http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?262337
For The Record
The Emerging Challenges To Civil Society
Full text of the Sixth Nani A. Palkhivala memorial lecture delivered
by the home minister on October 5, 2009 at Mumbai in which he also
spoke, inter alia, on Naxalism and terrorism
P. Chidambaram
I am honoured and deeply grateful for the invitation to deliver the
Sixth Nani Palkhivala Memorial Lecture. I do not know in what capacity
of mine the trustees thought that I was qualified to deliver the
lecture. Nani Palkhivala was a legal giant, a successful business
leader, a diplomat and a powerful advocate of noble causes. I am no
longer a practising lawyer, I have never tried my hand at business, I
have never been a diplomat, and I often find myself as a target of
advocates of noble causes. The last of course, is the occupational
hazard of being a minister. Nevertheless, I shall try to do justice to
the confidence reposed in me.
On the midnight of August 14-15, 1947, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru spoke
of India’s “tryst with destiny.” That has become the most commonly
used phrase in our social and political discourse. Whenever we dream
of the future or we speak of the challenges that we face from time to
time, we refer, in a matter of fact manner, to India’s tryst with
destiny. Did Jawaharlal Nehru believe in a destiny? By all accounts,
he was an agnostic and could not have believed in a pre-determined
destiny. I read the speech again and I think what he had in mind was a
destination rather than a destiny. In fact, it would be appropriate to
say that his emphasis was on the journey to the destination rather
than a fixed destination; and he was preparing the nation for the
challenges that we would face during that journey.
The starting point
On that day, or at about that time, India’s population stood at 320
million. 83 per cent of the people were illiterate. Life expectancy
was 32 years. There were few schools, fewer colleges and only a
handful of universities. The total number of students enrolled in
colleges and universities was 238,398. India had 54,916 kms. of
railway track and 400,000 kms of roads. The number of automobiles was
306,000. The country’s installed capacity of power was 1362 mw and it
generated 11.16 MUs a day. Only 1500 villages had electricity.
Practically, none of them had protected drinking water or sanitation.
A lesser man would have been overwhelmed by the challenges and a
government of lesser men and women would have crumbled under the
weight of poverty, disease and deprivation.
That did not happen. The journey since 1947 has been long and arduous;
yet we have overcome many of the challenges that faced India at that
time. Poverty still afflicts many millions of Indians, but many
millions have been lifted out of abject poverty. Diseases are
prevalent, but we have wiped out plague, kala-azar, elephantiasis and
small pox. The war against illiteracy has been long drawn out, but we
seem to be on the final battlefield now, with only 8 million children
out of school. The abiding lesson of the 62 year journey is that there
is no challenge that cannot be overcome, no goal that cannot be
achieved, and no system that cannot be reformed and made to deliver
better results.
Early in the journey we crossed a historic milestone when the people
of India gave to themselves a Constitution. The Constitution was and
remains – despite 94 amendments – a remarkable living document. While
there have been many milestones during our journey as a nation, I
cannot think of any other of more enduring value than the adoption of
the Constitution. Even as we crossed more milestones, we also stumbled
and fell on occasion. Two occasions come to mind immediately: the
first, the utter lack of preparedness, both at the policy and at the
practical levels, that led to the humiliation of the India-China war
in 1962 and, the second, the misguided adventure into amending the
Constitution in 1976. On both occasions, we were pulled back from the
brink by a band of patriotic men and women, too numerous to be
recalled here. Yet, two names stand out. One was Sam Manekshaw and the
other Nani Palkivala. It is a strange but delightful coincidence that
they shared a common faith and, in a sense, common ancestors. We are
gathered here to pay tribute to Nani Palkivala. My lecture is a humble
contribution; what is more important and heart-warming is the presence
of so many distinguished men and women from different walks of life.
If Dr. Ambedkar was the creator of the Constitution, Nani Palkivala
was its ultimate defender. The best tribute to him is to never forget
that the Constitution is the ultimate protector of our Republic and
our way of life.
The foremost challenge: The Idea of India
That Republic – and that way of life – faces many challenges today. In
my talk, this evening, I wish to focus on some of the emerging
challenges. Foremost among them is the challenge of the idea of India.
Does not each one of us have an idea of India? We do, and we draw that
idea from our own circumstances – birth, family, upbringing, education
and the like. That idea is also shaped by our experiences like success
and failure, joy and sorrow. It is also influenced by others such as
family members, friends, adversaries, colleagues and superiors.
Ultimately, each one of us forms an idea of India. In the case of most
people, the idea of India is vague, undefined and with barely visible
contours; yet with a little prodding, it is possible to draw out every
person to define his or her idea of India. Given the fact that we are
1.1 billion strong, it is not at all surprising that there is a
bewildering range of ideas that compete for the pride of place as the
idea of India. Thus, we have believers and apostates. We have
secularists and religious supremacists. We have democrats and those
who believe in armed liberation struggle. We have liberals,
conservatives and primitives. We have capitalists, conservatives, free
marketeers, social democrats, socialists, communists and Statists, and
many who fall between two shades of opinion. It is perhaps ambitious
or naïve to expect that we can fashion an idea of India that we can
all share. But, I am afraid, without such an idea of India, and
without a shared idea of India, it is not possible to build a modern
and strong India. However many and deep-rooted our differences may be,
it is imperative that we identify common strands that will bind us
together as one nation and one people.
Why is it important to share a common idea of India? Because, without
a shared view, it is not possible to advance any of the noble
principles enshrined in the Constitution. Let me take one example:
equality. It is enshrined in the Preamble which speaks of equality of
status and of opportunity. Equality finds a mention in Article 14 and
in many other Articles. It is also implicit in many Articles. Of all
the pillars that hold up the democratic system, I cannot think of
anything more important than equality of status and of opportunity.
Yet, to my dismay, our social, economic and political systems continue
to deny equality of status and of opportunity to millions of our
fellow citizens. Any attempt to correct this distortion is met with
stiff resistance. What is reservation in educational institutions and
jobs if not an instrument to correct the historical denial of
opportunity to many sections of the people, especially Dalits,
scheduled tribes and the backward classes? Reservation may be a blunt
instrument, but no one has suggested anything better. When we found
that reservation had an unintended consequence of limiting the
opportunities for meritorious students and decided to expand the
capacity of our institutions manifold, even that was opposed on the
dubious ground of dilution of the so-called excellence of our
institutions. Reservation in jobs is opposed on the ground that it is
antithetical to merit. This is a fallacious argument. How can merit
among vast sections of first generation job seekers be discovered if
they are denied the opportunity of holding jobs? Reservation for women
in elected bodies is opposed. Special provisions for Dalits, scheduled
tribes and minorities are opposed. The result is that we remain an
unequal and divided society. It is the persistence of historical
inequalities that have led to so much conflict and tension in our
society.
One of the emerging challenges that we will face in the 21st century
will be the challenge of keeping nearly 1.5 billion people as one
nation. Equality of status and of opportunity alone can bridge the
many divisions in our society. My idea of India is that India must be
an inclusive nation; India must celebrate its diversity; and all
Indians must be encouraged to develop an Indian identity even while
each Indian is free to be proud of his or her language or religion. My
idea of India is an India where we make a conscious effort to make our
society more equal and more united. It will not be easy. It will mean
that those who have enormous wealth must be willing to share with
others who have little or nothing. It will mean that those who have
large incomes must be willing to pay more taxes. It will mean that we
frown upon ostentation and vulgar display of wealth and endorse
austerity and simplicity. It will mean that we amend the rules to
accommodate more Dalits, scheduled tribes and minorities. It will mean
that we consciously forsake any claim to a religion or language or
caste being superior to any other. It will mean that each one of us
has to give more before we ask for more. Please reflect on what I have
said. Despite what your first impressions may tell you, the challenge
of the idea of India is actually more acute and formidable.
