Save India

Omar#53

The way i look at it due to longstanding.animosity,hostility &mistrust between the two countries,its clear India will always have a selective memory &hearing in matters of Kashmir.

May be if enough Hindus in India & muslims in Pakistan,already being not part of the govt. machinery for most,Initiate ``biting the bullet``& proceed confidently to open arms wel come between the citizenery of two countries,then there may still be some hope left for the next mellineum!

From Dawn, letter to the ed August 20th 1999

Kashmir: an Indian`s point of view

I am a second generation Omani of Indian origin and I am very lucky to live in the country of peace, tranquillity, and harmony under the wise leadership of His Majesty Sultan Qaboos. Sultanate of Oman due to the magnanimity of his Majesty, has no border disputes or quarrels with any of its neighbours. I have recently returned from the US and feel that I have returned to a warm paradise on earth.

I am also witness to the fact that we Hindus have never felt victimized, discriminated against, or looked down upon by the overwhelming Muslim majority of Oman in any way. Even the Pakistanis (and there are many Pakistani expatriates here) living in Oman greet the Omani as well as non-Omani Hindus with friendship, courtesy and without any communal feelings of any kind. What hurts me is that when I read the Indian newspapers, and the statements of some of the Indian leaders, I find them full of communal hatred and hysteria against the Muslims living in India. How can India claim to be a secular state when its popular leaders give out such non-secular statements? In retaliation, some fanatical Pakistani leaders make similar jingoistic statements.

The latest episode of shooting down of an unarmed non-hostile Pakistani aircraft, (whether it did or did not cross the border is a matter of claims and counter-claims and immaterial to the basic argument) the debris of which fell within Pakistani territory, is hardly likely to enhance the chances of peace.

The Kashmir problem is being dragged by India and Pakistan for the last 50 years without any solution. Hundreds of billions of rupees have been wasted by both India and Pakistan in an arms race that only benefits the makers of those arms. That money would have been better spent in feeding the hungry of both the countries. They have now also entered a nuclear race, which only spells disaster in the hands of the religious fanatics on both sides. If only that money had been distributed to the people of Kashmir then each one of them would be a millionaire today instead they have had nothing but misery. The human misery of Kashmir is no less than the one in Northern Ireland. Even that problem could not be solved by war and ultimately the solution came across the negotiating table. Let India and Pakistan sit around the negotiating table and solve this problem finally. They should learn from the example of Oman that magnanimity in border disputes brings about lasting peace and harmony that ultimately breaks down the borders forever.

In many ways, the problem of Kashmir is very similar to the problem of Quebec. In Kashmir also there is a linguistically and ethnically different population that is asking for the right to choose their future. There have been two referendums to decide if Quebec will remain in Canada or will separate. Canada does not call Quebec as its integral inseparable part. Why should India?

States of a union - and India is a union of states - stay together based on the desires of the people living in those states and no one can be forced to be a part of any union or country. That is the way of the modern world. The Indian government should also have the courage to hold a referendum in Kashmir so that the Kashmiri people can decide whether they want to stay with India or to separate from it.

Germany, England, and France fought two World Wars in which millions of people died yet today they sit together as good friends around the table of the common European community. If these warring factions of the two World Wars can live in peace and harmony then why can`t India and Pakistan? The Europeans have learned that wars bring hatred, misery, and economic regression whereas peace brings tranquillity, brotherly love, hope, and economic progress. Let the Indians and Pakistanis do the same. Let there be a free and fair referendum under the United Nations, like in East Timor, and let the people of Kashmir decide what they want to be their future.

VIJAY AJIT KESHAVJI

Muscat, Oman

The patient is not in good shape.

``Let us call in Dr. Kevorkian`` is the suggestion.

After all, when the patient is no more, there

will be no pain and suffering. Other remedies

are less certain of success.

-arun gupta

The whole idea of a benevolent dictatorship is so feudal, it`s sickening.

A lot of the societal ills enumerated in Veer`s diatribe are a direct result of the feudal mentality that our masses can`t seem to rid themselves of. What is ironic is that while lamenting the inescapably feudal makeup of our current system, Veer suggests an even more feudal system as a cure!

The paradox of a democratic system governing a poor country is conspicuously obvious. Being a poor country, the majority of the population is poor and illiterate and therefore the representatives chosen by these people are of questionable merit. But to suggest that the way to get the masses prosperous and educated is by whipping them into shape is outrageous!

The basis of the `benevolent dictatorship` solution is nauseously elitist....

``Those poor bas * *rds are oppressed and uneducated and will always remain so...``

``Those poor bas * *rds are ignorant and keep making babies left, right and center...``

``Those rich bas * *rds have all the corrupt politicians in their pockets and keep getting richer...``

``Those bas * *rds in the judiciary and beaurocracy have no integrity...``

``Why do we lack the `unselfish` and `patriotic` attitude of our leaders that fought the British?``

``The only solution is to let the army take over``.

``Let the army punish all the transgressors who have pillaged the masses by abusing the system for so long...``

``Let the army rescue the oppressed from their viciously cyclical misery... show them the light...``

Well...

How will the `army` educate the masses?

How will the `army` control the population explosion?

How will the `army` rid the political system off corruption?

How will the `army` instill integrity into the judges and the beaurocrats?

How will the `army` bring back an unqualified patriotic fervor?

I`ll tell you how!

To educate the masses the army will make education mandatory. Since you can`t have poor people fork out cash for mandatory education, the education system will grow into an even bigger behemoth of a state run, state controlled sub-standard monster. All the headway made towards the privatization of the education system so far will be negated.

To control the population growth the army will hold Sanjay Gandhi style camps for some `pro-active` family planning. We got lucky when the `ooper wallah` exercised his prerogative and recalled one of his defective creations in an opportunely timed plane crash. An army rule will only rekindle the spirit of that gruesome ``submit your testicles and get one transistor free`` legacy.

To wash the governing body of all corruption, the army - now itself the governing body, will do Diddley Freakin Squat!!! In an organization where to preserve the sanctity of the `chain of command` members are taught to carry out tasks without questioning the morality, righteousness or outcome of their tasks, how do you expect the top brass of the army to refrain from misusing their awesome power? Like I pointed out in my earlier posting... these armymen are no angels with wings and halos, they are regular people as affected by the social malaise as you and I.

To instill integrity into the judiciary and the beaurocracy, the army will practice KGB style `selective annihilation of public officials`. ``You better acquire some integrity in a hurry judge boy or you`re gonna have to drop down and gimme 40 in double quick time``. Hah !!

To bring back `patriotic fervor` the army will instruct all and sundry to refrain from indulging in `unpatriotic` actions. `Unpatriotic` as defined by your friendly neighborhood army official on duty. Bye Bye free press!!

I could go on and on. The fact is nowhere but nowhere has a `benevolent dictatorship` existed. It`s an oxymoron if ever there was one! We are all frustrated that things have not turned out to our expectations, but 50 years is not that immense a epoch in the life of a people. Especially not for a people that have existed for thousands of years.

The mythical `super age` for us regrettably has always lied in the past. People still talk of `Ram Rajya` as the ideal form of government. The whole `benevolent dictatorship` fad is nothing but a `Ram Rajya` hangover. An extremely talented, wise, fair and foresighted ruler leads the masses from abject poverty to glorious prosperity and knowledge in one Moses like maneuver. Well you`d have to be a God to do that and we don`t have any Gods hanging around these days... certainly not in the Indian army.

Its real alluring to wish that some God like Monarch will descend from the heaven and salvage our social ill infested society from brink of disaster. But that`s merely wishful thinking! There is a real simple solution. Bring about prosperity!

Prosperity will mean that every citizen`s standard of living will increase, every citizen will be educated. The government`s coffers will be replete with revenue to be spent to their citizenry`s advantage. Government and quasi-government officials will be well paid and much less susceptible to corruption. Civic consciousness will rise, people will take pride in public property and treat it as their own. Elected officials will be qualified and conscientious. The GDP will rise to such levels that we will have resources to support a billion people.

``Its the economy, stupid``... says Rush Limbaugh, and you have to agree with even him on this one!

And how do you better the economy and bring about prosperity? By turning to martial law? HELL NO!!!

Democracy is an inherently noble ideal. There`s been a lot of talk going on lately in the west about how democracy is primarily a western concept. Scholars in the west feel that the eastern cultures will not accept democracy as an acceptable system because it`s culturally an alien concept.

India should take pride in the fact she has proven them wrong for 50 years and will continue to do so for a long long time. Change comes slowly... but if people have the right intentions, over a few generations a country can bring about a total economic turn around. Did Japan do it with martial law? Of course not!

