A world full of secrets! A stream of thoughts that would never emerge out of the deluge! A dark hole that threatens to engulf human consciousness! The light at the end of the tunnel is not good enough to spark off even ephemeral hope!!
As I move from one side of the peninsula to the other, the only question that keeps recurring in my mind is – “Why do humans have to move on?” Why this phrase – “move on” – is so brazenly exploited all over the world?
Today my house is targeted by a group of terrorists. Tomorrow I go back to earn my bread, believing I would not be targeted as all my loved ones have been reduced to ashes. I return to fulfil my obligations that were never mine but instead were imposed upon me by the spirit of civilization. I re-establish myself at the doorstep of the ceaseless desire of living despite witnessing carnage around me. Though death crossed my mind a zillion times, I choose life because life after death is unknown. I would want it to be explained it to me like any other concept that has been drilled into my supple mind since I was born but no one has the answers. Suicide clubs of Japan can bring no solace to a mind that is torn between the fear of life and the fear of death. If I choose to mourn their bereavement for a longer time, I would meet their same fate but in a completely different manner – what people often refer to as ‘slow death.’ So is moving on a boon or a bane?
Today I’m in love. Tomorrow I might get dumped and lose my belief in love. Is that ‘moving on’ or ‘living in denial?’ Even better, I might find love somewhere else. Whether I live or exist or survive, I continue do the same irrespective of our circumstances. The second stage is always a continuation of the first stage, how much ever I have deviated from the first stage. Just as the past, the present and the future are interconnected, each stage of our life is connected to every single moment in our life. Thus, no one moves on; rather everyone turns over the leaf and continues to believe in the same ideals as before. Whether I embrace ‘pragmatism’ or ‘idealism,’ every horizon slowly makes its way to the centre of my existence to gobble up a piece of my cake. Again, moving on becomes figurative; in actuality the void remains till my ashes are burnt. Similarly, when I change my occupation I only alter my association with a name, from an employee to an outsider and affix it to another name, thus becoming an employee again. What is in a name when all organizations are run on the same underlying principles and goals? Am I really ‘moving on’ in that case? Or am I simply hunting another route to the forbidden fruit of success, all routes being embedded with the same stones? Principles can be compromised provisionally, they can never be erased.
Today when I hear the news anchor scrambling to finish the stories in the stipulated time period (not forgetting to take the all-important breaks at appropriate times), very often the stories get juggled up as the news anchor fails to draw the boundary between one story and the preceding or the succeeding one. The news of the Mangalore plane crash and the news of the triumphant return of Vishwanathan Anand to India are read out sequentially. What separates the two stories at times is the phrase – ‘Moving on.’ This phrase is so powerful that the melancholic tone of the news anchor transforms dramatically to an exultant tone and vice-versa. Has anyone ever wondered why humans need to exploit this stock phrase to avoid clash of interests or to confine oneself within the perceptive region? So much so that even normal conversations are ridden with this phrase that is supposed to signify the change in state of mind. While we resume our act of spewing meaningless words to please a tangible or intangible entity, the state of mind does not ‘move on’ or even if the state of mind makes a slight move, the mind does not. The mind does not stagnate, but neither does it revolutionize. Transformation of mind is a very complex phenomenon as the origin and evolution of human mind is debatable. So the philosophers and psychologists might claim that the human mind is constituted of atoms and particles just as matter, yet its working remains a mystery to the masses. Very often, the words do not correspond to the state of the mind. First, the ability of language to communicate the true state of mind is extremely limited. Second, the mind functions in such a way that sensation, perception and conception very often merge, thus leaving a gap between what the mind wishes to convey and what one ends up conveying in reality. Third, the mind is as strong as the Great Wall of China as it tries to defend itself from any external hazards. As it turns into the erstwhile Berlin Wall that divides every thought into two chambers – one realistic and the other idealistic – it becomes vulnerable yet stands the most destructive shock wave until the body betrays and the spirit wears out. Hence, ‘moving on’ is either imaginary or dicey or superficial or even a make-shift formula.
Physically, each one of us is moving mostly purposelessly and hopelessly. When both purpose and hope perish, ‘moving on’ itself becomes superfluous and perfunctory. But when I am given the choice of mobility and immobility, I would gladly choose the former as I would like to take refuge in the make-believe sanctuary of opportunities rather than the ambiguous vacuity of decay. Despite the questions surrounding ‘moving on’ it remains a romantic concept that encompasses human existence. Whether it is real or unreal, tangible or intangible, transient or eternal, affirmative or detrimental, constructive or ineffective, the life of human beings in this ‘world of secrets’ continues to revolve at the rate of 365 days per revolution and rotate at the rate of 24 hours per rotation. Alas!
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Saturday, October 4, 2008
The ‘truth’ in Pervez Musharraf’s autobiography, “In the Line of Fire,” is extremely subjective and ‘appallingly distorted’ in many ways.
Pervez Musharraf, the former president of Pakistan and ex-chief of army staff, has always been synonymous with controversy. Whether it was the Kargil conflict of 1999 or the hijacking drama in the same year or the subsequent shocking coup or Pakistan’s indispensable role in the “War on Terror” or the country’s flimsy stand on nuclear-proliferation, Musharraf’s role in all these episodes has remained shrouded in mystery. In his autobiography, though he passionately claims that he wants the world to know the truth, he seeks to amend his controversial image in world politics by shrewdly ‘distorting the truth’ on the one hand and vehemently justifying his actions on the other. This autobiography according to him “is a window to Pakistan and his role in shaping it.” He continues, “My autobiography is my contribution to the history of our era. It is also of course my own story, expressed in my own way, about an eventful, turbulent life in which both luck and destiny played leading roles.”
Musharraf’s autobiography has taken a lot of flak for his ‘outrageous candour’ that “has angered governments, embarrassed leaders, and even provoked denials.” His ‘fabricated’ account of the Kargil conflict has caused quite a few raised eyebrows, particularly in India. He lambastes India’s accusation of Pakistani intrusions in the Siachen sector and defends his decision to “improve Pakistan’s defensive positions in coordination with the freedom fighters to deny access to the watershed by India” based on a ‘baseless’ evidence that apparently convinced him at that point of time that India was “‘creeping forward’ across the LOC” and it was on the threshold of waging yet another war against his country. In fact, probe findings worldwide have so far disclosed that the Pakistan Army was illegally encroaching on the Indian side of the Line of Control to “provide a fillip to the Kashmiri freedom movement” as Brig. (retd), Shaukat Qadir, the founder and former Vice-President of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute, who now works as an independent analyst, wrote in a UK journal. When countries across the globe including Pakistan’s most ‘reliable’ ally, United States of America, ‘longtime’ ally, China, G8 nations and the European Union supported India and condemned Pakistani violation of the LOC, Pakistan continued to remain defiant about its military troops’ alleged intrusion in the Drass-Kargil sector, and instead passed the buck to the Mujahideen, according to Brig. Qadir.
Though the Indian Army faced several initial setbacks primarily because of the harshness of the high altitude terrain, it crushed the Pakistani military force with such belligerence and supremacy that Nawaz Sharif flew to US to garner Bill Clinton’s support who then advised him to pull back the troops from the Indian territory. Musharraf, in his autobiography, makes a mountain of Pakistan’s ‘fighting prowess and professionalism’ and amazingly takes credit of killing 1200 and injuring 3000 Indians. But he trivializes the thrashing that his own army received at the hands of a well-equipped Indian Army to such an extent that he claims of a victory in Kargil. He says, “I would like to state emphatically that whatever movement has taken place so far in the direction of finding a solution to Kashmir is due considerably to the Kargil conflict.” Brajesh Mishra, former National Security Advisor, rightly retorts, “According to some estimates, the loss of Pakistani Army personnel was between 1,000 and 2,000....In order to maintain the fiction, these were so called 'freedom fighters' and Pakistan could not even give a decent burial to its soldiers. Is this tactical victory?” In fact, this is a ‘fictitious’ victory acted, directed and produced by Musharraf himself.
