Jayachandran

Many in India (not many men, who take politics to fill their pocket) are thrilled with the passage of Women’s Reservation Bill in the Rajya Sabha. Soon it will be tabled in Lok Sabha for vote. Great. But does more representation of women in the law-making process mean anything, when you come across this news?

Sushma Tiwari married a man named Prabhu Nochil in the year 2004. Few months later, her brother Dilip Tiwari and his friends killed Prabhu, Prabhu’s father and two children. Why didn’t Dilip kill his sister? Because, his pregnant sister was out, visiting someone, at the time of murder. Why did Dilip Tiwari do this crime? His family belongs to Tiwari where as Prabhu was an Ezhava from Kerala. Why does that matter? – don’t ask me because I give a damn to religion, caste etc. The Bombay High Court awarded death sentence to Dilip Tiwari and his friends. But last December, the Supreme Court of India reduced their sentence to 25 years in jail. What surprised me is the reasoning of the honorable judges behind their judgment!

“It is a common experience that when the younger sister commits something unusual, and in this case it was an intercaste, inter-community marriage out of [a] secret love affair, then in society it is the elder brother who justifiably or otherwise is held responsible for not stopping such [an] affair. … If he became the victim of his wrong but genuine caste consideration, it would not justify the death sentence.” It also added: “If he became the victim of his wrong but genuine caste considerations, it would not justify the death sentence… The vicious grip of the caste, community, religion, though totally unjustified, is a stark reality.”

I am not in favor of capital punishment. I believe a human has no right to kill another human. Period. But if Dilip Tiwari and his friends are guilty, why can’t they be sentenced to jail till they die of natural death?

To read more about Sushama Tiwari’s response, click here.

Few days ago India talked to Pakistan – a country that cannot be described as a composite nation-state in the conventional sense. When it comes to issues pertaining to India, Pakistan can easily be divided into five segments – (1) the army, which controls Pakistan’s political, economic and military destiny whether formally in power or nominally in the barracks (2) the ISI, the all-encompassing superpower in the Pakistani establishment, which functions as a state within the state (3) its civilian Government, an insecure entity that has little popular legitimacy, is powerless against the Army and the ISI and hopelessly divided within (4) the Jihadi groups, both overground and underground and finally (5) a small, elite civil society comprising well-heeled, English-educated socialites, more comfortable waxing eloquent on Indian TV channels when they are not busy sojourning in London. Each is at loggerheads with the other. Only time they fuse into a collective entity is when Pakistan is at war with India.

Given the above, was there a need for India to talk to one-fifth of Pakistan – the civilian Government? Talks should not have happened at the first place, especially when the latter has not taken any concrete steps to punish those involved in 26/11 terror attack. And as all expected, there wasn’t any outcome worth to mention.

Here is what one newspaper wrote about the concluded talk: Watching from the sidelines, the entire drama that played out seemed surreal. It was like a neighbor walking into your house saying “You have a lovely lawn. Give it to me.” You refuse. He slaps you hard and keeps assaulting or insulting you endlessly. Finally, you get so scared you invite him over for tea. He walks in, reiterates his claim and adds a few more items to his wish-list. He has, meanwhile, mobilized the local goonda who stands guard, intimidating you further. Obviously you can’t accept the preposterous demands. So he slaps you again and walks out threatening more violence. You cower into a corner, tremulously awaiting the next assault!

In 2004, French public schools banned students from wearing burqa because of a law that prohibits students to wear any clearly visible religious symbols. In June 2009, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that burqas are “not welcome” in France. He said – “In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity”. The French National Assembly appointed 32 lawmakers from right- and left-wing parties to a six-month fact-finding mission to look at ways of restricting its use. Today, the commission reported that access to public services and public transport should be barred to those wearing the burqa. And today, I posted the following in FaceBook:

Jay does not agree with those who say Muslim women should have a choice of whether to wear the niqab or not. It is the right and privilege of a nation to decide on what its values are. In a nation of rights, you should challenge that through courts and political activism. On a personal note, if you let religions dictate your way of living, can freedom of speech and opinion really apply to you as your thoughts are tighten to what an omniscient and omnipotent being (or its representatives) is imposing? France is doing a great favor to the world... So those women who had to wear full facial veils... wake up and enjoy your new freedom.

