The Times...it isn't a-changin'...

Like most things in life, The Times of India has been a habit. It is easy to break, but I never felt the need to give it the 'kick'. There was a time, not too long ago, when it made one sound above it all to state that you read the paper because of R.K. Laxman's cartoons. It was a bit like some insisting they read Playboy for the articles.

TOI has completed 175 years. It talks about being young at heart. It has provided me enough boo-boos to pick on; it has educated me about society divas I did not know existed; it has reduced the sanctity of the masthead and of its front page by selling it to advertisers. The only thing that can be said is that it is upfront about it.

Going through today's edition from the archives I found some gems I'd like to share with some observations:

 

This was the front page on what was undoubtedly the most significant event after Partition. TOI even then loved showing off about being on top of the heap - just above the masthead. However, instead of its now cautious "allegedly", it mentioned in clear words that the assassin was a Maratha from Poona. It also gave Jinnah's words importance. But I doubt if it would really bother today if Czechoslovakia (new name notwithstanding) expressed regret.

I know there are many naysayers, but had India and Pakistan not continued to be so obsessed with each other as problems, outside forces would have just had to lay off. I find Jinnah's statement pragmatic.

The Emergency has only been spoken of as "the dark chapter" in India's history, mainly because of its clampdown on newspapers. If we think about it without 'freedom of speech' in mind, then just how many literate Indians were there that constituted the reading public affected by it? And Indira Gandhi was right in at least one fact - that India is one of the most relaxed in terms of freedom of expression. Of course, I do not condone the Emergency, but from this quote we can see that 'objectivity' is still not evident in the newspapers and now the electronic media. Reportage continues to tilt and have agendas.

TOI has started one more of its weird 'innovative' ways to separate news from opinion. All op-ed pieces have started to use the first person in small letters. It is not 'I', but 'i'.

i'm not not sure whether it is to convey that the writing is more important than the writer. That won't happen. The mugshot, the byline and bottomline (where you find new professions and of course "bestselling authors") remove all doubt that self-effacement is not in sight. 

Yet, as i said, the TOI tries to amuse whenever it can. Aren't we amused?

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?

Sunday ka Funda

“He who cannot give anything away cannot feel anything either.”

- Friedrich Nietzsche

Does not giving away anything mean being uncaring? Is it not possible that the feelings are inside, too afraid to be expressed?

Giving away is, of course, more likely about giving. Whether in love, or friendship, or the extended groups we belong to. It is also about giving the benefit of another’s existence. How often we deny that. To people. To our surroundings. To others. And by doing so we just add to the morass of time lost.

Today’s song is about the tricks of time. The film Anmol Ghadi had an inanimate character – a timepiece, a gift that that is a reminder to the separated lovers who later face each other in ways quite different from when they first met about that 'precious moment'.

When India and Pakistan are on another binge of ‘peace’, this film is a telling example of the denial I mentioned. Made a year before the Partition, it was banned in Pakistan after the 1965 war. Its main actors Noorjehan and Surendra had two nationalities by then – Pakistani and Indian. For over four decades it was not shown in the country where the actress-singer was as huge a star as she had been in India. So, Pakistan was denying one of their own her heritage. She was dead by the time it was re-released.

The song itself is sublime because of its subtle rendition. There is torment rather than tears. A couple of lines can be applied to the two nations torn apart:

barbaad main yahaan hoon

abaad tu kahaan hai

bedard aasmaan hai ...

(Ruined am I

But unscathed you are not too

How merciless is the sky)

Awaaz de kahaan hai – Anmol Ghadi

Movie: Anmol Ghadi (1946)

Singer(s): Noorjahan, Surendra

Music Director: Naushad

Lyricist: Tanvir Naqvi

Guns and Lollipops

He licked his index finger as he turned the pages of my passport. He had to merely stamp the page to say that I had returned home to Mumbai.

The man at the immigration desk seemed to be in no hurry. He looked up at me over his gold-rimmed glasses and asked, “Who is in Pakistan?” That had not been my destination, so I could not comprehend his query. “Do you know people there?” he persisted.

