Indian Muslims Need Political Representation, Not Sham Secularism

The main roadblock to the Indian National Congress is not dynasty, or the recent dissidence within its ranks, but secularism. 

73 years after Independence, we realise that individuals can be secular, but a country cannot, unless it is homogenous. After the Partition of 1947, unlike Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s offering of secularism as dessert to Pakistan, India had to make a meal of disparate ingredients. Multiculturalism was projected as secularism, even as three other ‘isms’ continued to mock it – communalism, parochialism, regionalism.

--- 

Ironically, Muslims seeking a leader from within the community are viewed with suspicion, when India has voted for a party that not only flaunts its Hindu identity and seeks a ‘Hindu Rashtra’, but also tries to silence those who contest such an idea.

---

Read more here

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

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

Sonia Gandhi told reporters in Parliament:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And further:

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

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

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


© Farzana Versey

NSA spied on BJP to spy on Congress?

What exactly does the NSA spying on the BJP amount to? Is the target the office of the political party, or its senior leaders, or media cells, or its workers on the ground? Or, was it using the enemy of the 'enemy'?

The latest disclosure by Edward Snowden has got the Indian government in a tizzy:

That the omnibus spying programme by the US National Security Agency enveloped 193 countries (including India) comes as no surprise, but what is striking is that the Obama administration in 2010 sought authorization from the shadowy Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to conduct surveillance on BJP among six political outfits worldwide. Others listed in Edward Snowden's disclosure of the NSA operation are Amal of Lebanon, an outfit with alleged links to Hezbollah; the Bolivarian Continental Coordinator of Venezuela, with purported links to FARC; Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood; Egyptian National Salvation Front; and Pakistan People's Party.

The PPP and BJP seem like misfits in this group. The former, in fact, had a fairly charmed equation with the US authorities, and although Narendra Modi was denied a visa, there would be no reason for the Obama government to snoop on the party. Some have suggested that it was based on Rahul Gandhi’s 2009 conversation with the then US ambassador Timothy Roemer that Hindu terror was “the bigger threat (to India) may be the growth of radicalized Hindu groups, which create religious tensions and political confrontations with the Muslim community”. This is apparently in comparison with the LeT.

Why would the US toe his line? America has a lot to gain with its ‘war on terror’ that is exclusively jihad-driven because those regions ensure profiteering. Paranoia over Hindu terror would be a waste of time, for India does not offer any tangible benefits (the Americans have been busy patenting tulsi, and yoga and spiritualism are now a part of their culture).

The NSA acted in 2010. The BJP was not in power, nor was there a major riot immediately prior to it. Even if there was, it is not the business of any other country. If anything, the BJP could have been “of valid interest for US intelligence” to get information about the ruling Congress Party, the whispers, rumours, and details about scams that the government would probably want to hide, and the opposition parties keep notes of. As reported, the Congress had raised objections about the spying last year. This is not a matter of which party is targeted, but of the country. The BJP ought to have raised the issue then along with the Congress, just as the Congress should join forces now.

Surprisingly, the former foreign minister Salman Khurshid had taken a benign view:

“Some of the information they (the US) got out of their scrutiny, they were able to use it to prevent serious terrorist attacks in several countries.”

Did the US administration share such information with the Indian government? When has the US ever tried to prevent terrorist attacks anywhere? It only lands up later, adding to the mayhem.

The revelations state:

Only four countries were off-limits from the snooping: loyal allies Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

If terrorism is the main reason, then these countries are home to immigrants. Would the hosts not be at risk, if one goes by western stereotyping?

The US also got authorisation to spy on international non-government agencies – the United Nations, European Union, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Asian Development Bank – that it anyway twists to suit its political agenda. With key tactical information, it can cause a good deal of covert harm.

The Indian response has been tepid. There is greater concern about how this will pan out, as Modi and Obama are to meet at the end of September. It sounds wicked to say so, but perhaps they would like to share notes. After all, the Indian PM is known to spy on his partymen, and Snoopgate did not appear out of thin air. And while this may sound like a conspiracy theory, the timing of the leak is just right. It will give them time to indulge in some real diplomacy after the earlier embargo on Modi. This is an unusual ice-breaker, but given that Angela Merkel could condone the spying Modi will just grin and bear it.