Yes, I personally say yes to the ban – whether it is the Islamic veil or any thing that can hide your face, whatever its origin is. It includes any religious piece of cloth as well as wearing an helmet with its visor. A ban to me is acceptable and correct in light of the current global standings with respect to providing protection for the citizen. If any one believes that their centuries’ old custom or practice should be allowed to continue, they also need to understand that the world has changed a lot from what it had been in the 7th century. Those who cannot understand this simple fact and prefer to put their faith over “the law of the land”, they should consider moving to the land (example: Saudi Arabia) which allows them to do what their religious faith prescribes. I am sure France’s ban will make people think why the burqa was introduced in the first place and whether it is any more needed. In Saudi Arabia, both men and women use the cloth to cover their face to protect from sand (desert storm). In some Muslim countries, it is even told that women are forced to wear this to hide their face to protect Muslim men from the temptations of womenly charms. In other words, Muslim men could not control their sexual urges and so they made women cover up!

Those women – who cannot accept the law of the land to take precedence over their faith, but instead want to live in a 7th century lifestyle – should consider returning back to their Islamic country of their birth to enjoy all the advantages of 7th century lifestyle. Otherwise, allow common sense to prevail. Most of the schools have strict dress codes. Students may not like it, but they follow. Certain banks post signs at the entrance for removal of hats, hoods on clothes, sunglasses, or anything that conceals identity. Those who cannot follow the above are free to choose any other bank that does not ask you to do so. When crimes were going up in a place where I grew up, the state introduced a law that prohibited excessive windshield tinting on your car. Criminals in cars with dark windshields operate with more impunity because identification by witness or police is profoundly restricted. Understandable.

So the point is, seeking special privileges makes sense only when there are real reasons for them. Otherwise, uncover the face and allow some amount of sunshine, which is needed for the synthesis of Vitamin D that helps absorb calcium. A peaceful society depends upon the law of the land, not religion, because we do not all agree about religion.

The US Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to allow corporations and unions to spend freely on elections seems certain to boost the political power of big business and labor. This ruling will help businesses and labor to dole out unfathomable amounts of money in campaigns nationwide, with one goal: elect the people who will do their bidding, while defeating those who won’t. For Republican party, often backed by big-spending corporations, should certainly be happy with this ruling. This ruling will allow corporations, special interest groups and lobbies to have more control over elected officials than they already have. Average person and his matters will have lesser say. For average person like me, this ruling simply means – who ever has more money will certainly has more clout and more access to power. Big-spending corporations and lobbyists now has the potential to corrupt and distort the democratic system of the country. They could use negative campaign ads as a lobbying tool, threatening lawmakers with an onslaught unless they vote a certain way on legislation. That could dilute the voices of a legislator’s own constituents.

Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. On January 12, 2010, at 21:53 UTC, (4:53 pm local time) this country was struck by a magnitude 7.0 earthquake, its most severe earthquake in over 200 years. From then on, help was coming in from many countries around the world.

US television channels – NBC, CNN, Fox etc. – are covering the earthquake. US television media is the worst one can turn to, to get facts. All they know is to project US by twisting history. US corporate media needs to take few lessons from BBC or at least from Al-Jazeera.

• One idiot named Pat Robertson, carried on Disney’s Family Channel, suggested Haiti invited the disaster by making a deal with the devil 200 years ago! As Robertson told his co-host, when Haiti was under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III and whatever…they got together and swore a pact to the Devil. They said, “We will serve you if you will get us free from the French.” True story. And so, the devil said, “OK, it’s a deal.” And they kicked the French out. You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other.” Robertson’s audience reportedly runs into the millions, and many of them who might normally be willing to give support for disaster relief could take Robertson’s words to heart and close their purses rather than give aid to servants of the Devil. Unsurprisingly, Robertson’s history is also wacky: The Haitian revolution, which embraced the principles of the enlightenment and the American Revolution, achieved victory in 1804 against Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon III would not even born until 1808.
• Radio jocker Rush Limbaugh discouraged donating to Haiti disaster relief on his January 13 show, saying: “We’ve already donated to Haiti. It’s called the U.S. income tax…. You just can’t keep throwing money at it.” It is better for Haiti not to receive any help from Limbaugh or his listeners- my opinion.
• On his January 13 show, another idiot O’Reilly said the way to cure Haiti’s economic and social problems was to impose discipline on Haitians: “My travels there have been illuminating. Only half the population can read and write. Unemployment’s more than 50 percent. Most Haitians live on less than $2 a day. No matter how much charity is given, no matter how many good intentions there are, Haiti will remain chaotic until discipline is imposed.” Was he drunk when he made this statement? Do you think what he stated is meant to help those who are in need?
• In his January 15 Times column, David Brooks offered his prescription: To “fix” their “progress-resistant culture,” Haiti needs to develop “No Excuses countercultures,” and turn to paternalism: “It’s time to promote locally led paternalism. In this country, we first tried to tackle poverty by throwing money at it, just as we did abroad. Then we tried micro-community efforts, just as we did abroad. But the programs that really work involve intrusive paternalism.” Ironically, Brooks’ prescription of “intrusive paternalism” to “fix the culture,” aptly sums up U.S. policy towards Haiti for the past 100 years: a brutal military occupation from 1915 to 1934; support for dictatorship from 1957 to 1986; and, more recently, the imposition of trade policies that have further impoverished people. What the outside world needs to “fix” is not Haitian culture, but its own self-serving policies that have left thousands of Haitians literally buried alive.

