[varsha-dugar]

Notebandi: Modi is not BJP and DeMo is not a magic wand

It is amusing that BJP is being referred to in the debates around notebandi. People are also asking if BJP is free from corruption and black money after DeMo. The fact is, BJP has very little to do with DeMo. It was entirely Modi and his advisors’ decision. Modi has always been on his own, and has a history of upsetting both BJP and RSS from time to time. But, the man has single-handedly delivered an unthought-of position to the party so nobody in the BJP (except disgruntled old-timers such as Arun Shourie, Yashwant Sinha, etc) questions him openly today. In fact, the BJP of today is very different from its pre-2014 avatar. From the politics of principle to realpolitik, the Modi-era BJP has systematically invoked Saam Daam Dand Bhed to conquer newer political bastions (to be clear, this is not a criticism of Modi, it is a compliment. Unprincipled enemies cannot be defeated with principles).

DeMo needs to be seen in this context. The move was as political as it was economic. Years back, Indira Gandhi, fearing electoral loss, sidelined her economic advisor who recommended to her demonetization of high-value currency. Modi turned that logic on its head. The humongous victory in UP is a testimony to that. Nothing is more attractive than a bold leader who can take tough decisions and make you a part of them.

Coming to corruption, it was nobody’s case that DeMo would wipe off black money and stop corruption at once. It was part (though a huge one) of a series of reforms such as SIT on black money, GST, Benami Transactions Act, RERA, JAM Trinity, etc. to gradually formalize the economy and stop the gaps that lead to corruption and black money.

There is a common refrain that money just changed hands during DeMo. Wasn’t it expected? People who manage money as a profession found ways to manage their money post DeMo too. It was a given in a primarily informal economy where it can sometimes be impossible to tell black money from white. Also, criminals are invariably smarter than the police, you see. DeMo was not so much about removing already existing black money as it was about restricting generation of new black money by increasingly formalizing the economy. Of course, currency that was funding terror, trafficking, etc. suddenly turned into a piece of paper and we can see the immediate impact in those sectors already.

The ‘shock value’ of DeMo is significant. DeMo put fear in people that things have changed. One will think twice before hoarding notes now because he or she doesn’t know when it might stop being a legal tender. One will never take the system for granted.

Black money is not some heap of notes that you can burn. It is a parallel economy; the solutions, therefore, have to multi-modal. After DeMo, deposits of appx Rs 3.68 lakh crore in over 2 million bank accounts came under scrutiny. Appx 224,000 shell companies were removed from the registrar of companies; DeMo brought more people in the tax net, lowered lending rates, led to opening of nearly 50 lakh new bank accounts for workers; almost all the money came back into the system leaving behind a trail that can be a goldmine of information if the authorities seriously follow it. DeMo came as a major blow to trafficking, Naxalism and terrorism; stock markets are at all-time high, mutual fund AUM has seen phenomenal growth; the digital space has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of the move. Take this snippet from an article on Harvard Business Review, for instance:

“Consider, for example, a government payment system created in 2016 that was processing 100,000 transactions per month in October of that year, prior to the sudden demonetization. A year later, after demonetization, the same system is processing 76 million transactions per month. Meanwhile, according to the Ministry of Finance, the Indian economy is operating with $45 billion less cash than it did prior to demonitization. India’s digital infrastructure is coming to life, with a combination of policy and technological innovation having played an important role. The country is moving rapidly toward a digital-first economy.”

DeMo, GST, Benami Transactions Act and the JAM trinity have the potential to change the face of this country; we must give them time.

Lastly, coming again to from where I started in the first paragraph, is BJP completely free from corruption? Is the party’s funding entirely transparent? Have BJP politicians never touched “black” money? Well, they are part of this same system that we are discussing. These questions don’t really hold. The real question is, is BJP also bearing the brunt of Modi’s anti-corruption moves? The answer is, as much as any other party. The thing to observe, however, is how one action has had different levels of impact on different parties, and therein lie interesting clues.

[varsha-dugar]

What is wrong with Kirron Kher’s Chandigarh remark?

Nuance, logic, credibility… these words don’t have any space in the liberal landscape, and they prove it every single day. On Thursday, BJP MP Kirron Kher was offered on the liberal-feminist altar for the noble purpose of virtue-signaling.

Kher was speaking to journalists in reference to the gangrape of a 22-year-old woman, in Chandigarh, allegedly by an autodriver and his two accomplices. Her quotes can be read in the snapshots below from this Indian Express article. She made multiple points including:

As a precaution, women should be careful not to board a rickshaw that has three men already 

A personal example from her days in Mumbai 

Emphasis on educating boys to prevent such crimes 

Even in a family if father doesn’t respect women, it impacts boys’ psyche

In an ideal progressive world, the third point might have made headline or the first point might have been presented for what it was – a logical advice. But, we are not in an ideal world. So, it is not at all surprising that the first bullet point, eclipsing all others and its context deliberately left out, was made the headline only to ignite professional outragers. Whatever Kher might have actually said and meant, what people are being told is that she blamed the victim for the rape.

But, misrepresentation and click-bait journalism is absolutely normal in our times. The question that any logical mind would, however, ask is, what is wrong if Kher asked girls and women to be mindful of other passengers when boarding public vehicles?

