India is a democracy wherein a huge number of parliamentarians or legislators are known to have criminal background or connections. One may say that crime is after all their 'private' life. The same can be said of a lot of graft and sleeze that goes on in high places but no one ever wants to investigate and put an end to.
China is our second most important national obsession at the moment, next only to; no not cricket, Pakistan. On the television I believe that the most spoken single word theses days is Pakistan followed by perhaps 'Atank...'.
We hear all the time about the threat from Pakistan and how it is not acting against terrorists working across our borders from its soil. Do we ever ask what WE are doing about the terrorists here and the providers of shelter and the sleeping cells. Digvijay Singh would say that is an atrocity against Muslims. But these are not only Muslims and the law should be equally tough and proactive irrespective of their religious affiliation. Rather, the religious affiliation, minority tag or whatever other badge of Maulana, Sant or Pandit should not provide the subverters of India licence.
The United States has already delivered punishment to Headley for crimes including terrorism (India) and we are still nowhere near doing anything about Kasab, much less hanging Afzal Guru of the parliament attack case. India is indeed Mahaan!
Chinese are making incursions into our terrirtory at will. We are silently bearing it. We have no wherewithal or the will to fight a mighty enemy. Our foreign policy is an abject failure. The country is in disarray which is only thinly camouflaged by the recent economic glitter and deceptive growth rate data. The communal and caste rivalries and the suspicion amongst them are at an unprecedented level, mutual tolerance amongst various parts of society is at an all time low, sense of humour has been replaced by caution even in a joke, honesty has been thrown away for political correctness - we are sitting on a veritable tinder box. In the name of elimination of the caste divide we have widened it to a point where reconnection is now impossible.
Why is the country going where it is? If you see carefully at out parliament and legislatures you would be appalled at the total absence of discussion and healthy argument on any matter of national security, finance, education and allocation of revenue. The discussion and discourse is mainly about caste, reservations, provisions for pilgrimages, minorities, dalits and so on. Indeed all these need attention but won't for long if the state itself fails, and risks its very existence.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Is India safe?
India is a democracy that is lionised by the whole 'free' world as the largest 'functioning' democracy. There is of course the moot question whether the 'free' world is really free. But that is another topic.
India is being seen as a major emerging market and the interest of the west is very much focused on the possible economic success of this behemoth. The big IF in 'If India becomes economically powerful' is the problem. We notice that India has failed to sell itself to the west as a strong ally and the military interests of the US continue to weigh heavily in favour of Pakistan. India's economic growth has not yet reached the magic triple point where the interests of the west, India and world peace might converge.
China is far more successful than India on the three fronts; economic, military and world standing. There are no moralities in international politics, only self centered moves. China far outweighs India. Actually even Pakistan is far more successful in selling itself to the world community; first - in the old times as a great miltary ally and base for the US/ Allieds against the Iron and Bamboo curtain nations, second - as the rogue state that MUST be nurtured so it does not fall apart lest any last vestiges of organisation in this part of the world vanish, third - as the merchant of terror playing a hapless victim of it itself and fourth, in the context of South Asia - as the right ally to India's traditional adversary China; following the old maxim of an enemy's enemy being a friend. India has miserably failed to place itself in the position of a good neighbour and influencer. Even Nepal and Bangladesh, India's old military proctorate of the yore and the child of India's toil to help it be born respectively are bitter critics of India and are ever willing to allow anti-Indian activities on their soils. I feel that they are certainly much closer to China than to India.
I think it calls for serious introspection on the part of Indian leadership. Why is it that we always fail to convince others? Are we not seen as sincere by the world? Could it be that our policy interlocuters are unable to call a spade a spade for the sake of political correctness or crass vote bank politics at home? Are we sermonising others to the point of causing an affront? Are we inept in stating our point and inarticulate in convincing the world of our problems? Are we trying to impress the world with our philosophical, large hearted world view instead of beeing seen as winners, driving hard bargains even if they are self-centered? Or, is it all of it?
By what authority can we call Pakistan a failed state when huge tracts of our territory are under the control of Naxals and assorted non-government forces? All the big threats of direct action made by Chidambaram some months ago are still just that - empty threats. We are the proverbial soft state where the killer of Inspector Sharma of Batla House episode admits to have shot him, may be with even a bit of pride, but Digvijay Singh sees every investigation as atrocity on a particular community. Does India have a chance?
