A New Constitution for Pakistan

re:#101 by fuzair
You have not read my post carefully. You are just comparing apples and oranges when you ask if a worker would prefer Indian democracy to migrating to Gulf for a better livelihood.
We are talking about the poor living in India. So, do not jump in and bring an imaginary worker from Gulf. Would a poor man in India prefer the disruption of democracy and sacrifice his Right to Work under the pretext that the alternative would give him a better livelihood in India? We saw that happen during emergency. Work ethics was supposed to have improved and productivity was up (So we were told). Everything was supposed to run with clock-like precison. That is what India needs, we were told. But the electorate (mostly poor) was not amused and rejected Indira Gandhi and her policies.
You still betray ignorance of Indian democracy. Talk from personal experience. These articles or scoring systems by Some western authors do not impress me. Besides, comparing western democracy and Indian democracy is again like comparing apples and oranges. You need better yardsticks.
Sridhar

re:#101 by fuzair
Looks like when you cannot convince your opponents, you call them idiots. Good defense. Only, the readers will know who really is an idiot. And, hey, if you don`t want to interact with me, well and good. I do hold strong views on a number of subjects and am not here to please anyone.
Sridhar

Again... You are just wasting my time... these questions I have answered many times on these boards... the purpose of this article was not to give the entire constitution... but to point out the essential problems which need to be addressed if Pakistan is to avoid going down the path it has gone down in the aftermath of the 1973 constitution... now if I answer your questions ... you will accuse me of harping back to Jinnah`s speech... I am going to do it for the last time.. I am shocked that I have to repeat my vision which has been repeated a 100 times...


(a) What are the rights of the citizen? Nowhere is this is addressed.

Ans: I have addressed this many times. The rights of the citizens should be the rights given to them under the Human Rights Charter of the UN. They should be incorporated. There is a chapter on Fundamental Rights in the current constitution. The right to life, liberty, property, religious freedom, expression, sexual orientation and speech


(b) What are the duties of the citizen and the State?

Ans: The state`s responsibility is simple: law and order and administration of Justice.. citizens to not try and subvert the state and its laws.

(c) What are the fundemental freedoms a citizen will enjoy?

Ans: given in a)

(d) How is power going to be achieved so that all of what you say in your article can be
done?

Through Democratic means ... by the ballot.

(e) In whom does the ultimate sovereignty rest?

People and only people unconditionally ...


I must have repeated this vision a 1000 times on this site over the last 4 years.

-Manto

avkrishna:
You are right. Nehru was simply following the fashion of the day in choosing the economic model he did. Fabian socialism was the trendy thing to do in England when he was there. So, I do not hold him responsible for choosing socialism, at most, you can accuse him of being a copycat intelllectual. My main complaint about him is that he ignored what I call the nuts and bolts of governance - the kind of things that Lee did in Singapore.

But there is no denying the crucial role he played in India`s formative years. He was instrumental in giving us a solid-gold constitution, probably the best in the world. And he laid the foundation of some solid institutes and institutions. These are his true legacies.

(though this is addressed to Mantolives (aka YLH) it is also addressed to the likes ofFerozK, Fuzair, Romair, NHK, Faisaluno, sameerjb and others)


Okay Mantolives here is why I say there is no vision in your manifesto or the constitutional framework. This problem has not been addressed by Ferozk, Romair or any one else apart from Urstruly in his own convoluted way. These are also the reasons why I say the discussion gives a picture of an elite which has had a disconnect with the people.

Esssentially what you have been discussing is the issue of power sharing between yourselves - presidential etc governpors etc roles of ministers etc. But it doesnot address more fundemental issues. The image one gets is that of the elite fighting over who does what. Not a care for the people of Pakistan.

(a) What are the rights of the citizen? Nowhere is this is addressed.
(b) What are the duties of the citizen and the State?
(c) What are the fundemental freedoms a citizen will enjoy?
(d) How is power going to be achieved so that all of what you say in your article can be
done?
(e) In whom does the ultimate sovereignty rest?

there are more questions but this is enuf for the time being.

See all forms - Islamic, English Common Law (and the charter) on which a lot of law is based in Pakistan, the US constitution, Hindu Dharma amongst others spend a lot of time on these four/five issues(almost 90%). Unless and untill you have answered these questions you will have a rehash of other constitutions and they will essentially be US consitution Lite, English Constitution Lite, Indian Constitution lite, etc.

