A quick timeline...

India After Gandhi - The History Of The World's Largest Democracy (2016)
Author: Ramachandra Guha 
(Updated and Expanded) 10th Anniversary version

My knowledge of Indian history is limited to what I was taught in school, which only covered up to the time when MK Gandhi was assassinated in 1948. Since then, for someone from Malaysia, it was patchy, relying on whatever few articles and newsreels managed to reach us. 

This book helps to bridge that gap. It provides a detailed account of the critical events that took place after Nehru’s ‘tryst with destiny’ speech up to circa 2014, when a milestone event emerged. It mainly describes the political landscape and major events during that period. 

All these were penned by one of India’s eminent contemporary historians, Ramachandra Guha. Historically, Indian history throughout the 20th century, both before and after independence, was crafted by left-leaning historians under the influence of the Congress leadership. These historians are said to elevate the Imperial rulers, attempt to gloss over their mistakes, and depict colonial masters as saviours of the nation. On the other side of the rink are the bad boys, as determined as the British and other imperial powers, the members of the Hindutva movements. Guha is classified as a centrist liberal historian. The challenge with such a stance is that he will be criticised by both the left and the right.

The British did not have much hope for India’s future when they left. They predicted that the union would balkanise within ten years along ethnic, religious or linguistic lines. Anyway, towards the latter part of the 20th century, India became too expensive and rebellious to administer. The natives had wised up. The British had to leave to cut their losses. 

While celebrations continue in Delhi with pomp and splendour, chaos reigned in Calcutta at best. The exchange of people between the newly formed Pakistan and India did not proceed in an orderly manner. People were unaware of where the actual demarcation line was. 

From the get-go, India had to confront border skirmishes and the opposition of many princely states to joining the union. In Kashmir, with a Hindu ruler and a Muslim majority, Pakistan wanted Kashmir to cut itself away from India and join Pakistan. Maharajah Hari Singh wished to remain independent, but when Pakistani soldiers disguised as herdsmen infiltrated Kashmir to cause trouble, he abdicated to Jamu and sought assistance from India. 

Instead of deploying troops to take control of the situation, as his team advised, Nehru, in his great wisdom, believed the United Nations should intervene. The consequences of this quick, arguably mistaken decision are still apparent today. 

Then, the princely states had to be coaxed into staying within the coalition. The Nizam of Hyderabad gave India the runaround. Their situation was the opposite of Kashmir — a Muslim monarch and a Hindu majority. The Nizam was reluctant to hand over his wealth to India. Just a few years earlier, the Nizam was crowned the wealthiest man on Earth. He was adamant about either remaining independent or forging a close relationship with Pakistan. The problem was that Hyderabad was a landlocked state. The Islamic fanatics among the ruling class, the Razakkers, went on a killing spree to usurp lands from peasants. At that time, the Communists were also attempting to expand their influence. 

Vallabhai Patel, during Nehru’s absence in the UK, took the bold step of deploying his tanks to annex Hyderabad in a police action codenamed Operation Polo. The Nizam abdicated to Pakistan. It was not called a military action to avoid it being seen as an invasion of a sovereign nation. 

The Portuguese aimed to retain Goa as a Portuguese colony. However, the Goans did not share their sentiments. This prompted India to invade Goa and annex it through Operation Vijay.

 

The states in the North East region also experienced their own resurgence. Conflicts between tribes over land rights and reservations persisted. These conflicts continue in various forms even today. 

 

China and India were not on the best of terms after the Chinese Communist Party took control of China. The writing was on the wall that China posed a threat to India’s sovereignty. Despite the albatross around India's neck, Nehru thought it was wise not to strengthen defence within its borders. China had been encroaching into Tibet. In Nehru's view, after achieving independence through satyagraha (passive resistance), maintaining a large army was inappropriate. Nehru promoted the idea that China was a friend. The slogan of the early 1960s was 'Chinni Chinni Bhai Bhai' (Chinese and Indians are brothers). The Chinese later backstabbed India by attacking and taking over Aksai Chin, west of Nepal.

