The Quota system in the LokPal Bill

Thanks to the relentless tweeting of @realitycheckind, I got to know that the Lok Pal Bill that was recently passed in the Parliament has a Quota System of its own.
According to the Bill (http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=101963),

• The Lokpal will consist of a Chairperson and a maximum of eight Members, of which fifty percent shall be judicial members.
• Fifty per cent of members of Lokpal shall be from amongst SC/ST/OBCs, Minorities and Women.

So now we have reservation even in the Lok Pal that mandates that 50% of the Lok Pal shall be judicial members while 50% shall be from SC/ST/OBCs, Minorities & Women. Note that the 2 50%'s arent mutually exclusive, which means there can be an overlap - which means that the same 50% can be both judicial members as well as from SC/ST/OBCs, Minorities & Women.

Important point here is that there is no stipulation that there should be ONLY 50%. So we now have the following possibilities -

1. All of the Lokpal consists of SC/ST/OBCs, Minorities & Women (out of which at least 50% are judicial members).
2. All of the Lokpal consists of judicial members (out of which at least 50% are SC/ST/OBCs, Minorities & Women).

If my understanding is right, both scenarios above are possible.
Here's the question - if the assumption is right that it requires the presence of SC/ST/OBCs, Minorities, Women members to ensure fair treatment in case the accused government servant happens to be from one of those groups, doesn't that imply that you don't have confidence in the impartiality of the other 50% (assuming the other 50% isn't from this list)
Doesn't it logically imply that members from this group need not be expected to be impartial to someone from outside this group?
Or do you mean to say that non-category members can't be trusted when the accused is from one of the categories, while category members can be, when the accused is from a general category?

The Minority Question -
We are back to square one here. What is the definition of "minority" that will be used? If the Lokpal has this composition, is the Lokayukta expected to follow something similar (I am assuming there is no compulsion, but it's anyone's guess whether the states WONT follow suit). In that case, how about states where, simply going by religious parameters, Hindus are a minority or all religions are of relatively similar population where it wouldn't be accurate to categorize one as Majority and the others are Minorities.
For eg:
Nagaland:        90% Christian, 8% Hindu & 2% Muslim
Meghalaya:      70% Christian, 13% Hindu
J&K:        67% Muslim, 30% Hindu

Oh, but this is the Communal Violence Bill all over again!

What specifically is the purpose of this quota here? Surely, we're not trying to uplift and provide opportunities to the historically suppressed communities?
How long are we going to have this quota thing going on? Isn't there some kind of closure that we can expect at some point of time in the future?
Will this quota system henceforth be templatized? What are the chances that we'll now start having agitations from communities demanding for reservation in other constitutional/statutory bodies as well?
Where are we going? Is this the right idea to communicate to our people?

Draft Communal Violence Bill - Details by Shri Arun Jaitley

[This article is taken from Shri.Arun Jaitley's blog and reproduced here for improved readability. Bullet points, formatting, etc mine.]

A draft of a proposed legislation titled "Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill, 2011" has been put in public domain. The draft Bill ostensibly appears to be a part of an endeavour to prevent and punish communal violence in the country. Though that may be the ostensible object of the proposed law its real object is to the contrary. It is a Bill which if it is ever enacted as a law will intrude into the domain of the State, damage a federal polity of India and create an imbalance in the inter-community relationship of India.
What does the Bill in effect state?
The most vital definition of the bill is of the expression 'group'.
A 'group' means a religious or linguistic minority and in a given State may include the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
The bill creates a whole set of new offences in Chapter II.

• Clause 6 clarifies that the offences under this Bill are in addition to the offences under the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Can a person be punished twice for the same offence?
•  Clause 7 prescribes that a person is said to commit sexual assault if he or she commits any of the sexual act against a person belonging to a 'group' by virtue of that person's membership of a group.
• Clause 8 prescribes that a 'hate propaganda' is an offence when a person by words oral or written or a visible representation causes hate against a 'group' or a person belonging to a 'group'.
• Clause 9 creates an offence for communal and targeted violence. Any person who singly or jointly or acting under the influence of an association engages in unlawful activity directed against a 'group' is guilty of organized communal and targeted violence.
• Clause 10 provides for punishment of a person who expends or supplies money in the furtherance or support of an offence against a 'group'.
• The offence of torture is made out under clause 12 where a public servant inflicts pain or a suffering, mental or physical, on a person belonging to a 'group'.
• Clause 13 punishes a public servant for dereliction of duty in relation to offences mentioned in this Bill.
• Clause 14 punishes public servants who control the armed forces or security forces and fails to exercise control over people in his command in order to discharge their duty effectively.
• Clause 15 expands the principle of vicarious liability. An offence is deemed to be committed by a senior person or office bearer of an association and he fails to exercise control over subordinates under his control or supervision. He is vicariously liable for an offence which is committed by some other person.
• Clause 16 renders orders of superiors as no defence for an alleged offence committed under this section.