You and the others have not addressed these issues. All you seem to be interested is in how power is to be shared - that is why I say it is like the cart before the horse. That is why I say there is NO VISION. That is why I say there is a fundemental disconnect between the Over Schooled Elite and the people.

The only one to have recognised this, and I hate to admit it, is Urstruly -atleast from what I have seen of his interacts on other boards no one else.

Bharatvasi,

Well then obviously you don`t have any idea of what you are talking about... Have you read the constitution of 1973?

Read it... my recommendations (which by the way have nothing to do with Jinnah`s speech or speeches) are a criticism of the basic principles of the constitution of 1973... my recommendations are for a presidential system, against single member constitutency, and for complete separation of church and state.. I wonder how that is like th 1973 constitution...


His excellency...

The inherent contradiction of the `Islamic Democratic state` is what has ruined the liberal spirit of the 1973 constitution...

My suggestion is to remove that contradiction.

-Manto

``#85 by HisExcellency on August 19, 2003 10:54am PT
#78 by yogiraj

I just answered you. You just didn`t like the answer. But the answer is still correct.``

No you did not. It is not liking. You never answered.

I am little slow, may be little more slower than you expected. Please explain to me what is education. I only got your snobbish rebuff.

Write very clearly and cleanly, what do you mean by education. Forget me, forget you. Just define.

Still waiting, not very hopeful.

Yogiraj Patil

#109 by bharatvaasi

The vision of Pakistan is quite clearly spelt out in 1973 constitution (i.e. an Islamic Democratic Republic) and Jinnah`s proclamations (i.e. a moderate Islamic Democratic Republic). Jinnah also spelt out foreign policy objectives for Pakistan: peace within, and peace with the world outside (including India).

Moreover, the 1973 constitution also spells out social justice, fundamental political freedoms (expression, political association, religion, movement), etc as the goals for any Pakistani government.

I believe Pakistan does not need a new constitution. The 1973 constitution is the ONLY unanimously endorsed document in Pakistan`s history. Common sense dictates that we take this document and find a way to implement its vision. Any attempts to create a new constitution are like re-inventing the wheel.

#113 by Mantolives on August 20, 2003 7:33am PT wrote :
``Bharatvasi,

I am not here to convince you of whether I have a vision for Pakistan or not. It is there and many Indians seem to agree with my vision...

-Manto ``

What is the vision please care to restate it - it is lost in all the verbiage. Clarity of vision is required - what can be gleamed from the article is that the concept pf old wine in old bottles is being reinvented inPakistan.

In what way is your manifesto as presented in teh article different from Jinnah`s (apart from a few superficial aspects) speech?

In what way is it different from the original 1973 consitution? from where I am sitting it is similar only that the mutilations from Zia`s time have been removed.

Clarity dear Mantolives clarity of vision is required. This is what differentiates a good leader from the rest of the pack. We all have ideas and views of our own but what we lack is the abiity to articulate a clear vision of where we want to go, how we are going to get there? And this is missing from the manifesto Young Turk( and I mean as in a up and coming leader and in an affectionate sense). Give it that and viola you have a wonderful manifesto and a framework for a good workable constitution. Currently it is a rehash of the US and other constituions - as I said the manifesto lite of the well schooled elite.

And BTW why this fixation with Indians as in when you say ``.....many Indians seem to agree with my vision... `` - they need not approve of your vision.

And BTW can you tell me what laws have been enacted since the formation of the 1973 consitution. Apart from dictates and ordinances and orders that is. Can you tell us the number of times (hours) the various democratically elected govts of Pakistan sat in assembly enacting laws/bills whatever (including fighting)?

Bharayvaasi, avekrishna, Dost-mitter, Ferozek

Interesting debate

* India and Pakistan began with equal oppurtunity and poverty - Both had a reasonable infrastructer, bureacratic elite, political & government system, coastline, natural resources, technology - only India was 7 times bigger.

Lets take India first

* India should have done far better - Its take off has been slow because of a controlled economy and corruption. Its biggest achievement has been its weaving of a large population into a working democratic system; and thus achieving a social integration. Its biggest threat lies in its new found religious fanaticism.

