The danger of disused laws

A few months ago, my daughter’s friend was celebrating her birthday by throwing a lunch at her apartment in Pune. It was in the middle of the afternoon when the police arrived. Apparently, the neighbors had complained about the loud music! These men who call themselves enforcers of the law threatened the youngsters, who ironically were all final year law students. There was alcohol on the premises and the police told them quite gleefully and that this was enough reason to file a charge sheet and put them behind bars. After some heated negotiation, each student coughed up Rs 2000/- so that they did not have to go to jail and get themselves a criminal record. We have stupid laws in India some states which make it mandatory for everyone to have an alcohol permit. Most of us don’t.

That incident was never reported in the media because no police complaint was registered. There are many such incidents. Many of us know someone who has been through a harrowing experience of this kind or we have read about it in the newspapers. I am not talking of drugs or rave parties here, but simple music, dancing and alcohol. An excuse for the police to barge in and get their hafta. The most recent example which came out in the media is the private party at Lonavala. The Lonavala police “raided” the party although all that was happening there was a celebration of a birthday. Sure, the party was noisy, and there was alcohol.  But the police knew that the party goers would not possess liquor permits.

Very few individuals actually have such permits, and in fact not everyone knows that they have to have one. This law, made around the time of Independence (the Bombay Prohibition Act) rules that an individual has to have a permit to drink any liquor other than beer. Not just that. A certificate (which will invariably be false) needs to be submitted from a doctor certifying that “he/she requires foreign liquor and/or country liquor for the preservation and maintenance of his/her health.’’ The height of stupidity eh. But it ceases to be a joke when one is threatened with imprisonment up to six months…because that is what drinking without a permit can get you.

This law is such an ass that it’s not surprising that people don’t bother about it. Actually, nor does the government. It’s only the corrupt and greedy police who care about it. It’s one of their extortion tools. Disused laws give the corrupt an easy method of making money because it is unlikely that people know about the existence of such laws.

The truth is that anybody who parties and even those who drink alone at home can become victims of the corrupt police. Someone with a grudge against you has to complain and even if you are drinking a rum at six in the evening the police can come and arrest you.

There is another law which is used to harass and blackmail. The law which forbids unnatural sex, under which all kinds of activities fall, including homosexuality. The punishment is a ridiculous ten years!! That the law is rarely invoked, we know, except when it comes to extorting money from those “caught.” There have been no convictions for being “guilty” of homosexual relations in India, ever. Yet, this disused law is often invoked by those in power to extort money and other favours.

It is a relief that the Delhi High court has declared that homosexual acts are no longer to be considered illegal amongst consenting adults. This is just a small step which right now applies only to Delhi. And is probably the government’s way of getting round religious groups who are opposed to repealing the law which forbids gay sex. Whether it is the Catholics, the Sikhs, the Hindus or the Muslims, conservative religious people from these communities who hold sway over vote banks are opposing it. The government was seriously thinking of repealing the anti-gay law but developed cold feet because of the religious opposition. But the high court has helped the government, although religious groups are going to challenge the ruling in the Supreme court. I don’t think the Supreme court is going to against the Delhi High court judgment. And once the Supreme court gives its stamp of approval, it will pave the way for the government to change the law. Sad news for the corrupt police, no?

Related Reading: Gay parents and heterosexual parents – any difference?
Read all posts on Corruption in India
Read all posts on Indian Society

A salute to the Iranian people and Persepolis book review

There was a revolution in Iran in 1979 but did the people get what they wanted? It’s said that the revolution against the Shah was against the monarchy, and for communism. This never happened, and it is believed that this was due to interference from the West. Islamic Rule was established. Now there is upheaval again, with the people taking to the streets, demanding that the election be annulled. They are not protesting against Islamic rule, but the election which they say is a sham. That the current president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad got barely 12% of the vote, not 65% as he claims. That the real winner is Mir Hossein Mousavi. Ofcourse there are those who believe that it is not just the stage managed election that the people are upset about but also Islamic Rule, and they want a President who can usher in reforms. That is probably what the Iranian government fears too. So while many in the middle east look on at the events in Iran with envy and admiration, the regime is taking no chances.

In this context it is worth reading Marjane Satrapi’s graphic novel Persepolis. It gives one an insight into life in Iran. It is autobiographical and she tells her story through cartoons she has drawn herself. The sketches are simple and so is the language. There is humour, drama, emotion, feminism, and the history of a people and a nation, all in one. Right at the start of the book,  we have the 10 year old Marjane upset that she has to wear a headscarf even at that tender age, and that she cannot go to a co-educational school anymore as all co-ed education is banned. But just because Iranian women were forced to wear the scarf, it did not mean that they became submissive doormats. They never were and never will be. Early on the revolution both men and women demonstrated:

Just as they are doing now, in 2009. “Iranian women have been on the front lines of anti-government protests challenging the official results of the June 12 election…The face of a woman has become the symbol of the opposition.” That of Neda Soltan. People are going to ensure that she did not die for nothing.

One sentence early on in Satrapi’s novel has stayed in my mind.
It does seem as if the population is together in the 2009 protests as well. Now that it is too dangerous to protest on the streets they are protesting by crying out Allahu akbar!” (God is great!) after 10 p.m. at night. No one can deny them this freedom.

My heart goes out to the brave Iranian people and I support them in their quest to be heard. I have signed a petition online as a gesture of support. Of all the middle eastern countries I feel closest to Iran, because we have a long history with Iran. Not just the history, it’s also the people…in western India most of us have Parsi friends. Parsees are originally from Iran. After most of the population of Persia was converted to Islam, Zoroastrianism was shunted out, but some of the followers of this religion took shelter in western India (636 CE) and till today Parsis practice their religion freely in this country. There are a lot of Iranis who have settled in India too, particularly in western India. I knew many when I was a student and there were also a lot of Iranian restaurants, but these restaurants are dying out now.

