What's in a Kiss, Man.

A New Year party, an hour past midnight, euphoria dying down, a couple mildly drunk were seen dancing alone to the slowing tempo of the music. The music stopped, everyone clapped, and they hugged each other, ending with the girl planting a kiss on the lips of the man—her cousin brother. She breezed back to her waiting friends with an air of nonchalance, and when confronted by her friends sitting closely, her repartee was as candid…. It was just a kiss, man!

Those friends of the girl were scandalized and shocked!

Udit Narayan, the famous playback singer, was invited to a selfie mid-performance by a girl in the audience. While taking the selfie, she planted a kiss on his cheeks, and Udit responded immediately by returning a kiss on her lips. The Internet exploded with millions of comments in response to the act, with the majority castigating Narain for this inappropriate act.

Ranveer Allahabadia, a YouTuber, podcaster, and Influencer known by the name Beer Biceps with a formidable follower score was a co-host in the show ‘’India’s Got Latent’ said something to a participant which left many with a bad taste in their mouth. Many were outraged by his inappropriate remark. A case was filed, the police investigation has started, and the parliamentary standing committee on communication and information and technology is likely to summon him. Ranveer has gone public in seeking forgiveness for his act which happened in a state of over-excitement.

What’s common between these three incidents or controversies if we may call it?

They did something in a state of excitement or joy without meaning anything other than just – fun. But the people who were around or saw it on media didn’t take it like that. All three said something or did something either spontaneously or reacted in that way to some external trigger or the spirit of that occasion which they would not have done normally.

Many, upon realizing that they have overstepped, regret, and withdraw their words. Some ask for forgiveness when they see that the recipient or the audience in that situation is reacting negatively to it. Some lie low waiting for the tsunami of outrage to pass naturally. All cite momentary lapse of judgment as the reason and request people to forget it.

What is a ‘momentary lapse of judgment’ and how susceptible we are to it?

It refers to a brief, temporary failure or error in judgment, often resulting in an impulsive or unwise decision. This phrase is commonly used to describe situations where someone's usual good judgment or common sense is momentarily clouded, leading to a mistake or regrettable action. In essence, a momentary lapse of judgment is a fleeting mental slip-up, where one's usual rational thinking and decision-making processes are briefly disrupted. The phrase is often used to acknowledge that everyone makes mistakes and that even usually responsible or level-headed individuals can experience brief lapses in judgment.

Examples of momentary lapses of judgment include; saying something hurtful or regrettable in the heat of the moment, making an impulsive purchase or financial decision, engaging in reckless or irresponsible behavior, and taking a risk without considering the potential consequences. People getting scammed online also belong to the same category.

We have experienced it from both sides as the doer or the recipient of such acts.

Remember the last time at the school reunion you narrated an incident from the past in your speech? To you and others, it was funny but to your dear friend, it was embarrassing. You realized that when you found him sulking. You asked for forgiveness when you started seeing things from his perspective. You so wanted to reverse everything and wished it had not happened the way it did.

We all have seen how a sozzled Jijaji at a marriage reception goes overboard while flirting with his Saliji, much to the embarrassment of all the relatives and their children.

A friendly hug, if it lingers for a few moments longer, may put the recipient in discomfort. A friendly touch of yours dangerously borders on being judged negatively. A long stare at a public place like an airport terminal or a bus stop is seen as an intrusive act by a person from Western culture.

Ranveer got carried away in the new age roast comedy called ‘India's Got Latent’ where the invited person is intentionally abused with impromptu comments by the judges to which everyone laughs including the one targeted. Wit and humour are enjoyed and celebrated. This is the latest rage in comedy shows. Samay Raina is the new star who has exploded into that space. This was a very Western thing and is gaining ground in India mostly in the metros and amongst people who are urban, intelligent, and mature. 

They pick up one person from the audience and start a conversation and from the conversation, they pick up something odd and start making fun of it in good spirit. Anyone who enjoys a Max Amini show would understand. He doesn’t space people, their professions, races they belong to, countries they come from, their faith, and all the things we take as holy. No one takes the comments personally. 

