Bharat Vs India Vs Hindustan! The fight is on!

Raju Korti
The recent overemphasis by Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi on the use of "Hindustan" as against its other counterparts like "Bharat" or "India" have expectedly stirred a hornet's nest. But a disclaimer in place first! This blog is not about Rahul Gandhi per se but political leaders' penchant to twist the words to their advantage by poking people's brittle emotional and political conscience. 

It is no surprise that in "India, that is Bharat", a phrase that former MP and journalist Baburao Patel used extensively to make his proclivities clear, the tendency to politicise every issue has become ingrained in the fabric of public discourse. From social issues to cultural events and even matters relating to scientific research or technological advances, there is a marked propensity among political parties and their supporters to view everything through a partisan lens. As a natural corollary, this politicization often leads to polarized debates where the focus shifts from the substance of the matter at hand to scoring political brownie points or subtly reinforcing ideological stances. Among other things, it hinders constructive dialogue and problem-solving, potentially overshadowing history, genuine concerns and solutions inclined to boost political agendas.

Politicians are known to use "Bharat," "Hindustan," or "India" strategically to appeal to different sentiments and audiences for political gain. Behind the specious terming, there are subtle messages to convey so they carry to the right quarters. All the three have a historical and cultural context but politicians have fine-tuned the art of creating controversies where none (should) exist.

Remember, days before the much anticipated G20 summit was scheduled to begin in Delhi, the dinner invite mentioning "President of Bharat" sparked widespread controversy. It was a political full toss  (or a yorker?) delivered to a class of people who revel in conspiracy theories and love to ready everything between the lines. Knowing Modi's predilection and talent to finger his opponents, this was quickly interpreted as "India" would be officially named as "Bharat" in the ensuing session of the parliament. That didn't happen but always ready to rub salt on the opposition's festering wounds, I am sure the PM just derived some fiendish pleasure.

Following the G20 dinner invites, the Modi's visit to Indonesia for the 20th ASEAN India Summit and 18th East India Summit, added fuel to the fire by referring to him as the "Prime Minister of Bharat". In all the indignation, it was forgotten that this was not the first time "Bharat" was used in an official document. When Modi attended the 15th BRICS summit in South Africa and then went on an official visit to Greece thereafter, the government notification referred to him as "Prime Minister of Bharat". The use of "Bharat" as against the commonly used "India" by the international community, was dubbed as a "symbol of colonial slavery."

Without quoting Shakespeare's trite, each of these words have their own origin. In its Constitution, the world's most populous country has been mentioned as "India" and "Bharat". "Hindustan" is believed as the land of the Hindus. It is an attribution that comes most Muslim countries, especially referred to as such by Pakistan. The use of "Hindustan" is loaded with political and religious overtones that can be understood and let pass, unlike "Bharat" which has acquired a political tinge. 

The words "Hindustan", "Bharat" and "India carry a deep cultural, historical and political implications in the context of Indian subcontinent. From time to time, these are twisted and used out-of-context to give it a glaring political hue. Politicians are known to have used "Bharat" or "Hindustan" to invoke a sense of cultural pride or national identity rooted in historical and cultural heritage. No prizes for guessing these appeal to sentiments of nationalism and cultural unity, especially among conservative or traditional voters.

Depending on the context and audience (read constituency), these are also tossed around or sautéed to align with specific religious communities. To that extent, "Hindustan" signifies a Hindu-majority identity (or a more pointed reference to the minorities), appealing to voters who prioritize religious affiliation in their political choices. The choice between "Bharat" and "India" carry a subtle political hint where "Bharat" is often associated with a more traditional or indigenous identity, contrasting with "India" which is perceived as a legacy of colonialism. Often, these are conveniently interchanged to appeal to different demographics.

In multilingual and culturally diverse "India" "Bharat" or "Hindustan" are used in regions where these terms resonate more deeply due to historical, linguistic or cultural reasons. Politicians cunningly shape historical perspectives to fit their political narrative. The manipulation of these terms is a reflection of the complex socio-cultural and political landscape of the country. Leveraging them to gel with target audiences and strengthening political prospects come with a hefty price that the country pays in terms of their divisive outcome. 

All three have a distinct etymology and I would not labour over them for obvious reasons but vulnerable population needs to understand the political tapestry of the Indian sub continent and their implications. A simplistic view of these terms, knowing their cultural dynamics, would perhaps take away all the vicious sting that politicians bring to them with their ulterior motives but that is impossible where people cud on issues that don't need too much to be read into.

As a fundamental rule, I have used all three from time time to time in different but non-controversial contexts. I clearly remember, I had used "Hindustan" in an attribution to Asaduddin Owaisi and some overzealous elements on Facebook, pounced on me as if I had coined the word. Owaisi and his ilk get away with these (things) but those commenting from the sidelines with zero vested interests face the flak. Do I need to say more?

Its not climate change, its human callousness.

