Mugabe’s victory, Gandhi’s advice and Deuba’s visit

By Dr Shreedhar Gautam

Zimbabwe’s long time ruler Robert Mugabe swept to victory recently in the most bitterly contested presidential election in that country’s history. The election pitted President Mugabe, the most charismatic leader the country has known in 22 years of independence, against Morgan Tsvangirai, a former labour organiser. Though challenger Tsvangirai has accused the government of rigging the election and thus preventing the supporters of the opposition party from voting, most of the observers from African countries have declared the poll as fair and free. Of course, some of the Commonwealth countries, most prominently Britain, have rejected Mugabe’s victory out of hand. Governments of these countries all but dismissed the outcome even before state television announced that Mugabe was selected with 1,685,212 votes. The British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, and the US State Department spokeswoman, Lynn Cassel, have expectedly termed the election seriously flawed and stolen for obvious partisan reason.

In normal circumstances the presidential election in Zimbabwe would not have received world attention, as it is normal practice in any democracy. But in the context of British, Australian and United States overt interference in the internal matters of a sovereign country, the elections received a different colour. Though it is no longer fashionable to decry the evils of colonialism in assigning blame for national misfortune in other former colonial countries, Zimbabwe is the sole exception because of its struggle for land reform for land owned by white farmers. The colonial land ownership patterns that gave most of the viable farmland to white settlers lies at the root of the political crisis in Zimbabwe. The western interference in Zimbabwe’s election has to be traced to the old colonial administrative habit of divide and rule, which led almost inexorably to the tragedy of partition in the Indian sub-continent.

The BBC, CNN and major western print media have been consistently trying to arouse public opinion against Mugabe and project the image of Tsvangirai as the most democratic leader. The boundaries of Zimbabwe were drawn in colonial times, and they still create enormous problems of national unity. The colonial legacy can cause further trouble along ethnic or regional lines in Zimbabwe. The former colonial mentors are exploiting all these factors to defame Robert Mugabe and ensure disproportionate land ownership by white farmers. On the one hand the underdevelopment of Zimbabwean society is itself a cause of conflict, on the other hand, the ex-colonials’ attempt to divide the country on regional and communal basis is posing a great threat to Zimbabwe’s stability. In such a situation Mugabe’s political rhetoric against colonial power cannot be dismissed. Despite the fact that colonialism seems the least plausible subject for discussion in today’s world, it remains a relevant factor in understanding the problem and the danger faced by weaker nations. Unlike the former colonial states like India, we have not had the history of direct colonial rule, but we should learn a lot from the courageous stand taken by Mugabe.

Robert Mugabe successfully led his country against the colonial power, and so the people voted him to power for another six years reposing full faith in his leadership. Today, Mugabe can be a role model for least developed third world countries like Nepal. In the just held presidential election he showed exemplary resolve and determination to preserve national pride and sovereignty by banning the western media, including the BBC, fully aware that they were biased in their reporting and so a possible source of trouble. >From day one of the election campaign, western media projected Robert Mugabe as a totalitarian, anti-democratic leader bent upon destroying the country. This is a familiar trick used by the former colonial powers elsewhere in the world.

In our national case, we must have been full of hope and enthusiasm because the twentieth century gave us the valuable gift of democracy in the form of a multiparty system before it bade farewell. We enjoyed it immensely while restoring parliamentary democracy taking for granted that Abraham Lincoln’s famous phrase ‘government of the people, by the people, and for the people", would be realised in its true spirit. According to Lincoln’s definition of democracy, government of the people means the people’s government, or government over the entire people. None of the people are left out. Government by the people means the people are the governors. In their capacity as rulers they choose executives and representatives to make and enforce their laws. Government for the people means government that acts for the general welfare of all the people, not just some, and especially not just the rulers themselves.

If we observe the present situation of our country we will see not the democracy as defined by Lincoln and Jefferson but a sheer mockery of it. We have failed to put the means of democracy into practice. Today, our nation is passing through the severest crisis in its history. We are not in a mood to celebrate the triumph of democracy. All the euphoria generated soon after the restoration of the multiparty system has died down. The country is at the crossroads and confronted with various kinds of warnings. Of these, the overt and covert interference of foreign powers on the pretext of helping Nepal fight the Maoists is very serious. The major culprits behind all these perils are the politicians, who have sold out our national interest several times under the pressure of foreign masters.

