WHO AM I?

I keep my home clean by throwing garbage out of the window!

I grumble about corruption in public life but do not mind bribing my way

- for a berth in a train!

- when a traffic cop cops me for a traffic violation!

- to get an errand done in a government office!

If I am a pedestrian I shout curses at the vulgar guys zipping across on glitzy motorcycles or in automobiles.

If I am in an automobile I curse the jaywalkers who do not give me the right of way for their lack of civic sense!

If I am on a two-wheeler I ride on pavements to zip through in jammed traffic!

I hate snobbery but do not mind dropping names to have my way or find a way out of every kind of situation!

I lament about caste and religious affiliations in general but look for a clansman or a kinsman in every group I join!

If somebody favours me because we are kinsmen, he has an admirable fellow-feeling. If somebody favours someone else because they are kinsmen, he is parochial; worse, “clansman / kinsman feelings are eating into the very vitals of our society”; and “what will happen to it?”

I am a debating warrior on the internet but too busy to attend a meeting of my ward /division that is called to discuss the poor state of civic amenities!

I complain about police brutality in general discussions but look for a contact to question my domestic help when I lose a small trinket at home!

I follow and participate in the internet debates as to who should be the president of the United States but do not know who represents my division in the civic corporation!

I castigate politicians for their venality but can not be bothered to caste my vote to cleanse the system!

I speak Pidgin-English when angry (or to make a strong point) in the accent of my mother tongue. In animated conversations, I keep switching between Pidgin-English and my mother tongue, often translating sentences from the one to the other and vice versa. I try to speak my mother tongue in a Pidgin-English accent, which I assume to be Yankee-American!

I tell my friends – with a sort of subdued pride - that my children can not speak my mother tongue as they are taught to speak English from early childhood! To prove a point I indulge in long chats with my children in Pidgin, mother tongue accented English. On many an occasion my friends had to helplessly endure the spectacle with a mirthless grin!

I traduce exhibitionism but can not attend a party except in a Van Heusen or a Louis Philippe suit that is neither brand new nor more than six months old!

If I keenly ‘look’ at a beautiful woman in a gathering I appreciate beauty; I have an aesthetic sense. If someone else does it, I wonder, the fellow hasn’t lost his lecherous ‘look’ even at his age!

If a co-worker achieves greatness in India I would do everything to demean it; if an expatriate achieves greatness in America I would do everything to trace his roots to claim kinship!

If I got a coveted promotion, the company recognizes merit and hard work; if my competitor got it

- he has been shamelessly placating the boss at every opportunity!

- he is related to the boss’ wife!

- he is the boss’ clansman!

In India I dream of emigrating to America, to earn and conserve dollars for an easy life. In America I slog for a dream of a visit to India to splash rupees.

In America I eat pizzas and burghers but yearn for idli-sambar and mirchi-bajjee; in India I eat pizzas and burghers because I am bored with idli-sambar and mirchi-bajjee!

In America, I whine about having to work by the clock. In India, I whine about people not being serious about anything but taking it easy!

As a person of Indian origin, I behave like an American in India and - well, as an Indian in America or Australia or England or New Zealand!

My kinsmen in India seem to think that I am putting on the dog because I behave like an American in India.

Sociologists in India seem to think that I get into trouble in America because I behave like an Indian in America!

[By the by sociologists are those guys who

- (a) can theorize on social behaviour about anything and everything including Abhishek-Aishwarya marriage to idols drinking milk to elections in Gujarat to Maoist violence

- (b) freely deliver their theories when pretty television anchors invite them for a discussion and

- (c) deliver them exactly in a manner the PTAs want them to!]

I complain about racism in America (or Australia or wherever I domicile) but seek a fair-skinned, same caste (Oh! I am ‘so’ broad-minded, I am not ‘so’ particular about sub-caste!), same language - needless to say same religion - 5’ 6’’, liberal-minded (whatever it means) below 29 years-old girl to marry!

OH! I AM A COMMON MAN - A DEMOCRATIC CITIZEN OF INDIA THAT IS BHARAT!

M. F. HUSSAIN – SECULAR HOLY COW OR MARKET-DRIVEN PEDDLER?

ART IS BIG BUSINESS

The organisers of India Art Summit 2008 decided to exclude MFH’s paintings from the displays for fear of protests by Hindu organisations. Even in the 2009 summit MFH’s paintings were officially excluded. The exhibition was conducted between August 22 & 24 last year at Pragati Maidan in New Dlehi.

After this SAHMAT (Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust) went ahead and conducted its own exhibition of MFH’s paintings. Some Hindu organisations did protest and reproductions of some paintings were reportedly damaged.

The secular brigade was up in arms against the government for not being able to protect an international art exhibition.

For the left-wing (euphemism for communist-backed, anti-Hindu) SAHMAT it is routine to mark its protest against activities of Hindu organisations.

However, the narrative is not as simple or innocent as it seems.

