The link below will lead you the story titled 'Misleading Gandhigiri' by S Anand, published in Tehelka dtd 31/01/09, which rubbished the Cellular Silence Day petition.
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main41.asp?filename=Op310109misleading_gandhigiri.asp
Please find my riposte below which Tehelka felt it unnecessary to publish:
RESPONDING TO 'MISLEADING GANDHIGIRI' by S. ANAND
G. D Birla bankrolled Mahatma Gandhi. The 'hits' to the Cellular Silence petition page online attracted ICICI Lombard to solicit insurance while Tehelka thought it prudent that S. Anand's article 'Misleading Gandhigiri' - rubbishing the aforesaid unintelligent petition – be bolstered by TATA AIG's personal injury plan advertisement. Corporate India continues to consort with the strangest of bedfellows, it seems!
Rather than lock horns in a constructive engagement on petition strategy and objectives, well-read Anand felt it more gratifying to grapple with an obscure part of the socially conservative bull's anatomy, totally losing the plot in the process.
S Anand found it appropriate to mischievously manoeuvre portions of the petition airbrushed with his preferred selections of history to rubbish Gandhi; question the secular credentials of the signatories, conveniently clubbing all into a socially conservative monolith, all sophistically tailored to justify his diatribe.
While I have the greatest respect and appreciation for leaders of our freedom movement – including Ambedkar, Nehru and Gandhi, I choose to remain only inspired but refuse to treat them as 'sacred cows' or, consider their writings as dogma. It is more important to learn lessons from their mistakes and set course corrections for ourselves rather than remain shackled by history.
What I find objectionable is Anand's propensity to select his 'sacred cow' -while rebuking other leaders - to celebrate the victimhood of his constituency in perpetuity.
Pakistani school books justify their enmity with India; the Hindutva vanguard leave no ruin unturned to establish the sub-continent as Aryan homeland and S. Anand completes this ménage a trios of historical selectivity to justify his blinkered raison d'être – of preserving his constituency of the underdog.
While drafting the Cellular Silence petition it was Mahatma Gandhi's strategy of non-violence that was the inspiration. Given, that two other greatest men of the 20th century, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela employed it with efficacy, it strikes me as the most appropriate 'operating system' with which to address the violence, iniquities and inequalities of the 21st century.
Fifteen days ago and for a few decades before that, I felt myself a voice in the wilderness falling upon deaf ears in the jungle of Indian democracy. Embraces and endorsements at the Vibrant Gujarat summit precipitated the tipping point.
The choice remained; an unvoiced angry reaction in silence or, a non-violent response with silence? It is with great trepidation that I placed the petition online, certain my call for cellular silence would receive a deafening silence in response or, worse still ridicule and censure.
To my surprise the petition was greeted with 50 signatures and hour! Ordinary Indian citizens from afar as Kashmir felt the petition gave them a voice they long sought. They felt empowered by what Anand dismisses as tokenism of the socially conservative. Theses voices originated from various corners of the country, from all walks of life and strata of society.
May I remind Anand that it was a fistful of salt – another token gesture - that precipitated the beginning of the end of British rule in India? While Anand remembers Martin Luther King's boycott, his convenient amnesia as to where King sought his inspiration to launch the Civil Rights movement is unfortunate.
For the average Indian, a boycott call a la Gandhi or Martin Luther King - as Anand suggests - from an unknown Indian would have crashed on 'take off'. A 'token' gesture permits the average Indian a vote of confidence; seeking reassurance in the comfort of numbers, before investing time, energy and self-sacrifice in a future boycott to ensure his 'return on investment'.
We are in different times when strategies of protest are not black and white as in the time of Martin Luther King or Gandhi. Boycotting the Nano, as Anand suggests hurts the ordinary factory worker – many of whom might be Dalit and Adivasi; it hurts the image of India and might incidentally hurt Tata Motors. Switching cell phones off inconveniences the subscriber for a day but sends the message to the captains of corporate India that we can stop consuming anytime we choose at the press of a button.
In rubbishing the petition and Gandhi with it, Anand in his efforts to champion Ambedkar inadvertently finds himself ensconced between Narendra Modi's fierce fan club who launch vitriolic tirades via email and the legal department of TATA Sons who also brook no criticism of their corporate captain.
