ADARSH SOCIETY, CWG, CORRUPTION IN ARMED FORCES AND PUBLIC MORALITY

As soon as I was commissioned in the Navy I had to undergo Subaltern Lieutenant's training courses. The user-maintainer concept had just been introduced and we had to go to Navy's Electrical Engineering training establishment named Valsura in Jamnagar, Gujarat, to acquire skills to become proficient first level maintainers.

Most of the First Class compartments had been booked for our course as we headed towards Jamnagar. To pass time, we played Bridge and drank beer and rum. When the TTE (I still remember his name on the his name telly: V Srivastava) came to our compartment he saw that we were drinking. He was visibly shocked at this and addressed us in chaste Hindi which is translated thus: "Young men, you should be ashamed of yourself. You are passing through Mahatma Gandhi's state wherein drinking liquor is prohibited. And yet, here you are - young men who would be responsible to defend our nation - shamelessly breaking the law and drinking."

I was, at that time (perhaps I still am) an idealist and moralist. I was so mortified by this that I left the gang, collected my Ayn Rand and climbed to the upper berth to hide my head in shame. I was so immersed in 'The Fountainhead' that after some time when I looked down I found the TTE having a drink with my friends. I got down from the berth and berated him, "Srivastava ji, you had no right to be pseudo moralistic. Look at you, now, a TTE on duty having liquor. I think at the next station we shall hand you over to the Vigilance people".

His reply is pointer towards the central theme of this essay, "Ab chhodiye bhai sahib. Main to ek do peg pi ke chala jayoonga; vigilance wale kam se kam poori botal lenge aapse". (Just forget it, brother. I shall (quietly) go after one or two pegs; the vigilance people would demand a full bottle, at the least).

On another occasion, I was travelling by the defence - services - friendly Frontier Mail, from Bombay to Delhi. Just the hint of one being a defence officer [and entitled to draw "pure" (it was the public perception) rum] would get one a vacant berth that would have otherwise got the TTE some chai-paani money from others. After "adjusting" the passengers the TTE came to me in the coupe' he had told me to occupy. I offered him a drink, which soon became two, three, four etc. That loosened his tongue. Over a period of next one hour he told me that he had a house in South Delhi, another in Jaipur, two cars etc and that his elder daughter was about to marry an IAS officer from "a rich family".

I not only showed surprise but expressed it, "I say, you guys really indulge in corruption and can get anything".

His reply was as classic as that of TTE Srivastava. He said, "Bhai Sahib, hum to apni mehnat ki kamai khaate hain. Corrupt to hamare bade sahib hain jo ghar baithe hi paise bana rahe hain" (Brother, we (TTEs) only enjoy the fruits of our labour. Corrupt are the big bosses in railways who get the money sitting at home".

These two are mere examples of our (voyeuristic?) attitude when we see yet another example of corruption in public life. The "bigger fish" always seems to get away whilst poor people like us who do indulge in petty corruption (either in giving bribes or receiving chai-paani money) are always made scapegoats.

What do you think shocked us about corruption in recently concluded CWG deals? Well, not the fact of the corruption but the sheer scale of it.

Laxman's cartoon, many years back, about big time corruption was most telling. In this a policeman is seen taking a handcuffed petty thief to the Police Station and telling him, "Your fault is that you stole five bucks. If you had stolen fifty crores I could have been your security guard".

Corruption at higher levels does affect the morale of the people at lower levels. And when we hear about increasingly more stupendous and brazen corrupt cases, we see one holy bastion or the other crumbling. Over a period of time our perception is that politicians, bureaucrats, engineers, doctors, film stars (casting couch, avoidance of income tax et al), religious leaders, railway TTEs, personnel in government departments from peon to boss, shopkeepers and tradesmen, cricketers and policemen are not only corrupt but have earned the right to be so. We publicly hate them for it. But, if we have to marry our daughters, we find these as the most eligible bachelors. In my last posting in the Navy before I retired, a sailor from Haryana wanted his daughter to be married to an ASI in the police. He was asked to pay rupees ten lakhs in dowry "considering the earning capacity of the ASI and hence the ability to keep your daughter happy".