Other than natural disasters Haiti is hit with, US is certainly responsible for what Haiti is today. The past cannot be erased. But I wish US corporate media stopped from enlightening people with their stupid reporting / coverage / comments.

Bal Thackeray, Uddhav Thackeray (Bal’s son) and Swararaj Thackeray (Bal’s nephew, now known as Raj Thackeray ) – these rogues of Maharashtra often manage to be in the front news by saying / doing the wrong thing. Honestly, in my analysis, I find them lacking mere common-sense, the most. Raj’s uncle Bal Thackeray rose to prominence in 1960s when he targeted South Indians in Bombay. Raj is doing his best now by targeting North Indians in Bombay. In the 1960s, the Maharashtrian middle class in Bombay was feeling the pressure of job competition for white collar clerical jobs. Today, it seems that there is a similar sense of frustration at losing out economically and culturally to other social groups in Bombay’s endless battle for scarce resources. When Congress and NCP became the real-estate agents of of the state’s rural-urban bourgeoise and the Shiv Sena became a pale shadow of its original avatar, the space existed for someone to emerge as a rabble-rouser espousing the sons of the soil platform (marathi manoos).

From 2007 onwards, Raj was in search of issues. He and his MNS (Maharashtra Navanirman Sena, created after Bal appointed his son as the leader of Shiv Sena party over his nephew) demanded that registration numbers on all vehicles in Maharashtra should be written in Marathi. The Road Transport Authority (RTA) bye-laws clearly state that license plates be written in English alphabets with Arabic numerals (1,2,3…) . “If they can make this concession for Muslims and allow them to write in Urdu, then why this step-motherly treatment to Marathi?” Raj asked as posters supporting his demand went up across Bombay. He also demanded all shop-owners to have their boards written in Marathi or else face consequences. Prominent personalities such as Karan Johar, Jaya Bachchan, Hansai Mehta etc. tasted Raj’s threatening one way or other. However, neither Raj or his MNS party were literally missing in action when Bombay was attacked by terrorists in Nov 2008!

In the recent Maharashtra state assembly election, Raj Thackeray’s MNS won 13 seats. Shiv Sena’s performance was dismal. On Nov 2nd, Raj Thackeray demanded that all 288 elected members of the State Assembly must take oath in Marathi or else face action!. What made him think that he is the leader of those 288 elected members when his party has only 13 to represent? On Nov 5th, Samajwadi Party MLA-elect Abu Azmi said he was determined to take oath in the assembly in Hindi and threatened to lodge an FIR against MNS president Raj Thackeray if the latter prevented him from doing so. There were few other MLA-elects decided to take oath in Hindi, but none of them revealed their plan except Abu Azmi. On Nov 9th, the first day of the newly elected state Assembly, two BJP members took their oath in Sanskrit (Girish Bapat, Girish Mahajan), few Congress members took their oath in Hindi (Amin Patel, Ramesh Singh Thakur) and English (Baba Siddique). MNS members did not respond. When it was Abu Azmi’s turn, they did (watch video).

India is a multi-lingual country, whose Constitution affords linguistic choice as a constitutional right. To make a plea for a language is permissible. To do so with violence in the state legislature with disruptive and divisive aims and ends is not.