* China, a comparable case, overtook India economically because of its extremely adept balancing of its economic liberalization without the commensurate political freedoms. But with a one party system, the end game in China has yet to be played out. I wish China well but there is an inherent risk of a complete disruption.

* So, at present, my bet would be on India in the long term context.

As for Pakistan

* It had an inherent advantage of compactness and a dynamic volatile population.
* Pakistan failed to channelize this dynamism by frittering away its strength through diverse experimentation - Presidential system, socialization, then islamization, then a quasi civil-military control and so on.

* The derailment of the political process in 1960s by army, followed by the 65 war put it in a constant decline out of which it has so far not recoved. Even the fundamental issues of the state remain unresolved after 56 years. It has yet not been able to reconcile with its contradictions, its existance and its future outlook.

* But economically, with all the above chaos, it is comparable with India - everything 7 times less - exports, reserves, etc

* Like the end game of China that has yet to be played, Pakistan is also not yet firmly on ground with a dedicated direction and focus.

rsridhar, harimou

How can you expect to talk sesnse into those who take pride in being a professor or an academic..like fuzair or ferozek.

The bengalis taught these buffaloes a good lesson. These sell-outs and asslickers are programmed to be always prostrating towards the rising sun.

Leave this wretched dishonoured class to its educated existence.

Bharatvasi,

I am not here to convince you of whether I have a vision for Pakistan or not. It is there and many Indians seem to agree with my vision...

-Manto

``I think it was the political infrastructure; India had it and we did not.`` (FUZAIR)

a very astute observation, indeed.

Those of us who have SEEN India and LIVED thru India BEFORE Independence in 1947 -- are still heavily indebted to TWO individuals --

TO ruralist GANDHI

for building the `political infrastructure` that extended TO ALMOST every village in India --

and

TO urbane urbanite Nehru -- the right man at the right moment of the history to be there -- for Democracy -- at the helm of a 100 year old very inclusive FREEDOM FIGHTER organization -- with A LINE of illustrious CONSTITUTIONALIST leaders –

and thank God for ALL THOSE – that the most NATURAL form of government in the world -- the Democracy -- came sooo NATURALLY to India.

And thanks to all THOSE – that today that Nuclear Nut civilian Abdul Kalam Jainul Abedin -- not -- Field Marshall Maneck Shaw -- is the President of India….

sorry ferozk -- that quote is from ferozk -- not FUZAIR

FerozK asks ``why did India end up better than Pakistan?``

And then goes on to say:

``Personally, I think it was the political infrastructure; India had it and we did not. It had nothing to do with leaders. We had to create a system of government and a polity, while you simply took over what the British left you and adapted it to your reality in 1947.``

there are two things which stare out :

(a) the constant comparision with India: But why compare Pakistan with India. Idnia is India and pakistan is pakistan. Jinnah was a realist and let things be in Pakistan. Nehru was a dreamer and got some landreforms (as said by dost-mittar) in India, but this (land reforms) has nothing to do with the way the two countries developed. (large land holdings do not stop progress)

(b)the second quotes indicates a longing and wistful look east and always suggesting that India got a better deal or that things in India are a result of the whatever. No, pakistan also got a reasonable good deal as well. They also got a system which was similar to India and conditions which were similar to Indias. They got a huge middle class from India - in fact almost all of the middle class muslims and a lot of the upper class muslims went to pakistan. These people were by no means un-educated. They were the creme dela creme of the muslim society.

I detect a kind of self-loathing seeping through the haze here. It is notlonger self pity of the past few years. The kind of comparisons with the early leaders being made and the tone these are taking would be funny but.....

It is worth remembering that Pakistan is not India and can never be India or for that matter any other country other than itself.

However enuf of this rambbling but I have a question to ferozK:

can you please enlighten us on in what way is India better then pakistan?