We resignedly accept corruption even in the judiciary. But when the last bastion of upright behaviour, that is, armed forces too display signs of corruption a la booze-colonels, fake-encounter-for-medal COs, Tehelka expose' big-wigs, land and housing scam generals and admirals, we tend to bemoan that there is "total lack of moral values in Indian public life". How can these jokers be trusted in war when they indulge in such immoral acts? Isn't esprit de corps the hallmark of defence forces? How would their men have trust in them when they indulge in such things? How could they stoop so low? How could they shamefacedly make such statements that they did not know that the land belonged to the military or to the war-widows?

Seven years back I was asked to conduct a major investigation into endemic corruption at Navy's Material Organisation at Mumbai. This was a prelude to trying by Courts Martial all those found involved. Gradually it came out that everyone from the top (Material Superintendent) to bottom was involved and that the case, just like the Adarsh Society case, should be handed over to the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation). Indeed, a Navy Order exists to the effect that with such large scale corruption it is mandatory to hand over the case to CBI. But, did we hand over? No, the Navy was jealously guarding its reputation. Hence, there was only one officer, that is me, conducting the entire investigation. I was posted as Director of an operational unit, the Maritime Warfare Centre, and I conducted this large investigation single-handedly. Whilst my own officers and others used to return home at 5 PM I used to continue until 10 or 11 PM and worked on Saturdays and Sundays too for the next eighteen months.

Many a time even the organisation refused to support me. The original C-in-C and his Chief of Staff who ordered the Courts Martial got transferred and a new lot took over. The present C-in-C, who complained about the Adarsh Society, became the Chief of Staff and happened to be a course mate of the chief accused, the Material Superintendent. The witnesses (vendors who had given the bribes) were being threatened by the accused officers not to appear in court. One day, when out of fear not a single witness appeared, I approached him for assistance. He bluntly told me that I was by myself. I approached the original team too who either refused to take my call or pretended not to receive mail from me.

With all this, I was responsible for putting oneCommodore and one other officer behind bars and others were given lighter punishments. So, how was I rewarded for my efforts? Well, it was the Judge Advocate who was awarded a Vishisht Sena Medal (VSM or Medal for Distinguished Service) specifically for his efforts in the investigation and courts martial! Many years later, for two consecutive years, I was recommended for Ati Vishisht Sena Medal (AVSM or medal for Very Distinguished Service) for operational reasons but not awarded since neither me nor the C-in-C who recommended it had friends at the right places. Just before retirement I too was given a VSM as if doing me a great favour.

I have, therefore, first hand and officially recorded experience with large scale corruption in the Navy. But, we in the Armed Forces tend to still regard ourselves as holy cows smug in our knowledge that it is only a miniscule percentage of corruption in civil life.

I agree that corruption in public life should be rooted out and that it is really letting down the countrymen when even armed forces big-wigs indulge in it. But, what do we do other than to watch, complain, compare, tweet, accept and observe a holier-than-thou attitude? What can we do? Should we act like the corrupt politician who, when the case is going on and knowing that it would last for years, confidently says: "Let the law take its own course"? This same politician when he is finally convicted by the court says: "This is a political vendetta" or expresses his sheer contempt for the judiciary and says: "Iska faisala to ab janata ki adalat hi karegi" (I await the verdict of the people).

No, we should never be like the corrupt politician finding excuses for our aberrations.

I think the first thing that we can do is to put our own house in order and not be like the government babu in a Khushwant Singh joke who berated his son for having stolen his classmate's pencil thus: "Shame on you for having stolen your mate's pencil. Next time when you require a pencil tell me and I shall get you from my office".

Like Jesus in the Mary Magdalene case, the first stone should be cast by the one who has not sinned.

The second thing is to remember that there is no small or big corruption. Corruption is corruption whether in small or big things; period. I am reminded of an English gentleman in a train who suddenty lowers his newspaper and addresses the only other passenger in the compartment, a lady thus: "I say you are a pretty lady and I have fallen for you. I would like to spend a night with you....no, please don't be shocked. As you can make out I am really very rich. I shall give you a million pounds for the act".

