Are we secular?

Earlier this afternoon, a link was posted on my facebook wall by a friend. Here's that link.

My first instinct on reading the note was to dismiss it like I dismiss a lot of such trash everyday. Then, after sincere afterthought, I decided to engage with it constructively, since this discussion is happening within my own community and it becomes a duty of sorts for me to do so. Now, I'm writing without any inhibitions - from the perspective of a mature adult human to a group that I'm presuming to be one of mature adult humans. A lot of what I write might come across as irreverent and maybe even disrespectful to some people, though I wish to clarify right now that no disrespect is meant to any individual. My scorn here is 100% dedicated to thought processes & specific thoughts. This note would be open for everyone to read and comment on. However, I shall moderate the comments fiercely and will not tolerate anything that contravenes these ground rules.

(a) No personal attacks. I don't know you & you don't know me. So, please don't make any assumptions or observations about what I (or anybody else) am (is) & what I (or anybody else) do(es).

(b) Keep the discussion to the point. The point being made here is on the secular nature of India with some arguments & counter-arguments. Getting individuals & specific political parties into it is illegit.

(c) If you're stating something as a fact (as opposed to an argument based on opinion), a source would be desirable. In the absence of a credible source, please be prepared to accept your argument as based on opinion.

I've numbered the points made in the original article, as a lot of my responses would be referencing other responses in the same post. Numbering makes it easier for the reader to follow. So, here goes...



1. There are about 52 Muslim countries worldwide. Point at just one Muslim country which provides Haj subsidy.

--> Totally agree. But let's talk about us & only us. We shouldn't bother ourselves with whether other countries do it or not. The question should be...whether India should provide Hajj subsidies or not. My take is...it shouldn't. Neither should it provide any for Amarnath, Kailash-Mansarovar, Kumbh etc. With the multitude of faiths followed in our country, its practically & economically impossible for the government to provide subsidies for pilgrimages of all faiths. So, they should be provided to none.


2. Show one Muslim country where Hindus are extended the special rights that Muslims are accorded in India?

--> Why should Muslim countries be the benchmarks for what a secular country ought to do? Isn't that a twisted argument by itself? I was irritated the first time I encountered it, I'm peeved now. And this question is extremely vague otherwise. What special rights are we talking about? I'd rather engage with something specific than undergo the futility of assumption.


3. Show one country where the population with a whooping 85% majority panders to the indulgence of the 15% minority.

---> Again...very vague & incendiary. Specifics please...what pandering? What indulgence?


4. Show one Muslim country, where a non-Muslim has ever been its President or Prime Minister.

--> First instance - irritated. Second instance - peeved. Third instance - my patience is being tested.


5. Show one Mullah or Maulvi who has issued a 'fatwa' against terrorists.

--> Ask Google. They'll show you many.


6. Hindu-majority Maharashtra, Bihar, Kerala, Pondicherry, etc. have in the past elected Muslims as its Chief Minister. But can you ever imagine a Hindu becoming the CM of the Muslim majority J&K?

--> Yes. I can imagine. Kashmiris are far more secular than we give them credit for. Its just fringe groups (on both sides, interestingly) that display religious intolerance. If you want, I can have both Hindu & Muslim Kashmiris to substantiate my claims. Now, ask yourself if you can imagine Hindu majority Gujarat or Madhya Pradesh to have a Muslim CM.

My rhetorical question was asked with a fairly different intention than the one it was in response to. While the original question was aimed at projecting Muslims as intolerant & Hindus as all-encompassing, my response was to prove the original question to be of a rhetorical nature.


7. In 1947, when India was partitioned, the Hindu population in Pakistan was about 24%.Today it it barely accounts for even 1%.

--> And the point is?


8. In 1947, the Hindu population in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) was 30%. Today it is about 7%.

--> Again...the point is?


9. In contrast, in India, Muslim population has gone up from 10.4% in 1951 to about 16% today; whereas the Hindu population has come down from 87.2% in 1951 to 85% today.

--> Why in contrast? What's the relevance? Now, if I were to look at these figures as a standalone, there might be some inferences that can be drawn from it...but none that could relate to the secular nature of India. If there is any, please enlighten me. :)


10. In India today the Hindus account for 85% of the total population. If Hindus were intolerant, how come Masjids and Madrasas are thriving? How come Muslims are allowed to offer Namaz on the roads? How come Muslims are permitted to proclaim five times in a day on public address systems that there is no other God except Allah?

--> Nobody claims that Hindus are intolerant. Blanket generalisations are the product of an unscientific mindset, something which seems to be inherent in the person asking these questions. Yes...there is a fringe element amongst Hindus that is hugely intolerant. And if they were to have their way, Masjids & Madarsas wouldn't have thrived; Muslims wouldn't have been able to offer the namaz on the road and P.A. systems wouldn't have been blaring the azaan.


