An Open Letter to Justice C. S. Karnan

Dear Hon’ble Justice C. S. Karnan,

I know it, sir.  Writing to a judge on his views expressed in court about a case coming up before him is not good manners. But one may say things to a judge on what he says outside the court on other matters – for example, on music or on the condition of court buildings.

Sir, last week you came out of your hallowed seat of the Madras High Court, addressed press persons at its gates and became the centre of news stories across India. They made a sad reading, particularly your accusations against your brother judges, the Chief Justice of the High Court, the Chief Justice of India and some judges of the Supreme Court. I wish to say a few things, in grief and in goodwill. I would just touch upon a thing or two from what you spoke.  What I say here is relevant, though not central to what you were announcing that day.

       By now everyone knows you are a member of the Scheduled Castes, as you said to newsmen.  A lawyer arguing before your court or his client in the case would not be concerned about that fact.  The reason is simple.  The most important thing for any such lawyer or client in any court is this: he should get a judgement that pleases him. If a litigant’s case has merits and he gets a final judgement favouring him the winning party and his lawyer will admire the judge, but the losing party, or at least his lawyer who should know better, will also have respect for the judge for a fair judgement.  So a good judge – man or woman, of any religion or caste, of any region in India – is really liked by lawyers who are active in the courts.  That way, a judge is perhaps better placed than the holder of a political office like a minister in government.  A minister may have opponents, from his own caste or from any other, from his own party or from the Opposition, constantly scheming and trying to pull him down.  A judge, especially a High Court judge, cannot be ousted easily and he has only to deal with lawyers who appear before him – and not battle with opponents trying to trip him or see him out of office.  A judge is less hamstrung in his work by his religious, regional or caste backgrounds.

     So lawyers doing their cases in a court, especially a High Court, cannot have antipathy towards a good judge, whatever his background.  Since their work in courts brings them their daily bread they cannot feel otherwise – except for those not serious with their work or not seen much inside court rooms.  Like, for example, when I buy apples I would get good ones from a seller, whoever he is, rather than go for bad ones from a seller who belongs to my caste. Also, why have the founders of Microsoft and Google, who are Americans, employed Indians – Satya Nadella and Sundar Pichai – rather than Americans as chief executive officers in the US?  Because those businessmen feel that, at this time, their Indian officers would deliver best.  Lawyers who contest cases in courts think likewise, expecting results from judges hearing and deciding their cases.

     Those who fight predominantly about race, religion, gender or caste of a judge, pushing merit and good work in the background, are politicians who look for votes in a bickering about those issues.   But lawyers and clients concerned with cases in courts would care less about those things as they look for good judgements.  It is essential to see this difference – and to keep polluting effects of politics away from campuses of law colleges and law courts.

      Yes, sir.  Caste exists for real in Hindu society, with its wide baneful fallout on public life.  Solutions have to come from within that society, not outside. If at all we can solve them little by little, people should first see examples in the conduct of men and women at the top in many places, who talk less about caste differences, ignore some irritants here and there and go about their work gently with a smile – that is an art like writing a judgement. 

      Sir, there is yet another side.  When one parent seriously faults and fights with another in front of their children, the children feel left out and distressed.  That is how the lawyer community should feel today.  I think every parent must take care.

        Very warm regards.

                                               

R. Veera Raghavan

* * * * *

Copyright © R. Veera Raghavan 2016

Electing Women to Panchayats – 50% Reservation is 100% Farce

This is recent news – the central government will take steps to amend the Constitution to increase reservation of seats for women in elections to panchayat bodies from the present 33% to 50%.  Who benefits if that happens?  Not anyone.

Compulsory reservation for women among elected members and Chairpersons of panchayat bodies has been followed in several states of India – for twenty years in some, and less in others. The Indian Constitution mandates it, since 1993, at a minimum of 33% of contested seats.  A proposal to hike it to 50% was approved by the Union cabinet of an earlier government in 2009, but the Constitution is yet to be amended for the purpose.  A different ruling party now running the central government cannot drop that idea and invite political peril.   

But we should ask : Can we believe that the existing 33% reservation has toned up governance at village levels and enhanced women’s prestige in village areas, and so making it 50% will brighten such results even more? Or have we found that a mere 33% is not enough to get expected benefits and that a minimum 50% reservation is needed?  “No. None of it” should be our answer to both questions.

More than women, men desire, grab and enjoy power in politics.  Males are one half of our population, and more than half among elected representatives in our legislatures.  Without their approval the present 33% reservation would not have happened, nor can it go up.   That is not because our male politicians are generous and sacrificing.  It simply points to a ground reality – this reservation serves as a cloak for clever men to project their obedient wives, mothers or daughters as contestants for reserved seats in panchayat polls, secure their election and rule by proxy.  Those women know this and are happy to help their men folk by just being name-lenders.  And all – including government officials supervising local administration - who deal with or pay purposeful respect to those controlling men behind the mute elected women in panchayats know this.  This is a great farce in our politics and government.

Yes, there is a question to be answered. What is wrong in husbands, fathers or sons helping out women in their families when the law requires that women alone can contest some panchayat seats?  Two counter questions get us the answer.  When women in panchayat areas are not so elected, in what ways and for how long are they helped by men in their homes?  Will a straight-thinking man who respects his wife, daughter or mother, consent to proxy for her illegally in government work, and do the things done by a good number of 33% or 50% male proxies?

Let me not leave out this question.  Why should anyone – here a woman – agree to hold an elected office but let her official power and add-ons lie in the hands of another person – here a man?  Man or woman, if one is dependent on another in many ways or if one is indebted to another for reasons they know best, this fronting or proxying in varying extent could happen anywhere.  If the names of Lalu Prasad Yadav and Rabri Devi, or Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh, suddenly cross your mind now you will have some good reason.

Compulsory reservation for women in panchayat bodies, and the way it is worked, do not really help women among the public.  Women everywhere look for their physical safety and security foremost, and if their elected representatives can ensure that while they govern, women would be glad and relieved even if all or a vast majority of those representatives are men.  But if they have to live amidst an unsure sense of safety and security, holding and concealing their fright, it makes no difference to them that 33% or 50% of their elected representatives are also women.  Horror stories in newspapers every other day about unfortunate female victims tell us how insecure Indian women feel on our soil.

