WRB: Lok Kiya Jaye?

Often we come across issues and political debates where there are no rights and wrongs. There are only belief systems that people propound amidst the loud cacophony of conflicting interests, conventional thinking and diverse perspectives. One such debate is about the Woman Reservation Bill (WRB) that was passed by the Rajya Sabha recently and is stated to be tabled in the Lok Sabha in the months to come. Like audience to a tennis match, I had been sitting across the court, my head swinging left-right-left-right to the various shots (and potshots) the pro and anti WRB lobby hit each other with and while doing so I realized that while all root for participation of women and their better engagement in Indian politics but different people (men and women alike) have different degrees to which they support this particular Bill. 

While a few dismiss the bill at the very face of it, many are in support with it as long as certain changes are brought about to it. There is a lobby that seeks to have a sub-quota within the quota and there are many who support it just because they want to be seen as pro-women while some oppose it because they simply do not believe in the philosophy of reservation whether for women, for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes or other backward classes.

Pacifists like my self are mostly optimist as far as reservation is concerned. We see what we would like to see. They tell us reservation is a solution and we look at it hopefully, with susurrations of parity, equality, social equity and political voice to all ringing in our ears. We haven't really felt the change so far, whatever change that has been has clearly not trickled down to the underprivileged masses. Not yet. But because we want the change so bad, we presume that there has been. It is akin to saying that because we want protection we take for granted the existence of God. It may sound acceptable in the context of the Almighty but does it work in the present day society? I would like to see some report on reservation. An analysis with some statistics pertaining how, when and where exactly reservation worked, which community benefited, how long would they be needing it and when should it be lifted for that particular class/caste/group. An assessment to see how far reservation has helped and in which areas, whether education, employment, legislature, judiciary is urgently needed; whether it worked well and where it is proving to bring more disparity than equity is long overdue. It will not only be an eye-opening exercise but will also lead to a better planning for such endeavours in future.  

Reservation, from the time it was inserted into the Constitution, was not meant as a gift neither was it a charity for any community. It was a method by which the caste-ridden society like ours was to crawl out from beneath the legacy of the oppressive caste system. Whereby under-represented and marginalized groups were to be given opportunities on a quota basis keeping in mind that the same were denied to these groups for all these years in many spheres like employment, education, legislature etc. Those were the basics. How far have we reached? Has reservation brought about changes in the backward community? I am sure it has. But why don't we have more of reports to drive home the point for the pro-reservation lobby? My research on the topic lead me to a report  on Impact of Reservation Policy in Higher Education in India by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS). More such reports are needed, so that we know what good is coming out from affirmative action policies and where it is not needed.

Moving back to the Woman Reservation Bill, one finds that though the idea of larger representation of women  is much coveted by all (including men) but the higher up you move in the echelons of academia and experts on Indian politics and society, the less celebratory the tone becomes. This is because though the end is desirable, there are many aspersions clouding the means. 

The system of rotation, it is feared, would do more harm than good to any constituency. It will give less incentive and motivation for an MP to bring about better facilities to his home constituency. He will serve not those for whom he has worked. Seems like a lose-lose situation. The demand that there should be a sub-quota for the economically backward women within the women quota is also gaining ground. Besides, if the underlying purpose of WRB is to increase the number of women lawmakers in the country, which is at present close to a dismal ten per cent even after sixty three years of Independence, then why not make a law thereby making it compulsory for political parties to have an intra-party quota for fielding women candidates? There is hardly any democracy within any of the major national political parties. Corruption, greed and self-interest are the deciding factors as to who will lead the party. Such malpractices are even more blatant when these parties distribute tickets at the time of elections. The clichéd argument to this is that our society is such that it becomes nearly impossible for women candidates to win elections against dominant male candidates. Is there any study supporting this particular point? One would like to read. This counter argument sounds like the cry of a bad loser to me. But keeping in mind the holistics of the entire debate would I decide to do without the Bill all together? I would say no. A helpless but incontrovertible no. That's the dilemma shrouding this Bill, it makes it tough to take a firm stand, wheresoever one may be sitting. 

The WRB is not being lauded in its essence it is being seen as a precursor to what is sought after and in that we say our cheers. The Bill shows us a metaphorical tunnel at the other end of which lies a (wishful?) end to discrimination, infanticide, female foeticide, dowry deaths, oppression of women and their ultimate empowerment. And thus, we cheer for it. However, difficult questions are a plenty, and many an eyebrows have been raised and rightly so. The Women Reservation Bill comes with an asterisk -- the real deal we are yet to know.

