Unfortunately for India's
politicians, Shobhaa De has trained her sights on them in her 18th book, Sethji,
whose protagonist is a wily, old-world, Delhi politician.
De discussed the murky world of Indian politics with Rediff.com's
Savera R Someshwar and Vaihayasi Pande Daniel.
Sethji, Shobhaa
De's latest novel, reflects years of observing and interacting with Indian
politicians of all hues. The novelist feels the timing of the book's release
could not have been better.
India, she says, is suffering a
serious leadership crisis, with not an able leader to be found among its
bumbling cast of politicians.
Incisive, razor sharp words slash
through the rarified South Mumbai air, underscored by a knowing smile and a
raised brow when Rediff.com's Savera R Someshwar andVaihayasi Pande Daniel met De recently.
Sethji, she
says, has been in her head for over a decade; her readers will find many
parallel in the current Indian political firmament.
De's 17 previous books – all
bestsellers -- have covered everything from romance to sex to Bollywood to the
Page 3 lifestyle with Sethji, she walks a
different road.
The first of a two-part
interview:
There are so many
politicians in India today... Who do you think is most like Sethji?
(Laughs) Well, there's so much to pick and
choose from... it's such a rich cast of characters.
I took elements from many more
people (to write Sethji),
but I would say Amar Singh because he represents the old school, much more than
say a Jyotiraditya Scindia.
For readers who yet have
to pick up a copy of Sethji, could you tell us
a little more about the similarities that you see between Sethji and what you call an old style
politician?
It's not based on Amar Singh, so
I wouldn't really want to draw those kind of parallels.
It's just that, like Sethji, Amar
Singh too was never mainstream; he could have never hoped to become prime
minister. But he was still seen as a player.
His methods were crude, but they
were upfront. He made no effort to make them appear better, more sophisticated.
He spoke a certain bhasha (language) that was extremely representative of a
certain generation and how they conducted political business.
His connections were interesting,
but they all have connections. He just didn't bother to disguise it. This also
made him more endearing because there was such transparency.
What you saw was what you got.
In that sense, I thought Amar
Singh was much more -- if I can use the word -- honest about his ambitions and
his modus operandi compared to the slick operators of
today.
In your acknowledgement in
the book, you mentioned Sitaram Kesri, a politician most people have forgotten
today. I found that very intriguing.
Sethji has been sitting in my head for 13 years; he
refused to go away.
At that time, Sitaram Kesri (who was then the Congress president)
was the Amar Singh of his time.
There was something about him
which was (pauses for a
while) very disturbing.
Had we dealt with the Sitaram
Kesri in our midst then, had we addressed it as something that is horribly
wrong with the political system, we wouldn't have had so many clones.
Today, there are so many Sitaram
Kesris. At that point, he was a little unique.
There was such outrage over so
many of his dealings; there were so many rumours floating around him. We failed
to recognise it for what it was; we are perhaps paying the price for that
today.
You wrote Sethji much before what has recently happened
in politics. It suddenly seems so prescient.
It's almost prophetic. I had
goose bumps when so many things happened post Sethji being written and signed, sealed and
sent off to the publishers.
The (Mumbai) Sea Link suicide (scene),
for example, was written almost one-and-a-half to two years before the (first) Sea Link suicide
happened.
I chose to name the model,
Simran, much before Simran Sood was
anywhere on our landscape.
Also, the kind of real estate
wheeling and dealing, and the fight over prime property in Mumbai, was almost
scarily prophetic. Now, when I read the book, it really does send a chill down
my spine.
How do you
see the future of India's oldest political party?
Sonia Gandhi seems to be determinedly pushing her son, Rahul, as
her successor, while it is clearly Priyanka is who is the more charismatic
Gandhi scion.
Priyanka's probably the magic
card that will be pulled out when needed. Right now, they probably think they
will be able to ride this out with Rahul; no one else, however, seems to have
the slightest faith in that happening.
We witnessed what happened in
Amethi; neither Priyanka nor Rahul could deliver even as a combine. The writing
is on the wall.
Right now, things are at a
crossroad -- either we are going to opt for a continuation of dynasty, and
politics that are driven by dynasty, or we'll be able to make the big leap to
the 21st century and modern day politics where the person who is the most
competent and the most qualified will win the race.
But since we do not have an
alternative yet -- a charismatic young leader has not presented himself or
herself -- we are going to be stuck with the two Gandhi children. That might
change if there's yet another magic card that we don't know about at this
point.
