This blog is moving to Wordpress. The new URL is http://suhaskarnik.co.cc/blog/. There could be some teething issues; would love to hear your suggestions.
Saturday, 27 December 2008
Saturday, 20 December 2008
God Makes Mistakes, Too
We've had movies where the audience didn't understand what movie they had just seen. For example the Lord of the Rings movies. Well, at least those who didn't read the books didn't understand most of the movies.
Then we've had movies where the music composer didn't understand what movie he was composing (or plagiarising) music for. Example, the historical mujra, Asoka.
Then there have been movies where the actors didn't understand what movie they were acting in, for example the Harry Potter movies.
But rare is the masterpiece where the director himself seems not to understand what movie he is making. And as we know, a director is the boss, and the creator of the movie. He is to the movie what god is to the universe (for those who believe in the god, that is). And sometimes, you know, you really need to say, Rab Ne Bana Di Khichdi.
This is the case of Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi, the latest from the Aditya Chopra (aka Rab) school of loving. No, you dirty mind, it doesn't involve anything that happens on the couch or the bed. So you have Shahrukh "Khan Is King" who for once is not very Kingly - for a princely amount of half an hour - as a Punjab Power employee named Surinder. He bumps into Tani, an attractive bride-to-be, who conveniently happens to be his teacher's daughter, and who equally conveniently loses her bridegroom-to-be just before her marriage.
Now in Aditya Chopra's (aka Rab's) world there is no point to a girl's life except getting married, so the star-struck lass is handed over to Mr Electric who, unfortunately, is anything but electrifying with his soda-bottle glasses, moustache and severely parted hair. On accomplishing this hand-over operation, Tani's old man decides to call it a life as well. However, as any girl in the Rab's world, Tani takes it up, though not with much enthu.
And so life goes on, for half an hour, with Mr Electric secretly doting on his young and pretty wife while the wife dotes on her past and does chores. Rab at this point correctly realised that this script was going nowhere fast, so he had to do something, and he did - enter the dance course plus competition for the best jodi. Tani joins the course, and so does a de-moustached and gelled Mr Electrifying aka Raj. If you've heard the name before, that's the work of Rab. Not that Mr Electrifying is really electrifying - he's a jerk, irritates the viewer and basically is just a little more enjoyable than Himesh Reshammiya singing at full blast with cats sliding down blackboards providing background music. But hey, the script needs to move, the girl needs to have something to do with her time and needs to like someone, so Mr Electrifying it is.
Of course, neither Tani nor any of her fellow dance students notice the curious coincidence that Electric and Electrifying seem to look and sound somewhat similar. Fret not - it's the Will of Rab. And with the exception of one solitary mechanic, no one in the whole town notices or comments upon Mrs Electric roaming more with Electrifying than with her hubby. Truly it must be the divine influence of Rab which makes the town so open-minded.
Rab was right - the entry of Mr Electrifying took the script somewhere. Unfortunately, Rab couldn't for the life of him figure out exactly where it took the script. And so, we are treated to the spectacle of a character who looks like he might, or might not, be suffering from Multiple-Personality Disorder dealing with problems of the heart in the most pointless ways imaginable. Fret not, Rab is still working on it.
One really feels sorry for Anushka Sharma. The girl is cute and fairly competent and you get the feeling she could actually do good acting under guidance from a Nagesh Kukunoor or a Ashotosh Gowariker. Unfortunately, she gets what must be the stupidest non-retarded female character in cinema, a woman who cannot recognise her husband once he shaves his moustache and gels his hair, and a woman who cannot see the loving hand of Punjab Power even when the city selectively blacks out so the that the shaved and gelled guy can give her the "I love you" message. Yet, for all the limitations of the character, Anushka does a fair job. Not her fault Rab screwed her world.
The King is far more bearable, sometimes even endearing, when he's a regular guy than when he's the King. He too makes the most of what he can with such a hopelessly confused character(s).
As for Rab, though, he should be looking for a new line of work. Himesh might be looking for someone to throw the cats on the blackboard, maybe Rab could try his hand at that.
Then we've had movies where the music composer didn't understand what movie he was composing (or plagiarising) music for. Example, the historical mujra, Asoka.
Then there have been movies where the actors didn't understand what movie they were acting in, for example the Harry Potter movies.
But rare is the masterpiece where the director himself seems not to understand what movie he is making. And as we know, a director is the boss, and the creator of the movie. He is to the movie what god is to the universe (for those who believe in the god, that is). And sometimes, you know, you really need to say, Rab Ne Bana Di Khichdi.
This is the case of Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi, the latest from the Aditya Chopra (aka Rab) school of loving. No, you dirty mind, it doesn't involve anything that happens on the couch or the bed. So you have Shahrukh "Khan Is King" who for once is not very Kingly - for a princely amount of half an hour - as a Punjab Power employee named Surinder. He bumps into Tani, an attractive bride-to-be, who conveniently happens to be his teacher's daughter, and who equally conveniently loses her bridegroom-to-be just before her marriage.
Now in Aditya Chopra's (aka Rab's) world there is no point to a girl's life except getting married, so the star-struck lass is handed over to Mr Electric who, unfortunately, is anything but electrifying with his soda-bottle glasses, moustache and severely parted hair. On accomplishing this hand-over operation, Tani's old man decides to call it a life as well. However, as any girl in the Rab's world, Tani takes it up, though not with much enthu.
And so life goes on, for half an hour, with Mr Electric secretly doting on his young and pretty wife while the wife dotes on her past and does chores. Rab at this point correctly realised that this script was going nowhere fast, so he had to do something, and he did - enter the dance course plus competition for the best jodi. Tani joins the course, and so does a de-moustached and gelled Mr Electrifying aka Raj. If you've heard the name before, that's the work of Rab. Not that Mr Electrifying is really electrifying - he's a jerk, irritates the viewer and basically is just a little more enjoyable than Himesh Reshammiya singing at full blast with cats sliding down blackboards providing background music. But hey, the script needs to move, the girl needs to have something to do with her time and needs to like someone, so Mr Electrifying it is.
Of course, neither Tani nor any of her fellow dance students notice the curious coincidence that Electric and Electrifying seem to look and sound somewhat similar. Fret not - it's the Will of Rab. And with the exception of one solitary mechanic, no one in the whole town notices or comments upon Mrs Electric roaming more with Electrifying than with her hubby. Truly it must be the divine influence of Rab which makes the town so open-minded.
Rab was right - the entry of Mr Electrifying took the script somewhere. Unfortunately, Rab couldn't for the life of him figure out exactly where it took the script. And so, we are treated to the spectacle of a character who looks like he might, or might not, be suffering from Multiple-Personality Disorder dealing with problems of the heart in the most pointless ways imaginable. Fret not, Rab is still working on it.
One really feels sorry for Anushka Sharma. The girl is cute and fairly competent and you get the feeling she could actually do good acting under guidance from a Nagesh Kukunoor or a Ashotosh Gowariker. Unfortunately, she gets what must be the stupidest non-retarded female character in cinema, a woman who cannot recognise her husband once he shaves his moustache and gels his hair, and a woman who cannot see the loving hand of Punjab Power even when the city selectively blacks out so the that the shaved and gelled guy can give her the "I love you" message. Yet, for all the limitations of the character, Anushka does a fair job. Not her fault Rab screwed her world.
The King is far more bearable, sometimes even endearing, when he's a regular guy than when he's the King. He too makes the most of what he can with such a hopelessly confused character(s).
As for Rab, though, he should be looking for a new line of work. Himesh might be looking for someone to throw the cats on the blackboard, maybe Rab could try his hand at that.
Friday, 19 December 2008
Car Conferences
Ever since 26/11 happened, it looks like every neta is scrambling to air his views on the catastrophe, for example ex-MH Deputy CM RR Patil with his infamous comments about big cities and small events like 26/11, or Lalu with his views that the role of the opposition was "suspicious".
But Minority Affairs Minister AR Antulay has entered a completely different league by repeating exactly what has been the talking point of Pakistan's conspiracy theorists:
Predictably, this has set the cat among the pigeons with the opposition demanding his head. The political capital that can be made out of this is imaginable, so it's easy to understand what is driving the BJP to ask for his resignation. But what is disheartening is that most common people are also confining themselves to just asking for Antulay to be sacked or disciplined.
They are simply not seeing the real problem. The real problem, the real question we need to be asking is, what authority does the Minister for Minority Affairs have to speak on a terror attack while the investigations are going on? What authority does this Minister have to comment on a situation in which we are on a diplomatic offensive with Pakistan? This would hardly have been acceptable from a newbie politician, but Antulay is a veteran and should have known when not to comment. What made him and Lalu believe they had the right to comment on this issue?
This is not, I believe, a problem with the people alone. It is a problem with the process. This is the first thing I felt when I heard of Antulay's comments but couldn't put a finger on exactly where the problem in the process lay. Until yesterday, when I watched Times Now.
Apparently, Lalu Yadav had just arrived at Parliament and as usual, his car was beseiged by journos asking him for his comments on Antulay. Lalu gave no answer and silently walked into the building. The journos were gushing, in that now-commonplace high-pitched Sunny Deol-esque shouting voice, that it was very uncharacteristic of Lalu to do so. If true, then it would be one of the few rare occassions that Lalu kept mum when he should have.
A few moments later, there appeared footage of Foreign Minister Pranabda, again apparently in front of a car, with cameras thrust in his face. Now Pranabda in my opinion, is a poor choice for a Foreign Minister, a job that is as much PR as it is strategy. These days he looks positively uncomfortable, if not scared, when facing the camera. This isn't helped least by his relatively short height, which only increases the impression of his discomfort.
But coming back, that's when it hit me. It is perhaps these comments at the car which are the reason why Antulay and co believe entitled to comment on issues like 26/11.
Why? To answer that, let's go back to Times Now's reaction at Lalu's silence. The reporter kept asking why Lalu remained silent. Not once did it dawn on him or the studio anchor that the correct question should have been, why shouldn't Lalu have remained silent? Lalu is not the PM or the HM, he is not responsible for the investigation into the terror attacks or Karkare's death, so why should he comment upon another Minister's statements anyway?
The rot begins at the reporters. Car conferences are easy - you need to ambush a neta for barely 15 seconds before he disappears into the building. Once you do that you have footage that can be played on endless loop (Times Now displayed Lalu's silence thrice as I watched). They play on the egotistical nature of our netas who cannot resist the temptation of seeing themselves on TV and making statements.
The trouble is that car conferences are not a mode of information dissemination. Think about it, how measured a response can be given at a car conference within those 15 seconds? None, of course. All that can be done at a car conference is a sound-bite. Which is good for the TRPs but is utterly useless when it comes to information dissemination.
If the rot begins at the reporters, it continues with the politicians. Now that they have been brought up on a diet of car conferences where any and every Minister can be ambushed at his car, Ministers start making comments about any and every issue, whether under their purview or not.
The worst part of all this is that there is no accountability involved from the Minister's end. Unlike a formal press conference which is called by the relevant Ministry and demands accountability, a car conference is ad-hoc, it is done not at the Minister's choice but at the whims of the media. This would be a fine thing if the media were mature enough to ask the right people, but they aren't. What they want is sound-bites and the car conference is a medium which serves only that purpose.
The same attitude of no accountability carries on into the Parliament. Antulay gave his unsubstantiated and unstudied opinions on a subject he does not handle and had no business to be handling, because this culture of asking a Minister his view on any and every issue encourages it. The car interview encourages this mindset and this culture, and it encourages the sound-bite. When this happens, Ministers like Antulay want their share of publicity, so they say any and everything that comes to their mind. Obviously there are bound to be conflicting signals coming from the govt.
On the other hand, real information dissemination like a press conference called by a Ministry is rarer, and lesser covered in the media. If you get it, you mostly get snatches - again, soundbites. A press conference is where a detailed, and most importantly "official" (which means there is some accountability to go with it) response is given. Why are these not covered much? One, because car interviews are easier to get (you don't need to sit through a conference) and because the chances of getting juicy stuff (would Antulay be invited to press conference by the Home Ministry?) reduce. Unfortunately, the atmosphere of informality surrounding them directly encourages loose comments. It looks like the same culture is being carried over into the Parliament.
Times Now gleefully showed the number of embarrassing U-turns Zardari took, but Antulay might just have given India's answer to that.
As I said, this is a problem of the process, not of the people. Loose comments will continue to be made as long as the process is screwed up.
So how do you fix the process? One, for every major security issue, within hours if not minutes, the govt must decide which department(s) are authorised to comment on the issue in the media. In this case, it would be the Foreign, Home and PMO. Each of these could further subdivide which aspects each would handle. There are bound to be internal disagreements with other departments, but these should be brought out at the Cabinet, especially when heated negotiations with Pakistan are involved. There had better be an extremely good reason for them to air their differences in public. Two, innuendo by Ministers on ongoing investigations by other departments must be prohibited. What Antulay said, or Lalu's comment about the "suspicious" role of the opposition were innuendos, and they smack of utter irresponsbility and unaccountability. Three, car conferences need to be done away with. They serve absolutely no purpose other than TRPs. They do not spread information. They are more sound than light. To do away with them is not difficult - all Ministers need to do is keep quiet from the car to the building and ignore the reporters' questions, unless they refer to their own departments or are personal questions, in which case it is their choice. If information needs to be spread, let it be done by the concerned relevant departments at a press conference where they give it with reliability and most important, accountability.
This might have an additional positive side effect. Pranabda communicating exclusively through a press conference might look far less uncomfortable and initimidated than when he has a hundred mikes staring him in the face.
But Minority Affairs Minister AR Antulay has entered a completely different league by repeating exactly what has been the talking point of Pakistan's conspiracy theorists:
“There is more than what meet the eyes... Karkare was investigating some cases in which non-Muslims were involved,” he said. The minister then went on to explain why he is not in agreement with the view that Karkare was killed by terrorists. “Superficially speaking, they (terrorists) had no reason to kill Karkare. Whether he (Karkare) was victim of terrorism or terrorism plus something. I do not know,” he said.[link]
Predictably, this has set the cat among the pigeons with the opposition demanding his head. The political capital that can be made out of this is imaginable, so it's easy to understand what is driving the BJP to ask for his resignation. But what is disheartening is that most common people are also confining themselves to just asking for Antulay to be sacked or disciplined.
They are simply not seeing the real problem. The real problem, the real question we need to be asking is, what authority does the Minister for Minority Affairs have to speak on a terror attack while the investigations are going on? What authority does this Minister have to comment on a situation in which we are on a diplomatic offensive with Pakistan? This would hardly have been acceptable from a newbie politician, but Antulay is a veteran and should have known when not to comment. What made him and Lalu believe they had the right to comment on this issue?
