Wendy Doniger and "The Hindus"

In response to this article, I wrote the following on Facebook (ie. where I shouldn't be blogging, so here goes).

"I don't buy it. This is clearly a case of bullying and intimidation, fuelled primarily by insecurity and sexual prudishness, topped off by juvenile false equivalences like, "oh, you'd never write like this about Jesus or the Koran." Give me a break – the critical analyses applied to other religions by Western scholarship are there for all to see. Besides, this article is so full of factual errors, from a mis-characterization of William Jones to a childishly sanitized understanding of the Shiva Lingam and it's associated ritual practices, that I believe this writer couldn't stand toe to toe with Prof. Doniger for more than five minutes (also, I'm quite put off by the lack of respect with which these guys – and they're invariably guys – constantly refer to her as "Wendy," as if they've known her since pre-school). There's a reason this kind of ideology abhors scrutiny and free inquiry."

The only other thing I'll note is a quote from Arundhati Roy (incidentally, someone I rarely agree with) in her pained letter to Penguin publishers:

"The fascists are, thus far, only campaigning. Yes, it’s looking bad, but they are not in power. Not yet. And you’ve already succumbed?"

The Future of the Congress Party

Just finished reading “Durbar” by noted writer Tavleen Singh, which has inspired a very infrequent desire to blog.  Read the book – it’s a journalist’s critique of Indian politics under Indira Gandhi and her heirs.

Quote:

“Political dynasties now flourish across the country and because of this, legislatures are increasingly becoming private clubs in which the unworthy heirs of political leaders, with little knowledge of governance and even less political acumen, have privileged access.  Like feudal potentates they surround themselves with sycophants and courtiers… All of this has happened because of the example set by the dynasty in Delhi.”

Like I said, read the book.

My conclusion is that it is time to honestly examine and reform the Congress Party.  It is by far the most important political party in modern Indian history.  Being the party that won Indian independence, it is inextricably linked to the idea of the Republic of India.  Can India survive without the Congress?

Most thinking people would hope “yes”.  And rightly so.  The sins of the “unworthy heirs” of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty and their acolytes are clearly worth moving on from.  However, the other options available are underwhelming at best, terrifying at worst.

Reforming Congress is the Indian Liberal’s hope of the day – and to do that, the Congress should just look to its recent history.  The defection of Rajaji (C. Rajagopalachari) and the formation of the Swantantra Party can be read in hindsight as a desire to reform the Indian nationalist movement (ie. the Congress) just as the Janata movement of J. P. Narayan has been seen. 

Will a Liberal revolution ever occur within the Congress?

I doubt it, but I believe it’s our best bet.  The Hindutva faction considers violence a part and parcel of democratic politics and that is all that needs to be said about that.  Nor are Regional and Caste parties the answer to the crippling problems facing the country.  Only Congress is left.  Therefore, it must change.

Changing politics in a Constitutional manner is the first step in making peoples’ lives better.  Again, look to recent memory – when Narasimha Rao’s Congress-led Government enacted Liberal reforms the country undeniably improved.

It’s a futile hope though, my friends – the reform of the Congress requires the Dynasty vacating its position of privilege.  Don't hold your breath...

Remember, remember - the 26th of November

A grim anniversary approaches, and us pessimists will not fail in pointing out the lack of progress made in ensuring the security of Indian citizens. The perpetrators of the attack on Bombay remain unrepentant, un-prosecuted, and at large - ready to plot their diabolical plans and unleash havoc at their command. Nor have the real culprits of the 1993 attack on Bombay been captured. And, it is now beyond obvious that we must look to Pakistan for answers.

Tiger Memon, Dawood Ibrahim, Hafiz Saeed and many other diabolical criminals remain wanted in India, yet have secured shelter in Pakistan. As has A. Q. Khan, the so-called "Father" of the Islamic bomb, who walks free and lives the life of a national hero.

What are we to make of this?

On the one hand, it is obvious that nobody in Pakistan cares that criminal masterminds are running amok in their streets, as long as those criminals are targeting the people of India. On the other hand, the Pakistani Army's operations along its western border have to be seen as genuine attempts to end terrorism in the region. Why the double standard?

America wants to eradicate the international jihad, yet maintain peace in the region. So why do the Americans provide Pakistan with fighter planes that cannot possibly be used against domestic terrorists, when securing concessions of Pakistani co-operation on the western border? Why does the American government ramble on about nuclear proliferation, while offering no resistance to Pakistani denials of an interrogation of A. Q. Khan? Why the double standard?

Why does the Indian government concede to absurd discussions about Balochistan when trying to get co-operation from the Pakistani civilian government? Why are we unable to make common cause with those Pakistani civilians (not the least of whom is the widower Asif Zardari) who have been among the biggest losers in the jihad? How does an attack on Bombay, launched from Pakistan, trigger a threat of redeployment of troops to the India border from that very same Pakistan? Why the double standard?

It is clear that Pakistan is, was, and will be the center of the global jihad (and inevitably, to the resistance of that jihad). This has been true since long before 9/11, let alone 26/11. But the nation of Pakistan is too big and too complex to pigeon-hole. Too many internal factions (just like in all large and chaotic countries) vie for power in order to fulfill differing visions of what that country should be. And hence, outsiders make a series of Faustian bargains as described above, each creating its own little Frankenstein's monster (if you will excuse the mixed metaphor).

Is there a solution to this catch-22 (again, please pardon the excessive allusions)? In fact, there is. "There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom." These words were enunciated by the much-maligned George W. Bush in his second inaugural address (one that is available online and which I urge you to read). The point is simple: legitimate, democratic government (with a transparent judicial system) will lead to (or rather, amounts to) civilized behavior.

Can this be achieved in Pakistan?

The answer, disappointingly, is only a cautious "maybe". Circumstance and evidence lead us to believe that Pakistan is where the locus of the debate is. Will Pakistani society opt for a scenario where their country is used as a base for the global jihad? Or will Pakistanis realize the implications of such a move and make serious attempts to combat such an impulse? It is with Pakistani civil society (one that has strong un-civil and un-civilian elements) that we must turn. And frankly, the prognosis isn't good.