I think crises of different sorts
throw up leaders in a most unexpected way. People who you least expect rise to
the job, come out of the woodwork, claim their space, become stakeholders...
Who would have imagined that a
Kejriwal (Arvind Kejriwal,
the activist-turned-politician) would be a player at all? Two years
ago, who even knew who he was?
It's interesting to monitor
change from the point of view that, with circumstances being as tumultuous as
they are, we could have someone very young, very charismatic, someone who is a
moral leader as much as a political leader.
Do you see somebody like
that? Do you think it's time for a leader from the middle class?
(It is time for) a moral leader who stands for
something that is a complete contradiction to the way we have come to accept
politics as being driven by amoral people.
And I don't mean a Baba Ramdev,
who I don't respect.
I don't mean a moral leader of that kind, a spiritual leader; I just mean
someone who represents something that the young of India, the middle class of
India can actually look up to and be inspired by and feel more proactive (about).
Unless the middle class wakes up
and engages itself in a more dynamic way with what is going on in the country,
there's not going to be the kind of change we expect.
The tipping point is likely to
come six months down the line. If we don't recognise it, we are going to lose
out and then we'll be set back for another 50 years.
What that tipping point is, where
it will come from... I'm not a prophet, I can't say (when) but we are moving
towards it. It could be the winter of our discontent which leads to something
very major in terms of change.
Coming
back to the Gandhis, why do you think Priyanka Gandhi's mother has kept her
away from active politics despite her obvious appeal?
Is it a case of a typically Indian mother pushing her son over her
daughter?
I think it is a collective decision,
quite honestly. Not that I am a Gandhi insider, but I have my ear to the
ground. I listen closely to what people who know the family have to say.
It was a collective decision at
the time because it was felt that Priyanka is not technically a Gandhi. We must
remember she is Mrs Vadra, Vadhera, or however they pronounce it. Her kids too
are not Gandhis.
But if Rahul marries, and if he
produces an heir and a spare, then that would be the logical way for the
Gandhis to continue to rule the country for the next 100 years.
Since that is not the case right
now -- I would say, earlier, Priyanka's children were much younger and she was
perhaps hysterically in love with Mr (Robert)
Vadra. It was her decision to stay out of active politics and focus on her family,
which may have been the right decision then, which her mother respected.
I do feel all three of them are
in this together.
But she (Priyanka) is clearly the
more political animal; she is more charismatic; she is better cut out for
politics. And, going by how weepy and sentimental we get about dynasty, she is
the one who most resembles her famous grandmother.
It would make perfect logical
sense for her to be nominated and for the Gandhis to just get on with it and do
it if that's the plan.
I mean, don't keep India on
tenterhooks like this; it's crazy.
What is your impression
about Mr Vadra -- you don't seem to like him too much?
It's not that at all. I've met
him. He's a charmer and his muscles do all the talking. He loves his muscles!
And, you know, why not?
Here's a guy who's worked on his
body and he realises the body's going to help him much more than, perhaps, the
brain. He has no issues about... flexing his muscles metaphorically and
literally.
That he has suddenly decided he
wants to play a more active role in politics was a slightly unfactored aspect
of Mr Vadra's career.
But it's a democracy! Who says he
can't ride into the sunset on his motorcycle saying I'm going to lead India?
Nothing will stop him; nothing
can stop him; nothing should stop him.
What advice would you give
Rahul Gandhi?
I would say do what you think you
are best suited to do and if it's not politics, just say it. If it is something
you are being pressurised into by Mummyji,
(remember) you're a
big boy now. You can certainly assert yourself and walk away from it.
But don't play this
dilly-dallying, keep everybody guessing, sitting on the fence game. It's unfair
to the country; it's unfair to the party; it's unfair to the next election.
We still don't know where Rahul Gandhi
stands, what his views are and whether he has a vision for India.
If he's going to be propelled to
a position of enormous power all of a sudden, in a role that he's clearly
ill-prepared for or unwilling to take on, then I think it's time for him to say
'Ciao guys, I'm out of here.' We'd respect him more for it.
Do you feel he is being
forced into this role? That it's not really something that he wants to do? Will
he make a good leader or is he someone walking the political path because he
has no choice?
I don't know the man, so I can
only guess from what is in the public domain.
He seems like a reluctant prince
to me and, at this point, we don't need a reluctant prince. We need someone who
can actually take charge.
Has your anger towards the
Gandhi family abated? Maybe five years ago you were willing to give it a try;
now you feel enough is enough.
