You may believe in astrology; or you may be a staunch rationalist. But the ground realities do not change depending on your beliefs. That is what we witnessed in 2009, especially in Andhra Pradesh. There were predictions early last year that, on account of three eclipses on a row, there could be disastrous consequences for the nation, especially for the ruler and the ruled. There can be any rounds of discussion on the rationality of such predictions which do not square up with science that we know or seem to know.
But, whoever does a round up of 2009, which has become more of a ritual with the media, one has to take note of the developments which are extremely bizarre, as predicted. May be, one can say, it is just a coincidence. Within three months of a decisive mandate from the voters giving yet another term of five years, Dr Y S Rajasekara Reddy disappeared from the scene under very tragic circumstances which even his arch rivals would not have expected in their dreams.
Soon followed unprecedented floods taking a heavy toll of life and property. Yes, floods is no stranger to the state, but the havoc it caused to the Kurnool town as a whole was something that one could not have imagined.
Not only head of government was taken away in a sad turn of events, but the head of state had to be removed not because of any unconstitutional conduct, but he conducted himself under most ignominious circumstances turning the Raj Bhavan into a place where women of doubtful morality frequented with impunity. This did not happen in the history of any Raj Bhavan in the country though there are folk stories about how the late Charan Singh washed the Raj Bhavan in Lucknow with water from the Ganges after its occupant, incidentally from South, vacated the place.
The issue of statehood for Telangana is not new. But it erupted all of a sudden in 2009, and in its intensity it has surpassed the earlier agitations. The agitation from both regions generated such a bitterness and animosity that It led to an unbridgeable divide between the people speaking the same language, sharing the same civilisational ethos, literature, culture, ethnicity and belief systems just because, by quirk of history, two regions were ruled by two different rulers.
The chain of events right from the day Telangana Rashtra Samiti chief, who was isolated within his own party subsequent to the electoral rout, sat on a drip-fast to salvage his political relevance till the Centre’s decision to convene a meeting of all parties, has thoroughly exposed the political bankruptcy of the Congress High Command. It appeared that the High Command is all powerful only so long as the Congressmen go down on their knees. That is what they did when the CLP passed a resolution entrusting the High Command to take a decision without knowing the pulse of their own electorate. When the core committee of the Congress thought sitting in Delhi that they can decide for the people of the state, things went haywire and the High Command did not know how to proceed.
What is puzzling everyone is this. How come all powerful High Command could not order or rather persuade the AP ministers and legislators not to precipitate the matters. Can we conclude that the High Command’s writ did not run when it involved an emotive issue? What happened to the parrot-like statements of Congressmen that they would always abide the dictates of the High Command? There is an unseemly tug-of-war between the chief minister and other Congress leaders. Even among the Telangana ministers there is no unity. While one section wants to take back the resignations, another group of ministers have a different song to sing. Has the High Command become the proverbial blind cat when rats start standing up? Or, is all this a drama to protect the interests of the party if a situation were to arise when Telangana became a reality? In the case of the latter possibility, the 125-year old party would have put the interests of the party over the people unmindful of the hardship and agony the agitation, whether orchestrated or spontaneous, has been causing to the people in various fields like business, industry, cinema, tourism, IT etc.
There are media reports that the Congress High Command is upset with its own nominated Chief Minister K Rosaiah for providing half-baked inputs which led to a calamitous situation in the state. This is again another unhealthy dimension of the High Command culture. High Command is infallible. If something goes wrong, it is the lowly mortals who have to take the blame. So, Rosaiah is on the dock. But who imposed him on the CLP without any recourse to democratic exercise? High Command never allowed collective political will of the people to prevail.
From the midnight of Dec. 9, the High Command functioned as a fire fighter shifting from one position to another just to douse the fire. Even the all party meeting in Delhi on Jan 5, seems to be one such fire fighting exercise since with the vertical split in both the major parties – Congress and the TDP – there cannot be any consensus. But the Union Home Minister does not agree. He says there is no flip-flop. Probably he thinks that his impeccable English can be a substitute for facts.
Chidambaram says that Telangana found a mention in the CMP of the Congress in 2004 itself and that all the parties were in favour of it in 2009 election manifesto.
Well, what did the Centre do for five and a half years? What did Pranab Mukerjee committee do for five years? Why did Chidambaram discover the “unanimity” only on the midnight of December 9 when he feared that the situation might go out of control? For his clarificatory statement on 23rd, he finds fault with the parties which made a U-turn forgetting that it was his party which started the turn-around game. Now, he invites all parties for “wide-ranging discussions” which he should have done on 9th itself. This is what is known as “flip flop”, Mr Chidambaram!
The only decisive action in the last one month was the decision to post a no-nonsense police officer in the Raj Bhavan who has started acting as though there is President’s rule in the state. There seems to be a clear brief to him to restore law and order since the imposed head of government has failed in the test. One can feel this in the utterances of the state DGP who is talking tough these days and has gone to the extent of warning the media for any violation of high court orders which wanted the media to exercise restraint in the coverage of agitations in the state.
An influential national English daily summed up the situation very well. It said “The Telangana issue spiralled out of control mainly because of the Centre kept postponing a decision on the statehood demand. It later succumbed to the Telangana Rashtra Samiti’s politics of blackmail. A repeat of the situation must be avoided.”
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Friday, December 18, 2009
POSTURING FOR POLITICAL SPACE
Two-nation theory that was touted to be the only panacea for the communal pitch that was raised by the Muslim League prior to the disastrous partition of India already proved to be just a tool in the hands of the communalists to divide the nation. Mohammed Ali Jinnah’s pet theme was that Hindus and Moslems could not co-exist for their cultural, civilisational and linguistic backgrounds are entirely different.
What is the position today? People who were sharing the same cultural, civilisational background were divided. India which has the second largest Muslim population in the world has become the homeland for both the Hindus and Muslims and they are in a state of peace and tranquillity, calling the bluff of Jinnah, notwithstanding occasional disturbances here and there which should be understood given the historical factors not devoid of mutual hostility.
