Tuesday, August 23, 2011


Before you begin reading this small article, let me make it very clear that I am not a blind supporter of Anna Hazare’s fast and his demands for a Jan Lok Pal Bill. I do not completely support the tactics used by Team Anna be it his demand to have HIS rather than A Lok Pal Bill or the absolute lack of knowledge his ‘team ‘ members on what the bill is about or a lack of knowledge on the discourse around corruption, its roots and possible ways to solve it. Yet after having read Arundhati Roy’s article in one of the dailies, I thought it was appropriate to give a fitting answer to person who has by now made a decent living by giving a list of problems, using loaded adjectives to prove her point, display a hatred towards groups she calls ‘fascists’ and taking up for sections of society who need empowerment not her patronizing write ups on how the state has exploited them (which no doubt it has).

Among the principal arguments Arundhati Roy places is that there is a difference between the means of team Anna and their demands and modus operandi. Now coming from an individual who has in the past called the Maoists ‘Gandhians with Guns’ this is wishful thinking. For one, there is little need to place so much importance on the writings of a person who has got her definition of the word ‘Gandhian’ totally wrong. For Arundhati Roy, the Maoists are Gandhians with guns while Anna Hazare a representation of a bourgeoisie urban agitation with little or incorrect direction.

Any observer of contemporary India would know that there is a vast difference between the Maoists and the agitation behind the Jan Lok Pal Bill but Arundhati Roy has not been able to recognize this difference. She argues that the ‘common’ aim of these two teams is the overthrow of the Indian state. Now the fundamental question is where does she get her facts? Can she produce even one piece of evidence to suggest that Anna Hazare and his team of supporters have attempted to dislodge the Indian state and establish a parallel state with their own men and women as ministers? On the contrary Anna Hazare has repeatedly stated that his aim is not to cause political instability at any given point. Can this compare with the activities of her Maoist Gandhians who have explicitly killed, looted and shown no respect towards dialogue or democracy that we are and will remain proud of?

It is essential to call the bluff of ‘activists’ such as Arundhati Roy who have now made a handsome living by repeatedly abusing the Sangh Parivar and the RSS. For her to write that among the answers one will get would be ‘Vande Mataram’, ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ and ‘Jai Hind’ and then use this as a means of ridicule is most unfortunate. If Ms. Roy can give the title of Gandhian on her Maoist friends she must also know what the Great Soul thought of Vande Mataram and that Jai Hind and Bharat Mata Ki Jai need not be interpreted as something that is majoritarian or against sections of Indian society. By planting such lies in the minds of people, Arundhati Roy and her ilk are going a great disservice not only to this country (towards whom Ms. Roy’s respect is also limited) but also displaying a very poor reading of the history of India and its culture.

Like any person belonging to her profession of deploring the Indian Right, she cites Anna Hazare’s support towards Raj Thackeray and Narendra Modi. Now if Ms. Roy can cause immense pain to sections of our society by unleashing her half baked views on India then why cant she tolerate people who hold views that are not in accordance with hers? And while she often accuses sections of India of being completely unaware of the ground realities where her Gandhians operate, let me also tell her that her views on Narendra Modi are completely out of sync with how the people of Gujarat be it Christian, Muslim or Hindu view it. She needs to be reminded that a predominantly Muslim seat has recently given its thumbs up to Narendra Modi’s work in Gujarat. If she was so concerned about free speech and truth why was she silent when Maulana Vastanvi was sacked in the nation of Gandhi for speaking the truth? Are her principles of free speech, honesty, and compassion for the poor selective? Does she only look at the truth the way she wants to? And why does she have to mention Narendra Modi in an issue that does not involve him? Does she not know that his is the only government to voluntarily set up investigation against the charges put by the Congress party?