Again, the answer depends on whether you are a feminist or a normal human being. Let’s look at this in detail, a feminist puts the responsibility of a woman’s safety on everyone except the woman herself. Here is a classic example and I see it happening every weekend – for feminists, it is perfectly alright for a woman to lose her senses to drinks and then travel in a hired vehicle with a complete stranger, and it is that stranger’s responsibility that nothing happens to her. If something happens to her, the stranger, the society (depending on the religion of the stranger), the police (depending on which party is in government) and anybody else is responsible for the crime but not the woman.

Now, we all wish that we were living in a world where strangers could be trusted blindly. But, we are not living in that world. In the real world, we don’t even leave our belongings with a stranger forget about our own self. Asking women to be careful is not blaming them for crimes against them. It is, in fact, a sad but prudent reminder that the world is not ideal yet. That the police, law and order will come in only after the crime is committed. That the first thing you can do to avoid crime is to be aware that a crime can happen, and therefore, to be careful. Does this mean being discreet about the decisions you make? Yes, it does.

Many years back, as a young student of journalism, I was working on a story in a rural area outside my homestate. I met a ‘source’ for the very first time. Riding pillion on his bike, I traveled to an absolutely unknown terrain – acres of field with no one to be seen till I could stretch my eyes. It began to dawn on me that I might be in danger. I had not informed anyone about my location or plans either. Then another source approached us on his bike, and I was alone with these two men. I put up a brave face and kept asking my questions but my palms were sweating, my voice was betraying my fears. God knows, I have never felt more scared in my life, and thanks to Him nothing unfortunate happened with me. I will always remember the words of my source when he finally dropped me back to our meeting point, “You are brave, but don’t make this mistake again. Not all men are good like us.”

If something were to happen to me that day, the first person to take responsibility for it would have been myself. I should not be blamed for the crime, but I must take responsibility for being careless, for taking my own safety so lightly. It is not worth the risk. I have never forgotten that incident, it helps me balance freedom, guts and safety. This is not to say that being prudent is an insurance against crimes. We all know that more crimes against women are committed by people known to them, that neither attire nor location, company (for Nirbhaya was not alone in the bus) or even age can ensure a woman’s safety.

The point is, we should at least avoid situations that can be avoided. Not boarding a rickshaw that already has three men is one of them depending on the time, location and other circumstantial factors. While, we continue to sensitize society and strengthen law and order, it is also imperative on us to take responsibility for our own safety, to be practical, to take informed decisions based on the situation and not absolute notions of idealistic freedom. Of course, until the world is that ideal place we all wish for.

[varsha-dugar]

Dear MS, you are not just about cricket

Having been born in a middle class Indian family, watching cricket was a natural part of growing up. Though I have never been able to remember stats or track the game seriously, I have always enjoyed watching it. I don’t remember when I became a fan of Dhoni. But, since the day I became one, I have watched him, not for entertainment, but for inspiration. 

Every single minute spent watching his game fills me with a mix of awe, inspiration, excitement and confidence. Watching him as captain gives me the most profound lessons in leadership – on live television. I watch him mostly for the sheer joy of learning those lessons.

Here are some of the top things I have learned from him:

· A leader needs to be futuristic, disruptive and dynamic

· A true leader builds other leaders

· He doesn’t get carried away by emotions, can think rationally even under     pressure

· Can keep a cool head during the most testing of times

· He not only leads from the front but also has the back of his team members

· He accepts defeat gracefully, and has the wisdom to derive lessons from it

· He doesn’t settle for anything but the best

· Is capable of taking tough decisions for the larger good

When he announced his departure from test captaincy today, a critical leadership lesson, in fact the most important one, got added to the list above – A true leader prepares for a smooth succession, and knows when it’s time to pass on the baton. It is the most important leadership trait because even the greatest of leaders do not have the wisdom to let it go when they must.

You are inspiring even in your gradual departure from captaincy, MS!  

w�A����

[varsha-dugar]

Learn from Liberals, don’t boycott Dangal

In November 2015, Aamir Khan made the famous “intolerance” remarks that need no recall. There was widespread outrage among normal Indians, who are not all ‘right wingers’ as the media would like to project. I was one of them, and wrote this blog to express my views. I fully supported the Snapdeal downgrade, and his removal as brand ambassador of famous brands including Tata Sky and Incredible India. I have also been highly critical of Aamir’s film, PK.

Dear outraging Indians, you may be right but you will lose the battle – of perception

However, I went to watch Dangal, loved it, and would go once again. One keeps coming across Whatsapp messages, tweets and Facebook statuses that ask people to boycott the film because, “Hey, have you forgotten what he said about his country back then?”

As far as I am concerned, I have not forgotten those remarks. If he repeats such remarks, I would once again contest them and protest against them, democratically. But, what is the logic behind boycotting a progressive film that delves in some extremely pertinent issues we are facing as a society? It is also a beautiful story brought to life by some incredible performances, led by Aamir himself.

There is a difference between Aamir the person, and Aamir the actor. Don’t mistake one for the other. You do not have a personal enmity with Aamir. Fight him on issues, not as a person; certainly not unconditionally.

What can be a better example of the disastrous consequences of unconditional hatred than the case of Narendra Modi? An entire army of "liberals” has made it its life’s mission to hate this person, even if it goes against the interest of its nation. They see every move, every policy, every intent of his through this prism of vicious hatred. Nobody gains anything out of it, and national interest loses out in the end.