This is not, I believe, a problem with the people alone. It is a problem with the process. This is the first thing I felt when I heard of Antulay's comments but couldn't put a finger on exactly where the problem in the process lay. Until yesterday, when I watched Times Now.
Apparently, Lalu Yadav had just arrived at Parliament and as usual, his car was beseiged by journos asking him for his comments on Antulay. Lalu gave no answer and silently walked into the building. The journos were gushing, in that now-commonplace high-pitched Sunny Deol-esque shouting voice, that it was very uncharacteristic of Lalu to do so. If true, then it would be one of the few rare occassions that Lalu kept mum when he should have.
A few moments later, there appeared footage of Foreign Minister Pranabda, again apparently in front of a car, with cameras thrust in his face. Now Pranabda in my opinion, is a poor choice for a Foreign Minister, a job that is as much PR as it is strategy. These days he looks positively uncomfortable, if not scared, when facing the camera. This isn't helped least by his relatively short height, which only increases the impression of his discomfort.
But coming back, that's when it hit me. It is perhaps these comments at the car which are the reason why Antulay and co believe entitled to comment on issues like 26/11.
Why? To answer that, let's go back to Times Now's reaction at Lalu's silence. The reporter kept asking why Lalu remained silent. Not once did it dawn on him or the studio anchor that the correct question should have been, why shouldn't Lalu have remained silent? Lalu is not the PM or the HM, he is not responsible for the investigation into the terror attacks or Karkare's death, so why should he comment upon another Minister's statements anyway?
The rot begins at the reporters. Car conferences are easy - you need to ambush a neta for barely 15 seconds before he disappears into the building. Once you do that you have footage that can be played on endless loop (Times Now displayed Lalu's silence thrice as I watched). They play on the egotistical nature of our netas who cannot resist the temptation of seeing themselves on TV and making statements.
The trouble is that car conferences are not a mode of information dissemination. Think about it, how measured a response can be given at a car conference within those 15 seconds? None, of course. All that can be done at a car conference is a sound-bite. Which is good for the TRPs but is utterly useless when it comes to information dissemination.
If the rot begins at the reporters, it continues with the politicians. Now that they have been brought up on a diet of car conferences where any and every Minister can be ambushed at his car, Ministers start making comments about any and every issue, whether under their purview or not.
The worst part of all this is that there is no accountability involved from the Minister's end. Unlike a formal press conference which is called by the relevant Ministry and demands accountability, a car conference is ad-hoc, it is done not at the Minister's choice but at the whims of the media. This would be a fine thing if the media were mature enough to ask the right people, but they aren't. What they want is sound-bites and the car conference is a medium which serves only that purpose.
The same attitude of no accountability carries on into the Parliament. Antulay gave his unsubstantiated and unstudied opinions on a subject he does not handle and had no business to be handling, because this culture of asking a Minister his view on any and every issue encourages it. The car interview encourages this mindset and this culture, and it encourages the sound-bite. When this happens, Ministers like Antulay want their share of publicity, so they say any and everything that comes to their mind. Obviously there are bound to be conflicting signals coming from the govt.
On the other hand, real information dissemination like a press conference called by a Ministry is rarer, and lesser covered in the media. If you get it, you mostly get snatches - again, soundbites. A press conference is where a detailed, and most importantly "official" (which means there is some accountability to go with it) response is given. Why are these not covered much? One, because car interviews are easier to get (you don't need to sit through a conference) and because the chances of getting juicy stuff (would Antulay be invited to press conference by the Home Ministry?) reduce. Unfortunately, the atmosphere of informality surrounding them directly encourages loose comments. It looks like the same culture is being carried over into the Parliament.
Times Now gleefully showed the number of embarrassing U-turns Zardari took, but Antulay might just have given India's answer to that.
As I said, this is a problem of the process, not of the people. Loose comments will continue to be made as long as the process is screwed up.
So how do you fix the process? One, for every major security issue, within hours if not minutes, the govt must decide which department(s) are authorised to comment on the issue in the media. In this case, it would be the Foreign, Home and PMO. Each of these could further subdivide which aspects each would handle. There are bound to be internal disagreements with other departments, but these should be brought out at the Cabinet, especially when heated negotiations with Pakistan are involved. There had better be an extremely good reason for them to air their differences in public. Two, innuendo by Ministers on ongoing investigations by other departments must be prohibited. What Antulay said, or Lalu's comment about the "suspicious" role of the opposition were innuendos, and they smack of utter irresponsbility and unaccountability. Three, car conferences need to be done away with. They serve absolutely no purpose other than TRPs. They do not spread information. They are more sound than light. To do away with them is not difficult - all Ministers need to do is keep quiet from the car to the building and ignore the reporters' questions, unless they refer to their own departments or are personal questions, in which case it is their choice. If information needs to be spread, let it be done by the concerned relevant departments at a press conference where they give it with reliability and most important, accountability.
This might have an additional positive side effect. Pranabda communicating exclusively through a press conference might look far less uncomfortable and initimidated than when he has a hundred mikes staring him in the face.
Monday, 15 December 2008
Insaniyat
Scenario 1: A gangster and extortionist is killed in a fake encounter in the great state of Gujarat. Human rights organizations and other such bleeding hearts go on a rampage likening the Chief Minister to Hitler.
Scenario 2: The great state of Maharashtra, famous for its encounter specialists (one of whom died in the recent Mumbai attacks) does not have any of its Chief Ministers in the last 10 years called a Hitler.
Scenario 3: The great state of Andhra Pradesh refuses an enquiry into the murder in police custody of the three accused in the acid attacks case. Something tells me YSR isn't going to be painted in Hitlerian garb either.
Now while the rule of law needs to be maintained and fake encounters are entirely condemnable, it is an open question as to why the human rights of Sohrabuddin trump the human rights of the victims of MH's encounter specialists or the acid attack perpetrators.
Scenario 2: The great state of Maharashtra, famous for its encounter specialists (one of whom died in the recent Mumbai attacks) does not have any of its Chief Ministers in the last 10 years called a Hitler.
Scenario 3: The great state of Andhra Pradesh refuses an enquiry into the murder in police custody of the three accused in the acid attacks case. Something tells me YSR isn't going to be painted in Hitlerian garb either.
Now while the rule of law needs to be maintained and fake encounters are entirely condemnable, it is an open question as to why the human rights of Sohrabuddin trump the human rights of the victims of MH's encounter specialists or the acid attack perpetrators.
Wednesday, 10 December 2008
Picking up the pieces
It's now two weeks since 26/11 and now, things are coming back to what we would term "normal". The hysteria whipped up by the media seems to be dying down as the much-famed "resilience" of the nation kicks into action, and nothing indicates this more than the elections in Delhi and Rajasthan, which happened after the Mumbai attacks and yet gave thumping victories to the Congress.
In less dark times, the US would have given us the standard song-and-dance about "restraint" while "strongly condemning" the "vicious" acts of terror. But these are not less dark times, and so between the escalating tension in this region and the impending change of guard in DC, the US needs to put up a better item number. Rakhi Sawant and Bipasha won't do; what's needed is Angelina Jolie dancing to the tune of Beedi Jalaile.
Pakistan, too has been giving us more. Instead of showing India the finger, they've coated the finger with honey hoping we'll lick it. The US at this moment is doing little more than pacifying matters, knowing fully well that once the hot-headed Indians cool down, the government will be more than willing to emulate a drunk Kumbhakarna. Pakistan, on the other hand, is doing the most it can to look like it's doing a lot, while actually doing zilch.
Pakistan's prompt arrest of Maulana Masood Azhar and Lakhvi, though, does suggest one thing - the theory that the LeT is out of the control of the Army and ISI, is bogus. Lakhvi and Azhar were not at all difficult to find and catch when Pakistan needed to do it for the sake of the cameras. What this proves, in case someone was still in doubt, that Pakistan is very much in bed with the holy warriors. It may be a rocky marriage, but they're not headed for a divorce any time soon.
A lot of very interesting things have emerged in the last few weeks.
For instance, Mr Dus Pratishat's piece in NYT echoing his now oft-repeated claim about non-state actors, about Pakistan being a victim of terror and other such standard fare. Credit where it is due, Mr. Z has written very well; his piece is one of the finest examples of spin doctoring, claiming that the attacks in Mumbai were directed at his country as well. This view has received the blessings of Condi, though of course it has nothing to do with the fact that the soon-to-be Obama-nation needs Pakistan's help in Afghanistan. However, Indians would do well not to buy the snake-oil and start pining with love for our peace-loving neighboring country. There are victims and then there are victims. A country which made terrorism a cottage industry was going down on its knees and begging for trouble. A country which invested in Jihadis and Mujahideens instead of doctors and engineers is bound to get what it deserved. If someone bangs your head on a hard rock, you could legitimately be called a victim. If you bang your own head on a hard rock, then you can hardly call yourself a victim.
So let's not get into pangs of heartbreak over the fact that Pakistan is now at the receiving end too - that is a monster of their own creation. At the moment, the interest of India is indeed in working with Pakistan (if they are ready to work in a meaningful manner) and bringing down the terrorists, but for our sake, not for Pakistan's sake.
Then there is this one Gnani Sankaran who advances the scholarly thesis that the Taj is not an icon of India because most Indians cannot go there. Perhaps Gnani Sankaran therefore does not believe that the Rashtrapati Bhavan is an icon of India, since most people don't go there either.
The paradoxically-named author also goes on to expand his thesis to suggest that the coverage of the Taj was because it was the "elites" who were for the first time targeted, and that the other icon of India, CST, was ignored because the elites were not involved there. I wonder which version of the attacks coverage Mr Sankaran saw, because the countless email forwards and photos shown on tv in endless loops included grainy pictures of an area that looked suspiciously like CST, and featured one Ajmal Amir. Times Now, headed by Arnab Goswami, was repeating ad nauseam the few seconds of footage from CST with the terrorists helpfully circled in red. I personally saw this footage no less than 50 times, and I wasn't even watching it continuously.
Also, in his enthusiasm to vent his class warfare bile, the author seems to have forgotten that we just witnessed 60 hours of a live hostage situation involving (as Shivraj Patil helpfully told everyone) 200 commandos. Anywhere in the world this would have attracted media attention. The elite factor may have played a role, especially when it came to the over-coverage of the food critic who died in the Taj. but it is undeniable that what was seen in Mumbai was unprecedented and arresting. Though of course, it is hard for class warriors to appreciate that.
One of the good things to have emerged out of this entire affair has been the extremely responsible response of the Muslim community. It has always been a pet complaint of many (including yours truly) that they never condemned the evil acts of their co-religionists with the fervor reserved for Hindu fundamentalists. Though to be fair, the same can also be said of the Hindu leaders.
What stands out this time though, has been the strong anti-terrorist signal being sent across by the Muslim community against these attacks. First it was the refusal to bury the terrorists, which is about as strong a response as can be given. Then it was the suggestion from the Deobandi Ulema to avoid cow slaughter keeping in mind the sentiments of the Hindus. Then it was the decision not to have the Babri Masjid protests this year as a sign of solidarity. Though there is nothing wrong with protesting per se, the Masjid-Mandir issue is a surefire bet to inflame passions, and the act of exercising restraint at this juncture speaks volumes. And it continued up to Id yesterday - many Id congregations in Bangalore prominently displayed at the entrance signs condemning the acts in Mumbai.
The gesture was reciprocated too. Though the media did everything they could to whip up anti-Muslim voices, including getting some "intellectuals" on a stage to repeat the same "why do we have to prove our patriotism" arguments, they didn't succeed much. There was little attempt, if any, to link ordinary Muslims with terror this time. Even the BJP stayed away from taking an overt anti-Muslim line. There is of course a lunatic fringe which will continue to exist, but that fringe has been marginalized more than ever before.
If the aim of terrorists was to humiliate and embarrass India, they did succeed. They exposed the chinks in our armor and made it look like child's play.
Yet India did prove resilient, in a completely different way. The almost complete absence of communal tones in the aftermath of 26/11 suggests an evolving, maturing society that seems to be learning from history. So do the election results in RJ and DL, which show that we are not voting on knee-jerk sentiments. It seems Indians see through the fake claims of the BJP on terrorism, having remembered that it was a BJP Minister who escorted terrorists to Kandahar.
So if the aim of terrorists was to destroy religious harmony, they have made a major miscalculation. It seems 26/11 has just brought India closer. The only question now is how long this newfound maturity will last.
In less dark times, the US would have given us the standard song-and-dance about "restraint" while "strongly condemning" the "vicious" acts of terror. But these are not less dark times, and so between the escalating tension in this region and the impending change of guard in DC, the US needs to put up a better item number. Rakhi Sawant and Bipasha won't do; what's needed is Angelina Jolie dancing to the tune of Beedi Jalaile.
Pakistan, too has been giving us more. Instead of showing India the finger, they've coated the finger with honey hoping we'll lick it. The US at this moment is doing little more than pacifying matters, knowing fully well that once the hot-headed Indians cool down, the government will be more than willing to emulate a drunk Kumbhakarna. Pakistan, on the other hand, is doing the most it can to look like it's doing a lot, while actually doing zilch.
Pakistan's prompt arrest of Maulana Masood Azhar and Lakhvi, though, does suggest one thing - the theory that the LeT is out of the control of the Army and ISI, is bogus. Lakhvi and Azhar were not at all difficult to find and catch when Pakistan needed to do it for the sake of the cameras. What this proves, in case someone was still in doubt, that Pakistan is very much in bed with the holy warriors. It may be a rocky marriage, but they're not headed for a divorce any time soon.
A lot of very interesting things have emerged in the last few weeks.
For instance, Mr Dus Pratishat's piece in NYT echoing his now oft-repeated claim about non-state actors, about Pakistan being a victim of terror and other such standard fare. Credit where it is due, Mr. Z has written very well; his piece is one of the finest examples of spin doctoring, claiming that the attacks in Mumbai were directed at his country as well. This view has received the blessings of Condi, though of course it has nothing to do with the fact that the soon-to-be Obama-nation needs Pakistan's help in Afghanistan. However, Indians would do well not to buy the snake-oil and start pining with love for our peace-loving neighboring country. There are victims and then there are victims. A country which made terrorism a cottage industry was going down on its knees and begging for trouble. A country which invested in Jihadis and Mujahideens instead of doctors and engineers is bound to get what it deserved. If someone bangs your head on a hard rock, you could legitimately be called a victim. If you bang your own head on a hard rock, then you can hardly call yourself a victim.
