Narendra Modi is in the news again for a series of avoidable reasons. Firstly a Supreme Court judgement which has no real legal implication and is perhaps more procedural. Modi's subsequent gesture of proceeding on a fast is uncharacteristic and incongruous with his image of a leader who puts outcome over symbolism.
But why are the Gujarat riots of 2002 so politically significant a decade from occurrence? From the looks of it, it is the only available stick to beat Modi with. It also has to do with Modi's continued relevance and electoral success. I would argue that a sole electoral loss would ensure oblivion for Godhra. Ironic but eminently possible. The BJP has a cliched retort by referring to 1984. This pitch was strangely subdued in the Narasimha Rao era. The return of the Gandhi family ensured this weapon, however rusty, was brought back into the armoury.
In the interest of political maturity though, it is important to bury 2002 and move on to more relevant issues of governance. Several leaders are guilty of the acts of omission that Modi is accused of. Each of them have created a political divide sharp enough to last a few generations. Lets leave 1984 out since its been done to death. V P Singh gave a whole new dimension to caste based politics. His contribution to societal degeneration went way beyond the Mandal agitation that is the most vivid memory of those times. It spawned a whole new regressive thought process and set the meritocracy clock back by a few decades. Narasimha Rao, however progressive, played the religion card at Ayodhya to stoke a dormant volcano. While the move backfired in the medium term, it created a flank that was existent but hitherto of little value. A whole bunch of saffron clad touts milked it for decades.
If we were to shift to the economic arena one has examples galore of unacceptable tolerance of malignant political acts. Singrur is a classic case in point of a state government pretending to be hapless when caught in a bind on vote bank versus development. This when the state is on the brink of ruin. At least 3 states are witnessing a steady, irreversible decline in their industrial fortunes owing to sheer lack of political will to take on the Maoist menace. Not only do we witness indifference to loss of lives, there is little concern at the lawless existence of a parallel government thriving through extortion.
Comparable levels of guilt across the political spectrum do not absolve Modi in case he is indeed culpable. However, it may be prudent to reconcile to a significant "downgrade" amongst the polity and plump for the "least worst". While Gujarat was always progressive, it has galloped in the last decade leaving most other developed states far behind. The government is considered decisive and "right" thinking. It is only in this term that one hears murmurs of corruption and it could well be a case of misplaced propaganda. It may not hurt to have a leader of this stature in the national arena (lack of acceptance amongst the Reality TV watching couch potatoes notwithstanding).
In my view though, Modi is jumping the gun by showing his hand a little too soon. A few more years of operating below the radar may have ensured smoother sailing in the longer run. His current gameplan of acquiring statesman status through "sadbhavna" will ensure intra-party knives get sharpened before time. He needs a year or so of judicial calm before attempting to shed the hawk image that he wears comfortably (to a point of being scary).
Friday, September 16, 2011
Friday, July 15, 2011
This isn't about Cricket
In a few hours from now, the verdict on presidency of the Mumbai Cricket Association shall be pronounced. A prominent politician is pitted against a cricketing legend. Over the last several months there has been much clamour for sportspersons to run sports bodies. This is misplaced and owes itself to the standard loathing for all things "sarkari" as opposed to any serious logic.
Indian cricket owes its current importance in the ICC to the likes of Jagmohan Dalmiya , an astute administrator but certainly not the world's best known cricketer. His absence of a cricketing track record was no impediment to his accomplishment as a sports administrator. And each time one is tempted to delve into corruption around sale of TV rights, IPL teams, CWG et al, think Match Fixing, Ball Tampering or even "the Hand of God". In an ideal world sportsmen are meant to uphold the values of fairplay and integrity. But bring in the dimension of commerce and they are often no different from politicians, bureaucrats or any other tribe the world loves to hate.
Internationally there are enough and more examples of successful sports federations like FIFA and International Olympic Association that are run by administrators with little or no sporting achievement. Some of these associations have often been the hegemony of a powerful personality for decades but rarely has the cause suffered. Wimbledon is organised with remarkable efficiency each year without Bjorn Borg or Pete Sampras being at the helm. There is no reason why Indian sport should be any different.
This applies to dimensions of sport apart from administration. Coaching and Commentary come immediately to mind. While we have some successful sportsmen excelling at both, there are enough and more examples to the contrary. For every Ravi Shastri and Geoffrey Boycott, we have a Harsha Bhogle or Henry Blofeld. These specialist commentrators have played cricket at some level but they shall seldom be referred to as "former cricketers".
