The sudden announcement of Mahendra Singh Dhoni's retirement from test cricket might have surprised many, but it was not entirely unexpected. The wicketkeeper-batsman was struggling with ideas, so essential in a mind game like cricket, especially on foreign tours. The thrashing faced by Dhoni's India against England and Australia only proved that his team was no longer the unchallenged leader in all forms of the game.
The retirement of MSD from test cricket is fuelled by his deep desire to concentrate on the shorter forms of the game. As the defending champion, he wants to lead India to the 2015 World Cup due in Australia and New Zealand. India is going to host the T20 World Cup in 2016 and it is perfectly natural on the part MSD to nurture the ambition of lifting the World Cup in two forms of the game (after 2011 World Cup) at home, and thereby avenge India's defeat against Sri Lanka in 2014.
So, it's a long way to go before the cricket commentators and observers of the game jot down a few points to write MSD's cricketing obituary and delve on his legacy in Indian Cricket.
As the skipper of the World Cup winning Indian cricket team Dhoni will always have a special place not only in India's cricketing history but also in the narrative of contemporary India. In fact, leading India to world cup victories in two forms of the game makes him even more special.
If Kapil Dev's India, by winning the 1983 World Cup, marked India's arrival at the centrestage of world cricket, and players like Sunil Gavaskar, Mohinder Amarnath and Dilip Vengsarkar did the groundwork for the consolidation of its position, then maestros like Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly, Rahul Dravid, Anil Kumble and VVS Laxman are credited with stamping India's position of authority not only on the ground but also off the turf.
From that point of view, MSD's main task was cut out to sustain India's predominance in all forms of the game and take it even further. As arguably India's most successful cricket captain, at least statistically, MSD has succeeded in achieving his objective definitely in the shorter forms of the game. His test records are not as impressive, actually abysmal especially on foreign turfs.
These are feats which catch ones eye. But even before MSD touched the zenith in his remarkable journey in the world of cricket, he achieved something which transformed not only the face of India but also its texture.
All the names which shot into fame in Indian cricket are mostly urban phenomena, coming from metropolitan cities. Not that MSD was the first Indian cricketer from a small town to represent India in the highest form of the game, but he undoubtedly manifested a sense of assertion, not only as a leader but also as an actor in the cricketing play, hitherto unseen outside the confines of bigger cities. In that sense, MSD marks the fruition of a new India that goes beyond the realm of the urban space.
MSD's elevation as the captain of the Indian side has inspired many in smaller towns, suburbs and even villages to dream big. Not that all of them flocked to cricket but some of them definitely embarked on remarkable journeys to shape their ambition and fulfill personal aspirations to grow much beyond the place they come from.
The rise of cricketers like Umesh Yadav and Bhuvaneshwar Kumar , and the launch of Indian Grameen Cricket League (IGCL) are ample indicators that there is enough appetite for the game in the rural heartland of India. People coming from modest backgrounds are not daunted by the fact that cricket is essentially an expensive game and that the youth are inspired by India being the powerhouse of world cricket. The use of cricket as a tool to fulfill aspiration is not only ensuring equity but also manifesting itself as a form of empowerment.
The gentleman's game which once defined social hierarchy is now being cherished by the ordinary, and even the subaltern, to break through the class consciousness of the society.
Also on cricket:
Cricket, corruption & configuration of power relations
Custodian of decency and determination
That was more than cricket
Street cricket comes to London
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media commentator.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
Wednesday
Tuesday
Who is Gandhi
This year marks the centenary of the First World War. Apart from being a historical event which shaped the world's destiny, the Great War didn't carry much of a significance for me. In fact, the chessboard of World War II seemed more interesting. It is probably the reflection of the same mindset which finds the narrative of Mahabharat much more interesting and politically enlivened as compared to the Ramayan.
It was only after my daughter Seemontini pointed out that she had a link to the Great War that I took a little more interest. They were doing a project in school and found out that although the war broke out on 28 July 1914, it was triggered by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, by Yugoslav nationalist Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo on June 28, which happens to be Seemontini's birthday. Although separated by 90 years (Seemontini was born in 2004), I was quite amused by the link she worked out with the Great War.
However, the more interesting revelation came on November 10, ahead of the Armistice Day, when I came across a lecture of eminent Gandhian scholar Dr Uday Singh Mehta. He was delivering a talk titled "Putting Courage at the Centre: Gandhi on Civility and Society", organised by the Tagore Centre for Global Thought at the King's India Institute.
I got stuck in the train and was forced to miss the first part of the talk. However, what I came across was no less startling. Dr Mehta pointed out that Gandhi was a recruiter for the British Army ahead of World War I. Gandhi thought that it was his moral duty to defend the British Empire at the time of war, and using the opportunity to arm twist Britain in India's quest for self-rule or independence would be highly immoral.
What I found fascinating in Dr Mehta's reading of Gandhi is the predominance of morality and ethics in his thinking. Not that it was anything new, but the multiple shades of analysis that intertwined Gandhi as a thinker, according to Dr Mehta was quite revealing. He even went to the extent of arguing that Gandhi was happy with Dominion Status as long as it fulfilled his moral and ethical parameters.
Dr Mehta argued that at some stage Gandhi probably resigned to himself and reluctantly felt that there was no other way than being a nationalist. My reading of Indian history during the movement for independence is quite limited, even then, I can somehow reason the restlessness of Netaji in joining hands with the enemy of the British to facilitate India's independence, which many, including Gandhi, found to be immoral.
It seemed that probably Gandhi was too obsessed with morality and ethics. He situating morality and ethics at the heart of his arguments probably makes Gandhi more endearing to the wider world than the popular notion of non-violence and Satyagraha. Endearing Gandhi in a way gives credence to ones apparent commitment to morality without any obligation of practicing it or treading the ethical path in everyday life. It's almost analogous to flaunting a prestigious publication in ones study rather than having any penchant for going through it with the desire to understand.
It is widely known that Gandhi was deeply influenced by Bhagavad Gita, but drawing from the conversation between Krishna and Arjun, Gandhi probably accepted that violence was no aberration but a fact of life. What transpired from the talk by Dr Mehta was that Gandhi's lifelong endeavour had been to find out an ethical argument to morally justify violence.
The many facets of character that is encapsulated in Gandhi as a person, a social thinker and above all the political leader, seem fascinating to me. The more I read, hear and think about him the more I get a feel of his complexities.
What I also find intriguing is the chemistry that worked between Gandhi and Nehru. I can sense a fair amount of oriental values in Gandhi's version of morality and ethics, which to my understanding is different from what is portrayed by western modernity. What I find difficult to understand is how Nehru, very much a poster boy of western modernity in an Indian set up, could get along with such rationalisation of the political with moral ends.
I look forward to Dr Mehta's forthcoming book, "A Different Vision: Gandhi’s Critique of Political Rationality".
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
However, the more interesting revelation came on November 10, ahead of the Armistice Day, when I came across a lecture of eminent Gandhian scholar Dr Uday Singh Mehta. He was delivering a talk titled "Putting Courage at the Centre: Gandhi on Civility and Society", organised by the Tagore Centre for Global Thought at the King's India Institute.
I got stuck in the train and was forced to miss the first part of the talk. However, what I came across was no less startling. Dr Mehta pointed out that Gandhi was a recruiter for the British Army ahead of World War I. Gandhi thought that it was his moral duty to defend the British Empire at the time of war, and using the opportunity to arm twist Britain in India's quest for self-rule or independence would be highly immoral.
What I found fascinating in Dr Mehta's reading of Gandhi is the predominance of morality and ethics in his thinking. Not that it was anything new, but the multiple shades of analysis that intertwined Gandhi as a thinker, according to Dr Mehta was quite revealing. He even went to the extent of arguing that Gandhi was happy with Dominion Status as long as it fulfilled his moral and ethical parameters.
Dr Mehta argued that at some stage Gandhi probably resigned to himself and reluctantly felt that there was no other way than being a nationalist. My reading of Indian history during the movement for independence is quite limited, even then, I can somehow reason the restlessness of Netaji in joining hands with the enemy of the British to facilitate India's independence, which many, including Gandhi, found to be immoral.
It seemed that probably Gandhi was too obsessed with morality and ethics. He situating morality and ethics at the heart of his arguments probably makes Gandhi more endearing to the wider world than the popular notion of non-violence and Satyagraha. Endearing Gandhi in a way gives credence to ones apparent commitment to morality without any obligation of practicing it or treading the ethical path in everyday life. It's almost analogous to flaunting a prestigious publication in ones study rather than having any penchant for going through it with the desire to understand.
It is widely known that Gandhi was deeply influenced by Bhagavad Gita, but drawing from the conversation between Krishna and Arjun, Gandhi probably accepted that violence was no aberration but a fact of life. What transpired from the talk by Dr Mehta was that Gandhi's lifelong endeavour had been to find out an ethical argument to morally justify violence.
The many facets of character that is encapsulated in Gandhi as a person, a social thinker and above all the political leader, seem fascinating to me. The more I read, hear and think about him the more I get a feel of his complexities.
What I also find intriguing is the chemistry that worked between Gandhi and Nehru. I can sense a fair amount of oriental values in Gandhi's version of morality and ethics, which to my understanding is different from what is portrayed by western modernity. What I find difficult to understand is how Nehru, very much a poster boy of western modernity in an Indian set up, could get along with such rationalisation of the political with moral ends.
I look forward to Dr Mehta's forthcoming book, "A Different Vision: Gandhi’s Critique of Political Rationality".
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
Sunday
What's in a name!
 |
| "I Pity the Fool" is an American reality television series on TV Land starring Mr T |
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay, a 23-letter name is not only mouthful but also quite a difficult one to pronounce even by the Indian standard. No wonder, the elderly White British people in my neighbourhood chose to rename me "Tito". Everytime they apologetically address me by that name, I assuage myself by babbling the Shakespearean phrase from Romeo and Juliet.
My colleagues at West Thames College are even smarter. They have reduced me to "Mr T", of course with my consent. Little did I know that the name was linked to an American television character and our looks and nature were miles apart.
About a decade ago, subaltern historian from Chicago Dipesh Chakarabarty wrote in the Anandabazar Patrika how strangely his surname was pronounced by a cabbie to give it a different connotation.
However, transformation of names to facilitate easy pronunciation is not uncommon. Sunil becomes Sam, Banerjee - Beny or Banjo and Sukhbinder - Suki or Sukh. But all these are in the West and Indians, especially Bengalis take pride in the fact that their tongues are flexible enough to pronounce difficult names easily.
 |
| Sea Bass becomes Basa Fish in India |
Sonali gathered from her Facebook friends that Sea Bass, a sweet, white, textured fish, caught in the North Atlantic, from Norway to Senegal, is known as 'Basa' in many parts of India and is gradually becoming a prestigious delicacy among the ever expanding middle class. To add a vanity touch, the word 'fish' follows 'Bassa' rather than its usual vernacular versions.
Our local fish monger sells Sea Bream alongside Sea Bass and he hails from Afghanistan. "What's left of globalisation," I said to myself ! Globalisation may be a great leveller but names still matter.
** The comedy of errors with names continues. My friend Suddhasattwa Bandyopadhyay pointed out on Facebook that what is known as Basa Fish in India is actually "Pangasius Bocourti" and not Sea Bass.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
Melancholic happiness
The grey morning in London is followed by a drizzle and then a heavy shower. It always feels cosy to sit in the comfort of home and watch the downpour outside. It renders a sense of melancholy but the pensive feeling is filled with the joy of satisfaction.
The weeklong half-term break is almost over and life is going to be hectic as usual from Monday. Sitting in the confines of Starbucks on Hounslow High Street, the dull and grey outside comes with a refreshing feeling.
The drizzle and the nagging spells of shower are very much part of the London I like and love. Laziness creeps in, one is distracted from the long list of things to be completed before a working week sets in, and yet the downpour and the accompanying dreariness is comparable to the freshness of having a deep breath in the lush green English countryside.
The waiter at Starbucks has already reminded me that I have sat for too long in lieu of the regular cappuccino that my good friend Rajat Dey bought me this morning. The anxiety is palpable as quite a few people are waiting in the aisle to relish their drinks in a bid to save themselves from the autumn downpour.
The gloom is not necessarily joyless and the sun peeping out will only act as a dampener to the melancholic happiness.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
The weeklong half-term break is almost over and life is going to be hectic as usual from Monday. Sitting in the confines of Starbucks on Hounslow High Street, the dull and grey outside comes with a refreshing feeling.
The drizzle and the nagging spells of shower are very much part of the London I like and love. Laziness creeps in, one is distracted from the long list of things to be completed before a working week sets in, and yet the downpour and the accompanying dreariness is comparable to the freshness of having a deep breath in the lush green English countryside.
