Saturday, September 15, 2007

Oops! She did it again!

I've been keeping up with the latest furore in India - the controversial affidavits filed by the government and the ASI, justifying the destruction of Ram Sethu by denying the historical proof of the existence of Ram. Those of you who know me, know that I am not a *very* religious person. Most claim to my religious knowledge is stemmed from a rather painful and unfortunate chapter of my life. I also, usually, stay clear of topics that evoke passions of a destructive kind. My approach to such quandaries is to wait until I can think clearly and objectively again, without letting my passion cloud my sensibility. However, I can not shrug off this base attempt by the "secular" government as trying to maintain my (for the lack of an appropriate word) neutrality towards all faiths.

If destroying the coral reefs and a world heritage site does not weigh much on the minds of the powers-that-are, how can they be blind to the fact that Ram Sethu or Adam's Bridge holds major religious connotations for atleast 3 major religions - Hinduism, Islam and Christianity? I know that many of the Indian Muslim and Christian community will not voice their indignation vociferously - trying to maintain their religious integrity by not raising the same arguments which might even benefit the Hindus (I am not being communal here - just stating the current scenario in a very confused India). However, I think it is high time for the public to realise that they should not, must not and can not let people (who don't understand their culture and history) strike a blow at their identity and get away with it. The Indian sub-continent has had more than it's fair share of such atrocities already. There is much truth in the oft-repeated adage - Unity in Diversity - though it is sad to say that 60 years after a hard-won Independence, the children of a great nation seem to have forgotten the basics.

As history repeats itself (as it is wont to do from time to time) and we have a nation crying foul over the ill-advised deed that the "mea culpa" government has done yet again, we also have a substantial number of people satisfied and pacified to see that their sentiments are shared by the one person they thought would never have understood them. After all, isn't she a European by birth and a Christian by religion? (Alright, alright! She's as Indian as an NRI is, say, American!). They fail to realise that she, who's adopted their country as we are told innumerable times, has understood them only too well. She knows exactly how an Indian mind ticks and she's smart enough to capitalise on it. By appearing to join the mass (forgive the pun) in condemning the government, she has almost succeeded in winning the good-will of the multitudes who will soon be deciding on the next premier of the nation. She knows that Indians (especially the Hindu majority) are a easily consolable crowd - they forgive easily and they are more than willing to consider you in a new light in presence of more recent happenings. She had most of the nation eating out of her hand after her "earth-shattering" decision after the previous elections. It appears to me that she has tried to re-create her magic yet again. Whether she has actually succeeded remains to be seen. Before you write me off as a Congress-hater, etc etc, please stop to think - Is it not stretching it too far to claim that the head of the Congress party, who vicariously runs the show at New Delhi, would have no prior knowledge of the affidavits that have something to do with one of the current government's major and controversial projects?? Also, the utter blasé nature of language used in the affidavits is highly suspicious. Surely, the "Yes, Ministers" harnessed to the tax-payers' burdens would be qualified enough to know exactly what should be written in a diplomatic manner to cause least offense - even if they believe it to be correct?

The passion of my countrymen are easily roused. We are a country of sentimental and emotional fools (Why do you think Bollywood is such a successful industry here?). Owing to this particular trait, we have had a history splattered with bloody wars, violence and now, in the more civilised age, demonstrations and riots. But as time has passed, Indians have acquired a remarkably short memory. I am not sure if it was required to forget the past difficulties and focus on the more immediate concern of survival of oneself and one's loved ones. I understand the competitive levels in India are very high, but the fact remains that now most of the Indian public ("the common man") has a memory span to compete with a goldfish. "Out of sight, out of mind". Even as I break my golden rule to write on this topic impulsively, I fear that it will remain in the headlines for just another few days. Then, there will be yet another distraction and the news channels will scramble all over each other to cover the latest "sensational" news, while off the Eastern coast of India, in a very unassuming location, the dredging will continue, slowly and surely, breaking off the ties that the Indian people have had with history/ mythology/ identity. Take your pick - it will amount to the same thing in the end.

9 comments:

roop said...

hi,
a small comment.
this blog article seem to be too confused. it doesn't clearly say whats ur pick. there are so many things in it.

Ritu said...

hi...

I guess i just penned my frustrations concerning this whole matter in a very random way and without specifying them. Told you I was being impulsive. :) So, here goes -
1. Destruction of the coral reefs - don't need to say more coz the reports of biologists and environmentalists are all over the place.
2. A very casual and careless approach towards something that is religiously significant to the majority albeit "milder" Hindu populace. There has been no such occurence related to any other religion in India without a full apology following within 24 hours.
3. The communal divide in India which will ensure that the "mass" will not protest in totality (which btw would have proved that India can rise over the petty-mindedness of politics)
4. The shrewdness of one lady, who continues to surprise me. With masterstrokes like this, she confuses the junta and diffuses the anger and indignation - ensuring herself a stronger foothold in the tricky elections.
5. And the complete frustration with the media - who did not see a "story" in the destruction of the ecological balance, but raised the appropriate hue and cry when the course of events took another angle.