11. When Hindus gave away to the Muslims 30% of Bharat along with seed-money in 1947, why should Hindus now have to plead to that community for their sacred places at Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi?

--> The question exhibits a complete lack of knowledge regarding the events sorrounding the independence & partition (I use that word for the lack of a better one). First of all, Hindus didn't give away anything. Second, the division was one of land and not faith. Any further response would be giving undue importance to an insulting question.


12. Gandhiji objected to the decision of the then Cabinet of Ministers and insisted that Somnath Temple should be reconstructed out of public funds and not government funds. Why then in January 1948 did Gandhiji pressurize Nehru and Patel to carry out renovation of the Mosques of Delhi at government expenses?

--> That question could have been better answered by Gandhi. Unfortunately, he's no longer amongst us.


13. Why did Gandhi support the Khilafat Movement which had nothing to do with our freedom movement and what did he get in exchange?

--> Quoting the Wikipedia entry for the Khilafat Movement...

In 1920 an alliance was made between Khilafat leaders and the Indian National Congress, the largest political party in India and of the nationalist movement. Congress leader Mohandas Gandhi and the Khilafat leaders promised to work and fight together for the causes of Khilafat and Swaraj. Seeking to increase pressure on the British, the Khilafatists became a major part of the Non-cooperation movement — a nationwide campaign of mass, peaceful civil disobedience. The support of the Khilafatists helped Gandhi and the Congress ensure Hindu-Muslim unity during the struggle.

14. If Muslims and Christians are minorities in Maharashtra, UP, Bihar some other States, are Hindus not minorities in J&K, Mizoram, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, etc? Why are Hindus denied minority rights in these states?

--> So you agree that certain rights should be accorded to minorities. Or don't you? Your first few points say they shouldn't. Make up your mind as to where you stand. Decrying something when it doesn't suit you & celebrating the same when it does - last I knew, its called opportunism.


15. When Haj pilgrims are given subsidy, why is a similar facility not extended to Hindu pilgrims to Amarnath, Sabarimalai and Kailash Mansarovar?

--> Refer to my response to point # 1.


16. When Christian and Muslim schools can teach Bible and Quran, why Hindus cannot teach the Gita or the Ramayan in Hindu managed schools?

--> Why are you so enamoured with two wrongs making one right? IMO, philosophy & comparitive religion should be taught in schools & colleges as an elective subject and all these texts, along with those for Judaism, Buddhism, Sikhism etc. should be made part of it.


17. Do you recognise that Hindus do have problems that need to be addressed? Or do you think that some of those who call themselves Hindus are themselves the problem?

--> I'll answer the second part of the question first. Some people who call themselves Hindus, and often the saviours of Hindus too, are the problem. Now, the first part. That's a really devious question. Generally speaking, Hindus do not have problems on account of being a Hindu. If someone who's a Hindu has a certain problem, the same problem would be faced by people following other faiths too. Does that put it in perspective?


18. Why incidents in Godhra are blown out of proportion repeatedly, when no-one talks of the ethnic cleansing of four lakh Hindu Pandits from Kashmir?

--> Again...an ill-informed question. "Blown out of proportion" is a subjective term. As for the "ethnic cleansing", here's something that'll puncture that argument.


19. DO YOU CONSIDER THAT:

* Sanskrit is communal and Urdu is secular
* Mandir is communal and Masjid is secular
* Sadhu is communal and Imam is secular
* BJP is communal and Muslim League is secular
* Praveen Togadia is anti-national and Bhukari is secular and a patriot
* Vande Matharam is communal and Allah-O-Akbar is secular
* Shriman is communal and Mian is secular
* Hinduism is communal and Islam is secular
* Hindutva is communal and Jihadism is secular

--> I was waiting to see something like this. A classic propaganda tool, False Choice has been employed in these points. They don't deserve a response.


20. Why Temple funds are spent for the welfare of Muslims and Christians, when those communities are free to spend their money in any way they like?

--> Now that's a joke. First of all, I wonder about the veracity of the claim that temple funds have been used for the welfare of Muslims & Christians. Now, even if I assume that, purely for the sake of argument, it still remains the private business & prerogative of the temple trust that has used the funds in that manner. Why should it bother me or you? Moreover, it just proves the secular nature of India and the anti-secular nature of the person asking this question.


21. Why is there no Uniform Civil Code for all citizens?

--> The first sensible question in this long list. Its a no-brainer that we need a Uniform Civil Code.


22. In what way, J&K is different from Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu or Uttar Pradesh, to enjoy the benefits of Article 370?

--> Grant that too. Article 370 is a blot on our democracy.


23. Abdul Rehman Antulay was in the past made a trustee of the renowned Siddhi Vinayak Temple in Prabhadevi, Mumbai. Will a Hindu, say Mulayam or Laloo, ever be ever made a trustee of a Masjid or Madrasa?

