Is Sonia Gandhi's health really a private affair?

One of the fundamental traits of dictators is that when they are alive they will never allow secondary leaders in line for immediate succession (except family members) if something happens to these leaders. Such dictators form “committees” and create a power-structure in such a way that the former will never be challenged or even compared with anybody else including the committee members. If something happens to the dictator the whole country will be paying with political uncertainties and many times resulting in bloodshed or worse, civil war. This is why it is imperative that democracies and political parties there develop leadership ascension plans within the parties as well as for top positions in the country.

Another trait of dictators is that they keep information about their own health and whereabouts secret to thwart new leaderships coming to replace them. They will cite matters like “safety” and “privacy” for that. It should be noted that health information and whereabouts of top political leaders are released to public in mature democracies like US and UK. The country has a right to know about the overall health of top leaders. If one is concerned too much about privacy, he/she shouldn’t be in politics. Secrecy is undemocratic in a lot of ways than the other way around.

To a certain extend each country, even democratic ones, has to depend on luck to get a visionary and well-meaning person as the first head of state and depend on his judgment to have the first transfer of power in a peaceful and democratic fashion. Unites States was lucky to have such a noble person (George Washington) as its first president. He didn't even prefer a second term. After second term, he refused to contest. Now, American presidents can get only up to 2 terms under the American constitution.

Similarly, India was lucky to have the visionary and well-meaning Nehru as our first PM. Nehru believed in checks and balances; and respected and nurtured other centers of powers like presidency, courts, and press.

Nelson Mandela in South Africa is another such leader who made a succession plan and transferred power to another leader, while Mandela was in power.

Many other countries, especially in Asia, Africa, and Latin America were not fortunate like the above countries. Ambitions of leaders of these societies stood in the way of democratic evolution.

Despite India’s luck and good start under Nehru, Indira Gandhi changed all those for the worse. Luckily she was only able to destroy her own party and not the country’s democracy. Rajiv Gandhi continued with some her mother's traditions and didn’t allow immediate secondary leaders to grow. Sonia Gandhi seems to have made things only worse in these aspects. It wouldn’t be a big exaggeration to allege that Sonia Gandhi is ruling India now as if it is her family property.

PV Narasimha Rao chose Manmohan Singh as FM for the latter’s technocratic credentials as an economist. But one can argue that Sonia Gandhi chose Mr. Singh mostly or at least partially for his lack of ambition and his acquired good will capital and reputation. Mr. Singh and ministers like AK Antony have great personal integrity but also don't have much ambition. They are “yes” men as we call them. One can argue that Sonia Gandhi and the coterie around her are just using these leaders as the public face of a corrupt and sycophant enterprise as of now.

Some former Congress strongmen like Sharat Pawar were potential successors to the PM position. But they left Congress party when faced with the never-ending “dynastic game”. This is country’s loss and Congress’s loss. Unless and until Congress comes up with a succession plan without depending on the Gandhi dynasty, it is difficult to take Congress as a mature political party. Since BJP, let alone other smaller parties are not coming up as national parties with viable and holistic agenda for the nation, India has a lot riding on Congress’s health.

It is instructive that Sonia Gandhi didn’t select any existing strong leaders like Pranab Mukherjee to the committee. A typical dictator would have done the same.

Being harsh on somebody especially when that person is going through serious health problems is indeed tough. But the country is well above of any individual. It is high time venerable newspapers like Hindu take a responsible position and take Sonia Gandhi and Congress party to task.

India and US - Some thoughts

This is something I wanted to share for a while.

America has a special place in India's modern history. Despite some anti-American feelings among Indian intellectuals and some bad US history (especially under Nixon administration) towards India, India and US have never been "enemies". US never considered India an "enemy" even when US was aligned with Pakistan and China and India was aligned with former Soviet Union. Indians were respected in US and Americans were respected in India as individuals all the time.

India and America were both colonies of Britain. Americans sympathized with India even then. After WWII, US wanted Britain to let go India as a colony.

The greatest literary genius of US, Mark Twain had greatest things to say about India. India's own freedom fighters considered US as a role model. Vivekananda toured US and had good impression of US.

The Indian constitution borrowed heavily from the American constitution. But India didn't like the rather patronizing, condescending, and often racist toned American policies towards the newly independent India. India wanted America to deal with India on equal terms. US didn't do that to an utterly poor India then. India rightly followed its neutral policy towards US and SU. India rightly objected to US's neo-colonial policies towards third world countries. US found it objectionable when India continuously preached to US even when India was facing famines and receiving American food aid. But there was always a lot of respect and admiration for India among American liberals.

America fought wars with pretty much all major powers in the world (SU, Japan, Germany, Britain, China, etc.). But despite mutual suspicions between US and India, India and US don't have that kind of bad history.

India has benefited from US a lot more than Indians admit. Most of the medical and other inventions came to India from US. Without these medicines tens of millions of Indians would have died.

