Desicritics Section: Politics

Is India Still Socialist?

thedailypheesh — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:36:05 EDT

The Supreme Court recently 'dismissed as withdrawn' a petition by an NGO challenging the insertion of the word 'socialist' in the Preamble of the Constitution of India, terming it a mere academic matter. It seems the court used the term 'academic' in the sense of nobody relevant (read political parties) having raised it at this point of time.

Now all we can do is merely speculate the relevance of the term socialism in the Preamble. Ignore the fact that India's largest company, largest bank, largest steel producer etc etc are all state-owned; one could hope that the word would be retained to at least give students a faint glimpse of the time when our national priorities seemed a bit different. But, says the NGO which filed the petition, market reforms mean that expecting political parties to swear to uphold socialism is a mere dichotomy.

This implies that a certain vision that animated the use of the word socialism is bankrupt merely because of 20 years of reforms. Would such an approach also imply that there should be no ban on child labour simply because we have failed to eradicate it over 63 years? Obviously not. Thus, the point the petition seeks to make is that socialism no longer occupies any place in the 'national consensus'; that we have reached a stage where socialism is no longer one of those goals which we aspire to, despite our innumerable failures to attain it.

The constitution of a country is not a mere rule book. True, it is a site of contestation. But one would hope the contestation is towards a greater aim, a nobler society. Socialism means a lot of things to a lot of people but no one can deny it seeks greater egalitarianism and a greater role for the collective in deciding the future of their labour. That such an aim, no matter the ways to achieve it, would not be part of a constitution seems a very blinkered way of perceiving the future of a county.

On a related note, there has long been a contention that India has lacked a conservative movement on par with those in the west. Two decades after the economic reforms it would seem that what we call civil society, comprising a variety of(though not all) NGOs have emerged as the torch-bearers of conservative ideology. Products of and truly indebted to the LPG wave, favouring the limited role of the state in economic and administrative affairs and against any radical overhaul of the economic and social foundation, they seem to best embody the limited-government principles of the conservative movement. This petition, while insignificant in its own right, is a small pointer to the solid emergence of this movement.

PS. The crowning irony of course, is that legal eagle Fali. S. Nariman, arguing the case for the NGO, cited Ambedkar's opposition to the introduction of socialism. Yes, ignore the rest of that man's voluminous and often beautifully curt writing about a host of issues including caste and pick up that bit about socialism!

Has Shivaji Finally Lost To His Followers?

Being Cynical — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:56:14 EDT

The legendary iconic figure who single-handedly managed to carve out a Hindu kingdom under the nose of the Mughal empire with his sheer determination and courage must be turning violently in his grave of late looking at his followers and their out of context irrational behaviour. I am sure when Shivaji started with his quest to create an identity for the Hindus and Indians at large (not only Marathis) , perhaps at the most hostile period, he never had these stone pelters, Bhaiya bashers anywhere near for support (not that he wanted them either). The great soul must be turning in his grave - not entirely because seeing how idiotic the very Indians have become for whom he fought all his life but also to see a bunch of good for nothing, destructive, nonsense entities claiming to be his followers. The fighter who didn't lose to anyone, not even to the Aurangzeb is for sure would be feeling sorry and dejected for loosing finally to his so called followers.

The theatrics and tantrums both before the book by James Laine on Shivaji was banned and most recently after our Apex court lifted the ban is good enough for an icon like Shivaji to go on a permanent exile. Does a man like Shivaji needs protection from these jokers? Does his stature so fragile that any Tom, Dick and Harry writing a book would malign that? Most important does a man like Shivaji deserves these problematic, good for nothing jokers as his followers? Answers to all three of them I am sure is a big 'NO'.

These so called goons turned politicians who believe it is only their prerogative to care for Shivaji and worse as if this iconic figure is their personal property should be confirmed in a hurry if they are at all aware of the ideology and philosophy that Shivaji carried all through his life. The funny act of these goons in past days is same as Kobad Gandhi shouting Jai Bhagat Singh while been escorted out of the court room without knowing an ounce what Bhagat Singh always stood for. These nefarious elements who doesn't have a vision much beyond pelting stones at everything for any reason and beating poor daily wage labourers, just because they don't belong to their community or state and then claim themselves to be the front row admirers of the great Shivaji is a shame in itself.

While these idiots leave no stones unturned in their chest beating exercise of showing off the whole world how much they love and adore Shivaji are actually the first ones who ran towards an institute dedicated and founded in memory of the great man and ransacked it to prehistoric era along with damaging valuable and priceless memorabilia of Shivaji. All this for what - only because the book somewhere in a note of thanks has allegedly mentioned this institute's name for sharing some details about Shivaji with him. Honestly I haven't seen this kind of affection where the loving people went on a rampage to destroy the memorabilia of the very person they claim they love.

