Smriti Irani, India's Sarah Palin.

If Narendra Modi had chosen Smriti Irani for finance ministry it would have sent shock waves through Dalal street and the investment community, which played a big role in his victory, would've reacted with horror. The care that Modi showed in selecting a suave educated Arun Jaitley for finance ministry is matched by the carelessness in the choice of minister for education.

In an ugly spectacle a panoply of voices, ranging from Ramachandra Guha to Shobaa De and techies in top notch companies abroad. a sickening indignation arose against those who were appalled by the choice of a lady who failed to graduate and can at best be described as twelfth grade pass out. It is disgusting to see a pestilence of anti-intellectualism sweep across India.

It is ironical that Guha, who is often mistaken for a historian, biographer of Gandhi, plumbed the depths of intellectual dishonesty when he cited Lewis Mumford as an example for those who do good intellectual work despite not having a degree. Mumford had indeed joined a college but could not finish his degree due to illness and was later called to serve in World War I. In his post-war career Mumford worked his way to becoming an architecture critic. A story possible in the pre-World War II America. The point is Mumford educated himself and had to prove himself by working his way up in an intellectual atmosphere. Equating Mumford with Irani was chicanery.

In a cringeworthy remark, journalist Swapandas Gupta asked, "which university did Rabindranath Tagore go to? did he not create a university?" Tagore is India's true Renaissance man in the classical sense of that word. Only an intellectually corrupt journalist would equate Tagore and Irani. Tagore, to state the obvious, educated himself ceaselessly and led a life of learning in a deeply intellectual climate.

Smriti Irani - Courtesy Wikipedia

One Indian after another trooped to cite names, ironically, mostly American, to justify Irani's appointment. Steve Jobs, Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Steven Spielberg and Mark Zuckerberg were cited. What no one cared to mention was that none of them, except Spielberg, would hire anybody less than a degree holder to run their companies. Spielberg actually went back to college and graduated in 2002 after wining two Oscars. Ford, Gates, Jobs and Zuckerberg were too good for college but they maintain strong ties to academic institutions. Jobs, Gates and Zuckerberg became innovators at their expense first. Their dropping out of college was a risk they took. Bill Gates, as philanthropist and influencer of policy making, lays heavy emphasis on education. Closer home are the examples of Dhirubhai Ambani and even Adani. Ambani, like Ford, was an innovator who spent years learning in the best college that is life. But Ambani's rise was fueled by shady deals and corruption. That a businessmen like Adani is even offered as an example shows the intellectual bankruptcy of India.

It is not an accident that India's glorious freedom struggle was led by highly educated erudite intellectuals. Revolutions are not born out of illiterate minds. The 1857 Sepoy mutiny, led by a rag tag of feudal chieftains, lacked the intellectual firepower of Gandhi's Satyagrahis. To be sure India experienced an intellectual turmoil in the half century before Independence. So many competing ideologies about the nation we are to become, the idea of nationhood, the idea of what it is to be an India, the very idea of India, ideas of state and many other ideological conflicts between some of the finest minds ever to walk on Indian soil took place. Tagore called Gandhi a Mahatma and then opposed his ideas of nationalism. Nehru, Gandhi's disciple, would reject Gandhian economics. Associates and comrades-in-arms of Nehru would part ways later clashing with him on so many ideas. Ram Manohar Lohia, Subhas Bose and Rajaji carried on an ideological feud with Nehru. Today we are asking what good is a degree? What a shameful state.

Of Nehru's cabinet several like Rajagopalachari, C.D. Deshmukh, Gopalasami Ayyangar and Shanmukham Chetty left a mark for generations to come as not just ministers but as thinkers too. Patel was in a league of his own as India's Bismarck. Then there was B.R. Ambedkar, alumnus of Columbia University, the architect of India's constitution and one of India's political giants. The choice of Abul Kalam Azad, prodigy and a fine intellect that Nehru adored, as India's first education minister was a no-brainer. Whatever that is good in India's educational infrastructure was the work of Nehru and Azad. Nehru and Azad fashioned a nascent republic's intellectual foundation. UGC, IITs, IISc, Research centers and more were the brain child of Nehru and Azad. They changed India's educational landscape as Lincoln changed America's nearly a century before.

Amongst the many ills that plague India, the framework of academia, laid down by Nehru and Azad, despite its many shortcomings remains the brightest spot and the beacon of hope for India. Indians do not realize the vision behind IIT and Bhaba Atomic Research Center. That such institutions were dreamed of in a country that was mired in poverty, born amidst a civil war and sorely lacked financial capital, is something that is awe inspiring. Many countries that were born like India lacked such a vision and for that reason alone lack the hopes that Indians harbor today for their country. Nehru and Bhabha's correspondence sheds light on how involved India's prime minister was in forming research institutions. Nehru addresses "my dear Homi", to which Bhabha replies "my dear bhai". Nehru made it a point to attend every session of Indian Science Congress which was established in 1914 by Sir Ashutosh Mukherjee. I shudder at the prospect of Irani addressing such a gathering.

Today Smriti Irani, a twelfth grade pass out, adorns the office that was once occupied by Abul Kalam Azad. She will appoint Vice Chancellors, preside over how to educate India's hundreds of millions, decide whether or not to allow foreign universities, how to invite investment for research, rejuvenate the notorious teach-for-test Indian education and confer with educationists on myriad issues that defy easy solutions.

Kamaraj, illiterate chief minister of Tamil Nadu, is credited with revolutionizing school education in Tamil Nadu. Born into grinding poverty and losing himself in the freedom struggle Kamaraj did not attend school and remained illiterate. However, his illiteracy bred in Kamaraj the sensitivity to educate every child, especially those in poor villages. Kamaraj provided a clean administration and is fondly remembered for his welfare schemes. This example is often cited in favor of not looking down upon illiterates. And then there are Mulayam and Laloo, both namesake graduates, who are corrupt, have no idea of anything intellectual and yet wielded power as chief ministers of large states and as cabinet ministers of key portfolios like railways and defense.

Kamaraj was an exception who made up for his lack of intellect with earthy common sense and sincerity. Faced with the prospect of becoming India's prime minister Kamaraj, in cahoots with Nijalingappa, chose to foist Indira Gandhi simply because he felt diffident. Now, Indira too, was no graduate but was seen as 'groomed' for international leadership under the tutelage of her legendary father. Indira's legacy was one of destroying or distorting or corrupting every institution that her father had created.

The limits of earthy common sense led administration can be seen in Kamaraj's ideas on education. Beyond common sense ideas of how to provide school education he had no vision about higher centers of learning or science and research. A Kamaraj would not have dreamt of IIT or BARC.

Mulayam and Laloo, both namesake graduates, who are corrupt, have no idea of anything intellectual and yet wielded power as chief ministers of large states and as cabinet ministers of key portfolios like railways and defense.To be fair to Irani, Arjun Singh, a corrupt and venal politician, was an unedifying choice too and he caused ruckus in his position only to serve his political itch of wanting to be India's Prime Minister. Anbumani, a doctor by education, was a disaster as minister of health. In the previous BJP administration Murali Manohar Joshi, a Physics professor, alarmed educationists with his penchant to rewrite textbooks and indulge patently pseudo-science.

Corrupt and incompetent leadership by many, who held degrees, has made it is easy and palatable for Indians to argue "why not try a twelfth grade pass out?" This is travesty of the highest order.

What is forgotten in this ridicule of people like Arjun Singh or Cambridge educated Manmohan Singh is that the bigotry and corruption of the learned can be exposed only by the learned not the illiterate. Whether it is unmasking Nazism or Bofors or 2G scam it takes a historian with integrity or an honest journalist to combat the ills perpetrated by the well educated.

Tamil Nadu has paid a high price for the fact that the last chief minister with a college degree died in 1969. Since 1969 Tamil Nadu has been ruled by politicians who were not graduates and two were matinee idols. Yes, Tamil Nadu leads on many human welfare indexes but the reasons are many. Karunanidhi, a seventh grader, is indeed an able administrator and born out of a movement that laid stress on ideology he and his successors have ushered in key welfare ideas. All that said it is a blunt fact that almost all the government run colleges, Engineering and medical, were constructed before 1967. Between 1967 and the privatization era of MGR in 1980's no government college was opened. The state completely ceded its role in education to private operators. Public schools in Tamil Nadu, like elsewhere in India, are pathetically run.

Karunanidhi, who in a forgettable dirigible verse scorned the use of education, sought to reform the many confusing streams of school certification and in the process created a very watered down syllabus that is spawning highly inflated grades in school exams. According to a survey of Indian government only 17% of Tamil Nadu's engineering graduates, amongst thousands, are fit for employment at an MNC. Muthukrishnan who led the committee for syllabi reform lamented that of the many recommendations to revamp education, including upgrading etcher training institutes, the government took just the easiest one to implement and ignored the rest.

When Azhagiri, another corrupt and barely educated politician, was made Union Minister for drugs and fertilizers I wrote that it is a shame. India faces severe challenges in world forums on account of flouting patent norms to provide cheap medicines. There are many complex key issues that a minister of drugs has to deal with and Azhagiri had zero intellectual capabilities.

Cheap comments like 'so what is the qualification for a minister for family planning?" or "so should a minister for civil aviation be a pilot too?" are asked. I am appalled at such trivializing and in fact its shamefully disgusting. When I read Narayana Murthy's book on education I wondered if our education ministers even knew half of what the industrialist was writing about. Expecting the education minister to at least have a degree is not to suggest that he/she should be a subject matter expert. Arguments like 'should a minister of mining have been a miner' is idiotic. Irrespective of any ministry it is imperative to have an educated minister who can analyze issues, seek opinion across the ideological spectrum and finally make up one's own mind.

During the Cuban Missile crises the top brass in US army wanted JFK to invade Cuba. JFK would sensed that that would start World War III. Army generals and even Dean Acheson, former secretary of state and considered a Russia expert, told Kennedy that an invasion would be a success without any allowance for disasters or surprises. Later Kennedy confided to his inner circle about how the French army made the same hubristic mistake in World War I. JFK cited Barabara Tuchman's legendary bestseller 'Guns of August'. Bob Woodward in 'Obama's wars' detailed how the Pentagon would try hard to hoodwink Obama in sending a bigger force to Afghanistan than he intended. Reading it will show anyone why a leader must have an intellect of his own. And such an intellect is born out of education or by educating oneself. Irani has done neither.

