You are on page 1of 23

qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwerty uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasd fghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx Politics As a Construction of Culture cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq Cultural Studies wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg hjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc vbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg

hjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc vbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg hjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwert yuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas


8/10/2010 Group Members Alok Kamath Chirantan C. Vishal Prabhu Aditya Labhe Anubhav Rattan

An Introduction Indian Politics


Though the political narrative dominates in accounts of the history of British India, as in the preceding pages, the social and cultural histories of the British Raj are no less interesting. There are doubtless enduring, though not necessarily desirable, influences of British rule in contemporary India. The elites of the country write and converse largely in English, and are connected amongst themselves, and to the larger world outside, through the English language. The Constitution of India, howsoever noble a document, has been decisively shaped by the Government of India Act of 1935, which was scarcely designed to alleviate the distress of the predominantly underprivileged population of India, and not much thought seems to have been given to considering how appropriate a parliamentary system, with roughly the same number of seats in the lower (elected) house, the Lok Sabha, as in the House of Commons, might be for India when it is infinitely larger than Britain. The political and administrative institutions of independent India operate on the assumption that the country is still under colonial rule, and that the subjects are to have no voice in governance, unless they make an extreme fuss. The country is made up off people, including politicians. Whenever there is a scandal showing a politician taking bribes, the whole nation jumps on the ship blaming politicians. That is one of the few occasions you can see people of India united. We are not saying politicians do not hold any responsibility, but that, if we have to blame someone, first we have to take a look at ourselves. Politics in India is run like a family system. When the head of the family dies, the next in line takes his or her position. The same goes for our political system, in that when a party leader resigns, the immediate person to look for will be his relative. Instead of having the thought of elections, they have a thought of bringing the relative of the outgoing leader. In this age where even a child has a mobile phone in his hand, people want the country should run as it did during the old ages (mughal rule etc- where the son would take over the chair after his father). Politics of India take place in a frame a federal parliamentary multiparty representative democratic republic since India is the world's largest democracy. As like any other democracy, political parties represent different sections among the Indian society and regions, and their core values play a major role in the politics of India. Both the executive branch and the legislative branch of the government are run by the representatives of the political parties who have been elected through the elections. Through the electoral process, the people of India choose which majority in the lower house, a government can be formed by that party or the coalition. India has a multi-party system, where there are a number of national as well as regional parties.

Introduction to Culture and Cultural Conditioning


The culture of India has been shaped not only by its long history, unique geography and diverse demography, but also by its ancient heritages, which were formed during the Indus Valley Civilization and evolved further during the Vedic age, rise and decline of Buddhism, the Golden age, invasions from Central Asia, European colonization and the Indian independence movement. India's languages, religions, dance, music, architecture and customs differ from place to place within the country, but nevertheless possess a commonality. The culture of India is an amalgamation of these diverse sub-cultures spread all over the Indian subcontinent and traditions that are several millennia old.

Characteristics of culture and how politics affects it.


Culture is learnt The members of a culture share certain ideals, which shape their lives. Generations learn to follow these ideals and principles. Culture propagates through generations, which adopt their old customs and traditions as a part of their culture. The ideals they base their lives on is a part of their culture. Cultural values are imparted from one generation to another, thus resulting in a continual of traditions that are a part of culture. The language, the literature and the art forms pass across generations. Culture is learned, understood and adopted by the younger generations of society. No individual is born with a sense of his/her culture. He/she has to learn it. Helps personality development The characteristic of an individual is his personality. An individuals personality is moulded as per the culture in which he is brought up. Indian culture is dogmatic hence the people in India are narrow minded and still believe in the old philosophies and are superstitious; whereas the western society is liberal hence the people have a broader and think scientifically. A specific political party with certain ideals which can change the society which changes the principals for the development of the personality. Plays an important role in controlling the behavior.

Culture restricts an individual from going against it. Culture is a set of ideas, thought, values-thus it forms a informal restriction. Culture plays a important role in controlling social behavior, it guides behavior. Often breaking rules invokes criticism from the society. In rural India caste ideas and principals play an important role. People indulging in intercaste marriage are excommunicated. This excommunication is done by the Gram Panchayat which is a political system for the rural areas. Culture is dynamic.

