Saheb Biwi Aur Gangster Returns

Meeta Kabra
28 February 2013, 11:01 AM IST

A sequel which actually is a sequel, and not just cashing in on the prospect of a franchise - that's welcome already. So, we'll be back in the aristocratic world of the prince, his wife and a new gangster will enter the scene. And the new addition is none other than Irrfan Khan! We all know what magnificence they created last time director Tigmanshu Dhulia and Irrfan Khan got together in Paan Singh Tomar.

Other than that the mystical aura of Saheb Biwi Aur Gangster, the elements of aristocracy, deceit, arrogance and jealousy seem to be at a prime in the second installment too. In addition there is a tinge of revenge that the trailer  seems to hint upon.

Along with that though is the use of sex as a tool to express love. No problem with that, I just hope there is more to the love implied than sex. Also, I hope the awkwardness has reduced over the last couple years.

Other than that, I am completely looking forward to Jimmy Sheirgill and Soha Ali Khan in a role that suits them best - Royal lives; Irrfan Khan in whatever role he chooses to play; and I hope Mahie Gill gets some of her oomph from Dev D back.

And more that, there's the witty dialogue, an atmosphere trying to seduce you and Tigmanshu Dhulia's film after Paan Singh Tomar to look forward to!

Music Reviews:
dunkdaft - "Composed by Sandeep Chowta, this one would work only in line with the screenplay, and not as stand alone album like the first one did. "
Milliblog - "Welcome back, Sandeep Chowta!"
glamsham - "3/5"

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

Are you bothered by Ram Gopal Varma's bad personal ethics?

Babita Basu
28 February 2013, 05:53 PM IST

The year was 2008. The month was December. Film director Ram Gopal Varma took what was widely understood and interpreted as a terror tour, barely two weeks after ISI-trained terrorists left Mumbai's heritage Taj hotel desecrated, devastated – making it the venue of a carnage that found widespread coverage across TV channels  around the world.

Talking of 26/11, the attack was  a first-timer in many aspects – to begin with, it was a high-end heritage property that these human vermin chose to destroy. Second, the targeting of a five-star property clearly proves their aiming at high-profile, upmarket victims, especially American citizens who were visiting India at the time. The siege of Chabad House also clearly pointed to animosity towards Israelites.

In those two weeks after the attack, India learnt a lot. For once, we learnt that it was not just public or tourist spots, but also targets that boast of high security deployments which could be successfully targeted and destroyed. We also learnt the hard way that live TV coverage of events like terror attacks need to be censored in a country like ours where the lure of TRPs and the moolah could override national security concerns.  What a shame it was when we learnt, in the weeks to come, how live coverage by NDTV helped guide terrorist strategies being cooked in the ISI control room. And just when we Indians were coming to terms with those learnings, we saw one Ram Gopal Varma towing himself along behind erstwhile chief minister Vilasrao Deshmukh and his actor son Riteish to check out the scene once the terrorists had been snuffed out by our defence forces.  

Why does V. Deshmukh have access? Because he's the chief minister in office at the time. How does Riteish follow close on his heels? Because he was at that point in time, son of the chief minister in office and yes, you can do that in India – become a part of the official entourage, I mean. And how does RGV tow himself along? Because of his excellent understanding with Mr Chief Minister and Mr Actor. Woo-hoo, here's me thumbing my nose at you, he seemed to say, even as the media and Mumbai-ites bayed for his blood for making light of an issue as grave as the terror attack. I remember a protestor carrying a placard that said: Deshmurkh, a film by Ram Gopal Varma, at a time when V. Deshmukh was himself under fire for bad handling of the national crisis. So RGV came up with an official reply. What did he say? I remember those words very clearly, although most of us may have conveniently forgotten it. He had said he had no intention of offending people's sentiments by taking the "terror tour" because he had no commercial intentions around the same. He had called it a promise. He had also said the Taj attack is not going to be a theme in any forthcoming films of his and that given a chance, who could resist the offer of a "terror tour" and that is why he did what he did – he was driven by curiosity and nothing else.

A little more than four years later, he flamboyantly breaks his "promise". He does exactly what he said he wouldn't do – make a film replete with the spice of the 26/11 terror attack. He also brazenly titles it The Attacks of 26/11 and publicises it as "a Hindi crime-thriller based on the 2008 Mumbai attacks." (Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Attacks_of_26/11)

The fact that RGV simply doesn't care clearly shows his lack of sensitivity and love for sensationalism. There may be many of us who've forgotten what happened during those days when we were on the tenterhooks, but not so the victims and their families who would not perceive this move lightly.

There are two concerns here – the aspect of commercialisation and  that of aesthetic liberties. RGV has the aesthetic liberty to depict life, and reality as he sees it. I give it to him that it's his duty as an artist to share his views. Also, I'm aware that this very act of his makes him open to commercialisation of the issue – his aesthetic creation comes with its own business intentions and baggage thereof. I notice that he has no qualms about using a Kasab lookalike too. Which means please expect him to make the best of the "terror tour" that he once took four and  a half years ago. Are you expecting a superhit? Yes, given the tremendous curiosity of those of us who never took that "terror tour". And will I watch the film? Sadly, yes – simply because of voyeuristic reasons, because I wasn't part of that "terror tour". And most people making this film a superhit will probably agree. Is RGV using his clout to his advantage? Well, of course he is. But I will never forgive him for lying – for actually commercialing a situation that touched the raw nerve of millions. The artist – could have been honest – to say the least.

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

A tax and spend budget

Pyaralal Raghavan
28 February 2013, 07:28 PM IST

The only things that have gone up are taxes and subsidies.

The finance minister Chidambaram who is widely acclaimed for his acumen and hands on approach to governance seems to finally slipping up. By trying to present a please all budget he seems to have bitten more than he can chew and finally ended up by displeasing many and endearing himself to just a few. It is indeed tragic that the finance minister, who boosted his standing and made a name by holding down direct tax rates while steadily boosting revenues and bringing down budget deficits during his earlier stints in the ministry, seems to have opted to let go off his basic gut instincts and pursued a counter intuitive new approach that has proved disastrous most of the time. So it will indeed be a big surprise if the new strategy of boosting tax collections by levying surcharges on high end tax payers without really cutting down on unaffordable government expenditure will give the economy the big boost in investments it currently needs.

By the finance minister's own admission the 2013-14 budget will raise as much as Rs 13,300 crore through new direct tax proposals and another Rs 4,7000 crore through the indirect taxes proposals. Detailed statements in the budget documents show that changes in the surcharge on corporate taxes would now double the surcharge collection from Rs 15,004 crore in 2012-13 to Rs 30,519 crore in 2013-14. And the new surcharge on income tax on the super rich will bring in another Rs 4,400 crore.

However, the overall gains from the security transaction tax on non food commodities are marginal with net gains in revenue being around just Rs 500 crore in 2013-14. It is certainly a bad tax which raises all round criticism without bringing in any immediate tangible benefits.  The only solace is that Chidambaram, perhaps convinced by the futility of his moves, has restricted most of the major tax increases to just one financial year.

However, the higher tax rate which goes against the grains of economic logic is only one part of the bad bargain. The other equally bad or even worse development is that the new budget reverses the positive reduction in government spending, a trend that has brought down central government spending from the peak levels of 15.9% of GDP in 2009-10 to 14.3% of GDP in 2012-13. The new surge in government spending, mostly financed by the tax increases, has now finally reversed this positive trend to once again push up government spending by a few notches to 14.6% of the GDP in 2013-14. So you now know who is to be blamed if the higher government spending pushes up aggregate demand and further nudges up inflation a few levels higher once again.

Unfortunately the worst part of the new budget is the overall numbers show that the higher spending has not gone to any productive purpose but to further boost the subsidies that have now gone beyond unaffordable levels. In fact budget figures show that major expenditures like the share of spending on interest payments, states share of taxes and duties, plan and non plan assistance to states and union territories and other non plan expenditure has remained stable as in the last year and that the only major changes were in the share of funds allocated to central plan, defence and subsidies.

This breakup of the allocations of the total government spending in fact show that while the central plan allocation in total central government spending has come down from 22% in 2012-13 to 21% in 2013-14 and that on defence has also slipped from 11% to 10% during the period. The only major increase in was in the allocation on subsidies whose share went up substantially from 10% of the total central government spending in 2012-13 to 12% in 2013-14 which is to pay for all for goodies to be spewed out in anticipation of the election year. So you now know why you don't any need better evidence to call this tax and spend budget.

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

How to create new Haji Mastans with Budget 2013

TK Arun
27 February 2013, 12:31 PM IST

The FM should mind the law of unintended consequences when levying new taxes

With his forthcoming budget, finance minister P Chidambaram could add a few noteworthy examples to the field of academic investigation called unintended consequences. It is a field littered with dead bodies, much mayhem and a few benign developments.

Prohibition in the 1920s in the US led to the growth of organised crime, irrigation to increase crop yields in traditionally dry areas led to the spread of mosquitoes and the deadly diseases they carry, legalisation of abortion in the US led to a drop in the crime rate. P Chidambaram can, in 2013, create new Haji Mastansand spread the growth of black money, with a few taxes he seems to favour. 

One, he could increase the import duty on gold, already a steep 6%. Already, official gold imports are reportedly down by 20 odd tonnes a month, thanks to the enhanced import duty. The higher the import duty, the greater the incentive to smuggle large quantities of gold. 

