The Behenji

In India, temperature is soaring. While the sun is doing its bit, the election season is pushing up the mercury too. One of the leader that has suddenly caught the fancy of media in this election heat is Behenji - Mayawati. From the scholarly magazines like Economist [source], to feature pages of BBC [source] and to tabloid media of India [source], she is being biograph-ed, analysed, debated and usually hated in the comments section. This is in complete contrast to the last election in her home state - Uttar Pradesh, when she silently crafted the biggest electoral victory in UP in last two decades. This post is dedicated to her!

Leaving the arduous task of predicting her place in the South Block of Lutyen's Delhi to electoral pundits, I would just mention some things that had long crossed my mind for her and her nature of politics.

She is the worst nightmare of India's English speaking, 'The Hindu' reading and metro dwelling intelligentsia. She signifies to them everything that is wrong with Indian politics and her rise to national politics has left many of them sleepless. To me, personally speaking, politicians like her are a bulwark against class wars. This is also where, I believe, democracy plays out better than other forms of government. Her rise to power gives voice to the most marginalized section of the Indian society. A society that keeps a section of itself deprived of resources, dignity and power for centuries always risk facing a revolution or armed conflict from them. Democracy gives voice to them, and leaders like Mayawati helps ease that pressure.

Besides being a dalit, she is also a woman. Somehow, her gender has never been used like her caste to show her inability to govern or to gain sympathy from women voters. In fact, in Indian politics, gender is never a major electoral issue . Women in India do not particularly rally for a woman leader or men do not particularly shy away from voting a women. In western world, however, gender is always an issue in politics. There was a huge mass of women supporters behind Hillary Clinton when she contested the primaries. The fact was repeated many times that a women has stood for primaries for the first time. Many newspapers, likewise, came up with a biased coverage of her due to her gender. It was also mentioned in some news channels discussion that an awful number of people will not vote for her due to her gender, just as some others will not vote for Barack Obama for his race. Given the far more social independence that women enjoy in western society as compared to Indian society, this comes as a suprise. My take on this is as follows: In western world, especially in US, an individual is celebrated unlike in India where the caste, community or family is. In US, where caste and strong community bonding does not exist, it's the individual that is evaluated on their personal traits. Coversely, in India, the community and the family of that person is given more importance than the individual qualities. Thus, the baggage of her caste is so much more for Mayawati that her gender would not figure in electorate's mind while casting their vote. Corollary: She would be just as much despised by a Yadav woman in UP, as she is respected by a Dalit male.

The media used to hate her for her ostentatious display on her birthday bashes. Her diamond studded earings, mountain-sized cake were a focal point of derision by the columnists of many dailies. Agitated, they would ask - Why doesn't her voters get offended by these displays when they know they could never be as rich as her? There hasn't been any tangible evidence that shows that dalits fare better in her rule in terms of employment rate or financial status. Lately, she has also bonhomied with the upper most caste of Indian society - Brahmins. Her candidates in the current election are also mostly from non-dalit caste. She has diluted her stance of hatred towards upper caste, lacks any major developmental works in her current tenure, also hasn't done too much for the upliftment of dalits, whose cause she most vociferously espouse. Yet, her vote bank is said to be non-transferable! Why do dalits still vote for her, even though there are reasons for them to believe that she is using them to fulfill her political ambitions? The truth is - instead of getting offended, dalits love to see her display of wealth. Even if she never changes a single thing for them, they would still vote her to power. The reason is symbolism. For them, she symbolises everything that they had been denied for centuries. The sheer fact that somebody from their community could go on to reach this stature is enough of a good reason for them to vote.

Reading through the barrage of hate posts emanating from the urban youth in the comments section of most of the online media reports, I am surprised to see that many of them think of her as an uneducated and an illiterate person. I wonder where this misconception has come from. She holds two degrees, was a primary school teacher in a school in Delhi and was preparing for the civil services exams when his mentor Kanshiram spotted her furiously debating with Janata Dal leader Raj Narain and then walking out of that meeting in the constitution club of Delhi.

