Let’s examine today why there are no bumper stickers in Indian politics. If there were, what would they say? In Uttar Pradesh, my guess is that the line would be “Samajwadi Party: Yadavs unite”. It couldn’t be in English, of course. Let’s try again. “Samajwadi Party: Yadav ek jut”. This is better, but meaningless. This is because Yadavs aren’t divided and have no cause to be. Their votes, combined with the votes of Uttar Pradesh’s Muslims, have brought Mulayam Singh Yadav and his son to power in India’s largest state. The father represents Yadav power. And so, our sticker (or hoarding) should only show the Samajwadi Party’s symbol and Mulayam’s face. And so they do.
The principle difference between India’s political signage and hoardings and those of America is this.
In America, it’s pure text. Yard signs will say things like “Proxmire for Senate” or “Romney-Ryan 2012”. Bumper stickers often have a humorous political view and might say “GOBAMA” or “NOBAMA”.
In India, as we can observe, it’s photographs and names of people. Many faces, including neighbourhood, state and national leaders all lumped together. No message is given and none is needed. It is tribal affinity and not the candidate’s policy or character that determines the voting pattern of Indians and I wrote about this in the previous piece.
The Quaid-e-Azam communicated the idea of Pakistan to Indian Muslims who did not understand his words (he only spoke English). Pakistani commentators often reminisce warmly on how attentive and silent the crowds he addressed across India were. What is remarkable about this image is that it does not strike these writers how bizarre the whole thing is. People who wonder why Pakistanis did not live up to Jinnah’s high ideal have a starting point right here.
Words are unimportant because there was nothing of the intellect Jinnah’s audience wanted to receive. What they wanted and got was faith. This Jinnah promised through his stern figure, not his words.
A second aspect of American politics is instructive, including for those in America. This is the myth of the 99 per cent. Regardless of who wins today’s election, it is forecast that President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney will split the popular vote, which means the total number of votes polled. If the Republican Party’s determination to lower taxes on the rich and deny Americans universal healthcare were as unpopular as the 99 per cent-ers claim it is, it would be an easy victory for the Democrats. America would not be divided down the middle as the result will show it to be.
The fact is that many Americans and, perhaps even most, have a revulsion towards state intervention in their lives, even if it is for their benefit, as President Obama’s healthcare law surely is. Small government and limited intervention are things that are unthinkable where I live. Again, this separates America from India, where the government is the permanent provider and the citizen is the permanent recipient.
Our national bumper slogan should really be: “Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you.”
Published in The Express Tribune, November 7th, 2012.
COMMENTS (39)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@gp65
I was trying my hand in satire, more out of my frustration out of failing to connect with some intellectually and spiritedly neutral persons (regardless of nationality). And I am sure you sensed it. Just forget it. I am no saint. It was one of those moments, when I acted cheeky.
ET: Responding directly to a message written to me. Pls. allow. @Cynical: I had not seen that post, so thanks for pointing it out.
Actually you must know I appreciate your views as also that of many of your compatriots - for the inherent logic, common sense and insight that you provide not because of your origin. Even so, one takes cognizance of the origin (I do not know what passport you have nor do I care) because it is reassuring to know that there is a meeting point possible and it does not have to be adversarial. However, I usually do not make any reference to people's origin when I appreciate their comments. In that particular instance, since the subject was Kashmir, I wanted to acknowledge your nationality in the context because this is one subject that is a sore point between the 2 countries. While I try to be sane/logical/fair most times I do not think I can be on Kashmir and you were, so just for that particular post it mattered.
Incidentally, I find it interesting that while you would like appreciation for the content rather than colour of your passport, the colour of passport of person providing appreciation does matter to you. :) "What a joy! I try posting comments and wait for eternity; when peace loving, tolerant, logical ,fair minded Indians with an acute sense of justice and fairness with a matching heart full of love and compassion will send me a word of appreciation. And you did it. Thanks a lot. But you know, the more people get the more they want. I am no exception. A small request: not a demand. In future, I would like to be commended or chastised (as the case may be) for the merit (or for lack of it) of my views, not because of the colour of my passport,"
@gp65
Thanks. I feel relieved. By the way I did post a message FYA at,
http://tribune.com.pk/story/461043/indian-kashmir-leaders-to-hold-talks-in-pakistan/
Would like to know your views.
