Immortal Politicians

Politicians’ world over can exist in only two forms, as ‘mortals’ or as ‘immortals’. While President Clinton proved to be as much or more of a ‘mortal’ than us, normal face-less beings, we have in India given birth to another ‘immortal’ politician.

While we have been used to being ruled by mortal politicians, it has been quite awhile that we have had the chance of being ruled by an immortal politician, a larger than life figure. With the departure of the Gandhis and Nehrus from our world, we Indians, suckers that we are to fawning and drooling, have had a vacuum in our lives. Mrs G partly quenched our thirst of needing to have a demi-God until she slammed on to the ground as Icarus, for having flown too close to the sun by imposing an ‘emergency’ in a land that abhors dictators. The Nehru-Gandhi clan has again risen to the occasion and provided us much needed succour with the emergence of Mrs Sonia Gandhi, a saint in the garb of a human; one who relinquishes the throne for the sake of saving India.

With one masterstroke she, till the 19th of May Circa 2004 a mere mortal, has risen to the ranks of immortals and has assured her place among the portraits of Nehru and Gandhi who stare down at us from every conceivable wall of our seats of government. We Indians have had multiple earth shattering orgasms on the night of the 19th, let the date be etched in our memories, to see a Gandhi, true to form, rising, as it were, as a Phoenix, straddling over us as Gulliver did in the land of Lilliputians. I wonder if Ashoka the Great was wooed to reclaim the throne in the same manner that the Congressmen did; falling over each other, to request, nay plead, cajole ‘Madam’ to please take the throne; alas she was unmoved! She did not heed to any of the innumerable petitions, nor did she let her ‘desire’ fall prey to pictures of a Congressman holding a pistol to his head, held aloft on a makeshift podium, declaring that the gun shall bring to him his deliverance, if she were to abdicate the throne. As an aside, not a single Congressman either shot himself dead or did any of the terribly ghastly things that they threatened to do if ‘Madam’ did not choose to revert to being a ‘mortal’ again. I must say that ‘Amma’ down south has a much more stronger band of followers who regularly ‘immolate’ themselves if their beloved ‘Amma’ were, so much so as to, catch a cold.

The Indian media, specifically the print guys, fell into a mighty swoon. The editors and correspondents, for the first time in their lives, were left groping for words. How does one describe such rare occurrences? Who in this day and time gives up power and relinquishes the grand trappings of office and pelf? So thus we gave birth to Saint Sonia, a larger than life figure, an Indian who is more ‘Indian’ than us, a foreigner who has taught us the long lost art of ‘sacrifice for the larger good’. Her ‘inner voice’ now has more credibility in the world media and is quoted verbatim in the haloed British parliament than any other ‘external’ voice. The human mind, a fascinating piece of machinery, cannot see an object or person in seclusion without trying to ‘categorise’ it and express it in degrees of comparison, and so Saint Sonia is now in the same league with Mother Teresa, Annie Besant etc.

The BJP, a party now, with an extremely severe case of both ‘feet and hand in the mouth’ and ‘eat crow’ disease, has been hard hit with one of those President Bush’s ‘precision guided’ missiles. For a change, the precision guided missile did turn out to be ‘precision guided’ and hit the target, bang on, with pinpoint accuracy. Elections 2004 had already robbed the BJP of its sheen and had sent its leaders into a dumbfounded silence, and while party stalwarts Vajpayee and Adwani locked themselves up, nursing their wounds, the children came out to play.

Big ‘bindi(ed)’ Sushma, out to avenge her sidelining by the likes of Pramod Mahajan and Arun Jaitley, declared her ‘Savitrick’ zeal for India, in the full glare of the media lights, and presented to all her viewers of the ‘imaginative kind’ a fascinating image of her tonsured visage, sleep-on-the-floor stiffness and more dark circles round her eyes, what with eating only ‘channa’! Saffron robed ‘sanyasin’ Uma wanting to go on leave for a long time and searching for the opportune time promptly submitted her ‘resignation’ to the party president and not her state Governor to take an extended all-expenses-paid sojourn to ‘Kedarnath’ and ‘Badrinath’ to cleanse her and ‘India’s’ soul. Govindacharya, the guy with the oily mirror-like shiny pate, crawled out of the woodworks and in his immaculate Hindi pouted why Sonia wouldn’t be fit to be the Prime Minister. Alas, Saint Sonia robbed them of their issues and me the opportunity to see Sushma’s bald visage.

