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

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

How independent is independence?

Emotions can be infectious. When one listens to the sound of music, however loud, however remixed, from street corners and shanties, it is difficult not to at least hum along and somehow join in.

Today, it was relatively quiet. There is one 'celebration' spot across the end of the lane, which would be a few meters from my gate. That is where almost every occasion calls for songs. I waited to be awoken. It was only after breakfast that I heard the first strains:

"Ae mere watan ke logoun
Zaraa aankh mein bhar lo paani
Jo shaheed hue hai unki
Zaraa yaad karo qurbani

What do we remember most about this song? Ask around. They will tell you that Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru had tears in his eyes when he heard Lata Mangeshkar singing Pradeep's lyrics.

India got independence from British rule; this song was penned after the war with China. The China that ambles across our borders.

This song is a paean to the sacrifices of soldiers. In the past few years soldiers have been killed along the LoC, even when there is no war; they have also been killed by their colleagues or by a gunshot aimed by themselves.

"Jab ghayal hua Himalaya..."? The mountains are not wounded. The wars are between pundits in studios, politicians hawking their wares.

I am dry-eyed.

---

I don't watch the speeches from the Red Fort on August 15th. However, it is interesting to see the reactions. The prime minister is not going there to clear the air or solve the country's problems. There are 364 days in the year. He is, or ought to be, speaking on behalf of the country, not the political party he represents. Unfortunately, that does not happen.

It is no surprise, then, that the wannabe candidate of la-la-land, Narendra Modi, chose to hit out at the Red Fort speech even before it was delivered. He said that at the Red Fort there would be only promises whereas here — in Bhuj where he was addressing the youth of his state — there would be talk about the work that has been done.

We have seen how his devotees (and he is a god whose clay feet they refuse to notice) have the gumption of passing off sleek buses in China as a model of ones in Ahmedabad to show 'development'. So blinded are they that they forget that India does not have left-hand drive vehicles and it is easy to catch the lie. Or perhaps it is audacity. They do not care.

Just as Modi himself does not. Minutes after the PM address, he sniggered, "Media channels said this is PM Manmohan Singh's last speech from Red Fort but he said he has miles to go, which rocket will he take?"

It is not important whether this man understands Robert Frost's poetry. It is a sophomoric dig, and that should tell us a lot more about him than industry-sponsored speeches.

I have just read the transcript of the PM's speech. It is mostly homilies. In a country where people are now battling with disease, illiteracy, and the rupee being worth one-sixtieth of a dollar and onions at Rs. 60 a kilo — we are even gearing to import it from Pakistan (tears without any skirmish!) — Dr. Singh offered chicken soup, not medicine. What we need is not just medicine, but inoculation. If we don't, anyone with ambitions will pose as a healer. We don't recognise quacks easily.

---

Yesterday afternoon, there were cops near a shopping mall. Lounging on uncomfortable chairs, looking tiredly as cars broke signals and pedestrians skirted cars.

I read in the papers there were 721 sensitive spots. 721 spots in Mumbai alone. 721 spots where terrorists could strike, whereas right under the nose of the cops anyone could have been killed by a passing vehicle with a cocky driver behind the wheel.

---

So many free things available — electronics, clothes, cosmetics, edibles, travel, even ads for losing kilos "free".

How many people earning an honest living would be beguiled by all this and bought things they might not need. Did they think about the freedom struggle? Did those corporates and retailers?

---

What we get free makes us indebted and enslaved. We are all still colonised in some way or the other by commercialism, bigotry, prejudice, casteism, communalism, elitism. So how independent are we really?

© 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. 

Tussi chha gaye, Sardarji! Will Manmohan Singh's Moment Last?

Time to roll out the red carpet?

I am not alluding to Dr. Manmohan Singh’s faith by addressing him as ‘Sardarji’ here. Sardar is a leader, and for the first ever time he spoke as one in his eight-year-long tenure. But all good packages don’t always have fresh and edible contents. In fact, the fine print on the package can be misleading.

Yet, I’d like to learn from the PM’s speech on the economic policy decisions for two reasons:

1. I know precious little about the economy in terms of fiscal deficit and inflation. Therefore, I cannot see the issue holistically.
2. He addressed the nation directly, instead of selecting a favourite media outlet to express his views, which is truly what a leader ought to do.

There were obvious political moments:

“No government likes to impose burdens on the common man. Our Government has been voted to office twice to protect the interests of the aam admi.”

The aam aadmi does not read party manifestos. The aam aadmi, and even industry bigwigs, like freebies.