It was a wake-up call for India. They strengthened their military with help from the Soviet Union. In 1965, Pakistan, supported by the USA, provoked India by claiming a barren piece of land in Gujarat. Through Operation Gibraltar, they infiltrated Kashmir. India, following its humiliating 1962 encounter with China, quickly defeated Pakistan in 22 days, gaining confidence.

States in India underwent division along linguistic and administrative lines. Punjab was divided to form Haryana. Bombay was separated from Maharashtra. Himachal Pradesh was established. Telangana broke away from Andhra Pradesh. Jharkhand was carved out of Bihar, and Uttarakhand from Uttar Pradesh. Earlier, the Madras Presidency was divided into Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu. Andhra Pradesh attempted to claim Madras as its capital but had to relinquish it.

MK Gandhi once described India's heart as residing in its villages. Farming was the primary livelihood for the majority. Nehru promoted industrialisation, machinery, and the expansion of higher education to help the country progress towards modernity. IITs were established to support this goal. The Soviet Union provided assistance. On the international stage, Nehru, with his Fabian ideology, advocated for the Non-Aligned Movement, which aimed to remain independent of either side of the Iron Curtain. The US was quite agitated when he was seen as influential in the 1955 Bandung Conference, where China participated and its premier, Zhou Enlai, attended.

Nehru died in 1964 and was briefly succeeded by Lal Bahadur Shastri. He was beloved by the public and considered a hero of the common man. His rallying cry, 'Jai Jawan Jai Kisan' (Hail the Soldier, Hail the Farmer), boosted the nation's morale during India's 1965 war with Pakistan. He mysteriously returned in a body bag after signing a peace treaty in Tashkent to end the conflict.

Indira Gandhi was quickly promoted to the position. Throughout, she had been mentored by Nehru for the role. As with Shastri, Indira’s appointment was supported by a committee led by Kamaraj, a Congress leader. 

One of Indira Gandhi’s legacies must surely be when West Pakistan attacked East Pakistan after Mujibur Rahman’s party won the 1971 elections. Somehow, West Pakistan thought it was not appropriate for them to be governed by dark-skinned Bengalis. They sent in the army, and East Pakistan turned to India for help. 

In a swift and decisive 13-day war, India's security forces compelled West Pakistan to surrender unconditionally. India concluded the conflict before the arrival of US naval ships to support the West Pakistani forces. 

 

On Buddha Purnima, 18th May 1974, India became the sixth nation with nuclear capability, joining the USA, UK, USSR, France, and China, when it tested its nuclear bomb in Pokhran. The operation was named the Smiling Buddha. 

Another indelible event in Indira Gandhi’s leadership is the declaration of the National Emergency in 1975. After being guilty of electoral malpractice for using government machinery in her 1971 elections, the Allahabad Court declared the election invalid. This would automatically disqualify her from appointment and prevent her from holding any political post for 6 years. As the public cries grew louder, Indira Gandhi declared an Emergency. Hundreds of opposition leaders, social activists, student leaders, and journalists were arrested under the MISA (Maintenance of Internal Security Act), which allows detention without trial. Prominent leaders arrested included JP Narayan, a key icon of the post-Emergency era; Morarji Desai, who became Prime Minister in 1977; LK Advani, later a deputy Prime Minister; Atal B. Vajpayee; and the rebellious George Fernandez. The radio, TV, print media, and cinema were placed under strict government control. 

The Emergency period saw Indira Gandhi preparing her son, Sanjay, in an attempt to ensure dynastic continuity. He was granted extra-constitutional powers to undertake tasks not approved by the cabinet. He gained considerable notoriety through his unsavoury activities. He attempted to promote forced sterilisation and oversaw slum demolitions. There was an effort to mass-produce India’s affordable people’s car, the Maruti, which did not succeed at the time but was revived much later.

When the Emergency was lifted and elections took place, Indra was defeated. A fragile coalition was formed. The Emergency period, in a way, demonstrated to Indians that there is life after the Congress Party. In fact, this period also saw the splitting of the Congress.