Largescale smuggling will create new crime lords like Haji Mastan and Dawood Ibrahim. The proceeds of crime would once again dominate the industries they have traditionally tainted, such as films and real estate.

The policy alternative is to allow the financial marketsto function well and create financial instruments that hedge against inflation at least as well as gold does.Gold prices are on a downward trend. This would not increase the demand for gold, as many predict. What has been causing distress on the current account is the incremental demand for gold that comes from the desire to protect savings from erosion by inflation. When gold prices show a sign of falling, that might boost consumption demand but would certainly dampen the demand for gold as a stable store of value. Lowering the import duty on gold to a nominal 1% would make sense, from this point of view. 

Two, the finance minister could, in theory, levy a special, higher rate of income tax on the super-rich. This would be entirely counterproductive. Tax compliance in a country like India, where people do not see tax through the prism of ethics, is a question of how the cost of compliance compares with the cost of evasion. A likely prison term greatly increases the cost of evasion. But since that is not on the cards, increasing the cost of compliance by jacking up the marginal rate of income tax only serves to increase the incentive to evade or avoid compliance. There would be more black money in the system. The super rich can employ better tax planning to avoid taxes and end up paying even a lower proportion of taxes than they do at present. 

The policy alternative is to widen the tax base and lower rates of tax. A swift transition to the Goods andServices Tax would generate countless audit trails to incomes generated from value addition in manufacturing and provision of services and help the tax administration collect its dues. 

Three, the FM could extend the reach of financial transaction taxes to commodity futures. Commodity exchanges have been doing the rounds of newspaper offices and chambers of commerce and industry trying to ward off a transaction tax on commodity trades. They fear that such a tax, even if restricted to non-agricultural commodities, would drive the entire market underground and kill off important commodity benchmarks being developed in this part of the world. These fears are entirely justified. 

Besides, financial transaction taxes, including the existing one on securities, are bad in principle. In our country, financial markets are little understood, even by normally intelligent people. Most people consider speculation an unethical activity, one that deserves to be penalised. The same people would consider hedging against risk, buying insurance, to be both prudent and virtuous. This is downright silly. Virtuous hedging is possible only because there are 'scheming' speculators who trust their expertise to figure that the eventuality the hedger wants to escape would not happen and so is willing to take on the risk of that eventuality from the hedger. 

The modern financial system allocates not only funds but also risk. It allocates risk across society, to its maximum risk-bearing capacity. The lower the risk, the lower the cost of capital. So, the functioning of the modern financial system, with its host of financial instruments that permit hedging and speculation, serves to lower the cost of capital across the board. The biggest beneficiaries are those at the bottom of the foodchain, the small and medium enterprises, who bear the highest rates of interest in any given spread of rates. Taxes on financial transactions impede this process of risk diversification and raise the cost of capital. The gain to the exchequer of a few thousand crore of direct revenue is more than offset by the loss to the economy as a whole and the resultant indirect loss to the exchequer. 

The superior policy alternative is to scrap all financial transaction taxes and bring back the tax treatment of savings and capital gains P Chidambaram had himself proposed in the original Direct Taxes Code.

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

Anubhuti? What Anubhuti?

Gautam Siddharth
27 February 2013, 05:33 PM IST

Recoiled in dread on hearing the Rail Mantri, Pawan Kumar Bansal, say that he plans to introduce luxury coaches called "Anubhuti" — to be connected with Shatabdis and Rajdhanis.

Dread because although an infrequent train traveler, the last few times I've taken AC-2 or AC-1 on Rajdhanis, the experience has left me shaken — literally and figuratively. The last train ride was just a few weeks ago, on one of the country's older, premier trains, Prayagraj to Allahabad for covering the Mahakumbh.

Principally against government discount on tickets for "accredited" journalists and travelling at personal or company cost, each time I bundle myself in to one of the AC coaches, I feel cheated.
 
Curtains hanging loose and ripped in places, the linen smeared, a stale, musty smell and total absence of anything approaching basic hygiene. The less said about the bogs the better. You take the train no more for pleasure but out of majboori — an unfortunate compulsion. 

In the last 10 or 15 years, the slide in AC services has been coterminous with expansion in the number of trains. Today, there are far too many trains, far greater number of accidents and mass deaths, and poor services in "premium" AC categories. And this is where I've a bone to pick with Mr Bansal. 

Many would have stood up and applauded had the Railway minister said he would upgrade the AC coaches, or get new ones. Instead, he sent this Anubhuti floater — a move that's going to send the already abysmal AC services further down the tube. 

Reason: all our mantris, railway officials and the rest of the VIPs will take Anubhuti, where they will be fussed over silly by the staff while paying nothing for the service since their travel is free. It will be a coach brimming with babus and netas and the aam aadmi, who spends out of his pocket for AC travel, will find himself being treated like the proverbial Senegalese leper. 

Make no mistake. Anubhuti will leave us out in the cold, fuming.

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

Pain self-inflicted, so relatively easy to relieve, finds the Economic Survey

TK Arun
27 February 2013, 06:44 PM IST

The Economic Survey 2012-13 is lucid, well-argued and short of new big ideas, commendably so. New brainwaves are the last thing we need in India, while ignoring well-identified action imperatives.

The Survey makes three pronouncements that would be welcomed by industry. One, while it is imperative to cut the fiscal deficit, it is necessary to do it by raising the tax/GDP ratio, rather than by curtailing expenditure and hitting development. Two, it is desirable to raise the tax/GDP ratio by broadening the tax base rather than by raising marginal rates of tax. A special tax on the super-rich clearly finds no favour with the Survey.

And, three, it talks of the need to raise savings in the economy. Of course, the chief operative imperative here is to cut the fiscal deficit and reduce government dissavings. But also, there have to be measures to increase financial savings by the households. Such a move would help industry raise resources as well. Raising savings is important as that is the way to cut the worryingly large current account deficit, which is an outcome and measure of the gap between domestic savings and investment in the economy. The way to reduce the savings-investment gap without sacrificing investment and hurting growth is to step up savings.

The picture presented by the Economic Survey is that of self-inflicted pain. Growth has stalled because investment has stalled, primarily — it is true, of course, that exports malinger because of tepid world growth but there is little that we can do about that. Investment has stalled because of problems with obtaining assorted clearances: mining linkages or forest or environmental clearances suddenly turn beyond reach. In some cases, project sanctions just dry up. The Survey finds comfort in the setting up of the Cabinet Committee on Investments. It is strange that it does not ask, and vocally, for scrapping the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act of 1973, which is a major source of project uncertainty when it comes to fuel linkage, besides of coal shortage. In the case of telecom projects, difficulties in spectrum allocation have been a reason for stalled investment.

Another reason for the investment deficit that has crimped growth is high nominal interest rates. Forestalling monetary easing by the RBI has been inflation, particularly food inflation. Food inflation this year has been driven by cereals – 17% in the third quarter. This, when the government has 70 million tonnes of grain in its stocks. If this is not reason enough to sack the food minister, food secretary and all other senior babus in the ministry, it is difficult to see what could be. But of course, it would be politically incorrect for the Survey to talk about sacking those in the government.

It would be extremely politically incorrect for the Survey to point out another constraint on the economy: the courts stepping outside their remit to ban or disrupt huge swathes of economic activity, such as mining and telecom. But the government needs to summon the political nerve needed to quietly but firmly tell the courts that they are messing up. Telecom minister Kapil Sibal has begun the process, others have to follow through.

It is indeed welcome that the Survey has devoted an entire new chapter to reaping the demographic dividend. But it is surprising that it has not deemed urbanisation important enough to warrant anything more than a sub-section.

The Survey cites research finding to the effect that large, centralised banks tend to be insular to the needs of the small and medium enterprises sector, and, in countries with variegated banking systems, migrate to small, local banks. This should inform the RBI when it begins licensing new banks.

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

A point by point rebuttal of Jaitley’s letter opposing NCTC….

Prashant Panday
26 February 2013, 12:36 PM IST

Arun Jaitley has said that the BJP is opposed to the NCTC "in its current form". The lame duck excuse he is given is the same old argument – that the NCTC "impinges upon the powers of the state government". Powers of "search, seize and arrest". In short, the powers of the state government to play big daddy. In the meanwhile, terrorists – a wholly different breed of criminals from state-level goons – can continue jumping across from state to state, freely going about their business. Nothing but a few more terrorist attacks will make the BJP realize how it is politicizing and harming India's fight against terrorism.

Arun Jaitley has written an open letter on the subject. In the letter, he writes "India needs a concerted approach against terror. The war against terror must be uninterrupted – it must be uninterruptible". Very powerful words….and yet all that he is doing is interrupting the fight. It would be better if he practiced what he wrote.

This post offers a point by point rebuttal of the points raised by him.

1. On the powers to search, seizure and arrest, Jaitley writes "Why would the Central government need to give police powers to the NCTC which would otherwise be under the domain of NIA or state police". So Jaitley is OK with these powers being under another central agency – the NIA; somehow the principles of federalism are not impacted then. But if the same powers are extended to the NCTC, India's federal structure gets destroyed. The only difference between the NIA and the NCTC is that the former acts after the terrorist act (to nab the culprits), while the latter acts before the attacks take place. If anything, the need for search, seizure and arrest powers is higher for the NCTC, as much of the intelligence can be gathered only by "talking" to suspects. If the NCTC isn't allowed to do that without the help of the local cops (a bureaucratic process which takes several days, especially if the state government is ruled by a different party and is prone to leaks), then how will it be effective in preventing attacks?