So let's not get into pangs of heartbreak over the fact that Pakistan is now at the receiving end too - that is a monster of their own creation. At the moment, the interest of India is indeed in working with Pakistan (if they are ready to work in a meaningful manner) and bringing down the terrorists, but for our sake, not for Pakistan's sake.
Then there is this one Gnani Sankaran who advances the scholarly thesis that the Taj is not an icon of India because most Indians cannot go there. Perhaps Gnani Sankaran therefore does not believe that the Rashtrapati Bhavan is an icon of India, since most people don't go there either.
The paradoxically-named author also goes on to expand his thesis to suggest that the coverage of the Taj was because it was the "elites" who were for the first time targeted, and that the other icon of India, CST, was ignored because the elites were not involved there. I wonder which version of the attacks coverage Mr Sankaran saw, because the countless email forwards and photos shown on tv in endless loops included grainy pictures of an area that looked suspiciously like CST, and featured one Ajmal Amir. Times Now, headed by Arnab Goswami, was repeating ad nauseam the few seconds of footage from CST with the terrorists helpfully circled in red. I personally saw this footage no less than 50 times, and I wasn't even watching it continuously.
Also, in his enthusiasm to vent his class warfare bile, the author seems to have forgotten that we just witnessed 60 hours of a live hostage situation involving (as Shivraj Patil helpfully told everyone) 200 commandos. Anywhere in the world this would have attracted media attention. The elite factor may have played a role, especially when it came to the over-coverage of the food critic who died in the Taj. but it is undeniable that what was seen in Mumbai was unprecedented and arresting. Though of course, it is hard for class warriors to appreciate that.
"This city just showed you, that it is still full of people ready to believe in good"
- Batman, in The Dark Knight
One of the good things to have emerged out of this entire affair has been the extremely responsible response of the Muslim community. It has always been a pet complaint of many (including yours truly) that they never condemned the evil acts of their co-religionists with the fervor reserved for Hindu fundamentalists. Though to be fair, the same can also be said of the Hindu leaders.
What stands out this time though, has been the strong anti-terrorist signal being sent across by the Muslim community against these attacks. First it was the refusal to bury the terrorists, which is about as strong a response as can be given. Then it was the suggestion from the Deobandi Ulema to avoid cow slaughter keeping in mind the sentiments of the Hindus. Then it was the decision not to have the Babri Masjid protests this year as a sign of solidarity. Though there is nothing wrong with protesting per se, the Masjid-Mandir issue is a surefire bet to inflame passions, and the act of exercising restraint at this juncture speaks volumes. And it continued up to Id yesterday - many Id congregations in Bangalore prominently displayed at the entrance signs condemning the acts in Mumbai.
The gesture was reciprocated too. Though the media did everything they could to whip up anti-Muslim voices, including getting some "intellectuals" on a stage to repeat the same "why do we have to prove our patriotism" arguments, they didn't succeed much. There was little attempt, if any, to link ordinary Muslims with terror this time. Even the BJP stayed away from taking an overt anti-Muslim line. There is of course a lunatic fringe which will continue to exist, but that fringe has been marginalized more than ever before.
If the aim of terrorists was to humiliate and embarrass India, they did succeed. They exposed the chinks in our armor and made it look like child's play.
Yet India did prove resilient, in a completely different way. The almost complete absence of communal tones in the aftermath of 26/11 suggests an evolving, maturing society that seems to be learning from history. So do the election results in RJ and DL, which show that we are not voting on knee-jerk sentiments. It seems Indians see through the fake claims of the BJP on terrorism, having remembered that it was a BJP Minister who escorted terrorists to Kandahar.
So if the aim of terrorists was to destroy religious harmony, they have made a major miscalculation. It seems 26/11 has just brought India closer. The only question now is how long this newfound maturity will last.
Saturday, 29 November 2008
Watch the world burn
This week's terror attacks in Mumbai are indeed unprecedented. For one, the world has been taking much more interest in events now, probably because this time, it isn't just the "Injuns" who are getting killed. As of this writing, there are around 200 deaths in all, including 22 foreigners. They have been dubbed "India's 9/11", though the phrase doesn't convey the uniqueness of these attacks in a country that has seen multiple major terror attacks this year, sometimes up to twice a month.
Another reason why the attacks are unprecedented are in their sheer audacity - terrorists taking control of top hotels of Mumbai, not to mention firing indiscriminately in Mumbai's most important train station, were unheard of before 26 Nov.
At this moment, the dust has still not fully settled. The Taj was sanitized only on the 29th Nov, almost 60 hours since the carnage began. So it is a little difficult to draw too many conclusions, but some thoughts coming in right now are:
1. The counterterrorism machinery: The fact that just four terrorists (the fourth has just been found) could keep the NSG, MARCOS, ATS and Mumbai Police busy for three continuous days and run amok in a 565-room hotel raises serious questions on our entire counterterrorism apparatus.
2. The confidence of the attackers: Planning and executing an operation that involves people entering from the sea, storming Mumbai's most enduring symbols like the Taj and the CST and holding the former for the best part of three days, betrays a huge amount of confidence in the agency conducting the attacks. Most certainly, this has to do with the government's pusillanimous reaction to attacks till now.
3. The attacks also highlight the underwhelming competence of the union Home Minister whose mere presence makes terrorists flee (check the entry at 3:27 pm) and whose actions on the terror front after previous attacks have left no doubts as to his competence on the terror front, not to mention his sartorial taste. If that wasn't enough, Shivraj Patil was even generous enough to tell the terrorists on national television how many commandos (200) had been dispatched. After which, the terrorists were also given ample time to prepare
4. Not to be outdone by his central counterpart and namesake, Maharashtra Home Minister RR Patil sees the whole incident much more philosophically, and tries to do a Shah Rukh Khan-esque "bade bade shehron mein aisi choti choti baatein hoti rehti hain". It also seems that the Centre's warnings to the State government (i.e. RRP's office) are mysteriously disappearing, since RRP allegedly never received any info. Though to be fair, given what we know of the competence of RRP and his central counterpart, the problem could be either at the receiving end or the sending one.
5. And the man in the hotseat, Manmohan Singh delivering the path-breaking explanation that the attackers were from outside India, which sort of contradicts his earlier statement in September 2006 (barely a month after the Mumbai train blasts) that Pakistan was also a "victim of terrorism." Of course, that did not stop him from asking for the ISI's help in the recent case, as we can easily imagine that the ISI would be leaping with joy over the prospect of finding their own people's hands in the cookie jar. Unfortnately MMS's golden dreams couldn't come true because Pakistan decided to turn him down after initially agreeing.
6. The bastion of the free world, protector of democracy and nemesis of terrorism (especially the Islamic variety) fears India's reaction if it were found that Pakistan has a hand in this. Funnily, they didn't exercise much restraint when it came to 9/11. But it's understandable that they would want India to show restraint. After all, it's mostly the brown monkeys who are at the receiving end.
But the Americans don't need to fear. It is unlikely that the Indian govt will do much more than deliver a couple of platitudes about not letting neighbor's territories be used for terror, and that will be about it. For America, there is still a very good chance that India will not be doing anything serious against Pakistan. That is due to the famous "resilience" of Mumbai and India, which is a euphemism for people's necessity to feed their families, and also their capacity to forget everything the moment there is a celebrity controversy, till Rakhi Sawant or some other starlet says something inane.
It is possible, though, that this event being so unprecedented and unexpected, might jolt Indians out of our collective slumber and bovine tolerance for governmental incompetence and neglect. Taking people's minds off what has just happened might not be very easy, and something really exceptional could be required.
Fret not, America. Lalit Modi has got just what the doctor ordered. The postponed Champion's League Twenty20 will be held soon.
Saturday, 27 September 2008
The Show Will Go On
.
As the American election season draws to a close, the world will be looking towards January 20th, 2009, when George Dubya Bush's successor takes office. Depending on which side you tilt towards, that will be either John McBush III or Barack Saddam Hussein Obama bin Laden.
[Interestingly, the only words Firefox thinks are wrong in the last sentence are "Barack" and "Obama"; I'm getting little red dotted underlines at those words. Looks like that's telling something about Mozilla's political leanings]
January 20th, will obviously also be the day "W" would finally cease being the leader of the free world and beacon of democracy. Unlike most of the world, I was inclined to see this as a not-so-good thing.
Now lest I be mistaken for those affectionately labeled as wingnuts or chickenhawks, I am not a fan of the Bush administration. Far from it. In the last eight years, Bush has come to symbolize incompetence in a leader. But another thing he has come to mean to the world is a repository of a lot of relatively unknown knowledge. From revealing the shocking fact that North Koreans are carrying out kidnappings in the White House (scroll right to the bottom) to expressing his ability to collaborate and also kick ass in a deeply Freudian manner as,
to of course, his most famous revelation about the WMDs in the Eye Rack, George W Bush has been an important point for information dissemination. Through these eight years, George W Bush has pushed the bounds of reality in a way those godless scientists at the Large Hadron Collider (another suspiciously Freudian name) never could. He has boldly gone where no explorer of truth has gone before.
And so, his departure, I believed, would also have meant we would not be having an important source of factoids. I actually felt that in a handful of months the world would come to miss this genial Texas cowboy, having discovered that neither Obama nor McCain were halfway as informative as W. Who, I thought, would have the immense talent to replace the tremendous void that W would leave behind?
Mea culpa; I confess - I underestimated the power of the American nation, its limitless pool of talent, a pool that would ensure that we would never notice the loss of Bush. As darkness fell on the world as Bush's exit drew closer, a faint light shone in a less famous corner of America. A light, from the far reaches of Alaska, to give us a sign that all hope is not lost.
Sarah Palin.
When John "Bomb Iran" McCain announced the little-known Alaska Governor as his Vice Presidential candidate, many reasoned that it was a cynical ploy by the Arizona senator to get the bitter Hillary supporters and feminists on his side. Never mind the fact that he voted against equal pay for men and women, the fact that he had a woman as running mate would rally the Clinton people to him. While the jury is still out on whether that succeeded, I don't quite believe that was McCain's intention.
[Oh, and by the way, those who don't know how to pronounce Palin, it rhymes with "failin'"]
It could also have been to rally the Christian evangelist crowd, which were rather disappointed with McCain, and the choice of a anti-choice Creationist would win over the god botherers. But recent events have led me to believe that McCain is primarily looking to attract different section of the population - those who believe Bush did a "helluva job". And it is a sizable section indeed - 19% of Americans believe W did a good job. In a close election like this, 19% can make a "helluva" difference.
Palin has done the impossible - she has become as good a disseminator of information as W, if not better. For instance her famous assurance to the American people that her foreign policy credentials are strong because, she "can see Russia from my house". There have been uncharitable sarcastic comments in response such as "I can see stars from my house, so I'm an astronaut." What these sexists don't understand is that seeing stars from your house makes you an astronaut only if you put lipstick on a telescope and look through it.
Another example of Palin's aggressive ignorance would be her lack of knowledge of the Bush doctrine. Most would find it odd that the more popular person on the Republican ticket would have no idea what the Bush doctrine is, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Not allowing knowledge or the facts to distract him is one of the rare qualities that made Bush successful. Who knows, it may turn out to be a bonus for Palin too.
But what makes her truly extraordinary and puts her in the august company of GW Bush and Pratibha "I see ghosts" Patil, is her stance on Russia. When she declared that a war with Russia over the Georgia issue was a real possibility, many were horrified that Palin would speak so bluntly when she's not even elected, that too about a war with a nuclear weapons state. Sexism once again. What Sarah Palin's detractors don't realise is that while Russia is visible from her house, the Russian nukes are not. Easy mistake for a Russia watcher to make.
And then, in a very recent interview she dropped the bombshell (figuratively; she won't be literally dropping any bombshells before Jan 20th) that Putin is rearing his head and entering US airspace in Alaska.
There are reports that Putin, watching the interview choked on his vodka as he realised that he had been entering US airspace without even knowing it. Or maybe it had been his evil twin Sergei.
Palin has been in (inter)national limelight for around a month, yet the number of gaffes she's made and the valuable information she's spread is enough to encourage anyone but the jaded cynic that she would make a more than worthy successor to W as the world's Informer-in-Chief.
Come November 4, the election day, Americans will take the call on whether the Palin-McCain ticket will ascend to the White House on Jan 20th. So we come to the most important question: will Palin-McCain win? I'd say it's likely. The polls are quite close. Common sense, and what we call "anti-incumbency" would normally be enough to ensure that the party of Bush wouldn't have a icicle's hope in this election. But as Mark Twain said, no one ever went broke betting on the stupidity of the American electorate. The fatal mistake made by AIG, Lehman Bros etc was that they betted on the subprime market rather than the stupidity of their nation's electorate.
So keep your fingers crossed - McCain could still win this elections, bringing Sarah Dubya Palin a heartbeat away from the Presidency. The Bush show could very well go on.
[Image credits for the Putin photo: Boing Boing]
As the American election season draws to a close, the world will be looking towards January 20th, 2009, when George Dubya Bush's successor takes office. Depending on which side you tilt towards, that will be either John McBush III or Barack Saddam Hussein Obama bin Laden.[Interestingly, the only words Firefox thinks are wrong in the last sentence are "Barack" and "Obama"; I'm getting little red dotted underlines at those words. Looks like that's telling something about Mozilla's political leanings]
January 20th, will obviously also be the day "W" would finally cease being the leader of the free world and beacon of democracy. Unlike most of the world, I was inclined to see this as a not-so-good thing.
Now lest I be mistaken for those affectionately labeled as wingnuts or chickenhawks, I am not a fan of the Bush administration. Far from it. In the last eight years, Bush has come to symbolize incompetence in a leader. But another thing he has come to mean to the world is a repository of a lot of relatively unknown knowledge. From revealing the shocking fact that North Koreans are carrying out kidnappings in the White House (scroll right to the bottom) to expressing his ability to collaborate and also kick ass in a deeply Freudian manner as,
I can press when there needs to be pressed; I can hold hands when there needs to be -- hold hands.
to of course, his most famous revelation about the WMDs in the Eye Rack, George W Bush has been an important point for information dissemination. Through these eight years, George W Bush has pushed the bounds of reality in a way those godless scientists at the Large Hadron Collider (another suspiciously Freudian name) never could. He has boldly gone where no explorer of truth has gone before.
And so, his departure, I believed, would also have meant we would not be having an important source of factoids. I actually felt that in a handful of months the world would come to miss this genial Texas cowboy, having discovered that neither Obama nor McCain were halfway as informative as W. Who, I thought, would have the immense talent to replace the tremendous void that W would leave behind?