“Yes. Why?”

“You made so many trips…”

“London, too,” I said.

“So, how is Pakistan?” He enunciated the name, loud and clear.

I shrugged.

“Tell me, good or bad or what?”

He was humouring me, his lower lip, pink and wet, against his dark skin glistening with summer heat. Confusion would have turned to anger. I was in my country with my blue passport, three booklets pinned together.

“They are really like us only?”

“No. Worse,” I said.

His paradigm had no place for worse or better. It was either good or bad. Gun or lollipop. My name is whatever and I am not a terrorist. He stamped the page and, from his high seat, motioned with his head that I could go.

This had never happened before.

It shows that a Pakistani connection married to elitism is anathema. My thick passport that ought to have been a sign of globalism reduced me to a pampered poodle stretching at the leash.

I could imagine the immigration officer in the auditorium watching the utter humiliation of a Bollywood star made to grovel for approval by the ice-candy man, Karan Johar. I can see those pink wet lips smiling as he sees the awkward walk and the man going down on his knees out in the open because he has to pray. Religion is placed prominently in the narrative of My Name is Khan.

While my immigration officer would have stood for an autograph for Shahrukh Khan, he would not have let Rizwan Khan past his eagle eye. Rizwan, who cannot sell lotions and face creams, is made to sell the Muslim moderate. The story uses disability as a device to cunningly convey fake innocence.

Beneath the ostensible garb of post 9/11’s continual angst lurks a more real danger that seeks to heighten the uncomfortable relationship between Indian and Pakistani Muslims. We have reached such a stage that each time an Indian Muslim bats straight, creates award-winning music, or says something secular, there is jubilation. Intellectuals gather along with maulanas to applaud that we were saved in 1947. The idea of a generation far removed from partition, using that event as a yardstick not only to judge another country but one’s own position, raises the question of self-esteem.

Recently, I met a Sindhi family. We got to discussing food and Pakistani cuisine was mentioned. I seemed to have a lot of knowledge, so they asked, “Are you Pakistani?” No, I snapped. They responded, “Oh, but we are…our grandparents were born there and lived there and came to India later. So we qualify as Pakistanis.”

Why were they confident and why was I not? At a discussion Mahesh Bhatt had mentioned that most of his Indian Muslim friends, even the famous ones, tried hard to assert their Indian identify when they were in Pakistan. He turned to me and said, “I suspect you did the same on your visits.” I did, but not as much as I do in my own country. There I was asserting my otherness; here in India I have to assert belongingness. It is all about loving lollipops, is it?

The Bangladesh India Forgot

Of Nations and Notions
The Bangladesh India Forgot
by Farzana Versey
Countercurrents, December 16, 2009



On December 16, a nation was cut off from a nation which was formed out of a larger nation. The second, Pakistan, was essentially a notion that took off from the larger idea that was India.

Today, as Indian states decide to lead microcosmic lives and even the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, Mayawati, believes it will make things more manageable if her state is divided, the need for Bangladesh stands nullified as an ideology. It was protesting the language issue, the cultural dissonance with an Islamic Republic. Neither of these aspects has given it a distinct identity other than a name. In fact, Bangladesh has its own terror networks and the Jama’at-ul-Mujahideen is being examined by the Intelligence Agencies for its role in bomb blasts and its ties with local groups in India. There is a suspicion that it may also have been involved in the Mumbai attacks in November, 2008. Its avowed aim is to replace the current state of Bangladesh with an Islamic state based on Shariah. Things do come full circle.

Those who rue the partition of India do not appear to have the same reservations about the splitting up of Pakistan. It is no secret that India was an active participant in the civil war between East and West Pakistan. It took almost two good decades after the creation of Pakistan for its Bengali population to realise that they were indeed different. Interestingly, those on the Indian side of what is still West Bengal looked down upon their Eastern connections, quite unlike the memories people in Punjab and the northern states of India have for Lahore or other parts of the Punjab belt of Pakistan.