The only recourse for India is to protect its borders and maintain internal security, and then hope for the best in Pakistan. For the United States, the challenge is slightly different. With obligations in Afghanistan (and of course, Pakistan), they cannot easily cut and run. At least that is the conventional wisdom. In truth, the Americans can easily cut their losses and run, to the detriment of everyone who sticks around, not just to themselves. If, as appears likely, America reduces its influence in the region, then we will be stuck with a Pakistani establishment under fewer pressures to give up its radical tendencies.

The sad fact is that India's long-term safety is out of its own hands. One hopes that ordinary Americans and ordinary Pakistanis will realize the implications of their choices and act accordingly.

Analysis of Predictions vs Results

Well, I'm certainly pleased with the Indian election results, mostly because I wanted the Manmohan Singh government to return, but also because my pre-results predictions proved to be remarkably good (see post below for full predictions). Obviously I made some major howlers, but on the whole, I think I called this one correctly. Read on for the analysis and my thoughts on the whole thing.

What did I get right?
1. That Congress would be the largest party and UPA will return to power.
2. Mulayam and Lalu appear set to support the UPA government (albeit from a weaker position than I was expecting).
3. BJP allies fared badly (the exception is Nitish Kumar in Bihar - more on that below).
4. Mayawati was a non-factor. I predicted she would get 26 seats, and she got 21. I'm pretty happy with that, considering there was talk of her getting over 40 seats at one point.
5. The communists lost in both Bengal and Kerala.

On all the high level predictions, I was proved correct. Drill down into the numbers, and you see that the main mistake I made was to be a little too conservative when it came to picking a Congress win. Strangely enough, when you drill down into the states, you find that quite a few of the predictions were off. It seems all the errors even each other out!

Of the 12 big states, the ones I got correct (or close enough that I can legitimately claim that I called the trends correctly) are Gujarat, Kerala (bonus: Shashi Tharoor won), Orissa, UP and West Bengal (the last two with a little reservation - keep reading).

But I also failed to see a large Congress resurgence in Andhra (where my hung assembly prediction totally failed to happen), Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and to some extent, UP, where I think the results match my predictions with this one caveat. There was also Rajasthan, where I predicted a small swing towards Congress, when in fact it ended up being a Congress landslide.

I also missed the trends in the two states that definitively went against the national grain - Karnataka and Bihar, where the NDA did surprisingly well. Oh, and of course, Deve Gowda won three seats in Karnataka, so we still have him and his absurd son to kick around.

And finally, there's Tamil Nadu, where I expected Jayalalitha to catch up to Karunanidhi, but instead he came out with twice as many seats as her.

On the issue of West Bengal, I got the trend correct (that the commies would falter), but failed to predict the beneficiary - Mamta. I'm still going to put this one in my correct column because Mamta will be supporting the Congress government, so the upshot is the same.

So, what are the lessons (or "take-aways" as I used to say in my previous, corporate incarnation)?
1. It's all regional. Every party that won or lost did so because of how they have governed in their states. For example, Nitish, YSR, DMK, Patnaik all benefited from their recent positive track record in power in their states. The Communists (both in Bengal and Kerala), and the BJP in Rajasthan were seeking votes in states where their local governments had fared particularly badly in recent years. The Thackeray family fight in Maharashtra benefited the Congress, just as the honeymoon period of the Yediyurappa government helped the BJP in Karnataka. Mayawati and Mulayam's mis-governance in UP over the last decade hurt both of them.

It's all regional.

2. To the extent that there is any "national" trend or lesson, it's not about substance but a more fuzzy question of "national vision". What I mean by this is that when voters think beyond their own constituency and state, they focus more on which party offers a more compelling vision for India (or if you prefer, definition of India) rather than specifics (for which they turn to recent local history). On this count, the BJP failed to provide a compelling vision of India to the voters, and this further aided the Congress resurgence.

3. The following is a pet theory of mine that I can't back up with any evidence, but I think it fits the story. The national elections of 2009 can be viewed as a re-playing out of last year's confidence motion in parliament on a national scale. If you remember, even then, parties horse-traded and voted according to their local concerns (ex. Mulayam was scared of Mayawati and looked to fend her off by moving closer to the Congress) and the larger national vision was lost in the process. But somehow, the parliament muddled through and reached the correct decision. In this election, something similar happened, with the added bonus that everyone who proved themselves to be cravenly opportunistic politicians during the nuclear deal and confidence vote saga lost big time. In fact, support for the confidence motion was possibly the best indicator for how well parties did in this election.

And, now I'm sure you're asking whether I have any advice for our wonderful Parties. Why, of course! Here goes:

To the BJP - focus on regional government, try a little less cynical opportunism (see: nuclear deal) and tone down the Hindutva nonsense.

To Mayawati, Mulayam, Commies, Shiv Sena, Deve Gowda etc. - Please leave politics.

To Congress and UPA - don't screw it up!

Now, where's my TV contract?

2009 Indian Parliamentary Elections Predictions

Right, so the elections are coming to a close and we find out on May 16th what the results are. I've decided (in a significant bout of folly) to predict the unpredictable and to call the Indian election results before they're announced. I've read the tea leaves, consulted the stars, ruffled through wikipedia and a few websites of Indian news organizations, and have come up with my very own set of predictions. 543 seats being contested, in 28 States and 7 Territories, with over 30 political parties, all kinds of crazy characters, and very high stakes. This is a little long, so I'll post the predictions up top and discuss the thinking behind this and state-by-state analysis further down. Feel free to pull this list out on the 16th and ridicule me for getting it completely wrong!