Not to be too far behind in their effort to woe the Marathi voters the ruling government thought of showing a thumb to the Apex court. If this is not enough they are planning to bring in a law where the offender of these iconic characters would be dealt with iron fist. God save these fools from making the whole nation a bunch of fanatics. Could these great thinkers clarify - who would decide if somebody did actually offended an iconic character or not? More important who should decide who are such figures need to be termed as iconic. Are not the chaps of the likes of Lalu Yadav, Madhu Koda, A. Raja, Telgi, Harsad Mehta, Sharad Pawar, Mayawati are all iconic figures for some section of the society or the other? Hence thanks to this new proposed law any comment or healthy political discussion on these seasoned crooks would automatically make you an offender. Even I could be the sorriest person and would be tried in Indian courts if I say Ekta Kapoor's Saas-Bahu stuffs are more dangerous than nuclear bombs for human race as I am sure there would be millions of housewives who would be gunning for me each with a legal notice in their hands for insulting their icon. Don't even dare to write bad against Dawood Ibrahim as you might just end up with both bullets and legal notices from all corners of Mumbai's underworld section. I can very well see the snubbing the government would get if at all they stick to their promise and go for such a bizarre law.

For a second if we give that poor author a benefit of doubt and admit his findings are facts then whats the big fuss about it? After all Shivaji was also a human being and it is very much natural for humans to commit mistakes and Shivaji can't be an exception just because he is Shivaji. When a certain Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi can go to a brothel in his younger days and we can digest that then what problem is there to admit or accept - Shivaji wasn't that great as being projected in our history books, if at all that is the case. Even if we are too much hypocrite to accept it and want to live in our own perception where others views are considered rubbish, still it seems grossly irrational to come to the streets and start pelting stones at the BEST buses and damaging national property.

If not for anyone, these self styled goons should refrain from damaging national property for the person they claim they have highest regard as he himself would have been utterly sorry, looking at these destruction on his name for sure. For once, let Shivaji be at peace in his grave and build a nation which he has envisioned years back, which certainly is a prospering nation. Not a nation full with stone pelting idiots and vote bank grabbers.

Kashmir: Discussion on TV

Sujai — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 04:02:33 EDT

I was watching TIMES NOW on TV. This was some time ago, but relevant even today.

One guy says, ‘Let us have freedoms. Let us talk about freedoms. We should have freedoms. But don’t push it to ridiculous extent. Like Azadi. Why Azadi? From whom? I find this whole Azadi thing ridiculous’.

The other guy says, ‘Think of nation’s sentiments. Respect India’s sentiments. Let’s live together. Think in the right perspective.’

The anchor says, ‘Why are you taking support from Pakistan? Isn’t that country the one which is intolerant? Pakistan is the one which is intolerant. Not India. Aren’t Mohajirs discriminated in Pakistan? Why do you want to take refuge in Pakistan’s support?’

And I find something grossly wrong with the whole proceedings though most of my Indian brothers and sisters are OK with these discussions. Today, once again Kashmir is burning. More than 20 protestors were shot dead by the Indian forces stationed in Kashmir. According to TIMES OF INDIA, In Iraq, there is 1 soldier every 166 people, and in Kashmir, there is 1 for every 20, nearly 8 times more. It’s like living in the Bangalore city with nearly 3 lakh troops, one-fourth of Indian Army.

In the discussion above, the first guy thinks that we all should have freedoms, but not Azadi (freedom). Whom are we duping here? Why is Azadi a ridiculous proposition? We all want to be free. Every human being wants to be free. Who wants to wake up to face the gun on a daily basis? Who wants armies stationed in their towns and villages on a daily basis? Who wants their sisters raped, brothers killed, uncles gone missing?

The second guy is worse. He wants the Kashmiri Muslims to respect our sentiments? Why should someone respect the sentiments of a bully? He wants them to think of the nation. Which nation? The nation that has been ruling them at the point of gun for nearly two decades now, in whom they have lost all faith? ‘Let’s live together’, he says. That’s the ridiculous proposition, not the demand for freedom. Why should someone be forced into living together? Why can’t someone have an option to say, ‘look, I don’t want to live with you, not when you beat me up on a daily basis and treat me like street dog’. What is right perspective? Our perspective? Or their perspective?

And the anchor is downright stupid. When the Kashmiri Muslim is saying, ‘look I don’t want to live with you because you don’t even provide me with food,’ and we say, ‘why do you take food from that other guy? Isn’t he worse than me? I beat you only once in a while. There is a good chance he may beat you every day.’

I am disappointed. With my countrymen who think that freedom is their birthright but not the right of others. I am a sad Indian who pays taxes to feed an army that coerces people into submission, makes these people lick our feet, taking their self-respect by force, treating them as numbers but not humans.

