Madras Cafe - Just another film.

Film makers have a great role in making history relevant to the masses. Especially, in the times we live, when not many have the time to read about events that shape our today. The film maker has an added edge, the power to give a visual element, recreate an event and leave it etched in the minds of the audience. So, when they decide to make a film, on an event that has played an emotional part in a nation’s conscience, it is important for them to recognise the enormous responsibility they are signing up for.  Putting out a disclaimer “That all characters in the film are fictitious” does not absolve the film maker of this responsibility.

Yes, not all film makers take that responsibility seriously. But, the point is simple – they have the right to make a film and the audience has a right to judge their effort. The trouble is when I am refused even the right to watch a film and make that judgement. The trouble is when a few irrational, incompetent, ill informed propagandists can stop me from making my own judgement. The trouble is when I do not even know if the film is worth so much thought.

Since, I do not live within the geographical confines of the ‘Tamil Nadu’ I did have the right to see ‘Madras Cafe’.  I started writing this review because a fellow journalist suggested I should. But, I also want to write it because those who could not watch the film must know that the fuss around it is not worth it. The irony is that the film says nothing, nothing at all, that is either contrarian or converse to history as it has been told to us. In fact, my only objection is that it does not say anything controversial and it could and should have been much better and said much more. It is just another film. I was disappointed but, that’s just me.

Before I make a brief review of the film, may I just remind all the protesting propagandists, that the LTTE had admitted its role in the Rajiv assassination and their chief was convicted by Indian courts and was declared a proclaimed offender. Anton Balasingham even made a desperate effort at expressing regret for that dastardly act. So, two decades later, when a film is made stating this very fact you have no reason to object.  In fact the film says nothing against the ‘Tamil Cause’ it even tracks its genesis to the 83 riots. It simply reiterates a widely accepted version of events.  

Kevin Costner starrer ‘JFK’ is one of the finest films made on the conspiracy theories behind the Kennedy assassination. I hope, someday, we make something as powerful on the Rajiv Gandhi assassination. As for ‘Madras Cafe’ it is nowhere near a master piece or a memorable film I would want in my collection. Unfortunately, it was based on a topic that deserved much better. There were moments when I thought it was a tragic joke and there were moments when it was gripping.

To start with, John Abraham just did not fit the part of a RAW agent in the first half.  In fact, I thought the whole portrayal of a RAW agent in a war zone was pathetic. That a journalist (Nargis Fakhri) would be aware of his activities made it even more hilarious. I mean, we can't be so raw while portraying the RAW. It would not have taken too much hard work to find out the real nature of the operations of the LTTE, the RAW and the Sri Lankan forces. The fact that the research was superficial was proven by the omission of portrayal of important events like Pirabhakaran’s visit to Delhi and a failed attempt on Rajiv Gandhi's life in Colombo. The refusal to make the plot more complex by studying details of the investigations also reflected in the final script. None of this was even touched upon and would have only added to the script. The trouble is that the film made the plot, the issue, superficial and simple. 

Staying with the first half, I must mention that the most hilarious part was when the RAW chief has a meeting with the number 2 in the ‘tigers’ hierarchy.  The conversation that unfolds is hilarious and it was as if the director just needed a small link to get to the next bit of the story. Here again the director decided to add his imagination to history. But, at the end of the day it is a piece of fiction which comes with a disclaimer and so we forgive the confusion between fact, fiction and the marriage between the two.

In the second half the movie does get better. Here you have the chatter between Jaffna, London, Singapore, Bangkok and Chennai. The assassination conspiracy begins to unfold and as the plot grips the actors lose their grip. Laboured acting by those playing key roles like a source in Bangkok (Dibang), RAW Chief (Siddaratha Basu) proved costly. Our very own RAW agent was better in the second half and a worthy mention in the acting department was Prakash Belawadi’s performance as the RAW Chennai station chief. The conspiracy plot left me wanting more. The technical side had done their job well. The editing and cinematography were particularly commendable. I just wish the director had worked as hard on the conspiracy and history as he did on making it into a film. Even the actors who played the role of SL Tamils, who facilitate the assassins, were not true to the Tamil accent. 