FINAL TALLY
UPA - 257
NDA - 156
3rd Front - 108
Other - 22

PARTY - NUMBER OF SEATS (ALLIANCE AFFILIATION)
1. Congress - 179 (UPA)
2. BJP - 128 (NDA)
3. Commies - 36 (3rd Front)
4. Mulayam - 27 (UPA)
5. Mayawati - 26 (3rd Front)
6. Lalu - 19 (UPA)
7. Chandrababu Naidu - 15 (3rd Front)
8. Nitish Kumar - 13 (NDA)
9. Karunanidhi - 13 (UPA)
10. Jayalalitha - 11 (3rd Front)
11. Naveen Patnaik - 11 (3rd Front)
12. Sharad Pawar - 9 (UPA)
13. Shiv Sena - 8 (NDA)
14. Chiranjeevi - 6 (Other)
15. Raj Thackeray - 6 (Other)
16. Akalis - 5 (NDA)
17. Ram Vilas Paswan - 4 (UPA)
18. Omar Abdullah - 4 (Other)
19. Telengana - 3 (3rd Front)
20. Ramdoss - 3 (3rd Front)
21. Vaiko - 3 (3rd Front)
22. Mamta Banerjee - 2 (UPA)
23. Shibu Soren - 2 (UPA)
24. Ajit Singh - 2 (NDA)
25. Independents - 2 (UPA)
26. Independents - 6 (Other)


Phew! You'll notice I've used the names of politicians to denote the parties they lead. This is largely because too many acronyms will get too confusing, and also because most of these parties are glorified personality cults of their leaders anyway. The tallies above are based on a state-by-state analysis, which made sense because the national election is really a collection of separate regional elections. I'm including my state-by-state analysis below as well.

Well, the high level analysis is that we will see a return of the UPA government at the center. There are a few assumptions I'm basing this on. The first is that Mulayam will support the UPA. If he doesn't, then the equations will change all over again, but I have a feeling he'll stick with it. The second is that while the BJP will not be hurt very much, it's allies will virtually disappear. Third is that the Congress will improve its tally, continuing the BJP's stint in the wilderness of opposition. Fourth is that the Mayawati phenomenon will not materialize as expected. She will gain a few seats, but it won't be a dramatic gain, and her appeal will not translate outside UP. And fifth, the Communists will lose ground in Kerala and Bengal, but the 3rd Front will cross a hundred seats because of the gains of newly minted allies like Mayawati, Jayalalitha, Naveen Patnaik and Chandrababu Naidu.

One other major consideration is the confidence vote which took place in the Lok Sabha last year. The vote was very close, and so it will be again if the 3rd Front and NDA gang up again to avoid a UPA government. I doubt that will happen, because I think the UPA will be able to entice some of the Other parties (like Omar Abdullah's) as well as some constituent members of the 3rd Front and NDA to create the government.

The last point on a general national level is that of the issues. The major issues affecting India today, the threat of terrorism and the global economic crisis were rarely discussed on the campaign trail. The US-India Nuclear Deal and the subsequent confidence motion that the government barely survived in parliament are also not discussed nearly as much as they should be. Instead, this campaign was dominated by complaints of personal slights, random inflammation of religious hatred and its twin, over-reaction by the state apparatus, the ridiculous sight of pampered film stars in designer clothes urging dhoti and sari clad voters to blindly follow their recommendations and the prospect (as a very close friend put it to me) of "an 81 year old and a 76 year old vying to lead a country where the median age is 25." The media, as expected, has been weak, shameful, shrill, excessive and unwilling and unable to mediate a grand national debate. More money has been spent on this election then ever before, and I'm not sure if the issues could have been more ill-served than they were. One thing is for sure: nobody, not the politicians, not the parties, not the media, nor (heck, I'll say it) the electorate have lived up to the grandness of the occasion.

Below is my state-by-state analysis. It's in order of size of state, with a little blurb of explanation where I felt it was required. I'll stand by the predictions in the first 12 states on this list (ie. every state with 20 seats or more). These top 12 states account for 440 of the 543 total seats being contested. After that, what was an exercise that was mostly guess work became an exercise in complete guess work, so keep that in mind. Righto!

1. UTTAR PRADESH (80 Seats)
Mulayam - 26
Mayawati - 24
Congress - 14
BJP - 12
Ajit Singh - 2
Independent - 2

So here I'm predicting gains for Mayawati and Congress, and losses for Mulayam. I think that makes basic sense, so Mulayam goes from currently holding 35 seats to 26 seats, and Mayawati goes from 19 to 24. Mulayam still comes out on top, and with an alliance with Congress can fend off Mayawati and the BJP.

2. MAHARASHTRA (48 Seats)
BJP - 11
Congress - 10
Sharad Pawar - 9
Shiv Sena - 8
Raj Thackeray - 6
Mayawati - 2
Mulayam - 1
Independent - 1

This was quite possibly the hardest one to pick. So I'll start with the Independent. I'd like Meera Sanyal to win, so I've put her down as the winner in Bombay South (with the expectation that she will support the UPA). Congress, BJP, Shiv Sena and Sharad Pawar have all basically been evenly footed the last several years in the state, but with the split within the Thackeray family, and the heavy investment Mayawati is making in the state, it's all completely up in the air. My notes for Maharashtra have the most number of crossed out tallies than any other state.

3. ANDHRA PRADESH (42 Seats)
Congress - 16
Chandrababu Naidu - 15
Chiranjeevi - 6
Telengana - 3
Commies - 2

Another very difficult state to call. They're concurrently holding elections for the state legislative assembly, so that means that this vote is a referendum on the YSR led Congress government. Usually AP swings in a big way one way or the other. This time however, with the addition of Chiranjeevi in the fray I think Naidu won't be able to capitalize entirely on the expected swing, leaving Congress at the top, but not by much. Expect a hung assembly as well, where Chiranjeevi will play a much bigger spoiler role.

4. WEST BENGAL (42 Seats)
Commies - 20
Congress - 20
Mamta- 2

Major loss of face for the Communists is predicted here. They've pissed off secularists and internationalists by allying with the NDA to try to topple the government over the nuclear deal, and they've pissed off local leftist agitator types by supporting industry in Singur and Nandigram.

5. BIHAR (40 Seats)
Lalu - 19
Nitish Kumar - 13
BJP - 4
Ram Vilas Paswan - 4
Congress - 0

Gains for Nitish Kumar in the wake of the successful start to his Chief Ministership, but Lalu maintains enough seats to stay relevant.

6. TAMIL NADU (39 Seats)
Karunanidhi - 13
Jayalalitha - 11
Congress - 8
Vaiko - 3
Ramdoss - 2
Commies - 2

Jayalalitha makes some gains, but mostly at the expense of the Congress.

7. MADHYA PRADESH (29 Seats)
BJP - 26
Congress - 3

This traditional BJP bastion stays that way.

