End Of History or is it a New Beginning ?

Francis Fukuyama in his article ‘the end of history’ contends that, History, with its capital letter, is over!  Why?

Because, he argues, the winner is clear. After the end of cold war and the break up of Soviet Union, US emerged as the only super power. This was the end of the bipolar world. Moreover Liberalism and Markets gained supreme importance with the apparent failure of communism. Also he argues that ‘the liberal democracy may constitute the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the final form of human government’. Therefore these events constituted the ‘end of history’.

      Fukuyama’s understanding of History was most closely associated with Hegel and Karl Marx. For both these thinkers, there was a coherent development of human societies from simple tribal ones which were based on slavery and subsistence agriculture. Both Hegel and Marx believed that the evolution of human societies was not open-ended, but would end when mankind had achieved a form of society that satisfied its deepest and most fundamental longings. For Hegel this was the liberal state while for Marx it was a communist society, thus posited an ‘End of History’. Marx believed that ‘religion’ was the origin of any extremist philosophy. He said that ‘religion is the opium of the people’. It is only religion which is the highest level of motivator for a human being because the religion that one belongs to makes his identity. And therefore we don’t need a right of freedom to religion but rather we need Freedom from religion!

         The Israel-Palestine conflict which is bleeding the whole world today is greatest example of identity crisis. The origin of 3 religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam has made Jerusalem the most contested place on Earth. More over the unconditional support of the Americans to the Jews and the Arab countries supporting the Palestine only makes things worse. Most of these Arab countries are underdeveloped and have to depend on other nations for their economic development. Hence it is impossible for them to directly wage a war against an enemy nation or any other power due to lack of resources. Therefore, religious fanatics are using terrorism as a political tool, hey are generating tensions and using low-intensity conflicts to carry out their hidden agendas. It is this conflict that has resulted into 9/11 and many other terrorist attacks. The attack on the World Trade Centre has been the worst terrorist attack till date.

       As stated by the editor of India Today (couple of years back)–“India has lived with the specter of terrorism for close to two decades: the rest of the world is just discovering it!” In the past few years, after 9/11, there have been at least 10 terrorist attacks in our country –not counting the incidents in Jammu and Kashmir. The most recent of these was in Mumbai that killed 200 people and injured close to 600. He says- “this has been the sixth bombing in last eight years and the most severe since the 1993 serial blasts.  Mumbai has now become a soft target. It is the most attacked city in the world today. Everything that defines India’s commercial capital –its population density, its public transport system – somehow makes it vulnerable to repeated attacks.  In the city of almost 29,000 people to a sq km, with its highest population density found on its commuter trains, into the smallest attack gets modified into maximum impact.”

        Thus, ‘Terrorism’ and ‘Threat’ have become synonymous over the last few years. Terrorism is seen as ‘low intensity conflict’ where the main aim is to erode and exhaust the enemy. Terrorists attack soft targets and non-combating enemy. The basic aim of terrorism is to develop threat and insecurity. Terrorism can take any form but basically it aims to create socio-economic unrest and ethno-religious divides with a view to dismantling the existing political order.

And therefore, in spite of the victory of Liberalism, Markets and the changing ideologies the developing countries, today, are facing an immense threat from the underdeveloped economies of the very same world. Hence terrorism over a period of time has become an ideology in itself,

And it is being used as an instrument of foreign policy by the weaker states. The main aim of these terrorist attacks is destabilizing the developed economies. These two converse ideologies of liberalism and terrorism where one aims at economic development, and global peace through global prosperity, While the other at destructing the peace and stability of the developing economies, will keep bringing us back to Realism (i.e. survival of the fittest) and force us to fight against an unknown enemy.

And hence, it certainly will be identified as a new beginning of a new History!

Remembering Rajiv Gandhi

Rajiv Gandhi is known as one of the most visionary leaders of post-independence India. His insights and initiatives into liberalization of Indian economy; technological advancement and most importantly bringing the super computer to India against all odds; made him a futuristic leader of his times.  

