Hey Nandini Dean!

The Dean seems to be entirely confused thoroughly throughout her sermonising article (Hey Ramayana! Hindustan Times issue dated 11.11.2011 http://www.hindustantimes.com/ViewsEditorialSectionPage/ColumnsOthers/Hey-Ramayana/Article1-767465.aspx#.TrwCegXCRjw.facebook ).

She ends with her argument “true, teachers often betray their profession, a fact which their unions must address. Absenteeism and nepotism are major problems. Quotas are required because left to themselves, few people actively implement affirmative action.” But surprisingly concludes with an entirely opposite proposition “yet, the solution is not more discipline, but more autonomy.” Is it just because she has an idea that a particular department can think ‘logically’ in this case? I found it difficult to comprehend that at one place she places her understanding of the Academic Council (that has only teachers/professors/academicians as members) with her comments “everyone claims to be an expert of social sciences, even if they have no idea of the craft that goes into the simplest looking text” but at the same time she wants us to entrust the exercise of framing syllabus on a smaller set of these teachers that constitutes a department. Now if teachers are such a lot who behave so illogically (according to her only) when they are present in a larger number in the Academic Council then I have all reasons for questioning her intelligence as she wants to trust either a smaller set of these academicians in a particular department or the even smaller four member expert-committee formed by still lesser number of teachers! Her political agenda is left unveiled since she hints only at the “clear political agenda behind the removal of this particular text” but conveniently ignores the obvious political agenda behind initially inserting it into the syllabus. Yes, in her words, the public pays a university not to encourage narrow thinking of a few individuals who decide to hurt sensibilities in the name of academic freedom but to make young people sensible to others’ sensibilities.

A complete analysis of Ramanujan’s essay

Let us analyse the much talked about essay of Ramanujan for those who have read it and also for those who would like to read it. Unlike Ramanujan, whose essay uses an academic syringe to inject his prescribed perceptions into the unaware reader’s mind I will try to place my arguments in a transparent manner by quoting him as liberally as possible to prove my points. Let me start from where Ramanujan concludes his discussion on the five examples of Ramayana. This would hint at the reasons for which the essay must have had been written. He starts his concluding remarks with “Now is there a common core to the Rama stories, except the most skeletal set of relations like that of Rama, his brother, his wife and the antagonist Ravana who abducts her?” He did not stop at this and compared Rama’s story with that of the Jack-knife of a carpenter who claimed before Aristotle that “Oh I’ve had it for thirty years. I’ve changed the blade a few times and the handle a few times, but it’s the same knife”. He further ensures that no one is left with any doubt and finishes with another sweeping comment “Some shadow of a relational structure claims the name of Ramayana for all these telling, but on a closer look one is not necessarily all that like another. Like a collection of people with the same proper name, they make a class in name alone.” I will like to dedicate these non-ignorable comments of ‘Ramanujan alone’ to all those who are fighting for inclusion of this essay into the reading list of undergraduate courses on academic ground but interestingly keep on misrepresenting that Ramnujan has not given any views and has ‘simply compiled’ a few Ramayanas. Now let us discuss as to how he arrived at these conclusions.

Confusion through the terms 'Tellings' and 'Versions'
The effort of confusing the readers starts from the first line itself “How many Ramayanas? Three hundred? Three thousand?” and then without wasting any time he pours out a story (not bothering to mention its source and presenting it as a “story usually told” in his essay) before the readers to convince them that there are not only many Ramayanas but also many Ramas and even Hanuman got to know this fact at the netherworld when he was presented with thousands of rings belonging to different Ramas. After this he places a strange argument to impress upon the readers that since there is no ‘original’ Ramayana (as, according to him, Valmiki’s Ramayana is merely the earliest and most prestigious among all) hence all Ramayanas are mere ‘tellings’ and not ‘versions’. Strangely, he has extracted this inference from the fact that since Valmiki’s Ramayana has not been carried over in different languages in exact details therefore it cannot be considered as ‘original’. And thus with a single stroke he tries to place all the Ramayanas at par with each other.

Creating confusion in the name of many Ramayanas
Not that we do not know that there are many Ramayanas as we are familiar with an old saying “sabki apni ek ram-kahani hoti hai”. But I will like the readers to exercise utmost caution before considering all Ramayanas as stories ‘simply told’. We all know that there are always some reasons to write. As Ramanujan wrote the essay with some ‘intention’ that I am ‘intending’ to reveal here, even different Ramayanas must have been written in some contexts and with some intentions. It is here that Ramanujan cleverly puts even Jaina Ramayana, the Thai Ramayana and Santal Ramayana at par with all others while he himself states at different points in his essay that in these texts Rama is not projected as an iconic hero. Are these Ramayanas just the story retold? In the essay itself Ramanujan has written about his understanding of the relation between the Jains and Hindus where in his words “Furthermore, since the Jains consider themselves rationalists – unlike Hindus, who, according to them, are given to exorbitant and often bloodthirsty fancies and rituals – they systematically avoid episodes involving miraculous births (Rama and his brothers are born in the normal way), blood sacrifices, and the like.” Mark these words of Ramanujan who at this point exposes his understanding of the relation between Jains and Hindus before the readers but at other places uses their Ramayana to arrive at his ill-desired conclusions. He has also used the Thai and Santal Ramayana liberally throughout his essay to prove his point. As Thai and Santals are known to be also influenced by non-Hindu religious thinkers, nobody should expect them to be honest in retelling of the Ramayana. Those who have a fair knowledge of the religious demography of these regions will not be shocked to know that Ravana is depicted as grey/white in the Thai Ramayana or Sita is shown as a loose character lady in the Santal’s version.

