The Anna-gony of weak minds…

With anti-corruption fervour reaching a crescendo, India unfortunately has a lot of its usual naysayers come out of the woodwork. This is not surprising as there is a mentality of certain people who enjoy taking a contrarian stance, not out of conviction but out of habit (more often than not, these creatures lack the ability or the desire to understand the issues to form a conviction either way). Perhaps psychologists have already identified this as a condition emanating from the inability to garner attention in their lives, I don’t know. Or perhaps I am mistaken in considering myself the biggest cynic around, and it is these people who really deserve the title who are so afraid of expecting anything good in their lives lest they cant handle disappointment afterwards. Even if it were to end in disappointment, I believe in trying to give my all to the present and to such people I can only say, you cannot not go to a party tonight because you are scared of a hangover tomorrow.

Most of the arguments against the ongoing ‘Team Anna’ movement are focussed on the peripheries given that having substance to arguments takes efforts and intelligence. Since I know most people form views and then shut their minds tight (if they exist) from any information that is contra to what they believe, I have chosen to call my discussion facile points and my indulgence of those facile points rather than questions and answers:

Facile point 1: Once a government is elected, it is wrong to blackmail them

Indulgence 1: Weak minds like buzzwords, like ‘blackmail’. Another good one is ‘fake’. These words, to them, are arguments in themselves not requiring any further corroboration. “Once I call someone ‘fake’, that will seal the case” seems to be the refrain. Have you noticed very bad salespeople using a lot of buzz words? I remember Barkha Dutt keeping on harping about “Khabar” when she was caught red handed allegedly passing messages in what appears to be a horse trading transaction.

While clearly buzzwords carry weight among equally weak minds (it must, else it would not have been advanced as an argument anywhere), it really doesn’t hold any water. It is the constitutional right of everyone to protest and to brand that right is blackmail is to take someones right away. It is similar to taking away the right to freedom or right to free speech. If the protest is wrong or useless it will die down. Sometimes the protest is valid but does not capture public imagination and dies down, harshly. An example is the 73-day fast of Swami Nigamananda against mining near the Ganges which ended with his death. Notably, here the BJP was in power in that state (Uttarakhand). No one cried ‘blackmail’ then!  In fact I am sure that most people reading this article will only have a passing knowledge of this incident. So what these people are calling blackmail is actually the governments surprise on seeing mass support, as can be gleaned from the Ganga mining case, a person fasting to death alone is not ‘blackmail’ this government!

Facile point 2: People get the government they deserve, so live with corruption

Indulgence 2: Though I partially agree with the point, thankfully the Einsteins who make this argument blindly did not write India’s constitution. It is a sign of a mock democracy (covert dictatorship) if people elected parties but were then kept away from participative process of running the country. That’s a quasi dictatorship. If it was not, then the Indian constitution would have banned protests! Why it would have banned an opposition or even the holding of assembly sessions!

But that’s going too far, if this argument was true then several countries would not have been free and South Africa, U.S and most of the European world would have had legalised racial discrimination.

If this argument was really believed in by its proponents, then they should have protested against the National Advisory Commission which is also a self styled civil society body (though headed by Sonia Gandhi) which suggests ridiculous (in my reading) pieces of legislation such as the Communal Violence Bill, 2011.

But I know, no protests were forthcoming because the resistance of this fringe idiocracy was not due to ideological opposition to the concept of a vibrant democracy (which India did not appear to be till a few weeks back) but solely to make up for attention deficit in their personal or professional lives.

Facile point 3: Anna is corrupt/ he doesn’t represent the people/ he should stand for elections and then get his Bill

Indulgence 3: This logic is so far up the ridiculous scale that even its proponents believe that it’s a good argument.

The most striking feature of this argument is that from very general objections, this one is more specific, more personal. But again, specific arguments against the Jan Lokpal Bill itself (the real issue) are not advanced, because that would require a thorough reading of both the government and Anna’s draft, and that would mean efforts and bring into question the debaters mental abilities. We cant have that!

To this my rebuttal is simple. Maybe Anna is corrupt, so are you saying he is bringing an Act that will make it easier to arrest him? So you are saying he is smart enough to create a media circus, draft an actual bill, fight with an government and be corrupt at the same time but he is stupid enough to commit political suicide? Pick one guys, either decide he is smart and non-corrupt or decide he is stupid and corrupt. Perhaps that is too much effort? But that is the long form version of my answer, my personal view is, I don’t care either way. Show me what you find objectionable in the Bill. I too have my reservations on the Jan Lokpal but that is to be debated in the parliament and revised, but the governments Jokepal is so atrocious that I am willing to live with my reservations on Jan Lokpal not being considered rather than facing a Jokepal.

Anna does actually represent the people, he was appointed by a notification in the official gazette as a part of the team that represented the civil society. If the government did not think he was representative then were they so incompetent/ stupid to let him in anyway with a official gazette notification? If it is so, then do we want a incompetent/ stupid government at the helm or are we better off holding elections? That is my question back to these newtons. Anna does not need to stand for elections to get his Bill discussed as he was already part of the joint drafting committee. Also, if one were to wait for someone to get near 300 seats in elections before doing anything then nothing would happen in this country!

Facile point 4: Anna wants his copy of the bill to be passed.

Indulgence 4: This argument was completely wrong till a few days back but now its only partially wrong. The original demand of Anna was only that his bill be tabled along with the government’s draft in parliament for debate and voting. However, from what I see in the media Anna is now demanding his Bill be passed. However, Anna is also willing to concede to things like removing judiciary from its ambit. So in fact Anna was always willing to reconsider some of his view on the bill and that’s why he wanted it to be debated in parliament. Such debate would have also shown the country which party supports stringent anti corruption laws and which doesn’t!

