The Last Man Standing – Justice Markandey Katju

The Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech – a right mostly abused by politicians who are better served a dose of silence and online trolls who somehow don’t understand the difference between freedom and abuse of freedom. Be that as it may, what’s shocking is the same trolls attacking someone for having an opinion – probably unpalatable to some, probably absurd to some, probably offending a few but damn right needs to be said. How is the same freedom of speech which is used as a cloak of defense to justify online abuse not granted to someone because his opinions are “inconvenient”? The first amendment of the United States Constitution – grants rights to hold an opinion and there is not a reason that we have to be unanimous in our opinions but there is a reason that we have to make sure alternate opinions is heard. What is the true of the US is also true of India. This post is about why so many people want to shout down the PCI chair and very distinguished Justice of the Supreme Court – Justice Markandey Katju because they rather have someone mute, man the chair.

India has never seen so many changes all at once as it has seen in the past decade. Call it the telecom revolution or long oppression of the voiceless masses or whatever that seems a good explanation to this new zest to be heard. Everyone wants to be heard and uses innovative as well as provocative ways and means to be heard. This has changed a lot in the way we function as a system and the sudden information overload or information revolution or RTI has caused violent outbursts on the internet by people who seem to probably make different meanings of same set information. Obviously, this causes a lot of clash of opinions and it soon degenerates into petty name calling and outright hounding of minority opinions. That’s a reason why I blog, because these are my ideas and I don’t need validation from anyone. Coming back to the topic at hand; during the good old days, the Government was the disseminator of all information and it was their job to make things sound palatable to general public. The politician was the only voice and the entire machinery of Government (including Judiciary) was silent. The only way the system propagated opinions was by file noting and judgments. These were again vetted by the Government owned broadcasters and disseminated in palatable manner to general public. The system was self-healing and self-preserving because there was no alternative voice of dissent. It was expected the people manning the Government machinery (minus the politicians) are silent minions whose voice is the voice of the politician heading the Government. Their deliberations were behind closed doors and one had to wait for an ex-officio Police Chief or Judge or bureaucrat to come out with his biography to know startling facts about various ways the system is subverted by politicians.

The RTI has meant that now every voice comes out into public domain. File noting is openly discussed and judicial verdicts are openly discussed. This coupled with a 24x7 media, hungry for “breaking news” brews a dangerous cocktail, where many a time news is manufactured to feed this hungry monster of news seeking public. All of sudden the cracks in the well-oiled system start to show up. We now know which official objected to which politician in what case and which judge made what adverse remark against which Government official in which case. Once again, the media takes these innocuous remarks and builds a story – many times backed by facts – but often times backed by blowing hot air. Point being, every anchor on every media channel wants to make his opinion on the story rather than report the facts. This was unethical in good old days of print journalism. News was meant to report facts of matter and not propagate personal opinions – except the editorials- which were also balanced in their critique. So does this mean, what our media is doing is unethical and we should muzzle them? NO.  We have people working with the Government – Chief of Army Staff, Chief of Navy, Chief of Air force, Chief Justice of India, Chief Vigilance Commissioner, CBI chief, C&AG and the CEC address the media or organize press conference to voice their opinions on events that are currently under their consideration or matters of public importance. In the good old days, this was considered as exceeding the brief, but now we have learnt to expect voicing of different opinions within the Government machinery as a sign of good times. We now feel that the democracy that our founding fathers perceived will finally exist in letter and spirit in the times to come.

The other aspect of this is what we have come to understand as media trolling (online and other wise). All this openness has made attacks on opinions more prominent and vicious which degenerate to name calling and questioning personal credentials. It is one thing when politicians do it for marginal and short term benefits, it’s disgusting for the rest of us to follow suit.  This brings back the question to where we began, when we have accepted so many changes in such a short period of time, why not accept one minor thing – like I have an opinion there must be someone who has a contrary opinion and it isn’t my job to make that person change the opinion by shouting down the person with help from other like-minded people. Media houses do this on a regular basis; internet users do it even more. The case study being Justice Katju, the chair of Press Council of India. Justice Katju was never known for meek insignificant statements. While he served as Justice in the Supreme Court or Chief Justice to Madras or Allahabad High court, he always made news for his stern remarks as well as his knowledge of literature which became an integral part of most of the judgments passed by him. I have always known him for calling a spade a spade. Many a times, he does sound like an overbearing parent scolding an insolent child, but you could never call him partisan or question his integrity. When he was appointed the Chair to PCI, I must say it shocked me. How a person who never minced words could be again appointed by the same Government to whom he must have felt like a thorn in the flesh.

The moment he took up the task of making media accountable and forcefully so, the outrage against him started pouring out. The various editors started foul mouthing his impeccable credentials –while they themselves had a shady past. People began questioning why he was selected to Chair the PCI and started making innuendos that he was the man hired by Government to cut the media to size. There were several voices of restrain too – N. Ram (The Hindu) and Kumar Ketkar (Dainik Bharat) who advised the editors guild to look dispassionately at the points raised by Justice Katju rather than merely trying to shout him down. Reason and responsibility was never known to media who by then had become this behemoth who could devour people’s reputations at blink of an eyelid. Then several such instances came up which showed the dark underbelly of the media – paid news, made up stories, seeking ransom to cover-up etc. which  justified the initial concerns raised by Justice Katju. Meanwhile, Justice Katju took up cases where many State Governments used to control media in their state by controlling the Government advertisement funds. This deep nexus was uncovered – where media was forced to give glorious coverage to Government and ignore its devious details for want of the funds, which was majorly provided by Government. He made forceful arguments against such corrupt practices employed and called for dismissal of Governments which seek to control media. As a result, he stood out like a nail in the eyes of politicians – a nail that has to be hammered but they all awaited a false move.

Justice Katju also wrote columns from time to time in various newspapers. Opinions which one may agree or disagree – like the case of 90% Indians being fools or idiots. I did not agree with this column but I respected the opinion because it takes either a brave man or a fool to criticize 90% population of our country. To me Justice Katju was never a foolish person, he said things in a forceful manner –that being his mannerisms or idiosyncrasy and left it to us if we want to accept it or reject it. Another thing I always liked was his standard line – “this is my opinion. I would request you to come up with arguments to change my opinion” – true democratic style of functioning. Wonder how many politicians can claim being so democratic in approach. He also wrote a critical piece about late Bal Thackrey when most of us were still posting obituaries and most recently his post on the development model of Narendra Modi. In each case, he has the courage of going against the flow of wind – not just for foolish bravado but backing it up with solid points that cannot be brushed aside. You can love Justice Katju or hate him, but you simply cannot brush him off by calling him names or questioning his credibility. I have special mention to politicians – who while still holding constitutional posts themselves, regularly write columns – mostly propagating their own political causes, standing up to say Justice Katju should not have a voice because he holds a quasi-judicial post, just because his opinions have become politically inconvenient to them. What hurts more is rest of us following suit in condemning a man who for all I know should be preserved – because they don’t make the likes of him anymore!

So long...

Not my country – experience of being a minority or a woman in India

 

In many ways, 65 years of Independence and thousands of years’ worth civilization has failed to teach India and more importantly Indians, a few things about good human behavior. Firstly, the words – “India is my country, all Indians are my brothers and sisters……” does not ring a bell with most of us. I am not sure; if this happens in other societies and I am aiming for utopia here, but I am aware that what happens in India is wrong both on ethical as well as legal level.  The identity “INDIAN” remains a detail held only on the passport. Outside the passport, we have so many identities that our identity as Indian - the basis of which the founding fathers gave us our rights and obligations remains vague to most of us. Twice every year – on August 15^th and January 26^th – we wish ourselves Happy Independence day and Happy Republic Day as Indians and then go back to our other identities for the rest of the days.

