Of War and Peace: Hypocrisy or Democracy?

AT 30 seconds past 9 minutes into this video, while Mr Obama acknowledges being a "direct consequence of Dr King's work" and walking on the steps of Mr King who had said "violence never brings permanent peace; it solves no social problem, it merely creates new ones" while accepting his Nobel Peace Prize, he goes on to say that he cannot sit quiet after being head of State, thereby supporting his warring (violent) route to install peace and his mantra that "war is sometimes necessary."

While this mantra may be true in its own essence, when it comes out of a powerful state such as the USA it exposes how poor its diplomatic abilities are and how weakened its peace-making abilities have become after the days of King and Gandhi, and especially so after existing nearly three centuries as a constitutional democracy.

By accepting that "war.. at some level is an expression of human folly" is Mr Obama hinting that some wars, especially those participated by the USA and other NATO allies are not consequences of human folly? Who is to decide - the NATO forces or Syrian civilians in this case? Will attacking Syria by air be so precisely selective so as to not inflict pain on any civilian and only impact the Syrian armed forces? Even if that precision was achieved does this set the right precedent to future attempts at correcting international wrongs and who needs to correct such wrongs? How is democracy being upheld in a nation (such as Syria that elects its own leaders) when its internal wrongs get corrected by external, unrelated, international and brutal pressures?

Time to stop this hypocrisy and talk about democracy as something that settles organically in the minds of people and as a bottoms-up process based on internal demand and the love for absolute self-rule.

The Legal Fortress around Hindi Imposition

Hindi and English are the lone official languages of the government of Republic India. This means ever since India became a sovereign democratic republic, promising to protect the interests of all its citizens, millions of people of non-Hindi background have been rendered as second grade citizens since their government does not deal in their language(s). This is Hindi Imposition in India summarized in a few lines.

With this kind of bias Government of India (GoI) has shown and even institutionalized towards Hindi language and (thereby) people who speak Hindi, and with the protection this institution has provided to Hindi speakers, it appears that Hindi speaking people are double insulated from adverse forces - being governed by a State government and pampered by the GoI both of which designed to favor Hindi people's rights - while non-Hindi people are left bare and helpless out there, exposed to adverse forces. In various circumstances, this is not a metaphor, but very close to reality indeed.

On the other hand, owing to the lack of protection by this institution, people living in non-Hindi States experience insecurity in their own country, with employment, food provision, primary health and even identity services catered to by the GoI being carried on a channel that only speaks Hindi apart from English. These services are freely assimilated by Hindi speaking people whereas they are indigestible to non-Hindi people of India. Be it in terms of getting their fundamental rights protected or even as far until protecting one's own lineage and having a non-decading population over time, lives of non-Hindi peoples of India are subject to substantial stress thanks to policies framed on unfair interpretations of our constitution, such as seen in The Official Language Act 1963.

Simple, yet tough, majority:
Interestingly, Article 368 of Constitution of India (CoI) rests the power to amend the statute in the hands of the parliament alone, whereas some specific parts of the constitution, including the lists in Schedule 7 and Article 368, cannot be amended without approval from a simple majority of State Legislatures. In the wake of an increased number of States being carved out, passing valid amendments to such sections of the CoI becomes a touch exercise to orchestrate - perhaps an outcome favorable to the central government that would like to retain more power with itself. As though in support of such intentions, Article 3 of the same constitution empowers the central govt to do just that - impede the process of State level opinion formation by fragmenting them. Talk about denial of fundamental rights, huh?

A pragmatic, solution oriented approach to the Hindi Imposition problem will call for amendments to Schedule 7 (the Union, State and the Concurrent lists) and some to the Official Language policy, which incidentally have been in demand since long time across the country. The center though has been successful in evading them or putting them off by means of various available interpretations of the constitution, and its protective and tricky fortress of articles that make it very difficult to achieve these essential amendments that will incorporate real federal features into our democracy.

In the backdrop of this sustained Hindi Imposition in India, it is important to see these pieces of law as blocking vital amendments required to stop this unfair imposition and to make way for equality among people of all Indian languages.

(Related read: Let this September open our eyes!)

Telangana and Tungabhadra: A Call for Democratic Uprising

Across the world, boundaries that decide the shapes of Districts or States or even Countries are usually drawn along lines of people's languages, lines of impenetrable geographical structures like mountains and lines drawn by river courses. An exception we see is in India where these widely accepted natural ways of creating boundaries for States are superseded by various actions of the Central Govt - actions that mostly help to remain victorious in elections and to continue centralizing power in Delhi.

While the first of these two intentions seems obvious enough - to retain power, not evil in itself, the second one dealing with increased centralization of power at the Center, stripping the constituent States of those very powers is certainly evil and goes against the spirit of Federalism and the spirit of Democracy. With this kind of superseding taking place in India it is hard for anyone to imagine that the States are indeed federal units in the union that is called India.

One particular comment heard about nations come to my mind in this context - The United States of America is a destructible union of indestructible States, whereas India is an indestructible union of destructible States. But I feel it is immaterial whether a union or a State is destructible or not as long as the responsibility of division and or creating a union rests in the hands of people living in it. But today there is so much confusion, especially in the minds of Telugu speaking people living in Andhra, that a decision either way is going to be a surprise to all of them! Welcoming in the case of some people and unwelcome in the case of others. But when a decision is taken by the people indeed, there is no possibility of surprises and there is no scope for friction to arise out of such decisions.