Maternal Mortality..a story i did in AA

Heaps have been written about motherhood — poems, songs, ballads and tales. Nothing seems enough when one comes to relate a mother’s selflessness and illimitable affection. Many a poet have described her warm disposition and adorned it with similes and metaphors. Virtues of love, labour, forgiveness, compassion and humanity are never lost on a mother. But despite all the accolades showered on her, the sad truth is that the number of women who die during birth of her child has not come down. More than half a million women die in pregnancy during childbirth, of which 70,000 are from India (SRS 2006). This comes down to a startling statistic that one woman dies every seven minutes from a pregnancy related cause in our country.

Dr Aparajita Gogoi, the national coordinator of The White Ribbon Alliance,  an international NGO committed towards safe motherhood says, “For a woman to die of pregnancy and childbirth is social injustice. Such deaths are rooted in women’s powerlessness, unequal status in society, lack of decision-making power, absence of basic health care and lack of access to education.”

A country’s mortality rate is considered to be the best indicator of its health system. In India, with a mortality rate touching 300, it is but obvious that serious efforts need to be taken and fast. According to Dr Gogoi, “Making motherhood safer requires more than just good quality health services. Women must be empowered and guaranteed their human rights – including their rights to survive pregnancy and childbirth.”

The tales of women dying during childbirth are heart-wrenching and gruesome. Sushma Yadav, aged 24 years, lost her life while delivering a baby about six months ago. Her husband Santosh now takes care of their two children with the help of his mother and continuously laments his luck. “God has been very unkind to us. Who is going to take care of these two children?” It does not occur to him or his family that Sushma would have been alive today had proper care been taken when she was pregnant. Her blood pressure was never monitored, and although she did take the iron-folic tablets prescribed to her by the dispensary, improper physical checkup led her to her tragic fate.

The fact that nearly 80 per cent of these deaths is easily avoidable points towards the ignorance plaguing the society, especially among the people belonging to the lower strata. Dr Geeta Chadha, senior consultant, obstetrics and gynaecology, Indraprastha Apollo Hospital confirms, “It is true that nearly two-third of cases of maternal mortality are preventable. The basic reasons being haemorrhage (flow of blood from a ruptured blood vessel) in a setting of anaemia, unsupervised infection or high blood pressure. There is a sea of human beings, who need to be made aware of maternal care.” 

Ramsakhi, the wife of Pappu, a migrant labourer working in Hyderabad was expecting her third child when complications arose. The position of the baby was transverse and because of prolonged obstructed labour, her uterus ruptured and she started bleeding internally. Once the doctor saw her condition, it was advised that she be rushed to a hospital. But before they could have done so, Ramsakhi had already lost the baby.

The situation is not only confined to the lower strata of the society. Many a times well-off families also neglect the essential needs of an expecting mother, their basic premise being that a doctor is to be called only when complications set it. Without regular check-ups and physical examination a woman’s health deteriorates and chances of her and the baby’s survival become slimmer.

Unassisted childbirth is another factor that adds to the ignorance factor resulting in an increased maternal risk, that is, the probability of a woman dying or experiencing serious injury during delivery. It is then perhaps an irony that in United States a movement for “free birth” is fast gaining ground. Its advocates suggesting that epidurals (a form of low dose anesthesia) be taken at the time of birth and a woman be given the right to deliver her baby without the assistance of a doctor. While the movement may aim at giving a woman a right to choose whether she wants the pain or not, it is dangerous nonetheless.

Some lessons for pregnant ladies and their families:

1. Understand that every pregnancy faces risk, even if previous ones have been normal.
2. A pregnant woman needs to be attended by a skilled health worker.
3. Families of pregnant women must have fully worked out plans for delivery.
4. A newborn baby’s umbilical cord should be cut and tied and he or she should be kept warm and suckled immediately.

For a blog entry pertaining the same issue albeit non-professional..click HERE

Right to Rape

A string of thoughts that came to my mind after reading a newspaper report got lost somewhere ie. before I read this piece by Aman (Click here for his thought-provoking post) who has written about the same topic in his blog. It is about the new Shia Law in Afghanistan that as good as legalises marital rape and also gives legal connotation the concept of "blood money" ie.. money given to a woman after she has been raped by the rapist so that she can under go medical treatment (how considerate of them). Writing about this disturbs me as much as it is a ridiculous notion. I think it is important to put forth certain points not just about what is happening in Afghanistan in this regard but also its simultaneous legal approach in so-called evolved judicial systems such as our own. But first some background.

