Thursday, August 14, 2014

The Wonder That 'Is' India

"At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom. A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance". With those immortal words one of India's greatest sons, Jawaharlal Nehru, heralded the birth of India. A glorious struggle for independence that remains unparalleled in all human history reached a culmination on August 15th amidst great joy and a tragedy of biblical proportions. The story of India remains history's greatest miracle of the modern ages. There is no precedence in history before or since for a nation of such wide variety and divisions to have survived as a mature liberal democracy. In that, Indians and as for that matter any human being in any corner of the world who holds human liberty dearly in his/her heart can feel justifiable pride.

On this hallowed day Indians should give thanks to thousands of fearless souls and chiefly amongst all two people who have done more than anybody else for what India is today. As long as India exists as a country and if, god forbid, a day comes when it does not even then it will remembered as the nation of Gandhi. Very few nations, collectively and pejoratively referred to as 'third world', became a functioning democracy like India and for that Indians need to look up with gratitude to Jawaharlal Nehru.



Gandhi's civil disobedience movement launched in 1922 swept the nation and posed a serious threat to the colonial regime. Just when the regime was tottering Gandhi called off the movement in response to a tragic incident of arson in Chauri Chaura where a police station set afire by a mob which killed several police men inside. Gandhi was pained and ashamed. No leader of a freedom struggle had stopped a movement for such a reason before. Where leaders would have turned a blind eye to the death of a few policemen in a remote corner of a large country Gandhi would have none of it. Theologian C.E.M. Joad, writing in a book prepared for Gandhi's 75th birthday, marveled that Gandhi's greatest contribution was instilling in very ordinary people a courage to be allowed to be beaten to pulp without raising a single finger in protest. Joad was echoing the sense of wonderment and moral outrage felt by American reporter Webb Miller at seeing unarmed satyagrahis walking up calmly to the gates of Dharasana Salt Works where policemen were waiting with clubs only to have their skulls broken. It is not for nothing that Albert Einstein mourned Gandhi saying "generations to come will scarce believe that a being such as this walked in flesh and blood upon this earth".

As columnist and biographer Ramachandra Guha noted recently it is Nehru's stock that fares really bad in today's India where he is seen more through the prism of dynasty politics and his progeny than through what he did for India. By a stroke of fate by 1950, barely three years after independence, Gandhi, Patel and Ambedkar were dead. The deaths, particularly of Gandhi and Patel, left Nehru the leader of the masses. No other leader had a pan Indian appeal on par with Nehru. Nehru is to India what Jefferson, Washington and Hamilton were to America.

Sarvepalli Gopal in his biography of Nehru points out that what India owes to Nehru was chiefly his contributions toward nurturing the nascent and very fragile institutions of democracy. Nehru is maligned today for his economic policies and world view but little do many realize how much Nehru did in sowing the seeds of democracy and in establishing precedents. As prime minister Nehru would make every effort to attend the question hour in the parliament and try to answer as many queries as possible. Nehru's writings fill nearly 50 volumes. He could easily be called 'communicator in chief'. He wrote copiously and incessantly to all and sundry, especially the constitutional heads of states with due respect and duty to inform them of his thoughts and positions as prime minister. His mistakes not withstanding Nehru's contributions to modern India remain the foundation on which a nation of a billion people still function.

No historian worth his salt would have dreamed in 1947 that India would remain a united nation for half a century let alone a few years. By every paradigm of nationalism and history India should have had a European style Balkanization.

Even today a prickly issue for Indians is whether the country was born in 1947 or did exist as a nation, by the western idea of what a nation is, since time immemorial. The current crop of Hindutva ideologues claim that India existed since antiquity whereas many others, especially Marxist historians, would refute that. As always the truth is in the middle. A sense of pan-Indian cultural unity did exist, papering over the many differences of languages and customs, for several thousand years. However, nothing close to a 'state' existed ever let alone an 'Indian state'.

Such discussions, while valuable, remain academic and of little value in everyday life. When a nation was born is far less relevant today than what a nation has done since its birth. Indians would do well to remember that Greece, the land of Socrates, Plato and Archimedes, is a beleaguered nation at the mercy of other countries. Singapore, a tiny land of recent birth, is far more prosperous today.

The recently concluded elections saw 800 million people eligible to vote. That is more than twice the population of USA. The rumble tumble of daily politics and the depth of corruption makes it difficult for many to appreciate what a staggering achievement India's democracy is. Indira Gandhi took the nation into a dark era of totalitarianism during the Emergency era and India, in a stupendous achievement, bounced back into vibrant democracy as very few nations could have done. The elections of 1977, 1980, 1989, 2004, 2009, 2014 were all watershed elections that the Indian voter can look back with pride. In 1977 the Indian voter showed Indira the wrath of the silent majority, 1980 showed the Janata party that people wanted governance, 1989 showed that the voter will not condone corruption and incompetent governance, 2004 showed that India cannot be won with a slogan, 2014 showed that people yearn for decisive leadership. If all this cannot make an Indian or any lover of liberal democracy proud of the voters and democratic institutions what else can?

India has managed with arguable finesse the heterogeneity of its composition. Flush with excitement of being free and suffused with a sense of unity forged from battling a common and alien enemy little attention was paid to the accommodation of differences within the country. Falsifying the prophets of doom India, after some very serious threats, the country's then sagacious leadership re-organized the country masterly using the principle of language. With all its flaws it is still a great achievement that has vindicated the compromise. Such re-organizations, that continue even today, is possible thanks to the far sighted democratic institutions of India.

In 1947 blacks in America could not vote but Dalits in India not only voted but had one of their members architect the constitution and another as ranking member of the first cabinet. India's first cabinet remains a model of egalitarianism on every conceivable parameter. The cabinet consisted of women, Dalit, a Singh, a Muslim, South Indians and arch ideological opponents. The cabinet, in as much as possible, reflected India.

India, unlike many of its neighbors, is relatively liberal and protects free speech. Sure, India's protection of free speech is not yet as robust as its western compatriots but it is certainly far better than anything in the region. In religious south India a rebellious reformer took out a rally with a picture of a god garlanded with slippers. Today his ideological progeny have ruled the state for nearly 50 years and many even take their oath of office swearing on their conscience instead of god as is traditionally done.

The courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have remained India's mainstay against titular leaders and a corrupt political machinery. Article 356, the power to dismiss elected governments by diktat, was the most abused provision of the constitution until the Supreme Court brought it to a halt with the case of S.R. Bommai. Strictures from the Supreme Court can still reverberate in the famously insular and arrogant portals of legislature.

