Happy to say goodbye to 2008

TOI article on 01/01/2009 by Jug Suraiya

One of the more memorable metaphors for 2008 is that of a pinstripe-suited Wall Street banker holding out a begging bowl. As the subprime loan bubble burst, unleashing a financial tsunami across the globe, Wall Street became Wail Street and markets over the world collapsed like so many houses of cards, all of them jokers with a sick sense of humour.

But something far bigger seemed in imminent danger of taking a terminal toss: capitalism itself. Had Adam Smith's free-market credo which was the cornerstone of western-style liberal democracy finally fallen off the high horse it had ridden all these years? With banks and other financial institutions going belly up or holding out begging bowls for governmental bailouts, making a mockery of a competitive free-market, was capitalism being consigned to the trash bin as its former arch-foe, communism, had been a while ago? If both these polar isms had failed, what ism was left? Fatalism?

Even as capitalism teetered on the brink, in the US another ism came a much-deserved and long overdue cropper: racism. Barack Obama made history - and unmade racism - by being the first black successfully to aspire to what is often tagged as the world's most powerful office - the presidency of the United States.

But as the world celebrated a triumph that was as much America's collectively as it was Obama's individually, another ism raised its politically incorrect head: sexism. Obama's defeated rival for the Democratic nomination was Hillary Clinton. Did Obama's victory, at her expense, imply that while the US was ready to overcome its racism it had yet to get over its sexism, the innate gender bias against women that is common to male-dominated societies the world over?

Obama's triumphal message was change. But did that change also apply to the status of women? Apparently not. Put a black man in the White House? Yes, we can. But a woman in the Oval Office? Uh, uh. You've still got a long way to go, baby.

As a consolation prize, Hillary was made Barack's secretary of state. A small step for Hillary; a giant leap for the Stepford wives (remember Ira Levin's parable of that name which tells of a typical American suburb where all the women are robots designed solely to serve men's needs?).

The year ended with a murderous bang as terror gatecrashed India's success story via the front door of Mumbai, the country's financial capital. That ten savage psychotics could hold an entire city to ransom and threaten to derail the Indian gravy train came as a nerve-jangling wake-up call. Several political heads rolled as a consequence, including that of the home minister.

But these cosmetic clean-up acts do not address the basic question: Is India too 'soft' a state to tackle the globalised menace of terror? How can India turn itself into a 'hard' state? By setting up a federal investigative agency? By arrogating more powers to government authorities through more stringent anti-terror laws? By suspending individual rights, such as habeas corpus? And if it were to do all these things, would India remain the same India of a free and democratic society that it is today?

The questions fly thick and fast and deadly as shrapnel from a grenade. Whatever the eventual political and social outcome, there is little doubt that '26/11' has been a watershed event, a life-changing trauma in the narrative of the nation. It will make India rethink its friends and its foes, and how to deal with them. It will make citizens rethink and re-evaluate their relationship with the political leaders they elect.

Yes, in a democracy the political leadership is responsible, or is supposed to be responsible, for its citizens. But equally, in a democracy the citizens are responsible for the political leadership they put in office through their votes. Democratic responsibility is a two-way street. By all means blame politicians for their ineptitude in handling terror attacks or anything else. But equally, let's blame ourselves for not being more deserving of better leadership.

Most will be happy to see the back of 2008. Except for the thought of 2009 lurking around the corner, determined to upstage its predecessor and in terms of excitement quotient make 2008's act seem like what it might appear in retrospect: a truly crashing bore, of lethally high calibre.