There has to be a way out of this, so that we are not asked to pay for our sins when we stand at the gates of Hell. I am not sure what answer I would have, other than the feeble excuse that, ‘look, I expressed by disapproval, I wrote a blog’.

A-vivek of N-Arundhati

Vivek Sharma — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:32:16 EDT

When Narundhati treks through the jungles as a guest of Maoists, her biases
ignore the blisters on her city feet. The mosquitoes that relish blood, heedless
to the age of their victims, serenade to her, in a 'thousand star hotel'.
What Narundhati says is part fact, the part where she describes guns
and explosives in a region termed Pakistan by leaders and policemen --
a Pakistan within India where followers of Mao seek a bloody revolution!

When she quotes a Harvard returned politician or a Naxal leader verbatim, she stays partly
in right, stating their high-headed thoughts about cost of progress and freedom at midnight.
I root for her when she describes the plight of farmers, counterfeited by a green revolution,
or when derides the blind march into globalization or the abject immorality of the corrupt.
When Narundhati asks if a fact is a fact in her fiction, or if our judgment of Maoists is right,
or suggests that India need 'feral poetry', she is enchanted by her wordplay. Her fiction
writer’s instincts laud her, as she pens lines lyrically in a cinematic setting to die for (not in)
and her protagonists are Davids fighting a 'higher caste, fascist' Goliath-state.
In episodes that trek her journey with lilting rhythms, every typed word is paid for, is wanted
by a popular magazine, and she anticipates the applause she will get from the Eastern left,
and the Western right.

She is partly right when she describes how CIA's jihad
of late eighties in Afghanistan finished off Russian communism and spawned
Taliban style communalism in Afghan & Indian territory, bringing Kashmir its tensions
(and some intellectuals their liberal pretensions). She appears partly bright
when she describes the rise of Hindutva as a political force in that nineties disquiet.
Since her writing is tight, she urges connotations to bare themselves and subtleties
of diction in this colonial language, appeased by her 'hysterical rhetoric', look like ecstatic,
climactic arguments, but what interests me always is what escapes her,
or what she omits or leaves out.
Like Kashmiri Pandits, who don't feature in her computation of what went wrong in 1988-
89, though historically speaking, those lands belonged to those hundreds of thousands:
now refugees in their own country, driven out by 'Azadi guns'.
When she forgets is that in this Indian Palestine, the oppressed is the Hindu, whose homeland,
memory of forefathers is being wiped out, and there is no Darwish to sing of this loss!
But her reading of the historic is undone by her histrionics. She ignores
what she dislikes, and in her surreal imagination, Gandhian protest is a vice.

Hinduism, which gives her name, but deserves only her distaste, is the problem she must cite.
Her unintelligent comments about Kashmir or Taj Mumbai siege (as Rushdie called them),
her howl: "justice or civil war" reflect she’s Narundhati: yet her prestige persists in spite of her sleights,
for a country she calls a Nazi-like police state by tolerating her, belies the atrocities she cites:
while she sees only death and shadow lurk on our stage
Isn't she surprised, why she is still unscathed and alive?
Truth is seldom as black or white, but my stanzas seem stunted for I am imitating Narundhati's style.

See I am stumped by her contradictions, though as an Indian, I am deemed capable of reconciling
the opposites. Narundhati, the embedded journalist, describes rapes, arson, murder by police as malice,
yet urges us to sympathize with Maoists who count mutilated corpses as a prize.

Years back, on the shores of Narmada, she cried hoarse with non-violent protesters,
"Narmada bachao, bachao" "Narmada bachao, bachao"
and now in Maoists camps, she despises those methods.
"Lal salaam comrade! Guns uthao, uthao"
She cites Charu's and Mao's affection for gore, and tells us, in her Delhi accent...
O don't be a bore,
look at these tribals dancing, look at their songs and folklore...
who'd think they have killed a score.

When she writes, "I tell them Delhi is a cruel city that neither knows nor cares about them,"
she forgets that the Indian city destroyed the most number of times, never though by pacifists,
is the city of Hindu memories, of Ghalib, Mir and Sufis, of Sikhs and seekers of many faiths,
but our city-girl thinks cities as contraband
and like Mumbai, her 'karmabhoomi' is ostracized from her skies.
Likewise, millions of children born into consumer cultures, are vultures
as per her writing, which insists world markets are ulcers, progress = prosecution,
pro-Hindu idealism = fascism, police = thieves/rapists, leaders = hate-mongers. If her arithmetic of India,
America, World is really that simplistic, and caustic, I wonder, what qualifies her to be a critic?

As a teenager, I volunteered one summer for teaching the slum children in Delhi. As a reward
for my sincerity, I was led into a small, unlit room one afternoon, to talk to a high-ranking Maoist.
"We must rid our nation of these intellectuals, professors, politicians, landowners, high castes,
scientists, and wipe out the rich.
Blood is the only water than can wash the strains of anguish
that distinguish my people," he said. He quoted Marx, Majumdar, French revolution, Russians, Mao.
I looked like an ancient cow quoting Gandhian or Buddhist or Hindu philosophy,
and the forgotten principle of Christian non-resistance: of turning the other cheek.