@Cynical: Thanks for taking the time to explain. What you say makes sense. If you saw the first comment as a dig right back at you and smiled, then it was self deprecating humour. I did not see it as a dig at you but at the people concerned and I was surprised at the endorsement. That too is fine. Indian political leadership or Hindu Gods or anyone else should not be above criticism, It is what appeared to be the duplicity Gandhi fair game but not someone else that disappointed me - coming from you. But if you saw the first response as being a dig at you and Not Gandhi/Nehru then ofcourse there is no hypocrisy.
Body language, tone etc. which are vital parts of the communication process and missing in this context - so sometimes it is possible to get it wrong. When I see a message different from what I expect from a person (one does have an idea of thought process of regular posters), I feel like I want to clariy what went on. Thanks for taking the time to explain.
@gp65
You got it completely wrong. I am extremely disappointed. You, once again have picked up just a part of a comment from a thread of at least 3/4 comments between two individuals. And you missed both the context and sequence. I have noticed this trend before, but being naturally lazy, choose not to respond. This time I will 'cause of the personalities involved.
'I even had a smile' at the comment, 'I guess that puts Jinnah in the league with Nehru who gave his famous “Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny” speech, in perfect English, to the members of parliament representing, amongst others, dhoti clad farmers from Bihar! I guess to show Janus’ other face, Nehru had the Dhoti Drama aka Mohendas Karamchand Gandhi'. Which he made as a retort to my earlier comment; The author lacks the intellectual rigour to appreciate the great man, who could convince the public of ‘Infallibility of the laws of nature’ by delivering a lecture on ‘satire of P G Wodehouse’. What's wrong here? If I can take a dig at someone, why can't they return the favour? As long, as it remains civil. I rightly drew a line when he digressed and wrote in the same comment, 'But then you digress into ribaldry. Then, when was ‘good taste’ a universal virtue?' Surprised, that you saw my 'smile' but failed to see my 'indignation' in the very next line.
But most importantly, if I 'walked that path' I would have lost the moral right to accuse him of 'ribaldry' and 'poor taste'. I think, I made my point with a dignity that the subject demands. With all humility, I feel, Gandhi would have approved.
Regards
@Anonymous: "though being aware of older men sleeping with infant girls, I won’t walk that path. I engaged you in a light banter. Your repose on Nehru and Gandhi is perfectly in tune. I even had a smile" Dear Cynical, So when Gandhiji whom a billion plus Indians look up to is made fun of, it brings you a smile. But when it comes to another billion plus population that is prone to be violent, you 'don't want to walk that path'.
Why so selective?
@yeahright: I am the one who wrote under this moniker because I tried to put the rebuttal under my own moniker and it did not make the cut - so I just tried to put it in with a different moniker and it worked. Wanted to make sure I am representing myself accurately.
@Sultan
Genuine Criticism of any leader be it dead or alive is not insulting them,nobody is ever free of faults,the sooner you understand this difference the better for you or you will die one day of this blind hatred.
@Sultan: "I am not “hater”–I have many sane, lovely and perfectly decent indian friends. I only hate all the inbred mongrels who come to these forums and pretend to be masters of the universe just because they got a f*ing H1-B visa or a call center job to try to slander all things Pakistan. These are the true haters you should be worrying about, not me!
Don’t ever insult Jinnah–a big no no to patriotic Pakistanis!"
I have not said one word about Jinnah. Ad hominem attacks do not constitute an effective rebuttal If you think I should be embarrassed because as per you I have a call center job or an H1B visa (As compared to you who have a green card) then you are wrong. As long as I work hard and try to improve my station in life, there is nothing for me to be embarrassed. Not everyone is born with a silver spoon. Incidentally I happen to be a US citizen but that makes me neither better nor worse than other people who post here. I expect my posts to be evaluated based on their content and nothing else.@Sane:
you are a hater and that reflects from your posts,let us Pakistaniz and Indianz live in peace and brotherhood.
I am not "hater"--I have many sane, lovely and perfectly decent indian friends. I only hate all the inbred mongrels who come to these forums and pretend to be masters of the universe just because they got a f*ing H1-B visa or a call center job to try to slander all things Pakistan. These are the true haters you should be worrying about, not me!
Don't ever insult Jinnah--a big no no to patriotic Pakistanis!
@Sultan
you are a hater and that reflects from your posts,let us Pakistaniz and Indianz live in peace and brotherhood.
