A.R. Venkatachalapathy on Jayalalitha and Cho: A Dilettante and Partisan Hack as Historian

A.R. Venkatachalapathy calls himself a historian and has succeeded, perhaps, beyond his own fertile imagination, in making others believe in what must have started as charade or an exercise in self-deception. Chalapathy, as he is popularly known, recently wrote obituaries for Jayalalitha and Cho Ramaswamy that are admirably mediocre and should be used to teach generations of students how not to write. Responding to a similar comment I made on Facebook a friend asked, rather challenged, that I explain my reasons for saying so. So here goes. Read further at your own peril.

Quotes from Chalapathy's articles will be in italics followed by comments.

A.R. Venkatachalapathy

Chalapathy the DMK Stooge on Jaya

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/The-AIADMK-after-Amma/article16769047.ece

"In contrast to her mentor M.G.Ramachandran (MGR), who attracted a bevy of talent disillusioned with the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) under M.Karunanidhi, Jayalalithaa shuffled party hierarchy with the quickness of a child bored with her toys"

Chalapathy, alluding to a story of a Greek king, says that Jaya ensured, by actively cutting down anyone capable of attaining a stature, that she left behind "the mediocre and average".

Only a partisan DMK stooge can write such nonsense and in the process pervert history. First, if the 'bevy of talent' were disillusioned with DMK and were looking to desert where is the question of MGR 'attracting' them. MGR's ADMK just became a home for the deserters of DMK. That MGR too mercilessly cut anyone who sought to rise was forgotten by Chalapathy. Also, MGR, despite the 'bevy of talent' he had attracted, sought to promote his yesteryear heroine thus effectively belittling the so called stalwarts is completely lost in the eyes of a hack posing as historian. Sexism, perhaps?

"First among unequals"

Only Chalapathy who is ill at ease with English will turn the phrase "First among equals", a rhetorical flourish that's often used to illustrate how someone outdid his peers of equal standing, to "first among unequals".

Chalapathy refers to Jayalalitha being conferred the title of "permanent general secretary" and contrasts it with DMK's practice of holding elections for the posts of district secretaries. This sleight of hand is unnaturally intelligent of Chalapathy. In the DMK too Karunanidhi has never been challenged for the post of leadership he holds. When was the last time anyone challenged M.K. Stalin's post in an intra-party election? I mean, seriously.

"While her political opponents fumbled to rationalize their decision, Jayalalithaa could switch positions without batting an eyelid"

Annathurai dropped atheism and separatism as a principle in order to contest elections and he did so with little effort. Karunanidhi shamed a circus acrobat in doing somersaults on his political positions including an alliance with the leader of a party whose actions had resulted in his own son being imprisoned. Ramadoss changed alliance partners willy-nilly for every election. Overnight DMK hitched its wagon to BJP when Jaya had pulled the rug from under the Vajpayee government. The Tamil voter and party worker rarely bothers with "rationalization" in a political climate that everyone understands is a naked pursuit of power at all costs and principles or positions can be discarded like used underwear.

"That Jayalalitha belonged to a caste with a numerical minority gave her a liminal position; she could win support across castes and communities"

The author who calls himself a historian deserves a vitriolic tongue lashing for such a stupid statement. The sentence compresses within itself a significant political happening that is torn of a complex context. Jayalalitha, a Brahmin and a woman at that, rose to political prominence in a state that had marginalized, with great hate and genocidal instinct, Brahmins from the portals of power. Jayalalitha courted few dominant middle castes assiduously and thanks to the caste connections of the coterie she surrounded herself with she achieved it. Also, it should be remembered that the DMK did its part in alienating some castes while pandering to few others. By the way what's that silly usage of the word 'liminal'? Maybe Chalapathy was playing scrabble and had learned it the previous night.

"When she divested the respected Ayyaru Vandayar of his ministership within weeks, nobody even noticed"

As one who hails from Tanjore I know a bit of that story. Ayyaru Vandayar, a local rich man and a Congress party member, joined the ADMK and was surprisingly given a seat to contest. Vandayar had no popular base in the town or the party. He was, sadly, a nobody and no wonder nobody took notice when he was unceremoniously ousted from the ministry. Again, the historian stands exposed as nothing more than a partisan hack.

"At this moment the biggest asset is the twin leaves symbol. Any force that wants to inherit Jayalalithaa's mantle would have to retain this goose that has a history of laying golden eggs"

Sigh. A person who is labeled "historian of the Dravidian movement" should be ashamed of writing such shoddy language and abysmal narration of the arc of history. Yes, party symbols are very important and the voters have emotional relationship to symbols. But, that's not the entire story. The symbol was, truth be told, was not a golden egg laying goose. ADMK and DMK alternated in winning elections for many reasons. If defeat and victory alternated with sickening regularity then how can a factor be called a golden egg laying goose. A goose would've better sense of history.

"In the drama that unfolds, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) may not exactly be the Prince of Denmark".

OK. Chalapathy probably read Shakespeare's play as comics or heard 'Hamlet' narrated as bed time story and wanted to stick in the ill fitting metaphor some place to flaunt his language skills. Alas the reader gets the opposite idea.

"Will the AIADMK implode? if yes, when and how? if not, why?

In an oped titled "The AIADMK after Amma" if the author concludes with those questions what can one say? After having wasted words he concludes by saying he's clueless and just leaves  the reader with the questions that were supposed to have been answered by the article.

Misreading and misrepresenting Cho Ramaswamy:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/cho-ramaswamy-articulated-the-anxieties-of-conservative-middle-class-brahmins/articleshow/55915938.cms

"The end came barely a day after Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa's death is coincidental- he had been in and out of hospital for a year now- but perhaps apposite"

What kind of a person opens an obituary by terming a death as 'coincidental', connecting the person with the death of friend a day before, and rubs it in further by calling it "apposite". Moron. So, why does this dilettante calls Cho's death "apposite" for having followed the death of Jayalalithaa? Chalapathy suggests that Cho, seeing the "prominence accorded" to the Sasikala family at the funeral must "have broken his heart". Barbaric. This guy is a shame to anyone who calls himself or herself a historian.

"Cho articulated the elite distrust of democratic politics, especially the Dravidian movement"

Here Chalapathy forgets that Cho had no illusion of himself being elitist and distrust of Dravidian politics was more broad based than it is remembered today. Chalapathy plays a subtle game here by ascribing elitism to Cho because Cho was a Brahmin. This caters to stereotypes and of course a DMK stooge would gladly traffic in such rubbish.

"Cho demonstrated little awareness of the modern theater in, say, Kannada, Marathi, Bengali, or Hindi"

Cho staged, as Chalapathy himself says, amateur stage drama. He was not a playwright in the literary sense. That Cho staged a Tamil version of Pygmalion does not make him a Bernard Shaw and there's no evidence that Cho "fancied himself to be a Bernard Shaw". Cho, if anything, had no pretensions about such things. He had enough self awareness to know that he was nowhere near Shaw. But I guess to a guy who hallucinates he's a "historian of the Dravidian movement" and worships the Dravidian party leaders who share his zeal for hallucinations about their literary genius it is natural to think others might be so too.

"A conference in Salem against superstition where tableaus depicted scenes from the Hindu puranas"

Chalapathy is referring to E.V.Ramasamy led conference that controversially featured not just "tableaus" depicting "scenes from the Hindus puranas" but carried portrait of Lord Rama garlanded with slippers. (Though this account is now disputed it is doesn't mean that the Hindu gods and mythic lore were referred in any laudatory manner). EVR and DK in the name of countering superstition aimed vulgar barbs at Hinduism and it was never their practice to be honorable. But the partisan hack tries to pull the wool over the eyes of the reader. Historian. My foot.

Seeking to present the reader with a list of Cho's spectrum of reactionary ideologies Chalapathy in ill contracted paragraphs pummels the reader.

Chalapathy chides Cho for lacking C.Rajagopalachari's "refinement and wider vision" when writing about "Hindu view of life" and retelling the Mahabharata". Jeyakanthan, who certainly knows literature far better than Chalapathy ever would, once ridiculed how Rajaji was being promoted as a litterateur. Brahmins miffed at the Dravidian party presenting charlatans like Annathurai and Karunanidhi promoted Kalki and Rajaji who shone by contrast and not by absolute value.

"Thuglaq articulated the anxieties and insecurity of conservative, middle-class Brahmins threatened by the new political culture and turned them into reactionaries"

It is laughable to suggest that it was Cho's rag sheet that turned a famously fossilized community into reactionaries. The Dravidian movement's biggest complaint that Brahmins were reactionaries. Brahmins needed no encouragement to become reactionaries. While Cho's magazine, especially after the ascendancy of BJP in the 90s, pandered to the reactionary sections of the Brahmin community it spoke to little else that caused their 'anxieties' or 'insecurities' in a political climate that was avowedly inimical towards them.

"He delighted with sharp and convenient quotes in English, endearing himself to Delhi journalists already biased against the inscrutable Dravidian politics"

There was nothing inscrutable about Dravidian politics and to ascribe the animosity of North Indian journalists to that is silly and, yet again, illustrates the shallowness of Chalapathy. Dravidian politics espoused militant separatism and strident opposition to the concentration of political power in the cow belt of North India. There was no love lost between the North Indian power centers and Dravidian politicians. Incidentally Chalapathy's idol Annathurai was a member of parliament and spoke English pretty well. It was not lack of speakers in English that contributed to or created the gulf between Delhi journalists and Dravidian politicians.

"Despite being an extraordinarily intelligent man, Cho never indulged in sustained argument, his aim being to flatter or stoke prejudice rather than change minds"

If Cho "never indulged in sustained argument" how did Chalapathy arrive at the conclusion that Cho was an "extraordinarily intelligent man"? Personal knowledge, perhaps? Lacking factual basis Chalapathy decorates his unsubstantiated claim with conjecturing of Cho's motives.

Chalapathy's article about Jayakanthan is another one that illustrates his lack of credentials as a writer and historian. Just a couple of examples below.

"Dandapani Jayakanthan, 71, was pushing forty when he received the Sahitya Akademi award"

Jeyakanthan was 38 when he received the award. "Pushing forty" is an uncouth phrasing to refer to a highly respected literary writer in an article that was to celebrate his winning the highest accolade in Indian literature.

"Once even took on Periyar E.V. Ramasamy who smilingly acknowledged the young man's diatribe"

The 'diatribe' that Chalapathy refers here is a speech by Jeyakanthan delivered to rebut what E.V. Ramasamy had earlier spoken of as duties of a Tamil writer. The speech, reproduced in Jeyakanthan's memoirs, is extremely respectful and is artful rebuttal of a writer. To characterize that speech as 'diatribe' only shows that the author has no felicity with choosing words or simply doesn't know what words mean.

Many would call the above as nitpicking but we've to remember that this is a man who is now invited by UC Berkley and interviewed by New York Times as 'historian'. To them, I guess, this is best that can come out of Tamil Nadu today and they're happy to use him as the face of Tamil Nadu. It is extremely unfortunate that a man who is unworthy of either being called a writer or a historian is often referred as one such. If by writer we mean one who uses words and if by historian we mean one who writes about the past, as in about yesterday, then yes Chalapathy is a writer and a historian.

