Sunteți pe pagina 1din 1

SUNDAY TIMES OF INDIA, MUMBAI

FEBRUARY 2, 2014 21 ALL THAT MATTERS


The poor reputation of Janus, the Roman
god of doors and beginnings, is quite
undeserved. Janus was not double-faced
simply because he had two faces. He could
look east and west simultaneously without
swiveling his head; but this was clarity, not
deception. His hindsight helped foresight;
the charm of a door is that it enables you
to go in as well as go out. January is named after Janus: one
year disappears, another enters.
As Indias electoral fog begins to clear this January, we
can see that how precisely cause begets effect. The substantive
failures of 2013 are shaping the general elections of 2014.
Indias economy began to creak and collapse much
before, but it was in 2013 that Indians were firmly convinced
that problems which could have been resolved were allowed
to accumulate into a serious crisis. An economic freefall is
not some theoretical statistic for the voter. It translates into
specifics: prices rise, jobs evaporate, confidence falters, hope
evaporates. Voters blame governments rather than traders
for a price rise, because they expect government to control
profiteers, not surrender to them. A slump in economic
growth aborts future jobs and threatens existing ones. These
are bread-and-vegetable issues. It was in 2013 that govern-
ance and the economy became dominant factors in the
gradual process through which voters make up their minds
before a general election.
Many voters are, of course, still swayed by partisan
emotion. But a significant majority will be influenced, in
2014, by calm logic. This is already evident from the opin-
ion polls bouncing around media, predicting an NDA vic-
tory, and reaffirming Narendra Modi as the preferred
favourite for prime minister.
Try this sequence of questions: Who can set the economy
right? Not those, surely, who created the problem. What kind
of government can turn things around? A stable one, capable
of taking tough decisions. Can a remorseful and repentant
Congress lead a stable coalition? Not likely: its own numbers
have plummeted to less than half of 2009 in opinion polls, and
allies are either breaking off or increasing their distance from
Congress. Old reliable DMK has preferred isolation. Sharad
Pawars NCP has told Rahul Gandhi to cool off on accusations
against Narendra Modi over the Gujarat riots. Partnerships
from Kashmir to Assam are in disarray. The one eager ally,
Lalu Yadav, poses more questions than he answers, since he
happens to be convicted of corruption. The torch of honesty
cannot catch fire in Rahul Gandhis right hand, if his left is
clasped to the ashes of Lalu Yadavs reputation.
Can a Third or National or Partial Front patched through
the strain of contradictions work? However which way you
do the math, the numbers do not add up. There will be
regional spurts in states like West Bengal, where Mamata
Banerjee will win a handsome number of seats; but despite
rhetoric this will not be sufficient to seed a post-election coa-
lition. In any case, the times are too fragile, and voters across
the country are not in a mood for experiments. Can Arvind
Kejriwal, whose muffler will have to be discarded as the sea-
son changes, offer stability? You know the answer.
No prizes for guessing whos left. Narendra Modi might
not be able to walk on water, but at least he can walk on land,
unlike the competition, which stumbles disconcertingly
whenever it tries to move at all.
Congress lost the governance plot not just on the econ-
omy, but also on Telangana. The impact of a disturbed
Andhra, another long-form story of 2013, is much larger
than the size of one state. The chaos in the south is not the
best advertisement for firm governance in a year when
voters want tough decisions.
So is it all over bar the shouting? Not quite. Narendra
Modi has attracted voters because he is the outsider, poised,
in their wish-list, to cleanse Delhi of corruption, end dither-
ing and propel the economy forward as happened in Gujarat.
The one thing Modi cannot afford to do is slide into the syn-
drome of politics-as-usual as he expands from regional con-
cerns to national priorities. He cannot abandon the old school,
for that is where present politics lives; but he cannot look
stale even before he has begun. It is a tight-rope walk.
