Crossing the Rubicon

A Tete-a-Tete with Shashi Tharoor

2009-12-11T18:08:00.010+05:30

A transcript of the interview with Shashi Tharoor, Hon. MP from Trivandrum and Minister of State for External Affairs in the Manmohan Singh government. Thanks to Krishn, my co-interviewer, for transcribing the entire interview. The following interview was first published on his blog, “Krshn’s Communique.”

(Source: Krshn's Communique)

Interviewing the “Indian Indian”, Dr. Shashi Tharoor

One of the most charismatic personalities on the face of the Indian political scene today is Dr. Shashi Tharoor, Minister of State in External Affairs Ministry. With his tweeting habits and the occasional ‘misquoted’ comments has made him a media darling. Me and my friend Pratyush had the opportunity to interview him before he became a representative in the Indian Parliament. The interview was taken in a picturesque palace-turned-hotel in the beautiful city of Udaipur earlier this year in February and has been published in my magazine, my final year project of college. Making this interview public for the first time- the complete transcript. Dr. Shashi Tharoor at his witty and intellectual best before he became a rage in India.

Q. A student journalist, a writer, a diplomat all by the age of 22. How did you manage to put on such an assortment of hats, what was your drive?

A. I am not sure if anybody can fully explain what drives them, it comes from within. I remembers years ago while reading about George Bernard Shaw, he was asked “what makes you write” he said “I write for the same reason that a cow gives milk.” In other words, it inside you it going to come out. And its self-evident. So a part of me says, that I do the things that I want to do because I cant help doing it . Now that’s not the whole of it obviously, various other things come into it. You have to have a talent for something, you have to have opportunities to show that talent and that talent in turn has to be recognized. I am not so immodest as to suggest that a certain amount luck doesn’t come into all of this as well. But the opportunity was that my first story was published when I was 10 years old, a short story by me was first published. There is nothing more exciting and even addictive than seeing your name in print the first time, you keep wanting it to happen. Its like a first kiss. It carried on and I did that right throughout my school days. It also definitely helped that I was an asthmatic child and so the number of opportunities to go out and play with friends, which all of us did as kids, were often curtailed by my inability to breathe properly and keep up, as I had to sit down and huff every few minutes. So you know, that too becomes a factor. But anyway, I saw my name published and it seemed I was getting a certain amount of appreciation in what I was doing so I kept going with that. On the other stuff, the studies front, that was because as a child of middle class parents, parents said, you its great, you have a talent you must write. But, it better be a hobby, no-one makes a living by writing. So they told me to go take exams and sorts and have a normal career, whatever that maybe. The would be happy if I was a doctor or an engineer, or an IAS or IFS. But the whole ambition was that make sure by conventional yard sticks you do that. So, come home finish your homework and ten if you get time you can write, so that was always the case. Because, unfortunately the reality of living in a high zone with a salaried father and a low income, cushioned to rest upon as it were, I naturally always saw that writing was something in addition to, and not in lieu of my studies. That’s why the both tracks were together.

Q. So it was a hobby, and you had a career in it, as well as somewhere else too? 

 A. I was always good in taking exams. I mean there are many many people who are solid in a number of areas but who didn’t have this talent. Einstein dropped out of school for that sake, he failed in his school. I on the other hand would not claim to ever be an Einstein. But I can come first in some of the things and can come first in class. In our country that opens doors. I got highest rank in school throughout, and when I left school I could join any college I wanted to, as they were happy to have me. St. Stephen’s did not even take my interview, because my marks were so high. So, I basically went through that kind of a track and then carried on in the academic stream and then to a conventional profession. I never gave up, the feeling that evenings, weekend whenever I can get time, I used to write. Again no TV, no computers no distractions, that also helped.

Q. Since you have spoken about the Indian education system, there are a lot of products of the Indian institutes of higher education, who have made their name globally, but somehow the institutes themselves are not that renowned globally. Why is that?  

A. Well, there are a number of factors. Lets take Stephens, I am convinced that it is one of the best liberal arts colleges in the world. But you don’t have a way of getting international recognition for one institution because in our system, Delhi University has 54 colleges from which St. Stephens is just one. The fact that the teaching, the ethos, the extra curriculars, everything is around the college, doesn’t matter if its international or Delhi University. Secondly we are looking at not only the overall performances but also at things like the facilities and so on. Our own system frankly has a lot be desired in terms where modern education is elsewhere _we have far lesser choices, we have old syllabi and prescribed texts. I remember in my time, I had a 5 pointer, and I was like getting the highest marks in school one assumed, that if I didn’t want to go into the sciences as I had done humanities, I would do economics, as that was seen the next track up. But I wasn’t interest in economics, and even if I had gone into economics, the prevailing dogmas were of socialism. And if you weren’t a subscriber to that point of view, there is no way you could do _or study economics in India. Because the syllabus prescribes a certain point of view. That kind of thing I would be outgrowing slowly, I haven’t looked it more carefully. But, the truth is that in our country, we are extremely bright and gifted people, who sometimes it is said, or has to be said, triumph despite the system rather because of the system. Having said that, one thing I will say. The incredible amount of pressure that we put on our kids at all levels, to get into first grade in school, right up to graduation and then college, admission into colleges, admission at every stage, means that we are given the drive to excel, cause it’s a question of survival. You see a mediocre student in America will get into a fairly good college if other things are going for him-they are looking at a well-rounded class . In our system, you not only have to be able, you have to be very hardworking, just to be able to cut across each of the thresholds. That means given the tools Indians do outstandingly well. I certainly couldn’t believe I was 19 when I graduated from college, I was the youngest student in my graduate school in States. I was 19 when I came out of my undergraduate college. So I saw a bit of a jump, but then I discovered when I was attending the classes and writing graduate papers that somebody who was from the Indian system, it was extremely easy, and the resources available were far greater. Those days in the 70’s _there were no computers but I could go to the library, I had access to material that I could have only fantasized about in my rather good college in Delhi. So as long as the mind had been reasonably trained and the habit of writing, as in India we used to write papers, rather than multiple choice, that was there. While American students older than me were struggling to write term papers, for me it was a breeze, because we were just trained to do that. And I am told that the same applies to IIT kids when they go to America and other meritorious students from India. So because of that I don’t think that you should think negatively about the Indian system because some of the bad habits in the Indian system actually translate very well when it comes to international competition. Even our one of the biggest weaknesses, which is the emphasis on rote learning, the mugging up as we say that, that has some strengths as well. The bad thing is it hampers creativity. You are told to study a certain thing and this is the answer you have to write for the exam. The good thing is. It really sharpens people’s memories. And to this day, at least the people of my generation, I am not sure if its true of yours, are able to quote chunks of Shakespeare, famous poems or famous idioms in English or whatever language, which we can do with ease, as it was drilled into us from a young age. Whereas, in America, even my contemporaries, let alone the other people dont have a clyue becuase they were never taught to learn anything by heart. You see, so you can have too much freedom as well, in the academic space. It’s a balance, there are good things about our system, there are bad things about our system. The bad things about our system particularly involve lack of imagination, lack of freedom of thought, lack of options, lack of choices, lack of resources and so on. The good things about our system include the ability to really press the student, that student has the ability to excel in a certain array, that the students in the west are simply not called upon or challenged to do. So that gives a huge advantage to all of us.

Q. So do you describe yourself as a product of your education received in India or the higher learning in the west?  A. Yes, its India very much.

Q. It is quite startling that in your years of international work, you have retained your Indian citizenship, though you reside much in the west. You keep coming to India, every now and then, why is that?  

A. My situation is also very conscious in the sense that, I wasn’t migrating anywhere. I happened to have taken an international job, that put me in different countries in different terms. I did have opportunities obviously, when I studied in America. Many of my fellow students were staying on and getting jobs, but that never interested me. I always saw myself as an Indian. When applied and joined the UN, my first posting was in Geneva, then I was posted in Singapore, then it was Geneva again, then I moved to New York. I went to each of these places without trying to become Swiss or become Singaporean or become American. Why, because it was the job that takes me there, not that country that attracted me. If New York wasn’t UN headquarters, I wouldn’t have gone to New York, its as simple as that. So while I was there, I remember getting offended, whenever people accidentally or inaccurately referred to me as an Indian American, I said I was an Indian Indian and not and Indian American, right now I happen to be in America as my job is here. If tomorrow my job is over, I’ll leave. And that’s what happened, as my job is over, I started spending more and more time in India, and the transition has simply brought me back to my own country.

Q. You have worked with the UN, now this organization remains the sole international body with a worldwide presence. In the context of the Iraq war, do you think the UN has bee reduced to a mere instrument, for the big powers getting legitimacy for their illegal actions? The Rwandan genocide, the Darfur situation, and the biggest example being the Iraq war. You have been a votary of the UN, and sill vehemently support it, but the image the UN has that, its just a mere stamp?  

A. Not at all. Let me explain. First of all, when the American and the Brits wanted to attack Iraq, they went to the United Nations Security Council asked for legitimization, they never got it. The Security Council basically did not respond to that. After 6 weeks of debate, hey withdrew their draft resolution, they could not get enough support to get it through. So your very example, makes the counter argument, that it didn’t do the rubber stamping. It is true, that after the Americans took over Baghdad and had established themselves, they went back to the council to seek legitimacy for the new state of affairs, and that they were given. But you see, fact is why would countries not give them that. They appeared to have completely won and the Iraqi people appeared at that point to have accepted that result. So, it was simply a question of legally accepting a new reality. But, as things began to unravel it was very interesting to see, that the US continuously went back to the UN to get and extension of their authorization to remain. And finally, when it expired last year, the international legitimacy part was over, the US forces are now staying on as a bilateral agreement with the legal government of Iraq. So this is the way in which it unfolded.. Darfur is a different story altogether, there some of the powerful countries actually wanted to condemn Sudan and Darfur, but other powerful countries protected them. And why is it, the U.N. is a mirror of the world. It is an organization of sovereign countries, and these sovereign countries then get together, and decide what is before them. Suppose if there had been no UN, you did not have the UN framework, would anything had been any different in this regard? Clearly the powerful countries would still decide. At least UN gives them a framework within which they can see and explore and consort their policies. If you had no framework, you would have much more of a law with powerful countries doing what they wanted to do. So we should be glad that we have this framework. Again I point out, Dag Hammarskjöld, the 2nd UN Secretary General, had said 50 years ago, that UN was not created to take mankind to paradise, but rather save them from hell. So, the limitations of the UN are easy to point to, no one points out the successes. When so much is done, going back to the cold war and preventing cold war fro turning hot. The invention of peacekeeping as a means of diffusing local and regional conflicts, before they ignite a superpower conflict. The whole work in such areas as passports etc. Everything that no one country or a group of one countries, however rich and powerful they might be, can solve on their own like climate change, terrorism, drug abuse, refugee movements and so many examples, so you do need a body for all this. So to reduce the UN on one issue or 2 issues, when its dealing with a thousand issues is insane.

Q. Sir in 2005, the then Secretary General of the UN Mr. Kofi Annan, headed a report titled ‘In Larger Freedom’, pertaining to UN Security Council reforms. Do you think the current permanent members, especially US and China are amenable to the expansion of the Security Council?  

