A Nation of Apathy

Yet another incident shows how insensitive we are towards another man's suffering in our country. This comes after the Keenan-Reuben case where the two young men were killed because they came forward to protect their female friends from some inebriated goons. Related to this issue, the Supreme Court has also said that medical care is the first priority in an emergency. Till then there was a (justified?) fear that helping a person who was the victim of an accident or personal attack would lead to legal complications to the good samaritan. In spite of the Supreme Court's directive we see the situation continuing. In the article, the link of which is provided above we read that onlookers just well, looked on, as a man burnt, and that for quite some time.

We in India are taught from childhood to respect our elders. Probably as an extension to this and as an extension to our struggle under the Britishers we have come to fear powerful people and/or those in authority. In the cases mentioned above this would refer to the attacking goons. This and probably the fear of the legal process are what hold back people. I cannot think of any other logical reason. My mother was in fact rescued from such a situation via the kind act of a person, who alas I have not been able to meet. My mother met with an accident when I was in Intermediate. Till date, she does not know how that happened, and neither do we. We only know that luckily for her, a person who was working in a government hospital happened to pass by the crowd that had gathered after her accident and rushed her to the hospital. When asked, the crowd simply said it was a woman, and they did not want to get involved!

This probably is also an explanation of our tolerance for corruption or any other evils in our society today. We live under the impression that it has happened to "someone else" and not to us. Do I actually realize that to others, I am the "someone else"? One is reminded of the story where a person does not protest when Jews and people from other communities were targeted (it was either in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia). He does not say anything as it was someone else being targeted. In the end the government comes for him and he finds no one left to defend him. I might be paraphrasing but this is the gist. 

So I think first of all the Supreme Court's directive needs to be widely publicized to assure people that they will not get into legal tangles by helping others. Further probably because of our population there are not many resources to pass around, and we tend to get close-fisted. Ironically we are the country that produced the tales of Shibi, Karna and Bali. Also, remember the story of the mongoose with golden fur from the Mahabharata (this will be my next blog post). So there also seems to be a need to inculcate the quality of sharing and helping others in our children via their families and their formal education also, for it is today's children that we hope will become tomorrow's dutiful citizens.

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.

De-politicise Sports - A Few Measures

I have written earlier about our politicians in sports, here, and here. My readers might have noticed that I rant a lot about our system. I realize that too. Hence from this post onwards I will also try to incorporate some suggestions instead of just complaining. It is always very easy to criticize, constructive work is difficult.

These are times Indian hockey fans will remember, for reasons good and bad. India beat Pakistan in China to clinch the Champions Trophy, while the International Hockey Federation (FIH) has chosen to move the 2011 Champions Trophy out of India to New Zealand owing to internal problems in India. We have two opposing bodies in India today for one hockey. This should come us a grim reminder for us to de-politicise sports and bring some rationality into our sports administration.

Another weird incident happened in London. At an ICC awards ceremony, where ironically Dhoni won an award for playing the game in its true spirit no one from the Indian cricket team attended. There are no prizes for guessing who did attend - Sharad Pawar and Rajiv Shukla - members of the BCCI and don't hold your breath, politicians. Our political class would do well to support Maken in his endeavour to de-politicise sports. But seeing that there is a conflict of interest in many politicians' cases, the question comes up, will this ever happen? Maken makes perfect sense.

1. Sports are played by young people, and for lack of a better word, by sportspersons. I believe one would be hard pressed to find many (active) sportspersons above the age of 40. Hence it makes no sense to have people who would very well fit the government's definition of senior citizens on our sports boards, both administering and selecting.

2. I believe the logic behind government servants getting transferred (frequently or occasionally) is that they do not develop any unwanted or unethical relationships with anybody by being posted in one location for a very long time. Further as time passes complacency creeps. This logic can be applied to sports boards also. So once again Maken's suggestion on the cap on the number of terms to two makes perfect sense.

3. Non-performing sportspersons are penalized by being dropped. One would like to know the measures applied to our boards in that sense also. There has been a huge hue and cry over selection proceedings being brought under the RTI Act. The way some governments declassify some files, is it not possible to make the meeting minutes public after some time elapses? Agreed, this gives people a chance to change the records, but at least this would probably be better than the current situation.

