Bend it like Modi

Narendra Modi is officially the new Prime Minister of India. L.K.Advani, who had expressed reservations about his candidature in public, proposed his name. He had no choice. The RSS decides these things, including portfolios.

To cut a very long story short. There is much emotion, as though it has come as a huge surprise. There is much talk about how emotional he got and how humble he was that he touched the steps of Parliament.

Modi addressed a gathering with the words:

“We are sitting here in the temple of democracy. We are not here for any positions, but to fulfill responsibilities.”

Parliament is the seat of democracy and paying obeisance means following the Constitution.

Mr Modi is, of course, quite accustomed to bowing – whether it is before the controversial boy godman Nityanand, or guns during shastra puja, irrelevant in contemporary times, or before Swami Pramukh Maharaj.

He repeated that he was the son of a poor man, and that was the strength of democracy.

“Sarkar vo ho jo gareebon ke liye soche, jo gareebon ki sune, jo gareebon ke liye jiye, nayi sarkar gareebon ke liye samarpit hai.”

Reminiscent of Indira Gandhi’s ‘Garibi Hatao’ slogan, he spoke about a government that thought about the poor, listened to the poor, lived for the poor, and dedicated themselves to the poor. It must be noted that this time’s Parliament comprises of the richest.

Meanwhile...these are not supplicants, but bureaucrats:

© Farzana Versey

When the Press shackles...

Turn the pages of a newspaper, surf television channels, visit news websites. What you get to see is plenty of freedom. Everybody is free to say what they wish, in a language they choose to, for a motivation only they might know about.

Together with freedom comes responsibility is not just a cliché. When you celebrate World Press Freedom Day at least understand what is expected of you:

Every year, May 3rd is a date which celebrates the fundamental principles of press freedom; to evaluate press freedom around the world, to defend the media from attacks on their independence and to pay tribute to journalists who have lost their lives in the exercise of their profession.

2014 Theme is: Media Freedom for a Better Future: Shaping the post-2015 Development Agenda.

How many are bothered about this? Editors who censor pieces and kowtow to masters of varied stripes are talking about press freedom? Even reports are cut to make space for ads, or if they go contrary to what the sponsors might like. Opinion pieces are censored because, again, they will cause problems.

But, whose freedom is this?

The regional press that has a much wider reach and better understanding of people in the villages and small towns, and certainly has an urban audience as well, is largely ignored.

A few months ago, two well-known TV anchors were said to be planning to quit their jobs. The immediate reaction was that they were under pressure. Op-eds in the international press too gave their example even though both had clarified that no such thing had happened.

More recently, a young lawyer collated some Modi myths to be busted; it was published in DNA. A few hours later it was not there. The immediate reaction was that the fascists had started working.

Let us get this clear: the fascists will. There are several examples. Yet, had anybody bothered to call out the newspaper, ask for an explanation? Had anybody bothered to raise questions other than the one that suited the current anti-wave? This is surprising, for nothing in that piece was new or more damning than some that have preceded it. There was no sharp opinion.

Would it not be more proactive to get the newspaper to respond instead of just riding a, well, wave?

We are already on to other stories, other minor ripples.

Is this about censorship?

The media that seeks the right to write has crossed the line several times. Have you noticed that while film stars and politicians are soft targets, industrialists are treated with deference? And what about the media houses themselves? It is rare that a Tarun Tejpal case comes to light, but even here it became a matter of professional rivalry.

I will only be repeating myself when I say that the deals the media strikes with politicians, with corporate houses (if they are not owned by them), with the underworld too will not be outed. Even in the Tejpal case, two factors were important.

1) After the media had given the Delhi gangrape primetime, sexual abuse has become an issue that cannot be ignored. I won't go into the dynamics of how it twists the victim's situation to suit TRPs and advertising.

2) Without in any way taking away from the crime, there was the political-corporate aspect that oversaw how justice was to be delivered.

In the FoE overdrive, there is rarely any discussion about the reporters on the field, especially in sensitive areas.

It is disgusting to read about how some in the press cling onto their peers who might be unfortunate victims of violence. It is time to wake up. Such incidents take place not because the media houses are outspoken and free, but because the perpetrators of violence won't have it any other way. They have targeted even those who are silent and have no media access. If the press wants to act as though it is upholding democracy, then it better learn to practice the freedom across the board within the organisation, and not be selective.

Or they should make their position/agenda clear. To the readers, their sponsors, and their staff and contributors.

Do they have the courage? No. They keep their options open because they want to curry favours. They do not know who will come to power, which industry will have its projects passed, which celebrity will be feted. So, we have a mélange of people of dubious worth featured consistently until such time that they become redundant for the 'free' media.

It takes a death...Nido and the North East

It takes a death to bring us alive to what we are, but choose to ignore. The question is: How long will this wake-up call last? Are we not ready with our hands already on the snooze button?

Nido Taniam from Arunachal Pradesh died on Thursday, Jan 30, after being beaten up the previous day by a shopkeeper and a few others when he asked for directions at Lajpat Nagar in Delhi, where he was a student. One version says that he broke a window glass in the altercation.

Why did a quarrel ensue? Some say that the assaulters started abusing him, making fun of his hair colour. This gives commentators like Madhu Kishwar the licence to suggest that it is not about racism, but a fight between two sides that can be attributed to lumpenisation.

