The last US Presidential election is way back in the past. But this article I was reading on the media coverage of the campaign leading to it brought some thoughts to mind. The author gives a snapshot of what various news channel websites were offering as information on the two candidates and their respective policies. It was, in short, a joke. Or it would have been a joke if it wasn’t so sad that the most powerful nation in the world was engaged in such trivia on the eve of deciding who was going to be the (let’s be frank about it) leader of the damn world. Sound bites, vague generalizations, trite sayings, these were all that, according to the media, the candidates had to offer in response to the most pressing questions of the day, in a time of the gravest crisis that country had seen in decades. Now I’m sure there must have been something of substance the candidates would have said somewhere in their prolific public appearances and speeches, but not much of it found its way into the highlights the media presented to the American public. Whether this is an indictment of the public or the media or, more likely, both, I a question I don’t think I am a fit person to answer. Maybe I got only one view of the picture. Maybe there were other sites, other channels offering something with greater substance and more pertinence to the problems at hand. But what it got me to do was to look at how elections are conducted in our country, unarguably the largest experiment in democracy the world has seen.
We go into General elections more or less every five years, not counting the late 80s-early 90s phase which was a shameful period for democracy indeed. But barring such unfortunate events, five years it is. On top of that, we have state elections every five years too. A lot of money, effort, manpower, man-hours, and planning go into the elections. Unlike the more orderly British or American system, our political setup is more open and way more chaotic. Innumerable parties, even more candidates, confusing and often ephemeral, opportunistic alliances; it is hard for an outsider to look at this mess and be able to make even partial sense of it all. But even that is not the problem, for the system holds despite all the cacophony. What I was thinking about was – on what grounds are elections fought? What is presented to our public by the parties to help them choose? What are the policies, the broad principles that the parties espouse? What do they say about the economics, the defence, the internal security, all the questions that worry, to different extents, the people of this vast, variegated nation? What do we read in our media concerning these issues? Not much, unfortunately. All parties release their manifestoes around the time the elections are announced. I remember a couple of decades back when the release was a big event, front page news in all the papers. The manifesto was outlined, spelled out, explained, discussed, debated, the parties defended it, it was a big deal. Now a manifesto release is a sideline news, reported in passing. It makes headlines only if it contains something grossly stupid or uncommonly controversial. No one bothers what it has to say at other times. I sometimes feel it doesn’t say much either. Even the parties releasing it don’t mention it again. At most, they might condense it to 20 odd popularist slogans that they bandy about in public meetings and in their speeches as their aims. After the elections, hardly anyone bothers to look up the document to see if the winners are even nominally trying to achieve what they claimed they would if they won.
No, we decide our vote based on irrelevancies- caste, religion, community, group and so on. What matters more to our electorate is not the candidate’s qualifications or his views on policies, but whether we can relate to him in any way. Does he belong to our ‘faction’ so to speak. Our political parties know this full well. That’s why they choose their candidates accordingly. Dalit candidate for a dalit dominated constituency, Rajput in a Rajput dominated area and so on. As the demographics of an electorate changes, so does the caste/religion/class of the candidate. So we have parties putting up candidates belonging to Bihar in certain areas of Ludhiana in Punjab, where the Bihari migrant labour now forms a majority of the voting public. Crass, shallow opportunism and we don’t see anyone even raising an eyebrow over it. I guess now that labour from Bihar is going down in numbers, we’ll find parties suddenly realising that non-Bihari candidates are fitter, more qualified choices. Our media not only doesn’t condemn it, it actually studies it as a fact of political life; it’s just one more statistic to analyse.
Is democracy really the best system of government man can come up with? Is Universal Franchise really such a good idea? Or should we hold back the vote from parts of the populace that lacks the ability to make sound judgment, sound not in the short term for their personal interest (caste/religion etc make a lot more sense in that background), but in the longer term, broader interest on the nation. I know it sounds immensely snobbish and elitist to say so, but just look at our record. Regional parties hold so much power these days, sending large numbers to the Parliament and forcing ‘national’ parties into forging alliances that serve their own purposes at whatever cost ot the nation. That is why people like A. Raja become cabinet ministers. That is why parties like the MNS can win seats. That is why our nation cannot forge ahead with the speed, purpose, and momentum it is capable of. Unless our electorate realizes what is actually at stake in the elections, India cannot become the power she dreams of morphing into.

Back after a break

Haven’t written in over a month. Earlier it was because of the paucity of time, with too many things on my ind, but later it was because I couldn’t type at all. Got viral conjunctivitis (I know, what a joke for an ophthalmologist to get conjunctivitis) and that led to corneal infiltrates that made life hell. I couldn’t type, couldn’t read, couldn’t even use the computer for long periods of time. I had to squint at everything. So very irritating and tiresome. It was hell trying to pass the time. Now with some two weeks of topical steroids therapy behind me I am at least able to read somewhat without looking like some ham actor playing a blind man. It still isn’t very clear but a damn sight better than it was. Still have a ghost image forming just below any object I focus on. It will probably take a couple of months before I am near normal again. Life sucks sometimes. And this year has been one of the worst of my mid length lifespan. Anyhow, now that I can type a bit I should be more regular with my blog.