Women voters are not really yearning for reservation in panchayat positions.  If they really do, they can act in unison and elect a female candidate pitted against male candidates from an unreserved constituency. That would surely happen if they wish it since they make up about 50% of voters.  Just as, in a free-for-all election, a candidate of the same caste as a good chunk of the voters in his constituency wins.  Then why do our dominant male politicians play out this farce?  Perhaps they think they are placating women voters by this false concession.  And perhaps women voters feel that if it pleases men on their pet political pranks let it be – why raise questions, dissatisfy ambitious political men and possibly have a dent in women’s overall sense of safety and security, whatever it be?  Indian men who pioneered and backed this reservation have failed our women by making puppets out of the latter and degrading their dignity in a public sphere. 

Want some more proof that our male politicians are cooking up this farce of espousing women’s cause? Well, if men truly believe that more of women should be elected to political offices – as high as 33% or 50% - and make decisions to run governments, men would have first asked women to take up top posts within their political parties at village level or district level everywhere.  Men don’t do it because they wish to be widely in charge of party affairs (rightly, as they fit those roles better), but when it comes to elected political offices in government they make it appear they would let women fill up those offices  – 33% or 50% of them – while they still run those offices from behind.

We have also powerful examples to prove that men and women do not bother much if their elected rulers are men or women.  We had Indira Gandhi as prime minister, she and her party were defeated massively throughout the country in elections held after she lifted her Emergency, but later she was also voted back to power – without reservation of any kind for women.  Now Jayalalithaa of Tamil Nadu in the South, Mamata Banerjee of West Bengal in the East, Anandiben Patel of Gujarat in the West rule their states as chief ministers.  And in the North, Mehbooba Mufti Sayeed of Jammu and Kashmir could get sworn in as chief minister if she just wants it.  This is the spectacle in the four corners of India with no reservation helping these four women – and men voters in huge numbers in the four states wanting them at the helm.  Likewise, male chief ministers presently ruling in other states enjoy the support of women voters in large numbers and those voters are not longing for woman chief ministers. It is again clear that 33% reservation is a plain farce, and any increase of it will heighten its effect.  Sadly, it has been elevated as a Constitutional compulsion – not only for panchayats but for municipalities too, and the farce gets enacted in more theatres than one.

If women are inclined to politics and have the guts for it they would come out on their own, lead and shine, like they do now in the four corner states of India. On that some may take inspiration from their fathers or spouses, which is understandable as it happens with all, man or woman.  At national levels too, apart from India's Indira Gandhi, Srimavo Bandaranaike in Sri Lanka, Golda Meir in Israel, Margaret Thatcher in the UK and recently Angela Merkel in Germany rose to head governments on their own strength and leadership qualities – that is natural and welcome in a democracy.  But to stipulate that some electoral constituencies across India at village or municipal levels  - or  in the Lok Sabha and state legislatures - shall only have women candidates (or only men, if law says it), that too at high percentages of 33 or 50 is no good, and in any case an overdose that maims or kills.  This enforced reservation leads to several ills and it would be difficult to remove them as they get entrenched.  And it will have a sinister side effect too – of creating a needless men-versus-women issue and all the acrimony that comes with it.

So, as an Indian, if you object to a good slice of our elected political offices being reserved for women, it doesn’t mean you have malice toward the reservees.  It means you love your homeland. 

* * * * * 

Copyright © R. Veera Raghavan 2016

Death of a Hyderabad Student

Rohith Vemula was about 27 years old and a student working for his Ph.D. in the University of Hyderabad.  His name appeared over all news media recently when he hanged himself in the hostel room of a friend, leaving a suicide note.   A sad event, no doubt.

Television and newspapers covered leaders of many political parties who flocked to Hyderabad, met Rohith’s grieving mother and his friends at the university premises and issued statements demanding sacking of some ministers and the university’s vice chancellor.  Raising issues and grabbing media’s attention is what all political leaders would do, but there is something the Hyderabad-bound leaders did not do, which is worrying. 

Rohith excelled in studies and had scored high marks in the Ph.D. admission interview, according to his guide in research.  He and four other Dalit students, all members of Ambekar Students Association, had been expelled from the university hostel for some misdemeanor, after holding enquiries.  That action did not curtail their access to university library or labs or suspend their study programme.  In this scenario Rohith took his own life.  However his suicide note does not name or blame anyone as driving him to die.

Reports differ on whether Rohith was a Dalit or not.  Whatever the truth, we see politicians clamour and protest more over events and issues that concern Dalit citizens than if they relate to other citizens.  Here politicians play clever over hapless people.  Indian politicians know that among the country’s population women count about 48.5%, religious minorities roughly 20% and Dalits close to 17%.  So they jump to project any issue touching a single individual of any group as one affecting his or her whole group.  With that stance the politician could portray himself as espousing a cause of millions of people and hope to reap their votes in big numbers in one harvest.  A controversy of this nature may attract arguments of many shades, some genuine and some pretentious.  Here it is not easy to decide if a politician really takes up a public cause which benefits huge numbers of people or he is blowing up an individual issue pretending it as a group cause.  Mostly irresponsible politicians occupy the filed, make unfair choices and have a merry game for votes.  They cannot be checked until our democracy matures and our electorate becomes truly discerning to show their judgement at election time.   

 

Leave alone the question if the university had a good cause for expelling Rohith Vemula from its hostel.  Any answer to that question should not cloud an important issue about which most of our political class remains silent.  That issue is: Should Rohith not have decided to live, stand up and strive to succeed in the wide world rather than take his life following an expulsion from a university hostel?  The battles to be won for anyone in India are harder to go through than an expulsion from a university hostel, and Rohith would have certainly spared his separated mother deep agony by continuing to live.   And, staying alive, if he completes his Ph.D. and does other acts of good value he will lastingly inspire many in his community, which his rash act cannot do.  An example of braving odds and achieving heights of success more than seventy years ago in unmodern India was B. R. Ambedkar, in whose name Ambedkar Students Association is named – which had Rohith as member.