The real Ramayans
My contention is that all those stories in which Rama is at least not a hero cannot qualify to be called as Ramayanas. Just because the names appear to be the same cannot make it a ‘Ramayana’ unless it is written to infuse faith and devotion for Rama’s character. It is here that Ramanujan has taken an academic acrobatic approach to betray his intellectual dishonesty by committing this blunder and then he goes on using only a few of such ‘tellings’ to suit his sinister design of defaming Rama and hurting the sensibilities of the majority community. I would like to emphasize at this point that if you reject all those ‘tellings’ in which Rama is not projected as heroes then all other Ram-kathas would look same in feel, touch, texture, faith, intentions and most important of all they will all be conveying similar messages.

An impression is created as if Hindus and Rama-believers themselves believe in such diverse Ram-kathas that are so different from each other that they are never sure of any story. However in reality 'other' Ramayanas are not even considered as much 'theirs' as Hindus considers the Ramayanas as their own in which Rama is a hero. In fact some of them like Jains are also known to believe in the Ramayanas in which Rama is depicted as an iconic character. Strangely most popular of all the Ramayanas that is Tulsi’s Ramcharitmanas did not find an adequate mention in his essay. I must mention here that the treatment of the Ahilya episode itself in Tulsi’s version could have thrown enough light on the fact that why this Ramayana is so popular with the average-Indian thinking. It is only because in the Ahilya episode seduction aspect is nearly missing in Ramcharitmanas. Ramanand Sagar’s honest attempt was also accepted by one and all even though it did not match in details but only since it only attempted to enhance and never tried to dampen the spirit of devotion. The fact that Tulsi’s Ramcharitmanas is almost ignored is obviously not a chance exclusion in Ramanujan’s essay as Romilla Thapar’s comments on the Ramanand Sagar’s serial ‘Ramayana’ that is quoted by Paul Richman (complaining that Ramanand Sagar's television serial on the Ramayana 'possessed a dangerous and unprecedented authority’) in the book puts these confusions to rest.

Highlighting Seduction aspect of the Ahilya episode instead of her Redemption
I was also at first taken aback by his choice of the paragraphs that he selects to cite from the Valmiki’s and Kampan’s Ramayana in order to differentiate between the two approaches. Whereas he could have taken many instances where the difference is more than obvious he has chosen the Ahilya episode where the difference hardly exists. To me, both the texts try to establish that mating with other’s wife is a completely unpardonable act and must be severely punished. Both the texts betray extreme forms of punishment for both Indra and Ahilya as both are shown to have gone for the forbidden joy knowingly that it is wrong. The difference is only in details outlined by the two writers and is bound to happen whenever a story is retold. The difference can also be discounted for the fact that it was to be narrated in a poem where details could be compromised to retain its flow. Ramanujan’s observation that Valmiki’s Ahilya did not realise that she is doing wrong cannot be accepted as in Ramanujan’s translation itself she is quoted as saying “Go quickly from here” obviously knowing that she has done wrong. Not that Ramanujan did not understand this logic as he himself agrees at an ignorable corner of his essay that “Thus the Ahilya episode is essentially the same, but the weave, the texture, the colours are very different.” But then why did he take this as an example to prove a difference? The answer lies in the realisation that if one leaves aside the moral message conveyed in the episode then it is left with only sensuous shades. Picking up this narration sans of all morality and faith can only invoke undesirable attentions. For non-believers and semi-believers (found in abundance among Hindus) the intention is thus to create an impression that Ramayana is full of similar episodes. Moreover this also must have helped him in convincing a few perverted minds to put this essay in the reading list of the undergraduate class so that they are able to dramatise its seduction content while ignoring its ‘outdated’ moral message. The essay must have been asking a history teacher to put the otherwise ignorable seduction aspect (instead of the redemption of Ahilya) of the episode at the centre of a classroom discussion..

Presenting 'Exceptions' as 'Examples'
After placing a few exceptions of the Ramayanas (that are not Rama's story from Rama's point of view) as examples the writer then tries to ensure that nowhere even a trace of devotion is left in the reader’s mind by ending his essay with his three thoughts on the translations. He has tactfully used a proverb where a dim-witted person is asked “After hearing the Ramayana all night you are asking how Rama is related to Sita” to create an impression that even the relation between Rama and Sita is not so obvious. Without mentioning the source he narrates another story that is intermixed with reality and imagination to put his viewpoint home that in Ramayana nothing is real and hence nothing is invariant. A listener who was listening to Ram-katha in an enclosure suddenly decides to help Hanuman and jumped into the ocean to get back the Rama’s ring for him. The writer thus ensures that the readers end the essay not only with a confusion as to which Ramayana should be read but more importantly with a question that why should it be read at all?

Exposing the intention
Ramanujan’s exercise in his essay is similar to that of trying to understand the character of Paighamber Mohammad and origin of Jesus in the texts of each other’s literatures and treating them at par with their respective religious versions where they have been considered as messengers of God. Obviously this exercise itself will expose the intentions of the finder and it is exactly this that I want to expose in the Ramanujan infamous essay.

