tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10599804660140678372024-03-14T15:01:22.094+05:30NationalistAuthor, political commentator, public affairs analystBookwormhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06074542795757215988noreply@blogger.comBlogger108125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1059980466014067837.post-51651853871350728752019-01-23T14:41:00.002+05:302019-01-23T14:41:34.989+05:30<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b><span style="color: red;">DOES PRIYANKA HAVE THE MAGIC? AND WILL IT WORK?</span></b><br />
<br />
Congress President Rahul Gandhi's decision to appoint his sister Priyanka Vadra as a general secretary of the party in charge of Uttar Pradesh (east) can be interpreted in four broad ways.<br />
<br />
The first is to see the development as a move to prevent the return of the Modi-led government at the Centre. The Congress clearly believes that Priyanka Vadra has the necessary charisma to counter Modi's personal popularity across the country. This is of course a tacit admission that leaders of the party, including Rahul Gandhi, have failed in this task over the years, and have had to persuade Priyanka to enter the fray.<br />
<br />
The second is to strengthen the Congress in Uttar Pradesh. For some decades now, and especially in the last few years, the party has got systematically marginalised in the state. It won just two seats in the 2014 Lok Sabha election and failed miserably in the 2017 Assembly poll despite having an alliance with the Samajwadi Party. The party rank and file in Uttar Pradesh stood demoralised, with not just the rise of the SP and the BSP over the past two decades but also the BJP in the last five years. Congress leaders hope that Priyanka Vadra can change the fortunes of the party in the State.<br />
<br />
The third interpretation is that the Congress wishes to face the challenge posed by the SP-BSP alliance by sending across the message that the party was not prepared to be on the back foot as a result of being left out of the grand alliance. Thus, in Uttar Pradesh, if the BSP has Mayawati and the SP boasts of Akhilesh Yadav, the Congress now has Priyanka Vadra.<br />
<br />
The fourth way to look at the development is not something that the Rahul Gandhi camp will like. It is that the induction of Priyanka Vadra is something of an acceptance of the Congress president's failure to effectively lead the Congress -- notwithstanding the party's recent victories in three north Indian States. Various opinion polls have shown that Rahul Gandhi lags far behind Prime Minister Narendra Modi in personal popularity ratings across the country, and his rant on a range of issues such as the Rafale controversy, has not really clicked. He needed a booster, and Priyanka Vadra is seen as that booster.<br />
<br />
But Priyanka Vadra's entry need not be seen as an earth-shaking development. She has been active in politics for some time now, albeit limiting herself to the affairs of Rae Bareli and Amethi. But remember that she also played a significant part in the selection of the Chief Minister for Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh.<br />
<br />
Despite her active participation in Amethi, her brother and sitting MP Rahul Gandhi had a tough time in 2014, retaining the seat by a vastly reduced margin. Besides, there has been speculation that the Congress president, knowing that he would find the going tough in Amethi, would be contesting from a second seat as well, from outside Uttar Pradesh.<br />
<br />
With Sonia Gandhi taking a backseat due to health issues, it is evident that the Rahul-Priyanka combine will now helm the Congress in the coming months and years. Rahul Gandhi has the baggage of an ineffectual leader. Will Priyanka Vadra too be bogged down by the baggage of allegations against husband Robert Vadra?</div>
Bookwormhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06074542795757215988noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1059980466014067837.post-14243238825105944112013-01-04T12:26:00.003+05:302013-01-04T12:26:58.384+05:30With you always, but only to suppress you<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div>
</div>
<div>
<i><b>(First published in The Pioneer dated December 26, 2012) </b></i></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<b>RAJESH SINGH</b></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
On Sunday morning, a young protester at India Gate asked me: “Where is
the Prime Minister? Do we even have a Prime Minister?” I had no answer.
On Monday, Mr Manmohan Singh made a televised address to the nation
which proved that we have a Prime Minister, but only in name. In a bland
lecture that is eminently forgettable, Mr Singh said the massive
protests which have erupted over the gang rape and torture of a young
girl in a moving bus in Delhi were justified and understandable. We
didn’t need the Prime Minister to tell us that. We needed him to tell us
who has been held accountable for the shocking and sad incident and
what immediate steps is his Government taking to ensure that rapists are
punished severely. Mr Singh’s message to the country was worse than
what a dithering bureaucrat would have said.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Incidentally, the Prime Minister did not forget to mention that, as a
father of three daughters, he felt the pain of the victim and her
family. It has suddenly become fashionable for politicians to remind the
people that they have daughters. A few days earlier, the thoroughly
inept Union Minister for Home Affairs Sushil Kumar Shinde too mentioned
at a Press conference that he had daughters and thus could appreciate
the anger among the protesters. Not satisfied with that, he pointed to
his deputy, Mr RPN Singh, and disclosed that the latter too had
daughters — and we assume that he too, therefore, felt the pain as
deeply as the senior Minister did. A few days earlier to Mr Shinde’s
media briefing, prominent Trinamool Congress leader Derek O’Brien
expressed his own bit of anguish over the Delhi incident and reminded
the audience that he too was the father of a daughter. Of course, he had
not felt the same pain over the Park Street rape case in West Bengal
some months ago in the Trinamool rule, nor did he even squeak when the
police officer investigating the case was unceremoniously shunted out
and the rape victim made to undergo all sorts of humiliation.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Having daughters, or being a woman, does not seem to have made any
difference in the attitude of public figures towards heinous crimes
against women, and so they look hypocritical when they shed (crocodile)
tears. Not too long ago, Ms Pratibha Patil towards the end of her tenure
as President had reduced to life imprisonment the death sentence
awarded to a convict who had raped and murdered a six-year old girl in
Uttar Pradesh in 2001. She had also extended clemency to two other
convicts who had gang raped and then brutally killed the 10-year old
daughter of a jailor in the jail premises in Madhya Pradesh in 1996.
Being a woman did nothing to stop her from letting off such inhuman
criminals. So, why should we believe politicians when they say that they
understand the grief and suffering merely because they have daughters
or are women? </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Politicians have to be judged by their action. Let’s look at that
action. When the street protests assumed a huge dimension in the middle
of last week, the Prime Minister issued a statement that he understood
the anger of the protesters, adding that the agitation was justified.
Later, various other politicians in the UPA, from Ms Sonia Gandhi down,
echoed similar sentiments. All of them promised action. And that action
came, to be fair to them. On Saturday, more a dozen Metro stations were
shut down so that protesters could not reach in large numbers at India
Gate and Raisina Hill to conduct their peaceful demonstrations. Despite
this, people in thousands found their way to both these locations. As
the crowd continued to swell, the police began swinging their canes
recklessly and beating up the gathering. Even on that Saturday, senior
Congress leaders continued to believe in the agitation!</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
On Sunday, there was further proof of that solidarity and appreciation
of the protesters’ movement. Section 144 was imposed in Delhi to prevent
the assembly of people. More Metro stations in the proximity of India
Gate and Raisina Hill were closed for ‘security reasons’. (They remained
closed on Monday and Tuesday as well.) Despite all these repressive
measures, huge numbers arrived at India Gate and began their protest. It
was one of this season’s coldest days and the police let loose water
cannons and dozens of rounds of teargas shells on the protesters,
besides indulging in the usual lathi-charge. Beginning from around three
in the afternoon, the security forces went on a rampage, under the
pretext that they had to contain an unruly mob which had infiltrated the
peaceful gathering and was damaging public property and resorting to
violence. It is true that sections of the protesters had turned violent,
but they could have been easily isolated and dealt with. Had the
security forces done that and identified who these unruly elements were,
perhaps the Congress would have had reasons to be embarrassed by the
expose.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Despite all the repressive measures which the Government has taken, the
regime cannot break the spirit of the protesters. Nor can it get away
by sitting on the fence on issues which require a firm stand. In the
initial days of the protest, Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit
maintained a grim silence. But she sought to blame the Union Ministry of
Home Affairs for the incident after the agitation gained massive
proportions and cries of “Sheila Dikshit hai hai!” grew as loud as
“Sonia Gandhi hai hai” and “Delhi Police hai hai”. Miraculously, a
letter written by Congress MP and her son Sandeep Dikshit to the Centre
appeared in a section of the electronic media. The letter raised
questions on certain appointments the Lt Governor had made to the police
force. Since the Delhi Police reports to the Centre, it is directly
accountable to the Lt Governor. And now, Ms Dikshit has openly
questioned the strong-arm tactics which Delhi Police employed with the
protesters and their conduct while recording the statement of the rape
victim. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Clearly then, although the political class is rattled, it is still
unable to respond in a fitting manner. The demand to have a special
session of Parliament, the demand to include the death penalty in laws
that deal with rape and amend other related provisions, the demand to
initiate firm action against top Delhi Police brass, the demand to
sensitise police to help them handle crimes against women effectively —
these are not unjustified. Yet the Government has refused to offer any
roadmap to walk that path. As always, it believes that the crisis will
play out and subside over time, and that everything will be back to
normal. But it will not be back to normal for the girl who has been
brutalised (we hope she lives), for her family members, and for all
those hundreds of victims of rape across the country who still wait for
justice while the police, the prosecution and the judiciary take their
time to deal with their horror. Token assurances and symbolic gestures
are no longer enough. </div>
</div>
Bookwormhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06074542795757215988noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1059980466014067837.post-14305354621880115362013-01-04T12:25:00.000+05:302013-01-04T12:25:11.906+05:30Congress sees victory in defeat!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="itemFullText">
<i><b>(First published in The Pioneer on December 21, 2012) </b></i><br />
<br />
<b>RAJESH SINGH</b><br />
<br />
As it became clear in the course of Thursday that the BJP was going to
win Gujarat hands down, I decided to walk down to 10, Janpath, to gauge
the mood of the people gathered outside the most important address for
Congress workers. Naturally, I had expected a sombre gathering
shell-shocked by the —even if expected — drubbing. But I discovered a
raucous crowd waving Congress flags, bursting crackers and crying out,
“Sonia Gandhi <em>zindabad!” </em>and “Rahul Gandhi <em>zindabad!” </em>For
a moment I thought the supporters had got it all wrong. To understand
this strange phenomenon I decided to approach 10, Janpath, straight. I
located Ram Lal among the people excitedly waving one of the huge flags.<br />
Ram Lal is the nephew of one of the drivers of the car that the
Congress president travels in. The driver is a cousin of the gardener
who tends to the lawns of the residence. The gardener owes his position
to his uncle who had recently retired from service as a bearer who
served tea and snacks to members of the dynasty in the Sanctum Sanctorum
of the house for twenty long years. The bearer’s place had been taken
by his son who only months ago returned from the US where he studied
catering and who is a bit hit with Rahul Gandhi because he can quote all
the important websites on tea preparation and surf the net and send
short messages at super-fast speed while pretending to listen to others
talk to him. Ram Lal likes to call his lineage the ‘second dynasty’ at
10, Janpath. Like all efficient bearers, he is good at eavesdropping on
conversations that happen between the most important people that gather
in the inner recesses of the residence.<br />
So it was Ram Lal who explained the reasons for the untimely
celebration. “Narendra Modi has swept Gujarat”, he exulted as he pumped
my hands vigorously.<br />
“But why are you people so happy?” I wondered.<br />
“Now Modi will become an important national leader and will be seen as a candidate for the country’s prime ministership.”<br />
“That’s not good news for you.”<br />
“Believe me, it is. It’s what we had all along wanted.”<br />
The after-effects of a humiliating public defeat can render people
senseless and drive them mentally unsound. I looked at Ram Lal with
concern. But he didn’t appear insane. “This is what our party High
Command had<br />
worked for.”<br />
But why would the Congress plot its own debacle? “This is a good
instance of stooping to conquer”, he exclaimed with pride. The phrase
had been used with greater clarity before. He added, “With Modi as a
likely candidate to become the Prime Minister, divisions in the BJP will
grow wider. That’s good for us, no?”<br />
I tentatively accepted that Modi’s arrival on the national stage will
cause some upheaval in the BJP. But the internal matter can be
effectively settled within the party. “What about outside the party,
within the NDA?” he countered. “Partners like the JD(U) will break away
from the NDA. Potential partners like Naveen Patnaik will keep away from
re-joining the Opposition combine. Both the NDA and the BJP will get
weak, and we will win the next Lok Sabha election.”<br />
“So you people had actually thought the matter over to this deep extent?” I was struck by awe.<br />
“Yes,” Ram Lal answered, and yelled out, “Sonia Gandhi <em>zindabad!”</em>
as he saw the main gate of the residence sliding open. A car drove out,
bearing huge garlands of crumpled flowers. They were on the way to be
immersed in the gutter-like waters of the Yamuna River. He then let out
the secret. “My relative the bearer happened to hear a conversation
between Madam and Rahul <em>baba.</em> Ahmed Patel<em>ji</em> and Diggy Raja <em>saheb</em>
too were present. Mind you, he had no intention of doing so; it’s just
that, as he was entering the room with tea and biscuits, he caught
snatches of the talk towards the end.”<br />
I was by now very curious to know what exactly he had heard, and even joined him in his next cry, “Rahul Gandhi <em>aage badho, hum tumhare saath hain!”</em>
when another car emerged from behind the gates with an athletically
built man with a trim moustache seated grimly in the passenger’s seat. I
recognised him instantly as the man who had developed close and
friendly ties with one of the country’s biggest builders.<br />
“This is in strict confidence,” he whispered and looked over his
shoulders. “Madam said that the Congress must not attack Modi during the
election campaign. It must not talk of the 2002 riots, the plight of
Muslims in the State and the various projects that are languishing for
want of the State regime’s attention. In fact, she said that Modi should
not even be named during the campaign. Even the criticism that we make
for the sake of show must be such that Modi can instantly rebut it.”<br />
“So that he could eventually trounce you and trample all over you?”<br />
“Yes, yes, precisely. And see how that plan has worked out to
perfection”, Ram Lal rubbed his hands in glee. I complimented his
party’s leadership for the success. But was there no opposition to that
plan? Did Rahul Gandhi and others accept it without a murmur? After all,
defeat is defeat, even when it is supposed to be victory. What was the
tea bearer’s take on that? Ram Lal was aghast at even the suggestion of
dissent. “My <em>rishtedaar</em> told me that the other three in the room began to clap and cheer. They even sang, ‘Modi <em>tum jiyo hazaron saal’</em>.
Even Madam joined in the chorus. It was a master-stroke to finish off
the BJP’s challenge in the Lok Sabha election. We were of course told
about the plan later and we played to the script.”<br />
By now, the crowd had done one hour of cheering and was clearly
exhausted. Moreover, neither Sonia nor Rahul had appeared outside to
boost the gathering’s energy. With one final,<em> “Zindabad, zindabad!”</em>
they began to disperse. Ram Lal curled up the worn-out flag around the
pole and kept it aside. It had seen better days. “I have a confession to
make.”<br />
“Yes?” I prompted him.<br />
“We may have succeeded remarkably in our plan for self-defeat, as you
can see from the results. But if we had worked to defeat Modi, we might
have failed. That would have been disastrous — for Madam and Rahul <em>baba.”</em><br />
</div>
</div>
Bookwormhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06074542795757215988noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1059980466014067837.post-25055388061098977732013-01-04T12:23:00.001+05:302013-01-04T12:23:08.616+05:30Chickens are counted before they hatch<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="itemFullText">
<div class="itemFullText">
<i><b>(First published in The Pioneer dated December 14, 2012) </b></i><br />
<br />
<b>RAJESH SINGH</b><br />
<br />
In less than a week from now, the winner of the election to the Gujarat
Assembly will be known. Many people — and they include members of the
media who are vehemently opposed to Chief Minister Narendra Modi —
believe that the result is a formality and that the Modi-led BJP will
surely register a win. That may be so, but there is no point in counting
the chickens before they hatch. Actually, there is a point, which is
why the un-hatched chickens have been counted by commentators ever since
the election campaign kicked off formally a month ago. Not a day has
gone by when the experts did not dwell on the various titillating
scenarios that are on offer once Mr Modi wins Gujarat for the BJP. What
will be the margin of victory? Will it be strong enough for the Chief
Minister to claim a place on the national stage? Will he emerge as the
BJP’s candidate for prime ministership in the next Lok Sabha election?
If he does arrive as a national leader, will the established guard of
the party accept him or sabotage him? Will some NDA partners walk out of
the coalition if Mr Modi is projected as the BJP’s prime ministerial
candidate?<br />
The informed discourse that we have heard over the weeks in the run-up
to this election has, thus, dealt very little with issues that concern
the people of Gujarat and more with the impact that the result of the
election will have on national politics. In that sense, therefore, Mr
Modi has already been placed on the country’s centre-stage. The ‘Modi
versus Rahul Gandhi’ and the ‘Modi versus the rest’ (including sections
of the BJP) refrain that we have been subjected to through various print
and electronic media coverage confirms the obsession of the Press and
the people with the Gujarat Chief Minister’s future outside his State.
It would seem that he is pitted against many dangerous rivals within and
outside his party who are just waiting to finish him off as soon as he
sets foot in New Delhi.<br />
These various possibilities have provided fodder to 24x7 news channels
and the print media to sustain their ‘special coverage’ of the election.
And, because Mr Modi is not going to take over the prime ministership
tomorrow, the media will have many more days and months to continue
analysing the prospect and attracting television rating points in the
process. Interestingly, all these initiatives are only serving to add to
the larger-than-life image of the Chief Minister. Mr Modi has had few
reasons to object, therefore, although in the process he has also ended
up getting stinging comments from participants in television debates and
analysts in the print media. It’s a small price, veteran observers will
say, to pay for securing a place under the sun.<br />
So, it’s not as if Mr Modi’s detractors have been mute spectators to
the foretelling of his victory. They began by first rubbishing the
impression that the Chief Minister is on the course to lead his party to
a third straight Assembly win. Not managing to go far with that
assertion, they took to wondering whether the claims of development
which Mr Modi had been making across the State were not canards at worst
and selectively true at best. Again, failing to strike a chord with
that argument, his critics in the media and outside then presented a
different perspective: Is the development plank alone sufficient to
propel Mr Modi to victory? Now, that is a strange train of thought
indeed, because one would have believed that the politics of development
is the best recourse to take. Have these experts then been suggesting
that Mr Modi should have exploited communal or casteist issues to
polarise votes in<br />
his favour?<br />
The fact is that his detractors were desperately eager that he bring up
those matters so that they could rip him apart. It would have also
given the Congress a platform to raise the issue of 2002 violence and
the ‘plight’ of the minorities in the State under Mr Modi’s rule. But,
while the Chief Minister had enough material to draw the attention of
listeners — witness how he panned the Prime Minister, Congress president
Sonia Gandhi and her son Rahul Gandhi in his inimitable style —the
Congress was left without anything substantial to say. The party’s
leaders were terrified to directly mention either 2002 or the
‘terrorisation’ of the Muslim community in the State, for fear that they
would play into the Chief Minister’s hands. They had to then fall back
on the issue of development — much to Mr Modi’s delight.<br />
In the eventuality, the Congress settled down to an insipid campaign
with no catchy issues to exploit. Worse, the party’s rising star, Rahul
Gandhi, made a mere guest appearance on the last day of campaigning for
the first phase of polling. And he said nothing that set the Sabarmati
on fire. Nor did Ms Sonia Gandhi and Mr Manmohan Singh, who had
campaigned earlier.<br />
Those who claim to have seen what they believe is the writing on the
wall (that Mr Modi is going to win, regardless of everything bad he may
have done) — and they also include the Chief Minister’s diehard critics
(regardless of everything good he may have done) — have begun to prepare
the ground to explain away the presumed victory. One theory is that the
voters of Gujarat have become so polarised over the years since 2002
that there is little hope for a ‘secular’ victory, at least as of now.