@Deb;India:
The term ‘sleeping habits’ is rather misleading, in fact ingenuous. It’s not how he was sleeping all his life. It was an experimental phase of his life.
Jimmy Savile did the same "experiments" in the UK--just read the local papers to see what a civilized society thinks of his "experimental phase"!
@gp65
Please stop the rantings based on quick Google searches--you have no clue what you are talking about. Your comprehension of the PAYG concept is hilarious. I do not want to waste any more time arguing with an intellectual imposter!
@Rajesh Kumar:
By making this generalized statement, you have let the readers of the Dawn to question your own intelligence.
Stop drinking the Lal Pari--this is Express Tribune, not Dawn. Next time you try to cut and paste, pay attention!
@Sultan: There is a broader issue of healthcare costs in US because it is 17% of the country's GDP. Regardless of who pays - individuals or government it's a problem. Until 2008 when the foreclosure crisis hit the country, 60% of personal bankruptcies were on account of healthcare related costs. This is completely a separate issue from whether Medicare is an entitlement or a Pay as you go.
As you yourself said Social security is a Pay as you Go, so you implying that Ayn Rand was getting an entitlement is just flat out wrong. The Congressional Budget Office believes Social Security is in a better shape than thought previously and that it is solvent at least until 2038 http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/05/289201/cbo-social-security-trust-fund-solvent-through-2039/?mobile=nc . People believe that with some minor changes its solvency can be extended further. Obviously linking the eligibility to life expectatncy is one idea being considered. Other ideas include that people above a certain income threshold do not receive social security benefit. As it is the beenfit is progressive. People at lower incomes get a greater percentage compared to what they paid in as compared to people with very high incomes. But the fact that CBO believes it to be solvent until 2038 gives plenty of time to people to make the design changes needed to extend it further.
@ usman
' Jinnah’s was greatest statestman of last centurary who unite people without ‘drama’ which was hall mark oh his counterparts.'
only pakistani 100%, bangladeshi 90% and some Indian mulsims 80% think so..and the west does'nt ever talk about him..
@Sultan:
p.s: if you don't know the "sleeping" habits of the great, hindi speaking, MK Gandhi and want to learn more about his various "trysts" with young "destinies" just Google it!
@Cynical:
I am so sorry for saying Jinnah was great despite the fact that he spoke English--mea culpa! I guess that puts Jinnah in the league with Nehru who gave his famous "Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny" speech, in perfect English, to the members of parliament resprseneting, amongst others, dhoti clad farmers from Bihar! I guess to show Janus' other face, Nehru had the Dhoti Drama aka Mohendas Karamchand Gandhi--I am sure his 16 year old niece helped a lot with honing his hindi skills!
@Sultan
'How could he not have brought Jinnah into this? He would not have been able to digest his daal without bad mouthing the great man.'
I agree. The author lacks the intellectual rigour to appreciate the great man, who could convince the public of 'Infalliblity of the laws of nature' by delivering a lecture on 'satire of P G Wodehouse'.
@gp65:
Secondly what you said about the cancer treatment costing more than an individual puts in – shows your lack of understanding about the whole concept of insurance.
Wow, now you have turned into an actuary, admonishing me on my lack of understanding of insurance industry. Allow me to give you a refresher lesson:
If 100 people in an actaurial pool contribute $1 each, you get $100. If the actuarial assumption is that ony 5 people will get sick and none will cost more than $20 to heal, the pool is solvent. As soon as one or the other or both assumptions are violated, the pool goes bust. Now, Ms. I-know-it-all, please go back and look at the rate of rise in cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc., the double whopper munching, super size me nation is experiencing combined with the fleecing by the drug companies giving stratospehric rise to healthcare costs, and you will see BOTH assumptions are being violated. This is the situation in Medicare, not the bubbles of piffle, full of H1-B induced, holier-than-the-pope patriotism you exhibit in all your posts.
I suggest you get out of your Colorado cabin, air your brain and read the paper--Barrack Hussein Obama, the giver of universal healthcare coverage to all the sick and dying that you view as "costs" in America has won again! Next Obama project: bring all the American jobs "off shored" to india and other places back on shore ;)
I have already given my answer to the social security specific garbage in your comment--you are the only one between the two shiny seas who believes that social security is solvent. The government borrows from it, not steals from it, which in civilised countries means they have to pay it back with interest. And it is a Pay As You GO scheme, which means none of the liabilities are funded. Please do not open your mouth and put the other shoe in again.