Having written this I glance at my bookshelf that has books by Barbara Tuchman, Bernard Bailyn, Gordon Wood, Richard Hofstadter, Romila Thapar and others and I let out a sigh. Maybe I should send Chalapathy a list of books he could start reading before he wrote again. A good dictionary and some classes in English literature may do him so good too. 

இறப்புகளும் அஞ்சலிகளும்: ஓரு விளக்கம். அண்ணாதுரைப் பற்றி ஜெயகாந்தனின் இரங்கல் உரை

ஜெயகாந்தன் இறந்ததாகச் செய்தி வந்தவுடன் நண்பரொருவர் "ஜெயகாந்தன் போயாச்சாம். இந்தியாவில் யாருக்கும் அஞ்சலி எழுதத் தெரியாது என்று ஆரம்பித்து ஒருவர் எழுதுவார்" என்றார். என்னைத் தான் சொன்னர். இன்னொரு நண்பர் சமீபத்தில் தான் இறக்க நேர்ந்தால் யார் யார் என்னவெல்லாம் எழுதுவார்கள் என்று எழுதினார்: "அரவிந்தன், இந்தியர்களுக்கு அஞ்சலி எழுதத் தெரியவில்லை என்பார்". 

இந்தியாவில் எழுதப்படும் அஞ்சலிக் குறிப்புகள் குறித்த ஆதங்கம் பிரசித்தம். கூடவே சிலரின் மரணத்தை ஒட்டி நான் எழுதிய குறிப்புகள் சில நண்பர்களை முகச் சுளிப்புக்கும் ஆளாகியிருக்கிறது. 

நண்பர் சுரேஷ் கண்ணன் மிகவும் ஆதங்கத்தோடு 'அறிவு ஜீவிகள்' ஒருவரின் இறப்பைக் குறித்து எழுதும் தருணத்தில் தங்கள் மேதா விலாசத்தை நிலை நாட்டவும் கறார் தன்மையை வெளிப்படுத்தவும் பாமரர்கள் செய்யத் தயங்கும் அநாகரீகத்தைச் செய்கிறார்கள் என்று எழுதினார். 

அக்குறிப்புப் பொதுவில் எழுதியது என்று அவர் சொன்னாலும் இக்கேள்விகள் என்னை நோக்கி வேறு சிலராலும், நண்பர்கள் உட்பட, கேட்கப்பட்டதாலும் இது போன்ற சர்ச்சைகளில் வலுவில் ஆஜராகும் என் குணத்திற்கேற்ப இதோ என் பதில். 

"ஏன் சங்கடமான வரலாற்றைச் சொல்ல வேண்டும்" 

எம்.எஸ்.சுப்புலட்சுமி பற்றிய புத்தகத்திற்கு அறிமுகம் எழுதிய ஜெயமோகன் அதில் எம்.எஸ்.சின் பூர்வீகம் குறித்து எழுதி விட்டார். பிடித்தது சனி அவருக்கு. சரமாரியாக மின்னஞ்சல்கள் தாக்கின. "ஏன் அவரின் தனிப்பட்ட வாழ்க்கைப் பற்றி எழுத வேண்டும்", "கலையை ரசித்தால் போதாதா? இந்த விவரமெல்லாம் யாருக்கு வேண்டும்?" அவரும் அசராமல் "ஏன் சங்கடமான வரலாற்றைச் சொல்ல வேண்டும்" என்று தலைப்பிட்டு எழுதினார் (http://www.jeyamohan.in/36561#.WEi7Lzvijoo) 

"நாம் இன்னும் நம்முடைய பழங்குடி-நிலப்பிரபுத்துவ மனைலைகளிலேயெ இருக்கிறோம்"."காமராஜ் பற்றியோ அண்ணாத்துரை பற்றியோ ஒரு உண்மையான வரலாறு இங்கு எழுதப்படவில்லை. நம்முடைய பழங்குடி மனநிலை எழுதவும் விடாது". 

எம்.எஸ்.சின் பாடலை ரசிப்பதற்கு அவரின் தனி வாழ்க்கையின் உண்மைகள் தெரிய வேண்டியதில்லை. ஆனால் எம்.எஸ் எனும் கலைஞரைப் பற்றி எழுதும் போது அவர் வாழ்க்கையின் எல்லாக் கூறுகளும் அதன் பண்பாட்டு பின்புலமும் அவசியமாகிறது. பீத்தோவானின் ஒன்பதாவது ஸிம்பொனி பற்றி முழுவதுமாகப் புரிந்து கொள்ளக் கொஞ்சமாவது நெப்போலியின் பற்றியும் ஐரோப்பிய வரலாறுப் பற்றியும் தெரிந்திருக்க வேண்டும் என்பதை மேற்கத்திய ரசிகனும் மறுக்க மாட்டான். தியாகைய்யரின் 'நிதி சால சுகமா' எனும் பாடலை வரலாற்றுணர்வே இல்லாதுத் தலையாட்டி ரசிக்கும் கும்பல் நம்மவர்கள். 

மொஸார்த் பற்றி ஒரு புனைவு நாடகத்தைக் கொண்டு இயற்றப்பட்ட 'அமடேயஸ்' படத்தில் மொஸார் ஓரிடத்தில் தன்னைப் பற்றிச் சொல்வார்: 'நான் விரசமானவன் ஆனால் என் இசை விரசமானதல்ல' ('I'm a vulgar man your majesty but I assure you my music is not'). ஸால்ஸ்பர்க் நகரிலுள்ள மொஸார்த் அருங்காட்சியகத்தில் நான் அதை உண்மையாக்கும் ஓரு காட்சிப் பொருளைப் பார்த்தேன். 

மொஸார்த் இலக்கை நோக்கிக் குறிப் பார்த்து சுடும் விளையாட்டில் நாட்டம் உள்ளவர். பொதுவாக இலக்காக ஒரு வட்டத்தை வரைந்து வைப்பார்கள் ஆனால் மொஸார்த் தன் தந்தைக்குக் கடிதம் எழுதிப் புது மாதிரியான இலக்கு அடையாளம் செய்யச் சொன்னார். ஒரு ஆண் குனிந்து கொண்டு தன் ஆடையைக் கீழிறக்கிப் பிருஷ்டத்தைத் தூக்கிக் காண்பிப்பது போல் ஓர் ஓவியம் வரைந்து அனுப்புமாறு சொல்லியிருந்தார். அக்கடிதமும் அந்த ஓவியமும் அங்கே இருந்தன. 

அமெரிக்காவின் தந்தையருள் ஒருவரான தாமஸ் ஜெபர்ஸன் தன் கறுப்பு அடிமைப் பெண் ஒருவர் மூலம் குழந்தைப் பெற்றுக் கொண்டார் என்று ஆராய்ந்துச் சொன்னவரின் புத்தகம் மிக உயரியப் பரிசான புலிட்சரை வென்றது. நம்மூரிலோ நேரு எட்வினாவுக்கு எழுதிய கடிந்தங்கள் சோனியாவின் கட்டை விரலுக்குக் கீழே. அண்ணாதுரைப் பற்றி அறிய வேண்டுமென்றால் கண்ணதாசன் கிசு கிசு பாணியில் எழுதிய "வனவாசம்" தான் வரலாற்று ஆவணம். 

ழான் பால் ஸர்த்தரின் பாலியல் வன்முறைகள் இன்று வெளிப்படையான செய்தி. ஆனால் ஜெயகாந்தனுக்கு இரண்டு மனைவியர் என்பதே நம்மவரில் பலருக்குத் தெரியாது. அவர் இறந்த போது வந்த அஞ்சலிக் குறிப்புகளைப் பாருங்கள் பலர் அதைக் குறிப்பிடவேயில்லை. அவரே ஒப்புக் கொண்ட விஷயம் அது. 

சங்கடமான வரலாறு என்றால் அது படுக்கயறை சமாச்சாரம் மட்டுமல்ல. வி.எஸ்.நைபால் தன் வாழ்க்கை வரலாறை எழுத பாட்ரிக் பிரெஞ்ச் என்பவரைத் தேர்ந்தெடுத்தார். பிரெஞ்ச் பிரபலமான எழுத்தாளர். பிரெஞ்ச் விதித்த நிபந்தனை தனக்கு முழுச் சுதந்திரம் அளிக்கப் பட வேண்டுமென்பதே. நைபால் அவர் மனைவிகளை நடத்திய விதம் முதல் அவர் மற்றவர்களோடு கொண்ட சண்டைச் சச்சரவுகளை வெளிப்படையாக எழுதினார் பிரெஞ்ச். நைபால் எனும் கலைஞனைப் பற்றிய மிக முக்கியமான வரலாற்று ஆவனமாக அப்புத்தகம் என்றும் இருக்கும். இப்படி யாராவது ஜெயமோகனுக்கு எழுதினால் சுவையாக இருக்கலாம். 

ஜெயகாந்தனைப் பற்றிய ரவி சுப்பிரமனியத்தின் ஆவனம் மிகச் சாதாரணமான ஒன்று. அதில் இருந்த ஒரே வெளிப்படையான உண்மை அவர் மது அருந்தும் காட்சிகள் தான். ஜெயகாந்தனின் கதைகளைத் திறம்பட ஆய்வு செய்த ஒருவரோ, அவர் கருத்துகளை மறுத்த எவருமோ அதில் இடம் பெறவில்லை. ஆனால் மிக அதிகம் பேரால் பாராட்டப் பட்ட ஆவணம் அது. 

லிண்டன் ஜான்ஸன் பற்றிய வரலாற்றில் ராபர்ட் கேரோ ஜான்ஸன் செனட் தேர்தலில் கோல்மால் செய்ததை ஆதாரத்துடன் வெளிக் கொணர்ந்தார். அது முக்கியமா என்றால்? அம்முடிவு வாசகனும் எதிர்காலச் சந்ததியினரும் எடுக்க வேண்டியது. ஆய்வாளனின் வேலை ஆதாரத்தை வெளியிடுவது தான். 

எம்.எஸ் எப்படித் தன்னைப் பிராமணராகச் சதாசிவத்தின் உதவியோடு மாறினார் என்பது தமிழ் சமூகம் மற்றும் கர்நாடக இசையுலகின் பல பரிமாணங்களைச் சொல்லும் சரித்திரம். அதை வெளிப்படையாகப் பேசுதல் அவசியம். 

ஜெயமோகனும் ஜெயகாந்தனும் அரசியல் அமைப்புகளில் இருந்தவர்கள் மேலும் அதைப் பற்றி வெளிப்படையாக எழுதியவர்களும் கூட. அவர்களின் அரசியல் பங்களிப்பு அவர்களின் படைப்புகளில் சிலவற்றை முழுமையாகப் புரிந்து கொள்ள அவசியம். 

ஆலன் கம்மிங் எனும் நடிகர் எழுதிய சுய சரிதையில் அவர் தந்தையினால் பட்டத் துன்பங்களை விவரித்திருப்பார். அவர் தந்தையின் வன்முறைகளில் இருந்து தற்காத்துக் கொள்ள அவர் கைக்கொண்ட உத்திகள் அவரை நடிகராக்கியது என்றார். அவர் வெளிப்படையாக இரு பாலின உறவுக்காரர் (bi-sexual).நம் நடிகர்களிடம் இந்த வெளிப்படையை எதிர்ப்பார்க்கவே முடியாது. 

