What price the 76 (or more) policemen lives?

First, the massacre of the policemen in such a large number is an act of violence that needs to be condemned and the people behind the attack need to face the law of the land whether they believe it or not. These policemen were also citizens of this country and except that they were in the wrong place and time doing their duty the way they were directed to do, they had no reason to die. It is unfortunate and dangerous precedence.

The '76 policemen' will remain just that in the coming days, while we know the names of each of the military men that died during the Mumbai terror attack, we won't know the names or backgrounds of the policemen who died yesterday morning. They don't make a good story beyond the first few days. No one wants to know the details of those who are defeated. They too are the victims of the State, but, they will not have celebrity authors visiting them and writing long stories either.

The Ministry of Internal Security, under the Home Ministry has been going through several changes in recent times. P. Chidambaram (PC), has taken his own image more seriously than any one else. No one is asking for his head to warrant those media friendly statements few days back that sounded more like G.W. Bush's rant rather than an Indian Home Minister. (Madhi got it right as usual in his cartoon yesterday, the three monsters behind PC while he talks about rooting out Naxalites in two years are labelled 'unemployment', 'corruption' and 'poverty' and the label in the podium reads, '52 years of Congress rule' courtesy: Dinamani). Today, as I write this, he has already hinted at using Air Force against Maoists, what next, Carpet Bombing in Sri Lankan style and a victory speech atop an air ship with mining company logo?

The issue is Maoists are not visible terrorists, they merge into the invisible angry citizen mass. These are the State's angry citizens, armed because of the State only recognizes violence and these arms are available to them rather freely through a few who espouse this ideology. 

The State can stop people getting angry with itself by being more sincere with its 'development' agenda, by replacing sops with genuine opportunities and most importantly valuing the rights of people over their resources. Both tribal rights activists and environmentalists are 'anti-development' in the books of  PC, who believes that the natural resources are there to be exploited. The exploitation of the poor for the betterment of the rich is an old large war, India had some amazing social systems that by-passed this to benefit both. But, PC won't know, he thinks any Indian history that talks of a better time is all humbug, he is not going to respect or refer any tradition or culture to understand social inclusion. Yesterday's newspapers carried a half page advertisement from the Home Ministry as proof. Obviously, the citizen is angry.

You can have peaceful methods of listening to the angry citizen. It is not always that the angry citizen has to resort to violence as a means to be heard / noticed. It need not be. But, how much is the State listening to Himanshu Kumar or Arundathi Roy? Beyond ridicule what has the state offered to these people? Every naxal attack is followed by 'what will the intellectuals say now?' debate, as though the intellectual condemnation or approval has any respect either for the State or for other perpetrators of violence. Why should the MoU between the State and Mining Companies be kept secretive? Does the State listen to a peaceful protest of a citizen, if the citizen is not backed up by either the power of money, media or visible majority? Does it understand the voice of justice? The angry citizen thinks violence is the only medium the State recognizes.

You can stop illegal arms production, you can ensure that arms are not smuggled across your border, you can ensure that the chemicals that are raw material for arms are strictly regulated and ensure that these are not freely available. But, that would mean rooting out corruption in governance, which cannot be done. You may point out that they have no legitimate right to carry arms or kill, but, your government has shown that this can be done by the rich and no law of the land can reach them, time and again. Someone for his own benefit in this government, at some level is permitting the few Mao followers to smuggle a lot of weapons that can be distributed to angry citizens whose' peaceful protests you don't recognize. 

One thing I am sure, Indians cannot buy into any alien ideology whole heartedly or for a long period of time. The claim of Maoists that they will overthrow the State is stupid. Arundathi Roy in her article in Outlook last week chronicles the tribal culture and its manifestation in the camps of the Maoists, that is ideologically contradictory. This is the land of Gandhi and Gandhi lives in the attitude of the masses, given a chance between peace and war, the citizen would gladly take peace and that is the proof. So, if there are ideologues out there in the jungle, I am sure they are no better than the ideologues in Kolkatta or think tanks in Washington/Beijing or virtual groups in the web or others hiding in caves of NWFP, they are all equally unsuccessful in trying to convert the Indian masses into a single ideology of violence, some people can buy into it for some period of time to suit their own purpose. But, it is time bound and will not work in India.  I cannot see a Maoist State of India.

PC needs to step down, not from his power, but, the moral authority that he has granted himself vis-a-vis the Naxals. It can only push him in the path of more State violence against Maoists while seeking them to abjure violence all the time. He also needs to not succumb to the media pressure that personalizes the issue as though he is s Superman and this is his time to deliver or vacate the space for another Superman. Making statements like the one he made are neither warranted nor wise as he may have realized by now. But, the politician in him may not permit that. Maybe, he should step down to a humbler man? 

What would Gandhi have done under the circumstances?

Maybe visit the 76 houses that have lost a son, a husband, a father or a brother in full media glare and seek their forgiveness for the government's stupidity in sending them to an area so unprepared. Seeking their help to non-violently fight the menace of terror. Break the chain of terror in the hearts of the colleagues of those killed by talking about peace. If he had the power, remove all policemen from that area immediately. Maybe even seek the nation to go on a day of repentance and peace. Maybe, he would also sit on a indefinite fast in the middle of the jungle against all armed violence and request Arundathi Roy to visit him!