A. I think it’s a challenge for us to take, or continue taking on. It was clear by the following year, in 2006 when I contested, that the reform of the council was not going to happen. And one of the reasons was very normal, that it was not just powerful countries, one might think that the powerful countries don’t want to dilute their power. But is was also all other countries that set not to be gained anything by a handful of other countries becoming more powerful. And for every aspirant for a new permanent seat, there were at least one, and sometimes two or three, who said unko kyu de rahe ho, humko kyu nahi (why should they get the advantage, why not us), called the coffee club. So, the result of that was that, the initial talk of Germany and Japan, the Italians said that “what’s all this talk of Germany and Japan, we lost the war too”. Then you have got the Chinese who were not happy about Japan, Koreans were not happy about Japan, Chinese being quietly unhappy about India, but they didn’t feel any need to oppose us publicly as Pakistan was opposing us strongly and Indonesia to some degree not so publicly. And in Africa we have got the whole issue of, everyone supporting South Africa, so Nigeria and Egypt are getting exercised. and then countries like Algeria were not getting either way, saying why should anybody become first among equals in our continent. So they have not been able to get any African countries to sign on because Africa has got a policy of united approach. And Latin America, Brazil is almost like India in South America, in terms of size and weight, but all the other countries are saying, these guys do not even speak Spanish, why do we want them represent us. So the result is that they are unwilling to find a formula, which is further complicated by the very high threshold which you have to cross. You have to get a 2/3rd majority in the house. And then ratification by 2/3rd parliaments, including all the 5 permanent members. So it has to be a formula, which is acceptable to 2/3rd and is not unacceptable to any of the permanent members. Now such a formula has been elusive. My opinion is that we should go to Obama early on, and say this is the priority for us, help us and as far as we are concerned, we believe that if you take this issue on, you will be able to break the logjam in ways that nobody else could till now.

Q. The Bush administration came up with a criteria. It needs to be a democracy, contribute to the peacekeeping force and have a larger economy. They explicitly supported Japan, but it almost seemed that they were willing to accommodate India as well, in that fold. What will be the change in Obama administration, one can not see that happening. Bush portrayed there open disdain for the UN, they appointed John Bolton as the ambassador, who was an open critic of the UN. Is the regime change in the US going to help matters? 

 A. It could. It also depends on how effectively we approach them. During the time of the Bush administration we had the so called the G4. Which was Brazil, Germany, Japan and India. We should resonate the G4, and if possible we should informally associate South Africa with it and then we should frankly go, with a new position to the Americans saying we have taken all your criteria into account, we have taken all that. But, this we think is the formula that can work. If you are prepared to sign on this formula and if you indicate your support for it, it would break the logjam because a lo of other countries including American allies have been taking refuge behind America’s indifference. But the longer this indifference continues, the more untenable the council will become, the more anachronistic it will work.

Q. Sir this country’s name US, it just keeps coming up everywhere, in every sentence of this discussion, so definitely we understand that it is a uni-polar world at the moment. But the leading economist Dr. Amartya Sen recently said in an interview, that the current recession will mark the end of US dominion over the world. How far do you agree with that?  

A. Well the recession is certainly having a serious impact. But America is capable of creatively responding to the recession, I would not write them off so quickly. They have a tremendous amount of economic dynamism, and they have to make a number of additional mistakes, for it to undermine that much, to the extent that they are negatively affected so as everybody else. So, relative terms they are still top dogs. Secondly, you are finding that despite the recession a lot of people are sending money to America. Right now the US dollar is up not down, the US stock market is down while the US dollar is up, strictly illogical. Why? A lot of people feel the safest place to park their money is American treasuries. So this is not logical, but that’s the way its working. I have great respect for Amartya Sen, he is a friend of mine. He knows more about economics in his one little finger, than I can know in my entire life. So I do not want to say that my views are based on any sound economic principals. Its just my gut feeling. It is too early to write off America. Chinese, for example, are the only serious threat to American dominance. So the Chinese are well on course, on becoming the America’s equal within next 20 years. They have also suffered a set back. 75% of their GDP is dependant on exports. If countries that are importing from China, are not able then they are also in serious trouble. We are hearing reports of young men in China being laid off by factories, wandering back to villages, where there are no jobs. We don’t know what kind of social unrest etc. will be following. So, I think its premature, to either write America’s obituary or to assume that anybody else will come up. We were to have a world war, America will not be the sole superpower , but we are also not going to have a world, where America would be one among half a dozen equal powers. I think, all the signs in my lifetime are that they are going to be a very major dominant player.

Q. Now sir, coming closer home to domestic issues. Do you think the present age of coalition politics, with a significant regional component, is sabotaging the national interests? 

 A. I wouldn’t put quite so directly as that. I certainly am not a very big fan of coalition governments. I have said this in my articles, for a very simple reason, I think it promotes governance by the lowest common denominator. Because what it does is, it means you can’t take any policy initiative unless 20 different netas have signed on to it. In the old days, there was collective cabinet responsibility. That is if somebody disagreed, once the collective cabinet had decided, party discipline, cabinet discipline meant that it would continue, and the government could implement the policy. Today if one decides he actually has an impact of blocking at one policy, and two or three more reject it then the policy cannot be implemented as it was initially conceived. Now this kind of thing, it seems to me, is already a luxury in many democracies. But in very affluent, industrialized countries, maybe the basis is so high it doesn’t matter. I our case, or challenges are still so enormous as a developing country that we need decisive action, to move things forward. So that is my main argument. I am not against smaller or regional parties, because after all in a democracy, any means of articulating the interests of a group of people in our country is legitimate. I will much rather see they do that by becoming a regional party than becoming a guerilla movement. As far as I am concerned, please go ahead. If you are going to say to people ‘vote for me not because I’ll do something for you but because its time people from us were in power. Vote for me because of my cast, vote for me because of my origin’ that thing will become limited after a while. We saw it in the famous case of Lalu Yadav. He won 2 elections on that message, but by the third election people were saying bijli, sadak, paani and I think that, he himself is now focused on accountability, in his role at the Railway Ministry. So it may be a part of maturation of our politics. People will become more accountable. But I certainly want to encourage people, to think nationally and to vote for national parties, that will have national interests at heart. Because India is more than the sum of the states. There is a larger idea in India, that you must have a national vision to promote and then protect.

Q. Do you think India should trade the Westminister Model of governance for a Presidential Model?  

A. I have said so, and that view is not very popular in our country, so I should probably stop saying so, as it has zero support. I am giving you all the arguments why, I think it will be more effective. I think it is a particularly British perversion to elect a legislature that will perform the executive. The result is that you get legislatures, legislators who are not qualified to form the executive, whose principal virtue is that they are electable not that its able. So, I don’t quite see the logic of that. Whereas I do believe the separation of the part, that elect a legislature to hold the executive accountable and direct the laws, and hold the executive to go out and work and implement changes in the country for a fixed period of time, so that they are no constantly looking over their shoulders to see how to stay up. In fact I was saying to Manmohan Singhji recently, that in my view the one advantage of the unusual arrangement between him and Soniaji is that, for once the Prime Minister has more time to focus on governance than on sustaining himself in governance. So the problem really right now is that, that is for us a genuine challenge.

Q. Sir, there are people in India’s right who overtly opine that Hindutva is a synonym form Indian Nationalism , do you share he assessment? And do you believe that it can pose as the greatest threat to Nehru’s idea of secular India?  

A. Yes I certainly believe that and in my writings I have given the arguments very eloquently. Indian nationalism is a nationalism of the Indian idea, it is not based on either language, region, religion, caste or whatever, for the simple reason that we are looking at a country with such rich diversity, that there is no one particular kind of identity that alone can claim to be more Indian or more truly Indian than any other. And that’s the great magic of us. As I said last night (at Maharana’s facilitation ceremony) you can be many things and one thing . When hindus, who after all are speaking for a faith that accounts for 81% of the population, see that’s the whole kind of nationalism. First of all, they are excluding the rest 19%. But they are also excluding a rather a large number of people, who are not the followers of their kind of Hinduism. I am a believing Hindu, I am very proud to be a Hindu, but my Hinduism has nothing in common with the intolerance and bigotry of these people. I feel that even though I may have read the holy books only in English translations, that my understanding of what I have read from the Upanishads or the Bhagvat Gita and so on, would be completely Greek to Pravin Togadia or such others. To me its not only not nationalistic, its actually genuinely anti national. And in fact, as an Hindu I will even argue that it is un-Hindu. Because Hinduism is a faith, that has traditionally never had any notion of heresy, you can believe practically anything and be a Hindu. it’s a very broad based, tolerant, eclectic faith, it has tremendous capacity to observe different ways of looking at the world. And those are strengths, those are not weaknesses. The people of the Hindutva persuasion are seeing our greatest strengths as our weakness, and they are trying to make us more like the Semitic faiths. Clear doctrine, rigid rules.

Q. But don’t you believe that, because of the centuries of invasion of the Afghans, the Mughals the need to assert individual identities and even the cultural homogeneity because of the globalization has a lot to do with this resurgence, this need to shout out loud from the roof tops and say that you are a Hindu and that India needs an identity of its own and not just become…..  

A. Well what’s wrong with out identity being made up of many identities? For me the answer is yes we should have an uniquely Indian approach. So our’s should be, in fact an example to this globalizing world. Of our approach that says that the best way in India, is also the best way for the world. Which is to say people have their identities, how ever they perceive them, provided they live in harmony with other identities, and they do so under the carapace of a common Indian identity, or in broader sense, common human identity.

Q. Indian inc. including the Indian bigwigs like the Ambani’s and the Tata actually went on to say that Narendra Modi would make a good Prime Minister. How would you react to that?  

A. Look, the business people are clearly racing purely on the basis of who has given them a friendly business environment in his state. But, a Prime Minister incarnates much more than a lets say a friendly Business Minister. Interestingly in the British cabinet, there is actually a job called Business Secretary. Now I would be very happy to have a Business Secretary in our government, whose whole job is to make a friendly business environment. Bu I would find it very difficult to accept, the notion of a Prime Minister, who has presided, without an apology, over the kind of carnage, the kind of bigotry, the kind of hatred, the kind of tragedy that we saw in Gujarat in 2002.

Q. Talking of extremism, how do you read the unfolding crisis in Afghanistan and Pakistan , and Is effects in India? Do you think that there is a realistic possibility of Taliban gaining active control over Pakistan in near future? 

 A. I think the danger is certainly there. Because we have seen that the Taliban has essentially been given control in the SWAT valley, which is only about 100 miles or 160 km from Islamabad. So you are not talking about something, that is that far away. If Taliban were ruling in Chandigarh, people in Delhi will have to worry, its as simple as that. Having said that, there are also some counter arguments in Pakistan, though it looks like a failed state, it does has some very strong institutions the strongest institution being the army. But they also have a bureaucracy, they have a parities of state in Punjab, Sindh and to some degree in Balochistan does operate in function, and thus one could argue that they have the capacity to reassert themselves. So its not tomorrow that they are going to collapse as a country. Having said that, we also know Pakistan is an artificial creation. There is very little holding them together, except an ideology that’s based truly on Islam. That didn’t hold them together in 1971, when they lost East Pakistan, which became Bangladesh. So, a repeat of a Bangladesh situation, where Islam feels insufficient to hold this new polity together, can be seen as an hindsight, which happens as a logical continuation of the fundamental flaw, in the nature of the creation of that state. So, I am not prepared to become complacent about Pakistan. My big worry, is of course much more, what will happen in Pakistan will have effect on us. So far we have found that, there is almost no particular internal arrangement in Pakistan, that is good for India. If the military are in power, that means they have no checks upon their desire to cause mischief, whether it is Zia Ul Haq sending support for terrorists and militants in our country, whether its Kargil. And then, when civilians are in power, in fact Kargil happened when Nawaz Sharif was in power. We found that civilians were either too weak to prevent the worst or sometimes they are anxious to outdo the chauvinists in the populist appeal to the worst elements of national patriotism by being hostile to India. So, we have a sort of, permanent menace on our borders. Made up of people whose principal reason for existence is that they are not us. And its principal justification seems to be hatred of us, which they described to the west as fear of us. I keep saying, what is this Pakistani fear based on? I can’t say this if I am in he government, but as a private citizen I say, look they have nothing that we want. There is nothing Pakistan has, that India wants to take. So, why should they claim to be afraid of us. And yet they mange to convince so many in the west that they have designs on them. So the result is that the military in Pakistan today has the largest share of the country’s GDP of any country in the world. Its he largest institution in Pakistan and its astonishing. In India we are used to a situation where the state has the army, but there the army has the state. So we are obliged to be very attentive. Sorry that was not a very precise answer to your question, but you know why one can’t say much more than that at this point of time.