--> Refer to my response for point # 6.


24. Praveen Togadia and other Hindu leaders has been arrested many times on flimsy grounds. Has the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid, Delhi or Ahmed Bhukari have ever been arrested for claiming to be an ISI agent and advocating partition of our nation?

--> On Togadia, yes...he has been arrested many times on flimsy grounds. I just hope he's arrested once for what he really is (a communal jerk) and locked up for life.

The last that I knew, the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid & Bukhari were the same person. And I never knew he'd claimed to be an ISI agent or had advocated partition. Can I be pointed to some credible source for that? Anyways, he's a communal jerk just like Togadia & should be locked up for life.


25. We have had a Muslim President, a Sikh Prime Minister and a Christian Defence Minister so why do still need to prove our secularism every now and then?

--> Who's asking us to prove our secularism? Except for articles like these?


26. Can this happen anywhere, except in a HINDU NATION - BHARATH?

--> We're not a "Hindu Nation". If that's what you desire to live in, Nepal's just next door. Please leave. We can do better without your likes.

The pen, the sword & corruption

More often than not, whenever someone has questioned the limitations of the IAC movement for the passing of the Jan Lokpal Bill, the spontaneous response of the pro-Anna zealots has been the age old counter-attack levelled at the pen - "Have you done anything yourself? If not, why are you criticising others who are doing it"? To a mind conditioned on today's popular culture, this refrain resonates deeply. After all, aren't we the same generation that grew up watching our beloved heroes in films struggling against the villains all throughout and in the end, having to resort to beating them up to set things right? The sword has always held a greater allure than the pen in our collective consciousness. The minuscule number of films that did try to restore a balance were mostly dismissed as "boring art films" by the audience addicted to adrenaline & testosterone. This call of the zealots to act instead of what they feel is intellectualising from ivory towers is a subconscious reaffirmation of the primacy of the sword over the pen.

In the heat of the moment, it maybe understandable, though in no way reasonable, for us to succumb to this conditioning that owes itself to what we consciously know to be mere fiction. Don't we ourselves justify the tripe that's fed to us week after week saying chalta hai...entertainment hi to hai? If we use a manufacturing analogy to illustrate the relationship between the pen and the sword, we have a design engineer who works from the cool confines of an office with at least a fan, if not an A/C and a worker who toils in the midst of the enormous heat generated by the smelter & furnace. Point being that while debate can't undermine the importance of action, the other way round is just as stupid and impractical. If the absence of action makes a process a no-starter, the absence of debate makes it a ticking bomb, threatening to explode anytime. So, its high time we shake ourselves out of this conditioning and start thinking rationally, try to go deeper than what might seem obvious at face value - in short, let's not undermine the importance of the pen anymore. Its pretty clear that we, as a nation, have lost the patience for reading and hence, feel it to be an exercise in redundance, for don't we know everything already? If we think so, we can't be any further from the truth. Our educational setup, with its preoccupation with grades, marks, ranks and such relatively irrelevant motifs doesn't help.

But is it that easy to shed off the conditioning we've been subjected to, all our lives? I agree, its not. Its a painstaking process, borne out of difficult reflection within ourselves. Often, we have to confront our strongly built belief systems. Often, we have to go through social ridicule just for thinking differently. Often, we have to suffer ignominies of the worst kind for attempting to display any irreverence towards what this conditioning, in its larger form of the social value system of a time & place. Its rigorous like nobody's business, but it's necessary and there are no shortcuts to it. Unless we walk through this difficult path ourselves, right to the destination, we can't free ourselves from the shackles of conditioning. And no amount of coercion or pressure can make us walk it if we ourselves are unwilling to do so.

The corruption that we're suddenly so repulsed of over the last few months is an integral part of our conditioning. Whatever strata of society we might belong to, our lives can't remain untouched by corruption. Each of us has to engage with it every single day, be it as a victim, a perpetrator or even a mute spectator. And just like the romanticism of the sword looms large on our consciousness due to our engagement with cinema of a certain kind, the ether of corruption too pervades it just as much due to our everyday engagement with various hues & shades of corruption. We have internalised the mechanisms, the lexicon & the culture of corruption deeply and even though we're consciously aware of the fact that it's not desirable, our subconscious frequently tweaks our conscience in matters of corruption. The economically backward section of the upper castes will justify using a fake caste certificate to get a job in the name of necessity. Little is he aware that he's trampling upon someone else's right like the NREGS agent trampled upon his. The upper middle class father casually shoves a 100 rupee note into the hands of a constable who has caught him jumping a red light, blissfully aware that his 6 year old son is watching and internalising something that'll help him 15 years later when he's caught driving after downing 6 pegs. Life goes on.

