A fresh look at Gandhi

A J Philip
First Published : 25 Apr 2011 10:58:00 PM IST
Last Updated : 25 Apr 2011 11:50:30 PM IST

There are thousands of books on Mahatma Gandhi and there would be thousands more on him, because he was a person about whom Albert Einstein had said that generations to come would scarcely believe that such a person existed on this earth. Though he was not a prolific author, he wrote and published so much that few can match him in his prodigious output, encased in over 100 thick volumes. He was a spontaneous writer who did not bother about consistency.

Gandhi is, therefore, open to interpretation. And that is what Pulitzer-winner Joseph Lelyveld did when he wrote Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and His Struggle With India, which is biographical only in a limited sense. The iconic status Gandhi enjoys today is such that a reviewer’s comment that the author exposes him as a “gay” or “bisexual” and “racist” is enough for the Gujarat Assembly to demand and obtain a ban on the book.

On the Kindle device that I read the book, I did a search on the word ‘gay’ and it yielded only one result — it figures as part of the name ‘Gayatri’. On the word ‘bisexual’, the result was zero. The word ‘homosexual’ appears only once in the book, to rule it out about Gandhi’s intimate relationship with German “lifetime bachelor” and bodybuilder Hermann Kallenbach. He prefers a neutral word “homoerotic”. If Chief Minister Narendra Modi reads the book, he would be ashamed that he banned it.

Unlike most other Gandhi experts, Lelyveld has brought to bear upon his writing the insights he gained while being posted as a foreign correspondent in both South Africa and India and his visits to such places as Harippad in Kerala to meet Babu Vijayanath, son of T K Madhavan, the hero of the Vaikom satyagraha. As a result, he does not just mention the jail in Pretoria where he was first incarcerated, the Phoenix Settlement, outside Durban on the Indian Ocean coast where Gandhi first experimented with community living, and the Guruvayoor temple, which he failed to get opened to Dalits, but provides pen portraits of these places.

Since the book is by no means a biography but a story of Gandhi’s evolution as a leader, who mesmerised a whole subcontinent, the author skips the part till the 23-year-old briefless lawyer in Bombay leaves for South Africa on an assignment from a rich Gujarati Muslim businessman, engaged in a civil suit with a brethren, both of whom had their roots in Porbandar, Gandhi’s birthplace.

Gandhi’s visit to South Africa was to last just one year but he stayed on for 21 years, before he made his final departure on July 14, 1914. Self-righteous that he was, he began his career with a bang when he refused to remove his headgear while entering a court because, “Indians always keep the head-dress, and the English ladies and gentlemen seem to appreciate the regard which we show thereby”. When The Natal Advertiser published a small but sardonic report titled ‘An Unwelcome Visitor’, Gandhi shot off a protest letter, the first of hundreds he wrote on varying subjects.

This incident was far more revealing of his character, for it contained the seeds of “passive resistance” on which he built a whole career than the “character arousing (or deepening)” episode in which he was ejected from a train at Pietermaritzburg. In the thousands of renditions of the cataclysmic incident, including Richard Attenborough’s film Gandhi, what is overlooked is that “the agitated young lawyer eventually got his way” when the next day he was allowed to re-board the same train and the same first-class compartment under the protection of the station master.

Of course, Gandhi himself has narrated the incident in his autobiography, written three decades after the event. Small wonder that some of his descriptions in the book do not stand historical scrutiny, reminding readers of what Mark Twain had once written: “The older one gets the more vivid the recollection of things that have not happened”. Gandhi’s righteous indignation was certainly not aroused by the rampant racism that existed in South Africa. The three-piece-suit-wearing lawyer saw four kinds of people on the continent — the “insolent” white, the rich, educated Indians like him, the indentured Indian labour and the blacks.

Gandhi often quoted Queen Victoria’s proclamation in the aftermath of the 1857 mutiny to argue that Indians had the same “protections and privileges as all her subjects” and they should not be treated like “kaffirs”, a term he used for the blacks and “coolies”, another derogatory expression he used for the Indian plantation labour. Little surprise, in the Anglo-Boer War, he was on the side of the British, though as a “stretcher-bearer”.

But as Gandhi got immersed in his campaign, a gradual transformation occurred in his life, whereby he was able to empathise with the underprivileged Indians and take up their causes, leaving lessons for the blacks in their subsequent fight against apartheid. By the time he leaves South Africa, he is totally changed, not just in his attire but in his outlook as well. It is this transformation that enabled Asia’s first Nobel-laureate Rabindranath Tagore to affix the spiritual honorific ‘Mahatma’ (Great Soul) to Gandhi’s name, four years after his return to India.

Call him whatever — a manipulator, a faddist, a dictator or a saint — Gandhi had his eyes clearly focussed on his goal, for which he was prepared to sacrifice familial and political relationships and pursue goals like establishing peace in riot-hit Noakhali, even when people were jeering at him. Many of his campaigns were total failures but in whatever he did, including sleeping in the nude and cuddling his nubile grandniece as part of his “experiment with truth”, Mahatma Gandhi did everything in full public glare. Lelyveld’s book fills a void in the sea of hagiographies like Romain Rolland’s and hatchet jobs like Arthur Koestler’s.

A J Philip is a

New Delhi-based

senior journalist.

E-mail: ajphilip@gmail.com

PM passing the buck to Pranab far too often

Prabhu Chawla
Express News Service
First Published : 23 Apr 2011 11:42:00 PM IST
Last Updated : 25 Apr 2011 03:14:09 PM IST

Is it a distaste for confrontation, or simply lack of time? The suspension of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s practice of reviewing the functions of various ministries has come back to bite him. The soul searching going on in South Block on how UPA II has been caught in a quagmire of controversy has concluded that, had Singh continued his periodic review of the ministries, the 2G and other scams could have been averted. With the boss out of the way, all Central ministers and their secretaries have been enjoying full freedom, exercising total control over the decision-making process. Rajiv Gandhi started the practice of reviewing the performance of ministries; every quarter, he and his aides in the PMO would grill Cabinet colleagues on their targets and failures. This was continued till the fag end of the UPA I. Since Manmohan Singh believes in giving total autonomy to his ministers, no decisions were taken by some ministers while others indulged in malpractices. For example, during UPA I, the Prime Minister chaired a high-powered Committee on Infrastructure which used to meet quite frequently to review various projects. But it has either become dormant or doesn’t exist at all. It is not surprising that most infrastructure projects are either languishing, or are trapped in corruption. In addition, the Prime Minister has evolved another mechanism of self defence—that of passing the buck to his senior colleague Pranab Mukherjee. Most of the complex decisions which are usually taken by the concerned minister in consultation with the Prime Minister, are now Mukherjee’s responsibility; he currently chairs the Empowered Group of Ministers which has more than 50 members. As the countdown for the next elections begins, the Prime Minister is under pressure to restore a credible system of accountability rather than let the buck move from one table to another.

Democracy of the Unelected

There was a time when it was considered the worst kind of sin to appoint a Prime Minister or a Chief Minister who wasn’t chosen by the people. Not anymore; leading a government without winning an election has become a virtue. Recently, Maharashtra Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan joined this elite club, by getting himself elected to the Legislative Council in his state. The six-month period that mandates a chief minister has to become a member of either House of the state Legislature is to expire on May 6. Instead of getting an assembly seat vacated, Chavan forced a member of the Legislative Council to resign, in order to avoid the heat and dust of contesting an election. Chavan is now the third chief minister after Mayawati in Uttar Pradesh and Nitish Kumar in Bihar to hold office through such means. The practice of appointing a non-elected leader became popular after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh avoided contesting the Lok Sabha polls, although he could have won from any part of the country. No wonder those who secure the mandate of the people don’t respect their leaders, only fear them.

War on Graft Has a Past Tense

While the investigations into the 2G and CWG scams are yet to be completed, various government agencies have started to investigate other deals involving the Ministries of Civil Aviation and Surface Transport. The new ministers don’t want to be caught napping and they have instructed their officers to put on record all pending complaints regarding contracts awarded to various contractors for further scrutiny. Because of the fake pilots scandal, the Ministry of Civil Aviation is under intense scrutiny. But the ministry and its other wings are looking at other tainted deals. Vayalar Ravi, Union Minister for Civil Aviation, a former trade union leader who is highly trusted by the Congress High Command is under instructions to change the elitist character of the civil aviation sector and break the nexus between a few corporate honchos and the babus. He is particularly looking at the role of some babus who first facilitated various sweetheart deals and later joined private aviation companies. However, some in the government feel the whole exercise is meant to put the heat on former aviation minister Praful Patel. Similarly, new Surface Transport Minister C P Joshi is looking at all the old contracts granted by his predecessor Kamal Nath, including some of the lucrative Express Highways contracts that ministry officials feel have led to a huge loss of revenue to the National Highways Authority of India.

The Great Diplomatic Carnival

Not only will the face of the top bureaucracy in Delhi change this summer, but India will have new diplomats in place, in many crucial capitals of the world. While Prime Minister Manmohan Singh continues to seek suitable replacement for India’s ambassador to Washington, Meera Shankar, who retires in July, he has chosen new envoys to important nations like Thailand, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Poland. While Hamid Ali Rao goes to Saudi Arabia, the PMO has chosen Anil Wadhwa for Bangkok, Gurjeet Singh for Indonesia and Monika Mota for Poland. Since disarmament is likely to become an important issue, Sujatha Mehta, currently serving in the Prime Minister’s Office, goes off to Geneva to represent India. These changes are a precursor to many crucial top-level changes in South Block which will follow only after a Cabinet reshuffle by the end of May.