Rajiv Gandhi unlike his mother or grandfather is known to be more of a technocrat. His personality and leadership brought in a high level of dynamism in India’s foreign relations. Though, some critics do believe that his inexperience made him falter at times. Rajiv Gandhi is known to have left his own personal mark on India’s foreign policy. He was known to be a humble and polite leader as well as an extremely ambitious and dynamic  Prime Minister at the same time.His timely leadership and initiative has led India to become one of the leading markets in telecommunication & Information technology today. 

He not only created a separate identity for himself but he was also successful in taking forward Indira Gandhi and Nehru’s initiatives as well.  He gave a new motto to the Non-Alignment Movement that of- Nuclear disarmament.  India went through a lot of changes under Rajiv Gandhi’s leadership. He was a great believer of peace and this belief propelled him to propose the idea of disarmament.  

During his tenure as the Prime Minister, India also took up the cause of fighting against apartheid in South Africa. India’s role is considered instrumental in establishing the South Africa Fund under the cause of Non-Alignment Movement and thus provided support for many South African countries in their struggle for independence through this fund.

Rajiv Gandhi’s farsighted initiative also resulted into formation of G15 countries for promotion of the non-alignment movement further enhancing & encouraging South-South cooperation and facilitating a collective dialogue of the South countries with the industrialized nation-states.

His visit to the US in 1985 and his initiative of importing super computer to India did not enjoy equal and opposite response from the US. In spite of Rajiv Gandhi’s inclination of liberalization, privatization and to open-market economy India did not get too close to the US. The US was more inclined towards favoring India’s then arch rival, Pakistan. USA supported Pakistan in encouraging the mujahedeen against the communist government in Afghanistan and as a result against USSR. This brought a sour taste to the Indo-US relations.

Although, on the other hand the Indo-Soviet relations were on an all time high. It was seen that Gorbachev and Rajiv Gandhi got along really well. They both supported each other in the issue of disarmament and in 1986 both simultaneously advocated the virtue of non-violence in the world through a programme called the “Delhi declaration” and paved the way for disarmament.  This further enhanced Indo-Soviet relations.   

Moreover, Rajiv Gandhi is known to have modernized the Indian armed forces. India developed missiles like Prithvi, Trishul, Agni, etc. during his leadership. The defense spending was one fifth of the total government expenditure. He helped India enhance her image and stature in world politics. India’s standing in the world had improved a great deal the only unresolved issue was that of SriLanka for which he lost his life.

Palestine's fight for survival !

The people of Palestine have been fighting for their rights for the past several decades.

The most recent fight between the two sides (Israel- Gaza) escalated sharply on 15^th November 2012. It resulted into the first ever militant attack on the Tel Aviv area, menacing Israel’s heartland. On the other hand 156 Gaza based Palestinians were killed including 33 children and minors by Israelis. Most of the more than 1000 wounded Palestinians were civilians.

This has been the result Israel –Palestine conflict ever since 1967. According to author Tanya Reinhart -“ Ever since the 1967 occupation, Israeli military and political elites have deliberated over the question of how to keep maximum land with minimum Palestinian population” (in her book- ‘Israel/Palestine- How to end the war of 1948, pg,188) –

Hence, the recent United Nations session in New York on 29^th November 2012(immediately after the conflict) is considered as one of the most historic events for Palestine.  This is one of the most important moves towards Palestinian statehood where 138 countries, including India and the BRICS- Brazil, Russia, India, China, & South Africa; voted in favour of the resolution, 41 abstained and 9 including the US and Canada voted against it. Following the vote, American envoy at the United Nations, Susan Rice, said the resolution does not establish Palestine as state, and it prejudges the outcome of negotiations ignoring questions of security.

What does this vote mean for Palestine?

The vote implies global recognition of the relevant territory as a sovereign state and is a major step towards a two-state solution for historical Palestine. The new status amounts to less of an achievement than full U.N. membership, which the Security Council declined to consider in September 2011 on the grounds that the members were unable to make a “unanimous recommendation”, but the Palestinians can now participate in General Assembly debates. The U.N. resolution, however, could well be the first of many momentous changes for West Asia. With the changing waves in West Asia as a result of the Arab spring seems to have sensitized the international milieu with regards to human and fundamental rights of the people of west Asia  And what is more critical for the Arabs than the issue of Israel-Palestine?

The Palestinians can now participate in General Assembly debates, and in future, haul Israel into the International Criminal Court on possible charges of war crimes.