8. KARNATAKA (28 Seats)
BJP - 10
Congress - 18
Deve Gowda - 0

You may have noticed that Deve Gowda is missing from my total tally up top. That's because I have him and his party getting the sound thrashing they completely deserve. BJP will also lose seats, and Congress will make a remarkable come back in this state. You heard it here first folks!

9. GUJARAT (26 Seats)
BJP - 16
Congress - 10

The trend of the greater BJP-fication of Gujarat continues, much to my displeasure.

10. RAJASTHAN (25 Seats)
BJP - 16
Congress - 9

Congress won recent state assembly elections here, following a few years of caste based violence, and a poor governing record on the part of the BJP's Vasundhara Raje Scindia. BJP is still strong, but the Congress will pick up a few seats here.

11. ORISSA (21 Seats)
Naveen Patnaik - 11
Congress - 6
BJP - 4

Recent communal violence, as well as being ditched as an ally by Patnaik means that the BJP will lose ground here. Patnaik is an odd fish, because he just left the NDA, and has given temporary allegiance to the 3rd Front. If, as I predict, his position in the Lok Sabha doesn't change (he keeps the 11 seat tally he currently holds) then his party will also be a good candidate for the UPA to try and woo.

12. KERALA (20 Seats)
Congress - 11
Commies - 9

Another thumping setback for the Commies, and Shashi Tharoor will join the Indian Parliament as a Congress MP.

That's the last of the confident predictions (or as confident as they can possibly be). Below are the rest of the states and territories (the final 103 seats in the Lok Sabha).

13. ASSAM (14 seats)
Congress - 11
BJP - 2
Independent - 1

14. JHARKHAND (14 Seats)
Congress - 7
BJP - 4
Shibu Soren - 2
Commies - 1

15. PUNJAB (13 Seats)
Congress - 6
Akalis - 5
BJP - 2

16. CHHATTISGARH (11 Seats)
BJP - 9
Congress - 2

17. HARYANA (10 Seats)
Congress - 9
BJP - 1

18. JAMMU & KASHMIR (6 Seats)
Omar Abdullah - 4
Congress - 1
BJP - 1

19. UTTARKHAND (5 Seats)
BJP - 3
Congress - 2

20. HIMACHAL PRADESH (4 Seats)
Congress - 3
BJP - 1

21. ARUNACHAL PRADESH (2 Seats)
BJP - 2

22. GOA (2 Seats)
BJP - 1
Congress - 1

23. MANIPUR (2 Seats)
BJP - 1
Congress - 1

24. MEGHALAYA (2 Seats)
Congress - 2

25. TRIPURA (2 Seats)
Commies - 2

26. MIZORAM (1 Seat)
Mizo National Front (counted as Independent) - 1

27. NAGALAND (1 Seat)
Naga People Front (counted as Independent) - 1

28. SIKKIM (1 Seat)
Sikkim Democratic Front (counted as Independent) - 1

29. DELHI (7 Seats)
Congress - 5
BJP - 2

30. ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR (1 Seat)
Congress - 1

31. CHANDIGARH (1 Seat)
Congress - 1

32. DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI (1 Seat)
Bharatiya Navshakti Party (counted as Independent supporting UPA) - 1

33. DAMAN AND DIU (1 Seat)
Congress - 1

34. LAKSHADWEEP (1 Seat)
Congress - 1

35. PONDICHERRY (1 Seat)
Ramdoss - 1

If you've made it this far, then hats off to you! I think the numbers speak for themselves. We'll find out soon enough. Cheerio!

Doom and Gloom

The information age is hyper-real. Bloody images and 24/7 television coverage on all major international news channels, banner headlines across the world, web video uploads, blogs, everything else. The amount of media "content" generated by the Bombay attacks is staggering.

And therein lies the motive. To borrow a phrase, our terrorists mean to "shock and awe." It's working.

This is the first time since 9/11 that we have witnessed an attack on not just one country, but the entire world. Global commerce was the target here, as was the case on 9/11. The intervening attacks in Bali, Madrid, Istanbul, Islamabad, London, Beslan (and many more, as the list becomes numbingly long) can be and often are construed as attacks on specific nations. But the deliberate emphasis on westerners and (troublingly) Jews as terror victims (down to the targeting of Leopold's, Bombay's most public secret) makes this a case where the victim is not one nation alone. There is significance too in the landmark and symbolic (not to mention posh) nature of the targeted buildings, where captains of industry give away their resplendently bejewelled daughters in lavish weddings. Prosperous India, the emerging India, the country on a cliche-ridden growth spurt was exposed as having deep vulnerabilities. Tourists and tycoons beware; no longer will enemies of civilization target the commuter lines and train stations populated by the (also cliched) teeming masses of India. The jihad has set its sights on those islands of comfort and glitz where the rich and the foreign go to escape from the harsh sensory overload that is modern urban India. Do you have the dollars required to shelter yourself from large scale suffering? Not anymore.

Of course, we knew this could happen. Everyone knows and openly talks of the fact that bombings in Indian cities are an almost monthly occurence. In any given year, the chance of having a bomb blast in your city appears to be higher than hosting an international cricket match. And just in case you aren't tired of cliches, here's another one: the key failure here is a lack of leadership. It's unclear if independent India has ever had the leadership required to keep its citizens safe. Sure, the military seems able to hold on to some snowy mountaintops, but that seems to be the extent of it. Mass murder, a thumping defeat at the hands of the Chinese, riots once a decade (occurring with a frequency you can set your watch to), serial bomb blasts, stampedes, assassinations, ethnic cleansing, plagues, train crashes, BMWs converted into sidewalk murder weapons, wife burning, acid attacks, mafia warfare, infanticide, mob violence, bar shootouts - the list of law and order failures in the last sixty years is endless. The police and the courts have been unable, or unwilling, to address any of these activities in any serious way. And now an irregular army has carried off an amphibious assault on Bombay with complete impunity. It is clear for all the world to see that, just like the emperor missing his duds, India has no law and order. And frankly, it never did.

Most disturbing of all, India's leaders seem to like this fact. At the expense of citizen safety, India's political, administrative and judicial classes have undermined the rule of law for decades. To expect this same group to respond in any meaningful way to the latest atrocity is a pipe dream. The only thing to do, it seems, is to shrug our shoulders, mumble something about India's resilience and continue to live life in the cross-hairs of barbarism. India's passivity and weakness is falsely recast as the strength of an indomitable spirit. Mere talk of enough being enough is enough. And so the global jihad claims another immense strategic and symbolic victory.

