By M H Ahssan
Devender Goud May Seek Malkajgiri LS Ticket; To Fight On Prajarajyam Party Symbol
The eight-month-old Nav Telangana Party led by T Devender Goud is all set to merge with Chiranjeevi’s Prajarajyam party and a formal announcement is expected sometime next week before the poll notification is issued, NTP sources said.
While the official reason for the merger is said to be common ideology of the two parties—social justice and separate Telangana, the reality is that Goud has been finding it difficult to run the party as it had failed to create the kind of impact he expected before he quit TDP in June 23, 2008.
It may be mentioned here that before starting his own party Goud was a strong leader in TDP and from the position of ZP chairperson he rose to become virtually number two in TDP. He was also the revenue, panchayati raj and home minister during TDP regime under N Chandrababu Naidu. He was also the TDP deputy leader in the state assembly and used to share the seat of opposition leader in the assembly with Naidu.
While the TDP had constituted a committee to recommend the stand it should take on separate Telangana, Goud quit TDP alleging that it was anti-Telangana and floated his own outfit. But contrary to his expectations, except E Peddi Reddy, a former minister, no other leader went with him. Even the cadre did not desert TDP.
Since then, Goud had made several attempts to strike an alliance with TRS, PRP and even BJP. Now finally, Goud is said to have been assured by PRP leader Chiranjeevi that the party would include the promise of supporting separate Telangana in its manifesto. This was preceded by several rounds of talks between Chiranjeevi and Goud, NTP sources told HNN.
Once the merger is formalised, Goud is likely to get a key position in PRP and will contest polls on PRP symbol. Party sources say that Goud is keen to contest from Malkajgiri Lok Sabha constituency and jump to national politics. So far he has represented Medchal assembly constituency in Ranga Reddy district. Sources said he is likely to be named as in charge of party’s Telangana affairs committee.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Shellfish in Ciroc Fest in Taj Deccan
By Vaishnavi Uzzal
Ever imagined relishing on Shellfish and the costliest vodka in the world? Arena, the all-day international dining outlet in Taj Deccan, one of the trendiest and the most contemporary premium hotels in Hyderabad, is proud to present the unique “Shellfish in Ciroc” fest from February 20 to March 3, 2009.
Chef Sachin Joshi has amalgamated two of the finest continental delicacies shellfish and Ciroc vodka for the discerning guests. The pre-plated food is presented in a contemporary style and the dish will be flambe’d in front of the guests to make it more interactive.
Some of the specialties of the festival include dishes like Ciroc flambé prawns with garlic & olives, Lobster Ciromedor, Pan grilled fish fillets with olive tapenade & garlic, Herb crusted prawns & fish fillets with lemon grass flambé, Grilled squids and Seafood platter with squids, octopus & prawns. All dishes are accompanied with herb tossed veggies, crispy wedges and grilled tomato.
Cîroc vodka is an upscale brand of distilled beverage manufactured in France. It is derived from grapes, in contrast to corn, sorghum, rye, wheat, or potatoes that are more commonly used. The grapes used for Cîroc vodka are "snap frost" grapes, Mauzac Blanc from the Gaillac region of France, and Ugni Blanc from the Cognac region. The juice extracted from these grapes is cold fermented and is distilled five times to get the Ciroc Vodka.
The festival is open for dinner from 7:30 pm to 11:30 pm. For reservations, call 6666 3939 Extn. 5218/16.
As the Ciroc laced Shellfish flambe’d by your side, come and try Ciroc macerated lobster; Ciroc drenched crab and much more at Arena!
Taj Hotels Resorts and Palaces
Established in 1903, Taj Hotels Resorts and Palaces is one of Asia's largest and finest group of hotels, comprising 60 hotels in 42 locations across India with an additional 16 international hotels in the Maldives, Mauritius, Malaysia, Australia, UK, USA, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Africa and the Middle East. From world-renowned landmarks to modern business hotels, idyllic beach resorts to authentic Rajput palaces, each Taj hotel offers an unrivalled fusion of warm Indian hospitality, world-class service and modern luxury. The Taj, a symbol of Indian hospitality, has recently completed the centenary of its landmark hotel, The Taj Mahal Palace and Tower, Mumbai. Taj Hotels Resorts and Palaces is part of the Tata Group, India's premier business house.
Ever imagined relishing on Shellfish and the costliest vodka in the world? Arena, the all-day international dining outlet in Taj Deccan, one of the trendiest and the most contemporary premium hotels in Hyderabad, is proud to present the unique “Shellfish in Ciroc” fest from February 20 to March 3, 2009.
Chef Sachin Joshi has amalgamated two of the finest continental delicacies shellfish and Ciroc vodka for the discerning guests. The pre-plated food is presented in a contemporary style and the dish will be flambe’d in front of the guests to make it more interactive.
Some of the specialties of the festival include dishes like Ciroc flambé prawns with garlic & olives, Lobster Ciromedor, Pan grilled fish fillets with olive tapenade & garlic, Herb crusted prawns & fish fillets with lemon grass flambé, Grilled squids and Seafood platter with squids, octopus & prawns. All dishes are accompanied with herb tossed veggies, crispy wedges and grilled tomato.
Cîroc vodka is an upscale brand of distilled beverage manufactured in France. It is derived from grapes, in contrast to corn, sorghum, rye, wheat, or potatoes that are more commonly used. The grapes used for Cîroc vodka are "snap frost" grapes, Mauzac Blanc from the Gaillac region of France, and Ugni Blanc from the Cognac region. The juice extracted from these grapes is cold fermented and is distilled five times to get the Ciroc Vodka.
The festival is open for dinner from 7:30 pm to 11:30 pm. For reservations, call 6666 3939 Extn. 5218/16.
As the Ciroc laced Shellfish flambe’d by your side, come and try Ciroc macerated lobster; Ciroc drenched crab and much more at Arena!
Taj Hotels Resorts and Palaces
Established in 1903, Taj Hotels Resorts and Palaces is one of Asia's largest and finest group of hotels, comprising 60 hotels in 42 locations across India with an additional 16 international hotels in the Maldives, Mauritius, Malaysia, Australia, UK, USA, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Africa and the Middle East. From world-renowned landmarks to modern business hotels, idyllic beach resorts to authentic Rajput palaces, each Taj hotel offers an unrivalled fusion of warm Indian hospitality, world-class service and modern luxury. The Taj, a symbol of Indian hospitality, has recently completed the centenary of its landmark hotel, The Taj Mahal Palace and Tower, Mumbai. Taj Hotels Resorts and Palaces is part of the Tata Group, India's premier business house.
Pharma colleges ‘sold’ merit seats in AP
By Ayaan Khan
Throwing norms to the wind, pharmacy colleges in the state unilaterally increased management quota seats in the academic year 2008-09. As many as 25 colleges in the state had admitted students more than their permitted seats under the management quota.
According to the rules, colleges can make admissions under the management quota for only 25 per cent of the total seats. However, some colleges allegedly ‘sold’ seats up to 35 per cent, even usurping seats under the convener quota.
According to Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education (APSCHE) officials, a Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) team during the mandatory inspection found colleges had indulged in irregularities. The council has already served show cause notices to these colleges. According to the council officials, majority of these colleges were minority institutions.
“The colleges will now have to take approval from PCI to admit students from the next academic year. Students who had already taken admission will not be affected by the decision. They will be allowed to pursue the course,” an APSCHE official said. However, the council members said the colleges could lose PCI affiliation.
Officials found around 450 seats might have been ‘sold’ as management quota seats by college managements for fee as high as Rs 91,000 (convener quota fee is Rs 30,200 per annum). The council said they found irregularities when colleges submitted the final list of students admitted by them.
Meanwhile, the PCI has said 75 per cent of seats in colleges would have to be ratified by them from the next academic year so that there will be no irregularities in the admission process. Till recently, the seats were being ratified by the universities concerned while approval for the course was granted by PCI.
The erring colleges, however, defended themselves before the PCI stating that they had sold seats left out after the counselling by the convener. “There is a provision to sell such seats as management quota seats,” they argued.
In its report, the PCI has said that the colleges had made admissions in these seats before the admission procedure for engineering and pharmacy began, which is an offence in itself. The seats were supposedly sold with the connivance of the Single Window-II (counselling for minority colleges) convener.
“The admissions were closed before merit students took admission in these seats after convincing the state council that the seats were filled by candidates from the merit list,” the official said.
Throwing norms to the wind, pharmacy colleges in the state unilaterally increased management quota seats in the academic year 2008-09. As many as 25 colleges in the state had admitted students more than their permitted seats under the management quota.
According to the rules, colleges can make admissions under the management quota for only 25 per cent of the total seats. However, some colleges allegedly ‘sold’ seats up to 35 per cent, even usurping seats under the convener quota.
According to Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education (APSCHE) officials, a Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) team during the mandatory inspection found colleges had indulged in irregularities. The council has already served show cause notices to these colleges. According to the council officials, majority of these colleges were minority institutions.
“The colleges will now have to take approval from PCI to admit students from the next academic year. Students who had already taken admission will not be affected by the decision. They will be allowed to pursue the course,” an APSCHE official said. However, the council members said the colleges could lose PCI affiliation.
Officials found around 450 seats might have been ‘sold’ as management quota seats by college managements for fee as high as Rs 91,000 (convener quota fee is Rs 30,200 per annum). The council said they found irregularities when colleges submitted the final list of students admitted by them.
Meanwhile, the PCI has said 75 per cent of seats in colleges would have to be ratified by them from the next academic year so that there will be no irregularities in the admission process. Till recently, the seats were being ratified by the universities concerned while approval for the course was granted by PCI.
The erring colleges, however, defended themselves before the PCI stating that they had sold seats left out after the counselling by the convener. “There is a provision to sell such seats as management quota seats,” they argued.
In its report, the PCI has said that the colleges had made admissions in these seats before the admission procedure for engineering and pharmacy began, which is an offence in itself. The seats were supposedly sold with the connivance of the Single Window-II (counselling for minority colleges) convener.
“The admissions were closed before merit students took admission in these seats after convincing the state council that the seats were filled by candidates from the merit list,” the official said.
A Lavish Wedding of Jaipur
By M H Ahssan & Rosy Fernandez
Over three days and nights, The Pink City in Jaipur witnessed a Hindu wedding to remember – a sensory feast of centuries-old rituals and lavish revelry in grand celebration of the marriage of Anisha Sharma and Abu Dhabi’s Gaurav Varma.
Nira Varma has not stopped dancing for three days. She started when her son Gaurav exchanged rings with his new bride-to-be; she was still dancing a day later when her future daughter-in-law had her hands painted with henna in preparation for her big day; she twirled at the helm of a procession of hundreds heralding the groom on horseback and as she finally takes home the new addition to her family, she cannot help but break into a little jig.
Little wonder she is struggling to contain her glee, for this is no ordinary wedding. When Gaurav Varma, the only son from a prominent family of UAE restaurateurs, decided to spend the rest of his life with Anisha Sharma, the wheels were set in motion for lavish, no-expense-spared festivities lasting three days and nights.
The Varmas are stalwarts of the Indian community in Abu Dhabi where Gaurav’s father Vinay, 65, relocated from Meerut near Delhi 39 years ago to launch his catering empire, which now includes the Royal Orchid restaurants, and the Chappan Bhog, Kwality and Soy eateries.
But for the spectacular wedding, the action moved more than 2,000 miles east to the Rajasthani capital Jaipur in India, once the home of polo-playing princes and maharanis.
The Pink City, nicknamed after the rosy glow of its buildings, is known for its colourful art, sumptuous textiles, rich folklore and traditional music and dance. In keeping with the palatial setting, the wedding rituals staggered over several days take place in increasingly glamorous locations – with feasts fit for a Rajasthani king on each occasion.
“We just want to have fun,” declares the father of the groom. “Usually a wedding takes place in either the hometown of the bride or groom. Neither of our families are from Jaipur in this case, but we thought what better place for three days of merrymaking?”
Anyone who has seen the film Monsoon Wedding will be familiar with the spectacle of traditional Hindu nuptials. From guests competing to wear the brightest, most ornate outfits, to the revelry and dancing which mask the solemn vows being taken, Indian weddings are a sensory feast. Add in the notoriously raucous Hindu Punjabi element which makes up Gaurav’s heritage and it’s clear why 250 revellers have flocked from across the world to celebrate.
“I love weddings, Punjabi weddings in particular,” shouts Seema Shetty across the din of a dancing procession and a marching band.
The 26-year-old founder of Bite Rite, the health food chain, and owner of Zari Zardozi Indian restaurant in Al Raha, has flown in from Abu Dhabi with her entire family, including her parents Bavaguthu Raghuram and Chandra Kumari, who both head NMC medical group, brother Binay, and sisters Neema and Reema.
“You see the true culture of a place, any place in the world, at a wedding,” gasps Seema, catching her breath in between her energetic bhangra moves. “Most of us have friends from all over the world so it is a perfect opportunity to show our culture.
“Punjabi weddings are the most colourful and are all about having complete fun. The further north you go in India, the less conservative they get – north Indians love a spectacle. You just have to look at the clothes to see what bright, colourful people they are.”
In the midst of the action, it is little surprise Anisha looks overwhelmed at times and a shy awkwardness hangs in the air between her and her new partner. Born in Gwalior near Delhi and now living in Mumbai, she met Gaurav, 28, in June last year and was engaged to him 20 days later. They have met only a couple of times since.
Arranged marriages may be fading in popularity among the Mumbai jet set, who enjoy fairly westernised lives. But for supplanted communities, like the tight-knit Indian network in Abu Dhabi, an arranged marriage is a chance to preserve cultural and religious values to pass on to future generations, and many turn to their homeland to find the perfect match for their offspring.
In previous times, caste, social standing and matching astrology charts were ranked as high factors. These days, compatibility and education are deemed more important.
Anisha, from a family of Brahmins, the highest caste, was introduced to Gaurav by a mutual friend of both their fathers. The restaurateur, who is helping run his father’s business, was visiting Delhi to check on the family’s diner there, Dine-Esty.
“Ours was a completely arranged marriage,” says Anisha, a producer on India’s Star TV until she quit two months before the wedding. “My dad called me when I was at work and said, ‘There is an important e-mail you should check and tell me what you think’. It was Gaurav’s CV with his picture. I found it interesting and he looked nice so I said I would meet him.
He was leaving for Abu Dhabi a day later so we met for dinner on his last night. We hit it off really well. He never went back as planned. Instead, my dad came out with us the next night and then Gaurav came to Delhi to meet my mother. Apparently he had already decided on the first night, but it took me a lot longer to make up my mind. It was 20 days before we were engaged. I was thinking about leaving the country, my family and friends. I am very attached to my country. I originally wanted to marry someone in Mumbai.
“I had seen about six boys before Gaurav but I would like to have my own career and some of the suitors had a problem with that. Sometimes you just don’t click and I was starting to despair of ever meeting the right man. I liked a lot of things about Gaurav, particularly the fact he respects everyone a lot, which is very important.
“He understands it is difficult for a girl. He has done a lot to assure me that whatever I want to do, I can.
She is looking forward to married life, even though she has never been to Abu Dhabi, where the couple will live. “My parents have mixed feelings about me going. They are happy about me getting married but parents always feel a loss when a bride goes to another house.”
Born in Abu Dhabi, Gaurav had lived all over the world and had, by his own admission, a fairly hedonistic existence during his eight years in Las Vegas, where he worked in hotels. While his own friends express surprise that he decided to go down a traditional route in finding a lifelong partner, he says, “Contrary to what people believe, there is a choice involved. I had not met anyone myself and was not averse to the idea of an arranged marriage.
“We met on a Friday and I asked her to marry me on the Monday. We have a lot of things in common – family values, understanding, respect. She has a good heart and is career-minded. I feel very comfortable with her.
“This way we get to know each other while we are married. If you can get along, that is all that matters. For me, it is the start of a better life.”
But before the pair can face the challenges ahead as husband and wife, there are a long list of centuries-old rituals and ceremonies to go through, intended as blessings to set them off on the best start in life. While the basic blessings remain the same, customs can vary wildly according to region and background and for many guests, this is their first taste of a Punjabi wedding.
The mayhem begins at Jaipur’s Sanganeer airport, when revellers from the UAE, Britain, the US, Canada and other regions of India arrive to be met by gaudy banners announcing: “Welcome to Gaurav and Anisha’s wedding”.
The guestlist reads like a Who’s Who of the Indian glitterati in the UAE, including the Indian ambassador Talmiz Ahmed, the Shettys, Jayanti Maitra, head of research at the Centre for Documentation and Research in Abu Dhabi, and Raman Khanna, business development director for Aldar.
The Rambagh Palace, formerly owned by the Maharaja of Jaipur and the home of royals for nearly two centuries, is the scene for the first of many rituals, the chunni charana and ring ceremony – and the first opportunity for the bride to show off her trousseau. She dazzles in a flesh-toned, crystal-encrusted sari, her hair wound into a long plait entwined with flowers while her mother Nivedita, 50, a commercial lawyer for India’s Supreme Court, could pass for her older sister in an equally elegant ivory sari.
Mrs Varma, 58, presents Anisha with jewellery and clothes and drapes an elaborate turquoise shawl around her shoulders for the chunni charana. The act is deeply symbolic, explains the groom’s uncle Virender Sekhri. “It is effectively saying: ‘Now she is ours, we are going to protect her’. The bride keeps it all her life and either passes it down between generations or has it put on her when she is cremated.”
The second Anisha and Gaurav exchange rings, Mrs Varma breaks into a dance, arms in the air, leading the way for revelry which continues until 5.00am the next day.
As the bride and groom join her on the dance floor, Gaurav takes his first tentative step towards his matrimonial duties, putting a protective arm around Anisha. But the pair are still not officially married and part company at the end of the night until the following day for a mehndi, or henna painting, at midday.
The shindig, in the colonial-style Hari Mahal Palace hotel, is akin to a combined hen and stag party as the women cluster to gossip and have their hands and arms painted with the dye while their menfolk gather to give Gaurav tips for married life.
