Anna Hazare's "revolution" is not without flaws

I’ll allow others, more eminently qualified than me, to speak on this one, before I say anything.

Wrote Tavleen Singh, well-known columnist, in her weekly newspaper column:

“Without reading the Jan Lokpal Bill that Anna Hazare is trying to ram down our throats, actors, writers, social activists, television anchors and sundry other supposedly educated Indians leapt on to Anna’s bandwagon… If they had bothered to read the draft that Hazare’s Leftist advisors have drawn up, they would have noticed that its worst flaw is that it is undemocratic in the most frightening way. It is not an ombudsman that it seeks to create but a despot with the powers to investigate, judge and punish anyone he suspects of corrupt practices… This is the way of totalitarian countries. It is not India’s way.”

Neera Chandhoke, professor of political science at the University of Delhi, stated in an article in a prominent national daily newspaper:

“Certainly corruption is a major issue and needs to be fought, but according to procedures and norms, and in keeping with the mandate of the Constitution. The country is not Ralegan Siddhi, where alcoholics are flogged to make them give up their ways. India is democratic, and in a democracy even guilty people have rights. Anna Hazare may have earned the status of a big brother, but no democrat can allow him to turn this Lokpal into another big brother right out of the pages of George Orwell’s projected nightmare.

More worrying are the political beliefs held by this gentleman. He wants corrupt people to be put to death! In a civilized society, surely, the very idea of capital punishment is anathema. What gives cause for even more anxiety is the extraordinarily low opinion that this Gandhian has of the very people who had rallied around him during his fast. “Ordinary voter [sic] does not have awareness” he is reported to have said in a meeting with the press. “They cast their vote under the influence of Rs 100 or a bottle of liquor or a sari offered by candidates.” Does not contempt for the ordinary Indian citizen defy the very rationale of democracy, and that of its major claim to legitimacy, that of equal moral status?” asks Prof. Chandhoke.

In another article, Madhu Kishwar, founder-editor, ‘Manushi’, and professor at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi, says:

“Our politicians have indeed failed us, so have many others — the judiciary, the police, the bureaucracy and religio-spiritual leaders. Many of these worthies are no less venal than the worst of our politicians. No politician can get away with corruption and crime without the collaboration of the bureaucracy, police and the judiciary…

Let us remember that Mahatma Gandhi, Jayaprakash Narayan, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, and B.R. Ambedkar all fought elections. Those who claim to draw inspiration from Mahatma Gandhi cannot afford to be so self-righteous. The arrogance of “tyaag” is no less dangerous and corrosive than the arrogance of money and power. If the movement is ready to welcome celebrities who may well be evading taxes and bypassing laws, why single out elected representatives? Merely making the Lokpal a supra-government body and giving it full powers to make its own appointments will not ensure that the institution becomes worthy of the trust reposed in it…”

An editorial in The Indian Express titled, ‘Rs 100, a sari, a bottle’, with the sub-head, ‘That’s all Hazare says a vote means. Who gains from such disdain for democracy’, states:

The line between this disdain for the voter that Hazare expressed and the belief that he can nominate a committee to draft a bill is clear and damning. This institutionalizes the contempt for established parliamentary democracy that Hazare has revealed, one he shares with those in the Indian urban elite who do not trust a state that rests on the votes of the poor and “illiterate” — votes they imagine are cast thoughtlessly and for a bribe… If 80 crore Indians — the number of voters — are so corrupt as to be bought for Rs 100, which Jan Lok Pal will clean things up?”

Need I say more? Is Hazare’s cure worse than the disease? That is what the ordinary Indian citizen needs to ponder over, cutting through all the hype and frenzy generated by a fawning media that looks for a new hero every day.

Hey Ram! Bisexual Bapu?

