India Retold

In the middle of all the noise in the media about the Naxal problem, brought to the fore again by the 'train-jacking' of the Delhi-Bhubaneswar Rajdhani by nearly 500 citizens, an extremely important aspect is being overlooked, yet again. But that is not surprising.

As far as media is concerned, everything has to be summarily reduced to politics after a perfunctory analysis because that is all that most media stars are drenched with, given their backgrounds and almost zero experience of, and exposure to, Bharat, a part of which is up in arms against India today. I still remember the shocking Nithari killing and cannibalisation case. A celebrated anchor, after a brief visit to the bowels of Noida, immediately turned the debate to the 'political dimension'. Why was that done? Because that is all what most Delhi journalists understand; the then CM of UP, Mulayam Yadav, and the Centre were daggers drawn - it made a great story. Also, most media stars we see have virtually no idea of how things work at the ground level on a day-to-day basis, or how the police, or any other instrument of state, is organised and the manner in which it functions.

That is mainly why serious systemic and institutional failures at the point of interface between the state and the citizen keep getting pushed under the carpet in every debate. That is what is happening now too.

In so far as politicians are concerned, the picture is no less dismal. At the state level, the whole thing has turned into a political blame-game between the Communists, who are in power in West Bengal, and Mamata Bannerjee who wants to evict them. At the level of the Centre, it has been turned into a black-and-white fight between the state and those who are questioning its failures through armed rebellion. As far as most human rights activists are concerned, it is almost exactly the opposite: the state is the terrorist; it is to blame for driving its own people to picking up arms to redress their long unheard grievances; therefore, it should abjure force and hold talks unconditionally.

The few senior cops who have been taking part in discussions across channels have, quite expectedly, been taking the official line that it is the duty of the state to act with force against those who have picked up the gun. Bureaucrats, particularly those who have served in Naxal affected areas - 150 districts - and have a first-hand experience of the sordid mess that their administration has been making over decades, are not to be seen or heard anywhere.

There is virtually no voice on the airwaves saying that there is something fundamentally flawed with our system of policing and administration that needs to be fixed. I have been saying for a long time that the antiquated, colonial system that India seamlessly continued to follow after the the British left needs to be overhauled completely. It is an elitist system that is primarily responsible for not letting British India become the Bharat that it should have after Independence. On the contrary, it has only increased that divide and created a whole new class of Indians who are completely disconnected from almost 80% of their country men who, for them, live in another country called Bharat.

The British created two institutions, represented today by the IAS and the IPS, with the sole purpose of using them as instruments of colonial power to ensure that the natives did not create any law and order problem against their imperial masters, and quietly paid taxes etc that the Empire wanted them to, to generate revenue for its own sustenance and growth. They were British institutions manned by English-speaking brown men for and on behalf of the Empire alone. Their organisational structure and functions were designed to prevent them from identifying themselves with natives or empowering them mentally or materially in a manner that would make them feel that they were equal to them, the Indian elite, much less the white man himself.

63 years after Independence, the structures and attitudes remain virtually the same, the exceptions being stray individuals. The DC and SP of a district continue to remain remote, imperial sahibs who reside in huge, barricaded bungalows looked after by a retinue of native servants. They continue to believe that they are the lords and masters of the many deprived souls with whom they share no affinity, and natural claimants to a 'cut' in the glamour and wealth of the few - criminals included - who need their protection and patronage to flourish without being troubled by the poor whom they sometimes exploit. So, most of them spend the little time they get in these appointments, where they are in direct contact with their own people, doing what India's colonial masters and rippers did to a conquered, alien people over a hundred years ago.

The connect that the most important powerful instruments of the state must have with its people as the equals that they are supposed to be in a democracy, thus, does not even begin. It is institutionally precluded. The same attitude and approach has filtered down to all other institutions and officials. That is why democracy and freedom have not yet touched millions of Indians, save during the occasional trudge to the voting booth. We are reminded of their existence only when they either pick up the gun to show their anger at their colonial administrators, or when they are misled by those like the Maoists who promise them that only the ones with guns share their heart beats and feel their pain, as equals, and will wrest their rights for them.

It is these very imperial administrators and police officers who, after a few years, go on to head various government departments and police forces. Since only they know exactly what is wrong within, but have been the direct beneficiaries and perpetrators of the increasing rot, they also know best how to con the rest into believing that since they are the best brains that India has thrown up after one exam, only they know what is for best for India, and are doing it, despite dirty politicians. They also know how to convince/pressure others that the only way to improve anything is by giving them even more power and control!

How completely these guys have corrupted the system can be gauged from just one example. When the Pay Commission recommendations were being finalised, former Cabinet Secretary TSR Balasubramanian actually said in a live television debate that bureaucrats like the Commerce Secretary, Finance Secretary etc deserved a Rs 10 crore salary, 1000 times the President's, for the kind of work they do. Can you see what he was trying to say? He was openly claiming a 'cut' for the the initials and recommendations that babus put on files, only because someone stands to benefit from those decisions financially!

This is the attitude at the very top of the heap, not at some lowly octroi post. It is this approach that has destroyed nearly every institution of the state. No official is ready to do something unless he is paid for it; and if he is well paid, he is willing to even to do what in his position he must not, no matter what happens to the people adversely affected by it, particularly if they are poor, second class natives who live in another world. When you add to this the impossibly complex rules that make it virtually impossible to hold government employees, from secretary to sweeper, accountable for almost anything, and assured promotions for doing little more than staying alive while in service, you get the sordid spectacle of sloth, absenteeism and near total absence of motivation to even think of excelling.

Subramanian has also said on a number of occasions, almost with pride, that corruption is no longer an issue and that nobody ever gets convicted for it; the rot is so deep and completely accepted. I may also mention here that, in a moment of weakness, a very senior official once told me that he was not in service for the salary; that was not sufficient to meet even the pocket money needs of his two teenage kids, he said. That says everything about what babudom has done to some of our best brains and what they have in turn done to destroy it.

Sitting in our urban bubbles, relatively untouched by the state, some of us may not find it easy to understand how colonial institutions of the state have alienated its citizens in the remote areas that we will perhaps never step into. Some celebrity activists do go there, but more often than not, they do so in pursuit of greater visibility and space in the national media, and in the West, rather than out of any genuine empathy or sense of belonging with these people. That is why they invariably come out with half-baked, uni-dimensional, even childish, responses that are often dishonest, because they primarily want to sensationalise and provoke rather than bring about the real change that is needed to help those whose cause they claim to champion.

India's top civil servants are not going to let the failed and almost completely dysfunctional colonial structure that benefits their small but very powerful tribe be disturbed at all. Unless they are forced to. Given our equally corrupt political system that has aggravated the problem by promoting rule by division rather than inclusion, one can be reasonably certain that meaningful change is not going to be ushered in willingly.

Yes, the armed rebellion of the Maoists needs to be crushed and the writ of the state established. But what we must realise is that unless the existing institutions of administration, policing etc are discarded and replaced by ones that firmly re-connect the state with its people as equals, rebellion in some form or the other will have to be faced time and again. Today it is in the hinterland; tomorrow it will be in your city. The form and method may be different but the rage and pain will be the same. And the intensity will keep on rising till India and Bharat become one.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Readers may also read:
1. Democracy - mockocracy - revolution
2. Capital punishment, not gain for the corrupt
3. 1000 times President's salary for India's babus!
4. Corrupt, colonial India faces volcano
5. Covering up the mother of all corruption scandals
6. Conspicuous consumption and conspicuous poverty
7. Bharat and India: armed rebellion and mental secession

Pakistan is an idea that was doomed to fail the moment it got the shape of a state. Although MA Jinnah himself divided India into two on the basis of religion, he held on to the exactly opposite belief that had it not been for the the "angularities" between Hindus and Muslims, and communities within them, "we would have been free people long long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this." Ironically, these words by were uttered just three days before Pakistan became a reality.

For many reasons, Jinnah could not see that there was a fundamental and irreconcilable clash between what he had done and what he believed, not just for his Pakistan but for the whole of India that he belonged to till August 14, 1947. That is why, despite doing what he should never have based on a set of his own beliefs, he visualised Pakistan as a state that would have nothing to do with the only one dimension along which it had been created: Islam. He did not want his creation to fall into the same trap that had divided, weakened and subjugated India in the past, and that he had pushed it into, again.