Raj also demands that Maharashtrians must be given preference over others for any vacant job in the state of Maharashra. In 1995,when he was in Shiv Sena, he formed Shiv Udyog Sena (to my surprise, this website is still alive, to prove my points), collected money from unemployed youths on the promise that his organization would give employment to 2,700,000 Maharashtrian youths. How does the employment process take place? The team of Shiv Udyog Sena approaches the respective industries for human resource requirement under the specified job categories. Once the human resource requisition is provided by the employer,bio-datas are scrutinised by Shiv Udyog Sena office as per qualification and eligibility desired by Employer. Candidates short-listed by Shiv Udyog Sena office are sent for Interview in the ratio of 1:5 (i.e. if there is one vacancy Shiv Udyog Sena sends five candidates for interview) and selection of the right candidate remains the prerogative of the employer. Make note of the last sentence. Isn’t that what the employer always does? An employer wants the best candidate to take up the job. But his recent remarks give a sense of feeling: if you are not securing first and become second in the race, beat up the one who secured first and take that place. How was Shiv Udyog Sena, registered as a non-profit organization, operating and meeting its expense? They planned to set up 30 fully equipped offices of Shiv Udyog Sena in every district of Maharashtra. To achieve this objective, huge funds ( to the tune of 60 to 70 million rupees ) were required. It was planned that the sum of 60 to 70 million would be used as a Corpus Fund (refers to money donated to a charity with the provision that the principle will not be spent, but the income from the principle or corpus will be used for the charity). Monthly expenses of all the Shiv Udyog Sena offices can be met through the interest earned on Corpus Funds. This information is available at their website. How many benefited with the above scheme? Did you fulfill the promise of providing 2,700,000 jobs to Maharashtrians?

Or did you use that money to buy 5 acres of plot belonging to Kohinoor Mills #3 for around Rs. 421 crores? Records indicate that it was purchased by Matoshree (remember, old man Bal lives in Matoshree) Realtors and Kohinoor Consolidated Transport Network Ltd. – companies floated by Raj Thackeray and Manohar Joshi (Shiv Sena leader) respectively. Raj, if you didn’t use that money, how did you manage to the above fund, considering your father was once a singer who was married to the daughter of a Marathi film producer? Now your company is constructing a luxury mall at that plot. And the workers building the mall – are they all from Maharashtra? Raj, are you also considering to let only Maharashtrians to even own / lease shops in that luxury mall?

You complained about the limitations the infrastructure of Bombay has to handle the infiltration of outsiders and how Bombay is getting choked. But weren’t you the one who came up with the Slum redevelopment scheme that legalized all illegal slums that existed prior to 1995, allowing people illegally occupying city land to become permanent residents thus enriching the builder mafia and themselves on the path to overcrowding the city? After contributing all these, why are you lamenting Bombay is overcrowded? Any sense?

Your demand that all 288 MLAs must take oath in Marathi! But your son Amit didn’t study in Marathi-medium school but instead was in Bombay Scottish School (where Hindi and French are taught second languages, Marathi as third language). Isn’t your daughter Urvashi also studying in the same school? (Source: Indian Express).

Somalian pirates continue causing headaches to many nations by hijacking ships and demanding ransom amount for their release. Recently, there were two reports that appeared on BBC website that gave me headache.

• Oct 26, 2009: Ahmed Muhamed Dore, 112 years old Somali man who already has 13 children by five wives, married another woman who is just 17 years old, who is young enough to be his great-great-grand-daughter! How could he do that? It is allowed under Islamic Sharia.
• Nov 6, 2009: Abas Hussein Abdirahman, 33, was stoned to death in front of a crowd of some 300 people for adultery, but spared his pregnant girlfriend until she gives birth. Authorities stated that the woman would be killed after she has had her baby! This is the third incident where Islamic authorities have stoned a person to death for adultery in this year.

How could people tolerate with such Islamic Sharia laws in this 21st century? Weird.

In his forthcoming memoirs, First Draft: The Making of Modern India, B.G. Verghese, distinguished journalist, Magsaysay Award winner and champion of human rights, recalls the period when he was media advisor (1966-69) to Indira Gandhi during her first stint as prime minister. Here is a snippet of what he wrote about Mrs. Gandhi’s visit to US in March 1966.

LBJ, a giant of a man, was most solicitous of his guest and walked her down from the White House to Blair House where she was staying. He also gatecrashed into the Indian embassy where B.K. Nehru was entertaining the PM and her delegation to dinner. As one wag put it, it took the Indian prime minister to visit Washington to reveal the gentleman in LBJ! The other quip that did the rounds was that the visit provided the first occasion for a US president to address a visiting head of government as ‘Honey’! At LBJ’s banquet, Isaac Stern, the violinist, gave a virtuoso performance, after which the dancing began. LBJ gallantly approached Mrs G and asked for a dance, which she demurely declined, saying, “Oh! What would my people think!”

At the time she was assassinated (official announcement came only by 6 PM that day), I was watching a movie at Sarita-Savita-Sangeeta movie complex at Ernakulam along with my good friend Joshy Alex. He was wearing a black shirt and jeans. After the movie, we were walking towards the bus-stop to catch the bus, when someone passed a comment at Joshy Alex – “are you wearing black shirt because of Indira Gandhi dead?”. That triggered our curiosity. More we realized about it, more we felt how difficult it is going to be to reach back home to feel safe. (How I reached back home is something I will write some other time).