The trouble is that I am comparing it with a JFK or a Valkyrie and that is extremely unfair. Net -net it was high time we had someone attempt a film on the assassination. I just wish it was a better attempt. I may wish it was more fact than fiction but, the bottom line is simple – there is nothing wrong about the film and something wrong, terribly wrong, with those who are protesting against its release.  History has many versions and Madras Cafe is just a film maker’s imagination of partial facts from widely accepted versions of a tragic event. Let it pass. 

THE SUPERMAN SYNDROME - 1

A few weeks ago a close friend had come home for a weekend with her 12 year old son. In one of our outings I said the beauty of Bangalore is its weather. The 12 year old shot back ‘but it does not matter. I am a 21^st century kid”.  I was amused and confused at the start. In retrospect it was pure stupidity. But, I decided to probe further and get into an argument. I asked “why does weather not matter to a 21^st century kid”. The 12 year old shot back “I live in Air Con and the weather outside is irrelevant”. 

It is true isn’t it? In most of our big cities, our kids are growing up with complete abandon to nature. Malls, centrally air conditioned spaces, schools which are cocooned in concrete and houses where gadgets ensure there is minimal cerebral or physical activity required to keep one occupied. Then, when we miss a bit of nature we go on an expensive vacation to the hills or a forest. There we pay and get five (four or three depending on our bank balance) star protection. We will step out for a bit near a river for a few hours and claim “we love nature”!

The trouble is, in the age of internet and technology, we have slowly cut ourselves from what has produced and nurtured us as a race. Even more appalling is that we ensure that our next generation is more cut off than we were. The western civilizations are a couple of generations ahead of us in this ‘cutting off from nature’ curve. But, have we learnt anything from the troubles and perils faced by those ahead of us? Or are we merely going to follow them.

In the midst of these thoughts and armed with a stupid belief that I am older and wiser I continued my engagement with the 12 year old. I told him “O.K. you are a 21^st century kid and don’t need weather, but if you won’t step out of the A.C who is going to make the food you eat? Surely to grow food you need to get out of A.C”. The kid would not let me feel superior even for a micro second. He shot back “There would be farms in controlled temperature environments or we would find a gadget that ensures we don’t feel hungry”.  Like a fool I persisted “But you can’t eat a gadget and you need food, water and air to survive”. He hit back again within a second “We may find tablets that replace food or energy bars and machine produced burgers that need not be grown in farms!! And finally who needs water we’ll have coke”!

As I gave up and conceded defeat to the 12 year old I was left anxious. Have we become so arrogant that as a human race we take the basic things of life for granted and what has this arrogance cost us?  Do we really believe that making money and making software would keep us alive? When I read debates between models of growth in economics, I am pushed to believe that it should ideally be models of social thought and not growth.

Consider our cities and what we define as security. Most of the Indian middle and upper classes have been buying and investing plots of land around our ever growing cities. Making money out of land by rendering it useless is more important than making food out of it. Rural schools produce students who want to imitate those of us who have already become creatures of the concrete jungles.  The idea of progress is defined as those who have made millions in the cities. Today, it’s strenuous to find a young farmer. Most of those who till their lands are in their early 50’s and upwards. The younger ones are making plans to sell their lands and move into the cities. Eventually who will grow food ?

The fear and prediction of the future we will have on this path has even had a visual representation. It seems like the imaginary “Kryptonians” from where superman came.  Even in that imagined, film maker’s version of an advanced race there is a warning that krypton disintegrated and yet, we will refuse to learn our lessons.  When you do everything artificial you run the risk of cutting yourself completely from what brought us this far. In that we run the risk of complete annihilation.