Dr. Ambedkar, while exhorting to his followers once said, "Political power is that master key to unlock all your problems". His statue of holding constitution in one hand with the other hand pointing towards Lok Sabha symbolises his message to his followers to educate themselves and gain political power. Dalits have given a lot to Mayawati and she has vigourously followed Dr. Ambedkar's statement of gaining political power. But what has she given back to dalits in return? Laloo Prasad Yadav gave a lot of voice to the socially backward Yadav community in Bihar but he didn't do any developmental work that would help them feed their young ones, or let them send their kids to school. In a same way, Mayawati may have given an iota of voice to dalits who can now sit in the main chaupal of the village, but she has still not started the developmental works for dalits. She has gained the master key but she is yet to unlock all the problems that beset Uttar pradesh and members of her own community. Instead, she is eyeing New Delhi. Personally, I think her ambitions for being a national player is well justified but it should have been supported by her work in UP. Just like Bihar's CM Nitish Kumar and Gujarat's CM Narendra Modi have a made a name for themselves for good governance, she should have followed suit. But she is more busy planning her next moves to check mate players in delhi. Like Sahir Ludhiyanvi wrote in one of his poems, "Yeh duniya agar mil bhi jaye to kya hai?", I ask of Mayawati - What if you even become the Prime Minister of India? What would that change? Would that uplift a community from the centuries of burden that they had to bear? Would that help a dalit to gain better education and compete in open market? Would that make India a more tolerant nation? Would that in anyway change this nation except some new parks and statues of yours and Dr. Ambedkar?

A Republic's Voters

India celebrates its 60th Republic day today. This day also, in my opinion, puts to rest the doomsday prophecies of certain world leaders and writers like Winston Churchill and Rudyard Kipling that saw balkanization of India soon after its independence. Situated amidst countries in South Asia that are ruled by monarchies, dictators, army rulers or a weak parliament, India has indeed emerged as an unexpected beacon of democracy for the region.

On the other hand, there are multiple reasons that call for an introspection as well. Has democracy really worked in India? I agree with Ramchandra Guha when he answers this as - yes, but 50-50. I was watching a panel discussion on CNN-IBN network [video link] today. The network also conducted a poll on various questions related to efficacy of politicians, government bodies and the overall results of democracy. The findings, as expected, were dismal with majority having lost their faith in the integrity of politicians and governmental bodies. I am sure the sample set for these polls would have been just as much a biased selection as the audience was in this show. But I agree that it is overall representative of the general mood of the public in India. So what is lacking in the "system" or the polity of India that most of us are losing faith in this?

Among a lot of gibberish that was said on the show, some of the comments stayed with me. One of them was by Salman Khurshid. He says that he finds it hard to win an election if he only does the right thing. He needs support from people who also force him to help them do illegitimate activites. Having seen elections and the political process from close quarters myself, I know how true Mr. Khurshid is when he makes that point. To elaborate, a candidate needs support from a lot of "workers" that usually belong to the candidate's party or are personally associated with him. These workers campaign for the candidate to the constituents, create a sellable image of his to the electorate and uses their relations and connections to improve a candidate's prospects. In the words of a two-time assembly elections contestant, it is the worker who actually fights the election. Indeed it seems so, as the most important duty of worker comes during the election day. He sits in the election booth as an agent of the candidate and overlooks the voting to make sure it is going on fairly or in the favor of his candidate. The real difference that he makes is in the votes from the electorates who skip the voting i.e. do not come to vote on the election day. An overzealous worker will liason with the polling officer a day before and get some of the unpolled votes poll for his candidate. He would also get some people to make sure that the unenthusiastic voters are encouraged and helped to come to the polling booth to cast their vote. So, a smart or a strong, in the literal sense, worker helps to improve the chance of a candidate significantly if not drastically on the election day.

This does not augur well for a democracy as it creates multiple problems. One of them is that it makes even more difficult for a newcomer without any workers to win election. The other is what Salman Khursid said - it forces the elected representative to be more representative of his workers than the electorate, thereby making a mockery of democratic principles. How can this be resolved?