Is Indian Express now a pro-establishment paper?

By churumuri


PRITAM SENGUPTA writes from New Delhi: The Indian Express of Ramnath Goenka is an unputdownable chapter in the book of Indian journalism. Unlike many of its English counterparts—whose grammar was constricted by Wren & Martin, and the Raj—Express was the archetypal desi bully.

“Anti-establishment,” was the Express‘ calling card.

Its reputation was built on stones pelted at the power elite: taking on dictatorial prime ministers (Indira Gandhi for the Emergency, Rajiv Gandhi for the anti-defamation Bill), slimy corporate chiefs (Dhirubhai Ambani of Reliance industries) and corrupt chief ministers (A.R. Antulay of Maharashtra, R. Gundu Rao of Karnataka).

“Pro-people,” was the Express‘ middlename.

Unlike its servile peers who crawled when asked to bend, Express‘ founder himself took part in Gandhi‘s march from Champaran and led the protest against the anti-defamation Bill. The paper backed Jayaprakash Narayan‘s Bihar movement, and battled for civil liberties and human rights, some times at the risk of closure of the company.

Whatever its other motives and motivations (and there were a few), the Indian Express sent the unambiguous signal to Indians that the Express was theirs; a paper that would speak truth to power, a paper they could bank on in taking on the bold-faced names of the establishment.

An Encyclopaedia Britannica entry on Goenka accurately calls him a “crusader against government corruption”.

On his birth centenary seven years ago, Express launched a website on the “man who had the courage to stand up for truth.”

So, how would Ramnath Goenka look at his baby today, as its editor-in-chief Shekhar Gupta leads an extraordinary ad hominem attack on the Anna Hazare-led “people’s movement” against corruption, pillorying NGOs, the middle-class and “civil society”—and allowing itself to be become the weapon of first choice in what Express columnist Soli J. Sorabjee calls the “crude and disgusting character assassination” of its lead players, the lawyers Shanti Bhushan and Prashant Bhushan?

***

Since the day Anna Hazare sat on the fast-unto-death at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi on April 5, demanding the constitution of a joint government-civil society committee for the drafting of the Lokpal bill—and especially after he succeeded in his mission—The Indian Express has bared its fangs in a manner that few would expect any independent newspaper to do.

At least, few would have expected an “anti-establishment”, “pro-people” paper whose tagline is “Journalism of Courage” to do.

Over a 16-day period (April 6 to 21), through 21 news reports, seven editorials, 15 opinion articles, three cartoons and one illustration, almost all of them variations of the same theme, the northern and western editions of the Express (the southern editions are under a different editorial management after the Goenka family split) has left no one in doubt on whose side—and which—side of the debate it is.

Against the sentiment on the street and in the homes and offices of its readers—and with the political-business-bureacuratic-fixer-operator cabal in whose interest it is to spike the bill in whatever form it may emerge, by tarnishing its movers and shakers.

The only place there has been any space for the other side in the Express since the protest began and ended, has been in its letters’ column, with one letter (from a former Express staffer) getting pride of place on the op-ed page as an article.

Otherwise, it has been a relentless torrent of scepticism, cynicism, criticism, distortion, inneundo, insinuation and plain abuse in The Indian Express. Words like “illiberal”, “fascist”, “dangerous”, “self-righteous”, “self-appointed”, “authoritarian”, “dictators”, “Maoist” and—pinch yourself—”missing foreskins” have spewed forth from the paper’s news and views pages to convince the world why the movement is the worst thing to have happened for Indian democracy.

Here’s a sampling of the headlines, introductions and blurbs over the 16-day period:

***

# April 6, news report, by Maneesh Chibber, headline “Activists’ Bill calls for Lokpal as supercop, superjudge”, text “The Jan Lokpal Bill…. includes a set of highly unusual provisions….”

# April 7, news report, by Maneesh Chibber and Seema Chisti, headline “Cracks appear in Anna’s team”, intro “Justice Santosh Hegde objects to ‘certain’ clauses’, Aruna Roy warns: can’t bypass democratic principles”

# April 7, news feature, by Vandita Mishra, headline “Anna’s fast, main course: feed politicians to vultures & dogs”

# April 7, editorial headline “They, the people”, intro “Illiberal, self-righteous sound and fury isn’t quite the weapon against corruption.”

# April 7, opinion, by Pratap Bhanu Mehta, headline “Of the few, by the few”, intro “Lokpal Bill agitation has a contempt for politics and democracy”, blurb “The claim that people are not represented by elected representatives, but are represented by their self-appointed guardians is disturbing. Anyone who claims to be the ‘authentic’ voice of the people is treading on very thin ice indeed”

# April 8, news report, headline “First political voices speak: cause just, method fascist”, intro “Self-selected can’t dictate terms, says SP; who will choose 50% civil society, asks Raghuvansh [Prasad]“

# April 8, news report, by D.K. Singh, headline “UPA problem: NAC shoe is on the other (NGO) foot”, text: “…the anti-corruption legislation looks set to land in the turf war between competing gorups of civil rights activists.”

# April 8, gossip item, headline “Lady in hiding?”, text “When the fiesty retired IPS officer (Kiran Bedi) was not seen, it naturally set off talk, with people wondering whether she had quietly withdrawn from the campaign.”

# April 8, editorial, headline “Carnival society”, intro “There is nothing representative about the ‘civil society’ gathering at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar”

#April 9, news report, by Seema Chisti, headline “Jantar Mantar core group lost out last year, struck back with Anna”

# April 9, editorial, headline “Make it better”, intro “This anti-politics juggernaut is both contentless and dangerous”

# April 9, opinion, by Baijayant ‘Jay‘ Panda MP, headline “Cynicism vs hope”, intro “How odd that we should undermine democracy in this year of pro-democracy movements”, blurb “The Jantar Mantar movement is now poised at a crucial juncture. It could get irretrievably hijacked by those of Hazare’s supporters who have scant respect for politics. If wiser heads prevail—those who respect the institutions of democracy like parliament and the courts—then we could well be at the cusp of a magical moment.”

# April 10, news report, headline “[Baba] Ramdev attacks ‘nepotism’ in bill drafting committee: pita mukhiya, beta sadasya?”

# April 10, news report pointer, headline “Ally NCP speaks out: joint committee will be joint pain for constitution and democracy”

# April 11, opinion, by Mihir S. Sharma, headline “Not a very civil coup”, intro “Snuff out those candles: democratic society should trump civil society, every time”, blurb “Let us not glorify middle-class anger when it is expressed as an antipathy to where democracy’s gotten us, as fury at not having more power than is gifted by the vote you share with a villager. That way lies the pain and disillusionment of a dozen cuddly dictators”

# April 12, editorial, headline “Rs 100, a sari, a bottle”, intro “That’s all Hazare says a vote means. Who gains from such disdain for democracy?”

# April 12, opinion, by Neera Chandhoke, headline “The seeds of authoritarianism”, intro “Democracy needs civil society. But not Anna Hazare’s version, contemputous of ordinary voters”

# April 12, opinion, by Madhu Purnima Kishwar, headline “Why tar all politicians with the same brush?”, intro “We need to reboot corrupt systems, instead of demonising our political class”, blurb “Politicians can be removed through elections, whereas we self-appointed representatives cannot be voted out when we exceed our brief”

# April 13, news clipping quoting New Age, view from the left, “Anna Hazare afterthought”

# April 13, opinion, by Seema Chisti, headline “We the bullied”, intro “Can our basic democratic procedures be so easily dispensed with?”, blurb “The quick and easy path in this case is also the more dangerous road, and it is one on which we have already embarked—all because there are some people around who talk loud enough to make claims about representing ‘the people’. We, the electors and those we elected, have just given them a walkover.”

# April 13, opinion, by Ashwini Kulkarni, “Governance comes before a Lokpal”, intro “For a Lokpal bill to work, you would need systems that create the paper trails necessary for prosecution”

# April 13, opinion, by Nityanand Jayaraman, headline “The halfway revolution”, intro “Am I wrong in suggesting that the candle-holding middle-class Indian is not very different from the Maoist in ideology?”

# April 14, editorial, headline “Over to the MPs”, intro “On the Lokpal bill, Veerappa Moily is falling all over himself—and could trip Parliament too”

# April 14, opinion, by Javed Anand, headline “Why I didn’t join Anna Hazare,” intro “In his post-corrupt utopia, we should look forward to leaders like Narendra Modi“, blurb “I do not wish to spoil the show for those celebrating the ‘second movement for Independence’ that Anna has won for us. But I cannot hide the fact that I, with my missing foreskin, continue to feel uneasy about the Anna revolution—for more reasons than one.”