Corruption is not merely about money - that would be reducing it to too simplistic an issue. Instead, its a systemic product of the myriad frictions inherent in our socio-economic setup and thus, a metamorphic entity unlike the demon figure attributed to it in popular lore. For a casual labourer, it would be something on the lines of him getting only Rs.50 a day under the NREGS, the rest going to various mouths in the bureaucratic food chain. For a Class IV municipal employee in a city, it could mean having to pay Rs.5 instead of Rs.2 per kg of rice to his PDS agent and getting only 5kg a month instead of the 10 allotted to him. For a student in a municipal school, it might mean having to study under the severe summer sun while the school building is rented out for a wedding function. For the student in an international school in a metro, it could be having to bribe the traffic cop for riding his bike without a license. For an upper middle class student trying for higher education abroad, it could mean bribing the passport official to get his passport fast-tracked. You get the drift. Point being, to some its an evil that threatens their very existence. To some others, its a source of frustration. To some more, its a convenience. And to a few, its a tool to victimise the others.

Given this fluid nature of corruption, the legislative route is not an ideal way to combat it. Ever heard of a cholera endemic being cured by dropping chlorine tablets in the municipal water supply? Won't help as long as proper food, sanitation & proper nursing are not part of the picture. Legislation needs to be well-defined in terms of its scope and scale. But how can we define something that means different things to different people in the context of a legislation where black and white is pure compulsion? If we were to have laws to cover everything that could constitute corruption, we'll keep doing just that till the cows come back home. Even if we were to achieve this seemingly impossible goal, there are other bigger roadblocks. The sheer volume of cases could overwhelm our judicial structures. And after all that, these laws would do nothing to change our social value systems that have shaped and gotten entrenched over centuries. So while the statistics on cases, prosecutions and sentences might convey a picture that corruption is well under check, the systemic rot from within will get from bad to worse and then beyond.

One might ask, what's the need for legislation then? The need is one of handling residual corruption, because if left unchecked, residual corruption can blossom into the same monster that we're feeling threatened by in recent times. One might ask further, how do we bring down the gigantic levels of corruption that we're seeing now to a residual level? By bringing about a positive change in our collective social consciousness. For that, we'll have to focus our energies at the very entities that determine the conscience, thus making it largely a two pronged struggle. The first would be at the most basic unit of our social structure - the family, gradually working its way upwards in the social hierarchy. The second will have to begin at the top echelons of the state and then percolate down to the individual citizen through the civic structure. And make no mistake, we cannot take a shortcut around this painstakingly long route to a healthier society.

At the family level, we could begin with inculcating the values of honesty, transparency & tolerance into our children. The only way this is possible is if we lead by example. As they grow up, we'll need to help build their thought process on the lines of reasoned & critical thought. We should provide them with a holistic environment while they grow up in terms of optimum stress on nutrition, physical activity & intellectual stimulation along with the education they get in school. We need to engage with them on subjects hitherto considered taboo and educate them instead of blocking them out as is the norm. This will give us a generation that'll score far higher than us on their emotional & social quotient who are a far better bet to uphold the basic principles of public propriety compared to our generation, that's stuck in the firm clutches of a corrupt social value system.

The state on the other hand, should work with the quality of life of the citizens as its top priority. This quality of life could be defined as access to quality food, quality education, quality healthcare, quality infrastructure, clean & fair governance & varied and ample vocational opportunities. The attitude of the state should be that of an enabler instead of a big brother. There will have to be a concentrated effort on the part of the state to win over a strong sense of faith within its citizens, making the approachability of the state a crucial factor.

Listing out the ideal approach to combat corruption took barely two paragraphs but the job is easier said than done. The state's part of the bargain is something that could take decades as consensus is a rather scarce commodity in this diverse nation. The difficulty level will be elevated further due to the sheer scale of the job at hand. But all this would seem like child's play in comparison with the other prong of this struggle. The bottoms-up change will be contingent to individuals rising above the prejudices inherent in their subconscious and bravely confronting their conscience at regular intervals. And till the efforts from the state converge with its opposite prong, this will be one uphill battle for we'll have to emerge victorious in this battle at an individual level without the support of reasonable quality of life from the state. Once we reach this stage of convergence though, both the prongs of the struggle will feed into each other and we'll have a far more coherent final lap in this marathon.

Can we expect the state to follow its end of the bargain as things stand now? Perhaps not. And that's where the current revolution should move now. To the political arena. We need an infusion of fresh blood into our political circles. Fresh blood with a pragmatic vision and a common agenda of delivering on the "quality of life for everyone" promise. In my next piece, I shall outline my views on what this fresh blood would be walking into. In other words, a vision, ideology & broad agenda for a vibrant & progressive India.