Q. Sir, you are a cricketing buff we know. What would be the repercussions of the attack in Lahore on Sri Lankan cricket team? Not only on Pakistan but on the wider Indian sub-continent. 

 A. That’s not very pleasant unfortunately. Because its very clear now that the impact of the Lahore attacks first of all, has been on cricket in Pakistan that no foreign cricket team is going to travel there. But it has also created a lot of anxieties about travelling to India. Everyone knows that India is not Pakistan, but everyone knows that India is next to Pakistan. And if the kind of people who do Mumbai, can do something in Lahore, what is preventing them from doing it in Mohali or Delhi or whatever, that’s the big fear. Now, this is what lies behind the current imbroglio over the IPL. Because, would not have to worry so much about the security. but in the wake of Mumbai first and then Lahore, many cricketers will hesitate to come, unless they have guaranteed assurances of security. Now interestingly in India, our security of such events has been very good, so far there has never been any incident. So far the only incident that we can think of is the stupid time in early 90’s when the Shiv Sena activists dug up the pitch in Mumbai. And that was the kind of thing that could have been prevented if we just had security, one day before in the ground. But what people are worried about is the direct life and limb of the players, and for that we have a pretty good record in terms of being able to organize ourselves, to keep control. So my feeling is at this stage, a lot depends on the IPL being able to assure these foreigners, that in addition to normal security precautions there will be extra special security provided by the state. And the state can only provide that, if they are not taking people for the election duties. That is the picture at this moment.

Q. Now sir, a personal question. Your non-fictional writing mainly pertains to politics only, but comes process that even in fiction, you can not get over the political thought process. Is that a conscious choice? Also, along with the obstinacy in theme your writing pattern is repetitive at times, with you using certain phases again and again. Is that a creative block? 

 A. (laughing) On your first thing, your answer is absolutely correct. It is very much a conscious choice. I write because I have something to say. And what I have to say, is about the things that matter to me. And a lot of these fundamental political issues matter to me. The reason for repetitions is twofold. First, I am modest enough to say, I should not assume that anything that I have written earlier has been read. And worse, even if it is read, it is remembered. Secondly, I also feel as a writer, if I am making an argument it should be complete in itself. Lets say for example if you look at the first essay in ‘Elephant, Tiger and Cellphone’ about the Indianness 80% of that, I am not exaggerating and I say so, that 80% of that essay, consists of ideas that have already been expressed in ‘India- From Midnight to Millennium’, and in many cases I have used the same words. Now obviously, you are entitled to point out that this is repetition, and you would be right. But, the problem is, there are a large number of people who will pick up ‘Elephant, Tiger and Cellphone’ have never picked up ‘India- From Midnight to Millennium’. And to think will miss out, on a fundamental restatement of my premises as to where am coming from, for all the other stuff that follows. If I do not repeat myself, it is easy to write a preface as to read this book as a companion novel for ‘India- From Midnight to Millennium’. and suppose people don’t. and the fact is you are of a certain age, though perhaps you have read this, there may be many people who are coming into this sort of book reading now, who may read this (Elephant, Tiger and Cellphone) as first book of mine they are reading, before they know anything about me. And frankly, because it’s a collection of pieces. It will already look a bit scattershot. In fact, there was only couple readers who were upset. This book is all over the place. Where is the coherent message and argument, such coherence thus comes from that introductory essay, therefore even that will not be apparently enough for them. So if that wasn’t there, it will look even less coherent. So these are the challenges. Now, I have to say in my defense that you will also find things that are quite dissimilar. For example the ‘Nehru’ book or you look at something like my novel ‘Show Business’, there is nothing in those books, that has appeared anywhere else. So, judge the work by its own integrity. And, in my view I genuinely felt that some of this may not have been sufficiently complete without some repetitions. So I was conscious of repetitions, it was not so accidental or forgetful on my part, that I keep saying the same thing. And in speeches my repetitions, I jokingly call them recycling, I make a quick judgment that I am speaking to an audience where 80 to 90% would have not heard me before, I feel free to repeat everything I have said. About the thali metaphor, I can’t tell you how many people have come up to me and said wah kya bole aaj aap. But the truth is, for you guys who have heard this before “this guy has nothing new to offer”

Q. You have started a new company named the Afras Ventures. Can you share with us, what does the nme actually means, and what does the organization do? 

 A. Well actually, I wish it could be Africa and Asia put together, showing my global interests. But the truth is, its not. What happened was, when I left UN, or actually before I had left and was just deciding to leave, I was approached by a number of potential employers we can say. One set of offers came from the academic world. I felt I was no ready for the ivory tower. The other set came from the multi national corporations trying to expand in India. And I felt I couldn’t go from being Mr. UN to being Mr. Walmart or whatever. And the third was this gentleman, who was an Indian, in fact from Kerala had been working in Dubai for the past 17 years, this chap is called Mr. Nand Kumar Radhakrishnan, who has an existing company called Afras, so that’s where the name came from. And Afras in his case is an Arabic word for mare, a female horse. Nothing more significant than that. And he said to me, “I know what I am doing would be of no interest to you”, as he is a major dealer in pipes, fittings in oil and gas industry in the middle east, I have no interest in that. But he said “look, I have abroad for 17 years, you have abroad internationally for 29 years. Isn’t it time we gave back to India?” And that was the argument I was receptive to. So I aksed what he meant, and he told “that if you and I get together, with my business savvy and your visibility and access in India, we can start new ventures in India that can get going.” So that’s how Afras Ventures was born. I only gave him 2 conditions, first I said I only want to do things that can help change people’s lives, I was not really interested in business as business, in any case I have no background for that. And he said that was no problem. And second I said, I can only give you half of my time. In the other half I have to continue with my writing, my speaking and all of that. And he said no problem to that either. So it has been a very good arrangement. So, the first venture e actually started, though we looked at a number of things, and had a number of meetings as well on various fields, before we set up a serious project. So far the only thing that is up and running, is the Afras Academy for Business Communication. Which is a school of the techno park in Trvandrum, that trains people in business communication skills. So we have the state-of-the-art facility, we have an American executive director, who made her career in training foreign doctors to be understood by American patients in the New York hospital system. So that’s he kind of technique pace and delivery, intonation emphasis etc. A part of problem with our kids, is when you get beyond the big metros, that they come out of these second tier towns having learnt English only in books. They know the science, they know the math, they know the IT but they don’t have the confidence to express their ideas. And when they do speak, they do so in an accent that is incomprehensible to the outsiders.

Q. Sir, we heard strong rumours and this morning the Indian Express in Delhi, said that you are contesting on a Congress ticket from Trivandrum. Is it true?  

A. Yes, I have certainly shown my willingness to the Congress Party, which is the only national party with the kind of bision that I am prepared to share, and I feel it is the party which is right, in a number of the key issues facing the country. Particularly, need for economic growth. Country has to grow if it pays attention to the bottom of the national population. Secondly foreign policy, robust, independent and at the same time realistic foreign policy, that has geared to the needs of the Indian people. And third of course, the preservation of the India’s democratic pluralism. And you may have noticed I keep referring to pluralism rather as secularism. But pluralism in the sense of a land with all these different identities with which we have a chance of flourishing together. So this my view is what Congress Party stands for and I have signaled to them that I am quite willing to work with them in these elections. Obviously, untill and unless they have formally given me a nomination I can’t say anything more. But, it should be a matter of days. By principal by tomorrow or day after (tomorrow) there should be a decision coming out, because the elections are just over a month away. And I certainly am looking forward to an opportunity to put my feet where my mouth is. That is, I have been talking and thinking and writing about politics, let me see if I can be a successful member of active politics.

Q. Sir, if you get elected one portfolio, that you would like to handle and one major policy change you would like to make in that ministry?  

A. There is no politician worth his salt, who already says he wants to be a minister. These are in the hands of the government. First and most important duty of an M.P. is to represent his voters. So if I am the candidate from Trivandrum, my first and most important objective, and the difference I want to make, is to help change Trivandrum, make Trivandrum more of a global city. And bring sort of resources and things to make Trivandrum into a worthy showcase of the state of Kerala. So that’s all my ambition as at this stage. Beyond that I don’t see whoever will be the new Prime Minister, I am hoping my party will provide the Prime Minister.

Indian Security Forces: Holier than Thou?

2009-07-26T19:43:00.011+05:30

Its the 10th anniversary of the Kargil conflict and the Congress and the BJP are back to doing what they know best : squabbling over the spoils of the war.

On TV, Barkha Dutt decides to revisit the warzone to shoot a commemorative show on Kargil. Considering the fact that it was that war which catapulted Ms Dutt to journalistic superstardom, with some christening her as "India's Christiane Amanpour", one wonders if this exercise was not so much a tribute to the heroes of 1999, as much as a brand-rebuilding ploy in the aftermath of the flak she received for her reportage of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. "The war changed me in more profound ways than I ever thought it would," is how she puts it in this show. Yeah, it sure did. From a mere reporter, Ms Dutt is today the Group Editor of NDTV. Hell, the change sure has been profound.

No, this entry is not an indictment of Ms Dutt or her intentions. I thought the show was touching and gave an insight into the lives and valour of the three people it featured - faujis Vikram Batra, Vishal Thapa and Y.K.Joshi .

In fact, this piece has nothing to do with the Kargil conflict per se. Rather, watching the show got me thinking about how war can catch the collective imagination of an entire nation. I sometimes forget how nationalistic we in India are, and it is not surprising that the armed forces are often the rallying point for a country that is as diverse as India. It is well know that the so-called "free and fair" media can be incredibly propagandist and jingoistic on national security issues. Whether it was the reportage of the Kargil conflict or that instance when the "Buddha smiled again" in 1998, the Indian media spared no effort in deriding Pakistan and proclaiming India's superpower status. I was all of 11 years when I read a lead essay in Competition Success Review titled, "India becomes global power with nuclear tests". An hour letter, I was off to the local Khadi shop on my bicycle to buy an Indian tricolour which continues to occupy a pride of place in my room, 11 years on. Millions of other gullible Indians danced on the streets and distributed sweets as if the acquisition of these weapons would resolve all problems of poverty, unemployment and crime. But surely, the job of journalists isn't to inflame already inflammed national passions. Can we ever rise above our territorial concerns and connect with the people on a human level? Can we be Indians and yet be global citizens? Do they always have to be mutually exclusive of the other? That is the first question I'd like to pose and I am not doing so as a hopeless romantic.

Now my thought turns to the military-civilian schism brought about by what I call the condescending "Main fauj, tu saala civilian" syndrome purpotedly referring to what I deem to be the superiority complex of the men in uniform vis-a-vis the civilians. Speak to a fauji, and the way he speaks you'd think all the civilians coupled with the political establishment should be sent to the concentration camps at Aushwitz and Dachau. Blasphemous as these lines may be, I put forth these views in that "argumentative spirit" which Dr Amartya Sen speaks of in "The Argumentative Indian" without any sense of malice or disrespect to individuals serving in the armed forces. Yes, an entire nation prays for your well-being and your safety while you go about defending the frontiers of this country. You are after all, one of our own...fellow brethren belonging to the human race. Without demeaning the military profession, I ask the government of India and the rest of the nation this question - Soldiers die in the call of duty, and we commemorate them as we should indeed be doing. But men, women and children also die in the call of duty, whether as labourers working for DMRC, as mine workers in iron-ore mines, as foreign service officials in the Indian embassy in Kabul, as child-workers at Shivakasi. Do we bestow awards, build memorials, and have commemorative shows for them too? Forgive me for this outrageous comparison, but I do so to bring your attention to two related questions - i) Are some professions inherently nationalistic and more exalted than others? ii) Why is that the concept of 'dignity of labour' does not exisit in India?

