Which other democracy has a doormat for PM?

Cornered, bruised and battered, the Prime Minister decided to do an angry old man act in Rajya Sabha on Friday while reading out a banal statement on the ruinous state of the Indian economy. He need not have bothered with reading it out; it may well have been taken as read. India was looking forward to more than a Press Information Bureau handout and the fact that the Prime Minister failed to rise to the occasion is as much a reflection of his towering incompetence as further proof, if at all that is needed, of the huge crisis of leadership that the country faces in these troubled times.

We shall return to what Manmohan Singh said, and did not say, in a while. Before that it would be in order to comment on his mock heroic anger which has so enthused Congress stooges in media, one of whom, an over-rated anchor-turned-editor-in-chief at a media house which has just sacked hundreds of its staff on account of the looming economic crisis, couldn’t stop blabbering and gushing over what he described as the Prime Minister ‘striking back’ at the Opposition. Like much of what he says and writes, this too is an exaggeration whose purpose would be lost on the naïve and the ill-informed.

The perceived ‘anger’ of the Prime Minister was not the rage of a wronged man or a slandered politician, it was the impotent rage of a feckless person who, having offered to serve as the doormat of his boss, can’t figure out why nobody holds him in high esteem. Had Manmohan Singh been half the person he would like others to believe he is, he would have raged against Congress president and Nehru-Gandhi Dynasty matriarch Sonia Gandhi and stormed out of office. Instead he has chosen to not only supinely do her bidding that has fetched rack and ruin to the national economy but also demean the office he holds, bringing disrepute to South Block like no other Prime Minister has ever done, not even Chandra Shekhar during the few months he held that post.

A Prime Minister so denuded of honour, integrity and esteem can’t really expect his party colleagues, leave alone those in the Opposition, to treat him with anything except contempt as they do. It is only natural that the Opposition, barring those individuals who are given to supping with Sonia Gandhi in private while denouncing the Congress in public, should treat Manmohan Singh as beneath contempt. To pretend otherwise, as Manmohan Singh does, is to live in denial. He is welcome to do so, but he should not expect respect — that’s an unfair expectation.

As for his ersatz anguish over being called a ‘chor’ — as some MPs are believed to have done while remonstrating against the limitless corruption under his tutelage — he need not play Little Red Riding Hood; much worse has been said by his party and his boss about the Opposition and its leaders. Surely Manmohan Singh has not forgotten Sonia Gandhi’s vicious attack on Atal Bihari Vajpayee in bazaar Hindi spoken in guttural Italian accent. Or her spiteful description of Narendra Modi as “Maut ka Saudagar”. In which democracy does this happen?

Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley did not allow despise and loathing to get better of his sense of decency and decorum or else in his sharp repartee he would have gone beyond reminding Manmohan Singh that in no other democracy does a Prime Minister win a confidence vote by buying MPs. But neither decency nor decorum need restrain us from asking Manmohan Singh in which other democracy does a Prime Minister hold office without winning a direct election? In which other democracy does a Prime Minister hold himself unaccountable for the sins of omission and commission committed in his watch? In which other democracy does a Prime Minister preside over scam after scam, scandal after scandal without so much as bothering to even offer to resign? In which other democracy does a Prime Minister shield a Railways Minister hawking top jobs to the highest bidder? In which other democracy does a Prime Minister ask his Law Minister to fix the report of investigators looking into a massive scam? In which other democracy does a Prime Minister willingly mislead Parliament on crucial foreign policy issues that impinge on national security? In which other democracy has a Prime Minister been repeatedly found to be telling less than the truth? In which other democracy does a Prime Minister slyly blame the Opposition for the swindle-and-loot, tax-and-splurge, steal-and-scoot Government he heads?

It is laughable that Manmohan Singh wants the people of India to believe that the Opposition questioning him and his Ministers on dubious deals and stalling Parliament to expose the crimes of the Congress and his amazing silence have led to loss of investor confidence at home and abroad. That’s undiluted bunk. Investors have not lost confidence in India — the country and the people are the same as they were before the waning of trust happened — they have lost confidence in the UPA Government, the Congress which leads this Government, and the Prime Minister who heads the Government.