As the groom’s party arrive laden with gifts and a handmade basket packed with henna, they are greeted by the bride’s guests and ceremonial drums. Mrs Varma brandishes a key ring with a framed photo of Gaurav and declares: “I don’t have house keys for you yet so I am giving you the keys to his heart.”
Anisha, resplendent in an orange and red shelwar kamees, sits under a canopy made entirely of marigolds for hours on end while swirls of the dye are painstakingly applied to her hands and feet in elaborate flower motifs. The leisurely afternoon is a chance for those who have been through it before to reminisce about their own experiences.
“When my sons got married, I wanted to make sure I got all the ceremonies right,” says Aruna Misra from Mumbai, 56, a former schoolfriend of Vinay Varma. “We planted banana and mango trees for fertility and carried water with haldi [turmeric] for the mehndi. My eldest sister was very impressed that I knew all the customs – until I told her I’d done my research on Google.
“We had so much fun and the rituals are part of it. When a bride enters the groom’s house she normally throws her house keys and rice over her head to signify returning what she had in her mother’s home and kicks over a bowl of rice in the doorway for luck. My naughty friends told my Polish daughter-in-law that the harder she kicked, the more I would love her. She kicked the bowl with all her force and it flew to the other side of the house, smashing several vases on the way.”
Ritu Mehra, 48, from Delhi, smiles nostalgically as she says: “Mine was a love marriage, which was very unusual in those days. Rajiv was working near the college where I was studying and we fell in love when I was 21. My parents wanted me to meet a suitor, though. Finally I told them about Rajiv. My parents weren’t happy about it but eventually came round and we are still happily married 27 years later.”
“This is all new to me,” says Dr Maitra, originally from Calcutta. “Each wedding speaks a story about the different customs and rituals depending on the region. It is not just about tying the knot, it is a celebration between two families. The visual impact is extraordinary and you learn so much. Weddings in India are talked about all over the world and cause jaws to drop. The scale and dimensions of this one are huge. It is very lavish and elaborate and I would not have missed it for anything.”
The evening sangeet, or music ceremony, creates another spectacle as guests adorned with their finest gold and gems don bright rainbow colours and sequins to watch staged performances. In the past, musicians would sing traditional wedding ditties while the bride hid herself away in preparation for her big day. These days there is no room for demure brides and it is Anisha herself, in green satin pantaloons and a red bodice, who takes to the stage with her friends to tease the groom with songs and dances.
Having grown up with Bollywood films and, no doubt, performed the routines in their bedrooms until they have them down pat, they could rival any screen star as they borrow heavily from the movies and their corresponding songs to tell the story of Gaurav’s bachelor days in Las Vegas: Ma Da Ladlaa Vigar Gaya (The Mother’s Boy Has Been Corrupted), his first meeting with Anisha Desi Girl (Asian Girl) and his current status Lucky Boy.
Future matches are often made at these events and one female guest whispers: “Of course we all dream of falling in love and finding someone to spend the rest of our life with. Many couples date on the quiet and involve the parents when marriage is on the cards. But failing that, there is the fallback of an arranged marriage as your parents will always try and find the best for you.”
It is 8.00am on the day of the wedding proper before the exhausted revellers make it to bed, with the bride and groom escaping just three hours earlier. But there is little time to rest for the bride as she prepares to leave her the home of her mother and father Anil, 50, a financier, for good. Bangles and gold ornaments are strapped to her wrists for luck and her female relatives smear her face and body with a paste of turmeric, gram flour, yoghurt and oil to bring out the glow in her complexion. It takes hours to prepare her for the most significant part of the wedding; to carefully apply her make-up, adorn her with chunky gold jewellery and help her into her bridal lengha, a cropped top and floor-length skirt in heavily embroidered green with matching scarf, covering her head.
For Gaurav, the run-up to the ceremony means wearing a cream silk sherwani, made of a long tunic and trousers and having a turban wound onto his head, complete with a veil of red and white flowers as a priest blesses him and money is circled over his head to represent good fortune. His male relatives have the same headgear put on before he gets on a white horse, bejewelled and draped in cloth of mouthwatering Rajasthani colours, to set off on a procession to meet the bride.
And what a procession. There are marching bands with drums and trumpets, dancing in the streets, and the long line of his guests dressed in an array of saris in every shade under the sun. As the baraat, or groom’s party, arrives at the majestic Jay Mahal Palace hotel, it is met by the bride’s relatives, who shower them with red rose petals and adorn the men with garlands of white carnations. The footpath, despite being less than 200 metres, takes the best part of an hour to negotiate as the groom on his horse is given the welcome of an A-list celebrity, complete with red carpet.
The bride is brought out to meet him for the jaimala, or exchange of flower garlands. Traditionally, a groom stood on his toes to make the bride stretch upwards as it would often be his first opportunity to see her. As Gaurav forgets this custom, his friends bear him up on their shoulders, forcing Anisha to do the same so she can reach him.
Fireworks shoot off into the crisp night sky as they make their way to an outdoor pagoda strewn with marigolds for the two-hour blessing. Even during this sombre part of the ceremony, during the priest’s chants, the entertainment continues for the guests, who can wander in and out of the rituals and are treated to a lavish buffet and displays by fire-eaters and professional dancers, some balancing up to 10 pots on their heads.
As the ceremony concludes, a scarf is tied between Anisha and Gaurav and they walk around a fire seven times in a ritual called pheras. Each circuit represents a different aspect of life, such as prosperity and fertility, and while the bride leads for the first three, her new husband takes over for the last rounds showing their marriage is one of joint leadership. Gaurav smears her forehead with red powder to show she is married and hangs a mangal sutra necklace around her neck.
The marriage concluded, Anisha steps into a wooden doli, a sort of carriage carried on the shoulders of her male relatives to take her to her new home. Her mother, brother and friends weep as she leaves her old life behind. It is a poignant, sombre moment. A bewildered three-year-old cousin, Tia Palkar, bursts into tears and says: “Mummy, why are they sending her away? And where are you going to send me?”
“Marriage involves a lot of sacrifices,” observes Vinay Varma. “Most of the young ones today live abroad for many years but they have never forgotten their culture, their family upbringing and respect for their elders. We have found all those qualities in our new daughter. As long as they remember to respect one another and fall back on each other, they will be blessed for life.”
Over three days and nights, The Pink City in Jaipur witnessed a Hindu wedding to remember – a sensory feast of centuries-old rituals and lavish revelry in grand celebration of the marriage of Anisha Sharma and Abu Dhabi’s Gaurav Varma.
Nira Varma has not stopped dancing for three days. She started when her son Gaurav exchanged rings with his new bride-to-be; she was still dancing a day later when her future daughter-in-law had her hands painted with henna in preparation for her big day; she twirled at the helm of a procession of hundreds heralding the groom on horseback and as she finally takes home the new addition to her family, she cannot help but break into a little jig.
Little wonder she is struggling to contain her glee, for this is no ordinary wedding. When Gaurav Varma, the only son from a prominent family of UAE restaurateurs, decided to spend the rest of his life with Anisha Sharma, the wheels were set in motion for lavish, no-expense-spared festivities lasting three days and nights.
The Varmas are stalwarts of the Indian community in Abu Dhabi where Gaurav’s father Vinay, 65, relocated from Meerut near Delhi 39 years ago to launch his catering empire, which now includes the Royal Orchid restaurants, and the Chappan Bhog, Kwality and Soy eateries.
But for the spectacular wedding, the action moved more than 2,000 miles east to the Rajasthani capital Jaipur in India, once the home of polo-playing princes and maharanis.
The Pink City, nicknamed after the rosy glow of its buildings, is known for its colourful art, sumptuous textiles, rich folklore and traditional music and dance. In keeping with the palatial setting, the wedding rituals staggered over several days take place in increasingly glamorous locations – with feasts fit for a Rajasthani king on each occasion.
“We just want to have fun,” declares the father of the groom. “Usually a wedding takes place in either the hometown of the bride or groom. Neither of our families are from Jaipur in this case, but we thought what better place for three days of merrymaking?”
Anyone who has seen the film Monsoon Wedding will be familiar with the spectacle of traditional Hindu nuptials. From guests competing to wear the brightest, most ornate outfits, to the revelry and dancing which mask the solemn vows being taken, Indian weddings are a sensory feast. Add in the notoriously raucous Hindu Punjabi element which makes up Gaurav’s heritage and it’s clear why 250 revellers have flocked from across the world to celebrate.
“I love weddings, Punjabi weddings in particular,” shouts Seema Shetty across the din of a dancing procession and a marching band.
The 26-year-old founder of Bite Rite, the health food chain, and owner of Zari Zardozi Indian restaurant in Al Raha, has flown in from Abu Dhabi with her entire family, including her parents Bavaguthu Raghuram and Chandra Kumari, who both head NMC medical group, brother Binay, and sisters Neema and Reema.
“You see the true culture of a place, any place in the world, at a wedding,” gasps Seema, catching her breath in between her energetic bhangra moves. “Most of us have friends from all over the world so it is a perfect opportunity to show our culture.
“Punjabi weddings are the most colourful and are all about having complete fun. The further north you go in India, the less conservative they get – north Indians love a spectacle. You just have to look at the clothes to see what bright, colourful people they are.”
In the midst of the action, it is little surprise Anisha looks overwhelmed at times and a shy awkwardness hangs in the air between her and her new partner. Born in Gwalior near Delhi and now living in Mumbai, she met Gaurav, 28, in June last year and was engaged to him 20 days later. They have met only a couple of times since.
Arranged marriages may be fading in popularity among the Mumbai jet set, who enjoy fairly westernised lives. But for supplanted communities, like the tight-knit Indian network in Abu Dhabi, an arranged marriage is a chance to preserve cultural and religious values to pass on to future generations, and many turn to their homeland to find the perfect match for their offspring.
In previous times, caste, social standing and matching astrology charts were ranked as high factors. These days, compatibility and education are deemed more important.
Anisha, from a family of Brahmins, the highest caste, was introduced to Gaurav by a mutual friend of both their fathers. The restaurateur, who is helping run his father’s business, was visiting Delhi to check on the family’s diner there, Dine-Esty.
“Ours was a completely arranged marriage,” says Anisha, a producer on India’s Star TV until she quit two months before the wedding. “My dad called me when I was at work and said, ‘There is an important e-mail you should check and tell me what you think’. It was Gaurav’s CV with his picture. I found it interesting and he looked nice so I said I would meet him.
He was leaving for Abu Dhabi a day later so we met for dinner on his last night. We hit it off really well. He never went back as planned. Instead, my dad came out with us the next night and then Gaurav came to Delhi to meet my mother. Apparently he had already decided on the first night, but it took me a lot longer to make up my mind. It was 20 days before we were engaged. I was thinking about leaving the country, my family and friends. I am very attached to my country. I originally wanted to marry someone in Mumbai.
“I had seen about six boys before Gaurav but I would like to have my own career and some of the suitors had a problem with that. Sometimes you just don’t click and I was starting to despair of ever meeting the right man. I liked a lot of things about Gaurav, particularly the fact he respects everyone a lot, which is very important.
“He understands it is difficult for a girl. He has done a lot to assure me that whatever I want to do, I can.
She is looking forward to married life, even though she has never been to Abu Dhabi, where the couple will live. “My parents have mixed feelings about me going. They are happy about me getting married but parents always feel a loss when a bride goes to another house.”
Born in Abu Dhabi, Gaurav had lived all over the world and had, by his own admission, a fairly hedonistic existence during his eight years in Las Vegas, where he worked in hotels. While his own friends express surprise that he decided to go down a traditional route in finding a lifelong partner, he says, “Contrary to what people believe, there is a choice involved. I had not met anyone myself and was not averse to the idea of an arranged marriage.
“We met on a Friday and I asked her to marry me on the Monday. We have a lot of things in common – family values, understanding, respect. She has a good heart and is career-minded. I feel very comfortable with her.
“This way we get to know each other while we are married. If you can get along, that is all that matters. For me, it is the start of a better life.”
But before the pair can face the challenges ahead as husband and wife, there are a long list of centuries-old rituals and ceremonies to go through, intended as blessings to set them off on the best start in life. While the basic blessings remain the same, customs can vary wildly according to region and background and for many guests, this is their first taste of a Punjabi wedding.
The mayhem begins at Jaipur’s Sanganeer airport, when revellers from the UAE, Britain, the US, Canada and other regions of India arrive to be met by gaudy banners announcing: “Welcome to Gaurav and Anisha’s wedding”.
The guestlist reads like a Who’s Who of the Indian glitterati in the UAE, including the Indian ambassador Talmiz Ahmed, the Shettys, Jayanti Maitra, head of research at the Centre for Documentation and Research in Abu Dhabi, and Raman Khanna, business development director for Aldar.
The Rambagh Palace, formerly owned by the Maharaja of Jaipur and the home of royals for nearly two centuries, is the scene for the first of many rituals, the chunni charana and ring ceremony – and the first opportunity for the bride to show off her trousseau. She dazzles in a flesh-toned, crystal-encrusted sari, her hair wound into a long plait entwined with flowers while her mother Nivedita, 50, a commercial lawyer for India’s Supreme Court, could pass for her older sister in an equally elegant ivory sari.
Mrs Varma, 58, presents Anisha with jewellery and clothes and drapes an elaborate turquoise shawl around her shoulders for the chunni charana. The act is deeply symbolic, explains the groom’s uncle Virender Sekhri. “It is effectively saying: ‘Now she is ours, we are going to protect her’. The bride keeps it all her life and either passes it down between generations or has it put on her when she is cremated.”
The second Anisha and Gaurav exchange rings, Mrs Varma breaks into a dance, arms in the air, leading the way for revelry which continues until 5.00am the next day.
As the bride and groom join her on the dance floor, Gaurav takes his first tentative step towards his matrimonial duties, putting a protective arm around Anisha. But the pair are still not officially married and part company at the end of the night until the following day for a mehndi, or henna painting, at midday.
The shindig, in the colonial-style Hari Mahal Palace hotel, is akin to a combined hen and stag party as the women cluster to gossip and have their hands and arms painted with the dye while their menfolk gather to give Gaurav tips for married life.
As the groom’s party arrive laden with gifts and a handmade basket packed with henna, they are greeted by the bride’s guests and ceremonial drums. Mrs Varma brandishes a key ring with a framed photo of Gaurav and declares: “I don’t have house keys for you yet so I am giving you the keys to his heart.”
Anisha, resplendent in an orange and red shelwar kamees, sits under a canopy made entirely of marigolds for hours on end while swirls of the dye are painstakingly applied to her hands and feet in elaborate flower motifs. The leisurely afternoon is a chance for those who have been through it before to reminisce about their own experiences.
“When my sons got married, I wanted to make sure I got all the ceremonies right,” says Aruna Misra from Mumbai, 56, a former schoolfriend of Vinay Varma. “We planted banana and mango trees for fertility and carried water with haldi [turmeric] for the mehndi. My eldest sister was very impressed that I knew all the customs – until I told her I’d done my research on Google.
“We had so much fun and the rituals are part of it. When a bride enters the groom’s house she normally throws her house keys and rice over her head to signify returning what she had in her mother’s home and kicks over a bowl of rice in the doorway for luck. My naughty friends told my Polish daughter-in-law that the harder she kicked, the more I would love her. She kicked the bowl with all her force and it flew to the other side of the house, smashing several vases on the way.”
Ritu Mehra, 48, from Delhi, smiles nostalgically as she says: “Mine was a love marriage, which was very unusual in those days. Rajiv was working near the college where I was studying and we fell in love when I was 21. My parents wanted me to meet a suitor, though. Finally I told them about Rajiv. My parents weren’t happy about it but eventually came round and we are still happily married 27 years later.”
“This is all new to me,” says Dr Maitra, originally from Calcutta. “Each wedding speaks a story about the different customs and rituals depending on the region. It is not just about tying the knot, it is a celebration between two families. The visual impact is extraordinary and you learn so much. Weddings in India are talked about all over the world and cause jaws to drop. The scale and dimensions of this one are huge. It is very lavish and elaborate and I would not have missed it for anything.”
The evening sangeet, or music ceremony, creates another spectacle as guests adorned with their finest gold and gems don bright rainbow colours and sequins to watch staged performances. In the past, musicians would sing traditional wedding ditties while the bride hid herself away in preparation for her big day. These days there is no room for demure brides and it is Anisha herself, in green satin pantaloons and a red bodice, who takes to the stage with her friends to tease the groom with songs and dances.
Having grown up with Bollywood films and, no doubt, performed the routines in their bedrooms until they have them down pat, they could rival any screen star as they borrow heavily from the movies and their corresponding songs to tell the story of Gaurav’s bachelor days in Las Vegas: Ma Da Ladlaa Vigar Gaya (The Mother’s Boy Has Been Corrupted), his first meeting with Anisha Desi Girl (Asian Girl) and his current status Lucky Boy.
Future matches are often made at these events and one female guest whispers: “Of course we all dream of falling in love and finding someone to spend the rest of our life with. Many couples date on the quiet and involve the parents when marriage is on the cards. But failing that, there is the fallback of an arranged marriage as your parents will always try and find the best for you.”
It is 8.00am on the day of the wedding proper before the exhausted revellers make it to bed, with the bride and groom escaping just three hours earlier. But there is little time to rest for the bride as she prepares to leave her the home of her mother and father Anil, 50, a financier, for good. Bangles and gold ornaments are strapped to her wrists for luck and her female relatives smear her face and body with a paste of turmeric, gram flour, yoghurt and oil to bring out the glow in her complexion. It takes hours to prepare her for the most significant part of the wedding; to carefully apply her make-up, adorn her with chunky gold jewellery and help her into her bridal lengha, a cropped top and floor-length skirt in heavily embroidered green with matching scarf, covering her head.
For Gaurav, the run-up to the ceremony means wearing a cream silk sherwani, made of a long tunic and trousers and having a turban wound onto his head, complete with a veil of red and white flowers as a priest blesses him and money is circled over his head to represent good fortune. His male relatives have the same headgear put on before he gets on a white horse, bejewelled and draped in cloth of mouthwatering Rajasthani colours, to set off on a procession to meet the bride.
