BORN FREE? SATYAMEV JAYATE? LETS WORK TOWARDS IT

In my last article in Philosophy section of the blog, I wrote about 'How Unbiased Or Innocent Can We Become?  The article had this quote from Swami Vivekanand near the end: "Therefore we see at once that there cannot be any such thing as free-will; the very words are a contradiction, because will is what we know, and everything that we know is within our universe, and everything within our universe is moulded by conditions of time, space and causality. ... To acquire freedom we have to get beyond the limitations of this universe; it cannot be found here." I concluded, therefore, that with the influences acting on our consciousness or sub-consciousness from ages and during our lives, we can never be absolutely unbiased or innocent. At best, we can be more or less unbiased or innocent than others.

Lets now descend from the stratosphere to ground reality. The fact is that perhaps never before in Indian society we were less free than we are at present; both physically and in our thinking. Satyamev Jayate, the serialised programme by Aamir Khan, is all about individual and collective freedoms and desirable restrictions thereon; for example, in the last episode, it was brought out that the unrestricted littering and pollution of water sources in India need to be checked. However, it is my firm belief that changes in societies and individuals come from within, as a response to the perceived environment. Individuals think of these changes; but, finally, they require people's support to bring about the changes. Sometimes only they are forced upon us; such as cleanliness drive after plague in Surat or need for coastal security after 26/11 attack in Mumbai. However, such changes have limited sustainability; as soon as the threat posed by the incident recedes, we go back to our routine way of doing things.

So, what this article seeks to do is to make us aware of some of the significant issues and suggest ways out. In each one of his episodes, Aamir Khan invariably brings out about individuals and organisations that are doing a yeoman service to get over the problems. This article is a small contribution to increase awareness.

Freedom or Right to be Born and Live. We have a very high Infant Mortality Rate in India. The infant mortality rate (IMR) is the number of deaths of infants under one year old per 1,000 live births. This rate is often used as an indicator of the level of health in a country. The infant mortality rate of the world is 49.4 according to the United Nations and 42.09 according to the CIA World Factbook. As per the list of countries by infant mortality rate from the 2011 revision of the United Nations World Population Prospects report, by five years averages, India ranks at 150 in 194 countries with an IMR of 60.82. Our ranking is tucked in between that of Bangladesh and Ghana on top of us and Eritrea and Zimbabwe below us. Singapore has the lowest IMR with just 2.60 deaths per thousand. Since our death rate is 6.4 deaths per 1000, our IMR is about ten times. This means that in India ten times more children die before attaining the age of one than the number of deaths in other ages.

It would still have been alright to be complacent about these statistics. However, when the incidence of Female Infanticide is added to these, it should make us sit up and take notice. Some activists, including as brought out in an Aamir Khan's Satyamev Jayate episode, believe that India's 2011 census shows a serious decline in the number of girls under the age of seven - activists fear eight million female foetuses may have been aborted between 2001 and 2011.  I brought out the plight of being an Indian Woman in an early article 'Is There Reason To Celebrate Women's Day in India?' and how female foetuses were discovered in a well in Patiala. Wikipedia, however, holds that these claims are controversial and that the 2011 census birth sex ratio in India, of 917 girls to 1000 boys, is similar to 870-930 girls to 1000 boys birth sex ratios observed in Japanese, Chinese, Cuban, Filipino and Hawaiian ethnic groups in the United States between 1940 to 2005. They are also similar to birth sex ratios below 900 girls to 1000 boys observed in mothers of different age groups and gestation periods in the United States. I don't agree. I feel that Female Infanticide is prevalent in India in significant numbers and even if a girl-child exercises the Right to be Born, she soon starts praying that she would be dead.

Look at the picture below. It is from the television serial on Colors channel. The series were titled 'Na Aana Is Des Laado' (Don't Come to this World Girl). It premiered on 9th March 2009, much before Aamir Khan brought it out on SJ. The story deals with the social evil of Female infanticide, and concentrates on the problems faced by women in a male-dominant world.

A scene from Colors serial 'Na Aana Is Des Laado'

Solution. Being born is a gift of God; to live depends upon our conditions. As a society we have to realise that life starts much before the actual birth and that female infanticide is murder. A child should be allowed to be born irrespective of its sex. After having been born, it should get adequate nourishment and health-care so as to live. We keep talking of an emerging great power called India. It is total hogwash if 6 percent of Indian children die within a year of being born and millions of female foetuses are discarded because our society has little use for women. We cannot change the entire country; but, we can certainly change the way we look at things in our own families and immediate neighbourhood. Others will have as much value for Indian lives - both male and female - as we have for our own lives. Six percent IMR doesn't suggest we value Indian lives too much.

Freedom to Choose Religion. This is a very touchy subject with us. Just like during the elections when we see that there are people whose votes have been already cast, we have our religion already chosen for us even before birth. After that, even in the kindergarten admission form 'Religion' has to be specified. This continues during our lives for all admission forms and other applications. Whose religion is it? It is that of our parents and their parents? We cannot dare to go outside the ambit of the religion chosen for us by our parents. We have no idea whether other religions are good or bad (actually 'bad' is not even an option; we are talking about religion and not potatoes or appliances); but, we are somehow told that absolute and blind loyalty to our religion is the stuff that separates us from pagans or beasts. It is therefore an acceptable thing to break the legs of or burn the house of a person who is perceived to be desecrating our religious symbols or monuments. Our religion itself might just be teaching us to look at all human beings with kindness; but, to hell with that. It is the religious practice or rituals that are more important to us. Hence, we are prepared to do irreligious things, even to kill, in order to defend our religion that our parents chose for us and about whose virtues we simply have had no idea. Some loyalty this.


Courtesy: wallpaper.diq.ru

Solution. Organised religion became the need when human beings started living in communities to be better prepared to protect themselves from animals, disease and vagaries of nature. Now that people live in cities, towns and villages, better equipped to defend themselves than many centuries ago, orgaised religions have started dividing people and are easy prey to machinations of hordes of godmen and politicians. We should, therefore, consider making religion more private than public and vulgar display of blind loyalty. Also, if all religions believe that we are God's children, it cannot be that God as a father would look kindly on his Muslim or Christian or Hindu children and send others to rot in hell. God loves us all. (Read 'Whose God Is It Anyway?')

Freedom to Live Anywhere in the Country. Now this sounds rather easy and doesn't look like an issue at all; especially since Aamir Khan has not (yet) talked about it being an issue. Let me, therefore, give you a few facts. Two years back, in response to a PIL (Public Interest Litigation), the Supreme Court of India ruled that an Indian has an inherent right to settle down anywhere in the country. Now, why would you require a Supreme Court ruling on it? A few years back, in an election rally, I heard the Chief Minister of my home-state make an unlawful and unconstitutional statement saying, "Himachal is for Himachalis only." Similarly, the goons of MNS want us to believe that only 'sons-of-soil' have the right to settle down in Maharshatra. A RAND study, a few years back, concluded that within the next two decades India would be divided into at least 50 states. Why are we becoming so parochial? Who is profiting from dividing us? This time it is not really a "foreign-hand" that is manipulating us. This time, just like pre-independence days when British ruled over us by following a 'Divide and Rule' policy, our own politicians too have learnt how to manipulate people by dividing them along religious, geographical, linguist and casteist lines. So, whilst earlier we lost our independence to the British, now we have lost it to the politicians. The states are now becoming more and more isolated from the concept of a united India. Within the states and cities we already have colonies of Muslims, Sikhs, Biharis, Bengalis etc. Three years back a Muslim was refused permission to buy a flat in a predominantly Hindu building in Pune. Many a times any opposition to these parochial ideas are met with threats of or actual killings.

