|
|
|
|
|
Congress energised
India in Obama’s schemes |
|
|
One more death for Manto
Talking to the Taliban
In defence of India
Politics
of clothing
|
Congress energised
THE three-day Congress conclave at Jaipur raised right questions but fumbled on answers. Sonia Gandhi set the ball rolling by stressing the need to recognise the “new changing India”, connect with the middle class, reach out to impatient and assertive youth, ensure women’s safety, communicate better and eliminate corruption. The larger part of “Chintan Shivir” was devoted to Rahul Gandhi, who made public some of his most private moments, unusual for someone from a family that zealously guards its privacy and emotions. Party leaders vied with one another to wipe tears and shower praises on the usually aloof, seemingly reluctant leader. Once again, the Congress shied away from naming Rahul Gandhi as the party candidate for the post of Prime Minister in 2014. His elevation from general secretary to vice-president, a post lying defunct since Arjun Singh last occupied it under Rajiv Gandhi, is irrelevant outside the party. Though young only compared to other politicians, Rahul (born June 19, 1970) may field more of his Youth Congress and National Students Union of India colleagues in the coming elections, which should benefit the party since 70 per cent of India’s population is below 35. But will the party be able to rid itself of the hold of the old guard? Usually reticent, Rahul did some plain-speaking at Jaipur. While praising seniors, he said India’s political, administrative, judicial and education systems promoted mediocrity. He, however, did not say how he would transform them. He said his own party acted on whim, rather than rules. But can he save the party from the clutches of select political families? He said: “Power is grossly centralised in this country”. Youth are angry with the powerful driving around in “lal battis”. These views may resonate with a young India, but is his party serious about ending the obnoxious VIP culture? To be taken seriously, Rahul will have to stop being a part-time politician. His record of eight years in Parliament is anything but inspiring. He needs to speak more often and on issues that matter, and act on what he says and believes in.
|
|
India in Obama’s schemes
Barack
Obama, who took the oath on Sunday for a second term as US President, did not mention much about India during his election campaigns, but India figures in a “big” way in his scheme of things. Besides being “strategic partners” at the global stage, the two great democracies have similarity of views on many significant issues, including terrorism. There has been much cooperation between the two on punishing the two key extremists involved in the 2008 Mumbai terrorist killings. While Tahawwur Rana has got his just deserts from a US court, David Headley is likely to be punished soon. Both countries believe in zero-tolerance towards terrorism because this scourge has emerged as the most potent threat to peace and stability in different parts of the world. Obama’s agenda, no doubt, has been dominated by domestic issues mainly because of economic slowdown. He did talk of outsourcing-related issues which raised many eyebrows in India. But his foreign policy focus has been on areas --- extremism in the Af-Pak region, Iran’s controversial nuclear programme and the Arab Spring’s implications in West Asia --- in which India and the US have very little differences of opinion. The two countries have found little difficulty in working together on the Iranian nuclear issue. India voted against Iran in 2009 at the International Atomic Energy Agency meeting in Geneva, though only to uphold its consistent stand on nuclear non-proliferation. It is believed that Obama’s second term as US President will not be different from the first one. But he is unlikely to take any step that may come in the way of growing relations between the two countries. India’s viewpoint on Afghanistan appears to have influenced US policy initiatives towards the Af-Pak region as all the US soldiers stationed in the war-torn country will not leave for home when it completes its scheduled troop withdrawal in 2014. Not only that, the US wants India to concentrate more on development projects in Afghanistan in the manner New Delhi has been doing for a long time. Let us hope the strategic partnership that began with the signing of the civilian nuclear deal between India and the US will continue to get strengthened.
