'Why shouldn't Brahmin community get reservation?

My friend Chandrasekhar forwarded this news to me. My thanks to him for this. First the concerned news item given below in bold italics. It will be followed as usual by my remarks.

Sattanathapuram Venkataraman Shekher is a popular playwright, producer and director in the Tamil film industry. He is also the sitting All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam member of the legislative assembly from Mylapore, Chennai.

Popularly known as S Ve Shekher, he shares his mobile number with all the residents of his constituency and is always accessible to them.

He recently created a flutter when he announced his decision to resign from the AIADMK. He also submitted a memorandum to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi on March 30, asking for seven per cent reservation for the Brahmin community.

He explains his reasons behind leaving the AIADMK to rediff.com's Shobha Warrier.

With the Lok Sabha elections round the corner, you have announced your decision to quit the AIADMK. Why did you make this announcement now?

I didn't think of the time when I made the announcement. Local party members have been avoiding me for quite some time. I felt that enough is enough. There is no support from party supremo J Jayalalithaa also. The AIADMK is one party where if Jayalalithaa is affectionate towards you, the entire party cadre will support you. Otherwise, the party will throw you out.

You are liked by the people of your constituency because of your accessibility. Is your party chief not happy with your work?

Those things don't count at all. Nobody is bothered about your work. The only thing that works is loyalty. Yes, I accepted Jayalalitha as the chief of the party.

Did any particular incident trigger off your decision to quit the party?

No particular incident prompted my decision; there have been so many continuous incidents. When I joined the AIADMK, the party offered me the ticket to contest without me asking for it, and the party funded my election expenses. But I am basically a strong supporter of the Bharatiya Janata Party [Images].

Why didn't you join the BJP then?

The ideology of both the parties is the same. I knew Jayalalitha and she also knew me but (BJP leaders) Atal Bihari Vajpayee or L K Advani [Images] didn't know me. I know only the BJP leaders from Tamil Nadu.

Though the AIADMK was a good party, I think I was not suitable for the party mentality. I thought they would utilise my popularity for the party's benefit. But the party wanted me to put on the mask of the party. It is not possible for me.

Did anyone ask you to put on the AIADMK mask?

I am loyal to the party and its supremo but beyond that, I don't know how to act. I am not a 100 per cent politician. I joined politics because I do a lot of social service and politics gives me more power to do that. I run a public charitable trust. Every year, I spend Rs 5-6 lakh on charity. Every month, I make the arrangements for the burial of 15-20 unclaimed bodies in hospitals. I am a regular blood donor. So, politics is not a profession for me.

I have never fallen at her feet and I know she doesn't expect me to do so. I requested her to be there for my daughter's wedding and also do the puja of my son's first film but she didn't come for either. These are personal things.

My brother's wife is an officer of the Indian Administrative Service, so she had invited the Chief Minister (M Karunanidhi) for her son's wedding. As the eldest in the family, I received the chief minister with respect. That was construed as a big mistake!

How did Jayalalithaa get to know about the CM attending the wedding?

There is a team to convey such news to her! In 2006, I was the vice-chairman of the International Film Festival here. For that festival, Dayanidhi Maran was invited. Because I shared the dais with Maran, she refused to come to my 5000th show, though I had publicised her likely presence. On the same day, I changed my show's number and celebrated it as my 5007th show!

These are the kind of punishments you get in this party. I cannot surrender myself to the party. I cannot say AIADMK is my life. I have so many other important things in my life. Meeting opposition party members cannot be construed as a crime.

Were you summoned?

No, I was not summoned. All they do is ignore you. I have been ignored completely from 2006.

Do you feel that politicians of Tamil Nadu lack maturity?

You cannot say they are immature. When you say they are not mature, it comes closer to maturity! You may belong to a different party and you may have a different opinion. But that does not mean that you look at the other person as your enemy. You see Advani and (Congress chief) Sonia Gandhi standing side by side but you won't see such a thing in Tamil Nadu.

