Foodie heaven at Whole Foods Market

Years ago, during my Buddhist days, I worked in a wholefood shop for a couple of years.  We tried to share out responsibilities and mine (as well helping make sandwiches for the take away side) was to order the wholefoods from our main suppliers.  I became quite an expert on sourcing new products and what was available and absolutely loved it.  I was working with interesting people and loved doing something practical and real-world compared to academia and book learning.

I say this because I found myself in the new Richmond Whole Foods Market today and for ½ hour or so was in foodie heaven.  Even more so when I remembered that I still had Susen’s credit card in my bag……(Susen – only kidding!  I restrained myself, although he did mutter something about £3.99 being rather a lot for a small bottle of juice I had bought).  For a while in the shop I had one of those ‘what if’ thoughts.  What if I had followed through my wholefood shop experience and knowledge I had built up and pursued my vision of expansion and my own business?  I hope that something like Whole Foods Market would have been what I would have created.  But I took a different turn in the road at that point and ended up somewhere completely different while the US owner of Whole Foods Market is probably doing very well from their stores.  Life paths are very strange sometimes.

I couldn’t help taking a few select photos of anything Indian-related to share below with fellow food-lovers.  No wonder I never seem to lose any weight.

[gallery type="slideshow" ids="1107,1106,1105,1104,1102,1101,1100,1099,1098" orderby="rand"]

"When will India catch up?" - The New Bihar: Rekindling Governance and Development

Until I attended this event at the LSE my perception of the Indian federal state of Bihar, I suppose in concert with many others, was quite limited. I remember being quite concerned some 20 years ago when my parents were due to attend a wedding in the then Bihari city of Deoghar, although it is now in the new state of Jharkhand. Bihar had a reputation for lawlessness and the presence of dacoits or bandits. I was equally concerned when my mother went to Bodh Gaya to scatter my father’s ashes. Thankfully both visits passed without incident.

Karan Bilimoria on the panel acknowledged this perception during the discussion when he recounted how friends and family responded to his plans to set up a brewery in Bihar: “What are you doing? Do you have kidnap insurance?” In addition, I did read that Patna, the capital of Bihar, was one of the few places to suffer from falling or stagnant living standards for a long period after independence.

In its previous incarnation Bihar had a lengthy contiguous border with West Bengal which has now been dramatically shortened after the creation of Jharkhand. The links between West Bengal and Bihar were quite strong with many Biharis migrating to Kolkata in search of jobs.

At face value it’s difficult to imagine why Bihar should be worthy of a special event at the LSE. But all became clear: it was to launch a book “The New Bihar” which to some extent eulogises the progress Bihar has made in recent years. The book is a collection of essays and writings from leading economists and businessmen including (Lord) Nicholas Stern, (Lord) Meghnad Desai, (Lord) Karan Bilimoria, NK Singh and Amartya Sen amongst others. The book had also been launched in Kolkata recently with Sen leading the speakers.

For someone with limited knowledge of Bihar I was quite astounded at some of the growth figures reported by the panel and how such growth had been achieved. NK Singh outlined Bihar’s recent growth numbers of 12% in 2012, 13.5% in 2013 and forecasted to be 11.8% in 2014. This growth had been achieved since Nitish Kumar of the Janata Dal party was installed as Chief Minister in 2005.  NK Singh also noted that Bihar had been at the centre of empires in the past and had a rich cultural history.

The panel at the LSE a few days ago comprised Stern, an LSE professor who let’s not forget was the author of a very influential report on climate change, NK Singh, formerly a leading Indian civil servant and now a member of the Upper House of the Indian Parliament, Bilimoria, founder of Cobra Beer, Danny Alexander, a UK Treasury Cabinet minister in charge of allocating funds to spending departments, Suhel Seth, a leading consultant, and Ranjan Mathai, the Indian High Commissioner to the UK, and previously Indian Foreign Minister. The presence of Alexander might be surprising but he had fairly recently returned from a trip to India and Bihar and was interested in how the UK Department for International Development (DFID) was spending its funds in Bihar. Stern and Singh jointly chaired the panel and contributed at times.