The audience comes prepared to know that something like this will happen.

Such things are normal among boys during their school and college days. Languages and relationships are pushed to the extremes to the point of being unacceptable. To the passersby or audience, it may seem crass and inappropriate but boys mostly bond by roasting each other in the crudest or cruelest way. The same can’t be said about the girls. They don’t take such personal comments lightly.

We deal with people and society all the time and they have their holy cows, perceptions, values, sensitivities, and boundaries of tolerance. It’s unique when it comes to an individual or culture when it involves a group. 

Communication written, verbal, and non-verbal, gestures, body language, stares, and touches can please or offend someone or some group without you intending it to be so.

Are we all not treading dangerously on a path that is decorated with roses but has booby traps underneath?

As a human, we always can’t be in a state of alertness with the people we are dealing with or stay level-headed about the people and our surroundings only to do things to please them and not touch their lines of sensitivities which are unknown to us. Living with the constant fear of doing something inappropriate without intending to do so may make each of us proper but the world will be such a dull place inhabited by joyless serious people who are without wit, jokes, and humour. 

If the situation demands that we let our hair down and have some fun, we have to be prepared for such unintended accidents. Then the only thing we are left with is to reach out to others at the earliest occasion and say a big SORRY to have hurt his feelings.

In India, we are seeing a new trend. 

The number of holy cows is just not limited to the cows now. Anything and everything associated with a political party is considered holy. Color, festivals, cities, names, buildings, trains, and state programs enjoy that status. People aligned with their thoughts or associated with them are becoming over-sensitive to jokes and mild critiques even as if it's some crime against the nation. 

The same India, where slang and Gallis enjoyed cult status because of their creative use. Haryana is famous for Hajirjawabi, and Delhi for making MC, and BC a part of normal lingo. Places like Puri, Benaras, and Berhampur are known for their liberal use of profanities by common men. All know that they are not meant to hurt or offend anyone.

Are we becoming a nation of intolerant people or we are wearing our sensitivities like some badge of honour?

Are we becoming serious about things that are not to be taken seriously?

Manoj Bajpayee dismissed the whole controversy by saying – they are immature and moved on to do something important.

Tighten Your Seatbelts and Meet Prakash Sethi

Cuttack Sadar MLA Prakash Sethi's English speech at Baliyatra inauguration has gone Viral......the caption shrieked from the rooftop.

Baliyatras have been happening for decades, and the one of 2024 got the biggest eyeball for an interesting incident. Prakash Sethi, Cuttack Sadar MLA from the ruling party, gave a speech in English on the inauguration day. This year, ambassadors, high commissioners, and diplomats from 14 ASEAN, BIMSTEC, and Pacific countries attended the fair for the first time.

Who is Prakash Sethi?

Many not only heard his name for the first time but also heard him speak for the first time. He spoke in English for the benefit of the dignitaries who had come from the neighbouring countries. The video clip perhaps got forwarded a million times over WhatsApp.

And the story continues… another video of his interaction with the press made rounds as a follow-up to the first one.

On being confronted by the press about his speech in ‘Horrible English’; he brushed aside the allegation by saying that the speech was for the visiting dignitaries who speak and understand this type of English and this time the Odia Asmita had to be conveyed and that has been done perfectly.

Two totally different things happened in two distinctly different groups.

The ones who knew the language were shell-shocked, many cringed with disbelief and the ones who did not know the language, mostly his political constituents thought that he gave a thundering speech from an important platform.

To people like Sethi, the former group doesn’t matter as most of them don’t vote and his ultimate mission of positioning himself as an important leader before the eye of his followers was achieved. 

Charcha mein rehna hai; he has understood the ground rule to be in the news even if for the wrong reasons to stay relevant in the political space. And for that, he was prepared to take any amount of hit from the people who don’t matter. He knew what he wanted at the end and his body language exuded nonchalant confidence after achieving that. 

A few innate characteristics differentiate them from people like us.

They are the people who have nothing to lose, they are ambitious, confident, agile, and gritty and they are not ashamed of not being sophisticated. They are the Laloo Yadavs who are here to rattle the status quo. The time has come to prepare ourselves to deal with these types of public representatives in the coming years in the political arena. 