I'm against corruption but I'm not with Anna Hazare

I've been keenly following the current debate on our current political scenario through television & the internet (including online editions of several newspapers & magazines) ever since a "nation-wide" struggle against "corruption" broke out in late march. I used quotes on two words in the previous sentence because these words are key to the movement in question, but in my opinion (painstakingly contemplated, if I may claim so), are either debatable or vague or both...though the point of this piece is not to debate or define them. That has been done extensively and yet yielded no result (the debate remaining just as polarised and the definitions just as vague). What I'm attempting to do here is to dig a little deeper into the larger debate and put forward a new perspective to it. I suppose it goes without saying that this piece, in its entirety, is my opinion stemming forth from my world-view and does not claim to be the absolute truth. However, what I write here is something I strongly believe in and am willing to debate it constructively within the rules of civil debate.

The most damning characteristic of the debate has been its oversimplification. True to our nature as a people, we have royally ignored the shades of grey in this debate and have looked only at the black and white. To the extent that even grey has been slotted into black or white according to the commenter's perspective. Voices dissenting against the specific stand of the self-appropriated "civil society representation" have been labelled cynical beyond redemption or in some extreme cases, even pro-corruption. This rigid & exclusive nature of our movements has again spawned a cacophony of fragmented voices speaking in unison and as a result, losing all coherence. What's truly shocking is the standard of debate amongst the urban elite, especially the corporate crowd - exposing their naivete & complete lack of political awareness. Everybody has a stand on corruption, in some cases, even extreme (full support for capital punishment in cases of corruption), but hardly anyone has stood up to impeccable values himself. The disgustingly self-righteous (and I have no qualms in accepting that I myself was a part of this group till not so long ago) sneer at the police constable pocketing a petty bribe but casually go about procuring fake bills from the local chemist towards the end of the financial year in order to save a few hundred in taxes. And in the face of an argument to rationalize (not condone) the behaviour of the constable on the basis of his paltry income, they assume a moral high ground questioning the constable's desire to get his children educated in a good school. Sad part is that they aren't even remotely aware of their double standards, leave alone confront them.

Corruption is deeply ingrained into our moral fibre and it would need much more than mere legislation for us to get rid of it. The media-driven mass hysteria over the Lokpal bill has catapulted a majority of our population into a zone of complacence that the bill would be a panacea to our sufferings. Suddenly, issues such as whether the PM & Judiciary should be brought under the ambit of the Lokpal (which IMO are secondary) have become matters of prime importance for us. Let me go back a couple of years and talk about the Lokayukta institution in Karnataka. Justice N.Santosh Hegde (a "civil society representative" member of the Joint committee on the Lokpal bill), as the then Lokayukta had taken a strong stand against illegal mining in the Bellary district. The kingpins of this mining operation were MLA's belonging to the ruling party in the state and they continued with their misdeeds, undeterred by the Lokayukta's stand. After much drama that included Justice Hegde's resignation & subsequent U-turn, ironically at the behest of the president of the same ruling party, the Bellary brothers still continue their mining operations, untouched by law. A case that laid bare the toothlessness of the institution of the Ombudsman when faced with government & bureaucratic apathy. And from a certain extreme perspective, even raised questions about the integrity of the incumbent.

Today's youth shuns politics, understandably so. Civil activist Arvind Kejriwal, on a TV interview with Karan Thapar, quipped, "What if I don't want to contest elections?" to a question as to why he took the route of agitation instead of making his voice heard through parliament. And while I understand his cynicism, I certainly don't approve of it. For IMO, our constitution provides for a certain system of legislation, the current dictating of terms by the "civil society representatives" is setting a dangerous precedent by subverting the constitutional mechanism for legislation. In fact, I would even go back a few steps and disapprove of the government allowing this self-appropriated group to join the process of legislation though inclusion in a joint drafting committee (the constitution allows for the civil society voice to be heard through the Standing Committee). Just as much as I disapprove of the National Advisory Council. My point of discontent is not against individual members of the NAC or the "civil society representation" (I hold quite a few of them in high regard), but its rather against their extra-constitutional say in legislation.

A counter-argument to my point in the paragraph above, often used in recent times by the "civil society representatives", is that it is a constitutional right of the people to question their elected representatives during their term. Rightly so. But remember, we're just talking a right to question here. Nowhere does our constitution allow for groups to muscle their way into the legislative process. The right begins and ends at questioning the representatives. What good would that do, one may ask, if we can't take any action against the wrongdoings of the elected representatives? The answer to that is simple - we don't vote that person or party during the next election. This is what the constitution allows us. That's a whole lot of power, though we've grossly underused it over the decades. And today, if we have the most corrupt government we've ever seen, its because we never questioned. As they say, in a democracy, we get the government we deserve.