Meanwhile, the official channels are bureaucratic with their “summon a top diplomat” and the sophomoric “India also sought an assurance from the US that it will not happen again”.

There is a lot that happens that might not be in the realm of WikiLeaks knowledge, and it is unlikely to stop. The only way to get on top of this is to have our own intel agencies so smart that they can snoop on the snoopers.

© Farzana Versey

How He Turned The Tables: The Rahul Gandhi Interview

If you are looking for a parody or, more appropriately, a lame attempt at humour, then please skip this.

Rahul Gandhi may not be a great subject for a television interview, he may not even turn out to be a good political leader, but on the much-touted first-ever interview in 10 years (he clarified on camera that this was not the first, but the first formal one!) he did exactly what he set out to do. Say his piece. What seemed like repetition, if not ducking, was a strategy he adopted to bludgeon the inquisitor softly, if not tire him out.

Some in the media have dubbed this a Rahul vs. Arnab fight. I am amazed at the ignorance. No one, I repeat no one, in the higher echelons of power will give such a big interview without vetting the queries. Therefore, Rahul Gandhi must certainly have been aware of what Arnab Goswami (AG) would ask. If AG added specific queries later, then isn’t it funny that at the beginning of the interview he makes it clear and RG says “You can draw me back as much as you want” but would he be okay if he took a broader look? Think about it. Besides, it does not take rocket science (ahem, those Bharat Nirman ads) to figure out what the nation as filtered by the media would want to know. As he said:

"I have done a little media interaction, prior to this. I have done press conferences & spoken to the media. But mainly bulk of my focus has been on internal party work and that's where I have been concentrating, that is where most of my energy was going."

In the latter half I will reproduce some salient points, with quick notes.

First, the minutiae: This was not a live interview; it was conducted at Jawahar Bhavan; it lasted for a little under 90 minutes. According to The Telegraph:

But sources said the Congress leadership wanted to ensure that Rahul’s “outing” should be with a journalist who has a reputation for being unsparing. An off-the-record session between Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and Goswami, over pakoras and tea, also helped pave the ground for the interview, the sources said.

It just so happens that those who are building up this “unsparing” interviewer have rather short or selective memories. Some of us do recall his almost obsequious questioning of Bal Thackeray; even Raj Thackeray has managed to stand firm. So, let us not create heroes only because we need to look down on certain people.

Let us talk about some problem areas.

Why was RG not being specific?

Why should he? He will do so in his speeches when he addresses the nation, not for revenue-run TRP-driven media. Has Times Now donated to the Congress Party’s election campaign? Is there a quid pro quo? No.

Arnab did his business of mentioning names – as the tagline of his show states – and Rahul spoke about the issue. Yes, the issues are more important. It is the system that deals with individual offenders. If he took the names, or repeated them after AG, he would be a bloody stupid politician and VP of his party.

Why did he not take the Modi bait?

This was by far the best thing Rahul could have done. He treated Narendra Modi as just another guy. The persistent questioning about whether he would agree to a debate with the Gujarat CM elicited what I thought was a perfect clincher: “The debate is already going on.” This effectively took the battle to where it belongs – outside the TV studios.

Why did he not apologise for the anti-Sikh riots of 1984?

What would he achieve by doing so? Get brownie points from the viewers and a pat on the back from the media, with Times going berserk by claiming that it was their channel that brought about this major penance? The PM and Sonia Gandhi have both apologised, and if RG has to do so it needs to be done to the people who are waiting for justice.

Why did he not come clean about his degrees?

Here you have an anchor who has netted a huge catch, and he is quoting a shark lapping in the shallows. Arnab brought in Subramanian Swamy to put RG on the mat regarding his educational qualifications. With all his Ivy League credentials, Swamy comes across as an uncouth man. Besides, how is it important? This Oxford-Cambridge showing off might appeal to the urban upper middle class, not the majority of the population.

Has anybody bothered to check for how long exactly Modi ran a tea stall that he is using as his new USP? Is there any evidence of it?

Why did he not commit on the Aam Aadmi Party?

Simple. The AAP is not one that sticks to its own word, so how can anybody else? Here is one bit from the interview

Arnab: Are you using the AAP to split the Anti Congress vote bank, to keep Mr. Modi out of power
Rahul: You are implying that we have brought the AAP...

This was really giving it to those ones in the politest of tones.