Mea culpa; I confess - I underestimated the power of the American nation, its limitless pool of talent, a pool that would ensure that we would never notice the loss of Bush. As darkness fell on the world as Bush's exit drew closer, a faint light shone in a less famous corner of America. A light, from the far reaches of Alaska, to give us a sign that all hope is not lost.
Sarah Palin.
When John "Bomb Iran" McCain announced the little-known Alaska Governor as his Vice Presidential candidate, many reasoned that it was a cynical ploy by the Arizona senator to get the bitter Hillary supporters and feminists on his side. Never mind the fact that he voted against equal pay for men and women, the fact that he had a woman as running mate would rally the Clinton people to him. While the jury is still out on whether that succeeded, I don't quite believe that was McCain's intention.
[Oh, and by the way, those who don't know how to pronounce Palin, it rhymes with "failin'"]
It could also have been to rally the Christian evangelist crowd, which were rather disappointed with McCain, and the choice of a anti-choice Creationist would win over the god botherers. But recent events have led me to believe that McCain is primarily looking to attract different section of the population - those who believe Bush did a "helluva job". And it is a sizable section indeed - 19% of Americans believe W did a good job. In a close election like this, 19% can make a "helluva" difference.
Palin has done the impossible - she has become as good a disseminator of information as W, if not better. For instance her famous assurance to the American people that her foreign policy credentials are strong because, she "can see Russia from my house". There have been uncharitable sarcastic comments in response such as "I can see stars from my house, so I'm an astronaut." What these sexists don't understand is that seeing stars from your house makes you an astronaut only if you put lipstick on a telescope and look through it.
Another example of Palin's aggressive ignorance would be her lack of knowledge of the Bush doctrine. Most would find it odd that the more popular person on the Republican ticket would have no idea what the Bush doctrine is, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Not allowing knowledge or the facts to distract him is one of the rare qualities that made Bush successful. Who knows, it may turn out to be a bonus for Palin too.
But what makes her truly extraordinary and puts her in the august company of GW Bush and Pratibha "I see ghosts" Patil, is her stance on Russia. When she declared that a war with Russia over the Georgia issue was a real possibility, many were horrified that Palin would speak so bluntly when she's not even elected, that too about a war with a nuclear weapons state. Sexism once again. What Sarah Palin's detractors don't realise is that while Russia is visible from her house, the Russian nukes are not. Easy mistake for a Russia watcher to make.
And then, in a very recent interview she dropped the bombshell (figuratively; she won't be literally dropping any bombshells before Jan 20th) that Putin is rearing his head and entering US airspace in Alaska.
There are reports that Putin, watching the interview choked on his vodka as he realised that he had been entering US airspace without even knowing it. Or maybe it had been his evil twin Sergei.
Palin has been in (inter)national limelight for around a month, yet the number of gaffes she's made and the valuable information she's spread is enough to encourage anyone but the jaded cynic that she would make a more than worthy successor to W as the world's Informer-in-Chief.
Come November 4, the election day, Americans will take the call on whether the Palin-McCain ticket will ascend to the White House on Jan 20th. So we come to the most important question: will Palin-McCain win? I'd say it's likely. The polls are quite close. Common sense, and what we call "anti-incumbency" would normally be enough to ensure that the party of Bush wouldn't have a icicle's hope in this election. But as Mark Twain said, no one ever went broke betting on the stupidity of the American electorate. The fatal mistake made by AIG, Lehman Bros etc was that they betted on the subprime market rather than the stupidity of their nation's electorate.
So keep your fingers crossed - McCain could still win this elections, bringing Sarah Dubya Palin a heartbeat away from the Presidency. The Bush show could very well go on.
[Image credits for the Putin photo: Boing Boing]
Sunday, 24 August 2008
Imperial India
"Madness is like gravity, all it takes is a little push"
- Joker, in the movie The Dark Knight
Indeed, all it's taken for madness to be unleashed in J&K was nothing more than a little push. The act of giving 40 hectares of land for temporary use was going to cause demographic change. Jammu protested, and then Kashmiris tried to go to Muzaffarabad to sell their wares.
And in all this, bleeding hearts have come out of the woodwork arguing for "azadi". Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar is one of these bleeding hearts who believes that India is doing to Kashmir what "Great" Britain did to India.
Indian "intellectuals" have got to be the most masochistic people on the planet. They hardly lose any opportunity to indulge in self-flagellation. Unfortunately, many Indians do not know the facts of the Kashmir issue, and Aiyar being a "respected" Sunday columnist, is being taken seriously by people. Let's have a look at his claims.
As a liberal, i dislike ruling people against their will.
There are a lot of people who do not wish be ruled by the govt of India. I too am one of them. I don't see why I should pay taxes for money that ends up being exchanged to buy votes in a confidence motion. And a lot of other people would agree. If we get together, can we ask for independence from India as well?
The politically correct story of the maharaja's accession ignores a devastating parallel event. Just as Kashmir had a Hindu maharaja ruling over a Muslim majority, Junagadh had a Muslim nawab ruling over a Hindu majority. The Hindu maharaja acceded to India, and the Muslim nawab to Pakistan.
Well, Aiyar too ignores a very potent fact about both Junagadh and Kashmir. It is true that the Nawab of Junagadh chose Pakistan. However, two states under his suzeraintity, Mangrol and Babariawad, acceeded to India. Junagadh attacked them, thereby attacking India. India had all the right in the world to intervene. Even after that, India agreed to a plebiscite which was almost unanimously in favor of accession to India.
Coming to Kashmir, India was not against a plebiscite. It is a common propaganda by Pakistan and the liberals that we were. But a plebiscite has pre-requisites, like everything else. The pre-requisites were specified in UN Security Council Resoution 47 [full text here] and and the very first was that Pakistan would withdraw its military from all of J&K, and the Pathan tribesmen (who had invaded Kashmir to begin with and caused Hari Singh's accession to India) and remove all non-Kashmiris from J&K.
Pakistan neither did nor committed to, any of these. So when the UN-prescribed conditions for a plebiscite have not been met, how is it hypocritical to not go for a plebiscite?
Even India's entry into Kashmir wasn't a forced one, unlike the British entry into India. India did not invade a sovereign territory, the forces moved in after Hari Singh acceeded to India. The Pathans invaded Kashmir on 22 Oct 1947 and were well on their way to Srinagar. Hari Singh asked the Indian govt to intervene. But India could not legally do so unless Kashmir acceeded to India. He did that, and that's when India came in.
UN Resolution 47 clearly clubbed the Pakistan and the Pathan "tribesmen" recognizing that Pakistan was behind the Pathan invaders. So the accession of Kashmir to India was due to the invasion precipitated by Pakistan. How is this in any way similar to what the British did?
In these 60 years, we've had that bugbear of the Right called Article 370, which among other things forbids non-Kashmiris from buying land there. The vice versa is not forbidden. This is in direct contradiction to every occupied territory in history, whether it's Tibet, British India or, indeed, "Azad" Kashmir. Occupying powers, like China in Tibet, try to change demographics, which is something India hasn't done. How is this reminiscent to British rule except in deluded fantasy?
Let me not exaggerate. Indian rule in Kashmir is not classical colonialism. India has pumped vast sums into Kashmir, not extracted revenue as the Raj did. Kashmir was among the poorest states during the Raj, but now has the lowest poverty rate in India. It enjoys wide civil rights that the Raj never gave. Some elections — 1977, 1983 and 2002 — were perfectly fair.
Well, at least at the end of an article consisting of nothing but hideous exaggeration and self-flagellation, Aiyar has the good sense to inject some perspective. Yet masochistic tendencies can't be resisted for long, evidently. That's why Indian rule is not "classical" colonialism, whatever that means.
In the end, he roots for that eternal chimera: plebiscite. A plebiscite was possible in 1948, and if Pakistan had played along things would probably have been different. But plebiscite is not an indefinitely valid promise - after generations have passed, after Pakistan has altered the demographics of PoK, after the Kashmiri Pandits have been hounded out and Aksai Chin gifted to China, there is no more plebiscite possible.
Yet, the Aiyars of the world continue to mislead people into self-flagellation. Talking about the British Raj is an emotional ploy guaranteed to succeed in sending most Indians into a catharsis of shame, and it works because most Indians haven't read Resolution 47. We're lucky intellectuals like these weren't in power during Bhindranwale's revolt, else Punjab would have been a different country by now.
The Cult of Self-Pity
In the wake of the Amarnath agitation, a lot of people have raised supposedly poignant questions about India's democracy and commitment to secularism. Many of them belong to the Arundhati Roy category of leftist "intellectuals" who have a soft corner for anything Pakistani.
So it comes as a surprise (at least to me) when Shabana Azmi joins the brigade blasting Indian secularism in this interview with Karan Thapar. [Full interview here]
Now I'm not a great fan of secularism as practiced in India, but no matter how screwed-up it is, I don't see how it is against Muslims.
Credit where it is due. Azmi is without doubt the most intelligent and sensible Muslim voice in the media. I'd say Azmi is a far better Indian than all the gung-ho media patriots to whom Indian-ness is synonymous with saffron. She's not a puppet of the Mullahs. But the favorite hobby of the Mullahs - self-pity - isn't something she's entirely immune to.
It is her view, that Indian Muslims aren't treated well because - hold your breath,
Now that's interesting, because she apparently owns four houses in Juhu and a house in Khandala. She was rejected one flat somewhere and she concluded it was because she was Muslim? What about the other four houses she bought - why hasn't she mentioned them, is it because it's not ideologically convenient to do so?
[Times of India carried out a survey to verify Azmi's claims and this is what they found]
But let's get beyond whether Azmi's claims are true or not and look at whether they would be valid even if true, because even the Sachar report mentions that Muslims don't easily get flats on rent. There are many perfectly valid reasons why flats are denied. I have rented a flat; I know.
My ex-landlord rented us the flat on condition that we wouldn't cook or eat non-veg in the house. That being the case, it is easily imaginable that he would deny anyone who he knew would have to eat non-veg at home. Even many house owners who don't mind non-veg would mind beef, and therefore deny the house. Such people have no real problem with the tenants being Muslim as they do with the fact that it means beef might be eaten in the house.
Such concerns are not unjustified. It's the landlord who owns the house and it is his choice of parameters that should prevail. He's not committing a crime by denying the house. If tomorrow a Muslim denies me a house because I enjoy mocking Mohammad and Allah, it would be entirely justified. And bear in mind, those who say idol-worship is a sin and idols are false gods are doing the very same to the Hindus - another valid reason for denying a house.
But this house comment was probably the weakest link in her interview, and picking on it isn't really nice. So let's move on to another gem from the interview.
This is where things get really murky. Azmi believes Indian politics has been unfair to the Indian Muslim. I really wonder where that comes from. Which Indian politician or party is actually against Muslims getting an education or getting jobs? Forget the INC and Left, even the BJP doesn't oppose it - all they oppose is reservations.
Muslim bodies do not want a Uniform Civil Code, and so it has become a touchstone of Indian secularism that UCC is not secular. The whole definition of secularism has been twisted by the politicians and the media to suit the Muslims. This doesn't seem to be unfair to the Muslims.
Salman Rushdie's book was banned in India because it "hurt Muslim sentiments." Taslima Nasrin was disgraced and not-so-subtly forced to leave the country by the government. (Interestingly, MF Husain's paintings weren't banned). I don't support the shutting up of Rushdie, Nasrin or MFH, but its too glaring that Rushdie and Nasrin were both hounded out by the govt to please Muslims while MFH was not, and again that is not unfair to Muslims either.
In Shah Bano's case Rajiv Gandhi got the law changed to please Muslims, and again that is not unfair Muslims either.
And in the most recent Amarnath controversy, we had 40 hectares of land denied for temporary structures because a demographic change would take place there. I leave you to figure out what the demographic change is, but it doesn't seem to be unfair to Muslims either. But when the VHP talks of demographic change elsewhere in India, our secular intelligentsia and media are quick to pounce upon them.
So where and how exactly is politics being unfair to Muslims? All these indicate simply that what Muslims demand, the govt does. The last thing you can cry about this is that it is being "unfair".
The only exception is Gujarat and Babri Masjid. Heinous as they are, the fact that the culprits are not brought to book is simply because you can't touch politicians of any party in India. This fact, at least, is independent of Muslims and Hindus.
Yes, it is true that Muslims are under-represented. But as the recent movie Aamir asks, who has stopped them from doing anything? Which jobs are Muslims by law unqualified to apply for?
But Azmi does hit the nail on the head finally
That's the whole point. Azmi needs to ask why is it that the fundamentalists, and not people like her, are seen as the leaders. Better still, why are there any leaders on a community level at all. There are no leaders of the community for Hinduism, Sikhism or Christianity, who enjoy any amount of comparable clout. The afro-haired Sai Baba is an exception, but he has as many detractors among Hindus as followers. No one sees him as a spokesman of Hindus.
Yes, its true that Muslims need to stop seeing themselves, and the whole world, through the religious prism. There is no worldwide conspiracy against Muslims. People are too busy getting their work done and making money to have an agenda of exterminating Muslims. Even Narendra Modi, after the 2002 riots, has focussed more on development than religion, because he realises that religious hatred won't keep him in power forever.
George Bush, Narendra Modi, LK Advani and Ali Sina are not the biggest enemies of Muslims. Self-pity is.
So it comes as a surprise (at least to me) when Shabana Azmi joins the brigade blasting Indian secularism in this interview with Karan Thapar. [Full interview here]
Now I'm not a great fan of secularism as practiced in India, but no matter how screwed-up it is, I don't see how it is against Muslims.
Credit where it is due. Azmi is without doubt the most intelligent and sensible Muslim voice in the media. I'd say Azmi is a far better Indian than all the gung-ho media patriots to whom Indian-ness is synonymous with saffron. She's not a puppet of the Mullahs. But the favorite hobby of the Mullahs - self-pity - isn't something she's entirely immune to.
It is her view, that Indian Muslims aren't treated well because - hold your breath,
I can’t get a house in Mumbai. I wanted to buy a flat and it wasn’t given to me because I am a Muslim.
Now that's interesting, because she apparently owns four houses in Juhu and a house in Khandala. She was rejected one flat somewhere and she concluded it was because she was Muslim? What about the other four houses she bought - why hasn't she mentioned them, is it because it's not ideologically convenient to do so?
[Times of India carried out a survey to verify Azmi's claims and this is what they found]
But let's get beyond whether Azmi's claims are true or not and look at whether they would be valid even if true, because even the Sachar report mentions that Muslims don't easily get flats on rent. There are many perfectly valid reasons why flats are denied. I have rented a flat; I know.