The defeat of this bloody monster requires an honest reckoning with the mess that is Pakistan. That this will not happen is demonstrated by the events of the past seven years. American leadership on this issue has been unimpressive. Without the assistance of the world's democracies (as well as the autocracies of Russia and China), India will not be able to address the issue of Pakistani terrorism. Yet, when it comes to tackling thorny global issues that require messy and indelicate action, the so-called international community has behaved like a parliament of eunuchs - full of sound and fury, usually directed at the forces fighting terrorism. Perhaps the world's muslims could be implored to lance the deadly cancer afflicting their religion? If you believe so, then you haven't been paying attention.

What needs to happen is straightforward enough: people engaged in jihad should be found and killed. We could start with the terrorist camps within Pakistan; wikipedia provides a helpful list. This last fact alone should be enough to cause dismay to the enemies of the terrorists. That seven years after the most devastating terrorist attack in human history known terrorists are cavorting in publicly known camps within the borders of a so called ally in the war against terrorists should be proof enough that the free world is not serious in its fight against the jihad. Even if the powerful nations of the world impress upon the Pakistani authorities (whose singular characteristic is a complete lack of authority) the need for eradicating terror making institutions, there is little evidence that the Pakistani leadership will (or even wants to) do any such thing.

Which leads us to the inexorable (and devastating) conclusion that someone needs to do it for them. One would assume that the nation targeted in this assault would carry this out, with the support and approval of all enemies of terrorism. However, since lacking a spine appears to be the primary qualification of the world's mandarins, don't expect any such action. That arms from the Pakistani nuclear arsenal will end up in the hands of jihadis is only a question of time. Certainly, it will happen within my lifetime. And when it does, the gleeful murderers of the jihad will not have to look very far to find the softest of soft targets. Yes, you're reading this correctly - the next city destroyed by an atomic device will be an Indian one.

A little politics, perhaps?

Firstly, I’m thrilled that John McCain has won the Republican nomination. I volunteered for his campaign in New Hampshire in 2000, and really believe he’ll make an incredible President (he has to win).

Now, to the more interesting Dems (they’re interesting the way a multi-car pile-up is interesting). It looks like Obama will win the nomination, but only naïve fools will count the Clintons out. I think of Hillary Clinton as the Lady Macbeth figure of American politics, and the “vaulting ambition” of the Clinton couple shows no signs of slowing down.

I also think the Obama guys are out of touch. The Democrats are a party of silos. Groups that don't identify by ideology, but by identity are voting completely independently of each other.So what do you get? Young people, white people, college kids and rich urban liberals voting for Obama; middle-class whites, women, union folks and rural people voting for Hillary. Supporters of each group completely pass each other, like ships in the night, without any knowledge of who they are. This is a problem for the Dems regardless of who wins the primary.

It's actually a two-fold problem. Firstly, it means that there is extremely little substance here, and that all the arguments are superficial and identity related. Secondly, identity fights are much more visceral than ideological fights, so there's much more animosity.

The dems have screwed this up really badly. And this isn't new. Since the 1970s, the dems as a party have been a coalition of identity groups (blacks, unions, gays etc.) while the republicans have been a coalition of ideological groups (social cons, libertarians, free traders, neocons). Sure, there are contradictions in the latter arrangement, but the former is certainly a house of cards. Upset the identity equation just a little bit, and you have all kinds of visceral hatred that results. Upset the policy equation, and you end up with people who have to marginally compromise their beliefs. It's easier to compromise beliefs than identity, which is why you're seeing the republicans coalesce around the McCain campaign in a way you will not see around an Obama campaign if he wins the nomination. If it's Hillary, the situation will likely be much worse.

So, there you have it.

Back in Black

Ok, not quite black, but I haven't blogged in a while so I figured I'd write about something controversial. I've been thinking about this since I recently watched "Jodhaa Akbar" (a great movie with great music by the way), so here goes.

What are A. R. Rahman's top five movie soundtracks?

Obviously this is an impossible question to answer, but I'll attempt it anyway. So, here are Rahman's top five (in no particular order):

1. Roja - The original, the one that started it all.

2. Bombay - Roja perfected. With Humma Humma and that amazing theme tune.

3. Dil Se - Chaiyya Chaiyya. Need one say anything else?

4. Rang De Basanti - Wow. Just wow. Nobody thought Rahman could sound like this. And Roobaroo. Song of the century man.

5. Kandukondein Kandukondein - This one's for the Tamil fans. And for anyone who has heard Kannamoochi.

Honorable mention: Lagaan. Another great one, and it would have made the top five if the song "O Re Chori" didn't have that ridiculous English interlude.

So there you have it. Rahman's top 5. Let the arguments begin!

Conflict and Messages

A grim anniversary is upon us, and I'm in New York. I've been shuttling back and forth between here and DC this month and will continue to do so for some time. I wouldn't have it any other way. There's talk of surges and draw downs, and on the whole I'm cautiously optimistic. But think of the missed opportunities. Compare the two messages below that America received from Afghanistan in 1998, and you can't help thinking that if we had listened then, we might not be marking such a dreadful anniversary today

Message 1:

Afghans want to regain their right to self-determination through a democratic or traditional mechanism acceptable to our people. No one group, faction or individual has the right to dictate or impose its will by force or proxy on others. But first, the obstacles have to be overcome, the war has to end, just peace established and a transitional administration set up to move us toward a representative government.

We are willing to move toward this noble goal. We consider this as part of our duty to defend humanity against the scourge of intolerance, violence and fanaticism. But the international community and the democracies of the world should not waste any valuable time, and instead play their critical role to assist in any way possible the valiant people of Afghanistan overcome the obstacles that exist on the path to freedom, peace, stability and prosperity. [link]

Message 2:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God." [link]

One is Massoud, the other is Bin Laden. Unfortunately, both messages fell on deaf ears.

Horrifying

Don't read this if you have already eaten lunch today. Barbarism like this knows no bounds. To think that people are seriously calling for America to retreat in the fight against such villains is horrifying.

Attack of the Brahmin Adjuncts!!

