3G is sometimes used to describe three times the force of gravity, which fighter pilots and astronauts endure. They therefore wear 3G suits that protect their bodies from such forces. However, the G that I am writing about stands for Gandhi; and the 3 Gs are the Mahatma, Sonia and Munnabhai.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the Mahatma, is the original Gandhi, the perpetrator of what we now call Gandhian thought. His was a deliberate choice. Sonia is a Gandhi by marriage. It is just a coincidence. She is a Gandhi by chance. Though Forbes magazine has listed her as the 6th most powerful woman in the world, and she is definitely the most powerful woman in India, she is not the Gandhi that I presently have on my radar screen. The third Gandhi, and most talked about today, is Munnabhai and his modern brand of Gandhigiri. Let us not confuse the actor Sanjay Dutt with the character Munnabhai. Dutt is not on my radar.
Munnabhai’s Gandhigiri has some beautiful aspects. But it is a cinematic illusion, divorced from reality. Sirkit did not understand Gandhigiri, let alone Gandhism. He just understood his boss’ orders. Munnabhai relapses into violence (beating up the executive and dangling him form the multi-storeyed building). He constantly uses deceit to attain his goal of winning the affection of the gorgeous Vidya Balan. For him the end justifies the means. This is in stark contrast to Gandhian thought. Gandhigiri, like most cinematic illusions, offers simplistic solutions to complex issues – like the girl assessing her suitor in the restaurant.
What really fired people’s imagination was the sending of red roses to the enemy (Lucky Sardar) to break his resistance? Since then many people have started wearing Gandhi topis, and distributing flowers. It hasn’t worked. Because even Gandhigiri (let alone Gandhism) cannot work in isolation. It has to be a complete way of life. As we celebrate the original Gandhi’s 138th birth anniversary on 2nd October, can we harken back to the original G?
My introduction to Gandhi was through my father, who spoke of the Mahatma in glowing terms. My father himself abided by Gandhiji’s dictum of “Simple living and high thinking”. My second exposure to Gandhism was through his grandson Rajmohan Gandhi, and his moral Re-armament Movement. I found it inspiring. My real tryst with Gandhi was in 2000, when I came into contact with Vinaybhai, who was born in Gandhiji’s Wardha Ashram, and was the founder of the Gandhi Peach Foundation in my home town Kanpur. Under his leadership we founded the Manav Sadbhav Abhiyan (Human Solidarity Front) in Kanpur, to promote peace and communal harmony. It has worked.
A funny thing now happened. As I learnt more about Gandhiji, I discovered that he had more critics than admirers today. As with Sirkit, Gandhiji was reduced to an image on a currency note, or a holiday that was (unfortunately for Sirkit) also a “dry day” – no liquor! Ignorance is understandable, but a vilification campaign is not. I came across several accusations levelled against Gandhiji.
He is accused of having being an abettor of the Partition of India. He was a softie, not a toughie like Sardar Patel, who rode rough shod over the Nizam of Hyderabad. Have we forgotten that we also rode rough shod over the people of Kashmir, and we are still paying the price? Those who today blame Gandhiji for Partition are the same ones who supported his assassin, Nathuram Godse. Their intention is clear. No surprise really. If they assassinated him then, their character assassination propaganda will continue.
The second prejudice is harder to digest. Today’s dalit leaders and Ambedkarites accuse Gandhiji of perpetrating the caste system. I always believed that Gandhiji opposed the caste system. He gave the untouchables a new name – Harijan, People of God (a very Biblical term). It is quite another matter that over a period of time the word “Harijan” was used in a derogatory manner. That does not detract from Gandhiji’s true intent. Gandhiji also led by example, by cleaning latrines, something no high-caste Hindu would do. However, Gandhian scholars say that Gandhiji went on a 22 day fast to oppose Ambedkar’s demand for a separate “Achutisthan” and a separate electorate for them; which resulted in the Poona Pact of 1935. Dalits consider this a “betrayal” of their cause. I do not share that sentiment.