It is laughable to see Indians heap scorn on formal education just because Manmohan, a Cambridge alumnus, left office with his popularity in the dump. George Bush, Yale graduate, left the presidency with abysmal job approval rating and is considered as probably one of the worst US Presidents. Yet, I've not heard Americans say "lets go elect Sarah Palin, enough of Ivy League grads". Rather, many Americans, including me, were apalled by Palin's vapid intellect. Columbia and Harvard graduate Barack Obama romped home to the Oval office against a ticket that was seen as pathetically unintellectual. I had then written "Go home Palin. And you too McCain". Palin offers the closest parallel to Irani.

A doctor, no less, cheerfully posted a video of Irani at an 'India Today Conclave', hosted by the magazine 'India Today',  that supposedly showed an articulate person. The implication was 'if she can speak so fluently in English and swat away the brickbats can she not be a good minister'. Sarah Palin can deliver stem winding red meat speeches that can bring down an entire stadium and yet, with good reason, Americans rebuffed her candidacy so much that, despite much expectation, she did not even bother running in 2012. If one viewed the conclave event in full one can see that many others on that stage, equally unintellectual, were indeed articulate. No one on the stage had any original ideas though. Irani just recycled template talking points. I am yet to read anything intelligent by Irani.

The department of education, in a country like India, carries huge challenges and great complexities. Indian students emigrating to study, mostly to US, costs Indian exchequer a lot. Harvard website boasts that India ranks 4th amongst international students. Harvard even has a regional office in India and its President Drew Gilpin Faust frequently visits India. Yet, the question of foreign universities in India is an issue fraught with complexity. The list of issues that cry out for attention is pretty long. "Will not bureaucrats help? Should she be a subject matter expert?" This is plain recipe for a minister becoming a puppet in the hands of India's fabled and loathsome bureaucracy. Just to make one point, bureaucrats, propelled by self interest, could give conflicting advice and it is the minister who needs to make up her mind and provide an impartial decision.

Smita Irani is no consummate politician who, say, like Karunanidhi, at least shows a flair for leading and canny political savvy. Having lost the election she even lacks political capital of her own. Within the party she is not known for any great organizational ability that can be arguably supplanted in running the ministry thus giving us confidence despite lack of academic credentials.

Indian political system was designed with avenues to bring in talent that cannot come through the rumble tumble electoral politics of Lok Sabha. In fact Irani will now need to be nominated to the Rajya Sabha to continue as a minister. Modi, who earned immense political capital, could have sought out a good educationist and brought him or her through the Rajya Sabha but he chose bring in a political operative and a dilettante at that.

In the run up to the election one of the many articles that fawned over Modi's unorthodox managerial methods gushed that when he took over as chief minister he sent emails to business men and corporate leaders asking for advice on how to make Gujarat investor friendly. I pointed out elsewhere that Modi did not send one email to an educationist or a health care professional to ask how to improve education and health care, two areas that Gujarat continues to lag other states. Thankfully the current choice for health ministry is spoken of as credible choice.

Economist magazine once wrote that British prime minister David Cameron invites intellectuals and thinkers for a chat. One of the invitees was Joshua Foer, bestselling author of 'Moonwalking with Einstein'. That article was suitably sub-titled "Despite Britain tradition of anti-intellectualism, Westminster has become a cerebral place'. I've seen America's 'Governors Association' invite MIT President, other academics, top journalists like Thomas Friedman, bestselling authors like Malcolm Gladwell to address them during their annual retreats.

Richard Nixon's nominee for ambassadorship to Sri Lanka fumbled during his confirmation hearings and knew nothing about Sri Lanka. Historian Richard Hofstadter became livid at that mockery and penned his Pulitzer awarded "Anti-Intellectualism in America". Recently Obama nominees were ridiculed for similar ignorance. Nobody said "oh he'll have officials to help". It is sad that in a country which has a goddess for learning that education is being ridiculed. Where is India's Richard Hofstadter?

To add to the ignominy of not being a graduate and heading the department of education it appears that Smriti Irani allegedly claimed being a graduate in one of her affidavits submitted to the election commission during an earlier election. Of course, in a country where corruption takes place in the thousands of crores by a single minister a lie in an election affidavit will not only barely register but invite a scornful, 'get a life, that's no bog deal'.

Modi's choice for another very important ministry, Water resources, is ex-chief minister Uma Bharati, a sixth grade school drop out. Two Indian states, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, often come close to riots due to water sharing disputes that run for nearly half a century. The unification of rivers, a complex and gargantuan undertaking, is another much talked about promise of Modi and the minister is a sixth grade dropout who is known for fire brand speeches like torching Walmart if it set up shop in India.

Former ambassador T.P. Sreenivasan exults in Rediff.com that Sushma Swaraj, the new minister for external affairs, is like Hillary Clinton. Other than the fact that Swaraj shares gender and nature of office with Clinton she is nowhere near the former first lady turned senator turned secretary of state. Both Clintons are legendary for being policy wonks. Hillary can lecture, very creditably, to an audience of experts on a variety of topics. Sreenivasan pins hopes for Swaraj's success as foreign minister on her being popular with NRI's and for being present with Modi when he 'read the riot act' to Nawaz Sharif. A typical fawning bureaucrat who thinks an intellectual lightweight like Sushma Swaraj is good only because he is probably thinking to himself "after all, people like me will be there to advise her. She just needs to listen". I'll be surprised if Sushma Swaraj had read Barbara Tuchman.

The only plausible explanation that comes out for the broad support against formally educated officeholders is the low esteem in which Indians themselves hold Indian educational system. The notorious rote learning that characterizes Indian education scarcely prepares any graduate for a career much less an intellectual life as a thinking citizen.

To be fair to Modi other Prime Ministers have had equally unsavory characters in their cabinets. When R.M. Veerapan became minister for education in Tamil Nadu my disgust was worse than what I feel now. That a history sheeter like K.K.S.S.R Ramachandran was minister for department of health is an ignominy that still makes me angry. That an aging matinee idol like Shatrughan Sinha was union minister for health is a travesty that Modi is yet to commit. If blogging had been a forum in those circumstances my opinions would be the same as it is now.

The most disquieting aspect in this affair is seeing how Indians loathe education and look down upon education as a life shaping force.

References:

1. Smriti Irani at India Today conclave https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFsaGtz0Pks
2. Lewis Mumford http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Mumford
3. 'Bill Gates's riskiest project: Fixing education' -- CNBC http://www.cnbc.com/id/101059801
4. 'Westminster has become a thinking capital' - Economist on David Cameron meeting Joshua Foer - http://www.economist.com/node/18618772
5. Uma Bharati http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uma_Bharti
6. 'An agenda for India's Hillary Clinton' -- former ambassador T.P. Sreenivasan on Sushma Swaraj - http://www.rediff.com/news/column/tp-sreenivasan-an-agenda-for-indias-hillary-clinton/20140602.htm
7. My blog on Kamaraj's and MGR's role in education compared to Karunanidhi http://contrarianworld.blogspot.com/2013/05/tamil-nadus-debt-to-kamaraj-and-mgr-on.html
8. My blog 'Go home McCain (and Palin first) http://contrarianworld.blogspot.com/2008/09/go-home-mccain-and-palin-first.html
9. My blog on why Sarah Palin's 'folksy' speaking style is unintellectual and un-presidential http://contrarianworld.blogspot.com/2008/10/sarah-palin-is-no-vp-material-or-prez.html

Romney, Obama and the 'empathy' debate

A South Indian poet said his heart bleeds whenever he sees a starved sheaf of corn. Another poet admonishes that all learning becomes moot if one cannot internalize the suffering of another. 'Empathy', it is reiterated, across ages and cultures, is one of the defining characteristic of being human. Christ, echoing similarities in Hinduism, asked that we treat every person as if we served the Lord himself. Given America's penchant to simplify a lofty philosophy, a question posed during Presidential elections is "amongst the candidates who would you like to have beer with?" another variant is "who would you prefer to have as your neighbor". 

When FDR's cortege wound it's way through Virginia seeing a common man weeping inconsolably a reporter asked him if he knew FDR personally. The commoner replied "I did not know him but he knew me". Gandhi, the leader and empathizer par excellence, not only dressed and led the life of the poorest of Indians but his instinctive knowledge of suffering has spun its own tales of legend. 

Romney appearing in a morning interview on CNN said, with a straight face, "I am not worried about the poor, they have a safety net, I am not worried about the rich, they are doing just fine. It's the middle class I worry about". All networks immediately relayed "Romney says he is not worried about the poor". People who call themselves conservatives to the bone cringed because according to deep conservative beliefs everyone should progress economically. Romney's comment fed into a double narrative, first that conservatives are cold and do not care about the poor, second a rich republican does not really care for the poor.

Obama held a youtube town hall where a woman asked him if he would consider reducing H1B visas in view of highly skilled Americans being unemployed. Her husband, a semiconductor engineer, remains unemployed. Obama's response was "It is interesting". 

During the 2008 primaries one criticism that kept hurting Obama was that he does not 'connect' with blue collar voters. Hillary herself was characterized as "cold" until she shed a tear on live telecast in New Hampshire. When Hillary, after a long string of defeats, defeated Obama decisively in Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries again a collective chorus of "Obama does not connect" went up. Hillary supporter and PA governor Ed Rendell said Obama has an "appalachian problem". To make matters worse Obama was recorded as saying that "people cling to their guns and religion". That fed into the conservative narrative that liberal look down upon simple folks and their faith. Obama's allies, especially Afro-americans, bristled at this characterization of him being 'aloof' and not empathetic. His allies pointed out indignantly that Obama's mother raised him on food stamps. 