Modi will need some dexterity to evade the siren call of
Delhis prime-time sin, sycophancy. There is a scathing Urdu
couplet, written by a Karachi poet, Parwin Shakir, who died
in 1994 at the young age of 42, which describes Delhi per-
fectly: Basti mein jitne aab ghazida thhe sab ke sab/Darya
ke rukh badalte hi tairaq ho gaye (All those in town who
were terrified of water/ Became expert swimmers when
they saw the river change course).
This is the double-face that becomes dangerous once
January is over.
My Times, My Voice: Like this article?
SMS MTMVMJ <space> Yes or No to 58888.
Charges applicable. Rs 3 per sms
REVERTS
Email the editor at sunday.times@timesgroup.com
with Sunday Mailbox in the subject line. You may
also post your letters to: Sunday Times of India, 7,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110103,
marking the envelope Sunday Mailbox. Please
mention your name and city
SHOE-IN TO WIN? Modi attracts voters because he is poised
to propel the economy forward as happened in Gujarat
Rahul Gandhi
simpleton or savant?
So shall we say dumb is the new bril-
liant??? Frankly speaking, those
revealing80minuteslastweekstumped
the nation in more ways than one.
Arnab Goswami, the countrys con-
science-keeper, was at his avuncular
best when he spoke to the man who
would be PM like a kindly uncleji dealing with a simple-
minded nephew. Not bad as interview strategies go. A
rope was given. It was gratefully grabbed. And the public
hanging was complete. Rahul Gandhi broke several pro-
tective, motherly hearts (mine included), as he blindly
rushed towards a point of no return, watched by a billion
jeering people. The noose was tightened pretty early, but
our sweet, trusting Rahul Baba didnt realize what was
happening till it was too late and he was left sweating at
the gallows by an uncharacteristically calm interrogator-
assassin. Without getting into specifics (sorry, Arnab!)
of the lethal interview, let it be asked what made Rahul
Gandhi take this self-destructive step in the first place?
There are theories galore (He has nothing to losehe
knows its all over for the Congress). But Rahul-watchers
remain baffled. The thing is, this was a seminal interview.
One assumes there was no death wish involved. Someone
obviously talked Rahul into exposing himself on prime-
time television. Who is that someone? Off with his head!
Cant possibly be a friend or well-wisher. Once Rahul put
his foot into it, he was stuck! Worse, he promptly forgot
the script and mangled his lines. But lets be fair and give
him some brownie points for actually finishing the inter-
view and not running away, unlike Indias top orator and
Rahuls chief rival Narendra Modi. Unfortunately,
this interview is likely to haunt Rahul Gandhi for the rest
of his life.
Since then, there have been countless attempts by
Rahul baiters, haters and rabid critics to dance on his
grave and kiss him a quick goodbye. But what is far more
interesting is the attempt by minders and admirers to
provide an entirely different spin to the disaster. It has
been suggested that Rahul Gandhi is NOT really dumb.
He only sounds it! He actually fakes stupidity! Thats
how brilliant he is!! Why? Because that is a part of his
larger, grander design to woo his core electorate. This
is how it goes: Rahul was advised by some super brains
in the party to submit himself to the Arnab barbeque
and then go flat out to appear daft. He was assured the
nation was sick of listening to bombastic, old school
netas making tall claims and sounding insincere. Young
India, they told Rahul, was singularly unimpressed by
crafty, nasty, oily politicians spouting clichs and pre-
tending they had all the answers. Rahul had to create a
different slot, even if that meant making an absolute ass
of himself. His stubborn stone-walling is also being
showcased as the master stroke of the century. For, no
matter what Arnab threw at Rahul, the answers re-
mained the same. This was no accident, insist his advi-
sors. Rahul got the better of an exasperated Arnab by
frustrating him. wearing him downby coolly repeat-
ing himself over and over again. Rahul, they now claim,
effortlessly managed to hammer home his message to
those who matter the most in the next election the
youth. Rahul also revealed his personal demons, confu-
sions, contradictions, fears, hopes, dreams, concerns,
anxieties, vulnerabilitieseven his monumental igno-
rance! This, say his friends, made Rahul more relatable
and real. The idea was to project him as a sensitive, pas-
sionate seeker of a higher truth, leaving lesser beings
to grapple with ground-level issues of leadership, gov-
ernance and other boring stuff. Gushed an acolyte, How
many leaders have the guts to bare their souls on na-
tional television? True. They have better sense.
