A Reluctant Feminist - Chapter 1

By Girish Menon

 

Laila, strapped to a seat in an Air Force AN-12 transport aircraft, hums

Waqt ne kiya kya haseen situm,

Hum rahen na hum,

Tum rahen na tum.

(Time, you’ve tricked us, I’m not the old me, Nor you the old you)

The sound of the azaan from her phone wakes her from her reverie; she unbuckles her seat belt, stands up, stretches her weary limbs, sidesteps a coffin like wooden box in front of her, goes to the open space on the aircraft, searches for the direction of Mecca and rolls out her mat. Suddenly the aircraft shudders and Laila notices the inside of the coffin has slid out. A shiny glint from the corpse’s necklace catches her eye. Laila rolls up her mat, pulls out a pair of latex gloves, wears them, removes the necklace and places it in a thick gift wrapped box in her handbag. The aircraft shudders again and the coffin innards slide out a bit more. Laila notices the corpse is wearing a shiny bracelet on its right wrist. She removes it and arranges it decoratively in the box alongside the necklace.  She pulls out some adhesive tape from her bag, slides the coffin shut, tapes it and allows herself a wry smile. The perks of the job!

 The captain yells: “Laila, Discharge time!”

Laila: Sir, how did he die?

Captain: Polonium poisoning, I think

The cargo doors of the plane open. Laila gets up and gives the coffin a push. It rolls off outside the aircraft. The aircraft veers upwards into the sky, lands at an airport and Laila emerges into a dark Mumbai evening at Kalina and calls for an Uber to take her home to Bhendi Bazaar.

Laila unlocks the door and quietly tiptoes to the safe in her bedroom. She removes the gift wrapped box from her knapsack, places it in the safe, locks it and rushes to the toilet. Abdul is watching TV from his armchair enjoying the song

Dil se tujhko bedilli hai,

Mujhko hai dil ka ghuroor,

Tu yeh mane ke na mane

Log manenge zaroor,

Yeh mera deewana pan hai

Ya mohabbat ka suroor,

Tu na pehchane to hai

Ye teri nazroon ka kasoor.

(You seem to deny your heart, While I am proud of my love, You may not admit it,    The world will recognise it, It could be my irrationality, Or a hangover of love, If you cannot still spot it, You could be loveblind)

 

He switches off the TV, humming the rest of the song he walks wearily to the dining table, waiting for Laila. Laila emerges from the toilet, washes her hands and rushes to the dining table which has vessels of cooked food and two overturned plates and glasses. The maid warms the food.  

Laila: Why haven't you eaten? It's not good for your diabetes.

Abdul: Nooo. You know that I don't like to eat alone.

Laila serves food for Abdul and herself

Laila: Ok, I'm sorry darling. Let's eat.

Abdul: What took you so long?

Laila: Routine, unending work. You know I can't say anything more.

Abdul: Was it a late parcel delivery?

Laila Smiles

Abdul: Ok, then can we discuss about Sana?

Laila: You know the nature of my job. What about Sana?

Abdul: She has failed in maths again. Her teacher has sent a note.

Laila: What about her tuition teacher? What is she doing despite the huge fees?

Abdul: Well! She says that without Sana doing any homework there is no way any teacher can help with her maths.

Laila: How was your day?

Abdul: Hectic, I got in an hour before you and Sana was already asleep. I think Sana needs one parent to be around when she comes from school.

Laila: You know I have to take an early flight to Delhi tomorrow.

Abdul: Why, I thought you were in the Maharashtra Police.

Laila: Yes, but Lakshmi Madam said that I was being considered for a special assignment.

Abdul: What special assignment? Have any of your assignments ever been ordinary? You bring this up every time I mention Sana. I think you should leave the job. I can support the whole family and I might get a London transfer soon.

Laila: OH! That’s great! Let me finish this one assignment and then I will apply for VRS. It will also give me a pension for life.

Abdul: But you said the same thing two years ago.

Laila: I know! I know! Please trust me one last time. 

They finish their meal in silence. Dump the dishes in the sink, jump into bed and start snoring.

Same time the next day Abdul watches the song

Dil ko teri hi tamanna

Dil ko hai tujhse hi pyaar

Chahe tu aaye na aaye

Hum karenge intezaar

Yeh mera deewanapan hai

(My heart desires you, My heart loves you, Even if you don’t show up, I will wait for you, It could be my irrationality)

Laila opens the toilet door and joins Abdul at the dinner table.

Abdul: How was your meeting with Lakshmi madam?

Laila: Great! They have selected me over many applicants including that bloody conniving Sanjeev Bhatt.

Abdul: But he's IPS isn't he?

Laila: Yes, but they have chosen me over him. I have to report to camp in a week.

Abdul: What? Why and for how long?

Laila: You know it is a secret assignment and I will get to train at the top secret Pax Indica Centre. Lakshmi Madam has personally assured me that after this assignment I can retire at 35 with Secretary level pension.

Abdul: And have you said yes?

Laila: This is my one last assignment and soon we will get a pension for life and I will be home to care for you and Sana. From then on you can choose your assignments and your shitty boss can go to hell.

Abdul: Do I have a say in this at all?

Laila: It's for us Abdul! Sana, you and me! Trust me one last time!