The reaction in our country to the latest biography of Bapu is so very typical. The hue and cry that was raised over it was not at all unexpected. After all, in which other country in the big wide world do they ban books and films at the drop of a hat? The book in question is, ‘Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and His Struggle with India’, by the Pulitzer-Prize-winning author Joseph Lelyveld. The author has put under the scanner Gandhi’s relationship with his German friend, Hermann Kallenbach, with whom he had lived for four years. He has highlighted the "special bonds" these two men had shared with each other. This has been construed as “intimacy” between them in the Western media.

Obviously, the language Bapu has used in his letters addressed to Kallenbach has tickled the imagination of reviewers of the book. It has made them speculate that Bapu may well have been a bisexual! It made some to even conclude, glibly, going by irresponsible newspaper headlines in the UK and the US, that Gandhi actually abandoned his wife to live with his male lover. Understandably, Indians are outraged. But then, are we not overreacting? Have our 'netas' who have called for an immediate ban on it, cared to read even excerpts of the book? Are we not capable of debate based on logic and reason? Can we not call the bluff of those, who betray a superficial understanding of the complex and multifaceted personality that Gandhi undoubtedly was, by taking them on intellectually?

After all, Lelyveld himself has clarified publicly, and for the record, that he did not brand Gandhi either a racist or a bisexual in his book. He went on to state that the word, “bisexual” does not figure anywhere in his entire book. Besides, the letters he has quoted from have been in library archives for decades, and open to public scrutiny. Sudhir Kakar, a psychoanalyst, who has written about Gandhi's sexuality and reviewed some of his correspondence with Kallenbach, said he did not believe the two men were lovers. "It is quite a wrong interpretation," Kakar has stated. "The Hindu idea is that sexuality has this elemental energy, which gets dissipated. If it can be sublimated and contained, it can give you spiritual power. Gandhi felt his political power really came from his celibacy, from his spiritual power.” This is Kakar’s take on it, which may well have been the case.

So then, the “father of our nation” was not a bisexual, as claimed by some who have got it all wrong in their decadent minds. Great! I wonder, though, do our leaders need to be perfect in the conventional sense of the term? Should they be incapable of the follies and foibles that normal human beings can fall prey to? The problem with us is that we accord iconic status to our leaders and celebrities. We deify them. We condition ourselves into accepting a larger-than-life image of them, which is of our own making. This national tendency, or cultural trait if you prefer, is what makes us feel so uncomfortable when new light is shed on old facts. This is what makes us squirm when someone even so much as hints at the humanity of our heroes, implying their inherent imperfections, and we are instantly up in arms. 

It is sacrilege. It is utterly blasphemous to cast aspersions on the character or motives of national heroes whom we have elevated to demi-god status. To think of it, even if Bapu did indeed fall for his German friend, who happened to be a body builder, does it detract from his unparalleled contribution to the national movement of India? In any case, many of his practices aimed at sublimating his sexuality were controversial. Some of them may even be repugnant to people of other cultures. So, it makes me wonder what the fuss is all about. It is time we grew up a bit.

I’d like to conclude with what Gandhi himself had said once, in reaction to being addressed as “mahatma”. He did not accept the tag. In fact, he dismissed it outright and preferred to call himself, “alpatma”. Gandhi was realistic enough to accept his limitations as a human being. Unfortunately, his followers were not able to grasp this reality.

Indian Cricket on a New High

Indian Cricket has come a long way. When "Kapil's Devils", as they came to called, lifted the coveted Prudential World Cup trophy at Lords, which was then considered the Mecca of World Cricket, many a cricket aficionado was tempted to dismiss it as a grand fluke. Even our team seemed half-embarassed, at that time, accepting the trophy, although they had achieved the impossible. Yes. They had beaten a team that was arguably the most potent cricketing outfit ever to walk onto the meadow, for a bout between bat and ball, in the annals of the gentleman's game.

However, 28 years later, this Indian team is not at all apologetic about its aspirations to dominate the cricketing world. And, in Mahendra Singh Dhoni, they have found a captain, who in Imran Khan's words, "is not just a captain, but a leader!". His innings in the World Cup final at the Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai, was the best example of a leader leading from the front. It took courage to walk out to bat ahead of the in-form Yuvraj. It took courage to leave out Ravichandran Ashwin yet again, and opt for the mercurial Sreesanth. And, what an innings "captain cool" played. So much so that, it dwarfed the brilliant innings played by both Mahela Jayawardane and Gautam Gambhir, and, deservingly, earned him the Man of the Match award.