A nation that was born amidst volcanic religious hatred has managed to stitch together a reasonably calm haven for many religions. Though, sadly, the nation convulses, every now and then, with hatred and riots it is completely uncharitable to deny in totality the space for peaceful co-existence. Nehru's role in that regard remains the most under appreciated and even the biggest reason to malign him. When time came to select India's national anthem the natural choice would have been 'Vande Mataram' that had served as the battle cry for decades through the freedom struggle. Its overt Hindu nationalism would have ill suited for the turbulent circumstances surrounding the liberation. Nehru, as always, took care to choose a more inclusive and more lyrical poem by India's Nobel laureate Tagore. It is difficult to appreciate how much that gesture meant then from the relative calmness of today. Though many like me have watched with great trepidation at the rise of Hindu nationalism and Islamic terrorism I'd not say that India's secularism is dead.

The halting and hesitant steps towards unshackling the economy from oppressive state control has done much in the recent decades to lift millions out of poverty and hold out hope for the future. Narendra Modi was swept into office with a thumping absolute majority, a first in a generation since 1984, thanks to millions who look unto him for providing a much needed fillip in the economy.

As one who chose to emigrate I am painfully aware of India's shortcomings too. India's biggest problem is the pervasive corruption that has spread like cancer into every nook of the body politic. If there is one thing that disgusts me most about India it is corruption and more importantly a corrupt society.

While I've come to appreciate India's virtues better thanks to my stint in US I've also become acutely aware of India's failings. I've been unsparing in my criticisms of India and will continue to be so. I cannot fake love and admiration while hypocritically resolute in never wanting to go back to India. I know many who express admiration for India's culture and speak of some distant day when they hope to back in India only to continue building their roots, almost exclusively, in USA or other foreign lands.

India is certainly not the 'area of darkness' that Naipaul portrayed in his first book but it is still certainly 'a wounded civilization' and a land of a 'million mutinies'. The typical Indian smugness about the superiority of Indian culture, history and what not is exceedingly irritating. Unlike China India refuses to be pragmatic and takes in pride in not learning from other countries. Start a conversation with an Indian about what India can learn from America and you'd see a contemptuous smile followed by an indignant lecture on how India was a great country once and how everything modern was indeed once in India starting with rockets and nuclear fission. Just to assuage my Indian readers let me say that America has eagerly learned many things from India. Yoga, Kama Sutra and music, in that order, are the most loved imports from India in USA.

America, the supposed citadel of capitalism and the home of robber barons, defeated a multi-millionaire CEO running for the Presidency and rejected his vision as not inclusive enough of all sections of the society. Diversity is the new mantra in any discourse in America today. Yet, we do not see such discourses happening in India. The middle class yearns to become the nouveau rich without a moment's thought of anybody in the lower economic strata. Many spoke breathlessly of the factories opened by Modi in Gujarat but few cared that there were not enough schools or hospitals or institutes of research. An American senate candidate had to withdraw because he plagiarized his college work but in India a woman who knows no difference between a certificate course and a degree is the education minister.

It is an irony of history that Indians emigrate to USA by the thousands and American companies, all other things being equal, would prefer India to China. Yet, the two nations, once thought of as natural allies, are at barely talking terms. Nations that have allied with US have progressed and I'd look forward to the day that these two great democracies embrace other.

India is still a nation faced with great challenges. Being better than nations like Sri Lanka, China, Pakistan and Afghanistan is no great merit. Large swathes of India seethe with discontentment and Indian attitudes to federalism need to improve a lot. It does not behoove a nation like India to ban books and pulp them. It is silly and insulting. Human rights for women and Dalits still remains a much challenged one. Injustices garner attention and uproar depending on the economic strata of who is affected. A middle class girl who is brutally raped brings thousands to the streets but Dalit girls being raped brings out only customary condemnation in editorials and little beyond. India's attitudes toward education and healthcare is the most deplorable. Eradicating polio and other pestilences are a matter of pride but millions still die or lose livelihood due to the pathetic health care system of the country. A country which has a goddess for learning has perfected the art of selling degrees and does not have any institution of learning in the top 100 in world rankings. A country of a billion still does not boast Olympics medal winners, barring less than a handful, or Nobel prize winners.

When I visited Berlin and Munich in 2012 I was moved to see how Germany has erected stupendous museums of unimpeachable scholarship to lay bare the grotesque nature of the Nazi era. The objective was to teach Germans how not to repeat the mistake. What Tolstoy said of unhappy marriages can be said of nations too. Every nation is unhappy in its own way and his its own guilts to cleanse. I'd like to see a few museums in India. India badly needs a grand museum that will be a center of learning for its glorious independence struggle. Indians need to learn why Dandi march shook the pillars of an empire that defeated Napoleon and the Spanish Armada. Every American child learns of how the founding fathers were pamphleteers. How many Indians know that Tilak, Gandhi and Nehru were journalists and pamphleteers too. A museum to unflinchingly speak of the two thousand year abysmal history of caste based oppression is an urgent necessity. A new found Hindutva jingoism is trying to sweep under the carpet what an oppressive system casteism was in India. Only a nation that faces its demons resolutely would progress into the sunlit uplands of egalitarianism. To be sure, there is no such destination as 'egalitarianism'. Its a journey. America is painfully learning this week that the demons of racism are still alive and kicking.

India is a country that has fascinated many across the ages. I live in a country that was discovered accidentally by a man who went in search in India. I don't see myself as the prodigal son in as much as I do not foresee any day that I'd return to the bosom of India but India remains a fascinating topic for me. These past few months I am immersed in studying the history of Soviet Union and particularly the Stalin era. In 1947 India had every reason to become a totalitarian regime. The poverty, the chaos, the near civil war conditions, the abrupt evacuation of a 300 year old colonial power and more were enough justifications for the country to either splinter or suffer a Stalin. Gandhi was no Lenin and Nehru was no Stalin and thankfully India did not become a Soviet Union. For that I can thank India. For that Indians should celebrate their country.

Friday, July 18, 2014

Israel Vs Hamas: Winning the War and Losing the Propaganda

A Marxist friend relentlessly posted messages and articles against Israel and finally called support of Israel as evil as supporting Nazism. Of course such stupidities are always trotted out with the excuse "oh I am not an anti-semite". She then proceeds to delegitimize the existence of Israel just like Hamas. I mean at what point would anybody concede their anti-semitism. So many nations have been formed and destroyed in the course of human history and particularly between 1940-1990 but only the formation of Israel irks the preening human rightists. Strangely this Marxist and her acolytes are silent about Chechnya and Saudi Arabia and China.

It is beyond indecent to see idiotic statements on Facebook that say" Israel does unto Hamas what Nazis did unto Jews". 6 million Jews died without raising a finger, as loyal citizens of the many countries they resided in, with nobody to give them voice and no rockets to launch at the Nazi state. Yes, Hamas is no match for Israel's military might but by that logic Osama Bin Laden was no match for USA either. Comparing holocaust to the current battle in Gaza is plain idiocy and does not bear scrutiny. Unfortunately such silly idiocies have the strength to become a rooted myth that makes reality look like a lie.

For the millionth time let me reiterate that Israel was NOT the consolation price that a guilt ridden West offered the Jews for holocaust. The promise of Israel was made in the Balfour declaration in 1917, nearly 21 years before Kristallnacht.