One can only speculate what would have happened had Pakistan become a secular state and had not systematically driven out/converted almost all Hindus and Sikhs who became its citizens on August 14, 1947. May be the recurring fear in some sections of Pakistan that it would have re-merged with India would have come true. It is equally possible that it may have flourished as an Independent country.

The way events have unfolded over the last few decades, and as they are playing out right now in Pakistan, it is becoming increasingly evident that the new nation sealed its future the moment it decided to define itself only on the basis of Islam, after Jinnah's demise. It is worth repeating here that Pakistan is the only multi-ethnic, multi-lingual state created from nowhere on the basis of Islam. Perhaps Jinnah was aware that the Arabs from whose land Islam emanated, and who were all Muslims, had never been politically united by their religion. Despite one language, one race and one religion, they are now divided into 22 countries. In fact, it is likely that had it not been for oil and the Americans - who are there and keeping things under tight control because of their need for that oil - not only would Arabs have remained pathetically underdeveloped, the many countries that they have created would have been at each others' throats.

Those who guided Pakistan after Jinnah obviously did not learn any lessons even from subsequent developments in the Arab word. Had they done so, they would have seen that all efforts to unite Arabs ended in failure. The brief unification of Egypt and Syria as United Arab Republic lasted just three years between 1958 and 1961. The Arab Federation between Iraq and Jordan lasted all of five months in 1958. The effort that survived the longest was the Federation of Arab Republics between Egypt, Libya and Syria that lasted five years from 1972 to 1977. Why could people of one race and one language not come together? Why did Islam fail to unite them? Was it due to various erroneous, intolerant, conflicting and violent interpretations of Islam that the concept of Muslim brotherhood could not be translated into political unity?

The first jolt to the idea and ideology of Pakistan was given by the breaking away of East Pakistan in 1971. That division was not an aberration. It could not have happened any other way. West Pakistan would never have ceded control to the more populous Eastern half; religious affinity was not strong enough to reconcile the practical demands of political power. The remaining part of Pakistan, the one known as Pakistan today, could possibly have been kept intact after that split, had its leaders learnt the right lessons and not tried to 'invent' Pakistan as a logical entity by manufacturing India's history solely on the basis of Islam, with the attendant rejection of and hatred towards all other influences and developments that are integral to this ancient land, to which they still belong as much as any one else does, even though they want to pretend otherwise.

But, Pakistan's leaders decided to take what is going to prove to be a catastrophic turn, by turning towards Wahhabi Islam, the version of the religion that is followed in Saudi Arabia. As per William Dalrymple," Saudi Arabians have invested heavily in madrasas in the North-West Frontier Province and Punjab, with dramatic effect, radically changing the religious culture of an entire region." The Taliban and the Al Qaida are the visible militant faces of this version of Islam which is completely intolerant of all other faiths. They were encouraged to flourish in Pakistan and Afghanistan because they were thought to be the perfect ideological weapons, forged on an erroneous interpretation of the concept of jihad, that could be exploited to oppose both the Western world and India, with the ultimate aim of ushering in the political rule of Islam all over the world.

Wahhabi Islam is so radical that it rejects all other versions of Islam, including Shia, too. It should, therefore, have been anticipated by the handlers and trainers of the Taliban, Lahskar-e-Toiba etc that whenever these groups thought there was an opportunity, they would try to establish the rule of this version of Islam in the whole of Pakistan. It should also have been anticipated that men following this ideology would penetrate the military too. There is little doubt that has already happened over a period of time, with the military brass turning a blind, even indulgent eye to it. The extent of the penetration is not yet fully known to outsiders, and I suspect that this will prove to be critical in the months ahead.

In February 2009, Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari had admitted that his country was fighting for 'survival' in the face of the onslaught of the Taliban. No one took him seriously then, given his dubious track record. But the speed at which developments have unfolded over the last eight months proves that he was speaking the truth. The danger is real and grave.

Pakistan first tried to bury disturbing developments in the Swat Valley by buying peace with the Taliban by handing it over to them and allowing them to introduce Sharia there. Within weeks, however, the army had to go in to clean them out and re-establish control of the state. In the middle of all this, over two million people fled Swat, creating a huge humanitarian crisis. That did little to get things under control and terror attacks have continued unabated till now.

In October, a number of terror attacks, including a day long siege of the army headquarters, took place in three of Pakistan's four provinces. More dangerously, they involved not only Pashtuns but also Punjabi and Kashmiri factions nurtured and trained by the ISI to fight India. These have forced Pakistan's armed forces to launch military operations in South Waziristan where the Taliban are based, employing jet fighters, attack helicopters and tanks and around 28,000 troops. They have captured Kotkai, home town of Taliban Chief Hakimullah Mehsud, and claim that militants will be flushed out within a month. Is the story going to end there? It has only begun.

The reaction of the Taliban to the latest military offensive has impacted the whole of Pakistan like never before. Schools and colleges were shut in all four provinces following an attack on the Islamic University in Islamabad. Terror is now no longer confined to Pakistan's wild west. Also, for the first time ever, Pakistani Army has made the startling admission that the country faces a serious threat from coordinated attacks by Punjabi, Al Qaida and Taliban militants who include soldiers in their ranks and span the whole country.

In July 2009, former Pakistan President Perez Musharraf, the cocky commando who invents victory even in humiliating defeat, boasted in an interview with Karan Thapar that he foresaw no danger to Pakistan from the Al Qaida or Taliban "as long as the armed forces are there".

In that assertion was the unspoken admission that Islam, instead of keeping Pakistan together, has achieved exactly the opposite, and that the state of Pakistan survives only because the military is in a position to hold it together through the use of force. 63 years after Pakistan was created, the glue that brought it together has turned into an explosive. There is now effectively nothing left to keep the people bound together in a natural union.

The military has held out till now, even though it is having to fight the very forces that it once created to act as its 'force multipliers', as weapons of the Pakistani state against infidels in the East and West of the country. Learning from history, it has reportedly deployed non-Pashtun troops in its ongoing operations in South Waziristan. But with Punjabi extremists also beginning to join the fight against the state in the form that it exists today, a state that supports the Satan US in its ground operations in Afghanistan and drone attacks in Pakistan against 'pure Islamists', it is perhaps only a matter of time before the military faces a serious rebellion from within. Whenever that happens, Pakistan will unravel even faster than we can imagine now. It is only a question of time.

Fatima Bhutto, niece of slain leader Benazir Bhutto, can also see that Pakistan is hell-bent on self-destruction. Manufacture of fear, she says, has become its chief industry and made it a country of debilitating Chinese whispers. "What happens to a Pakistan that can no longer defend itself from its own people?", she asks. The answer to that question must be haunting many Pakistanis.

History has already proved Jinnah wrong. No one has suffered more from the Partition of India than the very Muslims for whose empowerment Jinnah forgot his own secular understanding of the factors that led to India's subjugation. Divided in three countries, they have lost the power and influence that they would have wielded in a united India. Those who are now Pakistanis and Bangladeshis have also lost the opportunity of being a part of an India that is rapidly emerging as an economic super power. They are now huddled into two small nations. Bangladesh is an almost inconsequential country while Pakistan has made such an unpardonable mess of itself that, no matter what political shape its geographical area takes, bar the shouting their bankrupt country/countries will henceforth be remote-controlled by some external power or the other. Subjugation is back.

The "angularities" between and within religions that Jinnah spoke of have, thanks to the path Pakistan has chosen, become irreconcilable ideologies - Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilisations - with no common ground for peaceful co-existence. But, no matter what anyone might say, the harsh reality is that in a changed world, Al Qaida, Taliban, Lashkar-e-Toiba and similar Islamic extremist groups are not going get Pakistan anywhere by pursuing the violent path of intolerance of and confrontation with those whose beliefs and practices are at variance with theirs. On the contrary, as is already more than evident, they are only going to rapidly drive Pakistan into poverty, deprivation and eventual self-destruction.