Remember the early migrants to the US? The people of that generation changed their names, religion, attire, accents, and manners to be accepted in their adoptive country. They couldn’t become one of them but made a laughingstock of themselves in the process as their poor caricatures.

The Brownsahibs and Chutney Merries of the colonial era were their predecessors.

But the IT mass migration after the 1990s changed all that. Millions migrated to the US to fill the skill void there and made that country their home. Most of them migrated not from the metros but from its hinterlands—from thousands of villages and small towns, with only four years of exposure outside those places during the engineering course at some nondescript college. 

Armed with just IT skills and the grit to strike root at any cost, their lack of Western manners or cultural expertise never came in their way of adopting the new country with its alien culture. Our people didn't change themselves to their socio-cultural standards but continued with their style as most of them lived in close communities like ghetto. The majority of their wives in the US speak English which is no different from Sethi’s but have emphatically stamped our cultural signs there. They are our cultural ambassadors who walk the streets in sarees during RathYatra and have made ghagra choli, Bhangra beats, Garba and Bollywood dance our best-exported cultural goods.

Comparing them with the earlier migrants, who were neither accepted there nor welcomed back here, these brash, uncouth guys do more to export our culture and assert our own identities in seemingly hostile foreign countries. If we see Ratha Yatra and Boita Bandana being celebrated all over the world, it is led by these gritty, unsophisticated brethren of ours. The sophisticated lot didn’t win the battle because they were too worried about how they would look on horseback or if anyone would ridicule them for what they were.

We must take note of this fact.

Let us not forget how the monopolization of the political space by one party, which was led by a few people for close to a quarter century, did not give any leader the space to hone their skills and grow. The systematic destruction of college-level politics, which is known as the nursery of future leaders, emasculated the state of any leader of stature for the next few decades.

We are witnessing a transition and transformation, and we must prepare ourselves to deal with these types of leaders in the coming years. We may laugh, and ridicule them in private or troll them on social media at best, but please be in the know that they are immune to your barbs and chuckles and are here to stay.

From Love to Love

Love,

I understand your feelings and the depth of your love for me and I'm in acute pain now while writing this letter to you. 

We both are adults enough to understand that we are in a mutually consensual relationship with no social sanction. It's immoral and in many ways illegal. It breaks my heart to tell the obvious. Hence, it will always exist and thrive between us only in our secret privacy with only the phones as its mute witnesses. The space and time available to us is the net after it's taken by our physical, social, and professional sides. We can't change or contest it, we can't encroach on this, and we must respect these Laxman Rekha. After all, we are respectable people.

Overruling the urges of the heart to sustain it is the saddest burden of an adulterous affair.

We must learn to accept it and not disturb the time and space made available to us. Don't you think I crave these moments when you are busy with your family, friends, and professional commitments? Yes. But I am wise, keep it bottled, and never let it overwhelm my logical and practical side. 

We will have only a few rare ephemeral moments available to us that allow us to live our secret desires, intertwine and make love till the point of death, meld with each other's bodies and souls and emulsify. We will participate in an alchemy of souls but can not give birth to anything that ever will be termed ours. 

You are mine and special. You exist both in my physical and mental world. And it will be so till my death.

When that moment comes, let's dance naked with our eyes closed, our wrinkled bodies plastered against each other's, shorn inhibitions and shame for those fleeting duration in that temporary space, under the bright light of darkness where no one exists other than us.

Don't murder the fruiting of those moments by becoming restless and demanding more,  and by raising your expectations and comparing yourself with others.

Unfortunately yours,

Love

Why Gandhi Must be Resurrected

 "Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed."

 

It’s a part of the full quote from the letter Gandhi wrote to RM Pearce, in December 1947. The full quote is "God forbid that India should ever take to industrialism after the manner of the West... The earth has enough for everybody's need, but not enough for everybody's greed." Gandhi expressed the idea barely a few months after independence when the country was taking its first few baby steps to stand and walk properly. This quote has since become a popular phrase, highlighting the tension between Basic human needs (food, water, shelter, dignity), and Insatiable desires driven by greed (excess wealth, power, material possessions). He had already seen the ills of frenzied industrialization and was conceiving the country of his dreams.