I was not willing to give it a
try even five years ago! I always thought there was something wrong and
skewered in the fact that we couldn't think beyond the Gandhis.
It's a cultural tradition in
India, whether it's in politics or in Bollywood -- fortunately not in cricket
because you actually have to deliver; you can't just be the son of a cricketer
and hope to then make it to the India team.
For Bollywood and politics
however, the only qualification you need is to be born into the right family.
I thought five years ago, even 10
years ago, that Young India would raise its voice and say we really don't need
this; can we just please get on with our lives and elect a leader who we
respect and look up to, who doesn't belong to any dynasty or any political
family? But that didn't happen.
Let's talk
about Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Unlike Sethji, he seems to be a man who is
unable to play the political game.
Would you agree and is that good or bad for India?
We are underestimating Mr
Manmohan Singh by saying he has not been able to play the political game.
I think he's been a
superstrategist in the political games that he has chosen to play. That he's
played these games very silently is again the sign of a very astute politician.
A person who talks too much, I
would say, talks themselves into a corner. He has never done that.
So we don't know. We don't know
what he stands for, but the fact is he is still there and he's still the prime
minister. Nobody has been able to get him to abandon his kursi
(chair).
If he's there, he's there with
Madam's (Sonia Gandhi's)
blessings. He's there because (Finance
Minister P) Chidambaram wants him there; he's there because (President) Pranab (Mukherjee) wants him
there.
He's there because all the people
who call the shots today in our country, and have been doing so over the last
many years, want him there.
That he can withstand the
harshest criticisms thrown at him by the international press -- calling him the weak prime minister, etc -- and still not resign shows he's a
political animal. We should never, ever underestimate that.
Nor should we ever underestimate
the fact that he's part of the World Bank tradition dominating and running
countries; that he is surrounded by people who are ex-World Bank; that perhaps
what we see today, the agenda that is being dictated to our country, could well
be a World Bank agenda that we have not been able to identify for what it is.
I wouldn't write him off as a
useless prime minister, not in the least.
I think he's been extremely
strategic. We can give him brownie points for 1991 and take away a lot of
brownie points for being 'Maun'mohan Singh and keeping his maun
vrat (decision to not speak) for
so many years. But that also takes a lot of deep thinking and strategising.
What advice would you give
Dr Singh?
If we were to hear his voice more
often, as citizens of a democracy it would really help. But I guess he is under
strict instructions to not speak up.
Resignation, however, is not the
answer; it's not going to solve a thing.
If he were to send out strong
signals to the international community that he is in charge, even if he isn't, it might
be good for our economy, if for not for anything else.
It will also be a good signal to
send out to our neighbours. It will be a good signal to the young of India that
there is someone there who is in a position to take charge of the country even
though he may have abdicated in favour of Madam and others.
But he's still there, he's still
our prime minister and he should start behaving like one.
What would your advice be
to the politicians of India?
To resign en masse would be a
good point to start because I can't think of a single politician today who is
worthy of any respect. I think I speak on behalf of most right thinking
Indians.
But that was just a facetious
response.
What I would say is that the
writing is on the wall. They should not ignore it.
They should not ignore the anger
of the people they should not take it for granted that their political careers
are assured; that they will win the next election based on the old formula of
paying for votes, creating vote banks and everything else be damned... I hope
and pray that doesn't happen in these elections.
It is a very critical election for
us, for India, for our future. It will also be a critical election for those
politicians who continue to display contempt to the very people who have put
them in power by being so blatantly indifferent and brazening it out with the
way they conduct business.
I hope and pray that they do, in
fact, review themselves because if they don't, the country will, and then there
may be a lot of people in jail.
What is
your advice for Arvind Kejriwal?
Who am I to advise him? I don't
think he seeks or pays the slightest attention to advice.
But Kejriwal has been the
catalyst India needed; he's a wake-up call.
I don't personally endorse his
politics. I think his decision to start a political party was not thought
through and very naive.
He is, at best, an activist who
raised the kind of questions that others have not dared to raise, who named
names the others have not dared to name and that in itself is commendable.
Having performed that service, he
can disappear back into the woodwork and continue whatever he is doing in a
missionary way in the villages of India, because that's where they really need
him.
Whatever he has triggered off is
for others to take forward in a more meaningful way because he can't do it.
He's not a political leader. He's
just a well-meaning guy who's shooting his mouth off night after night on
television and, God bless him, but that's all. That's how I see him.
