A clutch of terrorist and jihadi groups organize a seminar, ‘Azaadi — The Only Way’, in the heart of the national Capital. Many despicable characters, including Kashmiri separatist leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani, participate in the seminar. They air secessionist views and abuse all who stand for the nation.
Booker Prize winner Arundhati Roy, who has made it a point to befriend all scoundrel of India, said, “Kashmir has never been an integral part of India. It is an historical fact. Even the Indian Government has accepted this.” Of course, she skipped the minor details like when did the Indian Government accepted this “historical fact.” In her scheme of things, India became a “colonizing power” soon after its Independence.
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Arun Jaitley said, “The whole country was shocked when a large number of separatists groups met in Delhi under the nose of the Government and had a conference… Some misconceived representatives of civil society have advocated that these separatists were only advocating and exercising their free right to speech.”
Unfortunately, it is not only the “misconceived representatives of civil society” who are trying to pit freedom of speech against national security, as if India were ruled by some jingoistic tyrants who brook no dissent. Even the mainstream mediapersons, especially media Brahmins who love to pontificate, who are presenting it as a freedom of expression versus national security issue.
The fact is that Geelani and his buddies in the Kashmir Valley are hardcore jihadis who want to establish Shariat; they are the biggest enemies of all freedoms the modern world offers to mankind. Given a chance, they would transform the ‘paradise on earth’ into a Talibani hell, impose the most barbaric form of laws, and treat women like cattle.
Even without being in power, they have imposed partial Taliban rule in the Valley.
Besides, the Right to Freedom of Expression is meant for the citizens of India. Do Geelani, Row, and other traitors call themselves citizens of India?
Commenting on the controversy triggered off by the seminar and the demands for action against Geelani and Roy, Dileep Padgaonkar, who heads the three-member group of interlocutors for Kashmir, said “Our response should be that of a mature democracy. It should be based on cool reason and not the kind of emotional outbursts we witnessed yesterday.” Well, cool reason says that medieval morons should be dealt with firmly.
While Geelani-Roy attracted a lot of attention, the presence of Maoist sympathizers at the meeting was largely overlooked by the media. In this context, an August 2008 statement, made by Maoist spokesperson Azad who died in an encounter in July, is relevant: “The CC (central committee), CPI-Maoist, unequivocally supports Kashmiri people’s struggle for azadi and believes that one who does not support the people’s aspirations for freedom and independence can never be a democrat.”
It is not surprising that the Leftwing terrorists have a soft corner for the Kashmiri separatists—enemy’s enemy is a natural friend. The Azadi seminar presented the jihadis and the Maoists to form a deadly alliance. It also presented an opportunity to become a martyr to the cause of freedom. “Pity the nation that has to silence its writers for speaking their minds,” Roy said in her reaction to the reports that she and Geelani might be prosecuted.
The truth is that she and Geelani are no freedom fighters. The Azadi they cry about is a tirade against individual liberty and open society.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Aisha: Exhilarating
Aisha is that kind of movie which you would like to watch with your girlfriend/boyfriend, spouse, parents, friends, kids—with anybody. And at anytime—after getting a good increment or a yelling from the boss, in good mood or after a depressive phase. A blithe spirit pervades the movie, which is both exhilarating and elevating.
My only regret was that I had not read Jane Austen’s Emma on which it was based. Watching a good film made on a good novel is a great joy; I experienced this while watching Gone With The Wind and The Godfather.
Director Rajshree Ojha did an excellent job by telling a tale with great aplomb. It reminded me of the delightful romantic comedies that TCM often shows. I doubt if Sonam Kapoor would have won the accolades she has without the slick direction of Ojha. Sonam is perfectly suited for the role of a rich, somewhat spoilt, girl who overrates her own match-making skills. Ira Dubey, as a less glamorous and more caustic buddy, also does a good job.
Amrita Puri, the country lass who is a stranger in the cool and chic South Delhi, is simply charming. She fumbles and bumbles, calls polo “horse-waali hockey”; she is putty in the hands of the protagonist Aisha (Sonam), but finally rebels to the indiscretions of her new ‘maker.’ This was a high point of Sonam’s histrionic skills: she was brilliant in her portrayal of a rich girl whose belief in her skills has just been shattered; she genuinely appears nonplussed, baffled, and crestfallen.
Lisa Haydon looks gorgeous every inch. As a foreign-returned corporate executive, she appears quite authentic. The accent, the demeanor, the entire persona—everything about her is authentic and fascinating. This is a departure from the portrayal of NRIs in Hindi movies; usually, they are shown as vain, comical, or both. And she sings—well, not a Western number, some popular Hindi film song, or even a ghazal—but a traditional song. Not in Hindi, but in one of the dialects which I could not make out. The blend of the Westernized and the native was delectable; unfortunately, it did not last long.
Abhay Deol looked natural as a corporate executive. He was a typical Jane Austen hero—handsome, rich, intelligent, full of character. And brave; he doesn’t bat an eyelid before punching a heavily-muscled Dhruv (Arunoday Singh) for his dirty remark about Aisha. Singh tried to portray himself as a hunk as well as a Casanova; he does well, but it could have been better.
And then there is the inimitable Cyrus Sahukar; he is always a treat to watch. M.K. Raina, as Sonam’s father, looks exactly what he portrays: a rich businessman who dotes on her daughter despite her spendthrift ways, talks to her as a friend rather than an overbearing guardian, and surreptitiously eats halwa at night!
Much has been written, not without reason, about the brilliant production design, styling, costume designing, cinematography, etc. However, the theme of the movie has not been commented upon; it seems that the impressive gloss of craft mesmerized the reviewers who just overlooked the soul of the body of work.
Very subtly, as if believing in the adage that art lies in concealing art, Ojha tells the failure of a girl who tries to control the lives of others. Aisha is a well-meaning girl; her intentions are noble; she wants the people around her to be happy, and happily married. Only her understanding of happiness is flawed, or shallow as Arjun (Deol) tells her. Her concepts about many things, including happiness, do not exactly match with the objective reality. She thinks that the best thing for the Bahadurgarh girl would be to become a South Delhi snob; her problem is that she imposed her own concepts on the reality, and gets frustrated when the reality does not behave as per her concepts or diktats.
But she is a decent girl, willing to correct herself. And, happily, there is Arjun to help her—and help himself by taking their friendship to a greater level. He also rescues her from shallowness, the shallowness which prods our elites to take up fancy causes like animal welfare and mouth politically correct homilies.
In the end, of course, all major characters of the movie are happily married. Aisha matures and apparently reforms.
In real life, too, we have many kinds of people who want to impose their concepts on others. Some of them want women to dress ‘appropriately,’ lest they fall prey to the depredations of molesters. There are Muslim fundamentalists imposing burqa. Saffron fanatics tell youngsters not to celebrate Valentine’s Day. There are politicians and activists who want to ban smoking in movies and on television. And long goes the list of moral cops. These self-appointed guardians of society and nation want to impose their rigidities and idiocies on us. While Aisha is open to introspection and course-correction, the myriad big brothers believe that they are always right.
Normally, efforts to control people’s lives with prescription and proscription fail; in the process, however, many of us have to go through hell. For in India life is not a romantic comedy.
My only regret was that I had not read Jane Austen’s Emma on which it was based. Watching a good film made on a good novel is a great joy; I experienced this while watching Gone With The Wind and The Godfather.
Director Rajshree Ojha did an excellent job by telling a tale with great aplomb. It reminded me of the delightful romantic comedies that TCM often shows. I doubt if Sonam Kapoor would have won the accolades she has without the slick direction of Ojha. Sonam is perfectly suited for the role of a rich, somewhat spoilt, girl who overrates her own match-making skills. Ira Dubey, as a less glamorous and more caustic buddy, also does a good job.
Amrita Puri, the country lass who is a stranger in the cool and chic South Delhi, is simply charming. She fumbles and bumbles, calls polo “horse-waali hockey”; she is putty in the hands of the protagonist Aisha (Sonam), but finally rebels to the indiscretions of her new ‘maker.’ This was a high point of Sonam’s histrionic skills: she was brilliant in her portrayal of a rich girl whose belief in her skills has just been shattered; she genuinely appears nonplussed, baffled, and crestfallen.
Lisa Haydon looks gorgeous every inch. As a foreign-returned corporate executive, she appears quite authentic. The accent, the demeanor, the entire persona—everything about her is authentic and fascinating. This is a departure from the portrayal of NRIs in Hindi movies; usually, they are shown as vain, comical, or both. And she sings—well, not a Western number, some popular Hindi film song, or even a ghazal—but a traditional song. Not in Hindi, but in one of the dialects which I could not make out. The blend of the Westernized and the native was delectable; unfortunately, it did not last long.
Abhay Deol looked natural as a corporate executive. He was a typical Jane Austen hero—handsome, rich, intelligent, full of character. And brave; he doesn’t bat an eyelid before punching a heavily-muscled Dhruv (Arunoday Singh) for his dirty remark about Aisha. Singh tried to portray himself as a hunk as well as a Casanova; he does well, but it could have been better.
And then there is the inimitable Cyrus Sahukar; he is always a treat to watch. M.K. Raina, as Sonam’s father, looks exactly what he portrays: a rich businessman who dotes on her daughter despite her spendthrift ways, talks to her as a friend rather than an overbearing guardian, and surreptitiously eats halwa at night!
Much has been written, not without reason, about the brilliant production design, styling, costume designing, cinematography, etc. However, the theme of the movie has not been commented upon; it seems that the impressive gloss of craft mesmerized the reviewers who just overlooked the soul of the body of work.
Very subtly, as if believing in the adage that art lies in concealing art, Ojha tells the failure of a girl who tries to control the lives of others. Aisha is a well-meaning girl; her intentions are noble; she wants the people around her to be happy, and happily married. Only her understanding of happiness is flawed, or shallow as Arjun (Deol) tells her. Her concepts about many things, including happiness, do not exactly match with the objective reality. She thinks that the best thing for the Bahadurgarh girl would be to become a South Delhi snob; her problem is that she imposed her own concepts on the reality, and gets frustrated when the reality does not behave as per her concepts or diktats.
But she is a decent girl, willing to correct herself. And, happily, there is Arjun to help her—and help himself by taking their friendship to a greater level. He also rescues her from shallowness, the shallowness which prods our elites to take up fancy causes like animal welfare and mouth politically correct homilies.
In the end, of course, all major characters of the movie are happily married. Aisha matures and apparently reforms.
In real life, too, we have many kinds of people who want to impose their concepts on others. Some of them want women to dress ‘appropriately,’ lest they fall prey to the depredations of molesters. There are Muslim fundamentalists imposing burqa. Saffron fanatics tell youngsters not to celebrate Valentine’s Day. There are politicians and activists who want to ban smoking in movies and on television. And long goes the list of moral cops. These self-appointed guardians of society and nation want to impose their rigidities and idiocies on us. While Aisha is open to introspection and course-correction, the myriad big brothers believe that they are always right.
Normally, efforts to control people’s lives with prescription and proscription fail; in the process, however, many of us have to go through hell. For in India life is not a romantic comedy.
When icons become iconoclastic
What do the believers do when the idols of their temple start talking blasphemously? They are shocked, they become incredulous, even enter the state of denial. This was, at any rate, the fate of Saeed Naqvi when he interviewed Naseeruddin Shah (NewsX, July 20).
He could not believe when Naseer, an icon of parallel cinema, said that Shammi Kapoor, Dev Anand, and Dara Singh were his favorite actors in Hindi movies. Naqvi was so stunned that he actually asked the veteran actor whether it was a tongue-in-cheek remark; but Naseer made it clear that he was not joking. Naqvi, however, remained unconvinced till the end; in the winding-up remarks, he said that Naseer “is playing the fool with us.”
At the heart of Naqvi’s incredulity lies a generation’s weltanschauung. I am talking about the sixties’ generation which had swallowed and digested not only the economy and politics of socialism but also its esthetics. There was a big problem, though: the most popular art was dominated by the people who had little time for the True Theory, which was socialism. The Raj Kapoors, the Dev Anands, the Guru Dutts, the K. Asifs, the Dilip Kumars, the B.R. Chopras, the Prakash Mehras, and other movie moguls made movies to mint money or to create great art; they never bothered to do things as per the dogmas, doctrines, or straitjackets of the Theory. This greatly frustrated the pundits; so, they dubbed the mainstream as Commercial Cinema, a term that went to signify anything that was crude, crass, escapist, kitsch. This is commerce, not art, thundered the popes of esthetics.
