Videshi Munnabhai and Jaadu ki Jhappi

Lucknow protest brings Gandhi back!!

The way movies affect us Indians is phenomenal and that can be gauged by incidents like these:

Lucknow citizens go Gandhian on liquor merchant

Not only did the group of about three dozen young men donned Gandhi caps and marched silently through the city streets, but also offered flowers to the liquor shop-owner whom they have been urging to shift his business to some other place.

This is much better than the last movies' (Munnabhai MBBS) impact on the students:

After docs, engineers do a Munnabhai

There were other films too like 'Rang De Basanti' which impacted the masses in a big way. While RDB suggested a violent way, none of us could really implement that in our daily lives. In this sense, 'Lage Raho Munnabhai' has emerged a perfect winner, where its 'flower protest' has found real meaning and is being actually implemented here.

The way officials reacted to these people's flower protest:

Liquor shop owner Gurnam Singh tried to cover up his embarrassment by saying, "Let them send flowers, we will send them a bouquet." His son Daljit Singh claimed, "We keep funding the temple; and if the temple priest has no objection, why should anyone else? We will not get browbeaten like this." He told reporters, "We are already contesting the case in court and will abide by whatever the court orders."

When contacted, even additional district magistrate J P Singh looked sheepish on the count. "This is the first time I have come across this kind of protest and a unique memorandum like this; it has really surprised me." He however denied having seen the film.

Interestingly, even some of the policemen who arrested the protestors felt awkward. "The protest was unusual and has made us wonder what to do", confessed one of them.

The results are exactly what Gandhi would have aimed for. He advised this form of protest just to expose the evil conscience of the wrong-doer and to embarrass him. Gandhi knew when people get embarrassed they realise their mistake and their defence naturally gets weaker.

But what next?

Hope! I have a belief in the power of this concept. Its power lies not in the effect it has on the aggressor, but in the impact it has on the observers standing on the sidelines and just watching the show. This concept gives them a chance to express their support to the just cause. This support is what helped Gandhi. He knew not every man in the country is powerful enough to take to violence. But each and every man, woman and child has a 'natural' courage to express their support to what they believe in. He knew they are even willing to die fighting, but not willing to kill anyone. Very much like he himself used to say:

"I am willing to die, but there is no cause for which I am willing to kill."

I have heard this many times, that we need another Gandhi. What we fail to understand is that there is a Gandhi in each and every one of us. And the Lucknow protest can be said to be a gentle reminder to us to look within and not without.

Indian Farmers: Cornered to Death!

In a recent article on IndiaTogether, P. Sainath tells us how farmers in India are facing the perils of a globalized economy. This probably is no longer a news, as its been going on for years now, starting as long back as in 1995. And as is usually the case with most of the crisis in India, the public has got pretty used to this.

At first, the suicides were a trickle, and most of the analysts refused to recognize the underlying issues, rejecting these deaths as ‘normal’. Atleast that’s what Sharad Pawar implied in his interview with Karan Thapar:

Karan Thapar: And you are saying that agricultural suicides are 15 per cent of general suicides. Therefore your ministries believe that this is not excessive.
Sharad Pawar: No, No. It is not that. In a country of a billion people about 1 lakh commit suicide every year. It is a normal thing that we have been seeing for a number of years.

How did it start?

A brief background:

India's economy has grown at an average annual rate of 6.8 percent since 1994, reducing poverty by 10 percent. However, 40 percent of the world's poor live in India, and 28 percent of the country's population lives below the poverty line. More than one third live on less than a dollar a day, and 80 percent live on less than two dollars a day.
India's recent economic growth has been attributed to the service industry, but 60 percent of the workforce remains in agriculture.
The Indian government was forced to reform its agricultural policy in the late 1960s when an imbalance in food imports was exacerbated by two years of drought in 1965 and 1966. World Bank, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the U.S. Agency for International Development chipped in assistance to develop high-yield rice and wheat "miracle seeds." These seeds, combined with the Indian government's assistance with modern farm machinery, price incentives and a more efficient food distribution system, resulted in what came to be known as the Green Revolution.
The new seeds and fertilizers worked for many: India's food production rose from 72 million tons in 1965-66 to 152 million tons in 1983-84, eliminating the country's dependence on food grain imports. In addition to their planting the new seeds, farmers' use of chemical fertilizers jumped from 1.1 million tons to more than 12.5 million tons in the first decade of the Green Revolution, and irrigated land grew from 74 million acres in 1965-66 to 111 million acres in 1988-89.
In the late 1980s, however, the Green Revolution began to fall apart as the chemical fertilizers rendered soil infertile. Farmers who had once diversified risk by growing as many as 30 different crops in their fields were dependent upon just one. As the quality of the soil deteriorated, they faced zero yields and an inability to pay their debts. Three years of drought beginning in 2001 further fueled the crisis.
Twenty-five thousand farmers have committed suicide under these circumstances since 1997. In the state of Andhra Pradesh alone, 4,500 farmers have committed suicide in the past seven years. This does not include the number of family members of farmers who have also killed themselves.
Sources: "Harvesting Death," by Sarita Tukaram; CIA Factbook; Lonely Planet Guide: India; PBS; BBC.