In contrast, post-Independence leaders in India thought, though Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was not so keen, that language could be the uniting factor and hence the formation of states on linguistic basis came into existence in 1956. Just a decade after this experiment, some leaders thought that language could not be the deciding factor to keep the people united and they queered the pitch citing history of the region. That it was not genuine was proved when the demand was given up when those who were spearheading the movement were politically compensated.
Now, the same political class with a “bulgy” nose for political gains wants to divide the people and to prove that language cannot be the basis for uniting people. Praising the Nizams who unleashed Razakars on the people of the state, they would like to go back in history to decide the geography of the state turning, in the process, both Sardar Patel and Potti Sreeramulu in their graves. If Telangana state has to be formed because it existed as a separate state before the integration, what about the composite Madras State that was there till 1953. Can we afford to go back in history and restore those districts in Andhra, Karnataka, Kerala and Orissa to the Madras State? What KCR and his cronies have to understand is that history cannot be re-visited and cannot be re-written.
Ironically, Telugus who paved the way for formation of states based on language, it is feared, may become catalysts for undoing this concept which worked well for 53 years. But, is it that simple?
There are doubts whether the agitations by both separatists and integrationists are spontaneous though the chief minister may think otherwise. If there is no “live” telecast of the agitation for a week, there will be no “immolation” attempts, no one will climb the cell towers. Because media has become an active player in the agitational politics, an impression, should we say illusion, has been created that there is spontaneous upsurge. Had there really been sentiment among the people of Telangana, they would not have kept quiet for two decades which saw four chief ministers from Telangana ruling the state. They have effectively called the bluff of KCR in such a manner that it forced him to take to brinkmanship.
If we look at the timeline that led to the present state of the sponsored turmoil, it becomes clear that every politician, cutting across party lines, is posturing for political space.
Just before TRS leader K Chandrasekara Rao, who had mere 10 members in his legislature kitty and who shied away from GHMC polls, decided to undertake fast-unto-death, a majority of the Congress legislators was plumping for JaganMohan Reddy to become the chief minister and there was no division on regional lines within the party. All those who were loyal to late YSR stood by his son solidly. Even during the pro-T agitation, there were no apparent fissures.
However, all hell broke loose with Union Home Minister Chidambaram’s mid-night announcement. With an impression gaining ground that there is some possibility of T-dream becoming a reality, every legislator wanted to protect his/her political space in the absence of dynamic leadership in the party. If Congress leaders like Sabita Indra Reddy, Jeevan Reddy, Komatreddy Venkat Reddy, who owe their present position to the late YSR, switched their loyalties, it is not because they have turned against YSR legacy, but, in the absence of a strong leader like YSR, there is no one to protect their interests. If they fail to take pro-T stand, KCR would have emerged as the sole champion of Telangana cause. To avert such a possibility Telangana Congress leaders had to resort to political posturing and to hijack the T cause. And that is what we witness today when Sabita Reddy has a soft corner for T-agitators and Jeevan Reddy shouts at the top of his hoarse voice citing distorted history for his stand. Posturing is a sort of political insurance just in case T-state becomes a reality.
Same is the case with Andhra/Rayalaseema Congress leaders. Lagatapati Rajagopal is shrewd enough to see the crisis of leadership in the party after September 2. He wants to seize this opportunity provided jointly by KCR and Chidambaram to emerge as a leader in the coastal districts just in case there is no escape from a division of the state. Or even, if the state remains united, he wants to stand up and be counted.
While one cannot rule out the possibility of Rayapati and Kavuri joining the Lagatapati bandwagon to form a powerful Kamma lobby which lost its political initiative and influence after YSR’s ascendency, one has to understand the emergence of JC Diwakar Reddy and Jagan Mohan Reddy as leaders of the “Samaikya Andhra” movement not to leave the entire political space to Kamma lobby.
Therefore, while headless Congress is pushing individual legislators in Telangana to protect their political space and to ensure electoral dividends, it is a fight between two communities in Andhra/Rayalaseema to fill the void created by the sudden disappearance of YSR from the scene.
The same dilemma is haunting both Telugu Desam and Praja Rajyam Party. If Nagam Janardhana Reddy and Erran Naidu are in the opposite camps, it is not because they have ceased to be loyal to the party leadership. They are only protecting the interests of the party in both the regions.
Posturing for political space can be a temporary phenomenon and one can read through it. But the collateral damage is going to be quite serious and alarming. Pro-T agitators are not confining to politics. They are spreading the divisive mindset to other spheres as well. It started with film industry and now there is talk of extending to business as well. Some T leaders issue ominous warning that if pro-U leaders try to tour Telangana districts, their legs would be broken. Unfortunately, in order to sustain their vested interests, these leaders are prepared to divide the people on socio-political and economic grounds.
The only silver lining amidst these dark clouds is the independence with which the Police is functioning in the state. It is not that the Police force has suddenly become efficient. There is no real political boss to make them function in a partisan manner. Some solace indeed!
What is the position today? People who were sharing the same cultural, civilisational background were divided. India which has the second largest Muslim population in the world has become the homeland for both the Hindus and Muslims and they are in a state of peace and tranquillity, calling the bluff of Jinnah, notwithstanding occasional disturbances here and there which should be understood given the historical factors not devoid of mutual hostility.
In contrast, post-Independence leaders in India thought, though Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was not so keen, that language could be the uniting factor and hence the formation of states on linguistic basis came into existence in 1956. Just a decade after this experiment, some leaders thought that language could not be the deciding factor to keep the people united and they queered the pitch citing history of the region. That it was not genuine was proved when the demand was given up when those who were spearheading the movement were politically compensated.