|
|
|
One more death for Manto
IT is ironical. On the one hand, the unfortunate separated- at- birth twins — India and Pakistan — have been commemorating the centenary year of Saadat Hasan Manto’s birth with year-long celebrations on both sides of the border, on the other, staging of two of his plays was cancelled in Delhi. The staging of his plays was scheduled for “Bharat Rang Mahotsva (BRM),” one of the most prestigious theatre festivals in the country. When it suits our secular democracy, foundations are raised in the name of Manto, his daughters are invited from across the border and felicitated. When his voice poses a threat to the fragility of our secular credentials, it is best suited to throttle his voice, once again, in the name of “perceived threat.” The government exercised an easy option by cancelling the show of Mantorama and “Kaun Hai Yeh Gustakh” in the eleventh hour. The National School of Drama, hosting BRM, has the excuse of hiding behind the orders of the government; the Ministry of Culture, they say, decided to cancel the plays fearing a law and order problem. The fact is that this act exposes the bogey of freedom of expression and nullifies whatever the two countries have achieved so far by way of cultural exchange. Pakistani theatre groups Ajokha and NAPA Repertory Theatre have staged umpteen shows and have never posed any law and order threat to this mighty democracy. In life, Manto had to fight against numerous court orders, sealing of his printing press and social ostracism for exposing socio-political hypocrisy on both sides of the border. In his centenary year, things have changed for worse. It is sad that politicians of all shades continue to deliver hate-mongering speeches from public platforms without any “threat perception” while sane voices are throttled by the very government that never tires of blowing its trumpet of its secular credentials.
|
|
|
Take the first step in faith. You don't have to see the whole staircase, just take the first step. —Martin Luther King, Jr.
|
Talking to the Taliban
THEREe have been two sets of reports from Pakistan relating to talks with the Taliban. The most important, from Pakistan's perspective, is the offer made by the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) in terms of ending violence, if the state accepts the demands made by them. The second one is important from a regional (Af-Pak) perspective, in terms of the talks with the Afghan Taliban, led by the international community in Paris, with Pakistan playing a crucial role. What are these two dialogues about? What do they signify? From a regional perspective, are these talks likely to enhance stability, or worsen it further? More importantly, are they likely to succeed? After a series of high-profile killings during November-December 2012, towards the end of last year, suddenly the TTP announced its willingness to talk to the government with certain pre-conditions. These high-profile attacks include the bombing in Jamrud bazaar in Khyber agency which killed 17 people, assassination of Bashir Bilour, the moderate political leader belonging to the Awami National Party (ANP) and a member of the Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa (KP) provincial assembly, killing of numerous health workers engaged in an anti-polio drive in the FATA and KP, and the kidnapping and massacre of 21 levies. All these attacks took place immediately before and during the TTP's announcement of its willingness to negotiate with the government . The most important question is why the TTP is willing to negotiate when its killings and massacres have peaked, as explained above. Perhaps, the TTP is planning to negotiate from a position of strength. The state and its forces have undoubtedly been brought to their knees. Consider the following: The security forces are yet to claim any major success in terms of their anti-militancy operation. After the Swat military operation in 2009, one is yet to hear or witness a strong anti-militancy drive by the state and its security forces. On the other hand, between January 2009 and December 2012, the TTP was on the rampage, including its ability to strike deep on PNS Mehran in Karachi in 2011 and Kamra airbase in Punjab in 2012. Clearly, the TTP is on an offensive. Political response to the TTP has been feeble and non-existent. Last month also witnessed the fifth death anniversary of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, with the trial going nowhere. Everyone knows who was behind the assassination, yet the government led by Benazir's party and her husband has not taken a strong approach vis-a-vis the Taliban. Given its track-record, the PPP is unlikely to pursue any strong political strategy vis-a-vis the TTP. Nor are the political parties in opposition led by the PML-N pressurising the government to formulate a cohesive political agenda in dealing with the TTP. Worse, the ANP, whose minister and a senior party member (Bashir Biolour) was assassinated by the TTP, is welcoming a reconciliation with the militants. No doubt, the TTP has offered to negotiate from a position of strength. An