I have known this factor for a while and thought over it a few times. Election commission of India has done a splendid job by releasing the affidavits of the election candidates on its website [link] since the last few elections. The affidavit contains the complete assets declaration and ongoing police cases, if any, of the candidate. This brings a greater transparency to the electorate and its easy access gives it a wider reach. ECI also releases further data like the number of votes polled at each booth, candidate-wise percentage etc. I would like to suggest to ECI, through this post, to also release the list of voters who voted on the election day. The voters are required to sign in the polling booth before casting their vote so the data is already being maintained by the commission for all the elections. As we have a closed ballot system in India, ECI does not keep a record of who voted for whom and this should continue to stay like that. Releasing this list of voters who polled does not compromise any of our democratic principles as far as I can see. I would also imagine that since election is a public exercise and a cornerstone of Indian democracy, the electorate would welcome such a move instead of raising privacy concerns. This list could potentially raise a hell storm when the voters will see that their votes were cast even though they did not visit the polling booth! A series of litigation might well follow and bring the ECI under a higher pressure to minimize such anomalies. This, in turn, will reduce the impact that the worker has on the election day thereby limiting the dependence of a candidate on the worker. The effects of this data could be similar, if not greater, to the effects of the Right to Information Act.

I might be naive in my thinking or projection here. I might even be totally misplaced on the legalities behind such a move. And thus, I wouldn't mind other's opinion!

Nuke the Nuke-Deal

Indian politics is sometimes hope, mostly disappointment. The recent events leading to trust vote of Indian government definitely cannot be classified as hope.

Congress party and its allies may have won the trust vote but the nation, as a whole, lost. In what could have been an ideal environment to discuss and debate the Indo-US nuclear deal, soon turned out to be a mockery of democratic values. The deal that had long been occupying media and politicians' attention was pushed behind for the sake of personal political ambitions. Such travesty makes me wonder when, if ever, we would have an issue-based politics in India ? And it's not some abstract Utopian ideology that I am talking about. It's very much a practical issue. The survival of the government meant survival of the deal and therefore, this trust vote was either a 'Yes' or 'No' to the deal.

So, while some leaders bargained to christen airports with their daddy's name, others asked for specific ministries in return of support to the government. Then, there were others, negotiating for higher ratio in seats distribution for the coming election.

Where have we gone wrong ? Is it the democratic structure in India to be blamed that allows multiparty system ? In other words, is it the cost that we will have to pay to ensure being the largest democracy ? Assuming that it is so, can we rely on the electorate to bring such opportunistic leaders to notice ? This brings me to another disappointment in Indian politics' arena. Why doesn't the electorate ever find it objectionable and question the propriety of their elected leaders ?

Ajit Singh is a US returned UP politician. His claim-to-fame: his daddy is late Charan Singh, a notable freedom fighter and then activist who fought for the rights of Indian farmers and land reforms primarily against Nehruvian regime. Indian farmers in western UP, who mostly belong to his native Jat community, owe high allegiance to him. But, like most other things in India, this allegiance is smoothely shifted from father to son and Ajit Singh, who returned from US at the demise of his father, lacking any experience in politics, became the next president of his father's party. Twenty years on, his vote bank is still the same and he always manages to get few MPs from the western UP region.

TRS is another party that seeks creation of Telengana state in northern Andhra Pradesh. Their leaders are ready to support any party or goverment in center as long as they can be promised creation of their new state. It's an important identity issue among people of Telengana region in AP. Not surprisingly, TRS also manages to win reasonable amount of seats from the same region.

Shibu Soren, leader of JMM, also fought the same cause for Jharkhand about a decade back. Jharkhand was created eight years back but his part still gets few MPs from the same region. His desire - to get coal ministry back after trust vote.

I can go on and on but a pattern can be observed from these examples alone. We, Indians, are not a single kind of people. Our nation does not beat at the same rate. We are divided - not in two, ten but hunderds parts. Such parties and hectic money-exchange before trust vote are just effects of this underlying reality. The sad part is, not only are we diverse, we are also divisive. Sixty years on, and we have failed to rid ourselves of narrow divisions like casteism, religion or regionalism. Such leaders thrive on these desires and it is always easy to divert attention from real issues to these emotional appeals.