Musharraf goes on to deny that India and Pakistan were on the brink of a nuclear war claiming that in 1999, their nuclear capability was not yet ‘operational.’ This version contradicts former senior director of the National Security Council, who took notes during Clinton's one-on-one meeting with Sharif, Bruce Riedel’s version – “There had been some intelligence reporting about the disturbing evidence that the Pakistanis were preparing their nuclear arsenals for possible deployment.” His autobiography is therefore replete with contradictions.
Musharraf bluntly dismisses his critics’ contention that he had taken neither the political leadership nor the military hierarchy into confidence before launching the operation. When Nawaz Sharif finally admitted to the ‘truth’ that he was not informed about the army’s manoeuvres, it was too little too late. It was not only a pre-planned and shoddily-orchestrated infiltration attempt that horribly culminated in a gigantic ‘debacle’ for Pakistan but also brought about the inevitable ouster of Nawaz Sharif, former Prime Minister of Pakistan, as differences between him and Musharraf transmuted from official to personal.
The hijacking drama that initially ‘endangered’ Pervez Musharraf’s life, ended up in yet another military coup in the history of Pakistan and the shameful exit of Nawaz Sharif. Musharraf maintains, “Sharif’s was the coup. You cannot summarily dismiss the army chief without giving him just cause and affording him due process. The army’s response was the countercoup.” Sharif, on the other hand, sticks to his stand that he sacked Musharraf “to head off a coup.” Sharif’s involvement in the hijacking of the plane that carried Musharraf and 197 other passengers on board cannot be ruled out completely. At the same time, Musharraf’s connection to the assassination of Mr. Iqbal Radh, Sharif’s Lawyer and removal of papers relating to the defence of Sharif from his office by his assassins, cannot be overlooked as well.
With regard to ‘A. Q. Khan’s Nuke Walmart,’ Musharraf confidently declares, “Neither the Pakistan Army nor any of the past governments of Pakistan was ever involved or had any knowledge of A. Q.’s proliferation activities.” Critics fairly counter these claims by questioning the credibility as well as competence of the Pakistan military. B. Raman, a critic, quips, “A. Q. Khan just put the centrifuges in his car and took them away, without his car being checked.” It is virtually impossible to surreptitiously export 80 tonnes of equipment from Pakistan to Iran, Libya and North Korea without the overt or covert assistance of the Pakistani military. In his autobiography, he yet again portrays his flip-flops on matters of justice through his decision to “avoid an open trial of A. Q” and “put him under protective custody,” this time fearing public protests. The same person stripped Sharif off all his powers insolently because he committed treason. The truth definitely lies in the fact that he does not want A. Q to drag army’s name into this dirty business.
His outlandish statement – “There is a strong probability that the Indian uranium enrichment program may also have its roots in the Dubai-base network and could be a copy of Pakistani centrifuge design” – has left even the layman on the streets of India bewildered. B. Raman jibes, “There are two categories of liars – intelligent and unintelligent. Intelligent liars take care while lying to prevent their being caught lying. Unintelligent liars are liars by instinct and birth, who lie without worrying that they might be caught. Musharraf is an unintelligent liar and he has never been ashamed of being caught out.” It is an acknowledged fact that India is one of the most responsible nuclear countries in the world and its technology is based on its indigenous research and development.
The “Agra Humiliation” episode also invited a lot of criticism. He blamed the Indian Government, NDA led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee, for the failure of the Agra Summit. He says, “I told Prime Minister Vajpayee that today both of us had been humiliated.” India, according to him preposterously backed out of signing the “Agra Declaration.” He dubbed Vajpayee as a weak Prime Minister who “failed to grasp the moment and lost his moment in history.”
Atal Bihari Vajpayee issued a statement just to put the record straight, “At Agra, during our talks he took a stand that the violence that was taking place in Jammu and Kashmir could not be described as ‘terrorism.’ He continued to claim that the bloodshed in the state was nothing but the people's battle for freedom. It was this stand of General Musharraf that India just could not accept. And this was responsible for the failure of the Agra summit.” Musharraf craftily presents only one side of the coin and showcases the then Indian Government in an unacceptably negative light. He continually casts aspersions on the integrity of India and portrays himself as ‘Mr. Dependable.’
As he moves on to the ‘turning point’ in his life, ‘War on Terror,’ he yet again bamboozles one and all by his startling revelations such as Former U. S. Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage’s notorious threat to Musharraf – “You have to decide whether you are with America or with the terrorists, but if you choose the terrorists, then you should be prepared to be bombed back to the Stone Age.” Armitage’s obvious reaction to this – “I was not authorised to tell the Pakistani visitor that I would bomb them; I have never in my life made any threat that I couldn’t carry out” – should not be taken in face value. Owing to military weakness, economic instability, social disparity and most importantly, the fear of America’s acceptance of India’s offer of its bases, drove Musharraf to join the War on Terror with no second thoughts. This conflicts his constant assertion that US and Pakistan are natural allies.
“The common accusation against Pakistan is that most of the terrorist acts inside Afghanistan are emanating from the tribal areas of Pakistan.” Musharraf counters this accusation by recording the ‘enormous sacrifices’ made by Pakistan in the war on terror. He continues, “We have deployed approximately 80,000 troops in anti-terrorist operations, and we occupy nearly 900 posts along the Pakistan-Afghan border.” But the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai reinforces his suspicion that Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the leader of Taliban Mullah Omar Shiekh are operating from the Pakistani tribal territory of Waziristan.
Musharraf justifies his step to conclude a peace agreement with the tribal chiefs of North Waziristan and projects this agreement as “actually meant to help the NATO forces in countering the Taliban in Afghan territory.” But the assessment made by the US Army Units in Afghanistan reports that “since then, the Taliban attacks on the NATO forces have increased three-fold.”
The British journalist, Daniel Pearl’s abduction and murder have been discussed in detail in his autobiography. Some of the questions that linger in the minds of the analysts are – Why has Musharraf implicated Omar Sheikh only in the abduction plot and given him a clean chit in the case of murder? Why has Fazal Karim not been named as an accused in the case despite his confession that “he had actually participated in the slaughter by holding one of Pearl’s legs?”
Time and again, it has been proved that Pakistan is a breeding ground of terrorism. All the major terrorist attacks in the world so far, bear crucial links to Pakistan and jihadi groups based in Pakistan. Musharraf takes the credit for single-handedly dismantling the al Qaeda network in the region, “severing its lateral and vertical linkages.” He affirms, “This war against terrorism can, and will, be won.” Unfortunately, Pakistan has plunged into the slimy ditch dug by its intelligentsia and is currently confronting lethal terror attacks across the length and breadth of the country. Very recently, more than 150 people were butchered in a bomb blast in Islamabad.
Pakistan has had a history of harbouring terrorists. The 2005 Earthquake brought the Lashker, Jaish and other terrorist outfits to the forefront of rescue efforts and charity work in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and nobody complained. When former Pakistan Foreign Minister, Khursheed Mahmud Kasuri termed the terrorist organizations as ‘religious charities’, a shrill ran through Indian polity’s spine. Ironically, Jamat-ut-Dawa, a Pakistani charity allegedly financed the UK terror plot of July 2005. India is also a victim of the cross-border terrorism choreographed by Pakistan and implemented by so-called ‘Kashmiri freedom-fighters.’ Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, ex-Minister for Information and Broadcasting was caught napping when Yasin Malik, leader of JKLF, openly “praised” his efforts to arm young Kashmiri boys.
