Chaitanya – on Centre Right India

Last week, I saw the Rs. 1,76,000 crore figure and thought it cannot get worse than this. But the astronomical figure turns out to be only the tip of the iceberg. Thanks to a courageous series of articles by Open Magazine, A. Raja is revealed to be only the visible manifestation of a vast nexus of corruption involving politicians, bureaucrats, corporates and “eminent” media persons.

Incriminating tapes, in possession of Open Magazine, tapped and recorded by the Income Tax Department, exposed the role of NDTV journalist and talk show host Barkha Dutt in negotiations that ultimately may have resulted in A. Raja becoming the Telecom Minister in UPA-II in May 2009.

A. Raja as we know is the man behind the 2G Telecom Scam, the biggest scam in Indian history and one of the biggest in the world, resulting in the loss of a scamrageous Rs. 1,76,000 Crore (US$ 35 billion) to the Indian government.

Vir Sanghvi of The Hindustan Times has also been exposed in the tapes. In his conversation with Niira Radia, relating to a case between the Ambani brothers in the Bombay High Court, he “virtually takes a dictation from Radia on what he ought to write” in an opinion column.

It is not as if we held these eminences in high regard before but these tapes confirm our worst suspicions about “eminent” media persons in general. Going by the evidence, the socalled “Christiane Amanpour” of the Indian media turns out to be a high level broker, “fixer” and lobbyist for the Congress party. Her links with the Congress run so deep that she is in a position to indulge in negotiations on behalf of that party for Cabinet posts in the Government of India. One could always detect a constant pro-Congress bias in her reporting. But after this revelation, everything is in the open and her image as a journalist stands tarnished permanently. It may be advisable for her to take up a full time role in the Congress party, to be true to her feelings and show her real face to the country. The expose of Barkha Dutt also makes a big hole in the credibility and reputation – or whatever is left of it – of NDTV.

If Barkha Dutt and Vir Sanghvi, two well known faces in the Indian media, are so deeply involved, one may imagine how deep the rot runs. Trial by media, advertorials and paid news pale in comparision to Barkhagate, as it is being called. Also, the tapes carry only be a miniscule fraction of what really went on behind the scenes in May 2009 and later. We dont probably know anything yet. Some important questions arise:

1. Who else is involved?

Considering that there is cut throat competition in the media, what explains the relative silence on the expose in most mainstream media outlets? No major talk show has covered the issue, nor has any reputed newspaper or magazine (excepting a few like India Today, Mid Day) carried features. “India’s national newspaper” The Hindu, “journalism of courage” Indian Express and “India’s largest selling newspaper” Times of India, all prone to frequent sanctimony on all matters from India-Pakistan relations to wildlife conservation, have remained relatively silent. Does this indicate that Barkha Dutt and Vir Sanghvi are not the only “eminent” media persons who may have things to hide?

2. Why now?

The conversations occurred way back in May 2009. The phone taps were made by the Income Tax Department, and several people must have known about these conversations. Why were the recordings kept, and kept secret, for 18 months? Plus, what is the motivation for leaking the recordings at this time? Who benefits, who loses?

3. What was their “cut”?

What remains unrevealed is if Barkha Dutt and Vir Sanghvi and others received any benefits in their murky dealings. It is unlikely that Barkha Dutt and Vir Sanghvi would offer their “services” without any reward, monetary or otherwise. This is important to follow because it has become a practice to award government and quasi-government postings to “useful idiots”. Take for example, the unaccountable and undemocratic National Advisory Council. The entry criteria for the NAC are neither administrative aptitude or experience nor scientific expertise but only the reputation of being a popular “activist” working for some NGO and sharing similar ideology with the Congress party. It has ramifications for the health of our democracy, economy, social harmony and national security.

Fellow CRI commentator Palahalli makes the point that pursuance of “truth and reconciliation” between Hindus and Muslims by liberal Hindus, in the context of the Ayodhya dispute, has not met with success in getting Muslims to recognize truth. In this post I build on Palahalli’s argument. Earnestness about truth and reconciliation has not been accompanied by efforts to address the underlying causes that necessitate truth and reconciliation in the first place. I must elaborate.