# April 15, news report, headline “CEOs, banks, firms in list of donors put up on website of Hazare movement”

# April 15, news report, “Doubt your role as good lawmaker: SP leader to Shanti Bhushan”

# April 15, opinion, by Farah Baria, headline “See the spirit of Anna’s movement”, intro “Don’t nip our fledgling civic consciousness in the bud”

# April 16, news report, headline “Lokpal talks off to CD start”

# April 16, news report, headline “My view is keep judges out, says Anna, colleagues disagree”

# April 16, news report, headline “The other society: CIC, Aruna Roy, Justice Verma to hold parallel meet”

# April 17, news report, by Swaraj Thapa and Amitabh Sinha, headline “Lokpal should have powers to tap phones, prosecute: non govt reps”

# April 17, news report, by Seema Chisti, headline “Why the hurry, and do we really need more laws, ask legal luminaries, activists”

# April 17, opinion, by Meghnad Desai, headline “Which Hazare?’

# April 17, opinion, by Sudheendra Kulkarni, headline “MODI-fy the Lokpal debate”

# April 17, opinion, by Tavleen Singh, headline “Our sainted NGOs?”

# April 19, editorial, headline “law and lawgivers”, intro “So will Anna Hazare respect Parliament’s supremacy after all?”

# April 20, news report, by Pragya Kaushika and Ritu Sarin, headline “Bhushans get two prime farmhouse plots from Mayawati govt for a song”, intro “No lottery, no auction in allotment of two 10,000 sq m plots to Shanti Bhushan and son Jayant“

# April 20, editorial, headline “Case must go on”, intro “The judicial process must remain disconnected from the Bhushans-Amar Singh spat”

# April 20, opinion, by A.P. Shah and Venkatesh Nayak, “A gigantic institution that draws powers from a statute based on questionable principles”, blurb “Clauses 8 and 17 turn the Lokpal into a civil court that will reverse the decisions of the executive such as grant of licences, permits, authorisations and even blacklist companies and contractors. This is not the job of an Ombudsman-type institution.”

# April 21, news report, headline “Mess spreading, Sonia washes her NAC hands of Lokpal Bill”, intro “Reminds Anna Hazare that he knew NAC was at work on Bill until fast forced the issue”

# April 21, news report, by Krishnadas Rajagopal and Tanu Sharma, headline “On plots allotted by govt, the Bhushans have high standards—for others”

# April 21, news report, by Tanu Sharma, headline “Shanti Bhushan may not have been in panel if plot known: Santosh Hegde”

# April 21, opinion, by Sandeep Dikshit, MP, headline “Whose bill is it anyway?”, intro “The fight against corruption cannot be appropriated by a clique”, blurb “The very reason why this committee was formed was because it was argued that we need more opinions and contributions to the Lokpal Bill. Having accepted this, can the protagonists then state that every opinion, every fear expressed by those outside this group is an attempt to sabotage this bill?

# April 21, opinion, by Dilip Bobb, headline “In search of civil society”, intro “Anna Hazare has given ‘civil society’ an identity card, but who qualifies for membership?”, blurb “Is civil society the preserve of groups predefined as democratic, modern and ‘civil’, or is it home to all sorts of associations, including ‘uncivil society’?”

# April 21, news clippings quoting Organiser, view from the right, headlines “Whose Hazare?”, “Check that bill”

***

It is no one’s case that the campaign for the Lokpal bill, or the clauses contained in the draft Jan Lokpal bill, is without its flaws. It is also no one’s case that those behind the movement are angels, who cannot be questioned or scrutinised.

But when viewed through a journalistic prism, the Express campaign raises two questions.

One, can a newspaper—notwithstanding its right to take a stand it likes on any issue—can a newspaper shut out the other side completely as if doesn’t exist? And is such a newspaper a newspaper or a pamphlet?

Example: on April 19, “civil society” representatives led by NAC members Aruna Roy and Harsh Mander, condemned the campaign to malign Shanti Bhushan and Prashant Bhushan. The Indian Express ignored the news item that found place in most newspapers.

And two, whose cause is the Express championing in indulging in such a hit job on a campaign that has struck a chord with millions?

Express fires from the safe shoulders of “democracy”—a word that invokes titters among many ex-Express staffers. But is the Express really speaking for the people, or has it become a plaything of the “establishment” which was shamed into acting on a piece of legislation that had been languishing for 43 years?

***

None of this is to downplay the first-rate journalism that the Indian Express still delivers on most days of the week. Even in as messy a story as the Amar Singh-Shanti Bhushan CD in the current anti-Hazare campaign, Express demonstrated far greater rigour than its compatriots Hindustan Times and Times of India, which fell hook, line and sinker for the “establishment” story.

Nevertheless, there is no denying that Express has begun to play a meeker role in exposing corruption in high places.

In the last three years, Express has been wrongfooted by its compatriots on all the big corruption stories that have gripped the nation’s attention and spurred the campaign for the Lokpal bill: the 2G spectrum allocation (The Pioneer) and S-band (The Hindu) scams; the CWG, IPL and Adarsh housing scams (The Times of India); the black money and Swiss bank accounts story (Tehelka); Wikileaks (The Hindu); and the Niira Radia tapes (Outlook and Open).

Simultaneously, Express, which increasingly shares a strange symbiosis with Indian and American thinktanks, has veered disturbingly closer to the government, be it in reflecting the UPA government’s thrust for the Indo-US nuclear bill; its muscular approach to tackling the Maoist threat in mine-rich tribal areas; in demonising the Chinese, or in plumping for road, airport, dams, infrastructure and nuclear projects, overriding environmental and social concerns.

Indeed, from being a paper deeply suspicious of big business, it has become the go-to newspaper for corporate honchos seeking to put out their story. Ratan Tata‘s first interview after the Radia tapes hit the ceiling was with Shekhar Gupta for NDTV‘s Walk the Talk show.

And for a paper deeply suspicious of power, the paper now publishes arbitrary “power lists”, without ever revealing the jury or the methodology behind the rankings. (Shekhar Gupta was decorated with the nation’s third highest civilian honour, the Padma Bhushan, by the UPA government in 2009.)

The question that arises is: are all these concentric circles somehow linked in the Express‘ astonishingly one-sided campaign against the anti-corruption movement and the people behind it?

***

Historically, in India, large publications (think Times of India and The Hindu), have tended to play along with the establishment because of the kind of business and other interests involved. But a small-circulation paper bending backwards to stroke the crooked and the corrupt doesn’t present a pleasant sight.

It doesn’t sound civil, but it is a question that must be courageously asked: has Ramnath Goenka’s bulldog of a paper become a lapdog of the power elite, luxuriating among the rich and famous, while peeing at the feet of the people it was supposed to defend?

In other words, has The Indian Express become a pro-establishment newspaper?

Illustration: courtesy C.R. Sasikumar/ The Indian Express, April 20

Why I’m slightly disappointed with Anna Hazare

By churumuri

K. JAVEED NAYEEM writes: Just two short weeks ago I, or for that matter most Indians, hardly knew that a man called Anna Hazare, a former soldier turned social activist, existed in our country.

Unlike most serving soldiers who achieve fame on the battlefield only after fighting hard battles, he became a hero, off the field, long after his service, without firing a single shot.

On the fifth of this month, when he launched his ‘fast-onto-death’ to press for the passing of the Jan Lokpal Bill that would enable every ordinary Indian citizen to hold the high and mighty rulers of the land accountable for any misdeeds, hardly anyone believed that his movement would cause any tremors in the echelons and corridors of power. But contrary to my own misgivings, I saw a mass uprising, the kind of which we have perhaps never seen in independent India for any cause, making the man seem like India’s modern-day mahatma.

The impetus this time, seemed to have come from the success people saw of revolting groups braving the bullets and bombs of despotic dictators in the Middle East, a region which is undoubtedly the most notorious example of repression of citizens’ voices and rights.

No town or city across the length and breadth of the country was left out, with every one of them seeing groups of people meeting or marching in support of Anna’s call.

Although most Indians had for decades given up any hope of successfully weeding out the monster of corruption that has been stifling the breath of our country, this time they seemed all set to pound their plowshares into swords in a dramatic reversal of the proverbial act.

The government at the Centre too seemed a little shaken if not completely jolted by the tremors sweeping across the country. But just when we thought that we had made a breakthrough in its resistance, came disappointment.

Our hero who seemed to be pressing for nothing short of complete transparency and accountability in administration at all levels, made a sudden volte-face by announcing his list of ‘exemptees’ that included the President, Governors of States and high ranking judges among a few others.

He also said that since the Parliament, which had stalled and rejected the Bill five times in the past, was supreme and therefore he would accept its rejection this time too if it chose to do so.

Now, my question is why should we leave out some posts untouched by our attempts to wipe out an evil?

Does an evil become an acceptable virtue when it is committed by a creamy layer of high-ranking public functionaries? What if they happen to be holding our highest offices? As human beings, they are not necessarily infallible and they too can do wrong as we have been seeing from time to time.

It is a well-known fact that quite a few of our Governors have demitted office in disgrace while two of our high-ranking judges are right now facing impeachment for acts of commission and omission. And the whole purpose of triggering off the mass movement that we all saw and supported was to pressurise the Parliament to pass a useful and workable Bill that would serve its intended purpose in full measure.

Now the net result of this softening of stand by Anna Hazare is that the mass movement that we all saw for a brief while as the final solution to our most disgraceful and shameful problem, seems to have lost all its fervour and momentum. It is perhaps because people have rightly begun to feel that having a much watered down and diluted Lokpal Bill is as good as a no Bill at all and is therefore not worth supporting anymore.