My ex-landlord rented us the flat on condition that we wouldn't cook or eat non-veg in the house. That being the case, it is easily imaginable that he would deny anyone who he knew would have to eat non-veg at home. Even many house owners who don't mind non-veg would mind beef, and therefore deny the house. Such people have no real problem with the tenants being Muslim as they do with the fact that it means beef might be eaten in the house.
Such concerns are not unjustified. It's the landlord who owns the house and it is his choice of parameters that should prevail. He's not committing a crime by denying the house. If tomorrow a Muslim denies me a house because I enjoy mocking Mohammad and Allah, it would be entirely justified. And bear in mind, those who say idol-worship is a sin and idols are false gods are doing the very same to the Hindus - another valid reason for denying a house.
But this house comment was probably the weakest link in her interview, and picking on it isn't really nice. So let's move on to another gem from the interview.
Karan Thapar: Shabana Azmi, I want to ask you a critical question as a former MP. Let’s talk a little bit more focussed about Indian Muslims. They are amongst the poorest, least educated and worst represented communities in India. Has Indian politics been unfair to the Indian Muslim?
Shabana Azmi: (After a thoughtful pause) Yes.
This is where things get really murky. Azmi believes Indian politics has been unfair to the Indian Muslim. I really wonder where that comes from. Which Indian politician or party is actually against Muslims getting an education or getting jobs? Forget the INC and Left, even the BJP doesn't oppose it - all they oppose is reservations.
Muslim bodies do not want a Uniform Civil Code, and so it has become a touchstone of Indian secularism that UCC is not secular. The whole definition of secularism has been twisted by the politicians and the media to suit the Muslims. This doesn't seem to be unfair to the Muslims.
Salman Rushdie's book was banned in India because it "hurt Muslim sentiments." Taslima Nasrin was disgraced and not-so-subtly forced to leave the country by the government. (Interestingly, MF Husain's paintings weren't banned). I don't support the shutting up of Rushdie, Nasrin or MFH, but its too glaring that Rushdie and Nasrin were both hounded out by the govt to please Muslims while MFH was not, and again that is not unfair to Muslims either.
In Shah Bano's case Rajiv Gandhi got the law changed to please Muslims, and again that is not unfair Muslims either.
And in the most recent Amarnath controversy, we had 40 hectares of land denied for temporary structures because a demographic change would take place there. I leave you to figure out what the demographic change is, but it doesn't seem to be unfair to Muslims either. But when the VHP talks of demographic change elsewhere in India, our secular intelligentsia and media are quick to pounce upon them.
So where and how exactly is politics being unfair to Muslims? All these indicate simply that what Muslims demand, the govt does. The last thing you can cry about this is that it is being "unfair".
The only exception is Gujarat and Babri Masjid. Heinous as they are, the fact that the culprits are not brought to book is simply because you can't touch politicians of any party in India. This fact, at least, is independent of Muslims and Hindus.
Yes, it is true that Muslims are under-represented. But as the recent movie Aamir asks, who has stopped them from doing anything? Which jobs are Muslims by law unqualified to apply for?
But Azmi does hit the nail on the head finally
Karan Thapar: But they do not get it because the politician do not think of that?
Shabana Azmi: Yes, that and the fact that the community is allowing itself to listen to the fundamentalists, who are not actually their leaders.
That's the whole point. Azmi needs to ask why is it that the fundamentalists, and not people like her, are seen as the leaders. Better still, why are there any leaders on a community level at all. There are no leaders of the community for Hinduism, Sikhism or Christianity, who enjoy any amount of comparable clout. The afro-haired Sai Baba is an exception, but he has as many detractors among Hindus as followers. No one sees him as a spokesman of Hindus.
Yes, its true that Muslims need to stop seeing themselves, and the whole world, through the religious prism. There is no worldwide conspiracy against Muslims. People are too busy getting their work done and making money to have an agenda of exterminating Muslims. Even Narendra Modi, after the 2002 riots, has focussed more on development than religion, because he realises that religious hatred won't keep him in power forever.
George Bush, Narendra Modi, LK Advani and Ali Sina are not the biggest enemies of Muslims. Self-pity is.
Saturday, 21 June 2008
World record browsers: lessons for Opera
[This post is less about software than it is about the business and appeal of software]
Firefox, the world's second most popular browser, released its third avatar this week, and decided to have some pizzazz to go along with it. The world record (for the
maximum number of software downloads in 24 hours) was bound to be achieved, since the record had never been set before. But Mozilla (the makers of the browser) more than achieved their target figure of 5 million, in just around half the time. They eventually hovered around 8 million by the end of the 24 hour deadline.
Of course, the fact that Adobe Flash player accounts for 12 million downloads per day does make it that record a little less unprecedented. But the fact that a browser that was largely unknown just four years back is now posing a legitimate challenge to Big Brother's (you know who that is) bloated browser, is indeed impressive.
Predictably though, Firefox's attempt at the world record did peeve a lot of Opera fans. This is truly the dark horse of the browser wars. I'm regarded by many as an unabashed Firefox fan, and I do earn the label by virtue of the fact that I was motivating many friends to help set the record. Yet the one thing I do agree is
that Opera has indeed been an extremely impressive browser.
Simply put, most of the innovations you see that have changed browsing in the last 8 years or so, were Opera inventions. Tabbed browsing, for which a lot of people wrongly give credit to Firefox, were introduced by Opera in 2000. Firefox got it only in 2001. Of course, Big Brother introduced them only in 2006 (which was its first browser version since 2001) and had the temerity to pretend like it was their idea. Adding the search bar at the top of the browser, in the toolbar, was an Opera idea. It was also the first browser to block pop-up ads, again something that Firefox gets credit for inventing.
Even today, Opera offers inbuilt features that leave Firefox way behind. For example, a torrent download client. An ability to save sessions, which is something even Firefox 3 does not have.
The truth is, Firefox never invented many of the features that they are praised for, they just popularized them. And that, for many in the Opera community believe that Firefox has simply been playing catch-up and perhaps even stealing Opera's thunder. On most forums, a praise of Firefox is guaranteed to generate at least one comment on Opera's superiority.
The trouble is that a lot of this bitterness is unjustified. Though Opera and Firefox are two good browsers, browser choice is quite personal and not everyone might like Opera or Firefox. I'd say that Firefox has been a godsend for Opera. After the demise of Netscape, Firefox was the first browser to give any serious competition to Big Brother. Without Firefox, Big Brother would have virtually owned the internet and filled it with proprietary code. With its well-earned reputation of being a shark, Big Brother would have either bought out or stomped all over Opera.
Firefox has done a favor to not only its own users and Opera's who need to thank the makers of the browser, but also the users of Big Brother's bloated browser. Without Firefox, that browser would never have innovated. Even though it is abomination of a browser, at least its users have something more advanced than a stone-age non-tabbed browser.
Like I said, browser choice is quite personal. Yet, there has to be a reason why the same features didn't get Opera landslides of users while they did for Firefox. Why did Firefox become more successful despite being the less innovative browser?
The answer, in my view, is usability, simplicity and customisability. Firefox has long been the browser with the largest add-on or extension community. You can probably get a Firefox extension that will make you a sandwich. Now a lot of Opera users speak out at this and say most of Firefox's extensions, and then some, are already available in Opera. Does Firefox have a torrent downloader, they ask.
And that is exactly where Opera lost the plot.
Most people browsing on the net aren't really interested in all the extra features you have. For example, the torrent client. I certainly do use torrents to download Linux distros and would need a torrent client, but most people I know wouldn't know what a torrent was, let alone wanting a client. And even though I want a client, I wouldn't consider it a significant bonus to have it in my browser. It's not too much work for me to go download a dedicated client like Azureus which gives me more control and more info about my torrents than Opera. Certainly, the fact that Opera features a torrent client would hardly be a consideration for me to download it.
Another add-on in Firefox is the stupendously popular (among web designers) Firebug. I use it quite regularly, and I think its the best add-on I've ever used. In fact, its one of the finest pieces of software anywhere that I've used. But would I be very thrilled if they included Firebug in Firefox 4 by default? Nope. Because again, it doesn't take much to install it anyway. Yet, this is exactly what Opera have done in their latest version 9.5. They've added a new feature called Dragonfly which looks pretty similar to Firebug. And that is one of their biggest mistakes.
Why? For the same reason that RGV Ki Aag was a mistake. When you try to imitate a legend, a cult, you better have something that is at least 95% as good as the original if you want to just avoid the brickbats. Dragonfly is not as bad as Aag, but it doesn't have one of the most important capabilities that made Firebug a legend: CSS editing. To boot, its also clunkier to use. Result? People are going to compare it with Firebug, and since it doesn't come up to scratch, they're going to trash it anyway.
Will features like Dragonfly help Opera? I think not. Because most users aren't interested in things like Dragonfly/Firebug, and those who are, would not mind downloading a specialized and possibly better add-on. This is true for most of the extra features that exist in Opera but not in Firefox. People don't really mind downloading an add-on - if anything, it gives them a feeling of control and makes them feel like its their personal browser.
So what has Firefox done right? Most of the things that matter to users, in my view. A very important attribuete for a browser is to have a look consistent with the OS. Though no one can look entirely like Big Brother's browser, I've found that Firefox adopts the look of its environment to quite a large extent. Opera, though, has an entirely unique look and feel. The dialog boxes, the menus, all look entirely different from the OS you use. It's beyond just the looks - its also in the the interaction with the user.
Back when Big Brother was not so big, and was actually lagging in the spreadsheet market behind Lotus 1-2-3, they made a decision that would be one of their best designs decisions at that time. Senior people at Big Inc. were not impressed by the "battleship style" A1, B1, C3 notations of Lotus 1-2-3. They preferred the L1C1 format. They finally decided to include the A1, B1 naming and have L1C1 format as an option. The result? People using Lotus 1-2-3 did not find it hard to migrate to Big Inc's spreadsheet. By not making it harder for Lotus users to make a shift, Big Inc. just increased their chances of breaking the stranglehold of 1-2-3.
There is a lesson for Opera in this - it's not the features that are paramount. It is how you allow users to access those features. If you want to open a link in a new tab, Shift-Click is no less illogical than Ctrl-Click. But Ctrl-Click has become the de facto standard today. Like it or not, that is the fact. It's like, in India, people drive on the left side of the road, and so buy right-hand drive cars. There is nothing more logical about right-hand drives than there is about left-hand drives, but if someone introduces a left-hand drive in India, it won't do as well as a right-hand drive.
A very good example of where Opera (and all other browsers, including Mr Big's) lost out is the humble Find, or Ctrl-F.
This is how Opera reacts when you try to find some text.
See? You need to type the whole search word, in this case "Lenovo". There may be no word starting with "Len" in the whole page, but you wouldn't know unless you typed the whole search word, clicked "Find" and were told it doesn't exist.
Now this is how Firefox deals with it.
You fire Ctrl-F, and a bar appears at the bottom for you to type the search word. It searches as you type. So if there is no word starting with "Len" in the page, you won't need to waste your time typing the whole word. The browser will inform you immediately that there is no such word.
As one commenter on a site said, Ctrl-F alone is enough to put paid to all claims by Mr Big and Opera. That's exaggeration, but it has a point. The thing most users require won't be torrent downloaders or Dragonflies. What they need is instant accessibility to your features. This functonality alone goes a long way to show that Opera have faltered in trying to be a technically centred browser while entirely ignoring the ease of use. Incidentally, this is also the mistake Linux distros have made, a mistake that distros like Ubuntu are slowly trying to correct.
All that I've said may look like small niggles, not major problems. But I feel it is these small problems that hold Opera back.
Firefox understood this. They mimick the OS look - their latest versions go one step further and customise themselves to look very much like a "native" app. They also try to mimick the shortcuts and the interface of Big Brother's browser. And yet in that, they end up providing most of the features that even though Opera provided earlier, could not effectively use to pump up its popularity. Which is why Firefox introduces features later but makes it easier to use them.
I'm considered a Firefox fan, but I do wish for Opera to understand this and do really well. Because the last thing I want is for Firefox developers to sit on their laurels. Big Brother provides a very pathetic browser that millions use only because it is bundled with their equally bloated and slow OS. Big Bro is indeed the biggest and most fierce opponent to Firefox. But it is Opera that blazes the trail for all others to follow.
Without Firefox, the internet would be in Big Brother's clutches, in other words, dead. Without Opera, innovation would certainly slow down. Just as Firefox's success benefited Big Bro's users, Opera's success too is important for Firefox users.
Firefox, the world's second most popular browser, released its third avatar this week, and decided to have some pizzazz to go along with it. The world record (for the
maximum number of software downloads in 24 hours) was bound to be achieved, since the record had never been set before. But Mozilla (the makers of the browser) more than achieved their target figure of 5 million, in just around half the time. They eventually hovered around 8 million by the end of the 24 hour deadline.Of course, the fact that Adobe Flash player accounts for 12 million downloads per day does make it that record a little less unprecedented. But the fact that a browser that was largely unknown just four years back is now posing a legitimate challenge to Big Brother's (you know who that is) bloated browser, is indeed impressive.
Predictably though, Firefox's attempt at the world record did peeve a lot of Opera fans. This is truly the dark horse of the browser wars. I'm regarded by many as an unabashed Firefox fan, and I do earn the label by virtue of the fact that I was motivating many friends to help set the record. Yet the one thing I do agree is
that Opera has indeed been an extremely impressive browser.Simply put, most of the innovations you see that have changed browsing in the last 8 years or so, were Opera inventions. Tabbed browsing, for which a lot of people wrongly give credit to Firefox, were introduced by Opera in 2000. Firefox got it only in 2001. Of course, Big Brother introduced them only in 2006 (which was its first browser version since 2001) and had the temerity to pretend like it was their idea. Adding the search bar at the top of the browser, in the toolbar, was an Opera idea. It was also the first browser to block pop-up ads, again something that Firefox gets credit for inventing.
Even today, Opera offers inbuilt features that leave Firefox way behind. For example, a torrent download client. An ability to save sessions, which is something even Firefox 3 does not have.
The truth is, Firefox never invented many of the features that they are praised for, they just popularized them. And that, for many in the Opera community believe that Firefox has simply been playing catch-up and perhaps even stealing Opera's thunder. On most forums, a praise of Firefox is guaranteed to generate at least one comment on Opera's superiority.
