voice talking about how the poor, the women and children were dragged and arrested. He is to blame for it. There is no scope for BJP-like self-righteousness here. He bloody well knew what he was doing and when his sly plan to stop the fast after three days was leaked out, he got agitated.One should hope he now realises how it must feel for those who are rounded up and imprisoned for years without a trial for no crime except being 'suspects'.

We are hearing words like ‘blot on democracy’ from the BJP and how he has every right to protest. It is not the BJP’s business to raise a voice now unless they had sponsored this rally. He is a sadhu and this is not a theocracy. No religious figure has a right to protest in a public place on what is a state issue, and that includes Swami Agnivesh and all those mullahs coming out with black bands and white flags or whatever else.

We are playing into the hands of a virulent form of citizen’s movement. None of these people can claim to speak on behalf of the Indian population, not Anna Hazare, not Baba Ramdev. If they wish to, then they should start their own political party and contest elections. That is what democracy is about.

The so-called midnight drama has been likened to the Emergency, which is a most facile analogy.


Here are a few of the characters and their stupidity.


Kapil Sibal, HRD minister, Congress:

“A guru who teaches yoga should not teach politics to his followers of 50,000 people at the site. The permission was for yoga exercises, but he violated it.” 

Why was he walking behind the Baba when he landed at the airport? Was he discussing yoga?

Everybody knew what was going to happen there, so why was it not stopped before it got out of hand? This is a ridiculous argument and Sibal should apologise to the Indian public for misleading us. This is double crossing.

A report says:

An official in the government said that the permission to hold the protest at the site was given for a day and Ramdev and his followers had exceeded it. But the police action has led to a wave of anger among political parties who are now calling for the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to resign.

He has been giving interviews about how he would not end until his demands are met. Manmohan Singh should not resign because it is his job to put things in order. Resigning would be the easy way out. Are we discussing corruption or politics?


Nitin Gadkari, president, Bharatiya Janata Party:

“This government has no moral authority to rule anymore. This government should resign. They let the corrupt go, but beat up people who are conducting peaceful protest.”

How many corrupt people were arrested during the NDA regime? I am not talking only about scams. Corruption is a way of life in India, and it also sponsors movements against corruption. Newspapers bring out duds to show losses and also get additional newsprint; TV channels do something similar. So, what high horse are we sitting on?

Such peaceful protests are pre-planned and arranged by other factions. It happens even within the Congress. All political parties do this and the ordinary people who gather are no different from those who are brought in trucks to vote. If the cops used teargas shells and beat up people, then they should be hauled up and questioned. From what one has read, some people got violent. It is bound to happen when there is such a large gathering. It is also likely that together with the cops there must have been some goons on the ground who caused part of the damage.

There seems to be no stopping BJP spokesperson Arun Jaitley who is supporting the right to protest. In that case, the Kashmiris have a right to protest, the Maoists have a right to protest, riot victims have a right to protest. The problem with a democracy such as ours is that not a single political party is concerned about the rights of the people. Baba Ramdev does not have to be given any assurances by the Government of India. The Indian government is answerable to the citizens, not to individuals, unless they have specific problems or certain groups that represent sections of society.

Using the shield of corruption, these movements are tacitly supporting the rightwing parties. Why were they asleep for all these years? Will Baba Ramdev go and park himself outside the mansions of the big guys who pay big bribes to get their deals? Does he have the courage to perform yoga there? Guess what? He just might because the big guys will pay him to come and teach them and their wives and their kids and those society men and women with their arm candies dressed in comfy designer labels to get their taut bodies in the right asanas.

This is a sick game. People like Digvijay Singh of the Congress just make things worse by calling Ramdev a “thug”. Jaitley is really hot and bothered about “this kind of language”. There was no need to call him a thug; he is a shrewd businessman selling his saintliness. However, the BJP should not be too worried about language. Its politicians are not known to use temperate words – recall Modi on Sonia Gandhi, Thackeray on Sonia and Rahul, Varun Gandhi on Muslims, Uma Bharti on just about everyone. Calling him names transforms him into a hero and martyr and he is making full use of it on live television. Yes, he is live, in white robes like a newly widowed woman.