 

He was a visionary and like a true leader was thinking ahead of time.

 

He was just not clear about the need to avoid the mistakes of the West, but he gave the various ways to avoid it. Gandhi emphasized the importance of simplicity, sustainability, and equitable distribution of resources. He advocated for a self-sufficient economy and criticized excessive consumption. Gandhi's wisdom remains relevant today, inspiring conversations around sustainable development, environmental conservation, social justice, and mindful consumption.

 

The world is now grappling with the tension between economic development and sustainable development. The effects of climate change are real, and, on many counts, its negative effects are irreversible. We have made giant strides since independence. So big are our strides and such restless is our pace that it shows no sign of slowing down to pause and ponder its effect on us.

 

To quote the Science Advances, “Planetary boundaries framework update finds that six of the nine boundaries are transgressed, suggesting that Earth is now well outside of the safe operating space for humanity. Ocean acidification is close to being breached, while aerosol loading regionally exceeds the boundary. Stratospheric ozone levels have slightly recovered. The transgression level has increased for all boundaries earlier identified as overstepped. As primary production drives Earth system biosphere functions, human appropriation of net primary production is proposed as a control variable for functional biosphere integrity. This boundary is also transgressed. Earth system modelling of different levels of the transgression of the climate and land system change boundaries illustrates that these anthropogenic impacts on Earth system must be considered in a systemic context.”

 

October 2nd marks the 155th anniversary of Gandhiji.

 

What we have left of him is his name, a few busts in a few city crossings and memorials in select locations - the current generation is completely detached from him, his life and his teachings. The only time he is resurrected is when a certain section of a certain political thought vilifies him for his personal and political decisions. Movies like Munnabhai MBBS have done more to bring back his values and principles than our successive political satraps and administrations.

 

On his birth month, this article is an attempt to reintroduce his principles and prescriptions to the current generation and evaluate its relevance, especially at a time when we are facing an existential crisis caused by anthropogenic activities. Let’s know what they were and if we can do anything in our personal capacities to live by those principles.

 

A. Simplicity and Minimalism:

 

Gandhi emphasised living simply with bare necessities. His personal belongings could be fitted into a small bag. A few loin clothes, a shawl, a chappal, his watch stuck to his waist, the round-rimmed glass he wore, and a walking stick he used was all that he needed. When Mahatma Gandhi met King George V in 1931, wearing his traditional Indian clothing, a simple loincloth and shawl, journalists asked him if he felt underdressed. Gandhi famously replied: "The King had enough on for both of us."

 

This witty response highlighted Gandhi's simplicity, humility, and commitment to Indian cultural identity, while also subtly critiquing the excesses of Western colonialism. 

 

Sadly, we also have fallen victim to those consumption models and patterns. Our rooms are now filled with more cupboards stuffed with clothes and belongings that we didn’t use in the recent past or are never going to be used in the near future leaving no space for us to use. ‘Do we need to have this’ is a question we must ask ourselves before falling for the temptation of a new dress, a gadget, a car or anything for that matter. The subculture of giving away things we have stopped using has caught on in the West and things like kids’ toys, and cycles are handed down to the ones who need them once one’s child outgrows them. There are apps and WhatsApp groups which aggregate the needs and availability of such things. The idea is to reduce purchases and waste without compromising on lifestyle conveniences.   

 

B. Self-Sufficiency and Localism:

 

When Gandhi started his Swadeshi movement, hatred for foreign goods or foreigners didn’t propel this idea. He wanted all of us to be self-reliant at a personal and community level. Doing your things, growing your food, and helping each other during difficult tasks was what he proposed to make us live with dignity without depending on others at a distance who have turned it into an industry. He was for supporting local farmers and businesses to thrive with local support. When we see grapes imported from countries like Australia and the ones from Andhra or Maharastra sharing shop space giving us an option to choose from; how many of us think of the ‘Food Miles’ each lot carries? We are swayed by its cosmetic appearance and premium pricing. The current trend is to source local produce even if there are cheaper and better options available with the eye to reducing our carbon footprint.

