The recent scandal of alleged attempt to give the Indian army chief an offer of 14 crores to buy a particular set of vehicles for the use of defense would make a burlesque mockery of all the temple of constitution if it were to go down the tunnel of time passage. Different voices are gaining rowdy larynx as the story develops every hour. First there was the man at the receiving end of the treacherous offer-- Army Chief V.K Singh, who chose suddenly, as if by a subtle bout of memory, to divulge the matter that was at hand a good years ago. But that the man has spoken is a plus service to the nation, or at least the sluggish expose would only end up making the 'Indian Defense' more strong.
The first riposte from the prominent media and television voices--merely in attempt to come up with some sloppy statement, or to get clarity out of reiteration-- was to take on V.P Singh's particular claim. The common phrase "Why now" resounded and did the first step in uniting the voices who were asked to comment. (United they felt at the same page, thus relieved and started with constructing understanding in their minds over an overly complex issue of national security). I know with certainty that were they to take time to reflect over the impetuous blare of theirs, they must be feeling pangs of shame now. Because the issue could not have been afforded to stray and thus it should have been handled such that the so called 'questioning voice' or more aptly the 'inquisitive voice' should have had the chance to sound rationally and apolitically.
Since we missed that moment yet again, it would be wise to let it rest now. The issue is about corruption and can't be alleviated to mere attempt of bribe. The honor of army has come under the dark by the plague of corruption. So far it was the say of politicians that were to be sought after to generate an understanding of the bulky issues but the realm of army is well beyond the mere politicos and extends up to the civilians. How often have we heard of voices--regular, proletariat, concerning, naive--who applauded the two institutions in the grand murk of Indian scope: The Supreme Court of India and The Indian Army. These two institutions so far have retained the sanity and respect as far the grand naivete of Indian's billions is concerned. Not only because these pledge to regard the sense of security and justice---the absolute crux of physiological aesthete--but also that these two institutions have shared a deep bonding with the scruffy slate of an average Indian. This concept of slate seems to lurch in the fear of being compromised. And to play the dirty game, it is unavoidably and paradoxically the chief of army who is the button pusher( or slate duster) here.
The weight of corruption has begun to burden the aesthetics now. It is after it has ended up with the tolerance of skin bearing, then emotional vacuity before it could reach out to the innermost aesthetics. The head was confused but the heart was convincing; now the head is dead and the heart is injured and so is the form and content of it. To survive in a mire like India (which one can do but not without human effort and of course, not by an amiss of voluntary effort of love) it is therefore necessary to keep this history of faith to give an assurance (and not the image or phantom of it) of future. The army chief must come out open and take the ordeal to make this investment in faith a plausible option. The nation sees to it--that nation where the politics is at the fringe and for a moment of pleasure the People act deliberately blurry at the edges.
Tuesday, 27 March 2012
Wednesday, 21 March 2012
The arcane slut ' Indian Democracy'
The arcane slut ' Indian Democracy'
Indian democracy has terribly lost its character. It miserably behaved-- or was made to do so-- as a young teen slithering from the socialite hands of Pandit Nehru and then slowly, by and by, there came a serial contemptuous polity that rendered it to the status used (shamelessly) in the masthead. There was something that prompted me to write like that.
In what way do the people of India understand the overly complex 'Democracy'? Many a people would shrug off merely hinting it as a loose sobriquet for the State or Parliament or Political Culture. (The last bit could have come half-way cross to its actual connotation but the user is insightful about it.) And to the elite, educated and counted, it is too meaningful that it would be a misery and vacuity to confine it to the definition originated from one (or a few) heads because every school of thought (because elites have schools of thought). As such, it is still searching for an honorable name but still--as it is seen almost everyday on news channels galore--that politicians, opinion makers, panelists at pseudo-intellectual debates would use it as a petty cave to slide in when asked of questions about the political culture they are seeked to rinse in.
