WHEN HAPPY NEW YEAR IS A PRAYER

So what were the most indiscreet, absurd, ridiculous and damfoolish statements of 2018? Not that anything this year can overshadow the all-time record set by Mulayam Singh Yadav. Remember his justification of rapes on the ground that boys will be boys? He exposed his Stone Age mentality again when he said, "We should avoid the use of computers and English in India".

The year that is passing did make an effort to keep up, ministers leading the pack. Anant Kumar Hegde said that Sanskrit would be the language of future supercomputers. Haryana minister Anil Vij added that Mahatma Gandhi's image on currency notes brought about devaluation. This was mild compared to a 2008 comment by party colleague Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi. His piece of wisdom was: "Women wearing lipstick and powder are the same as J & K terrorists".

Religious rabidness being the fashion of the times, men in power took action that would otherwise have been irregular. The seasoned tactician Shivraj Singh Chauhan elevated five ordained sadhus to minister status and formally anointed them as Minister Babas. That his government fell in the election that followed is a different story. The fall also ended plans for sadhus and temple workers to collect metal for a 108-ft Statue of Wisdom a la the Statue of Unity in Gujarat.

Here are some other sayings of the year. Gujarat's Chief Minister Rupani said Narad Muni was the original Google. Rajasthan's Education Minister Devnani said cows exhale oxygen. Former Uttarkhand Chief Minister Nishank said: "Science is a dwarf in front of astrology. We speak about nuclear science today. But Sage Kanad (Kashyapa) conducted nuclear test one lakh years ago". Union Agriculture Minister Radha Mohan Singh want us to know that "the idea behind yogic farming is to empower the seeds with help from positive thinking. We should enhance the potency of seeds by rays of paramatma shakti". The one and only Biplab Deb of Tripura took up a different topic. He said, "In Mahabharata Sanjaya was blind but he narrated what was happening in the battlefield. This was due to internet technology. Satellites existed during that period". (Sanjaya was not blind, by the way. His king Dhritarashtra was. Sanjaya had divya drishti with which he could see events far away).

The Mughal period of Indian history is something our patriots would like to wish away. But not all Mughal rulers were bad. According to Madanlal Saini, president of BJP in Rajasthan, "when Humayun was dying he called Babur and said, 'If you want to rule Hindustan, you must keep three things in mind -- respect cows, brahmins and women".

Bringing up the rear in 2018 was Kiren Rijiju, a minister who usually tries to strike a modernistic pose. According to him, "the population of Hindus in India is going down because they never convert people while minorities are flourishing". Rijiju is in the Home Ministry. Why doesn't he take steps to put a full stop to conversions? Why not also implement the Honourable MP Sakshi Maharaj's proposal that "every Hindu woman must produce at least four kids to protect Hinduism".

This year's Ignoble Prize for absurd, fatuous, ridiculous statements must of course go to the faceless terrorists who dominate the social media with their reckless threats and warnings. A Carnatic music singer was called a traitor because he was scheduled to sing compositions about "gods of religions other than Hinduism". Actor par excellence Naseeruddin Shah is being pilloried for criticising Hindutva extremism. This is a man who did not even care to know what was his religion until admission problems made him join Aligarh Muslim University. He became a fish out of water there, too. His "crime" this time is that he criticised certain aspects of politics in his country. Like Yashwant Sinha does. Like Arun Shourie does. Like Shatrughan Sinha does. Like Shashi Tharoor does. But criticism from them is okay because their names do not have a Naseeruddin in it. This is unacceptable.

Will India get out of intolerance is the question 2018 leaves behind. The answer will come loud and clear as 2019 gets into stride. Threats to citizens with different opinions will either become the rule of life or a thing of the past depending on how the votes go in a few months from now. We have only one India, an India of multiple faiths, multiple languages, multiple food and dress cultures -- Incredible India. Will the incredible retain its glory?

Happy New Year is not just a greeting this year but a prayer.

HOW AMBEDKAR MAKES US RICHER

"The Hindus wanted Vedas, and they sent for Vyasa who was not a caste Hindu. The Hindus wanted an epic, and they sent for Valmiki, an untouchable. The Hindus wanted a constitution, and they have sent for me". That was B. R. Ambedkar at his biting best. He went on to underline an existential misfortune of India: "The greatest tragedy of the Hindi belt is that the people of that region discarded Valmiki and installed Tulsidas". That was his way of saying that the impact of Ramcharitmanas was negative compared to that of Ramayana. Valmiki told a human tale without propagating any selective morality. Tulsidas turned that tale into a religious text with sanitised spiritual tenets for devotees to follow. Shrewdly Ambedkar showed why the Hindi belt was culturally different, and less tolerant, than the rest of India.

Ambedkar has become a message, as only Mahatma Gandhi has. After their passing, a difference between the two messages slowly developed. Gandhism has been largely contained within its symbolic value, while Ambedkarism has developed into a cult inspiring a growing movement for social and political advancement. The number of Ambedkar statues across India bears witness to it.

And why not, when his observations on various issues continue to strike us as unusually perceptive? Yet another collection of these comments is presented in the Navayana publication rather bafflingly titled, Ambedkar: The Attendant Details. It is a collection of reminiscences that bristle with sagacity, humour and sheer wisdom. We get peeps into many aspects of his life -- his poverty, his addiction to books, his illiterate wife's rustic ways, his Dalit admirers.

"Even though I had become a barrister", he recalls, "the thought of practising law in Bombay made me nervous. No solicitor would accept me as his junior. Finally I took up a job in a commerce college for 150 rupees per month. I faced opposition from various quarters. I gave 50 rupees to my wife for domestic expenses".

His wife Ramabai was a product of timeless traditions. She would walk two miles with a basket of dung cakes on her head, ignoring taunts by local women that the wife of Mr Barrister was carrying dung on her head. Mr Barrister for his part described Ramabai's unique method of financial management. "She would take 30 pieces of paper, put one and a half rupees in each and keep it tied up in a piece of cloth. She kept five rupees aside for contingencies. Come what may, she would never spend more than the contents of one paper packet in one day".

Ambedkar got married when he was 17. But he was Ambedkar and he went on with his education. He used to tell his followers to avoid early marriage so that they could focus on education. Books were his lifelong passion. A follower counted 8000 books in his house in 1938. When Ambedkar died 18 years later, there were 35,000 books. He would have books on the bed, on sidetables near it, on the floor, on his chest as he dozed off.

There was a rush of religious suitors when Ambedkar declared his intention to leave Hinduism. The Nizam of Hyderabad offered Rs 5 crore if he and his followers embraced Islam. The authorities of the Golden Temple explained to him about the equality that prevailed in Sikhism. Christians tried a trick. The British bishop of Bombay took the highfalutin position that there was no point in conversion without conviction. At the same time other bishops, all Britons, wooed him with promises of Jesus Christ's blessings. Ambedkar had no difficulty in turning away from the bishops because he knew that the caste system was a reality in Christianity, too. One of the most learned men of his time, Ambedkar knew that Buddhism was the right refuge for him.

Included in the book are excerpts from a diary kept by Devi Dayal, who looked after Ambedkar's books and sundry household tasks. The title of the diary proclaims its uniqueness: Daily Routine of Dr. Ambedkar. It tells you all about what Babasaheb ate for breakfast (toast, eggs and tea), how he carried newspapers to the dining table, marking items with a red pencil to be cut and preserved, how he could recall from memory which cutting was in which file kept in which cupboard. The Dalit feminist writer Urmila Pawar sums things up in her foreword by saying, "The more we see him in the round, the richer we become", a point that can be made about no leader alive today.

HINDUISM TRIUMPHS OVER HINDUTVA

This column has said more than once that the greatness of India lies in its majority community voting, not as Hindus, but as Indians. By far the most dramatic -- and comforting -- confirmation of this has been provided by the latest election results.

The drama is contained in basic population figures. Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh constitute the heartland of Hindu India. In Rajasthan 89 percent of the population is Hindu, in Madhya Pradesh 90 percent and in Chhattisgarh 93 percent. By contrast only 80 percent of the people are Hindu in Uttar Pradesh, only 83 percent in Bihar. Which means that it is the states with the largest number of Hindus that have rejected the BJP. Remember that the BJP had raised its Hindutva pitch as electioneering progressed. The VHP added its bit by holding a massive rally in Delhi demanding Ram Mandir in Ayodhya rightaway. Simple, ordinary voters exercised their franchise to show their disapproval of this communal approach to politics. Their action strengthened India as well as Hinduism. Hindutva's politics of polarisation stood exposed.

The results shocked the party that had come to consider its triple strengths as invincible -- the brilliance of the Prime Minister's oratory, the win-anyhow philosophy of the party president, and the Machiavellian genius of the establishment's legal pundit cum finance minister. Each of them is unmatched in his field. But all of them shared a fatal weakness -- overconfidence that led them to believe they were always right.

They were often wrong. The Prime Minister was wrong in constantly denigrating Jawaharlal Nehru. The first prime minister of the country did make mistakes, but all the statue-building and oratory of the BJP cannot dent Nehru's historical importance as an architect of modern India. Party boss Amit Shah stooped lower still with his contempt for the snakes and mongooses, the dogs and the cats that teamed up against his party. Now that the snakes et al have been approved by the people, will the party chief concede that in the eyes of the citizens of this country, including the majority of Hindus, he is nothing more than an overrated manipulator?

Arun Jaitley is the brainiest of them all and therefore the damage he does goes deepest. He is the only BJP leader to whom Narendra Modi feels obligated. And for good reason. It was Jaitley who first proposed Modi for the chief ministership of Gujarat. It was Jaitley who defended Modi when Prime Minister Vajpayee himself was inclined to "punish" Modi for the Gujarat riots. It was Jaitley who proposed Modi for prime ministership over the objections of seniors like Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Sushma Swaraj. It's no surprise that Jaitley became the most powerful person in the Modi Government despite the fact that he could not win an election.