If that is the case, these people must explain what the ‘secular’
parties have done this past decade to ‘de-polarise’ the voters and
‘secularise’ them. Besides, it is an insult to the voters of the State
to condemn them as being communally driven.<br />
It’s true that polarisation took place in the aftermath of the 2002
violence, but the effects have since worn off. In 2007, Mr Modi fought
on the development plank. The fact that the Congress had done fairly
well in the State in the 2009 Lok Sabha election goes to show that
voters are willing to look beyond the BJP if only they are offered a
credible alternative. Polarisation of voters cannot be used in
perpetuity as an excuse to explain the rise of the Modi-led BJP in
Gujarat.<br />
</div>
</div>
</div>
Bookwormhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06074542795757215988noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1059980466014067837.post-13607315524141699462013-01-04T12:20:00.001+05:302013-01-04T12:20:18.193+05:30Valiantly holding the flag high<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="itemFullText">
<i><b>(First published in The Pioneer dated December 11) </b></i><br />
<br />
<b>RAJESH SINGH</b><br />
<br />
A visitor to Gujarat will feel instantly at home in Vadodara. The city
has a cosmopolitan air that comes perhaps from a large number of higher
education institutions which are located in and around the town. The
fabled Maharaja Sayajirao Gaekwad III dominates the third largest city
in the State. To him goes the credit of laying the foundations for a
robust education system, including a university and a library culture.
The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda is named after him, as is a
park in the heart of the city, and various other institutions and
commercial complexes. Because the educational network, which also
includes a fashion designing institute, attracts students from across
the country, the cosmopolitan touch has pervaded through society. And,
while not all of these youngsters are eligible to vote in the city,
their outlook is in general reflective of the political mood in
Vadodara. The city is for the BJP led by Chief Minister Narendra Modi,
though some experts believe that the situation in the rural areas which
fall in the district may not be emphatically in favour of the party.<br />
From Alkapuri to Kothi Chaar Rasta to the MS University and beyond as
one moves to the edge of the city towards the airport (dilapidated and
badly maintained, leading the auto-rickshaw driver who drove me there to
suggest that Mr Modi must take it over to improve its fate), people do
not see an alternative to Mr Modi. In fact, it is in Vadodara (nobody in
the city calls it by that name, preferring instead the more compact
Baroda) that one hears the term ‘development politics’ the most often.
Bharatbhai Solanki has a readymade garments’ store right opposite the
university, an area teeming with mouth-watering streetside fastfood
joints. He is 60 years old and claims to have voted in every election
over the last three decades. Once a committed Congress supporter, he has
switched sides. “2002 is past. Why are people still talking about it
when we are trying to move ahead and leave the unpleasantness behind?”
he demands to know rather abruptly. I had merely asked him for his
opinion on the general political climate in the city and around. “Look
at the development all around. The political climate you are talking of
has to do with the conducive business environment. Why even discuss
divisions in society when financial empowerment is<br />
bridging divides?”<br />
I gently remind him that economic prosperity is not everything; all
sections of society must feel safe and have a sense of ownership in the
prosperity which he talks of. I was playing the devil’s advocate, and he
shrewdly realises it. Mr Solanki has experienced many elections and
many more political leaders. “Everyone is safe. If someone feels unsafe,
it is due to his mindset, and not because of ground reality. Nothing
can be done about that”, he brushes aside my misgivings as he dispenses
with a customer who had purchased a couple of vests and towels. My final
query: Why did he dump the Congress? “Narendrabhai is better. He has
performed, and the State has benefitted from the BJP rule under his
leadership. The Congress does not even have a State-level leader to
match his stature, let alone performance.”<br />
An apparently well-to-do gentleman in Alkapuri is struggling to silence
the alarm that had gone off in his car because someone had brushed
against the vehicle’s door a little too hard. For officialdom, Alkapuri
is important. The Collector’s official residence is located on the main
road, and so are the Circuit House and the residence of a Principal
Magistrate — all in the same row. On the other side are small but swanky
commercial complexes. This is where the gentleman in question is
engaged in the small technical act. After furtively pressing buttons on
the key of his remote lock, he manages to silence the siren. He looks as
relieved as, well, a person who has just relieved himself. “Of course I
will vote for the BJP, and so will many others, only and only because
of Narendra Modi. Look at the development he has done. The Congress
could not do in 40 years what he has done in 10.” But Gujarat has always
been a developed State. What is Mr Modi’s contribution? He looks at me
like I had arrived from another planet. “Are you a Congressman?” he
demands to know in a suspicious manner. “This is just what the Congress
workers have been telling people in the city. If he has done nothing,
why have the people voted for him in the last two elections? Why have
they voted for his party in every other kind of election in the last 10
years? Are the people of the State fools to be misled by propaganda
every now and then?”<br />
But Vadodara-based journalist Hemant Vyas believes that people are also
not fools to be taken in completely by Mr Modi’s claim of development.
“If you go into the rural areas, you will get a different perspective”,
he says. Vyas has been closely tracking politics of the State for years
now, and says that the BJP and the Congress will be engaged in stiff
combat in rural Gujarat. “Take Waghodia, which is some 30 kilometres
from Vadodara. The BJP is facing rebellion there, with the disgruntled
workers backing Keshubhai Patel’s Gujarat Parivartan Party and an
independent who has quit the BJP. The Congress too is strong here
because it commands the loyalty of the Patel community”, he states,
adding that the contest there is between two Patels. Vyas thinks a
similar game could be played out in the rest of rural Gujarat as well.
The adivasi (or tribal) factor is also an important element here. “When
we talk of rural constituencies around Vadodara, we cannot ignore the
fact that the Congress does have a strong sway among the tribals. It’s
true that the BJP has made inroads over the years, but the Congress
still has an edge”, he emphasises. His analysis is that the BJP will win
in the five odd seats in Vadodara and adjacent constituencies, but in
the eights seats flung far away from the city, the Congress could well
bag six. He again underlines that a similar game could be played out in
the rest of the State, though to what extent that is going to really
affect the BJP overall, remains to be seen.<br />
Vyas, however, does not accept the general impression that the Muslims
will en bloc vote against the BJP in the State. “Over the years,
sections of the Muslim community — for instance the Bohras — have moved
towards Mr Modi. The process began in 2007 and seems to have gained
strength over time”, he claims. The Vadodara-based journalist also does
not accept the argument that Mr Modi’s Sadbhavna Yatra has been a waste.
“You watch, it’ll yield results”, he confidently adds. Well, December
20 is not too far away. Vyas is quick to offer his assessment of the
seats that the parties will get. “The BJP will get around the same
number that it won in 2007, and the Congress can win 65 plus. I do not
believe that the GPP will manage more than three seats across the
State.” Mr Modi is not going to be content with that tally. He is hoping
to breach the so-far unbroken record that Congress’s Madhavsinh Solanki
had set with 149 seats in 1985. But with the GPP breathing down his
neck, the Congress refusing to yield its traditional votes in rural
Gujarat and a level of anti-incumbency, he may have to wait another day.<br />
</div>
</div>
Bookwormhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06074542795757215988noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1059980466014067837.post-61959377171949406762013-01-04T12:18:00.002+05:302013-01-04T12:18:24.503+05:30Old warhorse fights lonely battle<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="itemFullText">
<i><b>(First published in The Pioneer dated December 3, 2012) </b></i><br />
<br />
<b>RAJESH SINGH </b><br />
<br />
From measured Ahmedabad to chaotic Rajkot, the contrast could not have
been starker. Motorists drive like they are determined to cause an
accident, and only at the last moment do they seem to get second
thoughts and screech to a halt. It’s a wonder that the town does not
register a road accident every minute. This aggression spills over to
the political expressions of the residents as well. Unlike in Ahmedabad,
where the people are open yet refined in presenting their opinions, the
voters of Rajkot do not believe in needless sophistication. It’s the
home town of Mr Keshubhai Patel, once among the BJP’s tallest leaders in
Gujarat and now the party’s bitter rival who has floated his own
outfit, the Gujarat Parivartan Party, to take on his former colleagues
(and the Congress more by way of coincidence than design). It is here,
in the town and the constituencies that fall within the district — and
elsewhere in the Saurashtra region — that Mr Patel hopes to perform
well. That’s the hope, but do the people see it that way?<br />
It’s barely six in the morning, but there’s already a decent crowd
outside a tea stall near the town’s bus terminus. Many of those who have
gathered there are travellers, but there are also those that are
residents of the town and are out on their morning walk. Some of them
are armed with sticks to ward off stray dogs. As I broach the topic of
the State Assembly election and suggest that Mr Patel could give the BJP
a run for its money, an elderly gentleman picks the cue. “You think
so?” he demands to know aggressively. When I hastily clarify that that
was what the general impression appears to be, he calms down. “It’s true
that Rajkot has been the centre of Keshubhai’s politics. But he is no
longer relevant, at least in the town and nearby constituencies. The BJP
is comfortably placed.” His companion chips in, but with a more
tempered view. “Keshubhai got the Patel votes into the BJP kitty in the
late 90s. That cannot be denied. But for the last decade or so beginning
with Narendra Modi’s rise, he has remained a marginal player. Sections
of the Patel community are still loyal to him. But by and large the
Patels have come to identify with the BJP. Narendrabhai has taken care
of them.”<br />
It is precisely this analysis that Ahmedabad-based senior journalist
Manas Dasgupta had offered to me a couple of days before I landed in
Rajkot. Mr Dasgupta, who has reported on Gujarat’s politics for close to
four decades now, believes that the Patel community “is no longer
aligned with Mr Keshubhai Patel. The Patels are with Mr Modi because
they feel secure in his regime. They think that, if the Congress or the
GPP gains leverage in the State, they will lose influence to the other
communities, particularly the Muslims.”<br />
He does accept that, if not in Rajkot proper and contiguous
constituencies, Mr Patel’s party will makes inroads in the rural
constituencies of Saurashtra, but that will not amount to any serious
dent in the BJP’s Patel vote-bank. “You have to remember that only a few
sub-sects of the Patel community could vote for Mr Keshubhai Patel.
Some months, a Patel conference which he had organised had turned out to
be a tame affair with most of the influential Patel community leaders
keeping away. Also, the Patels do not want to waste their vote on a
party (the GPP) which has no chance of gaining power, I will be
surprised if Mr Patel’s party wins more than 10 seats in all”, he says.<br />
A non-resident Indian (or more appropriately, a non-resident Gujarati)
paces furiously in the lobby of a hotel located on Jawahar Road in the
town. Puffing at a cigarette and upset at having misplaced his lighter,
he tells me that people realise the true worth of something after they
have lost it and not when they have it. “Mil jaye to mitti hai, kho jaye
to sona hai” — he hums the lines sung by Jagjit Singh. “Take the case
of my lighter. Now that it’s gone, I miss it desperately when I have the
urge to smoke.” Manish Bhatt (not his real name) is based in London and
is in the insurance business. He is planning a return to India — and
home State Gujarat — to promote the insurance sector. “With Narendra
Modi as Chief Minister, the business community is confident of getting
the right environment. I would not have considered relocating to Gujarat
(Rajkot is his home town) if people like Keshubhai were in charge. I
remember Keshubhai’s regime; the governance was in a complete mess, and
decisions were being delayed.”<br />
But not everyone in Rajkot agrees with that indictment. The owner of an
electronic goods store believes that Mr Patel’s Government had
performed well in the short duration that it had lasted. “He had to face
great opposition from within the party. There was Shankarsinh Vaghela
and his band of loyalists within the BJP constantly sniping at
Keshubhai’s heels. Yet, he did provide a decent administration. No one
can possibly forget that he had laid the foundations for the BJP’s rise
in Gujarat.” But even the electronic goods vendor accepts that Mr Patel
stands little chance of making a really big mark in the coming
|Assembly election.<br />
The other setback that Mr Patel appears to face not just in Rajkot but
apparently across Saurashtra too is that the Muslim voters are unlikely
to back him (just as the majority of them are yet not ready to support
Mr Modi), despite all the overtures which he has been making towards the
community since his rebellion against the BJP. And, it’s not just Mr
Dasgupta who holds that view. Voters in Junagadh believe similarly. A
two-hour drive from Rajkot, Junagadh is a crumbling town, which clings
to history in a desperate bid to maintain its dignity. Mr Modi’s
development wave appears to have bypassed this little town. The spirit
of happiness that one comes across in Ahmedabad and the element of
happening that is evident in Rajkot, are replaced by a sense of
resignation in Junagadh.<br />
Outside the Family and Civil Court within the dilapidated gates (there
are many in this historic town) that once formed part of an imposing
fort, a paan vendor sells his wares in his tiny stall. Miniature images
of Mecca and Medina adorn the walls of his stall. “Muslims here won’t
back Keshubhai. They will go with the Congress. I am a Muslim and I will
not vote for Keshubhai. And I will also not vote for the BJP.
Narendrabhai’s Sadbhavna fast was a sham. Muslims of the State, and
certainly of Junagadh, have not been impressed by that”, he claims
emphatically. Mr Keshubhai Patel, he says, will do fairly well in the
interiors of Junagadh. “But do not expect miracles from him. The Patels
are no longer solidly behind him. The dominant Patels in rural Gujarat
are firmly with the BJP”, he says, adding, “They are not concerned with
issues of development. They’ll back any party that can contain the
Muslim influence in the State.”<br />
This opinion is seconded by a lawyer hanging around the court premises.
That is why, he contends, BJP legislator Mahendra Mashroo will most
likely win again. “Don’t ever forget; it’s not because he has done
development work here. He will win because of the fear of Muslims. Of
course, Mahendrabhai is also personally likeable”, the robed man says.
As for the Gujarat Parivartan Party’s performance in its stronghold, he
has this to say: “Keshubhai has influence in Saurashtra. You know he is
himself contesting from nearby Visavadar constituency. But I doubt if
that influence will convert into more than half a dozen seats for his
party in the region. After all, even the BJP has a strong line-up of
Patel candidates.”<br />
</div>
</div>
Bookwormhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06074542795757215988noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1059980466014067837.post-37686361160493278202013-01-04T12:16:00.001+05:302013-01-04T12:16:27.914+05:30India will win in Modi's Gujarat<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<i><b>(First appeared in The Pioneer dated November 22, 2102)</b></i><br />
<br />
<b>RAJESH SINGH</b><br />
<br />
Who do you think is going to win?” I asked the auto-rickshaw driver who
took me on November 19 from the airport in Ahmedabad to the hotel.
“India jeetega”, he responded with a confident grin. I wondered if he
was right. Of course he could be right, except that England had put up a
strong show in its second innings (eventually India did win). But
cricket was not on my mind then. My question related to December’s
Assembly election in Gujarat. I corrected him gently. He replied, “I am
referring to the election. Narendra Modi will win. And, that will be a
victory for India, because he stands for a proud, progressive and
self-reliant India.”<br />
It is difficult to find a contrary opinion in Ahmedabad, at least. The
owner of a general provision store, who for reasons he did not
elaborate, believed that Gujarat will witness a close fight.
“Fifty-fifty hoga”, he claimed. And yet, even he agreed that that the
BJP would win hands down in Ahmedabad and near about. “The combination
of Narendra Modi and Amit Shah is unbeatable in these constituencies”,
he added.<br />
At a corner stall in Goyal Intercity, a sharp, young man in his
mid-twenties, who managed an assortment of tobacco and related products,
was even more dismissive of the prospects of the Congress. “What do the
Congress leaders have to say? Nothing. Sonia Gandhi spoke in Rajkot
recently, but had nothing to promise really to the voters. She spoke of
bringing development, but development is already there under Chief
Minister Modi. Even the remotest village in the State gets at least 10
hours of quality power supply. Industrial activity is booming.
Agriculture is doing well too”, he stated.<br />
The young man was equally contemptuous of the impression that the
conviction of a former Minister in the Modi regime in connection with
the 2002 violence, or Amit Shah’s ongoing trial in the same incident.
“Those are non-issues that do not affect the livelihood of the people.