To think of it, while all of India wanted our team to lift the trophy and buck the trend of the host nation never winning the Cricket World Cup, there were many who did not give our boys in blue much of a realistic chance. They preferred to bet on Sri Lanka who were the runners-up last time around, or felt it would be South Africa this time, who would finally be able to shed the label of "chokers", which had stuck to them for so long. Some even considered New Zealand the dark horses, while others reminded all and sundry not to rule out Australia, even if they had not played their best cricket lately.

Earlier, cricket commentators had flayed the selectors for not having picked another wicket-keeper, just in case Dhoni got injured. Some of them bemoaned the fact that the Indian squad was one pacer short. While the tournament was well underway, the exclusion of Ashwin in the playing 11 also received plenty of flak, especially when we played on spinner-friendly tracks. And. when the Indian quickies, barring Zaheer, had not been very consistent, Ashwin's exclusion seemed even more indefensible. However, as they say, "all is well that ends well". Who will remember any of the doomsday predictions of any of these naysayers today? Who will remember the sombre post-mortems of nit-picking analysts of the game any more?

That's because nothing succeeds like success. Well done, India. You guys have done us all proud. There should not be any doubt in anyone's mind now, as to where the Mecca of World Cricket really is. 

Ayodhya verdict and India's secular ethos (Part 2)

Unfortunately, as much as we may pride ourselves for having bucked the subcontinental trend and chosen to tread the secular path, the fact remains that Indian secularism has not gone uncontested or remained free of controversy. Especially in recent times, more so against the backdrop of the rath yatra undertaken by L.K. Advani, as a part of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, India's secularism, or least as it has been practised, has been called into question.

The Sangh Parivar has dubbed it “pseudo-secularism” and accused the Congress of using it as a pretext to what they have derisively referred to as “appeasement of minorities”. The BJP has gone to town painting the Congress black over what it has perceived to be cultivating minority vote banks by the party, which was once in the forefront of the Indian national movement. The Shah Bano case only reinforced this view. It created considerable debate and controversy all over the country about the extent of having different civil codes for different religions, especially for Muslims in India.

The Rajiv Gandhi government made matters worse by passing the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which diluted the secular judgment of the Supreme Court and, in reality, denied even utterly destitute Muslim divorcees the right to alimony from their former husbands. It was against this background that Advani cast his Ram Janmabhoomi movement. He felt the public pulse. He understood the popular mood. He sensed a national disenchantment with the Congress government at the time, which was already embroiled in several scandals that were being exposed by the print media.

The situation was ripe for the BJP to cash in on, and Advani, an astute politician that he was, made the most of it. As communal passions were aroused over the issue and reasoned debate became increasingly difficult, fate dealt a blow of another kind. Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated bang in the middle of elections. A semi-retired, Telugu brahmin, P.V. Narasimha Rao, who had just undergone bypass surgery at that time, was suddenly catapulted to the position of the prime minister of the country. Unfortunately, despite all his obvious intellectual abilities, Rao was an indecisive man who allowed the situation to drift to a point of no return.

There was a rapid buildup of kar sevaks at Ayodhya from all over the country. Aggressive Hindu organisations like the VHP and political outfits like the Shiv Sena went into overdrive. Their cadres also headed for Ayodhya, and were ultimately, in no small measure, actually responsible for the demolition of the mosque. While the central government vacillated over its course of action, these determined groups had already whipped up passions to a frenzy at ground zero on that fateful day. And, while Narasimha Rao was having his customary afternoon siesta, the main dome of the mosque had already come crushing down. And, with it, India's reputation as a secular nation also took a body blow.

* Concluded...