(source: mapsofindia.com)

Coming to State borders: In the case of the border near Raichur dividing land into Karnataka and Andhra, two rivers decide the contours of this border - the Tungabhadra and the Krishna. While the Krishna river decides the border towards the north of Raichur district, Tungabhadra decides its southern counterpart. The confluence of these two rivers happens inside Andhra at the Srisailam reservoir, within proposed Telangana. With the creation of Telangana State, remaining portion of current Andhra State will be stripped of its control over the Srisailam reservoir and thereby its vast water reserves and irrigation utility. Going by the mood among Telugus during this State reorganization, the new Andhra State may have to beg Telangana for waters that it once enjoyed by being part of the bigger Andhra State, but also faces the risk of Andhra eventually damming the Tungabhadra river flowing within its boundary before draining into Srisailam reservoir. Of course, in this eventuality, the real suffering is experienced by the river and its constituent life forms that are essential for the health of the river itself. At the same time, the Karnataka State runs the risk of a new dam downstream on the Tungabhadra which could lead to significant changes in the ecology of southern parts of Raichur district along the Tungabhadra. This story finds itself repeating with neighboring districts in Maharashtra in the case of Godavari river, which too, enters Andhra through Telangana before passing through Godavari districts in rest of Andhra.

Going back to State reorganization and the politics around it, it is sad to see such wide and deep impacts the politics of State formation could have. This needs to be opposed constitutionally, and the extreme powers of the Center (accorded by Art 3 of the Indian Constitution) to re-draw State borders and thereby gain higher control over States' administrative affairs needs to be questioned, toned down and powers returned to the State governments, which in turn have to do the due diligence of real public consultations before taking such important decisions.

Times, They're a Stoopin'!

The Times of India allowed this article to feature in its daily on July 24, 2013. A one line summary of this article would be this:

It's preposterous, in this context, to say that everyone living in Bangalore is expected to know Kannada. This is one more example of not much thought going into the production of schoolbooks.

The context being alluded to here is the appearance of some Kannada poems printed in Roman script in textbooks of classes 1 and 2. Oh! What a shocker, isn't it? What is? That the author, while talking about textbooks, makes a big mistake in relating the school going children that are taught Kannada to all the people living in Bangalore!

(Source: TOI)

While it is preposterous by itself for a national daily to be carrying such a lopsided report that sarcastically ridicules the State's education system and its appointed bodies, it is sad that it is based on the author's poor understanding of the teaching ecosystem within a school, or even within a city. The author summarily ignores, not even discounts, the vital role of teacher-to-teacher interaction at the school level, and in some cases even at the school district level. For anyone accustomed to the project-work style of teaching in many contemporary schools this should appear like another interesting project for kids to come back with their comprehension of the poems; the author conveniently sidelines all such creativity that a good teacher will anyway possess.

As if it were a given, the author assumes that English teachers in these schools do not know Kannada, neither that they communicate or even share rooms with teachers who know Kannada. How dangerous an assumption, if it were true, this is that it hints at the poorest state of affairs in schools that some of our own children are being educated in. It shows what kind of isolated dins we're sending our children into everyday, where teachers do not talk to one another, do not share lessons they learnt, nor do the schools communicate among themselves, do not evolve the best methods of teaching out of such basic collaborative means. What kind of future citizens (of this city?) are we making out of our children by indirectly providing such isolated wells as schools where one is supposed to learn the fundamental lessons for one's life?

If such assumptions of this author are indeed true, there need not be any doubt that these schools are designed to drive our children down the rotten lane of life. If untrue, I wonder what a national daily like TOI is doing by printing such articles time and again!?

What's there in The Manifest Manifesto

In these days when everyone is throwing his hat in the manifesto ring, I took a look at manifestos floated by some renowned political parties and here's my summary of what one could gather from them and how one can use them as a scale to measure the respective party's political validity in one's constituency. Especially in LA elections during May 2013.

So here is my take on a common man's thumb-rule to reading Political Manifestos:

1. If the manifesto is not in the people's language, junk it and the party. Even if it is a google translation!
2. If the manifesto speaks more in Crores of Rupees than Crores of People, that manifesto is a pack of lies. So is the party too.
3. If the manifesto uses ongoing projects to pat its own back then this party doesn't have a real vision of its own, thereby redundant and potentially unqualified. Escapist.
4. If the manifesto is overly creative, yet fails to touch upon seething local public issues, that manifesto is Elitist, and reflects a party that just doesn't care, but seeks power nevertheless. Junk it regardless of how qualified its candidates could be.
5. If a manifesto echoes your concerns and describes a way it would address your problems, and those of your neighbor, and those of their neighbors, and theirs, that is a manifesto to pick, and vote.

Point #2 above is of special importance because such manifestos that speak about expenditures talk about action under the Executive pillar of our polity. But an election is a time when we elect Legislators who are supposed to make, remove and amend laws in order to protect and serve their people. A party that fails to represent its legislative roadmap is determined to fail on its executive roadmap too. So one can rest assured of not getting those kilograms of rice for One Rupee!!

Point #3 shows how some parties are politically unqualified because they cant even be creative in dreaming projects in the manifesto either because their party's philosophy precludes that or they simply lack the vision to dream. These parties are escapist and inept.

Point #4 shows how some other parties are politically unqualified because of the divine apathy they seem to show towards local public issues that are burning down welfare in local societies. These parties prefer to create a new parallel dimension in public life that is numb to real social issues viz drinking water shortage & excessive waste generation and walk that dimension attracting like-minded numb souls.

These points express how important a democratic process it is to analyze manifestos of parties before deciding upon one's final choice. A manifesto has hitherto been reduced to a grand gala release function akin to other political meravaniges (processions) thereby sidelining the importance people need to attach to these manifestos that are manifestations of the future.

Now, who can come up with a manifesto like the point #5 above? It can only be those parties that have bloomed from among the people in that society, not instead those parties that claim to be national. These local parties see national interest through the lens of local interests while the parties presenting the junk manifestos have just held the scope other way round and see local interests being limited, not achieved, by national interests!


Come May 2013: Vote Local. Vote You.