Her calling the Jan Lok Pal ‘draconian’ and creating 2 oligarchies instead of one is fair enough but then the problem comes in when she goes on about the defects of Anna’s bill without actually giving a list of tangible solutions on how the problem can be solved. This again is typical Arundhati Roy- list out all the problems under the sun, use adjectives, smell a fascist hand but just fall short of giving any solution. What Roy also does is rightfully questions the failure of both the bills to identify what is the cause of corruption- is corruption only something that needs to be policed? Moreover can there be an all-encompassing definition on corruption? Agreed that the answer in both cases lies in the negative but then comes another question- why does Arundhati Roy assume that the mall opening and the hawkers being banned is mutually exclusive? Why cant we have a government or a set up where hawkers are given the opportunity to rise and finally set up shop in malls or dream big rather than the energies of the government only going to ensure that neither do the hawkers evict themselves nor do new innovative establishments spring up. It is this thinking of keeping the poor poorer so that people like Arundhati Roy find ‘objects’ to patronize that is painful and very cheapening.

Arundhati Roy may have issues with this issue being transformed into one on a right to protest rather than corruption but the issue is a very valid one. When one sees the same Ambica Soni who was as involved in 1975 as she is now, we do know there is something really wrong with how things are working today. Similarly, when she is charged of sedition or faces other charges she and her followers are very quick to invoke freedom of protest and dissent then why not now? Even beyond that, no part of the hunger strike has been devoted to protest the arrest. When the issue was to protest freedom to dissent it was done- now again the issue has shifted back to the prevention of corruption and having a strong Lok Pal Bill, irrespective of who authors it. And can anybody agree with Arundhati Roy that there exists an Afghanistan like situation in India? Again, adjectives are being used and hype created to illustrate a point and who does it better than Arundhati Roy?

Finally, let it be made absolutely clear to Arundhati Roy that anything to do with the RSS is neither vulgar nor criminal. The Sangh Parivar retains full right to protest or be a part of protest on issues they feel are lacking both inside and outside the country. She also conveniently forgets that her own Gandhians with Guns are supportive of an ideology or individuals such as Stalin and Mao, about whose evil deeds we still do not know. It becomes a crime to receive any money from the West or corporates but it is fair to invoke Mao, Stalin, kill innocent servicemen and receive money from elements that are working against atleast what we proudly call India. To conclude, Arundhati Roy argues why she would rather not be Anna- let us tell her we too are thankful she is not Anna Hazare or anybody of that eminence. We can showcase Arundhati Roy as an example of our speech (her dearer countries would have long silenced her) but to give her so much importance and respect as many have done for Anna Hazare or even elected governments would signify the real Kaliyug of Indian society.

Friday, August 19, 2011

Stephanian Politicians- To the Glory of Whom?