For the organisers of India Art Summit, the stakes are high, for art is big business. Art pieces are high value currency in the world of billionaires. Art, art valuations, restoration of antique art pieces, forgeries, espionage and intrigues - all comprise a multi-billion dollar industry.

Hammer MS & L, the organisers of the India Art Summit, say media reports, estimated the Indian Art market to be of the order of Rs 1500 crore in 2008 and growing at a phenomenal 35% year on year. Also according to these reports Phillip Hoffmen who owns sixteen art funds across the world averred that twenty billionaires - with deep pockets and willing to splash $ 100 million (Rs 450 crore) each - were prowling the world art markets.

A possible disruption of high commerce might have forced the organisers of the art summit to exclude MFH’s paintings. Could the same market forces be driving the media frenzy in the subject?

MEDIA DEBATES

There have been ‘debates’ in Indian news channels on the eve of M. F. Hussain’s ninety-fourth birth day and after news about Indian government’s efforts to bring back M. F. Hussain from a self-imposed exile in Dubai was reported. Ostensibly the debates were to discuss about freedom of expression, government's inactivity to intervene to protect the organisers in holding the India Art Summit and MFH’s court cases.

That the media debates were purely one-sided needs no mention. Chandan Mitra on NDTV and Praful Goradia on Times Now, presumably invited to voice the Hindu view point were not allowed to get in a word edgewise. They were there merely for form.

Akhil Sibal, M. F. Hussain’s high profile lawyer had the run of the debates on two channels. Looking suitably modest for a victor in two courts and a heart bleeding for the cause of freedom of expression, he wallowed with pity for a civil society that has not been standing up for freedom of expression - for his client.

Poornima Sethi, who represented one of the petitioners in the Delhi High Court, or Vinayak Dixit, Nishant Katneshwarkar, Sunil Kumar Verma advocates who argued the case in the Supreme Court were conspicuous by their absence! If they were invited, their presence or participation – if indeed they were allowed to participate - would have complicated the debate/s.

In another debate, Seshadri Chari was roundly snubbed by Anjolie Ela Menon who refused to even consider his view point. A while ago, Menon announced her secular credentials, when in a Letter to the Editor of Outlook – obviously celebrities too write letters to the editors - she took umbrage against the former CEC, Gopalaswamy for wearing the ‘thirunamam’ on his forehead, but that is another matter. For her, Hussain was doing along fine in Dubai enjoying himself with fast cars, chaperoned by fast girls (the channel showed a clipping) and is not very keen to come back.

A pearl of wisdom she dropped for the benefit of viewers was that Hindu gods and goddesses were never clothed till Raja Ravi Varma came along and clothed them! All those descriptions in scriptures, of gods and goddesses wearing silken robes and ornaments studded with precious stones were made up by the twenty-first century ‘Internet Hindutva brigade’ the new foil for the ‘Sangh Parivar’ in the lexicon of left-liberal intelligentsia!

The debates on the issue, in general, were replete with half-truths and untruths freely bandied about and to use Richard Nixon’s famous quote, fairly economised with the truth!

FREQUENTLY RAISED ISSUES

I: The paintings are not viewed by many. In fact they are for the delectation of a minuscule minority who have a taste for them. Why should the majority object to them?

Fact: The test of minuscule-minority consumption could equally be applied to recreational drugs. Should we legalise them?

I: There are erotic sculptures in Hindu temples. Why should people object to erotic art?

Fact: Only a handful of temples out of the millions that exist in the country contain erotic art. The Hindus do not worship these sculptures but they do Durga, Saraswathi and Sita, the subjects of Hussain’s nude paintings. The antecedents of erotic bas-reliefs in temple architecture are social and not religious.

I: A group of eminent persons nominated MFH for an award of the Bharat Ratna.

Fact: They seem to have done this more to express their solidarity with MFH under attack from the aggrieved Hindus than with any serious intent.

Would they – or other champions of freedom of expression like SAHMAT - be willing to nominate Dan Brown or Tasleema Nasrin for a Sahitya Akademy award or the Danish cartoonist for a similar honour?

For the record, this article does not support either the American novelist or the Bangladeshi writer or the Danish cartoonist inasmuch as they hurt the religious sentiments of Christians or Muslims.

I: MFH has not painted any Hindu gods or goddess - in the nude – in the last thirty or forty years. The current imbroglio is because of purely political reasons and nothing else.

Fact: The information super highway, popularly known as the internet is less than fifteen years old, at least in India. MFH’s paintings were displayed on his website, http://www.mfhussain.com/, which is currently not accessible, presumably because it has been withdrawn. Quite a few who are aghast at MFH’s paintings were able to reproduce them on other websites, to show how offensive they were.

If one were to pose a hypothetical question, if someone committed a heinous crime thirty or forty years ago which has come to light only now, should he be exonerated on the score of the crime’s antiquity?

