Politics
USS Nimitz visiting? What’s the fuss?
The USS Nimitz, a nuclear-powered US aircraft-carrier has come to India. So, what’s the problem? Leftist and centrist political parties seem to think there is. Left parties claim that the visit is a move by Washington to bring New Delhi under its strategic umbrella. More here. To make this look even sillier than they already are, protesters are holding noisy demonstrations with slogans such as “Down with US Imperialism” and there is talk of US “Gunboat Diplomacy.” To me, it looks like the protesters are barking down the wrong well. If they must protest, there are plenty of other things to protest about. Like the war in Iraq, for example. Or the fact that 40% of Indians are illiterate. But no, the Communist Party of India and its Marxist counterpart are still citing Cold War-era actions in the protest against the USS Nimitz. The involvement of famous writers such as Arundhati Roy and Mahashweta Devi, far from lending credibility to the protests has served to make the whole thing look rather ridiculous. Talk on India’s foreign policy objectives from someone like Arundhati Roy seems just very out-of-place. With all due respect, Roy is a brilliant writer of fiction but know absolutely zilch about politics and international relations.
One of the most virulent objections to the arrival of the USS Nimitz is that it is a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and is capable of carrying nuclear warheads. The United States Navy had refused to confirm or deny the presence of nuclear warheads on the vessel, in accordance with their long-standing “say nothing” policy. The Indian Ministry of Defence has issued a statement saying that there is no known presence of nuclear warheads on the vessel. NGOs, forever ready to jump on to the bandwagon, have expressed concerns of leakage of nuclear waste in the Bay of Bengal. Now, that sounds hypocritical. On the one hand, India has nuclear ambitions and on the other, it pretends that all things nuclear are bad. The same people rejoiced and celebrated after nuclear tests at Pokhran in 1998. Where did concerns for the environment go then? All this protest about India abandoning its policy of non-alignment is redundant too. Communists still cite the ancient Panchasheel doctrine of the 1950s to criticise the government on its shifting foreign policy stance. Of course, they conveniently forget that the Panchasheel resulted in the 1962 war with China and in one of the worst defeats the Indian Army has ever suffered.
To me, these objections hold absolutely no water. Even if India is increasing military cooperation with the United States, I fail to see why this is such a bad thing. Is it not time we get out of the “we-represent-all-the-oppressed-third-world-countries” mindset and act like an emerging and responsible political player? India has claims to first-world status in the next 30 years. Should we not start with behaving as one on matters of international politics and stop exaggerating the intentions of the “American Imperialists”? Why would the US want to colonise India anyway? I firmly believe that India has a lot to gain by cooperating with the US on nuclear-technology, especially for energy-production and everything to lose by refusing to do so. The biggest cities in India suffer periodic power black-outs and struggle to cater to the needs of the burgeoning economy. The harsh truth is that we are in dire need of energy to keep our growth rate robust and economy healthy. Why should we not cooperate with the US and build a healthy and lasting political and military partnership with it? It is the biggest extra-regional power in the Indian Ocean and India will only stand to gain by cooperating with the US Navy. After all, we need to secure our maritime and continental borders too. If the US is helping us make our immediate strategic environment more secure, then what is the problem?
I do not believe that military cooperation with the US will result in the transfer of sovereignty or the loss of autonomy of the Indian Government. It will only help India secure its frontiers better in the long run and build a healthy relationship with what is arguably the world’s most powerful country.
Religious intolerance and fundamentalism
Recently, I came across a website called Challenging Islam. It was interesting from a purely academic perspective and so I bookmarked it, promising myself I would come back to it when I had the time. True to my promise to myself, I returned last night, and took the time to read the contents of the site. After pages and pages of rambling about Cuba and what-not, I came upon the library link. I clicked on it out of sheer curiosity. Very soon, I discovered that all the ‘articles’ spoke about how bad Islam was, how unjust and how violent. Now, many of these accusations would have held water if the writers did not refer continually to the Bible to show how ‘different’ and just and good it is. I tend to dismiss the authenticity of any claim that refers all the time to the Catholic Church as an example of the good and the just. Before I continue, I must make a disclaimer, so as to avoid accusations of heresy and Christian-baiting. I am not Muslim, nor am I Christian, nor Jew. In other words, I am not a person “of the book”. I will be criticising Islam, Christianity, Hinduism and every other religion in this post. This is not a personal attack against a single religion. Rather, it is an observation that I wish to make regarding the attitude of religion in general towards certain issues.