Indians found it very easy to excel in all walks of life in US. Of course there are issues like racism. But in general Americans accept Indians as equals.

Having ruled over by Brits for centuries, Indians developed a deep inferiority complex when dealing with whites. I think we can see this inferiority complex at works with Indian liberals the most. It is here America provides Indians an opportunity to exorcise this daemon out of Indian psyche. The catharsis of "European colonial repression of Indians" is happening in Indian minds as we speak. This is in works whenever Indians hear stories of Indian success stories, whenever Indian kids beat in competition other kids in various fields in west, especially in US. US is special for Indian minds because we don't have the colonial baggage with US.

IT is the first major technology that India became competitive with the rest of the world. The interplay here was between India and US. The confidence Indians gained in this process is crucial for India's coming out of a post-colonial mindset. This confidence is spreading to other areas as we speak. The chains that shackled Indian minds is withering away as we become more and more competitive with rest of the world. America is unwittingly helping India to do this.

Despite a lot of differences between India and US, these two countries have a lot of common things and are destined to be natural partners in a lot of areas even when continuing to agree to disagree on some other fields. We share similar values (of fundamental rights, basic human dignity, equality, freedom of expression, secularism, liberalism, democracy, multi-culturalism, etc.). As India becomes more confident and increasingly a major economic power this trend is only going to get stronger.

Why Indian left is not getting traction in India?

Why does left remain on the periphery of the Indian society and never making inroads to Indian mainstream?

Why does Indian "left" remain as a fighting spirit and not be able to contribute to policy making for the larger India?

Here are some thoughts.

Indian left never understood "India". It doesn't understand today as well. Left didn't understand why Gandhi became so powerful in India. Left doesn't understand why Buddha became a phenomenon in India. Buddha, Mahavira, etc. could only have been born (or more importantly survive until old age without Hindus killing them). Left doesn't understand why Anna Hazare became such a phenomenon. Anna Hazare was used effectively by the likes of Kejrival (for good reasons), because Kejriwal, etc. understood India.

With the western-inspired socio-political analysis, left cannot understand India. I hear from time and again from my (leftist) friends that India is just like any other societies. Yet, they cannot show a figure like Buddha or Gandhi in Europe or America. If you ask Jews or some groups who were at the receiving end for thousands of years in Europe, they will tell you that Europe and India were never the same. Europeans and Americans will give you clues about the difference between lives in India and Europe too early on. A culture of war determined European history. India also had wars. But there were almost never, wars of exterminations like the ones Europeans waged for thousands of years. In India feudalism used God and spirituality among other factors more than violence to maintain the system. Spirituality was the common theme that threaded Indian history.

India was one of the civilization giants in Asia. Indians were not "practical people" in a sense. There were so many practical inventions made by Chinese. Yet not many were invented by Indians. Most of the great Indian minds explored on philosophy and spirituality and theoretical areas like Mathematics. This has been both the strength and weakness of India.

Indians like money and consumerism too. But moral power was always respected by Indian masses and I think this will continue so. That is a strength of India. People like Gandhi understood this.

Do all these things matter for left? Yes. Do leftists become believers or worshippers to connect with Indian masses? I think not. Buddha who lived 2,500 years back was not a believer in any sense of the word. Yet, he got so much attention in India. But to get mainstream traction, Indian left better understand this particular trait of India which I would argue that in fact defines India.

That leads to the next question. What does India left want? What is leftism for that matter?

Well, should people care about these definitions anyway? What matters is what left can do to help people. Get rid of the ideological jargon. Mainstream Indian doesn't like that. Clinging on to them also shows lack of imagination of left.

Here is some agenda for the left that I can think of. These are not based on ideological reasons, but for the benefit of masses and societies.

1) Fundamental equality for all citizens including gender equality.
2) Absolute commitment to secularism.
3) Protection for the poorest and vulnerable sections of the society.
4) Respect for human rights and fundamental rights.
5) Careful balance of environmental preservation along with economic growth. India cannot afford to destroy environment in the name of development.
6) Transparency and accountability in public space. Fight against corruption. Demand time bound answers from public servants.
7) Protect Indian constitution. It is a precious thing we have.
8) Strong defense policy even when following the Indian principle of non-interference in other countries' and societies' affairs, unless it undermines India's security directly. Without a strong defense and the ability to protect borders, no society can remain liberal for long.
9) Commit for universal primary education and universal healthcare. Create a social net for poorest and vulnerable. But cut subsidies meant for middle class and rich (like cooking gas).
10) India still needs a lot of economic growth.
11) There is no reason why gov. supports entities like Air India and almost all PSUs. Unless there is a strategic need (like ISRO), meant to help a lot of poor, or to establish foundation/infrastructure in a new area, gov. get out of doing business. Let private companies make money and let gov. tax them to fund social schemes, etc.
12) Take pride in good Indian traditions. Greatest Indians were Buddha, Gandhi, etc. (European thinkers can remain in books.) One doesn't have to be jingoistic or ignore India's many problems to take pride in India. There is a lot of things to be proud of India. Our way of life ("live, let live" and "coexist with nature" are great ideas). When evolved westerners are discovering the greatness of India, why can't Indian left?
13) Don't try to patronize poor people. Indian villagers are not stupid. they don't need patronization by western-inspired "leftists". But they can use help from educated and knowledgeable people.
14) Don't underestimate the civilization wisdom of Indian villages. Educated people can learn a lot of things from them. Western inspired "isms" cannot last for more than a centuries. We will need our wisdom to survive.