 

C. Non-Violence:

 

The reductionist and mechanistic science and modern-day science taught us to dominate nature and all other living and non-living things around us. Our ancient culture taught us to respect natural elements and animals to the point of worshipping them like Gods. Now in the name of development, we have unleashed a war on mountains, rivers, lakes and seas. The ill effects are now realised in the form of massive landslides, floods in the hills sweeping away human habitations, and our urban habitations experiencing flooding even in moderate rains. When Gandhi talked of Ahimsa, he didn’t mean to be tolerant to external aggression, or internal violence. What he talked of was environmental stewardship and our ethical treatment of all living beings.

 

D. Ethical Consumption:

 

The first line in this article talks about Gandhi's views on the importance of ethical consumption as the resources on the planet are finite and need to be shared equitably with all. He urged everyone to balance Need and Greed because the greed of a rich man to get richer will only rob the poor and weak of their right over the common natural resources.

 

E. Community and Collective Action:

 

With the masculine development models and centralised decision-making being the current characteristic of the Governments, the voices of the local communities are either quelled or bought over. The current society treats demonstrations, and strikes, not only as anti-development but as regressive and anti-national. Gandhi put a higher emphasis on community-level collective actions as a way to influence the government’s policy decisions. Democracy allowed this route for the communities to express their voices. The current climate crisis requires honesty and transparency at the top and collective action and participation of all to ameliorate the ills caused by our development models. Without both ends working together towards a common goal the desirables will always remain unattainable.

 

The current strategic political movement to rewrite history to erase its colonial past, and replace its syncretic cultures, and diversities with a singular-centric culture stands at odds with what our ancient culture taught us and had made it thrive. Gandhi and his teachings have fallen victim to this house-cleaning exercise. With the economy going global many might question the rationale or practicality of many of Gandhi’s prescriptions, but it's necessary to realise how the global business models came crashing down when the pandemic spread like wildfire and brought the countries to a grinding halt. At that time self-sufficiency at the community level provided the necessary spring of resilience to rural India.

 

Those who think that Climate concerns are an exaggeration and those who believe that modern science will find a solution to the problem without their involvement and contribution are for a rude shock. Recent research by the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology after conducting research at the caves of Gupteswar, Koraput and Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh have revealed the interplay of climate factors, strikingly similar to those affecting modern-day monsoons, likely led to the collapse of highly developed Indus Valley Civilization 4000 years ago. They have found that reduced solar radiation, El Nino and many other factors had collectively weakened the monsoon which resulted in the downfall of the civilization. And 4000 years is just like yesterday in the evolutionary timeline.

 

I hope the learnings of the past and evidence of science alert our governors not to waste precious time in hand to repaint the past but to think of the future which doesn’t look good at all for everyone. With the world at the throes of facing another pandemic and the catastrophic consequences of anthropogenic activities; not bringing back the teachings of Gandhi to us and the younger generation will be to the peril of us and our future generations.

 

*

The TradDad must make a come back

I have been watching this Mahabharata between the retired army officers and the serving police personnel. Now, both the parties,  equally important for the society and the country are at war. You see allegations, half-truths, biased opinions and legal wrangles showing no sign of waning. Anyone who is anybody is giving his two cents on the matter after seeing some clip from some source. We also know how a media reportage or an FIR can be designed to grind personal, and political axes.

Where will it end what will be the conciliation or adjudication process to deescalate the matter and penalise the errant party? What are the face savers? And who has that neutrality and social standing to get it done? I don't know.

But I know one thing for sure. The sequence of events offered dozens of opportunities at every stage to break the chain reactions the consequences of which we are suffering. This Mahabharata was preventable at its origins.

Anyone who has seen the videos would pity and question the retired Brigadier father and the serving Major fiancee about their role in playing mute spectators while the thing was incrementally slipping out of hand. Why were they so helpless? Respect for women? Really?