The waiter at Starbucks has already reminded me that I have sat for too long in lieu of the regular cappuccino that my good friend Rajat Dey bought me this morning. The anxiety is palpable as quite a few people are waiting in the aisle to relish their drinks in a bid to save themselves from the autumn downpour.
The gloom is not necessarily joyless and the sun peeping out will only act as a dampener to the melancholic happiness.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
Saturday
Reading Nehru may help Mr Vadra
November marks an important month when it comes to Indian politics. For a country which easily falls for hero-worship and paying obesiance is synonymous to public outpouring of respect for the national leaders on their birth and death anniversaries rather than delving on their legacy, November assumes significance as two of India's prime ministers were born in this month.
India's first prime minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was born on the 14th day of November and this year marks his 125th birth anniversary. His daughter Indira Gandhi was born on November 19 and this year completes three decades since she was brutally assassinated by her bodyguards. Both father and daughter have made significant contributions as prime minister in shaping India's polity and left a rich legacy.
Nehru was known for his rich vision of nation-building and although one might disagree with him but no one could question his intellectual and political acumen. He has influenced many in shaping their intellectual thoughts.
Recently, I came across an article by Dipesh Chakrabarty, a well known historiographer on South Asia whose works range from the modern to Subaltern Studies. In the article titled "In the Name of Politics: Sovereignty, Democracy, and the Multitude in India" (Economic and Political Weekly; Jul 23 2005), the author makes a comparison between 'colonial sovereignty' and its post-colonial version. Although set in a different context, Chakrabarty makes extensive use of Nehru's speeches in the initial years of independent India.
Talking to a group of agitating students in Patna in August 1955, Nehru said, "demonstrations and hooliganism" were not appropriate forms of protest in an independent country. A few days earlier in Guwahati he observed, "No strong nation indulges in throwing stones and behaving like hooligans. Any fool can do that." (Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru; Vol 29, p:57).
Nehru's observation can be debated, but it came to my mind when an Indian television channel beamed an agitated Robert Vadra, the husband of Priyanka Vadra (nee Gandhi) - Panditji's great grand daughter, pushing the mic of a video journalist after being asked about his allegedly questionable land deals in Haryana.
One may find it a bit out of place to establish a link between a visually brazen Vadra with Nehru's observation on the nature of protests in independent India, but the comparison becomes easier when one is mindful of the fact that the much talked about great grandson-in-law of India's first prime minister behaved like a tearaway.
Politics in a democracy, according to Nehru, must be based on 'discussions, debates an discipline' and he believed in it with similar conviction even in the civil sphere. Vadra has clearly violated the norm as defined by his great grandfather-in-law by pushing the mic of the newsperson and virtually intimidating him by asking several times if he was "serious". Vadra had every right in not responding to the query of the journalist but to act in a seemingly violent way goes beyond the realm of civility.
Nehru believed in the power of education as he thought it was the way to enlightenment. Vadra is probably unaware of the civilities necessary to be in public life and needs a dose of enlightenment in the form of education. The cavaliar in him would do well to read Nehru before he exposes himself to another incident of recklessness.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
India's first prime minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was born on the 14th day of November and this year marks his 125th birth anniversary. His daughter Indira Gandhi was born on November 19 and this year completes three decades since she was brutally assassinated by her bodyguards. Both father and daughter have made significant contributions as prime minister in shaping India's polity and left a rich legacy.
Nehru was known for his rich vision of nation-building and although one might disagree with him but no one could question his intellectual and political acumen. He has influenced many in shaping their intellectual thoughts.
Recently, I came across an article by Dipesh Chakrabarty, a well known historiographer on South Asia whose works range from the modern to Subaltern Studies. In the article titled "In the Name of Politics: Sovereignty, Democracy, and the Multitude in India" (Economic and Political Weekly; Jul 23 2005), the author makes a comparison between 'colonial sovereignty' and its post-colonial version. Although set in a different context, Chakrabarty makes extensive use of Nehru's speeches in the initial years of independent India.
Talking to a group of agitating students in Patna in August 1955, Nehru said, "demonstrations and hooliganism" were not appropriate forms of protest in an independent country. A few days earlier in Guwahati he observed, "No strong nation indulges in throwing stones and behaving like hooligans. Any fool can do that." (Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru; Vol 29, p:57).
Nehru's observation can be debated, but it came to my mind when an Indian television channel beamed an agitated Robert Vadra, the husband of Priyanka Vadra (nee Gandhi) - Panditji's great grand daughter, pushing the mic of a video journalist after being asked about his allegedly questionable land deals in Haryana.
One may find it a bit out of place to establish a link between a visually brazen Vadra with Nehru's observation on the nature of protests in independent India, but the comparison becomes easier when one is mindful of the fact that the much talked about great grandson-in-law of India's first prime minister behaved like a tearaway.
Politics in a democracy, according to Nehru, must be based on 'discussions, debates an discipline' and he believed in it with similar conviction even in the civil sphere. Vadra has clearly violated the norm as defined by his great grandfather-in-law by pushing the mic of the newsperson and virtually intimidating him by asking several times if he was "serious". Vadra had every right in not responding to the query of the journalist but to act in a seemingly violent way goes beyond the realm of civility.
Nehru believed in the power of education as he thought it was the way to enlightenment. Vadra is probably unaware of the civilities necessary to be in public life and needs a dose of enlightenment in the form of education. The cavaliar in him would do well to read Nehru before he exposes himself to another incident of recklessness.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
Wednesday
Do we need borders in 21st Century
Small is beautiful. Let's have small states with no artificial borders separating the stream of humanity. This afternoon at home I was glossing over "Letters From a Father to his Daughter" - a series of letters written by Nehru to Indira while he was in prison. I could see how race, religion, caste, creed, nations, continents were carved out to create artificial barriers to the free flowing stream of humanity. These segregations made it easier for the rulers to dominate the governed.
To visualise a borderless world order may seem Utopian but the latest phase of globalisation, i.e. Technological Globalisation, is inching us towards that direction. The compression of time and space, technology being a great leveller, the democratic potential of the social media, will hopefully one day not only provincialise the world as in Europe, but flatten the globe even further rendering it transparent and visible from every possible corner.
I must admit that the issue of Scottish independence never seemed a big deal for me even a week ago. Europe being a provincialised continent, the possible break away of Scotland seemed more of a nuance of nationalism, but its extrapolation on a global canvas added greater intellectual flavour to it.
Do we need states, borders, boundaries in a 21st Century world order? Possibly there is no straight answer to it. As technological development and free flow of capital make the world flatter, intrinsic identities are spearheading. As class as an intellectual project becomes relatively less relevant, caste situates itself at the very heart of important discourses.
Weakening of nation states makes way for nationalism, ultra-nationalism and even parochialism to grab the centre stage. As the distinction between the global and local become blurred, local issues project themselves as sand dunes amidst the vast desert of globalism.
It is challenging to identify the possible reasons that changeth the world, nonetheless it is a very interesting moment in our history.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
To visualise a borderless world order may seem Utopian but the latest phase of globalisation, i.e. Technological Globalisation, is inching us towards that direction. The compression of time and space, technology being a great leveller, the democratic potential of the social media, will hopefully one day not only provincialise the world as in Europe, but flatten the globe even further rendering it transparent and visible from every possible corner.
I must admit that the issue of Scottish independence never seemed a big deal for me even a week ago. Europe being a provincialised continent, the possible break away of Scotland seemed more of a nuance of nationalism, but its extrapolation on a global canvas added greater intellectual flavour to it.
Do we need states, borders, boundaries in a 21st Century world order? Possibly there is no straight answer to it. As technological development and free flow of capital make the world flatter, intrinsic identities are spearheading. As class as an intellectual project becomes relatively less relevant, caste situates itself at the very heart of important discourses.
Weakening of nation states makes way for nationalism, ultra-nationalism and even parochialism to grab the centre stage. As the distinction between the global and local become blurred, local issues project themselves as sand dunes amidst the vast desert of globalism.
It is challenging to identify the possible reasons that changeth the world, nonetheless it is a very interesting moment in our history.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
Friday
Modi's silence & journalistic clientelism
Journalism they say is "literature written in a hurry". The comment is attributed to British poet and cultural critic Mathew Arnold. It takes a bit of research to find out that there are doubts as to whether the 19th Century sage writer really made the comments attributed to him.
Irrespective of whether Arnold made these comments or not, there is a qualitative difference between journalism and serious academic and reflective writing. When I joined the Press Trust of India (PTI) in Delhi, one of the editors, Arun Kumar told us that the language used in news reports should be such so as to make it clear and interesting even to a person travelling in a crowded train in Mumbai.
Do clarity and making things interesting oversimplify the subject?
I have no clue and there are differences in opinion on this. After having spent two decades in journalism, it seems that journalists generally are in the habit of thinking very high of themselves. Does this sense of self-importance evolve from their intellectual prowess or their ability to grasp and analyse very quickly or efficiency to simplify things or for going places and rubbing shoulders with the powerful?
Again, I don't have any definite answer, but a good friend of mine from my school and college days who was also my colleague briefly in a newspaper once jocularly retorted that "we reporters are nothing but a bit more respected porters." The comment made in lighter vain was not intended to depict any disrespect for those who serve the society by carrying out heavy and difficult manual jobs with ease and efficiency but only to self-asses a profession one was in.
When I first joined journalism by chance, a few years after my friend did, I was inclined to be a reporter as well. It was not only because of a desire to have many bylines - as it is the usual practice that reporters get bylines and the sub-editors and others at the news desk do a thankless job and lead a life in anonymity - but also to be known by the people, develop contacts and be visible. This visibility, which initially makes one proud gradually gets transformed into a form of self-proclaimed power, often demonstrated by throwing one's own professional lot even to get personal things done without caring about their legal, ethical and moral implications.
It's not the reporter alone who is to be blamed. There are stories galore to prove that officials and those who matter succumb to someone flaunting his or her press card rather than attending a genuine cause. Such is the power of the media that even people with enormous influence believe that it can make and unmake careers. This power, if any, flows from the social perception that the media contributes hugely to build or break much sought after fame. In my journalistic career, I have come across many instances when people were right but floundered because the media portrayed the wrong thing.
It is this perception that is trying to paint a picture of Prime Minister Narendra Modi being suspiciously silent about his plans and actions. Many are apprehensive that the man, who is perceived to be divisive, is silently executing his game plan, others think that once on the hot seat he is bewildered and doesn't know how to cope.
While it is the job of the journalists to be inquisitive, ask questions and reflect not only public opinion but also collective queries of the society, but the silence of the prime minister is increasingly making the media restive. Dr Manmohan Singh was also a man of few words, but the silence of someone known for his forceful articulation stuffed with conviction like Modi had bewildered the journalistic fraternity and his political opponents alike.
It is as if Modi is following in word and spirit the old adage that we have been taught in childhood - which says, the more you speak the more lapses you make and the more flaws you show. While political adversaries can't wait to find Modi on the wrong foot, the restlessness of the scribes emanates from a multiplicity of reasons.
Firstly, those sympathetic to the cause of the BJP in general and Modi in particular, and vociferously articulated their views from long before the general elections were expecting to be rewarded. Secondly, those who want to be close to the establishment irrespective of political and ideological affiliations to have a share of the goodies are desperate to start a channel of communication with the new prime minister and people close to him. Thirdly, those who are antagonistic towards the cause of the BJP and Modi want to put the prime minister under intense scrutiny and that is not possible without the Gujarat strongman being forthcoming in his interactions with the media.
The way in which Modi has shunned many publicity temptations has kept the media and various other operators wondering as to how to get closer to him and rub shoulders with people who matter. After all, being close and friendly with the powerful often serves a form of clientelism which is important in an age of crony capitalism.
From an etymological point of view, the primary work of a journalist is to collect information, verify and inform the consumers of news in a palatable way. The restlessness of the journalists following Modi's enigmatic silence is not so much for not being able to serve the consumers of news and more for being left out of the power matrix. Like many other operators, journalists who stroll in the corridors of power develop stakes and it is by no means easy to let it go by.
An academic friend of mine who is sympathetic to journalists is however, more generous in his views. He takes resort to the classical definition of civil society being an intermediary between the state and the individual. Journalists being part of the broader definition of civil society, my friend thinks that it's only fair that they try to build a bridge with the omnipotent Narendra Modi.
After all the significance of proximity can't be overlooked in defining power relations and influence flows from the omnipotent to those close to him or her.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
Irrespective of whether Arnold made these comments or not, there is a qualitative difference between journalism and serious academic and reflective writing. When I joined the Press Trust of India (PTI) in Delhi, one of the editors, Arun Kumar told us that the language used in news reports should be such so as to make it clear and interesting even to a person travelling in a crowded train in Mumbai.
Do clarity and making things interesting oversimplify the subject?