Another Facebook simpleton posted a photo showing the shrinking borders of Palestine from what the UN mandated to what it is today in 2014. True, it is shrunken and for that the Palestinians can congratulate themselves and their Arab brethren. As I've repeatedly pointed out Israel pleaded to be left alone in 1948 when the UN mandate created two states but Palestinians egged on by their Arab neighbors vowed to push the Jews into the Red sea but lost. That a beleaguered people, with far less international help than what Hamas gets today, even survived such a war is the greatest miracle of modern history. Not satisfied with the damage wrought the Arabs tried again in 1967 with Jordan, Syria and Egypt to snuff out Israel only to be defeated in the most humiliating manner. And yes, the borders shrank once again as a victorious Israel.

Life is unfair and Israel learned that, yet again, during the Yom Kippur war. Humiliated by the defeat in 1967 Anwar Sadat launched the Yom Kippur war that almost destroyed Israel. Unlike the 1967 war this time Israel slept and ignored the signs of war. In addition, Israel's Golda Meir also realized that another pre-emptive strike would alienate the American establishment. With great bravery Israel defended itself and marched into Egypt. Sadat, in a face saving gesture, declared victory and got on a plane to sign truce with Israel.

Life is unfair and Israel, yet and yet again, learned that in 1991. In 1991 the Arab nations pleaded with America to stop Saddam Hussein but their one condition was that Israel should not be involved. If Israel got into the war, the Arab coalition warned that they would oppose. Seeking to use that condition to destroy the alliance Saddam Hussein launched missile attacks into Tel Aviv. By every international law Israel was entitled to retaliate and yet its hand was stayed by America just to save the coalition.

Anything to do with Israel brings out the worst from many of its opponents. Let us be clear that the current round of violence was initiated by Hamas with the kidnapping and subsequent brutal killing of 3 Israelis. While Israel looked for the kidnapped citizens Palestine, Hamas and the world cared a damn. When the bodies turned up and a revenge killing happened, which Israeli government condemned and did everything to apprehend the guilty, the world started taking notice. Then Hamas started firing rockets into Israel and Israel replied back in kind. Now human rights advocates and activists sprouted from every corner of the world like locusts. A pornography of grief has ensued with the tragic killing of 3 children, playing on a beach, during an Israeli bombing.

Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb threatens Saudi Arabia as much as it threatens Israel or US. Yet, Saudi regime is relaxing knowing full well that America and Israel will take care of it. This duplicity is what paints America and Israel into a corner.

So much is made of America's aid to Palestine. America buys oil from Arab states and funds totalitarian regimes in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Unlike Israel those nations who enjoy American dollars have repaid US in treachery. Russia is the backer of the murderous regime in Syria. Where is the indignation for that? What is the level of indignation against a terrorist army like ISIS or even the Boko Haram?

There is so much of hue and a cry about Palestinian casualties as against almost zero Israeli casualty. Hamas locates its rocket launchers in homes and schools and purposefully leaves its citizens unprotected. In fact Hamas wants more casualties so they can parade corpses. This is the ugliest truth. An Israeli mother writing in a letter to New York Times editor said that she cried reading about the dead Gazan children even as she herself was hiding from rockets fired by Hamas. The rockets fired by Hamas were 'intended' to kill civilians unlike Israel's rockets.

The ever redoubtable Charles Krauthammer offers the stark contrast in 'moral clarity' with a quote from an Israeli minister "we are using missile defense to protect our civilians they are using civilians to protect their missiles". As Krauthammer, with his anger barely concealed, points out Israel had exited out of Gaza in the full glare of international TVs and there is no occupation in Gaza or even the much hated settlements. Instead of building a state for its citizens Palestniians sought to create a sanctuary for terror with a view to nurturing a permanent state of war with Israel.

Another much circulated cartoon on Facebook shows Israel showering rockets on Gaza in response to one rocket from Gaza. New York Times which ran many critical article against Israel, including a much well documented one on the 4 children being killed, also ran another article that stated "sheer number (of rockets) fired by militants since July 8th has shaken Israeli society". Israel's fabled 'iron dome' defense foils most of the rocket attacks and therefore Israeli casualty is almost zero. But that is NOT the point. While the dome protects life imagine living under a barrage of rockets and perpetual air raid sirens.

Terrorist organizations have the aura and romance of being some nitwits idea of a freedom fighter. Hamas is romanticized by unscrupulous idiots. Hamas happened because Arafat's Al Fatah was a corrupt and effete organization. And Hamas too is corrupt with many of its top leaders being millionaires. The tragedy of Palestinians is not the state of Israel but its leadership.

Even school textbooks are vehicles of hate in the Middle East. To be sure Israeli textbooks have their share of scaremongering. But the Palestinian textbooks go beyond scaremongering into hate mongering.

Unlike those who hate Israel and are blind to Hamas's fault I shall not be blind towards Israel. The current ground war is pointless and it only alienates much more. As much as Krauthammer might take comfort in the 'roof knocking' it is grotesque and useless. Telling a family to pick up its bags and run to god knows where in the face of an impending rocket strike is unfathomably horrendous. I admire Israel for how it has grown into a formidable economic and military power amidst unprecedented existential threats but such growth places great responsibility too.

All that said it is sheer propaganda to place the blame disproportionately on Israel's head. As the Israeli mother wrote to New York Times it is a wonder why Hamas builds tunnels to hide its weapons but no shelters against Israeli rockets. As one who considers himself a student of Jewish history I'll never say that Israel should heed world opinion. The world opinion be damned. In another of his long list of sharp and clarifying op-eds Krauthammer pointed out that it is silly to harp on how the world loved America on 9/11 and Le Monde writing 'we are all New Yorkers now', because on just two days later the same editorials were calling for America to stand silent. Krauthammer acidly remarked that the world loves America when it is weak. Its the age old Nietzchean struggle of the world hating the strong. World opinion has never been of help to Israel and will never stand up for Israel.

A case in point in point is the flotilla to Gaza that Israel embargoed in 2010. Then too many cried hoarse about how Israel was preventing just food and unarmed activists from going to Gaza. Later investigations revealed how the flotilla had no intention of promoting anything but peace and were in fact armed.

It is a region where there is no hope for sense or rationality. I'll not offer any prescriptions to any side. The reality is far too complex and intractable for legions of arm chair analysts, including me.