The third misconception is that Gandhiji was a softie, a weakling. There is a common Hindi saying “Majboori ka naam Gandhi” (Gandhi is synonymous with constraint or susceptibility). Nothing could be further from the truth. As Vinaybhai often said, “Majbooti ka naam Gandhi”. Gandhi is a symbol of strength, of indomitable courage, and tenacity of purpose.
Many Gandhians have also misunderstood their mentor. They believe that wearing khadi, spinning cotton, and opposing development, is Gandhism. Like Sirkit, they have latched on to the peripherals, and not the essence of Gandhism. The opening line of the book “All Men Are Brothers”, that is a compilation of Gandhiji’s thought, is, “I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and non-violence are as old as the hills.” Satyagrah and Ahimsa are in fact the quintessence of Gandhism. Everything else is secondary. Today, not just Indian society, the entire world desperately needs to break free from the culture of death and violence. A capitalistic driven world that wants to succeed by “hook or by crook”, needs to take a second look at Gandhiji’s quest for truth and honesty in public life.
While speaking to a camp of the NCC (National Cadet Corps) I suggested that they add another C, and be known as NCCC, for nation building. NCCC stands for – No Casteism, Communalism, Corruption. Gandhi sacrificed his life for these three Cs. This Gandhi Jayanti let us emulate the original G with 3G power, to fight the 3 Cs that threaten to destroy the fabric of our beloved nation. Jai Mahatma Gandhi! Jai Hind!
* The writer is the Founder Secretary of the Manav Sadbhav Abhiyan Kanpur, and a member of the Gandhi Peace Foundation.
Thursday, 27 January 2011
ROGERS NOT OUT
Long before the advent of SMS and abbreviations like asap, “Roger” was a word frequently used in signalling and communications; especially between pilots of war planes. Roger was an expression of agreement or acknowledgement of a message. To end the communication, a pilot would say “Roger and Out”.
This November 2007, I am writing about a different kind of communication and understanding, one which is in danger of going out. Hence this piece to keep a memory and a message alive. But why Roger? Because the man I am writing about is the late Rev Charles Murray Rogers. Born in Surrey, England in 1917, he died on the 17th October 2006 in Oxford.
Father Murray, as I always addressed him, may have been on Englishman by birth, but he was an Indian at heart. He was an Anglican pastor, but truly Catholic in his spiritual vision and mission. While studying in Cambridge in 1938 he met Rev C.F. Andrews (known as Deenabandu in India). In 1940 he married Mary Hole, and the missionary couple planned to make India their mission territory through the Church Missionary Society. It was only after the Second World War ended, that they could begin their Indian sojourn in 1945. For the next 26 years, till they left for Jerusalem in 1971, India was their home. Nothing extraordinary in the story so far.
The Rogers began their mission in the Agricultural Institute in Allahabad, a Christian institute, of which he was the chaplain. But visionary that he was, Rev Rogers soon experienced various stirrings. Had the colonial “missionary” come to convert the ignorant, idol worshipping natives? Something didn’t ring true. Was Christianity everything? Was God not present elsewhere; in all times, paces and religious traditions? The meeting with Deenabandu Andrews was widening his horizons, as was the Gandhi factor. The Rogers moved to Gandhiji’s Sevagram Ashram in Wardha for a year.
Rev Rogers now felt that the Church had presumed too much in trying to preach and teach Indians about God, religion and spirituality. He felt that Christians had much to learn form Hinduism’s rich traditions and philosophy. He also felt distinctly uneasy with the institutional Church condescendingly “dispensing religion”. He found it in stark contrast to the incarnational approach of Jesus. Jesus was incarnated in a specific milieu, culture, language, etc. He talked the language of men, being one with them.
But the Church in north India, coming as it did in the shadow of colonialism and imperialism, itself assumed an imperialistic approach. The imperialistic British army adapted to the various customs and traditions of warrior groups like the Sikhs, Dogras, Gorkhas and Marathas; making separate ethnic regiments for them. But the Indian church was totally western, be it Anglican or Roman. Jaikishans became Jacksons, Despandes became D’souzas, Makwanas became Mcwans, etc. They were Johnny - Tony - Topi - Tie, main hoon Isaibhai! You couldn’t be a Christian without eating beef, and assuming a western life style. It is this distortion of Christianity that Gandhiji encountered; leading to his almost condemnatory statement that he liked Christ, but not Christians.
