The meritocracy of diversity

The ongoing 2008 Democratic Primaries in the United States present an interesting learning opportunity for India in terms of accepting diversity on the sole basis of merit. Curiously, looking at the ongoing developments in the US the prism of happenings in India that were inherently similar to them, but still very different in character, bring out the learnings that I think could do wonders for us as a nation.

Senator Barack Obama who happens to be of African-American origin is pitted against Senator Hillary Clinton, who by happenstance is the wife of ex-President Bill Clinton. If you thought the usage of the phrases "happens to be" and "by happenstance" slightly incongruous with normal usage of language and with the message, you are spot on. But those phrases have been used with the sole purpose of emphasizing the message of this note.

Senator Obama being of African-American origin or Senator Clinton being a woman are not the reasons for their nominations or for that matter, their strong showing in the hustings. Each of them has a record of activism, business leadership and political experience that is forming the basis of their campaign to earn the Democratic Party's nomination. Both have tried to carve out an identity of themselves that is distinct of their race or gender. This has been the case despite the fact that both of them have a characteristic that was considered as unimaginable for becoming the President of the United States only ten years. Possibilities of a colored individual or a woman qualifying for the top job in the US, which effectively is the same as the CEO of the world if there were such a position, were only possible in the realm of fantasies. But that very fantasy has a distinct possibility of becoming a reality in 2008 given the popularity, or rather the lack of it, of the current incumbent.

The point that I have been striving to make here is that Senator Obama and Clinton are progressing ahead not because of their racial or gender characteristics. On the contrary, they are strong candidates because of their abilities, past performance and policies & vision for the future.

Now compare this, with all the benefits and luxuries that hindsight proffers us, with a situation similar to the US democratic primaries that was played out in India when elections were last held for the positions of the President and the Vice-President of India in July and August 2007 respectively. The results of these elections gave the country its first ever female President and a Vice-President hailing from a religious minority. The similarity with the ongoing electoral processes in the US ends here. Contrary to the emphasis on the individual's qualifications and their abilities to lead the nation in the US, the selection of the candidates by the ruling alliance in India appeared to have been done mainly, if not solely, on the basis of their gender and religion.

This should not be construed as meaning that the candidates did not have merit or the abilities & characteristics as demanded by the august offices for which they were nominated. Pratibha Patil has had a long and illustrious career in public service and politics. Becoming a state legislator at the comparatively young age of 32, she had been a member of both the houses of Parliament, served as a member of as a Cabinet Minister in the Maharashtra Government, was the leader of the opposition of the Maharashtra Assembly, a Deputy Chairperson of the Rajyasabha, Governor of Rajasthan. On the other hand, Mr. Hamid Ansari is widely accepted as a quintessential intellectual and academician. A diplomat by profession, he was a member of the elite India Foreign Services and has served on several positions of high responsibility including as India's Permanent Representative to the UN, Indian High Commissioner to Australia, India's Ambassador to UAE, Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia and after his retirement from the IFS, as a Vice Chancellor of the Aligarh Muslim University and Chairman of the National Commission of Minorities, amongst others.

But was the nomination of Mrs. Patil for the position of the Head of State based on her qualifications, political experience, assessment of her abilities and her suitability to the position? Apparently Mrs. Patil was a 'consensus candidate' after the first three choices of the Congress were ruled out for different reasons. The Home Minister lacked 'impeccably secular' credentials, the power minister and Maharasthra ex-CM had a plus point of being a dalit that turned a minus point since the UP CM's backing was doubtful and the Foreign Minister could not be spared by the party that remains in dire need of his firefighting skills. And her name was taken up when during a meeting on topic of selection of a presidential candidate, the PM seems to have suggested that we should have a woman as our candidate! Moreover, even during her campaigning for the elections, when she regularly met up with the legislators across the country and attended public events, the emphasis always seemed to be along the lines of that it was 'high time' for a woman in the country's top job and how this spoke well of women's condition in politics and in the country at large! As Amrita Rajan points out here : "Tell me how she's the best person for the job, tell me why she deserves this honor, tell me why I should be proud of her for things she did rather than something decided in her mother's womb. Tell me why she represents me and my country. Don't try to guilt me into accepting her as the face of my country."

Note that here I steer clear of the merits or demerits of the serious allegations that were leveled against Pratibha Patil around the time of her candidature, though several of them deserve since that would be digression from the topic at hand.