Facile point 5: Everyone/ most who is protesting are corrupt themselves or have paid bribes

Indulgence 5: While this is a factual statement to a degree, it is hardly an argument for someone not to protest. The people protesting against corruption have been victims of corruption at some point, so should they not protest? This is like saying a rape victim should not ask for stringent punishment for rapists! It sounds illogical but this is exactly the argument that is being advanced. The proponents of this logic are somehow arguing that the poor bribe payer enjoyed giving the money away so he cant protest against it (why else would there be a moral issue in bribe payers fighting the corrupt?!), so are they also saying the rape victim enjoyed the act, hence cant fight for justice?! How preposterous is that!

It is also worthwhile to discuss what exactly one means by corruption as well. Subramanian Swamy has given us a ‘demand-side’ definition, ie. If anyone makes gains by the misuse of public office, then that is corruption. So if a husband demands dowry it is not corruption, its extortion, since no ‘public office’ was misused. So even if Baba Ramdev may have received donations (as the Congress alleges to try and discredit him) from black money pools, he cant be called corrupt (Swamy gives a good taxi driver analogy to make his point), since he has not used a public office for illegal gain. Moreover, his books are clean and available for examination so appears to have not been any cheating on the way the money was spent.

I propose to look at corruption from the ‘supply-side’. I divide it into two categories: a) corruption for undeserved benefit and b) Corruption in the nature of extortion. The first type is the one of the kind telecom companies allegedly indulged in, they were not qualified for legal and technical reasons to gain 2G spectrum but they bribed the telecom minister who misused public office and conferred undeserved gain. This type of corruption would seldom be complained against by its parties since both have gotten something out of it which they didn’t deserve. A telecom company got a scarce national resource for peanuts and the minister allegedly got billions and billions of dollars.

The second type of corruption affects common man (though arguably it’s the first type that’s worse for the country financially). Indians pay bribes for driving licenses, for almost every other sort of license, to get into colleges, to get passports done and what not. In poor areas people may be paying bribes to get government sponsored scheme benefits, to get out of jail, to get into government hospital, to get into public schools, to get food, to get water, to get anything. I think it’s a cruel joke, in very bad taste and a reflection of the uncouth culture of the person who equates both types of corruption knowingly.

So yes, most people protesting have paid bribes but they are the victims of the second type of corruption. Yes, a lot of them could have avoided (though sometimes that is not possible!) paying a bribe but people have lives, they cant afford to (not that they don’t want to) keep circling government offices for decades for something that should take 48 hours. This is like saying Mumbaikars go to work the day after serial blasts due to some sort of an ‘Mumbai spirit’ that only politicians seem to be able to see. People go, fearing for their life and limb, because they have no choice! They go because, unlike leaders, they don’t have money stashed away in swiss bank accounts to allow them to stay indefinitely at home without work. If anything a bribe payer of the second type has the most locus standi to protest!

I have endeavoured to answer all the facile arguments I have seen made on various social media mostly by people who are not doing anything in this fight and want to ride on Anna’s fame by deriding him. Deride him all you want, just tell me….what do you think is wrong with the Jan Lokpal Bill!

World's most expensive blog post

This is the story of an ordinary man travelling from Dubai to India after a brief working-vacation.

The man in question was carrying a flat screen TV (which are about 60-70% cheaper in Dubai than in India) back home. He had read up on all customs duty rules that told him the import duty on the TV would be about Rs3500-3800, a great deal cheaper than a similar TV in India. Ah, but the presumption (and it was being presumptuous!) being the existence of at least one honest Indian, that has become something of a Loch Ness monster, everyone has heard of, but no one has seen it.

The hapless traveler was accosted by six customs officials at the booth who took away his passport without reason and assessed the value of the TV at 4 times what was stated in the bill. The resultant duty demand was raised at Rs40,000. (about 10x as much). Given that the Indian Customs rule do not allow anyone carrying more than Rs7500 in cash to the country, instead of raising this demand, the customs officials, if acting in good faith, should have confiscated the said import. 

Surprised by the sudden development, the traveler took the high road downloading customs duty rules on his iPhone and showing the 'gang' the correct duty that is to be levied. The customs officials gave him two choices:

1) the traveler stay in their 'custody' for an unspecified duration, of course without a warrant or any official notification till such unspecified time they feel he has been harassed enough to pay up; or

2) he pay the duty that he is calculating and leave. But there is a hitch, in words of the head of customs at the airport, "If some policeman happens to search you as you leave the airport, and if he happens to find something seriously contraband on your person, what will you do, you will be in serious trouble!"  

So the traveler has two choices, either to remain in custody indefinitely or then run the risk of being arrested with a gram of cocaine or something of the sort being surprisingly 'found' on his person. 

There is a third choice that is offered by the loyal servants of government of India themselves..."why dont you just take care of the situation privately?". So the traveler who has so far prided himself of not having ever paid a bribe ever is forced to go to an ATM that is conveniently placed just past the customs station (wondering if that is the sole purpose of it!) to withdraw cash to pay Rs13,000 to these people. Given that honesty and fair dealing is extremely important to this man, he agrees with himself that these are just fees he has paid for a) learning how honest people are forced to pay bribes by the threat of an arrest of a possible drug related charge that would end his life and career and b) investment advice on not investing in a country that is in a terminal decline.

After making the payment to a policeman who collects the money in the cleaning room, who also escorts him out of the airport, the traveler is struck by the need to make a police complaint. But he remembers that it is one of the gravest crimes in India to give a bribe. This would lead him to be liable for an arrest when he goes to the cops about being ripped off and then they will demand more money to let him go lest they charge him with some other crime. Clearly, the framers of this law either believed that people like giving money away, most of all to corrupt government officials and this law should be enough to prevent such illicit happiness from spreading or then the lawmakers did not want to clog the police stations with corruption complaints that would not be acted upon anyway.

The man also realises as he walks to a cab that his other luggage has not been scanned or searched. It also answers the question on how explosives are smuggled into India to kill 100s of people in bomb blasts. 