Culture changes according to time. Society is not static, so as the society changes culture also changes. This because of the technological revolution, urbanization, influx of information. As culture changes the mindset changes, as mindset changes the needs change and as needs change the politics change and vice versa. So the change in politics and change in culture goes hand in hand.

Some culture are adjusted and some are maladjusted

Sometimes new culture is accepted because the society benefits out of it. Some culture is mal adjusted because of fear of corruption of thought leading to disruption of societal life. An example of maladjusted culture is live-in relationship. Political parties who are at times the gatekeepers of culture will never accept a live-in relationship on the basis of the principal of chastity.

Material and non-material culture.

Material culture indicates the various material aspects of the culture like art and architecture, clothing and so on. Its represents the social economic and political culture and speaks about the growth and development. Non-material culture is ideas, thoughts and values. It is belief in these aspects. It refers to the nonphysical ideas that people have about their culture, including beliefs, values, rules, norms, morals, language, organizations, and institutions. A gap between material and non material culture is called cultural lag. This usually happens because the material culture changes faster as compared to the non-material culture. Political parties in a way cause cultural lag. For example Shiv Sena does not mind the people accepting the western clothing but creates a ruckus when a western idea of Valentines Day is celebrated. This means that Shiv Sena is allowing the material culture to chage but is not allowing the non-material culture to change.

Cultural Elements
Artifacts Artifacts are the physical things that are found that have particular symbolism for a culture. They may even be endowed with mystical properties. The first products of a company. Prizes won in grueling challenges and so on are all artifacts. Artifacts can also be more everyday objects, such as the bunch of flowers in reception. They main thing is that they have special meaning, at the very least for the people in the culture. There may well be stories told about them. The purpose of artifacts are as reminders and triggers. When people in the culture see them, they think about their meaning and hence are reminded of their identity as a member of the culture, and, by association, of the rules of the culture. Artifacts may also be used in specific rituals. Churches do this, of course. But so also do organizations. Stories, histories, myths, legends, jokes Culture is often embedded and transmitted through stories, whether they are deep and obviously intended as learning devices, or whether they appear more subtly, for example in humor and jokes. A typical story includes a bad guy (often shady and unnamed) and a good guy (often the founder or a prototypical cultural member). There may also be an innocent. The story evolves in a classic format, with the bad guy being spotted and vanquished by the good guy, with the innocent being rescued and learning the greatness of the culture into the bargain. Sometimes there stories are true. Sometimes nobody knows. Sometimes they are elaborations on a relatively simple truth. The power of the stories lies in when and how they are told, and the effect they have on their recipients. Rituals, rites, ceremonies, celebrations Rituals are processes or sets of actions which are repeated in specific circumstances and with specific meaning. They may be used in such as rites of passage, such as when someone is promoted or retires. They may be associated with company events such as the release of a new event. They may also be associated with everyday events such as Christmas. Whatever the circumstance, the predictability of the rituals and the seriousness of the meaning all combine to sustain the culture. Heroes Heroes in a culture are named people who act as prototypes, or idealized examples, by which cultural members learn of the correct or 'perfect' behavior. The classic heroes are the founders of the organization, who are often portrayed as much whiter and perfect than they actually are or were. Heroes may also be such as the janitor who tackled a burglar or a customer-service agent who went out of their way to

delight a customer. In such stories they symbolize and teach people the ideal behaviors and norms of the culture. Symbols and symbolic action Symbols, like artifacts, are things which act as triggers to remind people in the culture of its rules, beliefs, etc. They act as a shorthand way to keep people aligned. Symbols can also be used to indicate status within a culture. This includes clothing, office decor and so on. Status symbols signal to others to help them use the correct behavior with others in the hierarchy. They also lock in the users of the symbols into prescribed behaviors that are appropriate for their status and position. There may be many symbols around an organization, from pictures of products on the walls to the words and handshakes used in greeting cultural members from around the world. Beliefs, assumptions and mental models An organization and culture will often share beliefs and ways of understanding the world. This helps smooth communications and agreement, but can also become fatal blinkers that blind everyone to impending dangers. Attitudes Attitudes are the external displays of underlying beliefs that people use to signal to other people of their membership. This includes internal members (look: I'm conforming to the rules. Please don't exclude me). Attitudes also can be used to give warning, such as when a street gang member eyes up a member of the public. By using a long hard stare, they are using national cultural symbolism to indicate their threat. Rules, norms, ethical codes, values The norms and values of a culture are effectively the rules by which its members must abide, or risk rejection from the culture (which is one of the most feared sanctions known). They are embedded in the artifacts, symbols, stories, attitudes, and so on.