I have no clue and there are differences in opinion on this. After having spent two decades in journalism, it seems that journalists generally are in the habit of thinking very high of themselves. Does this sense of self-importance evolve from their intellectual prowess or their ability to grasp and analyse very quickly or efficiency to simplify things or for going places and rubbing shoulders with the powerful?
Again, I don't have any definite answer, but a good friend of mine from my school and college days who was also my colleague briefly in a newspaper once jocularly retorted that "we reporters are nothing but a bit more respected porters." The comment made in lighter vain was not intended to depict any disrespect for those who serve the society by carrying out heavy and difficult manual jobs with ease and efficiency but only to self-asses a profession one was in.
When I first joined journalism by chance, a few years after my friend did, I was inclined to be a reporter as well. It was not only because of a desire to have many bylines - as it is the usual practice that reporters get bylines and the sub-editors and others at the news desk do a thankless job and lead a life in anonymity - but also to be known by the people, develop contacts and be visible. This visibility, which initially makes one proud gradually gets transformed into a form of self-proclaimed power, often demonstrated by throwing one's own professional lot even to get personal things done without caring about their legal, ethical and moral implications.
It's not the reporter alone who is to be blamed. There are stories galore to prove that officials and those who matter succumb to someone flaunting his or her press card rather than attending a genuine cause. Such is the power of the media that even people with enormous influence believe that it can make and unmake careers. This power, if any, flows from the social perception that the media contributes hugely to build or break much sought after fame. In my journalistic career, I have come across many instances when people were right but floundered because the media portrayed the wrong thing.
It is this perception that is trying to paint a picture of Prime Minister Narendra Modi being suspiciously silent about his plans and actions. Many are apprehensive that the man, who is perceived to be divisive, is silently executing his game plan, others think that once on the hot seat he is bewildered and doesn't know how to cope.
While it is the job of the journalists to be inquisitive, ask questions and reflect not only public opinion but also collective queries of the society, but the silence of the prime minister is increasingly making the media restive. Dr Manmohan Singh was also a man of few words, but the silence of someone known for his forceful articulation stuffed with conviction like Modi had bewildered the journalistic fraternity and his political opponents alike.
It is as if Modi is following in word and spirit the old adage that we have been taught in childhood - which says, the more you speak the more lapses you make and the more flaws you show. While political adversaries can't wait to find Modi on the wrong foot, the restlessness of the scribes emanates from a multiplicity of reasons.
Firstly, those sympathetic to the cause of the BJP in general and Modi in particular, and vociferously articulated their views from long before the general elections were expecting to be rewarded. Secondly, those who want to be close to the establishment irrespective of political and ideological affiliations to have a share of the goodies are desperate to start a channel of communication with the new prime minister and people close to him. Thirdly, those who are antagonistic towards the cause of the BJP and Modi want to put the prime minister under intense scrutiny and that is not possible without the Gujarat strongman being forthcoming in his interactions with the media.
The way in which Modi has shunned many publicity temptations has kept the media and various other operators wondering as to how to get closer to him and rub shoulders with people who matter. After all, being close and friendly with the powerful often serves a form of clientelism which is important in an age of crony capitalism.
From an etymological point of view, the primary work of a journalist is to collect information, verify and inform the consumers of news in a palatable way. The restlessness of the journalists following Modi's enigmatic silence is not so much for not being able to serve the consumers of news and more for being left out of the power matrix. Like many other operators, journalists who stroll in the corridors of power develop stakes and it is by no means easy to let it go by.
An academic friend of mine who is sympathetic to journalists is however, more generous in his views. He takes resort to the classical definition of civil society being an intermediary between the state and the individual. Journalists being part of the broader definition of civil society, my friend thinks that it's only fair that they try to build a bridge with the omnipotent Narendra Modi.
After all the significance of proximity can't be overlooked in defining power relations and influence flows from the omnipotent to those close to him or her.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
Saturday
'What's left of the Left'
A friend who went to St Xavier's College with me in
Kolkata thought, ‘good, bad or ugly’, India desperately needed a change. She wants to see
Narendra Modi’s ‘numerically emphatic victory’ as the causal effect of India’s
national aspiration for change. Now based in the US, I could see that she had
shed her sympathy for the Left, which was so common among college-going youths
of the 80s and 90s in Kolkata.
 |
| The Left no longer stokes public imagination as it used to for years after Indian independence |
A Bangalore-based techie, who spent over five years
in school with me, openly aspired and vehemently argued for a Modi government at
the Centre. Surprised by the intensity of his argument and strength of his conviction,
I was tempted to ask how his father - a veteran journalist, writer with strong
Left leaning – felt about this change in stance within the family! My
friend wasn’t apologetic, instead he underlined the fact that “these are two
generations representing different times in history”.
Narratives like these are helpful in understanding
popular discourses which shape socio-political landscapes. It becomes all the
more interesting when viewed from a distance so as not to be overwhelmed by
proximity to the very moment in time and the object of analysis.
The decline of the Left is a fact of life not only
within the geographical confines of India but across the globe. However, that doesn’t in anyway imply the decimation of the voices of protest and dissent which are so closely related to the politico-philosophical
ideology of the Left. A friend once told me, “The official Left makes way for the multi-headed
heterodox Left.”
His words sounded paradoxical then, but being a
bystander to the global upheavals at multiple levels of society one can easily
infer that socio-historic perspectives do make a difference. Not that people
necessarily analyse and act, but circumstances make them think in a definite way.
The demise of the ‘nation state’ as a dominant discourse and the rise of
‘neo-liberalism’ as an economic doctrine played catalysts to the so called socio-historic
transformation and India is no different.
The weakening of the ‘nation state’ as a fall out of
the decline in Keynesianism has withered those institutions – like the public
sector, bodies upholding public and social consumption etc. - which projected
the dominance of ideologies that for years have been the hallmark of the Left
and trademark of the essence of the Congress.
There is no denying the fact that economic
liberalisation was initiated by a Congress government in 1991 and the process in
fact, had started even before, probably during the later years of Indira Gandhi
government in the early 80s, but we had been witness to an ongoing ideological
and emotional tussle between the socialistically-inclined segment of the Congress
and its liberalising counterpart. Whenever the party was in trouble it took no
time to swing back to its ‘ex-reform’ agenda.
Similar was the case with the Left. Apart from the
crises emanating from the electoral arithmetic since 2008, the Left was
virtually hitting its head on the wall as politics as a manifestation of strong
ideological and moral compulsion took a backseat following the emergence of
‘neo-liberalism’ as a dominant doctrine.
 |
| Mamata Banerjee and her Trinamool Congress party decimated the Left in its bastion |
If globalisation contributed to expansive
capitalism, neo-liberalism as a doctrine single-handedly ensured that politics
was no longer string-tied to ideology and became a function of ‘service
provision and clientelism’. The symptoms were evident in West Bengal, once the
citadel of the Left. The old war horses and foot soldiers of an ideology,
many of whom spent their whole lives dreaming of and aspiring to bring about
social change were replaced by clients or beneficiaries of such a long Left
regime. These elements - heterogeneously composed of promoters, primary school
teachers, owners of rice mills and brick kilns, small traders etc. - backed
successive Left governments to ensure nothing but self-interests. That they are
not tied to any ideological or moral baggage is evident from the fact that some
of these elements quickly changed camps since the inauguration of a new Trinamool
Congress government.
The failure of the Left was not necessarily because
it allowed itself to be swamped by opportunists and hoodlums – which come with
any government, but for its failure to recognise that the lexicon of the
dominant political discourse had changed. Even when it recognised what was
lacking, the Left leadership failed to capitalise because of a short span of
time and they were not convinced whether their corrective course of action was
in right direction. Hence the party apparatus and the electorate were not
readied for a paradigm shift in policy and thinking.
The euphoria of being in power for such a long time
in Bengal, actually resulted in a sense of complacency, restraining an already
dogmatic Left leadership to peep out of the window and see for themselves how
the world had changed, even though it was palpable to those who moved out of
the geographical confines of Bengal.
The stimulants of change were in the air, as some
medical practitioner would refer to here in the West in case a patient was
suffering from flu (popularly known as Influenza in India), but the Left
leadership failed to acknowledge them. Instead, they continued to harp on ‘old
politics’ - characterised by stoking fear and insecurity, treating people as faceless numbers - as depicted
in their voter identity cards, denying the minimum dignity that a person is
entitled to, and sermonising the electorate rather than interacting with them
with due respect to their level of
knowledge and enlightenment.
In fact, during the just concluded parliamentary
elections, the strategy of the Left in West Bengal was confined to ‘negativism’
- based on their hope to encash on splitting of votes between the Trinamool
Congress, Congress and the BJP – and ‘hopeless campaign’ which relied more on
ridiculing political opponents rather than putting forward a ‘sense of hope’ - pre-dominant
in a neo-liberal set up as it empathised with individualism.
What then happens to the organic relationship that exists between
the Left and voices of dissent ?
 |
| Social movements now play a crucial role in airing voices of dissent |
No one expects the dissenting voices to subside with
the decline of the mainstream parties to the Left of India’s political
spectrum. More than anything else, the social movements and in some cases the
civil society organisations are playing the role of the Left. Not that there is
complete coherence in their policies and courses of actions, but some sort of
rhizomic (ginger-like, i.e. if one cuts a slice of ginger and plants it, the
slice grows like an independent rhizome but with all the traits of the mother
ginger plant) relationship exists between various social movements.
The Aam
Aadmi Party is a classic example as to how civil society organisations can
outgrow themselves from being the intermediaries between the state and the individual
to emerge as independent political formations, performing the role of the ‘social Left’. Moreover, some political figures like Mamata
Banerjee and Nitish Kumar will try to play the ‘moral Left’ leave aside the
various radical, non-state Left actors like the Maoists.
It's not the prerogative of an analyst or an observer to speculate the future, but all said and done, it seems that probably the institutional Left has exhausted its role in Indian polity.
A version of this article is published in the Financial Chronicle: "Left is dead, long live the Left"
A version of this article is published in the Financial Chronicle: "Left is dead, long live the Left"
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com Twitter handle: @tirthankarb
All comments are personal.
Thursday
Why should I pay for the BBC
Every time there is a news on proposed job cuts in the BBC, it is seen as an onslaught on objective journalism. However, other media organsations in Britain are not so lucky, irrespective of their level of honesty, objectivity and commitment to the trade.
I really don't understand what the fuss is all about!
If every other organisation can shrink and face cuts why can't the BBC? After all, the days of ceremonial institutionalism are over and the moot question is what impact does the BBC have in determining my news agenda of the day?
If the answer is 'NO', which is what is expected in this cut throat age of social media, then the justification of continuing to fund a monolithic organisation run by public money is obviously questionable, even if it raises a debate on objective journalism
Those who know me may find this selfish as only 18 months ago I was earning my living from the BBC. My caveat should also make it clear that I was also instrumental in protesting against job cuts at the World Service and elsewhere in the BBC as an active member of the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) since 2003. While being appreciative of individual agonies, insecurities and anxieties involving job cuts, I also acknowledge that life is not only a bundle of emotions and reality is often harsher than one expects it to be. Especially, when there are allegations that institutional failings and managerial flaws in the BBC are resulting in wastage of public money.
A dispassionate assessment of the role played by the BBC in figuring out the daily news agenda in the contemporary would show that when compression of time and space is the norm of the day, BBC finds it self-gratifying to be a glorious second or a third, with its 'impeccable' objectivity, when in reality there is nothing of that sort.
In fact, objectivity is determined by the perspective and the context within which it is situated. And neutrality is very much an idealistic concept and hence misfit in this age of 'post-ideology'. Here I am pretending to be a devil's advocate as to many consumers of news BBC has never been neutral or objective.
For example, a piece of news involving an attack on Israeli institutions may be objective for Tel Aviv, but alleged attackers in Gaza Strip may argue that their action is only a retaliation of perceived "occupation" of the Palestinian area. This is only an example and can be extrapolated to many other areas around the world. In fact, terms like 'objectivity', 'neutrality' and 'freedom' are contested concepts in a globalised set up.
BBC has often enjoyed patronisation from elites and middle class, especially in those countries who have shared history of colonial past, including the United Kingdom, not necessarily because of any high standard of journalism but more so as it played the role of an effective propaganda machinery for British and Western interests, which in some cases also contributed to primitive accumulation often by coercive means, and furthered colonial ideas even in a post-colonial era.
Even then there are some justifications for the BBC to continue as a British news outlet, but it has practically no role in the global space. Like many other things, the significance of news and the credence of its delivery are determined by the influence the provider enjoys. When the United Kingdom has lost out in today's geopolitics, the influence of the BBC is nothing more than being ceremonial, basking on past glory, if there is any, than looking forward to the future.
