Election results have India on a razor's edge?

A vacuum always gets filled, is colloquially considered an immutable law of physics. And it’s so true in public life as well, as recently witnessed in the state elections in India. The bigger question is “who fills it?” The nearest available alternative, Indian public seems to say.

I believe that while a trend of preferring local leaders over national o...nes has been noticed, its import is lost on most analysts. National parties are missing the wood for the trees in trying to justify why they did so badly in states where they did not have a local leader. Atleast the Congress party has a reason, it’s incredibly corrupt and inept. The BJP does not even have that fig leaf and would do well to wake up and smell the proverbial coffee.

The people’s verdict to prefer a local leader over a national one, while desirable in many respects, also has a hint of caste-ism of a higher order. Politicians do what it takes to get them elected, we all know that. So how long is it before they being to wonder. “if my local-ness, is what gets me elected, why should I give a damn about the nation?”. This will reflect adversely in intra-country trade, in taxation, in levels of development and in incredibly irresponsible budgets leading to wholesale bankruptcy. Also, there will be no national leadership in Delhi, just a bunch of narrow-minded local satraps too busy looking after themselves than the nation.

If most states have a leadership like this, the national fabric of the country will undoubtedly be weakened. Already long decades of socialist, Congress rule have ensured that no single ‘national identity’ exists for India. India stands at a very delicate line between order and anarchy, democracy and revolution, Indian-ness and dismemberment. If the BJP is unable to remove its defeatist attitude, the lard surrounding it, the infighting and the greed for power, and its internal egos the country will slip into parochialism. What else can happen if the last nationalist party is unable to rise above itself when the occasion demands it?!

This is a sin we cannot afford especially when all constitutional institutions, the police, and armed forces have been systematically weakened over the last 7-8 years. The time to project a strong national leader is now and the BJP should grasp this moment. If the country slips into a loose arrangement of states, BJP alone will be responsible.
 

Whats reluctance got to do with it?

I find it surprising that all of Congress' popular leaders have been projected as reluctant to lead. I dont know about Indira Gandhi, but perhaps she was also projeected as an obedient daughter reluctantly taking up her fathers' duties?

I know Rajiv Gandhi was projected like this, son not wanting power, but thrust into the national arena and finally agreeing to lead this country out of sheer magn...animity for its poor people.

I know Sonia Gandhi was projected like this. Desh ki bahu, not wanting power, does everyone remember all the CONgress' MP's lining up first at her door and then making speeches one by one in the parliament wasting the tax payers money. I remember Govinda's speech: aapke netrutva mein matrutva hain. Not sure she understood, but then again stranger things have happened.

Rahul Gandhi's entry into politics was on expected lines. He was expected to take the gaddi just like Mukesh Ambani was after Dhirubhai. This took away his chance to be the 'reluctant'leader in the image of his brilliant family members. Perhaps this was the reasong for his failure (amongst many,many, many others)?

Now I see the CONgress spin machine and the 'free' and 'independent' media is projecting Priyanka Gandhi as the reluctant leader. Only there to help her brother handling the responsibilities of home and taking her of her husband and children like a good Indian bahu. I am waiting for the lines to come up outside her house begging her to lead the CONgress. If the 'reluctance' factor has anything to do with the Gandhi victories (and it may because God knows I cant see any other positives),Priyanks many just end up heading the next Indian govt.

 

There is a simple (hence possibly wrong) answer for this studied projection of the first family. It is to do with their understanding of one vital bit the Indian culture. We place the value of sacrifice above all else. The Rai Bahadur's and Sir's and other such title holders during the British Raj are vilified but people who gave their life to the freedom struggle with nothing to show for it are glorified. This not a recent phenomenon, Lord Ram who gave up the world to honour his father's wish is glorified. His brother Bharat who ruled, but reluctantly, and as a steward, is glorified. Karna and Eklavya who gave up divine protection and his right thumb respectively are glorified as is Harishchandra as is Buddha as is Mahavira. The Congress has this pulse of the public and the public has little time for someone who wants to barge into positions of power. It almost seems orchastrated how each member of the first family is cajoled into taking power (with no responsibility) and wielding it as they see fit. Its about time India sees the reality, that only TRUE sacrifice is to be honoured, not a well dramatised sequence for mass consumption.