Perhaps this is one of those lessons that will be learned only after a violent course has destructively spent itself fully.

Picture: The Guardian
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Related reading:
1. India needs to ready itself for a post-Pakistan scenario
2. Zakaria's Afghanistan strategy: salvage or surrender?
3. Obama, Osama, Islam and the world

Almost everyone seems to think that the results that have been declared today for the assembly elections in Arunachal Pradesh, Haryana and Maharashtra are, as Barkha Dutt said in a tweet, "terrible news for the BJP". Some analysts like Prannoy Roy also believe that the Congress is on a roll.

The one thing that most analysts agree on is that Maharashtra has not be won by the Congress; it has been lost by the BJP-Shiv Sena alliance. As far as Haryana is concerned, the Congress has suffered a clear set back, despite an opposition in utter disarray. Its seat tally is down sharply from 67 to 40, six short of majority. In the morning, when trends were showing that the Congress was heading for a clear win in Haryana, Jayanthti Natarajan was claiming that each candidate had been personally chosen by Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi. Now that the picture is different, the entire blame, in true Congress tradition, is being passed on to Chief Minister Hooda.

I will not attempt to analyse the reasons for the defeat of the BJP in Maharashtra - it was never strong in Haryana - but will briefly examine whether it is really bad news for that party, as everyone seems to think?.

In the immediate aftermath of victory or defeat, everything appears exaggerated and we often jump to conclusions. But we must remember that, in the wake of the Lok Sabha elections, a BJP victory was not expected by anyone anywhere. Therefore, had there been a surprising result in its favour, while it would have been something for the party to celebrate, I am not sure it would have done it any real good in the long run. There is a big difference between holding on to power and wresting it. So, a BJP victory in Maharashtra would have given it a massive adrenaline rush, no doubt, but may actually have worked against it.

Defeat leads to introspection which often leads to dumping of the dead-wood that otherwise cannot be shed. Victory papers over everything and all looks well. What the BJP needs now for its own good, therefore, are not victories but defeats in states where it is not in power.

Have we not seen what happened after the party's comprehensive defeat in the Lok Sabha elections? Many voices were raised against the many ills that have weakened the party and made a mockery of its claim of being 'different' from its main challenger, the Congress. But what has been the net result? The coterie and the leaders almost wholly responsible for turning a near certain victory into defeat have closed ranks and dug in their heels. They are just not stepping aside and giving way to others who can substantially steer back the party to the values that made many Indians overlook the rough edges in its ideology and vote it to power in 1998.

A victory now, therefore, would have only swept under the carpet the issues that the BJP must grapple with honestly, if it wants to have any chance of coming back to power at the Centre in 2014. It would also have put life back in those who are responsible for weakening the party. The defeat should ensure that failed leaders both in the state and the Centre are not able to strengthen their positions and continue to weaken the party for much longer.

There is a real opportunity here for the BJP to re-invigorate and strengthen itself systematically with fresh blood to take on the challenge of the Congress in 2014. Dr Manmohan Singh is not going to be available to the Congress then to rout LK Advani's replacement in a Presidential-type face-off. Nor is the Congress going to project another non-Gandhi as its Prime Ministerial candidate.

I don't think any one is in any doubt that Rahul Gandhi will lead the Congress in the next general elections. He is already being systematically projected by the media, both visual and print, to the nation almost daily, as the Great All-knowing Leader who is the blessing that India really needs. He must be a good human being sure, but leader? Having watched him as closely as I could for a couple of years, I am convinced that he might just be the best thing that can happen. Not to the Congress. To the BJP. Surprised? More on that some other time.

So, over the next four years, the BJP has to do just a few things right. One, it has to be very careful and deliver good governance in the states governed by it, and hold on to power there in the next assembly elections that will be due before 2014. Two, it has to re-kindle the once strong but now forgotten anti-Congress sentiment - read resentment against dynastic rule - by publicly refusing tickets to sons/daughters etc, to win back the lost trust of the people. This is really important even though it may not appear to be so now. Three, it has to find a leader who will make Rahul Gandhi look like Rahul baba compared to him, and put him in charge neither too early nor too late. The timing is important. The face-off in the next election too will be Presidential; Rahul's challenger must be someone who can credibly rub home the message, through all the thick smoke that will be generated to 'hide' Rahul, that Rahul is in the race because of his family, not his ability.

Just as the defeat in Maharashtra can be a blessing for the BJP, for the Congress, its third successive victory in the face of the apathy of an increasing number of voters who have lost hope, and the Bhindranwale-like rise of Raj Thackeray that it has facilitated, might prove to be a curse not only for the party but even the state of Maharashtra. This victory could well set in motion dynamics similar to what India saw in the eighties. If that happens, the Congress could be in serious trouble. Indians may not overlook all and vote emotionally every time, particularly if there is a ready alternative available. There is more to worry about for the Congress in this victory than rejoice.

Let us see which party learns the lessons that it must. For India.

Picture: ibnlive
----------------------------------------------------------------
Related reading:
1. Will the BJP's drooping lotus bloom again?
2. Will Modi accomplish his 'Mission Impossible'?

China's dramatic transformation into an economic power house in virtually the blink of a sleepy Indian eye has shaken some Indian leaders out of their misplaced slumber. It is beginning to dawn on them that India has to get out of the self-congratulatory mindset that it has got stuck in following a few years of relatively rapid economic growth on a small base, because that is not going to get it anywhere close to what China has achieved. But, as always, this reactive response is very limited, and is destined to fail.

It has taken Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh to ask the lethargic Planning Commission to wake up to what China has done to its railways and prepare a road map to reform Indian Railways. Two decades back, Chinese railways was behind its Indian counterpart. Today, it carries four times more freight and is expanding three times faster. Since 1992, the Chinese have added 1,000 km of tracks every year as against 100 km by the Indians. But it was India's Railway Minister Laloo Yadav who, at the behest of his bureaucrats no doubt, pompously made a fool of himself by showing off his 'management skills' to students of Harvard, Wharton, IIMs etc.

This is precisely the kind of political and bureaucratic deception that has kept India in darkness even while our biggest neighbour has flooded its almost 1.5 billion citizens with the light of progress and prosperity. The media has helped in this failure too. It has remained completely focused on the West, which is its reference point, and has continuously dismissed China, with which it is unfamiliar, in one line by saying that it has a totalitarian regime while India has democracy. 77% Indians who continue to live in darkness on Rs 20 a day must feel as blessed by democracy as the few who have millions to splurge.

We have gone horribly wrong somewhere. What makes this worse is that we could and should have done much better. This self-inflicted failure is best exemplified by the fact that the two areas in which India has excelled at a scorching pace are those where the shackles put by the government are the weakest. From a situation when there was a waiting period of 10 years to get a telephone from the government - and unaffordable long distance tariffs - to becoming the second largest mobile telephone market in the world with the lowest tariffs, in a little over a decade, is an astounding achievement. Same is the case with the software industry where India has been able to become a global player from nowhere, thanks to a few visionaries and the near-complete absence of bureaucratic interference.

There is little doubt that the whole process of governance and its framework needs to be overhauled. But, there is not even a thought in that direction. That is primarily because those who are benefitting the most by the existing system are the ones who have the power to decide on the changes to be put in place. And they know better than all of us that any real change will render them almost completely irrelevant. That is why no one looks towards China, and that is why everyone keeps going on learning tours to the West - where their kids live/study - only to come back and do nothing.

The Prime Minister must know that piecemeal directions like the one that he has given are not going to make the Indian Railways get ahead of, or even close to, the Chinese, ever. Their railways has not steamed ahead in isolation by accident. Nor has ours failed to get any real move on vital national projects like the two dedicated freight corridors, among many others, by chance or due to bad luck. Or because India is a democracy.

Something has to be done about the sloth and the lack of purpose and pride that afflicts every government department. Something has to be done to put a sense of time and urgency into decision-making and enforce accountability. Something has to be done to end the colonial disconnect between arms of the government and the people, and involve the latter more meaningfully in governance.