Another ‘truth’ that he has revealed in his autobiography has infuriated US Intelligence Agencies and Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence. CIA paid the government of Pakistan 369 million dollars for handing over 369 Al-Qaeda members. However, he later retracted his statement in an interview and is reported to have stated that these payments were not made to the government but instead an ‘agency.’ This mysterious agency could well be the ISI. Or it could be, as some sources suggest, a private agency formed by retired officers of the ISI and the CIA. But the ‘truth’ remains that Musharraf has voluntarily or involuntarily exposed the dark and sensitive state secrets apart from the callousness and astuteness of the US.
Musharraf says in his autobiography that he always agreed with the views of Abraham Lincoln – “Was it possible to lose the nation and yet preserve the Constitution? I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution through the preservation of the nation.” So much so that he delayed his retirement as the Chief of Army Staff indefinitely. Also, he imposed martial law in Pakistan in 2007 in contradiction to his statement in his autobiography – “Martial law is never an answer to political malaise.” He always kept himself above the law and whenever he felt endangered by it, took it into his own hands. He justifies his decision to retain two offices, “I listen to my conscience and to the needs of my country.” One classic instance of this is the indecorous impeachment of the Chief Justice of Pakistani Supreme Court, Ifthikar Chowdhary in 2007.
He endorses his coup in the chapters, “The Quest for Democracy” and “Putting the System Right.” He emphasizes that Pakistan was not ready to accept a democratic regime at the helm because of the “nation’s peculiar environment.” He whacks the past democratic governments of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif and holds them responsible for the situation Pakistan is in. Yet he puts in all his experience, dynamism and vocabulary to elevate democracy over dictatorship. He argues that “Zulfikar ali Bhutto masqueraded as a democrat but ruled like an autocrat; during his time the press was suppressed was more than ever before or since.” How can one forget the clampdown on mediapersons and journalists during the Emergency declared by Musharraf?
Mr Amir Mir, a critic of Musharraf’s book, says that the people of Pakistan perceive him as a “self-obsessed and power-hungry man, who would go to any extent to remain in power.” He adds, “They say actions speak louder than words. In Musharraf's seven years of power, he has gone back on all the pledges he has ever made. The first thing he said after grabbing power was ‘I have no political ambition’ and the last promise he made was ‘I will leave my uniform.’ He lived up to neither."
Though he had promised to give up his uniform immediately after donning the role of President of Pakistan, he changed his mind and went back on his decision. He insists, “There was a dire need for unity of command in governance. By this I imply a single authority over the three important organs of government – the bureaucracy, the political system, and the military. Much against my habit and character, I decided to go against my word.” Mir’s charge against Musharraf is thus substantiated. Even after Pakistan gained substantial economic and social stability, Musharraf stuck to his guns and continued to hold the reins of power. This in a way ruffled the feathers of the people of Pakistan and gave rise to irrepressible dissent in the country, particularly among lawyers, the most-targeted community, in 2007.
Musharraf labels himself a champion of women’s rights and then uses the derogatory term ‘celebrity’ to describe Mukhtaran Mai, the woman who was raped for her brother’s ‘crime’ and someone who raised her voice against oppression by the society. He seems to suggest that Mukhtaran Mai deliberately tarnished the image of Pakistan by traveling extensively all over the world – Spain, Saudi Arabia, India, The United States and France and giving countless interviews to many television channels and the print media. He tries to camouflage his displeasure at the ‘singling out’ and ‘demonizing’ of Pakistan by providing an account of his efforts to empower women of Pakistan.
In the final chapter, “Reflections,” he lays down the policies that can “sustain Pakistan on a path of progress and prosperity.” He combats each and every accusation leveled against him and his country avidly. This takes everyone back to the thesis of this project whose foundation lies in the ‘subjectivity’ of truth. Pervez Musharraf’s autobiography offers a ‘spanking’ perspective on world affairs, however distorted and objectionable they may be. Therefore, instead of sticking the knife into Musharraf and allowing one’s dislike of him to warp one’s judgment, the reader must closely examine his own words in the autobiography and look at the issues from a different angle. His ‘truth’ may not be the ‘ultimate truth.’ Every reader must verify the truth according to his/her knowledge and reading of the issues and broaden his/her perspective on them. His autobiography is perhaps a ‘pack of lies’ but it certainly grabs the limelight for its content that consists of a scathing attack on India, the West and all of Musharraf’s detractors within and outside Pakistan. It may have gained more criticism than appreciation, however, in the end, it might be concluded that “Musharraf achieved his goal.”
Musharraf’s autobiography has taken a lot of flak for his ‘outrageous candour’ that “has angered governments, embarrassed leaders, and even provoked denials.” His ‘fabricated’ account of the Kargil conflict has caused quite a few raised eyebrows, particularly in India. He lambastes India’s accusation of Pakistani intrusions in the Siachen sector and defends his decision to “improve Pakistan’s defensive positions in coordination with the freedom fighters to deny access to the watershed by India” based on a ‘baseless’ evidence that apparently convinced him at that point of time that India was “‘creeping forward’ across the LOC” and it was on the threshold of waging yet another war against his country. In fact, probe findings worldwide have so far disclosed that the Pakistan Army was illegally encroaching on the Indian side of the Line of Control to “provide a fillip to the Kashmiri freedom movement” as Brig. (retd), Shaukat Qadir, the founder and former Vice-President of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute, who now works as an independent analyst, wrote in a UK journal. When countries across the globe including Pakistan’s most ‘reliable’ ally, United States of America, ‘longtime’ ally, China, G8 nations and the European Union supported India and condemned Pakistani violation of the LOC, Pakistan continued to remain defiant about its military troops’ alleged intrusion in the Drass-Kargil sector, and instead passed the buck to the Mujahideen, according to Brig. Qadir.
Though the Indian Army faced several initial setbacks primarily because of the harshness of the high altitude terrain, it crushed the Pakistani military force with such belligerence and supremacy that Nawaz Sharif flew to US to garner Bill Clinton’s support who then advised him to pull back the troops from the Indian territory. Musharraf, in his autobiography, makes a mountain of Pakistan’s ‘fighting prowess and professionalism’ and amazingly takes credit of killing 1200 and injuring 3000 Indians. But he trivializes the thrashing that his own army received at the hands of a well-equipped Indian Army to such an extent that he claims of a victory in Kargil. He says, “I would like to state emphatically that whatever movement has taken place so far in the direction of finding a solution to Kashmir is due considerably to the Kargil conflict.” Brajesh Mishra, former National Security Advisor, rightly retorts, “According to some estimates, the loss of Pakistani Army personnel was between 1,000 and 2,000....In order to maintain the fiction, these were so called 'freedom fighters' and Pakistan could not even give a decent burial to its soldiers. Is this tactical victory?” In fact, this is a ‘fictitious’ victory acted, directed and produced by Musharraf himself.
Musharraf goes on to deny that India and Pakistan were on the brink of a nuclear war claiming that in 1999, their nuclear capability was not yet ‘operational.’ This version contradicts former senior director of the National Security Council, who took notes during Clinton's one-on-one meeting with Sharif, Bruce Riedel’s version – “There had been some intelligence reporting about the disturbing evidence that the Pakistanis were preparing their nuclear arsenals for possible deployment.” His autobiography is therefore replete with contradictions.
Musharraf bluntly dismisses his critics’ contention that he had taken neither the political leadership nor the military hierarchy into confidence before launching the operation. When Nawaz Sharif finally admitted to the ‘truth’ that he was not informed about the army’s manoeuvres, it was too little too late. It was not only a pre-planned and shoddily-orchestrated infiltration attempt that horribly culminated in a gigantic ‘debacle’ for Pakistan but also brought about the inevitable ouster of Nawaz Sharif, former Prime Minister of Pakistan, as differences between him and Musharraf transmuted from official to personal.