1. In the letter, Jaitley has said that even in the US, the NCTC does not have the power of search, seize and arrest: "The American NCTC deals with only strategic planning and the integration of intelligence without any operational involvement". Well, Jaitley is right (after all, he is a great lawyer!), but Jaitley conveniently ignores that the US has the FBI which can do all that is being proposed to be given to the NCTC here – including in a pro-active preventive manner. We don't have anything akin to the FBI. The CBI is the only body that exists, but its mandate is really very different (not terrorism). The CBI can search, seize and arrest without any reference to the state police. Why can't the NCTC? Even apart from the FBI, the US has several other agencies dedicated to anti-terror activities (just check out how many American TV shows exist on the subject).

1. Jaitley also writes about his objection to the NCTC being placed under the IB. He hasn't bothered to elaborate what his real problem with this is except to state that "IB has shifted its focus from security related activities to political and quasi-political activities" and that "IB functioning is a secret. It is a non-statutory body. Its budget and spending has no accountability". Clearly, Jaitley is the one politicizing the issue. Also, what does he expect the IB to do? Share its secrets with the opposition? Likewise, does it also expect the National Security Advisor's office to share information with the opposition? Since Jaitley conveniently referred to the US NCTC when it suited him (previous point), let me also point out that in the US, the NCTC is part of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, a body similar to our IB.

1. Jaitley also writes "Why should the central government not trust the states" and "Is there any reason to doubt that the state police in India cannot be trusted for anti-terror functions?". Great political rhetoric. But we've seen what happens when the IB passes on intelligence inputs to states. Most such intelligence is not "specific" and the state police doesn't have the capability nor the resources to investigate the leads. As a result, many preventable attacks go undetected. If the NCTC was tasked with such investigations, it would directly probe the leads. And for this, it would need to arrest suspects and question them.

I also have a question to ask Jaitley. Since he keeps accusing the Congress of being "soft on terror" because it scrapped the POTA, I want to ask him why his government was OK with curbing civil rights the way POTA did, but is not OK with even sharing (not even curbing mind you) certain rights of the states with the center? A very harsh attitude on one subject, and a very opposite view on the other? I also want to ask him "Why should the state governments not trust the states?"

The real truth is that it is the BJP that is being soft on terror. It is politicizing the issue of terror because it believes that it can score a few points in the next elections on this issue. If it was really concerned about the country's fight with terror, it would strengthen the center's hands, just the way I would expect the Congress to do so if the BJP were ruling at the center. Ruling parties can change….but our fight against terror must remain non-partisan….

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

Television Reloaded

Rumy Agarwal
26 February 2013, 04:27 PM IST

Well, okay, so most of us are TV buffs; or, at least we like watching TV…after all, the idiot box has come up with a delightful smorgasbord of fare that we can pick and choose from—daily soaps, 24x7 news, religious discourses, laughter doses, telemarketing, song-and-dance and the rest of the works. Period.

But there's a new "kid" on the TV programming block who has spawned a world war of sorts out there—the war for TRPs ! "Debates" , a.k.a. discussions, analyses, are the new craze! Electronic media seems to have found a new toy to grab the viewers' eyeballs with! They say that TV viewing just got more hot and happening with these high-pitched debates moderated by anchors who try so hard to maintain balance AND decorum as the participants try to shred each other to pieces while whipping up public sentiments and polarizing society. And people do react—off line and online, begin tweeting frantically, writing on Facebook, sending out SMSs etc.  The public feels more enlightened and also more intelligent after being bombarded by the explosion of news. Everybody's in a tizzy—TRPs skyrocket, hence mission accomplished!!  And by the time the hysteria dies down, some channel has swooped down upon another piece of news with the exciting hint of a controversy… and there we go again.

All this breast-beating is fine, but isn't it time to sit back and take a long, hard look at what is actually happening here? Look, the electronic media loves controversies and can't  stop rubbing its hands in glee at the mere scent of one, but, and this is a BIG but, does it have to create something salacious out of a harmless piece of news, simply to bring in the ratings? Look, discussions are fine and they do increase your knowledge of the subject being thrashed out, widen your horizons, give you different opinions on a single platform and help you get a global perspective of the subject and so on. If the matter had ended there, it'd be fine and we'd all be grateful to TV for not being an "idiot box" after all. But it does not end there. The media gets so carried away by its power to influence opinions and let feathers fly that many a time the "debate" is cleverly turned into a controversy, or some statements or words are plucked out of context and served up as contentious when they were never meant to be so ! Result? Everyone with half an opinion (and sometimes ignorant about the context!) comes on TV to slam the person who said the ill-fated words! If reporters feel that certain sentences uttered by some well-known person are indeed objectionable, then the least they can do is to first give the context of the words, complete with the tone, nuance and relevance before resorting to lynching the "offender" on a public platform! Programmes CAN be made interesting as well as informative WITHOUT having to generate uncalled-for public anger and outrage, don't you think?

I can cite from memory a few recent examples where controversies were created where there were none! Er… aren't our TV journalists getting confused about a thing called "ethics" in their excitement of "breaking news"? The latest that comes to mind is the Ashis Nandy case. Mr. Nandy sparked controversy when he claimed that the most corrupt acts now came from OBCs, Dalits and increasing scheduled tribes. But his critics who had a field day opted to overlook that Nandy was claiming that even-handed corruption was indicator of the openness of the system.

He was quickly slammed for political incorrectness whereas he was only trying to unveil a certain kind of hypocrisy of the privileged elite, but unfortunately ended up putting up an argument too complex to be comprehended by the studio guests who were also apparently unaware of his deeper arguments but attacked him nonetheless.

Then there was this case of popular outrage against Nitin Gadkari for having "compared" Swami Vivekanand to Dawood Ibrahim! Oh Gawd, he did NOT!! All he had said was that being intelligent doesn't mean that a person will excel, and to achieve success one has to have focus and must work in the right direction, like Swami Vivekanand. He then went on to say that a person like Dawood Ibrahim may also be very intelligent but he used his mind in negative direction, and hence turned out to be what he is today. So one should channelise his/her energies for the betterment of society. What was wrong with that, pray?

Example No.3—the Shah Rukh Khan controversy! The studio "warriors" could barely conceal their glee while "discussing" what the star said about his security and what he must've meant (!!) and had the whole nation go hysteric about his security issues. What followed was a clarification from the King of Bollywood which basically intended to imply that his patriotism was never under question and he felt perfectly safe and sound in this country. Again, a case of so much sound and fury, signifying nothing…

The brouhaha surrounding the movie "Vishwaroopam" was again quite unnecessary as was later proved. (And this wasn't the first movie to be slammed and nor will it be the last, we all know that).  But if ten people are ready to shout and claim, "This is hurting religious sentiments", it becomes a national issue. That the Censor Board had cleared the movie is an altogether different matter.

Recently there was much raving and ranting over the beheading of Indian soldiers by Pakistani troops. True, it was a heinous, despicable and unpardonable act. Period. But shouldn't the panelists have also mentioned that we had done the same in the recent past?

Then, of course, there is an obsession for cricket in our collective national unconscious which makes unable to accept any defeat as a defeat and channels prey on this obsession to make every win or defeat a hot topic for controversy—the manufactured one, needless to say!

Such examples are a legion but the issue here is what sort of TV discussions we ought to have and with what purpose? I think, and I'm sure that most of you would agree, that discussions or debates should aim to further our understanding of a subject through unbiased analysis by learned people with squeaky clean credentials, instead of  trying to push down our throats the viewpoint (however biased or askew) of any one person who has caught the TV channel's fancy. Moreover, creating a controversy is definitely taboo! Besides, these discussions are not daily soaps which have to provide sensationalism to attract viewers. TV discussions, in their present format (with a rare exception now and then) are, in a way, reinforcing fanaticism and prejudice or, at best, forcing you to believe that there are just two sides to every story—one unquestionably right and the other undeniably wrong, when in reality that is not always true and there are often grey areas which have to be attended to by TV journalists. Respect for truth and the public's right to information are fundamental principles of journalism. Free speech and an informed public are quintessential for a democratic society and it is the responsibility of electronic journalists to promote as well as to protect the freedom to report about matters of public interest and to present a wide range of ideas and opinions WITHOUT favouring one over the other.

True, with so many weak spots in the country's ethical underbelly being exposed every day, the electronic media finds it hard to curb the exciting temptation of being censorial and judgmental, but it CANNOT forget ethics and integrity and accountability to the public. The "canons of journalism"……remember them? Aren't they all about truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity and so on?  And yes, neither should we go all hyperbolic in complaining and condemning the poor guys—theirs is not an easy job! A little restraint from both the media and the public should do the trick, I guess?

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

Teachers learn to be Leaders too

Meeta Sengupta
26 February 2013, 05:36 PM IST

Sometimes teachers have to face the strangest situations. 

 

"My student will not stop crying and won't tell me why' is probably the most common. Every teacher has had these days when one child completely loses emotional control and it is up to the teacher to keep the class going, make sure that the contagion does not spread and of course needs to console the child. 

 

"I'm having an asthamatic attack and forgot to bring my nebuliser" 

 

"I want to go to the toilet but its too late now" (yes, I paraphrased this one)

 

Of course the very common,

 

"He's hitting me" 

 

and the terrifying,

 

"Blood!"

 

 

Yes, teachers deal with all of this and more. Often alone. Standing in front of that class the teacher is the tallest leader ever. A role model. A pillar of strength. 