And I do not like anyone, including the media, talking about Sadhvi Rithambara's presence by mentioning her role in the Babri Masjid demolition; she was not alone. Do not ride on this and cunningly convey that they are against her because of it. It gives the impression that Ramdev’s arrest has something do with Muslim votes. Wait a minute. He had some Sufi belting out songs at his camp.

One cannot wish away corruption even with the Lokpal Bill. The manner in which it is being done is also corrupt because they are greasing the government’s palm with vile methods.

Baba Ramdev to his followers after his externment (not arrest):

“Today is the blackest day in history. We will observe black day all over India. The fast is not over."

Your history, Baba Ramdev, has nothing to do with Indian history. Keep your followers, for that is the only way you can be a leader. Ask them to register a case against the government. Get the BJP to be a co-respondent because they had supported Anna Hazare’s fast. You can continue fasting.

Most of India does. Everyday. Not out of choice. Or to protest.

- - -

Updated on new post

Meera badnam hui zaalim India ke liye?

Time for 'zandu balm'?

Why are Indians taking out morchas saying that the frisking of our ambassador to the US is an insult to India? I think they should object to headlines like ‘Indian envoy Meera Shankar patted down in US’. Seriously, it isn’t funny.

Some say it was because she was wearing a saree and everyone’s patriotism is frothing on placards. I think even the Pakistani former envoy used to wear a saree. So, Ms. Shankar is merely dressing in what she is comfortable and probably accustomed to rather than upholding Indian pride. She is on assignment and could be on the job in Tanzania or somewhere next.

The US airport security is supposedly following the rule books. I know we have complained about other prominent examples and it is time to question the prudence of diplomatic licence. If the US is extra vigilant, then I think every country ought to be. How did David Headley get in here? Wasn’t it the Indian embassy that gave him the visa? Forget this pat down ruckus and trying to make it into a women’s issue, which it is not. We all get ‘patted down’ in our own airports and with all the metal someone like me has on her person they find rather interesting places that are not even pat-downable.

If the VIPs do not want to go through the ‘insult’ then all countries must just insist on a separate enclosure. Let us not carry this ‘mai-baap’ attitude further. Had someone questioned her inappropriately or said something nasty about India, then we have every right to protest.


End quote:

“Our democracy has become a bit too noisy.” Pranab Mukherjee

I understand, Pranabda. When you find a silent democracy please let us know.

Fearless Obama?

The American president, who has been talking about democracy, did not have the basic courtesy to inform another democratic president that he planned to visit his country. Barack Obama made an unscheduled visit to Afghanistan, skirted the capital Kabul and landed straight at the Bagram Air Base where his increasing number of troops are stationed.

Forget what they say, and I mean American commentators, about his concern following the Wikileaks. His comments are enough to raise questions even if they are taken within the context. Here are a few quotes deconstructed:

1. “I know it’s not easy for all of you to be away from home, especially during the holidays. But here’s what I want you to know. As President of the United States, I have no greater responsibility than keeping the American people secure. I could not meet that responsibility, we could not protect the American people, we could not enjoy the blessings of our liberty without the extraordinary service that each and every one of you perform each and every day.”

How many Taliban fighters have been knocking on the doors of the US? Are they a security risk to the American people? There was an act of terror committed on 9/11. It wasn’t the Taliban. Not the Taliban that is at war with its own people. Americans need to be protected from the policies of their government – policies that have taken away their jobs, their homes, their welfare schemes, their healthcare facilities. Many Americans would not know where the heck Bagram is. Check with Sarah Palin.

2. "We said we were going to break the Taliban's momentum and that's what you're doing, you're going on the offense, tired of playing defense."

There are several soldiers lying wounded in the hospitals. Why? Were they not supposed to defend themselves? I know that’s not what he meant. I am just flipping the argument. Soldiers may 'tire' of defensive tactics if they get orders from above or their job clearly states so. They do not attack on their own. Later, there could well be tremendous psychological pressure and they may indulge in forms of offense beyond the front, especially with prisoners.

3. “America is not defined by our borders. We are defined by a common creed. And this holiday season, it’s worth remembering that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights that among these are the right to life, and liberty and pursuit of happiness.”

