Practicing Leadership sans followers

Leaders are by definition people who lead their followers. While this is true in most cases, there are exceptions where the overwhelming will of the 'led' forces the leader to swap roles with his followers and then the leaders become the led. This happens particularly when passions run high and the leader is at bay trying to control them, fearful of losing legitimacy among his followers if he succumbs, too greedy to let go of potential place in history if the followers prove right!

These exceptions anyways apply to those who are leaders in the true sense, those who have proven themselves on the field, whose actions inspire trust among them followers, those who have a moral, an ideological center in life and those who instinctively connect with the multitudes. Life probably would have been simpler if our political leaders were only those who belonged to this ilk. But the harsh realities of statecraft acknowledges that not all gifted men necessarily command the thoughts of others and very often may lack what are called leadership qualities. But since their other qualities may be of immense use to various causes, the polity makes space for them in nominated positions.

So far so good. But what happens when political apparatchiks lacking charisma and that connect with the masses get anointed with leadership positions in Nations which do not have a single party dominance? The answers are not far to seek. We get parties like the Congress under Sitaram Kesri, the extant BJP and the Communist parties. While the Congress has an insurance of existence of the Nehru Gandhi family, which whether palatable or not, does possess charisma and a connect with the masses of India, the communists can protect their core by virtue of their conviction in their ideology. That leaves the BJP, which neither has a central figure nor possesses any ideology which can provide it with leaders who can lead people. And the result – we have a party president, whose tenure in Maharashtra was marred by factionalism and decline in the BJP’s fortune. He was probably parachuted to New Delhi so that he could replicate  BJP's Maharashtra  'success' at the National level. Then we have the notorious ‘Dilli-4’, a quarter of which had last won a popular election two decades back, another quarter whose last elections were in his heydays as a student union leader, another quarter who while having won popular elections, is forever intriguing against a mass leader from his home state. Is it any wonder that actions taken by the party ‘High Command’ seem so hopelessly out of touch with what its constituency expects?

Very certainly, these leaders are aware of their perceived shortcomings and even more certainly, try in their own ways to understand what the public thinks. And since they are either insulated from the cadre and supporters or appear to listen only what they want to – they end up falling on the print and visual media (of the type they are more comfortable with) for inputs on how to behave and how to lead.

It is amazing that in spite of their very very certain intellect and capabilities, they fail to gauge that they are searching for inputs from those who despise them and will never think of their good. Even a neutral observer will vouch that the reports of major newspapers and news channels, be it Times of India, Indian Express, Hindustan Times, IBN7, NDTV, Times Now – all are heavily biased against the BJP and the so called politics of Hindutva. And hence, attempts at moulding party policy to suit the whims of the incorrigible saffron haters will only result in further alienating the core. The result – leaders become leaders of television studios and of backroom intrigue. Another logical by product of this arrangement is the deep insecurity and mistrust these leaders developof leaders who can sway masses. So, excuses are invented and minor misdemeanors are magnified to sideline real leaders of people.

Lest I be accused of hyperbole, let us look at the fate of a few regional satraps who were cut to size by the Delhi leadership.

• Kalyan Singh – The Temple movement's OBC mascot was humiliated to the point that he had to leave the party. Consequence was BJP’s decimation in UP. In 2002 assembly polls, the BJP failed to win a single seat in the vast swathe of UP – from Aligarh to Kanpur Dehat. And that is not all. The downward spiral continues
• Uma Bharti – Though sort of rehabilitated now, every possible indignity has been heaped on this heroine of the Ram temple movement; from snide accusations of an affair to planted stories in the media. The Uma Bharti we see today is but a pale shadow of the woman she was
• Babulal Marandi – The powerful clique led by Rajnath Singh and corporate interests resulted his removal from the Chief Ministership. This one time RSS pracharak was so buffeted in the party that his resignation was more of a sacking
• Bhagat Singh Koshiyari – The only mass leader of Uttarakhand was overlooked for Chief Ministership in favor of an unknown Nityanand Swamy and then a Delhi hoisted late BJP entrant BC Khanduri. While Khanduri may be a good administrator, it goes beyond saying that he lacks a popular base and Koshiyari has been treated unfairly
• Madanlal Khurana – The Delhi stalwart was forced out of Chief Ministership and made redundant in the Delhi BJP. The same fate befelled his successor Sahib Singh Verma. Verma died an untimely death and the only mass leader of Delhi BJP was first expelled, then rehabilitated and now is inconsequential in both the party and the capital
• Vasundhararaje Scindia – With all her faults, the ex-royal is a mass leader and commands a strong following in Rajasthan. All efforts were made to sideline her, efforts being led by another rootless wonder, Jaswant Singh. Unfortunately for her haters, she is yet to be sidelined the way they would want
• Gopinath Munde – The only pan Maharashtra recognizable face of Maharashtra BJP hangs around probably only because he has nowhere else to go. But sooner or later, Munde, finding no maneuver space against the Gadkarian intrigues will be forced to seek greener pastures
• BS Yedyurappa – Its Kalyan Singh all over. Since the day BJP wrested power in Karnataka, riding on a sympathy wave for BS Yedyurappa, the Congress kept on trying all tricks in the book to destabilize the Government. Helped by the media crescendo and the unending byzantinian intrigues of the wannabee Chief Minister, the toothy Ananth Kumar, Yedyurappa was forced out of office. No one gave a damn that that Yedyurappa broke no law in the mining saga and rather than taking the UP, Goa, Haryana Rajasthan route of gaining a majority, opted for getting new entrants to the BJP to first resign as MLAs and seek a fresh mandate. Now, even when the corruption allegation against him have been quashed (the nepotism allegation still stands), he is being denied the seat which is rightfully his. It is inconsequential if the BJP finds Karnataka to having become another Uttar Pradesh. What is of only consequence is that Yedyurappa must be fixed! Fixed he certainly will be and very likely that he will split the party, probably to be rendered ineffectual himself. But the harm that it will do to the BJP will be incalculable.