 

However much the situation daunts them, it is theirs to resolve. 

 

Some are lucky, they work in large and well equipped schools and can transfer some of these problems. The school clinic will be able to take care of the blood and the nebuliser, there may be an ayah or cleaner (in rich Indian schools there is one) to help with the spillage and the toilet issues. 

 

Other teachers are even luckier.. they have been trained in dealing with most situations. Some may even have been trained in spotting conditions such as dyslexia or  ADD/ADHD and will therefore have been told of the ideal response in the class room.

 

Most teachers are not so lucky. They teach in difficult circumstances, in small schools and in remote areas. They may or may not be prepared to deal with emergencies, they may not even have another teacher in the school to support them in a crisis. These teachers are daily heroes. 

 

And when a newly qualified teacher steps into the job on the first day, it is stepping into the shoes of a hero. Personal heroism is what is required of the job, though, thankfully only occasionally. Thing is, you have no idea when that moment will come. 

 

And that moment is probably the greatest learning a new teacher will receive. The moment when they know that they must step up and deliver. There is no other adult in the room-it is them! For many new teachers, this is their first lesson in leadership. 

 

Learning in the classroom is never just one way. The teacher too is learning how to deal with their circumstances. Some teachers use this as an opportunity for personal growth. Others as a chance to enhance or validate their sense of power. For others it is merely a job. For those who will, there may be no better way to self discovery than to teach young minds. 

 

The lessons of leadership are learnt by doing. Leaders are rarely created by simply reading a book. You have to put yourself out there and build the loyal followership, shape them to your vision and take them along with you on a journey - a teacher does all that everyday. 

 

The leader is in a position of power, but respect and followership do not come merely from the position, but from the knowledge and mentorship that the leader is able to demonstrate. Sometimes a teacher's power comes from the chair that they occupy. Sometimes, they are simply the largest person in the room. Sometimes, they are looked up to because of the wonder they bring, the stories they tell. Often children really have no idea of the transformation their teachers are bringing, and may even hate the grind they are being put through.. but they do know who cares for them and invests in them. In teaching, more than anywhere else, much of it is leadership by care. 

 

And what does the teacher get for all this lofty leadership? Do they get promotions for being better leaders? Do they get bonuses for standing up for their little people? Not always, we know. Do they get respect? A place at the centre of the community? Economic security? Satisfaction for a job well done? Some do, most don't. 

 

What teachers do get is a great sense of self, a maturity. Confidence that comes with few other professions. Teaching is about building and communicating self belief. The teacher knows that they have no choice but to have a 'can-do' attitude. To know that one can step up when the need arises is a gift earned by a teacher. Whatever the circumstance, with or without incentives, a teacher must make it happen. 

 

To keep leading, to build a followership year after year, not sure of the incentives or rewards, and to still step up and be counted - I don't know what you call it but it is the stuff that makes heroes.

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

Truth or Dare: Games teachers play

Swaty Prakash
25 February 2013, 01:44 PM IST

When he stepped in the room with his parents in tow, he had an air of defiance, only this time it was not targeted towards me but his parents.

"So, he tells us we should meet you at the end of the PTM because you wouldn't have any complaints against him. What would you say to that?" the father asked, almost daring me to come up with some praise for their son.

The son in question is one of my students who till a few weeks back was not so academically inclined but had of late (really late) started taking a wee bit of interest in studies (though later I realized it was probably just my subject).

I managed a faint smile and looked at my student, who looked at me. I could see that all my "good job" remarks of the last two weeks were flashing in front of his eyes and he wanted nothing but the truth, the one that started with my praising him. 
This is the moment I so dread about these parent-teacher meetings. These are often the days of broken trust and cracked understandings. It is the day when either the students look at their teachers in disbelief or the parents give the teachers that dirty do-you-actually-mean-MY-child look. It is the day when the teacher is caught between the student-parent crossfire and doesn't know which side to lean on. It is also the day when no matter which side wins, the teacher goes back retired hurt.

Anyway, I cleared my throat and started, "Mmmm... well he is right. I am quite happy with his performance of late." I tried putting emphasis on the words "of late" but the sigh of relief almost silenced it.

"WHAT??" the father asked, while the mother looked at me disapprovingly.

"How is that possible Madam? He hardly studies and look at his last term paper. He is pathetic," he said, challenging my statement and credibility as a teacher.

I had to do something.

"... but this is a very recent development. I am happy but I just hope it continues and also there is so much that we need to do. I think we need to work harder than others to catch up." Now, it was the parents' turn to sigh in relief. But I will not forget the look on my student's face. His eyes were sad, almost accusatory and I felt as if I had broken the bond between us.

I know I might get a lot of flak with the argument, "You should always tell the truth, irrespective of which side it favours." But it doesn't work.

Truth is the lamest excuse one can give. When we can't handle a situation, we tell the truth. But the truth is not like grades. To me, it is not a standalone statement. Truth always comes with either a lot of justification or explanations, and it leaves someone badly battered.

So, today when I told them the "truth" I had a happy set of parents who went home guiltfree for all the scolding they had reserved for their 'careless' son, but I am scared that in the process, I might have lost a student who could just be beginning to become one.

(I will discuss another set of parents in my next blog.)

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

Mandatorily philanthropic?

Sukanti Ghosh
25 February 2013, 02:42 PM IST

A shade over two decades ago, while conducting a study at Tata Steel, I remember being astounded by the work the steel major was doing in the area of community relations, social development and tribal welfare both in and around Jamshedpur and in other parts of the country. I remember spending days in Steel City as I tried to get a first-hand account of what the company was doing even after going through each and every document that I could lay my hands on - a Social Audit Report, a Sustainability Report, an Environment Report and reams of related documentation that painstakingly laid out the issues the company was trying to address; the success metrics that had been defined at the beginning of the programme; and the progress the company had made over the years in achieving these goals. I also remember that on my way back from Jamshedpur, I threw out most of my clothes from the suitcase I had carried as I wanted to keep the reams of material I had picked up from the plant. Strange as it may sound, I still have most of this material.

I was amazed then, and I am even more amazed now, at the fact that the Indian Parliament is currently – two decades later - one step away from passing the revised Companies Bill, which when passed by the Rajya Sabha, will make India the first country in the world to make CSR expenditure mandatory for successful companies. Going forward, all companies with a net worth of INR 500 cr or more; companies with a turnover of INR 1000 cr or more; or companies with a net profit of INR 5 cr or more during any financial year will all be required to earmark and spend at least 2% of their average profits (for the immediately past three financial years) on corporate social responsibility projects. I continue to be amazed that there are companies like the Tatas that are so far ahead of their time; and equally amazed that a government mandate is required for everyone take cognizance of what is considered a normal part of the social contract that companies enter into by setting up a plant in a community in several other parts of the world.

Over the past year, there has been much debate amongst members of several leading industry chambers on whether or not it is appropriate for the government to unilaterally mandate companies to commit to CSR expenditure. 'After all', many have argued, 'there are many companies who don't need to be told. They understand their social responsibilities and already earmark a healthy portion of their profits for charity and other social development projects'.  There has also been angst expressed over why companies should have to be told to how and where to invest these funds – 'preferably in areas close to the area of operations of these industries'; and in the 'eradication of hunger and poverty, promotion of education, gender equality and empowering women, healthcare, employment and promoting vocational skills, contribution to central or state level relief funds, ensuring environmental sustainability, social businesses etc'.  But then are all companies operating in India driven by the same values as these corporations?

Segments within India Inc. have also spent considerable time questioning whether such mandatory expenditure on CSR should be considered a social tax over and above standard corporate taxes –after all, wasn't it Milton Friedman who said the 'business of business was business only'? They have objected strongly to the proposed penalties or censure that companies that fail to adhere to these guidelines may face; and have even questioned whether this is another attempt by the government to bridge the current account deficit by INR 10,000 cr per year - the sum the government expects this initiative to funnel into the development sector.

The debate that continues to rage is how such expenses should be treated. Are these expenses that should be deducted from the net profits of a company before arriving at an assessment of corporate tax for a particular financial year? Or not…Well, the jury is still out.

Though the concept of the triple-bottom line is still yet to gather acceptance in India, it will no doubt become a key differentiator in the not too distant future, as it has in other parts of the world. In the meanwhile, perhaps it suffices to say, this is a cost that companies need to consider paying for their continued license to operate; a chance to meaningfully participate in fuelling India's sustainable development story.

 

As in other parts of the world, in time, more and more employees, customers and shareholders will seek to work and associate with organizations that display a strong social conscience; a conscience best communicated through the testimonials of the people who work or are associated with the firm and not through glitzy advertising.

Customers will increasingly turn to buy the products of companies that are known to do good – be that in terms of breaking convention to establish norms of fair trade in the marketplace or in terms of promoting sustainable sourcing practices. Some people will even be ready to pay a considerable premium to be associated with such a brand.

Should a robust CSR strategy therefore be seen as an extension of a NGO distribution strategy? Definitely not. Nonprofits are crucial organizations in the delivery of services that help in the overall development framework, but the cause must not be mistaken for the means or the end.  Rather, the CSR strategy of a company must be a carefully crafted document, which could be reviewed every three to five years, but must quintessentially continue to reflect the realities of an organization's operations, its impact on society and the vision of its top management in terms of what its social responsibilities are.

Similarly, the causes that a company chooses to support need to be relevant to the needs of the people they are meant to benefit, rather than causes that provide an organization with a surrogate marketing platform. Though there are strategic platforms that one can choose to adopt.