Solution. Parochialism of this nature is anti-Indian. We have to publicly and individually shun it. We have to focus on the concept of one India rather than being divided into various regions. If we don't do so, very soon we shall have anti-social and anti-national elements ruling over us. As an example, Maoists writ now runs large in about one third of the districts of our country. For any movement to succeed, people have to stand up to the nonsense dished out by politicians who take up the patronage of colonies and regions based on parochial interests. We, as people of free India, must stand against these. Lets ask of our candidates in the next elections that we would vote for them only if they undertake not to divide us further. As a small step, all vehicle registration plates, by law, are to be based on "modern Hindu-Arabic numerals and Roman alphabets". Lets shun those that are in local script; these are illegal.

Courtesy: team-bhp.com

Freedom to Choose Government. "Aha, here we got you" you are bound to say, "India is the largest democracy in the world and we choose governments on the average of every five years." Think again. Do you really exercise a choice? Is it really functional democracy? One and a half years back, on the occasion of our 62nd Republic Day I brought out in an article 'How Proud Should We Be Of Indian Republic at 62?' that an elected representative in our country represents, on an average, about 9 percent of the electorate (people of voting age who are registered voters). This means that a good 90 percent of the electorate haven't elected him/her. However, when he/she enters the parliament he starts using such arrogant words as 'supremacy of the parliament' (mind you not 'supremacy of the people' but that of his seat of "power"). And these 9 percent voters; how did they elect him/her? The only issues that he brought out to them during his/her messy election campaign were those of caste, religion, and vituperation of the other candidates and parties. Think again; what choice did you exercise whilst electing him/her? Did you exercise your choice of 'none of the above'? Or, most likely, you only chose what appeared to be the least harmful of a band of rogues? If you did you are amongst the lucky few who actually went to vote and after going there found that your name is actually on the voters' list (a tall order in case you happen to vote conscientiously and not enmass as people in the politically patronaged colonies do) and your vote has not already been cast after you have reached the voting booth.



Courtesy: rediff.com


Solution. We require a truly representative government in India; one where we actually exercise a choice. It wouldn't come about unless the thinking middle-class wakes up and hold the representatives accountable. Please remember after the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, when the middle class took out candle light marches for the victims and stridently took the elected representatives to task for complete absence of security, Colaba, the constituency where the attacks took place, recorded the lowest voter turn out of just 37 percent. Most middle class voters enjoy the three-four days holidays that they get for voting. Simple solutions then: One, ensure your name is on the voters' list; two, ensure that you vote; three, lets have a strong enough movement to get 'none-of-the-above' choices included in the voters pad; four, vote conscientiously and not as an ad hoc choice at the spur of the moment.

Freedom to Choose Life Partner. India is a country where until recently we had the prevalence of Sati. A widow was expected to jump into the funeral pyre of her dead husband since it was considered that after the husband was dead, the wife had no right to continue living. And who was her husband? Did she choose him? No, for heaven's sake, what are you talking about? Many of the Indian girls are still married when they are children (see pic below). The parents decide who she should get married to; of what religion and caste are the governing factors. It is the same with boys; he dare not marry anyone outside the ambit laid by the parents and the community. In many cases, should the boy and the girl decide to exercise choice, the future that awaits them is that of complete ostracising and also of death. With the increased expectancy of life, the couple is expected to spend the next five decades or more together but both of them do not exercise choice for fear of parents, relatives and khap-panchayats. In majority of the cases, the boy's family either demands dowry directly or makes it clear that the girl will be happier if her parents provide something for her; eg, "Humein kuchh nahin chahiye, jo kuchh hai aap apni ladki ko de sakte hain." (We don't need anything; you are free to give anything to your daughter though)

Prevalence of child marriage (Pic courtesy: asianews.it)

Solution. Life is unique and life is precious. The happiness of our children lies in providing them the freedom to choose life partners. Dowry and other considerations of caste and community should be shunned. The only way to change the society is if we do it with our children and start with ourselves and our families.

Freedom of Expression. This is a very sensitive subject with us. From ostracism of MF Hussain to Mamta Bannerji getting after people with vengeance who were making cartoons of her, we are certainly losing patience and becoming more rigid in our approach. It is not just James Laine's 'Hindu King in Islamic India' but, nowadays, increasingly large number of movies and books are found objectionable by communities and vested interests; many of these without either seeing the movie or reading the book. It is true that freedom of expression should be responsibly used; however, I am talking about more and more people in our society being pseudo loyalists and jingoists. We are gradually becoming a society where fear prevails and true expressions remain suppressed for ages.


Laine burning (Courtesy: patwardhan.com)

Solution. We should be proud of the pluralism of India. Even when foreign kings came to India and ruled over us, we didn't require armies and senas to protect our beliefs and ideas. In the end, ideas conquer because of the strength of the ideas and not because of the authorities or senas protecting these. What we need is a society more tolerant of others' ideas. As Winston Churchill said, "I do not agree with you but I shall defend to the hilt your right to say your thing."

Right to Privacy. Lets face it: we are too many of us. There is no way we can let people by themselves; everything is public, everything is everywhere. In this, the role of the present day Indian media is to be abhorred. Imagine sending a microphone down to Prince having fallen into a 40 metres hole and asking him, "Kaisa lag raha hai tumhen?" (How do you feel being down there?). Similarly, telling us live what is happening every minute to the innards of Pramod Mahajan after having been shot by his brother, I would think it is invasion of privacy. Listening to people's calls, e-mails, messages in the name of tightening security is also invasion of privacy. There is nowhere to go these days. Young boys and girls in love are frequently hassled by the police. All your sensitive information is public knowledge. India has emerged the capital of the world for white collar crimes such as stealth of banking data of people and credit card details. Similarly, the police feels that they can stop anyone anywhere and start harassing ordinary citizens in order to show their "supreme power". Any number of promoters ring you up and sms you any number of times to advertise their products. You won't find directions on the road as to how to reach the airport, hospital or railway station but you will find large hoardings telling you how far and where the next MacDonald is. Whether or not you want to participate in a religious festival, since these are largely celebrated on roads and public places you end up participating in these against your choice. You cannot dare to speak against the noise levels. We have simply lost privacy.