Hafiz saeed was shouting hoarse on the streets of Lahore two weeks back exhorting people to invade India and to fight for their 'Brethren' on this side. The question is how come not a single Muslim opinion builder (barring the exceptions like M.J. Akbar and Arif Mohammad Khan) never tells these people that Indian Muslims are not their brethren but enemies if they as much as think of harming India, far from invade it? Why are the likes of Javed Akhtar, Shabana Azmi, Dilip Kumar, Shah Rukh Khan, Nawab of Pataudi and his son, Mohd. Azam Khan and Mahesh Bhatt sitting in mysterious silence while many of them shout at the top of their voices when Pakistani players are not bought in an auction (SRK should have bought but didn't) or Maqbool Fida has to go in self-exile. Why don't the Indian Muslim leaders tell pakistan that it would be punished for casting an evil eye on India? I know why. When the late Firoze Khan spoke for India in Pakistan and risked his life and limb, people like them and their cronies like Rajeev Shukla and Mahesh Bhatt were trying to fault Firoze Khan, or busy distancing themselves from the episode. So a devoted Indian Muslim may be afraid of his Hindu counterparts - citizens like these and Digvijay and a plethora of others.
Time to think for all Indians. Let all of us unite against the enemy. If religion were the reason for this kind of dangerous political correctness, let me remind the pseudos that if it were so the Middle East would be one country.
India is being seen as a major emerging market and the interest of the west is very much focused on the possible economic success of this behemoth. The big IF in 'If India becomes economically powerful' is the problem. We notice that India has failed to sell itself to the west as a strong ally and the military interests of the US continue to weigh heavily in favour of Pakistan. India's economic growth has not yet reached the magic triple point where the interests of the west, India and world peace might converge.
China is far more successful than India on the three fronts; economic, military and world standing. There are no moralities in international politics, only self centered moves. China far outweighs India. Actually even Pakistan is far more successful in selling itself to the world community; first - in the old times as a great miltary ally and base for the US/ Allieds against the Iron and Bamboo curtain nations, second - as the rogue state that MUST be nurtured so it does not fall apart lest any last vestiges of organisation in this part of the world vanish, third - as the merchant of terror playing a hapless victim of it itself and fourth, in the context of South Asia - as the right ally to India's traditional adversary China; following the old maxim of an enemy's enemy being a friend. India has miserably failed to place itself in the position of a good neighbour and influencer. Even Nepal and Bangladesh, India's old military proctorate of the yore and the child of India's toil to help it be born respectively are bitter critics of India and are ever willing to allow anti-Indian activities on their soils. I feel that they are certainly much closer to China than to India.
I think it calls for serious introspection on the part of Indian leadership. Why is it that we always fail to convince others? Are we not seen as sincere by the world? Could it be that our policy interlocuters are unable to call a spade a spade for the sake of political correctness or crass vote bank politics at home? Are we sermonising others to the point of causing an affront? Are we inept in stating our point and inarticulate in convincing the world of our problems? Are we trying to impress the world with our philosophical, large hearted world view instead of beeing seen as winners, driving hard bargains even if they are self-centered? Or, is it all of it?
By what authority can we call Pakistan a failed state when huge tracts of our territory are under the control of Naxals and assorted non-government forces? All the big threats of direct action made by Chidambaram some months ago are still just that - empty threats. We are the proverbial soft state where the killer of Inspector Sharma of Batla House episode admits to have shot him, may be with even a bit of pride, but Digvijay Singh sees every investigation as atrocity on a particular community. Does India have a chance?