      

Stories of women traumatized by rapes but pulling themselves up over time abound in every region in India.  And there are girls whose faces were disfigured badly by acid attacks, mostly from males they had spurned, but they survived the violence and live on – some even modelling garments or otherwise succeeding to their best.   We also read about youngsters who fall in love and marry out of their caste or religion but are harassed by families of their birth, sometimes leading to injury and bloodshed for the newly-weds, and yet the couples stay together, get police or court’s protection and live their lives.  Some young men serving our army or doing other security duty lose a limb or suffer other deformity while coming under enemy fire or bomb blasts, but still they keep themselves alive and get on.  Each one of them deserves our claps for getting over great personal calamities and raising themselves, and they all make our miseries look smaller and our lives brighter by comparison.   If any of them had willfully ended their lives following their misfortune, have no doubt that our many politicians would have crowded the victim’s home and released statements blaming the police or the government for the suicide.  Because there lies a chance to bag some votes of innocents.  But those politicians would not applaud the fortitude and courage of those troubled individuals for facing up to life.  Because that does not get votes.  Perhaps this happened with Rohith too after he killed himself. 

If Rohith lived on he could have also spoken about the expulsion event – in any court also if it comes to that.  So, to that measure, his passing away is a loss in public sphere.  But the saddest part of the event is that such a young man, whatever his religion or community, took his own life in this background.  Equally sad is the spectacle of our politicians who seemed to speak for Rohith but never said they would have loved to see Rohith live on. One of them, Rahul Gandhi, while addressing about 200 students in the campus of the university is quoted as saying that Rohith “had no option but to kill himself” (The Hindu, Jan. 20, 2016). Another of them, Arvind Kejriwal, said the same thing in different words as he spoke in the university premises – that Rohith was “forced to commit suicide” (New Indian Express, Jan. 22, 2016).  If not anyone, at least the other four Dalit students who were expelled from the university hostel along with Rohith and who live on, and their mothers too, would know for sure these statements are absolutely wrong.  That matters, and we should wish that the other four students grow further, shake off a bad dream and succeed in their lives – though neither the news media nor our politicians may remember their names.

* * * * *

Copyright © R. Veera Raghavan 2016

Behind the National Herald Case, Lies a Tragedy

The National Herald controversy takes India’s political life to a new low.  In the old world, events like these would be called highly immoral, and in modern times utterly unethical, but they mean the same thing – wrongful and shameful things to happen. Courts are looking into all connected incidents to determine if they are crimes.  There is something else we must look at.

Details coming out in the National Herald affairs hold a sordid tragedy.  Consider some accepted facts – which should be accepted by the Congress Party itself – to gauge the scale of the tragedy and the shame it brings along.

1. The Congress had lent Rs.90 crores to Associated Journals Limited (AJL), the company that published the daily newspaper National Herald - which stopped for good in 2008.

2.     Young Indian is another company, a closely held charitable company formed in 2010, in which 76% of its shares are collectively held by Congress President Sonia Gandhi and her son Rahul Gandhi – enough to give them authority to take every decision for that company.

3.   AJL, though not doing anything, owns immovable properties valued between Rs.2,000 crores and 5,000 crores.  It has about 761 shareholders.  (Another report says the number is 1,057 – but that does not affect the story). Between them they held all its share capital, until one event happened.

4.    The Congress transferred to Young Indian all its rights to receive Rs.90 crores from AJL.  In return, Young Indian paid the Congress – hold your breath – just Rs.50 lakhs.    The Congress accepted it for transferring its right to collect Rs.90 crores from AJL and wrote off the balance Rs.89.5 crores as irrecoverable.  With that transfer, AJL had to pay back Rs.90 crores to Young Indian instead of the Congress.

5.    If Young Indian could get Rs.90 crores from AJL, or get anything even more valuable from AJL, the Congress Party loses from its foolish bargain – or obedient act – all that Young Indian gains. Young Indian did get that more valuable thing, and got it in an amazingly quick time of two months after acquiring the debt.

6.     AJL had only one debt to repay, which was that Rs.90 crores.  AJL paid it back to Young Indian in a special way.  Instead of paying money, AJL issued to Young Indian new shares in AJL for Rs.90 crores in value.  Here lies a twist, as it means much more than AJL clearing its debt. With that issue of shares, all the poor existing shareholders of AJL suffered the greatest loss.  This is how it was.

7.  With AJL’s new shares for Rs.90 crores going to Young Indian, the holding of the 760-odd shareholders in AJL’s share capital instantly plummeted from 100% to a pitiful 1%.  This means their notional entitlement in the value of AJL’s assets got depleted likewise, from about Rs.2,000 crores to Rs.20 crores – with a stake in the balance Rs.1,980 crores going away to Young Indian.  If AJL’s assets are really worth Rs.5,000 crores, the drop in the market value of their shareholdings is from Rs.5,000 crores to Rs.50 crores while the market value of Young Indian’s shareholding in AJL would zoom to Rs.4,950 crores. So finally, that is what Young Indian got in return for Rs.50 lakhs it paid to the Congress Party.  Any 10-year old may guess that no existing shareholder of AJL would have sensibly or smilingly agreed to take a 99% loss in value of his or her shareholding and stand by watching Young Indian strike such a huge bonanza.  That child, if asked to decide for the Congress, could also wonder whether it was wise or ethical to give away a 90-crore-rupees-recoverable to another company for a measly Rs.50 lakhs and watch that company acquire a fortune stake in AJL two months later.  And remember, Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi have influential voices within the Congress and a 76% holding in Young Indian.        

The Congress Party has a historic place in the country, since it pioneered India’s fight for freedom and ran the Central government longer than any other political party.  As our democracy is still taking shape, the Congress and its front-ranking personalities must set an example in walking the straight path. But Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi who are viewed as monarchs in their party have failed here so obviously. 

If chiefs of smaller or regional political parties did what Sonia and Rahul have done for themselves with Young Indian, it would be equally wrong but not so much of a national affliction.  When the grand old Congress Party and its topmost two leaders are themselves in this sorry picture, heads of other parties with similar cunning genes would feel less troubled about whatever misdeeds they performed till now, would smile within themselves and feel encouraged to do more.  After all, how a big brother is allowed to behave, or is kept in check, tells on the smaller ones.

The list of things to bemoan is not over.  Let me explain. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai, C.R. Das, C. Rajagopalachari, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel and many like them were active in India’s freedom movement.  They had one thing in common. Yes, Mahatma Gandhi too came in that category. That is, they were all competent lawyers.  They were deeply devoted to their cause and had high integrity in public life.  You cannot imagine any of them heading the Congress Party in their times and doing anything like what Sonia Gandhi is called to answer now. 