It would seem that the allegations of the BJP being a Brahmin Bania party are not entirely unfounded. It’s Party President and three quarters of ‘Dilli 4’ are Brahmins and a few exceptions notwithstanding, most of the leaders at the receiving end of intrigues are OBCs. Perhaps the caste factor is coincidental. What certainly does not seem coincidental is that people who can make a difference have been and are being systematically sidelined.

What to say? ‘Leaders’ who believe that they can rule the Center even as they are ceding ground in States can think of any anything!

Not a Reformer certainly

I hold no brief for Mamata Banerjee but cannot help but wonder on what exactly has she done to deserve the hostility of the ELM? If it is on account of her rusticity, the media darling Lalu can give her tips anyday. If it is her propensity to throw tantrums, she can learn a thing or two from Jayalalitha. If it is her opportunism, she will be a student to the likes of Nitish, Naveen and Paswan and if it her populism, Manmohan Singh can teach her a thing or two.

Just imagine, a single woman who almost single handedly fought a mighty party / Government apparatus for over two decades and is known to by incorruptible (by standards of Indian politicians) is treated like a virago by the ELM. Her fault, she does not pay obeisance to the reigning matron at 10, Janpath and more critically, she is not seen as favoring the business houses. So, Mamata is berated for protesting against the Teesta water treaty. Her fault – she protested against the unfair share which Bangladesh was being provided under the treaty. The ELM conveniently declared her as being against National Interests and for putting provincial considerations over the National ones. Pray tell us, is Bengal not India? How can something which is bad for Bengal be good for India and most importantly, how can one claim that by giving away National assets, India gains. A question to all r those who still like in the make believe world of only give and no take, please tell how exactly did India gain by giving away rights on Tibet to China, by giving over Manipuri land to Burma, by handing over Katchtheevu to Sri Lanka, by handing over Tees Bigha, Tin Bigha and the Ganga water to Bangladesh? Both the Indus Water Treaty and the Ganges Water treaty are loaded in favor of the smaller nation. What did India gain with these acts of magnanimity that it should be more magnanimous?

Mamata is chided for her land use policy. So, what should be done? All the sharecroppers and small land owners be gassed or sent to gulags? Or have Kalinganagar, Nandigram, Vedic Village, Bhatta Parsaul repeated in thousands of villages of Bengal? While it is certainly Government’s business to promote trade and commerce, it is not its business to act as cronies of business houses trying to make money in the guise of growth. 

The ELM’s dislike of Mamata has reached newer heights with the Railways fare hike by Dinesh Trivedi. Sadly, the commentary provided by the ELM only serves to buttress the notion that a vast majority of people who masquerade as journalists are career discards who could do nothing better in life. Firstly, simply because Dinesh Trivedi declared the fare hike in terms of paise per km, it was declared by those sanctimonious people as marginal hikes. Of course, had they managed to clear their basic arithmetic examinations in school, they would have known that existing fares were (in progressive scale) less than 30 paise per km for second class rail travel and Rs 1.01 for AC second class travel. The hikes proposed by Dinesh Trivedi are marginal only if 15%-20% hikes are marginal. Another pretender from the same ilk, Vivian Fernandes, who happens to head a media company claims that fares had not been raised for the last two decades! Huh!

