Now that the General Elections are done with, the debate is all about Electronic Voting Machines (EVM) and whether or not it can be hacked. All thanks to the co-creator of EVMs in India, I am now of the view nothing was rigged. On why is the theme of ‘First Principles’, my column in Hindustan Times today.
Politics
Photo by Thai Hoc Pham from Pexels
What happens at a Lit Fest
Some times, all a writer has to do is simply describe what he sees and the story tells itself, my friend and former colleague Manu Joseph told me. “It can be both amusing and insightful.” Most of us who are familiar with Manu’s body of work know he is a terrific writer with three best-selling books to his credit.
This conversation occurred last year when we met at the Bangalore Literature Festival. He was there as a speaker at the grand finale last to speak on a very controversial theme: “How do you define nationalism?”
I’ll come to that debate and the characters in a little while.
It didn’t occur to me until way after hearing Manu’s insight that I was in a sweet spot.
On the one hand, I was among an audience that would get to listen to some stars that included formidable public intellectuals like Ramchandra Guha (who opened the proceedings), Nitin Pai (who co-founded the Takshashila Institution), cricketers like Rahul Dravid and Anil Kumble, policy makers of consequence like Y.V. Reddy (former governor of the Reserve Bank of India), fiery writers in Indian languages like Perumal Murugan, and the glamourous actor-turned-writer Twinkle Khanna.
Then, on the other hand, I was offered the privilege to moderate a discussion by an all-star panel around Aadhaar — a project around which controversy had peaked last year. It was also the time when The Aadhaar Effect, a book I had co-authored on the the theme had just hit the shelves.
Aadhaar was originally thought up to create a unique identity for 1.3 billion Indians. It has got the world’s attention and was under much scrutiny. On stage with me were Jairam Ramesh, a member of Parliament and author of multiple books, Arun Maira, writer and former member of the Planning Commission, and Sanjay Jain, chief innovation officer at IIM Ahmedabad. In an earlier avatar, Jain was part of the core team that worked on creating the infrastructure for Aadhaar.
With the benefit of hindsight, I now know Manu was right. I don’t have much to do here except describe the various kinds of creatures I saw off stage, on stage, behind the stage, and describe them. This story will tell itself.
Creature #1: The Politicians
Kanhaiya Kumar and Jairam Ramesh had the audiences—me included — eating out their hands. The former, a student leader, is perceived by some as having political ambitions. Manu was on stage with him as one of the speakers trying to define what may the idea of nationalism be.
Jairam Ramesh is somebody whom I have been trying to reach out to for a while so I may engage in a conversation to understand what his stated position on Aadhaar is. For various reasons, though, we haven’t had a chance to meet. My understanding was that while he started out as a votary of the idea of a universal identity, he now belongs to the camp opposed to it. Why did his stated position change is something that remains unclear to me. That is why I was delighted to share the stage with him; it offered a chance to ask him point-blank about where he stands.
Back to Kanhaiya Kumar. On stage at the finale on Sunday evening were people of all kinds, including Makarand Paranjape (a teacher from JNU), Manu Joseph, and Suketu Mehta, another globally acclaimed writer. Paranjape is a teacher, author and, in the public domain, is known as someone who leans to the “right wing". All of them were there to articulate their views on where to draw the thin line that separates nationalism and jingoism.
Each speaker was given five minutes to make their opening remarks. Paranjape opened with a measured tone on a scholarly note. By the time the mike reached Kanhaiya Kumar, he had heard pretty much everyone speak, Manu and Mehta included.
I watched with much fascination as Kanhaiya Kumar gently asked the moderator if he could stand up to make his opening remarks. Everybody had made their points while seated. Initially, the moderator politely declined. But Kanhaiya’s “humble" demeanour, amplified by his simple kurta and frayed trousers, conveyed to the audience an impression that he was the “outsider", the kind who inevitably gets “left out". That was his calling card.
He addressed everyone on stage as “sir" to drive home the point that he is indeed the “outsider". I thought I could see the audience members’ heads stop working as Kanhaiya started to speak and their hearts go into overdrive—mine included. All of us shouted that he be allowed to stand up to speak. Kanhaiya got what he wanted.
He made his opening remarks in broken English as opposed to the urbane language deployed by everyone else on stage. Those remarks in English sounded like prepared ones. He then apologized to the audience and told everyone his native tongue isn’t English and that he grew up in the hinterlands of Bihar. So, Hindi is the language he is most comfortable in and asked for permission to speak in Hindi.