Every significant political move in the last four years carries the Jaitley stamp. It was he who thought up the Electoral Bonds, a devious way to channel funds anonymously to political parties. The Election Commission itself objected to it, but Jaitley didn't care. His drive to bring the Reserve Bank under the Government's control has been relentless. Urjit Patel's resignation was more shocking than Raghuram Rajan opting not to seek a second term because Patel had initially given the impression that he was pliant and obedient. Evidently even he found the Government's demands unacceptable. These demands boil down to accessing the Reserve Bank's assets for the Government's politically-motivated spending schemes. No other finance minister had taken liberties with the RBI's autonomy and assets. What Jaitley proved in the process was that he had no qualms about distorting even the foundational principles of the country's economic structure for political purposes.

Major policy initiatives of the last four years reflect the same authoritarian approach: Demonetisation that wrecked the lives of citizens in unprecedented ways, Goods & Services Tax that complicated the system instead of simplifying it, inaction on bad loans by banks that benefited party cronies. Arun Jaitley welcomed occasions to dwell on these issues, more than any other party leader. The frequency of his television interviews is an example. On all those occasions he justified every self-centred anti-people move with an air of grandeur that suggested that people who disagreed with him were mentally retarded.

Those people have now told the BJP that communal passions have no place in politics. Will the BJP pay heed, or will it turn vengeful? Power in Delhi is in its hands for another quarter. Power is a hydra-headed beast and a quarter year is a long time. Momentous days are upon us.

MANUFACTURING HUMANS TO ORDER

Is editing babies in the womb the next big thing? A Chinese scientist who claimed the first embryo-engineered birth said the babies he produced would get neither HIV nor Alzheimer's. The implication is that you can have children made to order as per your taste and preferences -- children with blue eyes and blonde hair, or with pointed nose and African curls, children who are not anti-nationals. The age of designer babies is upon us. Or should we call them superbabies?

It was at a conference on gene-editing that Chinese researcher He Jiankui said he had helped make the world's first genetically edited babies. He had altered embryos for seven couples and one had produced twins. He said his aim was to generate a trait that would ensure HIV-resistant babies. Fellow gene-editing specialists at the conference were the first to condemn him for doing what they described as monstrous and unconscionable.

Among the critics were China's own scientists. More than 100 of them issued a statement calling the birth of the edited babies "madness". China's health authorities ordered a "serious investigation" into the matter, followed by a ban on gene-editing. But how authentic is this official reaction? While most countries have banned gene-line engineering, China has promoted research in the area. It is known to have built the world's largest DNA database. China's political leadership is open about its eagerness to be the world leader on every front.

Besides, the concept of superbabies is not new. It has had its day in countries as different as Hitler's Germany and Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore. The Nazis had an active programme to encourage the birth of Aryan babies from "racially pure" couples. Hitler's ruthless bodyguard cum secret service called SS was in charge of the programme. They raised a special organisation for the purpose called Lebensborn, Fount of Life, in 1935. Pure Aryan women, even if unmarried, were encouraged to give birth anonymously. Orphans considered racially proper were adopted by the state while abortion was encouraged when babies were likely to be handicapped. Unfortunately, none of this helped Hitler in the end.

Singapore's approach was different. Lee Kuan Yew was alarmed when a trend of "qualified men" marrying "downward" surfaced in his island nation. It led him to warn that "levels of competence will decline, our economy will falter, and society will decline". It was a clear case of over-reaction, but the all-powerful Prime Minister proceeded with firm action. A platform called Social Development Unit was set up in 1988 and it arranged love cruises, tea dances and bowling clinics to encourage college-educated men and women to marry. An official of the Unit put it rather bluntly: "If you want to produce geniuses, you have to get a graduate man to marry a graduate girl". The Curriculum Development Institute of Singapore published a booklet titled "Living and Loving" urging young people to give dating a try. Did Singapore get a generation geniuses? No sign of it yet.

We should not hasten to criticise politicians who have these fancy ideas. For a long time now the scientific community has been working at gene editing and often with success. By 2015 the Harvard Medical School had developed a new technology for editing DNA. That year's May-June issue of the MIT Technology Review had a cover story with the title "we can now engineer the human race".

The customary attitude in this matter is that meddling with human genes is irresponsible, unsafe and morally wrong. Some say these experiments are premature. Some try to sound rational and say that gene manipulation is possible, but of no practical use. One scientist put it this way: " 'Can you do it' is one thing. The most important question is 'Would you do it?' Why would you want to do it? What is the purpose"?

Such questions were raised by Einstein, too, but the atom bomb was exploded, forcing the scientist to concede that politics was more difficult than physics. In the US a commercial biotechnology company was formed in 2011 with scientists' participation to let parents decide "when and how they have children and how healthy those children are actually going to be".

The die is cast. China knows it and will make every move to ensure its position up front. India also puts genetic engineering high up in the academic area, but only to get longer-lasting tomatoes and golden rice. It would be great if we could develop technology that produces humans with an aversion to using religion as a political tool.

POLITICS PROMOTES BAD MANNERS

When we say or do things that we should not say or do, it's bad manners. In this election season bad manners became the very norm of public life. How else can we explain an educated and experienced political leader saying that Narendra Modi, Uma Bharati and Sadhvi Ritambara are lower caste people and therefore know nothing about Hinduism, that Brahmins alone are learned? The comment was made by Congress leader C.P.Joshi, a PhD holder and professor of psychology who was cabinet minister under Manmohan Singh. It was an indication of the depths of rottenness to which politics has taken our country in just a few decades.

We had started off well. For two brief periods electoral democracy functioned in India with decorum and civility. The first was when Jawaharlal Nehru set the tone beginning with the first general election in 1951. Courtesy prevailed in politics. Backroom manipulators like S.K.Patil in Bombay and Atulya Ghosh in Calcutta plotted and conspired, but they had to stay within the code of public decency that was mandatory in Nehru's India.

The model of correctness in campaigning was V.K.Krishna Menon, a veteran of electoral politics in London where he had contested and won. The Cold War was at its height and powerful US-led anti-communist lobbies singled out Menon as their principal target. In the fiercest battle in which Menon faced Acharya Kripalani, editorials, speeches, leaflets and slogans vilified him in personal terms. But Menon stuck to his British-style campaigning, not even mentioning Kripalani by name, let alone attack him. His speeches were about policy, about war and the need for peace, about non-alignment, about India's role in the world. It was political politeness at its best. Menon kept winning until 1967 when S.K.Patil, now the unchallenged king of Bombay, introduced what was then a novelty -- the argument that Menon was not a Maharashtrian. Nehru was dead. India was changing.

The second golden age of electoral democracy was when T.N.Seshan reigned as Chief Election Commissioner (1990-96). All he did was to enforce the rules, but he did it with such authority and attention to detail that the electoral exercise in India became a marvellous spectacle that the world watched with awe. It was post-Emergency India and politics had become infested with time-servers, family retainers, profiteers and plain thugs. None of them had a chance against the enforcement juggernaut of the unflinching CEC. Seshan showed what one man could do ensure that democracy did not become a hydra-headed monster. In time Seshan retired. And the monster was set free.

Today candidates give money openly to constituents, an illegality Seshan had stopped. The Election Commission itself was recently caught favouring the ruling party more than once. These are indications that the sense of morality that ruled politics in an earlier era is gone. Small wonder that even language used by politicians has tuned vulgar.

Congress leader Kamalnath asking Muslim leaders to ensure that 90 percent of their people voted for his party was not vulgar; it was bluntly communal. His colleague Raj Babbar was vulgar when he referred to the fall of the rupee and said that the currency was "inching towards the age of Narendra Modi's respected mother". What was the point of that comparison? Bad manners for the sake of bad manners?

Giriraj Singh is known for boorishness. Choosing to be an extremist despite being a Union Minister, he makes notorious statements one after another. The worst was: If Rajiv Gandhi had married a Nigerian, would the Congress have accepted her as its leader? Even the BJP was ashamed and forced him to make some kind of apology. A man so uncultured keeps issuing warning to those who do not toe his Hindutva agenda, while poor Mani Shankar Aiyar looks doomed for describing the Prime Minister as "neech", an unwarranted term.

Donald Trump must have been impressed by Indian politicians, hence his reckless use of bad words against people he dislikes. A woman TV presenter was called "low IQ" who was "bleeding badly from a facelift". He called some opponents crazy, phoney and psycho -- language never used by a US president before.

This kind of politics is criticised even by professional criminals. Remember Daku Malkhan Singh, the Chambal Valley dacoit who struck terror in the region in the 1970s? He surrendered in 1962 and is leading a quiet life in his farm. He recently surveyed the political scene and said: "We were rebels, not dakus. Today's netas are crorepatis. They are hi-tech dakus".

Truer words were never spoken.

NAXALS AND OTHER PESTILENCES

What exactly is a Maoist? Or a Naxalite? Or an Activist? Or an Anti-national? Or an Urban Naxal? (Is there a Village Naxal?) Obviously there is something bad about them, though we don't know what. In the old days of binary values, if you were a communist you were bad; if you were anti-communist you were good. Now communism and Marx don't matter. Note that the Communist Party of India (Maoist) was banned in 2004 while the Communist Party of India (Marxist) was considered so harmless that it was left to stew in its own juice.

It wasn't so when the war against Hitler ended and Churchill's Britain and Roosevelt's America reluctantly teamed up with Stalin's Soviet Union to share the spoils of war. In no time Stalin and Communism were seen as enemies of democracy. A hate wave rose in America. The result was the Cold War that plagued the world for four tense decades from the 1950s to the end of the 1980s. Movies were made on the Cold War, books written. In the midst of the turmoil, America came under the spell of a mighty force called McCarthyism.

In a speech in early 1950, Joseph McCarthy, a Republican Senator, said that he had a list of 250 card-carrying communists working for the State Department. Pandemonium broke out, fear gripped the thinking class, and Senator McCarthy became the most powerful politician in America.

He turned out to be a cruel manipulator. Forming the so-called House Un-American Activities Committee, he led a witch hunt. Anyone could be called before his Committee and asked: "Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?" Many careers were destroyed. People like Charlie Chaplin ran away from America. The nightmare ended after an army lawyer took on McCarthy and gave him a verbal assault that was devastating. The Senate itself finally passed a resolution censuring him. A shocked McCarthy was plunged into depression and took refuge in alcoholism. He died unlamented in 1957.