The basic of good governance is judged by the results in terms of providing basic needs i.e food, job and shelter. But the politicians entrusted with the responsibility of governance have neither any strategy nor policy to achieve this goal. They are not affected by the suffering of the people. Had they been sensitive to their plight, they would have been moved by the news of death every day either of Maoists rebels or security personnel. In today’s context it is relevant to remember Mahatma Gandhi who lost all his peace of mind when he saw the suffering of the people as a result of poverty or the communal violence in various parts of India during partition days. He said: "Whenever you are in doubt or when the self becomes too much with you, recall the face of the poorest and the weakest of men, whom you may have seen, and ask yourself if the step you are contemplating is going to be of use to him. Then you will find your doubts melting away" Our politicians who have been indifferent to the public’s fate over these years need to draw inspiration from Mahatma Gandhi as well as Robert Mugabe.

Both the leaders went through trials and tribulation in their lives. Both fought tirelessly and consistently against the perils of colonialism. We need Mugabe and Gandhi because on the one hand there is a need of fearless leaders with fighting spirit against foreign mentors, and on the other hand we must not do anything just out of hatred and negative feeling. Gandhi and Mugabe represent these two qualities. While being aware of outside interference in our country, we should not be parochial and dogmatic in our approach towards other countries. If Gandhi could lead his country with the power of sacrifice and sincerity, Mugabe has become a role model by exhibiting supreme courage at a difficult moment of history. We are tired of listening to the outdated lectures of our worn out politicians. We need leaders of Gandhi and Mugabe’s stature to steer the country through this difficult time. We have seen how our successive Prime Ministers failed to raise our concerns with the Indian side during their visits to New Delhi. This time too Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba has come back without resolving any major issue, including the presence of the Indian army in Kalapani, the Khurdalotan embankment, Nepal’s concerns about changes in the trade treaty and the need of greater market access for Nepali goods. There are reasons to worry whether the visit of our Prime Minister will further undermine our national cause as in the past.

Confusing monologue

By HITESH KARKI

There is no change without a dream and no dream will born without hope"....

I still have a vivid picture of those days when we were desperately dreaming of living in a very prosperous nation. That very powerful dream, thanks to some of the great leaders (well barring a very few of them, most of them have now demonstrated their true chameleon characteristics!) has finally materialized leading to a birth of a new nation.... a complete transition where hopes and aspirations reigned supreme. Evolutions are always a gradual process and revolutions are not! And because it was a revolution, it was aiming for the moon.

I admit that I was too young, too naive to rationalize things then. And as time flew by, I can hardly think of anything without forcing myself to overcome the confusion factor. Everything confuses me! Don’t ask me why do I get so confused for it will only make me more confused if I even make an attempt to answer your query!

There are a plethora of factors that drive me insane. As a result I often, but not that often like the number of casualties that we are so accustomed to hearing these days, I invariably end up asking questions to my already confused self, hoping against the hope that out of this vicious circle of confusion, I still might come out with not so confusing answers.

This me, asks me ‘Why did people ask for a change in the very first place?’ And quite amazingly, I do get an answer for that. People do need changes not just because stagnation stagnates everyone but changes are ought to be constant. So what if things did not change overnight for we could still soothe, comfort our stagnant minds by referring to the story- ‘Hare and a Tortoise’.

I don’t care if I am satisfied or not for I still think its not a ‘confusion-free’ answer at all. The only thing that makes me happy is at least I have an answer to answer myself.

The barrage of confused questions still continue to cause havoc in my already comfortably numb gray cells of my brain. The constitution, when promulgated, was hailed as perfect not just by the general masses but also the so-called elite classes. Ironically those very people are crying hoarse for its amendment.

The same guy who once (in this specific case I chose to use ONCE for he came to power too many times!) with an agenda of peace and good governance (and failed miserably!) has now no hesitations in publicly saying that ‘it’s the army that’s responsible for the state of emergency!’ And thanks to his confused mind which keeps on urging him to grab the power, even if it’s the democratically elected government holding a complete majority, he is crying vociferously for a NATIONAL government to govern the government.

‘Am I falling in the trap by his confusing theory?’, I ask myself and I get even more confused as I try to figure out where are we all heading to by listening to such logics?

Well, either the tortoise completely forgot that it was participating in a race or got confused and ran in the opposite direction, I do not care for I still have loads of confused questions raking up my confused brain. And I don’t want to be confused more!

Upstairs, downstairs

By JUG suraiya

The world is divided into two classes of people, at dedicated crosspurposes with each other. From time to time, attempts have been made to identify these two adversarial camps: men and women; haves and have-nots; North and South; centralists and federalists; conservatives and liberals; believers and non-believers; early risers and late slugabeds; people who drive on the left side of the road and people who drive on the right; Coke drinkers and Pepsi drinkers; those who can stop a dog-fight and those who can’t stop a dog-fight.