Ramanujan’s essay on 300 Ramayanas: My take

(published in Governancenow and can be visited via the link http://governancenow.com/views/columns/why-ramanujans-essay-un-indian )

At the outset I must admit that I have found the intent of the Ramanujan’s essay patently un-Indian not only because of the tone set by the Romilla Thapar’s undesirable comments quoted by Paul but also because it seems that there is a sinister design to place few exceptions and rare extremes in such a manner that they just appear to be as five simple examples and thoughts on the 300 Ramayana. After a fair reading of the essay anyone who has come across only a single Ramayana will extrapolate that if five of the examples are so diverse then reading other 300 will make no sense of any story. It would appear that anybody can be called anybody’s wife or anybody’s daughter in these Ramayanas as the author concludes with his effort in making the readers believe that there is nothing to read about in these texts since there is no distinction between reality and imagination.

At this point let me burst out some facts even if a few of them have a potential to make some of us uncomfortable since I will like to place here the reasons as to why I love my country and what I think about Indianness from the perspective of Hinduism that I am proud of. I must also admit here that I have inherited all these by understanding many discourses based on many religious Hindu-texts including Ramayana, Mahabharata and Bhagwat-Gita etc.

I love India not because Indians ‘tolerate’ or ‘accommodate’ other faiths, views and religions but because we genuinely ‘respect’ them all. I love India because I inherit an enviable attitude of bowing down to a place of any faith and also feel a great sense of proud and satisfaction in doing this. I love India because we Indians never hesitate in promoting changes and modifications in our thoughts if it is hurting the interest of this land. I love India because nobody can think of getting any support even from diehard 'Ram-bhakts' if one deserts his wife when she is pregnant for any reason citing that even Rama did this. I love India as I can never even imagine someone garnering any support from even staunch believers of Hinduism for keeping many wives by citing any number of examples from Ramayana and Mahabharata. I love India as we Indians, instead of reciting a religious-book to classify an act as right or wrong, follow our hearts and law of the land to know the difference between right and wrong. That is why when Mahatma Gandhi conceptualised ‘Ramrajya’ in India everybody knew that he did not intend to put other religions, Harijan and women out of the canvas. I love India and Indianness as we are always ready to apologise and also ready to appreciate all gestures of apologies extended by anybody for unintentionally hurting the sensibilities of other faiths/religions.

For me it was un-Indian to prefer leaving India and accept another citizenship instead of feeling sorry for hurting sensibilities of other faith (even if it was done unintentionally) and owning those hate-paintings. Here a ‘Narender Modi’ cannot think of getting any support by saying that yes he allowed the riots to happen and instead has the support of his state only because he has convinced them that he was unable to control it. I also believe that instead of offering not to slaughter caws for at least some days in a year to express that as a token of their concerns for others’ sensibilities, it is un-Indian that some of us feel unapologetic about this. To me hurting sensibilities of any faith is patently un-Indian. And therefore for me it is difficult to find Indianness in the name of diversity that is always directed to hurt Hindus only.

Advani could get support because he could convince us that some fringe element in our society was trying to provoke a certain section of our society by using the word ‘Masjid’ when a structure built by a king was targeted as it was he who was consciously avoiding this term in order to take everybody along. I hate those who were involved in demolishing a structure before making everybody feel that it was necessary and that is why I admire all those who genuinely feel that demolition of the structure can never be celebrated.

If you cannot accept to put Godse’s views on Gandhi and his last speech in the reading list just because it can hurt sensibilities, and will also like to avoid putting Taslima Nasrin’s views on Islam into it then you have no right to fight for inclusion of the Ramanujan’s essay in the compulsory reading list for undergraduate students. Don’t ban the essay (as it will be un-Indian) but don’t force those innocent students to read those views. I did not find the attitude of Romilla Thapar as Indian when the growing popularity of Ramayana serial was termed as 'dangerous' and also found Ramanujan’s essay un-Indian as the essay intends to hurt Hindu-believers. I can never call it Indian to put the terrorists’ definition of Jihad even in the name of an essay named as Many meanings of Jihad: few examples and thoughts and start an agitation to put it into the curriculum of the ‘mature’ Kashmiri students! Although we know that we can find more than many uncomfortable meanings of ‘Jihad’ and ‘Kafir’ in different ‘tellings’ ( Ramanujan has tried to distinguish between ‘tellings’ and ‘versions’ to put forward his view that nothing is original in Ramayana) those can be found in several avoidable contexts that we can never promote.

Before some of us start twisting my words I will like to place here that all the characteristics that I have pointed out as Indian are synonym not only to Hinduism but also to other religions but remarkably this shade is noticeable only in their Indian versions. Some of the religions that started in India itself out of some genuine grudges felt by a section of the Hindu-society have ultimately ended up in developing a mutual respect for each others’ faiths as Hinduism tried accommodating and respecting their concerns by going beyond their own religious texts/beliefs.

On the Non-Academic essay of the non-historian Ramanujan

It was not for nothing that Iqbal wrote “Kuchh Baat Hai Ke Hasti Mit-ti Nahin Hamaari; Sadion Raha Hai Dushman Daur-e-Zamaan Hamaara”, however it is surprising that our leftist-historians still believe otherwise. I can only express my sympathies to these frustrated historians who now exist only in the ever-contracting, self-created pseudo-academic space in India despite their efforts to expand it by blatantly misusing their freedom of expression and by agitating unnecessarily for an already existing more than adequate academic space in our Indian society.

Even if we accept that Ram-Kahani is only a part of our mythology we all know that this ‘Kahani is not merely a story but a well-drafted drama that has undisputedly taught us our traditional moral values and has also helped us Indians, in inculcating respect for elders as well as in developing love for younger. Innumerable texts based on this story have successfully inspired all of us to inherit the theory of plurality in our thoughts. Undoubtedly there are more than many versions of Ramayana in our ancient texts but it is also a foregone conclusion that if you leave aside a few Ramayana that Mr. Ramanujan chose to highlight, then all others without exception have been written primarily to establish moral, family values that India is known for. And in this context Ramayana still possesses an unprecedented power to unite this part of the world.