This is not to say that there was no case at all for a fare hike. At the same time, a mere fare hike does not make either the Railway budget progressive or Dinesh Trivedi a reformer. What has Trivedi done except to raise fares? There is absolutely nothing in the budget which would help reduce superfluous expenditure, improve safety, improve maintenance, improve passenger amenities or at the very minimum, improve cleanliness and punctuality. If claims of bringing down Opex Ratio is being greeted with orgasmic sighs, it only shows the barrenness of their intellect for it does not take much to understand that if revenue is increased, opex ratio will come down even when expenses are not reduced. No sir, Mr Trivedi has been hailed simply because he ostensibly stood against Mamata (though the entire saga reeks of having been fixed by the main protagonists). 

It is funny that precisely the same set of people start crying themselves hoarse when airfares climb upwards. Haven’t airfares been static for more than a decade? Should they at least not been tripled since everything has become so expensive? No, they haven’t for scale has also resulted in economies and airways have also cut down on superfluous expenses.

That we are back to the Indira and Rajiv years in terms of budgets seems to have escaped notice of the ELM completely. In those years, each budget would mean increased taxes, increased prices. This year, we have had hikes in Excise, Service Tax and Train Tickets. Almost everything will be more expensive. Reforms are dead and so is the India growth story. The ELM which went breathless commending UPA 1 & early UPA 2 for growth is strangely silent now. It never bothered to accept that economy performs with a time lag, i.e., policy decisions have a gestation of at least 2 years to bear fruit. UPA 1 reaped benefits of NDA policies and now chickens of UPA1 are coming home to roost. Long live the Italian matron! Long live NAC and long live Manmohan!

Vanvaas in Uttar Pradesh

I proclaim my innocence lest feminists get the urge to lynch me, the adage I am about to quote is just that – an adage and bears no reference to my own opinions.

"Aurat ke liye sautan ka dukh vaidhavya ke dukh se bada hota hai." Loosely translated meaning that a woman in a bigamous marriage is more unhappy than a woman who has lost her husband.

Whether or not this adage is true or whether its truth has changed over the years, we must leave that to social scientists to investigate. What we must certainly observe and comment upon is the amount of glee in both the Congress’s and the BJP’s camps, over the less than honorable performance of either parties in the assembly elections in general and in the Uttar Pradesh polls in particular. While any neutral observer may observe that both the parties failed, the statements from both the parties would make it seem that each of them is deriving more joy at the humiliation of the other, not realizing that it has been stripped too.

In Congress’s defence, let me state that while it could not protect its performance of 2009, it still recorded a 3% increase in vote share and while it was a runner up in only 35 constituencies, it did manage to poll more than 15,000 votes in a very large number of constituencies. In effect, Congress is actually a presence across Uttar Pradesh now, not a party whose performance in a few pocket boroughs will give a mis-impression of a vote share of 8-10%. True the party lost about 5%-6% when compared to the Lok Sabha polls but then it did not contest in about 50 seats this time. Most critically, the downward spiral seen in its vote share, since 1990 has been reversed and has actually increased.

Look at the BJP on the other hand. It lost votes, both when compared with 2007 assembly and 2009 Lok Sabha polls. It is all but decimated in the Central UP the heartland which carries the maximum seats of all regions, having captured only 11% of popular votes this time. In vast swathes of the State the BJP has finished 5th or 6th and has had the largest number of forfeitures in the last few decades. While it may seem that the BJP has lost 1% of vote as compared to 2007, when it had a 17% share, it had contested those polls in alliance with Apna Dal and JD(U) which together had polled over 2% of votes. This time, in spite of having fought almost all the seats independently, it managed a mere 16%, a fall of over 3%. In the 2009 Lok Sabha polls, it managed 19% with its ally the RLD managing another 3%. Compared to 2009, the BJP too has lost 6% of the votes.

Now who is the bigger loser, the BJP or the Congress?

With these results, it is quite cussed on the part of the RSS to blame BJP’s political leadership alone for the debacle. The central leadership was as far away from managing the election as it could be, it having been handled almost exclusively by Nitin Gadkari and Sanjay Joshi, with all the blessings of the RSS. If things were so wrong to begin with, why did not the RSS set things right while the polls were on? Everyone can after all, be wise in the hindsight.

One interesting phenomenon which seems to have missed notice of most commentators is that the BJP’s performance in terms of seats is actually not as bad as it should have been. If you are wondering how, then let’s have a look at these figures

Year Vote Share (with allies) Seats (with allies)

1991 30% 212

1993 33% 177

1997 31% 176

2002 25% 88

2007 19% 51

2012 16% 47

In the first past the post system, any party winning over 30% of votes in a multi partied election is almost destined to emerge as the winner or at least the single largest party. Hence, the drop in BJP’s votes in 1997 did not translate into much of a loss for them in terms of seats. The difference came in 2002 when BJP’s 6% decline resulted in its seats being reduced by half, i.e., to 88 A further 6% reduction resulted in another over 40% loss for the BJP in 2007 while a 3% loss in 2009 has resulted in a loss of mere 4 seats. Add to that 10 other seats where the BJP lost by less than 1,000 votes and we see that its seat share is actually more than what it otherwise deserved. What happened?

