grit in the eye

100110
There’s something special about that way you’d write today’s date. It reminds me of binary digits, the 0s and 1s, the alphabets of the machine language. Anyway, another flipping and pausing through the news channels exposed more irksome events unfolding in politics. Tharoor has made headlines again by supporting the views of British MP, Lord Bhikhu Parekh who, at a lecture at the Indian Council for World Affairs (ICWA) remarked on Nehru’s foreign policies describing them as presenting India in light of moral self-righteousness. Well the media hounds have smelled the odor of controversy well and have started to cover the event even before it has unfurled. Everyone is asking the question, “Will Tharoor will get the bastinado again?” If it happens, it will be very sad because it’ll just prove that the political parties are still overtly moralistic behind their closed doors; of course there are others that are so right in the open, with the people of India supporting them for the same reason. Gandhi and Nehru were great but they were human and it is alright to reflect on their actions for their correctness; there were great things they did for our freedom, so a foreign policy that was self-righteous or moralistic is acceptable for a country that had just gained its independence and was in high spirits, dreaming of a prosperous future. In today’s light, if some actions can be considered as mistakes, they should be accepted as mistakes such that they’re not committed again. Indira Gandhi, a great leader in her own right, was no Mahatma and everyone knows that, her dictatorial actions brought infamy to our land at one point of time but that’s beside the point. The point is to analyze the past, take the good part, learn from the mistakes, and head into the future, forearmed.
There’s the flip side of the politics coin, spearheaded by people like Sanjay Dutt. Today he quit as Samajwadi Party’s General Secretary in response to Amar Singh’s resignation. His speech on the news channel irked me quite a bit. Supporting a member of your party is understandable, quitting and following him/her is understandable too; these are things we’re accustomed to in democracy but to speak like a slave is another. Following is a summary of Dutt’s words:
Amar Singh has given his life for the party. Amar Singh is like his elder brother, if Singh quit, he too “wouldn’t be able to” stay on in the SP. He said he’d go wherever Amar Singh would go (to any other political party). He went on to shamelessly proclaim that he’d do whatever Amar Singh told him to do, even if that meant ending his career in politics.
What kind of logic exists in these statements? When will politicians learn to be objective? I guess that would happen when the people of India demand them to be so. If it weren’t so disgraceful, it would be amusing. This is an elected representative of the people speaking in the most subservient manner possible. How do these people carry out such big jobs that they’ve been gifted by the people of this country? Do they have enough gray matter to do their jobs or are they still in a habit of acting under the given directions; the actor/director relation of the silver screen. They showed Dutt’s popularity on TV while he was on a political rally. He had massive security surrounding him, protecting him from the mob of fans (fanatics) jumping and shouting in a mass hysteria. They were holding banners that said “Munnabhai, dikha do apni Gandhigiri ka kamala”. It was saddening to watch it; they all went and voted for a fictional character. In fact Amar Singh’s entourage consists of other film actors, including Mr. Tiwari (a bhojpuri actor), Jaya Bacchan and Jaya Prada. Tiwari has quit already for the same reason and the two Jaya’s are expected to follow. I understand one brain and one body but one brain and five bodies just seem disproportionate.
Between Dutt and Tharoor, I’d choose Tharoor. What about you?