Why did he keep repeating about RTI, empowerment of women, the system?

Because these are crucial subjects, though they don’t sound terribly sexy. Indeed, he used these terms to also answer unrelated queries, but as I said at the beginning, he was here to say his piece.

We have got so accustomed in the past few months to war cry rallies and dharnas that someone who comes across as vulnerable, yet refusing to fall prey, is not easy to accept. Calling Rahul Gandhi a fool might prove to be our biggest fallacy.

Here is how he answered some of the questions, from Modi to being attacked, and why moving off-track sometimes seemed to be just the right move:

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

Of kite-flyers, jeep-jumpers and junta darbars - The Modi, Rahul, Kejriwal bonanza

This makes news. Actor Salman Khan meets Narendra Modi and says he is a good man, a great man, flies kites, has lunch, shares a few laughs. This is news.

The BJP prime ministerial candidate could not contain his enthusiasm:

Earlier, Modi tweeted his picture with Salman saying he was having lunch with the actor on the occasion of Uttarayan.

"Having Undhiyu for lunch with Salman Khan. Undhiyu is a Gujarati delicacy and is a must-have during Uttarayan!"

The actor who was promoting his film said:

"See the good man is standing before me. I have come here after four years, have seen so much development. You tell me, I don't belong to Gujarat. It doesn't matter what I perceive...I got to meet Mr Modi I really feel nice. I believe Modi sahib should get whatever is in his fate and he will certainly achieve it."

BJP supporters who would otherwise have made a huge noise about the actor had he 'appeased' any other politician are now behaving like slobbering fans.

A few points:

• It is a sign of desperation that the endorsement from a Bollywood star carries so much weight.

• In one day, how much development was Salman Khan exposed to?

• Salman Khan has been taken to task for participating in the Saifai festival on the invitation of Akhilesh Yadav in Uttar Pradesh. The BJP spokespersons have been criticising the Samajwadi Party, making Modi sound like an angel in comparison regarding the Muzaffarnagar riots. So, did the Gujarat CM take time out between the 'maanja lapet' (releasing the kite string, also colloquially used for lying) to ponder upon the film star's lack of sensitivity?

• Does anybody imagine that despite Salman's huge following he could help swing the 'Muslim vote'? In fact, why is it necessary at all? Besides, the Khan family does regular 'secular' outings, which often entails participating in several festivals, something that almost every Indian does with less ostentatiouness and without much ado.

• While promoting his film, did Salman Khan think for a moment about how his friend Aamir Khan's film (among others) was banned by the Gujarat government? Or, is looking for opportunity and freebies enough?

In that case, Jai ho-ho-ho.

***

Rahul Gandhi on a visit to Kerala jumps on the roof of a jeep. This makes news.

CPI(M) state leader Pinarayi Vijayan said:

"His candidature as the Congress's PM candidate is more or less finalised and yesterday (Monday) travelling on a police jeep on his state visit he behaved like a joker...He behaved like a person of unsound mind and the action should be taken against him for travelling on top of a police jeep."

What do the news channels do? They say he is doing an 'Aam Aadmi' thing. Every politician has mastered the art of jumping — whether it is the line, the gun, or over puddles. They carry babies, dance with tribals. Check out the pictures of all the current aspirants and you will see them in action.

We know why they do it. The more loyal than the king types could be their undoing. Take P C George who gushed:

"He belongs to the Nehru-Gandhi clan and I never thought he could just walk into the hearts of the average common man, like what he did yesterday. He has proved that his heart is there and he was able to connect with the man on the street."

Here he is affirming that the dynasty is removed from reality and whatever it does is out of magnanimity. Enough of connecting with the man on the street. A jeep rooftop view is not quite it. Just leave it as a charming gesture that makes for a good photograph.

***

An Aadmi Party leader who is planning to "challenge" Rahul Gandhi in Amethi has now hinged his hopes on the Dalit woman Rahul had stayed with in 2008. Kumar Vishwas "was shocked to see that the family was still leading a miserable life in a kachcha house with no roof in the bitter cold. He assured her that AAP workers would at least arrange a roof for the house".

It is back to making one person into a totem.

The manner in which Arvind Kejriwal and AAP are being portrayed one would imagine that the media is ignorant and juvenile. It is sickening to watch debates where other political parties are accused of "copying" AAP. I am surprised that the new party has not been credited with discovering the very existence of the common man.