சரி வரலாறாக எழுதுவதெல்லாம் வேறு ஒருவர் இறக்கும் தருவாயில் அப்போதே இரங்கல் குறிப்பில் குறைகளைச் சேர்த்துச் சொல்ல வேண்டுமா? 

நீத்தார் பற்றிக் குறைச் சொல்லலாமா? 

நீத்தார் நினைவு போற்றுதல், இந்திய மரபு மட்டுமல்ல, உலக மரபும் கூட. லத்தீன் மொழி சொலவடை ஒன்று, "இறந்தவர் பற்றி நல்லவை மட்டுமே" என்பது (' De mortuis nihil nisi bonum' - of the dead, nothing unless good). ஆனால் இதற்கு விதி விலக்கு பொது வாழ்வில் இருப்பவர்கள். ஏன்? 

தமிழ் நாட்டில் அரை நூற்றாண்டைக் கடந்தும் சர்ச்சையைக் கிளப்புவது அண்ணாதுரை அவர்களுக்காகக் கூட்டப்பட்ட இரங்கல் கூட்டத்தில் ஜெயகாந்தன் பேசியது. அண்ணாதுரையின் மரணத்துக்கு வந்த கூட்டம் கின்னஸ் சாதனைப் படைத்தது. அன்று அண்ணாதுரை தமிழகத்தை வியாபித்திருந்த விஸ்வரூபம். அவரும் ஜெயலலிதாப் போன்றே நோய் வாய்ப்பட்டு, அதுவும் அக்காலத்தில் யாரும் கேட்டாலே பயப்படும் புற்று நோய், கடும் போராட்டத்திற்குப் பிறகு இறந்திருந்தார். ஜெயகாந்தனின் உரையில் இருந்த தீக்கங்கு போன்ற சில வரிகள் இன்று பிரசித்தம்: 'அவரை அறிஞர் என்று மூடர்களும், பேரறிஞர் என்று பெரு மூடர்களுமே அழைக்கலாயினர்'. 'அவர் எழுதிய குப்பைப் புத்தகங்களெல்லாம் அவரது மரணத்தை எருவாகக் கொண்டு குருக்கத்திப் பூக்களாக மலர்ந்து விடப் போவதில்லை'. 

ஜெயகாந்தனின் உரை ஒரு கொந்தளிப்பான சூழலில் உணர்ச்சி வயப்பட்ட ஒரு கூட்டத்தை மிகவும் மென்மையாக அதன் உணர்ச்சியை மடை மாற்றி அறிவுத் தளம் நோக்கிப் பேசத் தொடங்குகிறது.

           "இங்கே வந்திருக்கிற நீங்கள் அண்ணாதுரையின் மரணத்துக்குக் கூடிய கும்பலை ஒத்தவர்கள் அல்லர். நீங்கள் அங்கேயும் போயிருந்திருக்கலாம். எனினும், அந்தக் கும்பலில் நீங்கள் கரைந்து விடவில்லை. எனவேதான், நீங்கள் இந்தக் கூட்டத்துக்கு வந்திருக்கிறீர்கள். கும்பல் என்பது கூடிக் கலைவது; கூட்டம் என்பது கூடி வாழ்வது. கும்பல் என்பது கூடி அழிப்பது, கூட்டம் என்பது கூடி உருவாக்குவது. வன்முறையையும் காலித்தனத்தையும் கும்பல் கைக்கொள்ளும்; ஆனால், சந்திக்காது. கூட்டம் என்பது அடக்குமுறையையும், சர்வாதிகாரத்தையும் நெஞ்சுறுதியோடு சாத்வீகத்தாலும், சத்யாக்கிரகத்தாலும் சந்திக்கும்.

             அண்ணாதுரையின் மரணத்துக்குக் கூடிய அந்தக் கும்பல் எவ்வளவு பெரிது எனினும் இந்தக் கூட்டம் அதனினும் வலிது. கலைகின்ற கும்பல் கரைந்த பிறகு அந்தக் கும்பலில் பங்கு கொண்ட, அந்தக் கும்பலால் பாதிக்கப்பட்ட மனிதர்களை ஒரு கூட்டமாகச் சந்திப்பதற்கு நான் இங்கு அழைக்கிறேன். இது எனது தனித்த குரலே ஆயினும் இது காலத்தின் குரல் என்பதனைக் கண்டு கொள்ளுங்கள். இந்தக் குரலுக்கு வந்து கூடுகின்ற இந்தக் கூட்டம், பதட்டமில்லாதது; நாகரிக மரபுகள் அறிந்தது; சிந்தனைத் தெளிவுடையது. இதற்கு ஒரு நோக்கமும், இலக்கும், குறியும், நெறியும், நிதானமும் உண்டு"

அந்தச் சில வரிகளை நினைவுக் கூறும் பலரும் ஜெயகாந்தன் ஏன் அப்படிப் பேசினார் என்று யோசிப்பதே இல்லை. அதற்கான பதில் ஜெயகாந்தனின் "ஓர் இலக்கியவாதியின் அரசியல் அனுபவங்கள்" புத்தகத்தில் உள்ளது (இதை பதிவேற்றம் செய்து புண்ணியம் கட்டிக் கொண்டவர்கள் 'இட்லிவடை' எனும் தளம். சுட்டி இங்கே http://idlyvadai.blogspot.com/2009/09/blog-post_2410.html).

               "ஒரு கட்சியைச் சேர்ந்த தலைவரின் மரணம் குறித்து பிற கட்சிக்காரர்களும், மக்களும் தெரிவிக்க வேண்டிய அனுதாபம் ஒரு சமூக நாகரிகமேயாகும். ஆனால், அண்ணாதுரை விஷயத்தில் அது ஒரு சமூக அநாகரிகமாக மாறி, எனது உணர்ச்சிகளை வெகுவாகப் பாதித்திருந்தது." 

              "இறந்துபோன ஒருவரைப் பற்றி அவர் நமது எதிரியாக இருந்தாலும் நாலு வார்த்தை நல்லதாகச் சொல்ல வேண்டும் என்பதை நானும் ஏற்றுக் கொள்கிறேன். ஆனால் அரசியல் நோக்கம் கருதி வரப்போகும் தேர்தலை மனத்துள் கொண்டு தமிழகத்தில் ஒரு மாயையை உருவாக்குகிற மாரீசத்தனத்தைத் தி.மு.க. தொடர்ந்து செய்வதற்கு அண்ணாதுரையின் பிணத்தையும், அந்தச் சமாதியையும் பயன்படுத்துவதை, பயன்படுத்தப் போவதை அனுமதிப்பது நாகரிகமும் அல்ல; நல்லதும் அல்ல. சமூக ரீதியாக, கலாசார ரீதியாக, அரசியல் ரீதியாக அண்ணாதுரை இருந்தாலும் எனக்கு எதிரிதான்; இறந்தாலும் எனக்கு எதிரிதான். தனிப்பட்ட முறையில் அவர் எனக்கு எதிரியும் அல்ல; நண்பரும் அல்ல. அவரைப் பற்றிய எனது முடிவுகளை ஒரு தனிமனிதனின் மரணத்தின் பொருட்டு நான் கைவிட முடியாது."

ஓரு மரணம், அதுவும் பொது வாழ்வில் இருப்பவரது மரணம் என்பது நாம் அவர் பற்றிய எண்ணங்களைத் தொகுத்துக் கொள்ளும் ஓரு முக்கியமான வாய்ப்பு (இதை ஜெயமோகன் எழுதியதாக நினைவு). 

இந்தியாவில் பத்திரிக்கைத் துறை இன்றும் குழந்தைப் பருவத்தில் தான் இருக்கிறது. பத்திரிக்கையியலே அங்கு இன்னும் வளரவில்லை. இது ஆங்கிலப் பத்திரிக்கைகளுக்கும் பொருந்தும். அஞ்சலிக் குறிப்பு எழுதுவது என்பது ஒரு கலை. 

அஞ்சலிக் குறிப்பு ஒருவரைப் பற்றி முழுமையான சித்திரத்தை அளிக்க வேண்டும். முழுமையான சித்திரம் என்றால் நல்லது, கெட்டது இரண்டும் சேர்த்து தான். ரேகன் இறந்த போது நியூ யார்க் டைம்ஸ் வெளியிட்ட அஞ்சலிக் குறிப்பில் அவர் ஆட்சிக் காலத்தின் முக்கியத்துவம், அது பற்றிய எதிர் கருத்துகளின் குறிப்பு, ஆட்சியில் நடந்த முக்கியமான சர்ச்சைகள், அவர் வாழ்வின் சித்திரம் என்று வாசகனுக்கு ஒரு வரைப்படத்தைக் கொடுத்தது. 

தங்கள் முன்னாள் பதிப்பாளரான காத்ரீன் கிரஹாம் இறந்த போது வாஷிங்டன் போஸ்ட் அவரின் மன வாழ்க்கை அவர் கனவரின், அப்போதைய பதிப்பாளரின் தந்தை, மன நலமின்மை ஆகியனக் குறித்து அஞ்சலிக் குறிப்பில் எழுதியது. 

நடிகர் பிலிப் சீமோர் ஹாஃப்மென் போதையினால் இறந்த போது அது அஞ்சலிக் குறிப்பில் இடம் பெற்றதோடு அவர் மரணத்தை முன்னிட்டுப் பலரும் போதைப் பழக்கம் குறித்து விழிப்புணர்வுடன் பேசினர். 

நடிகர் ராபின் வில்லியம்ஸ் மன உளைச்சலினால் உந்தப் பட்டு தற்கொலைச் செய்து கொண்ட போது அதுவும் வெளிப்படையாக ஒரு விழிப்புணர்வுக்கான தருணமாகப் பேசப்பட்டது. 

நாளை பில் கிளிண்டன் இறந்தால் அவர் சாதனைகளோடு அவரின் சறுக்கல்களும் பேசப்படும். கிளிண்டன் சுய சரிதை எழுத முற்பட்ட போது அவர் பதிப்பாளர் கிளிண்டன் வெளிப்படையாக மோனிகா லுவின்ஸ்கி பற்றி எழுதத் தயாரா என்று கேட்டுக் கொண்ட பிறகே பதிப்பிக்க ஒப்புக் கொண்டனர். கிளிண்டனும் அவ்விவகாரத்தைப் பற்றிக் குறைந்த பட்ச நேர்மையோடவே எழுதினார். 

நம்மவர்களுக்குக் கண் மூடித்தனமான பக்திக்கும் கண் மூடித்தனமான வெறுப்புக்குமிடையே எந்த இடை நிலையும் தெரியாது. அது தான் பெரும் சிக்கல். மேலும் ஒரு வாழ்வை மதிப்பிட நமக்கு அடிப்படையிலேயே மதிப்பிடல் பற்றி ஆரோக்கியமான ஈடுபாடும் அதற்கான் அறிவு முதிர்ச்சியும் தேவை. 

ஏன் மதிப்பிட வேண்டும்: 

தர வரிசைகள் சம்பந்தப்பட்ட விவாதங்களை ஜெயமோகன் அளவுக்கு முன்னெடுத்தவர்கள் மிகச் சிலரே. "ஏன் ஒப்பீடு செய்ய வேண்டும்? ஒவ்வொன்றையும் தனித் தனியாக அனுபவித்துப் போகலாமே", "ஏன் தர வரிசை? அதைச் சொல்ல நீ யார்" என்பன போன்ற கேள்விகளைக் கேட்டுக் கேட்டு என் காது புளித்துப் போய் விட்டது. 