McCarthyism's seven-year reign of terror was built on a simple premise: Attack those who did not toe what was projected as the line of patriotism. Does that sound familiar to us in India these days? Somebody provides a definition of nationalism and those who disagree are branded anti-national. A non-political institution like the Airports Authority of India feels obliged to cancel its invitation to classical singer T.M.Krishna in Delhi. Krishna finally performed before a large audience. But who tried to stop him? And why?

Girish Karnad, India's greatest living playwright, appears at a function wearing a placard hanging from his neck with the legend, "Me Too, Urban Naxal". What prompted this gentle, thinking citizen to show such a defiant gesture? Was he defying a shadow or the substance? That is the other side of Indian McCarthyism. The powers that spread fear, and provoke the fearless to react, are invisible and unheard. They are too clever, or cowardly, to set up an Un-Indian Activities Committee openly and put non-partisan citizens on trial.

Karnad was one of those who decided to call the bluff. A shadow named Vivek Agnihotri, a film maker, had asked patriots to make a list of those who were defending Urban Naxals critical of the current Government in Delhi. Some 50,000 people mocked him by enlisting themselves as Urban Naxals. One named Amrita Madhukalya said it in words that went out like pistol shots: "I think. I debate. I question. I dissent. I criticise. I empathise. I protest. I probe. I exist. Me Too Urban Naxal".

There is still no sign that the invisible members of the invisible Un-Indian Activities Committee will get the message. They ignore some, target some, punish some. Arundhati Roy keeps making statements like "in the India of today, to belong to a minority is a crime". At another level, Dabholkar and Pansare and Kalburgi were silenced though all they did was think, debate, question, empathise, probe.

In the course of the Dabholkar Pansare case, the revision bench of the Bombay High Court said: "We are witnessing a tragic phase in the country today. Citizens already feel that they cannot voice their concerns or opinions fearlessly. Are we going to see a day when everyone will need police protection to move around or to speak freely?"

In a 1952 judgment related to McCarthyism, US Supreme Court Justice Douglas Williams said: "Our weakness grows when we become intolerant of opposing ideas and depart from our standards of civil liberties". Voices of sanity abound. Of what avail?

GRAVE NEW WORLD OF XI, TRUMP

The avatars of Donald Trump and Xi Jinping aim at making China the leader of the world. They have almost reached their targets. Under Trumpavatar, the policy of America First has led to US withdrawal from global engagements, be it NATO or Trans Pacific Partnership, leaving the field open to an assertive China. For its part, Xiavatar has been pushing the Asia Infrastructure Bank and the Belt and Road strategy across continents while concentrating at home on military modernisation and advanced cyber technology. China's advances on the frontiers of science have been astonishing -- or frightening depending on the angle of vision.

To put this in perspective, recall the fact that Mao Zedong proclaimed the birth of the People's Republic of China in 1949, two years after India became independent. Mao's Cultural Revolution etc took China backward for nearly three decades. Its forward march began only in 1978 with Deng Xiaoping's reforms. That is, after India had gone through the prime ministerships of Jawaharlal Nehru, Lal Bahadur Shastri and Indira Gandhi, and the Emergency backlash had put Morarji Desai in the prime ministerial chair. Such a late start, and where is China today? Such an early start, and where is India now?

China has reached the point where it is challenging the US for world leadership. Its official military budget for 2017 was $ 190 billion (US, $ 590 billion, India, $ 50 billion). Its focus is on science and technology in military research. A Scientific Research Steering Committee was set up last year in addition to the Academy of Military Science, the National Defence University and the National University of Defence Technology. R & D resources put emphasis on nuclear fusion, hypersonic technology and multipurpose satellites. The US Defence Secretary's office began its annual report on China in August with the sentence: "China has the political will and fiscal strength to sustain a steady increase in defence spending, supporting the continued modernisation of the People's Liberation Army and the exploration of new technologies with defence applications".

China ignores conventional ethics in its determination to be the leader of the world. For years now hundreds of Chinese have been going to American universities for higher studies. Most of them return to China to let the motherland benefit from their freshly acquired expertise in various subjects. There have also been reports of Chinese specialists "stealing" industrial secrets from American companies. According to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, some 2500 military scientists, researchers and engineers were sent in the last decade to western universities to conduct research, sometimes in areas like navigation technology, quantum physics and cryptography.

It is known that China has been investing heavily in AI (Artificial Intelligence) with plans to become the world leader in that sector by 2025. It has openly said that AI is a "strategic technology". It also puts emphasis on indigenous manufacture. Already it is turning out armed drones and a string of ultramodern weapons. An aircraft carrier has been commissioned. China has become the world's third largest exporter of arms, after the US and Russia. Until now, America was developing its military prowess to meet Russian challenge. Now the benchmark is Chinese challenge.

China thinks long term. More importantly, China thinks culturally and historically. For the US and Russia, for example, military planning is related to political and strategic oneupmanship. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. For China it has to be sufficient unto eternity. Communism or no communism, the historical memory of China's imperial overlordship with neighbouring states maintaining tributary relationship with it is alive. Imperial China considered itself the centre of the world. Times may have changed, but the notion of a superior destiny gives China an inner power other nations lack.

This is the context in which the extraordinary powers Xi Jinping acquired through constitutional changes must be judged. The 19th party congress last year gave him powers that only Mao had before. Significantly it was the same party congress that proclaimed something no party congress had done before -- that it was right for China to return to the days when China was the world's leading power in trade. This, from the Chinese viewpoint, is precisely what Xi Jinping is doing with determination. His assertion that the whole of South China Sea is China's backwaters bears the stamp of his power and of his readiness to take on the world. The task will be easier with the help he is receiving from the mixed-up, confused Donald Trump. Say hello to the Grave New World.

WHY LET RELIGION DESTROY INDIA?

What's happening to our country? A huge and diverse land of 135 million people, 29 states and 22 scheduled languages, yet we are caught in a single obsession -- religion. All discussions, all decisions, all policies are shaped by religion. Sabarimala is on the edge of civil war. "Hindus are losing their patience", a Union Minister tells the Supreme Court after it postponed the Ayodhya case hearing. Uttar Pradesh changes Allahabad into Prayagraj. Soon Azamgarh will be Aryamgarh, Aligarh will be Harigarh, Muzaffarnagar will be Laxminagar, and Ahmedabad will be Karnavati. Will they become model cities as a result, all civic problems solved?

It's not that we don't have real issues bothering us. In fact we are immersed in issues that threaten us from multiple sides. The Reserve Bank is fighting the Finance Ministry. CBI, of all things, is sabotaging CBI. Breathing in the national capital has become more injurious to health than smoking. More and more youngsters are ending up jobless. Education has become a scandal. Not one Indian university is among the world's top 100. Indians are committing unbelievable crimes, like raping a 100-year old woman. Our food has largely become unfit for human consumption. No party talks about these subjects. Religion alone counts.

Food, the everyday food we eat, has become a threat. Chemical farming is so widespread that hardly any vegetable escapes residual dangers. Pesticides that are banned globally are used in India. Even endosulfan was supported by Ministers like Sharad Pawar despite the horrible deformations it caused in a generation of people. The "American way of farming" was introduced in Punjab in 1960s to usher in the Green Revolution. The result was the Cancer Train that left the farmers' town of Bathinda every night for Bikaner where treatment was more affordable. Overuse of pesticides turned the Green Revolution into a nightmare.

Did politicians do anything? Did people learn anything? Today farmers in several parts of Tamil Nadu use excessive pesticides on crops meant to go to neighbouring states, and less on portions meant for local consumption -- a version of parochial patriotism. Fish is preserved in chemicals used to keep human corpses from decaying too fast. According to UN reports, India ranks among the top countries whose agri-food products are rejected in the US and European Union. Indian exports are sent back because of the presence of microtoxins, microbial contamination, veterinary drug residue, heavy metals, unauthorised food additives, pesticides remnants and wrong product composition.

If our best is so often rejected by advanced countries, what would be the state of the food we keep for our own consumption? No wonder advanced countries export their worst to India. In 2008 as many as 35 large containers of hazardous American waste were found rotting in Tuticorin port for three years. Who allowed it to come there? Who kept it unattended for so long? How many made how much?

In 2003 Parliament went to the extent of banning Coca Cola and Pepsi from its canteens because of too much toxic pesticides. But there was no ban outside Parliament. That means, what was bad for MPs was okay for ordinary folks. MPs themselves lifted the ban after a while. The Coca Cola factory in Plachimada was closed because the waste fluids from it made neighbouring areas unfit for agriculture. But other factories in other cities continued. Before the power of lobbies, our policy makers bend their knees.

Colouring agents, among the most dangerous chemicals that go into food, are allowed free play. A look at Diwali halwas will show how colouring can even look unhealthy. Everybody knows that adulterants are used widely -- saw dust (in chilli powder), coal tar (in tea), dyes (in turmeric, green chillies, apples). Most colour enhancing dyes are highly carcinogenic. In responsibly governed countries these problems are contained. In Singapore, Kuala Lumpur and Bangkok, the authorities ensure that street food is not only clean but good enough to be a tourist attraction.

If others can do these things, why can't we? Because we are obsessed with religion and its politics. Nothing else matters. In Madhya Pradesh five sadhus were appointed ministers of state. Union Minister Giriraj Singh warned Muslims of "consequences" if they did not support Ram Mandir. As the distinguished novelist Mukundan said: There are no humans in India any longer, only Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Dalits. We have turned religion, meant to be a positive force, into a destructive idea. We spread hatred, attack others, lynch people in the name of God. No God will forgive us.

BURDEN OF BEING ALWAYS RIGHT

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley has the advantage of knowing that he is always right. Reserve Bank Governor Urjit Patel has taken his own time to learn that. Which is Patel's problem. He started out as Jaitley's handpicked man to replace Raghuram Rajan who simply had to go as Arvind Panagariya had to go and Arvind Subramaniam had to go. The international celebrity that he was, Rajan thought he knew banking and finance a tad better than the Finance Minister whose foundation, after all, was in law. But he forgot that the Minister was a politician, and politicians are wizards in all subjects from finance to rocket science.

Urjit Patel functioned obediently in the early days. When the country reeled under the impact of the half-baked, hastily implemented demonetisation two years ago, Patel became the target of attack by harassed citizens. The attacks grew harsher as ATMs failed as did RBI guidelines to restore some order. Patel bore the brunt of people's wrath. The Reserve Bank was called the Reverse Bank.

