Tomichan Matheikal's blog

Here are three different handshakes given recently by Prime Minister Mr Modi. "I have the control, Baby." A few days back Mr Modi and Rahul Gandhi shook hands when they met during the birthday celebrations of Sharad Pawar.  The handshake shows clearly who the Boss is.  But the eye contacts are of equals. See the eye contact below.  Notice the handshake too. Mr Oommen Chandy, Kerala Chief Minister, welcomed the Prime Minister in Kochi yesterday.  The Prime Minister cannot look Mr Chandy in the eye because the latter was chucked out of a function attended by the Prime Minister.  The strong feeling in Kerala is that Mr Modi wanted Mr Chandy out. And one more handshake from Kerala.  With Archbishop George Alancheril. The typical politician's handshake.  " The glove handshake is sometimes called the politician’s handshake. The initiator tries to give the receiver the impression that he is trustworthy and honest, but when this technique is used on a

English philosopher, C E M Joad, defined civilisation as thinking new thoughts, making new things, and obeying the rules for the smooth functioning of the society.  Yet we don’t find such people in our history books.  Our history books are filled with people who killed others, conquered their lands, and imposed themselves on other people.  How many Indians have heard of Satyendranath Bose though there is a subatomic particle (Boson) named after him?  How many Indians are ready to recognise the name Ali Akbar Khan though he is known to the world as the Indian Johann Sebastian Bach?  Why does the genius of a Shakespeare get eclipsed by a Queen Elizabeth in history books though Shakespeare’s contribution to civilisation far outweighs that of the Queen?  These are some of the many thoughts that crossed my mind as I read the very long article by A. G. Noorani, ‘ India’s Sawdust Caesar ,’ in the latest issue of Frontline .  “A year and a half after he became Prime Minister of Ind

Bihar let down Mr Modi.  No other Prime Minister of the country had ever committed him-/herself as wholeheartedly to the elections in any state as Mr Modi had in Bihar this time.  BJP’s defeat in Bihar is Mr Modi’s defeat, however much his supporters might argue otherwise.  Source The whole agenda of development that Mr Modi had promised to the nation, the only objective for which the people of India elected him to the most powerful post in the country, was rubbished by Dadri and Bahari and other such affairs which caught the fancy of the entire Sangh Parivar while Mr Modi was making a world tour except when he mouthed some utopian slogans about development once in a while.    The people of India are not concerned about rewriting the country’s history or converting the country into a theocratic nation.  They have understood that the world has moved on well into the 21 st century where real science and technology matter much more than the rocket technology of Ravana or

According to Chetan Bhagat, a liberal in India today is a person who was born in an upper class family, received English education, absorbed the world culture, carried hotdogs to school in their tiffin box, visited Disneyland, and ridiculed those who spoke English in India with a vernacular accent.  The popular writer said this and much more in his Times of India article yesterday.  He goes on to reduce the current communal disturbances and acts of intolerance to a mere class struggle between the privileged and the underprivileged, the latter being the present-day nationalists whom the former refer to derogatorily as the right-wing, or sanghis, or bhakts, or chaddiwallahs.  “There is a reason why liberals are derogatorily referred to as pseudo-secular, pseudo-intellectual and pseudo-liberal,” claims Bhagat. “For their agenda is not to be liberal. Their agenda is to look down on the classes that don’t have the global culture advantage.”  He goes on to say that “If, for insta

Marilyn Monroe loved dogs because they never bit her unlike the human beings.  Mark Twain was of a similar opinion.  “If you pick up a starving dog,” declared the witty writer, “and make him prosperous he will not bite you.  This is the principal difference between a dog and man.”  Milan Kundera found his Eden by sitting “with a dog on a hillside on a glorious afternoon.” Our leaders of the most powerful political party today seem to hold dogs in a slightly different regard.  A few months back our Prime Minister declared his love for puppies when he made a subtle equation between them and the victims of communal riots belonging to a particular community.  Now General V K Singh, union minister and former army chief, thinks that the Dalits share some genes with the canines.    The dogs are very friendly creatures which are unpolitically selfless.  They earned a bad name in India, however, because their general (not to be confused with the General) lot in this country was no bet