And what a procession. There are marching bands with drums and trumpets, dancing in the streets, and the long line of his guests dressed in an array of saris in every shade under the sun. As the baraat, or groom’s party, arrives at the majestic Jay Mahal Palace hotel, it is met by the bride’s relatives, who shower them with red rose petals and adorn the men with garlands of white carnations. The footpath, despite being less than 200 metres, takes the best part of an hour to negotiate as the groom on his horse is given the welcome of an A-list celebrity, complete with red carpet.
The bride is brought out to meet him for the jaimala, or exchange of flower garlands. Traditionally, a groom stood on his toes to make the bride stretch upwards as it would often be his first opportunity to see her. As Gaurav forgets this custom, his friends bear him up on their shoulders, forcing Anisha to do the same so she can reach him.
Fireworks shoot off into the crisp night sky as they make their way to an outdoor pagoda strewn with marigolds for the two-hour blessing. Even during this sombre part of the ceremony, during the priest’s chants, the entertainment continues for the guests, who can wander in and out of the rituals and are treated to a lavish buffet and displays by fire-eaters and professional dancers, some balancing up to 10 pots on their heads.
As the ceremony concludes, a scarf is tied between Anisha and Gaurav and they walk around a fire seven times in a ritual called pheras. Each circuit represents a different aspect of life, such as prosperity and fertility, and while the bride leads for the first three, her new husband takes over for the last rounds showing their marriage is one of joint leadership. Gaurav smears her forehead with red powder to show she is married and hangs a mangal sutra necklace around her neck.
The marriage concluded, Anisha steps into a wooden doli, a sort of carriage carried on the shoulders of her male relatives to take her to her new home. Her mother, brother and friends weep as she leaves her old life behind. It is a poignant, sombre moment. A bewildered three-year-old cousin, Tia Palkar, bursts into tears and says: “Mummy, why are they sending her away? And where are you going to send me?”
“Marriage involves a lot of sacrifices,” observes Vinay Varma. “Most of the young ones today live abroad for many years but they have never forgotten their culture, their family upbringing and respect for their elders. We have found all those qualities in our new daughter. As long as they remember to respect one another and fall back on each other, they will be blessed for life.”
'If i were an Hindu'
By Sonal Shah & Muzaffar Azad
A Singapore journalist says both major parties in India must abandon increasing communalism. “Some countries are united by a common language; India has around fifteen major languages and numberless minor ones. Nor are its people united by race, religion or culture…Does India exist? If it doesn’t, the explanation is to be found in a single word: communalism. The politics of religious hatred.” —Salman Rushdie in “The Riddle of Midnight: India, August 1947″ in Imaginary Homelands: Essays and Criticism 1981-91.
If I were a regular Indian Hindu, I would not find it difficult to believe that the country today is threatened by the forces of Islamic terrorism— no matter what the Muslims say in their defense.
Further, I would add that the terrorizing Muslims and the evangelizing Christian missionaries are creating grave threats to India’s progress, a country that is rediscovering its destiny as a superpower in the world stage.
I’m saying this because the recent terrorist bombings in many Indian cities have changed our lives. We live in fear of being blown away while shopping or traveling. How can we not blame the Muslims when members of their community have created this atmosphere of terror in the nation of peace-loving Hindus?
I know what I am talking about. I read newspapers. I watch TV. Lest you should believe that I am a dehati, I am not. I could be a government official, an IT professional, an employee of an MNC, a businessman or even a member of the diaspora. I could be anyone.
I am using the term ‘regular Indian Hindu’ as a classification for those Hindus in India who are not liberal (or communists or atheists or pseudo-secularists) or have not acquired liberal education in India or abroad and who are conscious of their Hindu identity. Our liberal brethren, the so called ‘pseudo-secularists’ (whoever invented this term must be a Indian Hindu and I want to give him shabashi for this innovative coinage) might even object to the phrase “Indian Hindu” as a contradictory duality—an Indian is an Indian, end of the matter, they’d say—but I wouldn’t have thought the worst of it.
For me it wouldn’t have been difficult to bask in the glory of a resurgent India as a member of ‘Hindu India’ —an India that is waking up from its thousand year old slumber of inertia and slavery— first by the murderous Muslim invaders, followed by the wily British, who between them, ruled us for nearly a millennium.
But there are many who want to prick my balloon of pride. For instance, take the recent terror attacks in various Indian cities and the Muslim response to it. Let us keep our discussion confined to this topic and not get side-tracked by the issue of conversion of dalits and adivasis by the Christian missionaries, an issue that equally infuriates me.
If I were a regular Indian Hindu, I would feel the police action justified in the Batla House, Jamia Nagar police-terrorist encounter cases, no matter what people like Arundhati Roy have to say on this matter. When scores of innocents died in terrorist-planted bomb blasts in Maharashtra, Gujarat and Delhi, what is the big deal if the Delhi police killed two Muslim terrorists in an encounter?
Some Muslims are finding holes in the manner the police conducted the encounter and arrested the terror suspects. I give two hoots about it! I have my own problems to solve, my own life to live. But if I did care about the issue, being a newspaper reader and TV news watcher type, I would have felt the demands of inquiry into the whole episode by the Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Group or Delhi Union of Journalists unnecessary, nothing more than an act of minority appeasement.
Why demoralize our police force, I would have asked them? After all, we lost one of our own brave policemen in the encounter, didn’t we? I would have damned the conspiracy theories circulated by these doubters and gossip mongers. They do nothing or just shed crocodile tears when bombs go off in crowded bazaars and kill scores of innocent Indians. But when one of them is killed, they ask for enquiry and provide legal aid to those terrorists? How unpatriotic!
But they are not alone in what they do. To make matters worse, (I would have thought it a matter of shame) some of our own, the pseudo-secularists, are party to the game being played by the Muslim intelligentsia and some publicity-hungry liberal minded media persons. The same way that they did after the Gujarat riots—they could not appreciate the fact that what had happened was a natural reaction to the dastardly act of burning our holy men alive on the Sabarmati Express. What did they get after doing all those exposes and investigations? All they could achieve was that they kept Narendra Modi bhai from visiting the US. That’s it. Was it worth all that muck-racking?
Therefore, clearly, if I were a regular Indian Hindu, I would have no difficulty in believing that Hinduism is under threat from Islamic terrorism. I would, in that position, seem reasonable if I believed that Indian Muslims, even after the country’s partition in 1947, have wasted all opportunities given to them. They are always looking for special treatment. They have hundreds of apologists of all kinds to make excuses on their behalf. As such, my message to fellow Hindus would be this: We have done enough for these guys, and they have performed dismally, so let us stop bothering about them.
Because of our peaceful nature, others have dominated us for centuries. They could do it because we were weak. Now we must strike back by showing that we are more aggressive even than the ones that dominated us. We have shown it in Gujarat, and elsewhere in the country. But these Muslims don’t seem to be getting the message.
If I were a regular Indian Hindu, I would have no difficulty in believing in all that that I have just said. But, as it happens, I am not.
I happen to be an Indian born in a Muslim family. And as such, the tentacles of my consciousness were trained in a different manner—different from those belonging to other communities.
Despite the difference, I find it difficult to blame my “regular Indian Hindu” friend for the way he thinks. It is not his fault—it’s my way of looking at him that makes him appear faulty. But he may not be at fault at all. Perhaps he was brought up in a certain manner and while I believed in “unity in diversity,” he believed in some other philosophy—an idea of India that was different from that conceived by Gandhi and Nehru—and as old as them, shared by those who distributed sweets on the streets hearing the news of Gandhiji’s assassination.
Perhaps he does not even hold Gandhi and Nehru in high regard. He has been fed a certain version of India’s struggle for freedom and he believes in that version, as I do in mine. Right from his childhood, he has been exposed to a certain kind of thinking: all through shishu mandirs, shakhas, ekal vidyalayas, sant samagams, television serials, the rath yatras, leaflets, videos, CDs (I have borrowed this impressive list from Shabnam Hashmi, Communalism, Centrestage in Tehelka).
Therefore, I don’t want to blame my “regular Indian Hindu” friend for he is the creation of someone’s hard work. Like I am the creation of another group’s hard work. He is as legitimate an Indian as I am, albeit with a different idea of India. What matters though and what will determine our future is where we stand today: which ‘idea of India’ has moved from the center to the periphery and vice versa and which idea of India will eventually prevail. This is something that, everyone—Indians as well as Asians—need to watch out for as it relates to the Asia’s America (a nod to Daniel Lak, India Express), Asia’s liberal superpower.
My India has always been based on ideas of multiplicity, pluralism, hybridity: ideas to which the ideologies of the communalists are diametrically opposed. To my mind, the defining image of India is the crowd, and a crowd is by its very nature superabundant, heterogeneous, many things at once. But the India of the communalists is none of these things — Salman Rushdie in “The Riddle of Midnight: India, August 1947” in Imaginary Homelands: Essays and Criticism 1981-91
As a child, I was sold on the ideas of Gandhi and Nehru. In school, I grew up on the ideals of a secular India, built on the foundations of syncretic ethos, an India where all citizens are equal before the law and where all religions are equally respected. While we wrote essays on the greatness of Gandhi and Nehru, Indira Gandhi ruled the country with an iron first. Those were the post-Emergency Congress days and everything looked normal in our small town of pre-television era.
Hindu Muslim Sikh Isai, aaaps me sab bhai bhai — we were to repeat this phrase. I believed in it and continue to believe in it.
Growing up, I knew that I was living in a country where the majority of the population consisted of Hindus. But I had no problems with that. Rather I enjoyed the diversity of India. My father’s best friends were Hindus. As much as I looked forward to Eid, I looked forward to Durga Pooja and Chhat—the two major festivals in Bengal and Bihar. My village came under the cross section of these two dominant cultures. During Durga Pooja, it was a common practice for us to roam around the town, be a part of the crowd and admire the pandals. On Chhat, we all waited to taste the delicious thakwa, a kind of snack prepared on that day—equivalent of Eid’s sewaiyan. Every December, I used to wait for Christmas to see the beautifully decorated churches, and if fortunate enough, get a chance to nibble at the cakes and pastries in the homes of my Christian acquaintances.
Then came 1984. Indira Gandhi was gunned down by her own guards and all hell broke loose. Thousands of Sikhs were mercilessly massacred in Delhi. The slogan– Hindu Muslim Sikh Isai, aapas me sab bhai bhai—began to sound shaky and fake.
I passed out of school and went to Aligarh Muslim University for further education. Aligarh is a communally sensitive town. While still a student there, I saw the demolition of the Babri Masjid and the riots that followed. The country’s atmosphere had completely changed.
The end of the Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb
But a slow change had started years even before the Babri demolition. At that point of time, I could not grasp the importance of those changes but in hindsight they seem to be damaging to the country’s secular ethos, the Ganja-Jamuni tehzeeb of India. What was happening was that slowly but surely, Muslim cultural elements, however small in significance but were taken as a given by Muslims, began to disappear from public life.
For example, take the “unity and diversity” ads taken out by the government. Hindu Muslim Sikh Isai, aapas me sab bhai bhai. I used to see these national integration ads regularly in the media, in Urdu magazines and on the back of buses and on walls. Gradually these ads began to disappear. They were replaced by other slogans on the wall. One slogan that I can remember vividly is this—Bharat desh me rehna hai to vande matram kehna hoga. While some Muslims began to paste stickers like Fakhr se kaho hum Musalman hain, I also began to notice some Hindu establishments prominently displaying stickers with slogans—Garv se kaho hum Hindu hain.
Mughlai Food: A Vanishing Act?
Along with the slogan baazi, I noticed two more things: Airbrushing of India’s Muslim, specifically Mughal, heritage and the undisputed dominance of Hindi in the common cultural space. Consequently, as the chandrabindu (dot, a sort of a diacritical mark) vanished from devnagri (Hindi), Mughlai food too disappeared from the great Indian menu.
While the Mughal and pre-Mughal Islamic architecture such as the Red Fort and Qutub Minar in Delhi and the Taj Mahal in Agra remained untouched (except for the mad claim that the Taj was built by a Hindu ruler), Mughlai food was airbrushed from the menu. Everything became tandoori or Punjabi—this is not to deny that there is no specific Punjabi cuisine but I find the case of the missing Mughlai cuisine intriguing. Also, I don’t think somebody sat down and deliberately performed the act of erasure (like somebody in the ministries forgot to commission the ‘useless’ unity in diversity ads). However, it has happened and consequently, today, if you go to any Indian restaurant, you will see typically two broad categories of cuisine: North Indian and South Indian. And the vast part of the North Indian menu would be Punjabi food, which is not totally illegitimate. But I can’t help asking: where has the
Mughlai food vanished?
The vanishing act of the Mughlai food (Superstar Shahrukh Khan once said that he loved Mughlia food, perhaps he meant Mughlai—he does not see the terminology so often so even an articulate person like him got it all mixed up) is not that big a deal but it can assume a greater significance if seen in the light of the communalization of Indian historiography. Let me give you an example from one of Rushdie’s writings again.
Muslims As ‘Mughals’?
In the introduction to his book of essays, Imaginary Homelands: Essays and Criticism 1981-91, Rushdie talks of a seminar in London in which eminent writers and historians from India were invited to speak at the festival of India in 1982. He writes: “…an eminent Indian academic delivered a paper on Indian culture that utterly ignored all minority communities. When questioned about this from the floor, the professor smiled benignly and allowed that of course India contained many diverse traditions—including Buddhists, Christians and ‘Mughals’. This characterization of Muslim culture was more than merely peculiar. It was a technique of alienation. For if Muslims were ‘Mughals’, then they were foreign invaders, and Indian Muslim culture was both imperialist and inauthentic. At the time, we made light of the gibe, but it stayed with me, pricking at me like a thorn.”
In the light of this experience, it would not seem impossible if Muslims took the airbrushing of the Mughlai food items from the Indian menu as an act of alienation.
Ghazal becomes Gajal
The same way the chandrabindu (the dot below a devnagri letter to signify pronunciation) seems to have been airbrushed from common devnagri lipi. It was meant to be a meeting ground of Urdu and Hindi, if you will—the two sister languages that also fell victim to communalization in India. The result is disastrous. The chef on TV has no compunction in pronouncing zeera (cumin seeds) as jeera. And the literature student has no problem asking: Yeh kya Galib (Ghalib) ki gajal (ghazal) hai. It grates my ears through. The interesting thing is that even no-Urdu knowing Muslims today pronounce words in this fashion.
Et Tu, Bollywood?
And finally, the technique of alienation seems to have invaded the most secular of India’s cultural spaces—television and Bollywood. These are not just virtual cultural spaces but powerful engines of culture-generation. After the 1990s, as Bollywood moved from producing the cinema for the front benchers to the cinema for the yuppie, multiplex-going crowd, its stars and filmmakers began to define and set the cultural agenda of the country. Their impact on Hindus and Muslims, both off screen and on screen, are alike. As noted American political philosopher Martha Nussbaum has pointed out, it’s also interesting that Bollywood is the one place where Hindus and Muslims intermingle and intermarry and there is not any great sense of the gulf between them.
After the death of the Muslim socials in Bollywood (a natural corollary of the death of the Muslim elite), its filmmakers turned their back on Muslim characters. How many principal Muslim characters have you seen in Bollywood movies in the post Manmohan Desia era? Don’t even try to count on your fingers.
The situation is worse in TV’s case, especially the popular daily soaps on satellite TV channels. With the exception of the low-budget fantasies like Alif-Laila, in the world of Saas bhi kabhi bahu thi (which is supposed to be popular even in far and away Afghanistan) and Kahani ghar ghar ki, there are hardly any mainstream Muslim characters. It seems they are not part of the glamorous and prosperous social fabric of India which is more or less true.
These are big-ticket questions for the entertainment world. But I am asking a minor question. Like the national integration slogans, Mughlai food and the chandrabindu, one more thing has disappeared from Hindi movie, well almost: the Urdu language titles, along with Hindi and English, in the opening credits. In the last 10-15 years, I think I have seen most movies have done away with it.
I was glad to see that not all filmmakers have forgotten this tradition. Shyam Benegal prominently displayed the Urdu titles in his latest film, Welcome to Sajjanpur, in the feature’s opening credits.
I agree that these are not big issues—where do they stand in front of typically cited larger issues such as fundamentalism and terrorism?
My “regular Indian Hindu” friend might ask me how do these minor, inconsequential things matter to the Indian Muslim mind? My answer is: a lot. These are minor issues but they act as psychological symbols—symbols of our existence, participation and inclusion with the nation at large.
How these symbolic things, tokenisms, if you will, have tiptoed their way out of the public consciousness remains a mystery to me. But I would rather not have had them disappear from our public lives.
“Let us consider dispassionately the consequences which will follow if we give effect to the Pakistan scheme. India will be divided into two states, one with a majority of Muslims, and the other of Hindus. In the Hindustan State there will remain three and half crores of Muslims scattered in small minorities all over the land…they will be weaker than they are today in the Hindu majority provinces. They have had their homelands in these regions for almost a thousand years and built up well-known centres of Muslim culture and civilization there. They will awaken overnight and discover that they have become alien and foreigners. Backward industrially, educationally and economically, they will be left to the mercies to what would become an unadulterated Hindu raj.” —Maulana Abul Kalam Azad in a statement issued on 15 April 1946, responding to Muslim League’s Lahore Resolution
The prescient maulana had seen it coming more than half a century ago. After India’s independence, developments such as vote bank politics, Hindu Muslim communalism and saffronization of the Indian middle class have made the maulana’s worse fears come true. Muslims today lag behind all other communities in India. Their condition is worse than that of the dalits.
But blaming the state for all the ills of the Muslim community for the last 50 years has not got the community any further. As the Vice President of India Shri Hamid Ansari said in the recently concluded World Summit of the Aligarh Muslim University Alumni: “While Shikwa (complaint) about our condition was valid, there was no need to carry it to the point of incapacity for autonomous action. We failed to take note of, emulate and adapt, the initiatives taken by other communities in creative ventures in the field of education independent of government agencies.”