 If Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi cannot be seen in high honour in the National Herald matter – I am not talking of legalities at all, as I said – they should take just 50% of the blame.  A few other persons who are not legally charged should take the rest of the blame, the other 50% of it.  That should be clear when we see something connected.  The long-winding alleys, by-lanes and dark corners of law thought out and laid for the two Congress leaders in their takeover transactions could have originated only from deep-thinking lawyers.  And finally, or from the beginning, the plans would have been passed by a few leading lawyers who are front-ranking Congressmen – and to them the remaining 50% of the blame belongs.  Here is why.

In pre-independence days, any lawyer who was a leader in the Congress Party would not have advised any other leader – lawyer or not – to be part of anything that Sonia and Rahul have done now.   If today’s lawyer-leaders of the Congress had advised the mother and son against takeover of AJL in this fashion – that is, even if the takeover plan had been drawn up by others – because any day all these transactions could get exposed, the law could catch up with them and unpredictable results might follow, the two of them would have saved some good honour for themselves.  A loss of honour this way for the President of the Congress and her son, its next in command, is more of a national shame than when it happens with any other party.  The shame gets bigger when it concerns a daughter-in-law in the family of Jawaharlal Nehru, an illustrious Congress leader who valued personal honour.  Leading lawyers of the Congress Party who were concerned with the takeover plans should be keenly aware of all this. Yet they favoured the idea, with all their legal and worldly knowledge – and should take 50% responsibility for the public shaming of a grand old party and its President and her son. 

I am not bashing Congress lawyers needlessly or crossing the line and getting personal against front-ranking lawyers of the Congress Party.  Well-known lawyers of the same party were held in high esteem for all their service and sacrifice during the freedom struggle.  Their cause was noble, and their actions right.  So they got due acclaim from Indians.  If today’s leading lawyers of the Congress Party, who are also public figures in the political arena, did not have a good cause and if their actions were not right in the roles they played for the Congress, Young Indian and AJL, they will get the flak they deserve.  What a tragic fall!

* * * * *

Copyright © R. Veera Raghavan 2016

அம்புஜம் பாட்டி அலசுகிறாள் : பெற்ற மனமும் சுட்ட மகனும்

’அலி சகர்’ங்கற உன் பேரு காதுக்கு இனிமையா இருக்குடாப்பா. சிரியாவுல ‘ரக்கா’ங்கற ஊர்ல நீ தீவிரப் போராளியா இருக்கன்னு கேள்விப்பட்டேன். ஆனா உன் இருபது வயசுல அப்பாவியான உங்கம்மாவ பொது இடத்துல நிக்க வச்சு சுட்டுக் கொன்னயே, அந்தப் பாவமோ நிர்பந்தமோ யாருக்கும் வரவேண்டாம்.

உனக்கே இஷ்டமில்லாம மத்தவா சொல்லித்தான் நீ இந்தப் பாதகத்தைப் பண்ணினன்னும் நினைக்க முடியல.  அப்படின்னா நெஞ்சுல ஈரம் இருக்கற எவனும் அம்மாவச் சுட்ட உடனே அதே துப்பாக்கியால தன் பொட்டுலயே சுட்டிண்டிருப்பான்.  உன் விஷயத்துல அது நடந்திருந்தா அவள நினைச்சு இப்ப வருத்தப் படற உலகம் உன்னை நினைச்சுத்தான் கண்ணால அழுதுண்டு மனசால பெருமைப் பட்டிருக்கும்.  

கோபம் வந்தா யாரை வேணும்னாலும் அடி, உதை, குத்து. அதெல்லாம் எப்பவும் ரைட்டுங்கற அர்த்தத்துல சொல்லல. எதிராளி மேல குத்தம் இல்லேன்னாலும் அந்தச் செயலுக்கும் பல காரணங்களச் சொல்லி ‘பரவால்ல, கொஞ்சம் தப்புதான், ஆனாலும் மன்னிக்கலாம்’னு பரவலா பேசிக்கற அளவுக்கு சமூகமே மாறிண்டிருக்கு. அதுக்கெல்லாம் உனக்கும் மன்னிப்பு கிடைக்கலாம். ஆனாலும் உங்கம்மா பண்ணின காரியத்துக்கு அவ உயிரை எடுக்கறதுதான் நியாயம், அதுவும் பெத்த பையனே அதப் பண்றது உத்தமம்னு நினைக்கற அளவுக்கு எந்த தேசமும் மாறிருக்காது.

என்ன பண்ணிட்டா லீனா, அதான் உங்க அம்மா? உன்னைக் காப்பாத்தத்தாண்டா நினைச்சிருக்கா! அதாவது நீ உங்க நாட்டு போரளிகள் குழுவோட இருந்தா உனக்கு நல்லதுல்ல, நீயே ஜீவிச்சிருப்பயோ மாட்டயோ, அதுனால நீயும் அவளோட சேர்ந்து வந்தா ரண்டு பேருமா வேற தேசத்துக்குப் போய் உன்னைக் கரை ஏத்திடலாம்னுதான் உங்கம்மா உன்னைக் கூப்பிட்டிருக்கணும்.  தானா ஏற்பட்ட தாய்ப் பாசத்துக்கு இப்படி ஒரு தண்டனையா?

ஒரு பேச்சுக்கு சொல்றேன் - ஒரு வேளை உங்கம்மாக்கு குழந்தைகளே இல்லன்னா, தான் மட்டும் பல ஆபத்துகளத் தாண்டி உன் நாட்டுலேர்ந்து தப்பிச்சு ஓடிப் போகணும்கற எண்ணம் அவளுக்கு இவ்வளவு தூக்கலா வந்திருக்காது. இன்னொண்ணையும் சொல்றேன் – இப்ப உங்க நாட்டுலேர்ந்து தப்பிச்சுப் போறதுதான் நல்லதுன்னு ஓட்டம் பிடிக்கற உன் வயசுப் பையன்கள் அனேகமா அம்மாக்கள விட்டுட்டுத்தான் போயிண்டிருப்பா.   அப்பவும் அந்த அம்மாக்கள் பையனாவது பொழச்சுட்டானேன்னு கொஞ்சம் நிம்மதிய வச்சிண்டிருப்பா.