Cultural Agents
Inventions Inventions refer to finding a new thing. Inventions may be either material (bow and arrow, gun, spacecraft, computer) or social or non-material (constitutional government, corporations, alphabet, dance, drama, literature). All inventions are based on previous knowledge, discoveries and inventions. Hence, the nature and rate of inventions in a particular society depends on its existing store of knowledge. Discovery

A new discovery is finding something which already exists. A new discovery becomes an addition to the societys culture, only if it is shared within the society. It becomes a factor or source of socio-cultural change only when it is put to use. Diffusion

Diffusion is the main source of cultural and social change. Each culture accepts elements from other cultures selectively. Material artifacts that prove useful are more readily accepted than new norms, values and beliefs.Innovations must be compatible with the culture of the society into which they diffuse. Toward a Global Culture Some sociologists today predict that the world is moving closer to a global culture, void of cultural diversity. A fundamental means by which cultures come to resemble each other is via the phenomenon of cultural diffusion, or the spreading of standards across cultures. Cultures have always influenced each other through travel, trade, and even conquest. As populations today travel and settle around the globe, however, the rate of cultural diffusion is increasing dramatically. Examples of social forces that are creating a global culture include electronic communications (telephones, e-mail, fax machines), the mass media (television, radio, film), the news media, the Internet, international businesses and banks, and the United Nationsto name only a few. Even phrases like global village seem to imply that the world is growing smaller every day. Still, while many aspects of culture have been globalized, local societies and cultures remain stable and, in many instances, are being affirmed with enthusiasm. Although people may relocate on the other side of the planet, they tend to remain faithful to their culture of origin.

Political System
Politics is essentially an ancient and universal experience. The art and science of political analysis has developed over several thousand years throughout many parts of the world. In particular political analysis has thrived in all cultures that have inherited the rich legacy of the ancient people like Greeks, Romans and the Indians. Like any other arts and sciences political analysis achieved an extraordinary degree of sophistication among Greeks some 25 centuries ago under the leadership of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Since that time every generation has produced a a few great students of politics who have contributed much to the development of the discipline. Political system has given rise to important element called the state. The state is the highest of all human associations. The state grows, is permanent and reappears when it is destroyed. The state is necessary for the mans growth and development. Without it man cannot reach the eight of his perfection. Aristotle holds that the state came into existence in order that we might live, but it continued in order that we may live happily. The sate consists of three important elements-population, territory and government. Population It is the number of people residing in the state. Territory It is the boundary of the state. Government.

It is an instrument that helps in the administration of the state. The government ensures a smooth flow of matter and social life in the state. The government is agency or instrument through which it can express itself and enforce its will. The government is again of three types Totalitarian government It is a system in which the total power is vested in one individual or party. It is popularly known a dictatorship or authoritarian government. The authoritarian government ignores community and follows its own laws. Authoritarian government based on leadership. This leadership can be Traditional i.e. hereditary. Legal i.e. authority is passed on by leadership quality. Charismatic i.e. the leader is elected because of his ability.

This type of government comes in being when the social order is shaken or broken. It is the biggest rival of the Democratic Government.

Welfare state

Welfare state is one which is wedded to the principle of promoting the general happiness and welfare of all the people. The objective of the welfare state mostly lies in the economic filed. It consists in the readjustment of incomes to provide for the less privileged citizen. The state reduces inequalities of income through taxation and strives to increase national production. Democratic state

Democracy as a political system, i.e. as a form of government, has become politically the most fashionable one today. It is often said to be the best and the most civilized form of political system.

The political system also promotes a important element called political parties. A political party is an association organized in support of some principal or policy which by constitutional means it endeavors to make the determinant of government. The political party system can be classified into three types One party system

A single-party state, one-party system or single-party system is a type of party system government in which a single political party forms the government and no other parties are permitted to run candidates for election. Sometimes the term de facto single-party state is used to describe a dominant-party system where laws or practices prevent the opposition from legally getting power. Some single party states only outlaw opposition parties, while allowing subordinate allied parties to exist as part of a permanent coalition such as a popular front. Two party system

A two-party system is a form of party system where two major political parties dominate voting in nearly all elections, at every level. As a result, all, or nearly all, elected offices end up being held by candidates endorsed by one of the two major parties. Coalition governments occur only rarely in two-party systems. Under a two-party system, one of the two parties typically holds a plurality in the legislature (or a legislative house in a bicameral system), and is referred to as the majority party. The smaller party is referred to as the minority party. Two-party systems are most common in polities with plurality vote counting system ("first past the post").