 

 

 

The Anna-gony of weak minds…

With anti-corruption fervour reaching a crescendo, India unfortunately has a lot of its usual naysayers come out of the woodwork. This is not surprising as there is a mentality of certain people who enjoy taking a contrarian stance, not out of conviction but out of habit (more often than not, these creatures lack the ability or the desire to understand the issues to form a conviction either way). Perhaps psychologists have already identified this as a condition emanating from the inability to garner attention in their lives, I don’t know. Or perhaps I am mistaken in considering myself the biggest cynic around, and it is these people who really deserve the title who are so afraid of expecting anything good in their lives lest they cant handle disappointment afterwards. Even if it were to end in disappointment, I believe in trying to give my all to the present and to such people I can only say, you cannot not go to a party tonight because you are scared of a hangover tomorrow.

Most of the arguments against the ongoing ‘Team Anna’ movement are focussed on the peripheries given that having substance to arguments takes efforts and intelligence. Since I know most people form views and then shut their minds tight (if they exist) from any information that is contra to what they believe, I have chosen to call my discussion facile points and my indulgence of those facile points rather than questions and answers:

Facile point 1: Once a government is elected, it is wrong to blackmail them

Indulgence 1: Weak minds like buzzwords, like ‘blackmail’. Another good one is ‘fake’. These words, to them, are arguments in themselves not requiring any further corroboration. “Once I call someone ‘fake’, that will seal the case” seems to be the refrain. Have you noticed very bad salespeople using a lot of buzz words? I remember Barkha Dutt keeping on harping about “Khabar” when she was caught red handed allegedly passing messages in what appears to be a horse trading transaction.

While clearly buzzwords carry weight among equally weak minds (it must, else it would not have been advanced as an argument anywhere), it really doesn’t hold any water. It is the constitutional right of everyone to protest and to brand that right is blackmail is to take someones right away. It is similar to taking away the right to freedom or right to free speech. If the protest is wrong or useless it will die down. Sometimes the protest is valid but does not capture public imagination and dies down, harshly. An example is the 73-day fast of Swami Nigamananda against mining near the Ganges which ended with his death. Notably, here the BJP was in power in that state (Uttarakhand). No one cried ‘blackmail’ then!  In fact I am sure that most people reading this article will only have a passing knowledge of this incident. So what these people are calling blackmail is actually the governments surprise on seeing mass support, as can be gleaned from the Ganga mining case, a person fasting to death alone is not ‘blackmail’ this government!

Facile point 2: People get the government they deserve, so live with corruption

Indulgence 2: Though I partially agree with the point, thankfully the Einsteins who make this argument blindly did not write India’s constitution. It is a sign of a mock democracy (covert dictatorship) if people elected parties but were then kept away from participative process of running the country. That’s a quasi dictatorship. If it was not, then the Indian constitution would have banned protests! Why it would have banned an opposition or even the holding of assembly sessions!

But that’s going too far, if this argument was true then several countries would not have been free and South Africa, U.S and most of the European world would have had legalised racial discrimination.

If this argument was really believed in by its proponents, then they should have protested against the National Advisory Commission which is also a self styled civil society body (though headed by Sonia Gandhi) which suggests ridiculous (in my reading) pieces of legislation such as the Communal Violence Bill, 2011.

But I know, no protests were forthcoming because the resistance of this fringe idiocracy was not due to ideological opposition to the concept of a vibrant democracy (which India did not appear to be till a few weeks back) but solely to make up for attention deficit in their personal or professional lives.

Facile point 3: Anna is corrupt/ he doesn’t represent the people/ he should stand for elections and then get his Bill

Indulgence 3: This logic is so far up the ridiculous scale that even its proponents believe that it’s a good argument.