I tried to decipher why I was an enemy. "You represent the worst of elitists, Sharma;
studying in a fancy engineering college, Convent educated, Brahmin, or course you’re a fascist".
My distinct unease told me I was condemned by the prejudice of this self-appointed jurist!
I lacked potent phrases to debate with him, so I described how I had toiled hard all my life
under extreme family pressure and my success was fruition of the daily, honest sweat
of my parents who had risen from Himalayan poverty, which doesn't ask your caste
when it affects you, though employers cite it when they reject you.
"Many innocents must die too. The fire of sacrifice, the Goddess
calls for a bloody revolution."

That three hour meeting still baffles me. I am at loss for words,
it hurts. For him, Chinese excesses or Stalin's policies are justified. The morbid horror of it,
rages within me, and as I devour literature from all times -- Tale of two cities, If this is a Man,
Doctor Zhivago, Train to Pakistan or Manto's stories -- I realize every activism and ideal
that strives to reverse biases, by justifying repressive policies and atrocities of present day
in the light of past excesses, rationalizes exactly what it criticizes. War begets war, lust, lust,
hate spawns hate. I agree markets lack compassion and conscience, but collectives can be callous
as well, Dickensian crowds can turn into mobs and guillotine,
and Achebe’s tribals are capable of being innocuous or fascist!
If only we had the right acumen, we would triumph over ourselves and turn human,
but we lay down a landmine, we turn our holy lands into Palestine, we outline
new charters of hate, wiping Jews or Tutsis or Hindus or Red Indians or Muslims
or Cambodians, or Tibetians or Armenians, priests and pilgrims, ultra-rich and urchin,
wiping whole generations off our slate!

I don't know why Narundhati's mother thinks India needs a revolution, or why
Narundhati listens to grasshoppers and they speak her mind, about 'democracy
as a demon-crazy'. I lived in Chekovian villages, in beat-up small towns,
in places where people don't worry about abstract isms and nouns,
rather stick to their daily needs, banal fancies and follies, ageless celebrations and strife.
We are the poor or middle classes, our daily living supplies more solace and sorrow to our lives
than the craving rich can conceptualize.

When I read dream-like sequences of rural, joyful life, I realize,
even Tolstoys can lack the facts, and that ignorance leads to lies.
See the Soviet history, witness its birth, youth and demise!
Yes Naom Chomsky's is a learned man, and Howard Zinn knew his People’s history,
but when N-Arundhati talks their language, she lacks their informed gallantry,
their reverence for their national ideals, their ability to denounce propaganda, backed with facts.
Not every ape is a Hanuman, for it takes a lot of spirit, guts, grime and gyaan.
To be a Zola, rather than a bhola, requires more than a kurta and a jhola!

In Narundhati's analysis of India: there is a civil war-like situation
between Muslims and Hindus, tribals and corporations, Maoists and state machinery,
dam builders and those displace by dams. And of course, Narundhati is the liberal star
smug, satiated, saturated by her own self-defined idioms of calamity and causality.
Her writing shows, how she deifies the episodes of carnage, and her urge is to disgrace
the land on which she stays. In her prose, terrorists get rationalized, and as she breaks
into outbursts, aimed at foreign readers, buyers of her books, admirer of her looks,
who lap up what she writes, especially her calling much maligned Hindus -- fascists,
or thinking of Kashmir as Palestine or her support for bloody revolutions. Half-truths are half-lies,
and my lament is... many trust her, and thrust biased policies on Indians using her near-sights.
Her rhetoric: 'Mumbai people asked for it, people who are neither in government, nor rich,
nor Maoists asked for it, Kashmiri Pandits asked for it, Hindus & Sikhs killed in past centuries
asked for it, the children of twenty-first century asked for it, Americans killed in 9/11 asked for it,
the races and regions continuously misrepresented by colonial mentality Orientalists like her
asked for it, asked for it, asked for it".

Why Suyodhan is called Duryodhan, why my write-up is full of A-Vivek, and why N-Arundhati,
who I support for her activism on many issues, is the locus of my ardent criticism?
While Narundhati has a Booker and I haven't even won a cooker, I still am an argumentative
Indian, as Amartya Sen would call me. Trust me, it takes more than a token speech to appall me.
Tell me, if I can be considered discreet if in my words, there is no middle ground, no layers, no gray.
Too much talk, and too little thought, too much debate, that too without consulting the proletariat!
Too many victims, too little praise, too much rhetoric, without perspective of the current or the historic!
Anger is easy, but solutions are harder, and in India, where bureaucratic cobwebs usher
answers at the pace of a lazy snail and facts are files buried in dust or disgust somewhere:
her urging us to burn down our the storehouse and file-keepers too leads us nowhere.