Multi party System.

A multi-party system is a system in which multiple political parties have the capacity to gain control of government separately or in coalition. It encourages the general constituency to form multiple distinct, officially recognized groups, generally called political. Each party competes for votes from the enfranchised constituents (those allowed to vote). A multi-party system prevents the leadership of a single party from controlling a single legislative chamber without challenge. Basis for political parties Political parties are formed on the basis of their leadership and ideologies. The leadership of the political parties is all about image building. Bal Thackerays leadership of Shiv Sena and the fact that he only is the karta dharta of the Marathi Manoos is a result of image building. Also the ideologies and propaganda should be strong enough that they attract the people and that the vote for them. The political parties should have these essential features Accountability Transparency Rationality Dominance

The political system results because of the voting behavior of the people. It is a value of universal adult franchisee. Voting refers to the political process of electing representatives to a legislative body. These elected representatives play a important role in the decision making process. This voting behavior is a result of the cultural conditioning by the society. In India the voting behavior has undergone a tremendous amount of change. Political awareness is increasing even among the rural poor and illiterate populations. There is an increase in the identification and with political parties and leaders. Since the voting age is 18, even college going students get an opportunity to exercise their vote. Voting behavior is influenced in the Indian context by various factors such as religion, caste, community, language, class, money, personal charisma of the leaders and also by certain unforeseen or accidental factors. Politics in South India is based on caste, language and ethnicity. Hence, a politician makes it a point to address any 3 of these points in order to generate votes in his name. People from a lower caste would automatically support a politician if he/she mentioned equality during his reign. Similarly, if a politician promised unity in the south, he/she would become very popular.

Though majority of the Indian voters are found to be illiterate and ignorant, they are politically more alert than the educated persons. They take active role in voting. They have shown some appreciable political maturity in unseating some of the inefficient stat government. It is because of their faith in the democratic process, interst in elctions and active participation in voting, India continues to be the largest democracy in the world with 50 years of history. The political system also promotes the elite group. This group basically consists of the CM, PM and other ministers who are supposed to be common people but are considered elite by the common people who elected them and put them in their position. This usually happens because the common people see these representatives with load of security hobnobbing with celebrities, appearing on television which is usually considered as high profile or elite. Politics has played a very important part in construction of culture in South India. The people from the south worship the politicians as Gods. They pray in their name and also perform various poojas in their name. The mindset of the people is changing now, but there are still people who perform such rites.

Socio-Political Culture of India A culture is the manner of doing things individually, or in an organized manner as a group, which the majority of populace in a particular group adheres with and accepts. So, culture can be characterized as individual culture, or as organized culture. Yet often, the Individual culture becomes insignificant against the organized culture of the group or society, and when an individual pertains and adheres with his individual approach and manner of doing things, his manner or culture is testified by categorizing him/her or his/her acts as cultured or uncultured. That makes the individual culture insignificant and the individual becomes either a cultured (skilled) person or uncultured (unsophisticated) person.

Culture is the shared patterns of behaviors and interactions, cognitive constructs, and affective understanding.

Socio-political culture of a society represents the methodical organized activities of a society people as a group, which pertains, with the development of socio-political scenario of that society in a particular time period. The noticeable thing is, culture is not a fixed absolute truth, and it keeps changing from time to time. Culture is a dynamic flux where the aspirations of the individuals of the society and the values of the community clashes with each other, providing a middle path of change satisfying both the aspirations and value premises of the youth members and the veterans of a culture. The noticeable fact of this flux is aspirations of the youth or new members often wins over the value premises of old and that brings about a change in outlook of the society and its values.