Surely Manmohan Singh knows better than to expect investors to have faith in a Government whose leading lights are constantly looking for opportunities to feather their own nests? Nor should he expect us to believe that investors are not deterred by his Government’s wasteful ways. The Prime Minister conveniently forgets that imposing retrospective taxes on corporates was not the doing of the Opposition. If licences have been cancelled by the Supreme Court, causing telecom investors to shy away from India, it is not because the Opposition stalled Parliament on the Great 2G Spectrum Robbery, it is because Manmohan Singh did nothing to stop the robbery that took place with his full knowledge. If big ticket reforms have languished, it is not on account of the Opposition but due to the pusillanimity of the Prime Minister. We could either accept these facts or blame the crisis in Syria for our woes.

Meanwhile, the latest financial figures came out last evening, delayed by several hours so that Manmohan Singh could make a last ditch effort to sell the fiction that not all is lost and he shall bravely soldier on to resuscitate a sputtering economy. Growth rate is down to 4.4 per cent, exports are down on a year-to-year basis and food inflation remains frighteningly high. Worse, jobs are disappearing across sectors at an alarming rate. And here we have our Prime Minister blaming everybody except the culprits responsible for this criminal destruction of the economy. That’s understandable, though not condonable, since he is primarily to blame for this wanton destruction. No punishment would be sufficient for him.

Why is Manmohan Singh so desperate to appease Pakistan?

Army chief Bikram Singh pays last tribute to jawans killed by Pakistani soldiers

A feckless Prime Minister can only be expected to cut corners with India's interest and security. But that does not mean we should let Manmohan Singh do so unchallenged and unquestioned

The outpouring of rage across the country after Pakistani soldiers sneaked across the Line of Control in the Poonch sector and ambushed an Indian Army post, killing five jawans, earlier this week, could have only been missed by a criminally callous Government like the one which currently presides over India’s steady but steep decline and decay. Hence it’s not surprising that Defence Minister AK Antony stumbled so badly in articulating the UPA’s response to the dastardly deed by Pakistan in our Parliament.
Instead of pinning the responsibility for the murder of our soldiers on Pakistan, Antony first sought to absolve those guilty of the crime by describing them as “persons in Pakistani Army uniform”. It is now believed the Defence Minister’s statement, which marked a sharp departure from the Defence Department’s statement blaming the Pakistani Army, was vetted and cleared by the National Security Adviser and senior officials of the Ministry of External Affairs. That followed their meeting with diplomats of the Pakistani High Commission in New Delhi who had been ostensibly summoned to South Block to register India’s protest.
We will never know what prompted the Prime Minister’s Office and the Ministry of External Affairs to rush to Pakistan’s aid and put a gloss over its crime. Friends in the Ministry of External Affairs who are appalled by the Government offering an escape route to Pakistan say Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is desperate to broker ‘peace’ at any cost, even if it means cutting corners with India’s national interest.
The reasons for this desperation are no secret. Manmohan Singh believes that if he tries hard enough, he can secure the Nobel Prize for Peace. For that he needs the US’s endorsement. The US, in turn, wants him to turn a Nelson’s eye to Pakistan’s offences and accept Islamabad’s terms for a rapprochement, no matter how tenuous that may be. Pakistan, meanwhile, has let it be known that it shall persist with its policy of inflicting a thousand cuts and India could either take it or leave it. Manmohan Singh, clearly, is more than willing to take it if it means a pat on the back by US President Barack Obama and an invitation to the glittering Nobel ceremony to collect this year’s Peace Prize.
For a man whose inaction, chicanery and incompetence has dragged India’s economy back to the pre-1990s (Morgan Stanley says this year’s growth could be as low as 3.5 per cent) and whose crafty pandering to crass minorityism to keep his political boss (Congress president and NAC chairperson Sonia Gandhi) happy has caused buried communal fault lines to resurface, this is the only road to securing a place in history. Little does he realise that once he demits office, which he will have to, he shall be reduced to no more than a footnote of history, a reminder that India was misgoverned by a gang of thieves for nine years with Manmohan Singh playing Ali Baba.
Yet he persists in search of the proverbial ‘sim-sim’, the magic code that will allow him entry to the world of immortality. If that means the truth should be subverted and national security compromised, if it requires playing fast and loose with India’s pride and dignity, he is game. We have seen this in the past too —when he travelled to Havana and declared, along with General Pervez Musharraf, that Pakistan is not the tormentor and perpetrator of terror as Indians believe it is, but a victim of terror; when he agreed to the shameful joint statement dictated by Yousuf Raza Gilani, then Prime Minister of Pakistan, and issued from Sharm el-Sheikh; when he slyly bypassed the national consensus that there should be no talks with Pakistan till it brings the masterminds of the 26/11 Mumbai carnage to book; when he allowed Pakistani Ministers and officials to pour scorn and ridicule on India while standing on Indian soil. The tailoring of the Defence Minister’s statement is, therefore, understandable, as is the rush to whitewash Pakistan’s sin.
Thankfully, an alert Opposition spotted the difference and the BJP pilloried the Government till it ate crow and the Defence Minister made a second statement, this time accusing “specialist troops” of the Pakistani Army for the killings: “We all know nothing happens along the Line of Control without the support... direct involvement of the Pakistani Army,” he added for good measure. The revised statement followed reports, planted (or leaked, as some would prefer) by ‘sources’, that Sonia Gandhi was mighty displeased with the Government for playing ducks and drakes.
A revised statement implicating Pakistan directly for the killing of our jawans, however, does not mean corrective action on the policy front. It was expected that Manmohan Singh would, in the least, call off his scheduled meeting with Nawaz Sharif in New York in late September when he is there for the United Nations General Assembly’s annual jamboree. It was also expected that the Foreign Secretary-level talks, which had been put on hold after the brutal slaying of two Indian jawans (one of them was beheaded; the other disfigured) by Pakistani soldiers at Mendhar, will remain off the radar for the foreseeable future.
But no, that’s not happening. We are told Manmohan Singh will meet Nawaz Sharif in New York and the Foreign Secretary-level talks will resume next month. After he meets Nawaz Sharif, Manmohan Singh will travel to Washington, DC to meet Barack Obama. Is one predicated on the other? The answer to that question is obvious: The Americans want us to carry the can for Pakistan, never mind the cost to India, as they prepare to exit from Afghanistan. Predictably, Manmohan Singh is more than happy to play ball with the Americans.
The alternative to the craven approach adopted by Manmohan Singh (he can’t stand up and be counted either at home or abroad) is not to go to war with Pakistan, as is mockingly and jeeringly suggested by his flag-wavers, especially in media. Nor is it to halt all interaction with Pakistan. It is to adopt a calibrated approach, making it abundantly clear to both Islamabad and Rawalpindi that every cut inflicted on India comes attached with a price to be paid by Pakistan. We could start getting there by insisting that if Pakistan wishes to talk, it should agree to joint secretary-level dialogue which would be restricted to comparing notes and no more.
That, however, would require guts. And a Prime Minister who is not as feckless as Manmohan Singh. Unfortunately, for the moment we are stuck with him. All that we can do is raise our voice and say ‘No’ to him. He is unlikely to listen, but at least our conscience would be clear.