Any communal trouble during which offences are committed is a law and order problem. Dealing with the law and order is squarely within the domain of the State Governments. In the division of powers between the Centre and the States, the Central Government has no direct authority to deal with the law and order issues; nor is it directly empowered to deal with them nor it can legislate on the subject. The Central Government's jurisdiction restricts itself to issue advisories, directions and eventually forming an opinion under Article 356 that the governance of the State can be carried on in accordance with the Constitution or not.
If the proposed Bill becomes a law, then effectively it is the Central Government which would have usurped the jurisdiction of the States and legislated on a subject squarely within the domain of the States.

India has been gradually moving towards a more amicable inter-community relationship. Even when minor communal or caste disturbances occur, there is a national mood of revulsion against them. The governments, media, the courts among other institutions rise to perform their duty. The perpetrators of communal trouble should certainly be punished. This draft Bill however proceeds on a presumption that communal trouble is created only by members of the majority community and never by a member of the minority community. Thus, offences committed by members of the majority community against members of the minority community are punishable. Identical offences committed by minority groups against the majority are not deemed to be offences at all. Thus a sexual assault is punishable under this bill and only if committed against a person belonging to a minority 'group'. A member of a majority community in a State does not fall within the purview of a 'group'. A 'hate propaganda' is an offence against minority community and not otherwise. Organised and targeted violence, hate propaganda, financial help to such persons who commit an offence, torture or dereliction of duty by public servants are all offences only if committed against a member of the minority community and not otherwise. No member of the majority community can ever be a victim. This draft law thus proceeds on an assumption which re-defines the offences in a highly discriminatory manner. No member of the minority community are to be punished under this Act for having committed the offence against the majority community. It is only a member of the majority community who is prone to commit such offences and therefore the legislative intent of this law is that since only majority community members commit these offences, culpability and punishment should only be confined to them. If implemented in a manner as provided by this Bill, it opens up a huge scope for abuse. It can incentivize members of some communities to commit such offences encouraged by the fact that they would never be charged under the Act. Terrorist groups may no longer indulge in terrorist violence. They will be incentivized to create communal riots due to a statutory assumption that members of a Jihadi group will not be punished under this law. The law makes only members of the majority community culpable.
Why should the law discriminate on the basis of a religion or caste? An offence is an offence irrespective of origin of the offender. Here is a proposed law being legislated in the 21st Century where caste and religion of an offender wipe out the culpability under this law.

Who will ensure implementation of this Act?
The bill provides for a 7-member national authority for communal harmony, justice and reparations. Of these 7 members, at least 4 of them including the Chairman and Vice Chairman shall only belong to a 'group' i.e. minority community. A similar body is intended to be created in the States. Membership of this body thus shall be on religious and caste grounds. The offenders under this law are only the members of the majority community. The enforcement of the Act will be done by a body where statutorily the members of the majority community will be in a minority. The governments will have to make available Police and other investigative agencies to this authority. This authority shall have a power to conduct investigations and enter buildings, conduct raids and searches to make inquiries into complaints and to initiate steps, record proceedings for prosecution and make its recommendations to the Governments. It shall have powers to deal with the armed forces. It has a power to send advisories to the Central and State Governments. Members of this authority shall be appointed in the case of Central Government by a collegium which shall comprise of Prime Minister, the Home Minister, and the Leader of Opposition in the house of People and a leader of each recognized political party. A similar provision is created in relation to the States. Thus, it Is the Opposition at the Centre and the States which will have a majority say in the composition of the Authority.