The challenge of inclusive growth
The second challenge is the challenge of inclusive growth. One would
have thought that, in a poor country, the imperative of inclusive
growth is a self-evident truth. Alas, it is not. Although the 1980s
witnessed an average growth rate of 5.5 per cent, the first real
trigger to high growth was the reform and liberalisation programme
that was launched in 1991. In the early years of reform, as expected,
the annual growth rate was uneven. This was due to the structural
constraints in the economy. As these structural constraints were
eased, growth picked up. For example, the repeal of Sections 20 to 30G
of Chapter III of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act
encouraged companies to scale up their operations and to leverage the
strengths of group companies. The repeal of the Foreign Exchange
(Regulation) Act and its replacement by the Foreign Exchange
(Management) Act contributed to increased inflows of foreign exchange.
The decriminalisation of violations of export-import regulations gave
an impetus to foreign trade. However, not all structural constraints
have been removed yet. The worst thing that we can do is to bask in
the glory of 9 per cent growth during a 4-year period and go back to
lazy reforms. As the second fastest growing large economy in the
world, this is our opportunity to press the accelerator on reforms –
especially in foreign direct investment, mining and exploration,
education and the financial sector.
In the post-1991 period, we saw that greater economic activity
generated more investment, more jobs, better incomes, more savings,
the last leading to more investment and thus completing the virtuous
cycle. However, greater economic activity took within its embrace only
those who had the means and the opportunity to participate in the
freer market. Millions, however, remained outside the market economy,
and do so even today. Among them are landless peasants whose labour is
often under-priced. There are small farmers who have little or no
surplus produce and hence cannot benefit from higher prices for
agricultural products. There are artisans like potters and cobblers,
blacksmiths and goldsmiths, and weavers, whose products are replaced
by the products of organised industry. And, finally, there are the
millions who live on the margins of society such as forest-dwellers,
the disabled and the destitute. Besides, a free and fiercely
competitive market may drive many people to the margins and beyond. As
there are success stories in the era of liberalisation, there are as
many failures too.
At the turn of the century India was poised for high growth. Crucial
decisions that promoted greater investment, higher productivity and
carefully targeted social expenditure took the Indian economy to a new
plane of growth beginning 2004. A higher rate of growth is, however,
not a panacea. Growth does not automatically trickle down to those at
the bottom of the pyramid. It is necessary to modulate the growth
process so that the very poor can be a part of the process rather than
wait for a pot of rice at the end of the process. That is the
compelling argument in favour of inclusive growth.
While we may have understood the need to promote inclusive growth, I
wonder whether we have fully understood the obligations that go with
it. Inclusive growth, especially in a country where the number of poor
runs into millions, means that we must subsidise food, even if the
pundits disagree. The alternative is that many poor people will go
without food, especially cereals, and many more millions will be
malnourished. We must subsidise fuel, especially fuel for transport.
Otherwise, millions of people cannot travel even by public transport
and their ability to participate in the market economy will be
severely constrained. Inclusive growth will entail many such
obligations and call upon the government to take many unorthodox
measures. Last year we wrote off the loans of farmers to the tune of
Rs.65,000 crore. It was resisted, initially, by the bankers. It was
severely criticised by the economists. It was lambasted by the
opposition as a populist and vote-catching measure. Few among them
paused to ask the question how many crores of rupees of non-performing
loans were written off for big industries. Let me give you the answer.
Between 1999 and 2004 alone, banks wrote off Rs.47,123 crore that had
been given to industries. It benefited a few hundred industrialists
and maybe a few thousand jobs too were saved. On the other hand, the
much criticised loan waiver scheme benefited 36.8 million farmer
families and lifted a huge burden off their shoulders. It turned out
to b e a prescient move for, within a year of the write-off, India
faces a 23 per cent deficiency in rainfall. Mercifully, many farmers
do not have any accumulated debt. Orthodoxy has no place if it is our
intention to promote inclusive growth. For example, in an economic
downturn, conventional wisdom will urge business persons to lay off or
retrench workers. An unconventional business person would use the
downturn to freeze wages, retrain the workers, cut back costs, improve
efficiency and productivity, and remain prepared when the upturn
begins. I know of a software company that did not layoff or retrench
anyone but actually hired 2800 new workers during the critical 18
months beginning April 2008. Public Sector Banks also hired many
thousands of people during this period.
Inclusive growth will also mean that the government must have more
resources to promote such growth. That means – and when I say this I
know it will make me unpopular in this audience – given the capacity
to pay, people must pay more by way of taxes. After five years of high
growth and after fine tuning the tax laws and tax rates, we were able
to raise the central taxes: GDP ratio from 9.2 per cent in 2003-04 to
12.6 per cent in 2007-08. If we take both central and state taxes, the
ratio rose from 15.0 per cent to 18.9 per cent. That might appear to
be a dramatic jump, but it is not. In most developed countries, the
tax-GDP ratio falls between 30 per cent and 40 per cent. Who pays more
taxes? More income tax is paid only if one has more income, and even
after paying more tax he or she will retain 70 paise in the rupee.
More excise or customs duties are paid only by those who consume more
goods and services. So, why grumble?
Inclusive growth will also mean that no one should ask for a
disproportionately large share of the pie and, if he or she does, he
or she must pay more for that share. In Delhi, in what is known as the
Lutyens zone, the per capita availability of water is 310 litres per
day, whereas in the resettlement colony it is 200 litres per day, but
even that is a questionable estimate. In the same Lutyens zone, the
per capita consumption of electricity is 500 units per month, whereas
for all of Delhi the per capita consumption is 150 units per month.
What is wrong therefore in asking those who have a larger share of the
pie to acknowledge that it is disproportionate and to either consume
less or pay more for their consumption?
As the economy steams ahead in full throttle and high growth rates
become a regular feature, the demand for inclusive growth will become
louder and more insistent. As a nation, we must be prepared to respond
to the legitimate and anguished cry of the very poor and disadvantaged
sections of the people. Hence, we must make larger allocations for
education and health care; for rural infrastructure such as rural
roads; for drinking water and sanitation; for subsidies on food and
fuel; and for cash support to certain sections of the people such as
the aged and the disabled. Inclusive growth is a not-so-glamorous
process that has the average poor person at the centre of all
policies, but that is what we will need for the next 40 years or so if
we are to win and retain support for economic reforms and
liberalisation.
The challenge of internal security
The next and perhaps the most formidable challenge is the challenge of
internal security. Over the years, old problems have festered and new
problems have erupted. The challenge of internal security has two
dimensions. The first is the state of our police system. That system
is completely outdated and our police forces are ill-trained, ill-
equipped and ill-paid. Adding to these woes are the short-sighted
policies followed by governments with the objectives of control and
patronage. Let us take the average constable. He is perhaps the most
used, misused and abused person ever to wear a uniform. He works, on
an average, 12 – 14 hours a day; generally 7 days a week, and
throughout the year. Since he is drawn from the common stock of
people, his behaviour and attitude reflect that stock: only a feeble
attempt is made to improve his behaviour or change his attitude. When
he travels from his home (in 80 per cent of the cases, it is not
official accommodation) to the police station and back to his home, he
transits from one cultural milieu to another. At the end of the day,
he brings the culture of his home and neighbourhood to his work place.
He is perhaps the most reviled public servant in India. From a
violator of traffic laws to a rich man whose family member has run
over several hapless persons sleeping on the pavement, everyone
assumes that the average policeman can be cajoled, bribed, bought
over, threatened or bullied into submission. The people’s estimate of
the average policeman is low; the self-esteem of the average policeman
is even lower. It is this police force that is our frontline force to
provide internal security and it is this police force that we have to
work with. Nevertheless, it is this police force that rises to great
heights in a time of crisis. How many of you still remember Thukaram
Ombale who grabbed the barrel of the gun and took the bullets on his
chest in order to help his fellow policemen overpower Ajmal Amir
Kasab? In the first eight months of this year alone 320 men and women
belonging to the security forces have laid down their lives in the
course of discharging their duties. Let us spare a thought and a
prayer for these brave-hearts and their sorrowing families.
