Do you know Ashok Chaturvedi?

While the battle still rages at the Taj, and we all watch in horror, while TV cameras from across the world zoom in and news channels at home and abroad broadcast the enormous human tragedy, I find no other way to vent my feelings than through the keyboard. I know it’s impotent and futile, but at least its better than keeping the anger locked inside.

We have all reacted in our different ways - from calling up friends and relatives, being glued in front of the television, starting communities or blogs on the Internet, changing our IM status messages, to just shrugging it off and changing to another channel. So has our government, typically by blaming Pakistan and shifting the attention from the real issues.

As a nation under attack, we have no clue how to react, whom to trust and whom to scrutinize. We are like this pack of wild dogs sleeping under the brush, who when bitten by some wasps, get up snarling and in their confusion end up biting one another and whoever else they see in front.

Before we shift the focus to Pakistan, before we start the mindless jingoism, let’s take a step back and analyze this episode. We are talking about a group of roughly 50 young men, armed with some of the deadliest and most advanced weapons and ordnance, funded with ATM and credit cards from almost every top Indian bank, well-versed with all possible details of some of our most prestigious establishments landing on the shores of Mumbai, going unnoticed until the first casualties’ breakout.

For the sake of our current dialog, let’s neglect the role of the Coast Guard, Customs and Navy. Let’s even discount the local police for the moment. But think about it, that kind of equipment gathering, recce, information, resources can’t be whipped up in a week. It can’t be done even in 6 weeks. This is obviously the result of meticulous planning spread over several years. An act of war against the Republic of India planned well in advance, probably around the same time two years back.

And it’s precisely to find out and prevent these kinds of planned acts of war and terrorism that our elaborate intelligence department is paid and maintained. Unfortunately, they have failed and are failing miserably. We should consider ourselves lucky that this number was just 50 and not 500 men, that their target was just the Taj and not Chatrapati International airport and that Mumbai doesn’t have a nuclear power plant in the vicinity. Shouldn’t we thank these men that they didn’t get some nuclear missiles instead of just AK 47s? I think they did us a favor with that.

Because, while our intelligence network was either sleeping, or bribed to keep their mouth shut, our financial capital could well have been run over or decimated right under our noses. Before we blame our neighbors’ for the dirt in their homes, its time we found out how dirty and stinking our own closets are. It’s that stink that’s encouraging the rats to come ashore and screw us (apologies for the language) in our own beds.

Just when I got frustrated at the 54+ hours of battle at the Taj, I googled up some interesting information about RAW (our countries top intelligence division). I will let you do your own research, but do Google about Ashok Chaturvedi, who thanks to our Prime Minister, heads the RAW right now. I found this (http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070119/asp/frontpage/story_7282285.asp) and this (http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Chaturvedi_Ashok_1162892301.aspx). Read these and do your own thinking. And please don’t blame anyone but your own self. In a democracy, you get what you vote for. We have developed a mechanism to live with and acquiesce corruption, sleaze, bribery. We have perfect the "chalta hai" attitude till its become second nature and is on its way to school textbooks. Now we can’t complain if it’s all blowing up in our faces.

I could continue this rhetoric for another half hour but I won’t. All I want to do before I wind up is drive home a point. Mumbai and India don’t let this go by like the earlier times. Please don’t forget and forgive. If need be, get up each morning and prick your wounds until they are raw and hurt.

And while they are raw, come lets go out on the streets and ask our own selves, our government, and our intelligence department whether they have been doing their jobs. Let’s not just keep talking on orkut and MSN. Its time we got up in the morning, looked in the mirror and asked ourselves - is the Indian in me doing his part of the job.

Balkans in my backyard

I was spending my time in the doldrums

I was caught in the cauldron of hate

I felt persecuted and paralyzed

I thought that everything else would just wait

While you are wasting your time on your enemies

Engulfed in a fever of spite

Beyond your tunnel vision reality fades

Like shadows into the night

To martyr yourself to caution

Is not going to help at all

Because there'll be no safety in numbers

When the Right One walks out of the door

Can you see your eyes blighted by darkness?

Is it true you beat your fists on the floor?

Stuck in a world of isolation

While ivy grows over the door

So I open my door to my enemies

And I ask could we wipe the slate clean

But they tell me to please go fuck myself

You know you just can't win

-- Lost For Words, Pink Floyd

Maybe we should give Raj Thackeray what he wants - his Maharashtra - ethnically cleansed, double-distilled maharshtrian gene pool, gift wrapped.

The Honorable Supreme Court today turned down a PIL against Mr. Thackeray, but took notice of the fact that the activities of the MNS are unconstitutional and "balkanization" of the country will not be tolerated.

I like the term "balkanization". It defines to the tee, what India has been for centuries now - split into a zillion little fragments, barely getting along and looking for the slightest of excuses to go at each others jugular. "Unity in diversity" is a pathetic shroud invented in a tearing hurry, as the British left the country, leaving our internal divisions naked for the world to see.