Call it the ‘superman syndrome’. It is when man believes that he can control the environment he lives in. He believes that he has the power to script the process of his life. Yes, men have built environments and largely in our cities we live in such belief that we would get the resources we need. If there is no ground water we will transport it. When we need electricity we will have nuclear reactors and when the climate becomes harsh we will turn to air conditioners. But, can we sustain and prevail over nature all the time? And most important is when the ability to control the environment begins to control us as a race?

It’s not enough to turn to ayurveda, naturopathy, morning walks and planting trees. What is required is a complete change of priorities and a realization that the Human is just part of a large and complex universe. The more we cut off from it, the more we will be alone as a race and the more we are alone the faster we will perish.  So maybe it is time to redefine economic models of growth with a strong sense of the cost and risk it takes to keep going the way we are. The reformation has to be sociological, economic, philosophical and psychological.

There are a sensible few who are returning to preserve what is left of the connection we have to the universe and there are many who take us further away from our basics with their arguments of ‘floor space index” and sky scrapers and economic growth.

Obviously there are many who have warned us of the dangers of following the path we have taken and among them was a frail man called Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.  He was a visionary who outlined a road map and a seer who predicted that we would face all the social, personal, political and economic problems that we face today because we chose a path that would only lead to this. Ironically, we listen to our fathers a little too late in our lives and it still does not seem too late.

What The Veiled Elephant Stands For

Aerosmith's 'Pink'. That's the song that would fit in perfectly if you ever wanted a song to play in the backdrop of UP's political landscape in 2011. Just think about it for a bit and then take a walk down the Dalit Prerna Sthal's stone elephants and 'Behanji' draped in humongous meters of pink sheets. Ironically, Maya's favourite colour is apparently pink and on bright sunny winter day the overflowing pink of the election commission merges with the blue skies to offer an awesome sight. And that sight defeats the very rationale behind using those kilometers of pink sheets, they reveal more than they hide, they have made the stone sculptures a greater centrifugal force than they were and raised perhaps a socio-political question. Should they be hidden at all?

Palaces, forts, monuments, Indian history is about grandeur and what remains of each dynasty's grandeur before it perished. Rulers leave their mark on history through monumental architecture. Generations marvel at the splendour of an era which bears little relevance to the present, except that it offers expression of everlasting identity. The Brits did it, the Mughlas, Rajputs and every small king marked in our history left behind some element architecture and while much of it may lie in ruins it reminds generations of the identity of the region and the ruler. Temples were a reflection of Hindu pride, mosques of Muslims and the churches of Christian, else why would places of worship which teach the path to relinquish manly desires be pampered in material grandness. Even a memorial for the father of a nation is at the end of the day the manifestation of the identity of an ideology he leaves behind. Every section and sub section has their own set of individual icons they idolise to give a sense of pride, achievement and equality in identity. And hence I argue that Mayawati's elephants and her statues are an assertion of dalit identity, the only such expression as you travel the far corners of India. We may question and criticise it as a waste of economic resources but it cannot be dismissed as meaning nothing.

A class which has never been allowed to rule, a section of the population which has been denied dignity for generations and has been suppressed will have to find justice some day. And finding justice would have to begin with finding pride in their identity. We can argue endlessly about economic and social equality but that equality does not emerge from nowhere and it definitely does not emerge from just the creation of more jobs. Economic progress is important but it has to go parallel with social equality and has to translate into a psychological sense of equality. For social injustice to be undone an identity stigma needs to be banished and the face of Dalit power being manifested and boasted about is just a start. And hence the fear that by veiling them to create fare ground in an election we may be accentuating a perpetual injustice.

There have been several Dalit luminaries who could have been greater icons of that identity than Mayawati. Yes, she could have built statues of Dr Ambedkar or her mentor Kanshi Ram instead of herself. But ironically history is written by the ultimate victor and she is the ultimate victor in a process that's taken generations. A desperate congress, which refused accept Jinnah's reserved electorates for the Muslims, conceded to Ambedkar as a last ditch measure to keep the Hindu electorates bigger. Had they not there would have been separate Dalit, Muslim and Hindu electorates. The reservation that Ambdekar got was the start of an electoral battle that culminated in India's biggest state with Mayawati leading an alliance of castes to electoral victory. Self obsession is a repulsive part of personality driven Indian politics and Mayawati is no different. As a society we respond to personalities rather than systems and Mayawati is the tallest dalit personality in 2011 and so when she immortalises herself as the icon of dalit pride it's not without a justification. While Ambedkar achieved a negotiation victory with the Congress Mayawati has achieved an electoral victory and her assertion of Dalit power is by no means a smaller achievement.

