The audacious attack on the Manawan Police Academy shows the ease with which terrorists can attack a target of their choice in our neighboring nation. The March 30 attack presents a worrying scenario to New Delhi as Lahore is less than 50 miles from the India's western border and to add to it the general elections are just around the corner. While India needs to think in terms of "What if" and plan to combat a possible spill-over of the crises into India, Pakistan has to think in terms of "What now" and show urgency towards reining in the Frankenstein it has created.
Terrorism is a homegrown problem for Pakistan, however the repeated statements from Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik indicates that the recent spate of attacks in Pakistan are the handiwork of forces trying to destabilize the country. While Mr Malik's statements might seem like excuses for his inability to deliver as the interior minister, he might not be entirely wrong. Until now any reference to "external forces trying to destabilize Pakistan" has been unanimously translated to India and its intelligence agencies, however in the present scenario this reference could very well point to Taliban.
It is easier for Pakistan to blame an external group like Taliban as compared to Lashkar e Toiba, since Pakistan has claimed to the world that it has taken positive steps to close down terror centers since the Mumbai blasts. Soon after the Mumbai blasts Pakistan tried to pin the blame on India for the December Lahore attack, however it had to retract its statements after a little known local outfit claimed responsibility. Then came the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team for which Mr Malik was quick to blame India and later retracted his statements and since then the approach Pakistan has taken has been surprising, there was no reference to an Indian involvement after the March 27 bombing of a mosque in Jamrud, FATA; and the more recent attack at the Lahore Police Academy has seen more measured statements from Pakistan.
So why would Pakistan, which has been so vocal in blaming India as a tit for tat response, choose to blame the Taliban - a group it was instrumental in creating and supporting? The answer may lie in evaluating what Pakistan has to gain from maligning India as compared to what Pakistan has to gain from playing a victim of being a part of the war on terror. While political strife, coups and assassinations have dotted Pakistan's history since within a decade after its independence, terrorist attacks have sky rocketed since President Musharraf decided to join the war on terror and thus placing Taliban on the cross wires.
The Pashtuns have never enjoyed a favorable treatment in Pakistan and have been further alienated in the recent years, one would assume that the betrayal from Pakistan would give them reason enough to turn their guns on Pakistan. This assumption is substantiated by Baithulla Mahsud's claim that the attacks had the blessings of the Taliban. This development complicates an already messy scenario - Pakistan's experiment with the good and bad Taliban seems to have failed miserably as the attacks have only increased since the SWAT compromise was reached.
President Zardari with his dropping popularity rating is faced with the option of going after the Taliban - this will give him tremendous bargaining power with the US, however for this he needs General Kayani's nod and the General, being a former DG ISI may not be too keen on taking on the Taliban, which the ISI had trained to fight against a different enemy . He can also play victim of the war on terror and get further aid from the US, however that will only enrage the Taliban further and prompt more attacks. The other option is that he can quit the war on terror and try to placate the Taliban, however with the country's economy in shambles such an action will only accelerate the country towards self-destruction.
The Army may not be too keen on taking over control as they would be faced with a similar predicament. Even President Musharraf did not have a choice when it came to joining the War on Terror. The best option for Pakistan is to make sincere efforts in resolving the terror issue, while using this as a bargaining point to get the country out of its current economic glut. Pakistan needs to understand that right now it needs to focus on providing security, employment, health care and education for its citizens and it can use this opportunity to do so and also rid the world of belligerents and prevent its nukes from falling into the wrong hands, thus preventing a nuclear cataclysm.
With the world's largest electoral exercise a month away Pakistan finds a friend in the neighbor it had constantly poked and needled. Its time the Pakistani Govt got back to the drawing board to evaluate their decisions so far and if they need a lesson in how to successfully run a democracy, they just need to look to the immediate east.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
An enemy that unites
One of the challenges faced by David Ben Gurion upon the formation was the State of Israel was to find a way to bring together the Jews speaking different languages to one common platform. He overcame the challenge by forming the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces). By making military training mandatory for the citizens of Israel, Ben Gurion was able to bring together Jews speaking different languages (Russian, Polish, German, Austrian) to speak one common language - Hebrew and was able to bring about in them a feeling of belonging to the newly formed State of Israel. Another infant nation that faced with similar challenges that time was Pakistan.
