India’s Tryst With Destiny

By Anish Gawande

To see Nehru so viciously denounced today signals the end of an era and the crumbling of the idea of India.

On the 27^th of May, fifty years ago, millions of Indians cried as the radio announced the woeful news of the death of a man who had steered the nation for seventeen long years. Jawaharlal Nehru was dead, and a grieving nation could not imagine life without the towering persona who dominated the political and social landscape of the nation till his last breath.

In many ways, Nehru was a remarkable man. An Oxbridge-educated scholar, he was more a statesman than a politician and while he may not have risen to power from the dusty soil of the plains of Central India, one could certainly never doubt that he was a patriot. A skilled orator whose speeches are remembered till today (who can forget his historic address to the nation on the eve of Independence?), Nehru commanded not just respect but also admiration.

A Fabian socialist at heart, Nehru had an unceasing desire to uplift India’s poor from their misery. While his ideals may today seem redundant and even regressive, one must remember that history is portrayed very differently in retrospect. In an age where the Great Depression had led capitalist nations to war, and wherein socialism and economic planning had saved the Soviet Union from financial collapse, Nehru’s protectionist and socialist leanings ensured that in its early years India did not fall prey to foreign economic domination and neo-imperialism, and (unlike many other African nations) avoided becoming a banana republic.

Swapan Dasgupta, a man who leans more towards Nagpur than New Delhi, claimed that “India has been too kind to Nehru”. Can a nation ever repay the debt it owes to a Prime Minister who not only successfully steered India towards becoming a leader in the Non-Aligned Nations sphere (successfully drawing benefits from both the United States and the USSR) but also raised the prestige of a nation which was left poor, hungry and undeveloped after a long period of British colonisation? There has been no Indian leader who commanded as much respect in the international sphere as Nehru, as is evident by this quote in the Guardian on Nehru’s visit to London in 1957 (which Ramchandra Guha reproduced in his fascinating piece on Nehru in the Hindustan Times¹) –

A hundred men and women of the West were being given a glimpse of the blazing power that commands the affection and loyalty of several hundred million people in Asia. Put in its simplest terms, it is the power of a man (Nehru) who is father, teacher and older brother rolled into one. The total impression is of a man who is humorous, tolerant, wise and absolutely honest.

Yet, Nehru’s greatest accomplishment was the upholding of Indian democracy. Despite knowing that the Congress was virtually unchallenged in the early years post-Independence, Nehru insisted on holding timely elections and galvanised the machinations of the State to ensure that the nation remained a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic. While neighbouring Pakistan plunged into chaos with a military dictatorship soon after it became independent, India has till today continued its tradition of democracy and the rule of the people. Nehru was a man who believed in the ideals that this nation is built upon – he encouraged political opposition and welcomed criticism, going as far as to compliment RK Laxman for his caricatures of the Prime Minister.

One must remember, however, that despite the hero-worship that was and is so characteristic of Indian society (as became evident in the recently held General Elections), Nehru was a mortal just like you or me. The sahib from Trinity who could give rousing speeches in the Queen’s English was also one who failed miserably in predicting the true intentions of neighbouring China, leading to a humiliating defeat for India in 1962. His ambitious plans of using PSUs as the “temples of modern democracy” backfired when they were ineffectively run by bureaucracy that lacked the technical expertise to harness their full potential. His decision to take the Kashmir issue to the UN and his repeated altercations with Sheikh Abdullah damaged ties with the state.

Yet, it is disheartening to see that these are not the issues that Nehru is criticised for. He is vilified for being a philanderer and a womaniser – claims that are not only unsubstantiated but also irrelevant to his role as leader. He is criticised for being the patron of dynastic politics when in reality his daughter, Indira, never came close to any sort of public office till his death (after which opportunistic Congressmen placed her on a pedestal wrongly expecting her to be a puppet which could be manipulated). In fact, had Nehru been alive today, he would have scorned his own successors, who time and again threw to the wind the very ideals he’d stood for all his life and who pandered to vote-banks rather than to the collective consciousness of the nation. In fact, AM Rosenthal, an American journalist, visited India during Indira Gandhi’s Emergency and lamented that were Nehru alive he’d be in jail writing letters to the Prime Minister on the importance of democracy and democratic institutions!