My alma mater, St. Stephen’s College has always boasted at having a rich history of producing leaders of tomorrow be it Cabinet Ministers or Chief Secretaries. I have often heard that more than a quarter of the History honors class made it to the IAS and there was a network of Stephanians working in the corridors of power be it in Delhi or in the states. Leadership, integrity and strength of character are qualities we are still taught in the College. Yet, the recent episodes of Anna Hazare and Baba Ramdev have made me very weary of the kind of leaders College is producing.
On of the people I was following on Twitter posted a tweet where he compared what he called the ‘Oxford-Harvard’ nexus to a rustic Anna Hazare and how the latter has got the better of the former. What he did not point out is that two out of the three leaders mentioned in the ‘Oxford-Harvard’ nexus also belong to St. Stephen’s College namely Kapil Sibal and Salman Khurshid (the third being Chidambaram). It is their actions vis-à-vis an Anna Hazare which provoked me to think on the sort of leaders St. Stephen’s College has produced in the past few years and whether there is something to be proud of when Cabinets are formed and we learn of Stephanians becoming ministers.
To begin with, let us see our College history after 1947. We have taken great pride in stating that we have produced three heads of states. But what we have not taken in to consideration is who these heads were and what were the consequences of their actions. I am stating the obvious when I say that the actions of at least two of them have adversely affected the democratic fabric of their respective countries. The conduct of a Stephanian, Fakruddin Ali Ahmed was heavily questionable in 1975. The second leader, Zia ul Haq needs little mention in his lack of commitment to democracy and secularism in Pakistan. A lot of mindless terror in the region, rampant hostilities could well be traced back to his period in the seventies and eighties. Thus, despite my hesitations I have to state that the two Heads of State Stephen’s produced have been disastrous.
Coming to more recent times, there has been a great representation of St. Stephen’s in the executive ever since the UPA came to power that has only increased since UPA 2. If the NDA rule was characterized by the dominance of SRCC (another Delhi University College- alumni are Ranjan Bhattacharya, Arun Jaitley, Vijay Goel, Sudhanshu Mittal) the Stephanian dominance was the hallmark of a Congress – led government. But, have Stephanians been worthy of the responsibilities that were given to them? Sadly we cannot reply in the affirmative.
Back in 2005, the first resignation of a Congress minister happened when Natwar Singh resigned. Singh, a Stephanian was also the first elected President of the College back in 1950. The charges against him were very serious in the wake of the Volcker report. He eventually had to resign in disgrace, shift parties before political wilderness awaited him.
Next comes the case of Shashi Tharoor. The hype with which he entered public life matched the height surrounding his exit and the repercussions thereafter. Once he became a minister his statements in the media showed just how much out of tune he was with the pulse of the ‘aam admi’ his party swears by. Then came the controversy surrounding the IPL when it was proved beyond doubt that sweat equity was given to Sunanda Puskhar once a team was allotted to Kochi. Such a conduct was not only unbecoming but also prompted Shashi Tharoor to issue a series of denials before he was asked to quit office by the Prime Minister. The consequences of his actions were the standoff with Lalit Modi and attempts to reign in the BCCI by the UPA (read Congress vs Sharad Pawar). As things stand today, Tharoor is happily married but without the ministry, Lalit Modi has fled to London and Shashank Manohar has to appear before the ED officials time and again. Again, this is not quite the conduct one expects from a Stephanian, atleast if the legendary Morning Assembly in College is to be believed.
Coming back to the talk on the Oxford-Harvard nexus, it is the actions of these two individuals leaves very little to be desired. Ever since taking over as an important trouble shooter of the Congress, all Kapil Sibal has done is adopt a confrontationist tone be it by offering a shallow excuse of blaming the NDA or being involved in negotiations with Anna Hazare and Ramdev. Let me also make it clear that I am not saying the actions of Anna and Baba were completely correct but the counter action of the UPA think tank, which had two Stephanians, is intriguing.
The allegation that they may be out of touch with the ground realities of the day may well be correct. From the very beginning, they did not understand the impact of the campaign against corruption, however middle class or bourgeoisie it may be. Ramdev may not be a good politician but he is surely a very popular yoga guru on whose tunes Indian families dance to every morning (literally). First to receive him at the airport and then arrest him in a midnight swoop is not so called Stephanian intelligence. Even in the current (which can safely be called Anna 2 vs UPA 2) this clique has demonstrated its different wavelength with the rest of the country. They failed to realize that those protesting were not supporting Anna’s Lok Pal or any other measure, it was just an expression of dissatisfaction against what has perceived to be the most corrupt government in the history of the country. Rather than bring out the flaws in Anna’s protest (there are no doubt many) they preferred to arrest him. They failed to understand that the power of articulation can only get them till a point after which reason; logic and popular aspirations also play a major role.
Even within College, the conduct of elected representatives of College gives little solace to those around. A few months ago, Sandeep Dixit went on a personal tirade against the College establishment even labeling it was communal. The usage of such a loaded word against the College was evidently more a product of a lack of understanding of the word ‘communal’, the Constitution of India and a consequence of a historic bias against select individuals in College. Neither did his appearance on national television inspire any confidence.
The point I am making is not to attack what College has stood for or reduce it to a factory of producing irresponsible politicians but an introspection and the need to think twice before we celebrate the culture of leadership among ourselves. Let us ask ourselves is this the kind of leadership we look towards or can be proud of? At various points of time the Stephanians I have mentioned have done the unthinkable- they have made the likes of Janata coalition, Lalit Modi and Baba Ramdev see sensible (a remarkable feat). Thus, the next time we laud the number of Stephanians making it to office, do see whether they are just another addition to the ‘babalog’ or people who are actually going to bring back sense and logic to public life as what one would expect. Perhaps it is actually time to open the doors of College for some fresh air before it is too late.
PS- I am reminded of an anecdote when Natwar Singh said “All I am is because of the College” to which Mani Shankar Aiyar replied “Why blame the College?”
Yash Gandhi


The state of Gujarat has been witness to heated political activity over the ‘complaints’ of three senior IPS officers against the Chief Minister and the subsequent action taken by the Government against these officers. The battle was not restricted to Gujarat as Home Minister Chidambaram upped the ante against the Gujarat government. Not taking things lying, Narendra Modi quickly retorted and used the principle of Centre-State relations as the centre of his argument.

