1818- It's all about the lighting

All in the family

22 Feb 2009, SREEMOYEE PIU KUNDU

The politics of the human heart possess its own dynamics. Just days after former Haryana deputy chief minister Chander Mohan publicly declared

Chand Mohammad with Fiza (Top)and Dharmendra and Hema Malini (TOI photo)

his love towards assistant advocate-general Anuradha Bali, cracks surfaced.

A suicidal Bali, now renamed Fiza, read out private SMSes and love letters penned by her beau, rechristened Chand Mohammad, who had by then walked out. "I love Seema Bishnoi (his first wife), my children. I miss them," declared Chand. The sordid drama brought to the fore the issue of polygamy breathing inconspicuously in contemporary, urban India.

Is new age polygamy a continuation of traditional social norms? Historically, kings took concubines. Manu Samhita, the Vedic scripture upon which Hindu laws (under British rule) were based, outlined that all classes could take more than one wife. Sociologist Shiv Viswanathan says, "The Christian missionary influence enforced the ideal of one God and one life partner."

But, in an age witnessing a high rate of infidelity and divorce, is polygamy another corrosive factor negating the sanctity of a marital union? Retaliates Prakash Patel (name changed), a 37-year-old businessman who's been living 'meaningfully' with two wives in suburban Mumbai, "I was married at 21. It was more a business alliance as I hadn't laid eyes on my wife. I fell in love gradually with Saroja (my first wife). A few years later, I met Kalpana (my second wife). We had a clandestine affair till I confessed to Saroja. Surprisingly, she understood that I was unwilling to keep one as a wife and the other as a mistress. On her insistence, we got married at a temple. Today we're one, big, happy family."

But was sharing her hearth and heart an easy transition for Saroja as her husband would like us to believe? "I was called a 'pimp' by my mother-in-law, who warned me that Kalpana (younger and better looking) would throw my son and me out. I was shattered initially, but I realised that while my husband loved me as a homemaker, Kalpana was the more worldy-wise partner. I was apprehensive, but today, both our sons share equal property rights. And I'd like to believe we are loved equally," she confesses.

Polygamy has been a thriving practice down South. In Tamil Nadu, bigamy is pretty much institutionalised as Chinna veedu, which translated implies 'small house' or second home. Be it the late M.G. Ramachandran, Tamil actor Gemini Ganesan who married five times while his first wife was alive or M. Karunanidhi who has married at least three women, the first of whom is dead - the concept is rampant in the Krishnagiri and Salem districts of TN, where men believe in more the merrier. "The twilight zone of polygamy" says adman Prahlad Kakkar is a 'concealed truth of hypocritical Indian society'. He adds, "Bollywood couples Dharmendra-Hema Malini, Salim Khan-Salma Khan-Helen live by their own rules. Polygamy exists in the upper and lower echelons of society unaffected by middle-class morality."

Director Mahesh Bhatt whose poignant film Zakhm was a flashback on his own life says, "My father married twice, but as my mother was Muslim, he couldn't accept her openly. I was born out of wedlock. When I fell in love post-marriage with Soni (Razdan), I used my Muslim access to give it legitimacy." He recalls the 'emotionally trying experience', "My second marriage took a toll on both families".

In a society used to doling out second class citizenship to the 'other woman', does she ever become an accepted part of a polygamous treaty? "My grandfather had three wives," admits danseuse Kaushalya Reddy, who proposed to brother-in-law, noted dancer Raja Reddy as a 'teenager attracted to his virile masculinity'. "I was madly in love, unaware that I was breaking my sister's home. Years later, my sister Radha confessed that when she learnt about my feelings she had broken down in the bathroom. Ours is a wonderful arrangement," she claims.

The legal angle
The issue of Hindu marriages remains a hot bed of legal entanglements. Legal expert Indira Jaisingh says, "Polygamy is banned by law for Hindus. If the affected person (first wife) discovers that her husband converted to Islam for convenience and isn't abiding by the religious rules, she can move court. If found guilty, he can be prosecuted under the Hindu Marriage Act and Indian Penal Code." Mumbai-based women's rights lawyer Flavia Agnes points to the grey areas, "The man can buy property for his second wife. Even the child is entitled to the father's property, but not family property."

"When Prakash spends the night with Saroja didi, I can't sleep," rues Kalpana. Kaushalya too adds, "If other women look at my husband I can't stand it." While the hand of law controls a man's possessions, the complex web of emotions remains clasped in a tight knot.

(Times Of India, 22:02:2009)
____________________________

sreemoyee.kundu1@ timesgroup.com
________________________

Pakistan needs a Beant Singh

SWAMINOMICS
22 Feb 2009, S Anklesaria Aiyar

Islamabad's surrender to the Taliban in Swat is terrible news. A moribund Islamabad cannot stop Islamic terrorists from attacking India even if it wants to.
It's another matter that Pakistan has long nurtured groups like the Lashkar-e-Taiba to target Kashmir. It's now learning what India learned in the 1980s — you can be devoured by monsters you create to wound others.