Loss of Privacy (courtesy: wearethebest.wordpress.com)

Solution. This will take a long time to come in India beset as we are with the problems of terrorism both from across the border and home grown. The law enforcing agencies feel that they have a right to pry into people's private lives and people on their own feel helpless. Some of them even ask what's the big deal about it? Possibly, we can start asserting individual's right to privacy in awareness campaigns. The more people talk about it, the more will be the compulsion to do away with privacy. As far intrusions into privacy of individuals by communities are concerned, includind intruding by unwanted and illegal noise, we can start with ourselves, our children and our families and perhaps the movement will grow.

Freedoms We Can Do Without. Having given vent to some of the desirable freedoms that we should have as Indians and the ones that we are still far from having, let me now make a short list of freedoms that we have ascribed to ourselves but which encroach upon others' rights and freedoms. We should restrict these so called 'freedoms':

The first one of these is the freedom to have sex with everyone and everywhere without consideration of age and circumstances. The instance of incest in our country is as high as 49 percent. Many very young lives have been scarred for life with our people's inability to control sexual urges. Rapes are on the increase and Delhi has now earned the dubious distinction of being the 'Rape Capital of the World'.

The second is freedom to use the roads every which way. The other day a foreigner asked me to describe traffic in India. I have written a lot on the subject in this very blog. But, in order to cut a long story short, here was my reply: In India you would do well to understand that on our roads we have all types of vehicles and non-vehicles at all times in all directions at all times. Can't we individually and collectively bring some order into it?

The third is our uncontrollable urge to litter; the freedom that we feel our forefathers have won for us. The result is that our houses, colonies, roads, public places, anywhere and everywhere, look shabby, full of paan stains, with mounds or heaps of filth. Diseases and epidemics result from this unchecked pollution especially of all our water bodies. However, we don't want to bring in even an iota of discipline in our civic lives.

Lastly, we can do away completely with the freedom to consider public moneys and properties as our own. From netas to common man, everyone is now part of the great Indian corruption scene; it is all to do with shortcuts to get ahead in life somehow. We Indians have really lost our soul. (Read 'Indians - Bartering Character For Prosperity')

Fortunately for us having touched rock bottom there is no way to go but up. Lets work towards it.

Satyamev Jayate.

ARMED FORCES AND THE INDIAN SOCIETY

Indian Armed Forces comprise the military services: Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard, supported by what is called as para-military forces: Assam Rifles and Special Frontier Force. As of 2010, the Indian Armed Forces have a combined strength of 1.32 million active personnel and 1.15 million reserve personnel. In addition there are 2.28 million paramilitary personnel making it one of the world's largest military forces in the world in terms of personnel.

pic courtesy: sankalpindia.com

Except for sporadic incidents, like the spat the soldiers recently had with their superiors in Leh; or General VK Singh, the 24th Chief of the Army Staff, trying to sort out the civil-military relationship balance through the curious instrument of his dates of birth, by and large, the Indian public holds its armed forces in great esteem. Many of our countrymen privately fantasize about the armed forces taking over the governance of the country and instill some discipline and accountability in our civic life.

However, sadly, Indian society has lately emerged as the most self-serving and devoid-of-values societies in the world. The reason is that we are too many of us (Read India - Too Many People) and there are limited resources and opportunities, after all. We, therefore, push, fret, scream, take short-cuts and be rude in order to somehow get ahead of others (Read 'We Are Like That Only). This sort of culture is anathema to the armed forces who largely follow the Chetwode code about one's own needs, safety and comfort being the last priority in comparison to those of the nation and the service to which the armed forces personnel belong.
But, why is the Indian society in this deplorable condition? On the Republic Day, last year, I wrote an article: How Proud Should We Be of Indian Republic at 62? The article was very well received. Amongst other data concerning how the average Indian is deprived of a good and safe life, itthe article brought out that the rich, on the other hand, kept on becoming richer. The average Indian, therefore feels, with some justification, that all this has been at his or her expense.

Lets look at the well known figures: The richest ten Indians (with declared assets) enjoy 10 percent of the GDP of the country. The richest 50 Indians divide 30 percent of the GDP between themselves. Lets, for a minute, detach ourselves from the effect of this inequity on majority of Indians; and look at its effect on the armed forces. What is the fundamental duty of the armed forces? It is to uphold the Constitution, ie, as the preamble says, to secure Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity for we, the people of India. Whilst performing this fundamental duty,  doesn't he have a right to ask whose Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity is he really securing. In the Navy, for example, one of the tasks that he is asked to do is to secure the Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOCs) so that it would result in fulfilling these aims of the Constitution. But, doesn't the Navy, in securing these SLOCs, willy-nilly end up serving the best interests of the rich and powerful only since the benefits don't percolate down to the average Indian?

Don't they deserve Justice, Equality, Liberty and Fraternity?

With this irrefutable (if I may say so) background, lets see the difference between the armed forces and mercenaries; a mercenary is a person who takes part in an armed conflict, who is not a national or a party to the conflict, and is "motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party".

In short, the one who is not fighting for the country but for the interests of a few powerful people. Well, the armed forces of India, indirectly, are doing exactly what a mercenary does. However, they don't get paid like mercenaries. So, to start with, if there is a chasm between the Indian society and the armed forces due to different mores, this chasm is increased by the armed forces serving only the rich and the influential and not being paid like others who serve the interests of the rich and the powerful. As an example, we just finished with the Indian Premiere League's fifth jamboree. Do you think that an armed forces team would get as much as say the Kolkata Knight Riders (after winning the IPL final); in flushing out terrorists holed up in a house in Kashmir; an operation in which some of the team members would inevitably lose their lives?
Hence, if you are being used as a mercenary, why not get paid like one? The Indian Police is already paid like one; most of it underhand and most of it the rich and powerful don't mind paying.

At this stage, I am not getting into the raging issue of deteriorating civil-military relations. However, lets consider just one thing, which is that because of the civil governments' lack or inadequacy of good governance and foresight, the armed forces are increasingly being called upon to do what the civil governments and the police should have been doing. At the same time, the civil government has a Nehruvian mindset to keep the armed forces as far away as possible from matters of governance. The two stands just don't sound compatible.

The armed forces used to be shining examples of a righteous few in a society seeped in corruption. However, recently, there has been a number of incidents painting the armed forces too in the same colours. (For example, Adarsh Society, CWG, Corruption in Armed Forces and Public Morality). In an article titled 'A Few Good Men Can Win the Battle of Morality' in Tehelka, on 20 Nov 10, the very respected Lieutenant General Satish Nambiar, whom the government honoured with a Padma Vibhushan, brought out that the army has to get rid of the five-star culture that has resulted in the decline of moral values; "where lavish hospitality and expensive gifts are proffered to, and accepted with some alacrity by, senior officers and even their wives."  My own observation, when I was in the navy, brings out that an average navy officer, up to the rank of Commodore, has just a few mementos collected from his visits to Kashmir, North East and abroad. However, as soon as this officer is promoted to the rank of a flag officer, his life-style suddenly undergoes a dramatic taste. He and his wife develop expensive tastes, have in their houses rich curtains, paintings, air-conditioners, furniture and other display items. Most often that not, all parties held at home, are either fully paid for by the Mess or highly subsidized. Also, all visits to the club by him and family are on the house. People below their ranks jump to provide them with all luxuries and comforts of life in the hope that they, themselves, would also reach those exalted heights. This five-star culture fuels the desire to have more and better and at least match the luxurious living style of the civilians, say, district collectors, ministers, industrialists and bureaucrats.