I am sure that the Bill that will eventually go through our Parliament after much hounding and pounding will only be of cosmetic value. In its utility, it will be no different from the many paper tigers in our long list of laws and penalties and will remain useless while the real man-eaters who continue to rule the roost, will remain untouched long after Anna Hazare and we who have stood by him are all gone.

(K. Javeed Nayeem is a practising physician who writes a weekly column in Star of Mysore, where this piece originally appeared)

Sai Baba’s teachings haven’t touched his Trustees

By churumuri

VIKRAM MUTHANNA writes: Satya Sai Baba is now reported to be in a critical condition and the battlelines to take over one of the wealthiest Trusts in the nation are being drawn.

The hysteria around Sai Baba’s health brings to mind an incident recounted in a book titled Begone Godmen! by the Sri Lanka-born rationalist, Dr Abraham Kovoor. He says when he once wrote an article mentioning about Sai Baba going through an appedicitis operation, many Baba devotees took offence.

Reason: they considered Sai Baba a godman who could not fall ill.

One devotee, who was a doctor, said that Sai Baba had not been admitted to the hospital to remove his own appendix but a diseased one that the Bhagwan had taken into his body from a suffering devotee.

Whether one believes such theories or not is immaterial because the fact is all men fall sick.

All men will die. And everyone is equal in death. Death does not discriminate, death does not disappoint. It will come. Be it godman or an ungodly man. Of course, supposedly, there are various types of deaths, but that is another matter altogether.

Then of course there is the soul, unseen, unexplainable, unbelievably overrated and exploited.

Before we go into the realm of the metaphysical or start talking of the netherland, we must notice the fact that while Sai Baba lies is in a critical state, so is the character of the people in his inner circle.

A few days ago, while Sai Baba was in the hospital, there were two groups having separate meetings the whole day. One comprised the family members of Sai Baba; the other were the trustees of the Satya Sai Central Trust.

It is being reported that there is a war brewing within the Trust.

The Satya Sai Trust consists of five Trustees—the Sai Baba himself who is the founder-Trustee; P.N. Bhagwati, the former chief justice of India; Indulal Shah, a chartered accountant; S.V. Giri, former central vigilance commissioner; V. Srinivas, former president of the confederation of Indian industry (CII); and Sai Baba’s nephew, Ratnakar.

There is so much distrust among the Trustees that electricity was cut off in Puttaparthi so people would not watch a particular programme on a particular channel relayed only by a particular cable operator as the programme being telecast was particularly critical of the Trustees.

Incidentally, Sai Baba’s nephew Ratnakar holds the cable rights to Puttaparthi!

But why this hullabaloo? After all, Sai Baba has said that he will leave his physical body only when he is 96 years old, that’s a good 11 years from now. Considering that people have put their complete faith in his hands, they should not worry. He should be back giving darshans soon.

During such trying times, it is disturbing to see a group of illustrious individuals, one of them a blood relative of the godman, indulge in mud-slinging.

Sai Baba once said:

“If there is righteousness in the heart,

there will be beauty in character;

If there is beauty in character,

there will be harmony in the home.”

Looks like there is trouble in Sai Baba’s home now.

It seems many years of exposure to the godman’s godly teachings has had no effect on the Trustees. Even more disappointing, these Trustees are closer to him than a regular devotee. So, one would think they would be much more righteous and immune to greed.

This is another example that God or godmen can never dictate morality.

We are taught that God is omnipresent and that God is always watching us and so we must be at our best behaviour at all times. But in spite of this 24×7 divine surveillance, the most God-fearing or religious nations in the world are the most corrupt, most immoral, most hypocritical and also most prone to violence.

Why?

Is it because religion has a provision for forgiveness? Is it because when convenient to us, God is all-forgiving? Is that why these nations have some of the wealthiest religious establishments? Forgiveness seems to be a big business.

While the Gods have gotten wealthy by dispensing forgiveness, godmen have gotten wealthy by peddling hope and filling the emotional void and indulging in spiritual reconnaissance.

At the same time, the equation between a Guru and his devotee is a personal matter, as long as it is within the legal framework of the nation.

When six boys were shot dead in Sai Baba’s residential area, the statement made by Indulal Shah was, “The matter is purely internal and we do not wish to have any law enforcement agency investigating into it!!!” Six people have died and an educated chartered accountant has the audacity and arrogance to say that law enforcement should not investigate? Even godmen are not above the law.

Yes, indeed many have questioned the legitimacy of godmen. In fact, Sai Baba who was termed Man of Miracles for materialising gold chains, rings and holy ash has been questioned many times. Most famously, for producing gold chains out of thin air which breach the gold bullion import regulations of India. That is, if he actually produced gold out of thin air.

Then there are questions such as, instead of producing gold chains and ash out of thin air, why doesn’t Baba produce food and water and save the poor?

Or even better, tie up with the Reserve Bank of India and pump up the national economy with gold.

We also ask, why don’t godmen, who claim to have telepathic abilities, communicate or visit their political and bureaucratic devotees in their dreams and tell them that they have to stop being corrupt and sadistic? Is it because all these acts are not miracles but well-executed stage shows?

In fact, there is the controversial footage of Sai Baba fishing for ‘something’ under a trophy that he was presenting to an individual and later that something turned out to be a gold chain! The controversial footage was never broadcast as back then Doordarshan was the only TV channel. Of course it is now back, thanks to internet and YouTube.

Whatever it may be, Sai Baba has found mortal ways to achieve what he cannot materialise. There is the water project that has provided water to 750 villages, and medical and educational establishments that have greatly improved the life of millions of people. His charity and tenacity has done what governments have not been able to do.

Yes, godmen or spiritual guides may be accused of manipulation and trickery which rationalists can prove and the law must deal with. But godmen deserve recognition for the work they have done for society. However, they will win us over completely only when they can change the character of their devotees, especially the high and mighty ones.

We wish they could convince their bureaucrat-devotees to work with the same vigour and whole-heartedness at government hospitals as they do at the “god’s” health centres.

We wish they could request their powerful devotees to bless public projects with the same pro-activeness and creativity that they so easily bestow upon holy projects approved by gurujis. After all, isn’t government’s work God’s work? Well, at least that’s what’s proudly proclaimed on the entrance of Vidhana Soudha.

Also, godmen will win everyone’s affection and trust only when they are open to enquiry, even by the highly critical, scientific and the most mundane.

For now, while praying for Baba’s health, we better start investing on real estate in and around Mandya. Why? Because in 11 years, Sai Baba is going to be reborn as Prem Sai somewhere in Mandya. This is going to increase real estate prices and after 11 years, it is going to be a fantastic return on investment.

For others who do not have money to invest in land, they need not be disappointed because with Prem Sai, we will have access to superior educational institutions and medical care. Of course, this will come with a heady dose of miracles and spirituality. But be warned. Take only what you need and only in healthy doses.

(Vikram Muthanna is the managing editor of the evening daily newspaper, Star of Mysore, where this piece originally appeared)

5 things a journalist learnt from Dr Raj Kumar

By churumuri

SAGGERE RAMASWAMY writes from Bangalore: In my 25 years as a photojournalist, I met Dr Raj Kumar in person five times and learnt five things from him: simplicity, punctuality, dedication, respect (for others)—and the knack of enjoying food.

Other than those personal meetings, I had the occasion to cover many events of Raj Kumar. My first “Dr Raj” shoot was during the Gokak chaluvali at the Doddakere Maidan in Mysore in the early 1980s, when he, Vishnuvardhan and other stars were taking part in the agitation for primacy for Kannada.

Our first personal meeting was at the Kalamandira in Mysore in 1986. I walked in to the greenroom with my camera and was stunned to see Annavru. He was humming a ‘Dasara pada’.

Me: Saar, Namaskara.

Annavru: Namaskara… yenu nimma hesaru? (What’s your name?)

Me: Ramaswamy, saar

Annavru: Ramuswamy na, Ramaswamy na?

Me: Saar, Ramaswamy, saar

Annavru: aah, haage heli. Yava patrike?

Me: Mysore Mitra, saar, from the Star of Mysore group.

I took just a few pictures of the varanata that day as my film roll restricted my shooting, but I had the presence of mind to request his long-time bodyguard Channa (of the information department) to shoot a picture of the two of us together.

When he was awarded the Dada Saheb Phalke award in1995, Chetan Krishnaswamy, K. Gopinathan and I walked in to his residence at Sadashivanagar for an interview for Frontline magazine. Director Bhagawan, who fixed the meeting for us, was already there.

Raj Kumar stood up and said: “Banni, koothukolli’ (come, sit down). Bhagawan introduced us to him.

Without any hesitation, Raj Kumar said: “Frontline aa? English patrike, nanage English odoke barolla.” (Frontline? English magazine? I don’t know how to read English)

Today, on Dr Raj’s birth anniversary, I remember two things.

One, that he stood up and welcomed us.

And two, as I watched this video clip from his 104th film Amma (1968), his statement: “Nanage English odoke baralla.”

(Saggere Ramaswamy, worked with the Indian Express, The Hindu, and the world’s first technology daily, Tech Mail, before launching India’s first web-based photo syndication agency, Karnataka Photo News. He is also on the faculty of the Indian Institute of Journalism & New Media in Bangalore.)

