Category: Uncategorized

By Aslam Merchant
(on visiting Mumbai twice in one year)

few more wrinkles on aging faces
few more pimples on blossoming youth
few new ones born
few old ones gone
few more here, a few more there, yet constant
time lay still.

few more smog blotches lining the horizon
few more noise pitches disturbing the city
few more bodies competing for space and jobs
few more vehicles competing for roads with humans and animals
few more here, a few more there, yet constant
but time lay still

little more capitalization
little more westernization
little more urbanization
little more exploitation
little more here, a little more there, yet constant
even so, time lay still

few more dreams
few more nightmares
few more aspirations
few more anguishes.
few more here, a few more there, yet constant.
time did lay still !

does “change,” the law of Nature, stand defied ?

Aslam Merchant

Aslam Merchant can be reached at merchantaslam@hotmail.com

By Davindra Sharma

Lies, damn lies and the Monsanto site. Tell a lie a hundred times, and the chances are that it would appear to be a truth. Monsanto makes that effort, probably for the umpteenth number of time. And the chances are that you too could be duped to accept these distortions as truth.

My attention has been drawn to an article “Do GM crops increase yield?” on Monsanto’s web page. I must confess this is first time I am visiting Monsanto’s site. This is what it says: Recently, there have been a number of claims from anti-biotechnology activists that genetically-modified (GM) crops don’t increase yields. Some have claimed that GM crops actually have lower yields than non-GM crops.

Both claims are simply false.

And then, it goes on to explain what germplasm is, what is breeding, biotechnology, and finally comes to yield. This is what it says:

The introduction of GM traits through biotechnology has led to increased yields independent of breeding. Take for example statistics cited by PG Economics, which annually tallies the benefits of GM crops, taking data from numerous studies around the world:

Mexico – yield increases with herbicide tolerant soybean of 9 percent.

Romania – yield increases with herbicide tolerant soybeans have averaged 31 percent.

Philippines – average yield increase of 15 percent with herbicide tolerant corn.

Philippines – average yield increase of 24 percent with insect resistant corn.

Hawaii – virus resistant papaya has increased yields by an average of 40 percent.

India – insect resistant cotton has led to yield increases on average more than 50 percent.

This is not amusing. It can’t be taken lightly anymore. I am not only shocked but also disgusted at the way corporations try to fabricate and swing the facts, dress them up in a manner that the so-called ‘educated’ of today will accept them without asking any question.

At the outset, Monsanto’s claims are simply flawed. I have seen similar conclusions, at least about Bt cotton yields in India, in an IFPRI study. But then, I have always been saying that IFPRI is one organisation that needs to be shut down. It has done more damage to developing country agriculture and food security than any other academic institution.

Nevertheless, let us first look at Monsanto’s claims.

The increases in crop yields that it has shown in Mexico, Romania, the Philippines, Hawaii and India are actually not yield increases. In scientific terms, these are called crop losses, which have been very cleverly repacked as yield increases. What Monsanto has done is to indulge in a jugglery of scientific terminologies, and taking advantage of your ignorance, to build up on claims that actually do not exist.

As per Monsanto’s article: The most common traits in GM crops are herbicide tolerance (HT) and insect resistance (IR). HT plants contain genetic material from common soil bacteria. IR crops contain genetic material from a bacterium that attacks certain insects.

This is true. And still more, herbicide tolerant plants and insect resistant plants in a way perform the same function that chemical pesticides do. Both the GM plants and the chemical pesticides reduce crop losses. Come to think of it. Doesn’t the GM plants work more or less like a bio-pesticide? The insect feeds on the plant carrying the toxin, and dies. Spraying the chemical pesticide also does the same.

In the case of herbicide tolerant plants, it is much worse. Biotech companies have successfully dove-tailed the trait for herbicide tolerance in the plant to ensure that those who buy the GM seeds have no other option but to also buy the companies own brand of herbicide. Killing two birds with one stone, you would say. Exactly.

GM companies have only used the transgenic technology to remove competition from the herbicide market. Instead of allowing the farmer to choose from different brands of herbicides available in the market, they have now ensured that you are left with only Hobson choice. The use of herbicide therefore does not come down. Several studies have shown conclusively that the use of herbicide in the US for instance actually has gone up.