What are the procedures to be followed?
The procedures to be followed for investigations under this Act are extraordinary. No statement shall be recorded under section 161 of the CrPC. Victim statements shall be only under section 164 i.e. before courts. The government will have a power to intercept and block messages and telecommunications under this law. Under clause 74 of the Bill if an offence of hate propaganda is alleged against a person, a presumption of guilt shall exist unless the offender proves to the contrary. An allegation thus is equivalent to proof. Public servants under this bill under clause 67 are liable to be proceeded against without any sanction from the State. The Special Public prosecutor to conduct proceedings under this Act shall not act in aid of truth but 'in the interest of the victim'. The name and identity of the victim complainant will not be disclosed. Progress of the case will be reported by the police to the victim complainant. The occurrence of organized communal and targeted violence under this Act shall amount to an internal disturbance in a State within the meaning of Article 355 entitling the Central Government to impose President's rule.

The drafting of this Bill appears to be a handiwork of those social entrepreneurs who have learnt from the Gujarat experience of how to fix senior leaders even when they are not liable for an offence. Offences which are defined under the Bill have been deliberately left vague. Communal and targeted violence means a violence which destroys the 'secular fabric of the nation'. There can be legitimate political differences as to what constitutes secularism. The phrase secularism can be construed differently by different persons. Which definition is the judge supposed to follow?
Similarly, the creation of a hostile 'environment' may leave enough scope for a subjective decision as to what constitutes 'a hostile environment'. The inevitable consequences of such a law would be that in the event of any communal trouble the majority community would be assumed to be guilty. There would be a presumption of guilt unless otherwise proved. Only a member of the majority shall be held culpable under this law. A member of the minority shall never commit an offence of hate propaganda or a communal violence. There is a virtual statutory declaration of innocence under this law for him. The statutory authority prescribed at the Central and State level would intrinsically suffer from an institutional bias because of its membership structure based on caste and community.

I have no doubt that once this law is implemented with the intention with which it is being drafted, it will create disharmony in the inter-community relations in India. It is a law fraught with dangerous consequences. It is bound to be misused. Perhaps, that appears to be the real purpose behind its drafting. It will encourage minority communalism. The law defies the basic principles of equality and fairness. Social entrepreneurs in the National Advisory Council can be expected to draft such a dangerous and discriminatory law. One wonders how the political head of that body cleared this draft. When some persons carried on a campaign against TADA - an anti-terrorist law, the members of the UPA argued that even terrorists should be tried under the normal laws. A far more draconian law is now being proposed. The States will be watching hopelessly when the Centre goes ahead with this misadventure. Their power is being usurped. The search for communal harmony is through fairness - not through reverse discrimination.                         

The BJP Press Statement That Could Have Been - 1

@techrsr brought up an interesting point the other day about the BJP not having the locus of control of the Indian media with them. Now, I'm not sure how much of an electoral impact having the locus of control of Indian media will have, but it is a well-established fact that BJP is simply clueless (after all these days, yes) in handling the barrage of anti-BJP media outlets that dot the (sorry) Indian media landscape. In a sense, this is both funny & intriguing, considering one of their top-most leaders (supposedly?) has excellent contacts with most top media outlets. But that's a discussion for another day. Coming back, given this well-entrenched hostility, it becomes absolutely imperative for the BJP to tackle them strategically, *consistently*. As laymen-supporters of the BJP, apart from the occasional display of savvy, we are mostly left licking our self-inflicted wounds.
In light of the recent "Clarification" (an obvious euphemism for "Sorry [Hehe] for peddling lies" [Yes, I can almost see the sardonic grin on the editors' faces while printing out this joke of a clarification, which, by the way, is neither sincere nor well-intentioned nor truly apologetic]) issued by the Times of India group with respect to the "Modi rescues 15000" controversy, the handling of the issue by the BJP left a lot to be desired. Consider this - the clarification itself is neatly tucked into a corner of one of the deepest parts of the printed edition (Page 9 in the Mumbai & Chennai editions, Page 10 in the Bangalore edition, to name a few), so it is quite unlikely that this is going to be read by as many people as those who would've bought into the "self-orchestrated propaganda by the BJP" story, which, anyway, was the main aim of the ToI piece in the first place.
And dear BJP supporters, for how long can we keep taking cover under the "No publicity is bad publicity" logic? There is a point at which the actual "publicity" part of the publicity (good or bad) plateaus and in Modi's case, this point has long since been reached. Again, I don't know about the net impact (electoral or otherwise, but basically, to me, it is only the "electoral" bit that matters...at least for the next one year) of the "15000" ToI scandal, but here's what the BJP could have done immediately after the issue blew up which, I am sure, would have garnered them much more sympathy than what they will most likely receive now. A simple press release on the lines of -