Are you planning to join the BJP now?

Which party would want S Ve Shekher? I don't want to repeat the mistake I made earlier, so I will take a decision after a lot of deliberation because I want to be part of that party forever. I don't want to be a local person; I want to go to Delhi.

Are you planning to resign from the AIADMK?

Definitely. Now, I will give a memorandum to the chief minister asking for seven per cent reservation for the Brahmin community (he submitted it on March 30). If the government appoints a committee, I will resign from the Mylapore constituency. In a by-election, it is always the ruling party that wins.

Why do you feel Brahmins need reservation in Tamil Nadu?

Why should they not get reservation? In Tamil Nadu, 69 per cent of the people get reservation and ninety five per cent of people enjoy some kind of reservation except the forward community. Where is social justice? There are over 40 lakh Brahmins in Tamil Nadu. It is the government's duty to give equal opportunities to everyone. Brahmins have been eliminated, insulted and sidelined in so many ways. You cannot punish people for what happened over 50-60 years ago.

Now that you are talking to the press about your decision to quit, what is the feedback that you are getting from your party chief?

You don't know the AIADMK. Once the party starts ignoring you, they don't bother about what you do.

Usually, people switch parties when they have some case regsistered against them. I have never been booked for anything -- not even for riding double on a bicycle. I am an MLA but I don't go in the opposite direction on a one-way street, I don't park in a no-parking zone. I am a 100 per cent law abiding citizen.

Once I decide to quit, I will send a letter to the party supremo and I will conduct a sms poll on the decision. I will hold a public meeting in my constituency as I feel I have a responsibility to the people who voted for me. At the public meeting, I will tell the people how I joined the party, why I am resigning and what I will do now.

Now back to Dondu N. Raghavan. S.V. Sekhar should have taken this step long back. Anyhow, better late than never. The only consolation is that he did not indulge the Dravidian culture of falling at the feet of worthless "leaders" such as Jayalalitha or Karunanidhi. He kept his distance. To that extent he is a far cry from the dyed-in-the-wool politician of Tamil Nadu. My best wishes to him.

I am not, however, in favor of reservation for Brahmins.

Regards,
Dondu N. Raghavan

From the dark pages of history

Today morning I received this email (reproduced in full below) from one Kashyapa Kumarilla. I feel it deserves to be converted into a blog post, at least as counter to the apologists of the Soviet Union. I am yet to go through the interviews given by the the Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov due to lack of time but will do so soon. Now for the email. I have suppressed the from address of the sender as it will not be proper to do so without the concerned person's consent. Now, over to email in bold italics:

from Kashyapa Kumarila
reply-to
to
date Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 6:42 AM
subject Fw: Video: How communist subversion of India happened
mailed-by xxx.com
signed-by xxx.com

Hello,

Can you post it in your blog ?

Thanks,
KK
----------------------------------------------------------------

Yuri Bezmenov was a member of Propaganda Team of KGB. He was posted in Delhi Embassy of Soviet Union in 60's to 1970. He defected in 1970 to USA .

In early 1980's there was a TV interview of Yuri Bezmenov which is given below in parts in YouTube link. It is interesting to know how communist subversion happens in many countries. He shows how the Journalists, Writers, Academicians, politicians etc from India were indoctrinated in communism/Marxism. Especially the videos 6, 7, 8 where he shows with pictures how Indian professors would be indoctrinated & how many Indian academicians were dishonest.


Play list : http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=96832BA85ECDC4FF


We don't have to accept everything he says or accept every analysis he makes. But he shows how "progressives”, "liberals", "human rights activists" etc are made.

Makes a lot of sense in Indian context. Nowadays, Christian churches & Arabian Mullahs are using the same above methods to create “pseudo secular activists , “journalists”, “Intellectuals” like Guha etc.