Ministers have cut taxes, prices, and held open house on designated days for years. So, why did the party's "janta darbar" become a public spectacle that had to be called off? As a report says:

Police estimated that 50,000 people had gathered in front of the secretariat. The crowd mostly comprised contractual workers from various government departments like DTC, power company BSES, different government hospitals, municipal corporations, among others demanding permanent status.

The chief minister cannot push files. There are people to do these jobs. The very idea of being "human" gets a beating when barricades have to be put up, traffic is obstructed, and you have a raja-type minister listening to people's woes, dispensing justice. (Some have compared it to the Mughal courts.) There is a bureaucracy and a judiciary that has to deal with these issues, and although the criticism by the BJP that it is a parallel government is not entirely accurate, Kejriwal does make it look like a mass panchayati raj.

After the debacle, he said:

"We will have to improve the arrangements. If I had not left the place then there was a possibility of a stampede. Everybody wanted to meet me. We will streamline the system so that a similar situation does not recur."

One does not wish to sound alarmist, but in a politically fractious environment, it is also possible that rivals will try to scuttle such populist measures.

However, it does not mean there is fear. This is about sadism that comes with power — the power of being in a position of authority and of anarchy when out of it.

© Farzana Versey

Cringe-worthy news

Three recent examples.

Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh said:

"I have always maintained that Rahul Gandhi would be an ideal choice for the PM post after 2014 elections (Lok Sabha). I will be very happy to work in the Congress under the leadership of Rahul Gandhi."

As a sitting PM, it does not behove him to 'abdicate'. Whatever the behind-the-scenes happenings, he ought to give the perception of being in charge. He may praise Rahul Gandhi, but the country most certainly does not like its leader to announce that he will work "under" anybody. It was a weak-kneed obsequious comment.

---

Watched a rather nice interview of Zubin Mehta on NDTV after his concert in Srinagar. However, two of his comments were rather off:

• “Let (us) have another way, a spiritual way and I think yesterday there was a beginning of some process of healing because Hindus and Muslims were sitting together in complete harmony."

The Kashmir issue is not a communal matter. If this harmony works, then the Kashmiri Pandits who feel shortchanged and have been applauding the concert should also accept the maestro's version of harmony. They will not. So, one cannot expect it from those who live under the threat of the bullet.

• "Geelani Sahab hum to aapka dost hoon (I am your friend). You don't believe it! I wish all of our opposition would have come and enjoyed the music."

The 'opposition' is made up of several streams of thought. Singling out Geelani just made it appear as though he drives Kashmiri aspirations alone.

Sidelight:

Later on 'We the People' regarding the same subject, someone described as a media person who spoke against elitism mentioned how her car was stopped several times, documents checked and added, "This is not an everyday thing in Srinagar." It was so superficial. In fact, there are barricades and checkpoints and the less privileged are stopped everyday. She ended up doing the varnish job while trying to complain about it.

---

The Times of India carried a story discussing how spirituality and sex and not mutually-exclusive in Hinduism. It started and ended with Asaram Bapu, in effect conveying that he does not have to be a celibate.This was not in their "Sacred Space" or even an Op-Ed or a feature. It was a report.

This is disgusting, considering how the newspaper has been commercialising its concern for rape 'survivors'. Here is how it starts:

"Asaram is being pilloried by everybody, from parliamentarians to journalists, for alleged sexual assault on a teenager and is in jail now. Some of the horrified public responses at his alleged act can also be attributed to the general notion that dissociates sex from spirituality. This notion considers everybody on the spiritual path as 'wedded' to celibacy. But is this perception correct?...This possibly explains why many Hindi newspapers and TV channels are aghast at the preacher's 'fall from grace'."

Rather conveniently, the blame has been placed on Hindi channels, and Christian priests used as a counterpoint in the English media. This is asinine. It also reveals the mindset. Rape is not a sexual relationship. Such idiocy camouflages the intent to airbrush the image of this godman.

"...ancient Hindu rishis were known to have families and children. Even modern spiritualists like Swami Ramakrisnha Paramhansa... were all householders...If Asaram has broken the law with the alleged sexual assault on a minor then of course the book must be thrown at him."