Coming back to the turmoil in Iran today, Marjane Satrapi has spoken out against this election and so have other Iranian artists. This is what Award-winning Iranian film-maker Bahman Ghobadi has said in Paris:

music and sex are banned, going to bars is banned, women are not allowed to sing…I don’t think there is a single other country in the world where young people are so depressed, so pessimistic, where there are so many suicides…But the positive thing is that now people are no longer afraid, they dare go out.

As Marjane Satrapi explains, the state may ban a lot of things but the people always did what they wanted, in private.

They had their mixed parties, and they had their alcohol, even if it meant that there was a danger of being arrested if there was a raid. It was like that then, and so it must be now. I think Iran is different from other middle eastern countries. This is just the view of an outsider but here is an article which says:

IF you ever visited Iran with the assumption that it was after all another Muslim nation where all one could expect to see was Mullahs exhorting the faithful to prayers and women clad in burqahs waiting at home for their husbands to return, you would be well advised to prepare for a surprise….They (women) are there in offices, in the markets, driving cars, in the class rooms and the canteens, indeed everywhere, alone or in groups, with men or without them. Once in a while young couples can be seen walking the streets holding hands. Women and men were in the stadium too cheering the Iranian soccer players, and when Iran won the first match on way to the World Cup, young women spectators threw off their scarves in a momentary gesture of celebration, and a touch of defiance.

Marjane said one of the reasons she wrote this book was because she wanted to tell the world that the Iranians are not fundamentalists and fanatics and terrorists. They are just like any other people in the world, and it is only a few extremists who are attempting to taint their name. To say the book is stunning is perhaps an understatement. All I can say is that if you haven’t read it you have missed something profound.

I will leave you with a funny cartoon from the book:

(All cartoons have been taken from the book Persepolis)

Related Reading: More posts about Books.

New York Movie Review

Review without spoilers

It’s a thriller and an engaging one. Four characters dominate the movie. There’s Omar (Neil Nitin Mukesh) playing the new immigrant to the United States and Indian Americans Sameer Shaikh (John Abraham) and Maya (Katrina Kaif) who meet up at New York State University two years before 9/11. Irrfan Khan plays Roshan, an FBI agent. He is the catalyst who sets the story going. This is right at the start of the movie, when he meets up with Omar, seven years after 9/11.

From here on viewers are treated to some flashbacks of university life, all from the viewpoint of Omar. We get to know how Omar, Maya and Sameer meet, the deep friendship that develops between them and why Omar is not in touch with Sameer and Maya anymore. But no, the story does not play out in flashback. The real story is in the present. And before we know it Omar has set out to perform the most dangerous assignment of his life. So this movie is not about college life nor is it really about a love triangle. The subject is a far more serious one…about how terrorism affects the life of innocent people.

Terrible crimes in the name of investigation happened after 9/11, many of them committed by police officers and the American government. If you have heard of the Patriot Act you will know that this Act allows the United States government to detain suspected terrorists without a trial. And if you have heard of Guantanamo Bay which President Obama closed down recently then you know what happened to the detainees there. That they were tortured horribly, for months. It’s difficult for those who go in to lead a normal life again. An actor who plays one such detainee acts brilliantly, although I could not get hold of his name. I shall add it here when I do but it was this man’s acting which stood out.

The director is not judgmental. He simply tells it how it is, and in fact a major character in the movie, Roshan, even explains why such tactics were necessary. At the end of the movie one does get the message that detaining and torturing people is morally wrong, but one also gets the message that this is what happens, and no one can be blamed. Freedom has to be protected, whatever the cost.

The acting was fine, and Katrina was quite good, playing the devoted girl friend, wife and mother. John did his hurly burly act and Neil did his emotional one. Irrfan’s role didn’t call for much except looking stern. He is now playing these sterotypical roles which is sad because this actor is capable of much more.

The movie is entertaining suspense thriller and its best you don’t know how it ends.  There aren’t too many light moments and the background music is good but I found the songs too long and too intrusive. Although no one actually sings them, they seem unnecessary and tagged on.

I liked the cinematography. It was beautiful the way they shot New York. I am not sure if those buildings actually look so beautiful and colourful, the way they do in the shots.

(Photo from sify.com)

Read all movie reviews.

What is Hindutva?

Whatever the actual reasons for the poll results, there are many in the BJP who feel that an erroneous projection of BJP’s Hindutva agenda had something to do with it. Not that there is a consensus within the BJP as to what brand of Hindutva to follow even now, or whether to follow it at all. Or even whether Hindutva played any part in the BJP’s poll results.

What is Hindutva anyway? Is it moderate or extreme? Religious or cultural? And how does the BJP view it?

Let’s first see what the world thinks of Hindutva.

Britannica.com describes Hindutva as an ideology which “defines Indian culture in terms of Hindu values” and mentions that this ideology is critical of the secular policies and practices of the Indian National Congress. Answers.com says that Hindutva is “Hinduness” and that it “refers to the ideology of Hindu nationalists” and that the term has fascist undertones.

The wiki says that Hindutva is “Hinduness,” and “used to describe movements advocating Hindu nationalism.” The wiki has clubbed together all the so-called “saffron” organisations with the BJP, like the RSS, Bajrang Dal, and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad as all those espousing the cause of Hindutva.

Hindutva believers may disagree with this world view of Hindutva and insist that it is not fascist or extreme in anyway but most foreigners and even many Indians think like that. That Hindutva is not moderate.

Unfortunately, while attempting to find out how Hindutva believers defined Hindutva, I came across more sites with negative references rather than positive ones (sites that came up in the first page or two). While hinduarise.com gives a moderate view and says that Hindutva is not a word but a history and culture, there are sites like hindutva.org which claim to analyse “Current Global Politics and History from a Hindutva viewpoint.” They seem to be anti-Muslim. Then there is the Bajrang Dal website which was banned by the Indian government for its views.