Unfortunately forces that have no faith in the institution of marriage, and see faults in the family system, advocates individual’s freedom bereft of all duties of maintaining order in the society and bothers least about the tradition and other great Indian values have never understood any of the 300 Ramayanas that they themselves talk about. In early eighties these leftists had started believing that they were succeeding in their efforts of destroying the basic tenets and principles of this arguably one of the oldest society. However true to the words of Iqbal as quoted in the beginning, their world came crashing down as they witnessed vacant streets in this part of the world (including Pakistan and Bangladesh) when Ramanand Sagar’s ‘Ramayana’ started airing through Delhi Doordarshan in the late eighties. To have a genuine understanding of the context of the essay one has to read the introduction to the Many Ramayanas by Paula Richman where Ramanujan's essay appears. In the introduction of the book Paula Richman quotes Romila Thapar as saying that Ramanand Sagar's television serial on the Ramayana 'possessed a dangerous and unprecedented authority.'

Let me tell you that they are least concerned about any one of the 300 Ramayanas that they want us to believe that they want to teach, albeit what they want to teach us is the inappropriate, blasphemous and malicious essay written by a propagandist non-historian Ramanujan who penned his ‘singular’ (not plural!) views towards these invaluable texts. Let me challenge these historians to put all more than three hundred Ramayanas on the reading list of the undergraduate curricula and ask them not to shy away from teaching these stories to the students in the name of teaching history. For then at least the students will be appropriately exposed to the less than handful of Ramayanas that were written in some another context similar to those in which Ramanujan himself wrote his infamous essay. I would also like to add to their discomfort by making them realize that even in those few of the ignorable Ramayanas that the left-historians love to blow out of proportion, no progressive approach has been extended in order to paint Sita, Laxman and Hanuman grey. Much to their dismay ‘villains and vamps’ in these stray texts are extracted out of the ‘otherwise’ heroes by establishing that they too did not observe the same great Indian (alias ‘Hindu’) values.

Make no mistake as these historians would like us to celebrate Ram-vadha instead of Ravan-vadha since they believe that Rama has infused all wrong values in us Indians. Don’t reject this as my exaggeration as only recently JNU (known to be the den of these pseudo-historians) observed ‘Mahishasur day’ by honouring Mahishasur in the campus (read the October 25 issue of Times of India in case you have problem in believing this). And nobody needs to be educated that despite their prolonged and systematic efforts to link the Hindu majority with some community outside this country through their disputed and rotten Aryan-invasion theory they have patently failed in getting the Hindus feel detached from this piece of land, an aberration that is arguably witnessed in some other Indian community.


The ever-evolving Indian community where the evolution is primarily driven by the plurality of the religion observed by the majority (undoubtedly Hindus) has proved that what we as a nation stand for is not a singular religion but the high moral, social, cultural and great family values preached through the ‘hymns’ of Valmiki Ramayana and ‘couplets’ of Tulsi Ramcharitmanas. These handful of historians must understand that it is the teaching of Ramayana that drives nobody to argue for banning the Ramanujan’s essay in India but at least let us not allow the innocent undergraduate students to fall prey to the conspiratorial designs of these non-academic ‘historians?’ who want to force them to read the essay as part of their curricula. India must be the only country in the world where we are used to encountering an unprecedented count of mismatches in our popular perceptions/beliefs and that of the history that we are taught in the classrooms. But despite everything they must realize that we as a nation believe in marriage as a necessary institution, we believe in family system, we understand our responsibility towards our society and nation and through this we would like to make this universe as enjoyable and livable as possible.

Anti-terrorism Management

Look at the way USA reacted at a single incident of a terror attack. Let us salute them for keeping their intensity to fight against terrorism still alive and burning even after a decade. They have refused to forget the incident. They did not decide to make a Hospital or a Church-Masjid-combine structure to mark it as a place of solidarity and instead has used the place as a reminder-memorial of the same incident. It is only for this reason that nobody could stop them from crushing terrorism on their soil even if it amounted to ignoring several human rightists’ discomforts and not paying heed to their genuine displeasures. Media was never fed with the incidents of atrocities and instead showed tremendous restraint in releasing pictures mostly from the viewpoint of the terror-sufferers. The atrocities suffered by any group in the aftermath of that particular incident were hinted at by some of our own film-producers in movies like NEWYORK, KURBAAN and MY NAME IS KHAN (based on some imagined-concocted stories) instead of their own media. Governments changed but not their desire to nail and eliminate Laden. And their entire effort sums up with their success in showing the world that it never happened again in USA.
We have however mastered the art of forgetting all terror strikes. Our media is in a habit of taking pains in showcasing the fact that the life is normal in a city just on the next day of a terror-attack. We are made to believe that terror-attacks are meant only for disturbing our mirage of communal harmony of the city and as if our victory lies only in the fact that the government and the people did not allow a riot to follow the attack. We are made to remember umpteen pictures of riot-victims crying for help with folded hands by releasing them again and again but are helped in forgetting apathy of terror-victims by showing more than enough visuals to prove that life is back to normal just the next day of a terror attack. This attitude is not new to us as we have often exhibited our resilience by forgetting even some age-old (forgotten?) terror attacks on temples in Somnath, Ayodhya and Mathura etc. It is for these reasons that instead of eliminating our own Ladens we engage ourselves in finding reasons in the arguments favoring acts of the likes of Qasabs and Afzals.
Thankfully it has also not happened again in Gujarat. Though not intended to, but here again our media and some NGO-entrepreneurs has helped us in not forgetting the ugly incident of Godhra carnage as they try to remind us, time and again, of the unfortunate riots that broke after that. Though I will not like to have a choice between i) a single riot followed by a permanent peace and ii) frequent terror-strikes with no riots, but would at least prefer to preserve the memory of a terror incident in the manner US remembered it. USA could tackle terrorism without falling into the trap of rioting because the government used a free hand to crush terror with approval of its overwhelming majority. Majority sat and observed as the government acted with a clear intention/vision. On the other hand, I just wonder how one is expected to react to a sinister campaign against Modi, continuing for way to long, for wanting him to apologize (for God knows what ?) as he is still to be exposed for his involvement, if any, in the riots/fake encounters. For some strange reasons however, although not difficult to speculate, they have never demanded similar apologies from Qasabs/Afzals/Geelanis/Malliks/Mehboobas/Omars and family members of those proven terrorists who were allegedly killed in fake encounters.