Even if we agree that Nido did not stay quiet — why do we expect that victims should not fight back? — how can we ignore that there are elements of racism here? Many young people wear their hair in different ways. Delhi is a metro where people from all over come to work.

Will a person from Chandigarh or Mumbai with similar hair invite stares and more? The discriminatory attitude towards those from the North East regions has resulted in death and other crimes before.

Lok Sabha member from Arunachal Pradesh Takam Sanjoy said:

“This is not a new incident.... Several such incidents have been reported earlier where students of NE are victimised and we have taken adequate steps to sensitize the people...Even after 48-hours of the incident the police failed to arrest the culprits involved in the crime, which exposed the discriminatory attitude of the people from mainland India towards the people of North East."

It is sad that one part of the country is referred to as "mainland" that has to be "sensitized".

Madhu Kishwar has the gall to equate this with Brahmin, Sikh, bania jokes. Murder is not a joke. Would she say the same were somebody assaulted for his choti, or tilak, or turban? Indeed, there is an escape route in those cases to make them about religion, caste, communalism, and therefore more worthy of our empathy. The NE does not have that leeway. I do understand that we are overly sensitive to slurs, even when said in humour. But let us not reduce a brutal attack to this.

If Nido did indeed react aggressively, why did the police insist on a compromise? Why did those who suffered damages because of him not file a case? This is as usual becoming about the victim made answerable.

It is also taking a political turn. His father is a Congress politician. Arvind Kejriwal of Aam Aadmi Party got an opportunity to hit back at the Delhi cops, against whom he had started the dharna. Now, even Mr. Sanjoy says:

"If the government, police and administration thinks that the Indian Constitution is for a section of India, we will have to go out like Arvind Kejriwal to the streets for our rights."

People from the North East have taken out protest rallies often enough, so I wish he had desisted from mentioning the CM who has only recently been anointed.

The Congress will do its own "we are looking into it", and the BJP supporters are playing with semantics.

It would be better if we just accept that Indians are racist. We do discriminate based on how others look, what they eat and wear, how they speak. The problem for those from the North East is exacerbated because although they speak quite fluently in English and Hindi, they have Mongoloid features. So while we may treat the Chinese and Japanese with deference reserved for foreigners, those from the hills in our own country are given the "stray" treatment.

Partly, it is ignorance. Partly, it is isolation of the people from those areas, some of it self-chosen. The 'seven sisters' of the region do not make for the most amicable siblings, and have their own differences and cultural uniqueness. The same can be said about South India, but then the "mainland" has a blanket term "Madrasi" for all those from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka.

The point is how much can people be sensitised, and why is it even necessary? This sort of racist attitude is dumber than mere prejudice, for it lives in a dark hole from where nothing is visible except a fraction of light. There is no possibility of peripheral vision.

I do not like to talk about acceptance, as it is patronising, but should we not understand other looks, languages, cultures? Will these not enhance us?

© Farzana Versey

RTI: Blindly transparent?

The Right to Information Act is in the news again because Rahul Gandhi spoke about it. This is what I had written earlier:

The RTI Act might become stronger only for a handful. Some of these celebrities could use this Act to have their way and use it as one more calling card. It is bad enough that much of the security machinery leaks out information to the media. This added empowerment of the pampered citizen will demote the right of the common person. Do you think anyone will want to know about kickbacks on tube-wells or how hooch tragedies take place? How many farmers are going to file PILs?

The important thing is not just getting information but whether anyone can act upon it. Who will be made answerable and to whom? Isn’t there a possibility that to snuff out corruption there could be more corruption with some big names smuggling out information using their good offices and a tacit barter?

If the idea is empowerment, then the signature campaigns should include those whose rights are being fought for and not merely unsolicited spokespersons. Today, we have a situation where landmark structures are being given special security while badly constructed buildings crash every other day. Does anyone want information about that?

Such talk only works as a style statement and sheds no light on the right to know. And knowledge does not stop with information.

---

This is to give perspective before I launch on the speech! Here it is: How he turned the tables: The Rahul Gandhi Interview

Terrorism and the Indian Muslim: 'Shahid' as Apologia

Soon after the first shot was fired in the first scene, I felt uncomfortable. Anything to do with the riots of 1993 produces a pit-of-the-stomach reaction. I have no control over it. However, barely a few minutes into the film and my discomfort was transferred to the manner in which Shahid subtly works the mainstream.

The problem with the ordinary man as hero, or someone who does extraordinary things, is that everything else begins to be seen as a prop to bolster his story.

Those who have witnessed the 1993 Bombay riots up-close might be able to comprehend the issues I have with the film, based on the real life story of slain lawyer Shahid Azmi, whose portfolio comprised mostly of cases of wrongly-convicted or imprisoned men on charges of terrorism.

Except for that one torture scene, the dilemmas are portrayed in a touch-and-go manner. Not only does the film consolidate stereotypes, it comes across as an apologist for the government. Throughout there is an assertion of how wonderful the judiciary is. As the end credits roll, it is mentioned that in his seven-year career Shahid procured 17 acquittals.

While this is factually correct, there are numerous cases that go unheard, forget about getting justice.

The details, as shown in the film: A teenager from a lower middle-class family watches the riots of 1993. He is deeply affected and leaves for Kashmir. Here he gets some sort of training in handling arms. He escapes from there after a few months. Is arrested on charges of being a terrorist. In the seven years of imprisonment, he studies. Once out, he pursues a law degree, joins a firm, quits to start his own practice, starts fighting cases of 'suspects' who are rounded up without a shred of evidence.

