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.

(Written 26-29 January 2010)

A most reassuring sign that India's time has come is when the President of the United States, a country strong and independent for 235 years, speaks to his people, sternly, of competition with India, a country and civilization while much much older, independent from foreign rule for only 62 years. Comparing GDPs, defense budgets would be a futile exercise, yet he sees a challenge. 

A best friend of mine from Ireland, controversially, once spoke of a longing past-desire to have had Britain rule Ireland for a longer period of time. While that instantly made him unpopular with his fellow Irish, his point of view was that a lot of the land and religious feud would not have happened, economic reforms would have taken place faster and that over time the Irish would've learned to self-govern. This is an extremely popular view of past colonies, India and Hong Kong are probably no exception.

What would that have meant for India? Perhaps better roads, better infrastructure, better civic sense and responsibilities, lines, order, sterile and hyper-safe environments? Just keep in mind, there is no country anywhere in the world that has managed to embrace the glories of the past with the opportunity of the new. Japan has all but relegated any spirituality to private sanctuary. China is doing well in embracing both, but tilted heavily toward the new. Greece failed at both making it to the present and retaining the old. Only India is doing well at both and should continue to do so. While the lack of Infrastructure, water, civics is difficult and depriving they can be built. A recollection and sense of who we are, who we were and the gifts we've presented to the world cannot be rebuilt from memory. Our identity as a republic has always been independent and separate from outsiders. 

I think independence from Britain was one of the best things to have happened to India. Taxation without representation, suffrage, child education are not trivial issues. I suspect these issues would have remained India's bane much longer had the British stayed. Now primarily child education and poverty remain as THE challenging issues.

I, however, do not pay taxes to the Indian government. At least, not yet. And so, I have resigned my opportunity to speak any ill, since I do nothing to improve the situation. For me, its home.

Just thinking through, let alone writing, a company business plan is immensely challenging and difficult. The leaders of 1948 had to take advice and counsel from all corners of the country, judicial and personal, and come up with the constitution of India. Some of the leaders were killed, some of them died before they saw the dream come alive, others were not good leaders and yet others brought up change in future generations simply by the power of their thought. All this not long after each arm of the country was further separated into unimaginable borders. It may not be perfect, and in some cases the constitution may even be outdated. But it's what we have and we should be proud of it. It came after almost a 1000 years of slavery. And we're seen as scary competition in just 62.

Happy 60th Birthday Dear Republic.

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.

(download)

Click here to download:

karthikai-deepam-BFfwBabhkpmbecvcFfea.zip (2.16 MB)

Karthikai deepam.

Prasadam (offerings). Lamps lit with ghee. Tamil Hindu women pray for their brothers to commemorate the bond between them, as well as the brother's wellbeing, health and prosperity. Earliest references to this are found in the Ahananuru, from the sangam age - 200BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karthikai_Deepam 

A simpler time. Prayers for and by siblings. Brothers everywhere should be so lucky to have sisters like this.