We have it now from a serving Army chief that there is a culture of cronyism in the army, especially at high levels. We also know it from him that a retired Army Lieutenant General offered to give him a bribe of Rupees Fourteen Crores for accepting sub-standard Tatra vehicles. What do these incidents tell you? You can't be faulted with forming an impression that such things are not rare and isolated in the army; for, if these are rare, a very senior Lieutenant General won't be so bold as to offer such a bribe. This indirectly means that earlier Army chiefs and senior officers have, perhaps, been accepting such bribes as matters of routine.

Armed forces in a democracy are both a part of society and also a bit isolated. Some of the charges brought out by Gen VK Singh have more or less confirmed that for at least some of the people in the army, the requirement to stand tall and righteous in comparison to the rot in the civil society, has not been given a high priority; and that, after years of disciplined service, they are vulnerable to similar greed and temptations as their civilian counterparts.

Therefore, the foremost requirement is not to hide behind a mistaken sense of loyalty and holier-than-thou virtue that some of the serving and especially retired armed forces officers have been doing (eg, "we in the armed forces are paragons of virtue and ethics. It is the civilians who need to be taken to task." and "Gen VK Singh was fighting for correcting the civil-military relationship imbalance" and "Here was a General who was finally doing to politicians and bureaucrats what we as young officers had always dreamt to do but didn't have the courage; and still we find fault with him" and "it is really idiotic to air dirty linen in public by people who don't know anything".

I think setting right the imbalance in civil-military relations and acknowledging armed forces' contributions to well being and safety of Indian society would require a more focused approach than Gen Singh's "I am honest and I have two dates of birth."

Firstly, the armed forces have to decide whether they still want to be respected for being different and virtuous than the average civilian or not? In case the answer is 'if you can't beat them, join them', then, they don't have any right to feel hurt when civilians treat them at par with rest of corrupt Indians.

Then, the government has to do some serious thinking about whether they require the armed forces or not as also under what circumstances and situations? Armed forces can't be continually made to feel small in comparison to police, bureaucracy etc. They, finally, have to live in the same society.

Thirdly, since we have been using the armed forces as mercenaries, thought should be given to strengthening the hand of the average Indian so that whilst doing a thankless job, the armed forces would feel proud of safeguarding Indian interests and not the interests of a few, which indirectly, and without even realising it, they are doing now.

Fourthly, we have to make our society far more disciplined and upright than what it is now so that the armed forces are not isolated examples of virtue and inefficiency in a sea pool of corruption and indiscipline.

Rampant indiscipline in Indian society (pic courtesy: blogs.bettor.com)

Fifthly, it is high time we think in terms of police reforms, bureaucratic and  governmental reforms and ridding theses institutions of unabated corruption and inefficiency. In this way, the gap between the armed forces and their counterparts in police, bureaucracy and government would be reduced.

Centuries back, from amongst the Athenians, only those could become Hoplites or soldiers who would be rich enough to buy uniform, armour and arms. We have come a long way since then. People nowadays don't join armed forces merely for the love of the country and pride in being a fauji. They are, nowadays, seriously questioning as to whether the government and the country values them or not. If they do, recent incidents have brought out that it isn't apparent if anyone cares. A sad reflection on our society indeed.

JILL THE RIPPER AND SATYAMEV JAYATE

So now we are told that the 19th century Jack the Ripper was a woman after all. John Morris in his new book 'Jack the Ripper: The Hand of a Woman' has argued that Ripper who ripped the innards of five female victims in ten weeks in 1888 was a Welsh born Lizzie Williams. Mary Jane Kelly was the last of the victims and the book theorises that she was having an affair with Lizzie's husband Sir John who ran an abortion clinic. So, here was Lizzie who couldn't have kids killing someone who could have kids not with anyone but with her own husband.

If this is true, one would be instantly reminded of the English playwright and poet William Congreve who in his 1697 tragi-drama 'The Morning Bride' wrote: "Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned," spoken by Zara in Act III, Scene VIII.

Pic courtesy: disturbia.hubpages.com

Then there is the recent case of Anjali, wife of Ajay Singh, a senior officer in Shipping Corporation of India who refused to accompany her husband on posting to Port Blair. She must have been aware that at one time, during our slavery days with the British, the freedom fighters (rebels as the British called them) were deported to Port Blair (Kala Pani or Black Waters) and whilst men used to be sent there, it was no place for women; certainly not the liberated women who live in Delhi, Mumbai, Lucknow etc and think of taking over the reigns of power; women who are advocates and not only know legal wranglings but are adept at the lingo that go with it; women who when they become chief ministers send the central government cowering in fear and pilots to fly planes to go and fetch their sandals; women who ask for a divorce because their husbands talk to their relatives in his language. The divorce court judge, in the case of Anjali and Ajay Singh invoked Ramayana and asked her, "Sita followed Ram, why can't you?"

With this background, lets now turn to Aamir Khan's Satyamev Jayate on the television. The first episode on female infanticide was so gripping and ably put up that it left people wondering why such an issue had not been discussed with such fervour before. On the television debates many of the champions of women's rights and causes went viral about their assertions that Aamir Khan was not the first one to air such views. They also disdainfully predicted that nothing would ever change.

I found all this rather strange. It is acceptable to us to have celebrities model for anything from detergents to cars; but, should they use their celebrity status to provoke active debate on issues that really affect us, they are clearly exceeding their brief. Of course, we know all about dwindling female to male ratios; of course we know all about the situation in Haryana where men don't have enough women to marry, where women work in the fields when men sit on their khaats (cots) and smoke hukkahs and expect their womenfolk to return and cook their meals too; of course we know how in Patiala in a well female foetuses were found discarded (Is There Reason to Celebrate Women's Day in India?). But, lets ask what's wrong with a celebrity asking us to look within and find answers before pointing finger at others? Should we leave to Mamata Sharma (even deadlier than the other Mamata) who, as chairperson for National Commission for Women (NCW) said it was alright to call women sexy? (Read: Hi Sexy - 'Gateway to Future' For Indian Women)

That's really what is wrong with our country: we slang ordinary people debating important issues since we assert that these should be left to experts. What experts? An ordinary citizen Anna Hazare starts a people's movement against corruption and the parliamentarians take him to task that issues such as these should be rightfully tackled by the elected representatives of the people (each one of them represented by an average of not more than 9 percent of the electorate (read: How Proud Should We Be Of The Indian Republic At 62?))

I think Aamir Khan has done right by instigating public debate (and hopefully action) on a very core issue. Today is the Mothers Day; will we have enough women left to become mothers?