Anand forgets that the Dalits, Adivasis and millions in the middle of India's pyramid are all on the same side of the fence bullied by corporate India that bolsters the political class - eating out of their palms – for a sop.
Wealth creation is not a bad thing Mr Anand. Economic mobility is probably the most efficacious way to debilitate the caste system over course of time. To achieve that wealth creation must be for the greatest good of all and not just for those at the top of the pyramid, looking down on the rest as mere consumers fuelling economic growth – not citizens of India.
May I suggest that in future Anand use his erudition constructively, not to alienate but to forge a bond with citizens who sign such petitions all of whom are trying to find a voice to create a more equitable civic society.
sd/- Ranjan Kamath
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main41.asp?filename=Op310109misleading_gandhigiri.asp
Please find my riposte below which Tehelka felt it unnecessary to publish:
RESPONDING TO 'MISLEADING GANDHIGIRI' by S. ANAND
G. D Birla bankrolled Mahatma Gandhi. The 'hits' to the Cellular Silence petition page online attracted ICICI Lombard to solicit insurance while Tehelka thought it prudent that S. Anand's article 'Misleading Gandhigiri' - rubbishing the aforesaid unintelligent petition – be bolstered by TATA AIG's personal injury plan advertisement. Corporate India continues to consort with the strangest of bedfellows, it seems!
Rather than lock horns in a constructive engagement on petition strategy and objectives, well-read Anand felt it more gratifying to grapple with an obscure part of the socially conservative bull's anatomy, totally losing the plot in the process.
S Anand found it appropriate to mischievously manoeuvre portions of the petition airbrushed with his preferred selections of history to rubbish Gandhi; question the secular credentials of the signatories, conveniently clubbing all into a socially conservative monolith, all sophistically tailored to justify his diatribe.
While I have the greatest respect and appreciation for leaders of our freedom movement – including Ambedkar, Nehru and Gandhi, I choose to remain only inspired but refuse to treat them as 'sacred cows' or, consider their writings as dogma. It is more important to learn lessons from their mistakes and set course corrections for ourselves rather than remain shackled by history.
What I find objectionable is Anand's propensity to select his 'sacred cow' -while rebuking other leaders - to celebrate the victimhood of his constituency in perpetuity.
Pakistani school books justify their enmity with India; the Hindutva vanguard leave no ruin unturned to establish the sub-continent as Aryan homeland and S. Anand completes this ménage a trios of historical selectivity to justify his blinkered raison d'être – of preserving his constituency of the underdog.
While drafting the Cellular Silence petition it was Mahatma Gandhi's strategy of non-violence that was the inspiration. Given, that two other greatest men of the 20th century, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela employed it with efficacy, it strikes me as the most appropriate 'operating system' with which to address the violence, iniquities and inequalities of the 21st century.
Fifteen days ago and for a few decades before that, I felt myself a voice in the wilderness falling upon deaf ears in the jungle of Indian democracy. Embraces and endorsements at the Vibrant Gujarat summit precipitated the tipping point.
The choice remained; an unvoiced angry reaction in silence or, a non-violent response with silence? It is with great trepidation that I placed the petition online, certain my call for cellular silence would receive a deafening silence in response or, worse still ridicule and censure.
To my surprise the petition was greeted with 50 signatures and hour! Ordinary Indian citizens from afar as Kashmir felt the petition gave them a voice they long sought. They felt empowered by what Anand dismisses as tokenism of the socially conservative. Theses voices originated from various corners of the country, from all walks of life and strata of society.
May I remind Anand that it was a fistful of salt – another token gesture - that precipitated the beginning of the end of British rule in India? While Anand remembers Martin Luther King's boycott, his convenient amnesia as to where King sought his inspiration to launch the Civil Rights movement is unfortunate.
For the average Indian, a boycott call a la Gandhi or Martin Luther King - as Anand suggests - from an unknown Indian would have crashed on 'take off'. A 'token' gesture permits the average Indian a vote of confidence; seeking reassurance in the comfort of numbers, before investing time, energy and self-sacrifice in a future boycott to ensure his 'return on investment'.
We are in different times when strategies of protest are not black and white as in the time of Martin Luther King or Gandhi. Boycotting the Nano, as Anand suggests hurts the ordinary factory worker – many of whom might be Dalit and Adivasi; it hurts the image of India and might incidentally hurt Tata Motors. Switching cell phones off inconveniences the subscriber for a day but sends the message to the captains of corporate India that we can stop consuming anytime we choose at the press of a button.