Hindurashtra.org calls itself the Hindutva Brotherhood and this brotherhood certainly does not seem moderate. For one thing, they wish to target Karunanidhi (Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu) for his comments about Lord Ram. Also, their “solutions” are something that can only be considered extreme. I am just quoting two:

1. Tit for tat is the only solution. Super diabolic counter offensive is the only answer to the Muslim problem. You also force them to accept Hindutva. You also convert Muslim women to Hinduness. You can do this through discussions or even by using power
2. We Hindus should militarize and industrialize ourselves. That is the only key for survival now. So industrialize and militarize Hindus as early as possible. In army, navy and air force, Hindus should have majority. Infact the people with double faiths should not at all be allowed to enter Indian Military. This is the only way to keep ourselves safe.

This may not be what the BJP endorses but then with so many websites (and blogs) spouting forth such ideas what are people to think? Then there was Varun Gandhi’s anti-Muslim speech just before the elections and after that the BJP gave him a ticket to contest. If Varun Gandhi espouses a certain brand of Hindutva and the BJP gives him a ticket then people will assume that the BJP has the same ideas.

And as many of the BJP’s allies are saffron parties which veer towards the right, their agenda is often confused with that of the BJP’s. At times these allies, like Ram Sene, which was responsible for dragging girls out of a pub and molesting them, may not even be a political ally, but in many people’s minds the connection is already made.

Today, L K Advani may insist that Hindutva is actually an “inclusive, tolerant philosophy which was not averse to change with the changing times” but it has been reported that this is Advani’s bid to “refashion” Hindutva. A clear indication that the BJP’s earlier version wasn’t like this. But even if they want to “re-fashion” Hindutva, will the extreme elements allow it?

There are intellectuals like Ashish Nandy who view Hindutva as the enemy of Hinduism. As far back as 1991 Nandy wrote that “Hindutva is built on the tenets of re-formed Hinduism of the nineteenth century. Reformed according to the reading of those who saw Hinduism as inferior to the Semitic creeds, in turn seen as well-bounded, monolithic, well-organized, masculine, and capable of sustaining the ideology of an imperial state”.

That is certainly an interesting way of looking at it although I can’t comment on it without a better knowledge of Hinduism and Hindutva. As of now I don’t care enough. But then the word Hindutva rolls off my back without me feeling a thing. I am far more attached to the word Hinduism and my brand of Hinduism is something I would like to practice in private.

Note 1:  Some months ago Amit asked me to write a post on “what items from the BJP’s platform” I considered “extremist Hindutva agenda” and why. I did try and write that post but then gave up because for me it wasn’t the items that seemed worrying, but the methods employed. As I have explained in the post above, one doesn’t really know how moderate the BJP is, and what is the distinction between it and the religious parties like the RSS. In fact they now say the BJP itself doesn’t know!

Note 2: Disclaimer. I am not an expert on this subject and therefore you are welcome to add your own views in the matter but please do so politely.

Related Reading: India’s Taliban on a rampage
SIMI and Bajrang Dal – can they be compared?

Read all posts on Religion
Read all posts on Politics
Read all posts on Hinduism

Looking at crime through a class prism

We don’t have too much respect for those who do manual labour. At best we tolerate them. So, this post is not really about how a young and upcoming Bollywood actor Shiny Ahuja allegedly raped a maid barely out of her teens. It’s about the blinkered way we look at crime.

A conversation I had with someone I know prompted me to write this post. This is how it went:

She: So do you really believe that Shiny Ahuja raped his maid?
Me: It looks like it doesn’t it.
She: But he could have got anyone, he is so good looking and a Bollywood star!
Me: Not all girls would be willing to sleep with goodlooking Bollywood stars.
She: But a maid? Surely she would want to? Anyway, why should he be attracted to her?
Her face had screwed up in disgust.

It was clear that she had no idea of what the crime of rape actually signifies. That often its not about wanting sex. But violence. Rape is often about someone wanting another, at any cost, even if it means that the victim is unwilling. In fact the unwillingness often plays an important part in the wanting. Why can’t I have her…too? Or how dare she refuse me?

Me: Why shouldn’t he be attracted to the maid? She was a goodlooking girl.
She: She was probably in love with Shiny, so many girls are in love with him. She could have seduced him.
Me: That’s what his wife and he himself are saying! That it was consensual. But you have to take into account that the maid was a virgin. Would she want to give away her virginity for this type of relationship?
She: Why not? In any case, I can’t believe it. Shiny doesn’t seem the type to rape anyone. All his wife’s friends, all women, have come on TV supporting his character.
Me: A shame isn’t it. Even before the police investigations are complete! And before the medical reports were out. The reports said she was raped.
She: But she went to work even when he made a pass at her the day before. Why did she go back?
Me:  Because needed the job? And she probably didn’t think he would rape her. If you find it hard to believe it even after the event then think of how she would have thought.
She was silent.
Me: If the rapist was a manual labourer and the girl was from a well to do family, who would you have given the benefit of the doubt to? And suppose this girl was harassed and raped in an office situation, who would you given the benefit of the doubt to? The victim or the rapist?

Well, I think I did manage to convince her, although the subject changed after that. I think that class identity seems to override all identity, even that of gender. It is ironic isn’t it that the very women who are supporting caste reservations so unreservedly are opposing the women’s reservation Bill?

Just a tiny test. It would be interesting to know how many of us actually thought that Shiny Ahuja was innocent even before the medical report was out? Why not try this opinion poll?

Related Reading: Why we blame victims
Conviction rates of the world
Police officer defends his son from rape charges
Dharavi is not a den of criminals
All posts on Crime
All posts on Women

How can one strengthen primary school education in India?

A Mckinsey study on “The Economic Impact of the Achievement Gap in America’s Schools” has many lessons for India.
First the report. It tells us that the United States was a world leader in educating its population…once. This lead has kept decreasing and today does not exist. Not only is there a fall in the number of capita high school graduates but also
their quality.

