Under the Rainbow: India

Am I a Bangalorean first??

Sat, 16 Feb 2008 09:03:43 GMT

This is a very touchy issue. As touchy it is for Mumbaikars or Delhites screaming about the breakdown of their city due to influx of 'Indian outsiders'. Because, although we Indians believe in unity in diversity, it is proximity to one's roots that takes priority. Is this called pseudo-patriotism? Well, you can call it any name but it’s high time we accepted it exists.

Recent comments by Mr. Raj Thackeray has disturbed a bee hive that’s been threatening to burst for a long time. Sure his comments are politically motivated to establish himself out of his uncle's camp. There are many who have branded him narrow-minded and anti-national. This blog is not about that. There are many who have called for his neck. This is not about them either. This blog is about the vast majority who partially agree with Mr. Thackeray but would rather not voice it 'coz of the fear of being called selfish and unpatriotic. And I say partially because, they are affected sure but they would never say no to the guests even if they are uninvited, even if it means trouble. Not because of the money they bring, but because we believe a guest is God (Athithi Devobhava).

Let’s face the facts. Bangalore, just about 10 years ago, was a sleepy city, and then rightly called the garden city and pensioner’s paradise. Then the IT boom happened. Bangalore was suddenly this cosmopolitan city, sought after by many multi-nationals, fastest growing city in Asia, et. al., Since then, it has lost its two most famous titles. While all of us welcomed the money that came with the change, we hated to part with our relaxed and laid-back lifestyle. But we don't have a choice, do we? It is a package, you either have the whole thing or you have none.

I was born here and have lived here all my life except the one year I spent at Chennai. My ancestors were agriculturists and we had land that we tilled and harvested each year. Many years ago, in the name of development the BDA took acres of our land paying us peanuts (even by the standard of those days). They made sites there and we got a couple of them. Now, with my job and the rising real estate prices, (no) thanks to the boom, I don't think I can ever have a roof of my own here, not even with the help of banks, even if I toil all my life. The only way would be probably to loot a bank or become a politician and go corrupt. Naah! Those are both not for me. Naturally, I feel my survival in this city is threatened because of this influx.

What saddens me the most is the attitude of our guests. We hear so often, complaints about how the warm and welcoming Bangalore is becoming a hostile city, auto-drivers demanding unreasonable fair, the vegetable vendor cheating them by quoting higher prices, the bus conductor/driver refusing to speak to them, the day-light robberies, rogues holding up innocent techies and splitting with their cash and valuables, the crumbling infrastructure and the horrible traffic. This is not the story of Bangalore alone. This is happening everywhere in India, all cities and would-soon-be cities.

I have personally seen our guests abusing bus conductors for not speaking their language. I have seen them beating up drivers for over-taking them while they idled in the middle of the road and screaming 'Don't you dare to set foot in my city'. I have known them cribbing about the traffic yet driving alone in a flashy car. (This applies to the hosts too) I have seen them complaining about the uncleared garbage spilling onto the road and still spitting out paan without the slightest thought that it might splash on others.

Take a moment and think about it. Is it too much to ask a person, who has come here to make a living, to learn the local language? Why this absolute resistance on the part of our guests? It is good if you communicate with the locals (rickshaw-walas, vendors) in their language as it builds a bond. How can you expect them to learn your language? This is where they have been all life and spoken the same language. Shouldn't you be acclimatizing yourself to the new environment instead of expecting a sea of change from the whole city? Yeah, I know if we want to be cosmopolitan and global, we have to change with the changing times. But the vendor, who has hardly been to school, doesn't understand it. It is a gradual process and cannot happen with the wink of the eye.

Wouldn't you voluntarily join a German/Spanish class and pay big bucks to learn the language if you were to be posted there? Wouldn't you look up specifically about the local culture and their local habits? Wouldn't you take up courses on cross-cultural sensibilities, etc? Yeah right, because 1 Euro = 50+ INR. Come on, India is our nation. The least we can do is to accept the diversity and adapt ourselves. If you want to feel at home, you'll have to behave like a host.

Pol-ethics*

Tue, 20 Nov 2007 03:20:55 GMT

* Politics and ethics

Yeah, that is a word that I made up because I think it best sums up the current political situation in the state and the nation. Obviously, it is a paradox. In today's times, politics and ethics do not go together. What does is politics and greed, politics and money, politics and power, politics and I-don't -care-about-people attitude.

First of all, let me clarify, I know not all politicians are like this. There are a handful who "still" do not belong to this category.

Flashback:
When I passed out of 10th and took up Science for my PUC, a close friend of mine opted for Arts. And she had Politics as one of the subjects. I asked her one day, what is there is in Politics to study? All you have to do is stand for election, convince the people that you are concerned about them and the country, win the election and that’s it. And she went to explain how Politics is really a Science and that’s why the subject was called Political Science. I was 15 then and had just started understanding what governance was all about.

I also learnt that Politicians are eminent personalities in their own right. They have served the society as lawyers, professors, educationists, judges, literary figures, economists, scientists, engineers, etc. Convinced that my vote really matters in choosing the right leaders, I have been voting religiously since I turned 18. I have voted in all 3 elections. I have debated with many people, including my mom, who thinks voting doesn’t really help because politics is a game of sarees and arrack. And I am happy that I have convinced one person who had never voted in his life to start voting.

Side Note: A recent edition of Times of India carried a good cartoon where one person is saying to the other "Only the poor vote because the rich can buy their own liquor". Sigh!