How can the nation come together ? Do we need a charismatic leader like Pt. Nehru ? Sure, we do but that is a passive wait for Godot. My understanding is that we can beat at similar, if not the same, rate if our communications infrastructure gets stronger. Imagine, every house in India with a television set and telephone and every village connected by a road. These may look basic equipments to few of us metro dwelling Indians but some parts of India take days if not weeks to get to know what is happening in the rest of country. Also imagine the amount of travel and mobility it will bring to each Indian. I believe infrastructure can be a catalyst in changing the dynamics of our socio-cultural fabric.

Coming back to the deal, I still feel cheated. Noam Chomsky, in one his article, argues that Indo-Iran gas pipeline would have done much more to solve our energy problem than this deal will ever do. Does that mean we are making a mistake in sacrificing a more value proposition in favor of a less one ? Also, by when can be expect to get newer energy from nuclear reactors if this deal is operationalised ? There are many more questions that could have been asked but both the political and media time was rather lost to arithmatics of parliamentary numbers. When would we, as Indians, realize and question this ?

Fallacy

Found an example of a logical fallacy - cum hoc ergo propter hoc in wired magazine. Here is the article.

Pakistan: Creation, Existence and Survival

As the man reached dais & began his address after clearing throat, the audience didn't know that they would be lost in academic deliberation for a while. However, by the time the man finished, history was made - for pakistani textbooks. The man - Mohammed Iqbal & later to be christened Muffakir-e-Pakistan had just concluded his speech with a clarion call for an autonomous Islamic unit in North-West India. The gathering was All India Muslim League and the year 1930. The seeds for a sovereign islamic nation were sown.

A little fast forward in time and a popular pakistani leader is gunned down allegedly (since I don't completely buy Pak Govt. version) by Taleban militants while she is waving to crowds at the end of a popular public meeting. As the news of Benazir Bhutto's assassination came to me, I was plunged once again into a reverie over the fate of Pakistan as a nation.

Pakistan came into existence one day before India gained its independence from Britishers i.e. on Aug 14th 1947. What followed soon were a series of one the bloodiest riots that subcontinent had seen in living memory. Millions were killed and many more dislocated from their homeland. Unfortunately this was not the end. The riots left a deep imprint on the psyche of people of subcontinent. Being an Indian myself I can say that it created a mental divide and a sense of suspicion towards other community. Hindu nationalism strengthened in this tensed environment, Gandhi was killed, RSS evolved, Babri mosque demolished, Bombay blasts & then Bombay riots followed and Gujarat, the land of Mahatama, burnt in 2002. Pakistan supported, both politically and militarily, Punjab insurgency that led to Operation Bluestar, then the murder of Indira Gandhi to be followed by Anti-Sikh riots of '84. There's more to it - India and Pakistan fought three wars, still fight and kill people in kashmir and have turned it, called the heaven on earth, into an inferno.

Pakistan has done even worse. It's a remittance economy. There has always been an anarchy and no law in the tribal areas bordering Afganistan. Pakistan census reports show a decline in the population of religious minorities since Independence. And what is probably the worst, the country has never seen political stability. Almost juggling between despotic military rulers and democratically elected political leaders, it has lost its place among the progressive nations on earth. The militancy and ISI, once aimed at India, has become so powerful now that it's killing leaders back at home. Indeed, a very sorry state of affairs.

All this at what cost ? To have a sovereign nation for muslims in pre-independence India ? Haven't we paid a price too heavy for this fanciful idea ?

I see two primary arguments for the creation of Pakistan - one ideological and the other a practical one. There may be more but I would contend against only these since they were the most influential one behind Pakistan creation by virtue of fact that one was originated by Sir. Muhammad Iqbal and other by Muhammad Ali jinnah.