All these are distinctions without a difference; mere pimples on the skin of separatist identity. There is only one fundamental schism which divides humankind, an unbridgeable Grand Canyon that cuts through all considerations of colour, creed, caste, cash flow, gender and political persuasion to cleave the human race into two irreconcilable entities: landlords and tenants.

If this universal truth needed further endorsement it was provided by the eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation occasioned by the Delhi Rent Bill. Landlords were up in arms because they were convinced the proposed legislation was prejudicial, reprehensible, utterly unfair and sounded the death-knell of civilisation the way we know it. Tenants were up in arms because they were convinced the legislation was prejudicial, reprehensible, utterly unfair and sounded the death-knell of civilisation the way we know it. So far, so good. But the landlords were up in arms because they felt the bill favoured the tenants. And the tenants were up in arms because they felt the bill favoured the landlords. Instant Armageddon, bring on the sandbags.

The genesis of this ancient enmity can be traced to a four-way optical illusion: the way the tenant sees himself; the way the tenant sees the landlord; the way the landlord sees himself; the way the landlord sees the tenant.

The way the tenant sees himself: Model of gentleness, patience, universal brotherhood and self-sacrifice. Having taken the vow of poverty, has surrendered all his worldly wealth — such little as there was to begin with — to the Rent Control Office since the Party of the second Part, who hereinafter shall remain nameless except under legal advisement, refused to accept it, claiming, in an unparalleled display of rapacious avarice, that it was not enough (Not enough? For this cement straitjacket that the Party of the second Part laughably refers to as a dwelling abode? Hah!)

However, a firm adherent to the principle of peaceful co-existence, the tenant puts up with all this, even paying out of his own pocket for day-to-day maintenance, like procuring a plastic bucket to catch drips from the hole in the roof. And in a spirit of good neighbourliness plays MTV at full volume at 11 at night so that all within a vicinity of 2 km need not undergo the expense of acquiring their own TV sets. All this and more the tenant does, in the knowledge that the meek shall inherit the tenancy rights of the earth, in perpetuity and for ever and ever, amen.

The way the tenant sees the landlord: Not satisfied with having extorted rent from present tenant’s great-grandfather, now not only wants to extract further rent from present tenant but wants to do so at the enhanced rate of Rs 5 a month. Favourite hobby: extracting blood out of a stone. Routinely harasses tenant’s visiting friends and relatives, like the other day began to question why tenant’s cousin brother’s wife’s nephew-in-law had been living with tenant for the past seven years. Never heard of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) which collectively defrays cost of HUF plastic bucket to catch drips? Refuses to heed tenant’s reasonable request that money-bags not be counted after 11 p.m. as clinking of coins disturbs tenant’s concentration on MTV.

The way the landlord sees himself: Always ready, willing and able to come to the succour of the wretched and homeless of the earth, hereinafter referred to as the Parties of the second Part, who consistently betray the landlord’s faith in them. A mere 24 months’ security deposit, plus three years’ rent in advance is excessive? C’mon, for Pete’s sake, you want charity, go to Oxfam. Will the Parties of the second Part never learn there’s no such thing as a free slum? Look how much it takes to provide a mod-con like running water, for instance. First you’ve got to knock a hole in the roof. Then you’ve got to wait for the monsoon to come. And if it’s late, who get’s the blame? The landlord, that’s who. Try to do good in this world, don’t expect any gratitude.

The way the landlord sees the tenant: A thoroughly subversive element who if given an inch will promptly take a 99-year lease, with option to renew. Believes that occupation is nine-tenths of the law, and who cares about the other one-tenth anyway. Forever seeking to raise bilateral issues at third-party forums like Rent Tribunals, etc. Always trying to sneak foreign elements into the disputed territory through the back door, like alleged cousin brother’s wife’s nephew-in-law who is actually PG hailing from Sriperumbudur. Any reasonable measures undertaken by the landlord to safeguard the territorial integrity of his domain are promptly countered by cries of human rights abuse, a preposterous contention which underhandedly seeks to introduce two highly dubious propositions into the issue, namely (a) that the Party of the second Part is human, and (b) that the Party of the second Part has any rights anyway.

Like the Party of the second Part, in occupation of a fourth-floor barsati, who raised a hue and cry because the landlord took away the staircase. The landlord’s pointing out that the Party of the second Part did not pay rent for the staircase and as such had no legal right to it proved of no avail. Finally, the landlord magnanimously allowed the Party of the second Part to make transitory use of the intervening air — for which also no rent was paid — between the fourth floor and the ground and jump. To help in the descent the landlord even offered a rope — with instructions on how to knot it round the neck to break the fall.