All it takes is a TV and Rs13,000.

*The above work maybe the work of fiction and resemblances to real people or situations is coincidental.*

Ahimsa is not a universal truth

Gandhi’s insistence for the principal of non-violence (ahimsa) and his experiments with the concept are well known. To be fair they inspired people such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela who once remarked “At a time when Freud was liberating sex, Gandhi was reining it in, when Marx was pitting workers against capitalists, Gandhi was reconciling them; when the dominant Europe thought had dropped God and Soul out of the social reckoning, he was centralising society in God and the Soul; and when the ideologies of the colonised had virtually disappeared, he revived them and empowered them with a potency that liberated and redeemed”

That Gandhi was a pioneer in his style of resistance is of no doubt to anyone, but his apparent insistence on a “one size fits all” was the bone of contention of many. I am reading an excellent book “The untold story of India’s partition” by Narendra Singh that chronicles the period leading upto the tragic date of rending India, beginning with the duration of the second world war. While Narendra’s book seems to squarely place the blame for the partition on the British and the Muslim League (which at every point appeared to advance British interests over India’s) this is for you folks to decide on reading this book, that I highly recommend. Narendra also blames the Congress for its haphazard policies, no clear stand, knee jerk moves and divergent opinions on hastening the process of division. But personally, I think while the Congress may have been guilty of incompetence, their intent (at least in those days) was not malicious to India’s detriment. The book also suggests the gradual side-lining of the great Subhash Chandra Bose by Gandhi and the rest of Congress as his popularity soon over shadowed those of the Grand Old Party’s tallest leaders! It also hints at how Gandhi’s ahimsa was extremely irritating for even members of the Congress, a charge that they now conveniently hurl at only the RSS.

It is interesting to note that Britain’s insistence for partition came from its desire to have troops stationed on the subcontinent to counter any Russian adventure in the region. The British knew that an independent India would not allow for foreign troops to be stationed on its soil if India become independent. The next thing was the use their good offices with the Muslim League and a rabidly ambitious Jinnah (who knew he was dying anyway) to conspire for the division of the country so get a base in North West India (now known as Pakistan) for their troops. This is also evident from the fact that soon after partition Pakistan did join with Britain in a couple of cooperation and military pacts. The book also identifies the Aga Khan as one of the persons responsible for the flowering of the idea that hindus and muslims are different nations.

Anyway coming back to, the failure of Gandhi to apply his one size fits all philosophy that eventually saw his get assassinated is evident from a few instances mentioned in the book. The first example is the conversation that took place with Lord Linlithgow, the viceroy, in the summer of 1940 soon after Hitler had overrun France. In a chat that left the Lord white in the face with no words, Gandhi said:

“Let them (Germans) take possession of your beautiful island, if Hitler
chooses to occupy your homes, vacate them, if he does not give you
free passage, allow yourself man, woman and child, to be slaughtered”

This outburst led many in the British establishment question Gandhi’s sanity. This is also the moment perhaps that endeared the British to the Muslim League and away from the Congress. On the other hand I cannot help but note with sarcasm how many more lives Gandhi was willing to sacrifice for his Ahimsa instead of a resistance, which in this case, almost certainly would have cost fewer lives!

Anyway, the next para that I pick verbatim from the book, highlights what I have always felt about the concept of Ahimsa and other means of non-violent protests:

“At the core of the great mans confusion at this stage of his life was whether or not or how far to continue to adhere to the policy of non-violence in a situation that was changing grom a purely colonial struggle to something different, more akin to one faced by independent states in their dealings with other states. The true power of the satyagraha lay in provoking deep moral stirrings in the oppressor by the willingness of the oppressed to withstand all atrocities even to the extent of calmly facing self-annihilation. It is a tenet for action by individuals who risk their lives or those of their near and dear ones. It cannot be a gospel for leaders of sovereign states to fight aggression by another country.

No leader of a country can afford to turn the other cheek to an invading army and risk defeat of his country and annihilation of perhaps millions. Non violence could be used to fight racism (as in S. Africa) or colonialism (as in India) practiced by people who are capable of doubting the morality of their own policies and actions. It cannot be a policy to fight pressures exerted by people with totally different ethical or moral values or by fundamentalists or jihadis”

This is a most succinct exposition of what I believe of the principal of non-violence and I am sad that I am not as articulate as the author!

Gandhi’s own doubts are evident from his statement to Vincent Sheen, his biographer, two days before his death. He said “Mind you, no ordinary government can get along without the use of force”. Or his statement on 29th October 1947 that the Indian army would have to “do or die” in Kashmir. This from a man who very recently had advocated a genocide of British in their own country rather than a armed resistance to an invader!

But much as it may surprise readers, I actually admire this about Gandhi. As a staunch believer of the premise “when the facts change, I change my mind” Gandhi’s doubt was a sign of intelligence that he himself doubted the veracity of his belief that non-violence could be applied to any and all situations. However, the interim doubt and contradictory positions he took often, especially during the religious riots leading up to the partition of India was what takes some sheen off MK Gandhi, in my humble view. If he had started with the thought “Ahimsa is a great idea, but it will not work all the time and will need pragmatic application”, he, in my view, would not have stoked the mentality that eventually led to his tragic assassination.

It also brings us to a bigger question. That Baba Ramdev and Anna Hazare fasted against the Indian government with no success. So is one correct in assuming that the Indian government lacks the ability to doubt the morality of their own actions? If so, then it would squarely put the Indian government in the league of fundamentalists and jihadis, would it not?

Once again all credit (and source reference) to this excellent book I mentioned earlier and I recommend it to all Indians.

My problem with Shah Rukh Khan, and why I will not watch any films of his…

Ok, I can understand 99% of people given to not reading beyond the headlines will probably call this stand of mine as lunacy, but for those with enough sense to read on, allow me to expand on my reasons for this democratic protest, that in reality doesn’t harm SRK at all (he has like a billion admirers) but does save me from his mindless drivel.