If America is not defined by its borders, then why does Mr. Obama want to secure the US borders, even due to imagined threats? What common creed is he talking about when social and racial disparities exist in the land of opportunity and political opportunism, as in lands all over the globe? What about the right to life, liberty and happiness of the civilians killed in air strikes in those lands? Oh, of course, this was to ensure that democracy prevailed.

One reads that the US-propped Hamid Karzai regime is terribly corrupt. It is not sponging on American money, but the money of its own citizens. The US Ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, said: "The meeting with AWK highlights one of our major challenges in Afghanistan: how to fight corruption and connect the people to their government when the key government officials are themselves corrupt.”

This should clearly indicate that it is failed US foreign policy. Obama should have met those government officials instead of the PR exercise of three hours with the troops.

4. “So we may face a tough enemy in Afghanistan and we’re in a period of tough challenges back home, but we do not become the nation that we are because we do what’s easy, as Americans, we’ve endured and we’ve grown stronger, and we remain the land of the free only because we are also home of the brave.”

How tough is it to send other people’s fathers, brothers, husbands, sons out to fight an enemy they don’t care about in a place they may barely have any interest in? It is a pity, Mr. President, that you believe the freedom of your people is possible only by the bravery of spreading your armed forces wide.

And, there are other lands that are free in their own way and it is not nice, really, to just drop in to meet your troops without saying hello to the guy who makes it possible for you to be ‘brave’.

Bihar's Mythic Development: No Looking "Backwards"

Bihar's Mythic Development

No Looking "Backwards"
by Farzana Versey
Counterpunch, December 1, 2010

India, once considered a natural democracy, now needs shaky excuses to be so sanctified. Bihar, one of the most backward states in the country, has elected Nitish Kumar’s party, the Janata Dal (United), to power in a ‘stunning victory’. The bellicosity of commentators to be flagholders for such a myth has to be read to be believed.

It is amazing that this glorification is for his second term. Everyone knows that ruling parties have an edge to bulldoze their agendas. Such agendas may include pushing all the real issues under the carpet.

Bihar’s backwardness had little to do with the existence of scheduled castes and more to do with the manner in which they were treated. In Nitish Kumar’s utopian state, caste has got sidelined. This is not cause for celebration but concern. We are talking about a large segment of society being covertly discriminated against by two deceptive options – co-opting and debarring. The larger political spectrum that is being hailed has, in fact, narrowed it to the pyramidal apogee by selective probity.

One report came up with a rather dodgy analysis: “The Bihar results will have rippling effects in other areas where negative agendas of caste and communal forces do not allow people-driven agenda of development.”

Caste and communal forces are about people and do not spring from the bottom but the top; they have been traditional vote-banks thus far. They remain so, but in a non-conservative fashion by being covered beneath the veil of poverty. It is a real issue. However, the trick here is not to deal with poverty but make it a palpable saleable idea. Water, food, education, healthcare, electricity, roads are necessities that are sold as comforts. There is a reason for it; it is to set the ground for the development agencies to send in their quotations. The people of Bihar are not going to say “let there be light” and have shining bulbs nor will dry taps start running by the mere expedient of thirst; roads won’t be tarred for bare feet. All these require raw material, infrastructure and money. The poor obviously do not have money. Therefore, the rich come into the picture.

The rich in Bihar belong to the feudal class or criminal gangs. Both have tremendous political clout if they are not already in politics. It is pertinent to point out that both these categories are extremely caste conscious. The landlords use labour belonging to the lower castes and consolidate their position based on such bondage. Crime, too, relies on caste equations to settle scores. Therefore, the current development will need to not only factor in such disparities but also rely on them. Since over 80 per cent of the population is Hindu, communal politics can be reined in by sheer force. It ought to surprise no one that Nitish Kumar has been an ally of the right-wing parties.

