The Devil's Advocate- An ( entirely unconvincing) tale of two PMs

A funny thing- as in sardonically funny thing- is happening in politics, as usual.
The current PM invited the ex-PM to discuss 'economics' recently.
This is being hailed, as usual, as an instance of the broad outlook of the new PM, in choosing to forget old enmities and the fact that Dr. Singh is from an opposition party and embrace him with open arms to effect development.
Really?
After the new PM humiliated the ex-PM ruthlessly last year, calling him 'Maun-mohan Singh' and plenty of other untenable things. Constantly demeaning him and his party, his policies, his work, his character, badmouthing him in front of NRIs.
As lousy as a politician Dr. Singh maybe, he is someone who didn't deserve such words- an intellectual, a decent man, a reticent man who cannot be provoked easily, who chose not to go down to his opponent's level as a last ditch attempt when his party was losing. Yeah, election fever makes candidates say things about one another- dirty things. But there is a limit. The new PM, when he was a PM candidate, made things personal. He said things about Dr. Singh in front of national media, humiliating him. In the process, the new PM proved himself unfit for such a high public office by behaving so belligerently and letting his tongue run amock.
And then, in front of the media, he calls the man he badmouthed endlessly to discuss 'economics'. And the ex-PM went.
Funny thing. Sardonically funny.

The Devil's Advocate- On caste politics.

Am reading articles on caste-ism and casteist politics for the past two days.
One was on gay rights activist Harish Iyer's mom's matrimonial ad, praised for its forwardness in acknowledging her son's sexuality but slammed for its 'Iyer preferred' tag.
Another was on caste politics and identity in rural and urban areas of India.
Third was on how a particular community in Rajasthan has successfully arm-twisted the state government into making special reservations for it in jobs and education.
1 Well, first of all, I think targeting Mrs. Iyer was needless and wrong. She may have written that last part as a joke.
2. What Ms. Iyer did is innocuous compared to the kind of shenanigans by groups who identify themselves solely by their 'caste' or their 'gotra' or their 'jaat', and force the government to make political concessions for them. Like what's happening in Rajasthan right now.
3. Reservation. The biggest bone of contention in the Indian public consciousness. It has far-reaching consequences which include students not getting a seat in colleges based on merit because it has been alloted to a student on the basis of their caste. Or how students who come through reservation even to premier medical and technical institutes suffer discrimination by the 'General' category students. This evil which is dividing the public and destroying the social fabric.
4. But why did reservation come up? Would the so called 'reserved caste' have to fight for their slots if they had not been discriminated for centuries because they're a 'lower caste'. We all know how caste politics- upper caste, lower caste- has led to oppression of people just for being born in a certain caste. Don't they have the right to education, to a career, to a decent life? Why won't the politicians use this history of discrimination as fuel for reservation and vote- bank politics?
5. If reservations have to go away, CASTE must be ABOLISHED. That is the ONLY solution to end reservations, its resulting tension and ensure everyone gets equality. Which is a pipe dream.
6. Why? Because , as much as the new government keeps talking about 'development', it forgets that caste-ism is inimical to overall development. A society split on caste identity can never develop- because people will always be held back, or favored over others, for belonging to a particular. Plus, a government who has come to power using caste politics ( especially in UP) must know this, right?

T for Truth- and how it has become a joke

One can't but watch in surprise as a joke of colossal proportions opens on the world stage.
As the new PM of India gives sensationalist speeches abroad, telling NRI audiences- drunk on the false euphoria and image of efficiency around the PM created by the media- about how the new government is doing this and doing that and is treating all religions equally (seriously?), presenting a rosy picture
While, in the country a different scenario is emerging.
Churches and Muslims and people belonging to particular communities are being attacked daily- the culprits are never brought to book.
AIIMS doctor Priya Vedi commits suicide because of her husband's constant physical and mental torture- symbolizing what lakhs of women around the country stuck in unhappy marriages go through- some of them finding only death as the escape. Does anyone care about these women except, maybe, feminists?
In a horrifying incident, farmer kills himself at a public rally, visibly upset at the Land Bill.
See the irony? The big joke?
This is called Good Marketing, nothing else.
Because everyone wants to buy a nicely packaged lie.
But no one wants to buy the truth.

This post is part of A to Z Challenge

R for Reading- Why it's most important for writers

Reading is the most important part of the process of becoming a writer.
Obvious thing, right?
You need to read like hell to write like hell. You need to read as many books in as many genres as possible- how many in each genre is your own prerogative.
You need to read poetry, novels, short stories, articles.
You need to read other stuff- like magazines, newspapers, journals, literary magazines, book and movie reviews.
You need to read widely to develop the neural wiring required to become a writer.
Obvious, right?
Well, not so obvious for some people who call themselves 'writers'.
And yet, declare very proudly that they 'don't read'.
Now I don't deny that there are exceptions to every rule.
But reading for writers is as important as is a beating heart to life in a body.
It's not a rule- it's a universal truth.
But there are some specimens who come in the 'I-am-a-writer-but-I-don't-read' category.
One such specimen, on the so called 'literary scene' in India (why India doesn't have a literary scene is a topic of debate for another time), is the illustrious Ravinder Singh.
Calling himself the 'Nicholas Sparks' of India, he claims to 'write for the youth' 'connect to the youth' and blah blah blah.
In my opinion, his books are a total waste of paper- containing only annoying cliches, a story which moves at snail pace and has no head or tail, mushy, pointless romance, needless jingoism and other such undesirable stuff which makes his 'books' nothing but toxic waste.
In my opinion, his 'non-reader' status also explains the poor quality of his prose, and the asinine content of his 'novels'.
It explains the jarring, stunted quality of his prose and the sloppy editing.
I don't understand.
How can one not read and still manage to write a book which is a bestseller?
Singh's books are selling millions of copies and he is making waves among the young people who are loyal to his brand of literature.
I don't know if I will ever find the answer to the question- Can you be a good writer without being a voracious reader? If you are, how will be the quality of your books?
Meanwhile, I'm a consummate bookworm and a writer.

