India Positive Page 3
Or if someone is killed in the name of religion and you object, you are told: ‘That just shows you don’t love God.’
These examples show what happens when right and wrong are jumbled together. It’s a potent, deadly combination. The best way to get away with doing something bad is to mix a bit of good in it. At least, that is what India seems to be witnessing these days.
A case in point is the Supreme Court order that made it ‘compulsory’ for the national anthem to be played before the screening of every movie in privately owned cinemas across the country, with the doors of the theatres closed (though not bolted). The order also prescribed exactly how the national anthem should be played (with an image of the Indian flag on the screen) and how it should not be played (you can’t dramatise it or give it any creative interpretation because, well, the judge said so).
I am no legal expert, but with respect to the apex court, the order did seem to violate the principle of individual liberty, which is protected by our country’s Constitution. Ironically, this damage to constitutional values was inflicted in the name of patriotism. The idea was, if people are forced to stand in a cinema hall before a movie, they will become patriotic (watching pirated movies at home, on the other hand, is okay).
Incidentally, when a petitioner tried to get court functionaries to stand up for the national anthem as a rule before they start proceedings, the apex court shot it down. Clearly, it didn’t want the burden of patriotism at its doorstep, although it had no qualms about passing it on to privately owned theatres in a private contract with the movie-going public.
These kind of arbitrary rulings are the reason India’s ease of doing business rank is so low. Almost anyone in authority can pass such a diktat in the name of the country. If you criticise it, you are asked, ‘Why are you against the national anthem?’ Worse, you’re labelled ‘anti-national’.
Which brings us back to the basic issue—mix a bit of good with the bad, and you can get away with it. For instance, the intention to create respect for the country’s national anthem at the core of the Supreme Court order cannot be faulted. There is no doubt that every citizen of India should take pride in the national anthem. However, that intention did not justify this imposition.
Sure, one is free to play the national anthem every morning at home and stand up while it’s playing. Institutions such as schools or private companies could choose to make this a daily practice. However, the moment you force it, you break a key tenet of Indian nationalism—individual freedom.
Sadly, the imposition would not have encouraged patriotism. There was a real risk that the young generation would begin to see it merely as a chore that needs to be done if you want to watch a movie at a theatre. Some may have used the time to check messages on their phones. Others may have entered the cinema hall late. Does our national anthem deserve to be trivialised and turned into a tedious task? Should it not be played and sung by people of their own free will and choice? A suggestion or guideline to play the national anthem in public places is welcome, but an imposition is not, as it could threaten the core democratic value of the freedom of the individual.
The order is interim in nature and will be reviewed in February 2017. I respect the Supreme Court and I hope it will reconsider this order.
One should note that this order was issued by the judiciary, and technically has nothing to do with the government or PM Modi. However, it speaks to the somewhat authoritarian mood prevalent in Indian society today—where you are told what to do in order to be a patriot, and may be branded anti-national if you don’t fall in line. The reason for this is a weak Opposition, rather than Modi or the BJP. The Congress refuses to get its act together. In Indira Gandhi’s time, we saw how a phenomenally weak Opposition created a phenomenally autocratic leader. If we want to save India’s free society, let’s wish for a strong Opposition. We also need reasonable judges who can preserve the core values that constitute the idea of India.
We should certainly stand up for the national anthem with pride. Equally, however, we should stand up for the freedoms, individual and collective, for which our forefathers gave their lives. We should be careful of authoritarianism creeping into our free society, no matter how wonderful the intentions. Don’t condone something bad, just because it is mixed with something good.
* * *
* Post this article, the Supreme Court modfied the order, stating that the playing of the national anthem in cinema halls is no longer mandatory.
Blame It on the Rain
Till we begin to take responsibility, Mumbaikars will continue to drown in heavy showers
First up, apologies for writing about Mumbai. It is, after all, just one of India’s many cities. However, it is also the nation’s financial and business capital. The health of this metro has a bearing on the welfare of the rest of the country.
So, it’s always worrying when heavy rains bring this supercity to a standstill. For instance, on 2 September 2017, Mumbai received 30 cm of rain in just 24 hours—approximately an eighth of its annual 225 cm average on a single day. This level of precipitation is very high, even though Mumbai has recorded more alarming rainfall data in the past (over 90 cm in a day, in 2005).
Having said that, this is not a level at which the city needs to come to a grinding halt. Yet, when we hit 30 cm, local trains stopped on their flooded tracks. City taxis, aggregator cabs and auto rickshaws alike went off waterlogged roads. Children slept in their schools overnight. Passengers at local train stations parked themselves in abandoned trains, the only dry places they could find, for hours.
The response to this avoidable problem followed a standard pattern. In the morning, the media gushed with praise for the gorgeous spectacle of the Mumbai rains. By noon, pictures of waterlogging flooded social media. A couple of hours later, there were reports of Mumbaikars braving the rain and walking home, embodying the ‘unshakeable spirit of Mumbai’ (as if the people walking home had any other choice).