Now, the question that needs to be asked is that if the chemical herbicide — Roundup Ready –that Monsanto’s herbicide tolerant soybeans use, increases yield than how come the other herbicides available in the market do not increase yield? Since all herbicides do the same job — killing herbs, all herbicides should be therefore increasing crop yields. Am I not correct? Why do then we only think that Rounup Ready soyabean (which is a GM crops) increases yields, whereas other herbicides do not?

When was the last time you were told that herbicides increase crop yields? Chemical herbicides are known to be reducing crop losses. This is what I was taught when I was studying plant breeding. And this is what is still being taught to agricultural science students everywhere in the world.

Similarly for cotton. We all know that cotton consumes about 50 per cent of total pesticides sprayed. These chemical pesticides are known to be reducing crop losses. For the kind information of Monsanto (and I am sure they will agree to it without any question) pesticides do not increase crop yields, and I repeat DO NOT increase cotton yields.

Monsanto’s Bt cotton, which has a gene from a soil bacteria to produce a toxin within the plant that kills certain pests, also does the same. It only kills the insect, which means it does the same job that a chemical pesticide is supposed to perform. The crop losses that a farmer minimises after applying chemical pesticide is never (and has never) been measured in terms of yield increases. It has always been computed as savings from crop losses.

If GM crops increase yields, shouldn’t we therefore say that chemical pesticides (including herbicides) also increase yields? Will the agricultural scientific community accept that pesticides increases crop yields?

That brings me to another relevant question: Why don’t agricultural scientists say that chemical pesticides increase crop yields?

While you ponder over this question (and there are no prizes for getting it right), let me tell you that the last time the world witnessed increases in crop yields was when the high-yielding crop varieties were evolved. That was the time when scientists were able to break through the genetic yield barrier. The double-gene and triple-gene dwarf wheat (and subsequently the same trait was inducted in rice) brought in quantum jumps in the yield potential. That was way back in the late 1960s. Since then, there has been no further genetic break through in crop yields. Let there be no mistake about it.

Monsanto is therefore making faulty claims. None of its GM crop varieties increases yields. They only reduce crop losses. And if Monsanto does not know the difference between crop losses and crop yields, it needs to take lessons again in plant breeding.

But please don’t fool the world. Don’t distort scientific facts.

For the record, let me also state that when Bt cotton was being introduced in India in 2001 (its entry was delayed by another year when I challenged the scientific claims made by Mahyco-Monsanto), the Indian Council for Agriculural Research had also objected to the company’s claim of increasing yield. It is however another matter that ICAR’s objections were simply brushed aside by the Department of Biotechnology, and we all know why.

Read More

OUAGADOUGOU (AFP) – Burkinabe director Boubabcar Diallo is an example of a new kind of African filmmaker, not so much interested in making art house movies but trying to reach out to bigger audiences.
Quick, charming and business savvy, the 46-year-old journalist-turned filmmaker prides himself on being totally self-taught.
Starting out as the editor of a satirical newspaper he moved on to writing crime novels and poems and screenplays.
“I started writing screenplays for directors so that they would make the kind of movies that I myself, as an African film fan, wanted to see. But when nobody wanted to film my scenarios I decided to do it myself,” he told AFP in an interview.
With a boyish grin and an infectious enthusiasm for his work Diallo now turns out homegrown blockbusters at the dizzying speed of two films a year.
His latest film Coeur de Lion (Lionheart) is a local crowd favourite at this year’s Pan-African Film and Television Festival in Ouagadougou (FESPACO) where it is in competition for the festival’s Golden Stallion award for best film.
So far the evening screenings for his film have been a sold out affair with festivalgoers and locals crowding into the halls, sitting on the steps to catch a glimpse of the historical drama.
Diallo’s mission if to show that ‘the African movie’ is not a genre as such and that all genres can be adapted for local audiences. To prove his point his successes also include a police movie, a western, a romantic comedy and a political thriller. His next project is an African remake of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Julliet.
He dismisses fellow African filmmakers who complain that the African public is not coming to see local films and bemoan the difficulties of getting foreign funding.
“I wonder if African filmmakers have given the public what they wanted,” he said, confident that audiences do flock if you make the right film.
He proudly told AFP that his 2007 film “Traque a Ouaga” (Ouaga Chase) beat the James Bond blockbuster Casino Royal at the Burkina Faso box office.
As for foreign funding, Diallo — happy to film in the cheaper digital format — can get by without.
“To get European donors to commit to a film takes at least two or three years. What do you do in the meantime, a production company can not just be idle, you have to go out and find local partners,” he explained.
“To finance my movies I look at the script and what kind of activities can fit in there. If I have a screenplay with motorcycle chases, I go and speak to a motorcycle brand and propose a product placement deal in exchange for financing.”
His films have all been made on a shoestring budget of around 35,000 euros but Coeur de Lion had the biggest budget so far 250,000 euros which Diallo said was used among other things for shooting scenes with a real lion in a French studio. From the audiences surprised gasps during the pivotal lion fighting scene, it was money well spent.
Read More