Even if I were to look beyond that as technical mumbo-jumbo, my larger disillusionment from this movement stems from its lack of clarity & coherence. I wonder whether its a movement against corruption because a crushing majority of the people on the streets are there due to their frustration with a hugely dysfunctional system. And that does gladden my heart like never before. It shows that we're not apathetic beasts of circumstance, but human beings who have suddenly risen from dormancy. But then, I'm confronted with the leadership of this movement (Anna Hazare, Arvind Kejriwal, Kiran Bedi & the Bhushans) and trust me, its a killjoy. For they seem to have just a single point agenda - getting "their version" of the Lokpal Bill passed on the floor of the house. Their silence & dismissiveness towards anything other than their draft of the bill smacks of a certain shallowness, shortsightedness & a tendency to play to the galleries. I often wonder- what next? There's no answer coming forth from the leadership of this movement. And with the stage gradually filling up with members of the existing political class that's already bereft of any ideology, it becomes as elementary as the quip directed at Dr.Watson that the momentum arising out of the groundswell of public engagement will eventually be appropriated by the very system that the common man abhors.

I thought of giving the leadership of the movement a further benefit of doubt by assuming a substantial stand against corruption on their part. And that's when I hit a roadblock in the form of their specific agenda itself. Why do we need a Lokpal in the first place? And my thoughts on this have been very succintly articulated (far better than I myself could) by Nitin Pai here.

Let's face it, we are a country of paradoxes. One of the most glaring being our ambitions & allusions of becoming an economic superpower co-existing with the massive scale of poverty. Our democracy has invariably been victim to these imbalances, whether we like it or not. These imbalances have brought about unwanted factors like religion, caste, money and muscle-power into our politics, thus resulting in the demise of positive political will towards governance.

Now, I'm not being completely cynical and saying that corruption can't be weeded out of our system. What I am saying is that I wonder if we 30-somethings will ever get to see the end of this malaise in our lifetimes. For we're currently languishing in a system not different from the Augean Stables. The question facing us 30-somethings (and others too, for that matter) is whether we're ready to soil ourselves in order to clean the system. To begin with, we need to revitalize our political space with something it has been lacking since decades - idealism & ideology. My debut as a voter was during the 1996 general elections and I remember voting with a bubbling enthusiasm. But I haven't let the ballot ink touch my nails ever since then, despite the monumental efforts of the powers that be to present my right to vote as a duty. Not because I was amongst the millions of my generation who were apathetic towards politics but because not once have I seen a political party match the eloquence of its election manifesto with equally eloquent action. Not once have I heard an election campaign being delivered from an ideological plank. Rhetoric & personal insinuations remain the bulwark of every single election campaign, irrespective of the political party it belongs to.

The bottomline? There's no denying the need for urgency in the fight against corruption. But we should understand two core aspects of this fight very clearly before we plunge into the fight. One, the urgency is for action and not for a solution. The problem is a systemic one and we all are a part of the problem. So, there can be no quick fix to this. It'll take years, maybe even decades if we are to reduce our corruption levels to residual and manageable. Two, this fight would involve huge sacrifices on our part. It's easy to say that we won't bribe a traffic cop if caught or the 100 rupees bakshish for birth/death certificates. But a tough stand against corruption goes beyond that. Remember, we would have to refuse donations for our children's admissions to a good school and as a result, our children might be forced to go to schools that we normally wouldn't want them to study in. Or we would have to refuse to work for a corrupt organisation, thereby reducing our incomes considerably or even putting us into unemployment. We would have to refuse to buy products & services from corrupt organisations, thereby hitting our cozy lifestyles. And these are just some examples. This fight will be a tough one indeed.

Updates : For those who might've felt this piece incomplete, there are more to follow. And did anyone notice howcorporate India has been piggy-backing on this movement already? You haven't? Oh well...I've seen tonnes of ads promoting Anna Hazare merchandise on various blogs & social media. And they say this is a pristine movement untouched by corruption of any kinds.

Review : Rakht Charitra

I discarded my first draft of this review and have restarted again. The act owes itself to a guilty conscience of having suggested Rakht Charitra to a friend while walking out of the theatre. The recommendation was honest and I would still recommend it to fans of Ram Gopal Varma. There seemed to be a marked improvement in several aspects that had been his forte but had slowly turned into indulgent excesses in his later films. But when I sat down to write this piece, each of those improvements had a caveat attached to it. Which made me wonder whether this was a reversal in the trend or just a breather in the downward spiral. So out went that draft and I begin afresh without letting either Ramu's erstwhile fanboy or one of his biggest critic in recent times take over my objectivity.