Islam and Obama's USA

I saw the newspaper screaming headlines on Obama's 'reaching out to world Muslims' speech. So, didn't bother reading any further for couple of days. The sensationalism of our media these days compels you to not read further when headlines scream. The 'secular' ones have an obsession to overstate anyone 'reaching out to Islam'.  I have not bothered reading much about people's response as I am sure much of this will be based on what West is saying or in its response. I saw one of the younger friends, very enthused by this speech and wish he could talk like that!

Just now, I read the entire transcript as it has been forwarded by a friend I respect much. It is an important speech with several new messages to the world.

My first thoughts were, why deliver this lecture in Egypt? Reminds you of the drama of G.Bush delivering the victory speech atop a aircraft carrier. While Obama has spoken at length about, 'countries of Muslim majority', I wonder why he didn't chose to give his speech in one of the two countries of Muslim majority,  the largest population of Muslims in the world are Indonesia and India. Both relatively peaceful practitioners of Islam before the export of a globalized Islam. Why can't President of USA talk to the peaceful Islamic practitioners and strengthen them and make them assert their peace rather than talk in the midst of tension torn West Asia, where the chances that anyone knows how to transact peace, particularly with the Christian world, would require forgetting centuries of hatred and almost changing their disposition towards the world.  

But, America can only talk to people in conflict and engaged in violence, their language is same. Interestingly, Obama's examples of both Islamic innovation(Algebra, Vaccination,...) as well as personal experience of tolerance are from India and Indonesia respectively. Not from the West Asian world.

To me one of the points that came across was the first clear indication of the American divestment of  Democracy from the highest power centre. Days of promoting Democracy are over. Nations can take their own path to it. 

The other interesting point about tailoring the laws of the nation to suit the religions practices, including tax laws that control contribution to charity by American Muslims, indicate extending  statute liberties to religious edicts beyond Christianity, whenever it is politically convenient. Seen this way, it could also hurt many of our liberals and secular pundits. 

The other issue that was pointed out to me was the pre-occupation of the American President with the Abrahamic religions as key players in constructing future world and him not mentioning Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism. But, today, American government has acknowledged that the Islamic world is its nemesis, others are not. 

I am happily ignorant of any responses to this speech. We need to recognize that this is the Americans trying to resolve their own problems with the Islamic world and we will all be impacted by these changes. Certain scenarios I foresee:

(a) if Pakistan goes back to Musharraf or his successors, Americans may support him and forget Democracy as long as it suits its interests, it may even start a dialogue with Taliban in the coming years

(b) Global violence (and violence dependent commerce and industry) may look for softer targets to occupy themselves, we in India can be one, if Americans as large arms exporters and Terrorists from Islamic world can find a common soft target in India, we will see more attacks from the later and more sales of arms from the former, bleeding our economy both ways 

(c) the global Islamic agenda, particularly in financing social initiatives in Islamic countries may come to be dominated by American interests, this could mean more external funding for Islamic groups in India and elsewhere from American sources, promoting American idea of Islam

(d) a new global Islamic identity will be paraded across the world, the 'stereotyping of Islam' which we all suffered ever since Sept 11, will be corrected by American consent and collaboration and we will suffer a different 'stereotyping of Islam' now, perhaps with some sugar coating this time. With their global media domination, when America wants to change someone's image, the rest of the world has to suffer with it. 

(e) when the President of America says, 'countries of majority Muslims', he does not mean where majority of Muslims live as much as the countries who prescribe to and control the  Muslim identity of the world, largely from west Asia. This shows the American interests rest firmly with the globalized, centralized and controlled institutions, same for faith systems, same for economy, same for politics. 

The full text is available at:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090604/ap_on_re_us/obama_text

The Racist Remark Episode: Why is our English media so....?

Staying away from my normal work location, wanted to avoid commenting on this national obsession of the last week, but, the continued media attention (like the one below, an editorial in the Hindu) and my current work made me to add my comment to the entire issue.

The Hindu : Opinion / Editorials : Of rage, ratings and reality shows: "Surely this is too much fuss over tawdry, tabloid television. The whole idea is to star people desperate for instant fame and quick money and grab eyeballs by every means possible — rudeness, bad taste, shocking conduct."

I am not surprised about the provocation that people have felt across the country on this episode, we need to agree that cinema personalities and cricketers are the most visible Indians and regardless of their career status, if they have been visible and recognized in India, they are recognized as a symbol of India outside.

The media demeans by such discussion ("much fuss", "she was paid anyway", "we are all racists", "hahaha...her career will become better now", "we are more racist", etc.) and hence fails to understand what provokes India or a sense of 'Indian-ness' in most Indians (I would leave out those who sit with these same newspapers every morning and let it dictate their opinion about the world, thankfully they are a minority). We need to understand that there is a strong identity of India still prevalent among most people in India and ordinary people do get provoked when they feel that identity has been abused or insulted.