What the BJP needs is a good doctor to save it from being hospitalised. It also needs to send all its workers with any of the two diseases to the ‘Abu Garib’ prison in Iraq for some ‘American-Contractor’ treatment, to drill some sense into them and fully purge them of their really dreadful aliments.

But I digress; Saint Sonia is due much more than we give her credit for. She has calculated the pros and cons in taking up the journey towards sainthood and I dare say the pros outstripped the cons by a mile. I do admire the lady and her ‘inner voice’. It would not be unfair to say that her inner voice did speak out at the most opportune time and thereby let the cat out among the pigeons. While we can all pontificate about how a non-Indian can become a Prime Minister and that we, a mass of a billion people cannot find a single politician amongst us who is capable of leading the country forward, the larger issue of experience (in public life), capability and maturity needs to be understood. A roll call of all the Prime Ministers that we have had so far will reveal that they were men and women of experience, with long years spent in public life and though someone like Indira inherited the mantle from her father nevertheless she was exposed to the socio-politico milieu right from her childhood. The least experienced politician to take the high chair was Rajiv, though he was groomed for some years, after the tragic death of his brother Sanjay, by his mother and had some experience in ground level work as an AICC General Secretary. Dolts like Viswanath Pratap Singh and Deva Gowda too came with years of political experience, though it is besides the point that the muck really hit the fan during their tenures (remember the Mandal-Kamandal fracas).

Sonia Gandhi had none of the credentials and to boot she was a reluctant entrant to politics. That she did enter politics was due to the fact that the Congress party was going to the dogs at an alarming rate and only a person with some degree of Nehru-Gandhi pedigree (albeit borrowed) could arrest the decline. Her taking up the Congress Presidents post infused the cadres, who were used to extraordinary amounts of fawning and grovelling, with renewed vigour and at long last a deity to pay obedience to.

Her taking up the Prime Ministerial throne would have irreparably damaged this carefully crafted and nurtured image, of an Indira look alike in gait and stride, astride an open jeep or hanging to the footboard of a ‘Safari’, pallu tucked, just right, over her head (alas she had no white streak of hair to show!) and gregariously waving to the teeming masses of the rural and semi-urban folk while being showered with rose petals (all red as during Indira’s reign) and an assortment of garlands flung with careful aim. The damage would not have been restricted to her alone but would have affected her family, whose political ambitions are not lost to the general public.

If she were to take up the chair it would have been an enormous and daunting task of:

a. Keeping up to the pulls and pressures of coalition politics; doing the neat balancing act punctuated with threats and sulk, à-là-Vajpayee

b. Keeping a check on the army of sycophants who would have agreed to all that she said irrespective of its merit

c. Keeping from the opposition a steady supply of instant-on-the-street demonstration material. Any bold move that she would have made would have construed as a sell-out of India to Italy in particular and the Western world as a whole. If the Swadeshi Jagaran Manch did not spare the BJP what chance did the Congress led regime stand!

d. Keeping the government alive for the full term

e. And as a porcupine, be in a constant state of alertness, so as not to expose the soft underbelly least the enemy makes a killer strike.

Sonia’s ‘inner voice’, as in all our inner voices, has ensured the survival of the species. By giving up the claim to the throne she has:

a. Catapulted herself, in one deft stroke, to the haloed heights of martyrdom and has attained an almost iconic status for the Congress workers and the mass of Indians so prone to demi-god worship

b. Snatched from the opposition their most potent issue and converted the fence-sitting intellectuals on to her side

c. Ensured that she is the ever-present ‘power’ behind the powers

d. Neatly segregated the handling of the ‘bad’ and the ‘good’. All that is bad, can be laid at the doorstep of Dr Singh and all that is good would be because of her presence and stewardship (She retains the Chairmanship of the Alliance)

e. Her giving up the throne has, more than ever, legitimised its handing over to Rahul or Priyanka, with Dr Singh doing the interim holding operations till the Prince or Princess, the choice is yours, is ready to take over the mantle.

f. Ensured that if the government were to fall in the next 2 – 3 years she would escape unscathed and would be in a position to ask for the people to vote only and only for the Congress since all other experiments have failed and that she Saint Sonia is not power hungry.