First of all, I do not deny that in recent times SRK has been the only professional (notice, I do not call him an actor) to break into the incestuous film community. For that I respect him. He has achieved a lot in terms of money and fame, that is the truth and not subject to my acceptance of it. However, many people (perhaps including SRK) believe that this somehow makes him a ‘good’ person or someone who has knowledge about everything.  That cannot be farther from the truth, if being rich and famous were the criteria for being ‘good’, the names of several dictators come to mind that fulfil that criteria but were clearly bereft of all moral boundaries.

Anyway, just as an example of how this man will say literally anything to be considered intelligent can be found in the link below:

http://www.mouthshut.com/review/Shahrukh-Khan-review-lqnrolmqr

He claimed to have been selected into the IIT, but chose not to enter. However, I believe this lie was found out and he has never since mentioned his scientific achievements (or the lack of them).  I do not have any corroborative evidence since this is quite an old incident but will gladly remove this part if someone were to convince me.

My contention is that SRK has since in success veered more towards his religious affiliations instead of putting his country first. That, to me, is unacceptable.  From projecting a very secular imagine as recently as about 10 years back, he has increasingly indulged in Islamic references and clearly distinguishing himself from the culture of his hindu wife.

His strict adherence to his religion in itself does not bother me. He was born into a muslim family and (as is the case with most of us in all religions) decided to follow the religion of his parents. I wish him luck on his path. However, the recent foray into films like “My name is Khan” by him and his ‘close’ friend Karan Johar triggered the first doubt in my mind. My proverbial ‘bell’ rang a second time when he claimed to have been detained for several hours at some U.S. airport (the U.S. authorities said it was a little over half hour if I remember correctly).  He believed it was racial profiling, and it clearly was. But that isn’t wrong in itself since it is exactly this type of profiling that has allowed the U.S. to remain attack free since the 9/11 tragedy. I mean, if 99% (to borrow a useless statistic from Raul baba) of terrorists were from the Iyer community (for example), I would damn well want every Iyer getting on my plane to be racially profiled and searched. It is not ‘right’, but it is what works in combating the wanton terror that has been unleased upon us. I would expect SRK to feel embarassed about such profiling, rather than angry. I understand that this stand of mine is belligerent, but is it wrong, especially when you compare the security record of the U.S. versus India? My doubting antenna was next raised with SRK’s ‘close’ friend Karan made ‘New York’, an obviously loaded film about the Guantanamo Bay prison and how becoming a terrorist is justified under some circumstances. Another disturbing thing was SRK’s appearance in a toothpaste ad, where he describes germs as ‘Ravan’s army’, but mysteriously calls the toothpaste as ‘veer sena’…eh? Who was Veer (apart from a flop Salman film)? Why could he not say ‘Ram’s army’, is he so disgusted by the name of Ram that he will not utter it? It perhaps has a good reason, but the opposite (if I may) of Ravan is not some obscure ‘veer’, it is Ram and as a majority of the people in India believe, an incarnation of God.  It’s like this, in opposites, day vs. night, light vs. dark, man vs. woman, snake vs. mongoose, water vs. fire, black vs. white. If I suddenly said, no…black’s opposite is green, its not technically incorrect since black is a colour and anything non-black can be construed to be its opposite, but wouldn’t the questioner immediately wonder that I clearly had a problem with allowing the word ‘white’ to grace my lips?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzaV5VhXAjg

Anyway, none of these moves were technically ‘wrong’, but they did leave a bad taste in my mouth. Though I did save myself the pain of watching SRK in ‘MNIK’.

I now come to an interview given by SRK to NDTV, a channel whose loyalties at times appear misplaced to me atleast. I shall give the link and (self created) transcript first and then highlight the monumental objections I have with SRK’s views which are squarely an insult to every soldier fighting and martyred for India.

Transcript: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWWBd6MD0Ew

“Can I just say, I don’t know, am I wrong? Today there is some big controversy about some Pakistani gentleman’s picture in a government ad…Air Chief Marshal or someone…How is it?

I find it so strange that seven days ago all of us, what I am getting at I’ll explain to you, all of us reacted so vehemently that none of the Pakistani players were chosen, today we react vehemently when we had a Pakistani picture in one of the government ads.

You know…so do we love them? I think we immensely love them and why do we suddenly jump up and say this is not good, I think we have been misled by a lot of things that people say about us and them. And I truly believe they should have been chosen, as a matter of fact, I am not going to be the one who is opposite from what everyone else is saying, but, I wanted Abdul Razzak, I think it was in the newspapers even before the auctions started.

Pronnoy Roy: Lot of people believe in what you are saying right now…lot of people…

SRK continues: …and then he broke his wrist, the second part which I think has been explained is, for example, will I get into trouble for saying this, there is going to be a section of people who have suddenly gotten up and said, rightly or wrongly, it can be a different discussion but, “Australians will not be allowed to play”.

So here is a set of people who are spending 70,80,90 crore rupees on trying to win a tournament, and suddenly even if you say this much to me, I will be like “uh-oh, so should I take him, shouldn’t I take him?”

So tomorrow if we had known this, maybe even the Australians would not have been picked up. You know, so these issues always come on your heads. Stakes are very high, I am not giving an excuse, I truly believe, Pakistani players are the best T20 players in the world, they are champions, they are wonderful. But somewhere down the line there is an issue and we cannot deny it, there is an issue, we cannot keep on saying that “Oh, this was wrong”. Yes the way it was done maybe wrong, but you cannot keep carrying on saying “Ki koi issue nahin hain yaar, there are issues”, lets not deny it, everyday we blame Pakistan, everyday Pakistan blames us, and it is an issue.