உன் கதை எப்படி இருந்தாலும், உங்கம்மாவோட இக்கட்டை நினைச்சா கண்ல ஜலம் வரதுடாப்பா. அவளுக்குத் தெரிஞ்சிருக்கும்: நீ வரேன்னு சொல்லி இருந்தாலும் சிரியாவை விட்டு தப்பிச்சுப் போறதே பலநாள் பேராபத்துதான் - அதுக்கும் முன்னால நீ அவளோட யோஜனைக்கு உடன்படாம அவளை காட்டிக் குடுத்து உங்க ஊர் முச்சந்திலயே அவ மரண தண்டனைய ஏத்துக்க வேண்டிருக்கும்னும் அவளுக்குப் புரிஞ்சிருக்கும். துளிக்கூட தன் நலம் இல்லாத பிள்ளைப் பாசத்துக்கு உங்க அம்மாவ உலகப் பிரதிநிதியாத்தான் நினைச்சுக்கணும்.

     

சரி, உங்கம்மாவப் பார்த்து துப்பாக்கிய நீட்டினயே, அப்ப மனசுக்குள்ள அவ என்ன நினைச்சிருப்பான்னு தெரியுமா? “என்னையே கொல்ற என் பிள்ளை நாசமாப் போக”ன்னு உன்னைத் திட்டிருப்பான்னு நீ நினைச்சா அது சரியா இருக்காது. “ஐயோ! இவனுக்கு ஒரு பிள்ளை பிறந்து அவனும் இருபது வயசுல என் பையனை சுட்டுக் கொன்னுடுவானோ கடவுளே!”ன்னு பதறிருப்பான்னு எனக்குத் தோண்றது.

* * * * *

Copyright © R. Veera Raghavan 2016

Mr. Kejriwal, Can a Chief Minister Call the Prime Minister a Coward, a Psychopath or Both?

It is a sorry sight – a chief minister calling the country’s prime minister “a coward”, and “a psychopath”.  Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal uttered those words against Prime Minister Narendra Modi when the CBI, investigating corruption charges against the chief minister’s principal secretary in some of his earlier assignments, raided that suspect’s work place and residence. These raids angered Kejriwal and hence his comment. If you didn’t read or hear the names correctly in the news, you might think Gabbar Singh in Sholay was being quoted as saying, “You don’t know what I am made of”.  That was also Kejriwal directing himself at Modi.

“Kejriwal has spoken out his mind, firmly suspecting Modi behind the CBI action and asserting himself. What’s wrong with that?” would be the defence of AAP supporters. But there is more to it, beyond Modi and Kejriwal.

The words coward and psychopath are not bad words by themselves.  They could be titles of novels or movies, one of them a thriller.  But when we use them to criticize those in public life, they make a different impact.  If they come out in private conversations, that is perfectly all right.  If readers of online news portals use them to comment on Modi, in the aftermath of the CBI raids, that would be excusable – though they may not be accepted as a decent expression. If a political opponent of any minister publicly employs those terms against the minister that would not be excusable. If the media were to put out those words, as their views, against any minister, that would be even more inexcusable. And a chief minister or a prime minister employing those words against the other is horrendous.  Why is it so?

Standards of decency and decorum differ between person to person, depending on their status and on the set-up in which they function, though some basic standards apply to everyone everywhere.  A defence minister of India warning a belligerent neighbour will use a language of dignity, maybe combined with firmness, while in any hand-to-hand combat an Indian soldier facing an enemy soldier may, if he has time to say anything, speak the language of the ground. Stricter rules govern holders of public offices when they write or speak – here too their position makes a difference. Judges, especially Supreme Court and High Court judges, have to employ the language of studied moderation and be highly restrained even when they have to criticize proven offenders. The President of India and the Governor of a State must also be well restrained – they rarely have to come down on individuals.  A chief election commissioner or other election commissioners, when they speak on poll malpractices by any political party, should also use sober language.  Compared to them, political functionaries like a prime minister or chief minister have more liberties with their words while taking on opponents, and yet they too have a limit.  But Kejriwal may ask: does restrained language click on the political turf?      

We know Mahatma Gandhi was pitted against a harsher and mightier opponent – the British Empire – than the one Kejriwal faces now.  The foreign rulers tormented the Mahatma directly too by imprisoning him.  By Kejriwal’s thinking, the Indian leader could have called the monarch or prime minister of Britain a psychopath or worse.  The Mahatma had reason to sharply criticise a foreign ruler subjugating Indians, which was more demeaning to crores of his countrymen than what a CBI raid on a Delhi secretariat officer may do to its chief minister.  But Gandhiji did not do it, was dignified in his speeches and writings, made the opponent respect him and finally won.

Agreed, everyone is not a Mahatma.  But being dignified in language is not something a Mahatma alone can do.  Scores of others who are not a Mahatma, especially the ones who held high public offices, have done that in India.  Or take Narendra Modi who could have spoken the same words referring to Kejriwal and said, “You are a coward and a psychopath, not me”.  If India had heard that, Kejriwal cannot complain since he gets what he gives, but that would be an equally bad thing to say.  Not just equally. A prime minister using those words on a chief minister, even in retaliation, would be more unpardonable and would horribly sore public discourse – here Kejriwal may surely agree.

Kejriwal will also know this. Some world leaders have spoken in praise of Modi. Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbot said, in reference to Modi, “There is so much to learn from him”. British Premier David Cameroon described him as “a man with a clear vision.” A White House Press Secretary said at a news conference that “President Obama has found Prime Minister Modi to be somebody who is honest and direct ….”  So, even those who have not heard about Modi will not take Kejriwal seriously.

A chief minister of Delhi calling the prime minister names, that too at the capital city, is quite a sad spectacle.  It is like a family member chiding another when guests are watching – as foreign envoys stationed in Delhi get to know Kejriwal’s latest attack on Modi.  Sitting in Delhi, they would feel like hearing it next door.  Have we made a mistake in not keeping Delhi as a full Union Territory – like Chandigarh – to be calmly administered by whichever party runs the Central government?  If a party or coalition which governs at the Centre administers Delhi too as a full Union Territory, instead of Delhi having an elected assembly and a chief minister of its own with reduced powers, the city would be free of petty political tussles and battles which are galore in our land.  That alone would give rulers more energy and higher concentration levels, which is good for the whole of India.  Like Delhi, Puducherry has also an elected assembly with a chief minister with reduced powers, but since it is located away from Delhi a different party ruling Puducherry cannot kick up petty rows and be constantly disturbing a central government’s functioning mood and draining its energy.  