This is not an easy topic to address, it seems like I am preaching - like holier than thou – but I am aware of so many instances where I must have behaved exactly like the rest of us – whom I am targeting here. We in India do these things routinely, so much so that it becomes part of our culture and even when someone points it out, we refuse to reconsider our approach towards fellow citizen. In most cases, we have a standard reply “It has been like this for as far as I know, so stop lecturing me”. On a TV discussion, during the famous India Against Corruption (IAC) hunger strike for a tough anti-corruption legislation in August 2011, one member casually suggested – “Do you feel, IAC would have had same traction on minds of Indians if a Muslim drove it?” He was soon shouted down by ubiquitous IAC volunteers on TV as well as other “armchair” advisors who felt this individual was Government operative who wanted to give a religious shade to the movement. Initially, I laughed at this comment. Later, I was thinking and asking myself – when was the last time a minority ran a successful movement in India? Did we ever hear about a Christian / Muslim / Sikh / Parsi leader running an anti-corruption drive or leading a movement against religious bias or movement against terrorism or any political movement for causes big or small? Think really hard. Probably rack your brains… you will find there are none. It is shocking isn’t it? In a country of 1.2 billion, with minority population of 25 – 30%, we don’t have one major movement run by a religious minority leader.  I am sure most of us would not even notice that in cases of religious violence too, it’s mostly the Hindus who champion the cause of minorities to lend credibility to the movement for religious equivalence. This is so prevalent in our society that many justify it saying- So what?  after all Hindus make for 70% of the population. So let me ask my friends a few questions today, would Jayprakash Narayan cause the same impact on India if he were a Muslim? Would Anna Hazare cause same amount of support if he were a Christian or would the Mandal politics be as effective if it was run by a Sikh? I am sure, people will say a lot of minorities took part in these events and it would be unfair to say it was run by Hindus only. I know that, I am simply commenting on the people who led these movements and why these movements got traction.

We Indians are notorious for our caste and religion divide. So much so, that it becomes very easy for any Government to kill mass movements. The simplest thing is to point out blatantly that the person leading the movement happens to be from a minority community and wants to run down the image of India at a world stage. The movement dies so fast, that we would feel it never existed. Isn’t it strange that even as we keep saying that as Indians we are all equal in front of our constitution, we have often heard people say “If he has so much problem with India, tell him go to Pakistan”; “If they think India is so bad, they are free to leave”; “We don’t want outsiders to tell us what we should do”. This monopoly of ability to criticize my country that rests with the Hindus does not rest with others. A Muslim reformer is reminded of Pakistan and a Christian of Europe or US and Sikh of Khalistani movement to shut them from uttering anything against India – even obviously wrong things. Why is it that after 65 years of Independence, the minorities have right to live in India, right to move in India, right to vote in India, right to fight and die for India but no rights to criticize and improve India? Why are valid and thoughtful inputs provided by religious minority groups lost in the storm of religious jingoism caused by the majority group politicians?  It is very sad, despite our shared past and equal stake in bright future, a chunk of Indians are not able to voice their opinions freely – at least not as freely as the rest of us.

If being a minority in India seems bad, imagine being a woman in India.  Since before her birth, a girl child starts feeling being unwanted in this world. Infanticide of female fetuses must be unique to India; at least I am not aware of any other country where we selectively kill the female fetus from preventing birth. Though it seemed a rural phenomenon at first, this misogyny is not limited to rural India. We have seen huge number of urban middleclass couples travelling to secluded towns and rural areas to get female fetuses aborted – even at advanced stage of pregnancy. Then there are cases of midwives killing the female child by drowning them in milk so that the next pregnancy results in a male child. In cases where the female child escapes these acts, her interests are always sacrificed for the male child of the family. Be it her nutritional needs or her educational needs to even medical needs, a girl child in India (mostly rural India) learns very early that she has to sacrifice for the man’s needs. Very early she is taught that a woman cannot survive alone, she needs a support of a man throughout her life – father while growing up, husband in her youth and son in her old age. While there may be a sentimental value attached to this teaching, systematic brainwash of a girl from a very young age makes sure that she never learns to stand up for her rights. At all stages a woman learns to compromise with what she has and never yearns for better life. This romanticization of a woman’s ability to sacrifice was depicted in the movies of 19^th century and it glorified a woman for the sacrifices she makes. What followed was the collective psyche of the India accepting the fact that a woman is meant to sacrifice for interests of male family members – consequently, the woman who doesn’t, invariably gets depicted as a selfish bitch or a ‘vamp’. There was nothing like a female sexuality, there was only satisfaction of male sexuality and that remained the extent of female sexuality. The movies depicted this in a worse manner. This statement made by a script writer tells the story – “The only way a woman could have sex outside wedlock was via sexual assault. Hence, the 19^th century movies mostly had a sexual assault scene – where a virtuous girl was forced into sexual ways. The other was a vamp who seduced the male lead. There was no space for a virtuous girl to experiment with her sexuality. Once the 20^th century dawned, and the scripts began having bold ladies experimenting with their bodies, the assault scenes and vamps vanished”. So very systematically over a period of last 100 years, we have pushed women in background as “service providers” to men, incapable of having desires or personal goals. This was done earlier by brainwash and later by invoking ‘culture ‘and most recently by threats. Even to this day, a woman who lives life on her terms is targeted for being against our ‘culture’ and in many cases sexually assaulted to show her – who is the boss.

A Chinese proverb describes culture as “setting up a bunch of rules and following them strictly for a long period of time”. If we over a period of last 100 years drew up a culture of religious hatred and bigotry and misogyny, could we not start now to make new set of rules – rules which mandate people to respect religious beliefs of others as one would respect one’s own. Rules to respect diversity as part of being Indian, rules to understand and appreciate that we may have different backgrounds but we have a shared future, rules that women not only mean a half of our population- they are the better half. If a country known for violent wars could make a culture of non-violence to seek freedom, nothing is impossible for INDIANS.  Let’s pledge to build a better culture for our future generations to follow, let us not seek ways to divide us but build a culture to unite us.

So long…

Spirituality – Religion in 21st Century India gets more complex

My first brush with religion was as a boy of 5 (as far back as I remember). My mother would sit me down with my sister every evening at about 7pm and ‘make us’ pray to Lord Ganesha – the first among God’s – the ‘Vighnaharata’ – the destroyer of all obstructions. I never much understood what I was saying or whom I was praying to, except I believed that my mother knew it and so it must have been right. This ritual went on for about another 7 years. The only time of the day when my sister and I would prostate before the almighty and mime words in Sanskrit and pay our obseience to our maker would be the 7pm evening prayers. I give credit to my parents for never trying to force religion on me. I always assumed it was their background as medical professionals that made them have healthy reverence on the almighty but never too clingy and over dependent. I must have been about 12 years old when religion hit me hard. On one of my visits to Bombay (Oh! How much I loved those yearly visits), I happened to notice that my cousins – who were much younger than I was, had memorized Sanskrit hymns for every occasion. There was a morning prayer; there was prayer before meals, an hour long evening prayer and a prayer at bedtime as well.  To add to that my cousins were followers of Sathya Sai Baba and attended classes to learn more Sanskrit prayers. I felt an inferiority complex for the first time in my life. I felt I was the atheist of the family who many times gave a miss to the 7pm evening prayer (my 5 minutes with God) and here were my cousins, much younger than I who spent so much time just praying. Once or twice, I even heard few relatives commenting that we (my sister and I) were not brought up well and religious culture was not imbibed in us. I did feel I was missing out on something. It was the cult feeling – everyone in the family was overtly religious except for me.

I do remember asking my mother, why we have to say the same prayer every day while my cousins know so many hymns and ‘shloka’ in Sanskrit. To which her reply was simple – Ganesha was the provider of knowledge and students my age should seek knowledge. “If you pray to him daily, you will, through him, learn about other Gods” – still remember her short reply. Needless to say, I spent most of my childhood either playing games or studying math – my mother loved math and had always aced it – I was performing not too bad, but excellent was my benchmark. As far as I remember, my sister and I were the only 2 kids in the family whose benchmark was always higher in terms of behavior and academia. It was like my parents were making up for the lack of religious enthusiasm with acute detailing of acceptable behavior and academic levels. I must give the credit where it is due, if I am of some standing today, morally or academically, the credit goes to relentless pursuit of perfection on basis of ‘active pursuit’ by both my parents. Needless to say, very early in my life, my subconscious was developed for ethical behavior than ornate display of religious devotion.