On the face of it, the comparison is valid for the reason that while soldiers protect the nation, others are involved in building it. My point, thus, is that death is not only a professional hazard in the armed forces. I have nothing against military exceptionalism but to castigate and deride civilians demeans human life - after all whether, its civilian or military, its human life which is at stake, and my whole premise, faulty as it may be, was centred on this.

Lastly, some institutions in the country have acquired an aura of divinity around them so much so that they are above reproach and criticism by the "common man". Criticising these holy cows, that is, the security forces, would result in serious questions being raised about your patriotism - like noted jurist Prashant Bhushan and Booker-prize winner Arundhati Roy learnt the hard way in the aftermath of the 26/11 attacks. Both had expressed concerns over human rights violations arising out of last year's Batla House encounter in Delhi and of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, and they came under virtriolic fire from the editor-in-chief of Times Now, Mr Arnab Goswami who on the 2nd day of the attacks had this to say, " Prashant Bhushan and Arundhati Roy, if you are watching this show, we think you are disgusting." What I'd like to know is, since when has taking up human rights issues become an abominable act? Does the human rights of some take precedence over those of others? Are some exempt from following laws and institutional mechanisms which a majority are subjected to? Can somebody please explain to me how asking for justice for victims of rape, torture, illegal detention, fake encounters be construed as anti-national? If Vishal Batra grieves for his beloved brother ten years after Vikram became a martyr, surely there are hundreds of Vishal Batras in Manipur, Kashmir, Nagaland seeking their due. Will this nation ever stand up and even acknowledge it? Nobody is above the law, not even the army nor the police. They are part of the very system in which we exist and have to play by the same rules that govern us. While it may be fashionable for us youngsters to slam the politicians for taking the country "to the dogs", doing away with them cannot be a solution to our problems.

I know this is a controversial issue to write on, but it was important to play the devil's advocate and question some core assumptions that people have on nationalism, war, human rights and the dignity of labour . Trust me, I was as elated as most others to know that India's launched its first nuclear-weapons submarine, the INS Arihant today, I have immense respect for the Indian Armed Forces for their sheer grit and courage despite the government's apathy. But, this piece was intended to step out of the roles we've defined for ourselves - Indian, Civilian, Fauji amongst others and embrace the human side of us for once.

India’s unending journey

2008-08-16T19:15:00.006+05:30

As the Indian nation celebrates its 61st year of independence from British colonial rule this month, it was Prime Minister Nehru’s “tryst with destiny” speech made on 15th August, 1947 which resonates in my mind. No speech in independent India’s history encapsulates the mood of a country, “long suppressed” as this one by Panditji.

One question I can't help asking every passing year is - six decades on, are we Indians really free? Has the great Indian experiment with democracy been a success or a failure? These are questions that have no conclusive answers. With hindsight, however, one can now look back at the events over the last six decades and judge as to where India stands among the comity of nations.

From being once called a “functional anarchy” by former US ambassador and economist John Kenneth Galbraith to being referred to, as an “emerging superpower” by observers today is an achievement of sorts. The predominant view amongst western analysts was that the Indian people lacked the ethos and values that are required to sustain a democracy – supposedly a “western concept”. After all it was the “white man’s burden” to educate people about democracy, wasn’t it?

Wrong. One only needs to look at the experience of other former colonies like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar with democracy to appreciate the resilience of Indian democracy. Despite its profound social, linguistic, religious and ethnic diversities, the fact is, the Indian nation has survived, instead of breaking into smaller fragments as most foreign observers predicted. We have managed to remain a functioning democracy despite all its faults, chaos and contradictions.

For cynics who call Indian democracy, a “sham”, they may look at countries like Russia, China and Saudi Arabia where the most brutal and repressive regimes govern in perpetuity. The case of Anna Politkovskaya, the Russian journalist allegedly exterminated at the behest of former Russian President and now Prime Minister Vladimir Putin for her criticism of his policies in Chechnya underscores the ugly nature of these systems. In stark contrast, the average Indian citizen not only has the right to vote out a government if he or she deems it fit but the press is also largely free and independent.

Also, Indian secularism makes for a stunning rebuttal of Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilization” theory. At a time when the West is grappling with the issue of “Muslim integration”, (The European Union for example is deeply divided over Turkey's proposed inclusion in the grouping because of its 75 million strong Muslim population)India with a population of 175 million Muslims is a good example of a pluralistic society. Presently, India has a Hindu President, a Muslim Vice-President, a Sikh Prime Minister and a Christian leader of the ruling coalition. Yes, its a cliche that the Shashi Tharoors and the Ramchandra Guhas of the world trumpet time and again, but its overuse in no way undermines the fundamental reality of the statement, especially now that we may have a Dalit Prime Minister in the equation.

Economically, we are the world’s second fastest growing economy and are expected to become the third largest economy after China and the US by 2050 according to a Goldman Sachs report in 2004 titled, "Dreaming with the BRICS". The economic reforms of 1991 have lifted millions out of poverty. There are more economic choices today than we have ever had.

This is not an exercise in self-adulation. These successes notwithstanding, issues like abject poverty(with 400 million Indians below the poverty line); rising communalism(remember Gujarat 2002, anyone?) and corruption remain a blot on our nation. Gross human rights violations by the Indian state in Kashmir, Manipur(the government must repeal the Armed Forces Special Powers Act there) and other parts of the north-east harm India’s democratic credentials. The events of the past few weeks in Kashmir is a matter of serious concern. For our freedom fighters who wanted India to be anything but a "Hindu Pakistan", Kashmir forms the bedrock of Indian secularism - after all it is an anomaly, being the only Muslim-majority state in an otherwise predominantly Hindu nation. The deep polarisation that we see in J & K today is due to vote-bank politics of the political parties. At the same time it is also due to the excesses of the armed forces in Kashmir - the fake encounter killings in the Valley in the garb of fighting terrorism being a case in point. Let us understand one thing, we cannot "rule" a region by sheer force for we cannot afford to alienate the Kashmiris any further. Yes, the state of Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of the Indian Union and the Pakistani National Security Advisor Mohammed Ali Durrani's recent statements that Pakistan is a stakeholder in the Kashmir issue amounts to a gross interference in India's internal affairs. but this really isn't about the "internationalization" of the issue as much as it is about the exposition of the deep religious faultlines in the state. The permanent shadow of the "Jammu and Kashmir" headache between India and Pakistan has now become the "Jammu vs Kashmir" cancer for India. The Indian government must begin to address the deep divisions among Muslim-dominated Kashmir, the Hindu-majority Jammu and Buddhist Ladakh instead of administering aspirin for both the headache and the cancer. While the "tumour" has been detected in its initial stages(read Kashmir), every effort should be made by us as a collective whole to stop the cancer from spreading to the rest of the country. The ongoing J & K crisis is not only the biggest threat to India's territorial integrity but also to our fragile social and religious fabric. Our leadership must shed its partisan policies and unite in the interest of the nation and its "peoples".

The immediate problems notwithstanding, let us not forget that 60 years is a very short time in a nation’s history, so let’s give it a chance to spread its wings and play a role commensurate its size. Let history be the judge of whether we have redeemed the pledges made by us in the past. Here's wishing the Republic of India a very happy birthday!

Random Thoughts of an Agitated Bastard - The Sequel

2008-08-09T19:33:00.009+05:30

I am angry and upset. My angst is directed at the self-anointed protectors of “Bharatiya Sabhyata”, who like those Hindu fundamentalists who don on the role of spokesperson for all Hindus in the garb of protecting the Hindu faith against “Islamic terrorists”, end up doing everything that would put a true Hindu to shame. I like any other self-respecting Hindu have nothing else but disdain for such people. If my ilk and I are called pseudo-secularists in the process, then all I can say is “I don’t give a damn!”

People who know me well are aware of my strong views on religious fundamentalism, especially the rise of “Hindu nationalism”, but today I would like to address another issue, that being linguistic nationalism, more specifically the English-Hindi divide in India. Condescending statements like, “Angrez Bharat chod ke chale gaye lekin inko idhar chod diya,” to describe English-speaking Indians (not to be confused with Anglicised Indians) are quite common. Such jibes seek to portray speakers of English as less Indian when compared to others. This feeling was reinforced at a seminar I attended at a leading media institute recently where one of the speakers was the Managing Editor of a prominent Hindi news channel. Not only did he slam the English news media in the country, but he also took a dig at the “elitist and colonial mindset” of the English-speaking audiences who were more interested in news stories related to “pet-crèches” than on more “Indian” issues .If news stories related to jyotishis and mythology by the virtue of being more “Indian”, need to be given prime-time coverage, then god help Indian journalism! To be fair to the editor, the context of the discussion had nothing to do with this particular debate but on the issue of media regulation, but his choice of words smacked of linguistic jingoism. Much to my chagrin, the hindi journalism students in the audience lapped up the speech.

Though I cede that the English language is an "alien" language, a colonial legacy which continues to flourish to this day...the fact is, that this language with a pan-Indian presence is as Indian as any other Indian language despite its foreign roots. Sounds contradictory? Well, read on.

The prejudices notwithstanding, one has to understand how English was given a pride of place in a newly created nation by our founding fathers, so much so that the Indian Constitution is also written in the same language. A number of leaders in post-independence India debated whether English should continue as a medium of instruction in places of learning, and during official correspondence many including Lal Bahadur Shastri and Sardar Patel advocated dumping English and promoting Hindi and other regional languages. What it did was that it created a furore in the South, where Hindi had never been widely spoken either during 200 years of British rule or even before that. There was a feeling that the leaders from the so-called "northern belt" were trampling on southern sensitivities by imposing Hindi as the "national language".I'm not much of regionalist, and I hate invoking regional sentiments to air my concerns, but I do consider it a legitimate point because one cannot wish away the fact that even the division of Indian states is based on the question of language – a Punjab for Punjabis, a Tamil Nadu for Tamils, an Orissa for Oriyas, an Assam for the Assamese, a Maharashtra for Marathis and so on and so forth. Therefore language was an important and a sensitive issue. The unilateral imposition of Hindi as a "national language" could have promoted secessionist movements in the south. Leaders like Nehru and Ambedkar felt that despite the importance of vernacular languages, English was the "language of the future", and a language that would preserve the unity and integrity of the Indian Union. Hence in 1967 or thereabouts both Hindi and English were declared "official languages".

Today, India has the largest English-speaking population in the world (roughly 300 million), more than the entire population of the United States.It has placed us at the forefront of the Knowledge Revolution, the current BPO and IT boom have a lot to do with our knowledge of the English language. This is one area that China has still some catching up to do vis-à-vis India.

I'm not apologetic and will never be about the fact that I adore the English language. I would in fact go to the extent of saying that it is the most Indian of languages. Speak to Indians of different hues from different regions and no matter what their mother tongue is, you will find a smattering of English in their native written and spoken word. English has pervaded our lives and has become uniquely Indian because we've managed to add our own flavour to the "Queen's language". Indian English has evolved over the decades and is mighty different from its British counterpart so much so that the Oxford Dictionary has incorporated many Indian words. I dare say that we have become the biggest exporters of Indian English thanks to Indian writers in English like R.K.Narayan, Ruskin Bond, Amitav Ghosh, Vikram Seth, Arundhati Roy amongst others.

I don’t hesitate to say this: Why is the knowledge of Hindi considered to be a barometer of measuring a person's "Indianness"? If that person (I'm referring to myself here) can speak atleast three other Indian languages (Telugu, Oriya and Bengali) in varying degrees of fluency and prefers to use English instead of Hindi whilst conversing with people who do not speak these three languages, why is he branded as an "Anglicised Indian" who has forgotten his roots? Why does he have to bear patronizing remarks from the Hindi-speaking lot who consider Hindi the sole representation of being "Indian"?