MANILA, Philippines — The united voice of the Indigenous Peoples yesterday swept from continent to continent in 37 countries calling on their respective governments to stop large-scale mining and other extractive activities (oil and gas projects) on their indigenous lands until effective measures to safeguard their rights and the environment are in place.
The call for a global moratorium on extractive projects for oil, gold, gas and other mineral resources also includes a demand that World Bank must stop funding transnational mining companies in their effort to exploit the world’s natural resources.
This is among their collective calls contained in the final Declaration that is set to be submitted to the United Nations, multilateral banks and government officials who will be attending the International Expert Workshop on Indigenous Peoples Rights, Corporate Accountability and Extractive Industry s at the Legend Villas in Mandaluyong City.
According to Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, a Kankana-ey from the Cordillera and the current chair of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) that following the growing and alarming reports by indigenous peoples against extractive industries, a recommendation was adopted during the 7th Session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), which authorized a three-day international expert group workshop on indigenous peoples’ rights, corporate accountability and the extractive industries and requested that the results of the meeting be reported to the Permanent Forum at its 8th Session, on 18-29 May 2009. The UNPFII s an advisory body to the Economic and Social Council, with a mandate to discuss indigenous issues related to economic and social development, culture, the environment, education, health and human rights.
“We call for a moratorium on further extractive industry projects that may affect us, until structures and processes are in place that will ensure respect for our human rights. The determination of when this can be realized can only be made by those communities whose lives, livelihoods and environment are affected by extractive activities,” they said. Further, stronger mechanisms should be enforced to fight the indiscriminate practices of extractive industries, which they said are often ignored or intentionally allowed by their respective governments.
They want the World Bank to immediately stop financing transnational mining companies and commence phasing out of its funding, promotion and support for fossil fuel- related projects, including large-scale mining projects. “The World Bank must provide a timeline to end such funding,” the declaration said.
One provision in the UNDRIP — the free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) — poses serious disagreement with the World Bank, as the latter has not accepted such and instead coined and followed its own words to read: “free, prior and informed consultation.” This, the IPs said, has been used by the World Bank and the transnational mining companies to skirt the law and push through with the extractive activities. They said that “consent and consultation” are two different words and each has distinct meaning.
“We want to request that UN to establish procedures which provide indigenous communities with the opportunity to request the relevant UN agencies to assist them in the monitoring and provision of independent information on FPIC processes,” they said.
In the Philippines,” free, prior and informed consent” is also embodied in the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997.
They added that World Bank Group must update its operational directives and safeguard policies with regard to indigenous peoples and adopt the UNDRIP provision of free, prior and informed consent in all the WB assisted mining projects,
Indigenous lands around the world are facing massive threats from the influx of extractive industries, which the indigenous delegates to this second international conference claimed have appalling records of environmental destructions and violations of human rights of the indigenous peoples.
The 85 delegates from 37 countries said they demand compensation for damages inflicted upon their lands and lives, and the rehabilitation of their degraded environments caused by extractive industries.
As extractive industries invades indigenous lands, countless of violent incidents are happening around the world, which is the reason why the delegates are proposing to create an international indigenous criminal court that would address this kind of problem, including the loss of lives as a result of indiscriminate mining committed by transnational mining firms, and whose “decisions will be based on our customary laws.”
For inquiries, please contact:
Jo Villanueva
Mobile: 09194111660
Email: jomvillanueva@gmail.com
(Submitted by Cathal Doyle and Michelle Cook)

By Kripa Krishnan

Legendary Pakistani poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz has been an integral part of Indian cultural psyche and his daughter Salima Hashmi believes that Bollywood can take Faiz’s poetry to the youth.