Pakistan was carved out of the British India and included the provinces of Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, North-West Frontier Provinces and East Bengal. Interestingly, religion was the only common factor among the people of the Pakistan - a country which was was formed with the intent of creating a state for the Muslims of the British India, for the population of Pakistan could still identify themselves as Punjabis, Sindhis, Pashtuns, Balochs, Bengalis and the Urdu speaking Muslims who had migrated from India. The people of India however did not have this problem as they continued to associate themselves with India as they had done earlier. A Punjabi or Sindhi who had migrated eastward during the partition was still Indian after the partition as he was before the partition.
In the newly formed state of Pakistan, the Punjabis were the most influential and therefore the most dominant - the recent events in Pakistan are testament to the influence that the Punjabis still hold in Pakistani politics. And this sort of dominance was to be a reason for discord among the regional groups in Pakistan. First the Balochs resisted the idea of joining Pakistan but were eventually forced to join the state after military action from Pakistan. The Balochs again tried to break away in the sixties and seventies and are even to this day a cause of heartburn for Pakistan. Then in 1971 the Bengalis revolted and broke away to form their own nation as the Bengalis realized that despite being numerically superior in population it was their western compatriots who called the shots. It becomes critical therefore for Pakistan to come up with a formula which would bring its population together by temporarily shifting their focus from their daily issues towards a larger cause.
The successive governments in Israel were able to retain the support of its people by constantly reminding them of the threat from outside. The fear of an external enemy justified elevated taxations and the hardships of the mandatory military tenure. However after the Six Day War the Israelis saw that idea of Israel's enemies as a means of their government to justify its militaristic ambitions. One of the reasons Israel was late in mobilizing the IDF reserves during the Yom Kippur War, despite receiving several inputs on an impending war, was the reluctance of Golda Meir administration to play the external enemy card again, lest it should anger the Israelis had these inputs turned out to be a false alarm. Many in Pakistan are however more than eager to buy the idea of "Anti-Pakistan forces" that are trying to destabilize their country and THAT is the bonding factor among the people of the country that has not yet seen a democratically elected government complete a full term.
As Ben Gurion so successfully illustrated, wars have always been a reason people come together - to fight a common enemy; but they are also the reason nations break up - when people realize that this enemy is a myth created to distract them from fighting against the real problems. The concept of the "Enemy in the East" is a must for Pakistan during this phase of political turmoil, sucessive goverments - Democratic or Dictatorial will continue to thrive by propagating this idea. For an enemy can make people forget their internal difference and will get them to come together against the foreign force, therefore any peace efforts in this region can only be temporary since Pakistan can keep itself from disintegrating only by seeing India as an enemy, rather than as a friend.
Pakistan was carved out of the British India and included the provinces of Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, North-West Frontier Provinces and East Bengal. Interestingly, religion was the only common factor among the people of the Pakistan - a country which was was formed with the intent of creating a state for the Muslims of the British India, for the population of Pakistan could still identify themselves as Punjabis, Sindhis, Pashtuns, Balochs, Bengalis and the Urdu speaking Muslims who had migrated from India. The people of India however did not have this problem as they continued to associate themselves with India as they had done earlier. A Punjabi or Sindhi who had migrated eastward during the partition was still Indian after the partition as he was before the partition.
In the newly formed state of Pakistan, the Punjabis were the most influential and therefore the most dominant - the recent events in Pakistan are testament to the influence that the Punjabis still hold in Pakistani politics. And this sort of dominance was to be a reason for discord among the regional groups in Pakistan. First the Balochs resisted the idea of joining Pakistan but were eventually forced to join the state after military action from Pakistan. The Balochs again tried to break away in the sixties and seventies and are even to this day a cause of heartburn for Pakistan. Then in 1971 the Bengalis revolted and broke away to form their own nation as the Bengalis realized that despite being numerically superior in population it was their western compatriots who called the shots. It becomes critical therefore for Pakistan to come up with a formula which would bring its population together by temporarily shifting their focus from their daily issues towards a larger cause.