Why Are Modi haters turning into India haters?

Why My Vote Will Go To Modi

It is important to learn from this real life analogy, and not fall in the trap of myopia and faux nationalism.

If love for the nation is what made you outrage against Aamir in November 2015, buy a ticket today and watch Dangal for that same love. Because, no nation can develop and evolve if it does not recognize, nurture, reward, and value its artistes, intelligentsia, sportspersons, and the likes for their good work. Besides, it is not just Aamir’s film; there are other actors, and hundreds of people who are associated with the film. Their efforts needs to be applauded - in the interest of the nation.

[varsha-dugar]

The race...

These thoughts come from what I see around myself too often now-a-days. I begin with sharing a bit of my own life because one is generally asked, “What do you know of our situation to comment on it?”  

My family and I were never on the same page when it came to how I should live my life. From thoughts and life philosophy to education, career and marriage, we were invariably on the opposite sides. The only way I could have lived my life the way I wanted to was by being independent - mentally I already was, but financially I needed to.

So, I worked for money since the time I was in high school. This ensured I didn’t have to take a single penny from my parents and empowered me to set my own terms. What this really meant was I couldn’t afford the luxury of picking the work I liked to do. It meant being in the wrong job sometimes, making blunders because of being in the wrong job, bearing with lecherous bosses, among many other challenges. I have done some jobs that I cannot even mention on my resume, only because I needed money desperately. I earned to survive. In the long term, it meant living hand-to-mouth, never really being able to save enough, and being unprepared for untoward incidents that could push you back to square one.

Such an incident did happen in my life and I did go back to square one. The hard-earned savings, even though small, disappeared. I had to rebuild my life, my career, and my savings. In hindsight, I am only thankful to god that it happened. The lessons I learned then are precious. I could not have done things differently given my circumstances. But, when I see 20-somethings around me making their lives needlessly difficult, my heart itches to tell them, “Hold on, you don’t have to be in this vicious cycle”.

The concept of leaving your parental home after you are 18 - in India it is really 21 - is making life difficult for many youngsters. There is tremendous peer pressure to be “independent”, to move out of your family home, to “achieve” something. For a few, it works. But, many of them have no idea what they want to achieve and how they want to do it. Nevertheless, they are very much in the race, day-in and day-out; coping with emotional distress, disappointments, frustration, and that gnawing feeling of being lost. The pressure of cooking, cleaning, coming back home from a long day at work with no one to open the door for them, no one to ask how their day went, having nothing in the fridge to make, and then settling for junk from the nearby restaurant is tiring them. There is never enough money because salaries are low and there is rent to be paid, weekly drink to be enjoyed, occasional good food to be relished and exigencies to be dealt with. Even after working for years, they still do not have savings; it is simply not possible. 

All the trouble for that notion of being independent! I want to ask them this. If your parents are supportive, they have no qualms with your life choices, if they love you, if you do not have any problem with them, why is it that you make your life so difficult? Why are you wasting your time in a wrong job when you are not really in desperate need of money? If you stayed a little longer with your parents, if you had taken financial help from them a little longer to pursue what you really liked, you could have built strong foundations for your career, you could have saved money. Not to mention, you would have had shoulders to cry on, home-cooked food, love and care. 

If, after years of toiling, you are yet to get anywhere – in your own eyes, not others – maybe you should rethink your life choices. Because at the slightest stroke of misfortune, you might become a burden on your parents – the very thing you so desperately want to avoid. If you are not happy being in this race, have the courage to leave it and rework your life. In the long term, you will have  become truly independent.

[varsha-dugar]

Notebandi: Who is having the last laugh

It's been twenty days since 500 and 1000 rs notes stopped being legal tenders in India.

The average Indian cannot stand in a queue to buy samosa without trying to break it; he invariably wants to get off the train before it even stops; even a minute’s delay from behind a ticket counter can lead to a brawl. This same janta has been standing patiently in queues, hours at end, to exchange a few thousand of its own money - without burning buses, blocking tracks or halting highways.

Why have millions of people accepted restrictions on the availability of their own money to them?

The most affected from corruption are also the least privileged in society. These are your drivers who get to listen to your private deals, peons who execute the last mile of these deals, maids and helpers who inadvertently get to see the goings-on in your houses. These are people who understand how the government works far more than anyone who claims to know what is good for them. Because, they get their two meals from rations cards,, they are the beneficiaries of several subsidies and schemes, they use the government-run hospitals, their kids study in government schools, they struggle with the police and the judiciary for lack of connections. These are the people who are bought by political parties, for one square meal, to applaud their leaders during rallies; and, they are used to destroy public property during agitations. These are people who rebuild their houses every year after monsoons drown them; these are also the people who die and kill in riots.

In demonitization, they have found solace - hamara bhala ho na ho, tumhara nuksaan zarur hoga - because we have nothing to lose. This feeling is worth the temporary pain.

For the first time in their lives, someone has told them they don't need to be have degrees to be worthy of next gen banking and digital payments. Someone has trusted them to fight a fight for the nation. Someone has shown them respect rather than pity.

All those who look down upon these masses with condescension have no idea who is having the last laugh.

[varsha-dugar]

A response to Saikat Bose’s post on Ravi Kanojia

Mr. Bose, I thank god that you didn’t know Ravi Kanojia well. His soul would have hurt had someone known used his death to drive personal agendas. Maybe it is so easy for you to shoot from Ravi’s shoulders because it is indeed not “a personal loss”.