If the state of our police system is one dismal dimension, the other
dimension is that the challenges to internal security continue to grow
at a steady pace. Firstly, there is the challenge of insurgency in the
North Eastern States. It is out of abundant goodwill for, and faith
in, the numerous tribes in the North Eastern States that we carved out
six States and gave the people Statehood. We recognised the regional
aspirations of the people. We went a step further and recognised that
different tribes living within a State also have aspirations for self-
government. Thus, special provisions were made in the Constitution for
customary law and procedure; administration of civil and criminal
justice according to customary law; ownership and transfer of land and
resources; delimitation and reservation of constituencies; and
autonomous district councils and regional councils. Nevertheless,
insurgent movements have entrenched themselves, particularly in the
States of Assam, Nagaland and Manipur. Thanks to India having an
international boundary with Bangladesh and Myanmar, many leaders of
the insurgent groups hide in sanctuaries in these countries. The
number of cadres in most groups is quite small. A few, however,
continue to recruit new cadres and their ranks have swelled. These
groups are able to acquire arms from abroad and bring them via Myanmar
and Bangladesh. They indulge in extortion and kidnapping; they kill
alleged police informers; they kill each other in inter-insurgent
group clashes; and not all of them have formally given up the demand
for an independent and sovereign nation. In recent years, Government
has been able to persuade many groups to sign a Suspension of
Operations (SoO) agreement but, more often than not, this has only
provided the group a cover for continuing clandestine recruitment and
acquisition of arms. More recently, Government has changed tack.
Government has made it clear that there will be no SoO agreement with
any group unless it drops the demand for secession and abjures
violence. Government has also offered to talk to any insurgent group
that will abjure violence, lay down arms and move its cadres into
designated camps. The first big success of the new approach is the
agreement reached between the DHD(J) group and the Government of Assam
three days ago when 370 cadres surrendered their arms.
It is my sincere wish that more groups will follow the example of the
DHD(J). I am glad to note that the Naga groups, after many years of
ceasefire, have signalled a willingness to hold talks. Government is
preparing for these talks which I hope will lead to an honourable and
equitable settlement. Meanwhile, the security forces will continue to
apply intense pressure on the leaders and cadres of defiant insurgent
groups until they give up secession and violence. We could achieve
better results if the hiding places of their leaders in Myanmar and
Bangladesh are exposed and they are forced to return to India.
Naxalism
The other dangerous source of threat to internal security is an
adversary that first reared its head in the 1960s in a non-descript
village called Naxalbari in West Bengal. That movement attracted a
number of genuine ideologues, including some who even merited the
description of intellectual. The rise and fall of the Naxalbari
movement were rapid; ultimately, it found a solid base only in Andhra
Pradesh. However, in the last 10 years, the Naxalite movement has
grown both in its area of influence and its capacity for violent
actions. It is a sad fact that some sections of civil society continue
to romanticise the left wing extremist movement. It is seen as a
friend and defender of the poor. It is seen as incorruptible and
motivated by the highest ideals of service. It is seen as a bulwark
against capitalism and neo-colonialism. There may be some truth in
these perceptions, but the few grains of truth must be seen in
proportion to the mountain of deceit, violence and exploitation.
The Naxalites – or the CPI (Maoist) as they call themselves – make no
secret of their political goals and methods. In an extraordinarily
frank document issued by the politburo of the CPI (Maoist), they have
made it clear that they regard elections as ‘a meaningless,
irrelevant, pseudo-democratic exercise.’ They have declared that their
goal is ‘seizure of political power and establishment of base areas’
and their method will be ‘expanding our guerrilla war to new areas on
the one hand and intensifying the mass resistance in the existing
areas; to intensify the war in the States; and expand the area of
struggle.’ The document holds out the ominous warning that ‘this time
the fight will be more long drawn and more bitter than the one against
the British imperialist army.’
Kobad Ghandy, a member of the politburo, who was arrested a few weeks
ago, has stated on record that the Naxalites will never participate in
the mainstream of politics. How can a country that is democratic and
republic accept these pronouncements? The Government of India and the
Governments of the States are not colonial governments; they are
governments elected by the people. The only way in which an elected
government can be deposed is through the ballot box. If the CPI
(Maoist) has, as it claims, the support of the people, why does it not
contest elections and win the right to form the government? In
neighbouring Nepal, for instance, the CPN (Maoist) contested the
elections and its leader, Mr Prachanda, held the office of Prime
Minister for some months. If the Naxalites accuse the elected
governments of capitalism, land grabbing, exploiting and displacing
the tribal people, denying rights of forest-dwellers etc., what
prevents them from winning power through elections and reversing
current policies and putting in place policies that they think will
benefit the people? We have not heard a logical answer to these
questions – not from the Naxalites, not from left-leaning
intellectuals, and certainly not from the human rights groups that
plead the Naxalite cause ignoring the violence unleashed by the
Naxalites on innocent men, women and children. Why are the human
rights groups silent?
The Naxalites’ claim that they are pro-development is a hollow claim.
In 2009 alone, they have caused 183 violent attacks on economic
targets including railway tracks, telephone towers, power plants,
mines, school buildings and panchayat bhavans. How do these facts
square with the claim that the Naxalites support development? In fact,
there is irrefutable evidence that the Naxalites are anti-development
and, in order to sustain their misguided movement, they keep
development away from the poor people, especially the tribal people.
Government has made it clear that it does not view the confrontation
with the Naxalites as a war against the Naxalites. The Naxalite
leaders and cadres are Indian citizens. The poor tribals and non-
tribals they mislead are also Indian citizens. No government of a
civilized country will wage war against its own people. What we ask is
that the Naxalites should abjure violence. If they represent the poor
or the tribal people of a State, certainly the Government of that
State would be willing to talk to them on their demands, listen to
their genuine grievances, include them in the process of redressing
the grievances, implement development schemes in the backward and
neglected areas, and bring the poor and the tribal people into the
process of inclusive growth. I hope that this statement will be read
by the leaders of the Naxalite movement and by their supporters. I
also hope that leaders of civil society will prevail upon the
Naxalites to abjure violence and take the road of democracy and
dialogue.
Terrorism
Another source of threat to internal security is terrorism – from
cross border terrorist groups as well as terrorist cells and modules
based in India. India has been a victim of terrorism for many years –
long before 9/11 when the world woke up to the spectre of global
terror. Hundreds of families in India have felt the pain of terror.
Last year, this vibrant city was witness to the most horrific terror
attacks. 166 persons were killed on those four fateful days. All
countries in the world have declared zero tolerance to terror. So has
India. Every day, every week and every month we are adding to our
capacity to deal with terror. But there is a not-often-noticed
significant flaw in our approach to terror. While there is no
ambiguity or doubt in anyone’s mind when it comes to cross border
terrorism, when we apprehend home grown boys who are suspected to have
committed terrorist acts, to my great dismay, I find that civil
society is divided into two camps. On the one hand, there are people
who will pronounce them guilty even before a trial and, on the other
hand, there are people who will spring to their defence even before
the investigation is completed. Both are wrong. Both take apparently
righteous positions even without knowing the facts. It is these
fundamentalist and righteous attitudes that come in the way of
fighting terrorism. Terrorism cannot be fought through pre-judgements.
It can be fought only through better intelligence, better
investigation, better policing, better prosecution and better trials
in courts. There is a civilised way to battle terrorism and I am
convinced that the civilised way will eventually overcome terrorism.
Conclusion
62 years after the journey began, India is a stronger and more
prosperous nation, but it is not yet a nation that has found peace and
harmony. Nor is it yet a fair and just society. India is not unique in
this respect and, therefore, there is no need to shrink in
mortification. Every challenge tests the will and determination of the
people. The US emerged stronger from a civil war. Winston Churchill
led the British people in the defence of their island against a
powerful enemy and vowed “we shall never surrender.” Japan rose from
the ashes to become a world economic power. Belying all predictions,
the Wall was brought down and Germany was united. The peaceful rise of
China is liberating millions of people from poverty. India is no
stranger to the “can do” spirit; it was best exemplified by the life
and work of Mahatma Gandhi who said “Be the change that you want to
see.” Our challenges – formidable as they are – can be overcome. We
can forge a united vision of India. We can succeed in our unique model
of inclusive growth. We can vanquish the forces that threaten our
internal security. That is my belief, and I ask you to share my
optimism and belief.