Lastly, where shall Mohammed Azharuddin fit? Cricketer, Politician, Match-fixer or All of the above" ???
Indian cricket owes its current importance in the ICC to the likes of Jagmohan Dalmiya , an astute administrator but certainly not the world's best known cricketer. His absence of a cricketing track record was no impediment to his accomplishment as a sports administrator. And each time one is tempted to delve into corruption around sale of TV rights, IPL teams, CWG et al, think Match Fixing, Ball Tampering or even "the Hand of God". In an ideal world sportsmen are meant to uphold the values of fairplay and integrity. But bring in the dimension of commerce and they are often no different from politicians, bureaucrats or any other tribe the world loves to hate.
Internationally there are enough and more examples of successful sports federations like FIFA and International Olympic Association that are run by administrators with little or no sporting achievement. Some of these associations have often been the hegemony of a powerful personality for decades but rarely has the cause suffered. Wimbledon is organised with remarkable efficiency each year without Bjorn Borg or Pete Sampras being at the helm. There is no reason why Indian sport should be any different.
This applies to dimensions of sport apart from administration. Coaching and Commentary come immediately to mind. While we have some successful sportsmen excelling at both, there are enough and more examples to the contrary. For every Ravi Shastri and Geoffrey Boycott, we have a Harsha Bhogle or Henry Blofeld. These specialist commentrators have played cricket at some level but they shall seldom be referred to as "former cricketers".
Lastly, where shall Mohammed Azharuddin fit? Cricketer, Politician, Match-fixer or All of the above" ???
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Bye Bye Ramdev?
While the jury is out on the political wisdom behind the abrupt and "forcible" end to Baba Ramdev's Ramlila Maidan farce, the Government deserves to be commended for acting courageously for once.
Firstly, the egg on the PM's face with Anna Hazare's well-timed populist maneuver is still fresh in public memory. To bend again would plumet the Prime Minister's Office to irrversible indignity. Hence, after the initial attempts at conciliation firm measures were called for.
A larger threat is to the roots of our democratic foundation. There is a defined process to represent the voice of the people. If anyone with a fan following is permitted to drive a policy or two through ransom, it shall prove debilitating. The odd yoga teacher, film star or even cricketer ought to restrict themselves to their chosen line of work. Alternatively, they ought to formally plunge into the political process. Currently, the Baba Ramdevs of the world are leveraging their cult following whilst escaping the cynicism that is reserved for those who officially don Khadi.
The question that shall be asked (albeit hypothetically) is the government's possible response to a similar call by a minority leader. Frankly, that shall be the true test of the PM's intent. The current act could either be the first signs of a firm fist. Alternatively, it could merely be an attempt to scuttle a possible saffron resurgence. Despite my not-so-complimentary views about the current ministry, it seems largely like the former to me. In any case, it doesnt seem like this show is over yet.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Unjudicious Encroachment
The Supreme Court striking down the CVC appointment is being welcomed in several quarters. In my view, this could set a dangerous precedent even though the spirit of the decision may be somewhat in place (given the CVC digging his heels in firmly). While the Court has been careful to explain that it is dealing with just the "legality of an appointment" which lies outside its purview, the subsequent explanation around "illegality" is shallow. The court seems to be hiding behing clever wordplay while not-so-subtly encroaching into executive domain.
The Courts have decided to take a view on an appointment which is always likely to have an element of subjectivity. In appointments to the Supreme Court itself, there are cases of Judges being elevated despite dissent within the collegium. There are well publicised cases of elevation of Judges after dissenting collegium members retired. In another, an overlooked Judge wrote to the President and was subsequently elevated ostensibly in the interests of diversity. Not to say these appointments were incorrect. The moot point is the subjective element that is bound to creep into most of these appointments. Hence the assumption of superior "judgemental" (pun unintended) ability seems inappropriate.
Independently, there are strong noises about at least one (if not two) retired members of the higher judiciary. One of them holds an equally important constitutional post. He too has taken stonewalling to a new high in the wake of official confirmation of ill-gotten wealth by kin. A HC Judge against whom impeachment proceedings have been initiated is taking refuge in farcical procedural gaps in the proceedings. The Supreme Court is expected to be way more active in ensuring their own brethren are not allowed the luxury of impunity whilst they seek to be conscience-keepers of all arms of the government.