Let the law take its course. Such issues are discussed by intellectuals
in television studios, not on the streets by voters”, he said.<br />
There is some truth in the assertion that the Congress has nothing to
tell the voters, now that even its party leaders are keeping away from
raking the 2002 incidents. They did that in 2007 and the strategy had
backfired. “So, now you have Congress leaders calling Modi a monkey. Do
you think that the Congress can win over the loyalty of the voters by
calling the Chief Minister a monkey? This only goes to show that they do
not know what those issues are that can attract the people of the
State”, remarked the proprietor of a cosmetics shop located close to a
Shani Dev temple near the Drive-in Cinema. “Why must I vote for the
Congress? Give me one good reason”, a flower vendor selling her wares
outside a Vaibhav Lakshmi Temple challenged me to respond. Does anybody
offer stale flowers to the deity!” According to her, the Congress had
withered under the “fruitful” leadership of Mr Modi and the BJP
Government which he leads. “The Congress must sound and look fresh for
the voters to consider it as an alternative.”<br />
Clearly, the Congress has a problem in the State. If it talks of
development — and it has been making half-hearted attempts — the issue
does not click with the people, who point that the State is progressing
fine under Mr Modi. In fact, the people add that never before as in the
last decade has development been so rapid and focussed. If the party
personalises the campaign, it only further raises the stature of the
Chief Minister. So, what should it do? The flower vendor may have put it
rather simplistically, and she may be reflecting the frustrations of
people like her residing in Ahmedabad. But much the same terms of an
informed analysis, is offered by a war-weary journalist. Ahmedabad-based
Manas Dasgupta has covered the politics and more of Gujarat for close
to four decades now. People, he says, are willing to listen to any
meaningful argument on why they must exercise their option to change the
BJP Government led by Mr Modi. “People are asking: ‘Give us one reason —
just one reason — why we must vote for the Congress,’” Mr Dasgupta
says. He points out that while Congress leaders are going about the
State talking of why the people should vote out the Congress, they are
unable to tell the voters what the Congress has on offer for their
development. “The Congress at the Centre is steeped in corruption; the
party has completely failed to check inflation and price rise across the
country; and the Congress does not have a single State-level leader to
take on Mr Modi. Are these the reasons that will make the people vote
for the Congress!” he exclaims.<br />
Mr Dasgupta is quick to point out that the Chief Minister has
flourished as much from the good governance which he has given the State
as he has through an elaborate image-building exercise. “Not everything
which he claims as his Government’s achievements are true”, he says,
adding, “Consider how he takes the credit for the implementation of the
various Central Government schemes. But then it is also a fact that his
rivals simply do not have the credentials to challenge him on the few
occasions that they can do so with some level of success.” That may be
so, but there is another fact that people in Ahmedabad do not fail to
mention: Mr Modi has ensured that the benefits of most of the schemes,
State-level or Central, have reached the people. “He has succeeded in
the last mile, and that matters the most as far the voters are
concerned”, Mr Dasgupta remarks.<br />
He agrees that issues like the 2002 violence have become non-issues
today, as also the allegation of arrogance that Mr Modi’s detractors
have been leveling against the Chief Minister. “Of course he is arrogant
and brusque with many of his Ministers and the bureaucrats. That’s why
he is so unpopular in Gandhinagar, the seat of power. But he is not
arrogant with the people. Moreover, the people believe that his
arrogance is really his determination to get things done for the good of
the people. They love him for that. They may be wrong in their
analysis, but that is that”, he states.<br />
From the vantage point of Ahmedabad then, the BJP led by Mr Modi seems
to be sitting pretty. But Ahmedabad alone is not Gujarat. And, miracles
do happe</div>
Bookwormhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06074542795757215988noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1059980466014067837.post-87231803953797237752013-01-04T12:14:00.001+05:302013-01-04T12:14:28.738+05:30Congress tries to douse fire, but slips on fire<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<i><b>(First appeared in The Pioneer dated October 31) </b></i><br />
<br />
<b>RAJESH SINGH</b><br />
<br />
On October 23,<em> The Pioneer published</em> an editorial titled,
“Kejriwal playing god?” The editorial cautioned India Against Corruption
chief Arvind Kejriwal against going overboard without plausible
evidence in his campaigns that targeted public figures for their alleged
corrupt activities. At the same time, the editorial also commended him
for the good work that he has been doing in raising the level of
awareness and highlighting dubious deals of some public figures with
believable material to justify the allegations.<br />
<div>
</div>
<div>
The editorial drew a flurry of response from indignant readers who took
exception to the criticism of the anti-corruption activist. Even
readers who did not completely endorse the ‘hit and run’ methods that Mr
Kejriwal has adopted, and also did not believe that the IAC leader is
himself above board, jumped to his defence. The bottom line was: ‘We
have had enough of nonsense from our politicians. Here is a man who has
taken on the corrupt in high places, and he has our support.’ There was
also a letter writer who said that, if Mr Kejriwal is indeed playing
god, the country needs more gods like him. <em>The Pioneer </em>published many of those letters.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
What does such support indicate? It would be wrong to personalise the
confrontation as being one between Mr Kejriwal and the political
establishment — more specifically the Congress-led UPA Government. Just
as it would be misplaced enthusiasm to see into this a battle between
David and Goliath. The support for Mr Kejriwal is in reality a
manifestation of the anger that the common man feels over the manner in
which the political rulers in the country, now led by the Congress, have
been taking the people for granted. It is also a manifestation of the <em>aam aadmi’s</em> frustration at being so helpless as to do nothing while he is trampled all over.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Mr Kejriwal’s detractors within the UPA will of course claim that all
this talk of anger and frustration is hyped-up nonsense, and that the
Congress-led regime is completely tuned in to the aspirations of the
people. Well, the sweeping changes that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
made to his Council of Ministers on Sunday do not in any way indicate
that the Congress has much regard for public opinion. On the contrary,
the reshuffle appeared deliberately designed to cock a snook at such
public opinion. It has provided more ammunition to the likes of Mr
Kejriwal, besides the Opposition. But then, it seems that the Government
is beyond caring anymore; it just wants to hang on to the rest of the
tenure, even if it gets mired in further ignominy as the days go by. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
The Congress would like us to believe that the reshuffle will provide
the much needed momentum to governance and that the new team will lead
the party to success in the next Lok Sabha election. We don’t know about
that. What we do know is that the Sunday exercise has exposed the party
and the Prime Minister to serious charges of buckling under pressure
from various lobbies. We know too that being tainted is not an obstacle
for a Minister in getting promotions. And, we also know that honest
Ministers can expect rewards by way of being shunted out. These are
indeed strange ways for a party that swears in the name of the common
man and propriety to demonstrate its commitment to the two. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
The dirt over Mr Jaipal Reddy’s shift out of the Petroleum and Natural
Gas Ministry has already hit the fan, and Congress leaders have been
tying themselves up in knots since Sunday trying to play down the
Minister’s transfer. Yet, there are certain facts, and when they are
seen in the context of the reshuffle, they do give rise to doubts that
Mr Reddy, who by all accounts has been an upright Minister, was removed
from the Ministry because he shared an uneasy relationship with an
influential corporate house which is engaged in what the UPA regime may
believe is crucial to accelerating economic growth. Mr Reddy had held up
some key proposals of the corporate house which, among other things, is
engaged in oil and gas exploration. He had also turned down the
industrial house’s plea to hike rates in its favour. Congress apologists
have rubbished the allegation that corporate lobbying led to Mr Reddy’s
removal from the Petroleum Ministry. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Fine, but what then explains his transfer? There can be three reasons
for a Minister to be shifted out of his Ministry. Because he is
incompetent. Or, because he is inconvenient. Or, because he is rewarded
with something bigger. The Congress has been claiming <em>ad nauseam</em>
since Sunday that Mr Reddy is honest and efficient and that he had done
a wonderful job in the Union Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas.
Therefore, we can rule out the first reason. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
The third reason too is invalid here, because Mr Reddy did not get a
promotion. As we now know, the Congress did not just decide to punish Mr
Reddy by ousting him from the Petroleum Ministry but also to further
humiliate him. That is how the affable but knowledgeable Minister ended
up with the low-profile Science and Technology Ministry. Had the
intention not been to rub in the insult, the Prime Minister could have
easily given Mr Reddy a Ministry that befitted the </div>
<div>
latter’s stature. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
The only plausible explanation lies in the second reason: That, as
Petroleum Minister, he was proving to be an inconvenience to some
elements within the Government and outside of it. He had to be removed
from the way so that these elements had their way.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
If the Jaipal Reddy episode has exposed the Government led by the
Congress for what it really is, then the elevation of Mr Salman Khurshid
has left a bad taste in the mouth. It’s not that Mr Khurshid will make a
poor Union Minister for External Affairs. On the contrary, he may well
prove to be a most capable one. But Mr Khurshid faces serious
allegations of irregularities involving a non-Government organisation
which he runs, and those charges have yet to be laid to rest. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
His defence so far has raised more questions than it has answered.
Critics of the Congress justifiably see in Mr Khurshid’s promotion a
deliberate snub to the Opposition and the anti-graft activists who have
been demanding a probe against the Minister in the wake of revelations
in sections of the media about the NGO’s </div>
<div>
dubious conduct.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Given such questionable decisions of the Congress and the Prime
Minister, can we then blame the Opposition and Mr Kejriwal for raising
the pitch? Should we treat with contempt the voice of the masses that is
getting increasingly strident against such skullduggery? Must we ignore
the call for a new, hopefully better, order? </div>
</div>
Bookwormhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06074542795757215988noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1059980466014067837.post-706707774420070512013-01-04T12:10:00.001+05:302013-01-04T12:10:29.022+05:30Shoot the messenger, trample its rectitude <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="itemFullText">
<i><b>(First appeared in The Pioneer dated October 17, 2012)</b></i><br />
<br />
<b>RAJESH SINGH</b><br />
<br />
Union Minister for Law and Justice Salman Khurshid must have
deliberated long and hard with his associates over the strategy to adopt
during the Press conference that he addressed on Sunday. As he saw it,
his personal honour was at stake. We do not know what was agreed upon in
those deliberations, but the country saw on that drab holiday afternoon
a person shockingly different from that of his public image of a suave,
sophisticated and urbane politician. Mr Khurshid was offensive,
abrasive, insulting and often not in control of himself. Perhaps he had
not meant the Press event to go the way it did; perhaps he was provoked
by the doggedly aggressive questioning by reporters of an influential
media group; or perhaps it was just that he had decided that the best
form of defence is acerbic offence.<br />
The deviation from his established image could have been justified in
hindsight had it at least resulted in tangible benefits for the
Minister. Sadly, for him, the Sunday episode ended in denting a persona
which he had carefully cultivated over the years, and left him further
exposed to charges of various wrongdoing.<br />
It is undisputed that Mr Khurshid faced the media on that day with the
express intention to dominate and control the proceedings. This is why
he began the Press conference by laying down ‘rules’ of the ‘game’ and
identifying the ‘core issues’ that deserved his attention. There is
nothing wrong in his having done that — which politician does not want
the wind to blow his way? Yet, he should have known that he would have
to face hostile questions, especially from reporters of the media group
which has run a robust campaign against the alleged irregularities in
the functioning of a non-Government organisation that he and his wife
manage.<br />
The Minister blundered right at the start when he said that he had not
wanted to invite the representatives of the ‘errant’ media group for the
Press conference but agreed to do so after other media persons advised
him against blocking a section of the Press out. He gave away not just
his bias against but also dislike for sections of the media that dare to
challenge him. He became an even more marked man for reporters of the
media house concerned, who were present in full strength at the Press
conference, waiting for their chance to pounce.<br />
And Mr Khurshid continued to blunder after that. When the first
question was shot at him by a representative of that very media house
which he has come to despise, he offered an unconvincing reply. When the
reporter persisted, the Minister lost his cool and shouted down the
reporter. When asked whether he should quit to ensure a fair probe, he
said he would gladly do so if the owner of the media house too resigned!<br />
This may sound rhetorical, but it could well become the tag line of the
other Ministers in the UPA Government and Congress leaders who face
charges of impropriety. For them, the charges become unimportant; what
is crucial is to destroy the credibility of those impertinent
individuals and institutions who dare to make the accusations. The
Congress has been trying its utmost to do that to the Comptroller and
Auditor-General of India since the 2G Spectrum scam broke out. But, the
more it has persisted in the futile task, the more shine the CAG has
acquired. Another example is the manner in which the Congress members
have made a mockery of the Public Accounts Committee that recently went
into the report on the 2G Spectrum scam. But the PAC headed by a BJP
Member of Parliament remains unsullied while the credibility of the
Congress is in tatters.<br />
Clearly rattled by the volley of questions and counter-responses by the
media on that Sunday, Mr Khurshid turned not just nasty but also
abusive. Displaying his elitist upbringing and the class discrimination
that he appears to have nursed in his mind for years — it could not have
suddenly exploded out of nowhere — the Minister mocked the persistent
reporter and offered to repeat his response in Hindi in case the
original English version had been lost on the latter. This was at best a
cheap retort that did no good to the Minister’s image. Nor did the fact
that he appealed (to no one in particular) to “shut” the reporter up,
after the media hound failed to get the message. The Minister’s
performance was a perfect example of how to bludgeon your own image.<br />
Mr Khurshid’s arrogance can be seen from the manner in which he has
gone about addressing people who have questioned him and his dealings.
In a recent interview, apparently referring to the likes of
anti-corruption activist Arvind Kejriwal, he said he would not bow down
to “hoodlums in the streets”. Even at the Sunday Press conference, he
said that he would not answer questions that had been raised by “people
on the streets”. But he has to face the fact: While Mr Kejriwal may not
necessarily be seen by many as a paragon of virtue, he now commands more
credibility in the public eye than Mr Khurshid does — or for that
matter many UPA Ministers do in the wake of the various massive scams
that have taken a toll on the Manmohan Singh Government’s image.
Moreover, Mr Khurshid forgets that it is the people on the streets who
determine the political fortunes of this country.<br />
The Minister himself is what he is because of the people on the
streets. The questions that are being asked of Mr Khurshid are not being
directed by Mr Kejriwal and company alone — nor just by a particular
media group — but by voters across the nation as well. Then, why should
he not answer them? Perhaps that’s because the ‘mango people’ living in
this ‘banana republic’ cannot demand answers from those who have degrees
from institutions like Oxford and are engaged in the ‘service of the
nation’. Mr Khurshid can argue that he did offer a credible response at
his Press conference to the issues which have been raised regarding the
functioning of his NGO, Dr Zakir Hussain Memorial Trust. But that is far
from the case. The Minister simply could not provide convincing replies
on at least two — and the most contentious — matters: One, the Trust
used a forged affidavit to receive clearances and thus more funds from
the Government; and two, it made use of a letter supposedly written by a
‘Government official’ much after he had retired.<br />
In a tacit admission that the letters the trust benefitted from may
have been forgeries, Mr Khurshid has claimed that the matter must be
probed by the Government. In other words, he appears to be saying: ‘My
NGO may have used forged letters to its benefit, but since we haven’t
forged them, why blame us!’ Coming as it does from a Law Minister, this
is amusing stuff.<br />
</div>
</div>
Bookwormhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06074542795757215988noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1059980466014067837.post-1419605074613845342012-10-10T17:02:00.002+05:302012-10-10T17:06:04.121+05:30Writer and the Fatwa<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<i>(First published in The Pioneer, Agenda section, on October 7, 2012)</i><br />
<br />
<b>RAJESH SINGH</b><br />
<br />
February 14, 1989, was Valentine’s Day, just as February 14 every year
is. For Salman Rushdie it held little significance, as nothing was going
right for him on the personal front. Relations with his wife were
strained and the celebrated author was struggling with the emotional
fallout of a separation that was still to be formalised. But his
professional life could not have been more cheerful. Only five months
ago, the British edition of his latest novel had been published, and the
American edition was scheduled by the year-end.<br />
<br />
Following the booming
success of <i>Midnight’s Children</i> released eight years ago, he had
become the toast of the literary world, rubbing shoulders with
legendary writers, powerful politicians and glamorous celebrities from
the entertainment industry. For a writer only in his early 40s then, the
fame could be intoxicating. If it was, then Rushdie was soon to be
grounded, in fact under-grounded, and purged of that exhilarating
belief.<br />
On that day in February, he received an unusual response to his new
book which had arrived in the British market five months ago. The
message was from Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini; the
book was The Satanic Verses. The then Grand Ayatollah had issued a fatwa
— an edict — addressed to Muslims worldwide. It read: “I inform the
proud Muslim people of the world that the author of the ‘Satanic Verses’
book, which is against Islam, the Prophet and the Quran, and all those
involved in its publication… are sentenced to death. I ask all the
Muslims to execute them wherever they find them.” Five months after the
book had hit the stands, the religious leader had woken up to the
realisation that it had blasphemed Islam to such an extent that nothing
less than death to the author would wipe off the desecration.<br />
<br />
Noted Islamic scholar Maulana Wahiduddin Khan has in an article
published recently in an English language daily emphatically said that
the Quran does not provide for any punishment to people who abuse
Prophet Mohammed. If he had suggested that to Khomeini in 1989, he would
probably have found himself sharing Rushdie’s fate. The Ayatollah had
no hesitation in sentencing one Muslim (albeit a somewhat non-believing
one) to death; the addition of another of the faith was no big problem
for the bearded mullah.<br />
What happens when an author becomes the target of not just one
individual, not just one radical outfit, but of anyone and everyone
residing in any part of the world that would be even half-willing to
execute the fatwa? Whom do you protect yourself from? And how do you do
it? Also, what happens to the freedom of speech in a free world
inhabited by free people and even freer writers? Where have all those
voices and those eager faces that are heard and seen so often in support
of free speech, gone? Joseph Anton takes us into that world where some
of those answers reside. Joseph Anton is what Rushdie took on as his new
name after he went into hiding following the Ayatollah’s edict. Joseph
Anton is how he lived the many years since 1989 until he resurfaced
after the crisis more or less blew over, in the name that his parents
had so lovingly given him. Joseph Anton is Rushdie’s memoir written in
the third person; the account of an Inquisition held of a person in
absentia, an accused who remains underground throughout the process like
a scared rabbit, emerging tentatively but only briefly to maintain a
link with the real world.<br />
<br />
If he had to be recognised and discovered in those momentous years
following the fatwa, he would have been burnt at the stakes; in his
absence a bonfire of his blasphemous book did the honours. Had he indeed
written something so terrible? Whatever, in the memoir, Rushdie quotes
Heinrich Heine, “Where they burn books they will in the end burn people
too.” This was a starkly real comment to come from the German Romantic
poet and essayist of substance.<br />
<br />
But isn’t it all about creative freedom so long as the purpose is not
mala fide? Try telling that to the Islamists (or any hardliner with a
different terminology). Rushdie as Joseph Anton contemplates: “To be
free one had to make the presumption of freedom. And a further
presumption that one’s work would be treated as having been created with
integrity. He had always written presuming that... it would at the very
least be treated as serious work...” Well, it wasn’t, not in many parts
of the world — and not in India. This last bit hurt him the most for
two reasons. One was the fact that he belonged to India, though he took a
British citizenship subsequently; and two, he never imagined that a
country which valued free speech so greatly would ban his book — ban it
even before the rest of the world woke up to the ‘evil’ written in it.
In Pakistan, where his parents shifted after living much of their lives
in Mumbai, he had no hope, and so he never felt betrayed by that
country. Rushdie writes in Joseph Anton, “Pakistan was the great mistake
of his parents, the blunder that had deprived him of his home. It was
easy to see Pakistan itself as a historical blunder too, a country
sufficiently unimagined.”<br />
<br />
So, India broke his heart, because until the ban, the “presumption of
intellectual freedom and respect had been ever present (in the country)
except during the dictatorial years of ‘Emergency rule’ imposed by
Indira Gandhi...” Disheartened and a loss to understand how to
retaliate, he penned an open letter to then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi:
“What sort of India do you wish to govern? Is it to be an open or a
repressive society?” But that ‘secularist’ Prime Minister had earlier
rendered null and void through an amendment to the Constitution a
Supreme Court verdict giving maintenance to a Muslim woman who was
abandoned by her husband. When the Islamic clerics kicked up a row and
claimed that the judgement interfered with the shari’ah, Rajiv Gandhi
moved quickly to pacify them and negate the apex court’s ruling. How
could Rushdie have expected better from that Prime Minister?<br />
<br />
Things have got no better since then. One supposes that if a breach in
the freedom of speech is not amended strongly enough, it can serve as a
precedent for several more to happen. The banning of The Satanic Verses
provided a perfect setting for what was to happen in later years. More
books were proscribed; foreign authors were barred from entry or from
extending their visas; supposedly offensive paintings were vandalised,
painters abused and forced to leave the country; cartoonists were
threatened and jailed. Rushdie has all but lost hope in India as an idea
of a free and tolerant society.<br />
Chained and bound by the fatwa, the author finds an interesting mode to
depict his state. The bird, which symbolises freedom, becomes for him
in Joseph Anton his metaphor for a juicy target — a sitting duck, so to
say, and the duck is a bird, right? Before the storm broke out in the
full, Rushdie was vacationing in Mauritius and looking at the birds that
flew past the clouds and over the waters. “He should have paid
attention to the birds. The dead flightless birds who had been unable to
soar away from their predators, who tore them apart... In all 24 of the
island’s 45 bird species were driven into extinction,” he comments.<br />
<br />
How sad. And now he, like those unfortunate birds, would be the next.