My voice falters in any discourse. My lament: I am innocent. If I cite Hindu philosophy,
I am labeled fundamentalist; if Islamic, labeled terrorist; if Jewish, Zionist. If I state
my thoughts, my name says I am a Brahmin, also my education was in Catholic school.
I am my father's son, so related to the government. I live in United States, so I represent the empire.
I am a poet means I am fanciful; an engineer, which implies I limp in humanities,
and by the sheer luck of being the son of a honest man, and a scientist, after a lifetime of toil,
I am still struggling to earn a foothold on our soil. But while I cannot even represent
my own self, how and why does a Narundhati triumph as a correspondent?
If Maoists win their mineral-rich forests, Kashmir gains independence, minorities and castes vanish,
will we reach the state of param-sukh: absolute solace and prosperity, will it be end of our anguish?
If democracy isn't right for us, how do we know unlike in Russian heydays, comrades will fight for us?
Why don't you forsake it Vivek? You don't know what you don't know. Half-truth only parasites on us!

(Inspired by: “Walking with Comrades by Arundhati Roy”)

NOTE
1. (A-vivek: Absence or lack of the ability to determine what is right and wrong, fact and fiction, fair and unfair, sacrosanct and rubbish, ephemeral and eternal. Arundhati was Vasistha’s wife, and name of a vine; but it also means ‘kundalini‘ or supernatural facility, and N-Arundhati therefore is a negation of the Arundhati; i.e. lack of faculty to look at the factual and at the intellectual, and since Arundhati is associated with fidelity, N-Arundhati also has lack of fidelity as a meaning).
2. Arundhati Roy gave a lecture tour after the article in Outlook, and my poem was written after hearing a lecture at MIT, where it was clear that her content and concern were, for most part, motivated by grabbing attention.
3. The poem like this one is considered politically motivated by most poetry journals. Most newspapers cannot publish it for my own political affiliations are unknown, and I come with no recommendations.

Indian Army On Srinagar Streets: Will It Be Effective?

Being Cynical — Thu, 8 Jul 2010 07:07:16 EDT

One great gentleman not long back suggested - Want to earn some real quick bucks in business? Head towards Kashmir. According to him there are in fact industries of stone manufacturing going on for some time. There are companies who either make or steal stones from the railway tracks, polish them so that it becomes handy. There are another set of companies which take the pain of transporting them to their customers (like the PDP or Hurriyat) on demand and of course there are these last set of young stars which are paid stone wise (the number they throw at the security forces multiplied by some x amount) for pelting them. It is good money and I can choose either of the three industries to invest my dough- Manufacturing, Transporting or Consultancy sort of job of providing manpower to hurl those stones, he added.

If the gentleman is delivering even one percent fact then no wonder why Omar Abdullah carries a perpetual sorry face (more expressive than Alok Nath) without any credible help or suggestion coming from anywhere. Even the senior Abdullah is more busy in Delhi and with his membership with IPL, leaving the kid Abdullah turning a cry baby quicker than any Saazish can erupt in those Ekta Kapoor serials. Our able CRPF and state police did what they best could do while the Abdullahs, the Mufties and the Lones did what they are best capable at - blaming each other and at times even bringing the Pakistani hand into the mess. The result of all these acrobatics did manage to kill 14 people in as many days. The Army was finally brought in yesterday looking at the sorry face of Kid Abdullah and grim situation in the valley which turning grimmer by hours.

Honestly I have got mixed feelings on the news of Army being brought in to control the situation. Kid Abdullah can make his face more sorrier but the whole idea of Army back on Srinagar streets after a decade could just misfire or worse can backfire.

Traditionally Kashmiris feel alienated- thanks to our policies and our politician's attitude to keep the Kashmir topic alive for their own gain. If you look at the video footage, it is really disturbing to see teenagers barely in their twenties are hurling stones at the security forces. On a micro analysis you would realize that these are the same guys who would have born when Kashmir was at peak of it's boiling point and their whole life till now has gone through violence, atrocities, negligence, no governance and of course the terrorists. The volatile anger these chaps might be storing in their hearts for quite sometime just needs jokers and hawks of the likes of Huriyaat leaders and Mehbooba Mufti to catch fire in a catastrophic way. And that what exactly happened. I am sure the majority of these teenagers who are seen protesting violently might not be knowing for what they are protesting or on whom they are pelting stones.