The first sign of the RBI Governor trying to regain his reputation was the bank's annual report a few months ago which showed that 99.3 percent of the banned currency had returned, thus putting an official stamp on the failure of demonetisation. Patel took another bold step when he asked banks to restructure their non-performing assets or initiate insolvency proceedings against borrowers, a move that could embarrass the Government which has distinguished borrowers among its friends. The RBI has also been taking a stand against banks that have been in the news for the wrong reasons though its hands seem to be tied in some cases (ICICI, for example).

The question now is not whether the RBI Governor has caused displeasure in the Finance Ministry, but how deep-going is the displeasure. Disagreements had fanned speculation about the Ministry imposing a section of the RBI Act that would make the Bank subservient to the Government. Adding fuel to the fire was a speech by RBI Deputy Governor Viral Acharya that went viral. He warned: "Governments that do not respect central bank independence will sooner or later incur the wrath of financial markets and ignite economic fire". Even the General Secretary of the Reserve Bank Employees' Association indicated the way the wind was blowing inside the venerable institution when he said there must have been pressing reasons for Acharya to say what he said publicly.

The words of the Finance Minister, however, leave no scope for debate: The RBI is at fault and has been at fault for a long time. When the previous Congress-led Government allowed indiscriminate lending by banks, he said, the RBI failed to check it. "It was a regulator but it kept pushing the truth below the carpet", as Mr Jaitley put it.

Mr Jaitley has two powerful qualities that lend strength to his assertions: His conviction and his concern with only the facts he mentions; other facts do not exist or are a political conspiracy. A parliamentary committee reported in August that non-performing assets went up by Rs 6.2 lakh crore between March 2015 and March 2016, forcing the Government to provide public sector banks with Rs 5.1 lakh crore. Is that truth above or below the carpet?

What happened under the BJP Government happened under the Congress Government as well, showing the non-alignment of the powerful. Raghuram Rajan said in his 2017 book that large numbers of bad loans originated in 2006-2008 when too many of them "were made to well-connected promoters who have a history of defaulting on their loans". The lesson which will not surprise citizens, is that it doesn't matter who governs, plundering will go on.

Mr Jaitley doesn't like anyone to disagree with him. So he let it be known that he wanted the RBI under stronger government control. Clashes between the political order and the central bank are a familiar thing the world over. But always wisdom has prevailed, governments leaving the central banks effectively autonomous. This time also wisdom must prevail.

To achieve that end, it will be helpful if Mr Jaitley shows a wee bit more respect to people with different views, not unusual in a democracy. Assertions by an RBI Governor need not necessarily be seen as anti-democratic. A former BJP finance minister need not be dismissed as "a job applicant at 80". The leader of the main opposition party need not be called a "clown prince". Arun Jaitley is of course always right. But should it mean that all others are always wrong?

THE STATE AS A CONSPIRACY?

As chief ministers go, K.Chandrasekhar Rao (KCR) is in a class of his own. He is known as an effective speaker and he is a good tactician. These were factors in the success of his mission to carve Telangana out of the original Andhra Pradesh. His decision to dissolve the assembly and go for an early test at the hustings was a smart move from his point of view. He is a man of ability and therefore, if he wins, he can do much good for the country. To do that, however, he must pay attention to at least three areas where a new approach will be essential.

The first is the I-Me-Myself style in which he handles his party, the Telangana Rashtra Samiti. He is the boss of course, but flaunting bossdom reduces one's stature. He doesn't really consult any one in the party. Advancing the election was an example of this. No one knew what he was planning. Without even waiting for an election notification, he announced 105 candidates, to their surprise.

Some may interpret this as a strategic masterstroke in that he struck before the opposition parties had time to realise what was happening. But the cost of such tactics is high. When all decisions are handed down from the Abode of Shiva as it were, discontent is inevitable across the board. Protests did rise this time from a few of his followers. Critics from other parties described him as "monarch, autocrat and despot".

The second area where KCR would benefit from a new approach is his habit of extending his religious beliefs into the public domain. As Chief Minister, he boycotted the state's administrative headquarters where the chief minister's office is situated for reasons of vaastu and improper designs in terms of setbacks and exit points. He built a new vaastu-compliant home-cum-secretariat structure sprawling over one-lakh square feet of living space on a 9-acre estate costing Rs 36 crore.

There is nothing wrong in having faith in vaastu or fixing programmes as per astrological rules. But the state's treasury cannot be used to foot the expenses when a chief minister desires to "fulfil his vow" and present gold ornaments to various gods. KCR travelled with his family in helicopters and chartered flights to make his offerings. In Tirumala alone the gold offered was worth Rs 5 crore. He said of course that all expenses were met from his personal funds and bank loans.

The third area where KCR should have second thoughts is the language he uses. He recently described Rahul Gandhi as the country's "biggest buffoon". He called Chandrababu Naidu a lizard, said that Naidu had a "thief's look" and was neechaa neechamaina (meanest of the meanest) chief minister in the country. He said his party would "drag Sonia Gandhi to bazaar". And so on and on.

Such remarks do get cheap applause from street crowds. But KCR should ponder over the fact that his abuse of Sonia Gandhi met with disapproval from his own rank and file. He is a man who holds a constitutional position. In our constitutional system, even enemies call one another "The honourable" inside the legislature. By observing basic rules of decency in public discourse, a leader will only enhance his stature. Likewise, abandonment of decency will only diminish him.

There is something almost visceral about KCR's hatred of Andhra Pradesh. He was once quoted as saying that he didn't want to be associated with anything that had an Andhra lineage. This is like one of a conjoined twins saying that he doesn't want to touch the other. Not all KCR's oratorical powers and temple offerings can nullify geography. In fact he should be grateful for what he has already got. Nizam's Hyderabad comprised a piece of Maharashtra (Marathwada), a piece of Karnataka (still known as Hyderabad Karnataka) and a piece of Teluguland called Telangana. Only Telangana succeeded in becoming a state on its own. A wise leader will rejoice in this and collaborate with the conjoined twin.

The Scottish independence movement has been a powerful one for decades. There is a separate Scottish Government headed by a First Minister. But when a referendum took place four years ago, 55 percent of the population voted to remain part of the United Kingdom. Geography prevailed. KCR will become a greater leader if he realises that he has only two options -- either to accept geographical reality and cooperate with his neighbours, or prove that Tolstoy was right when he said: The state is a conspiracy.

A CROWN PRINCE WARNS THE WORLD

Saudi Arabia's attempts to play innocent in the murder of US-based Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi flopped from the start. Even Saudi supporter Donald Trump, initially expressed dismay and called for "severe punishment" if Khashoggi was killed. In turn Saudi Arabia's effective ruler Mohammad bin Salman (MbS) threatened to "respond to any action with a bigger one".

Threats will not erase the damage already suffered by MbS and his country. Revulsion across the world at Khashoggi's disappearance in the Saudi Embassy in Istanbul led to protests by a number of independent agencies. A prestige MbS project, Vision 2030, suddenly saw many of its sponsors pulling out, among them World Bank, New York Times, Financial Times, The Economist, CNN, LA Times, Huffington Post, Viacom, JP Morgan, Ford. The Economist rubbed it in by underlining MbS's "brutish handling of even mild critics" and saying that his regime has started "to resemble an Arab nationalist dictatorship".

According to officials in Turkey, Khashoggi was done in by a 15-man Saudi squad, his body cut up and disposed of. The world believed the horror story because it fitted into the profile the Saudi power-wielder had acquired in just a couple of years. A liberal gesture here and there -- like allowing women to drive cars in the country -- did not hide the dictatorial streak in him. Quite a few fellow royals and business leaders have been imprisoned. Some have fled. Dozens of activists and writers have been arrested and tortured.

The war in Yemen, a one-man decision by him, is still going on, described by the UN as "the world's worst humanitarian crisis". Equally clumsy was the blunder of trying to boycott Qatar simply because it wouldn't declare Iran as an enemy. The biggest show of arrogance was the "arrest" of Lebanon's prime minister on a visit to Jeddah in 2017. That was part of MbS's idea of keeping Lebanon under his control.

When a German minister referred to Saudi war in Yemen as "adventurism", MbS went into a rage, recalled the ambassador to Berlin and closed down German trade deals with Saudis. The loss of business forced Germany to go down on its knees. When Canada's foreign minister tweeted for the release of human rights activists in Saudi Arabia, the Canadian ambassador was expelled, Saudi flights to Canada were shut down and Saudi students in Canada were asked to return.

This kind of over-reaction raised the question whether MbS, even as he sits on a powerful throne, is suffering from an insecurity complex. Perhaps he is haunted by the fact that he is an out-of-turn promotee in the royal hierarchy. Perhaps he is also bothered by the thought that the notion of "royalty" itself belongs to the past, especially after the Arab Spring saw anti-government uprisings and armed rebellions across the Middle East in 2011.

The Saudi royal family was not royal to begin with. Founder Ibn Saud was a tribal sheikh who was driven out of his home base in the Riyadh area of the peninsula in 1890. It took him a decade of fighting to subdue the tribes around his lost territory and another decade to consolidate his position. He turned out to be a master of political intrigue. He struck deals with the British, a prominent presence in the area at the time, and entered into an agreement with the fundamentalist religious doctrine of Wahabism thereby gaining a powerful, if controversial, pillar of support and a leadership position in the propagation of Islam.

Ibn Saud was considered an affable man with an undisguised talent to enjoy life. He visited India in 1955 and won a lot of hearts by distributing bundles of currency notes to passersby. He had a famous meeting with US President Roosevelt on an American warship near the Mediterranean. The King went on board with not only bodyguards, cooks and slaves but also astrologers, a fortune teller and some sheep. He told a British official rather lightheartedly that he had "married no fewer than 135 virgins". He had 43 acknowledged sons and 55 daughters. People liked him.

People don't seem to like Mohammed bin Salman. His tendency to be a law unto himself marked him out as a leader other countries were cautious about. Khashoggi's disappearance merely brought out the world's reservations about him in sharper focus. Saudi authorities have been busy with inquiries which no doubt will absolve them of any responsibility in the murder. But the world is unlikely to be impressed. MbS has lost more than he has gained.