In South India, Hindi is an imposition. But coming as an “earnest plea" from a young boy, our hearts went out to him. “Yes, yes!" we screamed.
That was the only opening he needed. My colleague Ramnath, who doesn’t understand Hindi, stood in awe of all that Kanhaiya Kumar said. I admit I was taken in too and tweeted about it while he spoke. “My idea of nationalism does not include imposing Hindi on everyone," he said in chaste Hindi. I don’t know how many people understood all of what he said.
Unlike everyone else, he wasn’t speaking to a script, but unleashing rebuttals to those whom he didn’t agree with, most of which were directed at Paranjape. To do that, he was deploying rhetoric, not logic. The nuances were all lost. For instance, “If you think I lean to the Left, yes, I lean to the left, because I am among those who got left out."
With the benefit of hindsight, I now know he said nothing of consequence. But we applauded wildly as he went on a monologue that lasted all of 12 minutes—way past the mandated brief. Clearly, he was in political career-launch mode. I wonder how far he may go!
I would have loved to talk with him. I ran into him later in the evening. We were staying at the hotel and on the same floor. It was time to exchange pleasantries. But he seemed tired and reluctant to engage. When I told him, though, that I write for a good part of my living, I thought I could see his demeanor change to suggest he may be amenable to conversing. I cannot be too sure. It is entirely possible I may have imagined the change. But gut feel told me there is a supremely confident politician in the making here. I shared my contact details with a companion the Supreme Court has mandated must accompany him at all times. He didn’t share his details. But I wait in the hope he may touch base sometime. I like listening to stories of all kinds.
It was much the same thing with Jairam Ramesh. I was naïve to imagine I could corner him. Just when I thought I had bowled a googly at him on stage about how the Congress party, which he represents, was in power when Aadhaar was thought up and first deployed, and that his voice as a critic now comes across as rather grating and politically-motivated, it didn’t take him much thinking to fend the googly off with a straight bat. “It’s a great idea. But badly implemented," he said, to much applause.
In response to a question from someone in the audience on whether they ought to get themselves an Aadhaar number and link everything to it as is now being mandated, he got away by saying that the law must be obeyed. But to oppose anything you do not agree with is part of the fundamental fabric of a democracy. The flourish with which he said it had me flustered and the audience on his side.
And I don’t know when and how he slipped in that his position changes as his role changes. This was a line I had heard from another member of Parliament while researching the project. Ramesh’s stated position went unchallenged and unanswered. I felt compelled to ask everyone to applaud for him.
You don’t get to be politician by being stupid. You get to be one because you are smarter than everyone else.
Creature #2: The Critics
Most people at literary fests are the genuinely curious kinds who want to know more about the world. These form the quiet majority. They are keen to listen to people talk, engage in conversations with others, participate in events, buy books, engage in banter with assorted people, try out all kinds of food, and pick some trinkets with much gusto at events the organizers put together after much thought.
It is the vocal minority, though, which gets written about. These are the critics and regulars at all lit fests and are a peculiar breed. There are some traits that bind them.
They carry an impression of themselves—that they are created of a different mud as opposed to the “masses" who frequent cinema halls to watch Shah Rukh Khan serenade his love interests in the Bollywood version of Switzerland.
They also imagine themselves as more intelligent than everybody else because they are professional critics often employed at a media house. So, they think it incumbent to criticize everything.
These creatures get invited to events like these and are put up at plush places. They talk well, look good, and carry a certain demeanor. And, for all practical purposes, they “travel in a pack". But the serious critics are often ignored and work in mofussil places.
Funnier still is that, unlike the Shah Rukh Khan fan who will pay hard-earned money to watch a movie first day first show, this vocal minority pays nothing for anything. But their criticism is taken seriously. “The rooms at Cannes last week were so much more better than the crap ones here," for instance.
That is why I assumed I’d be up against a “hostile audience" because by all accounts, they have decided that Aadhaar is evil. Why, I wondered, and poked around a bit. Some interesting nuggets emerged.
Take the media critic for instance. This creature is of two kinds — the uninformed and the idiot. The uninformed exists because it hasn’t done its homework and lucked out to get to where it is.