The Argumentative Indian - Pt. 3

[Enter Post Title Here]


My third and last instalment in my review of “The Argumentative Indian”. Coming ages after I wrote the first two parts! The book has been laying on my shelf, fully read but not fit for storing away since i wanted to write this, my reaction to what Mr. Sen has to say about India and the Bomb.
He seems to think that it was an irredeemably bad idea for India to have tested in 1998. His strident anti BJP stand may in part be responsible for this. I am in no way a supporter of the BJP, far from it, but my antipathy does not go to such extremes that I will criticize any and all of their actions.
He first claims that a lower chance of an Indo-Pak war is not an advantage given the risk of a nuclear holocaust if a war does take place. However, I fail to see how it is a given that any war between the two countries will irrevocably result in a nuclear exchange. Surely, even Pakistani strategists realize that a nuclear exchange can only result in the utter destruction of their country.
He next goes on to give the example of Kargil and says that the threat of nuclear retaliation made India hold back from fully retaliating and placing forces behind the intruders, beyond the LOC. While that was certainly one of the strategies discussed during the conflict, Indian governments have traditionally been loath to take proactive measures, even the more hawkish ones like the NDA that was in power at the time. The Indian army did use its full conventional might to force the terrorists/armymen to withdraw, but in keeping with our more peaceful ideals they did not cross the LOC. If anything, the thought that India might be forced to take such a drastic step only forced the US to intervene earlier than they normally would have. Sharif was read the riot act in Washington and Musharraf was told in no uncertain terms that he would have to pull his men back.
That any madman could get his hands on the Pakistani nukes has been a possibility causing much loss of sleep all over the world. Nuclear power in the hands of terrorists is the stuff thriller novels are made of. But how has Indian testing made that any more possible? We must realise that there were Nukes in Pakistan long before India tested in 1998. It’s not as if they suddenly developed the A-bomb in two weeks of May! They’ve had them for some time now and I can’t believe the US didn’t know about this. This just brought it out in the open. Which raises the important though not pertinent question to this discussion of why no one even wonders how the Pakistani nukes were developed? Surely this must have been under development for decades, or they got them readymade from somewhere, and we all know where. But that’s a question for another time and place. Here it only needs to be pointed out that Indian testing in no way made the Pakistani nukes more accessible to terrorists. On the topic it may also be worthwhile to point out that the greatest risk of nuclear weapons finding their way to the terrorists comes from the erstwhile Soviet republics, but that’s beside the point.
Mr Sen’s point that nuclear detente is not a tenable theory holds little water. In his view the detente of the Cold War was more a matter of luck than anything else, and that we may not be so lucky in the subcontinent. I don’t have such little faith in human common sense. Mr. Sen seems to think of nuclear enabled governments as if they were kids with toys, and at the least provocation they would launch a full nuclear assault. In my view, once the first flush of nuclear power passes, countries become acutely aware of the risks involved in nuclear adventurism, and while there may a lot of sabre rattling both sides of the border, nuclear exchange remains a remote possibility.
The Kargil point is repeated when Mr. Sen thinks that we have frittered away our conventional advantage by forcing Pakistan to go nuclear. I have discussed this point before and I will detail it again. Pakistan did not develop the bomb within two weeks of the Indian explosions of Pokhran II. They already had them and this only gave them an excuse to go public with it, something I’m sure they were itching to do. Their nuclear weapons were developed with Chinese/Korean help, probably pre-assembled there. Their testing only served one purpose, that of feeding their own ego. And though he could not have foreseen it, the international reaction in the long run to India and Pakistani testing has been widely different.
Mr. Sen then goes on to state that our testing would only deleteriously impact our chances to get into the UNSC. I don’t know who said that one of the reasons for our testing in ’98 was to “blast its way into the Security Council”. I don’t think anyone could be so immature. Nor, for that matter, would our remaining non-nuclear have given us the seat. It’s in the interests of the permanent members to restrict membership to that exclusive club and maintain status quo and no idealism on our part would have induced them to change their view.
What he reads into the joint statement released by China and the US on these events as a policy decision allying the two nations, conveniently forgetting that the US’ stance on the situation in this corner of the world changes from day to day, witness their constantly shifting position on Pakistan for instance. If it is to their interest they’d be issuing joint statements in Delhi every other day.
Finally i feel Mr. Sen gives too much importance to our nuclear testing as if it’s the defining event in India’s history and not a jot of all the rest matters. As history has shown since, India’s growing importance as an economic power overshadowed any moral concerns the West had over our nuclearisation and they are falling all over themselves to do business with us in that very field.