Despite the caveats, I do want to mention a few things that led to my initial positive response. These are things that used to be the forte of RGV till they morphed into indulgent excesses in recent years. There are some scenes involving visceral violence that are bound to put off the sensitive ones and in some cases, even give bouts of discomfort to the hardened ones. There's a marked improvement in the cinematography with the lighting being much better than the trademark darkness of his films. The cutting is much more relaxed than usual and as a result, one can soak in some finer details from the scenes. The fact that Ramu is on home ground (Andhra, politics, violence) also throws up a few nuanced touches like the jewelry & costumes. Most importantly, there was a sincere enough attempt at doing justice to the biopic of a politician/mafiosi.

Now, the caveats. The violence is borrowed straight out of the Takeshi Kitano school of reel gore. The fact that I had watched Kitano's Outrage (a film depicting some ingenious ways of killing) just the previous day made it all the more irritating. The attempt at doing justice to the subject sadly remained just that, an attempt. There could have been quite a few interesting characters that could have represented a fuller picture of the political reality of that time, but they all end up in cliched mediocrity…either cutouts or false-starters or non-starters. And while the cinematography did impress me largely, there was a noticeable smattering of weird angles (one of them involving a complete rotation of perspective…migraine inducing).

The feeling that Ramu could have lost it all gets strength from some parts of the film that go fair and square into the absurd territory. There's this character of a female police officer played by Ashwini Kalsekar that defies all logic on the reason for her presence in the film and the attention given to her. Talking of police, I also wonder if there was any hidden symbolism in getting a senior police officer to obsess on chewing a stick of sugarcane in his only scene in the film. And of course, the no Ramu film can be complete without the ever present loud BGM. To add to the cacophony in Rakht Charitra, we have a voiceover narration which features a screechy voice, amateurishly written lines (there are at least 3 different dialects of hindi used in the voiceover) and redundant contribution (whatever the voiceover says is explained again through visuals).

Glaring inconsistencies in the writing also make me wonder about the application (or the lack of it) in the scripting process. We have another police officer (also in his only scene in the film) first mentioning that the police should work within the framework of the law and within a minute talks about the police playing their "game" at the right time. The film is set in a fictitious town (Anandpur as opposed to the real Anantapur) with fictitious names (Pratap Ravi as opposed to the real Paritala Ravi) but a certain part of the film mentions the real name of a building where a crucial event in the film takes place just to stress on the realism quotient.

As mentioned earlier, most of the characters are badly written. The only exception is that of the psychotic & debauched Bukka Reddy (Abhimanyu Singh), the main villain. But Abhimanyu fails the character with his monotonous expression. The performances display a similar graph…regulation stuff from the actors with one explosive performance slightly redeeming a badly written character. Shatrughan Sinha packs a punch in his performance as Shivaji Rao (the NT Rama Rao parallel) but the character (one of the biggest names in the political history of independent India) is reduced to a cardboard cutout that can be found in any Ramu film involving politics. The other actors are mostly pedestrian.

I had gone into the film expecting a larger than life biopic. And what I got was a very cliched treatment of the subject. Interestingly, Ramu is doing a Kill Bill with Rakht Charitra. There's a sequel releasing in 4 weeks. Rakht Charitra concludes with a trailer of the sequel. And this is the first time I'm rooting for the film not to stay true to its trailer. The trailer is making it out to be a revenge drama. What I would have expected was the blanks in the political drama to be filled up. Even if the sequel does so to a reasonable extent in the background of the revenge drama, I would come out satisfied. Here's hoping for the disconnect between promos & films to continue with Rakht Charitra - II.

उड़ान

This piece of poetry, my first in Hindi, is inspired by Udaan, Vikramaditya Motwane's debut film. While watching the film, I pondered on the interpretation of flight as used in the title of the film. And that led to a thought on how we all perceive the term FLIGHT in different ways. I wrote the piece as a freeform experiment where I used the interpretation of flight as a metaphor while describing the disillusionment amongst youth, the abject materialism of the flower-power generation and the misguided spirituality of the senior citizens. The difference is further accentuated by the shifts in language and context in the 3 stanzas. Without much ado...

उड़ान

मैं उड़ना चाहता हूँ...

सितारों को छूने के लिए नहीं
चाँद को चूमने के लिए नहीं
और न ही सूरज से ज़िद आज़माने को

मैं उड़ना चाहता हूँ दुनिया को पीछे छोड़ जाने को|

जहाँ सपने कागज़ के बेमायने टुकड़ों में बस जाते हैं
जहाँ आगे बढ़ने की होड़ में सब पीछे छूट जाते हैं
जहाँ हमें सब कुछ खोना मंज़ूर है कागज़ के उन टुकड़ों को पाने को
मैं उड़ना चाहता हूँ दुनिया को पीछे छोड़ जाने को|


मैं उड़ना चाहता हूँ...