The most striking feature of this argument is that from very general objections, this one is more specific, more personal. But again, specific arguments against the Jan Lokpal Bill itself (the real issue) are not advanced, because that would require a thorough reading of both the government and Anna’s draft, and that would mean efforts and bring into question the debaters mental abilities. We cant have that!

To this my rebuttal is simple. Maybe Anna is corrupt, so are you saying he is bringing an Act that will make it easier to arrest him? So you are saying he is smart enough to create a media circus, draft an actual bill, fight with an government and be corrupt at the same time but he is stupid enough to commit political suicide? Pick one guys, either decide he is smart and non-corrupt or decide he is stupid and corrupt. Perhaps that is too much effort? But that is the long form version of my answer, my personal view is, I don’t care either way. Show me what you find objectionable in the Bill. I too have my reservations on the Jan Lokpal but that is to be debated in the parliament and revised, but the governments Jokepal is so atrocious that I am willing to live with my reservations on Jan Lokpal not being considered rather than facing a Jokepal.

Anna does actually represent the people, he was appointed by a notification in the official gazette as a part of the team that represented the civil society. If the government did not think he was representative then were they so incompetent/ stupid to let him in anyway with a official gazette notification? If it is so, then do we want a incompetent/ stupid government at the helm or are we better off holding elections? That is my question back to these newtons. Anna does not need to stand for elections to get his Bill discussed as he was already part of the joint drafting committee. Also, if one were to wait for someone to get near 300 seats in elections before doing anything then nothing would happen in this country!

Facile point 4: Anna wants his copy of the bill to be passed.

Indulgence 4: This argument was completely wrong till a few days back but now its only partially wrong. The original demand of Anna was only that his bill be tabled along with the government’s draft in parliament for debate and voting. However, from what I see in the media Anna is now demanding his Bill be passed. However, Anna is also willing to concede to things like removing judiciary from its ambit. So in fact Anna was always willing to reconsider some of his view on the bill and that’s why he wanted it to be debated in parliament. Such debate would have also shown the country which party supports stringent anti corruption laws and which doesn’t!

Facile point 5: Everyone/ most who is protesting are corrupt themselves or have paid bribes

Indulgence 5: While this is a factual statement to a degree, it is hardly an argument for someone not to protest. The people protesting against corruption have been victims of corruption at some point, so should they not protest? This is like saying a rape victim should not ask for stringent punishment for rapists! It sounds illogical but this is exactly the argument that is being advanced. The proponents of this logic are somehow arguing that the poor bribe payer enjoyed giving the money away so he cant protest against it (why else would there be a moral issue in bribe payers fighting the corrupt?!), so are they also saying the rape victim enjoyed the act, hence cant fight for justice?! How preposterous is that!

It is also worthwhile to discuss what exactly one means by corruption as well. Subramanian Swamy has given us a ‘demand-side’ definition, ie. If anyone makes gains by the misuse of public office, then that is corruption. So if a husband demands dowry it is not corruption, its extortion, since no ‘public office’ was misused. So even if Baba Ramdev may have received donations (as the Congress alleges to try and discredit him) from black money pools, he cant be called corrupt (Swamy gives a good taxi driver analogy to make his point), since he has not used a public office for illegal gain. Moreover, his books are clean and available for examination so appears to have not been any cheating on the way the money was spent.

I propose to look at corruption from the ‘supply-side’. I divide it into two categories: a) corruption for undeserved benefit and b) Corruption in the nature of extortion. The first type is the one of the kind telecom companies allegedly indulged in, they were not qualified for legal and technical reasons to gain 2G spectrum but they bribed the telecom minister who misused public office and conferred undeserved gain. This type of corruption would seldom be complained against by its parties since both have gotten something out of it which they didn’t deserve. A telecom company got a scarce national resource for peanuts and the minister allegedly got billions and billions of dollars.

The second type of corruption affects common man (though arguably it’s the first type that’s worse for the country financially). Indians pay bribes for driving licenses, for almost every other sort of license, to get into colleges, to get passports done and what not. In poor areas people may be paying bribes to get government sponsored scheme benefits, to get out of jail, to get into government hospital, to get into public schools, to get food, to get water, to get anything. I think it’s a cruel joke, in very bad taste and a reflection of the uncouth culture of the person who equates both types of corruption knowingly.