It is worthwhile to note that 23 of the 47 seats which the BJP has won are seas where Muslims form over 30% of the population. Overall, with the number of constituencies where it was the runner up, i.e., 55, it was a presence in 102 odd seats. Not that bad when one considers that it was only 243 odd seats which the Sanjay Joshi led team was focusing. So, booth level election management probably did arrest some bit of the BJP’s slide without which it might have reduced to 30-35 seats, which quite a few opinion polls had been projecting.

Anyways, a party which concentrates only on 243 of 402 seats cannot be considered a serious contender for power. A party which is a factor only in one-quarter of the total assembly seats does not deserve to be the ruling party. The BJP fought for the 3rd spot and it won that. With each election, we see a steady downgrading of the BJP’s ambitions in UP and UP rewards it accordingly. After all, who would want to vote for a party which does not stand for anything or anybody?

Why did the BJP perform so badly? Congress’s stars are not exactly on an upswing, the BSP was discredited and SP’s rule was not a distant memory yet. Most importantly, the BJP did not fight on Hindutva (anyways the last election on Hindutva was 1993) and supposedly there was no Muslim consolidation against it. Then why could it not convert the opportunity to growth?

Sadly, I am forced to agree with Nazarwala, whose predictions on UP since 2007 have been uncannily on mark. It was Nazarwala who had forecast a Maya victory in 2007, Congress’s resurgence in 2009 and SP’s victory in 2012. It was he who wrote that the BJP’s vanvaas will continue in Uttar Pradesh and its tally fall below its 2007 score. And the reason as per him – the BJP cheated the people of UP with its promise of Ram Temple at Ayodhya and the people are punishing it for having reneged on its promise. If one asks, why UP and not the rest of India, my answer shall be two fold – One, the states where BJP grew in the early 1990s (other than its strongholds of Delhi, MP, HP and Rajasthan) were Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, West Bengal, Karnataka, Assam, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. Of these, only Gujarat has consistently voted for the BJP and Karnataka saw decline of the party for about 10 years before it wrested power in 2007. In all the other states, the party has reduced and the decline is yet to be arrested. Secondly, it was UP where the BJP’s rise had been the most meteoric, from 11% in 1990 to 33% in 1993. It goes without saying that the decline should follow the same trajectory.

For all of BJP’s campaign sans Hindutva, the Muslims still gravitated to the SP. Hence, it should put to rest the vapid theory propagated by the ELM that polarization works against the BJP. It lost when it supposedly ran a communal CD based campaign in 2007 (which it disowned), it lost when Varun Gandhi became the new Narendra Modi for the ELM in 2009 and it lost when even the riots of Mau, Bareilley and Moradabad were not raised these elections.

Perhaps the BJP will do good to take a leaf out of the victor’s book and offer an apology to those millions which it hoodwinked in the name of the Ram temple at Ayodhya. Let it begin with LK Advani saying sorry to those who braved all odds to be a part of the yatra and become Kar Sevaks. Let the RSS apologise for having jettisoned its ideology to help the BJP cling to power by any means. Let the VHP apologise to those who it let down. Let them apologise to those sadhus and sants who came under their umbrella and braved bullets to fulfill their dream of reclaiming that hallowed land at Ayodhya. And last but not the least, let them apologise to the families of those martyrs who sacrificed their lives in their vain search to reclaim the temple of our Lord.

Who are we and how do we determine if the ‘others’ belong to this collective we?

One of the paradoxes while many readers of history may have noticed is the subliminal belief among most Indians that the Ghaznavis, Ghurids and the Mughals were foreigners even though they belonged to areas corresponding to the northern ranges, which mythologically and historically had formed a part of the Indian civilization and which supposedly, still figures in the Undivided India dream of the Hindu Nationalists. If the Hindu Nationalists so strongly believe that the land in between the Oxus (Amu Darya) and the Indus was very much India, how could people belonging to those regions and a little beyond be foreigners, that too, in perpetuity? This particularly when we don’t necessarily see Kushanas, the Sakas and the Hunas as foreign invaders once they established their rule in the country?

Probably, this is the reason, why most ‘eminent’ historians of the pink variety took it upon themselves to declare in sanctimonious tones that while the British were certainly foreigners, the Muslim Invaders, weren’t.