Back to the present:
Now, I have serious doubts. I mean, look at it. There must be atleast 10 political parties in the state, 70% of which have just a few representations in the state assembly. Then, there are the three big players, none of them big enough to form a government alone but certainly big enough to make shaking governments fall. Everyone wants to rule, either by taking responsibility or by supporting from "outside". Yeah, outside support is exactly how remote control works. There is a government trying to function and then there is the remote determined to not let it do so. The so called party supporting from outside does not want to take the responsibility of running the government but wants a say in all the decision being made. Err.. Sorry, not a say but wants to make the decision.

So, Dharam Singh becomes CM for 20 months and then HDK for another 20 months and Yeddy for 7 days. Hello, what do you think we are? You think we do not understand the games you play? Didn’t Dharam Singh know what HDD is made of? And how did Yeddy think there would be a smooth power transfer at the end of 20 months. And in this chow-chow government, how do you expect any development to happen? Every CM that comes, ensures to undo all the development that his predecessor has done because that was not in the "interest of the people". Yeah right! Tell me about it again.

Anyways, my first question, as always is, why should we have this chow-chow government? I mean, cant we have just two party system like many other countries. Again, I have debated this so many times and have also thought that it is a little against democracy where people cant form their own interest groups and people voting would be denied the choice. But, look what choice has done to us. There is no clear leader. And who I vote for doesn’t really matter because I do not know what the post-poll alliance is going to be. And the post-poll alliance has no logic except the common interest of grabbing power. You might have been foes a minute earlier, screaming your throats out how the other party has committed such blasphemy and how they should be eliminated from the face of this land and now, you are long lost brothers of the Kumbh Mela. So, although I vote for a particular party/person and that party does get the highest number of votes, it may not be able to govern the state because there are others who think they know better than the people of the state.

Now, look at it this way. Suppose, we were to have only two parties, then if I have to contest for elections, I have to join either of these parties, right? What if I don’t agree with either of their ideologies, I stand as an independent, right? I mean, what is my purpose in standing for the elections, to serve the people, right? And that purpose is served this way. And this way, there is always one party who would get 50%+1 seats. Yeah, yeah, the problem with so much population is there could be a sizeable number of independents that would win and not let any party get the clear majority.

Then we come back to square 1 again. Huh!

This Day, That Year

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:57:28 GMT

Well, not exactly this day but a day prior to this and 10 years ago. I am talking of 15 Aug 1997. That was the golden jubilee of Indian Independence. And I was in my 2nd year PUC or 12th standard.

As part of the Independence day celebrations, we had invited an elderly gentleman in his 70s as the uest of honour - can't remember his name. He took part in the freedom struggle and he was with us to share his experiences. He was introduced as a 'Gandhian', some one who followed Gandhi's principles. But during his speech, he strongly refused to be called a 'Gandhian' and quoted the Mahatma as saying 'There is no Gandhism'. When I think of it now, I am reminded of Gandhigiri

We were given an oppurtunity to speak on anything related to India and independence. Sri spoke in Kannada about what India meant to her. Then it was Nayana's turn and she spoke about her understanding of Independence and Gandhi. and then it was my turn.

You know, whenever there was such an event, Nayan always knew what she wanted to speak on. Rather, she was always the first to pick given a choice of topics. So, I was left pondering about what I want to speak. Just 3 days before the event, I decided what I wanted to speak on. I wanted to reflect on how the 50 years had been for us and what I looked forward to in the coming years. Doesn't that sound like a lot of work for a 16 year old?

So, I did my research. I grabbed some history books, ransacked news papers, spoke to people, errr my dad and came up with a set of points I wanted to highlight. Next was the elaboration phase (Yeah, I know RUP). I thought and expanded my thoughts, wrote, scratched and corrected. I remember, I made two drafts before I came up with a final one that satisfied me. Both I and Nayana reviewed each others speeches and gave our inputs.

The next task was to mug it up. Yeah, I had this bad habit since my 5th standard when I first took part in a debate competition. I tried and tried really hard but I would forget one word and get all messed up. I would restart again. I was having too many 'ah' and 'umm' in my speech trying to recollect every word. So, I decided to just remember the points and speak what came to my mind at that instant.

So, the D-day dawned and I was all set, I thought. My speech was about 7 minutes starting around 11:45 AM. It came out quite well, I thought. Nayana and Sri were smiling at me as I spoke and when I reached them after I finished. The first teacher to speak to me was NagaLakshmi Ma'am. She said she liked my thoughts but I should have spoken in Kannada. The guest of honour was really impressed. After the program ended, he called me and gave me a rose from his bouquet. He said I spoke really well and asked me to continue to participate in such events and nurture my thoughts. I still have that rose in my diary.

I remember, very vividly, one thing he said. 'I was there to see the Indian Independence and its 50th anniversary. I don't think I'll be around for the 75th and 100th. But you will be. So, you carry this message and spread it to your children and grand-children'. I really liked him. I know, it sounds odd that I dont remember his name inspite of being impressed with him. But at that point, I thought his name was a little difficult to remember and conviniently forgot.

Ofcourse, I made blunders. I said Rakesh Sharma was the first Indian to land on the moon. At the end of the ceremony, Thomas Ma'am corrected me. The college asked us to make a neat copy of our speeches to be published in the college magazine. And we did.

It was a very patriotic moment for us. For the first time, I was doing something more than hoisting the national flag and singing the anthem. I was thinking about my country and its progress.