Dear men, when you raise a family and empower your women, be it your wife or daughter, tell them that we must behave according to the situation, ensuring our safety and minimising our risks are our responsibilities. Also tell them that if they declare 'Tu jaanta nahin mein kaun hun', their men and the state are not on a hotline to rescue them when they get drunk, provoke a brawl, and incite potential threats to show their true colors.

A gentleman is not the right man in such a crisis. These men in question could have acted tough, restrained their woman and saved the situation from spiralling into a major crisis.

Be a man to tell your woman when to stop, be that traditional dad and tell your daughter what to wear where, when to drink, where to smoke and when not to. That you have to behave appropriately if you expect respect. Ask them to follow without questioning or seeking its justification. They have to do it because you asked them to do it. Just that. 

You may not get the support of the lady of the house but still do it.

You are risking earning the tag of being an orthodox, a chauvinist and a medieval man. Earn it. Wear it like a crown of thorns. But enforce certain code of behaviours both for your son, and daughter. Empowerment doesn't give anyone the right to be disrespectful. Freedom doesn't mean anarchy.

The traditional dad (TradDad) must make a comeback if we want a safe society both for men and women. The last thing we want to see is the police and army fighting because of a few extra pegs.

This is my belated Daughter's Day thought.

What’s in a name? The cases of Ravenshaw to X

Shakespeare in his play Romeo and Juliet wrote ‘What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.’. Deng Xiao Ping said, ‘It doesn’t matter if the cat is black or white; a cat is a cat, as long as it catches mice.’ Both dismiss the importance of external attributes like the name or appearance of a place or person to bring into focus the functionality and substance intrinsic to it.

 

So, what’s in a name?

 

A lot! A loud chorus can be heard. These are the voices of the ones who support it and those who oppose it.

 

Such noises were heard at distant locations in distant states, but never in our state. Recently during a function in Cuttack while discussing the role of the British officer during the Bengal famine whose alleged tactless handling resulted in the death of thousands of people, a top leader of the ruling party questioned why the premier academic institution is still named after him. He stirred a hornet’s nest by asking the intellectuals of the state to debate why the name should not be changed to commemorate a worthy son of the soil.

 

This suggestion triggered a fusillade of exchanges on social media between the ones who support this initiative and the ones who are appalled by even the thought of it. One side can’t tolerate the name of a foreigner associated with the university as he represented the colonial rulers and the other can’t imagine their own identity without their association with the franchise. Many also are suggesting not to waste time in such exercises when much more needs to be done to improve the current condition of the university. 

 

There is another group who just don’t see any reason why such things are initiated when there are other pressing problems to be tackled – they think that this is an exercise in futility as a common man is least bothered about after whose name the institutions are built as long it is serving its purpose.

 

The name change game is not new and is not at all a whimsical act.

 

While taking sides for or against such moves in this case; using all your emotions and logic, it’s necessary to understand why names are changed and what happens when they do – both positive and negative.

 

In the commercial world, it’s called rebranding and there are definite purposes behind creating a new avatar of itself. They hire the best brains to rename and change their logos, the colour they have used to send a new set of signals to declare to the market that they have come of age to stay relevant in the current context and the foreseeable future. We have seen how Twitter was rebranded as X when Elon Musk took over the company signalling their interest. The interests are commercial, and they make no bones about it. But our discussion at the current time is political.

 

Why does a new political dispensation change the name of a place and what are the possible reasons?

 

Ideological and Symbolic Reasons:

 

New regimes often seek to distance themselves from previous governments or colonial powers. Changing names of places, prominent institutions, and legal documents using local languages to break from the past. Names can symbolize a shift in ideology, such as from communist to democratic or from authoritarian to liberal to reflect new values or to majoritarian. Names can commemorate influential figures or movements. They try to restore the honour of the national heroes they think that the previous regimes had wilfully ignored due to political reasons.

 

National Identity and Unity:

 

Name changes can affirm independence and self-governance to assert sovereignty. Changing names can eliminate reminders of foreign domination thus erasing their colonial legacy. We know why there is a section of people who demand the name India be dropped which was coined by the colonial rulers. New names can also emphasize shared identity and citizenship to promote national unity.