This is for the courts to decide, and not some scripture. Asaram's celibacy or lack of it is not the issue. Had it been consensual with an adult, and had he — and his followers — not gone around promoting some form of sexual purity, it would not have at best been a salacious moment. Remember Nityananda and his video clips? (Aside: The same English media pilloried N.D. Tiwari for being caught with some women, although he is not a godman.)

The article mentions sex abuse by Christian priests, but not a word about many cases in ashrams in India. If Hinduism permits sadhus to have a sex life, then why do they talk about 'sanyas'? It is the pinnacle, and they obviously have not reached it.

All this apart, it is just appalling that when a man is in court for a crime like rape, an attempt is made by a big mainstream newspaper to discuss spiritualism and sexuality with his case as a backgrounder. Shameful, any which way we look at it.

© Farzana Versey

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. 

Who Owns Kashmir?

Rahul Gandhi, like the rest of the Nehru-Gandhi clan before him, will never contest an election from Kashmir. When he says, “I myself am from Kashmiri family and want to have lifelong relations with the people of Jammu and Kashmir”, it is a declaration of the divine right of the potentate in a jigsaw puzzle of a state.

A delegation of panchayat leaders from the state visits him in Delhi; he lands up in Sonmarg and tells the people he wants to “understand your pain deeply”. This makes former chief minister Farooq Abdullah so emotional he blurts out, “We are Indians and we will die as Indians. No power can separate us from India. A day will come when children of Rahul and Omar will see fruits of steps taken by us.” In July, Hurriyat leaders met Pakistan’s foreign minister on her official trip to India.

So, who is ruling the state?

Rahul Gandhi organises a corporate picnic with big industrialists. Many promises will be made. Perhaps for more formula racing, tulip gardens, skiing facilities, to ensure tourist traffic. These are mirages used to market the state to others. He wants to “connect Kashmiri youth with the development process”. There is no introspection as to why that has not happened yet.

>>Read the rest in Express Tribune

Sonia, Modi and Accountability

Narendra Modi is doing what he is programmed to do as a politician: rake up issues to show the opposition in a bad light. His latest salvo that turned out to be a whimper is to make public the travel and treatment expenses on Congress chief Sonia Gandhi.

The media has made it into a Modi versus Sonia war. The timing is obviously to cause some embarrassment, for Ms. Gandhi launched her party’s campaign in Gujarat today.  

The problem is that there is no embarrassment in politics – kickbacks and killings are par for the course. There is only one-upmanship. 

Sonia Gandhi in Rajkot...words, words

Ms Gandhi’s speech sounded rather lame:

"The Congress has laid down the foundation for growth in Gujarat. The Congress has tried to live up to its ideals, we have come a long way and still have miles to go. It is unfortunate that our opponents only see darkness and cannot see the development. The work the Congress has done for the development of Gujarat, no one else has done. The opposition always misleads people about our development-oriented policies. It is the habit of some people to take credit for the work done by other people, let them do it.”

This indirectly conveys that there is major development. People are not interested in who laid the foundation stone, how much money the Centre is pumping in. They see the glitz and the man with the Midas touch, even if it is fiction.

And then she went straight into the lion’s den without even realising it:

"The whole country is concerned about corruption today. We are too. The UPA brought in the Right to Information Act. People against whom there were corruption charges; the law has taken its course. I want to know what the BJP is doing about corruption. Why is there such a difference between their walk and talk?"

It is an RTI report that Modi has been flashing in public. The BJP may not walk their talk, but what happens to their allegations?

Indeed, Modi should realise that when he wants to target someone powerful outside his state he should come armed with facts that will not fall flat on their face. The bizarre figure spent he said was Rs. 1880 crore.

Ramesh Verma, whose petition, was used said:

"If Modi is referring to my RTI, neither have I received any such information nor have I leaked it to the media or any politician.”

Then, where did it materialise from?  The Congress has gone on the offensive on this slippery ground using invective to counter invective. If Modi is a liar, then nail his lie.

Modi with the other handy Gandhi

He is a shrewd player. It is quite probable that he used hyperbole precisely to get such a reaction. The Kapil Sibals, Manish Tewaris, Rajiv Shuklas are frothing at the mouth, and he is watching the fun. In fact, he has come forward with empathy:

"I say the government should spend as much amount as is required for treatment of Sonia Gandhi. We are for humanitarian cause. I would like to tell the PM to spend as much amount of money as needed but if people want to know the details of the expenses, should not the government give the details? Is it not the right of the people to know how much of their money is being spent? I am not questioning Sonia Gandhi. I am asking the PM how much money from the exchequer has been spent on Sonia Gandhi.”