I have to point out that unlike Germans who speak German, Spaniards who speak Spanish and Italians who speak Italian, Indians DO NOT SPEAK "Indian". They speak an assortment of languages including English, Hindi, Tamil, Kannada, Bengali, Assamese,Telugu, Gujarati, Marathi....a total of 18 languages and god knows how many dialects. Keeping this in mind, how on earth does anyone expect an Indian to stick to Hindi? Isn’t this an affront on India’s plurality and linguistic diversity?

So to people who would argue that a Ms India hailing from Uttar Pradesh or Madhya Pradesh should speak in Hindi, I would warmly welcome it but would add that she should every right to speak in Mizo during the acceptance speech if she hails from Mizoram without being looked down upon.

All of us have different “Ideas of India”, but we are all united in our objective to see an India that is united, an India that is a beacon of plurality and diversity in the region, an India that truly embodies the hopes and aspirations of the freedom movement, and finally an India that gets its “tryst with destiny”. So, while we might differ on how to get there, we must remember what Voltaire said about free speech – “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it.”

I have made these remarks not with the intention of hurting anyone’s sentiments. To those whom I may have offended, I offer my sincere apologies...these comments shouldn’t be seen by anyone as a tirade against Hindi...that was not my intention...I have loved the Hindi language since my school days, and I shall continue to strive to improve my Hindi in the days and months to come :-)...but my imperfections in the department should not be held against me.

Signed, Sealed and Delivered,

In Liberty,

Pratyush

Give the Great Indian Babudom a Break

2008-08-09T10:45:00.004+05:30

(This piece by me was first published in the March 2008 issue of the Tehelka magazine. I have reproduced it here on my blog with some additions.)

We Indians have always had something of a chequered relationship with our bureaucracy.An enduring legacy of our colonial past, the Great Indian Babudom has never really won over the people it administers. The term "sarkari" is now synonymous with being inefficient, bloated, opaque, corrupt and unaccountable.

So when Justice B.N. Srikrishna submitted the Sixth Pay Commission report to Finance Minister P.Chidambaram in March 2008 recommending a 40 per cent hike in the salaries of Central government employees, criticism came thick and fast. Seeing this as a ploy to garner the votes of 4.5 millon employees, critics point out that the bulk of salary increases recommended by the Pay Commission does not insist on any marked productivity improvement. Financial experts cited how the implementation of the Fifth Pay Commission's recommendations ravaged the finances of the central and state governments. Spending another 20,000 crore rupees on the babudom was therefore anathema for the Indian public who lap up everything modern India has to offer - efficient private banks, 24-hour customer-care for a range of services and prompt redressal mechanisms.

Who cares if inflation is at a 13-year high at over 12%, eating into the meagre salaries of government employees? Who cares if the starting basic salaries of college graduates are over 15,000 rupees a month, while that of public servants in service for over 20 years is a petty 8000 a month?How does it matter that, of the 4.5 million employed by the government, only 7 per cent are class I and II officers while 93 per cent consist of school teachers, peons, clerks and jawans? Who gives a damn, anyways!

Our attitude towards the civil services can best be exemplified by comparing our attitude towards the business sector. When a Lakshmi Mittal or a Kiran Mazumdar Shaw climb up the ladder of the Forbes wealth list, the mainstream media laps it up as a sign of India's growing prosperity. When a Mani Ratnam makes a Guru glorifying how the founder of India's largest private conglomerate, flouted every law in the rulebook on his way to success, he's celebrated as the man who challenged the license raj. So, at a time when money-making isn't seen as a bad thing and is almost a national obsession, why can't government employees get a "New Deal"? Or is it the nature of their work that prevents them from being paid market rates? After all, public service is not charity. For most employees, government jobs are a source of income and thus a livelihood issue. Devoid of any tangible performance-based incentives like regular promotions, which remain a tool of their political masters coupled with peanut salaries, our bureaucracy is prone to all the evil trappings, corruption being one of them.

And that is why the Sixth Pay Commission should be lauded. While hiking the pay, it has for the first time linked pay hikes to employee performance and has also advocated the abolition of gazetted holidays. The carrot and the stick approach may just go a long way in making the babudom deliver and make it more accountable. In the meantime, the Indian public might want to grab onto some other fad, other than being overly critical of the civil service.

The Shangri La: Rising from the Crypt or a Utopian Dream?

2008-04-05T09:01:00.005+05:30

In a non-descript part of the Majnu Ka Tila area in north Delhi is the capital’s very own “Little Lhasa”. The narrow alleys leading up to a courtyard with a small monastery bears a deserted look. The ominous signs are for all to see. The walls of the otherwise serene monastery are adorned with gory photographs of slain people with messages like “state of human rights in

Tibet

”. The shops in an otherwise bustling locale are shut. The silence is almost deafening, yet in a dark corner under a canopy are four young Tibetan men engaged in stifled murmurs. These are after all heady days for the sizeable Tibetan population in Delhi.

What started as a peaceful protest on March 10 to mark the 49^th anniversary of the “Tibetan Uprising Day” has turned into the biggest challenge to Chinese rule in

Tibet

in over two decades. The People’s Liberation Army had first invaded

Tibet

in 1950 and this was followed by

China

forcing

Tibet

’s leaders to sign a 17-point agreement wherein it promised to grant autonomy to

Tibet

and respect the Buddhist religion and its practices. However most of these promises turned out to be hollow leading to a full-blown uprising in 1959, in which thousands of ethnic Tibetans were killed, as Chinese forces sought to quash the uprising, forcing the Dalai Lama to flee to India. The Tianenman Square massacre in 1989 once again raised the ugly spectre of

China

’s involvement in

Tibet

. That was a long time ago, when the Chinese leadership was still learning the rules of engagement with the international community. They had made a good start when in 1978; Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping sought to dismantle the “Bamboo Curtain” through a process of wide-ranging economic reforms that transformed the Chinese landscape. The reforms catapulted

China

into international stardom and heralded the shift of power from the West to the East as it accumulated both hard and soft power. As the west sought to mollycoddle the new superpower on the bloc,

Tibet

became a forgotten cause restricted to the Geres and Thurmans of the Hollywood fraternity. However, with the eyes of the world on

China

ahead of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Tibetans saw an opportunity to divert international attention onto Beijing’s human rights record in

Tibet

As a result, Tibetans have attacked every symbol of Chinese power and influence in a bid to embarrass image-obsessed

China

. In response, the Chinese government has denounced what it calls the “secessionist activities by the Dalai clique” and has mobilised its military machinery. The Tibetan capital, Lhasa has become a virtual fortress and the Tibetan government-in-exile based in Dharamsala claims that over 100 people have been brutally murdered in the past few days as a result of Chinese repression.

Tibet

’s spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama has asked the world to recognise the “cultural genocide” being perpetrated by the Chinese and though a senior

politician has called the situation in

Tibet

a “challenge to the conscience of the world”, international reaction has largely been muted, to the extent of being pusillanimous.

If the Tibetans in Delhi had thought that the Indian government would provide some succour, they would only be writing the epitaph on the grave of the Tibetan cause. Let alone supporting the cause, New Delhi has done everything to rein in the protestors so as not to embarrass its “Chinese friends” – from stopping the peace march to Tibet from Dharamsala to reprimanding the protestors, asking them to “behave like how guests are expected to behave.” The Indian government has maintained that

Tibet

is an internal problem of

China

's and that any comment on how it should be resolved would be deemed as interference in its internal affairs by Beijing.

China

’s nuanced position on the Kashmir issue in recent years too is a reason why New Delhi has refrained from overtly criticising Beijing’s actions in

Tibet

India

's relations with

China

have grown by leaps and bounds in recent years, covering many more areas than the contentious border dispute and

China

’s “all-weather partnership” with

Pakistan

. The two Asian giants upgraded their relationship to a “strategic” level in 2005 during Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s

India

visit.

China

has also emerged as

India

's largest trading partner, with two-way trade crossing $38 billion, an increase of 56% over the past year. These developments have warranted a sea change in the way New Delhi deals with its northern neighbour, and

India

has had to walk the diplomatic tightrope on the Tibetan issue. This policy has come for much criticism among not only human rights activists but also opposition parties in

India

, which have lambasted

India

’s

Tibet

policy.

NDA Convenor George Fernandes in a recent interview to Karan Thapar on CNN-IBN attacked the UPA government for allowing itself to be "bullied" on the question of

Tibet

and described as an "error" the National Democratic Alliance government’s decision to re-endorse

Tibet

as a part of

China

. "It was not a mistake but an error. It should not have been done," he said about

India

’s decision to reiterate its recognition of

Tibet

as a part of

China

during the previous Atal Behari Vajpayee government, in which he was defence minister.

Ridiculing the UPA government’s response to the recent incident of Indian ambassador Nirupama Rao being summoned to the Chinese foreign ministry past midnight, Mr Fernandes said New Delhi had "surrendered" over the issue.

"Well, our government allowed it. It has no shame," he said, adding that the government should have advised its ambassador to wait till the next day. "Elsewhere, that’s what would have happened."

He said

India

’s attitude towards

China

was because of the 1962 war. "I have a feeling that what happened in 1962 is still affecting people’s minds, and they can’t get out of it," he said. He also lent his voice to the growing calls for an Indian boycott of the Beijing Olympics. That seems improbable, as

India

would do little to earn the ire of the Chinese dragon.

Though there is a palpable sense of dejection amongst the Tibetan youth at Majnu Ka Tila at

India

’s aloofness, the steely determination and resolve to end the Chinese occupation of their motherland is hard to miss. Many members of the Tibetan exile community in Delhi want independence as opposed to the Dalai Lama’s call for “meaningful autonomy within the People’s Republic of

China

”.

“Before the Chinese invasion,

Tibet

was an independent country. To say that we would want autonomy within Chinese territory would be to dilute the aspirations of the Tibetan people,” says Kelsong, a young Tibetan born and brought up in

India

. He also expressed frustration at the Indian government’s feeble response to the latest developments in

Tibet

calling it “timid”.

“The Indian elephant does not want to annoy the Chinese dragon. As the land of the Mahatma, it should lend political support to our just and rightful cause.

India

has the power of morality to do so," he says.

And do the Tibetan exile community approve of the large-scale violence in

Tibet

and other provinces like Gansu and Sichuan?

“

China

does not understand the language of non-violence. The Chinese leadership needs a dose of its own medicine,” adds Kelsong.

Pasang, a young Tibetan student from Bangalore says, “Though the Dalai Lama is our param-pujari and we respect him as our leader, the Tibetan cause is too emotional an issue for us. If alternative methods have to be employed to rattle the Chinese, so be it.” When asked as to what

Tibet

means to him, Pasang’s voice trails off. “I have only seen

Tibet

in the photographs. I wish to return to the land of my fellow Tibetan brethren. I want to shed the refugee status and be a free citizen of a free country. That’s my earnest desire.”

As his voice breaks off, his three friends Dorjee, Norbu and Lopsang nod their heads in silence.

This is not just a tale of Delhi’s Tibetan population living as “refugees” but a tale of six million Tibetans who are bereft of a national identity, their sense of “self” hijacked by a regime that seems determined to decimate Tibetan culture and its ethos. And would non-violence be the way to achieve their ends? Well, don’t count on it. Don’t forget that it is Tibetan self-respect, which is at the altar of

Tibet

’s current masters. Patience is running out. And fast.