The Corporate Greed Vs The Government’s Ignorance?

When Monsanto first introduced Bt Cotton in India in 2002, the farmers lost Rs. 1 billion due to crop failure. Instead of 1,500 Kg / acre as promised by the company, the harvest was as low as 200 kg. Instead of increased incomes of Rs. 10,000 / acre, farmers ran into losses of Rs. 6400 / acre. And the seeds didn’t come cheap either. At a cost of Rs 1600/kg, Monsanto extracted a margin of Rs 1250/kg from the farmers who had to pay all this through loans.

These loans set off a vicious cycle of exploitation for the farmers. The interest rates were as high as 13-15%, and that too were available mostly to farmers with significant land holdings. For the small farmer, it's always been the local money lenders to turn to, who then take their turn to exploit these farmers to the maximum extent possible, even if they have recovered their amount from them. The interest, somehow, is ‘always’ there.

The Government plays its role too. The empty promises and misdirected ‘packages’ just keep coming, but no one is ready to put the blame where it lies. Vandana Shiva has a ‘Letter to the Finance Minister’ with her complete analysis on what needs to be done. But the government is busy celebrating the 8% growth and 311 billionaires it has produced last year.

The Battle of The Sexes once more

A recent report on rediff.com has found:

A study published in the September 2006 issue of the journal Intelligence analyzed 145 items from the Scholastic Assessment Test in 100,000 17- to 18-year-olds and found a male IQ advantage of 3.63 points.

I am not feminist, but, I just cannot digest this. I mean, they definitely have better things to spend their research time on. What do they aim to achieve with this? What possible advantage can we as humans, derive from their 'precious' conclusion that a dude is 3.63 points better than a girl.

An age old controversy

Such claims are not new at all. Wiki tells us that

"In Victorian England, for example, the philosopher John Stuart Mill argued that there were no differences between men and women, whereas the scientist Charles Darwin (in his Descent of Man) argued that women were by their nature inferior in respect to mental ability. Many of these early attempts were based on anecdotal data. However, some scientists, such as Paul Broca (1861), attempted to derive empirical results from various forms of anthropometry, namely the comparison of brain mass. With the development of psychology at the end of the nineteenth century, and the evolving focus on intelligence testing in the early twentieth century, further attempts were made by a variety of scientists to examine the mental differences between men and women. Leta Hollingworth argues that: Women were not permitted to realize their full potential, as they were confined to the roles of child rearing and housekeeping."

First of all, there is a serious flaw in the definition of 'Intelligence' that these researchers are using:

"...IQ tests do not measure all meanings of "intelligence", such as creativity."

Further, the IQs have been way over-rated. Very often, we find, that the person with a high IQ, is still not successful either socially or professionally. There is a lot more that goes into the making of a person than just some grey cells. The Emotional factor which essentially determines how well a person can deal with another person, thereby building useful relationships, has been conveniently ignored by these researchers.

It's high time, these 'researchers', get over their tendency to create sensationalism, and get down to some real research. What we need today, is a much better measure than IQ which can judge a person on both mental as well as emotional faculties.

What do they do with this research?

These studies have been used in the past to provide lesser salaries to women. Nothing positive has come out of this till now. If anything, these studies produce unnecessary biases at workplaces. Already, there have been many instances where women researchers are given less credit for the same kind of work.

As I said,I am not a feminist, I may even agree to Professor Lynn who says here:

“Men have larger brains than women by about 10 per cent and larger brains confer greater brain power, so men must necessarily be on average more intelligent than women.”

But, with all due respect, sir, an elephant's brain is much bigger than ours. What does that mean?

The Basic Instinct of a Man Vs a Woman

How many times, have you faced a situation where your partner blames you for not understanding her/him. You may blame her for not giving you enough 'space', or she may be upset with your 'insensitivity' to her emotions.

Here is a guy, who faced such a situation, and you may learn a thing or two from how he responded to the challenge.

