Old wine in a new bottle

That's what Pakistan's new Foreign Minister, Hina Rabbani Khar, is. Hailed as the new face of Pakistani democracy, she is, well, a new face, but a new face that's reciting the same lines of her predecessors. In no way is there any shift, visible or otherwise, in their stance over any of the contentious issues that dog our countries.

Image source: Wikipedia
Her first interview with one of the news channels brought out the old tirade. Calling our media reports on terrorist strikes and Pakistan's inability to reign in the terror groups as 'dated', she displayed a classic Pakistani tactic, an age old one, one that folks like I have grown up hearing countless times, of dismissing them as fairy tales. And as is with the current crop of Pakistani ministers, she stated that they (Pakistanis) are the ones who have to deal with the scourge of terrorism "every single day, every single hour". Well, ma'am, our sympathies, but wasn't it your country's policy to breed these maggots in the rotting core of your country, to use against our country? Now when the maggots decide to feast on the meat close by, you may be justified in crying, but all we can say is "we told you so." And please forgive us for not showing too much of sympathy - perhaps the tit for tat response isn't the best, but it certainly can be viewed as apt.

She chided the media for focusing only on the ISI's links with terror groups and not the problem Pakistan faces from these terror groups. Well hello, excuse us for not wanting to stick our fingers into your dirty little pot, but isn't it obvious that the only issues we would raise with you are issues that arise due to your direct actions? The terrorism that affects us as as a direct result of your patronage is what concerns us, because it's something you've done to us. If you have a dog and it's let lose on my children, I would take the matter up with you; however, if your dog bites you or your kids, why would I 'take the matter' up with you? Sure, I'd offer condolences and offer help, but I won't make it a point to question you about it.

Dear lady, it was your country's design of bringing India to its knees by 'making it bleed by a 1000 cuts' - the ISI's strategy of using small scale conflicts by using 'non-state actors' (the rest of the civilised world called them terrorists), to cause trouble in India. Now these very terrorists, who may hate India, have also envisaged grandiose plans of taking control of power in Pakistan and so have started to target your your government - the establishment. So you see, it really isn't our fault if the chickens have come home to roost, because when you had the opportunity to cook their goose, you didn't, hoping they'd lay golden eggs, but all they did was shit around the courtyard.

You and your countrymen still haven't been able to come to terms with the fact that although we were both created at about the same time, we have moved ahead leaps and bounds and you've been left behind. You've been fed stories about the two-nation theory ad nauseum, and yet India happens to have the second largest Muslim population in the world (behind Indonesia).

Your little minds aren't able to get around to the fact that the King of Kashmir (granted, a Hindu) decided to side with India and not Pakistan even though the majority of the people were Muslim. That, however, didn't mean they wanted to join Pakistan, you assumed they would, but they wanted to be independent. As part of your foreign policy, you aimed at 'freeing' Kashmir, but in reality, you wanted it to merge and become a part of Pakistan. By talking to only the Hurriyat and not the elected Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir, you showed that you don't really care about democratic institutions and processes, much like leaders from your country have done in the past.

Dear lady, the media may have loved commenting on your handbag and your sense of fashion, not to mention your beauty, but when it comes down to business, I'm sorry, you can chant in front of the cameras that you'd like to have a new beginning, but by not doing or saying anything new, who are you trying to fool?

The verdict a nation waited for

For more than 60 years now, a quiet (but of late, very vocal) court battle was being waged between, essentially, Muslims and the Sunni Waqf board on one side, the Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu denomination of devotees of Hanuman, and various Hindu groups under the umbrella of the Hindu Mahasabha and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). This tripartite battle for a few acres of land in the quiet town of Ayodhya began in 1949, but could very well trace its origins to well before the 16^th century.

The issue before the court: who owns the land on which the Babri Masjid stands (in spite of an attempt to demolish it by Hindu fanatics in a wanton act of terrorism). The 3 judge panel of the Allahabad high court gave the verdict, which when viewed through the lenses of religiosity, can be said 'favours' the Hindu position. Over the past few days, we've seen and heard a plethora of opinions (that's one thing we'll never be short of in India), some pouring scorn over it, while some hailing it as statesmanly. So here's my take on the judgement, and being a non-believer, I guess I'm in a (slightly) better position to make an objective assessment on such a matter.

Demolishing arguments of the Hindu groups

Just because there existed a temple on the spot where the Babri Masjid stands, irrespective of whether or not the temple was demolished to construct a mosque, is no grounds to have a temple today. The temple, if it existed, did so in an era when the land it was in was not the India as we know it as today. It was not the republic it is today - it was a Mughal (Muslim) empire that was ruling back then and hence the discriminations against the Hindus. The India we live in today is different, and so trying to have a oneupmanship in terms of religion doesn't serve any useful purpose.

Demolishing arguments made by critics of this judgement, one by one

The first and foremost argument any rational person would make in a dispute like this is: is the court a suitable authority to pass judgement on religion and matters of pure faith? And the rational answer has to be an emphatic no. It's quite obvious that religious beliefs fall outside the purview of a court because if a court has to decide, it would need to do so based on evidence, irrefutable evidence, and so any such claim about an almighty would not stand legal scrutiny. So to begin with, both (all) parties should have appreciated that taking religious matters to a court could open a Pandora's box, and seems like that's precisely what seems to have happened.

Critics of the judgement (notably Muslims, and those trying to gain political mileage) argue that the judgement was based on faith and not evidence. Well, on the face of it, no one can find fault with that statement. However, think about it, if the court hadn't considered faith and based it's judgement on grounds of faith and practice and tradition, then what's to stop anyone from filing suits in courts across the country, basically dismissing all religious practices by people of any religion because there isn't any proof of existence of such an ALmighty? What's to stop someone from filing a suit saying tax payers money shouldn't be used to subsidise the Haj for Indian Muslims, because their faith and practices based on their religion has no proof that a God called Allah, their God, actually exists. In fact Mohammad himself never saw Allah, so what proof can be submitted to stand legal scrutiny? Non-believers like me and other civil citizens have for far too long cried ourselves hoarse that public money shouldn't be used for religious purposes in a secular democracy, so by questioning this judgement, aren't Muslims (or other religious groups) endangering the practice of Islam (or their respective religions) itself in India?

So now that I've quite easily dismissed the arguments against the 'faith-based' judgement, let's focus on the other issue most Muslims and pseudo-secularists have raised, namely, what's to stop Hindus from petitioning courts for other sites that they may claim to be disputed and having more mosques razed because "according to our beliefs, there used to be a temple here". Well, it's very easy to dismiss that argument and allay their fears. In 1991, an Act of Parliament called the Places of Worship Act was passed to specifically prevent any such thing from happening. Since the Babri Mosque land dispute was already in court, it was excluded. The act (which became law) states that "It is hereby declared that the character of a place of worship existing on the 15^th day of August, 1947 shall continue to be the same as it on that day.". So if a place was a Mosque (or any place of worship) at the time of independence, it will continue to do so and no one can change that today, or any day in the future. So hopefully this will allay the fears of all Muslims and those finding fault with the judgement.

The last of the more vociferous arguments made by the clerics is that the Islamic law doesn't allow them 'donate' or 'gift' the land or property (includes Mosques) that is under the control of the Waqf board. Well, if that be the case, and if the character of Islam is universal, can someone from the Muslim side explain the fact that the Hagia Sophia in Turkey, which was once a Church, and then later a Mosque, was finally converted into a museum by the Turkish ruler Mustafa Kemal Ataturk? The use of the premises for prayer (by any religion) is strictly prohibited (although a small portion inside the museum is now used by museum staff to pray, but both Christians and Muslims pray here). Since there are no remonstrations by Muslims anywhere, we can safely assume that in special circumstances, special measures can be taken. So the argument that Muslim Waqf board cannot enter into discussions for a settlement or compromise is also scuttled.