Even the Russians, recently 'blessed' by democracy, are not letting that model of governance blind them to the needs of their country. In 1949, the People's Republic of China was born with an ideology it had aped primarily from the erstwhile Soviet Union. Exactly 60 years later, the balance of economic and ideological power has reversed. But Russia is not sitting either on false pride or the idea of democracy. As per a report in The New York Times, it is openly looking at China as a role model. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is examining how his country can emulate China which has used a one-party system to not only keep the country well-governed but also drive unparalleled economic growth. The Russians are keen to learn lessons from the divergent paths taken by the two countries in the last couple of decades in which Russia has had to endure dark days while China has carried out a similar shift smoothly and powerfully. We should have been doing the same too.

Many living Chinese nationals have seen their country change three times almost completely. A feudal and backward nation of opium eaters became a communist state in 1949. That change turned the society on its head and lead to millions of deaths as Mao Zedong tried to put communism into practice at every level. That also resulted in a famine that saw around 35 million Chinese die. Such disasters made it evident that there was an unbridgeable and unacceptable gap between the theory and application of communism. Rapid economic growth required to catch up with West and usher all round prosperity was simply not possible with that ideology. That is why after Mao, Deng Xiaoping wisely dumped communism before if could throw the country into chaos again, and evolved a new brand of capitalism with a one-party rule. China also did not allow dynastic politics to take root, as was attempted by the Gang of Four led by Mao's widow.

In contrast, what have many living Indians seen? As far as governance is concerned, no one can tell when colonial rule ended and free India began; the only visible change that Independence ushered in was that the leaders elected by the people stopped reporting to the Governor General and the British Crown. Thanks to a couple of visits to the the Soviet Union that impressed him, Nehru tried to marry socialism with a colonial government structure, only to gave birth to the licence permit raj, unbridled corruption and many other ills that almost choked India to death. It was only after India had to pawn 47 tons of gold in the early nineties to stay afloat that some regulatory chains were loosened. That one step, forced by extreme circumstance mind you, is what saved India and allowed it to register faster economic growth. But when seen in the light of what China has achieved, our many failures easily swamp our few achievements.

Thus, if there is one nation from which India can learn the lessons it needs to about the whole business of governance and economic upliftment, it is China. The copied model that we have stuck to without daring to change some things laid down around 150 years back, has done nothing at all to give the taste of freedom and economic empowerment to nearly 80% of India's citizens even after 63 years. China, on the other hand, has continuously experimented heavily, from the individual upwards, to evolve a system that works like no other, and become a super power.

What is it in their system of governance, planning and implementation that allows the Chinese, for example, to pro-actively think of and then build the kind of railway system that they have, to construct a railway line into Tibet through permafrost conditions and heights of 16,000 feet? What are the structures of governance, revenue and expenditure in villages and towns that ensure that benefits of economic progress reach the last citizen and do not remain confined to the top 15-20%? What is their unique national security and strategy apparatus that is always ahead of the curve and on course to actualising the power and strength that is required to protect the economic and security interests of a nation of 1.5 billion people?

Answers to these and many other questions are urgently required by India. Piecemeal, reactive efforts to replicate what the Chinese have achieved are not going to take India where it should reach with its enormous and as yet unexploited strengths and capabilities. The Chinese have not reached where they have is so short a time by such reactive and disjointed efforts. Had they adopted that approach, they would surely have still been behind India in most fields, forget about going past America.

India and Bharat have to be united without further delay. And that, as should be evident to everyone by now, is not possible through the use of the very instruments of state that have created them in the first place. To this end, there is much that we can learn from China, more than we can from any other country.

A task force or commission needs to be set up without delay to study in detail every single instrument of governance, from the bottom to the top, in every single field, that China has evolved and put in place based on its experience and cultural genius. The task force should not include a single politician or bureaucrat or anyone vulnerable to them because that will make it a non-starter and ensure that only cosmetic changes that increase their power and authority are implemented. Only a completely honest and open-minded approach that has India, including Bharat, in focus will unshackle the genius of this nation and enable a vast majority of its people to experience the glow of freedom for the first time.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Readers may also read:
1. Conspicuous consumption and conspicuous poverty
2. Focused China powers ahead of shackled India
3. China and India: competition of civilisations
4. Bharat and India: armed rebellion and mental secession
'

The recent elections in Maharashtra have brought a harsh truth to the surface: rulers of Independent India have failed the people of both Gadchiroli and Mumbai, Bharat and India. How does one draw this seemingly illogical conclusion despite the fact that Naxal-affected Gadchiroli saw a high voter turnout of 63%, while India's commercial capital, despite being hit by India's worst terror attack less than a year ago, could enthuse only 43% voters to get their fingers marked, even though the city was shut officially to enable every one to vote?

Gadchiroli is one of the 160 districts of India affected by the Naxal movement that is active in the states of Bihar, West Bengal, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh and parts of Orissa, Kerala and Madhya Pradesh. The Maoists, as the Naxalites are popularly called, are engaged in an armed struggle against the present Indian state because they believe that it has failed to empower millions of Indians who continue to suffer unbearable poverty and exploitation.

There can be no denial that even 63 years after Independence, there remain a vast number of Indians who are leading a sub-human existence. According to the Planning Commission, 300 million Indians are below the poverty line while some estimates suggest that as many as 77% Indians live on less than Rs 20 per day. Naxalites hold sway where the poorest of the poor Indians live. In these areas, schools and primary heath centres are virtually non-existent, there is little or no road connectivity and there are virtually no employment opportunities. To cap it, the already wretched existence of the people has been made even worse by corrupt officials, politicians and feudal landlords. If in other parts of the country, 84 paise of each rupee meant for the aam admi is siphoned off by corrupt officials and politicians, you can imagine that in these 'extreme' areas, virtually nothing has ever reached him.

We have to, therefore, understand that conceptually, Naxalism represents an indictment of the form and frame of the state that has failed to meet its most fundamental obligation to its people despite being in position for so long. Most of us living in relative comfort in the cities have a one-dimensional view of the Maoists. However horrifying and unacceptable that may be to us, we must remember that there are still a few among the affluent lot whose hearts not only beat for these unfortunate, helpless and exploited fellow Indians, but they have even given up lives of comfort to be with them and guide them in their struggle to get out of their very dark pit.

Kobad Ghandi, who was arrested last month, is an unlikely political mentor of the Maoists. He hails from an affluent family from Mumbai, was Sanjay Gandhi's classmate at Doon School and did his Chartered Accountancy from Oxford. His wife, who died of malaria last year, also was from Mumbai. Yet, the couple gave up the good life and chose to devote themselves to what is essentially a noble cause. Ravi Sharma, an agricultural scientist from Andhra Pradesh and Anuradha B his wife, both arrested yesterday, also did the same.

If the cause that the Naxals have taken up is so undeniably just and one that rightly shames free India, then why is it that in Gadchiroli so many people turned out to vote for the politicians who have been exploiting and failing them for over half a century? Is it not damning evidence that the alternative that the Maoists promise and have delivered so far is worse than what the netas have? The Maoists may be in almost complete control of many areas, but that is manifestly more due to the power of the gun in their hands than the ideas in their heads. They are employing a very old and failed ideological tool to obtain a social solution in an entirely different age and setting. The very poor man may know that they are working for him, but by now he has also discovered that this is not the deliverance he is looking for. So, he has been forced to choose between the lesser of the two evils before him. He simply has no other choice.

Since 2005, Naxal violence has claimed an average of sixty lives per month. And, as the recent beheading of police inspector Francis Induwar in Ranchi and the killing of 17 policemen in Gadchiroli shows, the danger posed by Maoists is too real to be ignored any longer. Dr Manmohan Singh was not wrong when he says that Naxalism poses the greatest internal security threat to the country. Home Minister P Chidambaram has also shown rare political resolve to use force to defeat this challenge that some politicians have been exploiting - anything new? - for petty political gains.

No matter what bleeding-heart liberals and human rights activists bubbled in Delhi might say, it is the sacred duty of the state to ensure that the law of the land prevails and that ordinary citizens are not terrorised by anyone promising a better future at the point of a gun. One can keep arguing in TV studios about state-sponsored terrorism, ideology etc, but that must not deflect us from the task of ending the prevailing anarchy with minimum loss of time and life.