Oct 18, 2009 12:18 PM
47 Has Mr. Chidambaram's ministry taken into account the 2008 Experts'
Group report to the Planning commission on 'Development Challenges in
Extremist affected Areas' which makes a cogent analysis of the issues
relating to the Maoists and terrorism and makes sensible
recommendations short of the tactics his ministry is currently seeking
to adopt? Why the silence on this important report and the simplistic,
bifocal and self-serving rhetoric on those who berate the terrorists
as anti-nationals and those who allegedly support the terrorists on
the ground of human rights. The Experts' Group report makes an
illuminating discussion of the issues involved here and makes useful
suggestions. Mr. Chidambaram should read this report carefully before
making rhetorical statements of the kind he is making in this speech.
He should call the Experts' Group for a serious discussion in the MHA.
His attention is also drawn to my article 'Violence against Violence
Cannot Work' published recently at www.infochangeindia.org.This
article is based on my five year experience as Director of the
Research and Policy Division of the Union Home Ministry (1980-85),
which alas, is no more!
K.S.Subramanian
Delhi, India
Oct 18, 2009 02:03 AM
46 We do not have the benefit that Europeans had, to mine other
nations, wipe out civilizations and get away with it. We are not China
either. May be it's appropriate to hand over the central indian
forests for the tribals to govern. These tribals will be the last ones
to support anti-indian activities if their grievances are met. The
Naxals have hijacked their misery and most of their recruits and fire-
brand supporters are not even tribals. People can see through this
treachery.
vikram chandra
Visakhapatnam, India
Oct 18, 2009 01:54 AM
45 At least we have not reached the stage of US where one party is on
the far right and other is on the loony fringe. We still have multi-
party system despite pleas for two-party presidential Banana republic
form of govt.
JayKay Chraborty
Kolkatta, India
Oct 18, 2009 01:51 AM
44 "Just because so called 'centerist' section of our polity lies far
into right does not mean a simple understanding and exposition of
existing reality makes one a radical."
This is true. Neo-liberals world over are not centriest but on the
right of the center as proven by Tony Blair and our own US educated
Politicians and Bureaucrats.
JayKay Chraborty
Kolkatta, India
Oct 18, 2009 01:47 AM
43 "You are right. American states do not have a choice, except Puerto
Rico which has not yet decided whether to be a state or opt for
independence. "
American states do have choice in their constitution and they break
away from union if they fulfill the condition. So had the states in
Soviet Union. Eventually when Kremlin became weak the states broke
away by voting by 2/3rd majority in their state assemblies.
JayKay Chraborty
Kolkatta, India
Oct 18, 2009 01:15 AM
42 Frankly, visionary leaders are not strictly required for a well-
governed state- what's needed is justice- the creation and enforcement
of just laws. Herien lies the problem.
India has just laws but they're rarely if ever enforced, and when they
are, justice itself becomes the first victim and injustice reigns
supreme across the land.
The Communists may have created the Naxal insurgency but they didn't
create the dark oppression conditions under which many millions were
and still are, forced to live.
The villain in all this is Govt or lack thereof- its criminal neglect
and perverse indifference by an uncaring govt to the plight of its
marginalized, oppressed masses which is directly responsible for this
terrible state of affairs.
There's no magic bullet for fixing it nor, sadly, is there any govt in
sight with the wherewithal to do so.
Bodh
Springfield, United States
Oct 18, 2009 01:00 AM
41 senthamarai
why dont you fight for a state with dalits and some other minorities.
the upper class elite can be forced out to some other area.
i support independence for kashmiri muslims- the earlier the better.
perhaps some hindu states should
get the same feedom.
i think that the indian union is not based on a common
vision. it is a union between disparate and unequal
communities, and it does not work, and its unlikely it will in the
furure.
separation of communities will end mutual accusations-
look after your selves and dont bug us, should be the motto.
why are some people such hypocrites- muslims are the most bigoted
people and their spokespersons talk of secularism and liberalism. it
is an outrageous lie.
if they are so unhappy why dont they form small independent states,
and have just an association with
the indian union. some could just opt out. india is
a huge country, and this could be a part of a process,
its no crime. denmark has said goodbye to greenland and iceland- no
bitterness or ill feelings.
personally i feel that bengal should join up with bangladesh and quit
the union. their strange procommie
mindset is incompatible with a stuggleing large
unmanageanle nation.
the bongos in this forum have some amazeing views.
they are a disaster for the poor indian union.
gayatri devi
delhi, India
Oct 18, 2009 12:37 AM
40 There needs to be a visionary and statesman-like leadership to
counter the Naxal menace. Everyone knows that they are cold-blooded
murderers, but still they get some support due to wrong policies in
the mineral-rich states of Bihar, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, West Bengal,
Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh. The tribal and other backward zones in
these regions do not realize the fruits of industrialization. They
must be given a say in the change that is happening and effective
policies need to be put in place to ensure their grievances are met.
These mining areas have been over-populated in recent times, from what
used to be forests, and that needs to be checked too. Most of these
tribals who support left-wing extremism, have been living in the
forests for centuries and see the industry people as aliens. They need
to given access to more schools, colleges and infrastructure in
general.
vikram chandra
Visakhapatnam, India
Oct 18, 2009 12:19 AM
39 Mr. Chidambaram is true that Indian police force is outdated and
needs to be provided with a different model to follow. The average
policeman mostly bears a resemblance to the cultural milieu he
represents, and this is why you need to increase the officer cadre
intake and pay them better wages. The policeman in India mans a
corrupt citizenry and it is a very difficult job. They must be trained
to be tough with the law-breaking people and tougher with their
subordinates. It is the only way to build a disciplined and committed
force. Most of the guys who get promoted to higher ranks do so at the
behest of honest officers, through political patronage. It's time the
umbilical cord of police-politician is cut off.
vikram chandra
Visakhapatnam, India
Oct 18, 2009 12:13 AM
38 Gayatri Devi,
I do not have to answer your bogey man questions that you use to duck
your immoral support to Indian occupation, killing and racist violence
against vulnerable and minorities across South Asia. Concede that your
support and actions to Indian state are fascist, racist, illiberal and
undemocractic by nature. Then we can try to see truth/merit in your
counter questions that you are using to justify your brahminical
violence on others through Indian state apparatus.
Senthamarai
Chennai, India
Oct 18, 2009 12:03 AM
37 Anwaar,
>> But they are now gravitating to a union.
Yes, That is what I am trying to tell you. Only when union is
voluntary and the consitutents feel reasonably secure and confidant in
their own confines, they can deal with 'others' as equals.
>> Affirmation of one's culture does not necessitate separation
Yes, but decision lies with the individual participation not with
super-elitist oligarchy or tyrannical majority
>> especially if the dominant culture is sensitive to the needs and aspirations of other ethnicities.
Not enough justification for majority to demand sub-ordination from a
minority who has distinct geographic/cultural setup (unlike urdu
muslims of India who spread all across the country). They natural and
inalienable right to SELF-DETERMINATION and complete sovereignty.
But what you are saying is very true for urdu muslims and hindus for
their co-existence in our country since world has not experimented
with division of vertical sovereignty.
