A critique of the Left's reaction to JNU

The overreaction of the Government to a few chanting "anti-India" slogans inside the JNU campus recently is quite incredible, though not entirely surprising. What follows are a few remarks on the incident which are so trivial that I should probably apologize in advance to any reasonable person reading this. 

The reaction of the Government and its other right-wing friends to the whole thing has been so outrageous that it leaves little scope for any rational discussion. So instead, as the title of the article suggests, I explore the reaction of the (so called) Left. From discussions in the mainstream media, the position of the Left, as far as I understand, is that the slogans chanted were reprehensible and those who did so should be identified, found and punished, as long as the Government does not target the institution as a whole or harass its students (as it clearly has done). 

I criticize the position above as it says nothing about two important things. First, what about the civil rights of those who actually shouted the slogans? Since the 18th century (say, Voltaire), it has been a truism outside fascist circles that the right to free expression is not restricted to ideas one approves of and must be most vigorously defended precisely in the case of ideas one finds most offensive. It has also been understood that any restriction on this right comes with a burden of proof that has to be met by those who impose such a restriction. Instead of challenging the Government to meet this burden of proof, the position described above takes for granted that the Government has the right to punish those who actually shouted the "reprehensible" slogans.

The second is that it has nothing to say about the slogans except dismissing them as reprehensible. I think we should pay a little more attention to what an anti-India slogan may mean, since the term India, when used without context, is pretty abstract. So when someone or something is labelled anti-India, we must first ask ourselves whether it implies being against some abstract notion of a nation state based on the principles enshrined in our Constitution or if it implies opposition to the Indian state in its present form, with its extreme commitment to wealth, power and privilege and the very real atrocities it commits against its own citizens. If the answer is the latter, which in my opinion is quite obvious, the way to respond is by addressing these underlying issues, which are quite real, not with a sledgehammer as the Government has done. It is the responsibility of the Left to draw attention to these issues, rather than getting hijacked into an abstract "national" vs "anti-national" debate. 

The right to reject: Wishful thinking rather than actual reform?

The Supreme Court of India has held that henceforth citizens should be offered a "Right to Reject" in elections, whereby a person can choose to cast his vote in favour of rejecting all candidates contesting that election.

While I have already heard a lot of people welcoming the move, does it really represent an improvement in the electoral process or is that just wishful thinking largely brought about by frustration with the present system, wherein any change is welcomed without really analyzing its implications?

How the Right to Reject is going to be implemented is not yet clear, but essentially there are 2 variants. In the first version, if more than 50 per cent of  voters choose the "none of the above" option, the election will have to be held again with a new roster of candidates. In the second version, the election will be re-held if the number choosing the "none of the above" option exceeds the number of votes gathered by the leading candidate.

What problem are we attempting to solve by this? The most common response is that it absolves the voter from choosing between equally bad or maybe bad and worse candidates. I'm not entirely sure.  Just because voters reject a set of candidates does not automatically mean that a second set has enhanced their choice or produced something closer to the idea of their real preferences, since even though the second set of candidates is distinct from the first, the eligibility for being able to contest remains the same. Moreover, in Indian democracy political parties have much more importance than individual MPs. Most voters have a political party rather than a specific candidate in mind while casting their vote. So, no matter how good a candidate fielded by a certain  party may be, one may not vote for him or her because one doesn't like the party or agree with its ideology.

Therefore, I believe while reforms to the electoral process are needed, the focus needs to be on party systems and election finance. Eligibility should also be looked at, and candidates who have been convicted by a court of law should not be allowed to contest. Simultaneous reforms to the criminal justice system wherein convictions are secured in a reasonable amount of time will go a long way in making this effective. On the other hand, the right to reject, to me, appears to be wishful thinking with an elitist angle, which potentially creates the burden of significant additional expenditure on the election process in an essentially poor country, without adding any tangible value to the process.

Full state honours, tricolour for Bal Thackeray: What for?

Bal Thackeray died last week and Bombay came to a standstill. I was actually out on Saturday evening, planning to have a drink and watch football at a pub with some friends when the news arrived and everything hurriedly shut down. I took the train back and walked home from the station (there were no cabs to be seen on the road by that time). I was a little surprised to be honest, never having seen Bombay like this, not even during the bomb blasts. I assumed it had more to do with people fearing vandalism from his supporters rather than out of deference to the man. Fair enough.

Later that night, flipping through news channels I heard things like  'Thackeray phenomenon', 'Incredible Balasaheb', 'The man who never practised caste politics' and so on and so forth. Anchors like Arnab Goswami and Rajdeep Sardesai spoke of him the way they might of an eccentric but lovable elderly uncle. Allright, I thought, TV studios seem to be following the adage speak no evil of the dead, though I was a little irritated at the one dimensional nature of the coverage.

The next day, he was given a funeral with full state honours. That is what really got me.

Bal Thackeray, no matter what he had done and what he didn't, was primarily a regional satrap and treated his home state and its capital as his fiefdom. He  was not an electoral politician, did not even serve as a minister in his own state and took great pride in denouncing democracy. "I believe in Shivsahi and not Loksahi", he used to say.