Rev Rogers sensed this very strongly. He felt that Christ had to be incarnated in an Indian milieu that respected all religions and drew from their goodness. This spurred him to establish Jyotiniketan Ashram in the village of Kareli, just outside the city of Bareilly in U.P., in 1953. It was designed by the renowned architect Laurie Baker, who specialised in low-cost housing, incorporating indigenous materials and designs. Those of us who lived in Jyotiniketan jokingly called it an all weather construction – sweltering hot in summer, bitterly cold in winter, and damp and leaky during the monsoons!
The rooms had mud floors plastered with cow dung, asbestos sheets for roofing, half walls and half wire nettings. There was no electricity or running water. Liturgy and life were the same - squatting on the floor. There were some fields, a mango grove, dense bamboo clumps and dozens of peacocks. It was a joyous blend of Franciscan frugality and nature’s pristine beauty. It was a haven of peace and a beacon of light. Scholars and seekers came from all over the world. The French Benedictine monk Dom Le Saux, better known as Swami Abhishiktanand, was a frequent visitor, until he disappeared in the snowy Himalayas.
Though an Anglican, Rev Rogers celebrated the Eucharist everyday. He, and his wife Mary, studied the Hindu scriptures, and incorporated many beautiful passages from the Upanishads into their liturgy. They used rich Indian symbols like aarti, agarbatties, camphor and deepaks. Christianity can never be ethereal, so the Rogers also started a small dispensary to give simple and cheap health care to the neighbouring villagers. The third permanent member of the community was Heather Sandeman from Scotland.
Together with inter-religious dialogue, Rev Rogers was also a strong proponent of ecumenism. Some of his closest associates, like Rev Raimundo Panniker SJ, were Catholic. Because of his rich ecumenical experiences, Rev Rogers was made an expert consultant to the World Council of Churches.
Like St. Augustine, a deeply spiritual person is restless. He cannot sit back and rest on his accomplishments. Rev Rogers sensed that though he could change his thinking, he couldn’t change the colour of his white skin! He felt that if Jyotiniketan was to be truly Indian, the ashram acharya should be Indian. It was time to let go and move on. Not finding a suitable successor in the Anglican community, he handed the ashram over to a Capuchin priest – Fr. Augustine Lobo OFM Cap, who, co-incidentally, assumed the name of Swami Deenabandu!
At the age of 60, when most people think of retirement, Swami Deenabandu learnt how to speak Hind, roll chapattis and chop wood! The ecumenical, incarnational, ascetic Franciscan lifestyle continued for the next 20 years, till Swamiji’s passing on in 1991. I was privileged to spend 7 beautiful years there from 1975 to 1982.
The Rogers, on their part, continued their mission of ecumenism, spirituality and religious dialogue, in Jerusalem, Canada and eventually back in England. Rev Rogers finally succumbed to cancer. His beloved wife of 66 years standing could not bear the separation and soon followed him into the bosom of Abraham. Heather is the last flickering candle. Those who remember the Rogers could write to her at: All Saints’ Convent, St. Mary’s Road, Oxford OX4 IQE, England.
Rev Rogers was a visionary, way ahead of his time. Today, 42 years after the Vatican II “Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions”, the Church in India seems to have slid backwards. It has lost the thrust of ecumenism, asceticism, deep spirituality and sincere dialogue. We need to say “Roger” again – to understand and accept. Rev Rogers is gone, but he is not over and out.
*The writer was closely associated with Rev Rogers for several years.
This November 2007, I am writing about a different kind of communication and understanding, one which is in danger of going out. Hence this piece to keep a memory and a message alive. But why Roger? Because the man I am writing about is the late Rev Charles Murray Rogers. Born in Surrey, England in 1917, he died on the 17th October 2006 in Oxford.