HAKSAR FILES. WHAT ABOUT OTHERS?

History lies hidden in government files. Hidden because, while modern democracies declassify records after a reasonably brief period of time, India sits on them, sometimes for ever. Occasionally a gold mine of files falls into the hands of a creative mind and we see a glittering universe of information opening up in front of us. That is what has happened in Intertwined Lives: P.N.Haksar and Indira Gandhi. It must be author Jairam Ramesh's connections in Delhi as a member of that rare species, the thinking politician, that led him to the gold mine of unpublished manuscripts, official memos, letters, notes and other archival material related to P.N.Haksar. Let providence be praised.

Don't be put off by the dull and uninviting cover of this big book because, inside, every page bristles with valuable historical information. It's like Haksar has collaborated with Ramesh to publish this vital book. Although his name appears as the author of the book, Ramesh has chosen for the most part to stay in the background, like the director of a play, invisible. At best he can be called the editor of the material in his hands.

Why has the other collaborator remained relatively unknown all these years despite being, as these pages reveal, one of the shapers of India in the class of Jawaharlal Nehru? (An obituary writer called him the "last of the Nehruvians"). Because he was a civil servant? Because, as he once said, "I lack the strong ego to follow the footsteps of my very dear friend B.K.Nehru" and write an autobiography?

Haksar's contributions outweigh those of his very dear friends. Indira Gandhi picked him, an old family friend, soon after she became prime minister in 1967 and he stayed with her till 1973. Those were tumultuous years with Haksar's imprint on them. His memo on the Congress Party enabled Indira to assume supremacy over her rivals with the famous Congress split of 1969. It was Haksar, once a Communist and always a socialist, who masterminded such policy decisions as the abolition of privy purses, the nationalisation of banks, of coal, of oil refineries and of general insurance. He also played a central role in the development of relations with Iran, Bangladesh and China.

It is clear that Indira Gandhi's best years were the years when she trusted Haksar and implemented his ideas. Debates will continue on the socialism of the public sector policy she followed, but no one can deny that those years moulded India and gave it a mindset that survives to this day.

The main reason, perhaps, was that he was not always acting as a Marxist or socialist. He was a universalist, speaking English, Hindi, Urdu and Persian and a bit of Bengali, French and German as well. He was a scholar and connoisseur of art. He was ready to put human values above ideologies. When Pather Panchali was initially banned from screening abroad because it showed up Indian poverty, Haksar complained to Nehru and liberated Satyajit Ray. Ritwik Ghatak was chosen for Padma Shri in 1970 but the Home Ministry wanted to cancel it after the irrepressible Ghatak made some nasty remarks about Mahatma Gandhi. Haksar wrote in the file: "Human history is full of examples of artists of genius living in destitution and penury because they cannot compromise their art with the vulgarity of public taste... Shri Ghatak alternates between moments of sanity and long periods of insanity... Can anyone say that Shri Ghatak's words have diminished in any way the stature of the person against who he used such atrocious language?... If a man says something which he knoweth not, God forgive him, but man, his creature, cannot".

Haksar also played a formative role in science and research by putting men like Satish Dhawan, Homi Sethna and M.S.Swaminathan in leadership positions.He himself became, after he left Indira, Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission and the first Chancellor of the Jawaharlal Nehru University. Splendid institution-building by a splendid visionary who laid some of India's foundation stones.

He died a disillusioned man. That phase began when he showed the courage to advise Indira against her profligate son Sanjay. Indira turned out to be all mother while Haksar was all commonsense, all patriot. Indira paid for her mistake. History applauded Haksar. The thought lingers: If these files have thrown so much light on so many big issues, what about the files by/on other prime ministerial alter egos -- M.O.Mathai, Kanti Desai, R.K.Dhawan, Quoattrochi, Chandraswamy, Brajesh Mishra? Gold mines waiting for the attention of thinking politicians.

JUDGES, RETIREMENT AND JUSTICE

Chief Justices come and Chief Justices go, but the going of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra has been somewhat historic. He was, for example, the first CJI to face an impeachment petition. He was the first and only CJI against whom four senior judges not only had complaints but publicly expressed them by calling a press conference. This sensational spectacle took place only this January and the impeachment move was as recent as April, just six months ago. But in these few short months, Chief Justice Misra's image went through a transformation and he retired in what looked like a blaze of glory.

What happened? Was the impeachment move a political act by the Congress because Justice Misra was seen to be siding with the BJP? Did he side with the BJP? Did he come out in his last few months with historic judgements in order to retrieve his reputation? Was he out to prove that his critics were small-minded.

No one can belittle the importance of the judgements that stand out as markers of Justice Misra's career. In 1993 he dared to confirm the death sentence on Yakub Memon in the Mumbai bomb blast case and faced death threats as a result. He had also made passive euthanasia a reality by allowing "living wills." Then came, in his final days, rulings that provided constitutional space to the LGBT community, decriminalised adultery, allowed women to go to Sabarimala.

These are social subjects with little political importance. Judges can take their stand on them without worrying about their political ramifications. But two other topics on which the Misra bench pronounced verdicts are politically sensitive -- Aadhar and Ayodhya. The verdicts on these have not fetched universal applause. Aadhar has made all kinds of data about citizens available to all kinds of institutions as well as the Government. The judgement has struck out a few heads but allowed data under other heads to remain. Nor has there been any relief on the vast data already made available. What the judgement achieved was to give the impression of a progressive approach without in any way abridging the Government's ability to use/misuse the data on citizens. It is, shall we say, a careful and clever judgement, not a people-oriented one.

Ditto with Ayodhya. The ruling was that it is not essential for Muslims to have a mosque for them to pray. They can by tradition pray anywhere. (That is true. They can even spread a mat on a shop floor and do namaz. But when they tried to pray in the open in Gurgao in April they had police protection but that didn't prevent "activists" from appearing and causing tension while dispersing them.) The unwritten message in the judgement is that there is no real necessity for a new Babri Masjid to be constructed at Ayodhya. That in turn means of course that there is no real impediment for a new Ram temple to be constructed at the site. Again, careful and clever.

The balance sheet is that the Dipak Misra court gave out a cluster of progressive judgements in which the ruling dispensation was not all that interested, but turned mindful of the power elite in the two cases which had a political dimension. In those two cases the verdict could only have made the party in power happy.

Did that have anything to do with the Bar Council of India passing a formal resolution on the eve of Justice Misra's retirement asking him not to accept any government assignment after retirement at least for two years? This is a recurring issue. Great judges like J.S.Verma set examples by staying retired after retirement. Chief Justice R.M.Lodha said on his retirement day that no judge should take a post-retirement government job or constitutional office. But Lodha's successor P. Sathasivam walked from the Supreme Court straight to the Raj Bhavan in Kerala. Like the earlier CJI K.G.Balakrishnan, Sathasivam said there was nothing wrong in taking up the job. Critics said it was a quid pro quo with BJP boss Amit Shah.

Arun Jaitley put in best when he said, "Pre-retirement judgements are influenced by a desire for a post-retirement job." But that was in 2012 when he was Leader of the Opposition. Now that he is in power, his vision is not as clear as before. So, will Balakrishnan-Sathasivam kind of expediency win, or Verma-Lodha kind of integrity? What we know is that Justice Dipak Misra's post-retirement moves will be keenly watched. Which is a good thing for the country.

A REVOLUTIONARY TURN IN RSS ?

Imagine the Pope criticising Jesus Christ. If that is too ecclesiastical, imagine Sitaram Yechury rewriting Karl Marx. Actually we cannot imagine either because the catholic church and the Communist Party are rule-bound doctrinaire establishments that do not brook deviations. So is the RSS. Therefore, technically, we cannot imagine Mohan Bhagwat going against the tenets of M.S.Golwalkar, as sacrosanct in the RSS universe as K. B.Hedgewar.

Yet it happened. In his eleventh year as the acclaimed supremo of the RSS, Mohan Bhagwat said that The Bunch of Thoughts, the Golwalkar book that has been the Gita-Bible-Koran of RSS cadres, was not to be taken seriously today. Those thoughts pertained to a particular context and need not be considered as eternally valid. Times change and accordingly our thoughts, too, must change. Hedgewar himself had said, Bhagwat reminded his people, that we are free to adapt to times as they change.

Bhagwat did not stop with Golwalkar. In the course of a three-day lecture series in Delhi he decimated many Holy Cows of the RSS. When Hindutvavadis had been declaring that they would re-write the Constitution to fit into Deen Dayal Upadhyaya's vision of Dharmarajya, Bhagwat said: "The Sangh works after accepting the primacy of the Constitution and we respect it fully". No reference here to the BJP's standing objections to the words 'secular' and 'socialist' in the Constitution.

Bhagwat also rejected a view expressed by BJP boss Amit Shah whose capacity to make coarse statements has been harming the country internally and internationally. Shah's call for a "Congress-mukt Bharat" had become notorious because it actually meant an opposition-mukt Bharat lying at the feet of a monopolistic BJP. Bhagwat said: "We are for all-inclusive Bharat, we are not about mukt". He even complimented the Congress which had "many great personalities who sacrificed their lives and who still inspire us".

The concept of Hindutva, too, was revised by Bhagwat. Savarkar who had coined the word Hindutva was clear that Hindu Rashtra should be peopled by only those who descended from Hindu culture. Bhagwat turned that theory on its head and said: "Hindu Rashtra does not mean that there is no place for Muslims. If it is said that Muslims cannot stay in India, it won't be Hindutva any more". From the same chair Bhagwat now occupies, Golwalkar had referred to the "hostility and murderous mood" of Muslims and declared: "Foreign races must lose their separate existence to merge in the Hindu race. Otherwise they may stay in the country wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, deserving no privileges".

What is going on? How can the RSS head move so far away from the positions his predecessors had taken? Bhagwat is by no means a lesser RSS ideologue. Therefore there must be a reason for him to discard old orthodoxies and embark on a course that looks reasonable, fair, progressive and populist.