The hijacking drama that initially ‘endangered’ Pervez Musharraf’s life, ended up in yet another military coup in the history of Pakistan and the shameful exit of Nawaz Sharif. Musharraf maintains, “Sharif’s was the coup. You cannot summarily dismiss the army chief without giving him just cause and affording him due process. The army’s response was the countercoup.” Sharif, on the other hand, sticks to his stand that he sacked Musharraf “to head off a coup.” Sharif’s involvement in the hijacking of the plane that carried Musharraf and 197 other passengers on board cannot be ruled out completely. At the same time, Musharraf’s connection to the assassination of Mr. Iqbal Radh, Sharif’s Lawyer and removal of papers relating to the defence of Sharif from his office by his assassins, cannot be overlooked as well.
With regard to ‘A. Q. Khan’s Nuke Walmart,’ Musharraf confidently declares, “Neither the Pakistan Army nor any of the past governments of Pakistan was ever involved or had any knowledge of A. Q.’s proliferation activities.” Critics fairly counter these claims by questioning the credibility as well as competence of the Pakistan military. B. Raman, a critic, quips, “A. Q. Khan just put the centrifuges in his car and took them away, without his car being checked.” It is virtually impossible to surreptitiously export 80 tonnes of equipment from Pakistan to Iran, Libya and North Korea without the overt or covert assistance of the Pakistani military. In his autobiography, he yet again portrays his flip-flops on matters of justice through his decision to “avoid an open trial of A. Q” and “put him under protective custody,” this time fearing public protests. The same person stripped Sharif off all his powers insolently because he committed treason. The truth definitely lies in the fact that he does not want A. Q to drag army’s name into this dirty business.
His outlandish statement – “There is a strong probability that the Indian uranium enrichment program may also have its roots in the Dubai-base network and could be a copy of Pakistani centrifuge design” – has left even the layman on the streets of India bewildered. B. Raman jibes, “There are two categories of liars – intelligent and unintelligent. Intelligent liars take care while lying to prevent their being caught lying. Unintelligent liars are liars by instinct and birth, who lie without worrying that they might be caught. Musharraf is an unintelligent liar and he has never been ashamed of being caught out.” It is an acknowledged fact that India is one of the most responsible nuclear countries in the world and its technology is based on its indigenous research and development.
The “Agra Humiliation” episode also invited a lot of criticism. He blamed the Indian Government, NDA led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee, for the failure of the Agra Summit. He says, “I told Prime Minister Vajpayee that today both of us had been humiliated.” India, according to him preposterously backed out of signing the “Agra Declaration.” He dubbed Vajpayee as a weak Prime Minister who “failed to grasp the moment and lost his moment in history.”
Atal Bihari Vajpayee issued a statement just to put the record straight, “At Agra, during our talks he took a stand that the violence that was taking place in Jammu and Kashmir could not be described as ‘terrorism.’ He continued to claim that the bloodshed in the state was nothing but the people's battle for freedom. It was this stand of General Musharraf that India just could not accept. And this was responsible for the failure of the Agra summit.” Musharraf craftily presents only one side of the coin and showcases the then Indian Government in an unacceptably negative light. He continually casts aspersions on the integrity of India and portrays himself as ‘Mr. Dependable.’
As he moves on to the ‘turning point’ in his life, ‘War on Terror,’ he yet again bamboozles one and all by his startling revelations such as Former U. S. Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage’s notorious threat to Musharraf – “You have to decide whether you are with America or with the terrorists, but if you choose the terrorists, then you should be prepared to be bombed back to the Stone Age.” Armitage’s obvious reaction to this – “I was not authorised to tell the Pakistani visitor that I would bomb them; I have never in my life made any threat that I couldn’t carry out” – should not be taken in face value. Owing to military weakness, economic instability, social disparity and most importantly, the fear of America’s acceptance of India’s offer of its bases, drove Musharraf to join the War on Terror with no second thoughts. This conflicts his constant assertion that US and Pakistan are natural allies.
“The common accusation against Pakistan is that most of the terrorist acts inside Afghanistan are emanating from the tribal areas of Pakistan.” Musharraf counters this accusation by recording the ‘enormous sacrifices’ made by Pakistan in the war on terror. He continues, “We have deployed approximately 80,000 troops in anti-terrorist operations, and we occupy nearly 900 posts along the Pakistan-Afghan border.” But the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai reinforces his suspicion that Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the leader of Taliban Mullah Omar Shiekh are operating from the Pakistani tribal territory of Waziristan.
Musharraf justifies his step to conclude a peace agreement with the tribal chiefs of North Waziristan and projects this agreement as “actually meant to help the NATO forces in countering the Taliban in Afghan territory.” But the assessment made by the US Army Units in Afghanistan reports that “since then, the Taliban attacks on the NATO forces have increased three-fold.”
The British journalist, Daniel Pearl’s abduction and murder have been discussed in detail in his autobiography. Some of the questions that linger in the minds of the analysts are – Why has Musharraf implicated Omar Sheikh only in the abduction plot and given him a clean chit in the case of murder? Why has Fazal Karim not been named as an accused in the case despite his confession that “he had actually participated in the slaughter by holding one of Pearl’s legs?”
Time and again, it has been proved that Pakistan is a breeding ground of terrorism. All the major terrorist attacks in the world so far, bear crucial links to Pakistan and jihadi groups based in Pakistan. Musharraf takes the credit for single-handedly dismantling the al Qaeda network in the region, “severing its lateral and vertical linkages.” He affirms, “This war against terrorism can, and will, be won.” Unfortunately, Pakistan has plunged into the slimy ditch dug by its intelligentsia and is currently confronting lethal terror attacks across the length and breadth of the country. Very recently, more than 150 people were butchered in a bomb blast in Islamabad.
Pakistan has had a history of harbouring terrorists. The 2005 Earthquake brought the Lashker, Jaish and other terrorist outfits to the forefront of rescue efforts and charity work in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and nobody complained. When former Pakistan Foreign Minister, Khursheed Mahmud Kasuri termed the terrorist organizations as ‘religious charities’, a shrill ran through Indian polity’s spine. Ironically, Jamat-ut-Dawa, a Pakistani charity allegedly financed the UK terror plot of July 2005. India is also a victim of the cross-border terrorism choreographed by Pakistan and implemented by so-called ‘Kashmiri freedom-fighters.’ Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, ex-Minister for Information and Broadcasting was caught napping when Yasin Malik, leader of JKLF, openly “praised” his efforts to arm young Kashmiri boys.
Another ‘truth’ that he has revealed in his autobiography has infuriated US Intelligence Agencies and Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence. CIA paid the government of Pakistan 369 million dollars for handing over 369 Al-Qaeda members. However, he later retracted his statement in an interview and is reported to have stated that these payments were not made to the government but instead an ‘agency.’ This mysterious agency could well be the ISI. Or it could be, as some sources suggest, a private agency formed by retired officers of the ISI and the CIA. But the ‘truth’ remains that Musharraf has voluntarily or involuntarily exposed the dark and sensitive state secrets apart from the callousness and astuteness of the US.
Musharraf says in his autobiography that he always agreed with the views of Abraham Lincoln – “Was it possible to lose the nation and yet preserve the Constitution? I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution through the preservation of the nation.” So much so that he delayed his retirement as the Chief of Army Staff indefinitely. Also, he imposed martial law in Pakistan in 2007 in contradiction to his statement in his autobiography – “Martial law is never an answer to political malaise.” He always kept himself above the law and whenever he felt endangered by it, took it into his own hands. He justifies his decision to retain two offices, “I listen to my conscience and to the needs of my country.” One classic instance of this is the indecorous impeachment of the Chief Justice of Pakistani Supreme Court, Ifthikar Chowdhary in 2007.