“Gulon Mein Rang Bharay”, a popular poem written by Faiz while he was in jail in Pakistan, has been used in the upcoming film “Sikandar” by director Piyush Jha. The film revolves around the life of a young boy growing up in violence torn Kashmir.

“Poetry is a powerful tool to bring people together just like Bollywood and in times of strife, artistes like Faiz become bridges to unite people from both sides of the border,” Hashmi, who is in India for talks regarding a cross-cultural theatre festival for peace, told PTI in an interview.

Hashmi, who owns the copyright to all her father’s work, said, “My father believed that once a poem is published it is people’s property and I believe the same. Faiz is being used in India in films and theatre and it reflects how revered he is here.” Jha, who took special permission from Hashmi to use the song in “Sikandar”, said “Gulon Mein” was one of his favourite poems while growing up and the poem kept coming to him while writing the story of the film. PTI

Read More
(Submitted by Rohila Pritam)

By Sam Dillon

RANDOLPH, Utah — Dale Lamborn, the superintendent of a somewhat threadbare rural school district, feels the pain of Utah’s economic crisis every day as he tinkers with his shrinking budget, struggling to avoid laying off teachers or cutting classes like welding or calculus.
Just across the border in Wyoming, a state awash in oil and gas money, James Bailey runs a wealthier district. It has a new elementary school and gives every child an Apple laptop.
But under the Obama administration’s education stimulus package, Mr. Lamborn, who needs every penny he can get, will receive hundreds of dollars less per student than will Dr. Bailey, who says he does not need the extra money.
“For us, this is just a windfall,” Dr. Bailey said.
In pouring rivers of cash into states and school districts, Washington is using a tangle of well-worn federal formulas, some of which benefit states that spend more per pupil, while others help states with large concentrations of poor students or simply channel money based on population. Combined, the formulas seem to take little account of who needs the money most.
As a result, some districts that are well off will find themselves swimming in cash, while some that are struggling may get too little to avoid cutbacks.
Still, educators are accepting the disparities without challenge. Utah, which stands to get about $400 less per student than Wyoming, says it is grateful for the money and has no complaint. There is widespread recognition that the federal money is helping to avert what could have been an educational disaster in some places.
Democrats in Congress decided to use the formulas to save time, knowing that devising new ones tailored to current conditions could require months of negotiations.
“These formulas were the best vehicle for getting these emergency economic recovery funds out to school districts as quickly as possible, to help them immediately stave off layoffs,” said Rachel Racusen, a spokeswoman for Representative George Miller, Democrat of California, who is chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor.
The education secretary, Arne Duncan, said that he, too, was aware of the disparities but that no formula was perfect. “In this case, people are just extraordinarily thankful for these unprecedented resources,” Mr. Duncan said in an interview. “So I’m aware of these disparities, but we’ve received zero complaints.”
Still, the occasional mismatch between educational needs and emergency financing can be striking.
Utah, where a $1.3 billion budget deficit has threatened deep school cuts, will get about $655 million in education stimulus money, or about $1,250 per student, according to the federal Department of Education. Wyoming, which has no deficit and has not cut school budgets in many years, will get about $1,684 per student.
North Dakota, which also has no budget problems, will receive $1,734 per student. California, which recently closed a $42 billion budget gap through July 2010 partly through deep spending cuts, will get $1,336 per student.
Read More

by Mosharraf Zaidi

It is too easy to forget the bad news, while Pakistanis bask in the collective glory of the restored judiciary in this country. The chief justice’s resumption of duties at the Supreme Court may be one of this country’s greatest democratic achievements, but it is an achievement that has clearly gone unnoticed in important places. When it comes to understanding Pakistan, Washington DC remains out of touch and out of date, and as a result, it will continue to be mostly out of luck.