NK Singh began his comments with a quote from the current Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh when Finance Minister in the early 1990s: “India will only really prosper if Bihar ceases to be a basket case”. NK Singh had recently met with the Prime Minister and in view of Bihar’s economic performance said to him: “When will India catch up?” Continuing, NK Singh divided the Bihar “growth story” into two main strands. Firstly, the peace dividend which has resulted in greater personal safety and that of property, to buy property and to make investments. This has shifted the culture from one of pessimism to optimism. Secondly, a direct targeting of beneficiaries such as women, and the young, with an indirect focus on infrastructure, health and education. This Singh, expounded, was the “Bihar Model” but there are still challenges ahead to equal the quality of life in the rest of India. Bihar would need to grow at 12% for the next 20 years to meet this target.

Stern opened his section by focusing on both the investment climate and investing in people. The investment climate is shaped by government behaviour and infrastructure. Investors need to have confidence in gaining financial returns, in physical security, police and judiciary. There needs to be an existing civil society, and the ability to get goods to market. In terms of security Bihar has employed former members of the Indian armed forces as police officers. These personnel understand discipline and structure and that they are not a tool of the government but their role is ensure the security of the masses. There has also been a focus on ensuring that teachers and health service personnel actually turn up to work. This is one example of how to improve governance; enforcing rules that already exist. The Bihar government has also taken steps to improve health services, education, and increase levels of participation by women.

In the next part of the panel session Alexander openly admitted his general ignorance of Bihar but was happy to relate his recent visit. He was interested in how Bihar had developed its economy, how improving governance removes the potential for corruption, and how improvements in governance can be maintained. Alexander was also interested in how infrastructure was developing in Bihar and what lessons there might be for the UK but I didn’t think any comparisons were apposite. He had visited the Cobra brewery and a charity for widows which I believe was funded by DFID.

Bilimoria believes the brewery he helped to set up in Bihar is among the most modern in India, and Cobra is the only multinational corporation in Bihar. There has been a focus on water purification and energy, both of which are problematic in Bihar, with villages having limited access to water. Bilimoria recounted how villagers had thanked Cobra when they installed water pumps. Overall he was quite bullish about the prospects for Bihar and noted that Carlsberg were soon to set up their own brewery in Bihar. In addition, he was complimentary in assessing DFID’s role in training 100,000 new teachers.

Suhel Seth commented that the perception of Bihar had changed. Biharis comprise 50% of the students at the Indian Institute of Medical Sciences although it was unclear whether this was at one location or at all of them. It is also a major contributor to the higher levels of the Indian civil services. Seth in common with the other participants focussed on the role of government in inspiring confidence and fostering an investment climate. Bihar needs to attract investment from within India. His one caveat was that if Bihar has another “loutish” leader it would undo all the hard work in recent years.

At the end of the panel discussion there were a number of interesting questions from the audience. There was concern about transfers from the federal government on which there is a high dependency, but private investment needs to increase. Bihar is now the least invested state in India. Even with growth at current levels it might take up to 20 years for Bihar to catch up with Indian levels of average incomes. NK Singh’s recent riposte to Manmohan Singh was just about growth rates not income levels. There was acknowledgement of India’s broader issues: “India is like the bumble bee which is not supposed to fly but doesn’t know that”, and within India Bihar is only just emerging from an extended period of stagnation.

The panel discussion was a very compelling examination of Bihar’s issues and perhaps offer some pointers for India generally. The panelists, in particular, NK Singh and Seth, were high level and articulate advocates for Bihar, which all Indian states and India itself needs. But there were still some aspects that warrant further exploration. So, for example, why had Bihar suffered more than most in terms of poor governance and corruption? Could another loutish leader emerge? What form has the recent growth taken, and is it just one-off benefits? How have levels of inequality changed during this period of high growth? The success factors are clear: good governance, basic education and healthcare, basic welfare, clean water and sewerage, and power. But these are common issues across most of India.