The following years saw a few landmark events. The first non-Congress coalition did not remain in power for long. Due to internal conflicts, the government collapsed. Indira Gandhi returned as Prime Minister in 1981. Sadly, her dynastic ambitions of passing her realm to Sanjay Gandhi were shattered when he was killed in a plane crash.

1984 was another sad year when Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguard just months after she ordered Operation Blue Star. In that operation, the Indian Army entered the Golden Temple in Amritsar to suppress arms-wielding Sikh extremists. Rajiv Gandhi, Indira's other son, was promoted to fill the gap. The 1984 elections saw Congress winning a large majority due to Indira's assassination. Rajiv Gandhi became the youngest Prime Minister at 40.

His premiership was marred by a few controversies. First, there was the Bofors scandal, India's disastrous meddling in the Sri Lankan issue with their ethnic Tamils, the Bhopal tragedy, and Shah Bano's Supreme Court decision on her divorce maintenance settlement. He lost the 1989 elections.

For the second time, a non-Congress coalition formed the government under the leadership of VP Singh. Singh's tenure marked the beginning of the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid controversy in Ayodhya. The Mandal Commission, established in 1979 to identify socially or educationally backward classes, had its recommendations implemented in 1990. 27% of government jobs were reserved for backward castes. The Mandal-Mandir issue was not well-received by the citizens and contributed to the coalition's loss in the subsequent election.

1991 was a tragic year for the Nehru dynasty. A suicide bomber from Sri Lanka's LTTE detonated an RDX explosive while Rajiv Gandhi was campaigning in Tamil Nadu. The 1991 elections resulted in Narasimha Rao becoming the Congress' Prime Minister. Rajiv's widow, Sonia Gandhi, was disqualified due to her Italian origin.

The 1996 elections resulted in a hung parliament with no clear majority. The previous Congress government was plagued by the 1992 Bombay stock market scandal. Kashmir experienced renewed violence in 1995. The BJP was invited to form the government. Atal Bihari Vajpayee failed to secure enough support and had to relinquish the premiership after thirteen days. Following a series of appointments, resignations, and splits within parties, the 1998 elections were called. Once again, the results were hung, but Vajpayee became Prime Minister again.

 

The following year, Vajpayee lost a vote of confidence when the AIADMK withdrew its support. Vajpayee had refused to dismantle the Tamil Nadu government led by Karunanidhi. The 1999 elections took place after the Kargil War. With that morale-boosting victory in Kargil and Sonia Gandhi, an Italian by birth, on the opposition side, the BJP won.

There was a surprising leadership change in Congress in 2004. Manmohan Singh led the country for two terms until 2014, after which the BJP, under Narendra Modi's mentorship from Gujarat, has held power to date.

 

India, with its complexities, never fails to fascinate. It is a place to learn about humanity, the evil that men do, a treasure trove of knowledge, and a bottomless pit filled with mysteries of a bygone era. 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The unreal Reality TV!

https://www.reddit.com/r/LGBTindia/comments/1mgqjr8/l
esbian_couple_in_bigg_boss_malayalam_7/

Everyone's actions and inactions are being scrutinised with a fine-toothed comb. Their activities may become a yardstick by which their downline can measure themselves. People are always on the lookout for gossip as well as something new to try out, no matter how outlandish or impractical it is. In other words, monkey see and monkey do, bypassing the higher centres altogether. It is referred to as fashion or high culture, depending on the context.

Fashion and culture are constantly shifting. What is considered the latest avant-garde idea today could be outdated in the blink of an eye. Tomorrow's runways in Milan and Paris will feature fashions that your grandmother wore in the 1970s. 

The media plays a vital role in determining what is in and what is out. What magazines and newspapers used to popularise in the 20th century is now done by TV and social media. People perform outlandishly silly and dangerous things just for the fleeting moment in the limelight. 

It started with putting the camera in front of people to see how they would react in a potentially embarrassing moment. The final outcome turned out hilarious. Everyone had a good laugh. The antics seen on "Smile! You are on Candid Camera" remain iconic to this day.