Here is why I say so

The moment you compared Ravi with a soldier or a rebel, you betrayed your intentions. Your intention of writing the post was never to remember Ravi, to tell those of us who do not know him at all except from the photo credits on the newspaper, about who he was as a person. You could have tried to find out a bit about him from you colleagues – his family, how they were coping; his interests, his journey – and shared it with readers.

But, like journalists do, you spotted an opportunity in a tragedy. 

Absurd comparison

You put Ravi, a soldier and a rebel in the same sentence. Even if we leave aside the point that there was absolutely no need to compare Ravi with anyone, a comparison with a soldier is absurd to say the least. And, not only did you compare Ravi with a soldier, you also compared the reader with the idea of a nation. I will not do a disservice to Ravi by getting into a discussion on the idea of a nation and role of soldiers in our lives in this post. I leave it to the same readers to decide if these comparisons make any sense!

And what is your opinion of these readers? The way you have described your readers – “as you turn the pages of a newspaper in your living rooms or plush offices, sipping a cup of coffee” – speaks volumes about your arrogance. And, if this is indeed what all your readers are, I suppose Ravi died for the wrong people?  Were these “coffee-sipping people in plush offices” who don’t give a damn about his death worth the loss?

Ravi was not doing his duty    

Ravi Kanojia was an excellent photographer is what I have heard. He was an asset to not only The Indian Express and media industry in general but also to the nation. He was also someone’s son and possibly a brother, husband or father. He should, therefore, have been more careful about his life. Climbing on top of a train is not a virtue, Mr Bose. It is not bravery either. It is, if I can say it straight, stupidity. And, if you wish I were a a bit more politically correct, it was a grave error of judgement on Ravi’s part. In India, every single day, people die by getting electrocuted atop train. We call them all sorts of names, your paper routinely does stories on these deaths. A photojournalist from a national daily can do better than this.

I loved the way you put the onus of Ravi’s death on the readers.        

“He risked his life for you, the reader. He climbed atop that train to ensure that you get to see a better picture…”

Trust me, no reader in his good senses expects a photographer to risk electrocution for a good photograph. That’s like saying, a photojournalist jumped into fire to get a better shot of the flames – of course for his readers! Also, it wasn’t as if he was doing a major sting on a politician or unearthing a racket and someone sabotaged his life. Deeply unfortunate it is, but there is no point in denying that he could have saved his life.  

The foremost duty that Ravi was supposed to be performing was not lose his life to entirely avoidable circumstances.

But, you see, guilt trip is a wonderful thing. By making your readers responsible for Ravi’s death, you have managed to take them on one successfully. Well, almost.

Reflect you must!

You said, “I have found myself reflecting…” Well, the outcome of your reflection isn’t very inspiring. If you really wanted people to remember Ravi, if you really wanted to pay him homage, you should have used his death as an example for younger aspiring journalists to drive the point that nothing is worth risking your life. For, only if one is alive can he do his duty. His death should have been used for bringing in some much-needed reforms in the way journalists function or are expected to by their editors.

Why shouldn’t we call you presstitutes?

A death is unfortunate, it is deeply saddening. In your post, you have said very little about Ravi. While there is every other popular word in there – anti-national, liberal, bhakts, revolution, nation, soldiers, even AFSPA! For god’s sake, wasn’t this post meant to be about Ravi?

There is a reason why people came up with the term presstitutes, and by vulturizing Ravi’s death, you have only validated it.

Was Ravi Kanojia’s death preventable? Probably

A tribute to photojournalist Ravi Kanojia through his recent works 

[varsha-dugar]

Dear outraging Indians, you may be right but you will lose the battle – of perception

When many Indians outraged over Aamir Khan’s (in)famous remark on intolerance in India yesterday, the response from the “eminent” club was expected. Anybody who has followed news in the last one year can predict the cycle that every controversial/disturbing remark goes through – when the remark is made by one of their own.

Remark > Outrage by common man, expressed via social media route > Creation of a sense of victimhood for the person people were outraging against > defending this person’s right to speak freely > proclaiming dissent on his remark amounts to abuse/everyone dissenting is a frustrated sanghi > eventually winning the battle of perception

This is exactly what happened in Aamir’s case also.

Aamir’s remark > Hurt (more than outrage) among common people  expressed over WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter > Voices from the eminent club claiming he is being victimized because of his religion, being asked to prove his patriotism > Defence that he has every right to speak his mind > Claim that everybody who is speaking against his remarks is abusing him, is a communal, frustrated sanghi > Successfully create a perception where Aamir is now a victim of this abuse (which basically means he has had the cake and eaten it too)

The defence has come from all quarters. Most of them, expectedly, smacking of a patronizing, condescending attitude, and based on flawed logic.

Thousands of people who are expressing outrage are all a ridiculous mob

The contention obviously comes out of the belief that somehow the common man is a stupid moron who cannot think for himself. It doesn’t matter that the same common man was lauded for taking a “wise decision” in the recently concluded Bihar elections.

Registering protest against a statement is abuse of freedom

This is pretty self-explanatory but still for the benefit of those who need some clarification, is freedom of expression an entitlement of only a few accomplished souls in India? If you have the right to express your opinion, do I not have the right to express my dissent on that opinion?    