The trouble is that a lot of this bitterness is unjustified. Though Opera and Firefox are two good browsers, browser choice is quite personal and not everyone might like Opera or Firefox. I'd say that Firefox has been a godsend for Opera. After the demise of Netscape, Firefox was the first browser to give any serious competition to Big Brother. Without Firefox, Big Brother would have virtually owned the internet and filled it with proprietary code. With its well-earned reputation of being a shark, Big Brother would have either bought out or stomped all over Opera.
Firefox has done a favor to not only its own users and Opera's who need to thank the makers of the browser, but also the users of Big Brother's bloated browser. Without Firefox, that browser would never have innovated. Even though it is abomination of a browser, at least its users have something more advanced than a stone-age non-tabbed browser.
Like I said, browser choice is quite personal. Yet, there has to be a reason why the same features didn't get Opera landslides of users while they did for Firefox. Why did Firefox become more successful despite being the less innovative browser?
The answer, in my view, is usability, simplicity and customisability. Firefox has long been the browser with the largest add-on or extension community. You can probably get a Firefox extension that will make you a sandwich. Now a lot of Opera users speak out at this and say most of Firefox's extensions, and then some, are already available in Opera. Does Firefox have a torrent downloader, they ask.
And that is exactly where Opera lost the plot.
Most people browsing on the net aren't really interested in all the extra features you have. For example, the torrent client. I certainly do use torrents to download Linux distros and would need a torrent client, but most people I know wouldn't know what a torrent was, let alone wanting a client. And even though I want a client, I wouldn't consider it a significant bonus to have it in my browser. It's not too much work for me to go download a dedicated client like Azureus which gives me more control and more info about my torrents than Opera. Certainly, the fact that Opera features a torrent client would hardly be a consideration for me to download it.
Another add-on in Firefox is the stupendously popular (among web designers) Firebug. I use it quite regularly, and I think its the best add-on I've ever used. In fact, its one of the finest pieces of software anywhere that I've used. But would I be very thrilled if they included Firebug in Firefox 4 by default? Nope. Because again, it doesn't take much to install it anyway. Yet, this is exactly what Opera have done in their latest version 9.5. They've added a new feature called Dragonfly which looks pretty similar to Firebug. And that is one of their biggest mistakes.
Why? For the same reason that RGV Ki Aag was a mistake. When you try to imitate a legend, a cult, you better have something that is at least 95% as good as the original if you want to just avoid the brickbats. Dragonfly is not as bad as Aag, but it doesn't have one of the most important capabilities that made Firebug a legend: CSS editing. To boot, its also clunkier to use. Result? People are going to compare it with Firebug, and since it doesn't come up to scratch, they're going to trash it anyway.
Will features like Dragonfly help Opera? I think not. Because most users aren't interested in things like Dragonfly/Firebug, and those who are, would not mind downloading a specialized and possibly better add-on. This is true for most of the extra features that exist in Opera but not in Firefox. People don't really mind downloading an add-on - if anything, it gives them a feeling of control and makes them feel like its their personal browser.
So what has Firefox done right? Most of the things that matter to users, in my view. A very important attribuete for a browser is to have a look consistent with the OS. Though no one can look entirely like Big Brother's browser, I've found that Firefox adopts the look of its environment to quite a large extent. Opera, though, has an entirely unique look and feel. The dialog boxes, the menus, all look entirely different from the OS you use. It's beyond just the looks - its also in the the interaction with the user.
Back when Big Brother was not so big, and was actually lagging in the spreadsheet market behind Lotus 1-2-3, they made a decision that would be one of their best designs decisions at that time. Senior people at Big Inc. were not impressed by the "battleship style" A1, B1, C3 notations of Lotus 1-2-3. They preferred the L1C1 format. They finally decided to include the A1, B1 naming and have L1C1 format as an option. The result? People using Lotus 1-2-3 did not find it hard to migrate to Big Inc's spreadsheet. By not making it harder for Lotus users to make a shift, Big Inc. just increased their chances of breaking the stranglehold of 1-2-3.
There is a lesson for Opera in this - it's not the features that are paramount. It is how you allow users to access those features. If you want to open a link in a new tab, Shift-Click is no less illogical than Ctrl-Click. But Ctrl-Click has become the de facto standard today. Like it or not, that is the fact. It's like, in India, people drive on the left side of the road, and so buy right-hand drive cars. There is nothing more logical about right-hand drives than there is about left-hand drives, but if someone introduces a left-hand drive in India, it won't do as well as a right-hand drive.
A very good example of where Opera (and all other browsers, including Mr Big's) lost out is the humble Find, or Ctrl-F.
This is how Opera reacts when you try to find some text.See? You need to type the whole search word, in this case "Lenovo". There may be no word starting with "Len" in the whole page, but you wouldn't know unless you typed the whole search word, clicked "Find" and were told it doesn't exist.
Now this is how Firefox deals with it.
You fire Ctrl-F, and a bar appears at the bottom for you to type the search word. It searches as you type. So if there is no word starting with "Len" in the page, you won't need to waste your time typing the whole word. The browser will inform you immediately that there is no such word.
As one commenter on a site said, Ctrl-F alone is enough to put paid to all claims by Mr Big and Opera. That's exaggeration, but it has a point. The thing most users require won't be torrent downloaders or Dragonflies. What they need is instant accessibility to your features. This functonality alone goes a long way to show that Opera have faltered in trying to be a technically centred browser while entirely ignoring the ease of use. Incidentally, this is also the mistake Linux distros have made, a mistake that distros like Ubuntu are slowly trying to correct.
All that I've said may look like small niggles, not major problems. But I feel it is these small problems that hold Opera back.
Firefox understood this. They mimick the OS look - their latest versions go one step further and customise themselves to look very much like a "native" app. They also try to mimick the shortcuts and the interface of Big Brother's browser. And yet in that, they end up providing most of the features that even though Opera provided earlier, could not effectively use to pump up its popularity. Which is why Firefox introduces features later but makes it easier to use them.
I'm considered a Firefox fan, but I do wish for Opera to understand this and do really well. Because the last thing I want is for Firefox developers to sit on their laurels. Big Brother provides a very pathetic browser that millions use only because it is bundled with their equally bloated and slow OS. Big Bro is indeed the biggest and most fierce opponent to Firefox. But it is Opera that blazes the trail for all others to follow.
Without Firefox, the internet would be in Big Brother's clutches, in other words, dead. Without Opera, innovation would certainly slow down. Just as Firefox's success benefited Big Bro's users, Opera's success too is important for Firefox users.
Sunday, 15 June 2008
Sarvatra Izzat-O-Iqbal
Warning: Long Post
I recently got a forwarded article by Admiral (retd) Arun Prakash, on the 6th Pay Commission and the raw deal it gives to the forces. Arun Prakash was the Chief of the Navy from July 2004 to Oct 2006. I felt the article quite sincere and well-presented.
This is the content of the letter.
The country-wide demonstrations by ex-Servicemen (ESM) on 26th April and 7th May 08 to protest against the 6th Pay Commission report, were, by all accounts, conducted in a dignified and orderly manner; and that is exactly how it should have been. Now one hears some talk of a "hunger strike" by ESM, but it is my fervent hope that this will not come to pass.
I have a nagging feeling that by these uncharacteristic and extraordinary gestures we, the ESM, have diminished ourselves in the eyes of our countrymen. One can just visualize people who have never had the privilege of wearing uniform or of serving the nation's tricolour, smugly saying to themselves: "We always knew that their attitude of soldierly discipline and fortitude was only a facade. Deep down they are just like any of us."
I am aware that these remark are likely to upset many of our Veterans who, despite advancing years, are going to great lengths to make a dramatic gesture on behalf of their comrades-in- arms. To them, let me just say that my criticism is directed, not so much at their actions, As at the insensitive and callous system which has driven them, in Extremis, to such an unfortunate step.
An Ungrateful Nation?
In civilized nations the world over, the soldier, sailor and airman –and more so the Veteran – is an object of spontaneous respect, affection, admiration and the highest public esteem. These sentiments are made manifest by the people and the government of a grateful nation, in countless ways, in thought word and deed. There are monuments celebrating victories, statues of military heroes, war memorials for those who fell on the field of battle, avenues and squares named after soldiers and concessions for Servicemen in every sphere. Above all, Servicemen receive warm respect, affection and consideration from the general public as well as the media. None of this exists in India today.
I have no doubt whatsoever, that in cities like London, Paris, Washington or Moscow the dismal spectacle of Veterans reduced to "demonstrating" in public to ask for their dues, would have wrought agony in their countrymen. The citizens of New Delhi, God bless them, chose to ignore this "cry from the heart" of old warriors. The media, otherwise so intrusive and inquisitive, and so proud of their "independence" almost completely blacked out this significant gesture by the Veterans. The one TV channel which planned to air a related programme chickened out at the last minute. We can only speculate about the reasons for the media's sudden coyness.
From Major Som Nath Sharma who died fighting the Pakistani tribals in Badgam in 1947, to Captain Vikram Batra who laid down his life in the icy wastes of Kargil in 1999 there is a long Roll of Honour which lists the heroes and battle-casualties of the Indian Armed Forces. Just reading about their exploits of valour and self-sacrifice is enough to give one goose pimples. It is the inspiration provided by such brave men which motivates our Armed Forces to great heights of dedication and commitment to the motherland. But does anyone else in the country remember their sacrifice? Or care?
Not even a decade has passed since Tiger Hill and Tololing were won back by our soldiers in the face of intense enemy opposition at a horrific cost in lives. But our citizens do not have the time to even light a candle in memory of those who fell in Kargil, or a hundred other battles, because their adulation seems to be reserved exclusively for cricketers, cine stars and politicians. One often wonders if patriotic young soldiers should be shedding blood for the safety and well being of a society as ungrateful as ours?
"Izzat-O-Iqbal" ?
Let us not be fooled by the razzmatazz that economists are feeding us about India's 9% GDP growth, or get carried away by the fabulous salaries offered by MNCs to young IIT and IIM graduates. As Indians, let us instead firmly bear in mind that 400-500 million of our brothers and sisters still survive on less than 40 rupees a day. I personally think that within the means available to the nation, the Armed Forces, and most of the ESM are paid enough. I say this without prejudice to the perfectly justified protest of the Armed Forces against the insidious manner in which the IAS has been steadily propelling itself upward to their detriment.
Really, it is not the money that bothers us. What the Serviceman and the Veteran find inexplicable and galling is something altogether different. They wonder why there has been a steady and continuing erosion in the soldier's position and status in society while the responsibilities, hardships and hazards of soldiering have grown over the years.
Apart from their crucial role in defending the nation against every threat and calamity, the Armed Forces are making a vital contribution to the country's social fabric. It is they who have promoted the ideals of integrity, discipline, professionalism and excellence, sadly lacking in every other walk of life. In the midst of prevailing chaos, the Armed Forces have remained an embodiment of order and discipline, and have faithfully upheld India's secular and democratic traditions. There just isn't any group, organization or set of individuals which has sustained the integrity, security and stability of the Indian state, with the steadfastness and loyalty demonstrated by the Indian Armed Forces.
Is it then surprising if the Soldier agonizes over the fact that in spite of his huge contribution to the nation, his Izzat has been Deliberately denuded by vested interests, and Iqbal denied to him by His countrymen?
I do not claim to have answers to the Soldier's dilemma, but I think that the issues involved have assumed such importance that they need to be examined in some depth. Let me place before the reader, four factors which I think have contributed to the steady and ongoing erosion of the soldier's image, and the degradation of his status in Indian society, with consequential effects.
Political Antipathy
Mahatma Gandhi's firm adherence to the noble principle of non-violence throughout India's independence struggle has no parallel in history. He was a great man with profound values, but misinterpretation of his unique vision led to the emergence of two surreal perceptions amongst India's political leadership.
For one they were convinced that since a non-violent India would have No enemies, the armed forces would become redundant after independence. Their second conviction was that the Indian Army was a mercenary force which had been used as a tool by the British to suppress the freedom movement, and deserved to be shown its place. They were utterly wrong on both counts, and such myths need to be demolished, because a man in uniform can today sense the cognitive lack of empathy, if not antipathy, to his cause in the in the political establishment of all shades.
Major General KM Cariappa (later the first Indian Commander-in- chief) called on Gandhiji in December 1947 and sought his advice on how he should put across the concept of ahimsa to his soldiers whose dharma was to fight for the nation. The Mahatma pondered over the question and replied: "I am still groping in the dark for the answer. I will find it and give it to you one day." A month later he fell to an assassin's bullet, and Cariappa never received an answer. But by then the first of our illusions had already been shattered in October 1947, when Pakistani hordes came pouring into Baramulla and it was only the Indian Army's gallantry which saved the Valley.
The politicians were right that the British Indian Army, true to its salt, had served the King-Emperor loyally in both World Wars. But after the string of early British defeats in WW II, Indian prisoners of war (PoWs) in Singapore, Germany and Italy were confronted with the most awesome moral dilemma that a soldier can ever face; a choice between the oath they had given to the King and the chance to fight for freedom of the motherland, being offered by Netaji Subhash Bose.
After agonizing over this veritable dharma sankat and fully recognizing the terrible consequences of either option, many Indian officers and jawans decided for their motherland, with the result that:
In early 1946, ratings of the Royal Indian Navy mutinied, and the insurrection spread right across the country, with units of the RIAF, Army Signal Corps and EME joining their naval comrades in revolt. These events not only inspired and galvanized the freedom movement in India, but also struck fear into British hearts. General Wavell, the C-in-C admitted in a secret report: "It is no use shutting one's eye to the fact that any Indian soldier worth his salt is a Nationalist…"
Disciplined Services never dwell on mutinies, regardless of the cause, and that is why these events rarely find mention in our Armed Forces, But the powerful impact on the British Sarkar of these acts of great moral courage, must not be disparaged, belittled or forgotten. So anyone who says that the Indian soldier did not contribute to India's freedom movement is either ignorant or deliberately suppressing the truth.
The phase immediately post-Independence too, was extremely difficult for our fledgling nation. To forget the sterling role played by the Armed Forces during the violence and turbulence of partition, and in integrating the recalcitrant princely states would be an act of rank ingratitude. Over the years, as our glaring strategic naiveté repeatedly led to adventurism by our neighbours in 1947, 1962, 1965 and 1999, it was invariably the gallantry and patriotism of the Armed Forces which saved the nation from disintegration and dishonour.
The Bureaucracy Strikes
From many post-Independence historical accounts it appears that the politician possibly felt not only ill at ease with the soldier, but also disdained the "military intellect". This was an ideal situation for the civil servants to exploit to the hilt.
