Lessons unlearnt....

Today marks the 59th anniversary of the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi by Nathuram Godse, and perhaps we haven't really learnt our lessons yet. It is sad that even after so many years, we have failed to grasp the basic cause of this act, and what we must be fighting against.

Mahatma Gandhi was a great man, there is no doubting that. I have the highest regard for him and his principles, not in the least because of "Lage Raho Munnabhai" (but, yes, maybe more accentuated by it). But even the greatest of saints, the most venerable of men, are wont to be ignored some time.
He never approved of the Partition in the first place. I quote him, "My whole soul rebels against the idea that Hinduism and Islam represent two antagonistic cultures and doctrines. To assent to such a doctrine is for me a denial of God.”

But, this Mahatma, this deliverer of freedom, was condemned when his followers acquiesced to partitioning, to drawing lines in the sand, lines based on creed, boundaries based on the differences in faith, in beliefs. He was condemned when those who would have accepted his leadership under the occupying British now would no longer acknowledge the primacy of his authority. He continued to be condemned each and every time when communal riots broke out, when the State incompetently stood by and watch the carcass of Indian civil society slowly burn away. And he continues to be condemned whenever a civil servant or a legislator indulged in corruption or in immoral activities, violating his creed of honesty and simplicity.

Nathuram Godse would assassinate him because he was against any breach of faith, even when the one to whom he wished our faith was unfaithful, even when such fidelity would only cause us grievous harm and pain. He would be assassinated because he rejected the doctrine that one is born into a religion, and is by default antagonistic to all others. But that was but death once.

What we have done, and what we continue to do to his legacy, to his beliefs and to his value systems, may kill him many times over. Simply placing floral offerings and singing at his memorial would not suffice to heal his wounds. If Nathuram Godse and his colleagues are to be charged with having killed the physical Mahatma, we, the Indians of his nation, are equally guilty of having destroyed the spirit of the Mahatma, if not completely, then at least in part.

But is all lost? I dare think not; rather, I hope not. India and Indians can perhaps better acknowledge that now it is imperative that we all live together, and that narrow sectarian divisions should not be cause for us to yell blue murder. It is imperative that we come to understand that violence must always be reserved for the end, as the most extreme of alternatives, to be used only if all other peaceful means of resolving the problem concerned have failed beyond reproach. Then the flame at Raj Ghat may burn a little brighter, then perhaps the half-naked fakir of Porbandar will rest in peace, amidst his children, in the land of his dreams.

Is The Nation Turning Its Back on The Father?

Asana Troubles...

I read in the newspapers today that a State Government has decided to make the practice of a Yoga asana, the Surya Namaskar, in educational institutions, voluntary, owing to objections from minority (read non-Hindu) communities in the State. The communities believe, and they are right to some extent, that the asana has religious connotations, as in it is intended to be seen as a respectful offering to the Sun, who is deified in Hinduism as the Giver of Life.

But the point here is that while the said asana has religious connotations, it isn't limited to just that. The Surya Namaskar is perhaps the best exercise that a growing child can be exposed to, and regular practice of the same is guaranteed to ensure that the child grows into a very healthy and well-balanced individual. Rejecting the exercise solely on the basis of its 'communal' association, without taking into consideration the health benefits derivable by its practice, is a dangerous idea, and even more foolish, to say the least.
Secularism is something that the Indian State is expected to cherish, and I have no objections to all that, because it is a nice idea to reject any particular faith primacy in State affairs. But I feel we are overdoing this idea. The State government concerned could have explained that if people have an objection to the nomenclature of the exercise, it can be changed for the purpose of the exercise, but as such the exercise should really be done, because it will benefit the children at large. They could have assuaged the concerns of the parents that their wards were being required to acquire quasi-religious education by pointing out that this exercise can be viewed as a part of physical education, and not as religious education at all.

Their decision to have announced the scheme as a purely voluntary one sadly escapes the main issue, and establishes a dangerous precedent, a precedent which could be used by anyone in the future to justify non-inclusion of a potentially beneficial course of education in the curricula solely on the basis that it originates from the tenets of a specific faith or community.
One hopes that better judgement prevails and the decision taken is reversed, if not for the sake of common sense, then at least for the children.

Reviewing the Quiz Masters...

It is often said that while the young have energy at their disposal, the elders have experience to prove their superiority. And perhaps, not without reason. While energy is perhaps a great thing to have if one wants to get something done in the best possible manner, experience helps direct that energy in the best possible direction.