Elections 2004 - Understanding the Indian Voter

Elections 2004 are over and what a tumultuous election it has been! The Indian voter has revealed his mind and ensured that the ruling National Democratic Alliance led by, what some people would like to phrase as the ‘right-wing-Hindu-nationalist-party’, the BJP, sits in the Opposition benches. While I am ‘personally’ disappointed with the results, they have thrown up (at least in my mind!) some interesting issues about the large mass of people, its preferences, voting patterns, etc, that keep the wheels of the largest democracy in the world turning.

To my mind, understanding the demographic division within India forms a key to unravelling the mystery of the Indian voter. The demographic division of the populace is interesting and one can view this division using various lenses. At the linguistic level the country has been carved up into states based on language, so while Tamil Nadu is populated by Tamils, Bengal is the land of Bengalis, and so on. During the last 5 years the larger states that dominated the Indian polity have given way to smaller states for instance Chattisgarh, Uttaranchal, etc, and the trend will continue in the coming years. If we were to look through the ‘religious’ lens, the country is predominantly a Hindu country with a large Muslim population (the largest in the world among non Islamic countries) forming the second block. The Christians, Buddhists, Jains, Zoroastrians and others, make up the rest. While Hindus and Muslims are dispersed almost equally across the country, the other religions have strong pockets of influence in certain parts of the country; for instance, Christianity is the predominant religion in the North-Eastern part of India while Buddhism is present in the Hindi heartland of U.P. and Bihar. Viewed thru the ‘economic’ lens, India is a largely poor country with the rural and urban poor forming the mass of the population, next in line comes the great and fabled ‘middle class’ that can be further sub-divided into the ‘upper middle class’, middle middle-class (if there is anything like that!), and the lower middle-class. At the top of the monies pile sit the very rich and the stinking rich. Thus, one individual has several identities and each of these identities have their own pulls and pressures that dictate which way one votes.

Take my case for instance, I am an Indian, Hindu, Bengali, middle class person. Each one of these identities has their own pulls and has a say in my own voting preference. Thus as an ‘Indian’ my prime issues are:
a) Economic development of the country
b) Foreign Policy initiatives which would translate to peace in our immediate neighbourhood and an important voice on the world stage
c) As an Indian I am terribly egoistic; my country has been under western cultural, political and economic foreign domination from the 18th century to the middle of the 20th century and while I have not seen those pre-liberated days my fathers and grandfathers generation is a living proof of that age and time. I would be loath to see a foreign national lead the country, and in this particular case one who did not take up Indian citizenship for the first 15 odd years of her married life. ‘Bahu’ or no ‘Bahu’ concept overridden!

If I were to vote only wearing my ‘Indian’ hat then my vote would go to the BJP, not for the economic stuff since we are evolving but, singularly because peace gives momentum for the economy to grow instead of stationing our troops at the borders doing precious little then peeling nuts. And to at least see an Indian from among a population of a billion, lead the country.

Wearing my ‘Hindu’ hat or rather my ‘religion’ hat is, by far, the most interesting. Hinduism to me, and as it is, is a way of life, a way to live and conduct your life on earth. It has, for me, nothing to do with grandiose temples and the like. On the other hand history is proof to both:
a) the Hindu’s remarkable ability to assimilate within himself all the various religious that either found birth in this land or followed the procession of invaders who either pillaged the country or adopted this country as their own
b) the Muslims largely harsh on the Hindus during their rules baring really ‘true’ rulers such as Akbar who did not discriminate on religious grounds
Being only a Hindu does not end the task. I have to contend with my caste affiliations to further decide on my vote. Being a Bengali the task is made easy, since we do not, as a majority at least, pander to caste affiliations. On this front I wouldn’t have voted for the BJP, for the majestic state of inaction that they showed during the Gujarat riots, nay even the total subservience of the entire state and judicial machinery to subvert the rule of law and sanity.
If I wear my ‘Bengali’ hat, then no votes for the Left parties, which have effectively killed Bengal, and in the same breath no votes for either the BJP or the Congress or for that matter anyone. I abstain from voting!
While viewing from my economic status there would have been very little difference between the BJP and Congress’s ability to change my fortunes in the short to medium term and I cannot conjure an image for the long-term prospects. But again, I would vote for the BJP for the fact that 50 years of Nehruvian economics with grandiose non-functional 5 year plans, read socialism inspired plans, have done precious little for the general mass of people. Time to move on and vote.