It is not a coincidence that a man who ascends the throne of the Indian Prime Ministership has chosen to be crowned just a day before the fiftieth death anniversary of India’s tallest leader. Narendra Modi will ascend to India’s highest public office on the same day that Nehru breathed his last and vacated it. An era, defined by the Nehruvian consensus (which was broken, incidentally, in large measures by Indira and Rajiv) which advocated respect for democratic institutions and the precedence of ideology over issue-based politics, has come to an end.

Let us remember Nehru’s words on the eve of Independence. While Modi claims “Acche din aane waale hai”, Nehru wistfully proclaimed that “The ambition of the greatest man of our generation has been to wipe every tear from every eye. That may be beyond us, but as long as there are tears and suffering, so long our work will not be over”.

Narendra Modi’s tryst with destiny has just begun. Whether he will be able to reconcile the ideologies that built this nation with his own brand of personality politics, and whether he will be able to deliver upon an agenda of not just economic development but also inclusive social welfare, will determine whether the India that 33 crore Indians envisioned and fought for in 1947 will be the same India that 120 crore Indians voted for in 2014. 

Advertisement

The Idea of India

by Parth Jhaveri

For some reason that I have yet to understand, this video brought a tear to my eye.

We live in a cynical India. Everywhere I look, I see people giving up on the idea of India, an idea 156 years in the making. With corruption, poverty, a skewed sense of social morality (one that frowns at women in skimpy clothes and whistles at item numbers with equal gusto), and a hundred other evils, who could blame them for giving up? These circumstances make it easy for us to become cynical; nothing is ever going to change is it? Wouldn’t it be better to just leave on the pretext of an education, or to sit comfortably isolated in our ivory towers, cushioned from the constant degradation around us? I certainly thought so, as do many members of my generation.

There is a man in the mountains however, a man who, under the shadow of snowcapped peaks, still believes in the idea that is India. Shyam Saran Negi, has believed in this idea all his life, and for the past 63 years, he has, in the face of cynicism and doubt, made a pilgrimage to cast his vote. In 1951, he became independent India’s first voter, and though he saw his country, recently untangled from the bounds of oppression, fall into the hands of the selfish and the corrupt, he never lost faith in the spirit of this great nation.

When our forebears fought for the idea of India, they did so not for us Cynics, but for the true believers like Mr. Negi. They fought for an India rooted in its culture and its traditions, but open minded and progressive in its thoughts; they fought for an India diverse in its composition yet accepting and understanding in its nature; they fought for an India where equality and liberty abounded, where honesty was valued, and where every man’s worth was decided not by virtue of his caste, creed, or religion, but by the strength of his character and the sweat on his brow. I ask you, where is that India today? The India of 2014 is as religiously polarized, as it is corrupt, as socially regressive as it is unaccepting of diversity. The freedom of expression is readily pulped, while justice is meted out only when it is convenient to those with means. We have achieved our freedom, but our population still remains oppressed.

When at the stroke of the midnight hour we attained our freedom, we did so in peace, not in violence. No shot was heard around the world. The shot was heard 4 years later however when Mr. Negi cast the first vote in Independent India and began what would become the largest democratic exercise in the history of mankind to that date. In a matter of 2 months, 800 million Indians will again cast their vote and exercise their great power to shape their collective destiny. But as we move into this election, we must as a nation realize that we aren’t voting for a person or a party, but for the spirit of Mr. Negi, the spirit of our forefathers and for the idea that is India. We must acknowledge that this idea is worth fighting for. And though not all of us will be able to affect change at a massive level, we must try. Whether it be paying a cop or cracking a billion dollar deal, we must keep in mind the idea of India.

To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, we may not achieve the idea of India in the next 5 or 10 or 20 years, or indeed in our lifetimes, but let us begin. Be proud of India, maybe not for what it is today, but for what it stands for. And remember that we the people hold the power to affect a change.

Jai Hind.

 

About the Author

Parth recently completed his 12th standard board exams at the Cathedral and John Connon School, Mumbai, and will be studying Economics and International Relations at Tufts University this Fall. His area of interest includes Parliamentary Debate, Model UN and Indian Politics.