The successive governments in Israel were able to retain the support of its people by constantly reminding them of the threat from outside. The fear of an external enemy justified elevated taxations and the hardships of the mandatory military tenure. However after the Six Day War the Israelis saw that idea of Israel's enemies as a means of their government to justify its militaristic ambitions. One of the reasons Israel was late in mobilizing the IDF reserves during the Yom Kippur War, despite receiving several inputs on an impending war, was the reluctance of Golda Meir administration to play the external enemy card again, lest it should anger the Israelis had these inputs turned out to be a false alarm. Many in Pakistan are however more than eager to buy the idea of "Anti-Pakistan forces" that are trying to destabilize their country and THAT is the bonding factor among the people of the country that has not yet seen a democratically elected government complete a full term.
As Ben Gurion so successfully illustrated, wars have always been a reason people come together - to fight a common enemy; but they are also the reason nations break up - when people realize that this enemy is a myth created to distract them from fighting against the real problems. The concept of the "Enemy in the East" is a must for Pakistan during this phase of political turmoil, sucessive goverments - Democratic or Dictatorial will continue to thrive by propagating this idea. For an enemy can make people forget their internal difference and will get them to come together against the foreign force, therefore any peace efforts in this region can only be temporary since Pakistan can keep itself from disintegrating only by seeing India as an enemy, rather than as a friend.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Great souls, Nobel intentions
"Aah! Muhammad Yunus!" I exclaimed as I looked at a picture in the half open magazine lying at one of the tables in the reception area of my doctor's clinic. The elderly lady next to me gave a questioning glance. "Micro-financing" I clarified. She attempted a smile that translated to sarcastic "Ah! That helped" and dug into the health magazine she was reading. It was November in 2006 and a month earlier a Bangladeshi gentleman named Mohammad Yunus shot to fame. It was decided by the Norwegian Nobel Committee that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2006 was to be jointly shared by Muhammad Yunus and his Grameen Bank for their effort towards peace as "Lasting peace can not be achieved unless large population groups find ways in which to break out of poverty. " By providing micro-credit through his Grameen Bank, Muhammad Yunus had provided a way for people to break out of poverty. It is surprising indeed that not many people I know seem to recognize him despite such a great recognition being bestowed on him.
The Nobel Prizes (The Nobel Prize for Peace being one among them) was first given away 1901 as per the will of Alfred Nobel who died in 1896 leaving behind a large legacy accrued from the huge sales of his invention - dynamite. The Nobel Prize's popularity can be compared to that of dynamite since it is endorsed worldwide as the greatest achievement in the fields for which it is awarded. Being easily associated with the best of the best, it is therefore questioned by many as to why a certain gentleman named Mohandas Gandhi - whose name had become eponymous with peace - was never awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. Many have tried to speculate about the causes and the easiest (and also the most absurd) guess is "because he was an Indian" and "there was racism". I am amazed at how racism has become the easiest reason that can be attributed to any conflict. A peek into history shows that Rabindranath Tagore was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1913 and Sir C V Raman, the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1930.
Indians were already in the radar of the Nobel Committee way before Mahatma Gandhi was first nominated in 1937, so the idea of the committee being averse to awarding non-Europeans or Americans can be safely laid to rest**. It can be gathered from a clarification posted on the website of the Nobel Peace Prize that Mahatma Gandhi's nomination in 1937 did not convert to an award as some of the committee's advisers' questions Mahatma Gandhi's style of leadership which a committee adviser felt, was driven by "sharp turns in his policies". An incident that occurred more than a decade and a half earlier (the Chauri Chaura Massacre*) was also highlighted to illustrate that Gandhiji did not have control over his followers who have in the past adopted violent methods against the British. Gandhiji had galvanized the agony of millions oppressed by the British dominance into a blunt instrument of non-violence that would peacefully yet firmly edge out the oppressors from the Indian soil. Few hundred among those millions were compelled to break loose from that resolve and the war cries of those few hundred, ironically were more audible to the committee as compared to the suppressed grunts of the millions who were facing bullets and batons elsewhere in India. Viscount Cecil of Chelwood won the most coveted recognition that year for his efforts towards the International Peace Campaign.
