Obama to end “politics of grievance”?

Obama’s win has been hailed by many political commentators as the end of the “politics of grievance.” Their argument goes like “now that a black man has come to power, blacks can no longer blame the administration for not listening to their grievances.”

Just because a black is in power, doesn’t mean Afro-Americans are going to get a fair deal.

When A P J Abdul Kalam became the President of India, everyone welcomed a person from the scientific community entering the bureaucracy. Till date, he has been the most popular Indian President in power. But just because he was a Muslim, didn’t mean he in anyway represented the interests of the Indian Muslim.

Everyone knows about the atrocities committed against Muslims during the Gujarat riots. Everyone knows that it was state-sponsored genocide. World-wide human rights organisations, the UN and foreign countries condemned the violence against minorities, but what did Abdul Kalam do? He wasn’t going to antagonize the BJP Government, so he didn’t impose President’s rule in Gujarat or even condemn the violence. He toed the official BJP line and parroted the same things Advani & Vajpayee were saying. When Muslim groups approached him, he carefully avoided even sympathizing with his own community.

Kalam also unveiled the potrait of Hindu ‘mahasabha’ leader Veer Savarkar in the Central Hall of Parliament, after the entire Opposition boycotted the function. Veer Savarkar was the brains behind Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination and one of the accused in the case.

Hanging the portrait of the assassin (Veer Savarkar) in the same hall as the assassinated (Gandhi) is an insult to secularism. And Kalam ought to be ashamed of the part he played in it.

My point is just because Abdul Kalam was a Muslim, doesn’t mean he did anything for the welfare of Muslims. The same goes for Pratibha Patil; just because she’s the first woman Indian President, doesn’t mean the 5.6 billion women in India have been emancipated.

The same logic applies to Obama, his win doesn’t mean words like – race transcendence, race neutral, post-racial — hold true.

I don’t buy the argument that Obama’s election proves Americans are living in a post-racial America. Racism still exists. And its not just blacks, America discriminates against other races too; it calls them browns (Indians), Chinkies, Hispanics, Latinos, Jews, Poles, etc.

There are also other questions that rise: Will Obama take a pro-active stance for black rights or leave it to NAACP?

Will Obama be held less or more accountable for issues that affect the black community?

Will Obama’s every appointment of a non-white person be debated at length? Will Obama’s every welfare or non-welfare move be criticized in the light of his skin colour?

Will his election, put advocacy for racial equality on the back burner in the mainstream media?

What will happen when riots in black ghettos break out? How will his administration be criticized? (Though no white President was criticized for the Ku Klux Klan, you can be sure violence by or against blacks will be taken as reflection of Obama’s administration).

Apart from the legitimate questions, there are questions from another realm like: Is Obama black? Is Obama black enough? Is Obama American enough? How can Obama talks about black rights, when none of his ancestors were tortured, beaten up by slave owners, the Ku Klux Klan, white policemen or the state militia? What can Obama know of black poverty in America?

Read Full Post »

Fanaticism; its diff slogans

;}

Fanaticism is something, I abore! And religious fanaticism is something unpalatable.

Events like Godhra, Ayodhya, the Gujarat riots or the atrocities against Christians in Orissa are something I find hard to digest.

Violence against minorities has become a trump card for many right-wing politicians. Since, no politician can deliver things like good roads, quality education and health care, regular supply of electricity or drinking water, they use diversionary tactics. One of the most successful diversionary tactic is to blame it all on the minorities.

So you can hear politicians say things like: “Hum panch, hamara panch,” “Muslims breed too much,” “Christians get funding from the US, they are George Bush’s stooges,” “India is for Hindus; out with the minorities,” “If you become a Hindu you can stay in India or else leave for Pakistan,” “Christian women are immoral and ape the West,” and “Valentine’s Day is against India’s culture.”

An extension of this is the regional separatist movements, in which to hide their inefficiency, politicians come up with slogans like, “Cauvery water is only for Karnataka,” or “Cauvery is only for Tamil Nadu,” “Mumbai is only for Marathis,” “Punjab must be a separate state,” “Be proud to be a Tamilan,” “Ban Tamil films, only Kannada films in Karnataka,” “Kashmir is part of India,” & “Only Biharis should get jobs in Bihar.”

Some Indian politicians take diversionary tactics to international levels, they say, “Kill every Pakistani,” or “Support the LTTE,” “Ban the LTTE,” “No more refugees from Bangladesh, let them go to Pakistan,” “Every Muslim is a terrorist, destroy the Taliban,” “Support Israel’s war against Muslim terrorism,” or “Support the Palestinian war against Christian, Jewish terrorism.”

I’m going to come up with my own slogans, “Ban the Left in Nandigram, Singur,” “Ban the right in Orissa, Gujarat,” “Stop the Indo-US nuke deal,” “Third World countries don’t need second-hand goods, outdated technology and scrap material from the West,” “Stop religious competitiveness,” & “Stop hate-mail on the net.”

Read Full Post »