Father Murray, as I always addressed him, may have been on Englishman by birth, but he was an Indian at heart. He was an Anglican pastor, but truly Catholic in his spiritual vision and mission. While studying in Cambridge in 1938 he met Rev C.F. Andrews (known as Deenabandu in India). In 1940 he married Mary Hole, and the missionary couple planned to make India their mission territory through the Church Missionary Society. It was only after the Second World War ended, that they could begin their Indian sojourn in 1945. For the next 26 years, till they left for Jerusalem in 1971, India was their home. Nothing extraordinary in the story so far.
The Rogers began their mission in the Agricultural Institute in Allahabad, a Christian institute, of which he was the chaplain. But visionary that he was, Rev Rogers soon experienced various stirrings. Had the colonial “missionary” come to convert the ignorant, idol worshipping natives? Something didn’t ring true. Was Christianity everything? Was God not present elsewhere; in all times, paces and religious traditions? The meeting with Deenabandu Andrews was widening his horizons, as was the Gandhi factor. The Rogers moved to Gandhiji’s Sevagram Ashram in Wardha for a year.
Rev Rogers now felt that the Church had presumed too much in trying to preach and teach Indians about God, religion and spirituality. He felt that Christians had much to learn form Hinduism’s rich traditions and philosophy. He also felt distinctly uneasy with the institutional Church condescendingly “dispensing religion”. He found it in stark contrast to the incarnational approach of Jesus. Jesus was incarnated in a specific milieu, culture, language, etc. He talked the language of men, being one with them.
But the Church in north India, coming as it did in the shadow of colonialism and imperialism, itself assumed an imperialistic approach. The imperialistic British army adapted to the various customs and traditions of warrior groups like the Sikhs, Dogras, Gorkhas and Marathas; making separate ethnic regiments for them. But the Indian church was totally western, be it Anglican or Roman. Jaikishans became Jacksons, Despandes became D’souzas, Makwanas became Mcwans, etc. They were Johnny - Tony - Topi - Tie, main hoon Isaibhai! You couldn’t be a Christian without eating beef, and assuming a western life style. It is this distortion of Christianity that Gandhiji encountered; leading to his almost condemnatory statement that he liked Christ, but not Christians.
Rev Rogers sensed this very strongly. He felt that Christ had to be incarnated in an Indian milieu that respected all religions and drew from their goodness. This spurred him to establish Jyotiniketan Ashram in the village of Kareli, just outside the city of Bareilly in U.P., in 1953. It was designed by the renowned architect Laurie Baker, who specialised in low-cost housing, incorporating indigenous materials and designs. Those of us who lived in Jyotiniketan jokingly called it an all weather construction – sweltering hot in summer, bitterly cold in winter, and damp and leaky during the monsoons!
The rooms had mud floors plastered with cow dung, asbestos sheets for roofing, half walls and half wire nettings. There was no electricity or running water. Liturgy and life were the same - squatting on the floor. There were some fields, a mango grove, dense bamboo clumps and dozens of peacocks. It was a joyous blend of Franciscan frugality and nature’s pristine beauty. It was a haven of peace and a beacon of light. Scholars and seekers came from all over the world. The French Benedictine monk Dom Le Saux, better known as Swami Abhishiktanand, was a frequent visitor, until he disappeared in the snowy Himalayas.
Though an Anglican, Rev Rogers celebrated the Eucharist everyday. He, and his wife Mary, studied the Hindu scriptures, and incorporated many beautiful passages from the Upanishads into their liturgy. They used rich Indian symbols like aarti, agarbatties, camphor and deepaks. Christianity can never be ethereal, so the Rogers also started a small dispensary to give simple and cheap health care to the neighbouring villagers. The third permanent member of the community was Heather Sandeman from Scotland.
Together with inter-religious dialogue, Rev Rogers was also a strong proponent of ecumenism. Some of his closest associates, like Rev Raimundo Panniker SJ, were Catholic. Because of his rich ecumenical experiences, Rev Rogers was made an expert consultant to the World Council of Churches.