“A mullah with a long arm was reaching out across the world to squeeze
the life out of him.” And, many years later, in 2001, as the Twin Towers
collapsed, “birds were screaming in the sky”. And, in many parts of the
world, egged on by religious zealots and consumed by blind hatred for
something they neither understood nor wanted to understand, mobs of
thousands had taken to the streets in the 1990s and beyond and chanted,
“Rushdie, you are dead.” Well, he was in a sense, and out of him was
born Joseph Anton.<br />
For all its grim setting, Joseph Anton is not lamentation all the way,
nor is it an attempt by the author to project a heroic image of himself
during the years of crisis. That would in turn have taken a heroic
effort to do — considering the deep fear that had gripped him in those
years. It was the fear of not just personal harm but also harm to his
son and all those he cared for as family and friend. In fact, the memoir
is really a revisit to a nightmare. Yet, there are ample traces of wit
in the narration which must be credited to the author’s sense of humour.<br />
<br />
Finally, Rushdie confirms to us that minority appeasement by
politicians is the same all over the world. He offers a number of
instances of that in Great Britain, with so-called leaders falling head
over heels to placate the hardliners over the book and condemn The
Satanic Verses. One of the Muslim community leaders who spewed venom on
him and his writing and inflamed passions was later honoured by the
British Government. The poison had spread wide, with several literary
giants, after the fatwa, playing safe and suddenly discovering that
Rushdie had perhaps overdone the ‘freedom’ bit.<br />
Through this memoir, Rushdie may have hoped to purge himself of the
horrors of those days. Maybe to an extent he has managed that, but he
has still left behind several uncomfortable questions. Damn these
writers, they will not allow us a moment of peace.</div>
Bookwormhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06074542795757215988noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1059980466014067837.post-57669463348075938012012-10-10T16:59:00.001+05:302012-10-10T17:03:39.531+05:30It is jeopardous when anything is everything<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="itemFullText">
<b>(</b><i>First appeared in The Pioneer dated October 3, 2012)</i><b><i> </i></b><br />
<br />
<b>RAJESH SINGH</b><br />
<br />
In the middle of August this year, the Chief Minister of West Bengal,
Ms Mamata Banerjee, said that judicial verdicts were purchasable. “Many
times favourable verdicts are given in lieu of money. Why should that
happen? This is very unfortunate”, she stated. Her remark had triggered a
furious row, and it would have perhaps invited some legal action had it
not been for the fact that she made the controversial statement on the
floor of the West Bengal Assembly and, therefore, she enjoyed immunity
from judicial arbitration.<br />
While that issue has died a quiet death, the question of whether
Members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies should enjoy such
absolute immunity from court action over even their most outrageous
statements (or actions), remains as relevant as ever. This, despite the
fact that the courts have time and again, in case after case, determined
in unequivocal terms that immunity from legal action which these
elected representatives have over what they say in the House is
complete.<br />
This is where things stand at present. But we do not know what the
future holds. After all, the Supreme Court has over the years
interpreted in fresh ways many laws that govern the relationship between
the legislature and the judiciary, even going to the extent of
arbitrating decisions of the Speaker of the House. Before that first
happened, it had been assumed that the Speaker’s actions in Parliament
and State Assemblies were supreme and unchallengeable in a court of law.
But now that is no longer so.<br />
The courts have in many instances set aside the Speaker’s rulings — for
instance on matters of defection or suspension of members from the
House or bar on members from voting. In fact, the courts have held that,
while they will not entertain any plea against ‘procedural
irregularities’ in the House, they shall most certainly admit petitions
that challenge the Speaker’s action on grounds of ‘illegalities that go
against the scheme of the Constitution’.<br />
Still, there is nothing to indicate as yet that the judiciary will go
to the extent of adjudicating on statements made by MPs and MLAs in the
House, because that would be seen as snatching the right to free speech
from these representatives. It is a right that they have been given —
and in no uncertain terms at that — under Article 105(2) of the
Constitution of India. Here is what the Article says, “No member of
Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of
anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee
thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication
by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report,
paper, votes or proceedings.”<br />
The operative word here is <i>anything</i> — which has been held by the courts
as equivalent to<i> everything</i> — and the judiciary has fallen back on that
single word every time it was faced with a petition challenging a
remark made by an MP or an MLA on the floor of the House.<br />
Let’s take just one instance: The case of Tej Kiran Jain and Others
versus N Sanjiva Reddy and Others, as an illustration. The verdict was
delivered by a full bench of the Delhi High Court in August 1969 — yes,
the issue had begun to crop up as early as that. The plaintiffs had
filed a suit claiming that, in the course of discussions in the Lok
Sabha the defendants had made certain defamatory remarks against
Jagadguru Shankaracharya of Puri, which were calculated to harm the
spiritual leader’s esteem in the public eye. The issue to be dealt with
was whether Article 105(2) indeed guaranteed complete immunity in
respect of anything said by a Member of Parliament. The bench upheld
that notion and said, “Plain reading of the Article goes to show that as
regards anything said by a Member of Parliament in Parliament… the
Constitution has guaranteed full protection and provided complete
immunity against any proceeding in a court of law. It is significant
that while clause (1) of Article 105 starts with the words ‘subject to
the provisions of the Constitution’, there is no such limitation so far
as clause (2) of Article 105 is concerned.” That pretty much settled the
matter.<br />
But the judiciary made an interesting and nuanced interpretation of the
Article in the infamous PV Narasimha Rao versus State case in 1998,
which related to allegations of bribery of certain Members of Parliament
to help out a minority Government headed by Narasimha Rao. The Supreme
Court was faced with a piquant situation: Can MPs claim immunity from
prosecution under the cover of Article 105(2) on charges of bribery
connected with their vote in a no-confidence motion against the regime?
In a majority decision, the apex court held that MPs accused of taking
bribe and then voting had immunity under the Article from legal action
because their ‘action’ (of voting) in the House could not be questioned.
However, the court added, those who allegedly took the bribe but
abstained from voting, could not have that Article’s protection because
they had not indulged in any ‘action’ in the House that would have given
them immunity!<br />
Why has the Constitution provided for such blanket immunity to elected
representatives? It was to ensure that members are free from all
limitations and constraints in raising before the House any issue that
they believe assists them in better representing and serving the people
who have elected them. It was believed that the fear of judicial action
over what is said in the House would deter the elected representatives
from taking up contentious matters that concern the people.<br />
The intent of the framers of the Constitution was indeed beyond
reproach. But then, they too must have not imagined that our Parliament
and the State Assemblies would one day turn into a ring of physical
brawls, where members literally try to outbox one another, uproot mikes
and hurl them around like atomic weapons, snatch away important
documents, tear them and scatter the bits in a show of triumph. The
framers of the Constitution would never have imagined that a day would
come when the vilest of comments would be made on the floor of the House
by members against their colleagues and also against those unfortunate
ones who not enjoy the privilege and protection that they do.<br />
In the given situation where courts have their hands tied down by
constitutional provisions, it is left to the collective wisdom of the
House to take appropriate action against obvious and blatant wrongdoings
that members indulge in on the floor of Parliament or the State
Assemblies. Unfortunately, there are too few instances of that having
happened to instil confidence in the people. There must be fetters to
<i>anything</i>.</div>
</div>
Bookwormhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06074542795757215988noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1059980466014067837.post-34014032470804975502012-09-29T16:20:00.001+05:302012-09-29T16:20:15.630+05:30Judges must not lose sleep over such matters<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="itemFullText">
<i>(First appeared in The Pioneer dated September 19, 2012)</i><br />
<br />
<b>RAJESH SINGH</b><br />
<br />
It is not often that the Chief Justice of India takes swipes at sitting
judges of the Supreme Court over verdicts they have passed. So, when
Chief Justice of India SH Kapadia remarked recently at a function that
“judges must apply the principle of enforceability before propounding
legal principles and passing orders”, the statement generated a great
amount of buzz. He was referring to a ruling by Justice BS Chauhan that
fundamental rights also included the ‘right to sleep’. Justice Chauhan
and Justice Swatanter Kumar formed a two-judge bench which in its
verdict on February 23 had slammed Delhi Police for its brutal midnight
action against followers of Baba Ramdev who had gathered at Ramlila
Maidan in Delhi. Justice Chauhan had said that a citizen had the right
to sound sleep because sleep is fundamental to life.<br />
While not criticising the judge’s interpretation that the right of a
citizen to sleep is part of his fundamental rights, Chief Justice
Kapadia nevertheless said, “Right to privacy had been made a fundamental
right. Now we hear that right to sleep is also a fundamental right… If
we lay down a policy and the Government says it cannot implement it, can
we enforce it by resorting to contempt jurisdiction?” In making those
remarks, the Chief Justice has re-opened a debate on the extent to which
the scope of the ‘right to life’ and ‘personal liberty’ as enshrined in
Article 21 of the Constitution can be expanded. The matter of
enforceability flows from that widening canvas, because the larger and
more broadbased the ‘right to life’ gets, the more difficult it can
become for the new interpretations to be implemented effectively.<br />
Interestingly, much the same apprehensions that Chief Justice Kapadia
has expressed now were raised by former Union Minister, commentator and
author Arun Shourie more than a decade ago in his book, Courts and their
Judgments. In the chapter titled, From “life” to “life with dignity” to
the pay if Imams, Mr Shourie writes, “…If orders are of such sweep that
they cannot be implemented, or if no one seriously follows them up to
ensure that they are implemented, the orders will boomerang on those who
gave them.” It is almost as if the author is referring to the February
23, 2012, ruling on the ‘right to sleep’. In any case, his observations
indeed were in the context of the growing ambit of the ‘right to life’.<br />
It is true that the Supreme Court has been constantly expanding the
reach of fundamental rights, but as Chief Justice Kapadia has pointed
out, such expansion must always and necessarily connect to the core
constitutional philosophy of Article 21. Any deviation from that
principle is bound to result in verdicts that are not just
non-enforceable but also legally suspect. In the present case, for
instance, what about the right of the homeless to sleep on pavements or
in public places? Justice Chauhan has said that such acts did not have
the cover of the fundamental right to sleep. The question is: If indeed
the ‘right to sleep’ is a fundamental right, why should the homeless —
who deserve the right as much if not more than the better-off — be
deprived of a sound sleep wherever they can afford to do so? Such tricky
issues lay bare the difficulty of enforceability that both Chief
Justice Kapadia and Mr Shourie have referred to.<br />
Eight years ago, the Supreme Court ruled on the legal enforcement of
the ‘right to food’ as a fundamental right under Article 21. In response
to a petition by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, the apex court
in various interim orders on a host of public welfare schemes related
to food such as the Mid-day Meals Scheme and the Antyodya Anna Yojana
said that the ‘right to food’ and the ‘right to nutritious food’ are the
fundamental rights of every citizen of the country. While there is
nothing disputable about this contention, the fact of the matter is that
the sweeping scope of this verdict, even if interim, has made it
difficult for authorities to enforce this. This is despite the various
panels that the apex court has set up to monitor the implementation of
its elaborate orders.<br />
The race to expand the meaning of Article 21 has its origin to a large
extent in the Kharag Singh versus State of UP case. Mr Shourie quotes in
his book from the ruling of the Supreme Court in that case to
demonstrate how suddenly the meaning of life and personal liberty
acquired larger and even larger proportions. To begin with, Article 21
says, “No person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty
except according to procedure established by law”. In the Kharag Singh
case, Mr Shourie says, the judges held that personal liberty as in
Article 21 is used as a “compendious term to include within itself all
the varieties of rights which go to make up the personal liberties of
man other than those within the several clauses of Article 19 (1).”<br />
The author then goes on to say that soon after, ‘speedy trial of cases’
came to be added to the scope of Article 21. It did not end there; a
succession of judgements — right to a protected (clean and eco-friendly)
environment, right against solitary confinement, right against delayed
execution, right against public hanging, and also the right to
expeditious police investigation — emphatically enlarged and gave a
brand new interpretation to the matter of fundamental rights as
envisioned under Article 21.<br />
But if we look back dispassionately and study the situation, very few
of these rulings have been effective in practice. For example, speedy
trials are still a chimera and delayed executions (especially of
terrorists) are the norm.<br />
Similarly, while dealing with the Unnikrishnan case of the early 1990s,
the Supreme Court had opined, “Though right to education is not stated
expressly as a Fundamental Right, it is implicit in and flows from the
right to life guaranteed under Article 21…” This is yet another classic
instance of a ruling that not only tested the flexibility of the scope
of Article 21 but also came to be observed in breach more often than
not. What else can explain the arrival, despite this verdict, of a
special Act to serve the purpose — the Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, better known as the Right to Education Act —
which came into force earlier this year? The Act in fact accords primary
education a legal status which is on par with the right to life and
personal liberty under Article 21.<br />
Clearly, the Supreme Court has over the years come to conclude that it
is not just the personal liberty and life that have cover under Article
21, but nearly everything else that is needed for these two to be
effectively implemented. In other words, as Mr Shourie remarks in the
book, the state has progressively come to be “under a constitutional
mandate to provide facilities that are needed for citizens to be able to
partake” the new expanded rights. Mr Shourie puts it succinctly when he
comments, “From what was intended to protect persons against arbitrary
arrest and restraint, against physical coercion by organs of the State,
Article 21 has become the device… for requiring the state to provide in
effect every thing that would make a person’s life a life of dignity and
fulfillment… The point is about liability, about enforceability.”
Precisely so.<br />
Thus, we are back to square one. The ‘right to sleep’ is destined to
turn out to be as uneforceable a ruling as the many others made by the
Supreme Court in the preceding years to enlarge the scope of fundamental
rights.<br />
</div>
</div>
Bookwormhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06074542795757215988noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1059980466014067837.post-59020705724938364522012-09-17T11:49:00.001+05:302012-09-17T11:49:21.354+05:30Crafting an alternative history<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b><br /></b><br />
<b>From the Ruins of Empire</b><br />
<b><strong></strong>By Pankaj Mishra</b><br />
<br />
<br />
RAJESH SINGH<br />
<br />
Once in a while comes along a book with whose content you may
thoroughly disagree but still relish reading, simply because it offers a
compelling intellectual argument. This is one such book. Seventeen
years ago, Pankaj Mishra took us on a roller-coaster ride with his
delightful <em>Butter Chicken in Ludhiana.</em> If there could be a
truly desi book written in English, it was this chronicle of travel in
small town India. It had the feel and smell of the country and its
people that only the legendary RK Narayan could bring out through his
writings. At that point in time, few people would have realised that
there lurked in Mishra’s mind an idea that covered a domain larger and
more ambitious in scope than the mere idiosyncrasies of small town
Indians. Perhaps it did not then, because Mishra went on to craft a
novel titled <em>The Romantics</em> and then wrote some more travel
pieces. But all of these writings, though vastly different from one
another, had a common thread: The eagerness to explore the shifts and
twists in the cultural history of people in the course of their
socio-political journey. And, that desire has been given full expression
in his latest offering.<br />
The author’s determination to re-look at the history of the East by
cleansing it of a Western perspective is admirable — though he does
claim that his aim in the book is not to replace the “Euro-centric
perspective with an equally problematic Asia-centric one”. To attain
that he has deftly managed the travels and thoughts of two 19th century
Eastern travellers-thinkers: The Persian Jamal-al-Din-al-Afghani and the
Chinese Liang Qichao. Both these men of thought had been disillusioned
by the imperial powers of that time which had been recklessly stripping
countries they had colonised of their wealth. Worse, the imperialists
had been rendering body blows to the cultural ethos of these unfortunate
nations. The choice of these travellers is not accidental; Mishra has
deliberately used them as <em>sutradhars </em>to pursue his belief that
such thinkers, marginalised by the rulers and thereby projected as
inconsequential, had in fact left a sustained impact on the people and
even to some extent determined the course of events that unfolded in the
decades to come.<br />
Given the scale of the enterprise that the author has chosen to
undertake and the scintillating manner in which he has achieved that, it
would not be an exaggeration to say that <em>From the Ruins of Empire</em> is as important a book of our times as the recently published <em>Why Nations Fail </em>by
Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson. If the latter takes us into the
intricacies of how some countries have become rich while others have
lagged behind, seeking pointers from ancient culture to history to
governance for the phenomenon, Mishra’s work explores facets left
unattended by historians and academics largely because it would be too
much of a trouble to question those presumptions and develop cogent
arguments against them.<br />
In his many interviews in the wake of the book’s release, the author
has emphasised that the time had come for all of us, especially in the
East, to emerge from the stranglehold of the Western theory. In a
conversation with Belen Fernandez, an author and columnist, Mishra
stated that the West had seen Asia “through the narrow perspective of
its own strategic and economic interests, leaving unexamined — and
unimagined — the collective experiences and subjectivity of Asian
peoples.”<br />
Given his vehemence to revisit history in search of the ‘alternative
truth’, it comes as a bit of surprise and significant disappointment
that, when it comes to India, he should succumb to the very premise that
he seeks to demolish. For instance, he deals with the 1857 mutiny in
much the same manner that British historians and their Indian
counterparts by and large have done. The author believes that the
rebellion that almost succeeded had been an “eruption” of an “anti-West
xenophobia, often accompanied by a desperate desire to resurrect a
fading or lost socio-cultural order”. But surely the mutiny was more
than just that; it was an expression of a larger desire among Indians to
be masters of their homeland and their destiny. While it is true that
the assorted rebels drawn from the west to north were not as well
organised or equipped to take on the might of the British, it is also a
fact that even with such handicaps they did manage to capture major
towns and even Delhi where the Mughal ruler symbolically reigned and
headed the revolt. If they could not hold on to those gains, it had to
do with their failure to win support from a broader spectrum of the
people and the intelligentsia of the time.<br />
A more refreshing perspective, which Mishra would have done well to
factor in his book, is offered in Operation Red Lotus. Written by Parag
Tope, a descendent of the legendary Tatya Tope who played a stellar role
in the mutiny, the book demolishes with new material many established
beliefs about the uprising. It can be said that Parag Tope’s opinion is
overly subjective, given his family connection. But then, it is no more
subjective than those of al-Afghani and Qichao, who had their own
reasons to be sore about imperial rule.<br />
The other jarring point in the book is the short shrift that Mishra
gives to ‘radical’ freedom-fighter Aurobindo Ghose, who later
metamorphosed into a spiritual leader and came to be known as Sri
Aurobindo. He does acknowledge Aurobindo’s eminence, but only just,
picking some of his sundry quotes like, “Bengalis were drunk with the
wine of European civilisation”. It is not a remark that must have made
him popular in his home State, and perhaps explains why he has been
gently set aside when the country’s history is discussed. Apparently,
for the author — like for the British — Sri Aurobindo was a mere
footnote in the pages of history, while the likes of Rabindranath Tagore
were the central figures. It is true that Tagore influenced the
country’s political philosophy immensely, but he had one ‘advantage’
which Sri Aurobindo lacked: A greater acceptability in the West
following the Nobel Prize for literature that he won. Suddenly, he was
an international figure and had a global platform to propagate his
views. Still, it cannot be forgotten — and Mishra ought to have taken it
into account — that Aurobindo’s contribution was not merely restricted
to political awakening; he showed the path to ‘intellectual
spiritualism’. That legacy still lives on in the Auroville Ashram in
Puducherry.<br />
Despite these warts, one has to heartily agree with Mishra’s concluding
remarks in his book: “The hope that fuels the pursuit of endless
economic growth — that billions of consumers in India and China will one
day enjoy the lifestyles of Europeans and Americans — is as absurd and
dangerous a fantasy as anything dreamt up by Al Qaeda.”</div>
Bookwormhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06074542795757215988noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1059980466014067837.post-61363086797472540392012-08-28T12:07:00.002+05:302012-08-28T12:07:56.924+05:30With face blackened, UPA tries whitewash<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<i>(First published in The Pioneer dated August 22, 2012)</i><b><i> </i></b><br />
<br />
<b>RAJESH SINGH</b><br />
<br />
The Congress-led UPA Government has developed a visceral dislike for
the terminology, ‘presumptive or notion loss’ to the exchequer, after
the massive 2G Spectrum scam broke out in the public domain. So, out of
respect for the regime, let us for the moment keep aside the figure of
Rs 1.86 lakh crore that the Comptroller and Auditor-General has computed
as the notional loss to the public coffer because the Government
distributed a number of coal blocks to private players without going in
for competitive bidding. That may be an approximately true enough figure
or it may not. Instead of thus getting into an argument over this
number, let us look at the Government’s justification for not having
opted for the auction route.<br />
The first defence of the UPA regime — and that of the Congress in
particular, since the Prime Minister is directly under attack as he held
the coal portfolio during the period when the Government decided to
distribute the blocks like one-time feudal lords gifted away property to
their favourites — is that the auction route would have taken a
tortuously long time to materialise because auction would have needed
changes in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act.