There must be concern that Indian companies themselves do not always to invest in India, and potential projects are often stymied by red tape and obstructive politicians. One is reminded that Tata were quite advanced in their plans to build a car factory in West Bengal but after obstacles were forced to build the plant in Gujarat. The Indian Twitterati commented that at the recent Davos World Economic Forum there was very little interest in India which shows that it has not met most of the forecasts for its growth. Jim O’Neil of Goldman Sachs, who coined the term BRICs to describe the then up and coming economic powerhouses (Brazil, Russia, India and China), suggests that attention has switched to other nations he terms MINTs (Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey), which may be more attractive as the focus of inward investment than India. The takeaway must be that all of India must reform itself as Bihar has.

Another day, another gang-rape...

Just over a year on from the brutal gang-rape, torture and death of Jyoti Singh Pandey in Delhi, (see our blogs: 1, 2 and 3) another story of a gang-rape has hit the international news.  This time though, the gang-rape was at the orders of a local village council, or panchayat, in West Bengal as ‘punishment’ for a liaison with a married man.  The 20 year old woman had reportedly been having an affair with the man from another community and as punishment the council of village elders fined the couple 50,000 rupees (around £500).  When the woman’s family could not pay, the council told the men in the village they were ‘free to enjoy the girl and have fun’.  The woman was allegedly then raped by an estimated 5-13 men – including neighbours, teenagers and men old enough to be her father.  The gang-rape apparently took place on a bamboo platform with many onlookers.  Even more shockingly, the other villagers seem to have been united in their approval that this was the correct ‘punishment’.  The woman, although badly injured and losing a lot of blood, survived and is now in hospital.  This is not the first time village elders in Birbhum have ordered brutal punishments for social transgressions.  Four years ago, they ordered tribal women to strip and walk naked in front of large crowds as punishment for ‘unauthorised’ relationships. Such punishments are often seen as justified to restore the ‘honour’ of the village, damaged by the women’s behaviour.

To the educated urban elite in India, as well as the more liberal West, it seems inconceivable that such an attack could be carried out - even more so ordered as a punishment.  It is perhaps also the juxtaposition between the tribal villages in India and these attitudes with the more liberal urban areas that makes this attack all the more shocking.  This gang-rape took place in Birbhum district, in a village with no school or electricity.  Only 60km away, however, is Shantiniketan, the university town founded by Tagore, whose alumni include Nobel-prize winning economist Amartya Sen and renowned film maker Satyajit Ray, among others.  Birbhum is also only around 245km away from Kolkata itself – where many women pursue higher education, speak 3 or 4 languages fluently and hold down high status jobs on par with any city in the world.

Soutik Biswas, reporting for the BBC from Delhi, comments however, that even among this tribal community, such a violent attack is unprecedented[1].  The Santhals make up the community in Birbhum – one of India’s largest and oldest tribal communities with a population of around 10.5 million across five states.  Biswas reports that the Santhals have generally been known for their peaceful traditions.  If a man or women marries outside the community, they cannot participate in the rituals and festivals.  If they don’t agree to this, they can live away from the community peacefully.  There has previously not been a question of unofficial village councils ordering any kind of violence against them.

For the last 10 years, however, the community has been confronted by a rapidly changing society where modernity and tradition coexist uneasily.  Traditional livelihoods are being lost as farmers in the villages are forced out into the cities as manual and construction workers.  Mobile phones and television have also brought exposure to pornography and other detrimental outside influences.

In many respects it is good that these cases are gaining more prominence and being widely reported on main news channels in the UK – the BBC World Service, Sky News, BBC News have all covered this story extensively.  James O’Brien on LBC, a London-based talk radio station, hosted a phone-in discussion about this case this morning.  Anyone familiar with the Indian press though, will know that rape cases are reported almost daily, including gang rape cases.  Just searching on the term ‘gang rape’ on the Times of India website this morning came up with 5 alleged gang rape incidents in the last 3 months alone.  One was of a Danish woman in New Delhi, 3 of young girls in West Bengal and one of a Dalit girl in Haridwar District.  2 of the victims subsequently died from their injuries.  These are almost certainly only the tip of the iceberg, however, as campaigners say fear of social ostracism or a prejudiced criminal justice system means perhaps only 1 in 100 of rapes are actually reported in India

Social media certainly seems to play a role here in highlighting these cases.  Extensive mobile phone use - as well as bringing in pornography - also facilitates reporting and dissemination of incidents such as rape.  One report or tweet can spread to mainstream domestic and international media very quickly.  Hopefully this increased reporting and comparisons with the norms of behaviour in other more progressive parts of the world will serve to decrease such incidents, or at least cause the perpetrators to think twice before committing such crimes – knowing that images and reports could quickly reach national and international authorities. In addition, perpetrators might receive exemplary sentences on conviction to deter other such attacks.