And I have also the opposite of this. When my team had five Pakistani players in the first year. I still have Wasim Bhai as coach. People said “Aapke paas bahut sare Pakistani players hain”…come one man, sports should be left alone.

Before we react to any of these incidents, just hold back and say “yes there is an issue”. Both sides have a point so lets keep it easy, but let me be honest, I…my family is from Pakistan, my father was born there and his family is from there…I think all these issues…you are young guys, please,  trust me, can we just circumvent all that is said about India, Pakistan…by the politicians, by anybody else and say “It’s a great neighbour to have”, we are good neighbours, they are good neighbours, lets just love each other…”

*Thunderous applause from NDTV audience, I didn’t expect any better frankly*

My questions…

1)      How does SRK derive that all Indians love all Pakistani’s from a Paki picture mistakenly printed in and Indian govt ad? I would rather SRK spoke for himself, he loves Pakistani’s I don’t, and I am and Indian. Even if in SRK’s schizophrenic world all Indians did love all Pakistanis, a wrongful printing of a picture is certainly not the way to come to this conclusion? Or perhaps it is his superior IIT quality brain speaking?

2)      Pronnoy Roy should probably stuff it, has he taken a poll about what SRK is saying? How does he know a lot of people agree with him?! Clearly the communist intelligence agency is helping PR out here, right?

3)      My biggest opposition to this tirade by the IIT wannabe is his absolute refusal to saying anything bad (that is factual) about Pakistan without tagging the same thing to India first. Examples:

a.       everyday we blame Pakistan, everyday Pakistan blames us. Yes, we blame Pakistan and send evidence of it. I don’t think pakistan’s rantings about Balochistan should even be compared to that. The Pune bombings, the Mumbai bombings, the Gujarat train burning, the 3 wars that were heaped upon us, the support to Dawood…the list is endless is a fact. How dare this genius boy equate these real incidents to some things that India seems to have done in his own (perverted?) mind?

b.      sports should be left alone. I completely disagree with his. If your neighbour had just killed about half your family and then asked you to come out for a game of cricket with him, would you go? Probably not if you aren’t a sociopath, so why give Pakistan the leeway? The only reason anyone can say this is because SRK clearly does not consider Kashmiri Pundits that have been massacred to be his ‘people’, neither does he consider any of the other innocent men women and children who have died in Pak sponsored violence to be ‘his’.

c.       Both sides have a point. This is the most anti national statement he has made, to the best of my knowledge. He is acknowledging that in his twisted opinion Pakistan does have a point in what they are saying and doing. Is there a point to Pak sponsoring terror in India Mr. Khan? Clearly you think they do! Does Pakistan have a point in saying that Kashmir should be given to them, Mr. Khan? Clearly you think they do…you are saying it! I wonder if he got a moonlighted and got a PhD in international relations while he was pursuing his IIT? Such statements put even Rauls pearls of wisdom to shame! And that’s saying something…

d.      It’s a great neighbour to have. Right, this is just a blatant lie. Is Pakistan a great neighbour to have? We have had three wars, they massacred hundreds of thousands of hindus, they alone sponsor terror attacks in India. Is it a great neighbour? If I start bombing his beloved ‘Mannat’ everyday killing and maiming members of his family, will he call me a great neighbour to have? I can understand someone saying that it will be good to have good relations with Pakistan, but that’s future tense, to call them a great neighbour today (or a couple of years back), is nothing but a slap in the face of all the brave soldiers who die for a pittance to defend our country from the bombs and bullets SRK’s “great neighbour” fires across the border.

I personally believe that no right minded Indian should watch any SRK film, but I will not make that request. Simply because, people need to have enough pride in their ‘Indian-ness’ to do this on their own. I abhor all censorship, so I am not angry that SRK said all this, in fact its good, I learned where his real loyalties appear to lie. But its equally democratic to protest by not watching any of SRK’s films and refusing to fill the already overflowing coffers of a man, who probably places Pakistan above the country that gave him love and respect for the kind of films he unleashes upon us. 

“lets just love each other” seriously? Did he take a leaf out of Karan Johar’s “all about loving your parents” B.S.?

Barbershop…old school!

I like going to the barbers, in fact that is the only place apart from the airport that I can think of where I am unabashedly happy. The reason, these are the two places where I am not required to do anything…I can empty my mind and wander/ sit aimlessly for a little while before I re-enter the rat race. No expectations, no targets, just the tad helplessness of ‘being’ and leaving oneself in the hands of his maker (or his barber for that matter). Both places are then a spiritual experience, almost a pilgrimage one might say. This is the only true ‘time please’ left in real life.

Having being a patron at some of the most ‘exclusive’ salons in Europe and the Middle East, I can safely say there is no experience that quite bests the old school barbershop in India. Originally these places were owned by immigrants from Uttar Pradesh, that mantle eventually passed down to South Indians, especially those from the ‘tulu’ (better known as the shetty) community. The last few years have seen just about anyone opening these sacred places, but instead of diminishing the experience, these upstarts actually make the old hands more valuable to a connoisseur like me.

Me being a creature of habit have frequented only three such places in my life-time. The first one was a 5 seater extravaganza located near the Sane Guruji School. But this was in my child hood and the haunt was chosen for me my the assorted maids in my household with whom I’d be sent to get a haircut. I then shifted loyalties to a spin-off venture, one of the brothers (from UP, where else?) that ran the 5 seater place started a single seater shop near my house. I think I went there more because it was closer than anything else, till I eventually forgot the location of the place I used to go. This was not the best barbershop experience, my mane, which was quite flowing those days used to be inevitably crookedly cut and being a reserved kid I never asked for any different sort of a ‘cut’ or any additional services. In fact I never asked this guy anything, I don’t even know his name, and apart from the fact that he kept referring to his ‘muluk’, I don’t even know where exactly he was from.