It’s the quality of learning that is worrying educators. This chart shows us how poorly American kids fare in comparison to the world. (India figures are not available):

Why are American kids doing this badly? Well, although this report shows that children of some races (black and Latino) lag behind whites in learning by several years, and although poor children of all races lag behind those who are well-off, this pattern changes in some schools. Children do well regardless or race and economic background in some areas and some schools. This has led educationists in to confirm what they already knew: that educational attainment has a lot to do with the kind of school and the quality of teachers.

What about India?
In India there is illiteracy, yes, but it is the quality of education being imparted to millions that is in question. Primary school children in many schools across the country have been found to be lacking in basic literacy and numeric skills.

And like in the US, in India too there is a learning gap along ethnic and religious lines. As poor reading and arithmetic skills prevent children from studying up to higher levels, people are doomed to poverty even before they reach the fifth grade. Having the “stamp” of being literate is of no use to them.

Is India doing anything about this except for promises by politicians to increase the number of schools and increase enrollment levels? True, the government’s midday meal scheme has helped motivate parents to send their kids to school and there are various schemes which I have read about in different states (I do not have a list of them or how they are being implemented) but what about actually improving the quality of schools and the teachers?

In America a small experiment is on to try and improve their system. A new teacher evaluation system is in place which will reward teachers who do well by giving them high salaries, and punish those who do not, by dismissing them. However this experiment has run into a lot of criticism as many educators believe that one cannot evaluate teachers by children’s scores alone.

I do not know much about why some American kids may be resistant to learning or what is lacking in their schools, but I do have an idea about India.

While the principle of good salaries for good teachers is a sound one, this is not the critical factor. Looking at it from the money angle is a narrow approach.  Well qualified teachers do tend to gravitate towards better paying private schools but it may not only be money that they are looking for. A teacher will find it difficult to do her job if she is under pressure from bureaucrats, is hampered by duties other than teaching, restricted by the lack of teaching aids, frustrated due to high absenteeism of students and their lack of interest, and feel hopeless if she cannot manage to communicate with the parents.

As I had mentioned in this post many girls and boys cannot concentrate on their studies due to the burden of work at home. I have personally taught poor children who come to school so tired that they drop off to sleep. Children who are beaten because they have not done some household chore. Children whose parents have told them that they need to contribute to the family income rather than waste time at school. In other words, poverty is the enemy. Perhaps if the government starts to pay families to keep their children in school (over and above their school expenses) it might help. I do not know if any state has a scheme like this for BPL (Below Poverty Line) families.

This is not to say that teachers of under performing children are not to blame. The system is desperate need of overhaul but I do not see the government doing anything about this. One scheme after another is well and good, but the system has to change, good teachers need to be rewarded. But as many have said of America’s experiment too, dedicated teachers cannot be bought. So you need to create the right environment in which they will thrive. By giving them freedom to operate, giving them greater responsibility, and most important…respect. This is at one end. At the other end you have to create the right environment for the children to come to school, by ensuring that the parents do not feel deprived of an earning member, by ensuring that they have one less mouth to feed. Counseling parents will also help. At times socio-cultural factors play a role in parents decisions regarding the education of their children, specially girls.

And when it comes to evaluating a teacher, there is no doubt that accountability needs to be brought into the system, after taking into account the level of difficulty in each situation. It’s necessary if India has to rise. This New York Times article explains how the economic health and the educational health of a nation are so closely intertwined.

Update (21st June): This excerpt is from today’s TOI, Ahmedabad edition about what a citizen Vinod Pandya discovered through an RTI application.

He found that 60 per cent of the 6,000 primary school teachers responsible for the foundation in education of 2.10 lakh children were not qualified. These teachers did not have a BEd degree or a simple Primary Teachers Certificates….Almost 90 per cent of the teachers were drawing a salary between Rs 500 and Rs 2,000. Some teachers were shown born in 1983 thus getting BEd degrees at the age of 12 years! These people were teaching class X students. In some schools, the principal was just a higher secondary school passs. Nearly 50 per cent teachers did not have accounts in banks, many did not have provident fund accounts. Who is responsible for this mess,” asks Pandya.

Basically what this means is that just about anyone is being hired, and paid whatever the management feels like mostly to save money or rather to pocket funds allocated for the purpose.

(Photographs are by me and copyrighted)

(Vivek Khadpekar had sent me a link to an article about the experiment in the USA to improve their system and this led me to find out more about the subject, and hence this post.)

Related Reading: Obstacles in the way of girls’ education in India
The diet of Indian children is poor
Growth is not leading to development in India

The coming of age of Hinduism?

Something significant happened in Thane a few weeks ago. A father conducted the Hindu thread ceremony for his daughter, breaking the man-made traditions of Hinduism. This ceremony, “performed to mark the point at which boys began their formal education” has been compared to the Jewish Bar Mitzah, but the Bar Mitzah is for both boys and girls while the thread ceremony has been thought to be the exclusive domain of Brahmin males. However, if one digs deep enough into the Hindu scriptures there is evidence to suggest that women too underwent this thread ceremony.

This is not the first time that this thread ceremony has been conducted on girls. The followers of Shankar Seva Samiti had organized it in the year 2000 in Pune. It is possible that this ceremony has been performed on other girls too and not been publicized.

Why are these events significant? Aren’t these simply isolated incidents which in no way impact Hinduism specially as the thread ceremony is by itself an exclusive practice meant for only a tiny fraction of the Hindu community, the Brahmins and some other castes?

Maybe. But I think these incidents can have an impact on Hindu society if well known people conduct these ceremonies on their daughters. More important, this could turn into an instrument of social reform if prominent male priests of the country give their stamp of approval. The way it is now, the society as well as the male priests look upon this practice with slight amusement. In other words they simply tolerate it. The male priests refuse to do the ceremony themselves. Whoever wants it done has to call female priests.