On the day of 9/11 carnage Bush appeared on live TV and let tears roll down freely. Bill Clinton let his tears roll down receiving the caskets of US soldiers killed in Somalia. Presidents need to reflect a nations grief and they need to do it spontaneously.

President's also need to channel a nation's outrage and anger when enemies strike. When Bush said, about Osama Bin Laden, "there is an old poster out west that says 'wanted:dead or alive'" some in the press demurred at such language. But Americans nodded that their President understood them. Many democrats, in private whispered, "thank God Gore is not president he would be wooden".

Bill Clinton was very famous for being connected. It is said that if you stood in a room full of people and Bill Clinton talked to you for a minute he would make it appear that you were the only person in that room and he was intently listening only to you.

Obama is known to shun hobnobbing dinners and rope lines. Bill Clinton's oxygen was being connected. Gandhi, FDR, Nehru were all born rich. Both Clinton and Obama were born into poor homes. Whether somebody is rich or born poor has little to do with a person's ability to empathize. 

What about empathy amongst common men in their daily lives? That's for another day.

Romney is Kerry redux and 2012 is 2004

Its beginning to look a lot like 2004. Democrats are famous for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The GOP is doing its best to outdo the democrats and return the favor in 2012. Lets rewind to 2004 to relive how Kerry helped Bush get re-elected.

Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" a political documentary that made no pretensions of the filmmakers bias grossed $100 Million at the box office. The documentary had more satire than facts, its a Moore documentary, enough said. At the theater I watched the audience gave it standing ovation. The country was in turmoil over the Iraq war. Iraq was front, left and center in the election. The Orlando Sentinel, a key newspaper in a key battleground state, endorsed John Kerry. It was the first endorsement by that paper of a democrat pin 40 years. The Economist endorsed Kerry over Bush in its cover story titled "Incomprehensible Vs Incompetent". The Sentinel's endorsement of Kerry was a resounding snub to Bush detailing Bush's policy failures beyond just Iraq. So how did Kerry lose?

Kerry, like Hillary Clinton, had voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq but facing a stridently anti-war party he tried to do amends that earned him the sobriquet "flip-flop". Kerry did his best to strengthen the narrative and his worst moment was when he voted down an appropriations bill to pay for military in Iraq. He had earlier voted for it and reversed his vote in the final amendment. When criticized for voting against the armed forces in harms way Kerry responded, very famously, "I voted for it before I voted against it". Eager to lure gun owners, a traditional GOP bloc, Kerry went duck hunting and had a photo that made him look ludicrous. Having earned the "flip-flop" label Kerry provided Bush with the perfect photo to go with it. Against the advise of his consultants Kerry went wind surfing and the photo promptly went into GOP ads. Also a millionaire candidate going wind surfing did not help while his VP candidate, John Edwards (a millionaire trial lawyer) was screaming about "two Americas, one for the rich and another for the poor". Kerry, born rich and married rich, was criticized for being 'out of touch'. John Edwards before he made millions was poor and used to go to Wendys to celebrate his wedding anniversary. During the campaign Edwards took Kerry to Wendy's, Kerry could not eat there.

Given the Iraq war backdrop Kerry staked out his candidacy on just one issue, that he could be better commander-in-chief. Kerry is a genuine war hero, unlike Bush whose dodging of draft was laughed about. Kerry served in Vietnam and earned three Purple Hearts and was discharged. He was in-charge of the 'swift boat' division. Out of nowhere sprang Vietnam vets who criticized Kerry as 'unfit to lead' (an eponymous book also was helpfully published) based on nothing but lies. Disillusioned by America's fate in Vietnam Kerry became anti-war, testified in the congress, threw his medals. At the convention when he came on stage Kerry said "I am John Kerry and I am reporting for duty" with a salute. The next day New York Times cribbed that his almost hour long speech had just 3-4 lines about his decades long service in the senate.

While Obama is not as hated as Bush was in 2004 there is lot of disgruntlement and after the drubbing that democrats got in 2010 2012 was supposed to be the year of GOP candidates. Kerry was not the best Democrat to contest in 2004. The best, especially Hillary Clinton, decided to sit out thinking they would have a better chance in 2008 when the electorate would be thirsting for a change from 8 years of a Republican President. Likewise the most looked up to GOP candidates decided to sit out 2012. Out of a weak field emerged Mitt Romney.

Just like Kerry Romney too is staking his claim to the Presidency on just one agenda. Romney makes the economy as the only criteria to elect him. After Bill Clinton's legendary thumping of Bush Sr in 1992 based on "it's the economy stupid" it has become customary, especially with soaring unemployment, to cite that. Conservative columnist William Kristol acidly wrote "its not only the economy, stupid". Romney will learn that when he watches Obama coast to an easy victory.

Romney like Kerry has a penchant for landing his foot in his mouth. Like Kerry Romney is now labeled a flip flop. Like Kerry Romney is mocked for not having a "core". Romney and Kerry both hail from Massachusetts, a very liberal state. Romney is now mocked by his GOP detractors as being a RINO (Republican in Name Only). Only a RINO can get elected as GOP governor in Massachusetts. No Texan or Georgian republican can ever get elected in MA. GOP senate candidate Scott Brown shook the political world by winning what was called 'Ted Kennedy's seat' and he is pretty much a RINO too though he was once a tea party darling.

Kerry was fully heroic in his service in Vietnam and even more heroic in his denunciation of that war later. But the GOP slander machine worked over time to discredit him. Bob Dole, 1996 GOP Presidential candidate, archly said "three Purple Hearts and no injury" (Dole has a permanent injury from his service and Kerry had none). Romney has not done a single illegal dealing as businessman and by all accounts was a good boss, made money for his investors and helped create some good iconic American companies. Yet the Democrat slander machine is now working overtime (and including his GOP rivals) in circulating highly debunked documentary "Romney: King of Bain". Kerry was inarticulate in defending his anti-Vietnam protests, Romney is completely incapable of defending his work at Bain. Kerry had his duckshoot, Romney has his gaffe on being afraid of pink slips and more gaffes on how his earnings from speeches, $340K, was 'not much', '$10,000 bet' etc.

Romney has been compared to past presidential contenders, always the comparisons were with losers. When Kerry staked his candidacy on being a better commander-in-chief the Iraq war was raging hot. Seeing the unemployment drop in January a commentator mused on this danger of Romney talking like the only reason people need to elect him is his ability to fix the economy, "if the economy fixes itself by November, what is Romney's rationale for asking people to vote".

Romney will lose to Obama. If, and this is a very big if, Romney wins it would be ranked a more thrilling win than what Truman had over Dewey.

Jethmalani's travesty and Hypocrisies Galore in Tamil Nadu

Ram Jethmalani became a household name in the late 80's thanks to his "10 questions a day" to Rajiv Gandhi in Indian Express. When asked about the question Rajiv retorted "I dont have to answer every dog that barks". Jethmalani returned volley, "Mr PM dogs bark only at thieves". Those were heady days. As a naive teenager I was drawn like a moth into such grandstanding. Jethmalani, A.G. Noorani, Arun Shourie, Ramnath Goenka were all heroes. Gurumurthy's articles on Reliance Industries were a huge hit. Little did we know that Express was merely taking sides in a corporate war. Parsi Goenka was siding with Parsi Nusli Wadia the owner of Bombay Dyeing. I still remember Jethmalani's questions. Jethmalani had traced where Amitabh's children studied. Abhishek Bachchan was studying in Aiglon Villars in Switzerland. Their school fees and how Amitabh could afford such foreign exchange was a question. Another day a photo of Ajitabh Bachchan's home in Switzerland was splashed on the front pages with its price tag. Again a question of how Amitabh and his brother Ajitabh could afford it. The not so subtle innuendo was that Amitabh had siphoned Bofors kickbacks. This was vintage Jethmalani. As 17 year old little could I appreciate that much of what he did was invasion of privacy, sheer tabloid journalism, neither of which are hallmarks of a criminal lawyer who was so brilliant that he got a special permission to practice law at 18.

Today Jethmalani is a hero in Tamil Nadu for playing, what is portrayed as, lead role in getting a stay from Madras High Court against the hanging sentence for the Rajiv assassination convicts. The other two lawyers were Colin Gonsalves and R.Vaigai. Both Colin and Vaigai come with impeccable credentials. Vaigai, the only Tamil in the defense panel, is spearheading a forum to hold the judiciary accountable. Vaigai is instrumental in the impeachment proceedings against Justice Dinakaran. Colin an IIT graduate turned to become Law student to fight for human rights.

At the outset let me state categorically that I've nothing against a death row person availing every single legal avenue  to prove his/her innocence. That said I am completely repelled by the obnoxious mob mentality. This whole circus is riddled with contradictions and hypocrasies. Most who support the trio were acerbic critics of Anna Hazare's protests. Every criticism they unfairly flung at Anna is now completely true of this so called 'people's sentiment'.

When Anna commended Narendra Modi the secular brigade pounced on him and tore him to shreds. Today we have Ram Jethmalani an ex-BJP minister as defense counsel. If BJP as opposition party takes advantage of Anna's protest Anna becomes guilty by association. Yet not a murmur about this BJP cadre who is defending the darling trio. The flag waving and shouting of 'Bharat Mata ki jai" were decried as nationalism that borders on chauvinism. Today I am told that any Tamil who opposes clemency for the trio ceases to be a Tamil. Anna Hazare was mostly upbraided by so called intellectuals as blackmailing the government. Anna's protest was censured as unconstitutional. This is where the hypocrisy touches a nadir. Today the protests seeking clemency are anything but non-violent or constitutional.

Watch this video below

These are called students. If this is called civil protest I just lost my dictionary. As I was narrating the High Court order to my dad he surprised me by asking "Why Jethmalani and Colin, why do they keep running to North Indian lawyers, could they not find good lawyers in Tamil Nadu". Note, that self-styled leader of Tamil language and custodian of Tamil diaspora Karunanidhi begged Jethmalani to appear in person for his daughter's bail plea. I was mulling over the choice of lawyers and wondering could not Tamil Nadu's law colleges produce good lawyers. Then I remembered the Madras Law College student violence when a student was beaten to pulp. Have we forgotten how lawyers acted like hooligans in High Court. The Sri Krishna committee report gave a scalding picture of lawyers who were practically lawbreakers. From this cesspool people like Vaigai are rarity to flower. One blogger rants against North Indians for not joining the chorus and instead questioning the propriety of the circus. Little does he realise that his trio owes their grace period to North Indians.