Now, on with it. The one article that drew my attention was on the position of women in Islam. This particular article talks of the relationship between the veil and rape. It claims that a “rape epidemic” is sweeping Europe and that a direct connection between rape and Islam is irrefutable. It goes on to demonstrate, using the words of Imams and scholars, that Islam exhorts men to rape women if they are unveiled. What the hell? No thinking individual, irrespective of his knowledge is Islam, will believe that claim for a single minute. No religion, however conservative, would call upon pious men to rape women for the sin of exposing their hair. This article is only one among many that claim that Islam is inherently anti-women and that the civilised Christian world must rise in protest against it.
This is where I started raising a series of objections. First, Islam’s interpretations are given by Imams and scholars, most of whom are men. Second, the Koran in itself may have undergone mutations over the centuries (don’t quote me on it, I am only guessing). Third, most of the people who criticise Islamic practices are Christian and tend to continually refer to the Bible as proof. Most people would agree that the Bible was not translated into English and other vernacular languages until the 8th Century. By then, the original Hebrew Bible went through many transformations. It was inaccessible to the lay public for centuries and the Catholic Church had complete control over its interpretation. The position of women in the world’s major religions is far from satisfactory. The Catholic Church still refuses to accept birth control and abortion that can empower women in more ways that one. Hinduism and its offshoots gave way to atrocious practices such as Sati. Women in Hinduism have long been treated as second-class citizens. A widow was forced to shave off her head and wear plain white, no matter how young she was, until the 1960s. The Christian Church, both Catholic and Protestant have been far from egaliatarian in their treatment of women since the Middle Ages. I don’t know much about Judaism and so will not comment on the treatment of women by the Jews. The point is, women have always been treated as second-class citizens by every religion. Most of the time, the fault lies, not with the religion texts themselves, but with the interpretation of these texts by priests and clergymen, most of whom were men.
Why then do we take the moral high-ground while discussing women in Islam and pretend that it is the only religion that treats its women badly? Why do we demonise Islam and denounce it in intellectual conversations while turning a blind eye to the discriminatory practices that exist in our own religion. To me, that is simple hypocrisy. The problem is never with religion. It is with the people who practise the religion and interpret it to suit their personal interests. If we must protest, we must protest against all discriminatory practices in all religions and stop demonising Islam. But then, that’s just my opinion. Maybe it is simply a politically-motivated campaign rather than a serious criticism of the status of women in religion. I do not know. Any answers are welcome.
Language, culture and politics
During one of my philosophical musings earlier in the day, I wondered how important language was to our lives. From language, my thoughts drifted to the anti-Hindi agitation of the 1960s in Tamil Nadu. And from there, it turned inevitably to the massive north-south divide that still exists in India. I had blogged once earlier on how difficult it was to find a south-Indian recipe on the web. I had raved and ranted about how India was automatically equated with the North and with Paneer Butter Masala and Tandoori Roti. Today’s post is, in a certain way, a continuation of the previous. People’s association of India with Delhi and its surroundings makes me uncomfortable. It makes me wonder why exactly the South is so conspicuously absent in popular memory. While I have nothing against the North or Delhi, it makes me upset, sometimes angry that people wonder if I speak Hindi the minute they meet me. I do, but that’s not the point. The point is that I don’t have to speak Hindi because I was born and raised in Chennai. There is no fair reason for me to learn the language as I get by perfectly well in Chennai with Tamil and English. This said, I would like to issue a disclaimer. I know Hindi, I can speak it fairly well, and simply use English words in place of Hindi ones if I am stuck. Therefore, any possible accusations of Hindi-phobia are entirely unfounded.