In that sense, the Global News Division of the BBC and the World Service should face any further cut ahead of any other department in the organisation. Any licence fee payer is within his or her rights to ask as to why they should pay for the information on what's happening elsewhere in the world, when there might not be any interest about it in the first place, or even if any then it could be gathered from many other sources. The golden two-source rule followed by the BBC internally can help any consumer of news to crowd out unreliable sources of information.
The notion of hierarchicalism, which is intrinsically linked to colonialism, will however, guide the masters of the BBC to flaunt triumphalism on the global stage, even when they know for sure that the plot is long lost.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist, media commentator and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
Twitter Handle: @tirthankarb
All comments are personal.
I really don't understand what the fuss is all about!
If every other organisation can shrink and face cuts why can't the BBC? After all, the days of ceremonial institutionalism are over and the moot question is what impact does the BBC have in determining my news agenda of the day?
 |
| Objectivity, neutrality and freedom are contested concepts in a globalised set up |
Those who know me may find this selfish as only 18 months ago I was earning my living from the BBC. My caveat should also make it clear that I was also instrumental in protesting against job cuts at the World Service and elsewhere in the BBC as an active member of the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) since 2003. While being appreciative of individual agonies, insecurities and anxieties involving job cuts, I also acknowledge that life is not only a bundle of emotions and reality is often harsher than one expects it to be. Especially, when there are allegations that institutional failings and managerial flaws in the BBC are resulting in wastage of public money.
A dispassionate assessment of the role played by the BBC in figuring out the daily news agenda in the contemporary would show that when compression of time and space is the norm of the day, BBC finds it self-gratifying to be a glorious second or a third, with its 'impeccable' objectivity, when in reality there is nothing of that sort.
In fact, objectivity is determined by the perspective and the context within which it is situated. And neutrality is very much an idealistic concept and hence misfit in this age of 'post-ideology'. Here I am pretending to be a devil's advocate as to many consumers of news BBC has never been neutral or objective.
For example, a piece of news involving an attack on Israeli institutions may be objective for Tel Aviv, but alleged attackers in Gaza Strip may argue that their action is only a retaliation of perceived "occupation" of the Palestinian area. This is only an example and can be extrapolated to many other areas around the world. In fact, terms like 'objectivity', 'neutrality' and 'freedom' are contested concepts in a globalised set up.
BBC has often enjoyed patronisation from elites and middle class, especially in those countries who have shared history of colonial past, including the United Kingdom, not necessarily because of any high standard of journalism but more so as it played the role of an effective propaganda machinery for British and Western interests, which in some cases also contributed to primitive accumulation often by coercive means, and furthered colonial ideas even in a post-colonial era.
Even then there are some justifications for the BBC to continue as a British news outlet, but it has practically no role in the global space. Like many other things, the significance of news and the credence of its delivery are determined by the influence the provider enjoys. When the United Kingdom has lost out in today's geopolitics, the influence of the BBC is nothing more than being ceremonial, basking on past glory, if there is any, than looking forward to the future.
In that sense, the Global News Division of the BBC and the World Service should face any further cut ahead of any other department in the organisation. Any licence fee payer is within his or her rights to ask as to why they should pay for the information on what's happening elsewhere in the world, when there might not be any interest about it in the first place, or even if any then it could be gathered from many other sources. The golden two-source rule followed by the BBC internally can help any consumer of news to crowd out unreliable sources of information.
The notion of hierarchicalism, which is intrinsically linked to colonialism, will however, guide the masters of the BBC to flaunt triumphalism on the global stage, even when they know for sure that the plot is long lost.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist, media commentator and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
Twitter Handle: @tirthankarb
All comments are personal.
Monday
A difficult bridge to cross
Smarties are my long-time favourite. Dripping my mouth with vanilla-flavoured smarties at McDonald's in Slough this afternoon, I was actually gulping emotions. The good thing about vanilla-flavoured ice cream is that it never interferes with your taste, keeps your throat moist so that you can intake a big serving, be it of emotions.
A whole host of stories indeed made me emotional, Mukesh Ambani taking over TV18, Shekhar Gupta leaving Indian Express after a span of 19 years. The grapevine is that Shekhar is taking over the reins at India Today and an unapologetic rightist Swapan Dasgupta to don the mantle at Indian Express.
These things are not uncommon after change in governments, especially after such widespread transformation in the country's political landscape. Yet every time they take place the air is filled with grapevine and whispers.
The Vodka served at the Delhi Press Club doesn't taste that sober. At least, it didn't in December 2003, when I was there to cover an election. No wonder, some journalists quickly lose their sobriety. Rumours fly thick and fast and one is tempted to make up the matrix of what they want to hear.
Shekhar, along with Prannoy Roy and Dorab Sopariwala were at their obedient best when talking to Amit Shah even before the Lok Sabha results were out. Barkha Dutt, whom I fancy calling the Kate Winslet of Indian journalism, was modesty personified with the BJP strongman. At least, by then the results were declared and India's fate for the next five years was eminent.
Prannoy is a smart operator. Probably the smartest in India's contemporary media circles. But what happens to the Sardesais? Will Rajdeep stop shouting at the top of his voice at 'India@9'! Will Sagarika be forced to praise the Ambanis!
Few years back, Bhaskar Ghose was our guest in Bush House. The proud father, father-in law was filled with no less pride as a grandfather. With an effusive smile he would say, how he enjoys baby-sitting Rajdeep and Sagarika's kids.
I was annoyed when Shekhar literally bent himself to please Amit Shah, but today his parting shot from the Express made my eyes moist. After all, we all survive because of our survival instincts. He will move from the Express Building at Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, near ITO for those who are not conversant with Delhi's geo-political nerve centre, to the India Today office! Is it at Noida!
There was a time when Express Building was indeed the nerve centre of India's political journalism, if not Indian politics. I once had an opportunity to visit the building and it didn't seem anything extraordinaire. It was just after I had quit my job with the Financial Express in Kolkata. The idea was to collect my dues so as to meet my expenses during months of unemployment. Probably, Vivek Goenka was still not in command then.
If I am not mistaken, Vivek and his brother Santosh are Xavierians from Sahibganj, the school I had gone till I was in Class Four. One of my uncle's few claims to fame was that he taught the Goenka brothers. He would spare no effort to flaunt it.
Kolkata has been much more stagnant when it comes to journalistic mobility, yet rumours fly with equal agility like it does in Delhi and Mumbai. Claims and counter claims on the pecuniary benefits on offers and not professional excellence draw and redraw the contours of a journalist's career.
Television channels are up shots now, and their presenters and reporters nouveau-stars, yet none can deny their democratisation effect. Journalism is no longer confined to the rich, powerful, wealthy and the well read, but like always they often attach greater self-importance than is due to them.
Twenty-one years ago, on a June afternoon like today, I indulged in my journalistic journey at the St Xavier's College in Kolkata, where veteran journalist and senior editor Niranjan Sengupta taught a motley group of aspirants a few nuances of journalism. Since then, despite the best of efforts to whole-heartedly quit, I have been tied tightly with this profession.
After completing 20 years in journalism, of which 14 years with the BBC, I thought of quitting in 2012, and starting afresh with a new career. But that was not to be.
Probably, Niranjan Babu was right!
"It's difficult to get into journalism, but it's even more difficult to leave," he once told me.
Quitting journalism is like crossing a bridge, which one can try to the best of efforts but never accomplish completely !
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
Twitter Handle: @tirthankarb
All comments are personal.
A whole host of stories indeed made me emotional, Mukesh Ambani taking over TV18, Shekhar Gupta leaving Indian Express after a span of 19 years. The grapevine is that Shekhar is taking over the reins at India Today and an unapologetic rightist Swapan Dasgupta to don the mantle at Indian Express.
These things are not uncommon after change in governments, especially after such widespread transformation in the country's political landscape. Yet every time they take place the air is filled with grapevine and whispers.
The Vodka served at the Delhi Press Club doesn't taste that sober. At least, it didn't in December 2003, when I was there to cover an election. No wonder, some journalists quickly lose their sobriety. Rumours fly thick and fast and one is tempted to make up the matrix of what they want to hear.
Shekhar, along with Prannoy Roy and Dorab Sopariwala were at their obedient best when talking to Amit Shah even before the Lok Sabha results were out. Barkha Dutt, whom I fancy calling the Kate Winslet of Indian journalism, was modesty personified with the BJP strongman. At least, by then the results were declared and India's fate for the next five years was eminent.
Prannoy is a smart operator. Probably the smartest in India's contemporary media circles. But what happens to the Sardesais? Will Rajdeep stop shouting at the top of his voice at 'India@9'! Will Sagarika be forced to praise the Ambanis!
Few years back, Bhaskar Ghose was our guest in Bush House. The proud father, father-in law was filled with no less pride as a grandfather. With an effusive smile he would say, how he enjoys baby-sitting Rajdeep and Sagarika's kids.
I was annoyed when Shekhar literally bent himself to please Amit Shah, but today his parting shot from the Express made my eyes moist. After all, we all survive because of our survival instincts. He will move from the Express Building at Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, near ITO for those who are not conversant with Delhi's geo-political nerve centre, to the India Today office! Is it at Noida!
There was a time when Express Building was indeed the nerve centre of India's political journalism, if not Indian politics. I once had an opportunity to visit the building and it didn't seem anything extraordinaire. It was just after I had quit my job with the Financial Express in Kolkata. The idea was to collect my dues so as to meet my expenses during months of unemployment. Probably, Vivek Goenka was still not in command then.
If I am not mistaken, Vivek and his brother Santosh are Xavierians from Sahibganj, the school I had gone till I was in Class Four. One of my uncle's few claims to fame was that he taught the Goenka brothers. He would spare no effort to flaunt it.
Kolkata has been much more stagnant when it comes to journalistic mobility, yet rumours fly with equal agility like it does in Delhi and Mumbai. Claims and counter claims on the pecuniary benefits on offers and not professional excellence draw and redraw the contours of a journalist's career.
Television channels are up shots now, and their presenters and reporters nouveau-stars, yet none can deny their democratisation effect. Journalism is no longer confined to the rich, powerful, wealthy and the well read, but like always they often attach greater self-importance than is due to them.
Twenty-one years ago, on a June afternoon like today, I indulged in my journalistic journey at the St Xavier's College in Kolkata, where veteran journalist and senior editor Niranjan Sengupta taught a motley group of aspirants a few nuances of journalism. Since then, despite the best of efforts to whole-heartedly quit, I have been tied tightly with this profession.
After completing 20 years in journalism, of which 14 years with the BBC, I thought of quitting in 2012, and starting afresh with a new career. But that was not to be.
Probably, Niranjan Babu was right!
"It's difficult to get into journalism, but it's even more difficult to leave," he once told me.
Quitting journalism is like crossing a bridge, which one can try to the best of efforts but never accomplish completely !
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
Twitter Handle: @tirthankarb
All comments are personal.
My heart goes out to Rahul Gandhi
Dear Rahul,
You must be terribly disappointed by the disastrous performance of the Indian National Congress, and more so because the party leaders are not allowing you to shoulder moral responsibility for the failure and quit the job you so distaste.
I know how it feels to do a job one hates and still remain captive to the self interests of a bunch of selfish politicians, who are self-centered and without an iota of self-respect to say the least.
I understand, you are also a prisoner of your family's self-indulged tradition of being the custodian of the Congress party and will probably lead it till the time the party exists.
We are almost of the same age, and yet you have to bear the burden of such high expectations, trauma, personal loss, ridicule, and what not. Sometimes I feel how lucky I am.
I was very close to my grandfather, and when he passed away, I was just over nine. Although it was a natural death at a reasonable age during that time, the pain of the loss left me blank for months. But my agony was no match compared to what you had to undergo when Indira Gandhi was assassinated.
It was in the height of summer in 1991 and preparations for my Economics Honours examination kept me awake till very late in night. So when my father woke me up very early next morning, I was angry. Little did I know that by then Rajiv Gandhi's body was ripped apart beyond recognition.
No matter what the world thought about him, Rajiv Gandhi was your father, who held you in his arms, cuddled you, taught you how to walk, responded to your babble and inspired you to dream big to fulfill your aspirations.
When everybody, including me, were competing to find the choicest of words to undermine and ridicule you, it struck me, why the whole world is against someone who probably didn't even aspire to be a politician. Why everyone is baying for your blood when you didn't want to lead the Congress party and leadership was thrust upon a reluctant politician only to protect the interests of a bunch of Congressmen, whose only ambition was to use you to satisfy their greed for power.