Another irony is that most who decry the judicial process today were the ones who were gloating over the humiliation suffered by Jaya in the uniform syllabus shenanigans. Thanks to that ruling today students read a history textbook that has a section titled "achievement of Hitler". Those who gloated then now find the shoe on the other foot. Jaya who is still smarting from that humiliation hesitated to question the Supreme court ruling or take any action that would invite potential wrath of SC. Finally she caved in. The TN assembly resolution is not worth the paper its written on and sets a very dangerous precedent for mob rule in questions of law. When Tamils get angry that Delhi called the resolution "not binding" and threaten secession they should remember that Salman Kurshid was merely acting constitutional.

The most shameful hypocrisy was Perarivalan's own clemency petition. He says as 19 year old he was attracted to EVR's ideology and that he supported 'anti-Brahminism". Then without batting an eyelid he cites V.R.Krishna Iyer's letter in support of his clemency petition. Today DK partisans refer to Krishna Iyer with reverence "noted legal luminary Krishna Iyer 'himself'..". If Krishna Iyer had said anything different these guys would not hesitate to lynch him and deride him with obscene epithets referring to Krishna Iyer's caste. Every time I think one cannot go further down in hypocrisy these guys show me a new nadir. By the way I wonder what makes a 19 year old boy hate an ethnic community. Maybe, as Karunanidhi wrote recently, if released he might he lead a 'reformed' life. Karunanidhi did not realise that that statement implies guilt, a fact violently disputed by his idolaters. R.Vaigai, daughter of noted communist leader P.Ramamurthy hails from a Brahmin family. I do hope Perarivalan gets released and realises to whom he owes his life to.

The most heinous hypocrisy is concerning Rajiv himself. I am yet to hear from anyone who supports the trio as innocent voice any remorse over the gruesome murder of a man. All this love for humane punishment is basically bollocks. I see tweets about how Rajiv turned a blind eye to the Sikh genocide. Yes it was shameful. But that does not mean his killing can be justified. The hypocrisy is even more cutting when one notes that none of these people called Rajiv shameful at that time for that. It was just Sikhs being killed in far off Delhi. One commentator made a chilling observation that because Rajiv was North Indian Tamils are keen to overlook his killing and shamelessly ask for clemency beyond the purview of law. Let me reiterate that I do not grudge any redress within the confines of the law. There are many valid grounds for questioning how justice was dispensed with.

Ram Jethmalani appearing for Kanimozhi cited her gender as reason to be enlarged on bail. Today Jethmalani adds that courts should listen  to people's voice. Jethmalani has gone senile. Every associate of Anna Hazare was brought under a microscope for any dirty linen to be discovered. Arundhati's article citing Ford Foundation funding for Kejriwal was widely circulated and tweeted.  Here is Jethmalani who earned the reputation of being "smugglers lawyer". Barring a few publicity seeking cases like Kehar Singh his clientele reads like a rogues gallery. Haji Mastan, Harshad Mehta, Ketan Parekh etc. The worst charade of Jethmalani was his U-turn of Afzal Guru. After having defended Guru saying he did not get a fair trial Jethmalani did a U-turn when he needed a BJP seat. In chilling words Jethmalani declared "What I had said was that such indoctrinated elements (like Afzal) shouldn’t be allowed to die easily, but they should made to rot in jails,” .  All for a Rajya Sabha ticket. If Jethmalani had appeared for the prosecution all this dirty laundry would be shouted from the rooftops by my Dravidian brethren.

When Arjun Singh, in a naked attempt to upstage Manmohan, implemented Mandal in IIT's it raised furore on both sides of the aisle. Those for it shrieked "what is sacred about IIT, do we need islands of excellence", "what is excellence after all, who decides it", "merit is a bogey". Today its IIT-ian Colin Gonsalves who is called for defense. After all did not V.P. Singh come scurrying to Memorial Sloan Kettering after proudly announcing the first Mandal doctor in AIIMS. Karunanidhi once acidly asked "what good is education" and then sent Maran to Houston. Dont we know these scumbags.

After surveying the endless list of hypocrisies I feel like asking, "at long last, Sir, have you no decency".

Anna Vs Arundhathi, Veeramani and Intelligentsia

Arundhati Roy, A JNU Prof, Veeramani and a host of others have unleashed a barrage of criticism, a virtual vitriolic out pour against a hapless septuagenarian who is tormenting his frail body and faces possible death. It is not very surprising to see intellectuals arrayed against this upsurge by the hoi-polloi. Anna has been accused of every imaginable political skulduggery and his motives are not only questioned but also maligned. The media frenzy is derided as corporate media that is cashing in on a craze. We suddenly find lovers of constitution rushing to the fore to protect a constitution that has been amended willy nilly for 100+ times in 64 years. We are lectured on how Jan Lokpal will undermine the constitutional liberties and create an unbridled agency.

Arundhati Roy who was fascinated by gun toting Maoists is horrified at a fasting Anna. That Maoists blew up schools, murdered policemen gruesomely, raped fellow comrades, smuggled arms and function as stooges of China does not bother her. Yet she is deeply worried about Anna's backers. Her article "I'd rather not be Anna" is a litany  of hypocrisies save for one paragraph were she worries about a street vendor. She freely indulges in guilt by association and much of the guilt she assigns is also due to her animosity towards her ideological opposites. That Arvind Kejriwal's organization received a grant from Ford Foundation is suspect in her eyes. By being associated with Kejriwal Anna too is tarnished on that account. The Ford Foundation, like numerous other US based foundations, does admirable philanthropy. That Kejriwal an IIT grad did not board a flight to US like his classmates and instead chose public service is a fact that does not even merit mention. A good rebuttal to Arundhati is at http://clearvisor.wordpress.com/2011/08/23/why-i’d-rather-be-anna-than-arundhati/  As that blogger points out Arundhati's complaints like Anna being a 'new saint' etc are churlish. That Anna has not voiced an opinion on every issue under the sun irks Arundhati.

A JNU professor wrote the most shameful article on this. Titled "Ambedkar's way and Anna Hazare's methods" the column slanders that Lokpal is anti-Dalit. Prof Thorat says Dalits worry that Lokpal provisions would make Dalit employees vulnerable to complaints out of caste prejudice. He cites how many cases filed by Dalits under the "Prevention of atrocities act" is languishing. Thorat ignores the fact that the snail like judiciary is a separate problem. That such complaints are not investigated expeditiously is a part of a larger judiciary problem.

Professor Thorat waxes eloquently about how Ambedkar wanted Indians to adopt strictly constitutional methods to bring about social changes. Nothing gets my goat quite like that argument.  Reservation quota was initially stipulated for only 10 years, with no end in sight its been extended for 64 years (note that reservation has been in vogue in some form or other in TN since 1920's thats 90 years of quota). The constitution stipulates that the total quota should not exceed 50%. TN has 69% set aside in quota. This is where Veeramani, a neo-Nazi steps in.

Veeramani and his DK underlings organized meetings to prove how A.Raja is honest. Then during the first Anna Hazare fast Veeramani and his race baiting DK organized meetings vilifying Hazare. Raja is innocent. Hazare is a crook. Crucify Jesus. Release Barabbas. Veeramani started floating theories of, well what else but, Brahminical conspiracy. If Veeramani does not have bowel movements he will blame it on Cho Ramasamy. Veeramani is worried about how Hazare is blackmailing the government by fasting. What always confounds me is Veeramani's absolute lack of a sense of irony. Having pilloried Hazare for blackmailing the government by mobilizing people, Veeramani, without batting an eyelid, today, calls for a war against Kapil Sibal for wanting to introduce entrance exams. He issues a clarion call for a war and he wants to wage 'war' to such an extent that no Forward Community member is ever again appointed as education minister:

ஒடுக்கப்பட்ட மக்களின் கழுத்தை அறுக்கும் இந்தத் திட்டத்தை கருவிலேயே முறியடிக்கும் முயற்சியில் நாடாளுமன்றத்தில் உள்ள தாழ்த்தப்பட்ட, பிற்படுத்தப்பட்ட மற்றும் சிறுபான்மை சமூகத்தைச் சேர்ந்த உறுப்பினர்கள், பூகம்பப் புயலாக எழுந்து நின்று முறியடிக்க வேண்டும். குறிப்பாக கல்வி அமைச்சர் பதவி என்பது உயர் ஜாதியினரிடமே  இருக்கவே கூடாது என்கிற அளவுக்கும் பிரச்சினையை முழு வீச்சில் முடுக்கி விட வேண்டும். 

Whether its Ramadoss or the Gujjar's when violent agitations were launched to get quotas nobody winced or wondered about governments being blackmailed. Ramadoss's stooges justified the whole sale felling of trees and mayhem that he unleashed to get quotas.

Prof Thorat says Ambedkar is wary of Indians succumbing to hero worship due to our cultural roots. Thorat wonders how else would a yoga teacher get so many followers. Here Thorat, like most intellectuals, tends to look down upon the religious minded. Thorat ignores the fact that Indians hero-worship not only out of religious reasons. Rajnikant is hero worshipped in TN. Veeramani , who also has been presenting Anna's crusade as anti-Dalit, is practically living off of a cult worship of E.V.R. EVR encouraged his followers to erect his statues while he was alive. EVR reveled in inaugurating his statues. Of course lets ignore the fact that they call themselves 'Rationalists". Jayakanthan once acidly remarked, "DK people are not atheists, their god is EVR". To complete the irony today Ambedkar himself is the most sacrosanct  idol.

Today the constitution gets so many well intentioned protectors. Where we these people when a destitute Muslim woman, Shah BanoRajiv Gandhi with his 450+ brute majority in Lok Sabha amended the constitution to override the Supreme Court ruling. Arundhati Roy and Gnani breathlessly ask "what about Irom Sharmila who is fasting for years together and is being force fed". Anna touched a problem to which every Indian could relate. Irom Sharmila took a problem that is purely localized. Naturally the outpouring of support is different.