While we can discuss and while away our time discussing the pros and cons of new consitutions ( a leisure activity of the elite) and think a Lee of Singapore would Pakistan great things the real issues are often forgotten. Think it was FerozK on another board asked a question what is it that we are doing or something like that. I had recently posted some stuff on unplugged and got a bit of needling and I do not apologise for it. I firmly believe that a lot more can be done on our own effort (as this article pasted below and recently the FT also said something ). ANyway check it out and please for once donot think that I am trying to put Pakistan down far from it - I am just trying to illustrate what can be achieved if we move away from the elite ideas of power and power capture. The article has a number of interesting points to make specially the sections on `Social Change` (where stats are given of the take up education y both males and females and female muslims etc). Anyway read on


Tectonic Changes And The Rhetoric Of The Sixties


R. Vaidyanathan ~ Aug 8, 2003



Add this Article to my Favorites



View
Reader
Comments (63)


It was an interesting news item regarding a panel discussion and the sponsor was associated with the professional and farsighted IT giant, namely Infosys.

“The title of the panel discussion was `Is the North–South Divide Growing in India?` and it was organized by the Culture Club of Infosys, headed by Rohini Nilekeni, wife of the current CEO Nandan Nilekeni.The panelists included many experts and it was moderated by Vir Sanghvi, Editor of Hindustan Times.” (Article by Chandan Mitra, one of the panelists in The Pioneer -- dated 5th August 2003.)

Those who are curious about our title and the panel topic -- read on.

My mother booked for a gas cylinder in the early seventies at the Madras city (now called Chennai) and got one in the early eighties. It was more than 10 year waiting. I moved to Bangalore in the early eighties and booked for a telephone and was allotted one in 1992. My cousin paid in the US dollars in the late seventies to get a Bajaj Chetak Scooter and was allotted one in 1985 under the fast track (!) foreign exchange quota. I remember traveling to the US in the early eighties and lots of requests from known/unknown relatives about things to get. I traveled recently, no one was giving any lists, since most of them are/were there already and most of the products are available back home.

Something has happened to the Indian economy/society in the last 20 or so years. Suddenly it strikes you, in case you are a perceptive observer, that cell phones, DCH (double cylinder homes) and two wheelers of different colors and characteristics are available off the shelves. The economy has changed but, more importantly, the society.

The numbers do provide some clue, but just traveling across the country, one feels it better.

Economic Boom

This is something that is not fully understood nor propagated. The dramatic change in the economic situation of the country is reflected in many numbers like the rate of growth in the nineties (average of six percent during 98-01), fall in the proportion of people below poverty line (from 55 percent in 1973 to 24 percent in 2001) etc. It is important to note that the rate of decline has accelerated significantly in the nineties from 3.6 percent between 73 to78 and 9.9 percent during 93 to 99. There are many smaller states like Goa/Haryana /J&K/Punjab etc, where the ratio is below 10 percent, comparable to many middle-income countries. More importantly, according to survey figures of NSSO, the chronically hungry (who experienced hunger every month of the year) shrank from 2.4 in 83-84 to 0.7 percent in 99-00 in rural areas and from 0.8 to 0.3 percent in urban areas. (It is about getting enough food every day.)

The growth rate in the service sectors -- consisting of wholesale trade/retail trade, transport, construction, hotels and restaurants, and other services like plumber/carpenter/lawyer/accountants, etc -- has been around 9 percent during 98-01 and in all these areas, partnership/proprietorship firms are the dominant forms of activity. These are characterized as the `unorganized` sector in our Government classification, which simply means `non-corporate`, and these are much better organized than many an MNC. Actually, there are only two countries that have been growing among the major economies in the last decade, and they are India and China. The growth rate of India is much higher than what is reflected in the `official numbers` since it has a robust and active `unorganized` private market economy not fully captured in official numbers. The growth rate of China needs to be discounted since most of the numbers are provided by party cadres and commissars, which are not reliable. Anyhow, that is the story for another time. The axis of world economic activity has shifted to Asia, particularly to India and China, and this is by now well recognized.

Social Changes

What is more important is the significant social changes that have taken place in Indian trade and commerce and which has not been fully understood or debated. A survey by the CSO (Economic Census-98) based on enterprises reveals an interesting picture. The number of enterprises surveyed was 30.35 millions, employing around 84 million, and out of this, 45 percent of the units are owned by SC/ST/OBCs employing 14 million. Nearly 8 percent is owned by SCs, employing 2.3 millions, and 4 percent of the total units employing 1.2 million were owned by STs. Huge churning is taking place in the `community` composition of business at the bottom of the pyramid.