A lot of hard work went in to the Allahabad High Court judgement and the Ayodhya case must rank as one of the toughest cases fought in India. A lot of things were at stake and because of the uncomfortable atmosphere that surrounds the Ayodhya dispute, the judges were probably forced to produce a ‘please all’ verdict. The good thing is that it gives something to everyone. Hindus can have their grand Ram temple and Muslims get to build a mosque on their share of the land if they wish.

The bad thing is that the three fold division of land between the three parties does not amount to a permanent solution, in that it does not rule out the possibility of future conflict. Efforts are on to provide permanency through “truth and reconciliation.” However, talk of truth and reconciliation has not been accompanied by what “truth” is meant or what shape the reconciliation will take. There is nothing concrete on offer beyond calls that Hindus must help build a mosque on the Muslims’ 1/3rd, or that Muslims show magnanimity and leave their 1/3rd to the Hindus. But what happens after?

The Ayodhya dispute is so big that there is a tendency to view it in isolation, not as a highly visible symptom of a deeper problem, namely the divide between Hindus on one hand and the Muslim-secular-liberal side on the other. The problem is of Hindu historical grievances and Muslim-secular-liberal obstinacy to accept these grievances, and outright denial and falsification of history to support their cause. Then, there is the secular elite’s traditional disdain for Hindu religion, culture and tradition. Curing symptoms such as Ayodhya can give temporary relief but unless the underlying causes are addressed and dealt with, we will continue to have issues.

The case will most likely go to the Supreme Court, and already there are signs that immense “secular” pressure will be brought upon the SC in the run up to the appeal. Although it would be very difficult for the SC to come up with a better deal than the Allahabad verdict, a lot can happen in between. Ram may yet become a mythological character again.

However, that is a very bleak reading of the situation. The verdict has given hope, which has been supplemented a great deal by the lack of public demonstrations from Muslims and the offer of financial aid of Rs 15 lakh from a Muslim organization to help build the Ram temple, as well as calls from many Hindus to help build a mosque for the Muslims at the site.

This alone is not sufficient. Truth and reconciliation must go beyond Ayodhya, with open and honest engagement between Hindus and Muslims about their troubled history. Only when a society reconciles to its past can it set the past behind, and reconciliation in this case begins with the acceptance of some uncomfortable truths on the part of the Muslims. As of now, there are no signs that it will happen. It does not help that the Owaisis, the Mulayams, the Barkha Dutts and the “eminent historians” continue to fuel feelings of Muslim victimhood with their poisonous communal propaganda. Though we are encouraged by the atmosphere of hope that has been created by the verdict, whether the Allahabad High Court verdict will become a game changer for Hindu-Muslim relations only time will tell. I fervently hope that it does and sincerely wish success for all efforts aimed at truth and reconciliation but urge that it must go beyond Ayodhya.

Hosting an international sports tournament is a good idea. It creates infrastructure, employment, new sporting facilities and improves the international standing of the hosting city and country. If everything goes well, that is. Far from symbolizing India’s ‘arrival’ on the world stage, the Commonwealth Games is turning into an embarrassment. A country that is said to be an emerging superpower is struggling to put together basic infrastructure for hosting a sports tournament.

The shoddy organization of the Commonwealth Games, however, symbolizes not the hollowness of Brand India but governments and public bodies that are struggling to live up to the demands of the 21st century. Brand India is largely the result of the efforts of the private sector and a failed Commonwealth Games, due to the failures of government appointed organizing bodies and officials, must not be allowed to dilute its image.

Contrast the way in which the Games is being organized and the efficiency with which cricket tournaments are organized in India. Whether the Commonwealth Games will be a success or not, the privately organized ICC Cricket World Cup in 2011 will most likely go without a word spoken about organizational shortcomings.