If Delhi is governed fully as a Union Territory, Kejriwal would himself find it a blessing if he becomes the prime minister of the country.  Now BJP could welcome the idea of full Union Territory administration for Delhi, but if Kejriwal thinks otherwise it means he rates his chances of becoming the prime minister very low. And he would not also want to give up his present vantage position of chief minister – like any other chief minister from any other party.  It is easy to create new positions of power for politicians, but impossible to wind them up – even if experience shows reversal is a better choice.

A day before attacking Narendra Modi over the CBI raids, Kejriwal commented on Rahul Gandhi who, Kejriwal felt, was talking out of ignorance on some issue.  Kejriwal did not use harsh words against Rahul, similar to coward or psychopath. He said Rahul was “just a kid”.  That is a decent phrase, has a good punch and is evocative too.  If he had deep animosity against Rahul, like against Modi, he might have called Rahul “an ignoramus and an idiot”, but those words would not jell well like “just a kid”.

Leaders opposing Kejriwal and his ways could be looking for words that decently describe him and still have some bite.  They may say, for example, that Kejriwal is “just an adolescent”.  

Kid or adolescent, both should grow up.

* * * * *

Copyright © R. Veera Raghavan 2015

அம்புஜம் பாட்டி அலசுகிறாள் : யாருக்கு மருமகள் யாரோ - எந்த நாட்டினில் பிறந்திருப்பாரோ!

”என்னை யாருன்னு நினைச்சேள்? நான் இந்திரா காந்தியோட மாட்டுப் பொண்ணாக்கும். யார் கிட்டயும் எனக்கு பயம் கிடையாது”ன்னு பேசிருக்கையேம்மா சோனியா.  எந்த சந்தர்ப்பத்துல இப்படிப் பேசிருக்க, இது என்னென்ன அர்தங்களை உண்டாக்கறதுன்னு நினைச்சுப் பார்த்தையா? நானே விளக்கமா சொல்லிடறேன்.

கஷ்டத்துலயும் மனசுல பயமில்லாத நிலைக்கு தைரியம்னு பேர்.  இந்திரா காந்தி மாதிரி நீயும் தைரியசாலின்னு சொல்ல வந்திருக்க. சரி, தைரியம்னா என்னன்னு விலாவாரியா பாக்கலாம்.

’ஒரு காரியத்தை மத்தவா யாருக்கும் பயப்படாம, எதிர்ப்புகளையும் பொருட்படுத்தாம துணிஞ்சு செய்யறதுதான் தைரியம்’னு பொதுப்படையா பல பேர் சொல்லுவா.  அப்படின்னா காட்டுல ராஜாங்கம் பண்ணிண்டு 2000 யானைகளை வைகுண்டத்துக்கு அனுப்பிட்டு  போலிசுக்கும் சிம்ம சொப்பனமா இருந்தானே சந்தன வீரப்பன், அவன் தைரியசாலி. மும்பை வி.டி ரயில்வே ஸ்டேஷன்லயும் தெருக்கள்ளயும் டப்பு டப்புனு அப்பாவி ஜனங்களை சுட்டுக் கொன்னானே பயங்கரவாதி கசாப், அவனும் தைரியசாலிதான். இவா ரண்டு பேர் செஞ்ச காரியங்கள் பயமின்மைலயோ தைரியத்துலயோ சேர்த்தி இல்லை.  அதெல்லாம் அடாவடி, அக்கிரமம்.  அதாவது தப்புக் காரியத்தோட சேர்ந்த பயமின்மை, துணிவு.  அதுக்கு மரியாதை கிடையாது.  ரைட்டுக் காரியாத்தோட சேர்ந்த துணிவுக்குத்தான் தைரியம்கற கௌரதையான பேர் உண்டு.  அகிம்சைய ஆயுதமாப் பண்ணி வெள்ளக்காரனோட அதர்ம அரசாங்கத்தை எதிர்த்தாரே காந்தி, அவருக்கு இருந்தது தைரியம்.

ரண்டாவது, நீ எந்த சமயத்துல பேசிருக்க?  உன்னோட, உன் பையனோட நிர்வாக ஒழுக்கம் சம்பத்தப்பட்ட ஒரு கேஸ் கோர்டுல நடக்கறதே அநியாயம்கறா மாதிரி உங்க கட்சி அமளி பண்றபோது நீ பேசின பேச்சு அது.  நிர்வாக ஒழுக்கத்துல நேரு பெரிய குணவான்.  அவர் பொண்ணு இந்திரா காந்தி அந்த விஷயத்துல பெரிசா பேர் வாங்கினது இல்லை.  உங்க கேஸ் சூழ்நிலைல ”நான் நேரு குடும்பம். கட்சிப் பணத்தையோ மத்தவா பணத்தையோ ஏப்பம் விட மாட்டேன். கேஸை கோர்ட்டுல சந்திச்சு தூள் பண்ணிடறேன். அந்த தைரியம் எனக்கு இருக்கு" அப்படிங்கற ரீதில நீ சொல்லிருந்தா பொருத்தமா இருக்கும். இல்லை, ஒரு வகைல பொருத்தமா இருக்காதுன்னு நினைச்சு நீ இந்திரா காந்தி உறவை மட்டும் பிரதானமா பேசிட்டையோன்னும் தெரியலை.