It seemed as though most eminent Muslims from civil society who chose to brand the judgement as 'one-sided' seem have done so in haste and not based on the evidence placed before the court. Farah Naqvi, one of the more vocal critics of the judgement, came across as someone who seemed to want the 'minority' tag to be worn proudly by Muslims and other religious minorities, much like how a large section of Hindu society seem to revel in being called 'backward' and belonging to a 'lower caste', so that they can reap benefits of social programmes of the government and other such benefits. Vitriolic barbs by such personalities conveys the wrong impression to regular folk who watch TV, who'd naturally think that since personalities as Ms. Naqvi have slammed the verdict, it couldn't be for any other reason other than the fact that the courts have been partial.

Some people have criticised the judgement for being "one that should have been taken by the politicians". I was aghast when I heard that this was being used as an argument against the verdict. Since the political class did not exhibit the required testicular fortitude to chalk out a solution, the court, given the fact that the sentiments of a large religious section (largest in India) were to be considered as it was part of the case, and that neither side could conclusively prove ownership (some claims were dismissed as being time barred), delivered a verdict that was rightly called 'statesmanly' by former Attorney General Soli Sorabjee, one would have expected a more hearty acceptance. I see no reason for Muslims to feel aggrieved as being truly secular would have enabled anyone to see the enormity of the issue before the courts. If Muslims (or any religion) want their religious beliefs taken seriously and be given the freedom to practice them without any objection, then how can they oppose the beliefs of a different community?

To me, the entire feeling of betrayal and subsequently blaming the court for passing a verdict based on faith and not evidence arose because it was taken to court in the first place. Matters of religion and faith need to be discussed in a domain where hard, empirical evidence isn't needed, but compassion and understanding and a mutual feeling of brotherhood and magnanimity is exhibited and reciprocated. That is the India Gandhi and Nehru dreamt of, that is the India the great book, our Constitution, envisions for India, that is what we as Indians need to work towards.

Woman's reservation bill

Hmm, finally, the Woman's Reservation Bill gets passed in the Upper House (Rajya Sabha), although the day before it got passed (Woman's Day) saw some extremely unruly scenes (which we've gotten used to now actually). I was discussing with my mom about the merits and demerits of this bill, and I suddenly realised I didn't actually have a stand on this issue. - Shetty actually didn't have a take on this! I immediately remembered that when I was in school, or in college, this issue had first cropped up, and back then, the only thing that I kept saying was that "Do women actually need a reservation to get elected? Aren't they good enough to win anyway?". The underlying point was that since we (liberals and progressive citizens) consider women equal to men, should we have a provision that treats them as a 'lesser' being.

So last evening I brought this up with my mother, and we got into a discussion. My younger brother chipped in with one point: "they're trying to eliminate one form of discrimination, by bringing in a legislation that actually IS a form of discrimination!" Good point. And then my mind went back to a little over a year, when the reservation topic was in the air. Reservations in IITs and IIMs and other institutes of higher education. How different was this bill from what was being proposed there? Are the women (and people in general) who were opposed to reservations in education also against the reservation in parliament? Aren't the two the same in principle? Isn't this a fair comparison?

The principle in both cases are the same: give a section of society a foothold because there was a lot of injustice meted out to them in the past - maybe we should ask the British to pay us compensation now because when they were our colonial masters, they meted out a lot of injustice to us!

The discussion between my mother and me went like this:
Mom: It isn't quite the same, as in Parliament, the reservations are only for who can contest for some particular seats, but eventually the candidates have to face the elections, and if they lose, they're out.
Me: True, but so is the case with the education thingy. The candidates have to write the exams, there's no getting around that, and certain seats are earmarked for the 'weaker' sections.
Mom: True, but to take the exams, there is an eligibility criteria - you need to have certain minimum marks, you need to have studied in some recognised university, etc. What criteria do we have to contest elections? You can't say "if you're corrupt, don't stand for elections... we can see how well that's going on currently!"
Me: Yes, but it's not fair to say there's no criteria. They have to be Indian citizens, they have to be above 18, and they shouldn't have any criminal case pending in the courts (allegations and FIRs aren't considered; only open cases). So there is a minimum criteria. So what if the criteria isn't more specific - in fact if it were more specific, it would be unfair for elections in a democracy.

By then, dinner was over and mom had to prepare stuff for the next day and so she left, but it got me thinking. Wouldn't blocking a seat in a constituency, from where, let's say a very good candidate was contesting (who happened to be a man), for women only now, cause a problem? And is this legislation only to give 'women' a foothold in politics, or is this to give 'poor, oppressed women' a foothold in politics? What's to say that a Laloo-Rabri situation won't arise? What's to prevent the men from exercising remote-control politics? I don't buy the arguments the other opponents of the bill had - giving a quota for minorities within this bill itself, so let's get that out of the way. My brother asked me why Laloo Yadav and Mulayam singh Yadav were against the bill, and I said " (1) They're Yadavs, (2) they come from a part of the country where men think women belong in the kitchen, (3) and they're stupid".

Just because we have more women in power, would that directly translate to more women's issues being raised and discussed? Contrary to popular opinion, research has shown that this isn't the case. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that women MPs would dive into the plethora of women's issues that plagues out country today with the intention of solving them. Once they get elected, they serve their party and the agenda of the party. In fact, an analogy to the "if more women, then more women related issue can be solved" would be that since all our MPs our Indian nationals, they'd work for the betterment of the country and put country above party. We've seen in what direction this idea has gone!

The fears exhibited by many men in politics is because they'd have to vacate the large bungalows they get once they're elected as MPs, since if their seats are converted into a woman's special seat. To lose that would indeed be tragic, I can see that (somehow the sarcasm just didn't come through on this one). By a twist of fate, I wish the process to demarcate the first 33% of seats happen to be those seats regularly contested by Laloo, Mulayam, Deve Gowda et al. Wouldn't that be a sight then, to watch these clowns wailing in desperation and frustration.

So is it a good thing to empower women in politics and make sure that we have more women in politics so that other women feel they actually have representation? Yes, absolutely. Is the method we're using to achieve this noble goal the right one? I wouldn't say yes straight away. And I'm sure those who can objectively decide would also agree. I'm not willing to buy the argument that just because we can't come up with a better and completely fair solution, we adopt one that is blatantly discriminatory.

My take on the railways budget and Sachin...

...and in fact I'll start in the reverse order

Sachin:
He's done it again! Once again, Mr. Tendulkar has silenced his critics who say age is catching up to him and it's time to hang them boots (and I include myself in that list). A lot has been said already about this, so all I'll say is it's great that an Indian holds the record, and who better than the poster boy of Indian cricket to be one to hold it.

Railways budget:
I can do a really good impersonation of Cuba Gooding Jr from the movie Jerry McGuire, where he shouts and asks Tom Cruise's character to say "Show me the money". Which is exactly what I'd like to ask Mamta Bannerjee, show me the money, you short, loud-mouthed, obnoxious little bimbo! Where the heck is the money going to come from for all the new trains and the water bottling plants you've proposed while keeping the fares at the same rate and in fact reducing freight rates for certain commodities? And I don't even know much about economics!