Similarly, the question remains whether the current Vice President was chosen by the UPA on the basis of his qualifications par excellence or because the Left and the Congress had with no choice but to field a Muslim candidate since the UNPA, the so-called third front, had announced the candidature of Rasheed Masood. Moreover, Hamid Ansari's views on the United States and the Middle East, that were abundantly publicized previously through his writings were seen to be clincher since that was all but a god-send characteristic as far as the Left was concerned.

Quite ironically, India's last President too was a Muslim. But his nomination was projected as an extension of and honoring his services to the nation as a scientist and as a key contributor to the development of India's missile systems during his tenure at the DRDO. And tellingly, it was the supposed right-wing nationalists who had proposed his name for the position which was accepted by the Congress as well. On the other hand, despite their equally strong credentials, the nomination processes of Pratibha Patil and Hamid Ansari to generate the same unitive feelings in the country. Moreover, that their campaigns did not feel the need to highlight their abilities and their views on key issues that would have given the nation a peek into their suitability for the constitutional posts.

It is fully understood that the US Democratic Primaries and the India's election of its President & Vice-President are not exactly comparable commodities. The posts of the President & Vice-President in India are chiefly ceremonial in nature as against the President of the US also being the Head of the Government. Also, the President & VP of India are elected by the elected members of Parliament and state legislatures as against the US President being elected directly by the people of the country.

So do we have something to learn from the way in which a woman and a black man are fighting it out in the US on the basis of their past credentials and experience as well as their future vision for the country? We need to recognize that putting a woman or a Muslim in our constitutional chairs neither reflects in any way on the current state of the women or the minorities in the country nor is it a statement of our commitment towards improving their status in the future. It is high time that we, as a nation and a society, identify mere tokenism and political posturing that such decisions indeed are.

It is the inherent merit in the individuals that deserves recognition and their capabilities that deserve to be honored. Looking beyond the ink spot at the wider canvas, reservations or affirmative action that adversely affects the merit does no good whatsoever of any note to anyone. The election or selection of a person for a job or a position on the basis of their abilities - caste, religion and gender no bar - should be the direction we head. What better than the farcical selection of candidates for our Head of State and her deputy to put this point across?

Kosovo's Pandora's Box

17th February 2008: Kosovo declares independence unilaterally.

The unique saga of the erstwhile Yugoslavia continues in the 21st century. Undeniably, this is just history exacting its toll on geography. The Yugoslav wars have finally ended, hopefully. Slovenia, Crotia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia - the constituents of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia formed after WWII - had already attained their statehood. Now Kosovo, that was under UN & NATO administration since 1999, has declared its separation from Serbia unilaterally.

Whether the world's retaliation against the Serbia, in the wake of the decade long Yugoslav wars, and the trials of the Serbian leaders was an instance of the proverbial 'Victor's Justice' or not is not the discussion point here. The answer to that is obvious considering the scale and nature of violence against the Serbs which has very conveniently gone unnoticed and unremarked upon by the world that just needs someone to blame for all the bloodshed. However, why the declaration of independence? Why should the Republic of Kosovo be accepted by the international community as an independent nation while Serbia is dead against this despite all the incentives that were offered to make it accept the deal? Should past wrongdoings by Serbia, though atoned for and for which reparation has been attempted, hold as enough cause for declaration of statehood by Kosovo?

There were no obvious and overt current threats from Serbia towards Kosovo. The NATO intervention in 1999 and the succeeding world condemnation has caused a significant purgation of the Serbian administration, army and society. Milosevic was arrested and extradited to face trial in the International Court Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Hague for genocide in Bosnia and war crimes in Croatia and in Kosovo and Metohija. Similar was the fate of his coterie and other alleged war criminals including Serbian Army generals, who were arrested and over to the ICTY. The Yugoslav parliament passed a law allowing extradition of all persons charged with war crimes by the International Criminal Tribunal. Moreover, Kosovo had significant autonomy on internal matters, a separate Parliament and a Prime Minister as well. So why independence?

Is this to satisfy the 'needs and aspirations' of the Albanians or is this because it was decided that an autonomous Kosovo can never re-integrate in Serbia or is this simply the world atoning for allowing the blood to flow from arms & ammunition supplied by it. And the world, and the Security Council, has split along obvious lines on this issue with the US and EU including the UK & France set to grant immediate recognition to the new nation while Russia and China opposing its independence declaration.

A more worrying issue is whether this model is replicable elsewhere? Close to ground zero, Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina want a separate homeland based on the Kosovo example. Russia has already spoken of using Kosovo precedent to help two provinces secede from neighboring Georgia. Chechen rebels want to use this as a case in point for their independence. It's a surprise that the Mirwaiz has not yet given a fiery speech promising its emulation in Kashmir.