Read this book: No Onions Nor Garlic by Srividya Natarajan. Outrageously Hilarious!

Written in a style that would impress P.G. Wodehouse, the master himself, this book is laugh-out-loud funny. The author populates Chennai with a cast of zany characters that can rival a Blandings or Malgudi (she also prefers to use ‘Chennai’ instead of ‘Madras’, which I favor, so for the purposes of this review I shall stick with Chennai).

Firstly, there’s Sundar, a mild-mannered English literature student at Chennai University who falls madly in love with Jiva, a Dalit girl at the college vying for an adjunct position in the English Department. Standing athwart history yelling stop is the Chair of the English Department, Professor Ram, whose greatest bugbear is the Reservations Policy whereby all kinds of uppity non-Brahmins are seeking entry into his hallowed scholarly world. He stages a (heavily edited) version of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, in which he attempts to bring to light the moral strengths of the traditional Hindu order. How a Shakespearean comedy gets messed up with the traditional Hindu order has to be read to be believed. Professor Ram is tailed everywhere he goes by the diminutive Ph.D candidate Shastri, whose dissertation has been denied publication by Professor Ram for fourteen years, and who finally gets his revenge in a most appropriate manner. Then there’s Chunky, Professor Ram’s son, recently returned from Canada, seeking a bride, and who doesn’t have bowel movements, so much as bowel symphonies. Others include Caroline the Canadian ethnologist interested in the Dalits (pronounced “Day Lights”), Sundar’s mother who consults internet astrologers to find perfect brides and grooms for her children, Sundar’s father who ran away from home in his youth to join the Naxals only to get lost in the jungle, and Mr. Sheshadri the drunken, loutish, extremely rich and supremely dishonest real estate mogul who has built the hellish Chennai our characters inhabit. There are many more such crazy characters, but I’ll stop here and let you discover them yourself.

The title is taken from a line in A Midsummer Night’s Dream in which Bottom implores his actors to do the following:

"And so dear actors, eat no onions nor garlic, for we are to utter sweet breath"

The line can also apply to the eating preferences of orthodox Brahmins, who refuse to eat such impure foods.

Natarajan takes aim at a bunch of sacred cows, including the system of caste and the absurdities of English literary theory. The strength of the book lies in her amazingly funny writing style (she writes like Plum does, sometimes as an all-seeing narrator, sometimes in the first person, addressing the “dear reader”) and the ridiculous situations in which her colorful characters find themselves. Please read this book – I haven’t come across something this funny in ages.

Benedict and the Byzantines

Check out this speech given by Pope Benedict XVI earlier this week. He quotes the 15th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus who was debating "an educated Persian".

"[The Emperor] turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'"

Ok, so let us leave aside the incendiary content of the remarks and focus on who the Pope is quoting. Or, as my dad asked: "was not the byzantine emperor of the Greek Orthodox persuasion? Was he not a schismatic? Are his views ok [to be quoted by a Catholic Pope]?"

Well, I did a little reading on this. Manuel II Paleologus was in fact a Byzantine emperor, and as such was a member of the congregation of the Patriarch of Constantinople, not the Patriarch of Rome. The split between the two churches happened in 1054, and is usually attributed to a difference in language in the documentation from the Council of Nicea, but that took place in 325 AD, so it doesn't make sense that this disagreement waited 700 years before causing the schism.

In fact, the schism took place largely because of the advance of Islam. In the early church, and according to the first few convened Ecumenical councils, there were five patriarchs, all on an equal footing: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem.

The last three cities were in Muslim hands by the turn of the millennium, so there were only two Christian power centers left - Rome (which followed Latin liturgy) and Constantinople (which followed Greek liturgy). So maybe the difference in language used caused some confusion over language of the Nicene Creed. But more importantly, with two power centers left, the balancing act was disturbed and conflict set in.

Another thing that the Eastern Church (and empire) was largely suspicious of was efforts by the West to resurrect the Western Roman Empire, by the likes of Charlemagne (who got official sanction by the pope in Rome, remember). Incidentally, Charlemagne was also a famous adversary of the Muslims (Roncesvalles and the Song of Roland etc.).

When the Great Schism happened, the Christians had lost all their Arab lands, but they had made huge gains in the Balkans, and still held all of Asia Minor. In fact, at the time of the Schism, the Byzantine Empire was at its zenith (in terms of geographic reach). But, within sixty years they were on the retreat again and had lost most of most of what is modern day Turkey to the Seljuks. They still held Constantinople though.

So, the Byzantines were quite happy allying with Rome during the Crusades (which began shortly after a major defeat of the Byzantines at the hands of the Muslim turks). They made many gains in the 1100s, and were back on top, so they resumed their fighting with Rome, which resulted in the Sack of Constantinople (by the western crusaders) in 1204, during the Fourth Crusade.

The Byzantines went back into a cycle of decline, and by the time of Manuel II Paleologus (who the current Pope quoted) the Byzantines had basically become like the late Mughals - emperors of one great city, and its outlying areas. He had in fact appealed to Rome on many occasions to try and seal the rift, but many of his own people (and the clergy in the hierarchy of the Eastern church) refused to accept such a reconciliation.

So, every time Byzantium was in decline, they would appeal to the West for help and every time they were ascendant, they would resume the fight with the west. In fact, hostility towards the west was a hallmark of Byzantium. Within fifty years of Manuel II Paleologus' remarks on Mohammed, the Byzantine empire was destroyed by the Ottomans. What's incredible, is that one of the Byzantine commanders during the Fall of Constantinople is said to have remarked: "I would rather see a Muslim turban in the midst of the City (ie, Constantinople) than the Latin miter."

Now, why is the Pope quoting a Byzantine? Well, I think for a number of reasons. One, it's a really incendiary quote. Two, it was made by an Emperor who was largely in favor of better relations between the Eastern and Western churches, so its probably ok to quote him. And three, Benedict XVI might be appealing to the folks of the Eastern Orthodox church to try and heal any rift, for a fight that he sees coming, and which the Eastern Orthodox chaps have been fighting for over a millennium.

Oh, and check out this graphic: Every time there is more pink on the map, there was a conflict with Rome. Every time there is less pink, there are frantic appeals to Rome for help.

Quick, while they're not looking!