पर पॅकेज डील के लिए नहीं
फ्रीक्वेंट फ्लायर माइल्स के लिए नहीं
और न ही अपना स्टेटस उछालने को

मैं उड़ना चाहता हूँ अपना कीमती वक्त बचाने को|

अभी टैक्स लाएबिलिटी पर सर घुमाना बाकी है
अभी प्रोमोशनल कैम्पेन का जुलूस निकालना बाकी है
अभी और भी बहुत सी जिम्मेदारियां हैं निभाने को
मैं उड़ना चाहता हूँ अपना कीमती वक्त बचाने को|


मैं उड़ना चाहता हूँ...

मुक्ति के उन्माद के लिए नहीं
सत्चिदानन्द के स्वाद के लिए नहीं
और न ही किसी सिद्धि को पाने को

मैं उड़ना चाहता हूँ स्वामी की नाक उठाने को|

स्वामी का वचन ही एक सत्य है बाकी सब है माया
स्वामी की मीठी वाणी में सबने है प्रभु पाया
स्वामी को जो न माने प्रण है उनको तुच्छ दिखाने को
मैं उड़ना चाहता हूँ स्वामी की नाक उठाने को|

Fuck you very much

This was a year end piece of poetry I'd written as a tribute to all the people & things that touched my life in 2009. The piece is titled Fuck You Very Much.

You knocked at my door twice this year.
Your tongue is honeyed, yet stings like a spear.
With a fistful of salt, we take each word you’ve spoken.
For all your promises are made to be broken.
You’re a marvel of sorts, O politician dear.
Fuck you very much.

I grew up watching you with involved and awestruck eyes.
I learnt a lot from you, virtue & vice.
But the relationship veered off the map.
As all you dish out these days is inane crap.
Pity, O idiot box, only in your old form were you nice.
Fuck you very much.

And then there’s this demon called corporate slavery.
I engaged with it all along mistaking it for bravery.
It forced me to compromise my values.
Good I realized in time I’d paid more than my dues.
And welcomed an uncertain freedom in lieu if a unsatisfactory salary.
Fuck you very much.

How can I leave out the dogma of society?
The repression of masses in the name of piety.
They say there’s only one right way.
And the thousands preaching them are always at bay.
Shunning any semblance of sobriety.
Fuck you very much.

Last but not the least, is you, the common man.
You keep absorbing this shit like nobody else can.
You’re in love with status quo.
Positive initiatives are always met with your NO NO.
You disgust me no end with your “Chalta Hai” deadpan.
Fuck you very much.

My journey – Marriage, Divorce, Subsequent Love & Freedom

I was among the chosen few.
Who was deemed to be of virtue.
So I was married off at 9.
With all the pomp & show that was due.

I was deflowered in full public view.
And I, young & naïve, didn’t know what to do.
I couldn’t understand or relate to anything being done.
So I just sat there and gazed into the endless blue.

And then began those sessions twice a day.
That were an endless pain but I had no say.
They’ll make me a complete being, I was told.
But 3 years without a break, not one fulfilling day.

I was 12 when the wall broke & my faith stood shattered.
My reasoning had failed and my patience was battered.
I rebelled against society, and they hated me for it.
But by then, it was me, and me only that mattered.

Self-destruction was the name of the game then on.
I coasted by on the dark road lit by neon.
Cause something still bothered me, I wasn’t complete yet.
And only the path to completion would usher in a new dawn.

Finally, dawn broke, and I’m on the path to completion.
My gut says its right and it also stands to reason.
I’m in love now, and it feels so great.
Fulfillment is now the flavour of the season.

Ironically though, the path was never far from me.
Cause my love and ex-spouse are descendants of the same tree.
My aversion for my ex-spouse guided me to my love.
I could see beyond religion and find the path to truth – I’m free.

Modern Day Education

The young man dressed dapper for his interview.
Attuned to corporate fashion was he, from hair gel to shoe.
His CV was 4 pages long; it made him look like a King Kong.
But he was still part of a protozoan zoo.
A product of modern day education.

He excelled at everything in and out of class.
He knew he was on his way to fame en masse.
He aced all his tests; for he was none less than the best.
But standing was he on a shallow tower of glass.
A product of modern day education.

For he was bred in a system that thrived on robots.
Where the likes of him were methodically manufactured in lots.
Where he was trained to follow the rule; at home and at school.
Where human creativity was reduced to naught.
A product of modern day education.

“We’re the new IT superpower”, everyone screamed their voices hoarse.
The service industry was the new economic main course.
We need process orientation; so thinking & research can go into hibernation.
And all set to conquer the world are we, with our human workforce.
All products of modern day education.

But wait a minute, my friend, is the workforce really human?
Or is it just an army of trained preprogrammed operators, instead of a thinking man & woman?
We’re well equipped with the HOW and WHAT; it’s the WHY that poses some food for thought.
How aligned is our education with questioning, logic & reason?
That for you, is modern day education.