Rape has always been considered one of the most detestable acts committed on a woman in all societies. Justice Krishna Iyer in a famous judgment said “When a woman is ravished, what is inflicted is not mere physical injury but the deep sense of some deathless shame… judicial response to Human Rights cannot be blunted by legal bigotry.” This much abhorred topic however got a special mention in International News recently. The Parliament of Afghanistan recently passed a Shia Law (the Shia community in Afghanistan that has its separate Shia Laws) that indirectly decriminalises marital rape giving the power to a husband not to feed her wife, starve her and sustain her if she refuses to copulate with him. It also says that a woman desirous of working can only work at certain institutions that too only with the permission of certain male members in her family.

Sometimes one just sits back at developments like this and hopelessly wonders what kind of senseless insecurity grips people to even begin to think on such lines. What kind of a world do we live in? While in one part of the world we are fighting positive wars, that for liberalism, that for uplifting all kinds of censorship and now also decriminalising homosexuality among consenting adults and in another part of the world we have laws being carved out such as this one. In fact, Muslim clerics are justifying that if a woman has the right to say "no" to her husband’s sexual advances then he also has to right to deny her food and sustenance. As I understand it, Shia population in Afghanistan consist of around 15% of the total population of the country and President Karzai has been quite keen on pleasing the Shia population (read men) before the elections so as to increase his chances in the polls.

This in fact reminds me of Khaled Husseini's A thousand Splendid Suns in which the protagonist tries again and again to run away from the brutalities of her husband but every time someone or the other grabs her only to be mercilessly beaten up by her husband for venturing out without his consent. Such laws, such fundamentalist attitude and such Talibanisation is nothing but a way to make sure that women don't even think of the rights enjoyed by people all across the world. One feels so helpless listening to stories like these. What freedom, what world, what beauty, what brains do we talk about? I may be getting too caught up here but I sincerely hope that International Organisations would create a major stir and pressure the Afghan Government enough to scrap such an abhorrent law.

But this is not where the discussion ends. For we can't just look at one sect and their laws in isolation while living under a delusion of security in our own land. Rape laws in countries like India and USA are also not fundamentally very clear as far as marital rape in concerned. By definitions of rape that approximate the legal standard, a series of surveys have found that about 10-14% of married women in the U.S.have been raped by their husbands. Indian Law, in fact, specifically exempts marital rape as an offence in S 375 IPC. It is presumed that by entering into matrimony a woman lays down all her defences with regard copulation with her husband. The same proposition was strongly supported by Sir Matthew Hale, Chief Justice in 17th century in England who is widely quoted for saying, “The husband can not be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for their mutual matrimonial consent and contract, the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto the husband which she can not retract.”

Though we do boast of the Domestic Violence Act 2005 but even that calls for a through scrutiny and amendments as it makes marital rape a part of domestic violence, thereby considerably reducing the punishment from what one gets for committing rape otherwise. There is no clear law that makes marital rape a crime equivalent to a non-marital rape. Moreover, there are such lacunas in our legal system that on one hand penalises any sexual intercourse with a girl aged below 16 years (consent is immaterial because a minor's consent is no consent in the eyes of the law) as rape and on the other hand marital intercourse with one's wife above 15 years is completely legal (see S. 375 IPC below) which basically implies that sexual intercourse with an unmarried girl of 16 years is rape, while that with a married 15 year old is clearly exempted from the Section dealing with rape. It is interesting piece of information that Nepal has declared that husbands who force themselves on their wives can be charged with rape. So we see an example of progressive law there. But what do we see here? There is nothing in the Indian Penal Code that defines or talks about marital rape. According to section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, "sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, not being under 15 years of age, is not rape.” Even if it may happen everyday with a woman, in the eyes of law it never happened. The most common justification sought by people defending such laws is that such a rape is most difficult to prove and it would make it far easier for a woman to implicate her husband.

Continuing on the same lines, it is interesting to note that a man can claim divorce on the basis of his wife not consenting to have sexual relations with him (i.e. if she refuses to give him 'access' to her body) but if a wife wants to speak up against a rape committed on her by her husband, the law nowhere is clearly holds it as rape! There is, it seems, nothing that stops a man from expressing his claim to sexual gratification as a matter of right over his wife in a marital relationship. It is thus imperative that we sensitise the younger as well as the present generations about individual rights and how to respect these rights. A rape is a rape, period. And whether it is India or Afghanistan, whether the woman is married to the rapist or not, whether it is most difficult or easiest of jobs to prove or not—it is most essential that our laws endorse our ideology and our ideology match our actions.