References:

1. Israeli mother's letter to NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/18/opinion/The-Agony-of-Israel-and-Gaza.html

2. Charles Krauthammer's column in Washington Post, 'Moral clarity in Gaza', http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-moral-clarity-in-gaza/2014/07/17/0adabe0c-0de4-11e4-8c9a-923ecc0c7d23_story.html?hpid=z4

3. New York Times detailed reporting on the killing of 4 Gaza children http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/world/middleeast/through-lens-4-boys-dead-by-gaza-shore.html

4. New York Times article on rockets fired Hamas http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/18/world/middleeast/from-gaza-an-array-of-makeshift-rockets-packs-a-counterpunch.html

5. Textbook propaganda in Israel and Palestine - from Economist http://www.economist.com/blogs/pomegranate/2013/02/israeli-and-palestinian-textbooks

Monday, July 14, 2014

Jeyamohan and Women Writers - 1: Sexism in Western Literature

Jeyamohan, as only Jeyamohan does, stirred a hornets nest with his remarks on the literary merits, or lack thereof, of women writers in Tamil. What started as a legitimate debate soon degenerated into blatant sexism and personal innuendoes amply abetted by his fan club. Just as I was about to write a blog on western women writers and the sexism debate in western literature, setting the stage to rebut many of the clamnies that Jeyamohan and his fans trotted out, a reader wrote to Jeyamohan, based on just itinerant googling of a few authors, lamenting that women writers of the west, unlike Tamil women writers,  create lasting literature triumphing dire poverty and adverse circumstances. The reader's contention being that Tamil women writers offer lame excuses as impediments to writing a 'Harry Potter'. The poor reader is unaware of the long and continuing debate on sexism in western literature by even the likes of Margaret Atwood. 

The Paris Review magazine has been conducting highly acclaimed interviews of writers for several decades and publishes them as anthologies. In an anthology titled 'Women writers at work' Margaret Atwood addresses at length the issue of sexism in her introduction and many parts deserve to be quoted here.

Margaret Atwood
"There is, still, a sort of trained-dog fascination with the idea of women writers- not that the thing is done well, but that is done at all, by a creature that is not supposed to possess such capabilities. And so a biographer may well focus on the woman, on gossip and sexual detail and domestic arrangements and political involvement, to the exclusion of the artist".

Atwood adroitly contrasts how Joyce Carol Oates is asked "the 'woman' question, phrased in her case as 'what are the advantages of being a woman writer?'", with how the same question is posed to Joan Didion on the 'disadvantages' of being a woman writer. Oates answers, kind of acidly, "advantages! Too many to enumerate, probably. Since, being a woman, I can't be taken seriously by the sort of male critics who rank writers 1,2,3 in the public press, I am free I suppose, to do as I like". Oates probably had a premonition of Naipual, not Jeyamohan, who said no woman writer wrote like him, in mind. 

Joan Didion was gentler in enumerating the disadvantages of being a woman writer. Didion replied "women who wrote novels were quite often perceived as invalids...Novels by women tended to be described, even by their publishers, as sensitive". Quite often interviewers would ask women writers 'what they felt' whereas they would ask male writers "what they thought". 

Katherine Anne Porter's interviewer asks her, nonchalantly, "what about the creation of masculine characters, then? Most women writers, even the best of them like George Eliot, have run aground there." Nobody asks a male writer how he imagines his female characters, at least not so brazenly. 

Rebecca West, replying to if she felt 'men did not want to help her as a writer?', said "Oh, yes! So many men hate you. When my husband was dying I had some very strange dialogues. People were very rude because they'd heard I was a woman writer". That was in 1981.

Asked about racism in publishing and literature Maya Angelou responded "in the shape of American society, the white male is on top, then the white female and then the black make, and at the bottom is the black woman". Angelou even recounts how she was prevented from directing a scene in Sweden, for which she had composed the score and wrote the screenplay, because she was a black woman. They brought, Angelou remembers, a Swedish director "who hadn't even shaken a black person's hands before".

In an age of political correctness and a new found realization of the value of diversity in every walk of life the western world has spawned appropriate discussions of gender and racial diversity in the arts. The VIDA count project analyses how women writers are  presented and reviewed by major magazines like New Yorker, Times Literary Supplement, Granta, NYRB etc. For 2012 NYRB had reviewed 316 male authors and 89 female authors. 

Jodi Picoult asked pointedly, referring to Jonathan Franzen's much acclaimed book 'Freedom', "I think it's a very old and deep-seated double standard that holds that when a man writes about family and feeling, it's literature with a capital L, but when a woman considers the same topics, it's romance, or a beach book-in short, it's something unworthy of a serious critic's attention". Jeyakanthan mostly wrote of interpersonal relationships and family squabbles. 


The New Republic magazine which wrote of the fracas between Picoult and Franzen noted that publishing giant Rand House's editor Chris Jackson innocently said 'that he could not remember the last time he had read a work of fiction by a woman'. Jackson, whose wife owns one of the best bookstores in Manhattan, backtracked later saying he liked Jennifer Egan and Chimananda Adichie. 

Amanda Filipacchi writing for New York Times exposed how wikipedia segregated American women novelists under a separate sub section while retaining male authors under 'American novelists'. In response Filipacchi's page, according to a follow up column by her, was savaged by wikipedia editors. 

This is a man's world. If so much shenanigans can happen in a society that is relatively far more liberal than India one can only imagine the extent of discrimination in a feudal and far more patriarchal society like India. In a society where male teachers taunt girl students for attempting to gain an engineering degree or girls studying one cannot fathom the insurmountable odds of a woman making forays into an area where even males are discouraged from venturing into by parents. 

Barbara Tuchman who redefined history writing with 'Guns of August' spoke of how as mother of three children she had to become a house wife and on account of which people found it easy to say "this is something that Barbara wanted to do. Its not professional'. Coming from a storied family of ambassadors to US Presidents Barbara Tuchman's ability to fend of sexism was far better than most could have done.

In America Eve Ensler could read from a stage her poetry collection titled 'Vagina monologues' and retain an aura of a writer instead of a wanton woman. In the west Simone de Beauvoir could carve out a niche for her as a writer despite being widely known as Sartre's mistress and even his procurer. 

From Anais Nin's 'Delta of Venus' to Erica Jong's 'Fear of flying' to blatantly prurient Catherine Millet's 'Sexual life of Catherine M' erotica by women authors has garnered attention, lots of derision and a hard earned place alongside 'Lady Chatterley's lover'. 

Writers write mostly out of experience and it is almost impossible to separate the creator from the creation. As such it will remain a debate whether a woman writer can portray male characters as much as a male writer will encounter limits in portraying a women. There will be exceptions. This transcendence of the writer from his/her being and life is all the more contentious when they seek to transcend class or race barriers. Portrayal of black characters by white authors, male and female, remains a minefield that has tripped up William Styron and Nadine Gordimer alike. 

Judging women writers will remain an area fraught with sensibilities as much as it is to judge black writers or any writer belonging to a minority. Accusations, of unfair harshness and stale benchmarks that don't take into account different experiences, will be flung by those at the receiving end of criticisms. Likewise critics would cry "thats a cheap shot". Of course there are times when both are true.

In a strange coincidence Jonathan Franzen, like Jeyamohan writing of the unappealing looks of Kamala Das, wrote that Edith Warton was ugly. I'll not rush to label such Freudian criticism as sexist. However, to make such a criticism the critique needs to have built a reservoir of trust and that is where Jeyamohan and Franzen fail miserably.  