There are some people who want to know: why now? Why did he or his party not raise the issue earlier? In fact, one is amazed at the media’s silence and ‘respect for privacy’ where Ms. Gandhi’s illness and trips abroad are concerned. Let us not forget that other politicians are made into public spectacles for their ailments, whichever party they belong to.

Modi may be using this time opportunistically, but is the query not valid? Why the secrecy about expenditure and trips made? I don’t think anyone should press for details of her illness, if this is a specific request. (In which case, the media should leave others alone, too.)

There is a suggestion that he won the 2007 elections by abusing Sonia Gandhi and is hoping it will work again. Much as I dislike his politics, Gujarat is in his pocket. The earlier abuse is replaced with a mix of concern for the nation’s wealth, at a time when the prime minister has just come out with his plan for the economy.

Sonia Gandhi’s speech has not helped. The Congress party spokespersons’ casual attitude could well be counter-productive outside Gujarat too when people have to shell out more for household items. If only they came out with a clear indicator, they’d earn goodwill and be seen as a serious political force, and not just a party of quiet hangers-on.

A few days ago, I got this email from a saffron party person:

"The latest India Today reports that Rahul Gandhi visited Singapore for three days to watch the Formula One race.  Since the race duration itself is about half-a-day, one has to wonder what exactly he did for the rest of the time.  Also, one has to wonder how the trip was paid for, since his wealth declaration, required at the time of filing the nomination to stand for Lok Sabha elections, indicates that he is a person of modest means."

Should these queries not be posed? Are they irrelevant to what else he does? In this case, it is possible that the F1 people invited him and sponsored his stay. It begs the question: Should a leader of a national party accept such freebies, if that is the case? Then, was not Narendra Modi invited by Gujarati businessmen in America? Expats have kept the Hindutva movement well-oiled. Almost all politicians make trips abroad; some take a huge entourage even on official trips. Industrialists lend their private jets. Helicopters are used for short sorties.

Where do we draw the line and for whom? 

- - -

Cartoon: Mumbai Mirror

Pix: NDTV, TOI

Sonia Gandhi Too Can Be Prez

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The reasons?

She has proved that she is a fine strategist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kingmaker Robert Vadra?

Should Robert Vadra join politics? It is the sort of question one asks at the dinner table if you are awfully fond of your relatives. However, it has become news. This is not the first time that Priyanka Gandhi’s husband has campaigned for the Congress.

There are two factors here:

• The Congress Party wants to act obsequious, so anything remotely connected with the family will be wooed.
• The Opposition sees this as an opportunity to bait.

Let us get a few fundamentals out of the way. Spouses, siblings and even special friends campaign during elections. There is always a trusted group. Atal Behari Vajpayee had his adopted family; L.K.Advani has his daughter; and almost all the ‘maharajahs’ have family members involved. Elections are about immediate and extended families.

Robert Vadra had to make a sacrifice when he married. He broke ties with his own family. Is he looking for some returns? This is what he said:

“I am here for my brother-in-law. For me politics will come if I think I can make a difference for the people, only when I can feel I can focus and I can give my best and full attention for the development of the people. I am totally enjoying what I am doing right now. The family I married into is in politics. It's something I cannot run away from. When the time is right, if it is what is required at that time may be yes but my focus is on my work right now.”

Priyanka said he was misquoted and he is happy with his “vyaapar” (business). The news clip immediately cut to the portion where he did mention that if people wanted he would join politics. Is it unusual? Not quite. He knows that Indians like package deals. We do not consider nepotism bad; it is our birthright. We assume that experience rubs off on those in one family. He used the words “cannot run away from” where he was trying to convey a sense of responsibility. He is also seen as a son of the Gandhis, for he is there on every occasion, especially on death anniversaries, seated in white kurta pyjama to share the moment.

There will be sniggers over this comment:

“Right now it is Rahul's time, Priyanka's time will also come.” 