I am calling it social reform, not religious, because Hindu scriptures do not ban girls from undergoing this ceremony. There are references to women’s thread ceremonies in ancient Vedic texts. For example The Rig Veda (10.109.4) says, “When a brahmin’s wife wears the auspicious thread, she becomes very popular.” The Harit Smriti also has references to this practice as does the Yama Smriti.

If women do not undergo this ceremony today, it is purely because over the ages the priests, who were mostly men, kept the women out. Today the male priests have an opportunity to change this, particularly the high profile priests. They need to seize this opportunity and take Hinduism a step forward.

The people too play an important role. I cannot help but wonder if those who go through religious rituals like the thread ceremony are aware of the meaning behind these rituals or whether they simply follow these rituals blindly, because of superstition or habit.

For believers of Hinduism, the thread ceremony is significant and sacred. As far as my understanding goes, it was the time when boys left home for their studies, to the gurukul. Today we educate girls, all girls, but the age-old ritual has remained just that – an age-old ritual. It seems to have lost its deeper meaning. If it had kept up with its meaning, I would have kept up with the idea that this ceremony was a kind of coming of age (for education) of children. All children.  Boys and girls. Brahmins and non-Brahmins and Dalits. The way it is today.

The days when non-Brahmins were not allowed study are long gone. Neither do all Brahmins become priests, as they did as at the beginning of the caste system. It is believed that when the caste system originally started, people were able to move from one caste to another…it was based on occupation. Today occupations are not the exclusive domain of any caste, but age-old prejudices remain. Age old rituals are practiced, not in their true spirit, but out of long habit.

I hope that more and more parents conduct these rituals on their daughters, if they believe in them. If they do it for their sons there is no reason to exclude their daughters. If they look hard enough they will find a priest who will agree to it. If there is a demand for it, then the priests, even male priests, will come forward.  Hinduism has this flexibility.

Related Reading: The women priests of India
Too much importance given to rituals and less to faith
The original meaning behind fasting for husbands in Hinduism
Are converts accepted in Hinduism?
Gurus – should we love them or leave them?
The Ram Setu controversy
A book countering the “Hinduphobia” of the west

Read all posts on Hinduism
All posts on Religion

India scores badly on the Global Peace Index

India slipped 15 points on the Global Peace Index (GPI) ranking, from 107 in 2008 to 122  (out of 144 countries) in 2009. Whether one gives any credence to these rankings or whether one accepts the definition of peace as stated by them, what I can say from my personal experience is that as a citizen I have perceived a deterioration of “peace” over the past two decades. At one time I perceived India to be peaceful and safe. I guess I was protected from the kind of violence in society that one read about in the newspapers (gender violence and crime) and I believed that as long as one kept away from the underworld and otherwise led a clean life one was relatively safe from crime and violence. In any case there was nothing in our daily lives to graphically remind us of a violent world…there was no checking at parks and malls and cinema halls, no bomb blasts and no terrorism. And no cable television.

There were wars though. As a child I remember rushing to hide under tables, running to safety at the sound of the siren, blackening our windows to prevent enemy planes from seeing city lights…but well, 1971 passed.

As time went on I realised that India was not as safe as I had imagined. There were incidents…like the time I was caught in a serious stone pelting incident (I was in a cab) when the news of Sanjay Gandhi’s accidental death spread. There was the time when I was stranded in a car on a burning street…in the midst of the 1984 riots, the day after Indira Gandhi was shot. When we were in Bangalore I’ve seen trouble because of the water sharing issue. Every year it seemed to be getting worse. Riots and bombs, riots and bombs, riots and bombs…and cable television was bringing it live into our homes.

Still, many of us think of India as a peaceful country. But this is not what the world thinks.  Here is the map:

How the GPI is calculated
The Global Peace Index takes into account qualitative as well as quantitative factors relating to political stability, corruption, education, human rights, criminality and so on. There are 23 “indicators” under three broad categories: measures of ongoing domestic and international conflict, measures of safety and security in society and measures of militarization. The more the militarization, the worse the score.

The best and the worst
The most peaceful countries are New Zealand, Denmark and Norway, Iceland, Austria and Sweden. Sudan, Israel, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq are the bottom five. India may not be last, but it is ranked only a little better than Pakistan (137) and Sri Lanka (125).

Regional rankings
India does not fare well even if we look at it from a regional angle. India falls under the Asia and Australia region and here it ranks 20 out of 25, beating only Pakistan, Aghanistan, North Korea and Mynamar. Our regional leaders in peace are New Zealand, Japan, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea and Taiwan.

Why does India score so badly?
Well, India has too many external and internal conflicts and then we score poorly when it comes to perceptions of criminality and corruption in society, respect for human rights, gender equality, potential for terrorist acts, the level of violent crime, likelihood of violent demonstrations, ease of access to weapons and level of military sophistication.

India scored alright on factors like political stability, military expenditure as a percentage of GDP (less), our fair electoral processes, and freedom of the press.

Is the GPI an accurate barometer?
No system can be quite “accurate” but it can certainly give us a reasonable guideline. Critics of the GPI say that the USA should have got a better rank as America’s high military expenditure gives a skewed picture because the USA is one of those countries which fights for the defense of other countries. That internally the USA is a peaceful country. Others believe that gender violence is not given adequate weightage in the index (for example female feticide and infanticide in China.)  There are also those who bemoan the fact that “political and social freedom play no role in the rankings…that is why a totalitarian state like Cuba would be considered more peaceful than many a free country, like the USA for example.

I think when it comes to measuring peace (which I see as something affecting a peaceful, law-abiding citizen) then whether a state is totalitarian or not shouldn’t make a difference. Even if China is communist and Cuba has a dictator and Singapore is totalitarian I shouldn’t think it matters as long as the citizens are protected from random senseless violence.  And perpretrators of such violence are put behind bars. India is democratic but I do not see those who indulge in rioting being punished. I do not see us fighting terrorism and naxalism effectively.

