Author: Mahendra Ved

Indian Sports And Chinese Games

By Mahendra Ved

The Indian athletes at the forthcoming Tokyo Olympics will be seen wearing ‘unbranded’ sports apparel. No more Chinese designs, logos and sponsorship. With this symbolic, globally visible (since it will be visuals-only games) parting of ways with the hostile neighbour, India has also joined the global China-versus-the United States game, on the latter’s side.

The change has come after last year’s military skirmishes on the disputed border. The Indian Olympic Association has suspended its collaboration with Chinese giant Li Ning that kitted the Indian athletes and sponsored their travel. This was being done, the IOA said, to respect “sentiments of the people of the country.”

Prior to the border incidents, then sports minister Kiren Rijiju, incidentally a Member of Parliament from Arunachal Pradesh that China claims as its territory, had said: “Li Ning designed the official sports kit inspired by India’s national colours and integrated unique graphics to emote the energy and pride of the Indian Olympic Team.”

The deal was reported to be worth INR 50 million. Li Ning was the Indian team’s apparel sponsor at the Rio Olympics five years ago and had also provided uniforms for the 2018 Commonwealth and Asian Games.

Tokyo Games big medal hopeful, shuttler PV Sindhu, was also sponsored by Li Ning. All that is over, at least for now. Last year, till the border incidents, Vivo, the telecom giant had sponsored India Premier League, the multi-million cricketing tournament. It returned briefly this year, apparently due to some contract obligations.

India relies heavily on products and raw materials from China in nearly every sport. According to the Department of Commerce’s data for 2018-2019, over half of India’s sports equipment was imported from China. This includes ­footballs to table tennis balls and shuttlecocks, tennis and badminton racquets and their stringing machines, mountain climbing and adventure sports gear, gym apparatus and athletics gear including javelins and high jump bars.

ALSO READ: India-China Faceoff – Shatranj Vs Weiqi

Forget the no-politics-in-sports idea. Popular sentiments over the ‘betrayal’ on the border should have triggered a “boycott Chinese goods” campaign. But Prime Minister Modi’s government, keen on taking political credit, does not wish to stir the economic and trade cauldron.

This is not child’s play. The global toy market is about $100 billion, but as Modi lamented at the recent “Toycathon”, urging Indian toymakers to be ‘atmanirbhar’ (self-reliant) in making toys for children, that India’s share is only around $1.5 billion. Worse, “we import about 80 percent of our toys,” and worse still (which he didn’t say), 70 percent of this 80 percent come from China.

India is ‘critically dependent’ on China in imports across 86 tariff lines, a Group of Ministers (GoM) reported last December. Line items include consumer electronics, computer hardware, telephone equipment, electronic items, and air conditioners and refrigerators. Also, China has the largest share in India’s imports — more than 18 per cent in April-September 2020. This share has risen since, despite the border incidents and despite the pandemic, as China, unlike India, has managed to curb the spread of Covid-19 and kept its factories running.

The Indian authorities have banned a hundred Chinese apps and more are in the pipeline.  Only, the Chinese presence in India’s market – name any product – remains heavy, a fact of everyday life. Two-way trade in 2020 reached $87.6 billion, down by 5.6 percent, the trade deficit declined to a five year-low of $45.8 billion. “The trade deficit is not in dollars, it is in overdependence,” Sanjay Chadha, Additional Secretary in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry said in January.

Cell-phone has fully integrated into an Indian’s life. Visit any home or market place and see how Chinese brands dominate. They commanded 75 percent of India’s smartphone market in 2020, up from 71 percent in 2019. Given their spread, pushing Germans, French, South Koreans among others to the margins of a growing market, it is doubtful if India’s online education of millions of students, compelled by Covid-19, would have been possible.

Cell-phone is just one example. Computers and other communications gadgets and apps are hugely Chinese. Fear of a possible suspension of Chinese tech-support for their maintenance persists. Keen to avoid any such problem in future, this writer purchased a Taiwanese brand laptop last year, only to find that it was “Made in China” under Taiwanese licence.

It is no consolation that the US itself is having to urge its own basketball stars to shun Li Ning sports products because the Chinese giant is said to be using cotton sourced from its Xinjiang region where the authorities are accused of suppressing minority Muslims. Incidentally, in a tit-for-tat, Li Ning had itself suspended cooperation with the Americans earlier, “in national interests”, after American producers backed the anti-Beijing protests in Hong Kong.

ALSO READ: Apps Are Only Tip Of China’s Presence In India

The Indian story is similar to many countries. Only, not everyone has a disputed border with China. Neither is there nudging from a strategic partner like the United States to ‘balance’ the Asian scene. In a sense, India pays double price when it cannot deal with erstwhile ally Russia, Iran or anyone the US dislikes.

India’s case remains unique for several reasons. Besides a border that gets ‘live’ from time to time, and talks have made little headway in the last six decades, it has reasons to feel ‘surrounded.’ The Himalayan ranges became pregnable in the last century.  For long years, one debated on the “string of Pearls”, of China developing military bases on islands all around the Indian Ocean. The region was for long ‘Indian’ — its backyard, in broad maritime terms – no longer so.

This is old story. The Chinese deep pockets have won over just all of India’s neighbours after China formally launched the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). All South Asians have joined in, with varying outcome, but with bright hope of the Chinese money and technology being available — for a price. India is the sole ‘outsider’. Its pockets are not deep, nor has it established a good record of completing projects in its neighbourhood, yielding space to China.

For long years, there was a quiet pride that India and China managed well their economic and trade ties, despite an unsolved border dispute. It was called pragmatism and was contrasted with India-Pakistan, wherein the trade was restricted due to mistrust. India would show the Chinese example and accuse Pakistan of being cussed. While that remains, the China story has taken a beating. This is unlikely to normalise for long.  

The conflict-from-cradle rivalry with Pakistan has taken India miles ahead of the recalcitrant neighbour. But even that is now becoming thin. China has taken resolute striders in Pakistan in the shape of China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), investing billions in building infrastructure that Pakistan could never dream of despite its decades of alliance with the West – the US in particular. Now, China, the “iron brother”, is helping out, in return for entry to the Indian Ocean. Now, the two are about to extend their collaboration, howsoever unequal and weighed in China’s favour, to a land-locked Afghanistan. Whether or not Pakistan gains “strategic depth” against India in future, a government in Kabul that may not be hospitable to India, with this extension of CPEC bears the potential of giving it “economic depth.”

Call it “Chinese East India Company”, or talk of the inevitable debt trap – who cares? In the next decade, China will have laid infrastructure that is as good, or even better than, India, across South Asia. And its CPEC will have created a significant class or rich politicians and civil and military officials in Pakistan who can, supported by military and economic heft from China, can afford to stare down at India.

The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com

Will The Congress Please Buckle Up?

By Mahendra Ved

India’s older intelligentsia last month went through the annual ritual of righteously, and rightly, recalling the Emergency that was imposed 46 years ago, impairing civil liberties, media freedom and right to political protest. But the flavor and tone were different this year.

Expectedly, the targets were Indira Gandhi, the prime minister who imposed it, and the Congress party. Feebly, very feebly, the party protested. While not defending the Emergency, it picked up enough courage to say that the current situation was equally bad, even worse. Lacking the necessary ballast, its voice was further muffled by a partisan media, and met with aggressive rebuttals from those in power who claim the sole right to play the victims and even martyrs.

Significantly, most other ‘victims’ now in the opposition, did not join either side. It betrayed their conflict and confusion about their role in the current situation. And, of course, their unwillingness to be seen either with an aggressive ruling Bharatiya Janata Party or with the Congress.

It is time to ask: can, or should this caution persist? Last month also witnessed hesitant moves at forging opposition unity that betrayed mutual distrust and a lack of direction. These tentative moves are obviously prompted by the electoral triumphs of regional parties, like the DMK in Tamil Nadu and by Trinamool Congress in West Bengal.