Then we had reports of compassion, of Mumbaikars serving hot tea and offering shelter to those stranded on the streets. At night, TV news panellists shouted at each other, as if all the screaming would make the clouds drift away.
Nobody offered any practical solutions. Nobody really knows how things can change for the better. The best hope for Mumbai, which has ramshackle infrastructure even on sunny days, is that God will be kind. Yes, we are a Ram-bharose city.
We may have stock exchange totalling a trillion dollar market capitalisation. We may have civic authorities with billion-dollar budgets. We may have apartments that cost millions of dollars. However, a few hours of rain, and the city collapses.
There is no other major city in the world, which also happens to be a nation’s financial capital, with such terrible infrastructure. The local trains are pitiful even on normal days. In many parts of the world, farm animals travel better. Mumbai roads continue to be poorly made, patched up with materials that don’t last a single rainy season. The drainage system routinely breaks down in heavy rains.
The authorities care little. Mumbai accounts for only a tiny percentage of the votes in Maharashtra, and lacks political clout despite its high profile. Add to this the apathy of its people, who gather in lakhs if their religious sentiments or their guru are insulted, but won’t do the same to improve basic amenities in their city.
If angry Mumbaikars come out on the streets in large numbers for just one day and demand ‘fix my city’, the authorities will sit up and take notice. We don’t. Instead, we prefer to retweet helpline numbers and share stories of those who offered chai to people stranded by the rains. Well, we get the city we deserve.
Meanwhile, here are two suggestions that will help—not just Mumbai, but other Indian cities as well. The first is easy and should be implemented as soon as possible. The second is harder, but will truly fix the problem. It is up to the authorities to implement these and the citizens to put pressure on them to do the same.
One, we urgently need an effective weath
er warning system. Weather reports saying ‘heavy rains expected’ aren’t likely to help citizens take necessary precautions. There has to be a scale which informs people precisely how bad the weather is likely to get, and what actions need to be taken at each level. For instance, the scale could be as follows: 0: Normal situation; 1: Weather may deteriorate, keep watching weather reports; 2: Strong rains/winds, primary schools to be closed; 3: Very strong rains/winds, all schools to be closed, advise others to stay home; 4: Extremely bad weather, all schools, colleges, and offices to be closed, essential services only, limited public transport, stay indoors; 5: Entire city shutdown.
A good warning system could help people plan their movements, dramatically reducing hardship in bad weather. For instance, 2 September would have been a ‘4’; in 2005, we had a ‘5’.
A weather warning system like the above is similar to the typhoon signal system in Hong Kong, which works brilliantly. Hong Kong also receives heavy rain; however, the city doesn’t suffer or stall as much in bad weather.
Of course, predicting weather is difficult, despite advances in technology. There may be intermittent false alarms. However, the loss in productivity caused by these would be limited, as technology has also made it possible for people to work from home on occasion.
The second suggestion is to improve the roads. Coal tar is nothing more than a coat of paint. It erodes over months, leaving potholes. All new Mumbai roads must be made of cement, by law. Roads in Mumbai need to be made of cement and concrete, as in several developed countries, or even in parts of Lutyens’ Delhi, and the use of these materials in road-building needs to be enforced by law. A world-class drainage system is equally necessary. And yeah, it would be nice if the people involved didn’t steal public money.
Mumbai has suffered enough. It is time we stopped accepting this suffering, or worse, celebrating it. Excess rainfall is tough to handle in a big city. But with the right weather warning systems, good roads and effective drainage, it need not cripple Mumbai. It is time we fixed the city.
@chetan_bhagat
So the financial capital of the world’s biggest democracy and a major economy shuts down again in less than a month, because, well it rained.
195 replies/ 422 retweets/ 2,876 likes
@chetan_bhagat
Banning crackers on Diwali is like banning Christmas trees on Christmas and goats on Bakr-Eid. Regulate. Don’t ban. Respect traditions.
2,165 replies/ 8,348 retweets/ 15,417 likes
Why We Need a Ram Temple in Ayodhya
Restoring the temple on its original site and building an even grander mosque nearby will be a great act of religious cooperation
It has become the fashion in some elite Indian circles to bash Hinduism, or issues related to it. It has also been taboo in these same intellectual circles to discuss what I think is a very reasonable request—that we should have a Ram temple in Ayodhya. The elite, particularly in the English media, have bullied almost all voices that desire a temple at the sacred site into silence.
Hence, just to be clear, I would like to state this: peacefully, but definitely, I support the construction of a beautiful Ram temple in Ayodhya. It is frankly ridiculous that we have to beg to restore a temple at one of Hinduism’s greatest sites.
Of course, something needs to be clarified here. Violence in any form, including the kind that happened in 1992, cannot be supported. It was wrong, illegal and unfortunate, and should never happen again.
However, this does not take away the reasonableness of the request to restore a place of worship in one of the holiest sites of the Hindu religion. This article seeks to make a case for a temple in Ayodhya and debunk the various theories that have prevented its construction all these years.
