Blurb of Intent

The last time I mentioned my intent to make a documentary it took over 5 years to actually have it done. And that was when I had a clear idea as to what I wanted to do and there was no uncertainty about whether I really wanted to do it. Neither of which is the case this time around. The scope of the topic and scale of the production is also likely to be more daunting. It will be significantly more contentious, controversial, polemical and even problematic. I will have to spend the next year or two researching for it and scripting it down to its near-final form. What's left then will be to interview 30-50 people and condense it into a 2-3 part docu-series that could serve as a primer for understanding contemporary Tamil polity.

This post is purely for my nostalgic reflection in the future.

'Uncorrupt' Clowns

In an interview with Gnani, S.Ve. Shekher told that he believed in spirits and that he communicates with his dad's spirit regularly. Later when Shekher spoke about this political ambitions and how he would run things, Gnani quipped, "how are you going to do things differently? By taking advice from your guides in the spirit world?" It didn't even seem funny because of the things Shekher had said until then. That was then, now this:

Why should they not get reservation? In Tamil Nadu, 69 per cent of the people get reservation and ninety five per cent of people enjoy some kind of reservation except the forward community. Where is social justice? There are over 40 lakh Brahmins in Tamil Nadu. It is the government's duty to give equal opportunities to everyone. Brahmins have been eliminated, insulted and sidelined in so many ways. You cannot punish people for what happened over 50-60 years ago.

Slave Labourers

Several documentaries, including those made by the State and Central governments, have 'captured' the lives of those who toil in sweat shops at a young age. It's no secret that child labour and bondage are rampant in India. So you would think that it's not hard for someone from there to believe that forced labour is very common. But Vishnu, who's supposed to be from Kanchipuram, was angry that I said there are slave labourers in Kancipuram, in my last podcast. He wanted me to "stop making stuff up just to increase (my) hits." He also had more to say about my "rants" against Hinduism. I cannot paste his entire mail here, but you can visit any rediff message board and find a close match. I haven't spoken to Vishnu before, but I'm sure he is a you-know-who.

I shouldn't be surprised, though. The district collector himself did not know that it was happening in his town; either that or it's the usual denial we are so used to hearing from our babus. ("150 cases in all of India," adi seruppala.) I was glad to find the BBC report I had mentioned in the podcast -- I had recorded it a long time ago. It's different from the rest in that we almost feel sorry for the government officials. You are touched by how they are cornered, and feel helpless in the face of what they see as futile. You might even want to cry: "Leave them alone, didn't you hear it? The boy cannot study. Stop wasting their valuable their time already. They will definitely take action."
Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Tamil politics: MGR, Hogenakkal etc.

I'm still not sure if I should publish this podcast. I have been "disrespectful" to many celebrities before, but I wonder what kind of people listen to that stuff and what's in store for me. A constant nag successfully made me moderate comments. I just hope that someone else doesn't make me change my phone number (I don't want to think about anything worse). Anyway, the title pretty much explains what the podcast is about. It has a lot of MGR bashing and some others.

Download mp3

adhu seri

CNN-IBN

Face the Nation: Does India feel Tibet is no longer a cause worth fighting for?

On the panel of experts (our emphasis) to debate the issue were former president of the Samta Party and sympathizer of the Free Tibet Movement Jaya Jaitly, member of Free Tibet Movement Dawa Lokyitsang and Congress Spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi.

After some usual exchange of stupid ideas, it was time to witness a spectacle. Singhvi asked the anchor before launching his rhetoric, "[d]id the 'Tienanmen Square incident' take place in 1999?", for which she promptly replied, "yes". Having "confirmed" that "fact", he went on, "what did the NDA do when the Chinese government was killing all those people? naan ketkiren....". (Of course, I'm quoting roughly what he said.)

Why should one worry when we have such "experts" among us?

Quote

From the book 'Caste, Colonialism and Counter-Modernity' by Debjani Ganguly.

Chapter 3: The Anamalous Insider, p. 69-70.