And then one day he is shot dead in his office. The end is the beginning.

The premise was open to raise pointed questions, even as it maintained a narrative structure. Instead, there is no sense of commitment, except for mouthing of clichés.

It pained me when I watched it, and it pains me now as I write it, because this film is being hailed for taking a risk. Some have even said how wonderful it is that such a film was made at all.

What kind of a society are we that what needs to be stated as a matter of course is considered an achievement? It is infuriating that we have to accept these crumbs. Azmi's life was in some ways remarkable, but the biopic is not.

It works on the formula of good Muslim. Had this not been a "gritty" film, one would be tempted to recall Karan Johar's celluloid families. Shahid and his brothers are shown as too perfect. They are educated, clean-shaven, and the bearded men they associate with speak gently. I know loudmouths who are not militant. And much as education needs to be encouraged, should we assume that those who do not have access to it are all suspect?

Why does Shahid escape after the riots and that too for training in jihad? This is a horrible indictment, and assumes that those who are affected by such scenes will as a natural course choose to become terrorists.

We do not know what he is disillusioned about. It would have been an important message to understand that such jihad is not a panacea. But the director desultorily goes through the motions of showing a few men wearing skull caps, holding rifles, saying "Allah-hu-Akbar", and preparing for some grand plan that might come their way.

Upon his return to Mumbai, he goes home. He is later arrested because they think he is a terrorist. Resigned to a life in prison, a Kashmiri militant befriends him over games of chess. Yes, the good Muslim Shahid is pitted against the bad one who will use him as a pawn. This is borne out later when a good Kashmiri (the film is ridden with such good-bad ideas, although it does so quietly) warns him about Umar and how these guys just want to prove their superiority and lord over others. He also tells Shahid about how justice takes time, but it prevails. The fact that they are all unjustly in jail seems to be lost on him.

The good Kashmiri is friends with Professor Saxena. (You cannot possibly have a Prof. Gilani or Raza, can you?) They encourage Shahid to continue with his studies, and the professor pitches in with some tokenism about Sher Shah Suri.

Seven years later, the family has moved to a better residence. There is no evidence of anyone having dissociated with his family. This is not the story of many people, as Shahid himself suggests. Then why was this family spared? Because they are not 'typical'?

Shahid joins the firm of a Muslim lawyer. The avarice puts him off, and he starts on his own. I would like to emphasise here that all this conveys that for a young Muslim to be taken seriously, not only does he have to be clean-shaven and educated, he also has to be squeaky clean.

Maryam, one of his clients, is possibly a spark in many ways. Shahid falls in love with her and proposes. That is when she asks him, "You know I am a divorcee, don't you?" There you go. A Muslim woman who probably had 'talaq' said to her three times, and is now bringing up her son on her own. They marry quietly. Why?

When he later takes her to meet his mother he brings a burqa, something she has never worn. He requests her to do so just this once. I fail to understand this. His mother is not shown wearing one, and if he has married without consent, then does he need this? What exactly does the director want us to know? That all said and done, a Muslim woman will at some point in her life have to wear a veil?

The scenes in the court are slightly better, but again the judge is seen pulling up the public prosecutor more than the defense. This sounds rather utopian. At one point Shahid loses it and asks, "Are you trying to say I am a terrorist?" That is the one true moment. For the most part, he does not even use the word Muslim. He says "minority". If this is not a copout, then what could possibly be?

He fights the case of Faheem Ansari, arrested following the Mumbai attacks of 2008 because his laptop had some maps. Shahid starts getting threatening calls. There is no explanation. The silence is a tacit understanding of not taking sides.

One night, Shahid is called to his office and shot dead. His colleague appears for Faheem in his place. It takes a Ramalingam to justify the work of a Shahid Azmi. This is what the film tells us. This is what people tell us. This is how stereotypes work. This is how Indian Muslims get branded. Patronised.

Fine. I am glad this film was made. It just shows us how celebrity parallel filmmakers play the formula and consolidate the stance that the state is always right.

---

Update

I have been fairly surprised by how the 'populism' of such serious cinema works. To the certified Muslim organisation that has sent this email:

"Go watch SHAHID before it is too late. If you dont have time atleast buy tickets and gift it to some who has. If people are so disinterested, filmmakers wont want to make such brilliant movies again"

I can only say that rather than gifting tickets, acquire the skills and have the gumption to make a movie that tells your story your way, instead of waiting for majoritarian prerogative to speak up for you.

You want to accept magnanimity, and that is the whole darned problem. And you in your elitist hole, there are people who do not need to watch movies to know what they experience.

If on an everyday basis one is taunted as being a jihadi and asked to go to Pakistan, I can only imagine how it is for the people who are rounded up without even the courtesy of a snigger.

I did not need this film to get me thinking. I have done so publicly since 'Bombay', then 'Fizaa' and later the execrable 'Black Friday'. My analysis of the last one is here.

It is no surprise that quite a few 'secular' people, even among Muslims, would want to applaud the film. It is their choice. Just do not expect me to fall for any and every gesture of some 'pathbreaking maverick'. I can turn around and say that I have posed queries that are not in the domain of either popular or even much of offbeat ideas. How does such hat-tipping matter when you are being handed over little bites of predigested bitterness?