The Death of Ideology

by Anish Gawande

“Would Nehru ever have courted the support of an Imam or stepped into the Ganga?”

Ideology is dead in Indian politics. Nurtured for over a hundred years by stalwarts ranging from Tilak to Nehru, it has been beaten and bruised time and again by our very own representatives. Yet, the core ethical, moral and philosophical fabric of this nation has survived these multiple onslaughts; attacks which threaten the idea of India – till now.

Around the nation, politics has become dirtier than ever. Never before has the electorate had to face such uncouth and shameless leaders – those who openly sympathise with rapists, garland rioters and welcome those who steal from the widows of our nation’s martyrs. Never before has the public discourse been this vindictive and foul. And never before has every political party brazenly discarded its ideology in the name of short term gains, compromising its identity for a few extra seats.

There was an India once, one that I grew up listening stories about, which was represented by intellectual giants like Dadabhai Naoroji and Mahatma Gandhi. An India where one would tirelessly fight against all odds in the name of ideology, in the name of beliefs and in the name of values for in that India the means were as important as the ends. That India is dead.

Disillusionment, disgust and despair. Three emotions course through my mind as I see what has happened to the spirit of Indian democracy. On one hand, I see the Congress – a party whose ideals I staunchly believe in – discarding its secularism and commitment to social reform in the name of crony capitalism and politics of appeasement. The party which nurtured this nation has today succumbed to the excesses of power, combining dynasty with corruption to put forth a dangerous mixture of inefficiency and arrogance.

On the other hand the BJP, which promised a collective effort to rid the nation of dynastic politics has become an authoritarian behemoth which sways on one man’s word. Inherently communal in nature, its core beliefs (emphatically put forth in the shocking works of the leader of its ideological guru, former RSS supremo MS Golwalkar) is the antithesis of the secularism promised by the Indian Constitution. The BJP’s gradual decline from a party of patriotic intellectuals to mob-drawing rhetoric-spewers only points to dark days ahead for India as a nation.

Ambedkar would indeed turn in his grave many times over if he saw the politics being played out today. The rampant wooing of Dalits and tribals in the name of caste and protection, especially in key states like UP, only serves to underscore why Ambedkar himself was disappointed with the functioning of India’s democracy even as Law Minister.

The one ray of hope, the AAP, too has disappointed with its shaky ideological foundations. Right from its concept of “Swaraj” which seeks to convert India from a representative to a participative democracy (with all the dangers of mobocracy and populism involved), to its confused economic policy which sways like the breeze on Mumbai’s dusty roads, the AAP is a party of committed individuals bound together by no firm core values.

Disillusionment, disgust and despair. The lack of choices is appalling, but what adds salt to the injury is the complete apathy of the people of this great nation. We don’t seem to mind that authoritarianism might lead India astray, or that the “Grand Old Party of India” is tossing the values that built this nation into the wastepaper basket (instead of an ordinance that protects criminals in politics), or that caste and class are being misused to entrap the underprivileged in the same cycles of poverty and oppression.

Disillusionment, disgust and despair. The lack of choice is appalling, but what adds salt to the wound is the complete apathy of the people of this great nation. We don’t seem to mind that authoritarianism might lead India astray, or that the “Grand Old Party of India” is tossing the values that built this nation into the wastepaper basket (instead of an ordinance that protects criminals in politics), or that caste and class are being misused to entrap the underprivileged in the same cycles of poverty and oppression.

What India needs today is not an AAP or any other citizen-led movement. It needs to rethink the idea of India, based on ideology. For without a blueprint of beliefs and values, a stable and effective roadmap for the future is absolutely impossible. Where would America be without distinct Republican and Democrat ideologies? Or the UK without the differences between Labour and Conservatives?

The politics of roti, kapda aur makaan needs to stop – because India deserves better, India needs better. I had hoped that the political class will rise up to the occasion and provide the nation with concrete, ideologically different alternatives. But 2014 has only filled me with disillusionment, disgust and despair.