More interesting is that nearly 80 percent of this are self financed. This shows that not just banks and FIs but community and caste based financing is also an important part of our economic markets and growth. The empowerment of social groups, which comes out of their participation in business and commerce rather than in government jobs, is slowly taking place.

This empowerment through business and commerce, even though at the bottom of the pyramid, gives raise to political power at lower levels. Unfortunately, this has not been adequately discussed or focused on. Not only that, in the educational sphere, substantial changes are taking place with the number of years of schooling in the 5-14 age group for males going up from 2.71 years to 3.46 years and, more importantly, for females going up from 1.91 to 3.11 years between 1983 to 1999 (based on NSS survey). Among SC/ST females, it has gone up from 1.27 to 3.05, and among Muslim females, it has moved from 1.62 to 2.71. This implies that the gender and community gap in the educational sphere is getting reduced in the last decade. This creates another type of empowerment among girls belonging to these groups.

Proud Indian in the Global Arena

It is no more the haggard and unwanted Indian walking the streets of Western countries. Due to the IT/software revolution pioneered by the young Indians, one finds significant change in attitude of others towards Indians -- maybe a slight shift but an important one. From Alaska to Adelaide, one finds the software kids walk the talk and convince the world that we have arrived. The code coolies (used here in an affectionate way) have proved that India is not the traditional three C`s only -- namely Caste, Curry and Cow --but it has bright kids who handle and provide software for the modern three C`s with ease, namely, Car, Cell phone and Credit Card. The change brought about by these software sanyasis is mind-boggling. We call them sanyasis since they literally live out of their suitcases in the Hiltons/Marriott/Holiday Inns/Sheraton`s of Shanghai, Perth, Bangkok, Singapore, Amsterdam, London, Atlanta and Toronto. More than that, they are the mod-mod generation in terms of `married but not living together` category (as compared to the earlier species that used to live together but were not married!). It is reflected in terms of Forex reserves but more in terms of pride and confidence. They have proved that Indians have arrived in the cutting edge fields of global economy. In the domestic sphere, they have altered the work culture beyond recognition.

The whole ethos of 10 to 5 with four hour of breaks in between for tea and tiffin and lunch (TTL) has been destroyed by these children of IT and, for them, 70 hours per week is not uncommon.

Other than this, it is estimated that the people of Indian origin constitute creamy sections in countries like the UK/USA, etc. It is estimated that out of nearly 2 million Indians in the USA, 10 percent, namely 200,000, are millionaires, which is the highest among any group except Jews. This implies that the Indians are becoming a powerful force in countries like the USA where money power is important in influencing decision-making processes. We call it political corruption, they call it contribution. That does not matter. The voice of the Indian groups will be heard more and more in the corridors of Capitol Hill and White House.

Have we understood the tectonic changes that have taken place in the last two decades? We find the discussions in our media and academia is again and again based on the premises of the sixties with hackneyed expressions and worn out clichés. Why it is so?

The Sixties

It was the decade of famine/drought, long queues for rice and wheat, PL 480 supply of wheat from the USA, war with Pakistan, devaluation of rupee, emergence of naxalism, anti-Hindi agitation, fervor of socialism with bank nationalization and split in the Congress party.

It was an important decade with tumultuous changes in political and social arena. It was in the general elections of 1967 (many of the readers here may not have been born at that time) the Congress party lost many states. Till then, Congress was a coalition of different social forces. It was a former Chief Minister of Congress in Tamil Nadu (Baktavatsalam) who succinctly put it, that the Congress is like an ocean wherein you have Ganges as well as the sewerage flowing in. The Congress understood the multiple identities and overlapping fault-lines in the Indian society and acted as a responsible coalition of various groups. The sixties saw the emergence of forces that believed in and encouraged well-delineated fault lines, which we call as (0 or 1) fault lines.

The communists were pioneers in this, wherein they reduced everything to antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, between the oppressed landless and the landlords. For them, it is the dialectics of the opposites -- either zero or one (or black or white).