He endorses his coup in the chapters, “The Quest for Democracy” and “Putting the System Right.” He emphasizes that Pakistan was not ready to accept a democratic regime at the helm because of the “nation’s peculiar environment.” He whacks the past democratic governments of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif and holds them responsible for the situation Pakistan is in. Yet he puts in all his experience, dynamism and vocabulary to elevate democracy over dictatorship. He argues that “Zulfikar ali Bhutto masqueraded as a democrat but ruled like an autocrat; during his time the press was suppressed was more than ever before or since.” How can one forget the clampdown on mediapersons and journalists during the Emergency declared by Musharraf?
Mr Amir Mir, a critic of Musharraf’s book, says that the people of Pakistan perceive him as a “self-obsessed and power-hungry man, who would go to any extent to remain in power.” He adds, “They say actions speak louder than words. In Musharraf's seven years of power, he has gone back on all the pledges he has ever made. The first thing he said after grabbing power was ‘I have no political ambition’ and the last promise he made was ‘I will leave my uniform.’ He lived up to neither."
Though he had promised to give up his uniform immediately after donning the role of President of Pakistan, he changed his mind and went back on his decision. He insists, “There was a dire need for unity of command in governance. By this I imply a single authority over the three important organs of government – the bureaucracy, the political system, and the military. Much against my habit and character, I decided to go against my word.” Mir’s charge against Musharraf is thus substantiated. Even after Pakistan gained substantial economic and social stability, Musharraf stuck to his guns and continued to hold the reins of power. This in a way ruffled the feathers of the people of Pakistan and gave rise to irrepressible dissent in the country, particularly among lawyers, the most-targeted community, in 2007.
Musharraf labels himself a champion of women’s rights and then uses the derogatory term ‘celebrity’ to describe Mukhtaran Mai, the woman who was raped for her brother’s ‘crime’ and someone who raised her voice against oppression by the society. He seems to suggest that Mukhtaran Mai deliberately tarnished the image of Pakistan by traveling extensively all over the world – Spain, Saudi Arabia, India, The United States and France and giving countless interviews to many television channels and the print media. He tries to camouflage his displeasure at the ‘singling out’ and ‘demonizing’ of Pakistan by providing an account of his efforts to empower women of Pakistan.
In the final chapter, “Reflections,” he lays down the policies that can “sustain Pakistan on a path of progress and prosperity.” He combats each and every accusation leveled against him and his country avidly. This takes everyone back to the thesis of this project whose foundation lies in the ‘subjectivity’ of truth. Pervez Musharraf’s autobiography offers a ‘spanking’ perspective on world affairs, however distorted and objectionable they may be. Therefore, instead of sticking the knife into Musharraf and allowing one’s dislike of him to warp one’s judgment, the reader must closely examine his own words in the autobiography and look at the issues from a different angle. His ‘truth’ may not be the ‘ultimate truth.’ Every reader must verify the truth according to his/her knowledge and reading of the issues and broaden his/her perspective on them. His autobiography is perhaps a ‘pack of lies’ but it certainly grabs the limelight for its content that consists of a scathing attack on India, the West and all of Musharraf’s detractors within and outside Pakistan. It may have gained more criticism than appreciation, however, in the end, it might be concluded that “Musharraf achieved his goal.”
Thursday, August 14, 2008
PRESENT MADAM!
The affiliation to the Madras University has ensured the inevitable presence of every student of Stella Maris College for a minimum of three-quarters of hours stipulated for every single paper within the four walls of the classroom. The big question that lingers in the minds of numerous freethinkers within the college premises is: “Do college students require moral policing?” The orthodox populace counters this question with an intense justification: “Choice is perilous.” What about the anarchists? They abhor more than they think. While the freethinkers and the orthodox debate over the issue of attendance constraint, the anarchists say “I don’t care” with a smirk on their faces.
Every college in this universe has its pros and cons and every student has a devil in her mind. There are times when a student prefers reading a light-hearted novel or enjoying the company of pals to turning a deaf ear to mute words. For her, ‘liberty of the soul’ conquers the driver’s seat and ‘respect of an individual’ occupies the back seat. This is quite rampant among the youth who are constantly in an ideological clash with their masters. Students have different avenues of assimilating information such as books, internet and peers. At this point in time, the orthodox have two relevant counter-questions. Do not years of research and experience in any field make a profound difference? Does not quality matter more than quantity? For freethinkers, some lectures are beneficial, some a mere necessity and very few futile.
One of the starkest ironies of this attendance saga is that a number of arrear cases have the minimum required attendance. Therefore, is this model serving its purpose? Moreover, values and morals can’t be thrust upon the current generation of ‘revolutionary minds.’ Rules and regulations are crucial to the functioning of any institution as they prevent things from going out of control. But the curiosity to know more and the wish to share a good rapport with teachers must emanate from within. The rules supposedly take a toll on the ‘free souls’ and further distance them from their teachers. The constant reminders and build-up of suspense and tension for all the three years of their ‘freaky’ stay at the college give rise to a sense of deep apathy and frustration in their minds.
The freethinkers continue to present their argument. During the even semesters, all the premier colleges of Chennai bustle with the festivities of Inter-Collegiate Culturals. This is the time when hidden talents are unearthed and the institutions achieve galore in terms of reputation. Unfortunately, even semesters have fewer numbers of working hours. Therefore, the more the students participate in the culturals, the more their chances of being welcomed graciously into the ‘danger zone.’ They might end up writing more number of arrears at the end of the day. Their lives are stiffened as they may not get an opportunity to take much-needed breaks.
What does the orthodox populace have to say? Can professors give lectures to empty classrooms? For if, choice is granted to students, not a single person would ‘take the pains’ to listen to the professors. The freethinkers interrupt abruptly. But do professors need to enlighten disinclined students? The middleperson intervenes, “We live in a society that teaches us to ‘endure’ each other rather than ‘embrace’ each other.”
Does not the freedom of one individual violate the freedom of another? Here is why the college management is forced to enforce such strict measures for the proper functioning of the college. If everyone in the college, including students and teachers, strives for freedom of a different sort, which is to bunk classes and ignore lectures respectively, the whole system will undoubtedly collapse. Bridges between students and teachers can be built only if they interact with each other; interaction is possible only in the so-called ‘dreary’ classrooms. REACH IN TO REACH OUT. This is the bedrock of an ideal education system.
Independence Day, NSS Day, NCC Day, Sports Day and other celebrations can’t go ahead if students don’t make their presence felt. If students wean themselves away from these events, the nation as a whole will suffer besides the college. Instead of leading an indolent and undisciplined life, the youth must pull up their socks and keep the spirit of the nation’s integrity intact.
In the end, the motion is passed in favour of the ‘greater good.’ The need of the hour is to narrow the communication gap between the teachers and the students. Instead of forcing rules on the students, the management must try to take them into confidence. Students on their part must reciprocate to the efforts of the teachers and avoid confrontation. Mutual understanding and cooperation will definitely lead to an immortal solution to this problem. This exercise is definitely not impossible. NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE. WHERE THERE IS A WILL, THERE IS A WAY.
Every college in this universe has its pros and cons and every student has a devil in her mind. There are times when a student prefers reading a light-hearted novel or enjoying the company of pals to turning a deaf ear to mute words. For her, ‘liberty of the soul’ conquers the driver’s seat and ‘respect of an individual’ occupies the back seat. This is quite rampant among the youth who are constantly in an ideological clash with their masters. Students have different avenues of assimilating information such as books, internet and peers. At this point in time, the orthodox have two relevant counter-questions. Do not years of research and experience in any field make a profound difference? Does not quality matter more than quantity? For freethinkers, some lectures are beneficial, some a mere necessity and very few futile.
One of the starkest ironies of this attendance saga is that a number of arrear cases have the minimum required attendance. Therefore, is this model serving its purpose? Moreover, values and morals can’t be thrust upon the current generation of ‘revolutionary minds.’ Rules and regulations are crucial to the functioning of any institution as they prevent things from going out of control. But the curiosity to know more and the wish to share a good rapport with teachers must emanate from within. The rules supposedly take a toll on the ‘free souls’ and further distance them from their teachers. The constant reminders and build-up of suspense and tension for all the three years of their ‘freaky’ stay at the college give rise to a sense of deep apathy and frustration in their minds.