As far as Jill the Ripper and Anjalis are concerned, these too are strange aberrations and certainly take the focus away from the real issue. In the northern part of our country, the incidence of reverse dowry (a phenomenon in which the bride and her siblings demand money and favours from the bridegroom failing which they would accuse him and his parents of demanding dowry and expose them to untold hardships and jail) are now becoming more common. Indeed, I wish Aamir Khan's programme's research team had brought out how Jill the Ripper, Anjalis, Mayawatis and Mamatas, by their abrasive and sometimes violent actions, spoil the cases of the majority women who have to suffer indignities and injustices on an everyday basis.

Left to myself I would give a lot of marks to Aamir Khan for Satyamev Jayate and the many unsung heroines who came forward to tell the tales of how they were stopped from becoming mothers simply because they would have given birth to female children.

Happy Mothers' Day.

THE GREAT INDIAN JUDICIAL CIRCUS

So, someone has done something wrong to you (like having encroached on your land or swindled you in a deal) and you want to seek justice through the great Indian judicial system? Think again; it might just be alright to make peace with your misfortune straightway than to wait for nearly three decades, go through indignity, utter misery, frustration, and despondence and then make peace with your original misfortune plus the misfortune of having gone through the Indian judicial system. The choice is entirely yours.

First of all the Indian judicial system is like any other system; that is, at the operative level there is no system at all. Its aim does not appear to be to get any justice; but, to keep the litigants in a perpetual state of litigation. In such a scenario the only component of the judicial system that gains is the Lawyer. The lawyer or the Vakeel is thus the pivot of the Indian system of justice. He or she is in great demand in the wedding market since within no time he, through his sincere efforts to prolong the misery of the litigants, earns enough money to buy all the things that the Indian upper class aspires: car, house, plots of land as investment, and other trappings of affluence.


Indian lawyer: the first to chuck stones for his own cause (pic courtesy: deccanchronicle.com)

The litmus test of the Indian judicial system's failure is the oft repeated threat between the litigants: "If you don't behave, I shall take you to the court." Whilst, on paper, the Indian law stipulates that a person is innocent until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt, in effect, as soon as your case is filed in any of the Indian courts, your punishment starts. Do you remember Mr. Bumble in Dickens's Oliver Twist telling us that the law is an ass? What he meant was that the English law was stupid and very stubborn. I wonder what Mr. Bumble would have said after seeing Indian law in action: stubborn, stupid, archaic, chaotic, and suited to disgrace both the complainant and the defendant. Perhaps such an animal doesn't exist but Indians are known to be beyond impossibility.

If your impression of the atmosphere in and around an Indian courtroom is based on Perry Mason novels or scenes in a Hindi movie, you are in for a shock when you go to an Indian court at the basic level. Even after the computers have been introduced, you would find disinterested court writers sitting everywhere like monkeys on a tree charging exorbitant sums for writing anything for you from an affidavit to a power of attorney. Most of them type with a finger each of the two hands. The reason why these johnnies earn their money is because the legalese in Indian court is kept as difficult as possible. It would remind you of a train arriving at the Chennai Harbour Terminus and stopping a hundred metres away so that people alighting would be forced to use the coolies. Fifteen minutes later, the train then goes right up to the concourse. Similarly, the great Indian judicial system makes it as inconvenient for you as possible until you learn through a painful experience that you could write the whole thing yourself and in better grammar than the court writers.

Indian lawyer is a hungry wolf. He has come far from the ideals of India's most eminent barrister Mahatma Gandhi who left his office of profit to fight for India's downtrodden. Nowadays, more often than not the Indian lawyer is hand in gloves with the lawyer of the other litigant so that both can usurp as much money as possible from both the parties. A friend of mine had a tenancy dispute in his house in Chandigarh. After years of paying fees and time dissipated one day he overheard his lawyer telling the wrongful tenant's lawyer, "I think with a little bit of luck you can take the first floor of the house and I can take the ground floor."


Eminent Indian Lawyer Mahatma Gandhi; how far has the present Indian lawyer come from his ideals?

Indian lawyers often tell the litigants, especially if they have spent life in a disciplined service like one of the armed forces, that they have no knowledge of the "intricacies" of the Indian legal system. One of the "intricacies" that the litigants learn about is that anything that sounds logical and reasonable is likely to be overruled. Very often, the litigants prepare the entire case, evidence, arguments etc themselves whilst the lawyers collect the fees.

Almost everything that you have to present in the court has to be typed on a stamp paper. This is the means by which the state is supposed to earn its revenue, say, from land deals. There is money for everyone here. It is only once in a while that a Rupees twenty thousand crores scam of counterfeit stamp papers involving one Abdul Karim Telgi is unearthed but, at the smaller level, hoodwinking people through stamp papers is an accepted practice. It is reputed that everyday more than Ten Thousand Crores are added to Indian black-money through under priced land and other deals. Who provides all these shortcuts to the people? The vakeel, who else? But, he/she never gives any shortcuts to his/her fees.

Whilst on the subject of land deals, let me tell you that if you steal some one's money or other assets you can be jailed. However, in India if you steal some one's land, you have the total freedom to use it for the next two decades or so until the court decides if it has actually been encroached upon or not. The Indian land-revenue record system, the ass that it is, actually encourages such a situation. Despite the urgent need to computerise land revenue records so as to do away with ambiguities, the land-revenue officials: the Patwari, the Tehsildar, the Kanungo, and the District Revenue Officer (DRO) get great powers and mischief value by keeping these records as flexible as possible. In my home state Himachal until very recently the records were kept on a latha (a thick white cloth) and the exact measurements on the latha to be compared with the scale would be subject to many interpretations.

A 'demarcation' in progress

The loopholes in the Indian legal system are the the bread and butter of the Indian lawyers; the more well versed one is in exploiting these to his client's advantage, the better is his reputation as a successful lawyer. Thus, most of these "successful" lawyers get rid of the unwanted baggage of their scruples and ethics at a very early stage in their career.

That the Indian judicial system does not provide any hope to the law-abiding citizen totally escapes the attention of the law makers, judges, lawyers; indeed all those connected with the Great Indian Judicial System. As it is Indian cities now rank amongst the worst in the world in terms of quality of life. We certainly rank extremely low in our tortoise like judicial system. After a successful sting operation by Tehelaka, for example, it took a decade for BJP President Mr Bangaru Laxman to be convicted of bribery; and this when he was shot on camera taking bribe. The other day, in my hometown Kandaghat in Himachal Pradesh I went to see my lawyer and saw a folder with the title in Urdu. This was the prevalent language in this part of the world before Hiamchal became a state on 25th Jan 1971. At my query the lawyer admitted that indeed the land dispute case of his father's client was taken over by him and had now become much complicated since both the litigant's lands had been divided amongst the children, their spouses and grand-children. However, the lawyer assured me, as he must have done to his client, that "soon" there would be a decree in his favour. This, indeed, is the abiding faith of all concerned in the great Indian judicial circus: no matter how undignified it is now for you, no matter how many years of your precious life you have wasted fighting a meaningless case, no matter how much more you have lost than the original cost of your land; the future is still bright.