In rubbishing the petition and Gandhi with it, Anand in his efforts to champion Ambedkar inadvertently finds himself ensconced between Narendra Modi's fierce fan club who launch vitriolic tirades via email and the legal department of TATA Sons who also brook no criticism of their corporate captain.
Anand forgets that the Dalits, Adivasis and millions in the middle of India's pyramid are all on the same side of the fence bullied by corporate India that bolsters the political class - eating out of their palms – for a sop.
Wealth creation is not a bad thing Mr Anand. Economic mobility is probably the most efficacious way to debilitate the caste system over course of time. To achieve that wealth creation must be for the greatest good of all and not just for those at the top of the pyramid, looking down on the rest as mere consumers fuelling economic growth – not citizens of India.
May I suggest that in future Anand use his erudition constructively, not to alienate but to forge a bond with citizens who sign such petitions all of whom are trying to find a voice to create a more equitable civic society.
sd/- Ranjan Kamath
3 comments:
Dear Ranjan,
Even though I guess we might have some commonality in our politics, I find the logic of this one quite convoluted. The cellphone industry and any corporate worth their salt would know that all those behind Ram, Rahim or Jesus Senas of this world are nothing but subscribers to realpolitik. Such forces are of no threat to corporate interests - at best, they may pose occasional inconvenience to them, and that's it.
I am really surprised that you can still pursue your 'cellular satyagraha' model, even after Ram Sena chief has proclaimed publicly that they will go around hounding every boy and girl who dare to walk together on the streets on Feb 14th ((they have threatened to forcefully marry off any boy and girl seen together on the streets on 14th) . I would have thought the response to it should be to crowd the streets with young boys and girls asserting their right to self expression - through gestures, art, SMS, cards, human chain, whatever!
I guess my response to you comes from a disappointment that a brilliant idea like celluar silence day is now being applied illogically though with good intention.
Will be more than happy to be associated where we have greater agreement on issues.
Best wishes for your efforts.
Warm regards,
Tom
Dear Ranjan,
I know for a fact that my friends who missed signing the petition, did switch their cellphones off!! They also stopped using their internet connections associated with the referenced companies.
The non voilent approach is the best possible method of waging a war. We all need to start somewhere. So far, everyone's been waiting for everyone else to 'do something'. Well, i salute you for taking these initiatives.
It is an arduous task and your methods will be criticized by many. However, criticism is good as awareness is created. This awareness will only create a pool of ideas like the cellular satyagraha. This issue is too complicated and there is no One Specific Solution. However, with a combination of peaceful initiatives, i am sure that we can win this battle.
Like i said, we need to start somewhere and the cellular satyagraha has been a phenomenal start in my mind. I for sure am supporting you wholesale!!
I really don't know if the switch-off-your-mobile campaign initiated by Mr.Ranjan Kamath in any way brought the results he desired. But indeed it has started a debate, which is a good war of words, and every participant is hungrily showing off more than just his knowledge of history. In his article in "Tehelka", Mr.S.Anand has mostly quoted from foreign writers in ridiculing GandhiJi though he seems to agree that religion, politics and the corporate world feed on one another.
Mr.Ranjan Kamath has written again online defending his points.
And this will go on perhaps for some more time or may be "Tehelka" will choose not to publish Kamath's views.
Whatever happens, the common man is left more confused thinking if his respect for Gandhi Ji was based on misinformation and whether his history lessons were indeed a piece of fiction!
As an ordinary woman trying to live as near a normal life as possible, praying to God Almighty for peace and equality to prevail in this world, I know for sure that "we the people" are not a threat to all those powerful representatives of religion, politics or business and yet we are the ones who are often the victims in a clash of powers.
In fact the common man is so bogged down making both ends meet that he'll be more than happy to have his "roti, kapda aur makan" in peace. It is only when he suddenly suffers a terrible blow for no fault of his that he is shaken thoroughly, sits dazed for a while and then is happy again listening to empty lip service in praise of his resilience and courage!
I hope the common man would realise for his own sake that politics and religion have been two sides of the same coin since times immemorial, and the coin is always in the hands of the businessman.
Post a Comment