The lady is taken aback during the conversation but the million pounds makes her think. She quickly gets over her confusion and scruples and mutters, "Well, I think for a million pounds I will go through with it".

At this the English gentleman says, "Okay, then how about having it with me on that seat now for 5 pounds".

The lady is clearly enraged and shoots back, "What do you think I am?"

He says, "That we have already decided, ma'am; we are only haggling over the price".

So, that's really the crux: Are we really honest when we point a finger at others or are we just haggling over the price in the same manner as we do it with a policeman or railway TTE or the babu in the office?

The third is the advice given by former President Dr Abdul Kalam when I invited him to deliver a talk at the College of Naval Warfare whereat I was the director just before retirement. He was asked what do we do to stop staggering corruption in India. His advice: "Begin with yourself and extend it to your family; if every man or woman and family becomes honest we can still have India free of corruption".

In 1969 when corruption in Indian public life had still not become endemic and institutionalised Mrinal Sen's movie Bhuvan Shome was released. Utpal Dutt played the title role and is a strict disciplinarian, a dedicated civil servant in railways who is fanatic about rooting out corruption. When he visits a remote town in Gujarat, a TTE there, played by Sadhu Meher, is chastised by him for taking bribes. Gradually, the tough nature of Bhuvan Shome is worked at by Suhasini Mullay, who is Meher's fiance'. In the end, with his hardness having been cracked, Bhuvan Shome allows Meher to be transferred to a bigger station. The movie ends with Meher breaking this "good news" to his wife, "Meri ab transfer bade station mein ho gayi hai. Aur bade station ka matlab samjhati ho? Jyaada paisa" (I am now transferred to a bigger station. And do you know what bigger station means? More money)

So, that is another thing that we can do: not to let our bigness and senior rank translate into more perks, privileges and underhand gratification.

Is it that we are honest only because we have not got the opportunity to be otherwise?

The last is contained in the lines of the song I heard when I was small:

"Vo buraai karen, hum bhalaai karen, nahin badle ki ho bhavna" (Let them do the evil and let us do the good; and yet we should never be vengeful)

It is because in Eugene O' Neil's words: "No man's guilt is not yours; nor is any man's innocence a thing apart."

NONE OF US ARE PERFECT, BUT.....

I was the Signal Communication Officer (SCO) of the newly commissioned ship Ganga, named after the holiest of the Indian rivers. SCO’s job is the most thankless job on board a ship; at least it was during those days. Many officers of the ship felt that they could have done wonders in their particular fields of specialization (such as Anti-submarine Warfare, Gunnery, Engineering, Helicopter operations and Missiles) if only the signal had reached them in time. I was soon to learn that signals on a ship are never so important unless – like monthly periods of a maiden girl – they are missed.

It is, therefore, the earnest desire of every SCO to pray that the ship would get all signals well in time. All SCOs’ anthem is the Railway Signalman’s song that goes like this:

It’s not my job to run the train,

The whistle I can’t blow;

It’s not my job to say how far,

The train’s allowed to go.

It’s not my job to let off steam,

Nor even to clang the bell;

But let the damn thing run off the track,

And see who catches hell.

We were going off for two days sailing when just before sailing a signal was received from Dunagiri, a Leander class frigate commanded by the Navy’s most upcoming officer of his rank at that time, Commander Vinay Singh. His ship had completed a refit and he had invited my Commanding Officer together with important dignitaries from the Command Headquarters including C-in-C, Fleet including the Fleet Commander, Dockyard including the Admiral Superintendant, and various other dignitaries from ships and organisations for a dinner party on board at 1930 hours (7:30 PM) on Saturday. We were scheduled to return to harbour at about 2100 hours (9 PM) a day before that, that is, on Friday.

My Captain knew it was an important party not just because Commander Vinay Singh was bright and everyone was already predicting that his thoroughly professional attitude would one day see him rising to become the Chief of the Naval Staff; everyone knew that the party was going to be very well attended and was an occasion to be seen by the C-in-C, ASD and the Fleet Commander.