What I write is to challenge the reader as much as I am challenged, though not by this film because it plays too safe. But do not tell me that the questions a film/art/book/thinker asks are the final questions and the ones I ought to ask too.

© Farzana Versey

---

The performances were uniformly above-average. But I cannot bring myself to see it as just a film. Here is the official trailer; what I have written will not come through here:

The Labs of Boston, Woolwich, Chhattisgarh:

Ruling Anarchy: The Labs of Boston, Woolwich, Chhattisgarh

by Farzana Versey, CounterPunch, June 1-3

“As we heard the instant matters before us, we could not but help be reminded of the novella, “Heart of Darkness” by Joseph Conrad, who perceived darkness at three levels: the darkness of the forest, representing a struggle for life and the sublime; (ii) the darkness of colonial expansion for resources; and finally (iii) the darkness, represented by inhumanity and evil, to which individual human beings are capable of descending, when supreme and unaccounted force is vested, rationalized by a warped world view that parades itself as pragmatic and inevitable, in each individual level of command...Joseph Conrad describes the grisly, and the macabre states of mind and justifications advanced by men, who secure and wield force without reason, sans humanity, and any sense of balance. The main perpetrator in the novella, Kurtz, breathes his last with the words: ‘The horror! The horror!’”

Blood. Death. Hate spreads. I do not know where sympathy should begin and for whom, anymore. We know the bad guys, with cleavers and rudimentary weapons, talking, walking with ruthless strides, dancing near corpses. That they do not look squishy clean like our sanitised toilet bowl gives us the power to screw up our noses.

The horror

We have seen the horror in the last few weeks, the latest being on May 25 in the tribal belt of India. Why is the quote at the beginning important? It comes from an unlikely source. In its report on the anti-Naxalite organisation, the Supreme Court of India pulled up the government and got the Salwa Judum banned.

The FBI spies on Americans. India sets up a counter-insurgency group against its citizens. They might call it 'necessary evil' but if after decades the problems persist, then it may be implied that the solutions infect the problem, hoping the virus spreads and falls dead. That is not how it works; it never has.

At 5.30 pm on Saturday at Darbha Ghati in the tribal area of Bastar in Raipur district of Chhattisgarh, a state carved out of Madhya Pradesh in central India, Naxalites rained gunfire at a convoy that was on its way to bring about change through its ‘Parivartan Yatra’ before the assembly elections. Over 25 people were shot dead by 200; many were injured. The figures change, but that is not the point.

The point is that this time it was not about innocent civilians.  Political leaders of the Congress Party and, more importantly, Mahendra Karma, who started the Salwa Judum were the targets. Although the Supreme Court disbanded it in 2011, the very idea that the government backed a terrorist outfit to deal with insurgency and got away with it reveals a conscientious and devious manoeuvre to obstruct not only the execution but the very concept of justice.

News channels and papers kept talking about how Karma was tortured. It was indeed brutal, as though the group was performing a ritual sacrifice through this purging. However, in 2010 the same government sent out photographs of a female Maoist’s body carried tied to a pole like an animal. What was the reason for it? I had written then that this does not send out a message to the Naxals, who are ready to die for their cause. And it does not send out any message to civil society. The last thing people need to believe they are safe from terrorism is to see armed soldiers enacting a theatre of the absurd.

The universal

Using a word like terrorism loosely is only giving more teeth to the establishment to pursue innocents, who might turn out to be what they are stereotyped to be. What puts the three incidents in diverse countries on par is that ‘national pride’ was aimed at.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his brother Dzhokhar once wanted to represent the United States, until something changed. They then planned to strike on July 4. The pressure cooker bombs were ready. They did a recce of police stations, looking for officers as possible targets. They could not wait, so on April 15 they struck at the symbol of hope and aspiration, of breasting the tape. The Boston Marathon stood for all that is good – adrenalin throbbing in the muscles of different-coloured bodies, flags fluttering in the background to convey varied ethnicities. This was the mass congregation version of the American Sweetheart.

The U.S. was afraid to bury the dead Tamerlan because it feared the site would become a cult memorial. Something has got to be wrong if this were to happen. But then, has not the superpower’s Department of Defense called all protest “low-level terrorism”? This is how it went about it: “The FBI deemed OWS (Occupy Wall Street) to be a terrorist organization and went into ‘guilty until proven innocent’ mode. Many of the FBI descriptions of possible OWS actions or those of affiliated organizations like Adbusters consistently look to have taken the most inflammatory snippets and presented them out of context.”

In Woolwich, Michael Adebolajo – a ten-year ‘Islamist’ (he converted in 2003) – was sought by M15, even offered cash. Just the sort of guy in whose mouth you can stuff some food so that he does not rant against the system and assists it.  He, along with his accomplice Michael Adebowale, hit at the concept of security in the form of a young soldier, Lee Rigby. British Prime Minister David Cameron said, "they are trying to divide us". Hugely ironic, considering it comes from the masters of divide-and-rule policy. Much has been written about the brave white woman who tried to reason with the killer. Perhaps, this is what Cameron meant by ‘they’ and ‘us’.

He has set up the Tackling Extremism and Radicalisation Task Force (TERFOR) "to stop extremist clerics using schools, colleges, prisons and mosques to spread their ‘poison’...It will also urge Muslim ‘whistleblowers’ to report clerics who act as terrorist apologists to the police". This sort of vigilantism makes everyone a suspect.