Now, the same political class with a “bulgy” nose for political gains wants to divide the people and to prove that language cannot be the basis for uniting people. Praising the Nizams who unleashed Razakars on the people of the state, they would like to go back in history to decide the geography of the state turning, in the process, both Sardar Patel and Potti Sreeramulu in their graves. If Telangana state has to be formed because it existed as a separate state before the integration, what about the composite Madras State that was there till 1953. Can we afford to go back in history and restore those districts in Andhra, Karnataka, Kerala and Orissa to the Madras State? What KCR and his cronies have to understand is that history cannot be re-visited and cannot be re-written.
Ironically, Telugus who paved the way for formation of states based on language, it is feared, may become catalysts for undoing this concept which worked well for 53 years. But, is it that simple?
There are doubts whether the agitations by both separatists and integrationists are spontaneous though the chief minister may think otherwise. If there is no “live” telecast of the agitation for a week, there will be no “immolation” attempts, no one will climb the cell towers. Because media has become an active player in the agitational politics, an impression, should we say illusion, has been created that there is spontaneous upsurge. Had there really been sentiment among the people of Telangana, they would not have kept quiet for two decades which saw four chief ministers from Telangana ruling the state. They have effectively called the bluff of KCR in such a manner that it forced him to take to brinkmanship.
If we look at the timeline that led to the present state of the sponsored turmoil, it becomes clear that every politician, cutting across party lines, is posturing for political space.
Just before TRS leader K Chandrasekara Rao, who had mere 10 members in his legislature kitty and who shied away from GHMC polls, decided to undertake fast-unto-death, a majority of the Congress legislators was plumping for JaganMohan Reddy to become the chief minister and there was no division on regional lines within the party. All those who were loyal to late YSR stood by his son solidly. Even during the pro-T agitation, there were no apparent fissures.
However, all hell broke loose with Union Home Minister Chidambaram’s mid-night announcement. With an impression gaining ground that there is some possibility of T-dream becoming a reality, every legislator wanted to protect his/her political space in the absence of dynamic leadership in the party. If Congress leaders like Sabita Indra Reddy, Jeevan Reddy, Komatreddy Venkat Reddy, who owe their present position to the late YSR, switched their loyalties, it is not because they have turned against YSR legacy, but, in the absence of a strong leader like YSR, there is no one to protect their interests. If they fail to take pro-T stand, KCR would have emerged as the sole champion of Telangana cause. To avert such a possibility Telangana Congress leaders had to resort to political posturing and to hijack the T cause. And that is what we witness today when Sabita Reddy has a soft corner for T-agitators and Jeevan Reddy shouts at the top of his hoarse voice citing distorted history for his stand. Posturing is a sort of political insurance just in case T-state becomes a reality.
Same is the case with Andhra/Rayalaseema Congress leaders. Lagatapati Rajagopal is shrewd enough to see the crisis of leadership in the party after September 2. He wants to seize this opportunity provided jointly by KCR and Chidambaram to emerge as a leader in the coastal districts just in case there is no escape from a division of the state. Or even, if the state remains united, he wants to stand up and be counted.
While one cannot rule out the possibility of Rayapati and Kavuri joining the Lagatapati bandwagon to form a powerful Kamma lobby which lost its political initiative and influence after YSR’s ascendency, one has to understand the emergence of JC Diwakar Reddy and Jagan Mohan Reddy as leaders of the “Samaikya Andhra” movement not to leave the entire political space to Kamma lobby.
Therefore, while headless Congress is pushing individual legislators in Telangana to protect their political space and to ensure electoral dividends, it is a fight between two communities in Andhra/Rayalaseema to fill the void created by the sudden disappearance of YSR from the scene.
The same dilemma is haunting both Telugu Desam and Praja Rajyam Party. If Nagam Janardhana Reddy and Erran Naidu are in the opposite camps, it is not because they have ceased to be loyal to the party leadership. They are only protecting the interests of the party in both the regions.
Posturing for political space can be a temporary phenomenon and one can read through it. But the collateral damage is going to be quite serious and alarming. Pro-T agitators are not confining to politics. They are spreading the divisive mindset to other spheres as well. It started with film industry and now there is talk of extending to business as well. Some T leaders issue ominous warning that if pro-U leaders try to tour Telangana districts, their legs would be broken. Unfortunately, in order to sustain their vested interests, these leaders are prepared to divide the people on socio-political and economic grounds.
The only silver lining amidst these dark clouds is the independence with which the Police is functioning in the state. It is not that the Police force has suddenly become efficient. There is no real political boss to make them function in a partisan manner. Some solace indeed!
Friday, December 11, 2009
BANKRUPTCY OF LEADERSHIP
The reason that Union Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram advanced for the overnight decision on Telangana was the worsening health condition of TRS leader K Chandrasekara Rao. If anything untoward were to happen to him the situation would have gone out of control. That was his unstated fear. Hence, he was prepared to vivisect the state of Andhra Pradesh armed with the hasty decision of a few fire-fighting heads coming together to bail out the state chief minister from a difficult situation. What he did not also say was that the Left extremists and people within his own party would have played havoc in the state in case of such an eventuality.
The same Home Minister, however, while replying to the debate on the dud report of Liberhan, found fault with the then chief minister of Uttar Pradesh Kalyan Singh and by implication his own former Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao for the failure to deploy forces available in the vicinity of Ayodhya to prevent the demolition of the disputed structure. Had the security forces entered the scene, consequences would have been as disastrous as it would have been on 10th Dec in Hyderabad. The dilapidated and disused structure could have been saved only at the cost of hundreds of lives on the spot. Such was the volatility of the situation both on Dec. 6 1992 and now, as Chidambaram feared, on December 9, 2009 at Hyderabad.
When it comes to a State where his party had high stakes, he would like to yield to political blackmail and in the case of a state ruled by his political rival, he has different set of standards and does not want them to respect the popular sentiments and avoid bloodshed. Ah, Talking of popular sentiments, the usual question that emanates from the “seculars” is that “does the Sangh Parivar represent the will of the entire majority community?” If TRS (which was routed in the elections this year in Telangana itself) represents the popular sentiments of people of Telangana, why should there be reservations when it comes to Sangh Parivar and Hindu sentiments?