Everything was okay for us since we were to return the day before the party, enabling my CO to attend the party on Saturday. There was only one problem. The RPC (Request Pleasure of your Company) signal invited my CO for Saturday but the date given was that of Friday. It was obvious that the Communication department of Dunagiri had goofed it up. My CO wanted me to check up and confirm the date just before we sailed. He said if it was going to be on Friday he would like to return a few hours early so that he could attend the party. My course mate Lieutenant Commander Lalit Kapur was the Executive Officer (XO) (second in command) on Dunagiri. I sent one of my sailors to check up from the Communication department of Dunagiri; however, to be on the safe side, I also hopped across to meet Lalit and re-confirm the date. Both, the Communication department of Dunagiri as well as the XO assured me that the party was on Saturday. I came back on board Ganga, told this to my CO and we sailed off.

On Friday we returned at the appointed hour of 2100 hours and proceeded to take up a berth just two or three berths away from Dunagiri. As we made our approach to come alongside we noticed there was a party on in full swing on Dunagiri, complete with party lights, naval band etc. My heart sank. I knew that even while we made our approach to the berth my CO would want to eat me up or convert me into a space shuttle and send me into outer space. Rage was building up in him even whilst he feigned calm in giving the conning orders for the ship. As soon as we were alongside he fulminated. Most of what he told me (or rather screamed) cannot be printed here. However, the softer version was to do with how the bloody communicators cannot be trusted with anything and could easily f--- up the simplest of things.

I too was furious. Why couldn’t Lalit tell me about the correct date? I can understand both ships communication departments botching it up. But, why did Lalit had to do this to me?

So, whilst my CO was moping in his cabin I went to Dunagiri to call Lalit out of the party and ask him for an explanation. I reached their quarterdeck and sent the quartermaster to call out Lalit from the party. Lalit came and I proceeded to dress him down for the botch up. He just kept smiling; his smile getting bigger with every invective that I was throwing at him.

Finally, he said, “Well, Ravi, the party is still tomorrow. This is our CO’s idea of a dress rehearsal so that nothing would go wrong tomorrow”.

I returned on board to tell this to my CO. His laughter could be heard at the other end of dockyard.

LEADERSHIP LESSON #1

Life’s little things are the ones that teach you more than bigger events. I spent thirty-seven years in the Indian Navy and I am convinced my life was moulded because of the small nuggets that came my way. I shall periodically try to recollect some of these in this blog. This is the first of these nuggets.

I was posted at Navy’s Leadership School at Coimbatore in South India when I was fairly young, as a Lieutenant. A Leadership Course at Indian Naval Ship Agrani (to be pronounced as Ug-runh-ee meaning Leading; however, all those who have little knowledge of Hindi, which includes ninety percent of the officers in the Navy, pronounce it as Ag-raan-ee, meaning Fire Queen) is for sailors with about 10 to 15 years of service, as Petty Officers (in Seaman branch) or their equivalents in other branches. In addition to classroom studies about leadership traits, these men are exposed to outdoor exercises to observe their individual and team attributes.

One of the outdoor exercises was a trek from Needle Factory near a hill station named Coonoor to the foothill of Ooty hills (Nilgiris). It was not meant to be a competition but since the entire lot of sailors was divided into ‘syndicates’, each with a ‘syndicate officer’ in charge, competition was bound to arise. So, as each one of the syndicates would run or walk along the difficult hilly trail, it was not just a test of endurance and hill - navigation skills but also of team spirit and various other qualities that make a leader at the level of those sailors. Sailors were dressed in what was called FSMO – Field Soldier Marching Order, complete with boots, a heavy rucksack, water bottle etc; whereas, we as officers accompanying them, were dressed in simple fatigues with sports shoes.

We, as young ‘syndicate officers’ would have secret bets of a few bottles of beer as to whose ‘syndicate’ would win the race.