Chanakya was more known to be an economic liberal and a liberty-lover who denounced all excessive taxation system

Indian culture is a vast and historic flux that is evolving, distorting, and reshaping itself searching for the freedom, equality and justice, since the start of the time. Yet, in the making of Modern India, the first genuine effort to unite the Indian sub-continent as a nation to express a dignified culture took place during the evolution of Maurya Empire. Chandragupta Maurya was the founder of the Maurya Empire. He succeeded in bringing together most of the Indian subcontinent, and that is why he was the first genuine unifier and emperor of India. After the invasion of Alexander on India, Chanakya, the economic-political scholar and teacher of that era, roused as the individual power to bring upon an empire, which could defend India against any further invasion from any foreign power. He overthrew the vast Nand Empire with the help of Chandra Gupta and cultivated a new empire controlling the Indian borders and safeguarding them. Chanakya was more known to be an economic liberal and a liberty-lover who denounced all excessive taxation system of Nand Empire and established new norms. According to Chanakya, Taxation should not be a painful process for the people. There should be leniency and caution while deciding the tax structure. Ideally, governments should collect taxes like a honeybee, which sucks just the right amount of honey from the flower so that both can survive. Taxes should be collected in small and not in large proportions. Chanakya was a firm believer of self-sustenance and individual rights and the virtue of selfishness. In Garuda Purana, Chanakya signifies the importance of money and the value money inherits 1.7: Put aside some wealth in case of future difficulties. Never ask, Why should a rich man dread hard times? If Lakshmi, the Goddess of Fortune, decides to go elsewhere, even your savings will dwindle. Chanakya, Garuda Purana Later on he says about wealth and richness 5.20. Wealth, which represents Her in this world, never stops moving from one hand to the next. Whenever a clever man becomes rich, others lay schemes for plunderbanks through exorbitant interest rates, governments through constant and excessive taxation, thieves through extortion and common citizens through lawsuitsall conspire to reduce a rich mans accumulated wealth to zero. Chanakya, Garuda Purana. It is observable, that with the stability in political culture, Maurya Empire brought-forth a need for Individual liberty and economic freedom too. Yet, the era was feudalistic and Chandra Gupta Maurya established the empire by dethroning and killing Nand Vansh. The blood-shedding of feudal structure kept Indian plains blood red and Ashoka, the greatest of Indian Emperors followed the same gory culture and killed his own brothers to gain the empire. Yet, historical evidences interprets that Ashoka was the most successful, benevolent and popular emperor.

The kingdom and serfdom continued to rule the Indian sub-continent, struggling within them-selves, involving in bloody wars and fights, and as the organized culture of unity deteriorated, Indian sub-continent again faced foreign invaders in form of Ghauris, Qutubs, and Mughals. Babar established the Mughal Empire, and Akbar, the grandson of Babar, proved himself as the most significant ruler of Mughal Empire. He again unified India and brought about some major socio-political and religious changes. Yet, because of the similar drawbacks of feudal system and inter-contradictions and fractions, Mughal Empire lost its control and British Empire took hold of India. Indian public was used to the imperialism and serfdom, yet the kings and rulers of India revolted against the British rule, and the first Independence struggle was staged in 1857. The basic change that struggle brought forth was the sense of common citizen of India, to be a vibrant and important part of India. After 100s of years, the society was now taking a unified facet with a charm of equal responsibility. Yet, this dream of liberty was only against the foreign rulers. In 1857, the common citizenry was still ready to accept the national kingdom of Mughals or some Indian Kingdom again. Yet the times were changing and it took a little time from a drastic change in socio-political culture of India from that point of time of 1857. Indians rouse against any sort of rulers and kingdom. Obviously, the intellectual touching from foreign world and Indian intellectuals drive towards the reasonability of individual freedom and the democracy strengthened in India. With the establishment of Indian National Congress under the headship of Indian Industrialist Dadabhai Naoroji and veteran leaders like Gangadhar Tilak, feudalism was destined to end in India.