Last year around this time when I was there in Srinagar on my way back from the Amarnath Yatra, it felt really refreshing seeing Daal lake it it's picturous best as shown in Kashmir Ki Kali. The lake full with rowing tourists and smiles somewhat back on the faces of those House Boat owners. For a change me and my wife decided to stay in one such boat where I got a chance to realize the first hand agony of a Kashmiri- the boat owner. The story of the gentleman stretches to the time of 1980 when he had to sell off his property to build this house boat to earn a living. No sooner the boat was on the water and operational, all hell went wrong with the first instance of cross border terrorism. Within months Kashmir was dried of the tourists and Srinagar streets being marched by Kalashnikov wielding individuals- either the security forces or the terrorists. Without any tourists or any other source of living in hand the gentleman at one point was in the verge of starvation and the irony was there were none to purchase his house boat even if he wanted to sell it off. I am not going to the details of his other hardships and how he just managed to brush aside death on close ranges on few occasions. But trust me the smile that was back on his face is worth a million.

Now, won't the re-entry of Army would wipe out that smile from his face? Does anyone can guarantee that the Army presence is just for a small period? Does anyone believe the Army could effectively trash away the stone pelters without resulting in more deaths? Even if the answer to the first question is definitely a 'YES', I am skeptical on the other two questions.

Didn't the then government assure the Army presence would be for minimal days when they first were brought in early 1980? But what resulted is for all to see. They were kept there for twenty years throwing the general populace of Kashmir out of gear and thanks to our bad government policies which created enough mess and deaths in those twenty years which would at least take three generations to clean up. We are cleaning it for last 20 years and let me assure you it is far from being over. To be assured of the effectiveness, you don't need a better example than Israeli Army. They are trying to neutralize the stone pelters on the Gaza street for last couple of decades and I would be optimistic if I say, they have managed to curb down 5% of the nefarious elements. So how effective our Army would be is any one's guess.

So why this fuss Kid Abdullah and Mr. Chidambaram? Rather than bringing the Army to the streets which is not their job, can't you guys just drag out all the hawks and separatists from their habitats and punish them with utmost sincerity? Army can temporarily diffuse the tension but for long term stuff we need all the trouble makers to be brought to the book. As in there is no short term solution to Kashmir but only long term as 30 years is definitely not a time which you can call short.

Poem: The Old Bet

Kashkin — Wed, 7 Jul 2010 13:06:51 EDT

Only profound apologies
I can offer my friend,
Only finite excuses I have
In my possession, to reflect
In this infinite universe
To present it to you,
Of all those conversations
Like hidden pearls
As oceans spill them out
In their toil and in labour

Find myself immersed
In new mechanics of time
As waves of change embrace
The neglected people
And trails I have to follow
As I become like them
And they become like me
Through treaties of time
As we inhale, the bitter truths
As we inhale, the challenges
Mountains to be moved
All options exist but surrender
To relive, promise of change.

These roads, I must traverse
Await all these souls of my own
Through bewildering routines
Tire me out, tire you out
But in there resides my refuge
The moments of peace
Embattled faces and its marks
It's your tomorrow, in my absence
Let me introduce you an old friend
From the years of an old bet
Like an old arrow shot across the sky
In corridors of time, the quest,
Only in avenues of memory,
The old bet and its existence!

Which Bandh Was it - Bharat, India Or Hindustan?

Being Cynical — Tue, 6 Jul 2010 08:31:12 EDT

I am not sure of the facts, but I don't think there would be any other country on this planet which has more than one name, leave alone three. Now this multi-naming convention of a country brings about a problem or two when somebody tries to attach the country with something. Just like yesterday's 'Bharat Bandh'. Why not an 'India Bandh' or 'Hindustan Bandh'? For that matter why not all three at once?

Before going into the details of the last bandh, it would be good if we could do some analysis on our triplet naming convention. On a micro level, I feel all three names represent a set of different populace of our country respectively.

Bharat :- Representing the set of poor chaps which many financial bodies (including our armchair advisory body - The Planning Commision) believe are not earning more than Rs 20/- per day and agony of these chaps in fact prompted all opposition parties to orchestrate this massive nation wide band. Roughly you can say this particular name represents the mamooli type fellows.

India :- Represents the chaps of the middle class or to say - a notch below the upper middle class. In short, guys like me, who blog around all nonsense and folks like you having enough time at hand to read this nonsense. These are the same entities who believe malls and multiplexes are the second best thing happening to mankind after the invention of Balaji Telefilms. We get annoyed and vouch against Gandhi Jayanti as sheer nonsense - not because one day's national productivity is going for a toss but because it is a dry day. This represents a considerable chunk of the nation.

Hindustan :- While Muslims (they have a different set of demands) don't seem to appreciate this jargon, the other side group do adore it more than their life. This name represents Folks from the camps of BJP, RSS, VHP and many similar like minded geniuses. As per them it was Hindustan from the time those two terrestrial elements collided somewhere in the sky to give birth to our universe. The king 'Bharat' of the Mahabharat fame can take a back seat and shouldn't shout or claim his name is the name of our country.