ஒரு விடுதியில் உணவு உண்பதற்குக் கூட நாம் ஒப்பீடு செய்து தர வரிசைப் படுத்தித் தான் செய்கிறோம். ஆனால் இசையுலகில் இளையராஜாவின் இடம் 1970-1990 தமிழ் திரையிசையைத் தாண்டாது என்றால் மேற்சொன்ன கேள்விக் கணைகள் வரும். இதில் பிரச்சினைத் தரப்படுத்தல் அல்ல. பெரும்பான்மையோர் ஒப்புக் கொண்ட தர வரிசைக்கெதிரான கருத்தை முன் வைப்பதே. இளையராஜாவைக் கொண்டாடும் பலர் தேவாவையோ, அம்சலேகாவையோ கொண்டாடுவதில்லை. அவர்கள் அறிவுக்கு எட்டிய வரையில் ராஜாவே ராஜா. அதை மறுத்து விவாதங்களின் அடிப்படையில் ராஜாவின் இடம் வேறு என்று சுட்டும் போது தன் தரப்பு வாதங்களைத் தொகுக்கத் தெரியாதவர்கள் தான் "என்னமோப்பா எனக்கு இவரைத் தான் பிடித்திருக்கிறது. நீ சொல்வதை நான் ஏன் ஏற்க வேண்டும்?" என்றெல்லாம் சொல்லிவிட்டுக் கடைசியில் இந்தியர்களுக்கே உரித்தான சால்ஜாப்புகளை அடுக்குவார்கள்: "எங்கள் ஊருக்கு இதுவே அதிகம்", "இங்கேயிருக்கும் வசதி வாய்ப்பு..." 

நாம் ஓட்டும் வாகனம், போடும் துணி, உணவு, சுற்றுலாச் செல்லும் இடம், மணம் புரியும் பெண்/ஆண், கட்டும் வீடு, வாங்கும் பொருட்கள் எல்லாவற்றிலும் தரமும் மதிப்பும் பார்க்கும் நாம் ஏன் கலை என்று வந்துவிட்டால் மட்டும் தர வரிசையைக் கண்டும் மதிப்பிடல்களைக் கண்டும் இப்படி மிரள்கிறோம், இகழ்கிறோம்? ஏனெனில் நமக்குக் கார் வாங்குவதற்கான மதிப்பிடும் அளவுக்கோல்கள் எளியது, அதைப் புரிந்து கொள்ள எளிய அறிவே போதும். ஆனால் பாலகுமாரனா அசோகமித்திரனா, அசோகமித்திரனா மிலன் குந்தேராவா, ராஜாவா ஜான் வில்லியம்ஸா என்றால் இந்தியக் கல்வி முறையின் பற்றாக்குறையால் விக்கித்து நின்று அசட்டு வாதங்களை வீசுவோர் தான் அதிகம். 

பாலு மகேந்திரா, ஜெயலலிதா மற்றும் சோ பற்றிய குறிப்புகள்: 

ஜெயலலிதா இறந்த போது வந்து விழுந்த அஞ்சலிக் குறிப்புகள் பல அருவருக்கத்தக்கவை. ஒரு பெண்ணாக ஆணாதிக்கச் சமூகத்தில் அதுவும் பெண்களைப் போகப் பொருளாக மட்டுமே பார்க்கத் தெரிந்த திராவிட இயக்க கழிசடைகளின் இடையே வென்றார் என்பதே மீண்டும், மீண்டும் பேசப் பட்டது. போதாக் குறைக்கு "இரும்பு மனுஷி" என்ற அடைமொழி அல்லோல கல்லோலப்பட்டது. சிலர் தங்கள் தனி வாழ்வில் அவர்களிடம் ஜெயலலிதா காட்டிய கருணைகளைக் கண்ணீர் மல்க எழுதினர். 

ஜெயலலிதா என்பவர் கடந்த 30 ஆண்டுகள் தமிழ் நாட்டின் இரு பெரும் அரசியல் ஆளூமைகளுள் ஒருவர். ஆறு முறை முதல்வரானவர். கிட்டத்தட்ட 15 ஆண்டுகள் ஆட்சி செய்தவர். அவர் ஆட்சிக் காலத்தில் நடந்தேறிய அவலங்கள் பற்பல. அவர் ஆட்சியில் அவர் கட்சியினர் செய்த அராஜகங்கள் அநேகம். ஜெயலலிதாவின் போராட்ட குணம், தைரியம் பற்றிச் சிலாகிக்கும் பலர் அவரின் குணக் கேடுகள் பற்றிச் சிறிதாவது எழுதியிருக்கலாம். அரசாங்க அலுவலகத்துக்காகக் கட்டப்பட்ட கட்டிடத்தை மருத்துவமனையாக மாற்றியது எதேச்சாதிகாரம். இன்னொருவர் கட்டினார் என்பதற்காகவே ஒரு நூலகத்தைச் சீரழித்தார். எடுத்தேன் கவிழ்த்தேன் என்று அவர் செய்தவை ஏராளம். தலை நகரமே வெள்ளத்தில் தத்தளித்த போது நிர்வாகத்தின் நிழற் தடம் கூடத் தெரியவில்லையே. 

ஜெயலலிதாவின் தனி வாழ்க்கையில் எத்தனையோ வெளிப்படையாகத் தெரியாத பக்கங்களுண்டு அவை பற்றி அவதூறுகளும் உண்டு. அதையெல்லாம் அஞ்சலிக் குறிப்பில் எழுதத் தேவையில்லை எழுதவும் கூடாது. ஆனால் நான் மேற்சொன்னவை அவர் ஆட்சி செய்த விதம் பற்றி. அவர் நீண்ட நாட்கள் நோய்வாய்ப்பட்டுப் பல மர்மங்கள் விலகாமலே இறந்தது சோகமே ஆனால் இன்றும் சந்திரலேகாவின் முகம் பழைய மாதிரி ஆக முடியாதே? இன்றும் விஜயன் பீடு நடைப் போட முடியாதே? 

சோவை ஏதோ அரசியல் சாணக்கியர் என்ற ரேஞ்சில் எழுதுகிறார்கள். அவர் ஏதோ மாற்று வலது சாரி அரசியலை முன் வைத்ததாகவும் சொல்கிறார்கள். அதற்குத் தான் நான் அவரை வில்லியம் எஃ பக்லி (William F. Buckley) போன்றோரோடு ஒப்பிட இயலாதென்றேன். 

50-ஆண்டுக் கால இடது சாரி அரசியலுக்கு எதிராக 70-களில் அமெரிக்காவில் பெரும் வலது சாரி எழுச்சி நடந்தது. அது ஒரு பெரும் அறிவியக்கம். அவ்வியக்கத்தின் முன்னத்தி ஏர் பக்லி. இதைச் சொன்னதற்கு ஒரு நண்பர் இந்தியாவில் சோ எழுத ஆரம்பித்த காலத்தில் விக்கிப்பீடியா இல்லை, வசதிகள் இல்லை என்று சால்ஜாப்புப் பல்லவிப் படித்தார். நியாயமாரே கன்னிமரா நூலகதினுள் சோ நுழைந்தாவது பார்த்திருப்பாரா? நாடாளுமன்ற உருப்பினராக இருந்தாரே தில்லியின் நூலகங்களுக்குச் சென்று கொஞ்சமாவது படித்தாரா? நான் அவருக்குச் சொன்னேன் "நம்மூரில் ஜெய்சங்கரை 'தென்னகத்து ஜேம்ஸ் பாண்ட்' என்பார்கள் அது போல் நீங்கள் சோ தென்னகத்து பக்லி என்கிறீர்கள்". அண்ணாதுரையைக் கல்கி "தென்னகத்துப் பெர்னார்ட் ஷா" என்றதை ஜெயகாந்தன் "தமிழர்களே உங்கள் தகுதிக்கு இவர் தான் பெர்னார்ட் ஷா என்பது தான் அதன் உண்மையான அர்த்தம்" என்றார். 

சோ கருத்துரிமைக்குப் போராடினார் என்று தழுதழுக்கிறார்கள். ஒரு பத்திரிக்கையாளர் அதைக் கூடச் செய்யவில்லையென்றால் அவர் பேசாமல் வேறு தொழிலுக்குச் சென்றிருக்கலாம். இவ்வளவும் பேசுகிறவர்கள் அவர் கடந்த 20 ஆண்டுகளாக ஜெயலலிதாவின் ஆலோசகராக ஒரு அரசியல் புரோக்கராகச் செயல்பட்டார் என்பதை மழுப்புகிறார்கள். கேவலம் ஒரு அரசு சாராய விற்பனைப் பிரிவுக்கும் தலைமை வகித்தார் ஜெயலலிதா கேட்டுக் கொண்டதால். இதையெல்லாம் சுட்டிக் காட்டி எழுதினால் "பாமரர்கள் கூடச் செய்யத் தயங்கும் அநாகரீகம்" என்கிறார்கள். 

ஆமாம் அது தான் பாமரனுக்கும் எனக்கும் உள்ள வித்தியாசம். ஜெயலலிதாவின் பிணத்தின் முன் தலையிலும் வயிற்றிலும் அடித்துக் கொண்டு அழும் பாமரனுக்கும் ஃபேஸ்புக்கில் ஜெயலலிதா 'இரும்பு மனுஷி', 'எனக்கு டீ போட்டுக் கொடுத்தார்' என்று எழுதுவதற்கும் வித்தியாசமில்லை. 

தரம் பிரித்து மரியாதைக் கொடுக்கத் தெரியாதவன் எல்லாவற்றையும் ஒரே மாதிரி மதிப்பதாக எண்ணிக் கொள்வது கட்டாயமாகப் பாமரத் தனமான எண்ணம் தான். அவன் செய்வதெல்லாம் எல்லாவற்றையும் ஒரு சேர அவமதிப்பது தான். 

பாலு மகேந்திரா இறந்த போது அவரைக் 'காமிரா கவிஞர்' என்று கொண்டாடியர்வர்கள் தான் அநேகம் பேர். ஆனால் பாலு மகேந்திரா சகஜமாக ஹாலிவுட் படங்களைச் சுட்டவர். சமீபத்தில் நடந்த 80-கள் நடிகர்கள் கூடும் விழாவில் இறந்தவர்கள் பட்டியலை சுகாசினி படித்த போது தான் தெரிந்தது ஷோபாவுக்கு இறக்கும் போது 17-வயது என்று. கிட்டத்தட்ட 15-16 வயதில் பாலு மகேந்திராவோடு உறவு கொண்டார். இதை அமெரிக்காவில் 'statutory rape' என்பார்கள். இன்றும் ஆஸ்கர் விருதுப் பெற்ற ரோமன் பொலான்ஸ்கி மீது ஒரு வன்புணர்வு வழக்கு நிலுவையில் உள்ளது. அவரால் அமெரிக்காவினுள் நுழைய முடியாத சூழல் இருக்கிறது அதனால். பொலான்ஸ்கி இறக்கும் போது அச்சம்பவத்தைக் குறிப்பிடாத அஞ்சலிக் குறிப்பு வரவே வராது. பாலு மகேந்திரா தமிழ் திரையுலகில் முக்கியமான சாதனையாளரே ஆனால் அஞ்சலி குறிப்பில் அவரின் ஒளிப்பதிவுத் திறன் மற்றும் திரை மொழி ஆகியன பற்றி மட்டும் பேசுவது பாமரத் தனமே.