The middle class hypocrisy is another accusation. People wonder why has the middle class suddenly woken up. A New York Times article, by an Indian origin author, berates the middle class that it is not entirely impeccable on questions of integrity. In a country like India it is almost impossible to be honest every dealing. Yes the middle class indulges in bribery of RTO's to get drivers licenses, bribes a policeman, bribes a government employee (who in turn is middle class himself) etc etc. The middle class that has chafed under this system and is now crying ENOUGH. Political corruption engenders bureaucratic corruption.

Doctors in government hospital in Sankaran kovil were directed to collect money for a function organized in honor of Stalin. Where would the doctor get the money. of course from patients. When I narrated this to a Veeramani worshipper, here in USA, the answer was a glib "they could have written a letter to CM's cell and it would have been stopped". I was left speechless at the fanatical ideological blinders of this guy. While the incident in Sankarankovil illustrates how political corruption is the fountain head the reaction by this party man also shows how dangerously corrupted India is. When A.Raja landed in Madras after his resignation Veeramani organized what he called a "rousing reception". A.Raja is innocent until proven guilty but to celebrate the arrival of a ex-minister who had to resign on prima-facie charges of corruption shows how venal the society's leaders are.

Without Lok Ayuktha would Yeddyurappa have resigned? As I wrote earlier the constitution actually protects the ruling class from the reach of the hands of law. As the Bard said in Hamlet, "plate sin with gold and the strong lance of justice hurtless breaks". Some ask would not existing laws suffice. Existing laws are not just insufficient they shielded Jaya , they shielded Raja for more than 2 years. That CBI could not even properly investigate him until the Prime Minister granted permission is ridiculous. We are told that Lok Pal is not a cure all panacea. Of course not. Independence of investigating agencies etc are talked about. Nobody can disagree with that. The day the CBI can investigate the Home Minister if needed is when they would have attained complete independence. Somewhere a beginning is to be made. Anna has lit the fire for that.

Nandan Nilekani's interview to CNN-IBN got wide notice for his quote that Anna's movement will not solve everything and very justifiably draws attention to the fact that systems need to be changed. Nilekani correctly identifies that many of the red tape systems we have provides a fertile ground for corruption. His remark on Anna received wide publicity but what most tended to gloss over was Nandan's even more astute observation that corruption of the astronomical scale is incorrectly attributed to privatization and the economic reforms. Nilekani put his finger on the problem saying that the recent scams were all in areas where thhe government had a role to play as buyer or seller. Economic liberalization in many areas has unleashed productivity and lifted hundreds of thousands out of poverty.

That brings me to the final question, will this Lokpal solve corruption completely. Not even the illiterate think it so. Badri Seshadri (founder of cricinfo) a prominent publisher and blogger narrated an exchange his friend had with two government employees from UP. One employees parents had died in an accident and he was able to get their bodies only after bribing officials. He stated beautifully:

“அண்ணா ஹஸாரே, ஜன் லோக்பால் என்கிறாரே, இதெல்லாம் உங்களுக்குப் புரிகிறதா?”
“இல்லை. அதெல்லாம் எங்களுக்கு அவ்வளவாகப் புரியாது.”
“அப்படியென்றால் எதற்காக உண்ணாவிரதத்தில் கலந்துகொள்ள வந்திருக்கிறீர்கள்?”
“உங்களுக்குத் தெரியாது... என் தாயும் தந்தையும் விபத்தில் இறந்து அந்த உடல்களை வாங்க நான் எவ்வளவு லஞ்சம் கொடுக்கவேண்டிவந்தது, எவ்வளவு கஷ்டப்படவேண்டியிருந்தது என்று. நீங்கள் எல்லாம் பையில் காசைப் போட்டு வேலைக்காரனிடம் கொடுத்தனுப்பி உங்கள் வேலைகளைச் செய்துகொள்பவர்கள். உங்களுக்குத் தெரியாது நாங்கள் தினம் தினம் படும் கஷ்டம். அண்ணா ஹஸாரே எங்களுக்காகப் போராடுகிறார். அதனால் லஞ்சம் தீர்ந்துவிடுமா என்றால் தெரியாது. ஆனால் ஒருவேளை தீர்ந்துவிட்டால்? அதனால்தான் வந்திருக்கிறோம். எத்தனை நாள் ஆனாலும் பரவாயில்லை. எனக்குச் சம்பளமே கிடைக்காவிட்டாலும் பரவாயில்லை. அவருடன் இருப்போம். மேலும் இன்னொரு விஷயம். அவர் நல்லவர்.”


That is all people expect from this. If there are issues with what Anna proposes lets talk about it. If Anna becomes delusional with all this publicity lets discard him then. All that he has accomplished is to rouse a nation. Even if one were to be overwhelmed by the frenzy so what. This is not frenzy over a multi-million dollar Super Star movie. This is not frenzy over a megalomaniac chief minister organizing a language conference for self glorification. This frenzy is towards something that all can agree upon. The country is vibrant enough to channelize this. What angers me most is that people are ridiculing a person who has put his life on the line for a laudable initiative. He sure has warts, who does not. But he rises above that and what is most important for once a leader has called upon Indians to stand up for something good. God bless that frail soul.

Anna Hazare and Ambedkar's constitution

As I was mulling over the Hazare drama that unfolded over a day I picked up Donald Kagan's "Pericles of Athens and the birth of democracy". Kagan, Yale history professor, is the foremost authority on the Peloponnessian war and Athenian history. Kagan states democracies "need to meet three conditions if they are to flourish. The first is to have a set of good institutions; the second is to have a body of citizens who possess a good understanding of the principles of democracy;the third is to have a high quality of leadership, at least at critical moments". India suffers from a serious deficiency of the first and the third conditions leading to an erosion of the second.

I remember vividly the attempts by Subramanian Swamy to prosecute Jayalalitha based on prima facie evidence. His stumbling block was the Indian constitution that made it necessary for a litigant to get the 'permission' of the Governor to prosecute a Chief Minister. India's constitution framers retained the feudal mindset of protecting the ruling elites despite overthrowing feudal colonialism. While the framers of US constitution agonized over separation of powers and checks and balances the framers of Indian constitution gladly concentrated power in the hands of very few with no checks. Paula Jones, a literal nobody, sued the US  President who is often referred to as the most powerful man on earth. Bill Clinton had to testify before a grand jury. He was reprimanded too for his perjury. Let's not nitpick his impeachment and find faults with the US system. What is to be gleaned here is that a common woman could sue and bring to court the President. There is no constitutional bar. If Americans, even in 1776, were told that a President is beyond the reach of the law until he demits office in order to maintain decorum, they would reject it outright as laughable.

The Karnataka spectacle was shameful. That a corrupt chief minister had to be cajoled into leaving office is despicable. What is even worse is that he could dictate the choice of his successor. Corruption and politics are inseparable in any corner of the world. US politicians have paid a high price for corruption. Governors and Congressmen have been charged and sent to jail.

The Lok Pal exemption of the Prime Minister is ridiculous. The excuses given for the protection are childish. It is said that the office of  PM is dignified and hence should not be subject to litigation. The dignity of an office is in the transparency not in how the office holder is shielded. As always, national interest, is another excuse trotted out. We are told that foreign powers would instigate law suits and destabilize the country. Silly. It shows a complete lack of faith in the judiciary and law enforcement agencies. The ever present excuse is that PM should be protected from frivolous law suits. Yet again it shows a complete lack of faith in the judiciary.

Every August 15th a handful of Tamil bloggers with DK/DMK allegiance would decry India's independence and the Union itself. A throwback to the Dravidanadu days of C.N.Annathurai. Their chief grouse is the many shortcomings of the Indian state. Kashmir, step motherly treatment of North East, Tamil Nadu's perennial riparian problems with neighboring states etc. Nobody has paused to reflect on the simple fact that their beloved idol Ambedkar is the architect of a shoddy constitution from which all these flaws emanate from. Ambedkar learned law in Columbia University under the aegis of none other than John Dewey.

That Indira Gandhi could dismiss governments at will, that corrupt ministers cannot be prosecuted by an independent authority, that government servants can never be fired for any misdeed, that authority is centralized with no respect for federalism etc etc are all features of the constitution is lost on many. It took just 3 days for Indian parliament to ratify the constitution. That Indira Gandhi could paralyze democracy by declaring Emergency signed off by a pusillanimous parliament and a weasel of a President is a shameful feature.The ratification of US constitution itself is worth volumes of Pulitzer prize winning books. The furious debate, the Federalist Papers, the anti-Federalist papers are all stories worth reading and learning from. Sadly, even a US educated lawyer failed to give his countrymen a good constitution. Every so called safe guard in the Indian constitution has caused more havoc than serving the intended good purpose. 

The founding fathers of US agonized endlessly over writing laws in such a manner as to avoid a monarchy. They deeply distrusted human nature to do good. The very Bill of Rights was written only because they felt that rights were not sufficiently guarded in the original constitution. 

How many of us have reflected on the fact that Indian Penal Code is very draconian and gives very wide powers to the police? Pre-emptive arrests alone exceeded 1000+ yesterday. That a government can arrest people preemptively before they start a peaceful protest is an anachronism in civilized world. When the Patriot Act was passed in USA, addressing serious loopholes in national security, it was debated hotly to protect individual rights. It is still not set in stone. The act needs to be renewed by the Congress. Rajiv Gandhi passed TADA without a murmur of protest. NSA, MISA, TADA, POTA all were done within the framework of the Indian constitution. Remember it was the Supreme Court that sanctioned suspending habeas corpus during Emergency. Habeas Corpus is considered the corner stone modern law. Even today a producer of a stage play has to submit his/her script to the local police station in order to secure permission to stage the play. A remnant from the British Raj days when dramas were considered seditious. 