I can immediately think of 2 possible reactions to this Western (including my) condemnation of such treatment of women in India:

Firstly, there will be the accusation of Western imperialism all over again – that we are trying to take the moral high ground in condemning such treatment of women in India, when actually we need to firstly take a look at ourselves and what happens here (in the UK) – such as with Jimmy Saville, a celebrity BBC presenter who abused young girls and boys over many decades, and his many hundreds of victims.

Secondly, the cultural relativists will complain that the West does not understand Indian culture, or the context in which the villagers in Birbhum support such judgments by the village elders.  And in turn many in the West will worry about being branded ‘racist’ by criticising other cultural practices.

My response would be that such treatment of women is unacceptable in whatever country it takes place – the UK or India or wherever.  The West is very far from perfect – it was not so long ago that many victims of domestic violence in the UK were dismissed by the police as ‘just being a domestic’.  But thankfully times have changed, moved on to,  I think, a better place in the UK where women do stand a better chance of respect and equality of treatment.  Jimmy Saville was one individual who got away with his abuse because of a system too scared to confront him: but at least his victims now have some chance of recognition and redress.

I would not put ‘off limits’ any cultural practice that harms and abuses anyone – men, women or children.  Female genital mutilation, selective female abortion and honour killing all take place in the UK, primarily in certain ethnic communities within the UK.  Listen to this caller to LBC this morning – ‘Simon’ from Surbiton in London – who admitted almost having his daughter killed because she ran away with the ‘wrong’ man:

http://www.lbc.co.uk/i-almost-had-my-daughter-killed-after-she-fell-in-love-with-the-wrong-man-84935

It is quite chilling to hear his attempted justifications of honour and the need to protect his other daughters in reasoning why he thought about killing her.  As it is, he changed his mind but nevertheless says despite loving her, he will cut her out of his life and never speak to her again.

There is really so much more work to do, both in the West, India and all over the world to protect basic human rights – we should not be complacent.

---

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-25855719?print=true Accessed 24/01/2014

Sex, morality and rape in modern India

I remember on my first visit to India being struck by the seeming chaos of everyday life in the towns and cities.  Creative traffic rules, along with much beeping of horns ruled on the roads, cows wandered freely in the middle of roads, their Hindu sacredness hopefully protecting them from harm. Occasionally naked and ash-covered sadhus were seen communing with their God amidst the urban commuters and street kids.  Western hippies in the 70s (and beyond) were drawn to the rawness of everyday life, the reliance on karma and God, seeming tolerance of difference and freely available drugs – as an antidote to the rational, industrial, sterile and suffocating West.

But this apparent anarchy belies the very conservative underpinnings of Indian society, particularly when it comes to women and how they should behave.  Despite Bollywood more recently showing on-screen kissing and live-in relationships (such as Nikhil and Ambar in Salaam Namaste), notions of family honour and shame are still prevalent and pre-marital sex very much frowned on.

On 6 January this year, it was widely reported that a judge in a Delhi court ruled that sex between two adults on the promise of marriage did not amount to rape[1].  Apparently a man, employed in a multinational company had been accused of rape after his female partner had sex with him after he promised marriage.

Judge Virendar Bhat was quoted as saying,

‘In my opinion, every act of sexual intercourse between two adults on the assurance of promise of marriage does not become rape, if the assurance or promise is not fulfilled later on by the boy…..When a grown up, educated and office-going woman subjects herself to sexual intercourse with a friend or colleague on the latter’s promise that he would marry her, she does so at her own peril.  She must be taken to understand the consequences of her act and must know that there is no guarantee that the boy would fulfil his promise.’

