All of India awaits, nervously, the HC verdict today on Ayodhya and the rights of the land that came into conflict 19 years ago. Having said that, it's also important to remember it probably came into conflict earlier when Moghul marauders invaded and conquered most of the land (via force not intellect). The Indian media has characterized this as the verdict on Ayodhya, not of the disputed land ownership within a district of UP, what was once part of Ayodhya the kingdom. This slightest stretch of the vernacular is an important one not to lose sight of. Like the verdict of the Ram Setu, it has characterized this as a verdict on the source of the story itself, the god, the legend and therefore the faith. Gullible as the people are, we've bought into this characterization completely.

We also follow keenly the list of Bollywood filmstars pleading for peace, for harmony and for unity. Of course they would. Who'd go watch expensive movies if people fear for their security and the police impose curfews? No doubt a few like Amitabh Bachchan, who is from UP, have more genuine intentions, but I'm sorry, Indian moviestars who've cheated on and left spouses, driven over sleeping beggars, been arrested or caught with possession of controlled substances, caught speaking with underworld dons, whose world tours are financed by shady racketeers, and in possession of Ak-47s aren't counted amongst those I get my dose of daily morality from.

The point is, I cannot imagine all this tamasha (drama) happening elsewhere. I do not see at any point during our lifetimes, a high court verdict being entertained, let alone passed on 'Jerusalem', 'Mecca', 'Sri Lanka', 'Malaysia', 'Indonesia' or any other land that houses ancient marvels of religious and spiritual importance, that may have been superimposed with a more recent structure, of the same or another millenium, of equal religious importance to someone else. It just won't happen. The 'Ground zero mosque' controversy is the most recent example of a similar argument, this time in the West.

That India's even this far along, is proof enough to me that we're secular. Secularism isn't the forced, judicial, or social subjugation of any one group's faith/religion at the cost of another's and I reject Mahesh Bhatt, the far-right amongst the RSS and others for suggesting it. It isn't even a religious tolerance. Tolerance, while lovely sounding, is pathetic, and below what we are capable of as humans, when you dissect the word's meaning. To paraphrase Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, tolerance is a hesitant and/or unwilling acceptance of ideas, thoughts and cultures, usually different from my own, often underlining the hesitant and unwilling part, while subscripting the acceptance part. Ask yourself, why would you have to tolerate that which you readily accept? You only tolerate that which you cannot stand. Mutual 'respect' and not tolerance is what we should be striving for instead. Respect for those of other religions, cultures, ages, tongues, nations of origin and sexual orientations. 

I respect every Hindu's, Muslim's, Parsi's, Christian's, Sikh's, Jew's, Baha'i's, Buddhist's, Atheist's (and others I've inadvertently left out) right to practise (or not) their religion for themselves and their families. I equally respect and adore India for being different than every other country in supporting an individuals right to do so for the last 1000 years. That should be our pledge of religious allegiance.

Everyone knows Ayodhya for what it is, the way we know what Nazareth, Jerusalem, Mecca, Gaya or Amritsar are. Will I, as an Indian, be respected, tolerated, or neither, for thinking so? I'm afraid to find out.

Recent developments in India prompt this naturalized-American-becoming-a dual citizen-Indian Desi to write about a few things India could learn from the US. These are in addition to, or ideally in lieu of, everything else it seems to be absorbing from the west like a sponge (needless consumerism, capitalism misconstrued as consumerism, defense spending, family values, increased use of recreational "substances" etcetera).

Since 2000, several new states have been 'created' out of existing states in India. These are Chattisgarh, Uttaranchal, Jharkhand, Delhi, Pudu/Pondicherry, the last two with the right to elect legislatures of their own. They all came about through some combination of peaceful, violent, arm-twisting, negotiated means. But they DID all came about. 