Indian diplomacy: A critical appraisal

2007-07-21T11:37:00.001+05:30

Never has the world taken India so seriously. The fact is that India has arrived on the world stage. And for once, it is in the international press for all the right reasons. From being presented as a poverty-stricken country and as a land of snake charmers, the world media today, sees India, as a rising global giant. No more is India hyphenated with Pakistan; rather, it is seen as giving China a stiff challenge in its quest for Asian dominance. The BBC and CNN both held “Rising India” weeks early this year to celebrate the “rise” of India.

The truth is out. India is being courted like never before and how! The last 2-3 years have seen a packed diplomatic calendar for New Delhi with leaders of virtually every important country making a stop in the capital. As for the number of strategic partnerships India has sealed, you’d have to check up with the MEA, because the rate at which these partnerships are being sealed would even put the stock exchange to shame.

Often, while celebrating India’s elevated status among the comity of nations, we tend to focus only on the successes without analysing the failures. In the foreign policy domain, some defining moments include the 1954 Panchsheel agreement, the 1962 China debacle, the 1971 Bangladesh war that led to the dismemberment of Pakistan, the signing of the Indo-Soviet Treaty of Peace and Friendship the same year, the 1998 nuclear tests, the Kargil war in 1999 and most recently the Indo-US nuclear tango that seeks to end India’s nuclear apartheid. These will go in the annals of India’s diplomatic history as path breaking, possibly with major ramifications for India and the world. These are events that grabbed the headlines and are of common knowledge because of the importance attributed to them by the media and the political pundits alike.

But there are other events too, which though, did not grab the same amount of attention, are of possibly higher importance. One of these events is an incident that transpired at the Bandung Conference held in Indonesia in 1955. Prime Minister Nehru after finishing his speech sought to “introduce” his Chinese counterpart Chou En-Lai to the august gathering of leaders. This “innocent” act of Nehru, who was already a world statesman, infuriated the Chinese leadership and possibly sowed the seeds of a future rivalry between the two Asian giants.

In 1953, the United States made a sensational offer to India – it offered India a permanent seat on the UN Security Council by replacing the Republic of China (Taiwan). Shockingly, not only did Nehru reject this offer, but he pressed the United States to give the coveted seat to Mainland China. Today, at a time when India is spending a lot of diplomatic and financial effort to gain a permanent seat on the Council, one wonders if it was a prudent decision. Even if it does succeed, it is likely that it would have to forfeit the “right to veto” enjoyed by the existing five permanent members. History will probably be unkind to India’s idealistic Prime Minister for this monumental blunder that was one among the many he committed. Developments in international geopolitics are not only about what happened, but also about what could have happened. The Japanese would probably term it as “hara-kiri”. After all, which other leader would deny his country an opportunity to have an important stake in the emerging world order and instead agree to play “second-fiddle” to an expansionist neighbour that too in the name of “Asian solidarity”? Saying that Nehru was “naïve” would be an understatement.

A number of analysts have argued that it was India’s idealistic posturing at the international fora that earned it a leverage that few Third World countries could dream of. In saying so, they are partly right. At the height of the Korean War between 1950 and 1953, India was appointed as the Chairperson of the UN Non-Repatriation Committee on Korea. However India’s non-alignment credentials came under scathing criticism from the West, particularly the US and the UK when, in 1956, it chose to remain silent over the Soviet invasion of Hungary. This, particularly after the Indian condemnation of the Israeli attack on Egypt, following the nationalisation of the Suez Canal by Abdul Naseer, galled the western democracies. The duplicity over the contrasting Indian positions forced the US Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles to brand India as a “satellite state” of the Soviet Union. This deafening silence over an act of aggression by the USSR was a defining moment in India’s conduct of foreign policy because it was the beginning of the distinct “Pro-Soviet slant” in its foreign policy. Also, it was one of those rare moments, where realpolitik won over idealism and morality.

Sometimes, these defining events would not have taken place had it not been for the people behind them. India’s foreign policy in those years was largely personality-driven and had the stamp of Jawaharlal Nehru, who as India’s PM and External Affairs Minister, charted the country’s course in the choppy international waters. It would be safe to say that Nehru had by far the largest imprint on Indian diplomacy in the first decade after independence. As a popular adage goes, “Behind every successful man, there is a woman involved.” Similarly, in politics and governance, it would be true to say that “behind every leader’s success (or failure), there is an adviser involved.”

V.K.Krishna Menon was not only Nehru’s close aide but also a close friend. In effect he was Nehru’s right hand man. Menon was independent India’s first high commissioner to the UK (1947-52) and he followed it up with a stint at the UN as India’s Permanent Representative (1952-57). In 1957, Nehru named him as the Union Minister for Defence. He remains one of the most controversial men in modern Indian history. As defence minister, he was held responsible for the drubbing in the short war against China. That war sealed the political fate of a remarkable man who remains as demonised in death as in life.

A defence minister who failed to ensure the country’s defence preparedness at the time of war being called “a remarkable man”? Yes. Who else would have the distinction of having made the longest speech at the United Nations, defending his country’s national interests? Krishna Menon, as India’s envoy to the UN, made a historic 8-hour speech to the Security Council over the Kashmir issue on the 23^rd of January 1957. Lambasting the “partisan” approach of some of the permanent members, especially, Britain, he said:

“It was the Government of India that came here in the first instance. The Government of India came here (to the Security Council) on 1 January 1948. It is not usual for a Government of average ability and intelligence, as mine is, to come before the Security Council and to invite its attention to the wrongs it has done. In this particular case, it has done nothing wrong, and in any case the matter is clear in itself.”

In a special edition of India Today on “100 people who shaped India” in the year 2000, Prof. Suhash Chakravarty, author of V.K.Krishna Menon and the Indian League writes, “It was amazing to watch how Menon could go on developing the subtleties of his brief for hours without consulting notes. He could be charming and conciliatory but if required he could move on to a prolonged vituperation against imperial hubris and great-power chauvinism and then switch over to an erudite philosophical and legalistic discourse.”

Adds Chakravarty, “Enthusiastically disliked by western diplomats in the UN for his perspicacity and comprehension, his mastery of diplomatic nuances and his commitment to the cause of the Third World, Menon was dubbed as "Mephistopheles in a Saville row suit", "the devil's incarnate", "the bad fairy of the UN", the "old snake charmer" and also as a diabolical combination of all "three witches of Macbeth". At times, western public opinion concluded that a divergence of opinion persisted between a suave and good-humoured Nehru and a destructive Menon.”

However, there was a total convergence of opinion between the two on one issue: China. Both men saw the need to engage China in the best possible manner and in doing so, promote Asian solidarity. This engagement led to appeasement, and soon India started playing the role of the “blinded” lover, except for the fact that this “love” was never reciprocated. Instead, Chinese leaders especially Mao and Chou were irked by this talk of Hindi-Chini bhai bhai and sought to end Nehru’s dream of an Asia with two “equal” stakeholders. And that’s how we come to what is, in my opinion the most defining moment in the chequered diplomatic history of our nation: the Sino-Indian war of 1962.

A lot has been written and said about the events leading up to the war; China’s annexation of Tibet, India granting refuge to the Dalai Lama, Chinese claims over Aksai Chin and NEFA, so on and so forth. But was this dispute as much about “territory” as about Mao’s attempt to demolish Nehru’s international stature?

The lesson of that crushing defeat, in a war masterminded by Mao Zedong continues to reverberate in New Delhi and reflects in its present day dealings with the People’s Republic of China.

In an excellent article titled, “How Mao cut India to size”, noted strategic analyst Brahma Chellaney writes, “The war was Mao's attempt to demolish India as an alternative democratic model and geopolitical rival to communist China by heaping humiliation on it when it was militarily incapable and least expected to be attacked. That aggression changed the fortunes of the two Asian giants. India, respected then as a model pluralistic state in the developing world, never fully recovered from that invasion and is still searching for a role in international affairs commensurate with its size.”

He goes on to add, “India has not yet realised that to be recognised as an important international power, it has to start behaving and acting like one. So far, it has displayed the pretence of being a great power without having the stomach and spine to be one. In contrast, China, a backward state wracked by economic calamities in 1962, has gone on to successfully assert itself as a major global power through a display of indomitable spirit and political single-mindedness. It has found a cost-effective way to take on India through proxy threats mounted via Pakistan and, to a much lesser extent, Myanmar. Quite the opposite of the international view before the 1962 debacle, few recognise India today as a strategic peer to China. While India remains prone to seduction by praise, China practises realistic, goal-oriented statecraft. Even a bigger difference is that while India desires to be loved and seeks external affirmation of its policies, China insists on no less than respect.”

One has to take a look at recent events to see how Indian diplomats and the media alike indulge in self-adulation. During the July 2005 visit of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Washington, much was made of the fact that this was only the third time during Mr.Bush’s presidency that a foreign leader was being given a ceremonial reception at the Rose Gardens accompanied by a state dinner and the honour to address the US Congress. For the Indian media and many of the members of India’s diplomatic corps, this signified the “emergence of the country at the global arena.”

One hopes that we shed our obsession with pomp and pageantry, as also stiff diplomatic protocols, and instead focus on substance. As a truly emerging power, India will have to shoulder the responsibilities that come with this power. As a line from Spiderman goes, “With great power comes great responsibility.” And that holds true for India as well. It will have to stop being a “free-rider” in the international community, and will soon have to make stark choices. While making these choices, it will have to shed its “victimitis” syndrome.

On a personal note, this article was an attempt by me to analyse some cataclysmic moments vis-à-vis India’s conduct of its external relations. The Indian public remains woefully ignorant of foreign affairs, and there’s an urgent need for a debate on matters of national security, be it the Indo-US nuclear deal, Indo-Pak negotiations over Siachen and over the larger Kashmir issue as well as, on India’s stand on international issues such as Palestine, Iran, nuclear disarmament etc. The public must be educated on such matters and must be a part of the policy-making process even if it’s at the consensus-building level.

Lastly, we need to take a close look at our failures, the biggest of which was the 1962 China war. Successive Indian governments, irrespective of party affiliations have done their best to conceal the contents of the “Henderson Brooks” report which is a detailed report analysing the causes of India’s defeat. The report is said to be openly critical of the Indian political and military structure of the time, as well as of the execution of operations. It is high time that the Indian government declassifies this report. It is the people’s right to know the reason behind the crippling defeat inflicted by China on us. That would go a long way in healing the scars of Mao’s India war that for decades tormented the Indian psyche.

Random thoughts of an Agitated Bastard...

2007-04-13T14:13:00.003+05:30

"Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially. At the stroke of midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom.

A moment comes which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, then an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance. It is fitting that at this solemn moment we take the pledge of dedication to India and her people and to the still larger cause of humanity. At the dawn of history India started on her unending quest, and trackless centuries are filled with her striving and the grandeur of her successes and her failures. Through good and ill fortune alike she has never lost sight of that quest or forgotten the ideals which gave her strength. We end today a period of ill fortune and India discovers herself again.

The achievement we celebrate today is but a step, an opening of opportunity, to the greater triumphs and achievements that await us. Are we brave enough and wise enough to grasp this opportunity and accept the challenge of the future? Freedom and power bring responsibility. That responsibility rests upon this assembly, a sovereign body representing the sovereign people of India. Before the birth of freedom we have endured all the pains of labour and our hearts are heavy with the memory of this sorrow. Some of those pains continue even now.

Nevertheless, the past is over and it is the future that beckons to us now. That future is not one of ease or resting but of incessant striving so that we might fulfill the pledges we have so often taken and the one we shall take today. The service of India means the service of the millions who suffer. It means the ending of poverty and ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity. The ambition of the greatest man of our generation has been to wipe every tear from every eye. That may be beyond us but so long as there are tears and suffering, so long our work will not be over. And so we have to labour and to work, and work hard, to give reality to our dreams. Those dreams are for India, but they are also for the world, for all the nations and peoples are too closely knit together today for any one of them to imagines that it can live apart."