The Palestinian Authority can now also seek membership of several U.N. agencies and, above all, can apply to sign the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, with the clear implication that Israel may finally be held accountable for crimes committed against the civilian population of Gaza.

The vote will be truly meaningful if it marks the start of a new international resolve to ensure the people of Palestine are able to exercise their right to statehood and self-determination, just as the people of Israel have been doing for so many years. The first priority has to be to stop the Israeli iron grip over occupied Palestinian territory, including the outrageous policy of building settlements. As long as the international community gives Tel Aviv a free hand on these issues, peace and security in Israel-Palestine will always remain elusive. The region demands justice for Palestinians and the only reason their demands haven’t been addressed till date is because the uni-polar international system runs by the US US hegemony. But with the changing world order the so called super power will have to make several altering moves while dealing with the issue of Israel-Palestine or else they are in for a huge show down by the changing Arab world as well as their long terms allies like Egypt and Israel.

Midnight’s Children: India & Pakistan ?

My first aim to watch this film ‘Midnight’s Children’ was because I knew I would never end up reading the book! Salman Rushdi’s books have always been quite intimidating and almost incomprehensible for me. Hence, I thought of this movie adaptation of the book by the esteemed director- Deepa Mehta -as an opportunity where I could know it all, without going through the trouble of reading the book. 

But to my surprise the film has had the exactly opposite effect on me. The film is so bizarre that now I have this even more urge and curiosity to read the book just to satisfy all my unanswered questions.

Well, having said that I was essentially curious about the book and then the film because it puts across a wonderful concept of- The ‘Midnight’s Children’ – the life of those who were born on the midnight of 15^th August 1947 at 12am.

Ignoring the excess characters and unnecessary historical backgrounds that the film brings in, I decided to interpret it in a manner that I best understand.  As the movie goes -it’s about the lives of two main characters Shiva and Salim both born on the midnight of 15^th August 1947 and that of a nurse who exchanges the babies in order to serve a greater purpose of equating rich and the poor and who thinks she has changed their destinies as the rich must be poor and poor must be rich..

So where Shiva who is born to rich Muslim trader who lives in a mansion, Salim is actually born to a pauper wee willy winky who sings on the streets for a living. When they are exchanged, Salim is brought up by the well-to-do Muslim family and whose mother’s sister is married to general Zulfikar of Pakistan and goes through enormous psychological and emotional turmoil resulting into an estranged life in spite of having all the luxuries. And Shiva who sings for a living as a child lives a life of destitution. Both these children grow up facing various events and incidents that shape their future. Where Salim faces terrible realities of war crimes through the military coup in Pakistan and the 1971 war where he fights as a Pakistani soldier and then takes refuge in Indian slums, Shiva goes on to become a Major in the India army and climbing his way up endures power and status. Although both their destinies have been switched they are more prominently bound by the destiny of the two countries. In the broader sense it is  a story of the hardships faced by the two nations with Shiva and Salim symbolizing India and Pakistan. And finally in their journey the only thing that remains with them and which matters is ‘Humanity’ when a Christian nurse gives refuge to, an old Hindu snake charmer Salim and Shiva’s daughter who is being taken care of by Salim. All of them come together because when it’s a question of survival all that matters is ‘humanity’, for all that matters is ‘love’ and ‘respect’ for another human being for independence in the real sense means independence to be able to ‘live’ your own life.

For me  the movie essentially speaks of the tale of two nations through the characters of Shiva and Salim. (Though I might be able to reflect on these thoughts better after I read the book I could not hold myself back on writing about it).

 So basically, a story of two nations -India and Pakistan- being born on the same day. Their lives, dreams & aspirations bound by the lives of others- bound by history, leaders of the two countries, and the, events that shape their future.

