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 ?
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Friday, April 04, 2008
Fallacy
Found an example of a logical fallacy - cum hoc ergo propter hoc in wired magazine. Here is the article.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)