The communists (CPI variety) were proud to proclaim that they will work within the Congress to convert it as a tool of struggle. They were called the pink Congress. Dange was the author from outside, while Mohan Kumaramangalam headed them from inside the Congress and was supported by K. R. Ganesh, Chandrajit Yadav, et al. They influenced the direction of the Congress to some extent and made it into a single fault line, focused party. That is, Socialism and helping the oppressed as understood by them, till the emergency of the mid-seventies where the CPI blundered into supporting the Emergency, to be later bitten by Sanjay and his chamchas. That is another history. To be told another time. The other movement at that time was that of Lohia, which spewed several socialist parties, and all of them believed and encouraged caste as the single fault line -- mainly between the upper caste and the OBCs. The young Turks led by Chandrasekhar and Mohan Dharia influenced Congress from within to make it focus on the socialist/caste fault line, unlike the communists. The contemporaray casteist leaders (Laloo, Mulayam, et al) are all in some sense the political children of Lohia. The Charan Singh types were stressing rural-urban divide and Annadhurai in Tamil Nadu was focusing on language divide, whiles Jan Sangh (the earlier edition of BJP) was focusing on Hindu-Muslim divide. These disparate groups outside Congress, namely Lohiates/communists/Dravidian parties/Jan Sangh, etc, all came together (to cap it all, Swatantra Party of Rajaji, which was for market-oriented economy, also jumped with them) in different states under different combinations and Congress lost in many states. Then Congress, under Indira Gandhi, instead of reinforcing the utility and practicality of stressing the overlapping fault lines fell into the trap of communists and began to focus on well-delineated single fault lines. The regional leaders (Kamaraj/Nijalingappa/Atulya Ghosh /Morarji Desai, et al) who understood and in a sense `nurtured` overlapping fault lines were sidelined and rootless wonders were imposed on the polity as leaders by Indira Gandhi. She went in for `Garibhi Hatao` as a single fault line issue and then pitted KHAM (Kshatria/Harjan/Adivasis/Muslims) against others as a tactical single fault line in Gujarath and BHM (Brahmin/Harjan/Muslim ) against others in UP.

Congress gave up Tamil Nadu to single fault line parties like DMK. It never recovered from its folly of moving away from a coalition of different social groups and the mistake of recognizing/nurturing well delineated single fault lines rather than overlapping fault lines.

The enumeration of the partial history of the sixties is essentially to explain the rut to which the Indian media and experts have struck in terms of debate on many issues. The same attitude in terms of looking at single well-delineated fault lines continues to this day. If it does not exist, then there is a tendency to create such a one. The electronic media, with its attention span of 3 seconds and debating span of 1.7 seconds and thinking span of minus 8 seconds, is the main culprit in trying to focus on single fault lines. The reason is that these (including print media) are run by rootless wonders. These are all in a sense children of the sixties and manasiga (in their hearts) grandchildren Maculay in their thinking and approach. They are trained to look for single fault lines, preferably well-delineated ones like Harijan/Brahmin, North/South, Hindu/ Muslim, Rural/Urban, etc. They do not know the complexities of the Indian society since they are not rooted to the Culture or Civilization of this land. Many of them may not know the difference between Ramayana and Mahabharatha. (A quiz among these journos will be interesting!) They will categorize Kalidas as the Shakespeare of India and go gaga over Booker prize without even mentioning any thing about Gnana Peeth awards. They can be classified as children of the sixties who are obsessed with one fault line, and many of them are of Marxist orientation which facilitate this (0 or 1) approach. They are steeped in Western/Marxian classifications of fault lines, which are uni-directional and well delineated. They cannot comprehend multiple-identities and overlapping fault lines. But Indian society is older and more mature than the ideas of Marx and Macaulay. It understands the nature of multiple-identities and overlapping fault lines. For those mathematically inclined, it is more of a continuum in an open bracket (0 1) with infinite possibilities in between. This is different even from countable infinite possibilities of a set of natural numbers, leave alone a binary alternative of the Marxist menu. For instance, the Tamil-Hindi fault line is blurred by Thevar-Harijan fault line and that is blurred by Kallar-Maravar fault line, which is blurred by Hindu-Harijan and Christian-Harijan fault line -- which is further complicated by the Madurai/Ramanathapuram fault lines. The same is true in the fault lines of every region and every community/caste/religious groupings.