Act of giving – The Indian style

Sudha Varadarajan
First Published : 24 Apr 2011 11:26:00 PM IST
Last Updated : 24 Apr 2011 11:55:20 PM IST

A few weeks ago, Warren Buffett, the chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway and Bill Gates, founder, Microsoft, made a quiet landing on the Indian sub-continent. We were told that the American industrialists, together worth over $100 billion, had both pledged to give away all their wealth, in their lifetime, for the less-privileged to benefit from it.

Having built empires of wealth, brick by brick, the gentlemen duo has now resolved to experience the “bliss of giving”. Divine philanthropy, indeed! We acknowledge and nod in adulation.

Hey stop! But what were the two billionaires doing in India? No sooner did we welcome them with wide-opened palms to accept their doles with utmost grace and gratitude than our palms began to shrink with a shiver, on hearing about their mission in India, with dismay and disappointment.

The “rich and famous” gentlemen were here to exhort the rich in India to “open their wallets”. “India has a remarkable tradition of giving. We are so happy to notice growing enthusiasm among the first generation entrepreneurs, who have made fortunes, to give back to the society, which made them successful in their endeavor,” Gates told a press conference.

How atrocious! What audacity! The much-publicised agenda of these two gentlemen threw India Inc into a state of stupor, even as their underprivileged brethren, the aam aadmi of our developing economy were already dreaming of better times.

Apparently, both Buffett and Gates, who had spent decades on multiplying their dollars, had grossly miscalculated the virtue of generosity or the “ethos of giving” (as they famously termed it) in our country.

For their rich and famous counterparts in India, charity not only begins, but also ends at home! In this land of the mystics, the “ethos of giving” and the much-prevalent “ethos of taking” conjure up multidimensional images of underhand dealings clinched in the corridors of power politics and the lobbies of corporate sectors. Familiar as we are to such scandalous anecdotes of our morally bankrupt netas, babus and corporate honchos, should we not make due allowance to the ignorance of the rich men who have come visiting?

Perhaps, the ‘poor’ guys had timed it all wrong! These ignorant ‘wise men’ had chosen to preach to a country that was busy indexing and classifying a valuable data base of all its scams in politics, business, bureaucracy, media and judiciary, to name just a few. The perennial flow of scams had kept our leaders on their toes, scurrying into conference halls where more cover-up designs were hatched with amazing intellectual agility. The media was busy too, lurking around the shady pavilions to pounce on the ‘breaking news’, which of course broke every minute, engulfing the credible and vulnerable aam aadmi who were glued to the TV screens with gaping mouths, devouring the sensational cocktail of recipes dished out to them, hour after hour!

And amidst all this chaos, who do you think was listening Warren Buffett and Bill Gates? And how dare they exhort our own millionaires and billionaires — and there are quite a few of them in the Forbes’ List of super rich — to part with their wealth that has been accumulated by no ordinary means?

After all, they did not realise that India has always been the sacred cradle of virtues — a land that embodies the shining virtues of charity, compassion, dharma, righteousness, truth and ethical governance. Our history books say so, don’t they? Sure, the foreigners need to take their lessons on Indian history! Instead, they had come calling, in haste, to deliver sermons on charity and the “act of giving”.

Alas! They are not aware that for most of us Indians, it is the “act of taking” rather than the “act of giving” that appeals more!

Kashmir panel flounders

Firdous Syed
First Published : 24 Apr 2011 11:25:00 PM IST
Last Updated : 24 Apr 2011 11:50:58 PM IST

After the 2010 summer uprising, it was assumed that the civilian unrest besides the large scale deaths and destruction will galvanise New Delhi to work for a long-lasting solution of the Kashmir problem. Contrary to the expectations, sticking to its usual style of dithering and dilly-dallying, Manmohan Singh’s government at the Centre has pushed into action multiple instruments of summer management. It looks like the primary goal is to prevent a repeat of 2010 unrest this summer. The three-member group of interlocutors, headed by Dileep Padgaonkar, instead of conducting a dialogue with the separatists, has been carrying out an academic exercise. The official panel has kept itself engaged in knowing the views of different sections of society in J&K for more than six months.

The interlocutors claim that rather than narrowing down differences between New Delhi and Srinagar to reach a workable solution “their mandate is to frame recommendations for New Delhi”. Is it a fact-finding mission? Meanwhile at least three other Kashmir committees or panels have sprouted. As a matter of fact official interlocutors are unable to break any ice with any significant separatist leader, particularly the hardliners, and this seems to be the reason for the other groups to join the fray. A Leftists-inspired group with members like A B Bardhan and D Raja from the Communist Party of India- Marxist (CPI(M)) general secretary Prakash Karat, Lok Jan Shakti leader Ram Vilas Paswan and civil society members Kamal Mitra Chenoy, Mahesh Bhat, Meena Menon, Anuradha Chenoy and Seema Mustafa has also been making the rounds in Srinagar.

The BJP was not to be left behind; it also announced the formation of a study group to “interact with a cross-section of people in the state”. Recently a high-profile team, headed by former BJP president Rajnath Singh toured Jammu and Kashmir. To add further confusion, after remaining in hibernation for almost a decade the ‘Kashmir Committee’ headed by the noted jurist Ram Jethmalani has been revived again. The BJP leader and Rajya Sabha member in October last had accused Congress for sabotaging the efforts of the earlier avatar of ‘Kashmir Committee. “I personally thought we had practically reached a solution. We had a written agreement with the Hurriyat leaders on five important issues... There are people in this country who have an interest in not solving the problem. They are a pervasive phenomenon and it is not an unfair statement to say that Pakistan is full of them,” the maverick leader had lamented.

If Congress had sabotaged his brokered peace deal last time and when the Congress-led UPA is still in power, how is he expecting a smooth sailing this time around? What is going on is the comedy of absurd, which instead of arousing any expectation of early peace has ironically confused the common Kashmir minds.

Forging peace in a conflict-ridden Kashmir, wherein tens of thousands have lost their lives and with many hardline ideologies and foreign influences being at work, is not to reconcile with the already reconciled. It is to build a consensus among divergent views, warring parties and interest groups to work together for the resolution of a conflict; peace is made with the enemies and not the friends. The interlocutors’ team has been treading the beaten tracks. It is a useless exercise which over the years has lost its futility. Especially when the same set of people coming forward for interaction are not ready to move away from their parroted positions. During their seventh or eighth trip to the Valley, (one really has lost the count), the official interlocutors claimed to have achieved a sort of breakthrough; they were able to meet separatist Shia leader and former chairman of Hurriyat Conference, Moulana Muhammad Abbas Ansari, at his house.

Making fun of himself, Ansari claimed that interlocutors dropped in “unannounced, uninvited” and, “I told them since you have come to my house I can’t close my doors on you”. Nobody comes uninvited or uninformed, particularly when Padgaonkar sometime ago had made it clear; “We want to reach out every stakeholders of Jammu and Kashmir provided that they are interested in talking to us. We will not knock the doors of anyone uninvited and unannounced”. For this duplicity only the separatists have lost their credibility with the people. Almost all the moderates including Mirwaiz, Yasin and Shabir Shah have been privately in touch with the interlocutors; they lack the courage and conviction to own it publicly. Moulana Showkat Ahmad Shah, who was killed recently, had also met the interlocutors.

Either the three-member panel is overjoyed due to a misplaced notion, or else the idea is to hoodwink public opinion. The so-called moderates, due to their clowning around and unfair dealings, have lost the clout and space to hardliners led by Syed Ali Geelani. New Delhi is also partially responsible for the erosion of moderate space in the Valley. The middle-of-the-road approach is a conviction not an apology; principled reconciliation is not a compromise to further one’s own vested interests. Who are these moderates and what clout they have beyond their respective mohalas (localities)? Even if New Delhi is willing to concede substantial political concessions, moderates convincingly known as part of the conflict enterprise in Kashmir are least suited to work for any honourable compromise with the government. Travelling on a one-way street moderate separatists only possess the nuisance value. Making courageous peace is not the hallmark of paid agents; it needs strength of character. Regrettably moderates here are part of the problem and not the solution. More paradoxical is the fact that hardliners are not ready to see the reason and work for an amicable resolution of the Kashmir problem bilaterally with Delhi. In case New Delhi is seriously interested in resolving the problem on a Delhi-Srinagar bilateral track, it will have to work with pro-autonomy National Conference and self-rule favouring Mufti’s PDP. Had moderates been the real leaders and not scarecrows they were ideally suited to work for peace. But they are not is the real travesty of Kashmir.

Firdous Syed, formerly a separatist, is an analyst based in Kashmir. E-mail: firdoussyed@yahoo.com

Cricket diplomacy yields no score

The New Indian Express
First Published : 24 Apr 2011 11:22:00 PM IST
Last Updated : 24 Apr 2011 11:38:52 PM IST

The Prime Minister’s Office has now denied news reports saying that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had held secret talks with Pakistan Army Chief Ashfaq Kayani through an official channel 10 months ago to prepare ground for the cricket diplomacy that opened up between the two countries during the recently concluded cricket World Cup. The denial came a day after a leading British newspaper had published the report on Saturday and other newspapers and TV channels picked it up to spread it the world over. A cryptic statement issued by the PMO simply said, “The report is false”. Whatever the truth, the sequence of events that led to the prime minister inviting his Pakistan counterpart to witness the India-Pakistan cricket match at Mohali and subsequent developments reflect his obsession with Pakistan. Singh’s move had invited flak from within the country because it represented a major shift from his government’s principled stand that there would be no resumption of dialogue till Pakistan took credible action against the plotters of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack. The PMO’s bland denial does not clear the air.