To sum up, the BJP gets 2 positive votes, 1 negative vote and in one case I abstain from exercising my democratic right. Voila! That’s why I ended voting for the BJP.
If we take a Muslim’s point of view they (even if they were from similar backgrounds as mine) would not have voted for the BJP on the grounds of the Gujarat riots alone. Even if voting for the BJP had meant a better economic prospect for the country, the spectre of sectarian violence and the innate human nature to protect one’s community would have played a major role. Here again the BJP would have come up with a cropper and not to speak of the rabid ‘Praveen Togadias’ and morally and ideologically corrupt ‘V.H. Dalmias’ sapping whatever damage control exercises the BJP would have undertaken. Muslim’s, to my mind, irrespective from which economic strata they come from, would by and large, not have voted any differently.

The rural and urban poor do not have to contend with so many different facets while deciding their vote. The two aspects that they would have had to contend with were a) The caste that the candidate belonged to and b) the ‘economic’ changes that the prospective candidate or party is perceived to bring about in their lives. The track record of the BJP for the latter dictum was dismal. The party was identified with the middle class and the rich and was perceived to have made little or, as in most cases, no difference to their lives. The poor and rich divide was amplified by the media blitzkrieg that the BJP undertook.

While to middle class people like me the campaign signified the coming of age of Indian politics, where different forms of media are used to put forth the ‘glory’ of a party’s rule, to the poor it only made the case crystal clear that the ruling coalition was their bane and that the BJP was predominantly a party for the educated, rich and the elite. When the majority of the populace is poor then this surely is hara-kiri. All well to say this in hindsight but it’s true! The middle-class is more to blame for this than the rich and elite. How many of us know that over 3000 farmers committed suicide in Andhra Pradesh alone? What is then the use of someone like Babu, who apart from being an IT Czar and having visions of modernizing Andhra did little during his 2 terms in office to reach the benefits of development to the poor? In a country like India the fact that your foreign reserves are overflowing with green bucks have no impact on the lives of the poor, for whom the routine of existence is limited to finding the next meal to be put on the table. Disinvestments also have nothing to do with them. How many guys have heard or seen a ‘Maruti’ and here we are, pruning our feathers over the smashing success of the Maruti disinvestments. Mr. Suzuki to them is a non-entity; he simply does not exist in their worlds.

Thus if you (as a poor person) had a choice in the form of a non-BJP candidate from the same caste as you were, you went out and voted for him. Places like Bihar fox me. What have people like Laloo or Ram Vilas Paswan done for the state or its people? But still they manage to win the largest number of seats. Is it that the people vote only on caste considerations or are they in any way so intimidated that they choose to vote for no one else!

The rich and the elite, by and large, are done with the political system. They have little or no interest in voting or in any aspect of governance, apart from their immediate business needs. So if the stock market travels north at a good velocity, with the minimum of loss of ‘momentum’ due to any type of friction, all the better. ‘Change’ to add to the family kitty. For those who vote from among this haloed class and who do not form a part of the intelligentsia, the BJP is the next best thing to nirvana. The Anil Ambanis of this world are not really affected by who comes to power, not after the dismantling of the ‘license-permit’ raj. If this year the BJP got the largest share from their election war chest then the Congress is the top contender for the coming one. All irritants can be brought over, so why bother and dilute precious ‘corporate’ time!
A good percentage of the educated intelligentsia have almost a rabid and xenophobic loathing for the BJP. For them the BJP is akin to the Mussolini’s and Hitler’s of this world, out to annihilate the entire Muslim populace from the face of India. I must say the RSS with its short Khaki coloured shorts armed with long ‘lathis’ do send us back in time and in the process renders impotent any hopes for the BJP to claw its way out of this ‘image’ hole. Apart from this there are two more slogans that the intelligentsia love raking up and passionately debating about, ‘saffronization’ and ‘corruption’. People like Murli Manohar Joshi are epitomes of how to rock a perfectly sailing boat by raking up issues like the ‘IIM fees’ for what reason I still cannot fathom.
On the other hand, perfectly justified attempts at rewriting ‘Nehruvian’ coloured history books are dubbed as ‘saffronisation’ since there is an information vacuum on what was being attempted and the absence of a larger national debate. The interpretation of ‘history’ falls into the subjective realm, the significance and importance of ‘roles’ played out by the various actors during a certain period can be interpreted according to what an ‘individual’ historian thinks fit.