India has not made Aamir Khan a star, he has made himself one with his hard work

Really? In real life, no matter how hard you work, if there is no one to see it, appreciate it and reward it, you are not going to reach anywhere. Whether it is an artiste, scientist, innovator or even a regular office going person – unless his manager knows about, appreciates and rewards him, it doesn’t matter how hard he is working.

Any star becomes one because of his fans, it is never vice versa. It is these fans who pay for his movies, run after his cars, open his fan clubs, buy products endorsed by him (otherwise, why would companies pay hefty amounts to stars for endorsements? And, you can see the correlation in the way people have downgraded Snapdeal on Google Play since yesterday), and basically worship him.

It really must take some arrogance to demean the fan when it comes to a celebrity!    

NRIs go out to earn, so what is wrong if Aamir wants to go for safety?

If there ever were a contest for stupid comparisons, this one might become a winner. Understand who is thinking about taking this step. For a common man to move out of his country for better opportunity is not same as a superstar contemplating leaving his country on the pretext of lack of safety. It would have still been a bit understandable if, for instance, Akhlaq’s son (from Dadri) had said he wanted to leave – because he might have felt vulnerable. He may not have the social backing or set up to give him a sense of security after such a ghastly incident (though that is not the case thankfully in India).

But, if Aamir Khan says his kid is unsafe, then I don’t know which kid is safe in India. Should we all then migrate to another country? It is one thing to express concern for your country, it is quite another to create a false sense of alarm and victimhood. And, when you are a superstar who has the ability to influence others, you have to be doubly careful!    

Questioning his remark is questioning his patriotism

Heard Shashi Tharoor saying to NDTV yesterday that Aamir Khan and Shah Rukh Khan have proved their patriotism over the years, so they shouldn’t be questioned. Now, what is the parameter of patriotism. You made films, you made money, you made name in this country – therefore you are patriotic? Is that the benchmark?

Citing someone’s personal success as a symbol of his patriotism is as unreasonable as questioning someone’s patriotism for voicing his concern toward the country.

How is voicing concern about his country wrong?

Not at all; in fact, influential people such as Aamir must voice their concerns. But there is a difference between voicing a concern with hope, and voicing a concern with despair. He could have said, a few exceptional incidents have happened. They must be dealt with well and we are all in this together. But, he chose to raise his concern by spreading paranoia. Why should the responsibility of keeping the social fabric of this country intact fall on the shoulders of the political class alone? Isn’t it the responsibility of all influential people to instill hope during difficult times?

People are overreacting

No Sir, we are not! We have supported you in your journey from being nobody to a superstar, without ever asking where you came from or what your religion was. We listened to what you said, sat through your shows. The least we expect in return is respect. As people whose words carry immense weight, you are expected to speak responsibly. And, then if you let us down we have every right to react!    

But, Aamir is going to win this one too!

In life, everything is about perception. While your outrage may have been justified, you do not have the political correctness and manipulative articulation that the people who drive the discourse have. So, irrespective of the validity of your anger and hurt, eventually Aamir Khan will be declared a victim of intolerance and a hero who dared to open his mouth, all at the same time. You can do nothing but watch this drama unless you learn the ropes of this trade.

PS: See the cycle getting complete, as expected, below. 

I stand by everything I said: Aamir Khan

[varsha-dugar]

What changed my mind on Diwali crackers

On Diwali night, I was standing with my family in the balcony of a cousin’s home in Chembur. We were watching the fireworks from the 13th floor. There was smoke all around us and some of the crackers made nasty amount of noise. But, the ones bursting beautifully in the sky like a thousand stars and a storm of glitter made for a beautiful sight. I sighed, “Yaar, patakhe completely band toh nahi hone chahiye.”

As we watched, the discussion on whether crackers should be banned or not began instinctively. My cousins opined that they should be banned because of three reasons, primarily – Smoke, sound and involvement of child labour in their production.

I was of the opinion that crackers have been an integral part of Diwali, and though I agreed with the reasons, in my opinion, banning crackers completely should not be the solution. “Having kids as labour is a fault of the system; why should crackers be banned for that? Figure out how to keep kids off the industry, and how to make crackers that do not make too much noise or pollute,” I said.

About an hour later, I changed my mind - crackers must be regulated if not banned. But, the reasons for this sudden change of mind were not the same as my cousins.

One sight changed my mind completely. As I entered my society around 11.30 at night, some youngsters were bursting crackers. One of them was lighting rockets – absolutely directionless, these rockets were hitting close to the windows of the flats above, missing them by inches.  

As far as I am concerned, there cannot be a bigger reason to ban crackers than the fact that as a society, we have neither civic nor common sense. We should stop bursting crackers simply because we aren’t mature enough to handle them as a nation.

And, this heartbreaking post by Anshu Gupta is a proof why we need to do something about this menace immediately.  

[varsha-dugar]

Tolerance is more than a fashion statement

A friend recently asked what I thought about “intolerance in India”. This post is in response to her question. 

I was born in a lower middle class Jain family about 31 years ago. For 17 years, we stayed in a narrow galli, an intersection on M.G.Road in Kolkata’s Burra Bazaar area. The locality used to be heavily populated with both Hindus and Muslims. Our building was placed in such a way that we were surrounded on three sides with Muslim households. The loud speaker for azaan was right behind my house; azaan was a part of our daily experience. 