Finally, companies should remember that CSR can only work and make a difference if it is conceived and truly led from the helm. How else is one to explain the selfless act of WIPRO Chief Azim Premji, who has signed the Giving Pledge, and through his recent 'donation' of INR 12300 cr to the cause of education has single-handedly contributed more than the cumulative amount that the government expects to set free from all of India Inc. in a single financial year! Today, we can be proud to say that we have a growing number of such philanthropists in our midst. Perhaps it is now time for corporate India to set a similar example.

Image credits:

Triple bottom line image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Triple_Bottom_Line_graphic.jpg

 

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

The age of ambiguity

Pritish Nandy
25 February 2013, 03:52 PM IST

I grew up in an era of certainties. We knew what was right, what was wrong. So even when we did wrong, often in defiance of authority, we believed we were in the right. There was no ambivalence, no doubt in our mind as to good and bad, moral and immoral. There was clarity about most things that mattered. This defined us as a generation. We knew what we stood for.

That certainty has chipped away over the years. We live today in an Age of Moral Ambivalence. There is a charming ambiguity over most things, and it's this ambiguity that best reflects our moral dilemma. We are all Arjuns standing in the battlefield, a bit unsure, a bit confused, desperately seeking that certitude which eludes us. Faith cannot provide it as easily as it once did. Tradition lies tattered before the onslaught of modernity. The moral compass that once showed us the way is now defunct. Before us, lies the wilderness. Where our heroes are no longer heroes and villainy is infinitely more seductive. In such times, how easy can it be to know what's right, what's wrong?

This ambiguity has seeped into our public life. Do we hang a man when he is sentenced to death? We are at odds with the world if we do. State killing is abolished almost everywhere.  If we choose instead to accept the Mahatma's way that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, then what about those who grieve the death of the victims? How will they find closure? This is particularly true for terror plots where the number of lives destroyed through death and injury are so many that it's not easy to find a closure that allows people to forget, move on. Forgiveness is a tough act to follow.

The same ambivalence exists when we face a choice between development and protecting the environment. The problem is doubly complex here because protecting the environment is not just an abstract ideal of preserving your forests, mountains, rivers, and precious species. It also means preserving livelihoods, lost cultures, languages, and (above all) the health and well being of millions of people who are poor and marginal and cannot protect themselves from the predatory, politically well-connected bounty hunters who come with the promise of prosperity. The compulsions of growth make things worse because Governments seek comfort in numbers, not in protecting the quality of life. India today is in competition with itself, unsure about what it wants: global markers of progress or continuity of its traditions. Every day, as we pursue our search for change and growth, we lose what we have. We are becoming a nation of immigrants, chasing dreams, fantasising about the future. In the process, we are wiping out our past, mortgaging our present.

But our biggest ambiguities are moral. If bakshish is fine, why are bribes bad? If bribes are bad, why is it perfectly legit to have brokers and middlemen? If you hire a broker to find a flat, why is it wrong to hire a broker to buy a aircraft or a howitzer? When Government can charge you speed money (it's called tatkal) for a railway ticket out of queue or a phone line, why is it wrong to pay speed money to quicken the pace of a file or a permit? If fake encounters are legit and the State can kill bad guys without a trial, why are honour crimes wrong? Isn't the Panchayat an extension of the State? If the State can give grace marks to pass undeserving students, what's wrong in an examiner doing it? The dividing line between right and wrong, already thin, begins to blur.

Why are dance bars banned in Mumbai when Bollywood's most memorable songs have shown heroines and vamps dancing in bars? Even kids dance to bar songs on TV. The ban on child labour has killed off so many traditional crafts where kids learn skills from their artisan parents in their formative years. It's getting tough to decide what's right. And our laws don't help any more.

Sunday's paper reported how four women in a Ghatkopar slum caught a young man and beat him to death, claiming he was a history sheeter, a frequent molester. The murder took place before the entire neighbourhood. Yet no one is ready to testify. The young man's family denies every charge. Who do I believe? Who do I sympathise with? There is moral ambiguity everywhere. With it, grows violence. Brutal, unstoppable violence. Is this also a sign of the times?

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

Design Thinking

Abhijit Bhaduri
24 February 2013, 11:19 AM IST

When we are given a problem to solve, we spend time thinking about the problem and reframe the issue and try many things in our head to move towards a solution. Design thinking actually takes the problem to the customer or consumer whose problem we are trying to solve.

 

Design changes how we behave. Just changing the shape of the table from rectangular to circular changes the perception of hierarchy in the mind of the people around the table. Replace a wall in office with transparent glass walls and see the change in culture.   Colleges are teaching courses on Design Thinking. Steve Jobs talked about Apple products being at the meeting point of technology and design. He moved the consumer from looking at just functionality in the product to aesthetics and design. Products that compete on features will always have the challenge of being ousted from the shelf by a competitor who offers more features at a lower price. When a product offers roughly the same technical specifications but packs in emotional appeal through better design, it becomes a winner in the marketplace.

 

The product design firm IDEO (pronounced eye-dee-oh) that is synonymous with this approach says, "Thinking like a designer can transform the way you develop products, services, processes—and even strategy." Apple credits them to have designed their first computer mouse. David Kelley - a legendary designer explains the importance of keeping the user at the centre of the design process. In this video he explains what he learnt by observing children as they brushed their teeth.

 

Design thinking seeks to put the user at the centre of the design process. The process involves actually watching the customer. To design a razor, the designer must observe the way people shave. Do they sit on the floor and shave or do they stand while they shave. What is the direction of the razor glide? How many strokes of the razor does it take to complete the shave? Do they shave using water from a tap or do they dip the razor in a cup of water? No question is too silly to ask.

 Based on their observations the designers generate insights that affect the design. To do this they need to listen to the customer and identify what they desire out of the product or experience. This requires deep empathy. The design that they come up with must be technologically feasible and be viable enough to make money for the business. Design thinking requires people who have curiosity and empathy. It requires people who are not afraid to experiment.The designers integrate desirability, viability and feasibility.

The approach uses human behaviour as a key input to solve everyday problems. To solve the problem of getting kids to eat healthy and avoid being overweight they observed what matters to children, what their daily routines are and what choices they make as they eat. You can see the video here <click to see video>.

You could learn the steps of this methodology from this 90 minute course offered by the design school at Stanford. My suggestion is that you actually find a partner and take the course together. <take the course>

I would love to know about your experience of solving a problem using this approach. Mail me at abhijitbhaduri@live.com

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

Wrestling & Olympics: is it just a drama?

Amit Karmarkar
24 February 2013, 12:01 PM IST

I was on the verge of shedding a tear for wrestling's demotion from the core sports of the Olympic Games. There was a feeling of anger about IOC's executive board too for voting the ancient sport out. But slowly, things are looking stage-managed.

The IOC executive board may have felt all 26 sports which came for voting deserved to be on the Games radar in 2020. But according to the procedure, one had to be voted out. And wrestling fits the bill. If they had voted out athletics, swimming, tennis or soccer, they would faced unprecedented ridicule. If they had voted out modern pentathlon, handball or hockey, getting the backdoor entry for those sports from a larger group of members would have been difficult.

Wrestling has a great history. It's not big enough sport to exclude (and invite ridicule) but it's not small either. It is powerful enough to come back without missing the Games. And that could have tilted the balance in its 'favour'.

Of course, it's a theory based on the inference that IOC members are smart but not too smart to be called sophisticated criminals. The point is simple, don't be surprised if wrestling remains on the Games radar or don't applaud if wrestling fraternity fights back and gets their place back. For, it could have been 'designed' that way!

Wrestling is surely one of the mother sports and you don't leave your mother unattended however complicated her existence may have become. Like most great sports, wrestling has got a fascinating thin line between the attack and defence. Its most engrossing part is the variation of body speed. At one point the wrestlers seem to waste time or try to get the measure of each other. But suddenly, the tempo changes, the limbs crash on each other and 
you can't help but marvel at the preparation that goes in those nimble-footed yet muscular structures.

Wrestling, boxing, judo and taekwondo are special because it's a battle with yourself and also against your opponent. Athletics and swimming are largely battles within, especially in short-distance races. Though athletics and swimming are "no-excuse" sports, it may not be a battle in a level-playing field.

With weight categories in wrestling (and boxing and their ilk), the physical advantage is evened out. Or not that alarming at least. That could be one of the reasons that in these physical 'contact' sports (since you also have to beat the opponent and not the clock), the doping offenders are relatively small.

Wrestling is one of the basic human traits and it must remain a part of the Olympics. If it doesn't survive for 2020, the sanity of  all the members of Olympic movement should be questioned in unparliamentary language and manner.

Of course, to vote out any of those 26 core sports would have been difficult. Thank god, hockey survived. Else dhak dhak (Indian breathing) would have stopped!!

I respect the inventor of modern Olympic Games Baron Pierre de Coubertin and his modern pentathlon (shooting, fencing, swimming, show juming and 3km cross-country). But let's be clear that the modern pentathlon doesn't reward out-and-out excellence. For, the 'non'-champions in the above individual sports compete there as all-rounders. Of course, it requires huge amount of skill. But those skills are nothing as compared to the skills of multiple champions in swimming (like Phelps) who beat the high-level competitors in their respective specialisation (different strokes). I mean Carl Lewis and Jesse Owens are streets ahead of any multiple champion in decathlon or heptathlon. For, the latter competes in a watered-down field by the sheer texture (mixed) of that sport.