In what has to be a most apt crystallisation of America’s problem in Pakistan, the US government thought it was a good idea to congratulate the Pakistani people for their Obama-moment by sending new CIA boss Leon Panetta to Islamabad. Cynics will be reminded of Al Qaeda’s racist rant at the American people after President Barack Obama had won the November 2008 US election. It may have been what comes naturally for medieval cavemen holed up in Afghanistan since 1979, but it didn’t make Al Qaeda very popular in the US. Sending a parade of bureaucrats and negotiators to Pakistan to arm-twist, bribe, scare, cajole and caress the Pakistani establishment (including the PPP and its leadership) to “do more” may be what comes naturally to Washington DC, but it is not going to win over the Pakistani people.

Sending the head of the CIA to Pakistan the day that Pakistan’s chief justice takes back the office that was his all along is so tone-deaf, it makes the US government seem alien, cold and foreign. This is no way to actualise President Barack Obama’s vision of American public diplomacy in the 21st century. All the money at Fort Knox, and all the international political capital of the Barack Obama presidency cannot overturn and undermine the kind of message that a CIA boss’ visit sends to Pakistan.

Pakistan needs its friends to share the best that they have to offer. Instead of putting the heart of what makes America great (and what is making Pakistan great, if only for a fleeting moment) at the centre of its conversation with Pakistan, the US government keeps focusing on ugly. Putting terrorism at the forefront of this strange and tortured relationship has skewed the US view of what to do with Pakistan entirely. Pakistan may need Apache helicopters and perhaps its own Predator drones, to win the next battle against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But if this is really a war, then why is the focus so intensely narrow? Pakistan’s needs are not rocket science. At a time when the America’s aspirations for Pakistan should be amplified by voices from the Peace Corps, the ACLU, the NAACP, and the Salvation Army, it’s a peculiar thing that US wish lists and messages are delivered by stone-cold diplomats like Richard Holbrooke and spymasters of Leon Panetta’s ilk.

Mr Panetta’s ilk of course is not spy-master at all. He is the quintessential American public policy hack. This makes the timing and substance of his visit even more peculiar. Panetta understands democracy better than most. He was a US Congressman for 16 years. He was the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) where he put in motion the eventual achievement of Bill Clinton’s balanced budget. Between 1994 and 1997 he was chief of staff at Bill Clinton’s White House. The Lewinsky affair taking place right under his nose notwithstanding, Leon Panetta, more than most American bureaucrats and politicians, should be able to see what Pakistan’s priorities should be. In fact, Mr Panetta’s own words demonstrate his deep understanding of the democratic process quite well. This is what he said to politico.com, about the debate over the US bailout in September 2008: “Democracy can be ugly, depressing and frustrating but it is what determines our fate as a nation. We govern by leadership or crisis. Unfortunately, today, we largely govern by crisis. If there is to be a way forward in resolving this crisis, it will only happen when the leadership of the nation, both Republican and Democratic, decide that governing is more important than winning”.

Mr Panetta sure is onto something. Governing is more important than winning. Hallelujah. Can I get an Amen? You sure can in Pakistan. Just one year ago, on March 9, 2008, Mr Panetta wrote an op-ed for the Monterey County Herald, titled, “Americans Reject Fear Tactics”, in which he argued that “Fear exacts a terrible toll on our democracy”. And there’s more. On November 11, 2001, right after the 9/11 attacks, Mr Panetta was almost prophetic, warning his people… “The simple mission in this war is to get those involved in the Sept 11 attack. The danger is that the objective could become entangled in an all-out war on the Taliban, a tenuous relationship with rebel forces, the challenge of future nation-building after the war, the potential of a prolonged ground war threatened by weather and increased casualties, Middle East politics, and questions about the role of Saddam Hussein”.