Is Mr Kejriwal good or bad
for India? And 'Anna' Hazare?
At this point, definitely good,
because, like I said, there are so many sacred cows in India and he has boldly
gone ahead and named every single sacred cow (laughs).
He has performed a huge service,
so he is good for India right now.
Whether he's good for India down
the line, I don't think so. He simply does not have it in him. There's nothing
statesman-like about him. There's no vision for India. He has not said anything
that is concrete.
He says the people will elect the
candidate. Listen, we are in a democracy, we've always elected candidates so
what is he talking about?
In that sense, he's school-boyish
and naive. I don't know how well-meaning he is, but he has performed a service
and we must acknowledge that.
'Anna' Hazare is essentially a
peasant with no real political thought, no statesman-like qualities, no
leadership qualities...
He's just a little old man who
tabled the C word.
Again, that's a service he
performed. Now, he can go back to his village and flog those people and cut off
hands and do whatever he was doing before he became a symbol for national
change.
It may sound rather unforgiving,
but I have met him. I respect the fact that he did bring corruption into the public arena
on a mega scale. We owe him a big one just for that.
What is your advice to the
Opposition parties?
What Opposition? Where is the
Opposition? What advice?
They are all cut from the same
cloth. They just call themselves by different names.
There is no Opposition in this
country. We've all flattened ourselves and said, 'Roll all over us, guys, it's
fine.'
So, I'm sorry, I have no respect
for anybody in the Opposition -- they are all the same creatures with different
masks.
Do you believe Narendra
Modi is a gamechanger in Indian politics?
Not at all! If he has any such
illusions about himself and his 'vast' following believe he is a gamechanger,
they are deluding themselves.
I think he has done enormous
disservice to how politicians are viewed, particularly in the international
arena.
That he's somehow back in the
fold -- they are going about reinstating him in the international community,
giving him a visa, calling him to their countries -- has more to do with
economics. They will be using him as much as he will be using them.
He has offered Gujarat with all
the infrastructure and all the advantages for investors, which perhaps makes
Gujarat an attractive destination to them.
They are not doing it because
they love Narendra Modi. They are doing it because they think it will be a good
way, and the fastest way, to make money in India.
Modi will probably fast-track
everything that comes from whichever country, regardless of what his politics
are and what their politics is and how they view him.
But there is no taking away from
what Godhra did in terms of the way India was seen; it was a huge disservice to
the party he claims to represent because everybody was painted in the same
colour.
There is no way one can justify
that. There is no way one can say, 'Can we move on?'
We can't and we mustn't.
If Mr Modi becomes prime
minister, as he is being projected now, what will that augur for India?
Who is projecting him as prime
minister? He himself? His followers? His band of merry men? Who is projecting
him?
Polls in India have roundly,
soundly rejected any plan to propose him as prime ministerial material.
Why don't they say he is our
nominated candidate? They don't have the guts to do it. They are testing the
waters. And I can tell you the waters are not saying, 'Yes, India will endorse
Narendra Modi as prime minister, no matter what his record as the chief
minister of Gujarat may be.'
Go to places outside of Ahmedabad
and see for yourself what that 'progress' is all about. A lot of it is eyewash.
Yes, he has served the rich of
Gujarat very well. What he has done for the poor of Gujarat is something worth
tracking.
Who are the politicians
who should retire today?
Most of them.
It's not just about age. I am not
ageist when I say this, but we saw what happened with S M Krishna. We can
hardly afford to have a person like him, who messed up every time he opened his
mouth, in charge of a portfolio that's that sensitive.
So, without going into age as the
determining factor, I would say all the politicians who had had their shot at
most of the portfolios and have not delivered should move on and give a chance
to fresh blood.
Who do you like as a
politician?
That's probably the toughest
question in the world to answer right now in the Indian political scenario. But
if one had to pick -- and it's a pity because she's the Speaker -- I like Meira
Kumar. I like what she stands for.
She was my nominee for the
President of India, not Pranabbabu.
If I had to pick at gunpoint between a Narendra
Modi and a Sushma Swaraj; I would pick Sushma Swaraj.
From the Congress party, I really
don't see even a single person I can confidently endorse...
(Bihar Chief Minister)
Nitish Kumar?
He hasn't done a thing he
promised!
Much was expected from Akhilesh
Yadav, from the other band of very promising young politicians, but he crashed
even before he took off.
Nitish Kumar has done a lot for
his state but, as a prime ministerial candidate, I don't know.