Then somebody thought, "Why not put the camera in front of the faces 24/7 and see how they react!" Thus was born the concept of reality TV, as seen in shows like Big Brother and Survivor. People became accustomed to living their day-to-day lives under scrutiny. Slowly, their real, hidden, ugly sides began to show. When elimination of contenders remained the mainstay of the game, the contestants had to dig deep to make a pact with the devil to bring down the other.

Maybe because it is actually voyeurism—a trait scorned in decent societies—reality TV provides a legitimate avenue to peep into people's private lives and vote them in or out. If voyuerism is an accepted behaviour, surely bad-mouthing, foul language and evil intent are alright, as that is what happens in real life. They must call it reality TV for a reason. So that kind of behaviour is the norm, then bitching and cuzzing must surely be. 

What people fail to realise is that, even though it is called reality TV, the whole thing is, in reality, scathingly scripted to boost viewership. The producers will continue to push the boundaries of obscenity and impolite social etiquette just to earn money. People, being spineless, will use them as the yardstick for what it means to be current, just as the Kardashians set the standards for how family dynamics should be.

Recently, on Big Boss Season #7 Kerala Edition, the participation of an openly lesbian couple, Adhila Nasarin and Fathima Noora, created a lot of discussions amongst the conservative section of society. Whilst the younger generation feels everyone has the right to live life as they wish, and moments like this were profoundly affirming, others think shows like these try to normalise LGBTQ culture. By the way, after years of struggle, the couple obtained a landmark injunction from the Kerala Courts in 2022, affirming their rights as consenting adults to live together.

Broadly speaking, Donald J Trump is actually the product of one such reality TV show and is currently living in an illusion of an episode of his 'The Apprentice'. He makes sudden, unprovoked, random statements, then retracts his statements. Then one of his sycophants would sing his praises and suggest something outlandish, like nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize, to get everyone talking. Like in these shows, where viewership and rating are everything (to draw advertisers), he is perpetually in the headlines all the time to boost his own rating. This is complemented by the constant blowing of his own horn. It is out of tune, but who is going to tell?

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

div style="text-align: center;">

Normalising woke culture?

Kadhalikka Neramillai (No time to love,  காதலிக்க நேரமில்லை;  Tamil, 2025)

Director: Kiruthiga Udhayanidhi

https://www.moneycontrol.com/entertainment/kadhalikka-neramillai-ott-release-
when-and-where-to-watch-this-romantic-drama-starring-jayam-ravi-a
nd-nithiya-menon-article-12936421.html

It would have been just another Netflix recommendation that I would have ignored. Having such an unoriginal name, which had been used before, did not excite me. For the ignoramus, in 1964, the Tamil cinema was taken back by Sridhar's superhit. Its psychedelic, picturesque Eastman moment came to be defined as Tamil cinema's first rom-com. The hit song. 'Visvanathan, velai vendum!' became to be sung as the voice of defiance of the oppressed.

My interest was piqued when a YouTuber of a channel I follow went into a tirade trying to tear down Netflix and its moviemakers for thinking out of such a crass movie. Other Tamil movie reviewers were kind to the movie, praising it for its modern approach to storytelling and refreshing filmmaking. They probably did not want to offend the First Family of Tamil Nadu, as the ruling CM's family is involved in the film's direction, production and distribution. My YouTuber accused Netflix and the producers of trying to tear down every fibre of decency and threaten to destroy the Indian way of life. The prescribed Indian or Tamil way of living, where a female is supposed to follow specific rules regarding sex, weddings and patriarchal lead, is torn down.

The movie starts with a rebellious daughter, Shriya, working as an architect in Chennai, asking her mother how sure she was that her unmarried daughter was still a virgin. The mother almost faints whilst the father ducks down, avoiding the confrontation that ensued. 