Mahatma Gandhi was nominated in 1938, 1939 and 1947 but did not win. He eventually nominated again for 1948 a few days before his assassination. The coming together of two universal symbols of peace was forever stalled by a lone gunman on that cold winter morning at Birla House, New Delhi for as per the statutes of Nobel Prize a posthumous award was out of question. No award was awarded in 1948 which makes us believe that the Peace Prize for 1948 should have gone to Gandhiji. Mahatma Gandhi never won a Nobel Peace Prize, yet the name Gandhi is well known the world over, better known than many recipients of the coveted Nobel Peace Prize.
Recognitions are important. There is an old lady living near Bangalore, India, who with assistance from her husband had planted close to 300 Banyan trees along a 4 kilometer stretch of a highway in Southern India. She received the National Citizens' Award for 1995 and soon became well known in the field of environmental conservation. It was important to honor this lady, for with that award her efforts could be made an example for others to follow. The frail old man with an iron will was different, he was a legend way before he was first nominated for the Nobel Prize. And though its unfortunate that death snatched from him that award that had to be his in 1948, his work and fame had spread far and wide despite the absence of an internationally recognized laurel.
Notes:
* In 1922 a group of Indian protesters went out of control in the town of Chauri Chaura, India and set a police station on fire, killing 23 policeman.
**Mother Teresa was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize one year before she received the Bharath Ratna, India's equivalent of the Medal of Freedom.
References:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/gandhi/index.html
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2006/press.html
The Nobel Prizes (The Nobel Prize for Peace being one among them) was first given away 1901 as per the will of Alfred Nobel who died in 1896 leaving behind a large legacy accrued from the huge sales of his invention - dynamite. The Nobel Prize's popularity can be compared to that of dynamite since it is endorsed worldwide as the greatest achievement in the fields for which it is awarded. Being easily associated with the best of the best, it is therefore questioned by many as to why a certain gentleman named Mohandas Gandhi - whose name had become eponymous with peace - was never awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. Many have tried to speculate about the causes and the easiest (and also the most absurd) guess is "because he was an Indian" and "there was racism". I am amazed at how racism has become the easiest reason that can be attributed to any conflict. A peek into history shows that Rabindranath Tagore was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1913 and Sir C V Raman, the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1930.
Indians were already in the radar of the Nobel Committee way before Mahatma Gandhi was first nominated in 1937, so the idea of the committee being averse to awarding non-Europeans or Americans can be safely laid to rest**. It can be gathered from a clarification posted on the website of the Nobel Peace Prize that Mahatma Gandhi's nomination in 1937 did not convert to an award as some of the committee's advisers' questions Mahatma Gandhi's style of leadership which a committee adviser felt, was driven by "sharp turns in his policies". An incident that occurred more than a decade and a half earlier (the Chauri Chaura Massacre*) was also highlighted to illustrate that Gandhiji did not have control over his followers who have in the past adopted violent methods against the British. Gandhiji had galvanized the agony of millions oppressed by the British dominance into a blunt instrument of non-violence that would peacefully yet firmly edge out the oppressors from the Indian soil. Few hundred among those millions were compelled to break loose from that resolve and the war cries of those few hundred, ironically were more audible to the committee as compared to the suppressed grunts of the millions who were facing bullets and batons elsewhere in India. Viscount Cecil of Chelwood won the most coveted recognition that year for his efforts towards the International Peace Campaign.
Mahatma Gandhi was nominated in 1938, 1939 and 1947 but did not win. He eventually nominated again for 1948 a few days before his assassination. The coming together of two universal symbols of peace was forever stalled by a lone gunman on that cold winter morning at Birla House, New Delhi for as per the statutes of Nobel Prize a posthumous award was out of question. No award was awarded in 1948 which makes us believe that the Peace Prize for 1948 should have gone to Gandhiji. Mahatma Gandhi never won a Nobel Peace Prize, yet the name Gandhi is well known the world over, better known than many recipients of the coveted Nobel Peace Prize.
Recognitions are important. There is an old lady living near Bangalore, India, who with assistance from her husband had planted close to 300 Banyan trees along a 4 kilometer stretch of a highway in Southern India. She received the National Citizens' Award for 1995 and soon became well known in the field of environmental conservation. It was important to honor this lady, for with that award her efforts could be made an example for others to follow. The frail old man with an iron will was different, he was a legend way before he was first nominated for the Nobel Prize. And though its unfortunate that death snatched from him that award that had to be his in 1948, his work and fame had spread far and wide despite the absence of an internationally recognized laurel.