--Quote--

Here I cite two instances to illustrate Ghurye's version of what constitutes 'true' India. In the first case, we see him agonizing over the attempt made by Annadurai, (the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu) to translate the national motto ‘Satyameva Jayate’ into Tamil. Such translation, Ghurye claims, is nothing short of sacrilege to Indian nationhood. How dare a lower-caste Tamilian upstart trifle with the sacrosanct Sanskrit of the Upanishads, and in the process deprive the 'true' Indian of a glimpse of his glorious nationalist past?

The national motto, 'Satyameva Jayate', a sentence taken from an old Upanishad, is in Sanskrit language and is written in the Devanagari script. The associations of the motto thus transport, or are expected to transport Indians to their glorious past of two thousand five hundred years ago. Annadurai's action has destroyed the national motto as a national symbol which it has been such [sic] for the last seventeen years.

Note how Annadurai and his Tamil ilk are excluded from this special journey to India's ‘glorious' past. The non-Brahman, non-Aryan claim to nationhood cannot but be counterfeit, and in some senses a betrayal of the 'genuine' claimants. A similar rhetoric informs Ghurye's critique of the DMK government's success in transforming parts of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 by granting legitimacy to 'Self-Respect' or ‘Reform' marriages. As is well known in dalit studies, the Self-Respect Movement initiated by Periyar in Tamil Nadu has been among the most politically charged dalit liberation movements of modern India. Ghurye interprets the DMK government's action as inimical not only to Hindu morality but also to Indian nationhood:

Such conditions as of [sic] avoidance of certain relationship between the spouses considered to be part and parcel of the moral code of a people would evidently be difficult of being observed [sic]. Restriction of bigamy, an advance in morals and marital happiness, is of course non-existent. The sentiment of Hindu India as a whole is flouted and the right of any successful political party to change the Indian law of marriage for its own State of domination is asserted.

Ghurye's writing, in its critique of lower-caste militancy and its assumption of the Hindu Brahmanic essence of the Indian nation, can be situated in the cusp of two dominant narratives of Indian nationalism that are hegemonic to this day. They are:

• the secular, liberal democratic 'modern' discourse that attempts to focus on India's Unity and Oneness by seeing its cultural diversity in the image of many small streams that would eventually converge to form an awesome yet harmonious national torrent:

• the discourse of Hindutva that categorically traces the genealogy of the new nation to its hoary Hindu past and that, in its more benign form, expects non-Hindus to 'fit in' and not claim any special benevolence from the State.

--End quote--

Disclaimer: some spelling mistakes may exist.

The Moderate Hindu

The controversy surrounding the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project has finally brought the “Dravidian rationality” out of the closet. For decades MK’s views on Hinduism were confined to a largely apathetic population – the Tamil Hindus. But today’s coalition politics and power struggle in the centre has ensured that the core “Hindu-Nation” is exposed to his rhetoric. From a general observation one may come across some of the following being discussed in the mainstream media: profit/loss estimates of the project, ecological concerns, “Hindu sentiments” and, of course, Ram.

The BJP, who I once sympathised with, was looking exactly for this kind of an opportunity on account of a possible midterm election. It masqueraded itself, as usual, as the "moderate Hindu" whose sentiments were hurt by comments made by Karunanidhi. But there are, somewhat to my surprise, some "moderate Tamil-Hindus" who were enraged by his comments, or so they try to pretend. This crowd comprises mostly of young men in their early 20s who are on their way to joining the elite pack of half-baked, self-proclaimed critics of Tamil politics - mostly belonging to the upper castes. They have, for years, tried to sound clever and witty simply by pointing to the hypocrisy of Dravidian parties, especially MK and his minority politics.
One of the questions that appear regularly is "would he have the guts to say the same about prophet Mohammed or Jesus Christ?" For many the question is a panacea for all anti-Hindu rhetoric and criticisms alike. But the question can only mean one of the two: either they have a problem with accepting them all as fictional characters -- at least to the extent their supernatural abilities are concerned -- or they agree that Ram is a creation of fiction and they want MK to take the next step (which he can clearly choose not to). To criticise him for not being so forthright about Islam or the Bible is only a deviation.