It would be a cliché to repeat that Muslim communalism has been feeding Hindu communalism. It’s good that by and large Muslims have disowned their communal leadership but have not been helped by the secular leadership—they continue to remain a rudderless community, a mere pawn in the chess board of the great Indian ‘vote-bank’ politics.
But things can’t be left where they are. The status quo must change.
One thing that Muslims must do, in order not to alienate themselves from the Hindus, is to respect Hindu sentiments, respect their religious books and culture and emphasize the syncretic values of Islam and Hinduism. A siege mentality of staying aloof will not work any longer, as it has not worked in the past. Similarly, my religion is better than yours mentality will also not work. The members of two communities have to mingle together on equal terms.
Terrorism: Indian Muslims Falling In The Trap Of Denial?
Apart from the efforts that need to be put in to ameliorate the conditions of the community, Indian Muslims also need to the face the charge of terrorism squarely, as columnist Vir Sanghvi recently asked: Are Indian Muslims falling in the trap of denial?
“This terrorism must not be allowed to drive on even bigger wedge between India’s Hindus and Muslims,” he says. “Some of this is up to the Muslim community. From what I remember of the 1980s, Muslims are reacting as many Sikhs did then: arguing that the stories of terrorism are made up and that it is all a conspiracy against their community.”
“India’s Muslims must be wary of falling into the trap of denial,” he suggests. “I am prepared to concede that some of those arrested for terrorist attacks could be innocent. I am prepared also to admit that the police do concoct cases. But can every arrested person be innocent? Can every e-mail from the Indian Mujahedeen be a fake?”
There is a lot of truth in Sanghvi’s questions. No one is arguing that the black sheep in Muslim community should be treated differently from the black sheep of other communities. However, can the entire community be held hostage for the wrong doing of misguided few? Must we profile people because of their faith? Must we incarcerate people without evidence and torture them to extract spurious proof? If not checked, will this not hasten India’s sliding into a fascist state?
Where Is The Moral Leadership?
These are the questions that liberal Indians like Harsh Mandar and Arundhati Roy are asking today and these are the questions that both Hindus and Muslims need to ask of the police and the state. And our politicians should provide the moral leadership that is required of them at such times, not the usual vote bank politics that they are used to. After communal riots erupted in Delhi in the wake of a bloody partition of India, Gandhi went on a fast to stop people from cutting each others’ throat. No one expects today’s leaders to take such a self-sacrificial stand but some semblance of moral leadership has to be shown.
To their credit, a large number of Indian Hindus have been accommodative of the minorities. Indian Muslims, whether in India or abroad, must realize that Hindus are their best friends. Both share the same culture and are heirs to a rich 5000-year old civilization. Both have to work together to defeat the communal forces. Our sane minded leaders have tried to do so for the last hundred years or so but not with much success. It is time we took the matter in our own hands and gave communal hatred a silent burial.
Will that be easy? I have my doubts but let us make a beginning. Opening our circle of friendship to people of all faiths can be a good starting point. Everyone, all Indians, need to embrace a rational approach to civil life—don’t believe in unverified information, stop spreading rumors, and try to understand each other better.
At this juncture, India’s new elite and the technocratic middle class need to play a special role. “What I’m really discouraged by is the growing dominance of a technocratic middle class that is anti-political and for whom the suffering of excluded people doesn’t mean a lot,” said Martha Nussbaum. “This IIT mentality — become technically competent engineers, forget about human values — is very dangerous, particularly for a country like India.”
India’s new elite and the technocratic middle class need to pay heed. If they really want India to become the America of Asia, they can no longer afford to be silent and apolitical.
A Singapore journalist says both major parties in India must abandon increasing communalism. “Some countries are united by a common language; India has around fifteen major languages and numberless minor ones. Nor are its people united by race, religion or culture…Does India exist? If it doesn’t, the explanation is to be found in a single word: communalism. The politics of religious hatred.” —Salman Rushdie in “The Riddle of Midnight: India, August 1947″ in Imaginary Homelands: Essays and Criticism 1981-91.
If I were a regular Indian Hindu, I would not find it difficult to believe that the country today is threatened by the forces of Islamic terrorism— no matter what the Muslims say in their defense.
Further, I would add that the terrorizing Muslims and the evangelizing Christian missionaries are creating grave threats to India’s progress, a country that is rediscovering its destiny as a superpower in the world stage.
I’m saying this because the recent terrorist bombings in many Indian cities have changed our lives. We live in fear of being blown away while shopping or traveling. How can we not blame the Muslims when members of their community have created this atmosphere of terror in the nation of peace-loving Hindus?
I know what I am talking about. I read newspapers. I watch TV. Lest you should believe that I am a dehati, I am not. I could be a government official, an IT professional, an employee of an MNC, a businessman or even a member of the diaspora. I could be anyone.
I am using the term ‘regular Indian Hindu’ as a classification for those Hindus in India who are not liberal (or communists or atheists or pseudo-secularists) or have not acquired liberal education in India or abroad and who are conscious of their Hindu identity. Our liberal brethren, the so called ‘pseudo-secularists’ (whoever invented this term must be a Indian Hindu and I want to give him shabashi for this innovative coinage) might even object to the phrase “Indian Hindu” as a contradictory duality—an Indian is an Indian, end of the matter, they’d say—but I wouldn’t have thought the worst of it.
For me it wouldn’t have been difficult to bask in the glory of a resurgent India as a member of ‘Hindu India’ —an India that is waking up from its thousand year old slumber of inertia and slavery— first by the murderous Muslim invaders, followed by the wily British, who between them, ruled us for nearly a millennium.
But there are many who want to prick my balloon of pride. For instance, take the recent terror attacks in various Indian cities and the Muslim response to it. Let us keep our discussion confined to this topic and not get side-tracked by the issue of conversion of dalits and adivasis by the Christian missionaries, an issue that equally infuriates me.
If I were a regular Indian Hindu, I would feel the police action justified in the Batla House, Jamia Nagar police-terrorist encounter cases, no matter what people like Arundhati Roy have to say on this matter. When scores of innocents died in terrorist-planted bomb blasts in Maharashtra, Gujarat and Delhi, what is the big deal if the Delhi police killed two Muslim terrorists in an encounter?
Some Muslims are finding holes in the manner the police conducted the encounter and arrested the terror suspects. I give two hoots about it! I have my own problems to solve, my own life to live. But if I did care about the issue, being a newspaper reader and TV news watcher type, I would have felt the demands of inquiry into the whole episode by the Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Group or Delhi Union of Journalists unnecessary, nothing more than an act of minority appeasement.
Why demoralize our police force, I would have asked them? After all, we lost one of our own brave policemen in the encounter, didn’t we? I would have damned the conspiracy theories circulated by these doubters and gossip mongers. They do nothing or just shed crocodile tears when bombs go off in crowded bazaars and kill scores of innocent Indians. But when one of them is killed, they ask for enquiry and provide legal aid to those terrorists? How unpatriotic!
But they are not alone in what they do. To make matters worse, (I would have thought it a matter of shame) some of our own, the pseudo-secularists, are party to the game being played by the Muslim intelligentsia and some publicity-hungry liberal minded media persons. The same way that they did after the Gujarat riots—they could not appreciate the fact that what had happened was a natural reaction to the dastardly act of burning our holy men alive on the Sabarmati Express. What did they get after doing all those exposes and investigations? All they could achieve was that they kept Narendra Modi bhai from visiting the US. That’s it. Was it worth all that muck-racking?
Therefore, clearly, if I were a regular Indian Hindu, I would have no difficulty in believing that Hinduism is under threat from Islamic terrorism. I would, in that position, seem reasonable if I believed that Indian Muslims, even after the country’s partition in 1947, have wasted all opportunities given to them. They are always looking for special treatment. They have hundreds of apologists of all kinds to make excuses on their behalf. As such, my message to fellow Hindus would be this: We have done enough for these guys, and they have performed dismally, so let us stop bothering about them.
Because of our peaceful nature, others have dominated us for centuries. They could do it because we were weak. Now we must strike back by showing that we are more aggressive even than the ones that dominated us. We have shown it in Gujarat, and elsewhere in the country. But these Muslims don’t seem to be getting the message.
If I were a regular Indian Hindu, I would have no difficulty in believing in all that that I have just said. But, as it happens, I am not.
I happen to be an Indian born in a Muslim family. And as such, the tentacles of my consciousness were trained in a different manner—different from those belonging to other communities.
Despite the difference, I find it difficult to blame my “regular Indian Hindu” friend for the way he thinks. It is not his fault—it’s my way of looking at him that makes him appear faulty. But he may not be at fault at all. Perhaps he was brought up in a certain manner and while I believed in “unity in diversity,” he believed in some other philosophy—an idea of India that was different from that conceived by Gandhi and Nehru—and as old as them, shared by those who distributed sweets on the streets hearing the news of Gandhiji’s assassination.
Perhaps he does not even hold Gandhi and Nehru in high regard. He has been fed a certain version of India’s struggle for freedom and he believes in that version, as I do in mine. Right from his childhood, he has been exposed to a certain kind of thinking: all through shishu mandirs, shakhas, ekal vidyalayas, sant samagams, television serials, the rath yatras, leaflets, videos, CDs (I have borrowed this impressive list from Shabnam Hashmi, Communalism, Centrestage in Tehelka).
Therefore, I don’t want to blame my “regular Indian Hindu” friend for he is the creation of someone’s hard work. Like I am the creation of another group’s hard work. He is as legitimate an Indian as I am, albeit with a different idea of India. What matters though and what will determine our future is where we stand today: which ‘idea of India’ has moved from the center to the periphery and vice versa and which idea of India will eventually prevail. This is something that, everyone—Indians as well as Asians—need to watch out for as it relates to the Asia’s America (a nod to Daniel Lak, India Express), Asia’s liberal superpower.
My India has always been based on ideas of multiplicity, pluralism, hybridity: ideas to which the ideologies of the communalists are diametrically opposed. To my mind, the defining image of India is the crowd, and a crowd is by its very nature superabundant, heterogeneous, many things at once. But the India of the communalists is none of these things — Salman Rushdie in “The Riddle of Midnight: India, August 1947” in Imaginary Homelands: Essays and Criticism 1981-91
As a child, I was sold on the ideas of Gandhi and Nehru. In school, I grew up on the ideals of a secular India, built on the foundations of syncretic ethos, an India where all citizens are equal before the law and where all religions are equally respected. While we wrote essays on the greatness of Gandhi and Nehru, Indira Gandhi ruled the country with an iron first. Those were the post-Emergency Congress days and everything looked normal in our small town of pre-television era.
Hindu Muslim Sikh Isai, aaaps me sab bhai bhai — we were to repeat this phrase. I believed in it and continue to believe in it.
Growing up, I knew that I was living in a country where the majority of the population consisted of Hindus. But I had no problems with that. Rather I enjoyed the diversity of India. My father’s best friends were Hindus. As much as I looked forward to Eid, I looked forward to Durga Pooja and Chhat—the two major festivals in Bengal and Bihar. My village came under the cross section of these two dominant cultures. During Durga Pooja, it was a common practice for us to roam around the town, be a part of the crowd and admire the pandals. On Chhat, we all waited to taste the delicious thakwa, a kind of snack prepared on that day—equivalent of Eid’s sewaiyan. Every December, I used to wait for Christmas to see the beautifully decorated churches, and if fortunate enough, get a chance to nibble at the cakes and pastries in the homes of my Christian acquaintances.
Then came 1984. Indira Gandhi was gunned down by her own guards and all hell broke loose. Thousands of Sikhs were mercilessly massacred in Delhi. The slogan– Hindu Muslim Sikh Isai, aapas me sab bhai bhai—began to sound shaky and fake.
I passed out of school and went to Aligarh Muslim University for further education. Aligarh is a communally sensitive town. While still a student there, I saw the demolition of the Babri Masjid and the riots that followed. The country’s atmosphere had completely changed.
The end of the Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb
But a slow change had started years even before the Babri demolition. At that point of time, I could not grasp the importance of those changes but in hindsight they seem to be damaging to the country’s secular ethos, the Ganja-Jamuni tehzeeb of India. What was happening was that slowly but surely, Muslim cultural elements, however small in significance but were taken as a given by Muslims, began to disappear from public life.
For example, take the “unity and diversity” ads taken out by the government. Hindu Muslim Sikh Isai, aapas me sab bhai bhai. I used to see these national integration ads regularly in the media, in Urdu magazines and on the back of buses and on walls. Gradually these ads began to disappear. They were replaced by other slogans on the wall. One slogan that I can remember vividly is this—Bharat desh me rehna hai to vande matram kehna hoga. While some Muslims began to paste stickers like Fakhr se kaho hum Musalman hain, I also began to notice some Hindu establishments prominently displaying stickers with slogans—Garv se kaho hum Hindu hain.
Mughlai Food: A Vanishing Act?
Along with the slogan baazi, I noticed two more things: Airbrushing of India’s Muslim, specifically Mughal, heritage and the undisputed dominance of Hindi in the common cultural space. Consequently, as the chandrabindu (dot, a sort of a diacritical mark) vanished from devnagri (Hindi), Mughlai food too disappeared from the great Indian menu.
While the Mughal and pre-Mughal Islamic architecture such as the Red Fort and Qutub Minar in Delhi and the Taj Mahal in Agra remained untouched (except for the mad claim that the Taj was built by a Hindu ruler), Mughlai food was airbrushed from the menu. Everything became tandoori or Punjabi—this is not to deny that there is no specific Punjabi cuisine but I find the case of the missing Mughlai cuisine intriguing. Also, I don’t think somebody sat down and deliberately performed the act of erasure (like somebody in the ministries forgot to commission the ‘useless’ unity in diversity ads). However, it has happened and consequently, today, if you go to any Indian restaurant, you will see typically two broad categories of cuisine: North Indian and South Indian. And the vast part of the North Indian menu would be Punjabi food, which is not totally illegitimate. But I can’t help asking: where has the
Mughlai food vanished?
The vanishing act of the Mughlai food (Superstar Shahrukh Khan once said that he loved Mughlia food, perhaps he meant Mughlai—he does not see the terminology so often so even an articulate person like him got it all mixed up) is not that big a deal but it can assume a greater significance if seen in the light of the communalization of Indian historiography. Let me give you an example from one of Rushdie’s writings again.
Muslims As ‘Mughals’?
In the introduction to his book of essays, Imaginary Homelands: Essays and Criticism 1981-91, Rushdie talks of a seminar in London in which eminent writers and historians from India were invited to speak at the festival of India in 1982. He writes: “…an eminent Indian academic delivered a paper on Indian culture that utterly ignored all minority communities. When questioned about this from the floor, the professor smiled benignly and allowed that of course India contained many diverse traditions—including Buddhists, Christians and ‘Mughals’. This characterization of Muslim culture was more than merely peculiar. It was a technique of alienation. For if Muslims were ‘Mughals’, then they were foreign invaders, and Indian Muslim culture was both imperialist and inauthentic. At the time, we made light of the gibe, but it stayed with me, pricking at me like a thorn.”
In the light of this experience, it would not seem impossible if Muslims took the airbrushing of the Mughlai food items from the Indian menu as an act of alienation.
Ghazal becomes Gajal
The same way the chandrabindu (the dot below a devnagri letter to signify pronunciation) seems to have been airbrushed from common devnagri lipi. It was meant to be a meeting ground of Urdu and Hindi, if you will—the two sister languages that also fell victim to communalization in India. The result is disastrous. The chef on TV has no compunction in pronouncing zeera (cumin seeds) as jeera. And the literature student has no problem asking: Yeh kya Galib (Ghalib) ki gajal (ghazal) hai. It grates my ears through. The interesting thing is that even no-Urdu knowing Muslims today pronounce words in this fashion.
Et Tu, Bollywood?
And finally, the technique of alienation seems to have invaded the most secular of India’s cultural spaces—television and Bollywood. These are not just virtual cultural spaces but powerful engines of culture-generation. After the 1990s, as Bollywood moved from producing the cinema for the front benchers to the cinema for the yuppie, multiplex-going crowd, its stars and filmmakers began to define and set the cultural agenda of the country. Their impact on Hindus and Muslims, both off screen and on screen, are alike. As noted American political philosopher Martha Nussbaum has pointed out, it’s also interesting that Bollywood is the one place where Hindus and Muslims intermingle and intermarry and there is not any great sense of the gulf between them.
After the death of the Muslim socials in Bollywood (a natural corollary of the death of the Muslim elite), its filmmakers turned their back on Muslim characters. How many principal Muslim characters have you seen in Bollywood movies in the post Manmohan Desia era? Don’t even try to count on your fingers.
The situation is worse in TV’s case, especially the popular daily soaps on satellite TV channels. With the exception of the low-budget fantasies like Alif-Laila, in the world of Saas bhi kabhi bahu thi (which is supposed to be popular even in far and away Afghanistan) and Kahani ghar ghar ki, there are hardly any mainstream Muslim characters. It seems they are not part of the glamorous and prosperous social fabric of India which is more or less true.
These are big-ticket questions for the entertainment world. But I am asking a minor question. Like the national integration slogans, Mughlai food and the chandrabindu, one more thing has disappeared from Hindi movie, well almost: the Urdu language titles, along with Hindi and English, in the opening credits. In the last 10-15 years, I think I have seen most movies have done away with it.
I was glad to see that not all filmmakers have forgotten this tradition. Shyam Benegal prominently displayed the Urdu titles in his latest film, Welcome to Sajjanpur, in the feature’s opening credits.
I agree that these are not big issues—where do they stand in front of typically cited larger issues such as fundamentalism and terrorism?
My “regular Indian Hindu” friend might ask me how do these minor, inconsequential things matter to the Indian Muslim mind? My answer is: a lot. These are minor issues but they act as psychological symbols—symbols of our existence, participation and inclusion with the nation at large.
How these symbolic things, tokenisms, if you will, have tiptoed their way out of the public consciousness remains a mystery to me. But I would rather not have had them disappear from our public lives.