Change electoral system to fight graft...

This is the second part of what Atal Bihari Vajpayee told me when I interviewed him in December 1997. It was published in The Times of India under the headline: The Man India Awaits.

The monster of corruption is threatening our polity. How, in your view, could we battle this monster?

As I see it, good governance is possible only when a Government has an ethical base. Tragically, morality and ethics are at a discount in politics today, not only in India but countries across the world. Today we find country after country grappling with the monster of graft; competitive politics is increasingly relying upon the strength of money, more so with the waning of ideology. But corruption cannot be just wished away; it needs to be fought at every level, beginning with the cleansing politics of the influence of money power. The second requirement is extensive electoral reforms...

You have often talked about the need for systemic changes, that we need to have a second look at our Constitution...

After 50 years, yes, the time has come for a second look at our Constitution and to explore the possibility of institutionalising some systemic changes. Some people have pointed out the merits of the presidential system. But here, too, the question arises as to what sort of a presidential system would suit India.

You know, there is this Supreme Court judgement prohibiting any change in the basic structure of the Constitution. We have to bear that in mind. But even within the present structure, certain changes can be brought about, especially to ensure stability. For instance, we could consider a five-year mandate for the Lok Sabha, thus preventing mid-term polls. We could also consider the German system that doesn't allow a no-confidence motion against the incumbent Government but only a motion of confidence in an alternative Government. Whatever it is, but we must look for a cure to this instability. I would suggest that we appoint a high level Commission on the Constitution to take a fresh look at it and recommend systemic changes.

What sort of electoral reforms would you recommend?

Our electoral system is flawed on several counts. For instance, the first-past-the-post system which India borrowed from Great Britain does not appear to have served the country well. Perhaps the time has come for a review of this system and to take a close look at other systems prevalent elsewhere in the democratic world.