On the face of it, it did appear to be a people’s movement. As writer-activist-politician, Dr. Enver Sajjad, told me, “If I were Mujibur Rehman, I would have said that the country was created with 51 % of our votes, so we have the legitimate right to call ourselves Pakistan.”

Mujibur Rehman, leader of the Awami League, had a different subtext in his mind and went through the Jinnah-Nehru sort of parallel ego trip with Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. He wanted to be Prime Minister. Bhutto, who was the democrat with ostensibly no interest in parochial politics, was the architect of the Language Bill and the confirmation of the nation as an Islamic Republic. While he managed to sneak in Sindh into the national Pathan-Punjabi psyche and made use of the Mohajirs from the Urdu belt of India, the Bengalis did not fit into any scheme.

The simmering discontent got shape and form when a quasi government was formed with a war force of freedom fighters – Mukti Bahini. The Bangladesh Liberation War was an Indian war. Indira Gandhi was moving out of her father’s shadow. There was the background of the 1965 war with Pakistan. This time it had an added halo of concern for the underdog. In a battle that lasted a fortnight, 93,000 Pakistani troops surrendered. Indian prisoners of war were forgotten by their own prime minister. Indira was hailed as Goddess Durga.

K.F.Rustamji who founded the Border security Force has been quoted as saying, “The BSF boys started assisting the Mukti Fauj (later Bahini) in causing subversion and sabotage deep inside East Pakistan and even in district headquarter towns, where cash and weapons were looted and made over to the government of Bangladesh.”

The only instructions Indira Gandhi gave was: “Do what you like, but don’t get caught.”

The espionage had begun much before the actual skirmish on the ground. Could a war have been averted? The American and Russians entered the fray as more than observers. It became a big event primarily because India came into the picture. The call for war was given by Indira Gandhi. In 'The British, The Bandits and The Bordermen' there are detailed references to how the BSF played a role in not only the formation of the Bangladesh provisional government, but also in framing its constitution and selecting its national flag and national anthem.

What happened to the Bangladesh dream of language, region, democracy and, most important of all, independence? Was freedom merely a territorial dream?

What did Bangladesh get out of this? Thousands dead. Hundreds raped. An exodus of ten million people who sought refuge in the North Eastern Indian states and West Bengal.

Over three decades later, they are still seen as refugees. Many moved out from these border areas. You will find quite a few in Delhi.

Zuleikhabi works as a domestic help in four houses at Chittranjan Park. She does not dwell on home and sees no difference. She has not heard about Taslima Nasreen, although she does remember Tagore.

The Bard of Bengal brooks no territorial boundaries, his golden boat is laden for all who clutch at the stray straws of a life untrammelled, yet pregnant with possibility.

Zuleikha knows she is not wanted by the political parties, she hears about it at street corners where the menfolk congregate in groups, their common destinies binding them together for a few minutes of respite. She displays a rare pragmatism when she says, “Political parties everywhere do not want the poor. We were not wanted back home, too. But the people here do not seem to mind our presence. My memsaabs like my work and since they are Bengalis there is a common culture.”

Isn’t there resentment against them in the already overpopulated slums? “Here also people understand. We share our poverty. And many of them are refugees too – they have come from Bihar, UP…everyone is seeking shelter.”

The middle-class residents of the area support them on humanitarian grounds. As one of them said, “Many of them are staying here for years, and if we start shunting people out, then there are the Tibetans too. We fought the Bangladesh War for political reasons but now these people have come to look upon us as saviours. If the government is so concerned then they must try and stop the influx instead of letting Opposition parties make political capital out of it.”

Apparently, when the BJP was campaigning against them, the local Bengalis came out to protect the outsiders. As one academician put it, “With us, secularism and parochialism are one and the same thing. We will support each other in any part the globe.”