Capitalism is economic freedom, a synonym of Individual Liberty

Yet, on the name of Liberty, the national leaders were seeking for political liberty of Indians, and in 1947, Indians did achieved the political freedom with establishment of democratic India. Democracy provided a certain degree of freedom but the battle didnt ended there. Democracy, being the rule of majority over minority, providing ruling powers to certain class of rulers belonging to politicians, never let the Indians to strive and aspire for Individual freedom. The Organized culture continued to defeat the Individual strides and demeaning the individual culture as Unsophisticated. Yet, the aspirations are meant to defeat the outdated values. Until 1991, Indian government kept a closed organized culture of socialism, unjustified egalitarianism, and governmental indoctrinations. The economic meltdown of 1992 brought

forth a further economic-socio-political change and India opted for liberalization of economy. The flux is under constant change, and it is not very far in future when Indian society will start emphasizing the Individual Culture, the culture of freedom, liberty and individual rights over the organized culture. It is a positive evolution, a story of evolving changes in the society merging from socio-political clutches of serfdom to the individualistic aspirations of freedom, self-reliance and Individual rights based on economic freedom as enshrined property rights and culture of Individual voluntarism.

Case study
Cultural diffusion due to colonization At one time, a century and half ago, cricket was an English game. It had been invented in England and became intimately linked to the culture of nineteenth century Victorian society. The game was expected to represent all that the English valued fair play, discipline, gentlemanliness. It was introduced in schools as part of a wider programme of physical training through which boys were to be moulded into ideal citizens. Girls were not to play games meant for boys. With the British, cricket spread to the colonies. There again it was supposed to uphold the value of Englishness The colonial masters assumed that only they could play the game as it ought to be played, in its true spirit. They were, in fact, worried when the inhabitants of the colonies not only began to play the game, but often played it better than the masters; and at times beat the English at their own game. The game of cricket thus got linked up closely with the politics of colonialism and nationalism Complex Cultural Politics of Indian, now Qatari, Painter M. F. Husain Celebrated Indian painter M.F. Husain has been shuttling between Dubai and London in self-imposed exile after leaving his country amid harsh attacks from conservative Hindus, who consider his depictions of nude goddesses to be sacrilegious. Now the Qatari government has offered Husain citizenship

Both of these images depict the same subject, (left) one by a more traditional Indian artist, and the other (right) by M. F. Husain, which is one of his controversial works that caused outrage among some Hindu nationalists.

According to Agence France Presse, Maqbool Fida Husain accepted the Qatari offer. The controversy began in 1996, when, according to Wikipedia, when they were printed in Vichar Mimansa, a Hindi monthly magazine, which published them in an article headlined M.F. Husain: A Painter or Butcher. As a result, eight criminal complaints were filed against Husain, who is a Shiite Muslim of the Suleimanis sect, and some Hindu nationalists made his provocative paintings of Hindu deities a major issue.Often referred to as Indias Picasso (though I dont really understand why), Husains case after a little bit of digging doesnt seem as straightforward as it is often presented. When the New York Times tackled Husains story in 2008, they tried to explain away the reason for his depiction of nude Hindu deities:Husain insists that nudity symbolizes purity. He has repeatedly said that he had not meant to offend any faith.But the same article tries to support their premise that he isnt offending one faith alone with the fact that he has offended Muslims too: But one of his paintings, showing a donkey to the artist, a symbol of nonviolence at Mecca, created a ruckus among his fellow Muslims. The problem is that the two (nude Hindu deities, donkey in Mecca) arent exactly comparable. One ignited a national campaign that included his house being vandalized and artworks being attacked, while the other involved more localized grumblings.One recent writer on a Wall Street Journal blog served as an apologist for Husain and wrote that peoples questioning of Husains motive for the move as suspicious, particularly to a country that is not a democracy, is irrelevant. I disagree, I think it is very relevant.According to a columnist for the Hindustan Times, Vir Sanghvi, there may be a double-standard at work and some religious Muslims though not all are being hypocrites in regards to artistic censorship. Sanghvi writes: Try looking at the Husain saga through the prism of secular double standards. Our position as liberals is that an artist has the freedom to paint what he likes. If some Hindus are offended by Husains nude Saraswatis, then they can simply look away. They have no right to restrict his creativity or to deny the rest of us the opportunity to view Husains work.But sceptics (all of whom are not necessarily Muslim-haters or communalists) frequently ask the obvious follow-up question: how would we have responded if Husain had painted Muslim religious figures in the nude?The answer is an uncomfortable one. Even if he had painted the Prophet, fully clothed and portrayed with respect, we would not have risen to Husains defence with the same vigour. We would have said Islam prohibits visual representations of the Prophet so Husain should not have offended Muslims. That answer weakens our claims about artistic freedom. Why should Husains creative abilities be hampered by some Quranic injunction? Why should non-believers be bound by the dictates of believers? Why do we campaign so hard for Husain and yet condemn the