Fact: MFH did a painting for Deccan Chronicle which the paper published on March 8, 2009 on the occasion of the International Women’s Day. The painting was entitled ‘Shakti’. In order to remove any doubt that the woman in the painting was of an urban professional by name Shakti - but of the goddess Shakti­ - the woman was shown standing astride a tiger. However, this time Hussain deigned to clothe the goddess – in a tee-shirt, jeans and shoes, probably as a concession to the Internet Hindutva brigade!

I: MFH considers nudity as the purest form of expression.

Fact: Does it mean MFH does not find purity anywhere else except in Hindu gods and goddesses.

I: The Supreme Court of India heard and dismissed criminal cases against MFH. As the SC is the court of last resort in India everyone should respect its judgement and let the matter rest.

Fact: The SC has pronounced its judgement in an appeal against a Delhi High Court judgement. The DHC judgement pertains to several criminal cases transferred to it by the SC and not against MFH’s paintings in general (see below).

According to the SC record (accessible from the internet), the apex court ‘Heard’ and ‘dismissed’ the Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).6287/2008 on September 8, 2008.

Any thing else reported in the media is an obiter dictum, (dicta in plural), an opinion voiced by a judge that has only incidental bearing on the case in question and is therefore not binding.

The following observations of the CJI were obiter dicta: “There are so many such subjects, photographs and publications. Will you file cases against all of them?” and “It (Husain’s work) is art. If you don’t want to see it, then don’t see it. There are so many such art forms in the (Hindu) temple structures.” The secular media latched on to these obiter dicta and widely publicised them.

[The DHC judgement, while summing up the status of obscenity laws in various countries explains Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code (1860) and lists certain exceptions to its applicability. One of these relates to “any representation sculptured, engraved, painted or otherwise represented on or in - (i) any ancient monument within the meaning of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act,1958 (24 of 58), or (ii) any temple, or any car used for the conveyance of idols, or kept or used for any religious purpose.”]

If a statute contains certain exceptions, does it not follow that the exceptions could not be or should not be used as precedents in defence of alleged violations of the selfsame law? Were not these very same erotic representations in engraved sculptures in ancient monuments, archaeological sites and remains - which are listed as exceptions in the statute - used as the principal alibi for defending the nude paintings of gods and goddesses? The supreme irony of the situation seems to have been lost on all stakeholders in the dispute!

Another instance of obiter dictum is Justice Markandeya Katju’s observation, “Talibanisation of the country cannot be permitted” in the recent case of Md. Salim a class X student vs. Nirmala Convent School (in Madhya Pradesh's Vidisha district). Md. Salim was rusticated by the school for refusing to remove his beard. He approached the HC and then the SC both of which dismissed his case. On a revision petition, the judge apologised for his obiter dictum and excused himself from the case. The revision petition was heard by another bench which ruled in Md. Salim’s favour.

I: The Delhi High Court exonerated MFH of all culpability in all the criminal cases filed against him.

I: While dismissing the criminal cases, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul of the DHC observed, “A painter at 90 deserves to be in his home painting his canvass!”

Fact: On a petition by MFH the SC transferred cases in various courts (Pandharpur, Maharashtra; Rajkot, Gujarat; Indore and Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh) to the DHC to be heard together.

Many complainants of the original cases were not able to appear before the DHC. This is probably because the complainants in remote locations can not afford to engage high profile lawyers who charge by the clock to fight cases in far away Delhi.

For the wealthy MFH there were no such constraints and he was able to engage a battery of the best lawyers in Delhi.

Fact: The secular media picked up the last sentence of the 130-paragraph, 29-page judgement and went to town with it, as if the rest did not matter. The following observations of the Honourable Justice were airbrushed:

“In my considered view, the alleged past misconduct of the petitioner cannot have any bearing on the present case because there has been nothing which has come on record to prove the converse.

“It is made clear that the paintings depicting Hindu Gods / Goddesses in nude by the petitioner do not form a subject matter of the present case and as such the learned counsels have been unable to bring to the notice of this court any cases/complaints pending or decided in this regard to go against the petitioner.

“The persons who may feel aggrieved by those set of paintings have an appropriate remedy in law to get their rights redressed.

“Hence, commenting on those paintings would be prejudging the said paintings and passing a verdict on the same thus prejudicing the rights of the accused/petitioner.” (Para 103)

I: On what grounds could the DHC judgement be faulted or termed flawed?

Fact: The following sources the learned judge used as reference points for drafting the judgement are indicative of a certain ideological perspective.

1. Excerpted from Hindutva: Exploring the Idea of Hindu Nationalism, Jyotirmaya Sharma, Penguin Books India, Viking, accessible from: http://www.hinduonnet.com/lr/2003/12/07/stories/2003120700100100.htm.

2. Love and Lust - An anthology of Erotic Literature from Ancient and Medieval India; Pavan K. Verma Sandhya Mulchandani; Harper Collins Publishers. 2004.