டி.எம்.எஸ் போன்றவர்கள் இறக்கும் போது வரும் ஃபேஸ்புக் பதிவுகள் இன்னொரு வகை. இனி அவரைப் போல் யார் பாடுவார்கள் என்பார்கள். அவர் பாடுவதை நிறுத்தி 40 வருடங்கள் ஆயிற்று. வாலி இறந்த போது "ஆகா இந்தப் பாட்டைக் கேளுங்கள்", 'அதைக் கேளுங்கள்' என்றார்கள். தமிழ் திரைப்பாடல்களில் மிக, மிக அருவருக்கத் தக்க ஆபாசக் குப்பைகளை எழுதி குவித்தவரும் வாலி தான். அஞ்சலி குறிப்பென்றால் அதைச் சுட்டிக் காட்டவாவது வேண்டாமா? 

எனக்குச் சிவாஜியை ரொம்பப் பிடிக்கும். அவர் இறந்த போது மனம் வருத்தப்பட்டது ஆனால் அதற்காக அவரின் குப்பைகளை மறக்க முடியுமா. கௌரவமும் வியட்நாம் வீடு படமும் செய்த சிவாஜி தான் 'முதல் மரியாதை', 'தேவர் மகன்' படங்களையும் செய்தார். 

நான் எழுதிய குறிப்புகளில் காழ்ப்பு இருந்திருக்கலாம் அது பெரும்பாலும் மேற்சொன்ன கண்மூடித்தனமான பாமரத்தனங்களுக்கெதிரான எரிச்சலே. ஆனால், பாலு மகேந்திரா போன்றவர்களின் அஞ்சலி குறிப்புகள் தவிரப் பெரும்பாலும் நான் கிசு கிசுக்களைத் தவிர்த்து விடுவேன். நான் ஜெயலலிதாப் பற்றியும் கருணாநிதி பற்றியும் எழுதிய பதிவுகளில் காட்டம் இருக்கும் ஆனால் அவதூறு இருக்காது. 

என் குறிப்புகளில் உண்மையில்லையா என்னிடம் சொல்லுங்கள் திருத்துகிறேன். என் வாதத்திற்கு எதிர் வாதம் இருக்கிறதா சொல்லுங்கள் கேட்டுக் கொள்வேன். மொழியில் கடுமை தவிர்க்கலாம் என்கிறீர்களா பரிசீலிக்கிறேன். நான் சொல்பவைகளுள் நேர்மையில்லையென்று காட்டுங்கள் நீக்கி விடுகிறேன். அவை தவிர உங்கள் பாசத்துக்குரிய தலைவனையோ, தலைவியையோ, கலைஞரையோ, ஆசானையோ விமர்சித்தற்காக எரிசலுற்றீர்களென்றால் அது உங்கள் பிரச்சினை. உங்களைக் காயப்படுத்தியிருந்தால் வருத்தங்கள் ஆனால் என் வழி எப்போதும் ஒரே வழி தான்.

References:

1. Suresh Kannan's post on Facebook:

ஒருவரின் மரணத்திற்குப் பிறகு அவரை மகத்தான புனிதப்பசுவாக்குவதும் வரலாற்றில் மேலதிகமான திருவுருவாக்குவதும் எனக்கு உவப்பில்லாத ஒன்று. 

ஆனால் சமகாலத்தின் துயரம், இழப்பு சார்ந்த பொதுஅலைவரிசையை முற்றிலும் நிராகரித்து அப்போதைய அஞ்சலிக்குறிப்புகளில் கூட தங்களின் கறார்த்தன்மையையும் மேதமையையும் வலிந்து திணித்து முற்றிலும் எதிர்நிலைத்தன்மை கொண்ட எழுத்துக்களை காண்பது சகிக்க முடியாததாக இருக்கிறது. இது அடிப்படையான நாகரிகமல்லாதது மட்டுமல்ல, அபத்தமும் கூட.

கொள்கைகள், சித்தாதந்தங்கள், போன்ற எல்லாமே ஒருவகையில் தற்காலிகம்தான். சூழலுக்கேற்ப மாறக்கூடியது, அவரவர் தரப்புகளின் நியாயங்களைக் கொண்டது. வரலாற்றின் காற்றில் கரைந்து விடக்கூடியது. 

ஆனால் மரணம் என்பது மட்டுமே மாறாதது. அறிவியலால் கூட விளங்கிக் கொண்டாத புதிர்த்தன்மையைக் கொண்டது. இறப்பும் புனிதமும் நெருங்கி வருவது தற்செயலானதல்ல.

ஒருவர் இறந்த சமயத்தில் தற்காலிகமாவாவது அவரைப் பற்றிய நல்லதைப் பற்றி மட்டும் பேச வேண்டும் என்று சொல்லப்படுகிற மரபு பாமரத்தனமானது அல்ல. பண்பாட்டு ரீதியானது. 

பாமரர்கள் கூட செய்யத்தயங்கும் அநாகரிகத்தை அறிவுஜீவிகள் அநாயசமாக செய்வது துரதிர்ஷ்டமானது.

S. Gurumurthy On Demonetization at SASTRA: Polemics, Politics and Nonsense

I'm an alumnus of what is now known as SASTRA, a fact that both alumnus and alma mater may wish to forget. I'm often asked, by my fellow alumni, who'd rather remain unidentified in this blog, as to why I'm harsh about SASTRA in my Facebook posts and today I'll give my answer. SASTRA invited erstwhile chartered accountant and now newly christened, by SASTRA, 'Distinguished Research Professor in Legal Anthropology, S. Gurumurthy to deliver a lecture on the burning topic of the day, the demonetization drive launched by Narendra Modi. The lecture brought to the fore my visceral distaste of everything SASTRA has become.

SASTRA is now a Hindutva stronghold and is firmly in the camp of Narendra Modi. Dr S. Vaidhya Subramanian, in his opening remarks, made his admiration for the scheme quite explicit but the lecturer of the evening after dishing out dollops of polemics in the name of economic analyses made some stunning admissions that ran counter to what Dr. Vaidhya Subramanian had said.

The 'Distinguished Research Professor' and the keynote speaker said that the demonetization scheme will cause a contraction to the economy and that those who planned this are well aware of this consequence. The possibility of a contraction is now a widely conceded point. However, Gurumurthy, as he would do throughout the lecture, is playing loose with facts here and that is a major issue in a lecture given by one who carries a title like he does and that too within the aegis of an academic institution in what is supposed to be like an academic lecture. There is no inkling so far from the government, officially or otherwise, that possible economic contraction is factored into their decision making. If it was factored there is no estimation what would be the severity and within what limits that contraction would be deemed tolerable or expected. Essentially, Gurumurthy is just making up facts here and that is an insult to the audience and the academic institution that he now represents.

Two-thirds of the Rs 1000 denomination notes and one-third of the Rs 500 denomination notes do not return to the banking system but sloshes around, probably as black money, said Gurumurthy. A questioner asked then "why introduce a higher denomination of Rs 2000? Would that not increase the hoarding?" Gurumurthy nonchalantly said that the government could not print enough Rs 500 or Rs 1000 and hence the higher denomination and added, rather stunningly, 'this is an interim measure'. The audience clapped without realizing that what Gurumurthy said had no factual basis and the government has not said any such thing. Moreover while Modi is pleading the people to bear pain for 50 days Mr Gurumurthy happily says that this currency crunch will continue for 3-4 months. Modi supporters now need to run for cover.

S.Gurumurthy -- Image Courtesy Rediff (20gurumurthy1.jpg)

Gurumurthy also asserts that one of the key motivations for Modi to carry out this step is to stem the trend of jobless growth and stimulate job growth. That might be news to Modi himself. Gurumurthy does make valid points, about that shortly, on how the Manmohan Singh period, 2004-2014, was fueled by influx of dollar and how that excess liquidity sloshed in the monetary system. Modi's stated reason was curbing the menace of fake currency and black money. Gurumurthy is cooly attributing motives that were not spelled out by Modi and is still only a theoretical possibility. Modi's economy is plagued by jobless growth and that is, no doubt, causing political concern. The roots of that problem will not be adequately addressed by this demonetization.

Gurumurthy cites an 'Economic Times' report that said thanks to the demonetization move life in the the 'fake currency capital of India, Malda in West Bengal, has come to a grinding halt. He snidely hints that this is a Muslim problem. A June 8th report in Indian express cites a now widely referred study which says that nearly 250 out of a million currency notes are fake and that this is largely done through ISI. Of the fake currencies recovered Delhi and Uttar Pradesh account for nearly 43%. Interestingly while the government blames Pakistan's ISI for the problem they signed an MoU with Bangladesh to stem the flow from the Indo-Bangladesh border. Between these two articles the scenario is patchy and information is sparse but our Distinguished Researcher needs only convenient pegs to hang his narrative. Also, fake currency constitutes only Rs 70 crore annually. The big problem is pathetic infrastructure to detect and seize the currency. So while the demonetization program would render the estimated Rs 400 crores, total in the financial system, possibly useless there is no hope that the cycle will be stopped forever. The nation is being subject to torment for a problem that is inadequately addressed by this gargantuan step.

Refuting allegations that construction industry has ground to a halt Gurumurthy quoted a friend of his, this how researchers in Indian universities like SASTRA collect data, to say that it is high value builders who are dependent on buyers flush with black money that are hit hard. He then conceded that this too is a temporary phase for maybe the next 3-4 years. Black money and corruption, the root cause, will remain India's Sisyphean problem.

Choking off terrorism financing and the supposed reduction of stone throwing against Indian army soldiers in Kashmir is all attributed to this scheme. Gurumurthy explains how terrorists, with meager funding, could wreck havoc on a large economic scale as was done during the Mumbai attacks. But, by his own logic then the terrorists need only small funding and having no need for large funding this demonetization will, if at all, only put a dampener for a very short while. The horrific 9/11 attacks, also a very low cost operation, cost the US economy hundreds of millions of dollars, possibly billions. Demonetization is the most ineffective tool to fight terrorism. Kashmir's problem is a long festering one and runs way too deep to receive a body blow from this step. This is laughable premise and one that only a chartered accountant turned researcher can offer.

The reasonably good part of the lecture was when Gurumurthy talked about how Manmohan Singh sought to manage the humongous inflow of dollar by making low-interest imports possible and which in turn strained domestic manufacturing. Gurumurthy is also correct in labeling the dollar influx as 'hot money'. From 2004-2014 dollar and FDI inflow was on a scorching pace as the global market was hunting for higher returns in emerging markets as the US market teeter from 9/11 and dot-com bust first and then in 2008 the debilitating near fatal financial crises. Also, in that period US based offshoring soared exponentially bringing FDI with it.

While Gurumurthy was on solid ground talking about the problems created by excess liquidity he then took a leap into name dropping Thomas Piketty and tied "Piketty Bubble', a term referring mostly to wealth inequality driven by Capital, to "asset price inflation". Also, Piketty's own conclusions are now being increasingly questioned. A notable paper by an MIT grad exposed some flaws in Piketty's approach to curbing wealth inequality. The paper also showed some problems with current approaches to curbing excess liquidity by crimping growth. This is exactly where a true academic rather than a lumpen polemicist would have shone through with illuminating arguments. Alas, this is SASTRA and he's Gurumurthy and we cannot expect anything better.