- Prime Minister Nehru , 15th August 1947

August 15th, 2006 : 59 years later...

I'm rudely woken up by my mom, who was shouting from the living room asking me to get up and join her in watching the idiot box. As I drag myself out of the bed wondering what this was all about, the importance of the day dawns upon me...It's a holiday of course... but then, why the heck do I have to get up at 7am?? In a few minutes, I'm in the living room...As groggy as I was then, I can make out the visuals of the Red Fort on TV. The numerous fluttering tri-colours are hard to miss...

Now I knew what this was all about. Its India's Independence Day... reason enough to celebrate, don't you think? Of course it is, it's a holiday...time for some "masti"...and time to catch up on some lost sleep too... As annoyed as I was on being woken up, I decided to keep watching the 'live' broadcast of the proceedings from the 17th century Red Fort.

On the top of the TV screen, I can clearly see the logo of Doordarshan- "DD National (Live)"...Hmm...when was the last time I tuned in to DD? Must have been on January 26th-the Republic Day... It surely reminded me of the hey-days of the national broadcaster, when shows on national integration were quite popular. Globalization and competition sure have hit Prasar Bharati hard, I must say...

As I continued watching the live feed, I could see our turbaned Prime Minister being received by the "Raksha Mantriji"... The Sardarji soon makes his way on to the ramparts of the Red Fort and unfurls the "Rashtriya Dhwaj" which is followed by an impressive rendition of the "Rashtriya gaan"... with a 21-gun salute in the background. Quite a proud moment, I must admit. I was on my feet in a trice in response to the national anthem that was being played as a mark of respect. Through the corner of the eye, I could definitely see my mom looking at me in mock surprise.

The national anthem over, I sat down on the sofa only to feel extremely embarrassed and sheepish... now that was a first!!! I was actually ashamed of myself...for showing respect to the national anthem! What was I thinking? In those moments while the national anthem was being played, I had been "possessed" by a wave of patriotic fervour and nationalism. My generation- the iPod generation would probably consider my act of obeisance as "blasphemous".

Soon the blue-turbaned Sardarji was addressing the nation that had just turned 59. Repeated invocations of Congress prime ministers like "Pandit Nehru", "Indiramma"and "Rajiv-ji" did not surprise me the least. A certain Italian woman seated in the VVIP gallery must have been a pleased person though her expression was stoic. After all, sycophancy runs deep in the Indian psyche, and we Indians revel in it.

After what seemed like hours, the PM's speech came to a close, marking the end of the Independence Day celebrations.

As I made my way back to my bedroom, one thought was deeply bothering me.Well, to say that it was only bothering me would be an understatement. It was in fact haunting me.

What exactly does the Independence Day signify ? Is it just about a national holiday? Or is it something more meaningful? What does "freedom" mean to us? Are we indeed "free"?There were no easy answers for this. All I could do then was to switch on my PC, and look up Nehru's famous "Tryst with Destiny" speech. Though I'm not really a fan of Nehru, this speech of his remains one of my all-time favourites. I could only marvel at the choice of words. But one question lingered in my mind - had India really awoken to light and freedom, 59 years after that midnight of 14th August, 1947? I dont have the answer...do you?

7 MONTHS LATER
Its Friday- the 13th, April 2007

Friday-the 13th...hmmm....my friend Rohit tells me that he is looking forward to the day as he was expecting a number of horror flicks to be aired on TV...and knowing his penchant for such flicks, I wasnt too surprised. In fact, I shared his enthusiasm for the same. I thought it fit to check the TV guide in the newspaper to see if indeed there were any such films on TV. I was in for a disappointment - there wasnt a single name which even remotely sounded like a horror flick.Morons!!!

My eyes drifted to the "news-makers" of the day- "Agni III tested, gives New Delhi capability to reach Beijing". The headline almost sounded as if the test of an Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile heralded a new form of transport between the Indian and Chinese capitals!!! Talk about the new transport revolution!!!

Another headline read - "CPM's latest pearl of wisdom:Getting US universities to upgrade IAS skills is dangerous". Apparently, the UPA government's plan to upgrade the skills of mid-career IAS officers using the expertise from Harvard, Syracuse and Duke universities has come in for stiff opposition from the "Commies". They contend that such a move would lead to the American penetration of the Indian bureaucracy. Yeah right!!!At least it would counter the Chinese influence that pervades the CPM leadership. Perhaps, the US-India containment of China should start here itself!

As the famous adage goes- Charity begins at home, we will be doing a charity to ourselves by getting rid of these self-righteous buffoons who have nothing better to do than to toe the line of the Chinese PLA by invoking the cries of 'National sovereignty" and "Social Justice". Our intelligence agencies should realize that our northern neighbour has penetrated the highest echelons of the Indian government and the forces that influence decision-making...make no mistake about it.

As hardline as my views may be, I may be excused for my impertinence as these views are not of a wannabe journalist who is supposed to be objective and balanced but are random thoughts of an agitated bastard.

Thank you for bearing with me.

Signed, Sealed and Delivered...
In Liberty,

~Pratyush~

A Tribute to a friend

2006-08-28T20:26:00.000+05:30

This post of mine happens to be my first for the month of August. And I wish I never were to write this. It’s acquired a tragic connotation after what happened yesterday.

Life and Death are the two sides of the same coin or so I’m told. But, it was only over the last 24 hours that I began to fathom that death could kiss the feet of anybody, anytime.

My mood is somber and I’m filled with a sense of deep anguish. On the evening of Saturday, the 26^th of August, I came to know of the earth-shattering news of the demise of a good friend and my classmate. For all the people who knew him, Rahul Ahlawat was the quintessential guy who always managed to bring smiles amongst people thanks to his great sense of humour. The same person has broken the hearts of not only his beloved parents but also all of us because of his extreme step. Dude, why didn’t you tell us what you were going through? We were your friends, goddamnit!!! Rahul was not only popular but was also a great guy. During the one-year that we’ve known him, I can’t think of a single person, whose heart has been left untouched. I would remember him as someone who would come up to me and would address me as “Mr. Diplomat” in his mocking voice. I’ll never forget that debate we had at the library on the reservation issue. Always to the point and bristling with passion, he made his argument with such conviction, that I couldn’t help but to falter in my counter-argument. His boundless energy is usually only matched by his crazy antics in class, which often drove the teachers crazy! But, deep inside, he had a heart of gold and was a highly sensitive person. As the news of his untimely death percolates, and as all of us try to grapple with the enormity of the crisis, I can only hope and pray that, we, his friends, stand united in grief and are strong.

Rahul, though I’d just stop short of calling you weak-minded, I will make it amply clear that what you have done isn’t quite setting the right example and something that we never expected from you. I guess, you never imagined what repercussions this would have especially on your parents.

Though our dear friend is no more, and I know, for fact, that going to college would never be the same, we must realize that life goes on. He would still want to see smiles on our faces and hope that his parents are well looked after. Dude, wherever you are now, let me tell you that we are angry with what you have done, but we nevertheless hope and pray in earnest that your soul rests in peace.

And well, it goes without saying that you will be missed big time by one and all of us.

The boiling Middle-Eastern cauldron

2006-07-28T16:16:00.000+05:30

Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, is a busy person these days. She's flying across the globe, quite literally.The 52 year old, former Stanford professor, now America's top diplomat is on an important mission to diffuse the West Asian crisis. From Washington to Beirut to Tel Aviv to Ramallah to Rome and now to Kuala Lumpur, Secretary Rice is on a whirlwind tour. This of course follows Israel's recent offensive against Lebanon which has sent senior US officials into a tizzy. At the UN Security Council meet, the US vetoed a resolution condemning Israel's actions and a call for an immediate Israeli ceasefire in Lebanon. While the world came together in criticizing Israel's actions , the United States resolutely stood behind Israel, calling for the complete disarmament of the Hezbollah, in order to achieve "durable peace in the Middle East". Though America called upon Israel to exercise "utmost restraint", as many as 425 civilians have died as a result of the 17 day military operation in South Lebanon. This includes the death of four UN peace-keepers. This is indeed unacceptable. Nothing can justify the cold-blooded murder of innocent Lebanese civilians including women and children in the name of "holing' out the terrorists. Israel has to learn to respect the lives of civilians other than its own.

The Israeli actions follow the abduction of two of its soldiers by the Hezbollah and rocket attacks on its northern cities. This is in fact consistent with the Jewish State's policy of "Not having any negotiations with terrorists". Well, though India may take a leaf out of this policy, many world leaders made no bones of the fact that Israel's reaction was grossly inappropriate and incommensurate to the initial provocation. This was the sense that one got from the G-8 Summit in St.Petersburg.

Though Israel has full sovereign rights to defend itself, this mindless and blatant use of military force in civilian areas can lead to a regional conflagration.

As Condoleezza Rice prepared to undertake her Middle-East mission, she knew that she was on a crucial mission. Rice, as the architect of US foreign policy had to play the Great Balancing Act. On one hand, she had to allay Arab fears of America trying to shield Israel, thus inviting the ire of millions of Muslims across the world. On the other hand, she had to make sure that America's vital security interests in the region were not undermined. As she shuffled across various places meeting Lebanese PM Siniora, Israeli PM Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmood Abbas, one thing remained clear. America and Israel were on the same boat, both seeing it as a good opportunity to root out the Hezbollah in perpetuity.It could have been a good idea had it not resulted in the loss of hundreds of innocent civilians. Israel cannot and must not use the American shield and get away with this. The United States too finds itself isolated on this issue.

This was evident at an important conference in Rome, where the foreign ministers of 15 governments, including many Arab ones, failed to reach an agreement on ways to resolve the crisis. Almost everyone saw one person as an impediment to the reaching an agreement. Secretary Rice stood her ground saying that a ceasefire would only succeed once the Hezbollah had disarmed. The United States was buying enough time for Israel to finish its military offensive. In tandom, it promised a humanitarian assistance of $ 30 million to Lebanon. This is simply not enough. America should join the international community's calls to Israel for the immediate declaration of a ceasefire. Killing innocent civilians and destroying civil infrastructure in an impoverished country is no way to deal with terrorists. This will only escalate the levels of violence.

How things will turn out in this never ending West-Asian saga, in the days and weeks ahead is something difficult to fathom. Will Israel let go of this opportunity to root out Hezbollah? Will America continue to stand by its ally giving unstinted support? Will Lebanon be nothing more than a mere onlooker in the overall scheme of things? Lot of questions and too little answers. But that is what International Relations is all about, the rich and powerful always get away with things.

In the meantime, Dr. Rice arrived in Malaysia on the final leg of her Eurasian tour, for the ASEAN Regional Forum's Ministerial meet in Kuala Lumpur. ARF is Asia's primary security forum with 25 countries as its members. Though, there is little doubt as to what would dominate its agenda, Dr.Rice seems to have decided to chill out a bit. She will perform a piano recital at the the meeting. The high-flying life of the world's most powerful woman will be in full display as she plays the tunes of America's Foreign Policy at the meet.

America being the global cop, I'm sure the world will be watching with bated breath.

The Malady...

2006-07-28T09:54:00.000+05:30

Aaarrrgghhh.....Many people asked me as to why I wasn't keeping my blog updated regularly...little did they know that I recently contracted a dangerous disease possibly worse than Alzheimer's and AIDS... I intend to write to the American organisation, the Centre for Disease Control(CDC) seeking their help in fighting this deadly disease...after all, the Indian Health Ministry refused to call my illness a "disease", instead calling it a "figment of my imagination"! Maybe I should'nt have bothered Mr. Ambumani Ramadoss, the Health Minister who himself is fighting a malicious disease called "Venugopalacitis".No wonder, I have to turn to the Yankees, after all they are our strategic partners these days, aren't they? So people-to-people contacts are a must in any such arrangement.