I had never been a topper at sports but this trek in the hill was my favourite. Being from the hills in Himachal, this was one sport that I was good at and could actually beat others in. I had therefore been happy recipient of many bottles of beer that had come my way, despite the fact that I often had to compete with another officer who was also from the hills in Himachal.

On this particular occasion, I was sure of winning since we were leading the whole lot. Engine Room Artificer Third Grade (ERA3) Khan, who finally won the Best Leader award in that batch and I were trailing our syndicate of about 30 sailors since Khan was good at everything except a hilly trek. The nearest syndicate was about 200 metres behind and we were nearing the Kalar Gardens, the end point of the trek; a trek that our youth and spirit had converted into a competitive race.

Khan was at the verge of giving up many kilometers behind and had indicated to me a number of times that he could not go on any further. I was trying all motivational tricks at my disposal and had somehow brought him to within one kilometer of a sure victory. Suddenly, Khan tripped over a rock and fell. The heaviness of his rucksack made him tumble over. He had bruises on his hands and face and because a sharp rock went into his right calf, he started bleeding profusely from the gash.

I knew the race was over for us. It did not matter anymore since it was Khan that needed to be attended to more than the thought of winning the race and having those beers from my fellow ‘syndicate officers’. I asked the rest of the syndicate to go on whilst I made Khan sit on a flat rock. I took out his right anklet and lifted the trouser cuff to expose the wound on his calf. I had nothing to tend his wound with; so I took out my kerchief and tied it around the bleeding gash. We sat for a few minutes and then I asked him to walk with me to the medical help only a few hundred metres away. He had difficulty walking and so I asked him to lean on me. With his wounded leg even walking was tedious for him. We had forgotten about the syndicate that was following us but now we heard footsteps not so far behind.

I could make out that what weighed on Khan was the heavy rucksack. So in order to make it easier for him I unstrapped the rucksack from his back and strapped it around me. Suddenly, as if some lightening had touched Khan, he started limping and moving forward on his own. I could make out that he was wincing in pain but a few steps later he started jogging, though with extreme difficulty. The kerchief was tied lightly and with all this renewed activity it came off. The gash re-commenced bleeding profusely and I asked him to stop. He would have none of it. He shouted for me to catch up with a war-cry: “Come on, Sir; we can still win the race; you will still have those beers”.

We won the race with Khan nearly collapsing as we caught up with the rest of the syndicate.

It took me years to realize why Khan ran that day even with bleeding leg. It took me still more time to realize how he knew that his syndicate officer had set a wager to win the race, even when we had told no one about the bet and the beers.

IS AMERICA LOSING LEGITIMACY OF POWER?

A few years back my brother travelled by a British Airways flight from Delhi to London. Those were the days when India faced terrorism on regular basis, most of it Pak sponsored. But our protests, frequent proofs of terrorist camps in POK and in Pakistan, and refusal to talk to Pakistan unless it reined Jihadis engaged in cross-border terrorism, fell on deaf years. The reason was that the West was not yet at the receiving end of terrorism. My brother said that the British crew was so put off by the “stringent” security checks before departure at Delhi that immediately after take-off the Captain made an announcement apologizing for such “unnecessary” checks.

Cut now to the present day scenario post 9/11 and the liquid bomb scare. The Time magazine cartoon of the year 2007 showed a man having waded through 7 hours of security checks and having been asked to remove everything. Finally, he had only a boarding pass to cover his manhood. As a final mortification he was asked to show his boarding pass just before boarding the plane.

This only goes to show that the West ignores threats that other countries like India face until they too are exposed to these. After that they go overboard and paranoid with their own measures to protect their own citizens. It goes to such an extent that people are hounded in flights if they have beards or are overheard by flight staff in having “suspicious” private conversations.

Does the West feel that lives of their citizens are more precious than those of, say, Indians?