3. Prudes take charge in India, The Independent (London), Jun 7, 1998; Peter Popham accessible from:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19980607pnum=2andopg=n14161393.

The Hindu of Madras and The Independent of London are known to be staunchly left-leaning. In many instances, The Hindu refused to entertain alternative view points even in its Letters to the Editor columns. As for Pavan K. Verma, it is a well known fact that in India it is difficult for any except the left-leaning authors to be published.

Fact: Seventeen of the twenty sources cited by the learned judge are from internet sources. Therefore the omission of the following pertaining to a case which is an exact parallel to the instant case was surprising:

1. Freedom of religion and other beliefs. (1994). Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, (13470/87) [1994] ECHR 26 (20 September 1994). Accessible from: http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/religion/Otto.html

2. Otto Preminger Institute V Austria. (1994). Otto Preminger Institute v. Austria. ARTICLES: 10; 26. Accessible from: http://www.mediator.online.bg/eng/ottopr_e.htm

Fact: The DHC judgement seems to have largely relied on the following internet source

Freedom of Art under seige In India. Pallabi Ghosal, accessible from: http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/re_ind.htm.

The typo in ‘siege’ is as in the website. The article was written by Pallabi Ghosal - 4th year NLIU, Bhopal, presumably a fourth year law student of NLIU, Bhopal at the time. The quote from Pablo Picasso, the references to Shiva Linga as Prakruti and Purusha, erotic representations in temple architecture, and some of the cases cited in the judgement - are from this article.

Fact: The DHC judgement explains at length Article 19 of the Constitution of India which provides for freedom of expression. Clause (2) of the article “allows the State to impose restriction on the exercise of this freedom in the interest of public decency and morality.”

The judgment comments on this: “A bare reading of the above shows that obscenity which is offensive to public decency and morality is outside the purview of the protection of free speech and expression, because the Article dealing with the right itself excludes it.” (Para 46 & 47)

“Obscenity without a preponderating social purpose or profit cannot have the Constitutional protection of free speech or expression. Obscenity is treating with sex in a manner appealing to the carnal side of human nature or having that tendency. Such a treating with sex is offensive to modesty and decency.” (Para 67)

It is difficult to reconcile these observations with the conclusion of the judgement. For instance, how could one conclude that the paintings in question do not offend public decency and morality; they achieve the preponderating social purpose or profit and do not appeal to the carnal side of human nature or having that tendency?

And why was the following plea of the respondents brushed aside? “The valuable and cherished right of freedom of expression and speech may at times have to be subjected to reasonable subordination to social interests, needs and necessities to preserve the very core of democratic life preservation of public order and rule of law” (Para 83)

EPILOGUE

In August 2009, Yale University Press in the US published a scholarly work entitled, “The Cartoons that Shook the World” by Professor Jytte Klausen. In spite of protests from Yale alumni and the American Association of University Professors, the publishers of the book felt obliged to expunge reproductions of the cartoons along with all other images of Prophet Muhammad.

Nearer home, the Indian government did its best to scuttle the production of the movie, ‘Indian Summer’ based on the historical work, ‘Indian Summer: The Secret History of the End of an Empire’. This was because the portrayal of the well documented Nehru-Edwina romance would hurt the personal sentiments of one family.

In the case of YUP, it was pragmatism that drove it to expunge objectionable material. In the case of the Indian government it was sycophancy that drove it to placate to the ego-centrism of a family.

Should not the sentiments of a billion Hindus count in the debate on freedom of expression? The debate in general does not seem to have addressed some fundamental questions:

· Is artistic freedom absolute? Or, are there no limitations to artistic freedom?

· Could a painter ‘express his adoration for the highest form of purity’ by ‘painting’ a living being - a celebrity for instance?

· Or, does an artist’s ‘expression for the highest form of purity’ applies only to Hindu gods and goddesses?

· What about the freedom of expression of those who are offended by MFH’s paintings?

· Do they or do they not have the freedom to practice their religion with dignity?

Further Reading:

Artistic Freedom & Social Responsibility, accessible from:

http://voxindica.blogspot.com/2007/06/artistic-freedom-social-responsibility.html

Deccan Chronicle Apologises - Hussain Doesn't! accessible from:

http://voxindica.blogspot.com/2009/04/oscar-awards-ceremony-this-year-was.html

Obiter Dicta on Artistic Freedom & Social Responsibility, accessible from:

http://voxindica.blogspot.com/2008/09/did-delhi-high-court-grant-m-f-hussein_13.html

NOBEL FOR OBAMA – DOWNSIDE FOR INDIA?

At about this time last year Obama was still campaigning, sweeping the world and his opponents in the floodtide of his ornate verbal imagery.

The Indian media did not have enough of Obama’s election campaign and presidential inauguration. It was as if the election happened right here and not thirteen thousand kilometres (eight thousand miles) away. We are, as a people, given to paying obeisance as courtiers to kings and emperors, sahibs and gora sahibs and the neo-Moghal dynasty that has been ruling post independence. It comes naturally to us.