Is this a precursor to the finance budget, where we, the middle class, the real aam aadmi, will have to bear the brunt? FYI to to the blue turbaned chap at 7 Race Course Road, in case you forgot, you just screwed us out of Rs. 65,000,00,00,000 last year - that's Rs. 65,000 crores., for those who'd go dizzy looking at the number of zeroes. And after the major screw up with the 3G spectrum, where prices were set at an extremely low price, you screwed us out of another Rs. 29,000,00,00,000 - that's Rs. 29,000 crores. That's a total of Rs. 94,000 crores that we're never going to see again. So I ask you, oh great PM, will I have to tighten my belt a little more so that you guys can continue to give sops to those who don't deserve them? Don't I deserve a break as well? Why is it that for want of remaining in power, you go around increasing the fiscal deficit, especially since you and your generation may not last beyond the next 10 years, but I and my clan of youngsters will have to reap the problems from the seeds you've sown today? You're supposed to be a good man with a clean image Mr. PM, start acting like one. Please.

Three to tango - 4

Actually there were 4 things, and I had forgotten about the fourth things that irked me. Ram Jethmalani (RJ), one of the most eminent lawyers in the country, made a statement that led to the Saudi envoy walking out of a conference. RJ said that an 18th century Saudi national (back then there wasn't a country called Saudi Arabia) called Mohammad Al Wahabi, went on to create the Wahabi brand of Islam followed in Saudi today, was one of the main reasons for Islamic terrorism today, as all Islamic terrorists follow the same brand of Islam. Factually, this statement was correct. Al-Wahabi didn't like the direction Islam was going in the 18th century, and so decided it was time to tighten the screws, and so decided on going tough when it came to following the religion. The result - the archaic way the religion is practiced in modern day Suadi Arabia, where women have to walk around in 'bee-keeper suits' (quoting Bill Maher), and punishments are straight out of the Sharia - so thieves have their hands chopped off, rapists have their penis chopped off, murderers can be stoned to death, women suspected of cheating on their spouses can be stoned, or publicly lashed, etc.

Now RJ's statement was a factual one, and for the Saudi envoy to walk away in a huff seemed a little childish (for lack of a better expression), since RJ didn't go on to say "there fore all Saudi nationals are terrorists", and neither did he say anything bad about Islam. Sadly, this irked the Saudi envoy, but what's worse (in my opinion) was that our law minister had to get up and go and say that this isn't the government's view. Wait a minute. Our government is pro-Wahabi Islam? We're pro all the medieval punishments and medieval mindset espoused by the late Al-Wahabi? I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where we had a change in foreign policy, but who made this change exactly?

I wonder why the media doesn't pick up issues like these and grill the so-called secular Congress party that is leading the government. Somehow, our country's media seems to have gotten into the mindset that beating the BJP and siding with the Congress is secular. They ago all out at any given opportunity against right wing Hindu extremism (which I too am against), but go soft on other issues that could showcase the Congress in poor light. Wake up people, do a little more research into the stories, and what's more, put a little more thought into what stories you want to run with. They don't always have to be about how bad the religious extremists from the majority party are (a phenomenon that started after religious extremism from a minority community) - we already know that, and hate it (their extremism), so could you show something new now? Please?

Three to tango - 3

Part three - Was the Liberhan commission's report a load of crap?

Without even batting an eyelid - yes! And if you think even slightly otherwise, I feel sorry that a perfectly good brain seems to have been wasted. Before getting into details, let me clarify that I'm not against him having found someone guilty or not guilty. The fact that the structure was razed with kar sevaks having come to the site with primitive hand-held instruments suggests that there was indeed a plan to bring the structure down. Of this there can be no doubt. My issue with Justice Liberhan are the following:

1. 17 is the number of years it took (actually 12 - the report was ready in 2004, but the Congress chose to come out with it now)! 8 is the number in crores, which is the amount of the tax payers money spent to come out with a report that's supposed to give us a clear picture (but doesn't in any way). And finally, there's no action-to-be-taken suggested! Are you freaking kidding me? And then the polity wonder why today's youth are disinterested in politics.

Now let's analyse this a little more closely. The fact that Justice Liberhan (who from now on shall be called 'the old man' in this post, and I shall not dignify him with his title of Justice because by this one act, he's brought disgrace upon his fraternity) has said that the 'razing of the structure' was preplanned is probably the only thing that can be called a face saver in the entire report, although most smart people would go "Duh!!! You thought otherwise?". It was obvious that a section the workers came there with this very intention. But then starts the drama. Maybe the old man wanted to be a playwright, and when he was given the chance to pen down something, boy, he went overboard. The old man goes on the say that the senior leaders present there could have stopped the workers once they started breaking the structure. If the matter under consideration weren't so serious, this would actually sound funny. Maybe the old man doesn't know what a 'mob' means, and hasn't heard of the phrase 'mob mentality'.

Next, he goes on to indict people who he's never even called and spoken to during the course of his extended second innings. Former PM Vajpayee and the late Pramod Mahajan weren't even called to dispose before the commission, and yet the old man has gone on the say that these gentlemen were culpable in the crime. Hey you know what, I want to charge the old man with wasting my tax money, and I don't want him to get a chance to defend and give his version about why he spent so much money. How'd he like that?

And lastly, no mention of PVNR... that's P V Narasimha Rao, the Prime Minister at the time. The argument in his favour by the Congress workers is that in a federal structure, the PM can only act on the report sent by the governor of the state, and if a state willfully passes on wrong info to the central government, then there's nothing the PM can do. Point taken, but what they fail to mention is that the central government can always be proactive, and take preemptive measures in matters where they feel the state government is allowing law and order to deteriorate. The Congress government when Nehru was PM dismissed the first democratically elected Communist government of Kerala in 1956 because they claimed "it had allowed law and order to deteriorate". Having set the precedence already, they were in the clear to do it again. Yet, the old man doesn't think they deserve even a rap on the knuckles.

I rest my case.

Three to tango - 2

Part deux - Should Thiery Henry have admitted to the referee that he had indeed handled the ball during their match against the Irish?

This is a tricky one. If one goes purely by the spirit of sportsmanship, then he most certainly should have. But then there are those who have the attitude the Aussies have on the cricket field (and possibly all other sports as well), namely "I'm playing my game, and that's my job. It's the job of the ref to spot the mistakes and call them out". A far cry from the days of Bradman when it was the British, under Douglas Jardine, who went all out with the now infamous 'bodyline' tactics. Jardine was quite ruthless, yet did everything in accordance to the laws of the game. But is implementing or following only in letter good enough, or should it be followed in spirit as well? If this can be conclusively answered, I think we'd have also answered another timeless question, which came first: the chicken or the egg?

Three to tango - 1

There have been three things in the last 10 days or so that have made me more cynical than I already am (if that's possible), but it's also got me worked up (unnecessarily too, I might add). The three topics in question are:

1. Should women be allowed in combat roles in the armed forces?
2. Should Thiery Henry have admitted to 'handling' the ball?
3. Is the Lieberhan commission's report on the Babri Masjid demolition a load of crap?

No. I don't know. Yes. In that order. And yes, I'm still the liberal, food loving creature I've always been.

Let's take them one at a time, and this post will deal with question 1.