Maybe the Biharis don't know the difference between the programme title and the person who insulted the Indian, but, them burning effigy was an expression of their anger, why should the media showoff its 'tardiness' by pointing out this? (the same editorial has the line 'angry protesters in Patna burnt effigies of someone called Big Brother') I suppose the newspaper wants to show off how much more English than Bihari it is? If only more Biharis had self-respect and sense they would burn the newspaper next!

Increasingly the ability of India to respond to and in influencing a larger region is visible and gaining in strength, and this is not through expression by editors sitting in their babel towers, but by the ordinary people in the streets. Our politicians respond and make statements because (despite their all other limitations) they are more sensitive to the feeling of the people in the streets.

I think it is a positive sign if so many people across the country have been provoked by an abuse of one Indian from a Westerner. One only wishes that such provocation be felt by bureaucrats when they sit for trade negotiations and media which shamelessly recycles what the western media spoke day before yesterday. They allow India(ns) to be abused more regularly and participate in it too. Wish they were as Indian as the Biharis!

'Gandhi' - book, rock and google sets

Two recent news items within as many weeks and the nation debates on the Mahatma again.

The first is a book by his grandson, in his words, "to bring Gandhi more closer to people" or "humanize him" seems to have created only one central topic of debate - that of Gandhiji's relationship with Saraladevi. Though the author of this book has repeatedly stated, from the time the first interview appeared in the cover page of a popular weekly a few weeks back that, his intention was not to scandalize some hidden secret and thereby gain some popularity, his voice seems to have been overtaken by others' rendering of his work. News items in every corner of the globe have carried this news item in the past week or so and it seems to have been debated much in some television channels in India as well. Even the author's letter of protest regarding the way the initial magazine report was carried was published along with a mocking response from a reporter! Perhaps he didn't have a clue that humanizing of Gandhi meant to reducing him to the taste(lessness) of such persons too! I think it is wonderful to certainly 'humanize' Gandhi, to place him with his limitations and weaknesses certainly brings him down from the high pedestal in which he is often placed making him beyond the reach of the common. However, he did often say that he 'only articulated the feelings that were in the hearts of the millions who couldn't articulate them' and many writers have repeatedly pointed out that the reason he was able to reach out to millions across the country was only because he understood and articulated what the ordinary people felt. So, that makes the job of anyone wanting to 'bring him closer to people' much easier. They just need to point out those aspects of his words / work which struck a chord in people - then and perhaps even now. Just last year, 'Gandhigiri' did it, by appealing to a sense of fairplay and human kindness. These point out the commonality between the ordinary (in the case of Munnabhai, not just ordinary, a goonda at that) and the Mahatma, but, strengthen both the position of Gandhi and the ordinary in the process. Showing some icon as being weak to make him palatable to the weak doesn't seem to be such a good idea. The weak can perhaps use this to justify (and even worse consolidate) their position! Gandhi himself once while he starts to criticize Swami Vivekananda, controls himself and says, 'we should not unnecessarily criticize such great persons, we don't know what it will lead to'! Such responsible communication!

The second reason for the spate of Gandhi pop-ups seem to be an album that seems to have done the rounds in television channels and a web portal in which a rock singer of Indian origin dressed as Gandhi does pole dancing and shoots people with a toy gun. Perhaps he too was wanting to bring Gandhi 'closer to reality of current times'. There is a spate of protests and a protest from the Government of India and this evening there was even a news item that the web portal that carried the image may be banned in India! It seems ironic that the minister has stated the reason that Gandhi is almost worshiped in India as a reason for the protest to the rock album. Such blind worship is what Gandhi's grandson wants to break with his book! Would the minister ban the book by Rajmohan Gandhi on the same grounds?

It is exciting to know that the spirit of Gandhi still haunts this country. You can like him or dislike him, but, cannot ignore him in India. Some time ago a good friend informed us how though many politicians claim to not like Gandhi or his policies when challenged would not dare to say it so in a public gathering for fear of upsetting the ordinary people's sentiments. A scholar or a rock singer don't have to negotiate their position through public validated every five years. So, they can allow their own priorities and creative urges overshadow their responsibility. To be fair to both of them, I have neither read the book nor watched the video.

Something else, perhaps not too unconnected - while looking through recent additions by Google Labs, stumbled on a new program called Google Sets. This is a good tool that provides you with a set of related topics, links, etc. if you type one search topic, word or phrase. For example, typing in one known work of an author could fetch all her other works. I suppose this is fetched through some criteria based search by the web-omniscient Google search. Wanting to test the application, I typed 'Gandhi' and it fetched the following set of words as the result -

Medieval
Ancient
Freedom Struggle
Royalty
Timelines
Gibran Kahlil
Goldschneider Gary
General
Goodman Linda
Aesthetics
Epistemology
Eastern
Humanism
Good Evil
Logic
Existentialism
Early Modern
Search Engines
20th Century
19th Century
Castles
Napoleon
American Revolution

These are either key words of websites associated with Gandhi or these are titles that people who searched for Gandhi are searching for. Glad to note that the world is not looking for either 'secret love episodes in the life of famous personalities' or 'famous personalities mocked by pop stars' or anything remotely connected to that when they search for Gandhi, the media notwithstanding.