Smriti Irani ko gussa kyon aata hai?

Yes, believe it or not, I am also going to discuss now very famous speech by the HRD minister Mrs. Smriti Irani. She delivered a very charged, emotional, and extremely dramatic speech in the Indian parliament. It became a talking point of various debates and a highly watched event on the internet for a couple of days. Finally, someone from the current breed of Indian politicians broke the monopoly of Mr. Narendra Modi and Mrs. Sushma Swaraj to give charged and emotional speeches in Hindi. The effect of this speech was so much that most people including opposition party members of parliament were completely stumped by it. There were mostly two types of reactions to it. People who opposed her went on the complete back foot and didn't know how to counter this furious attack on them. People who supported her started celebrating the way she annihilated opposition mercilessly without even bothering to check what she actually said. No doubt that it was a treat to watch, it is always a pleasure to watch a good orator in action. She used all her strengths to her advantage, she used all her experience from theater to deliver punch line after punch line effectively. The content was very emotionally charged. After listening to such speeches people hardly bother to check the facts, most of them get overwhelmed by the way the speech is delivered. In this case, the same thing happened. Maybe now slowly after coming out of that spell, they might ponder on what she actually said. I am sure opposition parties must be wondering, "Smriti Irani ko gussa kyon aata hai?"In the storm created by that speech people totally ignored two very sensible speeches delivered on the same issue, these were from Mr. Sugata Bose and Tathagata Satpathy. Maybe because both these people spoke right up to the point and without any unwanted drama and theatrics. 

I still don't understand why these two issues which are respective university's internal matters are being discussed in the Indian parliament. One case is about a Hyderabad University student's suicide and it is alleged that the university administration was directly or indirectly responsible for creating the situation that forced that student to take such an extreme step. The other case is an anti-India sloganeering by some group of students at JNU. Both these issues could have been dealt with at the university level, but I don't know why and how the government of India got involved in this mess. I also wonder how a country like India can afford to spend so much of its resources and energy on such issues when it has so many more burning issues that need urgent attention from its citizens as well as the government. 

There is no point in analyzing the entire speech or commenting about both issues as it will take a lot of time and space. I already wrote one post about the JNU issue a few days back, in this post I just want to discuss a few points from her speech. She repeatedly referred to Rohith Vemula as a 'baccha' (a kid), but Rohith was a 26-year-old man doing her Ph.D. research. Of course, for any parent their child is a kid no matter how old he or she gets, but I don't think she was addressing him as a parent, she was speaking as an HRD minister of a country, so she should have addressed him properly but I don't think anyone noticed this and even if they did it didn't bother them.
Another interesting thing that she said and got away with was that according to her this suicide case was not important because of the caste of Rohith (he comes from the Dalit section of society). Sorry madam, this issue is so fiercely debated and discussed specifically because of the caste of the student who died. Otherwise, tell me when many students die in India every day for various reasons, some of them commit suicides, but how many of these incidents manage even to make it to the front page of newspapers and forget about being discussed in the parliament. Just a few days before 13 students from Pune drowned at some beach in Maharashtra, did anyone bother to look into the real reasons behind it? Just a few days back one young man associated with your own organization (RSS) was killed in Kerala, did anyone bother to discuss the reasons behind it? So, I wonder why she said that caste is not an issue in this case. Rather caste is 'the issue' in this case, and both sides are playing very pathetic politics over it. Sadly even today caste plays a very important role in Indian politics and all political parties make use of the caste card whenever and wherever it suits them. No one was debating the problems of students or struggles of Dalits or university campus-related issues in parliament, it was a tragic display of political wrestling by major national parties that are only interested in political gains and nothing else, so, please don't try to fool us.
I was also surprised when she retorted that she was taking some of the allegations and remarks personally. She said it in a very dramatic way, it almost reminded me delivery mode of my favorite actor Amitabh Bachchan. But seriously Mrs. HRD minister, you take criticism or allegations personally? That too after being in politics for so long? Just imagine if Sonia or Rahul Gandhi or Mr. Modi or Mr. Sharad Pawar or any political leader who is being targeted on a daily basis in parliament and outside start taking things said to them or about them personally. Just imagine the scenario if they start reacting to every allegation or criticism or even abuse thrown at them in as strident manure as she did. I want to offer one unsolicited advice to her from my side, please don't take anything personally in the future because even if you do take it personally no one will give a damn about it, people will keep on throwing those things at you and I wonder how many times you will react like this?
The last point is about this facetious line said by her, "My name is Smriti Irani, I challenge you to tell me my caste." This was again a very dramatic peak point of her speech. I guess she was trying to be cynical here, but anyway who cares about her caste, how does it relate to any of these two issues. It sounded like a lame attempt to deliver a punch line by using famous dialogue from a popular Bollywood flick, but I didn't expect to hear it in the Indian parliament that too from the HRD minister of India. I must say it sounded really dramatic and I am sure it had some desirable effect on some of the audience who watched her speech.