Senthamarai
Chennai, India
Oct 17, 2009 11:59 PM
36 seanthamarai
what are the plans of dalits to form a purely dalit state, or one with
some muslims etc.
it is a great idea- this will solve the problems of dalit
dissatisfaction, and the others will build
societies based on merit and not fraudulent reservations.
it will prove to dalits that they have to work hard,
step by step, and not expect hand outs.
high class hindus live perfectly happyily in the west,
without the need to exploit anyone.
they will manage quite well in a society without dalits, obc,s or
muslims´. all three hate the higher castes, and this mean a blessing
for them to be on
their own.
gayatri devi
delhi, India
Oct 17, 2009 11:48 PM
35 happy ram
you hit the nail on the head.
christians like you are an asset for india- you are
an indian christian. most muslims are muslims, and
unfortunately for them just muddy coloured indians
by residence. in their giddy dreams they are afghans
or arabs.
it is note worthy that some of the pakistani,s who hated india most
were
zia ul haq, musharaff, and a.q,khan.
the last one produced the atom weapons to target india,
where he was born.
india is predominantly hindu. what is wrong if christians and muslims
were to celebrate devali, or holi- they can be regarded as national
festivals,
without a religious dimension.
hindus liveing abroad celebrate christmas- i celebrate
this festival, and its great fun.
faruki wants hindus and other minorities to respect the culture and
traditions of islam- however most muslims 99 percent have no respect
for the dominant hindu culture, and will not even pretend to do so.
the same happens in europe- muslims live apart, and
shun the danes. they expect unemployment benefits, free education,
free health but do not even
pretend to be thankful to denmark. the question of
celebrateing christmas, easter would strike them as completely
repellant.
majority cultures are entitled a special position in every country.
muslims can not enter these countries,
and demand that the others to be sensitive to them.
it is appropriate and reasoneable that muslims, and
hindus for that matter respect the majority culture.
this does not happen- the huge demands of muslims can
not be met, and just lead to social problems, and
finally to racism.
racism which had disappeared is now comeing back to
europe after the influx of muslims., no one else ie
tamils, chinese, vietnamese are in the news. they
learn danish, accept danish customs, and their own
religion and culture is just confined to a area in
their own homes.
gayatri devi
delhi, India
Oct 17, 2009 11:20 PM
34 "especially if the dominant culture is sensitive to the needs and
aspirations of other ethnicities"
Oh my God still want more ? Bhai Khud bhi kar lo kutch apney liye .
See we the Christians .We are prospering inspite of right wingers but
are not begging.We plan our families and follow the National uniform
civil code.We educate our childern .We don't produce dozens and ask
others to provide for them.
We believe in giving the Nation not asking what it gives us.What are
you doing for India ??
happy ram ambalvi
Ambala Cantt, India
Oct 17, 2009 10:57 PM
33 >> European history shows that smaller states based on nation-
states which satisfies people's aspiration ....
But they are now gravitating to a union. Affirmation of one's culture
does not necessitate separation, especially if the dominant culture is
sensitive to the needs and aspirations of other ethnicities.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
Oct 17, 2009 10:25 PM
32 >> It is pure speculation to think that a balkanized India would be
better off than a "gargantuan" India
Applies other way around too! But European history shows that smaller
states based on nation-states which satisfies people's aspiration
concept rather than imperial austrian, german, soviet, polish large
empires does stabilize the region and has resulted in enhanced freedom
for common people.
Senthamarai
Chennai, India
Oct 17, 2009 10:16 PM
31 Anwaar,
I am all for India which is truly liberal. But not the one which guns
down people asking for secession. If I still support Indian state then
I will be complicit to these daylight mass murders. Secondly, people
should do what they want to do with their lives, not Anwaars and
senthamarais want to do to their lives. Simpky, I would not like to
balkanise India, but that is not in my hands alone to decide, others
have to willingly participate in this enterprise but not by force.
Senthamarai
Chennai, India
Oct 17, 2009 01:02 PM
30 Post-Godhra carnage unparalleled in modern history: Gujarat HC
(TOI)
AHMEDABAD: Gujarat high court, in a ruling on a bail plea, has termed
the 2002 post-Godhra riots as a carnage "almost unparalleled in modern
history" and observed that such crimes undermine the very foundation
of rule of law.
Recently, while rejecting a bail plea of an accused in the Naroda
Patia case, Justice Abhilasha Kumari observed that the massacre can't
be compared to any ordinary case, as its effect on the people cannot
be overlooked. "In fact, this is a case of wanton, mass carnage almost
unparalleled in modern history. Such offences invariably have a
negative impact upon the larger interest of public and the state, and
undermine the very foundation upon which the edifice of rule of law is
built," the judge said in the order, refusing bail to Subhashchandra
Darji.
Darji was working at the central workshop of the Gujarat State Road
Transport Corporation near Naroda Patia and was found throwing burning
rags on Hussain Nagar chawl, where 58 people were killed. Till date,
the SC and NHRC have said a lot condemning the mass killings that took
place in the aftermath of the Godhra carnage on February 27, 2002.
Of late with petitions flooding the HC after the Special Investigating
Team got into action and trial in nine major cases began, high court
judges also have made observations on riots.
In March this year while cancelling former Gujarat minister Maya
Kodnani's anticipatory bail in the Naroda Patia and Naroda Gam
killings, Justice D H Waghela observed that those who played a role in
rudely disrupting the lives of millions eking out their living in
harmony in a progressive, secular democratic republic of India must be
brought to book. He quoted the SC in denouncing riots and wrote,
"Religious fanatics really don't belong to any religion. They are no
better than terrorists who kill innocent people for no rhyme or
reason." At least 126 people were killed in Naroda.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
Oct 17, 2009 12:29 PM
29 Senthamarai,
It is pure speculation to think that a balkanized India would be
better off than a "gargantuan" India. The energies and the bloodshed
that could be expended in carrying out separatist struggles, whether
of the Assamese, Elam or Kashmiris, could be better spent in the
affirmation of our diversity within an integrated Inia. But I realize
that your convictions are deeply held, so I shall not prolong this
discussion any further.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
Oct 17, 2009 12:28 PM
28 Anwaar, I can understand the elevated feeling of insecurity of
Indian muslims over a possible secession of kashmir and resulting
violence against them in other parts of country. But if you join hands
with fascist state in their killings to save your skin today, there is
no guarantee that they will not come for you tomorrow and you would
have antagonised every possible supporters by then. We have come a
long way to keep invoking fear of partition ghosts to douse
aspirations of others.
Senthamarai
Chennai, India
Oct 17, 2009 11:01 AM
27 Anwaar,
>> divided three different ways. It is not as straight forward as you make it sound
I did not make it sound anyways. All I am saying is Kashmiris should
have their fundamental right to SELF-DETERMINATION (to exactly find
out what kashmiris think). I am absolutely right in my assumption that
the only major erring party in this saga is India since it explicitly
denies such a freedom and suppress the populace with 1:5 military men
stationed there. So for practical purpose, it is safer to assume
kashmiris want independence from India yoke until the brahminical-
fascist Indian state agrees for such a referendum. On the contrary, by
claiming a secure and intimate knowledge of three differing opinions,
you are the one who sound to be in the know.
>> A large portion of Indian Kashmir is Jammu
There is NO jammu in India occupied Kashmir. Jammu is not even on the
table, though it could be an part of the agreed solution if jammuites
agree and demand so.
>> That is a bizarre scenario
Unfortunately for you, status quo of muslims, tamils, SCs, STs and
minorities getting killed in thousands with purpose of maintaining the
current power configuration of gargantuan Indian state does not sound
bizarre.
If you fail to recognise this then consider Saddam's iraq, taliban's
afghan, apartheid South Africa, North Korea, Sudan etc.., are/were in
this bizarre group. Why should an hypothetical genociding gujarat be
any different.
If I may put it in other words, let us assume we continue the status
quo and still guju muslims get slaughtered, will it convince you on
the nature and futility of Indian state?
If yes, then you are big time hypocrite, since all you care is about
is Indian muslims safety and everything else can be sacrificed.
If no, then you have no position to argue since you support the
killing one way or the other.
Reasons for contradictions in your approach are two fold,
1) Your wanton search in any problem to find out what is in for Indian
muslims' narrowly defined self-interest.
2) Your seeming lack of faith in simple and natural justice.