‘He may or may not do so.  She must understand that she is engaging in an act which not only is immoral but also against the tenets of every religion.  No religion in the world allows pre-marital sex’.[2]

This needs some explaining, particularly to a Western audience where pre-marital sex is normal.  No of course it is not rape, I am thinking.  Rape is where sex, or forced penetration of an object into an orifice, is done without consent - or so you would think.

In India, however, these cases are known as ‘false-promise’ cases, which reflect the social stigma that exists – mainly for women – of pre-marital sex.  Typically in these cases, a woman enters into a sexual relationship with a man if he promises to marry her.  If he then later reneges on this promise and doesn’t marry her, she can then accuse him of rape – on the basis that her consent to sex was gained using deception.  Several Indian Supreme Court rulings have held that consenting to sex ‘under a misconception of fact’ (such as an insincere marriage proposal) would constitute rape[3].  To try to avoid the stigma then of having had pre-marital sex, particularly if pregnant, the main tool the woman has is to file an allegation of rape to force her male partner to come back and marry her[4].

One reported example is the case of Rashmi, an architect and her long-term boyfriend Alok.  They had met 5 years previously while working in a Delhi office.  Alok’s family, however, wanted him to marry a local village girl and disapproved of him marrying Rashmi.  When Rashmi found she was pregnant, she pressured him to marry her – to avoid the stigma of having a child out of wedlock.  When he refused, she filed a rape complaint against him.  The strategy worked and they eventually got married – against Alok’s parent’s wishes - and now have a baby daughter[5].

As sexual relationships outside marriage become increasingly common – particularly in urban areas – allegations of ‘false-promise’ rape have also increased.  It is now the leading category of rape in Maharashtra – with a 15.8% increase in cases filed in 2013 from the previous year[6].

The case law in India on sexual relationship and rape seems to be increasingly confused – probably reflecting the friction between traditional conservative values and the more secular westernised values found in the larger cities such as Delhi and Mumbai.  Inevitably the West is blamed for this cultural shift, with a Delhi court last year saying live-in relationships were immoral and an ‘infamous product of Western culture’[7].

From a Western liberal standpoint, I have to agree with Judge Bhat in that pre-marital sex between two adults does not amount to rape if a promise of marriage is not fulfilled, even if his language is somewhat patriarchal and old-fashioned.  In the judgment he talks about a ‘grown up, educated and office-going woman’ ‘subjecting herself ‘(my italics) to sexual intercourse, and doing so ‘at her own peril’.  It is a shame if the woman really does ‘subject herself’ to anything, rather than having a sexual relationship based on freely given consent, as an expression of love and for the mutual enjoyment of both parties – as I (perhaps old-fashionedly) still tend to think.  Within marriage or not.

But Judge Bhat is wrong to say that pre-marital sex is ‘against the tenets of every religion’.  In a previous case, the actress Kushboo was accused of outraging public decency by saying in a 2005 interview that it was not wrong for women to have pre-marital sex as long as they took precautions[8].  In that case, the Indian Supreme Court endorsed the right of unmarried couples to live together, stating, ‘When two adult people want to live together, what is the offence?.....Living together is not an offence.  Living together is a right to life’[9].  They also pointed out that even Hindu Gods Lord Krishna and Radha were co-habiting lovers – forming a precedent even within Hinduism.

Buddhism also has little to say specifically about sex outside marriage.  Whilst Buddhist monks and nuns tend to be celibate, for lay Buddhists the main ethical guideline is the third precept, to ‘refrain from sexual misconduct’ – or in its positive form, to cultivate ‘stillness, simplicity and contentment’.  These are not commandments, but ethical guidelines.  Buddhists tend to interpret this as trying to act in a kind and loving way to any sexual partner – whether inside or outside marriage – with no specific guidelines on marriage or not (a contract, not a sacrament, in Buddhism).

Furthermore, to espouse principles of morality based on religion also ignores the increasing number of atheists, agnostics and non-religious who follow secular guidelines.  The Indian state itself is secular and surely judges are there to interpret and apply the law (which hopefully is based on morality) rather than issuing moral guidelines and appealing to religious codes of behaviour?

