This brings me to the likelihood of change of government at the Centre. Whether or not the United Front Government is or is not voted out of power (at the time of writing this piece I have no idea), I am convinced that the khichdi of the thirteen parties that form the United Front has outlived its utility: if it survives this challenge it will only get a breather and fall a few months later. Though it has a few capable ministers, Deve Gowda has failed to inspire confidence in the people. His hobnobbing with religious fundamentalists and fascists has unmasked his pretension to secularism. He is not prime minister material.
Is Sitaram Kesri prime minister material? I cannot vouch for him except that while in control of vast sums of money for the Congress party over many long years, he did not feather his nest, acquired no property for himself or let any of his close relatives or friends amass wealth. His credentials as a secularist are also impeccable. He is free of the taint of communal prejudice and more acceptable to the religious minorities than any other Hindu leader. I do not know much about his administrative capabilities but he can muster up a team more dynamic and honest than any that Narasimha Rao had or Deve Gowda has.
Murdering one’s ancestors
There was a time when I spent my winter weekends exploring old monuments extending from Hauz Khas to Suraj Kund. I spent many nights in the Qutub dak bungalow and wandered round the Mehrauli complex of ancient ruins extending from the Shamsi Talab, Auliya Masjid and Jahaz Mahal down to the mansions of the Omarah and the tomb of Jamali-Kamali. I discovered many old baolis (stepwells). But the one thing I was looking for was Balban’s grave, which I never found.
Twenty years ago you could go from Safdarjang to Mehrauli, from the Qutub Minar to Tuglaqabad and Suraj Kund and get one uninterrupted view of ruins of ancient monuments of pre-Mughal days. They made a spectacular sight. Today, you can’t see any of them because housing colonies have come up around them and the monuments themselves are occupied by squatters. In mosque courtyards buffaloes tethered, mausoleum walls are marked as wickets for boys playing cricket; where the sultans of Delhi held court, chaiwalas ply their trade. Tiny Jat and Gujjar habitations that had grown up around these monuments have been swallowed up by New Delhi’s insatiable appetite for expansion.
Seventy years ago I used to cycle from Jantar Mantar Road where we lived, to Modern School, then in Daryaganj. The part of the journey I looked forward to most was riding along a road from Ajmeri Gate, past Turkman Gate to Delhi Darwaza, enter the walled city to reach my school at the city’s eastern end. It was memorable because I rode along the Mughal wall stretching uninterrupted for over a mile. The wall no longer exists: instead we have the noisy, ugly Asaf Ali Road, without character or history.
It is hard to believe that these acts of vandalism of our historic city took place in the regimes of our two most forward-looking prime ministers, Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi. The Mughal wall was pulled down in the name of slum clearance in Nehru’s time with Nehru’s approval. No one was consulted and no opinions sought. The smothering of monuments of the Sultanate period took place during Indira Gandhi’s rule. This killing by strangulation could and should have been avoided if provision had been made for parks round the monuments and no one allowed to misuse them as homes or for commerce.
12 April 1997
The debate
On April 11, I refused to have any engagements. I wanted to listen to the debate on the United Front’s motion seeking a vote of confidence on its performance. I was so eager not to miss a single word that I switched on my TV set twenty minutes ahead of time. Doordarshan was showing a film on monkeys: rhesus langurs, chimpanzees, gorillas and a bandarwala persuading his reluctant monkey named Hira Lal to marry a pretty bandaree. After many a whisper into their ears, the couple agreed to be united in matrimony. Monkeys were followed by a short programme for children. A lady teacher was telling her class about the habits of crocodiles. She had a cloth model of the reptile with its mouth wide open displaying rows of sharp teeth with which it could harrup fish and smaller animals. I am not sure if Doordarshan intended to prepare viewers for what was to come, or whether it was mere coincidence.
I am being unfair to our legislators: like others I am disenchanted with their performance. Contrary to my expectation, there was a lot of fiery oratory. That was to be expected when everyone was eager to project himself as a true patriot above communal prejudices. The treasury benches could have been more eloquent about the government’s performance. I did not expect any fireworks from Deve Gowda, but I.K. Gujral who has solid achievements to his credit was strangely subdued and colourless. Jaswant Singh of the BJP was at his sarcastic best and set the tone of the debate. He asked what made the Congress President Sitaram Kesri choose March 30 to drop his bombshell: The prime minister was in Moscow, Mr Nelson Mandela in Delhi, Indo-Pak talks were going on, the NAM conference was due, the Sheikh of Oman was on a state visit and, above all, the budget was yet to be passed. No MP has answers to these questions. The threat of dissolution of the Lok Sabha and the fear of going back to the polls hung like the sword of Damocles over their heads.
It was the first time I heard Pramod Mahajan. Despite my detestation of BJP’s communal approach to national problems, I was compelled to concede that I had not heard such powerful oratory in Parliament. Much of Mahajan’s fire was doused by Chidambaram’s well-reasoned and well-worded speech. No rhetoric but cold logic in favour of the prime necessity of commitment to secular ideals. And needless to say, Vajpayee once again proved that when it comes to speechifying he remains numero uno. So charged was the atmosphere that even Deve Gowda’s swansong was more coherent than any of his speeches over the ten months he was prime minister.