The economic stress and the misery heaped by the second wave of Covid-19 pandemic have contributed to disillusionment. Together, they have caused a psychological backlash. Look at the government’s handling of protests, terming some as sedition and its vocal denunciation by the judiciary. Look at the anger at the floating corpses on the holy Ganga. This is unprecedented, and not a result of the opposition’s foreign-made ‘toolkit.’

ALSO READ: Nation Rising Up, Opposition Holed Up

However, what could be a golden opportunity is being wasted, not just by the squabbling Congressmen, but also others fearful of the BJP’s dominant presence and aggressive implementation of its political agenda. Some like the Samajwadi and BSP are busy poaching each other’s workers and lawmakers. They have learnt little from the past and presently, the way the BJP poached from other parties, mostly to dump them. When it overdid that in West Bengal – a lot more was overdone, like a toxic, personalized campaign that boomeranged when Mamata Banerjee was individually abused – the reverse process began within weeks. The TMC turncoats want to return to it after winning on BJP tickets. This is unprecedented.

The biggest failure in taking advantage of this situation is of the Congress. In the party that led the country to its freedom, the family and the organization have become synonymous. Congressmen are unable/unwilling to even consider an alternative leader or a bunch of them. Why, organizational election itself is stalled for fear of the edifice falling apart. Covid-19 was cited as the reason the last time around.  

The party could not keep its own government in Madhya Pradesh and pulled back allies from victory in Bihar. In the last round of elections, it failed to retain Kerala and Puducherry and to regain Assam. It scored a zero in West Bengal.

There is discernible disenchantment with the leadership at the top. Here, too, the voices are feeble. The Gandhis are unable to prevent internecine warfare and seem clueless about how to stem the rot and plug the leaks. Incumbent chief ministers are facing revolt from factions and ambitious youngsters.

Punjab has been a success story, but dissensions have emerged with elections due next year. Navjot Singh Sidhu, seen by many as more of a show-boy and a possible tool/proxy of god-knows-who, could quit if not ‘accommodated’. Ditto, Sachin Pilot in Rajasthan, who, however, has a better track record than Sidhu. Unsurprisingly, the BJP in Rajasthan and in Punjab, the Badals and Bahujan Samaj Party, besides AAP’s Kejriwal, are readying to demolish the two last Congress fortresses. The attitude of each party towards the continuing farmers’ agitation, drawing much of its sinew from Punjab, has made the situation more complex.

ALSO READ: Can Amarinder Singh Save The Congress?

Despite all this, the Congress is seen as the pivot of any opposition unity move by the elderly Sharad Pawar and a young Tejashwi Yadav. It urgently needs to choose its own role and direction if it is to play any role that could lead to opposition unity. A national party it certainly is, but only if it can carry others along. Days of others rallying behind it are over, at least for now. An ailing Sonia Gandhi, formally still the Congress president, had wisely pulled that off in 2004. Can Rahul and/or Priyanka, with their dismal track record in elections, repeat that?

As BJP lords it over, deprecating the Congress ‘dynasty’, but not the other small and big ones in the opposition, there is a point to ponder. No political party is homogenous – it cannot be. When you take too many people from outside, you dilute your own organisation and your ideological mores (many don’t have). As a mass-based party, the Congress embraced all and sundry, since that was also its role during the freedom movement. But many left it to join the opposition while retaining the ‘Congress’ label, thus hurting the ‘parent’ party.

The BJP, on the other hand, is a party with a strong ideological mentor in the RSS. Embracing too many MPs and MLAs from elsewhere has caused it greater pain than, perhaps, the Congress. But then, Mr Amit Shah is playing realpolitik, taking a leaf from L K Advani’s book authored in the 1980s and 1990s. The pain is visible in West Bengal and other places could follow as time goes. 

Talking of the 1990s, one misses Harkishan Singh Surjeet, the hands-on Marxist who rallied parties with diverse political platforms to forge coalitions that governed, however briefly. Now, Sharad Pawar has initiated the moves, tentative though they are.  Not himself a chief minister, he reputedly runs a government of diverse parties in Maharashtra, a major state.

It will be some time and much effort before the Pawar-Mamata initiative gains momentum. Without subscribing to any one or collective platform, it needs stressing that a healthy democracy requires balancing. India needs, as a Hindi expression goes, “loha lohe ko katata hai” – you need iron to cut iron.

At stake is not just the healthy functioning of a multi-party system, but also federal relations, particularly when and where different parties are elected. The Constitution provides for a federal governance and a multi-cultural ethos. In this context, one fully agrees with what the Chief Justice of India, N V Ramana, recently said of greater checks and balances to make a democracy thrive.

It is not going to be easy. One hears of ‘files’ with the Union government, those that ensure silence of some of the opposition leading lights. On the other hand, the BJP is certainly growing strong in terms of men, money, media and muscle as the party in power. Finally, at its helm is Prime Minister Modi who, as sociologist-politico Yogendra Yadav rightly predicts, “will fight till the last”. Can the opposition prepare for the seven states that will have elections next year, before the Lok Sabha polls? 

The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com

Taliban In Kabul: India’s Diplomatic Challenge

By Mahendra Ved

Next-door to India, a regional event with global implications that is dreaded by all, whether in support or opposition, is happening. Well-armed and highly motivated, the Taliban are overrunning Afghanistan, fighting pitched territorial battles with the government forces, pushing them out of the vast countryside and confining them to the cities.

It may be a matter of weeks before the government in Kabul collapses because the political and military will of the world powers has also collapsed. There seems to be room only for diplomacy as war-weary US-Nato withdraw their soldiers, a process they may complete well before the September 11 deadline.

The Taliban appear unstoppable. They couldn’t care less what the world thinks of them. They are focused totally on regaining power and their own national issues. A recent interview a top Taliban leader gave ‘Foreign Policy’ reiterates their well-known and much-criticised approach to their women. There will be little education and no jobs for them once they return to power.

The Taliban calculate that the world will worship the victor. After all, they have huge untapped minerals to offer. Weren’t they, when in power, wooed for access and exploitation of Central Asia’s gas an oil – till 9/11 happened?

But the dread persists and it is not just due to uncertainties of what may lie ahead. The nations that are withdrawing from a war they cannot win after nearly two decades are frightened of terrorism in the shape of Al Qaida and the Islamic State returning to Afghanistan, along with and even without the Taliban at the helm. The extremist forces they created and battled by turns as per their expediency have acquired strength they cannot control. It’s déjà vu.

ALSO READ: Afghanistan – The Great Game Continues

This is most apparent in the Biden administration that had little choice – and inclination – to undo what the previous Trump administration handed down. Biden’s Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin says Al Qaeda could regroup in Afghanistan in two years.  Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a veteran of the war in Afghanistan, told the US Senate Appropriations Committee that he agreed. It was the most specific public forecast of the prospects for a renewed international terrorist threat from Afghanistan since President Joe Biden announced in April that all U.S. troops would withdraw by September 11.

If America fears this even as it withdraws, unconditionally and completely, the France-based think tank, Center for the Analysis of Terrorism (CAT), in a paper published this month sees resurgence of Al Qaida, the IS and its numerous affiliates across a vast region that covers West, Central and South Asia as  result of the forthcoming tectonic changes in Afghanistan.  

The title and the focus are “the Pakistani Jihadis and Global Jihad” which India can hardly afford to ignore. It says, “…following the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, one is likely to witness a resurgence of the Taliban and probably a more operational coordination between Pakistan-supported groups like the LET & JEM and the Taliban.”

It further says: “The current threat landscape and its evolution is strongly tied to the evolution, transformation and fragmentation of historical organizations active in the region since the late 80s and to the continuing alignment of political organs and elites’ interests in Pakistan with those of the Pakistani jihadi organizations (for example the annexation of Jammu and Kashmir), whilst several of these organizations have since adhered to the global agenda of terrorist organizations posing a direct threat to neighbouring countries, primarily India.”