In case you are interested, you can read a transcript of the interview in 3 parts as follows.

part 1
part 2
part 3

Back to Dondu N. Raghavan. Please go through them. You will be amazed.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union a lot of information came out as to how the communists of all hues in various countries were in league with the Soviets. As they were already of a bent of mind susceptible to the communist lies, I guess the Soviets had no difficulty recruiting them, especially the Indians.

I will come back in another post within the next few days after making a thorough study of the tapes and the transcripts.

For the moment, ciao and Happy New Year to all of you.

Regards,
Dondu N. Raghavan
P.S. Well I read the transcripts. Quite shocking. By the way, the Tamil version of this post can be seen here.

Why India needs Narendra Modi? by Mr. Suhel Seth

My dear friend Jayakamal drew my attention to this posting by Mr. Suhel Seth, erstwhile critic (that too very strong) critic of Shri. Narendra Modi. My sincere thanks to Jayakamal. As per usual practice in such posts of mine, the "I" in the foloowing lines refer to Suhel Seth. Yours truly Dondu Raghavan will come afterwards.

Let me begin with a set of disclosures: I have perhaps written more articles against Modi and his handling of the post-Godhra scenario than most people have; I have called him a modern-day Hitler and have always said that Godhra shall remain an enduring blemish not just on him but on India's political class. I still believe that what happened in Gujarat during the Godhra riots is something we as a nation will pay a heavy price for. But the fact is that time has moved on. As has Narendra Modi. He is not the only politician in India who has been accused of communalism. It is strange that the whole country venerates the Congress Party as the secular messiah but it was that party that presided over the riots in 1984 in which over 3,500 Sikhs died: thrice the number killed in Gujarat.

The fact of the matter is that there is no better performer than Narendra Modi in India's political structure. Three weeks ago, I had gone to Ahmedabad to address the YPO and I thought it would be a good opportunity to catch up with Modi. I called him the evening before and I was given an appointment for the very day I was getting into Ahmedabad. And it was not some official meeting but instead one at his house. As frugal as the man Modi is.

And this is something that the Gandhis and Mayawatis need to learn from Modi. There were no fawning staff members; no secretaries running around; no hangers on…just the two of us with one servant who was there serving tea. And what was most impressive was the passion which Modi exuded. The passion for development; the passion for an invigorated Gujarat; the passion for the uplifting the living standards of the people in his state and the joy with which he recounted simple yet memorable data-points. For instance, almost all of the milk consumed in Singapore is supplied by Gujarat; or for that matter all the tomatoes that are eaten in Afghanistan are produced in Gujarat or the potatoes that Canadians gorge on are all farmed in Gujarat. But it was industry that was equally close to his heart.

It was almost like a child, that he rushed and got a coffee table book on GIFT: the proposed Gujarat Industrial City that will come up on the banks of the Sabarmarti: something that will put the Dubais and the Hong Kongs of this world to shame. And while on the Sabarmati, it is Modi who has created the inter-linking of rivers so that now the Sabarmati is no longer dry.

He then spoke about how he was very keen that Ratan Tata sets up the Nano plant in Gujarat: he told me how he had related the story of the Parsi Navsari priests to Ratan and how touched Ratan was: the story is, when the Navsari priests, (the first Parsis) landed in Gujarat, the ruler of Gujarat sent them a glass of milk, full to the brim and said, there was no place for them: the priests added some sugar to the milk and sent it back saying that they would integrate beautifully with the locals and would only add value to the state.

Narendra Modi is clearly a man in a hurry and he has every reason to be. There is no question in any one's mind that he is the trump card for the BJP after Advani and Modi realises that. People like Rajnath Singh are simply weak irritants I would imagine. He also believes that the country has no apolitical strategy to counter terrorism and in fact he told me how he had alerted the Prime Minister, the Home Minister and the NSA about the impending bomb blasts in Delhi and they did not take him seriously. And then the September 13 blasts happened! It was this resolve of Modi's that I found very admirable. There is a clear intolerance of terrorism and terrorists which is evident in the way the man functions; now there are many cynics who call it minority-bashing but the truth of the matter is that Modi genuinely means business as far as law and order is concerned.