The reality certainly lies somewhere in between! The concepts of ‘Us’ and ‘Others’ are not static but evolve with time. When population expands, we may not know or be personally related to all who stay with us. We take recourse to external symbols and practices to identify those who are like us. And these symbols could be clothes, (fabric, color and style), ornaments, food habits, language and religious rituals

The traits of Territorialism and clannishness are present in most mammalian creatures, humans being no exception. Hence, it is of little wonder that since the dawn of civilization, tribes have identified the human race as comprising of two groups, ‘Us’ and ‘Others’. Defining ‘Us’ was relatively easy to begin with – people associated with familial links formed the initial ‘Us’ and with growth of population, expanded to include those sharing similar food habits, language, religion and culture. Defining ‘Others’ was as simple – anyone not falling within the category of ‘Us’ belonged to ‘Others’ – treated with suspicion and quite often, hostility. Probably, it was a primal fear, of being overwhelmed by the ‘Other’ and losing access to one’s resources or a simpler fear of loss of limb or life or a more sophisticated dislike of cultural poverty of the outsider – almost all civilizations had had very clearly defined groups of people who were not ‘Us’. For the Chinese, all races beyond the middle kingdom (which had to expand continuously to include the frontier people), were the barbarians, while for the Ancient Indians, people inhabiting lands beyond the Northern ranges were ‘impure’. Even within, those who did not fall under the pale of the much maligned Varnashram Dharma, became the dasas, mostly living beyond the pale of regular Vedic and post Vedic civilization. In ancient Greece, slaves were clearly demarcated from the citizens and stayed in separate quarters while in Islamic societies, a better solution existed, force the vanquished to embrace Islam so that the question of the ‘Others’ is taken care of in toto! On a more serious note, it will be rare to come across any such instance of history where the victor race, particularly when not sharing a common cultural heritage with the vanquished, has treated the vanquished as ‘We’. So, while today, we may see Iran as a belligerent Islamic Nation, we cannot lose sight of the fact the Islam of Iran is Persian and not Arabic and that this ancient civilization became important only when the Persians overthrew the Arabs to establish Persian rule, though Islamic in nature.

Looking at India, we have a strange situation where very clearly, the ‘Uttarpath’ land neighbourly to ancient seat of Vedic civilization in Punjab became forbidden territory by the later Vedic Period. Likewise, its people, in spite of the others’ acceptance of their beauty, wealth and perfectness of Sanskrit, spoken by them, had begun getting seen as the fallen Aryas, a land where Varnashram Dharma was no longer followed. Things changed with advent of the Mauryas and close association with the Gangetic civilizations ensured that the land and the people were seen as Bharatiya. But even here, the people of northern ranges were seen as being different to other Indians, like today we see a Tamilian as seen as being different to a Kashmiri.

Whatever difference there was, got accentuated with the advent of Islam in those regions. The first important central Asian, who invaded these parts of India, was Subuktgin, belonging to the lands around Samarkand, not really an extension of Asian India. He established his reign in Ghazni and his notorious / illustrious son Mahmud, the iconoclast plunderer, raided deep into the Indian mainland. Since Mahmud and the later invader, Ghori were based out of Afghanistan, can it be said that at least Ghori, since he was partially of the Afghan stock, was an Indian and that his invasion was not a foreign invasion?

The tricky question of ‘Us’ versus ‘Others’ begs answering here. For the animal world, identifying the ‘Other’ is easy, for the human beings, this is where we begin to acknowledge that culture at times, becomes more critical than birth in identifying the ‘Others’

The ancient invaders, Kushanas, Sakyas and the Hunas certainly did not belong to those lands which formed a part of ancient India. However, very soon they adopted the culture of the country which they had invaded and became assimilated among ‘Us’. On the other hand, people inhabiting the Northern ranges moved furthest away from the Hindu culture with Adoption of Islam and more importantly, looking westwards (Persia and Arabia) and Northwards (Central Asia) rather than to the East for spiritual and cultural inspiration.

Interestingly, while the Ghurids were seen as despicable mlecchas, the Islamic rule in India for over 3 centuries resulted in a scenario where the Suris were not seen as outsiders and in fact the battles against Babur in which the Afghans fought hand-in-hand with the Rajputs were seen as struggles against a foreign invader, a usurper who had conquered Kabul but did not belong to the historical Indian lands. Why was that? Is it because the Afghans had made peace with the Hindus, because Kabul and Zabul still had some Hindu influence or more importantly, the prospect of a ruler from Central Asia, related to the Mongols and the Turks made the Hindus feel that the Afghans were at least ethnic cousins? Or was it simply because 3 centuries of Turko Afghan rule had made Hindus indifferent to their distinct practices.