It is a pity that leftism remains rudderless in mainstream India even though India is a poor country and a lot of poor people can benefit from a strong left.

But perhaps left has to get out of its own mental prisons.

Anna Hazare's movement gives all the clues and lessons left wants and needs.

By the way, I believe that for the real left to take off, current leftist parties in India should go bust. The current left has so narrowly defined their agenda for India that it cannot incorporate the larger India. They also have a lot of interests to defend making it effectively all but impossible to think bigger.

What does soft-image mean for India (and Kerala)?

One of the things about Indian society for the past so many centuries is that our collective sense of being a society and the need to defend it is pretty weak. Small number of invaders used to come to India from north west and conquer parts of India. Even smaller number of Europeans came and ruled India for so long by playing one king against other and conquering one place at a time. The primary reason obviously was the lack of a strong central entity (except for some periods) to pool the resources for the defense and place it in proper places (like weak borders). The other big reason was that caste system eventually deteriorated so much so that vast majority of the Indians were not stakeholders in the state affairs. Instead of the whole India sharing the burden people on the borders (like Rajasthan, Punjab, etc.) had to take more responsibility.

One can argue that India was never a unified political entity in recent times. (There were times when Guptas, Mouryas, etc. ruled much of today's India and beyond though.) In modern times, India certainly is not a homogenous nation state like Germany, Japan, or for that matter any nation state. We are more like a European Union, but unlike Europe, without the bitter history of centuries of internecine warfare between different parts of India.

As a nation-state India is not very old. (But for that matter nation-state is a relatively new concept.) India's strategic community (who is a section of the civil society who think for the nation usually without political affiliations and ideologies) is still evolving. Political class in India doesn't have too much sense of the defensive needs of the country either. Military shouldn't be driving defense policy. Fortunately Indian military is a good professional entity and not doing a bad job. But they can never expect (and shouldn't too) to fill in for the civilian leadership.

Of course Nehru was a bit naive on defense. In fact if Nehru has done one major blunder, it was his estimate of the Chinese.

Ideology shouldn't have much of a place when it comes to defense policy, but the policies should still stick with the larger ideals of the society (for eg. colonialism vs. anti-colonialism, offensive outlook/defensive outlook). For example American and British military policies are quite offensive in nature while that of many European states (minus Britain, France, etc.) are defensive in nature (today). Indian liberals and thinking class fail miserably in defining India’s defense policies. Liberals should know that without a strong defense there cannot be a liberal society and state. Liberals can and rightly so can demand a defense policy which is defensive in nature. But that is not the same as a weak defense, as liberals in India seem to think.

Two of the classic mistakes India did was failing to prevent big power involvement in Tibet and Afghanistan. These are buffer areas for Indian defense and India has a legitimate interest to keep them as such. With Tibet's invasion, China and India has a big border. USSR and US coming to Afghanistan (India's neighborhood) was problematic for India from the beginning. It is doubtful whether India could have done too much about this. But the failure is bigger than that (ie. to recognize the issue to begin with). (Perhaps, if SU knew that India would oppose any SU invasion of Afghanistan, things may have been different. Who knows? The whole mess would have been averted in such a case.)

Have we seen Malayalee intellectuals talking about Indian security inside Kerala? No way. Same with many other states. We take these things for granted. We are not a border state and we have not seen war for so long. But we are secure because some other states are doing their job and the Indian armed forces are doing their job. Malayalees (this is true for every Indian actually) get immensely benefited from being in the Indian union. Being citizens of such a large country guarantees certain security and other freedoms. But the system can only work in the long run if we share the burden evenly among all Indians. We do this in a sense, by joining army, by paying for the defense, etc. But there is certain civic duty too. For example, understanding the difficulties of border states and sharing their pain.

This also requires a strategic sense too. Of course not everybody will be part of that. But at least the thinking class should be part of that. Without that dialogue process, armed forces and central leadership alone cannot carry the whole population to policy making.

Here is an example. Terrorists hijacked IA plane to Kandahar. BJP government conceded to the demands of the terrorists. We can blame the BJP government. But I believe they would have been in more trouble, had the passengers been killed. The reason is that Indians are collectively a very soft state.