"This in reference to the article "Modi lands in Uttarakhand, flies out with 15,000 Gujaratis" published in the Times of India. The BJP would like to categorically state that this is a totally baseless number that is being quoted and no BJP representative has been contacted in this regard. We would further like to add that Shri Narendra Modi was indeed instrumental in part of the relief work that is being carried out in Uttarakhand, however his relief efforts were not restricted to people of any particular community, region or language. Furthermore, at a time of grave crisis like this, what matters is that all effort possible be rendered to the needy across political and ideological differences and not one-upmanship based on numbers. Publishing such an article with unsubstantiated data amounts to rumour-mongering. Instead of helping focus on the relief work being carried out by all parties, this is a grossly irresponsible act of journalism by one of the country's oldest journalistic institutions. We strongly condemn this rather mischievous attempt to insinuate controversy and demand an apology by Times of India in the front page of ALL their editions, with all the clarifications stated above, failing which, we will be forced to take legal action against them."

Alas, that was not to be. With such an insincere and delayed "Clarification" by ToI, when the whole issue is more or less out of public memory, has the damage been done?
Your guess is as good as mine.

Prologue: Going by recent happenings, one can't help but begin to wonder if Shekhar Gupta was indeed right when he said that instead of setting the agenda, the BJP is walking right into Congress' trap. One of the impressive aspects about Narendra Modi so far has been his ability to set the terms of the discourse and decide the agenda. If recent events are any indication, this ability appears to be waning. It is too early to conclude, but a course correction is definitely in order.

An Open Letter to a friend

Dear friend,
Over the past 1.5 years or so, you have acted like a wave. You come close to the shore and just when one would think you're coming in, you go right back. Kind of like that epic scene in Anbe Sivam - "Chennaiya thaakkoon, Chennaiya thaakkoon apdeenu solluvaanga, aana varusha varusham Orissa'va thaandi Andhra varikkum vandhuttu apdiye thirumbi poidum."
I can remember at least 3 instances during the same period when you have permuted the words - "open mind", "accept", "unbiased point of view", "listened to both sides", etc but would end up at the same conclusion - that of Namo's purported guilt. Then you would tweet the occasional 2-3 articles about development in Gujarat riding with a [standard] disclaimer/question wondering if it was exaggerated. Then the same tone of "all this is ok...but...".

Much as I have respect for you and your rationality, I must say that when it comes to Namo, your sense of objectivity seems to be minimal at best. I can see you trying hard to take off those blinkers and view him in different light (and I credit you for that), but there seems to be some part of you that is absolutely preventing you from doing it.

All this while, I hoped/assumed all you were waiting for was the court's judgement on the issue. However, despite an overwhelming clean chit to him, your stance has barely shifted. If any, it (viewing him guilty) just seems to have strengthened.

I also hope you are cognizant of the fact that I have not once brought up any of the other riots or even mentioned "1984", even in passing.
The riots were ABSOLUTELY unjustified, there is no second question about it. Could Modi have handled the riots better - maybe, maybe not. But I think we do not have the authority to decide that. NGO's might, and I too thought they were authentic & exposed the actual situation until Teesta Setalvad came into the picture. I think it has been proved beyond doubt that she is funded, in part or whole, by vested interests with the chief aim of maligning Narendra Modi. The actual aim of "Justice for the victims" was just a bystander in her pick-up truck which has long passed its actual destination and route.

This being the case, I think it would be best to rely on the court's verdict, especially considering the SIT for the main case (Gulberg Society) was headed by an extremely competent man of impeccable integrity (RK Raghavan).

You also try to judge NaMo based on how he would've handled riots. How many people do you *know* / have *proven* they can handle riots better than him? God forbid such a situation ever arise, but in a nation that is both tolerant as well as easily inflamed, have you ever thought how much worse the riots could've been if not for whatever control was brought about? Once again, I am not claiming that the riots that happened were a best-case scenario or even an acceptable-case scenario, but how could you so overwhelmingly confidently pronounce him guilty and start finding loopholes in the Indian Penal Code which assumes a man innocent till proven guilty?

I also see you bandying about words like "did he do ALL he could", "did he WANT the riots to happen", "did he ALLOW the riots to happen" - I hope you realize the extent to which you have brought in subjectivity here, as also uncertainty and intangibility to the bigger picture. Is it possible to get into his head and ascertain the truth? And certainly, you will have no strong answers to those questions - even if there are, you would be just as justified negating the naysayers as you can the yeasayers. Why - you know very well.