There were many good speeches by leaders like Indrajit Gupta, Somnath Chatterjee, Priyaranjan Das Munshi, Nitish Kumar, Barnala and others. I was left wondering why men so gifted in oratory were so poor in governance.
19 April 1997
Faith and fanaticism
The worst enemy of every religion is the fanatic who professes to follow it and tries to impose views of his faith on others. All religions have had and have today, bigots who give founders of their religion and their teachings a bad name. People do not judge religion by what their prophets were like or what they preached but by the way the followers of their religion practice it. Christians had their inquisitors who burnt innocent men and women at the stake as heretics. Muslims have their Islamic fraternities whose leaders pronounce fatwas condemning people to death; ordering women to shroud themselves in veils, and imposing draconian rules of behaviour on the community. Sikhs had their Bhindranwale who forbade men to dye or roll up their beards, women to wear saris or jeans, put bindis on their foreheads, and said nasty things about dhotian-topian waaley—those who wear dhotis and caps (the Hindus). At one time the presence of a Sikh in a bus or a rail compartment inspired confidence among the passengers; today, thanks to Bhindranwale’s legacy, the presence of a Sikh creates nervousness among non-Sikhs. Not to be outdone, Hindus produced their own fanatics who condemn Christianity and Islam as alien religions, and while mouthing platitudes about being the most tolerant religion on earth, hound Christian missionaries and target Muslim places of worship for destruction. In the name of Shri Ram, they demolished the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya.
Of all the world’s religions, the most misunderstood and maligned is Islam. Since it challenged Christian hegemony over other religions, Christians were disposed to find fault with everything it stood for and resurgent Muslim fundamentalism gave them all the ammunition they needed to castigate it. Retrograde laws imposing purdah on women, interpreting the Shariah in a manner that implies murderers should be beheaded and women caught in adultery should be maimed and stoned to death. Today Islam is judged not by the teachings of the Koran or the sayings of Prophet Mohammed but by the doings of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Muslim fundamentalists in other countries.
At the same time, there are good people and good scholars in all religious communities who
wage a losing battle in trying to inform people of the true nature of their faiths.
Unfortunately, whatever they tell us about true Islam, Muslims will continue to be judged by the acts of groups like the Taliban and the Mujahideens who wage unending wars against the non-Muslims—in the same way that Hindusim will be judged by the utterances of women like Uma Bharati and Sadhvi Rithambara and the doings of Bal Thackeray’s Shiv Sainiks, Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal followers. It is a great pity that fanaticism always wins the battle against true faith.
24 May 1997
A Sphinx called Sonia
The Sphinx is said to have an inscrutable smile: nobody knows what amuses her in the solitary desert wastes where she has sat for centuries staring vacantly into space. The same applies to our Sonia Gandhi. We all know she is the widow of the handsome prime minister who though not very bright, was much loved as an Indian Prince Charming. Sonia has quite a few things in common with her late husband. She too is an extremely attractive person and shares her husband’s loathing for politics and politicians. People who loved her husband have invested her with the aura he had. Her refusal to be drawn into the dirty game of party politics has enhanced people’s respect for her. No one regarded her as a member of the Congress party—everyone thought of her as the unofficial ‘Rajmata’ and the rightful representative of the Nehru-Gandhi family.
Sonia Gandhi has plenty to keep her busy: she is chairperson of several organizations connected to her late husband and his family. It is her involvement in these non-political activities which earned her respect and affection which cut across party lines. This brings into question the wisdom of her enrolling herself as a primary member of the Congress party. It transforms her into a political figure and as such, not acceptable to those who do not approve of the Congress party’s political programmes. She has done herself disservice. Those who pressurized her into joining the party (primarily Sitaram Kesri) have not only harmed her image but also the country by depriving it of a figure hitherto regarded as above politics and someone the people could turn to for unbiased service.
Attempts are afoot to persuade Sonia Gandhi to become President of the Congress. She will be well advised not to fall into the trap. For one, she is not qualified to hold the exalted post; for another, those behind the move are both dishonest and foolish. They are dishonest because their only motive is to exploit the affection people have for Sonia for their own, their political and the party’s gains at the next general election. They are foolish because they think that her becoming President will make a great difference to the party’s fortunes. It will not. She will certainly be able to win the traditional family seat from Amethi or Rae Bareli. But no more. And once she becomes politically active, the Opposition will tear her reputation to shreds. Her association with Quattrocchi and her husband’s connection with the Bofors deal will be played up in order to plague her. In her own interests it would be best if she kept her distance from all politicians. A silent Sonia with the enigmatic smile of the Sphinx while keeping everyone guessing, will ensure her longevity as the nation’s Rajmata.