The partisan polemicist in Gurumurthy came to the fore when he very tenuously tried to connect the dots between how Manmohan Singh's government managed excess liquidity and the black money crisis that Modi is purportedly addressing with this demonetization process. Note that according to a white paper authored by Pranab Mukherjee, now President, in 2012, cash component of black money accounts for only 3.7-7.4%. 93% of black money is not held as cash. The FDI inflow (3.6 billion dollar in 2004 reached a peak of 43.4 Billion dollar in 2008 and then tapered to 27.4 Billion dollar in 2010 and touching 44 billion in 2014) and dollar inflow, the prime drivers of excess liquidity, could not seep entirely into the financial system as black money. The connecting dots that Gurumurthy claims he researched, remember 'distinguished', were not published in any peer reviewed journal. That somebody could claim what can be charitably called 'back of the envelop calculations' as research and get applauded in an academic forum speaks volumes about the standards of Indian Universities. Interestingly, when Gurumurthy said that Manmohan's management of the economy was "monumental mismanagement" the audience enthusiastically clapped. One wonders why would an audience clap when a 10 year government led by an economist was labeled a 'monumental mismanagement". But this is a crowd that came to SASTRA to hear Gurumurthy speak, their political allegiance is no mystery.

For someone billed as researcher Gurumurthy is heavily dependent of anecdotes and even tweets that he had noticed as sources of data. So why does SASTRA patronize such a mediocre guy? Gurumurthy's politics of militant Hindutva completely dovetails with the current philosophical bent of SASTRA. What can one expect from a University that conducts a technology conference centered on Mahabharata and publishes a blog by a computer science student claiming that In-vitro-fertilization technique was well known in the mythical era.

Seeking to buttress his theory that India has ways to cope with draconian surprises like the demonetization scheme Gurumurthy again anecdotally claimed that vegetable vendors in popular bazaars operate on 'relationship' basis and are adapting to this temporary inconvenience by forgoing immediate payment. Then he proceeded to contrast this with 'contract' based western model and said "if Walmart had entered India this would not be possible". I'd love to know from this researcher of legal anthropology if Reliance Fresh, a mega grocery chain run by the Ambanis, friends of Modi, would sell vegetables to the common man on 'relationship basis?

I'm sick to my stomach of these upper middle class Marie Antoinettes patronizingly recalling how the maids and other laborers they use refuse payment or accept payment at a later date in the national interest. National interest, my foot. I cannot think of doctors or medicine shops or diagnostic clinics or marriage halls ready to accept payment at a later date. If these Antoinette's don't have cash how do they expect the maid who cleans their kitchens to have cash and these maids would not have plastic cards to buy at Reliance Fresh. I'm being told "oh there's paytm", "there's ATM". Banks are struggling to dole cash that the government says should be available to customers. This is reality. Gurumurthy speaks of an auto-rickshaw guy who refuses Rs 50 in payment. I wonder how the auto-wallah found money to pay for gas. In a nation where corruption has eaten into the body politic like cancer am I to believe that its citizenry suddenly found their soul and moral uprightness the moment Modi the messiah waved a wand? Bollocks. Bull Crap.

This Twitter Exchange Went Viral and Captures My Sentiments Exactly.

When Gurumurthy, who once extolled about the virtues of Varnashrama Dharma in SASTRA, praises 'relationship' based economy I shudder. It is not without reason that Kancha Iliah, Dalit activist, supported the move to allow Walmart into retail sector in India. Retail sector in India, like everything else, is caste ridden. A 'contract based' free market dependent Walmart will be a boon to Dalits. But that might irk Gurumurthy, a Brahmin. Also, let's not forget that Gurumurthy was once the flag bearer of an organization called 'Swadeshi Jagran Manch' which harped on self-reliance. Ironically Modi, his supporters believe, is a free marketer open to inviting foreign capital. Modi has assiduously courted foreign investments in his frequent foreign jaunts.

In typical uppity manner Gurumurthy that he often talks to his "security fellow because he's from a village". Would Gurumurthy refer to anyone on the stage or in the audience as 'fellow'? And is someone coming from a village a lab rat that his royal highness distinguished researcher seeks to study like they are guinea pigs?

Gurumurthy fulminates that the RBI sets monetary policy and is "arrogant" and does not kow-tow to the government. He wonders if in the world any where else such an institution exists. The guy SASTRA identifies as 'eminent columnist' (is that a degree now?) has not probably heard of America's Federal Reserve and its autonomy.

Only a partisan political hack like Gurumurthy will compare Raghuram Rajan to Gandhi and say that Rajan, unlike Gandhi who was instructed by Gokhale to learn India by touring, did not understand India because he was an American academic. Rajan did not come to India to start a political revolution or to find a bride for himself. Rajan, a legendary academician who crossed swords with the even more legendary Alan Greenspan, came to run the RBI because of his experience at IMF and for his knowledge of capital markets. But then this is SASTRA and he's Gurumurthy.

Dr S.Vaidhya Subramanian deserves special mention. I had to cringe when the Dean of planning refers to a memento as "momentous momentum". The opening remarks are a showcase in mediocrity and illustrates what ails Indian academia. Unfortunately for me my father did not own an university else I too might have a Ph.D and carry a title exceeding my abilities. Trying to rise up to the occasion the heir apparent plumbed the depths of ridiculousness. He said the scheme had elements of geography, since people asked "what about Modi's promise of bringing money from Switzerland and other tax havens abroad"; elements of physics, since "there were equal and opposite reactions to the scheme"; elements of chemistry, since relationship "between god and devotee changed, employer-employee relationship changed". I wish Dr. Vaidhya Subramanian the very best and my sincere prayers that one day he may indeed grow up to the title he carries today.

One Mr Mahalingam was called upon to present some remarks and moderate the question answer session that was to follow Gurumurthy's lecture. Alas, Mr. Mahalingam had no such thing to do. If moderating a question answer session is taken as reading written questions then yes he did moderate. He probably went home wondering what was he invited for.

Finally Gurumurthy. SASTRA has conferred an ill defined but very high sounding honorific title, "Distinguished Researcher in Legal Anthropology". First of all Gurumurthy is none of that. He's not at all a researcher much less a distinguished one and even less in something as esoteric as legal anthropology. By the way he's neither a researcher in law or, for that matter, anthropology let alone 'legal anthropology'.

What a waste.

References:

http://scroll.in/article/822390/only-16-of-every-250-fake-notes-were-detected-in-india-in-2015-16

http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/on-paper-1-in-4000-are-fake-notes-on-indias-huge-currency-problem-2840193/

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/life-has-come-to-standstill-in-indias-counterfeit-capital/articleshow/55406694.cms

http://www.firstpost.com/politics/note-ban-how-narendra-modi-changed-narrative-from-black-money-to-cashless-economy-3127628.html

http://www.livemint.com/Politics/F3oWtSiG34RCv1BagTg87J/What-PM-Narendra-Modi-has-said-on-demonetisation-so-far.html

World Bank Data for FDI inflow http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.KLT.DINV.CD.WD?end=2015&locations=IN&start=1998&view=chart

Piketty Bubble http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/05/the-piketty-bubble.html

The disconnect between jobs and growth http://www.livemint.com/Money/1UZDnb9QcCz5s5dKnJ8maO/The-growing-disconnect-between-economic-growth-and-jobs.html

"Where are the jobs" -- India Today article- http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/employment-scenario-job-crunch-jobless-growth-economy/1/647573.html

MIT student challenges Piketty http://fortune.com/2015/04/06/inequality-piketty/

Madame President Hillary Rodham Clinton. My Vote Explained. A Case for Clinton.

I'm a social liberal and a fiscal conservative who'll be voting for Hillary Rodham Clinton. Clinton is a competent candidate and has the potential to be a good president. As a fiscal conservative I'd have loved to cast a vote for Jeb Bush or John Kasich but I cannot, in good conscience vote for Donald J. Trump. EVEN IF TRUMP BECOMES PRESIDENT IT'LL BE WITHOUT MY VOTE. MY VOTE COUNTS. A TRUMP PRESIDENCY WILL NOT BE UPON MY CONSCIENCE.

Hillary Clinton, let's be clear, is NOT the 'lesser of the two evils'. This column will argue that African-Americans, Progressives, those concerned about Climate Change, those concerned about tuition cost and student debt, those concerned about affirmative action, those concerned about human rights and everything that a decent citizen would desire to see progress on should choose, affirmatively, Hillary Clinton.

 A woman who has released 30 years of tax returns is rated as less honest than a guy who refused to release his tax returns and sheepishly admitted to not paying federal income taxes for decades. Give me a break. A guy who regularly stiffed those who did work for him is rated as more honest than Clinton. In what moral universe are we even pretending that Trump and Clinton are interchangeable commodities?

A few snippets from Clinton's career to illustrate her character, first positively and then to highlight those that remain her challenges or weakness.

A newly minted first lady took on the herculean task of cleaning the aegean stables of America's healthcare system. Like Clinton loves to say, "before Obamacare there was Hillarycare". Hillary's attempt crashed and burned facing opposition from Republicans, the healthcare industry and democrats too. The failure almost derailed the nascent presidency of Bill Clinton. Hillary was humiliated and humbled before the nation but she was not to be kept down. She picked herself up, went back to the same Congress that defeated her, worked with the same opponents and rescued an insurance plan for children amidst the wreckage that was her healthcare reform plan. Millions of children have benefited from CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Plan). The defeat left lasting scars on Hillary's experience. Never again in her political life would she attempt grandiose plans. She opted, instead, for incrementalism. This cost her dearly against the soaring dreamy oratory of Obama in 2008 and almost cost her again against Sanders's 'political revolution'. Only, in 2016 a smarter Hillary had retooled her campaign and was well suited up to meet any insurgence from the left flank of the party. Economist quotes Don Nickles, a former republican congressman who helped defeat Hillarycare, "She's a likable person. When it comes to dealing with Congress, she'd be a big improvement on Barack Obama".

Firemen typically vote Republican but when New York City firemen, the first responders on 9-11, needed help they turned to the newly elected junior senator from New York, Hillary Clinton. Clinton went after the Bush administration that was trying to downplay the health effects of working in World Trade Center. She created a health care plan for the affected responders. She also secured from Bush billions for New York City as restoration funds. While many pillory her comfort with and her ties to Wall Street they don't realize that Wall Street is indeed NYC's cash cow for taxes and funds. Clinton went to Wall Street, not to line her pockets, but to raise money for NYC. A woman who was called 'Carpetbagger' for contesting from a state where she had never lived won re-election and every primary election held in New York. Sure, she fell short of her promises to create jobs in New York but it was not for lack of trying, as a New York Times investigation pointed out. Economist quotes Tom Reynolds, "a former Republican congressman who collaborated with her in upstate New York, 'She's hard working, true to her word and very professional'".

Michael Morell, a 33 year veteran at CIA, a former acting-director and deputy director, under Republican and Democratic presidents, wrote in New York Times that he'd vote for Hillary Clinton. Morell wrote that while working with Clinton in the Situation Room he saw that she was "detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument". More importantly "she did not bring politics into the room". Colin Powell, Robert Gates, Michael Bloomberg to name a few have all crossed party lines to endorse Clinton not just because they hate Trump but also because of the immense respect they have for Clinton.