The Politics of Arms Aquisitions

by Aakash Brahmachari

Corruption in Indian defence deals is as old as the country itself. The only difference between 1948, when Minister of Defence VK Krishna Menon was accused of ignoring procedures for buying jeeps from a British firm, and the present, when a sleazy Italian businessman allegedly bribed a former IAF chief and senior Congress politicians to favour helicopters from an Italian manufacturer, is the sheer magnitude of the bribes involved. These facilitation payments often take the form of “consultancy fees” to shell companies established by politicians and bureaucrats. Their value, according to sources familiar with the Indian defence sector, may equal up to 10% of the deal’s worth – a quick fortune  and particularly appealing for parties seeking to build a war chest to fight the next general elections.After all, those free TVs before the elections aren’t just going to pay for themselves.

Despite widely publicised scandals, the trend is unlikely to end soon and so the big question remains – why do elected representatives and government servants indulge in these corrupt practices? Apart from filling their pockets, the simple answer is that they can get away with it.

India’s anti-corruption measures in arms’ acquisition vary from competitors appealing to vigilance authorities when they suspect wrongdoing, to foreign investigative services indicting arms dealers for paying bribes to Indian nationals. In the latter case, India’s Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is invariably drawn into the fray. The CBI, despite assurances of impartiality, remains a political puppet and its conviction rate in such cases is abysmal. That is hardly surprising, considering that the politicians being investigated and at whose doorstep the money trail ends, are invariably the ones who dictate the CBI’s functioning. In the latest such instance, the “Choppergate” scandal directly indicts the upper echelons of India’s ruling party. Whether they will ever be investigated and brought to book, sadly, remains anybody’s guess.

Even a ‘clean’ Defence minister such as AK Anthony has been unable to stem the rot. His vow to investigate any and all allegations means that firms which have lost contracts now allege corruption in the hope of the contract being re-tendered so that they have a second chance at winning it. This has haemorrhaged the arms’ acquisitions process while corruption scandals continue to fester and the root cause remains unaddressed.

The key to stemming the tide of corruption lies in greater transparency. The complex bureaucratic mechanisms which dictate arms’ acquisitions allow politicians and bureaucrats in influential positions to alter the course of a deal at their convenience without accountability. Curing this malaise through investigations has failed and the only answer may be its prevention through a transparent and accountable process. To do this, the secrecy around arms’ selection should be lifted. Archaic policies which are altered every passing year need to be replaced with an open tendering and selection process which is subject to public scrutiny.

Though this is not a new idea by far, it is unlikely to occur given that doing so will dilute the influence wielded by key ministers and officials. Various excuses have been cited to preserve this opaque arrangement, including that of compromising national security. However, the underlying motive remains the same: why give up power (and easy money) when you don’t really have to?

Aakash is a risk consultant specialising in the defence sector. After completing an M.Phil. in International Relations from the University of Cambridge, he worked at the Commonwealth Secretariat’s Political Affairs Division in London and helped establish the national security desk at Gateway House, a foreign policy think tank in Mumbai. He currently works for Control Risks Group.

(Image Source: TOI)

Art for Democracy: Reflections from Know Your Vote and Art4All’s Workshop

By Saanya Gulati

What is the connection between art and democracy? This was the question at the back of my mind as I made my way to Know Your Vote and Art4All’s “Art for Democracy” workshop last Saturday.

At 2:30 P.M.about a dozen people gathered at the Art Plaza outside Mumbai’s famous Jehangir Art Gallery. There were artists, political junkies like myself, college students, and the organisers from Know Your Vote and Art4All.

Nikita, an intern at Know Your Vote, walked us through a short video (Credit: I Vote for India) and presentation on the importance of voting, and how voter apathy is a vicious cycle in India, in order to look at some of the traditional reasons people do not vote. The most common of these is the‘I am too small to make a difference’ syndrome – a trap that many of us fall into. But Delhi’s most recent election has perhaps proven this notion wrong.

Yet, there are a myriad of other reasons that owe to low voter turnout in India, including the lack of good candidates and lack of information about candidates’ performance. If you share some of these concerns, I urge you to look at the handout below that was distributed to the participants at the workshop. It contains some useful information on how you can involve yourself in the political process.

We spent some time discussing our poster ideas, and how we could mobilise the residents of our city to vote in the upcoming election. I learnt 3 simple rules to effective poster making: be concise, be clear, and connect with your audience. The message I chose was inspired from the idea that if you don’t vote, you lose your right to complain. In India, people complain endlessly about the current political system;from its corruption, to its candidates. Still, we don’t want to fulfill our basic duty as responsible citizens and vote. My poster depicts this dichotomy through the ‘complaint box’ and ‘ballot box: ultimately the choice is up to us.