If I may
quote a line from your book -- 'a major news channel had done a report on
Sethji's 'extremely' close ties with industrialists and how he had compromised
his position as minister of road transport.'
That seems to be a direct reference to BJP President and former
Maharashtra public works minister Nitin Gadkari.
But look at when this was
written... it was written when none of this was even known.
There are several such parallels;
it's just that my characters who are fictitious are playing out their roles in
ways that I could never have imagined.
Is there a reason for
that? Because you can't miss the references in the book.
The guessing games are
inevitable. But, at the end of it all, (Life
Of Pi director) Ang Lee said it fabulously when he said 'Fiction is
the only reality.' You can't have a better line than that.
The kind of people we are
surrounded by... how can you not be 'inspired' or cannibalise bits and pieces
of their lives. They are so in your face; there's no escaping it.
When you switch on the television
channels, it's there; when you open the newspapers, it's there; you go to any
Web site, that's all you're actually witnessing.
How can a book about contemporary
politics be devoid of the parallels and people you are bound to put names to?
But I am not helping and saying
yes, that's the one because, actually, it isn't. My characters are people who
are composites. They are not any one individual, but they are certainly
inspired by the people we are living with, and tolerating, right now.
I thought you had split Mr
Thackeray between Sethji and Bhau.
(Laughs) Am I supposed to be answering that?
What will you do when you
see the Thackerays next? How will you answer if they ask you the question.
(This interview was
conducted before Mr Thackeray's death.)
Well, I don't expect that they
would come and ask me a foolish question.
At any rate, it's not directly
about them.
Maharashtra politics has always
been extremely complex and it has always had a chieftain. Why not Sharad Pawar
in that case?
Why not so many chief ministers
who had full control and ruled the state in a way that was almost tyrannical?
What about all the supremos we've had?
Apart from that, I think the
Thackerays have been remarkably cool even about the movies that reflect their lives
and (the movies)
do so in a way that is pretty brutal and pretty direct.
They are very close to Amitabh
Bachchan who played Balasaheb -- there is no ambiguity there -- in Sarkar.
And there was a Marathi film
called Jhenda, if I am not
mistaken, which even had look-alikes. There was an Uddhav and a Raj; the Uddhav
character was a photographer and the Raj character was a Raj character... And
there was Balasaheb.
I think they had a special
screening for them and the Thackerays had taken it completely in their stride,
as they should.
Today, we live in an era where
there are movies about Queen Elizabeth. There are movies about Margaret
Thatcher. There are movies about Princess Diana and her children are not
tearing at anybody's hair.
Kate Middleton's butt is all over
the Net and the world hasn't collapsed and the sky hasn't fallen... There are
several movies on Obama, on the elections in the US, on how the election games
are played out...
There's nothing secret any more;
it's an era of such transparency. And, like they say, hamam
mein sab nange hain (Everyone's naked in the bathroom).
What is there to hide? It's all
there in the public domain anyway!
You've seen Mumbai grow,
both in the positive and negative way. How have the Thackerays, and the Shiv
Sena, impacted Mumbai's growth and development?
If they had not been there, how different would Mumbai have been
today?
I cannot even think of Mumbai
right now without the Thackeray presence, particularly Balasaheb. He has had an
overwhelming impact on the Marathi Manoos; there's no taking away from that.
What that impact has been, as
seen by those who are not or don't consider themselves Marathi Manoos, is
different.
Balasaheb did restore a
tremendous sense of pride.
There was a kind of a gung-ho 'We
should be proud to be Marathi, we should be proud to belong to Maharashtra'
feel which could have been leveraged into something much more impactful from
the point of view of the state and its growth and development.
That it didn't happen was such a
pity, because he lost a huge (opportunity).
It could have been a movement that could have got the Marathi Manoos to do
something beyond burn buses and lament how the city had been taken over by
outsiders.
The message in itself was not
terribly off -- every regional leader cashes in on regional sentiments, whether
it is a Mamata Banerjee or a Jayalalithaa or Lalu Prasad or Mayawati or
Narendra Modi.
But the Shiv Sena could have led
to greater employment, for example, or could have had aggressive programmes to
educate women and educate their own rank so that they wouldn't be left out in
the tremendous competition that exists.
In a city like Mumbai that is so
cut-throat, you have to be out there, you have to be competing.
It's a bloody unforgiving city.
If the Shiv Sainiks couldn't
match the spirit and the dynamism of the city, I think they lost out!
.JPG)