Note: in order to disengage the polemics around 'what Hinduism actually is', I shall propose that the word Hinduism used henceforth be understood as 'social Hinduism' -- one that exists as more than an abstract entity and provides a systemic structure that is identified as culture, tradition, ethos and even "Indian sentiment." One that is at the core of the caste system.

It doesn't take a sharp mind to see through the "rationality" propaganda of the Dravidian parties. Nevertheless, it has to be admitted that underneath all the hypocrisy and sleazy politics there is some rationale in their criticisms. To question just the hypocrisy is to lose focus, quite deliberately, of the larger, critical issue: are you batting for casteist, sexist, oppressive mythical figures just because you're sick of minority politics?

Yes, "Hinduism is not even a religion"; "Hinduism has some of the most ancient, liberal, intellectual doctrines"; "Hinduism does not force anyone to do anything" and a list of other things that I myself had said several times before to cut it some, no, a lot of slack. But who was I bullshitting? Why should I turn a blind eye to all the social inequities that it has been directly responsible for? Whose face was I trying to save?
Majority of Hindus in India, I presume, are just as racist, just as homophobic, just as patriarchal, just as moralistic and just as reactionary as the Christian right wing of America and far worse in some cases. Only that "moderate Hindu's" attitudes don't emerge as often in mainstream media.

Rediff through Orkut, there's no scarcity of "moderate Hindus" who proclaim that the Ramayana happened a hundred thousand years ago and the Mahabharata a few thousand years later. Do they know how old the wheel is? The "moderate Hindu" appears to be more creationist than Christians and Muslims. For he/she believes that humans were not only "created" but with a divine, innate social, hierarchical position (how one attains the rank being immaterial at this juncture).
Even if you leave these issues aside, the ever prominent inhuman subjugation of "lower caste" people stares at you right in the face. The "moderate Hindu" is so oblivious to the atrocities committed in the name of caste, past and present, that his/her only defence is "Hindus never tried to convert non-Hindus." (Assumption: is it just a coincidence that most of these "moderate Hindus" either belong to the "upper castes" or never experienced casteism?)

The contemporary "moderate Hindu" is a right wing nationalist who has inundated himself/herself with essentialist notions. His/her shelter against minority/caste politics is not rationality but pseudo-intellectual jingoism.

It is unfortunate that the Indian voter has to choose between Italian bootlickers and "cultural" fascists. But it's even more unfortunate that this dilemma clouds his/her judgment on more socially relevant issues that are clearly disconnected from electoral politics.
----------------------------

Personal statement: My loathing for Islam and Christianity have come across several times, quite conspicuously, in my posts and podcasts -- it remains the same. However, the same cannot be said about my views on Hinduism: it's been more apologetic than I would have liked. It was probably due to the "clouding" in my judgment or simply a residual effect -- the fact that I shared the 'Hindu' identity till a year ago. At this point, I think, the distinction between 'social Hinduism' and "actual Hinduism" is more than irrelevant, for the former is what forms the social reality of the present (except, may be, in elite metaphysical and theological discussions). Keeping that in mind, I would like to state that I now loathe Hinduism just as much as, if not more than, the other religions.
It goes without saying that I have been, in the past, what I have censured in this post in several instances. One can see this either as a transition informed by literature and reflexivity or simply a recent systemic bias.

adhu seri

Source: Thuglak - 09/04/07 cover page

How to enter politics in India

It's unfortunate that the frequency of 'vetti posts' has increased in this blog. But given my academic commitments and looming sense of guilt I just don't seem to have anything new and worthwhile to say.
This post is a direct lift of what I posted in a forum a couple of years ago. Someone had asked what's the best and practical method to become an MLA in India. As usual, there were some bland, "man! it's bloody clichéd" responses that said "murder at least 5 people" etc. But the truth is most of the current politicians actually have impressive credentials. No, seriously. So I though I'll post an alternative not-so-popularly-known method. It's bland in its own way, but, whatever.

Here's a practical and decent way to become an MLA or MP (takes reasonably long time and vision).