Since the Government was keen to enhance coal production at the
earliest, it decided on the direct allocation, goes the argument. This
is a flimsy explanation to cover up for the fact that the Government was
pre-disposed to the non-auction route, and that is why it dragged its
feet on bringing about the changes in the relevant provisions of the
MMDR Act. A look at the sequence of events will expose the regime’s lie.
But first, let’s see how the facts played out.<br />
Within six weeks of coming to power in May 2004, the UPA Government
headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh made public the concept of
competitive bidding for captive coal blocks. The Government went to
great lengths to publicise its intent as part of its ‘determination’ to
revamp and professionalise the coal sector. Two weeks after the
declaration of this noble intent, the Coal Secretary prepared a
comprehensive note on the subject.<br />
The impression that gained ground was that the competitive bidding
process would be approved. But, suddenly and mysteriously, a note
materialised from the Prime Minister’s Office that detailed the
‘disadvantages’ of allotting coal blocks through competitive bidding.<br />
The brave Coal Secretary (unusual for a bureaucrat) rubbished the
note and drew attention to some ‘pressures’ that were being applied on
the steering committee formed to study the issue. But his courage came
to naught. The Union Ministry of Coal had made up its mind against
auctioning the blocks on the pretext that competitive bidding would need
changes in the law, and that such changes would be a long-drawn
process. By the end of 2004 and early 2005, it had become clear that
coal blocks would be awarded directly by a panel constituted by the
Government and that competitive bidding would be considered on a
prospective basis at a later date.<br />
Having arrived at such a conclusion, the Government showed no hurry
in moving to amend the MMDR Act. Had the UPA sincerely worked from the
start of its first innings in office to bring about change in the
legislation, it had a good chance of success. It took an entire two
years for the Government to move on the issue of amendments. It was only
in March 2006 that the Prime Minister’s Office, after having virtually
cleared the route for direct and less than transparent allocation of
coal blocks to a bunch of private players, decided to put in place the
process of competitive bidding. Had the regime been serious, in the two
year period (2004-06), it could have pushed through the needed
amendments. But it used up the time to promote allocation of the
valuable natural resource without competitive bidding. It began bolting
the stable after the horses had escaped.<br />
Even so, it was another two years before the Government brought to
Parliament the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)
(Amendment) Bill. It was only towards the latter half of 2010 that the
Bill became law. In other words, it took two years from the time
amendments were proposed to their becoming law. It is clear from these
facts that the Congress-led regime was less than enthusiastic for
whatever reason in selling off the coal blocks to the highest bidder.<br />
The Government can now argue that the delay in getting the amendments
passed by Parliament was because it was busy ironing out differences
among various stakeholders. But that does not sound convincing. The fact
is that even today industry is unhappy with the amendments. The
Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry has, for
instance, said the new provisions would make mining of coal and minerals
“unattractive”. This, it claimed, is because of the rule that coal
mining firms have to contribute 26 per cent of their profits to a
development fund. FICCI also said that the tax burden on the coal sector
as a result of the changes in law could rise to 61 per cent.<br />
The other defence put forth by the Government has been that the
allocation of blocks without an auction had been taken in the larger
national interest. We are yet to be told what that ‘larger national
interest’ was that has been adequately served. But the CAG offers us a
glimpse of how the ‘larger interest’ has not been served. Three brief
quotes from its report will tell the story:<br />
1. The process of bringing in transparency and objectivity in the
allocation process of coal blocks got delayed at various stages and the
same is yet to materialise even after a lapse of seven years.<br />
2. Out of 28 producing blocks as on June 30, 2011, in case of 10 blocks, there was time overrun ranging from one to 10 years.<br />
3. The Coal Controller’s Organisation did not conduct any physical
inspection of allocated coal blocks to ascertain the actual progress as
per the MMDR Act, 1957.<br />
To top it all, even the avowed purpose of the Government in directly
allotting coal blocks to private parties without competitive bidding,
does not seem to have been achieved. There is no indication that the
UPA’s action has boosted coal production in any way, since many of the
blocks are reporting little output. In fact, the CAG notes that the
“de-reservation of Coal India Limited blocks did not yield desired
results.”<br />
Neither the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India nor the people
in general are opposed to private players having a major role in the
development of the coal sector. Indeed, without the wholesome
participation of the private players, the coal industry has no future.
As the CAG notes, “Captive coal mining is a mechanism envisaged to
encourage private sector participation in coal mining.” But such
participation must happen in an environment of transparency and without
loss to the public exchequer.</div>
Bookwormhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06074542795757215988noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1059980466014067837.post-50749886111135501742012-08-28T12:05:00.000+05:302012-08-28T12:08:19.667+05:30Justice neither done, nor seen to be done<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<i>(First published in The Pioneer on August 8, 2012)</i><br />
<br />
<b>RAJESH SINGH </b><br />
<br />
Thirteen years ago, on a late chilly
January night, a BMW car moving at reckless speed runs through a group
of people in Delhi, killing six, including three policemen. The car was
driven in an inebriated state by a youth in his early twenties,
belonging to an influential family. The accused was brought to trial and
convicted. The sentence: Jail term of a mere two years. The Delhi High
Court passed this verdict and the Supreme Court upheld it. Will you call
this justice? Ask any sane person and the answer will be in the
negative. But for the learned judges of our courts, it certainly is.<br />
Now, look at the gruesomeness of the incident to realise how the
court rulings were not justice, but a joke in the name of justice — in
fact, a farce. The prosecution laid it all before the courts: The car
comes charging at breakneck speed towards the group which included three
policemen on patrol who had stopped some people for checking their
identities. It is midnight or thereafter. The vehicle hits them all. The
impact is so terrible that the unfortunate persons are flung into the
air. Some fall on the bonnet of the car; others dash against the
windscreen. Some roll down and come under the car.<br />
After a while, the accused halts the car, inspects the damage and
rushes away, ignoring the cries of help from the injured and the dying
persons. There are still some victims trapped underneath the vehicle;
they too are dragged for a distance. The accused then takes the vehicle
to the house of a friend. The car is washed there and evidence allegedly
destroyed.<br />
Now, study the submission of a witness who details the scene of the
crime. He finds the head of one person crushed and the abdomen of a
policeman ripped completely open, with blood flowing on the street. The
mangled body of another constable too is noticed, with his right leg
severed and lying at a distance of some 10 feet.<br />
The perpetrator of this horrific crime, the one who snuffed out the
lives of policemen performing their duty and innocent citizens, gets all
of two years in prison. He is out today, having served his term. But
there is no release from the trauma for the families of the victims.
Have the courts done them justice? Go ask the surviving members, and you
will know. The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the ridiculously low
two-year prison term also sends across a disturbing message to those who
have lost their beloved ones to rash and drunk driving and are fighting
a legal battle in the courts. Take a recent case: Some three months
ago, a pregnant Kshama Chopra was returning home in a car after a
routine medical check-up along with her husband and parents. Her vehicle
was hit by a speeding BMW. The car she was in was tossed in the air and
she died on the spot. The killer vehicle drove away from the site of
the accident. While the legal trial is yet to begin, her shattered
husband has already lost hope in the wake of the delays and the
allegedly lackadaisical manner in which the police has been
investigating the incident. In the end, even if the accused is
convicted, he may well get away with a couple of years behind bars.<br />
Let’s again return to the incident of three years ago. It’s important
to trace the contours of the legal course that the case has taken to
fully understand how justice (or the lack of it) has played out. The
gruesome accident happened on the intervening night of January 9-10,
1999. The youth driving the car was Sanjeev Nanda, then 21, son of an
influential businessman. After the completion of the investigation, a
charge-sheet was filed against him in the court of the Additional
Sessions Judge, New Delhi. He was charged under various provisions of
the Indian Penal Code, including Section 304. The trial court judge
performed admirably by all accounts. Although the material witnesses
presented by the prosecution turned hostile — let’s not get into the
reasons, though we can well guess and the courts know it only too well —
there was one who valiantly stood by his account and corroborated the
prosecution’s claim. The trial court judge considered that witness as
reliable. Moreover, the judge concluded that the accused should be held
guilty under the more stringent Section 304 (Part II) of the IPC and
sentenced him to five years in prison.<br />
Aggrieved by the five-year prison term verdict, Sanjeev soon after
approached the Delhi High Court in 2008. The High Court did two things:
It set aside the statement of the lone witness — who had admirably not
turned hostile — as being unreliable, and it converted the conviction
from under Section 304 (Part II) to the less stringent Section 304A.
Now, while the latter provision deals with ‘causing death due to
negligence’, the former — which the trial court had applied — deals with
‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’. The maximum sentence under
the provisions of Section 304 (Part II) is 10 years imprisonment. In
changing the Section under which he was convicted, the High Court
slashed his term to two years. The prosecution was naturally unhappy and
the matter arrived before the Supreme Court.<br />
The apex court in its ruling subjects us to high-flowing rhetoric
about the horrible nature of the crime, and upholds the trial court’s
decision to convict Sanjeev under section 304 (Part II) of the IPC. But
then, it also upholds the absolutely shocking two-year jail term the
High Court had awarded. The Supreme Court says it was persuaded by
certain ‘mitigating circumstances’ to maintain the small prison
sentence, and that those were heavier than the ‘aggravating
circumstances’ of the crime. And, what are those ‘mitigating
circumstances’? Among others, Sanjeev has already served his two-year
term; he is now married and the couple is blessed with a daughter; his
conduct in jail had been exemplary. But, how does all this matter to the
crime that he has committed? How does it even one bit justify his
criminal conduct? Can these factors mitigate the loss and the grief that
the families of the victims feel? Is this a fit closure for them?<br />
It’s a good lesson for all would-be-convicts: Meet such criteria and
you can be let off with a light punishment even if you have killed
people and are convicted under Section 304 (Part II) of the IPC — or for
that matter under any provision, however harsh it may be. Of course,
the apex court has hastily added that the ruling need not be considered a
precedent for similar cases in future, and that it has upheld the small
sentence strictly on account of the ‘mitigating’ circumstances.<br />
Well, crimes and criminals will always have some mitigating
circumstance laced with heavy emotional quotient to quote in their
favour. At times these may be reasonable; often they are diversionary in
nature and succeed in their aim — as they did in the Sanjeev Nanda
case.<br />
<br />
<span class="itemDateModified">
</span></div>
Bookwormhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06074542795757215988noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1059980466014067837.post-59302733844925249282012-07-26T17:44:00.002+05:302012-07-26T17:44:36.964+05:30Fame is a bee. It has a sting. It also has wings<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<i>(First published in The Pioneer dated July 25, 2012)</i><b><i> </i></b><br />
<br />
<b>RAJESH SINGH</b><br />
<br />
Rajesh Khanna died a week ago but he will live on with us forever.
Numerous heartfelt tributes have been paid to him, and among them is the
remark that an era had come to an end with his death. That is not true.
He did not represent an era; he was himself the era. He created what
was his own and he has taken it away with him. There is no ‘Rajesh
Khanna legacy’, because a legacy is meant to be carried forward, to be
promoted. Which actor has the capability — and more important, the
charisma — to do that? The country’s first superstar was like a joker in
the pack; he fitted into several roles but was essentially a solo
performer standing out on his own strength. Others borrowed from him but
were in no position to pay back even the interest amount, let alone the
principal.<br />
He lived in a world that was both real and illusionary. The reality
was that Rajesh Khanna was a national rage, that he gave more than 15
super-hit films in a span of just over two years, that he had the Midas
touch. The illusion was that all this fame and the superstardom would
never end. He was not a babe in the woods, so it is difficult to
understand how Rajesh Khanna could believe in this illusion. But he did —
at least for a while — until he came crashing down. Like flies swarm
around a piece of sweet, courtiers fawned over him and fed him stories
of his invincibility. Rajesh Khanna, who had so brilliantly connected
with millions of people across the world through his films, was
hopelessly out of touch with the simple philosophical (and physical)
reality that what goes up always comes down. Well-known qawwal Aziz
Nazan had sung, “<em>Chadta sooraj dheere dheere dhalta hai, dhal jayega</em>”.<br />
When the sun sets on fame, cohorts disappear, only to rearrange
before a new rising star. Rajesh Khanna saw that happen and it took him
years to come to terms with the harsh reality. But when he did that, it
was too late. Not just the courtiers in the film industry but also his
fans had migrated. He did his best, tried to turn on his legendary charm
and mannerism, but nothing worked. The film industry is ruthless. It
does not spare the fallen, not even demi-gods, unless it finds something
of value in doing so. In Rajesh Khanna’s case, it sadly found no value.
He had begun to fade. As Sheryl Crowe crooned:<br />
<em>Well, there was a time I would have</em><br />
<em>Hung around just to be seen</em><br />
<em>Hey man, it’s a shame when you start to fade</em><br />
<em>Diamond rings and sparkly things</em><br />
<em>Won’t make your shine stay</em><br />
Yet, he need not have faded for good. Lesser stars have made
comebacks. But Rajesh Khanna must have felt uncomfortable in returning
as a commoner to a kingdom that he once ruled, in being referred to a
‘has-been’, in getting a lesser share of the limelight — and that too
given condescendingly by those who only some years ago were lying at his
feet. He did a few ‘comeback’ films like <em>Amardeep</em> towards the
end of 70s, but the spark was gone. The one-time superstar seemed to
have given up, and soon thereafter he retreated from the arc-lights.<br />
In later years, he appeared to have come to terms with reality more effectively, mentioning on more than one occasion: <em>Woh bhi ek daur tha, ye bhi ek daur hai</em>.
But the truth is that he could never overcome the grief of a fallen
star. He dabbled half-heartedly in politics, desperately sought refuge
in personal relationships that led more to turmoil than stability and
allowed his persona to deteriorate. By the time he was persuaded to do
an ad film for a fan manufacturer only months before his death, Rajesh
Khanna was a pale shadow of his glorious self. What stood out in the
film was his one-liner: Mere fans <em>mujhse koi nahin chheen sakta</em>.
True. His fans may have shifted loyalty or lost the ability to count at
the box office, but the country’s first superstar always resided in a
corner of their hearts — if nothing, at least as nostalgia. He had
become an antique; to be gazed at but not touched or used.<br />
I never had the occasion to meet him but I had seen him on a few
occasions. As a youngster in Mumbai, I would like many star-struck fans
hang out at the Mahim traffic junction hoping to catch a glimpse of him
if he were passing by. Across the signal was Bandra where he resided.
Every time that his car stopped at the signal, fans would go wild waving
at him and shouting out to him. He would wave back with that magical
smile and a tilt of his head which had left the country swooning. His
famed arrogance was apparently reserved for others; his fans were god to
him, and he pampered them heartily.<br />
A myth is being perpetuated in the wake of his death that Rajesh
Khanna was a great actor. He was not. ‘Kaka’ was a competent actor,
given more to dramatics than understatement. In many of his films such
as Anand, Safar and Amar Prem, he was really good. But he wasn’t a great
actor in the sense that Dilip Kumar or Sanjeev Kumar was. But the
shortcoming was made up by his superstardom status. Perhaps that
superstardom also served to constrain him from venturing into
dramatically newer genres of acting. Perhaps if he had tried to break
the mould and did something innovative, he might have touched greater
heights. But, then, what ‘greater height’ was left for him to reach?<br />
The other myth is that he was the film industry’s greatest romatic
hero. That honour goes to the evergreeen Dev Anand, though Rajesh Khanna
does come a close second.<br />
Along the way, ‘Kaka’ was helped by the magical combination of RD
Burman, Kishore Kumar and Anand Bakshi. It is difficult to say who
complemented whom the most between Kishore Kumar and the superstar. It
is even unnecessary to know that, because in the end magic was created.
But, other singers like Mukesh and Mohammed Rafi also gave voice to
Rajesh Khanna and their songs were major successes. In terms of quality
if not in quantity, these songs were as good (and at times better).