You know Rahul, I was a lot luckier. When the norm of our time in a middle class family was to encourage boys and girls to go for Medical or Engineering, even if they had no penchant for it, my parents didn't force me to do so. The day, I failed to decipher how a Barlow's Wheel operates, I knew Engineering or Physics were not for me. I had a liking not to study the human anatomy but expressions and manifestations of their social behaviour and my parents readily agreed to live with it. I performed badly in my Higher Secondary examination, opted for a year's gap during my graduation and never gave my Master's in Economics the seriousness it deserved, yet my parents never questioned my wishes, because they loved me and were ready to do anything to make me happy.
Your were not so lucky Rahul neither was your dad. Rajiv Gandhi wanted to have a private life in the company of his wife, son and daughter and see their dreams come true, but was thrust upon into the murky world of politics. You know why! Only to protect a bunch of politicians, who camouflaged their self-interest with that of India. Your parents always feared that Rajiv Gandhi might be killed one day or the other, but they were left with no option.
These were the same leaders who didn't spare your mother. Even before the period of private mourning was over, they flocked together to force her to take up the post of prime minister in 1991. It's not only that they lacked self respect and dignity but wanted a fall guy who would bear the brunt of being in power.
After the first United Progressive Alliance (UPA) came to power in 2004, I was a tad disappointed with your mother's conduct, given that she was not only the president of the Congress party but was also yours and Priyanka's mum. She allowed the Congress to ally with the DMK of M Karunanidhi, Samajwadi Party of Mulayam Singh Yadav, took support from the CPIM of Jyoti Basu and Harkishen Singh Surjeet, and didn't turn down an offer of friendship from a cunning V P Singh. These were the leaders who one day went around the country campaigning: "Gali Gali mey shor hai Rajiv Gandhi chor hay" (meaning the lanes and by-lanes of India are filled with slogans that Rajiv Gandhi was a thief). I still believe the vitriolic campaign collectively unleashed by them contributed to a sense of national hatred that culminated in the tragic killing of your father.
Anguished, I wrote a letter to her, questioning the decision to ally. She didn't shy away from responding, as most politicians in India do, but described 'threat to secularism' as the moral obligation. I was not convinced then, neither am I now. She was trapped, coaxed and cajoled by willy politicians. It's the same politicians who rejected your offer to resign. They did it not because they love and respect you or the Nehru-Gandhi family, but because they want you to be the fall guy as they made hay.
Rahul, when I was pondering over quitting my job in the BBC after nearly 14 years, I was terribly shakened and literally didn't know what to do. Then my father told me, "if you are passionate about what you do and listen to your heart nothing can stop you."
I wish I could put my arm on your shoulder and say, "Rahul do what your heart says."
Hope you find solace, joy and freedom in what you do in the future.
(A copy of this letter is being sent to Rahul Gandhi)
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
You must be terribly disappointed by the disastrous performance of the Indian National Congress, and more so because the party leaders are not allowing you to shoulder moral responsibility for the failure and quit the job you so distaste.
I understand, you are also a prisoner of your family's self-indulged tradition of being the custodian of the Congress party and will probably lead it till the time the party exists.
We are almost of the same age, and yet you have to bear the burden of such high expectations, trauma, personal loss, ridicule, and what not. Sometimes I feel how lucky I am.
I was very close to my grandfather, and when he passed away, I was just over nine. Although it was a natural death at a reasonable age during that time, the pain of the loss left me blank for months. But my agony was no match compared to what you had to undergo when Indira Gandhi was assassinated.
It was in the height of summer in 1991 and preparations for my Economics Honours examination kept me awake till very late in night. So when my father woke me up very early next morning, I was angry. Little did I know that by then Rajiv Gandhi's body was ripped apart beyond recognition.
No matter what the world thought about him, Rajiv Gandhi was your father, who held you in his arms, cuddled you, taught you how to walk, responded to your babble and inspired you to dream big to fulfill your aspirations.
When everybody, including me, were competing to find the choicest of words to undermine and ridicule you, it struck me, why the whole world is against someone who probably didn't even aspire to be a politician. Why everyone is baying for your blood when you didn't want to lead the Congress party and leadership was thrust upon a reluctant politician only to protect the interests of a bunch of Congressmen, whose only ambition was to use you to satisfy their greed for power.
 |
| Pic: Courtesy Indian Express |
Your were not so lucky Rahul neither was your dad. Rajiv Gandhi wanted to have a private life in the company of his wife, son and daughter and see their dreams come true, but was thrust upon into the murky world of politics. You know why! Only to protect a bunch of politicians, who camouflaged their self-interest with that of India. Your parents always feared that Rajiv Gandhi might be killed one day or the other, but they were left with no option.
These were the same leaders who didn't spare your mother. Even before the period of private mourning was over, they flocked together to force her to take up the post of prime minister in 1991. It's not only that they lacked self respect and dignity but wanted a fall guy who would bear the brunt of being in power.After the first United Progressive Alliance (UPA) came to power in 2004, I was a tad disappointed with your mother's conduct, given that she was not only the president of the Congress party but was also yours and Priyanka's mum. She allowed the Congress to ally with the DMK of M Karunanidhi, Samajwadi Party of Mulayam Singh Yadav, took support from the CPIM of Jyoti Basu and Harkishen Singh Surjeet, and didn't turn down an offer of friendship from a cunning V P Singh. These were the leaders who one day went around the country campaigning: "Gali Gali mey shor hai Rajiv Gandhi chor hay" (meaning the lanes and by-lanes of India are filled with slogans that Rajiv Gandhi was a thief). I still believe the vitriolic campaign collectively unleashed by them contributed to a sense of national hatred that culminated in the tragic killing of your father.
Anguished, I wrote a letter to her, questioning the decision to ally. She didn't shy away from responding, as most politicians in India do, but described 'threat to secularism' as the moral obligation. I was not convinced then, neither am I now. She was trapped, coaxed and cajoled by willy politicians. It's the same politicians who rejected your offer to resign. They did it not because they love and respect you or the Nehru-Gandhi family, but because they want you to be the fall guy as they made hay.
Rahul, when I was pondering over quitting my job in the BBC after nearly 14 years, I was terribly shakened and literally didn't know what to do. Then my father told me, "if you are passionate about what you do and listen to your heart nothing can stop you."
I wish I could put my arm on your shoulder and say, "Rahul do what your heart says."
Hope you find solace, joy and freedom in what you do in the future.
(A copy of this letter is being sent to Rahul Gandhi)
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
Sunday
Why I want to see Moon Moon Sen in Delhi
Aashish Chanana must be a very happy man. His dream beauty in 'Tasveer' has become the darling of the people of Bankura, trouncing nine-time MP Basudeb Achariya by nearly 1,00,000 votes. I faintly remember the Diwali evening when this telefilm was shown on Doordarshan sometime in the 90s. Those where the hey days of Doordarshan, India's public sector broadcaster. Since then the dynamics of the media in India has has changed dramatically, so has the politics of the country.
To me the nomination of Moon Moon Sen (Shrimati Dev Varma) from Bankura, against a seasoned politician of the calibre of Mr Acharya - CPI-M's outgoing leader in Lok Sabha, and her dramatic victory symbolises the emergence of what can be described as 'new politics' - which relies on modesty and humiliation, encourages individual aspiration and demonstrates grace and not arrogance even in victory - as against the older version of the game - which stokes fear and insecurity, treats people as faceless numbers - as depicted in their voter identity card - denying the minimum dignity that a person is entitled to, and sermonises the electorate rather than interacting with them with due respect to their level of knowledge and enlightenment.
I say this not because of any fancy for Ms Sen as an actress or for her 'exquisite beauty ' - I borrow this term from one of my classmates in university who went to Ballygunj Government High School where she used to teach Spoken English before getting married in 1978 - or for her familial connection to the legendary Suchitra Sen, whom I admire not only for her acting but also for her personality, grace and the way she challenged the patriarchal domination in Indian Cinema.
On the contrary, I think 'Tasveer' is probably the only film I have seen where Moon Moon Sen did some decent acting, especially because she didn't have much talking to do.
My classmate describes Ms Sen as "a good human being" and that he has "never seen such a gorgeous woman in his life". This probably puts into context the way Ms Sen conducted herself during the election campaign and after her triumph.
Ever since she was nominated as a candidate, Ms Sen didn't even pretend that the candidature was bestowed upon her because of her calibre. Ms Sen always maintained that she was nominated only because Mamata Banerjee wanted her to contest, didn't conduct herself hypocritically by sporting a symbolic spartan life concealing her luxurious lifestyle and never tried to project herself as a superior human being to the electorate.
All along the campaign trail, Ms Sen maintained that she wanted to do some 'small little things' for the people of Bankura and she was even ready to learn from his political opponent Mr Acharya as he had the experience of representing the constituency nine times. Even after her triumph, Ms Sen said she felt sorry for her opponent. These little nuances may not mean a lot in the din and bustle of accusations and counter-accusations of contemporary politics but they definitely portray a sense of respect both for the electorate and the opposition.
My mother-in-law, who is currently in Mejia, which is part of Bankura constituency, is apprehensive that Ms Sen will just be a silent spectator in parliament and it will not augur well for the people she is representing. This is just a hypothetical apprehension as India's political and parliamentary system do not have any scientific criterion (like the SMART Targets) to assess the achievements and failures of elected lawmakers. So whatever said is either claim or mere rhetoric.
There is no reason to believe that Ms Sen will be any less successful as a lawmaker than her predecessor only because of the fact that she is not a 'seasoned' political character.Essentially, politics is about power relations and such interface doesn't happen only within the parametres and framework of conventional politics. On the contrary, every sphere of human life is influenced by the intersection of such power relations.
There is also a public perception that Ms Sen is intellectually less equipped than those who claim to be progressive and omniscient. On the contrary her academic credentials are no less impressive than some of the self-styled the custodians of conventional wisdom. And I have heard from senior journalists, can't vouch for the veracity though, that Ms Sen was adjudged the best film critic while covering an international film festival in Kolkata for the now extinct Amritabazar Patrika in the late 70s.
What I gather from some of the close confidantes of Suchitra Sen, including her journalist friend Gopal Krishna Roy, that Mrs Sen wanted her daughter to be a domesticated wife, concentrating only on her house and husband (ঘরটি আর বরটি) . I have no clue as to why someone who challenged the patriarchy herself wanted her daughter to succumb or resign to it. It seems that it was too much for Moon Moon Sen, who was outward, went to upmarket educational institutions and had an illustrious family background. Probably she took to the films against her mother's wishes only to rebel against her intellectual captivity and without assessing whether she had the elements for it.
But a moderate career in films doesn't mean that it is surely to be replicated in Ms Sen's tenure in parliament. Given her credentials, penchant for serving the people, in "small and little ways", and humility, there are reasons to believe that she may spring a surprise for those who doubt her commitment and associate Ms Sen only with her anglicised Bengali accent.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
 |
| Moon Moon Sen was able to communicate with her electorate in a familiar lexicon (Pic: ET) |
I say this not because of any fancy for Ms Sen as an actress or for her 'exquisite beauty ' - I borrow this term from one of my classmates in university who went to Ballygunj Government High School where she used to teach Spoken English before getting married in 1978 - or for her familial connection to the legendary Suchitra Sen, whom I admire not only for her acting but also for her personality, grace and the way she challenged the patriarchal domination in Indian Cinema.
On the contrary, I think 'Tasveer' is probably the only film I have seen where Moon Moon Sen did some decent acting, especially because she didn't have much talking to do.
My classmate describes Ms Sen as "a good human being" and that he has "never seen such a gorgeous woman in his life". This probably puts into context the way Ms Sen conducted herself during the election campaign and after her triumph.
Ever since she was nominated as a candidate, Ms Sen didn't even pretend that the candidature was bestowed upon her because of her calibre. Ms Sen always maintained that she was nominated only because Mamata Banerjee wanted her to contest, didn't conduct herself hypocritically by sporting a symbolic spartan life concealing her luxurious lifestyle and never tried to project herself as a superior human being to the electorate.
All along the campaign trail, Ms Sen maintained that she wanted to do some 'small little things' for the people of Bankura and she was even ready to learn from his political opponent Mr Acharya as he had the experience of representing the constituency nine times. Even after her triumph, Ms Sen said she felt sorry for her opponent. These little nuances may not mean a lot in the din and bustle of accusations and counter-accusations of contemporary politics but they definitely portray a sense of respect both for the electorate and the opposition.
My mother-in-law, who is currently in Mejia, which is part of Bankura constituency, is apprehensive that Ms Sen will just be a silent spectator in parliament and it will not augur well for the people she is representing. This is just a hypothetical apprehension as India's political and parliamentary system do not have any scientific criterion (like the SMART Targets) to assess the achievements and failures of elected lawmakers. So whatever said is either claim or mere rhetoric.
There is no reason to believe that Ms Sen will be any less successful as a lawmaker than her predecessor only because of the fact that she is not a 'seasoned' political character.Essentially, politics is about power relations and such interface doesn't happen only within the parametres and framework of conventional politics. On the contrary, every sphere of human life is influenced by the intersection of such power relations.
