Letters to the Editor on Rediff

[Thiru]

Continuing on the Anniyan-Patriotism thread, I see that this writer Ramesh Jagannathan has some valid points. What do you ppl think?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been follwing the news of the recent cloudburst in Mumbai. As one of the saddened Indians living in US, I pray for the Mumbaikars for the speedy recovery of the city to normalcy.

I generally hate giving ideas to the government or for that matter giving advise to someone in distress by sitting in a comfortable location.

So, without any reference to any of the tragedies in India (like Gujarat earthquake, tsunami tragedy, or the recent cloud bursts), I feel it is utmost priority of the governing authority to take care of the people that they govern. I have often seen hearing, 'don't think what country has done for you; think what you have done to the country'. But, it becomes totally nonsensical for the people who cannot even save their life to think about doing anything good to the country.
We are confusing country with the incapable people who sit at the prestigious seat and represent the country.

If the government proves incapable of handling unforeseen situations, how can it think that the poor people can handle such situations?

The government cautions its citizens not to take laws in their own hands in cases of violence and says justice would be taken by the government on the people who meted the crime (say, the people who are involved in burglary, smuggling, crime against women, etc.). When it can give such assurance to its citizens that it would handle such law and order situations (ofcourse, it is just the assurance, and I did not say it is executing on it 100%), why it expects its fellow citizens to get into the bravery act whenever disaster hits our country. Why not it take care of its citizens by itself? Why our Constitution is so imbalanced? Can our government handle only menial situations and cannot handle mamooth disasters like this?

We can be a developed country only when:
# our government appreciates value of each and every loss of life.
# any of these natural disasters pass by us with less-to-nil human loss (I am not going to worry about financial loss as this is anyway indirectly related to other losses.
# we realize the harsh reality - that we are still a developing country.

It is very hard to make our huge set of today's politicians to realize the importance of any of the factors I pointed out above. I feel the learned people in our government should consider revolutionary ideas in bringing our country to the level that others would respect. Some of my random thoughts:
# Instill fear to the people in governance that they are the servant to the people and not the boss to the people.
# They should_not live in lavish bungalows. If you are a servant to the people, you are a middle-class person. You should be living in a menial house, and you should be travelling in a bus, or at most a two-wheeler on your own. Basically, my intention here is have them realize what a common man is going through. That would tell the government what each and every citizen is going through in his/her day-to-day life. If this standard-of-living is not likeable to any person, he is not qualified to be a person who can serve the people.
# With the help of British rule, in spite of different tactics it had adopted to rule the country, let us not forget the amount of infrastructures they have left us with. But still Mahatma, Nehru and the likes fought against them to make us a independent country. But today, I would not say that our country is independent just because all the heads in decision-making are Indians. As long as the decision-making people are not worried about the last citizen in the country, these people don't have any rights to sit at the top and our country needs to get independent from those people still. That is our utmost independence. So, we should start thinking about another Quit India Movement (including me) against these greeds at the top.

Only when India is represented by selfless Indians, the sayings like "don't think what country has done for you..." make sense. Until then, any such deeds by a fellow citizen is like us doing a favor to these greedy politicians.

When I say politician, I never mean to defame all the people at the top. There are ofcourse a few people who are selfless and tries to bring India to the top against all odds. But, these kind of people are very few and often their hands are getting tied because of coalition forces.

We need a Mahatma in this modern era who can persevere through all the hardships. Today's typical Indians' anger/memory is shortlived and the politicians take advantages of these facts. To win this battle, we need a Gandhi, a Nehru, a Netaji, overall - a freedom struggle of modern era against these ruthless, careless politicians of India. Until then, IMO, I feel - British era would have been better than the current Indian political scene..

[Anoushka]

Thiru,

very interesting message!

Reminds me of my own fights with the Indian Embassy / Ambassador here.

Forget ministers in India, the people working in Indian Embassy here think that they are the boss!

I had major problems a couple of years ago.

In 2003 Special Olympics world games was held in Dublin. In early 2003 Special Olympics launched "Adopt an athlete" program. A few Ambassadors were invited for that including our Indian Ambassador (who has left Ireland since). A few of us that were involved in the games were invited as well.

Our Indian Ambassador thought that attending a book launch of an Indian author was more important than attending this program! The reason I guess was he was the guest of honor in the book launch where as he would have been yet another Ambassador in the Special Olympics program.

Three of us Indians who were present were questioned by every second person including the Pakistani Ambassador about why our Indian Ambassador did not turn up!

On Jan 26th when we went to the Ambassador's house for flag hoisting I went and asked him why he had not attended the Special Olympics program he said he wasn't invited (I knew he was invited), when I told him that I had spoken to his secretary personally he had no answer for that!