Example for a bigger problem: Pakistan started training Khalistan terrorists and Kashmir terrorists some 25+ years back. Indian knew that then. What did we do? What kind of debates did Malayalee intellectuals have inside Kerala then? Were there any debates for that matter?

In fact the debate was limited to a few strategic circles and inside armed forces. But armed forces don't make policy decisions. They are just tools of the state. Of course there should have been some debates inside political circles then. But there was no larger debate (involving for example people like you and me and some others on this forum). What would have been a meaningful response to the problem then? (How would a respectable person react to a goonda’s constant taunts on the former’s family?) Had India escalated the issue then and there, what would have been the situation today? India was too chicken then. Was there any pressure on government to act, coming from the larger society? No. Indian society was too chicken. Peaceful nature doesn't mean we act cowardly. But that is what we did. That is what we continue to do. Today, the problem is way too much bigger.

Our lack of a strategic culture is definitely the reason for the perception that we are a soft state. We are paying very dearly for this perception (this is a reality too though). Otherwise, a small state like Pakistan cannot be planning terror after terror in India and get away with it. Pakistan is literally bleeding India with a 1,000 cuts. It is another matter that India will survive these cuts, but the cancer that Pakistan has may not be cured. But nations should have character too.

Look what the lack of a strategic culture has took India to. India wouldn't dare to send an army to Afghanistan, despite the fact that Afghanistan is India's achilles heel of external security (not that sending an army to Afghanistan will necessarily be good for India - which is another matter). The reason why India wouldn't send army is not because of our peaceful nature, but we are too chicken and we will deal with issues back at home at much bigger scale than do with an army that is intended for such use. We don't have the appetite for some deaths like that. But we will suffer indignities (being impotent to respond to genuine defensive needs which saps the self-confidence of the nation) and dozen times more deaths inside India and risk destabilization and socio-economic growth and even risk our way of living at home.

India has so much more stake in Afghanistan than US does. Yet, India is asking US to stay in Afghanistan. It is true that US's own policies are what has done this damage to Afghanistan and it is perhaps classic justice that US clean up that mess.

Regardless, India comes out as too chicken for these. India is a large state. We should have some national resolve and capability to defend India. I am completely against India using military power to exploit other countries' resources. But when it comes to India's national security, we should be unapologetic about and use force when needed for defensive purposes.

Let me finish this thought by bringing the specific context of Malayalee society and its own security, even though obviously Kerala is only as secure as the whole of India is .

Who is the aggressor in the Indo-Pak situation? Use any standard objective criteria and it is clearly Pakistan. But if we look at the debate about the leftist liberals in Kerala, they either assume a holier than thou attitude or assume neutrality. Neutrality for what? They seem to want to make it as if this whole thing is some Hindu-right wing making and hence they (the leftist intellectuals) don't want to be seen as party to the conflict. Talk about making oneself irrelevant in the debate.

But there is more to it. This is an ostrich mentality. What are the implications for such a passive attitude of the left?

Let us look at the social fabric of Kerala. Kerala has about 24% Muslims, 18% Christians and rest Hindus. Like most Malayalees I am extremely proud of our heritage. There is very little real bad blood between different communities in Kerala. Even though Hindus had some pretty bad caste issues in the past, it would be fair to say that that era is long gone. The perpetrators (higher castes) of this past bad setup are not at all seen as villains today even by a small minority, because at least two generations have passed without that setup and now these higher castes are in fact a bit disadvantaged in Kerala.

Christians in Kerala have a great heritage. They don't have a history of persecuting others or being persecuted. Muslims also have such a great heritage in Kerala. There is very little real bad blood between Hindus, Christians, and Muslims inside Kerala.

Coming back to Kerala's security: What is the biggest threat to Kerala's security today and in the foreseeable future? It is the radicalization of a small number of Muslims. They are not even being radicalized for things that happen inside Kerala. Anyhow, radicalization itself doesn't have any scope in Kerala, regardless of the reasons. It has to be nipped at the bud ruthlessly, but surgically. Any dilly-dallying on that will have disastrous consequences in Kerala. I think a lot of politicians understand this aspect and take this seriously.

There has to be an enabling culture for the radicalization to happen. In Kerala's case this is almost all external factors. The influence of dogmatic (so-called pure) Islam in some gulf countries affect some. For example, a Saudi Arabia kind of Islam simply don't have a place in Kerala society. There is no reason to beat around the bush on this aspect. The Islamic traditions in Kerala in my opinion are more sophisticated than the ones in many Arab countries. Wahabis may think ours is impure, but that is their problem (of indoctrination).

The other enabling factor is a push by Pakistan to infiltrate into Malayalee Muslim society. Of course it will be a dream for Pakistan to get some Muslims there to do their bidding, because Kerala is the total antithesis to Pakistan's very existence.

In fact the above two forces are one and the same force which if not checked has the potential to do irreparable damage to Kerala.