The new KBC or Kaun Banega Crorepati show, the Indian variant of the 'Who Wants to Be A Millionaire' show, started on Monday amidst much fanfare. The host, Shahrukh Khan, is touted as the incumbent monarch of Hindi cinema, and perhaps this was supposed to be a great qualification for a quiz-show host. Sure, he's popular, ladies swoon over him, and films cross the thin line between being a box-office hit and an utter failure just by his presence in the leading credits.

But somehow his personality is not up to the requirements of the show. Or should I say, it is not up to the high standards that the audience must have come to expect of the host of the show, considering that the previous host was the ever-graceful and ever-charming Amitabh Bachchan. Mr. Bachchan is also an actor of great repute, but I doubt that even he could have pulled off the show only on the basis of his popularity as an actor. On the contrary, when he assumed the role as the host, his career was in the pits, his media company bankrupt, and creditors baying for his blood. So, what does this man do?

He becomes a quiz-show host. And not just another quiz-show host. No, he becomes the best host that India has ever seen, a host who not just quizzes his participant, but also empathizes with the participant's joys, sorrows, dismay, disappointment, excitement, and happiness. His humility, his manner of speech, while formal, was endearing to all age-groups, quite like the proverbial Uncle Joe. He wasn't just there to give out money; he was there to help you get the money.

It isn't that Mr. Khan is not helping participants become comfortable. He's doing a good job at that, only I think he's overdoing it. His insistence on hi-fying the participant after every correct answer is perhaps the best example of it. Besides, while Mr. Bachchan's style was likeable by everyone, be they of rural or urban backgrounds, Mr. Khan stands the risk of being seen as an urban yuppie, an upstart. While Mr. Khan is a sharp dude, he isn't as witty as his predecessor, and doesn't make the experience of watching the show as enjoyable. When one watched the show with Mr. Bachchan, one learnt a lot, not just by way of the questions, but by way of Mr. Bachchan's conversations. His style of addressing his audience was respectful, yet comforting. Mr. Khan's is friendly, yet jarring at times.

One hasn't read many criticisms of Mr. Khan's performance in the dailies, perhaps because he is such a big star, and maybe because it is said to be too early to comment on Mr. Khan's performance, and also because Mr. Khan bears the onerous responsibility of being compared with Mr. Bachchan. Maybe, but Mr. Khan knew the burden of the job beforehand, and cannot claim to not having been prepared enough. I still hope that he improves his style and maybe infuses his own brand of originality into the show, originality that goes beyond freezing the answer instead of locking it, and hugging the participant at the end of his/her journey in the show. Until then, Mr. Bachchan will remain the best KBC host ever in my eyes.

The promise of the future or the future of the promise...?

Over time, and perhaps having seen so much criticism over the developed world's lackadaisical approach towards environmental issues in general, best illustrated by the US' reluctance to endorse the Kyoto Protocol, it has come to be felt that while the developed world is happy to dispense advice on how to avoid using non-renewable resources, and in particular in the area of energy resources, it is content to just advise people and do very little on similar lines. Gas guzzlers and the lack of serious and practical caps on greenhouse gas emissions make any stand taken by developed countries on environmental issues a tad hypocritical, and reduce the level of importance that the world in general attaches to the matter.

And so, it is largely satisfying to see the emphasis that the Olympic Delivery Authority for London 2012 is placing on low carbon emissions, waste, and on the propagation of green transportation avenues. The Olympics is perhaps the best medium that any advertiser can seek, and considering that in today's health conscious world, sports play such an important role, any message that the Olympics will be seen to be giving out will stand a greater chance of being well-received.
While one finds plenty of governmental norms and regulations mandating environmental safeguards, and many even successfully being implemented, it is still a matter of concern that environmentalism is being seen as anti-development, and consequently as anti-progress. While I don't support development for the sake of development, it is imperative that we comprehend that the environment is not a static entity; rather, it is a dynamic being that changes its needs and requirements with time. While mowing down forests and bulldozing valleys is not my idea of progress, it is also the need of the hour that forests and valleys not be seen as impediments to the benefits that the locals can derive from development.

We need to educate and enlighten people that while development is all fine and good, the environment also needs to be conserved, primarily because development that may be justifiable today may not be so in the future. We need to study the track-records of those countries who have successfully managed to find the Middle Way between irrational developmental attitudes and zealous environmentalism, in order to comprehend how we may go about the task of preserving our environment, of making sure that our children, and their generations to follow, will be able to enjoy a quality life, and perhaps will thank us for our efforts in doing so.