Take, for instance, Mukesh’s soulful <em>Jis gali mein tera ghar na ho balma</em> from <em>Kati Patang</em> or the mesmerising Rafi number, <em>Akele hain chale aao</em> from <em>Raaz</em> or Manna Dey’s exquisitely rendered <em>Zindagi kaisi hai paheli</em> from <em>Anand.</em><br />
Written some 100 years before Rajesh Khanna became a phenomenon, and
then a pariah for the film industry, American poet Emily Dickinson had
written:<br />
<em>Fame is a bee. </em><br />
<em>It has a song - </em><br />
<em>It has a sting - </em><br />
<em>Ah, too, it has a wing</em>.<br />
Life too has a wing. Ironically, in his death, Rajesh Khanna appears
to have got back all the fame and the superstardom that had deserted
him. Look at the tributes that keep pouring in, and it is difficult to
believe they are for an actor who had ceased performing decades ago and
had slipped out of public life since many years. Well, once a superstar,
always a superstar.</div>Bookwormhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06074542795757215988noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1059980466014067837.post-12088939083156890552012-07-11T17:52:00.001+05:302012-07-11T17:52:09.927+05:30Chidambaram is competent, but under a cloud<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b>(</b><i>First published in The Pioneer dated July 11, 2012) </i><b><br /></b><br />
<br />
<b>RAJESH SINGH</b><br />
<br />
Union Minister for Home Affairs P Chidambaram had an opportunity to
somewhat redeem his image when the Prime Minister recently appointed him
as the head of the newly constituted Empowered Group of Ministers that
is tasked with looking into the forthcoming auction of 2G Spectrum. Mr
Chidambaram could have politely declined the position taking the high
moral ground that it would be inappropriate for him to head a
ministerial panel on an issue over which he is under a cloud of
suspicion. But he did not do so. By his acceptance, he has not just set
the ground for a confrontation with the Opposition but has also come
across as an obstinate politician who cares two hoots for popular
perception and for propriety which is expected of senior leaders such as
him. For bipartisan observers, his act is not just of obstinacy but
also of arrogance.<br />
Just why is Mr Chidambaram so determined to continue denting his own
image remains a mystery. Perhaps he very strongly believes that he has
done no wrong and that any action of his that seems like a retreat will
be interpreted as an acknowledgement of his complicity. He may not agree
with this, but the fact is that his credibility among the people is
getting severely affected by such intransigence. The more he refuses to
exercise caution the more the impression that he is in the wrong gets
strengthened.<br />
This is sad, given the fact that Mr Chidambaram is allowing some good
work that he has done as Home Minister to be eclipsed by the
controversies that have been raised about his alleged complicity in the
2G Spectrum scam that happened when he was the Union Minister for
Finance. Of course, there are also allegations that Mr Chidambaram as
Home Minister has failed to contain either terrorist attacks or the
rising Maoist menace. Among the many Maoist strikes, two stand out:
Seventy six Central Reserve Police Force personnel were massacred by
Maoists in Chhattisgarh in 2010; and, Maoists derailed a train in West
Bengal the same year that led to the death of close to 100 civilians.
Still, the fact also is that he has managed to bring a sense of
direction in the Home Ministry after he took charge post-26/11 Mumbai
attacks. During the disastrous tenure of his predecessor Shivraj Patil,
the internal security structure of the country had all but collapsed. Mr
Chidambaram has rescued that structure, streamlined it and made it more
responsive by ensuring effective coordination among the various
security agencies.<br />
The establishment of the National Investigation Agency, the various
NSG hubs and the strengthening of coastal security can be cited as his
achievements. It was under his supervision that the Indian intelligence
agencies managed to collect substantive proof of the involvement of
Pakistani state and non-state actors in the 26/11 Mumbai attack. The
several dossiers that have been provided to Islamabad contain solid
evidence which has been acknowledged even by the West and quoted to
coerce Pakistan into action.<br />
Mr Chidambaram has been the only senior Congress leader in the Union
Council of Ministers who has spoken out unambiguously and strongly on
both Maoist violence and cross-border terrorism. He has backed the drive
of the security forces to flush out Maoists and has been critical of
the attempts by people — including those from within his party — to
glorify the Maoists as martyrs fighting for a social cause. His
determined stance on Pakistan-generated terror is in sharp contrast to
the meekness of Union Minister for External Affairs SM Krishna who has
failed to stand up to Islamabad’s attempt to bully India and who
continues to believe in the lies fed by Pakistan. Mr Chidambaram has
never minced words on the issue. Very recently, in the backdrop of the
Foreign Secretary-level talks between the two countries, he angered
Islamabad by categorically (and correctly) stating that Pakistan’s
“state actors” were deeply involved in the Mumbai attack. Such plain
talk is rare among Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s Ministers, who have
mastered the art of not calling a spade a spade.<br />
Therefore, given his largely commendable, if not stellar — remember
the National Counter-Terrorism Centre fiasco — record as Home Minister, a
person of Mr Chidambaram’s intellect would have been expected to steer
clear of issues that would obfuscate his achievements. Yet, he has
decided to head an EGoM which he should have avoided like the plague.
His supporters may say that his alleged complicity in the 2G Spectrum
scam is a figment of imagination of his rivals and that a Delhi Trial
Court had dismissed a petition seeking to investigate his role as the
Finance Minister in the disbursement of 2G licences without going
through the auction route. But, hard as the Minister’s defenders may
try, they cannot deny the following four facts:<br />
First, as Finance Minister, Mr Chidambaram had all along been aware
of the fraud that Union Minister for Telecommunication A Raja was
involved in. Second, Mr Chidambaram had the authority to prevent the
licences (and the spectrum that came bundled with it) from being
distributed at throwaway rates when the matter came up before him.<br />
Third, he made no effort to counter Raja’s scam, which he must have
known given his incisive understanding of issues, would lead to a
massive loss to the national exchequer. Fourth, not only did he not
prevent the fraud from taking place, Mr Chidambaram went a step ahead
and endorsed before the Prime Minister Raja’s dubious action. Before
doing that, he had many meetings with Raja.<br />
Thus, it cannot also be assumed that the then Finance Minister was
not fully briefed about the matter when he proposed to the Prime
Minister that Raja’s action should be okayed.<br />
Mr Chidambaram’s supporters have not disputed these facts, but they have maintained that nothing in them points to any <i>mala fide</i>
intent on Mr Chidambaram’s part, and that being a party to a wrong
decision does not automatically mean being criminally complicit or
culpable. But that can only be determined through a proper inquiry,
which is what the Opposition has been demanding.<br />
There is another very strong reason why Mr Chidambaram should not
have agreed to even be a member of — let alone head — the EGoM on
spectrum pricing. There is a petition pending before the Supreme Court
against him. The plea seeks to make him a co-accused in the 2G Spectrum
scam, and the apex court has reserved its verdict on it.<br />
By not heeding common sense, the very articulate Home Minister has rendered many of his admirers speechless.</div>Bookwormhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06074542795757215988noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1059980466014067837.post-52262479495502373662012-07-11T17:50:00.001+05:302012-07-11T17:50:07.157+05:30Gangs of new directors<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<i>(First appeared in The Pioneer dated June 27, 2012) </i><br />
<br />
<b>RAJESH SINGH</b><br />
<br />
Few Hindi films are being made today that deserve a repeat watch. In
the 50s, the 60s and the early 70s there were many such films. Either
they had a strong social message or they were replete with quality
music. On occasions they had both. Bimal Roy, Guru Dutt and Kamal Amrohi
— to name a few — were master film-makers who combined the finer
sensibilities of film-making with musical scores that remained in the
public consciousness long after the films stopped playing in the
theatres. Later on, Gulzar carried forward that legacy; after all, he
belonged to the Bimal Roy school. The films made in the 80s and the 90s
were by and large forgettable both for their content and their music.<br />
But over the last decade or so, there has been a revival of sorts. A
clutch of brilliant new directors has emerged on the scene, and these
directors have been giving Hindi cinema a fresh look that is both
contemporary and reminiscent of the days gone by when films were in the
true sense the director’s medium of communication. The new-age directors
have consistently refused to walk the beaten track and have charted a
course that is setting the trend not just for the present but the future
as well. Prominent among them are Anurag Kashyap, Vishal Bhardwaj,
Dibakar Banerjee and Tigmanshu Dhulia.<br />
Kashyap is currently the toast of town with the release of his latest
film, Gangs of Wasseypur. Now, here’s one film that deserves a repeat
watch, perhaps repeated watches. Having seen the first part, we are now
eagerly awaiting the release of the sequel. Much has already been
written about the film that mesmerised audiences at the Cannes
International Film Festival this year before it hit screens in India and
swept film-goers off their feet. It is not easy to slot the film in
conventional terminology. It has raw sex appeal, humour, even a mushy
love scene or two and loads of action — so it has to be a masala film,
right? Not quite. The film deals with the coal mafia in Dhanbad and the
politician-police-criminal nexus that lubricates the mafia’s machinery.
It is based on real life incidents — Wasseypur too is a real village in
Jharkhand. The film does not seek to provide relief to audiences through
songs and dance sequences that, like in most commercial versions, fit
incongruously in the script. So, <i>Gangs of Wasseypur</i> must be something of an art (or what is euphemistically called parallel) film, then? That too is a wrong interpretation.<br />
Kashyap’s film is just good cinema, a blend of elements drawn from
the so-called commercial variety and the arty products. This is the not
the first time that the film-maker has succeeded in merging the two; he
did that in <i>Dev D</i> too, and earlier in <i>Black Friday</i>. Every one of his films is a landmark — even <i>Gulaal,</i>
which failed to work at the box office and which some critics panned
for being too abstract to connect with the audience. But the larger
point is that the director had through these films set out to explore a
new genre in film-making rather than play safe by churning out the usual
inane stuff that passes off as film-making.<br />
Anurag Kashyap has company. Like him, Tigmanshu Dhulia too has been
directing films that are not just a delight to watch but also establish
the happy fact that the future of Hindi films is bright. His
path-breaking film, Haasil, came in 2003. There is perhaps no film made
before or after that which has as effectively captured the politics of a
university in north India. Set in Allahabad, Haasil beautifully
captured both the nuances and the crassness of a city that was once
considered the ‘Oxford of the East’. In just the last two years, Dhulia
has made as many as three enticing films that have strengthened the
trend of good cinema in Hindi films — <i>Shagird; Saheb, Biwi aur Gangster </i>and<i> Paan Singh Tomar</i>.
Each one of them is a masterpiece and reflects what good film-making
should be. While they have all received critical acclaim, at least the
last one is also a box office success.<br />
Eight years ago, a new director made his mark as a ‘different’
film-maker. It was an unusual transformation for him, because until then
he was known more for his music compositions — which too, incidentally,
were contemporary but still endearing because of their freshness. He is
Vishal Bhardwaj. From <i>Maqbool</i>, Bhardwaj straightaway created a niche for himself, and followed it up with other gems like <i>Omkara, Kaminey </i>and<i> Saat Khoon Maaf.</i>
The last one bombed at the box office but it still serves as an
important milestone not just in Bhardwaj’s career but in Hindi films as
well. No director so far has seriously dared to adapt Shakespeare’s play
into a Hindi mainstream film. Bhardwaj has done it twice already — and
with success on both occasions — with <i>Maqbool </i>(adapted from Macbeth) and <i>Omkara</i>
(adapted from Othello). Like with Kashyap and Dhulia, Bhardwaj does not
allow market forces to determine the content or the treatment of his
films. And yet, the market has whole-heartily embraced him.<br />
So much has been happening in the last decade in Hindi cinema that it
is easy to believe that somebody somewhere has set it up for the larger
good of film-making. Six years ago, Dibakar Banerjee shot into the
limelight with the delightfully titled and rib-tickling <i>Khosla ka Ghosla</i> that dealt with unscrupulous real estate developers. Four years after this film, Banerjee did a clean somersault and directed <i>Love, Sex aur Dhokha</i>,
which dealt with voyeurism in contemporary society. Poles apart in
every way, the two films heralded the arrival of a director who was
willing — like his peers mentioned earlier — to challenge the
conventional rules of film-making. In his latest release, <i>Shanghai</i>, Banerjee has yet again done something completely at variance with his earlier approaches.<br />
These four film-makers have not just changed the face of Hindi films
but have also opened the doors to other similarly courageous directors
and established a conducive environment for new approaches. Thus, we
have Sujoy Ghosh with <i>Kahaani</i> and Milan Luthria with <i>The Dirty Picture</i> and <i>Once Upon a Time in Mumbai</i>.
The era of great melodies in Hindi films may be over, but the days of
meaningful films have returned. As it is said: Better late than never.</div>Bookwormhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06074542795757215988noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1059980466014067837.post-12747232040206531092012-06-22T15:38:00.000+05:302012-06-22T15:38:29.290+05:30Politics of deceit and betrayal<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b><i>(First published in The Pioneer dated June 21, 2012) </i></b><br />
<br />
<b>RAJESH SINGH</b><br />
<br />
The unsavoury drama that preceded the announcement by the Congress of
Pranab Mukherjee’s candidature as the next President of the country has
left a bad taste in the mouth of even the hardened cynical watchers of
Indian politics. There is no disputing the fact that Mr Mukherjee is an
excellent choice. He has all the right credentials and the credibility
to occupy the post which in the last five years has been demeaned by the
incumbent President. So, his likely elevation has to be welcomed. What
should be condemned is the deceitful conduct of the Samajwadi Party in
the entire episode.<br />
The print and the electronic media have virtually glossed over the
brazen betrayal by Mulayam Singh Yadav. Emboldened by the media’s muted
criticism, the SP chief has been going around justifying his U-turn. But
nothing that he says sounds credible. In fact, Mr Yadav must stop the
exercise and admit that he has been true to his image of being a
turncoat and an untrustworthy politician. Indeed, it’s better to do
business with the devil than with the SP chief.<br />
Look at the sequence of events: First, Mr Yadav and Trinamool
Congress chief Mamata Banerjee jointly address a Press conference after
the latter met Congress president Sonia Gandhi to discuss the
presidential candidates. Mr Yadav tells the media that his (and Ms
Banerjee’s) first choice is APJ Abdul Kalam. The Trinamool Congress
chief informs that Ms Gandhi had proposed Mr Mukherjee’s name as the
Congress’s first choice. Now, since both Mr Yadav and Ms Banerjee
publicly came out with Mr Kalam’s name after the Congress had offered Mr
Mukherjee for Rashtrapati Bhavan, it was clear that Mr Yadav had
rejected the Congress’s choice. But, less than 24 hours of that very
public and categorical announcement, the SP chief had begun to
backtrack. While Ms Banerjee in a principled stand stuck to the
position, Mr Yadav abruptly distanced himself from her and fell in line
with the Congress’s decision.<br />
Mr Yadav now wants us to believe that he had initially endorsed Mr
Kalam’s candidature because the Congress was hesitant to openly name the
Union Minister for Finance’s name. That is rubbish. The Congress
president had clearly told Ms Banerjee that Mr Mukherjee was her party’s
first choice. Mr Yadav was aware of this and he mentioned that in the
joint Press conference with the Trinamool Congress leader. Yet he had
pitched for Mr Kalam. It is clear that he exploited Ms Banerjee’s
anti-Congressism to strengthen his leverage with the Congress. He knew
that the Congress would quickly open a channel of communication with him
after the Press conference — and the Congress did — and he could then
use the occasion to extract his pound of flesh, if not immediately then
at a deferred date. We will know soon what the deal is that has been
struck between the SP chief and the Congress.<br />
Ms Banerjee may have many faults. She is mercurial and unpredictable.
At times she is also unreasonable. But she is certainly not a wily and
scheming politician that Mr Yadav is. It is now fashionable to say that
the Trinamool Congress chief has been “outsmarted” by the SP chief. But
that is an inaccurate assessment because she had never imagined that Mr
Yadav would plot an entirely different script behind her back. Had she
to know that, had she then to make a counter-move to check him, and had
she to fail in that attempt, we could have concluded that she had been
outsmarted. Ms Banerjee trusted the SP leader and that trust has been
betrayed. This is politics, yes, but not the kind of politics that Ms
Banerjee is proficient in. Hopefully, she has learned some lessons from
the episode.<br />
Of course, the West Bengal Chief Minister should have known better
than to have put faith in Mr Yadav in the first place. A political
commentator remarked on a television talk show that anti-Congressism was
in the SP leader’s DNA. He was fondly hoping that Mr Yadav would stand
by Ms Banerjee in the face of Congress’s pressure on him. But that
particular strain in the DNA which he had discovered has not been in
evidence in recent years. In 2008, the Samajwadi Party had bailed out
the Congress-led UPA Government during the trust vote. Since then, the
party under Mr Yadav’s leadership has been extending support to the
Government from outside under various — generally dubious — pretexts.
Although Congress leaders bitterly opposed the SP in the recently held
Assembly election in Uttar Pradesh, calling it names and even tearing
the SP’s manifesto at public meetings, Mr Yadav thought nothing of
cosying up to the Congress soon after the election result was out. He
shared the centre-stage with Ms Gandhi at the dinner hosted by the party
to mark the completion of three years of UPA2 in office. And, his party
continues to support a Government that by his own admission is mired in
scams.<br />
It is a travesty of justice that the media should have been so
generous to the disgraceful act of Mr Yadav, with some sections even
recording his betrayal as an “astute” political move. On the other hand,
Ms Banerjee, who wears her heart and her politics on her sleeve, and
whose only fault has been that she trusted the crafty SP leader, has
been heaped with ridicule.<br />
The media informed the people that the Congress had “called her
bluff” and that she had been “cut to size”. But she had never been
bluffing; her stand was for real —like it or not. As for being cut to
size, the fact is that she is a formidable politician who will remain
strong even if she quits the UPA. Ms Banerjee is a mass leader who
cannot be remote-controlled by the Congress high command.<br />
Why did the Congress reach out to the Samajwadi Party chief after the
joint Press conference and not to Ms Banerjee, who is part of the UPA?
The Congress knew that it was easier to ‘manage’ Mr Yadav. The Congress
has no issue to threaten or cajole Ms Banerjee with. She has a
starch-clean image and does not need the Congress’s support to run her
Government in West Bengal. The only thing the Congress can do to
retaliate is to hold back the financial assistance that Ms Banerjee has
been demanding from the Centre for her State, and make life difficult
for her regime.<br />
But, since Ms Banerjee has demonstrated time and again that she will
not be cowed down even by that threat, the Congress decided to work on
Mr Yadav who, incidentally, had cases against him of accumulating assets
disproportionate to his known sources of income. They can rather easily
be reopened by the Congress-led regime if it so wants.</div>Bookwormhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06074542795757215988noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1059980466014067837.post-52048553582976652552012-06-22T15:35:00.003+05:302012-06-22T15:35:43.641+05:30The Saraswati Civilisation<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b><i>(First published in The Pioneer dated June 6, 2012)</i></b><br />
<br />
<b>RAJESH SINGH</b><br />
<br />
A new study titled, ‘Fluvial landscapes of the Harappan
civilisation’, has concluded that the Indus Valley Civilisation died out
because the monsoons which fed the rivers that supported the
civilisation, migrated to the east. With the rivers drying out as a
result, the civilisation collapsed some 4000 years ago. The study was
conducted by a team of scientists from the US, the UK, India, Pakistan
and Romania between 2003 and 2008. While the new finding puts to rest,
at least for the moment, other theories of the civilisation’s demise,
such as the shifting course of rivers due to tectonic changes or a fatal
foreign invasion, it serves to strengthen the premise that the
civilisation that we refer to as the Indus Valley Civilisation was
largely located on the banks of and in the proximity of the Saraswati
river.<br />
More than 70 per cent of the sites that have been discovered to
contain archaeological material dating to this civilisation’s period are
located on the banks of the mythological — and now dried out — river.