I must be biased in my views, but religion has always been personal to me. It was so, because it was fiercely personal to my parents too. I remember not having remembered what religion or caste most of my school friends belonged to. In fact, it was news to me in 8^th grade, when one of my teachers told the class that one can guess a person’s religion by knowing the name. I remember discussing the topic with my grandmother, who then gave me a detail picture of how divided we are within Hinduism – caste and sub-caste wise; and at a higher level on basis of religion. I must say, it was the day I lost my innocence. I started to read into people’s names to find a trace of the religion they belonged to. I mean – innocently- it was a new science to me and I wanted to make sure I perfected it. I don’t blame my parents or even grandparents for any caste bias they had in mind. They were after all from a different generation and these identities mattered a lot to them. I remember my father’s shocked face when I told him “I don’t like you treating Muslim patients to working in Muslim area”. Yeah, ghettoization began long before I arrived in this world, apparently. I had always known my father in two shades – smiling and happy when I was good and unforgiving when I did something bad- that day I saw a third shade- of disappointment. He sat me down and calmly explained to me how religion was irrelevant factor for a doctor to treat his patients. He went on explaining at great lengths of how we are born equal – irrespective of caste or religion and we all seek to pray to the same God whom we refer to in different forms. I must say, to this day, I try and follow those words in letter and spirit but I never really knew what they meant then. Soon we got more involved into academia and pressures of higher studies took precedence over all other issues – religion included. For the next 6- 7 years religion was wiped out of my memory… until 2002 riots came long.

I remember as if it was yesterday, I was arguing with a bunch of classmates on what happened in Gujarat. It was an emotive issue and the whole of India was divided into “pseudo-secular” and “hindutva” ideologies. I was called ‘pseudo’ secular because I believed that one must not harm others at all cost. Enforcing law and order is duty of state and not for individuals to arrogate it onto oneself. I must say the scars of what happened in Gujarat left indelible mark on my conscience because it challenged each and every doctrine of life – as I had learned from my parents. Apparently, religion had become an ornament one must ostentatiously wear and show off at every possible occasion. I could not accept universal acceptance to this new doctrine. While we were debating religion, lot many channels started mushrooming (television boom) who gave religious sermons. India was never as openly Hindu and so unabashedly too. Every channel, worth its salt had a “baba” who would preach you Hindu way of life. Not to be left far behind – Muslims had one channel, Christians had foreign English channels and Sikhs had Punjabi religious channel. In short, religion had become such a important part of everyone’s life. Everyone I knew was following some “baba” or “fakir” or “pastor” and I was left behind the learning curve with only values on humanity with no grasp of religion. I remember being outcast in many a discussion – “Which baba is God?” I had enough people telling me – this topic is not for you, you are an atheist. I was not. I would be proud of being an atheist if I was one, but my subconscious was trained to “religion is personal” not to be discussed or debated. Apparently, we had become so involved in religion that we needed to see a living, physical form of divine and not just accept the existence of a divine spirit. Religion was the most – in your face thing. Everyone, who was anyone, came out with ridiculous proposition of how we Indians need to safeguard our “religious culture”. It goes without saying that many of these involved in what women could or could not do.

We saw a spate of violence against “immoral” pub going young women or couple canoodling on Valentine’s Day or women visiting holy shrines or women having a grip of their bodies or sexuality. As an adult myself, having met my fair share of women, I knew that women were as free spirited as I was and I had no right to demand something from another human being that I would not do myself. ‘Women’ was the rare unifying force for all the various religion and caste that exists in India. All the religious leaders or caste ‘panchayat’ or ‘Khap’ were unanimous in their decree of making women freedom subject to restraint from the male members of her family. At first, people privately disagreed or refused to follow the ‘dictat’ but once the spate of violence increased targeting young women on pretext of “protecting culture”. India – I mean liberal values within India stood up and fought these fringe elements that had made their way into mainstream tagging onto the coattails of religion. “Babas” faced a unnatural prospect of being question of what they considered was Gospel according to them. As days passed by, every now and then a baba was exposed for improper sexual conduct. The skeletons started falling out – from baba of ‘puttaparthy’ to ‘Nityanad’ to several other small timers were being exposed by the day. Many others got involved in politics and were caught off guard wielding clout. Rest of Babas, were plainly using ashrams for illegal trafficking. All of sudden, so much muck was being raised on the so called “holders of Indian culture” that these pseudo vigilante movements against women morality stopped abruptly and died an unnatural death. Volunteers of these fringe groups could not justify calling a woman immoral when his baba was caught sleeping with 3.

I was once told that Indians can let go of religion but religion shall never let go of India. Sure enough, the religion struck back this time targeting free speech, literature, arts cinema and whole host of things. Today, as we speak, there are fatwas or threats being issued against some painter or film maker or writer for “hurting religious sentiments”. This time the vengeance is even stronger because in some form, the state is protecting these fringe groups. Somewhere, it seems the constitution mentions that free speech or expression can be curtailed if it happens to hurt sensibilities of some fringe element – provided the fringe element threatens violence. I would really like to read this constitution that is strictly subscribed by these states and not seen by the rest of us (including the Supreme Court). How is it, that religion which should have been a part of individual identity – a personal part, becomes so larger than life that it infringes upon people’s right to expression through their art / literature / film?  How can a State, sworn to protect individual fundamental rights of citizen under the constitution, abdicate their duties to pander to fringe elements. Why is India the only country which has more exception than rules? We must try and answer these questions in the context of importance of religion is one’s life. If I can write an article disliking a tenet of the “Holy Quran”, should I be condemned to death for blasphemy? If I write a movie script depicting fundamentalist Hindus blowing up the ‘Taj Mahal’ do I mean disrespect to all Hindus? If my friend – who has a natural talent for music has to give up her singing because its “haram” in Islam but the same Mufti is silent about several people who kill in the name of Islam, should I not question that Mufti’s understanding of religion? If in any form of art, I offend my God, who by the way has no qualms about being depicted naked, should I be persecuted in my own country? Finally, is religion the only significant thing left on which we are ready to kill/ maim / hurt fellow Indians with whom we share this wonderful history of togetherness? I do hope someone is listening to my silent prayers and sooner than later we will again defeat these fringe elements and relegate them to the fringes. Nothing can be a good reason to harm a fellow human being – not even religion.

So long…

Pressing Issues – Have we a misplaced idea of secularism and all thereof...

 

I would firstly like to say, blogging is not the same fun anymore. Firstly, because, it’s so much fun tweeting – you have to agree putting across your point of view in 140 characters is a lot less taxing than building a blog post; however, it’s not as satisfying as posting a blog. I realized tweeting about this topic was fun but not satisfying, and hence the post. I have been meaning to write extensively about this and more of such things that I feel is wrong about us – because - God as witness, there are a lot of things we saw were wrong about us in the last couple of months. In this post, I would like to focus on misplaced beliefs of secularism.

Chattrapati Shivaji Raje Bhonsle (Shivaji) had a great description about secularism – it was basically treating the subjects on merits of their petition and not on the basis of their religious beliefs. It was the hallmark of the great ruler (who ruled people’s hearts as much as the lands he controlled). He prided himself as a ‘Maratha’ and not as much as a ‘Hindu’ emperor. To contextualize -   that was the national identity then, there was no entity as India –which came into being later - on August 15 1947. Shehanshah Jalaluddin Mohammad Akbar (Akbar) - the Mughal emperor who ruled Delhi in the 15^th century had the same concept about secularism and one might see a lot of similarities how these two supreme emperors ruled the realm – given the hostilities between the two Kingdoms. The point I was laboriously driving at was – a Government does not become popular by giving special status to a section of people – thereby making a distinction for a group from the rest; but by providing assistance to all irrespective of their backgrounds – keeping religion /caste / region out of the question. India, in 2013 and in the last decade or so is failing spectacularly at this – and how!

India celebrated the new millennium with the new economic liberalization and we had the entire world vouching that the 21^st century would the golden age for India. In 2013, I still feel this will be the millennium of India but that’s not why I am writing this – self-praise. No sooner, we were a couple of years into the new millennium; we had the horrific riots of Gujarat that scarred the conscience of a lot of us – young impressionable minds then. The generation before us had seen Delhi riots of 1984 – where the state conspired with rioters and let them run amok killing thousands of civilian in the process. We had even heard of the 1992 Babri Masjid demolition and the Bombay riots soon after or even the Bombay bomb blasts of March 13^th 1993; but we were too young to understand the full impact of these events. 2002 riots was a watershed event for most of us. Firstly, we had 24 hours news television coverage by then and the images travelling to us in the comforts of our living room (with all the graphic details) made an indelible mark on our collective conscience. Personally, the most severe impact that was made on my mind was one simple fact – the burning of train bogie was gruesome – I mean, imagine 60 people burned alive or suffocated to death in a train bogie locked from outside to ensure they did not escape. This detail was horrifying enough – someone was coldblooded to a point that they ensured that they all the 60 passengers died. The more horrifying fact was the Chief Minister and the state did not see the event as I did, 60 innocent civilian death that cried for  justice – they  went a step ahead and made news for declaring 60 ‘Hindu deaths’ by ‘Muslim mob’. This take by the CM and his men ensured riots for next 4 days at various locations – killing thousands of civilian (pregnant women and little children included). Riots, so strategically planned to inflict damage on ‘Muslims’ to avenge the earlier deaths of ‘Hindus’. Details of the gruesome massacre and rapes notwithstanding – I remember asking my father “Didn’t the Government in a secular country owe same responsibility towards Muslims as they do towards Hindus?” My problem was not the riots; it was the state allowing more civilian deaths to compensate for its mistake of not being able to protect one set of civilian deaths – distinction made on the religion. I admit I felt cheated by the idea of India – the one taught to me at school. A lot of people – my generation have not believed the “secular- state” bit again. 2002 riots ensured that everyone realized that, your protection by state is a qualified proposition – based on the religion you belong vis-a-vis the religion the state wants to pander to. I am forced to ask myself, are we secular like Shivaji or Akbar? Or do we like to call our self, secular?