Although the British had devised a workable interim organizational structure for the divided Indian armed forces, it fell to the bureaucracy to work out the nuts and bolts, and to implement it. Showing the Armed Forces "their place" was simple for the mandarins of the Indian Civil Service (ICS). Possibly holding out the spectre of a military coup to the gullible politician, and deliberately misinterpreting the principle of "civilian control", they created a structure which suited them ideally, and brought the Armed Forces under bureaucratic control.
In the UK the Navy, Army and Air Force were then run respectively by The Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Ministry. Each of these were ministries, headed by a Minister of Cabinet rank designated by convention as the "Secretary of State for…" and often referred to as just "Secretary". In India the ICS created a unique structure with a "Ministry of Defence" composed of a number of Departments, manned exclusively by itinerant civilian generalists, and headed by a bureaucrat of Secretary rank. External to the MoD and subordinate to the Department of Defence they created three "Attached Offices" one each for the Army, Navy and Air Force HQs.
So at one fell swoop, the bureaucracy had:
No one seems to have pointed out the fact that in the best and oldest democracies of the world, "civilian control" over the Armed Forces is best exercised by the simple expedient of having the head of the Armed Forces (be it a CDS, Chairman Joint Chiefs or Chef d'Etat Majeur) as the right hand of the President or the Prime Minister, and charged with rendering advice on strategic/military matters.
The Damage Inflicted by Media
Possibly the greatest damage to the public image of the Armed Forces as well as to their self-esteem has been inflicted by the Indian media. This predatory beast finds, in the Armed Forces, instant gratification and tremendous payback for very little effort. They see an institution, and a set of people who set for themselves, extraordinarily high standards of conduct, and when accused of misdemeanor, react with pain and anguish. What can be more satisfying for the slavering media hounds?
That their uniformed victim is bound and gagged, and unable to respond, is even better for them because he can then be maligned with impunity for the sake of mindless sensationalism. Regrettably, many of the young media-persons are neither well informed about the Armed Forces, nor do they undertake serious study of the subject.
It is for this reason that one rarely sees serious, well-researched and thought provoking articles on defence matters. On the other hand it appears that every trivial issue relating to the Armed Forces has to be either a sensational "scam", "cover-up" or "serious embarrassment" , otherwise it is perhaps not considered news-worthy by the editors. The hostile attitude of the media towards the only institution in the country which undertakes quick investigation and fixation of accountability, and metes out swift justice is inexplicable.
Today any disgruntled person, vested interest or even agent of a foreign power can entice the India media with the promise of a "defence scandal", and they will happily proceed to malign the Armed Forces. Neither the good name and reputation of its leadership, nor morale of the rank and file of the Armed Forces, nor indeed any concern for the truth are matters of slightest concern for the irresponsible journalists or their arrogant editors.
Having done their best to denigrate the nation's Armed Forces in the public eye, the media will then report with great glee, the number of unfilled vacancies in National Defence Academy and Indian Military Academy. Need the Armed Forces look any further? The enemy is within.
The Inner Discord
Such is the power of Jointmanship, that whenever the Chairman COSC has occasion to use the phrase, "the three Chiefs are of the view…" whether in writing or verbally, all obstacles in the MoD and elsewhere tended to melt away. Unfortunately, there are not too many instances when this phrase can actually be used.
Disagreements between the Chiefs on professional issues will take place, and can be resolved in the COSC room, but it is discord among the three Services more than any other factor that is exploited to the fullest by the political establishment and the bureaucracy, and which has led to the devaluation which we lament today. On any difficult issue taken up by the Armed Forces the attempt by the MoD will be to strike separate bargains with the Services and defuse the issue.
So if the Services keep sliding down the Warrant of Precedence, or one rank one pay is denied to ESM, or the War Memorial is kept in limbo, the Services have only their own disunity to blame.
This is a subject on which volumes could be written to the delight of our detractors, and therefore need not be discussed here. In the context under discussion, suffice it to say that a sea change can come about, if the Service Chiefs, placing the larger interests of the Armed Forces above all other considerations, jointly request the government to take forward the process of integration to implement the following at the earliest:
A full time Chairman COSC who can devote 100% of his time to common issues affecting the three Services, and then spend as much time as Required in pursuing them with the Government.
Actual integration of the Service HQ with the MoD (the current term "Integrated HQ of MoD" is a complete charade), so that civilian and Uniformed functionaries can be deployed interchangeably in the Ministry.
These are by no means magic mantras and will neither end discord nor bring harmony into the Services overnight. But they are the first steps to ensure that the Armed Forces speak with one voice and thus protect themselves against exploitation.
The 6th Pay Commission
I come finally to the burning issue of the day, the 6th Pay Commission, because the Internet is rife with disinformation today.
Setting out at great length, the historical and contemporary reasons for his request, on 12th April 2006 the Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC) wrote a letter to the Raksha Mantri (RM), seeking his "…personal intervention for the appointment of a Service Officer as a constituted member of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, likely to be announced shortly." The letter went on to remind the RM that, "…while the first two Pay Commissions were dedicated exclusively to the Armed Forces, from the third CPC onwards, the emoluments of the Armed Forces became just one more issue to be examine, but a lack of Service representation was perhaps one of the main reasons for the dissatisfaction expressed by the Services post 5th CPC award."
Four weeks later, on 16th June 2006, the Chairman followed up this Letter with a reminder, forwarding the names of three serving and two retired officers as possible candidates, with the request that, 'the RM may like to have the panel vetted by the MoD in order to select the best qualified candidate" to serve on the 6th Pay Commission.
During frequent discussions that took place in the three months that remained to him as RM, the Minister did convey to the Chiefs that he was experiencing difficulties in convincing his cabinet colleagues regarding this issue, but expressed optimism that he would find a way for the CPC to receive a direct input from the Services.
It is a tradition in the MoD not to respond to any communication from the Service Chiefs in writing, and therefore the Service HQs will have no record of what transpired within the MoD. However, a letter from the Chairman COSC has to be placed on file and discussed at length between the bureaucracy before a recommendation is made to the Minister. At this juncture, only a request to the MoD under the RTI can bring out the record on file, as to what the MoD recommended and why this request was denied.
The fact however remains that for the sixth time in succession, the Armed Forces remained unrepresented on a Pay Commission. The resulting unhappiness amongst the Services and the ESM was a foregone
conclusion.
Conclusion
Bitterly recounting poetic verse about soldiers "slighted" or "ignored" by an ungrateful nation is not going to stir many consciences in India. Also one cannot help having serious reservations About public protests through the medium of marches, dharnas or hunger-strikes by ESM. Whether they have the desired impact or not (many states imposed Section 144 in affected towns) such displays of "trade unionism" will erase the last distinction between the proud ethos of the Armed Forces/ESM and the rest; both in our own minds as well as in the minds of our countrymen.
It is rightly said that there is nothing easier than for Veterans, free of any responsibility, to render advice to their serving comrades From the safety and security of retirement. Therefore, having drawn attention to the factors which need to be tackled by the Services with resolve and unity, I shall refrain from adding anything further.
Except to quote a few lines from the autobiography of General Lord Ismay, in the hope that they will be read by those at the helm of the nation: "A country may have powerful armed forces, led by brilliant commanders; it may have statesmen of great competence; it may have immense wealth; it may have industries which are most efficiently run; but unless the statesmen and soldiers at the summit work together in a spirit of mutual esteem, the essential coordination will be lacking, and there is bound to be deadly waste of blood and treasure."
General Ismay should know; he was Churchill's Chief of Staff, confidante and alter ego right through World War II.
** "Sarvatra Izzat-O-Iqbal" is the hybrid Sanskrit-Persian post-Independence motto of the Regiment of Artillery, which means: "Honour and Esteem Everywhere".
I recently got a forwarded article by Admiral (retd) Arun Prakash, on the 6th Pay Commission and the raw deal it gives to the forces. Arun Prakash was the Chief of the Navy from July 2004 to Oct 2006. I felt the article quite sincere and well-presented.
This is the content of the letter.
The country-wide demonstrations by ex-Servicemen (ESM) on 26th April and 7th May 08 to protest against the 6th Pay Commission report, were, by all accounts, conducted in a dignified and orderly manner; and that is exactly how it should have been. Now one hears some talk of a "hunger strike" by ESM, but it is my fervent hope that this will not come to pass.
I have a nagging feeling that by these uncharacteristic and extraordinary gestures we, the ESM, have diminished ourselves in the eyes of our countrymen. One can just visualize people who have never had the privilege of wearing uniform or of serving the nation's tricolour, smugly saying to themselves: "We always knew that their attitude of soldierly discipline and fortitude was only a facade. Deep down they are just like any of us."
I am aware that these remark are likely to upset many of our Veterans who, despite advancing years, are going to great lengths to make a dramatic gesture on behalf of their comrades-in- arms. To them, let me just say that my criticism is directed, not so much at their actions, As at the insensitive and callous system which has driven them, in Extremis, to such an unfortunate step.
An Ungrateful Nation?
In civilized nations the world over, the soldier, sailor and airman –and more so the Veteran – is an object of spontaneous respect, affection, admiration and the highest public esteem. These sentiments are made manifest by the people and the government of a grateful nation, in countless ways, in thought word and deed. There are monuments celebrating victories, statues of military heroes, war memorials for those who fell on the field of battle, avenues and squares named after soldiers and concessions for Servicemen in every sphere. Above all, Servicemen receive warm respect, affection and consideration from the general public as well as the media. None of this exists in India today.
I have no doubt whatsoever, that in cities like London, Paris, Washington or Moscow the dismal spectacle of Veterans reduced to "demonstrating" in public to ask for their dues, would have wrought agony in their countrymen. The citizens of New Delhi, God bless them, chose to ignore this "cry from the heart" of old warriors. The media, otherwise so intrusive and inquisitive, and so proud of their "independence" almost completely blacked out this significant gesture by the Veterans. The one TV channel which planned to air a related programme chickened out at the last minute. We can only speculate about the reasons for the media's sudden coyness.
From Major Som Nath Sharma who died fighting the Pakistani tribals in Badgam in 1947, to Captain Vikram Batra who laid down his life in the icy wastes of Kargil in 1999 there is a long Roll of Honour which lists the heroes and battle-casualties of the Indian Armed Forces. Just reading about their exploits of valour and self-sacrifice is enough to give one goose pimples. It is the inspiration provided by such brave men which motivates our Armed Forces to great heights of dedication and commitment to the motherland. But does anyone else in the country remember their sacrifice? Or care?
Not even a decade has passed since Tiger Hill and Tololing were won back by our soldiers in the face of intense enemy opposition at a horrific cost in lives. But our citizens do not have the time to even light a candle in memory of those who fell in Kargil, or a hundred other battles, because their adulation seems to be reserved exclusively for cricketers, cine stars and politicians. One often wonders if patriotic young soldiers should be shedding blood for the safety and well being of a society as ungrateful as ours?
"Izzat-O-Iqbal" ?
Let us not be fooled by the razzmatazz that economists are feeding us about India's 9% GDP growth, or get carried away by the fabulous salaries offered by MNCs to young IIT and IIM graduates. As Indians, let us instead firmly bear in mind that 400-500 million of our brothers and sisters still survive on less than 40 rupees a day. I personally think that within the means available to the nation, the Armed Forces, and most of the ESM are paid enough. I say this without prejudice to the perfectly justified protest of the Armed Forces against the insidious manner in which the IAS has been steadily propelling itself upward to their detriment.
Really, it is not the money that bothers us. What the Serviceman and the Veteran find inexplicable and galling is something altogether different. They wonder why there has been a steady and continuing erosion in the soldier's position and status in society while the responsibilities, hardships and hazards of soldiering have grown over the years.
Apart from their crucial role in defending the nation against every threat and calamity, the Armed Forces are making a vital contribution to the country's social fabric. It is they who have promoted the ideals of integrity, discipline, professionalism and excellence, sadly lacking in every other walk of life. In the midst of prevailing chaos, the Armed Forces have remained an embodiment of order and discipline, and have faithfully upheld India's secular and democratic traditions. There just isn't any group, organization or set of individuals which has sustained the integrity, security and stability of the Indian state, with the steadfastness and loyalty demonstrated by the Indian Armed Forces.
Is it then surprising if the Soldier agonizes over the fact that in spite of his huge contribution to the nation, his Izzat has been Deliberately denuded by vested interests, and Iqbal denied to him by His countrymen?
I do not claim to have answers to the Soldier's dilemma, but I think that the issues involved have assumed such importance that they need to be examined in some depth. Let me place before the reader, four factors which I think have contributed to the steady and ongoing erosion of the soldier's image, and the degradation of his status in Indian society, with consequential effects.
Political Antipathy
Mahatma Gandhi's firm adherence to the noble principle of non-violence throughout India's independence struggle has no parallel in history. He was a great man with profound values, but misinterpretation of his unique vision led to the emergence of two surreal perceptions amongst India's political leadership.
For one they were convinced that since a non-violent India would have No enemies, the armed forces would become redundant after independence. Their second conviction was that the Indian Army was a mercenary force which had been used as a tool by the British to suppress the freedom movement, and deserved to be shown its place. They were utterly wrong on both counts, and such myths need to be demolished, because a man in uniform can today sense the cognitive lack of empathy, if not antipathy, to his cause in the in the political establishment of all shades.
Major General KM Cariappa (later the first Indian Commander-in- chief) called on Gandhiji in December 1947 and sought his advice on how he should put across the concept of ahimsa to his soldiers whose dharma was to fight for the nation. The Mahatma pondered over the question and replied: "I am still groping in the dark for the answer. I will find it and give it to you one day." A month later he fell to an assassin's bullet, and Cariappa never received an answer. But by then the first of our illusions had already been shattered in October 1947, when Pakistani hordes came pouring into Baramulla and it was only the Indian Army's gallantry which saved the Valley.
The politicians were right that the British Indian Army, true to its salt, had served the King-Emperor loyally in both World Wars. But after the string of early British defeats in WW II, Indian prisoners of war (PoWs) in Singapore, Germany and Italy were confronted with the most awesome moral dilemma that a soldier can ever face; a choice between the oath they had given to the King and the chance to fight for freedom of the motherland, being offered by Netaji Subhash Bose.
After agonizing over this veritable dharma sankat and fully recognizing the terrible consequences of either option, many Indian officers and jawans decided for their motherland, with the result that:
- 3000 Indian PoWs were formed into the Legion Freies Indien or Free Indian Legion as a unit of the German Wehrmacht.
- A unit named the Battaglione Azad Hindoustan was formed out of Indian PoWs in Italy.
- 40,000 out of 45,000 PoWs in Singapore joined the Azad Hind Fauj or INA as it was commonly known.