A friend of mine told me about a friend of hers, who is coming to France from Greece. This friend had a tough time figuring out the meanings of road signs in Athens because all of them were in Greek. Random thought: Maybe this is what people mean when they say “this is all greek to me!” Anyway, that made me think about the situation back home. As far as I have seen, sign boards are largely bilingual in Chennai. I cannot say the same about Bangalore or Bombay. I remember trying to recollect my Hindi numerals, rather desperately might I add, in Bombay because someone told me to take bus number 63 and I could not figure out how the hell the numerals 6 and 3 are written!
Anyway, this is fast becoming a pointless rant because I have been on this post for so long that I forgot what exactly I wanted to say. Not to mention that I am being extremely random today. Maybe it is a product of the euphoria produced because I am going back home!!
Of the Indian economy and human development…
Reading the news, especially news from India, seems to give me plenty of blog material. The latest in the series is this article from Statesman, Calcutta (oops! its Kolkata now!) stating that over 48% of all outbound investment is from the IT and the IT-enabled sector. The point of this post is not to debate the whys and wherefores of outbound direct investment by Indian companies and its mechanisms, but to wonder how far IT and ITeS can lead us as a nation?
I am not an economist and I will not debate the macroeconomic considerations behind calling India an emerging economy. As a student of Security Studies, I am more concerned with the issue of Human Security. And as a student of International Relations, I am more concerned about human development. So, here I am, asking the question I should have asked a few years ago during the BJP’s “India Shining” campaign. How far can IT take us when nearly 30% (maybe more) of India’s population is illiterate? What do IT, computers and Internet mean to the one-half of India that has no access to drinking water? And finally, how does IT ensure the security and well-being of the citizen, thus bringing into focus the issue of human security?
My immediate response to these questions is that it does not, in fact, contribute in any way to improvement of the lives of nearly 400 millions Indians who live below the poverty line. When I say this, I am not condemning IT or ITeS as unnecessary or pointless. I am simply observing that the money brought in by Indian multi-national companies (yes, they do exist) does not contribute effectively to improving the standard of living of the Indian masses. By masses, I do not mean the middle class and the upper middle class. I mean the real masses who live far away from bustling urban centres. It is easy for us, as Indians, to pat ourselves on the back for the rise of Indian multinational companies, not only in IT and ITeS, but also in other areas like steel, telecommunications and aviation. It is easy also to forget that India still ranks an abysmal 126 out of 177 countries, with a human development index of 0.611, according to the 2006 Human Development Report of the UNDP.
It is important to find out where we are going wrong. Indians often pride themselves on the excellent system of higher education that exists in India. We waste no time in reminding everyone that our IITs and IIMs are comparable to MIT and Harvard Business School. However, we tend to forget that the students of these IITs and IIMs are often from elite, private schools that offer world class secondary education. The HDR says that the combined gross enrolment ratio in primary, secondary and tertiary education is merely 63%. That means that nearly 40% or India’s population has never been to school. How does economic development help the nearly 500 million people who have never stepped into an educational institution?
The problem lies here. It lies in the education sector. An emphasis on higher education and the existence of heavily subsidised universities and colleges serves no purpose if 40% of the country’s population cannot afford access to the first 12 years of schooling that will help them get into these universities. The fees my parents had to pay during my school years clearly demonstrates this. When I was in Class 12, the final year of school, my parents paid nearly 10,000 rupees ($250) a year. This changed dramatically once I got to college. As I did history in an aided college, albeit autonomous, I paid something like 3000 rupees ($75) including maintenance fee that WCC charged for the upkeep of the campus. I would have paid about 700 rupees (less than $20) had I studied in a government college. At post-graduate level, my entire year’s expenses, including exam fee, were no more than 2500 rupees ($65) at the University of Madras. How are people supposed to get to the stage where the government pays for everything if they can’t afford the $250 a year for primary school in the first place? Government-run primary schools are so bad that even the lady who works for my mother as domestic help prefers a badly-run private school. In rural centres, the teachers rarely ever show up. In states like Bihar and Madhya Pradesh, schools are used to host local criminals and/or politicians. How will India ever really shine if primary education is so neglected?