At one time the Indian judges were considered to be paragons of virtue and ethics. Nowadays, they too fall prey to the lure of quick money. Almost every third day in the papers one can read about some judge or the other facing Inquiry for illegal gratification and for usurping money. Therefore, whilst earlier despite all the delays the quality of Indian justice was somewhat lauded, nowadays, it is as suspect as the quality of any other Indian system.

One of the worst things that can happen to you is if you don't reside in your hometown but your work has taken you thousands of kilometres away. In such a case, all that the other party has to do to bring you to your heels is to file a private criminal complaint against you. You will now be required to spend lakhs of rupees defending yourself. It would take years and years and finally even if you win the battle you have lost precious years of your life which no one can repay you.

Indian legal system is not just an ass; it is a complete circus of asinine animals.

INDIAN ARMY BEFORE AND AFTER OPERATION VIJAY

Vijay means Victory, the sacred adage of the Indian Army. In the history of the Indian Army, there have been three campaigns called Operation Vijay. In the first two, the Indian Army tasted total triumph with its head held high. The first one was the liberation of Goa in 1961 and the second one was Kargil War in 1999. Why is this that the Indian Army, at least those men that can still think straight and independent without recourse to undying sycophancy, has to be apologetic about the still-in-progress Operation Vijay (Kumar Singh)? To answer this question objectively, let me relate a personal experience.

Op Vijay 1961 - Liberation of Goa

In 1996, on promotion to the rank of Captain in the Indian Navy, I was selected to undergo the 25th Higher Command Course with the Army. The next Army Chief, or Army Chief designate, General Bikram Singh, was my course mate in the AHCC. During our first operational tour, we visited the Northern Sector. General KV Krishna Rao (Retd) was the Governor of Jammu & Kashmir. On the first evening of our visit to Srinagar we were invited to At-Home with His Excellency, the Governor. In the entire AHCC, there were just two Indian Navy officers. As soon as the Governor spotted me, he jokingly commented, "It appears to me that the Indian Navy has a strange way to elect a Chief". The remark was a dig at the quaint way in which Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat's impending succession as the Naval Chief on First of October 1996 had started a bush-fire of polemics. As Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Western Naval Command, from which post Admiral Bhagwat took over as the Chief, he was at the helm of controversies. Earlier, as Chief of Staff of the same command, he had been accused of phone-tapping of his adversaries. Later, on 30th Dec 1998, he had the dubious distinction of having been sacked by the Government of India.

As I felt somewhat regretful about the Navy chief's succession being hotly debated in the open, little did I know that 16 years later when Bikram would be at the verge of taking over, the heat of controversies would leave the Vishnu Bhagwat episode cold in comparison.

India is not a country where the people at large are generally knowledgeable about defence matters. The dumbing down of our people caused by the relentless diatribe unleashed by the media may be a recent phenomenon; however, Indians have always liked to indulge more in rabble-rousing jingoism than proud patriotism. The attempts to bring down the armed forces to the low levels achieved by the civil administration are only matched by the arrogant ignorance about achievements of the armed forces in general and army in particular. When I visited J&K and was briefed about the incomparable way Army has conducted itself there, my belief became stronger that we have to be thankful to the Indian Army for not only peace and progress in Kashmir but also for keeping it safe as integral part of the country. Most of our countrymen are not at all au fait with the strategic sense, restraint, calm and exemplary commitment displayed by the Army under trying conditions.

How many people are aware that the Army's strategic sense in Kashmir includes giving credit to the police and civil administration for jobs that army does for the people; eg, Op Sadhbhavna (Operation Goodwill), and safe conduct of elections.

With such general ignorance and neglect of the Army, every once in a while, someone or the other brings out how the country not only does not have a monument to honour its soldiers but most of our countrymen have no idea of what the Army does, its training, operational readiness, achievements etc.

I would say that about ten percent of the people who read the papers and watch the television are aware of the glorious accomplishments of the Indian Army. Ninety percent either are ignorant or ain't impressed. For example, the Liberation of Bangladesh in the 1971 Indo-Pak War is being taught in the war colleges abroad as one of the finest examples of a most successful campaigns. However, not many are really aware what it entailed to fight a war in which even the political aims were not defined by the government. Many people have forgotten that in 1947-48, when called upon to do a duty that was suddenly thrust on it, the Army achieved the unsaid aims gloriously and that we are in a mess in Kashmir because the political leadership failed to follow up on Army's Vijay.

Op Vijay - 1999 Kargil

George Fernandez as Raksha Mantri (Defence Minister) threatened to send the babus (bureaucrats) to Siachin (at an altitude of more than 20,000 feet; where the Indian Army maintains permanent presence in arguably the most inhospitable conditions in the world) to let them have a feel of what is entailed when their babudom procrastinates decisions to be taken for procuring urgently required equipment to survive at those heights.

Volumes have been written about the ever deteriorating civil-military relationship - a relationship between one of the worst in the world and one of the best in the world. Of course, the thankless nation and national leadership would like to keep the Army as a tethered puppy ready to become a mastiff with the external enemy but otherwise ready to lick the feet of the political and bureaucratic bigwigs.

In this scenario, we have the latest Operation Vijay (Kumar Singh). There is an age old precept that bad news and publicity travels much faster than good news. So, whereas in the years of hard work, dedication, commitment and achievements of the Indian Army, very few people are really appreciative of the army (I put the figure at about 10 percent of the media - watching people), now, nearly 90 percent are aware that a Chief, for "purely personal reasons" has attempted to drag the Army into needless wrangling. No one is denying that the matters of corruption and deteriorating civil-military relations need to be tackled. But, exactly how Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat's infamous attempts to sort out these issues were an afterthought to his initial and much publicised opposition to the appointment of Vice Admiral Harnder Singh as Deputy Chief of Naval Staff; General VK Singh's belated pursuits to sort out corruption in army procurements and remedy the worsening civil-military relations, would always be seen by his abortive attempts at upsetting the carefully laid out succession plan.

Hence, the adverse offshoots of Operation Vijay (Kumar Singh) are:

• He has made the task of his successor extremely difficult as far as relationship with the government is concerned. Without any fault of General Bikram Singh, the government and the nation would be suspicious of any move by him, if at all, to set right the balance of civil-military relations; for the simple reason that everyone involved would be assessing how the General personally gains by it.
• The good that the Army did is, as it is, known only by a few. Now, with the personal greed of the General VK Singh, what the countrymen would remember of the Indian Army would be unsavoury wranglings for power, avarice, corruption and megalomaniac ambitions.
• The impression that the rot in the Army is deep rooted is strengthened by the vituperation of the camp loyal to General VK Singh against the heretics and vice-versa. In this milieu the all important issue of setting right the balance of civil-military relations has taken - and will take - a back seat. I don't know why this simple fact has not sunk in with the loyalists.
• Lastly, let us weigh the effect of this, and such controversies in the past, on the junior leadership of the army. The senior hierarchy often talks disparagingly about the 'decline in values and moral standards of those who join the army nowadays as compared to the good-ol'-days'. The junior officers and men, therefore, would be excused if now onwards they have a bias that the seniors should first set their own house in order (Read 'Leadership in the Navy - Past, Present and Future') and stop washing army's dirty linen in public. A few decades back, in the US Naval Institute Proceedings (USNIP) there was an article titled 'The Fish Rots at the Head'

I am quite sure that after General VK Singh has taken his well-deserved retirement and finished writing his bestseller memoir regarding how there were matters of national security involved in the "purely personal" issue of his date of birth, he would pause and think about the damage his continued belligerent stand has done at various levels. This would, I am afraid, continue for some time to come.