4. We occasionally hear people saying BCCI's funds should be used for other sports too. This is one option. There is another option. When boards like BCCI make hundreds of crores of revenue and profit how does it make sense to label them as charitable organizations? Bring it under the tax net, use that money for other sports. This way there is no charity involved. Obviously this would not be enough, this is where the government or the private sector can step in.

5. We are becoming a country of parrots today. We have students who get things by heart and spit them out in the exam. This is the definition of a good student. Many schools today do not have a proper playground. NDTV has a Marks for Sports Campaign. I am not saying that. But any new school that is set up today should mandatorily have a playground where children can play. Remember the saying, "all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy".

Was Fareed Zakaria Right?

Recently I saw an interview on CNN-IBN with Fareed Zakaria, the Editor-at-Large (funny name, generally I thought legal offenders were referred to be at large) of Time magazine. Fareed is in fact of Indian origin and is a naturalized US citizen. His credentials speak for themselves, both education and career-wise. He is today one of the most respected journalists in the world today. He was all praise for the way the US has dealt with terror, how al Qaeda has been dealt with. There were three points he mentioned (in response to the interview questions) as to how India can deal with terror. Unfortunately I do not remember them verbatim. But I remember the basic gist and would like to take a look at his points.

One was intelligence. In his opinion Indian agencies have never been famous for their efficiency. We in fact stand a better chance of infiltrating terror networks compared to the Americans due to similar looks and linguistic backgrounds and thus have an advantage in that aspect. This is definitely true. We had no idea when Kargil happened. 26/11 seems to show that might not have changed much.

A second point was the state of our police forces. In his opinion they are pathetic. Also unlike in the US where the police are in a way part of the community here that is not the case. One would be hard-pressed to disagree. Just look at the weapons our armed forces use. Most of the police forces uses ancient rifles if I am not mistaken. We hear of massacres of CRPF personnel in Maoist areas. The poor chaps (security personnel) stay miles away from civilization and live in deplorable conditions. These people might have to lay down their lives for our security then we (or more specifically the administration/government) treats them like this! There were some recent operations in Jharkhand where a large number of security personnel fell sick with malaria as the operations were held in the jungle in the monsoon. I heard recently that some boats which had been bought after 26/11 are lying unused as there is nobody trained to operate them. Also the munition and weapons used by our armed forces vary widely. There is no proper standardization. Where are bullet-proof vests for security personnel who operate on the frontlines (even if these frontlines are in the heart of our metropolises)? Also today unless I am wrong the police inspire fear more than the belief that they are there to help the citizens. One of our professors at IIFT used to poke fun at the Delhi Police slogan which translates to mean "with you, for you, always".

Another point was integration. External terror cannot find a firm foothold in India if there is no local support. He in fact pointed out that Gujarat is a sore point even today among Muslims. However I must point out, without trivializing the atrocities that happened, that Gujarat is today one of India's most progressive states, under the same Chief Minister. Further if the perpetrators of India's blasts are proved to be from Gujarat I think Zakaria's words would hold actual weight. That we have not been very successful at solving various terror-related cases and that communiques from terrorists regularly point to Gujarat are frank admissions that have to be made. Now Muslims in India are considered to be at a great disadvantage as far as development is concerned. India has generally been an inclusive society. So should we blame our rulers for the state Indian Muslims find themselves in today? Further integration is not as outright or a one-way street as Zakaria's statements might make it out to be. The government and people can reach out to Muslims and they have to. Muslims are as much a part of this country as a person from any other religion. However we must remember that for Muslims (in many cases) religion is a factor more important than nationality. Unrest in the global Muslim world at the way Palestinians are treated is a direct reminder. Further many of us must have heard of instances when celebrations erupted when Pakistan won a cricket match. So, integration is a two-way street. There will always be fringe elements. But Zakaria is right, we need to do more to integrate our Muslim brothers into our national fabric especially in terms of development.