Is it surprising that Pakistan castigates India as a ‘spoiler’ in Afghanistan for trying to deny the strategic advantage it hopes to gain, post-US withdrawal, from a new regime in Kabul? But Pakistan has own set of Cassandras to deal with in the shape of more refugees, more drugs and more sectarian violence. TTP, the Pakistani Taliban have the same ideological inclination as the Afghan Taliban they have hosted for two decades. 

The situation is unenviable for India that sees repeat of its recent past. It was friendless when the Russians withdrew and the regime they had supported collapsed. It stands to become friendless again with a Taliban rise, this time having invested over USD three billion.  

ALSO READ: India Must Remain Involved In US-Taliban Talks

India has little choice but to engage with the Taliban, and whoever else gains powers after the US-led evacuation. Indeed, its growing proximity to the US makes its presence more vulnerable from the very people it has opposed and criticised. The memories of the 1999 hijack of an Indian passenger aircraft to Kandahar are fresh and so are attacks on its interests by the Haqqani group, said to be working for Pakistan’s ISI.

When the Mujahideen took power in the early 1990s, MK Bhadrakumar, a senior diplomat well versed in the region’s affairs was dispatched. He met the new top leadership, including Burhanuddin Rabbani and Ahmed Shah Masud. Full advantage was taken of an airport refuelling stopover in Delhi by Rabbani and his men. The rapprochement took long, but it happened.

The diplomatic situation is many times more challenging, what with India being identified with the US and against the Sino-Pak alliance, with old allies Russia and Iran missing from its side.

India is a straggler in engaging with the Taliban leaders who have resented India. The past record has been one of mutual dislike and distrust. This is hardly the time to reminisce what India has done or can do in Afghanistan and the goodwill it has gained. The time is to salvage what is built and protect, even the embassy in Kabul and consulates in other Afghan cities.

This is by far the biggest diplomatic challenge with overwhelming security component that India faces in many years.  

Lagaan – Much More Than A David-Goliath Bout

By Mahendra Ved

Two decades after it was released (on June 15, 2001) to critical and popular acclaim at home, screened at film festivals abroad, and lost in the final lap after being nominated for the Oscars, one reads several messages from Lagaan. Its memorable prayer ditty, “O paalanhaare”, with punch-line “tumrey bin hamraa kaun-o nahin”, areport in The Hindu newspaper says, comforts millions battling the Covid-19. Perhaps melodramatic, yet one may argue, for or against, why it reflects the prevailing mood of helplessness.  

The second message is unstated. The song’s writer Javed Akhtar, composer A R Rahman and its producer and lead actor Aamir Khan contribute to cinema, upholding its role as the country’s most inclusive medium. It is important in the currently polarized socio-political environment. Their high visibility and successes, like those of many others, are testimonies of their larger social and cultural acceptance that ignores the present-day attacks on individuals and institutions.

The third message is about the Indian cinema itself. It has gone global. Lagaan is among those films that have given India and its entertainment sector largest-ever profile. This has also encouraged more film-making, as reflected in the pre-Covid figures taken from Google – 2,448 films were made in 2019 in different languages, earning $2.7 billion.

But the world’s largest cinematography continues to produce few quality films. After Mother India (1957) and Salaam Bombay! (1988) and since Lagaan reached the Oscar nomination stage at the 74th Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, no Indian film has qualified.   

Lagaan’s fourth message is on the age-old song-and-dance sequences unique to Indian cinema. Earlier entries to foreign festivals were stripped of songs and dances to reduce length and reach the message directly to appeal to the Western sensibilities that determine the Oscars. Lagaan entered with most, if not all, songs that were integral to the narrative, well-composed and well executed. The Indian film-makers need not be squeamish about them, provided they keep the quality and mingle them into the narrative.

ALSO READ: Sahir Ludhianvi – Poet Of The Underdog

But Lagaan is much more than an Oscar-loser. This turn-of-the-century film is the last serious look at rural India. Save Shyam Benegal’s two films, Welcome to Sajjanpur (2008) and Well Done Abbba (2009), and Peepli Live (2010) that was India’s official entry for the 83rd Academy Awards but did not win nomination, India’s countryside is absent in cinema. Lagaan is the last hurrah for rural India as the country urbanizes at a fast, haphazard pace.

Indicative of growing knowledge, too, Lagaan became a serious case-study for man-management lessons at the Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Indore. Fifteen seats and a full semester were reserved for it, but the IIM had to expand the time and seats when applications exceeded 300.

Indeed, Lagaan is also political material to study the Indian society. Relevant in the 19th and the 20th centuries, but equally now is the character of Kachra, the Maha Dalit (socially most oppressed) on whom much of the caste politics is played today. That also makes Bhuvan, the protagonist, obviously an upper caste farmer, a real hero. He stakes the villagers’ success on his inclusion in the cricket team. Today’s Bhuvans, sadly, are only slogan-mongers, even as Kachras, conscious of their strength, rise, intermittently, hesitantly, in a reservations-driven India.  

Lagaan is mini-India. A classic from Bollywood’s cinema factory, it is in the same class as Do Bigha Zameen (1953), Mother India and  Do Ankhen Barah Haath (both made in 1957) and Guide (1965), says film analyst Gautam Kaul. The only international example of a similar nature, he says, is MGM’s Gone With the Wind (1939) that, after every two decades, gets a world premiere!

Aamir Khan is rightly acclaimed as producer and the lead actor, Lagaan was the brainchild of writer-director Ashutosh Gowarikar. His filmography of ten shows that this was no flash-in-the-pan. Swades (2004) and Jodha Akbar (2008) were outstanding, with strong messages delivered well.  Khelein Hum Jee Jaan Sey (2010), a well-intentioned message film met with modest success. But of late, both audiences and critics have panned Mohen Jo Daro (2016) and Panipat (2019). It is difficult to repeat Lagaan’s success, like it happened, for example, to those who worked on Gandhi. With his penchant for and ability to deliver message, however, Gowarikar may have more to deliver.

He must get full credit for conjuring up this David-versus-Goliath theme set in British-ruled India on the lives of people in a village dependent upon seasonal rains for their survival. They live on territory of a kindly but hapless prince overruled by a cranky and arrogant British captain. The Briton challenges the villagers to, of all things, a cricket match, baiting them with waiving of land tax (lagaan) for three years if they defeated his team. Having no choice, a gritty youth forms a rag-tag team of total novices, and actually scores a narrow victory. This may sound crazy on paper, but Gowarikar made it believable.

ALSO READ: Forever Fragrance Of ‘Kaagaz Ke Phool’

In a glowing review, Pulitzer Prize-winning film critic late Roger Ebert likened Lagaan’s landscapes to those in Dr Zhivago (1965) and Lawrence of Arabia (1962), and compared Gowarikar with David Lean.

It featured a record 15 foreign actors, not just caricatures, some playing key supporting roles. This required engaging a separate casting director. British actors Rachel Shelley and Paul Blackthorne learnt their dialogues by heart (no dubbing) and braved the desert’s dry winter and summer. The entire crew, including the Britons, contributed handsomely to the relief rushed to the locals when the villages they had frequented were destroyed by an earthquake six months later. That was their tribute to ten thousand villagers who had played willing actors in the crowd scenes.

I have problems with the film being located in an imaginary Champaner in present-day Madhya Pradesh when there is one, very famous, in Gujarat. Agreed that real Champaner’s terrain did not suite the narrative. So, for authenticity, it opted for Gujarat’s Kutch district, creating a village set near Bhuj. The other issue is the mix of Awadhi, Braja Bhasha and Bhojpuri that are dialects of Hindi spoken hundreds of kilometre away in present-day Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. If these were to be the medium, the film could also have been located in northern India for greater authenticity. Obviously, terrain took precedence over the tongue.  