“Let us consider dispassionately the consequences which will follow if we give effect to the Pakistan scheme. India will be divided into two states, one with a majority of Muslims, and the other of Hindus. In the Hindustan State there will remain three and half crores of Muslims scattered in small minorities all over the land…they will be weaker than they are today in the Hindu majority provinces. They have had their homelands in these regions for almost a thousand years and built up well-known centres of Muslim culture and civilization there. They will awaken overnight and discover that they have become alien and foreigners. Backward industrially, educationally and economically, they will be left to the mercies to what would become an unadulterated Hindu raj.” —Maulana Abul Kalam Azad in a statement issued on 15 April 1946, responding to Muslim League’s Lahore Resolution
The prescient maulana had seen it coming more than half a century ago. After India’s independence, developments such as vote bank politics, Hindu Muslim communalism and saffronization of the Indian middle class have made the maulana’s worse fears come true. Muslims today lag behind all other communities in India. Their condition is worse than that of the dalits.
But blaming the state for all the ills of the Muslim community for the last 50 years has not got the community any further. As the Vice President of India Shri Hamid Ansari said in the recently concluded World Summit of the Aligarh Muslim University Alumni: “While Shikwa (complaint) about our condition was valid, there was no need to carry it to the point of incapacity for autonomous action. We failed to take note of, emulate and adapt, the initiatives taken by other communities in creative ventures in the field of education independent of government agencies.”
It would be a cliché to repeat that Muslim communalism has been feeding Hindu communalism. It’s good that by and large Muslims have disowned their communal leadership but have not been helped by the secular leadership—they continue to remain a rudderless community, a mere pawn in the chess board of the great Indian ‘vote-bank’ politics.
But things can’t be left where they are. The status quo must change.
One thing that Muslims must do, in order not to alienate themselves from the Hindus, is to respect Hindu sentiments, respect their religious books and culture and emphasize the syncretic values of Islam and Hinduism. A siege mentality of staying aloof will not work any longer, as it has not worked in the past. Similarly, my religion is better than yours mentality will also not work. The members of two communities have to mingle together on equal terms.
Terrorism: Indian Muslims Falling In The Trap Of Denial?
Apart from the efforts that need to be put in to ameliorate the conditions of the community, Indian Muslims also need to the face the charge of terrorism squarely, as columnist Vir Sanghvi recently asked: Are Indian Muslims falling in the trap of denial?
“This terrorism must not be allowed to drive on even bigger wedge between India’s Hindus and Muslims,” he says. “Some of this is up to the Muslim community. From what I remember of the 1980s, Muslims are reacting as many Sikhs did then: arguing that the stories of terrorism are made up and that it is all a conspiracy against their community.”
“India’s Muslims must be wary of falling into the trap of denial,” he suggests. “I am prepared to concede that some of those arrested for terrorist attacks could be innocent. I am prepared also to admit that the police do concoct cases. But can every arrested person be innocent? Can every e-mail from the Indian Mujahedeen be a fake?”
There is a lot of truth in Sanghvi’s questions. No one is arguing that the black sheep in Muslim community should be treated differently from the black sheep of other communities. However, can the entire community be held hostage for the wrong doing of misguided few? Must we profile people because of their faith? Must we incarcerate people without evidence and torture them to extract spurious proof? If not checked, will this not hasten India’s sliding into a fascist state?
Where Is The Moral Leadership?
These are the questions that liberal Indians like Harsh Mandar and Arundhati Roy are asking today and these are the questions that both Hindus and Muslims need to ask of the police and the state. And our politicians should provide the moral leadership that is required of them at such times, not the usual vote bank politics that they are used to. After communal riots erupted in Delhi in the wake of a bloody partition of India, Gandhi went on a fast to stop people from cutting each others’ throat. No one expects today’s leaders to take such a self-sacrificial stand but some semblance of moral leadership has to be shown.
To their credit, a large number of Indian Hindus have been accommodative of the minorities. Indian Muslims, whether in India or abroad, must realize that Hindus are their best friends. Both share the same culture and are heirs to a rich 5000-year old civilization. Both have to work together to defeat the communal forces. Our sane minded leaders have tried to do so for the last hundred years or so but not with much success. It is time we took the matter in our own hands and gave communal hatred a silent burial.
Will that be easy? I have my doubts but let us make a beginning. Opening our circle of friendship to people of all faiths can be a good starting point. Everyone, all Indians, need to embrace a rational approach to civil life—don’t believe in unverified information, stop spreading rumors, and try to understand each other better.
At this juncture, India’s new elite and the technocratic middle class need to play a special role. “What I’m really discouraged by is the growing dominance of a technocratic middle class that is anti-political and for whom the suffering of excluded people doesn’t mean a lot,” said Martha Nussbaum. “This IIT mentality — become technically competent engineers, forget about human values — is very dangerous, particularly for a country like India.”
India’s new elite and the technocratic middle class need to pay heed. If they really want India to become the America of Asia, they can no longer afford to be silent and apolitical.
Holy Garb: Profane Agenda
By M H Ahssan
What do spiritual leaders talk when they meet? One thought it may be the matters pertaining to the ‘other world’ that is the focus of their attention, away from the profane World, which is the matter of concern for ordinary people. One thought they may be deliberating on the issues of moral values of the religion. But it seems that is not the case. Recently when many of them met in Mumbai they showed that the saffron garb is the mere exterior, this color of renunciation and piety, is no representative of their political core. On the top of that they use saffron color to hide their sectarian ideas and narrow politics in the name of religion. The only difference in their case being that their politics is couched in the language of religion. That their ideas are full ‘Hate’ for others, unlike the values Hinduism which teaches us Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam (whole World is my family). This got revealed once more.
Recently many a chiefs of Akharas and other assorted Saints came together at the First Conference of Dharma Raksha Manch (29th Jan 2009) in Mumbai. They were brought together by Vishwa Hindu Parishad, apparently for the agenda was Combating terrorism. They called for dropping the word secular from Indian constitution and replacing it with word religious. They Ram Temple, Malegaon blasts, terrorism, and amongst other things and demanded that they need Manu’s parliament and not Christ’s. They drew attention to terrorism breeding in Madrassa, and hit out at media for using the term Hindu terrorism. Finally Beginning Mid Feb. (2009) they plan to take out series of yatras (religious marches) covering large parts of the country, with the call for ending Jihad.
Who are these assorted Holy seers, coming together on the call of Vishwa Hindu Parishad? VHP itself is the creation of RSS in the mid sixties. Initiative was taken by RSS chief and his close lieutenant to get different established mutt’s to form VHP. It primarily became a religious wing of RSS, involving the Hindu achrayas etc, and attracted especially traders, affluent processionals and those who did not want to openly associate with RSS, as at that time RSS stood fully discredited in people’s eyes due to its association with Nathuram Godse, who killed Mahatma Gandhi.
VHP got involved in the identity issues strengthening the conservative politics and Ram temple became its central rallying point. Along with this it called for Dharma Sansad (religious parliament) where they stated that in the matters religious, in this case Ram Temple, the decision of saints is above the judgement of the courts. Place of Lord’s birth became a matter not of History but of faith, and who else can decide these issues than these custodians of faith.
This congregation of holy seers has taken place long after their earlier meetings around Ram Temple issue. It seems it is their next innings where the focus is also on terrorism apart from its earlier concerns. At the same time they are reiterating that Indian Constitution is not welcome; let’s go back to Manu Smriti. In a way there is nothing new in this. The RSS politics has always been against the Indian Constitution, against the values of secularism, democracy as these stand by Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. Right from the time Constituent Assembly was formed, RSS opposed the same, saying that ‘we’ already have the best of Constitutions in the form of Manu Smirit so why a new Constitution. It was backed by eulogies for Lord Manu by the RSS ideologue M.S. Golwalkar, who also at the same time has heaped immense praise on the methods of Hitler. Later K.Surshan also openly called for scrapping of Indian constitution and bringing Manu Smriti instead.
While the saints are overtly for the subjugation of Muslims and Christians, at the same time their agenda is to push back the concept of equality for dalit, Adivasis and women. Interestingly RSS came up as a reaction to social changes of caste and gender during the freedom movement. Our national movement stood not only for freedom but also for the transformation of caste and gender towards equality. Barring some exceptions the concept of democracy and secularism go hand in hand. Freedom movement was the epitome of these political and social processes, leading to the emergence of secular India. Today RSS has many mouths to speak and many fora to articulate its agenda. VHP is the crude version of expressing its agenda while BJP, due to electoral compulsions, puts the same agenda in more subtle ways.
The VHP agenda is quite striking in combing the Holy language with profane goals. It will totally ignore the problems of ‘this World’; the problems related to survival and Human rights and will harp on identity issues. This brings in a politics which targets the ‘external enemies’, Muslims; Christians, and intimidates internal sectors, dalits; Adivasis and women, of society. Its call for doing away with the word secular is nothing new in that sense. Its demand to do away with secular word and secular ethos shows that their Holiness is restricted to the appearance, while they want to maintain their social hegemony through political means. Secularism is not against religion. The best of religious people like Maulana Abul Kalam and Mahatma Gandhi had been secular to the core. They knew the boundary line very well. Also they used the moral values of religion to create bonds of fraternity (community) amongst the people of different religions. There were others who created Hate against the other community, and that too in the name of religion. One can cite the parallel and opposite roles of Muslim League on one side and Hindu Mahasabha-RSS on the other.
The seers, respected because of their Holy garb are misusing their appearance at the service of sectarian politics, they are playing the role of handmaidens of the divisive politics. Secularism precisely means that secular, this-worldly, issues should be the base of politics. So the genuine religious person like Gandhi could distinguish between the moral values of religion which should be adopted in life while shunning the identity related issues from political life, “In India, for whose fashioning I have worked all my life, every man enjoys equality of status, whatever his religion is. The state is bound to be wholly secular.” It is a matter of shame and disgust the identity of a religion is being used to pursue the political goals of an organization, supplementing the goals a communal political party by appealing in the name of religion.
At the same time to further demonize the Muslims it is taking up the issue of terrorism in lop sided manner. The slogan end of Jihad is a way to hide the anti Muslim agenda. There is an attempt to put the blame on Islam and Muslims for terrorism, which is totally false. A political phenomenon is being presented as the one related to religion. So Islamic terrorism word is acceptable to them! All terrorist are Muslims formulation is acceptable to them. But how dare you use the word Hindu terrorism if Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, Swami Dayanand Pande and their ilk is involved in acts of terror? In this meet, overseen by RSS representatives, lot of anger was expressed for the Maharashtra ATS for starting investigations against Sadhvi and Company.
The timing of the meet and the planned Yatras is more then striking. As we await elections, the VHP is trying to revive Ram Temple as an issue and will also be talking of terrorism; about Afzal Guru and will be reprimanding the state for ‘torturing’ Pragya Thakur. As a matter of fact VHP and this motley crowd of saints is an adjunct to the electoral goals of BJP. It articulates emotive things which BJP will not be able to do because of election commission and the media watch.
Of all the techniques evolved by RSS, the use of these Holy men for political goals may be the worst insult of the Hindu religion. While these Holy seers infinite in number, many of them have succeeded in building up their own five star Empires, there are others who are sitting on the top of already established mutts. What unites them through VHP is the politics of status quo, the opposition to democracy. We had saints, who talked against caste system and social evils. We had Kabir, Chokha Mela, Tukaram and the lot who stood for the problems of the poor, and now we have a breed, whose agenda is to undermine the prevalent social evils of dowry, female infanticide, bride burning, atrocities on dalits and Adivasis. Their goal is to keep talking about the spirituality and religiosity which is so different from the concerns taken up by the likes of Gandhi and the whole the genre of Saints of Bhakti tradition in India. One hope the people of India can see this clever game of communal politics and differentiate the grain from the chaff.
What do spiritual leaders talk when they meet? One thought it may be the matters pertaining to the ‘other world’ that is the focus of their attention, away from the profane World, which is the matter of concern for ordinary people. One thought they may be deliberating on the issues of moral values of the religion. But it seems that is not the case. Recently when many of them met in Mumbai they showed that the saffron garb is the mere exterior, this color of renunciation and piety, is no representative of their political core. On the top of that they use saffron color to hide their sectarian ideas and narrow politics in the name of religion. The only difference in their case being that their politics is couched in the language of religion. That their ideas are full ‘Hate’ for others, unlike the values Hinduism which teaches us Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam (whole World is my family). This got revealed once more.
Recently many a chiefs of Akharas and other assorted Saints came together at the First Conference of Dharma Raksha Manch (29th Jan 2009) in Mumbai. They were brought together by Vishwa Hindu Parishad, apparently for the agenda was Combating terrorism. They called for dropping the word secular from Indian constitution and replacing it with word religious. They Ram Temple, Malegaon blasts, terrorism, and amongst other things and demanded that they need Manu’s parliament and not Christ’s. They drew attention to terrorism breeding in Madrassa, and hit out at media for using the term Hindu terrorism. Finally Beginning Mid Feb. (2009) they plan to take out series of yatras (religious marches) covering large parts of the country, with the call for ending Jihad.
Who are these assorted Holy seers, coming together on the call of Vishwa Hindu Parishad? VHP itself is the creation of RSS in the mid sixties. Initiative was taken by RSS chief and his close lieutenant to get different established mutt’s to form VHP. It primarily became a religious wing of RSS, involving the Hindu achrayas etc, and attracted especially traders, affluent processionals and those who did not want to openly associate with RSS, as at that time RSS stood fully discredited in people’s eyes due to its association with Nathuram Godse, who killed Mahatma Gandhi.
VHP got involved in the identity issues strengthening the conservative politics and Ram temple became its central rallying point. Along with this it called for Dharma Sansad (religious parliament) where they stated that in the matters religious, in this case Ram Temple, the decision of saints is above the judgement of the courts. Place of Lord’s birth became a matter not of History but of faith, and who else can decide these issues than these custodians of faith.
This congregation of holy seers has taken place long after their earlier meetings around Ram Temple issue. It seems it is their next innings where the focus is also on terrorism apart from its earlier concerns. At the same time they are reiterating that Indian Constitution is not welcome; let’s go back to Manu Smriti. In a way there is nothing new in this. The RSS politics has always been against the Indian Constitution, against the values of secularism, democracy as these stand by Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. Right from the time Constituent Assembly was formed, RSS opposed the same, saying that ‘we’ already have the best of Constitutions in the form of Manu Smirit so why a new Constitution. It was backed by eulogies for Lord Manu by the RSS ideologue M.S. Golwalkar, who also at the same time has heaped immense praise on the methods of Hitler. Later K.Surshan also openly called for scrapping of Indian constitution and bringing Manu Smriti instead.
While the saints are overtly for the subjugation of Muslims and Christians, at the same time their agenda is to push back the concept of equality for dalit, Adivasis and women. Interestingly RSS came up as a reaction to social changes of caste and gender during the freedom movement. Our national movement stood not only for freedom but also for the transformation of caste and gender towards equality. Barring some exceptions the concept of democracy and secularism go hand in hand. Freedom movement was the epitome of these political and social processes, leading to the emergence of secular India. Today RSS has many mouths to speak and many fora to articulate its agenda. VHP is the crude version of expressing its agenda while BJP, due to electoral compulsions, puts the same agenda in more subtle ways.
The VHP agenda is quite striking in combing the Holy language with profane goals. It will totally ignore the problems of ‘this World’; the problems related to survival and Human rights and will harp on identity issues. This brings in a politics which targets the ‘external enemies’, Muslims; Christians, and intimidates internal sectors, dalits; Adivasis and women, of society. Its call for doing away with the word secular is nothing new in that sense. Its demand to do away with secular word and secular ethos shows that their Holiness is restricted to the appearance, while they want to maintain their social hegemony through political means. Secularism is not against religion. The best of religious people like Maulana Abul Kalam and Mahatma Gandhi had been secular to the core. They knew the boundary line very well. Also they used the moral values of religion to create bonds of fraternity (community) amongst the people of different religions. There were others who created Hate against the other community, and that too in the name of religion. One can cite the parallel and opposite roles of Muslim League on one side and Hindu Mahasabha-RSS on the other.
The seers, respected because of their Holy garb are misusing their appearance at the service of sectarian politics, they are playing the role of handmaidens of the divisive politics. Secularism precisely means that secular, this-worldly, issues should be the base of politics. So the genuine religious person like Gandhi could distinguish between the moral values of religion which should be adopted in life while shunning the identity related issues from political life, “In India, for whose fashioning I have worked all my life, every man enjoys equality of status, whatever his religion is. The state is bound to be wholly secular.” It is a matter of shame and disgust the identity of a religion is being used to pursue the political goals of an organization, supplementing the goals a communal political party by appealing in the name of religion.
At the same time to further demonize the Muslims it is taking up the issue of terrorism in lop sided manner. The slogan end of Jihad is a way to hide the anti Muslim agenda. There is an attempt to put the blame on Islam and Muslims for terrorism, which is totally false. A political phenomenon is being presented as the one related to religion. So Islamic terrorism word is acceptable to them! All terrorist are Muslims formulation is acceptable to them. But how dare you use the word Hindu terrorism if Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, Swami Dayanand Pande and their ilk is involved in acts of terror? In this meet, overseen by RSS representatives, lot of anger was expressed for the Maharashtra ATS for starting investigations against Sadhvi and Company.
The timing of the meet and the planned Yatras is more then striking. As we await elections, the VHP is trying to revive Ram Temple as an issue and will also be talking of terrorism; about Afzal Guru and will be reprimanding the state for ‘torturing’ Pragya Thakur. As a matter of fact VHP and this motley crowd of saints is an adjunct to the electoral goals of BJP. It articulates emotive things which BJP will not be able to do because of election commission and the media watch.
Of all the techniques evolved by RSS, the use of these Holy men for political goals may be the worst insult of the Hindu religion. While these Holy seers infinite in number, many of them have succeeded in building up their own five star Empires, there are others who are sitting on the top of already established mutts. What unites them through VHP is the politics of status quo, the opposition to democracy. We had saints, who talked against caste system and social evils. We had Kabir, Chokha Mela, Tukaram and the lot who stood for the problems of the poor, and now we have a breed, whose agenda is to undermine the prevalent social evils of dowry, female infanticide, bride burning, atrocities on dalits and Adivasis. Their goal is to keep talking about the spirituality and religiosity which is so different from the concerns taken up by the likes of Gandhi and the whole the genre of Saints of Bhakti tradition in India. One hope the people of India can see this clever game of communal politics and differentiate the grain from the chaff.