That begs another question. If three centuries of Islamic rule in the early millennium had sort of assimilated Afghani Muslims, why was the Mughal rule seen as foreign till the nether years of that empire? After all, the Mughal ruled only those areas which were historically Indian and in spite of all of Babur’s lamentations and pining for the cold lands, delicious fruits, beautiful gardens and luscious men, Babur died in the country he so hated and none of the later Mughals too succeeded in transcending the Indian boundaries. Probably the rule was foreign till the very last as the Mughals looked to Persia for inspiration and ruled as rulers over the ruled race. The court language, the administration system, the festivals, the jurisprudence, all were lifted from Persia and the Mughal emperors styled them after their Persian counterparts. Seems familiar with the British rule, doesn’t it?

In our effort to be politically correct, we miss out that the concept of ‘Us’ vs ‘Others’ is relative and the key to this segregation is the strongest identity the people have. We do not miss out on saying that all humans are not alike but at the same time fail to appreciate that when ranged against other families of the same tribe / clan, a family assumes a uniform identity different from the rest of its ilk. Likewise, a state may have different regions, a language different dialects, but in a Nation, a state has a singular identify, against other languages, all dialects merge their identity with the mother language. Likewise, people may cry themselves hoarse claiming that Muslims are not a monolith and that they have numerous castes and sub-castes, but so what? For Muslims belonging to the ummah, their identify subsumes all other identities. Some erroneously claim that Bangladesh was a negation of the concept of a Muslim identity? How is that so? Bangladesh remained Islamic and never expressed a desire to merge with India. There are 49 Muslim countries in the world today and a Shia Iran hates what the Wahabbi Arabia stands for. That does not mean that these nations do not share a singular Islamic identity. Their scriptures have made them see as one people, irrespective of their race and Nationality. The Han Chinese see themselves as one people and so even Taiwan does not have a world view which is different from that of mainland China

For the Hindus, fortunately or unfortunately, their identity as religionists have been subordinate to their identity as a caste, the feeling. Very clearly, how we see ourselves and others is a result of both our primal instincts and conditioning. In a larger group, we search for similarities to perceive ourselves as more powerful against the others and in smaller groups, stress on differences to place ourselves apart from the others.

Lokpal - An end?

After raising high hopes, the great Indian middle class disappointed again in ensuring that the agitation of the Lokpal becomes a punctured balloon.

True, Anna Hazare and his team stands diminished. Diminished because the people, who they claimed to represent, foresook them and diminished because they did not have grace to accept that the absence of the common supporter did indicate that they had faltered somewhere. If crowds were indicator of their support than it goes that absence of crowd means absent or weak support.

Amazing is the level of glee which is seen on the face of many who had supported Anna. Amazing because while this glee was much expected from the media moguls and the chattering classes, one wonders what makes his erstwhile supporters feel happy that Anna was defeated by those who made him lead them.

Today, it is fashionable to criticize him as per one's own proclivity, but lest one forget, there was hardly any occasion, where the Mahatma himself escaped criticism, many a times from his own closest supporters. While one can fault Anna on numerous things, even on how his movement appropriated a more critical movement against Black Money, but still, his defeat is the defeat of us all, who wanted a clean Government for us and our generations to come.

What was his fault? That he wanted a simple, powerful law to nail the corrupt? Guess, reason enough for him to have been virtually killed by his followers.

Retail FDI: Why can’t we get over hyperbole?

After having successfully deflected the opposition’s gunfire from corruption & inflation to FDI retail, the Manmohan Singh led Central Govt has backtracked and the decision to open multi brand retail to FDI seems to have been put in cold storage for now.

While the entire saga of events did highlight the fissures within the UPA on key decision making processes, the fiasco may have resulted in retail now being anointed as one of India’s very many holy cows and may thus not be subjected to critical reforms anytime soon. However sad or welcome the rollback decision might have been, one is certainly stuck by the contrast between Government and opposition claims on what FDI in retail would do.

At one end, the Government spin masters claimed that FDI in retail would do what Governments in the last 70 years could not, i.e., make farmers rich, make consumers benefit, generate employment, create infrastructure and what not, the opposition and the varied opinion makers in the opposite camps were equally vehement in their claims that FDI in this sector would bring India precipitously close to where it was the early 18^th century. If only, if only, either of these claims were even partially true.

It will not be unjust to disdainfully dismiss the Congress’s fanciful claims. Even if we were to discount the oft repeated opposition claim of Walmart’s 2.1 million employment vs India’s 40 million employment for the same turnover, it is clear from an observation of current Indian supermarket chains that a consolidated store shall be more efficient and employ lesser number of people. Even otherwise, the chaotic and disorganized Indian Retail sector is virtually like a cottage Industry and anyone with even a little knowledge of economics would know that efficient processes eliminate manpower requirements, not enhance them. So, it is likely that only a fraction of people who are engaged as employees in retail stores now will end up as employees of the MNCs. And if we eliminate the presence of the so called middlemen from the value chain, that would mean that even these people will be without vocations / jobs and only add to the number of unemployed. Where does the additional employment get generated then? 