To conclude, I think the best thing for us is to, like all pointless-but-polite arguments, "agree to disagree" on Namo. You are strongly opinionated that Namo is guilty and nothing he does will ever convince you otherwise. Not a clean chit from any court. Not cogent arguments from rational, well-informed folks about his effort. Not gentle proddings from friends. Not passionate arguments from fellow twitterati. Heck, I doubt if even Teesta Setalvad can convince you otherwise (just kidding). :D

It's ok man, you have an opinion, live with it. Accept it. I have mine. I'm okay with it. In fact, I'm perfectly fine with yours too (though I must confess that it did break my heart a lot initially - my failure at coaxing you into Namo :P).

I've tried hard and long to weigh Namo on various scales. I ended up backing Narendra Modi. You ended up not. One of us is wrong. Maybe not. Time will tell. Maybe not. Until then, the best thing you could possibly do is stop trying hard to be "fair", "objective", "unbiased", etc. I know we all have heads, but we are not coins. You've tried hard enough. God (if you believe in One) will give you full marks for trying.
Amen.
:)

My Tete-a-tete with a Congress Functionary

My patriotism has not really been questioned much till now, but I think this post will erase any doubts anyone (including self) ever had about it. Maybe not.
However, only "patriotism" comes closest to explaining why I engaged in a lengthy (often bordering on irritating) conversation with an acquaintance who happens to be a Congress functionary on most Congress-related crap at a cousin's betrothal instead of -
a. The obvious - scouting for prospective candidates so the next such function would be mine.
b. Scouting for prospective candidates whether such functions are possible or not.
c. Scouting for prospective candidates for friend(s).
d. Scouting for prospective friends for my lady-friends and sisters.
e. Catching up with relatives.*

The said functionary actually happens to be a Golti uncle from Vizag who knows me from childhood and who is a General Secretary for the party in charge of Public Relations. Picturize a fairly well-off, smart-alec businessman-type dude in his 40's. That's him. I knew of his entry into the dark side back in 2008 itself, and we had a very brief interaction then. This discussion was not exactly very lengthy, but it's at least worth a blog post - considering it happened at my cousin's betrothal with a Raja playing Baand Baaja in the background.

Now that you have the background, let me also add (needless to say) that there's obviously a fair amount of bias against anything associated with the Congress. Still, I tried to rope in whatever bit of objectivity I could.

Why Congress

To begin with, I abruptly asked him, unable to conceal my scorn, sarcasm, glee, etc, why he joined the Congress party. He started off by saying that Congress was the oldest party around - there was obviously some amount of ridiculousness in this reply which was what made me unprepared for this kind of response. However, moving on, he recalled the "greatness" of the Congress party (with no particular instance or point) and cited that as inspiration for joining. Ya...blah.

Then I slightly got back to the function at hand and allied "responsibilities".

On Raja
After a brief interlude, we banged into each other with my dad being part of the ensemble this time. I played Narada and provoked my dad into asking him some question. (FYI, Dad's not pro-BJP by any weird stretch of imagination and often revels in screwing all political parties L, R & C. It must also be said that he reveres NaMo and has a notable anti-Congresss bias {which may or may not be thanks to me}. Quite needless to say, given the humongous amount of shit we're facing today, his hatred for Congress has reached hitherto unscaled heights) I must confess that I expected my dad to be a tad simplistic and ask something very crude (ala my "why Congress" question). Dad however asked him a quite-obvious-yet-slightly-intellectual "Why has Manmohan not removed Raja even after so much data has been unearthed?", since I'd thought he'd ask something on the lines of "Why is Cong corrupt", etc. Now began the lengthiest, irritating'est & boring'est part of the whole conversation. The uncle probably thought this was a good chance to impress the dad-son duo (Why - I have not the faintest idea) and immediately set about "demonstrating" his knowledge of the issue. He slowly led us away from the hall to the balcony where, quite typically intellectually, he brandished a cigarette (after a few minutes there, he wanted to go downstairs for a more open session when dad excused himself & returned to the hall). I will totally spare you of all that rigmarole covering the Indian constitution and allied legal parameters effectively implying (don't tell me you haven't guessed it by now) that Manmohan Singh could not, in any way, have stripped Raja of his Ministership. Since I didn't want to give him the impression that I absolutely didn't agree with him, I told him this, much to his dismay (since it was put across in a way which, I assume, wouldn't have given him an impression of me as a dumb, presumptuous, retarded, stubborn simpleton) - "I am willing to concede that maybe it wasn't criminal of MMS to have persisted with Raja, but the thing about you saying that MMS could not have removed Raja at all is ugly crap. I am sure, given another Prime Minister, it is every bit likely we would've seen the back of Raja long ago."