The government has taken away the freebies:

“Let me begin with the rise in diesel prices and the cap on LPG cylinders. 
We import almost 80% of our oil, and oil prices in the world market have increased sharply in the past four years. We did not pass on most of this price rise to you, so that we could protect you from hardship to the maximum extent possible…Much of the diesel is used by big cars and SUVs owned by the rich and by factories and businesses. Should the government run large fiscal deficits to subsidize them?”

This is utterly wicked. But, then, that is what politicians do. It is not as though the corporate guys will take out a morcha; Dr. Singh works in a FICCI manner, more or less. This is really a buffer comment to hide the small cars, small homes that will bear some of the burden. It may not be huge, but with this statement he has tried to build confidence, conveying that the rich will take the blows. Reminiscent of Indira Gandhi’s “Garibi Hatao” slogan that later transmogrified into the License Raj.

It is time to revisit history and the PM did just that. He brought in 1991 when he as finance minister in P.V.Naramimha’s Rao’s cabinet made the economy ‘free’. The problem was, and continues to be, that freedom will always be in the hands of a few; that it might percolate to the lower strata is a bonus, never the main concern. I don’t wish to be a killjoy, but weren’t the big scams with lobbying and kickbacks the result of just this free-for-all?

Fine, kerosene has been left untouched because it is used by the poor. This is simplistic thinking, especially when he asks:

“Where would the money for this have come from? Money does not grow on trees. If we had not acted, it would have meant a higher fiscal deficit, that is, an unsustainable increase in government expenditure vis-a-vis government income. If unchecked, this would lead to a further steep rise in prices and a loss of confidence in our economy.  The prices of essential commodities would rise faster.  Both domestic as well as foreign investors would be reluctant to invest in our economy. Interest rates would rise.  Our companies would not be able to borrow abroad.  Unemployment would increase.”

He has created a Robinhood scenario. Rich subsiding the poor. Only, the rich will get a backdoor entry through “building investor confidence”. Is this good for the economy in the long run? How many of the poor will be employed, how many health and education schemes will see fruition as a result? Of course, this is putting the cart before the horse. The reason is that the horse can gallop away and leave the cart behind.

The PM’s views on the world situation, however, cannot be discounted:

“You should know that even after the price increase, the prices of diesel and LPG in India are lower than those in Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Pakistan.”

“The world is not kind to those who do not tackle their own problems. Many European countries are in this position today.  They cannot pay their bills and are looking to others for help.  They are having to cut wages or pensions to satisfy potential lenders.”

There is absolutely no doubt about this. India has remained relatively unsullied by the fall of the big economies, but who had to bear the brunt? And who were the people responsible for part of the major bungling? Wall Street. Big men with big greed.

His emphasis on global investment is a huge concern.

“The world is not kind to those who do not tackle their own problems…I am determined to see that India will not be pushed into that situation.  But I can succeed only if I can persuade you to understand why we had to act.”

It is, indeed, better for a nation to let its citizens work on the money than depend on loans directly. The “begging bowl” syndrome has not afflicted India to a great extent.

And this, the country can be proud of. The country should also be proud when people question it, for only then can there be true progress. India is not a single state whose development module can whitewash its other ills. To be more blunt, Manmohan Singh is not Narendra Modi.

We all know that there is a need for growth, but it cannot happen with a magic wand. In the process of the economy being stabilised, there might be little tremors. Can’t help but paraphrase Rajiv Gandhi’s comment (“When big tree falls, earth will shake”): When big tree is planted directly in the soil, there will be some mud that will come loose.

At this moment, my ‘aam aadmi’ imagination can only conjure up diesel-guzzling SUVs being splashed with sludge.

© Farzana Versey

Pakistan's Conversion Circus: Missing the woods for the tree

Sunil on his way to Abdullah

Pakistani society has one more reason to get agitated. A Hindu boy has converted to Islam in front of a live television audience. Sunil became Muhammad Abdullah.

I’d like to take up the editorial in Dawn to show just how this limited concern works.

"In yet another example of how the industry's commercial goals trump ethics, open-mindedness and common sense, on Tuesday a television show broadcast an imam leading a Hindu boy through a live conversion to Islam carried out in the studio as part of the show, complete with the audience joining in to suggest Muslim names for the new convert.

"There is no reason to think the boy was not converting of his own free will, but the whole event had the distinct air of being carried out to give viewers something new and different to watch, even if that meant dragging an intensely personal and spiritual experience into public view.”

This is like suggesting that it is quite nice to carve your meat at a fine dining table, but don’t let us see the butcher’s shop. There is as much ethics in what the paper says as the bleeding rites of passage. I have always maintained my anti-conversion stand, and in this case I might be interested to know a couple of things if ethics is an issue:

1. This is reality TV. Participants on such shows are paid. Was the boy paid to appear on the show or to convert?
2. If he was doing it of his own free will, then the question is not about conversion but about the involvement of imams, who object to entertainment programmes. 
3. Is it not the job of the media to investigate about the motives of the boy – where is he from, what are his reasons, instead of replaying clips?