A fundamental flaw in our system is that often a party's support base is not reflected in the number of seats it is able to win. With a huge share of the vote, you could end up with seats much below the number required to obtain a majority in the House. Conversely, with a smaller share of the vote, a party could find itself on the Treasury Benches. A direct fallout of this, especially in the wake of the collapse of the Congress which has vacated political space at a rate faster than in which any single political party can occupy this vacuum, is the current political instability. So, why don't we have a look at the list system or a mixed system of representation?

In recent years we have witnessed the emergence of regional parties and the decline of national parties like the Congress. What reasons would you attribute to this... 

In the wake of India's independence, there was a tendency to centralise power in
Delhi. Primarily, there were two reasons for this: Our experience of partition and the need to consolidate more than 500 states and the provinces into a Union. Essentially, the idea was to avoid further fragmentation. There was this additional factor that the Congress was the dominant party both at the Centre and in the states. With the national parties fully engrossed by national problems, region specific problems and aspirations were ignored. Over-centralisation also resulted in Chief Ministers running to the Centre for the smallest of clearances and permissions, not to mention funds. All this resulted in the emergence of regional parties. So long as these parties have a national outlook, I see nothing wrong with them.

This brings us to the issue of decentralisation and giving more powers to the States...

Yes, there has to be decentralisation of political as well as economic powers. Decision-making cannot be restricted to the Centre alone. We have been arguing for greater fiscal autonomy for the States as well as shifting the balance of resources in favour of the States. As far as political powers are concerned, on issues like the appointment of Governors, the consent of the Chief Minister should be secured. Needless to add, I am totally against the misuse of article 356 and given a chance, would amend this Constitutional provision so as to prevent its abuse. The Sarkaria Commission's recommendations were allowed to gather dust. Many of those recommendations need to be updated and, more importantly, implemented.

What, in your opinion, should be the character of a stable coalition Government? And, why do you think coalitions have failed till now?

Let me answer the second question first. As a people we are yet to learn the art of working together. If individuals in a party cannot function smoothly, leading to fragmentation of parties, how can parties come together and function smoothly? In any case, this 14-party Government was a joke of a coalition. As for the first question, well, ideally a stable coalition should have a large party as its nucleus. This has been proved in States where coalitions have worked, for example, West Bengal.

(To be continued.)

'I dream of a strong, prosperous India'

"At a time when every party was singing paens to the Nehruvian model of command economy, the Jana Sangh was demanding that the economy be freed from the clutches of Government control..." 

This is what Atal Bihari Vajpayee told me when I interviewed him in December 1997. It was published in The Times of India under the headline: The Man India Awaits.

I accidentally stumbled upon the text of the interview. Re-reading it, I realised he was a true visionary, a towering stalwart among pygmies who then crowded the Government at the Centre as they do now; a leader who inspired hope and kindled aspiration, much like Narendra Modi does today.

It's a long interview. I thought of breaking it up into smaller parts. Here goes the first of the lot. Read, retrospect, react.   

 

At a political rally addressed by Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee, as the veteran leader took the mike, somebody from the audience shouted, “Desh ka pradhan mantri kaisa ho?” and the others responded with “Atal Bihari jaisa ho!|” Mr Vajpayee, in his inimitable style, began his speech by saying, “Sawal yeh nahin hai ki pradhan mantri kaisa ho. Sawal yeh hai ki desh kaisa ho.”

Mr Vajpayee's pride in his Indian heritage is deep, vast and abiding. If, on the one hand, it causes him deep distress at the present state of the nation, it also forms the foundation of his hopes for tomorrow on the other. Indeed, the greater the sorrow he feels, the more determined he grows to make India rise above its failures and resume its place at the apex of civilisation.
A popular poem of his offers abundant proof of this.

He exhorts Indians to find within themselves, the daring, courage and honour that characterised great Indian men of yore. His call sounds for all those who can willingly make sacrifices without expecting either fame or any other reward in return ... “who burn like a flame in the dark even while others shine in the light of fame”. His summons are for people “who have the glorious vision of the future in their eyes and the speed of storms in-every step”. He knows that nothing can stop the rising tide of patriotism and it is with this knowledge that his call rings out: “Come all who dare.”

Mr Vajpayee, in this era of globalisation, economics is fast supplanting politics all over the world. You are widely perceived as India's next Prime Minister. If you were to become India's next Prime Minister, what would be Swadeshi's influence on your economic policies? And since a country is largely shaped by its economic-policies, what should be India's approach?