The people of Mumbai, by keeping away from the voting machines in these troubled times, have also unmistakably conveyed the message that they have lost faith in the ability and intention of politicians to do what they are expected to. They too have have sent a signal, again, that the manner in which the country is being governed generates no hope in them, no matter which party is in power. This is particularly true for the elite and the middle class as they are the ones who have stayed away from the voting booths.

The people of Mumbai, unlike those of Gadchiroli, have not voted because they can afford to not vote for the lesser evil. Why? Because they have another option. They can, as Rajdeep Sardesai says, "secede mentally if not physically" from the Indian state and become "resident non-Indians". As long their comfortable lives are not touched by the failures all around them, save for a few minor irritants that they have learnt to live with, they don't give a damn about what happens elsewhere. They lives are not confined to and stymied by the many failures of India that have kept nearly 900 million Indians in darkness without hope. They can manage with and without the state and its unresponsive instruments. They know voting is not going to change anything. So they don't want to waste their time and effort taking part in what has become a mockery of democracy.

This "mental secession" of the elite from the rest, of India from Bharat, is what led to the mess in the first place. The biggest mistake newly Independent India made was to do little more than change the colour of the skin of its rulers. No effort whatsoever was made to replace the colonial tools of governance, deliberately designed by the British to maintain a clear and unbridgeable gap between the elite and the natives. The British had a motive for creating an elite that looked up to and aspired to be as much like them as the colour of their skin allowed, and as distant from and superior to the natives they were expected to keep firmly in control on behalf of their masters.

When free India opted for an inherently flawed model of democracy not suitable for a large and diverse country like India, even that exercise remained confined to the legislature only. The judiciary, administration and police remained as colonial as they were before Independence. The involvement of the people in governance has, thus, remained mostly limited to casting their votes every few years. The rest of the government machinery remains as aloof and arrogant and above them as it always was. In fact, over time, even politicians, the only ones that normal Indians have a say in choosing, have also become equally, if not more, removed and distant from the people whose voice they are supposed to be.

Of late, there is a democracy-killing trend that has gathered great momentum. A few hundred political dynasties, big and small, have emerged across the country and taken vice-like control. Though there are over a thousand political parties in India which should indicate that the democratic process is robust, exactly the opposite is true. There is no inner party democracy in most parties and many of them, big and small, are no more than family fiefdoms.

This has happened primarily because politics, like the colonial administration, police and, to some extent the judiciary, is becoming a platform for plundering India. That is what the British did too. But they were here precisely for that purpose. This was not their country. It is India's misfortune that the elite they created and the politicians who have succeeded them, are doing exactly the same, exceptions apart. The only difference now is that the loot remains largely in India, if it is not rotting in Swiss banks.

This is not the value system or the model of governance that is going to deliver the people of Bharat from the misery being inflicted on them by the ruling elite of India. All that it is going to do is to ensure that the Bharatiyas who break out of their hell-holes, despite the government or due to it, will also choose the easy way out and mentally secede from Bharat. They too, like the present elite of Mumbai and elsewhere, will seal themselves in their comfortable bubbles and just shut themselves out from the misery and poverty that writhes but a few feet away.

Yes, Naxals post a grave threat to the security of India. Yes, they are employing unacceptable tools and an ideology that has invariably inhumanly oppressed the very classes it is supposed to uplift. But is any one else in the country seriously committed to the task of trying to lift almost a billion souls out of despair? Let us not hide behind 'trickle down' theories and some such nonsense to justify our insensitivity and failure as a nation.

The example of China is before us. So we can't pretend that it can't be done, and wave the 'empowering' flag of democracy in front of the deprived and the hungry. Our models of democracy and governance have failed thus far and the disastrous direction that they have taken of late will ensure that they will not succeed in future too. So, while putting down of the armed rebellion of Maoists is essential, it will succeed only if we show even greater resolve and firmness in simultaneously putting away the tools that have failed Bharat and perpetuated colonial India.

I read a tweet somewhere which said that we must ban from politics the 400-odd families that have taken over India. That may sound silly, but it tells us that dishonest cosmetic changes will not work. This nation did not fight for Independence to live with armed rebellion on one side and mental secession on the other. Both are equally dangerous and both need to be addressed urgently and honestly.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Readers may also read:
1. Democracy - mockocracy - revolution
2. Capital punishment, not gain for the corrupt
3. 1000 times President's salary for India's babus!
4. Corrupt, colonial India faces volcano
5. Covering up the mother of all corruption scandals
6. Conspicuous consumption and conspicuous poverty

In the last decade of the 20th Century, political scientist Samuel P. Huntington propounded the much debated theory of the Clash of Civilisations, according to which the fault lines between cultures and religions will be the battle lines of the future. Huntington believed that the fact that both Christianity and Islam are missionary religions that seek conversions, and hold the belief that only their faith is the correct one, contributed to this conflict. He also argued that civilisational conflicts were "particularly prevalent between Muslims and non-Muslims", and identified the "bloody borders" between Islamic and non-Islamic civilizations.

Huntington also foresaw a major shift in political, economic and military power from the West, primarily to two 'challenger civilisations', Sinic (Chinese) and Islam, and also viewed them as potential allies against the West. Significantly, he did not see any such rise of the 'Hindu' civilisation of India, and classified it as a 'swing civilisation' that may favour either side.

China's explosive rise at a never-before pace, coupled with the sharp decline in America's economic dominance, has signalled the beginning of the return of the balance of economic power from the West to the East after a few hundred years. Whether the politically fragmented Islamic world will also achieve something similar remains an open question still, because it is radical Islam which represents conflict and regression, and not conciliation and progress, that is on the rise.

On the other hand, India's rapid economic growth, signs of which were not visible when Huntington proposed his theory, is not only likely to hasten the process of the shift of power from the West to the East, but may also set in motion a civilisational dynamic that is quite different from the one that Huntington propounded.

China is a great and ancient civilisation, as is India. But, for thousands of years, it is China that has been culturally influenced, even dominated by India; the reverse has never happened. Chinese philosopher Hu Shi was only stating a plain truth when he said: "India conquered and dominated China culturally for 20 centuries without ever having to send a single soldier across her border." That is the deep impact the message and teachings of Gautam Buddha, and many other Indian influences, have made on China for over two thousand years.

How and why did that happen? No one could have said it better than Swami Vivekanand: "Civilizations have arisen in other parts of the world. In ancient and modern times, wonderful ideas have been carried forward from one race to another...But mark you, my friends, it has been always with the blast of war trumpets and the march of embattled cohorts. Each idea had to be soaked in a deluge of blood..... Each word of power had to be followed by the groans of millions, by the wails of orphans, by the tears of widows. This, many other nations have taught; but India for thousands of years peacefully existed. Here activity prevailed when even Greece did not exist... Even earlier, when history has no record, and tradition dares not peer into the gloom of that intense past, even from until now, ideas after ideas have marched out from her, but every word has been spoken with a blessing behind it and peace before it. We, of all nations of the world, have never been a conquering race, and that blessing is on our head, and therefore we live....!"

The Chinese, like the Indians, have historically not been a conquering race; they too have been invaded and conquered; they too have survived the onslaughts. And, like the Phoenix, they have risen again. But this time, they are apprehensive. They are alive to the fact that religion-generated clashes of civilisations and cultures demand dumping of traditional tools of response. They have also learnt from the West that, in the changed global scenario, a nation cannot protect itself and its interests by looking within and fighting its potential enemies on its soil. Wars must be fought and won on enemy territory or the high seas. That is why they are furiously arming themselves to the teeth and seeking to dominate areas and countries well beyond their real borders; the more the padding, the safer the mainland.

Above all, the Chinese can see that, for the first time in history, they have a real chance of becoming the greatest ever power on earth. And they are going full blast to achieve that objective.

That is where India comes in as a painful thorn. They know that India is still not interested in conquering any lands. They are aware that India will never impose its culture on them or anyone else in an offensive, exclusivist manner. They can also see that the India of the present is an underachiever only because it is trying hard to disown its own cultural genius and blindly ape the West.