During this election, he skirted Gujarat’s Narendra Modi’s involvement in electoral matters. This was seen as keeping away from a controversial figure. On the contrary, Bihar has cunningly emulated the Modi formula; the snub to Modi could have been a tactic or an ego trip. Either way, he is the role model here. The difference being that Bihar has been considered a backward region, Gujarat is not. But the economic saviours have worked along similar lines by co-opting those they have scant regard for. In Modi’s Gujarat the Muslims have stood by him despite the horrific establishment-engineered riots and killings of 2002; Nitish’s Bihar has used the abused members of society to the same effect by showing them glittering streets and whitewashed ideas.

The female voter turnout has been much-lauded without seeing the larger picture. This is not about empowerment or a woman’s natural understanding of development. Bihar, for all its progress, still has a large number of migrants to other cities. The question to ask is this: if the growth rate is 2.5 per cent more than the national rate of growth, then why have these sons of the soil not returned?

Iconoclasm has the ability to camouflage all con jobs. It is a rather sad statement that the original patented hero of Bihar, Lalu Prasad Yadav, is seen as a beleaguered has-been today. Despite his not-so-clean record and his scams that were out in the open for all to see, he had made Bihar into a brand of sorts. It was not mere rural hubris. If his was a one-man show, then no one really knows of any prominent people in Nitish Kumar’s cabinet. Lalu made no attempt to hide the caste of his candidates; at the national level this is an important element if the reservations policy is to be made use of by adhering to authenticity rather than fakery.

It is also an irony that while Bihar under Lalu Prasad was the only state to prevent the rath yatra of L. K. Advani from passing through in what was to turn out to be the worst communal divide after Partition is now dependent on the BJP. Long before talk about development, Lalu had the courage to appoint backward caste priests and shankaracharyas. These were quite possibly gimmicks, but for a country that still has such an aversion towards Dalits this was a strong statement.

Development must include political vigilance and progressive inclusive thinking. The end of the road is not roads.

Kayani's staying power?

I don’t get it. Pakistan’s army chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani gets a three-year extension and it becomes a major talking point. Why?

I also don’t get it when the Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani calls it "an administrative affair to which the government did not feel necessary to hold consultations with political parties".

Is Pakistan so democratic that it is not just the ruling party but the opposition that has to be consulted? In India many people don’t even know who the army chief is and political parties do not sit and confabulate over such appointments.

Pakistani newspapers are going all ballistic about how good it will be and how bad. We must remember that currently there is no army rule, so this undue attention to an extended tenure undermines the democratic process itself. And let us not go by reports that state this is the second time a civilian government has extended the services of the Chief of Army Staff; the others just gave themselves more time.

If Nawaz Sharif was in London and could not be taken into confidence, it only reveals that the political parties have their own favourites and it is jugglery at the political level. In Pakistan the army is covertly a wing of the civilian government.

The Hindustan Times starts its report by stating that “Many quarters have breathed a sigh of relief” over the announcement:

Military analyst Aisha Siddiqa, author of the book Military Inc, says that the decision to extend the term depended upon three factors — an agreement within the General Headquarters, a nod from the US and support of the political government.

I mean, is this like something unexpected? Has it not always been like this, except when there is a military coup?

Analysts say that while Kayani may be the best option, he may still not be the apolitical army chief that the political leadership hopes for.

There is nothing like apolitical army chief in Pakistan.

The Telegraph, UK, also decided to give some importance to “Gen Kayani, a chain-smoking golfer, (who) has won plaudits for staying out of the political arena.”

Obviously the West sees it differently. Or it knows the truth (his popularity with the US and NATO troops) and wants to look with wide-eyed wonder and concentrate on his chain-smoking and golfing. However, it did make the rather strange assertion:

His position, in charge of the country's military establishment, means he is often regarded as the most powerful man in the country and he has been at the helm of developing policy on India and Afghanistan.

Is one to assume that policy is only about warfare? I think this is obfuscation because if the West pulls the strings, especially in Pakistan’s war against terror, then he is not the most powerful man in Pakistan but the most amenable puppet.

After all this, I still don’t get it. If instead of retiring in November, he stays on till 2013, how will anything change? Pakistan would have an army chief, anyway. That man would do similar things because there is no choice. So, why is everyone talking so much about it? It’s not like he plays baseball.

There is nothing like an Indian Muslim PM

Why should anyone want to know how long it will take for India to have a Muslim prime minister? How does it matter?