Maybe governments should not be tasked with organizing sports events at all, when many other urgent tasks require their attention and when the private sector can do a far better job. Forget 21st century, all that was asked of the Delhi Government, the Union Government and the Indian Olympic Association was to create basic infrastructure for hosting a international sports tournament. They may yet be successful in their efforts but not before wasting public money in inefficiency and corruption, and causing great inconvenience to the people of Delhi. Had the organization of the Games been ‘outsourced’ to a private company, the story may have been quite different.

Can anything be more symbolic of the mix up of government priorities than the drive to relocate beggars from the streets of Delhi to areas that are safely out of view of the Games visitors? Shouldnt governments be doing something for the beggars or atleast be leaving them alone, instead of relocating them and showing them how unwanted they are?

It was unnecessary in the first place to make the Commonwealth Games an event to showcase India’s ‘arrival’ at the global stage. The Commonwealth Games is nothing like the Olympic Games in scale or importance. There is an attempt to imitate China, which used the Beijing Olympics in 2008 to symbolize its own ‘arrival.’ Unlike India, China is a credible contender to emerging superpower status and is well on its way to challenge the supremacy of the United States in the international arena.

Notwithstanding its own substantial achievements in the last two decades, India has a long way to go before its claims of being an emerging superpower sound credible. The most urgent task is to reform the political and administrative machinery and drag it into the 21st century, along with the rest of the country. We need a lean and mean government that can respond efficiently to well defined responsibilities and priorities, not one that is burdened with unnecessary responsibilities and bogged down with commitments it struggles to fulfill.

Praveen Swami of The Hindu has an article today on how Islamists are systematically and violently eliminating all moderate and secular “resistance” (or what remains of it) to the Islamist agenda in Kashmir.

The article points to a shocking video in possession of The Hindu of three middle aged Kashmiri men being brutally tortured, humiliated and having their human rights violated by Kashmiri “freedom fighters”, who make much noise about human rights violations by Indian security forces.

In a scene symbolic of the nature of the Kashmir “freedom struggle”, one of the tortured men who has been stripped to his underpants cries out in agony and terror, “I swear to God. I will pray, pray five times a day”, as an Islamist points a pistol to his head.  The three men are beaten with wooden rods and the bruises on their bodies indicate the amount of torture that they were subjected to. The crime: the three men were apparently not pious enough from the Islamists’ point of view and are being “reeducated.”

As Praveen Swami writes:

The video provides grim insight into the Islamist movement which began to acquire power across the region from earlier in the decade. The young men who participated in these mobilisations now form the organisational backbone of the street protests raging in Kashmir.

From elsewhere in the article, we have shocking tales of a dental surgeon who was tortured and killed after his throat was slit with a shaving blade, a children’s computer centre, lab and library that was set of fire, a bombing of the home of a school principal, a kidnapping of a school principal who failed to enforce Islamist demands that women students wear the veil. We also have a trader who was killed for initiating dialogue with the government to reduce violence, a video operator who was killed for broadcasts that Islamists found offensive, a Sopore mystic who was almost assassinated apparently for not being Islamic enough for the Islamists.

If this is the state of Kashmir today, one can imagine the horrors that await moderate and secular elements and non-Muslim minorities in an independent Kashmir. As we pointed out before, the Kashmir “freedom struggle” is an Islamist political movement whose objective is to establish an Islamic republic in Kashmir that will run on strict sharia law. Freedom for Kashmir really means freedom for Islamists to implement strict sharia law and relegate non-Muslim minorities to second class status.

All freedom loving people must know and understand the true nature of the Kashmir “freedom struggle” and confront the violent and illiberal ideology that drives it. The Islamist Kashmir “freedom struggle” must be destroyed for the cause of freedom in Jammu and Kashmir and throughout the subcontinent.