Let me make it clear that Swadeshi does not mean that India will become an island by itself or become isolationist. Neither does it mean that we will not allow the inflow of new ideas and  new technology or, for that matter, foreign investment. 

Swadeshi essentially means that people should have the confidence to build a modern and prosperous India by working hard and making the maximum use of the resources that are available at the moment. It means making India a global player. It means strengthening our indigenous research and development. Swadeshi ultimately means ensuring a reasonable standard of living for all citizens.

Those who say that India cannot move forward unless others come to our aid, are wrong. We have an abundance of natural resources, trained technical manpower and our achievements in science and technology are remarkable. Therefore, there is no reason why we should not have pride in our national capabilities. I would say, in a nutshell Swadeshi means "India can do it and India will do it".

Would you reconsider liberalisation?

There can be no going back to a completely state-controlled economy in which, instead of rewarding private sector for higher production, limits were imposed through quotas. Since its inception, right from the days of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, my party has all along demanded deregulation of the economy and cutback in Government controls. At a time when every party was singing paens to the Nehruvian model of command economy, the Jana Sangh was demanding that the economy be freed from the clutches of Government control.

Expansion of the public sector without developing a professional managerial class for the public sector enterprises has made many of them unprofitable and unviable. I believe that we should try and revive those undertakings that can be turned around. In any event, I am against substituting the earlier policy of indiscriminate expansion with indiscriminate closure. In all this, the workers' interests need to be safeguarded.

There is this view in your party against consumer items, especially those manufactured by MNCs...

What I and my party are opposed to is allowing the Indian market to be swamped by products that offer an illusion of prosperity but in reality meet the demands of a very narrow band of people. Putting it simply, we are against unlimited consumerism which may appeal to cosmopolitan, upwardly mobile Indians, but ignores the needs of 75 per cent of the country's population that lives in our villages. Other countries in South-East Asia that have prospered, have done so through high rates of saving. We, too, must strive for higher savings rates.

If you were the Prime Minister, would you recommend a change in the manner of approval of foreign investments or regulate its inflow?

I would ensure that every investment offer is decided on merit and whether it meets our country's needs. I would bear in mind our national interests.

There is an increasing demand from Indian industry for a level playing field. Which essentially means a degree of protection for local industry...

I am inclined to agree with them. Indian industry has to be given time and all help to prepare itself to meet the challenges of globalisation. Till recently they operated in a largely protected market. To suddenly push them into competition, that too with those who are at a more advantageous position, especially as far as access to capital is concerned, is unfair. Yes, I do favour a level playing field. If in the USA they can have this slogan, ‘Be American, Buy American’, why can't we say, ‘Be Indian, Buy Indian’? Instead of being swamped by foreign brands, why can't we make Indian brands globally acceptable?

There is also this thing that economic liberalisation has not benefited small scale industry and agriculture... 

Small scale sector deserves full protection and all possible incentives. As for agriculture, we all know that investment in this crucial sector has declined, resulting in a slowdown of
agricultural growth despite a good monsoon. I would consider investment in agriculture one of the top priorities for a Government committed to good governance.

(To be continued. Published in The Times of India on December 25, 1997.)

Who let the trolls in?

Welcome to the New Virtual World Order!

(Visual courtesy: http://hebreaksthecedars.blogspot.in)

The first time I encountered the word ‘troll’ was in high school. That year, we had to read JRR Tolkien’s fantasy novel, The Hobbit, as part of our course for English literature. It was in the pages of that fascinating book that we discovered amazing creatures, including hobbits and trolls.
Trolls, we were told by way of introduction to these supernatural beings, traced their origin to Norse mythology. They were not particularly handsome in their appearance, lived in mountain caves and had their own social code. Human beings steered clear of them as they did of human beings.

I read The Hobbit at the turn of the last quarter of the last century. Although it’s a memorable book, hugely entertaining at one level and profoundly meaningful at another, I had forgotten about trolls and their strange ways. And I didn’t hear or read about trolls till my foray into social media via Twitter.

I must admit that I was clueless about the terms of engagement in Twitterdom. I learned the rules, such as they are, as I went along, often through mistakes that I wouldn’t ever commit again. Those were days of well-meaning innocence. I wish I had been cynical.

Two terms I would hear often is ‘troll’ and ‘trolling’. The Urban Dictionary, which too I discovered via social media, defines a troll as someone who is deliberately provocative, disruptive and abusive.