Sitting on a high horse has become part of the media culture. Editorials are passing judgments and trying to ‘convert’ people into thinking in ways they deem fit all the time, taking political sides, writing treacly pieces on leaders.

Maya Khan in an earlier stint

The host of the ARY show is Maya Khan, who is seen as an Islamist. It is interesting that actress Veena Malik was supposed to host a Ramzan programme and it was vetoed by the mullahs in Pakistan. Did anyone among the liberals question the ethics of someone like the controversial lady hosting such a show? Was it not to grab eyeballs? Would it not be as bad as mullahs looking beady-eyed over a conversion? What are the ethics about having such shows at all in a country that is constantly discussing religious resurgence and its ill-effects?

Who is to decide what form of religion should be portrayed? If you want a Veena Malik type show, then someone else might find a Maya Khan entertaining. Did not Ms. Malik become the hero of a section of the nation when she took on some mullahs on a channel a couple of years ago for her right to expose her body and perform live canoodle scenes? She suddenly became the ambassador of the nation, of liberal Islam, of a fight for modernity.

These are all circus acts, and one does not expect better from reality television and that includes news channels. Part of the hot air is possibly because this is a competitive game, where ethics are the flakes of pistachio on the phirni, not an ingredient. This is borne out by the fact that the editorial is worried about how just to spice things up “religion is now fair game too”.

Talat Hussain, who hosts a political show on private television channel Dawn News, said:

“Think about how Muslims would feel if Buddhists in Burma show a Muslim being converted on a live TV show.”

If this is not spicy and sensational, then what is?

Religion always has been fair game. Why get pedantic about it in a country that relays every religious detail, and “spiritualism” is sold at shrines, as CDs? And just for the information of those who do not know, conversion is not a private matter. The decision to convert might be, but the individual has to perform certain rituals to show that s/he belongs. The whole reason behind it is often social acceptability or pressure.

Question that. But it would not get as much attention, does not give those expressing anger a primetime slot.

It is surprising to read this:

"more disturbingly, what the channel obviously didn't stop to consider is the message this broadcast would send to the country's minorities…The joy with which the conversion was greeted, and the congratulations that followed, sent a clear signal that other religions don't enjoy the same status in Pakistan as Islam does. In a country where minorities are already treated as second-class citizens in many ways, this served to marginalise them even further”

Who has made a noise about this? Where are the minority groups? It is not about the message a television show sends out. Pakistanis do not live in and off studios. The country’s laws discriminate against minorities.

Can anyone file a petition against the channel? Will it change anything? How many Pakistanis have the courage to flaunt their agnosticism/atheism, if that is their proclivity?

In a moment of perfect coordination, it would appear – and that showcases the hypocrisy – President Asif Ali Zardari has formally invited PM Manmohan Singh to visit Pakistan:

Zardari suggested that if Singh’s visit coincided with Guru Nanak's birth anniversary in November, it would be well received by the Pakistani people and reinforce the desire of both countries to promote inter-religious harmony.

Is this not misuse of religion? Do India and Pakistan need to promote inter-religious harmony? At least, India does not need Pakistan for that. And this is being hailed by the same media that has been frothing at the mouth over a conversion. Weren’t Sikhs beheaded in that country not too long ago?

India has enough of its own problems with different religions and sects and castes. But I dread to think what would happen if we had an Ahmadi Prime Minister. Would President Zardari extend an invitation to celebrate anything and promote inter-religious harmony, when the community is ostracised socially and politically?

Perhaps one of the ‘ethical’ people of Pakistan might like to convert to the Ahmadiya faith on public television and send out a strong message?

If you cannot do that, then a coat of varnish is not going to change the shakiness of the walls.

(c) Farzana Versey

Million Dollar Men: Asif Ali Zardari and Hafiz Saeed

The Ajmer Sharif Dargah in north India has become for politics what the Wagah border is for peace activists.  It is just so much melting wax and withering flowers.

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari is to pay a visit to the shrine on what has been touted as a “personal” trip. Given his position, it is quite natural that Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would ask him to join him for lunch. Now, when these two countries meet for any meal, there is a slow fire burning and a pot boiling in the background. You can see what is cooking, but the people at the table do not seem to have a clue.

We are still at the stage where the sophomoric question is: who should make the first move? Many moves have been made, in wars, by insurgents, through signed pieces of paper, with hugs, blasts, dialogues. These seem to have fallen on the head without anyone making the first move. Instead, the friendly country far from the neighbourhood has decided to do something about it.

