Why I support Jay Leno but not America - part 1

I have divided this post into two parts as it promises to be a lengthy one.Let us start with Jay Leno. I love the guy's show. He is irreverent towards one and all. When he showed the Golden Temple as part of a parody on one of the presidential hopefuls it raised the hackles of some Sikhs and our politicians/bureaucrats. The US government has come to his defence defending his freedom of expression. Why are we as a race so thin-skinned? We pride ourselves on being a democracy but I time and again feel we are extremely hypocritical. Any time there seems to be even a hint of anything but respect towards a religion we start shouting. This is not a case of our gods being portrayed on underwear, it is not a case of a scripture being banned in a country. These were causes worth fighting for. But Leno's "transgression" is not. 

Don't we parody our own gods? Frequently don't we find our gods portrayed in cartoons which comment on our social, political and economic happenings (especially around Ganesh Chaturthi)? Do we ban all these cartoonists? Where is the famous Punjabi sense of humour? Take Salman Rushdie's example also. Granted the guy seems to have written an extremely provocative and probably avoidable book (which I admit I have not read). However do we banish this guy from our country for this mistake(?)? He was not allowed to come to the Jaipur literary festival. He was not even allowed to address it via video conference! Why? Some Muslim groups raised a stink. The Congress governments at the centre and state (Rajasthan) do not want to give any ammunition to their political rivals in Uttar Pradesh where elections are due to happen shortly. 

Uttar Pradesh, India's most populous state is ruled by a party which heartily embraces Buddhism and Ambedkar. I will take a side track briefly. Now Ambedkar was a victim of our (sadly distorted) caste system and I believe this was the strongest reason why he converted to Buddhism. He must have had his justification, but first of all was this right? Gautama Buddha seems to be more of an agnostic than an atheist (the reader can to refer to this article for a more detailed reading). This means Ambedkar embraced a religion which did not denounce God. Thus he gave up one God for another. Did the "Hindu Gods" fail him or did Hindus fail him? This is a debatable issue.

Now coming back, I will narrate a story related to the Buddha (or was it Ramakrishna Paramahamsa?). I might be paraphrasing but the gist remains the same. One day the Buddha was begging and he reached a particular house. The man or woman of the house abused him profoundly for begging. The Buddha did not say anything and simply walked away. When another person asked him if he was not perturbed, he replied that the man had spouted a lot of rubbish. As the Buddha refused to accept it the rubbish was still with the person who had abused him. We rever Gandhi as a Mahatma and as the Father of the Nation. Did he not advise one to show the other cheek when slapped on one? Where is this spirit of tolerance today? 

Indian self-congratulation about freedom of expression and democracy brings to my mind a joke I once read. Once a citizen of Soviet Russia and another from the US met and started boasting about their respective countries. The US citizen said, "Do you know how much freedom we have in our country? I can go in front of the White House and call our President an idiot!". The Soviet citizen replied, "I too have a lot of freedom in my country. I can happily go up to the Kremlin and shout that the American President is an idiot!". When will we come out of this mentality?

Whether it is a Salman Rushdie, an MF Hussain or anyone else, we should learn to look beyond whatever "transgressions" they have committed. We can censure them if we believe they are wrong, but who are we to take away their freedom and dignity?

I want to be a peon!

In my school usage of the word "peon" was discouraged as this was believed to be a colonial term. We were instead asked to say "attender". Whatever may be the correct term when one thinks of a peon one does not exactly think of a person rolling in riches. However this article about peons in Madhya Pradesh seems to say otherwise. How is this possible? This, or for that matter most corruption in our country is probably because of our red tape. Also, corruption today seems to have become almost routine everywhere. Consider the following examples which I myself have faced or have heard about. These are true whether we are talking about the government, public sector or any private sector organization, whatever might be the image these organizations/companies publicly profess.

1. In a government office a certain document had to be given to a bureaucrat. The peon who worked in the office told me that he expected something for him reminding me that he was the person who had to actually hand it over physically to the babu. 

2. Ask any person from the collections department of a company if it is possible to collect dues without greasing some palms. The logic seems to be,  "I am releasing so much money for you, why should I not benefit?" The person does not seem to realize that it is not his money that is being released but that of the company he is working for.

The simplest solution for all of this seems to be to take things online and keep them open to the extent possible. Nothing is so simple, I confess, but a start has to be made somewhere. The citizens' charter proposed by Anna's team seems especially important in the context of all the red tape.

Moving on, it has been said that the verdict of the Supreme Court that Vodafone will not have to pay tax on its purchase of Hutchison's stake will encourage foreign investment in India. Whatever might be the logic behind this, in today's world where we are talking about cracking down on tax havens, I believe this is a retrograde step. When the deal involves India why can't the Indian government tax the transaction? At the same time, however, I do not like the government's argument that it has to earn money via such transactions. I am sure the government can explore more constructive ways and also reduce the colossal spend on inefficient schemes and facilities.