After 9/11, since America had faced spectacular terrorism at home it engaged other nations in a Global War on Terror. President Bush Senior declared immediately after 9/11 that not only the terrorists but those who “harboured” the terrorists were enemies of the United States. It conveniently forgot that Jagjit Singh Chauhan (or Chohan), the original founder of Khalistan movement, who was openly seditious against India and indulged in terrorist acts, was “harboured” (given asylum) by the United States in 1989 even when the Indian government had cancelled his passport. Why such double standards? Why is one country’s terrorist another country’s “freedom-fighter”? I am not going into the merits or otherwise of Chauhan’s case. But, the fact was that the United States harboured a proclaimed offender of the Indian government.

How would the United States have felt if some country had to give asylum to Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden?

When the global leader indulges in double standards and does exactly what it accuses others of doing, it sounds most preposterous. Two incidents come into my mind; one, terrorism related and the second related to economy. The first is in Jul 2006 when the then Indian Home Minister LK Advani mooted the idea of hot pursuit into POK to flush out terrorists carrying out bloody and fatal attacks against innocent Kashmiris in India. Even though our government and nation did not have the guts to carry this out and it was only an idea, the kind of opprobrium that we earned put a brake on any such “adventurism”. Once again, cut to present day Drone attacks by the US into Waziristan. It has been argued by the United States that these are legal and legitimate in exercise of right to self defence. Some American think-tanks have even put up results of their “research” that civilians in Waziristan actual welcome such attacks. How ironical that India does not have the right to exercise self defence with its irresponsible immediate neighbour but Americans can do it thousands of miles away from home when their civilians are not even directly threatened by the Jihadis?

The second event is about American exhortations to countries like China to end protectionism of their financial institutions and to allow “free flowing” financial transactions. However, post recent recession which started in 2007, mainly caused by Americans’ greed, when the Federal Bank came to the rescue of American banks in trouble, one of the economic writers wrote in the Newsweek that at that stage there was nothing to choose between China and the US.

That brings us to the question of this post: Is America losing legitimacy of power? It is the sole superpower; the global leader militarily, technologically and financially. But, is it losing the moral right to be the leader of the world?

When the decline started two years back, Fareed Zakaria published his thought provoking book ‘The Post American World’. It talked about there being three power shifts in the world in the last 500 years: the first one being the shift of power to the West during the Renaissance; the second being the US becoming the sole superpower after the breakup of USSR; the third is emergence or re-emergence of other powers like China and India.

Simultaneously we had authors like Kishore Mahbubani of Singapore writing about ‘The New Asian Hemisphere: The Irresistible Shift of Power to the East’.

But, I think the book or the concept most relevant to our poser is 1992 book ‘The End of History and The Last Man’ by Francis Fukuyama. It was written at a time when the USSR was collapsing and end of Cold War was in sight. Fukuyama was emphatic about the ascendancy of Western liberal democracy when he said, “What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government”.

Simultaneous with Fareed Zakaria’s book, Robert Kagan published his seminal work ‘End of Dreams, Return of History’. It bemoaned the autocracies in various parts of the world especially China as being the biggest threat to Western liberal democracy. The interesting point that it brought out was that such order that exists in the world today is not because of goodwill of people but because of foundation laid by American power. He said, “People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. They believe the order the world enjoys today exists independently of American power. They imagine that in a world where American power was diminished, the aspects of international order that they like would remain in place. But that’s not the way it works. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. It is shaped by configurations of power”.

I tend to compare this with the final chapter of Fareed Zakaria’s book in which Zakaria gives guidelines to the US in the post American world. It talks about not just Legitimacy of Power but brings out that Legitimacy is Power. Zakaria exhorts America to maintain excellent relations with everyone, rather than offset and balance emerging powers.

I think America has done, in the last nine years, exactly opposite of that. This has made people all around the world take notice that if this is what can be achieved through Western liberal democracy, why is it better than autocracies and military rules? Lets not forget that both Bush Senior and Tony Blair hoodwinked their respective democracies about WMDs in Iraq against all evidence and intelligence.