Indira Gandhi nurtured two monsters — Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale in Punjab and Prabhakaran of the Tamil Tigers. When the monsters got out of control, she (and later Rajiv Gandhi) tried quelling them. Result: Indira was killed by disgruntled Sikhs, and Rajiv by disgruntled Tamil Tigers. The lesson for Pakistan is clear.

The Taliban's rise in Pakistan has something in common with Bhindranwale's rise in Punjab. A religious preacher, he sought to purge Sikhism of modern evils and return to pristine Sikhism. He was outraged by reformist Sikhs like the Nirankaris, and his followers killed many Nirankaris including the Nirankari Baba.

Religion and violence make a very dangerous mix. Yet, both Indira and the Akali Dal, sought to use Bhindranwale rather than jail him. Indira supported his candidates against official Akali ones in the 1979 gurdwara elections. And the Akalis sought to use his inflammatory Sikh rhetoric — including a demand for an independent Khalistan — to garner votes in state elections.

The Akalis let him set up a terrorist fortress within the Golden Temple. This ended only when the Army overran the Temple and killed Bhindranwale. But this attack enraged many Sikhs, creating ever more militant groups.

No politician or analyst initially viewed the Bhindranwale challenge as a law-and-order one, to be put down with a firm hand. All felt that Sikh sensibilities had to be assuaged with political compromises. My editor at the time thought peace could be bought by giving Chandigarh and more river water to Punjab. Alas! the terrorists dismissed such peace offerings with contempt.

Rajiv Gandhi struck a peace accord with the Akali Dal, enabling it to win the 1985 state election. Yet, his attempt to use the Akalis to curb extremism failed — it only emboldened the militants, whom the Akalis had no will to control. Rajiv also struck a deal with Bhindranwale's nephew, Jaswant Singh Rode, and made him Akal Takht chief. But militancy only increased.

He then tried Army rule, but that too failed. The militants became ever stronger, and soon constituted a quasi-state. They sent out hukumnamas (religious commands) ordering the closure of meat shops and cinema halls, and a terrorised populace obeyed. Policemen who tried to tackle terrorism were initially thwarted by politicians of the Congress and Akali Dal. Later, militants assassinated several police officers and their relatives.

In sum, all compromises with religious terror failed. So did Army rule. What finally succeeded was democracy with an iron fist. Fresh state elections in 1992 were boycotted by the Akalis, in line with terrorist warnings. *Beant Singh, the new Congress chief minister, gave his police chief KPS Gill a free hand to crush terrorism. Gill unleashed state terror to counter Sikh terror, replicating tactics that the militants themselves used. In barely one year, he crushed a decade-old problem.

Only when Sikh policemen took on Sikh militants, with no interference from central or state politicians, was terrorism curbed. Earlier attempts at a Punjab-Delhi compromise or Hindu-Sikh compromise failed. The solution lay in reformulating the issue as one pitting Sikh liberals against Sikh fundamentalists.

This has lessons for Pakistan. Attempts by Islamabad to placate or strike deals with extremists will fail, emboldening militants and lowering the state's stature.

In elections, Pakistanis have repeatedly voted for liberal Muslim parties, not Islamic ones. Yet, these liberal parties — including the Awami National Party, which won the state election in the North West Frontier Province — have no stomach to take on the Taliban. Islamabad has sought compromises with militant Baitullah Mehsud in the tribal areas, but only succeeded in strengthening Mehsud. The new compromise in Swat will surely fail too.

To succeed, Pakistan needs a Beant Singh. Muslim liberals will have to take Muslim extremists head on. The task has to be done by a state government using police skills, not the Army. Terrorists cannot be subdued by US planes or troops.

This is a battle for Pakistan's soul. It must be fought by Pakistani liberals against Pakistani extremists, without regard to Indian or US interests or urgings. Once Pakistani liberals grasp this hard reality, as Beant Singh did in Punjab, they will find that victory over extremism can be surprisingly quick and complete.
(The Times Of India, 22:02:2009)

[*Beant Singh (February 19, 1922 - August31,1995, Chandigarh) was the Chief Minister of Punjab from 1992 to 1995. Singh was a Sikh, and a member of the Congress Party.Born in the village of Bilaspur, Ludhiana, he later lived in Kotli. He attended the Government College University in Lahore and later joined the British Indian Army. He began his political career with Akali Dal, but was elected to the State Assembly in 1969 as an independent. During the 1970s he joined the Congress Party, and he remained in office even after 1977, when Indira gandhi voted out. When the Congress Party regained power in 1980, Singh was made a minister.