The first argument against the temple is ‘why disturb the status quo?’ Its proponents say that there is a dormant issue at stake, and building a temple would risk destroying the peace. Well, there is no reason why peace should be disturbed by such a project in the first place.
I think the Muslim community, or the various leaders that claim to represent it, should give its blessing to the temple in any case. This is no ordinary site. As per Hindu faith, Ayodhya is the birthplace of Lord Rama, one of the most revered gods in the pantheon. Diwali is India’s biggest festival.
Thousands of mosques stand on erstwhile temple sites in India, courtesy the Mughal rulers. Nobody is asking for these temples to be restored. But this is Lord Rama’s birthplace, replaced by yet another mosque. The mosque can be shifted. The holy site of Lord Rama’s birthplace is a matter of centuries of faith. We can’t shift that.
A grander mosque can be built nearby, or even right next door. Why won’t the Muslim community accommodate such a reasonable appeal? Is it because some of their self-styled leaders are politically instigated to do the opposite? I am sure the general Muslim population of this country would approve such a request. We just need to approach them directly. And in the age of social media, we can.
‘Build a hospital instead’ is the second kind of argument made against the building of the temple. We need more hospitals, yes, but they don’t have to be built on this site! Hospitals can be constructed on any piece of land, and should be located based on where people need them most. Why on such a holy site? Frankly, why can’t we make a Ram temple at the site as well as a great hospital somewhere else?
The third argument against the temple is: ‘But God is everywhere, so why here?’ Or: ‘But what is the proof Lord Rama was born here?’ True, God is everywhere. But we still need places of worship. So that when we visit these sites, we can focus on God and God alone. As far as conclusive proof of the site in Ayodhya being the place of Lord Rama’s birth goes, there is none. But we do have proof that this site has been known as the birthplace of Lord Rama for centuries, and excavations have shown that there was a temple here before the mosque was built.
India is a nation that respects all religions. To prove that, sometimes we tend to become extra sensitive to the grievances of religious minorities, but often ignore any issues the majority religion may have. The Ram temple is an example. Previous governments, particularly, have made it a policy to appease minorities, to the extent that even reasonable requests have been made to look like majoritarian bullying.
This temple could be a symbol of understanding between the two dominant religious communities of India. Neither restoring a temple on its original site nor shifting a mosque to a nearby location (and making it grander) tarnishes the glory of Islam in any manner. In fact, the surge in tourism that the project will create in Ayodhya once it is completed, will generate jobs for both Hindus and Muslims.
The only thing we have to ensure is to keep a lid on any form of incitement to communal violence this project may create. Today, in the age of better digital communication, these risks are minimal. This is a request from the Hindu community at large to the Muslim community at large, and the elites and the intellectuals of this country—let us have our temple. Bless its restoration and the building of a grander mosque nearby, so that we can peacefully create one of the greatest sites of religious cooperation in the whole world.
The Great Opinion Wars
Privileged influencers and aspirational India are locked in a battle to mould opinion
We think an elected government in power can do anything it wants. However, the government of the day, or for that matter most political leaders, almost always act on the basis of current public opinion.
There are always a few opinion leaders and influencers, both individuals and entities (such as the media) with disproportionate influence on public thought and opinion. Most citizens form their views based on the influencers they trust, or in most cases don’t form a view at all. They are happy to vote once every five years and let the country be run by people in power, guided by these makers of public opinion.
This is how India works too, with one added peculiarity. Public opinion in our country has almost always been in the hands of the privileged class. Th
e most obvious marker of belonging to this class is good spoken English, along with some or all of the following: a) access to good private English-medium schools; b) access to higher education in a prestigious liberal arts college; c) growing up in a metro city; d) growing up in an upper middle class household; e) connections with other members of this privileged class; and f) getting a job because you know someone, rather than through merit. India’s privileged classes are eloquent; they speak and write well, and can generally express themselves better than others. Naturally, they are a good fit for the role of opinion leaders.
Ever since the British Raj, these intellectuals have told the hoi polloi what to think. They controlled opinion on every issue: whether it was Kashmir, minorities, economic policies or women’s rights. Often, they tended to be left-leaning in their politics. This was understandable. Success in a capitalist society depends on individual merit. To someone in a position of privilege, such a system can be a huge threat.
The new millennium changed all that. India and Indians grew in economic power. Many citizens aspired to bigger goals. And they wanted, god forbid, a say in how the country was run too. Not just at election time (where they elected Modi, replacing privileged dynasts), but also on a daily basis.
Technology such as social media increasingly allows them to do so. You needn’t hold a certain degree from a particular college to have an opinion on Kashmir. You could simply be a thinking Indian and you qualify. If your opinion resonates, it will circulate and influence others.
Of course, this scared the privileged class. They fought back, calling capitalists Sanghis and nationalists Hindu zealots. Aspirational India fought back too, calling the privileged class fake liberals and ‘presstitutes’.