[Socializing break]

Escape from Recession
Uncle'gaaru had, by now, probably realized I hadn't bought any of his hard-peddled "imported from phoreyn" goods and resorted to some tried-and-tested-product. Congress & age-old product? Yes, Nehru it was. He started off with asking me about the effect of recession in the US (he knows I'm a US-return). I knew he was preparing himself to land a KO-punch - that India was not affected by the recession because of Jawaharlal Nehru's "policies". Somewhere, I cut him and said something which made him ask me what I thought of Nehru. In being blunt, I tried to be as decent as I could.
Which is when we came to a rather interesting juncture. When he told me that many years ago, he held the same opinion as me, I refused to believe him. And then he brought the name "Babri" when I almost started J-w-J. However, I could not proceed since I had to redress his misconception about his earlier self being similar to my current self.
When I brought in Sardar Patel's name as well, he pointedly asked me - "I can see that your mind is parallelly working when I'm saying something. Why dont you allow me to finish what I'm saying first?" I was definitely at least slightly impressed by his relatively correct judgement of my mind's parallel processing. When he said one more thing against the Sardar, I simply asked him - "Uncle, I appreciate Nehru chacha's contribution and will definitely not write him off as completely useless to the nation, but just asking, do you know who the 3 members (specifically the third and most under-rated, under-acknowledged, under-appreciated member) of India's famed Triumvirate were. Much to my chagrin, he asked me to tell who they were, with the air of someone who knows his facts. Ha! This you-tell-I-tell game went on for about 4 passes after which he deftly changed the topic. I, of course, did not miss the point - though there is a statistical possibility that he did know, in all likelihood, he simply didn't know.

Now then, when it was getting obvious for both of us who was really making sense, though, I sadly had to leave for an obviously more important duty*. And though I tried to engage/humour him for a bit after dinner, it wasn't to be.

Advice for Congress: This uncle, though not-at-all convincing for a slightly-informed-BJP-supporter, would definitely have appeared convincing (to some extent at least) for a neutral, not-so-informed citizen. Plus, he didn't make an ass of himself. Sincerely I tell you, he will do a better job than Manish Tewari.

And then, for the moment of the day: I went to tell him bye and thank him for a definitely engaging discussion. It was his turn to dine then, and he, with a lot of warmth, patted me on my back and said that he'd always known I'd grow up to be a really "big" man and that he had given me 100/100 when I was in my 7th standard itself to which, I, rather (genuinely) humbly, told him that I did not consider myself big enough to grade him.

Laughing heartily, he further added - "You're one of the smartest young chaps around. You must definitely meet Rahul <...induced pause for dramatic effect...> Rahul Gandhi."

I died.

*I did not sacrifice food. Food happens to be one of the standout components of any TamBrahm function (including death ceremonies).

The Curious Phenomenon that is Hindu Liberalism

While choosing a title, I was deciding between Liberal Hinduism & Hindu Liberalism. I'm not trying to indulge in bombastic word-play here, but you must understand both terms because both are in relevance today.
Liberal Hinduism, though fast replacing the more orthodox moorings of the "religion" per se (in heavy contrast to Islam which seems to be getting more radical by the day, the most recent case being that of this Kerala girl) is far from being the malaise, which Hindu Liberalism undoubtedly is.

I am not sure about the origins of this current version of Hindu Liberalism. Agreed, one of the main facets of Hinduism has been its liberal & flexible nature which has, in a way, contributed to its continued evolution and relevance even after (the British-historians-dated) 3000 years, but I have a feeling we have slightly gotten confused between "liberal" and "flexible".