The idiot exists because it can scream from the rooftops, but lacks substance. That is the tragedy with both Indian liberals and those on the right wing. Push them hard and they cannot defend their position beyond 500 words in print. But their decibel levels are high on television they are parasites to boot. Their existence is incumbent on real critics who do the hard work and offer feedback from the ground. Idiots don’t have the muscle to do the hard work. So, they wait until the homework is done by real reporters who go to the field to find out what may the deficiencies be and file meticulous reports.
Idiots then pick and choose what can cause the most impact, craft it to suit their interests, and bomb the place with it. All else is ignored conveniently. When questioned, they have a standard question to throw: who funds you?
Popular narratives on most media platforms are shaped by either the uninformed or the idiot.
So, as a moderator of a panel discussion on Aadhaar, my job was to place a complex theme into perspective. And through all the time I was there, I was asked by various people what I think of Project Aadhaar because I had a “Speaker" tag on my neck and many knew I am there as a moderator.
Just that I may place the conversation into perspective, I had to state it in as many words on a public forum—that I think to provide a unique identity to over a billion people is a staggering accomplishment. And to completely diss the project is stupid. I could see a few angry faces in the front grunt in disagreement and yell that I shut up. This was stuff they didn’t want to hear. It doesn’t fit the narratives that the uninformed and the idiots believe in.
Some media outlets and social media handles reported the next morning that I was heckled by a packed audience. This was in contrast to what I could see from stage. I thought I could see an audience keen to listen to different perspectives. Because, until then, the only narrative most people have been told is that Aadhaar is a dystopian idea and intended to hijack their lives.
But because local media reports had it that I was heckled, I thought I’d check with a few friends who were in the audience. They told me the only dissonant notes were by some angry voices in the front. Darned right I was. The larger audience wanted to listen in to the multiple perspectives. But if it got reported, it would hijack the contemporary narrative now controlled by a vocal minority.
Manu thought the audience was a receptive one as well. That is why my initial irritation gave way to much amusement when my colleague Ramnath reminded me of a quote by Oscar Wilde. “There is much to be said in favour of modern journalism. By giving us opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community."
This is not to suggest I have no biases. “Why," I argued in my head, “does Twinkle Khanna have to be at a lit fest? What is her claim to fame? Is it because she is pretty? What were the organizers thinking? Or smoking? And why is she always surrounded by people who want selfies with her?" I always maintained her book sold as many copies as it did because she is pretty and was a popular actor.
Another part of me confronted myself, though, and said that it is a terribly unfair thing to suggest. I haven’t read her book and arrived at a conclusion based on some assumptions—not the truth. I haven’t met her or made any attempt to meet her either. But later in the evening, over dinner, Manu told me that he has met her while on an assignment and thinks of her as an intelligent and beautiful woman.
But the media can shape popular narrative and informed opinions are hard to come by. To that extent, I suspect I am the kind of liberal who give liberals a bad name.
It was driven home harder still when I walked over to the table where Makarand Paranjape was having a quiet drink. He asked me my name. And then went on to tell me the historical significance of its origins and why I ought to be happy to possess it. When I told him I am not a practicing Catholic, he went on to offer me a brief treatise on the history of Catholicism and asked me some tough questions on why I gave up my faith. So much for all narratives of him being called a right winger. If he is on the right wing, give me a right winger like him any day, as opposed to a shallow liberal. (Update: His posturing on social media continue to come across as boorish in stark contrast)
The other nugget that came my way is that there are “paid critics" who are “professional socialites". After having spent two decades in journalism, it was only then that I discovered this species exists and that there is a reason they get invited to these dos. They have large followings on social medias platforms and columns as well in popular newspapers — usually tabloids or on Page 3.
A tweet from them or a line insidiously implying a brand is a good one can get their accounts credited with as much as Rs. 5 lakh. In much the same way, they can destroy a carefully crafted reputation as well with a single line. They must be humoured and kept in the good books.
Now I know why one of them has me blocked on Twitter. I’d called him a few names on Twitter in a fit of anger after reading some rather ridiculous tweets on his timeline. The other is a creature always in the news, has answers to everybody’s problems, knows all the gossip, and I don’t bother to read. But the missus thinks of her as somebody worth emulating. All said, both live a nice, “cheap" life of the kind I envy.