The environment is not the holding or the possession of any particular generation; rather it is simply to be safeguarded by each generation for the next, to be preserved and nourished as a mother nourishes her child. Should we give our future a world denuded of its beauties and simply filled with concrete structures and tar roads, I fear we would be in breach of trust, and perhaps never again will a child trust his parent to be his well-wisher, his guardian.

The Racist Chronicles - Part II

The ongoing row over the racist remarks being directed at an Indian actress in a British reality show makes for interesting reading, both because it shows how much the world abhors racism, as also because it illustrates that despite this overt abhorrence, racism continues and persists in almost every part of the world, and in every section of society.

I mentioned the Holocaust and the Inquisition primarily because they are something that I expect everyone might at least know something about, if not about both, then at least about the former. But they are not the only examples of racist prejudices turning to murderous intentions; rather they are perhaps amongst the few that are more prominent. Racism needn't be seen only as a prerogative of the Caucasian race; on the contrary, racism was and is practiced by each and every race on this earth, against each other.

But, it is a different thing to just voice one's opposition over something, and quite another to do something to tackle the beast by the horns. Simply stating one's outrage and one's dismay at racism rearing its head doesn't quite serve any purpose other than to illustrate that racism exists. But that isn't enough.
And this is where comments like Mr. David Cameron, leader of the Conservatives in the United Kingdom, are illustrative of what the common man can do to contribute in the fight against racism. The phrase may not be as evocative as the fight against terror, but it is equally important that we win this one as well, as emphatically as we would hope to win the other. Mr. Cameron says, and I quote, "I haven't watch this series, I don't intend to, but anyone who does and who doesn't like this racism, there's a great regulator, it's called the 'off' button."

In other words, viewers have the option of sending across the message that they don't approve of racism by simply switching off the offensive show, showing that racism isn't cool, rather, that it's plain odious. Broadcasters will soon have to either crackdown on the offenders or lose out on valuable customers (and even more valuable advertising revenues). And what they will do, should they be forced to, is any body's guess.

The Racist Chronicles - I

Racism is perhaps a virulent disease, an ailment that somehow pervades time and space, and strikes every heart, irrespective of its ethnicity or origin. And what is more ironic is that even those who suffer at the hands of another ‘race’ choose to exhibit racial prerogatives, choose to display racial biases and prejudices. Whoever said that only the one who bleeds is the one best placed to comprehend the pain perhaps never was racially discriminated against, nor saw racial discrimination being meted out to fellow human beings.

Racism, to my mind, is perhaps borne out of a deep sense of insecurity, and perhaps a generic inability to comprehend or accept that it is possible for someone coming from a different background than you can be any better than you. If you observe racial laws such as the Nuremberg laws of Nazi Germany, or the Manusmriti in India, then there is a marked mention about the need to preserve certain occupations, certain privileges and certain prerogatives for certain races/communities at the expense of the rest. And when I mean expense, I really mean it was expensive, considering that penalties for violating such ‘statutes’ of society were often either physical mutilation or death.

And perhaps this is an attitude that pervades even to this day. Previously dominant colonial powers have to face their former subjects outperforming them on all fronts, and actually developing to such a stage, that they have to learn from them how to run a country. Local denizens, who till now have been enjoying the status of first world citizens, are now trembling under the burden of unemployment, their misery something that they attribute to the growing clout of outsourcing and a resurgent Third World. They choose to ignore that they have lost the edge when it comes to the skills required to succeed in this age, that they no longer are the race prima, the primal people, the Alphas and the Omegas of the earth (actually they never were, just that then they had the muscle power to keep the others under their feet).

And this manifests in racism. You feel obliged to insult, to curse and to demean the one whom you blame for your problems, in order to make yourself feel a little bit better. You will call them names, ask them to leave ‘your’ country, which is a supreme irony, because indigenous people rarely if ever have been left pure-blooded, and now no race per se can claim purity of origin, and hence your claims on the land are as ambiguous as that of your victim. You will taunt those whom you know to be better than you in some aspect of life, merely because they happen to come from a different background than you, a background that you know may have assisted in their growth, but which you are reluctant to appreciate, for fear that doing so would imply that you are ashamed of your own background.

This may not always be the case. Even nations who for centuries suffered discrimination at the hands of others indulge in discriminating against others once they achieve freedom for themselves. Uganda stands out perhaps as the best example of this mindset. And this is sad, because it somehow mocks their own suffering, the trauma that they underwent.

The Holocaust and the Inquisition are prime examples of what a racially biased society can be brought about to do, if properly ‘demotivated’. One sees a lot of demotivation going around the place, and maybe this is truly the precursor to the end, the final Apocalypse, when all races will war to the finish, the ultimate finish.