Aged And Outdated Leaders - A Review
By M H Ahssan
In August 2007, the Union Health Minister Dr Anbumani Ramadoss had brought in All India Institute of Medical Sciences and the PostGraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (Amendment) Bill 2007 restricting the tenure of the AIIMS Director P Venugopal, to five years or attainment of 65 of age, whichever is completed first. Introducing the bill in the Lok Sabha, Dr Ramadoss had stated it would help the premier health institute improve its efficiency. Albeit the bill was struck down by the Supreme Court in May 2008, it gave birth to the debate on age factor that applies to the professionals in every job: Should the political leaders, like other professionals – either in public or private sector – be retired at a certain age? Should there be a legislation of age bar for politicians in India? Does age help improve efficiency? Should some sort of retirement criteria be introduced in Indian politics as well? Does vibrant India need equally young and vibrant leaders, not old, aging and ‘not-so-fit’ leaders?
When we think of young, vibrant India, like our democracy, we think of young, energetic and able leaders in the ministries – both at the centre as well as the states. More important is the fact that unlike in other fields of professional activities there is a lack of younger leaders in the political arena, and barring a few Gandhis, Pilots and Dutts, a fairly large number of politicians are well over 60 of and have no plans to retire in near future since no legal framework exists that could compel them to retire at a certain age. For example, the average age of the Cabinet Ministers in Dr Manmohan Singh’s Cabinet is 66.90 years. Out of the 32 ministers (Shiv Raj Patil resigned after Mumabi terro attacks), 12 are 70 year or more, while 7 ministers are 65 or more, which is what the retirement age that Dr Ramadoss wanted to prescribe for AIIMS Director. Only three ministers are in their late 50s. Except Dr Ramdoss, who, at the age of 40, is the youngest Cabinet Minister followed by A Raja who is 41, no other minister is below 50 in a total of 32 ministers, including the Prime Minister. If the President of India is 74, the Vice-President, M Hamid Ansari is 74. If M Karunanidhi is 84 and roaring, V.S Achuthanandan is 85 and ruling.
Average Age of Dr. Manmohan Singh Cabinet
1. Dr. Manmohan Singh (1932) 76
2. Pranab Mukherjee (1935) 73
3. Arjun Singh (1930) 78
4. A.K. Antony (1940) 68
5. Sharad Pawar (1940) 68
6. Lalu Prasad Yadav (1947) 61
7. Shivraj V. Patil (1935)* 73
8. Ram Vilas Paswan (1946) 62
9. S. Jaipal Reddy (1942) 66
10. Sish Ram Ola (1927) 81
11. P. Chidambaram (1945) 62
12. Mahavir Prasad (1939) 69
13. P.R. Kyndiah (1928) 80
14. T.R. Baalu (1941) 67
15. Shankarsinh Vaghela (1940) 68
16. Kamal Nath (1946) 62
17. H.R. Bhardwaj (1937) 71
18. Raghuvansh Prasad Singh (1946) 62
19. Priyaranjan Dasmunsi (1945) 63
20. Mani Shankar Aiyar (1941) 67
21. Meira Kumar (1945) 63
22. A Raja (1963) 45
23. Dr. Anbumani Ramdoss (1968) 40
24. Sushil Kumar Shinde (1941) 67
25. A.R.Antulay (1929) 79
26. Vayalar Ravi (1937) 71
27. Murli Deora (1937) 71
28. Ambika Soni (1943) 65
29. Prof. Saif-u-Din Soz (1937) 71
30. Sontosh Mohan Dev (1934) 74
31. Prem Chand Gupta (1950) 58
32. Kapil Sibal (1948) 60
Average Age 66.90
In Indian democracy, old, aged and infirm leaders are in plenty, and in every party. L K Advani is 81 and officially declared the would-be PM candidate of the BJP in the coming elections. Arjun Singh at 78, with physical infirmity so excruciating, is given a very important portfolio. Sharad Pawar is 68 and seems as if he has just started his career. Somnath Chatterjee is turning 79 coming July and still shouts in the Parliament to control his unruly colleagues, yet failed to put them in order. Lalu is 60 and kicking as if he will not stop before grabbing the PM’s office sometimes in 2014. The 64-year-old Buddhadeb Bhattacharya will surely follow his predecessor, 94-year-old Jyoti Basu, who retired at the age of 86. Not a single moment, all these old leaders have realised that out of the four time periods, they are in Vanprastha Ashram (last stage) as per the Hindu philosophy, yet they have no plan to retire. How can people expect exclusive social service from a 70-plus year-old man?
The photograph of 52-year-old Micheline Calmy-Rey (born July 8, 1945), the visiting Swiss President standing in between 75 year old Dr Manmohan Singh (born September 1932 and 73-year-old Pratibha Patil (born December 19, 1934) on the front pages of national dailies on 7 November 2007 shows the palpable difference of age: the Swiss President appeared as an energetic young daughter like figure of two of her older Indian counterparts. In comparison to our older politicians, British PM Tony Blair was just 43 when he assumed the office of Prime Minister in 1997 and Bill Clinton was just 46 when he was elected President of the US in 1992, while Barack Obama is just 47.
But can we expect Indian electorates, like those in the US, to prefer younger leaders like Obama to 72-year-old John McCain? While younger leaders are becoming general norms in the western countries, India has no such thinking.
Old age politicians are not new in this country: traditionally, politicians have been perceived to be men of advanced age, like the patriarchs (grand fathers) of individual families, who would oversee the household governance and who are respected due to their age and experience. Indian democracy provides a stark contrast between the average age profile of the politicians and that of the people: India has 80 per cent its politicians well over 70, while 70 per cent of the country’s population is below 40 years of age. Senior politicians in different parties have acquired larger-than-life images, simply because of their length of stay and not for any sacrifices made by them.
At 40, Rajiv Gandhi was the youngest Prime Minister followed by his mother Indira Gandhi, who assumed office in 1966 when she was 49. The oldest politician to become PM was Morarji Desai, who was 81 when assumed office followed by I K Gujaral and Chaudhary Charan Singh at 78 and 77 respectively. Even A B Vajpayee turned 72 when first time he was sworn in as India’s 10th PM in 1996. The average age of Indian Prime Ministers since 1947 is 65.2 years (see Table 2), which is more than the prescribed retirement age of professionals in institutions and departments.
Indian Prime Minister since 1947
J L Nehru (1947-1964) 58
Lal Bahadur Shastri (1964-1966) 60
Indira Gandhi (1966-1977) & (1980-1984) 49 & 63*
Morarji Desai (1977-1979) 81
Chaudhary Charan Singh (1979-1980) 77
Rajiv Gandhi (1984-1989) 40
V P Singh (1989-1990) 58
Chandra Shekhar (1990-1991) 63
P V Narsimha Rao (1991-1996) 70
A B Vajpayee (1996-1996) & (1998-2004) 72 & 74*
H D Deva Gowda (1996-1997) 63
I K Gujaral (1997-1998) 78
Dr Manmohan Singh (2004 till date) 72
Average 65.2
In comparison, the average age of US Presidents since 1945 is 57.27 (see Table 3), while that of UK Prime Minister 58.18 (see Table 4) since 1951 and French Presidents 59.16 (see Table 5) since 1958. Only German Chancellors having has more average age, i.e. 68.85 (see Table 6) since 1949 though within the last 38 years (from 1969 onwards), it has produced four head of states having less than 60 years of age. While in other countries the downward trend in age among the political head of states is ultimate norm, Indian does not seem to bring in young politicians. Winston Churchill and James Callaghan were the only two British Prime Ministers, who crossed 70 years of age and were still in office in comparison to their seven Indian counterparts, and no British PM crossed 80 while in office.
List of US Presidents since 1945
Harry S Truman (1945-1953) 61
Dwight D Eisenhower (1953-1961) 63
John F Kennedy (1961-1963) 44
Lyndon B Johnson (1963-1969) 55
Richard Nixon (1969-1974) 56
Gerald Ford (1974-1977) 61
Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) 53
Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) 70
George H W Bush (1989-1993) 65
Bill Clinton (1993-2001) 47
George W Bush (2001-till date) 55
PM of UK since 1951
Winston Churchill (1951-1955) 77
Sir Anthony Eden (1955-1957) 58
Harold Macmillan (1957-1963) 63
Alec Douglas Home (1963-1964) 60
Harold Wilson (1964-1970) & )1974-1976) 48 & 58
Edward Heath )1970-1974) 54
James Callaghan (1976-1979) 74
Margaret Thatcher (1979-1990) 54
John Major (1990-1997) 47
Tony Blair (1997-2007) 44
Gordon Brown (2007 till date) 56
French Presidents since 1959
Charles de Gaulle (1959-1969) 69
Georges Pompidou (1969-1974) 58
Valery Giscard d’Estaing (1974-1981) 48
Francois Mitterrand (1981-1995) 65
Jacques Chirac (1995-2007) 63
Nicolas Sarkozy (2007-till date) 52
Table 6: German Chancellors since 1949
Chancellors Tenure Age when assumed the office
Dr Konrad Adenauer (1949-1963) 75
Dr Ludwig Erhard (1963-1966) 66
Dr Kurt George Kiesinger (1966-1969) 62
Willy Brandt (1969-1974) 56
Helmut Schmidt (1974-1982) 56
Dr Helmut Kohl (1992-1998) 62
Gerhard Schroder (1998-2005) 54
Dr. Angela Merkel (2005-till date) 51
The age trend is lower in the case of France and Germany (see Table 5 & 6), with no leader of 70 years of age or more except German Chancellors Dr Konrad Adenauer, who was the lone head of the state assuming office at the age of 75, but no German Chancellor exceeded 62 years of age in the last 35 years.
As the next Lok Sabha elections are due this year, a close look at the leaders of the BJP and other parties would give us the age trend. If NDA coalition wins, the BJP will take lead in the government formation. Like the Congress, BJP has equally older leaders at the helm of affairs (see Table 7). And L K Advani, if he wins, is going to compete Morarji Desai when assuming PMO, at an age when our grand fathers turn into what Shakespeare said: “Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.” Albeit Rajnath Singh (57), Sushma Swaraj (56) and Arun Jaitley (56) are younger lots, they will have to wait till their number in hierarchy comes, and by then, they will cross at least 70.
Because of rebellious voice from stalwarts like 85-year old Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, the his chances of joining Union Cabinet in 2009 seems bleak, while 71-year-old Yashwant Sinha and 70-year-old Jaswant Singh would head foreign and finance respectively. And then there is a big name: Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi, who is 74 and will replace four year older Arjun Singh in the Ministry of Human Resources Development, if BJP comes to power.
Individual Age of Current BJP Leaders
1. L K Advani (1927) 81
2. Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi (1934) 74
3. Venkaiah Naidu (1949) 59
4. BS Shekhawat (1923) 85
5. Rajnath Singh (1951) 57
6. Sushma Swaraj (1952) 56
7. Arun Jaitley (1952) 56
8. Yashwant Sinha (1937) 71
9. Jaswant Singh (1938) 70
10. Narendra Modi (1950) 58
Average Age 66.5
Out of the 10 leaders (see Table 8 ) who are in the mainstream politics, and whose average age is 69.3, only four are below 65, i.e. prescribed maximum retirement age. Two CMs — V S Achuthanandan and M Karunanidhi – are too old to be in any public service, while George Fernandez is 78 and ill; even healthier looking Mulayam Singh Yadav is 69. Only two leaders – Amar Singh and Mayawati – are young enough to carry out duties as public servants.
Individual Age of Some Other Indian Leaders
Somnath Chatterjee (1929) 77
M Karunanidhi (1924) 82
V S Achuthanandan (1923) 85
Mulayam Singh Yadav (1939) 69
Prakash Karat (1947) 61
H.D Deve Gowda (19330 75
Amar Singh (1956) 52
Mayawati (1956) 52
George Fernandez (1930) 78
Sonia Gandhi (1946) 62
Average Age 69.3
It looked nice to watch comparatively younger and energetic Barak Hussein Obama leading the US into a new era, India, in recent decades, has produced no younger leader of that stature, and those who joined as young leaders like Rahul Gandhi, Sachin Pilot, Varun Gandhi, Milind Deora – all need to undergo the strict party ‘hierarchy ’ that either prevents them from being in the first row or are expelled like Uma Bharti when try to override. Among the new generation, although the 32-year-old Milind Deora, MP in the 14th Lok Sabah from the Mumbai South constituency, shows modern outlook, progressive thinking and educated mind, he will have to wait no less than two decades to reach the upper echelons.
There are whispers and voices making rounds in certain quarters over Sachin’s retirement though he is only 36 and performing excellently. Well, if cricket is not like politics where long innings can be played even in old age, then there must be some frontrunner politicians who must have accomplished achievement far greater than that of the master blaster. But we cannot offer a single such example from politician fraternity. While there is hardly any institution that has not undergone reformation in the last 60 years in order to enhance efficiency, age limit for Indian politicians has never come up for serious discussion. Given the age factor and related health issues, there is nothing wrong in what Dr Ramadoss tried to put in place the age limit for AIIMS Director, but he should take similar initiative for the political fraternity as well, so that we will have young, talented and energetic leaders. But will he come up with a similar bill that could restrict the age for politicians/ministers?
An initiative could be taken in this regard by filing a petition before the Supreme Court of India. In order to set the age limit for politicians, the apex court could go for interpretation of the relevant Constitutional provisions within the framework of equality before law guaranteed under Article 14. Besides, the Election Commission could also initiate reform measures whereby it might go for certain age restriction on leaders to fulfill the larger public demand to have younger leaders at the helm of affairs. Since all mature democracies, by convention, have assiduously promoted and preferring younger leaders in lieu of older ones, Indian democracy lags far behind. The short-sightedness lies with our Constitution makers, who were guided by the Westminster model that did not prescribe age limit for politicians. But the time has changed.
Note: all calculations are done between January 28-30, 2009
In August 2007, the Union Health Minister Dr Anbumani Ramadoss had brought in All India Institute of Medical Sciences and the PostGraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (Amendment) Bill 2007 restricting the tenure of the AIIMS Director P Venugopal, to five years or attainment of 65 of age, whichever is completed first. Introducing the bill in the Lok Sabha, Dr Ramadoss had stated it would help the premier health institute improve its efficiency. Albeit the bill was struck down by the Supreme Court in May 2008, it gave birth to the debate on age factor that applies to the professionals in every job: Should the political leaders, like other professionals – either in public or private sector – be retired at a certain age? Should there be a legislation of age bar for politicians in India? Does age help improve efficiency? Should some sort of retirement criteria be introduced in Indian politics as well? Does vibrant India need equally young and vibrant leaders, not old, aging and ‘not-so-fit’ leaders?
When we think of young, vibrant India, like our democracy, we think of young, energetic and able leaders in the ministries – both at the centre as well as the states. More important is the fact that unlike in other fields of professional activities there is a lack of younger leaders in the political arena, and barring a few Gandhis, Pilots and Dutts, a fairly large number of politicians are well over 60 of and have no plans to retire in near future since no legal framework exists that could compel them to retire at a certain age. For example, the average age of the Cabinet Ministers in Dr Manmohan Singh’s Cabinet is 66.90 years. Out of the 32 ministers (Shiv Raj Patil resigned after Mumabi terro attacks), 12 are 70 year or more, while 7 ministers are 65 or more, which is what the retirement age that Dr Ramadoss wanted to prescribe for AIIMS Director. Only three ministers are in their late 50s. Except Dr Ramdoss, who, at the age of 40, is the youngest Cabinet Minister followed by A Raja who is 41, no other minister is below 50 in a total of 32 ministers, including the Prime Minister. If the President of India is 74, the Vice-President, M Hamid Ansari is 74. If M Karunanidhi is 84 and roaring, V.S Achuthanandan is 85 and ruling.
Average Age of Dr. Manmohan Singh Cabinet
1. Dr. Manmohan Singh (1932) 76
2. Pranab Mukherjee (1935) 73
3. Arjun Singh (1930) 78
4. A.K. Antony (1940) 68
5. Sharad Pawar (1940) 68
6. Lalu Prasad Yadav (1947) 61
7. Shivraj V. Patil (1935)* 73
8. Ram Vilas Paswan (1946) 62
9. S. Jaipal Reddy (1942) 66
10. Sish Ram Ola (1927) 81
11. P. Chidambaram (1945) 62
12. Mahavir Prasad (1939) 69
13. P.R. Kyndiah (1928) 80
14. T.R. Baalu (1941) 67
15. Shankarsinh Vaghela (1940) 68
16. Kamal Nath (1946) 62
17. H.R. Bhardwaj (1937) 71
18. Raghuvansh Prasad Singh (1946) 62
19. Priyaranjan Dasmunsi (1945) 63
20. Mani Shankar Aiyar (1941) 67
21. Meira Kumar (1945) 63
22. A Raja (1963) 45
23. Dr. Anbumani Ramdoss (1968) 40
24. Sushil Kumar Shinde (1941) 67
25. A.R.Antulay (1929) 79
26. Vayalar Ravi (1937) 71
27. Murli Deora (1937) 71
28. Ambika Soni (1943) 65
29. Prof. Saif-u-Din Soz (1937) 71
30. Sontosh Mohan Dev (1934) 74
31. Prem Chand Gupta (1950) 58
32. Kapil Sibal (1948) 60
Average Age 66.90
In Indian democracy, old, aged and infirm leaders are in plenty, and in every party. L K Advani is 81 and officially declared the would-be PM candidate of the BJP in the coming elections. Arjun Singh at 78, with physical infirmity so excruciating, is given a very important portfolio. Sharad Pawar is 68 and seems as if he has just started his career. Somnath Chatterjee is turning 79 coming July and still shouts in the Parliament to control his unruly colleagues, yet failed to put them in order. Lalu is 60 and kicking as if he will not stop before grabbing the PM’s office sometimes in 2014. The 64-year-old Buddhadeb Bhattacharya will surely follow his predecessor, 94-year-old Jyoti Basu, who retired at the age of 86. Not a single moment, all these old leaders have realised that out of the four time periods, they are in Vanprastha Ashram (last stage) as per the Hindu philosophy, yet they have no plan to retire. How can people expect exclusive social service from a 70-plus year-old man?