With Karnataka's esteemed MLAs taking some much deserved vacation to coastal towns, maybe some actual good governance is possible. It might be best for all parties concerned if these legislators stayed on in other states. Maybe the capital of outsourcing could outsource its pathetic government?

Devanam Piya Piyadasi Laja Evam Haiva

Check out this link from a few weeks back which has a bunch of famous people answering the question "What was the most influential book you read in college?" Responders include Christopher Hitchens, David Brooks and Alan Bloom.

Since reading this, I've been trying to answer the question for myself. If the question were "What was the most influential book you've ever read?" my answer would be George Orwell's "1984". It awakened my political consciousness and drew my attention to the varied forms of totalitarianism.

But I read "1984" long before I attended college, so I've been racking my brain to think of the book I read during college which most influenced the way I view the world. Ironically, it's not a book I was assigned in class, but one I picked up and read on my own. The book? "India Discovered" by John Keay. Keay tracks the efforts of many British Orientalists who sought to piece together the history and geography of India during the British Raj. Starting with William Jones, Keay demonstrates that these citizen-scholars literally re-discovered a lost Indian history. They only had two dates to work with: 326 BC when Alexander crossed the Sindh, and 712 AD when Mohammed Bin Qasim did the same.

Local texts were of little help. Firstly, they rarely separated myth from history. For example, Vikramaditya was a real king from the Gupta era, but most stories about him center around the myth of the Vetala. In fact, it's from the chronicles of another visitor to India, the Chinese Buddhist Fa-Hien, that we are able to get a glimpse into the world Vikramaditya ruled over. It seems that an essential trait of Indian culture is to gloss over history and mythologize it instead. Another problem with local texts is the lack of a proper dating system. Most kingly proclamations are made with reference to the year of the reign of that particular king. As a result, there are many gaps in Indian history, and the English administrators who came to India and took an interest in it, took on the task of filling these gaps.

The most glaring example of this is the discovery of the Indus Valley Civilization (or Harappan Civilization), which happened in the 1920s when workers laying railway tracks in the North of India discovered ruins with extremely well preserved bricks that they wanted to use on the construction. The British official overseeing the construction sent the bricks to Calcutta to be examined, and the rest, as they say, is History.

My favorite story from the book is that of James Princep, a young Englishman who came to Calcutta to work at the Company mint. Princep was an avid coin collector and became interested in ancient Indian coins. Unable to read the script on the coins Princep started meticulously recording every symbol he came across. He asked various travellers to record inscriptions on rocks and statues that they came across, and noticed something peculiar. A series inscriptions carved into rocks and pillars all across the sub-continent started with the same set of symbols. These inscriptions were usually accompanied with the three-lion motif or the chakra (wheel) motif. Princep concluded that all of these inscriptions must have been from proclamations made by a single king who ruled over most of what is now modern India. Unfortunately, no one had any idea who this king was, or what the script said. After years of painstaking work, Princep finally cracked the code and deciphered the script.

"Devanam piya, Piyadasi Laja evam haiva." That is the Prakrit that Princep deciphered when he cracked the script. All the inscriptions from the mystery king started with these words. Translated from the Prakrit, it says, "Beloved of the gods, King Piyadasi proclaims thus." The rest of the inscription would be the particular proclamation. So, who was this King Piyadasi? Some more detective work revealed that King Piyadasi was a tyrant king who conquered most of India before converting to Buddhism and ruling the vast country justly, peppering the country-side with proclamations of peace. His symbols were the three lions facing in different directions, and the wheel. Today we know him as Ashoka the Great, whose wheel symbol adorns the Indian flag.

What is amazing is that locals had no idea what the inscriptions were, or who Ashoka was. What Keay's book does is to show us just how much of our history was lost, and how much might still be unrevealed to us. And this is why I think Keay's book was the most influential one I read during college. I realized just how ahistorical Indian society is, and as an avid history-buff, it was quite a disappointing discovery. I also began to re-evaluate the legacy of the British in India. These insights have shaped my thinking as a student of history. After all, Jones, Princep and a host of other bureaucrats and army officers contributed so much to our understanding of India and Indian identity. We owe these men a huge debt, and to trample on that legacy in the name of anti-colonialism is to do ourselves a great disservice. And, it would be one of the most ahistorical acts imaginable.

Ch-Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes

I've discarded the orange in favor of a more sober tan. And, I've added links. Comments should be easier too. Let me know what you think.

Remembrance Day

The guns fell silent on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918. Since then, November 11th has been Remembrance Day, a day when we remember those who died in the trenches of the Western Front, the killing fields of the Eastern Front and the desert of Arabia. World War I was the bloodiest war that had been fought till date, and remains one of the most pointless wars in human history. Unlike its more dramatic sequel, there were no winners in World War I, although there were certainly victors. Victory however, was little comfort for the winning allies as they had lost the best and brightest of an entire generation, young men who died in the service of ambiguous ideals.

People in Britain mark Remembrance Day by pinning plastic poppies on their lapels. The poppy flower is to symbolize the poppy fields of northern France and Belgium, where some of the bloodiest battles of the war were fought, and where so many of the dead are buried. As a symbol representing the war dead, the poppy was popularized by the Canadian soldier, physician and poet John McCrae, with his poem "In Flanders Fields". The opening stanza of the poem reads:

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly,
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

There is an unobtrusive memorial to the dead in World War I right here in Bangalore, at the junction of Brigade Road and Residency Road. A block of stone a little over ten feet high stands in a little island, amid the potholes and traffic, commemorating the war dead from the Indian Army (both British and Native). Not too many people know this, but nearly 1 million Indians fought in the Great War, on all fronts, and more than 50,000 of them died.

My grand-father once told me something his father had told him in his day: "Great War banthu, yella hoithu." The Great War came, and everything went. By the end of the First World War, four of the most powerful European Empires (German, Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian and Russian) were wiped off the map, two (British and French) were spiraling out of their control, Jallianwala Bagh had laid to rest any possibility of a continued, long-term Indian reconciliation with the British Empire, the map of the Middle East was redrawn, the Communists had gained a foothold in Russia, and the United States of America was the new Great Power. The Great Depression, World War II, the Cold War, and today’s terrorism all form part of the fallout of these contradictions, brought about by the close of the War that was supposed to "end all wars." This November, we remember those who gave the ultimate sacrifice, and acknowledge the continued sacrifice of their modern-day heirs.