What do the peaceful countries have in common?
Small and politically stable countries do well. The fact that these countries have more or less homogeneous populations plays an important part in their peacefulness. Diversity can be a problem, particularly if the government and the police and the judiciary is weak and/or corrupt. In India our government spends its time dividing the people on the basis of caste and religion for the sake of votes and the opposition parties do the same.

Economic prosperity, a high literacy rate and equal opportunities for all go a long way in removing frustration from the minds of the people.

There are those who believe that the lack of religiosity is important and say that countries with the most atheists are more peaceful. Well, religious fanatics who believe in conversions do divide people and sow the seeds of violence. India is a religious country, with more than 90 percent of its population religious. If one compares it to Sweden, one of the most peaceful countries of the world, 85% of its population is atheist/agnostic. The USA though has a lot of religious people – 59% of its population.

Which is then the most critical? Personally I think that economic prosperity and strong governments which come down hard on criminals irrespective of their political and religious leanings are the critical factors.

Related Reading: Indians believe their judiciary to be tainted
There is no reason or justifcation for violence
Rural and urban crime patterns of the world
Violent crime pattern in different parts of the world

Read all posts on Terrorism
Read all posts on Corruption

Teaching children that girls cook but boys don’t

A prominent ICSC school in Pune forces its girl students to take up Home Science (basic cooking and cleaning skills). I wrote “forces” because if the girls do not score a high percentage (80+) in their eighth/ninth grades then they have no choice but to take up Home Science. If they do score well then they are allowed to take Computers. If the boys don’t score the required percentage, they too cannot take Computers…but they get to take Commercial Applications. Girls can’t.

Unfair huh. 

For one thing, children as young as those in the eighth grade are being forced to make life changing choices not because they like a particular subject or want to make a career around it, but because of their “marks.” Secondly, boys and girls are not treated equally. If teachers and academicians are so prejudiced what can one expect from the rest of society?

I wonder what the school had in mind when it made the option of Home Science compulsory for girls. Did they believe that boys will never do any housework and cooking in their lives or were they under the impression that boys will never join the catering or hotel industry? I doubt that it is the latter. This makes one suspect that the school has introduced Home Science to “housetrain” its girl students. A little surprising considering that most girls learn a little housework and cooking at home, in India at least. If anything, it’s the boys who need the training.

Who can deny that cooking is a basic survival need? Today boys are marrying late and living alone. Sure, a man can hire a maid, and then eventually marry someone who will gladly take on all the cooking and cleaning at home…but why be so dependent on another human being? And what does this man do if the maid leaves or goes on a holiday? If the wife leaves? Eat at hotels and ruin his health?

In reality many men do have basic cooking skills and have no ego hassles about cooking. In a post I wrote on the lack of interest in cooking, some men came forward and said they did pick up pots and pans and wielded them to good effect! We in India may be a long way off from reaching the age of the gastrosexual (men who cook regularly to impress friends and prospective partners) but there are many Indian men who are proud that they cook. There are also Indian men who feel that it is more important that their wife sit at the table with them rather than serve them. And there are umpteen men who are closet cooks. My ex-neighbour is an expert phulka-maker but hotly denies it in public! I also know several middle class men who chip in with the cooking because their wife is working outside but don’t advertise it because they feel embarrassed. I also know men who wash clothes, utensils and do the vegetable shopping, for the same reasons. Their want to help their wife or mother. Or they are living alone.

Whether men cook out of necessity, or out of enjoyment, whether they are closet cooks or gastrosexuals, the fact is that there are many Indian men who cook and clean and yes, iron as well. So what gives a school the right to assume that males do not need to learn Home Science? Or does the school by any chance think it is degrading to teach young boys Home Science? Or do they think the parents will protest? I really don’t know! Whichever it is, give the girls the option for heavens sake!

It’s a little alarming because this school is a so-called elite school in a progressive city like Pune. What must be the situation then in other places in India? This is mainstream education that we are talking about here, not some “finishing school” which housetrains girls after they leave school!

(Photograph is by me and copyrighted. It is there for representative purposes only)

Related Reading: What feminism means to me
Women have feelings just like men do!
The Devaluation of Cooking

Star Trek (2009) movie review

It felt good to be on the USS Enterprise again, even if it was just for a few hours. The names of Captain Jim Kirk, Spock, Scottie, Sulu and Bones were music to the ears. Every moment of the movie was a thrill for a Star Trek fan like me. Grew up in the seventies and eighties on a diet of Star Trek (the television series with William Shatner playing Jim Kirk) and Star Wars and well, there is nothing that can replace the kind of thrill experienced in exploring ” the final frontier…the voyages of the starship Enterprise…[and] to seek out new life and new civilizations…to boldly go where no man has gone before…” alongwith the characters who are etched in my heart forever.

But now there is a brand new cast and we catch these characters at a younger period in their lives:

The movie takes us into a timeline before the time when the Star Trek serial of the sixties started. The backstory of the characters is developed in detail, and it’s quite fascinating to see how Kirk and young Spock meet and what makes Spock the way he is, torn between two worlds. The backstory has been changed to fit in with the plot of this new movie, and it’s interesting to see the way the director (J. J. Abrams) and writers (Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman.) weave the time travel into the storyline. It was the only way they could achieve some flexibility with the story. The alternate reality created (because of interference from the future) seems believable. There is a touch of sadness to the story, because this reality is the less pleasant one, at least for Jim Kirk. But well, alls well that ends well!  