This blog post is part of the A to Z challenge

L for Lecher

So today, we will see in brief what a lecher is.
A lecher is a parasite in human form.
A lecher is that parasite, which lurks on street corners, by the road side, at tea stalls and pan shops, buses and local trains, and every other public place- they are an ubiquitous sight in India's cities, towns and even villages.
A lecher is known by other names, like Lout or Roadside Romeo.
A lecher is often found in groups.
A lecher is that creature which sees women as sex objects- to be desired, used for sex and exploited.
Any woman walking on the road/driving a vehicle or doing anything else in public is fair game for the lecher.
A lecher makes his presence known by hooting, wolf-whistling, catcalls, sexist comments,cheap songs and other such offensive actions.
A lecher's main job is to sit around and do nothing all day- their category is usually unemployed so their favorite pastime is being anti-socials and troubling the common people- the working people with actual things to do.
A lecher's only work worth noticing is eve-teasing, groping stalking, molestation and in extreme cases, rape.
A lecher basically exists to make life a living hell for women who step outside the house.
A lecher is that filth that no Swacch Bharat Abhiyan can clean up, unless society takes a broom and wipes them away.
This post is part of the A to Z Challenge

Killer controversies

No, I don't mean literally killer controversies, or controversies about killers.
I mean controversies that kill the mood. Controversies that kill all interest in news of the day, or keeping up with current affairs. Controversies that kill all interest in going out and experiencing the world.
So called novelist Shobha De, who is better at being a SoBo socialite, passing judgement on everyone else around her and giving half-baked, useless advice  in shitty newspapers, is at loggerheads with the Shiv Sena, Maharashtra's most powerful political party.
Why?
The State government, a BJP-Shiv Sena coalition, passed some law saying that multiplexes should screen Marathi movies from 11 am to 9 pm. De tweeted- she doesn't seem to have a job other than tweeting about anything and everything- that this is Dadagiri and mentioned the Chief Minister. The party accused her of hurting Maharashtrian sentiments (really?) because she opposed the law. De retorted in her elitist style even more. The party held a dharna in front of her house.
Killer controversy, where the only people benefiting are the novelist and the party. We sensible people are getting killed- our brains and moods.
There are more. Politicians and religious demagogues think that, in this age of increased media glare, making misogynist and communal statements will create controversies that will get them 15 minutes of fame.
Whether it is asking followers to have sex with corpses of Muslim women, commenting on bodies of women or saying Sonia Gandhi wouldn't have been accepted in the Indian political circles if she was African.
Killer controversy. The media doesn't get anything else to report. News worth reporting is over now.
Now the beef ban, taking communal tones, is snowballing into a controversy about mutton being banned in Maharashtra.
Anushka Sharma's needless harassment over her boyfriend Virat's World cup failure.
Arnab Goswami's non-stop babbling on Times Now about whatever catches his fancy, and catching eyeballs.
Chetan Bhagat indulging in shenanigans to get controversy for his books.
Killer controversy.
My brain is dead now. Officially. There is nothing like news now. I must go back to only reading and writing.
This blog post is part of the A to Z Challenge

G for Gender Equality

Yeah yeah, I know.
Some of you're probably gonna roll your eyes till you pass out, at my choice of topic for a blog post.
Gender Equality. The most beaten, done-to-death, repeatedly used and rampantly abused topic of discussion ever.
So today, instead of brandishing my feminist credentials, let me ask some questions I feel are pertinent to the current scene of debate on equality between the sexes.
Gender Equality.
What is Gender Equality?
Is it only for women, because our gender happens to be the historically mistreated ones?
Or is it also for transgenders and transsexuals and other genders/sexual identity- the also historically mistreated ones.
Should the debate on gender equality be confined to women? Or they should include the above mentioned genders too?
Should the dialogue on rape and other sex crimes be confined to women? Or should they include the less publicized, but equally rampant instances of rape against transgenders? Especially in a country like India, which continues to victimize the LGBT community and doesn't recognize a third gender. And where the police itself is guilty, in a lot of circumstances, of custodial rape of transgenders who have no voice in society.
Should we feminists start taking other genders into account too while lobbying for equal rights?
Gender equality should be about people from any gender being able to live life in independence and with dignity; where no one gender can dominate other the other. Just like feminism is about proclaiming the autonomy of women over their own lives, and NOT about hating men. Where misogyny and patriarchy are kept at bay?
Is such a society possible?