Love him or hate him and one may also not approve of the alleged technique adopted by Narender Modi to stop riots and eliminate terrorism from his state but we can not ignore the fact that unlike the economic slowdown faced by USA during the last decade he has managed to put Gujarat on the map of development and has been able to place the state way ahead of others. Obviously overwhelming majority of his state must not have treated him as untouchable and must have had supported him in his effort to help the state in attaining this state as he could not have achieved that single-handedly.

Let us ask our parliamentarians

What did you all do in the last two decades after for the first time some media outside this country unveiled that kickbacks were paid in the Bofors’ deal? Who did you punish when you were told that a suitcase containing crores of rupees entered the then PM house? Who did you nail when a journalist tried to expose manipulations and money transactions in arms’ deals? Give me one politician’s name who was put behind bar for Hawala transactions. Whom did you hang for paying money for voting inside the parliament? How much of the lacs of crores that have been lost in the 2G scame have yet been recovered? What plans have been executed for recovery of the loot done during CWG preparations? When did you set a deadline to bring back the illegally deposited Indian money in Swiss bank? And for God’s sake who had stopped you to table and pass your version of Lokpal bill for all these years? And now you still need time?

Please admit that you have no face left to ask for time and no trick left to execute your age-old delaying tactics. You have already put the integrity and sanctity of parliament to shame and placed our democracy at stake. You have played with our patience. You always believed that you get a license to dictate your terms once you get elected. Do not put our patience to test. You have already tested our patience by taking turns to exploit us at your will. All these years we have been given only a choice of whom we would prefer for our own exploitation.

At this juncture please do not tell us how a law should be framed. The arrogance with which you handled the Ramdev agitation and intent that you are exhibiting while tackling the Anna movement only confirms our apprehensions that once voted to power you consider yourself as if you have joined the ranks of British Rulers. Your deeds have started shaking our confidence in democracy. It is not solely our duty to save democracy but it is also in your interest to reestablish our faith in democratic set-ups. Himalaya will not explode if a ‘non-critically analyzed’, ‘ill-prepared’ Lokpal bill is passed. Heavens will not fall if you accept the Jan Lokpal bill in the present form. There are so many rules waiting for modifications but lying unattended before you for years’ together. Can you yourself claim that all rules in its existing form are absolutely perfect and would never require a change? Please add one more to that list even if you do not agree with all the formulations of the Jan Lokpal bill. As you must realize that you only have put us at such a logjam that only this can put our faith back into democracy with some certainty and for this a 72 year old is on fast for last so many days. I would not like that the government awakes on this issue only at a point of no return when the crowd decides to pay the arrogance back to our parliamentarians. The time is surely slipping by…………

Parliament: The Dirtiest Den of Corruption

Mr. Manish Tiwari, you wanted us to accept that Anna is corrupt, but then didn’t you wish to use this only to make us accept corruption as your way of life? Mr. Digvijay wanted us to believe that Baba Ramdev has cheated us and amassed an enormous wealth but didn’t he mean to set that only as an example to justify corruption? Not that we do not know that you do not have a magic wand Mr. Prime Minister but what is hurting us more is that you do not even wish to possess one. We need no explanations as we now understand how our ‘honest’ Prime Minister wastes all his ‘honesty’ to save the culprits and we also need no clarifications from him as to why he uses his ‘honesty’ in selecting only a few who can be hanged in the name of corruption. The manner in which this government attempted to expose the source and destination of all money transactions of Ramdev in just a few days and the way it miserably failed to showcase any such result in any of the scams listed as Bofors to CWG/2G, have left us with no options but to believe in the obvious. We all understand that corruption will not end the day a bill is passed in the parliament. We all are not lawyers and that too as manipulative as you Mr. Sibbal, but we know that it will also not end by pleading helplessness in the name of growing economy or by accepting your initial contention that there was no loss of public money in the 2G scam or by using police force in the mid-night on helpless and sleeping people gathered to voice their protest against corruption. And this will also not end by forcing us in believing that the law does not permit any bill to be finalised outside the parliament.
Mr. Sibbal and his party must feel very fortunate as the issue has been taken up by the law abiding Indian civil society. Indian society has always believed in waiting till He appears in a new reincarnation and takes all the laws in His hands to wipe out the evils. We are still peacefully requesting, arguing and urging you to pass a bill in the same parliament that has been evolved as the dirtiest den of corruption. Society has still not taken law justifiably in its hands as Mr. Sibbal is wise enough to understand what is meant by this phrase. Please stop befooling everybody by showcasing cosmetic gestures in the name of tackling corruption and hanging small fries who will never be able to return back even a small percentage of the money that the scams have siphoned out of this country.
Howsoever humid the weather be but dews are formed only when a cool surface is found by the water vapour; howsoever filled up the atmosphere be with a combustible gas but it requires at least a spark to blow it up. This nation is unfortunate that no politician, across the entire spectrum of our political parties, is left with a face that can mobilise the restless mass, who have crossed their threshold limits way back, to come out on the streets and wage a war against corruption. We had to wait for an Anna for this to happen. It is pity that our parliament has turned into a dog-fighting street where political parties fight just for their turn of exploiting this country. Let me enlighten you Mr. Sibbal that those who documented provisions for making laws only in the parliament could have never dreamt of this situation where even in an independent India the parliamentarians are still engaged in looting and siphoning the smiles out of the faces of ordinary countrymen.
It is now more than obvious that our Prime Minister is not even willing to acquire the magic wand as he is rejecting a potential magic wand that is being offered to him by Anna. However we all must feel satisfied that the great puzzle - that whose clothes were snatched by Baba Ramdev when he was being beaten out of the Ramlila ground - is now solved as we witness the government standing exposed with nothing left to hide and all its modesty outraged.