Writ Petition

The following Civil Miscellaneous was submitted under another Civil Writ (PIL) against Apollo. This is my first petition and im happy that it worked. The day we served the petition, the counsel of Apollo Hospital called Sir to say that Apollo agrees to all the demands of our client. But we did bring it to the notice of the Chief Justice of High Court Mr. Shah, in whose Court this matter was listed.It has made me happy..my first petition..and our client is going to sleep peacefully now. He came to meet us today-- for a change he looked relieved and happy.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CM NO. --- OF 2009

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 5410 OF 1997

(PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)

IN THE MATTER OF

All India Lawyer’s Union (Delhi Unit) ………..Petitioner

Versus

Government of NCT of Delhi and anr. ……..Respondents

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER UNDER SEC.151 CPC FOR DIRECTIONS TO THE APOLLO HOSPITAL TO PROVIDE FREE TREATMENT TO THE PATIENT SHRI SURESH RATHORE

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH-

1. The petitioner by the above Public Interest Litigation has highlighted the fact that though the respondent-hospital has commenced its functioning since July 1996 and is obliged in terms of the lease deed to provide completely free treatment to the poor patients to the extent of 33% IPD and 40% OPD of the total occupied beds and of total OPD patients respectively but it has utterly failed to do so. It is submitted that an area of 15 acres of land on Delhi-Mathura Road, Jasola Village, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi was leased out at the rate or Rs. 1/- per month to Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. Apart from 14.83 crores plus interest, a further sum of Rs. 23.83 crores was paid by way of equity capital by the Govt of NCT of Delhi to the respondent-hospital. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 38.66 crores (plus interest on Rs. 14.83 crores) along with 15 acres of prime land on the Delhi-Mathura road was leased out at the rate of Rs.1/- per month to the joint venture constituted by the Delhi government and the Hospital. The petitioner has sought directions against the Apollo Hospital to comply with the provisions in the lease deed and ensure free treatment to poor patients.

2. The petitioner by present application seeks to bring to the notice of this Hon’ble court a case of poor patient, namely, Shri Suresh Rathore who needs further treatment from the Apollo Hospital with regard to his medical ailment of calculi (stones) and hydronephrosis in his right kidney and has no money to pay on any account like medicines, consumables, testing and subsequent follow-up, whereas the hospital is asking him to pay nearly Rs. 18000/-. It is submitted that the said patient has already written a request letter dated 03.07-2009 in this regard to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Hon’ble High Court with a copy to Shri Ashok Agarwal, advocate for the petitioner.

True copies of the said letter dated 03.07.2009 along with medical papers are enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure A collectively.

3. The petitioner submits that the patient, namely, Suresh Rathore, resident of Meethapur Ext, Badarpur, New-Delhi 110044, has approached the petitioner personally as well as in writing stating that he was admitted at the government ward in the Apollo Hospital on 31.10.2006 after having diagnosed with right upper ureteric calculus 15mm with HDM (N) functioning kidney and gross hydronephrosis. Thereafter, Laproscopy operation was conducted at the hospital on him on 01.11.2006 and he was given discharge on 03.11.2006. The patient was again admitted at Apollo Hospital on 10.10.2007 in which DJ Stent removal took place. After the said treatments, which cost the patient approximately Rs 25,000/- towards medicines, consumables and testing, the patient was told that his ailment no longer exists and he was discharged. The findings in his Discharge Summary dated 10.10.2007 clearly stated “stone fragments removed”.

4. The petitioner submits that in 2008, the said patient again felt pain in his abdomen for which he approached G.B. Pant Hospital, Delhi, where his X-Ray report showed the presence of right upper ureteric and mid & lower part of right kidney calculus and Grade III Hydronephrosis of right kidney indicating that the ailment, for which the poor patient had spent Rs. 25,000/- while undergoing earlier treatment at the Apollo Hospital, was still present in his kidney.

5. The patient rushed back to the Apollo Hospital and was told that another operation would have to be conducted on him which would cost him approximately Rs. 18,000/-. The petitioner would like to highlight here that this is in contradiction to the findings of the Hospital in 2007 that the stone fragments had been removed, which shows that the Hospital had erred in its treatment, for which the patient is made to suffer, not only physical but also extreme mental agony.