The final place where I was eventually going to be ‘home’ is a place called ‘Deccan Hairdressers’ that is complete with the pictures of various hair cuts and film stars on its doors. This was also a more expensive place for me in my student days with a hair cut costs Rs25/- versus the Rs10/ at my old faithful. I was introduced to this place by a friend who used to get weird haircuts, but the importance of haircuts eventually waned for me with my hairline but the true potential of a old school barbershop was unveiled upon me by ‘Deccan’.

I love the smell of the place as soon as I enter. There is a ‘fresh’ smell of assorted lotions and potions and the shaving cream that I think is sold exclusively to old school barbers. There is the sound of surgical ‘snip-snip’ in the back ground that mixes in with a sound track that is forever stuck in the 60-70s time warp. Old film magazines, Star Dust from November 1999 et al, are strewn about as I take my seat in the waiting area. I almost only read these magazines here and am fascinated by the affairs of the filmstars. “Hum bewafa…hargiz na the…” plays in the background as I read about an actress…apt?

The place is filled with familiar faces, but in true bro-dition, this familiarity is acknowledged only by the slightest of nods of the head…over enthusiasm is not encouraged here. The owner is a ‘tulu’ (again, what else?) who probably came to Bombay wanting to be a film actor (judging by his hair stlye) but never quite made the ‘cut’ (pun intended). He clearly worked very hard to set this place up and now lords over at the ‘galla’ in shirts that can make you blind if you looked at them directly.

I take my seat as ‘In aakhon ki masti…’ plays. I am ultra stressed with work, personal life and Raul baba’s new antics, this is going to take some work. I go in for the shave, hair trimming, face massage and the head massage. My ‘guy’ looks sufficiently impressed. He asks if I want the foam for the shave…hell no! I am here for the experience, if I wanted the foam, I’d do it myself at home. I am down for the shaving cream which is lathered on a small katori that was probably as old as the shop. The mandatory spraying of water, the damp towel around my neck as I rest my head with my eyes closed. Ahh…this is the life I think to myself, the song in the background is oddly “Apni to Jaise taise…” Raul baba, my business that is bleeding me, politics, relatives, all begin to fade in the smooth lather that is being applied to my week long stubble that begins to get scraped off with an authentic ‘ustra’. The best part about this is that the lather is applied twice! Foam would have been faster, would have been applied just once and would have left fewer cuts, nothing pampers a man like two applications of shaving cream, and I was here to be pampered. After the final dabbing off the water and remainder of the cream, my face is rubbed all over with a small soap made of alum. Alum is the stuff that is used to purify water and has some antiseptic properties. The world has moved on to after shaves and even non burning after shaves (which I consider a bit like non-alcoholic beer…its cheating), but my own personal time machine allows me the pleasures of alum.

My hair cut takes short work, partly because my ample mane ain’t so ample no more and partly because I have just had a cut 3 weeks ago, and we move on to the face massage. My shop has succumbed to modern tradition and after about 2 minutes of facial scrubbing I am lathered in some sort of a green cream and subjected to a machine that blows steam in my face. This isn’t very relaxing, I think to myself as “Kuch to log kahenge…” bawls in the background. It does get more and more odd as the ‘face mask’ (I learn its called) tightens with the steam and I am thinking “what is this happening?!” Apparently the thing dries up on my face leaving it stretched, in between I manage to open an eye and lean close to the mirror and the full extent of my discomfort dawns on me…I look like an idiot with my face plastered in goo. Oh well…this is my pilgrimage and if I choose to spend it looking like an idiot, its my choice. Anway, finally the mask comes off, and the next five minutes are spent rubbing two more lotions into my skin. Both are extremely cold and from the way they feel I surmise than the one that made my face numb must be a white cream with no lustre and the other one that felt so cold that it burned must be a transparent cream with the consistency of hair gel. Of course, these are my estimations and may be completely different to reality, but who is to know as these mysterious ingredients are hastily put away before my eyes can be open and focussed.

I then move to the head massage, my favourite part of the routine. Oh my attendant really gets creative with this one. He never uses the bland massage machine like the others, this hand are enough, pounding and kneading at my head. I play “maalish, yeh tel maalish in my head” as the 1920s radio in the shop is not obliging with a song like “jab bhi koi kangana bole…” I truly surrender to the experience here with the guy twisting my neck to crack it, bending my arms and shoulders and fingers to stretch and ‘crack’ the joints. I do wonder if this is risky as my neck is perched helplessly over his hand in an awkward pose, but too late…CRACCKKK! I finally draw the line when he asks if I would like my spine ‘dislocated’ (am sure that not what he means)…In God I trust…nobody else dislocates my spine. I consciously choose the normal parachute coconut oil for this exercise despite my barber offering a wide variety of medicinal oils, cool oils, hot oils etc…that would just ruin the experience.

Anyway, the gent asks me “Bas?” at one point, and I say Yes…too much of a good thing is also bad. I get off the chair in a daze, as the song “Saara zamana, Haseeno ka diwana…” plays in the background. I struggle to keep disturbing images of Amitabh lit up like a Christmas tree from my mind as I make my payment and drop the customary ‘tip’ in my attendant’s front pocket. I wonder what makes this simple experience so noteworthy, or is its simplicity what makes it note-worthy. In a world that needs to make movies that stretch credulity to entertain and politicians that stretch credulity as a matter of course, where I see people blowing up enormous amounts of money to buy cars or evenings in clubs to feel ‘complete’ to feel happy, it is indeed satisfying to having something so simple, so inexpensive amongst us that is so truly relaxing. That’s about the last thought I have as I open the stubborn door, step out in the blinding sun and am hit with the sound of a needlessly loud horn.

"Mee Nathuram..." (3) Nathuram's encounter with his ex-colleague turned traitor

(no intention to copyright infringement, only a translation to the best of my abilities of this brilliant, brilliant, brilliant play)

When in jail. Nathuram had a chance run in with Digambar Badge. Badge was a co-conspirator who had agreed to be the prosecution’s witness in exchange for his own freedom. In the play, Nathuram says that while the meeting seemed to occur by chance, he himself suspected it to be orchestrated by Inspector Sawant, the second in charge of the Parliament Street police station, where the FIR against Nathuram was registered.