India is the true last bastion of democracy. If India looses democracy due to ideals as espoused by Veer Kumar, god help planet Earth!

Jai Loktantra

Jai Bharat

I agree with your ideas. I has similar thought when I was a engg. student in India. I supported Jaya Prakash in 1977 to dislodge Congress from Power but Janata did the same. My question is that how much honesty can you count on Army or defense personel. Unless and Until you find a real honest nationalist with no present or past self to fulfil, its gonna be real foolish to expect much from a general who may have a broad interest to look after. Another thing, when the whole world is moving towards democracy, it will be a very hard sell to the rest of the world. It may be easy to kill the democracy but very difficult torevive it. If you can look into the statistics, most of the indian leaders are ruling the country because they have control over a bunch of illeterate mass Who does what they want. Still nearly 50% of rural folks vote only on the name Gandhi. Till majority of India is educated and understands the value of their voting right, it will be difficult. So, may be wait another 25 ys and you can see the changes.

The viewpoint expressed in this posting are dangerous, subversive, antinational and, thank God and our democracy, thoroughly permissible. It is a feature of the democracy that has been so effortlessly trashed above that it can be torn apart by people with viewpoints such as the author holds.

The fact is under martial law this freedom might - no, WOULD not be available. Nowhere has martial law solved more problems than it has caused.

Moreover, when the author, in his sadly misguided manner, babbles of the honesty of the Army as compared to those other Indian institutions that are only to easy to disparage, he overlloks the truth that it is only the fact that the army does not possess civilian power that prevents it from being the morass of corruption and inefficiency that most other wings of government appear to be.

Finally, who can tell how efficient or corrupt the Army really is? Its not as if its accounts are audited by the Comptroller-General. You shouldnt let the fact that people have died while doing what is, all sadi and done, their duty, affect your judgment in this childish manner.

We cannot get rule of law by breaking the law ourself. The solution does not lie in setting up another set of people (the military) to be the power over us. The later suggestion of getting organized, neighborhood by neighborhood, is probably the only way.

-arun gupta

RE: MacGupta

If only politicans were half as respectful to the Constitution Of India, as you are, we would never be having this discussion.

Instead of critising VeerKumar, you should offer your own suggestions. If you advocate pacifisim, (wait and everything will becomes OK), then what about the irreversible damage that is getting caused while we wait and watch ? (Extinction of entire species of animals, eradication of habitats and entire eco systems, depletion of ground water and forest cover.)

I like democracy but only when it works FOR the people and not when it works only to fill the pockets of those who are in power.

RE: VeerKumar

You asked for concrete steps. I feel that one must start from his or her own neighbourhood.

-- Start a residents association (or join one if it already exisits).

-- Initiate discussions with local government bodies like the muncipal corporation, on local environmental issues. (like planting tress, having a clean and green colony etc)

-- If a neighbour faces corrupition from the local govt, take action against the erring officer through the association.

These are very practical solutions (I know cause I did them)that one can take, to get started. They not only help give hope to people, but they also ensure that one valiant individual is not made to face the ire of the entire establishment, when that individual is fighting for his rights.

AD

To Veer Kumar :

A cynic would take the view that I presented; but I try (not always successful) not to be a cynic.

To me, any dialogue that respects a certain ground rule is always welcome. The rule is that the Constitution of India be respected. The Constitution itself can be amended, but only following rules given in the Constitution.

This in particular rules out a martial law administration.

-arun gupta

correction to reply#30

In reply#30 I mentioned KPS Gill as the Chief election commissioner. Actually it is (I think) M.S. Gill who is the election commissioner.

KPS being the former police chief of Punjab, famous butt pincher and also president of Indian Hockey Federation.

Ashish

re:Truth

I have to disagree about the motion of confidence. If I were in Vajpayee`s position I would rather get a motion of confidence passed than have a discussion on a motion of no-confidence primarily because the discussion will be from a positive angle in the first case (achievements rather than failures). I am not absolving the president of bias or accusing him of it. I have to concede that my analysis is purely theoretical. In practice, given the meagre achievements of any govt. in India I guess they would rather counter-attack upon being attacked by a no-confidence motion- as name calling and heckling is easier:)- than defend their work through a confidence vote.

Ashish

re: macgupta

Arun,

I have to whole heartedly agree with you. You are right on target. You have perfectly articulated what I too have thought about all this nonsense about benevolent dictatorship and supposed decay because of lower classes coming up. Whenever I have heard this, it is from the middle aged manager types and its echo can be found in a segment of the younger population, mainly male from the exclusive upper classes (they will also proudly tell you that).

Ashish

re: Truth

I look forward to your article on devolution. I think it is better to increase the powers of the states (which are already not insignificant) than increase the number of representatives at the center. If we increase the number of representatives by say four times the Lok Sabha will become unwieldy (more paper snatching, mic throwing, etc.). I would rather see it increased to around 600 members from the current 545. Influence of the states can be increased by the Rajya Sabha which can be increased to about 400 (the norms for the nominated members need to be better specified to avoid getting just film stars). Most developmental activity should indeed be taken up at the state level as should revenue collection (that may improve income tax collection). The reason for the centralization in the 50s and 60s was perhaps because of the lack of good administrators at the state level and later on it was done by Indira Gandhi just to cling on to power. Both these problems are non-existent today with an increase in the number of educated and with the current coalition politics.

About the motion to dissolve, I think this route needs to be open if there is a case when there is endless squabbling in Parliament. I think nobody will perform in the first two years if they are guaranteed five years. On the other hand if they have to vote to dissolve and the voting is published then the members will need to explain to their constituents why they did so in say the first year itself. At present they all say that they don`t want dissolution, so in all likelyhood they wont vote to dissolve (especially, if the vote is open). Currently everybody just raises their hands saying that all this is beyond their control while at the same time saying that they didn`t want this to happen. The PM also blames everything on the structure of the mandate and it`s only the president who has to keep working to fix a govt. for the people even as those supposedly about to run it behave like children (like Jayalalitha). So such a motion to replace alongwith a non-binding (on the president) and open (to the public) motion to dissolve would I believe provide stability while keeping flexibility.

About two stage voting, I too was quite sceptical about it when I first heard about MS Gill supporting such a plan. But after giving it some thought I believe the benefits far outweigh some of the disadvantages. I will make an attempt to give some reasons why I think so.

If a person (say A) gets 35% in the first round and let`s say the person (B) coming second gets 30%. In the run-off most of the voters turning up will be those who voted for these candidates and the results will be the same. In case A is someone like Oliver North (to take an American example) all the ``other`` voters 65% (from the first round) will turn up to vote against him. Now considering the case when A is a ``minority`` candidate (maybe belonging to the middle class- to take a secular example). I guess your concern as well as mine is that the biased segment of the ``majority`` community (poorer classes) will turn up in full force (which was probably divided in the first round) to deny him office. This may happen for a few years (if at all) in a few regions of India but with the experience of the past fifty years I guess the electorate is quite well aware that such voting will only get them a bad representative. Communal alliances will still work in this system (I do not consider them completely bad as they afford suppressed communities an opportunity to fight back) but now they will need to get 51% instead of just 20-30 that they aim for now. This will force them to think *more * about progress than at present. More about increasing the pie (as they have to take care of a larger part of the population) than just increasing the share of the fraction they represent.

Ashish

India is a great country, not just because it has an over 7,000 year history of civilization, sacrifices, mistakes, victories, violence, peace, and survival (all combined in am amazingly colorful way), but because it has remained a vibrant democratic society over the past 50 years when the world has been changing at a much faster pace. The way we have upheld our secularism and social ideals as well as brought about social change shows that we certainly know how to administer our vast and diverse nation.

Sure, we have our problems. Every country has its own set of problems. So, what`s the solution? Martial law? Naah! Look around, look at other developing countries that have had decades of martial law.

Our problem is not as complex as it appears. We simply are a nation of extremely talented people ruled by a bunch of (mostly) untalented people. Education is key to getting rid of this. In the years to come, this will be resolved. In the meantime, we must do our work of nation-building to the best of our abilities and influence others around us to move in the same direction.

Re Electoral reforms, vote to replace etc:

Regarding the suggestions about ways in which some improvements can be brought about into electoral practice: I appreciate the intentions, and the serious concern about a measure of stability, at least to avoid the huge recurring public expenditure on conducting elections. However, whatever difficulties we now face - are they something calling for a solution merely at this level of FORM, or do they indicate very serious underlying problems? And how would the latter be addressed?