Thanks to the entrenchment of socialism in the 1970s, the government took upon itself to redeem, among other things, cinema (the way it ‘redeemed’ the economy is well-known; the results were shortages, black market, arrested growth, and crony capitalism, but that is another story). The consequence of state intervention in the world of movies was Art Cinema. And pinkish pundits got the opportunity to chalk out its canons.
I have always found the term, Art Cinema, puzzling for two reasons. First, it is tautological: since cinema is a form of art, the coinage has some redundancy about it. Second, most of the movies that go with it are the antithesis of art. It is difficult to find anything beautiful, elevating, or sublimating in the dreariness and boredom peddled by the masters of Art Cinema. But these incongruities did not bother the sixties’ generation, which continued to patronize the ‘socially relevant’ movies.
Art Cinema flourished as long as the government funded it; and, in the same manner as an unviable public sector undertaking goes sick when the government stops financing it, the Art Cinema business got bust when the winds of liberalization hit the Indian shores in the 1990s. The Shyam Benegals and the Govind Nihalanis came to terms with the new reality and made films with mainstream stars. But, interestingly, the canons and myths of Art Cinema did not fade away with time; in fact, they have got entrenched in public discourse and common parlance.
It is not unusual to read a film review which tells us that this movie has a message (and is therefore is good movie) or that one does not have any message (and therefore is just entertaining). A movie, as per the accepted code of film critics, is good if it has a socially relevant message. A filmmaker ought to be a postman, apart from his mastery over the craft, to be a considered a good one. Such are the consequences of having a public discourse immersed in socialist-collectivist-tribalist ethic. Everything and everybody are good so long as they serve their utility to a collectivity.
It is a measure of not only the prevalence of collectivist ethic but also of shabby elitism and general mendacity that when any intellectual or a cinema person with intellectual pretensions is asked about their favorite film directors, they talk about Satyajit Ray, Mrinal Sen, Bimal Roy, Eisenstein, or some other high-sounding names. Many, if not most, of them relish Johny Mera Naam and Sholay, but they discuss only Pather Panchali.
I am yet to come across a person who has named, say, Vijay Anand and Raj Khosla. Naseer had the courage to call Dev Anand starrer Guide and Jewel Thief (both directed by Vijay Anand) as great movies. In fact, Naseer says that Guide is among the best movies ever made in the world.
Given this socio-cultural milieu, it was indeed courageous―brazen, some would say―on the part of Naseer to call Shammi Kapoor as his favorite actor, to say that he grew up on his movies. But it was not unnatural for a man who was born in 1950 to say that. As a teenager and as a young man, and as a person with deep interest in cinema, Naseer could not have avoided Kapoor or Dev Anand. In fact, the two are not just among the handsomest and most Westernized heroes but they also represented all that was stylish, elegant, graceful, and blithe in contemporary India. Quite obviously, the champions of social realism found little worth in the two stars of yesteryears.
Even if Naseer had called Raj Kapoor his favorite, it would have been grudgingly accepted, for Raj sold sugary socialism and sexy altruism for decades.
But Naseer is talking about Shammi, Dev sahib, and―horrors― Dara Singh in superlative terms! Worse, he has nothing good to say about Shyam Benegal; despite Naqvi’s prompting to call him as his favorite director, Naseer refused to do that; instead, he went on naming Shekhar Kapoor, Gulzar, and Sai Paranpai as his favorites. It will be very difficult to put the three in the Art Cinema camp. Paranjpai actually made delightful and thoroughly entertaining movies Chashm-e-baddur and Katha; she can scarcely be thrown in the company of those who portrayed the sordid, the morbid, and the unlovely on celluloid.
What blasphemy! Naseer has no regard for the high priests of Art Cinema and the votaries of Theory. No wonder, Naqvi, a sixties’ generation representative, was incredulous.
He could not believe when Naseer, an icon of parallel cinema, said that Shammi Kapoor, Dev Anand, and Dara Singh were his favorite actors in Hindi movies. Naqvi was so stunned that he actually asked the veteran actor whether it was a tongue-in-cheek remark; but Naseer made it clear that he was not joking. Naqvi, however, remained unconvinced till the end; in the winding-up remarks, he said that Naseer “is playing the fool with us.”
At the heart of Naqvi’s incredulity lies a generation’s weltanschauung. I am talking about the sixties’ generation which had swallowed and digested not only the economy and politics of socialism but also its esthetics. There was a big problem, though: the most popular art was dominated by the people who had little time for the True Theory, which was socialism. The Raj Kapoors, the Dev Anands, the Guru Dutts, the K. Asifs, the Dilip Kumars, the B.R. Chopras, the Prakash Mehras, and other movie moguls made movies to mint money or to create great art; they never bothered to do things as per the dogmas, doctrines, or straitjackets of the Theory. This greatly frustrated the pundits; so, they dubbed the mainstream as Commercial Cinema, a term that went to signify anything that was crude, crass, escapist, kitsch. This is commerce, not art, thundered the popes of esthetics.
Thanks to the entrenchment of socialism in the 1970s, the government took upon itself to redeem, among other things, cinema (the way it ‘redeemed’ the economy is well-known; the results were shortages, black market, arrested growth, and crony capitalism, but that is another story). The consequence of state intervention in the world of movies was Art Cinema. And pinkish pundits got the opportunity to chalk out its canons.
I have always found the term, Art Cinema, puzzling for two reasons. First, it is tautological: since cinema is a form of art, the coinage has some redundancy about it. Second, most of the movies that go with it are the antithesis of art. It is difficult to find anything beautiful, elevating, or sublimating in the dreariness and boredom peddled by the masters of Art Cinema. But these incongruities did not bother the sixties’ generation, which continued to patronize the ‘socially relevant’ movies.
Art Cinema flourished as long as the government funded it; and, in the same manner as an unviable public sector undertaking goes sick when the government stops financing it, the Art Cinema business got bust when the winds of liberalization hit the Indian shores in the 1990s. The Shyam Benegals and the Govind Nihalanis came to terms with the new reality and made films with mainstream stars. But, interestingly, the canons and myths of Art Cinema did not fade away with time; in fact, they have got entrenched in public discourse and common parlance.
It is not unusual to read a film review which tells us that this movie has a message (and is therefore is good movie) or that one does not have any message (and therefore is just entertaining). A movie, as per the accepted code of film critics, is good if it has a socially relevant message. A filmmaker ought to be a postman, apart from his mastery over the craft, to be a considered a good one. Such are the consequences of having a public discourse immersed in socialist-collectivist-tribalist ethic. Everything and everybody are good so long as they serve their utility to a collectivity.
It is a measure of not only the prevalence of collectivist ethic but also of shabby elitism and general mendacity that when any intellectual or a cinema person with intellectual pretensions is asked about their favorite film directors, they talk about Satyajit Ray, Mrinal Sen, Bimal Roy, Eisenstein, or some other high-sounding names. Many, if not most, of them relish Johny Mera Naam and Sholay, but they discuss only Pather Panchali.
I am yet to come across a person who has named, say, Vijay Anand and Raj Khosla. Naseer had the courage to call Dev Anand starrer Guide and Jewel Thief (both directed by Vijay Anand) as great movies. In fact, Naseer says that Guide is among the best movies ever made in the world.
Given this socio-cultural milieu, it was indeed courageous―brazen, some would say―on the part of Naseer to call Shammi Kapoor as his favorite actor, to say that he grew up on his movies. But it was not unnatural for a man who was born in 1950 to say that. As a teenager and as a young man, and as a person with deep interest in cinema, Naseer could not have avoided Kapoor or Dev Anand. In fact, the two are not just among the handsomest and most Westernized heroes but they also represented all that was stylish, elegant, graceful, and blithe in contemporary India. Quite obviously, the champions of social realism found little worth in the two stars of yesteryears.
Even if Naseer had called Raj Kapoor his favorite, it would have been grudgingly accepted, for Raj sold sugary socialism and sexy altruism for decades.
But Naseer is talking about Shammi, Dev sahib, and―horrors― Dara Singh in superlative terms! Worse, he has nothing good to say about Shyam Benegal; despite Naqvi’s prompting to call him as his favorite director, Naseer refused to do that; instead, he went on naming Shekhar Kapoor, Gulzar, and Sai Paranpai as his favorites. It will be very difficult to put the three in the Art Cinema camp. Paranjpai actually made delightful and thoroughly entertaining movies Chashm-e-baddur and Katha; she can scarcely be thrown in the company of those who portrayed the sordid, the morbid, and the unlovely on celluloid.
What blasphemy! Naseer has no regard for the high priests of Art Cinema and the votaries of Theory. No wonder, Naqvi, a sixties’ generation representative, was incredulous.
Heroism, fake and real
Naveen Jindal is a young parliamentarian and industrialist. At the age of 40, the Congress leader represents the Kurukshetra constituency of Haryana in the Lok Sabha for the second time. Scion of a leading business house, he looks after the rail, steel, and power businesses of the Jindal Group.
He has had his education at the best institutions—Hansraj College of the University of Delhi and the University of Texas. He lives in one of the best localities in New Delhi; his bungalow is worth Rs 137 crore or $31 million.
In the past, he successfully campaigned for the citizens’ right to carry the national flag, a feat that made him a media darling; he has often been portrayed as a young icon, a committed politician, an earnest leader.
In short, he has access to the best in the world, and he is exposed to a variety of influences—presumably, also, the influences of modernity, individual liberty, and the rule of law. And what does he do? He makes out a case for khaps, the caste councils in Haryana and adjoining areas which act as kangaroo courts and dispense with barbaric justice, including lynching!
Then there is Chandrapati, a countrywoman who was widowed 18 years ago and who lives in her soldier-husband’s home in Karora village, Haryana. The 56-year-old woman has two daughters and a son; she had one more son who worked as a mechanic, Manoj. He married a girl of the same gotra (lineage or clan), Babli. For this, his wife’s family murdered the couple in 2007 on the diktat of a local khap. For years Chandrapati fought heroically for justice, which resulted in the first-ever court conviction in an honor-killing case.
The unassuming peasant woman had to face apparently insurmountable problems. Society, the local administration, the countless departments devoted to the cause of welfare state, myriad ‘civil society’ bodies—nobody came to her rescue. She was alone in her crusade against injustice and medievalism. Between one and none, wrote Nietzsche, lies an infinity; but it can also be infinite courage. A nondescript countrywoman from a nondescript village showed just that.
She told an interviewer in The Times Of India (April 4), “First, there was the village boycott. Everyone watches us, nobody comes, nobody speaks to us. We have no relatives in this village either. There was a time when it was difficult to get rations and milk even. The hostility was tremendous. We can’t step out of home without the police. I had to run from pillar to post simply to file the FIR.
“Even after I filed a case against the murderers, the panchayat came to bargain. They wanted to pay us off and offered Rs 1 crore. They said they’d sell land if required. Then they said, ‘You have daughters, we’ll do things to them.’ So the pressure was always there. It’s been three years of living in fear. They can do anything, any time. We face it. We live through it. There is no choice. And it’s not over or anything. I will see this through to the Supreme Court, if it reaches that point.”
No two persons can be as different as Chandrapati and Jindal. While she had the courage and gumption to take on the mightiest, our young parliamentarian decided to make a covenant with the forces of medievalism and barbarity. “I just feel, because they [khaps] are part of my parliamentary constituency, I have told them, they wanted to come and meet me and they wanted me to take the views to the government, to which I said, ‘Yes, I am duty-bound, so I would listen to you and I would take your views to the government’,” Jindal said.
What, pray, are the views of khap leaders? They want ban on marriages between same gotra. Their argument is that tradition does not allow such marriages; the Government should respect the customs of the country; therefore, same-gotra marriages should be legally prohibited. The argument is backed with force—brutal force. And the warning to youngsters is simple: you had better comply, or else…
Khaps say that exceptions were made in the Hindu marriage law, allowing union where customs said so. If local customs were earlier taken into account, they should be done now as well.
The fact is that the existing provisions expand the sphere of individual liberty, by letting marriage between certain tradition-sanctioned relations. Khaps, on the other hand, are hell-bent on shrinking that sphere by limiting people’s choice. And Jindal is “duty-bound” to take their retrograde views to the quarters that matter! So much for the ‘vision’ of our ‘young icons.’