@Something Clever:
I hate to say this but your whole comment is quite rambling and poorly constructed so I fail to see what your point is with respect to whether the Americans like government intervention or not. Obama, who clearly stands on the platform "We are the government and we are here to help," no matter how much you loathe it, has just won his second term. That should end all bogus, Spice Girls inspired intellectual exercises into what the Americans want, they really really want! What people say in public is not necessarily how they feel in private--votes speak louder than words! However, there are few things in your comment I would like discuss:
You also act as if at the time of its creation, it was intended to cause a hole in their pocket. Lack of foresight brought that about
At the time of its creation, it was part of the New Deal, which came after the Great Depression to provide a cushion to people in their old and infirm age so that they don't die of hunger like they did during that time. It was noble scheme based on the natural principle that the young work and take care of the old and when they beome old, other young people will work and so on and so forth--it is like the tradition in Asian families (amongst others) where the children takes care of their parents, but only at a national level.
I agree with you that the system is bust and you are wise not to rely on it--@gp65 is the only one who seems to be a diet of hallucogenic mushrooms to belive that it is solvent. This is precisely why the government has gioven tax incentives for personal savings through IRA and 401-K accounts. However, it was not lack of foresight that brought it to the precarious position it is in today; rather, it was the change in demogrpahics and life expectancy. When you have lesser and lesser working people due to lower birth rates and more and more pensioners due to higher and higher life expectancy, the result is a broken bank. However, as you know, it is called the "third rail" in US politics for a reason--the AAARP will never let any changes pass to fix the system that will reduce their entitlements which were promised when they were paying in.
Come on.Common people listened Jinnah's speeches without knowing english because of his integrity. Jinnah's was greatest statestman of last centurary who unite people without 'drama' which was hall mark oh his counterparts.
Another half cooked article. There are no bumper stickers in Indian election as not many have cars. There are more slogans and parody songs in indian election than us can even think of. Also if politics was as simple as Mr akar claims, mulayam would always win the up election and laloo wouldn't have lost two elections in bihar.
now we know that a large number of ET readers live in the USA:)
"It would have been great if you had not brought Jinnah into this argument How could he not have brought Jinnah into this? He would not have been able to digest his daal without bad mouthing the great man." - You may do yourself a favor by reading this article - dawn.com/2012/11/06/the-ideology-of-pakistan-a-thorny-issue/. The author is rightly pointing out the political culture of the sub-continent vis-a-vis the western countries. Jinnah was rightly quoted because it exposes the extreme stupidity of the politicians (speech in English where the masses barely understood it) of the sub-continent. The masses just gulp down whatever the politicians want them to drink. "If it is low level intellect like yours driving the governance in india, we will soon see starvation on a rampant scale across your land!" - By making this generalized statement, you have let the readers of the Dawn to question your own intelligence.
You surely jest. To debate might expose the ignorance of both the leaders and their followers.
@Sultan: I'll say in advance I'm not an Indian and have lived in the US from birth so I hope you think up a better pompous one liner for me. Social security and medicare are things that were created to compensate for other things and simply get better public opinion for votes in the form of a promise backed by legislation to seal its fate as an entitlement they didn't absolutely have to do. They bound themselves to it by promising it. What most Americans hate more than extreme interference, it's being lied to or someone simply being full of crap. They could not do something and it wouldn't be a large issue. Promise it, and people start raising issue. You also act as if at the time of its creation, it was intended to cause a hole in their pocket. Lack of foresight brought that about. The system itself was intended to come out even at worst. Also a thing that will get people irritated about not getting it is when it's assured in a way that they're even encouraged to plan for the future financially with it in mind. When that falls through it messes up a lot of things, which are going to irritate people. People exist who exploit it. Who have some sense of false self entitlement even if they live off the government over half their life on false disability claims or something similar. You'll also find most people don't have a very high opinion of them, too. You're making sweeping claims trying to bring a minority people generally dislike into the majority position and then acting as if they're the representatives people are using when they speak of "Americans." I personally don't plan with medicare or social security in mind and in the present it's probably a safe way to go about it. But those things for older people are even factored in, automatically, by the government itself and businesses involved in their eligibility for their housing and required health concerns, among other things. So the stopping of it doesn't mean "oh I don't get a few extra things" it means "I'm suddenly homeless and without the things I need to keep living." A sudden drop from one to the other is something valid to protest against when its intertwined by the system itself into vital parts of their lives with or without their action. Not leeching. It turns into a crisis pending on when you were born. The system itself inserts it into their lives and promises for the future. Just like a disgruntled student who can't find a job and finds out all the promises they were given throughout school for available loans turns out to be a lie for them. Future plans get trashed and it inherently makes people feel they were lied to... Which they basically were. That doesn't get good reactions and it all comes from empty promises as opposed to desire to leech.