There would have been an encore this year after the rather stunning and clichéd ‘breaking’ news that emanated from Oslo. Only the sceptical western world spoiled the game. They did not join us in the balle-balle bhangra to celebrate Obama’s prize. If they did, we would no doubt have found a link to expropriate him - his great-grandfather’s uncle’s niece’s brother-in-law and an Indian expatriate being neighbours. ‘Why, they used to share samosas and bhang during Holi revelry!’

On October 9, the day the story broke, the lead story on TIMESONLINE (the online edition of the London Times) was ‘Top ten Nobel Prize rows’. The story listed the controversies that dogged the Prize. For example in 1939 Hitler was nominated by a Swedish parliamentarian but he withdrew it later. In 1973 the prize was awarded to Le Duc Tho and Henry Kissinger for working towards peace in Vietnam. Two Nobel judges resigned after international protests and Le Duc Tho refused the prize on the ground that peace was not a reality in Vietnam. In 1994 the prize was awarded to Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin and Simon Peres for working towards peace in the Middle East. There is still no sign of peace there.

The British paper did not mention the sacrilegious omission of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi from the Nobel roster. The Mahatma was nominated five times between 1937 and 1948. The Nobel peace committee did apologise for its oversight and as reparation did not declare a winner in the year of his assassination. The prize is not awarded posthumously.

The TIMESONLINE lead story was followed by an article entitled ‘Comment: absurd decision on Obama makes a mockery of the Nobel peace prize’ by Michael Binyon. He wrote that the award would be met with ‘widespread incredulity, consternation’ and ‘deep embarrassment’ for Obama himself. He further said that ‘Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent’ and that ‘…the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office.’ The post was cheered with the resonance of 242 readers within hours. One of them felt that ‘The prize itself became meaningless when it was awarded to (Yasser) Arafat. Who cares?’

In his ‘The Prize’ (1961) Irving Wallace listed in detail the hits and misses, the politics and intrigues and many minutiae that abound in the saga of the world’s most coveted prize. It appears the Nobel Committee ignored Albert Einstein’s famous theory of relativity but rewarded him for his relatively less important work in photo-electric effects to compensate for its oversight, eight years later.

Alfred Nobel was explicit in expressing his wish “that in awarding the prizes no consideration whatever shall be given to the nationality of the candidates, so that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be Scandinavian or not.”

Nobel judges seem to have contravened this provision of Nobel’s will on many occasions for political reasons or personal predilections. Thus for example in the literature section, great writers like Marcel Proust, Ezra Pound, James Joyce, Louis-Ferdinand Céline, Vladimir Nabokov, Jorge Luis Borges, August Strindberg, John Updike, Leo Tolstoy, Henrik Ibsen, Émile Zola, Mark Twain, Anton Chekhov and André Malraux did not make the prize. On the other hand, light weight and virtually unknown writers like Gabriela Mistral and Pearl Buck were honoured.

Nobel willed that the beneficiary for the peace prize, “the champions of peace be decided by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting” and be given “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

A gora sahib, asked for his comments on an Indian news channel, answered that the prize to Obama was like ‘awarding an Oscar to a director who is yet to make a film!’

What then are Barack Obama’s likely objectives to be eligible to encash his ‘post-dated cheque’? And what are the chances of his achieving them?

Objective: Ensuring that North Korea and Iran do not conduct missile and nuclear tests.

Chances of achieving: Highly unlikely. Ally Pakistan and foe-turned-friend China empowered North Korea in nuclear and missile technology. North Korea remains defiant to international pressure and insists that she would continue testing. Ditto Iran, which too remains defiant.

Objective: Finding a solution to the Palestine conundrum and achieving peace in the Middle East.

Chances of achieving: Highly unlikely. For historical and internal political reasons, America can not ruffle Israel. Therefore any solution that is not acceptable to Israel is foreclosed. Al Qaeda and Taliban founded and nurtured by allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia will keep the pot boiling.

It is the old story twice told. The first time it was the Iran-Contra affair. The second time it was Al Qaeda and Taliban, one-time allies in containing the former Soviet Union, recoiling on the US.

There is a strange irony in the tale. Before and during the Second World War, the allies borrowed heavily from America. After the Second World War the allies levied reparations on Germany for starting the war. Germany borrowed from America to pay the reparations to the allies who in turn used the money to repay their debts to America. Now America aids Pakistan to fight Al Qaeda and Taliban. Pakistan uses the aid to fund Al Qaeda and Taliban which fight America and India.

Objective: Closer relations with Russia.

Chances of achieving: Achievable. It is in Russia’s interest to cosy up to the US to galvanise its economy.

Objective: Finding a solution to the ‘Kashmir’ dispute.