As per Iqbal, Islam by definition is not just a personal religion but an ethical system governed by its legal laws and a likewise polity. This makes it different from majority of Hindus of India and therefore Muslims of India needed an autonomous/sovereign unity where such Islamic principles of ethics and law can be implemented by an Islamic polity. Thus, a nation where Church and State are organic to each other and that strives to remove stamp of Arab Imperialism from Islam. I, indeed, am significantly dwarf in my knowledge of Islam and Christianity as compared to Iqbal and therefore will never attempt to contend his argument in theory and make the discussion academic in nature. I will rather just look back into state of affairs of Pakistan since its genesis. Has Pakistan achieved what Sir Iqbal wanted it to ? Has it even come close to the ideal of Islam polity that Sir Iqbal cherished in his 1930 Presidential address to Muslim League ? What different culture has Pakistan been able to regenerate among its citizens that resurrected Islam in subcontinent ? Far to even coming close to these ideals, Pakistan has not even been able to stay politically stable since its creation. Pakistan's military rulers have made military so strong, politically and financially, that it raises its head whenever it finds nation's leaders not toeing its line. I see both the church and the state crushed under the perils of instability. Not difficult to imagine, the economy stoops over their western overlords and Pakistani diaspora is their only hope of foreign exchange. But is there a future, even if a distant one ? Sixty years, as one political scientist noted, is a long enough time for a nation to test its polity. Rest, I leave upto the reader.

Muhammad A. Jinnah, contrary to popular perception in India, was a secular - at least on paper & in words, and just wanted a separate nation where muslims won't be made submissive by the hindu majority of India. A nation where muslims will have control over their polity and not be harassed by their Hindu brethren. Just a look over the demography of both the nations will hint that this idea failed from the start. The number of muslims in India and Pakistan are almost equal. Accordingly, as per Jinnah's logic, half of his muslim community didn't get its salvation after partition. And whatever has happened to the muslim minority of India ? India, unlike Pakistan, chose to become a secular nation. And therefore, on paper, muslims got equal civil rights as Hindus. My critics here may well claim that what was on paper never really reached ground. Also, the number of hindu-muslim riots in Independent India's history also fairly well suggest that muslims were injusticed(sic). Were they ? Yes, they were. But my argument is that had India and Pakistan remained a single nation, these riots would not have taken place at all. The deep antagonism for each other's community originated from the ghastly aftermaths of partition. Hindu nationalism would not have picked up so strongly as it did after the partition. Hindus and Muslims may have different epics, different heroes as claimed by Jinnah but they have been able to evolve a common nationality in India, contrary to his claims.

Naipaul in his journey through Pakistan, documented in his book Among the Believers, comes across a muhajir who left his home in Mumbai during partition to come and settle in Karachi. The good thing in Pakistan, as compared to India, he mentions is that he can hear maulana's call for Namaz from nearby mosque coming right into his home. In Mumbai, he said, mosque was far enough from his home and he had to remember his Namaz timings all by himself. This, as per him, was the justification of Pakistan as an independent nation.

[I originally wrote this article as a Note in my facebook profile. For some better reasons, I decided to post it here as well.]

Anwar (2007)

I typically don't write about movies that I like but this one had to be the exception. More so, because everywhere in the web, the diatribe against it includes phrases like loose plot, direction less direction, good songs but slow to death etc. What I am going to contend here is that the movie is in fact a strong plot and artistically directed.

I'll start with a cliche sentence - Anwar grows on you. The movie is about love and that's it - only love. Hindu-Muslim tension, farcical media and hypocrite politicians are just peripheral wings of a masterfully crafted core story or stories as you may call it. To enjoy the full glory of it, don't see it as a conglomeration of multiple distinct stories but look for pattern that emerge from each story. The central theme of each story is Love (sic). And the salient points that emerge from them are:

• It is basic human desire to be loved and love. The strongest of the emotion craves for a subject on whom to shower all that it has. Master Pasha: Pyaar karo anwar, pyaar. Pyaar ke bina jindagi kitnee neeras hai.
• And love, as much as it is pure, is also impartial in residing among human's heart. Be it a swine or an innocent lad, a hypocrite politician or a cunning journalist, it finds a place in each heart.
• Howsoever basic or universal this emotion may be, it is a taboo in contemporary indian society. A feeling that is to be felt shameful for. Ironically though, given that the myths and legends of India has been full of love display. An overused mythological couple, in this movie and at many other places is Krishna and Meera as a symbol of pure love.
  