In early 1946, ratings of the Royal Indian Navy mutinied, and the insurrection spread right across the country, with units of the RIAF, Army Signal Corps and EME joining their naval comrades in revolt. These events not only inspired and galvanized the freedom movement in India, but also struck fear into British hearts. General Wavell, the C-in-C admitted in a secret report: "It is no use shutting one's eye to the fact that any Indian soldier worth his salt is a Nationalist…"
Disciplined Services never dwell on mutinies, regardless of the cause, and that is why these events rarely find mention in our Armed Forces, But the powerful impact on the British Sarkar of these acts of great moral courage, must not be disparaged, belittled or forgotten. So anyone who says that the Indian soldier did not contribute to India's freedom movement is either ignorant or deliberately suppressing the truth.
The phase immediately post-Independence too, was extremely difficult for our fledgling nation. To forget the sterling role played by the Armed Forces during the violence and turbulence of partition, and in integrating the recalcitrant princely states would be an act of rank ingratitude. Over the years, as our glaring strategic naiveté repeatedly led to adventurism by our neighbours in 1947, 1962, 1965 and 1999, it was invariably the gallantry and patriotism of the Armed Forces which saved the nation from disintegration and dishonour.
The Bureaucracy Strikes
From many post-Independence historical accounts it appears that the politician possibly felt not only ill at ease with the soldier, but also disdained the "military intellect". This was an ideal situation for the civil servants to exploit to the hilt.
Although the British had devised a workable interim organizational structure for the divided Indian armed forces, it fell to the bureaucracy to work out the nuts and bolts, and to implement it. Showing the Armed Forces "their place" was simple for the mandarins of the Indian Civil Service (ICS). Possibly holding out the spectre of a military coup to the gullible politician, and deliberately misinterpreting the principle of "civilian control", they created a structure which suited them ideally, and brought the Armed Forces under bureaucratic control.
In the UK the Navy, Army and Air Force were then run respectively by The Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Ministry. Each of these were ministries, headed by a Minister of Cabinet rank designated by convention as the "Secretary of State for…" and often referred to as just "Secretary". In India the ICS created a unique structure with a "Ministry of Defence" composed of a number of Departments, manned exclusively by itinerant civilian generalists, and headed by a bureaucrat of Secretary rank. External to the MoD and subordinate to the Department of Defence they created three "Attached Offices" one each for the Army, Navy and Air Force HQs.
So at one fell swoop, the bureaucracy had:
- Placed the Service HQs well outside the Government of India, whom they could only approach through the MoD.
- Effectively subordinated the Service Chiefs to decision-making at the lowest rungs of the MoD, since every file "submitted" by the Service HQ had to be routed bottom-upwards in the MoD, starting at Under-Secretary level.
- Kept the Service Chiefs and the Defence Minister safely distanced from each other.
- The political establishment of the day was probably informed that the affairs of the Services were being run by a Secretary, "just like in the UK" and they must have been relieved to have the bureaucracy manage complex defence matters for them. The military leadership of the time was probably too naïve and inexperienced to even realize the iniquity of the system imposed on them. The feeble noises that we have made thereafter, have naturally fallen on the deaf ears of the IAS bureaucracy; successor service to the "heaven born" ICS.
No one seems to have pointed out the fact that in the best and oldest democracies of the world, "civilian control" over the Armed Forces is best exercised by the simple expedient of having the head of the Armed Forces (be it a CDS, Chairman Joint Chiefs or Chef d'Etat Majeur) as the right hand of the President or the Prime Minister, and charged with rendering advice on strategic/military matters.
The Damage Inflicted by Media
Possibly the greatest damage to the public image of the Armed Forces as well as to their self-esteem has been inflicted by the Indian media. This predatory beast finds, in the Armed Forces, instant gratification and tremendous payback for very little effort. They see an institution, and a set of people who set for themselves, extraordinarily high standards of conduct, and when accused of misdemeanor, react with pain and anguish. What can be more satisfying for the slavering media hounds?
That their uniformed victim is bound and gagged, and unable to respond, is even better for them because he can then be maligned with impunity for the sake of mindless sensationalism. Regrettably, many of the young media-persons are neither well informed about the Armed Forces, nor do they undertake serious study of the subject.
It is for this reason that one rarely sees serious, well-researched and thought provoking articles on defence matters. On the other hand it appears that every trivial issue relating to the Armed Forces has to be either a sensational "scam", "cover-up" or "serious embarrassment" , otherwise it is perhaps not considered news-worthy by the editors. The hostile attitude of the media towards the only institution in the country which undertakes quick investigation and fixation of accountability, and metes out swift justice is inexplicable.
Today any disgruntled person, vested interest or even agent of a foreign power can entice the India media with the promise of a "defence scandal", and they will happily proceed to malign the Armed Forces. Neither the good name and reputation of its leadership, nor morale of the rank and file of the Armed Forces, nor indeed any concern for the truth are matters of slightest concern for the irresponsible journalists or their arrogant editors.
Having done their best to denigrate the nation's Armed Forces in the public eye, the media will then report with great glee, the number of unfilled vacancies in National Defence Academy and Indian Military Academy. Need the Armed Forces look any further? The enemy is within.
The Inner Discord
Such is the power of Jointmanship, that whenever the Chairman COSC has occasion to use the phrase, "the three Chiefs are of the view…" whether in writing or verbally, all obstacles in the MoD and elsewhere tended to melt away. Unfortunately, there are not too many instances when this phrase can actually be used.
Disagreements between the Chiefs on professional issues will take place, and can be resolved in the COSC room, but it is discord among the three Services more than any other factor that is exploited to the fullest by the political establishment and the bureaucracy, and which has led to the devaluation which we lament today. On any difficult issue taken up by the Armed Forces the attempt by the MoD will be to strike separate bargains with the Services and defuse the issue.
So if the Services keep sliding down the Warrant of Precedence, or one rank one pay is denied to ESM, or the War Memorial is kept in limbo, the Services have only their own disunity to blame.
This is a subject on which volumes could be written to the delight of our detractors, and therefore need not be discussed here. In the context under discussion, suffice it to say that a sea change can come about, if the Service Chiefs, placing the larger interests of the Armed Forces above all other considerations, jointly request the government to take forward the process of integration to implement the following at the earliest:
A full time Chairman COSC who can devote 100% of his time to common issues affecting the three Services, and then spend as much time as Required in pursuing them with the Government.
Actual integration of the Service HQ with the MoD (the current term "Integrated HQ of MoD" is a complete charade), so that civilian and Uniformed functionaries can be deployed interchangeably in the Ministry.
These are by no means magic mantras and will neither end discord nor bring harmony into the Services overnight. But they are the first steps to ensure that the Armed Forces speak with one voice and thus protect themselves against exploitation.
The 6th Pay Commission
I come finally to the burning issue of the day, the 6th Pay Commission, because the Internet is rife with disinformation today.
Setting out at great length, the historical and contemporary reasons for his request, on 12th April 2006 the Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC) wrote a letter to the Raksha Mantri (RM), seeking his "…personal intervention for the appointment of a Service Officer as a constituted member of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, likely to be announced shortly." The letter went on to remind the RM that, "…while the first two Pay Commissions were dedicated exclusively to the Armed Forces, from the third CPC onwards, the emoluments of the Armed Forces became just one more issue to be examine, but a lack of Service representation was perhaps one of the main reasons for the dissatisfaction expressed by the Services post 5th CPC award."
Four weeks later, on 16th June 2006, the Chairman followed up this Letter with a reminder, forwarding the names of three serving and two retired officers as possible candidates, with the request that, 'the RM may like to have the panel vetted by the MoD in order to select the best qualified candidate" to serve on the 6th Pay Commission.
During frequent discussions that took place in the three months that remained to him as RM, the Minister did convey to the Chiefs that he was experiencing difficulties in convincing his cabinet colleagues regarding this issue, but expressed optimism that he would find a way for the CPC to receive a direct input from the Services.
It is a tradition in the MoD not to respond to any communication from the Service Chiefs in writing, and therefore the Service HQs will have no record of what transpired within the MoD. However, a letter from the Chairman COSC has to be placed on file and discussed at length between the bureaucracy before a recommendation is made to the Minister. At this juncture, only a request to the MoD under the RTI can bring out the record on file, as to what the MoD recommended and why this request was denied.
The fact however remains that for the sixth time in succession, the Armed Forces remained unrepresented on a Pay Commission. The resulting unhappiness amongst the Services and the ESM was a foregone
conclusion.
Conclusion
Bitterly recounting poetic verse about soldiers "slighted" or "ignored" by an ungrateful nation is not going to stir many consciences in India. Also one cannot help having serious reservations About public protests through the medium of marches, dharnas or hunger-strikes by ESM. Whether they have the desired impact or not (many states imposed Section 144 in affected towns) such displays of "trade unionism" will erase the last distinction between the proud ethos of the Armed Forces/ESM and the rest; both in our own minds as well as in the minds of our countrymen.
It is rightly said that there is nothing easier than for Veterans, free of any responsibility, to render advice to their serving comrades From the safety and security of retirement. Therefore, having drawn attention to the factors which need to be tackled by the Services with resolve and unity, I shall refrain from adding anything further.
Except to quote a few lines from the autobiography of General Lord Ismay, in the hope that they will be read by those at the helm of the nation: "A country may have powerful armed forces, led by brilliant commanders; it may have statesmen of great competence; it may have immense wealth; it may have industries which are most efficiently run; but unless the statesmen and soldiers at the summit work together in a spirit of mutual esteem, the essential coordination will be lacking, and there is bound to be deadly waste of blood and treasure."
General Ismay should know; he was Churchill's Chief of Staff, confidante and alter ego right through World War II.
** "Sarvatra Izzat-O-Iqbal" is the hybrid Sanskrit-Persian post-Independence motto of the Regiment of Artillery, which means: "Honour and Esteem Everywhere".
Saturday, 17 May 2008
Review: The 3 mistakes of my life
Chetan Bhagat, who the New York Times believes is India's best selling English novelist today, has released his third book, "The 3 Mistakes of My Life".If Chetan Bhagat is India's best selling English novelist, I really wonder what other books Indians are reading, and for some reason it doesn't give me much to cheer about.
Now let's leave that aside and come to the book itself. First off, calling anything a spoiler in a CB book is an insult to the word spoiler because frankly, there is very little unpredictable in his books. But for the convenience of those who would not like me to "spoil the story", I'm putting the customary disclaimer.
** Mild spoilers begin **
The subtitle would have you believe that it is "A story about business, cricket and religion". Interesting combination, I thought as I picked up the book. Three hours and 258 pages later, I'm a bit wiser.
This story, to put it in a nutshell (and the space of a nutshell is all that is required to hold this story) is about three good friends and the girlfriend of the protagonist. Now, where have we heard that before? Did I just hear a voice saying "Five Point Someone"?
Now for the friends themselves. Loser-boy Alok from FPS turns into loser-boy Omi. The "hero" of the story, Govind is Hari Ver 2.0. And coincidence of coincidences, cool passionate nuts-and-bolts dude Ryan, the guy who doesn't get along with his parents, becomes cool passionate nuts-and-bolts dude Ish, the guy who doesn't get along with his parents. The last one had me flummoxed, because last time I heard, "Ish" was that annoying word Ash liked to use in that movie lemon, Devdas.
Just in case people started wondering if Bhagat had done a direct Ctrl-C Ctrl-V from FPS, the author pulls out the biggest innovative surprise of his career - namely, the girlfriend Neha, daughter of Cherian becomes the girlfriend Vidya, sister of Ish. Another innovation, loser-boy Alok, who had the slightly redeeming quality of being good with bookish knowledge, now loses that too in the transfomation to Omi, transferring it to Govind.
** Mild spoilers end **
Omi, Govind (the protagonist) and Ish are three 20-somethings in Ahmedabad, trying to start a business of their own. Govind, the guy who loves business and anything to do with numbers, is the mastermind behind the operation to start a cricket shop. Ish happens to be an ex-district level cricket player, which lends him an "expert advisor" status to the kids visiting the shop. Omi, an idiot (Govind's words) chips in with his only contribution - his family owns the temple in whose premises the shop opens. You can read the official synopsis here
So in case you were wondering where the tagline of "business, cricket and religion" came in, its because they run a cricket shop cum coaching business in temple premises.
When the tagline says "religion" and is set in Gujarat, you know its going to mention the riots. Indeed, the riots play in important part in the novel. But they are presented with such naivete that you begin to wonder whether CB has even done a cursory scanning of the newspapers.
Tackling a subject like the communal divide in India is not easy. All the more reason to take it seriously and not trivialise it like CB seems to have done. The characters involved in the religious turmoil are as unidimensional as it is possible to be.
The most ridiculous part is when he refers to a "secular party" and "communal party." OK, I know there can be legal issues when referring to actual parties in fiction, but calling them like this is so simplistic it makes me cringe. You can always give parties names or symbols. Of course, CB is nothing if not mind-numbingly simplistic. So we get a dose of the same old BJP-is-evil-Congress-is-angelic story that is repeated ad nauseam in the media.
Somewhere, CB does realise he is getting too one-sided and gives what he thinks is a more centrist view, but its obvious that he is out of his depth when discussing religion and politics, the same way he was out of his depth when dishing out his homemade (and undercooked) philosophy in his last outing, ON@TCC.
When FPS came out, people were quite impressed with the story and with a certain freshness that CB brought to the table. After his second novel, that gigantic lemon called One Night @ the Call Centre, perhaps CB thought that he better move to safer territory and try to redo the FPS formula.
The trouble is, the FPS formula worked because FPS was a college story. It would have worked for any college story or for a story of 20-somethings with rich dads. But not for middle-class 20-somethings who work two jobs to make ends meet. Just because a bikini-clad "size-zero" (I suppose it goes well with her IQ) Kareena Kapoor became the talk of the town, doesn't mean clothing Nirupa Roy in those clothes would have worked. Same problem here.
Maybe that's why the bindaas humor, which was the greatest strength of FPS, is missing here. It just doesn't go very well with the context. When he does indulge in it though, the jokes seem like they're getting tired of being told over and over again.
There is a serious problem of writers block when 4 years after his debut, an author publishes a book that seems entirely like a plagiarised version of his first novel. Indeed, if it didn't have CB's name on it, I would have thought it was a cheap imitation, much like Ram Gopal Varma Ki Aag was to Sholay.
Chetan Bhagat, with this novel has made the second biggest mistake of his life (ON@TCC being the first). Perhaps he should leave aside the serious stuff like philosophy and really go back to the basics of the FPS formula.
Back to the drawing board, boy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)