Lots of cinematic licences. Audiences would have ignored them but for Amitabh Bachchan’s commentary at the film’s opening locating Champaner in Madhya Pradesh. But Aamir-Ashutosh couldn’t escape from Gujarat where, like Rajasthan, the terrain offers huge climatic and scenic variations needed for the film.

Interestingly, Lagaan had much in common with Mrinal Sen’s Bhuvan Shome (1969) besides Bachchan’s commentaries. The lead characters are named Bhuvan and Gauri. That film, too, was shot in Gujarat.  Four decades after she played the lead in Bhuvan Shome, Suhasini Mulay played Bhuvan’s mother in Lagaan.

The film must be recorded for cricket used as the driving force to depict competition and a civilizational clash with patriotic touches. There were doubts about the ‘sporty’ angle. That part was planned as a surprise element in the film’s promotion, ostensibly so as make the theme look credible to the non-cricketing world. Lagaan was the first Indian film to premiere in China. Aamir Khan has since been most successful in that country with his PK, Tarey Zameen Par, Secret Superstar and Dangal, each setting viewership records. Like Raj Kapoor in the last century, Aamir is seen as an actor-director of substance. Globally, he enjoys as much following, if not more, as Shah Rukh Khan and Salman Khan.

Like cricket, rain plays a key role in Lagaan’s theme. During its filming, it did not rain at all in the region. However, a week after the shoot finished, it rained – like it did after Bhuvan and his men won the match. That brings the “reel life” and real life closer.

Cricket is a metaphor for modern India. But as Lagaan shows, rain is the permanent one, determining our lives, be it for two decades or two centuries or more.  

The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com

More Covid questions than answers in the world’s largest ‘electoral autocracy’

By Mahendra Ved

Extraordinary situations demand extraordinary measures. Failure to anticipate is bad, but it’s worse if one ignores warnings from different quarters. And it’s even worse if you mismanage the situation; blaming others and seeking to punish them is lower still.

The worst, definitely, is if you allow your political agenda and religious preferences to cloud key, urgently required, decisions. You reach your nadir when you justify it all, vocally or by your silence, before the people and even the law courts, bad-mouthing your critics through media management. And then, you bristle and protest when the world that admired you with high expectations turns critical. You accept their help but reject their concerns.

All this, and much more, is happening as India battles a pandemic that has engulfed lakhs and takes thousands of lives daily. Old records of the Spanish flu and bubonic plague that hit the Indians a century ago, patchy though they are, are unlikely to tell of people in hospital dying for want of oxygen. Or, of vaccine shortage, when the country is the world’s largest vaccine producer, donating and exporting them.

Admittedly, much of the criticism is from hindsight. Bitter truth be told, not just the government and the people, even the vaccine producers were caught unprepared, if not napping, for the second wave that is worse than the first. Only, the latter has admitted to it – the government will not. Symbols of this aggressive approach are Uttar Pradesh chief minister doggedly refusing to acknowledge any shortcoming even as hundreds have died across his state and Haryana’s chief minister who ridicules any casualty count, since “the dead will not return”. The situation does not prevent a Bangalore lawmaker to give communal colour to those working at a hospital, and having lit the fire, glibly denying what is on record.

And now, the government tells you that the third wave is inevitable. Loathe to loosen control of critical supplies, it is forced to pass the buck to the states, even to the mohalla committees, the smallest cluster of the citizenry. Be self-reliant, they are told.

All this has not helped the economy that has been hit by production and job losses. Millions are again moving away from their farms and factories. A new study says 230 million have been pushed below minimum wage level. Thanks to last year’s lockdown, only 61 per cent of working age men are employed, while 47 per cent of women have suffered permanent job loss. The government is resisting pressures, even from within its team, to declare a national-level lockdown. The states are forced to do it. Some decentralization, this, of misery.

All this did not prevent the Kumbha Mela where half-a-million bathed in the Ganga, flouting rules that stipulate health precautions. Justification came from mainstream media on how past British rulers had facilitated rituals despite adversities. Whether or not the bathers ensured their moksha, many among them did court the Coronavirus. The mela is now a super-spreader event. Mela or not, Corona has infected even the base camp of Mount Everest.

It is difficult to comprehend how and why people go through marriages but that can be attributed to individual decisions taken under compulsions, whatever they may be. They take the blame and pay for it, sadly, with their lives.
But there is none to take the blame for elections to four states Assemblies and a Union Territory. Neither any part of the state, nor the political class, wants to share the responsibility.

The question that should goad minds, irrespective of who won or lost: Was it all worthwhile? It is important to ask because of the pandemic that has brought, in all its aspects, to a standstill, is not about to go.

Why is it that none of the political parties protested the protracted poll schedule? Why did none of them declare that they would stay out of the polls? “We can’t let others win” argument was made. A need to hold them to meet requirements as per the Constitution was also cited.
Why was it that the Union Cabinet, in a statement acknowledged the pandemic being “once-in-a century” calamity, only after the electioneering was over? Or, was it the exit polls?

Why did the judiciary fail to take suo motu note of the worsening situation? Why nobody from the public petition the country’s highest court? Did the court refrain only out of the fear of transgressing the arrangement set under the Constitution for different levers of the state?
In a sporting event, cricket for instance, the umpires decide whether a match should continue given the light and rain conditions. Why was it that the Election Commission of India, a supposedly neutral constitutional body, fail to determine whether electioneering and voting should continue, even half-way? Did it not notice that leaders wearing no masks were addressing large rallies where the audiences were mask-less, too? Why did Commission attract the charge, no less than from high courts, that it was “responsible for murder”? Refusing to buck, it wanted the media gagged for reporting the court’s observations, till the Supreme Court silenced its self-righteous protests. Belated, after the change at its top, the apex court’s bold and balancing stance in the last two weeks raises hopes.

Is there a count of Covid-casualties among workers of political parties in the campaign, officials working as part of the vast election machinery – among them the unnamed ground level officials and school teachers? All these people should have been with their families, feeding them and protecting them from Covid.

Covid is spreading, like wildfire, as it were. So, why were the elections gone through? To fit political agenda of all since they are instruments of the power game? So that some people could make money? And many receive pre-poll freebies? And let the TV channels build up TRPs?
The state, collectively, failed to take the lead to prevent this “once-in-a-century” calamity.

There is nothing so far to indicate that whatever else may stop – exams in schools and colleges, for one – more elections will take place, even if the Corona continues to play havoc.

This reminds of the Chausar play in Mahabharata. The Kauravas played to a plan. The Pandavas succumbed because it was the norm and they had their prestige to preserve. The elders of the two clans, unable or unwilling to prevent it, kept silent. Even Krishna, the know-it-all, let it happen because, as he said, it was inevitable, pre-destined and best gone through. We know of Karma and Dharma. There is no Krishna. But the other caps can be fitted as per one’s thinking.
Were any lessons learnt? In the present-day context, are there lessons to be learnt, and will they be learnt? Or, are elections meant to be the end-all and be-all for a democracy?

Should we, then, bristle when India, the world’s largest democracy, is categorized as an “electoral autocracy”?

Afghanistan – The Great Game Continues

By Mahendra Ved

Billed as ‘Heart of Asia’ by its multinational stakeholders, the landlocked Afghanistan is where a new chapter of cold war and what was touted as the Great Game, is being written. What happens here in the near future will shape the region’s history, but not without impacting much of the world.

We say the rest of the world because energy needs and armament exports shall continue to attract everyone to this region. The Great Game was aimed at the Czarist Russia and the former Soviet Union. Today, Russia retains this position, but as junior partner of a resurgent China. The two are, indeed, the unstated “other places” where the United States feels compelled to focus to justify its decision to quit the much-touted “global war against terrorism”.

Unable to shake off what his predecessors – George Bush who started and then escalated it to Iraq, Obama who could not undo, but what Trump has shackled him with, Biden is now committed to quit America’s longest war. In declaring that the US will withdraw its troops by the 20th anniversary of the 9/11, he has bought himself 132 days, no more. Its scheduling with the anniversary symbolizes America’s failure to sustain the war – forget winning it.