When African-Americans shrug at voting for Clinton and compare the history making excitement for Obama they're missing a vital point. The Supreme Court is hanging in balance. Since Scalia died affirmative action got a reprieve in the Abigail Fischer case else it would have been wiped out from American universities. Let's face it, come November 9th it is only either Clinton or Trump as President-elect. A Trump presidency will wreck havoc for African-Americans. Imagine Rudy Guiliani or Chris Christie as attorney general and then cast your vote. The Clintons have expressed regret for the unintended consequences of the crime bill and Hillary has promised Criminal Justice Reform. Tell the Congressional Black Caucus to hold her to that promise else vote against Clinton in 2020. Do you think a President Trump would open his doors to John Lewis and talk about police brutality? If you say yes then maybe you can remain home instead of voting.

Above all get this straight, you'd have personally helped elect a racist as a president. You'd have helped elect a guy who'll demolish and discredit everything Obama had done and while doing so he'd be gleefully heaping more verbal insults on Obama. This is not fear mongering into voting for Hillary but a reality.

Now, the progressives. Get over Bernie Sanders's loss in the primary. Sanders lost fair and square and he knows it. Donna Brazile's shenanigans and DNC did not sway the election to Clinton. Sanders, though he lost, achieved a bit. He entered the Democratic party and has influenced it's direction. If you want action on Climate change Hillary Clinton who, as New York Times pointed out, has a detailed plan to combat it. Do you think for a moment the GOP or Trump give two hoots about climate change? They'd laugh you out of the room.

It is ironical that Clinton takes a lot of flak for her changing stance on TPP but Obama completely escapes censure. It is Obama, the anti-NAFTA candidate of 2008, who should really be called out on this flip-flop. Also, those who rail against Clinton for her prodigious fundraising are forgetting many things. Clinton's fundraising has helped down ballot democrats unlike Obama who used his fundraising prowess mostly in his own service. It was Obama who broke, after promising to take public funds and the restrictions that come with it, the post-Nixon tradition of accepting public funds. Yet, too often the ugly label of 'liar' is easily applied to Clinton.

Obamacare is a financial boondoggle where the buyer and seller are both subsidized with taxpayer money. It is in a financial death spiral. That said, Obamacare has expanded insurance to millions and needs to be rescued. Good luck trying to get that rescued with a Trump presidency. Sure, many like to see a public option floated, I don't, but that's beside the point. A president Clinton will at least bend her ear to that option. Healthcare reform is near and dear to Clinton's heart. If there is one are where I trust her more than anything it is in fixing Obamacare. Note, when candidate Obama pretended that healthcare reform could be done without personal mandate it was Clinton who cried hoarse that it cannot be done. She was vindicated. Clinton's tenaciousness, lack of dogmatic adamance and pragmatism will all be brought to bear on this vital issue. We all know that while the GOP and Trump will trample on Obamacare they've no idea of what to replace it with. So if in your self-righteous anger you want to stiff Clinton, go ahead and waste your vote but roll the dice on the a Trump presidency.

Clinton, if she wins the election, will do so on the shoulders on Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Sanders and Warren will undoubtedly play important roles in influencing policy in a Clinton presidency. They will be the channels for progressives to  pressure a president Clinton. If Clinton turns out to be, as you all say, a liar then primary her in 2020 and defeat her. Or work to elect a progressive Congress in 2018 midterm elections and foil her agenda but give your vote to her now to stop Trump. Giver Clinton your vote and keep her in your debt. Elizabeth Warren has shown that she'll not shy from a fight even if it is against the president of her own party. Do you progressives want to put in the White House a guy who still ridicules Warren as "Pocahontas"? A president Trump will show the middle finger to both Sanders and Warren.

Why am I voting for Hillary Clinton despite my deep aversion of liberal economics and my loathing of Warren, Sanders and the progressives? Simple, in my order of priorities the damage due to misguided economic policies can be addressed far more easily than tearing the American society apart along racial and ethnic lines as Trump would do.

The danger of Trump in the presidency is not theoretical or exaggerated. While Clinton's punchline "can we trust nuclear codes to a guy who can be baited with a tweet" is campaign rhetoric about an opponent it is, sadly, every bit true. Today there's news that Trump's campaign managers, the adults in the team, have confiscated his twitter account till election day lest he goes off on his tweet storm and becomes the news, in an unwelcome manner. Make no mistake voters, Trump is a man-child.

Recently Trump said to himself at a rally "stay on point Donald. Stay on point. Nice and easy". Trump is now essentially tethered to a teleprompter and for once he's staying with it. This was the same guy who used to mock Obama's reliance on teleprompter. Nobody thinks Obama would talk nonsense or offend an international ally if his teleprompter stopped working and nobody thinks Trump can talk any sense if his teleprompter breaks.

Trump's ignorance is staggering, his complete inability to learn anything has been proven time and time again. During the all three debates Trump could be focused for only the first 30 minutes each time. Voters, there is no other Trump waiting to show up, this is it. This is the Trump we get as president.

For a fiscal conservative as me Trump is reckless on economics and he's an insult to the word 'businessman'. It is not without reason that less than a handful of his peers have endorsed him whereas businessmen and CEOs have endorsed Clinton by the legions. Many of those have never voted for a democrat.

We often hear that the press is in the tank for Clinton. That's a lie (see my earlier column ). But let's pause and think as to why Trump has managed just one or two endorsements whereas Clinton has practically landed every newspaper endorsement across the country. Whether newspaper endorsements matter is a different question but we should ask ourselves why does an Arizona newspaper which has never endorsed a democrat in 100+ years endorse Clinton? Why do newspapers that traditionally do not endorse democrats do so for Clinton, yes that very Clinton, this year? Then we've newspapers like USA Today, Foreign Policy, Atlantic Monthly that normally don't get into endorsements writing editorials shredding Donald Trump and voicing support for Clinton? We've to note that the Arizona newspaper and others have received hundreds of subscription cancellations, abuses from readers and even death threats. So why did they do it? The Trump presidency is a dark threat to the republic and they realize it, that's why.

I'm fully opposed to liberal economics, affirmative action, misguided government actions to combat climate change and I support free trade so why would I support Clinton? Is it because I think 'crooked Hillary' is a closet republican? Far from it, the clear and present danger of Trump overrides all those concerns. I'll not vote for Trump saying "oh I worry about Supreme Court judges". Do I trust Trump to carry out intelligent decisions on anything? No, I don't.

I've complete contempt for Republicans who say "I find Trump intolerable, I condemn his bigotry but other larger issues are at play and I cannot vote for Clinton". This is nonsense. Hillary Clinton is NOT an interchangeable commodity with Trump. Anderson Cooper of CNN told Trump's campaign manager Kellyanne Conway today that we criticize the Clinton Foundation so much because we happen to know everything they did thanks to tax releases, documents released (by them and by wikileaks) but we know next to nothing of Trump's foundation or his businesses. It is appalling that very little attention has been paid to Trump's sprawling and interconnected business across the globe. While Hillary has been asked about how they would handle Clinton foundation if she wins the election nobody has bothered to ask Trump what he'd do about his businesses.

While I cheerfully vote for Clinton I'm well aware that Sanders and Warren will overreach in their zeal to impose a socialistic vision on the economy. They're welcome to do it but voters will teach them the lessons Obama was taught in the midterm elections. Socialist overreach produced tea party. So roll your dice.

All that said here are my irritations about the Clintons. In 2008 when McCain out Palin on the ticket I recoiled with horror and wrote "Go home McCain, Palin first". MY objections to Trump are akin to my objections against McCain-Palin ticket except that they were far less an existential threat to the nature of the country thanks to somebody like McCain on the ticket but were a clueless bunch in a very dangerous time. In 2012 I voted for Mitt Romney. Unlike Romney the Clintons have earned nearly $200 Million purely by influence peddling. This is why they don't appreciate handwork and don't understand, like Obama too doesn't, that money is to be 'earned'. Trust me, Obama will become the richest ex-president in no time. Also, Obama will be doing his own influence peddling to raise $1 billion for his presidential library during his lame duck status and I'm sure a thankful Hillary will help in fundraising too. This is a sickness of American politics. Sanders too is not immune to it as he showed with the foundation he created after his candidacy ended.

Hillary Clinton is a public servant and she needs to remember that. Too often the Clintons skate to the very edges of the law and then act injured when partisan opponents use that as leverage to launch investigations. Shut the damn foundation down or hand it over to Bill Gates or Jimmy Carter. Yes, the foundation has indeed done admirable work on behalf of millions of HIV affected in Africa but all the good in the world does not excuse the ethical breaches that it has committed. Obama, to his credit, gave us completely scandal free White House. The Clintons, if they are capable of it at all, should live up to it.

A New York Times article today screams that Clinton aides will enter White House with baggage. The article is unfair in singling out the Clinton aides alone. Both candidates have eager supporters or surrogates who are waiting to dip their beaks into the gravy train if their candidate wins. On the Clinton side at least it is people with experience and judgment albeit with some less than stellar qualities but the Trump surrogates are mostly political has-beens itching to get their way back into the echelons of power. Ever since the GOP establishment shunned Trump those that had, like Newt Gingrich and Rudy Guiliani, fallen by the wayside of GOP have wormed their way to the political stage and are salivating over plum positions in a Trump administration.

Hillary needs to enter the White House with a retinue of talented people who are unsullied by recent shenanigans. Cheryl Mills, John Podesta and Huma Abedin, to name a few, should not find a place in any White House position. The role of Bill Clinton needs to be defined. But I doubt if sanity will prevail. The Clintons prize loyalty above probity.

During the campaign Hillary acknowledged the trust issue and said she needs to earn the trust from Americans but she has till now shown very little direction over how she'd earn it back. Hopefully we'll hear more once the heat of the campaign is over and she's lucky to win.

Post-election this will not just be a divided nation but a nation where once unsullied institutions like the FBI have become tainted. There is staggering amount of healing required. Trump is incapable of any healing and hopefully will not be the president. A president-elect Hillary Clinton's first order of business would be to build bridges. In that I've full faith in Hillary given her record of reaching out and winning over the harshest partisan opponents. However, if the GOP decides that a scorched earth approach of launching pointless virulently partisan investigations and even an impeachment then they deserve to be in the doghouse for another 8 years. The GOP, if it ever wants to be the party of Reagan and Lincoln it needs to clean it's own house and that will not happen easily. BY cooperating with President Hillary Clinton to create a better America the GOP may, just may, redeem itself.

I'm of the firm view that Donald Trump should be decisively rejected at the ballot box and a vote for Hillary Clinton is the only effective way to achieve that. 

America's Favorite Sport: Hating Hillary Clinton. The Scandals, Real and Imagined.

"The central point about Mrs Clinton, however, is that she is being judged by an absurd double-standard. By any respectable measure, she is one of the most impressive Democrats of her generation. If she was a man, her toughness and intellect would win universal approval". That was The Economist in a column titled "Hillary Clinton, trail blazer" published in December 1992. Yes, 1992.