There is also a public perception that Ms Sen is intellectually less equipped than those who claim to be progressive and omniscient. On the contrary her academic credentials are no less impressive than some of the self-styled the custodians of conventional wisdom. And I have heard from senior journalists, can't vouch for the veracity though, that Ms Sen was adjudged the best film critic while covering an international film festival in Kolkata for the now extinct Amritabazar Patrika in the late 70s.
What I gather from some of the close confidantes of Suchitra Sen, including her journalist friend Gopal Krishna Roy, that Mrs Sen wanted her daughter to be a domesticated wife, concentrating only on her house and husband (ঘরটি আর বরটি) . I have no clue as to why someone who challenged the patriarchy herself wanted her daughter to succumb or resign to it. It seems that it was too much for Moon Moon Sen, who was outward, went to upmarket educational institutions and had an illustrious family background. Probably she took to the films against her mother's wishes only to rebel against her intellectual captivity and without assessing whether she had the elements for it.
But a moderate career in films doesn't mean that it is surely to be replicated in Ms Sen's tenure in parliament. Given her credentials, penchant for serving the people, in "small and little ways", and humility, there are reasons to believe that she may spring a surprise for those who doubt her commitment and associate Ms Sen only with her anglicised Bengali accent.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
Thursday
Sensing Narendra Modi's game plan
Political circles in India are agog with rumours and apprehensions about the fall out of a Narendra Modi-led government in Delhi. No one even pretends not to comprehend the difference between a BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government and the one led by the Gujarat strongman.
Given his track record in Gujarat and the rhetorical implication of a long drawn election campaign in the height of an extraordinary period of heat and dust, there is an element of anxiety not only among the political rivals of the BJP but also within the very party he is leading.
Stalwarts of the 'old BJP' like one of its founder members L K Advani and senior leader Murali Manohar Joshi are feeling left out amidst the euphoria of the biggest ever election victory the party has achieved. Even middle rung leaders like Sushma Swaraj are bearing the brunt of a 'Modi-ride' within the party, leave aside the expulsion of Jaswant Singh, who often mesmerised Atal Behari Vajpayee, Madeline Albright and Strobe Talbot with his stiff upper-lip usage of Queen's English, so prevalent in Westminster.
As the centre of gravity of BJP shifts from Delhi to Ahmedabad, Mr Modi and his Man Friday Amit Shah have ensured that the political and numerical weight of India's largest state with the maximum number of seats in Lok Sabha, Uttar Pradesh, also fall in line. The 'Delhi-Ahmedabad-Lucknow' triad is going to play a significant role in the chessboard of the Modi-brand of national politics. Having Uttar Pradesh as part of the game plan also has a symbolic connotation for Team Modi, because of Babri Masjid and Ayodhya, and Mr Modi contesting from Varanasi is not just one of the many decisions taken during the polls.
On the periphery of the powerful triad is Bihar, where Sushil Modi has pushed his once coalition partner Nitish Kumar to face the worst challenge of his political life. On the western front, Maharashtra is already having a government in waiting of the BJP-Shiv Sena alliance, ready to take on a disoriented Congress and an opportunist NCP.
Despite a last-minute alliance with the TDP in Andhra Pradesh, managers of Team Modi will probably use their brute majority at the Centre to gradually assert themselves in the state and project the BJP as a political rival to Chandrababu Naidu.
My understanding is that Mr Modi's game plan is somehow similar in Karnataka and B S Yedurappa may find himself in political isolation sooner than later. By doing so Mr Modi will try to take the steam out of the political capital of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). Not that AAP has made any significant impact in national politics, but Mr Modi wants to address the domain of Arvind Kejriwal & Co only to tame the civil society and to nip any possible brand of the 'social Left' from being part of the dominant political discourse in the country.
Those who have analysed Mr Modi's character, his psyche and thought process would acknowledge that he has a tremendous penchant for being part of history. His call for 'Gujarati Pride' or interest in building the tallest ever statue of Sardar Patel are only reflection of such a trait. No one should be surprised if the popular slogan of 'Ab ki bar Modi sarkar' changes to 'Bar bar Modi sarkar'.
The biggest challenge for Team Modi will be to expand the party and its influence to areas which are yet to witness the footprints of Modi brand of politics. Mr Modi's renewed emphasis on West Bengal during the campaign bears testimony to such a strategy.
Team Modi would try to make the next assembly polls in West Bengal in 2016 a battleground between the BJP and the Trinamool Congress (TMC). And similar game plans may also come into play in Tamil Nadu, Orissa, Assam and other North Eastern states, either against AIADMK, or the Biju Janata Dal.
Does that mean Mr Modi will try to liquidate parties like the TMC, using money power from the BJP funders, or the constitutional muscle power of the Centre, or by pulling strings of the Central Bureau of Investigation in cases like the Saradha Scam?
I doubt that. Rather Team Modi will try to decimate those who have the potential of emerging as formidable opposition to Mamata Banerjee, and pit the BJP as the main rival of the TMC. At the national level BJP's main opponent is Congress and Team Modi won't do anything that will offer even a whisker of opportunity to the party. Taking the TMC by its horn, may tempt Ms Banerjee to glide towards the Congress, which may come as a lifeline to the age old party after its worst ever political drubbing.
Mr Modi is also pathologically against the Left. He knows it very well that the Left is ideologically closer to the Congress than any other political formation in the country. Without decimating the Left in West Bengal, BJP has no chance of elevating itself to become the most formidable opposition to the TMC.
The jigsaw of the political puzzle is which side of the political spectrum the supporters of the Left or the CPIM move? In a neo-liberal set up where individualism is at its prime and ideology taken a backseat, political success is primarily linked to delivering benefits. People would support any political formation not so much for ideological reasons as it is for clientelism. No other political party mustered the patron-client relationship better than the CPIM in its 34-year rule. Team Modi at the centre will channelise all its resources to better service its own clientele in states where the BJP has any potential to expand.
Political polarisation may not be socially desirable but it is any politician's delight, especially those like Ms Banerjee and Mr Modi who basically love to operate within a non-democratic set up. Recall the "Either you are with us or against us" statement of US President George W Bush just after 'Nine-Eleven'.
Strengthening of any political element which lies in between two polarising parties only weakens the sharpness of the divide. Any polariser always tends to demonise its opponent to create a sense of insecurity among its clientele so that the supporters tend to cling together and flock with those who serve them in terms of benefits and security. In this back drop, analyse the sharp and uncivil comments made by Ms Banerjee against Mr Modi, or the uncharitable comments made by the BJP and the Congress against each other at the national level.
In the final analysis, with a BJP government led by Narendra Modi at the Centre, the TMC and its leader Ms Mamata Banerjee will have a chance to consolidate and regroup against a specific opposition, rather than scattered multiple adversaries like the Congress, the CPIM etc. The weakening of the Congress in the state will also ensure that its core support base will flock with the TMC rather than siding with the BJP, especially under Mr Modi.
Sociologists now recognise that Newton's Third Law of Motion -"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" - also operates at the societal and the socio-political levels. I was first made aware of this by one of my tutors in Economics Kunja Behari Kundu, better known as 'KBK' to his students, while talking about the Harrod-Domar Model. It was further substantiated in academic papers.
Extrapolating that principle, it can be stated that to be formidable in Bengal, the BJP needs an equally strong opponent. This points to the conclusion that Team Modi will rather try to consolidate its position in the next two years ahead of the 2016 assembly polls and not liquidate the TMC. This in effect may guide some Left supporters towards the BJP only for security reasons and against the onslaught of the TMC.
Ms Banerjee and her party have two years to consolidate and regroup rather than fear that Team Modi will initiate a witch hunt. He would rather prefer to decimate the Congress and the Left in Bengal before taking on the TMC.
Mr Modi would rather prefer a 'kaante ka takkar' or a battle of thorns, than silently engineering defection.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
 |
| Narendra Modi talking to media in Delhi after BJP's historic victory (Pic: Blogger) |
Stalwarts of the 'old BJP' like one of its founder members L K Advani and senior leader Murali Manohar Joshi are feeling left out amidst the euphoria of the biggest ever election victory the party has achieved. Even middle rung leaders like Sushma Swaraj are bearing the brunt of a 'Modi-ride' within the party, leave aside the expulsion of Jaswant Singh, who often mesmerised Atal Behari Vajpayee, Madeline Albright and Strobe Talbot with his stiff upper-lip usage of Queen's English, so prevalent in Westminster.
Powerful triad
As the centre of gravity of BJP shifts from Delhi to Ahmedabad, Mr Modi and his Man Friday Amit Shah have ensured that the political and numerical weight of India's largest state with the maximum number of seats in Lok Sabha, Uttar Pradesh, also fall in line. The 'Delhi-Ahmedabad-Lucknow' triad is going to play a significant role in the chessboard of the Modi-brand of national politics. Having Uttar Pradesh as part of the game plan also has a symbolic connotation for Team Modi, because of Babri Masjid and Ayodhya, and Mr Modi contesting from Varanasi is not just one of the many decisions taken during the polls.
On the periphery of the powerful triad is Bihar, where Sushil Modi has pushed his once coalition partner Nitish Kumar to face the worst challenge of his political life. On the western front, Maharashtra is already having a government in waiting of the BJP-Shiv Sena alliance, ready to take on a disoriented Congress and an opportunist NCP.
Despite a last-minute alliance with the TDP in Andhra Pradesh, managers of Team Modi will probably use their brute majority at the Centre to gradually assert themselves in the state and project the BJP as a political rival to Chandrababu Naidu.
My understanding is that Mr Modi's game plan is somehow similar in Karnataka and B S Yedurappa may find himself in political isolation sooner than later. By doing so Mr Modi will try to take the steam out of the political capital of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). Not that AAP has made any significant impact in national politics, but Mr Modi wants to address the domain of Arvind Kejriwal & Co only to tame the civil society and to nip any possible brand of the 'social Left' from being part of the dominant political discourse in the country.
Those who have analysed Mr Modi's character, his psyche and thought process would acknowledge that he has a tremendous penchant for being part of history. His call for 'Gujarati Pride' or interest in building the tallest ever statue of Sardar Patel are only reflection of such a trait. No one should be surprised if the popular slogan of 'Ab ki bar Modi sarkar' changes to 'Bar bar Modi sarkar'.
Battleground Bengal 2016
The biggest challenge for Team Modi will be to expand the party and its influence to areas which are yet to witness the footprints of Modi brand of politics. Mr Modi's renewed emphasis on West Bengal during the campaign bears testimony to such a strategy.
Team Modi would try to make the next assembly polls in West Bengal in 2016 a battleground between the BJP and the Trinamool Congress (TMC). And similar game plans may also come into play in Tamil Nadu, Orissa, Assam and other North Eastern states, either against AIADMK, or the Biju Janata Dal.
Does that mean Mr Modi will try to liquidate parties like the TMC, using money power from the BJP funders, or the constitutional muscle power of the Centre, or by pulling strings of the Central Bureau of Investigation in cases like the Saradha Scam?
I doubt that. Rather Team Modi will try to decimate those who have the potential of emerging as formidable opposition to Mamata Banerjee, and pit the BJP as the main rival of the TMC. At the national level BJP's main opponent is Congress and Team Modi won't do anything that will offer even a whisker of opportunity to the party. Taking the TMC by its horn, may tempt Ms Banerjee to glide towards the Congress, which may come as a lifeline to the age old party after its worst ever political drubbing.
Mr Modi is also pathologically against the Left. He knows it very well that the Left is ideologically closer to the Congress than any other political formation in the country. Without decimating the Left in West Bengal, BJP has no chance of elevating itself to become the most formidable opposition to the TMC.
The jigsaw of the political puzzle is which side of the political spectrum the supporters of the Left or the CPIM move? In a neo-liberal set up where individualism is at its prime and ideology taken a backseat, political success is primarily linked to delivering benefits. People would support any political formation not so much for ideological reasons as it is for clientelism. No other political party mustered the patron-client relationship better than the CPIM in its 34-year rule. Team Modi at the centre will channelise all its resources to better service its own clientele in states where the BJP has any potential to expand.
Political polarisation may not be socially desirable but it is any politician's delight, especially those like Ms Banerjee and Mr Modi who basically love to operate within a non-democratic set up. Recall the "Either you are with us or against us" statement of US President George W Bush just after 'Nine-Eleven'.
Strengthening of any political element which lies in between two polarising parties only weakens the sharpness of the divide. Any polariser always tends to demonise its opponent to create a sense of insecurity among its clientele so that the supporters tend to cling together and flock with those who serve them in terms of benefits and security. In this back drop, analyse the sharp and uncivil comments made by Ms Banerjee against Mr Modi, or the uncharitable comments made by the BJP and the Congress against each other at the national level.