The photograph of 52-year-old Micheline Calmy-Rey (born July 8, 1945), the visiting Swiss President standing in between 75 year old Dr Manmohan Singh (born September 1932 and 73-year-old Pratibha Patil (born December 19, 1934) on the front pages of national dailies on 7 November 2007 shows the palpable difference of age: the Swiss President appeared as an energetic young daughter like figure of two of her older Indian counterparts. In comparison to our older politicians, British PM Tony Blair was just 43 when he assumed the office of Prime Minister in 1997 and Bill Clinton was just 46 when he was elected President of the US in 1992, while Barack Obama is just 47.
But can we expect Indian electorates, like those in the US, to prefer younger leaders like Obama to 72-year-old John McCain? While younger leaders are becoming general norms in the western countries, India has no such thinking.
Old age politicians are not new in this country: traditionally, politicians have been perceived to be men of advanced age, like the patriarchs (grand fathers) of individual families, who would oversee the household governance and who are respected due to their age and experience. Indian democracy provides a stark contrast between the average age profile of the politicians and that of the people: India has 80 per cent its politicians well over 70, while 70 per cent of the country’s population is below 40 years of age. Senior politicians in different parties have acquired larger-than-life images, simply because of their length of stay and not for any sacrifices made by them.
At 40, Rajiv Gandhi was the youngest Prime Minister followed by his mother Indira Gandhi, who assumed office in 1966 when she was 49. The oldest politician to become PM was Morarji Desai, who was 81 when assumed office followed by I K Gujaral and Chaudhary Charan Singh at 78 and 77 respectively. Even A B Vajpayee turned 72 when first time he was sworn in as India’s 10th PM in 1996. The average age of Indian Prime Ministers since 1947 is 65.2 years (see Table 2), which is more than the prescribed retirement age of professionals in institutions and departments.
Indian Prime Minister since 1947
J L Nehru (1947-1964) 58
Lal Bahadur Shastri (1964-1966) 60
Indira Gandhi (1966-1977) & (1980-1984) 49 & 63*
Morarji Desai (1977-1979) 81
Chaudhary Charan Singh (1979-1980) 77
Rajiv Gandhi (1984-1989) 40
V P Singh (1989-1990) 58
Chandra Shekhar (1990-1991) 63
P V Narsimha Rao (1991-1996) 70
A B Vajpayee (1996-1996) & (1998-2004) 72 & 74*
H D Deva Gowda (1996-1997) 63
I K Gujaral (1997-1998) 78
Dr Manmohan Singh (2004 till date) 72
Average 65.2
In comparison, the average age of US Presidents since 1945 is 57.27 (see Table 3), while that of UK Prime Minister 58.18 (see Table 4) since 1951 and French Presidents 59.16 (see Table 5) since 1958. Only German Chancellors having has more average age, i.e. 68.85 (see Table 6) since 1949 though within the last 38 years (from 1969 onwards), it has produced four head of states having less than 60 years of age. While in other countries the downward trend in age among the political head of states is ultimate norm, Indian does not seem to bring in young politicians. Winston Churchill and James Callaghan were the only two British Prime Ministers, who crossed 70 years of age and were still in office in comparison to their seven Indian counterparts, and no British PM crossed 80 while in office.
List of US Presidents since 1945
Harry S Truman (1945-1953) 61
Dwight D Eisenhower (1953-1961) 63
John F Kennedy (1961-1963) 44
Lyndon B Johnson (1963-1969) 55
Richard Nixon (1969-1974) 56
Gerald Ford (1974-1977) 61
Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) 53
Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) 70
George H W Bush (1989-1993) 65
Bill Clinton (1993-2001) 47
George W Bush (2001-till date) 55
PM of UK since 1951
Winston Churchill (1951-1955) 77
Sir Anthony Eden (1955-1957) 58
Harold Macmillan (1957-1963) 63
Alec Douglas Home (1963-1964) 60
Harold Wilson (1964-1970) & )1974-1976) 48 & 58
Edward Heath )1970-1974) 54
James Callaghan (1976-1979) 74
Margaret Thatcher (1979-1990) 54
John Major (1990-1997) 47
Tony Blair (1997-2007) 44
Gordon Brown (2007 till date) 56
French Presidents since 1959
Charles de Gaulle (1959-1969) 69
Georges Pompidou (1969-1974) 58
Valery Giscard d’Estaing (1974-1981) 48
Francois Mitterrand (1981-1995) 65
Jacques Chirac (1995-2007) 63
Nicolas Sarkozy (2007-till date) 52
Table 6: German Chancellors since 1949
Chancellors Tenure Age when assumed the office
Dr Konrad Adenauer (1949-1963) 75
Dr Ludwig Erhard (1963-1966) 66
Dr Kurt George Kiesinger (1966-1969) 62
Willy Brandt (1969-1974) 56
Helmut Schmidt (1974-1982) 56
Dr Helmut Kohl (1992-1998) 62
Gerhard Schroder (1998-2005) 54
Dr. Angela Merkel (2005-till date) 51
The age trend is lower in the case of France and Germany (see Table 5 & 6), with no leader of 70 years of age or more except German Chancellors Dr Konrad Adenauer, who was the lone head of the state assuming office at the age of 75, but no German Chancellor exceeded 62 years of age in the last 35 years.
As the next Lok Sabha elections are due this year, a close look at the leaders of the BJP and other parties would give us the age trend. If NDA coalition wins, the BJP will take lead in the government formation. Like the Congress, BJP has equally older leaders at the helm of affairs (see Table 7). And L K Advani, if he wins, is going to compete Morarji Desai when assuming PMO, at an age when our grand fathers turn into what Shakespeare said: “Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.” Albeit Rajnath Singh (57), Sushma Swaraj (56) and Arun Jaitley (56) are younger lots, they will have to wait till their number in hierarchy comes, and by then, they will cross at least 70.
Because of rebellious voice from stalwarts like 85-year old Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, the his chances of joining Union Cabinet in 2009 seems bleak, while 71-year-old Yashwant Sinha and 70-year-old Jaswant Singh would head foreign and finance respectively. And then there is a big name: Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi, who is 74 and will replace four year older Arjun Singh in the Ministry of Human Resources Development, if BJP comes to power.
Individual Age of Current BJP Leaders
1. L K Advani (1927) 81
2. Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi (1934) 74
3. Venkaiah Naidu (1949) 59
4. BS Shekhawat (1923) 85
5. Rajnath Singh (1951) 57
6. Sushma Swaraj (1952) 56
7. Arun Jaitley (1952) 56
8. Yashwant Sinha (1937) 71
9. Jaswant Singh (1938) 70
10. Narendra Modi (1950) 58
Average Age 66.5
Out of the 10 leaders (see Table 8 ) who are in the mainstream politics, and whose average age is 69.3, only four are below 65, i.e. prescribed maximum retirement age. Two CMs — V S Achuthanandan and M Karunanidhi – are too old to be in any public service, while George Fernandez is 78 and ill; even healthier looking Mulayam Singh Yadav is 69. Only two leaders – Amar Singh and Mayawati – are young enough to carry out duties as public servants.
Individual Age of Some Other Indian Leaders
Somnath Chatterjee (1929) 77
M Karunanidhi (1924) 82
V S Achuthanandan (1923) 85
Mulayam Singh Yadav (1939) 69
Prakash Karat (1947) 61
H.D Deve Gowda (19330 75
Amar Singh (1956) 52
Mayawati (1956) 52
George Fernandez (1930) 78
Sonia Gandhi (1946) 62
Average Age 69.3
It looked nice to watch comparatively younger and energetic Barak Hussein Obama leading the US into a new era, India, in recent decades, has produced no younger leader of that stature, and those who joined as young leaders like Rahul Gandhi, Sachin Pilot, Varun Gandhi, Milind Deora – all need to undergo the strict party ‘hierarchy ’ that either prevents them from being in the first row or are expelled like Uma Bharti when try to override. Among the new generation, although the 32-year-old Milind Deora, MP in the 14th Lok Sabah from the Mumbai South constituency, shows modern outlook, progressive thinking and educated mind, he will have to wait no less than two decades to reach the upper echelons.
There are whispers and voices making rounds in certain quarters over Sachin’s retirement though he is only 36 and performing excellently. Well, if cricket is not like politics where long innings can be played even in old age, then there must be some frontrunner politicians who must have accomplished achievement far greater than that of the master blaster. But we cannot offer a single such example from politician fraternity. While there is hardly any institution that has not undergone reformation in the last 60 years in order to enhance efficiency, age limit for Indian politicians has never come up for serious discussion. Given the age factor and related health issues, there is nothing wrong in what Dr Ramadoss tried to put in place the age limit for AIIMS Director, but he should take similar initiative for the political fraternity as well, so that we will have young, talented and energetic leaders. But will he come up with a similar bill that could restrict the age for politicians/ministers?
An initiative could be taken in this regard by filing a petition before the Supreme Court of India. In order to set the age limit for politicians, the apex court could go for interpretation of the relevant Constitutional provisions within the framework of equality before law guaranteed under Article 14. Besides, the Election Commission could also initiate reform measures whereby it might go for certain age restriction on leaders to fulfill the larger public demand to have younger leaders at the helm of affairs. Since all mature democracies, by convention, have assiduously promoted and preferring younger leaders in lieu of older ones, Indian democracy lags far behind. The short-sightedness lies with our Constitution makers, who were guided by the Westminster model that did not prescribe age limit for politicians. But the time has changed.
Note: all calculations are done between January 28-30, 2009
Modernity, Its Discontent And Religion
By M H Ahssan
Modernity was greatly celebrated during colonial days of 19th century throughout the world, especially in African and Asian countries colonized by European countries. It was hallmark of superiority of west over east. West was considered most modern, rational in its approach and technologically far more superior whereas Asian and African countries superstitious, irrational and ignorant and backward.
Most of the intellectuals, mainly product of western colonial education felt ashamed of their ignorance and backwardness and lack of rationality and science and tried to reform their societies by spreading modern approach among their people. However, there was vertical division in these societies between those who refused to modernize and preferred their orthodoxy and those who considered modernization a must and celebrated modernity.
Almost all religious communities in colonized countries faced this vertical divide but more particularly the Muslims. We are more concerned here with Muslim communities in the colonized countries. Muslims were comparatively slow and more resistant to modernization as the Muslim societies were deeply embedded in feudal values and religious orthodoxy.
Muslim intellectuals who came under the influence of western education and modernism, welcomed modernity but had to adopt cautious approach between religious orthodoxy and western modernism. They had to rely more on their religious text to keep pace with their societies. But those societies which took to industrialization and modern business and commerce found modernity more easily acceptable.
Muslim societies, deeply embedded in feudalism and feudal values, as pointed out above, could not go for modern industrialization, business and commerce and hence modernity did not appeal to them or beneficial to them. Muslims were often criticized for refusing to change and modernize and even their religion Islam was blamed for it. Muslims still face this criticism though we have gone into post-modern era.
Modernity, however, did not prove to be unmixed blessing for western countries, let alone for eastern countries of Asia and Africa thanks to the powerful vested interests who used modernity for their own benefit. Modernity generally came with the capitalist system. In fact modernity was product of industrial system based on capitalism. It was Marx who developed great insights into functioning of modern capitalist system and wrote powerful critique of capitalism.
Capitalism was based on profiteering on one hand, and on cutthroat competition, on the other. The Western countries colonized Asian and African countries in search of raw materials and markets for their product. Modern machines produced on mass scale and for that their domestic markets were not enough and also they did not have all the raw materials they needed. Thus colonial countries became rich source of raw material on one hand, and provided huge markets for their industrial products.
It was this competition for markets which led to two World Wars resulting in killings of millions of people. These wars gave great impetus to armament industry so much so that in the post 2nd World War era no American government could defy what came to be known as military-industrial complex. All American policies were fundamentally influenced by this military-industrial complex. This unholy alliance depended mainly on sale of armaments on huge scale and for this wars had to be promoted in Asian and African countries.
This is not to say that modernization itself was responsible for all this but what is true to entire modernization project was hijacked by powerful interests whose only concern was accumulating profits. That is why I maintain that modernity was not an unmixed blessing for humanity. It has its darker side too. Here we are discussing modernity, not as values, but as an instrument to promote certain interests.
Modernity essentially represents important values like rationality, objectivity, respect for human reason and human values and conformity with fact. It was this respect for reason, and not authority, that led to progress of science and technology through which west acquired superiority over Asian and African countries. The modern bourgeoisie in the West challenged the authority of the Church and succeeded in establishing superiority of reason, the hallmark of modernity.
Reason is the highest value in modernity. It relies solely on reason and has no respect for any tradition. The Afro-Asian societies were based, on the other hand, mainly on respect for tradition whether they conformed to tradition or not. However, sole reliance on reason without wedding it to values and without making reason and values two sides of a coin, reason can and does become problematic.
Reason is a two edged sword without values and this is what happened with modernity when powerful vested interests, mainly capitalists hijacked modernity for their own purposes. Modern weapons and modern technology developed by the western countries were used for enslaving Afro-Asian countries and these countries were reduced to mere sources of raw materials and markets.
Reason could be used for promoting science, technology and deeper understanding of universe but also for developing disastrous weapons which cause great destruction. Humanity saw this destruction in the two World Wars. But it was reason again which developed pure science and we could understand infinite vastness of our universe and how it evolved and our extremely limited understanding of our universe changed. Qur’an says it is the ‘Ulama i.e. those who know, those who are scientists, who deeply reflect on the creation of Allah who can really worship Him.
But problem is rationalists disregard importance of faith and values and begin to worship reason. They do not appreciate limits of reason. This attitude developed among rationalists as reason was totally disregarded and devalued in traditional societies and those who accepted reason and challenged superstitions or traditional authority were severely persecuted.
Also, unscrupulous elements had exploited faith for their own benefits, rationalists came to reject faith as blind and irrational. Thus as modernity solely relied on reason and ridiculed faith, traditionalists totally elide on faith in the traditional authority and rejected reason. Thus both rationalists and faithful became exclusive categories. There was no meeting point. Thus faithful became blind and derided reason and rationalists dubbed faith as blind.
This mutual exclusivity caused much greater problems. Sole reliance on reason can give birth to discontents as sole reliance on faith. We find interesting debate in Islamic history between Imam Ghazzali and Ibn Rushd (known as Averros to the western world). Ghazzali was also a rationalist at one time. He even became atheist at one stage of his development. However, he soon discovered reason does not lead to inner peace and meaning and significance of life. He turned then to faith (though as is evident from his writings retained elements of reason too) and attacked philosophers like Ibn Rushed. He wrote a book Tahafut al-Falasifa (Bewilderment of Philosophers).
Ibn Rushd replied to Ghazzali’s Tahafut al-Falasifa by writing Tahafat Tahafut al-Falasifa i.e. Bewilderment of Bewilderment of philosophers. Thus this lack of mutual understanding lead to exclusivistic attitudes. Ghazzali was in search of inner peace and reason creates more doubts and raises more questions and leads to discontentment. Faith which depends on authority, gives inner contentment.
Modernity has thus led to discontentment in two ways: one, since it has been hijacked by capitalists it leads to more inner discontentment as it is hell-bent upon selling its products and creates illusion of ‘material happiness’ but fails to create one as more consumption leads to still more consumption; two, rationality lacks faith and for inner peace one needs faith which provides ‘final’ answers and hence inner contentment.
Thus neither rationality (i.e. modernity) nor faith alone can be without problems. For centuries faith in authority created total stagnation and superstition. No change or progress became possible. Human beings entertained so many superstitions about creation and about our universe. Diseases thrived and mortality became high.
Similarly reason too failed to satisfy many questions though it too became absolute and wanted to displace faith altogether. Thus many questions about meaning and significance of our universe could not be answered by reason alone. Reason, in a way, gave rise to its own superstitions. Reason claimed all the space which so far faith had occupied. Blind faith also led to exploitation of ignorant human beings and now modernity too, in the form of emphasis on material happiness which also led to discontentment.
Thus either way dilemma remains and there is no solution in sight. But discontentment of modernity has far acceded that of faith. As religion has been hijacked by priesthood (reducing it to mere rituals devoid of values) and other vested interests like politicians with which priesthood often (though not always) collaborated, in case of modernity too it has been hijacked by powerful vested interests and it has become almost a part of capitalist system.
Capitalism is highly exploitative and reason has been made a powerful instrument for exploitation to promote profiteering. Today modernity cannot stand on its own and has become almost an adjunct of capitalist system. Capitalism in our own times is promoting limitless consumerism. It has used reason to promote consumerism in various ways which leads to more and more violence.
Colonial violence was also part of capitalist expansion and led to wars and bloodshed. The colonized countries had to struggle hard, in most cases violently (India was an exception to a great extent) to free themselves from colonial bondage. However, in several newly freed countries western capitalist powers managed to install puppet governments and thus people could not enjoy fruits of freedom.
Thus on one hand ritualized religion and capitalist-based modernity created more discontent in the modern world. Democracy, though very necessary for ensuring freedom to common people, has also been hijacked by vested interests. In most of the countries in Asia and Africa we find today one ethnic group or one religious group at the throat of the other. Ethnic, caste and communal violence is rampant in most of the democratic countries in Asia and Africa today.
All modern means are being used to exacerbate these differences including means of modern mass communications. Mass communication with its most modern techniques is a powerful instrument to promote prejudices and misinformation. Twenty-first century has already witnessed unprecedented violence. Attack on New York towers and resultant wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and consequent terrorist attacks has already killed millions of people during the first decade itself.
Modern technology, again a part of hijacked modernity, has produced weapons of mass destruction. During medieval ages a sword could kill one person at a time. Today modern technology has produced such weapons which can kill thousands at a time merely by pressing just a button. Whole cities can be blasted out of existence. America invaded Iraq (to grab its oil) and tried all its latest weaponry on the poor people of that unfortunate country. More than half a million people perished.