Several innovative ideas emerged through the brainstorming session, which each of us expressed using simple graphics, short messaging, and vibrant colours. As for the connection between art and democracy – let’s just say there’s more than meets the eye!

It was encouraging to see several passers-by stop and ask questions about the posters and the workshop. From a six-year old boy for whom the analogy of ‘electing class monitors in school’ was used to explain the importance of democracy, to the several others who came. Their interest and support only reinforce the end goal of the workshop, which is to raise more awareness.

“a six-year old boy for whom the analogy of ‘electing class monitors in school’ was used to explain the importance of democracy”

This year’s general election in India expects close to 150 million first-time voters, a category which most of us who attended the workshop fall under.A lot hinges on how we choose to address the problems in this country. Luckily organisations like Know Your Vote and others, which are working to increase citizen engagement in the political process, are creating new avenues for us to become more aware and involved. The fact that young voters from South Bombay –a constituency that is notorious for its poor voter turnout –take timeout on a Saturday afternoon to come and spread this message tells me we are off to a good start.

Mumbaikars, keep an eye out for our colourful posters, and do share them on your social media channels. You can check out the Art for Democracy album on Know Your Vote’s Facebook page.

On returning to India after completing her B.A. from Tufts University in Boston, Saanya has worked on different initiatives that increase citizen engagement in India’s political discourse. She blogs about contemporary political and social issues, when she is not curled up with a book at home, or out exploring new lands. You can follow her on Twitter, at@BombayDelhi Girl.

The Power of Change

It is time to think, change and do. However, even in dynamic and diverse societies change has never been easily accepted. Hence, it is no surprise that the Right to Information Act (RTI) has acquired a resilience that even its authors could not have prophesied. It has been preserved in its original form for years, despite many attempts by the government to make amendments that were “aimed at curtailing the scope of the law and restricting the flow of official information.”

For most people in India, it seemed unimaginable that they could actually obtain records of decisions that critically impacted their lives. However, the creation of the RTI Act in 2005 made this possible as it acted as a means to unearth the scams and scandals of those in power, ironically causing the biggest hit to be taken by the very government that created it at a mere fee of Rs.10. The Commonwealth games and the 2G scam act as evidence and show that the “success of this law has been its biggest threat.”

The huge public interest in the preservation of the original form of the RTI is the reason why the status quo did not change for six long years until 3^rd June 2013. It was on this day that the Central Information Commission (CIC) deemed six Indian national political parties: Congress, BJP, NCP, CPM, CPI and BSP to be “public authorities” that come under the ambit of the RTI. The reason behind this was financial transparency, and now, like the government, even the parties would be held “under compulsion to reveal their sources of funding.” Inevitably, this change was opposed fervently by the political parties, as they believed that it would encourage political rivals to file RTI applications with “malicious intentions.”

Consequently, the Manmohan Singh Government tabled an Amendment Bill in the Lok Sabha contradicting their previous declaration by clarifying that parties would not be treated as public authorities: “Authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted by any law made by Parliament shall not include any association or body of individuals registered or recognized as a political party under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.”

A new section was also added to the Act according to which the amendment would apply “notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court or commission and will prevail over any other law for the time being in force.”

Furthermore, The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill highlight the presence of provisions that deal with transparency in the financial aspects of political parties in the Representation of People (RP) Act as well as the Income Tax Act. This could be seen as an indirect attempt to justify the exclusion of political parties from the realm of the RTI Act.

The aftermath of the introduction of the Amendment Bill was fairly obvious. The growing army of RTI stakeholders that consisted of citizens, activists and information commissioners were outraged and rejected the Bill by calling it “unfortunate and injudicious.” This very Act empowered the ordinary folk of our country, and they believe that this very Amendment will dilute the credibility of this Act.

Different perspectives can cause the same situation to seem justifiable or entirely unacceptable, and this has been proved by the conflicting views held by the political parties and the ordinary man in this situation. So how can one judge if the change is acceptable or not? Whatever the challenge may be – privacy or disclosure, “this information law cannot be beaten back; the genie is out of the bottle.” (The Hindu)

Criminal Law

By Malvika B.