Newton's Third Law of Motion
In the final analysis, with a BJP government led by Narendra Modi at the Centre, the TMC and its leader Ms Mamata Banerjee will have a chance to consolidate and regroup against a specific opposition, rather than scattered multiple adversaries like the Congress, the CPIM etc. The weakening of the Congress in the state will also ensure that its core support base will flock with the TMC rather than siding with the BJP, especially under Mr Modi.
Sociologists now recognise that Newton's Third Law of Motion -"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" - also operates at the societal and the socio-political levels. I was first made aware of this by one of my tutors in Economics Kunja Behari Kundu, better known as 'KBK' to his students, while talking about the Harrod-Domar Model. It was further substantiated in academic papers.
Extrapolating that principle, it can be stated that to be formidable in Bengal, the BJP needs an equally strong opponent. This points to the conclusion that Team Modi will rather try to consolidate its position in the next two years ahead of the 2016 assembly polls and not liquidate the TMC. This in effect may guide some Left supporters towards the BJP only for security reasons and against the onslaught of the TMC.
Ms Banerjee and her party have two years to consolidate and regroup rather than fear that Team Modi will initiate a witch hunt. He would rather prefer to decimate the Congress and the Left in Bengal before taking on the TMC.
Mr Modi would rather prefer a 'kaante ka takkar' or a battle of thorns, than silently engineering defection.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
Wednesday
Manmohan Singh inculcated a sense of purpose
I am not sure who was the real architect of India's economic reforms. Manmohan Singh is credited by many, but I think it was the acumen of a shrewd and pragmatic politician in P V Narsimha Rao which made an effort to free India from the shackles of Licence Raj, tried to open up the economy, and with it liberalise the mindset of a large section of the Indian population. Who ever is credited with initiating economic reforms in India, the Rao-Singh duo gave Economics students like me a sense of purpose in internalising what we were learning as part of an academic discipline.
I was a third year Economics Honours student in St. Xavier's College, Kolkata, when the economic reforms were initiated in 1991. A few of us bestowed upon ourselves a sense of obligation to comprehend what was happening. It was later described as one of the biggest policy upheavals in independent India.
That was the time when I was introduced to the pink papers or business broadsheets, took interest in seminars organised by various chambers of commerce and trade bodies, came to know about journals like the Economic and Political Weekly (EPW), Mainstream, Seminar etc and subscribed to the Indian Economic Survey and Yojna, a journal brought out by the Government of India.
Many of these collections remained unread but still occupy the dusty cupboards of my ancestral house in Belgharia. Everytime I visit them, my parents insist on getting rid of the bundles of papers turned red and flaky journals wrapped nicely in a plastic packet to retain their historical value of bearing the testimony of a watershed moment in the history of post-independent India.
Much to our dismay and surprise, not a single word was uttered inside the classrooms about the tectonic shifts that were shaping the Indian economy for decades to come. Few of us, including Ritwik Mukherjee, Joydip Bhattacharya, would huddle in Arun Da's canteen and try to collectively comprehend the so called liberating moment of the Indian economy and with it the archaic and inward looking mindset of the policymakers.
We were too naive to take any call as to whether liberalisation was good or bad for the Indian economy and would often sit blank-faced in seminars and symposiums, but there was a sense of collective restlessness for not being able to decipher the hitherto unknown lexicons of the new economy that was to take over.
Ritwik used to work in a newspaper then and that made it easier for us to ensure invitations to important meetings organised by the chambers of commerce and gain access to trade bodies. We didn't understand much but there was a sense of euphoria for being part of a milestone in the history of independent India. Some of us, the students also derived as sense of purpose for studying Economics as an academic discipline.
For me, Economics taught within the confines of classrooms and at private tuition centres were as if insulated from the real world. In the few years that I studied Economics before 1991, I literally struggled in establishing its link to our daily lives. But the motivation for me in studying the subject was to understand the socio-political and economic factors that affected human behaviour and relations.
Economic liberalisation was that very moment which gave us an opportunity to carry out a reality check of the academic initiatives to educate young minds. Dr Singh deserves my thanks and praise for being the steward of a significant change in history that made Economics more palatable and grounded personally for me. In a way, he being an economist also thrust upon us a self-imposed moral obligation to ensure and explain as to why economics is an important guiding force behind political decision-making.
As he demits office at the end of his controversial, often ineffective and sometimes unassertive tenure as prime minister, Dr Singh deserves my gratitude for playing a role in transforming the Indian economy which in effect gave us an opportunity to enjoy Economics as an academic discipline. It also inculcated a sense of purpose in Economics students like me, which later extended to a wider realm of social sciences.
All comments are personal.
That was the time when I was introduced to the pink papers or business broadsheets, took interest in seminars organised by various chambers of commerce and trade bodies, came to know about journals like the Economic and Political Weekly (EPW), Mainstream, Seminar etc and subscribed to the Indian Economic Survey and Yojna, a journal brought out by the Government of India.
Many of these collections remained unread but still occupy the dusty cupboards of my ancestral house in Belgharia. Everytime I visit them, my parents insist on getting rid of the bundles of papers turned red and flaky journals wrapped nicely in a plastic packet to retain their historical value of bearing the testimony of a watershed moment in the history of post-independent India.
Much to our dismay and surprise, not a single word was uttered inside the classrooms about the tectonic shifts that were shaping the Indian economy for decades to come. Few of us, including Ritwik Mukherjee, Joydip Bhattacharya, would huddle in Arun Da's canteen and try to collectively comprehend the so called liberating moment of the Indian economy and with it the archaic and inward looking mindset of the policymakers.
We were too naive to take any call as to whether liberalisation was good or bad for the Indian economy and would often sit blank-faced in seminars and symposiums, but there was a sense of collective restlessness for not being able to decipher the hitherto unknown lexicons of the new economy that was to take over.
Ritwik used to work in a newspaper then and that made it easier for us to ensure invitations to important meetings organised by the chambers of commerce and gain access to trade bodies. We didn't understand much but there was a sense of euphoria for being part of a milestone in the history of independent India. Some of us, the students also derived as sense of purpose for studying Economics as an academic discipline.
For me, Economics taught within the confines of classrooms and at private tuition centres were as if insulated from the real world. In the few years that I studied Economics before 1991, I literally struggled in establishing its link to our daily lives. But the motivation for me in studying the subject was to understand the socio-political and economic factors that affected human behaviour and relations.
Economic liberalisation was that very moment which gave us an opportunity to carry out a reality check of the academic initiatives to educate young minds. Dr Singh deserves my thanks and praise for being the steward of a significant change in history that made Economics more palatable and grounded personally for me. In a way, he being an economist also thrust upon us a self-imposed moral obligation to ensure and explain as to why economics is an important guiding force behind political decision-making.
As he demits office at the end of his controversial, often ineffective and sometimes unassertive tenure as prime minister, Dr Singh deserves my gratitude for playing a role in transforming the Indian economy which in effect gave us an opportunity to enjoy Economics as an academic discipline. It also inculcated a sense of purpose in Economics students like me, which later extended to a wider realm of social sciences.
All comments are personal.
Friday
Indian Babus & Nehruvian legacy
My dad wanted me to be a 'great man'. Every Sunday when visiting me in my boarding school, he would utter those words, the meaning of which were not very clear to me, neither to him I suppose. And yet those were among his favourite lexicons in the short conversation we had after having a couple of rosgoollahs and a cucumber or a mango at Narendrapur's Aam Bagan (Mango Grove).
It was in 1993, when I decided to take up a newspaper job while doing my Masters in Economics, that I realised that my father's definition of 'great man' was still very vague and obscure but roughly veered around something like an Indian Administrative Service Officer. He insisted that I prepared for an IAS job, which probably many middle class Bengali parents do even without doing a SWOT analysis of their children and I was no different. My self assessment was that I neither had the intellectual prowess nor the steely determination to compete for such jobs. In hindsight, probably I was not totally out of the mark.
I later realised that my dad's liking for IAS jobs, not necessarily state-level administrative jobs called WBCS in Bengal, was not so much for the challenges that lay ahead in terms of running an administration but more for the social weight - reflected by the perks and facilities, and the privileges the officers enjoyed.
Going through a story done for the NDTV by my good friend Rahul Joglekar, on the alleged unsocial behaviour meted out by the staff of the Indian High Commission in London, I was reminded of one of my father's many unfulfilled wishes involving me.
India House, as the High Commission building is named, is one of the prized locations of 21st Century London. It is next door to Bush House, which housed the BBC World Service until mid 2012 and where I worked for over 12 years.
The reason behind the vivid description and proximity to India House, is not to demonstrate self-importance but to acknowledge what is reflected in the online petition initiated by Arun Asokan, an IT professional, and so far signed by around thousand people. One can't miss the swerving queues for Passports and OCIs etc. irrespective of whether the place is shivering in cold or lashed by heavy rain. Only a few years back the High Commission outsourced the job of issuing short-term visas.
As some one who had the privilege of being inside the majestic building several times, I can vouch that there is not much difference between what is on offer inside the premises as compared to the situation outside and around the statue of India's first Prime Minister, which was inaugurated during Jawaharlal Nehru's birth centenary as part of the global celebration initiated by the Indian government, then led by his grandson Rajiv Gandhi.
Despite such an assessment, those of us who are living in London and the United Kingdom for 15 years like me or more alike many others would endorse the fact that a lot has changed from the situation that was in place and the way ordinary Indians were treated.
Lalit Mansingh was India's High Commissioner when I first arrived in the UK in 1999. We read in school textbooks that embassies and high commissions were custodians of Indian citizens when they were abroad. I took those words quite seriously only to be disappointed after father of one of my acquaintances suddenly passed away while visiting his son in Hounslow. Since the old man was not registered with UK's National Health Service (NHS) his body was taken to Charring Cross Hospital for post mortem. This was only fueling the agony of his distraught family who were already in a state of shock. When I approached the High Commission, expecting some help for the devastated family, I was told straight on the face that there was nothing on offer, but reminded that I should surrender the Indian passport of the deceased.
When I applied for my OCI and that of my family in 2007, the work ethics in India House was apparently much better than before and yet the concerned staff kept mum after misplacing our applications for weeks. It was only when I sought the intervention of then High Commissioner Shiv Shankar Mukherjee, after our OCIs were long due, that they accepted their failing, with a caveat of course that it was not 'entirely' their fault.
In fact, Mr Mukherjee partially liberated the High Commission and made it communicable by the commoners in the outside world. He ensured that Independence Day was celebrated at the Indian Gymkhana in Osterley, and not in either the India House or the posh residence of the High Commissioner in Kensington, and was open to all. Earlier, the High Commission and its custodians were in virtual captivity of some people who were either influential or mustered financial muscle or allegedly connived in business relations with some people linked to the High Commission. It was only after Mr Mukherjee's intervention that outside calls were attended and emails responded to.
And yet, nothing much has changed over the past years as the inertia of 'Babudoom' is difficult to be altered or reconfigured. It is all the more challenging to make things work or change in places like London, mainly because the postings here are considered plum and a fallout of either the efficiency of the officials or their ability to keep the masters (both administrative and political) in good stead. Those who got postings in London considered themselves to be way ahead of others.
The significance of Britain, the importance of London on India and the lives of Indians or for that matter the affinity of a generation of Indians towards Britain and London is not only historical, it also bears the hallmark of Nehruvian legacy.
Having lived and studied in England, Nehru was always very proud of his English links. He thought it provided him with an added advantage and authority of assessing history and society and hence become first among equals, at least within India, in the noble task of being a moderniser. A large section of the Indian elites, both in India and abroad - certainly in London, and those who are posted in London (who also consider themselves as part of the elite class) as representatives of the Government of India are definitely carrying the age old Nehruvian legacy, which shows them as being superiors compared to others.
Probably, this sense of superiority is the reason why many Indian Babus frown at those who in academic parlance are referred to as the 'others'.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
It was in 1993, when I decided to take up a newspaper job while doing my Masters in Economics, that I realised that my father's definition of 'great man' was still very vague and obscure but roughly veered around something like an Indian Administrative Service Officer. He insisted that I prepared for an IAS job, which probably many middle class Bengali parents do even without doing a SWOT analysis of their children and I was no different. My self assessment was that I neither had the intellectual prowess nor the steely determination to compete for such jobs. In hindsight, probably I was not totally out of the mark.
I later realised that my dad's liking for IAS jobs, not necessarily state-level administrative jobs called WBCS in Bengal, was not so much for the challenges that lay ahead in terms of running an administration but more for the social weight - reflected by the perks and facilities, and the privileges the officers enjoyed.
Going through a story done for the NDTV by my good friend Rahul Joglekar, on the alleged unsocial behaviour meted out by the staff of the Indian High Commission in London, I was reminded of one of my father's many unfulfilled wishes involving me.