Till she hit the scenes there was always the quest for the most acceptable dalit face within the larger fold. This by itself many Dalit intellectuals argue is a treachery of the castes against the weakest section. They wanted a Dalit because they needed their votes and had to be perceived as inclusive. According to them it was pure lip service while perpetuating the caste hierarchy. Why else, sixty years after independence, would we still not see a strong Dalit presence in the upmarket colonies of our cities? Even those who have economically progressed tend to hide their identities. Why are sanitation workers predominantly Dalit. Can you find an upper caste entering and cleaning gutters and can you fathom the castes going through the trauma of manual scavenging?.
Conveniently we have perpetrated a caste treachery and Mayawati's repulsive self obsession may just be a small sin compared to what's been perpetrated by the society at large. And so while her statues may purely be the product of her repulsive narcissism and self-obsession, they ironically represent a political assertion that goes far beyond the politician herself.

We accepted the caste formations of 1980's (read Mulayam, Lalu) as new realities of OBC politics in India's electoral picture. It was the kind of caste assertion that we first saw in Tamil Nadu through the Dravidian movement. In their times the Dravidian leaders were ostracized as severely casteist and are now hailed as architects of a tremendous social revolution. Caste-based leadership has changed the realities of Indian politics since the 70s and unfortunately these changes did not impact in the life, identity and stigma of the Dalit people. And hence it's a party like the BSP which can eventually claim to be their true leader. It wouldn't have been the case had we really been committed social justice but we were not. Barring Mayawati I cannot think of a single Dalit formation in India which can play the lead role in a political alliance and occupy the top spot.

Erasing the history to rewrite a new reality cannot be done with money and sympathy. It has to be done through a process of reassertion, a process by which their statues can stand as tall as the rest, their icons have the same presence on our history and their children have the same sense of equality as the rest. Politics, nation building, social pride and economic progress is a lot about symbolism. And so is Dalit pride and equality. Mayawati is most definitely not the most able politician in India, her administration perpetuated corruption and poor law and order but at the end of the day her statues and her parks mean much more to the Dalit than she does. So veil them at election time if you must but not accepting them as symbols of Dalit pride reflects the cunning casteism that we have perpetuated.

Pondering Without Purpose - The Philosophy of Consequence !!

Being lost is a state of mind. The reality is we are all lost. No matter what state of consciousness one is spiritual, material, metaphysical or whatever it is that you call it, the fact is that we are searching for something. If we find peace we will search for more peace and greater peace. Human beings can never exist in an unchanging, absolute state of being. The motion less is dead whether it’s the mind or the body and to find movement is to change the state of being and the force for the change is to search for something.

Think about it for a bit, when we search for a restaurant we are searching for a something that we want out of it. When we find the restaurant we are searching for something we get after we reach there and then we search for the next thing. In being still for instance we will search for what it is to be still. When the body is not physically searching the mind will be. The end to the state of searching is the end to life itself.

The trouble begins when we resist this state of searching. It’s like damming the flow of a river. A river is meant to flow to the sea and when it doesn’t it’s a lake or whatever else that you wish to call it but not a river. So the beginning of any journey is to realise that there is nothing absolute and the human mind is like a river which flows.

But if life was meant to be what it is then why begin any journey, why not let primal instincts play their role and let the body do whatever it is the mind wants and let the mind have no conditioning and think whatever it does. There are rules to every game and yes these are rules we put on ourselves. Staying within the realm of morality would mean staying within the realm of what is right and what is wrong and when you stay within that realm there are things you can or cannot do. In my state of existence there is still no answer to going beyond the realm of right and wrong. I can go beyond that but if I do I think it will lead to anarchy and the fear of chaos is the reason I can’t.