Thankfully the new Ambassador here is like a common man. He supposedly takes the bus once in a while. His house is open for people any time of the day. He has changed the working of the embassy completely and everything is now quite transparent. He even did a 10K charity walk with us because half the money raised was going to India!

It is a pity that most people prefer to suffer rather than fight for their rights. Someone even told me "Don't fight with the guys in the embassy, they can make life miserable for you"

The government should change and be more responsible, and the attitude of general public should also change. Everyone has to stand up for his or her own rights only then things will change in India! One Mahatma is not going to be enough

[gaddeswarup]

I have been trying to understand these things through the specific problem of suicides of farmers in various parts of India in cluding A.P. One sainath of HINDU newspaper has written extensively on this problem, privitzation of water resources etc:
http://indiatogether.org/opinions/psainath/
Somehow, many articles I have read seem to lead to some aspects of globalization. I paraphrase below one topic from Kawaljit Singh's book "Questioning globalization' (Madhyam Books). According to K.S., democracy is an amorphous concept and what many countries have are systems which are neither completely democratic nor authoritarian. He calls these polyarchies. Polyarchy is a political system in which a small coterie rules while public participation in decision making is confined to selecting rulers through periodic elections. (In India it may not be a small coterie bit a larger amorphous group of middle and upper middle class people and goverment officials.) The components of such a political system include dominance of a coterie of leaders of political parties, popular support based on patronage and absence of inner party democracy. Such regimes are percieved to be conducive for legitimizing the domination of powerful ruling elites as well as providing political stability desired by transnational capital for its smooth movement across borders.
It seems to me that this is the sort of scheme which explains at least qualitatively the plenty and poverty in India. When I said similar things in a Telugu site I was accused of having leftist agendas by some NRIs. I have leftist inclinations but no agendas and I too would like to understand.
swarup

[tvsankar]

India vin poverty dhan indha madhiri govt ai kondu vandhu iruku.Ellorum money kaga vote podaranga.Pinnadi yemandhu poranga.
" Thalaivan evvazhi avvazhi thondan " Adhu dhan ippo parkira Govt.
India vuku dhairiyamaga Mahatma vara mudiyadhu.Vandhalum, vandh udan Mahatmavai close panniduvanga.Idhu dhan inraiya India i feel.
Nallavanuku kaalam illai engayum edhilum.Appodhu eppadi dhariyamanga politics ku vara mudiyum?
Miga MIga suffer aga vendum. Sonna madhiri freedom fight madhiri feel panni, inraiya politicsil enter aganam nallavanga ellam.Avanga uyiruku uthiravadham illadha ennathudan.
Kadavul arul irundhal andha nalla naal oru naal varum.Nallavanga kedaipanga i think.
Andha nalla naalukagavum, nallavanga varuvadharkum andavanai vendi kolgiraen.
With LOve,
Usha Sankar.

[gaddeswarup]

Meanwhile, I have seen an interesting article in EPW by Dipesh Chakrabarty: http://www.epw.org.in/showArticles.p...&filetype=html

Here is the abstract of:
"In the Name of Politics"
Sovereignty, Democracy, and the Multitude in India

"The histories of sovereignty and democracy in India have taken a route different from the trajectory adopted by some western countries. In India, colonial sovereignty was often reduced to domination, yet 'internal wars' waged on the basis of religious, caste or even linguistic divisions, continued. Post-colonial India remains thus, a social body perpetually traversed by relations of war. As this article argues, neither colonial rule, nationalism nor even democracy in India has seen the production of a sovereignty necessary for the construction of a 'society' amenable to disciplinary power and its politics. Indian democracy thus furnishes an interesting case where the political task of creating the typically modern mix of*'sovereignty' (rights) and disciplinary domination arises not before but after the coming of universal adult franchise and a democratic polity. "
This article covers points which are not usually discussed in globalization approaches.
Swarup

[nirosha sen]

You know Anoushka - I somehow believe, India needs more ladies as their Ambassadors! We had an incredibly feisty lady here, before this present guy, Mrs Veena Sikhri!

Now, she's what I call an Ambassador! Just abt every event had her gracing it. So much so, that many M'sian Indians knew the Indian Ambassador by name! Not some obscure, nameless person but a vibrant, articulate diplomat, who made untiring efforts to promote her country and bi-lateral relations!

Her most memorable contribution was when she fought for her country-men here in KL, when they were maltreated by both police and the immigration depts!! Boy, was she a lioness out to protect her cubs!! Even our PM, came into the limelight and publicly apologised for the misdemeanour of his officers to the Indian govt.!!