In that context, it is surprising that a debate titled “Is the North-South divide growing in India?` takes place at all in the first decade of the 21st century. For instance, the numbers of Durga Puja Pandals and Garba dance groups have significantly increased in the last decade in Bangalore, indicating that a substantial number of Bengalis and Gujarathis have moved into the city. Where do these two groups who are in Bangalore and in the respective States fall under this `fault line`? What about Punjab and J&K? Are they part of the north? Even Maharashtra? If by north what is meant is BIMARU states, then there is more issue pertaining to EOK (East of Kanpur) fault line. What about the antagonism and violence between Kanadigas and Tamils in the recent past? Is South a unified entity at the conceptual level? It is interesting that a farsighted group of professionals in a corporate like Infosys should at all highlight a single fault line and revert to the rhetoric of the sixties.

The rhetoric of the sixties tried to juxtapose and identify single fault lines as primary. But in reality, all the fault lines are overlapping and that is the strength of the system. It is more than the seven-colored rainbow. Unless one has lived/traveled in India and felt its moorings and rooted to its soil, it will not be easy to comprehend what it means to be multi-cultural. It does not take recourse to `converting` others or `conquering` others, which is the sine-qua non of all well-delineated single fault lines and Marxian/western thinking.

It rather glows in inclusive co-existence, not just tolerance, but respect for the `other`. It reaches its own level of dynamic equilibrium in terms of crisis and conflict whenever any group tries to overstep its limits in this kaleidoscopic way of living.

The being and togetherness of such diverse groups like Chakmas/Kurmis/Iyers/Patels in a living civilizational context is mind-boggling, and, remember, they are interacting in a democratic framework. It is much more complicated for an Assamese/Punjabi to live in the interior part of say Karnataka than for a Swedish to live in Sicily. But our DDM (Desi Dork Media -- I think this was first used by Varsha Bhosle and so she requires the copyright and thanks) has not carried this fascinating story to the world at large. The cusine of Konkan is as different from that of Tanjore (leave alone Punjab) as Chinese is to Mexican. This has not been reinforced by our DDMs. Instead, one attempted Sati, some dowry deaths and riots are the staple of these two-second byters.

The idea of multi-culturalism, for instance in the US context, is the co-existence in a peaceful manner e of the white Caucasian Presbyterians and white Caucasian Baptist. They know not what is meant by multi-culturalism in the actual Indian context. The overlapping fault lines have been the strength of the Indian civilization and whenever a single fault line is reinforced -- as in the case of Jinnah -- it has failed to work in our context. The birth of Bangladesh in the early seventies has nailed the idea of Jinnah. Same thing has happened to the Dravidian politics, which tried to focus on a single fault line ignoring many an overlapping ones.

The role of intellectuals and strategic thinkers should be about enhancing the nature of overlapping fault lines since a single well-delineated fault line is more problematic to the polity. The so-called coalition politics and coalition Dharma are nothing but understanding and enriching overlapping fault lines. The Congress understood it in the past and acted as a coalition force and the BJP is attempting to do so now.

The antagonistic single fault line mode is the western and Marxian mode. As we move ahead in economic development, the focus of many a western and Marxist `experts` will be on the well-delineated, identifiable single fault lines. Why it is so? Because we pose a major threat to the existing power balance in the world situation as we become economically powerful. We are democratic, we are multi-cultural and we are inclusive and we are currently poor.

Once we become an economic power-house, we have all the attributes of a desirable society. Therein lies the rub. Therein lies the threat to existing global powers. What will they attempt to do? As we economically develop, there will be disparities between regions/communities/castes/social groups/gender/religious groups, etc. It is part and parcel of the nature of economic development. The democratic process will take care of these disparities over time. But the global powers that are going to be affected would like to focus on these emerging fault lines. They would like to highlight single fault lines that they think are powerful to break this society, which is emerging as a threat. Our attempt should be to stress the overlapping fault lines and nurture them. The two-second byte makers in the electronic media and the sleazy space sellers (including editorial space) in the print media will try to re-inforce and sustain and search for single fault lines since they know not the past nor try to understand the present and they have scant regard for the future.

But the Indian society is much shrewder than these `experts` and it has survived and grown in the context of multiple-identities and overlapping fault lines. Hence it is the responsibility of strategists to encourage and reinforce overlapping multiple fault lines in the polity. That is the strength of our polity and that makes India a threat to the current world order. It is all the more reason that the intelligentsia should be cautious in dealing with emerging fault lines when tectonic changes are taking place by not repeating the rhetoric of the sixties.