The problem with the contemporary liberal (non Internet-) Hindu's understanding of Liberalism is that, to ensure "Live & Let Live", he ends up following "Let live irrespective of whether you are let" - this dire compulsion to acknowledge, accept, appreciate and most importantly, accommodate alien cultures without the realization that such cultures are potentially detrimental to local culture (for starters) and are eventually destructive for all non-adherents. Not surprisingly, all this seems to have clouded the Hindu Liberal's vision of what exactly is happening at ground-level. And this feeling now seems to have created an invisible phobia towards one's native (Hindu) culture. This is especially visible in urban societies wherein Christians & (more often) Muslims do not seem to have any problems in accepting and admitting their religion while Hindus will take that extra effort to avoid that acknowledgement (let alone proclamation). Any Hindu who makes no qualms about his religion culture is, oftentimes, mistaken for an over-orthodox, possibly partially-backward fundamentalist. You see, stereotypes are always in vogue and the stereotype of the Hindu bigot (ala Saffron terror) is the flavour of the season, promoted chiefly by Hindu liberals. Things have reached such a stage that a reasonably religious Hindu risks projecting a stereotype (mostly negative) of himself while depicting (as opposed to flaunting, projecting and hollering) his religious side - this, not in the United States or Europe in front of non-Hindus, but in India, specifically urban India, in front of fellow-Hindus (but "liberal").

There is another pernicious characteristic that is not necessarily a characteristic of the Hindu Liberal, but one that is widely prevalent among the non-stereotypical-Internet-Hindu populace - which is a marked indifference towards Hindu causes. By "Hindu causes", I refer more to the inherent local culture than Hinduism the religion. Hundreds before me have milked the Babri Ayodhya cow by now and I dont want to do any more damage to her, but I hope you understand where I'm getting at.

I have no statistical backing, but I will go ahead and say this - the ratio of the number of indifferent urban Hindus to the number of urban Hindus is way higher than that for Christians & Muslims.

In a similar statistical-but-not-backed-by-data vein, amongst all communities of the world, Hinduism is probably the community with the highest number of self-proclaimed adherents (no prizes for guessing that these "adherents" are liberal ones) who derive pleasure in making fun of (their-community)-related issues, especially issues of contention, often insensitively. There might be non-Muslims/atheists that make fun of Islam-related issues, but you wont find too many theist Muslims taking (often unfair) digs at their own religion. Similar is the case with Christianity. The Hindu Liberal, however, is always drawn towards Hinduism when it comes to ridiculing & mocking.

Hindu-turned-atheists are the cream of the lot. I'd probably have to write a separate piece on them, if I ventured to describe their characteristics. But one stunning aspect is how Hindu liberals/Hindu-turned-atheists often lose their sense of objectivity and tend to focus chiefly on Hindu-related issues, when it comes to taking a dig or pulling a leg (for starters).

Anyway, to each his own, and the liberal Hindu inside me, however small, also reminds me that Hindu liberals have every right to not be objective, and mock/criticize/deride Hindu customs/issues alone. Besides, mockery isn't really a big deal....ok so it is, but the bigger deal is the mindless and often poorly-reasoned support for anti-Hindu elements and vehement opposition to Hindu causes.
Classic examples of Hindu Liberals today are: Sagarika Ghose, Ramachandra Guha, Malini Parthasarathy (assuming she is not an atheist). I would've loved to add one Islamic-attire Dutt to the mix of things, but since she makes me wonder if the next step after "Hindu Liberal" is "Islamic radical", I leave her out.
Liberal Hindus, however, are fewer in number (not surprisingly) - Amitabh Bachchan and Anupam Kher, to name two.

Sometimes, in a slightly Inception'esque display of emotion, I feel a strange sense of pity-filled remorse, when I feel pissed & irritated with them. Men before me who have tried to decode them, have come and gone but they, rather depressingly, endure and it only appears as if they're here to stay.

There is, however, an unexpected, positive fallout of the fact that their voices are getting increasingly shriller. It means that more people can hear their nonsense. And despite the fact that we Indians, though endowed with reasonably exceptional brains, exhibit a serious dearth of logical thinking, especially on emotional issues, the Hindu liberal's logic-lessness is so resounding, it is sometimes what's exactly required to wake up the sleeping rationalist in you.

Manmohan Singh - Son of Fortune, Destiny's Child, etc.

Let me, at the outset, make it clear to you that I am "just another stupid common man", no detailed analyst or well-informed commentator of Indian politics. What follows is simply an opinion based on my perception of facts.

I became political at the turn of the millennium, when I was about 16 years of age. Until then, politics, to me, was mainly about Congress at the national level and a Dirty Mudslinging-filled Kennel at the state level (I'm from Tamil Nadu). As far as politicians were concerned, the few names that popped up in my mind were Nehru & 3 Gandhi's - "Mahatma", Indira & Rajiv (the 3rd chiefly due to my mom who, like most women of her generation, fell to the dimpled charms of the bloke) by default, and also Sardar Patel, Rajaji, (more by accident than by design, or simply my ignorance) mostly that's it. When the then-new government came to power, I don't really remember how I felt immediately then. Over the 5 years though, I became more aware of "GOVERNment" in the real sense, and (at the risk of sounding cliched) definitely did feel something (good) roughly on the lines of Cultural Nationalism. By the end of the five years, I probably moved from politically-{ignorant+not-at-all-passionate} to {somewhat-informed+quite-passionate}.