equally important question is: What is that the TTP willing to negotiate? What are its preconditions? According to news reports in the Pakistani media, the preconditions focus on the following four aspects: repealing of all laws repugnant to Islam, rewriting of Pakistan's constitution based on Shariah, withdrawing from the US-led Afghan war and refocusing on India. What do the four preconditions mean? The first two relating to the repeal of laws repugnant to Islam and re-writing of Pakistan's constitution based on the Quran and Sunnah, are not new demands from the TTP. Anyone who was following the developments in Swat before the military operations in 2009 would understand that this was almost a déjà vu. This is exactly what the Swati Taliban demanded before 2009 and the federal government of Pakistan, supported by the provincial government, yielded to their demand. The rest is history; even today, Swat is unable to recover from the blunder the government committed in terms of yielding to the Taliban then. Laws repugnant to Islam, the Quran and Sunnah are what the Taliban say it is. The conclusions and findings of the Taliban in terms of what Islam is and what the interpretations of the Quran and Sunnah are not based on a theological discourse, agreed by the rest of the community within Pakistan. This demand, for any sane government in Pakistan, should be an absolute non-starter. But is there a sane government in Pakistan? What has been its track record in terms of negotiating with the Taliban and their success rates? Since the first negotiation with Nek Mohammad in 2004, the recent history of Pakistan is full of failed negotiations with the TTP. For any successful negotiation, there should not only be a ceasefire, but also laying down of arms by the non-state actors and, more importantly, the state should negotiate from a position of strength. Unfortunately, in the case of Pakistan-TTP negotiations, it has been the opposite. The TTP never laid down its arms; rather it was the state which stopped its military operations and looked the other way. In a way, it was the state that laid down the arms, but not going after the non-state actors. It was always the TTP that negotiated from a position of strength and not the state. It is not that the state is weaker, but it appears it has abdicated its writ to rule, and its ability to command. The TTP has only seized what the state has provided. The third and fourth demands of the TTP are external — to pull out from the US-led Afghan war and refocus on India. In fact, this has been the position of even hardliners within Pakistan's Establishment — military and intelligence. Can Pakistan afford to pull out from supporting the US-led war in Afghanistan? While the international community needs Pakistan's assistance leading up to the exit in 2014 and installing a stable government in Afghanistan, Islamabad also needs the international community. Any overtly hostile approach to Afghanistan will undercut Islamabad's only leverage in any future political establishment in Kabul. Pakistan's recent support to the international effort to reach out to the Afghan Taliban should be seen in this perspective. There has been a dialogue with the Afghan Taliban. Pakistan had, in fact, released more than 20 Taliban leaders from its prison during the last two months, as a part of a larger understanding in taking the peace process forward with the Afghan Taliban. During the initial period, Pakistan was upset and apprehensive of the peace talks with the Afghan Taliban, as the US-led international process attempted to sideline Islamabad and Rawalpindi. The earlier rounds led by Germany and Qatar, took place during 2010-11 by passing Pakistan, could not move forward. In fact, even before Berlin and Doha attempted to reach out to the Afghan Taliban, the US was in touch with a few of these extremists, without informing the ISI. Some independent accounts, in fact, reveal that the Afghan Taliban themselves wanted to keep Pakistan out of the picture! An infuriated Pakistan, then by arresting Mullah Baradar, attempted to sabotage any direct negotiation between Washington and Kabul with the Afghan Taliban. Now Pakistan seems to be on board in the France-led talks with the Afghan Taliban. Hence it is unlikely to yield to the third request of the TTP — to pullout from Afghanistan. Unlike Pakistan, the US is pursuing a consistent military strategy despite its efforts to negotiate with the Taliban. Pakistan cannot overtly refuse the US; not at this juncture. Getting back to the TTP's four demands, what is surprising is its insistence on "refocusing on India". While the TTP has always remained focused on Pakistan and Afghanistan, there has not been any significant statement on targeting India. While the first two demands are not in the interest of the state, can Pakistan afford to take measures on the last two in terms of pulling out from the Afghan war and refocus on India? Is this TTP rhetoric? Or, is the script written elsewhere, and the TTP is only conveying
it?
The writer is Director, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi.