Tired of lack of success from men armed with AK-47s and grenades sent out to fight a professional army and create terror among civilians, Kashmiri separatists and their friends in Pakistan are now resorting to a strange way of carrying on the Kashmir “freedom struggle” – stone pelting. Stone pelting is nothing new in our part of the world. The stone is one of the weapons of choice throughout the country for violent mobs seeking to express “public anger.” The benefits only begin at giving vent to anger. Many a time, the situation spins out of control, some policeman gets injured, and the police are forced to open fire. Bullets usually kill or at least severely injure (the stone pelters know), and the papers next morning are full of stories about police heavyhandedness and police brutality. It helps win public and intellectual sympathy for what basically are violent mobs bent on destroying public property, disrupting normal life, causing injury to policemen and preventing them from doing their duties.

The script is no different in the case of Kashmir. Here the stone pelters are fighting for “azaadi” and are expressing public anger against India in general, and against the CRPF for the deaths of “protestors” killed in firing. The images of the violence in the Valley invoke strong reactions from liberals in Delhi. The stone pelters as tastelessly referred to as “protestors” (what do we call these people then?) It is amazing how every violent mob represents a political or social cause for the liberals.

Then there is the typical condemnation of the CRPF and the Armed Forces. People in the rest of the country are taken on guilt trips: “You dont know how it feels to live under the constant watch of the Army”, “Kashmiri youth are alienated.” Some brazen it out and call for Kashmir’s independence.

While expressing sympathy for the innocent children who are caught in the crossfire, liberals ask no questions and express no concern about the nature of the ideology that makes parents bring children to “protests” that are inherently violent and are always under the risk of inviting gunfire from the police. It is very unfortunate and deeply saddening that teenagers and even younger ones are being killed in firing by the CRPF but the fact is that the CRPF did not put them in the mobs. The responsibility for their deaths must be shared equally by the mobsters – adult men and women – who brought the children to the violent mobs, a point that liberals fail to make when they paint the CRPF and by extension the Armed Forces in the darkest of colours.

From the liberal perspective, the demand for a separate Kashmir is legitimate. We are told that a group of people who want to live in an independent country have every right to do so, irrespective of its implications and the means employed to achieve such a goal. This line of thinking, in case of Kashmir is fraught with fallacies, the main question being: how can small hundred-odd congregations of vocal, violent, stone pelting Kashmiri Muslims, and their supporters in the homes, in the Kashmir Valley represent or decide the fate of the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir, that includes significant populations of Hindus in Jammu and the Valley, and Buddhists in Ladakh? Liberal concern for minorities in secular countries finds no parallel in the case of Kashmir.

By supporting Kashmir’s independence, liberals support a profoundly illiberal idea – a Kashmir that is an Islamic republic – which is what the Kashmiri “freedom struggle” really is about (yes, we heard the gyaan on “azaadi” actually meaning freedom from Indian rule but an Islamic republic is the next step.) Liberals must decide whether they would like an illiberal Kashmir under strict sharia laws where adulterous women would be stoned to death and minorities would have unequal rights or a Kashmir that belongs to a liberal democratic country that, for all its imperfections, works under modern law with a liberal Constitution that guarantees several rights and freedoms to its citizens. Well, for those liberals for whom burqas are tools of women empowerment, an Islamic republic in Kashmir could be liberal paradise and it would not at all be surprising if they are found drumming up support for it, directly or stealthily. But at least they must stop pretending that they are for the protection of individual rights.

The liberal perspective on Kashmir fails also because the Kashmir issue is viewed only through the lens of rights. There is a reality about Kashmir that must be factored into all solutions offered to solve the Kashmir issue. For instance, plebiscite, recommended often by liberals, is impossible under the changed demographic circumstances in Jammu and Kashmir. May be holding a plebiscite could have been easier had not the Kashmiri “freedom fighters” been over eager in driving out hundreds of thousands of Pandits from the Valley. Also, the question of plebiscite concerns the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir, including Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and the Chinese-occupied areas of Aksai Chin. The demography of the PoK has changed drastically over the last 60 years due to the large scale influx of Punjabis from Pakistan. Plebiscite is out of the question. In any case, are liberals comfortable with the idea of holding a plebiscite that may result in the formation of a theological state from a secular democratic republic? Shouldnt things be the other way around for liberals?