Moving on, however, somehow Zakaria missed out mentioning Pakistan in his initial assessment of India's terror situation. The spark (may be Gujarat riots) might exist but there also has to be fuel to sustain the inferno. This is helpfully provided by our neighbour. Comparing India with US in anti-terror action is not justified. Why? The US is bordered by Canada (an extremely peaceful place) and Mexico. Now, Mexico has huge narcotics-related problems. However there are no governments or armies (official) actively opposed to the US in its vicinity. Further launching an attack on continental US has a lot of logistical complications. This is not the case with India. In the south till recently we had the LTTE who had assassinated our PM. In the west we obviously have Pakistan. Even if the borders with Pakistan and Bangladesh are fenced, our borders with Nepal and Bhutan are very porous. Further look at how the US addressed terror. It attacked Afghanistan and then Iraq (the latter on the basis of spurious allegations). It set up Camp X-ray at Guantanamo Bay so that US laws would not apply to detainees there. The captured fighters in the "War or Terror" are not brought under the Geneva Convention which deals with prisoners of war. It set up interrogation centres in foreign countries where coercive interrogation techniques and/or outright torture were applied. I am not saying India did not indulge in human rights violations. But to the US the ends definitely seem to justify the means. Imagine what would happen were India to launch a war against Pakistan. The US had the luxury of fighting opponents who were technologically greatly inferior and it still had a tough time. The number of people killed in the "War on Terror" is in large multiples of the 9/11 casualty number (about 3000). What does the US care as long as the casualties are non-US? For instance when a stray missile or bomb, or one guided by faulty intelligence kills civilians in Afghanistan the US just apologises and moves on. There is huge outcry however in the US when US soldier casualties mount. 

Mr. Zakaria is in love with his adopted nation. He says that today, in spite of all restrictions (frisking at airports, laws) an arrested civilian has the greatest chance of getting justice in the US than anywhere else in the world. Maybe he is right. But he has to remember that his adopted country is a nation that condones killing thousands internationally to justify securing "American lives".

Omar's Dangerous Precedent

The younger Abdullah is becoming quite well known for his tweets. However the latest one has caused quite some controversy, and justifiedly. I do not believe what the Tamil Nadu Assembly did in the first place was right. Requesting clemency for Tamilians in spite of their offence set the wrong precedent in the first place. Murugan's daughter might be justified in asking clemency for her father and mother, after all, she has never been able to enjoy her childhood fully.

Karunanidhi finds himself in a strange situation today. His daughter is in jail. So is the dalit face of his party. Remember that this is a state which has 70% reservation (if I am not mistaken). His family and party members have been hounded on the basis of various accusations like land grabbing. He has faced a whitewash in the last assembly elections. The senior citizen is grasping at straws to reclaim some political legitimacy in this situation. The political situation in Sri Lanka has always been an emotive issue in Sri Lanka due to their language affinity. It is sad that the government and in fact the entire state assembly decided to jump onto this populist bandwagon. Remember, whether or not the visionary or saint that he is made out to be by the Congress today, Rajiv Gandhi was in fact a former Prime Minister of our nation. So by supporting his killers is not a state government not going against the law of the land? Does this not show disrespect to the entire legal process and to the position of the President of the Union of India itself?

In Omar's case the situation is a little more complicated. He should remember that Sri Lanka as a nation was never anti-India (to my knowledge). However this seems to be the raison d'etre of Pakistan, or at least the military and/or political leadership. Note that I took the name of the military first. Why is this? Even when Nawaz Sharif was talking peace with A B Vajpayee his army chief, Musharraf was planning and conducting the Kargil war. Thus in Afzal Guru's case the issue is not about simply supporting a person of your religion, or your native land. It is about supporting a nation, an ideology that by its very essence is against our nation. It is sad that the Chief Minister of a state, and that too of a state that has been the bone of contention between India and Pakistan (irrespective of whatever our political class might admit publicly), says this. Apparently now the J & K Assembly will pass a resolution on Afzal Guru. Omar Abdullah and the entire state assembly should be ashamed of their conduct. Two wrongs do not make a right. We have a saying in Telugu - pulini choosi nakka vaatha pettukunnattu - which essentially means says that a fox wanted to look regal like a tiger, it wanted the stripes, so it ended up branding itself with a hot iron.

At the same time the entire issue brings into question the time our legal process of disseminating justice takes. Raiv Gandhi died in 1991. Twenty years later we have still not completed the process. I am not advocating that the condemned be hanged. I am just remarking about the time the process takes. The Bofors case which came out in the 80s was recently closed inconclusively. Afzal Guru was convicted in the Parliament attack case, the attack happened in 2001. The longer the legal process takes the greater is the chance for complications to arise.