Some student from Aligarh Muslim University asked this to Rahul Gandhi; he used the term ‘wazir-e-azam’ to make the Muslimness stand out. Stupid.

I am happy with the way Rahul responded:

“Merit is the only password for the top job in the country, religion is no qualification. What will clinch the issue of one’s suitability (for PM) is one’s competence. Other factors are not just secondary, but insignificant. Let me tell you that even when you do have a Muslim prime minister, he will be a prime minister because he is the most capable person.”

Absolutely. It does not matter that merit is often not the criterion; there is nepotism, there is dynasty, there are mai-baaps waiting with protégées tugging at their dhoti-sherwani-saree. Yet, it is an important statement and it is time people stopped posing such queries. What does one expect from a Muslim PM, anyway?

S/he has to follow the Constitution, has to be answerable to the party General Secretary, has to do Diwali patakhas and Eid iftaar and as a sidelight add some Christmas Santa act and Sikh stuff and whatever it is that Buddhists and Jains do. In effect, be a part-time kafir, if you follow the rule books as interpreted by some rule-book types. After all this fancy dress competition, you make the rounds of various dead people’s graves, place flowers, and look sombre. Then put on an international face and go to summits where you make India sound like a global superpower, and add some concern about the environment and terrorism; usually it is the same thing if you follow Obama and not Al (I mean Gore, not Capone).

You return home and deal with the saffron rightwing, who will say you are going green. The jamaati rightwing will expect you to be jamaat type. Then the PM will hold forth on secularism this and secularism that. The world will say, look, look, India has a Muslim PM. We will be called a real democracy, while Wazir-e-whatever has no clue about little bastis, unless it is election time and one snotty Dalit kid is placed on her/his lap. Back to the jeep, Mossie begum/saab will ask for sanitiser. Some enthusiastic bloke will whisper if it has to be halal. PM will be in a fix so someone will bring out ittar-soaked wet wipes. Everyone will applaud secular India, secular PM, secular people. When what really is happening is that it is the religions, stupid. So, cut it out.

We had a Muslim President who happily signed the Emergency edict. (Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed during Indira Gandhi’s time.) Corrupt people in power, spineless fellows will remain just that. Their faith should be relegated to the private domain. It has no place in the public sphere at all.

Therefore, thumbs up to Rahul. Although he kind of tempered it by promising “there would be 30 young Muslim faces in the political centrestage in five years”. Why? How will they suddenly spring out from the merit quota?

And why must they be referred to as Muslims at all? The day we stop adding such tags in public life, we can say we have truly grown up as a society and a polity.

Aung San Suu Kyi can fly

Aung San Suu Kyi exudes tranquility. The power of still waters that can create such variegated images with a mere ripple. The only way one can admire her is silently.

Her trial has begun. Important people from several countries have congregated. She thanks them and apologises she cannot meet them individually. "Perhaps in better times..." she hopes.

It has been a nineteen-year battle with the Myanmar regime. The citizens are with her. But these are times of voices muffled.

For the last 13 years she has been under house arrest. I find the phrase a contradiction in terms. A house is what makes you just as you create it. If you embellish it, it begins to speak your language. Your house has character. It is the cocoon you retire to when you want to return to yourself.

Being under arrest in a place called home is like being strangled by a loved one.

There have been several instances of such arrests; not all possess the tragic dimensions of Suu Kyi's case. For, she fights the battle with nerves of steel but never near enough to heat for it to turn malleable. She does not go looking for special privileges. The litheness of her feet on the ground makes her even more in touch with it than digging her heels into it would.

Recently, an American swam the lake at the rear of her house and made way inside. Along with him, she and her two housekeepers will be tried. The government does not want her to be around during next year's elections.

It does not matter. 13 years later, she is the one on centrestage. The Myanmar establishment is referred to mostly when there is talk about her.

Unlike so many movements worldwide, she is a one-person army. She is responsible for her every word and action.

They won't release her. That is her victory. And the victory of the people she represents. If you can make the powerful so afraid by your very presence, then the war has been won.

The ones really under arrest are outside, captives of positions and fear.

A bird in a cage can still have faith in its wings.