"I never have quite figured out why the sexual urges of men and women differ so much. And I never have figured out the whole Venus and Mars thing. And I never figured out why men think with their head and women think with their heart. And I never yet have figured out how the sexual desire gene gets thrown into a state of turmoil when it hears the words "I do."
One evening last week, my wife and I were getting into bed. Well, the passion starts to heat up, and she eventually says, "I don't feel like it. I just want you to hold me." I said, "WHAT???"
So she says the words that I and every husband on the planet dread. She explains that I must not be in tune with her emotional needs as a woman. I'm thinking, "What was her first clue?" I finally realize that nothing was going to happen that night, so I went to sleep.
The very next day, we went shopping at a big, unnamed department store. I walked around with her while she tried on three different, very expensive outfits. She could not decide which one to take, so I told her to take all three of them. She then tells me that she wants matching shoes worth $200.00 a pair to which I say OK. And then we go to the jewellery department where she gets a pair of diamond earrings.
Let me tell you. She was so excited. She must have thought that I was one wave short of a shipwreck, but I don't think she cared. I think she was testing me when she asked for a tennis bracelet because she does not even play tennis. I think I threw her for a loop when I told her that it was OK. She was almost sexually excited from all of this, and you should have seen her face when she said, "I'm ready to go to the cash register."
I could hardly contain myself when I blurted out, "No, honey, I don't feel like buying all this stuff now." You should have seen her face. It went completely blank. I then said, "Really, honey, I just want you to HOLD this stuff for a while."
And just when she had this look like she was going to kill me, I added, "You must not be in tune with my financial needs as a man."
I figure that I won't be having sex again until some time after the Spring of 2008 but godammit it was worth it."

Gandhi, Munnabhai and Harilal

Mahatma Gandhi, for most of us in our generation, has been a theoretical figure, mainly because his ideals (Truth, Non-violence, Vegetarianism and Brahmacharya or celibacy) were a bit too harsh to live by. We read about him as a great guy, who took on the British Empire with his 'satyagraha'. When we watched the movie 'Gandhi', we admired him even more, for his brilliant thoughts and simple approach to seemingly insurmountable problems. We have heralded him as the 'Father of the Nation'. But, have we been the 'good kids'? I don't think so! Very much like his own son Harilal (aka Abdullah and Hiralal), we have distanced ourselves from his thoughts and ideas, even as we duly pay our homages to 'the Father'.

The movie 'Lage Raho Munnabhai' is undoubtedly funny and hilarious in many ways, but the message it carries, is a jolt to our conscience. It has brought up the 'Gandhigiri' back to our minds, in quite an amusing way. It tries to find the relevance of 'Gandhism' in our modern society, applying it to very common problems that we face almost routinely. Mahatma Gandhi is dead, but he is still out there 'serving' us. No, I am not talking about his soul wandering around. I am talking about the people who keep discovering Gandhi in their struggles against injustice. The recent Narmada Andolan is one such instance.
Not restricted to India, his influence was felt by people like Albert Einstein, Martin Luther KIng and spanned movements like American Civil Rights Movement and Burmese fight for democracy led by Aung San Suu Kyi.

Why we lost touch with Gandhigiri?

Today, its quite normal to hear from any college going 'dood': 'Why Gandhi?'.

Our education shares a part of the blame here. We learnt about his theories, but never had the belief or inspiration to implement them in practice. There were a few attempts though, like this one called 'Gandhi Darshan' programme in Kerala.

The second factor, I believe, is that we never really understood what he meant by 'non-violence' and found it really dumb to 'turn the other cheek' when faced with aggression. His thoughts on 'industrialization' and 'defence expenditure' too are examples of extreme idealism, which India could never afford to implement. But we failed to find better alternatives too. His simple belief was to encourage local industries and achieve self-reliance for the poor. We have failed miserably on both counts. The suicides in Vidarbha, Andhra Pradesh are glaring cases of utter negligence on our part. Do we still have the right to say that Gandhian concepts are impractical? They may be difficult to achieve, but so was the freedom.

Another case in point, where Gandhi's suggestions were ignored, but relevant, was the Palestine problem. Quoting from Hindu article:

This was in the summer of 1947, when armed Zionists roamed the countryside, intimidating Palestinian villagers. When a reporter from Reuters asked him, "What
is the solution to the Palestinian problem?" Gandhi answered: "It is a problem which is almost insoluble. If I were a Jew, I would tell them: `Don't be so silly as to resort to terrorism, because you simply damage your own case which otherwise would be a proper case'." Gandhi advised the Jews to "meet the Arabs, make friends with them, and not depend on British aid or American aid or any aid, save what descends from Jehovah".

Non-violence NOT for the weak

This is what Gandhi conveyed in one of his 'Young India' essays:

"Non-violence in its dynamic condition means conscious suffering. It does not mean meek submission to the will of the evildoer. It means the putting of one's soul against the will of the tyrant. Working under this law of our being, it is possible for a single individual to defy the whole might of an unjust empire to save his honour, his soul and lay the foundation for that empire's fall or its regeneration. "And so I am not pleading for India to practise non-violence because it is weak. I want her to practise non-violence being conscious of her strength and power."