Since the lane was narrow, during Durga Puja, Kali Puja, Saraswati Puja, etc. pandals used to take up its entire breadth. Often during Eid, mehfils were organised and shamiyanas would be built, much the same way as the pandal. Every year, before Eid, a goat would appear at the shop run by one of the Muslim neighbours, at the corner of the street. I remember, while crossing that shop on our way to school, how we used to giggle at the goat, “Ye bechara jaane wala hai thode dino mein”. And, during Muharram, I remember getting scared at the sight of people’s bloodied backs. 

One of the bigger Puja pandals of Kolkata used to be erected at Mohammad Ali Park near my house. On Eid, the road running parallel to this park used to be shut for traffic for morning namaaz. During India-Pakistan matches, there used to be tension in the bylanes of my galli – because some Muslim neighbours would invariably support Pakistan. Sometimes, there would be a minor scuffle also. 

My mother tells me that during the riots of 1992-93, though everyone was prepared for the worst, Muslims in our neighbourhood, whom we used to chat with from our bedroom window during curfew, assured us that they wouldn’t let anything happen to us. Our galli escaped the riots, like many others. 

From a kid I became an adult in these bylanes, watching people make adjustments for each other. In college, because I didn’t have enough money then, I used to often share my coffee with someone so that I would have to pay half its price. The person with whom I used to share that coffee, which by the way cost just Rs.5 then, was a Muslim. We used to spend hours at each other’s homes, studying together. Her mother would cook food for me and themselves in different vessels because I was a vegetarian. In winters, I would look forward to the kahwa they used to serve after lunch. 

When I got my first job at a stock broking firm, my senior, who supervised and trained me, was a Muslim. Actually, there were a lot of Muslims in that small office. During Ramzaan, evenings were a jolly affair as iftaar would be laid out in the conference room and everyone would take part. Diwali puja and Mahurat trading were enjoyed much the same way. In my present job, many of my colleagues and even my reporting manager are Muslims. 

When I started earning, I adopted a baby through an NGO. Adoption basically meant funding the kid’s expenses according to one’s ability. I used to send money for this child’s education. His name was Roze Khan. I used to get progress reports with postcards on which the child would scribble something. Seeing the illegibly written alphabet on those postcards was a beautiful experience. I supported Roze for about three years until circumstances brought me to a point where I could not support even myself for a while. 

A lot happened in between and then I finally arrived in Mumbai. For about two weeks, until I found a place for myself, I stayed at a friend’s house – again a Muslim. When I moved to Thane, after my wedding, the society in which I lived was a mix of Muslims, Bohras, Gujaratis and Marathis. The man I married used to live happily with a Pakistani Muslim among others, back in the US. He considers an Iraqi Muslim colleague like his elder brother. 

My in-laws’ house is in Howrah, West Bengal. It is one of the most densely populated places of India, housing both Muslims and Hindus. In fact, the area has a huge concentration of Marwaris and Jains. Culturally, there cannot be a starker contrast. Beef is sold openly (as it is legal in West Bengal). All festivals of each religion are celebrated with fervor. At the same time, during India-Pakistan matches there is always tension and crude bomb blasts are not uncommon if India wins. The amazing thing is people expect this to happen, and there is no shock value in these bombings or scuffles. 

There is nothing unique about what I have written above. It is more or less the story of every Indian; this is how we live – adjustment and tolerance, despite our differences, culturally and politically. In fact, the very reason why we move on after each riot – and there have been way too many, though the media remembers only one – is because of this ethos. Not every Muslim in Gujarat is ghettoized in Juhapura, like the media will tell you. They have moved on wherever they were, just like their Hindu neighbours whose loss of lives and property doesn’t even figure in media’s riot reports. 

The mob that killed Akhlaq in Dadri was Hindu, but so were his neighbours who were the first to attempt to help him, though they failed. I am yet to find anyone I know who has not condemned this incident. Yet, instead of treating it as an exception which it really was, this incident is being used to define India. Instead of treating this as a one-off heinous, motivated crime, it is being projected as a practice. Not that such incidents haven’t happened before, but media and intellectuals outrage when it suits them. And, to assume that one man or one party could brainwash a billion people, is an insult to the latter. It not only reeks of this ‘eminent’ club’s arrogance, but also its stupidity. 

Neighbours help Muslim family in Bisada escape mob

Dadri lynching: Akhlaq's last call was to his Hindu childhood friend for help

In every job that I have taken up, and I have taken up many, I have seen many Muslim colleagues going for namaaz every Friday during office timings. During Ramzaan, they go for namaaz every day. Special arrangements are made in offices for iftaars. I haven’t seen a Hindu asking for or being allowed to take time off from office to go to temple. 

Azaan is not a particularly pleasant thing to hear when it wakes you up from deep sleep at dawn (though I personally like it when it is recited well), and it is not even part of your religion. Yet, no one ever complains. We may not wear burqa, we may not wear skull caps, but we do not stop others from wearing them. There are probably more Hindus visiting Haji Ali and Ajmer Shareef every day than even Muslims. During Ramzaan, one might want to do a survey of how many Hindus are found on Mohammad Ali Road in Mumbai, savouring the delicacies. 

You have to go only as far as Bollywood to realize how little a role religion plays for the common man in India, when it comes to public life. If today Shah Rukh Khan cries victim, in my opinion, it is only because he is a suave businessman, an actor in his fading years, who will do whatever it takes to stay relevant. 