Creature #3: The Writers
Everybody wants to write a book. The Bangalore Literature Festival was full of writers. Authors were being looked at in awe. Some people asked me what is it that I do for a living. When told I spend a good part of my time writing, I was often told how they have this idea for a book in their mind and if I can offer any pointers on how may they go about it.
Manu and I were catching up after a long while and the both of us laughed at how miserable a writer’s life is. It is hard work and the return on investment (ROI) is terribly low. If you may need perspective, allow me to offer some unsolicited advice on why you ought not to write a book.
Good books aren’t whipped out of thin air. But it took Manu’s most recent book, a thin volume if size is a metric, three years to complete. We didn’t get into each other’s personal financials. But he and I know writing is lonely, takes awfully long, nobody outside the business understands why does it take as long to write one, and why we expend so much time on what pays as little as it does.
Then there are the perverted economics of it all. In India, a book that can sell 5,000 copies is considered a bestseller. Assuming each book is priced at Rs500, a best-selling writer can hope to earn Rs2.5 lakh in royalties from the publisher—that is assuming he manages to negotiate royalties in the region of 10% for each copy sold. This too may be set off against the advance paid by a publisher.
Reality is, thousands of books are written each year. Not all are priced at Rs500, royalties at 10% don’t kick in from the first copy sold, and only a handful make it to the bestseller list.
So why do you write? The both of us agreed on that the only reason we continue to write is because we love to write. And that the time spent in writing is the only time we feel pure and sacred. I suspect it may be the kind of moment the spiritually-inclined may feel when in prayer.
When reality kicks in, though, we know the only reason we can write is because there are other streams that allow us to carry on with life. Until then, we continue to delude ourselves to believe the law of averages may tilt in our favour and that what we write may someday make us rich and famous.
So how do you get to be a full-time writer? My friend Ramnath again pointed me to a passage from Nicholas Nassim Taleb’s book Anti-Fragile. “There is a tradition with French and other European literary writers to look for a sinecure, say, the anxiety-free profession of civil servant, with few intellectual demands and high job security, the kind of low-risk job that ceases to exist when you leave the office, then spend their spare time writing, free to write whatever they want, under their own standards. There is a shockingly small number of academics among French authors."
“American writers, on the other hand, tend to become members of the media or academics, which makes them prisoners of a system and corrupts their writing, and, in the case of research academics, makes them live under continuous anxiety, pressures, and indeed, severe bastardization of the soul."
My observations can go on and on. But I must stop. Because, as a speaker at the festival cheekily told Ramnath and me backstage before getting onstage, “Current discourses now sound like the Arnab Monologues."
This is an edited & updated version of a piece that was first published in Mint on Sunday
The Essar Leaks
Since the time Indian Express broke the story on the Essar Leaks, everybody wants to get their hands on the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Prashant Bhushan. This is the document. Feel free to download, read, and make your own judgements. I have nothing else to say
Why BJP losing Delhi is bad news
Yesterday, I asked my friend S Srinivasan what he thinks of BJP and Narendra Modi's spectacular loss in Delhi. I have the highest respect for Srini's views. We've worked together in the past and he has an impeccable reputation for being on top of the game. Now based out of London, I thought his answer to my question the sharpest piece of commentary I have come across any place. Reproducing his response below ad verbatim.
***************
I had written a Facebook post yesterday, articulating a very cautious tone on the results. That was more from a moral perspective, saying the fight against racism is our main project, not the defeat of an individual. So it is too early to gloat.
But from a more political viewpoint, I have to double that dose of caution. I think the results are very bad news for India in the long term. The society may divide like never before and may move towards more turmoil. This view is based on my understanding of Narendra Modi's political philosophy, the long-term ambitions of the forces supporting him and the benefit of history.
Many think that this result serves as a wake-up call to BJP and Modi. They say that people rejected the party because Modi had failed to deliver in the first eight months and this will jolt him to introspect. The sanguine among us hope that he will change his approach to governance -- reining in loose talkers such as the sadhvis and babas, silencing ghar wapsi campaigners, and ask his ministers to abandon controversial interventions and focus on governance. A spate of economic reforms will come in the budget and all will thank the Delhi results for the happy change, or so the reasoning goes.
Alas, life ain't that simple.
If you look at Modi's voter base in 2014, it is arranged in three concentric circles. His core audience is the radicalized Hindu, who believes in the supremacy of his/her religion over others and the dictum that "India is Hindu." There are subdivisions within this inner circle, with those arguing this viewpoint with academic theory and those making the same argument by burning Muslims and Christians. It is truly a rainbow coalition, but the intellectual underpinning is same from everybody from Gurumurthy to Dara Singh. That is why they are called the Sangh Parivar.