Chances of achieving: Although India insists that it is a bilateral dispute a pliant Indian administration may willy-nilly succumb to Obama’s subtle charms.

Objective: Ensuring India tows the American line on NPT and CTBT.

Chances of achieving: Friend Manmohan Singh is the last resort for Obama to help him redeem his Nobel cheque - figuratively speaking.

The downside for India: There will be intense pressure on the Indian administration to sign the NPT and CTBT without seeking recognition as a nuclear weapons state.

By signing the Indo-US nuclear deal India has locked itself into a Hobson’s choice. The deal does not recognise India as a nuclear weapons state, contrary to India’s claims / understanding. The problem that India faces is not just in resisting pressures to sign the discriminatory NPT.

Following disclosures of the failure of the 1998 fusion test, at some future time or other India will have to conduct another test to build credible nuclear deterrence (or MAD for mutually assured destruction). However, testing is likely to annul the deal.

In the earlier article, Indo-US Nuclear Deal Demystified (September 17, 2008), Vox Indica fully supported the deal. Now there seems to be reason to revise this position.

An LeT operation in J&K and a detention in the US

The following is the transcript of INTV’s Primetime News Debate on August 15, 2009. The day was quite eventful. A group of LeT terrorists surrounded, Pulwanpur, a border village in J&K holding its entire population hostage. Indian security forces launched a counter attack to free an estimated 500 inhabitants of the village. After a fierce gun battle lasting more than twenty four hours, the army finally succeeded in doing this but in the operation, Major Pritam Singh, Capt. Harish Kumar and nine jawans were killed.

As a discussion on the subject was under way news about Shah Rukh Khan’s detention in a US airport filtered in. The channel was able to switch debates with great alacrity. It was able to rope in pop sociologists, quack historians, and charlatan celebrities of the film world at short notice - for the more momentous of the two issues, to wit, Shah Rukh Khan’s detention.

The debate was moderated – as usual - by INTV’s popular news presenter Rani Bansal. With characteristic élan, Rani Bansal led everyone up the garden path to steer the discussion in a direction that is in line with the channel’s political philosophy and worldview.

Rani Bansal: Welcome to Primetime News Debate! The incident is in some ways comparable to the siege of Mumbai last November which is still green in our minds. Viewers would remember that it was this channel – and only this channel - which scooped the news about Indian government’s clandestine negotiations with the terrorists who held the city hostage, although the government disowned it.

Is the current siege, which has mercifully ended, another instance of failure of the intelligence agencies or of the security forces? Would we ever be able to secure the country from terrorist attacks that seem to have become such a constant feature of our lives? Or do we meander from one incident to another after routine condemnations and futile discussions?

In order to discuss the issue and its implications we have with us in the studio Ramesh Kumar, Spokesman of the Congress, Shiv Shankar Spokesman of the BJP and Farah Khan, political commentator and columnist. Maj. Gen. Bahdur Singh former GoC-in-C, Northern Command of the Indian army and A. S. Sharma former IB Chief will join us on video link in a little while.

To begin with, Farah, we have had a peaceful election in J&K which has seen the largest turnout in recent years; even the separatists did not call for a boycott. J&K’s young and dynamic chief minister seems inclined to reach out to the exiled Pandits. Viewed against this backdrop, do you think elements from Pakistan want to keep the cauldron boiling, as it were, in the current incident? Or is it a feature of the twenty first century global phenomenon called jihad which of course does not have any religion?

Farah Khan: The issue of the Pandits has been highly romanticized. Over the years, they seem to have settled down to a steady rhythm of life in the camps, prospering as cooks and cleaners with the more enterprising among them even hawking samosas on pushcarts.

Shiv Shankar: To me, the remark about the Pandits seems gratuitous…

Rani Bansal: (Intervening) Ramesh Kumar, do you think the government’s handling of the event leaves it open to criticism.

Ramesh Kumar: I speak for the Congress party and not for the government, (a), and (b) having said that I must say that the government’s handling of the issue has been exemplary. Under the guidance of the Congress president, Shrimathi Sonia Gandhi - and of course the prime minister - our security forces have launched a swift counter-offensive and Pulwanpur is now freed.

Shiv Shankar: (In sotto voce, for he knows he would no be allowed to make the remark anyway) Does the Congress president guide the security forces?

Rani Bansal: (Ignoring Shiv shankar) Farah, do you think the government has adequately countenanced the views of the Kashmiri people in handling the siege?

Shiv Shankar: Rani, you talk of Kashmiri people as if they are distinct from Indian people. There are no more Bengali people, Bihari people or Tamil people than Kashmiri people. Aren’t we all Indian people?

Rani Bansal: (Cuts in with an expression of barely concealed disdain and tolerance for Shiv Shankar’s impudence) I am afraid I have to interrupt the discussion at this point. There is breaking news filtering in. It appears Shah Rukh Khan has been detained at the New Jersey Airport in the US. Some might argue that it was a mere security check, but that is the nub of the discussion.