Open any newspaper in India at any time in 2013, and you are almost certain to find in it these words – rape; riot; corruption. Open your newspaper today, and you will probably find – ordinance; MPs; criminals – all in once sentence.

Just last week, the Union Cabinet cleared an ordinance that protects sitting MPs and MLAs who have been convicted of a crime punishable by a two year sentence or more by any court. This directly negates an order by the Supreme Court passed on July 10th, which declared that an MP or MLA convicted of a crime by a court that is punishable by two years or more would stand immediately disqualified.

You may be wondering how the Union Cabinet can pass what seems to be a law. Let me give you a bit of background – while a law is normally passed by both houses of Parliament, and a President is asked for his assent, it is the President who has the power to promulgate an Ordinance under Article 123 of the Constitution. This power is subject to the following conditions (Sequeira and Raj, 2009):

• The President must be satisfied that circumstances make it necessary for him to take immediate action.
• An Ordinance can be promulgated at a time when both houses of Parliament are not in session. However, if one House is in Session, there is no bar in issuing of Ordinances.

In addition to these two conditions, an Ordinance lapses unless it is passed within six weeks after Parliament is back in session, or it lapses if it is replaced by a law.

Now let us look at the details of this particular Ordinance. Before the Supreme Court passed its order last July, a provision in the Representation of People Act allowed convicted MPs or MLAs to remain in the assembly for a period of three months without any salaries or voting rights, in which time they could appeal to a higher court.If the appeal gets approved in this time, they can continue in their post. The Supreme Court struck this down, and the government tried to pass the Representation of People Act (Second Amendment) Bill 2013 in the RajyaSabha, but the Bill was not passed.

It has been suggested that the government’s decision to give its consent to this Ordinance comes after Congress MP Rashid Masood faces disqualification since he has been convicted of corruption and other crimes.

The Opposition of course, immediately criticised this move by the government, with BJP leader SushmaSwaraj saying, “The ordinance is illegal, immoral and unconstitutional. We urged the president not to sign it and return it to the government.” (Firstpost, 2013)

The Congress too seems divided on the issue, with Rahul Gandhi calling the ordinance, “complete nonsense”, and that, “It should be torn up and thrown out.” (Times of India, 2013)

Milind Deora has said that the Ordinance can “can endanger already eroding public faith in democracy.” (Economic Times, 2013)

To go back to all these words we have been reading in the newspapers – rape, riot, corruption, ordinance, MPs, criminals – as a nation, we finally seem to be taking notice of the severe crime rate that government after government has been unable to curtail. Our own political leaders have recently been convicted for instigating communal feelings in an already tense situation in Muzaffarnagar. We have heard our leaders go on a victim-blaming spree after the hundreds of incidences of rape that have been recently brought to light. We regularly read about how much money honest taxpayers lose because certain politicians have pocketed it. And now, the government seems to be trying to legitimize these leaders’ position as our representatives, and as those who decide the fate of our nation. All I ask is for them to think about that rape victim, that riot victim, that poor man who stays hungry on the street because the government funds meant for him have disappeared in the corrupt system, before trying to pass such an absurd ruling.

And as for all of us, we must remember that these leaders are only in power because we voted for them. If they are allowed to remain in power after wronging us, it is our right to demand that they be brought to justice.

List of References

Economic Times (2013),Embarrasment to UPA: MilindDeora says ordinance to protect MPs can erode faith in democracy, Available Online: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/embarrasment-to-upa-milind-deora-says-ordinance-to-protect-mps-can-erode-faith-in-democracy/articleshow/23112661.cms

 Firstpost (2013) Pranab summons Cong ministers over ordinance on lawmakershttp://www.firstpost.com/politics/pranab-summons-cong-ministers-over-ordinance-on-convicted-lawmakers-1136785.html

Sequeira and Raj (2009), Total History and Civics for Class 10, New Delhi: 2009

Times of India (2013), Rahul Gandhi: Ordinance on convicted politicians is complete nonsense. Available online: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rahul-Gandhi-Ordinance-on-convicted-politicians-is-complete-nonsense/articleshow/23155279.cms (Accessed: 27^th September, 2013)

To Be or Not to Be Prime Minister?