I have seen all my fundamental rights; supposedly guaranteed by my constitution to me; as an individual born in and residing in India, being qualified. Nothing is certain anymore. My religion is the only important identification of me as an individual. Everything I do is governed by one factor – RELIGION. It was a time when social networking was booming word wide and India was not left far behind. Terrorist organizations were recruiting online by posting gruesome videos of riots and asking people to avenge hurt caused to their brethren – again qualified by religion. I would gloss over this online ‘garbage’ and mostly ignore the comments. Turns out, most people read them and did happen to bond over common misery. Soon we had successfully alienated ‘Muslims’ from the mainstream making them feel that they have to avenge for things done to them. No state will provide them justice for the fear of being caught ‘appeasing’ the minority community. The ghettoization of Muslims – like blacks in America had begun. So many places became no-go zones for Muslims and likewise for Hindus. Renting or purchasing of property had added qualification of religion and caste – apart from budget and distance from work place. India was shamelessly and openly becoming a ghettoized society with the state napping or willfully looking the other way. Then came, the theory of Muslim ghettos being breeding grounds for “terrorists”. We had online hate content urging Muslim youth to take up arms against “infidels” – meaning rest of Indians. These posts were usually made by  people outside India or maybe some crazy people in India (we do have a lot of hate mongers) – but they were usually accompanied with a spate of crude bomb blasts – in quick succession – at various locations in India. Seemed to everyone, that the online recruitment was working, “Muslims” were hitting back and killing the rest of us. What resulted was an absurd and stupid state reaction – since we had already ghettoized on religious lines, the administration went on arresting Muslim youth – again mostly believing that “Muslim ghetto is a breeding ground for terrorists”. Every Muslim had to defend his identity as “devout Indian” with no extra allegiance towards neighboring countries. That did not stop several of our ‘tall leaders’ from ridiculing them as Bangladeshis or Pakistanis. These arrests made the rest of us believe that terrorism was indeed equated to religion. The ghettos increased in size and expanded to most cities of India. It was recently discovered that these attacks were carried by fringe elements – mostly people who were Hindus  by faith, who wanted the ostracization of Muslims from the mainstream. With the cat out of the bag, the same ‘tall leaders’ are out saying – “Terrorism has no religion”. Well! Why did you not speak up when innocent Muslim youth were arrested and tortured for crimes they did not commit? Who will compensate for the trauma suffered by these citizens who like the rest of us had same right to freedom of religion and freedom of movement and freedom of speech? Why should any Muslim in India qualify his statements with a prominent ‘my allegiance is towards India’ while the rest of us- including the ones arrested for various bomb attacks have implied allegiance towards India? Why did the state administration not understand that they were discriminating citizen on basis of religion and this is violation of the Constitution that they swear to protect and defend? Why is the Supreme Court silent on this when it goes out of the way to beat the Government with any stick it can – many times exceeding its mandate? It makes me ask this again - Are we secular? Or do we like to be called secular? Me thinks, it’s the latter!

With examples of state being biased towards Muslims, let us not feel that the rest of us are spared. It’s just that Muslims are a minority in many states and they get picked on mostly. True fact being, India is a bully state that likes to pander to the majority citizen (based on religion, mind you) at the cost of the minority. We are yet to become secular. In each state the definition of minority changes and hence different sets of people are short changed in different states – whether it’s the Kashmiri Pundit in Jammu & Kashmir or Muslims in Assam or Bihari migrant in Maharashtra. All our leaders pride themselves in bullying the minority with some political organization like –Shiv Sena or MNS specialize in bullying tactics. Its simpler for politicians, they need majority votes to be elected to office.  My point is, India has enough politicians- she needs LEADERS. When we use the name of Gandhi or Bose or Shivaji, we forget the major point that these people were leaders because they had the people behind them. Political strength can be achieved by having universal backing not by alienating portion of the population because of your biased dealings. We seem to have forgotten all aspects of governance and simply move from elections to elections pandering to different sets of people in different states with no intent to uphold universal rights of citizen to all that is good. Hence we have novel concept as the “first right” over the resources, instead of universal right as Indians. Why should we feel united as Indians, when our “leaders” spend all efforts to divide us into pigeon holes? Why should a Muslim feel he is Indian when we don’t want to give him the rights other Indians enjoy? Why should a Kashmiri pundit feel he is Kashmiri when the Government fails to recognize his rights over his land? We as a country need to ask ourselves, Are we simply brewing a potion that will end up imploding India someday. Is the identity of being Indian left with any meaning today?

The Government is not only guilty of pandering to majority religion- the cynicism runs much deeper. There is regionalism too. Is this the mandate of an elected Government under the constitution of India? We have similar problem is Telangana agitation and Gorkhaland (North West Bengal). I feel bad for my country, with problems like mass depravation, abject poverty, healthcare, malnutrition and poor social indicators all around – Governments by and large try to deflect issues to regionalism and religion; we let them easily do it and jump onto the bad wagon. It takes a match to burn down a fire truck- as the adage goes, here we are sitting on heaps of dynamite (hurt feelings of citizen towards State) and yet we continue to light matches till it blows up on our face. If we are a nation – as we believe we are, the least we can do is lend our voice to our brother or sister who faces these problems and stand up for them. We are after all our brother’s keepers! I end here hoping to see a better India someday soon.

So long.....

Propriety? Come again...

The age of propriety is well and truly gone. Today, we are slowly and surely getting into the times of "anything goes" with scant respect towards propriety and fear of setting unhealthy precedents. In judicial language, whenever a prayer is made to the honorable court, the learned judge asks for precedents before granting the prayer. This means, whenever Supreme court or the High courts read a particular law, they are conscious of setting a precedent that will be quoted in the future while determining similar cases. The knowledge of which, makes them that much more careful about setting wrong precedents for others to follow. What is expected of judiciary should also hold for other organs of the constitution. However, the sad reality is that day after day, they are setting unhealthy precedents while trying to look for narrow short-term gains rather than thinking of what precedents they are setting for the future.



To begin, there was a time when the entire union cabinet and no just the Prime Minister had to be above board on public perception (like Cesar's wife). The levels of propriety were so high that the position of any union minister would become untenable the moment an allegation (of any form) was made on the concerned minister. People respected the institution of Prime Minister, President and the Chief Justice of India and people holding these positions were revered for their upright behaviour and clean public perception. There was never a loose canon mouthed opposition leader who would demand the resignation of no less than a Prime Minister for a lapse on the part of a police constable, let alone a District magistrate. In those days, personal integrity was so high that a resignation was tendered the moment it was demanded stating personal propriety and the Government was truly the holder of "societal trust". People in high offices were always mindful of setting wrong precedents and took the option of demitting office rather than sticking on to chair of power. Those were the days when the union cabinet truly enjoyed confidence of the House of People.



Then came the era of might is right. During the late 60s and early 70s, the number of people supporting you became an indicator of whether you had the right to govern. It was a turbulent time which saw 3 major wars and one cannot be sure if it was constant war scenario or simply belligerence on part of the union cabinet, but this period saw maximum number of state governments being dismissed by the union government. Every time there was a disagreement between the state government and the federal government, the state government was not mollified, it was dismissed on flimsy grounds because the federal government had the might to do so. The persons occupying high offices in those times were either fearful of federalism making India weak during times of constant wars or wanted a unitary power centre at New Delhi with states merely carrying out orders. The persons occupying high offices were unmindful of the fact that by constantly dismissing lawfully elected governments at the state, they were setting wrong precedents of being "disrespectful to people's wishes" and following the adage "might is right". Consequently, Indian polity began to move to multiparty polity with each state mushrooming a political outfit to take on the might of the centre and carve a space for itself. Over the years, it has been successfully proved that this lack of judgement by the leaders of 60s and 70s have pushed India into co-olation era with federal government so weak that for every small decision it has to look for support from regional parties.