எனக்குப் படற இன்னொரு விஷயத்தையும் சொல்றேன். நீங்க எப்படிப் பட்டவா, எதை சிலாகிப்பேள், எதைத் தள்ளுவேள்னு நீங்க குடுக்கற சிக்னல்படிதான் உங்களுக்கு ஆலோசகர்களும் வந்து சேருவா.  நீயோ உன் பிள்ளையோ உங்க ஆலோசகர்களைக் கூப்பிட்டு “ஆட்டைத் தூக்கி மாட்டுல போட்டு மாட்டைத் தூக்கி ஆட்டுல போட்டு கொழிக்கற லாபம் வர்ர மாதிரி ஒரு சூப்பர் பிளான் போடுங்கோ”ன்னு சொல்லிருக்க மாட்டேள்.  ஆனா, நீங்க எதை பேஷ் பேஷ்னு பாராட்டி ஏத்துப்பேள்னு உங்க ஆலோசகர்கள் கணிச்சு அதுக்கேத்தா மாதிரி ஏதோ பிளான் போட்டுக் குடுத்து உங்ககிட்ட பாராட்டையும் ஆதாயத்தையும் வாங்கிண்டு உங்களுக்கு சிக்கலைக் குடுத்துட்டா. இல்லாட்டி, கடனைக் கைமாத்தி விடறதையும், கம்பெனி ஆரம்பிக்கறதையும் ஷேர் வாங்கிண்டு கடனைக் கழிக்கறதைப் பத்தியும் உங்களுக்கா எப்படித் தெரியும்?  ’யதா ராஜா, ததா மந்திரி’ன்னு ஒரு இந்திய அரசியல் சூத்திரம் எழுதலாம்னு தோண்றது.

பயமின்மைக்கு உதாரணமாச் சொன்னயே உன் மாமியார் இந்திரா காந்தி – அவா கூட இந்த மாதிரி கன்னா பின்னா காரியங்கள்ளாம் பண்ண மாட்டாளேம்மா?

* * * * *

Copyright © R. Veera Raghavan 2015

மழை, வெள்ளம், மனிதர்கள்

சென்னை வெள்ளம் என்ன செய்தது?

அனைவரையும் உடல்ரீதியாகவோ மனரீதியாகவோ புரட்டிவிட்டது பேய் மழையும் பெரு வெள்ளமும்.  மனிதர்களின் நிஜமான அவதியும் பரிதவிப்பும் சமூகத்தில் மற்ற மனிதர்களுக்கு நேரடியாகவோ பத்திரிகை டிவி மூலமாகவோ தெரியும்போது அந்த மற்றவர்கள் எப்படி சங்கடப்படுவார்கள் என்பதை சென்னை சொல்லி விட்டது. கடலூரும் காட்டிவிட்டது.

ஒன்று கவனித்தீர்களா? அருகில் நடந்ததாலும் தெரிந்தவர்களுக்கு நேர்ந்ததாலும் வெள்ள பாதிப்பு இல்லாதவர்கள் பலரும் – நகருக்கு வெளியில் வசிப்பவர்களும் – தாங்கள் குற்றம் செய்த மாதிரி மன வருத்தம் அடைகிறார்கள்.  அதற்கு நிவாரணமாக இன்னல் பட்டவர்களை நினைத்து இரங்குகிறார்கள், மற்றும் தங்களால் முடிந்த உதவிகள் செய்கிறார்கள்.

   பணம் கொடுக்க முடிந்தவர்கள் கொடுக்கிறார்கள். நல்லது. நேரத்தையும் உடல் உழைப்பையும் தந்து உதவ பலர் வருகிறார்கள். இன்னும் நல்லது.  நிவாரணப் பணிகள் நடக்கும் போது தடுக்கவும் தட்டிச் செல்லவும் வில்லன்கள் பல வழிகளில் செயல்படுவது பெரும் வியப்பல்ல. தமிழகத்தில் அவர்கள் எங்கும் வியாபித்திருப்பது அனைவருக்கும் தெரிந்ததுதான்.  ஆனால் உதவி செய்ய எத்தனிக்கும் மனங்களும் கரங்களும் நம்மைச் சுற்றி இந்த அளவுக்கு இருக்கின்றன என்பது பலருக்கும் ஆச்சரியமான விஷயம்.

தமிழ் நாட்டின் பெரும் துயர் துடைக்க இவ்வளவு பெரிய சேனை மனதளவிலும் செயல் வடிவிலும் இருக்கிறது என்றால் நம் பொது வாழ்வில் மட்டும் ஏன் இப்படி ஒரு சீரழிவு? இதற்கு ஒரு முக்கியமான காரணம் தோன்றுகிறது. அதாவது, ஊரில் வெள்ளம் எற்படுத்திய சேதமும் சாவும் நம் அனைவருக்கும் தெரிகிறது, புரிகிறது. இவற்றை யாரும் மக்களிடமிருந்து மறைக்க முடியாது. கொஞ்சத்தை மறைத்தாலும் தானாகத் தெரிவது ஏராளம். நம்மைச் சுற்றிய அவலம் சுரீர் என்று நமக்கு உறைக்கும் போது நம்மில் நல்ல மனம் உள்ளவர்கள் அதைத் தாங்க முடியாமல் அதைக் களைய நினைக்கிறார்கள், வருகிறார்கள். இவர்கள் தமிழகத்தின் சொத்து. ஆனால் பொது வாழ்வில் நடக்கும் தில்லு முல்லுகளும் கொள்ளைகளும் இவர்களை நசுக்கினாலும் – அவற்றால் இவர்களே நேரடியாக பாதிக்கப் பட்டாலும் – அந்த ஊழல் வெள்ளத்தையும், அதன் வேகத்தையும் அதை எற்படுத்தியவர்களையும் இவர்களால் சரியாக அடையாளம் காண முடிவதில்லை.   அதனால்தான் அவற்றுக்கு நிவாரணம் தேவை என்று கூடத் தோன்றாமல் இந்த விஷயத்தில் சொத்தையாக இருக்கிறார்கள். பேச்சுக்கு மயங்கி இலவசங்களுக்கு இளகி புரட்டி எடுக்கப் படுகிறார்கள். இவர்களுக்கு – அதாவது இவர்களின் சந்ததிகளுக்கு – நல்ல கல்வி கிடைத்து அது அவர்களுக்கு சேனையாக இருந்து அவர்களை பொது வாழ்வுப் பிசாசுகளிடமிருந்து காப்பாற்ற வேண்டும்.