(Poor Maj. Gen. Bahdur Singh and A. S. Sharma who have been waiting in the wings to have their say have now been stood down without ceremony. And Major Pritam Singh, Capt. Harish Kumar and the nine jawans that were killed in Pulwanpur were dumped on the wayside.)

We have on the phone line Pramod Nadkarni the famous sociologist from Mumbai, Krishna Pahad, historian and author of several historical works from Delhi and also the award winning, ‘celebrity’ film director Suresh Karat from Mumbai to discuss the subject with us. We’ll begin with Pramod Nadkarni…

Rani Bansal: Pramod Nadkarni, Rani Bansal here. If you can you hear me, what do you deduce from Shah Rukh Khan’s detention in the US?

Pramod Nadkarni: You know post nine-eleven the (Americans’) characteristic swagger has given way to a sense of collective paranoia in their psyche. Shah Rukh Khan’s detention has to be viewed in the light of this metamorphosis and runs true to form.

Rani Bansal: Krishna Pahad, if I may turn to you, why would America, arguably the most liberal society in the world resort to intimidating someone like Shah Rukh Khan?

Krishna Pahad: I think it is a misconception. America has a long history of segregation based on colour and race. If the practice of apartheid was de jure in South Africa it was de facto in America till about fifty years back. A society steeped in such prejudices is unlikely to transform in so short a time – historically speaking. The shock of nine-eleven has had to merely scratch the surface and expose the sub-stratum smugness that is deeply engrained in the collective psyche.

(History is more intelligible than sociology. Therefore we can to some extent make out what Krishna Pahad meant, although he may have had a personal axe to grind – he was recently denied entry to the US after being first granted a visa, for some reason. The defenders of Narendra Modi need not be too dejected. It appears the test of ‘secularism’ as it is understood in India does not seem to be the only criterion for the Americans to reject visas.)

Rani Bansal: Suresh Karat, you have directed Shah Rukh Khan in several films; if you have been following the discussion, do you see in the incident a streak of racial profiling?

Suresh Karat: Detaining a person merely because his name happens to be of a particular religion is reprehensible. Shah Rukh Khan is not merely an actor. He is a national icon, and a secular one at that. As a secular society we should all condemn it with one voice. If we do not do this now, we would be playing into the hands of the Hindu fundamentalists at home and destroying the ethos of our composite culture.

(Any discussion involving America, Americans and terrorism should invoke nine-eleven. Any one answering to the label of ‘expert’ has to say something without actually saying anything or utter Gobbledygook. Any one answering to the label of ‘celebrity’ has to invoke concepts like ‘secularism’ and ‘composite culture’ irrespective of the context. Thus all three on the panel, to use Pramod Nadkarni’s pithy phrase, ‘run true to form’.)

Rani Bansal: I am afraid we have completely run out time. Thank you, Pramod Nadkarni, Krishna Pahad and Suresh Karat for joining in the debate and sharing your views. Until next time then…

N.B: The transcript is based on an imaginary interview. All the events and characters mentioned in it are fictitious and any resemblance to real life persons or events is coincidental. The only exception is Shah Rukh Khan’s detention by the immigration authorities at the New Jersey airport in the US, which was widely reported in the media.

Deccan Chronicle Apologises - Hussain Doesn't!

There is a quaint mix of irony in the features that Deccan Chronicle front-paged on February, 24 and March 8 this year and their sequels. And the contrast couldn’t be as stark. The occasions were, in the first instance, a British film and an Indian music director winning the American Oscars this year and in the second the celebration of the international women’s day. In the sequels the paper apologised to two communities with a degree of variance. The artist who played a prominent role in staging the two features cocked a snook - again - at one of the communities.

The Oscar awards ceremony this year was a grand event for the Indian media. Ever since the count down for the awards began, nothing else mattered for it. That the ‘Indian’ nominee for the awards was actually a British film produced and directed by a Briton escaped everybody’s attention.

That for the Western world if India graduated out of sadhus and snake-charmers it should have slums, drugs, prostitution, sex and sleaze escaped everybody’s attention.

The Western world forgets that many cities around the world have as much poverty, squalor and crime in them as in Mumbai. Just as an example of how the best and the worst coexist anywhere in the world and not necessarily only in India consider this:

“It was a city of contrasts and contradictions, of promises made and promises unfulfilled. New York was the heart of the capitalist society, a symbol of unsurpassed wealth; yet it was also so broke it could barely meet the interest payment on its debts. New York contained the finest medical facilities in the world; yet every day people who couldn’t afford them died from lack of care, and the infant mortality rate in the South Bronx was higher than it was in the bustees of Calcutta.

“New York possessed a city university whose student body was larger than the population of many cities, yet one person in eight in New York couldn’t speak English and her schools produced a regular flow of barely literate young adults.