The more of these contradictory judgments that come from Indian courts, the more confusing the legal and ethical guidelines seem to be.  For recent cases, we now have, in summary:

• The case involving Kushboo in 2010 where a Supreme Court upheld that it was not an offence to live together before marriage and that it was not the job of the criminal law to punish those expressing unpopular views

• The case of Aysha v Ozir Hassan in 2013 where the Madras High Court held that all sexual relationships were in the nature of a marriage and carried the consequences of a marriage (see my blog about this case here).

• The Supreme Court judgment in December 2013 overturning a 2009 Delhi High Court ruling, and re-criminalising homosexual sex (see my blog about this case here)

• Then this latest ruling saying that pre-marital sex is ‘immoral’ and against the ‘tenets of every religion’ but does not necessarily amount to rape (based on a false promise).

The one glaring omission in Indian legislation is that rape within marriage is still legal, on the basis that the woman (and presumably the man) have given their consent to sex on marriage – seemingly at any time, coerced or not, whether she feels like it or not.  Who on earth would agree to such a distorted marriage contract on that basis?  - that in doing so, you give up completely your control over your own body and when, where and how you have sex?  Anecdotally, you come across some horror stories of how some Indian brides are treated by husbands who think they ‘own’ their wives bodies by virtue of her being financially dependent on him.

In India, therefore, it seems now that consensual pre-marital sex may be rape if based on a false promise – but not always, and may be immoral or not - depending on which court you believe.  Pre-marital sex may also give rise to a marriage-type relationship, with all the associated rights and responsibilities - again depending on the court. Consensual homosexual sex was a criminal act until 2009, then wasn't but now is again.  But forced non-consensual sex within marriage cannot be rape – and is not only legitimised but also not immoral as it is within marriage.  There is no logic.

---

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-25618163. Accessed 14/01/2014

[2] Ibid

[3] http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303460004579192040826366178.  Accessed 14/01/2014

[4] This is a very different situation from laws elsewhere – such as in Morocco – where a male rapist can escape prosecution by marrying his victim, to protect her family’s ‘honour’.  This was recently highlighted in the suicide of 16 year old Amina al-Filali in Morocco, 7 months after she had been forced to marry her rapist.

[5] Supra note 3

[6] The Times of India, 18 Nov 2013

[7] BBC News India, 6 Jan 2014

[8] BBC News, 24 March 2010

[9] Ibid

Drawing the Line - Hampstead Theatre

Regular readers of this blog know that my antecedents came from Calcutta in the heart of Bengal.  Calcutta was one of the major cities of British India and now of the Indian republic.  So it was rather a shock when I learnt from 'Drawing the Line' that serious thought had been given to awarding Calcutta to East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) on Partition in 1947.

After the end of the Second World War, Calcutta was a hotbed of intrigue, fervour and violence.  My father had come to Calcutta from a small town in West Bengal to study medicine, and at this time was General Secretary of his students’ union.  He was involved in independence activities to such an extent that he was targeted by Special Branch.  This was one family legend I know is true since an uncle later became a very high ranking policeman.

Calcutta had been a major military centre during the Second World War, been bombed by the Japanese, and its populace had suffered grievously during the famine of 1943.  Bengali independence sentiment had been emboldened by learning of the exploits of the Bengali Subhas Chandra Bose in leading an army, the Indian National Army (INA) - supported by the Japanese - to fight the British.  Bose’s army was composed of all religions and he himself was an avowed critic of Gandhi.  It was in this context that Calcutta had to endure periodic bouts of communal violence pitting Muslims against Hindus.

The rest of India was also in ferment: a trial of INA officers, one from each of the major religions, at the symbolic Red Fort in Delhi had galvanised the country.  There were mutinies among sections of the Indian armed forces and Gandhi appeared to be able to turn protests on and off at will.  Meanwhile at home the UK was still suffering from the restrictions of rationing:  it was feeding Germany, the Fascist enemy had been replaced by the Communist one, there was industrial upheaval with nationalisations, the NHS was created, and there was an economic crisis with the US unwilling to bail us out.  In this political, social and economic environment the British people and government had lost the will to maintain it's Indian colony.