As experts have been repeatedly pointing out, nearly 2,000 of the 3,000
sites excavated so far are located outside the Indus belt that gives the
civilisation its name.<br />
In other words, the Indus Valley Civilisation was largely and in
reality the Saraswati River Civilisation. Yet, in our collective
consciousness, numbed by what we have been taught — and what we teach —
we continue to relate this ancient civilisation exclusively with the
Indus Valley. For decades since Independence, our Governments influenced
by Leftist propaganda, brazenly refused to accept even the existence of
the Saraswati river, let alone acknowledge the river’s role in shaping
one of the world’s most ancient civilisations. In recent years, senior
CPI (M) leader Sitaram Yechury had slammed the Archaeological Survey of
India for “wasting” time and money to study the lost river. A
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Transport, Tourism and Culture which
he headed in 2006, said, “The ASI has deviated in its working and has
failed in spearheading a scientific discipline of archaeology. A
scientific institution like the ASI did not proceed correctly in this
matter.”<br />
Yet, on occasion after occasion, scientific studies have proved that
the Saraswati did exist as a mighty river. According to experts who
have studied the map of all relevant underground channels that are
intact to date and connected once upon a time with the river, the
Saraswati was probably 1500 km long and 3-15 km wide.<br />
The latest study, whose findings were published recently in the <i>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</i>,
too is clear on the river’s existence and its role in sustaining the
ancient civilisation. The report said that the Saraswati was “not
Himalayan-fed by a perennial monsoon-supported water course.” It added
that the rivers in the region (including Saraswati) were “indeed
sizeable and highly active.”<br />
Will the new findings lead to a fresh thinking on the part of the
Government and an acknowledgement that the time has come to officially
rename the Indus Valley Civilisation as the Saraswati-Indus
Civilisation? But the UPA regime had been in denial mode for years, much
like the Left has been for decades. As the then Union Minister for
Culture, Jaipal Reddy told Parliament that excavations conducted so far
had not revealed any trace of the lost river. Clearly, for him and his
then Government, it meant that the river was the creation of fertile
minds fed by mythological books with an even more fertile imagination.
The UPA Government then went ahead and slashed the budget for the
Saraswati River Heritage Project — which had been launched by the NDA
regime. The project report had been prepared in September 2003,
envisaging a cost of roughly Rs 32 crore on the scheme. The amount was
ruthlessly pruned to less than five crore rupees. In effect, the project
was shelved.<br />
However, despite its best efforts to do so, the UPA could not
completely ignore the facts that kept emerging about the reality of the
river and the central role which it had played in the flourishing of the
so-called Indus Valley Civilisation. In a significant shift from its
earlier stand that probes conducted so far showed no evidence of the now
invisible Saraswati river, the Government admitted half-way through its
first tenure in office that scientists had discovered water channels
indicating (to use the scientists’ quote) “beyond doubt” the existence
of the “Vedic Saraswati river”. The Government’s submission came in
response to an unstarred question in the Rajya Sabha on whether
satellite images had “established the underground track of Saraswati,
and if so, why should the precious water resources not be exploited to
meet growing demands?”<br />
The Union Water Resources Ministry had then quoted in writing the
conclusion of a study jointly conducted by scientists of Indian Space
Research Organisation, Jodhpur, and the Rajasthan Government’s Ground
Water Department, published in the <i>Journal of Indian Society of Remote Sensing.</i>
Besides other things, the authors had said that “clear signals of
palaeo-channels on the satellite imagery in the form of a strong and
powerful continuous drainage system in the North West region and
occurrence of archaeological sites of pre-Harappan, Harappan and
post-Harappan age, beyond doubt indicate the existence of a mighty
palaeo-drainage system of Vedic Saraswati river in this region… The
description and magnanimity of these channels also matches with the
river Saraswati described in the Vedic literature.”<br />
Interestingly, the Archaeological Survey of India’s National Museum
has been as forthright on the issue. This is what a text put up in the
Harappan Gallery of the National Museum says: “Slowly and gradually
these people evolved a civilisation called variously as the ‘Harappan
civilisation’, the ‘Indus civilisation’, the ‘Indus Valley civilisation’
and the ‘Indus-Saraswati civilisation’.” The text further elaborates on
the importance of the river: “It is now clear that the Harappan
civilisation was the gift of two rivers — the Indus and the Saraswati —
and not the Indus alone.”<br />
There is another interesting aspect to the new study by the group of
international scientists that deserves mention. The report has
discounted the possibility of ‘foreign invasion’ as one of the causes of
the ancient civilisation’s decline. But, long before this report was
published, NS Rajaram, who wrote the book<i>, Saraswati River</i> and <i>the Vedic Civilisation</i>,
had noted that the discovery of the Saraswati river had “dealt a severe
blow” to the theory that the Aryans had invaded India, which then had
the Harappan Civilisation. The theory supposes that the Harappans were
non-<i>Vedic</i> since the <i>Vedic</i> age began with the coming of the Aryans.<br />
But, since the Saraswati flowed during the <i>Vedic</i> period, the <i>Vedic</i>
era ought to have coincided with the Harappan age. Rajaram says in his
book that the Harappan civilisation “was none other than the great river
(Saraswati) described in the <i>Rig</i> Veda. This means that the Harappans were Vedic.”<br />
Not just that, experts have pointed out for long that there is no
evidence of an invasion, much less from the Aryans who ‘came from
outside’. Rajaram, like many others had concluded that the drying up of
the Saraswati river and not some ‘invasion’ was the principal cause for
the civilisation’s decline.<br />
However, the latest study by the international group leaves a
question mark on the origins of the river. The report claims that
Saraswati was not a Himalayan river. But, several experts believe that
the river originated from the Har-ki-Dun glacier in Gharwal. Let’s wait
for the final word.</div>Bookwormhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06074542795757215988noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1059980466014067837.post-64523654506087982782012-05-29T11:34:00.003+05:302012-05-29T11:34:32.078+05:30Here, ego is bigger than the nation<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<i>(First published in The Pioneer dated May 29)</i><br />
<br />
<b>RAJESH SINGH</b><br />
<br />
As Prime Ministers, Jawaharlal Nehru and Atal Bihari Vajpayee
regularly reached out to Opposition leaders. They did that not only to
enhance their personal image of being statesmen-leaders but also to
learn from the others and add value to the task that they had been
entrusted with. No other Prime Minister has had that quality. Perhaps
the other Prime Ministers did not do so because they believed they had
nothing to learn from the rest or that they were too insecure to seek
guidance, more so from their political rivals.<br />
This is a strange attitude given that the complexities of governing a
country like India within the constraints of democracy would require
all the advice that an incumbent Prime Minister can get from people who
have seen it all and dealt with similar if not exactly the same
situations.<br />
But, for Prime Ministers to seek guidance from their predecessors and
other senior politicians, requires a level of maturity that is sadly
missing in our political system. Excelling in petty politics and scoring
brownie points against opponents occupies so much of a Prime Minister’s
time that the incumbent leader of the Government simply fails to think
beyond these pursuits. Even if a Prime Minister wants to break the glass
ceiling, there is no institutional mechanism that can come to his (or
her) aid. There is no — official or unofficial — Prime Ministers Club
which can meet at regular intervals and discuss the state of the nation,
share notes on matters of governance, or simply discuss friends,
family, films and books.<br />
By contrast, the United States of America, easily the world’s most
powerful democratic country, has an institutionalised Presidents Club
comprising former Presidents or whose expertise the incumbent President
often draws from in governing the country. Club members meet regularly
and keep in touch in other ways all the time. At some time or the other,
these members have been bitter political adversaries of one another,
often having waged acrimonious campaigns. Yet, those differences are set
aside in the larger interests of the country. Remember, the first calls
that President Barack Obama made after the elimination of Osama bin
Laden were to former Presidents George W Bush and Bill Clinton — the
first being from the rival Republican Party and the latter a fellow
Democrat whose wife had challenged him for the presidency in 2008.<br />
The fascinating story of this unique bonding among former American
Presidents and the assistance that the club has extended — whenever
asked for by an incumbent President — in resolving crucial matters of
the state, has been laid out in a wonderfully written book, <i>The Presidents Club: Inside the World’s Most Exclusive Fraternity</i>.
Americans have the gift of glamour, and this book has been packaged to
read glamorous even when it deals with weighty matters of statecraft.
Yet, the authors, Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy, have lent the book a
great deal of gravity with material that had earlier not been in the
public domain. More importantly, the book offers a deep insight into how
politically mature leaders, whether in power or outside, come together
when it concerns the larger good of the nation.<br />
The authors cite the instance when Lyndon B Johnson took over the
presidency after the assassination of John F Kennedy. The United States
was in turmoil in the wake of the tragedy, and political uncertainty
loomed in the air. The first person Johnson (a Democrat) turned to for
guidance was his rival, former President and, as the authors say, “his
old sparring partner”, Dwight Eisenhower (a Republican). The book quotes
Johnson telling Eisenhower, “I need you more than ever now.” The latter
then arrived at the Oval Office and “wrote out on a legal pad what he
thought Johnson should say to an emergency joint session of Congress.”
Can such a thing happen here in India, where an incumbent Prime Minister
seeks similar guidance from a former Prime Minister belonging to the
Opposition?<br />
Despite having to leave in disgrace after the Watergate scandal broke
out and he was panned by his rivals, Richard Nixon remained a most
sought after former President for advice by his successors. He was not
found wanting. To quote the authors of the book, Nixon told newly
elected President Ronald Reagan in 1980, “President Eisenhower said to
me when I visited him after the election of 1968, ‘I am yours to
command’. I now say the same to you.”<br />
There are many instance of the incumbent President reaching out to
his predecessors for help and the latter responding generously,
regardless of their political affiliation. But there are also examples,
even if rare, of Presidents demonstrating a sense of magnanimity, and in
the process rising several notches high in public esteem. The authors
speak of the controversial decision that Gerald Ford as President took
to grant Nixon a pardon over the Watergate issue. The book quotes Ford
as saying in exasperation, “Everybody was trying to crucify the guy and I
finally said to people, ‘Enough is enough. Pardon him.’ I don’t care on
what basis. Enough.” Contrast this conduct of a US President with the
manner in which our Governments and its leaders launch witch-hunts
against their political rivals with the battle cry, “Finish him!”<br />
Perhaps a ‘Prime Ministers club’ could have gained shape in India too
had we leaders of calibre to undertake that initiative. Harry Truman
and Herbert Hoover got together to establish The President Club at
Eisenhower’s inauguration as President. Since then, the club has had
nearly all through the period former Presidents whose services were
available to the incumbent President. In India, though, it was not until
the mid-eighties that the country was blessed with living former Prime
Ministers. Lal Bahadur Shastri took over after Nehru died; Mrs Indira
Gandhi assumed office after Shastri’s demise; and Rajiv Gandhi became
Prime Minister in the wake of Mrs Gandhi’s assassination. When VP Singh
took charge, Rajiv Gandhi was available for advice as a former Prime
Minister. But, given the situation then, such an idea was unthinkable.<br />
However, later, on many occasions the Government of the day could
have drawn on the expertise of former Prime Ministers Deve Gowda, IK
Gujral, Narasimha Rao and Chandra Shekhar. The first two are still
around but there is nothing to indicate that our incumbent Prime
Minister has ever sought their counsel in matters of governance. Mr
Vajpayee is, unfortunately, in no physical shape to offer his expertise,
not that the Congress would have been eager to have it.<br />
Both in the US and in India, political rivalries are deep and often
acrimonious, and the race for the top position is filled with intrigue
and back-stabbing. But there is one big difference that explains the
existence of The Presidents Club and the absence of its equivalent in
India: In the US, it is the post (of the President) that looms larger
than the image of the incumbent to that position, whereas in India
personalities are seen as bigger than the position of the Prime
Minister. Thus, although Manmohan Singh is the Prime Minister, it is
Congress president Sonia Gandhi who is the more powerful person. With
those like Mr Singh at the helm, how can the Prime Minister’s post be
considered with respect, and which former Prime Minister will reach out
with any advice to such a weak-kneed leader?<br />
Not that the US Presidents have been infallible. But at least they
took their own calls and were not remote-controlled. They made mistakes,
and historians will judge them. As the authors say in <i>The Presidents Club</i>,
“Historians measure and rank Presidents. But when they take the longer
view, Presidents do not just compare themselves to one another; they
weigh their leadership against what might have been.”<br />
Now, if only that leadership had been evident in our incumbent Prime Minister to be weighed</div>Bookwormhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06074542795757215988noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1059980466014067837.post-84058117721081461832012-05-29T11:32:00.001+05:302012-05-29T11:32:23.306+05:30Word power missing from today's songs<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<i>(First published in The Pioneer dated May 22, 2012)</i><b> </b><br />
<br />
<b>RAJESH SINGH</b> <br />
<br />
Lata Mangeshkar (does she need an introduction?) reportedly remarked
recently that contemporary music was no music at all. This is not the
first time that the legendary singer has slammed the abysmal levels that
music in Hindi films has plunged to. Nobody in the film industry has
the stature to challenge her statement. Even if some people summon the
courage to do so, they would be on a weak ground. Because, the quality
of Hindi film songs has indeed gone down over the years. There is no
point in trying to refute that by citing the instance of a few good
songs here and there, because these songs are mere exceptions. We live
in an era of <i>Bhaag DK Bose bhaag</i> and <i>Sheela ki jawani</i> and more.<br />
What makes for a good or a great song? It’s primarily a combination
of music, lyrics and voice. When the three seek to excel one another, we
have a good song. And, when they submit to one another’s excellence, a
great song is born. In either case, excellence is the key. We still have
among us truly good singers like Sonu Nigam, Shaan, Alka Yagnik, Richa
Sharma and Sunidhi Chauhan. It would be unfair to compare them to
all-time greats like Mohammed Rafi, Mukesh, Kishore Kumar, Lata
Mangeshkar and Asha Bhonsle, who have become benchmarks and will forever
remain unassailable. All the same, these new singers are at least not a
blot on the proud legacy that they have inherited. The problem is with
the other two elements: Music composition and lyrics.<br />
By and large, both have abandoned the pursuit of quality and are
content with creating work which is not just forgettable but also
aesthetically offensive. The appetite for excellence that the music and
the lyrics of the fifties and the sixties — and to some extent even the
seventies — demonstrated has been replaced by a self-consuming desire
among today’s song writers and music composers to explore the crassest
levels. No purpose will be served in mentioning the names of the
perpetrators of what is being passed off as music, beyond giving them
the attention that they ill deserve.<br />
Between the lyricist and the music composer, the writer holds the key
to a good song. If a song has good music but weak lyrics, it will shine
like a meteor and fade away quickly enough. On the contrary, if the
music is average but the lyrics of a song are of high quality, that song
still has a future. In fact, we have had songs where the orchestration
was muted or deliberately underplayed to give full play to the lyrics,
and these songs went on to become all-time greats. A good instance is
lyricist Majrooh Sultanpuri’s song, <i>Tumse kahoon ek baat paron se halki halki</i> from the film <i>Dastak.</i> Another example is the song written by noted poet Kaifi Azmi, <i>Main yeh soch kar uske dar se utha tha</i> from the film, <i>Haqeeqat. </i><br />
The three decades of the 50s, 60s and the 70s produced arguably the
best songs that Indian films have had to date. Those were the years of
giant poets and lyricists like Sahir Ludhianvi, Majrooh Sultanpuri,
Kaifi Azmi, Jan Nissar Akhtar, Shailendra, Rajinder Krishan, Hasrat
Jaipuri, Raja Mehdi Ali Khan, Neeraj and Shakeel Badayuni. Try counting
the number of quality lyricists of today and you will run out of them
after the mention of Gulzar and Javed Akhtar. There is simply no one.
And remember, neither Gulzar nor Javed Akhtar belongs to today’s
generation.<br />
Far from being poets, today’s song writers are not even true
lyricists. They have such a pathetic repertoire of words that they are
simply unable to express effectively what they wish to through their
songs. But it’s not just the very limited vocabulary which is a problem.
It’s the lyricists’ apparent insincerity in and shallowness of
expression that has prevented them from writing meaningful songs. There
was a time when every word in the song mattered and was carefully
crafted by the song writer. However, lyrics in contemporary songs have
become mere fillers, because their writers are feather-weights.<br />
When Majrooh wrote, <i>Hum hain matay-e-koocha-o-bazaar ki tarha, uthti hai har nigah khariddar ki tarha</i> for <i>Dastak,</i>
there was much consternation that the song would sink because nobody
would understand the lyrics! But Majrooh stood his ground, and for all
its lyrical complexity the song has gone down as a classic. Besides, it
became a rage among listeners who excitedly worked to decipher the
meaning.<br />
A similar domination of the poet-lyricist is evident in <i>Ye mahlon,
ye takhton, ye tazon ki duniya/ ye insaan ke dushman samajon ki duniya/
yeh daulat ke bhuke rawazon ki duniya/ ye duniya agar mil bhi jaaye to
kya hai from Pysasa.</i> Many film aficionados believe this to be the
best song written by Sahir Ludhianvi. Whatever the opinion may be, it
remains a fact that only a genius could have penned those words. To
expect something even distantly similar from the current generation of
lyricists is to grossly overestimate the calibre of our so-called song
writers.<br />
But songs do not have to be always as obviously profound to be good
or even great. Shailendra had mastered the art of blending poetry with
lyrics so deftly that his profundity almost went unnoticed. For example,
what compels the listener into complete submission when he hears <i>Sajanwa bairi ho gaye hamaar/ chithiya ho to har koi baanche, bhaag na baanche koi/ karamwa bairi ho gaye hamaar,</i>
is the simplicity of the words. Yet these words are also deeply
philosophical. And, as philosophical yet simple is another song of the
lyricist, <i>Sab kuch seekha hamne, na seekhi hoshiyari/ sach hai duniyawalon ke hum hain anari. </i><br />
A similarly nuanced play of words is seen in lyricist Rajinder Krishan’s song, <i>Aaj socha to aansoo bhar aaye/ muddate ho gayeen muskurayee</i> from the film, <i>Hanste Zakhm</i> or Sahir’s <i>Main pal do pal kar shayir hoon, pal do pal meri kahani hain/ pal do pal meri hasti hai, pal do pal meri jawaani hai</i> from the film, <i>Kabhi Kabhi. </i><br />
Lyricists of today, who believe they are churning out ‘intense and
romantic’ numbers in keeping with modern trends, must look to the works
of Shakeel Badayuni — in fact they need not far beyond his just one film
— <i>Mughal-e-Azam</i> — to learn what ‘intense and romantic’ poetry means.<br />
Like in the case of Shailendra, simplicity of expression combined
with the depth of understanding has become the hallmark of Gulzar, who
is among the greatest living lyricists — many would say he is the
greatest. He first broke fresh ground with his song from Bimal Roy’s
1963 film Bandini, when he wrote, <i>Mera gora ang lai le/ mohe shaam rang dai de/ chhup jaaongi raat hi main/ mohe pi ka sang dai de.</i>
He must have been in his mid-twenties then. Gulzar continues to
straddle the film world to this day, and his lyrics have evolved
magnificently over the decades, becoming even more meaningful and deep.<br />
The success of his song, <i>Dil to bachcha hai ji/ thoda kachcha hai ji,</i> from <i>Ishqiya,</i>
released recently, demonstrates that good songs can be written and
appreciated and accepted by the audience in modern times too. Those
writers who justify their mediocre and worse work on the claim that the
audiences ‘like’ shallow stuff are merely seeking to justify their
incompetence. As the 80s set in and Hindi film lovers began to be
tormented by insane lyrics and mindless music compositions, the
development was justified with the same argument that the audiences
wanted something ‘new’. Perhaps so, but the listeners had definitely not
asked for nonsense. Had they been happy with what Bollywood was dishing
out, ghazal maestro Jagjit Singh would not have rose to prominence
during that very decade with his largely non-film ghazal albums.<br />
If song writers cannot deliver quality, they have themselves to blame
for it. They must stop pointing fingers at the listeners, whom they
torture.</div>Bookwormhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06074542795757215988noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1059980466014067837.post-23056804448000782712012-05-16T15:09:00.001+05:302012-05-16T15:09:28.994+05:30Aamir Khan shows mirror to society<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="itemFullText">
<i>(First published in The Pioneer dated May 15, 2012)</i> <br />
<br />
<b>RAJESH SINGH</b><br />
<br />
The problem with success is that it spawns an industry of cynics
and carping critics who cannot see the balloon soar. They will punch at
it and try to puncture it. They seek glory not in inflating the balloon
but in deflating it. And they eagerly wait for such occasions to come
by. Actor-producer Aamir Khan has given these critics one such
opportunity through his recently launched television serial, <i>Satyamev Jayate</i>. Though not all the criticism of the show has been negative, a lot of it has been just that.<br />
On a television talk programme that was devoted to <i>Satyamev Jayate</i>
— in itself a confirmation that the serial had made a power-packed
impact in its very first episode — an elderly social rights activist
slammed Aamir Khan’s venture as mere “entertainment”. She questioned the
tears shed by the participants who were discussing female foeticide.