* * *
Back at the clinic, I struck a conversation with the lady and when I mentioned that I had travelled from India on a work assignment, she said in an excited tone - "My daughter is writing about Gandhi for her history project in school!!". Notes:
* In 1922 a group of Indian protesters went out of control in the town of Chauri Chaura, India and set a police station on fire, killing 23 policeman.
**Mother Teresa was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize one year before she received the Bharath Ratna, India's equivalent of the Medal of Freedom.
References:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/gandhi/index.html
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2006/press.html
Saturday, March 14, 2009
A Squint of Brilliance
In your eyes - of optical squint,
I see a subtle hint,
like a spark produced by striking flint,
of hope I see a glint.
Andy
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Two birds, many stones
Two kinds of numbers are mainly doing the rounds in the media these days, one being the stimulus packages offered to pep up the economy and the other pertaining to the number of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. While both have potential impact on billions of people worldwide, we have a comforting knowledge from history that a scenario similar to the former has been resolved in the past by President Franklin D Roosevelt. Though the "New Deal" is something for which President Roosevelt will be eternally remembered, I find it worth mentioning that his effort towards defeating the axis powers during World War II is also a reason why his name is one of the most easily recognizable names among US Presidents.
While it was very easy for me to draw a parallel between the scenarios faced by the two Presidents, an assessment at ground level will evince that though both the Presidents encountered stormy seas, President Roosevelt had the wind behind him thus getting him ashore faster. Yes, the timing of World War II was such that it helped President Roosevelt kill two birds with one stone, joining the war further helped the economy of the United States when it was just emerging out of the depression. So, while he was making an effort to save millions from falling prey to the axis powers, the economy was limping back to normal and so significant was this change that we had the baby boomers arriving immediately after the end of the war.
For President Obama however the war effort is more complex, not only does he have to untangle the United States from the complex web in Iraq and Afghanistan, he needs to be careful about not repeating the same mistakes that Britain made after World War II. Statistics are piled up heavily against Britain when it comes to pulling out of a region after ensuring order. While it could be purely coincidental it is important to note that several countries where the British political influence ended in the late 1940 are right now in the news for internal strife and turmoil - the British Mandate in Palestine ended in 1948, Pakistan (and Bangladesh) got their independence in 1947 and so did Sri Lanka. While the Palestine-Israel conflict and the strife in Sri Lanka can be attributed to apathy, since Britain really did not take a stance towards the majority or minority and moved out leaving the states in flux, the issue in Pakistan originates from certain aggressive moves by Britain, such as the imposition of the two-nation theory. Sudan is another country that gained independence in mid fifties that is currently occupying the front page for its political instability. India seems to be the only country that has not slipped into a similar turmoil, thanks to the successful efforts of Lord Mountbatten and others like Nehru and Patel overseeing the transfer of power and consolidation of states.
A pullout from Iraq is on the horizon and during his recent visit to Australia Prime Minister Maliki seemed confident of a smooth transition, however Iraq is a lot different from Afghanistan.While the demographics and dynamics of the Middle East makes it rather infeasible for the situation to spill over into neighboring countries, we see the crisis in Afghanistan creating ripples in neighboring Pakistan, and if unchecked, it may be only a matter of time before the surge destabilizes the already volatile region. The demise of the Soviets from Afghanistan was hastened due to the support the US received from Pakistan. This key player is now a loose cannon and that makes the issue in Afghanistan more complex than Iraq. With Pakistan placating the Taliban at Swat United States has to further worry about the funding to Pakistan ending up as the bullets that are felling its soldiers. While the economy takes the higher priority now, Afghanistan will give the strategists at the White House a lot to think about in the days to come.
There is no doubt that restoring the economy and bringing the US troops back home is going to be a lot different that killing two birds with one stone. Both however are critical to lasting peace on earth.
While it was very easy for me to draw a parallel between the scenarios faced by the two Presidents, an assessment at ground level will evince that though both the Presidents encountered stormy seas, President Roosevelt had the wind behind him thus getting him ashore faster. Yes, the timing of World War II was such that it helped President Roosevelt kill two birds with one stone, joining the war further helped the economy of the United States when it was just emerging out of the depression. So, while he was making an effort to save millions from falling prey to the axis powers, the economy was limping back to normal and so significant was this change that we had the baby boomers arriving immediately after the end of the war.