Ambedkar. US framers were particular in designing a system of polity that was very unlike the British. Whereas Indian framers were content to mostly do a copy and paste of various constitutions finally rendering a mish-mash. Until a recent high court ruling the common man in India could not fly his national flag whereas every minister and government functionary could. In Ambedkar's constitution retains the spirit of the colonial midst that thee rulers are to be judged by a different law if at all they are to be judged.The Indian constitution fully qualifies for the cliche that what is good is not original and what is original is not good. 

In fact I wonder what if any is Ambedkar's original thinking other than the quota system. Even that was not designed well. It was originally envisaged only for 10 years. Its in vogue for 64 years. The constitution stipulated that quota should not exceed 50%. Tamil Nadu has a draconian 69% and is tucked sneakily into the 9th Schedule.

Ahhh the 9th schedule. ONLY the Indian constitution has got a section of the laws walled off from judicial review. 9th Schdule is non-justiciable. The 9th schedule was created to prevent judicial review of the Urban land ceiling act. Protecting ULCA from judicial review was necessary in order to prevent courts from overturning laws that were promulgated to redress the Zamindari system. Today that spirit of 9th schedule is violated and the 9th schedule is used as a catch all bucket for any legislation that Parliament does not want the courts to review. The inclusion of TN's oppressive quota regime is pending before a constitution bench for over a decade.

Most of the ills that plague Indian politics can thus be traced to an effete constitution written by unimaginative people who were only fit to be clerks. Everything highlighted above has contributed to corrupting every facet of the society. Indira's dismissal of Farooq Abdullah fomented Kashmir's problems. Quotas have generated the most shameful vote bank politics. Stifled freedom of opinion has often suffocated ideas and engendered mediocrity. 

A tamil blogger today tweeted "A taste of Indian democracy for the middle class, arrest of Anna Hazare". What eventually happened was UPA getting a taste of democracy. The upsurge in spontaneous protests brought the gargantuan Indian state to its knees to release Hazare. This is democracy at its best moment. It is extremely shameful that Harvard educated Chidambaram, Harvard law school alumnus Kapil Sibal and Oxford educated Manmohan Singh have perpetrated this despicable arrest. 

At the end of the day whether its Columbia educated Ambedkar or these Harvard and Oxford alumni they all remained just Indians at soul and never learned anything from their US education. I don't know if its a failure of education or of the pupils. That they had lived in societies far more free has done nothing to their spirits to give their fellow countrymen good governance or the framework for it. 

Theory of Relativity, The Nazis and Soviet Russia.

A scientist, especially Nobel Laureates and heads of premier research institutions, is held in awe by the common man. A man of science is thought of as rational, one who rises 'above' common passions and prejudices. However a cursory reading of the lives of scientists would dispel that myth. At the end scientists, too, are just human beings.

I am now reading "The Born-Einstein Letters:1916 - 1955" edited by Max Born. This is a collection of correspondences between physicist Max Born, his wife Hedi and Albert Einstein. Its a charming book that does not tax the reader but nevertheless leaves one enriched. I love to read anything about Einstein and hence I am not a stranger to the many controversies of the period that the letters portray but the personal narrative brings such distant happening to an immediacy. 

Anti-semitism, hating Jews, is often thought of as unique to Germany, thanks to Holocaust. Even more simplistically many think that Jews were persecuted by just Hitler and his bigoted ideology that the Germans took a fancy for under turbulent times. Anti-semitism has deep roots in Europe (and USA too!!!!). When Einstein, an unknown worker in an office for issuing patents, shook the scientific world in 1905 with his paper "Special Theory of relativity" he burst into the international scene. Finally when he published, in 1915, "the general theory of relativity",  he practically redefined the world for eternity. Problem was he was a Jew. 

As early as 1920 Philip Lenard, Nobel Prize winner in 1905 for his research on cathode rays, spearheaded several German scientists in a blistering nakedly anti-Semitic attack on Einstein. Lenard was a member of the Nazi party and chairman of "Aryan Physics". Lenard and many other's attacked TOR (Theory of Relativity) as a "Jewish Conspiracy". Irving Wallace, researching for his book ' The Prize' about Nobel's, discovered that Lenard was instrumental in making the Nobel committee to award the prize to Einstein not for relativity but for his lesser known papers on Photoelectric effect and Brownian motion. The prize was inevitable after Eddington in a spectacular experiment had proved the curvature of space as predicted by the General TOR. 

TOR fared even worse in Soviet Russia. In a letter dated 12th August 1929, Born writes to Einstein seeking help for a Russian physicist, Rumer. Born writes "Rumor, left Russia because relativists are treated badly there (truly!). The Theory of relativity is thought to contradict the official materialist philosophy and, as I've already been told by Joffe, its adherents are persecuted". TOR was thought to contradict the central tenet of determinism of dialectical materialism that ruled the roost in Soviet communist era. Born adds a detailed note to the letter. Rumor had been deported for espousing TOR to some Gulag near the Arctic ocean. "After the death of Stalin he received a telegram" freeing him and recalling him back to Moscow. Rumer was appointed head of an institute and became a loyal communist. Born says Rumer later wrote to him extolling the virtues of communism and how "Soviet system is superior to Western institutions, not only politically and economically, BUT ALSO MORALLY". 

Incidentally Soviet Russia also disliked genetics and frowned on Gregor Mendel for the same reasons as they objected to TOR. Science was an ideological football in Russia. School students learned only the Mendeleev periodic table (based on atomic weight) and not the modern periodic table (based on atomic number). I remember my school chemistry textbook detailing key difference between Mendeleev's and Modern periodic tables and how the latter addresses certain defects of Mendeleev's table.

Scientists are often the worst offenders of the tenets of science. However throughout history eventually science, and truth, often triumph in the end.

TN Voter Revolts and Media Sleeps.

It is often said that democracy is messy but in reality compared to its alternatives democracy is the least messy. Representative democracy with all its faults remains the best form of governance. The smug literate Indian voter has often looked down upon his/her illiterate counterpart who votes. When the results of TN election were announced on May 13th it was the largely illiterate voter who had the last laugh. In many ways we should thank the poverty stricken, less educated voter for it is ONLY they who saw through the arrogant power gambles by Karunanidhi.

How arrogant and venal must Karunanidhi be to think that the voter can be hoodwinked by a comedian? Many long time DMK sympathisers shook their head at seeing a party once known for literate orators now rely heavily on a comedian's campaign. A party which once took pride in blackening with tar Hindi words in Railway stations now begged a Hindi actress with a Hindi tattoo on her hand to campaign for them. Irony was that Thiruma, a member of the ruling coalition, once harassed that same actress as a self styled custodian of Tamil morality. Wikileaks cables now show how Karthi Chidambaram had bragged about bribing voters. "Thirumangalam formula" will see us  through crowed their supposedly educated supporters.

On May 13th the TN voter delivered a stunning verdict that left no cover for either DMK or their palanquin bearers. Now the question was "how did nobody see this coming", "how did none of the polls predict this". DMK was shattered beyond belief. Stalin, heir apparent, limped past the finishing line. Azhagiri fort was pulverized to dust. The verdict was so humiliating that Karunanidhi did not even wait for the final tally he tendered his cabinet's resignation within a few hours of the trend emerging. DMK expected the going to be tough but nobody saw this coming. DMK genuinely expected that their Insurance scheme, free housing schemes, money doled through self help groups, Rice at Rs1 etc (not withstanding free TV's and other freebies) would serve as a firewall to protect their turf. "Thirumangalam formula" would secure the seats that were in play thus cumulatively securing them a second term. Whenever I used to talk to both DMK supporters and general public about the inflationary aspect of many of these so called "schemes" I always got one response "the poor don't care, the illiterate do not care, this is all fancy economics you are saying".
See my earlier blog http://contrarianworld.blogspot.com/2011/03/corzine-and-karunanidhi-bribing-voters.html . When I told a person, not a DMK supporter, "well they get rice at Rs1 but vegetable prices are sky high, food inflation is in double digits according to the government itself", the reply was "the poor do not realize and they will not care".

Well the poor care because they are hungry. The poor care because they now see how their children are being deprived. It does not take a PhD in economics  to realise that Rs1 rice alone is not enough. Actually its the PhD in economics who might be numb to reality and prattle about ideology etc. A poor man is pragmatic, he has no alternative.

Seeing Thirumaa and Ramadoss being drubbed today many pontificate that caste politics has been discarded by the voter. Again its the smug educated voter who has never seen the intelligence of the electorate. DMK lost, against much expectation, in 2001 only because they chose to align with caste based parties and doled out seats based on chest thumping by caste party leaders like Kannappan. Ramadoss is often cited as holding a loyal block of voters. That's a wonderful myth. In the past when he contested alone he was drubbed. In recent times his candidates lost pathetically. Ramadoss did become a force to reckon with initially because he did get some fruits for his caste but after the quota agitation success there was nothing else to fight or win. His family's corruption became an eyesore amongst his community. Thirumaa is the worst leader that Dalits could beget. He has no idea of what Dalits need. Jaya's wonderful advertisement showing how he ranted against MK earlier and contrasted it with his fawning today was the best attack ad of the election.

Interpreting a mandate is often a reflection of the person's own subjectivity. Many supporters of Eelam who felt deeply betrayed by MK rejoiced and called this the price for betraying Eelam. Some started calling Seeman, a third rate director and rabble rouser as the next force in campaigns. Eelam probably affected a miniscule voter's decision. TN voter gave DMK a comfortable win, contrary to expectations and desires, in 2009 general elections while Sri Lanka burned and MK carried out a farcical fast. Vaiko, eelam's most sincere and vociferous supporter was trumped at the polls against an unknown. Just watch his election speeches in those days. Vaiko was thundering fire and brimstone about Sri Lanka, about using radar donated by India, about Bofors guns from India AND he lost. As the cliche says "All politics is local". Eelam was a marginal issue.

Why did the media, at all levels, miss the voter fury? Very simple. There is no professional journalism in India. Its all the more true at a regional level. To be sure even in USA we do have our share of surprises. When a republican won from a senate seat held for 40 years by Ted Kennedy in Massachusettes it sent shock waves. But the media was not blind sided like it happened in Tamil Nadu.