So, is he relevant today?

Quoting from this article:

"Is Gandhi relevant?" ask those celebrating his centenary. The answer is that he is so long as there are those willing to understand and manipulate his tools of non-violent political change. He will be so long as he is simply not dismissed as a "saint," but seen as the political revolutionary he was. As lndia's Prime Minister Indira Gandhi has written, "The ultimate justification of Gandhi is that he showed how armed strength could be matched without arms. If this could happen once, can it not happen again?"

But, the larger debate of 'Gandhi's relevance today, will go on, for the simple reason that it's going to take another Gandhi to really understand 'Gandhi'. What he went through was not just a 'freedom struggle', it was a total transformation of his entire being. His vows of celibacy at 36, fasts and austere life, contributed immensely towards the purity and simplicity of his thought. Unfortunately, he elevated himself to near sainthood and alienated himself from the masses who seemed to appreciate his thoughts but were clueless on how to implement them. Atleast for the present generation, the words of Einstein hold true:

"Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth"

Harilal, his eldest son, couldn't deal with his father's idealism and became wayward. It may seem far-fetched, but its true, that even today, we have many Harilals all over India, wayward and clueless about Gandhi. That's why, lets hail our new heroes, Munnabhai and Circuit, who have given a demo of what we 'can' do with 'Gandhigiri'.


Some other references you may dig into:

Some anecdotes

Gandhi and Savarkar

Gandhi and Dalits

Why Nobel Prize wasn't given to Gandhi

Gandhi: On the other side

Youth and Politics

The recent death of Prof. Harbhajan Sabharwal in Ujjain, in a scuffle with ABVP students, has once again brought focus on the student politics and quite expectedly has the entire media up in arms against the ‘goondaraj’ prevalent in colleges and universities in the name of ‘student politics’.

Rashmi has a hard-hitting article on this where she mentions the lack of any ‘career-path’ in Indian politics for the youth of the country, due to which it has become a refuge of the scoundrels while the genuine ones stay away. There should, of course, be an entry point for the young blood to enter the politics, as she suggests. The problem is, ‘student politics’ is the only practical entry point for the common youth, as of today.

The youth by their very nature, have a lot of energy and they all have a desire to gain some recognition and influence in society. The vested interests know quite well how to tap such tendencies for their own benefit. The Congress shelters ASUI while BJP has its own student wing in ABVP. These student wings, in turn, act like a ready army of ‘volunteers’ during the election time, apart from preparing a pool from where they pick the next leaders.

But, where is the ‘student’ in this ‘student politics’? Aren’t these political parties, exploiting colleges and universities for their own political agenda? What happens to those parents’ who send their wards to these colleges with their hard-earned money? What about the teachers who have to live every day in fear of their own students? These are pertinent questions, which have been thoroughly ignored by our governments, to suit their own convenience.

Where are the good 'fellas’?

Most of us keep wondering why we always hear about the bad boys in politics. Are there no genuine politicians? Has youth left the country politics to its fate? The answer is that the youth today is going through a phase of ‘disengagement’. We have become a country of ‘spectators’ and politics, as such, has become a ‘spectator sport’ serving as a good source of our daily entertainment. But, at the same time, there is a genuine interest in most of us to help the country in our own way possible. This opens up a host of channels for community service and volunteering. That’s where we can find our real leaders and genuine community workers.

Some of the research done in USA, paints a similar attitude of disenchantment with the politics among youth. But, they have moved on to community service in a big way. They even have a national program for Community service called Americorps Here is a comment in one such research study:

"The Institute of Politics found that college students are engaged in their community, even if they are not involved in political activities. Nearly 66 percent volunteered recently in their community and more than 40 percent volunteered at least a few times per month, while fewer than 10 percent volunteered on a political campaign. Moreover, 85 percent of students believed volunteerism is an effective form of public service to solve problems on both local and national level (Institute of Politics 2002)."

Freechild.org lists out a few examples of Youth-led social activism.

Society on the Move?

Lets look at some of the recent developments, which are examples of our national consciousness which, thankfully, seems to be alive and kicking.

Arvind Kejriwal: the man, who launched ‘Parivartan’ to help the poor in Delhi using ‘Right to Information’ and held the government accountable towards its duties, has deservedly got the Ramon Magsaysay Award for Emergent Leadership

Last year, a School of Government was set up in Pune to award Masters Diploma in Government Programme, on the lines of John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

There are many other movements going on in our country, which unfortunately go unnoticed. The least that we can do now, is to be aware of our civic duties and encourage other people who are trying to bring in changes in our society. The rest should follow on its own.