What did the next few decades mean for independent India & Pakistan’s independent new generation? The generation that saw the bloody partition, generation that was bearing with the constant struggle of the two nations for power, authority, politics, diplomacy and war. Were their lives as free and independent as that of our nations? Was our nation truly independent, apart from being independent of the British? Were these two nations truly independent of one another?  Well there is no single way to answer these questions and I believe that’s where the complexity of the film/book lies.  This, not just being my understanding, the issues argued in the film, I believe, cannot be better explained due to the innate complex nature of the subject itself.  Although screenplay (by Rushdie) could have been far better. I think that at many places Rushdie’s attachment with his story/book and the fact that he wanted to say so many things in so many ways had a rather confusing effect for the audiences. Although, I am quite certain that articulation of those incidents and events might be far more aesthetically presented in the book than they were in the film. Literature is far broader a medium of communication than films. Films have a far reaching effect where the audience is concerned but literature can have a far more elaborate, analytical and comprehensive approach towards a subject like this one which may seem elusive for a film maker to articulate or present in the same way as that in the book due to various constraints.

Thus the story of Shiva and Salim  for me symbolizes that -no matter where you are born or what life you lead your destiny is bound by the things, people, incidents and events which are most of the times far beyond your control and understanding. History, circumstances and situations which make you vulnerable are the ones that shape your destiny. And most of the times it is these others factors that determine your choices and not your own sensibilities!

Fear of being Nirbhaya !

Nirbhaya – the name intrigued me every time I read it in the news papers. And for some reason it brought about an entire new thought for me. Nirbhaya means fearless… but fearless of what? Men? Society? The social standards? Fearless of pain? Fearless of circumstances?

 And then I suddenly realized that within every woman today there is a fear of being Nirbhaya !

 It’s not just a fear that we might become the next victim but there is also a fear to be fearless!

There are two main issues that disturb me when I think of the rape victims.

·         First, The association of rape as crime against honor and dignity of a woman and

·         Second ,The perception of the civil society towards the rape victim

As soon as the case of rape comes up we associate it with the shame and honor, but as a matter of  fact, it  is a crime against a human being and should be left at that. That doesn’t mean that we dial down the sensitivity of the issue. Sensitization of such acts of crime is certainly important but what is equally vital is the manner in which we view the victim. The delhi gang rape of 23 year old para-maedical on 16^th December 2012 is another brutal example not just of a heinious crime but that of the tainted public discourse that followed it. Yes tainted it is ! Because for one reason we all look at it from the narrow prism of a dominant male chauvinistic socio-political system (where the police and the people refused to help the girl and her friend who were thrown out of the bus) and second because in spite of a huge public discourse the crime against women hasn’t dialed down whatsoever! Every coming day since this issue has been sensitized there are recurring news of rape, molestation and domestic violence.

Hence, it was quite a relief to see the Verma committee’s report. Verma committee was constituted to look into the possible amendments in the criminal laws related to sexual violence against women  emphasizes the fact that along with changes in law the civil society’s perception towards the rape victim needs to undergo a change. As stated by the Verma Committee report with reference to the brutal rape case of Nirbhaya- a rape is a form of sexual assault like any other crime against the human body in the Indian Penal Code. And that it is ‘the duty of the state as well as civil society to deconstruct the paradigm of shame-honor in connection with a rape victim.’  It reinstates that it is important that the Indian society changes its outlook of shame and dishonor towards rape victims and instead consider it as a serious violation of bodily integrity of a human being.

The committee in its report also quotes a rape survivor who says : ‘Rape is horrible. But it is not horrible for all the reasons that have been drilled into the heads of Indian women………I reject the notion that my virtue is located in my vagina, just as I reject the notion that men’s  brains are in their genitals’.

To what extent the parliament takes cognizance of these suggestions and attributes in the process of law making is a different question all together.

The whole focus in cases of rape revolves around shame leading to a social belief that the victim has lost her honor and a dignified social status. And what is even worse is that a rape victim has to deal with these horrible facets of society even after facing the heinous act of sexual assault against her, this itself is equally criminal in nature I believe.

 Do we question the honor and dignity of a woman who was tortured, beaten, physically abused by her own husband or anyone else for that matter? Answer is NO!  And why so? either  Because she was abused but not raped by a man who is NOT her husband, hence her dignity is intact (as the argument might go) or because she is ‘married’ there is nothing wrong in physical coercion of another human being unless and until it is within the closed doors and not being spoken of by the victim herself.

What is dignity of a woman? What is her honor?  What is her status in society apart from the labels assigned to her? And more importantly who gets to decide all these things? These are the questions that I find extremely elusive,  Not because I don’t have an answer to it, but mostly because, I believe our society isn’t ready to answer them.

