Liberalism and India

Eighteen years ago, or to be more precise, on July 24, 1991, India was ushered into new era of economic liberalism. Circumstances forced us opt free market over Fabian socialism.

Many of us fretted the decision. It drove us believe that decision was fatal to nation’s economy. Newspapers those days were full of reports pounding words like ‘Gatt’, ‘WTO’, ‘Swadeshi’.

I still remember: We had a debate organised at school. Whether or not conscious about the facts, participating in debates was my birth-right. I cajoled that right and entered into debate.

All participants opposed the so called liberalization. Everyone with more or less tone said, signing Gatt would push India into east India like company’s hands. The teachers applauded our understanding. And since there was no one to oppose our views, the debate, as a “debate” didn’t actually take place. With no clear winner, the prize then was distributed among all participants.

At playground, cricket followed discussions on why India should oppose “ghost of liberalization”. We did not either know what nationalism was but made us believe so by opposing liberalization.

Gradually liberalization brought in privatization, globalization and deregularization. The changes across the fields became discernible among certain class. Phrases like ‘License raj’ and ‘hindu rate of growth’ stopped cropping up in the discussions while trade unions – like the one I am associated with – partially reduced to cultural organizations. We embraced all latest technology.

As the economic liberalism made us prosper, libertian values quickly became sellable. We preferred calling ourselves libertians. Cultural block in the mindspace opened up. A new elite class was created Proponents of sex gathered momentum when they talked about open society. 'Pink Chaddi’ became sign of liberalism. Stories full of moralizing started getting secondary treatment.

On July 24, Manmohan Singh’s tiny? step completed 18 years. The man at the helm in the meantime has gathered more power. Clamor of opposition has reduced to zero. The left have already exited from the government. The right-wing RSS too is all “Jai ho” about open market – RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat recently said “Whatever is good in this world, is all swadeshi for us”. And while all this was happening, the Wall street bubble burst.

Some problems have been sorted out, some persist. We have prospered in liberalism yet we reserve our right to embrace it in its full form. We probably know it give us fruits, but with the bitter taste if eaten even before they are ripe. Not bitten yet shy, the India today is.

Safeguaring Indian ethos

Much has been said already and little is left now to add value to it.

But one point, I see, is missing everywhere. And therefore here is my take on the great Manglore pub saga.

A group of 30/40 youngsters bashing boys and girls in pub at Manglore. As I saw this on my TV set, I promptly recalled an year old instance of women from Satara district blackening the faces of desi-liquor daddies, thrashing the customers and converging in huge number to shut the wine shops.

I found many similarities between the two instances except for the way these incidences were received.

By and large both the cases were about ‘safeguarding Indian ethos' and 'establishing supremacy'. In the first case, it was men who heckled girls while the second case saw women beating their village-men.

But the response to both the events was conspicuously different. For avant-gardes, the first instance was a topic to lash out country’s moral police. For media and its commentators, the incident was a ready-made weapon to lash political parties and their offshoot wings full of hoodlums. For the various chief ministers, the incident came in handy as to give their reaction and put their side before voters.

For the main perpetrator Sriram sena and its chief Pramod Muthalik, the relentless coverage of the incident through media could not have been at a better time especially when the outfit is fighting for reckoning.

In the second case however, the incidence was reported only in the region, barring few examples like my stories in HT Mumbai. And since media was lackluster in their coverage no single voice could be heard from the forward-thinking class of Pune-Mumbai or any chief minister.

Whatever I saw, read and reported myself was all about appreciating Satara’s firebrand women fearlessly fighting to correct the local politics. Their fight against powerful liquor-daddies were termed as 'movement'.

Why is so discriminatory response to two events which were more or less dealing with same issue?

A typical case of class allegiance, that often leads the media to reach hyperbole during their coverage.

And when media goes berserk, reaction are bound to follow.

Here elitist will accuse me of being socialist or conveniently choosing to ignore the facts to drive the point home.

But I for one is neither a socialist nor see any other “facts” to ignore. I am not even a saffronist to defend Sriram sena or carrying purpose to malign the Satara's firebrand women.

What I am trying is to bring out the contradictions.

(Photocaption: A file photo of a group of women pelting stones at a shop in Karad taluka of Satara district)

Playing a morality card

Mumbai’s first moral cop, senior Sena leader and a veteran journalist Pramod Navalkar died Yesterday. His death brought another controversy, interestingly, about another morality issue.

According to a story appeared in today’s Loksatta, even the Sena veteran’s death did not prevent legislatures from going to a late night party in Nagpur where assembly session is currently going on. (Well, conducting a session at Nagpur in winter is meant for partying)

And as per Loksatta reporter’s description, the Sena MLA from Akola Gulabrao Gawande was spotted sharing some old Hindi songs with his colleague in the party. Gawande was reported to have sung “sukh me sab sathi, Dukh me na koi”. Many in the government including some of the senior ministers also attended this, not clear if it was a cocktail, party.

Written on a pious note, a reporter from Loksatta (story is without byline) has given point-by-point account of the party as if he was physically present there. The story also criticized politicians saying despite the demise of senior Sena leader and ex-minister; politicians did not let party down. My Journo friend from Nagpur today told me that there were other few journos present at the party venue.

Now the issue is, this reporter (and other some reporters) did not forget to criticize the politicians but failed to remember that Navalkar was a Journalist too. So wasn’t it duty of journos present there to stay away from the party if morally it was wrong?.

Here, perhaps they played Navalkar.

According to Sujata Anandan, HT political editor, Navalkar himself was ‘rasik’ (fond of good life). His likes include Wine and Woman. And despite all this, the sena veteran always used to play morality card when it came to culture and tradition.

What say...?