Raju Korti
I am fundamentally opposed to the term "vagaries of nature". It is an expedient way to blame the Nature for all the ills humans suffer. The phrase often implies a randomness or unpredictability in natural occurrences, suggesting that Nature operates without discernible pattern or purpose. As a compulsive student of Climate Physics (my own coinage, of course because it is never taught as a proper subject in science curricula), I find the term patently flawed in its implication. 

A file grab from the United Nations website.

No disasters are artificial, they are all man-made, including those laid at the doorstep of what is being bandied as "climate change". Admitted, Nature. though sometimes complex and sometimes unpredictable, operates within the framework of intricate systems and laws that govern the universe. I call it Climate Physics that hasn't reached the depths of human understanding. It is not altogether surprising that there are very few who observe the phenomena from weather patterns to geological processes rather than treat them as mere whimsical fluctuations.

Dismissing natural disasters as vagaries undermines all serious efforts in scientific principles at play and diminishes the awe-inspiring intricacy of the natural world. In the hurry to dismiss the issue with a tinge of scrappy research, it is often forgotten that it is through rigorous study and exploration that we uncover the order and beauty within what might initially appear as chaos. Climate Physics doesn't get the attention it deserves and the efforts to understand "climate change" often gets lost in a maze of confusing facts and figures that vary geographically but with little efforts to co-relate them and present a plausible model. In simpler words, we are just not able to delve deeper into the fascinating mechanisms that govern our plant and universe.

It is no secret that humans are primarily responsible for virtually all global heating over the last 200 years. Greenhouse gases are warming the world faster than at any time in at least the last 50 years and humans love to pay more lip service to the cause than any steps on ground. It is obvious that the efforts to contain or mitigate the adverse effects of climate change and bring a semblance of order to rampaging Nature, have been significantly less. Governments across the globe are either indifferent or do not think the issues is weighty enough to expend money and worthwhile research. Far from being inclement, Mother Nature has been kind, giving humans umpteen hints that there is scope for mitigation.

Most people think climate change means warmer temperatures. That, however, is just a superficial exterior and beginning of the story. Because the Earth is a system, where every other parameter is connected, change(s) in one area has the potential to influence changes in all others. The adverse and all-pervasive effects of climate change have been spelt out with regular alarm -- intense droughts (dry and wet), water scarcity, severe fires, rising sea levels, flooding, melting polar ice, catastrophic storms, declining bio-diversities, and the unprecedented but ubiquitous heat waves all over the world. The last one was the dominant news other than our pathological obsession for Politics.

The flip side of rising presence of greenhouses gases means rise in carbon footprint, causing global temperatures to soar. The scientific consensus should be clear: Human actions are the dominant driver of the perceived climate changes over the past century with profound implications for ecosystems, weather patterns, and human societies worldwide.

At the cost of being a naysayer, I will dare say that further warming of our atmosphere is now impossible to avoid. It appears to have reached an irretrievable point-of-no-return. While the ecosystems get destroyed, the Earth will become inhabitable for many species, leading to extinctions and redistribution of species, threatening food production with alien pests and diseases. Man, in his superior wisdom might manage to outlive a bit longer but the doomsday clock is ticking rapidly and how! If the consequences of climate change -- impacts on agricultural economies like India -- are especially dangerous for the poorest. Nature will not leave it to crooked politicians to eradicate poverty.

The potential human cost will be catastrophic that no budgets will be able to take care of. A rise in sea levels threatens hundreds of millions in coastal communities and cities across the globe -- our own Mumbai, now billed as the third biggest city in the world -- at risk. Epidemics could force large-scale migrations by 2050 which is just 25 years away. The next generation will be condemned to watch and endure as humans cause Mother Earth's degeneration.

Coastal areas around the world are diverse and vital ecosystems where land meets the sea. These regions are characterized by a dynamic interface of land, water, and air, supporting unique biodiversity and human livelihoods, they also play a crucial role in global economies, providing resources like fisheries, tourism opportunities, and transportation hubs. As these take a hit, they face significant challenges such as erosion, pollution, and climate change impacts, underscoring the need for sustainable management and conservation efforts to protect these invaluable environments for future generations.

I read in a journal that according to latest research evaluating 44 countries, emissions arising as a result of population growth wiped out two-thirds of the reduction in emissions arising from greater energy efficiency between 1990 and 2019. Meanwhile, solutions such as reforestation (which in India are more of  cosmetic photo ops) may be more difficult to implement with more people needing food and land. In its landmark report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) specifically identified high population growth as a "key impediment" to hitting the critical target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C above pre-industrial levels.

The projections on "climate change" are scary. it has been overemphasized that global surface temperatures have increased 1.5 degrees F (0.8 C) on an average with a rise in acceleration in the last 50 years. The culprits are far too many and well known to bear any repetition. The IPCC report vindicates my contention that the turning point has been since 1970, until which, Nature was well within its limits. Satellite observations suggest that the rate of sea level rise globally since 1992 has been twice as rapid as it was during the previous century.