• Read extensively on history, political science and few areas of sociology and general economics.
• It's better if you can improve your language skills (both in English and Tamil or the corresponding regional language).
• Establish yourself as a scholar in some field (preferably in one of the 4 areas above)
• Use platforms such as college symposiums, book releases, religious and caste meetings and even weddings. Impress the audience with your intellect or what sounds to be intellectual prima facie (don't take controversial stands even if that's the right thing to do).
• Occasional jingoism and display of cultural pride won't hurt either (Hindu culture, Tamil culture, your caste's culture, youth culture, student culture, Indian culture - whichever works in that situation)
• Criticize only those who are potential victims (meaning, many people are likely to criticize him/her along with you - to gather mass consensus)
• Praise even the tiniest of charities done by local industrialists. Exaggerate it and project it as an inherent quality for whatever caste they belong to.

If you start doing these things when you are around 30 you'll have some recognition by the time you are around 36. Because of your incessant praise, some industrialists will come forward to nominate you for candidacy (in whichever party you're targeting), increasing your chance to contest.

There's another thing to keep in mind: you have to analyse which party has least opposition in your constituency in that term. Ex: There's no point in pleasing an industrialist from DMK or criticising JJ when you know that DMK doesn't stand a chance in your constituency. For even if you get the chance to contest you'll end up losing anyway. So you have to strategize it right from the beginning.

To explain in detail: TN is now voting anti-incumbent like Kerala, regardless of how good/bad the ruling government is. I'm 24 now, by the time I enter politics, ADMK is likely to be the ruling party (Around 2010) - I'll be aiming for candidacy in 2016 assembly election or 2019's legislative election. DMK faces an uncertain future after MK's demise. If BJP can pull itself together before the next election it might become a stronger party on a national level (and hence improve its bargaining worth in TN). So even if I enter the political spectrum (a career meant to influence politics) I'll stay away from any party affiliation until I can judge the arithmetic reasonably well. Once I can do that, affiliation will follow suit. After affiliation you follow the steps that I had mentioned above.

If you have to win in politics you have to either gather overwhelming support of the capitalists (who are willing to invest in you with hopes of reaping it back) or gather mass support (proletariat backing). Only these two things sell in politics.

Only way to create mass support is to pander to their base instincts and idiosyncrasies such as casteist pride, cultural pride, linguistic pride and all sorts of ego boosters (or extra bonus and right to strike like the DMK did). Crowds "cannot handle the truth" unless it comes from a person of power, so you have to let your principles and morals take back-seat till you get to power.

As for pleasing the industrialists/landlords/property-owners, or the rich folk in general, you have to assure monetary benefits. As with people, even money can be tackled easily if you have power. Meaning, you need not get them contracts or push their files exactly as you promised. Now that you’re in power you have some immunity, you don’t need them anymore. Well, you do, but not so much. Just be a good leader, provide the people with visibly good governance and your support base can be shifted smoothly.

Remember, no principle is good if it cannot do good to anybody. As for politics, the only good principle is the principle that assures you victory.

There are simple methods to do the right thing and not take the blame (yes, it’s ironic). For example: You can propose a bill in favour of 69% reservation for OBCs in private companies. Talk about it in length (knowing that it's total nonsense and you're going to lose the case in the court). Once the case is lost blame the judicial system. Now, even though you did nothing for the OBCs you can lure the majority of the electorate into believing that you did something (Sounds familiar? Yes, that's what the Andhra CM did with Muslims).

For me, especially in politics, the ends justify the means and the larger good is what counts.

Of course, all this will only increase the probability of you being elected, nothing’s assured. But it’s still a very practical and adaptable method. Or You can try the unpopular yet working version of becoming a grass roots politician who starts from ‘Panchayat Board President’ and proceed from there. Or get into civil service and take the diplomatic route.

Microsoft: the same thing?

A lot of us have no qualms in “hating” Microsoft. Even those who never paid a penny for any of their products, like myself, included. Common reasons range from its dubious ‘creative history’ to its product pricing (BSOD in the past). I haven’t had any serious problems with my version of XP for over 19 months – the longest I’ve ever had an OS installation without any anti-virus s/w. It may have to do with the fact that I’ve significantly cut down on the ‘technical tweaks’ that I try since the time I switched fields. Of course, one of my best friends, Badri, would never take this as a reason to accord them with new respect. He started using Linux in 99. So you can imagine his opinion about MS. Technical inadequacies of MS products in contrast with open-source stuff like Linux is worth writing pages and people do it all the time. I neither have the expertise nor the passion to do it here.