The United States of America has put Hafiz Saeed, the leader of Jama'at-ud-Da'wah that was declared a terrorist organisation by the United Nations in December 2008, up there as the big dish. A little problem here. You don’t get him. He is just an item on the menu. You have to hand him over to the great master chef, Barack Obama, and in return take away the $10 million bounty offered by the U.S. for any information on him. No one quite knows what Mr. Zardari plans to pray for at the dargah, but it certainly isn’t a huge amount of money this time. As for Dr. Singh, he is a clean man with clean thoughts and, anyway, he does not have Hafiz Saeed. He can demand that he be handed over, is the chorus. Pages and pages have been exchanged over the Mumbai attacks of November 2008.

We need to look at this a bit carefully. India and Pakistan do not perceive Saeed in the same manner, and the simple reason is that they cannot. They are two countries with different compulsions. Saeed has been the mastermind behind those blasts. Ajmal Kasab, the hit man and the last guy standing, became the fall guy. In terms of a criminal act with the evidence he would be culpable. How does one gauge the extent of input by a mastermind? Osama bin Laden did not go out and attack anyone, yet he was the hunted. If we go by this logic, then the U.S. President must take responsibility for the killings of all the civilians in unprovoked wars.

The reason for bringing this up is the crucial element of American convenience. It would be facile to believe for a moment that the US is concerned about India, even though Obama said it has not forgotten the Mumbai attacks. It remembers at an opportune time. The present Zardari-Singh meeting is not terribly important, except to discuss the same old things. I also do not believe that the US bounty will suddenly make terrorism an issue. It has always been an issue.

The American establishment is only making sure it gets a sneak preview. While peace between the two countries is whimsical, the state of unrest has helped outsiders a great deal. This bane has been a boon for them, for a huge world population can be managed, if not colonised, by the simple expedient of posing as a saviour figure.  It simply does not understand that terrorism in these parts is feeding off angst. It is playing on sentiment.

To put it simplistically, for the West the Mumbai attacks showed India as a rich country and Pakistan as a few men in dinghy. Good old David Headley, Hafiz Saeed’s video maker and map drawer, managed to get a visa to India and do his recce trips as a US citizen. They have him there. Do the two countries have the courage to ask America what exactly it is doing with him?

Hafiz Saeed is roaming free. His December 2011 rally against NATO killings turned out to be bigger than that of most politicians. This was not in some small town, but in Lahore, where he turned the ‘war on terror’ on it head by urging the Pakistani authorities to revoke its cooperation. Whether anybody likes it or not, there are many Pakistanis who support his organisation, Difa-e-Pakistan. Political pragmatism would make it imperative to be on his side, because at least with regard to NATO he is expressing the prevalent sentiment: “In 10 years of war that US has fought in Afghanistan, Pakistan actually lost more than the invaded country.”

 

Afghanistan has been a sore point with mainstream Pakistani politicians from the time of the influx of refugees during the Afghan war to the Taliban entering the plains and attacking just about every group of people. The splitting of hairs over ‘good Taliban’ and ‘bad Taliban’ has in fact blurred the lines. In the popular imagination, the U.S. is to blame for it. The audacious move to assign ‘guardian angels’, troops to watch over their sleeping comrades “against possible attacks by rogue Afghans” after an American soldier Sergeant Robert Bales killed sleeping Afghans, amounts to playing victim.

Pakistan is caught between these two victim-aggressors. It is willing to risk drone attacks, but the authorities probably believe that the rightwing within might come in handy. The view that Pakistan wishes to create communal tensions in India works symbolically to the benefit of Pakistan and India should disabuse such notions actively. If Pakistan wishes to destabilise India by hitting out at its totems of economic progress, then why would it want to do trade with India and why should the Indian government encourage it?

If India believes that the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) is behind it all, then does it make any sense to ask Pakistan to hand over Hafiz Saeed or to even try him? More importantly, if India believes that all acts of terror emanate from Pakistan, then is there any purpose in pursuing peace? Peace does not merely mean no war. It conveys a sense of confidence and trust. Neither country trusts the other.

This leaves a large opening for America, and it never fails to appear. The farce of a $10 million bounty will be played out in salons rather than in Islamabad or New Delhi. This is a huge bait for Pakistani liberals and expats to fill the U.S. coffers during the run-up to the elections. The money will be in trust, without it being spoken of in such clear terms, and the well-wisher Pakistani lobbyists will buy peace. America knows this only too well.

The obvious question would be: Aren’t there more prominent Indians in that country? Rich Indian immigrants are keener on being American; they do not have to prove their innocence, unlike Pakistanis. This is a major difference.