When there is so much diversity in the name of our country itself, it is bound to bring in some confusion when there is a Bandh called for it. So this bandh was for whom? The Bharat-vasies, the Indians or the Hindustanies? I am not sure of the other two species but it definitely hit the Indians the wrong way in terms of some unwanted discomfort. I had to drive down some 10 odd kilometers to my office without knowing what might be the official take on this whole strike. No sooner I was comfortable at my desk I got a mail from our HR head of complying with what L.K. Advani wants on that particular day and we were advised to take our ass out of the office premises sooner than later. Not to mention I had to drive back the same distance to my home and had a boring day all through without any cricket, Wimbledon or FIFA world cup match. That's certainly is disturbing. Isn't it?

Keeping aside the name of the Bandh or the minor suffering I had to go through, I do have my own set of perceptions for this particular event. Even if I am a sufferer, I still support this bandh, as truly being pointed out by few leaders that the bandh is all about the issues affecting all sections of the society, more so the Bharat Vasies (Aam- Aadmi). To gain something substantial, the history is a good proof that innocents had to bear some brunt. If this bandh is a matter of inconvenience to all those daily wage labourers as pointed by leaders of the ruling party then I don't think it is at all any convenient for the same labourer when he had to cough out Rs 90/- for per K.g Tur daal on daily basis. Don't believe then ask the chap in discussion which he feels is more inconvenient - the bandh or this daily extra coughing.

What we would achieve by this bandh, or if the food prices are going to get down the ladder after this, is a different discussion which might need few economists of Lord. Meghnad Desai's caliber to discuss. But for we lesser educated Indians it is all about having an off day with a possibility of having to turn up in the office over the weekend. I am not blaming the netas for this bandh call either. It is their fundamental right and I am also not questioning on their full time profession of worrying for the Aam-Aadmi. But to throw a bandh on all sorry faces by virtue of force as shown in few video clips is certainly not going to help much. The whole idea behind this bandh is well appreciated across all quarters and there are many who voluntarily joined the protest. Much more than anything it is a wake up call for few arrogant brats in our Finance as well as Agriculture ministry.

I am at the bottom of this post but still couldn't manage to find out why it is only a 'Bharat Bandh'. Perhaps I need a 'India Bandh' or 'Hindustan Bandh' next time around to figure out the difference.

Book Review: Open Government

Ganadeva Bandyopadhyay — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 02:51:16 EDT

Open Government, the book under review is a collection of articles from professionals and notable stakeholders in governance, primarily from US perspective. With thirty-four chapters, this is a fairly fat book filled with case studies and opinions of various participants.

Some of the measures of government reform in this context include the recently recognized roles of CTO and CIO as part of the government similar to major business and corporations.

One of the important points made in one of the chapters "Government as a Platform" is that any functional democracy needs to have all inclusive opinions from maximum stakeholders possible. The advantage of diverse public discourse is that wrong opinions tend to cancel each other, leaving the the best ones to be considered for implementation. In present times, with lot of the population being internet-savvy, it is definitely a step forward to include online tools and forums for determining the public opinion.

There are two interesting examples of open government in practice given in this book. These are the websites followthemoney and maplight. The first of these is the website of National Institute on Money in State Politics tracking political donation data. The latter is a public domain database seeking to track money and related influence in legislatures.

To summarize, the book seems to have more chapters than necessary to bring out the perspective. Some chapters are too technical and doubtful to give insight to the targeted audience. With a strong leaning for US examples and discussions, it leaves advancements in other countries out of scope. This is however a good way to see merging of technology in administrations in different ways.

The Bhopal Gas Tragedy - All The Political Discussions

Ashish — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 10:54:45 EDT

The Bhopal Gas Tragedy has been one of the worst incidents in the history of India, right up there with the unpunished anti-Sikh riots of 1984, and the Gujarat anti-Muslim riots of 2002. The gas attack, in the dead night of early December 1984, had a personal connection for me. My dad had been in Bhopal for a official visit, just leaving a day before; a close call for us, but not for the thousands who perished from the effects of the gas in the first few days after the tragedy.

This is a tragedy that has affected many hundreds of thousands as well, those who did not immediately suffer a fatality in the aftermath of the tragedy, but who were affected due to the effects of the gas, and suffered a series of health problems that have lasted till this day, and who will continue to suffer the effects for long periods after. And yet, they can be called a forgotten generation.
After all, were it not for the recent court case that awarded a measly 2 year punishment to many office bearers of the company at the time of the gas attack, who would have said a word about a tragedy that struck 26 years back ? In fact, just the fact that it took 26 years for the judicial process to grind to a decision about criminal culpabilities is itself a grotesque tragedy.

One benefit of the recent controversy has been a discussion about what are the rightful next steps to take for resolving the tragedy. For long, the factory (still present, with whatever contaminant still keeps on seeping into the soil) remains on the ground, and there had been no discussion on how to clean up the place (and one of the major steps in any industrial disaster is the clean up process of an industrial disaster); the recent discussion has been about how to setup a process to clean up the disaster area (even though there are disputes about whether it will be the central Government or the state Government that will be responsible for the cleanup process).