PEEPING INTO THE BEEPS - THE ‘DELHI BELLY’ WAY

.

I would advocate for a new category of censor certification to indicate that a particular movie is not advisable for watching even with your spouse or spouse-like friend. This particular film exactly fits that bill. It seems now writers have exhausted framing sentences even with otherwise witty but double-meaning phrases and have decided to nail direct-meaning words into your conscience. Yes no hypocrisy as they say. I am surprised as to how as many as four stars were awarded to this film (by Mayank Shekhar in HT on July 2) as I would require many more of those stars to hide the letters of the adjectives that I would have preferred to describe this G**D* film written by some B*******D (number of stars are exact as the words are in Hindi ). I was made to pass through a unique experience of continuous torture for an entire period of 98 minutes with no respite provided to me even in the form of an interval. I would like to somehow convey my warnings to the cine-goers that only if you can find humour in plain abuses shot out one after the other like a machine-gun, enjoy listening to those 4-5-6- letter-words without beeps continuously for one and a half hour and can laugh at repeatedly cheeking butts, the film is tailor-made for you. I am aware of a certain period in our lives (during our growing ages) wherein we are just thrown open to the world of abusive languages coming naturally around us especially while leading an unsettled and irresponsible life. I would have preferred to make efforts to cut this period as short as possible but the film attempts at glorifying this period to make it seep into the acceptable limits of our life-style. I was also advised to see the English version before forming an opinion on the film but unfortunately I find the trash too spilling to be justified. The language used is so sickeningly filthy that it ultimately strangulates the story and the subject of the film and I have never felt better even if an abuse is uttered in a 'sophisticated' English language. As Hussain used to see art in the nudity and that too in icons of worship, this film is made for those hypocrites who can see comedy in heaps of filth and enjoy vomiting shit. Movie ki shakal mein bhaiya yeh toh nikla keval trash trASH TRASSSSH.

Response to 'Slut Walk? No Thanks' by Seema Goswami

(Edited version of this response is published on June 26, 2011 of BRUNCH, HT page 4)

I was mesmerized by the way Seema Goswami expressed herself sensibly in “Slut Walk? No Thanks!” (Page 20, BRUNCH, HT June 19, 2011 please visit the following link http://www.hindustantimes.com/brunch/lifestyle/Slut-Walk-No-Thanks/Article1-710557.aspx ). I have always maintained that “right to dress” should not be stretched to have “right to undress” and “freedom of expression” should never be misused as “freedom to hurt”. She is absolutely right in placing that freedom and rights can never come bereft of responsibilities. Just as the slut walkers want others to behave responsibly (when they are slovenly dressed) they too have the same obligation to observe. I often wonder why females (unlike males) measure their liberty with their freedom of showing off their skin. When males show their sexuality they never complain if they get a response (if at all they get!) but females have a tendency to go overboard to show their sexuality but start complaining the moment they get the ‘desired?’ attention. Of course nobody can justify rape but just as ‘murder’ does not always fall under the ‘rarest of the rare’ category, rapists will always attempt to differentiate between a ‘seduced rape’ and a ‘forced rape’. And if females experience their inability in differentiating between rapes then they should not try to become men by downgrading themselves to compete with males in the race of the ‘show of sexuality’. Instead, they should attempt at shaking the conscience of males by exposing their usual tendencies of showing their sexuality - verbally or otherwise. I am sure females can do this without having to reveal their own sexuality and without feeding fodders to the male (hypocritically-sick) mind that desperately look for an opportunity to ogle even at the slut walkers.

An Unfortunate Nation

This nation must be thankful to Ramdev Baba who successfully exposed a corrupt government who wanted to avoid the midnight-action at any cost by offering red-carpet reception for him, was left with no other option once Baba did not agree to dance to its tune. A government that was forced to reveal its hidden-intentions of going to any extent for not letting them - who have huge black money stashed in the foreign banks – expose, would have acted exactly in the manner this government behaved that eventful night. This government has a Diggy (sorry for not using the appropriate vowel in this name) who mindlessly keeps on hurling self-defeating arguments just because he has been assigned the job of barking and biting everyone who wants to take away his master’s assets and money. Kapil Sibbal was right at least this time in admitting that the decision of not letting the government’s shame exposed at any cost must have been a unanimous one. Our prime minister had recently murmured that corruption is not a divisive issue but probably he had only politicians in his mind at that point of time. I must educate him by revealing that corruption is indeed a divisive issue that divides corrupt from honest and politicians/bureaucrats from masses. It was this divide that got exposed that night. It is now clear that this government will always prefer an innocent Hazare who can be made to believe in its gimmick/token exercises but will never like to negotiate with an intelligent Ramdev who will not accept any formula if it is not intended to bring back the black money in a time-bound manner. The government was left with only two options that night – to listen to the mass and part with their ill-earned black money or to brutally shut them up who were trying to expose them - and unfortunately for this nation, it chose the latter. Thanks to Baba Ramdev for proving that fight against corruption is and will always remain a fight against the mafia governing the nation at that time.