I am raising difficult questions. I feel the questions are pertinent.

I do not claim to have THE answer. We could try to probe them together. I value all that we have. I grieve the needless and immense suffering. I would like to be part of change, towards a humane future.

Regards,

VeerKumar

Re Arun Gupta:

Thank you for clarifying your views, and also providing us food for thought through the U Penn study you referred to.

Dear friend, I hope you will accept (in the spirit of the exhortation in your first message) that we do not have any fundamental differences. Something that I may have said has suggested to you that I am a cynical manipulator from the privileged class, contemptuously bent upon thwarting the very gains that ordinary people`s acceptance and utilisation of the democratic system has brought them. Heaven forbid!

Whatever such classes, or anyone else, may do, like earth, water, fire, wind and space, India takes all of that and yet sustains, and her humble folk, still see off haughty regimes and mores!

But for how long will one accept that a privileged section gets virtually free and unlimited supplies of water, while people continue to die, and, perhaps worse, become severely debilitated, through consuming unclean water? And suffer ignominious privations in seeking to get this basic need?

I entirely endorse your last comments. The power of the vote is one thing that ordinary Indians have, and they do try to use this shrewdly to advance their interests.

However, while appreciating the U Penn study (which merits serious examination by those concerned about India), I would also beg to add that if one was really committed to understanding Indian reality (towards constructive action), then one should also try to spend as much time as possible within that milieu - say, in villages, or small towns, or large workers` settlement in the big cities. It is such places that make up the majority of voters / votes. Then we ourselves could come up with live and insightful observations, which could then also go towards constructive action, to strengthen democracy, and improve quality of living.

I might mention here that I was involved in a study (1997-98), looking at Power, Leadership, Cooperation and Conflict among the Poor. If you are interested I could share the findings. If you can trust me, then I could also share other experiences, regarding popular movements and their relation to electoral democracy.

(Incidentally, the armed forces in India should also be viewed as a vital institution in the democratic context. The current chief of army staff is the son of a J.C.O. With the elite classes forsaking careers in the defence forces, it is people from more humble backgrounds who have come to fill the officer cadre. This is something that needs celebrating.)

But first of all we need to get into a fraternal spirit of dialogue and mutual learning - based on a common commitment to a humane future for our fellow-countrymen / women, and a willingness to undertake honest self-examination. I wish it were possible to meet you directly and clear the air. Let`s be partners please, not adversaries, especially when there is nothing to be adversarial about!

Regards,

VeerKumar

The U.Penn. study referred to in the NY Times

Weekend in Review article may be (guess):

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/casi/page30.html

Francine R. Frankel, Arora, Balveer, Bhargava,

Rajeev, and Hasan, Zoya, editors,

Contextual Democracy: Society, Culture and Politics in India (in preparation).

-arun gupta

After my brief foray into chawwanni-class poetry, let me return to the real world.

Ashish:

I absolutely loved the idea of ``motion to replace`` instead of ``motion of no-confidence``. As an aside, our President distorted ``motion of no-confidence`` into ``motion of confidence``. Of course, if ``motion to dissolve`` is still preserved, you could end up with mid-term polls. Still, I like, like, love ``motion to replace``.

Now as far as two-round voting is concerned, there is a more fundamental problem. We have approximately 1 billion people and lets say approx 500 MPs. That means each MP is representing 2 million people. That is often the total population of small countries like Cyprus or Albania. So in our case, a person who can get say 35% of the electorate in a multi-party face-off and win (but cannot get 50% in a two-candidate run-off) is still representing 700,000 people. 700,000 people is not fringe. How do we make sure that those 700,000 people have their voice heard? Do we have more MPs, do we reduce the power of the Lok Sabha that it resembles Brussels more than Westminister (that is only very few very important decisions would be made in the Lok Sabha, eg maximum size of state deficits, upholding freedom of religion, freedom of language, defence, foreign affairs etc, while most decisions would be made at the State Assembly level, eg schools, roads, electricity, railways, police, irrigation, ration shops, union policy)? I dont have the answer but it is clear that enough people in India believe the constitutional system is unresponsive, eg Bodos, Assamese, Nagas, Kashmiris. Any change that moves to stability by eliminating ``fringe`` voices will have to address this matter.

I have some constitutional suggestions to make regarding state creation within a united India. I think we could benefit from that. Maybe I`ll write an article and post it.

Deconstructing Mr. Veer Kumar and those that agree with him :

A New York Times Weekend in Review article in April addressed the issue of participation in India`s democracy. Since NYTimes archives have to be purchased, I cannot be sure that the reference

below is correct :

April 25, 1999, Sunday

Ideas & Trends: Why Governments Tumble; India`s

Poorest Are Becoming Its Loudest

Week in Review Desk

1156 words

By CELIA W. DUGGER

The article cites research conducted in India by the University of Pennsylvania that shows that over the past twenty years, political participation by India`s poorest and lower classes has sharply increased, along with their confidence in democracy. At the same time political participation from the upper classes has declined slightly. The poor see government as their path out of poverty.

One could therefore cynically infer that the Veer Kumars of India are losing faith in democracy precisely because the political control of their class is eroding rapidly. It is not as though corruption did not exist before; only now its beneficiaries are not only people of Veer Kumar`s class. It used to take high credentials in order to be able to rob the country. Now politically organized illiterates can do it, and that is unacceptable. Bring along the martial administration (which would be run by commissioned officers, products of exclusive schools and more to Veer Kumars` liking).

What offends these people is that a Laloo is not their uncle`s classmate or a friend of their third cousin`s brother-in-law or some other connection. Their implicit assumption of entitlement to goodies is rudely shaken by that.

Likewise, the new faith in liberalization of the economy is not due to any new found understanding of economics. As control of government slips away from the upper classes, they want the government to have less control over the economy, otherwise their jig is up. Socialism, which practically speaking meant government largess to the upper classes, is now a no-no, even as control over government slowly and inexorably slips away from these classes.

Now that India`s weakest are getting organized, the Veer Kumar brigade is shifting goalposts.

As long as they voted for the upper class, the Indian voters were miraculously responsible and politcally savvy despite their illiteracy. Now, of course, as the voters begin to tend to their real self interest, we need a benevolent dictatorship ( the dictator will obviously be from Veer Kumar`s brigade) until literacy reachs 70%.

I would like to remind the protesting reader that the stories of Indian democracy in decay, of things being much worse than they were twenty or thirty years ago, etc., also emanate, mostly, from the Veer Kumars, who are still substantially in control. But Indian democracy has never been in better shape. There is little threat that any one family or any one party will be able to dominate the way the Nehrus and Congress did. The problem really is that the newly emerging power blocs are openly adopting the values that the former rulers practiced in secret. But eventually openness and democracy will cause the dirt to be flushed away.

-arun gupta

Self-development:

If people want, this discussion forum can enable a group of people to sincerely engage in a process of self-awareness and self-development, as the most direct means of social re-construction.

Each individual has to be continuously lifting himself or herself up: psychologically; in knowledge terms; and in terms of social ethics or morality. The second is significantly dependent upon one`s circumstances; however, everyone, even the person in the most humble circumstances, can be ever-learning. So for a democracy, or any human community, to be successful, very many people have to be engaged in such self-perfection, and when this is happening, obviously such persons will be doing various things that directly or indirectly affect and influence other people. Hence a continuous widening of the circle of perfection.

Is this not what Mahatma Gandhi`s SWARAJ meant?

On responding:

What are the ghosts and demons swimming in our mind, so that certain outward signs and expressions immediately trigger perceptions which are really mind-projected, rather than objectively seen?

What is somebody`s motivation, really, when he or she responds to this article? Some clue about that could be found in what is being said, the way it is being said. And does the person care to place him/her-self within the critical gaze - or are we merely playing a detached, intellectual role, assuming that one is only the neutral observer and commentator, and implicitly, entirely free of all the contaminants pointed out in others?

Polarisation exists first and foremost inside the mind. Hence the assumption of the necessarily inimical relationship between different social groups or classes. One could instead have the notion of one-ness, and personally strive to discern and bypass the various apparent barriers that divide people.

The challenge of tolerance and harmonious co-existence also bears reflection. When confronted with a view that we are unable to accept, how do we react? Do we see that someone else may also be viewing us in that manner? And is that itself not a microcosm of the conflicts and polarisations in larger society? And is intolerance intellectually derived?