All it takes for Pakistan is to be able to recruit a few hundred Muslims in Kerala and they conduct a few dozen bombings and other activities. The dialogue in Kerala will change so dramatically then. People will be looking whether the next person sitting in a bus is a Muslim or not, whether a traditionally dressed Muslim is dangerous or not and all kinds of such things. That may very well be the end of an era of 1,000+ year harmonious existence of Islam in Kerala. Of course that will also mean our (each and every Malayalee) standard (a lot of mental comforts) of living will come down dramatically.

It is pretty much impossible for Pakistan to recruit a lot of Malayalees to do the former's bidding within a few years. But if Pakistan is able to continue their project for several decades uninterrupted, without us doing anything to do about it (that hits at the source), anything is possible.

Basically the background war that Pakistan has been waging on India for the last 25+ years has a corrosive effect on India including Kerala. If Malayalees think that this is not going to impact us directly and take a passive attitude, they are sadly mistaken.

Our sense of justice and Indian justice system

The fact that India has a particularly ineffective judicial process is not new. But we have to increasingly ask - "What is our sense of justice?"

When we come to know about the punishment for some crimes, we don't know whether to laugh or cry. The fines and bond amounts are so ridiculously low in most cases that it is just a nuisance for many rich people. The jail terms are so low and it takes so long that one has to doubt whether even basic deterrence really works in India, especially for rich and powerful.

How about conviction rates? For example, what percentage of murder trials gets convictions? What about the conviction rates for rich and powerful people? How many politicians and high government officials have ever gone to jail for corruption? This, despite the statistics being that a big percentage of politicians and high officials are corrupt!

What about the extra-ordinarily ridiculous delays in concluding trials? Is there even a notion of effectiveness of the justice system in India? Indian court system claims itself to be very independent. But what is the use, if it cannot deliver basic justice to common people?

Indians used to like Kings who were just, but used to deliver exemplary punishment to criminals in the shortest amount of time. In the democratic traditions, we added some extra checks and balances to the process of justice, rightly so. But the judicial bureaucratic process taking over the very essence of justice is unacceptable and shameful. This not only shakes people's trust for the process and the very system which are supposed to help them, but also creates more violence and other crimes due to the missing deterrence from the equation.

Ultimately and over the long run a society's justice system has to deliver the kind of justice that the society aspires. Indian judiciary seems to think that judiciary is independent in ways that it doesn't even have to care about what the society needs and thinks about the judiciary. There is a humongous gap between what people expect from the judiciary and what the judiciary delivers. It is true that in constitutional democracies with provisions of fundamental rights, judiciary is made independent so that it doesn't have to cater to the wishes of the temporary and changing views of the majority opinion at times. Obviously as mere interpreters of constitution and laws, judiciary has to limit its role within the constitutional framework. But it will be grossly inaccurate to claim that judiciary doesn’t have to care about society’s views and needs. Ultimately the wishes of the people have to be reflected in all institutions of a democracy.

We have so many high profile cases of mockery of the very notion of justice in India. What happened to the cases after anti-Sikh riots in Delhi after Indira Gandhi’s assassination? What happened to the cases related to Mumbai riots? What about the Gujarat riots? The verdict in the Bhopal tragedy is just one more instance of mockery of justice like this. If high profile cases are going like this, it is anybody’s guess as to how ordinary people are getting justice.

People have to take the lawmakers to task to create new and tougher laws and amend old ones, investigative agencies to conduct investigations more professionally, and the courts to deliver justice speedily and effectively. India cannot march to become a developed country with such ineffectual justice system.

Rising Islamism in Kerala

This "Muslim" politics in Kerala has the potential to destroy (in fact as of now I think there is a realistic chance of this happening) the Malayalee culture as we know it.

I continuously argue with some friends that the case of Islamic militancy in Kerala is overblown and that Malayalee Muslim community has such a long history of peaceful coexistence with other communities in Kerala that they will have the sense to understand the looming danger and will have the wisdom to douse the fire before it becomes a wild-fire. I still think that this is the case and reasonably sure that things will be under control. But events of last few years force me to think that there is a realistic chance of Kerala becoming a big mess.

Here are a few things. (Some of my liberal friends may think that I am being irresponsible. So, be it.) I know it is not fair to judge a whole community. Obviously a lot of Muslims who are in the secular mainstream are outside this criticism.

* I cannot and wouldn't understand the so-called anger of Muslims in Kerala. In Kerala Muslim community not only benefits from being a religious minority under Indian constitution, but also by being a backward community in Kerala. Also, Hindus (or Christians) don't have a history of oppressing Muslims in Kerala. In fact by objective standards, it is the Muslims who have indulged in some amount of violence against Hindus, even though that violence is small in relative terms.