The high office of the President and the Governors were basically created in the constitution to have uniformity in the definition of the "Head of the state" both at the centre as well as the states. It was deemed fit that people occupying these high offices would not be of any political color and would rather be eminent people from the society executing the office within the framework of the constitution and making sure that the executive respects the boundaries of constitution and works within these boundaries. It was impossible according to the constitution for a executive to exist in absence of the "pleasure" of the head of the state and hence the constitution never went into details about what if there is a confrontation between the two. People occupying these offices should have respected that spirit and should have worked accordingly. However, the office of President and Governor became a post retirement benefit for aging politicians and this set unhealthy precedents of constant confrontation between the executive and the head of the state. So much so, the Supreme court had to intervene and lay down the law by validating the stand that the head of state had to execute his office on the advice of the cabinet and not in absence of advice. This judgement set right a wrong precedence of might is right set in the 60s and 70s by the federal government and distributed the powers equitably. Even today, due to lack of propriety, we have constantly have executives attacking the head of state with absolute impunity stating the mandate of people. No one is mindful of constitutional propriety and spirit with which they much execute their office. Its a recipe for disaster as there will come a time that state's rights will take precedence over the rights of the union and bring the existence of "union of states" under question.



The judiciary is the upholder of justice in a democratic setup and the only enforcer of the constitution both in letter and in spirit in cases where the executive or the legislature crosses the line of propriety. However, in the past few years and more, successive Chief Justices of the Supreme Court have been caught with their hand in the cookie-jar. There have been far too many cases where justice has been denied to complainants because we have the wrong set of people occupying the chair of a judge. There was a time when some states were infamous for getting a judgement "fixed" in the personal chambers of a sitting judge rather than in the courtroom. There was a shield of invincibility protecting the judges and anyone who questioned them were hauled up for "contempt of court". Gladly, despite all the corruption in the lower courts, some very good and honest judges have occupied the high chairs in the high courts and Supreme court keeping the hopes of getting justice alive for the rest of us. Still, I would appreciate the learned judges more if they had spent more time setting their own houses right before going in for "judicial over-reach". There has hardly been a time in the last 10 years or so, that the high court or supreme court asked a complainant to petition the executive or the legislature as certain activities fall within the purview of these arms of the constitution. Instead, these courts have gone about issuing writs left, right and centre against other arms of the constitution and by doing so have got the people believe that the courts run this nation. I would not go as far as to question the motive, because in all cases the motive has been to provide relief to the complainant; however, the learned judges should have shown some imagination and put moral pressure on the executive and legislature to take corrective steps rather than step in and issue writs. Today, everybody is of the opinion that if you cannot win an election fairly, you can keep petitioning the courts and get writs passed against the executive and bleed them with a thousand cuts. The courts are unknowingly falling in to this political trap and setting wrong precedence for future. Refer to the case where John Kerry did not file a suit against President Bush for election malpractice, even though it was common knowledge that the President's campaigners had preempted the election results of Florida to declare victory for President Bush. To avoid all future elections being challenged in the court and to avoid setting wrong precedence about court choosing winners rather than people, John Kerry gave up his claim on the election and stepped aside for President Bush to be declared victorious in 2004. This is the kind of lack of imagination that the superior courts are showing today in India.



Recently, the armed forces were in the news for all the wrong reasons too. It was the Chief of Army staff (COAS) filing a suit against the ministry of defense (MoD) for some minor issue. Even though we all believe that there is more than what meets the eye, the prospect if COAS suing his Government is preposterous. Indian Army operates on the principle of command and honor above life. Orders are not questioned even to the perils of one's life. If the COAS wants Army as an institution to believe in the doctrine of command, how can he sue his own Government while still holding the chair of COAS. This will set wrong precedent for all incoming COAS and there will be a time in future, when some COAS will sue or worse go against the command of the government he is supposed to serve - without questions. For personal honor, is it worth risking setting up wrong precedents? It is a question best left to the present COAS to answer ( without questioning his motives).



Summarising the above, we started on the right footing in 1947 and were holding propriety of office above personal ambitions. Somewhere in the 70s we lost track and moved to the doctrine of "everything goes" and ever since have been setting wrong precedents one after other. Its time people occupying high offices take a step back and redefine their roles. Do we want various arms of the constitution at loggerheads with each other or do we want them to compliment each other in serving the greater good of the people of India- to whom they are all accountable. Its time people stop transgressing their roles defined in the constitution and abuse the powers granted to them under constitution to usurp the powers of other constitutional posts. Its time we stop setting dangerous precedents for future generations and stick to rule of propriety that our founding fathers so cherished.



So long...

Why my dad watches the news on BBC

When our parents and the people from their generation returned home after work in the evening, they kicked back and watched a television series (most of them had a story line or a moral) and caught up with the events of the day by watching the evening news. In those days, the television series were not overtly religious or blatantly gross but were a healthy mixture of values, morals and had a narrative reflecting the times in which they lived. The news was mostly bland without spice and involved a narration of the events of the day with no personal motive or prejudice. Once in a while, the television studios held panel discussions on important issues of the day by inviting eminent people with immense knowledge of the subject and with no conflict of interest or political leanings. In effect, these discussions were actually initiatives by the news channels to help dispense knowledge and provide a platform to experts of any particular field to connect with the masses and provide in depth analysis. Consequently, that generation of people were more in tune with realities of their era and were very knowledgeable about current affairs. Their vision was seldom blinkered by political leanings and could make a more dispassionate choice during elections knowing which political party stands for what. Take the example of the 2008 presidential campaign in the US or even the 2012 primaries (on currently) and go through some of the debates held by CSPAN, CNN etc and you will know which candidates stand for what along with details about their plan for the US for the next 4 years (in every field) should they be elected to run the country. Apart from normal politicking about personality clashes, the news channels make a serious effort to educate the masses about the candidates in the fray. It does not end there, stands taken by the candidates in these television debates are taken very seriously and the candidates are expected to stand by what they have expressed. The whole things adds a feather into the cap of democracy and makes critical analysis of the regime in power and takes point by point rebuttal from the incumbent on the charges made by the aspirants.



The media is supposed to be the 4th organ of the constitution and a conscience keeper for the other organs. The media must take this job with the seriousness that it deserves and not shortchange the viewers by showing content that's despicable to say the least. Television industry, in general, in the US has very low standards with too many shows purely voyeuristic and setting unhealthy morals for impressionable teenagers. However, they have a very solid television rating system that classifies the content for the viewers and does not go in for censorship (method most used in India). For all the crap that it spews out, the news channels in the US and UK are clearly classified as tabloids and current affairs related programs and the viewers know which one is to be taken seriously. The current affair programs shows nothing but facts with many levels of verification happening before any news item is broken on national television.



On the contrary, Indian media sucks, to say the least. They have no sense of propriety and have no division of content. Every news channel wants to outdo the competitors by mixing current affairs with tabloid news with little demarcation of which is which. Consequently, most television channels have become entertainment channels with no space left for serious news coverage and in depth analysis. On the few occasions when they do hold panel discussions, its mostly the usual suspects from the major political parties who are so predictable and out of sync that they repeat same set of sentences no matter what the topic of discussion is. This leads to a chaos in the newsroom with each party trying to outshout the other and the audience not getting any wiser. To give an example, the Lokpal discussion must have happened at least 50 times in various television studios in the past 8 months. If you ask any viewer today, he/she would be hazy about the details of the said legislation and would only be reminded of the fierce bickering of the various parties involved.