Most of these excuses are made not to overtly take a stance while, to put in contrast, the codes of Democracy not only allows but facilitates one to take a stand. One wonderful definition that my professor recounted to me when I plied with him over the lack of it was: Democracy is the collective ethics of Political Culture of a nation. Thus it is the moral politics that underpins the body of Democracy. So why the likes of politicians would throw the word here and there, as if in discard while at the same time slobbering over it, ducking the question put to them. Congressmen have gone a bit ahead who would pontificate when asked about the right of author (Salman Rushdie) to retreat to his nation of birth, in saying that in a pressing democracy the voices of dissent should also be heeded and respected. Not to mention that in order to appease a mass taking the guise of or giving a burka to Democracy, there themselves with abashing give up their right to choose right. Here is where the degradation starts because as a political party in power in Indian Democracy they ought to have their way direction clear to not only point toward but also to guide others. This lack of thought and merely hiding under the cloak of cliche bickering of appeasement of certain mass of people will not do, should not do.
It is therefore--now, coming to the point--that politicians must own up Democracy. And the best way is to practice it. Not to merely call it along with all its trappings and equipage, like a wealthy hotelier would call for an escort agency to send in the best slut on the board because a client with deep pockets has to be appeased.
In what way do the people of India understand the overly complex 'Democracy'? Many a people would shrug off merely hinting it as a loose sobriquet for the State or Parliament or Political Culture. (The last bit could have come half-way cross to its actual connotation but the user is insightful about it.) And to the elite, educated and counted, it is too meaningful that it would be a misery and vacuity to confine it to the definition originated from one (or a few) heads because every school of thought (because elites have schools of thought). As such, it is still searching for an honorable name but still--as it is seen almost everyday on news channels galore--that politicians, opinion makers, panelists at pseudo-intellectual debates would use it as a petty cave to slide in when asked of questions about the political culture they are seeked to rinse in.
Most of these excuses are made not to overtly take a stance while, to put in contrast, the codes of Democracy not only allows but facilitates one to take a stand. One wonderful definition that my professor recounted to me when I plied with him over the lack of it was: Democracy is the collective ethics of Political Culture of a nation. Thus it is the moral politics that underpins the body of Democracy. So why the likes of politicians would throw the word here and there, as if in discard while at the same time slobbering over it, ducking the question put to them. Congressmen have gone a bit ahead who would pontificate when asked about the right of author (Salman Rushdie) to retreat to his nation of birth, in saying that in a pressing democracy the voices of dissent should also be heeded and respected. Not to mention that in order to appease a mass taking the guise of or giving a burka to Democracy, there themselves with abashing give up their right to choose right. Here is where the degradation starts because as a political party in power in Indian Democracy they ought to have their way direction clear to not only point toward but also to guide others. This lack of thought and merely hiding under the cloak of cliche bickering of appeasement of certain mass of people will not do, should not do.
It is therefore--now, coming to the point--that politicians must own up Democracy. And the best way is to practice it. Not to merely call it along with all its trappings and equipage, like a wealthy hotelier would call for an escort agency to send in the best slut on the board because a client with deep pockets has to be appeased.
Saturday, 10 March 2012
"India is a damning outrageous 'confusion' "
There is a hell lot that is happening to the largest democracy in the world--a major divide that patently threatens to rip the slight, tenuous fabric of Indian Democracy into many divides. You name an issue and you would immediately have different sections favoring, opposing, blabbering, middling over the matter. Almost all sections speak and assert as if with authority and bears a command in their tone to make an impact. Is this the confusion?
Heck No! This is normal in a vibrant democracy. One important aspect is to analyze who are the observers, listeners and the --this is critical!-- subjects of such assertions. The media is playing debates on air where the panelists debate (I am focusing mainly on this one, single and probably dangerous nature of the confusion conglomerate) over every issue that is the hot topic of the day. The whole discussion appears to be hung in the air, not at all propped on the literary stilts of context and connotation which is the beginning of the worry. Often these panelists are urban, upper middle class, opinion swashing fellows; and very often the matter that is discussed relates with poor, lower-middle class sections that unfortunately have no voice on the (esteemed) panel.
Then, the moderator or the anchor is unqualified to actually converge the heavy debate towards a more constructive end. Instead what happens is that a rigmarole of varied opinions self-sticking to the image of the speaker ends up confusing the listeners to whom it should have meant something. Not only an issue is churned to loll at it extreme ends(which is usual) but those who stand at one end fail to support the cause of this end with good arguments. Cashing upon this the zealot at the other end shouts and blabbers only to meet a similar fate. At the end of the issue the listeners feel cracks in their heads while the opinion makers who contested in the debate would feel less assured about their opinions and would cringe, too.