* If Malayalee Muslims get angry with America involving in middle east, Israel not giving Palestinian rights, etc. that is understandable to an extent. (But at the same time, I don't see any of these same angry Muslims getting angry when some minorities are oppressed and literally wiped out in some of the Muslim countries (including Saddam Hussein's mass killing of Shias and Kurds)). Their opposition to American policies is understandable still (after all, American policies are opposed by all kinds of people for various reasons). But they simply don't  have any right to take such anger and hatred to Kerala (or India for that matter) soil and pollute the society there.

* It is quite true that Muslims are at the receiving end in some parts of India. Siva Sena, VHP, Modi's BJP, etc. have a history of needling and pushing Muslims to a corner. Several thousands of Muslims have been killed and their properties destroyed, etc. over decades. Indian justice system has largely been ineffective and even impotent to stop this. These are all true. Then again, this is India. Several thousands of Sikhs got killed by Congress goondas  and people are still waiting for justice. A Muslim majority Kashmir has done similar crimes to the minority Hindus there too. Sensible Indians across the spectrum are angry at these injustices. Again these “angry” Malayalee Muslims don’t have any right to bring this anger along with hatred to poison Malayalee society. The only way to fight such injustices is by mobilizing civil society and utilizing various constitutional mechanisms, and more importantly by aligning with secular forces. This may be slow, frustrating, and seeming never ending. But this is still the only way. Also, Malayalee “Muslims” have to realize that they are the least “secular” among the communities in Kerala. This is of course a problem.

Some Muslims are angry at Kashmir. Unlike the case of Gujarat under Modi or Mumbai under Siva Sena, in Kashmir “oppression” of Muslims is not the real issue (or cause), even though Muslims are suffering there. Kashmir is a complicated geo-political situation. No sensible Indian Muslim can oppose the basic Indian stand there even when demanding greater human rights for the population there. India has to come up with a democratic solution and win over the hearts of Kashmiris sooner or later. Kashmiris are also to be blamed for the situation.

The grave danger to Malayalee Muslims and hence to Kerala in general is a “potential” out-of-control situation arising due to a series of communal incidents primarily instigated by Islamic radicals but by also Hindu fundamentalist forces. Of course Islamic radicals don’t come up or are sustained out of thin air. There is a certain amount of grass-root support these people have in Kerala today. These supporters naively or otherwise may argue that they don’t support violence. They may mean it to certain extent too. But that won’t cut it. People need to oppose (without ifs and buts) such extremist ideas outright.  Marad, rise of PDP, NDF, etc. show some dangerous trends. People who think Madani’s fiery speeches are just a freedom of expression and can be safely ignored don’t understand the situation.

If this thing is not nipped at the bud (perhaps it is no longer a bud), and if Malayalee society (especially Muslims) continues to take this as business as usual, we are going to see major communal divide in Kerala. If this things get out of control further, we are even going to see Indian armed forces (paramilitary and army) roaming the streets of Kerala in a matter of few years to a decade. This is usually the natural progression of such extremism, unless checked. At that time we will hear about more human rights violations, not less, because such is the nature of army/paramilitary deployment in such circumstances.

A lot of people including police officers with access to a lot of info, and politicians (including many in Muslim League) seem to grasp the gravity of the situation. Transfer of a lot of such cases to NIA is and cracking down extremist elements are to be seen in this context. Nothing short of a total purge of these extremists from the society and a discredit of their support base will do to save our culture and ways of living. If decision makers and community leaders (Muslims, Hindus, and Christians) dilly-dally now, future generations are going to curse us for making God’s own country to a devil’s own brew. Of course, Muslims will be the biggest losers of such a scenario. But rest of the Malayalees will suffer almost equally too. This is not an opportunity to blame Muslims, but an opportunity to be brutally honest and take cooperative approaches to a solution.  I believe our society still has this capacity. Without such a capacity, our forefathers simply could not have coexisted the way they did for hundreds of years. Hindu organizations shouldn’t’ take advantage of the situation and muddy the waters further, because their children are living in Kerala too. Some of them with their hate-filled agenda can never be part of a solution either.

Of course I would love to be proven wrong by future events on this particular issue. I don't want to see my children going through this mess. I don’t want to turn fond memories to nightmares.

Protect our children's health

When a society starts western style of living (and eating) it comes with a free package, a deadly one, ie. a package containing diabetes (and other metabolic diseases), heart attacks (and other cardio-vascular abnormalities) and cancer. European and American scientists who noticed this phenomenon in society after society a century back named these diseases western diseases. Processing of food (starting with white floor which doesn’t have a lot of beneficial nutrients that we need) is the major factor in this. For people who eat a lot of processed food and who don’t eat a lot of vegetables and fruits the risks for all of three major disease families (diabetes, heart attacks, and cancer) go up many times. Cancer rates for a person following typical western (American) diet is anywhere from 5 to 15 TIMES (yes, times ) than that of a person following traditional Indian diet (or most Asian diets). For example, colon and prostate cancer is still very rare in India. In US it is very common. So are many more deadly cancers like breast cancer.