The entire speech was largely condescending and strident with very few relevant or logical arguments. It sounded like an emotional outburst rather than a balanced reply from some responsible and sensible minister. I might be wrong but this is my personal opinion. But on the performance level, I must admit that it was a stellar performance, worthy of grand applause. As per public perception, she clearly won this debate hands down. Mr. Modi and Mrs. Sushma Swaraj now have some serious competition from their own party colleague. I am sure her speech will give many sleepless nights to key opposition party leaders, they will be wondering how to counter her rhetorical arguments with equally pompous statements. They must be desperately looking for someone from their side to match that pitch. I am sure people are waiting to watch this spectacle on the floor of parliament.

But somewhere deep down in my mind, I still hope that in the future some sensible and logical discussions will take place in the Indian parliament without any excessive theatrics and drama. I hope that to hurt the opposition, our Minister didn't inflict some serious wounds on her own government. I hope that in the future Indian parliament will try to discuss more relevant and pertinent issues that affect the citizens of the country rather than only focusing on some political controversies. 

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Links:

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PlGs8NCMWE

2. http://www.scoopwhoop.com/tathagata-satpathy-sugata-bose-speech/

3. http://selfrealization-vinay.blogspot.com/2016/02/jnu-oh-jnu.html?spref=tw

Circus called tolerance and intolerance debate

Nowadays heated discussions are going on in India on the issue of tolerance and intolerance. Every news channel is having some panel discussion to decide whether India is getting more intolerant or not, on social media some people are busy proving that intolerance is on the rise and some are fiercely contesting this claim by abusing them for raising this issue. The issue has become so important that it is being discussed in parliament also! I personally value tolerance a lot and have written a couple of posts related to this topic. One is about why we need a tolerant society and another is about my own experience of intolerance in Indian society. Now let's come back to this topic of debate over the issue of intolerance (or tolerance). If you listen to most of these debates, then any sensible person can easily understand how misplaced these people's expectations are about tolerance and intolerance. Somehow tolerance is equated with complete acceptance, objectionless, and submissive type of behavior, and intolerance is equated with any objection or strong comment or dissent against your own views. So, if I object to anyone's statement, then I am intolerant, if I say anything against any religion or person, then I am intolerant, on the contrary, if I don't react to an abusive statement, then I am tolerant, if I don't express any dissent about anything, then I am tolerant. Basically, either you are with me or against me, there is no middle ground. Also, there is huge confusion about where the "freedom of expression/speech" fits into all this? I don't even know if these people know that there is something called freedom of expression. So, the first question everyone should try to ask is, do we accept that people have freedom of expression or not?

Now let's proceed in step-wise manure as this topic seems to be very complicated. If there is freedom of expression, (with some reasonable restriction like no incitement of violence), then, anyone can say anything as long as it is not an incitement to engage in a violent act. People need to agree on this first, if people have freedom of expression, then they can express their opinion. That opinion can be anything, like some people should leave this country or I don't feel comfortable about the current atmosphere in this country, or whatever. Any Yogi, Sadhvi, minister, writer, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, atheist, actor, or whoever it may be can say whatever they want and no one should challenge their right to say those things as they are not doing anything unconstitutional or illegal by using their basic right of freedom of expression. Making any statement or agreeing or disagreeing with someone doesn't make anyone tolerant or intolerant. It all depends on our actions and behavior towards people who say nasty and offensive things, it depends on how we react to those statements with which we disagree or feel offended. Just look at the reactions from both sides and you will understand what I am talking about and why I call this debate a big circus. I personally have no objection to any Yogi, minister, or actor expressing their opinions, they have the right to do that. I cannot question that right. I may or may not agree with their statement, and I may have very strong objections to those statements, but that person has equal rights to express them just like I have. But it seems people don't understand this simple thing, most of the reactions are like, how dare he or she say this? He or she should be punished or kicked out of the country for saying this or let's boycott them for expressing their opinion. Common, at least first try to understand what that person said, debate and discuss that topic in detail, and then come to any conclusion. But it looks like people are more interested in delivering verdicts of guilty or nonguilty rather than resolving the issues and having any meaningful discussions. The atmosphere is getting so polarized that it seems there is no possibility of any middle ground where people can agree to disagree and move on. Even in parliament, the discussion is pathetic, it is not that I expected it to be any different than whatever is going on in TV studios, but if you are putting some circus then at least make it somewhat entertaining and watchable. The recent protests and this 'award wapasi' movement were actually to protest against the increase of physical violence which is the ultimate form of intolerance. I don't think it has anything to do with the change of government or who is PM or who is president. The government should have taken these protests in the right spirit rather than taking them personally and trying to dismiss them altogether thereby giving them a lot of media coverage. Addressing the concerns of these people might have stopped this issue from becoming a national time pass. I also don't know why people complaining about intolerance want to paint the picture as if today in India you can not say anything against the current government, it seems both sides are only interested in going to any extreme just to prove their point. Tolerance or intolerance shows in our behavior. A tolerant person, society, or country doesn't have to say that they are tolerant or give any proof to prove that, their behavior is enough to prove it. Similarly, an intolerant society or person doesn't have to accept that they are intolerant their behavior is the ultimate proof of who they are. Our actions speak louder than our words, so, I think people should focus on their actions and let those actions speak whether they are tolerant or intolerant. I don't think this shouting at each other is going to bring any desired change, each person should correct their behavior and automatically it will bring change in the country. I hope both sides understand this, otherwise, this issue will become another never-ending topic of Indian politics like secularism and communalism.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Why it is important to have a tolerant society?