|
|||
In defence of India
After the Delhi gangrape case, all netizens expressed their anguish and disgust about the incident. On all social networking sites, a lot of NRIs and even our denizens went ballistic, claiming to be ashamed of being Indians. Some of them went to the extent of calling, mine and theirs, motherland ‘Bloody India’. A few of these even thanked God that they had a choice — of ‘deserting’ their own land and living in a foreign country. One of them, a Gujarati based in the UK, said on his blog that India died on that December night. This is not in defence of the six persons who raped and tortured Damini to death. I fully support the sentiment that these six should be castrated, branded rapists on their foreheads and let loose on roads without any means of survival. But these do not represent India, as do the other such criminals. I am not even defending the inefficiency of our police, which wasted precious time debating the area and jurisdiction of the case. I am not justifying our over-burdened justice system where a huge number of cases do not see their logical end. And I, certainly, am not defending those people who just drove past the two victims, turning a blind eye to them for over two hours. All of them may be just a part of India, but they certainly do not represent the whole country. The nationalist and patriotic in me also sees those, especially our youth, who came out in large numbers to voice their protest which broke the slumber of the apathetic authorities. Of course, there is Damini's friend who desperately fought and tried to save her. He is an Indian, too. I also remember the two youngsters, bravehearts Keenan Santos and Reuben Fernandez, who died last year saving their woman friends from being harassed by a group of hooligans in Mumbai. These two valiant boys were also Indians. And above all, I remember an incident from my childhood. I was eight or nine. We were living in Jalandhar. One winter night, my father, who was a journalist, brought home a young girl. She seemed visibly distraught and shaken. So, we put our curiosity on hold and tried to make her comfortable. We also made arrangements for her to spend the night with us. In the morning, the whole story tumbled out. My father was on the way home from his night shift, when he came across a group of boys harassing this young girl at the bus stand. This girl had come from Mukerian to do a course in stitching. She was a stranger to the city and had no place to go. On alighting, she was making inquiries about a place to stay when these boys started harassing her. My father was passing by when he saw this poor soul. He ticked off those boys and brought the girl home. And this total stranger went on to stay with us not just that night but for three months it took to complete her course. Well, my father was an Indian too, who rescued a total stranger one cold winter night and gave her shelter not just that night but for three whole months. And yes, I am ashamed — that these people are Indians too who can abuse their motherland from the cosy confines of their foreign homes. Even the British, who ruled us for over 200 years, may have called us bloody Indians, but never called our country “Bloody India”.
|
|||
Politics
of clothing Though
masses came out in strong support favouring stringent laws against rape and demanding better security for women since December 16, when a 23-year-old woman became a victim of gang rape in a moving bus. The discourse soon shifted to what women should wear and how they should behave, for the sake of their own security. In the history of costumes there are many instances where people with authority, be they kings, rulers or the church, set the rules of dressing up for the public, especially for women. In classical Greece (c.500-323 B.C.) many written documents and art records give us an insight into the lifestyle of that period. Activities of married and upper- class women were restricted, as they could not participate in social activities with their husbands or with friends. They could only take part in religious processions and festivals, if appropriately veiled and accompanied by servants. Women were required to be veiled while outdoors. It seems that this practice may have come to Greece from Ionia and the Near East about 530 BC along with styles of the Ionic form of dress. Paintings and sculptures show the veils worn over the heads of women to cover their face.
Civilization & controlled clothing
Roman civilization had a long existence from 753 BC to 476 AD. It lasted for 1200 years in the West before it continued for another 1000 in the Byzantine Empire. There are some examples of the control that they exercised on their public. In 215 BC a long succession of sumptuary laws were made. According to Lex Appia of that year - no woman was allowed to possess more than one half an ounce of gold, or, to wear clothing of different colours or even to ride in a carriage in the city. Gold was very scarce amongst the early Romans who did not possess the buying powers of their early Etruscan rivals. Some modifications to certain elements of the costume were made. Women used orange veil or flammeum hiding the upper part of their face with a wreath of either marjoram and verbena, or myrtle and orange blossom on the head. The Christian church made this veil a permanent feature of the bridal costume. In the early period of Roman empire, many rules were set for dressing. Certain people could only wear particular clothes. Toga was the main outer garment worn by the Romans. It was their national costume just as the pallium was for the Greek. Roman laws strictly controlled etiquette. A type of toga called prae-texta had a band of purple woven along its edge. Purple was considered a symbol of power and toga prae-texta was reserved for Curule magistrates and priests, which gave the bearer the right to an ivory chair. Tribunes could wear only plain white toga, called toga pura. A man seeking public office stressed his purity by bleaching his toga a brilliant white thus becoming one of the candidate, which literally meant "those clothed in white".
Guilds rationed cloth By the end of the crusades in thirteenth century Europe, there was a shift in population and the growth of the trading class and bourgeoisie greatly increased the demand for clothing and fabric. Commercial discipline was ensured by formation of guilds whose regulations protected not only their members but also their customers. The various guilds kept a stern watch over their members and made sure they obeyed the Association's rules of ethics of dress. Certain guilds even regulated dress worn away from work. A German carpenter's guild insisted that members should not venture out in public unless attired in hat, cloak, collar and gloves. Artisans were expected to dress discreetly, never ostentatiously. A merchant banker was expected to dress in sober dark colours and wear clothes which give the impression of being "safe and sound", an advice which is being followed by bankers even today. During the twelfth and thirteenth century Europe social changes took place. Due to increase in trade, a middle class was born which had a lot of money. An elegance that had until then was reserved for royalty now came within reach of this new social class. At the end of the thirteenth century the competition in costume led nobility to obtain certain sumptuary regulations in dressing. They hoped to maintain social distinction which was threatened by the rise of a new capitalism. The civil authorities in France followed the example of earlier councils, such as the 1188 Council of Le Mans. Certain colours and styles as well as certain ornaments were forbidden to the middle classes. In Germany, for example sable and ermine (types of furs) was reserved for noble ladies. In France the Counsuls of Montauban in 1274 and 1291 interdicts against wearing of certain silks, furs or purple garments for people on the street. The royal ordinance of 1294 repeats earlier edicts which made several new rules for dukes, counts, barons, knights and squires that they could buy only certain number of new gowns each year. This applied equally to their wives.