The freethinkers continue to present their argument. During the even semesters, all the premier colleges of Chennai bustle with the festivities of Inter-Collegiate Culturals. This is the time when hidden talents are unearthed and the institutions achieve galore in terms of reputation. Unfortunately, even semesters have fewer numbers of working hours. Therefore, the more the students participate in the culturals, the more their chances of being welcomed graciously into the ‘danger zone.’ They might end up writing more number of arrears at the end of the day. Their lives are stiffened as they may not get an opportunity to take much-needed breaks.
What does the orthodox populace have to say? Can professors give lectures to empty classrooms? For if, choice is granted to students, not a single person would ‘take the pains’ to listen to the professors. The freethinkers interrupt abruptly. But do professors need to enlighten disinclined students? The middleperson intervenes, “We live in a society that teaches us to ‘endure’ each other rather than ‘embrace’ each other.”
Does not the freedom of one individual violate the freedom of another? Here is why the college management is forced to enforce such strict measures for the proper functioning of the college. If everyone in the college, including students and teachers, strives for freedom of a different sort, which is to bunk classes and ignore lectures respectively, the whole system will undoubtedly collapse. Bridges between students and teachers can be built only if they interact with each other; interaction is possible only in the so-called ‘dreary’ classrooms. REACH IN TO REACH OUT. This is the bedrock of an ideal education system.
Independence Day, NSS Day, NCC Day, Sports Day and other celebrations can’t go ahead if students don’t make their presence felt. If students wean themselves away from these events, the nation as a whole will suffer besides the college. Instead of leading an indolent and undisciplined life, the youth must pull up their socks and keep the spirit of the nation’s integrity intact.
In the end, the motion is passed in favour of the ‘greater good.’ The need of the hour is to narrow the communication gap between the teachers and the students. Instead of forcing rules on the students, the management must try to take them into confidence. Students on their part must reciprocate to the efforts of the teachers and avoid confrontation. Mutual understanding and cooperation will definitely lead to an immortal solution to this problem. This exercise is definitely not impossible. NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE. WHERE THERE IS A WILL, THERE IS A WAY.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
CRICKET CRAZZZYYY………
I tossed the shining coin,
Guess!
It was a tail.
I opened my tiny treasure,
Wow!
Everything looked serene blue.
I stepped into a moving inferno,
Oops!
I forgot to safeguard my little mansion.
I rang my trustworthy neighbour,
Hello!
Could you please look for my keys?
I paced towards the ‘great vent’,
Hell!
Why were those shameless dogs nudging me?
A dark man interrupted me,
Hey!
He checked the lucrative chit.
I perched on a dangling spectatorship,
Lucky!
Scorching King blessed the other corner.
I glanced at the green circle,
Beware!
The yellow ruled from the word go.
My optimism refused to die,
Hallelujah!
Where was the relentless paragon?
Hours passed, parrots backed off,
Shit!
Our battalion still ended on the wrong side.
I plodded across the muddy lanes,
Whatever!
I hoped better luck next time.
Guess!
It was a tail.
I opened my tiny treasure,
Wow!
Everything looked serene blue.
I stepped into a moving inferno,
Oops!
I forgot to safeguard my little mansion.
I rang my trustworthy neighbour,
Hello!
Could you please look for my keys?
I paced towards the ‘great vent’,
Hell!
Why were those shameless dogs nudging me?
A dark man interrupted me,
Hey!
He checked the lucrative chit.
I perched on a dangling spectatorship,
Lucky!
Scorching King blessed the other corner.
I glanced at the green circle,
Beware!
The yellow ruled from the word go.
My optimism refused to die,
Hallelujah!
Where was the relentless paragon?
Hours passed, parrots backed off,
Shit!
Our battalion still ended on the wrong side.
I plodded across the muddy lanes,
Whatever!
I hoped better luck next time.
Friday, July 18, 2008
LINE OF CONTROL
A crooked figure stares at the blemish
An upright soul weeps at its terror
Wrinkles as old as the ‘golden freedom’
Cleave the face into numerous fragments.
Barbed wire as strong as cold iron
Mince the bodies up with hate and blood.
He continues to glare at the mark
That devastated millions of innocent lives.
Ghastly silence is broken by gunshots
That tear the cattle apart into fierce pieces
But boulders of rage block stream of pain.
Reminiscences of gory battles haunt him
In the hour of simulated peace-making.
His brethren he lost in the stormy weather
Are at arm’s length from where he stands.
But the politics and years of animosity
Pull his string and drag him into ‘No Man’s Land.’
He can view the world, but not himself
He can see the butchered, but not the butchers.
He wishes to ask them just one question
“What on earth prompts you to divide humanity?”
His feet tremble, his hands shudder
On sensing fumes of terror hanging in air.
Two nations that witnessed birth of civilization
Now dig a deep hole in the civilized hearts.
The old man gazes again at the line
That is called ‘Line of Control’ world over.
An upright soul weeps at its terror
Wrinkles as old as the ‘golden freedom’
Cleave the face into numerous fragments.
Barbed wire as strong as cold iron
Mince the bodies up with hate and blood.
He continues to glare at the mark
That devastated millions of innocent lives.
Ghastly silence is broken by gunshots
That tear the cattle apart into fierce pieces
But boulders of rage block stream of pain.
Reminiscences of gory battles haunt him
In the hour of simulated peace-making.
His brethren he lost in the stormy weather
Are at arm’s length from where he stands.
But the politics and years of animosity
Pull his string and drag him into ‘No Man’s Land.’
He can view the world, but not himself
He can see the butchered, but not the butchers.
He wishes to ask them just one question
“What on earth prompts you to divide humanity?”
His feet tremble, his hands shudder
On sensing fumes of terror hanging in air.
Two nations that witnessed birth of civilization
Now dig a deep hole in the civilized hearts.
The old man gazes again at the line
That is called ‘Line of Control’ world over.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
A LAND OF DICHOTOMIES
India! India is my country and all Indians are my brothers and sisters. I love my country and I am proud of its rich and varied heritage……
Does that ring a bell? This is the auspicious pledge that I have grown up hearing and pronouncing with passion and apathy at the same time as directed by my elders. Twelve years of an esteemed educational institution’s unceasing endeavours to instill the spirit of patriotism in me have left me in a state of deep thought. The education that I obtained, is polyvalent – first, it guarantees to transform you from a human being into an intellectual being; second, it promises to guide you to display your inherent talents and secure your requisite rights; third, it ensures a gratis but daunting journey through the annals of every aspect of human history; fourth, it exhorts us to dream big and achieve our goals by means of moral, principled and ethical ways. That really sums up Indian education or does it?
Unfortunately, Indian education system has loopholes. Let’s look at the darker side of this prolific system. It has recently been dubbed as the suicide industry. Because, the new generation has utterly failed to cope with the mounting pressure and hard-bitten competition. Because, a massive overdose of facts and figures along with an infatuation with numerology have taken their toll on the subtle minds of the children. In fact, the current educational system of our country takes a lot of pride in discharging the children into an eerie abyss. Perhaps, that is the reason why it refuses to amend itself. At a time when the country is producing profuse scholars and techies, it is also generating record-breaking figures of suicide cases simultaneously.