So can I be at peace with myself despite having to stay within the morality of right and wrong. One of the thoughts that have been thrown at me is that there is no right and no wrong. It’s all about actions and consequences. If we see a particular set of consequences for an action and if those consequences seem detrimental to my interests then I don’t perform that action and if the consequences seem acceptable then I perform. It seems plausible but it still cannot sink in completely.

The more I try to think of my actions and my understanding of right and wrong the more I begin to understand the action – consequence theory. Putting it into practice and trying to smear it over the life is like a river thought gives me some sense of relief. If I let life flow the way it is then there will be a set of consequences and if I make an effort to alter the flow then there are some consequences and so I let life flow at times and alter the course at times.

And at this moment I am just letting thoughts flow into words and beginning to realise the consequences. The boss is looking on wondering when he will stop jabbering and begin working ….that thought definitely has severe consequences and hence the thoughts are dammed. !!

A Dam and a Nuclear Power Plant - The Conspiracy Connection !!

Whenever a water dispute erupts between two states it often takes very bizarre proportions and in the midst of state pride, regional sentiment, legal complications and political rhetoric the reality gets clouded beyond recovery. Mullaiperiyar is no different.

What’s interesting is that the Mullaiperiyar dispute does not fit the definition of a water dispute at all. A water dispute is between two states or parties over the quantum of water released by the upper riparian state to the lower. Like in the case of Cauvery, Godavari or even the Indo-pak dispute over the Indus. In the case of Mullaiperiyar the dispute is over the existence of a dam. Kerala is a water rich state and does not want water from the Periyar River. It’s willing to give as much as Tamil Nadu wants.

Kerala says ‘safety’ is the key. In the past it had raised the issue of ‘safety’ of the 116 year old dam and had wanted water storage levels reduced. In 2006 the Supreme Court ruled in Tamil Nadu’s favour and after safety audits ordered that the dam is safe to hold 142 feet of water compared to the present 136. Kerala doesn’t need the additional water that Tamil Nadu hold’s in the dam but yet is opposing an increase in storage levels and the reason for that opposition is not water but land.

While Kerala is a water surplus state it’s uncomfortable with the large tracts of land (8000 acres) that are submerged in the Mullaiperiyar’s catchment area. Most of this land is Kerala’s and an increase in water storage would mean more land would be submerged. Instead if a new dam is built down stream then several thousand acres of Kerala’s land would be relieved of water and can be a gold mine for the state. So this dispute from Kerala’s point of view is about land and not water.

From Tamil Nadu’s point of view it needs the water for irrigation and drinking water needs in four southern districts. Building a new dam down stream would mean land in Tamil Nadu would be submerged and the state feels that it is an unnecessary waste of resources and could result in uncertainty over water. It’s also been turned into an issue of political pride over the last decade.

This is pretty much the history of the dispute, it’s not been an emotive war, except in 2006 when the Supreme Court ruled in Tamil Nadu’s favour and Kerala virtually overruled the verdict with a “Dam Safety Act”. What’s interesting is that the issue of the dam’s safety suddenly re-erupted, ostensibly because of tremors in the Idukki region. Kerala suddenly stepped up the political momentum on ‘safety’, Jayalalithaa responded and both states have now taken the issue to the prime minister. But why did the issue erupt suddenly?

A few hundred kilometres away from the dam is the site for the Koodankulam Nuclear power plant. The centre’s been trying to negate anti nuclear protestors there campaigning against the project on the ‘safety’ plank. The centre sought Jayalalithaa’s support in controlling the protests at Koodankulam, but the Tamil Nadu CM, miffed by the centre not treating her ‘special’ refused to help. Remember, without the state government’s help negating the Koodankulam protests will be impossible, and the PM’s dream nuclear power project could face uncertainty.