What has this got to do with President Zardari meeting Dr. Singh? If one is to understand some of the ‘peace’ proponents, then India is doing a subtle America without the bluster. The lead opinion piece in The Times of India had this gem:

“Clearly, Zardari has stolen an imaginative moment from the bitter-sullen history of India-Pakistan, by asking to come to pay his respects to a cherished and much-beloved saint across the Indian subcontinent. It shows what we, despite the horrendous Mumbai attacks of 2008, are still capable of. Perhaps the Pakistani president will seek forgiveness for those attacks and pray that both countries can move on by jointly erasing the scourge of terrorism. God knows, there are more people killed in Allah’s name in Pakistan today than elsewhere in the region.”

This is so full of Pat Robertson type evangelism, with its penance and forgiveness tone, that one wishes that all SAARC meetings are held at the shrine. In fact, such ‘private’ visits only reinforce the belief that we in South Asia will always mix religion with politics.

Taking such peace talks further is a piece in The Hindu jointly written by former Foreign Secretary of Pakistan Humayun Khan and former Foreign Secretary of India Salman Haidar:

“Peace within the region is an essential requirement for India to continue on its upward path. It must make renewed efforts to convince its neighbours that it poses no threat to them. It still has to fully convince them that it is ready to honour their independence and separate personality.”

How can such a thing be proved? India is fighting movements within almost as much as Pakistan is, with probably fewer casualties. The emphasis on economic progress, in fact, diverts attention away from political instability. There is no doubt that India being the larger nation has to respect other nations, but their sovereignty depends on how they manage contradictions within. Bilateral peace has little to do with this.

“To further allay apprehensions, discussions could be initiated on relocation of forces along the border and on regular meetings between chiefs of the armed forces and of intelligence agencies. The need for better understanding between the two militaries cannot be over-emphasised, because the security syndrome in Pakistan is the major obstacle in the way of progress.”

Do the armed forces act independently? They don’t. Besides, there is a difference between armed conflict and terrorism. Terrorism does not take the regular route. While Pakistan has to deal with the army as possible government, India has to handle the politicisation within the army. How they talk to each other matters little when compared with how they operate inside their own countries.

Dr. Manmohan Singh does not have to worry about the Indian armed forces posing a threat to his position. Asif Ali Zardari has to every minute of the day. A little prayer at the dargah will not change that. What he might get by way of benediction is a new eureka motivation: blame the existence of Hafiz Saeed on newbie willing to sup with Islamists Imran Khan for the moment. Wasn’t seize the day an all-American novel?

(c)Farzana Versey

Published in Counterpunch, April 4

- - -

Image of Asif Ali Zardari and Dr Manmohan Singh courtesy Open magazine

Of Ombudsmen and Wo(men)

I think we need an ombudsman to overrule the ombudsman who will be overruled by everyone who knows what an ombudsman is not supposed to do.

Anna had a “wish list”. It just so happens that his wish is not his command. Why is his team's moral high horse better than anybody else's? There is nothing to celebrate about him, his movement, the Opposition, or the ruling party. After all this utter waste of time and effort, I think we deserve a couple of conspiracy theories.

• Why did the BJP chicken out? Perhaps, the party had a tacit understanding with Team Anna that if there were not sufficient crowds – don’t bother about the traffic jams, in Mumbai cows, strays and fallen trees, all cause traffic snarls – then the BJP will not vote for the government’s Lokpal Bill even with amendments. This will give Anna reprieve from the fast, which he should have not undertaken for health and other reasons anyway. And it will give the anti-corruption movement something to do in the New Year.

• Another important factor could be that this would take away the allegations of RSS links of Anna that they are so concerned about, and in effect the BJP might wish to distance itself from for a while to put on its moderate face in the make-up van.

Okay, let us get serious. I do not understand numbers, so will skip all that. There are some details here.

I'd like to address some points BJP's Sushma Swaraj made:

“It appears the government is placing this bill in a fit of rage”

It was pushed into this sewer and naturally came out smelling of turd.

“The federal structure of the Constitution is being violated”

And what was Anna’s movement about? The Constitution?

“Centre wants to make the Lokpal model optional for states, but the bill you have brought makes it mandatory”

True. The river flows from the seas. Same logic.

“18 states have Lokayuktas. Many of them have better bills than the ones you have brought. Like Uttarakhand. Your bill will override those. There are better ones like the bill that Karnataka passed long ago”

So, the Lokpal Bill was already there for 43 years. If that is not good enough, then it is all a matter of how you look at it. This is not a case of ‘uski kameez meri kameez se safeid kyon’. Incidentally, Mamata Bannerjee too is putting up a fight, so you cannot keep everyone happy all the time.