Ayodhya verdict and India's secular ethos (Part 1)

The verdict of the Allahabad High Court in the contentious Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case in a sense reflected India's secular ethos. The three-judge panel exceeded its brief. The judges did not go entirely by cold logic or hard evidence. They sought to offer a way forward — a way towards reconciliation between the two communities. Their much-awaited verdict read like a manifesto of Indian secularism. Peaceful coexistence seemed to have been the motivating factor.

Indian secularism based on the lofty ideals of “sarva dharma samabhava” is unique in many ways. First of all, India is the only country in the subcontinent that consciously chose to cast itself in the mould of a secular nation. All other countries in India's immediate neighbourhood have a state religion or an official political ideology. Pakistan and Bangladesh are Islamic republics. Hinduism is the official religion of Nepal and Buddhism the state religion of Sri Lanka. China has communism, which is nothing but a godless religion, as the all-pervading ideology that has shaped its national identity.

Hence, it would seem that India went against the very grain of subcontinental culture by opting to go the secular way. To think of it, after theocratic Pakistan was carved out of the erstwhile British India, there was a case for declaring India as Hindustan — a Hindu rashtra. With Hindus comprising more than 80% of its population, it would have seemed the most logical thing to do. In fact, Jinnah had actually suggested something to this effect himself. He wanted all of British India to be called India, and the two nations that would emerge after partition to be named Hindustan and Pakistan. However, Sardar Patel shot down that idea no sooner than it had been mooted by Jinnah.

Just imagine. About 13% of the population in the areas that now constitute Pakistan and Bangladesh were non-Muslims. Now, less than 2% of the population of Pakistan comprises non-Muslims. That is because most non-Muslims chose to mass-migrate to the east. They must have felt they would not be safe in a theocratic state as they belonged to minority communities. On the other hand, most Indian Muslims chose to stay back in India. More than 90% of those who migrated to Pakistan were from UP and Bihar. Hardly anybody, for instance, from Kerala went to Pakistan. And, Kerala has two entire districts that are Muslim-majority areas — more than 20% of its current population.

That India should have chosen to remain secular had much to do with Gandhi and his protege, Nehru. Had it not been for these men, Muslims may well have panicked and many more would have opted to migrate to Pakistan. The calming influence of the Mahatma, an apostle of non-violence, coupled with the assurances of India's first prime minister, the westernised secularist, Nehru, brought an end to the post-partition communal carnage on this side of the border much sooner than it would have seemed at the time. In stark contrast, Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan did not go out of their way to make non-Muslims feel safe in Pakistan, although they did not actively endorse or encourage any ethno-religious cleansing of minorities. 

* To be continued...

Allahabad High Court verdict — a path to reconciliation?

In some ways the verdict of the Allahabad High Court in the Ram Jamnabhoomi–Babri Masjid case came as a bit of an anticlimax. Most people expected the verdict to go decisively in favour of either the plaintiff or the defendant. The central government had geared up to meet any challenge to the law and order situation with its security apparatus fully activated and on high alert. Even bulk SMSes were banned. Prominent leaders cutting across the entire political spectrum appealed for calm. It was almost as if the nation expected a backlash from one community or the other. The world watched with bated breath, given the sensitivity of the highly contentious issue.

But, India stood still. Much blood had already been shed. The nation had grown weary of the issue that had defied a solution for six decades. Political parties had failed to rise above sectarian ideologies or vote-bank considerations. The parties to the dispute had failed to arrive at an amicable, out-of-court settlement. The onus was now on the legal process of the land. The high court was deemed the final arbiter of justice in our secular, democratic republic. And, what was truly gratifying was that when the verdict was finally pronounced, it did not lead to communal tension, leave alone violence. Indian democracy seemed to have come a long way.

The verdict of the Allahabad High Court itself, has met with mixed reactions from all quarters. Constitutional expert, Rakesh Dhawan dismissed it as “panchayati-style justice”. Former attorney general of India, Soli Sorabjee, however, welcomed the verdict and applauded the judges for their courage in going beyond what was expected of them. Ravi Shankar Prasad, a spokesperson of the BJP, who was also the counsel for one of the Hindu groups in the trial, saw the verdict as a tacit endorsement of their position.