The explanation most people will accept is that Mohan Bhagwat is merely softening the RSS-BJP's image at election time. Fringe groups like Bhajrang Dal and Sri Ram Sene run amok hurting BJP's voter appeal. Although the RSS helped the VHP to create Bhajrang Dal as a bunch of street fighters in the run-up to the Ayodhya movement, Bhajrangis had become an embarrassment and the RSS's attempt to wrest back control of VHP and Bhajrang Dal did not really succeed. Is Bhagwat giving a message that these groups must be checked, that steps must be taken to remove the impression that lynchers have tacit government backing? It may be too much to hope that Bhagwat also wanted to send a signal to Amit Shah. For all his excesses, Shah is building a grassroots network the RSS always wanted the BJP to do.

So is Bhagwat's new stance a genuine attempt to discard the RSS's image as a hidebound, overly religious, intolerant and ultimately coldblooded ideological outfit and recast it in a more acceptable garb suited to the modern age? The farce of India's HRD Minister rejecting Darwin's theory and the Science Minister saying that Vedic theory was superior to E = mc2 has made India a laughing stock among educated people. That such neanderthals, unknown to the public before, became ministers of the Republic of India did no good to either the Modi Government or the RSS. If the RSS chief is making an attempt to save his flock from the fossilised minds wearing the Hindu cap, it would be a service to the nation. But can even Mohan Bhagwat get rid of the medievalists in his camp?

INDIAN MUSLIMS: DIFFERING VIEWS

It is the irony of ironies that (a) the Government of India banned triple talaq without getting a proper bill properly passed in Parliament, and (b) Muslims attacked the "reform" saying that it will not help Muslim women. Who said anything about helping Muslim women? The new law is merely an election-eve move even though its vote-catching potential is doubtful.

Whether it is the Muslim personal law, or the newfangled register of citizens, or the convoluted votebank politics of the northeast, there is an all-out effort to mobilise votes on communal basis. Not even the Amit Shah camp will be in a position to say with certainty whether this is tactic that will work in practice. But that doesn't hold back verbal terrorists and hate merchants.

When Kamal Hassan joined those who condemned "Hindu terrorism", tons of bricks were hurled at him. Attackers argued that it was impossible for a Hindu to be a terrorist. That is true of Hinduism. Modern-day Hindutva is different as any lynch victim would testify. All religions have a terrorist streak in them. Buddhism is a byword for non-violence, but Thai Buddhists called for the killing of communists at one stage and Myanmar Buddhists have been killing masses of Rohingyas. Christianity swears by love, but Roman Catholicism presided over the unspeakable cruelties of the Spanish Inquisition.

Perhaps Indian Muslims attract special attention because their story is related to the religion-based partition of India. Ironically Muslims in India are perceived to be better off with citizens' rights than Muslims in Pakistan, a point that adds to the disaffection between the neighbours.

A belated reading of a 2016 book brings home the fact that Indian Muslims face problems that could be partly self-imposed and partly imposed by intolerant government leaders. Indian Muslims: Struggling for Equality of Citizenship presents its basic premise in the title itself. It is edited by Riaz Hassan, director of the International Centre for Muslim and Non-Muslim Understanding at the University of South Australia, and has contributions by experts such as Amitabh Kundu (Delhi Policy Group), Rajinder Sachar (former Chief Justice of India) and Rakesh Basant (IIM, Ahmedabad).

Christopher Jaffrelot, the acclaimed India specialist with several definitive studies to his credit, has provided a chapter with a blunt heading: "The Muslims of Gujarat during Narendra Modi's chief ministership". His basic thesis is that Gujarati asmita (sense of identity) "is rooted in Hinduism and directed against Muslims". This was underlined by the promotion of vegetarianism. "This quasi-equation between Gujarati-ness and vegetarianism tends to exclude the Muslim minority from 'Gujaratihood'". Some Bohras, he says, register themselves as Bohras, not Muslims, in census records. He gives details to show that no significant relief has been provided to poor Muslims because they "have explicitly been victims of discrimination". Even scholarships earmarked for Muslims by the central government were not given to them.

The BJP has built enough arguments in political terms to justify its discriminatory practices. In 2009 the party nominated two Muslims for byelections in Junagadh. Both lost. Local BJP leaders said that committed Hindu voters might have turned against the party. In the famous UP elections last year, as in the Gujarat elections in 2012, the BJP denied tickets to Muslims. In both cases, it came out triumphant.Why then should it bother about Muslim representation? Amit Shah has even sidelined Shahnawaz Hussain, the BJP's faithful showpiece Muslim face for long.

Scholars in this book and elsewhere point to the poor educational and health standards of Muslims in India. Amitabh Kundu attributes this to "historical and socio-cultural factors". What are these socio-cultural factors? Is not the ultra-orthodoxy of Muslim leadership itself a socio-cultural factor contributing to Muslim backwardness? Does Madrassa education aim at improving the general standards of students? Has any socio-cultural programme been launched by the community for the benefit of impecunious Muslims in, say, UP-Bihar?

Such questions become relevant when we look at the contrast between Muslims of the northern states and their brethren in the south.The latter are better integrated with, and accepted by the general population. Kerala Muslims, for example, hold leadership positions as writers, doctors, educationists, politicians and public intellectuals. Ultra-orthodox elements exist there too: There is still no trace of Chekannur Maulavi, a progressive cleric, who disappeared in 1993. But they are exceptions, numerically minuscule and remain hidden. Overall, educational standards have been high for Muslims in the south and they are better off for that. Perhaps Islamic leaders need to look inward, too, when they complain about Muslims being neglected in India.

WHERE IS VIVEKANANDA'S INDIA?

Here is the noblest summing up of civilisational values by an Indian:

I am proud to belong to a religion which has taught the world both tolerance and universal acceptance. We believe not only in universal toleration, but we accept all religions as true. I am proud to belong to a nation which has sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the earth... Sectarianism, bigotry and its horrible descendant, fanaticism, have long possessed this beautiful earth. They have filled the earth with violence, drenched it often with human blood, destroyed civilisation and sent whole nations into despair.... The present convention is in itself a vindication of the wonderful doctrine presented in the Gita: 'Whosoever comes to Me, through whatsoever form, I reach him. All men are struggling through paths which in the end lead to Me'. - Vivekananda.

Here are the most despicable understanding of values that Indians can possibly have:

Please donate to help Kerala Hindus. The Christians and Muslims worldwide raising lots of money to help mainly their own people and agenda. - Rajiv Malhotra (USA). Floods in Kerala are due to tantric and mantric worship. Tsunami was God's wrath in India for idol worship. - Evangelist Lazarus Mohan (Tamil Nadu).

In a way it is abhorrent to mention in the same breath the names of Vivekananda, the swami of enlightenment, and latterday peddlers of religious hatred. Chicago where Vivekananda addressed the World Parliament of Religions was picked as the venue for the World Hindu Congress recently. But Chicago heard this time a different voice that called for a sectarian war lest "the lone lion is destroyed by wild dogs". This lone lion must be a new contraption because Hinduism can never be destroyed, not even by those who are misusing it from within.

Vivekananda's short address in Chicago is still remembered, 125 years later, as a historic marker in the march of ideas. At the assembled "parliament" of spiritual leaders from all corners of the world, Vivekananda stood out as a majestic figure -- a 30-year-old in saffron robe with a maharaja-like turban. His opening words, "My sisters and brothers of America", led to an applause that made the speaker pause for a while. The message of brotherhood and universal tolerance he conveyed in the next few minutes made him the star of Chicago. It was the first time the West heard a credible Indian voice from India and it helped demolish the British-projected view of a benighted India lost in primitive superstitions.

Vivekananda's India, too, appears to be lost. These are days when, for every genuine holy man, there are a dozen fakes. Some flourish with ashrams spread across vast acreages. Some start business empires that conquer everything it sets its sights on. Some are in jail. The religious exploiters come in many robes. Madrasas are rife with scandals of child abuse while convents are exploding with charges of nuns being used for the pleasure of priests. Perhaps for the first time in the history of the church in India, nuns have come out in the open protesting against the sexual escapades of a bishop. Under our prevailing criminal law, a formal charge by a woman is enough to take the accused into custody for interrogation. But this bishop has proved to be special. Forces stronger than God are protecting him.

When Vivekananda said "I am proud to be a Hindu", he must have had in mind the Hinduism that respected all. The greatness of Hinduism -- and the uniqueness of it -- is that you can reject all the gods in the Hindu pantheon and still be a Hindu. But the corollary is that you can worship all the gods in the pantheon and still be not a Hindu. The politicians who divide people on religious grounds are not helping their religion. They are just exploiters.

A saint who said "we accept all religions as true" is being appropriated by a party that suppresses minorities for political gains. Vivekananda was an original liberal. He promoted the cause of modern education and modern science. The casteism in Kerala provoked him to describe that state as a lunatic asylum. How would he describe the states where people lynch people in the name of religion? How would he describe Raja Singh Lodh, BJP MLA in Telengana, who said "till the cow is accorded the status of Rashtra Mata, killings for gau raksha will continue?" Swami Vivekananda was blessed that he lived in another, civilised, India.

A COUP THAT AWAITS THE DARING

There is a strategic political coup that Rahul Gandhi can execute, and thereby transform the entire landscape of the 2019 election. Routine politicking won't do in the present climate because Narendra Modi's oratorical ability to attract mass attention is unrivalled and his party has the advantage of being in power. It will be foolish to see 2019 as a Modi versus Rahul test. The Congress should understand this unusual situation and take unusual steps to meet the challenge.

Rahul can swing everything in his favour with a bit of daring, and a bit of the long view. The first step is to know that he cannot just shrug off the combined handicap of inexperience in government, relative youth and the dynasty tag. Modi makes fun of these by using nicknames like Shazada and Pappu. To imagine that this drawback can be overcome with fiery speeches, a foreign visit or two and modern marketing technology would be to succumb to the temptations of power. Pressures to commit this mistake must be resisted with daring.

The long view is needed to realise that he has nothing to lose by waiting. Time is on his side. If he remains Congress President but formally withdraws from the perceived prime-minister-to-be position, it will be a boost to the opposition among whom there are leaders sceptical of his lack of exposure to public office. The acceptability level of the Congress will increase simultaneously, making opposition unity easier to attain. The Congress will remain a major component of the opposition alliance entitled to all the benefits of a victor in case the alliance wins a majority in the election.