But India (and places like China) is trying to catch with the west including in their lifestyle. Predictably rates of heart attacks and diabetes are soaring in India. Many scientists think our usage of different spices (especially turmeric) and usage of a lot of vegetables still protect us from cancer rate going over the roof, at least so far. But this is also changing although not as fast as diabetes and heart attacks.

Unfortunately some of the protection that our generation have may not be there for our children. It is found that Indian children who are born and brought up in US and who followed typical American diet (which is also available in Indian cities today) is as vulnerable as average Americans are. Combined with this, a large percentage of Indians have genetic factors that speed up diabetic and cardio-vascular diseases. In short the risk for our children in getting these diseases is so much more than we realize. For example, if an Indian girl (born and lived) has 1 or 2% chance of getting breast cancer, the same for an Indian girl who is born and brought up in American ways may be 5 or 10%. Breast cancer is common in US. The same for Indian boys for colon and prostate cancer is even more dramatically higher (like 10+ times). These are only some rough numbers.

Unfortunately it will take the loss of a generation for people to change their habits. People having heart attacks and cancer and diabetes in their 30s is no longer very rare. So, even if a lot of young people suffer, it may not convince us. For example, Americans take it as if it is their destiny to have these diseases today. It is true that people used to die of heart attacks and cancer even 100 years back. But these diseases were very rare then. Most people used to die of infectious diseases most of which are treatable today or at old age.

Some common threads of advices for a healthy living.

• Try to live a content life. A frustrated mind creates a toxic environment for the body (by ways of different chemicals secreted by various glands) which diminishes body’s immune system. Yes, it is clinically proven that negative thoughts (like anger, greed, hatred, etc.) create harmful chemicals in the body. People who live in extreme anger or under continued heavy stress can age so fast and die of heart attacks or strokes or develop cancer or diabetes very easily.
• Take enough rest and get 8 hours of sleep a day. Lack of sleep alone can literally kill people.
• Don't smoke/Quit smoking. Smoking increases the riks for pretty much all major diseases. If we have any respect for our body and health, we wouldn't smoke. Take help from doctors, friends, etc. to stop the habit.
• At least an hour of exercise a day. Exercise boosts body’s defenses. Routine cardio exercises are a big missing part from a typical Indian’s routine.  
• Avoid as much as possible sugar, white floors, high fructose corn syrup which is used in pretty much all processed foods. Buy real foods. The closer the food is to its natural state the better. The fresher the food the better. Pretty much all useful nutrients (other than calories) are destroyed when grains are processed. This means, no sodas too. Occasionally everything is fine or tolerable.
• Omega 3 family vs. Omega 6 family- this seems to be a big emerging consensus. Our food has become overwhelming on the Omega 6 family of fatty acids side and that this is one of the  fundamental reason for more diabetes, heat attacks, and cancer today. This comes mainly from grains, floors, many cooking oils, etc. Omega 3 comes from vegetables, oily fish, olive oil, etc. Meats of grass fed animals and free ranging chicken have Omega 3 as well.
• Lot of different fruits and vegetables, if possible organic. Food grown with lot of chemical fertilizers does’t have many micro-nutrients that our body needs to act as anti-cancerous and anti-disease in general.
• If you are a non-vegetarian, eat a lot of oily fish, especially small sea fishes like sardine (world’s most healthy people – Japanese, Icelanders, etc. have one thing in common - they eat a lot of fish).
• No or very less red meat or any meat. If you eat meat, buy naturally grown.
• Organic chicken, egg, milk, but less of it.
• Avoid canned food if possible. Many canned foods have chemicals which are used as coating for the container that are found to be cancerous etc.
• Use a lot of spices and herbs daily. Except for the red chilli, pretty much all spices and herbs play important roles to protect out health
• Less usage of plastics, etc. Reduce all kinds of chemicals used at home.
• Eat less food, but well diversified. Digestion process also creates free radicals which are aging/cancerous agents as well. If we don’t have enough anti-cancerous micro-nutrients in the food, the cancerous side can gain upper hand. Also, more food the more insulin body has to create, which has harmful side effects. It is clinically proven that eating fewer calories (but richer food) prolongs one’s life and health.
• Drink a lot of water. This is one of the cheapest ways to be healthy.

Michael Pollan deals with the issue of food with a lot of clarity and insights. I would say this is a must read for anybody who cares about food and health.

http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Food-Eaters-Manifesto/dp/0143114964/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261089212&sr=8-1 In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto (Paperback)

http://www.amazon.com/Anticancer-New-Way-Life/dp/0670021644/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265051150&sr=8-1 Anticancer, A New Way of Life.

This book is written by a researcher/doctor who got cancer when he was young. He researched on the subject for many years and found a lot of things. A lot of misconceptions about cancer are shattered in this.