This brings me to my next argument and that is of the ‘conditioned patriarchal thought’ that leads and dominates our society even today and unfortunately most of the time we are either unaware of it or refuse to accept it as a fact because we are habituated to think of it as a ‘normal way of life’.

Ours is a male chauvinistic society where domination, coercion or assault of any sort against women is considered as an ‘attribute of manhood’ instead of crime and hence it is the lady’s honor and dignity at stake and not that of the man who has committed the crime. The strength and right of man to be able to repress a woman and again the idea of women being weak, helpless and subservient to men is what drives the man-woman relationships in society even today. The only difference being that today’s classes do it more subtly and diplomatically unlike the earlier times when it was more direct and outright. 

Hence it is foolish to say that society is changing, because society cannot change unless the idea of family and man–women equations and relationship within the square parameters of the concept family undergo a change. I don’t deny that there are chivalrous men with a broader world perspective. But such men existed back then as well.

My argument here is about the general masses where probably the nature of domination may have changed  but not idea of relationships. We do not like to say and hear these things about ourselves certainly not in public but in the closed doors of our homes we have at least one streak of the same old chauvinistic patriarchy which is not willing to deal with the constantly changing idea of woman, womanhood and the independence & freedom that women are seeking today. I don’t think it’s just the men to be blamed the real problem lies with the women who are bound by patriarchal traditional and sometimes age old orthodoxies aswell.

Hence, coming back to our original point of debate- the question is that of ‘perspective’. How does one judge a woman who- has been through a sexual assault (rape) and one who hasn’t? Our political leadership has been no different in this case either. They have been not only quick in belittling the serious movement (post- Nirbhaya rape case) by showing utmost disregard for democracy whilst stating that ‘the government cannot address every dharna(protest) taking place at India gate’… to rubbishing the women’s organizations and movements as movements by ‘painted and dented ladies’. The leaders who were vehemently speaking at the parliament also fell short of a vision of equating it to a crime against humanity when they referred to violation of bodily integrity as nothing more than ‘zinda laash’. Moreover, we have the so called social, political and religious mentors who speak of the ‘social contract between man and woman where woman serves man and he in return protects her’, and that Nirbhaya should have ‘begged and pleaded to the rapist to let her go and that she should have referred to them as “bhaiya”.’ All these only reflect the horrific chauvinistic facades of our society.

 No crime can be equated to what happened what happened on 16^th of December 2012. What happened was far worse than rape or sexual assault. It seemed like an attempt at crushing the physical, social and individual identity of a girl where the culprit enjoyed the feeling of being able to crush a person in each and every way possible. It’s probably one of the most heinous crimes of mankind committed by a boy whom the court writes off today as a juvenile just because by law he is six months short of being recognized as an adult. If he indeed should be considered and treated as a juvenile what was the reason for him to posses the maturity and sensibilities to have led him through this entire act of crime is my question. The brutality and extent of the horrific and offensive assault where a person’s organs are removed in a fit of anger, excitement or simply out of the urge to do something adventurous is mindboggling. Do the roots of this horrendous crime lie in the socio- cultural understanding of inequality amongst men and women is something I find difficult to answer? As I still do believe that however chauvinistic a society, the intensity of cruelty in a case of crime in itself shows disregard for social norms of any kind.

Another aspect that shapes our social understanding is the public & media portrayal of man-woman relationships and roles. Media, films, TV serials and quite importantly as it is being discussed in this particular case the easily available porn films where the whole idea and act of sex and sexual relationships is twisted. These are mediums of entertainment but what we overlook is the portrayal and articulation of the concept or idea of sex which defies the concept of love and respect for the partner and brings in an idea of adventure instead. For a closed society like India, where sexual relationship is strongly justified only after marriage, there is an extreme curiosity towards the opposite sex which leads to an urge for imbalanced, extreme, adventurous and offensive sexual relationships- if not by consent then by force. 

Society will take generations to change. It is a process of evolution. One can only hope that the public outrage after this incident will at least, if nothing else, nurture the next generation with better value system. However, as of now the only possible institution that can prove to be instrumental in bringing about change is an effective law and order mechanism.