The case of exploited 'Liberal - Females'

The recent opposition against making of wearing of skirts compulsory in the game of badminton reminded me of the Einstein theory of relativity – there is nothing like absolute conservative or for that matter like absolute progressive attitude. These are only relative terminologies. The players’ world stood up in opposition this time. It only reiterates the point that a person takes either a conservative approach or adopts a progressive attitude only in response to the situation that he/she faces at that point of time. You can snub those who want fully covered girls playing badminton/tennis but the fact is now getting unveiled that till now it was probably not the innocent players who had decided the style of their clothes. In fact I have now reasons to believe that whatever they were wearing hitherto were actually forced upon them. Their willingness and consent was bought cunningly by befooling them in the name of their comfort and/or by making them believe that the extent of skin-show or the breadth of exposure of their curves actually measure their liberty. Please forgive me if it hurts anybody who is still under the influence of some sexist progressive-thinkers but it is a verifiable fact that the more liberal a female becomes the more she is exploited by the society. After all it is not for no reasons that the media without fail captures only those snaps with angles that attempt to capture these talented sports-girls with their skirts up. It is also not unintentional that the page3, the ad-world and the fashion-industry use these self-offering, willingly-exploited, ‘liberal-females’ as mere commodities. I rate this willing-exploitation much worse than what an average Indian homemaker is made to pass through as they too get exploited willingly but only by a single person/family. These females feel inexplicably victimized when they are not provided with the chance to get exploited just as it was reported in the case of one of the IPL-cheer-girls who was sent back to South Africa unceremoniously unexploited. Now she herself admits that they were treated like instruments of cheap-joy by one and all. However it is a fact that they were not selected from any pool of talent but simply handpicked and in return they were not expected to resist any attempt of such exploitations. Irony is that these forces do not want to leave anyone and now want to force everybody to wear what they want them to wear. Left to them, it will be just a matter of time that all games will have a dress code of beach volleyball-players or something else that is still unimaginable. In the name of artistic-expressions, these forces will also leave no scope for wardrobe malfunctioning for those flat-faced self-exploited fashion-instruments called ramp-walkers. However these sexist-eyed progressive thinkers will be quick to blame me for opposing such exposure and will snub me for being hypocritically conservative since I too enjoy ogling onto the fashion-section and the page3 exposures in addition to the sports-page photographs that captures many of them unaware with their skirts flying up. However, I fail to understand that how can they justify these exploitations by establishing that everybody enjoys them. Yes you can call me hypocrite since I will always differentiate between an act of personal enjoyment and a matter of public entertainment but I find those progressive-beasts as symbols of hypocrisy as they will never admit that they enjoy exploiting this situation to feed their hyper-sexist desires in the company of their creation of a class of self-destructing willing-to-be-exploited 'liberal-females'.

Caught in the Web of Corruption

(Published in the April 25 issue of the Governance Now. Please visit the following link to access the article. http://governancenow.com/views/columns/blame-it-our-corrupting-system)

I feared for this since the time Hazare started mobilizing us against corruption in the corridors of powers. It happened to all earlier torch-bearers against any kind of corruption in India. Those who showed courage to question the powerful have themselves ended up falling on the side of sufferers. Be it the Tehelka-expose, cash-for-votes revelation in the Parliament, the L. N. Mishra-whispers, the Bofor issue, unveiling of the fodder scam, JMM payment case, Radia-gate expose and other such innumerable cases – we have witnessed blatant attempts to shut the mouths of the source itself. Due to this, we as a nation have lost faith in everybody. We will look for no reasons to believe in the latest Bhushan – duo expose; we will never seek any proof to establish the relation between Gandhis and Italian-Q’s Bofor-payments; we will effortlessly assume a connection between Binayak and Maoists; irrespective of the verdicts, we will never be able to acquit Afzal or Professor Geelani in the Parliament-attack case; we have already hanged Modi many times for his supposed involvement in the Gujrat riots; it is impossible to reject a link between any unknown Indian-muslim and terrorism; and nobody needs to be convinced for a connection between RSS and saffron-terror; in fact we require absolutely nothing to believe in any such negative expose and will be extremely hesitant in accepting that Anna Hazare, Swami Ramdev or Swami Agniwesh have innocent intentions. The power uses this state of our mind to prove that all are corrupt. This helps them in achieving their win ultimately.
In addition to this, corruption has assumed such a large proportion that people feel pride in displaying their corrupt intent. Corrupts are ruling the nation and belong to ruler-influential class. We take pride in moving in a tinted-glassed-car if that is banned, we feel proud in moving without helmet, we proudly cross a red-signal or boast of our connection in manipulating a decision in our favor that was otherwise not allowed within rules – be it admission of your ward; be it a place in an Indian/IPL team; be it winning a tender; be it selection for a post or promotion in your rank. On the other hand a law-abiding or a rule-observer is generally looked down upon by our society. We measure the status of an influential person and respect him as much as he shows courage to violate/manipulate rules and norms. The power-brokers in India have helped in creating this state by enacting laws that are simply un-observable. Bill Gates can rise from ashes using regular means but it is simply unimaginable to even dream for any such rise in India by any law-abiding individual. You necessarily need to be a Harshad/a Ketan/a power broker politician/a shrewd bureaucrat/a corrupt administrator/a manipulating Judge/a tax evading businessman or a professional who is not honestly true to his/her profession. Believe me they can prove anyone corrupt not only because we require little to get convinced about this but also as they have ensured that nobody can remain a law-abiding citizen in India.
I am afraid, unless you are an ostrich it is impossible to find a way to get out of this mess.