Now, think of a people whom the world’s most powerful nation abandons. It cannot, of course, be argued that the Americans stay indefinitely in Afghanistan. The Afghans have a history of keeping their heads high, and will not admit it. They have no choice either. They may have a glorious history of having defeated foreign invaders and survived occupations. But once the US withdraws, an elected government they support will collapse in a matter of months. Power struggle could begin with bloodshed and street fights.  The triumphal Taliban are already talking of retribution, setting up courts and introducing their stringent brand of Sharia. A nation with a chequered past and an uncertain presence now faces a grim future.

The sufferers, once again, are the Afghan people. The younger ones into science and technology at India-aided centres. The girls, about 40 percent of the academic force, may find their schools and colleges close, because the incoming Taliban think they are un-Islamic. Few would recall that the Russians helped educate a generation of Afghan women enabling them to nurture with relatively better position in their families. Now, their daughters and granddaughters will lose the freedom they enjoyed in the last two decades. 

ALSO READ: China Fears Taliban Rule May Harm BRI

It is déjà vu for older Afghans, the high and mighty invading to defend democracy and fight terrorism, and then walking away, weary but not chastened or sorry, for repeating what they did in 1990. The West had won and rejoiced at the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union. It is now America’s turn to end its longest war and conduct a victory-less withdrawal that would make Vietnam seem graceful.

This was inevitable, given America’s war fatigue after losing 2,500 men and sinking three trillion dollars. But the military situation was favourable till 2017-2019. The Taliban had a tough time and heavy casualties, enough for the US to force a stalemate and a compromise that would compel the Taliban to talk to the government in Kabul. But Trump hastened to sign the deal at Doha in February 2020, ostensibly to enhance his chances of electoral victory in the presidential polls.

The American abandonment began when the pact was signed keeping the Ghani Government out of the talks and on Taliban assurances that everyone knew the Americans could not enforce, save their own facilities from being attacked. Nothing, absolutely nothing, was sought or secured for the Afghan populace. 

The US agreeing to withdraw by May 1, 2021 emboldened the Taliban to seize vast territory, attacking even schools and hospitals, to enhance their bargaining position. This reversed the gains the US Marines-supported government troops had made on the ground. Trump and his envoy for Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, shall be judged by history.

And now comes the new deadline of September 11. Whether the Taliban will view this delayed withdrawal as a breach of the agreement and resume large-scale attacks against Afghan and American forces is not clear. What is clear, however, is the success of their military strategy of pushing the Afghan forces, reduced to a mere 20,000 to 30,000 (as against the ambitious 250,000 originally planned). Their funding at USD four billion annually could end if the US Congress votes against it. Resistance by the government forces will ebb with security forces abandoning their positions and switching sides. This has been the past record.

Why would the Taliban agree to share power the way the Americans ask and the world community hopes, when they can take it by force? They already control large swaths of territory from a government with which they are being asked to cooperate? The Taliban regard the government in Kabul as a puppet of the Americans and barely hide their contempt for it. They have never committed to a power-sharing arrangement with the government, much less elections. The Kabul government is expecting a bloody endgame, and is likely to get it.  The Taliban believe they have already militarily won the war with Afghan forces, and they may prove right.

The situation on the ground is bound to worsen. Emboldened by the American withdrawal, and constituting a further threat to the Ghani government, are the regional satraps. These power brokers have always survived by changing sides, violently. They may now cut deals with the winning side, the Taliban, who are Pashtuns but dominate even in non-Pashtun areas.

President Ashraf Ghani is Casabianca, the proverbial boy on the burning deck. It could be a matter of months before his government collapses or cuts a deal of its own with the Taliban – a deal that will be hailed as a great peace move, probably making him worthy of a Peace Nobel. Sorry, but cynicism set in when going by the past records.  

ALSO READ: Pak Jihad Factory That Fuels Terror In Afghanistan

As of now, Ghani’s future could be bleak. He can only hope that he does not meet the fate similar to some of his predecessors. Najibullah’s body was hung by the lamppost after even the United Nations failed to help. Given his academic background, he might end up as an American university don, unlike last South Vietnamese president, Kao Kye, who sold pizzas.   

To the world community, the expression being touted is of the US’ “responsible exit”. It inherently accepts that there definitely is America’s responsibility, having started it all two decades back as “global war against terrorism”, and implies that any semblance of having won that global war or even having eliminated terrorism has remained elusive after two decades. It is also a bitter reminder is that the US and the West as a whole went to Afghanistan against the invasion by the then Soviet Union with similar objectives, slogans and promises. When the Soviets withdrew, the victorious West abandoned Afghanistan to fractious groups of fighters.

It is advantage Pakistan that nurtured the Taliban for long, and China, its mentor. India cannot like it. It has no friends among the Taliban and few among the other groups. But staying out is not an option for India. It has invested three billion dollars and in well-earned Afghan goodwill for two decades. Earlier, the US would ask Pakistan to “do more” on curbing terrorism. Now, India is being asked, to “invest more” in a hostile Afghanistan. Identified with the US in the region now, it must feel as abandoned as Ghani and his men, till it cultivates new equations. It is difficult, like it was when the Soviets withdrew. That explains why developments in the “Heart of Asia” have global implications.

The writer co-authored: Taliban & the Afghan Turmoil (Himalaya Books, 1997), Afghan Turmoil: Changing Equations (Himalaya Books, 1998) and Afghan Buzkhashi: Great Games and Gamesmen (Wordsmiths, April 2000). He can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com

Biopics – Real Life Stories Retold

By Mahendra Ved

Indians are looking for their heroes, past or present. Even villains are okay, if they are and do things larger than life. Ready subjects with potential for profits have encouraged a trend in the shape of biographical films – biopics for short.

As film-goers hunger for more, film-makers braving the Covid-19 pandemic, find it necessary to work indoors on research and writing before venturing out.

It is not new. Film analyst Gautam Kaul says this genre came from Hollywood like much else over the last century. Audiences look for stories that inspire and inform. Stories of success and fortitude are appealing. Biopics are dramatized for mass acceptance and visual appeal. Literary/cinematic licence is taken, with approval of the subject, if alive. Call it a sponsored exercise, but none complains, save some film critics, if the end-product is entertaining and has the right message.

If a biopic is re-living the past, step aside for a quick review, both global and Indian.

The world’s first recorded biopic was in 1900, expectedly from the French and predictably, on Joan of Arc. She was repeated almost a century later in 1999. The world’s most filmed individuals are Jesus Christ, Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler and the Kennedys. Hollywood’s Genghiz Khan, the Mongol warrior, was played by John Wayne and later, Omar Sharif. Che Guevara was another repeated hero.

India’s oldest biopic was on Shivaji. A film on Dr Kotnis, who died during a medical mission to China, was made within months, with international flavour. Southern Indian cinema dipped into northern India’s history to make Chanakya And Chandragupta, in 1977. The two characters were played by Telugu stalwarts Akineni Nageswara Rao (ANR) and N T Ramarao (NTR). Bengali actor Sarvadaman Banerjee portrayed two persons who lived a millennium apart — eighth century Adi Shankaracharya (1983) and 19th century Swami Vivekananda (1994).

The first internationally mounted biopic on an Indian was Gandhi (1982). Made by Richard Attenborough, it won multiple Oscars, including one for British-Indian actor Ben Kingsley who played Gandhi and another for Bhanu Athaiya, who dressed up the characters. Strongly author-backed biopics have done well. Bandit Queen was on Phoolan Devi, Rangrasiya about painter Raja Ravi Varma.