Another, and bigger, icon is Rahul Gandhi who, in the words of Prof. Ravinder Kaur, is “fascinated by caste arithmetic, perfecting the art with modern technology and databases.” Is it moral progress if a cannibal uses spoon and fork? And is it a crusade for liberty if apparently modern, Westernized, and suave politicians masquerade their power-lust and Mandalite means with PR varnish?
He has had his education at the best institutions—Hansraj College of the University of Delhi and the University of Texas. He lives in one of the best localities in New Delhi; his bungalow is worth Rs 137 crore or $31 million.
In the past, he successfully campaigned for the citizens’ right to carry the national flag, a feat that made him a media darling; he has often been portrayed as a young icon, a committed politician, an earnest leader.
In short, he has access to the best in the world, and he is exposed to a variety of influences—presumably, also, the influences of modernity, individual liberty, and the rule of law. And what does he do? He makes out a case for khaps, the caste councils in Haryana and adjoining areas which act as kangaroo courts and dispense with barbaric justice, including lynching!
Then there is Chandrapati, a countrywoman who was widowed 18 years ago and who lives in her soldier-husband’s home in Karora village, Haryana. The 56-year-old woman has two daughters and a son; she had one more son who worked as a mechanic, Manoj. He married a girl of the same gotra (lineage or clan), Babli. For this, his wife’s family murdered the couple in 2007 on the diktat of a local khap. For years Chandrapati fought heroically for justice, which resulted in the first-ever court conviction in an honor-killing case.
The unassuming peasant woman had to face apparently insurmountable problems. Society, the local administration, the countless departments devoted to the cause of welfare state, myriad ‘civil society’ bodies—nobody came to her rescue. She was alone in her crusade against injustice and medievalism. Between one and none, wrote Nietzsche, lies an infinity; but it can also be infinite courage. A nondescript countrywoman from a nondescript village showed just that.
She told an interviewer in The Times Of India (April 4), “First, there was the village boycott. Everyone watches us, nobody comes, nobody speaks to us. We have no relatives in this village either. There was a time when it was difficult to get rations and milk even. The hostility was tremendous. We can’t step out of home without the police. I had to run from pillar to post simply to file the FIR.
“Even after I filed a case against the murderers, the panchayat came to bargain. They wanted to pay us off and offered Rs 1 crore. They said they’d sell land if required. Then they said, ‘You have daughters, we’ll do things to them.’ So the pressure was always there. It’s been three years of living in fear. They can do anything, any time. We face it. We live through it. There is no choice. And it’s not over or anything. I will see this through to the Supreme Court, if it reaches that point.”
No two persons can be as different as Chandrapati and Jindal. While she had the courage and gumption to take on the mightiest, our young parliamentarian decided to make a covenant with the forces of medievalism and barbarity. “I just feel, because they [khaps] are part of my parliamentary constituency, I have told them, they wanted to come and meet me and they wanted me to take the views to the government, to which I said, ‘Yes, I am duty-bound, so I would listen to you and I would take your views to the government’,” Jindal said.
What, pray, are the views of khap leaders? They want ban on marriages between same gotra. Their argument is that tradition does not allow such marriages; the Government should respect the customs of the country; therefore, same-gotra marriages should be legally prohibited. The argument is backed with force—brutal force. And the warning to youngsters is simple: you had better comply, or else…
Khaps say that exceptions were made in the Hindu marriage law, allowing union where customs said so. If local customs were earlier taken into account, they should be done now as well.
The fact is that the existing provisions expand the sphere of individual liberty, by letting marriage between certain tradition-sanctioned relations. Khaps, on the other hand, are hell-bent on shrinking that sphere by limiting people’s choice. And Jindal is “duty-bound” to take their retrograde views to the quarters that matter! So much for the ‘vision’ of our ‘young icons.’
Another, and bigger, icon is Rahul Gandhi who, in the words of Prof. Ravinder Kaur, is “fascinated by caste arithmetic, perfecting the art with modern technology and databases.” Is it moral progress if a cannibal uses spoon and fork? And is it a crusade for liberty if apparently modern, Westernized, and suave politicians masquerade their power-lust and Mandalite means with PR varnish?
Taking stock of Mr. Singh
When Prime Minister Manmohan Singh started his second term a year ago, there was considerable optimism in the air: Voters had marginalized small parties with petty, parochial agendas; the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party was in disarray; and Mr. Singh’s Congress Party had a strong political mandate. Given Mr. Singh’s profession as an economist and his role in India’s 1991 big-bang economic reforms, hopes were high that he would continue the reform agenda.
A year later, the government has produced only marginal action. The long-awaited third-generation mobile-phone spectrum auctions finally took place; disinvestment in public-sector companies is on track; and the national highways program, which languished under Congress’s first-term government, has been revived. Mr. Singh, to his credit, has laid special emphasis on fixing the country’s terrible infrastructure.
But, regrettably, little has been done in the spirit of real liberalization—that is, to roll back state from economy and increase the influence of the private sector in the economy. For instance, the government is selling minority stakes in state-run companies to dress up fiscal figures, not actually privatizing them, as its predecessor BJP-led government did. Major industries, such as banking and energy, remain largely state-run.
Nothing has been done to eliminate the residual legacies of the pre-1991, socialist past. India’s labor laws are antiquated and need to be made more flexible so that companies can react to changing market conditions. During Mr. Singh’s first term in office, he could never have contemplated reform in this area because of his alliance with the Communist Party. Yet now he’s ditched that alliance and still hasn’t touched this important area of reform.
Nor has Mr. Singh strengthened property-rights protection, either in the physical or intellectual sense. Farmers, especially in tribal areas, still have little right to transfer land they occupy and till. Companies, both domestic and foreign, struggle to protect their intellectual property. In one recent example, the Supreme Court denied Novartis a patent on a major cancer drug on the grounds that it wasn’t a major “innovation.” The company is appealing the decision, but the message to foreign investors has already been sent.
If anything, the Congress Party-led government has worked against the spirit of economic reforms. The most prominent example of this is the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, created during Congress’s first term in office. The scheme guarantees the rural poor 100 days of work at the taxpayer’s expense. Apart from bleeding the public fisc to the tune of Rs 40,000 crore, the Act is creating conditions for permanent serfdom, with the Indian state as the feudal lord and millions as dependents. Congress has also expanded the state’s remit in education and is considering passing a Right to Food Act, which would further increase deficit.
Politics remains the major impediment to reform. Mr. Singh is unelected to his own parliamentary seat and has no political base of his own. The real power in the Congress is chairwoman Sonia Gandhi, who reigns as what the BJP policy makers like to call a kind of “super-prime minister.” She takes care of the political affairs of the party and the ruling coalition, while Mr. Singh takes care of the day-to-day running of government. Her most recent intervention was in favor of a caste-based census, a backward-looking suggestion that the BJP also supports.
India can’t afford this kind of left-leaning governance. The world’s most populous democracy is still a very poor country, with hundreds of thousands of people lacking even the most basic necessities. So long as New Delhi tries to solve all problems with the state, the slower growth will be—and the more people will be confined to poverty. A weak state also can’t confront the growing internal and external security threats the country faces; in particular, Maoist violence which has killed hundreds over the past year over vast swathes of the country.
Mr. Singh isn’t an economic neophyte; he understands what needs to be done. But will he stand up to Mrs. Gandhi and push reform? If he doesn’t, the drift will only continue and deepen.
This article was published in Wall Street Journal Asia on May 27, 2010
A year later, the government has produced only marginal action. The long-awaited third-generation mobile-phone spectrum auctions finally took place; disinvestment in public-sector companies is on track; and the national highways program, which languished under Congress’s first-term government, has been revived. Mr. Singh, to his credit, has laid special emphasis on fixing the country’s terrible infrastructure.
But, regrettably, little has been done in the spirit of real liberalization—that is, to roll back state from economy and increase the influence of the private sector in the economy. For instance, the government is selling minority stakes in state-run companies to dress up fiscal figures, not actually privatizing them, as its predecessor BJP-led government did. Major industries, such as banking and energy, remain largely state-run.
Nothing has been done to eliminate the residual legacies of the pre-1991, socialist past. India’s labor laws are antiquated and need to be made more flexible so that companies can react to changing market conditions. During Mr. Singh’s first term in office, he could never have contemplated reform in this area because of his alliance with the Communist Party. Yet now he’s ditched that alliance and still hasn’t touched this important area of reform.
Nor has Mr. Singh strengthened property-rights protection, either in the physical or intellectual sense. Farmers, especially in tribal areas, still have little right to transfer land they occupy and till. Companies, both domestic and foreign, struggle to protect their intellectual property. In one recent example, the Supreme Court denied Novartis a patent on a major cancer drug on the grounds that it wasn’t a major “innovation.” The company is appealing the decision, but the message to foreign investors has already been sent.
If anything, the Congress Party-led government has worked against the spirit of economic reforms. The most prominent example of this is the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, created during Congress’s first term in office. The scheme guarantees the rural poor 100 days of work at the taxpayer’s expense. Apart from bleeding the public fisc to the tune of Rs 40,000 crore, the Act is creating conditions for permanent serfdom, with the Indian state as the feudal lord and millions as dependents. Congress has also expanded the state’s remit in education and is considering passing a Right to Food Act, which would further increase deficit.
Politics remains the major impediment to reform. Mr. Singh is unelected to his own parliamentary seat and has no political base of his own. The real power in the Congress is chairwoman Sonia Gandhi, who reigns as what the BJP policy makers like to call a kind of “super-prime minister.” She takes care of the political affairs of the party and the ruling coalition, while Mr. Singh takes care of the day-to-day running of government. Her most recent intervention was in favor of a caste-based census, a backward-looking suggestion that the BJP also supports.
India can’t afford this kind of left-leaning governance. The world’s most populous democracy is still a very poor country, with hundreds of thousands of people lacking even the most basic necessities. So long as New Delhi tries to solve all problems with the state, the slower growth will be—and the more people will be confined to poverty. A weak state also can’t confront the growing internal and external security threats the country faces; in particular, Maoist violence which has killed hundreds over the past year over vast swathes of the country.
Mr. Singh isn’t an economic neophyte; he understands what needs to be done. But will he stand up to Mrs. Gandhi and push reform? If he doesn’t, the drift will only continue and deepen.
This article was published in Wall Street Journal Asia on May 27, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
Unchecked in India: Political correctness takes giant strides
In Western countries Right-leaning authors, columnists, and commentators often bemoan the cantankerousness and absurdity of political correctness. This is not surprising because PC has become not only an abomination plaguing common parlance and free speech but also a device for the Left to promote its irrationalities and pathologies. In India, however, it is not just the Left but practically all political parties and social organizations that are ardently, and sometime violently, championing PC. At any rate, the casualty is always freedom of expression.
It is seldom that violent PC is successfully checked. In a recent such instance, the country’s Supreme Court came to the rescue of south Indian film actress Khusboo for her statement on pre-marital sex, virginity, and live-in relationships. In an interview in 2005, she had said it was not wrong for women to have pre-marital sex as long as they took precautions. Further, the Tamil actress said, it was “not fair of any educated youth to expect his wife to be a virgin.” She also found nothing objectionable in live-in relationships.
The reaction to her remarks was swift and severe. Many political parties and a few people from the film industry itself castigated her for, what they called, an attack on “Tamil culture and values.” The Dalit Panthers of India (DPI) and another political party, the Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK), protested against her; the protest often degenerated into violence. But it was not the violent protestors and their instigators who were found on the wrong side of the law; Khushboo, on the other hand, faced more than 20 criminal suits filed against her! One reason was PMK was part of the ruling coalition in New Delhi, with its leader A. Ramadoss being the Health Minister at that time.
Hounded by the law as well as the lawless, Khushboo offered an open apology to Tamils, especially women, saying she would never even dream of sullying the image of the Tamil people. “Even in films, I never undertook roles that lowered the image of women,” she said in a statement. “I have the greatest regard for Tamils, especially Tamil women. If my remarks have hurt anybody’s feelings, I tender an apology. I am one among you and will always remain with you.” But her tormentors were unrelenting.
Her trials and tribulations are likely to end as the Supreme Court has made its sympathy for her quite evident. Its three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, did not find anything wrong with live-in relationships, incorporating it in Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the Right to Life with dignity, liberty, and respect.