Keeping aside the historical aberrations, let’s come to the ongoing crisis in the state.
The crisis brings to light very significant realities which the political class will ignore only at the cost of their credibility and relevance.
The President of the Indian National Congress and chairperson of the UPA is simply not a political animal and has no clue about political management. It is only the adulation of her spineless partymen that keeps her in the place that she is now. Electoral success in 2004 and 2009 is due to combination of various complex political realities and certainly not that of the political sagacity of the leadership.
There is complete disconnect between the central leadership of the party and the grass root level leaders that became evident in the last couple of days. The leadership is interested in imposing its will on the people with complete disregard for their genuine aspirations. Atlast Legislators had to choose between their electors and the dictates of the High Command. How long this will last is a different story; atleast they had a taste of the emerging trend which they will ignore at their own peril.
The “high command” culture that has taken deep roots in the party and infected other parties as well like virus, is completely destroying the basic tenets of democracy. Had the legislators elected their leader of the CLP, he would have emerged as a strong leader whose political legitimacy would have stood by him to tackle difficult situations. There would have been no political vacuum in the state which is responsible for the current mess-up. It has become a “policy” of the Congress not to allow leaders to grow on their own strength at the regional level.
Tendency to have “weak” state satraps who will be looking forward to the High Command’s nod even if they have to visit the rest room, might have ensured pliable CMs, but it has annoyed the people and that is what we are witnessing in the state today.
The High Command is unable to shed its love for sycophants whose vested interests influence the decision making process. It never allows the elected representatives to have their say quite frankly. The omnibus resolutions, or should we say one-line resolutions, entrusting with the high command the decision making power is antithesis of democracy.
Combination of these factors is creating a situation in the state which would be a repeat of early eighties in the state. The Congress leadership in Delhi does not seem to have learnt any lesson from the past.
Legal experts feel that it is a travesty of the letter and spirit of Constitution for the legislators to ask Congress party chief to decide on a vital issue like division of a State. The jurisdiction is that of Parliament and the Union Cabinet and of course the consent of the people concerned, that is, if the legislators are allowed to express their views. What is the legal status of a Core Committee? It is more for the convenience of the government in the decision making process and ultimately it has to be approved by the Cabinet. Did the statement that Chidambaram read out on the midnight of 9th December have the approval of the cabinet?
Obviously, Sonia Gandhi wanted to bail out her appointee chief minister K Rosaiah from a difficult situation. Had there been a complete break-down of law and order in the state in the wake of KCR’s health, people would have faulted her for imposing a weak leader, who is not even a member of the Legislative Assembly, on the state. And to protect her “ego” she was prepared to divide the state. There are also unconfirmed reports that her son wanted a dress rehearsal in Telangana for his proposal to divide Uttar Pradesh.
True, there was no acceptable leader after the sudden disappearance of YSR from the scene, and there was crisis of leadership in the grand old party. In such a situation, she should have allowed the Congress Legislature Party to elect a leader in a democratic manner. On the contrary, she treated the elected representatives something like robotic heads and hands to nod their heads and to raise their hands completely disregarding the pulse of their electors. Electors are now sending a message that they cannot be taken for granted. This must come as a wake up call for the high command to change its style of functioning.
The same Home Minister, however, while replying to the debate on the dud report of Liberhan, found fault with the then chief minister of Uttar Pradesh Kalyan Singh and by implication his own former Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao for the failure to deploy forces available in the vicinity of Ayodhya to prevent the demolition of the disputed structure. Had the security forces entered the scene, consequences would have been as disastrous as it would have been on 10th Dec in Hyderabad. The dilapidated and disused structure could have been saved only at the cost of hundreds of lives on the spot. Such was the volatility of the situation both on Dec. 6 1992 and now, as Chidambaram feared, on December 9, 2009 at Hyderabad.
When it comes to a State where his party had high stakes, he would like to yield to political blackmail and in the case of a state ruled by his political rival, he has different set of standards and does not want them to respect the popular sentiments and avoid bloodshed. Ah, Talking of popular sentiments, the usual question that emanates from the “seculars” is that “does the Sangh Parivar represent the will of the entire majority community?” If TRS (which was routed in the elections this year in Telangana itself) represents the popular sentiments of people of Telangana, why should there be reservations when it comes to Sangh Parivar and Hindu sentiments?
Keeping aside the historical aberrations, let’s come to the ongoing crisis in the state.
The crisis brings to light very significant realities which the political class will ignore only at the cost of their credibility and relevance.
The President of the Indian National Congress and chairperson of the UPA is simply not a political animal and has no clue about political management. It is only the adulation of her spineless partymen that keeps her in the place that she is now. Electoral success in 2004 and 2009 is due to combination of various complex political realities and certainly not that of the political sagacity of the leadership.
There is complete disconnect between the central leadership of the party and the grass root level leaders that became evident in the last couple of days. The leadership is interested in imposing its will on the people with complete disregard for their genuine aspirations. Atlast Legislators had to choose between their electors and the dictates of the High Command. How long this will last is a different story; atleast they had a taste of the emerging trend which they will ignore at their own peril.
The “high command” culture that has taken deep roots in the party and infected other parties as well like virus, is completely destroying the basic tenets of democracy. Had the legislators elected their leader of the CLP, he would have emerged as a strong leader whose political legitimacy would have stood by him to tackle difficult situations. There would have been no political vacuum in the state which is responsible for the current mess-up. It has become a “policy” of the Congress not to allow leaders to grow on their own strength at the regional level.
Tendency to have “weak” state satraps who will be looking forward to the High Command’s nod even if they have to visit the rest room, might have ensured pliable CMs, but it has annoyed the people and that is what we are witnessing in the state today.