Even the reading habits vary on account gender, race and class and so would the judgment as reader. To a white reader 'Gone with the wind' is a classic but to a black reader it may appear as thinly disguised yearning for the era of slavery as a gallant era 'gone with the wind'. Erica Jong felt compelled to write of the 'zipless fuck' while Tolstoy sought to punish Anna.

Women authors are often accused of being starved of imagination beyond feminine themes. Nobody accused Philip Roth of paucity of imagination for his misogyny and for peopling his books with Jewish characters. Eudora Welty is asked if she is irked by being called a 'regional writer' for writing books based on one region. Yet, many male authors have written most of their novels revolving around familiar geography or ethnic backgrounds that they hail from. V.S. Naipual is known for his books on Trinidad and Indian descent characters. 

There are stories that are better told by a woman. Only a Ralph Ellison could write 'Invisible man' and only Margaret Atwood could write the fiercely feminist 'Penelopiad'. The same is true of 'Second sex'. However, being a woman does not mean that they can understand women naturally. Ayn Rand was a failure in portraying women characters. 

When women were integrated into combat divisions in US army there was lot of discussion over whether standards would be diluted to accommodate women, especially physical requirements. Studies established that the physical requirements about ability to do strenuous exercises were designed with men in mind and in reality had no relation to what was needed in battlefield. Women brought their own advantages too to the army. Women are considered better snipers than men. More often than not what many take for granted as standards have been created by men for men. 

Atwood in her introduction recounts an incident when a panel happened to comprise entirely of women writers and they were asked how they felt about being in one such. The authors prevaricated in their answers. Regretting that prevarication Atwood wonders they should have answered "why not". Yes, "why not". No male author has been asked how he felt sitting in an all-male panel.

The Paris Interviews anthology 'Women writers at work' is a veritable treasure. Each interview is preceded by a succinct biography, a short backdrop on the interview, an excerpt from each author's working copy (usually handwritten). The questions range from their work habits to inspirations to how they tolerate their editors. I've given below in the references a few interviews. 

Jeyamohan's reader seeks to ask Tamil women writers whether there is a Katherine Anne Porter amongst them. He wonders who would be Tamil's J.K. Rowling. This is patently unfair because none amongst the men is a Rowling either. I'd ask who amongst the men is Hilary Mantel or Margaret Atwood? If its unfair to place all of Western literature on one scale and Tamil male authors on another then so is it to do so with female writers.

Jeyamohan and his readers have gleefully flung many charges against Tamil women writers beyond just a question of literary merit. For instance they claim that women writers promote their works, unqualified works, insidiously. Yet, it is the male writers who bring Tamil cinema actresses, directors and musicians to their book releases. More of their slander and scurrilous claims will be held to the test of truth in my subsequent blogs.


References:

1. Paris Review Interviews:

2. Frank Bruni's column in New York Times about sexism in literature http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/opinion/bruni-sexisms-puzzling-stamina.html

3. Jonathan Franzen's rebuttal to Bruni in his letter to NYT editor http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/opinion/where-sexism-persists.html?_r=0


5. VIDA web count of literary magazine's coverage of women writers http://www.vidaweb.org/the-count-2012/


7. Amanda Filipacchi's column in New York Times about Wikipedia's sexism http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/wikipedias-sexism-toward-female-novelists.html

8. Jonathan Franzen on Edith Wharton in New Yorker http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/02/13/120213fa_fact_franzen



11. Erica Jong's 'Fear of flying' ('zipless fuck') http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_of_Flying_(novel)

12. Barbara Tuchman on motherhood and being writer http://pabook.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/bios/Tuchman__Barbara.html

13. பெண்ணெழுத்து -நவீன் http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=57731
 

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Jeyamohan on Ayn Rand - 1: A Struggle to Understand

Jeyamohan is very capable of stirring new controversies, but, for reasons unknown, he recently re-published those Ayn Rand blogs and as far as I can say, with no changes or fresh insights. Nearly 5 years back I came across Jeyamohan's blog when he wrote a series on Ayn Rand, my most favorite writer. Not knowing anything of Jeyamohan at that time I wrote an ill constructed and intemperate email pointing out some errors. Using the intemperate parts he deftly, with little effort, brushed aside the valid objections with ridicule. Using the occasion of a new round I'll make amends to what I failed to do in 2009.

Disagreeing with Rand is Jeyamohan's liberty. What is at issue is whether he understands correctly and then disagrees. Jeyamohan's blogs on Rand are littered liberally with misunderstandings, misinterpretations and some slander too. Since I am often charged with negativity I shall, for once, try to first outline what are valid interpretations of Ayn Rand though I disagree with his critique.




Jeyamohan proudly declared that he has read nothing by Ayn Rand except 'Fountainhead'. Ayn Rand was a writer who matured slowly over two decades reaching her intellectual apogee in 'Atlas Shrugged' from the grotesquely Nietzchean and autobiographical 'We the living'. Jeyamohan snidely refers to Ayn Rand as one who 'ran away' from Russia. What Jeyamohan intends as an insult, albeit a fact, Ayn Rand would wear on her sleeve with pride saying 'I chose to be an American'.

Ayn Rand has always been ridiculed by literary establishment of America. No list of great books to read in a lifetime will ever include her books. She did not win any literary prize. American academia always chuckled at students who mentioned her books just as Jeyamohan does. Yet, more than 50 years since she published her books they continue to sell by the tens of thousands every year.

Even those who loved her ideas and books were quick to identify that her characters were like cardboard. Howard Roark, John Galt. Ellsworth Toohey, Peter Keating were all vehicles for her ideas and little else. Jeyamohan is absolutely correct in saying that none of her characters were lifelike. In fact my father used to say that her heroes and heroines will be invested with heroic qualities, even look beautiful, athletic and fiendishly focused on their ambitious goals whereas her villains were ugly looking and with no redeeming quality whatsoever.

Rand, ironically, modeled her characters after famous living personalities. Howard Roark was inspired by Frank Lloyd Wright (Jeyamohan never got that correct, he claimed Roark was modeled 'probably' after Wittgenstein), Toohey resembled left wing academic Harold Laski, Gail Wynand resembled newspaper baron William Randolph Hearst, Robert Stadtler in Atlas Shrugged was drawn from physicist Robert Oppenheimer. Interestingly Rand denied Roark was Frank Lloyd Wright and Wright himself indignantly said 'I deny the paternity and refuse to marry the mother'. Rand took those living beings, bored into what she considered their towering core, as in the case of Wright, or their fatal flaws, as in the case of Laski, and proceeded to invest her characters with nothing else. Though Rand claimed that the fact her books were published were 'proof enough that men like that existed' this unidimensional characterization made it easy for detractors and admirers alike to say "well, such men are unreal and therefore living like them is impossible".

The intellectual climate in which Ayn Rand wrote those books is unfathomable today. Bernard Shaw and Walter Duranty denied the horrors of Stalinism. In FDR's America the New Deal was passed with help of racist Democrats and as a price segregation was institutionalized. Woodrow Wilson would watch racist pictures in the White House. Isaac Deutscher was keen in unmasking Stalin while whitewashing Trostsky. Rand sought to strip away the nuances and masks to show the unvarnished core of people.