A counter argument could be the need for employment in back end operations. If that be, it would only be a partial filling of open jobs and will to some extent, defeat one of the motivators for reforms, i.e., control of overheads / middlemen commission.

Even otherwise, whatever we see now does not support the contention of Retail chains being more beneficial for customers. Let me take the example of the Retail chain where I’ve doing the bulk of my grocery shopping for the last 4 years. This chain offers vegetables, fruits and grains, at similar or higher prices compared to your regular mom and pop store. Interestingly, many a times I’ve noticed that the fruits sold by the chain are not so fresh and more expensive than those being sold by the hawker, the last – last link in the very inefficient supply chain these retailers want to replace. Only a couple of years back, when retail onion / potato prices were going through the roof (even as wholesale prices remained in control), this chain, with all its efficient supply chain was selling at almost the same price as was being sold by other local retailers. The moot question as to why I continue to shop with them – the convenience, if you have to shop in bulk and the service.

Many a times, it is quoted that barely 40% of Indian produce is stored. So? What does it mean or should it necessarily mean something? A large bulk of our produce is through small farmers (self sustenance) and consumed in a hinterland of a 100 mile radius. Is it really a wonder that we don’t have that much of surplus which is to be stored. Of course, we have years when a potatoes/ tomatoes get produced much more than what they can be stored. But how is this occasional problem served by entry of large foreign retail chains?

At the same time, it is a fallacy to expect that foreign retail chains will kill the domestic retail industry. For one, the sheer spread of India and the local economics won’t allow percolation of such retail chains in all urban agglomerations, leave aside the small towns which dot India. Further, even in cities, a Wal Mart will certainly cause many to down shutters but still allow many to sustain business. With the type of demographics which comprise a large majority of our cities, it is difficult to see Walmarts / Tescos completely replacing your neighborhood stores which offer you products on credit and in very small quantities, at anytime of the day.

More critically, it is not foreign businesses which kill retail businesses alone. Larger retail chains have impacted independent stores where they have come up. If we don’t have an issue with internal competition, then what is so bad about external competition? Even here, before I’m accused of being an agent of the East India Company, let me clarify that India has had MNCs dominating in the most basic of spaces for decades now, without it being any poorer. Very basically, compared to the colonial days, where wealth was simply transferred overseas, in today’s MNC model, the assets and even profit ploughback mostly remains in the land of operations. One can legitimately ask if the profits ‘ploughed-back’ by Unilever to its HO are material enough for us to visualize a scenario of drain of wealth?

Like any other facet of the economy, FDI in retail has its own pros and cons and need to be judged simply on that. Let us please be spared the sight and sound of both Government hyperventilating on how it will ‘move farmers out of poverty’ (sic) and quoting some fantastically fantastic figures and the opposition beating its breast on sellout of India, once again!

Kitne Ramayan?

The decision of Delhi University to withdraw the essay ‘300 Ramayans’ from the list of prescribed history texts have yet again raised the hackles of many, who see the act as succumbing to the rabid right wing, hell bent on shoving down the myth of one people, one culture, to us diverse Indians.

Interestingly, the same people who otherwise had no sympathy to folk tales and traditions are swearing by their multiplicity and insist that those telling, writings, tales are equally, if not more, important than the Upper Casteist Valmiki Ramayana.

A side thread to this contrived fracas is the upliftment of the late author AK Ramanujan’s profile. While Ramanujan, who died in 1993, had made his career as a translator of works on Indian literature and culture for an American audience, the controversy has ensured that the defenders of plurality now hail this scholar – translator as the best thing to have happened to Indian culture, a litterateur par excellence, with some wires calling him an acclaimed historian!

Leaving the credentials of Ramanujan behind, while some apologists have claimed that Ramanujan deeply revered Ramayana, Ramanujan was a declared atheist. Even his relatively celebrated poem on the demise of River Vaigai dwelt on the socioeconomic importance of the River for Madurai rather than its religious significance.  The essay itself begins by introducing Hanuman as Rama’s henchman, something which is not used to denote the position of even the slave Bilal, to Muhammad, the Prophet.

Even if we disregard AKR’s intents as being immaterial to the present controversy, one cannot be indifferent to the impropriety of this essay being part of the History curriculum. 

Beginning with a relatively minor point on Ramayana itself being part of the History curriculum. While for us believers, there may nothing be out of place in reading essays on our epics as a part of History, it is indeed surprising that the brigades who have shrilly denounced these very epics as myths, now more shrilly declare their support for this essay as a part of history! Since when did a myth become history for these people?