Liberals also do not give adequate importance to the history behind the Kashmir issue. “Let’s move on”, “let’s forget the past”, “What a head ache! Let’s just give away Kashmir and concentrate on economic growth and become a superpower,” we are told. It does not take into account that Indian perceptions are deeply influenced by the history of the Kashmir issue, especially the event of Partition.

The Partition was a traumatic event for most Indians. One of the reasons is because Partition stabbed at the idea that Hindus and Muslims could live together as one nation. Partition also invokes intense sorrow because of the bloodshed and inhumanity that surrounded the Partition. About a million people lost their lives and 12 million got displaced in one of the largest population transfers in human history, enough reason for those responsible to be hanged, brought back to life and hanged again several times.

But Indian nationalists regret the Partition mainly because they believe Pakistani Muslims “broke” their country and “snatched” away their land. Pakistan is seen as this cancerous tumour, that took birth and grew uncontrollably under Islamic radicalism and was ultimately dissected violently and painfully from the Indian nation by the Partition. The movement for Kashmir’s “azaadi” is seen as an unfinished business of the Partition, a recurrence of the same cancer that resulted in Pakistan. With Kashmir, Indians are faced with two choices – another Pakistan-type surgical removal or therapy with democracy and economic integration. Most nationalist Indians, who value their freedom, respect their jawans and repose confidence in the Indian state even in face of its many imperfections, overwhelmingly choose the latter. But liberals would make the amusing but sorry spectacle of chopping off their heads to get relief from a headache.

It has come to the notice of the citizenry that your body, the National Advisory Council, has been “favouring” and “recommending” certain amendments to a bill intended to deal with communal violence, including the setting up of a national authority intended to as much as “oversee” actions taken by states to tackle communal violence.

First, may I humbly take this opportunity to remind the eminences that grace your august body that a small group of unelected, unaccountable individuals such as yours, to put it politely, have little business interfering in the making of laws and their execution by democratically elected governments?

May I also remind you that the job of preventing and tackling communal violence ultimately lies with the police and the local civil administration? Also that the most effective long term solution to tackle communal violence is thorough reform of the police forces to help relieve the state police of excess political control and help them become a modern, independent, professional force capable of anticipating and dealing with communal violence?

May I point out that yet another central body, whose members are bound to have little ground level knowledge of the fault lines and immediate causes that lead to communal violence, are likely to have more expertise at emotional hyperventilation rather than dispassionate analysis, and are likely to have their own narrow professional interests to peddle, represents just the antithesis of the objectiveness and probity required for a job like tackling communal violence?

Thank you.

A concerned citizen.

The term “national shame” is repeatedly used by our media even though the occasion does not warrant it. But this is one story that fits the term “national shame” very well. 11 year old Devika Rotawan has been denied admission to the New England School in East Bandra, Mumbai. Her fault? She is a victim of the 26/11 attack and testified against terrorist Ajmal Kasab in court. The school’s authorities fear that the terrorists will target their school for admitting her.

No other parent would have allowed an injured 11 yr old daughter to testify in a high profile terrorism case. Many would have just accepted their fate, to move on in life. But Devika Rotawan, whose right leg was broken by the terrorists’ bullets and now walks on crutches, and her family have shown exemplary courage in turning up at the court and testifying against a cold blooded murderer.

The school is the second most important agent of value education, after the family. By denying admission to Devika Rotawan, the school is setting an example of timidity and submission. Ajmal Kasab may be hanged someday but he shall remain deeply indebted to New England School for helping him fulfill the mission he undertook on 26/11.

No amount of police reform, technology upgradation, bolstering of intelligence capabilities will be of use in the war against terrorism if the people do not display courage. For the brave, being terrorized is a matter of choice. But the timid and the chickenhearted readily grovel like Pavlov’s dogs at the slightest threat or discomfort. The timid not only constitute an enormous waste of humanity but also are like human sized black holes sucking away all courage around them. Thousands of them are being produced right now at schools like New England School across India.