In a recent conversation, one of my friends said that her friend quit his job with MS because of some “anti-corporate enlightenment.” I’ve read several articles that have detailed unethical practices of MS, but I still thought his move wasn't well thought out. Yesterday another friend of mine, from political science, shared the image below with me.I usually avoid talking about economic models because I believe they are structures that are beyond individual repair. Any contribution by someone like me would take a significantly long time to have any measurable effect in anyone’s life. And obviously, my knowledge on economic models is fairly limited. When “experts” can’t agree on what’s feasible why should I expose my ignorance? But as always, I am interested on the measurable effects of corporatization. By measurable I mean things that are beyond subjectivities – war, inflation, unemployment etc. I’ve always wondered if MS can be painted along with the other corporations that several leftists have learnt to hate. I’m not sure. I’ll just paste the exchange we had after I saw the image.

Suresh: I don't know if I would have had windows in the same list. I mean, Microsoft
Friend: why not?
Suresh: after all, they have the largest charitable foundation
Suresh: I think he's one of the very few corporates who's actually "giving back"
Suresh: maybe not as much as he can, but he is
Suresh: he doesn't kill chicken or exploit slum dwellers of Bangladesh (well, if you call outsourcing s/w jobs to India as exploitation, then yeah)

Friend: i know all about their "charity"
Friend: see, i have a problem with that framework
Friend: and outsourcing is exploitation
Friend: i mean, it's more complicated than just good corporation, bad corporation
Suresh: well, basically all kinds of profit making is exploitation, isn't it?

Friend: because so much of this is about power structures
Friend: the idea of capitalist profit is based on exploitation, yes
Friend: cheap labour and so on
Friend: creating needs
Friend: i mean, that's what capitalism is all about
Suresh: but I think one needs to be nuanced in his/her approach. They cannot equate Coke and McD with MS purely on the basis of their capitalist business model
Friend: no you can't
Friend: but you can talk about complicity

Friend: the idea that these businesses are complicit in a certain kind of nationalist model
Friend: or promoting certain nationalist goals and doing nothing to STOP their militaristic goals
Friend: i mean, their obviously genocidal goals
Friend: where is responsibility
Friend: so it's an issue of complicity
Friend: well, when it comes to that it's every american
Friend: but their tax dollars are significantly smaller than the ones that these people give america/israel

Friend: anyway
Suresh: yeah, never mind

Her comments were centered around the Israel-Palestine conflict the image represents. So I didn't want to point to the obvious shortcomings of her arguments (which I presume she knows too). I just wanted to hear her out. But I'll say it here. What do you expect them to do? Refuse to sell OS to government organizations? Refuse to pay taxes? Provide food and shelter to those who are willing to protest everyday on the street?
I'm not going to give CNN and others the same treatment. Of course not. They are criminals who consciously construct a contrived reality, but MS?

PS. I didn't edit the actual exchange. Just spaced them in a way it's easier to read.

Popularity: conflict of interest

Recently I got a mail from one my podcast listeners and we were discussing this article. It's an exchange that happened over a few emails. Since he wasn't too comfortable with I publishing his side of the conversation, I publish parts of mine. I hope it still makes sense.

Whenever I talk to some of my politically active friends here, a question would pop out occassionally: why are almost all political critiques we get to see in mainstream media partisan? The immediate answer would be, “corporation!” “Corporation is the root all existing malice,” we would complain. And it is true to a great extent.