Why? Our own freedom struggle is littered with freedom fighters that have been either marginalized or simply do not find mention in our books that are so predominantly overshadowed by the ‘Gandhis’ and the ‘Nehrus’. What treatment does someone like Sardar Patel find? For that matter does Netaji share the same ‘mind-space’ as would a Gandhi, two sides of the same coin, each fighting for independence and each with his unique approach? If non-violence was a way towards deliverance then the ‘kshatriya dharma’ of fighting against an occupier was equally relevant. Would the English have left the country on the strength of non-violence alone? If a ‘Netaji’ chose to honour his ‘dharma’ then he was only following what Lord Krishna said in the Gita. How do you marry the two worlds? Is any historian competent enough to pass any kind of judgement and decide who gets greater coverage in the History books, or should his role be limited to be a ‘recorder’ of events, all events, and be bound within the same bounds as a court-recorder or a parliamentary proceedings recorder.
Secondly, the ever-dominant slogan of ‘corruption’ finds the BJP on the wrong side of the table. They forget that Mrs G was the ‘mother’ of corruption and was among the most prominent leaders to institutionalise this malaise. Corrupt they all are and to the same degree. Make hay while the sun shines is the motto. Reading the Asian Age article on the ‘Bofors Gun’ scam makes your hair stand on end! What happened to the unaccounted monies? Let sleeping dogs lie! And, if you wake them up and make a checklist of all the scandals that took place and got buried without a single politician being hauled over the coals, then the Congress would have a larger list, simply by the sheer fact that they have ruled the country for much longer than the BJP or any other party. Give BJP the list and they would also make good of catching up. In the end the BJP’s loss is the Congress’s gain! And Mr. Intelligentsia don’t, for heavens sake; don’t rend the air with cries of ‘corruption’.

So you know how they voted? Any surprises why the BJP fared poorly?
Another interesting facet revealed by these elections, though not for the first time, is the fact that ‘dictators’ have no place in our lives. If you choose to live by the sword then be prepared to die by it! Amma down south would have choked on her idlis on the 13th, much like her federal counterpart, ensconced safely on the other side of the Atlantic, choked on his pretzels. She drew up an Aussie Duck! ‘Babu’ too had the dictatorial streak and sooner rather than later he too would have had gunpowder on his face. So much for the ‘I-have-the-bigger-gun’ theory! Narendra Modi, get hold of your dhoti, lest you have to run out in your ‘langot’!

Parties, which are led by mavericks, who throw a tantrum at the drop of the hat are also very unceremoniously shown the door. Chest beater Mamta, was shown no ‘mamta’ by her electorate and has been almost wiped out from the face of West Bengal save for two miserly seats. So there, don’t put your mouth where there is a fire!
The irony of this election is manifold. While the BJP was done in by its own spin and the likes of Pramod Mahajan, suave, articulate and IT friendly have egg on their faces, an Italian finds herself, to her utter surprise and whoops of joy, the job of running a country! But the real danger lies ahead. There is no party that can take the centrist stage. While the Congress is leaned heavily to the left, what with the ‘red’ parties trying to tear down the disinvestments ministry and the Amar Singhs baying for poor Arun Shourie’s blood, the BJP now, more than ever, runs the risk of taking the extreme right-wing stage with the RSS and the VHP asserting themselves.

Lo and behold the ‘Govindacharyas’ of this world have risen from the ashes, dusted off their soiled clothes and are ready for the arc lights of the TV studios to glow off their bald brown pate. Sushma Swaraj has, by the way, gone a mite too far by stating that she plans to get herself tonsured!

The real victim is India. We have lost a statesman in Vajpayee, who would have been and was an ideal centrist. He demonstrated the ‘dharma’ of running coalitions, in a country where fractured verdicts have to be accepted as a way of life. He has ably proved that a country can be governed sensibly even when the government is composed of parties that have divergent views on many an issue. The ability to bring peace, not by rhetoric or self-belief (hindi-chini bhai-bhai), but by principled stand and patient dialogue can be proved in good measure by the quiet success that we have had with China. The fact that Chinese maps now show ‘Sikkim’ as a part of India is no mean achievement. With Pakistan the people-to-people contact initiative really caught on. Only Vajpayee could have made someone like Avul Pakir Jainulabdeen Abdul Kalam President of India.