In the light of discussions so far, let’s sum up how America has lost Legitimacy of Power:

• Curiously the US has found it easier to do business with autocracies and military rules than with democracies.
• The kind of double standards that it has followed on many issues including the most overwhelming issue today of terrorism have tarnished its image.
• At one time, pre 9/11 era, America was regarded as a “benign” colonial power. Presently, it has put itself in a position where it is being detested not just by the Islamic world.
• The reason that it is being detested is because it seems not to care for lives of people other than the Americans. For example, at the time of writing this, Wikileaks has brought out how tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed post 9/11 due to US operations. This is something similar to carpet bombing of Iraqis at the end of Kuwait war.
• In AfPak region, it demonstrated that it does not even care much for the lives of its own soldiers because it paid the Pakistanis for killing them; the only country in the world to have paid the enemy to kill its own people.
• Any number of its think tanks have brought out that Pakistan is the biggest exporter of terror in the world. However, the US rewards it by more and more funds to - hold your breath - “fight terrorism and extremism”.
• It made the pretence of helping Pakistan in flood relief since it is a poor country that cannot afford relief material but simultaneously sold them more F16s. Even Pakistan’s own intelligensia has questioned it. How will F16s be used in fighting terror is anybody's guess.
• The criticism that disasters, crises and terror attacks tend to aid American arms and homeland security industries has now started to stick.
• The great American balancing act, much against Zakaria’s guidelines, now extends to over half the globe from Russia, to Iran, to AfPak, to China.

Dear Obama, as you step on Indian soil for your first official visit, we ask you to take stock of degenerative illegitimacy of power that America enjoys today. Much was expected out of you to right the moral balance after the Bush eras; but, you have failed us. We love the Western liberal democracy; ours is as messy as yours, but, we still love it. We love Americans and we want to be like them. But, the fact is that America has done enough to promote love-hate relationship not only with us but also with many other countries. Your country has coined a catch-phrase: “to protect American interests”. Are you really?

WHOSE GOD IS IT ANYWAY?

We have just concluded the Navratri "celebrations". I am convinced that people believe that gods must be deaf or sleeping and they need to be woken up with cacophonic music, ear splitting noise of conches and other religious instruments and blaring loudspeakers. It is as if when we did not have technology of woofers and mixers we had no means to reach God.

Earlier we had the Ayodhaya verdict. I sometimes keep comparing our times with times many centuries ago. As compared to then, we have better technical means available now to debate issues. However, I keep wondering whether the quality and impact of debates are any better than, say, during Peloponnesian wars. Is it the destiny of human race to periodically indulge in extreme foolishness and lunacy that do nothing for general upliftment of people? If we believe in God, all land, assets, and people belong to Him. Can some judges actually adjudicate now whether a miniscule portion of that land also belongs to Him or not? God, we are your children but many a times we act as if we are more powerful than even you. I'd rather join the ranks of pagans and atheists than to associate with such religions as divide God's people.

Let us take the simplistic version of origin of Religion; no, not any particular religion; but just Religion. Many centuries ago, Man realised that there was great deal to be gained by staying together: mutual support, defence against animals and vagaries of Nature, and optimal utilisation of resources, to name a few. However, community living brought with it a set of problems if all the members were to follow their own rules, ethics, and standards. Thus, Religion was born: a set of principles for good community living. There were, however, many problems, dangers, disasters etc that Man was not able to protect himself against even when living in a community and hence the concept of God or gods originated. The philosophy was that anything beyond Man, both individually and collectively, was in the realm of an omnipotent and omnipresent God and all that we had to do was to have faith in Him and He would be our saviour. Indeed, the ancient images of gods included Snake, Sun, Tiger, Lion and all the things Man was afraid of. Thus, when faced with situations beyond his control, Man turned to God for succour. This pleading for succour could be done in many ways. But, Man realised that the best was to do it together in community. Therefore, somewhere along the line Religion got associated with the concept of praying to God. It is not clear whether Religion, being a set of principles for community living, came first or formal praying to God in community came first. However, principles like 'Thou shalt not steal' or 'Thou shalt not covet your neighbour's wife' together with Prayers or Petitions to God became essential parts of most religions.