While the attempts to intellectualize/contextualize
his responses (an absurd face-saving device!) go on, an
entire RG industry has sprung up online. People who are
being kind to Rahul have been offering excuses and trying
in vain to deconstruct those cringe-making gaffes. They
are also providing a clever subtext to the entire exercise.
Hours have been invested searching for deeper, hidden
meanings, while analyzing each empty utterance. These
strenuous interpretations are being dished out by those
who would like to believe this was not a case of The
Prince has no clothes. Alas, the less charitable openly
mock his Power is poison refrain, pointing out how
the Gandhi family had developed an effective antidote to
poison 50 years ago.
So what happens to Rahul Baba now? Will the wicked
system which he is very much a part of, but likes to
denounce, allow him to lick his wounds in peace and get
on with life? Or will the collective scorn of opponents force
him to adopt their ways and become one of them? A
creature and creation of dynasty politics himself, Rahul
thought nothing of rubbishing the notion with a straight
face. Now, that requires solid acting! In many ways, and
on several levels, Rahul Gandhi paid rich and direct trib-
utes to familiar Gandhi traditions. The nation got a lump
in its throat. Seriously Naani ki yaad aayi.
My Times, My Voice: Like this article?
SMS MTMVSD <space> Yes or No to 58888.
Charges applicable. Rs 3 per sms
In the past few weeks, sexual trag-
edies have blighted some promi-
nent and attractive lives. Sunanda
Pushkar, wife of the writer and
minister, Shashi Tharoor, died
recently in Delhi. Around the
same time, the French First Lady,
Valerie Treirweiler, had to be hos-
pitalized in Paris. Both events followed revelations
of alleged sexual affairs. Sunanda Pushkar accused
her husband of an intimate relationship with a
Pakistani journalist. Ms Treirweiler was devas-
tated by the French president, Francois Hollandes
liaison with an actress; Frances first family split
a few days later. These are not only titillating sex
scandals about glamorous celebrities they reveal
something deeper and infinitely sad about the mel-
ancholic human condition.
The standard narrative in such cases is to blame
the unfaithful man, calling him scumbag and
cheat. There is another narrative, however, which
holds the institution of love marriage equally
guilty. Modern marriage combines three idealistic
ideas love, sex, and family which make distinc-
tive but unreasonable demands on a couple. To
raise a family was, of course, the original idea
behind marriage. To it has been added the second
ideal of romantic love; and a third that ones
partner should also be a great performer in bed.
We have a sensible institution in India called
arranged marriage which we contrast with love
marriage . Throughout human history arranged
marriages were the norm in most societies. People
got married to raise a family. In early 19th century,
with the rise of the middle-classes, love marriage
emerged in Europe. It coincided with the Enlight-
enment, which incubated modern ideas such as
liberty, equality, individualism and secularism that
quickly swept the world. These liberal ideas, along
with love marriage, came to India on the coat tails
of the British Raj. Initially it infected a tiny west-
ernized minority but today it has permeated a
larger middle-class. Most Indians received their
ideal of love marriage unreliably from Bollywood,
which may explain why good old fashioned
arranged marriage is still well and alive in India.
In pre-modern times, men satisfied the three
needs via three different individuals, according
to the philosopher Alain de Bottons sensitively
male perspective. A wife made a home and chil-
dren; a lover fulfilled ones romantic needs clan-
destinely; and an accomplished prostitute or
courtesan was always there for great sex. This
division of labour served men well. Given a
chance, I expect, my grandfather would have lived
thus. But today, we make impossible demands on
a single person to meet romantic, sexual and
familial needs. She feels huge pressure to fulfil all
three roles plus make a career outside the home.
What she mostly wants is a love marriage with
good and faithful husband.