Analysing Corruption

(please visit the following link to see my article on the same subject that was published in the March 20, 2011 issue of the Organiser weekly http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=389&page=24

and http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=398&page=44 )

Let us begin this discussion with an honest admission that we all are corrupt. Let us rise above the level of the blame game in which we invariably engage ourselves if we really want to leash this menace. Believe me, if you are picked up for scrutiny under income tax act, you will never be able to convince them that you never violated any rule unless they are paid for that. If you are under police custody for any reason it will be impossible to plead your innocence without paying bribe. No business can survive in India if all applicable taxes are paid faithfully. None of us will be able to explain/remember each entry in his/her passbook for a period spanning last three years if entries run in thousands. There is no way that one can avoid corruption in India. We must finally admit that it is just impossible to escape corruption in this country and one can only set an acceptable limit for oneself.
Let us try to understand the cause of the existence of corruption and the reasons for its growing acceptability. Let us also try to measure its multi-dimensional spread while admitting its exponential increase in our bid to overpower this bull by catching it with its horns. Let us try to find a way out from this desperate situation.
Hope lies in the conclusion that this state of hopelessness is actually forced one on us. Rules have purposefully been framed with an intention to keep a handle of possibility to prove anybody corrupt despite all his/her sincere efforts. The conspiracy is to make everybody feel vulnerable so that they do not have the courage to raise voice against corruption. It seems we have not changed after becoming independent. We somehow still live in a situation similar to the pre-independence era. The government still identifies itself with the ruler-class and engages itself in enacting rules that simply can never be abided by if one tries to follow all the applicable fine prints. These rules only help them in providing teeth to bite the commoners and get away with any corruption in return. On the other hand we too posses no respect for the rules, the attitude that we used to carry proudly before independence, as we still think that government is an entity separate from us and most of the times works against our welfare. With this sense we feel committing no wrong while draining out the government funds. Another factor that hugely contributes to the unlimited rise of corruption is the absence of social security to the citizens. While high end corruption is driven primarily with an urge for acquiring luxury, the seeds of low scale corruption are generally sown with the social insecurity prevailing everywhere in our country. Many of us fall prey to corruption in our resolve to secure future for all the future family members.
Instead of raising the acceptable limits of corruption by each passing day, let us resolve to wipe out corruption from our attitude itself. For this let us urge the government first to make rules with an intention to make all of us feel that we all are living in an independent country where we are not merely stakeholders but also part of the policy makers. Let us have simple rules to follow. Let us follow 5% tax rule on all our expenditures. Let us abolish all tax saving schemes. Let the government start a decent social security scheme. Let us also end the era of cash transactions. These efforts should be followed by a zero-tolerance regime for all kinds of corruption as we are left with no soft options now. We must feel the importance of independence and confront this menace of corruption by declaring a war against it or otherwise this has a potential to wipe-out our independence.

No One Killed Jessica – a review

Rani Mukherji could order somebody to ‘fly alone’ only in a film scene after arousing his desires just because the script did not allow him to go rightfully mad. Not everybody would disappear from the scene after simply asking Rani as to what he was supposed to do when he was being left unattended by her. If you keep on playing with flares it is bound to burn you sometimes. The pub-culture that is glamorized and sold on the page3 of the media and that wants all other components of the society to bend and shed their sensibilities to allow some insensitive individuals to live their life according to their wishes, in fact help in promoting an attitude that sparked the Jessica-incident. Talking of a limit in a world where you want to break all limits is hypocrisy. Expecting a drunk to behave sensibly defies all logics. Ironically the pub-culture that advocates enjoyment shorn of all responsibilities was never the target of attack in any media discussion.
To me, justice to Jessica should not end only after punishing the drunken shooter who weighed a life less than his desire to showcase his political connections but should continue with finding, devising and implementing ways and strategies to restrict the explosion of pub-culture. As a matter of fact, the media activism in this case was meant merely to exhibit the supremacy of media over the political class before the general public. I would have acknowledged their ‘noble intentions’ had the media taken the responsibility of dissuading youth from falling into the trap of pub-culture instead of glamorizing it. Jessica’s murder was lapped up by the media primarily because the victim represented the page3 class with which the Indian media identifies itself. Media felt victimized because the incident established supremacy of political class over the page3 class. After all they never thought of fighting it out for the general public that has remained at the mercy of the political class right from the day India became independent.
The Jessica-case was used by media not only to dethrone the political class from their position of absolute strength but also to stake the claim for the same simultaneously. The media activism that peaked with the ‘Tehelka expose’ and felt triumphant after succeeding in turning around the decision in the ‘Jessica-case’ eventually fall deflated with the ‘Radiagate expose’ only because the media never intended to change the power structure but only wanted to replace the political class with itself in order to form a new power equation.
The movie is a true portrait of the incident just from the media point of view. If you were following media reports earlier – you will find nothing new here.