Blog Mela

Check out the latest Blog Mela, which features two posts from yours truly.

Happy Diwali!

The BBC in India

The BBC ran a special series of programming on India recently, and I caught two pretty awesome episodes of HardTalk. First Stephen Sackur drilled my erstwhile schoolmate [Feroze] Varun Gandhi, who came off as genial and well-meaning, but not ready or suitable for politics. Sackur later took the Communist Party's Brinda Karat to task in what was more like a wrestling rumble than an interview. Good stuff.

I didn't catch his interview with Narayan Murthy, but thankfully, the Indian Express carries the transcript (link from Amit Varma).

Money 'graf:

India will continue to lead as long as our politicians, bureaucrats, corporate leaders and academicians realise that we have to work harder and smarter need to do things with a sense of alacrity, we need to create better physical infrastructure, better education infrastructure.

I wonder who he was referring to? As they say, read the whole thing.

Deve Gowda Must Go

The Times of India sounds the clarion call. Read this from Shekhar Gupta as well. Ever since Gowda has exercised power as the leader of the junior partner in the governing coalition in Karnataka, good governance has taken a major beating. He insisted on a light-weight puppet to be the Chief Minister. He has called for scrapping the Metro rail project. He has thrown a wrench into the Airport plans. He has picked fights with the former Chief Minister, his own deputy, Siddaramaiah, the IT industry, and now personally with Narayan Murthy. Where does he think he gets off?

His only motivation seems to be a pathetic desire to remain relevant, even if his relevance is actually the notoriety of the continual spoiler. A former Prime Minister, Deve Gowda is ashamed (with good reason) that all he can muster now is a minor say in the governance of one state. Furthermore, his power in this state is also eroding, and he is trying his damndest to hold on to some of it. Money, land, infrastructure, entrepreneurship, talent - all these sources of power are eluding Deve Gowda, and his helplessness is palpable.

It's time we got rid of this weak good for nothing. It's time the people of Bangalore and Karnataka demanded good governance as opposed to lunatic, egotistic posturing. How do we do this? Keep this discussion going. Narayan Murthy's resignation from the Airport authority is the pebble that can start an avalanche. Industry leaders and opinion makers need to discuss this on a daily basis. Narayan Murthy must be defended from baseless, idiotic accusations. Gowda's misrule must be on the front pages of newspapers everyday for the next few months. Pressure must be exercised in Delhi to bring Krishna back and to dump Gowda's JD(S). Siddaramaiah can be encouraged to pull the rug out from under Gowda in rural constituencies.

Keep in mind, that Deve Gowda's own worst enemy is his mouth, backed by his shrivelling brain. Keep him in the news, and you force him to put his ugly mug on the front pages. Keep his enemies talking and you force him to open his trap. He does these things, and he'll bury himself. All we need to do is to continue to stress his weaknesses and to tout the relative strengths of his adversaries. He will do the rest, with a little help from Sonia.

Madam, a fresh set of elections in Karnataka will rid you of this troublesome pest.

Gods, Myths and Women

Amit Varma links to this interview with Mallika Sarabhai where she says that Draupadi "is the epitome of the 21st century woman." In the same post, Amit Varma also links to this blogger who disagrees with the above quote and instead says that Draupadi "comes out like she has no personality and personality is what defines a 21st century woman... That was then; this is now."

Personally, I prefer to view these people as literary characters rather than historical figures. I find it's easier to discover the divinity in them that way. And, I have to agree with Mallika Sarabhai when she says:

"I have always felt that our mythological women and historical women got a
raw patriarchal deal. The writers of history were men: the priests were men, the
storytellers were men, the historians were mostly men. And they ended up by
reducing all the women into cardboard cutouts – wimps, in fact."

I had a similar feeling when I read the Ramayana and pondered the problem of Sita. Mallika Sarabhai follows up the previous statement with this:

"And yet they (the women) could not have been so. Think of this -- why are
all the men identified by their women? Radheshyam -- Radha's Shyam; Umashankar -- Uma's Shankar; Sitaram -- Sita's Ram etc?"

Alternatively, couldn't one argue that the women are defined by their men? In fact, that's exactly the case with the women of the Ramayana. Here's what I wrote last year about that epic (after reading R.K. Narayan's adaptation):

"The female is treated very unfairly (from a modern and feminist persepective)
in the entire 'Ramayana', and Sita's trial [by fire] is just the culmination of
that sentiment, developped through the epic. The major female characters in the
story are Sita, Kaikeyi, Manthara (Kooni in this version), Soorpanaka and Tara
(Sugreeva's wife). None are given their full due as independent characters, and
all seem to exist solely for the men in their lives. Sita's sense of dharma
compels her to follow Rama into exile. Had she chosen otherwise, it is clear
that the moral judgement would be negative. Kaikeyi's disobedience of Dasaratha
forms part of the ethical charges made against her. Kooni's evil nature is made
clear by her attempt to interfere in the male-centric ritual of succession.
Soorpanaka, the one independent female in the story is given a very unflattering
portrayal, and even she ends up with a Rama-centered identity. Tara is flung
from one husband to the next with no concern for her preferences. Even Ahalya,
is forced to live an eternity as a rock for being raped by Indra.

All the classic feminist critiques apply to the Ramayana. While stacked with
powerful male characters like Rama, Ravana, Hanuman and Vali, the Ramayana lacks strong female characters. Sita's greatness lies not in her independence or
strength, but devotion to Rama. Given all this, it is easy to see why Sita's
trial by fire fits in with the general narrative of the Ramayana and with Rama's
own code of ethics...

This is not to say that Sita's trial by fire is excusable. In fact modern re-tellings of the tale can quite easily skip the sordid chapter and not lose any of the narrative. Sita's trial by fire, like Vali's killing is inexcusable and indefensible, but the latter is also inexplicable."

I wrote this as part of a larger essay on "Rama's Moral Lapses". The main focus of the piece was Rama's killing of Vali, but as mentioned above, Sita's trial by fire is just as revealing, if not more so, about Rama's character. I'll post the full piece on this site one of these days. Today I just wanted to add my two cents to the issue of women in our epics.