Update: New English High School says that the girl was denied admission not for security reasons but because she was not fluent in English. The school says that she studied till Class I but was seeking admission into Class V. The “principal told her father to get her admitted to a Hindi medium school and come again for admission after she had learnt English.” I thought children learn English after going to school. [Links: CNN-IBN and The Hindu]

It is said that true character is revealed in times of crisis. Indians, especially Manipuris, were faced with several revelations in the past 65 days of the Manipur Blockade. The apathy of the Congress-led Central Government towards the plight of the people of Manipur was on naked display. Suffering severe shortages of essential commodities and steep prices because of the economic blockade of National Highways 39 and 53 by Naga organizations, the Manipuris were left to their own fate. The Delhi-based “national” media have ignored the Manipur Blockade for as long as a month or so, until some passionate activism by concerned citizens on the Internet, especially Twitter, shamed them into coming up with a report or two now and then.

Delhi’s apathy towards the sufferings of the Manipuris is only one side of the problem. The main contributing factor to the Manipur Blockade was security failure. From a security perspective, there are two sets of causes for the Manipur Blockade: long term and short term.

From a long term perspective: the failure to end the Naga insurgency led by the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN-IM) and the failure to ameliorate the ethnic conflict in the Northeast rank first. Admittedly, these problems are very complex. No other country probably has ethnic conflict of such complexity in an area with such ethnic diversity and rapid social change as Northeast India. However, one cannot escape the feeling that the Central government has not been proactive enough in dealing these problems effectively.

Even after a ceasefire agreeement with Naga rebels in 1997 and more than 60 rounds of talks, Naga insurgent activities only continue to rise. There seems to be no realization that endless negotiations and peace talks with armed groups only emboldens them and provides time to rearm and regroup. The presence of armed insurgent groups is always a threat to transport infrastructure and other lines of communication. Only a few weeks ago, the bombing of a railway track by Maoists in West Bengal resulting in the derailing of the Jnaneshwari Express and the killing of over 150 people.

The elections to the autonomous district councils, and the Manipur state government’s refusal to allow Thuingaleng Muivah, chief of Naga insurgent group NSCN-IM, to enter Manipur to visit his ancestral home, the two main grouses of the Naga organizations behind the blockade, are only short term causes. The negligent and irresponsible response of the Manipur state government and the Central government to the blockade contributed no less.

The main problem with the Manipur Blockade was not that a bunch of thugs could blockade two national highways and bring an entire state to a standstill. The main problem was that the ‘blockaders’ have not been arrested or shot down the very afternoon the blockade began in order to force lift the blockade.

The most immediate response to a bunch of thugs blockading an important transport route must be to send a police force of suitable size, suitably armed, to disperse the blockaders, take control of the highway and restore traffic. But then, in light of the lax attitude to security that has become internalized in our political culture and administrative system, it’s no aberration that the Central government has promised to send central security forces to Manipur to force lift the blockade over two months after it was imposed.

Why did not the Central government wake up to the Manipur Blockade in April itself when it was becoming clear that the blockade was working to make daily life increasingly difficult? Has the Congress-Communist state government in Manipur sent police forces to disperse the blockaders and guard the highway? Has the Congress-Communist state government in Manipur sent a request to the Central government to send central police forces or the Army in order to force lift the blockade? If it did, when, and what has been the response of the Central government? Why did it take over two months for the Central government to decide to send central security forces to force lift the blockade when even emergency supplies like life saving drugs were fast running out?

Was it only sheer negligence on part of the Central government and the Delhi based so called “national media” that it took so long to understand and react to the situation in Manipur? Why has the same intellectual community and media that was vociferous in opposing the economic blockade imposed on Kashmir Valley by the Amarnath Sangharsh Samiti in 2008, not displayed the same enthusiasm over the Manipur Blockade?

What is wrong with the title of this article? Nothing except the banality of a statement like “security is a basic need” in a country where, every year, hundreds of civilians and police personnel lose life, limb and livelihood to terrorism, Maoism and communal violence. But then, this is also a country that has a political culture that has often kept internal security at the periphery of its concerns.