The modern pentathlon champions or heptathon champions generally form a footnote of the Olympic history. They are largely unknown and hardly find themselves in the limelight. Maybe that's why these sports evoke charitable emotions!

IF (and that's a big if) there was any sport that needed to be voted out of the core list, it was handball. Though I'm not a true-blue follower of the game, I find its goalkeeper almost redundant. Whenever he moves any ogran (leg, hand, or rear), it doesn't change the course. The goal is scored anyway!

If handball's finances, primetime following or popularity in Europe was too powerful to give it the axe, then the IOC needed to look somewhere else. Maybe to other goal-sports or to other weight-category sports.

There is one positive though: the wrestling fraternity is out of their slumber now who could have taken their presence for granted.

The IOC session will have to vote for the inclusion of one sport to be included for 2020 Games. Some stars sportspersons who are backing squash may not be really backing squash. They prefer it more than baseball/softball, karate, roller sports, sport climbing, wakeboarding and wushu. If wrestling gets a backdoor entry, they won't protest.

Similarly, if the IOC session brings back wrestling, you can hardly expect resignation from the IOC executive board!

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

Remembering Readers Digest

Santosh Desai
24 February 2013, 07:01 PM IST

Growing up, it was an unspoken rule of some kind, that middle class homes with any pretensions to education, must have as part of their drawing room display, a row of Reader's Digest magazines, preferably bound. They took pride of place on the showcase, which was otherwise populated with that peculiar collection of chintzy odds-and-ends that went under the grandiloquent label of 'showpieces'. In some ways, a set of RD magazines was the most eloquent showpiece of all, for it spoke about the respect enjoyed in the household for knowledge and the English language, although not necessarily in that order. Like the certificates in a Doctor's waiting room, or the name-plates with extended and sometimes exaggerated qualifications adorning the front door, copies of Reader's Digest were symbols of re-assurance, radiating an aura of accessible erudition. It was the literary accompaniment to other signs of mobility like a sunmica dining table and a sofa-cum-bed.

But in spite of its uses as an object of display, Reader's Digest was much more than a badge of honour; it was a magazine not only read but devoured in its sectional entirety. Written simply and clearly, the  magazine  combinedheart-warming stories of the human spirit with little nuggets of humour and self-improvement, packaged in a worldview that was gently conservative for the most part. Reader's Digest was chicken soup for  the  soul  well  beforethat phrase became a franchise. Sections like Humour in Uniform, Life's Like That, Laughter Is the Best Medicine and It Pays to Increase Your Word Power' sat side-by-side human interest features like Drama In Real Life as  wellas regular features on health and medicine, written often from a first person perspective (article such as I Died At 10:52 and I Am John's Spleen, if one remembers correctly). The rear section was brought  up  by  a  book,  re-written and condensed to make for easy reading.

The magazine was sold by subscription, which meant it had became a regular feature in our lives, materialising out of the ether, as if it were the most natural thing in the world. Its articles were never really  topical which meant that they could be savoured at any time, and i remember many pleasurable summer days, where the annual vacations would be leavened by multiple readings and re-readings of magazines that were dug up from the innards of the family home. Each new issue that was excavated brought joy, and if one chanced upon the compilations of the condensed books that were published from time to time, it was a bonanza of manna-esque proportions.

All in all, it was a package that was at ease with the middle class mindset in India, by virtue of its lack of over arching ambition. The fact that it covered so many aspects of American everyday life and that it was written inaccessible English, made it desirable as well. In an unobtrusive way, Reader's Digest lifted us from the surface of our lives and attached us to another world. It believed in the power of education; in  its  implicit  view,  to know more was the only way to be more. Its size and its determined lack of scale made its stories universal; one focused on the people rather than the lifestyle they led. The American Dream in the Reader's Digest scheme of things was less about consumption and more about the power of things that most people across the world relate to-the inner strength  of human beings, the power of relationships and the need to forever strive to improve oneself. If the other artefact of American life popular in India at the time, Archie comics, painted a picture of dates with blondes and ice-cream shakes, theworld evoked by Reader's Digest was comfortable but never acquisitive. It lived in the time of consumption but before it mediated our lives with quite as much authority as it does today.

Like most effective instruments of popular culture, RD, propagated an ideology by making it appear effortlessly natural. By eschewing overt argument in favour of stories about the ordinary, it told  us  about  the  validity  ofuniversal human values but by implication, insinuated that these were realised most fully in the American way of life. If Enid Blyton made our childhoods pale imitations of life in England as we eked out  an  existence  withouthot buttered scones and potted meat sandwiches and Commando comics made us to the Western worldview a sense of presumptive legitimacy as we went along with the easy stereotyping and hair-raising racial abuse that was heaped  onits enemies, Reader's Digest made us sympathetic to the conservative worldview without trying too hard. We saw the world most easily from this vantage point, believing without difficulty as to who the good guys were.

It is not difficult to understand why the magazine is facing bankruptcy today internationally. The idea of a magazine as a thali of gently cooked wisdom, located in a world deeply satisfied with its certitudes does not resonatewith readers anymore. Reader's Digest needed a time when values were fixed, where it played the role of steering us back to the stable centre, one tip at a time. That world no longer exists; every label  has  come  unstuck and every definition has turned liquid, be it ethnicity, gender or sexuality. In India it continues to do well, but even here it no longer carries anywhere near the same meaning it once did. Its loss of significance began way back when a new generation of magazines came into existence beginning with the hot-blooded Stardust, which while living in a different space, changed the reader's interaction with and expectation from a magazine.  In  the  world  ofhyper-stimulated media and mercurial ambition, the voice of Reader's Digest is too timid to be heard. Once upon a time it was pitched perfectly, but today it is too conservative to be interesting and too gentle to be considered conservative.

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

Quality of debates in Parliament more dangerous than even terror attacks….

Prashant Panday
23 February 2013, 10:06 AM IST

Thank god Parliament is at least functioning. Usually, the first few days (at the very minimum) are just washed out on one excuse or the other. But its hardly a happy feeling one gets when we consider the quality of debates taking place on two important issues that have rocked the country in the last two weeks – the chopper deal and the Hyderabad blasts.

Take the Hyderabad blasts. And the BJP's "strong attacks" on the Congress on the subject. As per media reports, after Shinde gave his statement in the House, the BJP accused the Home Minister that if only he had gone to Hyderabad "in the night and come back the next morning", he would have been better prepared. Really? But if he had gone immediately, wouldn't the same BJP have accused him of disturbing the investigations? But read on to understand how silly the debates can get. Shinde apparently responded by saying that he worked "till 4 am, then flew to Hyderabad, then came to Parliament", indicating that he had not slept and had in fact been fully involved in the investigations. Even at low levels in the corporate sector, companies don't demand that their employees account for every minute of their time spent. But it's not over yet. To Shinde's statement, the BJP responded "Then you should have gone immediately when the blasts happened". So having the last word was the objective. There was no suggestion given (but when does the BJP ever give suggestions?). If this is what the BJP means by strong attacks, then god save this country.

The BJP has proved itself to be the most petty, the most shallow of all opposition parties. It is also the most obstructionist; opposing for the sake of opposing. It sees ghosts when none exist. Last year, it opposed the setting up of the NCTC on some lame-duck excuses; mainly taking the "Center is attacking the federal structure" line. Federal structure, my foot. Today, if we had had the NCTC, we could at least have had a better co-ordinated intelligence gathering and sharing function between the Center and the states. It's unacceptable that Sushma Swaraj today accepts that "But is Centre's responsibility only to pass on information to states or help them in preventing it? Terrorism is not a normal law and order situation which states can handle on their own" (Economic Times). This is exactly why the NCTC is needed. But instead of accepting its responsibility in opposing the NCTC, the BJP accuses the Congress of "being soft on terror". We know who's soft on terror; the party that released scores of terrorists in Kandahar.

Then take this ridiculous debate on the chopper deal, where it is becoming increasingly clear that if anything, the Defence minister is taking it as a personal challenge to turn the tables on the opposition. He wants to cancel the deal, even if that's an over-reaction. He wants to blacklist Agusta Westland, even if that will harm the country's interests in the long run. He wants to initiate global litigation and arbitration, even though there is no prosecutable evidence yet. The BJP is finding itself losing the opportunity afforded by this scam. It's grand hopes of calling it Bofors 2 is failing. So it's only focus now is on "Italy" and "the family that received the bribes" hoping (praying) that it will somehow connect with Sonia Gandhi. The BJP's debate in Parliament on the subject is solely focused on this issue.

Ditto with the JD(U). Apparently Sharad Yadav "thundered" in Parliament "We know that bribes were given and we know who gave the bribes. The government should now tell us who received the bribes" (Indian Express). He might as well give options for his question a) Sonia Gandhi b) Congress c) Rahul Gandhi. Such is the pettiness of debates, such the political purpose of it all, that Sharad Yadav pretends not to understand that the information he wants is simply not available. But the political objective is to "make it appear" like the info is available and the Congress simply "isn't giving it". It's such politicization of issues that leads to a status quo on such important issues. The debates are hardly debates; they are simply ways and means to score political brownie points.