Hindu-Muslim chemistry in India is a complex affair, to some extent naturally, but largely because of the mess created by our political and intellectual class. Neither of the two religions can claim to be exclusively secular or communal. The man on the street is aware of this reality and knows how to handle it. But, there is a parallel universe in which the media and intellectuals live. 

The intellectual’s yardstick of secularism and “Idea of India” is all about wearing or not wearing skulls caps, attending or not attending iftaars. If you haven’t married a Muslim, you aren’t that secular. If you haven’t attached “bhai” to a Muslim name, you aren’t secular. If you are a practicing Hindu, you are not secular enough. A Muslim saving a Hindu is pathbreaking; Hindus making adjustments for Muslims is news. 

The media and intellectuals have an agenda to fulfil, and we have a life to live. They are secular; we are Indians. For them, tolerance is a fashion statement. For us, it is a way of life. 

The states where cow slaughter is legal in India

To Shahrukh Khan – ‘Secularism’ Is Counter-Patriotic 

PS: I feel sick to mention the word, Muslim, so many times instead of just people or their names. But, such is the nature of discourse today that if one wants to respond, she has to get dirty. What is also pathetic is that for the media, secularism, minorty, tolerance - everything is in reference to Muslims alone. Therefore, this post mentions only them.

[varsha-dugar]

Wasn’t the last word in my earlier post, martyr?

Thousands gathered at Bada Qabristan in Mumbai yesterday to offer namaz-e-janaza to Yakub Memon. While it is worth pondering over to see a man who conspired to kill over 250 people get such a farewell, that is not what bothers me the most. What absolutely terrifies me is the way leading national dailies reported the post-execution details. Here is The Times of India.

The first six pages reported in highly emotive language, every aspect of Memon’s funeral; language and angles of pictures giving a grave sense of victimization.

The Indian Express went a step further.  

It looked like a paper from some other country, with a screaming "they”.  It was an incitement, an appeal to avenge the beloved terrorist’s ‘murder by the state’. 

And then there was this story on page two. Do not miss the last paragraph of the story for clues, rather warning on what’s coming.

And, before the execution, this

One may or may not have agreed on death penalty, but such is the utter hatred of these dailies towards the government and the country that they gave prime space to a terrorist and adjusted the story about the funeral of Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam at some corner.

Ironically, victims of the bomb blasts didn’t even figure in this shameless charade. If you really looked for it, you could find a token article somewhere.

The media has become the most communal, bigoted and dangerous reality of India. Their freedom comes without any responsibility, their right to speech can even condemn the highest court of this country.

It is likely that we will suffer the backlash for taking a tough stand on Memon; if and when that happens, remember it was the media that made a terrorist a martyr. And, martyrs beget more martyrs. 

[varsha-dugar]

Why the Yakub case made me proud of our judicial system

I had slept at 11 last night, after following the Yakub story all day and evening. When I woke up at 6.30 in the morning today, my hands instantly looked for my mobile – to see what happened of the case. The notifications from news apps told me the court had rejected his final plea at 5.00 am; he was to be hanged between 6-7.00 am. I heaved a sigh – it was a sigh of pride at our judicial and legal system (despite all the shortcomings) that put absence of precedence aside to hear a convict’s last ditch effort to save his life, in the middle of the night.

I was proud of the fact that even terrorists get every chance to prove their innocence in the courts of this country. When they fail to prove it, they have a chance to seek mercy at more than one door. That, if rejected mercy, their last wishes are respected, they are provided with whatever they would like to eat, their family is informed and their bodies given away to their kin for the last rites.

To all those crying hoarse that humanity has been shamed, humanity doesn’t mean sparing dastardly terrorists appropriate punishment. Humanity means treating these terrorists like humans even as the punishment is being meted out to them.

About an eye for an eye. If we really believed in that, Yakub Memon would have been hanged at some street instead of being able to employ the best of lawyers who managed to drag his case for over 20 years. The same courts that sent Memon to gallows acquitted some of his relatives and gave lifers to others. And the court said, “The bomb planters were given lifer. If we had given the same punishment to the conspirator, it would have been injustice to the former.” So, think before you challenge the wisdom of this country’s courts!

Just an aside - by this ‘humanity’ logic, the US shoudn’t have killed Osama Bin Laden – that too in his own house! Chota sa terrorist hi to tha wo bechara, aise nahi marna chahiye tha!

And, as far as death penalty is concerned, as long as it is part of our constitution, it will be meted out in the rarest of rare cases. I you really cared about abolishing death penalty, you should have started fighting in 2007 when the death penalty was pronounced; not two days before the hanging was to take place!

About his religion, we are told terror has no religion. Need I say more?

Why do terrorists need to be killed? They need to be killed because they are a constant security threat, even when in jail. You never know when another IC 814 will be organized to take them back.

If I were a teenager watching this drama over the last week, it would have been difficult for me to not sympathise with Memon. Thanks to all the so-called secular, conscience-stricken, ‘human’ beings in this country who have made a terrorist, a martyr.

[varsha-dugar]

Why the “Rohtak girls” case makes me worry about men

I have been doing an on online course for sometime now. In one of the modules, a particular trainer was very rude in general. One day, a female batch mate asked him two-three questions in a class. He lost his patience and uttered the words ‘it’s crazy’ in frustration.