We all talk about PEOPLE. But again we keep pinpointing particular kind of people whom we detest. Often there is a kind of presumption that wealthy people are BAD PEOPLE, and the poor are GOOD PEOPLE. This then creates its own spin-offs, in terms of attitudes and behaviour. Sometimes the good and bad are on the basis of thinking. Hence, old-worldly versus modern, to give one example. But one`s own grandmother is / was also old-worldly? Do we want to annihilate her too? Is she not also a source of one`s strength?

In this light, I have been most gratified by some of the responses, though disturbed and saddened by some others. Intolerance, contempt, rancour, dismissal, ridicule etc - are the fundamental poisons of genuine democracy.

Self-examination:

All people, together, including the Indian participants in this discussion, make up India. So when we say everyone, you and I, must change, what does this mean in concrete terms? We cannot be held accountable for our birth, our social circumstances, upbringing, education etc. But once we are adults, and especially after having been exposed to things outside our own sheltered backgrounds, and are in a position to assess things personally and take decisions accordingly - how do we decide and conduct ourselves? Do we just move along, through inertia, without looking critically at more and more aspects of our personal situation, in terms of how it relates - whether ethically, or unethically, or neutrally (?) - to others in society? How conditioned are we in our thinking, behaviour, responses and conduct? And how rational or ethical or constructive is this?

How minutely have we bothered to examine our circumstances? Do we discern that many things that we simply take for granted - e.g. our water supply - involve a direct conflict of interests, and are we aware that we are on one side of an objective polarisation, as a result of social structuring, but also re-inforced by the conscious or unconscious acquiescence of each of us?

One would say, sincerely, that if someone made it their business to actually probe into any everyday, common difficulty - take water supply - and followed the matter on and on, deeper, and laterally, exhaustively, until there is nothing further to ask or know or say -then they would be utterly aghast at what exists. They would want to scream from the rooftops - there`s a scandal going on out here, and no one knows; worse, so many know, and couldn`t give a bl---- damn.

Do we have the courage to want to be better than we are? And must that not express itself in a humility, and an open-ness to learning? Do we personally desire an unimpeachable SOCIAL CONSCIENCE - or merely status quo for ourselves as we are?

An English-knowing, computer-using person is not a bas----. The existing social structuring, which makes an unwitting person a bas----, is something dehumanising. Would that person like to become aware of this? Does he feel sullied by his being compromised ethically, not through his conscious choice, but just his social coordinates? And out of this sensitivity, does there arise a growing consciousness of inequities, and other people`s pain, and hence a personal commitment, a vision of a future that is rich and fulfilling for all and not just a few? Does the polarised social situation grieve and pain him? Does he feel the desire for open, convivial, pleasant and mutually beneficial relationships with a much wider field of people than the very narrow pool one`s circumstances throws one into truck with? And does he seek such relationships? And does he grieve the apparent impossibility of this on account of lines of social class and so on?

In the existing situation, it is not PEOPLE (whatever that wonderful vague word means) who decide things. But a few people. People not unlike you and me. And upon our decisions does the fate of millions depend. Our decisions on what WE want. Which also translated into what THEY can have (or not have). The tragedy is that many of us do not really consciously choose our way of life. Almost through a process of inertia and momentum, it is chosen for us. But as the basic laws of economics tells us, in a context of scarcity, if someone gets, someone else does not get. We are often not even aware that we are actually making a decision, which has serious implications for others. Or even that life is this kind of getting versus losing game. But unless the realisation and questioning comes from within, if one is made aware externally, the person is usually reduced to fiercely defending his interests, his innocence. Of course he is innocent. But he is innocent in a socially unequal inequitous society. Everyone has to become aware as quickly as possible about the social ramifications of their own life.

The article presents a point of view which, notwithstanding all its weaknesses and limitations, is actually held by many people in India - in terms of perception of the rot prevailing, disgust and despair at this, and analysis of what should be done.

Many, many people in the country would express their support for the idea of a benevolent military adminsitration. Some people here too have said so. Now some critics would immediately react, to this support, see gross and terrifying tendencies underlying this and so on. People should observe their own responses and try to see why they arise, without necessarily adhering to views that they somehow come to possess.

Why would people support a military regime? What is their aspiration? Is this necessarily base? Surely, in this day and age, no one in their senses would advocate authoritarianism. So should that not make one think about why people think this way? And for thinking so, do they become the principal problem - or is their thinking along such lines merely a symptom of a social malady that someone has to work to rectify?

Corruption is institutionalised all over the world, but surely that does not mean one comes to accept it, and accept especially the extreme, survival-endangering level it seems to have grown to, in India. Is this an exaggeration, or are people missing something?

We might think about Indira Gandhi`s emergency. What happened? Who protested? Why? Who was affected? How?

Will people agree that the democracy that exists in India today is something that is beneficial largely to the educated, professional and intellectual classes, but substantively non-existent for the rural and urban masses? That what exists as their living reality is the antithesis of democracy, and for the English-language media this living reality is virtually non-existent? Does this not disgrace our democracy? Does it not create false poles - DEMOCRATS versus PEOPLE?

Do people agree that that there are millions of Indians, at this very moment, who have never even heard of the name KARGIL. Woh kis mooli ka naam hai?

Could a suspension of some or all of the democratic privileges the fortunate enjoy today be accompanied by an improvement in the living conditions and quality of life of those currently deprived? And then how would we judge that regime?

Is it not the case that for the overwhelming majority of people in the country, things could hardly get worse. Democracy as it exists does not substantively empower them, rather the travesty of democracy that exists is the means for their continuing social oppression. But this travesty of democracy does work well for a not insubstantial number of people, and the threat of this privilege coming to an end must worry them. But surely, unless there is a conscious harmonising of interests, sooner or later the arrangement is bound to collapse.

If many people have no idea about what is good for them, surely that is a symptom of their social oppression, which keeps them in such a life-situation, rather than one of ever unfolding critical awareness. Rather than viewing them as idiots, there should therefore be an attempt to understand the factors that severely impinge upon and circumscribe their actions; there should be empathy and compassion for them in their situation; and some commitment to enabling a better alternative.

Meanwhile, what about real democracy? Us ke liye kaun bhookha hai? Are there people who deeply suffer conflict, and fervently desire harmony?

Is it not time that this precious thing called democracy, a little bit of which is being enjoyed by a few, comes alive, in full bloom? What do the beneficiaries of our democracy do to ensure that many others who are currently outside of the privileges we enjoy, can also come within its fold?

In a similar vein, can one not be full of indignation at is seen as caste inequity and consequent stagnation, and yet have a different personal notion of what upper caste capability and responsibility is or should be? Under a different set of circumstances, could one not have been lauding the positive, historic role played by the upper castes? But sadly, that has not been the case.

There was surely am immense social duty and responsibility on the part of upper caste Hindus in building the nation. Will people not agree with the assessment that this responsibility was not even perceived let alone fulfilled?

It is in the light of the immense heterogeneity in our society and the perspective that involving multiple sections is only likely to enrich and strengthen the system in the long run that the exclusivity is all the more painful.

Is democracy synonymous with some civil and political rights, meaningful to those socially and economically empowered, or is democracy something with the help of which the quality of life - basic needs, livelihood, life security - of deprived millions can be improved and the humanisation of the society as a whole be progressively achieved?

There are many people who on account of their far better circumstances are in a position to be more discerning, and are empowered enough to act in this regard. Society is made up all people together. If some have had the privilege to avail of better opportunities and benefit thereby, that should also be reflected in how they in turn seek to make good their debt to society. But first of all, such people would need to educate themselves, through exposure, interaction, communication, sensitivity, about how the other half lives. Educated, middle-class people, and the vulnerable in urban and or rural areas, inhabit quite different universes altogether - though this may never be discerned by most (educated) people. Intervening on behalf of the vulnerable may also become yet another form of self-empowerment for the more privileged. On the other hand, it is also possible to think about a process of coming together, across class lines, involving mutual learning, mutual respect and empowerment, accountability, capacity building and institution development. Therein lies hope.

The article touches upon the viciously trapped state people are in, as a result of the way the system has come to be shaped. And it is the people whose survival is ultimately affected by that. In villages and towns across the country, people have come to become extremely dependent, for basic survival needs, on wielders and brokers of power. That makes it rather difficult for most to even conceive of a way out of that situation. Obviously, no magic fix is going to work, and people will ultimately survive or sink according to their own consciousness and actions, but that is something that is necessarily a long process - if worked upon. Meanwhile, the situation would simply further worsen. It is a tragedy and calamity if even a single child suffers and dies. Today, thousands upon thousands of children are dying across the country, because of lack of access to clean, drinking water, among other reasons. And when that is largely avoidable, such circumstances tend to lend a sense of urgency to the desire for improvement. For genuine democrats too, there needs to an awakening to a sense of urgency.