தமிழக அரசுக்கு தற்போது மிகப் பெரிய சவாலான நாட்கள். கவலையான காலமும் கூட.  சென்ற தேர்தலில் ஆட்சியைப் பிடிக்கவில்லையே என்று ஆதங்கப்பட்ட எதிர்க் கட்சிகள் எல்லாம் “நல்ல வேளை. நாம் இப்போது ஆட்சியில் இல்லை” என்று மகிழ்வார்கள். ’தற்காப்பு முன்னெச்சரிக்கை நடவடிக்கைகளை பத்து நாட்களுக்கு முன்னதாக இந்த அரசு ஆரம்பித்து மழை-வெள்ளச் சேதத்தைப் பெருமளவு குறைத்திருக்கலாம்’ என்கிற விமரிசனமும் வருகிறது. வேண்டியதைச் செய்யாமல் முன்பு ஒரு அரசாங்கம் மாநிலத்தை இருட்டில் தள்ளியது என்றால் மற்றொரு அரசாங்கம் தலைநகரை வெள்ளத்தில் முக்கியதோ?

* * * * *

Copyright © R. Veera Raghavan 2015

What is Intolerance?

If I disagree with you on some issues, whether in private life or public sphere, can you call me ‘intolerant’ just on that score? If you do, you would be calling yourself intolerant too because you also disagree with me. 

We hear hundreds of voices now erupting in India, in varying shrillness, from the literary world, scientists and scholars, the media, Congress and other Opposition parties, and even show business, protesting against ‘intolerance’ by the present central government.  We are a politically sensitive nation – though not always sensible in that domain – and all segments of people have strong and divergent opinions about politicians and anything political.  So, if several persons in many fields are not quite pleased with the BJP coming to power at the Centre, that too with an absolute majority, especially with Narendra Modi as prime minister, their resentment will come on display.  If a charge of ‘intolerance’ is the maximum criticism they could make, they are patting the government indirectly.  But, without being aware, they are really raising some other concerns about the direction and maturity of our democracy.

If two political parties have conflicting views on a few key issues, that is not intolerance of one by the other.  They let themselves be judged by the people and get elected to govern or sit in the opposition.  That is how politics in a democracy goes.  If they do not respect their differences – i.e., submit their differences to the people and accept people’s verdict at the polls gracefully – they could be immaturely hating each other, and that is intolerance.  But then, that by itself is not worrisome.  What spells danger, and indefensibly torments others, are a ruler or ruling party committing serious ‘acts of intolerance’.  Three examples here illustrate the point. 

Mahabharata tells us that between two groups of Hindu princes who were cousins, the 100-strong Kauravas could not tolerate the rightful stake of their five Pandava cousins in the Hastinapur kingdom and they cunningly maneuvered to banish Pandavas from the country for long years and further forced a battle on Pandavas on their return before perishing in the end. Mohammedan invaders of India could not tolerate the subjects of their conquered land being Hindus and razed Hindu temples in thousands and forcibly converted multitudes of Hindus as Mohammedans.  Christian Adolf Hitler, Chancellor of Germany, hated Jews for their faith and put them to deprivation, inhuman torture and death.  So we see that actual ‘acts’ of intolerance, i.e., giving no room to differing persons and opponents and unjustly trampling them by deceit or brute force are the acts to be condemned and checked – not vague notions of intolerance perceived as an attitude in others.

What then are the actual ‘acts’ of the new central government which the Opposition parties, led by the Congress, have openly or slyly criticized?  One, Prime Minister Modi is “spending more time visiting foreign countries than tackling domestic issues”.  Assuming this has substance, obviously this is not what they mean by intolerance.  Second, Dr. Narendra Dabholkar, an anti-superstition activist of Maharashtra, and Dr. M. M. Kalburgi, a rationalist of Karnataka, were murdered – probably for their beliefs or for spreading their ideas – and Mohammad Akhlaq, a Muslim of Dadri in Uttar Pradesh, was beaten to death by a mob which suspected him of killing a cow and consuming its meat.  These are the acts which seem, at least to those who complain, to be intolerance, but let us enquire. 

Suppose pirates have a free run along India’s coast attacking our merchant shipping vessels and fishermen, who should be blamed? It is the central government and the party which rules at the Centre, and not any state government.  Why?  That is because dealing with ‘pirates and crimes committed on the high seas’ is in the charge of the central government, as per our Constitution, and a state government has no role there.  Likewise, when the Constitution prescribes that ‘public order’ – which includes solving the crimes that occurred in Karnataka, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh – is the sole responsibility of states, what follows is this. The central government is not answerable for those events, and the governments in those three states and their ruling parties at the time when those incidents occurred have to explain and take steps to bring the real culprits to justice swiftly.  This is plain and simple and requires no debate – surely not a hollow debate the Congress Party and a few intellectuals have opened now.

There are no other allegations against the present central government that amount to acts of intolerance.  The ruling party at the Centre may feel glad and relieved at this. But the spectacle before us has its tinge of sadness. 

As a political party, the BJP may pride itself for having won an absolute majority in Parliament after a hard fight at the polls in 2014, trouncing the Congress and many other parties.  But we cannot do away with the Opposition in a democracy. Presently the Congress Party is the strongest contender to be a good Opposition party in many states, and at the Centre too, in India.  Now is the time for it to conduct itself responsibly and with dignity, while re-connecting with the people in various ways – for example by being at the forefront actively in relief work where needed.  Going physically close to the people and talking to them with genuine concern will also shore up support for political parties among the vast numbers of simple-minded Indians.

What happens if the Congress Party harps on the issue of intolerance as it does now?  It will click only with those who support the Congress in their hearts.  It will serve as a hot topic for people who savour controversies for their daily diet of news but are going to vote as per their set preferences.  Print and electronic media will also have a good time.  But it does not really help the Congress to enhance its current circle of supporters.

Like it needs the BJP, the country needs the Congress too.  The Congress Party has a glorious past, which had leaders who made enormous personal sacrifices for India’s freedom. It should always have a widespread vibrant presence in India, including New Delhi.  The Congress owes it to itself, and to the nation, to grow back and do its bit to make democracy work and shine in India.  So the Congress should not lose its way over meaningless and temporary attractions in politics.  That could give way to narrow-minded regional leaders rising and capturing power in a coalition at the Centre as an alternative to the BJP in future – and who knows, delighted to keep each other at bay, they could again install a puppet prime minister like Deve Gowda who merrily ill-fitted that post earlier. That should be a concern of many whose hearts beat for India.

* * * * *

Copyright © R. Veera Raghavan 2015