>> Your views are very radical. You and I are in different parts of the political spectrum.
As I said, my views are not radical. My views are result of an
unbiased reading of contemporary history. Just because so called
'centerist' section of our polity lies far into right does not mean a
simple understanding and exposition of existing reality makes one a
radical. Real yester-era radicals will have heart attack to associate
themselves with likes of me.
Senthamarai
Chennai, India
Oct 17, 2009 10:45 AM
26 The ' Polscape ' column of this magazine brings it out very well,
in which Dr M M Singh, our Prime-minister is depicted reading a fairy
tale.
Fairy Tales : And the evil naxals ate up all your food which was kept
in our safe custody for the last 62 years !
B Prabhu
Mangalore, India
Oct 17, 2009 07:32 AM
25 I congratulate Mr. Chidambaram on his masterly speech. It does the
people of India proud. He has very ably described the trials and
tribulations of the people as well as their achievements of the past
sixty years. We must credit him for the clear and honest way he has
described the challenges awaiting the people and the nation,
importantly the Naxalite militancy and cross-border terrorism.
His foremost concern seems to be the lack of a “common idea of India”.
I genuinely share that concern with him, but I must say that the post-
independence political system and climate are the ones to blame for
that situation. Traditionally and historically, Indians have enjoyed a
common concept of India, based on their values, faith and culture, in
spite of the foreign invaders and occupiers. The proliferation of
political parties and politicians based on self-serving family
loyalties, religion and caste has divided the nation and society to
such an extent that the unifying concept of India has been swept aside
by parochialism and selfishness. The negativism in the utterances of
most politicians does no good to develop unity. Additionally, the
injection of socialism as a national philosophy and entitlement as a
right has encouraged the people to become dependent on the government
and discard the values of being responsible and productive members of
the society. The politicians have flourished by making attractive but
deceptive promises to the gullible and uneducated electorate and have
spent very little time presenting a realistic vision of India to work
toward. That is certainly not the way to transform a poor economy into
a prosperous one. As much as his socialism was wrong for India, Nehru
at least had developed a vision that he successfully articulated to
the people. There has been no other politician since then who could be
associated with a “common idea of India”.
The image of India filled with vengeful and querulous politicians
owing their existence to hundreds of political parties (‘gangs’ is a
more appropriate description) is a picture of a weak fabric that could
not carry much weight. This situation of disunity is exploited by anti-
social entities like the Naxalites which hold sway in underdeveloped
and undeveloped communities and resort to violence for their own ends.
The current leadership doesn’t present a counteracting unifying
political force that would be respected and followed across the
nation. In its absence, only an economic force can be relied upon to
drive and accelerate the need to unite as a nation. We see such a
trend happening already, thanks to the liberalization of the economy
initiated by Manmohan Singh and Chidambaram twenty years ago. A
vibrant economy with heavy interstate commerce has a great chance to
bring together people of different states, both physically and
mentally. Parochialism will be the first victim.
Liberalization has resulted in opening the floodgates of
entrepreneurship among Indians, a trait that has obviously been
dormant all along. Industry and commerce have flourished and the
potential for continued expansion is indeed promising. The government
can do its part by encouraging the private sector to expand in a
number of directions and divest many of the public sector
undertakings. The government should also accelerate the connectivity
among the cities and also between the cities and the villages. The
common idea of India will then be validated by a free land integrated
by its connecting infrastructure and commerce which will facilitate
people from different parts of the country to intermingle and
rediscover their common culture and heritage.
A firm fabric of inter-dependant states driven by a closely knit
economy is bound to increase the power and self-confidence of the
people who will then reject the de-stabilizing insurgents like the
Naxalites and most of the meaningless and narrow-minded political
parties. It will be able also to project internationally an image of a
strong and unified country and command the respect of other societies.
Giri Girishankar
Voorhees, NJ, United States
Oct 17, 2009 06:32 AM
24 Senthamarai,
>> it is non-sovereign kashmiri identity being subsumed and subjugated by majoritarian Indian identity is what will be considered as an insult to Kashmiris.
Religion influences Kashmiri identity. A large portion of Kashmir is
under Pakistani occupation. A large portion of Indian Kashmir is
Jammu. People in Jammu have a strong Indian identity. In the remaining
portion of Kashmir, the Valley, people seem to be divided three
different ways. It is not as straight forward as you make it sound.
>> In Canada referendum to Francophones for seccession is legally allowed.
You are right. American states do not have a choice, except Puerto
Rico which has not yet decided whether to be a state or opt for
independence.
>> Assuming that we become a confederate nation and excesses in gujarat continues. Then of course gujurat will be forced out of confederacy.
That is a bizarre scenario. How do you know Gujarat would not prefer
to be independent, like Nepal?
Your views are very radical. You and I are in different parts of the
political spectrum.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
Oct 17, 2009 05:05 AM
23 senthamaria
your advice-
"strike alliances with the masses in your area for secureity."
i live in denmark, and i certainly do not look for secureity to hordes
of uneducated, crude people, under
the leaderhip of mayawati, paswan and lalloo prasad.
i may find lalloo to be amuseing, but never for a moment would i spend
time with mayawati-
gayatri devi
delhi, India
Oct 17, 2009 04:54 AM
22 senthamarai
i am expressing the views of the middleclass indians,
who are fed up of the huge numbers of low castes like
you,who keep breeding like rabbits, and are unable to support
themselves. these are insulting but true words,
and need to be spoken.
your winning card is your large numbers, which enable
you to elect scum like mayawati. imagine such people
governing a state as big as up. bad karma.
just get it into your stupid head, that large, uneducated, poor,
people are no blessing for any country. a country is made by the
educated and talented.
i am saying so because you have some silly ideas of
what the rich and talented owe to you.
not one red cent. not one kopek. not one brass
farthing.
nehrus biggest mistake was to allow the population
explosion to happen.
india will never be able to provide a good life for
them. take away the narayamurthis, and the ambanis, and
you will be sitting on a charpoy eating stale bread in
some corner of india.
and talking of leaveing, many of the rich can leave,
leaveing behind the rats in the sinking ship-
gayatri devi
delhi, India
Oct 17, 2009 04:33 AM
21 Gayatri,
Oops, you are deranged (literally). No point in continuing talking
with you and make others suffer.
Senthamarai
Chennai, India
Oct 17, 2009 04:29 AM
20 Gayatri
>> foot steps of pol pot
Explaining it to you on what future holds for you in our country (if
you do not mend your current racist ways) is called sound ADVICE.
Consider my advice and change your racist ways and strike alliances
and compromises with masses in your region. That will be the best
security you might get. No amount olive green can provide you that
social security.
Senthamarai
Chennai, India
Oct 17, 2009 04:27 AM
19 senthamarai
india is a home to tribals who eat rats, people who
live as in the stone ages, bollywood stars, clever
entrepeneurs.
there are too many eaters of rats and those who live
in the stone ages.
take away the tiny elite and the rest of india will be
a vast area with people liveing in mud huts, and
without any thing remotely of value..
rich india subsidies the poor by giveing them cheap food,and other
freebies. they have little land,because they have been breeding like
rabbits. they are burdened
by the most awful social customs.
kashmiri muslims get enormous freebies, and still live
in a medieval style. they dont consider themselves to
be indians, and neither do the indians think of them as
such.
kashmir is a burden for india economically. so are
the huge numbers of the poor of all communities.
these people are not self supporting, and india would
become rich overnight if they were swept away.
they would be worse off without the smart middle classes who bear the
burden of supporting them.
you are yourself of no good to man or beast. just a hate filled , loud
mouthed moron-unable to find a
suitable or decent life.
gayatri devi
delhi, India
Oct 17, 2009 03:58 AM
18 >> Unless one is an extreme radical, one would see Indian identity
as being desirable and honorable,
There absolutely nothing radical about. It is one of the sensible and
accurate way to characterise the existing reality. According to
Kashmiris, it may not be that Indian identity in itself is insulting,
it is non-sovereign kashmiri identity being subsumed and subjugated by
majoritarian Indian identity is what will be considered as an insult
to Kashmiris (for being to identify as an aggressor Indian). It is
akin to defeated argentinians celebrating their capitulation during
falkland wars.