By Nitika B.

“All idols have feet of clay.”

So does Chief Minister Narendra Modi, apparently. The emerging cold war and the raging intra-party politics in the Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) helps highlight the issue further. We all hope that our elected leaders will be a little more upright than us, that their conduct will be exemplary rather than representative. But surely one doesn’t require them to be plaster saints; rather they can’t be, and nor can Narendra Modi.

The internal rift in the BJP, caused by the disagreement between the two senior most leaders on who the party’s presumptive Prime Minister should be, has perpetuated for weeks now. It has undoubtedly aroused attention and caused immense embarrassment for the party, while tarnishing the image of these leaders too. It even caused the Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister, Omar Abdullah to make a bold statement that he doesn’t see a situation where the NC (National Congress) would enter into “any sort of alliance” with the BJP in the future. However, even this has not been able to stop or help the BJP leaders reach an understanding.

In an attempt to weaken Modi, and slow down his ascension to the top of the party, L.K. Advani and other BJP leaders proposed the formation of a committee headed by Advani, the primary purpose of which would be to look over the strategy and campaign of the party for the upcoming state elections. However, the former BJP president Nitin Gadkari turned down the idea in an attempt to be neutral and unbiased in this matter, leaving Advani to look for other ways to weaken his “rival.” Despite this, and his previous differences with Gadkari, Advani continues to support Gadkari. This strongly shows as an expression of Advani’s determination against Modi.

While senior leaders like Advani and Yashwant Sinha boycotted the BJP’s national executive in Goa, it gave the Congress a chance to use the opportunity to question BJP’s competence to rule the country. If the BJP treated its own senior members in this manner, what mercy could the people of India expect?

In another instance, the BJP stood up for Modi when Congress leader Shakeel Ahmad accused Modi of being a “feku.” This criticism was aimed at the manner of Modi’s rescue operations during the recent Uttarakhand tragedy, where he apparently saved only “600 Gujaratis.” In the midst of a calamity, does one get the time to ask a victim their name, their ethnicity? Count the number of people they would save? Or use that split second to just rescue them?

These two incidents bring out the contrasting efforts of the BJP towards Modi, emphasizing the truth that nothing is black or white in politics today; it is indeed a messy affair.

A leader’s accomplishments and success depends on people’s attitude towards him. As Shakespeare said, there are always those who want to “pluck out feathers” from their wings and pull them down. This, we believe, relates strongly to the image of Modi that is being created today. In this atmosphere of uncertainty and conflict, it becomes important to not only Know Your Vote, but to also exercise it effectively.

Making Headlines, Faking Headlines?

By Malvika B.

We, the people of India, are an increasingly voyeuristic lot. That means the Oxford dictionary defines us as “(people) who gain sexual pleasure from watching others when they are naked or engaged in sexual activity”, or “(people) who enjoy seeing the pain or distress of others”. Quite the admirable quality, don’t you think?

Our mediapersons, politicians, and anyone who constitutes the ‘moral police’ that we love talking about so much, seem to exemplify this quality on a regular basis. Everybody knows about certain political parties’ opposition to celebrating Valentine’s Day. The media is always quick to jump on that bandwagon. However, the media even goes one step beyond this – concocting its own stories about teenage immorality for TRPs.

The most recent victims are law students from Nalsar Law University, Hyderabad, who after celebrating their graduation, tried to leave the party venue – sober and decently dressed – at around 11 p.m. They noticed a man with a camera pointed towards them, and on perceiving this as suspicious behaviour, confronted him. Soon, a mob gathered to oppose this behaviour, and the van of news channel ABN Andhra Jyoti drove up to the scene. The cameraman kept pursuing the group, and even thrust his camera into their taxi window, preventing them from leaving. At 6 a.m. the following morning, the students were seen as an angry, drunken, semi-naked mob on TV9, and later ABN Andhra Jyoti, Sakshi TV, Studio N, Ntv Telugu News Channel, Idlytv and News24, as well as several websites.