“Minority quota: Reservation in constitutional bodies is not allowed”

In principle, agree. But the ‘Jan’ Lokpal Bill was trying to over-ride the constitution. Besides, if we accept regional variety, then why not caste, class and religious ones? I mean, when you bribe someone with a khokha it is different from using ‘good offices’, hai na?

“Government is acting as if this bill is a nuisance and it just wants to get over with it”

True. Like fast-track justice for certain media-hyped crimes. If you set deadlines, pour out in the streets, have your demon Santas go around demanding support, then the government will play politics with even more vigour. It just has the advantage of being the driver.

“We wanted CBI to be freed from government control. But this bill does the opposite. All power lies with the government”

The Armed Forces are exempt and will be tried through regular and civilian channels. The CBI is an indepenedent agency. This is the time to prove it. The BJP can do what it wants when and if it comes to power.

“CBI’s prosecution and investigating wings need to be separated, with the latter handed over to Lokpal. This way, the government’s hold over the CBI ends”

Fantastic. Why not name it the Federal Bureaus of Investigation. We can have our own FBIs.

“Inquiry against PM comes with too many safeguards. Are you increasing transparency or checking it?”

The prime minister is not directly elected to the post by the people. It is the party that decides. So, in effect, there is no transparency to begin with. The role of the Opposition is to raise issues of crimes of commission and omission on the part of the PM. That is transparency enough. When he appoints people, shuffles portfolios, it is obvious what is going on. What more would we like to know? Heck, we even know that Mukesh Ambani has told him he will invest Rs. 70,000 crore in India. And we know that the PM has given the Home Minister a good report, the same Mr. Chidambaram who was fighting with Pranab Mukherkee who was fighting about who first passed the file for the 2G spectrum.

“Either you correct this bill or I say with folded hands, please take it back and send it again to the standing committee. Let there be a detailed discussion there and bring it back in three months”

No need to fold hands. This was expected. Why wait for three months? Ah, Anna Haxare does not like winters, I understand.

The real cherry on the cake was from the CPI’s Gurudas Dasgupta:

“I support a Lokpal Bill but not this bill”

Yeah, I support Marx, but not Marxism.

- - -

The drama is not over. It will be tabled in the Rajya Sabha, then back to agitations. Meanwhile, here's my cheesy filmi line for the day: Thappad se darr nahin lagta Anna saab, bekar vaar se lagta hai....

Sunday ka Funda

“The function of leadership is to produce more leaders, not more followers.”

- Ralph Nader 

Advani, a Weak PM, and Incontinence

I think our Prime Minister is not weak; he knows his so-called weakness works in his favour. Therefore, L.K.Advani may be sighing with Hissar relief after the Yeddy-made problem, but it is a bit too pat and he ends up boosting the real weaklings/seeklings:

“We have had Prime Ministers like Chandra Shekhar, Deve Gowda and IK Gujral who may not have even ten-fifteen MPs but who never appeared weak as there is a lot of strength in the position of Prime Minister.”

Exactly. There is strength in the position, not necessarily the person. What did these three really contribute?

"The condition of the government is very bad. Sometimes I take pity at Manmohan Singh though I had respect for him at one time. When I criticised him by calling him 'weak' before the 2009 elections people asked me why I said that because he was a good and honest man. Calling him weak is not an abuse. But if the Prime Minister thinks that he cannot do anything till 10 Janpath does not give me clearance, it does not behove him.”

A few points:

1. Does he mean to say that since “weak” is not an abuse, he is by default an honest man? 
2. If he does need “clearance” from 10 Janpath, then why target him at all and not the person at 10 Janpath? He has been going on tours, attending summits and signing documents. Why not make him responsible for all of this?
3. Finally, since when has the BJP encouraged independent leaders? Does it not tomtom itself as the great Indian family? Aren't the rebels thrown out? Did not Vajpayee have to follow the Advaniji’s diktats, not to speak of the RSS?

- - -

And on a note that might bring a smile to pitashri Advani’s face, a small little news item:

A Maharashtra MLA has registered a complaint against the use of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Pratibha Patil’s pictures to indicate men and women’s washrooms near the VIP lounge of Nagpur’s Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar International Airport.

“Both portraits are displayed near the washrooms, which is against discipline and protocol. Symbolically, it shows that Patil’s portrait gives direction towards the women’s washroom while Manmohan Singh’s directs one to the gents’ loo.”

Just shows how our cult of worship can get terribly leaky. I fail to understand, though, how people – that too in the VIP lounge – would 'follow' the leader unless they are bladderful. It is good that we do not have Dr. Ambedkar’s statue in the famous pose, finger pointing out, anywhere in the vicinity. That would be quite a discretionary take on the constitution.