The Guardian quoted former British soldier Joe Glenton, who served in the war in Afghanistan:

"While nothing can justify the savage killing in Woolwich yesterday of a man since confirmed to have been a serving British soldier, it should not be hard to explain why the murder happened... It should by now be self-evident that by attacking Muslims overseas, you will occasionally spawn twisted and, as we saw yesterday, even murderous hatred at home. We need to recognise that, given the continued role our government has chosen to play in the US imperial project in the Middle East, we are lucky that these attacks are so few and far between."

How lucky, indeed. And this is heralded as a liberal point of view, whereas it is just more shit hitting the fan. It adds to the pan-Islamic prototype, of every darned Muslim being concerned about every country with a population that follows the faith and could get murderous in adopted lands.

Strangely, nationalistic fervour is a mirror image of the Ummah it so detests. In Chhattisgarh, the government is treating the Naxals as “kufr”, non-believers of poodle democracy.

                                                                          

The Image-makers

The reason the subject has become an even more important issue is because it highlights how the government uses subversive tactics through insidious means. In the major attack on the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) that killed 76 soldiers, the reportage and political drama hinged on ‘embarrassment’ and ‘blot’. It was the image factory at work. No emotions for the dead or the very reasons behind such insurgency,

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

Beyond 'Theek Hai': A Brother, the PM and Media Mischief

Nothing has moved me as much today as the words of the brother of the Delhi gangrape victim. Here are a few quotes from the report:

•“It is like the life we had a week ago never existed. Every day is now passing by in a flash. When I switch on the TV or log on to a social networking site, I see these emotional outbursts about Damini, Amanat, Nirbhaya (the names some media organisations have given the victim). It’s hard to digest that this is my sister they are talking about."

•“I thought the channel in question had got my sister’s name wrong, because they said ‘Damini’s condition is deteriorating’ — they addressed her like that. I was reassured from the first day that our names, my sister’s name would not come out. I was furious."

•“Every two hours, there is a new rumour. On social networks, celebrities and many friends flash her obituaries every night. For them it is just an online status they correct in two hours. At the same time, media channels say she has had a two-hour conversation, she has walked, she has smiled, she has hugged UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi."

It is easy to join the hype and the popular outrage. I felt a bit out of place. But, this young man's words confirms my belief that the media does more harm than good.

He, however, does not completely dismiss the protest movement. But, has it not brought even more fear in his life?

- - -

Read the papers, and suddenly rape cases stare you in the face. This is not sensitising, but is likely to numb people.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh came on TV and gave a short speech. People know the precise time - 2 minutes, 15 seconds. Had it been longer, would it change anything?

He became the butt of jokes because a news wire service forgot to edit out his post-speech words "Theek hai". It gave the impression that the PM was saying all is well.

>“Since the team got delayed because of the traffic diversions and the heavy equipment, they were unable to set up a teleprompter for the PM,” a source said. The PM’s address was uplinked directly to TV channels with the “theek hai” comment that went on air. Later, news agency ANI clarified, “A question to ANI’s cameraman was inadvertently broadcast by some news channels as we fed the PM’s message. The lapse was rectified.”<

It does not seem inadvertent. The media is upto mischief, especially when the news is hot.

Yet, one has got to be particularly stupid to see disembodied words nullifying the main speech.

But, stupidity is just a click away. It transforms into concern.

So, if you are concerned about security of women, then the government is meeting you halfway. Write to the Justice Verma Committee directly. I know it will deflate the efforts of 'petition' waalas. But this is what you can do:

Kerfuffle over reshuffle

The big bang reshuffle that took place on Sunday is only a whimper. 

 Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announcing the new Cabinet members said:

“I would have been happy to include Rahul in the Cabinet, but he has other preoccupations in the party.”

Nobody quite knows what his other preoccupations are, but there is no doubt that he does not wish to be ‘gainfully’ employed.

This reshuffle is less about the ‘youth’ being readied and more about giving a new spin to the status quo. Sachin Pilot, Jyotiraditya Scindia, Ajay Maken, Veerappa Moily, Kamal Nath are pretty much to continue with the tried-and-tested method of Congress working style, which they have inherited or been close enough to learn.

The fact that three men who were or should have been out of favour are to play important roles is revealing: this is politics of cock a snook. 

Salman Khurshid gets the important external affairs portfolio just days after the controversy over his Trust being involved in illegal funds. (Made famous by another minister saying that a 71 lakh fraud was too little.) He made it worse by threatening Arvind Kejriwal. One thought Khurshid was at least suave enough not to stoop to this level. Perhaps, in the MEA he might learn diplomacy. 

Song for him: 

Andar se koi baahar na aa sakey, baahar se koi andar na jaa sakey
Socho kabhi aisa ho tau kya ho
Hum tum eik ghapley se tung ho aur mauka mil jaaye

Shashi Tharoor was ousted because of his IPL franchise deal a few years ago. This is another suave guy who also happens to generally convey a clean impression; he uses social networking rather well for this just as he did to make those frank comments which conveyed a westernised attitude that of course we Indians could not apparently palate. Anyhow, he kept himself busy and managed to be the good Kerala boy who will perform in HRD. 