The post-Mohali noises made by the Indian establishment add to the suspicions about Manmohan Singh’s obsessive zeal to mend fences with Pakistan. Playing to the tune set by the prime minister, External Affairs Minister S M Krishna has indicated the government’s in-principle approval for a bilateral cricket series with Pakistan. And India’s security agencies have followed it up by saying that there are no problems about Indian cricketers visiting Pakistan. This at a time when no other cricketing nation is prepared to do so.

It seems that the government of India has not learnt any lesson from the past. Our previous trysts with cricket diplomacy have led to disappointments. Pakistani leaders were invited to India to watch their side play the game with India — Zia-ul-Haq in 1987 and Pervez Musharraf in 2005 — but nothing came out of these bat-and-ball summits. While initiatives to improve relations between the two nations in sports and culture should be welcomed, this cannot deflect attention from the hard fact that rogue elements triggering terror attacks against India are deeply entrenched within Pakistan’s ruling establishment.

A service-minded spiritual leader

The New Indian Express
First Published : 24 Apr 2011 11:22:00 PM IST
Last Updated : 24 Apr 2011 11:41:11 PM IST

In a country where the ideas of rebirth of the soul and divine incarnation are deeply ingrained in the people’s faith, it might be trite to say that the void caused by the death of Sathya Sai Baba of Puttaparthi would be difficult to fill. India has had several godmen but none could match his name and fame. Millions of his followers consider him a living god, despite sceptic sounds from rationalists and non-believers. And, though occasional controversies continued to crop up during his long span as India’s most-followed spiritual leader, from ordinary believers to the President of India, his clout spread far and wide.

As a spiritual leader, Sathya Sai Baba was different in that he did not pit one religion against another and assiduously shunned sectarianism of any kind. He preached that if one remained unaffected by greed or hate and lived up to the ideals propounded by one’s religion, the world will be a happy and peaceful place. He was also different because he practised what he preached. He headed one of the biggest charitable trusts in the world, with assets that run up to `40,000 crore and roots in over a hundred countries that opened hospitals, schools and colleges. The trust also supported and funded ambitious schemes to provide drinking water to millions of people in drought prone areas of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu.

Though he built up a large following and a huge empire, he did not leave a successor. Since he himself was the chairman of Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust this has given rise to speculations about what will happen after him. While a section of his followers, that with personalities like former chief justice of India P N Bhagvati on the board, the trust will carry on its charitable work smoothly, others fear that the government might take over control in case of any rift among the members.

The Nobel Peace Prize and the Pakistan Dream

Ravi Shankar Etteth
Express News Service
First Published : 23 Apr 2011 11:33:00 PM IST
Last Updated : 24 Apr 2011 03:25:55 AM IST

Power corrupts the hard disk. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s wiring seems to have short-circuited completely; otherwise how do you explain his memory wipeout?

Waxing Gujralesque, Manmohan’s grandiloquence made it clear that his work would be done if relations with Pakistan are normalised. Has he forgotten he is heading a Government whose relationship with its allies is far worse than things have ever been with Pakistan? A Government that is unable to lift foodgrain to reach the hungry in spite of the Supreme Court questioning its failure to prevent starvation deaths in many parts of the country? A Government that is sandbagged with scams in which the political-corporate nexus is so busy stealing public money that the GDP now stands for Government Dacoit Product? A Government that raises the tax burden on the middle class but is unable to retrieve billions of dollars of black money? What is left for Manmohan, then, to govern? Pakistan?

Manmohan can’t hope to be prime minister again even if the UPA entertains a wild dream of coming back to power in 2014—he will be 82 years old. In a Parliament which has 79 Lok Sabha MPs under 40 years of age, and an average age of 53.03 years, a geriatric prime minister would be a case of pouring stale bathwater back into a retirement home. In what can be easily called the worst reign of any elected government in Indian history, Manmohan seeks his final, shining moment. Peace with Pakistan.

Why do all Indian politicians see solving the Pak problem as the crowning glory of an illustrious career? L K Advani, Rajiv Gandhi, I K Gujral, A B Vajpayee and now Manmohan? What drives Indian leaders to experience this Jesus moment instead of a Sputnik moment? Is Pakistan the last refuge of the retard? Does Manmohan see himself as Anwar Sadat or Menachem Begin, inking a famous peace treaty at Camp David—in this case, it would be Tiger Hill, Kargil—watched over by a benevolent American President who is surreptitiously polishing undeserved Swedish silver in his side pocket? True, the Nobel Academy has lost much of its sheen over the years, having become a political lobby of Left-leaning neo-Europeans without a birth certificate like President Barack Obama. Yet, the Nobel Prize is still the Nobel Prize like Manmohan is still the prime minister. Since Camp David, never mind that the Israelis have been regularly bombing Gaza and the Hamas has been launching missiles against Jerusalem. It’s always a good pitch for political glory to mix public relations with peace, when all else fails.

So, in Pakistan, it seems Manmohan has found the Final Solution. The hubris of a statesman lies in the cradle of his ambition to be canonised as a Pope of everlasting peace. In reality, the cathedral of subcontinental harmony is an ossuary of 1947. No hymns are sung there, only quawalis of expediency. Manmohan would be well advised to start work putting India and his Government back together. Or else Anna Hazare’s Magsaysay Prize will gleam brighter than the Swedish ego massage in the prime minister’s dreams.

ravi.shankar@newindianexpress.com

Lokpal Bill demolition job is too clever by half

Lokpal Bill demolition job is too clever by half

T J S George
Express News Service
First Published : 23 Apr 2011 11:33:00 PM IST
Last Updated : 24 Apr 2011 03:22:51 AM IST

Svengali was a fictional character and Rasputin a real-life one. One used hypnotism and the other psychic faith-healing to gain enormous power over others. The two words are today part of the English vocabulary. They mean a person of evil intent who manipulates others to achieve what he wants.

Suddenly dozens of Svengalis and Rasputins and Mantharas and Sakunis are on the march in India. The air is choking with conspiracy and intrigue, plotting and scheming and arrant manipulation. What is behind this bizarre frenzy is obvious. The political class is scared that the ongoing anti-corruption campaign may succeed. At any price they want public opinion to be defeated so that the cosy system that allows politicians to plunder the country can continue.

And see what they have achieved. A determined, cleverly executed campaign to discredit the committee has succeeded to a large extent. A petition has challenged the committee’s constitutionality. In Maharashtra Assembly, Sharad Pawar’s NCP and the Congress together have demanded an inquiry into charges of corruption against Anna Hazare and his trusts.

Most importantly, the toughest members of the committee, the Bhushans, have been morally damaged. The Sakunis and Rasputins must have calculated that if somehow these men could be compromised and ejected, it would be a powerful message to the other members of the committee and to civil-societywallahs in general.

It is surprising that the Bhushans, men of great legal acumen, did not foresee this turn of events. In the first place, there was no imperative need to include both father and son in the committee. It is true that they were best equipped to push civil society’s positions through in the discussions of the committee. But they should have known that demolition squads were lurking in the shadows and diplomatically withdrawn one Bhushan from official limelight. Certainly, they should have shown more caution in handling their property matters. Lack of attention to details merely supplied sticks to their enemies to beat them with.

But these indiscretions were no reason to subvert the basic issue of drafting a meaningful anti-corruption bill. By using the Bhushan issue in conspiratorial ways, the political manipulators not only diminished important members of the committee; they distracted attention from the committee’s task itself and cast shadows on its future working. If this is the intensity with which they assault members involved in drafting the bill, what diabolic plots will they hatch when the bill comes up for discussion in Parliament?

And just who are these self-appointed devas fighting to save the country from presumed asuras? Pawar, Amar Singh and Digvijaya Singh are men who had always promoted narrow group interests at the cost of the country. Reckless abuse of power marked their years in office. Pawar, true to form, stayed behind the scenes. But only he would have dared to conjure up the idea of slinging mud at Hazare himself. Amar Singh was intensely aggressive in his TV performances this time. Not only was he acting out his declamations with unusual gesticulations, he exploded into sudden bursts of shouting, as though loudness of voice was an argument. Digvijaya Singh, also animated and extraordinarily partisan, tore into Baba Ramdev asking about his wealth and whether he was paying taxes. He was bigotted enough—and ignorant enough—to cast aspersions even on Santosh Hegde, the most honourable of them all. The relentlessness of this senior Congress general secretary’s attack on the committee also raises doubts about Sonia Gandhi’s honesty in telling Hazare that she supports the campaign against corruption. Does she really?

In any case, what right do rejected politicians have to pose as moral interrogators calling others to order? What is their own record? They could not have made more obvious their eagerness to safeguard the prevailing culture of corruption. If the current bill-drafting exercise is discredited and derailed, this generation’s last hope of controlling corruption will have been lost. It is a loss even the Amar and Digvijayas of our country will regret some day.