What if the Congress wins enough seats on its own to become a legitimate claimant for prime ministership? The shrewdest move Rahul Gandhi can make in such a situation is to put up another Congress leader for the top post and himself become a cabinet minister intent on gaining administrative experience. That will raise his political stock sky high. Indira Gandhi was a minister in Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri's cabinet and she was the better administrator for that (although she didn't like it at the time). By contrast, Chandrasekhar was a member of Parliament for many years, active as a Young Turk. But he became Prime Minister straightaway in November 1990 without any administrative experience in any branch of government. The result was that he became something of an Old Turk as prime minister and lasted only seven months after which he withered away.

Rahul Gandhi can kill two birds with one stone. While withdrawal from the prime ministerial race will crown him with a halo of wisdom, the presence of Congressmen with unimpeachable prime ministerial quality will strengthen the standing of his party in any alliance. Choosing the right one is a problem a party president with Rahul Gandhi's clout can easily solve.

To cite two examples, P. Chidambaram is unofficially mentioned as a potential prime minister. But he could well be a disaster. For one thing, "whispers" about his PM qualities were contrived as far back as in 2012 when "overseas media" including such weighty titles as The Economist carried the whispers. The Congress even ordered an internal inquiry about it. A more important factor against him is that his name is linked rightly or wrongly with corruption cases, his son contributing to that negative asset. Chidambaram is capable, educated and modernistic, but he is unpopular. His image is his enemy.

Mallikarjun Kharge, on the other hand, is a dream candidate for prime ministership. One of the most experienced politicians in public life today, he has handled ministerial portfolios for more than 40 years, in his state and at the Centre. The portfolios have included, education, panchayat raj, industries, revenue, transport and home. The crowning glory is that he has handled all these without attracting corruption scandals. This must be a unique record.

Kharge has a couple of other qualifications that are important in India's convoluted politics. He is from the south who speaks Hindi like a native. His role as the virtual Leader of the Opposition in Parliament has evoked the reluctant admiration of even the ruling party. Additionally, he is from the Scheduled Caste, though he never plays the caste card. A Congress Party that puts up Mallikarjun Kharge as its prime ministerial candidate, with Rahul Gandhi confidently waiting in the background, will be a formidable force in 2019. The only question is whether Rahul will have the daring and the long view to grab the opportunity.

WHEN AG IS WORRIED, IT'S SERIOUS

The attorney general is the first law officer of the Government of India and acts as the top advocate for the union government. When such an officer criticises governments in power, it points to an extraordinary situation. When the attorney general happens to be K.K.Venugopal and the governments happen to be run by the BJP, it is as good as a crisis situation because Venugopal has often been on the BJP's side, from the Babri Masjid case to B.S.Yeddyurappa's farcical bid to form a government in Karnataka earlier this year.

Venugopal's judicial sensibilities must have been rattled for him to use the strong words he did in the Supreme Court recently. "There is an incident of major rioting every week even by educated groups", he said. He criticised the BJP governments in Maharashtra and Rajasthan for not taking measures against perpetrators of violence. He criticised the Delhi police for not acting against the frenzied "Kanwariyas" who are supposed to be devotees on pilgrimage but who take easily to assault as they proceed. He pointed to those who threatened to cut off Deepika Padukone's nose for her portrayal of Padmavati. "No civilised country will tolerate this kind of behaviour, but what has been done to the person who made that threat?" the eminent lawyer asked.

"What is to be done?" asked Chief Justice Dipak Misra. Venugopal's ready response was: "Fix responsibility on someone. Once responsibility is fixed on the SP of each district, the court can haul him up, ask him how many FIRs have been filed".

That was a lawyer putting too much faith in law. In today's India things do not happen like that. Which SP will dare ignore the wishes of his political overlords? This does not depend on which party is in power. The BJP may be doing things a bit more brazenly, but all parties have contributed to the situation where the civil service and the police act as supporting agents of those in power. Almost every day incidents occur to drive this point home. In a UP town the other day a truck collided with a vehicle carrying Kanwariyas. The angry pilgrims set the truck on fire, blocked the highway, and beat up the driver. The police arrested the driver. Elsewhere in UP videos showed young devotees hitting a car on the highway with long lathis, hitting it again and again from different angles. Policemen calmly stood around trying to keep spectators out of harm's way.

To what extent can we blame the police for not acting as they ought to? The prevailing political atmosphere allows one type of mobs to think that the law will not touch them. There are enough ministers and MLAs making statements that encourage such elements. The latest was Gyan Ahuja, a Rajasthan MLA belonging to the BJP, who said point-blank: "If one engages in cow smuggling or slaughters a cow, he will be killed".


This is where the jurisdiction of law ends and the overweening power of hatred takes over. Those who have a constitutional duty to check threats and violence prefers to look the other way. The Union Home Minister has taken the position that hate crimes are a state subject and the Centre cannot interfere. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha used the same rhetoric to disallow a private members' bill against lynching. This is a cop out that will convince nobody. The bulk of lynchings have occurred in BJP-ruled states. It is also a fact that lynchings have ruined India's image in the world. Certainly the Union Government has a responsibility to be concerned about the country's image? So it should be easy for karyavahaks in the centre to sit down with karyavahaks in the states and save the country's reputation from anti-nationalists' propaganda. Why don't they do it? The answer is floating quite visibly in the wind.

K.T.S. Tulsi, legal luminary and co-sponsor of the private member's bill on lynching, hit the right note when he said a special law was needed to deal with lynching because "lynching is a crime without motive. The victims are unknown. The objective of the crimes is to strike terror in society"

Obviously there are some who want to strike terror in society. Just as obviously there are some others who want to let them do so. Hence the two-third rise in mob killings since the Dadri horror of September 2015. K.K.Venugopal would know that the solution he suggests may at best cut off the branches. Who will cut off the roots?

THE BEST AND THE WORST ON SHOW

How many will learn how many lessons from the floods that devastated Kerala and Kodagu? The most important lesson is bound to go unlearned -- that, ultimately, these were again examples of Nature collapsing under the impact of human greed. We were warned of it five years ago when cloudbursts and landslides turned Uttarakhand upside down, killing nearly 6000 people. It was adjudged a man-made disaster with hydroelectric dams, illegal mining and construction activities upsetting Nature's balance.

The same greed-driven factors have been threatening most of the Western Ghats as Madhav Gadgil warned seven years ago. Land exploitation and illegal quarrying had reached dangerous levels. But the profiteers behind such exploitation always get support from government leaders and political parties. So the Gadgil Report was subverted. Gadgil has pointed to the Kerala disaster and warned that Goa would be next. To see what he means, we only have to take a drive along certain areas of interior Goa that have been turned by mining companies into gaping holes in the earth. The miners and their political friends earned Rs 35,000 crore in profits as an inquiry commission found.

The story is the same whether it be Kerala, Goa or Kodagu where entire plantations have disappeared in flood fury. Converting paddy fields and forest lands into resorts is an easy way to make money. When the natural movements of water are blocked and when hill slopes are cleared of vegetation, Nature breaks into landslides, debris flows and rock falls. But we refuse to learn lessons as greed dances with corruption.

The depredation that wrecked Kerala threw light on the best and the worst that make up our country. The way the local people rose to the occasion was both inspiring but humbling. Individuals and groups plunged into rescue operations disregarding all political and religious differences. Coastal fishing communities transported 700 boats by lorries to the affected areas and helped move 65,000 people to safe shelters. Social media groups set up online control rooms and call centres manned by hundreds of volunteers. Prisoners in the state's jails prepared food in vast quantities in addition to contributing Rs 12 lakhs from their prison-work wages. The authorities closed the gates of a dam to save a flood-trapped elephant. Four men risked their lives to save a dog that couldn't swim against a strong current. The media did a great job combining responsibility with dedication. The Chief Minister showed timely leadership and instilled confidence in people while coordinating relief activities. He was even courteous to the media. What the world saw was a spontaneous people's movement with the "We shall overcome" theme as a driving force.

This groundswell of voluntary action by a people who refused to be cowed down by catastrophe added weight to the help that rushed in from outside. The armed forces, central teams with special skills, and flood relief experts from Orissa were so brave that the locals took to them as family. The message was: This is a country that citizens can be proud of.

But one sinister streak marred the whole scenario. Discordant notes came from the religious right and, astonishingly, from the Central Government. A Swamy's comment that Kerala was punished for eating beef may be dismissed as the ranting of a mental case. But what about a man from the BJP's IT cell who uploaded an audio clip and text saying that the flood-affected people were mostly from well to do families who therefore deserved no assistance. He still asked for donations, but to a BJP-sponsored platform. There were others who said contributions should not be sent to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund because the money could go to the minorities.

Just as BJP voices went against the public mood, the Central Government took positions that seemed partisan. Was Delhi piqued that its Rs 600-million aid to Kerala was followed by the UAE's Rs 700-million offer? It saved face by announcing that the 600 million was only a preliminary step. It caused outrage when it said that it would charge rice allocations to the state, then saved its face by saying the rice would be free. Its ban on foreign government's contributions marred its face beyond saving. There are rules and precedents that make the ban decision untenable. But that is not the real issue. The real issue is that the Government of India has given the impression that it is inimical towards the Government and people of a state. This is unprecedented and it bodes ill for the future.

THE PRIME MINISTER AS GENTLEMAN

My Lord,
Never let me climb
so high
that I'm unable to
embrace a stranger

The humanism in Atal Bihari Vajpayee made him taller than a prime minister. In the vastness of his mind the ephemerality of political glory counted for what it was. He once said: You might become an ex-prime minister one day, but you will never become an ex-poet. He was a universalist, his literate self dwelling above his political persona.

Vajpayee was reared in the RSS school, attending a four-year officers' training course from 1940 and qualifying as a fulltime pracharak the year India became independent. But he was seldom seen as an activist pracharak preaching the prescribed gospel. He looked more like a dreamer, reaching out to people in ways that went beyond his training. Although he is on record as saying "The Sangh is my soul", sensibilities of a larger mission seemed to be working within him. Above the pracharak and the politician was the poet. His spirit roamed free.

