Homo Honge Kaamyaab

10 July 2009

A queer thing happened in India in this second week of the seventh month of 2009. An event most gay, when every patriot’s prayers were answered. A week when Bapu Gandhi’s dream was realized. The age old slogan “Hindu-Musim-Sikh-Isai sabhi yahan hain bhai bhai” played out. An act almost as unnatural as the one they were opposing occurred. Religious leaders of all faiths came together as one.

My gay gangrenous gang I quarantine myself from you and your disease. Yes it’s a disease as diagnosed by Baba Ramdev. Is there a vaccine Baba that you can inject me with, gently? And I don’t like it in the arm.

My same sex psychos I pity you for meddling with the natural order of man, as pointed out by the devout Muslim Mullah-ji. I thank thee Mullah-ji for letting our minds and bodies remain intact the way nature intended - well almost.

My deranged dude diggers I fear you for your being a threat to civilization as pointed out by the somber looking Christian priest. Don’t forgive them father for they have sinned. Take them to confessional booth and make them pay.

My horrible homos I shake my head in disbelief and do ardas with Bhaiji as the Akal Takht the highest authority of Sikhism bans gay marriages in Gurudwaras! Bhaiji are you telling me thus far we allowed it? Wahe Guru I can’t believe this. Have I been eating kada-prasad polluted by the shadow of these deviants?

My erring erogenous explorers, I hunt you down with trishuls and vermillion war-paint on my forehead for being a threat to the age old Hindu tradition of only making us beat up hand holding hetro-sexual couples in parks or women having a beverage in a pub.

But my friendly fags I salute you for achieving what no leader in India was able to. All religious high priests unanimously aghast at the tinkering of article 377 and in orchestra like unison they rained on this gay parade.

Oh to see India weaved together by it’s inclusive composite culture. Who would have thought the Islamic Student Union of India would be protesting on the streets as the swetambar Jain priest struck a similar note in the TV studios. Who would have thought that a Christian Padre would be nodding in agreement as Baba Ramdev filed an appeal in the Supreme Court and a senior Hindutva leader echoed those sentiments and an Islamic Imam with untouched beard and clean upper lip pouted, nodded and muttering his harmony completed the symphony.

At the fag end of my hope of a united India I see a gay rainbow. Hah! Spring oh Sunflowers and bloom oh Lilies as the Pansies spread their radiant splendor.

Bapu would be proud that indeed India is the epitome of tolerance, brotherhood and religious unity. Bapu has forever been my hero, my idol. But what he could not achieve with his fasting and self-denial, an indulgent and hedonistic bunch has. I salute you my fairy God-brothers for making this come true and I almost wish I preferred hairy chests on the object of my desire to take some credit for this miracle but until I get there, in solidarity I too shall march with you for ushering in the new century as we sing what patriots hum-

“Homo Honge kaamyaab,

homo honge kaamyaab,

homo honge kaamyaab ek dinnn…”

Clinch a Cliché:

25 June 2009

News runs on clichés. Oft repeated ones like “the million dollar question is whether the budget will xyz” or “Only time will tell whether or not xyz” or “We have to wait and watch whether the budget xyz” or “But good economics does not make good politics as XYZ..”etc.

Clichés are great, they’re good shorthand and they also allow one to say something without saying anything at all, a safe non-committal kind of nothing statement. It’s a necessary requirement for popular media these days. But the last one is the most used on the eve of the budget and is not just a nothing statement, it’s actually misleading. It suggests that it’s desirable or necessary for good politics to be good economics.

Many modern day “good economics” proponents will tell you that taxes and tariffs are bad. They restrict free trade and make a system inefficient. That is if one looks at ledgers and costs and profits and losses. They divert resources to purchase inefficient goods and overall push down an economies standard of living. However consider this, if a nation allows kids to be used for labour, or if there is no concept of a minimum wage or decent working conditions. In an extreme case there is forced labour or working by prisoners like there is in some nations. Or if a nation makes military training compulsory for all – all this effects the demand and supply and prices for goods and services from laying pipelines to making firecrackers to military equipment and uniforms. Should there be restrictive trade barriers by way of taxes and levies depending on working conditions, rights to unionize etc? These are really simple examples taken for the sake of clarity. Things get way more complex than this if one wants to dissect many cases of levies. Kids or prisoners working in sub human conditions is not an economic decision its about a value system. The parameters that decide how and to whom cheap and easy credit should me made available too stems from a value system. Letting crackers be made and sold cheap from factories in Sivakasi is good economics. But is it good politics? Economics measure efficiencies in rather simple ways. Some try harder and include health care costs that are a by-product of working conditions, some go further and include other externalities. Basically one can include any thing and exclude anything you like depending on the outcome you want. Now for politics. Politics is a much larger canvas. Economics is just one small aspect of that painting. Politics is about governance. Governance is about people and value systems of nations and societies. That’s why political parties are so steeped in ideology one way or another. That’s the ultimate parameter to visualize their politics and thus their governance.

So of course good economics can almost never be good politics in the simple ways we try to make it so. Trying to confine t in that space is taking on a task way beyond its scope, it’s undesirable and wholly inadequate.

All economics gives us are certain indicators that are quantifiable and can be drawn on a chart. These one can choose to use or ignore and may or may not have any major impact on larger decisions. And after the ways in which recent history has demonstrated the accuracy of economic models, one needs to put that exercise in perspective.

There’s the old story of Akbar and Birbal where Akbar asks Birbal to round up the seven most foolish men in his kingdom. Out of the five Birbal rounds up (Akbar and Birbal being the final two. The king for asking for such a search and his trusted minister for carrying it out). One of Birbal’s discovery is a man looking for a ring under a lamp post (lit with kerosene back then I’m assuming). So Birbal asks him what he’s looking for. The man says he lost his ring behind the bushes some distance away from the lamp-post. So Birbal asks him why he’s looking here under the lamp and not where he lost the ring. “Because it’s dark back there and I cant see a thing so I figured I’d look where there is light.” was the answer that qualified the man in Birbal’s list. So while the exercise was futile, at least the man felt he was doing something, an honest attempt by one with intent and energy but not much by way of foresight or vision.

So if this “Good Economics Good Politics” is a discussion or debate for a feel good factor, a sort of intellectual exercise of presentations and trickery, that’s just fine. Like a performance or a sit-com that keeps you interested, makes one smile, applaud and often be impressed by various skills. But that’s not where one will find the lost ring. So will we abandon the Good economics Vs Good politics line and start using another cliché on budgets and policy decisions? That’s a million dollar question which only time will tell as we have to wait and watch… etc.