Sports, science, crime – everything sells on the celluloid. Many recent biopics like Dangal (on Phogat family’s girl wrestlers), Mary Kom (the boxer-lawmaker who remains an Olympics hopeful) and Bhaag Milkha Bhaag (on sprinter Milkha Singh, the “flying Sikh”) have won critical and box office acclaim. Shah Rukh Khan led a women’s hockey team to victory and also redeemed his own honour in Chak De India, Akshay Kumar played a men’s hockey coach that brought India its first Olympics victory. It it is now Ajay Devgn’s turn to play football coach, Syed Abdul Hakim, in Maidaan.

ALSO READ: Unparalleled Reign Of Mughal-e-Azam

Badminton star Saina Nehwal is being portrayed by Parineeti Chopra. Shabash Mithu is on one of the great woman cricketers, Mithali Raj. She will be brought alive by Tapsee Pannu who, along with Bhumi Pednekar, had played Haryana housewives turning champion shooters in Sandh Ki Ankh.

The list cannot be complete without a mention of 83, the year India won its first World Cup under Kapil Dev’s captaincy. Indeed, cricket has more than its share. Lives of M S Dhoni, Sachin Tendulkar and Mohammed Azharuddin have transformed on the cinema.

Of science-related events, India’s Mars Mission received a filmy leg with Mission Mangal and so did the nuclear tests of 1998 in Pokhran. The Nambi Effect is about rocket scientist Nambi Narayanan, charged and punished, but eventually exonerated.

Years after Shabana Azmi portrayed a woman mafia chief in Godmother, Aaliya Bhatt is playing Gangubai Kathiawadi, a brothel keeper in Mumbai’s Kamathipura, the red light zone.

Freedom fighters and faujis are natural heroes. Vicky Kaushal is busy portraying freedom fighter, Sardar Udham Singh and also Field Marshal SHFJ Manekshaw, the army chief during Bangladesh liberation. Pippa is the title of another hero of that war, Brigadier Balram Singh Mehta. The role is being enacted by Ishan Khatter.

Elections in Tamil Nadu add froth to the talk of forthcoming biopic, Thalaivi, the leader in Tamil, on Jayalalithaa. The role is being enacted by Kangana Ranaut who played Rani Laxmibai of Jhansi with great aplomb. So popular is the Jayalalithaa cult that Anushka Shetty is playing it in series on the digital media.

But there are problems of comparisons and contrasts, since ‘Amma’ died just four years back. Many of the biopics listed here have earned controversy and complaints before courts. It may be genuine grouse of some family member, or just seeking five minutes of fame. These days, it is very easy for ‘sentiments’ being ‘hurt’ and interested quarters taking to agitation and violence.

Does transition from cinema to politics qualify for a biopic? Rajinikant remains elusive, while Kamal Haasan has followed the footsteps of M G Ramachandran (MGR) and other Tamil and Telugu film stars. Besides Jayalalithaa, biopic has been made in Mollywood (M for Madras, Chennai) only on NTR. This is because the Telugu cinema legend founded a political party and became Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh. His role is performed by one of his look-like sons.

From the pages of history, Prithviraj Chauhan is being resurrected by Ajay Devgn. His portrayal of Tanhaji, Shivaji’s lieutenant, was a big hit last year.

ALSO READ: Devdas, The Show Isn’t Over Yet

There is no dearth of subjects for biopics, if only directors with imagination can get financiers. People, both real and what are literary creations, have been filmed. Anarkali, the courtesan in Mughal Emperor Akbar’s court, the lady love of Prince Salim was the central figure in Mughal-e-Azam, considered the greatest film made in India. Originally, hers was a character in a play written in the last century. But try telling this to anyone in South Asia.  Why, even the Ramayan and Mahabharat TV serials, that can be termed collective biographies, were avidly watched by millions last year. The three-decade gap did not matter because characters from these epics are real in public mind.

Anarkali is also real in popular lore, like Padmavati or Rani Padmini, who probably never existed. Protestors who turned violent during the making and release of the film Padmavat did not heed when reminded that she was but medieval era poet Malik Jayasi’s creation. But then, ‘sentiments’ were ‘hurt’, turning reel-versus-reality debate rowdy.

Biopics on national leaders are few. There is none on Jawaharlal Nehru, although he figured in many films. Lal Bahadur Shastri was clubbed with Subhas Bose into a forgettable ‘thriller’ that sought to show the erstwhile Soviet Union conspiring to eliminate Indian leaders. Although a counter-point to Nehru, Sardar Patel received decent treatment from Ketan Mehta. Indira Gandhi remained fictionalized, portrayed by Suchitra Sen in Aandhi.

The trend now is of election-time political potboilers. Thackeray on Shiv Sena founder did well. But the release of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s biopic just before the 2019 general elections became controversial and was delayed. But no protest or compunction prevented Accidental Prime Minister, on his predecessor, Dr Manmohan Singh. If the former was an out-and-out glorification, the latter was bad caricaturing. Neither did well commercially.

Bollywood does not film its own greats. Marathi film Harishchandrachi Factory depicted pioneer Dadasaheb Phalke’s struggle in making of India’s first film, Raja Harishchandra in 1913. Shyam Benegal made Bhumika on Marathi actress Hansa Wadkar, based on her autobiography. Dev Anand has left his memoirs, and many veterans have begun to publish theirs. Prospects abound. Of those still in action, Sanjay Dutt figures in and as Sanju that shows him, warts and all, yet a lovable person.

Expertise to make biopics is ready for export. Shyam Benegal is making Bangabandhu on Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, whose founding a nation, ruling it, but being killed by his own men makes for a tragedy with Shakespearean touches.

The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com

Friendly Neighbourhood Bangladesh@50

By Mahendra Ved

Fifty years is a long time, enough to look back and ruminate over the present, and Bangladesh’s emergence after a bloody struggle that changed South Asia’s map in 1971 is a good landmark.

The region has changed, and yet, little has changed if you look at millions living in poverty. Their governments pay them pennies compared to the pounds of preference the few get. Life expectancy has increased, but so have calamities, both natural and man-made.

In geostrategic terms, the heat of Cold War prevails. Russia, the erstwhile Soviet Union’s remnant, is replaced by a more aggressive China that has deep pockets and bigger ambitions. China has already gained access to the oil-rich Gulf and to the Indian Ocean. Ranged on the other side are Joe Biden’s ‘pivot’ and the just-emerging Quad. That lends importance to the largest portion humanity residing in the region.

Both alliances are expensive propositions, also designed to be exclusive. Does one have to join one or the other to stay afloat? During his Bangladesh visit last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi projected the Southeast Asian model (Asean) for South Asia, suggesting that there can be smart, nuanced tweaking. But only that much, perhaps. He seemed to think beyond trade and transit.

On the ground, however, one can’t really say if South Asia — and the world itself — are a better place to live. Not with Covid-19 and the resultant war over vaccine-ing the pandemic. Not when economies are struggling to revive car manufacturing and civil aviation, but millions walk hundreds of miles to jobless safety of their homes. The contradiction was never so stark when you look back at 1971.

Fifty years ago, the world helped India to feed and shelter ten million refugees pouring in from the then East Pakistan. It responded to India’s huge effort at public diplomacy that brought together the likes of Pandit Ravi Shankar, Yehudi Menuhin and Beatle George Harrison to stage the “Bangladesh” campaign. People like Edward Kennedy chipped in. They sought to open the eyes of the Western governments blinded by cold war compulsions. When Bangladesh was liberated, finally, Andres Malraux called India the “mother”, who embraced her children no matter who they are or where they come from.

ALSO READ: Bangladesh – The Next Asian Tiger

We now live in a world divided by ‘nationalist’ barriers. On the day Modi embarked on his Bangladesh visit, his government told the Supreme Court of India, in the context of the Rohingyas from Myanmar, the current unwanted lot, that India “cannot be the refugee capital of the world.”

At geopolitical level, South Asia remains as divided as it was half-a-century back, depending upon which way you look. Everyone was, and remains, non-aligned – only the movement itself is dead. South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (Saarc) remains dormant, a hostage to India-Pakistan rivalry. Common cultures help maintain a semblance of unity. But they are hostage to faith-based extremism and violence.  Democracy is dodgy, limited to electoral games, while the rich-poor gap keeps widening.