Some political observers are now seeing a link between the sudden eruption of the Mullaiperiyar issue and the Koodankulam stand off. They may be conspiracy theorists, but their logic seems plausible. They believe Congress led UDF ruled Kerala has systematically raised the Mullaiperiyar issue to counter Jayalalithaa’s non cooperation with the centre in handling the protests in Koodandkulam. The dam dispute has now created a situation where Jaya ruled Tamil Nadu needs the centre’s help in negating the matter. This puts pressure on the Tamil Nadu government to co operate with the centre on the Koodankulam issue. It's virtually given the centre a tough handle on Jayalalithaa when it negotiates with her for help to defeat protestors at the nuclear power plant.

But if this is true it also creates the anvil for a precarious situation. If the two states overplay the issue it could become politically impossible to handle. And if it’s not dealt with tact it could result in creating uncertainty over a 116 year old dam and a state of the art Nuclear power plant. The fear is political egos could result in a large loss for the nation as a whole.

This may be dismissed as ‘paranoia’ by some and ‘conspiracy theory’ by others. But there are some who believe that this reflects the inability of Indian politicians to rise above their political egos and build a consensus. The key with Mullaiperiyar is it’s not a dispute over water. Both states have a case and it’s not like other water disputes where a solution seems impossible, raising the political temperature will only make it one more in our long list of emotive, idiotic and unmanageable inter state disputes. Sadly even the Supreme Court orders and the larger good of the nation have been defeated by regional political rhetoric and egos of our political personalities. The effort should be to ensure that a dam and a nuclear power plant do not fall victim to this self destructive course of our political landscape.

The child on a street.

The water is pouring from the skies.
their body is wet,
But there's no moistness in their eyes
I try to feel their life of blood and sweat
But my heart must have frozen like ice.
In a day I see them just once twice or thrice.
and then I retreat to my life full of lies.

On my windscreen and my window they knock.
the thougt of my offering makes them flock.
The light turns from red turns to green
And I diassper into life in a fast lane,
But day after day the scene remains the same.

Their life it seems is an unopened lock.
No one to guide them to a key,
No one to help them see.
Their Childhood robbed, their future clogged.

If God was true then why were they born,
to suffer a life of indignity and burn.
If he doesn't exist then who can I blame
Do I question a nation and it's fame
or Do I retreat that it's a shame

Why do I have what I do, why do they live the way they do.
I have a child their same age,
to him the world doesn't seem like a cage.
When they see him will their hearts not fill with rage ?
How can we write their lives on the same page.
In the act of a nation will they remain at the same stage
Why act, why write our history, if we cnnot make their life change.

(inspired by an unknown child begging for alms on a rainy day. Rain or sun I see her everyday. Can I do something to change her life ?. Will I do anything to change her life?. I don't know)

How and Why Money matters in an election?

There's been quite a lot of talk about the distribution of money by the DMK in the Tamil Nadu election. The allegations against the ruling party are largely true and despite the Election Commission's crackdown money did flow to the voter, choked by the crack down, but it did reach the voter. The question really is can the money change the outcome of an election where nearly 80 percent of the nearly five core voters cast their vote. Many analysts feel that focusing on money distribution as the only reason for an electoral victory is an insult to the electorate's sensibilities, yes that's true but that argument cannot discount the fact that cash to the voter is decisively changing the electoral dynamics at least in specific states. If it doesn't help then no politician will distribute tons of stolen money to the voter.

The Congress under the late YSR Reddy managed an election with enormous money in 2009 and won it , The BJP galvanized by the Reddy brothers in Karnataka did it in 2008 and the DMK showed the two national parties how it's done in Tamil Nadu in the 2009 lok sabha polls. Since the focus now is on Tamil Nadu I am going to attempt explaining why the strategic distribution of money can have an impact on the Dravidian electoral outcome. The confidence exhibited by the DMK (every senior leader claims the alliance will get 130 to 150 seats) after polling is largely because of the money they spent. I am not Nira Radia, but, if my phone was tapped then I am confident there would be proof of this straight from the mouth of the several horses that ran the Tamil race!

