Padma Shrimati

There are many things of interest in the article in The Economist entitled High office, low church (April 13, 2013) centered on the late British Prime Minster Mrs. Margaret Thatcher.

Oops … I made a mistake. Describing the Iron Lady, the article says, “In religion, as in so much else, Mrs (later Lady) Thatcher was a bundle of paradoxes.” I believe the newspaper is giving itself the hint that it may have been better to have referred to her as Lady Thatcher. Or, it could be that it was telling the readers that the lady, when alive, should have been addressed as Lady, face to face.

Going down a few lines, you come across this: “’I don’t pretend to understand all the complex parts of Christian theology,’ Mr (later Sir John) Major once said, reassuringly.” Here we see Mr. Major metamorphosing into Sir John. Both “Sir” and “Lady” are gender specific titles, we must note.

I have one question. Why is it not Lady Margaret, to correspond one to one with Sir John, title to title, given name to given name? These crazy Brits.

But, are we Indians equally crazy? I have a feeling we are. Look at Padma Shri. It is sharply gender specific. Then, should lady recipients of the honor not be given Padma Shrimati? If logic rules, yes, they must be given Padma Shrimati and not Padma Shri. Going down this line of thinking, I do not know if Padma Bhushan, Padma Vibhushan, or Bharat Ratna is gender specific. But, assuming they are, we must have Padma Bhushani, Padma Vibhushani, and Bharat Ratni!

Go to the sports awards – any suggestions for Khel Ratna, or Arjun Award?

Raghuram Ekambaram

Richard Feynman, Jimmy Carter, Margaret Thatcher and Rahul Gandhi

I do not know what all Rahul Gandhi said when he addressed corporate bigwigs at the recent CII do. But, he did mention that our problems do not resemble a damsel in distress waiting for a knight riding a white horse to save her – a la the putative next avatar of Lord Vishnu, Kalki.

In this admission, I believe Rahul Gandhi took lessons from the genius physicist Richard Feynman, and the failed president of the US, Jimmy Carter and was deaf to the sage advice from the much divisive British prime minister Margaret Thatcher.

Feynman was seriously averse to holding forth on issues on which he had no specific expertise. Yet, perhaps in a moment of weakness, he did mention that while addressing an eager group of people waiting for oracles, if as a politician you said something like, “I will ask the experts to analyze, discuss and offer a way forward, with no guarantee of success,” you can kiss goodbye to politics as your profession..

This is what a scientist would say, but not a politician. The latter just has to plough ahead, “boldly go where no man has gone ever before,” the Star Trek signature. It is the same kind of momentary lapse that led Rahul Gandhi to take a step on to the slippery slope which should eventually lead to a mea culpa.

Equally importantly, never admit to failure or a mistake, never mention that tough times are ahead. This is what sunk Jimmy Carter when he clubbed the word “malaise” with what was happening to the American economy, and also when he tried to explain what happened with Desert Storm, the ill-fated adventure to rescue hostages from Tehran. True, these may have been, but disastrous such honesty was to him. I believe Rahul Gandhi came close enough to such a faux pas that he may have scored goal against himself.

To be a politician, you cannot afford to be honest, much less naïve. You have to be decisive, preferably without having given a thought to the issue at hand. This is what Margaret Thatcher did in the Falklands conflict with Argentina. Look where that got her – atop the pantheon of 20th century British prime ministers, no lower!

It is time for Rahul Gandhi to be a politician. A host of people, from the Treasury Benches and from across, the aisle are waiting to offer him lessons.

Of course, if he wants it cheap, I am always there.

Raghuram Ekambaram