An older Spock (played by Leonard Nimoy, who plays Spock in the original series) is also present in the movie and he is one of those who travels back in time to a time where the story is playing out. Jim T. Kirk (played by Chris Pine) is the hero ofcourse and Spock (Zachary Quintoas) is the sidekick along with Bones (Karl Urban) and Sulu (John Cho). The Romulan Nero (Eric Bana) is the villain. Chris Pine acts out the role of Jim Kirk with aplomb, but there is no comparison to William Shatner. The dashing Shatner with the twinkle in his eyes is associated with Jim Kirk in my head although Chris Pine is a good substitute. He has his charm, a kind of boyish intensity and exuberance…but then Pine is playing a young Jim Kirk fresh out of the Star Fleet academy so it’s alright! It was disappointing to see how the character of Uhura (Zoe Saldana) was thought out. True, she didn’t have much of a role in the original series but in this one they did give her a significant presence. Unfortunately she was there only for her sex appeal.

Star Trek has everything one can want in an action film: great adventure, fabulous special effects, a touch of romance and comedy, and plenty of drama. The movie moves at a fast clip, racing through time and space at almost warp speed.

Could someone who is not a fan of Star Trek, or not used to SF movies, enjoy this movie? Well, like all cult movies, familiarity with the characters adds greatly to the movie experience. The plot is a little complicated because of the time travel and alternate reality angle and therefore it can get confusing for a newbie. And then there was this ten year old behind us in the cinema hall who refused to believe that Spock with his pointed years was not the villain!

Anyone who wants to know more about Star Trek can check out the wiki and also this article which talks about how hard the writers tried to get William Shatner to play the role of the older Jim Kirk (from the future) in the movie but finally abandoned the idea as it made the story seem too contrived.

Photo credits: the first photograph is from cfhf.net, the second from blackberrypaper.com and the third from LA Times.

Related Reading. More Movie Reviews.

India’s dynasty politics needs to go

The number of sons, daughters, wives and other relatives that politicians come attached with reminds me of Bollywood. Talent takes a back seat, and nepotism rules. Whether it is the Gandhis, or the Scindias or the Karunanidhis, India is fast becoming a shining example of dynastic politics. But then political dynasties are perpetuated because voters vote them in, and then the party members elevate them to great heights.

Here are some reasons (might overlap) why voters vote for dynastic rulers:

• There are voters who cannot/will not distinguish between the family name and the party. The family “brand” becomes synonymous with the party. Something similar to Coke being associated with colas or xerox being associated with copying. Or the Gandhis with the Congress.
• Voters have a feudalistic mindset and feel comfortable with being “ruled” by families. In fact they start associating a powerful political family with royalty. Respect and awe mean the same thing. The family name is what inspires the awe, not individual merit.
• Some voters actually believe that the individuals in the family are somehow better than the others standing for election.
• There are voters so loyal to the party (ideology) that they don’t care which individual they are voting for.
• Then there are those who vote for one of the two major parties without really caring for either the party or the individual. They want to do their bit to ensure that there isn’t a hung parliament!
• Some voters go by “symbol”. Individuals don’t matter.
• Some voters feel it is a practical choice to vote for someone from a political family as he/she has the right connections and the resources to get things done.
• There are voters who vote according to caste/religion and then the relative of the previous MP is a great substitute.

Individual merit isn’t the important factor. Sure, people might vote for an individual because of the charisma, family name, clean image or whatever, but that’s not merit. Merit needs to be some work that the individual has done, his educational background, past achievements, political experience and so on.

I am not blaming the public. Detailed and objective analysis of candidate merit is not available in the media. Often the media demands money if the aspiring candidate wants press coverage. You can be sure that if he/she does get that press coverage he covets, only good things are said. Rosy pictures are painted.

Here are some of the things that I feel are necessary to help voters pick the right candidate. Some of the things seem impossible, but well, a start can be made:

• Greater transparency from the government’s end. All information about government functioning needs to become freely available to the media,  including information on the status of various schemes, their funding and their execution, the people in-charge and so on. All this will make it easier for the voter to make the right decision about a candidate. As of now many citizens have to take recourse to the RTI Act and this takes time.
• A vigilant press which makes a fuss about the wrongdoings of those in power. A press which does not  eulogise politicians or aspiring politicians, and/or deliberately conceal the seamy side of their characters. All facts need to be placed before the public, particularly those of family members who have got the ticket to contest because of their connections. And before an election, all candidates need to be able to find a voice through the media, not just those who pay or employ public relations agencies or those who intimidate the press or those whom the press is in awe of because of their family name.
• More awareness campaigns on the importance of voting. Sure, there have been many such this year but most of them were meant to shame the voter into voting. We also need campaigns to make voters understand why their vote is so important. This needs to be taught in school.

Family members are surrounded by sycophants and to hell with democratic values
Once elected (and at times even before that), the dynastic ruler ensures that family members and loyalists hog the plum posts in the government. Inexperienced family members get to decide who will become a minister.

We all know that after the 2004 Lok Sabha election, Sonia Gandhi would have been made the Prime Minister if it had been constitutionally possible or if she had insisted on it. The sycophants of her party wanted her, no matter what her experience and educational background. She did become the party president, the kingmaker. A person without any political background or achievements.

Why should party members help perpetuate the dynasty?
The reason has to lie in self-interest, and not the country’s interest. Here are some reasons I have penned down:

• Dynastic rulers often control a lot of the party money which is often stashed away in secret accounts
• Besides resources, political families have the right connections, in politics, in business, in the judiciary and even the underworld
• The MP’s who help bring in political dynasties are often themselves intellectually bankrupt and owe their positions to the “family”. They know that without the family they are nothing. They will do anything to keep the family in, either for their own survival or out of sheer gratitude.
• Family members of politicians often manage to get a mass following amongst voters (reasons given above) and the chances of their winning is high and that is why they can be given tickets to contest. This is because the family is considered the brand or mascot of the party. And there is always less work that needs to be done to sell a well known brand instead of trying to launch a new brand. Launching a well known brand is also playing safe. This is why even senior members of the party go along with the family members, thinking that it will help their party win more seats
• There is so much infighting and jealousy in the party that they prefer someone who is “above” them. They do not under any circumstances want to see one of their own succeed.
• They are in awe of the “family” and see them as royalty.