 

The chief of the RSS sounded a sober note and opined it was not a victory or loss for anybody and grandiosely called for national integration. L K Advani, the man behind the movement, went public to say that the way had been cleared for the construction of a grand Ram temple at Ayodhya. The Sunni Waqf Board, meanwhile, announced its decision to appeal to the Supreme Court as it found the verdict and the recommendations of the honourable justices of the bench of the Allahabad High Court unacceptable. It is opposed to “bartering” of the disputed land in a three-way split. They have claimed the entire disputed structure as a mosque.

So, the saga continues. The matter will now be taken up by the Supreme Court. Status quo will be maintained for three months. The apex court can either uphold the judgement of the Allahabad High Court or come up with an entirely new judgement. The litigants have time to study the high court verdict and explore the prospect of a possible out-of-court settlement. This then, is not the final chapter of this painful story. But, what is heartening is that the country seems to have moved on. As of now, the average age of India is 26. The youth, naturally, consider everyday bread-and-butter issues more important than where a temple or mosque should be built. That is what makes the possibility of reconciliation a lingering hope. I, for one, hope so any way... 

Will Indo-Pak relations ever be good? (Part 9)

People-to-people contact is all very well. Cultural exchanges and sporting encounters are fine. But, expecting them to improve ties in a major way would be downright naive. All these measures have been tried a number of times. They have at best created fleeting bonhomie between the peoples of both countries given our shared history and culture. However, they have invariably been held hostage to political developments on the ground.

The former national security adviser, J.N. Dixit, had an interesting story to tell once on a TV channel. He narrated an incident that occurred when he was India's ambassador to Pakistan. Dixit said he was once invited to dinner by a Pakistani diplomat who picked him up and drove him to his house. Upon arrival, they were greeted by the aging diplomat's granddaughter who was just about three or fours old at the time. When Dixit's Pakistani host told his grandchild he had brought along with him an Indian guest, the child ran into the house shouting, “Hindustani kutta, Hindustani kutta”.

Children imitate their elders. They are privy to many a conversation by adults at home. Their impressionable minds are moulded by the prejudices of family members whom they live and interact with. Hence, what the little girl said cannot be taken at its face value and dismissed as the innocent banter of a child. It reflected just how Pakistanis thought and spoke of Indians. When this was the case in a diplomat's home that supposedly had educated people living in it, what can we expect from large multitudes of ill-informed masses who are easily swayed by anti-India religious and political propaganda?

The idea is not to demonise the people of Pakistan. To be fair, Pakistani diplomats may have a similar tale or two to tell after a stint in India. The point I am trying to make is that mutual prejudice and suspicion run deep in the psyche of the two ill-fated peoples. Consider the recent spot fixing controversy three Pakistani cricketers find themselves in. The Pakistani High Commissioner to the UK, no less, openly claimed it was a frame-up and hinted at an Indian hand, when all the available evidence seemed to indicate otherwise. It is another matter that the man mellowed soon afterwards and began to sound more like a diplomat that is he supposed to be, as evidence mounted, and more skeletons tumbled out of the closets of Pakistani cricketers.

The problem is quite simply this: the core of the ideology that gave birth to Pakistan represents everything that is the complete antithesis of what India is and stands for. A theocratic nation state carved out for the Muslim community in the subcontinent is the very opposite of a secular and democratic India that has more Muslims in it than the entire population of Pakistan put together. Add to that the evil agenda of anti-India terror groups that operate from Pakistani soil whose avowed purpose is to fight the idol-worshipping kafirs of India to defeat and subjugate them.

What we have is an extremely complex situation from which there is no easy way out. In view of everything I have stated in this nine-part article, I am sorry to say, at least I for one am not very optimistic about the future of Indo-Pak relations. But then, this is one thing about which I would be glad to be proved wrong. Whether that happens or not, only time will tell.

* Concluded...