We Indians have not seen it yet, but the Chinese know that whenever India wakes up and actuates its own potential fully, it can better China not just culturally but also economically and militarily. That is something that they don’t want to see happen. That explains why they are trying everything possible to keep India shackled, even if it means temporarily befriending a culturally incompatible Pakistan, or teaching India a lesson, like they did in 1962.

But, despite all this, there will never be a Clash of Civilisations between India and China. That theory has never applied, and will not apply in future too, to cultures of the East because there has never been, and never will be, coercive imposition or obliteration of any belief.

When India awakens and rises, therefore, there will be a real Competition of Civilisations between India and China. To some extent, a similar phenomenon will also be take place between India, China and other cultures of the East. But, there will be no battle lines between these civilisations and no clash. Why only the East? The US too is undergoing rapid changes culturally, Obama being the most visible symbol so far. How long it will take for the metamorphosis to be completed is anyone's guess, but if it does happen, it will become a very different nation.

Competition of Civilisations may conceptually not be destructive and violent. But that does not mean that there will no armed conflicts in this competitive space. When a Chinese scholar says in the context of India and China that there cannot be two suns (yang) in the sky, what he is trying to say is that China does not want to be the moon (ying), again; it is time for India to accept that role or China will use the power that it has built up to push it into that orbit.

China wants to be the Yang and compel India to limit itself to being the Ying. As far as China is concerned, as long as India accepts that role, there will be a perfect and complimentary union between these two great nations. But should India try and convert itself into Yang, the Dragon will react. India, on the other hand, may not want to be the aggressive yang, but it will soon discover that continuing to play ying is only going to make it more vulnerable, even on its own soil.

The Competition of Civilisations is, thus, going to mirror the everlasting yin-yang play. It may get very dirty and even violent from time to time. But, unlike in the Clash of Civilisations, it will never degenerate into a terminal gladiatorial fight. That is one lesson that India has taught China well, one that the rest of the world will learn at some stage.

Related reading: Focused China powers ahead of shackled India
'

'2 States’ the latest from the latest youth icon, Chetan Bhagat, is about a Punjabi Munda by name of Krish wanting to marry Ananya, a Madrasi, er..Tamilian – a TamBrahm to be precise, with whom he falls in love while doing his management course at IIM-A. As the pretty lass finds her charms begetting several testosterone-charged proposals, Krish walks away with the south Indian delicacy.

Soon love-notes and sweet-nothings scribbled on pieces of paper travel desk-to-desk, hand-by-hand to each other and the campus witnesses the fondness grow into deep love. Before you know it, the course draws to a close and it is time to grab those elite well-paid jobs during the campus placements, while also ensuring that they live together in the same city too. Now that the boy loves girl and girl loves boy, you would think it’s a done deal. Far from it – what about the boy’s family – would she love the girl? And would the girl’s family love the boy? Would the fair-skinned, brawny, non-veg-eating North Indian extended family do a bhaangda-shaangda with the dark-skinned, brainy, conservative, vegetarian South Indian family?

Chetan Bhagat’s book takes the readers through an amazing story of the efforts these lovers put in to win the hearts of the families so that they would like to see a smile on each and everyone’s face on the day of their marriage. The task seems to be daunting, considering the different cultures and traditions being followed by each of their respective states, besides difficult inter-personal relationships within their families. But Krish and Ananya have ruled out eloping and leaving behind unhappy families, so they set on their task.

The book is LOL-loaded with great ROFL moments even at times when the protagonists, the lovers that is go through their travails, which is really amazing. It is easy to identify with many of the situations described in the book, yet the manner in which the story is told stands out for its simple narrative and humorous pitch. The perceived notions the people of the 2 states have about each other come through in several incidents.

By far the best humorous and entertaining book from an Indian author, that I have read so far. The story of boy-meets-girl-they-fall-in-love must’ve been told a thousand times, this one stands out with the freshness - and a cause – that of seeing beyond narrow boundaries. A must read – don’t miss it! On a scale of 1-5, I would rate it 4.

PS: Chetan Bhagat while answering questions at the book launch at Oberoi Mall, Goregaon, mentioned that though the book is based on his own experiences, when he married Anusha, his real life was not as dramatic as the story in the book.

The Book- 2 States
Author: Chetan Bhagat
Publisher: Rupa & Co.
Price: Rs. 95/-
'

Guest Post by Anil Mavinkurve

Maharashtra, a great state as the name signifies, was indeed a great state once upon a time. It now rests on its past glory that has been fading rapidly. It is now a poor shadow of itself and states like Gujarat, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh have almost become equals.

This is a state that is:

• in the midst of one of the worst agrarian crisis in the country in recent history

• afflicted by Naxalism that is making deep inroads in the eastern districts of Gadchiroli and Bhandara districts,

• affected by massive power shortages, where 80% of the state goes without power for 12 – 15 hours every day,

• Plagued by large number of irrigation projects initiated and have not been completed for twenty years or more,

• Vulnerable to external and home grown terrorist attacks,

• Industry that has gone to seed and cannot provide the basics to attract new investments.

• Growing social disquiet with caste based inequities and against migration from other states.

• People crushed under the tremendous burden of sharp price rises.

It would be a “no brainer” to write off the ruling political dispensation and start drafting its epitaph.

Any opposition party would have rubbed its hands in glee and ensured a rout at the hustings. Sadly, they are weak, divided, focused on inane non issues and have endangered their prospects in many constituencies by high command politics.

The Congress-NCP alliance at the helm of affairs for the last ten years has been a case study in masterly inaction with Mr. Vilasrao Deshmukh the head priest of this effort. The picture becomes more sinister when you see the massive corruption, callousness, and utter disregard towards governance.

The Shiv Sena – BJP alliance is going round trying to catch its own tail. Power is theirs for the taking. Will they grab at this opportunity??....I think they might be successful in snatching defeat from the jaws of a certain victory. An angry sibling is most certain to play spoiler once again and split votes to ensure that he still remains relevant.

The BJP does not have any charismatic candidate to lead them. Gopinath Munde seeks to take on the mantle of Pramod Mahajan but unfortunately there is just no comparison. He has in his desperation to ensure Poonam Mahajan’s candidature, endangered at least two seats where BJP were certain victors. Nitin Gadkari, an otherwise efficient administrator, has just not risen to the occasion.

How is Maharashtra going to vote today? It certainly is a big khichdi.

Guessing the voters’ minds is a hazardous occupation and best left to pollsters. We would all like a change, just for the sake of change if not for anything else.

You never know. We may yet surprise everyone and return Congress-NCP back to power and coin a new maxim….”In Maharashtra, you can fool all the people all the time”.

Come October 22^nd and our destiny shall be clear.

The Mumbai controversy is back to the fore again, ostensibly due to what Raj Thackeray did to Karan Johar. Now no civilised person will support that open display, yet again, of goondagardi, but let us also accept that a large portion of the blame for everything unpleasant that has happened after Bombay became Mumbai must go to a few westernised Indians and the media they populate.

Had Bombay been renamed by a Congress government, you can be sure that not one of them would have uttered a word. Did you hear anyone say anything about the proposed Rs 350 crore Shivaji Memorial or the naming of the Sea Link after Rajiv Gandhi? Has anyone ever protested about almost half the prominent landmarks/institutions etc in Delhi being named after four members of one family? Is that wholesale re-naming not destroying the character of that great and ancient city? Why has the arrogant dadagiri of the Congress party not been visible to the media for fifty years?

Why is it only when a non-Congress government does something that knives magically appear from nowhere in the hands of the usual suspects who dominate powerful sections of the media? Is it an accident that with elections due in a couple of days in Maharashtra, they are out again in full force?

Today morning, there was a column by Vir Sanghvi in the Hindustan Times on the Bombay/Mumbai issue. In perfect tandem - and not for the first time - Barkha Dutt did her 'We the People' show at prime time in the evening about whether Mumbai is losing its cosmopolitan character. The unstated motive in both cases seemed the same: make sure that those who read/watch them go back convinced that it is a very bad idea to vote for anyone but the Congress.