Here are some things that can be done to prevent dynasties, again seems impossible in the present scenario:

• Internal elections (within the party) need to be held. No one should be “nominated.”
• All secret benami accounts need to be closed and all the money transferred to a common fund.
• All party funding needs to become transparent and open.
• Minimum qualifications and other criteria of merit should be adhered to for appointment of ministers
• The dynastic ruler should insist that his relative start at the bottom rung. The country or state is not his private limited company.
• Political parties need to make a concerted effort to develop a second and third rung of leaders and push them into the limelight, ensure they get exposure to the public. Long term planning is required for this. Anyone who tries to suppress talent has to be sidelined.

What’s wrong with a dynasty if the person has “merit?
This is an argument that some people put forward. That the heirs of political bigwigs have merit but what happens to those others out there, maybe with more merit, who have not got the opportunity at all?
People also say that lawyer kids become lawyers, doctor kids become doctors and army kids join the army so why don’t we accept political kids? For one thing, because those other guys and gals do some sort of course and pass an exam even if they pay money or use their influence to get into the course. In politics a family member of a politician gets a free pass! From criminality to licentiousness to stupidity, all is pardoned… as long as they have the family name.

If the family member earns the ticket because of previous party work it is another matter. This rarely happens and worse, once elected these family members become all-important in the party.

Some claim that there is no reason to make a big fuss about dynasties because “even America has political dynasties” (Clinton, Bush) and that “England has also had a tradition of dynasties” ( Harold Macmillan’s cabinet in the 1950s had 11 members who were related to each other). But this rings hollow. We all know that there is no culture of “nomination” in their political system. Nor is there a culture of sycophancy. Their democracy seems to work. For example Hillary Clinton lost to Obama in a fair race. In any case Clinton was a heavyweight lawyer before she joined politics, she wasn’t a nobody. And there is no dynasty now, after George Bush. It’s ended, if there ever was a dynasty. And although George W. Bush was born into a political family he earned his way up. I really do not think that there is any comparison between “dynasties” in the US and the UK and here. Perhaps we may compare ourselves with Pakistan which has relatives of politicians in all sorts of important positions.
I guess you and me know that politicians’ children and relatives in India don’t need to prove themselves.

(Note:The link to the wall street journal article was courtesy Prerna)

Related Reading: Whom to vote for? The political party or the individual?
Reasons for the outcome of the 2009 Lok Sabha elections
Our elected representatives don’t really represent us
Sheila Dixit’s win in Delhi – a new voting era in India?
The middle-classes don’t vote…slum dwellers do!
Don’t want to vote? Then register your no-vote!
All posts on Politics

India is too sweet for me!

Finding non-sweet non-alcoholic drinks is a problem here in India. From mocktails and fruit juices to iced tea or coffee, it’s all served with loads of pre-mixed sugar. People like me who don’t have a sweet tooth are in the minority. I do enjoy sweets and sweet drinks, but only as long as they are not excruciatingly sweet.

As a result I cannot enjoy most commercial ice-creams and soft drinks as they are too sweet for my taste. It’s the same with biscuits. They are either too sweet or just salty.

Once I made the mistake of asking the vendor for an ice-cream flavour which was “less sweet” and was delighted when he told me that he had not one but several! But on tasting it I found it as sweet, if not sweeter than the other ice creams. The shopkeeper insisted that it was of the “no-sugar” variety and said that it tasted sweet because of the artificial sweetener. He thought this was what I was looking for! When I tried to explain that it’s the sweetness I don’t like, he didn’t get it.

I am not diabetic and neither do I have any diabetics in my family, on either side. I just don’t like very sweet stuff. It nauseates me. That’s what most people find difficult to understand. Specially as it doesn’t mean that I eschew sweets. In fact I quite enjoy something a little sweet.

I drink my tea black and without sugar, and I drink milk without sugar. And this can get embarrassing when one is offered tea by others. If one refuses it looks bad, as in India you can’t refuse tea. Specially as it’s offered to you as a matter of course. No one asks you whether you would like to be served the sugar or milk separately. I either swallow it if I have to and the nausea that comes with it, or if I am not up to it I make some excuse of a stomach upset. But in the past I have offended people so now I am a little careful!

Not liking very sweet things makes me a sort of misfit in India. It’s not just with those one works with and acquaintances, but in restaurants, coffee parlours and hotels too. The iced tea they serve is too sweet for me as most of them make it with a pre-mixed powder. The cold coffee is horrible it’s mostly blended with sweet ice-cream. Once I asked the people serving coffee at Cafe Coffee Day if they could serve me a non-sweet cold coffee and they said they would. And guess what they served me? An overly sweet cold coffee which they explained was without any added sugar. What they had forgotten to tell me is that the ice-cream which was blended in had sugar! I wondered what had happened to the old fashioned cold coffee we had in the old days. Cold coffee without ice-cream. Have they forgotten how to make cold coffee? Why has ice-cream become a necesary ingredient? Now if I want cold coffee I make it at home  Same with milk shakes.

I am sure that in other parts of the world “less sweet” is not interpreted as “artificially sweetened.” Maybe they have the choice of non-sweet and sweet over there, or more likely, their pre-sweetened cold coffee is not excruciatingly sweet! People have told me that Coke and Pepsi are sweeter in India too, but again this is just hearsay. Nothing official about it! If I am forced to have a cola I prefer Thums Up as it tastes less sweet than either Coke or Pepsi. Pepsi is unbearably sweet. I am not talking of the amount of sugar in anything, just the taste. For example I can eat a good quality chocolate as it doesn’t taste that sweet.

Usually when I am out I make do with jeera paani or salted lime sherbet. There is always beer ofcourse. Or white wine.

(Photographs are by me and copyrighted)

Related Reading:  Coffee shops or hang-out joints?
Street food has less bacteria than a lot of restaurant food