One would imagine that while putting up the name of Pratibha Patil as their presidential candidate, the UPA would cite her career record as the reason for the nomination. Instead, all we get to hear about is her gender. Because she is a woman, the rhetoric goes, everyone should support her. Mumbai Mirror reported yesterday:
The NDA has made up its mind to keep its nominee in the presidential fray after its top leader Atal Behari Vajpayee said the alliance would not agree to the candidature of UPA nominee Pratibha Patil. But the Congress is unhappy. It attacked the BJP for not supporting Patil for the post of the President of India and accused the saffron party of being “blatantly” against the cause of women.
“It is very unfortunate that at this crucial moment in India’s history, the Opposition BJP does not have the political grace, social commitment or the moral fibre to support the candidature of Patil,” party spokesperson Jayanti Natarajan said.
She said any political party which has even a minimum commitment to the cause of women would have come forward to support UPA in this “historic” initiative.
And no doubt in the past when the BJP refused to support the Congress’s choice for president, and that choice happened to be a man, they did so because they were “‘blatantly’ against the cause of men.” Figures.
Meanwhile, Mumbai Mirror also reports the following exchange between Sonia Gandhi and Atal Behari Vajpayee:
Sonia: Main paheli baar aapse kuch maang rahi hoon.
Vajpayee: Humne to aap ko desh de diya hai. Aur kya de sakte hain?
[L]et’s not get carried away by all this politically correct pro-woman hypocrisy. At least six names were considered by the UPA and the Left (Pranab, Arjun Singh, Karan Singh, Shivraj Patil, Sushil Kumar Shinde, Motilal Vora and more). Not one was a woman.
The only reason Pratibha Patil’s name came up was because the Congress had wearied of Prakash Karat’s veto. No matter what name the party came up with, Karat refused to move beyond Pranab or Arjun Singh. When even dull but deserving Shivraj Patil was turned down, the Congress had the bright idea of coming up with a woman compromise candidate. If Karat had objected to Mrs Patil, he would have seemed anti-woman and so, he finally gave in.
This is where I point out that Mahima Chaudhary is a woman. This is also where I point out that had a Mango been nominated, no one would have dared oppose it, for that would have seemed both anti-national and anti-fruit. What other healthy food is there, then? Spinach?
Posted by Amit Varma on 17 June, 2007 in
India |
Politics
Also, doubts have been expressed about how Pratibha Patil will carry our a president’s onerous duties if she continues to wear a saree. DNA quotes a protocol officer as saying:
[I]f she wants to jump onto a tank or climb into a fighter, or spend a day out at sea with the Navy, as the past Presidents have been doing, then she may have to think of adding salwar kameezs or trousers to her wardrobe.
At this point, let me just say that I sincerely hope that Ms. Patil does not want to “jump onto a tank or climb into a fighter, or spend a day out at sea with the Navy.” Those aren’t essential tasks for a figurehead, and there is no need for her to be macho.
And much as I like salwars, I can’t think of any essential presidential duty that Ms. Patil cannot perform in a saree. Hell, even Abdul Kalam should wear them. No?
Much as I have criticized Javed Akhtar in the past—though only in the context of Indian Idol—he got it right on the show today when he said words to the effect of (I translate from memory):
Of course the voters can be wrong. Often they vote for the wrong political party. What’s so unusual about them voting for the wrong singer, then?
Akhtar was responding to Alisha Chinai’s silly argument that because the voters gave Suhit Gosain a final chance in Indian Idol, he can’t be that bad a singer. He was dead right when he said that Suhit’s voice was always flat. Indeed, I’d add that if they gave Suhit a flat for every time he was flat, he’d own Mumbai. Or at least Gurgaon, where the boy is from.
This reminds of a friend I had in college with that surname whose mother was German. We used to call him KGB—Konkanastha German Brahmin. (Er, wait, I’ve mentioned him before. Ah, yes.)
War damages the fabric of civilization not by the destruction it causes [...], nor even by the slaughter of human beings, but by stimulating hatred and dishonesty. By shooting at your enemy you are not in the deepest sense wronging him. But by hating him, by inventing lies about him and bringing children up to believe them, by clamouring for unjust peace terms which make further wars inevitable, you are striking not at one perishable generation, but at humanity itself.
This is from an essay published on August 4, 1944. I leave it to you to judge if these words are still relevant.
Posted by Amit Varma on 16 June, 2007 in
Miscellaneous
Start with the dishwasher. This embodies an important feature of economic growth - it’s given us labour-saving household technologies. Thanks to dishwashers, microwaves and the like, people no longer need to spend hours on household chores.
This has had several effects, described by Jeremy Greenwood. It means it’s more technically feasible for men and women to live alone. That alone has reduced the marriage rate and increased the divorce rate. It also means wives have had the time to enter the workforce. That’s led to more affairs - as men and women meet more often away from their spouses eyes at the workplace. And in giving women an income outside marriage, it’s increased their ability to divorce their hubbies.
This, though, is not the only way in which divorce has risen, and marriage fallen, because women no longer need a meal ticket. One feature of economic growth is a decline in relative demand for physical strength and increased demand for intellectual or social skills. This too has led to increased numbers of women workers - and the more skilled among them are not marrying and having children.
Frankly, if economic growth leads to family breakdown because it empowers women and gives them more control over their lives, then I’m not going to mourn the family too much. It’s far better to aim for individual happiness than to pay homage to family values and suchlike.
This character’s creator described him as “insufferable”, and called him a “detestable, bombastic, tiresome, ego-centric little creep”. On August 6 1975, the New York Times carried his obituary, the only time it has thus honoured a fictional character. Who?
Posted by Amit Varma on 17 June, 2007 in