• Coming back, movie also comments that harboring this emotion has its flip side as well. It can bring unimaginable pain. And this is where I find movie's strength lies. It has taken up this point so indifferently and yet so frequently that it is hard to miss it. Going where other bollywood flicks tremble, Anwar shows that this pain is caused when our love blinds us to see any imperfection or any limitation in the subject of our love. A relegation to apotheosis as one may call it. And soon this dream shatters, coz we are, in the end, mere mortals ! Be it Mehru's unfaithfulness, deepti suddenly seeing a bhikhari (bum) in Master Pasha or refusal of love by Miss DM to Minister, it all shows what humans are made up of - an idealism fancying beast with feet cuffed to ground.

So is there a hope ? To be in love and yet to be far from pain. I may be accused of over stretching here but I see hope in the imagery of love shown so beautifully and colorfully in Krishna's leela with Meera. If the object of your love becomes Divine Himself, as Meera chose it to be, then Love doesn't hurt. This, I felt, is the passing remark of Anwar.

Besides, the background flute music (another reference to Lord Krishna ?) and rhythimic camera work gives a poetic expression in movie's narrative. Needless to say, I fairly enjoyed the movie and if you have been accusing Anwar of loose plot, this might be a good time to revisit it!

Mood: Contemplative and romantic. Should watch my favorite ghazal now.

Recommendations for a Loser

"Some are born Losers, some achieve, and some have it thrust upon 'em"

-Lokzpeare

Yet Another Night !

If you are one of the last two i.e. a neophyte or an epiphany-realized loser & are wondering on how to survive for the rest of your life, this post is for you. Ya, you may be wondering what qualifies me to speak for you. Well, my brethrens, I have been in this game since birth & I bring to the table 22 yrs & 6 months of loserapa experience. I have seen it all & now mastered the guerilla tactics of survival in the worst cirsumstances.

I know you get distraught when you see young guns like you embracing arms of the opposite sex, enjoying life cheerfully & merrily. Comrades, as one of the most influential self help guru Stephen R. Covey says, the problem is not out there but you. To change the world, you will have to change the YOU. We all live in a microcosm & as a behavioural psychology study recently proved we all seek competition with persons around our social/friend circle. You will have to change your perception of the world, your microcosm & the YOU & soon the problems will vanish.

With the bull$hit said, now follows the meat. To change the perception of the world, you will have to be careful on what you see from the world. This will define the world for you. Here is the list of things that I will earnestly recommend you ..

Movies:

• A clockwork orange (Dir. Stanley Kubrick):- So you thought that you are the only loser. Check out these guys & you will have a reason or two to feel pride.
• Pyaasa (Dir. Gurudutt) :- Your talent alone cant take you too far !
• The Obscure Object of Desire ( Dir. Luis bunuel ) :- The masterpiece & a must must recommendation for every loser to walk on the planet earth. Never before or ever will such a loser tale be captured through lense.

Books:

• Thus Spake Zarathushtra ( Friedrich Nitzsche ) :- For moral support & to give you a vision for your loser life.
• Crime & Punishment ( Fyodor Dostoevsky ) :- Cheer up ! you havent seen the worst part of life yet.
• The Stranger ( Albert Camus ) :- Indifference is the key !
• Catcher in the Rye ( J. D. Salinger ) :- The world is phony, you alone are the truth.

Art/Paintings:

• The persistence of memory ( or infact anything from Salvador Dali) :- The melanchony & barren lands can engross you for hours & you will feel one with them soon.
• Guernica ( or infact anything from Pablo Picasso ):- Ever wanted to see hallucinations without opiating yourself ? You can also continue looking at them since they wont make any sense for loooong time.

Music:

• Metallica : Some really depressive stuff fuelled with guitar & a hopeless voice. you will cherish !
• Slayer/Megadeath : No words !

Well this is just the begining my comrades. Be comfortable, there is enough material to keep you busy rest of your life & you will never have to see the light of that happy cheerful world again !

P.S.: Incase you have something to contribute, please feel free to do so. It is a collective responsibility to help our brethrens.