Jeyamohan adroitly zeroes in on Rand's central theme of absolute rejection of religious or communist idea of negation of the self in favor of absolute realization of the self as the only path to happiness. Rand considered the striving for such a happiness as the only reason for existence.

'Fountainhead' was published in 1943 when Che Guevara was a 15 year old and he would not become  known for another 13 years until the 1956 Cuban revolution. Jeyamohan, in his role as arbiter of literature, suggests that Rand should've considered Che, whom he considers as the paragon of selfless sacrifice, as the ideological antipode if she really aspired to write a book of literary quality. Unbeknownst to him Jeyamohan offers an example in Che who proved that Rand was brilliantly prophetic. Rand's theory that a man willing to sacrifice his 'self' will more than willingly sacrifice others for his ideas was proved by Che's ruthlessness and blood lust in killing those he considered enemies. Che was known to organize summary executions after kangaroo trials in the forests. Che Guevara and Castro liberated Cuba from a murderous regime only to institute their own totalitarian and equally murderous regime enslaving a people for 6 decades.

William F. Buckley Jr, the intellectual godfather of the then nascent religion based conservatism in America, is joined at the hip with Jeyamohan in his fear of a doctrine of individualism that preached happiness as realizing one's self and nothing beyond. Buckley and Jeyamohan are aghast that a man should be happy in himself to the negation of others. To both individualism not circumscribed by, what they considered, as a superior purpose in life, a higher calling from beyond, is recipe for sowing the seeds of a tyrannical mindset.

Very tellingly Jeyamohan says that man who rises above boundaries of nationalism and other defining 'isms' should do so only as part of an aspiration of mystical renunciation from worldly bindings. Buckley ripped into John Lennon's utopian song 'Imagine', which waxes eloquent about an utopian society in which 'there's no country, nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too', for what he saw as naive nihilism.

I, for one, side with Ayn Rand but it is not my purpose to convince others of such an idea in this blog. Suffice it to say in Rand's view and her portrayal a man who values his 'self' will never seek to undermine the 'self' of another.

One of the main debates,indeed the most important, of the 2008 Presidential election in US was about how much credit does an individual deserve in his achievements and how much credit can a society take in providing the environment that made success possible. Jeyamohan bristles at credit being given, wholesale, to Roark for his revolutionary ideas on architecture. Roark, Jeyamohan contends, arrives at his new ideas, like Newton, standing on the shoulders of giants and if that is the case can Roark claim anything special for himself on account of his ideas?

It is classic Marxist objection to deny any 'special' role for an individual. Nobody is inevitable. Sure, Newton and Einstein 'stood on the shoulders of giants' and owed their predecessors much for their earth changing theories. In fact in science it is rare to see the individual researcher instead we see corporatized research in teams. Rand would point out in Fountainhead that even in a committee each must bring to the table their own mind and without it there would be nothing to arrive at a consensus for or against. The primacy of an individual thinking on his own is inviolate. 'Cogito ergo sum'.

It is possible that another Newton or Einstein might have indeed come up with those theories and humanity may still have progressed. But, to deny their achievements, to deny an individual his/her place in history is a slippery slope that inexorably slides towards a society of animals.

If George  Washington had been Napoleon would America have happened? If Nehru had been Stalin would India be what it is today (India in 1947 had every reason to become like 1930s USSR)? How does a tongue tied unsuccessful lawyer find his voice as a destiny maker in a South African train platform?

To be sure many other countries would've their own Steve Jobs and Bill Gates and Rockefeller but it is in America that they became titans and changed the course of human history. A French analyst once said that a Steve Jobs will never happen in France for only in America is such a story possible. By the same token, thousands others went to the same schools and colleges as Jobs and Gates and yet they were all unexceptional. These are tough questions to resolve.

For a woman who wrote about the sanctity of the individual Ayn Rand encouraged and luxuriated in a notorious group of admirers who called themselves, alas, 'the collective'. Jeyamohan is right in pointing out towards the end of her life Ayn Rand had withdrawn into a cocoon of uncritical and adulatory readers who lost their sense of individualism. Rand was so tyrannical that whoever she considered irrational, for instance Brahms, should be shunned by everyone in the collective. Anyone who dared to enjoy Brahms would invite scorn and even a stern lecture. Rand was Stalin to her collective. Interestingly I've seen Jeyamohan's own fan club shows similar blind worship. I even received a racist tweet from one of his popular defenders. Later, ashamed of it, the reader deleted it.

As Jeyamohan says Ayn Rand's affair with Nathaniel Branden was disastrous and in fact undercuts her preaching of 'rationality'. Unlike what he says, though, the affair was not done in secret. Ayn Rand called her husband and Branden's wife to a meeting and corralled everyone into agreeing to it. In fact its the openness and the rationalization that makes it even more grotesque than if it had been a secret. I am always loathe to dismiss ideas solely because their proponents themselves might live a life that contradicts it or falls short. An idea must be defeated on its own demerits.

Ayn Rand did not die in a disillusioned manner or any such thing. In fact Rand bounced back from the disastrous affair and continued to address universities and sold out shows. Tens of millions watched her debate on TV. On the contrary it is Gandhi who died disillusioned. Asked what can Jews do against an enemy like Hitler Gandhi suggested 'mass suicide'. Gandhi counseled the British to give up their island to Hitler. Thankfully Churchill did not listen to Gandhi. What is worse, independent India unified the country with military help when the British sought to Balkanize the country.

Other than the few observations above Jeyamohan completely misstates and misunderstands Ayn Rand. He devoted an entire blog to show that Rand's choice of architecture as the profession of the hero was to signify her hero's inflexible dogmatic attitude. He then drew tenuous connection to Hitler's love of architecture in an attempt to discredit Rand's hero as a subliminal Hitler. Rand's heroic characters in 'Atlas Shrugged' dealt with molten metals and locomotives. In Rand's 'Fountainhead' unlike CN tower or Raja Raja Chola's belittling gargantuan temple the skyscrapers have a purpose. Roark's buildings are for people to live and function. I've been on top of CN tower and have wondered at the absolute worthlessness of such a building. I'd never say that of Empire State Building or World Trade Center. In fact Rand would've frowned on the new World Trade Center architects arguing for the title of the tallest building based on height that includes the lighting conductor atop the building. Rand would've argued that a building which climbs to 1776 feet just for arrogance is a sham. It is here that Jeyamohan failed to understand the central theme of 'Fountainhead' architect. And thats only one of many other failures as we shall see in coming blogs.