Encroachment into Executive domain by the Judiciary has been prevalent for a while now. Parts of it have been welcome in the wake of ineffective executive intervention. Currently the Judiciary is threatening to cross the line once to often. That it is seen to be doing so without applying the same principles to itself will ultimately lead to complete dilution of credibility.
The Courts have decided to take a view on an appointment which is always likely to have an element of subjectivity. In appointments to the Supreme Court itself, there are cases of Judges being elevated despite dissent within the collegium. There are well publicised cases of elevation of Judges after dissenting collegium members retired. In another, an overlooked Judge wrote to the President and was subsequently elevated ostensibly in the interests of diversity. Not to say these appointments were incorrect. The moot point is the subjective element that is bound to creep into most of these appointments. Hence the assumption of superior "judgemental" (pun unintended) ability seems inappropriate.
Independently, there are strong noises about at least one (if not two) retired members of the higher judiciary. One of them holds an equally important constitutional post. He too has taken stonewalling to a new high in the wake of official confirmation of ill-gotten wealth by kin. A HC Judge against whom impeachment proceedings have been initiated is taking refuge in farcical procedural gaps in the proceedings. The Supreme Court is expected to be way more active in ensuring their own brethren are not allowed the luxury of impunity whilst they seek to be conscience-keepers of all arms of the government.
Encroachment into Executive domain by the Judiciary has been prevalent for a while now. Parts of it have been welcome in the wake of ineffective executive intervention. Currently the Judiciary is threatening to cross the line once to often. That it is seen to be doing so without applying the same principles to itself will ultimately lead to complete dilution of credibility.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
The Lankan Example
In the last few months, I have seen a couple of people plan their honeymoon in Sri Lanka. Colombo is fast emerging as a serious threat to Bangkok as the preferred overseas destination for longish weekend breaks by the mildly well heeled. An expat ex-colleague who was supposedly an Indophile decided to purchase real-estate in an island off Colombo before he left the sub-continent.
It is remarkable how quickly the Sri Lankans have erased memories of a civil war that lasted decades and worked to develop their country as the tourist hub it used to be. The resurrection efforts are all-encompassing. From advertising to infrastructure development to ensuring service levels lead to favourable word-of-mouth publicity.
In contrast, we have allowed the Kashmir problem to degenerate almost to a point of no-return. A trip to the state a couple of years ago left us awestruck at the splendour. But the pitiable condition of the local populace who were dependent on tourism led income was depressing. One could get around paying rockbottom prices for almost everything given non-existent demand for services.
Sri Lanka should serve as an inspiration. The ethnic strife and related terrorism had the same proportions as Kashmir (if not larger). All the elements, from cross-border funding to local support to votebank compulsions existed there too. It took political will (largely from one individual) to take a solution to its logical end. Kashmir may be entangled in more historical cross-hairs. However, that has been an excuse for lethargy for way too long. In any case the relative importance of Kashmir as a political issue is high only across the border. It is time for the metaphorical gloves to be off for some time so that the state is restored to complete normalcy. For me, there lies a vested interest in wanting to return to Srinagar as often as is financially prudent.
It is remarkable how quickly the Sri Lankans have erased memories of a civil war that lasted decades and worked to develop their country as the tourist hub it used to be. The resurrection efforts are all-encompassing. From advertising to infrastructure development to ensuring service levels lead to favourable word-of-mouth publicity.
In contrast, we have allowed the Kashmir problem to degenerate almost to a point of no-return. A trip to the state a couple of years ago left us awestruck at the splendour. But the pitiable condition of the local populace who were dependent on tourism led income was depressing. One could get around paying rockbottom prices for almost everything given non-existent demand for services.
Sri Lanka should serve as an inspiration. The ethnic strife and related terrorism had the same proportions as Kashmir (if not larger). All the elements, from cross-border funding to local support to votebank compulsions existed there too. It took political will (largely from one individual) to take a solution to its logical end. Kashmir may be entangled in more historical cross-hairs. However, that has been an excuse for lethargy for way too long. In any case the relative importance of Kashmir as a political issue is high only across the border. It is time for the metaphorical gloves to be off for some time so that the state is restored to complete normalcy. For me, there lies a vested interest in wanting to return to Srinagar as often as is financially prudent.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Sketchy Portrait
I just concluded reading Patrick French's "India: A Portrait". I was drawn to the book by reviews in prestigious publications (and at least one famed prior work by the author albeit unread by Yours Truly). While none of them were particularly appreciative, my assumption was only serious substance could merit such prolific attention.