Let us call this the Group 1.
Group 2 consists of self-serving voters. The business class, caste-based voters, NRIs all fall into this concentric circle. They vote him because they think that he will tweak the system to benefit them more than it benefits the others. This is often the group that calls for a "benign dictator."
The outermost concentric circle is the neutral voter. Disgusted with the aloofness of UPA II and being naïve enough to believe the APCO-engineered mythology of Modi's economic miracle in Gujarat, this group voted for him in the belief that they were saving the country from a corrupt regime and delivering it into the hands of a modern leader.
Modi built his career by serving the needs of these three concentric circles in quick succession. He engineered the Gujarat riots to satisfy his core support base, transformed Gujarat's economic system into a crony-capitalist institution and won over Group 2 and used his PR machinery to make over his image and position himself as the alternative to the "corrupt" regime of the UPA.
Look at the chronology of this journey: The core audience was won over in 2002, Group 2 in the years of the financial crisis and Group three after 2011.
While Group 1 is the unshakeable support base for his extreme-right Hindutva product positioning, Group 2 provides both the financial means and the media build-up of his image. But Group 3 is where the numbers are. So, power comes from Group 1, money comes from Group 2, votes come from Group 3.
Now to the Delhi elections.
The equation is very simple: Group 1 and Group 2 are still with Modi. Group 3 is not.
Arignar Anna, the founder of the DMK, once said that the goodwill of a political party falls by 50 percent the day it assumes power. That is because it is impossible, even for the most sincere and capable leader, to fulfil election promises. The reason lies in the way the Indian psyche works. There can never be revolutionary changes in India. All change is organic and happens by itself. This is a subject that deserves a separate discussion, but suffice to say that you can't legislate anything into or out of existence in India. When the time comes, things happen and you can take credit. Otherwise, make do with incremental changes.
So this invariably leads Group 3 into disappointment. They start complaining that their leader let them down, while the truth is the fault lies within themselves. They put a burden on the leader that he/she could not possibly carry. For instance, eliminating corruption is one of the tasks Modi has been entrusted with. We all know he can't. As a political reporter in Tamil Nadu, I was often amazed at how politicians were disgusted with the corruption of the common people. Our daily lives are intensely corrupt. Politicians are just aggregators of these ocean drops and the pressure on them to comply with the system is enormous. So, when Modi fails to lead Group 3 into the la-la land of bribe-less purity, he is ditched unceremoniously.
While this clearly shows that Arvind Kejriwal will "fail" to fulfil his promises and the neutral voters supporting him will ditch him at some point, this also throws up a disturbing possibility of what Modi could do.
Any politician's first objective is to survive. If your skin is not in the game, it means you have been skinned alive. So Modi may look at the election results and realize that Group 3 is no longer with him. As per Arignar Anna's First Law of Politics, pre-election supporters are different from post-election supporters. So, while he can't fulfil the impractical demands of Group 3, he needs to nurture Group 1 and Group 2 to survive in the party. History shows that Sonia Gandhi's downfall has to do with her failure to sustain her own Group 1 (fundamentalist supporters), she also failed to take care of Group 2 (self-serving groups). She also promptly lost her Group 3 one day after the election results. So, it is vitally important for Modi to pander to his two main support bases: The core of Hindu racists and the middle layer of capitalist cronies.
So, here is my conclusion: Modi will not only allow the rainbow shades of the Sangh Parivar to rear their ugly heads, he will give them enough room to run riot. He will continue to tweak economic policies to benefit his financiers and wheeler-dealers.
As Clayton Christensen said, companies fail not because they did the wrong thing, but because they the absolutely right thing to survive, but that it wasn't future-proof.
Modi will fall one day, not because he failed to provide good governance, but because he divided the country into a million pieces to further his own existence. His legacy will outlive his political career. And then, only then, can India start the long road to regeneration.
As for Arvind Kejriwal, his search for his Group 1 has just begun. When he realizes that his core audience cannot be the disgruntled (and fickle) Modi voters, he will become a serious politician.
* * *
By the way, this is what I posted on FB yesterday:
I'm amused by the epic trolling that's happening against Narendra Modi as if we've proven a point to him. We haven't. In a country of 1.3 billion people, it's just one municipality which also happens to be the headquarters of most TV channels.