A project called ‘Citizenship, Identity and Residence of Immigrants in Delhi Slums’ by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties had revealed that workers of the BJP and Shiv Sena had been active in identifying Bangladeshi Muslim immigrants in selected slums. “The police conducted frequent late night raids in some bastis (slum localities) where many people suspected of being Bangladeshi nationals were taken to the police station…The active role of selected political parties in the identification and deportation of Bangladeshi immigrants, recognised for their bias against religious minorities, is very disturbing.”

Jaffer is oblivious to these wheels within wheels. He only knows that occasionally an inexplicable fear overtakes him. “Though there is nothing to be afraid of. What do we have that we must fear losing? Clothes? Vessels? Belongings? Nothing. But there is something...that feeling of not having anything to call our own. I came here in 1975 as a child and even today after 30 years I know that we can be thrown out.”

According to Reena Bhadhuri, an expert on Islam, “These are starving people trying to make a meagre living. How can they be connected to Al Qaeda and the Pakistani intelligence agencies?” On the other hand, there is acceptance of Hindu infiltrators in the North East. The deputy minister for national security during the BJP regime had agreed to give them special treatment. “If they have come here illegally, it may be justified because of the hostility they face in Bangladesh. Some distinction will have to be kept in mind.”

It is such doublespeak and double standards on the part of both India and Pakistan that have left Bangladesh as a fractured nation. It has no identity. Societies that are left with too many histories don’t think about the future. The future subjugates them before they can get there.

Partition's Nanny

How a person suddenly catapults himself as a 'liberal' is a lesson one can learn from Jaswant Singh. Even if that liberalism will be riding on the back of history, history that has caused more fissures that still haunt.

Is there a reason for him to deliver a keynote address on ‘The Main Culprits of Partition of India’? Isn’t there a limit to this? Had he not been thrown out of the BJP would he be singing this song? What is there to expose about the Congress and the BJP? Is he doing so only because the leaders he will be sharing the dais with are from neither party, including RJD chief Lalu Prasad, LJP chief Ram Vilas Paswan and CPM leader Brinda Karat. The function has been organised by the United Muslim Morcha (UMM).

The organisation’s head is JD (U) MP Dr Ezaj Ali, who claims the meet has nothing to do with politics:

“For me the nation comes first. As, Jaswant has raised an issue about which people of this country were kept in the dark for years, I chose to invite all those leaders who had no association with the Congress or the BJP.”

If it is not about politics, then why leave out specific political parties? How many people from other fields have been invited? Why is Jaswant Singh planning an expose and blaming culprits? Was the Partition not a political event?

And what has a Muslim organisation got to do with this? Indian Muslims who stayed back have precious little to do with Partition.

I don’t know how many editions that book has gone into but I don’t understand how and why other political leaders are going along with this charade.

- - -

Updated on October 7, IST 7 PM:

Jaswant Singh had his book launch in Mumbai:

For Singh, though, the most astonishing fact is the number of people who come up to him and say, ‘sahab apne bahut himmat dikhayi’. “Initially I wondered why,” said Singh to the packed audience. “It was then that I realised that all this while we have saddled the Indian Muslim with the guilt of Partition, when it’s clear that they alone aren’t responsible.”

What a cheesecake comment. What has his himmat (fearlessness) got to do with saddling the Indian Muslims with guilt? Were all those approaching him IMs? No Indian Muslim has felt guilty about the Partition simply because we are Indian Muslims. Does his so-called scholarship not make him understand this basic fact? And will he and the likes of him stop this patronising nonsense about ‘we think they are like that but they are not really like that’? What does he mean by “they alone aren’t responsible”? Does he not know that there is another country called Pakistan where the former Indian Muslims (and some Sikhs, Hindus and Christians) are?

How Jaswant Singh is using Jinnah as a genie

This is fun. Jaswant Singh has come out of the closet to tell us that Jinnah is great. No problem. When L.K.Advani did it, they said he was quoting from some speech and that is all. Jaswant Singh, good Rajput that he is, will surely bring out a sword to defend his honour. He will talk like those maharajahs of old who served in Mughal armies and project himself as a balanced person who can see an honourable enemy. This is one more marketing gimmick. We assume that Pakistan needs a certificate from us.