About Veer Kumar:

It was rewarding for the author to see the various responses to the article. In my last reply, I stated the objectives and perspective underlying the writing of the piece.

In a nutshell, the piece presents a picture of a character, ``Veer Kumar`` - a brave youth.

Here I might mention that some years ago, a study on Youth in India was undertaken for the defence establishment. Here, youth were classified into 4 categories: those actively engaged in extremist, violent actions; those not directly engaged in such actions, but supportive of this; those engaged in peaceful, constructive actions; and those who were apathetic and unconcerned about social issues.



Veer Kumar is implicitly committed to a range of concerns and goals, which are only laudable. However, there is an impatience with the way things are, and hence a prescription - that is vague, not well-thought out, naïve, and does give the impression of being a quick fix. This also raises the question of ENDS and MEANS. But there are also other things introduced into the piece - of a spiritual bent, through various references; calling for total integrity at an individual level; and also for transcending of hate-filled discourse. Thus we have a complex kind of person - presented to try to bring out the kind of complexity to be found among people at large.

Veer Kumar`s impatience could provide a cue for serious reflection by concerned people. Why the impatience? Is such impatience an indicator of the persistence of not-so-admirable tendencies within the otherwise admirable person? The conclusion of such thinking would only be - as some have pointed out - self perfection. The enemy is within. And through history, prophets and sages have said: perfect yourself first, and the rest will follow.

The focus of the article was on system degeneration in India, and the Gordian`s knot - of institutionalised corrruption, married to electoral representation - that keeps this in place. But does this only mirror a Gordian`s know within each of us?

In that light, the article tries to lay out the terrain for such self-perfection. It seeks to enable an active engagement on ``How to Save India.``

I could not see any particular direction in this article. The suggestion of a dictatorship is outrageous. The idea of a benevolent dictator solving all problems is escapist. I do not know of any ``benevolent`` dictators. The closest we can get is Saddam, Pinochet, Suharto, Franco... (each did give his people ``prosperity`` and ``stability`` but I do not think the people are very satisfied with that). Here are two suggestions (in the political arena- though this is not the only area where change is necessary, a fact quite often overlooked in ivory tower discussions in India) that I believe can lead to substantial gains for India over a short period of time.

1) Two round elections: tried and tested in various countries- and also in intra-party elections in the US.

Supported by: K.P.S. Gill, Chief Election Commissioner

Two leading candidates in each constituency go to the second round. Advantage: Winning candidate has greater than 50% votes. Purely sectarian agenda currently aimed at getting somewhere around 20% cannot win the second round. The candidates have to appeal to a majority of voters in their constituency who may have voted for other parties in the first round. This keeps politics in the center and reduces the fringe elements in Parliament. Also, brings in more people interested in increasing the pie rather than the share of the small sections they represent. Over time number of parties represented in Parliament will reduce even without limitations on the number of parties or candidates at the local level. So good candidates with new ideas can always start new parties and enter Parliament as long as they have majority support in their constituencies. Representation of minorities may be affected in the short term but most parties will find other ways (like the current Rajya Sabha route) and with better politics overall the candidates merit will be more important leading to improvement in the long term. The Rajya Sabha will be an important safety mechanism (unlike the US senate with its direct election system which has lead to it becoming just another House with similar minority representation) and with India`s diverse political equations(manifested by the scramble for the elusive ``muslim vote`` in the current system) this problem might not arise at all. Increased cost will not be substantially more than at present especially with EVM`s.

2) For ``Sthirta`` (stability): (If you can`t fix it or replace it don`t break it.) Motion of No Confidence is changed to Motion to Replace.

Supported by: Nani Palkhiwala. Currently a similar system is in use in Germany. A government is voted out only if a replacement is already in the wings. A simple majority vote on the motion will simultaneously replace the govt and put in place a new one. An alternative coalition needs to be worked out beforehand - a powerful disincentive for any party that decides to switch sides for trivial reasons. So if the members are not really interested in facing elections they wouldn`t be able to bring down the govt and then start their machinations. The option of dissolution can be retained and improved by taking it out of the hands of the govt (which may have lost its majority) and given to the house through a Motion to Dissolve. The final decision on this can be kept with the president as at present.

Both these changes are not drastic but can improve the political, social and economic environment in a big way. The need is for the public to demand such changes rather than hope for some miracle worker to cure all that ails the nation.

Ashish

Your article is well written, and if its goal was to incite a discussion you have certainly successed.

What critics on your artilce should reaslise is that democracy means a government in which the people actively participate. A government will only become accountable when the people, the voters demand accountability.

Now if you agree with the fact the democracy is by of, by and for the people, then how can democracy work, when the people are missing. In this case ``missing`` means their intellect is missing. 40% of people in India are illiterate. And about 60% are functionally illiterate (meaning that they can read and write docuemets) without grasping the implications of them.

In this environment, they put into power losers of the first order (like Laloo and party) to mix ang govern this country, sitting next to such Intellectuals like Mr. Vajpayee, Manmohan Singh, Mr. Sangma, Mr. KumarMangalam etc.

If over 60 % of these Laloo types are elected in each election, it is little wonder that India, is not progressing as fast as it should.

In this environment, we are causing irreversible damage to the ecosystem. We are loosing treasures that cannot be replaced (such as our waters, and air).

So I am all for some sort of dictatorship. Some one mentioned that benevolent dictatorship before, and I think that would work just fine in India.

Once the country reaches a point where the progess in education of the masses has reached over 70% then we could revert back to democracy.

If this suggestion is too extreme for the people who love this `pseudo-democracy` then we might want to change our govt to a Presedential form of govt like, the USA.

Something, anything.... that what we have.... (the only condition being that whoever comes into power has a honest rep... like Lal Bahudur Shastri, etc)

Ad

It is much easier to die for one`s country than to live for it. This was demonstrated by the courage of those who died in the Kargil fighting, on either side.

Each side can certainly say that it had at least 600 men who would give up everything for the native land. Each side can certainly say that there are at least 600 more such, actually thousands and thousands more such.

Imagine, such a group of 600, each standing for member of Parliament. Each accepting initial political failure. Each refusing to be corrupted or bought and fighting on. Together building an organization, a political party, a platform for the honest governance of the country. All this with the same courage and dedication that they faced bullets in the mountains. What will they not be able to achieve ?

Why does it not happen ? This is because fighting for a cause like throwing out the aggressors is a relatively simple one with few possible disagreements. What is the right thing to do in innumerable other circumstances is never as clear-cut, and there will be innumerable legitimate differences of opinion. If 600 men of the caliber that died in Kargil organized, it is likely that after some time, the organization would split over philosophical, ideological, operational differences. What someone will see as a legitimate compromise on some issue, someone else will see as a betrayal of principles. In contrast, a military operation does not tolerate differences of opinions or objectives; one must do as one`s commander has ordered.

The way forward is to learn to work together despite our differences, to learn not to destroy those we do not agree with. There is no group of people, e.g., a martial adminstration, who can impose this. This quality can probably be taught and can be learned, by example. If this is learned, then there are sufficient people of honesty and ability and dedication that can rescue the country. This hypothetical group of 600 should not lose their effectiveness because of their diversity any more than they did when fighting.

* * *

Incidentally, there are movements that stiffen the spine, teach people to walk upright, to work with others, to shed despair and cynicism. I am only recently aware of one such. It eschews publicity, does not ask for hand-outs, does not give charity.

It does not seek to change people`s religions, rather to reestablish them in it. Very little attention is paid to it in the media. You will find virtually nothing about it on the internet. Yet it has touched the lives of millions of Indians. Out of respect for its values, I will not name it here; but I assure you, it exists. Seek and you will find it.

-arun gupta

Yeh Pakistan

Yeh Hindustan

Yeh Kashmir

Yeh Sindh

Yeh Punjab

Yeh Bangla

Yeh Eelam

Yeh Lanka

Yeh dil ki deewaren

Uththi Bhi Naheen

Girti Bhi Naheen

Todo Todo Todo

Girti Hui Deewar Ko

Ek dhakka Aur Do

(last two lines are a popular slogan in India)

Na Hindu, Na Mussulmaan

Na Hoon Paki, Na Hindi

Siraf Chowkee, Siraf Chowkee

Veer:

Yes, you certainly opened up a much needed discussion. Perhaps a little digression. I am always a little amused when I read analytical or rhetorical pieces about India or Pakistan, Bombay...er Mumbai or Karachj, New Delhi or Islamabad, Calcutta or Lahore, or about Jains, Hindus, Sikhs, Sunnis, Shias etc. Amused, because whatever the main thrust of the article, I find similarities with the other city, country, culture not directly mentioned.