Like St. Augustine, a deeply spiritual person is restless. He cannot sit back and rest on his accomplishments. Rev Rogers sensed that though he could change his thinking, he couldn’t change the colour of his white skin! He felt that if Jyotiniketan was to be truly Indian, the ashram acharya should be Indian. It was time to let go and move on. Not finding a suitable successor in the Anglican community, he handed the ashram over to a Capuchin priest – Fr. Augustine Lobo OFM Cap, who, co-incidentally, assumed the name of Swami Deenabandu!
At the age of 60, when most people think of retirement, Swami Deenabandu learnt how to speak Hind, roll chapattis and chop wood! The ecumenical, incarnational, ascetic Franciscan lifestyle continued for the next 20 years, till Swamiji’s passing on in 1991. I was privileged to spend 7 beautiful years there from 1975 to 1982.
The Rogers, on their part, continued their mission of ecumenism, spirituality and religious dialogue, in Jerusalem, Canada and eventually back in England. Rev Rogers finally succumbed to cancer. His beloved wife of 66 years standing could not bear the separation and soon followed him into the bosom of Abraham. Heather is the last flickering candle. Those who remember the Rogers could write to her at: All Saints’ Convent, St. Mary’s Road, Oxford OX4 IQE, England.
Rev Rogers was a visionary, way ahead of his time. Today, 42 years after the Vatican II “Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions”, the Church in India seems to have slid backwards. It has lost the thrust of ecumenism, asceticism, deep spirituality and sincere dialogue. We need to say “Roger” again – to understand and accept. Rev Rogers is gone, but he is not over and out.
*The writer was closely associated with Rev Rogers for several years.
NO MORE SECRETS
There was an old song that went “ Do you want to know a secret? Do you promise not to tell?” There was also the sexist remark that if you don’t want to keep a secret you should tell a woman. It was supposedly a faster means of communication than the telegram or telephone.
With an IT enabled telecom revolution, telling secrets has come a long way since then. There seem to be no more secrets – be they bedroom romps, bathroom singing, business and political lobbying or diplomatic immunity. We are now bombarded with Radiagate and Wikileaks. Suddenly the mighty have been dislodged from their pedestals. Reputed journalists like Barkha Dutt and Vir Sanghvi have taken a beating. The naïve among us are shocked, because they earlier held them in awe! Wikileaks has also shaken us out of Obamania, with the belated discovery that America is not a saint! Are there lessons to be learnt before more effigies are burnt?
Since I usually get back from work at 9.30 p.m., I get to see a bit of TV after 10.00 p.m., which is when most TV debates are at their argumentative best. I find that most anchors of TV debates seem to have their own agendas, regardless of what the panellists have to say. They cut short some panellists, and abruptly switch to those whose opinions seem closer to their own. Before the advent of TV, the moderator of a debate, like the Speaker of Parliament, actually spoke the least. Not so today. TV anchors are more like helmsmen, steering the debate in the direction they choose.
Why am I writing all this? Because journalists are just as human as anybody else. Each one has his/ her own social conditioning, and resultant inclinations. There is no such thing as a neutral journo. In a heated debate on Barkha Dutt’s “culpability”, Swapan Dasgupta admitted that he was perceived as being pro-BJP. Dilip Padgaonkar said that no journo was lily white. I must frankly admit that I am left of centre in my social praxis, and pro-laity in my ecclesiology. I don’t need to be apologetic about it. So why are we so alarmed that Barkha Dutt or Vir Sanghvi were used by business lobbyists because of their perceived proximity to the Congress? During the 1970’s/80’s Ramnath Goenka, Arun Shourie and the entire Express group were anti-Indira and Bofors. The Birla owned Hindustan group is considered pro-Congress. N. Ram of the Hindu is an avowed leftist. Chandan Mitra, who now owns the Pioneer is a BJP MP. TV channels in Tamilnadu and Andhra are owned by political families. So what?