I am a passionate Hindu (a more appropriate term would be Sanatana Dharmi, but I digress), but more than that, I believe in & desire national progress that is uniform & not tilted... plus a fluidity of power (I would like to say the former and latter are related, but I digress once again). Hence, though it did definitely make me happy to see a Hindu-friendly party in power at the center, what captured my imagination more was the administration and simply, a feel-good factor that emanated from Delhi and permeated to all corners of the country. I must, at this point, add that since I was nonexistent physically and/or mentally during any of the prior regimes, it is not really fair for me to comment on the governance or mis-governance that existed pre-1999 (However, a cursory reading of the actual history of India post independence coupled with the state of affairs of the country around 2000 despite the fact that a single party had held power for most part of the 50+ years until then should be a clear-enough indicator of what transpired all those years when that party was in power).
Anyhow, this post is not about any of the parties or any of the government(s) (though they are very much relevant & play quite a significant part).

This article is about Manmohan Singh, India's Prime Minister of today.

A Son Rises...

No, it definitely is not Ra(h)ul Gandhi. And no, not M.K.Azh(ukku)agiri too, though you're warming up.
For the uninitiated, the next beacon of light in the Tamil cine industry illuminated us with this remarkable masterpiece. Yes yes, he directly challenged Kamal with his first foray into the cine world.
And now, he will be hobnobbing with the likes of Milind Deora, Jyotiraditya Scindia & Co in Sansad Bhawan. Oh yes, and of course, our very own Azhagiri.
Trivia: Remember the Tirumangalam by-election fiasco? Yes, though we did see another "rising son" distributing money, little did we know that the bulk of the task was being carried out by our man, JK Ritheesh. And boy, how assiduously he carried out the task of discreetly dishing out the green lady - 2 rolls of Rs. 500 bills rolled like refills and encased in a ball-point pen and given to people in the name of spreading literacy. (Ok, that literacy bit was my creativity, but the money rolled in pens is apparently how the money distribution happened). Apparently, MaaKi...sorry, Muka and his son promised our dear man an MP seat if he managed to be successful in "securing" the seat in the by-election. Secure he did, and now, the Lok Sabha beckons.
Sivakumar aka JK Ritheesh has arrived. Big time.
How my heart is filled with pride to see such eminent representatives from Tamil Nadu!
Thank you, God.

The BJP's Star Campaigner Gandhi

This article is a classic example of an intelligent person writing unintelligent stuff. That Ra(h)ul Baba has been a more effective campaigner for the BJP than his cousin has been proven in cases like the Gujarat and Karnataka assembly elections, we await to see if he can repeat his feat in the Lok Sabha elections too. Whatever be it, the best thing about the article was this comment -
"
Lionel Said:
Why does Livemint bother printing such blather? Were Ramanathan to stop and think he would not have wasted his time writing an open letter to a closed mind - assuming that the imbecilic scion of the Nehru family has a mind. It is an insult to millions of bright, hardworking and free thinking Indians that this half wit who got into St. Stephens on a dodgy sports scholarship, shoe-horned into Harvard (for 3 months) with help from his father's buddies, could not finish college in lowly Rollins College in Florida and then lied outright about a degree from Cambridge lays claims to be their leader. Please send him packing to a fishing village in Genoa where he can while away his time with wine and pasta as he traces the other half of his moronic genealogy.

Posted On 5/8/2009 5:56:54 PM

"
I don't think anyone else could have captured Rahul Baba's life story in a more concise and apt fashion.
Piss: Will anyone blame me if I say that this guy's comments have traces of this?
;-)

Man of the Moment

Too much has been said about the man already. Wouldn't want to add another long list of love-hate analogies, just an opinion that India, today, given the current scheme of things, needs a man like him. More than India, BJP. National level, well, hmmm, possible, but it'll take time. But hey, we're celebrating, and did I hear the pseudo-secularists crying?
:P
Modi Rocks! Jeet Gaya Gujarat! Chak De Gujarat, he he.