India House, as the High Commission building is named, is one of the prized locations of 21st Century London. It is next door to Bush House, which housed the BBC World Service until mid 2012 and where I worked for over 12 years.
The reason behind the vivid description and proximity to India House, is not to demonstrate self-importance but to acknowledge what is reflected in the online petition initiated by Arun Asokan, an IT professional, and so far signed by around thousand people. One can't miss the swerving queues for Passports and OCIs etc. irrespective of whether the place is shivering in cold or lashed by heavy rain. Only a few years back the High Commission outsourced the job of issuing short-term visas.
As some one who had the privilege of being inside the majestic building several times, I can vouch that there is not much difference between what is on offer inside the premises as compared to the situation outside and around the statue of India's first Prime Minister, which was inaugurated during Jawaharlal Nehru's birth centenary as part of the global celebration initiated by the Indian government, then led by his grandson Rajiv Gandhi.
Despite such an assessment, those of us who are living in London and the United Kingdom for 15 years like me or more alike many others would endorse the fact that a lot has changed from the situation that was in place and the way ordinary Indians were treated.
Lalit Mansingh was India's High Commissioner when I first arrived in the UK in 1999. We read in school textbooks that embassies and high commissions were custodians of Indian citizens when they were abroad. I took those words quite seriously only to be disappointed after father of one of my acquaintances suddenly passed away while visiting his son in Hounslow. Since the old man was not registered with UK's National Health Service (NHS) his body was taken to Charring Cross Hospital for post mortem. This was only fueling the agony of his distraught family who were already in a state of shock. When I approached the High Commission, expecting some help for the devastated family, I was told straight on the face that there was nothing on offer, but reminded that I should surrender the Indian passport of the deceased.
When I applied for my OCI and that of my family in 2007, the work ethics in India House was apparently much better than before and yet the concerned staff kept mum after misplacing our applications for weeks. It was only when I sought the intervention of then High Commissioner Shiv Shankar Mukherjee, after our OCIs were long due, that they accepted their failing, with a caveat of course that it was not 'entirely' their fault.
In fact, Mr Mukherjee partially liberated the High Commission and made it communicable by the commoners in the outside world. He ensured that Independence Day was celebrated at the Indian Gymkhana in Osterley, and not in either the India House or the posh residence of the High Commissioner in Kensington, and was open to all. Earlier, the High Commission and its custodians were in virtual captivity of some people who were either influential or mustered financial muscle or allegedly connived in business relations with some people linked to the High Commission. It was only after Mr Mukherjee's intervention that outside calls were attended and emails responded to.
And yet, nothing much has changed over the past years as the inertia of 'Babudoom' is difficult to be altered or reconfigured. It is all the more challenging to make things work or change in places like London, mainly because the postings here are considered plum and a fallout of either the efficiency of the officials or their ability to keep the masters (both administrative and political) in good stead. Those who got postings in London considered themselves to be way ahead of others.
The significance of Britain, the importance of London on India and the lives of Indians or for that matter the affinity of a generation of Indians towards Britain and London is not only historical, it also bears the hallmark of Nehruvian legacy.
Having lived and studied in England, Nehru was always very proud of his English links. He thought it provided him with an added advantage and authority of assessing history and society and hence become first among equals, at least within India, in the noble task of being a moderniser. A large section of the Indian elites, both in India and abroad - certainly in London, and those who are posted in London (who also consider themselves as part of the elite class) as representatives of the Government of India are definitely carrying the age old Nehruvian legacy, which shows them as being superiors compared to others.
Probably, this sense of superiority is the reason why many Indian Babus frown at those who in academic parlance are referred to as the 'others'.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
Saturday
When secularism is skewed
By courting the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid, Sonia Gandhi has pulled the last plug for her son Rahul Gandhi and the Indian National Congress. This will consolidate the support base behind Narendra Modi. It comes at a time when there is not much scope for a national debate ahead of the general elections in India and little chance for the Congress leaders to clarify their position.
It's an irony that those progressive minds who don't fail in tongue-lashing Narendra Modi are in stoic silence after Sonia Gandhi's flirtations with what is being termed as 'minority appeasement' and 'pseudo-secularism'. My understanding is that this double-standard of the so called secular forces is one of the reasons behind the rise of 'aggressive Hindutwa' in India.
A critical look at the track record of the Congress, will demonstrate that the way Sonia Gandhi has conducted herself is no different from what Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi did. While Mrs Gandhi was known for courting the Shahi Imam ahead of every polls (she was also known to have courted the RSS during the Emergency and in 1977), Rajiv had the dubious distinction of surrendering to 'institutional Islam' in the Shah Banu Case.
In fact, this emanates from Nehru's understanding of secularism, which is characterised by Western thinking. Nehru can be critiqued for his linear thinking and symbolism on secularism, development and many other socio-political strands. One could argue that Nehru was influenced by some sort of a moral compulsion to protect the minority but in the process overlooked the sentiments and ethos of the majority. India being a much more complex and diverse society the principle of secularism which worked in the West probably resulted in widespread resentment among a large section of Nehru's countrymen.
The whole saga reminds me of a situation that I came across just after my arrival in London in 1999. The BJP-led National Democratic Alliance was in power then during its 13-month stint in government and Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress was very much part of the coalition. During a private conversation in Bush House, a former BBC colleague from Bangladesh, who is a very well-respected writer, asked me how come Ms Banerjee and the Trinamool Congress allied with the BJP.
I tried to explain that to fight the 'mighty' Marxists in Bengal Ms Banerjee needed both physical, financial and moral support from a bigger player in national politics and since the Congress, Ms Banerjee's parent party, was allegedly hand in glove with the CPI-M, she had very little option but to ally with the BJP.
Obviously, my former colleague was not convinced and tried to impress upon me that after all the 'BJP was communal' and it was 'unethical' on the part of Ms Banerjee to share a coalition and the ministry with them. I tried to underline the fact that real politic in India was much more complex than the conventional divide between 'secularism' and 'communalism' and a much closer look at the regional balance of power, caste equations need to be looked into before jumping into any inference. I also argued that although apparently with secular credentials, the Congress was also blamed for playing the religious card for short-term political gains. Even the self-styled epitome of secular politics in India, the Left, especially the CPI-M, who overlooked the caste and religious realities in favour of a class-based analysis of the Indian society, were not free from such allegations.
With due respect to his secular credentials and the depth of knowledge, I could see that my former colleague was clearly out of touch with the changed ground reality in India. And this is not unusual for someone who is from Bangladesh and has spent a good part of his life in London. But even the conventional wisdom of scholars and journalists in India suffers from such myopic thinking and inconsistencies in their assessment of secularism and plurality.
If Narendra Modi and the BJP is to be blamed for their divisive politics, the same applies to the Congress. The Congress leadership, especially under Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, resorted to the divide and rule tactics not only to rule the country but also to manage their own party, especially the regional satraps. Recall how chief ministers were para-trooped from Delhi in the middle of nights only to be elected by the legislative parties without caring for inner-party democracy. And let's not forget if Nehru is credited with practicing democratic pluralism in India, it was threatened by none other than his daughter Mrs Gandhi and grandson Sanjay Gandhi during Emergency.
Obviously, Nehru can't be blamed for the deeds of his daughter and grandson(s) but he was very proud of his Western upbringing and thinking based on European modernity. This personal pride often derided the traditional thinking that prevailed in India. And it was not only Nehru but majority of Indian elites suffered from such derision, be it academics, social and political thinkers, journalists or politicians. For most of them enlightening ordinary Indians was an act of charity that hardly differed from the way the Europeans looked at the natives in colonies.
The transformation of Indian society, especially in the Hindi heartland, can hardly be gauged by sitting in the metropolises or in Lutyens' Delhi. A trip to any semi-urban or rural area would show how the thinking and actions of the masses have been influenced by 'political Hindutwa', and this is irrespective of the fact whether the BJP was the dominant political force there during that period of time. Identifying the Hindu way of life as practiced by a large section of the Indian population with the BJP or the RSS would be an oversimplification of the collective thinking that is prevalent in India. Acknowledging the transformation of the Indian mindset would augur well for the minorities. After all it has been proved time and again that the state has limited power to protect the minorities and their safety can possibly be ensured not by conflict but by respecting and reconciling with the mindset of the majority, thereby entrusting upon them the responsibility of upholding pluralism and tolerance.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
It's an irony that those progressive minds who don't fail in tongue-lashing Narendra Modi are in stoic silence after Sonia Gandhi's flirtations with what is being termed as 'minority appeasement' and 'pseudo-secularism'. My understanding is that this double-standard of the so called secular forces is one of the reasons behind the rise of 'aggressive Hindutwa' in India.
A critical look at the track record of the Congress, will demonstrate that the way Sonia Gandhi has conducted herself is no different from what Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi did. While Mrs Gandhi was known for courting the Shahi Imam ahead of every polls (she was also known to have courted the RSS during the Emergency and in 1977), Rajiv had the dubious distinction of surrendering to 'institutional Islam' in the Shah Banu Case.
In fact, this emanates from Nehru's understanding of secularism, which is characterised by Western thinking. Nehru can be critiqued for his linear thinking and symbolism on secularism, development and many other socio-political strands. One could argue that Nehru was influenced by some sort of a moral compulsion to protect the minority but in the process overlooked the sentiments and ethos of the majority. India being a much more complex and diverse society the principle of secularism which worked in the West probably resulted in widespread resentment among a large section of Nehru's countrymen.
The whole saga reminds me of a situation that I came across just after my arrival in London in 1999. The BJP-led National Democratic Alliance was in power then during its 13-month stint in government and Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress was very much part of the coalition. During a private conversation in Bush House, a former BBC colleague from Bangladesh, who is a very well-respected writer, asked me how come Ms Banerjee and the Trinamool Congress allied with the BJP.
I tried to explain that to fight the 'mighty' Marxists in Bengal Ms Banerjee needed both physical, financial and moral support from a bigger player in national politics and since the Congress, Ms Banerjee's parent party, was allegedly hand in glove with the CPI-M, she had very little option but to ally with the BJP.
Obviously, my former colleague was not convinced and tried to impress upon me that after all the 'BJP was communal' and it was 'unethical' on the part of Ms Banerjee to share a coalition and the ministry with them. I tried to underline the fact that real politic in India was much more complex than the conventional divide between 'secularism' and 'communalism' and a much closer look at the regional balance of power, caste equations need to be looked into before jumping into any inference. I also argued that although apparently with secular credentials, the Congress was also blamed for playing the religious card for short-term political gains. Even the self-styled epitome of secular politics in India, the Left, especially the CPI-M, who overlooked the caste and religious realities in favour of a class-based analysis of the Indian society, were not free from such allegations.
With due respect to his secular credentials and the depth of knowledge, I could see that my former colleague was clearly out of touch with the changed ground reality in India. And this is not unusual for someone who is from Bangladesh and has spent a good part of his life in London. But even the conventional wisdom of scholars and journalists in India suffers from such myopic thinking and inconsistencies in their assessment of secularism and plurality.
If Narendra Modi and the BJP is to be blamed for their divisive politics, the same applies to the Congress. The Congress leadership, especially under Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, resorted to the divide and rule tactics not only to rule the country but also to manage their own party, especially the regional satraps. Recall how chief ministers were para-trooped from Delhi in the middle of nights only to be elected by the legislative parties without caring for inner-party democracy. And let's not forget if Nehru is credited with practicing democratic pluralism in India, it was threatened by none other than his daughter Mrs Gandhi and grandson Sanjay Gandhi during Emergency.
Obviously, Nehru can't be blamed for the deeds of his daughter and grandson(s) but he was very proud of his Western upbringing and thinking based on European modernity. This personal pride often derided the traditional thinking that prevailed in India. And it was not only Nehru but majority of Indian elites suffered from such derision, be it academics, social and political thinkers, journalists or politicians. For most of them enlightening ordinary Indians was an act of charity that hardly differed from the way the Europeans looked at the natives in colonies.
The transformation of Indian society, especially in the Hindi heartland, can hardly be gauged by sitting in the metropolises or in Lutyens' Delhi. A trip to any semi-urban or rural area would show how the thinking and actions of the masses have been influenced by 'political Hindutwa', and this is irrespective of the fact whether the BJP was the dominant political force there during that period of time. Identifying the Hindu way of life as practiced by a large section of the Indian population with the BJP or the RSS would be an oversimplification of the collective thinking that is prevalent in India. Acknowledging the transformation of the Indian mindset would augur well for the minorities. After all it has been proved time and again that the state has limited power to protect the minorities and their safety can possibly be ensured not by conflict but by respecting and reconciling with the mindset of the majority, thereby entrusting upon them the responsibility of upholding pluralism and tolerance.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)