To put things in order, it is a story about a daughter who plans to migrate to the US after a civil marriage with her 4-year-old boyfriend and obtains her visa. One day, after returning from work earlier than usual, she finds her husband in bed with her best friend. She annuls her wedding.

The 1964 version

In another town, Bangalore, another architect, Sid, is all set to engage his model girlfriend. After a minor misunderstanding, the fiancée decides not to turn up. As is often the case, he goes on bedding beaux one after another for revenge. 

Meanwhile, Shriya realises that her biological clock is ticking away and wants a baby as soon as possible. What does she do? She goes straight for donor insemination. And guess whose sperm she receives? Don't ask how, but she receives Sid's from another state. Sid had once accompanied his gay friend to donate his sperm for future use. Sid does the same. This gay friend reappears later to marry his partner. This became a point of contention for the commentator as if the film is normalising gay weddings in India. For the record, while the third gender is recognised in Indian law, gay weddings are not. 

The purists also have issues with the casual portrayal of alcohol consumption by both sexes and across all layers of society. The familial decorum, such as the parent-child barrier often observed in traditional Indian families, seems to have disappeared. Single parenting is depicted as the most natural thing. It is trying to shove in the Woke's gender agenda. 

Most Indian movies end with all the characters agreeing that the Indian way of life is supreme as if to resolve all the issues. No, not here. The protagonist decides to live with the sperm donor as her live-in partner. 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The schizophrenic society...

Das Lehrerzimmer (The Teacher's Lounge, German; 2023)
Director: Ilker Çatak

I feel lucky to have been born at the time I was born. If I were born to be a young adult at the present time, living in a 'so-called' developed nation, there is no absolute reason why I should not be a raving lunatic. The society is broken. Nobody respects anybody anymore. Power is too democratised. People with the most miniature brains are given on a silver platter the right to manage something they cannot handle - their rights. People think they know what they want, but they know diddly-squat. The individual is more important than the community. Personal liberty is more important than the common good of the community. Everyone demands the right to know about everything, but at the same time, there is a compulsion to protect information and privacy.

This schizophrenic environment of today makes eccentricity the default mode of people's response. For every move perceived as offensive by the other, the whole extent of legal jargon is employed. The long arm of the law is utilised for what will make everyone more miserable than they already are. The lawyers are the only ones who seem happy in the process, laughing all the way to the bank.

The society members immerse themselves in a pool of paranoia, low-esteeming and suspicious of their neighbours, and high-strung in a cesspool of siege mentality. 

The movie takes us to a German secondary school where somebody notices money goes missing in the teachers' lounge. The disciplinary teacher decides to run a spot check on students. A student of immigrant background is found to have a lot of money. The student's parents insist that the money was his allowance and accuse the school of racial profiling. Carla, a newbie class teacher of the student, decides to conduct her own investigations. 

She leaves her laptop camera on to record the possible thief. She thinks she possibly recorded a probable offender and confronts that person, Kuhn. Unfortunately, the accused denies everything and turns against her, accusing Carla of invading her colleagues' privacy. Carla reports the situation to her principal, who worsens the problem. She decides to report the case to the police. Kuhn is suspended. 

That soon develops into a living hell for Carla. Kuhn's son, who studies in Carla's class, demands to know what is happening? As investigations are ongoing, the school board decided to keep it under wraps. Soon, all the students' parents insisted on knowing what was happening. The student editorial board demands to know the whole truth. They publish truths and half-truths under the banner of freedom of expression. The school is in mayhem, doing everything except teachers' teaching and students' learning. 

In this modern generation, schools are doing everything except learning. They try to pinpoint scapegoats for all their failures and bring down others for making the level field lopsided, in their minds, of course. 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Fighting the system?

Lipstick Under My Burkha (2016)

Director: Alankrita Shrivastava

This is one of those movies which could not be screened at a film festival in India because the censors could not clear it for public screening. I was later accused of being too 'female-centric' and pornographic in its audio and visual narration. After a few cuts, it was passed for viewing.