The High Command is unable to shed its love for sycophants whose vested interests influence the decision making process. It never allows the elected representatives to have their say quite frankly. The omnibus resolutions, or should we say one-line resolutions, entrusting with the high command the decision making power is antithesis of democracy.
Combination of these factors is creating a situation in the state which would be a repeat of early eighties in the state. The Congress leadership in Delhi does not seem to have learnt any lesson from the past.
Legal experts feel that it is a travesty of the letter and spirit of Constitution for the legislators to ask Congress party chief to decide on a vital issue like division of a State. The jurisdiction is that of Parliament and the Union Cabinet and of course the consent of the people concerned, that is, if the legislators are allowed to express their views. What is the legal status of a Core Committee? It is more for the convenience of the government in the decision making process and ultimately it has to be approved by the Cabinet. Did the statement that Chidambaram read out on the midnight of 9th December have the approval of the cabinet?
Obviously, Sonia Gandhi wanted to bail out her appointee chief minister K Rosaiah from a difficult situation. Had there been a complete break-down of law and order in the state in the wake of KCR’s health, people would have faulted her for imposing a weak leader, who is not even a member of the Legislative Assembly, on the state. And to protect her “ego” she was prepared to divide the state. There are also unconfirmed reports that her son wanted a dress rehearsal in Telangana for his proposal to divide Uttar Pradesh.
True, there was no acceptable leader after the sudden disappearance of YSR from the scene, and there was crisis of leadership in the grand old party. In such a situation, she should have allowed the Congress Legislature Party to elect a leader in a democratic manner. On the contrary, she treated the elected representatives something like robotic heads and hands to nod their heads and to raise their hands completely disregarding the pulse of their electors. Electors are now sending a message that they cannot be taken for granted. This must come as a wake up call for the high command to change its style of functioning.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
TELANGANA AGITATION - TELUGU MEDIA'S ACTIVIST ROLE
Dr Marri Channa Reddy might have been lucky to have had two stints as the chief minister of Andhra Pradesh, while at the same time, he was quite unlucky, if one believes in the concept of luck that is, when he led a violent agitation in the late sixties for separate statehood for Telangana. Though Reddy’s agitation took the lives of hundreds of students ruining the academic career of thousands, Dr Reddy did not achieve his goal.
Was it because he was an inefficient leader? Far from it. He was a most dynamic leader of his time, political strategist, not one with his tongue firmly placed in his cheek, steady and full of fire. He might have had some weaknesses, but hypocrisy is not one among them. In a way, he is just the antonym of the TRS chief K Chandrasekara Rao.
Why then did Reddy fail though it is too early to say about the success or failure of KCR?
In the late sixties there were no television channels to give live coverage of all the events big or small. There was only Deccan Chronicle group which also published Andhra Bhoomi from Hyderabad. Telugu dailies like Andhra Prabha or Andhra Patrika or Andhra Jyoti were being published either from Chennai or Vjayawada. There was no gully-to-gully coverage of events, nor were there mini supplements for each and every district and for different regions in the metro to give extensive coverage to the agitation. That is why, chief minister Rosaiah has expressed his concern over the “over-enthusiasm of the media” (Athi Uthsaham) in covering the present agitation.
So, KCR is very lucky, unlike his preceding agitator, to have nearly 15 television channels covering every “act” of the agitation “live” as if nothing else is happening in the world. Additionally, we have nine Telugu dailies which might have combined readership of atleast three crores, not only providing oxygen to the agitation, but fanning the fire as well.
Switch on any Telugu news channel at any point of time, you will find someone, never mind his political status, base or credibility, will be giving a lecture, those days of short bytes of 15/20secs duration are gone, ventilating his demand. The lectures would be repetition galore.
So long as KCR was in Khammam government hospital, the demand was for his shift to Warangal or Hyderabad. Once he was brought to Hyderabad, the demand was for Sonia to make a statement. This only confirmed the perception of atleast a section of the Congressmen that Rosaiah is an ineffective leader. Rosaiah was not in the reckoning even for the ordinary workers.
Press conferences from Telangana Bhavan are “live” whenever they take place irrespective of who addressed the press meet. As a result, even the grass root level worker of the TRS was hogging the limelight.
By thrusting the mike on anyone and everyone found among a group of agitators, the channels were only spreading rumours about KCR’s health. Every one who had a pink shirt or khandwa was interviewed for the non-stop coverage and their only talking point would be a warning to the state government or outbursts against “Andhra officers”. The word “Andhra” became a pejorative term. It was taken to ridiculous proportions when TRS MLAs attributed motives to the doctors at Khammam hospital because they were perceived to be from Andhra region. Such divisive statements went on air unchallenged by the media. There was no time for the media to do very simple verification of facts as they were otherwise busy in “ live” coverage of agitation from as many spots as possible so that there was extensive coverage to provoke people in the name of “sentiment”. No channel had the time to tell the viewer as to what happened to the “sentiment” at the time of general elections and when KCR decided to stay away from the GHMC polls.
Though the government was found napping in the initial days, it started issuing health bulletins and the director of NIMS would say that KCR’s condition was stable. But neither the activists nor the reporters would pay any heed to those bulletins. They would come back to their own conclusion that KCR’s health has deteriorated and that if something happens to him, the entire state would be on fire.
Channels were also spreading “lies” that KCR slipped into coma through the bytes of man on the street. It was nothing but professional stupidity for a reporter to ask a bystander about KCR’s health even after relaying the official health bulletins. A reporter asked the NIMS director what would happen to KCR after two days. Probably, he wanted the director to say that it may worsen so that it becomes a sensational headline and thus provoke the agitators. Look at this gem of a script from an anchor: KCR PARISTHITHI ANDOLAKARNGA MAROCHCHANI KONDARU NAMBDUTHUNNARU.
Yet another straight provocation came from a reporter on the OU campus on Monday. Even as the Police were preparing themselves to evict the students from the campus, the reporter goes live to say that the government brought officers from Andhra and Rayalaseema regions to sabotage the students movement. The OU campus was described as “war zone”. Rapid Action Force does not belong to a region. Either it was sheer ignorance on the part of the reporting staff or pure malice.