According to conventional wisdom in Indian politics, all that the aam aadmi cares about is roti, kapda aur makaan. As long as these needs are taken care of, everything is fine. The aam aadmi, it is said, is too busy fulfilling these needs to bother about a middle class and largely urban obsession like internal security.

It is no surprise then that internal security rarely assumes importance as an electoral issue. Politicians are too busy promising the sky to voters – guaranteed employment, free power, food security and what not. But internal security? Nada!

One does not have access to figures showing the socioeconomic breakdown of the victims of terrorism, Maoism and communal violence in the country. However, it is easy to see that when the attacks happen, in the forests, trains, railway stations, markets, more often than not the majority of the victims are what we could call aam aadmis – tribals, shoppers, shopkeepers, commuters, pilgrims etc. The tribals who are routinely harassed and killed by Maoists are neither urban nor middle class. The Mumbaikars who were killed during 11/7 and 26/11 were not traveling First Class AC. Nor was Gokul Chat serving expensive continental fare when the bomb went off on 25^th August, 2007.

The lax attitude of the political class towards internal security, premised on the flawed belief that the aam aadmi is not bothered about internal security, ends up hurting the aam aadmi the most. Poor security disrupts the fulfilment of basic needs and the enjoyment of basic rights. The recent riots in Hyderabad is a case in point. After violence erupted in the Old City area, a curfew was imposed for several days to bring the situation under control. The curfew resulted in shortage of essential commodities, and whatever was left and not rotten was overpriced with milk selling for as high as Rs. 100 per litre on some occasions. Medical emergency services were disrupted resulting in several completely preventable deaths. Shops, houses and vehicles were burnt. No one could go school, college or office. All aam aadmis.

A strong internal security system is necessary for the enjoyment of the fundamental rights of Right to Life and Right to Freedom. By adopting a negligent attitude towards internal security, the government abdicates its responsibility to ensure the secure environment necessary for individual, societal and national growth. A poor internal security system results in a lower quality of life and, in the long run, will affect India’s ability to grow as a nation and maintain its unity in the face of rapid social, economic and environmental change.

One does not need to be exceptionally gifted to understand what exactly is wrong with our internal security system and what must be done to improve it. Police reforms, outdated training and equipment, poor expenditure on infrastructure, technological and skills upgradation, corruption etc., are some of the basic problems that require only a modicum of political will to overcome. Getting the latest high speed boats and raising more NSG units is fine but unless the degradation in our internal security system is addressed, arrested and reversed as a whole by the political class, tangible, long term improvements are unlikely.

From the standpoint of the public, the only long term solution is to make internal security too costly to ignore for our politicians. The solution lies in exploiting the politician’s greatest fear – electoral failure – by projecting security as a basic need and by asserting that security is a basic right.

Though the recent science fiction drama Avatar received much critical acclaim for its revolutionary visual effects and James Cameron’s ‘creation’ of an entirely new world, it is often in the news for other reasons, particularly the political interpretations that are made from the film’s storyline.

Avatar depicts the struggle between humans and a sentient humanoid species called the Na’vi, indigenous to the moon Pandora in the Alpha Centauri star system. In 2154, humans led by the RDA Corporation are mining a precious mineral called “Unobtainium” on Pandora because of which they are brought into conflict with an indigenous Na’vi tribe, the Omaticaya. Led by a human Jake Sully (played by Sam Worthington) who ‘defects’ to their side after becoming emotionally attached to them and being angered by the brutalities of his compatriots, the Na’vi ultimately succeed in driving the human invaders out.

Avatar attracted several political interpretations. In the Na’vi’s victory over the RDA Corporation, leftists see the triumph of socialism over imperialism. US conservatives see references to the US invasion of Iraq and director James Cameron himself confirmed their doubts. The Chinese proletariat think the Na’vi’s plight reflects their own condition back on earth, with their lands being snatched for real estate development, horrifyingly with help from a Communist state.

