Should we be worried for or about "Shehzada"?

Rahul Gandhi had recently remarked that he also may be killed the way his father and grandmother were, but that he did not care. He tried to emotionally involve the audience via the family references. One of the most controversial remarks, as everyone is aware now, was about an intelligence officer briefing him about some developments in UP. 

Now till date he has not clarified further on these remarks. Questions were raised as to why a mere (I don't think I can say this with a straight face) MP was briefed by an intelligence officer. The UP government itself does not seem to have received the inputs shared by Rahul Gandhi. As per news reports the officer in question might not have given accurate information also.

So on the one hand I think we should be worried for him, for his safety, that another young (again, difficult to say this with a straight face) life in the country might be lost. On the other hand I should be worried for this country. This person does not seem to have the maturity to keep sensitive intelligence reports (true or false) to himself. Also if I remember correctly he was blaming the BJP for creating hate via communal politics. This hate had supposedly given rise to terrorism to which his family had fallen victim. I am worried about this person's grasp on not only the country's history but also that of his family. I am currently reading a book called "India, a Potrait" by Patrick French which is quite informative. Indira Gandhi was assassinated after Operation Bluestar. The terrorist behind this Bhindranwale was propped by none other than Sanjay Gandhi and Indira Gandhi. Further Rajiv Gandhi had sent the IPKF to Sri Lanka. He was assassinated by the LTTE for his involvement in Sri Lanka. 

Thus Indira Gandhi fell victim to her own politics and there was nothing religious about Rajiv Gandhi's death. Does Rahul know this? Or is a potential future PM of this country simply lying to the people to garner votes? 

 

Another small technical point which had come to my mind. Jawaharlal Nehru is said to have come from a family of Kashmiri Pandits though there are doubters to this claim. Let us assume this is true. Now Feroze Gandhi came from a Parsi/Mohammedan family. Going by Indian traditions his progeny with Indira Gandhi would count as Parsis/Muslims. Apparently Rahul Gandhi countered a party member's claim that forward castes were not doing well in the party by pointing to himself. Leaving aside the point that this argument is null and void as he comes from the first family and he would still have made it had he not been able to spell his own name, how does he claim to be a Brahmin? I have no problems with any person from any caste occupying any role, I am just curious.

Is Mamata trying to do an Indira?

Birth is something that is more associated with a mother than a father. Thus it is not surprising when one's native place or country is compared to a mother. The saying attributed to Rama - jananee janmabhoomischa swargaadapi gareeyasee (mother and motherland are greater than heaven - this is the national motto of Nepal) - is apparently apocryphal. Valimiki's Ramayana is considered to be the authoritative version and this does not have that line. There is however a difference between justified adoration and simple sycophancy. 

There was a former politician Dev Kant Baruah who once said, "Indira is India and India is Indira". I do not know whether Indira Gandhi actually believed him. However she is known as one of India's most authoritarian figures ever. Mamata seems to be en route to becoming like her day by day. She does not seem to be financially benefiting out of politics. The next aim seems to be power. She seems to be identifying herself too literally with the mother part in her slogan maa, maaTee, maanush. She is brooking no kind of challenge to her authority. There was a rape incident some time back. In spite of being a woman she simply claimed it was a ploy to defame her government. Then her government sent a list of approved papers to various libraries in West Bengal or Paschim Bongo to be politically correct. Now a professor who forwarded a political cartoon has been arrested. First he was assaulted by her supporters. The police instead of first dealing with the assaulters slapped cases against him on what charges? Eve teasing, assaulting the modesty of a woman etc. Agreed, didi is not married, but eve teasing? Seriously? For a cartoon?

The professor is rightly receiving support from students who are forwarding various cartoons on her. Mamata having wrested power from the CPM is seeing them in every shadow. She should come out of her paranoia. In fact by her actions she is probably increasing the popularity of the CPM in a way CPM members could not probably have done.

She can probably take a leaf out of Modi's book. He is another politician who has claimed complete identification with Gujarat publicly. Any attack on him is made out to be one on the dignity of Gujarat. However I don't think he has resorted to Mamata's means. He has taken the path of promoting development and that has reaped rich political dividends. Will Mamata learn from him?

Freedom of Speech

Shashi Tharoor is in the eye of a storm again, this time for criticizing the foreign policy of Nehru. He seems to have backed down and in the time-honoured way of politicians has taken refuge behind the excuse of having been 'misquoted'.

In the first place, I agree that Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi etc are pivotal figures in India's history. This does not mean that they were perfect, they were after all human. So why are we so intolerant about any criticism against these people? The Congress keeps harping about being a 'secular' party and about the tolerance of India. Why is it so intolerant about comments against its top leadership (erstwhile or current)? Gautama Buddha is supposed to have told his disciples not to accept his teachings blindly but to question and find out the truth for themselves. Are today's politicians so great that they are beyond reproach?

The Constitution gives every Indian the right to freedom of speech. What is the use of this if it is not implemented in spirit? Remember Voltaire's saying to an adversary - "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend till my death your right to say it." Where is such spirit in 'the world's largest democracy'?

I was surprised when Tharoor joined the Congress. He does not seem to be a very big fan of Nehru and Indira Gandhi as such. Read his The Great Indian Novel (spoiler warning). It is a modern take on the Mahabharata with political figures taking on the roles of the Mahabharata characters. It is quite an interesting read. Indira Gandhi is in Duryodhana's role and Nehru is the blind king Dhritarashtra. So I was surprised when he joined the Congress. Being in the Congress and in the government he might be expected to show some restraint but no one can curtail his right to free speech.