Saddam Hussain and bin Laden deja vu!

Muammar Gaddafi's death reminds of two deaths in the not-so-distant past - those of Saddam Hussain and Osama bin Laden. Why? Gaddafi was hounded by his own people the way Saddam was by the Americans. He fled the same way and was discovered in a similar way. Laden was alive when the Americans caught up with him. What ensued is probably not very clear. Now the US is demanding details of how Gaddafi died. I think it is a little too late in the day to take someone else to task over moral turpitude.

Now I come to the question, is this revenge? Does revenge truly bring happiness? I do not know, neither do I hope to find out. But now I come to the larger question. Can we kill a human being even if the, well, justification is to bring about justice? I was (probably) a supporter of the death penalty in the rarest of the rare cases. In fact I had written in one of my previous posts about the delay in Afzal Guru's hanging. However I also have to ask myself, life is not something that we have given to our fellow human beings, can we take it from someone? I believe this argument was in fact put forward by Gandhi. Why do we have laws? Because way back in antiquity man agreed to co-habit in society, and for this society to survive and flourish certain ground rules need to be followed. So anyone who lives in society and does not follow its rules should be punished. Now does this extend to taking a person's life also?

The anguish felt by a murdered person's dear ones can only be understood by them, but I would like to know, in cases where the killer has been hanged (or electrocuted or whatever) has the victim's family found peace? Do they believe this is the only way to obtain justice? There are occasional examples - Graham Staines' (the Christian missionary who was burnt alive in Odisha) wife forgave her husband's killers and did not want to see them hanged. Murugan and Nalini's daughter has asked for something similar from the Gandhi family.  Obviously I am not saying that if the family okays it every murderer' sentence should also be commuted. I have the luxury right now of taking the middle path and leaving the question open, so I choose to do it. I just wish to raise a question which everyone should ask oneself.

Moving on, I loved Hillary Clinton's recent statement in Pakistan - you cannot raise snakes in your backyard and expect they will bite only your neighbours. Once again, I would like to say, look who's talking, but I still love the statement. The US is making some very angry noises publicly about Pakistan's continued support to Afghan extremists. It remains to be seen how much of this (and American benevolence to Pakistan) will remain once the US completes its pullout from Afghanistan. During the Cold War the US needed Pakistan. India was proclaimedly non-aligned, and was also close to the Soviet Union. Pakistan was closer to Afghanistan and not very friendly with India, to say the least. Thus the US needed Pakistan to counter Soviet influence in the region. Today however, the Soviet Union is no more and India is seen as a strategic ally on many fronts. China is seen as an emerging (some would say emerged) rival on the world stage, and Pakistan has been historically close to China. So the Americans might not see any compelling reason to placate Pakistan. Now that bin Laden is dead and due to the fact that he was found in Pakistan, the US can make all sorts of complaining noises against Pakistan.

So what emerges? US foreign policy is strictly dictated by self interest. Hence it would be in India's long-term interest to ensure that no country treats it as a friend in hyphenation with any other country, for as Pakistan is finding out the hard way today, such friends do not last.

The Ramayana will lead to communalism!

I came across an article when I was browsing through Wikipedia. Apparently the hugely popular TV series, Ramayana was initially delayed because it was felt it would lead to communalism! Many a time one feels that the government or the powers-that-be are over cautious about people's reactions. We as a country seem to be very scared of ourselves. We pride ourselves on being a pluralistic society. However we reek of intolerance. The recent attack on Shanti Bhushan, after his Kashmir remarks are a case in point. I vehemently denounce his remarks, but after all, as a citizen of India, he is free to air his views. Remember the quote misattributed to Voltaire - "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Secularism might be a term that is semantically new to India (considering its long history). However India has always been nothing but tolerant of other cultures and practices. The "religion" Hinduism itself gives everyone the choice to worship (or reject) a deity as s/he pleases. Where is this tolerance in India today? The right wing parties might be pilloried for intolerance, however the pillorying parties are guilty of appeasement themselves. Our culture of appeasement and our knowledge of our own intolerance are probably what prompt the authorities to ban what might be even slightly provocative.

There exists a "work of art" called Piss Christ. M F Hussain (intentionally or unintentionally) represented Bharat Mata and Sita in the nude and was hounded out of the country. I can only wonder what would have happened to the creator of the aforementioned photograph in India.

On the other hand, as I have argued before also, the hounded parties might not be totally innocent. M F Hussain used a term noor-un-ala-noor in a song (a beautiful qawwali by the way) in his film Meenaxi: A Tale of Three Cities. Following Muslim protests at apparent use of Quranic words in a song the artist withdrew the movie. I do not know if he has ever apologized to all the people whose sentiments might have been hurt because of his paintings. One is reminded of the following story. Once a woman was walking on a pavement, twirling an umbrella in her hand. A man walking behind her was finding it difficult to avoid her umbrella. He went up to her and said, "Madam, your freedom ends where my nose begins!"

Moving on, there has been a recent news article saying upper class fares might be increased. In India, as probably in most places, freight rates are a very important source of revenue and profit. Businesses suffer high freight rates which are kept high to minimize the increase in the passenger fares. The government probably feels raising sleeper and other lower class (to quote Shashi Tharoor, the cattle class, another incident which raised a huge hue and cry) fares might lead a to a wider outpouring of popular anger against the government. I would like to suggest a simple alternative - ensure people do buy tickets on all trains. I am very sure there are thousands of people who hitch a ride on local and route trains without a buying a ticket. In some places in Bihar and Jharkhand there are people who travel in reserved compartments without tickets. Probably policing these people will increase the railways' revenue and at least temporarily remove the need to increase any fares.

What's in a Number?

The Planning Commission (PC) recently said that a family which spends more than 32 rupees per day cannot be said to be below the poverty line. There has been a huge furore after that. The Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia was forced to clarify his remarks today. Unfortunately I do not think he has done a good job. He says the intention is not to understate poverty.

There is one thing which has to be realized. Let us take an example in the film Peepli Live. The government officials supply a pump but do not allot the funds to install it, nor do they get that done. The definition raises that danger. A government employee might very well tell a genuine beneficiary tomorrow that he would not get any benefits as technically he is not below the poverty line. We have been told that people above this limit will also be covered under government schemes. This begs the question - what was the intention behind giving this number in the first place? If this point has not been clarified the "clarification" given today does not hold much water.

The argument in fact seems self defeating. Mr. Ahluwalia says that this is the poverty line. That also does not make sense. Are we trying to artificially reduce our poverty figures and move up in international rankings? Does the government want to artificially reduce poverty and claim victory against it when it is hard pressed for some positive news amidst the pandemonium in the country today? I am not more learned than the members of the Planning Commission or the National Advisory Council (NAC), but common sense would suggest that to solve a problem you have to first identify it. To remove poverty we have to identify the factors and symptoms properly before recommending solutions. If this first step itself is skipped, it would seem as if we were trying to wish away poverty. This is dangerous in a country such as ours.

Moving on, I am left wondering as to why the government is not imposing ESMA in Hyderabad. The city has been suffering for about three weeks now. The government has not resolved the issue till now. If it is unable to do that it should at least try to get things back to normalcy. There might be multiple reasons for this. The same party is in power as at the centre. Further the Congress has not been the epitome of tolerance as suggested by the Ramdev and Anna Hazare episodes. It probably also anticipates a further deterioration in law and order. However this kind of logic was given to the Supreme Court once. The court then had asked the state government to quit if it could not maintain law and order as this was its duty. Only time will tell how things will develop now onwards.