It is easier to throw a stone in the pond; it is harder to let the ripples die down suddenly.

NAYA DAUR - STILL NEW, STILL NOT RESOLVED

Naya Daur was a 1957 Hindi movie with a story written by Akhtar Mirza and Kamil Rashid and starred Dilip Kumar, Vyjaynthimala, Jeevan and Ajit. The movie was produced and directed by BR Chopra. The focus of the story-line was on gradual industrialisation of India threatening the livelihood of people with traditional skills.

Horse cart winning race over motor bus
Photo courtesy: fmetalsreport.com

The son of a rich landlord starts a bus service in a town that doesn't bode well for the tongawallahs since the intention is to first drive the tongawallahs out and then to make exclusive profits from potential passengers. This is seen as injustice and unfair competition. Dilip Kumar is their hero who, much like the movie Lagaan accepts a challenge to have a race between the motorised buses and the tongas. The farce of a horse-cart beating a  machine kept people on tothe edge of their seats in the ending scenes of the movie; because, on the outcome of the race was dependent whether the tongas would be  eased out or not. In the end, despite all the hardships, the tongawallahs win. Hindi movies, with an eye on their popularity and hence profits, have always let the traditional win our modernity, uncouth win our suave, simple-minded win over the clever.

Courtesy: peta.org

Naya Daur is translated into New Period, Age, Cycle or Round. Regrettably, 55 years after the movie, Naya Daur is still not a reality both in our infrastructure as also in our collective mindset. We have the penchant to live in the past and choose archaic over modernity in the name of nostalgia; in the name of traditions and heritage.

I brought it out in 'How Proud Should We Be of the Indian Republic at 62' on the Republic Day last year how the Indian Republic was meant to be "the greatest political venture" in the history of the world, the greatest "social movement" to uplift millions of the poor of the world into prosperity, safety and security; and how, the politicians and bureaucrats in India failed the people completely by being self-serving. At the time of independence we chose our own version of socialism as the answer to the problems of the impoverished. It failed not because Socialism as an ideology is bad and destined to fail. It failed because the netas and babus ensured that people were kept poor and un-empowered so that the rule or misrule of the babus and netas was perpetuated. These unworthy Indians were busy filling their coffers irrespective of the party affiliations.

India needed to rapidly industrialise so as to emerge a great nation and a world power. Here, the politicians' and bureaucrats failure to usher in rule of equality made them extract their pound of flesh from the industrialists too. Last year, courtesy Radia tapes, the unholy nexus between the politicians, bureaucrats, industrialists and media was exposed. The fall-out of this nexus is that despite economic liberalisation ushered in by Manmohan Singh, rampant corruption and inefficiency have kept the average Indian mired in poverty.

The wily Indian politician, in a bid to exploit the emotional value of the poverty of the people (just as he exploits the emotional quotient of the caste and the religion) coined a phrase called 'pro-poor policies'. Hence, whilst he has no real palns to get the people out of the morass of extreme indigence, he politicises pro-poor stance to garner votes and vote banks. Hence, he motivates the masses to extract the maximum from the industrialists; painting them as the culprits of keeping people poor whilst he himself is the real villain.

Take the case of West Bengal's eviction of Tata's Nano car factory from Singur. Tata's promised One Lakh Rupees Nano car was to roll out of their factory in Singur, Hoogly District, West Bengal in the year 2008. The state government, even though a communist government, facilitated acquisition and transfer of about 1000 acres of land for the factory. But, the opposition, under Mamata Banerjee (the present Chief Minister) started the "Save Farmland" movement and drove Tatas' project out of West Bengal and into the state of Gujarat. Surprisingly, whilst Didi, as Mamata is affectionately called by her supporters, did it for political purposes (as soon as she came to power in West Bengal she wanted Tatas to return), there were many Bengali intellectuals (Sens and Mitras) who supported her movement.

One of such activists that the communists in the country has nurtured is Arundhati Roy. She won the 1997 Booker Prize for her novel God of Small Things. She doesn't mind being anti-national, seditious, and anti-Indian, in speech at least, as long as the fires of her idealism are fanned and bring in crowds and cheap popularity. Not having been satisfied with her strident support to Medha Patkar, another activist who spearheaded Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA for short; a people's movement against the Sardar Sarovar Dam on the river Narmada in Gujarat), because of which the Indian Supreme Court issued her a Contempt of Court notice; she visualised the shock value of her support for the independence of Kashmir fetching her fame and popularity as an intellectual.

With such movies and intellectual support, the poor in India got convinced that modernisation and industrialisation in the country are tools to subdue them. Upon independence, we had movies and songs on the socialist theme showing all rich people as tyrants and shameless exploiters and manipulators. In the 1962 movie Aarti, Meena Kumari sang thus:

"Bane ho ek khaak se to door kya kareeb kya,
Lahu ka rang ek hai, ameer kya gareeb kya?
Gareeb hai vo isliye ke tum ameer ho gaye,
Ke ek baadshah hua to sau fakeer ho gaye;
Khata hai ye samaaj ki, bhala bura naseeb kya?"
(All are made of same clay, who is far, who is near
Blood of same colour flows in everyone, both rich and poor.
Poor is so because you became rich,
When a king was crowned, hundreds became paupers,
It is a social evil, it is not in destiny to be Good or Evil.)

Such 'socialism', pro-poor policies only in name, and political activism have extracted a heavy price from our economy. It has promoted indiscipline to the extent that starting an industry in India is now fraught with not only warming the pockets of the netas and the babus but also to make peace with people, largely supported by the politicians (with their vested interests) extracting as much as they can from the rich industrialists; our own version of Robinhood.

On an offshore rig on the Andhra coast, recently, the fishermen felt that they were deprived of their traditional fishing ground and launched a demonstration to extract the maximum welfare money from the GSPC (Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation) rig. Just how the fish can be restricted to a few hundred square metres of area in the vast Bay of Bengal is not for anyone to guess. They boarded the rig with knives in a bid to extort the desired money. And who do you think spearheaded this lawlessness? The elected representatives in that are; two members of the legislative assembly.