Further, on 9 Dec 2009, the national Congress government led by Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh agreed to form a seperate state in Andhra Pradesh, called Telangana and this legislature sits with the state government. This is historical for several reasons:

1. While not debating the merits of the argument or the plight of the Telangana people who have reason to think the system has disenfranchised them, India happens to be filled with such peoples and regions. We get upset when denied priority boarding ahead of a pregnant woman with 2 children. We're special. We're disillusioned by definition. The creation of Pakistan itself began with that very premise. Think about the precedent this sets. Other politicians in India sure are.
2. The region itself even with two major rivers, Krishna and Godavari, flowing through the region is incredibly arid and infertile. With rural farming and urban services (IT, manufacturing etc.) forming the two primary occupations of the South, there isn't much else by way of revenue for the region to claim; the bulk of the argument will center therefore on Hyderabad.
3. The importance of this cannot be overstated. After Bangalore, Hyderabad and Chennai control the lions' share of the IT services in India (read the world) and therefore the revenue as well. This amount was $63 Billion last year. Naturally, Telangana would want Hyderabad.
4. At this time similar tensions exist or existed in Gorkhaland (Bengal), Singur, Koda, Bengal, Tamil Nadu (of course problems always exist in Tamil Nadu). And just today, the Times of India carried a front page article on politicians in UP wanting to split that up into THREE STATES (Harit Pradesh, Bundelkhand, UP) !! We haven't even gotten to the elephants in the room - Maoists, Naxals and Kashmir.
5. Never before in the history of the country, have parts of the country been so developed, and others been so under-developed. The chasm is growing.
6. Never before in its history, has the country been less united than it is now. Even during the feudal and aristocrat days, there was the notion that this was in India, in Bharat, in Hindustan. I'm not so sure that notion exists anywhere anymore.
7. What assurances, negotiations, 2-way agreements have been formed between the "representation" of these movements and the Congress, which has been the dominant political party for the last five decades? Are we naive to assume that this is just about the people's movements?
8. What each state gets is a seat, a representation at the cabinet level and ALL the benefits therein. With the Times running an article a few months ago about how ministers in Maharashtra have had declared net worth increase several crores during their parliamentary posting, its not difficult to see what a politicians motivations might be. And that's just the declared worth. Anyone else have a problem with that?
9. What each new state gets is a new state obviously, and the need for new governing bodies, civic processes, bureaucracies, municipalities, elections, state-level funding etc. All that costs a lot of money. Wouldn't that money be better spent, removing those people out of poverty in the first place?
10. Amartya Sen conducted land breaking research on famines and the nature of their being a direct outcome of a lack of democracy. Is the real need here for a representation of these peoples at the political levels? Was a new state really necessary?
11. Elections, new school systems, lack of majority votes etc. all cost money. Where will this money come from? From all the IT revenue that Hyderabad has worked so hard to win? Is that fair?
12. Mahatma Gandhi's legacy is equal parts national leader/civil-disobedience & non-violence pioneer, but also being at the political helm during partitioning of the country into India and Pakistan. How ironic that his party's, the Congress', legacy is also equal parts reform, a form of secularism, economic growth and also the partitioning of the country into further, feuding, economically bankrupt states. Is it just a zero-sum game?
13. The straw that broke the back seemed to be a fast-unto-death attempt by an already unwell politician. Most places have judicial controls in place for threatened suicide. In India you get a state?
14. Of course if the MNS had their way, they'd declare Maharashtra another country. But lets' stick to rational arguments.

You just might be a social networking addict if..

1. You ask hosts at a dinner party what their foursquare privacy policy is
2. You go ahead and check in anyway
3. You check in on any of the following google latitude, fring, facebook, booyah, citysense, brightkite, gypsii, mobiluck, loopt, plazes, whrrl and IPling
4. You actually know what any of the sites in bullet 3 are and/or actually use them *Bonus points* if you know and track which of these have received recent VC funding
5. You get upset when a work colleague unfollows/unfriends/blocks you. You can no longer DM them. They happen to sit two cubes down from you
6. You engage in riveting debates on the pros and cons of using twitter vs. yammer for work. *Corollary* You frequently engage in social networking proselytizing at work
7. You ask at a work meeting if there are hashtags for any of the action items
8. You are deeply vexed on whether to make a particular link public or private on your delicious site
9. You are a mayor on foursquare and make it a point to tweet about it
10. When doing something remotely fun - You must check in, see who else is around, view their profile, friend them, tweet/yam/fb about it - other than enjoying the bloody thing you're doing

Even if none of the above are true, you are a social networking addict anyway - that's the only way you would have gotten notified about this post :)