Climate action calls for significant concerted efforts globally and need enhanced financial investments by governments and businesses. But there is no will, and therefore, no way. Governments have money for populist measures but none for the Earth's population. Green economy is a mere figure of speech. A complex interplay of factors that include political inertia, vested interest in fossil fuel industries and societal reluctance to make necessary lifestyle changes will thwart any reversal. 

Short-term economic priorities often take precedence over long-term environmental sustainability, leading to insufficient policies and investments in renewable energy and carbon reduction strategies. Moreover, the global nature of the issue makes international cooperation and consensus challenging to achieve, further exacerbating the problem. We are only condemned to watch as climate crisis and its impacts devastate ecosystems and human societies worldwide.

Of spinning electoral narratives!

Raju Korti
If there is one thing that I dread before, during and after every election, it is the prospects of listening to the lengthy, pompous and holier-than-thou political narratives that "experts" in the media dish out in their bid to outdo each others. As I sat through the election coverage across TV channels yesterday, it was nothing different with usual and predictable noises from predictable people with predictable views -- all in the name of being "spin doctors". It is one therapy guaranteed to leave you sicker than before.

Pic representational: You can choose your studio!

As a seasoned journalist of over 45 years who has extensively covered parliamentary, assembly and local self government elections since 1980, travelling with prime ministers like Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, V P Singh, Chandra Shekhar, Deve Gowda, Inder Kumar Gujral and many union/state ministers, MPs and MLAS, even connecting with grassroots, I can vouch that readers who base their opinions on these narratives are first class hypocrites who are compromised because of their naivete and poor perception. They watch TV and newspapers (of their choice) to feel comfortable with the narratives that suit their prejudiced minds.    

Trying to keep your head on your shoulders listening to the "spin doctors" has to be an acid test of your tolerance and endurance. It is where truth travels in diametrically opposite directions, often losing its way in the trajectory. Taking names serves no purpose as they all are prisoners of their ideologies and preferences that send their good conscience on a sabbatical. I can tell you first hand how tricky, if not tough, it can be to spin narratives because there is no room for objectivity and unvarnished truth in the complex algorithm of politics.

Trying to untangle political narratives is like trying to follow a squirrel on caffeine high meandering through a maze of mirrors. You think you are on to something, but then suddenly you are lost in a convoluted hodgepodge of conflicting facts and interpretative ballets. As a spin doctor, you twirl your words like spaghetti on fork, hoping you will swallow their junk without realizing it is just a mass of tangled, frigged mess. 

Those on the television are a class unto themselves. The TV studios are a circus where the clowns wear suits and the lions replaced by talking heads roaring their two cents louder than a stadium full of unruly soccer fans. Don't take them to heart, and if you do, pop a sorbitrate before you get the heart-burns. In the circus of politics, the only thing that is certain is the truth is made a contortionist. In the grand carnival of politics, there's a ride that stands out among the rest, where truth takes a backseat and spin reigns supreme -- the Spin Cycle. If you don't strap yourselves in, it is a guaranteed roller coaster.

Picture this: A well-lit studio room filled with an eclectic mix of politicians, strategists, and spin doctors, all huddled around a colossal spinning wheel. On this wheel are various narratives, ranging from "Economy Booming" to "Opponent's Gaffe Extravaganza" -- all with the seasoned tempering of a crazy flurry of hands and what is generally acknowledged as a benchmark in noise: fish market. 

The journey is all familiar. The spinning game begins with the very topic of the debate. The way it is twisted is like rigged fight where the ringmaster anchor has already made up the mind who is going to win. The first stop is the blame game. Panellists showcase their gymnastics skills contorting themselves into absurd positions to deflect blame from their own mishaps. 

If you weren't entertained enough, the soundbite shuffle follows where in linguistic dexterity, panellists craft catchy but selective soundbites. If it is about rising unemployment, they will chant "jobs, jobs, jobs" as if repeating it ad nauseum would create employment opportunities out of thin air. Narratives also give ample opportunities for a "Scandal Spin" as part of crisis management -- all in a friendly exchange of pleasantries. The anchor is the King of all, including the panellists and their narratives. 

If the going gets tough to the point where shouting panellists yanking hair off their heads, there is a comic break in the flip-flop boogie woogie. They all come prepared to display flawless somersaults. TV Talk shows allow them them to showcase these skills in a spectacle of flexibility that would make even the most seasoned contortionist green with envy.

As the Spin Cycle whirls on, it is the poor viewer who ends up wondering in the maze of "facts and figures" what is stranger, fact or fiction. So, dear friends, if you are condemned to watch these spinning tracks -- like I was throughout yesterday -- and you find yourself caught in the dizzying whirlwind of political rhetoric, just remember to hold onto your hats and keep your skepticism close at hand. After all, in the Spin Cycle, what goes around often comes around -- just with a slightly different twist.

For the record, spinning convenient narratives is no big deal if you already have a twisted mind. As I would often tell my students in the college: First get your facts right and then think of how to twist them!