Whenever I find myself best with problems, I always retreat into myself. I find myself quieter, less willing to mingle, to talk, to discuss my problems. Even with people closest to me, who at times, fail to understand the reason behind my silence and at others, berate me for my lack of communication. My wife, for instance, feels quite unloved when I don't unload my troubles on her; to her this is a sign of a widening gulf twixt us two. I have seen people share their problems with their spouses, siblings, friends and so on and I think it does help them to some extent to have someone empathise with them. I've seen it recently in my father's case while dealing with my mother's breast cancer, and that was a revelation for me, since I always saw him as the silent type. That's how I've always known him… but that's another matter.

My sister too, I guess, feels the same way to a certain extent. I imagine her to be more understanding though.

Growing up, I was just the same. And I thought most people were just like me. Of course, I thought the same about a number of character traits I have later found myself to possess! But I honestly imagined people internalized their problems and dilemmas and solved them on their own. Later I thought maybe it was a guy thing and females needed to vocalize their problems more. Then I saw that this stereotype at least, was not quite right. Most men too would cast about and form their own social safety net. Not I, though.

No, I still hold on to what I could call the fictional hero, the silent strong type, who broods and broods and leaves the heroine wondering what sadness lies behind those dark eyes. Not so romantic an image, though, do I strike in real life! But then I do not vent all at the end like those heroes too. I take it all in and think upon it and try to solve it and weigh it and set up my own defences and deal with it, all by my lonesome. Always have and always will, hopefully.

Does it make me appear strong? I don't know, though I hope it does. Does it mean I love someone less? No it doesn't, though I can't seem to ameliorate the feeling. Does it drain my resources? Of course it does, and these days with more than one (so many more!) problems, more than ever before. It strains me to the fullest these days, but I still am far from the limits of my strength. Exhausted, yes; spent, no. Hemmed in, yes; helpless, no. Taut, yes; broken, no.

I hope the day does not arise when I need the help of anyone in dealing with my own troubles. Not out a sense of misanthropy, which I do have in abundance, but out of a sense of pride and dignity. Now, if only I could make everyone understand that…..

Haven't written in ages. Not much has been occupying my mind of late. I don't think I even want to think about it. There is a vague sense of unrest, a disquiet in my mind that brooks no joy, no hope, no thought…. Everything seems hazy, unclear, shrouded in mists of my own making. And it's not even as if I was unhappy. I just am not happy. It's just this aimless drifting, this absence of desire, of want, of something new that's getting to me, I think. There are the odd days when a clinical challenge comes to me and I am enthused for a moment. The rest of my work is an endless series of patients I can diagnose before they even sit next to me. And at the back of it all is the feeling that I could, no, I should be working in a better place. Some place where my worth is recognized, where I don't have to refer patients for things I could so easily treat myself, if only I had the equipment. That is part of the worst I think. That feeling of being second grade as a doctor and not because I am incapable, but because I lack the facility to use my talents. Add to that the thought that my future worth might be predicated on my present performance and I finally see what weighs me down. And the final nail is that I can't see a way out of this quagmire……..

I keep reading the same things again and again, in different forms, in different books.. They all talk about the horror that religion has brought upon us, about the villainy associated with it, about the atrocities committed in its name. And with a morbid fascination I keep on reading, abhorring religion at every page turn and still perusing through its ever-growing list of carnage and barbaric deeds. What a bloody past it has given us, the idea that is supposed to bring us peace, and love and joy! What a human cost it has extracted from us to appease a god of its own creation, to strengthen its hold upon us! Subjugated men to their deaths and used those deaths to subjugate many more. What a fantastically cruel, inhuman idea. To write about religion's many infamies would take forever and better writers than I have chronicled them, but what a gory sight indeed to see a man die for his religion and to vault him over us as a martyr, beloved of god and a life worth emulating. To conjure up a god who demands sacrifice, who punishes, threatens, massacres his chosen people, can change his mind at a whim; a concept that's twisted around to fit every new discovery, every new idea, thought, social mores, till he becomes so convoluted that even his best supporters cannot try to explain him satisfactorily.

I have come to the somewhat saddening conclusion that there is probably no god, much as I would like to think he exists; but faced with the wrathful, vengeful, capricious, greedy, fickle, exacting, pitiless god that paraded about by religion I'd rather not have a god and live a life devoid of belief in a holy order of things than pander to such a human deity.

Introspection was a habit I had inculcated since, well, early teenage if not childhood. I would or at least try to analyse my feelings and their roots, what I felt, why I felt it, what was at the root of it all….during college as I grew older and more mature, I got more involved in delving into my subconscious, or at least that's how I remember those days. My diaries have entries of great psychological insight, into both what I was feeling, and how I was grappling with it.

Down the line, I lost the plot. I guess it was easier to introspect when life was rosier or, at least, the future held better prospects. Now when I see into the future I see a dark void, a deep, desolate despair that I see no way out of. Maybe that's why I have been thinking of the past every so often. And that's why I do not face up to my issues and look at them with a stern eye as I used to. Life just meanders on and I can't seem to steer it into any one direction.

There seems to be so much stagnation at times that I feel I am sinking in quicksand. Where is the fruition of the dreams I had come up with? When did they fall by the wayside? Where was I when the world was marching on? How did I come to be left so far behind?