For President Obama however the war effort is more complex, not only does he have to untangle the United States from the complex web in Iraq and Afghanistan, he needs to be careful about not repeating the same mistakes that Britain made after World War II. Statistics are piled up heavily against Britain when it comes to pulling out of a region after ensuring order. While it could be purely coincidental it is important to note that several countries where the British political influence ended in the late 1940 are right now in the news for internal strife and turmoil - the British Mandate in Palestine ended in 1948, Pakistan (and Bangladesh) got their independence in 1947 and so did Sri Lanka. While the Palestine-Israel conflict and the strife in Sri Lanka can be attributed to apathy, since Britain really did not take a stance towards the majority or minority and moved out leaving the states in flux, the issue in Pakistan originates from certain aggressive moves by Britain, such as the imposition of the two-nation theory. Sudan is another country that gained independence in mid fifties that is currently occupying the front page for its political instability. India seems to be the only country that has not slipped into a similar turmoil, thanks to the successful efforts of Lord Mountbatten and others like Nehru and Patel overseeing the transfer of power and consolidation of states.
A pullout from Iraq is on the horizon and during his recent visit to Australia Prime Minister Maliki seemed confident of a smooth transition, however Iraq is a lot different from Afghanistan.While the demographics and dynamics of the Middle East makes it rather infeasible for the situation to spill over into neighboring countries, we see the crisis in Afghanistan creating ripples in neighboring Pakistan, and if unchecked, it may be only a matter of time before the surge destabilizes the already volatile region. The demise of the Soviets from Afghanistan was hastened due to the support the US received from Pakistan. This key player is now a loose cannon and that makes the issue in Afghanistan more complex than Iraq. With Pakistan placating the Taliban at Swat United States has to further worry about the funding to Pakistan ending up as the bullets that are felling its soldiers. While the economy takes the higher priority now, Afghanistan will give the strategists at the White House a lot to think about in the days to come.
There is no doubt that restoring the economy and bringing the US troops back home is going to be a lot different that killing two birds with one stone. Both however are critical to lasting peace on earth.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
The crucifixion of a Mahatma
A great soul stands nailed to a crucifix in this case it was done by his own so called supporters. How ironical that people who have been recipients of the Mahatma's rich ideals and principles -something invaluable are fighting over something as inexpensive and irrelevant as his eye glasses, watch and sandals. I feel the Mahatma would have foreseen this and hence decided to limit his material possessions, yet India seems to be bent on trying arm twisting tactics to prevent the auction of the Mahatma's belongings by a US based arts collector.
60 years ago the Mahatma handed down another legacy to us - freedom - I leave it to the judgment of the reader to ascertain how well we have valued and maintained that legacy. The Mahatma handed down to us values, he taught us non-violence, he taught us to stand up against injustice, fight for the poor and above all he taught us and the whole world the power of peaceful resistance. These legacies are undoubtedly far more valuable than his Sterling Watch or wire framed eye glasses. Yet there are people who feel having these possessions will make India much different than what it really is and suddenly everyone seems so avaricious to grab the possessions of a man who chose to give everything and keep very little. And presuming that the representatives of the country do outbid others in the auction and are successful in bringing back the Mahatma's possessions I wonder what would be the fate of these articles. History is our witness to how well we maintain articles of heritage - General Niazi's pistol (which he surrendered at the end of the 1971 war), was stolen some years back from the National Museum in New Delhi and never found, Rabindranath Tagore's Nobel Medal was stolen from Shantiniketan and there is very little known about the inquiry the Buddha had ordered about the incident. It is a colossal waste of our diplomats' effort, given that we have such a great track record of conserving our heritage.
I can appreciate Mr. Tushar Gandhi's efforts to secure these articles as they have more of a personal value for him, which is why he initiated a fund for collecting the necessary amount to buy back Gandhiji's personal belongings, yet the fact that he has collected hardly a fraction of the amount needed to qualify as a bidder indicates how the folks in general feel about this. Of course we are known to be fickle and I wouldn't be surprised if the fund suddenly swells up to $500,000 by tomorrow morning and Mr Tushar Gandhi does succeed in getting back these articles. But my question then would be? Was it really worth the money spent, the image of Gandhiji I have, from all the documentaries I have seen and the books I have read says NO! I feel Gandhiji would have been happier to see this money spent on the educating the poor and providing better living conditions for them.