The literacy rates are deplorable, especially among women. In India, a person who can sign his name is categorized as a literate. What about the three R’s – Reading, Writing and Arithmetic? The official figures overshadow the unofficial figures that are more legitimate, because we want to present a glossy picture of India rather than face the harsh reality and find solutions to the problem. We are after all the world’s largest democracy, an emerging superpower and would-be developed country by 2020. At a time when some of the Indians have scaled the heights in myriad arenas – art, literature, business, astronomy, economics and international relations, the majority remains illiterate and exploited. Rampant child labour and unemployment continue to haunt us in the twenty first century. The number of Indians among the richest people in the world is on the rise. The poverty has not been eradicated either. No country is completely perfect; no country is completely imperfect either. A country which consists of a Mukesh Ambani, an Anil Ambani, an Azim Premji, a Narayan Murty and a Rahul Bajaj also includes scavengers, farmers at the brink of suicides, petty rag pickers, malnourished children and countless beggars.
The current Indian media is not entirely about ‘Truth and Experience’ and ‘We Bring you the Truth Whatever it Takes.’ Their experience unfortunately directs them to sensationalize the truth. At the end of the day, all the news channels manage to recount the contorted ‘stories’ to the excitement-hungry audiences, whatever it takes. Today, the whole country is grieving at the plight of the father who rotted in jail for precisely fifty days for allegedly murdering his teenage daughter and then later released for paucity of evidence against him. Fifty days earlier, the same country condemned him for committing such a grievous crime. The twists and turns in the Arushi murder case have kept the CBI, the Noida police, the people and most importantly, the media on their toes. What is the moral of the story? Media reflects the society; society reflects the media. The masses remain glued to the television when a story of their interest is aired. Similarly, the business-savvy folks keep an eye on the volatile stock markets round the clock and the sports-crazy fans switch on their televisions only to find out what is happening off the field. Also, there is a section of the population that devours juicy gossip from the world of entertainment.
Does the Indian media cater to the middle class and the upper middle class only? Does it ignore the deprived masses and despise the affluent populace? To a great extent, yes. The acerbic coverage of the celebrities and gratuitous coverage of the peasants have done very little to alter the maligned image of the country. At the same time, we, the citizens of India, pledge to uplift the underprivileged and pompously trumpet the fact that we are a country known for ‘Unity in Diversity.’
Exposure to the revolutionized media and ignorance of the current affairs go hand-in-hand in this vast country. Please do not snub the be-all-and-end-all Nuclear Deal and the number crunching game being played cautiously but desperately by the Congress leadership to remain in power. Also, do not forget the spiraling inflation rates and escalating global crude oil and food prices. A section of the population is obsessed with those heart rending news and the other is completely impervious to them. There is a world of difference between information that has a direct impact upon you such as the petrol price hike and those that have little or no impact whatsoever such as the 1-2-3 Agreement. The politicians who created chaos on a daily-basis in the parliament opposing the deal, themselves were caught stuttering when questioned by the same media about the nuances of the deal. What can one expect from the electorate of a country whose politicos are oblivious to issues of national concern?
In this country, secularism, pseudo-secularism, communism, communalism, spiritualism and Hindutva dwell under one thatched roof. The one factor that unites the different political parties of the present Congress-led United Progressive Alliance Government is their secular credentials. The day on which the Left decided to support the Congress from outside will undoubtedly go down in history as the start of a new era that juxtaposes so-called secular parties and so-called communal parties. Foes turned friends only to ward off BJP and its allies.
But when the Government tries to woo the minorities by presenting them sops ranging from reservation to concession, then they are charged of practising pseudo-secularism. The Jammu & Kashmir’s decision to retreat from its earlier position to grant land to the Amarnath Shrine Board is being touted by the Hindu radical organizations as a clear evidence of that.
Be it a national-level bandh or a state-level bandh or even a district-level bandh, the states like West Bengal and Kerala come to a grinding halt immediately. No matter who is at the helm, the trade unions, the party workers and the big-time politicians join hands to disrupt road, train and air traffic. On the other hand, the metropolitan cities remain unaffected by any adverse or distressing development that occurs within the country or even the cities themselves. Mumbai was back on its feet the very next day after the deadly train blasts that butchered hundreds of innocents.
The country has witnessed some of the most lethal Hindu-Muslim riots that have scarred the demographics of Gujarat, Delhi, Mumbai, Ayodhya, Bhagalpur and many other towns, cities and villages. We are also a country that accommodates all the religions of the world, including Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Jainism, Judaism and Sikhism. We relish the pleasure of celebrating so many holidays owing to plethora of festivals. There are caste groups that forbid inter-caste marriages and also groups that denounce intra-caste marriages. A Hindu real estate owner may deny an abode for a Muslim buyer or vice-versa, but somewhere down the line, we have learnt to tolerate disparities and galvanize masses for one cause – a unified India.
On the one hand, someone claims to be proud of being a Hindu. On the other, the same person takes a guarded stand on Hindutva. Is Hindutva a distorted word? If yes, who is to blame? The Hindu zealots? What is the difference between Hinduism and Hindutva? We must remember that BJP, RSS, VHP, Shiv Sena and Bajrang Dal do not represent the Hindus of our country. Hinduism tolerates neither violence nor abhorrence towards other religions. The objectives of Hindutva and Cultural Nationalism are supposedly to crush the barriers amongst the Hindu castes and sects, absorb the Dalits into the mainstream of Indian machinery and “instill national pride in every Indian.” In the early 1990s, the Supreme Court ruled that “Ordinarily, Hindutva is understood as a way of life or a state of mind and is not to be equated with or understood as religious Hindu fundamentalism.” Looking back into the history of India with resentment and pain, Hindutva can be further classified into demolition of Babri Masjid, genocide of Muslims in Gujarat, the inauspicious Rath Yatra and so on. L.K. Advani says, “Hinduism is Indianism.” The practical definition still remains to be formulated. For the secularists, it is indeed a taboo word.
A survey conducted by CNN-IBN revealed that about 96% of Indians are proud to be Indians. In other words, they are immensely patriotic. Is the survey credible? Just like Hindutva, patriotism too requires an enduring definition. Does deploring Sania Mirza for apparently stamping on the Indian flag or supposedly placing her feet just next to the flag make you patriotic? Does playing the National Anthem before the screening of every movie in dark theatres arouse patriotism in one’s mind? Condemnation of Mandira Bedi for wearing a sari with the Indian flag at the bottom and deprecation of Narayan Murthy for playing the instrumental version of the National Anthem at a function of Infosys portray the trivialization of the concept of patriotism in our country.What about those who set the flag ablaze during protests and those who do not bother to stand up in reverence when the National Anthem is sung? Are they anti-nationalists or terrorists? Or are they practitioners of freedom of expression?
India is a very sensitive land where any action or remark can be blown out of proportion by hooligans to create turbulence. The country is inhabited by both chauvinists and cynics. Most of the Indians are staunch believers in our culture and deem the culture of the West as corrupted. The others try their best to emulate the Westerners, who according to them are more progressive and refined than us.
Education-Illiteracy and Media-Ignorance are possibly the least thought-about dichotomies in the country. Religion and patriotism, on the other hand, are definitely the most pondered-over subjects. Scientifically, unlike poles attract each other. This could be the only possible explanation for India’s survival despite tremors and tumults. Democracy is sacred for us. If democracy is violated, the destruction of this land is indubitable.
Does that ring a bell? This is the auspicious pledge that I have grown up hearing and pronouncing with passion and apathy at the same time as directed by my elders. Twelve years of an esteemed educational institution’s unceasing endeavours to instill the spirit of patriotism in me have left me in a state of deep thought. The education that I obtained, is polyvalent – first, it guarantees to transform you from a human being into an intellectual being; second, it promises to guide you to display your inherent talents and secure your requisite rights; third, it ensures a gratis but daunting journey through the annals of every aspect of human history; fourth, it exhorts us to dream big and achieve our goals by means of moral, principled and ethical ways. That really sums up Indian education or does it?