>> see the process as being democratic.
It is clear evasion by you since failed to answer how can it be
democratic if the concerned people want to be free from Indian yoke
and do not recognise Indian constitution and thereby Indian majority.
For example can China democratically decide to occupy Korea and 40
years later claim justification of occupation through democratic hans
majority rule?
>> That is not practical. No country in the world has that.
Plain falsehood, There are number of western countries which are
confedral UK, Canada for example. In Canada referendum to Francophones
for seccession is legally allowed. So does the Scandinavian countries.
In Asia, Malaysia and Indonesia has successfully jettisoned their
fascist yoke over singapore, east timor and Aceh. Same is the case
with Africa. In fact, it is only in those nations where tribes were
artifically joined by colonial masters do we see internal strife. On
the contrary to what you claim, it is lack of SELF-DETERMINATION to
minorities which is causing instability and bloodshed across the
world. Remember that people like you are party to it.
>> Minorities such as in Gujarat will be even worse off if the center was weakened.
Your statement highly immoral or bogus or self-centered. It is
standard bogey used by upper caste (pseudo) left gang. It does not
even make sense.
Let us consider your hypothetical situation in detail.
Assuming that we become a confederate nation and excesses in gujarat
continues. Then of course gujurat will be forced out of confederacy
due to its non-implementation of fundamental rights. what do you think
will happen? Gujurati Hindus will be sh*tting in their pants for a
possible retaliation from Pak./Iran/Arab nations and add a economic
boycott form remaining Indians? This is just one scenario.
Secondly, just because Gujarat Hindus and muslims fight with each
other does not mean Kashmiris or eelam Tamils should be denied their
freedom. This logic is simply ploy of the powerful fascist to buy of
his home constituency.
Thirdly, I can apply the same logic with much more vigor and hindsight
to justify the continuation of colonial rule by british. Infact
history has shown that we butchered each other in hundreds of
thousands ever since british left and we could have developed into an
advanced economy like hong kong/singapore/Japan, if we had stayed as a
colony? Also it is more justified since British gave us the nation
that we are and all its modern institutions and could have taken us to
dizzying height?
>> Between an all-powerful state and an impotent state, there are gradations. One seeks a happy medium
Whoever said that state is impotent? Questions are on the boundary of
the state and extent of its sovereignity. Modern states are powerful
by definition.
Senthamarai
Chennai, India
Oct 17, 2009 03:33 AM
17 senthamarie
idiot the words were spoken by plato,the greek philosopher- not by
hitler-
gayatri devi
delhi, India
Oct 17, 2009 03:30 AM
16 senthamarie
you are makeing a virtue of being lower caste-
i believe that you are following on the foot steps of
pol pot who killed avery one who could read and write or wore
spectacles.
if india expelled its middle class elite, you bums would be worse of
then you are- not that i wish this.
the real reason for the poverty of lower castes is the population
explosion for which they are responsible.
if usa had a billion poor dropped over night,
there would be poverty, misery all around.
the middle classes usually have one or two children
and are focussed on educateing them. the lower castes have a different
agenda. too many children, no education, and too much booze-
people like you are losers- you can not create industries, or get
anything done of much value.
envy ,jealousy , and hate are your salient features.
unless you make a radical change you will remain in the dumps. fom
your comments this seems to be the
greater probability.
go and get lessons from the blacks in usa- they tried
hard and are now doing fairly well
usa elected obama, and you elected mayawati- a complete
disgrace. losers-
gayatri devi
delhi, India
Oct 17, 2009 03:11 AM
15 Senthamarai,
>> acquire undesirable and insulting indian identity and denies them self-rule.
Unless one is an extreme radical, one would see Indian identity as
being desirable and honorable, and see the process as being
democratic.
>> Have a confederal system with uncompromisable right to secede.
That is not practical. No country in the world has that. Minorities
such as in Gujarat will be even worse off if the center was weakened.
>> a state that heaps punitive violence even for minor dissent against its elitist writs and orders.
Between an all-powerful state and an impotent state, there are
gradations. One seeks a happy medium.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
Oct 17, 2009 02:24 AM
14 Gayatri Devi,
>> governed by people of intelligence, morals and competence.
Ever wondered word by word similarity between your statement and
Hitler's ?
>> would you prefer mayawati to narayanamurty.
Anyday, it would be Mayavati. But current mayavati who is force-
fitting her politics to harmonise with existing institutions is less
preferable than a mayavati who breaks up existing institutions and so
called established law and 'order' to rewrite her own dalit law and
order.
>>your comments shows a backward mind....
Your comment shows your lack of understanding on your future. Time is
NOT far away for people like you to get whipped and there won't be a
place in world for you to hide (last official brahmin country Nepal
also decided to dump you)
>> your acussations ... help yourselves or perish-
Again, help yourself by count your eggs and moving out of India before
getting obliterated by lower castes take over!
Senthamarai
Chennai, India
Oct 17, 2009 02:23 AM
13 Naxalism is not the problem. The real problem is the reason
Naxalism flourished. Chidambaram does not have the courage to address
the real issues of exploitation of tribals by the govt catering to the
upper-caste agenda. Chidambaram is not contributing towards the
creation of a civil society. Through military confrontation you don't
create a civil society. He is using the military force to be
righteous. The rest of the world is not as stupid and crooked as the
rest of upper-caste Indians who buy his BS.
Dr Dang
Kolkata, India
Oct 17, 2009 02:12 AM
12 Anwaar,
>>Which parts of the Constitution do they reject?
The part which says that we are 'Indians' and have to obey the writ of
parliament, which forces them to acquire undesirable and insulting
indian identity and denies them self-rule (kashmiris & NE people),
which forces central-east 'indians' to a de-jure capitalist economic
system (despite 'democratic' commies), which forces Indian Tamils to
fume at their incapacity to help brethren dying of genocide across
palk straits.
>> For maintaining law and order,
Whose laws and whose order?? That itself is under debate!
>> do you have alternatives to a legal and constitutional system?
Indeed there is very simple and elegant solution,
Have a confederal system with uncompromisable right to secede from the
Union through a referendum. Union government job should be only
defense, fostering growth of S&T and protection of fundamental rights
across such confederates. This will force the rulers to be ethical and
also to listen to people's wish when they enact foreign and internal
policies.
>> but what most people want desperately is a peaceful and law-abiding society in which they can live and raise their families.
People will always aspire for better life one way or the other. They
might voluntarily give-up their rights/freedom and liberty in return
for peace only when they have to face a state that heaps punitive
violence even for minor dissent against its elitist writs and orders.
In simple words if you make people scramble hard to even earn their
bread then there is a higher chance that they will rather cut their
losses by being complaint to the aggressor and hope to survive the
tide than hoping otherwise. Three thousand years of Indian history
stands as a testimony to it.
Senthamarai
Chennai, India
Oct 17, 2009 01:21 AM
11 Senthamarai,
>> How can anyone try both Indian state and rebelling regions under the same Indian constitution which those sub-nations explicitly reject.
Which parts of the Constitution do they reject? For maintaining law
and order, do you have alternatives to a legal and constitutional
system? People may want reform, even revolution, but what most people
want desperately is a peaceful and law-abiding society in which they
can live and raise their families.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
Oct 17, 2009 12:49 AM
10 senthamarai
it has been stated that certain backward people are better of being
governed by people of superior
intelligence, morals and competence.
would you prefer mayawati to narayanamurty.
your comments shows a backward mind. you prefer to be
ruled by a incompetent fellow backward,then a brilliant
brahmin.how stupid can one get.
ask the poor africans who lived under idi amin dada,
mugabe, and other goons.
it would be better for brahmins to live in well governed city states
and leave you to live in shanty
towns-
your acussations against the clever ones, and your
unceasing demands are just a pain in the butt.
help yourselves or perish-
gayatri devi
delhi, India
Oct 17, 2009 12:13 AM
9 Anwaar,
>> there are people who will spring to their defence even before the investigation is completed. Both are wrong
How can anyone try both Indian state and rebelling regions under the
same Indian constitution which those sub-nations explicitly reject.