What is the open secret of Robert Vadra's sudden riches?

By Dr Jitendra Kumar Sharma

WHILE the BJP, according to Sushma Swaraj, has tasked Arun Jaitley "to collect facts on Robert Vadra’s rise" and to CPM leader Sitaram Yechury, "It looks like a serious matter" and deserves "a structured reaction", to the common people, especially, the senior citizens, it is an open secret. At their daily get-together in city parks or under the banyan (bargad) tree outside the village panchayat-ghars, they can be seen simply gossiping and entertaining themselves with this question, answer, to which for them is an open secret but worth repeating and entertaining with.

The opposition’s interest in Vadra’s assets stems from a report in the Economic Times of March 14, 2011 which details Robert Vadra’s sudden climb from modest fashion accessories to high-rise DLF partnership, his real estate empire now spreading to Haryana and Rajasthan.

People are admiring and feeling envious about the son-in-law, Robert Vadra, who married into the country's most powerful political family, and instead of going into politics, has made a most enriching use of his political affiliation.

At a time when farmers are committing suicide as their lands have become unyielding and impoverishing, the most powerful son-in-law of the country is acquiring and getting unlimited lands here, there and everywhere. Money is no problem. "Does he apply for a loan?", asks a gossiping senior and the other one in reply gapes at him to express his crony’s slow wits. "Do you think, he is a farmer who would die of a loan?"; "my stupid brother, he is Sonia’s son-in-law. Money bags walk to him, Bankers bow to him. Still, he has not made as much as Raja". Another one joins in and says, "Rahul shall become only a Prime Minister, Robert will become a Raja before his sala (brother-in-law) become Prime Minister!". There is a guffaw of laughter from the gathering as one more voice says with uncontrollable laughter: "The son-in-law shines, as the son rises"!

Aristotle pronounced that man is a political animal. Therefore, one can safely say that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is an animal. When the late Rajnarain was called a "political animal" by another member of Indian Parliament, the redoubtable leader growled: "You called me janwar? The learned Professor Singh knows better and will shyly admit being one.

Gandhiji himself had been called a wily fox in his time. And, Sarojini Naidu called Gandhiji, "mickey mouse".

Mehta’s question is: "Could a non-politician have run UPA-I and UPA-II which has such tricky customers as Sharad Pawar, Mamata Banerjee, not to mention M Karunanidhi? Could a non-politician have so effortlessly ditched the Left, secretly roped in Mulayam Singh Yadav and got the N-deal through?

The wily Prime Minister, like other Congressmen of the day, is no Gandhian; he wears too many masks? He is proud to be a bureaucrat most of all.

The Indian bureaucracy was created by the British Raj and remains its perpetual successor. It over-rules Ministers and Prime Ministers. Congress politicians in fact do not like Manmohan Singh. Ask Parnabda? Digvijay Singh? The late Arjun Singh. They all regard him as a usurper. See how Manmohan foisted fellow bureaucrat PJ Thomas as CVC. And escaped the Opposition’s wrath by substituting the bureaucratic phrase "error of judgment" for a gross illegality he had deliberately committed.

And now comes a more stunning gloss, on Manmohan Singh, India’s political wolf numero UNO via the Wikileaks. Another open secret has been revealed that Manmohan Singh survived the July 22, 2008 confidence vote by bribing members of Parliament. Scams and scandals, our political wolf gulps it all right in front of the people. Transparency, it has been said can frighten corruption but has not in broad daylight before all the people the Prime Minister been committing illegal ?

BJP, however, does not see it in that light. Its Parliamentary Wing is shocked by PM's "Immorality"! but immorality is no crime under the Indian Law. Illegality is punishable under the law. So, the BJP is simultaneously creating an escape route for the foxy Prime Minister while crying "foul". Why can’t it say: PM, you have committed a legal wrong and now face the punishment for it?

"One of Manmohan Singh’s unrecognised strengths is that his friends and rivals constantly underestimate his political instincts. He is not a soft touch; he is a survivor. The BJP, which also has many survivors, should first of all, in its own interests, recognise that reality. Then they can probably unseat him", insightfully observes the Outlook editor.

Is Manmohan Singh "the weakest Prime Minister"? Being weak is no crime yet, a more thick-skinned PM Indian people have not seen before. Obviously, the BJP has to re-invent its terminology. It also needs to correct its perceptions about Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his bureaucratically perfect phraseology. About bribes he says, "I did not authorise anyone to purchase votes." A bureaucrat may escape with these words but a politician? Never.

Godhra carnage and pseudo-secularists: An analysis

By Manmath Deshpande

THE verdict on Godhra train burning that convicted 31 people has seen muted reactions from the Congress Party and the media. But to understand the entire pseudo-secular reactions on Godhra right since February 27, 2002, one must go back to 2002. An analysis of "Pseudo-secularists on Godhra" will reveal all the problems of our self-proclaimed secularists not just on Godhra, but on all issues.

On February 27, 2002, a well-armed mob of Muslims roasted 59 karsewaks returning from Ayodhya in Godhra. Vir Saghvi, Chief Editor of The Hindustan Times wrote a wonderful self-confessed article titled "One Way Ticket" on the reaction of self-proclaimed secularists on the gruesome roasting of Hindus by Muslims in Hindu-majority India. He wrote:

"There is something profoundly worrying in the response of what might be called the secular establishment to the massacre in Godhra... A mob of 2,000 people stopped the Sabarmati Express shortly after it pulled out of Godhra station... Some versions have it that the kar sewaks shouted anti-Muslim slogans; others that they taunted and harassed Muslim passengers. According to these versions, the Muslim passengers got off at Godhra and appealed to members of their community for help. Others say that the slogans were enough to enrage the local Muslims and that the attack was revenge...Some things seem clear. There is no suggestion that the kar sewaks started the violence. The worst that has been said is that they misbehaved with a few passengers. Equally, it does seem extraordinary that slogans shouted from a moving train or at a railway platform should have been enough to enrage local Muslims, enough for 2,000 of them to have quickly assembled at eight in the morning, having already managed to procure petrol bombs and acid bombs."

Even if you dispute the version of some of the kar sewaks-that the attack was premeditated and that the mob was ready and waiting-there can be no denying that what happened was indefensible, unforgivable and impossible to explain away as a consequence of great provocation.

And yet, this is precisely how the secular establishment has reacted.

Nearly every non-BJP leader who appeared on TV and almost all of the media have treated the massacre as a response to the Ayodhya movement...

And yet, the sub-text to all secular commentary is the same: the kar sewaks had it coming to them.

Basically, they condemn the crime; but blame the victims.

Try and take the incident out of the secular construct that we, in India, have perfected and see how bizarre such an attitude sounds in other contexts. Did we say that New York had it coming when the Twin Towers were attacked? Then too, there was enormous resentment among fundamentalist Muslims about America’s policies, but we didn't even consider whether this resentment was justified or not....

Why then are these poor karsewaks an exception? Why have we de-humanised them to the extent that we don't even see the incident as the human tragedy that it undoubtedly was and treat it as just another consequence of the VHP's fundamentalist policies?

The answer, I suspect, is that we are programmed to see Hindu-Muslim relations in simplistic terms: Hindus provoke, Muslims suffer.

When this formula does not work-it is clear now that a well-armed Muslim mob murdered unarmed Hindus-we simply do not know how to cope. We shy away from the truth-that some Muslims committed an act that is indefensible-and resort to blaming the victims.

Of course, there are always 'rational reasons' offered for this stand. Muslims are in a minority and therefore, they deserve special consideration. Muslims already face discrimination so why make it harder for them? If you report the truth then you will inflame Hindu sentiments and this would be irresponsible. And so on... When everybody can see that a trainload of Hindus was massacred by a Muslim mob, you gain nothing by blaming the murders on the VHP or arguing that the dead men and women had it coming to them.

Not only does this insult the dead (What about the children? Did they also have it coming?), but it also insults the intelligence of the reader.

There is one question we need to ask ourselves: have we become such prisoners of our own rhetoric that even a horrific massacre becomes nothing more than occasion for Sangh parivar-bashing?"

In other words, on February 27, 2002 it was clear that 2,000 Muslims had roasted the kar sewaks in Godhra, including 25 women and 15 children. So the pseudo-secularists tried to invent imaginary 'provocations'- (which were all self-contradictory) like "shouting anti-Muslim slogans", "not paying for tea and snacks", "pulling beards", "Kidnapping a Muslim girl" etc. As Vir Sanghvi writes, it is impossible for 2,000 people to quickly assemble at 7:45AM having got petrol bombs and acid bombs. Everyone, including pseudo-secularists who invented these concocted 'provocations' insulting the dead kar sevaks, knew that it was a well-planned attack. But since they could not blame Muslims for anything, including roasting of 15 children and 25 women, they decided to kick the dead dog and keep a safe distance from the mad dog.

The pseudo-secularists started a different game after a few days. No doubt, they insulted the dead kar sevaks by making baseless allegation of provocations on them (and they were not alive to deny such third class allegations), but by doing so, the pseudos admitted that Muslims had burnt the train. But some days later, they started raising denying this fact itself, and 'raised questions' (basically, denying the undeniable) like "The fire was set 'from inside'", "Kar sewaks carried inflammatory material with them" and "VHP killed its own kar sevaks to trigger an anti-Muslim wave (a charge also made by many Congress, RJD, SP, Left politicians)".