In her complaint to the owners of the institute the lady alleged the trainer used ‘highly derogatory words against a female student’.

When I told her that the language was rude for sure but definitely not ‘highly derogatory’, this was her response — “I just wanted to vent out my frustration with the guy”.

Her response scared me. The trainer’s career of over 20 years could have finished in a second had better sense not prevailed among the owners of the institute.

The Rohtak girls’ incident could be quite similar. Have we ruined three young boys’ lives by blindly taking just the girls’ version as gospel truth? Have we made heroes out of attention-seekers. Open-and shut cases such as Kasab’s and Nirbhaya’s were also thoroughly investigated before the accused were punished because justice is not delivered in real time, like outrage over social media is.

If investigation validates the girls’ claims, punish the offenders for sure. But, before anything is proven, the only outrageous thing that has happened is the arrest of these boys, the army’s refusal to recruit them, the question mark over their careers, the fact that “molester” has been prefixed to their names forever and the suspension of the bus driver and conductor.

Too many molestations, rapes and abuses happen in India. The knee jerk reaction from the government, police, NCW and politicians just shows they “needed to vent out their frustration” on somebody at the smallest opportunity.

The need to be politically correct was so pressing that the administration decided to give due process of law a miss. No investigations, no attempt to hear the boys’ version, the co-passengers’ account or the bus driver and conductors’ submission.

Some passengers allege it was a row over seats and not molestation. How did we assume they were lying? Just because the so-called victims were female? Too many women have been wronged, so what’s the big deal if some men are wronged too?

In the absence of a fair investigation, one cannot but fear that three young boys have ended up becoming collateral damage in the war against molesters and rapists.

Like most women, I have come across molesters and eveteasers too. But, I have also come across women who have used this situation to their advantage to ‘vent out frustration’, to score a point or to take revenge. That is why jumping to conclusions based on just one version of a story can be very dangerous.

It is scary to think what if some woman decides to vent out her frustration on my husband, brother, male friends or any man for that matter for not getting her favourite seat, not getting a good grade, not getting promotion, not being able to handle a break up…

[varsha-dugar]

Why My Vote Will Go To Modi

For a long time, I dismissed Modi, just like many others, as being utterly divisive. Even today, Modi's detractors hate him because he is "communal".

My views on Modi have, however, changed over the years. In fact, what has changed is how I look at communalism.

I don't see communalism as mere violence against a particular community. To me communalism is anything that negatively affects an individual because he belongs to a particular community/religion/caste/nationality. More importantly, communalism is not just about Muslims. It is also about Sikhs, Hindus, Christians, North-Easterners, etc, etc.

And by that standard, parties such as the Congress, SP and most of the others from the so-called secular brigade are as communal or secular as Modi. However, I will only talk about the Congress here as it is one of the only two options we have for the elections.

The Congress has, for over 60 years, made sure Muslims remain backward, forever dependent on its doles. Their collective backwardness makes them a votebank. The Congress has given them the occasional fish, but never the fishing net - because if the Muslims became an educated, prospering community, the Congress would run out of power.

As far as riots are concerned, the outrage against Modi is selective.  After Muzaffarnagar, nobody hounded Akhilesh Yadav for being ‘communal’ ; at most he was called ‘insensitive’. The matter only comes up now with the occasional criticism of Saifai. Nobody even talks about the riots against Christians in Odisha. 1984 and scores of other riots have taken place under the Congress rule, but The Economist still vouches for Rahul Baba and refuses to ‘back’ Modi.

Maybe because Modi refuses to wear a skull cap to prove his secular credentials. He does not indulge in meaningless symbolism and I like that.

There is little doubt that he will be PM in a few months. I will vote for him because  I do not want another puppet prime minister (anybody under Congress will end up being one; happy to get rid of Mannu in some time).

I do not think he will incite riots, polarisation or a Hindu backlash. Not because he is secular (I don't know if he is or not) but because it is in his own interest to not let these things happen. Above everything else, Modi is a shrewd politician. He has the people's pulse. His poll campaign, stuff marketing geniuses would dream of, shows he knows exactly what the youth wants. He will do anything but disappoint them.

Modifesto, that was released today, got me excited for a lot of reasons. For once, someone is talking about cleaning the Ganga instead of taking dips in it; he is talking about introducing science and math in madrasas; he is talking about tourism and development in general instead of free rice, farm loan waivers and mindless reservations and subsidies.

I see the reference to Hindutva and Ram temple as just that – a reference. These are meant to decorate only the manifesto. The temple was not built during Vajpayeeji’s time, nor was the country bleeding with riots then. There not happening makes even more political sense now because the times and the electorate have changed drastically since both Babri demolition and 2002. And, Modi knows that.

His supporters continue to amuse me because they project Modi as nothing less than God. But, in hindsight, I see that from Modi’s point of view this vehement support was necessary – to keep his rivals at bay.

I do not want to guess what role Modi may or may not have played in 2002. But, I see that today Modi promises firm leadership and economic development - to each section and every religious community in the country. I am willing to buy what he said in his Patna rally to Hindus and Muslims, “You can either fight among yourselves, or fight poverty”. I am willing to give him one chance.

Using a community for your own gains by not allowing them to grow is no less communal than perpetrating riots. Elections are all about making a choice based on not just the past but also the future. This time I choose Modi, with the hope that he proves his detractors, including myself to a certain extent, wrong.