Coming back to the point, lets throw Maharshtra out of India, seal our borders, put heavy duties on trade, ask all North, South and East Indians to leave, ensure all Marathis have valid visas for their stay in India and generally pull the plug from under Mr. Thackeray’s chair.

Don’t misunderstand me. I have nothing against Mr. Thackeray or the MNS. I entirely buy his "son of the soil" slogan and his solution of "beating the shit out of the outsiders" as perfectly legitimate. You would agree with me if you too had the proper historical context. Unfortunately, chances are high, you have been spoon fed more number of times than you would care, that we are a 5000 year old country, we have a shared past, a common heritage and sundry such state sponsored propaganda.

If you cared to dig deeper, you would realize that this couldn’t be farther from the truth. India, as we know her today has always been a loose federation of independent states, owing only a certain degree of political allegiance to the centre, which fluctuated with the strength of the ruler. Only some history's most extraordinary emporers - Chandragupta Maurya, Ashok and Akbar - were able to truly unify the entire geographic landmass from Kashmir to Kanyakumari and carve out what we define as a nation in the modern sense. Combined, this is probably a few hundred years of nationhood. For all of the remaining 4500 years we have been mistrusting, hating, plotting, attacking, killing and looting each other.

Our shared socio-cultural past is splintered and ambiguous. I am never sure whether to consider the likes of Maharana Pratap and Shivaji as national heroes or state rebels. When I look at the Taj or at Humayun's tomb, I feel a certain pride in the 300 years of Mughal rule. But a certain section of our country would want me to feel angered by 300 years of Muslim domination. When I hear of Tipu Sultan's bravery against the British, I am not sure if I should give any credit to the stories of his forceful conversion of Hindus into Muslims.

The more you think about it, the more you realize that India was Balkanized since time immemorial. True, we have to our credit, eons of mutual coexistence, cultural and social intermingling and the true distillation of what was superior in all cultures, races and peoples. But at the same time we have always been very aware of our individual ethnicity and religious and socio-cultural distinctiveness, and taken great efforts to preserve and hand it down through the generations.

The India that we know today, in essence and form, is an India carved out by the British, designed to be run by British. The British success was more due to a psychological, rather than a political or military victory. They reduced the natives into second class citizens in their own land, and made them feel united in their own misery. And from this common misery arose the first truly nationalistic feelings, directed at a common oppressor.

1947 brought a transfer of power. It would seem, prima facie, that Indians (and Pakistanis) took control of their destinies. But that’s just a facade. The politicians and bureaucrats on both sides of the border, who took charge, where more British than Indian. And so, this British designed political engine, continued to be manned by British trained pilots.

The only reason we chose to remain united is probably not patriotism and brotherhood, it’s probably not the goose bumps that the national anthem gives you, nor the pride of seeing the tricolor flying high. It is greed and necessity, and also beyond a certain point, apathy to issues larger than our own selves. We are Indians not because we really want to be, but rather because the British made us so.

If Mr. Thackeray and his ethnic cleaning squad want to reassert, what has historically been their prerogative - to prevent outsiders from taking root - please, let’s oblige him. But Mr. Thackeray, and since we are speaking on the subject, Mr. Banerjee, Mr. Sharma, Mr. Mishra, and other such enlightened representatives of their states, must realize that their British honeymoon is over.

Like their forefathers, they would be obligated to maintain their own armies, constantly wage wars on the borders, and pay exorbitant annual taxes to whoever sat in Delhi. They would also have to rely solely on local resources and talents for all industrial and economic development. If they were hit by an occasional drought, it would be too bad for the farmers, since there would be no aid coming from Delhi, or no water released from the rivers upstream. Resources such as electricity, minerals, petroleum and food become several times more expensive, since they would have to be imported from neighboring foreign countries like India. Revenue resources of the state would become one-tenth or less since economic development would slow down, foreign investment would be negligible and there would be no central aid.

But all of this I guess, is a small price to pay for true nationalism (read Maratha-ism) and the goodwill of the masses. Mr. Thackeray’s 'sons of the soil’ I am sure, would readily undergo these and more such sacrifices for the privilege of being the sole taxi-drivers of Mumbai, or the sole constructions workers in the IT Parks of Pune. The question of course is, will there be taxis plying the streets of Mumbai, or IT parks being built in Pune at all, in such a scenario?

Whose History is it anyway?

History tends to be the handmaiden of those who flirt take licenses with it at convenience. Instead of taking lessons from it and choosing our actions based on it, we often tend to reverse-engineer our history and interpret it based on our actions. Akbar-Jodha is a case in point.

I grew up reading tales of Akbar-Jodha, where Jodha bai, a beautiful Rajput princess, captures the heart of young Akbar, and extracts the promise of monogamy, on the wedding night. She then influences the young monarch enough to make him open to Hindu rituals and tolerant to his Hindu subjects.

This was a convenient story for everyone collectively as a nation, and individually as citizens, we never questioned its veracity.

Behind this box-office folklore though, is an entirely different story. Akbar was a promiscuous young man, a man of great spiritual and metaphysical bent, had an insatiable sexual appetite up to his late 40s. All contemporary records mention how the emperor would make his Amirs give up their wives, if his eye fell on them; a normal Mughal custom.

