And now, something for Rahul Gandhi

A friend of mine pointed to me that I should ask questions, not only to Arvind Kejriwal, but also Rahul Gandhi and Narendra Modi. Well, I want to, because no party is perfect, nor has any party in India provided a sustainable plan for India's development and progress. So, I decided let's start with the Grand Old Party of India's youth icon, Shri Rahul Gandhi.

Dear Shri Rahul Gandhi,
 With you being the Indian National Congress' de-facto nominee for the Prime Minister's post, the voice of the youth, the one bestowing the 9 rights, lone fighter of corruption I have a few questions for you. My only worry is the reply to most of my questions being "RTI and women's (or womens') empowerment." Or you lobbing the question back to me an asking me "what would you do about it?" But please, since your party aspires you to be the PM, I hope you will answer the questions of a concerned citizen of India.

1. What is it with you being called "youth icon"?
   You were born in 1970. And you are being called a youth icon! Isn't that ironic? Don't you feel embarrassed by this? I mean, Sachin Tendulkar, who is three years younger than you has already retired from his primary occupation of playing cricket. And he is called a "senior sportsperson", an idol to be emulated and a role model. But where are you? I agree that the Indian constitution didn't allow you to debut before the age of 25, which gave Sachin a head-start of 5 years (he debuted in international cricket at just under 17), but then you were never seen involved with the students' wing of the Congress or its branch in Cambridge.  So, would mind shedding off the "youth icon" tag?


2. Aren't you imposing a state's will onto people through the Right-to-food act?
   I agree that the intentions of such an act are noble. That those who aren't in a position to buy food for themselves, should receive the state's help. But then, isn't a better way of implementing this programme? By saying that we will give wheat, rice and millets at a cheap rate, aren't you imposing the state's will on to people, which goes completely against the tenets of a free democracy? There are areas where people rarely eat wheat or rice or coarse grains. E.g., Marathwada region in Maharashtra prefers to eat jowar and bajra, over wheat and rice. Or those in Konkan eat more of rice than wheat and millets. But then, because of the limits imposed by the food act, they would be forced to either buy the remaining from the open market or change their food habits. Is it morally correct to force people to alter their food habits? Moreover, by this act, you are also distorting the dynamics of agriculture, where you have ended up converting India into a wheat and rice country. Because farmers know that the government will buy their wheat and rice and hence aim to grow no other crop. Do you know edible oil is India's single largest agriculture import? An ingredient, without which no Indian dish can be cooked. That too, at a time when the FCI godowns are overflowing with wheat. With the government's procurements of wheat, rice and millets set to further rise, didn't you and your mother add another disturbance in the dynamics of the agriculture industry?


3. Do you really, sincerely think that those nine weapons of yours will ease people's lives?
   You either tend to think or want people to believe that legislation is the best treatment for the malaise in public life. But, tell you what, once there is a system, there are loop holes. Everyone will exploit the loop holes in the system for his/her own benefits, thereby derailing the overall objective of the democracy. Please wake up from this day dream of yours, where you believe that legislation will cure the country of all ills caused by corruption. There is need for deterrence through prosecution and conviction of the accused, which the entire political spectrum in India today doesn't want to create. Even the Bofors case hasn't received closure and Sukh Ram got convicted by a lower court after fifteen years of trial! By contrast, Rajat Gupta's trial in the United States was over within 3-4 years right up to the Supreme Court.


4.  You really feel that "Congress does not talk about one individual"?
   Yours is a party, whose president, D. K. Baruah, once said, "India is Indira and Indira is India." Now, you would say, that is history and the Congress has changed. That is difficult to understand. At least your grandmother had worked at various lower levels in the original Congress before she rebelled against that party and formed her own Congress(R), which was known as Congress(I), with I for Indira for quite a long time. And you have become the party's vice-president, before proving your mettle at lower or state levels, which many of the current AICC members have done. Do you still feel that Congress doesn't talk about an individual.