6. The petitioner submits that the ultrasound report dated 01.08.09 also confirms that the right kidney of the patient has multiple calculi (5 to 6 in number) with the largest being 9.1 mm in size and the rest between 4.0 to 6.0 mm. It further shows that the right kidney of the patient also has Grade I Hydronephrosis. The petitioner would like to highlight here that during the very first diagnosis of the patient it was revealed that there was only one calculus (stone) right upper ureteric calculus, 15mm in size along with gross Hydronephrosis. This shows that the Hospital erred in arriving at the conclusion that the treatment was complete, while in reality the calculus had only been broken down into various pieces.

7. The petitioner submits that the patient is not at all in a position to bear any further expenses on any account for payment to the Apollo Hospital towards medicines, consumables, testing etc. It is submitted that the patient is in dire need of immediate medical attention at Apollo Hospital to get rid of his ailment. However, the Apollo Hospital has told him to arrange for a sum of RS. 18000/- for the treatment.

8. In the premise aforesaid, the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:-

1. issue any appropriate direction to the Apollo Hospital to forthwith provide to the patient Shri Suresh Rathore necessary medical treatment free of cost without insisting on any payment on any account including that of medicines, consumables, testing etc;

2. issue any appropriate direction to Apollo Hospital for conducting free check-up of the patient after the said operation so as to ensure that the patient’s ailment does not recur; and

3. pass any further order or direction as may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

New Delhi

Dated: 04.07.2009 (Advocates......)

Oztralia: lesson to be learnt

Indian Students protesting againts attacks on Indians in Australia

The banners would have been lowered to be folded in a while. And the protesters would begin marching back home to immerse themselves in their routine jobs. Enough of the agitation. The newspapers have already become relatively quiet on the topic but it would still be too early to say the issue has died down. It would just take another incident like this to tee off another series of protests, editorials,comments and rhetoric, the works. I talk of the spate of recent racist attacks on Indian students studying in Australia and the subsequent manner in which the issue was handled by the Indian media.

As much as one would abhor racism and condemn such attacks, be that on any citizen in any country, one can't help but be cruel enough to feel a little smug that perhaps now they would know what being an Indian should mean to Indians. May be now the flag-bearer of Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) and its cousin Shiv Sena's followers and those who sympathise with their demands would understand why they have been wrong all this time. For how different are these racial attacks on Indian students in Australia than those by a Maharashtrian on a North Indian student? If the latter is justified than so should the former be, for both speak of exclusivity for their own ilk. The only difference their lies is that here they beat up their fellow countryman with whom they share more than mere nationality, while down under there was no thread binding them together except perhaps of residence.

Indians beating up Indians..courtesy MNS

I know it is not the time to feel smug or in the least pinpoint whose fault it is but we learn from experiencing things first hand. An Indian student lies in coma in far off Australia battling with his life, for no fault of his, for belonging to a land and choosing to study down under. And many like him have been hospitalised, all in one or the other racist attacks.

That's not all. We should also wait a moment here and look around how the media has tackled the issue. I wouldn't have given it much thought had a journalist from the Indian Express not mentioned the same in his column. The way even the leading news channels reported the incident it felt like India would go on war with Australia anytime. "India Fights Back", "Racism Down Under" etc etc.. One finds it stupid and absurdly presumptive, to say the least.

It is not as if the entire country that is against India or Indians as such. The heads of the nations have spoken and there has been no history of ill-will between the people of the two country's, except of course if one rules out Cricketing rivalry, which is anyway healthy for nations mad about a sport. But if we come down to a fellow Australian, do we have a reason to feel like we are hated? No! But if these news reports are to be believed one would feel the countries are at loggerheads with one another. But why would that be? Australians condemn these attacks like any other people. Rogue elements are there in all countries and all civilisations, but we don't go about saying that all individuals are violent, do we? And we know there are many incidents where foreign students or tourists have been attacked, though not for racism but for purposes like rape, robbery, and fraud. But we don't hear their media propounding or even hinting that India as a whole is unkindly to its visitors? So why are we going gung-ho about the same here?

Phew, let's come to a conclusion straightaway, let's just say these are the saffron brigade of valentine's day, these are the MNS goondas of Australia, out to save the pride of the marathi manoos, these are the sainiks of the Shiv Sena of Australia, who, without ideology or prudence strive for a goal which makes no sense and have not many takers in today's India.