You see, over the past couple of days, whenever I sit down to write something, my mind goes blank...as empty as George Walker Bush's head...my grey matter seems to have seeped through...As I then look for divine intervention, none comes my way. After all, God doesn't help those who do not help themselves, or so I heard. What a tragedy!!! Then I wait for the inspiration....the muse to creep in gently(my good friend Sush did say it would work)... ah what a hope!!! It simply doesn't happen. Something was seriously wrong. Desperate times call for desperate measures... by now I was sure that I had contracted something deadly...

15mins later....

I had just got off the call with the health dept. officials...and what an experience it was!!!...Apparently, everyone in the health ministry were too busy in "Operation Oust Venugopal".

Too bad! I then decided to call my American friends and explained to them, my symptons...The doc listened to me carefully and gravely said "Mr.Pratyush, you have 'Writo-blockosis'..."

Yup, you heard right!!!..."Writo-Blockosis",more commonly known as "Writer's Block".

Good ol' Yankees!!...they always have an answer!!!

Redemption...

2006-07-24T09:10:00.000+05:30

It's 0915hrs on the clock...and the start of a brand new day.

After having skimmed through the morning papers, I make my way towards my room, with a mug of hot coffee in my hands. I switch on the Hi-Fi and play one of the mp3s titled "Classics". In minutes I'm seated comfortably in one of the two bean bags in my room.

Soon the words - "Have I told you lately that I love you..." fills the air. There is something special about love songs, just like books. They evoke bitter-sweet memories of a place, an event, a person...

In my case, it was the last one. Listening to that song, brought vivid images of "her" before my eyes.

The place: Cafe Coffee Day, Sahara Mall, Gurgaon
Time :1625hrs
Day: 6th March, 2006

I had been waiting for almost 20 minutes now. My patience was running thin but when you have to deal with girls, you have get used to it. Especially, if the girl is beautiful, well you get the idea, don't you? They make sure that you are made to wait. In my case, the wait was excruciating.

Minutes later, I saw a familiar face entering through the door, and after a cursory glance spanning the entire length and breadth of the coffee shop, she slowly makes her way towards me with a certain degree of poise and grace. She was dressed with panache, and as she came towards me, I stood up and smiled.

"Hi. You are late.", I said.

She gave me one of her best smiles before making herself comfortable at the table. Damn her! Atleast she could have apologised for turning up late. Ah! Whom am I kidding?

"Whats wrong with you? Why do you have that sullen expression?Surely you didn't expect me to apologise to you, did you?"

I winced. First they kill you by making you wait and then they cut you into pieces by seeing right through you.

"Ah, well. Just cut it out, ya. What would you like to have? The usual?"

She replied in the affirmative. I went to the counter and placed an order for two Irish coffees.

"Quite a nice place, don't you think?", I said.

"Yes, perfect!...let me play a song on the Q-Jam."

Two minutes later, Rod Stewart's soothing song "Have I told you lately that I love you" filled every inch of air in that coffee shop.

"You sure know how to set the mood, don' you?", I asked.

"Well, somebody has to take the initiative!"

I could not help but to laugh at this. The coffee soon arrived, and I could feel myself relax.
There is something about a woman. She is one person who can add colour to your life. She makes you feel complete.

When I looked up, I saw her looking at me with a mixture of curiosity and amusement. I could almost feel her reading my thoughts.

" You are thinking about me, are'nt you?"

"What? Thinking about you? You have to be kidding." I lied with a tone giving everything away.

She looked at me and in a grave voice said "Let me ask you a question. What is the difference between us and the number of other young couples in this coffee shop?"

"The fact that we are officially not dating each other, while in case of every other couple, that is probably not so", I replied, looking squarely at her eyes.

For a moment, she appeared lost, but soon she regained her composure and with a sad expression said, " You never even made an effort to understand me, did you?"

I looked away from her and said to myself, "Did I say something wrong?" Well, there was some truth in what I said. We had been going around for quite sometime now, but something remained amiss. I had asked her out on our 3rd date together but she had been non-commital, saying she had some "other priorities".

Dammit! Maybe, a part of me never understood her. She had always been an enigma to me, there always seemed to be something sinister beneath her smiles, her expressions. A woman's heart is a deep ocean of secrets, how deep, that is something I had never fathomed and probably never will.Surely, deep enough to drown me in it.

"You did'nt answer me?"

That brought me out of my deep reverie. I without looking at her asked, "Don't you think's there's a deep void in our relationship?"

At first I thought, she did not hear me, but soon with a deep breath she replied tersely, " Probably you and I need some time to think it all over. Let's call it quits for now. You and I know that we are not ready for this. Don't you pretend otherwise.It's good for you and good for me. Life is too short, do not waste it."

Time seemed to have frozen and a chill had set in.

The track changed, now playing "Another Day in Paradise" by Phil Collins. The hot mug of coffee had now gone cold.

BUZZ!!!

I got up from my bean bag to answer the door bell. As I opened the door, I saw a familiar face beaming at me.

"Hi, You are late."

"Surely you don't expect me to apologise to you, do you?"

I smiled to myself.

LIFE IS TOO SHORT. DO NOT WASTE IT.

The Un-Kodak Moments of my life - by Namita Devidayal

2006-07-24T00:46:00.000+05:30

BOOKED FOR LIFE ( A feature from The Times of India)

That's the thing about books. They are not static objects that furnish your rooms and morosely collect dust on your shelves. They are little edicts of the un-Kodak moments in one's life. They can be more evocative than photo albums because what they evoke is not literal, nor digital and unequivocal. Rather, like a melody or a scent, they let you wander off into the space where the book was read, or bought, or gifted...or perhaphs stolen! One by one, they emerge. I sneeze. I get sentimental. I stop to read a page. It is about the scent of bitter almonds.

I have a few geeky fetishes about books. For one, I always pick up a book relevant to the place I am in and try to discover it through the writing. Where you read the book makes a great difference to the experience. I am convinced it was even more glorious reading Shalimar the Clown under a quilt in northern Himachal this summer, where the stunning aquiline-nosed village woman down the road could easily hae been Boonyi, Rushdie's hapless heroine. Reading it in Mumbai would not have been the same.

I have another fetish for books: How I organise them on my shelves. I refuse to follow a friend's advice that I should enclose them in a cabinet to protect them from dust. I find that akin to outting loose covers on a sofa - practical but unappealing. I want to be able to amble past a shelf on my way to bed, and be arrested in my tracks by a spine, and change my evening plans.

Then, I put aside a chosen few for a special shelf in my bedroom. These are the ones that I wato go back and have an affair with. They are redolent with scents, filled with melodies unheard. They are the ones whose writing I hope will travel to my pillow at night and overwhelm me with their beauty.

Dusk

2006-07-23T17:44:00.000+05:30

The sun's rays are receding, as it waves goodbye for the day. I'm thankful as it paves the way to the nice, soothing evening breeze. I'm seated in the balcony wondering as to what to post in my blog. Shall I write something related to news and current affairs, as I usually do?...In fact, I'm supposed to, being an aspiring journalist.Well, it somehow doesn't fit into my mood. The weather is too romantic to write on serious topics. I pick up the book I was reading - Shantaram. I realize that the travails of an escaped Australian convict carrying a false New Zeland passport is definitely much more interesting than a person thinking of ways to make his blog "interesting". I say to myself - "Dude, Get a Life.!!!...Surely you can do better than that." Maybe I can...but how? At that moment, two loud beeps bring me out of my reverie...its a text message from a friend - "Hey buddy, have you finished the project?"... "Oh No!!". I had completely forgotten about a 100 marks project to be submitted by August,the 12th. I curse at my friend for having spoiled the mood. I say "Goandboiluread"...Well, don't mistake it for some other language. You see its plain English - "Go and boil your head"...as simple as that. I don't even bother replying to the message. All the romanticism in the air around me vanishes in seconds...along with it, its goodbye to "getting a life". By now its dusk, and the light outside is barely enough to read. I cast my book aside and groaning, I make my way towards the kitchen to make myself a hot up of coffee...

Alas! The Murder of the Fourth Estate

2006-07-23T10:36:00.000+05:30

Democracy, free will, fundamental rights, an independent judiciary and finally a free and independent press. Seems to be right out of a civics text book, doesnt it?....Possibly, yes...but what if the word "India" is added into the equation?Makes any sense? Well, let me explain.

India, touted as the world's largest democracy, a shining beacon of hope for many of the less-privileged countries especially many of the third-world countries where democracy is brutally suppressed. A nation whose citizens enjoy numerous rights, freedoms which can only be the envy of the people in countries like China, Russia, and many of the Middle-eastern countries. A nation that has been the toast of the world as a rising power with strong democratic credentials. A nation that co-founded the UN Democracy Fund with the world's oldest democracy, the United States, amidst much fanfare.

A reason for every Indian to be proud, dont you think?...Now, what if I go along exactly diagonally opposite lines and say..."I'm not at all impressed with our democratic credentials, in fact India is no better in comparison to China and Pakistan"...Have I gone a bit too far?Is it sacrilege? Maybe the Indian government would have others to believe that this post is the handiwork of a "foreign hand across the border", posing to be an Indian hell-bent to "destablise the nation". Though, I really doubt how many people reading this blog would buy that argument, do not get me wrong. I'm every bit an Indian as is Dr.Manmohan Singh, possibly even more so.

In fact, I hold Dr.Singh in the highest esteem, but two events over the last few weeks has weakened my confidence in his government.

One is his goverment's proposal to introduce the draconian "Broadcast Regulation Services Bill 2006" in the monsoon session of the Parliament. This bill, if passed by the two houses of the parliament would even put Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Hu Jintao to shame.

The Bill — which will effectively regulate private broadcasting — provides for punishment like revocation of licences and fines on those who violate the proposed broadcast guidelines, including the Content Code under preparation, if their service is considered “prejudicial to friendly relations with a foreign country, public order, communal harmony or security of the state,” which are not specifically defined. It is particularly galling to see that the government is unilaterally going ahead with this proposal without even consulting the media. As a matter of fact, Information & Broadcasting minister PR Dasmunshi ruled out any discussions with the broadcasting industry on this subject saying that there was no way the bill will be "polluted" or "diluted".

Well, somebody sure is in a hurry to get this legislation passed. The question is "what is the motive behind this?"...Is it to stymie the media's ever growing influence in people's lives? That can be the only reason for this. And surely, Prime Minister Singh had to be in the know about this legislation, otherwise he has no business to head the cabinet. Turning a blind eye to such a draconian bill only means that he is an accomplice in the crime. I call this a "crime" because no democratic government can undermine the Fourth Estate. We all know that a free press is an essential component of any democratic setup, an absence of which tantamounts to "the murder of democracy in India".

Another instance where the government's indifference towards the freedom of speech came to fore soon after the 7/11 Mumbai commuter blasts that left nearly 200 dead. Instead of bringing the perpetrators to justice and taking tough anti-terror steps, the UPA government decided to ban a number of blogging websites across the country, as if this could help nab the terrorists who were responsible for the dastardly act. With this, India has joined the elite "Internet-Filtering Club" in the company of countries like Saudi Arabia,China,Russia and Pakistan.The country's 153 internet service providers (ISP) have blocked 17 websites since last week on government orders.I would not be surprised if this blog of mine too is given the same treatment.

The fact of the matter is that this UPA goverment has been relentless in its pursuit to regulate the media and to curtail civil liberties. Unless, the civil society raises its voice against these vicious moves, our country would be reduced to the status of a 'sham' democracy.

The summer saw the release of the blockbuster - "Quota:Politics ka ek atuut hissa" starring Arjun Singh.Now hold your breath for its grand sequel "Khoon ki pyasi:Baying for the media's blood" this time starring super-villain Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi. Only time will tell if this too proves to be a hit at the box office...If it does, it could embolden the other directors in the Congress party and the UPA government to come up with more such blockbusters!!