Tamil Nadu is a highly politicised state driven by strong political leanings and views. The DMK voter (around 27 -28 percent) will vote for the DMK no matter what and same is the case with the AIADMK (around 32-33 percent). Other political forces like the congress, PMK, etc also have a consolidated caste vote that by and large is transferrable and this ranges from (2 or 3 percent to 9 or 10 percent depending on the party). It's the sum total of the vote share of an alliance that is called arithmetic and whichever Dravidian party has managed an alliance with the larger sum total has won an election since 1991. Even in huge wave elections like in 1996 and 2004 against Jayalalithaa, she was able to retain her committed vote and the alliance arithmetic was better with her rival. So the bet is that this committed voter will not change his vote even if he receives money.

Beyond the committed voter lies the silent, non aligned voter whose share was anywhere between five to ten percent and if this section voted in one block then it meant a massive sweep. This section normally voted in one block only when it was incensed and angry with the government that existed. The defining feature of this section is that it is largely unhappy with both sides and yet chooses one over the other. There is no empirical evidence to prove that this section takes money and actually votes for the party which pays them the higher amount, but it is a matter of wide belief in the political class that those who have taken money do vote for the party which "bribed" them. In an election where the electoral arithmetic is close then if two or three percent of the undecided voters go in favour of one formation it can seal the deal. The other section which can change with the money game is the section in the opposition's rank and file that is disgruntled. Disgruntlement is usually over the choice of the candidate and this section can be lured to change its choice with money.

One of the reasons given by grass root party workers for the high turnout (close to 80 percent) this time is that voters have realized that parties pay only those who go out to vote. They also ensure that the promised freebees are delivered to those who have cast their vote and those who don't get ink on their finger fall back on the queue. In the 2009 lok sabha polls when the DMK-Congress combine won the turn out was a high 74 percent and hence a high turnout does not mean an anti establishment vote. It only means that many voters have decided to come out to vote for a range of reasons and one of those could be that there is an immediate gratification for exercising their franchise. I am not accusing people of selling their votes but unfortunately money does become a reason for the decision taken by a section of the electorate and that fact needs to be accepted.

When you walk into a locality at election time the first talk you hear is about who has given how much money has been delivered or promised - not about the state of roads, power or water. Unless the issue is really stark and grave money has taken precedence. The defining moment was when the voter asks you "What's wrong for the next five years I will have to pay but now I will make them pay". The rates are defined and I am told in these elections it ranged from 500 to 2000 rupees per vote depending on the profile of the candidate and at a campaign Jayalalithaa even remarked "take the money from the DMK, it is your money that they are giving back, just remember to vote for us" and one of those campaigning for her director Seeman told a gathering "Take the money from the DMK, put five rupees from it in the temple hundi and then vote for Amma - God will forgive you for cheating the DMK !!!". It may be disgusting to urban, erudite sensibilities but it is the reality. There is a sense of guilt in not voting which has given you money.

In a careful assessment the offer of free bees is an institutional, legal and official example of how an electorate can be made to vote on the basis of material gratification rather than larger ideological and political issues. If the voter can legally and publicly vote on the basis of a free mixer, grinder or colour TV set then why would he or she not vote on the basis of a few thousand rupees illegally and discreetly delivered to him. The Politicians who have fought an election believe that money is proving to be decisive and those who cannot spend money are now left with the hope that it may not be a long term trend.

So no matter what anyone may say money matters. It cannot swing an election across the board but it does swing a percentage of the voter and that percentage does have an impact on the big picture. IF the DMK wins this election then it means money continues to matter and has played a decisive role. Analysts can try but I am not sure if anyone can offer any other practical rational and plausible reason for a victory amidst such resentment ranging from power cuts and price rise to corruption. You may ask what about the election commission's crack down. Yes they did a fantastic job but remember the politician knows how to get to the voter despite the curbs!!!