@Sultan: YEs I to live in the US also. The 40 credits is a minimum requirement and most people pay in throughout their life since their economics requires them to work throughout their lives. You cannot elect to not pay social security if you are employed.. Also you must know that it is now only available after you reach 67 and that number too will gradually be increased. So you should have qualified 'for your whole life' with for your whole life after 67 for anyone born after 1964. As longevity increases, they will increase the eligibility age also. Since you made it appear that Ayn Rand was getting freebies, do you have any data to support that she paid in for only 10 years? If you check social security's economics - it is a solvent system and in fact US government has regularly been borrowing from that pool.
Secondly what you said about the cancer treatment costing more than an individual puts in - shows your lack of understanding about the whole concept of insurance. When you have a large enough pool, some people will incur higher costs and other lower costs, so taking individual cases does not make sense.
Perhaps my intellect maybe low as you said but unlike you, I am glad that I was brought up to treat people with respect - even those who make personal attacks at me.
@Sinclair:
It would have been great if you had not brought Jinnah into this argument
How could he not have brought Jinnah into this? He would not have been able to digest his daal without bad mouthing the great man.
@gp65:
Your pathetic understanding of the US continues--I am a permanent resident and pay Social Security and Medicare. And here are some facts for you, daughter of Ayn Rand: you need to pay in for only 40 credits to earn social security for life. In other words, what you pay in is a fraction of what you get out, depending on how long you live and the longevity in the US has gone up massively since the social security system was Introduced. Same is true for Medicare: if you contract cancer for example, what you have paid into Medicare over life will pale in comparison to what the government will pay for your treatment.
If it is low level intellect like yours driving the governance in india, we will soon see starvation on a rampant scale across your land!
1) Indians will continue to vote on caste and not Ideas ( Mayawati example in UP). Indians are so fractured that they will not be able to vote beyond caste and language .
2) Indian government and universities are working on caste quotas . This will continue to create problems of meritocracy in India.
Ohhhh Come on Mr Patel you can abuse India in many ways but caste and religious Politics except Muslim appeasement of Congress (by promising impossible reservations inside OBC quota) is dead in India...
80% turnout in Himachal Pradesh is not becoz of the religion but because of awareness....
Where were the yadavs and the Muslims in 2007 when Mayawati swept uttar pradesh??? The fact remains that Mayawati regime's enormous corruption led to her fall.
@Sultan: Unlike Medicaid which is a government healthcare program for the poor - some of the others you mentioned are programs that individuals pay into during their working life to receive benefits when they are older. Social security and Medicare are in that category. The fact that Ayn Rand drew social security in no way qualifies for hypocrisy since she was getting out something she had put in.
In case you choose to rebut, please do so using facts and data instead of the ad hominem attacks that you have indulged in the past.
You pointed out some good differences.
Interesting insight on the Qaud-e-azam and English scenario.
It would have been great if you had not brought Jinnah into this argument. Other than those parts, I completely agree with what you said for once - only about Indian politics that is. You should write authoritatively about Indian politics than compare it with America. There is a big gulf between India and US, which just ends up making the argument lame.
As for the 99% "myth", the country is divided on social issues, not economic. If you see where the Republican Party "base" is, its not any less frightening than the RSS. Also, Democrats do make a very good job at being aloof, elite. Republicans turn it folksy. Thats where the vote gets split down the middle.
The fact is that many Americans and, perhaps even most, have a revulsion towards state intervention in their lives, even if it is for their benefit
As long as it is not Social Security, Medicare and farm subsidies!!! Or bailing ouut Wall Street or the Auto Industry. Even that paragon of high capitalist virtue and mother of all neo cons around the world, Ayn Rand, died drawing social security benfits. Now you tell me Mr. Aakar, who is John Gault?
Hypocricy at its best....