It is a smart one. That Priyanka has chosen to play homemaker earns him brownie points. It means that while supportive of her aspirations, he is also in control. Her “time will also come” sends out a nice patriarchal promise to a patriarchal society that the lady they think should play an active role might do so in the future, so support her brother now.

Whether as asset or as baggage Robert Vadra will work in favour of Rahul Gandhi. In one scenario, he will be the strong backdrop; in the other, the guy who makes Rahul look so good and correct that he just cannot fail.

- - -

End note:

Rahul Gandhi says that unlike others he has no ambition of being Prime Minister. It is time the Congress initiated him in a real role with some other portfolio. The grassroots stuff is good, but he cannot be walking around all the time. He should put himself to test, if it is the language of politics he wants to talk.

India’s WikiLeaks: Wrong Aim

For all its hands-off talk, the US has been watching India rather closely.  The WikiLeaks revelations are no big deal, it is the sheer superficiality and gossipy nature that is a bit worrying, mainly because these tidbits will be seen as major issues.  

They also reveal how the different Indias are being played against one another.  It also exposes the vulnerability of the political class to American pressure tactics, or at least the desirability of US policy-makers to keep a hawk’s eye vigil as a pre-emptive drone. Here is an appraisal of a few of the subjects:

On Rahul Gandhi

“He is reticent in public, has shunned the spotlight and has yet to make any significant intervention in Parliament. His singular foray to centerstage during the UP elections was unremarkable. He is viewed as an empty suit and will have to prove wrong those who dismiss him as a lightweight. To do so, he will have to demonstrate determination, depth, savvy and stamina. He will need to develop his own networks of loyalists.  Relying solely on family inheritance may get him the top job but it will not be enough to make for a successful longterm political career.”

Is this rocket science? Or is it a soft spot for Manmohan Singh? We do know that Dr. Singh is not the power centre, but he is the one with the degree, the “upright” one. He gets to keep both sides happy, and by both we mean the Congress chief and the US chief.

Interestingly, while sniffing at Rahul’s inheritance, the cables talk about him developing a network of loyalists, like any feudal lord. I think that his reticence has left the Americans befuddled. They do not know what to expect should he take on the prime ministerial role. They know about the ‘regular’ Congress leadership and the BJP. To be noted is that the economic progress ones get prominent mention.

The “empty suit”, from the US point of view, is bound to be a bit threatening. 

On Kashmir

The US Ambassador to India, Timothy Roemer had cautioned his government against any “activism” in Kashmir saying even a hint of it can prove counter-productive in view of India’s sensitivity to third party involvement on the issue. “In order for India’s efforts to restore sustainable peace and stability in Kashmir to succeed, its engagement with the separatists and with the Kashmiri people must be free of any perception of outside influence.” Roemer had outlined a slew of measures that Indian government should take to make forward movement on resolution of Kashmir issue, but warned against making these “prescriptive” in nature.

There are 20 of them, including panchayat elections, bus links, telephone connections between PoK and J&K and “to encourage separatists to participate in future elections by providing them incentives”.

The use of the term “perception of outside influence” denotes a) it exists; b) the US did not believe that many among the Indian ranks think of Pakistan as the third party; some even imagine that the Kashmiris are not a party to the dialogue. This is clever usage given American activism through certain activist lobbies.

Besides, are we to understand that the US is offering over-the-counter advice if it is not ‘prescribing’ these suggestions? They may prompt one to ask whether it is the chicken-egg story, for most of these measures have been attempted. So, was it the initiative of the government or was it ‘doctored’? What is the nature of the incentives provided to the separatists? While the movement in Kashmir has a tumultuous history, did the US jump in to consolidate the separation and even assist in some sort of infiltration well aware that Pakistan with a still-hurting ego would be keen and able?

These questions have some basis. Another cable mentions that one faction of the Hurriyat was working against another and that Mirwaiz Umar Farooq was against hardliner Syed Ali Shah Geelani going for medical treatment to the US as he would “stir up trouble”.

This is not news. The news is that he was denied a visa because “the US official had believed Geelani's travel will ‘physically’ take him out of the political picture in India”.  It becomes clear that the intent is to promote a dogs-and-bone situation.

American covert policy in the state can be damaging in the long run, especially if it plans to ‘quit’ Afghanistan.