“As the Pharaohs of Egypt, the Greeks of Antiquity, the Parisians of the Napoleonic era had set the architectural standards of their times, so the New Yorkers of the age of glass and steel had stamped the seal of their architectural genius on the urban skyline of the world. Yet a quarter of all the buildings in the city were sub-standard and beyond the glittering magnificence of Lower Manhattan, Park and Sixth Avenue loomed the wastelands of the South Bronx, Brownsville and Bedford Stuyvesant.

“… … … Yet, in the midst of all material affluence, an eighth of the population of New York lived on welfare. Half the nation’s drug addicts crowded her streets. Her police precincts recorded a theft every three minutes, a hold-up every twelve, four rapes and two murders a day. More prostitutes circulated through her streets than in the avenues of Paris. (Collins, Larry and Lapierre, Dominque, 1981, The Fifth Horseman, Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi, pp. 136-7)

This description by the authors of The City of Joy could fit any city - Baghdad or Buenos Aires, Dubai or London, Moscow or New York , Riyadh or Tokyo, If themes based on poverty, squalor and crime were the criteria for awarding Oscars, then movies made on poverty, squalor and crime in these cities should qualify as much as Slumdog Millionaire.

All that mattered for the ‘collective Indian psyche’ - steeped in a feeling of inadequacy and incorrigible inferiority complex - was to keep up with the Joneses. If indeed ‘collective Indian psyche’ is represented by the media ballyhoo is a moot point.

Yes we too won an Oscar! Of course if an avant-garde film maker like Satyajit Ray gloated over an Oscar on his death bed, ordinary mortals should be excused for celebrating it.

On February 22 the awards were announced with the British film - Slumdog Millionaire - bagging a majority of them including two for its Indian music director.

On February 24, the Deccan Chronicle of Hyderabad had two prominent features: its first lead in large type described the Indian music director as ‘top dog’.

The phrase, ‘top dog’ is American slang for “One considered to have the dominant position or highest authority, especially as a result of a competitive victory” according to 'The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language' (Fourth Edition 2000, Updated 2003, Houghton Mifflin Company). According to 'The Collins Essential English Dictionary' (2nd Edition 2006, Harper Collins Publishers 2004, 2006) it is a noun, informal, meaning ‘the leader or chief of a group’. In any case the sub-editor who captioned the article must have felt that he had done a clever job by packing a lot of meaning into four words.

The paper must have realized the faux pas of attaching the phrase to the name of a member of a particular community, after the day’s edition hit the stands - and hit the panic button. It needed no warning about the community’s reactions; they are all too known and would have resulted in a serious law and order problem in the city. The paper promptly apologized to the community. The apology was not only instantly displayed on its online edition but local news channels were alerted to it so that they could scroll it on their screens. And they did it throughout the day. The apology was published in the next day’s edition prominently displaying it on the first page.

Nothing exceptionable in any of this. The paper did the right thing for however inadvertently hurting the feelings of the community.

The second feature of the newspaper that day was an exclusive painting the paper commissioned to celebrate the occasion. It was by M. F. Hussain who has not so far done the decent thing the paper did - apologizing for his sacrilegious paintings of Hindu gods and goddesses. In the painting the woman in the ‘Statue of Liberty’ was disrobed but cloaked in a strapless gown. Liberal-minded Americans might not mind it.

The story does not end there. The inveterate feminist in M. F. Hussain - for whom purity and nudity are synonymous - paid tributes to the ‘Indian Woman’ in another set of paintings commissioned by the newspaper to celebrate the international women’s day, March 8.

The paper had a Hussain painting on page 8 to go with the article ‘One Step Forward, Two Steps Back?’ In it one can see the back of a dancing diva. We need not however, begrudge Hussain his ‘Freudian trip’ with the pretty heroine - for the back of the woman in the painting was sparsely covered (‘piche choli kaisa hai?’) and a small elephant (‘gajagamini’) was seen at the bottom of it.

The painting on page 1 depicts Shakti. In order to remove any doubt about the possibility of the woman in the painting being an urban Indian woman professional by name Shakti she was shown standing astride a tiger. The woman in the painting is Goddess Shakti! However, this time Hussain deigned to clothe the goddess - in a tee-shirt, jeans and shoes.

By now we are inured to Hussain’s misdemeanours with the media blaming any protest against them as originating from a ‘particular ideological perspective’ and the judiciary trying to exhibit its liberal streak or bowing to the left-liberal intellectuals shouting hoarse about freedom of expression being in peril and dismissing them. However there must have been some feeble protests for clothing the goddess Shakti in a tee-shirt, jeans and shoes. The paper did apologise for Hussain’s - not its - faux pas. However the similarity ends there. The apology came several days later, not instantly as on the previous occasion and tucked in an inside page, not prominently displayed on the front page as on the previous occasion.

Deccan Chronicle apologises to Muslims and Hindus with a degree of variance. Hussain cocks a snook at Hindus again!