But ironically, it’s worse in India’s case. The mainstream has not been completely corporatized yet - we still have little factions doing their share of damage. But sadly, their damage isn’t constructive either. Of course, I’m referring to the likes of Nakkiran. It’s amazing how all the mainstream and pseudo-mainstream media in India get a chance to paint themselves as “revolutionaries.” “ADMK adakkumurai – aalum katchi araajagamm” said Sun TV; “DMK arasin adhikara dhusprayogam,” says Jaya TV. Needless to say, Nakkiran was built on this mode of publicity. Every six months you’ll see one of its offices ransacked by someone, and that someone will have “strong connections” to a ‘big shot’. (Is this a scenario lifted directly from ‘Oomai Viligal’ or am I just connecting stars in space?)

“Victims” who “survive victimization” without “fear” become “revolutionaries.” The untold rule (thaaraga mandhiram) that the “victims will always say the truth” has become the running platform for everyone. Everybody wants to be “victimized” just so that their “truths” are heard. But when there are too many “victims” and too many “truths” opposing each other – victimization loses sensitivity, truth its value. I think that’s what has happened in TN.

The popular notion that “if you want to know the truth watch both Jaya TV and Sun TV” is completely false. While they do a lot of mudslinging, there is a lot that neither of them would say. There’s a lot of collective connivance on their part (kootu kalavaanithanam).

About my podcasts: my friend once asked if I was not afraid to say things like “Muslims and Christians are idiots” in voice (I said the same thing about Hindus as well, but he didn’t think it was dangerous enough). I said “I am, kind of”.
I have always had mixed feelings about my podcasts. While I often welcome people to be vocally expressive (because I know there are people who are a thousand times more eloquent in Tamil), and urge them to do podcasts, I’ve also feared that I might be in an ugly mess if they get too popular. Seriously, I don’t want my podcasts to become popular beyond a point (whether it has the material-worth is a different issue).
Even though I live in Canada, my parents are in Madras. I have to land in Madras at some point. I’m not as popular or rich as Rushdie. I cannot escape a ‘fatwa.’ Heck, a prank-call will rattle my parents and ruin their sleep (and in turn mine). I can only hope that there aren’t any “Jihadis” listening to what I say.

I often stress the dangers involved in expressing our opinions “freely” in a state (as in the ‘State’) where even the ‘powerful’ are easily targeted – literally, with stones and petrol bombs. To make matters worse you have a judicial system that is astonishingly ‘conservative’ and condescending to those with ‘liberal’ views. I don’t know; sometimes all this seems far-fetched, but then again it’s India – “impossible is nothing.” So it’s no surprise that people don’t want to take chances for what is mostly a thankless effort.

Radical views are just too dangerous for an Indian in India. He/she is safe as long as his/her views are within the academic and ‘intellectual’ circles. One has to increase his/her ‘self-worth’ before his/her views are exposed to the common, belligerent, and often violent, Indian. Periyar is an example for this. His views on feminism and sex came about well after he had established himself on the “paarpaniya aadhikkam” rhetoric. Most of his followers were just tolerating his criticisms on “Tamil culture”, gender equality, marriage etc. So it’s not a surprise that people like Thiruma' don't turn to those views of his, today.
...

Disclaimer: The email(s) has been modified from its original form. Yes, I confess, I am just too lazy to type anything original for a post. I also apologize for saying a few things that seem very pretentious.

vetti post-3

Gurumurthy's writings have informed me about a lot of things - especially on the 'local' level functioning of small scale industries in India. They are simple case studies embedded in powerful narratives. I've admired him for his ability to stand-up against authority and embarass the Indian-commie 'intellectuals.' He is one of the few India columnists who pay so much attention to factual accuracy of their pointers. Of course, I now have some major disagreements with a lot of what he says (his incessant praise of the "Indian culture" not being least of it) - mostly ideological. I was running through some of this stuff and found this interview. Good wit is always good.

Can't we call some of our big industries also multinational companies?

I prefer an Indian dacoit to a foreign dacoit so long as we cannot avoid having dacoits around. I go that far. He will not bomb India while Dubai-based smugglers do.

...
You said, all industrialists amass wealth. So, what is the difference between an insider and an outsider?

All Indian politicians are corrupt? Then why not elect a foreigner as our prime minister?

Huh, ironically, the hook in his answer isn't all that bent, now, is it?

PS. The webpage reads "Rediff On The Net." Did/does rediff have any business beyond 'net?