On Modi

“Modi is using his strong base in Gujarat to position himself for the BJP power struggle and to crow about Gujarat’s investment-friendly (but certainly not minority-friendly) record,” says one of the cables which were uploaded earlier this week by WikiLeaks. The cables sent by US diplomats in New Delhi focus on Modi's rising stature in the BJP and claim that “Modi has his eyes on bigger things”. In an assessment going back to 2005, the cables suggest Modi could be the most popular BJP leader and a potential PM candidate.

The BJP would like to keep Modi as a potent symbol, and he too is aware that at the national level he will not cut ice. Being a shark in a pond is better than being a goldfish in an ocean. Has he been on any major consultative committees where party matters are concerned? US interest in him is understandable because of the huge NRI population from Gujarat, and the fact that he has a loyal constituency of followers there. The money that should be part of the US economy being siphoned off for “Gujarati asmita (self-respect)” would not go down too well with the adopting country.

On Bengal’s commies and Taslima Nasreen

A cable sent by US embassy in Delhi to Washington after the November 2007 riots in Kolkata was titled, “Author Taslima Nasreen: pawn in political web”. It says, “After Nandigram, Nasreen represented a convenient foil for both the CPM and fundamentalist Muslim leaders in Kolkata.....it is clear India’s main political parties could not care less about Nasreen or her writing beyond how their parties’ reactions to events play to voters. Congress and the CPM continued to snipe at each other while searching for a solution that does not offend their all-important Muslim vote bank…The CPM is being accused by some of manufacturing the controversy in order to drive Nandigram out of the front pages. “

Although Nandigram was a Communist Party-corporate plot, the place where the plant was to be set up and would uproot the people had a majority of Muslims – 65 per cent. Reports state that 600 Dalits and Muslims died in the violence.  Asking Taslima to leave would not replace the ire – restricted to the community as well as on the issue of landlessness – over the takeover.  This was not the first time Nasreen was denied extension of the visa; if anyone was truly upset over her it was the Bengali intellectuals, whose personal relationships with her she had written about in her first memoir. Lajja, her book about a Hindu family in Bangladesh, was one of those convenient ruses used for another sort of vote bank.

If there is any tacit US sympathy for the writer, then it is a business decision. A stake in industrial units is what the American corporations have always strived for, the Gates-Buffett philanthropy being part of the deal-making big picture.

On Mayawati

The cables on Uttar Pradesh chief minister are a bit strange.

When she needed new sandals, her private jet flew empty to Mumbai to retrieve her preferred brand," a cable dated October 23, 2008 reported, adding she employed food tasters to guard against poisoning. "She constructed a private road from her residence to her office, which is cleaned immediately after her multiple vehicle convoy reaches its destination," the cable said in an analysis of her "eccentricities, whims and insecurities".

This fits the stereotype and again seeks to use one India against another. In this case, the dynamics are more nuanced and devious. She is seen as the Sarah Palin prototype when she is probably more like Barack Obama – the ‘other’, for whom ‘change’ is symbolic and, despite all the flaws, can become a thorny issue.

The reductionism is par for the course, and we have seen it in India too as I mentioned in an earlier piece. Many world leaders have their eccentricities and whims. Even Jinnah and Nehru were known to get their suits tailored abroad. There is an element of ostentation, but is this what the US is bothered about? Or is it the fact that its fat middle class dream gets shattered?

Of course, being Mayawati means not keeping quiet. She has shot the messenger:

“There is no iota of truth in the cable leaks. It is a blatant lie to tarnish the image of my government. The owner of WikiLeaks seems to have gone mad. He should be sent to a mental asylum by the country he belongs to and in case there is no place for him, he should be sent to UP. We will put him in the Agra mental asylum.”

Julian Assange has responded with:

“Mayawati has betrayed rational thought. The question is, has she also betrayed the Dalit? The allegations… are made by US diplomats in their private communications back to Hillary Clinton. If chief minister Mayawati has a problem with the contents of these communications she needs to take it up with Hillary. I ask that Mayawati admit her error and apologize.”

I am intrigued. How has she betrayed the Dalits? Assange sounds no different from the US administration. It is the Dalits who elected her, and she is as much of a totem for them as Obama is for the Blacks. 

In politics, you have to shed your skin and wear a mask. It is not the best thing to do, but where skin and caste matter so much this kind of upward mobility goes beyond opportunism. 

(c) Farzana Versey