Bangladesh is celebrating fifty year of hard-won independence, which also marks the centenary of its founding leader, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. At the helm is his daughter, Sheikh Hasina, the longest-serving Premier who has provided political stability and helped unleash economic development, making her country Number One on several human development counts.

But huge challenges confront her, not the least religious extremism in a nation of pious, conservative Muslims. Strong cultural mores, love for Bengali language and the considerable position women enjoy in the country’s economic well-being, give Bangladesh a unique place, not just in South Asia, but also in the Islamic world.

It helps India to stay close to a smaller, but self-assured, neighbour that, under Hasina’s stewardship has been most friendly. The two have learnt to resolve disputes and problems that can naturally arise along a 4,300 km border. Both sides need to work to maintain the high comfort levels in relationship that can grow to provide a role model for the region.

That it took them half-a-century to restore the mutual access that was disrupted after the 1965 India-Pakistan war shows that precious time was lost. With road, rail and sea infrastructure being expanded, the two can build on to mutual and regional advantage.  The Modi visit has seen pacts on vaccines to rains, technology to nuclear power.

Agree, geopolitics cannot be ignored. This is where Modi’s citing the Asean model provides a pointer for closer and wider economic relations. India needs to have a significant role in seeing Bangladesh graduate out of the LDC (less developed country) status in 2026.  

ALSO READ: Bangladesh Must Tick Healthcare Box Now

Defence cooperation where China dominates is almost a new area for India. Past Bangladesh governments have fought shy of Indian defence supplies and cooperation for fear of being attacked as India’s ‘agents’. With her opponents marginalized, Hasina seems to have shed this reservation. India needs to move carefully on this if it wants to compete with the Chinese, given their money power and a better delivery record. Successes with Bangladesh could set examples for India in its neighbourhood.

India has invested billions to earn goodwill in the last decade. Modi did well, with an eye on the future, to offer scholarships to the young and invited entrepreneurs to come and invest in India. Economic interest in each other is the key, if only it can be worked and extended to the larger region. Bangladesh provides the jumping board.  

Both harked back to the past, but in different ways. Modi’s reference to “effort and important role” played by Indira Gandhi in 1971 was niggardly, to say the least. He belittled it further with a “me too” about his own having staged a Satyagraha as a youth. He may have. Mention of Atal Bihari Vajpayee in that context was a party add-on.

Old-timers would recall how opposition leaders those days had adopted postures as per their ideology, picking holes while broadly supporting the Indira government’s efforts. Some impatiently wanted her to launch an instant attack on Pakistan. You can expect only this much grace from our politicos those days, and now, especially with elections in Assam and West Bengal. Mercifully, the Bengali-speaking Assamese, allegedly illegal migrants, were not called ‘termites’ during the current campaign.

The missing link was the Congress, now marginalized at home. It was once a movement in East Bengal during the anti-British struggle and gave prominent leaders to the entire region. The era of Indira Gandhi, Jyoti Basu and Pranab Mukherjee is gone. India, whatever the new leadership, needs to build on it, not belittle it.

The year 1971 was tumultuous. It gave India its first military victory in centuries. It forced surrender of 93,000 soldiers, yet quit it after three months. This remains unique. It gave birth to a nation. Those of us who witnessed it can count themselves lucky.

The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com

Sahir – The Poet Of The Underdog

By Mahendra Ved

“Zulm phir zulm hai, badhta hai toh mitt jaata hai” (Atrocities are what they are, when they increase, they get obliterated)

When farmers engaged in the ongoing agitation around Delhi and their supporters passionately recite Sahir Ludhianvi, one realises that the man who modestly called himself pal-do pal ka shayar lives on. He remains relevant, a century after his birth (March 8, 1921) and four decades after his death.

For a landlord’s son who shunned riches to stay with his mother, Sahir felt close to the farmer crushed by debt. He lives on because his heart ached for the commoner, like the soldier gone to fight someone else’s war, the woman forced to sell her body, the youth frustrated by unemployment or the family living on the street.

He was different from his contemporaries in that he did not praise Khuda (God), Husn (beauty) or Jaam (wine). Instead, he wrote bitter, sensitive lyrics about the declining values of society; the senselessness of war and politics. His sorrow-filled love songs conveyed that there were starker realities. He was the “bard for the underdog”.

This tribute, by one who knows neither Urdu nor poetry, is but a selection of Sahir’s lyrics in films, his times when people also applauded Majrooh Sultanpuri, Kaifi Azmi and many others. A certain commonality of ideas they espoused through lyrics marked the Indian cinema’s “golden age”. It was also the golden age of its content, even if the films were slow-moving, simplistic in characterisation and repetitive.

Sahir’s poetry was influenced by Faiz Ahmed Faiz and like Faiz, Sahir gave Urdu poetry an intellectual element that caught the imagination of the youth of the last century. They felt he reflected their feelings.

He was controversial. He insisted on charging a rupee more than Lata Mangeshkar, the reigning singing star. An internationalist, he was critical of the Indian approach. According to Gautam Kaul, writer/researcher on cinema, Sahir is the only poet who got the goat of those who profess to remove poverty. During the Emergency (1975-77), his songs included in the film Phir Subhah Hogi (1958) were given a fresh review and one song was banned: “Cheen-O Arab hamara, Hindustan hamara, Rehne ko ghar nahi hai, Sara jahan hamara.”

ALSO READ: Forever Fragrance Of ‘Kaagaz Ke Phool’

The relevance of Sahir’s contribution lies in his vision of universal brotherhood, of a syncretic India, where people of all faiths live in harmony as depicted in mandiron mein shankh bajey, masjidon mein ho azaan (Mujhe Jeene Do) and Tu Hindu banega na Muslamaan banega, insan ki aulad hai, insan banega (Dhool Ka Phool). 

To be sure, these thoughts were always difficult to visualise and practice in reality, even as they inspired when disseminated through the most popular medium of mass entertainment. In the new century, it promises to be more difficult for a number of reasons.

For one, there is less of that sensitivity needed to understand and appreciate Sahir’s words and his message. Urdu or Hindustani is enmeshed between shudh Hindi and the urbanised Anglicization. There is less of that tehzeeb that inculcated love of the language and of poetry. Frankly, there was time at hand to relax and to brood. It is lacking in the technology-driven lives we live.

Then, change in the public discourse has resolutely pushed “us versus them” political culture. It has permeated to the social plane as well. Bollywood, for all its flaws, has been a secular oasis with its unique ethos. It has been targeted, precisely for this reason, in the recent years. This has seriously damaged the content and philosophy of an inclusive society that has shaped “the idea of India.”

In the new century, the Hindi cinema is arguably less romantic. The protagonist is more worried about his livelihood (rozi-roti). Good guy is passe. The one looking to make a quick buck through means fair and foul is the hero. He/she has become city-oriented chasing, not romantic ideas or angst against the tormentor, hurtling towards material gains, always in the fast-forward mode.

The present times have ended the socialist ideals espoused by Sahir and other ‘progressives’. One who controls and multiplies money (Yeh mehlon mein baithe huwe qatil, yeh lootere) is now the job-giver and benefactor, even if he torments and exploits. Once distrusted, even maligned in literature and cinema, and at the best, seen as a necessarily evil, he now calls all the shots – political, social and of course, economic. That change came with the 1990s. Remember, Dil Chahta Hai’s ‘Hum hain naye, andaaz kyun ho purana’ that came 20 years after Sahir was gone?

This change in the way the society looks at the capitalist was inevitable. The agitator for equality in the society, and certainly the poet who spun ideas to inspire the agitator, have lost their clout with global changes. One wonders if Sahir and others like him would have continued writing at all.