Today’s Hindu newspaper carries a number of articles on the one year of Mr Modi as Prime Minister. Except the one BJP supporter, none of the other writers has anything good to say about the year that India passed through.  I found it an interesting exercise to take the major arguments of the BJP spokesman, Ravi Shankar Prasad, and rebut them with the arguments given by the other writers.  Here’s a discussion I fabricated out of the views expressed by the four writers.   Ravi Shankar Prasad R S Prasad : In just a span of 12 months, the NDA government has succeeded in restoring India’s image as a fast-growing economy . Sitaram Yechuri: The statistical base year for national income accounts has been changed in order to project the GDP growth rate in better light.  Despite this, it is clear that the manufacturing and industrial growth are just not taking off. Prasad: The government’s priority is the poor and the marginalised . Sitaram Yechuri Yechuri : The sha

The first time Delhi gave its mandate, though a cautious one, to Mr Arvind Kejriwal, he let down the people by abandoning his responsibility.  Delhi not only forgave him but also extended the mandate with a shocking majority.  Once again, his party seems to be letting down the people. The bickering going on within the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) is not at all entertaining for the people of Delhi.  Delhiites had huge expectations from the Party as proved by the votes given to it.  Even before the honeymoon is over the partners have started bloating their egos.  What has happened already is a terrible let-down for Delhiites as well as for many other people who had hoped for a better alternative in the party.  The situation in Indian politics vis-a-vis leadership is rather pathetic.  Mr Narendra Modi has good leadership skills but is too parochial in thinking to be the leader of a country like India which has more diversity than his imagination can absorb.  His emergence as the Prim

Selknam people who became extinct in 1974 because of Us-Them division made by ? When Angela Loij died in 1974, a tribe became extinct.  Angela was the last surviving woman of the Selknam tribe in Chile, South America.  Communism still survives in Latin America. Prakash Karat, one of the surviving Communists in India wants to join the AAP. Karat and his wife Brinda are supposed to be intellectuals. AAP belongs to ... Whom? The Anarchist Who should be relegated to the forest, as suggested by the Prime Minister of the country who claimed to belong to the working class but behaves more like a King of some buried era? Angela, the  Romantic fools still allowed to survive in India mourn the extinction of your race. Not for your sake.  Not at all for the sake of the colonists who killed your people. For the sake of the future generations. Not for the sake of “unity in uniformity” For which Our leaders want to drive the last nail on some coffins.

“Treat me as a king would treat another king.”  Porus is believed to have said that to Alexander the Great when he was defeated in the war and brought as a prisoner to the latter.  Prime Minister Modi, the invincible King of Indian democracy from 2002 (the year from which the BJP won every election whose campaign was led by Mr Modi), displayed similar chivalry when he rang up the victorious Kejriwal to congratulate him and rather condescendingly offered him a cup of tea in the royal durbar of Chai pe Charcha. Mr Kejriwal was too shocked by the election result to understand the Mr Modi’s condescension.  Not even in the remotest apogee of his imagination had Kejriwal expected to win 67 seats.  Yet he won them.  In spite of all the royal glory that Mr Modi generously lent the campaign.  In spite of the crores of rupees spent on full front page ads in national newspapers. In spite of the defections from both the Congress and the AAP.  In spite of all odds and ends. Dean Nelson

Source: Reuters A winter morning. Sentiments burn the road awoken by the gentle sun, The cathedral spires poking the heaven behind. What have you lost that you cry for? The King was reciting the Bhagavad Gita Ensconced on the throne of Indraprastha. What belongs to you today, belonged to someone yesterday and will be someone else’s tomorrow. The beggars’ kids in tatters With bones gnawed by the fangs of winter Nagged the developed citizens in cars at the lal batti With roses, teddy bears, airplane models, All made in India with Make in India’s plastic. Whose India is it?  Wondered the journo As the King’s police arrived in vans And heckled people who claimed insecurity Not being the King’s own clans. Children bearing placards shouted slogans whose Meanings or future courses were drowned in winter haze. The present, the present is what is yours , Whether you be King on the throne, or beggar on the street, Or a citizen seeking

The ad: see the watermark   In its advertisement - DAVP22201/13/0048/1415, which was published on 26 January - the government quotes the preamble of India's Constitution as "We the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC...." as opposed to the genuine version that states: “WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens..." Mr Narendra Modi, the Prime Minister, is averse to both socialism and secularism.  He is adept at making use of surreptitious practices to achieve his objectives.  The way he tried to foist a lot of ordinances on the country, in spite of his party enjoying the majority in the Lok Sabha, was snubbed by the President himself.  There are many activities going on behind invisible curtains, activities that may remind one of Hitler and his propagandists, activities that w