The conversation went as follows:

DB: Pandit (referring to Nathuram)…I…(silence)…how are you? How is Tatyarao Savarkar? Is the Delhi cold bothering him? Else I can request someone to get some warm clothes for him. Hows Gopal? Hows Karkare? Madanlal Pahwa? All of you have ostracised me…you must all be very angry with me.

But Nathuram, you are very different, from all of us. You were aloof from ground realities always. Pain, loss of face, physical discomfort, you never felt. I even told Gopal one, that you are the embodiment of what Krishna said in the Gita. You are made of a different clay…no you are made of stone…clay can be fashioned anyway…you are rigid.

When yours and Gandhi’s eyes met for an instant before you pulled the trigger, he would have realised he is being assassinated by a worthy opponent.

But Nathuram, I am not a man like you, I am ordinary, or even less than that if you want to call me. You have no idea how I have been harassed mentally and physically. Well…you were also beaten…but that was out of emotional outrage…but trained physical pain inflicted on me was different.

The guard told me though…when he came to hit you, you looked straight in his eyes and he was unable to hit you at all. But I don’t have your eyes Nathuram, I could not hold my own in front of their sustained beatings. I was scared…scared of death. It was very easy to say things like “I am ready to die”, but the experience is not that easy. The mere thought that I might die was enough to scare me and the desire to live took over me.

Nathuram…I want to live, I want to live…at any cost. (starts crying)

No, you can all continue to blame me…I can carry this burden of sin…but I cannot give my life up. Because I am ordinary. Forgive me.

Nathuram: People who stand on two stones can never find their feet. When they look down they only see the deep valley and feel dizzy.

DB: Before you go, all I want to hear from you is that you have forgiven me.

NG: There is no use for repentence, there is no use for it because the deed is already done. If you think you are doing some something wrong, remove that thought from your mind. To try to live, to struggle to save ones own life is not a crime…its your dharma (duty)…nay…its your first and primary responsibility. But while saving your own life, you must be cognizant that you are not taking another innocent persons life. If you had said you are not a Hindu, I would have been ashamed of you. But if your ‘confession’ only strengthens calls for my death, even then I will not be angry at you. Because I am willing to die. An eye for an eye is the law of nature. Gandhi is dead then Nathuram must also die. But only take care that your confession in 100% true. For even saving your life do not lie in court. Tatyarao is innocent…if someone is trying to implicate him through you, then you will not have forgiveness even in God’s court. Tatyarao is a diamond and we are just the setting for it, the setting should shape itself as per the diamond, not even try to eclipse it. You can leave now.

Who are we to worry about the Sun? When we think that the Sun is eclipsed, it is the defect in our sight…we are looking at the sun from a wrong place. When man goes to the moon, he will realise, the Sun is never eclipsed. 


(as a quick background, even though Veer Savarkar had nothing to do with Gandhi's assasination, he was arrested and allegedly Nehru tried to frame him. Veer Savarkar was so popular and fiery that Nehru was scared of his influence. In fact, when the arrest orders were issued, the policemen from the van that used to always tail him, were scared of arresting him in the afternoon, not wanting to disturb his siesta. Digambar Badge, was a coward in his own admission and decided to rat on Nathuram, Nathuram only cautoned him on falling to the governments ploy of implicating an innocent Savarkar in this matter. It is possible that this last 2 minute conversation made Digambar see the light and made him commit only the smaller of two mistakes. No evidence was found aginst Savarkar and he was released with no taint in this matter)

"Mee Nathuram Godse..." (2) Nathuram's meeting with Gandhi's son

(no intention to copyright infringement, only a translation to the best of my abilities of this brilliant, brilliant, brilliant play)

Another interesting meeting that Nathuram has as depicted in “Mee Nathuram…” was with Debidas Gandhi, M.K. Gandhi’s son. This was their second meeting, the first one being the day on which Nathuram was arrested. At the first meeting Nathuram, expressed sorrow at the personal loss of the Gandhi family and expressed regret at the circumstances which left Nathuram with no choice but to do what he did. He clarified that as a person he did not have a problem with Gandhi, what he did was purely for the country and a political necessity. He told Debidas then that he would elaborate on the motive at a later date…but Gandhi’s son never met him again for almost two years after that and showed up only 8 days prior to the hanging, proposing to re-open Nathuram’s case and argue for a lenient punishment. Notably at this time Nathuram was completely at ease with the idea of being hung and used to spend a lot of his time with the staff that was setting up the hanging post and discussing the procedure and if he could offer help in setting it up.

Anyway, the conversation between Gandhi’s son and Nathuram went something like this:

Debidas Gandhi: How can you be so aloof about your death?

NG: Because I am, I just am!

NG: How are you here today? You found time only after two years!

DG: I needed signatures on a few legal papers. Papers that say that I have accepted you as my client.

NG: Signature should be taken from clients, should a client not ask the reason why? Especially since I have argued my own case in court and my case is over and decided.

DG:  But you ignored some points. I can challenge your death penalty on those grounds.

NG: But I want to be hung!

DG: Why?

NG: Because I have taken a human life. A killer has no right to life. I do not wish to hand my case to you.

DG: Why?

NG: I knew what you wanted to say the moment you asked me to sign the legal papers. But I avoided going into details because I did not want to offend you. I will tell you now. Are you not going to argue on the lines of “Gandhi did not agree with himsa…so even his murderer should not be killed”? But that is not the law, is it not the lawyers duty to explain the law to his client before asking to defend his case? The law does not recognise emotions and personal jealousies or brownie points.

DG: Do you mean to say I am here for some selfish reason?