Song for him:

Baar-baar haan, chup ho jaao wahaan
Apni tweet ho, media dosti yahaan
 

Manish Tewary is one more of those supposedly posh types who takes on the opposition on television debates. He is aggressive, assertive and manages to say a lot without conveying much. He will be busier than he usually is doing the usual things with Information & Broadcasting and trying to add varnish to a few flaws.  

Song for him:

Hum bolega tau bologe ke bolta hai
Eik memshaab hai, shaab bhi hai
Memshaab shab chalaati hai, shaab chal jaate hai
Duniya chaahe kuchch bhi boley
Hum kuchch nahin bolega

There are discussions about whether this was part of the Rahul Gandhi agenda or not. It does not matter. You can bring in anyone at this stage. It is a stopgap arrangement for the elections in 2014. The important thing is that the new faces will not have enough time to prove themselves – the standard power without responsibility.

There is no guarantee that after making changes in their ministries they will be rewarded later. They are essentially expected to give the impression that they are Rahul’s men. Nothing more. Nothing less. 

Radia Tapes: Open Sesame?

We have seen how the 2G scam unfolded. Important people were packed off to jail. The really prominent names were not. No Tata, no Ambani. The role of the lobbyist thawed. Nira Radia became a ghostly figure making court appearances.

Now, the tapes that were at the centre of the controversy have been given a clean chit. I say tapes deliberately:

The Centre has argued before the Supreme Court that the Nira Radia tapes that were leaked to the media were tampered with. The tapes contained conversations between lobbyist Nira Radia and various industry leaders. The government has also stated that the tapes were not leaked by government agencies. The government said there were eight to ten agencies, including service providers, involved in the tapping of telephonic conversation of former corporate lobbyist Nira Radia.

Is this a victory for anyone? Was it not the government that was culpable, to begin with? So, how is the government version acceptable? What are government agencies doing? Why was the inquiry handled by the Ministry of Finance who appointed officers to investigate into the case?

The report says the starting and the end point of the conversation do not match with the original tapes, Justice Singhvi said referring to the report. He said the report also says that officers, who had conducted the probe, do not know who has leaked it."It is quite possible that someone else has done it," the bench said.

This is the SC making such vague statements. Of course, it is possible. We have seen the Shanti Bhushan case; Amar Singh is now a veteran in these false tape cases. Is it not crucial to ask who leaked the tapes and why?

Why should we accept the government statement when we doubt it on almost every other occasion? It is a seriously flawed argument, for the government got trapped in the scams. Why would it leak the tapes, anyway? To clear the main decks?

The other possibility is business rivalry and ego.

I had written the following a while ago:

We are witnessing this farce as the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), while not yet giving a clean chit to Ratan Tata and Anil Ambani, has been talking about their honesty and how candid they have been. Niira Radia has been called “evasive”.

Ratan Tata, when asked about his letter to the Tamil Nadu chief minister praising Raja’s work in the telecom ministry, with some gumption said, “We had a chemistry problem with (his predecessor Dayanidhi) Maran.” Yet, he claimed, “I didn’t manipulate the system for 2G licence allocation.” Did not Mr Tata file a petition regarding breach of privacy about the leaked tapes? The political machinery does not wish to completely alienate the corporate lobby, so it accused Radia of being anti-national and an agent of foreign intelligence agencies.

Both sides are getting trapped in quick sand and they need to prop each other up without being seen to ostensibly do so. Why did they not produce records of the Rs. 300 crore that Radia had accumulated? Of course, there is every possibility of impropriety, but for whom and for what?

If foreign agencies were involved, how did they pay her so that the authorities would know the amount? Have the finance and other departments tapped those calls from foreign agencies? What foreign agencies have interests in seeing to it that the Ambanis and Tatas get the prime deals? Which foreign agency would be interested in what portfolio Raja got? It might be important to examine how these players then can be indicted for such foreign connections as well as anti-national activities, including the governments, past and present, for accommodating them.

This is a morass. Now, we come to the media. There was a huge noise by those who were acting as whistle-blowers as well as the ones defamed. The strange aspect is that both groups have continued with their work and moved on. Vir Sanghvi had, in fact, sent the tapes to a couple of laboratories abroad that showed there was something amiss. Will the government use this as evidence? What about the magazines that carried transcripts – will the courts file a case against them?

How much of it is fake? If the “starting and end point” do not match, then what happens to the middle? Besides, who will be seen as culprits in these tampered tapes – will there be a hierarchy of favoured ones and those who can be put to pasture? The politicians, the businessmen and executives, the media persons – if some of their conversations have been tampered with, then does it follow that everything is? Does it, therefore, falsify the whole case and we discover there has been no scam at all?

And to think that a whole people’s movement started by riding on this wave. It is the people who will have to live with such half-truths.

Do read The Media as Middleman for a background and more

Undoctored Shanti Bhushan

Doctored CDs are not new. So, the latest news that the conversations between Mulayam Singh Yadav, Amar Singh and Shanti Bhushan have been tampered with is not so surprising.

The conversations implicated Shanti Bhushan and his son of getting a prime plot in Noida for a pittance. There was an RTI query. The response was this:

"Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Chandigarh’s report has been made public for the first time in response to an RTI query. The conclusion of the report was that the CD was “not original and it is a post production edited version”. CFSL, Delhi and CERT-In had said the CD was original."