Gujarat CM Narendra Modi during a visit to GSPC Rig (pic courtesy: deshgujarat.com)

The case of Mumbai is a fine case of this unfinished Naya Daur. The slum-dwellers are the vote-banks of the politicians who vie to make them as indisciplined as possible. In every slum-colony, there are large hoardings of the politicians as a reminded to the people that they are pro-poor and hence their guardians in everything that they do; never mind the law, rules and regulations. Therefore, every now and then the encroachments are regularised. Every now and then new promises are made. The poor do not realise that the policies of these rogues are the ones keeping them poor. But, the Indian society - at least the lower strata - has come to accept the doles that are dished out to them before elections rather than enjoying the fruits of a true democracy.

pic courtesy: ibnlive.in.com

How long will the 'Naya Daur' take to materialise under these conditions?

SORRY ABOUT NOT BEING SORRY

The year 2004 shook the world. In late April 2004 pictures of a Specialist Lynndie England subjecting Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib to sexual, physical and psychological abuse shocked the sensitivities of the whole world. Arguably, these pictures - with gory details of forced masturbation, extreme humiliation, forced to move around on  leash like dogs etc - turned the 'Global War on Terror' (GWOT) into an abject hatred for the America and Americans. Those few pictures made American lives unsafe in many parts of the world. How could they be proud of a civilisation that could produce such demented soldiers in uniform? Terrorism is bad, evil, with immoral and questionable methods to try to get what the terrorists feel should be theirs by right; but, wait a minute, what about the methods of the people belonging to the most liberal civilisation in the world?

One of the pics of Abu Ghraib with Lynddie England that shocked the world

Lynndie England was court-martialled in 2005 and awarded five years of imprisonment. On being released from prison she tried to convince the world that she is the one who suffered from post traumatic stress disorder and anxiety. Two days ago she also gave an interview that she wasn't sorry for her actions and didn't feel like saying sorry to the enemy that was hell-bent on killing fellow Americans; thus giving vent to her own version of 'everything is fair in love and war'.

Lynndie England being taken for her imprisonment (Pic courtesy: Wikipedia)

Why is it so hard to say sorry? What goads a person or a nation to justify its actions by bringing out that we/I did to them what they did to us/me? Is there no end to recriminations? Is there no way people and nations can move on by acknowledging remorse and contrition? The problem about historical narratives is always the same: 'how far back in history one is prepared to go'? Today's saints are yesterday's rogues and vice-versa. Is it a fact that shorn of our current beliefs about our morality and ethics, we have all erred or sinned sometime or the other? If yes, then saying 'sorry' may not be an act of weakness but of strength born out of the realisation that what the so called evil are doing today, each one of us (our predecessors and successors) is capable of the same. 'Hate the evil and not the evil doer' then becomes a significant philosophy for all of us rather than a sermon only by the one seeped in religion.

The message of looking at all people as variations of ourselves was also lost on Brigadier General (a temporary rank he held) Reginald Edward Harry Dyer. He translated the need for law and order and desire to suppress any movement to overthrow British rule into an expression of his personal hatred towards the innocent men, women and children at Jalaianwalla Bagh in Amritsar, Punjab. On 13 Apr 1919 when these people assembled at the Bagh to celebrate Baisakhi (not really conscious of the martial law in force), Dyer took it upon himself to "teach them a lesson". He directed the fire to the places where the crowds were the thickest and also barred all escape or exit gates. The official estimate was that about 379 people were massacred and over a 1000 injured. However, unofficial estimates make the deaths at more than a thousand. Did Dyer feel remorseful? Did people of England feel so? The Butcher of Amritsar, as he was called, was a celebrated hero on his return and even given a purse of 26000 pounds for his heroic deeds that saved Punjab. A few years back, exactly in the mould of Lynndie England, when the Queen of India visited India, it was suggested to her that she could apologise on behalf of a nation, thus bringing the wounds of the massacre to a closure. Exactly like Lynndie England, the Queen of England felt sorry about not being sorry.

General Dyer: Sorry About Not Being Sorry at the massacre of the innocent

He died of a series of strokes in his later years, speechless and paralytic. He, at that time showed remorse only for himself: "Thank you, but I don't want to get better. So many people who knew the condition of Amritsar say I did right...but so many others say I did wrong. I only want to die and know from my Maker whether I did right or wrong."

Another historical massacre took place from Dec 1937 to Jan 1938 when the Imperial Japanese Army subjected the innocent at Nanjing, China to torture, deaths, rapes and humiliations. The story of Nanjing Massacre is also known as the story of Nanjing Rape; replete with mass murders, rapes etc over a period of six weeks in the Second Sino-Japanese War. I visited the place two years ago and saw how painstakingly the Chinese have maintained the records that would perhaps escape the scrutiny of the Western world and the Japanese.

At the Nanjing Massacre museum

The description of the Massacre at the Entrance

More than 200, 000 people were victims of these massacres. The most horrible was the Contest between two Japanese officers about who would be the first one to behead 100 innocents with his sword. Photographs of these beheadings are displayed in the Museum including that of the sword, which is now held in another museum. The Chinese have kept records of all those butchered and these are on display in the Nanjing Museum as below:

Painstaking Records of all those who died in Nanjing Massacre

What did the Japanese do? They formally apologised  on 15 Aug 1995, on the 50th anniversary of the Surrender of Japan, to countries like Korea in Asia for war crimes but refused to acknowledge that Nanjing Massacres ever took place. Remorse? Ha, it is easier to perpetrate than to apologise.

The history of occupation of Diego Garcia by United States by evicting the original inhabitants and then lying to the whole world that the island was uninhabited is another case of lack of remorse. Though not so horrible as massacre, a forcible eviction causes considerable trauma. I visited Mauritius and found that some of them and their successors are still fighting case in International Court of Justice for such wrongful eviction. No remorse, no saying sorry; everything is fair for the powerful.

Recently, the smiling pictures of Staff Sgt Robert Bales of the US made rounds after having killed 17 innocent civilians in a mad spree of vengeful killings. To give credit to the US, Bales is now on trial for the killings. However, he and his lawyer haven't displayed even an iota of contrition.

What makes men and women to do horrible things to fellow men and women is not the subject of this article. What makes them to be unapologetic even after years of such acts of monstrosity is, however, worthy of introspection. Could it be that each one of us - people and nations - have a philosophy of convenience that makes us call ourselves virtuous, moral and good and find reasons for our own wrongs in the acts of others.

Mahatma Gandhi said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". Will we ever regain our individual and collective blindness and see ourselves as what all of us really are. For all the wrongs done, for all the carnage, looting, rapes, massacres, deception, betrayal, cheating, loot, lies and evil, an apology wouldn't totally heal the wounds. But, we ain't even apologetic. "They too did to us", "It was a war necessity" and "They deserved worse" is all we can say, whilst being adamant that there is no point in being sorry.

To end, an atomic bomb called Little Boy was dropped over Hiroshima on 6th Aug 1945 and Fat Boy over Nagasaki on 9th Aug 1945. Nearly 250,000 perished and people still suffer of the atomic fall-out but we are Sorry about not being Sorry.

Pic Courtesy: tangibleinfo.blogspot.com