The insane ambition of modern love marriage
to satisfy so many needs places a huge burden and
this might also help to explain the tragedies of
Sunanda Pushkar and Valerie Treirweiler. It was
certainly behind the tragedies that befell the hero-
ines of two of my favourite novels, Madame Bo-
vary and Anna Karenina. Both women had envi-
able financial security but also loveless marriages.
But both had modern, romantic expectations from
life, and dared to fulfil them outside marriage.
Society did not forgive their illicit love affairs and
their lives ended in tragic suicides.
Human beings may have become modern and
liberal but society remains conservative. Who has
not been tempted by illicit love? An affair with a
beautiful stranger is a thrilling prospect, espe-
cially after years of raising children. There is also
fear of death if one is middle-aged life is passing
and when will another chance come? But these
exhilarating thoughts have to be weighed against
hurting another human being. One must always
empathize with the victim of adultery. Even the
Kamasutra admits that dharma trumps kama.
Does one betray another human being or one-
self ? Either way one loses. If one decides to have
a fling, one betrays a spouse and puts ones love
at risk. If one abstains from temptation, one risks
becoming stale and repressed. If one keeps the
affair secret, one becomes inauthentic. Confessing
to it brings needless pain. If one places ones chil-
drens interest above ones own, one is disap-
pointed when they leave. If one puts ones own
interest above theirs, one earns their unending
resentment. This, alas, is the unhappy, melan-
cholic human condition.
My Times, My Voice: Like this article?
SMS MTMVGD <space> Yes or No to 58888.
Charges applicable. Rs 3 per sms
REPLAY
WHAT HE
(NARENDRA MODI)
KNOWS ABOUT
ECONOMICS CAN
BE WRITTEN ON THE
BACK OF A POSTAGE STAMP
P CHIDAMBARAM, FINANCE MINISTER, IN AN
INTERVIEW TO BBC
Calm logic will
decide the
2014 election
Many analysts and businessmen
fear that the Aam Aadmi Party
(AAP), dominated by socialists
and Marxists like Yogendra
Yadav and Prashant Bhushan, is
an extreme Left party. These
fears are overblown.
The AAP has appointed a seven-member com-
mittee to formulate its economic policy. This
includes libertarian economist Laveesh Bhandari
and business honchos like Meera Sanyal (former
chief of Royal Bank of Scotland) and Sanjiv Aga
(former chief of Idea Cellular). Clearly, AAP does
not have a closed leftist mind, and wants to incor-
porate a variety of views.
Its main focus is good governance. So, unsurpris-
ingly, the committee is headed by anti-corruption
crusader Prithvi Reddy. This is an excellent starting
point for economic liberals in the committee, because
a dynamic, competitive market requires a corrup-
tion-free business climate. Robert Klitgaard, a world-
famous authority on corruption, famously declared
that corruption is equal to monopoly plus discretion
minus accountability (C=M+D-A). So, reducing cor-
ruption means reducing monopoly, reducing political
discretion and improving accountability. All three
elements are intrinsic to economic liberalization.
Removing all elements of monopoly means pro-
moting competition to the maximum extent possible,
abolishing preferences for all vote banks ranging
from favoured business groups to regional and
swadeshi lobbies. Reducing discretion means dis-
mantling regulations and barriers that give politi-
cians the discretion to favour this or that company.
Improving accountability means open competition,
not deals in the dark and reforms to create a police-
judicial system that quickly penalizes law-breakers.
Asking Marxists, socialists and libertarians to
come up with an agreed formula may produce a
messy compromise rife with internal contradictions.
It will be helpful to cite a respected authority as an
appropriate trail blazer. Probably the best candidate
is Nobel laureate Amartya Sen.
The recent book by Sen and Jean Dreze, An Un-
certain Glory: India and its Contradiction, has an
agenda broadly acceptable to a range of thinkers.
The book highlights the lack of attention paid by
governments to many essential needs, especially of
the poor, and above all, of women. Rapid economic
growth has co-existed with grossly inadequate social
services (education and health) and physical serv-
ices (safe water, electricity, drainage, transportation
and sanitation). The book cites successful countries
like Korea and China to argue that fast economic
growth is not sustainable without strong develop-
ment of human capital and essential infrastructure.