At the bottom of this struggle is a prolonged battle between the Congress Party and the Gujarat Chief Minister. In one sense, neither side has achieved a total win. In both the Lok Sabha elections fought under Modi’s Chief Minister-ship, the BJP and Congress were almost neck-to-neck with 14 and 12 seats respectively while Modi took a clear lead in the Assembly elections. It is a known fact that Modi ranks among the most popular and efficient Chief Ministers in the country today virtually beating all Congress Chief Ministers if recent surveys are a bit of an indication. It is also no secret that if there is one leader who can take on the Gandhi family, the Congress and the larger UPA it is none other than Narendra Modi. This is not only on the basis of rhetoric or Gujarati pride but also on the basis of solid developmental work that is for everyone to see and experience in any corner of Gujarat.

It is in this context that the outburst of the three police officer- Sanjeev Bhatt, Rahul Sharma and Rajnish Rai need to be analyzed. More than the cause of justice for the 2002 victims, these three very esteemed officers must ask themselves whether their cause is honest or not. It is difficult to digest that Sanjeev Bhatt, who claims to have been present at virtually every high-level meeting in 2002 (a mere fourteen years of his joining) and party to every high level decision taken at the top most levels of Government and Bureaucracy. He must also answer the people of Gujarat and the nation as to why was he mysteriously silent for so long. The exposure of Sanjeev Bhatt to the media has been by all means a recent phenomenon. Thus, if his heart bled for truth and justice why did it not bleed when there was a need for the same rather than now. And if not attending work for ten months is acceptable then yes, the Gujarat government has made a terrible mistake by suspending Sanjeev Bhatt. If you are an employer, will you tolerate absenteeism among your employees and if you are working somewhere will you employer tolerate it? Moreover, is it even feasible?

What is actually happening is a division of labour- a clear allocation of work on the part of a team of very committed ‘activists’ who have striven to make Gujarat a supposedly better place than what it was a few years ago. First came Teesta Setalvad- her tirades against the Chief Minister and the BJP won her fame and a place in every TV studio but it is for the larger public to see what the Supreme Court has written about her. If there is a killer of the Best Bakery Case we need not look around to see who that person is. It is also important to know that in the Best Bakery and Bilkis Bano cases, it was the Charges Sheet of the Gujarat government that was used in order to bring the culprits to task while the CBI charge sheet was proven to be a damp squib. The claims of the Bannerjee Commission Report proved just like the claims of the man who appointed the Commission and his ‘turnaround’ of the railways- absolutely false. Mallika Sarabhai very bravely contested the Lok Sabha elections against LK Advani but was unable to retain even her deposit at the hustings. Thus it is awkward and embarrassing for us to hear of Sanjeev Bhatt and Mallika Sarabhais being the representatives of the people. If they were so, why would it be that Ms. Sarabhai even lost her deposit?

The other issue that has been used to target Mr. Modi has been that of the Sohrabuddin fake encounter. In 2007, the Congress president used the phrase ‘maut ka saudagar’ to describe the Chief Minister. This charge was indeed serious but coming from the leader of a party who has been in power when Sikhs were mercilessly killed on the streets of the national capital or a party that has been in power during almost every riot after 1947, this is indeed wishful thinking. Anyways, this outburst not only failed to boost the chances of the Congress but also made Narendra Modi a far more popular mass leader. As a matter of fact, he has been the only Chief Minister in the nation to form a detailed commission of inquiry in to charges leveled by the Opposition. If anybody can say a Prithviraj Chavan or a Kiran Kumar Reddy or Ashok Gehlot would do the same?