NYT report would go to a village start off from a villager, narrate his woes, then flesh out the grinding effect of food inflation, give a human dimension to the story by emphasizing how his/her children are malnourished take the theme on a big picture level, tie it to the inflationary policies and finally conclude with the villager again. This kind of in depth reporting is alien to Indian journalism.

When we talk of corruption again the literate smug intellectual retorted in two modes, "do you think the poor care", "is Jaya incorrupt?". A villager may not care about 2G spectrum or its astronomical sum. Yes Jaya is shamefully corrupt. But the corruption of the past 5 years was of a scope that was staggering. Corruption had eaten into each and every facet of governance thus sticking on the face of the poor like an octopus. Again other than sensational reporting on 2G there was little sensitive in depth reporting by any media. Also for the first time people saw first hand how each minister came to amass hundreds of crores thanks to colleges. Corruption was not even done surreptitiously it was brazen, gargantuan and inescapable. The reporting of that side was seriously hobbled by how the powerful could muzzle media and journalists. Journalists had to fear for their lives if they wrote of Azhagiri or Veerapandi Arumugam (who also is bigamous like his leader and many other colleagues).

Power cuts was another albatross. A few days after the election Karunanidhi announced even more draconian power cuts, now including even Chennai. If MK had announced it 3 months before the election even he would have lost from Thiruvarur. Coimbatore, India's Manchester, erupted in revolt. Thousands of people marched in the streets in a spontaneous protest. No political outfit rallied them, nobody paid them to rally, no biryani packets were used to entice crowds. Yet such an event was grossly underreported. It was a inside news item in a vernacular news paper (Dinamalar). Again the journalistic infrastructure is pathetic that no article could weave a tapestry out of the hardships due to power cuts. In 2011 lack of electricity hobbles job creation, spikes unemployment, affects hospitals, affects the poor weaver, the small scale industrialist who employs tens of poor graduates or unskilled labor. Yet I could not find a single journalist who could write a compelling story on this articulating the seething anger of the people.

Opinion polls are another mess. The media in Tamil Nadu, especially TV, is sharply divided along partisan lines with absolutely no objectivity. The vernacular press also is partisan to a great extent. Amidst this sea of mediocrity and crass partisan reporting opinion polls were a joke.

Sun TV beamed endlessly the hundreds who milled to wave at Vadivelu. Media wrote that in Vadivelu maybe DMK had found a trump card. Yet when the results were announced the joke was on DMK/ Vadivelu and the media. Yes many probably still do love to watch Vadivelu but life is different reality. The sophistication showed by the Tamil Nadu voter should send a stern message to Jaya more than MK. Let Jaya heed the message and realize that in 2016 she could be where MK is today. Well she knows that all too well, could she have forgotten 1996. Its pathetic that MK forgot 1996 could happen to him or completely ignored the lessons of 2001.

Tamil Enthusiasts and muddled ideologies.

This week's issue of Vikatan had an article titled "தமிழ் மட்டும்தான் சொத்து". It was about one Mr Radhakrishnan whose house in Pondicherry is quite unique. The photo below should tell you why.

The walls of the house have verses proclaiming glory of Tamil and verses that demand a primacy for Tamil in education and all walks of life. The walls are also adorned, as you can see, with photos of Tamil literary savants like Bharathidasan, Maraimalai Adigal, etc and here is the curiosity, photos of Ambedkar, Karl Marx, Lenin, Prabhakaran and finally the mandatory triumvirate of C.N.Annathurai, M.Karunanidhi and E.V.Ramasamy Naicker. Unsurprisingly, rather as expected, a distinct omission of Bharathi.


Interestingly the same issue of Vikatan had another article, "பெரிய மனிதரும் அரிய புத்தகங்களும்!" about a person who has a library of Tamil books with very rare editions like G.U.Pope's translation of Kural etc. N.P.Ramasamy of Kovai had this to say "எஸ்.எஸ்.எல்.சி. முடித்த பின்பு, திராவிட இயக்கத்தில் சேர்ந்தேன். அப்போது திராவிட நாகரிகம் சார்ந்த புத்தகங்களும், உலக புரட்சியாளர்களின் வரலாறும், பொதுவுடமைச் சிந்தனைகொண்ட புத்தகங்களையும் படித்தேன்". Soviet Russia, Che Guevara, Prabakaran etc have a mystical hold on the imagination of Tamil literature lovers. Again knowledge of history or awareness of facts are mere inconveniences. Just like Radhakrishnan of Pondicherry, Ramasamy of Kovai has a fondness for Prabakaran, "'எனக்கு வயதாகிவிட்டது. எனக்குப் பின் இந்தச் செல்வங்களை பாதுகாப்பது யார் என்ற கவலையே இப்போது தினமும் என்னை அலைக்கழித்துக்கொண்டு இருக்கிறது. பிரபாகரன் தலைமையில் ஈழம் மலரும்; அப்போது இந்தப் புத்தகங்களை தாய் மொழியை மதிக்கும் அந்த நாட்டுக்கு கொடுத்துவிடலாம் என்று இருந்தேன். சோனியாவும் கருணாநிதியும் சேர்ந்து அந்த நம்பிக்கையை கேள்விக்குறி ஆக்கிவிட்டார்கள்." It is stunning that two people with nothing but a shared love of literature and language should have such ideological affinity. This affinity is not accidental its characteristic.


When I meet or read an English literary enthusiast its almost impossible to know his/her ideological lineage or political affiliations. With Tamil literature enthusiasts I've no such problems. I draw a distinction between enthusiasts or lovers of literature against creators. Most enthusiasts or lovers of Tamil literature, especially non-brahmins, are clearly defined by the following: Fealty to Dravidian ideology as 'defined' from time to time by DK or DMK (never ADMK), blatant communist or muddled socialist leaning, avowedly anti-capitalist, a thirsting for bygone glory reflected by admiration totalitarian Prabakaran, fanatically chauvinistic to the core on linguistic issues and to cap it all anti-brahminism. Many of these actually contradict one and another but that never matters. I've never understood this cocktail of politics, economics and linguistic chauvinism. What can I say if one has portraits of Ambedkar, Marx, Lenin and Karunanidhi in the same row. 


I can understand one's love for a language, I can understand one wanting to see one's mother tongue become lingua-franca and have a cherished place in daily life. Once a person told me "you are anti-Tamil because you hate Kalaignar, you hate Anna". I wondered what has one got to do with the other. If you did not accept the literary genius of C.N.Annathurai or Kalaignar you become ipso-facto anti-Tamil. 


EVR had called Tamil a language fit for barbarians and exhorted Tamils to study English. It was the advent of DMK that created an ideology that mixed up everything, understanding very little of any of the components. What is worse serious non-partisan academics have been swept aside and chauvinistic shallow hacks posing as academics have taken their place peddling nonsense as received wisdom. When I read Dr M.Varadarajan's (Mu.Va) "History of Tamil literature" I was stunned to see him emphasize that the term "Muthamizh" (Three forms of Tamil -- Drama, Music, Poetry) is a recent invention. As he progresses  to discuss that he sheepishly says "there is no drama in Tamil, we don't have any works of drama that would qualify for that genre". A DMK party hack would cry hoarse about "Silappathikaaram". Silappathikaaram only talks about how street plays were conducted. Silappathikaram is not "King lear" or "A Dolls House". Jayakanthan, referring to Manonmaniam, another pet example of dramatic Tamil, said "its a fourth rated recreation of a third rated work". The tragedy is not the general population buying this charade of dramatic Tamil, the real tragedy is its a rarity to find any so-called Tamil scholar to disagree with it. 


Tamil enthusiasts love to believe anything and everything that would glorify Tamil. Tamil music is another fertile ground for politics and ideological posturing. Carnatic music, to some extent fairly and to some extent unfairly, is seen as the preserve of Brahmin's hence Carnatic music is seen as another battlefield in challenging the Brahminical order of supremacy. If Harold Bloom, Yale university's legendary Shakespearean, wrote a book on 'English Music' he would be laughed out. But in Tamil Nadu people with dubious credentials would freely talk about musical traditions and how Tamil had it all. For a Tamil enthusiast no field is alien, anything is fertile ground to wade into and claim primacy for Tamil texts, often by contorting evidence and more often with no evidence. Anbazhagan, a minister and a lackey  to Karunanidhi, would write a lesson for Tamil textbook equating Kural and Newton's 3rd law. Only a Tamil enthusiast will have the audacity (I am being polite here) to claim Kamban knew of atomic fission.


Only in Tamil Nadu have politicians become arbiters of literature. Today what most Tamilians understand as 'characteristics' of Tamil culture and Tamil as language comes from Karunanidhi who has cast a long and shameful shadow on Tamil academia. Only in Tamil Nadu could a person like Vaiko be hailed as 'literary exponent'. Only in Tamil Nadu would Karunanidhi's opinion be more important on a question regarding Tamil than any scholar (if one such still remains). DMK's two leading lights C.N.Annathurai and Karunanidhi have completely obliterated impartial scholarship and have monopolized the academic framework of Tamil. Its a phenomenon thats worthy a sociological study by itself. Silappathikaaram is hailed as "Epic of Tamils", Kamba Ramayanam is derided as pornography. The inherent contradictions in both claims, the lack of academic merit in those making such accusations were never given a thought to. Silappathikaaram, a male chauvinistic epic with references to Karma written by a Jain is hailed as "Epic of Tamils" while it completely contradicts every pet ideology of DMK. 


Why did I say that Radhakrishnan (what a name for a DK member) had unsurprisingly omitted a portrait of Bharathi? Nowhere in the world was a poet of Bharathi's stature shunned because of his/her caste. DMK incessantly promoted Bharathidasan against Bharathi who was derided as "paarpana Kavi" (Brahmin Poet). This, against Bharathi. Only the venal minds of DMK and its ideological adherents are capable of such shameful acts. A leading contemporary Tamil writer recently wrote in his blog that in the last 5 years whenever recommendations had to be sent for Jnanpith the explicit command was "see to it that its not a Brahmin author". Asokamithran, a giant in Tamil literature, being Brahmin is shunned. Its thanks to U.Ve. Swaminatha Iyer, that much of what we know as Tamil literary texts even survives. It was M.G.R., a malayalee, who created a university for Tamil. Tamil Bibles, translated from Hebrew and Greek by Brahmins is a veritable treasure to read. The Tamil Christian hymns too richly borrow from Hindu imagery. 