That is why the ``India`` in Save India can easliy be changed to Pakistan, Sri Lanka or Bangladesh with some minor and insignificant changes.

As some interacts here, and some in the Dushman Kaun piece have suggested the enemy is within. That has to be tackled. Change has to come from within. I wish I had a poem by Fahmeeda Reyaz, a Pakistani poet, in which lamenting about the rise of fanaticism/fundamentalism first in Pakistan and a bit later in India she rhetorically asks the Indians, ``Have you not learned anything from our experiences?``

Regarding your conclusion to invite the (Indian) Army to participate in stabilising the ship of the state, it would have been easy for me to quote Fahmeeda Reyaz. But I suspect you have just thrown a curve ball to intitate a discussion.

I do beleive the enemy is within us. Our unique demons have to be conquered first. How to do it is the question.

regards

Explanation:

Some explanation is called for.

Veer Kumar is a fictional name, used by the author of this piece. The objective of the author was to initiate a serious discussion on `Saving India`.

The immediate context of the author`s concern was the Kargil conflict. With large-scale military operations having been launched by the Indian armed forces, and the mass media providing extensive coverage, a charged climate had built up.

It was felt that this was something that should compell citizens to think deeply - in their own and the country`s interest. The events highlighted the crucial importance of achieving enduring peace in the region, which would also directly enable India, and Pakistan, to better address their internal socio-economic problems, which in turn would provide the strongest foundation for genuine peace.

The war in Kargil expectedly led to a wave of patriotic fervour, both in India and in Pakistan. And a highly polarised, hysterical, hostile, rage and hatred filled environment was building up. Newspapers even carried reports of senior persons in Pakistan and India advocating use of nuclear weapons.

But citizens should in any case be thinking seriously, and doing something as well, before and after Kargil, to achieve the goal of peace and improved living standards. Kargil brought this into sharp focus.

But prior to Kargil too, citizens should have been thinking, and acting, on purely internal socio-economic and political matters as well - for comprehensive system change, as many had already been advocating. That in itself would also have directly lead to a comprehension of the link between security, defense and development.

After Kargil, it seemed that we have actually regressed considerably, in the movement towards peace and development. It also brought into sharp focus the questions: What is the role of ordinary, decent citizens in achieving peace and development? Will the political rulers ever be able to address citizens` aspirations? And would the kind of major changes that are needed ever happen unless there was a very active involvement of a large number of people in this process? And since there are two parties here, India and Pakistan, such a goal cannot be attained unilaterally. Both countries affect one another. Hence, this is something that ought to happen at a sub-continental scale. Any attempt at civic action for system change would necessarily require at least some understanding and clarity on problems, issues and priorities, with this being shared by as many people as possible.

In such a backdrop, the objective of the author was to try to initiate a serious discussion among many thinking people about such matters, as a civic act. Given the outreach, accessibility, and transcending of distance and time enabled by the Internet, this medium was chosen, though one is aware that Internet users in India and Pakistan come from a limited socio-economic band. But they are also full citizens, and more importantly, many are capable, empowered, involved in various processes etc.

While there are very major differences between life, circumstances and the situation in Pakistan and that in India, there are also many underlying commonalities. Hence, the issues being discussed could be of interest and relevance to Pakistanis as well, and perhaps the discussion could come to dwell upon Saving India and Pakistan (without the AND, either is impossible).

It was felt that an article was posted on chowk would generate some discussion. But how is one to ensure this outcome? How would one make people think, respond, hear, reflect? And how would one bring quite a large number of people into this discussion, so that all could benefit from the likely multiplicity of view-points and experience?

So the key task was to make a noise so as to attract people. Like the peddlers and performing artists on the streets of the subcontinent. So if a piece could succeed in drawing many people, a good discussion could perhaps then take place, with a trajectory of its own. If one posted a piece, which was very sober, well-argued, evaluative, reflective kind of piece, most people would fall asleep reading it, that is if they cared to read such a ponderous piece at all, rather than think of joining a discussion. Some scholarly types would read through, appreciate all or some or perhaps none of it, make some dignified comments. But civic action cannot be restricted to scholars. Everyone has a stake in the matter, and is entitled to think and act.

So it seemed that the best `strategy` would be just to make a noise, make a noise and raise some issues, LOUDLY. And the real serious ideas could be taken up in the ensuing discussion. For the effectiveness of this strategy, obviously one could not say, look I am going to make a noise. That itself would produce a kind of conditioned reaction, detrimental to the objective of having a solid discussion.

But that is not all. If a stranger stands on the street and makes a loud noise, then many people will turn to look, hear, but they would eventually go away if this was only an idiot trying to attract attention. So something has to be said as well, that would make them stay, and engage. What? In the existing spectrum of views held by people, many lines of thinking have been broadcast ad nauseum. So some deeper thinking was needed. The answer was provided by the post-Kargil situation itself.

Being concerned and anxious about the charged environment, the author had discussions with a number of people, within the range of what may be labelled as progressive thinking. Through this survey, a view began to emerge: angry, enraged, desperate, confused, simplistic, yet earnest, considerably advanced in terms of adherence to various principles, emotive, forceful, compelling even. The discussions were free of any rancour, since it was among colleagues, friends and acquaintances. Some of the people talking about violent solutions were themselves quite simple, harmless persons, and one could not even get exercised through the discussion. This was an educative, but a disturbing process for the author. It also led one to try to understand the roots of this rage. It became clear that for many, the existing Gordian`s knot of corruption and criminalised electoral politics had become a thing in itself, to demolish, by any means. It was depressing, in bringing to light the immense contradictions and limitations inherent in our democratic process.

This reminded the author of other earlier encounters, with decent young people, educated, fairly idealistic even, and of a do-gooding bent, who were moving towards violent extremism.

Disturbing also the implication, that the rage engendered by the corruption and criminalised politics may well erupt is localised uprisings, but largely of a violent and destructive nature. The alternative, of a movement for and based on the inviolability of truth and integrity, was obviously waiting for a scapegoat. Under existing circumstances, the one making such a call - and if that call has to have any meaning for people at large, it can`t be an vague, general statement, rather it has to focus on specific issues and persons - would be risking his or her life. Which is why most people simply remain quiet and put up with things. Or do things that help to give them a sense of purpose even as they are unable to reach out to a wider section of people. They value their lives. So the one making the call would be pretty much isolated, a sitting duck. But one can also see that once this crazy, superhuman initiative is actually made, and is followed-up by an attack on that person or persons, a huge supportive reaction could well arise. Given that the mass support would also involve all kinds of shades of tendencies, the tragic outcome could also be a means to highlight the genuinely constructive thinking and vision of the enlightened leader/s, and thus lay the foundation of a large people`s movement, around integrity, with integrity. Someone has to bell the cat, and thus also start educating the mice; and they must to be prepared to pay the price. They may even lose their lives. That maybe this is tragically necessary.

Thus, the desired discussion, as a civic act, cannot merely be about change, or how such change may be brought about. It has to be something that is able to clarify, for individuals, what CHANGE means, at a personal level, in terms of thinking, attitudes, conduct etc. The discussion itself could help people make the change.

Hence the article. Through this piece, therefore, a view has been held up for people to react to as they consider appropriate. Even if someone concludes that what is written is ridiculous, at least this enables them to clarify their own thinking on this matter, and if they so choose, express this so that others may be helped by the discussion to come to their own conclusions, or to attempt or seek further clarification etc. A piece of engineered prose, to make a noise, to elicit engagement. But also touching, in various ways, this dilemma of means and ends, change, changing, changers.

I am grateful to readers for having taken the trouble of reading the article and responded.

About communication:

Notwithstanding this explanation, the responses also enable an observation of different people`s make-up. And that is the real subject.

Much the same content could have been presented in a completely different manner; for instance, in a very sedate fashion, exploring various issues, pointing out trends and tendencies, raising rhetorical questions etc. That would have led to another kind of discussion as well. But the underlying message emerging from that discussion would be about the persons participating, and the boundaries of their purely intellectual being. Raising the issues in this polemical manner also brings its own results.