1. Should women be allowed in combat roles in the armed forces?

The short answer: No. Now by combat roles if you mean hand-to-hand combat roles, then no. If you include roles like missile/artillery officers, radar officers, signals officers, etc, then yes, they not only can, but should. The next logical part of my argument should detail the 'why', and that's precisely what it'll do. Our country (as with most other countries) has over eons been shaped to respect women and almost treat them with kid gloves at certain times when it comes to certain issues. So the obvious question when it comes to war is "What will happen to a woman soldier if captured by the enemy?". Without going into graphic details, one can imagine that a captured woman would any day be preferred by soldiers of the opposite side than a captured male soldier. With a male, the only possibilities are torture, and eventually death (or jailing them for eternity). With a female soldier, the sexual factor is almost a given - almost like a breath of fresh air to soldiers who've captured her. She wouldn't just be used, but abused to the point where a third party observer would want to kill her just to put her out of her misery.

Our lady newscasters on CNN-IBN and NDTV who've been championing the cause for inducting women into these close quarter combat roles fail to see the obvious that the public would most certainly be outraged to a far greater extent if a woman soldier is abused and tortured than if the same treatment is meted out to a male. It's in our psyche. Isn't that why we have harsher punishments in our criminal laws to people who abuse women, whereas those who do the same to men aren't meted out the same treatment? Isn't it why, the world over, the directive on a ship when it is sinking is "Women and children first" while boarding the rescue boats? Isn't it why, the world over, when a terrorist strikes, we say "why did they kill innocent women and children" and we fail to mention, and almost intentionally leave out the 'innocent men'? I'm pretty sure a lot of innocents killed in mindless acts of terror are men, and yet they don't find mention in the sympathies thrown forward. Most of the abuses that people use are aimed towards a person's mother or sister because this is far more likely to insult them the most, whereas insults to the male relatives isn't taken that personally (almost 99% of the times). So women like Sagarika Ghosh, Barkha Dutt, and Nidhi Razdan (who I thought, until now, is one of the more objective journalists amongst the lot), when having their talk shows on this topic, would do well to think through all the details before giving their opinions on the matter and deciding before what their stand is on the matter.

When it comes to the Indian Air Force, I'm not quite sure which former Air Chief it was (Air Chief Marshal Krishnaswamy I think) who said it, but the reasons he gave were quite compelling. He said that the fleet of fighters the IAF has primarily consist of the Russian MiGs, with French Mirages and British Jaguars making the rest. Flying the MiGs requires constant practice as it's not as easy as flying one of the American fighter jets, and if a woman goes off on a maternity break, when she comes back she won't be 'in touch' with the flying - this isn't like driving or swimming where once you learn it, it's with you life long. The MiGs our air force operate are very unforgiving and even small mistakes due to concentration lapses or because of being out of touch can cause a fatal crash.

Recently, Air Marshall Barbora, the new Vice Chief of Staff commented that it wasn't prudent to have women fly fighter jets, and his remarks set off a chain reaction with people calling his remarks as sexist. I so wish people who said such things about the vice chief would go learn some English first. The language used by the vice chief was absolutely professional, and he was only stating facts and operational issues, nothing else. I don't see how one could question the validity of his statements. He said "...after investing 'x' crores on a pilot, the IAF would recover the cost if the pilot serves for 12 to 14 years. But with women, they'll have to go off for family responsibilities, and so it's not prudent to have them as fighter pilots." I don't see anything wrong with this. Also, more importantly, isn't he right? If a woman goes off for maternity leave, that would leave the squadron short of a pilot, compromising it's effectiveness. What if the country faces a situation that requires the IAF to take action, and they are missing a few pilots because of 'labour' issues? Who'll fly their planes then? Sagarika? Nidhi? Who?

I'm not going to get into discussing the red herrings that are usually thrown around - namely, women can handle pressure situations better than men (I haven't come across any study that conclusively says that), and that women are physically as strong as men (again, pure bullshit), etc. because even IF these were true (big if), the arguments I've given above would quite easily take precedence over these.

Given all of the above, any logical person can come to only one conclusion: at present, women can't be allowed into close quarter combat roles in the Indian army, and can't be allowed to fly fighter jets in the Indian air force. I'm not being sexist, I'm just being rational, and coming to my conclusion based on hard facts and ground realities. As always. I'm always been a liberal, and have advocated equal rights for women (as is quite visible in some of my previous posts), but when faced with facts, the only right thing to be done is to doff your hat, sit back, and relax.

Reactions are welcome (I know it's been a while since I last posted...apologies for the same), but please keep the comments sane.

Much ado about Hafeez Saeed

After the fiasco at Sharm-al-shaik (or however you spell that place in Egypt), our government continues to make blunder after blunder, embarrassing not just itself, but also the people who voted them in. The Sardar in charge firstly agreed to sign a joint statement with the Pakis in which although the Kashmir word was for the first time omitted from an Indo-Pak statement, it had a mind-boggling sentence stating that the dialogue process would not be stalled even if Pakistan doesn't act on the terrorists who are 'bred' there. To this, the govt put forward a hasty explanation saying that "what it actually meant it is that the dialogue process will not go forward unless the Pakis act on terror first". Simple question: then why not frame the statement that way in the first place?

So leaving that bureaucratic-governmental bullshit aside, we had the Gujarat govt again send their new anti-terror bill to the central govt, and then to the 'lady-who-speaks-to-the-dead' President. Again, the bill was returned saying that some of the provisions in it were Draconian (this guy Draco wasn't very popular in his time where he lived, but is real popular in India, I must say!). One of the main objections is that the confessions made by a suspect to a senior officer is not admissible in court. Fair enough, but why do they seem to forget about that when it comes to Hafeez Saeed. So far whatever evidence that we have is what Kasab has said, and apart from that, there doesn't seem to be much else (if there is, then it isn't being made public for 'security reasons'). So if the govt doesn't want the clause of admission before an officer admissible in court, on what grounds are they asking the Pakis to prosecute Saeed? Like I said, if there are radio intercepts, or indisputable human evidence of some form which hasn't been made public because the security agencies feel it may compromise the source of the info, then won't it be compromised by letting the Pakis know about it? So if the Pakis can be shown the evidence, why not the public of India?

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that if Hafeez Saeed's role came out of the confessions of Kasab, how can Mr Chidambaram rattle out his usual lines that "...there is enough evidence in the dossier we have given to prosecute Hafeez Saeed."? I don't know about you, but I'm confused. This govt can't seem to talk straight, can't act straight, and yet they seem to be the ones in cahoots with the religious loonies who oppose people who aren't straight! Ladies and gentlemen, I give to you, the UPA part deux.

From hell, with love

Vijay Divas, or victory day was celebrated yesterday, the 26th of July, and it was also the tenth anniversary of our victory in the Kargil war. Sadly, the party ruling the roost at the moment, the Congress, wasn't the party in power during the war, and so, just for that one measly fact, the Prime Minister, the President, the defense minister, and most surprisingly (and shockingly) the army chief, were missing from the celebrations held at the very peaks that were recaptured from Pakistani intruders. Now, unless there was a security threat (there always is, but I'm talking specifics here), unless there were real inputs of targetting the fuction because big wigs would be present, I don't see why the top brass in the government weren't present.

The counter from the lame ducks would be that the PM went to India Gate and paid homeage there, and the protocol doesn't dictate that the PM be there at the function, and that his turban wasn't on, and he had a stomach upset, and the President was busy talking to dead people, etc etc etc. Protocol? Isn't honouring the men who laid down their lives the duty of the man who gives the go ahead to the army to launch attacks? How can 'protocol' dictate the PM's agenda so completely that he can skip a function as important as this? Another feather in his 'blunder'ful cap (or turban). George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld made secret trips to Iraq, a battlezone, during the war several times. The visit was kept secret and was announced only after the President reached Iraq. Couldn't the same or similar procedures be followed here?