The intention of the article was not to dissect the issue on hand with a pragmatic and objective approach. The whole scenario just got to me and I had to write it off to unburden myself. :)

Wow... the reply to your comment is getting as big as the article, itself. Thanks for your comment, though. Appreciate it.

roop said...

can understand ur frustration, more so the impulsivity. will tell u why i felt its confusing. all the paragraphs though connected to one subject, are entirely issues.
about the destruction of coral reefs, i agree and disagree. if u oppose that project then u have oppose every so called developmental project, like every dam (displaces people, creates seismological imbalances, etc), major high ways (again displaces people, obstructs the wildlife moment pattern), etc. compared to dams, etc, destruction of coral reef seem to be ok. coz, sea there is really wast and it can withstand that project (may be detrimental if the project was near Maldvis). (well here i am not for the project implementation nor for the destruction of the reefs).
2. so u r sidelining with socalled hindus. majority is hardly (never) milder. take godhra, babri, bombay roits. if the BJP wouldn't have raised this issue, no (of very few) hindu would've thought about it i think (i.e. its politicized and one party benefited by it). It was not a casual or careless approach i think. Many engineers would've studied the subject before recommending it for implementation. So according to u the developmental projects should consider the religious sentiments of the majority religion. why? If one has to be sensitive, then how it is related to no such occurence with other religion and apology. they are different issues.
3. actually i didn't understand this. yet, india did succumb to the petty mindedness of politics.
4. it is not shrewdness of one lady. i think it was started by bjp, n the issue was politicized. so she being a politician, had to deal with it. its her job to be that. so i am not in wonder that she did that. what do u expect from politicians. if she was a male or a socalled born indian, ur responses would've been different ?
5. ya media is sometimes sensational. they did raise the issue earlier about the ecological impact.
about the ecological imbalance. i am not sure. every activity of humans are having some or the other impact on the earth. same other way also. then in the mean time earth i think earth adjusts itself for small changes like this project, etc. and one (relative) truth,
earth doesn't care about its ecological balance or imbalance.

Ritu said...

I, in principle, oppose any "development" project that would cause harm to the world we live in. It does not belong to one person or a group, to take decisions that would have repurcussions on the future generations - specially when we, with our limited knowledge, know that what we'll do will be detrimental in some way in the future. As I see it, it all boils down to money and the "What's in it for me?" attitude.
2. Yes. I am siding with the Hindus on this one, though not in the way you put it. The Ram Setu is one of the many geographically true statements made in the Ramayana by a sage who lived in the forests of Central India. And if the Hindus choose to believe the existence of truth in the whole story (which is a book, just like the Bible and Quran - and the story, as is usual for that time, passed through generations through word of mouth - with embellishments along the way), the wording of the argument in the affidavits seemed to me a bit too reckless to be "innocent". It almost seems like people are being played like pawns coz they were expected to retaliate in this way, and so on. There is no absolute necessity of this project, if you've read the arguments against it. With the de-silting and towing ships across the strait, it is going to cost almost the same as now, if not more. Besides, your sensitivity towards Maldives is a tad misplaced when we know that these reefs were natural barriers to the killer tsunami - and Kerala remains intact. Btw, the government paid agency that researched and recommended this project made no mention of this fact. So, I don't completely trust those engineers. :) Moreover, in my opinion, considering the long history of the nation, Hindus have been more or less fairly tolerant. Friction will always be there when you're talking about a country as diverse as India. And if it is not religion, it will be economic disparity (eg: the french riots a couple of years back - you see, the senseless killings happen in the west too!). And every riot or "mis-happening" is not the fault of one single side. Everyone is to blame, just as loved ones die in both tents. Personally, I feel that left to themselves, Indians are a very neighbourly sort. But if there was no issue to drum, there would be no listeners to our netajis long-winded speeches. So trouble is always kept brewing by the very same people who promise to deliver the public from it. But that, again, is another issue. Before you sound me out on this one, I'll let you know that I also did not condone the cartoons on Prophet Mohammed. Though science and religion are always at loggerheads, delibrately offending a person's faith is not excusable - irrespective of the faith being of the majority or minority. There is always another way. I believe that.
3. The point is just that. The Indian public failed to unite for this - and I mean all religions by that.
4. You have got me completely wrong on this one. Let me explain. I have no reservations against her just because she's a woman or she's not a natural citizen of India. In fact, it is a matter of pride for the maturity of a nation to make her what she is now. My suspicions are just aroused by the little questions like - why did she wait for 24 hours for the wounds to fester before ordering the government to retract the affidavits and explain themselves?; any person with brain the size of a pea would know that the words used in the affidavits would inflame anger and cause unrest - so how did it come about that the government acted so irresponsibly? Is this whole thing just a ploy to endear herself to the common man, by showing that she does really understand him and is on his side and that she's "the good guy" (let's be frank - her premiership will be contested hotly because she is not a natural citizen - there i've said it and haven't been struck by lightning :) )??
5. Finally we agree on something!!

Don't really understand you in the last few lines. The relative truth you mention makes no sense to me coz as I said before, we should be responsible to preserve this world as best as we can. I just see the "relativity" a little differently, I guess.

roop said...

if u hav time u can read some of my blogs to understand few things and about the earth thing.

AMD said...

i should read your blogs more often...

Ritu said...

@ Roopie - will do!

@ AMD - a-ha! did you use the improbability drive to find yourself here? i thought we had lost you in the vast confines of space (of London).

Anonymous said...

You write very well.

Ritu said...

@ natasha - thank you! now i should just write more often :)