Cancer is an ongoing process in everybody's body. Our bodies apparently have thousands of micro-tumors which will never grow unchecked for most people, because our body has mechanisms to check their growth. Our natural defenses, the food that we eat (the micro-nutrients in it), a stress-free life etc. act as anti-cancerous. On the other hand, imbalances in the foods that we eat, the chemicals our body get from food, water, pollution, and other products that we use, etc., stress, lack of exercises, etc. act as cancerous. Only about 15% of the chances are said to come from genes. This book is not just for cancer patients, but even more for healthy living. Very useful book.

More reading on food.

http://www.amazon.com/Omnivores-Dilemma-Natural-History-Meals/dp/0143038583/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals (Paperback)

Documentary titled “The Food Inc”. There is also a book with the same.

http://www.amazon.com/Food-Inc-Participant-Industrial-Poorer/dp/1586486942/ref=pd_sim_b_3 Food Inc.: A Participant Guide: How Industrial Food is Making Us Sicker, Fatter, and Poorer-And What You Can Do About It (Paperback)

Reforms within Hinduism

"Hindus" have a view of themselves. Rest of the world has a view of "Hindus". These don't match. I believe that a society/community/religion/country can be judged better/more objectively by (relatively) unbiased/independent people from some other society/community/religion/country. For example, average Americans can never judge America objectively because to be objective one has to be detached to the thing he/she is judging. Same with Hindus. Of course when west takes credit for helping/reforming other societies their objectivity is to be scrutinized. However when western historians look at India (and its caste system and other things) that can have more objectivity than let us say when some Indian does.

If you look at the caste system objectively, the horrors and mostly inhumanity/indignity it has committed on humanity is huge. I can think of only slavery as worse than that in terms of intensity of the crime. (But in terms of total number of people and time period it was and is in place, caste system is much bigger in scale than even slavery.) Even more troubling is the tendency of many upper castes to continue to support it in one form or other and take pride in their upper-caste status pride and ignore the condition of the lower castes. Dalits are still a reality. What kind of morality are these casteist people invoking when treating human beings with such indignity and give less value than they give to a cow? When UN wanted to declare caste system just like racism, Hindus have hard time understanding why.

Yes, there were many Hindu reformers down the line. We can see Krishna challenging the vedic rituals and vedic Gods. But I would say he was neatly contained/boxed by the Hindu establishment (mainly Brahmins who were the king makers with the support of Kshatrias who were the kings). One of the first documented/well-known one is Buddha. Remember this happened 2,500 years back. But what happened to his ideas in India?

You can see movement after movement to reform Hinduism from within getting defeated slowly but methodically by the brahminists. At the end of 19th century, Kerala had one of the worst forms of caste systems. Kerala's Buddhist and Jain heritage were all gone. How can a society march backwards? Only because of the conscious efforts of the brahminists (brahmins with the support of the kings). But even kings were afraid of the brahmins. Killing a brahmin was considered the worst offence resulting in eternal damnation. (We can hear stories of Parasuraman killing generations of Kshatrias. This was fine and he was even given an “avatar of Vishnu” position by brahmins. :-) )

If one takes a look at the Hindu texts with the eyes of a historian, I think one can see a lot of opportunism and political maneuverings within them. Some people were definitely trying to protect their corporate interests. Needless to say this had nothing to do with spiritualism or anything like that. Sheer opportunism and disregard for others.

So, we can see Hinduism getting worse and worse (for majority of the people) over time. Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Christianity, Islam, etc. gave people some chance to covert. But changing one's faith on his own is not an easy thing for most people.

India's Brahmins were quite happy to see change of Kings or rulers as long as their interests were protected. They didn't find it too painful to switch loyalty to western powers when they came to India. Most of the kings also were happy with this setup. They will readily ally with one western power to plot against some other king. Of course lower castes who were not big stake holders in the whole enterprise didn't offer any resistance at all. (The whole thing is a shameful period for India. Indians counldn’t offer much resistance to Islamic invasions either, due to similar reasons). Whatever token resistance was put up was by a few strong-willed kings (including our own Pazhassiraja).

It is when western ideals started influencing Indian elite that lasting and real reforms within Hinduism started happening in India. Whether it is Raja Ram Mohanrai, Gandhi, Nehru, and you name it, they were influenced by west. It is not probably because there were not many Indian reformers earlier, but with the British in power, Brahmins were no longer pulling all the strings of power in India.

This is a big indictment of Brahmins. In my opinion, this is the truth. Of course when we say Brahmins, "it is the brahministic Brahmins". There are certainly some Brahmins who stood outside the caste system but inside Hinduism and thought about these things earlier. And then there are modern day brahmins like EMS who did revolutionary things, but standing totally outside "Hinduism".

Of course, outsiders cannot reform Hinduism. Only Hindus can do that. But I would give a lot of credit to the west for shaming these Hindu elite and providing them an opportunity to do such reforms and also providing some room of protection to them while doing that.