So yes, most people protesting have paid bribes but they are the victims of the second type of corruption. Yes, a lot of them could have avoided (though sometimes that is not possible!) paying a bribe but people have lives, they cant afford to (not that they don’t want to) keep circling government offices for decades for something that should take 48 hours. This is like saying Mumbaikars go to work the day after serial blasts due to some sort of an ‘Mumbai spirit’ that only politicians seem to be able to see. People go, fearing for their life and limb, because they have no choice! They go because, unlike leaders, they don’t have money stashed away in swiss bank accounts to allow them to stay indefinitely at home without work. If anything a bribe payer of the second type has the most locus standi to protest!

I have endeavoured to answer all the facile arguments I have seen made on various social media mostly by people who are not doing anything in this fight and want to ride on Anna’s fame by deriding him. Deride him all you want, just tell me….what do you think is wrong with the Jan Lokpal Bill!

World's most expensive blog post

This is the story of an ordinary man travelling from Dubai to India after a brief working-vacation.

The man in question was carrying a flat screen TV (which are about 60-70% cheaper in Dubai than in India) back home. He had read up on all customs duty rules that told him the import duty on the TV would be about Rs3500-3800, a great deal cheaper than a similar TV in India. Ah, but the presumption (and it was being presumptuous!) being the existence of at least one honest Indian, that has become something of a Loch Ness monster, everyone has heard of, but no one has seen it.

The hapless traveler was accosted by six customs officials at the booth who took away his passport without reason and assessed the value of the TV at 4 times what was stated in the bill. The resultant duty demand was raised at Rs40,000. (about 10x as much). Given that the Indian Customs rule do not allow anyone carrying more than Rs7500 in cash to the country, instead of raising this demand, the customs officials, if acting in good faith, should have confiscated the said import. 

Surprised by the sudden development, the traveler took the high road downloading customs duty rules on his iPhone and showing the 'gang' the correct duty that is to be levied. The customs officials gave him two choices:

1) the traveler stay in their 'custody' for an unspecified duration, of course without a warrant or any official notification till such unspecified time they feel he has been harassed enough to pay up; or

2) he pay the duty that he is calculating and leave. But there is a hitch, in words of the head of customs at the airport, "If some policeman happens to search you as you leave the airport, and if he happens to find something seriously contraband on your person, what will you do, you will be in serious trouble!"  

So the traveler has two choices, either to remain in custody indefinitely or then run the risk of being arrested with a gram of cocaine or something of the sort being surprisingly 'found' on his person. 

There is a third choice that is offered by the loyal servants of government of India themselves..."why dont you just take care of the situation privately?". So the traveler who has so far prided himself of not having ever paid a bribe ever is forced to go to an ATM that is conveniently placed just past the customs station (wondering if that is the sole purpose of it!) to withdraw cash to pay Rs13,000 to these people. Given that honesty and fair dealing is extremely important to this man, he agrees with himself that these are just fees he has paid for a) learning how honest people are forced to pay bribes by the threat of an arrest of a possible drug related charge that would end his life and career and b) investment advice on not investing in a country that is in a terminal decline.

After making the payment to a policeman who collects the money in the cleaning room, who also escorts him out of the airport, the traveler is struck by the need to make a police complaint. But he remembers that it is one of the gravest crimes in India to give a bribe. This would lead him to be liable for an arrest when he goes to the cops about being ripped off and then they will demand more money to let him go lest they charge him with some other crime. Clearly, the framers of this law either believed that people like giving money away, most of all to corrupt government officials and this law should be enough to prevent such illicit happiness from spreading or then the lawmakers did not want to clog the police stations with corruption complaints that would not be acted upon anyway.

The man also realises as he walks to a cab that his other luggage has not been scanned or searched. It also answers the question on how explosives are smuggled into India to kill 100s of people in bomb blasts. 

All it takes is a TV and Rs13,000.

*The above work maybe the work of fiction and resemblances to real people or situations is coincidental.*