I always write about the importance of tolerance and how any progressive and civilized society needs to be tolerant. I found that many people somehow believe that showing tolerance is a sign of weakness. Somehow there is a perception that being tolerant means being weak or submissive. I wonder from where they get this notion, actually tolerance or registering your protest in a nonviolent way is not an easy thing. Gandhi himself said that the option of nonviolence is only for strong people, weak people can not follow this path because it is very tough for them to control their anger and animal instincts. The same is true for tolerance, for being tolerant one requires a lot of patience and strength. Any society or government should learn to tolerate dissent if they want any progress. It is very rare for any diverse group or society to agree completely on any issue, there will always be some difference of opinion or some opposition no matter what is the topic of discussion. This is where tolerance comes into the picture. I think every individual, group, or society needs to ask this question to themselves, are they willing to accept that there can be a difference of opinion or counter-view to their own view or not? They may or may not agree with it, but do they support the right of that person (or group) to express those views? Are they willing to protect other's right to disagree? Because in any tolerant society scope for disagreement is very important, if I am scared to express my views because I might get attacked for expressing them as they don't align with the majority, then it is for sure that I am not living in a tolerant and civilized society. If freedom of expression is important to you, then you must care about tolerance.

Many people think that being tolerant means accepting everything, keeping quiet when wrong things happen around you, or not registering protest against anything at all. These are behind the prception that being tolerant means being weak. The truth is that tolerant people are also very passionate about their views and their ideas, but the only difference is the way they express those views and ideas. They can be very assertive about their opinions, but they are not physically or verbally aggressive. They also get angry and frustrated, but the difference is what they do when they get angry. The way they express their anger is very different from that of intolerant people. It is very natural to get angry or frustrated after seeing anything which is contrary to our set of beliefs, but what matters is what we do when we face such sitaution. Any tolerant person doesn't abuse the person expressing a different opinion than them, they don't attack or kill that person just because the person believes in some different ideology or belongs to some other group. But they engage in dialogue and discussion and want to debate the issue rather than force their opinions on others. Tolerance doesn't at all mean that accept all and reject nothing, the only difference is in the way you reject, and it makes a huge difference. This difference can result in peaceful protest vs riots, picketing vs mob attacks, so, the point I want to make is that this difference is huge and it can be the question of life and death for some individuals. 

It takes tremendous courage to tolerate or to protect rights of toerhs to oppose our ideas, it requires listening to people who criticize us even without any substantial proof or logic. These things can only happen in a very civilized, developed, and progressive society which understands the importance of dissent and of open debates and discussions. Ask yourself a few questions to check if you are living in a tolerant society or not, if not then please make some efforts to improve your own behavior first so that at least you take the first steps towards making of tolerant society which you desire. There are very rich and so-called developed places in the world where there is little or no tolerance for so many things. Especially criticism of religion, rulers, or ruling party are not tolerated. I am sure many of us don't want to live in such a society, so, it is our job to make sure that this important aspect doesn't get lost among the noise of power-hungry politicians or fanatic religious organizations and their supporters. Protect this tolerance as it is a lifeline of any civilization if it wants to progress intellectually. 

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]