During the bloody years after Gandhi's assassination, Singh was the party president in the Punjab. When the government called elections in 1992, Akali Dal boycotted it; Singh was elected with fewer than a quarter of eligible votes. During his tenure, Singh himself ordered killings of pro-Khalistan militants in the ongoing Khalistan movementwhich resulted in deaths of largely government covered and planned huge amounts of militants. Despite that shaky start, Singh's tenure was in some respects successful. He helped restore agriculture and industry after the turmoil of the late 1980s; however, he did so by means of a ruthlessly enforced, often extrajudicial, discipline. Singh (and Rao's central government) argued that such means were necessary to control terrorism; however, at the time of Singh's death more than a hundred cases of police abuse were pending in the state courts.

He was assassinated by a car bomb on August 31, 1995 in Chandigarh. The bomb killed eleven other people, including three members of Singh's security detail. Separatist group Babbar khalsa took responsibility for the assassination.

Beant Singh was accompanied by his close friend Ranjodh Singh Mann on the day of assasination.]

(Wikipedia)
_____________________________

Business World OPINION - Reservations As Cancer

______________________________________
Reservations were always unjust; now they create only misery and jealousy all round without political advantage to any party
_____________________________________

It is an historical accident that Meenas were included amongst scheduled tribes and Gujjars were not. There was a time when Meenas were like any other Rajput clan. They built Amber fort, which commands the approaches to Jaipur. In the 16th century, Baharmull Kuchhwaha, a Rajput king, transferred his allegiance to Akbar, and with his help, destroyed the Meena kingdom of Naed. The feud continued for four centuries. When the British came, Rajput kings allied themselves with them to defeat Meenas, who lost their kingdoms and turned to robbery. That is how they ended up in the list of criminal tribes. Later, when the British ceded power to nationalists, the label, “tribe”, proved a godsend. It brought Meenas reservations in the civil service and education, and proved to be their entry ticket to the lucky Indian middle class. Today, Meenas are well represented in the civil service, and are turning to business.

Gujjars have a less distinguished history. They were originally nomads spread across the dry tracts of western India and Pakistan from Kashmir to Karnataka; it is possible that they came from Central Asia, perhaps Georgia. There are two subcastes of Gujjars: dodhi and bakarwal, or buffalo-keepers and goat-herds. When India was sparsely populated, they used to take their animals up to the Himalayan foothills in summer and descend back into the plains of Punjab and Uttar Pradesh in winter. Now that settled population has grown and grazing grounds have shrunk, they are being forced to take to more sedentary occupations. But not being a landed community like the Meenas, they do not have steady incomes or family support and have not invested as much in education. As a result, they have found it difficult to climb up the social ladder.

When the mutiny broke out in 1857, Gujjars were amongst the most energetic rebels; as a result, they had their share of hangings and dispossession, and earned their place in the 1871 list of criminal tribes. But somehow the curse of the British did not turn into a blessing of the Congress on the advent of independence; Gujjars were not included amongst scheduled tribes.

It is thus an accident of history that Meenas are a scheduled tribe and Gujjars are not. Meenas did the right crimes in the 19th century to earn their place in the fortunate category of tribes; Gujjars somehow fell through the cracks of history. This is no justice; it is sheer chance.

This government does not believe in justice; it is prepared to take a chance. Its resolve to shower favours upon Other Backward Castes (OBCs) is a perfect example. OBCs are so close in their social parameters to the main population that if they deserve reservations, so does almost everyone. They are backward only in name; if they are backward, there are no forward castes, except politicians. But they are a big vote bank; reservations are the way the Congress hopes to get their votes. Hence, the government’s opportunistic move. Mayawati came to power by giving sops to the most forward caste; the Congress does not want to be left behind in opportunism.

But here too, Gujjars are unlucky. They are not numerous enough for the government to bother. There are many groups and castes related to Gujjars — after all, Gujarat calls itself the land of Gurjars — but they would rather hide their kinship to the poor Gujjars.

The looming civil wars of India are not over class as the Prime Minister claims. The working class may have fought bloodthirsty capitalists in the textbooks he once read; but in the India he rules, it is castes that are fighting over the right to undeserved jobs and places in educational institutions. The way to douse their wars is to leave caste behind, and to abolish reservations. Reservations were originally introduced for an opportunistic reason: the Congress wanted to wean away Untouchables from Ambedkar, and to persuade them not to convert themselves to Islam and Buddhism. So it gave them reservations — but only if they were Hindus. There are Muslim Meenas, called Meos; they were excluded from the reservations.

For reasons of political advantage, the Congress divided the people by caste and religion. But now those divisions it created are causing bloodshed and havoc. There is no more political mileage in them; instead, there is only trouble. Even sectarian political parties must see that the time for favouring vote banks has passed.

No politician likes to take a radical decision, least of all the Prime Minister. It may be beyond him to abolish reservations. But he should at least begin to reduce the reservation percentages. If he wants to profit politically, he can replace them at the margin by reservation for the meritorious poor. Let him practise inclusive growth.

( http://www.businessworld.in/content/view/1891/1954/)
_________________________________________________