Hafiz saeed was shouting hoarse on the streets of Lahore two weeks back exhorting people to invade India and to fight for their 'Brethren' on this side. The question is how come not a single Muslim opinion builder (barring the exceptions like M.J. Akbar and Arif Mohammad Khan) never tells these people that Indian Muslims are not their brethren but enemies if they as much as think of harming India, far from invade it? Why are the likes of Javed Akhtar, Shabana Azmi, Dilip Kumar, Shah Rukh Khan, Nawab of Pataudi and his son, Mohd. Azam Khan and Mahesh Bhatt sitting in mysterious silence while many of them shout at the top of their voices when Pakistani players are not bought in an auction (SRK should have bought but didn't) or Maqbool Fida has to go in self-exile. Why don't the Indian Muslim leaders tell pakistan that it would be punished for casting an evil eye on India? I know why. When the late Firoze Khan spoke for India in Pakistan and risked his life and limb, people like them and their cronies like Rajeev Shukla and Mahesh Bhatt were trying to fault Firoze Khan, or busy distancing themselves from the episode. So a devoted Indian Muslim may be afraid of his Hindu counterparts - citizens like these and Digvijay and a plethora of others.
Time to think for all Indians. Let all of us unite against the enemy. If religion were the reason for this kind of dangerous political correctness, let me remind the pseudos that if it were so the Middle East would be one country.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
What Revenge?
The Times of India carried an article by Yamini Lohia expressing unrestrained glee over the Youth Congress smearing Sri Ram Sene head Pramod Muthalik's face in Managalore and going on to say that she would wish she could personally perpetrate this act of violence.
Violence is not only in causing physical hurt. It can be at many levels. Even silence can be a kind of violence. Another issue of TOI carried a story that a High Court held that in a marriage silence could tantamount to cruelty. Ms. Lohia feels that there is a justification for violence by groups with whose ideology she agrees and calls it sweet revenge. There is an unending discussion on the moral policing in the country but the advocates of freedom are always mysteriously silent when there is a fatwa in Kashmir for headscarves or for wearing Burqas. There is no discussion if Katrina Kaif is disallowed entry to a Dargah for being in an inappropriate dress. There is repeated discussion on the practices in Hindu temples including Sabrimala and Puri but nobody dares to speak about the practices and methods of their enforcement in other religions, the way they are practised in India. Is it not a bit strange?
There is no discussion if women are not allowed in certain places of worship belonging to other religions but there is much hue and cry on Sabrimala. Mahesh Bhatt and people of his ilk shout hoarse when somebody vandalises Hussains grotto in Ahmedabad in the name of freedom of art but they have nothing to say about the fatwas routinely issued on the lives of Salman Rushdie or the Danish painter, Taslima Nasreen and others. Is there something amiss? Is there a secret fear amongst the pseudo secularists that there antics won't work with Muslims but they have tested Hindus again and again and they know that in that case they can get away with whatever they like.
Let us look dispassionately at other things. The English speaking media people, editorial contributors, people like Jug Suraiya, Mahesh Bhatt and sundry cranks flaunt Hindu bashing like a medal. But they never fail to swear by Indian culture. I wonder if that is a kind of metaphor for Hindu culture. If Hindu culture is not about modesty (if with much less restrictions than in Islam), if it is not about vegetarianism, if it is not about Vedic religions and their offshoots and sub-cultures, if it is not about a certain code of conduct and set of boundaries in public and private behaviours (Maryadas), what is it about? And if these guardians of secularism and freedom are so worried about saying 'OM' or 'Jai Ram ji' in private being saffron, not withstanding the loudspeakers on mosques broadcasting Azaan, how come they don't realise the hurt the 'Indian Culture' is causing to minorities and to Indian Muslims in particular by singing Ganesh Vandanas, lighting lamps, chanting 'Tam so ma Jyotirgamaya', garlanding and vermilion marking foreheads of visitors and taking their Aratis and all the ceremonies that surround almost any and all Indian functions, most of them functions of a secular government, and the singing of Vande Mataram. Why have they not tried to stop it all? Is it fair? Before the British came Hindus were not ruling this land mass. I have the feeling that a lot of Muslims and especially those associated with Jamiat and other similar organisations, and those that chose to leave India at partition strongly felt betrayed by the British, as in their opinion the British took the rule from them and handed it over to Hindus. They are unable of course, to differentiate between a democracy and a theocracy of Hindus. But on a very real plane, they may not be that wrong, at least as far as the rule having been snatched away from them and handed over to whoever else. From their perspective there is also the downside that if we look at the number of years it took to convert a large part of Hindu population to other religions was not much - just four centuries or so. And the current rate of conversion is also quite high. If the British were not in India, arguably Hindus would have been a small minority in India by the middle of 20th century when the British left, as they became in Kashmir and probably in Kerala, Ladakh region and possibly some north eastern states.