The outbursts against arguably the prime mass leader of the principal opposition party bring out the clear double standards the Congress party. For one, a party that is grabbing land in Haryana is attacking the others in Karnataka or Orissa. The party of the ‘aam aadmi’ recently unleashed a wave of police firing in Maharashtra, a state it has ruled since 1999. Not only that, it has arrested Anna Hazare under Section 144 but warned against the arrest of their crown prince under similar circumstances in Uttar Pradesh a few months ago.

As the Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha said- power is not immortal. The sooner those in power learn it the better for them. The NDA learnt it the hard way in 2004 and so did dozen other state Chief Ministers. The UPA is on the verge of doing so now. Specially in Gujarat, it is highly recommended that the Congress contribute constructively to the debate on governance be it my cooperating in appointing state functionaries or speaking for the interest of Gujarat. If they do not, a similar fate awaits them in December 2012 as it has since 1990.

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

The Summer of 2011

When I was seeing the violence and protests unfold in Egypt, Yemen, Libya and other Arab nations sitting in my room in Wolfson College, Oxford little did I know that a similar pattern of violence would occur in the United Kingdom months later. By most counts, the violence, its spread and the official reactions have been shocking and produce some very interesting realities about life in Britain in the 21st Century. Forget the Empire, this is a Britain battling simultaneously a series of cuts, an elitist government, corruption at the highest places and now a wave of discontent that’s being sorted on the streets. Paradoxically, the violence which was part caused by the series of unpopular decisions taken by the Conservative government may lead to many more such decisions. It may also spell disaster for immigrants thus affecting Indian aspirations and the already settled diaspora.

What began as an outbreak in a London suburb over the death of a youngster actually turned in to a national crisis and even spread outside London to other places. Many have seen the violence as a response to the unpopular decisions taken by the Cameron government and the manner in which they have been executed over the past one-year. When Cameron took office last year, he undertook the most unpopular decision of introducing cuts. The decision was noteworthy because of the fragile coalition and the fact that the country was facing a terrible deficit due to thirteen years of Labour rule. Subsequently, the cuts were extended to universities, the health care and other things. While the rationale behind the cuts was sound, the situation has changed drastically over the past one year. Except for the Referendum on the AV and the Royal Wedding, there was nothing Cameron had to cheer about while the list of problems went on and on.

More than anything else the riots show just how out of touch the political establishment of Britain, especially in the Conservative Party are out of touch with the reality of the day and age. Today the Prime Minister, his Chancellor and colleagues from the Conservative Party, the Deputy Prime Minister and the two tallest Leaders of the Labour Party studied at either Oxford or Cambridge. With the resignation of Andy Coulson the top levels of government has nobody who studied in state school or has a background that is working class. It is precisely this disconnect that has repeatedly cost the government very dear. Even as the violence spread the top political establishment seemed either aloof or holidaying abroad. It was not till the escalation of the violence that all decided to fly back to London. Considering Boris Johnson faces an election next year and Cameron is already unpopular this is not promising news.

On a different note, the violence is a part of the transition Britain is facing after years of ‘pampering’ on the public money. Apart from discontent, it shows the refusal to imagine life without the social security system and the NHS, arguable the most inspirational system for developing countries such as ours. In hindsight, it makes one wonder whether the British government could have dealt with the cuts slightly differently. But the jury is still out on these questions and it will take while before we can find answers on the same.

The implications of the riots are many- for one it leaves the government in a very unpopular shape. Cameron will have lots to answer for. What I fear most after this violence is the impact on immigration and the old debate of multiculturalism in Britain. As of now immigrants have not been directly involved in the waves of violence but one never knows what could happen in the future. The discontent over economic opportunities in the country may mean a back clash against overseas Indians, both professionals and students who have gone there. This will not only be harmful for those targeted but also for the UK itself as it will lose arguably more intelligent and dedicated professionals. Yet, considering the current situation one must understand their anger. Sitting far away in India, all we can hope is that normalcy is restored soon and the Government wakes up before it is too late.