Today, as 5 states of India vote for a new government, no voter is any wiser about where his candidate stands on anti-corruption issue. Every thing is hazy and until the dust settles down, the elections will be over and the voter will feel cheated about the entire exercise. Who is to blame for all this? Political parties? I don't think so, they benefit by keeping things hazy and and shying away from accountability. It is serious indictment of our news television industry. There are no ethics in journalism and everyone functions with an eye to get high TRPs. Basically, everyone knows that appealing to voyeurism and stating controversial things are the surest possible ways to garner TRPs, hence, even the news channels get to the lowest denominator and fight ugly. Every host on the news channel fights to get the politician who are sure to say some controversial thing and they can post it as "breaking news" for the rest of the evening. The entire sham has been going on for years now and whenever anyone objects to this depraving behaviour of news anchors, it becomes a threat to "freedom of speech" and the entire fraternity stands up in unison. Only in India, can a bunch of unqualified individuals use the power of satellite television and display their abject lack of knowledge on any subject and still stand for freedom of speech. We don't need guidelines anymore, we need blackouts for channels that are seen as wasting the time of the viewers by showing who's-who of human crap. If appealing to lowest denominators of the masses is the criteria, then why don't these channels simply telecast soft porn movies. They may end up being educational to a few (sic).



I do not expect a overnight change, but there has to be a movement in the right direction and the new chairman of Press council of India has taken few steps in this direction. News channels should have all the freedom to telecast what they like, but if guidelines are not followed, they must face blackouts for days /weeks/ months depending on the seriousness of violations committed. Unless there are financial implication for their transgressions, the media barons of India will not mend their ways. The news media needs a non governmental head-master to keep a watchful eye on their activities because frankly they are not doing a good job with self regulations. What is true of news channels is true of newspapers and journals too. There the story is even worse with journals after journals vying to be political mouth pieces rather than hiring good ethical correspondents. The quality chasm is so wide, that The Times of India (TOI) looks like a tabloid when you compare it to The New York Times. If Bennet Coleman Ltd. opened a copy the present TOI, they would hang their head in shame. I would not comment about other news papers or journals because it suffices to say that TOI is the best of the lot.



A lot has to change and the time is running out. Are we forever going to appeal to lowest denominators of public taste or are we as a society going to rise above and set new standards for ethical journalism. Will India forever ape the west while it copies all its reality shows and ignore the high standard of ethical journalism that is a norm in all the respected news channels of the west ? Will my father and people of his generation always depend on BBC for news updates because of the Indian media channels dishing out substandard stuff that hardly qualifies to be called journalism ? Only time will tell.



So long.....

La vita è bella

For most part of our life, we run after things that do not last. We run after ‘jobs that pay the rent’; women/men that break our heart and money that doesn’t last. What we do not realize is that we walk through an entire lifetime without spending much time appreciating the gift of “one life” that we have got. Guilty- as charged! Well I am as much a culprit as you all are. Somewhere down the line, we lose focus of the whole point of “living” and spend a lot of time running from one goal to another. Don’t get me wrong, ambitions are a must and one must try and achieve all that one is capable of, but we must also not lose focus of the larger picture – enjoying the life that we have. Don’t leave too much to do for too late, for we have no clue how long we might live. ‘Make each day count’.

Most of you might wonder, why this new found love for life? Are you dying or something? Well, not really. There are times in life when you come across people or events that make you stop and wonder – have I lived my life completely? There are even times when you feel, “I wish I could life my life that way”. Well, I just realized it is never too late to change. Today, I wish to narrate my experiences meeting this Korean guy named Song Angler. I barely talked to him a few sentences and must have met him for a total of 40 minutes, but man! They were the best 40 minutes I ever invested talking to another person.

I was out shopping for china clay tea-set at Shanghai technology centre (known for scores of shops and inexpensive stuff) and I chanced upon this little shop in the corner where the prices were too excessive, considering the neighborhood. I would not find it difficult to accept the fact that the only reason I entered the shop was to check out how this man can stay in business selling stuff that has such a markup as compared to other shops in the arcade. As expected there was no one in the store and the only things on sale were clothes for children – years 2 to 6. What was more shocking was the entire line of clothing was British-Victorian. You had the Scottish 3 piece suits for young lads and dress gowns with accessories for the young ladies. Imagine an entire line of clothing dedicated to dressing up an age group, which doesn’t believe in “dressing for the occasion”. That’s not all; the entire line of dressing was too formal for the age group and was priced on par or slightly higher than adult clothing in the shops nearby. Too many handicaps I remember thinking to myself, no wonder this guy has no business!

Song Angler welcomed me with a warm smile and his first words were “sorry, I don’t know mandarin”. After exchanging pleasantries, I stood there looking at his clothesline and silently judging him for his abject lack of business skills. After noting down a few points on his laptop, he turned to me with a smile and said, “You must be wondering how I do business?” I remember smiling at him as if to say, “I think you are too ambitious for your own good”. He suddenly pats me on the back and says, “Its not just you, very often I keep asking that to myself.” It was good enough for me that finally I could talk to an Asian guy who spoke fluent American English. He said, “Don’t look surprised, I have lived almost 20 years in New York”. Intriguing! How could a man living in the business capital for 20 years, make a rookie mistake of opening up expensive clothing store in China – known for its inexpensive assembly line products. He looked at me and said – “No I am not stupid, I am here by choice and following my dream”. Wow! That must be one hellu’va dream that brought a man settled in New York with a high paying job to move to China.

Song worked for Ralph Lauren-Polo, a designer clothing brand known for its dress shirts and trousers. For 15 years he worked up the corporate ladder to become the chief buyer for Ralph Lauren for Asia market. He told me that he even visited Shanghai couple of times to understand business in China and to use Chinese labor to create a cost effective supply chain for Ralph Lauren- Polo. It was during these visits that he got to know that the fashion industry was on the decline (according to him) and the designer clothes were more about how to increase the bottom-line rather than the pleasure of creating new styles. It was not why Song had joined the fashion industry and that very moment he quit. He goes on to narrate how for the next few years, in New York and Shanghai, he continued on his quest to bring back style quotient into the clothes we wear. According to Song, newer styles must be more practical for the end consumer rather than a means to grab money for the designer. For the next 15 minutes, he showed me the intricate design and techniques of tailoring that he had taught a family in rural China, who were now his suppliers and he had stores open in Shanghai to sell the same. Song said this business was to satisfy his creative quotient and give him the happiness of creating dress fashion for a whole new younger generation (who have lost taste to authentic fashion in the haze of party wear). “Its not for profit, I have fixed sales target and want the quality rather than quantity; also quality doesn’t come cheap” says Song.

I asked him, “Do you not fear the Chinese assembly line manufacturing style. There would soon be inexpensive versions of your clothes-line”. Song says, “ I hope they copy me and make it better. The world needs better clothing style”. I ended up buying nothing from his store, but he still had a smile on his face. He was happy to have shared his passion about clothing with another human being and enriched his life with some basic knowledge of picking up good clothes. Song loved fishing too. He spent most of the time outside the world of clothing with his family, fishing. I am an inventor says Song. I like inventing new things and I am not constrained by the thought whether the idea would sell. As I left, he handed me his card and said, “it was a pleasure talking to you and thank you for listening to me.” I was humbled to the core. I just thought to myself, how many people could claim to be as happy as Song Angler; doing things they love and living life with its full glory. A handful maybe, and I left the shop learning few lessons on life that I do not intend to forget anytime soon. I thought to myself, I love writing and can express myself well on that medium, how much pleasure would I get if I had a job doing what I like. Would I be as happy as Song Angler? Well, let the time decide on that one.

So long….

Freedom ? What were they thinking !!

Its that time of the year when people are out in the street trying to enforce their freedom to oppose even at the cost of some one's freedom to speak. Yes, I am indeed talking about the Sir Salman Rushdie fiasco that happened at the Jaipur literature fest (JLF) last weekend. It got me thinking, even if the Muslim organizations were right in saying that Sir Rushdie's book "Satanic verses" critiqued the practices of Islam and hence caused them immense hurt; were they right in trying to hound him out of the seminar that he was supposed to address. Is this actually a case where freedom to oppose a viewpoint triumphs over freedom of speech or is this a case of misuse of freedom of speech? The more I thought on those lines, it began to dawn upon me that there is a very fine line to distinguish the two and in India we usually don't see the line at all.



Indians are notorious for their hypocrisy. They want the perks of being a free country but still haven't gotten down with the concept of freedom. Incidentally, freedom also has a class bias in India and many times the rich and the mighty seem to be more free than the rest of us down here. The prism with which we view freedom is often political and hence the degree of freedom that we enjoy changes from time to time (based on how far the next elections are and who is currently in power). In Sir Rushdie's case, his plans to address a group of people about his book "Satanic verses" was just too close to elections and hence his freedom of speech got curtailed and the deoband and ullemas enjoyed the higher freedom to oppose. People all around cried hoarse about the unfair treatment meted out to a scholar like Sir Rushdie; even the opposition fought for his freedom of speech - pretty rich huh, for a political outfit that recently hounded noted painter (Late) M.F. Hussain out of India for some paintings that was objectionable according to them. It got me thinking, this is unfair! Are we actually free or does our freedom have political constraints. Can artists have absolute freedom to express themselves or should all freedom be tempered with reasonable restraints.