A petition to take stringent action against the media houses concerned can be found here. What’s unfortunate is that another petition by the Electronic Media Journalists’ Association of AP has been set up, claiming that they were well within their rights to report what they did – the students were misbehaving: ‘visuals do not lie’. Is it ethical, however, to show students’ faces, to misrepresent their words, and to blur out body parts that were quite clearly decently covered? The media claims to have been there to cover the violation of pub rules. Let’s say that was true – was there a need to violate the students’ privacy over the matter? Wouldn’t anyone get angry over that? The EMCJ also claimed “The need is to condemn the students’ action and advise them to concentrate on studies and career rather than losing their temper after a few drinks and abusing people in public.” A noble intention indeed, except they never actually did that. If they were so concerned for the students’ welfare, why not turn the cameras off and counsel them?

Moreover, how much can we really believe the same people who love to carry headlines like “Drunken ladies hulchul in Hyderabad”, “Special focus: Girls romance in hostels and rooms”, and “Drunken women creates hungama”? (Firstpost) Surely any hulchul created is the drunken ladies’ business! Not to mention that one of the media houses, TV9, was condemned and fined for publishing stories on the ‘gay culture in Hyderabad’, judging these people just because they were homosexual, and revealing their identities on a public forum.

We, the people of India, are an increasingly voyeuristic and rather stupid lot. We celebrate the freedom of the press, and rightly so. However there seems to be a trend of more and more people being unnecessarily victimized due to irresponsible journalism. We watch these news channels, comment on how nasty their reporting is, and do nothing. Taking action is as easy as signing an online petition. You can stop the stupidity now.

I’ll Be Dammed

By: Sneha V.

      Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.

                                                                                                                                                        – Edward Abbey.

Dams are good. Dams create hydroelectric power. Dams provide irrigation. Dams reduce rainwater dependency. Dams improve agricultural ability and alleviate rural poverty. They prevent flooding. Or so your sixth-grade textbook says. Oh, the sheer irony.

India has over 4000 dams, placing it third in the world after the United States and China. Graphically speaking, this is what it looks like:

Total Damns Constructed in India

As of 1999, we had 4291 dams, with an additional 695 under construction (Agarwal, Narain and Sen, 1999). In India, it is estimated that reservoirs have displaced some 21 million to 42 million people (Bartolomeand Mander, 2000). All these figures are at best only careful estimations, and include mostly those whose homes and/or lands were flooded by reservoirs: millions more are likely to have been displaced due to other offshoots of dam projects such as canals, powerhouses, and associated compensatory measures such as nature reserves. That, just to give the readers a clearer idea of the numbers, is the entire population of Mumbai plus a substantial (if not entire) chunk of Delhi being politely asked to leave their homes, or else they will, well, drown. And what do our forsaken millions get for it? According to the Land Acquisition Act, the Government is not legally indebted to offer displaced persons anything but cash transfers. Cash transfers to tribes who, prior to being told to pack their belongings and head off into the sunset, have had no concept of money. And so they move. With no forests with fruit and no river to fish, they have to learn how to live all over again. From scratch. Zero.

Take a moment to imagine what that would feel like.

Nehru already addressed this minor hang-up in the ‘50s: it is for the “greater good”. What has the “greater good” then, so remarkably, and if I may, so generously, achieved?

Let’s see.

We have substantially increased landmass under irrigation. Wonderful, you say. Does that translate into increased agricultural productivity, which is presumably the eventual aim of any development project? Here is where the data gets noisy. There is no source of data available that can say for sure whether or not dams do lead to a substantial increase in agricultural produce. Esther Duflo tried it, , and here’s what she has to say: “Those living in the vicinity of the dam fail to enjoy any agricultural productivity gains and suffer from increased volatility of agricultural production. Our poverty results also suggest a worsening of living standards in the district where the dam is built; though limited data availability for the poverty outcomes limits our ability to wholly disentangle the poverty impact of dam construction from district-specific time trends in poverty, which re-correlated with geographic suitability for dams.” Flippant estimates gauge an increase of 14 million tonnes of food grain due to dam construction in a country that produces over 500 million tonnes and loses 12 million due to poor storage facilities. Marvellous. Would not the lakhs of crores spent on building our dams be better invested in rainwater harvesting and food grain storage?

I’m not even going to begin talking about the ecological time bombs our dams are.

So then, why do we build dams? On the basis of a myth? Because of what our geography textbooks say?