Unfortunately, Indian education system has loopholes. Let’s look at the darker side of this prolific system. It has recently been dubbed as the suicide industry. Because, the new generation has utterly failed to cope with the mounting pressure and hard-bitten competition. Because, a massive overdose of facts and figures along with an infatuation with numerology have taken their toll on the subtle minds of the children. In fact, the current educational system of our country takes a lot of pride in discharging the children into an eerie abyss. Perhaps, that is the reason why it refuses to amend itself. At a time when the country is producing profuse scholars and techies, it is also generating record-breaking figures of suicide cases simultaneously.
The literacy rates are deplorable, especially among women. In India, a person who can sign his name is categorized as a literate. What about the three R’s – Reading, Writing and Arithmetic? The official figures overshadow the unofficial figures that are more legitimate, because we want to present a glossy picture of India rather than face the harsh reality and find solutions to the problem. We are after all the world’s largest democracy, an emerging superpower and would-be developed country by 2020. At a time when some of the Indians have scaled the heights in myriad arenas – art, literature, business, astronomy, economics and international relations, the majority remains illiterate and exploited. Rampant child labour and unemployment continue to haunt us in the twenty first century. The number of Indians among the richest people in the world is on the rise. The poverty has not been eradicated either. No country is completely perfect; no country is completely imperfect either. A country which consists of a Mukesh Ambani, an Anil Ambani, an Azim Premji, a Narayan Murty and a Rahul Bajaj also includes scavengers, farmers at the brink of suicides, petty rag pickers, malnourished children and countless beggars.
The current Indian media is not entirely about ‘Truth and Experience’ and ‘We Bring you the Truth Whatever it Takes.’ Their experience unfortunately directs them to sensationalize the truth. At the end of the day, all the news channels manage to recount the contorted ‘stories’ to the excitement-hungry audiences, whatever it takes. Today, the whole country is grieving at the plight of the father who rotted in jail for precisely fifty days for allegedly murdering his teenage daughter and then later released for paucity of evidence against him. Fifty days earlier, the same country condemned him for committing such a grievous crime. The twists and turns in the Arushi murder case have kept the CBI, the Noida police, the people and most importantly, the media on their toes. What is the moral of the story? Media reflects the society; society reflects the media. The masses remain glued to the television when a story of their interest is aired. Similarly, the business-savvy folks keep an eye on the volatile stock markets round the clock and the sports-crazy fans switch on their televisions only to find out what is happening off the field. Also, there is a section of the population that devours juicy gossip from the world of entertainment.
Does the Indian media cater to the middle class and the upper middle class only? Does it ignore the deprived masses and despise the affluent populace? To a great extent, yes. The acerbic coverage of the celebrities and gratuitous coverage of the peasants have done very little to alter the maligned image of the country. At the same time, we, the citizens of India, pledge to uplift the underprivileged and pompously trumpet the fact that we are a country known for ‘Unity in Diversity.’
Exposure to the revolutionized media and ignorance of the current affairs go hand-in-hand in this vast country. Please do not snub the be-all-and-end-all Nuclear Deal and the number crunching game being played cautiously but desperately by the Congress leadership to remain in power. Also, do not forget the spiraling inflation rates and escalating global crude oil and food prices. A section of the population is obsessed with those heart rending news and the other is completely impervious to them. There is a world of difference between information that has a direct impact upon you such as the petrol price hike and those that have little or no impact whatsoever such as the 1-2-3 Agreement. The politicians who created chaos on a daily-basis in the parliament opposing the deal, themselves were caught stuttering when questioned by the same media about the nuances of the deal. What can one expect from the electorate of a country whose politicos are oblivious to issues of national concern?
In this country, secularism, pseudo-secularism, communism, communalism, spiritualism and Hindutva dwell under one thatched roof. The one factor that unites the different political parties of the present Congress-led United Progressive Alliance Government is their secular credentials. The day on which the Left decided to support the Congress from outside will undoubtedly go down in history as the start of a new era that juxtaposes so-called secular parties and so-called communal parties. Foes turned friends only to ward off BJP and its allies.
But when the Government tries to woo the minorities by presenting them sops ranging from reservation to concession, then they are charged of practising pseudo-secularism. The Jammu & Kashmir’s decision to retreat from its earlier position to grant land to the Amarnath Shrine Board is being touted by the Hindu radical organizations as a clear evidence of that.
Be it a national-level bandh or a state-level bandh or even a district-level bandh, the states like West Bengal and Kerala come to a grinding halt immediately. No matter who is at the helm, the trade unions, the party workers and the big-time politicians join hands to disrupt road, train and air traffic. On the other hand, the metropolitan cities remain unaffected by any adverse or distressing development that occurs within the country or even the cities themselves. Mumbai was back on its feet the very next day after the deadly train blasts that butchered hundreds of innocents.
The country has witnessed some of the most lethal Hindu-Muslim riots that have scarred the demographics of Gujarat, Delhi, Mumbai, Ayodhya, Bhagalpur and many other towns, cities and villages. We are also a country that accommodates all the religions of the world, including Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Jainism, Judaism and Sikhism. We relish the pleasure of celebrating so many holidays owing to plethora of festivals. There are caste groups that forbid inter-caste marriages and also groups that denounce intra-caste marriages. A Hindu real estate owner may deny an abode for a Muslim buyer or vice-versa, but somewhere down the line, we have learnt to tolerate disparities and galvanize masses for one cause – a unified India.
On the one hand, someone claims to be proud of being a Hindu. On the other, the same person takes a guarded stand on Hindutva. Is Hindutva a distorted word? If yes, who is to blame? The Hindu zealots? What is the difference between Hinduism and Hindutva? We must remember that BJP, RSS, VHP, Shiv Sena and Bajrang Dal do not represent the Hindus of our country. Hinduism tolerates neither violence nor abhorrence towards other religions. The objectives of Hindutva and Cultural Nationalism are supposedly to crush the barriers amongst the Hindu castes and sects, absorb the Dalits into the mainstream of Indian machinery and “instill national pride in every Indian.” In the early 1990s, the Supreme Court ruled that “Ordinarily, Hindutva is understood as a way of life or a state of mind and is not to be equated with or understood as religious Hindu fundamentalism.” Looking back into the history of India with resentment and pain, Hindutva can be further classified into demolition of Babri Masjid, genocide of Muslims in Gujarat, the inauspicious Rath Yatra and so on. L.K. Advani says, “Hinduism is Indianism.” The practical definition still remains to be formulated. For the secularists, it is indeed a taboo word.
A survey conducted by CNN-IBN revealed that about 96% of Indians are proud to be Indians. In other words, they are immensely patriotic. Is the survey credible? Just like Hindutva, patriotism too requires an enduring definition. Does deploring Sania Mirza for apparently stamping on the Indian flag or supposedly placing her feet just next to the flag make you patriotic? Does playing the National Anthem before the screening of every movie in dark theatres arouse patriotism in one’s mind? Condemnation of Mandira Bedi for wearing a sari with the Indian flag at the bottom and deprecation of Narayan Murthy for playing the instrumental version of the National Anthem at a function of Infosys portray the trivialization of the concept of patriotism in our country.What about those who set the flag ablaze during protests and those who do not bother to stand up in reverence when the National Anthem is sung? Are they anti-nationalists or terrorists? Or are they practitioners of freedom of expression?
India is a very sensitive land where any action or remark can be blown out of proportion by hooligans to create turbulence. The country is inhabited by both chauvinists and cynics. Most of the Indians are staunch believers in our culture and deem the culture of the West as corrupted. The others try their best to emulate the Westerners, who according to them are more progressive and refined than us.
Education-Illiteracy and Media-Ignorance are possibly the least thought-about dichotomies in the country. Religion and patriotism, on the other hand, are definitely the most pondered-over subjects. Scientifically, unlike poles attract each other. This could be the only possible explanation for India’s survival despite tremors and tumults. Democracy is sacred for us. If democracy is violated, the destruction of this land is indubitable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)