The two reports are now seen as wrong and Prshant Bhushan says it is not only the Delhi police’s dishonesty, but a move by the government to hijack the anti-corruption movement.

“The interest taken by the Home Minister P. Chidambaram in this matter and the PMO in revealing the Delhi CSFL report while withholding the Chandigarh CFSL report shows that the government is behind the dissemination of this fabrication, if not the actual fabrication itself."

A few devil’s advocate type questions:

1. Why is the last report to be considered sacrosanct? Or will there be a call for another one?

2. Will this exonerate Amar Singh and Mulayam Singh Yadav as well, or will they be the culprits?

3. Does this mean that a first report is never authentic and the process of inquiry will as a matter of course depend on second and third and maybe more opinions?

4. If the Delhi police gave a wrong report, can they be tried for it or will it be seen as human error?

5. Will this set the precedent for everyone who has been tapped and taped in other cases to plead innocence?

6. Can other areas become an open ground, say, in cases of brain mapping?

It is unfortunate that there is politics in every case. This matter should go to court and not just become one more thing that will be debated in every panel discussion.

I am a bit curious about the timing, though. Anna Hazare and Company are back on the road with their tamasha. So, if the government did not release the report, must we assume that the RTI queries have more power than the government and inspire tremendous skills to detect “signs of proficient editing” as well as bring out honesty in the most corrupt heart?

- - -
For a flashback: Cool Bhushan, Hot Air

For an aside: Amar Singh and Draupadi

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

I am NOT Anna Hazare

Punk activism

I don’t know about all those commitment wallas but I did what I have never done before. I switched on the TV still in my satin nightgown. Yes, I am so common, no? I did it because I wanted to feel the heat and humidity seep from my pores into other areas of my being.

Last night I surfed channels and left a man swallowing swords to watch the ‘Anna dekh tera munda bigda jaaye’ show and we the people were informed that “Brashtachar ki haar aur Bharat jeet gaya.” (Corruption has been defeated and India has won). It was like a match with Brashtacahar’s 11 against India’s 100 or rather hazaar Hazares all looking like they had greased palms with oily pakoras, or was it lavender-scented sanitisers?

Now I can breathe, I thought. I don’t have to bribe the traffic cop with a sweet smile. Trust me, I have not ever given a paisa to a single one. I can walk with my head held high and quote saint Aamir Khan who is more like god because he is omnipresent. “Like the country has supported the Indian cricket team in their struggle to win the World Cup, I hope and pray that your struggle, which is infinitely more important and affects each and every one of us, will get an even greater support,” he wrote in a letter to Hazare. Of course, that letter, like the scriptures, made it to the media and the public.

Struggles of cricketers and of the ordinary Indian are similar?

Before the start of the fast

Anyway, he must have broken his fast by now and I am laying a bet with my fellow common citizens whether it will be orange juice, mosambi or neembu-paani or plain contaminated tap water from India’s various cities.

I have been called a cynic, a killjoy for not enjoying this hearty meal of activism. This stuff really tires me out. I have already posted about it and reiterate that we must not wear blindfolds for anything. When Sonia Gandhi said, “The issues he has raised are of grave public concern. There could be no two views on combating graft in public life. I believe that the laws in these matters must be effective and deliver the desired results”, did anyone in that crowd of concerned citizens utter the magic word 'Quattrocchi'? Anyone willing to stand up and be counted?

How can the report therefore talk of a “peace deal between Anna Hazare and the government”? Is there a war? Is Hazare the sole spokesperson? Look at his “middle path”: “Ministers will give the panel more weight, it will make the government more receptive to agreeing to the draft the committee draws up.”

Sure. A panel that wanted to call the bluff of ministers needs those ministers to add more weight.

Of such fluff are dreams made. Am glad that at 10.30 AM I am still in my satin nightgown and know the true metaphorical value of such dreams. Raat gayi, baat gayi: Here today, gone at dawn.

- - -

The Russians do it differently.

Pro-Kremlin activists have posed in lingerie for an erotic calendar with an antigraft message and the slogan “sex against corruption”, youth movement Nashi (Ours) said.

Women students decided to participate by dropping clothes and coming up with slogans like, “I won't marry a corrupt official”, “Brown envelopes are only for letters, “I will teach you to live without bribes”.

Given the nature of their positions (hmm) many will be willing to learn. Besides, if the women are ready to do what they have done for the calendar and make a decent income, the corrupt officials might just decide to lie back and enjoy.

Honestly, no one can completely end corruption. But we can just normally try not to bribe. Though, aren’t all these – fasting, sloganeering and titillating – forms of bribery?

Fighting Corruption: The Pitfalls of Populism

The Indian youth are out in the streets, in car and bike rallies, to support an aging activist’s fight against corruption. Anna Hazare and Anil Ambani may be on two sides of the spectrum, but even as the inquisition is going on into the 2G scam, we are witnessing a populist version of people’s activism.

Anna Hazare's fast-unto-death started on April 5 to push for the anti-graft Lok Pal Bill. He has called it the second Satyagraha, which is an erroneous usage. Mahatma Gandhi’s Satyagraha was battling against British might, not against corruption that involves people right down to the lowest level, including some who may participate in the ‘movement’. I understand that one would like to see it as a practical solution to an idealistic idea, but whose idealism is it?