Environmentalists see the conflict between the RDA Corporation and the Na’vi being played out in real life between Vedanta Aluminium Ltd. and the Dongria Kondh tribe in Orissa (Vedanta Resources wants to mine bauxite from the Niyamgiri mountain, near Lanjigarh in Orissa, that is sacred to the Kondh.) Some see racist connotations in that it is a white man (Jake Sully) from an advanced society that ultimately leads the primitive Na’vi to victory.

However, few notice that Avatar introduces a paradigm shift in alien invasion films. In the typical alien invasion film, hostile aliens invade earth, try to kill all its inhabitants so that they can freely exploit it’s resources, until a fatal weakness is discovered that allows humans to fight back and drive the aliens out. In Avatar, the hostile alien is the human being, from earth!

The film drives home the point that if we humans must fear the technologically advanced alien with ray guns, flying saucers and ESP, alien civilizations that have not yet stumbled on the destructive power of nuclear fusion may have enough reason to fear us.

But I digress. Avatar also got me thinking on the position of the Indian Right (whatever goes for the Right in India) on the relationship between the Indian state and the indigenous tribes. The issues of economic development, the right to property and the state’s power of eminent domain, and tribal welfare are deeply interlinked. In this context, I ask: what is the Right’s position on the right to property and the concept of eminent domain? Must the Indian Right uphold the right to property, as the Right in the West is known to do, or choose to be unique by upholding the principle of eminent domain for the higher objective of economic development?

This question has been debated in much detail especially with regard to the state’s role in land acquisition for Special Economic Zones (SEZ.) Some support the state’s role as the middleman in land acquisition between the landholder (often poor farmers with small fragmentary land holdings) and the developer. According to them, state governments try to attract companies by selling land at below-market rate prices with an eye on the long term objective of industrial development that benefits all. Others believe that the state must ideally ask the company to buy land directly from the farmer at market prices, even if considerable practical difficulties are involved. Opinion remains divided and there is no indication that there is any consensus over this issue among the Right.

One question that has received scant attention from the Right is the relation between the state and the indigenous tribes in India, especially it’s position on questions like the conflict between the concept of eminent domain and tribals’ property rights, tribal rights over exploitation of forests, the raw deal that the tribes have received out of decades of neglect (and interference in other cases) from the state, and the impact of the modern economy on tribal culture and, in some cases, their very existence.

The Indian mainstream continues to remain unaware of the rich cultural heritage of the indigenous tribes, and the threat this heritage faces of being lost forever. In February this year, the last member of the Bo tribe, Boa Sr, of the Andaman Islands passed away. With this death, a culture that dates back 65,000 years has been lost forever. This is made more significant by the fact that the Bo are believed to be one of earliest humans to have migrated out of Africa. The language of the Bo, Aka Bo, belongs to the unique Great Andamanese language family. Boa Sr was its last speaker. The extinction of the Bo did not cause much of a flutter in the Indian public space, much less among the Right.

The relation between Hinduism and tribes goes back to the earliest times. Much cultural exchange had occurred between the Hindu Great Tradition and the Tribal Little Traditions, enriching the Hindu tradition as well as introducing Hindu elements, even gods and godesses, in the tribal pantheon. Several tribes register themselves as Hindu even while retaining their uniqueness.

It is a paradox that the Hindu nationalist, who holds the Aryan Invasion Theory in contempt to prove that Hinduism is indigenous to India, does not seem to show the same concern for the cultural heritage of the tribes who are as indigenous as Hindus are to India, if not more. It is the Left that has positioned itself as the main spokesperson of the indigenous tribes in India and remains the only political articulator of their grievances and aspirations.

As consensus emerges that the Right must focus on developing its own intellectual tradition, this may be a good time for the Right to formulate it’s position on the issues raised here. It is also high time that the Right challenges the Left’s monopoly on tribal causes in India. A start could be made by spreading the understanding that decades of socialist government with centralized planning and development had only been detrimental to the livelihood and culture of the indigenous tribes.