NG: I don’t ‘mean’ to say that, I am saying it. Debidasji, if you wanted to accept someone as your client, why did you not accept Tatyarao Savarkar, why not Nana Apte?! Why did you not stand up to protect these innocent people? You have chosen only Nathuram for your magnanimity, why? It is all a vain attempt on your part to somehow prove the relevance of your fathers belief of turning the other cheek, is it not?

Forgive me for saying so Debidasji, but the capacity to think of Gandhi as a ideology beyond the confines of his personal image is possible for me, not for you.

DG: So what have you thought about Gandhi as an ideology?

NG: I have thought a lot, but you have delayed asking this question by two years. Have you thought about this at all? I had told you when I was arrested that my motive was purely political and not personal, but you still are not convinced, and perhaps have come here to explore this further. But you found time for that only now…because you know in eight days…there will be no one here to answer your questions…and your mind will eat at you for the rest of your life. Sit. Should I call for coffee for you?

I am writing my will. Do you know what my first, last wish? That my ashes should not be immersed in the holy river till such time the Sindhu river is not brought back into my undivided India. I don’t care if my ashes have to be handed down through generations, but keep them safe.

Devidasji, you are aware that in the Hindu Dharma, ashes are immersed in the holy rivers on the 10^th day after death. Till that time they are kept at the door of the deceased house. Till the immersion takes place, it is believed that the soul is not free. But I want to keep my soul entangled on purpose, I do not want liberation.

Do you know why? Because just like Gandhi is your father, he is my nation’s father. Gandhi had said about his death, that his ashes should be immersed in all great rivers of India. But Pakistan refused permission to immerse his ashes in the Sindhu on the grounds that Gandhi was a hindu saint. Would the pure water of Sindhu be defiled by the touch of the Mahatma’s ashes?!

I had then written to the government of India, requesting them to keep atleast a small portion of Gandhi’s ashes safe. Because it is inevitable that the brave soldiers of this country will at some point drag the Sindhu back into the border of this country. The, Gandhi’s ashes should be immersed in the Sindhu. And this HAS to happen, because this country is of Bhaghirath’s, of people who are capable of pulling the Ganga to earth from the heavens. But my request letter was trashed. There is no doubt then that Gandhi’s soul is suffering over this last insult to him, his last wish being left unfulfilled.

I do not want Gandhi’s soul to suffer alone, hence I will not let my soul be free on the 10^th day after my death. There are no enemies beyond death, it is said. But there is only one Nathuram who actually sticks to the ideals that he has believed in his life, even in his death.

Debidasji, I had no personal enmity with your father, but to extinguish his physical presence was necessary for the benefit of my country. I may not be a genius, but I have spent a few years of my life in the company of brilliant people. I was never rich, but I always had enough to eat. I had a position in society, respect and standing. I knew I was giving all this up when I decided to assassinate Gandhi. I chose death, I could have run away after shooting Gandhi like a coward. I did not do that...so I could tell the world my side of the story, because I HAD a story to tell, I had my own independent thoughts and philosophy.

DG: I am not saying this because he was my father…but he was a great man…

NG: There is not question of that! Of course, he was a great man! What is the truth, is the truth, it is not dependent on whether I agree to it or not. His daring fight against discrimination in South Africa is proof of that. On his return to India, this efforts to travel to rural India to understand the real Indian, is fully deserving of respect. Dandi March, Quit India, Salt March…all these agitations made me a worshipper of Gandhi. When Gandhi was arrested, I was one of the many protestors who shouted the slogan “Sabarmati no sant jail ma chhe” (The saint of Sabarmati is in jail).

DG: How could you still kill him?

NG: The ‘assasination’ was necessary, there was no option left. Gandhi’s decision to split India was avoidable. After that, the massacre of refugees and Gandhi’s cold response to that. After that, his childish tantrum on giving Pakistan money to buy weapons against out soldiers, when the battle was already on in Kashmir…all this…all this…was unforgivable.

DG: But he never saw people in terms of hindus or muslims…

NG: But Pakistan did! And that is the biggest sign of Gandhi’s failure. If you think Pakistan did not think in terms of religion, then why did they not allow Gandhi’s ashes to be immersed in the Sindhu? When Gandhi died, you are as aware as I am that the Pakistan National radio announced that a ‘hindu leader’ had died! This is all I was trying to tell Gandhi, that you are ours, but he insisted in saying.. NO…I am not yours, I am theirs.

DG: But he belonged to all humans…not to hindus or muslims or Indians or Pakistanis…he was everyones!

NG: Then why did he fight the British? Are they not human? Why did he fight the white people in South Africa? Arent they humans?

DG: You would have made a good lawyer.

NG: Your career advice is a little delayed now. But the reality is that much more than me, Gandhi’s alleged students and Gandhians are his real detractors. I shot him, he fell and at the last moment all he said was “Ah..”. But his students have spread the false rumour that Gandhi said “Hey Ram”.

DG: Do you mean to say, he did not say Hey Ram?

NG: No he did not. I was tortured at every stage to falsely confess in my declaration to the police, to the magistrate and in the court that Gandhi said “Hey Ram”. But they were unable to break me. If he did not take Rams name, then why should I lie! But if his minions keep harping on this and it gets incorrectly recorded in the history books, then this itself will be the biggest defeat of Gandhi and his ideals. Do you know why?

In life, this man never differentiated between Ram and Rahim, Krishna and Karim,  will such a person remember only Ram at his last moment? Why would he not take both names? And if he wanted to take just one name, he would have said Rahim…because Ram was always in his heart and Rahim was always on his tounge.

*On 15^th November 1949, Nathuram Godse and Nana Apte were hung at 8AM. They carried in their hands, a saffron flag, a map showing undivided India and a copy of the Bhagwad Gita. When the noose was placed around their neck, they both shouted “May undivided India be immortal” and “Vande Mataram” and then they went silent forever.*