Akbar took his first wife at a very early age and was already married twice by the time he met and married the daughter of Raja Bharmal of Amber , who today we know as Jodhabai.

It has always puzzled me why monogamy is considered by modern society as a virtue and pitted directly against polygamy, but I wont dwell on that since it would sidetrack this post. The reason I bring this up at all is, that it appears, at closer introspection, that somebody somewhere decided it was a good idea to give Akbar a romantic, we-fall-in-love-only-once-in-a-lifetime, kind of image.

Marriage, in medieval India was an important political tool in the hands of emperors and empire building was always the first priority for Akbar. Forget biographical records, its just plain commonsense that Akbar-Jodha is an absolute myth.

It is more likely that Jodha (which wasn’t really the name of the princess in question, but I will continue that name, purely for convenience) enjoyed her prominence and stature at a later age, simply because she was the mother of the crown prince, Salim. Most of Akbar’s earlier children from other marriages had perished (7 to be exact) and Jodha's contribution to the royal line, would definitely make her a powerful woman in the royal harem.

Incidentally, Akbar did turn celibate by the time he turned 40, but this was more due to his increasing involvement into the affairs of the state, the influence of different philosophies and religions, and because he started feeling like a father figure to his subjects.

With time, Akbar also developed great tolerance, even acceptance to other religions, though he was a devout and orthodox Muslim in his younger days. His growing disillusion with Islam and the infighting of the ulemas made him turn towards other religions, mainly Hinduism, for answers to his inner spiritual questions and finally made him found din-i-illahi.

You might argue, that since the net effect, the story of a liberal, steadfast, tolerant monarch, is what the popular folklores and legends narrate, do the minor details of how and why really matter?

It probably doesn’t matter. But I am curious. The process of intermarriage between Hindu princesses and Muslim kings and conquerors, was common practice, both before and after Akbar. Then why this special treatment to Akbar's conjugal life? Why go to great lengths at trying to attribute Akbar's pro-Hindu behavior to a Hindu wife?

Of course, box-office economics of stories like Akbar-Jodha, will continue to be a success, and could explain their importance. But I also suspect a silent conspiracy to fit in Akbar into our modern religio-political equations.

It’s much more convenient for saffron brigade historians, politicians and others to explain Akbar's liberal mindset in more popular, and conveniently Hindu light. And by silently accepting, or ignoring the facts behind the fiction, all of become party to this conspiracy. For orthodox Hindus, until you come to Akbar, you can explain everything in medieval Indian history as Muslim aggression, torture and subjugation. Akbar is history’s problem child for fundamentalists in India. And since we cant ignore him, what better than to claim his greatness as influenced by us.

The birth of a nation, the death of nationality

kaho dairo haram waalon, ye tumney kya fusoon foonka
khuda key har pey kya guzri, sanamkhaney pey kya guzri

In 1928, a young law student at Cambridge named Rahmat Ali, sat down to write a paper, full of vision and imagination. In the course of writing this paper, he coined the name Pakistan, and started a process that damned the fate of several millions, devastated thousands of villages and tore apart a socio-cultural fabric several thousand years old. Never again in human history would so few words achieve so much damage.

But Rahmat Ali's paper would remain a piece of fiction, a much criticized string of neo-fascist ideas, until the Muslim League under Jinnah, suffering defeat and feeling cheated at the provincial elections of 1938, began to feel threatened and marginalized in a Hindu dominated Congress (India).

It was then, history tells us, that Jinnah and the top leaders of the league, began to take the idea of a separate Muslim nation with seriousness.

The Pakistan story after that is much written and talked about. Jinnah's adamancy, Mountbatten's increasing frustration at brokering a negotiation, Nehru and Patel's eagerness to be done with the whole thing, Gandhi's struggles till the end, all this historians tell us. We find records in history about how the struggle for Pakistan spread from the corridors of Aligarh Muslim University into the fields of hundreds of North India's villages.

What emerges from all of this writing in history is a picture of strong Muslim insistence on partition and the need for Pakistan.Historians, as much as I have read them, have tried to blame leaders like Jinnah and Iqbal for dividing up a great nation and causing one of the world's largest human massacres.

What I do not see anywhere though, is the records of efforts by secular forces to counter the separatist propaganda. I do not see a paper on united India, a speech by Nehru against partition, a movement in other colleges unifying and rallying the masses. We need history to answer these questions. We need history to explain, why no one was trying to stop our nation to be split in the middle by the axe of fanaticism.

If Jinnah was to blame for it, isn’t Nehru equally guilty? While the AIML asked for Pakistan, couldn't the Congress have stopped or thwarted it? Those of us, who chose to be passive bystanders of the partition, are perhaps equally, if not more guilty, than those who lobbied and fought for Pakistan. Because if we really had made an effort, our love would have won over the 30 million who felt insecure and threatened in the very land of their fathers, from the very people who till 1947, had been living as brothers.

And had we done that, what a great nation we might have been.