References:
1.விதிசமைப்பவர்கள் http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=14305 (has links to other Ayn Rand blogs by Jemo)
2. My email to Jeyamohan in 2009 http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=3464
3. Che Guevara http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara
4. John Lennon's 'Imagine' http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/johnlennon/imagine.html

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

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

Sunday, May 4, 2014

The Accidental PM and An Accidental Biographer

Manmohan Singh had greatness thrust upon him. The Indian voter had delivered a stunning verdict in 2004 that denied a mandate to the then ruling party, BJP, which, riding on a wave of economic resurgence, had blanketed the country with ads touting 'shining India'. More than their loss what drove the BJP crazy was the notion that Italy born Sonia Gandhi could lay a claim to the mandate and eventually unfurl the tricolor flag from the ramparts of the Red Fort. Even many voters who voted for Congress did not really imagine that that could be a result of their vote. An unfair groundswell of opposition rose to deny Sonia, who had led her party to victory almost singlehandedly, the office that she was constitutionally entitled to. In a stroke of surprise Sonia Gandhi, while refusing the office, ignored eager aspirants in her kitchen cabinet and called on Manmohan to lead the country despite the fact that he had not even contested the election. Manmohan became, as he himself confessed in many occasions to anyone who cared to listen, the accidental Prime Minister.

As a grieving widow of a gruesomely murdered man Sonia turned down the offer of Congress leadership. Seeing the party disintegrate she was later drafted to become the leader and save the party. It is chauvinism to keep referring to her as an 'Italian' as her opponents do. She has paid a very high price for marrying a man with the the surname 'Gandhi'. She is as much Indian as any Indian. The conflicts between the Prime Minister and the leadership of the party dates back to the Nehru-Tandon days. Not even Nehru, a charismatic leader with a reservoir of political capital, could avoid the antagonism with various factions of the party that had chosen him as their leader in legislature. Vajpayee -Advani rivalry and the internecine bickering that Vajpayee had with the hardliners of RSS and VHP is not a secret.



Sonia did occupy a certain grey area after the death of Rajiv during the days of the Narasimha Rao administration. Though she had no constitutional position visiting heads of state would pay her visit. During her hand picked Manmohan's administration she posed further ticklish problems because she was now an MP but came to be looked at as not just an MP. Something as simple as breaking protocol for her seating during a Republic Day parade became issues.

Sanjaya Baru was Manmohan's 'media adviser' and has released this book timed to cash in on the election season. He told a New York Times interviewer that he had 'promised a lot of people' that the book will be released only post-election but was compelled by the publisher to advance the publication for obvious reasons. The book does not contain any new revelations or bombshells since Baru takes cover behind the official secrets act. Written by a former aide the book suffers from a common malaise of any book by former officials in any regime across the world. Such books, unlike those written by a journalist, cannot rely on unnamed sources or even allude to them. Much of the book, therefore, is just a rehash of what is very commonly and plainly known to all those who have read newspapers.

Manmohan lacked political legitimacy because he was plucked out of anonymity by Sonia and it was compounded by the fact that he was not directly elected to the Lok Sabha and instead chose to be nominated for a Rajya Sabha seat ion order to fulfill constitutional requirements of being an MP. The lack of political capital crippled Manmohan from the word go. What is puzzling is Manmohan's refusal to contest even in 2009 when he was seen as a decisive leader coming off from surviving a vote of confidence forced by the truculent Communist party that had withdrawn support over the largely popular nuclear deal that India signed with US. Baru repeatedly points out that this lack of assertion was the prime cause of a listless administration that is headed towards electoral disaster. Sonia remaining in the background and influencing policy made her the de facto extra constitutional PM while Manmohan was the figure head. This was plain to the country and Baru's book has no whistle blower quality on that score.The book repeatedly circles around the Manmohan-Sonia tangle.

Baru says that ever since Manmohan lost the candidacy for an MP seat in 1999 he had a distaste of contesting elections. Baru attributes the defeat of Manmohan to his characterization of the genocidal anti-Sikh riots of 1984 as the handiwork of not just Congress but of RSS too. In Delhi, which bore the brunt of those riots, the remarks created a furore amongst the Sikh community which duly saw Manmohan for what he was, an eager power hungry politician. The riots were engineered by Congressmen and, ironically, it was RSS which even attempted to save lives. That a man in pursuit of electoral office would tell blatant lies about a riot in which his fellow community members were massacred tells volumes of his character.

Since 1989 coalition governments have been the order of the day in India. Many times the governments were a hodgepodge of power hungry parties coming together in a post-poll alliance jockeying for plum ministries. Political parties, as a rule, lack principles but they have a pressing need to satisfy their vote blocs and in a coalition government where alliances are stitched together there is little commonality in the prerogatives of the voting blocs thus resulting in a policy stalemate. Manmohan's government was no exception. Decision making became a process that made sausage making look more edifying. There was the GoM (group of ministers) and then there was the EGoM (Empowered Group of Ministers) above the various committees. All of that was done just to keep passing the buck and not take any responsibility for decision making. "At one point in 2007 there were over 50 GoM's".

Baru's book focuses only on his time in the administration which was just the first term of Manmohan. Manmohan's first term was marked by the landmark nuclear deal with US, building better rapport with US and as a result losing support from the Communist parties for whom hating US is a fetishistic obsession.

Distrust of US and Capitalism go hand in hand in Indian thinking and that permeates the body politic of India beyond the bureaucrats down to the common citizen. This despite the fact that the US consulates in India are the busiest in the world granting US visas to Indians. George Bush, in a post 9/11 world, looked to cultivate good relationship with India as part of what is now called in America as the 'Asian pivot'. Bush, unilaterally, sought to breakdown the decades old nuclear-apartheid by the nuclear-club that discriminated against new entrants to nuclear-weapons-club. The only good part of the book is where Baru details the efforts of Bush to bring India and US together on signing the nuclear deal. Of course, no revelations but just plain coherent telling of, possibly, the only achievement of Manmohan's first term.

Though a treaty was signed, Indian officials, in thralldom to their Soviet dream, dragged their feet endlessly into 2007. Senator John Kerry visited India and told the dithering Indian officials that the next President, most probably a Democrat, would not do what Bush was 'ready and willing to do' for India. A prophecy that came true with Barack Obama who let the treaty languish. Obama did not take Bush's pivot to India any further beyond a nominal state dinner for Manmohan. Manmohan, too, for his part, re-elected in 2009 did nothing in the foreign policy space. Baru laments that Manmohan did not capitalize on the one area where he had space, which is, foreign policy.

The reflexive hatred of US by the foreign policy establishment and the communist party is told at some length. Prakash Karat gets some, very justifiably, unflattering portrayal for his willingness to push the country to the brink of political certainty just to satisfy his crusty anti-imperialism credentials and to be a knight in shining armor for his comrades.

The dominance of left-wing thinking in policy circles, particularly amongst economists is underscored by Baru's confession that, as an economist, he used to pooh-pooh the growth of countries like South Korea. No economic model, save the Stalinist, was deemed relevant for India. Baru does his best to project Manmohan's feeble attempts at articulating a foreign policy vision as ground breaking. Manmohan's lack of follow through on any vision frustrated Baru.