What did he really say that is so significant? And why is it important to emphasise that it is divergent from the Sangh Parivar view? Because, it needs to be marketed that way. Forget historians, even some sharp hacks have written that Jinnah was not the architect of Partition alone; it was the megalomania of all the so-called freedom fighters.

As always, the Congress only thinks it is about their hero, Nehru. And even worse is to bring the Gujarat carnage and the Muslims into this. Their party spokesperson, Abhishek Singhvi, said:

“The BJP and Jaswant Singh can condone the Gujarat carnage and give homilies as Muslims being treated as ‘aliens’ in the same breath.”

How dare they do it. Jaswant Singh has written about Jinnah; Jinnah was a Pakistani, a nationality he chose. Indian Muslims have chosen an Indian nationality. Just don’t confuse the issues. We will handle the BJP and RSS on our terms and not based on what Jinnah did.

If Bal Thackeray says he admires Hitler, does anyone believe that the Sainiks should be judged by German standards?

I would, however, like to know what exactly Jaswant Singh means when he says:

“I think we have misunderstood him because we needed to create a demon... we needed a demon because in the 20th century, the most telling event in the subcontinent was the partition of the country.”

Glad that he has woken up to give us this path-breaking news. Is he implying that by demonising him we have demonised a whole country that he created? Is he then saying that any acts that have occurred on the part of Pakistan are therefore a result of this demonisation? For, whether we like it or not, the residue of the Partition remains with us.

I know we will be told to read the book to know what exactly he means. As I said, this isn’t about Jinnah. This is about selling Jinnah.

- - -

As I mentioned, you don’t need to be a historian; you can just be someone like me. I wrote this on August 25, 1997, and this is merely a peek into a larger piece done a couple of years before that.

The other side of Jinnah

by Farzana Versey
Rediff

The life of the man largely held responsible for the partition of the country has a touch of tragedy to it.

Mohammed Ali Jinnah almost appears like a naive knight in shining armor, blinded by the glitter of his position, rather than a visionary convinced of the soundness of his stand. His major flaw lay in the fact that he was the brash other voice while everyone else was the chorus.

It would be easy to say he was making political capital of the situation by using the minority issue as a shoulder from which to fire the gun, but that would an appalling generalisation.

Like many people in power who portray themselves as saviours, Jinnah was a pawn in the hands of those he promised to free from the majority clutches.The distribution of leaflets bearing pictures of a sword-bearing, sherwani-clad Jinnah was clearly the handwork of a marketing genius. Jinnah, in a spirit of parody, played along, probably for a good laugh and certainly for a pat on the back.

It would, therefore, be unfair to hold him solely responsible for 600,000 deaths and the uprooting of 14 million people.

Even without referring to his taste in Scotch and sausages, one has to admit he was not Islamist. The concept of jihad was totally alien to him and, as Sardar Patel said, he was not a votary of mass movements. H M Seervai, in his book on the Partition, has raised in important issue: "It is a little unfortunate that those who assail Jinnah for destroying the unity of India do not ask how it was that a man who wanted a nationalist solution till as late as 1938, when he was 61 years of age, suddenly become a 'communalist'."

Why were over a hundred million Muslims willing to eat out of his palm? Because Jinnah reflected their fears, even as he spoke of intermarriage to promote communal harmony. Jinnah learned, as does every other politician, that human beings are easily excitable because they are inherently prejudiced.

Jinnah has been accused of being a megalomaniac, but so were most of the leaders of the time. They could not forget they were participants in an epoch-making event.

If he could maintain grace under pressure, at the height of the battle, he would have dealt with many other issues in a similar fashion. If fact, in 1946 he talked of having a metaphorical pistol in a world full of AK-47s and nuclear arsenal. The statement may have seemed terribly outdated and stupid, but it gave a glimpse into an essentially principled man. That we may not agree with his principles is another matter.