I left Modi's house deeply impressed with the man as Chief Minister: he was clearly passionate and what's more deeply committed. When I sat in the car, I asked my driver what he thought of Modi and his simple reply was Modi is God. Before him, there was nothing. No roads, no power, no infrastructure. Today, Gujarat is a power surplus state. Today, Gujarat attracts more industry than all the states put together. Today, Gujarat is the preferred investment destination for almost every multi-national and what's more, there is an integrity that is missing in other states.

After I finished talking to the YPO (Young President's Organisation) members, I asked some of them very casually, what they thought of Modi. Strangely, this was one area there was no class differential on. They too said he was God.

But what they also added very quickly was if India has just five Narendra Modis, we would be a great country. I don't know if this was typical Gujarati exaggeration or a reflection of the kind of leadership India now needs! There is however, no question in my mind, that his flaws apart, Narendra Modi today, is truly a transformational leader! And we need many more like him!

The writer is Managing Partner, Counselage.

Now back to Dondu N. Raghavan. What is more, the author is a Muslim. And he has no hesitation in singing Modi's praise.

Regards,
Dondu N. Raghavan

Dreaming of Swatantra by Niranjan Rajadhyaksha

The article with the title "Dreaming of Swatantra" was forwarded to me by my friend Chandrasekhar. It raises an interesting question about the now defunct Swtantra Party founded by Rajai, Masani amd Ranga recently in 1959. First let us go to the article reproduced here in bold italics.

Modern India's only stab at a successful liberal party started in August 1959; the Swatantra Party would have entered its 50th year this month, if it had survived as a national political force

(Cafe Economics | Niranjan Rajadhyaksha)

Nobel laureate Amartya Sen — who is not a free-market liberal — has spoken on how contemporary India needs a right-wing political party that is both secular and committed to an open economy. This is a good time to go back to the issue, for two reasons. First, we have seen how economic reforms were blocked by the Left to begin with and have now been hijacked by the crony capitalism of the Samajwadi Party. Second, modern India's only stab at a successful liberal party started in August 1959; the Swatantra Party would have entered its 50th year this month, if it had survived as a national political force.

Countries with low levels of trust and high levels of corruption tend to be more wary of free market capitalism
Fifteen years of high growth, thanks to economic reforms, should have created a strong political base for liberal party. It hasn't. I am often surprised at how even people who have benefited from economic reforms still believe that the government should control prices to beat inflation or that companies are making too much profit at the cost of society. Is it any wonder that no party is ready to face the electorate with a free market agenda?

The interesting question is why this happens. The answer involves more than political failure. The nature of Indian society and capitalism are also part of the answer.

An interesting new research paper by Philippe Aghion of Harvard University, Yann Algan of the Paris School of Economics, Pierre Cahuc of the Ecole Polytechnique and Andrei Schleifer of Harvard University offers one set of clues. They have mapped the relationship between demands for regulation in a country and the level of distrust between its citizens.

What these four economists show from their study of rich nations is that people ask for more government regulation when they do not trust their fellow citizens. They have used a concept that has attracted a lot of attention over the past decade and more — social capital. Any economy needs physical capital (tools), financial capital (money) and human capital (skills) to grow. It also needs social capital (trust). Economist Kenneth Arrow once said that virtually "every commercial transaction has within itself an element of trust, certainly any transaction conducted over a period of time. It can be plausibly argued that much of economic backwardness in the world can be explained by the lack of mutual confidence."

Aghion and his three fellow authors show in their July paper, Regulation and Distrust, that countries with low levels of trust in other persons, companies and political institutions are more likely to have more regulations on economic activity. But this regulation leads to low growth and corruption, as we know from our own experience of the licence permit raj. "What is perhaps most interesting about this finding…is that distrust generates demand for regulation even when people realize that the government is corrupt and ineffective; they prefer state control to unbridled production by uncivil firms," say the economists.

The way companies earn profits does affect the popularity of capitalism. In a paper published in 2006, Rafael Di Tella of Harvard Business School and Robert MacCulloch of Imperial College ask: Why Doesn't Capitalism Flow to Poor Countries? They say the most important factor is corruption, which cuts into the "moral legitimacy of capitalism". Di Tella and MacCulloch add: "Existence of corrupt entrepreneurs hurts good entrepreneurs by reducing the general appeal of capitalism."

These two pieces of research show that the popularity of a free market political party will depend on both the level of trust in a country and whether profits come from competitive markets or oligopolies protected by the state.

Economic historian Douglass C. North and his colleagues have given us what they call a conceptual framework to interpret human history. They say that societies emerge as "limited access orders". Here, the political system is used to limit economic participation and impose social order. The lack of economic competition leads to excess profits that are used to limit violence and maintain political stability.

North says that some societies later evolve into "open access" orders. Here, there are few restrictions on economic and political participation, which is another way of saying that these societies have open economies and open political systems. Order is maintained through the competitive process.

There is a famous story about Margaret Thatcher. Soon after she became head of the Conservative Party in the UK, she is said to have reached into her briefcase and pulled out a copy of F.A. Hayek's Constitution of Liberty, a book that explains with great clarity why liberal systems lead to freedom and prosperity. Interrupting the speaker, she is said to have banged the book down on the table and said: "This is what we believe."

Is there any Indian politician who has similar convictions — and the guts to make them public?

Now back to Dondu Raghavan. A few minutes after forwarding the article, Mr. Chandrasekhar has sent another mail saying,
"The important point I wanted to mention here that Mr Sen lectured at Indian Parliament recently (on this monday) on "demanding Social Justice". What a naive request! Where can he can get this social justice, when it is nowhere available in the world? (That what F A Hayek said years ago. "There is no such thing as Social Justice").

Thanks Chandrasekhar. But there is one small snag. It will not be possible to renew the Swatantra Party with things as they are obtaining in India now. A party has to take a constitutional oath owing allegiance to socialism, the selfsame bankrupt ideology, which the Swatantra Party was by default opposing. See my Tamil blog post on this subject. Unfortunately the original economic times article is no longer readily reachable; fortunately I had reproduced it at that time in toto just for such contingency.

Regards,
Dondu N. Raghavan

Mr. Lee and Mr. Chee agreed to have a fight

My friend Jayakamal has the welcome habit of forwarding articles that kindle my interest. I do use them for my blog posting in Tamil. Now due to a certain development in the blogger facilities, I would like to post the same in this English blog of mine as well. My Tamil post for those able to read Tamil is here. Now for the forwarded article Mr. Lee and Mr. Chee agreed to have a fight. Over to Atanou. The "I" in the succedding lines in bold italics refer to Atanou.

The NY Times of 30th May reports ("Power and Tenacity Collide in Singapore Courtroom" — Thanks, Naman) on the clash between two personalities — one powerful and famous, the other powerless — in a Singapore courtroom. Former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, 84, met his political adversary Chee Soon Juan, 45, in court where the former is suing the latter for libel. In a newsletter published in 2006, Mr Chee had accused the Singapore government of corruption. Mr Lee takes charges of corruption seriously and refused to let Mr Chee’s accusation go unchallenged.

I suppose the court would figure out if Mr Chee’s charge is true or not. If the charge is false, I would be much relieved because I would hate to find out that the man I have very high regard for — Mr Lee Kuan Yew — has feet of clay.

Why do I admire the man so much? Perhaps because of what he achieved. Here’s the NY Times:

“The final test is what Singapore was when I became prime minister in 1959 and what Singapore is now,” Mr. Lee said. “We had less than $100 million in the kitty.” Today, he said, “global financial services assess Singapore to have sovereign wealth funds of over $300 billion.”

Singapore is just a few million people. LKY worked the miracle of transforming a third world resource-poor mosquito-infested swamp into a wealthy first world nation state admired around the world for efficiency, lack of corruption, order and cleanliness. He didn’t make pretty speeches about scaling the commanding heights of the economy. He just did it and did it within a generation. Not just the phenomenal infrastructure of the tiny place, not just the rich stock of human capital, Singapore has also amassed $300 billion in reserves. Under LKY’s guidance, Singapore’s reserves have multiplied 3000 times. How great is that?

Lee says that Singapore has $300 billion in the kitty. Chee says that it does not make up for the silencing of political opponents, the closing down of independent media “and all your shenanigans, including making sure that I’m not allowed to speak during an election rally.”

Speaking strictly for myself, I value political freedom and the freedom of expression. A civilized human existence requires freedom. But in what sense is there freedom if one is starving? Isn’t one willing to sell one’s soul for a piece of bread when starvation threatens one’s life? What would you give up in exchange for not seeing your child starve to death? I know that I would give up a lot of my highly prized freedom of political expression if in the process I could at least see my children not starve.

Mr Chee says that $300 billion in the bank (and of course all other goodies that Singapore enjoys) is too high a price to pay for the lack of political freedom and the muzzling of the press. Perhaps the restrictions on the press and on political opposition were wholly unnecessary and Singapore would have been what it is today even otherwise. Perhaps it was merely to satisfy LKY’s personal whims and fancies that political opposition was curbed and which actually did not serve any instrumental purpose. But I doubt it. When a country is poor, the squabbling for resources does push to the fore the most opportunistic criminals to enter the policymaking circles.

I know that no one reading this is actually starving. When one is sitting comfortably with a full tummy, it is easy to see how valuable it is to have the freedom to speak your mind. It is clearly better to have political freedom than not to have it, all else being equal. But how would one rank these two: one, a very full stomach but limited political freedom; two, a very empty stomach but unlimited political freedom.

At which point does the benefits of political freedom of the few outweigh the material concerns of 500 million others? How many million people is it ok to condemn to a pitiably poor life so as to guarantee that a few people have the right to make fiery political speeches?

And often times, the only political speeches made are ostensibly on behalf of the starving millions. If those starving millions did not exist, these politicians would have little to make speeches about. So it would seem that if by banning idiotic political speeches, one achieves a level of prosperity such that it makes political speeches about poverty completely irrelevant and inconsequential, it would be a good thing.

I think that there is a hierarchy of needs, as Maslow pointed out. Only after the lower level needs are met can one attempt to satisfy needs higher up. I will secure air before I start worrying about food and water. I will not worry about free speech if I am in imminent danger of keeling over from hunger. I would trade in a lot of pretty political speeches in exchange for a decent shot at living a comfortable life. If I were in the bottom 300 million in India, I would happily trade in my situationally useless right to political freedom in exchange for the life of an average Singaporean.

All the above with the usual disclaimer that your mileage may vary.

POSTSCRIPT:
Why do I stress so much on the starvation bit? Because I know how it feels to starve for 2 days. If it feels that awful to starve for just 2 days, I wonder how it must be to chronically starve — as do an estimated 200 million in India. I know that I could not handle it and I would make a deal with the devil himself to try to avoid it. That is what I fear: that millions of people at the edge of starvation are quite capable of making deals with the devil. Don’t believe me? Well, then, how do you think the communists get elected in India?

Now back to Dondu N. Raghavan.

It is really very naughty of you Atanu. I refer of course to your last line. The commies do get their vote by promising the socialist utopia. In a way they keep their promise. The inequality between the haves and have-nots diminish as evry one tends to become a have-not except for the commissars with their filthy power of life and death. Let us keep aside for the moment their loyalty to the People's Republic of China and talk economics. In a way both Lee and the commies are alike in the matter of denying political freedom, but at least Lee delivered while the commies just took away everything.

I personally feel that Lee should not bother his head about Chee. Lee has already made his point.

Regards,
Dondu N. Raghavan