Mr Panetta is not a typical American public policy hack. He is a genius. After having met President Asif Ali Zardari, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, and the range of military and intelligence folks that make important decisions, Mr Panetta probably has more questions than he has answers. The same can be said for the President Obama’s Pakistan team. Adding to the confusion of Pakistan of course is the confusion of this team itself. The ambassador, Ann Paterson, is a Republican appointment, the deputy minister, Mr Holbrooke, is a negotiator given an administrator’s job, the big picture thinker, Bruce Riedel, is an analyst, given a vision-definition job, and the CIA chief is a public policy guru being asked to reform US intelligence. This is surely not what Doris Kearns Goodwin’s advocacy of a team of rivals was meant to produce.

The answer of course has been in Pakistan all along. For two years, Pakistan’s most important demographic, its urban middle class raged a peaceful and disciplined war for justice. The military was brought to its knees, the capitalists and industrialists jumped aboard quickly, the fading left found new life in the vocals of Laal, the fading right wing of Qazi Hussain found momentary respite before its eventual extinction, the naive politics of Imran Khan found perhaps more than just a second wind — it found an existential issue to live and die for, the centrist opposition of the Sharifs found a moral basis beyond their quest for office, and feudal politicians resisted till the last, but eventually caved.

If America was looking for an effective instrument to fight the war on terror decisively and aggressively, the gift horse has been staring it in the mouth. Yet the American response to the movement was always perceived to be muted and self-conscious. The American position was perceived by the Pakistani people to be in pursuit of narrow, short-term interests that would be threatened by an independent judge who was keen on civil rights. What a tragic irony.

Hillary Clinton still does not have an undersecretary for Public Diplomacy, which might explain in part, but certainly not in full, why a Democratic administration, with Obama on top, Hillary Clinton at State and thoughtful folks all around, is still so badly out of step with the perceptions game in Pakistan.

For eight years, the US has consistently got the answer to the core strategic question wrong. A handful of dead Al Qaeda staffers are in fact not worth a complete loss of credibility in the world’s second largest Muslim nation. Each drone attack and CIA visit eats away at what little credibility the US has on the Pakistani street. The threat of the Taliban to the Pakistani state is surely serious. But this is a threat that will ultimately have to be dealt with by Pakistanis. If the lawyers’ movement is anything to go by, the evil of the Taliban has little chance of overwhelming the good of the Pakistani people. The more urgent long-term threat is the alienation of middle Pakistan from America altogether. Such alienation is unnatural, and dangerous. Courting Iran, and bedazzling Al Arabiya, while dropping bombs on FATA and threatening more of the same over Balochistan is surely no way to mitigate against this threat. Pakistan is the grand prize of the Muslim world. And the urban middle class is the grand prize of Pakistan. And there are no points for second place.

The writer is an independent political economist. www.mosharrafzaidi.com

Read More

By DENISE GRADY
An operation that once looked promising to treat heart failure has turned out not to help patients, doctors are reporting. The operation, ventricular reconstruction, reshapes the heart’s main pumping chamber in the hopes of making it work better. For about 20 years, surgeons have been performing it on some patients with heart failure who are already undergoing bypass surgery to treat blocked coronary arteries.

Health Guide: Heart Failure
About five million Americans have heart failure, and it contributes to 287,000 deaths a year. Causes include damage from heart attacks, blocked coronary arteries, diseased heart valves, high blood pressure and diabetes. As a result, the heart becomes enlarged, scarred, misshapen and too weak to pump enough blood. Patients can become short of breath and have trouble walking. Doctors had hoped that reconstruction, by restoring the heart’s natural shape and size, would help people feel better and survive longer.
But it does not, according to a major study in which 1,000 people were randomly assigned to have either reconstruction as well as bypass surgery, or bypass alone. Researchers then tracked the patients for a median of 48 months to see how many died or wound up in the hospital again. They also looked at symptoms and ability to exercise.
There were no differences between the two groups. Death and rehospitalization rates were the same, and symptoms improved equally in both groups. But the patients who had the reconstruction spent more time on the operating table and in the hospital.
Some surgeons say patients with severe scars on the heart, who were not studied, may benefit from the surgery.
But performing the operation routinely “cannot be justified,” wrote Dr. Howard J. Eisen, in an editorial published online Friday in The New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Eisen, who did not take part in the study, is a cardiologist at the Drexel University medical school in Philadelphia. An article about the study was also published in the journal, and the findings were presented on Sunday at a conference in Orlando, Fla.
Read More

She is the daughter of danseuse Mrinalini Sarabhai and India’s pioneering space scientist Vikram Sarabhai. Captain Lakshmi Sehgal, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose’s trusted aide in the Indian National Army, is her aunt, and Marxist politician Subhasini Ali is her cousin. With such lineage, it is hardly surprising that Mallika Sarabhai’s has been a consistent voice against criminalisation of politics and the communalisation of society.