To give the author his due, this book serves as a rather informative cheat-sheet for those with an interest in post-independence India but bereft of the patience to read more detailed writings. The writer manages to capture and narrate several interesting nuggets on important political figures over the last few decades. These are peppered with candid opinions that are bound to foster the desired controversy should the book ever face a media debate. Besides, there are wide ranging facets of Indian society that are reflected upon, often forcing introspection into our easy tolerance of primitive and irrational practices. Patrick French manages to communicate these successfully without ever conveying prejudice that many of us would associate with a"white" author.
The book's principal failing lies in the absence of a common thread through chapters or any central message(s). It comes across as a series of disjointed essays put together by travel for interviews and sessions at the India International Centre Bar. Further, while narrating incidents of topical interest, the author has failed to keep his personal bias aside. A classic example is the description of the Arushi murder and subsequent events. It is apparent that the author is well-acquainted with the Talwars (or their lawyer) and is attempting a spirited defence which is far from objective.
The former is disappointing because there was a clear opportunity for an important message. There are sketchy but informative biographies of several important contemporary Indians like Sunil Mittal, L K Advani and even Manmohan Singh. While media reviews have focussed on the book's research on dynastic representation in Indian Parliament, these sketches actually communicate a very important facet of our country that is deprived of its due. While America is universally seen to be a "land of opportunity" the same holds true for India in most sections of civil society. If we were to keep a few high-profile dynasties out of the ambit, every dimension of accomplishment has several self-made, first generation achievers ruling the roost. The author has profiled many such people without communicating this important message powerfully.
As an aside, this book has effectively shelved an intended blog post on The Doon School. I had planned to write about this prestigious boarding school that breeds several people with enviable social skills and little else. Their achievement seemed rather limited outside the comfort zone of established family hegemony. I now stand enlightened with information that the prodigious London-based sculptor Anish Kapoor went to Doon. Ditto for the "famed" Maoist Kobad Ghandy. While I may not be a fan of his ideology, he has excelled in his chosen line of work (without any known ancestral tail-winds).
To give the author his due, this book serves as a rather informative cheat-sheet for those with an interest in post-independence India but bereft of the patience to read more detailed writings. The writer manages to capture and narrate several interesting nuggets on important political figures over the last few decades. These are peppered with candid opinions that are bound to foster the desired controversy should the book ever face a media debate. Besides, there are wide ranging facets of Indian society that are reflected upon, often forcing introspection into our easy tolerance of primitive and irrational practices. Patrick French manages to communicate these successfully without ever conveying prejudice that many of us would associate with a"white" author.
The book's principal failing lies in the absence of a common thread through chapters or any central message(s). It comes across as a series of disjointed essays put together by travel for interviews and sessions at the India International Centre Bar. Further, while narrating incidents of topical interest, the author has failed to keep his personal bias aside. A classic example is the description of the Arushi murder and subsequent events. It is apparent that the author is well-acquainted with the Talwars (or their lawyer) and is attempting a spirited defence which is far from objective.
The former is disappointing because there was a clear opportunity for an important message. There are sketchy but informative biographies of several important contemporary Indians like Sunil Mittal, L K Advani and even Manmohan Singh. While media reviews have focussed on the book's research on dynastic representation in Indian Parliament, these sketches actually communicate a very important facet of our country that is deprived of its due. While America is universally seen to be a "land of opportunity" the same holds true for India in most sections of civil society. If we were to keep a few high-profile dynasties out of the ambit, every dimension of accomplishment has several self-made, first generation achievers ruling the roost. The author has profiled many such people without communicating this important message powerfully.
As an aside, this book has effectively shelved an intended blog post on The Doon School. I had planned to write about this prestigious boarding school that breeds several people with enviable social skills and little else. Their achievement seemed rather limited outside the comfort zone of established family hegemony. I now stand enlightened with information that the prodigious London-based sculptor Anish Kapoor went to Doon. Ditto for the "famed" Maoist Kobad Ghandy. While I may not be a fan of his ideology, he has excelled in his chosen line of work (without any known ancestral tail-winds).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