A revealing moment in the book is when Baru registers that Manmohan felt that Natwar Singh, whose son was blamed by a UN investigation committee report as having used the UN food program for Iraq to make money, was being thrown under the bus by the Congress party. Here is a man indicted by an international investigation of bribery in a program meant for a people under a sanctions regime and Manmohan feels that the party must have backed that corrupt man. This willing tolerance of corruption will become Manmohan's undoing later. Incidentally, Baru does not flinch that the PM was trying to defend a corrupt minister.

The book unwittingly portrays the chaotic structure of especially the security agencies. India is a country hemmed in by hostile powers that are actively seeking to undermine the country by supporting insurgencies across the land and yet the security setup is pathetic at the organizational level. Internecine bickering between the newly constituted agencies, turf wars and a lack of clarity of which organization should report to whom all disconcertingly portray a country that is yet to learn how to build institutions.

Arun Shourie once wrote a column on the notorious obsession of Indian bureaucracy for who can use which color ink. When Baru makes a file note with red ink he is pulled up by J.N. 'Mani' Dixit because only 'service chiefs can use red ink'.

Like any book written by an official who was part of a regime this book suffers from numerous flaws. Officials write books to exaggerate their roles, to embellish their contributions and to make money. Sanjaya Baru does all three. Baru was only a 'media adviser' to Manmohan and as such he was not an intrinsic part of major policy decisions. His understanding of democracy and democratic institutions is appallingly elementary.

Like any bureaucrat he wants to shine up his boss's image while writing a book that he knows full well could become fodder for his boss's political opponents. Commending that Manmohan wakes up early and watches BBC Baru says the Prime Minister learned of the 2004 Tsunami from BBC before his officials could brief him. India's PM had to learn from a foreign broadcaster about a devastation which killed thousands and displaced tens of thousands. And that too, we are told, thats because the PM gets up early and watches BBC.

Baru does not blink when describing the Intelligence Bureau chief Narayanan as Edgar Hoover. Narayanan, Baru writes, 'earned his spurs' unseating the world's first elected Communist government in Kerala. Narayanan used to keep tabs on credit card spending of editors of major dailies and snooped on political leaders. None of this is recorded by Baru with any concern or alarm. In another attempt to shine up his boss Baru says Manmohan stopped asking for intelligence reports. In a puzzling comment Baru writes "he (Manmohan) not only resisted this temptation to spy on his colleagues, but gave up even the opportunity to be offered such information by declining to take a daily briefing from the intelligence chiefs". This makes it appear that intelligence briefings were almost entirely nothing beyond snooping on political opponents. Is India a modern day democratic republic or a Roman Republic of the days of the Caesars?

The 'Right to Information'(RTI) act was one of the genuinely progressive achievements of Manmohan's tenure. Baru opposed the act as he felt that "the glare of public scrutiny would not scare corrupt and inefficient officers, who would always, fine new means of playing old tricks, but it would certainly discourage honest officers from stating in writing views that might later be used to question their motives". Now, if an officer is honest, why would he/she worry about his/her views coming out in the open? If an honest officer had indeed reflected an honest opinion why would it be impossible to defend against questioning motives? These are old hat excuses of a crusty bureaucracy that was loathe to expose itself.

As 'media adviser' Baru's views of the role of free press in a democracy is shocking. Baru was also a journalist and that makes his views all the more deploringly shameful. Baru had asked for direct access to the PM if he is to function effectively and  to 'feed a hungry media something or the other all the time'. Managing the media is the chief task of any 'media adviser' but to look at it as feeding a 'hungry media something or the other' shows a complete disdain for a critical part of a democracy, the free press. Its almost Stalinist.

Baru does not think twice about asking TV interviewers to 're-record' if he thought the PM 'made a mistake'. The media adviser becomes a media-enforcer when he writes, patting himself, that 'once recording was done only the final approved version was available for telecast'. Tipping off the PM about possible questions to be asked in an interview is par for the course. The PM reading a written statement during an interview to a burning corruption scandal is nothing to be outraged about. All of the above practices would be considered sacrilegious in US or UK.

In US, given the cost of covering the President, news organization adopt a practice of 'pool reporting' whereby any news that the 'pool reporters' get while covering the President is shared equally. The 'pool' almost always accompanies the President when he travels to any place including a golf outing. When Obama team failed to include the 'pool' during a gold outing the press bristled. The point being that access to President is considered inviolate by US press. Indian press is far behind such defense of the role of press's role in a democracy.

US Presidential meeting appointments, especially those at the White House, are public knowledge and access to the list of meetings is a privilege that the press guards zealously. Baru cheerfully records how a Pakistani diplomat used to visit the Race Course Road secretly and how his visits were never recorded in the 'daily programme sheet'.

That the era of political correctness is yet to dawn in India is very evident from the brazenly communal stereotypical remarks that Baru drops nonchalantly. A personal assistant who simply does his job of taking care the boss has his lunch is commended as doing it in the 'best tradition of Malayalee personal assistants'. Baru exults that Narayanan paid him the 'highest compliment a Malayalee' could possibly offer by saying 'I always thought Tamil Brahmins were the cleverest chaps, but youTelugu Brahmins have proved to be cleverer'.

Sanjaya Baru, certified the 'clever Telugu Brahmin' by a 'Malayalee', disdainfully observes that several ministers and officers were appointed to ensure diversity of race or religion or gender instead of merit. It does not cross his mind for one minute that in a county of a billion its easy to find meritorious people across any caste or gender criteria and that diversity need not be implemented at the cost of efficiency. Its only paucity of imagination to think that when Brahmin males are overlooked that only bad choices are made in the attempt to diversify. Baru, again nonchalantly, by now with irritating regularity, observes how Vajpayee picked a 'fellow Brahmin' for an office.

That Sanjaya Baru is a man of very limited intellectual abilities is evident when he fawningly rates Manmohan's ascension to the top position as being above that of Barack Obama becoming America's first black president. Its plain sycophancy typical of a bureaucrat who has not outgrown a clerical mind. At another place Baru prides himself on making fine liquor available for journalist aboard the Prime Minister's plane though he rescinded other undue favors that were extended to journalists of favor in the previous Vajpayee regime.

In his prefatory remarks Baru expresses admiration for Sharada Prasad and especially for the latter's reticence in talking about his days as an administration official. In US it is common for both Presidents and officials to write self-serving accounts of their days in office. The redeeming part is most of them bequeath their papers to some institution and a journalist or historian like Robert Caro could write a detailed impartial biography. Sometimes, as George Kennan or even Steve Jobs did recently, biographers will be commissioned and given complete access to record albeit with the understanding that there will be no interference in how the book is written. Such writing is unheard of in India and thats sad.

The book is a success because it is an easy read and for once gives a simplistic albeit coherent narration of the workings of a government. The failure to delve any deeper on policies or philosophies of governing is a let down only for the serious reader. To be fair to Baru he does indeed portray Manmohan in a flattering light and the criticisms are only there to give it a semblance of balance and ensure that there is a selling point.The memoirist is as much accidental as the subject is and the writing shows it.