A V Rajwade: The politicians we deserve

WORLD MONEY

We can blame Pakistan for the Mumbai attacks, but spare a thought for what we ourselves are doing.

Last Wednesday, a large number of middle class Mumbaikars gathered near the Taj and paid homage to those who died in the previous week’s horror. They were also very critical of the political class in general; some advocated military rule in India; others that we should attack Pakistan in order to “solve the problem once and for all”. In their anger, they obviously did not agree with the Mahatma who said that an eye-for-an-eye only means that both are blinded. They also seem to have overlooked how difficult it is today for any country to control another — even the sole superpower is finding life very difficult in Afghanistan.

While the anger, perhaps born out of a feeling of helplessness, is understandable, it should not blind us to the fact that Muslims have many genuine grievances against the West in general and the US in particular; against Israel; and also, to my mind, India. The double standards of the US are blatant: propagation of democracy in West Asia even while its closest friends in the region are feudal monarchies or pseudo-democracies like Egypt; the seriousness with which the Security Council resolutions against Iraq were pursued, and how the same body’s resolutions asking Israel to give up the conquered territories, are ignored. (For those interested, I strongly recommend Robert Fisk’s “The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East”.)

The same accusations of double standards can, in my view, be levied equally legitimately in respect of India’s policy regarding Kashmir. First, the different ways in which we dealt with Kashmir and Hyderabad. If the ruler of the former had a right to join India, surely, equally legally, the Nizam had a legal right to remain independent? Consider also the way we have rigged the elections in Kashmir time and again, the way the territory is being controlled with brute military power: Kashmir must be having the highest proportion of security personnel to the civilian population anywhere in the world! (If we were serious about holding on to Kashmir, the best way would have been to encourage immigration into the valley from the rest of India, exactly what China has done in Tibet and its once Muslim-majority western provinces. But the Chinese are far clearer about their objectives.)

The point is not that genuine grievances justify terrorism (perhaps nothing does), but that we should not forget history. There are other encouragements as well to attacking India:

 

Nostalgia for the fact that Muslims were the rulers of this subcontinent for much longer than the British. I was shocked to read on the Yahoo News a statement by Tarik Jan of Islamabad’s Institute of Policy Studies, “We [Muslims] were the legal rulers of India, and in 1857 the British took that away from us ... In 1947 they should have given that back to the Muslims.” If an academic feels this way, what of Islamic fundamentalists!

 

The pusillanimity with which we dealt with the demands of those who hijacked an Indian Airlines flight from Kathmandu. Indeed, the middle class then was all in favour of succumbing to the demands to get the hostages released. The dithering over the hanging of a terrorist who attacked Parliament; the repeal of POTA; the contrast between now and the way Sikh terrorists were handled in the 1980s; all send their own messages.

 

A dysfunctional governance system plagued by feudal attitudes, bureaucratic paralysis, inefficiency and corruption. (On corruption: how many of us, caught in a traffic offence, would really prefer to pay the fine instead of “tipping” the policeman?)

 

The way we seem to be going about perpetuating caste and communal differences through quotas in education and jobs. Surely, such affirmative action needs to be on economic criteria? (The British were supposed to be past masters of divide and rule: we do this much better)

 

The Sachar Commission brought out clearly many areas in which Muslims fall well short of the average in the country, and are backward. However, “secularists” seem to suggest that this is principally the fault of the majority community, a suggestion which nurtures a feeling of victimhood. Is that really so? Do the Muslims not need to change, particularly in relation to their attitude towards secular education? But nobody has the political courage to make this point, something which Obama did in the US election in relation to the blacks, arguing that they also need to take responsibility for improving their lot. (Incidentally, I am wondering how our ‘secularists’ have not caught on to a Pakistani channel theory that the Mumbai attacks were perpetrated by Hindu extremists for killing Karkare since he was connecting the Samjhauta Express blasts to Hindu terrorists.)

All of us bear some responsibility for what has happened and not just the politicians: after all, we elected them! As Bernard Shaw said, “Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.” To repeat an old cliché, when we point a finger at somebody else, the remaining four are pointing at ourselves.

avrajwade@gmail.com