In the previous column that Sanghvi had written in May last year to convince Indians that Bombay was the original name of the city, he had used such warped logic that I was forced to write a post to counter it. In today's column, he has wisely dumped that argument, but has still made the absurd statement that while in other places, the change in name is cultural, in Bombay/Mumbai "it is violently political"! How is the renaming of everything after one family cultural? How much have people like him who have been stridently opposing the renaming of Bombay and insisting on calling it 'Bombay' contributed to the hardening of stands, leading to violence? Had they kept shut like they have in all other cases, would such a non-issue have continued to occupy so much of media and public space?

I am re-posting below the post that I had written in response to Vir Sanghvi's column last year. You will be surprised to learn that the British often arrogantly mutilated the names of many Indian towns and cities. Very few remember that now because correct spellings and pronunciations were quietly adopted immediately after Independence in most cases.

Bombay was one of the few exceptions. However, since many original inhabitants of Mumbai believed that the name of the city, or the place where the city came up, was originally Mumbai, it was finally renamed in 1996, 49 years after Independence.

Thirteen years later, some people are still hell bent on politically milking 'Mumbai'.
------------------------------------------------------------
Vir Sanghvi’s argument in the Hindustan Times of May 17, 2008, that the name ‘Bombay’ was of British origin and had no Indian reference point pre-dating the British came as a surprise. Karan Thapar also made a somewhat similar argument in the same paper on June 07, 2008. He, in fact, included Madras and Calcutta also in the list. Both these gentlemen seem to be perturbed by the ‘Indianisation’ of almost the last vestiges of the Raj in the renaming of Bombay to what many believe is its original name, Mumbai. Surprisingly, there was no such emotional outcry when Connaught Place and Connaught Circus in Delhi(still not called by its original name, Dilli or Dehli) were renamed after Indira and Rajiv Gandhi, even though their original names had no Indian roots at all and they were built from a scratch by the British.

Gujaratis and other Indians have always called Bombay ‘Mumbai’ and ‘Bambai’ respectively, long before the city got its present name formally. One always thought that Bombay was another British corruption of an Indian name till one read Sanghvi’s column. If he is to be believed, “Indians have a tradition of corrupting city names when we use them in different languages” like the Gujaratis have done in case of Mumbai and Amdavaad(Ahmedabad). He is right about the tonal variations in different regions but is wrong in deducing that these corruptions de-link names from their roots.

Amritsar, for example, is pronounced ‘Ambarsar’ by even residents of the town but that does not mean that they don’t know what the name actually means. Similarly, Jalandhar is not pronounced by Punjabis the way it should be in Sanskrit, but that does not mean that its meaning and origin is lost or changed. Yervada, Zilla and Yogi are all pronounced starting with a ‘J’ across large parts of the country. Similarly, Sagarika is pronounced ‘Shagoreeka’ in Bengali; Vinod Sharma will be Beenod Sarma in many states, but there is no doubt about what they mean and where they come from.

Gujaratis are among the oldest residents of Mumbai. If they have always got the ‘bai’ part of the name of the city right, there is no reason to believe that they were not able to pronounce the ‘Bom’ part correctly and therefore twisted it to ‘Mum’. Thus, if Gujaratis have always called Bombay ‘Mumbai’ as Sanghvi says, it almost proves the fact that the British corrupted the original name of a village called Mumbai to Bombay rather than the other way round! Outsiders who came into the city when the corrupted Bombay was its established British name, seem to have further corrupted the already corrupted ‘Bom’ to ‘Bam’ and taken the ‘bai’ part from the locals.

Bombay is not an isolated case of the corruption of the names of Indian cities by the British. Most people have forgotten that Kanpur was called ‘Cawnpore’ by the British. There was no city at that spot too before the British built a huge military station after getting the place in 1801. Prior to that, the small town/village that existed there was variously called Karnapur(after Karna of Mahabharat) or Kanhapur/Kanhiyapur(after Lord Krishna). There was also a Kohna village in the area. Whatever the prevalent name when the British took control of it, they promptly proceeded to corrupt it to an almost unrecognisable Cawnpore.

The British had a penchant for naming roads and streets after their kings, queens, princess, and other dignitaries in all the cities that they built on or around existing villages/towns. But for the cities themselves, they invariably stuck to the original names, thoroughly corrupted, of course. Very few towns were given non-Indian names. These were only those which were built from a scratch in a previously uninhabited area. Dalhousie, Abottabad, McLeodganj, Robertganj, Marghareta, Mussourie etc are few examples which readily come to mind. In all other cases, they stuck to the then prevalent local names.

The names of Calcutta and Madras cannot also be traced to any colonial roots. Logically, they would have been named after local settlements or villages there. The British wouldn’t have even dreamt during those early years that they would actually become the unquestioned rulers of this huge landmass one day. Nor would they have dreamt that they would build such large cities on those spots. Their achievements far exceeded their initial plans and expectations when they set camp in these and the other great cities and towns that they built. Had it been otherwise, or had they stayed longer, they probably would have followed the Mughal example in re-naming some existing great cities. Remember how at the peak of their power they arrogantly ignored the indigenous names of Mount Everest and named the world’s highest mountain after a British Surveyor General of India?

Bombay and Cawnpore are not the only examples of wholesale corruption of the names of Indian cities and places. Nor was the corruption limited to names of cities only. Everyone knows how river Ganga was corrupted to ‘Ganges’. That is not all, Narmada was mutilated to ‘Nerbudda’, Yamuna to ‘Jumna’ and Satluj river became, hold your breath, ‘Sutledge’ ! Names of individuals were also similarly corrupted. Karim Bhai became ‘Currimboy’ and Mohammad became ‘Mahomed’. Of course, who does not know that Lord Jagannath has become something else altogether in the dictionary as ‘Juggernaut’.

Examples of arrogant mutilation of names of Indian people, places and things are endless. But, for now, let us stick to the corruption of the names of Indian cities. A few examples of the way Indian cities were spelt during the Raj by the British are being reproduced below. Try and pinpoint which cities/places these are today. Some answers will be easy while a few may fox you! The really well known ones like Trivandrum, Tanjore, Pondicherry, Trichur etc have been deliberately not included in the list.

1. Allyeghur 2. Bagput 3. Bolundshahur 4. Bundlekund 5. Dacca 6. Deyra Dhoon 7. Guzerat 8. Kurnaul 9. Futtegurh 10. Hurrianah 11. Jansie 12. Jaudpore 13. Jeypore 14. Jubbulpore 15. Loodianah 16. Oojein 17. Oudh 18. Raneegunge 19. Saugor 20. Scinde 21.Sreenugger 22.Terree 23. Umballah

Answers:-

1. Aligarh 2. Baghpat 3. Bulandshahar 4. Bundelkhand 5. Dhaka 6. Dehra Dun 7. Gujarat 8. Karnal 9. Fatehgarh 10. Haryana 11. Jhansi 12. Jodhpur 13. Jaipur 14. Jabalpur 15.Ludhiana 16. Ujjain 17. Avadh 18. Raniganj 19. Sagar 20. Sindh 21. Sringar 22. Tehri 23. Ambala

How many did you get right, if you are an Indian reading this?

Okay, here are a few more. I have not been able to link them to any known present cities and towns, and they are not from the time of the Indus valley civilisation! Got any ideas?

1. Erinpora 2. Googairah 3. Lullutpore 4. Mundesore 5. Puddakottah 6. Segombe 7. Segowle

Some of you might be thinking that many of these spellings may have been made up by me or picked out of some obscure source which has little credibility. It needs, therefore, to be mentioned that these spellings are out of as authentic a Raj document as you can get. They are from ‘ The Post Office of India and its History’ by Geoffrey Clarke, ICS.

I can already hear some prominent voices, particularly in the English media, asking that we should revert to the Raj spellings and even pronunciations for these cities too! After all, they will argue again, there were no cities in these places too before the British came and built them! An increasing number of them as it is find it very difficult to pronounce Indian names the way they used to when they were growing up, and now spend long hours to better even the Brits at their mutilation. Proud Indians.

The Raj is dead, so we think; long lives the Raj.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Readers may also read: Remembering Rajiv: Congress is worse than Mayawati
'

As we all know, President Barack Obama did nothing earthshaking in the 11 days he was in office before the closing date for filing of nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. Yes, he promised to close the Guantanamo Bay prison and banned torture and extreme interrogation techniques. That was surely not enough to tip the scales in his favour.