India lags behind many countries at a similar level
of development, and even behind poor Bangladesh.
AAP leftists will happily accept the books social
agenda. Economic liberals in the AAP Committee
will also be happy to emphasize other aspects of the
book. Sen has often been accused of underplaying
the importance of markets and economic growth,
but in this book he and Dreze emphasize that rapid
economic growth is crucial. They say categorically
that fast growth provides rising opportunities, jobs
and incomes. Moreover, fast growth also produces
revenues that can be used for essential social serv-
ices and infrastructure that create more equality of
opportunity for all especially the poor and women.
There is no trade-off between fast growth and human
development: the two buttress one another.
Economic liberals in the AAP Committee will be
happy to cite the condemnation by Sen and Dreze of
red tape and senseless regulatory barriers that hit
economic growth and benefit only the corrupt and
powerful. Many sorts of regulations are indeed
needed, but India is full of perverse ones. Sen and
Dreze have roundly denounced populist subsidies
that are not targeted at the poor. They oppose free
electricity for all farmers. They oppose widespread
subsidies on petroleum products, especially diesel.
They say that by eliminating stupid subsidies and
many unwarranted tax breaks, it will be quite feasi-
ble to finance subsidies and essential services for the
poor, and will not entail populist financial excesses.
Reformers will agree with much of this. They
will also have disagreements too. Sen and Dreze seem
keener on expanding leaky, failed programmes than
on formulating strong measures to punish teachers,
health staff or other bureaucrats for non-perform-
ance. Their data on poverty is outdated and hence
very misleading. Now that GDP growth has plunged
three years in a row, their complaint about excessive
attention to growth sounds seriously misplaced.
Yet if liberals are to create common ground with
socialists and Marxists in the AAP, Sen and Dreze
offer a promising blueprint, despite some shortcom-
ings. It would be silly for the liberals to cite Adam
Smith or Friedrich Hayek as appropriate gurus for
the AAP Committee. Even Bhagwati will be unac-
ceptable. Amartya Sen, in his latest avataar, fits the
bill. Klitgaard is a good supplement.
My Times, My Voice: Like this article?
SMS MTMVSA <space> Yes or No to 58888.
Charges applicable. Rs 3 per sms
CREATING A DIFFERENT SLOT: RaGas stubborn stone-
walling on TV is being showcased as a master stroke
TRAGICTALE: The insane ambition to satisfy many
needs places a burden on couples who wed today
Modern marriages arent
made in heaven
AAP can take a leaf out of Amartya Sens book
Savage nation
With reference to Our true colours (Deep
Focus, Jan 26), our obsession with fair skin is
unbecoming. To term innocent Africans
looking for suitable education and
employment here, as prostitutes, is totally
inhuman. India is already grappling with an
image crisis as a corrupt, inefficient
nation. Let us at least show the world that
we are a forward-thinking nation. By
describing Africans as savages, we are
behaving like savages ourselves.
Mohima Ghosh, Thane
Prudence, not impatience
Apropos MJ Akbars article (ATM, Jan 26),
nothing can be farther from the truth than to
say Kejriwal wants to get the PMs job. Akbar
would do well to remember that he did not
want to be CM, let alone PM. The Congress
wanted him to form the government to
discredit him. Even then, he was reluctant till
an opinion poll favoured the formation of a
government by him. Now to say he wants the
PMs job is to be maliciously disingenuous.
M Bhowmik, Delhi
People power
This refers to AAP: Urban party without an
imaginative urban vision (ATM, Jan 26).
Its still premature to call the AAP
government in Delhi unimaginative
or ineffective. The Indian voter has come
of age and he will automatically show
the party the door if it doesnt deliver.
S Ramakrishnasayee, Ranipet
MEN & MORALS
GURCHARAN DAS
Did the Time magazine cover declaring you
The Great American Novelist affect your writing
in any way?