There is also a realization that the compensation given earlier was inadequate, but the current debate overall the proposed new compensation policy is also riven by dispute, and there is a worry that there will be enough red-tape in the entire process that a number of people affected by the tragedy will continue to not get the required compensation.

The biggest controversy in all this is the fate of Warren Anderson. From all the discussion so far, it would seem that the chain of steps was that Warren Anderson wanted to see the actual site of the tragedy, but was astute enough that the heated atmosphere could entrap him, and so sought safe passage. He was granted this safe passage, and when was arrested by the local administration in Bhopal, that promise was invoked.

Given that he traveled by a state Government plane to Delhi, then met the President before leaving the country, would seem that both the State Government (headed by Arjun Singh) and the Central Government (headed by Rajiv Gandhi) were to blame. The Congress has left Arjun Singh to his own statements (and he has clammed up, wanting the entire controversy to die down), but will do everything to ensure that the memory of the late Rajiv Gandhi does not get entangled in this.
However, one needs to see whether all this discussion of the Group of Ministers comes out with something that will actually benefit the people involved. There are a huge number of people who have been affected at various levels by this tragedy, some who suffer huge losses and medical problems, and some who suffer ailments that are persistent or come up at regular intervals.

Delusional in Afghanistan

commonsense — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:04:32 EDT

I cringe whenever I encounter a cliché – except when I deploy them myself. A quote that has surely become clichéd is George Santayana’s observation - 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it'. While quite obviously history cannot repeat itself like in the Groundhog Day movie, there are surely lessons to be learnt from the past. The wise old man Marx had another insightful quip that gets to the heart of the matter – history repeats itself, “occurring first as tragedy, the second time as farce.” The quagmire in Afghanistan, deepened by the decision to commit 30,000 more soldiers by President Obama is anything but farce. It occupies a space between tragedy and farce.

At a time when other members of the so-called coalition have already decided to quit or have deployed only a token number of soldiers, those in charge of the military operations in Afghanistan continue to be talking in terms of “victory”. Perhaps such delusions are necessary to lubricate actions in the realm of unreality. During the Vietnam War, there was no shortage of claims that victory was just around the proverbial corner, the proverbial light was imminent at the end of the metaphorical tunnel. Such claims were buttressed by presumably by objective, empirical facts of body counts of dead Vietnamese. Operations Research, now applied to many fields, owes its origins to the complex, multifaceted analysis of dead Vietnamese insurgents. No need to point out what the end result was, even though there are some Republican types who still believe that the US lost the Vietnam war because their “hands were tied” and of course due to the “liberal media”.

The quagmire in Afghanistan is of course not identical to Vietnam. No social context is ever identical. Yet the broad parallels are hard to ignore. Those of us who are old enough to remember Vietnam resist the déjà vu. Particularly when it comes to over the top delusions about impending “victory” (which of course is never defined), the so-called discovery of a bounty of minerals that may fuel a wealthy, orderly Afghanistan in the future. Juxtaposed with such delusions are recent reports of in the New York Times of the US army paying out millions of dollars to warlords as “protection money” for their military convoys. The range of players who benefit or hope to benefit from this tragedy – financially, geopolitically, professionally, trappings of power etc. – is virtually unlimited. It is of course more than a tad silly to connect global capitalism directly to the situation in Afghanistan. However it would be a mistake to ignore its role at a variety of level – from geopolitical rivalries driven by the need to control resources – oil and minerals – to the demonstration of power to other potential rivals, particularly China. These concerns quite obviously do not dictate the day-to-day twists and turns of policy and disagreements such as the one between General McChrystal. Nor do they obviously directly factor in the internal rivalries within Afghanistan – between the supporters and detractors of Taliban. But the sordid history of the genesis of the Taliban cannot obviously be unhinged from the geopolitical rivalry between the ex-Soviet Union and the US.

Folks such as Morris are of course well within their rights to ask “Well CS, what then is your solution” just as I have the right to respond, perhaps a tad defensively “Just because I have no instant solutions does not mean that I cannot weigh in”. And throw back the issue of clear-cut solutions to Morris and we can all reasonably predict where he/she will eventually lead us. At this stage, all we can say is that the quagmire will get far worse before it will ever lurch towards a semblance of normalcy. Inane platitudes such as these should not be dismissed out of hand particularly when no easy resolution is in the works. An easy way out would be to take refuge in the pessimism of philosophers such as Arthur Schopenhauer’s realistic, non-delusional claim that surely applies to all sides engaged in Afghanistan: “In the sphere of thought, absurdity and perversity remain the masters of the world, and their dominion is suspended only for brief period