Hazare’s work through the years has been commendable, but the moment he needs a banner – in this case ‘India Against Corruption’ – the idea becomes a brand. Within three days there are already fissures among certain organisations. Besides, it is not as simple as it appears.

He says:

"We want representation from civil society in drafting the Lok Pal Bill, 50 percent from civil society and 50 percent from the government.”

This is to check on corruption in public life, so it obviously refers to those holding office. The alternative Jan Lok Pal Bill drafted by leading legal experts and personalities, including Arvind Kejriwal, former Supreme Court judge Santosh Hegde and Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan calls for setting up of ombudsmen independent of government control. Those found guilty would be awarded a jail term of minimum five years and maximum of life imprisonment; the investigation would have to completed within one year.

The government has its own version of a prison term of minimum six months and maximum seven years as punishment for corruption.

Who will foot the bill for the 50 per cent lok ayuktas that come from civil society? Are not politicians also from civil society? We would need a system to proceed against those being tried.

* * *

Corruption is more often a silent crime. There are enough scapegoats who will be made to shoulder the blame in another concept of people’s responsibility, where lok shakti means taking on the master’s problems. It is an ingrained aspect of Indian culture.

We are witnessing this farce as the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), while not yet giving a clean chit to Ratan Tata and Anil Ambani, has been talking about their honesty and how candid they have been. Niira Radia has been called “evasive”.

Ratan Tata, when asked about his letter to the Tamil Nadu chief minister praising Raja’s work in the telecom ministry, with some gumption said, “We had a chemistry problem with (his predecessor Dayanidhi) Maran.” Yet, he claimed, “I didn’t manipulate the system for 2G licence allocation.” Did not Mr Tata file a petition regarding breach of privacy about the leaked tapes? The political machinery does not wish to completely alienate the corporate lobby, so it accused Radia of being anti-national and an agent of foreign intelligence agencies.

Both sides are getting trapped in quick sand and they need to prop each other up without being seen to ostensibly do so. Why did they not produce records of the Rs. 300 crore that Radia had accumulated? Of course, there is every possibility of impropriety, but for whom and for what?

If foreign agencies were involved, how did they pay her so that the authorities would know the amount? Have the finance and other departments tapped those calls from foreign agencies? What foreign agencies have interests in seeing to it that the Ambanis and Tatas get the prime deals? Which foreign agency would be interested in what portfolio Raja got? It might be important to examine how these players then can be indicted for such foreign connections as well as anti-national activities, including the governments, past and present, for accommodating them.

* * *


How would the Lok Pal bill work in such a situation? There is a trickle-down effect where the tricking is actually going up. Many of those enthusiastic about Hazare’s rally would not have the courage to convict the beneficiaries of those in public office, which defeats the whole purpose. A politician getting kickbacks is one part of the deal – the other is the sneaking in of major players who through corruption will find space to promote their elitist products and ideas.

Hazare is for now being anointed with a Gandhian aura, but most of the Facebook fans of the movement won’t push the envelope. The fact that the mainstream media is giving it importance is precisely because it has the youth quotient. This translates into a larger audience.


Some sample quotes are rather revealing:

“I joined the cause as I feel that corruption can't be stopped till the youth takes part in such a movement. Anna Hazare has been fighting this evil for a long time, but he should be supported by people like us.”

“I realised that it is about time people like me come out and stand up to eradicate corruption. I am going to fast like Anna Hazare and I am even prepared to go to jail for the cause.”

“It is not only for activists and media to keep exposing scams.”

People like us, jail yatra, scams are the buzzwords, not to speak of our own Tahrir Square.

One also wonders what happens if the celebrity activists move out. There will be the chosen ones who will be nominated for the posts to look into corruption. It would work not too differently from an established system.


People have gathered in 400 cities to fight a demon. This is modern-day mythology. Hazare states

“I am not waiting for government, the government will have to bow to the wish of the people.”

The government bows every five years and politicians are known to ‘serve’ the junta. The fact that the Lok Pal will be like the Election Commission is no guarantee that it will be “completely immune to government’s influences”. Prosecuting ministers will not require the permission of the governor or the president. Will it ensure transparency? There won’t be “yes men” of the government, but what of other organisations? Or politicians from non-ruling parties?


Uma Bharti and Om Prakash Chautala may be booted out, but Sharad Yadav, Janata Dal (United) chief, has already offered support. He said:

“Just as Election Commission and Supreme Court are effective bodies, similarly an institution which is to fight corruption has to be equally powerful. I approve of the draft prepared by Hazareji and others. I am willing to back it in Parliament.”

That among the civil society members there could be those with personal interests who would be pushed in as concerned citizens is not an improbability. Or the lure of known names. During the appointment of the person to head the Right to Information Act panel, there was just such a scramble by celebrities to promote their concept of the appropriate person.

Despite his intentions, even Mr. Hazare mentioned the names of Justice (Retd) Santosh Hegde, lawyer Prashant Bhushan and Agnivesh who he felt “were not considered important by the government”.

It is possible that the government might intervene to make him give up his fast, but let us not begin to believe that the fight against corruption is a people’s movement yet. It had already started before the rally and there have been several exposes, public interest litigations filed. It would be prudent to ask whether the youth would boycott the goods and services of those the government has propped up. Or will this be just another ‘Rang De Basanti’ moment where power props up those with testosterone and the impetus is all about hitting the bull’s eye?

(c) Farzana Versey

- - -

Updated on new post

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