5. For empowerment of women, will you do anything to undo the constitutional amendment emanating from the Shah Bano judgement?
   How about beginning from there. Your father had created this amendment, perhaps under pressure or wrong advice. His government overturned the judgement of the Supreme Court. If you want to empower women, can you begin from there. You will receive the BJP's support for that very easily. And your party will not go against what you say. So why not restore the rights of Muslim women for an alimony after divorce as per provisions of the civil law? This would be a great example of women empowerment that you keep repeating.

Sir, I sincerely hope that you will find the time to answer the questions.  They aren't  too many, because you are a busy person, but I would be grateful if you can answer them.

Junior Sardi-man's unabashed pro-Cong opinion

Ever since the trial court in Bhopal has delivered its judgement on the gas-leak case, everybody has begun writing his or her own opinions about it. And the million dollar question is, "Who was responsible to let Warren Anderson go scot free?" For twenty four odd years, nobody has bothered to ask this question. But now, suddenly, everyone seems to have woken up to the fact that Andersen was whisked away in a government car and taken to Delhi in a government plane.

Fingers are being pointed from then Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh, Arjun Singh, to then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and then External Affairs minister P. V. Narasimha Rao. But, the fact is we shall never know who truly helped secure a free passage for Andersen.

One of the conspiracy theories doing the rounds is that Ronald Reagan called up Rajiv Gandhi and pressurised him to release Andersen. Rajiv Gandhi's supporters have come out in his defense stating that such a thing never happened. And those who believe in this conspiracy theory say that Rajiv could have done nothing, except accede to Reagan's demands, because the US was a superpower at that time and the USSR was on the verge of a collapse. One such person, is the ever pro-Congress Rajdeep Sardesai. In his blog titled "Denials, Contradictions and Bhopal tragedy", he says

If the decision was taken by Rajiv Gandhi - and it is impossible to believe that a prime minister would be unaware of it - then it was one of the wiser decisions he took. You can blame Rajiv for opening the Babri Masjid gates, for allegedly conniving in rigging elections in the Kashmir valley in 1987, for his handling of the LTTE problem - all issues which had disastrous consequences - but on the Anderson question in Bhopal, he probably took the right option.

Moreover, 1984 represented the high noon of American 'exceptionalism' - the belief that the United States alone has the right to bring civilization, or democracy to the rest of the world. With Ronald Reagan as President, the US military-industrial complex was dominant and on the verge of winning the Cold War. A country beset with internal strife and a Hindu rate of growth could scarcely have challenged a mighty superpower. If Reagan did ring up Rajiv as has been suggested and ask for Anderson to be released, then letting him go was a pragmatic decision taken in the best national interest at the time.

Well, so junior Sardi-man feels that Rajiv was pragmatic in releasing Andersen, because India was too weak to stand the might of the Americans. Did someone tell him about Cuba and the Bay of Pigs saga? A tiny country beat the hell out of forces trained by the USA. Even Iran, which is facing economic hardships, is resisting the US. Then, why is it that India couldn't bear the brunt of US anger? Are we so weak, to meekly surrender before the US? Sardi-man says that our economy wasn't strong, there was internal strife. I agree to that situation. But then, Rajiv's decision of releasing Andersen, if taken under the above circumstances, is still wrong. Why is he trying to find the "right" things about Rajiv's decision, when it cannot be absolutely justified. And, what was the guarantee, that despite releasing Andersen, the US would not have adversely acted against India? Particularly, when it has a track record of attacking allies after the purpose has been served. After all, Reagan didn't send a written note through official channels. Just an alleged conversation over the phone. But Sardi-man tries to valiantly protect Rajiv Gandhi. And he of course, asks a good question in the end, but not without blaming the BJP

The fact also is that both Congress and BJP have ruled Madhya Pradesh since 1984, the Congress for a lengthy 19 years. If you travel through Bhopal's JP Nagar colony where more than 300 people died and several more were affected by permanent limb and respiratory diseases, its apparent no government has made a serious effort to reach out to the victims. When two years ago, some of them held a dharna outside the prime minister's residence, they were whisked away and spent a week in Tihar jail. Who let Anderson out is a red herring, the real question to ask is: why did it take 26 years for the Indian state to wake up to the plight of Bhopal?

Well, Rajdeep, your intentions are good, but why do you always try to soften the blow on the Congress and more specifically, the Gandhis?