The maze of thought is very confusing because what rules fit for one case, fails in other cases and there cannot be "one rule for all" and this makes freedom of expression the most complicated freedom to enforce in a multi-lingual and multi-racial society like INDIA. Very recently, the Delhi high court was in the news for pulling up the executives of online content companies like Google, Face book, Twitter, YouTube etc. for showing scant respect for local laws and being unable to effectively monitor the content posted by users on their websites. The case was typical as the websites argued that they have immunity from libel laws for content and monitoring would amount to transgressing freedom of speech of its users. The court put these companies to notice by giving out a stern warning that the websites will be blocked if they don't comply to local laws. No sooner, the headlines read "India going the China way"; unfair? maybe, but certainly not excessive.



In this case, the netizens (as they prefer to call themselves) had taken their freedom too far and sought to use slander as a means to critique. Somehow, due to lack of proper definition, FREEDOM was being (mis)used to justify unacceptable behaviour. There was a big hue and cry when the companies carrying content stated that it was impossible to censor the Internet; yet, at the same time allowing their medium to host caustic views stating freedom of speech and not taking accountability because of laws that disallow libel and slander proceedings against such companies. It basically meant, you are free to use Internet to post anything you want and nothing can harm you as long as you are outside the geographical borders of any particular nation state that you are choosing to slander. This is unacceptable, I mean for God's sake, even the envoys and ambassadors are accountable for the views that they carry and can be declared "persona-non-Grata" by the host country (so much for diplomatic immunity). How can people run away from the accountability and state freedom of speech as a reason?



While I was still concurring with the views of the honorable judge in forcing accountability to the views that one posts online and stating that "No freedom is absolute, it has to be tempered with reasonable restraint", did the Sir Salman Rushdie incident happen. Again, this was a case where the author in question, a noted scholar and winner of Booker prize; had his book "Satanic verses" banned in India in 1988-89. Now, 24 years later, he was invited to a literary fest in Jaipur where he was to read passages from the said book and present his views. It seems that the deoband and the ullemas haven't moved past 1988 and this time wanted the author banned and muted rather than his book. In this case, one party states freedom of speech and the other states libel and slander laws. Dicey eh! You betcha. No wonder we had the Government of Rajasthan cowering under pressure and creating a story or two about terrorist strikes and keeping Sir Rushdie from attending this fest. If you try and go by the letter of the law, Sir Rushdie must be stopped because for one, he plans to read paragraphs from a banned book and secondly his views about Islam was bound to create disharmony in the community. Does it go by the spirit of our constitution? well that's a whole different matter. Indians do not realise one basic thing, we cannot have different laws for different cases, we have to use the statute and temper it with the spirit of the constitution to apply the same law for different cases. Executive does not have this wisdom, as its often laden with the burden to satisfy people's aspiration (however unreasonable), so it should be the purview of the judiciary to take a view in all such cases. Somehow, the executive gets involved every time and the entire drama makes the constitution look foolish.



Instead, the Supreme Court has to read the law and lay down the spirit of the law for all people irrespective of who they are and who they know, to follow. If the executive is in violation of this spirit to gain in electoral battle, it should be termed unconstitutional and the Supreme court should direct the President to dismiss the Government, for an executive that cannot follow the constitution in the letter and spirit (for whatever compulsions) has no right to remain in office. If one such example is made out, maybe we wont have more such dramas being played out in public and maybe people will not mock at the constitution with absolute impunity. On the Republic Day, we had an article making rounds, "Have we failed our constitution or has it failed us?"; I would have no hesitation in saying, we most certainly have failed our constitution and not the other way around.



The spirit of freedom, as enshrined in our constitution and other such documents around the world have the same spirit of accountability. It can be encapsulated by the Miranda rights of freedom to remain silent; and if you choose to give up this freedom, you will be accountable for the words of your mouth. Its as simple as that. It solves both our cases both in letter and spirit. Freedom does not mean Sir Rushdie is allowed to slander any community or religious belief nor does it mean anonymous persons being allowed to post anything on the Internet. It actually means, holding people accountable to the views that they carry. For a truly free man/ woman would not run away from that accountability.



Most importantly, one must distinguish between slander and critique. The judicial contempt laws help us on this one, "ability to critique a judgement without critiquing a judge or ascribing motives". If someone finds a religious practise wrong they must be allowed to critique it without slandering the religion, wholly on merits. If we as a society cannot take criticism and have too many holy cows whom we do not question, then we will have to spend more time filing suits against people for questioning our faith. We must encourage healthy criticism right from childhood and have schools provide a platform to young minds to question everything we do. If we do not embrace criticism, it re-routes itself into our society as abuse and slander. Lets provide a healthy outlet for all citizen to bring out their views and not force them to take anonymous paths to spew venom. Lets truly define and follow freedom in letter and in spirit and not force people to ask "Am I really free in India?"



So long....

Open letter to Arvind Kejriwal

Credits: This was a wonderful post authored by Mr. Anant Rangaswamy. Simply loved it. Will share it with you guys. I simply had to have this post. So here goes....

Arvind Kejriwal has written an article in The Times of India asking people to suggest the way forward for Team Anna. “The anti-corruption movement is at the crossroads today. Where do we go from here? We are conscious that a wrong decision at this stage could prove disastrous for the movement,” he writes.

Here we go, Mr. Kejriwal, if you care to listen.

Remember that you’re the salesman. You have a product and you want to sell it to the political class, particularly to members of Parliament. This is not your usual sale; the ‘buyer’ has no need and no want for the product — which immediately means that in negotiations, the salesman is significantly weaker than the buyer.

If at all you want to sell your Jan Lokpal Bill, what you cannot afford to do is to walk away from the deal; the politician would be delighted. What you cannot do is heap abuse, belittle and besmirch the buyer.

The only way forward is to deal with the situation as a good salesman would.

• Tell your client why he needs it at all: Imagine, 25 years ago, you were a salesman of vacuum cleaners, a product neither wanted nor needed. Think of the Lokpal bill as a product facing similar challenges, and remember that the sale is going to be long and hard. Time needs to be spent on evangelism and education.

• Describe your product in detail to the client: Spend time with parliamentarians and party chiefs and explain why your version of the Jan Lokpal Bill is better than all others, in the same spirit that a salesman of, say, photocopiers educates his prospective customer. Get more and more parliamentarians to buy in. Think of all these parliamentarians as members of the household who could influence a sale – perhaps the party chiefs are equivalent to the head of the household, the final decision maker.

• Build a relationship with the prospect: This is not a quick, uninvolved sale, like a razor blade. The product you are trying to sell is such that the sale process will be long and tiring. Establishing a rapport with the client is an essential ingredient in your chances for a sale. Clients are more likely to spend time with salesmen they like, rather than salesmen they do not like. Get your clients, the politicians, to like you and admire you for your effort and persistence. No salesman worth his salt will rave and rant at a prospect; none can abuse a client and hope to close a deal. Good salesmen will build relationships with prospects they do not like and prospects who treat them badly – because the only thing that matters to them is the sale.

• Do not set unachievable deadlines: The moment you do, desperation will show as the deadline approaches. The moment this happens, the salesman gets more aggressive – and the customer more wary. Remember, in this case, the customer never wanted the product in the first place. The moment the desperation increases, politicians will be relieved – that the endless pressure of being sold a product that they didn’t want will end soon.

• Make the client feel like a winner: Let the client feel that he is a part of making a significant decision that will change his life for the better. Good sales make the client look good, not the salesman. Do not broadcast details of the negotiations when they are in progress, especially when you think you’re winning or you think poorly of your client. The more you do this, the less the client will want to meet you, let alone buy from you.

Fundamentally, in all sales, good salesmen need to establish how much or how little a prospect needs and wants the product on offer. Establish negotiating positions from there.

Team Anna is selling a product which is unwanted – and the negotiating position needs to reflect this truth.

What we have seen since April is negotiations based on a premise that
a) The salesman will convince the buyer
b) That the sales process would be short; and;
c) That the buyers would just keel over and fall when they come to the negotiating table.

That’s our advice. Unlike you, we don’t say this way or the highway. There will be others with other views that reach you as well.