Even given her lineage, it came as a surprise when she announced her candidature in the Lok Sabha elections against no less than the Bharatiya Janata Party’s L K Advani from Gandhinagar in Gujarat. In an emailed interview with rediff.com, Mallika Sarabhai outlined what motivated her to take the plunge, finally.

What do you intend to achieve by contesting the Lok Sabha polls as an independent?
So many of us for so long have urged clean people to go into politics. I got fed up of urging others. So many people and groups had been telling me. So here I am.

How do you rate your chances of winning against the Bharatiya Janata Party’s prime ministerial candidate L K Advani? Is your fight merely symbolic?
No, it is not symbolic but yes it is. This is going to be a fight to win, but a fight that is transparent where I will try innovative means of reaching people through people and by sticking to rules and my integrity. I invite all others in the constituency to fight it as transparently. Every rupee I raise and spend will be there for all to check. I shall not resort to personal slander or to threats and bribes. The process is as important as the goal.
Winning? Let’s see.

Have you felt like contesting elections before? Why didn’t you? And how is the present different? You said the Congress has been offering you a ticket since 1984. Why didn’t you take it up before?
I have contemplated it for years and always felt I was more effective outside the system. The degeneration in political life and the stridency of the divisive forces perhaps tipped the balance.

Why didn’t you contest the Gujarat assembly elections?
I will now if I lose.

How do propose to go about your campaign? Given your background, do you plan to employ any novel methods, like street theatre? Could you elaborate?
Watch this space! Of course I have to be inventive and innovative. I have only Rs 25 lakh that I can spend and that too I haven’t raised yet.

You know fighting an election is not inexpensive. How will you cope on this front? What are your plans for fund-raising?
I have made an appeal through my web site http://mallikasarabhai.in and from door to door. I am asking people who believe in this fight for a secular peoples’ India to contribute and become the campaign.

Things could get dirty as the campaigning hots up, are you prepared for it?
I will have to be. I am preparing shoulders to cry on.

For many in the political spectrum the Indo-US nuclear deal is a red rag to a bull. As the daughter of one of India’s eminent scientists, what are your views on the Indo-US nuclear deal?
Papa believed in nuclear non-proliferation. So do I.

What are the issues facing the electorate, in Gandhinagar and elsewhere, in your opinion?
Gandhinagar is very diverse. The rural middle class and poor; degraded lands and insecure livelihoods, urban slums with huge issues of health, lack of basic infrastructure, huge middle class who fear their safety, who don’t have access to first rate education. Women across the spectrum whose issues of safety and respect haven’t been tackled or even heard. Rape, murder, suicide and violence soaring — are some of the issues.

The 2004 election was turned on its head by the aam-aadmi. What kind of result do you foresee from the 2009 Lok Sabha elections?
I repose my trust in the aam-aadmi and, equally importantly, the aam-aurat.

You said that while you are a political novice politics flows in your blood. Was the reference to Capt Lakshmi Sehgal’s legacy? Do you see yourself taking it forward?
Yes, and that of Ammu Swaminathan, Anasuya Sarabhai, Mridula Sarabhai, Subhashini Sahgal and Srilata Swaminathan. And all the others on both sides of my family who may not have fought elections but spent their lives fighting for justice and an equitable India for ALL Indians.

You also said politicians have killed democracy. Democracy unfortunately is a politician’s game; by aspiring to join their ranks, what do you hope to achieve/change?
Politics need not be dirty. It need not be self-serving and vile. Our current politicians have made it so. We need to take a vacuum cleaner at them.

Who among your friends and associates will be involved in your campaign?
Everyone that I can inspire and many whom I don’t yet know.

Read More