I live in New York, I know how its done. I
did feel I had something to prove after The
Corrections. I wanted to show it wasnt a
fluke. Im proud of The Corrections I felt
some pressure to say Im still here guys.
None of the outside consideration adds up
to one per cent of getting a novel out. You
just do the best with what you have left.
What anyone else might think is a million
miles away from you at your desk.
You said once that you were afraid that you were
doomed to write about Midwestern families,
is that still true?
Im halfway through a new novel with no
Midwestern family in it. It was not a perma-
nent doom. Im not interested in novels
about children but it is true that we are
shaped by our first 18 years. In my books,
families are important but at a distance.
Nobody would feel cold within a family. Its
a kind of love you can trust. You can hate
your father while still loving him. If youre
trying to push into dark territory, something
every novelist must do, anything with love
in it is a useful counterbalance. I am not
unfamiliar with family struggles, but thats
not where the drama is. The point is trying
to find drama in a freely chosen relationship
and family is there to give a world that those
relationships inhabit.
You comment quite frequently about the power
of bankers and the theme of financial corruption
is present in your writing. Are you angry with the
state of democracy in the West?
You have elected representatives saying,
Lets do this and the bankers come in and
say This is what were going to do and thats
what happens. What the bankers want is
what we get. It goes against the very
notion of national sovereignty, espe-
cially in Western Europe.
In your debut novel, The Twenty-
Seventh City you write powerfully
about the decline of St Louis. Do you
think cities have personalities?
All cities are ideas. What tran-
scends the individual is the idea
of that city and the idea of that
city in the minds of its citizens.
Its related to geography and history
though global monoculture is do-
ing its best to destroy it.
Do you think our self is under
siege by mass culture
and technology?
Its attractive
to be stimu-
l at e d by
social me-
di a but
one of
the lies being sold there is that it is a com-
munity, its not. Its also a lie that commu-
nity is always better than solitude. Its like
junior high school, is it better to be part of
the cool kids and be in or the nerdy kids
with their own interests? I know which one
I was.
Should novels be commercial and should they
try to compete with television?
I do see the novel in competition with televi-
sion but it is important to see what televi-
sion does well. New American television
shows are actually doing what 19th century
social novels were doing, which is giving
people an insight into very different lives.
If novels need to compete they need to con-
centrate on things they do well, things that
television doesnt: the manipulation of time,
irony and above all, changing points of view,
something television does badly.
You claimed that an endorsement from Oprah
would discourage men from reading your books.
Do men and women read different things?
It has always been the case that women read
more than men, theres always been more
female readers. Real male readers, hardcore
readers, they dont care about the authors
identity. As for the casual reader, fewer
women are interested in books about vio-
lence and technology. Men are not inter-
ested in books about a mother car-
ing for a sick daughter. There is
a gender imbalance in the
valuation of literature.
Women are underrepre-
sented in the literary canon
and women are touchy
about mens disinterest in
their books. These are
legitimate gripes.
Which novel would you take to
a desert island?
I would take Independent Peo-
ple by Halldr Laxness. (The
novel won this Icelandic
writer the Nobel Prize
in 1955)
And finally, do nov-
elists ever run out
of things to write?
They run out
all the time.
There is a gender imbalance
in the valuation of literature
In 2010, Jonathan Franzen
became the first novelist in
over a decade to make the
cover of Time magazine,
which designated him
this generations Great
American Novelist. He is
reputed for his insight, deep
contrarian intelligence and
powerfully charged writing
style, all of which shine
through his greatest novel,
The Corrections (2001), and
Freedom (2010). Despite his
formidable reputation, he
dislikes pretentious questions
when he says, Thats
deep, he definitely doesnt
mean it as a compliment.
Abhimanyu Arni
treads lightly
FOR THE RECORD
OUT OF TURN
MJ AKBAR
SWAMINOMICS
SWAMINATHAN S ANKLESARIA AIYAR
POLITICALLY INCORRECT
SHOBHAA DE

S-ar putea să vă placă și