 

Practical and Administrative Reasons:

 

Name changes can resolve border disputes or ambiguous territorial designations and clarify territorial claims. Names may no longer reflect the place's characteristics or demographics, and they are updated. We have seen major cities like Bombay, Madras, Bangalore and Calcutta reverting to their original names of Mumbai, Chennai, Bengaluru and Kolkata. Changing the name of a place can have various consequences and implications, depending on the context and scope of the change. There are many negative impacts. Changes can confuse residents and visitors. There was this amusing case when an American pilot chose to fly back instead of landing at Bengaluru as his NOTAM noted the destination as Bangalore. We face similar problems when we find a new name for the terminal we visited a few months ago. Erasing historical names can disconnect people from their cultural roots as it disconnects its evolutionary continuum – their heritage.

 

This can be highly contentious in a country like India where the new majoritarian assertion is pushing the minority communities to the corners. The process of establishing new heroes is often preceded by systematically vilifying and demonizing the already established national heroes with half-truths and half-lies which creates an air of unpleasantness for a long time.

 

Name changes can be a powerful tool for shaping national identity, asserting sovereignty, and signalling a new era. However, they can also be contentious and have significant practical implications as they realign the political and cultural landscape by disrupting it. Name changes can be contentious, especially if they involve cultural or historical significance. It's essential to weigh the reasons for change against potential consequences and engage stakeholders in the decision-making process.

 

The case of India is unique.

 

It was colonized by the rulers of other faiths whose practitioners were always a minority. But despite their small numbers, their control over the power, political process, economy and culture held sway over the culture of our country leading to a liberal syncretic mixed culture at different pockets of its geography. The diversity of the country is in its culture. Its food. Its language, its identity, its dress, its ethos. But despite such diversities, the founders of the nation have done a wonderful job of keeping it together as a nation at the same time allowing regional topicalities to flourish. This liberal inclusive mindset and training have made India acceptable to the global community. If India has made unbelievable strides in a very short time after gaining independence, the role of its openness to diversity can be ignored.

 

But that doesn’t auger well with the new political order which draws its inspiration from a very orthodox cultural outlook. It sees this as a systematic corruption and dilution of our national identity because of our unassertive past. They have the agenda to establish a new order just not limited to politics only.

 

They want to influence culture – impose the majoritarian language, dress, who we worship, how we worship, our values and our ideals.

 

Creating a new history is a strategy to create a new nation that has forgotten its colonial past. Pakistan immediately after gaining independence had attempted that and we know where they are. The name change game is just a tool to start a larger discourse involving many people and cause disruption to facilitate a larger culture shift.

 

Are you interested?

 

*

Democratic Despots

The title ‘Democratic Despot’ of an article can be a bit uncomfortable for us, especially on the 78th Independence Day of the largest democracy comprising 1.45 billion people.

Can a democratic country have a despot or a dictator as its leader? It seems like an oxymoron and an impossible situation.

What tempted me to write this article was while discussing the state of democracy in our neighbouring countries with whom we share strong similarities of physical appearance, language and culture; a dear friend of mine stated that in India things like military dictatorship and pogroms can never happen because our major religion and culture do not lend any legitimacy to such designs and our strong constitution, judiciary, laws would not allow it.

Really? Nothing could have been more ridiculous than these premises itself.

The assumption is that our safeguards are so well established and strong that the state will never allow any democratic institution to exercise arbitrary power beyond the ones vested in it. 

Let’s understand the anatomy of the concept of Democratic Despots or Dictatorship in its connotation of a situation where either by chance a person or a group of persons enjoy unlimited power because there has yet to be an alteration in power since their incumbent government has never lost an election because there was no equivalent alternative or by design by limiting the powers of the other institutions of a state which draws a perimeter to his power and questions his decisions making him more accountable.

Democracy can be parliamentary, semi-presidential, or presidential; dictatorship can also be civilian, military, or royal. Many countries seen as otherwise democratic are dictatorships because there has yet to be an alteration in power since their incumbent government has never lost an election.