This drew wider attention as Vajpayee entered Parliament. It is part of legend that the young MP's flowing oratory turned Jawaharlal Nehru into an admirer. The oft-repeated story is that Nehru would rush to the house when Vajpayee rose to speak and that he once told the BJP leader: One day you will be prime minister. Nehru sent him to the UN General Assembly one year to help him get international exposure and some useful training in diplomacy.

Such non-partisan functioning in the larger interests of the country is difficult to imagine nowadays. Nehru's very name has become taboo in patriotic circles and young leaders of opposition parties are ridiculed as childish. One reason Vajpayee rose to greatness was that he lived in an age that valued political courtesies and did not allow pettimindedness to cast shadows upon it. That age is behind us. What the poet in Vajpayee described as "darkness in the middle of the day" has come.

It started sending early signals in the middle of Vajpayee's term in office. His stature had grown as he progressed from frustrated short terms to full term as prime minister beginning 1998. The Pokhran atomic explosion that year and the Kargil War the following year put garlands of glamour round his neck. He asserted his personal supremacy over his party hardliners when he took a bus to Lahore in 1999. His initiatives for peace provoked a Viswa Hindu Parishad secretary to call him a "pseudo Hindu".

The ultra Hindus got their chance to punish him in 2002. When Gujarat exploded into communal violence that year, Prime Minister Vajpayee was outraged. Within a month of the atrocities he visited the state and said at a press conference that the king's duty to uphold rajdharma had not been carried out. He decided to seek the resignation of the state's chief minister when the national executive of the BJP met in Goa a few days later. The flight to Goa turned out to be one of the most historic in India's aviation history. L.K.Advani and Arun Jaitley strongly opposed any action against the Gujarat chief minister. A rattled Vajpayee was further rattled when slogans were raised at the meeting in favour of the chief minister. Vajpayee had to forget his concept of rajdharma and watch his critics celebrating their triumph.

The post-Goa Vajpayee was a politically enfeebled Vajpayee. Advani now became Deputy Prime Minister. RSS demanded a meeting with the Prime Minister and got it, establishing the restoration of its political influence which Vajpayee had kept at near-zero level all along.

It is now 14 years since Vajpayee retired as prime minister. It can be seen that Vajpayee's India was different from today's India. Vajpayee's BJP was different from today's BJP. Democracy itself was different, allowing space for opponents of the government, dissent playing its essential role in public life, the spirit of freedom never suppressed overtly or covertly. For these extraneous reasons as well as for the vibrancy of his mind, Vajpayee's place in history will be above that of all others in his party. He represented the ethos of the nation -- spiritualism without zealotry, tolerance, liberalism. Such was the roundedness of Vajpayee's makeup that we could stand up and say to all the world: This was a gentleman. And sing with him: It's dark in the middle of the day / The sun is defeated by its shadow / Squeeze the oil from your soul and feed the wick / Come let's light the lamp again.

WHY KARUNANIDHI WAS IMPORTANT

With Karunanidhi's death, a chapter turns in history. That is rare because most political leaders constitute mere footnotes in history, let alone a page. Karunanidhi was more a cultural reformer than a politician, a recognition that led people to confer on him the popular title of Kalaignar, man of the arts and letters. He was an ideas man alongside Periyar and C.N.Annadurai. The Trimurtis nurtured a previously unarticulated Dravida civilisational value system, thereby contributing a lasting component to India's socio-political ripening.

To see how complete has been the Trimurtis' conquest of Tamil imagination, we only have to look at the way C.Rajagopalachari and K.Kamaraj have been overtaken by time within one generation. Giants of the south and pillars of national politics once, they left footprints on the sands of time that were washed off by the next wave. They were warriors who got us freedom. But what to do with that freedom was an issue that left most of their generation confused. Some like Jawaharlal Nehru hatched on to socialism. But he was ambivalent; his cabinets included some of the most committed capitalists of his time while the genuine socialists who formed the Congress Socialist Party were kept out. Beyond Nehru freedom merely became an opportunity to enjoy power.

Dravida leaders stood apart because they were intellectuals who believed in a cause. Both Annadurai and Karunanidhi were writers and orators with a command over language that could only be called phenomenal. They could move masses with a movie dialogue or just the way they addressed the audience at a public meeting.

Both used their literary formidability to pursue transformational goals. The pros and cons of the goals can be debated. But there can be no dispute about the sincerity or the wisdom with which they pursued them. The aim was to build on the richness of a culture that had not only produced the magnificent temple architecture of southern India but had also influenced the development of Khmer, Thai and Javanese scripts. They tried to do this without creating animosities against non-Dravidians. The anti-Hindi agitation was not against Hindi but against Hindi's forced imposition in authoritarian ways. While anti-brahminism was a principle, one of chief ministers Annadurai's first acts was to thank Brahmin civil servants and request them to carry on with renewed confidence.

No doubt it was the mass popularity of cinema that gave Annadurai and Karunanidhi their hold on public emotions. That was also true of MGR and Jayalalitha, the mega stars who subsumed the Dravida cause, first as comrades of the preceptors, later as adversaries. The split in the DMK leading to the birth of the AIADMK was not over ideology, but over power.

It was a rivalry that gave MGR an advantage. His hold on mass emotions was unrivalled because, as a hero who appeared on the screen, he related directly to the audience; Karunanidhi, the story teller and the dialogue writer, was out of sight in the theatre and was therefore a lesser god to worship. MGR had no doctrinal contributions to make to Dravida postulates, yet his power to stir mass emotions made him unbeatable. That edge helped Jayalalitha throughout her legendary enmity with Karunanidhi.

Now that the main players have left the stage, it is easier to see the distinction between the writers and the actors. The articles of faith fostered by the writers became a defining persuasion of our time. The glamour that gave the stars their primacy seems to have been an exceptionality. Why didn't Shivaji Ganeshan acquire the same potency as MGR although his histrionic capability was second to none and his dialogues, not just in Parasakthi, remain classic? Karunanidhi wrote the dialogue for both Parasakthi and Manthiri Kumari, the 1950 film that catapulted MGR to stardom.

For that matter, why did N.T.Rama Rao become the sole film-star politician that succeeded in Andhra? Others tried, but in vain. It cannot even be argued that it is part of Tamil culture for film stars to rise to the top and stay there. If that were the case Rajani Kant would have been chief minister by now instead of floating around like Pirandello's six characters in search of an author; given his more evident earnestness, Kamal Hassan would at least be Leader of the Opposition. It is not irrelevant to ask whether people's perceptions are changing, whether Karunanidhi was "the daintiest last, to make the end most sweet". Now that he is beside Annadurai, he can rest in peace, the last battle won and poetic justice ensured.

START WITH HOW TO MAKE A RIFLE

We pay a price when we let other countries set our pace. One day Donald Trump includes India in the list of those "who are robbing America" and threatens to levy high taxes on "thousands and thousands" of Indian motorcycles imported into America. This was when India cut duty on the glamorous Harley-Davidson from 75 percent to 50 instead of the 0 percent Trump wanted.

Another day Trump praises India and green-signals the sale of unmanned aerial combat vehicles to India, a deal that was previously denied. These missile-firing drones have a sea variant reputed to be effective in coastal defence. No doubt, they can be decisive in beating back attacks such as the 26/11 terror strike in Mumbai.

Is India expected to cringe when Trump threatens it, and feel elated when Trump flatters it? Our concern should be not that this is a man the world mistrusts because of his unpredictable mood shifts; our concern should be the assumptions that are taken for granted, seemingly by all, in US-India dealings.

The American turn-around on the sale of hightech weapons such as the drone is a case in point. This looked like a systemic shift rather than a Trumpian twinkle. Nevertheless, India needs to be cautious for at least three reasons. First, America now recognises India as a full partner in its defence strategies and considers this as an "upgradation" of India. Secondly, Delhi sought a favourable nod from Washington before moving to buy an anti-missile defence system from Russia. Both these factors are linked to the third: Washington's eagerness to block China's growth as a world power.

Barack Obama's America had formally accepted India as a "major defence partner". But the partnership gained muscle only when Trump moved India into America's tier-I list of countries to which sensitive weapon systems could be exported without special licences. Trump has repeatedly stressed India's importance in what he calls the Asia-Pacific region. This recognition led to Washington waiving its sanctions provisions and thereby enabling India to buy Russia's Rs 39,000-crore air defence missile system.

What does all this really mean from India's standpoint? It is easier to see what it means to America: It opens a big market for American weapons and gets a major regional power to be involved with American defence policies in the region. There could well be a section of Indians who see it as a sign of progress when (a) America upgrades Delhi to tier-I for military sales and (b) permits Delhi to buy Russian weapons. Other sections may see it as demeaning when (a) India is expected to feel good about upgradation for purposes of buying American weapons and (b) sanction-scared Delhi seeks American permission to buy Russian weapons.

Both schools will have to see as unacceptable the extent to which India is dependent on other countries for its essential defence needs. The proud exhibit on our weapons front is the Brahmos missile. But 65 percent of it consists of imported components. INS Vikramaditya, the pride of the Indian navy, was formerly a Russian vessel mothballed because of age. Arihant, our first "indigenously built" nuclear submarine, took in extensive help from Russia. HAL, a competent public sector company, has received discouragement from successive governments. Its Tejas aircraft has been waiting for decades to get operational clearance. Its plans over Rafale jet fighters fell flat when the project was taken out of its hands and given to Anil Ambani's company. Last year an Indian-made rifle was rejected by the Indian army. Even bullet-proof jackets made in India are unpopular with our defence personnel. Despite a long history of defence research, proud achievements in rocket science and slogans like Make In India, India remains the world's largest arms importer.

When America recognises as a "major defence partner" a country that cannot produce even a rifle, it is clear that it sees India as a profitable market for its pricey weapons. In the process India loses opportunities to develop foreign policy, especially China policy, for India's benefit as distinct from the benefits of "Asia-Pacific". China is currently producing weaponry so sophisticated that the US has started to worry. India need not have been left so far behind. The achievements of its space programme and of its scientists in Silicon Valley point to the talent available to India. But the defence ministry is manned by IAS generalists while the country is at the mercy of parties and politicians who put their interests above the nation's. How can one get more than what one deserves?