Almost all the activists who were before the camera were just issuing threats that if a bill for separate Telangana was not introduced before 10th, entire state would be set on fire. Not satisfied with this, some even said that they won’t hesitate to kill people from the coast. It was absolutely unprofessional and irresponsible for the channels to air the bytes of bystanders especially when they were instigating violence. No channel was an exception to this unjournalistic conduct.
What stood as a pleasantly sharp contrast to the Telugu dailies (each daily was carrying atleast 50 pix everyday) and channels reportage was the coverage by English dailies published from Hyderabad. There was no attempt to sensationalise the events. On the contrary, one could notice the efforts to put things in perspective. Deccan Chronicle was the first daily to report the possible support the agitators were getting from Maoists, for which there was a protest in front of the office of the daily and burning of the effigy of its proprietor.
Times of India (Hyderabad) was another daily whose resident editor, Kingshuk Nag came out with a perspective piece (Is KCR riding a tiger he cannot get off?) Having lost his relevance in AP’s political firmament, KCR was trying to get his relevance back. This was the thrust of the story. He was on the dot when he compared KCR with Raju character in RK Narayan’s novel “Guide”. Though some may consider it uncharitable to KCR, it was nevertheless bold journalism.
New Indian Express resident editor GS Vasu also wrote an edit page article pointing out the mistakes committed by KCR in the past and stating that the police brutality on the Osmania University campus might come to his rescue to regain his lost credibility.
The television coverage of the Telangana agitation should be a case study for those who take to media research. It also highlights the urgent need for Broadcast Regulator. Television, as a mass medium, can play an extraordinary role in reaching the masses at the grass root level, especially when there is a tremendous growth in the number of channels. What is needed is less sensationalism with an eye on TRPs, and more objective and analytical coverage of events. Will they rise to the occasion?
Was it because he was an inefficient leader? Far from it. He was a most dynamic leader of his time, political strategist, not one with his tongue firmly placed in his cheek, steady and full of fire. He might have had some weaknesses, but hypocrisy is not one among them. In a way, he is just the antonym of the TRS chief K Chandrasekara Rao.
Why then did Reddy fail though it is too early to say about the success or failure of KCR?
In the late sixties there were no television channels to give live coverage of all the events big or small. There was only Deccan Chronicle group which also published Andhra Bhoomi from Hyderabad. Telugu dailies like Andhra Prabha or Andhra Patrika or Andhra Jyoti were being published either from Chennai or Vjayawada. There was no gully-to-gully coverage of events, nor were there mini supplements for each and every district and for different regions in the metro to give extensive coverage to the agitation. That is why, chief minister Rosaiah has expressed his concern over the “over-enthusiasm of the media” (Athi Uthsaham) in covering the present agitation.
So, KCR is very lucky, unlike his preceding agitator, to have nearly 15 television channels covering every “act” of the agitation “live” as if nothing else is happening in the world. Additionally, we have nine Telugu dailies which might have combined readership of atleast three crores, not only providing oxygen to the agitation, but fanning the fire as well.
Switch on any Telugu news channel at any point of time, you will find someone, never mind his political status, base or credibility, will be giving a lecture, those days of short bytes of 15/20secs duration are gone, ventilating his demand. The lectures would be repetition galore.
So long as KCR was in Khammam government hospital, the demand was for his shift to Warangal or Hyderabad. Once he was brought to Hyderabad, the demand was for Sonia to make a statement. This only confirmed the perception of atleast a section of the Congressmen that Rosaiah is an ineffective leader. Rosaiah was not in the reckoning even for the ordinary workers.
Press conferences from Telangana Bhavan are “live” whenever they take place irrespective of who addressed the press meet. As a result, even the grass root level worker of the TRS was hogging the limelight.
By thrusting the mike on anyone and everyone found among a group of agitators, the channels were only spreading rumours about KCR’s health. Every one who had a pink shirt or khandwa was interviewed for the non-stop coverage and their only talking point would be a warning to the state government or outbursts against “Andhra officers”. The word “Andhra” became a pejorative term. It was taken to ridiculous proportions when TRS MLAs attributed motives to the doctors at Khammam hospital because they were perceived to be from Andhra region. Such divisive statements went on air unchallenged by the media. There was no time for the media to do very simple verification of facts as they were otherwise busy in “ live” coverage of agitation from as many spots as possible so that there was extensive coverage to provoke people in the name of “sentiment”. No channel had the time to tell the viewer as to what happened to the “sentiment” at the time of general elections and when KCR decided to stay away from the GHMC polls.
Though the government was found napping in the initial days, it started issuing health bulletins and the director of NIMS would say that KCR’s condition was stable. But neither the activists nor the reporters would pay any heed to those bulletins. They would come back to their own conclusion that KCR’s health has deteriorated and that if something happens to him, the entire state would be on fire.
Channels were also spreading “lies” that KCR slipped into coma through the bytes of man on the street. It was nothing but professional stupidity for a reporter to ask a bystander about KCR’s health even after relaying the official health bulletins. A reporter asked the NIMS director what would happen to KCR after two days. Probably, he wanted the director to say that it may worsen so that it becomes a sensational headline and thus provoke the agitators. Look at this gem of a script from an anchor: KCR PARISTHITHI ANDOLAKARNGA MAROCHCHANI KONDARU NAMBDUTHUNNARU.
Yet another straight provocation came from a reporter on the OU campus on Monday. Even as the Police were preparing themselves to evict the students from the campus, the reporter goes live to say that the government brought officers from Andhra and Rayalaseema regions to sabotage the students movement. The OU campus was described as “war zone”. Rapid Action Force does not belong to a region. Either it was sheer ignorance on the part of the reporting staff or pure malice.