In the west, we have American Presidents going all the way to Normandy, France on the 6th of June to celebrate the D-Day landing of world war 2. Now remember, world war 2 wasn't just the Americans war, and the Americans were trying the liberate Europe (not even their land), and yet, because their troops were involved in the act, they pay tribute to those who lost their lives. It's been 65 years and counting, and still, even if they don't make it to France, they pay homeage in a grand and gala function. In our case, even paying tribute to the families who lost near and dear ones defending our land isn't enough to get the commander-in-chief out of her voodoo den, or our PM from behind his Roman dominatrix.

I can remain an Indian for 5 more years

Yippee!!! My citizenship is intact for another 5 years. I don't have to give it up yet! Phew. That comes as a big relief to me coz at the moment I'm in the middle of a really important deal to buy a house, and trust me, with a change in nationality - nay, loss of my nationality, things would have become tricky to say the least. "What the hell is this guy yaking about?" is probably what's going through your mind. Well, a while back, I had put up a post about the most dangerous forces in the country, and I had mentioned that if Mayawati became the PM, I would give up my citizenship. Not because she's a lady, or because she's a dalit, but because she represents everything that is wrong with India and her rule is a classic example of a Stalinist regime.

A lot has been said during the run up to the elections about how she could make history and about how teaming up with the third front would actually benefit her and the communists. And I had mentioned a lot about why that combo would lead to a disaster, and not necessarily only politically.

A lot was said (and still continues to be said) about how the middle class dreads Mayawathi because she's a dalit. First off, let's get one thing clear: no one in the 'middle class' is against her being the PM because she's a dalit. That's inconsequential (her being a dalit). I have a theory that I'm going to put forward, and let's see how it stands. I think the upper class owners of major news conglomerates, are probably the ones who despise her because of her caste, and they conveniently pass the buck onto this entity called the 'middle class', thereby getting it off their chest and getting the message out that 'someone' doesn't like a dalit running the country.

Again, let me say, I (representing the middle class here) don't want Mayawathi as PM, not because she's a dalit, but because of the way she runs the show. Dictatorial in nature, she runs her party like it were the mob and everyone is answerable only to the mob boss. There's no inner party democracy, and to slightly modify what Chris Tucker says in Rush Hour, "(s)he's (Mayawathi) the king, (s)he's the President, (s)he's Michael Jackson", meaning the buck stops with her. So what, you may say, that's how it is with the Congress as well, with Sonia running the show behind poor old Manmohan. Yes, but at least things aren't done in a high handed manner, the party top shots aren't openly corrupt, don't openly waste public money for building parks in their names, don't have statues built of them, don't spend millions on birthday parties (especially when you claim to represent some of the poorest in India) - need I say more? I think it's the very Stalinist approach that Mayawathi employs is what puts off all Indians, i.e. Indians who actually cherish democratic rights and values (as a people, we've taken to democracy like a duck takes to water, so it's hard to find a section who would want something else). For me, personally, apart from the brazen corruption, it's the statues of herself that she goes around erecting all over the state that makes my blood boil. I mean, statues of the living! And of her! What has she done for the public, for the poorest of the poor whom she represents, that would put her up on a pedestal?

Another aspect that is so loathed about that female Stalin is that she tries to use the backward caste tag and runs amock with it. Not a single issue that she tackles would be devoid from caste. But one thing is for sure, she's got guts to be so brazenly corrupt, but then again, maybe it's just that she's smart enough to have realised that our justice system is so rotten that she can actually get away with it. Whatever, I have another 5 years, and I'm going to make the most of them. Hopefully, at around this time in 2014, I won't be desperately trying to leave and seek asylum in Sweden or some safe place. Coward, did I hear you say? Nah, it's just hopelessness.

Vote for change - Really?

And so the great Indian elections are upon us once again (thankfully after the complete 5 year period), and once again it's time for the universal traits of politicians to shine through the despair and hopelessness, and once again I am reminded of Ogden Nash's lines,

Man is a victim of dope,

In the incurable form of hope.

We hope that things will get better with the passage of time, and every election, the youth make the right noises during the run up to the grand finale, only to have their hopes shattered by the motley, rag-tag crew that eventually end up getting elected to Parliament.

But this time, the run up itself seems a lot more inclusive and different from the previous elections. The youth, buoyed by the victory of Barack Obama, seem to have incorporated his slogan of 'change' into their stride, which is interesting because the current UPA govt and the previous NDA govt have a pretty similar track record when it comes to all major issues. Now if we are hoping for a change from a fairly stable and decent governance provided to us in the last 10 years, what are we hoping for? The smorgasboard of gutless politicos who've come up with a coalition called the 'third front', or the dalit dominatrix called Mayawati? Both these options will take the country back to the stone age, you can be assured of that. So the question still stands: change what?

Let me make my thoughts a bit clearer. I understand the intended usage of the word change. It's an indication that the people are fed up with the current crop who've parked their backsides comfortably in Delhi and in Parliament and enjoy privileges paid for with the tax payers money. But the problem is no matter what the youth (and by youth I mean all those below 30) want to see changed, they still don't have the numbers to effect this change. Now one other thing needs to be made clear: when I said youth, I was referring to the youth educated and living in the urban areas of our countries. And as I said before, they just don't have the numbers to effect the changes they want to see. Rural India outnumbers urban India almost 4 to 1 (some say almost 5 to 1 and more if you don't consider towns as urban and bracket them with the rural areas). Although we the middle class are seemingly connected with the rest of middle class India via the media, print and electronic, the disconnect with the rural areas (and for that matter the slums in our big cities) is evident - we simply don't have the numbers at present even though we see people across the cities unequivocally stating that they want change.

Which brings me to my main grouse against a Parliamentary form of democracy. The idea here is to elect a representative from your constituency based on the party he or she belongs to and whether you like what the party stands for. But there in lies the problem. What's to guarantee that the representative from my area is actually going to work for the development of my constituency? Take an example of some well known politicians irrespective of the constituencies they actually represent. Let's compare Arun Jaitley of the BJP and Jagdish Tytler of the Congress from constituency A and Varun Gandhi (BJP) and Rahul Gandhi (Congress) from constituency B. Take const. 'A' first - for the section that believes the BJP's only agenda is to divide India along communal lines, voting the BJP to power would be unthinkable, but when a decent person like Mr Jaitley is contesting against a Jagdish Tytler (accused of leading mobs to massacre Sikhs in '84), it would be a no brainer in favour of Mr Jaitley. Now the Congress may have a 'cleaner' image, but the BJP candidate is the one who gets voted in. So it's the individual and not the party that's taken precedence. Similarly, in the Varun Gandhi vs Rahul Gandhi case, sane and rational people know that if Rahul gets voted in, there's a section of the Congress that thinks he's already fit to be the PM, so people may be a little averse towards electing him, but when propped up against his cousin, Rahul is way ahead when it comes to working at the 'grass root levels', and is seemingly more calm than his cousin with his alleged new found 'fire'. So even if the people are impressed by the BJP's manifesto with all their tax breaks (failing to mention where the deficit will come from), voting for their (BJP) candidate would be a strict no-no when it comes to Varun, and Rahul would get voted in. Again, the individual triumphs over the party. Which is why in the last 15 years or so we've seen quite a few hung parliaments, and coalition politics has become the name of the game, with smaller parties with hardly 3-4% of the vote becoming king makers resulting in horse-trading and a host of ugly deals.