Hindus have bragged about their tolerance for centuries now. I wonder if it is the smokescreen to hide their cowardice. M.J. Akbar is to my mind the most rational and straight thinking political thinker and commentator and he famously lionised Hindu tolerance for peaceful life of Muslims and small minorities in India in a debate I happened to watch on television. It was very charitable of him but I suspect it is probably not true. Hindus were defeated again and again by foreign conquerors and the vanquished may or may not be tolerant - it does not matter.
Violence is not only in causing physical hurt. It can be at many levels. Even silence can be a kind of violence. Another issue of TOI carried a story that a High Court held that in a marriage silence could tantamount to cruelty. Ms. Lohia feels that there is a justification for violence by groups with whose ideology she agrees and calls it sweet revenge. There is an unending discussion on the moral policing in the country but the advocates of freedom are always mysteriously silent when there is a fatwa in Kashmir for headscarves or for wearing Burqas. There is no discussion if Katrina Kaif is disallowed entry to a Dargah for being in an inappropriate dress. There is repeated discussion on the practices in Hindu temples including Sabrimala and Puri but nobody dares to speak about the practices and methods of their enforcement in other religions, the way they are practised in India. Is it not a bit strange?
There is no discussion if women are not allowed in certain places of worship belonging to other religions but there is much hue and cry on Sabrimala. Mahesh Bhatt and people of his ilk shout hoarse when somebody vandalises Hussains grotto in Ahmedabad in the name of freedom of art but they have nothing to say about the fatwas routinely issued on the lives of Salman Rushdie or the Danish painter, Taslima Nasreen and others. Is there something amiss? Is there a secret fear amongst the pseudo secularists that there antics won't work with Muslims but they have tested Hindus again and again and they know that in that case they can get away with whatever they like.
Let us look dispassionately at other things. The English speaking media people, editorial contributors, people like Jug Suraiya, Mahesh Bhatt and sundry cranks flaunt Hindu bashing like a medal. But they never fail to swear by Indian culture. I wonder if that is a kind of metaphor for Hindu culture. If Hindu culture is not about modesty (if with much less restrictions than in Islam), if it is not about vegetarianism, if it is not about Vedic religions and their offshoots and sub-cultures, if it is not about a certain code of conduct and set of boundaries in public and private behaviours (Maryadas), what is it about? And if these guardians of secularism and freedom are so worried about saying 'OM' or 'Jai Ram ji' in private being saffron, not withstanding the loudspeakers on mosques broadcasting Azaan, how come they don't realise the hurt the 'Indian Culture' is causing to minorities and to Indian Muslims in particular by singing Ganesh Vandanas, lighting lamps, chanting 'Tam so ma Jyotirgamaya', garlanding and vermilion marking foreheads of visitors and taking their Aratis and all the ceremonies that surround almost any and all Indian functions, most of them functions of a secular government, and the singing of Vande Mataram. Why have they not tried to stop it all? Is it fair? Before the British came Hindus were not ruling this land mass. I have the feeling that a lot of Muslims and especially those associated with Jamiat and other similar organisations, and those that chose to leave India at partition strongly felt betrayed by the British, as in their opinion the British took the rule from them and handed it over to Hindus. They are unable of course, to differentiate between a democracy and a theocracy of Hindus. But on a very real plane, they may not be that wrong, at least as far as the rule having been snatched away from them and handed over to whoever else. From their perspective there is also the downside that if we look at the number of years it took to convert a large part of Hindu population to other religions was not much - just four centuries or so. And the current rate of conversion is also quite high. If the British were not in India, arguably Hindus would have been a small minority in India by the middle of 20th century when the British left, as they became in Kashmir and probably in Kerala, Ladakh region and possibly some north eastern states.
Hindus have bragged about their tolerance for centuries now. I wonder if it is the smokescreen to hide their cowardice. M.J. Akbar is to my mind the most rational and straight thinking political thinker and commentator and he famously lionised Hindu tolerance for peaceful life of Muslims and small minorities in India in a debate I happened to watch on television. It was very charitable of him but I suspect it is probably not true. Hindus were defeated again and again by foreign conquerors and the vanquished may or may not be tolerant - it does not matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