Almost all the activists who were before the camera were just issuing threats that if a bill for separate Telangana was not introduced before 10th, entire state would be set on fire. Not satisfied with this, some even said that they won’t hesitate to kill people from the coast. It was absolutely unprofessional and irresponsible for the channels to air the bytes of bystanders especially when they were instigating violence. No channel was an exception to this unjournalistic conduct.
What stood as a pleasantly sharp contrast to the Telugu dailies (each daily was carrying atleast 50 pix everyday) and channels reportage was the coverage by English dailies published from Hyderabad. There was no attempt to sensationalise the events. On the contrary, one could notice the efforts to put things in perspective. Deccan Chronicle was the first daily to report the possible support the agitators were getting from Maoists, for which there was a protest in front of the office of the daily and burning of the effigy of its proprietor.
Times of India (Hyderabad) was another daily whose resident editor, Kingshuk Nag came out with a perspective piece (Is KCR riding a tiger he cannot get off?) Having lost his relevance in AP’s political firmament, KCR was trying to get his relevance back. This was the thrust of the story. He was on the dot when he compared KCR with Raju character in RK Narayan’s novel “Guide”. Though some may consider it uncharitable to KCR, it was nevertheless bold journalism.
New Indian Express resident editor GS Vasu also wrote an edit page article pointing out the mistakes committed by KCR in the past and stating that the police brutality on the Osmania University campus might come to his rescue to regain his lost credibility.
The television coverage of the Telangana agitation should be a case study for those who take to media research. It also highlights the urgent need for Broadcast Regulator. Television, as a mass medium, can play an extraordinary role in reaching the masses at the grass root level, especially when there is a tremendous growth in the number of channels. What is needed is less sensationalism with an eye on TRPs, and more objective and analytical coverage of events. Will they rise to the occasion?
Friday, December 4, 2009
BEST OF BOTH WORLDS FOR ISLAMISTS
Swiss chocolates are good; Swiss watches are the best in the world; Swiss cheese is most delicious and you can add some more to this list. But the people of Switzerland are bigots, sectarian and intolerant of other religions. This is what the liberals feel. The referendum in which the Swiss electorate gave a clear verdict for a Constitutional ban on the construction of minarets in their country is cited by liberals of the world as discriminatory and divisive. Indian Constitution may not have provision for referendum, but some of the modern democracies in Europe have and Switzerland is one among them.
The ruling Swiss People’s Party (SVP), considered to be a right of the centre party wanted to have this referendum as it felt that increasing number of mosques with spiral like minarets would change the landscape of the nation. As everyone knows Switzerland is a small land-locked nation with a population of 7.6 million and 4 percent of the population constitutes Muslims, majority of whom migrated from Yougaslavia after that country broke up. There are already 160 mosques in Switzerland and four minarets.
What then was the fear of Swiss people and why did they vote for a ban on minarets? Practice of burqa, shariat law and unequal treatment of women in Islamic cultures have been troubling the conscience of modern democracies in Europe. The Muslim population in Europe after World War II was one million and now it has risen to 15 million. On the other hand influence of Christianity in Europe is on the wane and the attendance in churches is thinning out causing concern.
This is what is troubling the rulers in Germany,France and Switzerland. We have seen what Denmark did to assert its right to freedom of expression when it permitted those controversial cartoons which set the Muslim world on fire. A German daily also felt that had there been a similar referendum in Germany, Germans verdict would not be different from that of Swiss.
When French President Nicolas Sarkozy was not averse to waging a battle against Muslim orthodoxy, it was this fear of Islamisation of Europe that forced him for a ban on veil. He put a ban on veil saying that he does not want certain neighbourhoods to feel more like Kabul or Tehran than France. He also said that France could be on the “verge of losing its soul because of multi-culturalism that tolerates radical Islamic fundamentalism”.
But, look at our liberals and seculars. They swear by multi-culturalism because that is what will strengthen the forces of political correctness. Never mind what happens to the country’s ethos, civilisation and culture. Contrast this with Sarkozy’s call for Muslims of France. He wants them to share the country’s history and culture accepting its civilisation, values and customs. Don’t you think Sarkozy shares the same spirit of those forces in Nagpur of Jandevalan?
However, some of the dailies are at variance with the viewpoints of governments in Europe and the people. It came out loud and clear when The Times wrote an editorial like our national daily from Chennai calling the Swiss verdict as “bigotry in Switzerland”. Times wrote “Swiss’s cosmopolitan and sophisticated electorate voted (yesterday) to inflame tensions and violate religious liberty” and it was a “destructive and pernicious decision”.
The Hindu wrote “this victory for fear and demagoguery shows clearly the failure of mainstream European politicians to deal decisively with xenophobia, bigotry and racism among their own populations”
The Times readers were not amused with the stand of their daily. Their reaction was quite virulent and pointed. Here are some quotes from their letters:
We get the usual nonsense from liberals who remain in sullen silent shame about how the system does not work the other way round. Try building a Church in Saudi Arabia and you will be treated like Hitler treated the Jews.
Historically, Islam envelopes other cultures once it passes a certain threshold percentage of population. It then eventually ends up as Saudi Arabia has done, banning the practices of all other religions and demoting non-Muslims to the status of Dhimmis.
Swiss vote wasn’t one that was against freedom from religious persecution, but rather one that was against the hard line views put forth by religious fundamentalists who cannot be controlled by the moderates in their faith.
Where Muslims are in a minority, they assume the mantle of the “victim” and demand rights and privileges that the majority does not often have. The situation in Muslim majority countries is something that is known to all of us. There is no question of a pluralistic religious framework in any Muslim majority countries.
As I said before, this again comes in sharp contrast to what our secular forces feel and behave. Take the latest example of Congress striking a deal with MIM for Mayoral post. There is deafening silence on the part of our so-called secular forces. Look at the perception of the Congress. BJP is communal whereas MIM, whose ancestry can be traced to Razakars, is “secular” and you can sup with them.