Clearly, for perhaps the first time in the not-so-noble history of the Nobel Peace Prize, the jury has given it in anticipation of what Obama had promised to deliver to the world before he became President rather than what he has done after he entered the White House.

I am an ardent admirer of President Obama and believe that he has a vision and a world view that no American President before him has had or could have had. His multi-racial, multi-cultural background and the years he spent as a boy in Indonesia with his mother and step-father, have enabled him to see things from a perspective that would not have been possible had he grown up as white man in the US. It is largely due to this upbringing that he has become the man he is, with Gandhi and Dr King as his idols.

Only Obama could have made that stirring speech in Berlin where he said on July 24, 2008: "People of the world, this is our moment, this is our time". Men of destiny often arrive at their destination even as others believe they are still on the way and are not sure whether they will reach. On that day when I watched him speak and listened to what he had to say to the people of the world, as if he was the leader of them all and not just of the people of the United States, I had little doubt in my mind that he was destined to grace the Oval Office and lead not just America but the whole world, and not just as a political leader but as a unifying, inclusive beacon of morality and hope.

Nine months into his Presidency, Obama has shown that his pre-poll promises were not like the ones we are used to seeing in India, and has taken steps to give concrete shape to them. The Nobel jury has also noted "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between nations" and his campaign for nuclear non-proliferation. Notwithstanding all that, the hard fact is that as far as real achievements worthy of the award are concerned, he still has a long way to go.

The cynical, therefore, cannot be faulted for alleging that this Peace Prize has been rigged.

Some Indians will surely be pleased to hear this, for till now it was believed that rigging was a typical Indian specialty. This was always evident in the Padma Awards doled out by the government of India. How often have we seen them being given to 'inclusive' historians, 'exclusive' politicians, 'political' journalists, 'connected' nobodies and the like? But, who has not noticed that, of late, even gallantry awards have been similarly corrupted, as they had to be, into 'entitlements' for some who either simply die in a bomb blast or get shot dead by terrorists?

Though I too believe that Obama has been given the Nobel too prematurely, there is little doubt that he has got it because of the enormous impact that he is expected to make on the world in his eight years of Presidency, if he gets a second term. The jury can be faulted for assuming that the promise will become reality; it cannot be accused of giving it to someone who is not deserving, as it has been on occasions in the past.

In law there is a provision for granting anticipatory bail to someone fearing arrest, to prevent him from being arrested. In giving President Obama an anticipatory No'bel', the jury may have unknowingly tied him down to delivering on his many promises. If the Peace Prize acts as a catalyst to make Obama work even harder to usher in the many pioneering changes that he has spoken of, it would have done its job and found a truly deserving recipient.

Picture: The New York Times

If there is one good that has come out of Mumbai 26/11, it is the appointment of P Chidambaram as India's Home Minister. It has driven home the almost completely forgotten lesson that ministerial berths must be given only on the basis of merit, suitable knowledge/experience, and demonstrated ability to deliver outstanding results. For far too long has this task been taken lightly and the nation made to pay a heavy price.

No country that aspires to be a super power and be counted among the great nations of the world can afford to have its government led by incompetent/corrupt/unqualified politicians. This is one main reason why China has marched purposefully ahead of us to become a super power, even though we are arguably better blessed with an outstanding pool of talent and experience. This is also why we are continuing to fall behind, with no aspiration to even make an attempt to close the increasing gap.

Unfortunately, the model of democracy that we have adopted has been throwing up a fractured political verdict for decades now. As a result, the exercise of ministry formation has become a virtual mockery, as these few critical jobs that give direction to the nation along various dimensions, have begun to be seen as unholy rewards to be enjoyed by politicians rather than sacred tasks to be performed by them to build the nation. To make things worse, in the case of the Congress party, dynastic considerations have often taken precedence over everything else in allocating the most crucial ministries.

Shivraj Patil, who was sacked as Home Minister after 26/11, was a striking example of this killer disease. He was completely unfit for the job and could do no better than put his foot in his mouth whenever he opened it. He manifestly not only had no clue about what was happening in his ministry but also has no idea as to what he needed to do to make India more secure, among other things. Terror attack after terror attack, the best he could do was to tell the nation that Pakistan and the ISI were behind the attacks and then dust himself and walk off as if his job was done. Yet, he survived for almost five years because he had one prized quality that washed away all his unpardonable sins.

Chidambaram has exposed the grave danger that a completely incompetent minister given a crucial job solely on grounds of personal loyalty can pose to the whole country and make it look and feel helpless and insecure. He has shown that a minister who knows nothing except politics can, exceptions apart, simply not suddenly sprout a vision and provide bipartisan administrative leadership of the quality that is needed by a huge country like India.

It is not for nothing that Chidambaram is already being called India's new Sardar Patel. The decisive purposefulness and steely resolve that he has shown thus far has annoyed a few disconnected and soft activists who have not a clue of the harsh realities and danger of death that confront security forces on the ground day in and out. But has earned the respect of both his subordinates and ordinary Indian citizens weary of being at the receiving end of violence without even a glimmer of hope that things will ever get any better.

When he says, for example, that in the event of another 26/11 type of attack, India's reaction will be swift and decisive, you know he is not shooting his mouth off like Pranab Mukherjee did after 26/11. When he asks the states to stop treating policemen like footballs, you know that he understands one major reason due to which the police is not able to do it job properly. When he moves quickly to set up regional NSG hubs and establish a Coastal Command, a National Intelligence Grid and a National Counter Terrorism Centre, you get the uneasy feeling that, had it not been for 26/11, Patil would still have been Home Minister, doing nothing more than changing clothes thrice within an hour even as bombs were blasting within earshot distance. When he shows a determination to, finally, take on Naxal terror, without falling prey to petty partisan politics, you are sure that the Indian state has finally woken up to a serious threat after years of criminal slumber.

While there is no denying that Chidambaram is a man of outstanding abilities, the hard fact is that it is after nearly 60 years that India has a Home Minister who is justifiably being compared to the legendary Iron Man of India. This only shows how wrong and sometimes disastrous political choices have been made by successive Prime Ministers in picking their ministers. Had a tradition of giving merit precedence over petty political considerations been put in place early on when the Congress had brute majority, and Pandit Nehru followed by Indira Gandhi were unquestioned leaders, perhaps India would have been far more safe, secure, educated, developed, socially harmonised and confident than it is today.

India's politicians need to understand that they are being elected by the people to give them the best government possible, and not to saddle the nation with a bunch of incompetent and corrupt leaders who cannot rise above petty politics.

Today, there are a few good men like Dr Manmohan Singh, Pranab Mukherjee, P Chidambaram, Kapil Sibal, Kamal Nath etc who are camouflaging the rot. But the situation is only going to get worse with dynastic politics taking even deeper roots with each passing day, for all the wrong reasons. Digvijay Singh said it all a few days back when he admitted that children of politicians had to join politics because they were not capable of doing anything else.

So, a few years down the line, there will be virtually no place for outsiders in the political landscape, and this nation will be run by a bunch of smart-talking, wealth-flaunting guys who know nothing except politics and are in the game for only power and pelf. That is a frightening scenario, to say the least, and has to be avoided at all cost.

India needs its best men and women to lead it. And the best are almost all outside the class of professional politicians. It is, therefore, time for India's present leaders to make sure that the present system is, at the very least, suitably modified to allow the Prime Minister to pick at least 50% of his ministers from wherever he wants. The American President can pick his whole team at his discretion. That is, of course, ideal. But if we are not yet ready to make a total break with a system that forces you to often pick the worst, then a beginning as suggested can be made. It must be added here that President Obama has retained his predecessor's Defence Secretary (ministers are called secretaries in the US) because of his professional knowledge and experience. That is the kind of bipartisanship and national outlook that our leaders also need to show in future.

You don't become what China has in just 25 years, breaking all past and present global records, by blundering your way through governance and by treating it as a platform for parking crap and making money. The sooner we realise it the better. After some time, it may be too late.