===End of Chapter 1

Would Corporations control World’s Opinions?

 

Modi govt is answerable to farmers, not the judiciary. SC’s mediation beyond its remit

 Yogendra Yadav in The Print

In rejecting the Supreme Court-appointed expert committee to mediate between farmers and the Narendra Modi government, the farmers’ organisations have not only wisely sidestepped a possible trap, but they have also reaffirmed a basic principle of democratic accountability and responsible governance.

Let there be no confusion about it. The expert committee appointed by the SC is not meant to advise the court on technical matters of agricultural marketing or on the implications of the disputed agricultural laws. The order of the Supreme Court makes it clear that the committee is to facilitate negotiations between the government and farmers’ organisations: “The negotiations between the farmers’ bodies and the government have not yielded any result so far. Therefore, we are of the view that the constitution of a committee of experts in the field of agriculture to negotiate between the farmers’ bodies and the government of India may create a congenial atmosphere and improve the trust and confidence of the farmers.”

---Also watch

---

The court goes on to specify that the committee has been “constituted for the purpose of listening to the grievances of the farmers relating to the farm laws and the views of the government and to make recommendations.” Presumably, the committee will try to find a middle ground and advise the government on how the laws should be tinkered with in a way so as to satisfy both the government and the protesting farmers.

That is precisely why the farmers’ organisations had resisted, right from the beginning, the idea of any such committee. They have objected to being forced into binding mediation, questioned the instrument of a committee and suspected the composition of such a committee. On all three counts, their assessment has been proven right.

Beyond remit

First of all, the farmers have been suspicious of being pushed into binding mediations that they never asked for or consented to.

They have never said no to negotiations with the government. Sure, the talks with the government have been frustrating. The Modi government has been intransigent. Yet, that is the only site for negotiations in a democracy. In the last instance, elected representatives are there to speak to the people. They are accountable to the people and to the farmers. The courts are there to adjudicate between right and wrong, legal and illegal. The courts are not there to engage in give and take, which is a crucial part of any negotiation. That is why the courts are responsible to the Constitution and not accountable to the people. That is the logic of democratic governance. Any attempt to shift the site of negotiation from the government to the judiciary amounts to overturning this basic democratic logic.

The government’s keenness to shift this “headache” and the Supreme Court’s alacrity to take over has strengthened the resistance of the farmers. It needs to be underlined that the protesting farmers did not approach the court. Nor did the government, at least not on paper. The initial petitioners were third parties who wanted the court to evict the farmers from their protest site. The other set of petitioners questioned the constitutionality of the three laws and wanted these scrapped. None of the petitioners prayed for mediation from the court. Yet, from day one, that is what the court was interested in. The court dismissed, rightly so, the pleas asking for eviction of the protesting farmers. It recognised, again rightly so, the democratic rights of the farmers to engage in peaceful protest. As for the pleas, regarding the constitutional validity of the three laws, the court put this on the back burner saying that it will consider these at an appropriate time.

The Supreme Court could have expedited this process by setting a time frame within which it will decide upon the constitutional validity of these three laws. That would have been most appropriate. But it chose not to do so. Instead, the court chose to focus on a third issue beyond what was asked for by any party and beyond its legal remit. Farmers’ organisations were smart enough to resist this move from the beginning.

 Technocrats can’t mediate

The second objection of the farmers’ organisations was to the very mechanism of a technical committee of experts. This idea was proposed by the Modi government in the very first round of negotiations held on 1 December, and the farmers rejected it there and then. Such a committee would be very useful to clarify a point of law, or to work out policy or fiscal implications of the proposed laws. Such a committee could also help work out the details of a compromise formula, once the basic framework is agreed to. But a technical committee cannot possibly work out the basic framework itself. Mediation is not done by technocrats. It is done by non-specialists who have some familiarity with the subject, but more importantly, who enjoy the trust and confidence of both parties. The Supreme Court-appointed committee of experts was never going to be that mechanism.

Dushyant Dave and the other three lawyers representing just eight out of 400+ farmers’ organisations involved in this protest were wise to keep away from the court’s deliberations on this issue.

 A partisan committee

Finally, a committee is only as good as its members. It is no secret that the farmers’ organisations were apprehensive about the composition of a committee appointed by the court. The court’s order confirmed their worst fears. The process by which the court arrived at these four names left a lot to be desired, to put it mildly. The same court that chided the government for passing the farm laws without consulting the farmers adopted an even less transparent process to decide upon this committee. Names like P. Sainath and ex-CJIs were thrown around and quietly dispensed with. No one knows who suggested the four names. Little surprise then that the four names have invited disappointment and ridicule. Not because the four members are not respectable, but because these are arguably the four best advocates for the government’s position and the laws. That the court chose such a partisan committee to mediate between the farmers and the government has cast a shadow on itself.

Someone might ask: Forget the technicalities, but what’s wrong with the top court stepping in to resolve a deadlock? Well, that is possible provided the Supreme Court were to enjoy moral authority over and above its legal and constitutional powers. Such moral authority is commanded, not demanded.

Indian Supreme Court Acts

 

Market Forces

 

Fusing Capitalist Economics with Communist Politics: China and Vietnam

 

Russian History = From Communism to Gangster Capitalism