In the 2002 Gujarat Assembly elections, Godhra was an issue-and rightly so. The more the pseudos tried to attack BJP for the post-Godhra riots, the more they were cornered. Because the moment post-Godhra riots were raised, BJP and VHP raised the issue of Godhra and the pseudos would never admit that 2,000 fanatic Muslims did Godhra or admit that the cause of the post-Godhra riots was not Narendra Modi, but Godhra. The Congress' leaders accused VHP of roasting karsewaks in Godhra and hence the party suffered a crushing defeat in the 2002 elections, because people were angry over Godhra. I personally feel that Godhra has not been raised enough by the Sangh Parivar. The Hindu masses must be made to realise that tomorrow if 59 of them, or their wives, children and other relatives are roasted by Muslims, the self-proclaimed secularists will do nothing to give them justice and use every trick in the book to let the inhuman murderers go scot-free, like they did in Godhra.

In 2005, Lalu-appointed U C Banerjee Committee (as expected) whitewashed the sin of Muslims and said that Godhra was an 'accident' (thereby acquitting BJP, VHP of the charge that they roasted their own kar sevaks). Though fully knowing that the truth, the newspapers tried to defend this as much as possible with new questions being raised "Why did kar sevaks allow themselves to be roasted despite having trishuls?"etc. The fact is, no kar sevak had any trishul, since not a single trishul was recovered from the train. And even if they had, it was impossible to use 4 inch trishul-shaped blunt knives against 2,000 armed people who had swords, petrol and acid bombs and petrol.

When Nanavati Commission (which is a full-fledged commission under the Commission of Inquiry Act, unlike Banerjee Committee which was a departmental committe) said in its report in September 2008 that Godhra was a pre-planned, not of the pseudos would relent and continued to deny the truth. Politicians cannot be expected to change, they have large vote-bank considerations but the media should have known better. Even after the court convicting 31 people, nobody is coming out to tell the truth, blame the attackers instead of the victims, and apologise for lying and making inhuman allegations first on the dead kar sevaks, women and children and then on BJP/ RSS/ VHP and Narendra Modi.

What all this shows. No act from any Muslim, including roasting of children to coal after locking them in a train and pushing them back as they tried to come out, will ever make the media blame any Muslim for any crime. Whether a Muslim attacks VHP rallies, RSS headquarters in Chennai, Nagpur or whether Hindus kill Muslims, the media will always blame the Sangh Parivar.

The media has managed to convince itself that "Reporting Muslim intolerance will inflame Hindu sentiments" and hence Muslim fanaticism should be whitewashed. The reality is exactly the opposite. Muslim suffering should be reported very cautiously as they can very easily take to terrorism in this age of global jehad. The media is guilty of instigating Muslims to terrorism by its inflammatory and biased, exaggerated, one sided reporting of the post-Godhra riots. It was in national interest for the Sangh Parivar to make all attempts to check the media, not just for the sake of BJP, Narendra Modi and Sangh Parivar itself, but also for the sake of the country, since the media lies caused enormous resentment among innocent Muslims making them fanatics. Let us all work together to roll back the media lies on the Gujarat riots (even after Godhra, it was not one-sided) and expose the pseudos on Godhra.

War on graft versus fight over drafting a bill

By Shyam Khosla

OUTPOUR of public support for Anna Hazare’s hunger strike is a manifestation of public outrage against all pervasive corruption in the Government and non-Government institutions, including the corporate world. The Gandhian seized the moment and his movement caught the imagination of the people all over the country with the help of an obliging and aggressive electronic media that whipped up mass frenzy in favour of the Jan Lokpal bill without going into the merits of the bill. The ruling dispensation reeling under tremendous public pressure to come clean found the easy way out by accepting all the demands put forth by Hazare, including the ones that are unreasonable. A small coterie of social activists masquerading as "civil society" declared it the "second freedom movement" (What was then JP’s movement against dictatorship in mid-70s?). Anna did score a victory of sorts by forcing the Government to issue a Gazette notification on the formation of a joint committee of ministers and social activists to draft a Lokpal bill. Hazare and his coterie thundered that the draft they have produced should be accepted even as Karnataka Lokayukta Justice Santosh Hegde, who was one of the authors of the Jan Lokpal bill, expressed misgivings about some of its draconian provisions. The bill will have to go through the prescribed procedures, including its adoption by the Parliament, before it becomes a law. Hopefully, the country would soon have in place a robust institution against corruption with requisite checks and balances.

The Lokpal Bill drafted by the Government is weak and full of loop holes. Why, for instance, bureaucrats should be outside the purview of the Lokpal? Bureaucracy is no less corrupt than politicians and far less accountable. Further, why should the anti- corruption watchdog have only advisory powers and no authority to order prosecution of persons against whom there is credible evidence? These and other anomalies in the bill must be removed to ensure effective mechanism against corruption. So far as the Jan Lokpal bill is concerned, the devil is in the detail. It suffers from glaring infirmities. The proposal of an all powerful anti-graft institution is scarry in the absence of checks and balances. The justification given by the self-appointed representative of the civil society that the persons appointed to the high office would be selected by a panel of "irreproachable integrity" from amongst winners of Nobel and Magsaysay awards doesn’t carry conviction. Some of the worthies claiming to represent "civil society" have shady backgrounds. NGOs run by them are undemocratic and are accountable to none. Some of these NGOs are funded by mysterious sources and their functioning lacks transparency. The country can do without such members of the "civil society".

The torch-bearers of "civil society" can’t be allowed to usurp the space meant for elected representatives of the people. The Committee set up to draft a new bill has representatives of the Government and a few NGOs. The opposition parties that also represent large sections of society must have a say in the formulation of the extremely crucial law. There is no point in rushing through the draft bill without in-depth deliberations. A bi-partisan consensus needs to be evolved to have a robust law that inspires confidence among the masses. A handful of social activists masquerading as sole representatives of the civil society have no right to push down the country’s throat their self-serving version of a bill. Their entire approach - no politician should be allowed on the dais and any criticism of the bill they drafted amounted to supporting the corrupt and sabotaging the movement against graft - smacks of authoritarianism and fascism. Apolitical citizens have a right to put across their view point and must be heard with respect. But they have no right to tar the entire political class with the same brush. All politicians are not corrupt and all members of the "civil society" are not above board. Demonising the political class that has become fashionable with the media and the self-styled "civil society" is undermining people’s faith in democratic processes. Launching a fierce war against the corrupt without undermining democracy is the need of the hour.

Hazare is reputed to be honest and sincere but his disdain for democratic institutions is disturbing. He also tends to make odd statements that reflect his inexperience and shallow knowledge of the intricacies of our democratic polity. His recent statement that he would never contest elections because he was sure to be defeated and that he would forfeit even his deposit because the voter lacks awareness is astounding. More surprisingly, he went on to say, "They cast their vote under the influence of Rs 100, a bottle of liquor or a sari offered by candidates. They don’t understand the value of their vote". If the voter is so corrupt that he sells his vote for a bottle of liquor or a sari, how can a strong Lokpal bill clean up the mess? This is nothing but contempt for the ordinary citizen and democratic institutions. A theory doing the round and gaining ground is that the entire drama at Jantar Mantar was stage-managed. Mega scams had generated a massive public outrage against the rampant corruption in the Government. BJP and other opposition parties had effectively cornered the Government on the issue. Add to it the mobilization of the masses by Baba Ram Dev’s campaign against corruption. His hugely successful Ramlila maidan rally in Delhi was indeed historical. The demand for making public the names of Indians having money in tax havens had also gained ground. It was, so the theory goes, to divert public attention from the crucial issue of massive corruption that have besmirched the reputation of the mighty and the powerful that Anna Hazare’s credibility was exploited by the powers that be. Behind the scene parleys with likes of Swami Agnivesh and others of his ilk were used to strike a deal with Hazare. Certain constitutional and legal imperatives were given a go by to achieve a self-serving aim of reducing a mass and sustained campaign against corruption to a fight over drafting a bill. No wonder, the Swami was soon singing peons to Sonia Gandhi and Dr. Manmohan Singh. And both of them have welcomed Hazare’s initiative and pledged their "commitment" to root out corruption.

If the Government is indeed serious about rooting out corruption as the Prime Minister and Congress President Sonia Gandhi claim, why hasn’t the Government ratified the United Nation’s Convention against Corruption that it signed in 2005? Interestingly, Indian diplomats were among those who piloted the convention through UN. For years, the External Affairs Ministry - the nodal ministry for international treaties - has been pressing hard for its ratification, the Department of Personnel and training that is directly under the Prime Minister has resisted the move on the premise that India has not yet brought its domestic laws in line with the international convention. The premise is a lame excuse. It is the UPA Government that has made no move to amend Indian laws as required under the international convention to make India less prone to corruption. Had the Government amended domestic laws and ratified the UN convention, it would have been a lot easier for the country to bring back hundreds of billions of dollars looted from the country and stashed in tax havens by corrupt politicians, bureaucrats and businessmen, The convention mandates to put in place robust measures, including more transparency in funding election campaigns and political parties. These and other measures, including administrative and judicial reforms, must be taken to cleanse public life of corruption and maladministration.