In this context, one has to look at the role played by TV cameras installed inside Parliament, supposedly to inform the public about the debates. I am not sure how many "real people" watch Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha TV, but what I do know is that several TV and newspaper editors certainly do. And then they "amplify" the most sensationalist parts of what they see. Sharad Yadav and the BJP are not interested in the debate. They are interested in "being seen" as being "tough". Once they get enough "bytes", they are happy to let the issue go. It's all grandstanding. We really need to ask ourselves whether we need such trivialization of Parliament, just like we have trivialized news by allowed hundreds of news channels. Maybe its time to stop live telecasts of Parliamentary proceedings. The only ones who are benefitting are lowly politicians and even more lowly TV channels. (In this context, also consider the demand of the Anna Hazare's "gang of 5" to telecast "live" their discussions with the government. They too were interested only in grandstanding, but who wants to understand this?).

Consider also how the TV media operates in our country. They work solely for their "advertising dollars" since all of them depend on that for their survival. And advertising flows depend on TRPs. And TRPs depend on sensationalism (so they have figured). TRP data is released weekly, and hence the focus on weekly "highs". Every week, something has to be blown up sky high. Usually, it is about government bashing. So it's the Delhi gang rape one week (or two if they are lucky), the chopper deal another week, and now the Hyderabad blasts for yet another week. Next week will be something else. This shifting focus does nothing to enlighten the public, nor does it do anything to improve the "system". It's entirely self-serving and if it works, it brings in the moolah for the channels. The biggest nightmare for TV "journalists" (I shrink at calling them that) is "good news". TV journalists hate good news. Good news doesn't get TRPs. Not surprising then that we hardly have any good news on TV. The 1^st FDI deal in aviation, (Air Asia), gets just a few seconds. Sharply reduced Whole Price Inflation hardly gets a mention, but a minor uptick gets a full show. Chidambaram's success in reigning in fiscal deficit gets no mention. Petrol price reductions are boring, but even a 50 paise price hike in diesel is "breaking news"!

The real truth is that the real danger for India is not the terrorists. They strike only once in a while. But our opposition, with their debased political debates in Parliament, and our TV channels, with their perpetual pushing of bad news, attack India every single day. If these are the pillars of our democracy, then we really need to worry about democracy….

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

Debate on terror blasts generates more heat than light

Dileep Padgaonkar
23 February 2013, 11:26 AM IST

Double-speak is what we have heard since the latest terrorist attacks in Hyderabad. We'll come to that in a minute. But for the country, the only question is: could the government have been better prepared to pre-empt the attacks when they were so explicitly on the cards after the hanging of Kasab and Afzal Guru? The straightforward answer is: yes.

The home minister, Sushil Kumar Shinde, has said that states were alerted about the possible attacks two days before they took place. The nature of the alerts is a matter of speculation. Were they specific? Were they actionable? From all available evidence, they were neither. Even so, we need to know what steps the Andhra state government took on the basis of the general alert. Shinde's statement in Parliament was silent on this issue. That information is not available.

As a result, we do not know who will pay the price for what came to pass. Who should be held accountable for the non-functioning of CCTV cameras where the blasts took place? Were all intelligence agencies on the same page? During the debate on the blasts in Parliament, the Home Minister's statement rang hollow. That is what gave the opposition parties, led by the BJP, the opportunity to castigate the government.

The debate, unfortunately, generated more heat than light. It should have focussed on issues that security experts have discussed threadbare: de-politicisation of the intelligence agencies and the police force; a sound system to ensure that intelligence in-puts are shared and acted upon; enhancing both the numbers and the quality of the police; effective police patrolling in areas vulnerable to terrorist attacks; proper functioning of CCTV ; deployment of the requisite technological gadgets used in anti-terrorism activities and so forth.

More to the point, the MPs should have addressed on a priority basis how to swiftly put in place two mechanisms to deal with terrorism. The first is NATGRID which will collate, consolidate and analyse data received from a plethora of intelligence agencies. Each one of them is so eager to protect its turf that wires are inevitably crossed. That results in confusion, even chaos, and in delayed action.

There has been a similar procrastination in setting up of the second mechanism – National Counter Terrorism Centre. The objectives of this apex body are to prevent or pre-empt terror strikes, to counter them when they occur and to investigate them in a thoroughly co-ordinated manner. Progress on this scheme has got stuck because states, including Congress-ruled ones, fear that the Centre would ride rough shod on their federal rights for its own political ends. The Centre has taken that fear into account and modified certain key provisions related to the powers of the NCTC. It is now for the states to give their assent to it. They can take the cue from the effective operations conducted by the National Investigation Agency.

What would also serve the cause of anti-terrorism is some circumspection on the part of our political leaders and senior bureaucrats. The statements of the Home Minister and the Home Secretary soon after the blasts left much to be desired. The former – who was compelled to make amends for his reference to 'Hindu terror' - first harped on the fact that the Centre had shared vital information about possible terror attacks with the states only to clarify later that this information was quite general in nature -which was precisely the view of the Andhra Chief Minister. And what possessed the latter to announce the time when NIA and NSG teams would take a special flight for Hyderabad? Such details are kept confidential on security grounds.

The opposition leaders too jumped the gun. They paid scant heed to the fact that the police had not rounded up the suspects in the Hyderabad blasts, let alone made arrests and booked charges against them. Sushma Swaraj, for instance, squarely blamed the hate speeches of the Owaisi brothers for creating an atmosphere that encouraged the terror attacks. Would she say the same thing about the hate speeches of Praveen Togadia and Sadhvi Rithambara? What purpose did they serve if not to widen the communal divide? 

The finger of suspicion for the Dilsukhnagar blasts has been pointed to the Indian Mujahideen whose links with extremist and terror groups in Pakistan are no secret. Nor are their antecedents. But until the police possess prima facie evidence of its involvement, all that you are likely to get is a media trial that, in turn, encourages certain political leaders to fan communal flames. The BJP has found a heaven-sent pretext to harangue the Congress at a time when the latter was refurbishing its tough-on-terror image after the hanging of Kasab and Afzal Guru. But can politicking of this sort help the nation to face  the danger of terrorism in all its many avatars with a united will? A time could soon come when Sushil Kumar Shinde and Sushma Swaraj are seen to be two sides of the same counterfeit coin.

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

An Oscar award for a 19th century Kerala poet?

Viju B
23 February 2013, 05:54 PM IST

I hope classical singer Bombay Jayashri, in case she wins an Oscar in the original song category for the movie Life of Pi, will have the humility to say in her Oscar speech that there is nothing original in her song.

Jayashri transliterated those beautiful lines into a Tamil song from the original lyrics, penned by a legendary 19th century poet from Kerala.

Ravi Varman Tampi, or Irayimman Tampi as he was popularly known, had dedicated this lullaby to Tranvancore King, Swati Thirunal, when he was just one year old.
 
Most of us in Kerala since then have grown up listening to this soothing lullaby that our mothers whispered into our ears, as the song lulled us into deep slumber, even in humid summer nights.
 
The Tamil song in the movie goes like this: Mayilo togai Mayilo, kuyilo koovum kuyilo?" (Are you a peacock or its feathers? Are you a Koel or its music?)
 
The original Malayalam lullaby is: Chanchadi aadum mayilo, Mridu Panjamam Padum Kuyilo?  (Are you a dancing peacock or a singing Koel)
 
Irayimman Tampi's lullaby is set in the enchanting Nelambari raga, which has since then been used, reused and recycled in numerous Malayalam movie songs, but lyricists and composers were not stupid enough to say that they wrote the song.
 
Bombay Jayashri's defence, after she was exposed for plagiarising the song, was that she had heard these words and usages from her mother and grandmother and, "so, why would I take something from Irayimman Thampi's work." 
 
This episode points out what is wrong with Indian art and culture today. Indian artists are being recognised in the west,  as the Western audience is now exposed to a body of music that is completely different from theirs, a cultural identity that was evolved not through the mechanisation of science and technology, but in close relationship with nature-god.
 
But be it A R Rahman- who had freely lifted folk tunes from Kerala and Tamil Nadu in movies like Roja or Bombay and added Western beats--or any other modern day composer seems to rarely acknowledge this fact that their music got global recognition because of this 'inspiration' back home.

It is another fact that Rahman's music in Slum Dog Millionaire was amongst his worst compositions till date.
 
But earlier music composers like legendry, Ilayaraja, Devarajan, Naushad and Salil Chowdury were humble enough to say that they looked for 'inspiration' in the rich tradition of folk and classical music. There is nothing wrong in getting inspired by the roots that shaped them, especially given the fact that there is nothing original in art-forms, except for the subjectivity of the artist.
 
But we as a country have been so colonised in our thought process and even in methods of evaluating our own art-forms, we need an Oscar or a Booker prize to feel that we are the best.
 
The English media is to be blamed for whipping this inferiority complex of looking up to  the West for approval, ignoring some brilliant works of regional musicians and writers across the country.

The booker prize winning book, Life of Pi and its movie adaptation, is yet another classic example how we now need to connect to our own neighborhood reality through the eyes of a foreigner.

Today, we either look down upon our country or say we are all about exotica and become chauvinistically proud of our cultural heritage.  There is no middle level, a critical examination, a sincere quest to look at relationships, with people and nature around us.
 
Great work of Art, as Milan Kundera said, should be an enquiry into a deeper search for the question of our own existence, within the context of the society one lives in.
 
The current generation of Indian English literature is at the most good journalism or fashionable writing, but not a great work of art.
For that the writer needs to personally experience the dynamic Indian reality or at least meditate upon its different layers, empathizing with his characters, whose strength and follies are hidden at a deeply totemic and spiritual level.
 
Maybe that is the single reason that many discerning readers go back and re-read the great masters like Tolstoy, Camu or Marquez, when they need to assuage themselves with the problem of existence and look for answers into the cosmic nature of life as a whole.
 