If we are to have a centrist party, we from the middle-class and the intelligentsia have to salvage the BJP; they are the best bet that we have got. The rot has seeped in too far in the Congress and the strangle hold by the ‘family’ over the party can only increase. If we do nothing the BJP runs an even greater danger of succumbing to the RSS and the VHP pressure. You can then kiss your dreams goodbye of keeping out the Laloos, Paswans and Ammas from taking roost in the centre and sending this country into a time-warp.

Secularism – The Indian Context

'We are the hollow men
we are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rat's feet on broken glass
In our dry cellar
Shape without form, shade without color,
Paralyzed force, gesture without motion;
Those who have crossed
With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
Remember us - if at all - not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men'

(T.S. Elliot – Hollow Men)

We may choose to interpret T. S. Elliot’s poem in whichever way we may fancy but there is no denying that we are growing more and more hollow with our chant of being a secular country. It’s time we as individuals and a civil society introspect and ponder where this chant has taken us.

To my mind the word ‘secular’ has been blown way out of proportion from what the word actually connotes. While I was penning (keyboarding!) this piece I thought why not look up a dictionary (online) and get the various interpretations of the word. Here’s what I found:

sec·u·lar (s k y -l r)
adj.
1. Worldly rather than spiritual.
2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.
3. Relating to or advocating secularism.
4. Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.
5. Occurring or observed once in an age or century.
6. Lasting from century to century. n.
1. A member of the secular clergy.
2. A layperson.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Secular
\Sec"u*lar\, n.
1. (Eccl.) A secular ecclesiastic, or one not bound by monastic rules. -Burke.
2. (Eccl.) A church official whose functions are confined to the vocal department of the choir – Busby.
3. A layman, as distinguished from a clergyman.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Secular
\Sec"u*lar\, a. [OE. secular, seculer. L. saecularis, fr. saeculum a race, generation, age, the times, the world; perhaps akin to E. soul: cf. F. s['e]culier.]

1. Coming or observed once in an age or a century.
The secular year was kept but once a century. -Addison.

2. Pertaining to an age, or the progress of ages, or to a long period of time; accomplished in a long progress of time; as, secular inequality; the secular refrigeration of the globe.

3. Of or pertaining to this present world, or to things not spiritual or holy; relating to temporal as distinguished from eternal interests; not immediately or primarily respecting the soul, but the body; worldly.
New foes arise, Threatening to bind our souls with secular chains. -Milton.

4. (Eccl.) Not regular; not bound by monastic vows or rules; not confined to a monastery, or subject to the rules of a religious community; as, a secular priest.
He tried to enforce a stricter discipline and greater regard for morals, both in the religious orders and the secular clergy. - Prescett.

5. Belonging to the laity; lay; not clerical.
I speak of folk in secular estate. - Chaucer.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

My! My! My! What have we here! This is not what we were made to believe, were we? We are not supposed to have any religion, we are nerds remember! Lets do some hairsplitting on this word (God protect the exalted souls of M/s Nehru and Indira from this, Oh! how my heart bleeds!)

First lets take Chaucer’s interpretation. Here’s my case: All Indians, except all Pandits, Mullahs, Priests, etc, are secular since we are not part of the laity. Solution: Let’s boot the guys who are not secular (read the direct messengers of God) out of the country to achieve a pure secular fabric.

If we are to interpret Prescett’s or Milton’s view, all Hindus are not secular. (Read no regular visits to the temple, nor are we bound by monastic vows or rules; nor confined within a monastery) Solution: Since we are already bursting at the seams either we go to some other planet or declare India a non-secular country

Addision is the best. Have we not observed secularism in the last century? Let’s give it up!

Do I hear laments such as “Look what’s happening to the secular fabric of my country” or better still “Here is a hardcore RSS/Shiv Sena follower. What’s it with the young people of today?” I don’t care if I am labeled a part of a ‘vanar sena’ but I shall not be lead to believe that the word ‘secular’ which appears in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution was included for any other reason but to reap the dividends of the vote bank by a certain Mrs. G, whose father if we choose to remember chose to divide the country rather than give up his intransigence over the Prime Ministerial chair.