So does that mean the Presidential system is better? On the face of it, yes, it is better as it doesn't face the problems posed by the Parliamentary system. A chief executive is chosen by the people, an individual who is put forward as their (party) choice for the people, and he or she then selects his/her team and appoints individuals in charge of specific departments. These ministers/secretaries then go about doing their jobs only in that area, and don't have to distract themselves with the concerns of their constituents, for whom separate members are voted into the lower houses of the assembly/parliament. Take the case of the USA. Congressmen and Congresswomen are the people's representatives from their constituencies, and they work towards improving their constituency, without having to worry about foreign policy or any such thing, unlike a politician from a Parliamentary system, where not only must the MP manage his/her ministry (if they are ministers), but they also need to address the needs and grievances of their constituents.

For the voters this would mean more number of elections, but at least the system is in place to ensure that they get the best out of their representatives. I am obviously making the sweeping assumption here that the representatives want to work for the welfare of society, and aren't the power hungry wolves we usually find. It's obvious that those who are inefficient will fail to deliver in whichever form of democracy there is for there is no way an inefficient person can become efficient without an effort from within.

So at the end of the day, what change can we really expect when we are expected by our system to vote a person just because he or she may belong to a party that believes in a set of principles, and not because of the credentials of the candidate in question. Is it time to question whether we need to change our current system, or is it sufficient to just get the parties to change their mindset and put up candidates not based on their muscle and winnability, but because of their clean image, commitment and dedication to work for civil society.

IPL, hate speeches, slumdog credits, and what not

So it's official now - no IPL in India this year. After dilly-dallying for two weeks, the governments hypocrisy/defensive stance has meant that the IPL, a domestic 20-20 tournament of India, will be heading out of India. Paradox? Yes, but then this is India, the land of paradoxes, the land of the Mahatma and the brahmastra (nuclear bomb), the land of the Buddha and the buddhu, the land of capitalism and socialism. Today's Times of India had an apt title - NRIPL. Opinions are following into various categories, with some angry, some resigned to this kind of a thing, while still others are glad it's not on during elections.

Personally, I wouldn't have wanted to have the IPL on during the election season for the simple reason that you cannot take the security men and women for granted. They are human beings too who are liable to commit mistakes when overworked, and mistakes made while providing protection during an election or a cricket match can be catastrophic. What saddened me was the fact that the Congress ruled states decided to play politics with Lalit Modi. Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh first granted permission, and then at the last minute pulled the rug from under the organisers feet. And then the opposition couldn't be far behind, asking what signals will this send out to the rest of the world about the security situation in our country. There was a point to be noted, although it wasn't echoed loudly enough. The IPL is a domestic tournament, so shifting it out to another country is a serious issue, irrespective of what the circumstances. On the other hand, the issue of whether the country's image takes a beating or not is completely different. The first issue, why shifting a domestic touney outside is an issue is quite clear - it's a domestic tournament, damnit, domestic. But moving onto the second issue, does the country's image take a beating, personally, I don't think so, and the reasons are pretty simple.

If there are people who equated the security scenario in India with that of Pakistan, then such people can be conveniently ignored. I don't mean any disrespect, for the fear for their lives must be respected, but the fact that they chose to disregard certain poignant facts means that there possibly would be no chance to reason it out with them. Elections in India are a massive task given the geographical diversity of our country, and for 62 years the Election Commision of India has been doing a fantastic job. Just the sheer magnitude of the excercise is enough to make this a logistical nightmare for even the best of event managers.

Now the security forces do a great job, but don't forget that they are human too, and if you overwork them, they're liable to commit mistakes due to fatigue, and a mistake during an election or a cricket match can be catastrophic to say the least. So why didn't the government make it clear from the very beginning that holding the IPL during election time is a near impossiblity, rather than dangle a carrot in front of the organisers and fans and then finally pull it back? The less said about this the better. But let me say this with full conviction - we may not have lost face by stating that elections are the foremost priority over cricket, but had we managed to pull both events of smoothly, we certainly could have enhanced our image in the eyes of the world, and that certainly is undeniable that we let a chance slip through.


Varun Gandhi: Varun Gandhi, like his late father Sanjay Gandhi, is turning out to be a maverick (at least, he's trying to). Since I strongly believe that the onus is always on the accuser to prove that the accused is guilty, I will give Varun the benefit of the doubt for the time being that the CD was doctored, because in all fairness to him, even when the video was played out, there is a word beeped out, and it's presumptious to say that the beeped out word was 'Muslim'. Why the mainstream media chose to ignore this baffles me even now. Are they in possession of the actual video where there is no beep? If so, what prevents them from playing that to the public? How can someone automatically assume that he was saying what he said against Muslims, and not against terrorists? If terrorist replaced Muslim in that speech, it would still make sense. Having said that, the remainder of Varun's speech was disgusting to say the least, for I'm sure I can pull out a hundred Hindu names that sound pretty funny and can be mocked. And I for certain wouldn't go about cutting people's arms off because they're anti social or whatever grouse Varun has against them.


Slumdog credits: How the Congress party chose to make a statement attributing the success of the movie Slumdog Millionaire to their rule at the center stills mystifies me. If a Hollywood movie, directed by a Brit, written by Brits, based on a novel written by an Indian who had nothing to do with the government (some might argue he wrote it in spite of the government!) can be said to have reaped the benfits of a 'prosperous' and successful 5 year tenure of the UPA (which hasn't the foggiest idea about movies and stories), then as the American's say, "I'm a monkey's uncle!". Even Dr Abhishek Singhvi's (Cong spokesperson) expression while making this statement showed he was embarassed, but was doing it purely for love of his party. I'm now pissed that the government didn't claim credit for Abhinav Bindra winning the gold in the Olympics, especially since they did not provide him with any practice facilities (he practices in his private practice facility created in his backyard). At least then we could give the government the benefit of the doubt and say that they were at least being consistent in trying to claim credit for something thet absolutely do not deserve.

Secularism was lost in 1947 itself

Secular

sec·u·lar [sek-yuh-ler]
–adjective

1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion.

Secular state: A secular state is a state or country that is officially neutral in matters of religion, neither supporting nor opposing any particular religious beliefs or practices. A secular state also treats all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and does not give preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion over other religions.

Note that the definitions clearly state that secular means no connection to religion, as opposed to the popular belief that it means all inclusive.

***

Oh how the Congress party has screwed up the meaning of the word secular, almost to a point where it seems to have been distorted on purpose. Being brought up in India, and having attended a prestigious school in Bangalore, I, like millions and millions of Indians of my generation and generations past (post independence) and present learnt and continue to learn about the Indian freedom struggle. The greatness about independent India, which elevated its status above that of the Muslim breakaway real estate called Pakistan, was its secular principles and foundations. And by secular, we were taught it meant a principle where all religions are treated equally. Maybe it's semantics, but this actually is quite misleading. For the 25 years I have existed I did not check the dictionary to see what the word secular means. Now when I did, I got a rude shock. For many, what follows may not seem important as the difference between what we were taught and what the reality is may be too subtle to fathom, but then again, I'm not writing this blog for that majority alone, but even for those for whom it may matter.

Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister, was the one who proposed the secular model for the Indian nation, and being an atheist, he knew the true meaning of secularism, which is, that the state shall not be influenced by any religion, and that there will be a separation of church and state (in this case, separation of church, temple, mosque, gurudwara, monastry, synangogue, etc from the state). However, the rest of the congressmen did not see the merit in this, and instead of separating the state from religion, it was agreed to include all religions. That's where the seeds were sowed and we are reaping the problematic harvest now.

If the state were detached from religion, there wouldn't have been a problem when religious nutters oppose abortion because of their religion, there wouldn't have been the problem of muslim women not being given a fair share in inherited property because in Islam, women are looked down upon and don't get a fair deal. This was amply exemplified when an immature, playboy Prime Minister, Rajeev Gandhi, did not follow the Supreme Court's direction in the Shah Bano case, for fear of upsetting the Muslims, in spite of the Supreme Court ruling in her favour and putting the doctrine of fairness and equality of the sexes above the doctrine of the religion. A truly secular verdict, followed by a purely political and insensitive action by the Congress party.

Another instance where religion continues to get the beter of secularism is when it comes to the use of contraception. The Church is into overdrive with its take on the use of contraception, in spite of the large population and the rampant spread of HIV and AIDS and other STDs. The rights of homosexuals would certainly have been protected had the country been truly secular, instead of a disgusting, awful tasting mixture of all the religions and dirty Indian politics. Instead, homosexuals are treated as diseased members of society, where the exremists demand lynching and the moderates offer 'treatment'. Education won't cure an extremist, but I strongly doubt if it can even cure the moderates. Thank goodness the religious fools who raise their ugly heads every now and then haven't excelled too far ahead in science, or they would soon be opposing stem cell research as well.

Our country is more than 60 years old, and in terms of the democracies around the world, we are very young. But what is sad is that like most youngsters, we are headed down the wrong path, and seem to be developing some very bad habits. Old habits die hard they say. You bet, as can be seen in our continued acceptance and blind following of the twisted version of a beautiful concept called secularism.

India's most destructive forces

Why am I writing this, when almost every self respecting Indian knows that the state of affairs in our political arena has almost got to the point of no return? Well, for one, the same reason why I started my blog, a window to release some steam. But more importantly, because most urban educated Indians are so used to market force economics in their daily lives, they expect almost everything to be offered as a service, and sadly, it's come to the point where even thinking seems to be going in that direction. The thorough assimilation of facts and arriving at a conclusion seems to have been 'outsourced' in some ways to the electronic and print media and people usually blindly parrot the opinions put forward by the media think tanks and other opinion makers showcased in the media (print and electronic).

Now for the destructive forces I was talking about. I had initially planned to mention only 5, but then had a good laugh at myself and realised that 5 is just way too small a number for dear India. The opinions presented here are mine, and no party or organisation is behind this, although I'm dead certain that the sentiments expressed here are the same; it's just that someone had to say it, and I did. And without further adieu, here goes:

1. Mayawathi Naina Kumari: Better known as Mayawathi, the current Chief Minister of our largest state Uttar Pradesh and the self styled dictator of the Bahujan Samaj Party is quite easily the most destructive force in the country, even beating Islamic fundamentalism because she is viewed as a means to an end for the Islamic fundamentalists, while the people she claims to represent, the dalits, view her as superwoman. Although she represents (or at least claims to) the most downtrodden people of the erstwhile Hindu society, she seems to have no problems with the fact that she is a multi-millionaire while the people who she represents never get to eat 3 square meals a day. In 2007, she declared her net assets worth Rs. 3 crore, and in 2008 it was Rs. 52 crore. And the explanation for this: the dalits she represents all contribute 5 and 10 bucks at every party meeting! And what's worse, there are people naive enough to believe that story. For a middle class Indian like me, figures in crores are all the same because I'm sure I can't even count that far in a lifetime, let alone hope to earn that much legally. She represents all the every modern, progressive Indian loathes. She has brought corruption to new heights, she spends crores on her birthday parties, yet when people die of hunger and starvation in her state, she blames it on either the center or on incompetent officials. She doesn't follow any democratic process in her party and rules with an iron fist, spying on every single party person using various party cadre, a la Soviet Union with the KGB. She demolished pubic property like stadiums and parks to build statues of her in the state. She is truly the epitome of evil and anti-progress.

And now she has her eyes set on the post of Prime Minister. If she succeeds in becoming Prime Minister, don't be fooled into believing what most timid commentators would say, which is "a downtrodden dalit rose to become Prime Minister... it's a matter of pride". No, it isn't. It will be a matter of shame for our democracy that we voted in the devil incarnate. One thing is for sure, if she becomes PM, I'm giving up my citizenship.

2. Prakash Karat, A B Bardhan and the Communists:

These guys are the primary support staff and scavengers, or like the Remora fish that stick to a shark and feed on bits of scrap after the shark finishes a meal, the shark being Mayawathi in this case. It is their assured support to her and her breed that has made her dream of the post of Prime Minister. Sure, a girl is allowed to dream, but if your dreams are the stuff of what nightmares are made of to the rest of the public, maybe, just maybe, it isn't such a nice thing after all.

The Commies have continually held the country to ransom and have been the primary cause for the lack of development and progress because of their outdated, Quixotic ideology, an ideology they stubbornly refuse to let go of, an ideology they fail to realise is alive outside of India only in some of the most brutal and repressive regimes, an ideology that opposes anything and everything related to the west. It would do our country good if these comrades are packed off to North Korea, where they can enjoy the hospitality of the Utopian communist dream.

3. Naxalism: Born out of the Sino-Soviet split in the Indian communist movement in the tiny town of Naxalbari in Bengal (hence the term Naxalwadi), the Naxalites are the greatest internal security threat the country faces after the crisis in the Punjab during the 80s. Naxalites have a de facto, parallel government running the show in states like Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa and parts of Andhra Pradesh. With moral support from the CPI(M), and other political parties using them as a means to achieve their selfish goals, Naxalism has spread like a virus among the poor in rural and tribal areas. It was a tough call to put this ahead of Islamic terrorism, but since Naxalism is tackled at a state level and not the national level, and knowing full well that the states are not prepared in any way to tackle this threat, it's at number 3.

4. SIMI, Islamic terrorism and fundamentalism: Enough has been said and enough is know about Pakistani sponsored elements in India, injected into India to bleed it from within. Add to that an organisation that was founded with the intention to bring India under an Islamic rule, and extend it as part of a world wide Islamic Caliphate (of course, I'm talking about SIMI), throw in a few politicos from the Muslim community who not only support them morally, but financially also, and you've got yourself the perfect recipe for disaster. I thought long and hard about why this ought to come after Naxalism and the reasoning behind it was that the center having more resources at its disposal would be at a better position to tackle the crisis brought out by SIMI and its ilk. However, it's a close call between the Naxals and the loony mullahs.

Another point of contention would be 'Why Mayawathi above terrorism, Naxalism, etc?'. Again, means to an end. If Mayawathi comes to power, these forces will be strengthened, and they'd hitchhike on Mayawathi's success and her pandering to the 'minorities' (read Muslims), and eventually take her out as well. It all hinges on her coming to power for them to get strengthened beyond the point of no return. Hence the despotic dalit leader is perched high and above all at no. 1.

As far as SIMI goes, sure, the usual police rhetoric about them doesn't help, but the fact is that SIMI started out in 1977 as an organisation to 'liberate India' from western materialistic influences and convert it into an Islamic society. This alone should be cause enough to have them banned for good. I'm quite sure that 'changing' a secular society into an Islamic one is totally unconstitutional, and what's more, I quite like the scene now where I don't have to see women clad in black bee-keeper suits from head to toe. If the Muslim leaders want it that way, and want to head back to medieval times where they can live in caves and ride something that has actual horse power (that's right, I'm talking about a horse), then someone please tell them that the Taliban have been replaced by an elected government, or ask them to apply for a visa at the Saudi Arabian embassy. This country isn't going to become a sanctuary for Islamic nutters, and should never, ever yield to any religion, and has to remain secular for sanity to prevail.