Life of Pi, if it wins Oscars, would at the best, earn some good tourism revenue for the country.  And, Bombay Jayashri, can shine in the halo of yet another Slumdog Millionaire.

But she simply cannot claim the patent of mother's lullaby- just like that.

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

Can govt share values with repeat offenders among corporates?

Rema Nagarajan
22 February 2013, 01:40 PM IST

A few days back, a report from Indonesia in the Guardian newspaper explained how the baby-formula making company, Danone, in the name of running training for midwives, was distributing gifts for midwives who in turn sold formula to the mothers of new-born babies. Formula feeding is never as good as breast feeding and formula  kills babies in parts of the world where mothers have no access to clean water or sanitation which is why most countries have strong laws restricting sale and marketing of formula. The World Health Organisation's  (WHO) International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes that regulates corporate selling of formula goes back to 1981. "But this is big business for big companies – two thirds of their growth comes from Asia-Pacific. The Indonesia market alone is worth $1.1bn (£708m)," says the Guardian article.

Last month, Nestle was caught spying on a protest group in Switzerland. It was found that Nestle had paid Securitas AG, a Swiss security firm to infiltrate the anti-free market group Attac just as it was putting together a book on the "Nestle Empire". The case filed by Attac against Nestle for illegal surveillance dragged on for four years since 2008, before Nestle and Securitas were fined $29,000. Nestle feigned ignorance pretending it is a problem of one or some rogue employees by stating: "Incitement to infiltration is against Nestle's business principles," and that "appropriate action" would be taken if a Nestle employee has acted "negligently."

In March 2012, the Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD) wrote to Nestle regarding information it had received from the Indian Academy of Paediatrics that the "Nestle Nutrition Institute, a front organisation of Nestle had organised some seminars for paediatricians and medical practitioners in various cities of India".

The ministry letter pointed out that it had clearly stated in its earlier letter in August 2010 that "such activities are violative of section (9) of the Infant Milk Substitutes Feeding Bottles and Infant Foods (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act 1992, and Amendment Act 2003."

It also pointed out that in yet another letter sent by the Health Ministry to Nestle in December 2010, it had told Nestle that "IMS Act clearly prohibits sponsorship of health workers or their associations directly or indirectly by the Infant Food Manufacturing companies". State governments were told to take action against such programmes and also those who attended such programmes.

In January 2011, Nestle had been criticized for inking "confidential pacts" with four national universities --Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana; National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana; University of Mysore in Karnataka; and the GB Pant University for Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand--for nutrition awareness programmes for adolescent school-going girls in government-run village schools. In July 2011, the WCD ministry had written to the department of education of the Human Resource Development Ministry to avoid conducting nutrition awareness programmes engaging infant food manufacturing companies and cautioned them against collaborating with such companies as it was against the law. As is obvious from the above instances, there is repeated violation of the IMS Act by Nestle despite warnings from the ministry, which shows the company's scant respect for the law of the land.

Another prominent Indian food company, Britannia, too has been lobbying for years to sell their iron fortified biscuits for the school lunch programme. The only thing standing between a captive market of millions of school lunches and Britannia is a Supreme Court ruling that states that the midday meal programme has to be hot cooked meals and not packaged snacks like biscuits. Yet, they have managed to get the "iron-fortified" biscuits into the school lunch programme in Hyderabad, Secunderabad and a few other places as an add-on to the hot cooked meals.

In December 2012, Veena Rao former bureaucrat and member of the Advisory Board of the Britannia Nutrition Foundation,(BNF), claimed in an article in the British Medical Journal that the Indian law that bars marketing of complementary foods for children over 6 months is one of the main causes of acute under nutrition among young children. When her statement was challenged by nutrition experts and activists, Rao claimed that the article was her "considered and personal view as an administrator who has worked on the subject in government" and that neither Britannia nor BNF, were involved. However, her article raised questions about Britannia's interest in running down an Indian law that protected children from the adverse effects of aggressive marketing of complementary foods to them. After all, one of the stated reasons for BNF's existence is to "enable Britannia Industries Limited to reach vulnerable sections of society with products/solutions of public health relevance", or in plain speak, to enable the company to find a new market for their products in the name of addressing malnutrition.

Despite such numerous examples of how food companies subvert the law, the government talks about partnership with the corporate sector to address child survival issues without any mention of how conflict of interest arising from such partnerships would be addressed. After the recent Call to Action for Child Survival conference organised by UNICEF and USAID along with the Health Ministry, a 12-page document came out of the conference called "India's Call to Action: Child Survival and Development -Strategic Approaches for Private Sector Engagement.

The document suggests market-based approaches that give "sustainable and long-term solution". No, they are not talking about food security and access to basic health services, the true long term and sustainable solutions to ensure child survival.

The document is all about products companies could develop to address child survival problems and social marketing to help "increase demand, access to and use" of such products, in other words, strategies for penetration and creation of new markets. 

While the strengths of the corporate sector such as distribution network or technical knowledge could be leveraged, any partnership without adequate regulation could only be a recipe for disaster considering the repeat offender profile of many companies that have been caught violating the law innumerable times both here and abroad. The talk about "creating shared value" in the document makes one wonder what value could be shared by the government if there is repeated violation of law both in letter and in spirit.

Perhaps the corporate sector ought to stick to the two roles envisaged for them in WHO's Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child feeding—to manufacture food that is safe and meets quality standards and to refrain from violating the law of the land and the international code on marketing of breast-milk substitutes.

 

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

Why India is hit by terrorism – again and again

Minhaz Merchant
22 February 2013, 02:44 PM IST

The twin blasts in Hyderabad underline how the politics of communalism has made India vulnerable to terrorism imported from Pakistan and executed by Indian extremists. While Union Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde's statement in parliament this afternoon throws little light on the Hyderabad terror attack, the imprint of the Indian Mujahideen (IM) seems clear.

The hate speeches by politicians like Akbaruddin Owaisi and Praveen Togadia inflame communal tensions. Owaisi, an MLA, should be debarred from electoral politics. Togadia should not be allowed to enter it.

I posted the following piece on September 10, 2011 shortly after the Delhi bomb blasts. What appears here is an edited excerpt of that article whose relevance is sharper than ever before.

                                                         * * *

When will India stop being a soft terror target? The short answer: when politicians start putting the public interest above their own.

Since Pakistani-sponsored terrorism began in 1989, the government has been terrified of losing its loyal minority vote. This approach to Indian Muslims is deeply misguided. It exacerbates social divisions and emboldens terrorists. Poorly educated and economically backward – as the Rajinder Sachar Committee has reported in great detail – India's Muslims have been placed in economic and social silos. The outcome: a siege mentality.

But as younger Muslims wake up to the way their parents and grandparents have been tricked into a perpetual cycle of backwardness and sullen insecurity by successive governments, there are growing rumbles of dissent.

Muslims in India want to be an integral part of India's economic growth story. They don't want to be treated as votes to be banked every five years. The tokenism of Muslim ministers and Muslim presidents will no longer placate them. India has had three Muslim presidents – Dr. Zakir Hussain, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed and Dr. A.P.J Abdul Kalam – out of the twelve presidents since independence. At 25%, that ratio is well above the  Muslim population of India (14%) and stratospherically above the average 3%-8% ratio of Muslims in the judiciary, bureaucracy and the professions.

This tokenism hides a quiet tragedy: a community kept in darkness which falls easy prey to insecurities force-fed by the sort of counterfeit secularism practised by the Azamgarh and Batla House school of politics. Leaders of the Muslim community are complicit in keeping their flock in a metaphoric veil. They lack real leadership qualities and benefit from the power and perks of office.

Successful counter-terrorism requires three ingredients:

One, political determination to end terrorism regardless of political (i.e., electoral) consequences;

Two, professional policing independent of government interference;

Three, high-quality intelligence gathering.

Without good political intent, terrorism cannot be defeated. The Hyderabad blasts demonstrate once again the unprofessional management of our intelligence establishment which is misused for narrow political ends – for example, conducting poll surveys for the government rather than intelligence surveillance in sensitive areas.

Until the government eschews narrow, misguided political interests in the fight against terrorism, India will be hit again – and again. Those who suffer twice over in this are India's 165 million Muslims. They are exploited during elections with fraudulent secular arguments which keep them tucked away in electorally safe ghettos. And then they are maligned – by association – by the proliferation of crossborder and IM-SIMI sleeper terror cells for whom they have no sympathy. They end up being unfairly ostracized by mainstream society.

Despite attempts by communal politicians, masquerading as the exemplars of secularism, to use them as vote fodder, members of the minority community remain largely peaceful and committed to the idea of a plural India. They are a credit to the country; but they need to be valued, not appeased.

The more education Muslims get, the more they see through the male fide tactics of politicians who have a vested electoral interest in keeping the community economically and socially shackled. But such politicians are on the wrong side of history.

Terror attacks no longer cause communal riots. Muslims increasingly regard themselves as Indians first. As they receive the benefit of progressive education, they will become mainstream assets to the country. Their votes will no longer be on offer to counterfeit secularists who pretend to protect them against communalism but in reality alienate and marginalize them from mainstream society.   

India is a large-hearted nation. The damage divide-and-rule communal politics has done to majority-minority relations can be reversed. There is goodwill on both sides. But we must end the politics of division practised under the guise of secularism. The price is far too high for India to pay.

Follow @minhazmerchant on twitter

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More