Kiran’s Dance, Illiteracy and Symbolism

Kiran Bedi as performer

After the fast-feast, there are bound to be leftovers. They make for an interesting peep into the psyche of the performers and the spectators. There has been much shock expressed over Kiran Bedi’s ‘ghunghat’ dance at the Ramlila rally.

Bedi then moved on to theatrics and enacted what she said was how politicians behaved. Bedi pulled a scarf from the neck of a young activist on stage, wrapped her head with it and proceeded to mock MPs.

"You remove one mask, then you find another one, and then another. They change words according to time and place. Never trust them," she said.

What is the objection to? That she poked fun at the MPs or that she enacted this parodic scene? Despite my antipathy towards the whole movement, I fail to understand how this alone reduces her stature. Her calling this act a “game-changer” is a bit too delusionary, but at what point in time has there been no drama in this rally?

When Anna Hazare came on the music reality show “Little Champs”, he too sang a few lines of Gandhi's favourite bhajan “Vaishnao jan to”; Arvind Kejriwal asked the kids to come to the rally and give a boost to the ‘andolan’. Many singers and actors did. This was the nature of the movement. Ms. Bedi was just playing her part.

Does anyone recall Asma Jehangir and company singing in a television studio on one of those ‘aman’ programmes? Street theatre is very much about activism. Did not Sushma Swaraj dance, and was the objection to her doing so essentially relegated to tarnishing the image of Gandhi’s Rajghat?

Bedi as cop

The problem with Ms. Bedi’s stance is that she, who claimed to be the dissenting voice against any authority, is now calling herself a mere soldier. She is not even that and seems more like Anna’s nurse.

During the 1984 anti-Sikh riots there were pictures of her, lathi in hand, fighting the mobs. It was an iconic image that has stayed with some of us. But in later years, even as she was honoured as a ‘supercop’, she was accused of being a publicity hog.

Let us not forget that she has endorsed a detergent to show how to clean dirt. Whether we agree with her or not, this is what has been embedded in the public mind.

As for her opinion on politicians, is not the Jan Lokpal Bill fighting against the system’s version?

What I am trying to say is that she is pandering to type and not going beyond the script because it is the best option. As for her saying that our leaders wear masks, wasn’t Atal Behari Vajpayee called the “mukhota”?


Only because some of us – in fact many of us – do not agree with the Anna caravan, I do not see any reason to respect politicans as a reaction. We must respect Parliament and the Constitution. Individual ministers are known to be venal as are individual activists.

This brings us to the other leftover issue. Actor Om Puri got a whole lot of mileage for landing up slightly tipsy and making a speech where he called our ministers illiterate:

“I feel ashamed when an IAS or IPS salutes a "gawar" who is a Neta. We have more than 50 percent ‘gawar’ Netas. Don’t vote for them.”

It has resulted in much semantic knowledge of what really “gawaar” means. Is it crass, or lack of knowledge, or just illiterate? How does it matter? Is this the first time anyone has said this about our politicans? Did not Amitabh Bachchan, a neta once, call politics a cesspoll?

Om Puri in the last couple of years has shown that you may be literate and educated but you can still be crass. Literacy does not imbue people with decency or common sense. If anything, he has insulted the very aam aadmi, the considerable numbers of unlettered people that constitute the Indian population and who this Team Anna is claiming to be the voice of.

Political leaders have been quick to trot out numbers of MPs and their degrees. I remember a forward that was sent some years ago listing out Manmohan Singh’s impressive CV. What does it mean when it comes to the real world of steering the country outside the ‘economic progress’ bubble? How has the educated Narendra Modi fared with the common people? Did not the rustic Lalu Prasad Yadav, who was seen as a standup comic, gain respectability only after he was invited by the posh management institutes to lecture?

What is most amusing is that many of these foot soldiers, by putting their foot in the mouth, are only making Anna seem more saintly than he is. They are the shoulders he can happily fire the non-violent gun from. And to think that some people believe that the elite dislike Anna because he is a poor villager. Oh sure. Had he not been legitimised by candle-light, these barfers would not have been supporting him. Isn’t he too a “gawaar” and we do have a former top police officer saluting him? What a circle within circles. If this is not politics, then what is? Or shall we say politicans trussed up for the kursi, with the readymade words, “We think it will be better to fight from within the system”?

Talking of leftover matters, I wonder why there isn’t much noise about the symbolism of two little girls offering Anna his first drink to break his fast – one was a Dalit, the other a Muslim, we were informed. I can imagine the communal harmony waalas applauding. I find it revolting. As though it is okay to drink from the hands of Dalits and Muslims. The only symbolism here seems to be the poor souls make for good water/message carriers; they cannot be the fount from which wisdom and change can spring.