She also wondered how one such programme could eradicate the social ill
when those of her kind had been unable to do even after decades of
struggle.<br />
It is shocking that a social rights activist who has studied the
issue from such close quarters by interacting with victims and
perpetrators of female foeticide should be so insensitive to the real
stories that <i>Satyamev Jayate</i> presented. What did she find
‘entertaining’ in the cry of a woman who was tormented by her in-laws
and husband because she had given birth to two daughters? Or in the fact
that many family members who tortured women into aborting girl children
were highly educated and financially well-off? Or the visual footage of
female doctors in Rajasthan caught in a sting operation nonchalantly
asking a ‘pregnant’ woman to dispose of her girl child, in which they
would be only too willing at a price to help?<br />
The social activist on that television show indeed had a strange
understanding of what ‘entertainment’ is all about. And, as for the
tears, they have indeed helped the programme enhance its ‘emotional’
appeal. But those tears were actually genuine and not glycerine-induced.<br />
The social activist’s concern that programmes like <i>Satyamev Jayate</i>
or celebrities like Aamir Khan can hardly make a difference in the
fight to eradicate deep-rooted social evils such as female foeticide is a
result of mixed-up argument. She has been working in the field for
several decades and yet female foeticide is rampant in the country. Has
she then failed? Should she then halt her campaign, because even she has
not been able to make any significant impact? This is ridiculous logic.
Aamir Khan has not claimed nor must he have been under the impression
that his one episode will bring about mammoth change. But change comes
when there is awareness in the people, and <i>Satyamev Jayate</i> has
aroused that awareness. It is now for activists and other stakeholders
including the Centre and the State Governments to seize on that
awareness.<br />
Aamir Khan did not have to do this programme. He is doing it
apparently because he strongly believes in this sort of a contribution
to society. He could have produced a routine soap serial that would have
drawn large television rating points and fetched him more money. Or he
could have set up a tobacco firm or a plastic manufacturing company. We
must compliment him for using the reach and impact of television to
spread a social message. But, again, we have the critics carping that
Aamir Khan is getting funds for and making money by exploiting the
plight of people.<br />
One of the panelists on the talk show mentioned earlier referred to
this criticism. Non-Government organisations are said to be working in
various areas ranging from health to education to child care to women’s
empowerment. Are they not funded? Are they not accountable for the
manner in which they spend the money and the results those spendings
fetch? Satyamev Jayate is a commercial venture, and so there is nothing
wrong if the makers of the programme are focussed on earnings or on
accountability in spending. The important thing to keep in mind is that
they are not just focussed on the earnings but also on the purpose of
the programme. You cannot do much with an empty cash box, can you,
however lofty your thinking is?<br />
Moreover, isn’t it too early to talk of <i>Satyamev Jayate</i> being a
commercial blockbuster? It’s just two episodes old and the jury is
still out on its commercial prospects. It remains to be seen to what
extent the programme will be able to sustain the existing audience and
add on new viewers. In that sense, Aamir Khan has taken a huge risk, and
that fact is getting lost in the din of criticism against him. If he
succeeds, he is condemned as a mercenary, and if he fails he is
ridiculed as a pseudo-activist. But, let’s be fair to him and
acknowledge that, either way, he will have attempted something that has
been worthy of praise.<br />
Thankfully, Aamir Khan is far from getting swayed by the negativity. The second episode of <i>Satyamev Jayate</i>
highlighted the rampant cases of child abuse in the country. A survey
conducted in 2007 by the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development
in collaboration with an NGO in more than a dozen States found that more
than half of the children surveyed reported having faced one or more
forms of sexual abuse. In 50 per cent of such instance, the exploiters
were known to the child or were in a position of trust and
responsibility. Should we then compliment the actor-producer for taking
up the issue or condemn him for ‘exploiting’ the tragedy of abused
victims?<br />
There is some merit in the suggestion that Aamir Khan must not allow
politicians to bask in his glory and score political points. The
suggestion emerged after the actor met Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok
Gehlot with a petition seeking action against those accused of female
foeticide in the State. While Mr Gehlot used the occasion as a welcome
photo-opportunity, the fact remains that his Government has done nothing
over the years to punish the accused. Government doctors who had been
caught in the sting operation continued in their posts, with some being
promoted even, according to the journalists who had conducted the sting
operation.<br />
But look at it in another way. Politicians like Mr Gehlot have not
really gained mileage with Aamir Khan’s visit, but they stand further
exposed by such a visit. It’s as if the actor-producer is saying, almost
mockingly: “Here I am, seeking justice from a Chief Minister who has
done nothing so far to bring the culprits to book. Will he have the
courage to act now?”<br />
It’s a question the actor-producer will need to ask more people more often as he proceeds with his programme.<br />
</div>
</div>Bookwormhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06074542795757215988noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1059980466014067837.post-48830517256340771832012-05-08T15:34:00.000+05:302012-05-08T15:34:13.815+05:30Supreme Court proposal to fight graft gathers dust<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<i>(First published in The Pioneer dated May 8, 2012) </i><b><br /></b><br />
<br />
<b>RAJESH SINGH </b><br />
<br />
Many politicians in the country are quick to complain about ‘judicial
overreach’ every time the Supreme Court makes observations on the
policy conduct of the Government or its various arms, or compels the
Government to act in a particular manner. But there are also instances
where the apex court has been less than intrusive, merely advising the
Government to frame guidelines on matters that concern the well-being of
the people. What has been the response of the Government in such cases
where the court has played the role of a benign guide rather than that
of a stern schoolmaster who is determined to humiliate his student in
full public view? The Government has either dragged its foot on those
recommendations or simply forgotten about them. And so, when the
Government (and in many cases the entire political class) behaves in
this fashion, does it not prepare the ground for a concerned citizen to
knock the doors of the court and seek redressal?<br />
Let’s take a recent instance to demonstrate how callously the
Government deals with recommendations of the Supreme Court on a matter
that has direct relevance to the empowerment of people in a thriving
democracy such as ours. In a civil appeal of Subramanian Swamy versus
Manmohan Singh and Another relating to sanction for the prosecution of
Government officials under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988, the apex court had on January 31 ruled that any private
citizen had the right to seek sanction of the authorities concerned for
the prosecution of a Government servant under the Act. This has now
become a binding verdict. But what the court said next was equally
important. It asked — recommended, advised, suggested: Call it what you
may — the executive to frame guidelines to ensure that the Government
responds within three months (with a grace period of another month) to
the request for sanction. The rules should also provide that, in the
absence of a response in the stipulated period, sanction will be deemed
to have been granted. In other words, the private citizen can initiate
the proceedings to prosecute if he does not receive a response latest in
four months from seeking such sanction.<br />
The Supreme Court was thus careful in not stepping into the domain of
the executive, leaving the Government to frame the relevant rules. Yet,
even more than three months after the verdict, there has been no
apparent movement to implement the recommendation. It is difficult to
understand what the delay is all about. It may be that the UPA regime is
caught in many more important issues such as the Budget Session of
Parliament and the forthcoming presidential election. But the Government
has so far not even shown any inclination to bring forth the amendments
required to the anti-graft Act and secure the approval of Parliament,
wherever needed, for those amendments. That the UPA is dragging its foot
only demonstrates its reluctance to bring in greater accountability in
fighting corruption.<br />
Every time there is an inordinate delay in getting the sanction, two
things generally happen: First, the accused gets away because evidence
is washed off over a period of time and the case collapses. Second, the
proceedings against the accused are quashed by the courts. Justice AK
Ganguly, who was one of the two judges on the Supreme Court bench which
gave the January 31 verdict, had pointed out to this travesty of
justice. He said, “There are instances where, as a result of delayed
grant of sanction, prosecution under the Act against a public servant
has been quashed.” He illustrated his contention with the case of
Mahendra Lal Das versus State of Bihar and Others, in 2002, where the
apex court had quashed the prosecution as the sanctioning authority had
granted sanction to prosecute after 13 years! He gave another example of
the court quashing prosecution proceedings on a similar ground of delay
in sanction in Santosh De versus Archna Guha and Others in 1994. Taking
strong exception to such delays, Justice Ganguly observed, “The
aforesaid instances show a blatant subversion of the rule of law. Thus,
in many cases… public servants are being allowed to escape prosecution.”<br />
He then added, “Parliament should consider the constitutional
imperative of Article 14… where due ‘process of law’ has been read into
by introducing a time limit in Section 19 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 for its working in a reasonable manner.”<br />
But the UPA Government appears little concerned over the continuing
subversion of the due process of law and seeking Parliament’s attention.
What is worse is that the absence of a time-limit to grant approval for
prosecution has given the sanctioning authority the leverage to
manipulate issues. Justice Ganguly minced no words when he said, “This
has virtually armed the sanctioning authority with unbridled power which
has often resulted in protecting the guilty and perpetuating
criminality and injustice in society.”<br />
Justice GS Singhvi, the other judge on the bench, had in the same
vein referred to the celebrated Vineet Narain versus Union of India case
of 1998, where the court had mandated that the response to a request by
Government agencies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation for
sanction of prosecution must come within three months of seeking such
sanction. Since that directive already stands, all that the Government
has to do is to frame rules to ensure that the same time-limit is
followed when a private citizen requests approval for sanction to
prosecute a public servant.<br />
The hesitancy of the Congress-led UPA to empower citizens to
prosecute Government officials has largely to do with its own misery. It
is neck deep in corruption charges ranging from the 2G Spectrum scam to
the Commonwealth Games irregularities to the Adarsh Housing Society
scandal. The last thing it would want now is an awakened citizenry armed
with the powers to seek prosecution within a set time-frame. The
disgraceful manner in which it had tried to block Mr Swamy’s claim as a
private citizen to seek prosecution of a Government servant (in this
case former Union Minister for Telecommunication A Raja) betrayed its
determination to keep people away from questioning the Government’s
dubious deals and seeking prosecution of the accused.<br />
The Attorney General, appearing on behalf of the Government, had
desperately tried to justify the failure of the Prime Minister to
adequately respond to Mr Swamy’s request in 2008 for sanction to
prosecute Raja, by stating that the question of granting sanction came
only at the stage when ‘cognizance’ of the offence has been taken. Both
the judges categorically dismissed this contention.<br />
The court pointed to a 2009 three-judge bench ruling in a case where
the bench had held that, without sanction the “very cognizance is
barred.” In other words, it makes no sense to take ‘cognizance’ if it is
not accompanied by sanction to prosecute. The Supreme Court had also
trashed the Attorney General’s various other submissions on the ground
that they were “contrary to the scheme of Section 19 of the Prevention
of corruption Act, 1988.”<br />
It is clear that the sole intention of the UPA through its
submissions was to somehow block private citizens from being armed with
the power to seek approval for the prosecution of corrupt Government
servants. Now that the UPA has failed it its motive, it is delaying as
much as it can the next enabling step: To frame rules to codify the
time-frame for granting such approvals.</div>Bookwormhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06074542795757215988noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1059980466014067837.post-43492358567023336292012-05-07T13:25:00.004+05:302012-05-07T13:25:48.351+05:30What ails India<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<i>(First published in The Pioneer dated May 6, 2012)</i><b> </b><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>BREAKOUT NATIONS</b><br />
<b>Author: Ruchir Sharma</b><br />
<b>Publisher: Penguin</b><br />
<b>Price : Rs 599</b><br />
<b>Ruchir Sharma says there are a handful of countries that in the
coming years will break away from the pack of emerging economies and
surge far ahead of the rest. He, however, believes India has a 50-50
chance of being a ‘breakout’ nation, writes RAJESH SINGH</b><br />
<br />
Ruchir Sharma is possessed with great persuasive skills. If he didn’t
have them he would not be the trailblazing investment banker that he
is. (He heads Emerging Market Equities and Global Macro at Morgan
Stanley Investment Management.)<br />
In this greatly publicised book that he has written and which has
taken experts and lay readers by storm, he throws around statistics with
the easy authority of a punter who has spent a lifetime laying bets and
getting them right most times. He uses the material to persuade you
into buying his theory, or at least considering it with respect. He
believes that there are a handful of countries that will in the coming
years break away from the pack of emerging economies and surge far ahead
of the rest. Also, there are nations whose economies will stabilise, if
not stagnate, at far lower levels than over-the-top optimists have
projected.<br />
For the Indophile, Ruchir offers mixed hope: He believes that India
has a 50:50 chance of being one of those “breakout” nations. And, based
on the distillation of all the impressive material that he has gathered
over the years, he comes to a few startling conclusions, going to the
extent of indicating that BRICS is really a sinking ship. But, as he
rips apart established perceptions and questions conventional wisdom on
the growth of ‘emerging’ economies such as Russia, India and China,
Ruchir offers a philosophical emollient: He quotes scientist Antoine
Lavoisier, “Nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is
transformed.”<br />
The author discusses the coming transformation for a clutch of
countries which possess those emerging economies. His analyses are
interesting not just because they are based on experience and hard facts
but also because he refrains from being politically correct and is
stridently unrepentant about his views. He seems to say: Consider them
as a wake-up call for course correction or ignore them and pay the price
that many countries have after being in a similar situation.<br />
On why he is hesitant to be more endorsing of India’s growth
potential, Ruchir is clear-headed. Although he does not subscribe to the
view that everything about the country’s economic rise is an illusion —
like the Great Indian Rope Trick — he finds many problems in
categorising India as a “breakout” country. One of them is erratic
political decision-making. He points out that, while India does not have
a “command and control” economic system in place that places the state
in charge of even micro-management of business, the political structure
of the Congress which manages the country’s economy is very much the
‘command and control’ type, where all decisions are taken by a clutch of
people that comprise the so-called high command. We all know that in
the Congress’s lexicon, ‘high command’ essentially means party president
Sonia Gandhi and her son Rahul Gandhi.<br />
The author takes a gentle swipe at the situation when he remarks,
“The Gandhis have demonstrated a great capacity for reinvention over the
years, such that many see 41-year-old Rahul Gandhi as the contemporary
face of India.” The resultant undermining of central leadership, he
remarks, has led to States being more powerful and to some extent making
it more difficult for New Delhi to “champion breakthrough reforms”. He
adds, “Indian is again starting to look like a commonwealth of States
with distinct identities and waning national conscience.”<br />
But, politics aside, the author points to two very specific factors
that he believes are not good for an economy such as India’s, which
aspires to be among the world’s top three in the coming decades. The
first is the UPA Government’s populist but wasteful schemes, like the
Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, and the
second is the rise of crony capitalism. The two by themselves may not be
the principal contributors, but they are indicators of what is going
wrong with the economic thinking of the Government. He reminds us that
“welfare schemes (he is referring to the likes of MNREGS) create a
perverse incentive for villagers to stay on the farm”. Such measures, he
warns, “backfire against economic growth because it involves running up
deficits”. He backs this contention with the fact that over the past
five years Government spending has grown “at a 20 per cent annual pace,
much faster than the economy”. Ruchir explains that, while the
Government can get away with such deficit spending when the going is
good (although even then such spending is not advisable), it is suicidal
to do so when the economy is slowing down. Unfortunately, the basic
logic that the author lays down does not seem to have percolated down to
the UPA Government.<br />
Crony capitalism is being much talked of today in the country. The
author has a simple formula to address the issue: Keep track of the list
of billionaires and the billions that they are making, and you get a
fair idea of the direction in which the economy is heading to. He
remarks, “This information provides a quick bellwether for the balance
of growth. If the country is generating too many billionaires relative
to the size of its economy, it’s off balance.” And this lack of balance,
he adds, can lead to stagnation and the growth of crony capitalism. Is
this what we are seeing in India? Going by Ruchir’s hypothesis, we have
some reason to worry. In 2000, no Indian figures in the world’s top 100
billionaires; now there are seven. The author says this is more than in
all but three countries: The US, Russia and Germany. China has just one
and Japan none.<br />
But more important than the numbers is the manner in which these
people have made their money that will show if crony capitalism has been
at work. Like Ruchir says, if all that wealth has come largely from
Government patronage rather than “productive new industries”, it points
to a disaster for the economy. Moreover, if there is no ‘turnover’ in
the list of billionaires, it means competition is slacking and the hold
of crony capitalists is growing. Ruchir points out that “nine of the top
10 Indian billionaires on the 2010 Forbes list are holdovers from the
2006 list, while the 2006 list had only five holdovers.” Of course, this
can also be interpreted as the success of Indian billionaires to
consolidate businesses and stay ahead. Perhaps a deeper study of the
phenomenon can unravel more conclusive material, either way. But,
cronyism is not limited to capital; it also extends to the country’s
politics. Ruchir quotes from a 2010 book by author Patrick French, to
point out that “every member of the Lower House of Parliament (Lok
Sabha) under 30-year-old was a hereditary MP”. Also, “in the ruling
Congress the situation was more extreme: Every Member of Parliament in
the Congress under the age of 35 was a hereditary MP”.<br />
After rattling the senses, Ruchir leaves the readers with a prophesy
sounding like that of Nostradamus. In his final chapter titled, ‘The
Third Coming’, he concludes the following: One, “China’s looming shadow
is about to retreat to realistic dimensions”; and, two, “it’s impossible
for countries like India and China to break out when expectations
exceed the maximum possible growth rates of the relevant income group”.
If all of this seems like an obituary of the world’s favourite emerging
markets, the author doesn’t intend it to. His book informs, fascinates,
shocks and outrages. And, yes, it does also warn without sounding
pessimistic.</div>Bookwormhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06074542795757215988noreply@blogger.com0