I am not saying that economic development is a bad thing. In fact, economic development is essential to facilitate infrastructure building and education. However, the problem arises when higher education is given preferential treatment over primary education because of flawed government policy. The market in India does its job perfectly well: it creates wealth. The redistribution of the wealth thus created by ensuring access to basic public goods is the job of the government. Sadly, nothing seems to change in India. Every year, the Finance Minister offers sops to the IT sector and the services sector. But, no progress seems to be made on basic issues of health, sanitation and primary education. These are the primary issues that must be addressed if India intends to ever get to the position of a developed country.
The politics of religion
I was planning to post on existential philosophy over the next few days. But, I came across something in the Hindustan Times that spurred me on to posting earlier, and about a topic entirely different from existentialism. It was about the apology issued to the son of Congress politician Vyalar Ravi’s son, Ravi Krishna for some kind of purification ceremony conducted on him at the Guruvayoor Temple. For those who are as clueless about the issue as I was when I read that article, let me explain.
The Guruvayoor Temple, in Kerala in Southwest India is one of the most sacred Krishna shrines in the region. It is a beautiful temple, built in typical Kerala style and the idol of Krishna there is one of the cutest I have ever seen. Many families come to Guruvayoor for the rice-feeding ceremony for children. This means that the first solid food given to the infant must be rice and paayasam (a delicious milk-based Indian dessert) from the temple. It is popularly believed that the child will grow up to be healthy and live a long life. So far, so good. According to news reports, Ravi Krishna came to the temple for this rice-feeding ceremony for his kid. And the head priest ordered a purification ceremony on him because he was accompanied by his wife, who happens to be Christian. Naturally, Ravi Krishna was infuriated. I would have been if my religious affiliations were suddenly questioned because I am married to a Christian. He demanded an apology, which was eventually tendered by the temple management. The priest still refuses to apologise because according to him, he was “protecting the sanctity of the temple.”
That brings me to the reason for my rants. Quite apart from the fact that this incident only became public because the said Ravi Krishna is the son of a hot-shot politician, what infuriates me is the attitude of some people as the sole protectors of the Hindu religion. The regulations of the Guruvayoor temple clearly states that no non-Hindus are allowed into the premises. Not only that, certain types of clothes are not permitted inside the temple. I would not be allowed in if I were to wear a salwaar-kameez (a traditional north Indian dress). I would have to settle for a sari or a long skirt. Similarly, men are forced to wear dhotis. Heaven help them if they are not used to it and it slips off their waist!!
While the temple authorities have every right to restrict entrance to the temple, restrictions solely based on religion are simply not acceptable to me. It appeals to my sense of justice and every cell in my brain rebels against the practice. For long, I was told that Hindu temples only restricted entry because mosques did not permit access to non-Muslims. I actually believed that until I realised that most mosques only have rules of conduct within the building itself. Of course, you would be denied entry if you went there looking like the epitome of the Hindu mother goddess. Just like you would be denied entry if you entered a temple wearing a huge cross. That’s normal. But, in this case, I find it unjust that a random priest decides on whether a person is Hindu or not. From what I learnt, Hinduism is a philosophy, not a religion. What difference does it make what my certificates say if I believe in it? Why would someone who does not believe in it come all the way to Guruvayoor to feed his child? Is it not infinitely more practical to make your rice and paayasam at home? Finally, who is the head priest to decide on whether I am a believer or not? What gives him that power?
We take pride in the fact that Hinduism is all-inclusive. But, if it is indeed all-inclusive, why do we insist on clinging to age-old, bigoted and meaningless beliefs? It is my personal opinion that temples, being centres of spirituality, should open their doors to people of all faiths. So what if mosques in India don’t do it? Who said that religious tolerance and acceptance of the other should be reciprocal. Can’t we try to set an example?
PS: For original news item, click here.