The minimum you have to do is to listen – that’s something Team Anna has proven to be very poor at.

So long...

What the fuck !!!

"Leave the cockiness to the cocks!!" A not so subtle message to a certain ex-officio IRS who is getting on everyone's nerves and believes in his "in-your-face" statements, to create an "Arab spring" like situation in India. 2011 has been rightly called the year of the protester. Even TIME magazine named the "Protester" as the person-of-the-year. If we study carefully, what started as a campaign against autocratic rule in Syria and Tunisia and later moved on to the non-monarchic Arab countries like wild fires taking down autocratic rulers one after another; some killed while others facing trials for their repressive regimes; we see a pattern. Hence its becomes imperative that 2011, which began with a revolution for democracy and should rightly end with the victory of democracy.



There are several takes on what made 2011 a year of revolutions. Of the several stories that are making rounds calling it a victory of people, few calling it victory of social networking sites and others calling it a impromptu uprising of the oppressed against the oppressor; a question that was never asked and never answered - WHY the ARAB COUNTRIES??? My humble submission on this is the true story about "Arab spring" may never be known. After all (forgive my mentioning) its not like all Arab countries have rich mineral and fuel reserves and its not like we know of specific countries who might go to any extent to gain uninhibited access to such huge reserves; .....or do we ?? Ummmm....well lets see, in most of these countries; namely, Tunisia, Syria, Libya, Egypt and Yemen, the autocratic rule was in place for more than 35-40 years (give or take). So its not an of-late development that there has to be an uprising in 2011. All these countries had rulers who had mellowed down and were in the last lap of their lives. At one time, these rulers were tyrants and mostly eliminated any voice that stood against them. Today, after ruling their countries for several years and gaining acceptance of their people they were mellow and not repressive. Interesting........ so what exactly changed in 2011 and the only question WHY NOW ??



2011 brought in a year of gloom in the developed economies. Most of the developed nations were facing sovereign debt crises, rampant unemployment, rising fuel costs and economies that were on the path of recession. Few people know, that a specific section of Arab nations were no longer pliable to the will of the "greater nations" and were sticking to their demands on keeping the fuel export price at a higher levels to be able to afford the excessive trade imports (mainly food grains, vegetables etc.) into their countries. The "greater nations" humored the Arab countries for a while, almost 4 years. Come 2011, the economies of these "greater nations" were unravelling and it became imperative for them to have controlling voice on all forums to make most countries pliable to their diktat. The only problem was, these authoritarian Arab states had rulers who were beginning to get cocky and standing up to these nations was getting increasingly difficult. The utility of having these mineral and fuel rich nations to be run by autocrats was getting lesser day by day and so these "greater nations" thought, "ummm.. you know, we all stand for democracy, so maybe we can fight for democracy in these specific areas". Rest is history. Today, we can lay the credit to the doors of the people who stood up against tyranny; pat the backs of social networking sites for bringing revolution to our doorsteps but we cannot make the mistake of losing the trail behind two questions; WHY NOW?? and WHY HERE??



What started as "rise of Arab nations" against "autocratic rule" or Arab spring as we call it, later turned on the countries that sponsored the move. The so called democratic "greater nations" forgot that the fuel that can ignite fire in other countries can sooner, than later burn their own backyard. So we had the riots by local people, holding the erstwhile "kingdom, where the sun never sets" under siege. It struck them rather late that they had taken the lid off a cyclone that would soon engulf everyone. People got together on social networking sites and messenger groups and wilfully planned which neighbourhood to attack and how to destroy public and private property. It soon began to dawn on the "greater nations" that what they had started as "fight for democracy" using social network can soon bite them in uncomfortable places. The larger point that the "greater nations" overlooked was that social network has no boundaries and having a democracy is not the panacea; you need jobs and money too. After seeing the "sponsored" fight for democracy and benefits of social network, people began to express themselves more freely on social network and have began to think of this new found way to vent your frustrations as "freedom of speech". After the riots, we had the OCCUPY movements in 85 countries where it seemed democratic right to protest was the only right people were going to use in 2011 (right or wrongly) and what started as a movement to unseat dictators in Arab world was soon starting to have some casualties that were unaccounted for.



Meanwhile, closer to home, a self styled "Gandhian" had emerged from no where and had taken everyone's imagination by a storm. Most of us were going through difficult times because of the financial crises of sorts in the world economy and the opposition parties built a perfect or lets say "near perfect" campaign on the predicament most of us were facing. Firstly, the political parties, all of a sudden, began a demand that the grey economy was burgeoning and we needed measures to curb this and we needed newer laws to "bring back" these monies stashed in tax havens and use them for "nation building". We weren't facing a pinch in our pockets as yet, mostly people ignored the call and the campaign seemed dying its natural death. Meanwhile, the incumbent had started re-negotiating taxation agreements with a slew of countries, popularly referred to as "tax havens" to control the outflow of slush money. All of a sudden, the world economy started looking gloomy and several nations were close to bankruptcy. This coupled with rising prices of fuels and essentials was making the public restless and the incumbent seemed to have no solutions to curb this menace. At this crucial juncture, on the horizon arrives a "Gandhian" who has a magical wand to all the problems faced by people.



The "Gandhian" has a team of an ex-officio IRS, an ex-officio IPS and 3 legal eagles who walk upto the incumbent and give a demo of the powers of the 'magic wand' that will purge the problems of the masses. The incumbent feels the price is too high and refuses to buy the wand. Meanwhile, the dying campaign against slush money gets a saviour and they join forces with "Gandhian" and his team provided they promise to use the wand as a stick to beat the incumbent. Deal goes through and we begin to see a drama planned to the minute details. Firstly, people's support is invoked by stating the problems they are facing and then they are given a demo of the "magic wand" and how it has powers to alleviate their pains. Most people, bearing the brunt of the sliding economy and too many accusations upon the incumbent of misusing public money for "private good" which otherwise could be used for public good, were angry but did not know what could be done. With the advent of the "Gandhian
"' and his magic wand, they latched on to it hoping it will get them a better standard of life.



The "Gandhian" and his team played to the script and never deviated. They never engaged with politicians and that seemed to have increased their credibility in the eyes of the masses. Once they were sure that they had led the people far enough, they brought out the second act - selectively attacking the incumbent at the centre and carefully avoiding comments (even stray) on states ruled by opposition. The people found this credible too and soon, it seemed that all the things that went wrong in past 64 years we because of the mistakes of the present incumbent. Few people objected to these large strokes of brush while tainting the incumbent but much of these protests fell on deaf years. The incumbent, on its part, kept making false moves and adding to the credibility of the "Gandhian" and his team. There came a time, that the "Gandhian" and his team thought they were important enough that they would talk only to the incumbent chief-executive (lets call him PM) an no one else. People who had put all their faith in the story of the "magic wand" did not see anything wrong and almost propped them up to a parallel chief executive who could dictate to the incumbent like the PM never did.



The whole drama was based on one premise, the incumbent will keep making mistakes and would never call their bluff. In the final act, the incumbent actually embraced the magical wand and began to hard sell it to the other political parties. This was a move never imagined by the team. All of a sudden, the incumbent seemed more keen than "Gandhian" and his team to acquire the magic wand - no matter what the price was. Almost instantly, people who were blinded by the magic wand's powers began to see that the magic, if misused, can cause great damage. The wand which they swore by until recently started causing uneasiness amongst the political class and they spread misgivings among the people about its powers. Lo and behold, the entire opposition who had propped up the campaign began to fall under its weight. The cockiness of the ex-officio IRS and the ex-officio IPS did not help either. People began seeing the fault lines in the arguments placed in front of them by the "Gandhian" and his team and began questioning them. The team who had so far, gotten used to blind faith, didn't like the new change in equations. They began to call all those who questioned them as corrupt and this further reduced their credibility. Such was the power of the magic wand that it gave them protection until it stayed with them and was now giving the same protection to the incumbent. The spell of the magic wand was finally broken.



So, 2011 may be remembered for a slew of reasons, but it will be most remembered for the WTF moments. The moments where revolutions were being manifested by fanning certain genuine concerns of the masses and using them to ignite passions and cause an uprising. By the end of the year, the trends suggested that revolts cannot be sustained and soon boomerangs on the initiator. Social networking sites played their part by supporting "free speech". How much freedom is too much, this question my find answers in 2012. Meanwhile, wishing you all a very happy and prosperous 2012 and hope we don't repeat the mistakes of 2011.



So long.....