The fact of the matter is that they cannot be too kosher when the theme of the story is about female sexuality and its suppression thereof. To be frank, this 2016 film is mild compared to what people in 2023 can access on their streamed platforms in their dialogue and boldness in showing skin.

On the subject matter, one cannot help but compare it to 2023'sAmazon Prime's 'Four More Shots'. Both may appear to be talking about women's empowerment or feminism. At deep scrutiny, one will realise that the emphasis is different, poles apart. It also shows how the women's movement had evolved from one demanding their deserved rights to equal opportunities to one which wanted to dominate the other.

'Lipstick Under The Burkha' shows how ladies of a time screamed discrimination and yearned not to be pushed down from doing their own thing. It tells the story of four ladies who want to escape social oppression. A teenage girl from a conservative Muslim family dreams of a carefree life where she dresses up like her pop idol, Miley Cyrus - dressed sexily, with makeup and accessories that go with it. Forced to don a hijab and spend time in the family business of tailoring, she wants to participate in a band, wear sexy clothes and join the popular clique of students. To sustain her secret lifestyle, she goes shoplifting.

Next, a hijab-clad housewife is living a fearful life with a hostile husband who wants sex on demand and refuses contraception. The husband hardly brings home money but rejects the idea of his wife going to work. The wife, on the sly, works as a door-to-door salesgirl and a very good one at that. She even wins the best employee award. One day, she spots her husband in the romantic company of a young lady.

The small-time beauty parlour artist wants to be able to see the world. She desires to escape the rat hole she lives in. She lost her father at a young age, and her mother worked hard to sustain life. Her mother wants to get married as marriage assures her a respectable place in society. She knows because she went through hell trying to earn some money. The mother tries to matchmaker a groom. The groom wants to make her a full-time housewife, but the girl has a sizzling affair with a photographer who is only interested in her body. They plan to elope.

The final character is a 55-year-old spinster who is a respectable figure in her colony. She plays a matriarchal figure in handling day-to-day issues. Her secret indulgence is reading trashy romance novels. While babysitting some children at a pool, she is tricked into jumping into the pool. The children's swimming instructor offers her swimming lessons because she cannot swim. She develops a crush and starts stalking the instructor, engaging in phone sex. The instructor has soft spots for another girl and assumes the caller is the girl he fancies.

All the clandestine activities finally come out into the open - the shoplifting, the part-time job, the plan to elope and the double life of the 55-year-old spinster. The ending is not pleasant, highlighting the double standards of society. It is predominantly patriarchal and cultural as well as religious teaching just gives an authoritative seal of approval for it to continue. 

On the other hand, 'Four More Shots Please!' (FMSP) gives the vibe that its message could be anti-establishment, anti-patriarchal or downright anarchical. The four ladies again, seen in FMSP, range from a divorcee, one in the marriage market for a suitable match, a free-spirited bisexual, to a lawyer who all share a common bond. They enjoy meeting up in a drinking joint, overindulging and pouring out their hearts' discontent about life with no restraint. It is said to be India's answer to the U.S.' Sex in the City' (SITC). LUMB and SITC try to educate their viewers about an entity called female sexuality or the lack of its awareness in India (in the case of LUMB). In my view, FMSP portrays all males as shallow and evil. They paint a picture of Indian ladies swimming in a cesspool of male toxicity. To be able to stay afloat, they need to fight the patriarchal society, the system and fellow members who are immersed in the system.

Hindu temple in Lahore

Even under slavery or apartheid, people were not in unison supporting the status quo. Pockets of dissent were heard from people who were victims as well as those who benefitted or were not involved in it. One should assume that if the other party is not one of them, they must be against them. Jews would not have escaped Germany. Pakistani Hindus are still able to fulfil their Vedic requirements despite the presence of an intensely hostile environment against idolatry there! It is the system, not the people. But then, people make the system and can be herded to change their thinking, which could change the status quo.

N.B. Why is the lipstick generally red? It is postulated that sexual arousal increases blood perfusion to the lips. In fair-skinned females, lips assume a redder hue. Hence, the application of red lipstick entices the observer to see what is in store!

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.