Her death was “officially” confirmed at 6 pm, after due diligence had been exercised to ensure Rajiv Gandhi’s succession. By then, reports of stray incidents of violence against Sikhs, including the stoning of President Zail Singh’s car, had started trickling in at various police stations. I remember reading newspapers on following days where more than 4000 Sikh men, women and children were slaughtered; in Delhi alone, 2,733 Sikhs were burned alive, butchered or beaten to death. Women were raped while their terrified families pleaded for mercy, little or none of which was shown by the Congress goons. In one of the numerous such incidents, a woman was gang-raped in front of her 17-year-old son; before leaving, the marauders torched the boy. For three days and four nights the killing and pillaging continued without the police, the civil administration and the Union Government, which was then in direct charge of Delhi, lifting a finger in admonishment. The Congress was in power and could have prevented the violence, but the then Prime Minister, his Home Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, indeed the entire Council of Ministers, twiddled their thumbs. Even as stray dogs gorged on charred corpses and wailing women, clutching children too frightened to cry, fled mobs armed with iron rods, staves and gallons of kerosene, AIR (All India Radio) and Doordarshan kept on broadcasting blood-curdling slogans like ‘Khoon ka badla khoon se lenge’ (We shall avenge blood with blood) raised by Congress workers grieving over their dear departed leader. By the morning of November 1, hordes of men were on the rampage in south, east and west Delhi. They were armed with iron rods and carried old tires and jerry cans filled with kerosene and petrol. Owners of petrol pumps and kerosene stores, beneficiaries of Congress largesse, provided petrol and kerosene free of cost. Some of the men went around on scooters and motorcycles, marking Sikh houses and business establishments with chalk for easy identification. They had been provided with electoral rolls to make their task easier. By late afternoon that day, hundreds of taxis, trucks and shops owned by Sikhs had been set ablaze. By early evening, the murder, loot and rape began in right earnest. The worst butchery took place in Block 32 of Trilokpuri, a resettlement colony in east Delhi. The police either participated in the violence or merely watched from the sidelines. Curfew was declared in south and central Delhi at 4 pm, and in east and west Delhi at 6 pm on November 1. But there was no attempt to enforce it. PV Narasimha Rao, the then Home Minister, remained unmoved by cries for help. In his affidavit to the Nanavati Commission of Inquiry, Lt-Gen Jagjit Singh Aurora, decorated hero of the 1971 India-Pakistan war, said, “The Home Minister was grossly negligent in his approach, which clearly reflected his connivance with perpetrators of the heinous crimes being committed against the Sikhs.” The first deployment of the Army took place around 6 pm on November 1 in south and central Delhi, which were comparatively unaffected, but in the absence of navigators, which should have been provided by the police and the civil authorities, the jawans found themselves lost in unfamiliar roads and avenues. The Army was deployed in east and west Delhi in the afternoon of November 2, more than 24 hours after the killings began. But, here, too, the jawans were at a loss because there were no navigators to show them the way through byzantine lanes. In any event, there was little the Army could have done: Magistrates were ‘not available’ to give permission to fire on the mobs. This mandatory requirement was kept pending till Mrs Indira Gandhi’s funeral was over. By then, 1,026 Sikhs had been killed in east Delhi. Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar were among Congress ‘leaders’ who, witnesses said, incited and led mobs. Both deny the allegation, but the evidence is overwhelming. The slaughter was not limited to Delhi, though. Sikhs were killed in Gurgaon, Kanpur, Bokaro, Indore and many other towns and cities in States ruled by the Congress. In a replay of the mayhem in Delhi, 26 Sikh soldiers were pulled out of trains and killed. After quenching their thirst for blood, the mobs retreated to savour their ‘revenge’. The flames died and the winter air blew away the stench of death. Rajiv Gandhi’s Government issued a statement placing the death toll at 425!

Two thousand seven hundred and thirty-three men, women and children killed in Delhi, another 2,000 killed elsewhere, scores of women raped, property worth crores of rupees looted or sacked. Families devastated forever, survivors scarred for the rest of their lives. But I wonder why Congress party doesn’t care to take any action against those who instigated the tragic episode that unfolded after Indira Gandhi’s assassination! It is worth to note this failure at Indira Gandhi’s 25th death anniversary.

On her 25th death anniversary, I am reading the book – Indira: The Life of Indira Nehru Gandhi by Katherine Frank.

Few pictures, I gathered from the internet, of Indira Gandhi can be found here (for my Amma to view. My Amma often says her mother, Saradha Ammayi and Indira Gandhi are of the same age).