So it was not only ironic how his body was draped in our national flag, which symbolizes our unified identity, but also sad and disheartening to see that a democratic state was bowing before a man who never adided by the rule of law and openly flouted democratic conventions.

Glowing tributes from politicians and bollywood notwithstanding, I will only remember Bal Thackeray as a goon whose inconvenient time of death caused me to miss the first half of the North London derby.

Arsene Wenger: Victim of his own success?

Almost all talk about Arsenal FC in the last two or three years has been about the fact that they haven't won a single trophy since the FA cup in 2005. These voices have been growing louder with each passing season and following Arsenal's dismal start to the Premier League this year, they have reached an almost deafening pitch. As any regular visitor to Arsenal fansites and blogs would know, Arsenal 'fans' have one scapegoat for all of Arsenal's problems, Arsene Wenger. Yes, a new manager seems to be the solution to all problems at the moment, but lets just pause and take a look at some numbers:

Arsene Wenger's year by year record for Arsenal:


 Year         P      W      D      L       F      A      Win ratio        

1996/7	36	16	11	9	56	33	44.4%
1997/8	54	33	13	8	89	46	61.1%
1998/9	54	31	15	8	84	38	57.4%
1999/00	59	33	11	15	112	66	55.9%
2000/01	59	32	13	14	99	62	54.2%
2001/02	60	39	11	10	119	62	65%
2002/03	59	34	15	10	119	58	57.6%
2003/04	59	38	14	7	114	48	64.4%
2004/05	57	37	13	7	117	51	64.9%
2005/06	59	33	11	15	96	43	55.9%
2006/07	59	30	17	12	98	53	50.8%
2007/08	58	36	15	7	113	52	62.1%
2008/09	61	34	16	11	113	54	55.7%
2009/10	55	33	8	14	116	63	60%
2010/11	58	31	13	14	119	64	53.4%

Surprised?

Yes, despite failing to win a trophy in the last six seasons, the actual playing records have remained fairly similar over Arsene's 15 years at Arsenal. This fact is highlighted when comparing his records at Highbury and Ashburton Grove. Though Arsenal have not won silverware since moving into their new stadium at the beginning of the 2006/07 season, they have a near identical record here (win ratio: 70.3%) compared to Arsene’s time at Highbury (win ratio: 70.6%).

Therefore, the lack of titles is clearly not due to a lower standard of play, a lack of quality or Arsene losing the plot somewhere along the way, but just that winning a title requires a combination of unforeseeable factors to work in your favour including injuries, referee decisions and just that little bit of luck at key moments in important games.

Not to mention that these numbers are by far the best Arsenal have had under any manager in their history, qualification for the Champions League 14 years in a row and the fact that this has all been achieved having the least average transfer and wage budget among today's big five of the Premier League (Arsenal, Man Utd, Chelsea, Liverpool, Man City) such that the club is completely self sufficient financially, putting it in a very strong position when UEFA's Financial Fair Play rule comes into effect in two years time.

Oh and it goes without saying  that under Wenger Arsenal have played some of the most attractive football in the history of the Premier League and continue to produce some of the best young players in the Premier League (Has anyone seen Frimpong and Coquelin play this season?).

So yeah, people, especially Arsenal 'fans' who are talking so loudly at the moment that they can't see or hear anything else, maybe if you'd just shut the fuck up for a second, you'll realize that you should show the man a little more respect.

Anna has Mahatma turning in his grave

The excessive and unwarranted media attention given to Anna Hazare and his whole fast unto death protest saga has transformed him into a national celebrity almost instantaneously. Now Anna, a school dropout, is being compared to Gandhi, one of the most educated men of his time and his fast unto death protest, which some would say is tantamount to blackmail against a democratically elected government, being hailed as India's second freedom struggle.

Do the supposed representatives of the youth of this country, the likes of Chetan Bhagat, who have come out openly in support of Anna and his movement and made the above comparisons, really represent the youth or reflect the true mood amongst the people of the country?

What is the understanding of the polity of India of these people, who appear at candlelight vigils carrying posters saying “Mera neta chor hai”, refuse to exercise their right to vote because they see nobody worthy of their vote and laugh at the idea of becoming a part of the political system, saying they have lost faith in the system? What is their idea of an acceptable political system? What is their vision to bring about that change?

Unfortunately the answers to these questions are not very clear. Similarly, in the loudness and self righteousness surrounding the endorsement of Anna’s version of the Lokpal, it seems the actual contents of the bill and the serious questions they raise are lost.

I, for one, am deeply uncomfortable with the idea that the Lokpal, set to become one of the most powerful institutions in India, combining in itself the powers of making law, implementing the law, and punishing those who break the law, will consist of a “few good men” who have no accountability to anyone.

Clearly, there needs to be more debate and a more inclusive one at that, about such questions. Let us not forget, in our hurry and desire to bring change, about what that change is, how its being brought about and its implications.