14 June 1997
Fair deal for women
It would be unfair to assume that those against thrity-three per cent reservation of seats in legislatures for women are anti-women. Far from it. I would like to see half the seats in the legislatures occupied by women. But not by an Act of Parliament. Many of us including women feel that reserving seats for any community or a section of society is bad in principle and does not make the slightest impact on the lot of common men or women. We abolished separate electorates and reservation of seats for religious minorities (Muslims, Christians and Sikhs). The number of Muslims and Christians in state legislatures and the Lok Sabha declined rapidly for the simple reason that these two communities are scattered all over the country and only in a couple of districts are in majority to ensure their being elected. Our people still like to vote for members of their own community. Political parties like to give tickets to candidates who are likely to win. So both Muslims and Christians are grossly under-represented in elective bodies. The Sikhs manage to hold their own because they are largely concentrated inj one region (Punjab) and do send more members to the Legislative Assembly and the Lok Sabha than their under two per cent of the population would warrant. Should we reintroduce reservation of seats for Muslims and Christians as we have done for Scheduled Castes and other backward communities? Have these reservation of seats improved the lot of these deprived communities? They have not. Only the well-to-do among them have been able to avail of this special privilege. It will be the same if we grant women thrity-three per cent representation by law.
Will having a third of every elective body improve the lot of poor Indian women? Will men stop ill-treating their wives? Will fathers of daughters not have to cough up dowries beyond their means to find them husbands? Will husbands and in-laws stop torturing girls who come into their families as brides, for not bringing larger dowries with them? Will bride-burning and bride suicides decline? None of these things will happen overnight.
I agree that women must have more representation in Vidhan Sabhas and Parliament. But the onus for doing so must be on the political parties—they should field more women in elections, see that they win rather than take refuge in an Act of Parliament that abrogates their own responsibility.
Don’t change my TV channel
For one who for years boasted that he did not have a TV set, it is hard to admit that now he cannot do without it. I am far from being a couch potato, but I do spend quite some time watching news broadcasts by four channels: Doordarshan, Star TV, BBC and CNN and sometimes a fifth one, Pak TV. Of the news channels, my top favourite is Star TV. I watch cricket, tennis and hockey matches on whatever channels they are available. On Sundays, I watch both the adalats (Rajat Sharma’s on Star TV and Raghuvansh’s on Zee). Music is another of my passions: classical Hindustani, Carnatic and lighter stuff. What I enjoy most is ‘Antakshari’ on Zee TV. I also love watching nature programmes, and when my cable operator deprives me of the Discovery channel, I ring him up and scream blue murder till it is restored.
I also watch certain programes because they are unbelievably bad. On the top of my hate list are bhajans sung in praise of Santoshi Mata, Sheyran Walleye (Goddess Durga), Hey Bholeynath and a few others of the kind. They are unethical, badly produced and utterly mindless. Far from inculcating a scientific temper, they preach superstition and belief in the occult. Parvachans broadcast in ‘Jagran’ come a close second on my hate list. I watch them only to be able to write with authority that I think they could be a lot better if they preached good behaviour towards one’s fellow human beings instead of narrating tales from the epics or telling people that the ultimate ambition of every human being should be to place his head on the lotus feet of a guru.
Who am I to tell people what they should watch and enjoy? Each one to his taste. As long as we have the right to choose what we want to see, we have no right to grumble. That is why I am alarmed with the provisions of the Broadcasting Bill which is to be presented to Parliament. If passed, it will severely limit the choice of cable channels available to us. Most of the best are foreign-based. We do not have, nor will have, the means of producing programmes of the calibre of Discovery or Star TV. There is little justification for meddling with the present arrangement. Doordarshan enjoys a near monopoly viewership (over eighty-five per cent). Of the fifty-four million homes that have TV, satellite channels are viewed by a mere fourteen million. In no democratic countries are such restrictions imposed on foreign programmes as are envisaged in our Broadcasting Bill. Our government proposes to set up a Broadcasting Authority which will include non-officials. Past experience shows that as soon as the government sets up a supervisory body and introduces licences, it leads to meddling and corruption. There is already a Cable Network Regulation Act of 1994. It has done nothing to improve the quality of films shown on TV. Supporters of the bill in question talk about the dangers of a cultura
l invasion. This is absolute rubbish. If there is any danger of our culture being swamped, it is not from the outside but by the rot that has set inside. Take a second look at the wretched song and jerky hip movements of the most popular songs and the inane depictions of our gods and goddesses and ask yourself, ‘is this Indian culture?’
21 June 1997
VIP as Nuisance Number One
Photographs showed the prime minister, chief minister of Delhi, health minister of the Central Government, health minister of the state and the Lieutenant-Governor of Delhi all in one room enquiring about the well-being of one of the victims of the Uphaar cinema fire tragedy. None of these worthies even knew the name of the man whose well-being had brought them to his hospital bedside. However, the head of the AIIMS (where many of the injured were brought), brazenly stated that VIP visits did not affect the smooth working of the institute. He was of course, talking through his hat. If he had told the truth, he might well be looking for another job. All the five men and women are entitled to high security personnel: Cavalcades of cars flashing red and blue lights, screaming sirens to clear the way for them, roadblocks to prevent common citizens straying on to the path of the mighty. I have little doubt that the parking lots in the institute must have been cleared as were the wards through which they passed.
Big Book of Malice Page 7