Indian constitution is not universal and god given. It is damn
powerful people who wrote it and impose it on unwilling sub-nations
for past 60 years at the point of guns and extraordinary state
violence using army goons. It is not only immoral and wrong-headed but
also plain fascist and simple casteist, bureaucratic oligarchy.
Lassalle's words still very much apply to 21st century modern states.
"The constitutional questions are in the first instance not questions
of right but questions of might. The actual constitution of a country
has its existence only in the actual condition of force which exists
in the country: hence political constitutions have value and
permanence only when they accurately express those conditions of
forces which exist in practice within a society."
>> Many of us are guilty of doing just that. The Home Minister is quite right in saying that both are wrong.
That makes you a willing accomplice to the Brahminical Indian state's
fascist killings. Unfortunately, there are no shades in between these
extremes for you to hide. Indian left has already exploited and
exhausted all of such shades to keep perpetuate brahminical hegemony.
Senthamarai
Chennai, India
Oct 16, 2009 05:16 PM
8 i am glad that i was not present at this lecture.
the usual congress netas account of indias,s history,
and achievments.
aaa the population of india was 320 million in 1947,
and today it is 1200 million. can any country provide
a good liveing to in such a situation.
the honest answer is no. the population explosion has been the single
greatest reason for india,s poverty.
bbb bad,corrupt management is also one of the reason
for india,s backwardness. as rajiv gandhi said 85 percent of
development funds are siphoned off. only 15
percent isgiven to the aam admi.
ccc the long experiments with socialism, huge incompetent psu, were a
disaster.
ddd leadership of political parties is dismal. i am
appalled at the way politicians dress in khadi ,are
poorly educated, and worst of are out of touch with reality. how many
travell by buses, scooter rick shaws,
use public toilets or eat at a dhaba. how often do they sit with
dalits, muslims or tribals to understand
them better- never.
eee why has india with an army of over 1 million,
a large airforce, navy not punished pakistan for its
sponsoring of terror attacks. look at israel. they
would have bombed all terror camps, and assasinated
dawood ibrahim, and other traitors.
fff what stopped the govt from building good schools, and running them
properly . private people have had to do this.
ggg why did india not build a 100 more universities
so that everyone could get a place, without the need
for reservation.
hhh good high tech jobs, in hospitals and schools
must go to those with merit.
will be better for the nation if jobs are given to undeserving dalits
or muslim, tribals. it will not.
the poor in india of any community need decent jobs
in construction,industry - they do not need to be
given jobs for which they are unsuitable.
hhh let all realise that india consists of various
communities with their own interests. appealing to
them to become pucca nationalist indians is a waste of
time. accept them for what they are.
maybe in a few generations indians may develop a common culture and a
common identity. however i have
great doubts about this.
honesty, realism, good management are the need of the hour-
gayatri devi
delhi, India
Oct 16, 2009 01:15 PM
7 People must not be encouraged to think about right and wrong,
rather, one must think about what is appropriate. A terrorist is
right, when he looks at his own point of view. But do people look at
the larger picture? That which is in our power, we can do, by that
what we cannot do, should we attempt to? We must look at a holistic
solution to our problems in India. A person who is not in a good
situation, may make another man feel that, contrary to the situation,
the other man is in a worse situation. How can both the parties
mentioned before, get rid of insecurity, and help each other with a
generous heart? Mr Chidambaram has enumerated what needs to be done,
not how it should be done. Perhaps, we, the people of India, need to
know how the policies can be effectively implemented. A culture of
self examination needs to be introduced in India, perhaps, since we
are not perfect, and we cannot be told,what to do, as the choice of
the individual is important in a democracy. If there are glaring
inconsistencies in the fabric of India, then the reason is the weave
of the fabric of India, which needs to be rectified.
Aditya Mookerjee
Belgaum, India
Oct 16, 2009 12:57 PM
6 Mr Chidambaram is very enthused, and makes his fellow citizens of
India, enthused, too, about the journey that India has to take. If I
may be frank, it is not as much the constabulary which is bribed
directly by the public, on some occasions, as is the higher echelons
of the police service, which is indirectly corrupted, when they can
eschew corruption. If the higher echelons of the police service so
desire, then the constabulary will not be corrupt. The police service
is a very valuable service which serves the nation. If the people of
India so desire, consciously,then India can be rid of the menace and
the unfortunate happenings of terrorism. Perhaps, the ordinary Indian,
does not pay enough attention, on how to be a responsible citizen. It
is not unhappiness, or deprivation, which encourages crime, but the
society feels that in order for the majority to be right, a minority
has to be wrong, because the existence of the powerful, and the weak
has to be justified. There is no justification for existence, since we
are not conscious in our birth, nor do we choose, when we are born,
when we are to die. So, perhaps, we can stop justifying, and act
independently of justification, but act affirmatively, all the same.
Why are some enthused about being Indian, like me, and not others,
though they be small in number? Does a person, have to feel, that he
is underprivileged, because he happens to exist in a system of
governance in India? If I am less wealthy than Mr Ambani, then should
I measure my privilege, to the privilege enjoyed by Mr Ambani? It is
true, that not all can have the same privileges, if one perceives
privileges. But does that mean, that in my eyes, a farmer is less
privileged than me, because I may have numerically a larger bank
balance? It is the rich, when they see those not as rich, who spread
misconceptions.
Aditya Mookerjee
Belgaum, India
Oct 16, 2009 11:38 AM
5 > "My idea of India is that India must be an inclusive nation; India
must celebrate its diversity; and all Indians must be encouraged to
develop an Indian identity even while each Indian is free to be proud
of his or her language or religion. My idea of India is an India where
we make a conscious effort to make our society more equal and more
united."
Although all of that is in the Constitution, it is god to remind
ourselves of these fundamentals from time to time.
> "when we apprehend home grown boys who are suspected to have committed terrorist acts, to my great dismay, I find that civil society is divided into two camps. On the one hand, there are people who will pronounce them guilty even before a trial and, on the other hand, there are people who will spring to their defence even before the investigation is completed. Both are wrong."
Many of us are guilty of doing just that. The Home Minister is quite
right in saying that both are wrong.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
Oct 16, 2009 09:06 AM
4 This is the first time that we hear from the Home Minister of India
the true horror story of Naxalites and Terrorists bleeding India. I
hope earnestly that Mr.Chidambaram before his tenure as Home Minister
ends would modernize our Police cadre and make it a well equipped
force to deal effectively with any internal security threats.
Samirajan
Portland, United States
Oct 16, 2009 06:23 AM
3 This shameless chamcha now talks of 'challenge [Maoists] to
society"? Was he living on Mars?
For the past five years, these useless Congie hypocrites sat idly by
and watched the Maoists expand their reach over more than a third of
all districts in the land- and did absolutely nothing- nothing!
Why? Because they were fearful that their Commie supporters at the
center would pull the rug from under them- the interests of the
Congress Party is paramount while the interests of their country is
somewhere lower down their list of priorities- maybe last.
Bodh
Springfield, United States
Oct 16, 2009 02:47 AM
2 So... what is the "Civil Society"? Raping of tribal women, torturing
their children, beating up their old, terrorizing their entire village
so as to stop them from opposing the police brutality of the govt? You
have no moral authority to call yourself civilized when you are
passively acting as a catalyst towards genocide and extinction of
Indian tribals labeling them as naxalites. You may be a wonderful
minister to the upper-caste India but from where I'm look at, you are
an uncivilized terrorist worse than Idi Amin.
Raj
Chicago, United States
Oct 15, 2009 09:14 PM
1 Wonderful. Mr. Chidambaram, you have done you position and India,
proud.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA