The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Rising suicides
It’s also about parenting

In George Orwell’ s famed ‘Animal Farm’, Benjamin re-aligns the seven commandments into a maxim that reads — “All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others.” Ditto goes for our educational institutions, some institutions are more than equal and hence they evoke stiffer competition and call for higher stakes. Their failures too are severe. Especially, if 26 students commit suicide within three years, after having made it to the premier institutes of India, the elite education calls for a re-think. Something must be amiss in the process that turns an enviable achievement into a cause for self-reproach! Educationists, counsellors and psychologists have been crying hoarse for years asking students to follow their heart. Numerous surveys conducted on software professionals reflect that up to 70 per cent of the students either accede to their parents’ wishes or give in to peer pressure while selecting a career.

In a recently televised debate held at Miranda House, former diplomat Mani Shankar Aiyar commented that just by getting into a BA pass course, the girl might ruin her life. The small town girl challenged him saying,“ Who are you to decide BA pass will ruin my life?” The incident stood out for its unusually unapologetic stance shown by the girl, who proved not elitism but true relevance of education was more desired. Perhaps, the majority of parents fail to prepare their children to take pride in what they are rather than what they ought to be, to be measured on the scale of socially acceptable financial success. If being at the top alone could lend happiness, why would these high achievers commit suicide, one needs to ask?

The suicides are also indicative of the fact that ‘making it to the top’ may be important, but more important is how you make it. Stretching oneself against one’s own esteem and aptitude is not worth the price, howsoever high that may be. The elite institutions demand a mind that thrives on creativity. And a creative and thinking mind is a relaxed mind. Institutions and parents should also prepare students to take failure in their stride, because a human life is more precious than the degree it may or may not hold.

Family tree of corruption
It is fabulously big, and growing

It is said that success has many fathers, while failure is an orphan. The same is true of corruption also. There is another similarity too. Everyone denies even nodding acquaintance with them, while at the same time accusing one’s rivals of being its parents. This “not mine, but theirs” accusation is currently being made by the redoubtable Om Prakash Chautala, who says that the Congress is the mother of corruption. In normal course, the Congress might have come up with the repartee that his Indian National Lok Dal is the grandmother of corruption, but then both Digvijay Singh and Mani Shankar Aiyar are rather busy fighting wordy duels on other fronts.

What cannot be denied is that there are members galore in the graft family, which has been proliferating as if there is no family planning. If it has brothers (Reddy) and sister (Kanimozhi), there are also first cousins Raja and Kalmadi to account for. This is only counting the family members whose current residences are well known. There are many more who are at large. The only ones who can claim to have no relationship with corruption are Kumari Mayawati and Kumari Jayalalitha — for obvious reasons.

Come to think of, the corruption blood runs in virtually all political veins. The voter who wrote “Sare chor hain” ( all are thieves) on a ballot box knew the geneology rather well. But why talk only about politicians? Others too are also derived from the same extended family. Perhaps that is why we have already had three films with the same title, “Hum Sab Chor hain” — in 1956, 1973 and 1995. Anyone wanting to make a realistic film with the same title again would better stand in a family queue quickly.

Thought for the Day

Everything is sweetened by risk. — Alexander Smith

ARTICLE

Haqqanis, US and Pakistan
Will they cross the Rubicon?
by D. Suba Chandran

After the recent Kabul attack by the Haqqani network, there were two damning testimonies by Admiral Mike Mullen, the outgoing Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Mr Leon Panetta, the American Defence Secretary, openly accusing Pakistan and its ISI for using the Haqqani network as a proxy. While this resulted in multiple responses from the political and military leadership of Pakistan, its Foreign Minister threatened the US that Washington would lose Pakistan as an ally. How far will the US and Pakistan go in converting their threats into reality? Can the US and Pakistan afford to break off the ties at this juncture? More importantly, what will happen if both decide to cross the Rubicon and there is a total rupture in the US-Pakistan relations?

First, a short note on the nature of threats. In the last few months, especially after the Abbottabad raid, the US has been conveying a tough message to Pakistan at multiple forums, putting pressure on the latter to stop aiding the Haqqani network, and asking Islamabad to do more in controlling the terrorist groups operating from within its soil. From Mrs Hillary Clinton to Mr Leon Panetta, there have been numerous statements from the American leadership emphasising that Pakistan must keep away from the Haqqani network.

The brazen attack on the American Embassy in Kabul by the Haqqani network seems to have escalated the US responses - from pressurising Pakistan to threatening with action. The testimonies of Admiral Mullen and Defence Secretary Panetta make this change crystal clear. Admiral Mullen, in his testimony before the Congress Armed Forces Committee have been quoted testifying, “with the ISI support, Haqqani operatives planned and conducted that truck bomb attack, as well as the assault on our embassy,” and “the Haqqani network acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency.”

In response, while the Prime Minister of Pakistan and his Interior Minister came with the usual rhetoric that Pakistan wants good relationship with everyone and does not allow its soil to be used by terrorists, General Kayani and the Foreign Minister made nuanced statements. The General in his response said, ““Admiral Mullen knows fully well which all countries are in contact with the Haqqanis,” and “singling out Pakistan is neither fair nor productive.”

Mrs Hina Rabbani Khar, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, issued an explicit threat that if the US continued with such statements against Islamabad, “you will lose an ally.”

The second part of General Kayani’s response is significant - where he said singling out Pakistan for being in contact with the Haqqanis is neither fair nor productive. What does this mean? Does this mean that, besides Pakistan, there are other countries which are in contact with the Haqqanis? Does this include the US as well? And does Admiral Mullen know this, as General Kayani is hinting?

It appears that both Pakistan and the US have been courting the Haqqanis, perhaps with different objectives and as a part of different strategies. While Pakistan and the ISI may be using the Haqqani network as a “proxy” and a “veritable arm”, what has been the American strategy towards the Haqqanis? Were they not a part of the moderate Taliban until they immoderately targeted the US interests in Afghanistan?

In terms of Pakistan’s counter-threats, while General Kayani has said that singling out Pakistan for being in touch with the Haqqanis would be counterproductive, Khar has said the US may lose an ally. If one has to analyse the meaning of these two threats, it could be interpreted as Islamabad’s readiness to cut the relationship with the US and pursue its own strategic interests in Afghanistan.

The second question: Can the US and Pakistan afford to cross the Rubicon and rupture the ties? The US has done that in the past. After working closely with Pakistan’s military and its ISI during the 1980s, against the Soviet troops, Washington did cut the relationship with Islamabad. Can they afford to do so now? The American strategic community is clearly divided on this issue on whether the US would continue its relationship with Pakistan or not. Those who want to break the relationship argue that despite the investment of billions of dollars in Pakistan since 2001, Islamabad has not helped the American cause in Afghanistan, or the war on terrorism. The hiding of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad close to a military installation is seen as a Pakistani collusion against American interests.

Those who argue against the rupture consider the nuclear assets of Pakistan and the rising radical threat as a major reason demanding a continuous interaction with Islamabad. The Al-Qaeda network and the stability of Afghanistan demand a substantial presence of the US even after 2014. This section also fears that Pakistan will become a failed state with the jihadi upper hand along with nuclear weapons. This is a nightmare scenario for the US.

On the other hand, Pakistan is also divided, though with the majority itching to break the ties with the US. This section considers that Pakistan is fighting the American war at a huge cost, and is afraid that the US would walk away or worse turn against Pakistan after 2014. So, they ask: Why wait until 2014 to break the ties with the US? The other section, though a minority, fears that such a rupture will not augur well for Pakistan’s democracy as the military, the ISI and, worse, the radical forces will become supreme and take Pakistan in a suicidal trajectory. This section also fears that in case there is a complete rupture of relations between the US and Pakistan, it would not only affect the country’s economy but also lead to Washington siding with New Delhi.

It appears that neither Pakistan nor the US can easily afford to break off their ties that easily. Both will have to pay a heavy price.

Finally, the hypothetical question: What if the US and Pakistan finally cross the Rubicon and break off their relations? The US may cut off its aid to Islamabad which has been in billions of dollars in the last decade, and more importantly, pressurise Pakistan at international forums. The US may also have to live in the perpetual fear of Pakistan’s nuclear assets falling into wrong hands. What are the US options in that case? Can the US expand its drone attacks, or place its boots on the ground in Pakistan? Will the American forces risk an open confrontation with Pakistan’s military? Unlikely.

What would Islamabad do? While the majority within Pakistan expects that their all-weather friend - China — would come to their rescue, the crucial question would be: What is Beijing’s game plan vis-à-vis Pakistan? While China has substantially invested in infrastructure projects within Pakistan, from Gwadar to the Kunjerab Pass, it is unlikely that Beijing will provide substantial aid as Pakistan got from the Americans.

Beijing is also likely to do cost-benefit analysis. Though the Pakistanis may consider their relationship with China as higher than the Himalayas and deeper than the oceans, one is not sure whether the Chinese also feel the same way. Certainly, the Chinese officials in Xinjiang, which shares the border with Gilgit-Baltistan, do not perceive so. While Beijing may not want Pakistan to end up as a failed state, it is unlikely to underwrite Islamabad’s existential problems.

So, what would Pakistan do, especially its military, the ISI and the jihadis, once the relationship with the US is ruptured? What will they do in Afghanistan? Will they turn their ire against the US, or against their ever-ready scapegoat - India? More than the US, should New Delhi not be worried about the breakup of the ties between Washington and its “major” non-NATO ally?

The writer is Director, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, and Visiting Professor, Pakistan Studies Programme, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.

MIDDLE

The watch-bearing tree
by K.K. Paul

Some people have a very sharp, almost photogenic, memory even at a ripe old age. Others show signs of a fading hazy memory, sometimes, even prematurely. A good memory is always considered to be a God’s gift, which it is, indeed.

My earliest childhood memories take me to Hoshiarpur, where my parents had moved with Panjab University. Model Town, where we used to reside, was those days on the periphery with cultivated fields separating it from the old area of the town.

Though I happened to be among the better students, school was never a fun place. In fact, the walk to and from the school was far more interesting and enjoyable. Invariably, we would halt beside the fields and watch intensely the round and round movement of oxen drawing water. There always was a temptation to peep inside the well and cry out ‘hoo’, loudly, for the fun of an echo, but could never get past the furrow left by the animals.

A little ahead there were a few workshops where buses and trucks used to be parked irregularly and all over the place. We always used to wonder and watch with awe the huge buses being raised by a small ‘mistry’ boy. The sight of the large tyres, much bigger than us, being taken off and then hammered to separate the tubes from the tyres used to be quite fascinating.

Despite having left home very early, the fear of getting late for the school always lurked. But those days the streets hardly had any traffic, and the last lap always used to be a race to be in time for the prayers.

Parents being keen gardeners we had, at home, a good sized kitchen garden. Often when not playing, I used to sit beside them and observe carefully how the individual seeds were picked up and then pressed down with the thumb in the ground.

One evening there was a huge commotion and my father appeared to be frantically looking for something. So was my mother, as also my grandmother. After some time my father asked me if I had seen his pocket watch. I told him that it was with me and I had sowed it. Nobody would believe me. In the meantime some friends of my parents had also dropped in, and everybody was wondering as to what I meant. I then took them to the spot in our kitchen garden where the watch had been sown, and also watered so that one day a tree would grow and bear more watches.

OPED FILMS

Bollywood—a fast growing industry that churns out the largest number of films in the world is sustained by barely 10 per cent of profit making ventures. Employer of about 5 million people, only one per cent people enjoy huge profits out of this myth.
Bollywood Blues
Vivek Agnihotri

Few days ago, Taran Adarsh, noted film trade analyst stated that in the last 20 years, 90 per cent of Bollywood films have commercially bombed. Which means only 10 per cent films have made profits.

Still Bollywood is omni-present.

Imagine that Tatas or Ambanis have 100 business units, of which 90 are in red and only 10 of these units make profits. And they still continue to run their empire so that 10 units can make enough profits to pump in monies in these 90 duds to keep the empire flag up! Year after year, for the last 20 years! What would you call them? Efficient entrepreneurs? Will you still invest in their stock? Then, how is it that Tatas to Birlas to Ambanis and other big corporate houses, media groups, diamond merchants, builders, politicians and government officers (through benami accounts), NRIs and traders from small towns—all have been investing in this commercially dud industry!

Multi million Kites: couldn’t fly

Qualitatively speaking, you'll find most cinema-goers (if asked individually) ridiculing the content of Bollywood products. It is a general belief that we do not know how to make good movies. Yet, Bollywood is one of the strongest brands to promote India to the rest of the world. There are more paradoxes. While most parents want to keep their children away from the 'dumbing-down' cinema of Bollywood, yet they play Bollywood songs on their birthday parties. Munnis, Sheilas, BilloRanis and ChammakChallos come alive kicking away innocent songs wishing a long life on a birthday.

Why does Bollywood—a low-quality industry—encompass almost all spheres of Indian life? Why are starving people willing to miss a meal to watch a Bollywood film? And, the same industry can make some movies so profitable that they can sustain losses of as many as almost 90%?

Facts of a fiction

The point I am emphasizing upon is- Bollywood is an incomprehensible, unparalleled phenomenon. Of course, one argument can be that it is about dreams. Still, these dreams cost big bucks and when dreams crash a lot of houses, leases, mortgages, loans, properties, careers, distribution and exhibition chains and ancillary businesses crash. Apart from, of course, many careers. Many hopes. Many lives. I refuse to believe that in 20 years no one has realised that it's not a dream-game. It's a death-game. Even in dreams, a situation as weird as this is un-dreamable. Yet, many are willing to gamble everything for this death-game.

What is also very strange is the fact that the beneficiaries of this enterprise are not even 10 per cent of the entire industry. My empirical abilities tell me that it can't be more than one per cent (8-10 top actors, directors, producers etc in an industry of 5 million). Almost 99 per cent of this enterprise's citizenry is underpaid, overworked and underprivileged. At the same time, it is one of the fastest growing industries and also the biggest employment generating one.

So, how does this business of un-proportional disparities and discrepancies go on and on?

I have my take on this. To understand this paradox called Bollywood one has to understand another paradox called India.

First, let's admit that we are an uneducated, underprivileged, deprived, poor society with huge disparities- the Bollywood disparities would be shamed here. We have a democracy, but it is dominated by families, fundamentalists and anarchists. We have a democracy where the voters can't decide the CEO of their country.

It works in a feudal manner where the populace has no say in policy matters, taxations, employment policies, foreign or defense options and absolutely no say in immediate civic requirements, even to the level of carpeting of roads in front of one's house. Most populace of the fastest growing economy has no access to electricity, safe water, hygienic food, and basic modest shelter and protection from cold, heat, floods and now even from the menace of terrorism.

Year after year the same very people are devastated by floods. Even emergency operations and rescue vans of fire, police and ambulance, despite their blaring sirens can't find a lane to move forward. But a political figure with criminal records may find entire road blocked for his cavalcade. There is no dignity of labour. No urban planning, nor vision. Lakhs of people sit on top of the trains and hang to death outside local trains. To break a traffic rule costs just 10-20 bucks. And, to break the law of the land, a few thousand and sometimes a few lakh rupees. Talking about pollution, environment is a luxury we must not even think of. Children—our future —learn here how to manoeuvre bikes on potholes and facing head-on-traffic, better than anywhere in the world!

The imagined democracy

Over 90 per cent of the country has a civil war like situation. J&K, entire north east, Jharkhand, AP, MP, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Tamilnadu, Gujarat- wherever you look there is some kind of unrest, lathi charges, curfews and bandhs. Bombay was one place which was different from the rest of India, but it took one man to make it part of the same mainstream anarchy.

Not the economic requirements but political leadership decides where to open employment generating projects (Tata's Nano project is an example). Masses have no faith, respect, or trust for the systems and the people who govern them. I think Kalam was the last leader truly respected by Indians. Democracy has crushed people's hopes and respect and beliefs. A hopeless society doesn't care about Nobel for Pachauri. It doesn't care about Chandrayans. Its doesn't care about nuclear deals or things which an underdeveloped country can actually be proud of.

We are a hopeless, defeated society.

Isn't it strange that nobody, almost nobody thinks for a moment that the water-filtering machine that Hema Malini or Aquaguard salesman sold is the failure of the government! That the drinking water is a fundamental right, irrespective of the fact whether we have a democracy or dictatorship. Democracy is not above safe drinking water, electricity, roads and safety from terror!

I live in a democracy that should offer healthy choices. I feel ashamed when my kids dance on Bollywood songs in their schools' annual functions, graced only by Bollywood celebrities, and their home-works have very often Bollywood references. Where have other evolved choices vanished from Bollywood and from our democracy?

And the myth thrives

Yet Bollywood that un-entertains is everywhere.

Other sources of entertainment- classical music, dance and drama are breathing their last and surviving on government grants. Non-English poetry and literature (also the one not supported/marketed by Penguin) is almost dead. For sports we have only cricket which has T20's big bucks and that too is now as good as a cheer leaders' show.

So, in this hopeless scenario how does one keep alive and look forward to tomorrow?

Perhaps, our 'Hope quotient' is the highest in the world. And that is derived from thousands of years of mythological nurturing of the society.

We don't make cinema. We manufacture a tonic called 'Bollywood'. We market a myth called 'Bollywood'. Un-explainable. Un-definable.

We are a society that survives on mythology. The tonic of mythology has protected us from shattering as a society despite invasions, calamities and abject poverty. Mythology's biggest trick is that it works on illogical-logic, i.e. 'anything can happen anytime'. Remember Manmohan Desai and others. Bollywood also works on the same logic. Mythology's another box-office trick is to end on hope and victory of the underdog. Ditto goes for Bollywood. Mythology follows the structure of a roller coaster. So does Bollywood. You kill few innocent pedestrians, go to jail and come out a bigger star. It takes three hours to make a star out of a 'nobody'.

Mythology works as a catalyst for faith. And, we Indians have no dearth of it. So does Bollywood. In the end all Mythology is a paradox, freedom from the known and a paradox that promises a utopia (Ramrajya). Bollywood also creates an illusionary world where we are the character that is fighting all the evil that has created such a grieved, stressed and unfair life around us. Where we, as characters, fly to a world that has hope. A world that has happy ending. That's why week after week, channels after channels, news after news, events after events, hoardings after hoardings wherever we look, there is Bollywood in some form or the other. Like God. Like Faith. Like Hope.

Bollywood is the modern mythological-story-generating-industry that everyone wants to cling on to. Bollywood works like a utopia. Utopia, that everyone knows will never come; yet we live in hope. Despite 90 per cent flops of the films and, of our hopes.

Vivek Agnihotri is the director of Chocolate, Goal and the forthcoming film Buddha in a Traffic Jam.