As a student of human psychology and behaviour, I have found that when one`s own values, ethics, conduct, role, actions, position in life etc are implicitly also thrown into the subject, then one`s intellect works over-time towards self-justification, protecting one`s sense of self, reinstate a sense of personal stability, self-worthiness. The discussion could become shrill, hostile and accusatory, vindictive. People begin to lose control over themselves and even start becoming like animals, snarling, because the ego, formed through and around one`s life circumstances, is a pathetic creature that cannot tolerate its rocking or puncturing. People then have vested interest in arriving at a legitimisation of a hardened status quo of the self, rather than arriving at possibly self-transforming TRUTH. And for the discerning observer and learner, such a communication process reveals the real underlying human problems about the issue.

TRUTH, SATYA, HAQ - is not an intellectual formulation. Injustice in any form is equivalent to a departure from truth. What is the cause of this departure from truth - and what is the meaning of truth in the matter of justice - have to be understood personally. Truth is something integrating knower-knowing-known. Hence, in terms of revealing, more important than what is said is the fact that something is being said, how it is being said. This enables someone interested in studying the real problems to read and intuit from a process of communication.

Therefore some of the responses to the article say a lot about what that person has assumed, imagined, inferred; about the person`s not being conscious of his thought process functioning in this manner; of his being overwhelmed not by reason but vindictiveness; and therefore, his ethically compromised position, and thus, of course, also a microcosmic illustration of the operation of social power.

The apparently polemical style itself could also appear very sedate to some. (Rather like a tiny tiger cub throwing himself with all his might at his languid mother, who is entirely unfazed by junior`s antics.) Because nothing sticks on them, everything bounces off (or sinks in, for some, like into quicksand). There is no disquiet from a threatened ego. One man`s polemic, is another man`s ... yawn?

But it must be conceded that a polemical style was chosen. Simply because of the facts of life. We are all ignorant, in varying degrees. Our sense of self is built around this ignorance. Ignorance reacts with fear and hence violence when confronted with knowledge (i.e. self-knowledge). But if that is the outcome of reporting objective reality, then so it must be. And it provides an opportunity to the person to have observed his response, his uneasiness, and if he is so inclined, probing into that could be the beginning of a process of growing self-awareness.

This kind of indirect, intuited reading and communication and possibility of self-observation appears called for in the light of the subject being discussed, India, its problems, and what is to be one. India is its people. And people cannot merely have an intellectual discussion about this. They are in one or other situation to begin with, which goes towards making up the composite picture, and they go on from there, and so therefore does the country.

I shall be back again, with my replies to the comments made by readers.

Thanks,

Veer Kumar

Veeresh:

You think I`m Gunga! Toba Toba. On the forum, I sometimes used the not-too-original pseudonym of ``Indian``. Gunga Din was a Hindu bigot and I detested his views. I`m a secular fundamentalist. I hate the two-nation theory, hate the Hindu right-wing, think liberal principles with regard to individual rights are pretty decent in the west and therefore refrain from the white-baiting you indulge in. As for meeting directly, abhi purde mein rehne do. I find it easier to jab at you. Thoda sa darpok hoon.

Re:The happy one #: 20

O Happy One, Thou Speakest the Truth, Verily !

For India to change, the Indian people must change... you and I.

Touche !

When faced by a problem, the easiest thing to do is to look for a quick fix. A radical and inherently violent shake up that would somehow cure all. The tough thing is to take stalk of the problem, analyze it, and then deal with it in a balanced manner with good short term and long term outcomes.

Veer`s problem here is that he`s looking for the quick fix. More than half a century of dissatisfaction with how his country has performed has driven him to the edge. Dare I say he`s gone over the proverbial edge?

His passionate article written in a fit of rage yields a wry smile. I admire veer`s passion and his obvious zeal to find a solution, but the mere nobility of his motives cant absolve him of the abject horror of his proposed solution.

What I find simultaneously humorous and incredulous, is our friend`s touching faith in the integrity and problem solving ability of the armed forces. Does he realize that the institution of the armed forces, its leaders and its cadre are all a subset of the greater Indian society? Veer seems to have convinced himself that all the evils of the Indian society that he enumerated in his rambling rant have by some divine providence passed by the people the make up the Indian armed forces.

If you think that all the problems that plague the nation today are direct and exclusive results of the prevalent political system, then you are extremely naive. And if you think that these problems can be lanced off the face of the nation like an ugly wart with one swish of the sword, you are downright deluded. Just replacing the head of the system will achieve absolutely nothing. In fact it will set the country up for total devastation. Imagine all the people in power that have ever done wrong by you, imagine all the beaurocratic institutions that have impeded your progress, imagine all the public officials that have demanded bribes off of you just to do their job!!.... Now imagine all of them with a gun in their hands. Do you like what you see?

The people in the army are no angels with wings and halos around their heads; they are people like you and me... Indian people! The people that form the Indian parliament, its beaurocrascies, its judiciary, its educational systems, its corporations are no devils with little horns and pointed tails... they are people like you and me... Indian people! For India to change, the Indian people must change... you and I should change. And ultimately, the power should remain absolutely and unquestioningly with the Indian people, with you and me!! So we can bring about that change.

I hope you recognize the immense contradiction when you propose martial law in the same breath as upholding democracy as one of the primary Indian ideals. I hope you don`t need ME to tell you that once you hand over the reins to the army you can pretty much kiss democracy good bye. Then Chowk will be banned in India, and you will loose the ability to write what you wrote. Is that really what you want?

If you think that after a few decades of Army rule (wherein officers with unquestionable integrity and friendly demeanor will travel the length and breadth of the country, executing with clinical precision `operation safai` smiling and petting little kids on their heads all along), the country will be handed over back to the democratically elected leaders in one seamless UN observed transfer of power; you have got to be kidding yourself.

The fact that we need comprehensive and cross-sectional improvement is beyond debate. But by giving up on democracy, we will relinquish the only instrument we have to bring about that overall change. I am extremely disappointed that you have given up on democracy. I am more disappointed that you have lost faith in the Indian people (civillians only) to bring about change. But most of all I am utterly confounded that you believe that a billion people should be ruled by a few million men wielding guns who you believe to be essentially benevolent in nature on account of them belonging to a certain institution.

Please.

For ``Truth``

We must stop meeting like this, Gunga!

E-mail me direct, if you need to, at ``veeresh@vsnl.com``

How goes the good life?

Wonder when they`ll have the Forum up again?

Yes, I`ve been quite succesful about the VVIP convoy stuff, got a PIL going and all the sarkar hopping . . .

Re: Veer Kumar

Veer Kumar writes: ``. . . what a nation of befuddled fools...`` and then goes on to prove it by arguing for `a military dictatorship` to cure the ills created by ``.. a centralised and authoritarian government ..``

I only saw the article posted, together with several responses already, on Thursday night. I shall be back soon to reply.

Thanks

Veer Kumar

Hey Veeresh:

Are you the same guy who is fighting to get the VVIPs to stop disrupting traffic in Delhi? If yes, for once, you are doing something useful. (Try to see if you can introduce white-bashing in the process.) Good luck.

My reply to you will consist of picking up bits and pieces of your `prose` and retaliating to them. First:``The Kargil occupation only confirmed that people could even go to the extent of selling their mothers.`` A tall claim indeed my friend. But tall is all it is. Unsubstantiated and unproved. Sounds more like a line from a popular hindi movie, something that Dharmendra would say in his haydays.

Second: ``The armed forces in India are the only one therefore capable of doing what needs to be

done.`` Can you give an example of anywhere in the world where this has worked? And even if it were to somehow miraculously work, how would you assure that some Nazi military general wouldn`t do say what his contemporaries have done in Africa, or closer still, in Pakistan in recent years. Did army control really do these countries, or, in fact, any country any good ever? And just to clarify, this is almost impossible to do in a country like India in which the military has been consciously given a very small role, if any, in the governance of a country. Do you rather that we scrapped the entire consitution?

You suggest that ``At an appropriate juncture, with the system reform in place, the armed forces can retreat from its direct engagement in civilian matters.`` A brilliant plan my friend, but who is going to impose it? In the history of the world who has ever given up power? The few who have, are considered saints or atleast enlightened like Buddha, Mahavira, Ashoka. But the examples are few and far between. Can we trust the fate of a billion countrymen, then, on hoping against hope that the military will give up its power and subserve under a weak democracy again?

But even i agree with you when you say all war has to be stopped and all efforts have to go into reinvigorating our nation.