The concepts of Religion and God were refined over the ages and in keeping with the times. However, despite the refinements, because different people interpreted these differently, problems arose. One basic reason why these were interpreted differently was (and is) that logic and reason are more suited for individuals (eg, Lord Krishna reasoning it out with Arjuna before the battle of Mahabharta). More often than not, in collections of people called crowds, mob mentality takes over. So, whereas people individually are adequately reasonable, in crowds they behave at the level of common minimum reasoning laced with jingoism and parochialism. The reason for this is not difficult to fathom; it is an unquestioned faith in tenets of community honed over ages. Armies are built around such philosophies of convenience; 'Good' lies with us and 'Evil' is what they are. The concepts of jus ad bellum (right to wage war) and jus in bello (just war) also have their origin in this.

Oliver Cromwell, on 5th Aug 1650 wrote thus to the synod of church of England: "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken". But, like Rundi K Bakshi, played by Peter Sellers in the movie 'The Party', said, "In India we don't think; we are sure"; there is no question of Indians, belonging to any community, thinking it possible that they may be mistaken. Gods, they feel, have bestowed upon them the burden of being 'firm in faith'. Translated it means that there is religious merit in locking up good sense and following jus ad bellum unquestionably.

Whenever our collective understanding of tenets that should be followed in a community, that is Religion, became much haywire, we had leaders emerging who brought us back to good sense. These leaders reminded us primarily not to try to prove with mass reasoning that we knew to be intrinsically wrong. These reformists either started a new Religion or their teachings became new Religion. In some cases, like in the case of Hinduism, the religion remained the same but reforms made it better and more suited to emerging times.

As I said earlier, in our collective wisdom, the teachings of these leaders too became subject to interpretations. So when Mohammed said and practised that a Muslim should marry many women, he was talking about succour that such marriages provided to those women who had lost their protectors in war in early seventh century. But, over time, this was interpreted as a right of a Muslim to have many wives. In other religions too such interpretations to suit philosophy of the day became rampant. Our faith demanded that we did not think of these leaders as mere mortals; so we regarded them as gods or the God or prophets of God. Since Religion was close to armies in organisation, blind or unquestioned faith in tenets of the religion and gods was considered a virtue. Hence, people fighting in the name of God or Religion was sanctified in almost all religions. This included even Buddhism.

I think a time has come when we do not require organised Religion at all. We have come way off from the ancient times when Religion provided us with collective defence against Evil and fearful enemies including animals and demons. During those times and many centuries later Religion united us against such forces. But now, Religion has become the biggest divider of people. We should now move from community religion to individual religion. Indeed, Guru Nanak Dev, the founder of Sikhism, and many other reformers, during the major reformative movement of Hindu religion, described Kalyug as a positive era; in that whilst earlier we were praying to God in community, we could, in Kalyug, do it individually. In other words we can be one to one with God. We can evoke the Good within us and kill the Evil within us rather than seeking to destroy or look down upon the enemies or perceived enemies of our Religion. Guru Nanak borrowed a phrase from the Vedas to delineate the entire essence of what should be our Religion: "Man Jeete Jag Jeet" (Conquer your own Mind to conquer the Universe).

God is within us and all around us. We neither have to go to mountains, nor churches, mosques and temples to worship Him or Her. Collective worshipping of God or gods helps no one except to divide communities (who are also the same God's creations and hence related to us) and only helps the politicians or so called custodians of faith who thrive from such polarisation.

I was very small when I went with my parents to see Hindi (we had not bastardised by calling it Bollywood) movie 'Dhool Ka Phool' (A Flower in Dust). But, still the words ring in my mind:

'Tu Hindu banega na musalmaan banega,

Insaan ki aulad hai insaan banega.'

(My child, you will neither grow up to be a Hindu nor a Muslim; you are a human child and you will grow to become human)

I, for one, shall pray in a Mandir or fight for the right to pray in a Mandir if.....well, if a court can prove to me Ram is to be found or can be prayed to only in a Mandir. Similarly, I shall pray for Allah in a mosque if He can't be found elsewhere.

When they objected to Guru Nanak for sleeping with his feet towards the mosque because it was the abode of God, he simply asked them to move his feet in a direction where there was no God.

Whose God is it anyway?