A ‘troll’ is someone who “continually harangues and harasses others, has nothing worthwhile to add to a conversation, thinks everybody is talking about him/her, and has multiples monikers to circumvent getting banned”. Trolls also use anonymity as a shield. And their online activity is what is known as ‘trolling’.

Meeting a troll in the misty mountains of Hobbitland would have been a thrilling, if not delightful, experience. Meeting a ‘troll’ on an online forum, especially an open forum like Twitter, can prove to be neither thrilling nor delightful.

Yet, not everybody who is impolite to you, or does not shares your views, or has a bone to pick with you because of real or imaginary grievances, or simply has had a bad hair day and is nursing a foul mood, is a ‘troll’. Nor does someone who pitilessly demolishes your argument, or calls you out for being less than truthful with facts, or tells you on your face that you are a charlatan and/or a philanderer (because you indeed are one), qualifies to be labelled as ‘troll’.

I have no issues with such people even if they are labelled as ‘trolls’ by those who feel unsettled by them. On more than one occasion I have defended them because I see them as subaltern sepoys who have at last found a means of having their say and calling the bluff of those given to bluster.

Also I quite enjoy watching worms squirm. Those mortified by ‘trolls’ like these have had a free run till now. No longer shall they go unquestioned; no more can they peddle their bunk without a quality check. That’s social media’s biggest contribution.

A ‘troll’ is someone who intentionally harasses and abuses. A ‘troll’ is someone who deliberately defames and slanders you.

A ‘troll’ is someone who slyly stalks you, twists your words, and seeks to denigrate your views by imputing slanderous motives.

A ‘troll’ is someone who can be confronted and charged with criminal offence. At least that’s my interpretation of who or what is a ‘troll’ and his/her ‘trolling’.

The presence of ‘trolls’ as I see them is undesirable on an open media platform where freedom of expression is often misconstrued as freedom to abuse, to defame and to slander.

Individuals taking shelter in anonymity do so. Bots using monikers also do so, perhaps with a degree of sophistry.

I would also add a third category of ‘trolls’: Individuals who use their real names and are either brazenly shameless or secure in the knowledge that prosecution for libel is not an easy option in our country.

They spit and scoot. They squat and stalk. They are possibly sickos with twisted minds and darkened souls.

But we don’t live in a perfect world. In real life there are ‘trolls’ all around. Colleagues bitch about you behind your back at office. Relatives say nasty things about you after dining at your home. Examples abound.

Hence, it makes sense to ignore ‘trolls’ who abuse, defame and slander others, taking recourse to bazar language. It also makes sense to ignore the posh ‘trolls’ who pretend to be socially, culturally and intellectually superior and believe everybody else is a ‘moron’.

Some of these posh ‘trolls’ also happen to media stars, courtesy their real and sugar daddies. We contemptuously ignore insufferable fools, so should we ignore insufferable ‘trolls’ like these.

But that’s easier said than done. Often individuals take offence, very serious offence, to ‘trolling’ by ‘trolls’. What invariably follows is ‘I feel outraged’ or ‘I feel violated’. That’s silly.

In the virtual world of social media, it’s absurd to feel angry or violated, not the least because the millions out there give a damn about your feelings. Tough luck. Get real. Deal with it.

There’s a problem though. The easily offended, the perpetually violated, find it difficult to get real and deal with the fact that not everybody is a fawning admirer and an unquestioning toady.

News telly stars, who have till now talked down to their audience from the safe confines of their studios, are alarmed at being confronted on social media platforms, say, Twitter, for their glaring biases and for running motivated stories.

Writers who have pontificated from their ivory towers, brooking neither criticism nor correction, are horrified for being told on their face that what they produce is bilge. That’s not what they are accustomed to hearing.

The Bold and the Beautiful, the pretty people who blow kisses, call each other ‘dahling’, and pretend to know all about wines and single malts although anything but rum, the good old sailor’s drink, gives them indigestion, at Dior-drenched Page 3 parties, are left speechless by the audacity of the unwashed masses on social media platforms. Who let the dogs in?

The new digital order did. Social media isn’t the Gymkhana and Twitter isn’t the IIC. By the way, Bharat speaks English too. And guess what? Bharat has this terrible habit of questioning hypocrisy, exposing duplicity and lampooning gasbags masquerading as intellectuals.

So what will you do? Write a pompous piece denouncing Bharat? That will fetch much mirth and laughter – before you know, Bharat will be rolling on the floor laughing his ass off.

Horrible ‘troll’ this, Bharat. But that’s what you get for removing the digital divide. Welcome to the New Virtual World Order.