The only thing I don`t comprehend is your urge to ask the army to save us. Shouldn`t we, the people of India, be given the task to save our land? Or are we so pathetic that we cannot do so? History shows that change can only come from the masses. Thus if we want India to change, we have to educate the masses about the futility of war. No man, or military-no matter how powerful, can ever achieve what the conscious effort of a nation`s people can. So stop asking help from the military and see what you can do for your country. If the whole country remembers the fabeled saying `` Kar khudh ko bulund itna...`` and works hard and steadfastly towards a better, corruption-free future, our problems will be solved. Otherwise, people like you and I can write back and forth about the futility of our nation to eternity with no avail.

Hey, Omar1974 and nameless, this stuff wasn`t written by me, so will you please write in directly to ``veer kumar``?

My views are strictly anarchist.

However, a benevolent dictatorship in India would not be a bad idea because we DO have a very vibrant and outspoken media which would keep them in check, so any similarities between Brits (they didn`t like the weather), or Mughals (they couldn`t stand the workload) or Zia (come on, who else would carry mangoes in an airplane?) are irrelevant.

Cheers

Veeresh Malik

not Veer Kumar

(Will the real Veer Kumar stand up please?)

Every ills described by Veer are present in Pakistan too,so there is uneasy akwardness among most of Paki to say much against a country which in size & neumerical military strength sits as a formidable advisary in the psyche of most of Paki!Believing,many cosmopolitan cities compared to only one Karachi & maybe Lahore,India is always daunting as a competiter for an average Paki.When ever an article criticizing India like Rohans``Lack of imagination in India``& this one appear people like OMAR74 go bannana with multiple posts of flight of ideas.He suggests ruling India by British or Mughal?British will be happy to oblige where is he going to bring the Mughal.The last descendent, the other day appeared to endorse Bajpai Govt,condeming Pakistan!

This being predominantly PAKI Chowk there is askwed selection of articles to make the Paki feel good .I feel eerie about repeated articles about India bashing(not that they are not true)when an average Pakistani cant even feel comfortable reading it leave alone criticize it whole heartedly for in the back of the mind he is thinking of worse crime in his own backyard!

Re: Veer Kumar

An extermely interesting article on the post-Kargil India with the problems clearly highlighted. After reading it the first time, the message analysis of your article came across as a cry of the heart and after the second reading as tale of a sad state of affairs and still, after a third reading, the impression is one of fright and concern at what you seem to suggest.

As to the Indian intelligence failure in Kargil, the root cause of it lay in the inability of the Indian Army brass to draw the right conclusions from the situational reality along along the LoC and on their mis-preceptions of Pakistani intentions and even though it was failure of the government, to pay heed to intelligence, it should not be seen as endemic decay in the Indian
government itself.

Veer, it is an old cliché, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions and you, my friend, need to think carefully about what you are suggesting. The army may seem as a balm for Indian problems, but it will not work. The most obvivious reason is that corruption and political petty interests have their root in the intent of the individual and not necessarily in the affairs of the state. Applying martial law and using the Indian armed forces will not solve the problems you have so astutely identified and wish to amend, but India has to re-create its own sense of a civic obligation in its polity and that, starts with the individual`s sense of resonsibility towards the state and can not be applied from the top down in some sort of trickle down scheme.

If that were the case, the military coup d`etats of Pakistan should have solved our problems of corrurption, but they did not. Take it from our past experinces, and learn the right lessons from Pakistan`s history, that this approach will not work.

This article presents a recurring theme for the indians, the infantile desire to go back to the past, the desire nurtured by the religion, the idea of Rama Rajya. Once up on a time there was a king, Rama, the gutters contained honey and milk. In the modern context the Rama Rajya could be delivered by a military dictator. Very good idea, there are a lot of takers for this in India.

I know many old people in india who fondly think of the old british days. They are not smart enough to think of the effect of population growth, changed economic and political climate, they were unwaware of the plight of others, they were the beneficiaries and they want the old back. It is heartenenig to know that the young also have imbibed the values from the old, time remains stationary in india, a land where yesterday and tomorrow has the same word, `kal`, ahere time is cyclic, every thing returns to the origin, let us welcome neo-colonialism, hopefully to be followed by real colonialism.

Veer Kumar symbolises the failure of india, it is not the poverty, it is not decease, it is not education, it is Veer Kumar.

While I`m not for having the successor of the British Army of Occupation taking complete and unaccountable control of the country (like it did in Pakistan), I think that Veer Kumar has raised a very important point by pointing out the glaring discrepancy between the National Motto: ``Satyam Eva Jayate`` (Truth verily triumphs) and the reality on the ground.

I suggest that a more pragmatic approach would be to make this motto the de-facto law of the land. The people of India and Pakistan both must take a zero-tolerance approach towards lies and falsehood, no matter which side of the border they are coming from. Some truths are unpleasant, certainly. Some facts may seem ``detrimental to national security.`` But falsehood is a cancer that destroys everything as it redirects more and more national resources to propagating itself.

There is a simple movement that I believe is based in Rajasthan with a simple motto: ``Humaara Paisa, Humaara Hisaab`` (``Our money, our accounts`` in Hindi/Urdu). This simple step would go a long way for both countries. Elections are meaningless if the people (and their chosen representatives) are denied access to this kind of information.

Right now, so called ``national security`` is used as a blanket tool for denying the people access to the workings of their own government. Want to know how much money from the GOI goes towards funding Madrasas? Sorry, that information is ``sensitive`` since it might spawn ``communal violence.`` Huh? The vacuum of facts is filled with rumors and innuendo.

The same goes for thousands of other points. The GOI denies that radiation from Pokhran or Nuclear Power Plants hurts anyone. But it is illegal to walk around with a geiger counter because of ``national security``! People get worn down and they start putting up with this nonsense.

I`m sure the situation is similar in Pakistan. By God, the Pakistani government still denies that it is arming cross-border infiltrators based on Pakistani soil! Or that many Pakistani youth proudly take part in such operations. And the funny thing is that they are lying about stuff that many people consider a point of pride! An Indian Muslim friend of mine told me that the Koran said ``seek the truth even if be as far away as China.`` I`m sure that the Pakistani Muslim reads the same Koran.

So, rather than calling for martial law and other drastic measures, why not start with simple steps and involve the people? Lets make the truth the standard. If either Government lies, they should be put on the spot and asked to produce evidence. If they claim ``national security,`` the people should offer up a representative who will take whatever oath in defence of the country that they want and then look at the evidence.

As long as we tolerate lies, nothing else is going to help.

In response to Veer Kuman`s Save India:

An interesting collection of ideas with an naive solution of the current plight of India. Instead of ``Save India,`` I would have loved to learn about a well thought out answer of: ``How to Save India? `` This focus would have helped us too as a lot of our problems has some commonalities.

Every country has a negative and a positive side. Veer Kumar has offered a powerful description of India`s negative side. This essay is markedly different from Pritish Nandy`s ``Demolish the Myth`` where the author paints a positive picture of India in relation to a negative picture of Pakistan (with a rather cynical passion). In fact, both India and Pakistan need to focus on the difficulties that they are currently facing or they bound to face within the next few decades due to their extremely and fast growing populations. In this regard, I see a very gloomy future of India (and to some extent of Pakistan as well).

Veer Kumar writes: ``. . . what a nation of befuddled fools.`` I must add: ``on either side of the Indian-Pakistani border.``

In my opinion, the worst part of Veer Kumar`s article is one where he calls for ``a martial law administration for an internal clean-up operation.`` This call will surely encourage a lot of Pakistani people to do the same. But, wait a second, Mr. Kumar. Did the Pakistani experience tell you (and us) anything significant? What if, instead of ``Saving India,`` the army rule may trigger the process of Indian national disintegration? Should history show its ugly face again and again?

-- Bilal Ahmad

In short, now that the failures of `native rule` over the past 50 years have been gauged correctly by veresh it is time to ask the Brits and Mughals to return to rule.

Omar

P.S No Indians or dogs allowed.

Indians are not fit to rule themselves. What good has come of India in the last 50 years is a legacy of the Brits. Be grateful to the British. What India requires is the return of either the British or Mughals to bring order to its chaotic society.

Omar

India is a prison of nations.

Omar

``institutionalised by its predominantly decadent Hindu upper caste political rulers``

Mr. Kumar (if that is your real name), you are writing in a public forum, could you please clarify what do you really mean by the above words. Do you mean:

1. Corruption/decandency by Hindu lower caste or Muslims or Christians or Buddhist would be OK?

2. Corruption/decandency is exclusive preserve of so called upper caste Hindus or they are the experts at it?

3. What do you expect in a Hindu majority country? Or perhaps you mean the UPPER CASTES are minority - if