When the colonial rule of India ended and on 15th August 1947 the country was declared a sovereign and independent state, it legally and effectively inherited the systems of governance which had taken centuries to mature in the UK. The biggest challenge the newly formed country faced was the merger of hundreds of sovereign princely states into the big country we see today. Our commitment to remain truly democratic was unequivocal and irreversible.

Let us remember how the country whose democratic legacies we inherited and made our own has transitioned from a monarchy that had unbridled power to a parliamentary democracy where the powers are vested in a body comprising of members directly elected by the people and operating within the powers of other institutions who would prevent it from turning arbitrary and despotic.

In the UK, the sovereign (monarch) gradually handed over power to other branches of government through a series of constitutional developments and laws.

Here are some key milestones:

Magna Carta (1215): Limited the monarch's power, establishing the principle of the rule of law and protecting individual rights. English Civil War (1642-1651): Led to the execution of Charles I and the establishment of a republic (Commonwealth of England) under Oliver Cromwell. Glorious Revolution (1688): Saw the overthrow of James II and the ascension of William III and Mary II, who accepted constitutional limitations on their power. Bill of Rights (1689): Further restricted the monarch's power and established certain individual rights. Acts of Union (1707): United England and Scotland under a single government, with the monarch's power bound by constitutional rules. Reform Acts (1832, 1867, 1884): Gradually expanded voting rights and redrew electoral boundaries, reducing the monarch's influence. Parliament Acts (1911, 1949): Limited the monarch's power to delay or veto legislation.

By the mid-20th century, the UK monarch's role had evolved into a largely ceremonial and symbolic position, with most executive powers exercised by the Prime Minister and other elected officials.

Please take note that this process occurred gradually, with the monarch's power evolving over centuries. Today, the UK monarch serves as Head of State but exercises little direct political power.

What is to be learnt from their experience is that whenever they felt that one limb of the state was turning more powerful than it should, they strengthened the safeguards that would prevent it from creating an imbalance. The credit goes to the people who supported it and the strengths of the other institutions who led it.

Do we have such advantages to limit the power of one when he is going despotic and arbitrary?

Without searching far and wide let’s look closely at our state and the centre. In the absence of an equivalent political alternative, we saw an unbridled run of one political party for twenty-four years and the same at the centre. Behind the perception of the great development and general happiness story, the discomfort of the people in accepting too much concentration of power in the hands of the chosen few was demonstrated by reducing their might through electoral means. Just not this our country has seen many attempts in the past to subvert the power of other democratic institutions to remain in power.

In all the cases these attempts were neutralised by the people through the electoral process.

These incidents tell us that the institutional safeguards are not strong enough to offer a bulwark against any attempts to subvert their powers.

Democratic despots refer to leaders who hold democratic elections but also exhibit authoritarian tendencies, suppressing individual rights and freedoms. This concept highlights the tension between democratic processes and autocratic behaviour.

This concept raises important questions about the nature of democracy, limits of power, and internal checks and balances for one component of power to turn cancerous and cross its perimeter and encroach onto others’ powers and his larger accountability.

Some common characteristics of democratic despots include eroding checks and balances, suppressing political opposition, limiting press freedom, undermining independent institutions, and using propaganda to shape public opinion.

Every dictatorship has one obsession – to remain at the apex of the power hierarchy indefinitely. It has no relationship with the route they have taken to reach the position of power. It can be military or also through democratic means. Every such attempt has failed in the past but that does not deter some ambitious individuals or groups from remaining in that position of control as long as possible by using newer strategies.

The earliest attempt at it can be seen in ancient Rome where people were given an abundance of bread and circuses were staged continuously to keep the citizens satiated and entertained. Such strategies are designed to control the evolution of new independent ideas which can pose a threat to the dictator’s power and the forces which may affect the ulterior designs of the dictator. These strategies are implemented by lowering education, limiting culture, censoring information, changing narratives of the past, demolishing contrarian viewpoints and throttling dissent.

It’s a timeless pattern that repeats itself even now.

The question we should ask on this day is, do we see such things happening around us?

If we can see it germinating somewhere and successfully prevent it from striking roots, that act will determine how long we can remain truly democratic and not be under a shadow despot.

 

*