The urban class who take a 'liberal' stance make all efforts to mean it. They would quote xyz from bards and novelists and would flash dissertation heavily laden with verbiage. They press, pontificate and shout/ shriek all the while sounding/ acting as if he/she is the conclusive authority over the matter. Mostly the anchor would go with these opinions. And on rare occasions when someone tries to take the side of under-privileged, sufferers they are mocked by sneers and taunts and laughs. Those who the sufferers (the major lot) feel that their repository could not put their point effectively and thus ended up being ridiculed. This adds to the confusion as not merely the true ground-reality of the case is not even put forward but had been adulterated and saddled with unimportant, farcical less important things.
What is more tragic in the whole frame of such discussions are played day in and day out where panelists with little (or no) knowledge of the issue debate and discuss purely on the base of semantics and their own mental model. Their picture of the worldly issues is largely distorted but it also, at the same time, ends up smudging that of others. The policy makes set to lose despite it being the only caring body (though only with insouciance) and the execution is stalled. The trivia of the media when magnified with the force of their presence actually turns out to be the constructors and contractors of the stalling.
The nation needs clearance--clarity of thought above all. The policy makers will function as they would be bored otherwise. They will blinker at corruption, inefficiency and ineptitude but will do something. They are not the new faces but the old, raddled ones and thus it is important to devise a way to milch them, their experience by letting them do the things. Of course, the leadership-change is inevitable but there is a wide gap that may result in if the transfer is not smoothened. Those who cringe, blabber, sulk, opinionate, vocalize are not the doers and therefore should shut themselves up for the sake of options of speaking for good times.
Heck No! This is normal in a vibrant democracy. One important aspect is to analyze who are the observers, listeners and the --this is critical!-- subjects of such assertions. The media is playing debates on air where the panelists debate (I am focusing mainly on this one, single and probably dangerous nature of the confusion conglomerate) over every issue that is the hot topic of the day. The whole discussion appears to be hung in the air, not at all propped on the literary stilts of context and connotation which is the beginning of the worry. Often these panelists are urban, upper middle class, opinion swashing fellows; and very often the matter that is discussed relates with poor, lower-middle class sections that unfortunately have no voice on the (esteemed) panel.
Then, the moderator or the anchor is unqualified to actually converge the heavy debate towards a more constructive end. Instead what happens is that a rigmarole of varied opinions self-sticking to the image of the speaker ends up confusing the listeners to whom it should have meant something. Not only an issue is churned to loll at it extreme ends(which is usual) but those who stand at one end fail to support the cause of this end with good arguments. Cashing upon this the zealot at the other end shouts and blabbers only to meet a similar fate. At the end of the issue the listeners feel cracks in their heads while the opinion makers who contested in the debate would feel less assured about their opinions and would cringe, too.
The urban class who take a 'liberal' stance make all efforts to mean it. They would quote xyz from bards and novelists and would flash dissertation heavily laden with verbiage. They press, pontificate and shout/ shriek all the while sounding/ acting as if he/she is the conclusive authority over the matter. Mostly the anchor would go with these opinions. And on rare occasions when someone tries to take the side of under-privileged, sufferers they are mocked by sneers and taunts and laughs. Those who the sufferers (the major lot) feel that their repository could not put their point effectively and thus ended up being ridiculed. This adds to the confusion as not merely the true ground-reality of the case is not even put forward but had been adulterated and saddled with unimportant, farcical less important things.
What is more tragic in the whole frame of such discussions are played day in and day out where panelists with little (or no) knowledge of the issue debate and discuss purely on the base of semantics and their own mental model. Their picture of the worldly issues is largely distorted but it also, at the same time, ends up smudging that of others. The policy makes set to lose despite it being the only caring body (though only with insouciance) and the execution is stalled. The trivia of the media when magnified with the force of their presence actually turns out to be the constructors and contractors of the stalling.
The nation needs clearance--clarity of thought above all. The policy makers will function as they would be bored otherwise. They will blinker at corruption, inefficiency and ineptitude but will do something. They are not the new faces but the old, raddled ones and thus it is important to devise a way to milch them, their experience by letting them do the things. Of course, the leadership-change is inevitable but there is a wide gap that may result in if the transfer is not smoothened. Those who cringe, blabber, sulk, opinionate, vocalize are not the doers and therefore should shut themselves up for the sake of options of speaking for good times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)