Bail for Dr. Binayak

Having remained eclipsed from news for the whole day yesterday, today's newspaper brought definite cheers.  Dr. Binayak Sen has finally been granted bail by the Supreme Court after a period of 2 years during which hoards of protest marches, petitions, discussions and innumerable newspaper articles demanding his bail did the rounds in the country. While many are not aware of who Dr. Binayak Sen is, but among the civil society groups his had become a name that spelled berating yet slowly spiralling anger towards the Chhattisgarh Government. 

For the uninitiated, Dr. Binayak Sen, a paediatrician by profession and a civil rights activist in Naxalism stricken Chhattisgarh, was put to jail on May 14, 2007 on the charges of passing messages on behalf of a jailed Naxalist leader. He was arrested under the Chhattisgarh Public Security Act 2005 and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 after which he had been denied bail on every occasion.

It is further noteworthy that on March 31 the same year, several Adivasis were killed in Santoshpur, Chhattisgarh by police officers who alleged them to be Maoists. Dr Sen had been one of the most prominent faces condemning the attacks and who tried to draw attention towards the ghastly crime that had been committed in the name of duty. The autopsy report of the brutal 'encounter' showed that the dead had been hit on the head with bullets from a point blank range and there were also scars of axe injuries on their bodies. It was exactly a week after the autopsy report had come out that his arrest was made.

I don't propose to claim that I know any more that what daily newspapers feed me about him, but the case was such that any conscious citizen would feel aggravated by the lack of common sense and total arbitrariness with which he was kept in jail for a bailable offence, even though there was no material evidence. It is common knowledge for those who are familiar with even slightest of legal knowledge that bail is a matter of right. This right was not given to a man who is national Vice-President of the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL).

The seriousness of the matter and the levels the agitation for his release can be judged by the facts that sometime back 22 Nobel laureates from around the world had sent a written petition to the Government of India for Dr Sen’s release. Outstanding opinion leaders like Noam Chomsky and Amritya Sen besides those from the upper echelons of the media have all pushed for his cause. Innumerable campaigns in my own University where young students carrying placards and banners with messages like "Free Dr. Sen", "Grant Bail to Dr. Binayak Sen', took out protest marches and dharnas right from Art Faculty to all around the campus and back again for so many months. No major columnist or news magazine stopped short of voicing the injustice that was being perpetrated in the name of tackling Naxalism, Tehelka ran an entire issue on the same and every now and then the editorials would demand bail for Dr. Sen. But ofcourse the campaign didn't create as much of a furore among the masses the way the Jessica Lal issue or Aarushi case did, but it is definitely a victory for those fighting for civil rights in the country. And also a triumph for activism for one’s cause in the country.

UPA Returns

Results of the 15th Lok Sabha Elections have been out since seven or eight days now and the political magic/mania has not subsided at all. All the editorials or columns of the past month or so in one way or the other mention the elections or the people's mandate in an almost identical manner. There are certain details and observations which one would find in almost all such articles. First being the stability factor, the standard phrase being -- “the verdict of the people has shown that they want a stable government.” Second undoubtedly being the magnanimous integrity that the PM holds in the eyes of the nation, whose "commitment to the nation and honesty is above reproach or question". The third is definitely the Rahul Gandhi factor and how is a not your run-off-the-mill politician and how his subtle yet patient work has reaped results that no one had quite predicted.

I am most interested in the Rahul factor. His suave mannerisms have caught the fancy of the urban as well as the rural voter. Not your stereotype politician, he is ready to wait for his turn to come and till then committed towards focussing on workings of the youth brigade of his party.

Isn’t it quite remarkable how the three people at the helm of affairs of our nation have all been once considered naïve and reluctant politicians? Sonia Gandhi, when she first entered politics was rebuked for her accented Hindi, which she now fluently speaks at public gatherings; otherwise also her naiveté was jeered at mercilessly before and little after the UPA victory of 2004. The PM, we all know is for a fact an Economist, a former RBI Governor and someone who would rather be doing the works than merely be seen bringing down the opposition with his eloquent speeches. And then we have Rahul Gandhi, about whom enough has been said and written this past week or so.

But one thing I wonder all this while, what if the UPA had not won? Would we have been reading about how the same sloganeering, propaganda and advertisements by the BJP worked and how people were really voted for change? Then perhaps the PM would have been again termed weak and his policies lambasted? Rahul Gandhi would have been thwarted and his rural trips made fun of? Who knows? All the ideas that today we have formed, now that we know the results, would have stood no ground had the verdict been different.

For now, lets be happy that UPA was given an extended opportunity.