Danish cartoonist who offended Islamists?So, what do you think the chances of Husain painting images of Mohammad or nude portraits of his wives are? Back in 2008, the New York Times reported that he was working on a series on Arab civilization, which was to be exhibited in Qatar, I assume it already was. What makes me think that there were no nudes in the series?While I dont support censorship of any kind, I think its really disturbing that Husain chose Qatar, which regularly censors everything, as his home rather than remain in democratic India. According to a 2009 report by Canadian OpenNet Initiative, which monitors online censorship: The censors in Qatar admit to filtering pornography, political criticism of Gulf countries, and material deemed hostile to Islam. The authorities also pervasively filter gay and lesbian content, sexual health resources, and privacy and circumvention tools. Political filtering is highly selective, but journalists self-censor on sensitive issues such as government policies, Islam, and the ruling family.I admit Im disturbed by M. F. Husains move. I know hes probably looking for a lovely place to retire, some place that will treat him like a king, but this leaves a bad taste in my mouth.I take the values of democracy too seriously and the thought of a creative person who has greatly benefited from freedom even if that has come with the bitter sting of public protests and legal problems would choose a repressive autocratic state over a democratic one is just too much for me. Indias political history India is the most populous democracy in the world. It has operated under a multi-party system for most of its history. For most of the years since independence, the federal government has been led by the Indian National Congress (INC). Politics in the states have been dominated by national parties like the INC, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and various regional parties. From 1950 to 1990, barring two brief periods, the INC enjoyed a parliamentary majority. Within Indian political culture, the Indian National Congress is considered center-left or "liberal" and the Bharatiya Janata Party is considered center-right or "conservative". The INC was out of power between 1977 and 1980, when the Janata Party won the election owing to public discontent with the state of emergency declared by the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. In 1989, a Janata Dal-led National Front coalition in alliance with the Left Front coalition won the elections but managed to stay in power for only two years. As the 1991 elections gave no political party a majority, the INC formed a minority government under Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao and was able to complete its five-year term. The years 19961998 were a period of turmoil in the federal government with several shortlived alliances holding sway. The BJP formed a government briefly in 1996, followed by the

United Front coalition that excluded both the BJP and the INC. In 1998, the BJP formed the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) with several other parties and became the first nonCongress government to complete a full five-year term. In the 2004 Indian elections, the INC won the largest number of Lok Sabha seats and formed a government with a coalition called the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), supported by various Left-leaning parties and members opposed to the BJP. The UPA again came into power in the 2009 general election; however, the representation of the Left leaning parties within the coalition has significantly reduced. Manmohan Singh became the first prime minister since Jawaharlal Nehru in 1962 to be re-elected after completing a full five-year term. I want to change the political culture of India: Tharoor New Delhi: Often surrounded with controversies over his use of words, Minister of State for External Affairs Shashi Tharoor has said he has been "brought down" as there were "elements in our society who rather revel in bringing down people as well".

Tharoor said he wanted to change the Indian political culture, which "sadly" doesn't welcome discussions, but did not have "rank, or the authority or the background" to do so. "I have been brought down, but I am not going to make any bones about it," Tharoor said admitting that some of the controversies relating to him were due to language used by him. Asked if there has been a problem understanding the vocabulary of Indian politics, he said, "Possibly. I am not denying that."

On his tweeting which annoys a lot of people, Tharoor, in an interview to a channel, said "the truth is when any thought you express can reach out to almost seven lakh people, wouldn't any politician kill for an audience like that?" The minister also justified his tweeting about the government policies, saying "Everybody else is doing it. Even the Prime Minister of Australia tweets. Foreign Secretary of Britain David Miliband tweets and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tweets. In fact, when she was in Delhi there were a dozen tweets a day about all her activities and her meetings." He also observed that Indian political culture was not the one which "welcomed" public discussion of issues requiring debates.

"I only regret the visa tweet because of the nature of our political culture, which is not one sadly, where public discussion of issues requiring discussions is particularly welcomed. "I would love to change that culture but I can't as an individual start setting the pace. I don't have the rank or the authority or the background to be doing that. I think I should have been, in that sense, a little more restrained about putting it on twitter or indeed even saying it on TV at that point," Tharoor said.