'Drawing the Line' starts almost comically with Sir Cyril Radcliffe being summoned to 10 Downing Street by Prime Minister Clement Atlee to be told he is to literally draw the borders between India and Pakistan in the run up to independence and do so within 5 weeks.  Radcliffe is a senior judge praised for his intellect but with no experience of India, or cartography.  These “attributes” are presented as an advantage in being able to rise above the fray and not be influenced by prior knowledge and experience.  From the outset however, Radcliffe knows that he has been presented with a Gordian Knot.  It’s rather a good analogy since Alexander the Great realised he couldn’t untie the knot.

Moving swiftly to India the scenes are set for the tragedies to come.  The enmities between Muslims and Hindus make it clear why the creation of two countries is necessary.  Radcliffe meets the major stakeholders from Mountbatten, Nehru of Congress, to Jinnah of the Muslim League - but not Gandhi.  He has a limited staff tainted by prior associations and friendships.  The affair between Edwina Mountbatten and Nehru is presented as an open secret with Edwina acting as a conduit for information to Nehru.

This first half of the play shows the limits of Radcliffe’s knowledge:  while he is aware of some of the major events such as the Amritsar massacre, salt marches and the hangings following Ferozpur, he didn’t know Nehru had been imprisoned for most of the war.  He calls some events “blots” which justifiably irritate his Indian interlocutors. Radcliffe also talks about a “level playing field” between Hindus and Muslims which again is the source of irritation. In briefing Radcliffe Mountbatten mentions an “acceptable number of deaths” of 100,000 during the Partition process which shows that the British knew that the latent enmities could not be controlled.  In the event the number of killings was far higher.  The British had lit the blue touch paper and wanted out as soon as possible.

In the second half Radcliffe’s Delhi Belly is presented comically perhaps suggesting an Englishman who could not survive the rigors of India.  The pressure on Radcliffe from all sides intensifies with Sikhs wanting their own homeland, uncertainty about the intentions of various independent rulers and Hindu and Muslim negotiators almost at each other’s throats suggesting they cannot control their supporters.  Radcliffe cannot come to any clear decision about a particular section of the border, continually wavering.  He realises he is in an impossible position and is in his own words a “patsy”, or a cover for all concerned.  Radcliffe is seen as heading for a breakdown and takes solace in the Bhagavad Gita.  Ostensibly independent he is strong-armed by Mountbatten into a pro-Indian solution for a section of the border.  It is suggested that Mountbatten shortened the partition / independence process from 9 months to 5 weeks merely to stymie the Edwina-Nehru affair.  The play ends with Nehru and Jinnah making their Independence Day speeches against the backdrop of the stage afire suggesting the violence and killings the process had unleashed.

It’s difficult to consider what else both the British government and Radcliffe could have done differently during the 5 WEEK process of independence.  There was no “win-win” solution and all parties would have felt aggrieved.  The warlike postures of both India and Pakistan could not have been foreseen.  Given the cultures of Bengal and Punjab/Sind it is difficult to contemplate the two as separate parts of one country and the independence of Bangladesh could perhaps have been foreseen.  The British failed miserably in keeping some semblance of order during the Partition process and a great deal of the blame for the killings must rest with them.  But there are also mitigating circumstances: both Congress and the Muslim League had to some extent fanned the flames of religious hatred and the UK did not have enough troops to effectively police the country.

The playwright Howard Brenton has done an outstanding job in bringing the multifaceted events of 1947 to the stage but in such a short time frame, ironically, it is difficult to present a comprehensive picture.  One’s enjoyment of the play is dependent on some prior knowledge of the background.  The major characters, in particular Radcliffe (Tom Beard), Nehru (Silas Carson) and Jinnah (Paul Bazely) are well portrayed and believable although only Beard is allowed sufficient opportunity to give depth to his character.  Mountbatten and his wife are not allowed sufficient time to develop their characters, nor is Gandhi.   Although one is distracted by the presence of important historical figures and the Edwina-Nehru affair one should not forget that the main focus should be on Radcliffe and his role. Tim Hatley deserves great credit for sets that require quick changes and take one from Downing Street to the heat of Government House in Delhi.  'Drawing the Line' is a play I enjoyed immensely and I would hope it might benefit from a longer run and greater exposure.  The play has certainly encouraged me to re-read some of my books on the period.