Gandhiji stood for fairness and had he been alive today I wonder if he would have appreciated the tactics India is using to stall the auction of items which I am sure he would not have attributed much value to. Mr. James Otis the gentleman who is auctioning the items seems to have very noble intentions - he has indicated that he would donate the proceeds from the auction to charity, he has also mentioned that he could readily cancel the auction if India agreed to a fivefold increase in domestic healthcare funding or sponsoring a worldwide tour of memorabilia associated with the nonviolence movement. I am surprised that despite all this we are not willing to make a compromise. In my opinion whoever buys these articles would treasure them as much as we do (The greatest movie about Gandhiji was made by a Briton names Sir Richard Attenborough), I just don't see any justification in spending a tonne of money on articles of national pride or should I say ego, which according to me will do little to alleviate the miseries of the millions that starve in India every day.
Studies indicate that the prevalence of Myopia is very low among Indians though this entire drama makes me doubt that claim. In the fight for getting back the Mahatma's meager possessions; we have just ended up reducing the teachings of this great soul to a great farce.
60 years ago the Mahatma handed down another legacy to us - freedom - I leave it to the judgment of the reader to ascertain how well we have valued and maintained that legacy. The Mahatma handed down to us values, he taught us non-violence, he taught us to stand up against injustice, fight for the poor and above all he taught us and the whole world the power of peaceful resistance. These legacies are undoubtedly far more valuable than his Sterling Watch or wire framed eye glasses. Yet there are people who feel having these possessions will make India much different than what it really is and suddenly everyone seems so avaricious to grab the possessions of a man who chose to give everything and keep very little. And presuming that the representatives of the country do outbid others in the auction and are successful in bringing back the Mahatma's possessions I wonder what would be the fate of these articles. History is our witness to how well we maintain articles of heritage - General Niazi's pistol (which he surrendered at the end of the 1971 war), was stolen some years back from the National Museum in New Delhi and never found, Rabindranath Tagore's Nobel Medal was stolen from Shantiniketan and there is very little known about the inquiry the Buddha had ordered about the incident. It is a colossal waste of our diplomats' effort, given that we have such a great track record of conserving our heritage.
I can appreciate Mr. Tushar Gandhi's efforts to secure these articles as they have more of a personal value for him, which is why he initiated a fund for collecting the necessary amount to buy back Gandhiji's personal belongings, yet the fact that he has collected hardly a fraction of the amount needed to qualify as a bidder indicates how the folks in general feel about this. Of course we are known to be fickle and I wouldn't be surprised if the fund suddenly swells up to $500,000 by tomorrow morning and Mr Tushar Gandhi does succeed in getting back these articles. But my question then would be? Was it really worth the money spent, the image of Gandhiji I have, from all the documentaries I have seen and the books I have read says NO! I feel Gandhiji would have been happier to see this money spent on the educating the poor and providing better living conditions for them.
Gandhiji stood for fairness and had he been alive today I wonder if he would have appreciated the tactics India is using to stall the auction of items which I am sure he would not have attributed much value to. Mr. James Otis the gentleman who is auctioning the items seems to have very noble intentions - he has indicated that he would donate the proceeds from the auction to charity, he has also mentioned that he could readily cancel the auction if India agreed to a fivefold increase in domestic healthcare funding or sponsoring a worldwide tour of memorabilia associated with the nonviolence movement. I am surprised that despite all this we are not willing to make a compromise. In my opinion whoever buys these articles would treasure them as much as we do (The greatest movie about Gandhiji was made by a Briton names Sir Richard Attenborough), I just don't see any justification in spending a tonne of money on articles of national pride or should I say ego, which according to me will do little to alleviate the miseries of the millions that starve in India every day.
Studies indicate that the prevalence of Myopia is very low among Indians though this entire drama makes me doubt that claim. In the fight for getting back the Mahatma's meager possessions; we have just ended up reducing the teachings of this great soul to a great farce.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)