Politics is a musical chair; one party wins today and the other wins tomorrow. The shifting sands don't validate or negate an ideology. So to think that our campaign is against one individual or party would miss the point completely.
Our fight is against the radicalization of India. From Hindus to Muslims to Christians, common people are taking extreme positions and are ready to condone mass murder in their cause. Their leaders are upping the ante against each other in a race to apocalypse.
We want India to go back to being the integral and tolerant society we have known and grew up with. Destructive characters, irrespective of which religion they come from, are all the same. Modi, Togadia, Owaisi, Uma Shankar are all in one camp and we are in the other.
That is the main fight. Election results are a sideshow.
Why the Congress may take Maharashtra
Earlier today, I met the CEO of a real estate firm. Firmly entrenched in Maharashtra, the man travels the the length and breadth of the state often enough to argue he understands how the state functions. A progressive Pune boy, his heart lies with the BJP. Though irreverent in his speech when it comes to most things, he speaks reverentially about Prime Minister Narendra Modi. After a brief rant on how the UPA regime had systematically decimated the economy over the last three years, he spoke of how the mood is changing and people like him are now bullish on the India story. All thanks to Modi, he kept reiterating.
With assembly elections around the corner, I was tempted to ask him which party he thinks will form the next government. He was unambiguous in his response that it will be a Congress-led government and that Prithviraj Chavan will be the next chief minister. On asking him why, his answers were pat.
- Had the BJP-Shiv Sena alliance stuck together, it would have been a cakewalk to power for them. But given the acrimony that exists between the former partners now, they've effectively managed to split the electorate down the middle.
- "The BJP is great at riding into power. But it is awful when it comes to holding on to power" he said. By way of examples, he spoke of conflicting voices from the party on issues, like statehood for Vidharba.
- While the BJP has run a massive campaign across all media on why the electorate ought to vote for them, they haven't projected who the next chief minister will be if they come to power. It would have helped their cause, he argued, if Devendra Fadnavis had been propped. He is seen as clean and competent. Instead, they're banking on Narendra Modi's charisma to do the job. But as history has it, the outcomes of assembly elections are very different from that of the Lok Sabha.
Devendra Fadnavis
- In multi cornered electoral fights, historically, the Congress has always managed to form the government because of its remarkable ability to cobble coalitions.
- Though the Congress is largely seen as incompetent, since the time all alliances have broken down, the party seems the most viable option. This, in large part has to do Prithviraj Chauvan's image as that of a clean, tough guy, who cannot be arm twisted by the Centre to do its bidding.
- More pertinently, albeit belatedly, the media arm of the Congress has started to communicate the kind of work it has managed to accomplish across the state.
- And finally, what makes things real bad for the BJP is the consistent sniping by the Shiv Sena. The barb by Uddhav Thackeray's cousin Raj Thackeray, who is in the fray as well, insinuating Modi is not PM to India, but Gujarat, hurts.
But that's CEO speak. What clinches it for me me though is my go to guy, the local cigarette vendor, who almost always has the last word. A migrant from UP, when I passed him by to pick my stock of smokes for the day, asked me if I'll go to the poll booths on October 15. I said I most certainly will, but am undecided on whom I ought to vote for.
He was unambiguous in his proclamation. For the Lok Sabha, he voted for Modi, and not the BJP. But for the assembly elections, his vote, and that of his contemporaries are going en masse to the Congress. Apparently, the local candidates are known devils and cleaner than the lot fielded by the others.
I've kind of grown to trust him because over the years, he has predicted with unerring precision what levels tax rates on cigarettes will be hiked to, much before the Union Budget announces it.
I understand these are two conversations and there is nothing scientific about it. But as things stand, I'm willing to punt it will be a Congress-led government in Maharashtra, never mind what the surveys say, or all of the chest thumping by the BJP.
UPDATE: SINCE THE ELECTION RESULTS ARE NOW OUT, I KNOW FOR SURE I CAN'T BE A PSEPHOLOGIST :-)
-
The barrage of press releases quoting jokers with expectations of #Budget2015 have begun. Spare me. I don't give a rats ass what they think
The cross of carrying a "Christian" name
Some disclosures first.