Terrorists, not product of Islam as usually propagated, but a violent response to much greater violence being perpetrated by the Super Power, is also killing thousands of innocent human beings. These killings, it appears, has no end. Communally and ethnic violence within a nation states and wars internationally has robbed out modern world of peace and tranquility.
Most important question is can we free religion on one hand, and modernity on the other hand, from clutches of vested interests? It looks very difficult and complex problem. What we need is a creative synthesis of religion and modernity but to get it accepted is itself very difficult. Religion in its spiritual sense and modernity with emphasis on reason can be very liberative for human beings.
Islam, many people would not believe, was such a creative blend of the two but unfortunately it lost its liberative thrust in the hands of vested interests, particularly the feudal ruling class and medieval values. It was very difficult for Islam to escape this fate. However, now is the time to rediscover the Qur’anic Islam though, as pointed out, it would be make it very difficult to make it acceptable.
Islam today is so encumbered with medieval practices and web of cultural and traditional practices that it is very difficult to disentangle it from this complex web of medieval culture and ruling class interests. I would like to throw some light as to why the Qur’anic Islam could be really so liberative. I do not think war against terror can ever succeed without rediscovering this Islam and also without disentangling modernity too from the clutches of capitalist interests.
Qur’an, through the Prophet (PBUH) first of all addressed itself to rid the society of its ills. Mecca was in the primitive stage of capitalist accumulation and so Qur’an strongly denounced accumulation of wealth and luxurious living. It created sensitivity towards suffering weaker sections of society. It gave the ideal, considered most modern, of human dignity. No human being should be disrespected or robbed of dignity given by Allah.
It also gave awareness to its addresses that when it comes to human dignity both men and women are equal and one has no right over the other. Qur’an even avoided use of the word husband and wife but called them zawjain (couples) so that man cannot claim superiority over his wife. It also sensitized believers to indignity a slave suffers though he/she is also human person and hence enjoys equal dignity.
Thus freeing slaves was considered most meritorious act and also exhorted believers that if they cannot immediately emancipate their slave immediately (though they should), until such time they should treat them as their equal in every respect. It was for this reason that many slaves were attracted initially to Islam and Bilal Habshi (an Ethiopian slave emancipated by his master after accepting Islam) became icon of these slaves.
Also, like in modernity it tried to do away discrimination between one ethnic or linguistic or national group from the other and declared colour, race, languages and nations are Allah’s signs (Surah:Rum Verse: 22). Basic humanity and human dignity is above all these considerations. No superiority for one group, race, color or language to any other one and declared that only distinction could be on the basis of taqwa (i.e. purity of actions and God-consciousness).
These were revolutionary declarations and humanity has failed to realize these ideals even in post-modern period. The Prophet of Islam (PBUH) faced stiff resistance from Meccan tribal chiefs because they were not prepared to accept such a revolutionary transformation of their society which will fell in one swoop their status, their pride of wealth, their superiority of Arabic language and their belonging to tribe of Quraysh.
All this was not acceptable to them at all. They identified their ancestral religion with all their privileges and would not accept new religion as it was truly universal believing in human unity beyond all tribal, linguistic and ethnic boundaries and what was worse for them, believing in socio-economic justice. In this new religion neither language, nor race, nor colour of skin nor wealth was guarantee to nearness of Allah but only once piety, ethical and moral conduct. They did not mind demolishing physical idols kept in Ka’aba but were not prepared for demolishing idols of social, economic, linguistic, and ethnic pride. These idols were real object of worship which put them above others.
Modernity in this sense with due role of reason is hallmark of Islam from the beginning. But Muslims brought back all these idols installed in their hearts and never removed them. History of Islam shows with passage of time these idols carved out deeper and deeper niches. Ka’aba was purified of physical idols but hearts of Muslims were never purified.
Even today many Muslims have accepted modernity in superficial sense by accepting modern technology and like western countries, have instrumentalized role of reason but never accepted role of reason in fundamental and philosophical sense. Modern Western civilization is wholly materialistic and soulless and hence modernity has created more discontents. Its hallmark is more and more consumption, material standards of life and hence fighting for others’ resources leading to wars and bloodshed. America though apparently modern and civilized but most barbarious in waging wars on others territories with its ultra-modern weaponry.
Real modernity as expounded in Qur’an and also in other scriptures, does not use reason in instrumental sense but in fundamental and philosophical sense. It encourages cooperation, not destructive competition. It does not chase illusory goal of happiness based on consumption but promotes social justice, unconditional equality, inviolable human dignity and balanced approach to inner and outer happiness. Modernity cannot be judged through material progress alone. It is necessary but not sufficient.
Spiritual joy and material happiness must go together. Reason should not be devoid of values. Reason without higher goals, meaning and significance of life, is two-edged sword. Truth should not be mere conformity with facts but also beyond and above it, transcendent and all inclusive. Otherwise modernity will remain handmaiden of powerful vested interests which is what it is today and will generate more and more discontents.
Modernity was greatly celebrated during colonial days of 19th century throughout the world, especially in African and Asian countries colonized by European countries. It was hallmark of superiority of west over east. West was considered most modern, rational in its approach and technologically far more superior whereas Asian and African countries superstitious, irrational and ignorant and backward.
Most of the intellectuals, mainly product of western colonial education felt ashamed of their ignorance and backwardness and lack of rationality and science and tried to reform their societies by spreading modern approach among their people. However, there was vertical division in these societies between those who refused to modernize and preferred their orthodoxy and those who considered modernization a must and celebrated modernity.
Almost all religious communities in colonized countries faced this vertical divide but more particularly the Muslims. We are more concerned here with Muslim communities in the colonized countries. Muslims were comparatively slow and more resistant to modernization as the Muslim societies were deeply embedded in feudal values and religious orthodoxy.
Muslim intellectuals who came under the influence of western education and modernism, welcomed modernity but had to adopt cautious approach between religious orthodoxy and western modernism. They had to rely more on their religious text to keep pace with their societies. But those societies which took to industrialization and modern business and commerce found modernity more easily acceptable.
Muslim societies, deeply embedded in feudalism and feudal values, as pointed out above, could not go for modern industrialization, business and commerce and hence modernity did not appeal to them or beneficial to them. Muslims were often criticized for refusing to change and modernize and even their religion Islam was blamed for it. Muslims still face this criticism though we have gone into post-modern era.
Modernity, however, did not prove to be unmixed blessing for western countries, let alone for eastern countries of Asia and Africa thanks to the powerful vested interests who used modernity for their own benefit. Modernity generally came with the capitalist system. In fact modernity was product of industrial system based on capitalism. It was Marx who developed great insights into functioning of modern capitalist system and wrote powerful critique of capitalism.
Capitalism was based on profiteering on one hand, and on cutthroat competition, on the other. The Western countries colonized Asian and African countries in search of raw materials and markets for their product. Modern machines produced on mass scale and for that their domestic markets were not enough and also they did not have all the raw materials they needed. Thus colonial countries became rich source of raw material on one hand, and provided huge markets for their industrial products.
It was this competition for markets which led to two World Wars resulting in killings of millions of people. These wars gave great impetus to armament industry so much so that in the post 2nd World War era no American government could defy what came to be known as military-industrial complex. All American policies were fundamentally influenced by this military-industrial complex. This unholy alliance depended mainly on sale of armaments on huge scale and for this wars had to be promoted in Asian and African countries.
This is not to say that modernization itself was responsible for all this but what is true to entire modernization project was hijacked by powerful interests whose only concern was accumulating profits. That is why I maintain that modernity was not an unmixed blessing for humanity. It has its darker side too. Here we are discussing modernity, not as values, but as an instrument to promote certain interests.
Modernity essentially represents important values like rationality, objectivity, respect for human reason and human values and conformity with fact. It was this respect for reason, and not authority, that led to progress of science and technology through which west acquired superiority over Asian and African countries. The modern bourgeoisie in the West challenged the authority of the Church and succeeded in establishing superiority of reason, the hallmark of modernity.
Reason is the highest value in modernity. It relies solely on reason and has no respect for any tradition. The Afro-Asian societies were based, on the other hand, mainly on respect for tradition whether they conformed to tradition or not. However, sole reliance on reason without wedding it to values and without making reason and values two sides of a coin, reason can and does become problematic.
Reason is a two edged sword without values and this is what happened with modernity when powerful vested interests, mainly capitalists hijacked modernity for their own purposes. Modern weapons and modern technology developed by the western countries were used for enslaving Afro-Asian countries and these countries were reduced to mere sources of raw materials and markets.
Reason could be used for promoting science, technology and deeper understanding of universe but also for developing disastrous weapons which cause great destruction. Humanity saw this destruction in the two World Wars. But it was reason again which developed pure science and we could understand infinite vastness of our universe and how it evolved and our extremely limited understanding of our universe changed. Qur’an says it is the ‘Ulama i.e. those who know, those who are scientists, who deeply reflect on the creation of Allah who can really worship Him.
But problem is rationalists disregard importance of faith and values and begin to worship reason. They do not appreciate limits of reason. This attitude developed among rationalists as reason was totally disregarded and devalued in traditional societies and those who accepted reason and challenged superstitions or traditional authority were severely persecuted.
Also, unscrupulous elements had exploited faith for their own benefits, rationalists came to reject faith as blind and irrational. Thus as modernity solely relied on reason and ridiculed faith, traditionalists totally elide on faith in the traditional authority and rejected reason. Thus both rationalists and faithful became exclusive categories. There was no meeting point. Thus faithful became blind and derided reason and rationalists dubbed faith as blind.
This mutual exclusivity caused much greater problems. Sole reliance on reason can give birth to discontents as sole reliance on faith. We find interesting debate in Islamic history between Imam Ghazzali and Ibn Rushd (known as Averros to the western world). Ghazzali was also a rationalist at one time. He even became atheist at one stage of his development. However, he soon discovered reason does not lead to inner peace and meaning and significance of life. He turned then to faith (though as is evident from his writings retained elements of reason too) and attacked philosophers like Ibn Rushed. He wrote a book Tahafut al-Falasifa (Bewilderment of Philosophers).
Ibn Rushd replied to Ghazzali’s Tahafut al-Falasifa by writing Tahafat Tahafut al-Falasifa i.e. Bewilderment of Bewilderment of philosophers. Thus this lack of mutual understanding lead to exclusivistic attitudes. Ghazzali was in search of inner peace and reason creates more doubts and raises more questions and leads to discontentment. Faith which depends on authority, gives inner contentment.
Modernity has thus led to discontentment in two ways: one, since it has been hijacked by capitalists it leads to more inner discontentment as it is hell-bent upon selling its products and creates illusion of ‘material happiness’ but fails to create one as more consumption leads to still more consumption; two, rationality lacks faith and for inner peace one needs faith which provides ‘final’ answers and hence inner contentment.
Thus neither rationality (i.e. modernity) nor faith alone can be without problems. For centuries faith in authority created total stagnation and superstition. No change or progress became possible. Human beings entertained so many superstitions about creation and about our universe. Diseases thrived and mortality became high.
Similarly reason too failed to satisfy many questions though it too became absolute and wanted to displace faith altogether. Thus many questions about meaning and significance of our universe could not be answered by reason alone. Reason, in a way, gave rise to its own superstitions. Reason claimed all the space which so far faith had occupied. Blind faith also led to exploitation of ignorant human beings and now modernity too, in the form of emphasis on material happiness which also led to discontentment.
Thus either way dilemma remains and there is no solution in sight. But discontentment of modernity has far acceded that of faith. As religion has been hijacked by priesthood (reducing it to mere rituals devoid of values) and other vested interests like politicians with which priesthood often (though not always) collaborated, in case of modernity too it has been hijacked by powerful vested interests and it has become almost a part of capitalist system.
Capitalism is highly exploitative and reason has been made a powerful instrument for exploitation to promote profiteering. Today modernity cannot stand on its own and has become almost an adjunct of capitalist system. Capitalism in our own times is promoting limitless consumerism. It has used reason to promote consumerism in various ways which leads to more and more violence.
Colonial violence was also part of capitalist expansion and led to wars and bloodshed. The colonized countries had to struggle hard, in most cases violently (India was an exception to a great extent) to free themselves from colonial bondage. However, in several newly freed countries western capitalist powers managed to install puppet governments and thus people could not enjoy fruits of freedom.
Thus on one hand ritualized religion and capitalist-based modernity created more discontent in the modern world. Democracy, though very necessary for ensuring freedom to common people, has also been hijacked by vested interests. In most of the countries in Asia and Africa we find today one ethnic group or one religious group at the throat of the other. Ethnic, caste and communal violence is rampant in most of the democratic countries in Asia and Africa today.
All modern means are being used to exacerbate these differences including means of modern mass communications. Mass communication with its most modern techniques is a powerful instrument to promote prejudices and misinformation. Twenty-first century has already witnessed unprecedented violence. Attack on New York towers and resultant wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and consequent terrorist attacks has already killed millions of people during the first decade itself.
Modern technology, again a part of hijacked modernity, has produced weapons of mass destruction. During medieval ages a sword could kill one person at a time. Today modern technology has produced such weapons which can kill thousands at a time merely by pressing just a button. Whole cities can be blasted out of existence. America invaded Iraq (to grab its oil) and tried all its latest weaponry on the poor people of that unfortunate country. More than half a million people perished.
Terrorists, not product of Islam as usually propagated, but a violent response to much greater violence being perpetrated by the Super Power, is also killing thousands of innocent human beings. These killings, it appears, has no end. Communally and ethnic violence within a nation states and wars internationally has robbed out modern world of peace and tranquility.
Most important question is can we free religion on one hand, and modernity on the other hand, from clutches of vested interests? It looks very difficult and complex problem. What we need is a creative synthesis of religion and modernity but to get it accepted is itself very difficult. Religion in its spiritual sense and modernity with emphasis on reason can be very liberative for human beings.
Islam, many people would not believe, was such a creative blend of the two but unfortunately it lost its liberative thrust in the hands of vested interests, particularly the feudal ruling class and medieval values. It was very difficult for Islam to escape this fate. However, now is the time to rediscover the Qur’anic Islam though, as pointed out, it would be make it very difficult to make it acceptable.
Islam today is so encumbered with medieval practices and web of cultural and traditional practices that it is very difficult to disentangle it from this complex web of medieval culture and ruling class interests. I would like to throw some light as to why the Qur’anic Islam could be really so liberative. I do not think war against terror can ever succeed without rediscovering this Islam and also without disentangling modernity too from the clutches of capitalist interests.
Qur’an, through the Prophet (PBUH) first of all addressed itself to rid the society of its ills. Mecca was in the primitive stage of capitalist accumulation and so Qur’an strongly denounced accumulation of wealth and luxurious living. It created sensitivity towards suffering weaker sections of society. It gave the ideal, considered most modern, of human dignity. No human being should be disrespected or robbed of dignity given by Allah.
It also gave awareness to its addresses that when it comes to human dignity both men and women are equal and one has no right over the other. Qur’an even avoided use of the word husband and wife but called them zawjain (couples) so that man cannot claim superiority over his wife. It also sensitized believers to indignity a slave suffers though he/she is also human person and hence enjoys equal dignity.
Thus freeing slaves was considered most meritorious act and also exhorted believers that if they cannot immediately emancipate their slave immediately (though they should), until such time they should treat them as their equal in every respect. It was for this reason that many slaves were attracted initially to Islam and Bilal Habshi (an Ethiopian slave emancipated by his master after accepting Islam) became icon of these slaves.
Also, like in modernity it tried to do away discrimination between one ethnic or linguistic or national group from the other and declared colour, race, languages and nations are Allah’s signs (Surah:Rum Verse: 22). Basic humanity and human dignity is above all these considerations. No superiority for one group, race, color or language to any other one and declared that only distinction could be on the basis of taqwa (i.e. purity of actions and God-consciousness).
These were revolutionary declarations and humanity has failed to realize these ideals even in post-modern period. The Prophet of Islam (PBUH) faced stiff resistance from Meccan tribal chiefs because they were not prepared to accept such a revolutionary transformation of their society which will fell in one swoop their status, their pride of wealth, their superiority of Arabic language and their belonging to tribe of Quraysh.
All this was not acceptable to them at all. They identified their ancestral religion with all their privileges and would not accept new religion as it was truly universal believing in human unity beyond all tribal, linguistic and ethnic boundaries and what was worse for them, believing in socio-economic justice. In this new religion neither language, nor race, nor colour of skin nor wealth was guarantee to nearness of Allah but only once piety, ethical and moral conduct. They did not mind demolishing physical idols kept in Ka’aba but were not prepared for demolishing idols of social, economic, linguistic, and ethnic pride. These idols were real object of worship which put them above others.
Modernity in this sense with due role of reason is hallmark of Islam from the beginning. But Muslims brought back all these idols installed in their hearts and never removed them. History of Islam shows with passage of time these idols carved out deeper and deeper niches. Ka’aba was purified of physical idols but hearts of Muslims were never purified.
Even today many Muslims have accepted modernity in superficial sense by accepting modern technology and like western countries, have instrumentalized role of reason but never accepted role of reason in fundamental and philosophical sense. Modern Western civilization is wholly materialistic and soulless and hence modernity has created more discontents. Its hallmark is more and more consumption, material standards of life and hence fighting for others’ resources leading to wars and bloodshed. America though apparently modern and civilized but most barbarious in waging wars on others territories with its ultra-modern weaponry.
Real modernity as expounded in Qur’an and also in other scriptures, does not use reason in instrumental sense but in fundamental and philosophical sense. It encourages cooperation, not destructive competition. It does not chase illusory goal of happiness based on consumption but promotes social justice, unconditional equality, inviolable human dignity and balanced approach to inner and outer happiness. Modernity cannot be judged through material progress alone. It is necessary but not sufficient.
Spiritual joy and material happiness must go together. Reason should not be devoid of values. Reason without higher goals, meaning and significance of life, is two-edged sword. Truth should not be mere conformity with facts but also beyond and above it, transcendent and all inclusive. Otherwise modernity will remain handmaiden of powerful vested interests which is what it is today and will generate more and more discontents.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)