The relief for Khushboo, however, came after over four years of prosecution, persecution, and vilification. It is interesting to note that the outfits which waged a jihad against her could scarcely be categorized as Rightwing. The DPI claims to be fighting for the Dalits—literally, ‘the oppressed.’ These outcastes were discriminated against in Hindu scriptures. The very name of the party was inspired by that of Black Panther Party of the US. The PMK, too, claims to represent a supposedly ‘backward’ community.
The Khushboo affair underlines not only the threats to the freedom of speech and expression but also the blurring of ideological divisions in India. The parties and groups which are often called Rightist or Right-leaning also promote causes which would elsewhere be considered Leftwing. For instance, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the largest Opposition party for which the terms conservative and nationalist are used, has supported Leftwing measures like increasing the scope of affirmative action and the national rural employment guarantee scheme. All political parties prefer to conform to the dogmas of political discourse, which is clearly Leftist in tone and tenor. The BJP, like other parties, has unquestioningly accepted, even internalized, many premises and principles of the dominant political discourse.
The consequences of ideological straitjacketing have been deplorable. All parties, willy-nilly, end up supporting the causes promoted by the Left: the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005; the reserving one-third seats for women in the Lower House of Parliament and in state Assemblies; the recently notified Right to Education Act; and long goes the list of measures that the Left—though small as far as numbers are concerned—has been able to impose on the nation.
Another group promoting big state measures, and which is often aligned with Leftists or Marxists, comprises political leaders who represent various Dalit or ‘backward’ castes. The ideological straitjacketing is so tight and vicious that even a murmur of protest against any proposal by these parties or leaders is immediately dubbed as anti-poor, anti-Dalit, anti-backward, elitist, etc. Needless to say, reason and commonsense have almost been ostracized from political discourse, which is swayed by sentimentalism.
This brings us to another conspicuous feature of Indian politics: the proclivity of politicians to appeal to the crudest, crassest, and basest of public sentiments. It happens all the time. A Hindi film was named Billu barber; some caste group found the word ‘barber’ offensive. The filmmaker was forced to drop the word ‘barber’ from the name. The lyrics of a Hindi film song had to be changed; Teli ka tel (edible oil made by oil-maker) was replaced by Dilli ka tel (oil from Delhi) because the traditional oil-makers, or Telis, objected to the word. The mere mention of a word denoting a profession becomes politically incorrect.
Pandering to the lowest common denominator has put sanctimoniousness on premium and has made reason a useless virtue; it has also ensured that PC in India fashions a trajectory for itself quite different from that in the West. Spewing gross sentimentalism brings immediate publicity which, in turn, sometimes also translates into political and pecuniary gains. Unsurprisingly, most attacks on the freedom of expression are made on the pretext that the movie, book, etc, “hurt the sentiments” of this or that community.
In the US, there are writers and groups fighting PC; they regularly point out the ludicrousness and menace of PC. In India, PC is wreaking havoc with all political parties—the Leftist, the Rightist, and the Centrist—seeking to capitalize on it.
It is seldom that violent PC is successfully checked. In a recent such instance, the country’s Supreme Court came to the rescue of south Indian film actress Khusboo for her statement on pre-marital sex, virginity, and live-in relationships. In an interview in 2005, she had said it was not wrong for women to have pre-marital sex as long as they took precautions. Further, the Tamil actress said, it was “not fair of any educated youth to expect his wife to be a virgin.” She also found nothing objectionable in live-in relationships.
The reaction to her remarks was swift and severe. Many political parties and a few people from the film industry itself castigated her for, what they called, an attack on “Tamil culture and values.” The Dalit Panthers of India (DPI) and another political party, the Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK), protested against her; the protest often degenerated into violence. But it was not the violent protestors and their instigators who were found on the wrong side of the law; Khushboo, on the other hand, faced more than 20 criminal suits filed against her! One reason was PMK was part of the ruling coalition in New Delhi, with its leader A. Ramadoss being the Health Minister at that time.
Hounded by the law as well as the lawless, Khushboo offered an open apology to Tamils, especially women, saying she would never even dream of sullying the image of the Tamil people. “Even in films, I never undertook roles that lowered the image of women,” she said in a statement. “I have the greatest regard for Tamils, especially Tamil women. If my remarks have hurt anybody’s feelings, I tender an apology. I am one among you and will always remain with you.” But her tormentors were unrelenting.
Her trials and tribulations are likely to end as the Supreme Court has made its sympathy for her quite evident. Its three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, did not find anything wrong with live-in relationships, incorporating it in Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the Right to Life with dignity, liberty, and respect.
The relief for Khushboo, however, came after over four years of prosecution, persecution, and vilification. It is interesting to note that the outfits which waged a jihad against her could scarcely be categorized as Rightwing. The DPI claims to be fighting for the Dalits—literally, ‘the oppressed.’ These outcastes were discriminated against in Hindu scriptures. The very name of the party was inspired by that of Black Panther Party of the US. The PMK, too, claims to represent a supposedly ‘backward’ community.
The Khushboo affair underlines not only the threats to the freedom of speech and expression but also the blurring of ideological divisions in India. The parties and groups which are often called Rightist or Right-leaning also promote causes which would elsewhere be considered Leftwing. For instance, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the largest Opposition party for which the terms conservative and nationalist are used, has supported Leftwing measures like increasing the scope of affirmative action and the national rural employment guarantee scheme. All political parties prefer to conform to the dogmas of political discourse, which is clearly Leftist in tone and tenor. The BJP, like other parties, has unquestioningly accepted, even internalized, many premises and principles of the dominant political discourse.
The consequences of ideological straitjacketing have been deplorable. All parties, willy-nilly, end up supporting the causes promoted by the Left: the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005; the reserving one-third seats for women in the Lower House of Parliament and in state Assemblies; the recently notified Right to Education Act; and long goes the list of measures that the Left—though small as far as numbers are concerned—has been able to impose on the nation.
Another group promoting big state measures, and which is often aligned with Leftists or Marxists, comprises political leaders who represent various Dalit or ‘backward’ castes. The ideological straitjacketing is so tight and vicious that even a murmur of protest against any proposal by these parties or leaders is immediately dubbed as anti-poor, anti-Dalit, anti-backward, elitist, etc. Needless to say, reason and commonsense have almost been ostracized from political discourse, which is swayed by sentimentalism.
This brings us to another conspicuous feature of Indian politics: the proclivity of politicians to appeal to the crudest, crassest, and basest of public sentiments. It happens all the time. A Hindi film was named Billu barber; some caste group found the word ‘barber’ offensive. The filmmaker was forced to drop the word ‘barber’ from the name. The lyrics of a Hindi film song had to be changed; Teli ka tel (edible oil made by oil-maker) was replaced by Dilli ka tel (oil from Delhi) because the traditional oil-makers, or Telis, objected to the word. The mere mention of a word denoting a profession becomes politically incorrect.
Pandering to the lowest common denominator has put sanctimoniousness on premium and has made reason a useless virtue; it has also ensured that PC in India fashions a trajectory for itself quite different from that in the West. Spewing gross sentimentalism brings immediate publicity which, in turn, sometimes also translates into political and pecuniary gains. Unsurprisingly, most attacks on the freedom of expression are made on the pretext that the movie, book, etc, “hurt the sentiments” of this or that community.
In the US, there are writers and groups fighting PC; they regularly point out the ludicrousness and menace of PC. In India, PC is wreaking havoc with all political parties—the Leftist, the Rightist, and the Centrist—seeking to capitalize on it.
Others also do it?
If anybody claims that Islamic terror is doctrinally justified (which is a fact), they are confronted with the fallacious argument that other religions are no better. There are portions in the scriptures of Christianity and Hinduism that are not exactly in consonance with the ideas and ideals of the Enlightenment. Since all religions have preached violence—and their adherents have slaughtered non-believers, the blasphemous, and heretics—Islam should not be singled out for doing so. QED.
The fallacy lies essentially in blurring the timeline, misinterpreting the impact of various theologies, and leveling religions. It is true that the scriptures of other religions also preach violence. In the Bible, Lord sanctions the enslaving of strangers or heathens; He also exhorts the faithful to kill anyone who worships a different god .
Similarly, in a famous verse, the sacred Hindu epic, Ramacharitamanas, says, “A drum, a rustic, a Shudra (an outcaste), a beast and a woman—all these deserve to be beaten. Similarly, Manusmriti, the book by the preeminent lawgiver, Manu, makes derogatory remarks about women and Shudras. In short, it is not only Islamic scriptures which preach violence and intensify prejudice; the religious texts of other faiths are no better in this regard.
For centuries, Hindu texts have not only molded legislation and social mores in India—in the same fashion that Christian dogma and prejudice have been the cause of witch-hunts and atrocities on Jews and heretics. In India, religious bias still sometimes results into unspeakable atrocities.
But the point is that today Hindus and Christians are not doing the terrible things that their forebears did in the medieval period. Nor are they demanding that the polity and society should be reorganized according to their religious texts. In the case of Islam, however, such demands are forcefully made—and accepted partially or fully. A large number of Muslims, including many educated and apparently Westernized Muslims, want Shariat to be the fount of jurisprudence.
Worse, liberals compare the atrocities perpetrated by the Hindus and Christians in the medieval period with jihadi terror in the 21st century, and try to show that there is nothing exceptional about such terror.
The fact is that Islamic terror in this day and age is exceptional: while the adherents of other faiths have discarded the distasteful elements of their religions, Muslims refuse to follow suit. A vast majority of them believes that the Koran is the Word of Allah and, therefore, is unalterable. Exegesis has found little space in Islamic theology—at least, till date. Other religions like Hinduism and Christianity have evolved over the centuries. The way Hinduism was practiced in the 14th century—myriad rituals, degradation of Shudras, subjugation of women, elaborate caste rules, rigid customs—is not how it is done today. Ditto with Christianity. It is not that nothing has changed in the Muslim world but the change has come in spite of, not because of, Islam.
Muslim scholars and many non-Muslim experts on Islam do not deny the lack of evolution in the Islamic world, but they refuse to see anything wrong with Islam. For instance, Mohamed Charfi—a Professor of Law in Tunis, Minister for Education (1989-94), a great reformist intellectual who was sentenced to two years' imprisonment—says, “Islam is no less capable of evolution than Christianity or Judaism. But whereas, over the past few centuries, Europeans have undergone profound technological, economic, cultural and political changes, often amid considerable suffering and with major ebbs and flows, the Muslim peoples have fallen greatly behind in all spheres. This is not a fate to which they are doomed for ever; it is possible for them to close the gap.”
The unwillingness to look beyond the “technological, economic, cultural and political” factors, the reluctance to examine Islamic theology is at the root of problem. Hinduism, Christianity, and other religions have been subjected to thorough scholarly scrutiny. The loathsome practice of female feticide is (rightly) attributed to certain Hindu beliefs. But when it comes to Islam… well, we have to be careful.
Then there is the issue of religions leveling. Well-known Islamic scholar Karen Armstrong wrote, “Every fundamentalist movement I’ve studied in Judaism, Christianity and Islam is convinced at some gut, visceral level that secular liberal society wants to wipe out religion.”
Notice the dangerous syllogism. All fundamentalist movements are illiberal; Islamic fundamentalism is also illiberal; ergo, it is no worse than other fundamentalist movements. The danger lies in confusing the magnitudes: Hindu and Christian fundamentalists might have been involved a few, sporadic violent incidents, but neither the scale and scope has been as vast as evident in the case of jihadis nor the level of organization and commitment as exhibited by al-Qaeda.
The entire Muslim and liberal enterprise is oriented around the unexamined axiom that the violence by jihadis is not about Islam. But, as Salman Rushdie said in a famous post-9/11 article, this is about Islam.
The fallacy lies essentially in blurring the timeline, misinterpreting the impact of various theologies, and leveling religions. It is true that the scriptures of other religions also preach violence. In the Bible, Lord sanctions the enslaving of strangers or heathens; He also exhorts the faithful to kill anyone who worships a different god .
Similarly, in a famous verse, the sacred Hindu epic, Ramacharitamanas, says, “A drum, a rustic, a Shudra (an outcaste), a beast and a woman—all these deserve to be beaten. Similarly, Manusmriti, the book by the preeminent lawgiver, Manu, makes derogatory remarks about women and Shudras. In short, it is not only Islamic scriptures which preach violence and intensify prejudice; the religious texts of other faiths are no better in this regard.
For centuries, Hindu texts have not only molded legislation and social mores in India—in the same fashion that Christian dogma and prejudice have been the cause of witch-hunts and atrocities on Jews and heretics. In India, religious bias still sometimes results into unspeakable atrocities.
But the point is that today Hindus and Christians are not doing the terrible things that their forebears did in the medieval period. Nor are they demanding that the polity and society should be reorganized according to their religious texts. In the case of Islam, however, such demands are forcefully made—and accepted partially or fully. A large number of Muslims, including many educated and apparently Westernized Muslims, want Shariat to be the fount of jurisprudence.
Worse, liberals compare the atrocities perpetrated by the Hindus and Christians in the medieval period with jihadi terror in the 21st century, and try to show that there is nothing exceptional about such terror.
The fact is that Islamic terror in this day and age is exceptional: while the adherents of other faiths have discarded the distasteful elements of their religions, Muslims refuse to follow suit. A vast majority of them believes that the Koran is the Word of Allah and, therefore, is unalterable. Exegesis has found little space in Islamic theology—at least, till date. Other religions like Hinduism and Christianity have evolved over the centuries. The way Hinduism was practiced in the 14th century—myriad rituals, degradation of Shudras, subjugation of women, elaborate caste rules, rigid customs—is not how it is done today. Ditto with Christianity. It is not that nothing has changed in the Muslim world but the change has come in spite of, not because of, Islam.
Muslim scholars and many non-Muslim experts on Islam do not deny the lack of evolution in the Islamic world, but they refuse to see anything wrong with Islam. For instance, Mohamed Charfi—a Professor of Law in Tunis, Minister for Education (1989-94), a great reformist intellectual who was sentenced to two years' imprisonment—says, “Islam is no less capable of evolution than Christianity or Judaism. But whereas, over the past few centuries, Europeans have undergone profound technological, economic, cultural and political changes, often amid considerable suffering and with major ebbs and flows, the Muslim peoples have fallen greatly behind in all spheres. This is not a fate to which they are doomed for ever; it is possible for them to close the gap.”
The unwillingness to look beyond the “technological, economic, cultural and political” factors, the reluctance to examine Islamic theology is at the root of problem. Hinduism, Christianity, and other religions have been subjected to thorough scholarly scrutiny. The loathsome practice of female feticide is (rightly) attributed to certain Hindu beliefs. But when it comes to Islam… well, we have to be careful.
Then there is the issue of religions leveling. Well-known Islamic scholar Karen Armstrong wrote, “Every fundamentalist movement I’ve studied in Judaism, Christianity and Islam is convinced at some gut, visceral level that secular liberal society wants to wipe out religion.”
Notice the dangerous syllogism. All fundamentalist movements are illiberal; Islamic fundamentalism is also illiberal; ergo, it is no worse than other fundamentalist movements. The danger lies in confusing the magnitudes: Hindu and Christian fundamentalists might have been involved a few, sporadic violent incidents, but neither the scale and scope has been as vast as evident in the case of jihadis nor the level of organization and commitment as exhibited by al-Qaeda.
The entire Muslim and liberal enterprise is oriented around the unexamined axiom that the violence by jihadis is not about Islam. But, as Salman Rushdie said in a famous post-9/11 article, this is about Islam.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Rule by law: Delhi minister harasses hotel
Delhi’s Social Welfare & Labour Minister Mangat Ram Singhal’s vindictiveness against a five-star hotel demonstrates how government agencies are used and abused by politicians to serve their personal ends.
The security staff of the hotel committed the cardinal sin of checking Singhal’s car. Since most politicians consider themselves as above law, the honorable got so furious. So, he unleashed eight inspectors on the hotel. Even by the standards of Indian politics, the display of might was so disgraceful that Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit felt ashamed. She decided to rein in the wayward minister and his men. She reprimanded Singhal; she also pulled up senior officers of the departments involved such as Labour, Excise, Health, Finance, Prevention of Food Adulteration and Electrical. She is said to have castigated the officers for “wasting government resources” and ordered them to apologise to the hotel individually.
It was a big hotel, run by a leading company. The ill-treatment meted out to it was righted by a sensible chief minister. One wonders about the plight of smaller enterprises which are always at the mercy of our political masters and the paraphernalia that they have under them to dictate terms.
This is not the rule of law; this is the rule by law. Aristotle favored the rule of law, writing that “law should govern”; those in power should be “servants of the laws.”
One of the prerequisites of modern democracy is the rule of law. A prominent political scientist, Li Shuguang, illuminates us by distinguishing the rule of law by the rule by law. “The difference.... is that under the rule of law the law is preeminent and can serve as a check against the abuse of power. Under rule by law, the law can serve as a mere tool for a government that suppresses in a legalistic fashion.”
The Singhal episode clearly shows that we have the rule by law. It has also highlighted the fact that the government officials are putty in the hands of politicians. A few days ago, the then Indian Premier League Commissioner, Lalit Modi, was interrogated by officials. The timing made it all obvious: it came just after his well-publicized fight with former minister of state for external affairs Shashi Tharoor. The high and mighty in New Delhi were offended: how could an upstart cricket czar take on one of us. So, the empire struck back. Unfortunately, non-Congress regimes have been equally bad on this count. The Atal Bihari Vajpayee government, for instance, vengefully persecuted and prosecuted the promoters and financiers of Tehelka after the Bangaru Laxman affair.
The politicians are unlikely to promote the rule of law. We, the people of India, will have to do that.
The security staff of the hotel committed the cardinal sin of checking Singhal’s car. Since most politicians consider themselves as above law, the honorable got so furious. So, he unleashed eight inspectors on the hotel. Even by the standards of Indian politics, the display of might was so disgraceful that Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit felt ashamed. She decided to rein in the wayward minister and his men. She reprimanded Singhal; she also pulled up senior officers of the departments involved such as Labour, Excise, Health, Finance, Prevention of Food Adulteration and Electrical. She is said to have castigated the officers for “wasting government resources” and ordered them to apologise to the hotel individually.
It was a big hotel, run by a leading company. The ill-treatment meted out to it was righted by a sensible chief minister. One wonders about the plight of smaller enterprises which are always at the mercy of our political masters and the paraphernalia that they have under them to dictate terms.
This is not the rule of law; this is the rule by law. Aristotle favored the rule of law, writing that “law should govern”; those in power should be “servants of the laws.”
One of the prerequisites of modern democracy is the rule of law. A prominent political scientist, Li Shuguang, illuminates us by distinguishing the rule of law by the rule by law. “The difference.... is that under the rule of law the law is preeminent and can serve as a check against the abuse of power. Under rule by law, the law can serve as a mere tool for a government that suppresses in a legalistic fashion.”
The Singhal episode clearly shows that we have the rule by law. It has also highlighted the fact that the government officials are putty in the hands of politicians. A few days ago, the then Indian Premier League Commissioner, Lalit Modi, was interrogated by officials. The timing made it all obvious: it came just after his well-publicized fight with former minister of state for external affairs Shashi Tharoor. The high and mighty in New Delhi were offended: how could an upstart cricket czar take on one of us. So, the empire struck back. Unfortunately, non-Congress regimes have been equally bad on this count. The Atal Bihari Vajpayee government, for instance, vengefully persecuted and prosecuted the promoters and financiers of Tehelka after the Bangaru Laxman affair.
The politicians are unlikely to promote the rule of law. We, the people of India, will have to do that.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Enemies of pleasure
The puritan, wrote Thomas B Macaulay, hated bear baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators. There are not many puritans in India in the literal sense of the word—that is, a significant grouping of English-speaking Protestants in the 16th and 17th-century. But the puritanical spirit is ubiquitous in our political class. Our netas are aghast that people are having fun. Make no mistake about it: they are not scandalized because a minister has been found involved in financial irregularities—Shashi Tharoor is not the first minister to have faced such accusations and, unfortunately, would not be the last one; they are outraged that something so glitzy and glamorous has become so popular. Rockstar status of cricketers, jazzy cheerleaders, dance and drama, the entire nation glued to TV sets—how could the people be allowed to have so much pleasure? So, senior Congress leader and Overseas Indians Minister Vayalar Ravi feels that the Indian Premier League is “glorified gambling.” Communist Party of India (CPI) MP Gurudas Dasgupta made is clear that the Tharoor episode was just tangential. “The minister’s resignation is not the issue. The issue is the IPL... (The) issue is laundering of money. All this is happening under the nose of the Government of India… Cricket is being maligned in the country. Wrong message is given to the budding cricketers to join the Twenty20 and earn crores.”
Then there was also the Yadav triumvirate—Lalu Prasad (RJD), Mulayam Singh Yadav (SP) and Sharad Yadav (JD-U). They want the Government to disband the IPL which has become a “betting and gambling ring.” Sharad Yadav alleged that IPL was “vulgar” and a “den of vices, black money and loot.” Notice how vague allegations—at least at the time when such remarks were made in Parliament—have been blindly accepted as gospel truth. Also notice the sermonizing by the leaders who do not have even an iota of regard for democracy, Parliamentary decorum, and decency—as evident from their words and deeds over the Women’s Reservation Bill. Yet another point to be noticed is the broad consensus across the political and ideological spectrum; everybody is railing against a sporting event that is lapped up by the people. Do the politicians fear that the IPL phenomenon would undermine their own popularity? Well, IPL cannot hurt the prospects of politicians. So, are our political masters angry just because the people love IPL? This seems to be more likely, because there is a strong moralizing streak in our netas; they prefer carefully laid-out prescriptions and proscriptions. Quite evidently, the IPL entertainment flouts doesn’t give a damn to the preachy sermons of our political masters. Perhaps, this enrages them.
Then there was also the Yadav triumvirate—Lalu Prasad (RJD), Mulayam Singh Yadav (SP) and Sharad Yadav (JD-U). They want the Government to disband the IPL which has become a “betting and gambling ring.” Sharad Yadav alleged that IPL was “vulgar” and a “den of vices, black money and loot.” Notice how vague allegations—at least at the time when such remarks were made in Parliament—have been blindly accepted as gospel truth. Also notice the sermonizing by the leaders who do not have even an iota of regard for democracy, Parliamentary decorum, and decency—as evident from their words and deeds over the Women’s Reservation Bill. Yet another point to be noticed is the broad consensus across the political and ideological spectrum; everybody is railing against a sporting event that is lapped up by the people. Do the politicians fear that the IPL phenomenon would undermine their own popularity? Well, IPL cannot hurt the prospects of politicians. So, are our political masters angry just because the people love IPL? This seems to be more likely, because there is a strong moralizing streak in our netas; they prefer carefully laid-out prescriptions and proscriptions. Quite evidently, the IPL entertainment flouts doesn’t give a damn to the preachy sermons of our political masters. Perhaps, this enrages them.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Human rights groups: Maoists’ B-team
That human rights groups often act as B-team or over-ground operatives of Maoists is becoming increasingly evident. Often, the sympathies, if not affiliations, become obvious. A few recent statements by human rights champions smack of their ideological leanings.
People’s Union for Democratic Rights, Delhi (PUDR) secretary Gautam Navlakha wrote in The Economic Times (February 26), that the war against CPI (Maoist) should “be replaced by dialogue... The war on Maoists is not because they want to overthrow the presently-constituted Indian state—they have been trying that for nearly half a century.
“And, according to senior Maoist leaders themselves, it will take another 50-60 years to succeed. Besides, at present, in the PM’s words, the Maoists possess ‘modest capabilities.’ Nor is it because of their wanton acts of violence. The record of parliamentary parties, in varying degree of culpability, is not better, if not worse.”
Notice the audacity implicit in Navlakha’s candor: he makes no bones about the ultimate goal of the Maoists, that is, destruction of Indian democracy. Notice also the subterfuge: since the Maoists’ combat capabilities are modest, India should not take them seriously. We should fight them only after 50-60 years when they are ready! It is like saying that I should ignore my enemy who has sworn to kill me just because he is weak at this point of time! Let him strengthen himself, and then I should take him on—to get slaughtered at his hands!
And, of course, there is moral equivalence: the Maoists indulge in “wanton acts of violence,” but “the record of parliamentary parties, in varying degree of culpability, is not better, if not worse.” Such attitude is the hallmark of all arguments posited by Leftists and liberals
“Civil rights activists oppose war against our own people because political aspirations ought not to be suppressed militarily,” wrote Navlakha. Well, the Maoists are not “our own people”; they are the people of Mao. Therefore, they believe in the Great Helmsman’s dictum that power flows from the barrel of the gun. Those who live by the gun should not be complaining if they face superior firepower. And, at any rate, “political aspirations” are different from totalitarian intentions.
Unfortunately, Navlakha is not the only purveyor of lies; there are a large number of people, some of them public figures, who are compulsively mendacious. On March 1, some of them called a press conference to lament that the Indian state has turned monstrous in its war on Maoists (which, these worthies believe, is actually a war against tribals). Human rights activists, journalists and fact-finding committees were being targeted, advocate Prashant Bhushan alleged.
“The government has done little for the tribals and now they are trying to snatch their land. When tribals agitate peacefully, the State security forces descend on them, harass them and burn their villages. About 700 villages have been burnt in the past two years in Chhattisgarh. People are bound to protest and take up arms. For every 100 Maoists eliminated, thousands are created through collateral damage,” Bhushan said.
Notice the chicanery: the campaign against murderous Maoists has been transmogrified into a war against tribals. Of course, no evidence is given to support the outlandish claim. And those of Bhushan’s ilk will never accept that the Maoists are ruthlessly killing tribals in Chhattisgarh.
At the press conference, Justice Rajinder Sachar (Retd) was also present. This man is the embodiment of all that is ossified in India. An inveterate sympathizer of terrorists, he earned eternal disgrace for himself by heading a committee on Muslims and recommending boundless appeasement. He said: “The state cannot be a terrorist. It is the ultimate repository of law and order. Talks should happen between the government and the Maoists in an open atmosphere where there is no fear. Both sides should cease hostilities for dialogue to take place.”
The Navalakhas, the Bhushans, and the Sachars always tell us to embrace those who kill us. Pakistanis send jihadis to bomb our cities and slaughter our citizens, but we should continue to hold talks with Islamabad. The Maoists gun down our security personnel and liquidate the common citizens not falling in line—as the brave tribals in Chhattisgarh—but “talks should happen between the government and the Maoists.”
And, by the way, Mr. Sachar, which “both sides” are you talking about? Can the thuggish Maoists by any stretch of imagination be equated with the security personnel? On the one side are the followers of the world’s greatest butcher, Mao; on the other side are the soldiers of the biggest democracy. What is the comparison? Such moral equivalence just shows Sachar’s own moral bankruptcy and intellectual hollowness.
It is time the media and other opinion-makers exposed the duplicity and insidiousness of the so-called human rights activists.
People’s Union for Democratic Rights, Delhi (PUDR) secretary Gautam Navlakha wrote in The Economic Times (February 26), that the war against CPI (Maoist) should “be replaced by dialogue... The war on Maoists is not because they want to overthrow the presently-constituted Indian state—they have been trying that for nearly half a century.
“And, according to senior Maoist leaders themselves, it will take another 50-60 years to succeed. Besides, at present, in the PM’s words, the Maoists possess ‘modest capabilities.’ Nor is it because of their wanton acts of violence. The record of parliamentary parties, in varying degree of culpability, is not better, if not worse.”
Notice the audacity implicit in Navlakha’s candor: he makes no bones about the ultimate goal of the Maoists, that is, destruction of Indian democracy. Notice also the subterfuge: since the Maoists’ combat capabilities are modest, India should not take them seriously. We should fight them only after 50-60 years when they are ready! It is like saying that I should ignore my enemy who has sworn to kill me just because he is weak at this point of time! Let him strengthen himself, and then I should take him on—to get slaughtered at his hands!
And, of course, there is moral equivalence: the Maoists indulge in “wanton acts of violence,” but “the record of parliamentary parties, in varying degree of culpability, is not better, if not worse.” Such attitude is the hallmark of all arguments posited by Leftists and liberals
“Civil rights activists oppose war against our own people because political aspirations ought not to be suppressed militarily,” wrote Navlakha. Well, the Maoists are not “our own people”; they are the people of Mao. Therefore, they believe in the Great Helmsman’s dictum that power flows from the barrel of the gun. Those who live by the gun should not be complaining if they face superior firepower. And, at any rate, “political aspirations” are different from totalitarian intentions.
Unfortunately, Navlakha is not the only purveyor of lies; there are a large number of people, some of them public figures, who are compulsively mendacious. On March 1, some of them called a press conference to lament that the Indian state has turned monstrous in its war on Maoists (which, these worthies believe, is actually a war against tribals). Human rights activists, journalists and fact-finding committees were being targeted, advocate Prashant Bhushan alleged.
“The government has done little for the tribals and now they are trying to snatch their land. When tribals agitate peacefully, the State security forces descend on them, harass them and burn their villages. About 700 villages have been burnt in the past two years in Chhattisgarh. People are bound to protest and take up arms. For every 100 Maoists eliminated, thousands are created through collateral damage,” Bhushan said.
Notice the chicanery: the campaign against murderous Maoists has been transmogrified into a war against tribals. Of course, no evidence is given to support the outlandish claim. And those of Bhushan’s ilk will never accept that the Maoists are ruthlessly killing tribals in Chhattisgarh.
At the press conference, Justice Rajinder Sachar (Retd) was also present. This man is the embodiment of all that is ossified in India. An inveterate sympathizer of terrorists, he earned eternal disgrace for himself by heading a committee on Muslims and recommending boundless appeasement. He said: “The state cannot be a terrorist. It is the ultimate repository of law and order. Talks should happen between the government and the Maoists in an open atmosphere where there is no fear. Both sides should cease hostilities for dialogue to take place.”
The Navalakhas, the Bhushans, and the Sachars always tell us to embrace those who kill us. Pakistanis send jihadis to bomb our cities and slaughter our citizens, but we should continue to hold talks with Islamabad. The Maoists gun down our security personnel and liquidate the common citizens not falling in line—as the brave tribals in Chhattisgarh—but “talks should happen between the government and the Maoists.”
And, by the way, Mr. Sachar, which “both sides” are you talking about? Can the thuggish Maoists by any stretch of imagination be equated with the security personnel? On the one side are the followers of the world’s greatest butcher, Mao; on the other side are the soldiers of the biggest democracy. What is the comparison? Such moral equivalence just shows Sachar’s own moral bankruptcy and intellectual hollowness.
It is time the media and other opinion-makers exposed the duplicity and insidiousness of the so-called human rights activists.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
The only good Taliban is dead Taliban
Who chopped off the heads of Sikhs in the North-West province of Pakistan because they refused to convert to Islam? Is it the ‘good Taliban’—with whom US President Barack Obama, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and other world leaders want to do business?
I wonder how Obama, always soft on jihadis, would even describe the outrage. Under him, the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review and the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review have practically banned the use of words ‘Muslim’ or ‘Islam.’ Obamaspeak is likely to call the murderers as ‘violent extremist,’ and not jihadis, lest it hurts the sentiments of the people who follow ‘the religion of peace.’
The Taliban unleash a reign of terror, murder at will, terrorize religious minorities, subjugate women, suppress any dissenting voice, and want to herd the entire world to medieval barbarity. And what does the international community, led by the US—supposedly the champion of liberty, pluralism and democracy—do? Well, it timidly accepts Taliban ruthlessness. It even intends to buy peace, offering hundreds of millions of dollars to them, as it did at the recently held London conference to ensure their comeback.
And what does India do? Typically, it issues strong statements. “We condemn this barbaric act of Taliban who have taken into custody three of the Indian nationals. The message that I have received which needs to be updated is that one has been done away with and other two are kept under captivation,” External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna said.
Minister of State for External Affairs Parneet Kaur offered running commentary: “Last time, Sikhs were threatened to pay Jazia and Pakistan had said it is its internal matter, I appeal to Pakistan to take strict action.” Appeal to Pakistan? Did we get it right? New Delhi would appeal to those who unleashed the Taliban on the world in the first place? Could the tragedy become more farcical?
The politicians of India should get real. They should comprehend the vileness of Taliban. They should also beware of the duplicity of Islamabad.
Our leaders have failed miserably in convincing the world capitals that Pakistan’s support to the West’s war on terror is phony. Even now it is not late. India should highlight the fact that the evil Pakistan has spawned is a menace to all, and that the only good Taliban are dead Taliban.
I wonder how Obama, always soft on jihadis, would even describe the outrage. Under him, the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review and the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review have practically banned the use of words ‘Muslim’ or ‘Islam.’ Obamaspeak is likely to call the murderers as ‘violent extremist,’ and not jihadis, lest it hurts the sentiments of the people who follow ‘the religion of peace.’
The Taliban unleash a reign of terror, murder at will, terrorize religious minorities, subjugate women, suppress any dissenting voice, and want to herd the entire world to medieval barbarity. And what does the international community, led by the US—supposedly the champion of liberty, pluralism and democracy—do? Well, it timidly accepts Taliban ruthlessness. It even intends to buy peace, offering hundreds of millions of dollars to them, as it did at the recently held London conference to ensure their comeback.
And what does India do? Typically, it issues strong statements. “We condemn this barbaric act of Taliban who have taken into custody three of the Indian nationals. The message that I have received which needs to be updated is that one has been done away with and other two are kept under captivation,” External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna said.
Minister of State for External Affairs Parneet Kaur offered running commentary: “Last time, Sikhs were threatened to pay Jazia and Pakistan had said it is its internal matter, I appeal to Pakistan to take strict action.” Appeal to Pakistan? Did we get it right? New Delhi would appeal to those who unleashed the Taliban on the world in the first place? Could the tragedy become more farcical?
The politicians of India should get real. They should comprehend the vileness of Taliban. They should also beware of the duplicity of Islamabad.
Our leaders have failed miserably in convincing the world capitals that Pakistan’s support to the West’s war on terror is phony. Even now it is not late. India should highlight the fact that the evil Pakistan has spawned is a menace to all, and that the only good Taliban are dead Taliban.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Shameless politicians sympathize with murderers
With India facing grievous terror threat from the Maoists (or Naxalites) and jihadis, one would have expected the powers to be getting their act together to fight the mortal enemies of the nation. But, alas, that was not to be! Our political masters are not serious about the war on terror.
Consider the case of Railway Minister and Trinamool Congress Mamata Banerjee. Her ties with Maoists are no secret; in fact, she benefited because of her relations with the Naxalites in the last general elections. Her relations with the ultras adversely affected last year’s operations against them at Lalgarh.
Now, she has reportedly forced the Union Cabinet to drop from the Presidential address to the joint session of Parliament a condemnation of the murderous Naxal strike on the EFR camp at Silda in the West Midnapore district in West Bengal on February 15. Monday, which left 24 jawans dead and many injured. At the insistence of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the Cabinet nevertheless agreed to include a general condemnation of Maoist attacks all over the country in recent months.
“What is the proof that the attack was carried out by Maoists? If at all, it appears to be the handiwork of CPM. I would urge the Prime Minister to first order an inquiry into the incident,” Mamata reportedly told her Cabinet colleagues.
In our times, the merchants of falsehood find refuge in the what-is-the-proof line of argumentation. This comes handy when one is promoting any vile cause, be it Naxalism or jihad. What is the proof that the young Muslim men killed at Batla House in Delhi in September 2008 were terrorists, cry jihadis, their sympathizers, pro-jihadi human rights groups, and pink punks. It was a fake encounter and there should be an inquiry into it, they thunder.
It is pointed out that the Batla House shootout could not have been fake because Delhi Police lost an ace officer, Inspector M.C. Sharma in it. What kind of fake encounter was it in which a cop loses his life? But the peddlers of lies persist with their demand for in inquiry.
The National Human Rights Commission probed into the matter, and reports to the Delhi High Court that the shootout was genuine. But the human rights mafia still was not satisfied. The Supreme Court looked into the matter, and it also gave a clean chit to Delhi Police.
The screaming by human rights mafia could have been ignored had it not been supported by, among others, many politicians, the most important of them being Congress general secretary Digvijay Singh. He was sympathetic to the cause upheld by the human rights mafia. He even visited Azamgarh, the UP district which has shot into notoriety because of being the hub of so many Islamic terrorists.
It is not that only the ruling coalition is lackadaisical in its attitude towards Maoists and jihadis, the Bharatiya Janata Party is little better. The saffron leaders spew fiery rhetoric when talking about terrorists, but they are willing to match practice with precept. In Jharkhand, they are in power, but have no problems with Chief Minister Shibu Soren’s soft approach towards Naxalites.
The Maoists and jihadis murder our citizens, shoot down our security personnel, bomb our cities, and want to establish a reign of terror. And our netas sympathize with them! The question to be asked in India is not whether we would win the war against terror, but whether our politicians are even willing to fight that war all earnestness.
Consider the case of Railway Minister and Trinamool Congress Mamata Banerjee. Her ties with Maoists are no secret; in fact, she benefited because of her relations with the Naxalites in the last general elections. Her relations with the ultras adversely affected last year’s operations against them at Lalgarh.
Now, she has reportedly forced the Union Cabinet to drop from the Presidential address to the joint session of Parliament a condemnation of the murderous Naxal strike on the EFR camp at Silda in the West Midnapore district in West Bengal on February 15. Monday, which left 24 jawans dead and many injured. At the insistence of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the Cabinet nevertheless agreed to include a general condemnation of Maoist attacks all over the country in recent months.
“What is the proof that the attack was carried out by Maoists? If at all, it appears to be the handiwork of CPM. I would urge the Prime Minister to first order an inquiry into the incident,” Mamata reportedly told her Cabinet colleagues.
In our times, the merchants of falsehood find refuge in the what-is-the-proof line of argumentation. This comes handy when one is promoting any vile cause, be it Naxalism or jihad. What is the proof that the young Muslim men killed at Batla House in Delhi in September 2008 were terrorists, cry jihadis, their sympathizers, pro-jihadi human rights groups, and pink punks. It was a fake encounter and there should be an inquiry into it, they thunder.
It is pointed out that the Batla House shootout could not have been fake because Delhi Police lost an ace officer, Inspector M.C. Sharma in it. What kind of fake encounter was it in which a cop loses his life? But the peddlers of lies persist with their demand for in inquiry.
The National Human Rights Commission probed into the matter, and reports to the Delhi High Court that the shootout was genuine. But the human rights mafia still was not satisfied. The Supreme Court looked into the matter, and it also gave a clean chit to Delhi Police.
The screaming by human rights mafia could have been ignored had it not been supported by, among others, many politicians, the most important of them being Congress general secretary Digvijay Singh. He was sympathetic to the cause upheld by the human rights mafia. He even visited Azamgarh, the UP district which has shot into notoriety because of being the hub of so many Islamic terrorists.
It is not that only the ruling coalition is lackadaisical in its attitude towards Maoists and jihadis, the Bharatiya Janata Party is little better. The saffron leaders spew fiery rhetoric when talking about terrorists, but they are willing to match practice with precept. In Jharkhand, they are in power, but have no problems with Chief Minister Shibu Soren’s soft approach towards Naxalites.
The Maoists and jihadis murder our citizens, shoot down our security personnel, bomb our cities, and want to establish a reign of terror. And our netas sympathize with them! The question to be asked in India is not whether we would win the war against terror, but whether our politicians are even willing to fight that war all earnestness.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Jairam Ramesh bows to green terror
The merchants of mendacity have scored a big victory by forcing Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh to place an indefinite “moratorium” on the introduction of a genetically-modified brinjal. His colleague in the Council of Ministers, Kapil Sibal, was candid enough to say that Ramesh “bowed to populism.”
This was yet another case of green terrorists abusing science to promote their Luddite and socialist agendas. Years after Centre for Science and Environment chief Sunita Narain carried out her deceitful tirade against cola companies, and weeks after IPCC boss R.K. Pachauri was exposed for running his shop by peddling voodoo science, we have a situation in which India science has faced a setback. The country’s top apex technical committee, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) has been ignored because a bunch of econuts clamored against an innovation in the farm sector.
To be fair to Ramesh, he did not have much of a choice. Protest against Bt brinjal was quite widespread. The RSS—never comfortable with science and modernity and too willing to accept Left shibboleths—spoke against Bt brinjal. The ban on the innovation in the BJP-ruled Uttarakhand, Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh was a logical culmination. At the same time, green loonies who run myriad non-governmental organizations (NGOs) already were screaming.
Ramesh claimed that “sentiment was negative” at the public hearings in seven cities. Sentiment? Is science run by sentiments? And, by the way, whose sentiments?
Dr. M Mahadevappa, a two-time former vice-chancellor of the University of Agriculture Sciences, Dharwad, who attended the public hearing in Bangalore, was quoted in The Indian Express, “I was out-shouted by the NGO lobbies the moment I began speaking. I could not express my views. Public hearings of the sort that were arranged are not the right place where scientific issues can be discussed in an objective manner.”
The UAS, Dharwad, and the Tamil Nadu Agriculture University, Coimbatore, actively collaborated in developing Bt Brinjal.
“I have been working with several Krishi Vigyan Kendras in Karnataka for several years and I have found no opposition from farmers against Bt brinjal. Even at the Bangalore meeting, I was opposed by the NGOs and not by the farmers,” Dr. Mahadevappa said.
Dr. B.C. Viraktamath, project director at the Directorate of Rice Research in Hyderabad, was not even allowed to enter the building where the hearing was going on. “The way the consultations were held, it was very clear that the entire exercise was random with a disproportionate representation of protestors,” he said.
Another scientist, Dr. M. Sujatha, of the Directorate of Oilseeds Research at Hyderabad, said, “This is not the right kind of approach to solicit views on such a complex issue. The minister could have held separate meetings with scientists, farmers and NGOs to get a more balanced and clear picture.”
Chengal Reddy, a farmers’ leader, questioned the representativeness of protestors. “Who is this ‘general public’? The general public had even opposed computers when they were first launched.”
Actually, it is the mafia of NGOs, sundry pink punks, and green terrorists who make so much noise that they are often assumed to be the representatives of people. The truth, however, is that these busybodies are just promoting their vile, retrograde agenda in the name of championing the cause of public.
This was yet another case of green terrorists abusing science to promote their Luddite and socialist agendas. Years after Centre for Science and Environment chief Sunita Narain carried out her deceitful tirade against cola companies, and weeks after IPCC boss R.K. Pachauri was exposed for running his shop by peddling voodoo science, we have a situation in which India science has faced a setback. The country’s top apex technical committee, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) has been ignored because a bunch of econuts clamored against an innovation in the farm sector.
To be fair to Ramesh, he did not have much of a choice. Protest against Bt brinjal was quite widespread. The RSS—never comfortable with science and modernity and too willing to accept Left shibboleths—spoke against Bt brinjal. The ban on the innovation in the BJP-ruled Uttarakhand, Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh was a logical culmination. At the same time, green loonies who run myriad non-governmental organizations (NGOs) already were screaming.
Ramesh claimed that “sentiment was negative” at the public hearings in seven cities. Sentiment? Is science run by sentiments? And, by the way, whose sentiments?
Dr. M Mahadevappa, a two-time former vice-chancellor of the University of Agriculture Sciences, Dharwad, who attended the public hearing in Bangalore, was quoted in The Indian Express, “I was out-shouted by the NGO lobbies the moment I began speaking. I could not express my views. Public hearings of the sort that were arranged are not the right place where scientific issues can be discussed in an objective manner.”
The UAS, Dharwad, and the Tamil Nadu Agriculture University, Coimbatore, actively collaborated in developing Bt Brinjal.
“I have been working with several Krishi Vigyan Kendras in Karnataka for several years and I have found no opposition from farmers against Bt brinjal. Even at the Bangalore meeting, I was opposed by the NGOs and not by the farmers,” Dr. Mahadevappa said.
Dr. B.C. Viraktamath, project director at the Directorate of Rice Research in Hyderabad, was not even allowed to enter the building where the hearing was going on. “The way the consultations were held, it was very clear that the entire exercise was random with a disproportionate representation of protestors,” he said.
Another scientist, Dr. M. Sujatha, of the Directorate of Oilseeds Research at Hyderabad, said, “This is not the right kind of approach to solicit views on such a complex issue. The minister could have held separate meetings with scientists, farmers and NGOs to get a more balanced and clear picture.”
Chengal Reddy, a farmers’ leader, questioned the representativeness of protestors. “Who is this ‘general public’? The general public had even opposed computers when they were first launched.”
Actually, it is the mafia of NGOs, sundry pink punks, and green terrorists who make so much noise that they are often assumed to be the representatives of people. The truth, however, is that these busybodies are just promoting their vile, retrograde agenda in the name of championing the cause of public.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Manipulating media: Rahul’s spin doctors do good job
Hero worship in India has always been a big problem. Now, it is becoming much bigger, thanks to the people’s reluctance to ask questions. Idolatry is so rampant that they even start worshipping those who have little to do heroism. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s recent deification is a case in point.
Consider the facts. His party is in power in New Delhi and Bombay. Yet, for over two years, in Bombay and other parts of Maharashtra, a rabidly parochial outfit, the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS), has been physically assaulting north Indians and inciting violence against them. Its older cousin, the Shiv Sena, has been doing that for a longer period. But these goons go scot-free. MNS legislators even had the temerity to manhandle a fellow MLA on the floor of the House. But neither the leaders who instigate violence nor the activists of the two parties are brought to book.
In fact, the Congress sought to, and did, benefit from the terror tactics of MNS chief Raj Thackeray. All these years, Rahul Gandhi did nothing to stop the hooliganism of Sena and MNS. A few days ago, suddenly, he—or perhaps his media managers and spin doctors—woke up to the chauvinism of the Thackerays. Of, it is so bad! How these thugs can say that Bombay is only for the people of the state? Mumbai is for all, thundered Rahul in the presence of the press. An obsequies media gave him a loud applause for uttering a truism. And the applause keeps growing by the hour.
Rahul goes to Bombay—and the media portrays this as heroic as Lord Ram’s invasion of Ravan’s Lanka. He is glorified for going to Bombay, for riding the local train, for uttering inanities, for everything he does. But few, if any, slam him for what he does not do—that is, not goading his own party and government to take action against the felony of the Thackerays.
The newspaper headlines scream: ‘In Mumbai, Rahul takes local line, derails Sena gameplan,’ ‘Rahul takes the Dadar Fast to make his Mumbai point,’ ‘Congress resolves to take on Shiv Sena.’ We are made to believe that a redeemer is at work, a deliverer would come to the rescue of the hapless victims of the evil Bal Thackeray and Raj Thackeray. But we are not told that the evil is a creation of Rahul’s party. It is like Bhinderanwale redux: the Congress created the monster, and then reaped political windfall by vanquishing him.
All this is very clever. It is indeed the sterling success of Congress media managers that the almost all newspapers and channels have become Rahul’s hagiographers. But there is no statesmanship involved in manipulating media and molding public mood. Nor is there any heroism in fooling people.
Consider the facts. His party is in power in New Delhi and Bombay. Yet, for over two years, in Bombay and other parts of Maharashtra, a rabidly parochial outfit, the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS), has been physically assaulting north Indians and inciting violence against them. Its older cousin, the Shiv Sena, has been doing that for a longer period. But these goons go scot-free. MNS legislators even had the temerity to manhandle a fellow MLA on the floor of the House. But neither the leaders who instigate violence nor the activists of the two parties are brought to book.
In fact, the Congress sought to, and did, benefit from the terror tactics of MNS chief Raj Thackeray. All these years, Rahul Gandhi did nothing to stop the hooliganism of Sena and MNS. A few days ago, suddenly, he—or perhaps his media managers and spin doctors—woke up to the chauvinism of the Thackerays. Of, it is so bad! How these thugs can say that Bombay is only for the people of the state? Mumbai is for all, thundered Rahul in the presence of the press. An obsequies media gave him a loud applause for uttering a truism. And the applause keeps growing by the hour.
Rahul goes to Bombay—and the media portrays this as heroic as Lord Ram’s invasion of Ravan’s Lanka. He is glorified for going to Bombay, for riding the local train, for uttering inanities, for everything he does. But few, if any, slam him for what he does not do—that is, not goading his own party and government to take action against the felony of the Thackerays.
The newspaper headlines scream: ‘In Mumbai, Rahul takes local line, derails Sena gameplan,’ ‘Rahul takes the Dadar Fast to make his Mumbai point,’ ‘Congress resolves to take on Shiv Sena.’ We are made to believe that a redeemer is at work, a deliverer would come to the rescue of the hapless victims of the evil Bal Thackeray and Raj Thackeray. But we are not told that the evil is a creation of Rahul’s party. It is like Bhinderanwale redux: the Congress created the monster, and then reaped political windfall by vanquishing him.
All this is very clever. It is indeed the sterling success of Congress media managers that the almost all newspapers and channels have become Rahul’s hagiographers. But there is no statesmanship involved in manipulating media and molding public mood. Nor is there any heroism in fooling people.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Triumph of evil: Pakistan calls shots in Afghanistan
International relations are often bereft of morality, but in these politically correct times they are also without commonsense and reason. Nothing else explains the newfound assertiveness of Pakistan in matters as disparate as cricket and Afghanistan.
The Pakistanis have forced the Indian Premier League (IPL) to shun its unspoken no-Pak-player stand. In fact, they have made it appear as if the Pak cricketers have boycotted IPL! Pakistan Cricket Board chairman Ejaz Butt has revoked the no-objection certificates granted to it players earlier. Butt said, “No Pakistan player will play in IPL this year. The insulting manner in which Pakistan players have been treated will not be tolerated.” Earlier, he had the temerity to seek “an apology from IPL.”
More dangerous and revolting is Islamabad’s audacity in matters related to Afghanistan. Worse, the audacity has paid rich dividends. The recent one-day international conference on Afghanistan on January 28 was testimony of Pakistan’s success in international politics. World powers were goaded to accept the oxymoronic concept of ‘good Taliban’ and buy peace with the barbarous thugs. For this purpose, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown—hosting the conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon—announced the setting up of a $500-million “trust fund.” A report in The Times Of India (January 29) said, “As a goodwill gesture, the conference was preceded by a lifting of United Nations sanctions on five leaders of the obscurantist Taliban regime, which was ousted by armed forces led by the United States after the 9/11 attack on New York by the Afghanistan-based Al Qaida. Among the beneficiaries is a former foreign minister Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil.” It may be recalled that Muttawakil was a chum of the hijackers of IC-814. He is said to have helped them unload their baggage from the aircraft in Kandahar; he also negotiated on their behalf. He is among the once off the UN sanctions list to “facilitate” the reconciliation.
Needless to say, Pakistan is the chief supporter and beneficiary of the treacherous concept of good Taliban. In an interview to a British daily, its Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said, “Pakistan is perhaps better placed than any other country in the world to support Afghan reintegration and reconciliation.” Of course, “Afghan reintegration and reconciliation” will resuscitate the cronies of Mullah Omar, the uncrowned Caliph of Afghanistan before the George Bush-led US ousted them from Kabul.
According to the TOI report, External Affairs Minister S.M. “Krishna was allocated a seat in the second of three rows of attendees at the conference which in itself reflected India's peripheral role in Afghan affairs in the eyes of the international community. This, despite India being the biggest regional aid-giver to Afghanistan, with a commitment of $1.3 million. Earlier in the week, Turkey, an ally of Pakistan, did not even bother to invite India to a confabulation on Afghanistan.”
Pakistan—which is the cause of much of misery of Afghans (and of others)—is calling the shots. Even literally. It has reported told the Americans that it would not tolerate India’s bigger role in Pashtun areas like Kandahar and Jalalabad and in the rest of the country. Islamabad likes to say that only Afghanistan’s “contiguous neighbors” can be allowed to participate in any “regional” mechanism. Pakistani newspapers have reported that the Pakistan army and the ISI have decided that only they would decide on the Afghan matters.
Notice the irony and the tragedy. The good work India has done in reconstruction in the war-torn nation is globally acknowledged. A recent study commissioned by three major Western—a British, an American and a German—broadcasters found that 71 per cent of the Afghan population favored a big role by India. Yet, India has little role to play today in Afghanistan.
The facts hint at a Sadean comedy in which evil triumphs and good is vanquished. The wide world knows Pakistan’s nefarious role in creating, nurturing, and arming the Taliban, aiding and abetting terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, and supporting al-Qaeda. Among others, President A.A. Zardari and his predecessor, Gen Pervez Musharraf, have admitted to government assistance to jihadis. Yet, it gets rewarded for felony and duplicity.
I wonder what happened to the multi-pronged war on terror that the US has wage for over eight years. Why couldn’t the world’s mightiest nation, which has the support of almost all other countries in this endeavor, check the flow of money and arms to the jihadis? Is it some conspiracy of cosmic proportions, funded by petrodollars? And is that funding even more powerful than the military prowess and political clout of the world’s wealthiest nation? Such stuff seems straight from a Robert Ludlum novel, but this could be true. After all, truth is often stranger than fiction.
The Pakistanis have forced the Indian Premier League (IPL) to shun its unspoken no-Pak-player stand. In fact, they have made it appear as if the Pak cricketers have boycotted IPL! Pakistan Cricket Board chairman Ejaz Butt has revoked the no-objection certificates granted to it players earlier. Butt said, “No Pakistan player will play in IPL this year. The insulting manner in which Pakistan players have been treated will not be tolerated.” Earlier, he had the temerity to seek “an apology from IPL.”
More dangerous and revolting is Islamabad’s audacity in matters related to Afghanistan. Worse, the audacity has paid rich dividends. The recent one-day international conference on Afghanistan on January 28 was testimony of Pakistan’s success in international politics. World powers were goaded to accept the oxymoronic concept of ‘good Taliban’ and buy peace with the barbarous thugs. For this purpose, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown—hosting the conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon—announced the setting up of a $500-million “trust fund.” A report in The Times Of India (January 29) said, “As a goodwill gesture, the conference was preceded by a lifting of United Nations sanctions on five leaders of the obscurantist Taliban regime, which was ousted by armed forces led by the United States after the 9/11 attack on New York by the Afghanistan-based Al Qaida. Among the beneficiaries is a former foreign minister Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil.” It may be recalled that Muttawakil was a chum of the hijackers of IC-814. He is said to have helped them unload their baggage from the aircraft in Kandahar; he also negotiated on their behalf. He is among the once off the UN sanctions list to “facilitate” the reconciliation.
Needless to say, Pakistan is the chief supporter and beneficiary of the treacherous concept of good Taliban. In an interview to a British daily, its Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said, “Pakistan is perhaps better placed than any other country in the world to support Afghan reintegration and reconciliation.” Of course, “Afghan reintegration and reconciliation” will resuscitate the cronies of Mullah Omar, the uncrowned Caliph of Afghanistan before the George Bush-led US ousted them from Kabul.
According to the TOI report, External Affairs Minister S.M. “Krishna was allocated a seat in the second of three rows of attendees at the conference which in itself reflected India's peripheral role in Afghan affairs in the eyes of the international community. This, despite India being the biggest regional aid-giver to Afghanistan, with a commitment of $1.3 million. Earlier in the week, Turkey, an ally of Pakistan, did not even bother to invite India to a confabulation on Afghanistan.”
Pakistan—which is the cause of much of misery of Afghans (and of others)—is calling the shots. Even literally. It has reported told the Americans that it would not tolerate India’s bigger role in Pashtun areas like Kandahar and Jalalabad and in the rest of the country. Islamabad likes to say that only Afghanistan’s “contiguous neighbors” can be allowed to participate in any “regional” mechanism. Pakistani newspapers have reported that the Pakistan army and the ISI have decided that only they would decide on the Afghan matters.
Notice the irony and the tragedy. The good work India has done in reconstruction in the war-torn nation is globally acknowledged. A recent study commissioned by three major Western—a British, an American and a German—broadcasters found that 71 per cent of the Afghan population favored a big role by India. Yet, India has little role to play today in Afghanistan.
The facts hint at a Sadean comedy in which evil triumphs and good is vanquished. The wide world knows Pakistan’s nefarious role in creating, nurturing, and arming the Taliban, aiding and abetting terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, and supporting al-Qaeda. Among others, President A.A. Zardari and his predecessor, Gen Pervez Musharraf, have admitted to government assistance to jihadis. Yet, it gets rewarded for felony and duplicity.
I wonder what happened to the multi-pronged war on terror that the US has wage for over eight years. Why couldn’t the world’s mightiest nation, which has the support of almost all other countries in this endeavor, check the flow of money and arms to the jihadis? Is it some conspiracy of cosmic proportions, funded by petrodollars? And is that funding even more powerful than the military prowess and political clout of the world’s wealthiest nation? Such stuff seems straight from a Robert Ludlum novel, but this could be true. After all, truth is often stranger than fiction.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Dumping reason: Chidambaram slams Pak players’ exclusion from IPL
Home Minister P Chidambaram’s statement on the exclusion of Pakistani cricketers from the third edition of the Indian Premier League (IPL) is unfortunate, for this largely undoes the good work began by IPL bosses. The big guns of industry and cinema had rightly given a snub to the Pakistanis, and just to the Pak cricketers. It is a well-known fact that this is a nation whose state, military, and society support and lionize the bloodthirsty jihadis. The Indian Government should have tried to make Pakistan a pariah state by highlighting this fact but, thanks to Muslim appeasement and a pusillanimous foreign policy, it has not done so. Worse, when some private individuals attempted to take a step in that direction, the ruling United Progressive Alliance is resisting it.
“I think it is a disservice to cricket that some of these players were not picked. I don’t know why the IPL teams acted in the manner they acted. But certainly to suggest that there was a hint or nudge from the government is completely untrue,” Chidambaram told a news channel a week after the auction where all the Pak players were ignored.
It may be “a disservice to cricket” if the world T20 champions are ignore in an event, but it is surely a service to mankind to stigmatize the citizens of a country whose state and society nurture and glorify mass-murderers; there is no other way to describe jihadis. The world needs to boycott the Pakistanis to force them promote terror. It was international pressure which played a big part in goading South Africa to end the reprehensible apartheid policy. By the way, this policy in no way hurt anybody outside South Africa. Now that Islamic terror has become a threat to peace all over the world, there is no reason why the Pakistan, the engine house of jihad, should be treated with kid gloves.
Regrettably, Chidambaram’s views are shared by others as well. Shah Rukh Khan, who owns Kolkata Knight Riders, is also unhappy about the exclusion of Pak players. He said, “I truly believe they [Pakistan players] should have been chosen.” A few days ago, Surjit S. Bhalla, a liberal intellectual, lamented about the exclusion of Pak players. He wrote in Business Standard on January 23, “The politicians believe that after the terror attacks of last year, the popular public wants to punish all Pakistanis, regardless of race, color, or religion. Even if the public thinks that way, does it make sense for the government to cater to such base instincts?”
The problem with liberals like Bhalla is that they dogmatically stick to their beliefs which have been disproved by facts. If the public wants all Pakistanis to be punished, it is not the result of any “base instincts” but of commonsense and reason. Sadly, liberals have bid adieu to commonsense and reason. What is sadder is that the powers that be tend to follow the liberal rather than the reasonable viewpoint.
“I think it is a disservice to cricket that some of these players were not picked. I don’t know why the IPL teams acted in the manner they acted. But certainly to suggest that there was a hint or nudge from the government is completely untrue,” Chidambaram told a news channel a week after the auction where all the Pak players were ignored.
It may be “a disservice to cricket” if the world T20 champions are ignore in an event, but it is surely a service to mankind to stigmatize the citizens of a country whose state and society nurture and glorify mass-murderers; there is no other way to describe jihadis. The world needs to boycott the Pakistanis to force them promote terror. It was international pressure which played a big part in goading South Africa to end the reprehensible apartheid policy. By the way, this policy in no way hurt anybody outside South Africa. Now that Islamic terror has become a threat to peace all over the world, there is no reason why the Pakistan, the engine house of jihad, should be treated with kid gloves.
Regrettably, Chidambaram’s views are shared by others as well. Shah Rukh Khan, who owns Kolkata Knight Riders, is also unhappy about the exclusion of Pak players. He said, “I truly believe they [Pakistan players] should have been chosen.” A few days ago, Surjit S. Bhalla, a liberal intellectual, lamented about the exclusion of Pak players. He wrote in Business Standard on January 23, “The politicians believe that after the terror attacks of last year, the popular public wants to punish all Pakistanis, regardless of race, color, or religion. Even if the public thinks that way, does it make sense for the government to cater to such base instincts?”
The problem with liberals like Bhalla is that they dogmatically stick to their beliefs which have been disproved by facts. If the public wants all Pakistanis to be punished, it is not the result of any “base instincts” but of commonsense and reason. Sadly, liberals have bid adieu to commonsense and reason. What is sadder is that the powers that be tend to follow the liberal rather than the reasonable viewpoint.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)