- This post is being written in a fit of anger
- I am Indian
- I was born into a Catholic family. My parents and my wife are practicing Christians
- I am an atheist
That out of the way, why the anger? The immediate provocations are two pieces I read earlier today morning. The first, Being Muslim Under Narendra Modi by Bashrat Peer in the New York Times. The second, Secularism is Dead by Shekhar Gupta in today's edition of The Indian Express.
I thought the NYT piece an interesting read. But, quite honestly, I'm tired of bleeding heart secularism, what the rise of the Right Wing means, and why "minorities" ought to be protected.
Shekhar Gupta's argument is an interesting one as well. But I suspect a bout of intolerance embedded in the piece. The kind of intolerance stoked by too much "minority appeasement". This is the kind of intolerance that terrifies me. Allow me articulate where I'm coming from.
I come from a school of thought that believes merit triumphs adversity. As Martin Luther King Jr famously said: The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. To my mind, that explains how Babasaheb Ambedkar, a man born into the Mahar community, or "untouchables", got to draft the Indian Constitution, perhaps one of the finest in the democratic traditions of the world.
That also explains the rise of the now much reviled Dr Manmohan Singh, the first Sikh to the highest office in the land. Like Dr Ambedkar, he grew poor and earned a decent education on the back of his scholarly capabilities, not his minority status. For the record, I have to say this. For all his frailties, I think posterity will thank Dr Manmohan Singh for the reforms he unleashed.
The India we live in now is a creation of men like these, as much as they are creations of Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Nehru, part of the "majority community" (How I hate these politically correct terms!).
So how did India comes to be hijacked around discourses that constitute the "minority" and the "majority"?
Allow me put my personal experience into perspective. Because I was born into a practicing Christian family, my parents gave me a "Christian" name. For better or for worse, my identity is now "Charles Assisi". The cross I carry with this name manifests itself when I introduce myself. Often times, after the mandatory "What do you do?", a cursory "So, you're a Christian?" follows.
In the first instance, how does that matter? But my name places me in a ghetto. The insinuation as I have come to realize over the years is that I am a lesser Indian than somebody with an Indian name--or to put it in bluntly, a "Hindu" name.
I've been the subject of idiotic questions like "Did you learn English early because you were born Christian?"
That I enjoy Western Classical Music is attributed to my being a "Christian" when truth is I grew up on a staple diet of Malayalam films.
I'm slotted as a drinker when truth is I am a teetotaler (Yes, I used to drink until a few years ago much like anybody else from the "majority community").
It is taken for granted meat is consumed abundantly at home. Fact is, I do. At home though, most of my family rarely consumes meat. My brother is a vegetarian in the finest traditions of the Jain community.
The Congress assumes my vote for granted, when fact is I find the politics it practices as obnoxious as that of the BJP.
I find it incredible when people ask me why are my daughters called Nayantara and Anugraha. "How did a Christian give his daughter's Hindu names?"
Nayantara means "The star of my eye". What if I had called her "Stella del mio Occhio" instead?
Anugraha means "A blessing". What if I had called her "Benedicta"?
Would the same question have been asked of me? These aren't "Hindu" names. These are Indian names-- the India I was born into.
That is why I find my name alien. "Charles" is English and "Assisi" is Italian. I've often asked my parents why did they name me Charles. The stock answer is because my grandfather was called that and family tradition demands the first born be named after his grandfather. As for how did Assisi come about, I have no clue. I suspect it was decided by some Catholic priest from a foreign land who converted my ancestors to the faith.
But like I said earlier, for better or worse, this name, I have to live with. This is now my identity, my cross to bear, and the stereotypes that come with it. I am reconciled to living with it. What I can't reconcile with is how my name is being twisted to slot me as a "minority".
I didn't demand "minority" status. I don't want it either. I want no special privileges. I want to be known as my own man, who made it on his own. And I know how to make it on my own. I want to be respected for what I am and what I am capable of.
That is why I squirm when political and religious leaders from the so-called minority communities demand protection and assurances are offered their "interests will be taken care of". That is also why I get horribly upset when I'm told the "freedom" I enjoy is because the "majority" thought it only appropriate I deserve that freedom.
I don't want anybody to either take care of my interests or protect my freedom. I know how to take care of both.
As Virginia Wolf famously wrote in A Room of of One's Own: "Lock up your libraries if you like; but there is no gate, no lock, no bolt, that you can set upon the freedom of my mind."