Coming to the more important point of there being no original Ramayana: Valmiki has been introduced in our cultural records as being the first poet with the introductory lines of the Ramayana being the first poem and the Ramayana being the Adi-Grantha. While there have been numerous poets who have retold Rama’s story in their own tongues, all of them have singularly paid homage to Valmiki and most critically, none of them have claimed to be the Drishta, (one who saw as things were). Valmiki was the contemporary of Rama while others could only claim to be blessed with His divine Grace. So much so for the absence of original!

Different creations have different sensibilities. Well, none of them have Rama kidnapping Mandodari and Ravana attacking Ayodhya to save her! Of course, narratives and subtle details have changed. The story of Shabari’s berries, who we all delight in, wasn’t simply there in Valmiki’s Ramayana, having been introduced later in Padma Purana. Likewise, the story of Ahalya has been treated differently at different times. The base facts remain the same, Gautama cursed Ahalya and she was salvaged by His Grace. But the difference lies in presumption of her guilt. While in one version, Sita was simply kidnapped, in another version, she was not touched but taken with the soil beneath her feet while one other says that it was not Sita but her shadow which was kidnapped. But all of them do say that Sita was kidnapped. Otherwise, while Valmiki treated Rama as a super human with divine qualities, Tulsidas clearly saw Rama as God himself. 

The moot point is that while poets over the ages altered and embellished the narrative basis their own sensibilities and the prevailing social mores, the broad facts of the Ramayana remained the same. And rather than some obscure tribe having its own Sitayana, it was Valmiki himself who declares in his Ramayana, that the tale should have been more aptly named Sitayana.

Funnily, when there is so much congruence in the telling, the author seems to have concentrated on the divergences. So much so for those who proclaim: ‘We must learn to include rather than to exclude’.

While the well-meaning may really want to search for unity in diversity, the attempt to showcase fringe and obscure tellings as equivalent to the prime telling cannot be anything but mischievous. To say that Sita was Rama’s sister and that this version of the tale is as important as the works of Valmiki, Tulsi or Kamban is ridiculous and should be dismissed as a juvenile attempt to befool people. It is no accident that at their height of Ram Janmabhoomi Liberation Movement, the Marxist SAHMAT, wanted to hold enactments of the play ‘Kitne Ramayan’ across cities and towns in Uttar Pradesh. The motive of SAHMAT was not to educate the Indian populace on the plurality of Indian culture, it was simply to attack the premise of Rama as God. After all, seeing those Ramayanas, where Sita was Rama’s sister or Ravana’s wife or Lakshmana’s paramour, treated at par with the Manas or Ramayana could not have strengthened the faith of the common man in his God. 

Granted that there are numerous tellings of the Ramayana but each of them, written with belief in the God King has its base facts the same. Adherents to each of these versions are most of the time blissfully unaware that there are subtle differences in texts being followed and worshipped in other parts of the country or the country. Go to any part of India and within a 100 km radius, you will find a place where either Sita-Ram or the Pandavas are believed to have visited in course of their forest stay. Is it than any wonder that each part of the country has its own set of folk tales associated with Rama? Only, each of these people revere both the tale unlike what our progressives do.

For those who would claim that the beliefs are not that fragile to be shaken by a mere essay, should remember that over the centuries, singular texts have changed the course of religion – an outstanding poem Geeta Govinda became the cornerstone for worship at Krishna temples and the movie Jai Santoshi Maa, gave huge impetus to the worship of the Goddess all across North India. One would not be accused of hyperbole if he claims that introduction of such essays as prescribed texts, would only serve to further the secular agenda of questioning and weakening the position of Rama and Ramayana in the Hindu psyche. Of course, the Thai and Balinese versions treat Ramayana more differently. Thankfully, for them too, Rama and not Ravana is the God. More importantly yet again, like most of my fellow countrymen are oblivious of the Thai Ramayana, the common Thai believes that her Ramkien (of the 3 existing tellings) is her land's own tale, of her own Ayuthya and is not aware of any Indian Ramayana. That there are many tellings of Rama's story is not something which has been unknown to the devout, so why this sensationalism? Till the time these re-tellings are meant for and discussed with devotion, no one shall have any problem with any version. After all:

हरी अनंत हरी कथा अनंता, कही सुनाही बहु विधि सब संता (God is Infinte. So is His story. The pious speak and listen (to His story) in many different ways)

No University in its right mind anywhere in the world will use a text which talks about the life of Muhammad with reference to Rangila Rasool nor will it declare 'The Da Vinci Code' as a scholarly work. If these fringe works are treated for what they are, why should we Indians be apologetic about our prime cultural mores and look for authentication certificates for our beliefs and our tales from others, more so, from those Indians who write for foreign audiences? So why should we start bothering and questioning our epic simply because AKR or some other person for that matter decided to compare, say, Nina Paley's 'work' with the Valmiki Ramayana and claimed that it was the 301st Ramayana?