End note:

Why has Rahul Gandhi been silent? It is the most sensible thing to do. The visible face of the country is the prime minister. By letting him manage with his core group is a smart move. Rahul, once he is anointed, will need the Mr. Clean image. That is probably his only USP.

Manmohan Singh's Soft Stance

They talk about the second independence. It is really another partition of the country – a partition that will last until the next popcorn episode of the soap opera.

Sonia would have handled it with greater maturity, are the whispers doing the rounds. The Hazare cabal is giving us titbits about which minister is more “pliable” and it is supposed to be a good thing. We, who complain about lack of spine in our leaders, now want them to bend over backwards.

This push-the-buttons sort of democracy is detrimental, and now we have sheer desperation:

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Thursday paid fulsome tribute to anti-corruption crusader Anna Hazare, calling him the embodiment of “our people’s disgust and concern about tackling corruption” while defending his own record by inviting the opposition to scrutinize properties he or his family members had acquired in his 40-odd years in public life.

No, Sir, he is not. Where was he when Bofors happened? Would the PM say the same thing had he raised that bogey? The people involved here are not disgusted with corruption but how they cannot get their way despite it being around. Big businesses have thrived on corruption – getting permits for their industrial units that they know will go beyond the limit allocated. These corporate houses have the most corrupt practices going on. Newspapers that take money to splash photographs are joining the crusade. Doctors, lawyers, teachers who give ‘extra tuitions’ often transact with cash – does anyone know how much of it is accounted for? And these are the ‘angry people’.

Why should the leader of the largest democracy have to kowtow to an individual? And why is he “hurt” over his reputation being sullied by a bunch of performers? These are ‘non-state actors’. Why was the PM not concerned when there were misdemeanours committed earlier?

“In the course of seven years as prime minister, I may have made mistakes. Who is above making mistakes? To err is human but to accuse me of evil intentions, of conniving at corruption is a charge I firmly repudiate.”

Fine. But as the prime minister, it is not only about him. It is about the whole system, and that includes the sabre-rattlers at the Ramlila grounds. Manmohan Singh has erred by not acting on several occasions. So, why this need to act now, and for whom?

“I respect his idealism. I respect him as an individual. I applaud him, I salute him. His life is much too precious and therefore, I would urge Anna Hazare to end his fast.”

What a sorry comment. There is much of this in op-eds, and I wish people would just say it. Anna Hazare’s movement is opportunistic, and an arrogant one at that. It is being marketed as idealism only because people are gathering around. Every life is precious. As the PM he should be concerned about the many unnecessary deaths due to basic lack of health facilities, due to the heinous crimes committed in the name of religion and honour, due to patriarchal attitudes, due to quiet deaths in prisons. If anything, this shows that those people are not corrupt enough to bribe their way to avoid death by torture. What does the PM have to say about it?

Nothing. Instead we get this:

“…in the two-and-a-half years that is left to us, we will do everything in our power to clean the system of this country.”

Besides being an absolutely ridiculous statement, he appears to be making himself answerable to a group of people who have not fought an election. Does anyone have details about the ‘aides’ – who they are, their source of income, their past record, their future plans?

One of the reasons our PM is trying to work this out is that his constituency is largely made up for these people. The educated, the ‘sensible’ middle clsss and the ‘sensitive’ rich. When was the last time you heard about the small grocer, the farmer, the cobbler bribing anyone?

Has anyone seen the ad for some chips where there is a rally and spotting a pretty girl Saif Ali Khan goes up to her and says, “Candle-light vigil ke baad candle-light dinner?” She is charmed by his munchies. They go crunch-crunch together. The poor ad agency must have thought it was doing a public service campaign, but it has revealed the true nature of this hollow movement’s exclusivist nature.

If it is fairly certain this government does not have a chance, has anyone thought about the alternatives? Will the Bill be written in stone and apply to subsequent governments? Is there any guarantee they will not tamper with it?

Manmohan Singh may want to leave with some glory, but he should do it by standing up for the democratic process as is constitutionally established and not under pressure from an unrecognised group.  It is time he gave statesmanship a chance instead of sticking to good old politicking. (He is not seen as such, but that is the Myth of Manmohan Singh: The Follower as Leader I wrote about.) Even the media heroes are making noises about how while Anna is fasting others are having badaam-pista. So? Are these anchors starving?

And for those who have compared this to the Arab Spring, look at these pictures after Muammar Gaddafi’s mansion in Tripoli was destroyed.

Is this what we want? Or is this already happening without the fire? ‘Rebels’ kicking footballs and posing for pictures with statues?