And now finally, to the Muslim politicos in the country. Several of them, in front of the cameras would preach universal brotherhood and showcase their 'secular' credentials, but the truth of the matter is most of them are anything but secular, but Islam doesn't preach secularism (and this a fact, so don't write to me saying anything to the contrary), and most of the Muslim leaders are true Muslims, which means they are anything but secular. These men suffer from an inferiority complex where they try to attack women authors who express themselves in books, put bounties on cartoonists, have no issues with people getting forcefully converted to their religion but cry foul when the reverse is in progress, etc.

5. Pseudo secularism of the Congress: The attitude of the Congress party and some of its allies is very disturbing indeed, as they seem to be the support system that elements from the communities which usually indulge in anti-national activities bank on when in dire straits. For long, the congress has pussyfooted around when it came to acting tough on Muslims for fear of losing out on a lucrative vote bank. A simple case is that of the illegal Bangladeshi Muslims who have infiltrated into the state of Assam and have now settled in have have procured documents like ration cards and voter IDs. However ,in spite of being in power in the state, the Congress chooses to do nothing because they know that that group of illegal aliens are their most dependable vote bank during any election. What's more, it is usually this group that provides shelter and help to the anti-national elements who hop across the border and come here to blow innocents.

Even with the issue of hanging Afsal Guru in the Parliament attack case, they are dragging their feet. With no proper explanation given, they are making a mockery of the justice system., and eroding our faith in the entire system of governance. As it is our government machinery is crumbling all around us, and when the judicial system is overruled by a bunch of septuagenarians and octogenarians who won't last too much longer, citizens with young children have to take a more mature look at the policies that could potentially make our country unsafe for the children in the years to come.

6. Hindutva and the Sangh parivaar: Very many Indians, who are fed up with the slack that Muslims are cut in our country because of the value of their vote, often think that this sort of attitude needs to be balanced out by an equivalent force, and quite naturally turn towards the BJP and the Sangh. However, what they don't realise is that this is a vicious cycle, one that when viewed from the Muslims side says that they are being targeted for being a minority, and when viewed from the Hindu side says that no one religion can be given so much importance over another, especially over the majoirity community. Well, both sides are right, and both are wrong. Where the BJP and the sangh go wrong is when their leaders like Praveen Togadia make speeches where they say that secularism is bad and that secularism is not in our tradition, blah, blah, blah. Firstly, secularism is something which is at the very core of Hinduism, which sadly even the so called defenders of the Hindu faith don't seem to be aware of. Next, instead of using secularism as the tool to get more of the masses to throng toward them, they are doing the exact opposite which not surprisingly seems to have the exact opposite effect with the masses.

The activities of the Bajrang Dal in Gujarat, and more recently in Orissa, only highlights my point. Instead of taking the moral highground and showing restraint and earning public sympathy, the BJP and the Sangh have gone about it the exact same way George Bush did after 9/11, becasue after 9/11 there was tremendous sympathy toward the USA, but in going all guns blazing and attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 (Iraq), the United States started to feel the wrath of those who until then chose to stay away from the conflict. Ditto with the sangh. Had they shown restraint after the killing of their leader in Orissa instead of attacking missionaries and destroying churches, it would have earned a lot more followers. Instead, by launching into brutal attacks against Christians, it has only had a detrimental effect and the usual 'stereotyping' of the BJP as anti-Christian and anti-Muslim and all that.

One can argue that it's about time someone stood up for the rights of the majority community, and you'll get no argument out of me against that. But the means that they choose to use to achieve this goal of standing up for the Hindus is what needs to question. Not every problem needs an eye-for-an-eye type solution. Change is the need of the hour, and these guys are in serious need for an image makeover. By going all out against the minorities, they are only playing into the trap that the fundamentalists have laid out to justify their attacks on India.

7. Regionalism: Actually, 'language'ism derived from regionalism. Not the usual north-south divide, but the divide over who gets to live where, and who gets first preference because of the language they speak. I'm talking about the violence resorted to by a certain Bal Thackeray (BT) and his supporters during the late 60s and 70s against the immigrants from Mangalore and other parts of south Canara who came to Mumbai (then Bombay) and made it big in the hotel industry, butt-kicking the local Marathis out of business, purely because of the quality of food and the efficienct with which the hotels were run. The sort of violence Bal Tahckeray's nephew Raj Thackeray (RT) and his goons have resorted to in the recent past against north Indians in Mumbai. Enough has been said about the folly of the argument made by RT, about how it would actually have a negative impact on the economy of the state, and how the 'outsiders' are not illegally profiting at the expense of locals (unless they actually are living in illegal settlements and making a profit by means of illegal activities). In Karnataka, we have Vatal Nagaraj with his dirty fishing hat and dark glasses branding himself as the champion of Kannadigas and the Kannada language. It's idiots like him who always give a bad name to a people, and this is especially true in the case of Kannadigas, who were otherwise thought to be very accomodating and hospitable.

How do we tackle the problem? Good question, and a simple answer to it would be to ensure that first and foremost, people coming in from other states don't get special treatment, which would only serve to strengthen the case of the locals demanding their ouster. Next, schools should make it a point to teach the students that discremenating on language is as bad as discremenatingon religion, race, caste, creed, skin colour or sex. And in case you want to blame someone, then I guess we'll have to go a long way back and blame Nehru, because it was his grand idea to divide on the basis of language. What would have been a better option? Well, instead of language, the country could have been divided into zones, like how the railways does it. North, south, east, west and central. Each zone could then be further divided into sub-zones depending on whatever compelling factors were prevalent. That way, 'micro-managing' the issues existing in every area would have also succeeded. However, since by-gones are by-gones, there's no point in crying over spilt milk now. In case I come up with more material on this topic, I'll add it later.

Why no secret ballot?

After the showdown at Parliament a couple of days back ,the brickbats have been flying against those who cross-voted, while the man in the 'hot-seat', the speak Mr. Chatterjee, is busy deciding if he should quit or not. Money was shown in Parliament, and thanks to a strange verdict by the Supreme Court in the early 90s, MPs indulging in unlawful activities would be immune.

In our democracy, we practice the concept of 'secret ballot', where each person casts his/her vote in secret and hence is shielded from scrutiny by others. Why can't the same practice be followed in Parliament during a trust vote? I mean, unless there is a law that forbids this, wouldn't this be better, and spare those who may have cross-voted (due to their conscience or inducements) from the wrath of angry party cadre who usually go on a rampage, targeting the MPs in question.

I am obviously sympathetic towards Mr H T Sangliana, the BJP MP from Bangalore who has been facing the brunt of the party's ire in Bangalore as he chose to vote with the UPA because he felt the nuclear deal was in the best interest of the country. While the attitude of the BJP's spokesperson Rajeev Pratap Rudy was disgusting (he said the MPs who cross voted should now seek protection from the UPA, meaning his party had issued orders to vandalise the properties of people like Mr Sangliana), an important question arises: in a democratic, free society, should there be a line drawn for a person to stay within when his/her conscience clashes with the party line? Should party interest trump national interest? Can't a person be a part of a political party for only a few principles that they may share in common and decide on the others based on their conscience? After all, all political parties claim they do not endorse murderers and criminals (in politics or otherwise), yet their presence is never found wanting.