The Preamble as envisaged by our founding fathers read:

“We the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Democratic Republic and to secure to all its citizens: Justice (social, economic and political); Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; Equality of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity of the Nation; in our constituent assembly this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this Constitution”

Mrs. G, had the words ‘socialist, secular’ and ‘the integrity’, added to the Constitution (Preamble) by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976. Thus the preamble now reads:

"We the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic and to secure to all its citizens: Justice (social, economic and political); Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; Equality of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation; in our constituent assembly this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this Constitution”

Now Mrs. G, being the consummate stage actor that she was, couldn’t just add the word ‘secular’, could she? So she goes ahead and throws in a few more words and in the process manages to get the Russians to dance (we are a socialist country!). But the serendipity lies in the fact that she got the line ‘the unity of the country’ changed to ‘the unity and integrity of the country’ since the word ‘secular’ precisely undo’s that.

An object case of how to throw wool over the public’s eyes on one’s own intentions can be found in the “Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Bill, 1976 (Bill No. 91 of 1976) which was enacted as THE CONSTITUTION (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976” from which I quote ‘in verbatim’ the following points:

“2. The democratic institutions provided in the Constitution are basically sound and the path for progress does not lie in denigrating any of these institutions. However, there could be no denial that these institutions have been subjected to considerable stresses and strains and that vested interests have been trying to promote their selfish ends to the great detriment of public good.”


“3. It is, therefore, proposed to amend the Constitution to spell out expressly the high ideals of socialism, secularism and the integrity of the nation, to make the directive principles more comprehensive and give them precedence over those fundamental rights which have been allowed to be relied upon to frustrate socio-economic reforms for implementing the directive principles. It is also proposed to specify the fundamental duties of the citizens and make special provisions for dealing with anti-national activities, whether by individuals or associations.”

"This information is downloaded from the website of Ministry of Law and Justice (Legislative Department)"


Its time we ponder and let go of the baggage of history that we carry on our individual shoulders (we do not feel the weight thanks to our education system!) and stop doing a cause and effect jig every time some event takes place. For instance ‘the Mumbai blasts took place because of Gujarat riots which in turn took place due to the Godhra carnage which in turn took place due to the Mumbai riots (‘99) which in turn took place due to the Mumbai blasts (earlier one) which (thanks for your patience) in turn took place due to the Babri Masjid demolition which in turn...”

The United States is not a secular country, is it? But pray tell me why don’t the Christians butcher the Jews who in turn could butcher the Hindu and Muslim communities that reside there. The reason is simple; the political masters were and are not out to devour the country, no matter to what age and time they belong to.

This has had a cascading effect on the various self-promoted conscience keepers of the nation. You can find them everywhere, blaring from your television sets or writing tomes on how the ‘secular fabric is being torn to shreds’ etc. I have both Muslim and Christian friends, as most of you would, but does the fact that they belong to a different religion make me him or her any different? I think not, though our political masters would make us believe. Thus you would have a certain well known Muslim poet in Bollywood, while commenting on the Mumbai blasts on national television, lamenting the fact that ‘while Muslims constitute 12% of the population their numbers within the government sector is just 3%’ and so … If this is the yardstick by which you decide whether India is a secular country, well, the less said the better.

While there is no denying that Hinduism is the majority religion in India, which my ‘self-promoted conscience keeper’ friends would rather die of embarrassment than admit, does that mean we tell people of all the other religions to pack their bags and make a move! No, but we learn to live together (which we did very well before) while respecting each others beliefs without melting out special treatment to any one religion or grouping in particular.


The need of the hour is to recognize that:

A. There are poor people in this country irrespective of what religion or community they come from. A poor Hindu would have the same daily turmoil as would a poor Muslim, so why promote one at the cost of the other
B. Education, health and employment is still a major challenge. Address that
C. Empower people economically and you would have solved a majority of the problems

If I were to do a few things to right the wrongs I would:

I. Replace the current reservation system, one that is based on caste, religion, community etc with a simple one that takes into account income levels, thus hypothetically, all people with a monthly income of Rs. 500 or below are eligible for special benefits
II. Make schooling free for people below a certain income level irrespective of anything
III. Provide state help to poor students to access learning resources (Good teachers, books etc) and compete

Give a level playing ground and then see if ‘the unity and integrity’ of the nation, so loftily pronounced by Mrs. G., is protected.