Influence of the Puritans In the 17th century a radical Protestant religious faction within the Church of England called puritans continued to grow. Queen Elizabeth I of England reached agreements with English puritans on all major issues except on the matter of dress. The question of what the clergy should or should not wear grew into an uncompromising issue. For years the queen had insisted that the clergy retain vestments and the cap worn at the time of Reformation but the clergy would refuse. In the end many pastors preferred to resign rather than conform to Her Majesty's theories on the ecclesiastical costume Michael and Ariane Batterberry, in their writings on the ‘Puritans and Burghers’ say, "Protestantism has consistently exerted a far deeper influence on western dress than is generally recognized. The puritan men affected the cropped hair of a wig wearer while spurning the wig-hence presenting a round neck. They also preferred dark colours, wool rather than silk stockings and a minimum of lace". The French court of Louis XIV at Versailles in the seventeenth century was the most opulent and the king overemphasized the importance of dress in the ritual of court life. This was intentional as he intended to keep his courtiers happily on the brink of bankruptcy and out of political mischief. Later Louis XV also set the fashion in dressing. Rules were set by the royalty and it had to be followed by those who wished to enter the court. Strangers who arrived at the court and were not fashionably dressed were not even seen by the courtiers. Clothing became one of the major expenses for courtiers. One writer of the period St Simon talks about spending 800 louis d'or for clothes for himself and his wife for the wedding of the Duke of Burgandy. One louis was equal to about five dollars. Even in Japan, in the second half of the 18th century the merchant class or chonin had grown wealthier than the aristocratic samurai. The sumptuary laws were passed with a view to maintain the class division, despite the fact that the merchants could afford the best.
The Russian coat martial In 18th century Czar Peter the Great wanted to bring "civilized" dress of the West to Russia. He was determined to remove caftans, long coats and age old fur jackets and wanted to impose the latest in western dress. The story goes that he shaved off the beards of every noble present with his own hands and instructed his barber to shave off all those who passed out drunk. Henceforth beards which had been a sacred badge of wisdom and piety in Russia were taxed and licensed, if not outlawed outright. The long Russian coats were forbidden. Coats of the western knee length were to be worn and those who did not comply were forced to kneel on the ground while their coats were cut off at the proper length.
The east and the west meet In India, after establishing themselves as the rulers, the British tried to maintain their Englishness in dealing with Indians. They did not encourage their officers to wear Indian clothes. Fredrick John Shore, a judge in North India wore Indian clothes while sitting in court. As a result in 1830 Company employees were banned from wearing Indian dress in public functions. They also laid down regulations entailing what Indians should wear for official and ceremonial functions. The list of such regulations on dress in societies is endless. These are just a few examples of what the authorities did to impose their views. Today we live in a free and democratic country where we should have the choice to wear what we want. Restrictions on women's dress by our godmen, khaps or politicians suffering from foot in the mouth disease are outmoded and not in touch with present day realities. Diktats are being issued by village panchayats on the movement of women and their dressing. In Muzaffarnagar the khaps set rules for girls to wear only salwar kameez. If only they knew, at one time wearing salwar kameez was looked down upon by the upper caste gentry as the dressing of the low- class converts. In Puducherry a minister proposed redesigning school uniforms to make it mandatory for girl students to wear overcoats even in the oppressive tropical heat. Setting dress codes for women is not the answer to the problem of sexual harassment. As the long history of clothing suggests, it has been politicised to suit the rulers, not the masses.
The writer is a textile researcher who has worked at The National Museum, New Delhi and Muse'es d'at et d'histoire,Geneva
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