ALSO READ: Unparalleled Reign Of ‘Mughal-e-Azam’

Post-Sahir, some like Gulzar and Javed Akhtar are very much into good poetry, but have had to lead the change in content and philosophy. Fact remains that in this era of fast music created by electronic instruments, with cinematic pursuit extended to television and the digital platforms, the demand-and-supply is so huge that quality suffers. Lyric is not every viewer’s cup of tea and occasionally if not often, it takes the absurd form of ‘jab tak rahega samosa mein aaloo’.

Old lyrics, and the yearning for old and meaningful has made nostalgia a big business. Music is on the internet and with songs digitized, heard more smoothly and widely than ever before. This has prompted books and music albums on Sahir and poets of his era. The generations that grew up on his lyrics have time and money to spend on re-living their youth. Sections of the young also appreciate good verse and melody.

Biopics of the famous were Bollywood’s flavour till the lockdown caused by Covid-19 was imposed. That pursuit has resumed. One reads sketchy reports of more than one film being made on Sahir that, it is claimed, are based on books written after research. One of them, by Akshay Manwani, discusses his songs and poems through the context of his life and the legacy that he has left behind. It is written with perspectives from luminaries, including Dev Anand, Yash Chopra, and Javed Akhtar.

Sahir’s relationship with poet Amrita Pritam is also part of the popular lore. Sanjay Leela Bhansali is supposed to be working on it. Names of top Bollywood actors like Abhishek Bachchan and Farhan Akhtar to play Sahir and to portray Amrita, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Priyanka Chopra Jonas, Deepika Padukone and Taapsi Pannu have been bandied about. An October 2020 report indicated that the project had been shelved. But biopics are an attractive proposition. It is a matter of time before it could revive.

Through all his angst, we return to Sahir’s self-evasive pal-do-pal sentiment: “Tomorrow there will be more who will narrate love poems. May be someone narrating better than me. May be someone listening better than you. Will anyone remember me? Why should anyone remember me? Why should the busy age waste its time for me?”

What would keep Sahir relevant today, tomorrow and for ever? His immortal lines, “Main zindagi ka saath nibhata chala gaya, har fiqr ko dhuen mein udata chala gaya.” Taking life in its strides. Can anything be closer to an individual?

The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com

Trump Impeachment And The India Link

By Mahendra Ved

Impeachment trial as known in India has seen legislature-versus-judiciary clashes. The Constitution provides for impeachment of only three: the President, the judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts, and the Chief Election Commissioner. Other constitutional dignitaries can be removed from their respective offices by various other means, not impeachment by Parliament. Lawmakers enjoy immunity, at least on this score.

It was first mooted to impeach President VV Giri in the early 1970s. But no president has faced impeachment. A move to impeach Chief Election Commissioner T N Seshan was aborted. A Supreme Court judge, V. Ramaswami, in 1993 and 15 high court judges have been impeached. Ramaswami didn’t, but the other judges resigned before the final verdict and possible punishment. In Ramaswami’s case, when passage of the motion holding him guilty looked imminent, the ruling Congress party under PV Narasimha Rao abstained from voting.

Indian Parliament has thus striven to avoid confronting the judiciary so as not to cross the path laid down in the Constitution. This was why two recent impeachment moves against two former Chief Justices of Supreme Court, Dipak Mishra and Ranjan Gogoi, were hotly debated outside, but not taken up in Parliament. In essence, the impeachment process in India has had limited use and success. But it has history.

When the Democratic Party made out a strong case for impeachment trial of Donald Trump, although he had ceased to be the United States President, citing the British Parliament’s trial of Warren Hastings for his alleged crimes in Bengal, it caused considerable interest in India.

But that Trump was acquitted – declared not guilty, if not actually innocent by the US Senate – like Hastings was in the year 1795, has disappointed many – and not just Indians – in the democratic world.

On February 10, US Senate House managers invoked the case against Trump citing Hastings case as precedence. They argued that simply resigning or leaving the office does not absolve a person of the crime committed while in office. The framers knew all about it and strongly supported impeachment. Hastings was invoked at the convention they held by Jamie Raskin, constitutional scholar and lead impeachment prosecutor of the Democratic Party. Images of Hastings figured on video screens at the convention held in Philadelphia.

ALSO READ: Welcome Back America, But…

One of the architects of the British Empire in India, Hastings was the first Governor General of Bengal. He was impeached by both Houses of British Parliament on return to England for crimes and misdemeanors he committed during ten highly successful years in India, including embezzlement, extortion and alleged judicial killing of Maharajah Nand Kumar, an Indian tax collector who fell out with him.

The trial went on for 148 days, over seven years, before the House of Lords eventually acquitted him. Like Robert Clive who laid the colonial foundation, India’s history, unless recorded by the British, arguably views Hastings with awe and anger.

The charge against Trump that on January 6, he incited an insurrection on the Capitol Hill, was serious. But like Hastings who lived long to enjoy his wealth – ill-gotten, no matter his failed impeachment – and was a hero to many Britons, Trump will also thrive politically. Armed with 73 million votes in last November’s polls and his support base intact, he has already hinted at making a fresh bid for the presidency in 2024.

The outcome leaves unresolved America’s wrenching divisions over Trump’s brand of politics that led to the most violent domestic attack on one of America’s three branches of government.

America is deeply divided. President Joe Biden’s “democracy is fragile” warning also applies to other democracies impacted by sharp divisions among the people. We’re living in a polarized world.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, however, thinks differently, for a different reason. To him the American democracy is “stronger, despite kerfuffle” over Trump’s impeachment trial. The term ‘kerfuffle’ means “commotion over conflicting views”. Could Trump’s second impeachment have been avoided?

ALSO READ: Can America Be United Again?

Looking back, the Democrats did not adequately calculate consequences of a defeat in a House of just 100 members. They depended heavily on Republicans crossing over to gain two-thirds majority vote. Seven Republicans did, for differing reasons, and now they must face the party’s wrath. The motion fell short by ten. Displaying almost Trump-like hurry and lack of grace, the Democrats cut short the trial process to five days and did not hear out witnesses. Was it their triumphalism that caused miscalculation?

The Republicans could not hope to hold on to Trump’s support base while washing their hands off him. That the bulk of Republicans backed him indicates his enduring influence over the party and its voters. Even if let down by Trump (and some may want his permanent political exit), seeing him impeached would have been disastrous. Democrats could then have a walk-over in 2024. Neither party can now wish Trump away.

The Republicans may be preparing right away to counter Kamala Harris (assuming she does exceedingly well as the Vice President) becoming the next presidential candidate. If keen to avoid another Trump bid, they would have noticed Niki Haley dumping Trump. Of course, likelihood of the next presidential contest being between two women, both with Indian connections, may seem exciting to Indians, but is hugely premature.

Failure to impeach Trump exposes the deep divide in American polity that its otherwise robust institutions cannot conceal. Repairing those fissures is not going to be easy. Trump’s gambit, going by his past record, could even deepen them. In the coming months and years, Trump will likely face several cases before different courts, now that he is stripped of the immunity a president enjoys.

Be assured that America will witness unprecedented public acrimony – hopefully, not violence. It will vitiate the public life. The Biden presidency, already saddled with difficult issues at home and abroad, will have to work that much harder to manage public perceptions in the face of a raging debate wherein Trump will be either a hero or a villain – not a non-entity. This is very much Biden’s presidency, but under Trump’s shadow. 

Other than netizen on the social media and newspaper editorials, the ‘official’ India is silent on this “domestic matter” of the Americans. It is too engrossed in countering Biden’s barbs and criticism from Western media and human rights bodies on the way the ongoing farmers’ agitation is being dealt with.  The growing strategic partnership with the US compels India to be watchful.

To repeat what Biden said to underscore the principal point, democracy is ‘fragile’ everywhere. To keep it functioning, both in letter and spirit, it is necessary to tone down aggressive partisanship in public discourse.

The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com