The Clintons are surely to be blamed for the predicament they find themselves and for putting the Obama White House, an administration that has been remarkably scandal free, in a fix. The day Hillary became Secretary of State the Clinton Foundation should've been shut down or transitioned or far stricter rules for accepting contributions be put in place. On the issue of the Foundation I'd also fault the Obama team for not insisting on any of that though they did insist on a number of rules before she was indeed nominated. All that said the emails and the Foundation related stories have been so vastly exaggerated to make Clinton look like she is some Don Corleone. But then, as Economist argued in the article, hating Hillary Clinton, actually just her, not Bill Clinton, for nearly 3 decades has been America's most favorite national sport.

First, the emails. A bit of perspective here. In 2007 Bush's Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez had fired 8 US attorneys and a Democratic run Congress investigated. The investigation turned up the fact that the then White House officials used personal email addresses willy nilly. Many emails, now said to be 22 million, the White House said were lost. While calling commentator Juan Williams's claim that there was 'zero' coverage of that as false Politifact did concede that compared to the outrage and coverage given to Hillary's email saga it was nothing. Poltitifact conducted a Lexis-Nexis search of related articles and found 125 newspaper articles about the Bush White House email affair compared to 1700 articles on Clinton's email travails. Politifact does point out that the two cases differ in one significant manner, in the Bush White House affair Bush himself, as President was not even remotely involved, whereas in Clinton's case it happened to be a prospective presidential candidate who could very well become president.

Now, why did Clinton do the private email server snafu? Prior to assuming office Hillary got in touch with Colin Powell and asked him questions about how he handled emails and correspondences. Powell happily used to send emails from his private email addresses and he decided that such emails were not public records. Also, fed up with restrictions that the NSA/CIA wanted him to observe Powell, in his own words, "we just went about our business and stopped asking". An important caveat, Powell did not use a private email server.

With this backdrop Hillary Clinton decided to use a private email server 'for convenience' which would help her avoid having a private email account and an official one. When her tenure ended her lawyer and her team decided which was 'private email' and deleted them from the server. Sure, this sounds fishy, illegal and corrupt BUT at the end it is not at all different from what Powell did. As for classified emails that were found on her server. That is a complex issue. Many were classified ''secret' at a later date and not at the time it was sent. This was standard practice in government. Even a State Department official jousting with an FBI official to reduce the classification status, not granted though, is routine.

We've to get one thing clear the Federal government, especially at the President's cabinet level does NOT function like the IT department of a private company. That the FBI, despite director Comey's characterization of Clinton and her team as being 'extremely careless', would not decide to charge Clinton has caused sufficient heartburn amongst many and that alone has caused many to suspect that the investigation was scuttled. Of course, the recent resurrection of the case in a politically suspicious manner has made yesterday's critics of Comey today's supporters and vice versa. Legal scholar and author of books on US Supreme Court Jeffrey Toobin in a column flat out declared "Clinton has committed no crimes with regard to her emails". Let's also remember that former CIA director and 4 star general David Petraeus, who intentionally and knowingly gave classified material to a biographer who later became his mistress, was also not charged.

The New York Times which originally published the email story in it's endorsement of Hillary for presidency finally conceded that the matter was one for the 'help desk'. A column in left leaning magazine Vox sums it up in the title, "The real Clinton email scandal is that a bullshit story has dominated the campaign". And The Economist agrees, "In the annals of political misdeeds, future historians will not pause on Mrs Clinton's emails long. But they will marvel at how an exaggerated belief in her malfeasance created the conditions for Mr Trump to seize the White House".

Without a doubt the Clintons were peddling influence when they were raising money for the Clinton Foundation but that is perfectly legal. When Sanders repeatedly cast aspersions on Hillary giving speeches to Wall Street she bristled "if you have something to say specifically Senator come out and say it". Till today there is not a single shred of evidence to show pay for play. Not a single legislation or favoritism was shown by Hillary either as Senator or as Secretary of State.

A notorious charge is how the Clintons forged relationship with a Russian industrialist and facilitated the sale of US uranium maker to Russia in exchange for a donation to the foundation. Contrary to the popular myth about the press ignoring her scandals it was, yet again, New York Times that first reported on the supposed scandal. Buried in an article titled ominously "Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal" was this "whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal". Essentially there was no story but hey why bother. Politifact conducted a detailed fact check on the Uranium story and said that the deal was approved by multiple federal agencies and the deal was part of a complex altering of geo-political strategy to engage with Russia.

The Associated Press reported with fanfare that more than half of Hillary Clinton's visitors were donors to the foundation. For nearly two days the press and Cable TV coverage ran around like headless chicken. Then the verification happened. AP essentially screwed up. What the AP story did not mention in its attention grabbing headline was that it was a percentage of people that Clinton met that did not include heads of states and other federal employees. Essentially it was nonsense. There was, yet again, no story.

After the FBI director dropped a bombshell about "re-opening" the investigation into Hillary's email case the networks and press worked themselves into a furore. Nearly two days Hillary's campaign was literally besieged and pummeled akin to how the Trump campaign was pummeled after the release of the Billy Bush video in which he boasted of grabbing women by their genitals. Unlike the Billy Bush story which had no ifs and buts the FBI story started to unravel. The Director did not have a warrant to search the laptop they secured from an estranged husband of Hilary's aides which supposedly contained emails from Hillary's private account. Also, the investigation of that aide's husband itself was due to an unrelated case. Further leaks from FBI showed that the Director refused to push ahead with Trump related investigations because it was close to the election. But in two days Hillary's campaign suffered a near fatal body blow and we will know Tuesday if that really costs her the election.

Meantime, Fox news host Bret Baier went on air to claim that the FBI was close to charging Hillary for irregularities with the Foundation. Again, for two days the news spread like prairie fire and then Bret Baier apologized that that was really not true. Trump campaign manager told CNN that though the news was false the "damage was done". That, my dear readers, is absolutely true.

The wikileaks email release is another yawn. We cannot forget the fact that Julian Assange, prompted by Putin or not, is interfering with US presidential elections. What wikileaks is doing is no different from what the Watergate burglars attempted to do. Couple of excerpts caused some stir and as usual unfairly so.

In one of her speeches Clinton spoke of how she dreams of a "hemispheric where there are open borders and open trade". Immediately the right and left pounced on it; one to say that she believed in open borders; another to say that she was hypocritical in opposing trade pacts. Nonsense. Sure, her opposition of TPP is politically expedient but nowhere has she said she's totally opposed to trade. No sensible person can be. Further, seen in context the remark extends to combating climate change and not about opening borders to illegal immigrants.

Another eye brow raising remark was where she said that sometimes one has to have a public opinion and a private opinion. Immediately everyone pounced on it and said "aha, there you go hypocrite. Crucify her". Nonsense. What Hillary was saying was how politicians have to sell policies to different audiences and moderate their presentations. It is not for nothing that governing was called akin to sausage making. Whether it is the Civil Rights legislation or the 13th Amendment or the Affordable Care Act they were all passed with inordinate amount of skulduggery and politicking. This is NOT a bad thing in totality. A rambunctious and large democracy like US has competing interests and each senator or congress person tries to do what he/she thinks their constituents demand. Balancing that requires deal making. And, sometimes, as JFK learned during the Cuban missile crisis, the public has to be kept in dark about a defense deal. Transparency is overrated.

While there was absolutely no bombshell the steady drip drip of wikileaks took a toll on Clinton's ratings during the home stretch. Just as Trump's led tape and implosions during the debates were hogging the limelight I saw TV commentators spend time discussing Trump's latest craziness and then with a pious desire to restore balance to the news segment would pivot to Clinton's emails and preface the remarks with "well Clinton is no saint and she has her own problems like the wikileaks today which said...." Then it would be a discussion on how some campaign official wrote uncharitably about Sanders, their hard elbow strategies to knock off Sanders etc. Sanders himself laughed it off saying "well if they had hacked my campaign's email they'd find similar emails about the secretary". Yes, this is what campaigns do.

The consensus view about the email was that Hillary Clinton comes of as a moderate and that she's no fire breathing progressive radical. Even the much anticipated speeches to Goldman Sachs contained no shred of controversy. There was, contrary to what was expected, no hypocrisy or no bootlicking. By and large editorials then rounded off by saying that Clinton comes off as a nuanced person who takes the world in all complexity and fleshes policy out of it. A thankful and much needed balance compared to her competitor.

The Clintons, particularly Hillary, are the most investigated politicians since Richard Nixon. Unlike Nixon they were never charged or indicted on any criminality and yet just the fact that they have been repeatedly investigated becomes, by circular logic, proof that something must have been amiss. Whether it is the Monica Lewinsky scandal or the email scandal the irony is neither investigation started there but they started as inquiries into something else that Hillary supposedly did. The emails were a collateral finding that came out a very highly partisan investigation into Benghazi against Hillary. The Benghazi investigation was complete political theater at the end of which even the republicans conceded Hillary did nothing wrong.

Picture Courtesy 'The Economist' from article "Hillary Clinton, Trail blazer"

Given how the GOP has loathed and investigated her one can only sympathize with her desire to have control of her emails. Unfortunately her remedy only deepened her misery. The fact that a partisan investigation led to this should not be lost sight of. No politician, if investigated so extensively would come off clean.

Mots importantly we've to note that while investigation after investigation has gone into Hillary's affairs we've seen next to nothing on Trump University, Trump Foundation, Trump's bankruptcies, Trumps's taxes that are being audited by IRS etc. While there have been articles by NYT and Washington Post here and there the wealth of material on Hillary, thanks to the investigations, is Himalayan compared to that of Trump's. Further as a GOP congressman conceded it is easy to launch congressional investigations on Hillary because she was a former secretary of state whereas Trump is a private citizen. But then the FBI which is eager to investigate Clinton foundation based on a book and news items is suspiciously silent about Trump foundation which was indeed found to operate illegally in New York City by New York City attorney general.

There is no rational explanation for the intense loathing that Hillary Clinton inspires without including the element of sexism. Economist notes in the article 'Hating Hillary', "the ferocity of such barrages reflected something more: the deep full lines the couple were straddling. The first baby-boomer president and his pushy wife represented a cultural shift that much of America feared....The obvious inference, that Mrs Clinton's unpopularity was fueled by sexism, has always annoyed her critics almost as much as she has. But it is otherwise hard to explain the gap between the measured criticism Mrs Clinton's behavior has sometimes invited and the unbridled loathing that has shown up in its place".

Hillary haters will show a characteristic disdain for facts and will hop from one conspiracy to another until one concedes that she has to be jailed. Though many will eschew the rabid scream of Trump voters of "lock her up" the arguments will be tailored to lead to that conclusion. "She's a corporate shrill" they'd say but when pointed out that she, not Bernie Sanders or Obama, led the fight to create universal healthcare and was literally lacerated by the GOP and the insurance industry the retort, with dollops of sneering contempt, would be "oh well she sold herself after that". "She's a wall street sell out" would be a complaint but when pointed out that Sanders voted for the Commodities and futures treading act the complainer would jump off to another conspiracy. Essentially Hillary Clinton has, in their view, prostituted herself and deserves to be frog marched into prison if not nailed and crucified. After all nobody wants such extreme medieval punishment.

All of the above is NOT to suggest that Clinton is blameless. Clinton needs to learn from the email travails and the stories about Foundation that she has, fairly or unfairly, a severe trust deficit. As one who seeks to occupy the highest office of the land she needs to show Americans that she's better than this. Shut the damn Foundation, put the coterie on a leash and work extra hard to show transparency and earn the trust of America.