During a visit to India I bought some Tamil texts. "Purananooru" (400 poems on war and life) has a rich set of poems by poet Kapilar. Kapilar's poems dwell on the generosity of King Paari, Paari's death by treachery, Pari's daughter's being destitutes etc. Would I ever read a book that would take those 10+ poems, situate them in historical context, set out the details of their friendship etc without a shred of jingoism or mixing up political ideologies? Not in a 100 lives. So many books could be spun out of that collection of 400 poems yet none that is accessible to lay or even a discerning interested reader is available. If such a collection of poems and such dramatic lives were in English literature some professor would have turned it into a Pulitzer prize winning book. 

What makes a speech great?

I am one of the minority in US who does not think great of Obama's oratory. Obama puts me to sleep. I've attempted to hear his speeches many times and I'd be snoring after 5 minutes. Before people jump at me saying "republican" let state unambiguously that I love to listen to Bill Clinton. If Bill Clinton and Barack Obama spoke about health care reform in 2 rooms I'd go to Bill Clinton's room. While I was mulling on this topic I wondered about how some speeches get to be called "great speeches". As an avid one-time debater and orator I've collected such CD's and read quite a few of the so called "great speeches".

Today every school boy in US knows about Lincoln's famous Gettysburg speech, "a government for the people by the people". A historian, Gary Wills, wrote a Pulitzer awarded book, just dissecting that speech alone. But in its day the speech was not reported prominently. The speech received mixed reception in the press, in fact there are several versions of the speech, Lincoln spoke for just 2 minutes. With the passage of time and with the perspective that time enable us to appreciate of events today the speech is one of the most celebrated. Any speech attains greatness primarily from the significance of the historical background in which it is delivered, secondly from the words chosen in that order. Lincoln's choice of words rose to the occasion and remains great.

Sometimes only a fragment of a speech will attain the status of a classic and would be oft quoted. When US was literally and metaphorically shell shocked after Pearl Harbor FDR gave his famous, "a date that will live in infamy" speech. Only those words remain etched in public memory because they perfectly captured the sentiment of a nation. Amongst the nearly hundred inaugural speeches only one American President's inauguration speech is noted and quoted (rather mis-attributed), "ask not what your country has done for you, ask what you have done for your country". JFK, rather his celebrated speech writer Ted Sorensen, had plagiarized the words of Lebanese-American poet Khalil Gibran and used the words out of context. Khalil Gibran addressed the words to corrupt Lebanese politicians thus "Are you a politician asking what your country can do for you or a zealous one asking what you can do for your country? If you are the first, then you are a parasite; if the second, then you are an oasis in a desert." Its a citizen asking a politician if he had done anything for the country. JFK, a politician, inverted it to ask citizens. Even Obama's ardent admirers felt let down with his inaugural address because in their mind he was inheriting JFK's mantle of orator-politician. 


Winston Churchill was the uber-historian-biographer-orator-politician. It was said that he took the English language to war against Hitler. Amongst his many speeches a couple stand out for some key passages that remain unrivaled in the history of public speaking. The first is his speech delivered to the House of Commons when he took over the reins from Neville Chamberlain delivering the immortal lines, "I've nothing to offer but blood and toil, tears and sweat". Hear him say the word "sweat" (near the minute marker 3:29), that's the bull dog warrior for you.

He is addressing a nation that was in dread. He does not promise anything easy, he lays it out clean and honest. He does not even promise a quick victory. He stated bluntly, "we have before us many, many, many long months of struggle". Faced with an enemy like Hitler Churchill could easily label him evil and say unequivocally, "you ask what is our policy, it is to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the long and lamentable catalogue of human crimes". Note that Hitler's tyrannies for which he will be loathed by the ages were yet to begin and whatever he had done against Jews in Germany was yet not very well known to the outside world. I've often wondered why did Churchill choose to say "never surpassed" instead of just "unsurpassed". If we read the line again then the choice becomes clear, unlike saying 'tyranny unsurpassed' the words 'tyranny never surpassed' has a staccato stabbing effect. He then declares the goal very clearly, 'victory, victory at all costs'. The speech nevertheless finishes with hope, 'come, then let us go forward'. The speech itself could be analyzed for mastery of the art of rhetoric. 


During the course of the war Churchill would deliver many memorable speeches with lines that are now committed to memory by every student of history and literature. The last famous speech he gave was in US. After the war cold war had erupted and Churchill saw it with a clarity that was not apparent to many at that time. At Westminster College, Fulton he delivered what is now referred to as the Iron Curtain speech, "From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an Iron Curtain has descended across the continent" . This speech is famous for the clarity of vision that was stated plainly without befuddling the issue. There is no Obama type "on the one hand and on the other hand" hand wringing. 


While I exult in Churchill's rhetoric I wonder too how come we never speak of Adolf Hitler's speeches. Hitler was known to be a great orator too. Hitler had charisma and a magnetism that did make him a successful politician. Yet by the nature of the evil he unleashed and that he was defeated perhaps has made pass by his oratorical skills. After all history is written by the victors.


All of the above pale into insignificance before Martin Luther King Jr's most famous "I've a dream" speech. (Aug 28th 1963)

A member of the oppressed class came to the capital of a country and flung rhetoric unmatched and shamed a nation's conscience. The speech was not extempore, parts of it had been delivered in earlier speeches. The language, the delivery, the structure and above all the historical significance, even its own day, all came together to create the greatest speech ever delivered in human history. 


Another of MLK's speech is marked out for reasons of sentimentality. The night before he was assassinated in Memphis, TN he delivered a speech that was prophetic. He delivered what is now called, 'I've been to the mountain top speech' . MLK, the preacher, alluded to how Moses died before entering the Promised Land. Moses could only glimpse it from a mountain top before the Lord took him. MLK in words that continue to haunt, said "Like everybody I like to live a long life, longevity has its place but I am not concerned about that now, I just want to do God's will. I don't know what will happen tomorrow,....I've seen the Promised Land, I dont know if I will get there with you but I want you to know that we as a people will get there". Next day MLK, aged 39, was assassinated. In 2009 Barack Obama paid respect to MLK saying that today "the dream of a King comes true". This speech is considered great because of what happened later thus rendering it a dreadfully prophetic speech.

In the vein of rhetoric matching a historical occasion, as an Indian-American, its impossible for me to not mention Jawaharlal Nehru's speech when India was born. Nehru, with his opening lines "Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny" soared effortlessly on scales of polished rhetoric and sentiment.

The lines "we redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure but substantially" alludes to the painful partition that was underway. Nehru is supposed to have told Padmaja Naidu "I was reminded of the images of our beloved Lahore going up in flames". Capturing the essence of the moment were the words, "a nation so long suppressed finds utterance". The speech was supposed to be extempore. Amongst all the speeches cited this is possibly the only extemporaneous speech. The second occasion when Nehru found the words to address the nation at a moment of exceeding tragedy was when he had to announce the death of his beloved Bapu.

Just as MLK's last speech is appreciated because a tragic event made it prophetic and hence lent a certain greatness likewise is Ronald Reagan's most memorable speech exhorting Gorbachev to "tear down this wall". The speech, as the wiki link quotes a Time magazine report says, was little noted in its own day. Yet, today when Communism is buried and the Berlin wall remains as dismantled pieces in museums across the world (and in people's homes too, my aunt who lived in Germany at that time has a piece).

Reagan was famous, or notorious depending on the readers political leaning, for labeling Soviet Russia as "Evil Empire". That moral clarity is brought out in this speech that he delivered in front of the Berlin wall. Reagan, in short simple lines, drew a contrast between the prosperity of the west and decrepit state of all communist states. Prisons and houses both have walls but with a key difference. The walls of a prison are there to prevent people from leaving of their own free will. Communist Russia erected such walls. Jamming radio waves, disallowing foreign broadcasts, severly restricting travels of its citizens and finally a wall to keep them inside. A wall complete with, as Reagan points out, "dog runs, barbed wires".  Suddenly he gets blunt and says in words that are simple yet forceful, "Mr Gorbachev, 'tear down this wall'". Listening to an American President challenge an oppressive regime with moral clarity and with words that are unambiguous the German crowd, waving American flags, erupts into an applause.

Amidst all these speakers where does Obama fit? Nowhere. His most famous speech, possibly the only one he will be remembered for, is the one he delivered in John Kerry's 2004 Democratic Convention. Obama, a partisan ideologue, waxed eloquently about how "there is no red America or a blue America, there is only the United States Of America". His body language and gestures betray a nervous speaker, which he was. The words are trite, given that it was said to a partisan crowd that was there only to applaud he naturally was rewarded with a raucous applause. The one other speech that his admirers might point to is his speech on "Race" that he delivered to defuse the Jeremiah Wright crisis that almost derailed his run for the presidency. I found it to be a pabulum yet his palanquin bearers ranging from Cornel West to the common voter thought it to be scholarly. Krauthammer, as always, differed.

The success of Obama the orator was chiefly possible ONLY because Bush had been President. Barack Obama owes his Presidency, Nobel Prize and his fame as intellectual etc only because there was George W Bush as president for 8 years. As Obama's ratings plummeted, especially during the health care reform, his supporters wondered where was Obama the candidate who could sway thousands. He was, in their view, talking more like a professor, endlessly prevaricating, endlessly hand wringing. It is a frustration that only seems to grow by the day.

 Historical background, latter day events, choice of words, clarity of vision, the indefinable chemistry that a speaker shares with the audience all go into making a speech as a great one for the times to come. Obama fatally falters in articulating a vision even when a historical revolution in Egypt comes across he delivers a speech that was shamefully inarticulate. Words are not a problem for Obama, articulating a vision is.