The problem is not with newspaper editors and columnists or TV anchors. It is with the readers and viewers, who blindly lap up everything that is dished out to them. How real are reality shows? There is no such thing as the gospel truth in the media. We need to take all news and views (including mine) with a big pinch of salt, lest we have to be pinched out of our daydreaming later. Barkha and Sanghvi are neither saints nor sinners. They are plain human. Isn’t it better that way?
As for business lobbyists, that’s not news, it’s old hat. If we can have caste, class, religious and regional lobbies, then will not businessmen and industrialists, who have crores at stake, also have their own? Lobbying, per se, is not bad. What is important is that all four pillars of a democracy – the Legislature, Executive, Judiciary and the Fourth Estate, need to be eternally vigilant, despite human frailty.
What of Wikileaks? Why be afraid of Blackberry’s confidentiality, when the most “secure” communications of the most powerful nation can be so easily hacked and accessed? Alarm bells rang in India about American double speak and betrayal of the anti-terrorist campaign. How naïve of us to be so trusting or dependent on America, or any other country, for that matter. Veteran diplomat G. Parthasarathy kept repeating that there was nothing surprising in the leaked diplomatic tapes, as every country plays games and calls others names. If India sent its troops disguised as Mukti Bahini to liberate Bangladesh, then why are we shocked at Pakistan’s army trying to bring azadi to Kashmir? It is dangerous to don a “holier than thou” halo.
There are more lessons to be learnt. How is it that the most powerful democracy has been battered by Wikileaks, or the largest democracy by Radiagate? Why don’t we see leaks and gates in Russia, China, Pakistan and Myanmar? Because they have no room for dissent or discourse, which will be ruthlessly suppressed or annihilated. Instead of being alarmed, we should be proud of our democratic institutions, and systems of checks and balances. We should emerge stronger.
Other than journos and politicos, there are lessons to be learnt on the personal level too. How do we interact in personal relationships? In the days of snail mail we thought carefully before we put pen to paper, whether writing to a parent, child or lover. We took time off to visit each other’s homes, which built strong bonds.
Now we casually tell each other to “take care”, and hope to meet or reply asap. We don’t take time to think or reflect when on the phone, in online chatting or postings on Facebook and Twitter. We can be sugary sweet or at our acerbic best, in virtual relationships. We could also be communicating what we think is secret or secure, forgetting that we have entered an era of Instant Insecure Information Technology (IIIT). Information Technology is good. Instant is bad, because there is no opportunity to reflect or retract. Insecure is fraught with danger. Your secret communiqués may be accessed or hacked anywhere, by anybody. There are no cyber cupboards to hide one’s skeletons in. Teachers have tracked their students, and employers their employees, in the nebulous world of cyberspace. Commercial and diplomatic espionage is only too easy. Illicit or extra-marital flings are peanuts for the nutcracker. Beware, because somewhere Big Brother is listening. So the next time you go into cyberspace, think again before you tap the keys, for there are no secrets today.
* The writer is a veteran columnist and social activist.
DECEMBER 2010
With an IT enabled telecom revolution, telling secrets has come a long way since then. There seem to be no more secrets – be they bedroom romps, bathroom singing, business and political lobbying or diplomatic immunity. We are now bombarded with Radiagate and Wikileaks. Suddenly the mighty have been dislodged from their pedestals. Reputed journalists like Barkha Dutt and Vir Sanghvi have taken a beating. The naïve among us are shocked, because they earlier held them in awe! Wikileaks has also shaken us out of Obamania, with the belated discovery that America is not a saint! Are there lessons to be learnt before more effigies are burnt?
Since I usually get back from work at 9.30 p.m., I get to see a bit of TV after 10.00 p.m., which is when most TV debates are at their argumentative best. I find that most anchors of TV debates seem to have their own agendas, regardless of what the panellists have to say. They cut short some panellists, and abruptly switch to those whose opinions seem closer to their own. Before the advent of TV, the moderator of a debate, like the Speaker of Parliament, actually spoke the least. Not so today. TV anchors are more like helmsmen, steering the debate in the direction they choose.