The American President, Barack Obama, has already embraced the Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, in the highly girdled airport in Delhi.  This is the second jaadu ki jhappi between the leaders of two nations with similar global interests.  Obama’s country has been the world’s moral police since the second world war and Modi’s India aspires to wrench that hegemony.  About two decades ago, Samuel P Huntington wrote in his famous and controversial book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order , that “If at some point India supplants East Asia as the world’s economically most rapidly developing area, the world should be prepared for extended disquisitions on the superiority of Hindu culture...”  Interestingly, Huntington added that the disquisition would have to be about “the contributions of the caste system to economic development” and a fundamentalist assertion of indigenous culture.  Huntington was not a divinatory astrologer but a Harvard University p

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect,” said Mark Twain.  Some members of the ruling BJP seem to have become so intoxicated with power that they are ranting and raving like people bereft of their sense.  It is time for them to pause and reflect.  And it is time for the Prime Minister to pause his reflection. A few days ago, Sakshi Maharaj advised the Hindu women of India to have four children each.  Now the Shankaracharya of Badrikashram orders the Hindu women to have ten children each.  Of course, the women aren’t so foolish as to take such exhortations to heart.  So nothing will change.  Yet it is worth asking the question: What motivates the Maharaj and the Acharya (supposedly wise people) to make such statements?  Do they think that the population of India is skewed against the Hindus?  Below are two diagrams that illustrate the population of people belonging to different religions, according to the 2011 Census of India

The Times of India reports today (13 Jan) that Mr Amit Shah is going to issue a show cause notice to Sakshi Maharaj for continuing to make noises that are inconvenient for the BJP though they are in tune with the theme of the party’s hidden agenda.  People like Sakshi Maharaj and Sadhvi Jyoti are the religious faces of the party, while Mr Modi and Mr Shah are the political faces.  For the former certain medieval beliefs and practices are the truths, while for the latter those beliefs and practices are mere ploys for attaining and retaining political power.  It is possible that those beliefs and practices have some value for Mr Modi and Mr Shah too since they seem to be harbouring a hidden agenda: creating a Hindu Rashtra in India.  But transforming a nation from one constitutional system to another is not very easy, they know.  Bringing about the transformation by force will engender violence and bloodshed.  Neither Mr Modi nor Mr Shah want a civil war in the country.  That is one

Durga Vahini poster "Can I marry the person I love"? my daughter confronted me with the question. "Well," I fumbled.  What could I answer?  In the pre-Modi days I would have said something like, "Can I talk to him before I give an answer?  What kind of a person is he? Good enough to look after you?"  But in the Modi days I stand more confounded than Ann Frank's father was when Ann's nubile sister was asked to submit herself to the Nazis. "What well?" she demanded. This is the problem with today's generation.  They want immediate answers like instant coffee.  Or chai or instant conversions. I'm old.  I don't wear the bottoms of my trousers folded.  I don't dye my hair.  I don't shave my beard just like my Prime Minister. "Darling," I put on the best tone I could muster.  Not master, of course.  Only Mr Modi is the master now. "You have to get the permission from Durga Vahini, not me,"

The lead story in today’s Times of India (Delhi edition) flashes the headline: RSS body seeks donations to fund Christmas ‘conversions’ in Aligargh.   ‘Rs 5 lakh to convert a Muslim, Rs 2 lakh for a Christian,’ says the subheading.   RSS is collecting funds in order to buy adherents to Hinduism.  Ghar Vapsi (returning home) is the affectionate name of the project. The Muslims and Christians in Uttar Pradesh were allegedly converted from Hinduism and they are being brought back home by purchasing their religious loyalty.  But why the disparity in the prices?  Why 5 lakhs for a Muslim and only less than half of that for a Christian?  Because the Christians were originally Valmikis, untouchables.  This is precisely where the problems lies.  Even when the people return home their caste will be retained.  The erstwhile untouchable will continue to be an untouchable.  What the RSS and its affiliates fail to understand is that the people abandoned Hinduism precisely because

Poverty has many uses.  One is that the poor can be made vote banks easily.  Many political parties have ascended the stairs of power by bribing the poor with gifts during election time.  The Congress is one party that now carries the charge of having used the entire poor of the country as vote banks through what is rather imaginatively called “appeasement”. When the Congress and other political parties stand accused of having “appeased” the poor, the new dispensation is proving that it is indeed “a party with a difference.”  It is not using the poor as a vote bank; it is wrenching their religious identity from them. Rulers with imperial ambitions have always used the strategy of stripping people of their religious identities.  The Muslim conquerors and the Christian imperialists found their own unique ways of implementing religious conversion in regions captured by them.  While the former relied on brute force, the latter made use of gentler missionaries.  The reigning