Apart from secular-communal debate, giving legitimacy to MIM is going to be at the cost of nation’s security concerns. Old City, which is in the grip of MIM, has emerged as one of the hubs of jihadis and we have witnessed the reaction of MIM activists whenever a jihadi is apprehended. It will be foolish to assume that Muslim fundamentalists can operate in the Old city with impunity without the local support. TDP is no better except that it did not have an opportunity to go with the MIM.
Coming back to the Swiss ban, the reaction in the Muslim world, besides the liberal media, has been on the expected lines and there is a sense of outrage with the warning that the ban will have diplomatic ramifications. But, should not the Muslim countries look within instead of trying to get the best of both worlds. You cannot carry even a copy of the Bible in Saudi Arabia. In Maldives you cannot be a citizen of the country if you are not a Muslim. Sudan applies Islamic law even to non-Muslims. Pakistan limits public positions the non-Muslims can hold; Bahai’s plight in Iran is well known; there can be no new churches in Egypt while old ones are being demolished. But Muslims want democracy, equal rights, religious freedom in those European countries where they are in a minority. More than Muslims, those so-called seculars who support their double standards and hypocrisy should be exposed.
The ruling Swiss People’s Party (SVP), considered to be a right of the centre party wanted to have this referendum as it felt that increasing number of mosques with spiral like minarets would change the landscape of the nation. As everyone knows Switzerland is a small land-locked nation with a population of 7.6 million and 4 percent of the population constitutes Muslims, majority of whom migrated from Yougaslavia after that country broke up. There are already 160 mosques in Switzerland and four minarets.
What then was the fear of Swiss people and why did they vote for a ban on minarets? Practice of burqa, shariat law and unequal treatment of women in Islamic cultures have been troubling the conscience of modern democracies in Europe. The Muslim population in Europe after World War II was one million and now it has risen to 15 million. On the other hand influence of Christianity in Europe is on the wane and the attendance in churches is thinning out causing concern.
This is what is troubling the rulers in Germany,France and Switzerland. We have seen what Denmark did to assert its right to freedom of expression when it permitted those controversial cartoons which set the Muslim world on fire. A German daily also felt that had there been a similar referendum in Germany, Germans verdict would not be different from that of Swiss.
When French President Nicolas Sarkozy was not averse to waging a battle against Muslim orthodoxy, it was this fear of Islamisation of Europe that forced him for a ban on veil. He put a ban on veil saying that he does not want certain neighbourhoods to feel more like Kabul or Tehran than France. He also said that France could be on the “verge of losing its soul because of multi-culturalism that tolerates radical Islamic fundamentalism”.
But, look at our liberals and seculars. They swear by multi-culturalism because that is what will strengthen the forces of political correctness. Never mind what happens to the country’s ethos, civilisation and culture. Contrast this with Sarkozy’s call for Muslims of France. He wants them to share the country’s history and culture accepting its civilisation, values and customs. Don’t you think Sarkozy shares the same spirit of those forces in Nagpur of Jandevalan?
However, some of the dailies are at variance with the viewpoints of governments in Europe and the people. It came out loud and clear when The Times wrote an editorial like our national daily from Chennai calling the Swiss verdict as “bigotry in Switzerland”. Times wrote “Swiss’s cosmopolitan and sophisticated electorate voted (yesterday) to inflame tensions and violate religious liberty” and it was a “destructive and pernicious decision”.
The Hindu wrote “this victory for fear and demagoguery shows clearly the failure of mainstream European politicians to deal decisively with xenophobia, bigotry and racism among their own populations”
The Times readers were not amused with the stand of their daily. Their reaction was quite virulent and pointed. Here are some quotes from their letters:
We get the usual nonsense from liberals who remain in sullen silent shame about how the system does not work the other way round. Try building a Church in Saudi Arabia and you will be treated like Hitler treated the Jews.
Historically, Islam envelopes other cultures once it passes a certain threshold percentage of population. It then eventually ends up as Saudi Arabia has done, banning the practices of all other religions and demoting non-Muslims to the status of Dhimmis.
Swiss vote wasn’t one that was against freedom from religious persecution, but rather one that was against the hard line views put forth by religious fundamentalists who cannot be controlled by the moderates in their faith.
Where Muslims are in a minority, they assume the mantle of the “victim” and demand rights and privileges that the majority does not often have. The situation in Muslim majority countries is something that is known to all of us. There is no question of a pluralistic religious framework in any Muslim majority countries.
As I said before, this again comes in sharp contrast to what our secular forces feel and behave. Take the latest example of Congress striking a deal with MIM for Mayoral post. There is deafening silence on the part of our so-called secular forces. Look at the perception of the Congress. BJP is communal whereas MIM, whose ancestry can be traced to Razakars, is “secular” and you can sup with them.
Apart from secular-communal debate, giving legitimacy to MIM is going to be at the cost of nation’s security concerns. Old City, which is in the grip of MIM, has emerged as one of the hubs of jihadis and we have witnessed the reaction of MIM activists whenever a jihadi is apprehended. It will be foolish to assume that Muslim fundamentalists can operate in the Old city with impunity without the local support. TDP is no better except that it did not have an opportunity to go with the MIM.
Coming back to the Swiss ban, the reaction in the Muslim world, besides the liberal media, has been on the expected lines and there is a sense of outrage with the warning that the ban will have diplomatic ramifications. But, should not the Muslim countries look within instead of trying to get the best of both worlds. You cannot carry even a copy of the Bible in Saudi Arabia. In Maldives you cannot be a citizen of the country if you are not a Muslim. Sudan applies Islamic law even to non-Muslims. Pakistan limits public positions the non-Muslims can hold; Bahai’s plight in Iran is well known; there can be no new churches in Egypt while old ones are being demolished. But Muslims want democracy, equal rights, religious freedom in those European countries where they are in a minority. More than Muslims, those so-called seculars who support their double standards and hypocrisy should be exposed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)