Why am I writing all this? Because journalists are just as human as anybody else. Each one has his/ her own social conditioning, and resultant inclinations. There is no such thing as a neutral journo. In a heated debate on Barkha Dutt’s “culpability”, Swapan Dasgupta admitted that he was perceived as being pro-BJP. Dilip Padgaonkar said that no journo was lily white. I must frankly admit that I am left of centre in my social praxis, and pro-laity in my ecclesiology. I don’t need to be apologetic about it. So why are we so alarmed that Barkha Dutt or Vir Sanghvi were used by business lobbyists because of their perceived proximity to the Congress? During the 1970’s/80’s Ramnath Goenka, Arun Shourie and the entire Express group were anti-Indira and Bofors. The Birla owned Hindustan group is considered pro-Congress. N. Ram of the Hindu is an avowed leftist. Chandan Mitra, who now owns the Pioneer is a BJP MP. TV channels in Tamilnadu and Andhra are owned by political families. So what?
The problem is not with newspaper editors and columnists or TV anchors. It is with the readers and viewers, who blindly lap up everything that is dished out to them. How real are reality shows? There is no such thing as the gospel truth in the media. We need to take all news and views (including mine) with a big pinch of salt, lest we have to be pinched out of our daydreaming later. Barkha and Sanghvi are neither saints nor sinners. They are plain human. Isn’t it better that way?
As for business lobbyists, that’s not news, it’s old hat. If we can have caste, class, religious and regional lobbies, then will not businessmen and industrialists, who have crores at stake, also have their own? Lobbying, per se, is not bad. What is important is that all four pillars of a democracy – the Legislature, Executive, Judiciary and the Fourth Estate, need to be eternally vigilant, despite human frailty.
What of Wikileaks? Why be afraid of Blackberry’s confidentiality, when the most “secure” communications of the most powerful nation can be so easily hacked and accessed? Alarm bells rang in India about American double speak and betrayal of the anti-terrorist campaign. How naïve of us to be so trusting or dependent on America, or any other country, for that matter. Veteran diplomat G. Parthasarathy kept repeating that there was nothing surprising in the leaked diplomatic tapes, as every country plays games and calls others names. If India sent its troops disguised as Mukti Bahini to liberate Bangladesh, then why are we shocked at Pakistan’s army trying to bring azadi to Kashmir? It is dangerous to don a “holier than thou” halo.
There are more lessons to be learnt. How is it that the most powerful democracy has been battered by Wikileaks, or the largest democracy by Radiagate? Why don’t we see leaks and gates in Russia, China, Pakistan and Myanmar? Because they have no room for dissent or discourse, which will be ruthlessly suppressed or annihilated. Instead of being alarmed, we should be proud of our democratic institutions, and systems of checks and balances. We should emerge stronger.
Other than journos and politicos, there are lessons to be learnt on the personal level too. How do we interact in personal relationships? In the days of snail mail we thought carefully before we put pen to paper, whether writing to a parent, child or lover. We took time off to visit each other’s homes, which built strong bonds.
Now we casually tell each other to “take care”, and hope to meet or reply asap. We don’t take time to think or reflect when on the phone, in online chatting or postings on Facebook and Twitter. We can be sugary sweet or at our acerbic best, in virtual relationships. We could also be communicating what we think is secret or secure, forgetting that we have entered an era of Instant Insecure Information Technology (IIIT). Information Technology is good. Instant is bad, because there is no opportunity to reflect or retract. Insecure is fraught with danger. Your secret communiqués may be accessed or hacked anywhere, by anybody. There are no cyber cupboards to hide one’s skeletons in. Teachers have tracked their students, and employers their employees, in the nebulous world of cyberspace. Commercial and diplomatic espionage is only too easy. Illicit or extra-marital flings are peanuts for the nutcracker. Beware, because somewhere Big Brother is listening. So the next time you go into cyberspace, think again before you tap the keys, for there are no secrets today.
* The writer is a veteran columnist and social activist.
DECEMBER 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)