Even after 60 years

The 'even after 60 years' argument is something that has come up in the last few years in India. The argument made is that not much has happened, socio-economically, in India since its independence in 1947. This show of disaffection is usually made by the erudite in their well appointed homes as the discussion veers on what the Congress I has done since Nehru and what the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) will do with Modi. Those propounding this argument cannot see the incongruity staring in their face as they make these arguments. Simple things – they own more than one car, they live in well appointed homes, they holiday abroad, their work takes them abroad, the food and drink that they serve comes from varied parts of the nation and the world, they are able to translate their concern for the environment and for the downtrodden into something tangible.

This in 60 years! Okay 67 years.

The 60 year argument would have held water if it were being put forth by one of the many millions who are poor in India. They have a grouse which no one can deny – they are still poor, their access to facilities is still limited, their future does not seem to be in their grasp. But for the others, 'what is curdling their milk'?

So why does this argument  have takers? There are many reasons, the ones that appear to be most prominent are – comparisons with developed nations, loss of traditional social structures, arguments that make initial superficial sense and historical grandiosity.

Comparisons with developed nations and others

The fact that we are a product (or are reaping the benefits) of what India as a country has achieved socially, educationally, technologically and politically in '60 years' is conveniently forgotten. We also are oblivious that it is these socio-economic achievements that have given people the wherewithal to compare the country's progress with other nations.

Comparisons are made to Singapore, China, South Korea and even to the US. One chooses to forget that these nations are either smaller, have different forms of political-economies, are homogeneous or have had a century or more of a head start.

This desire 'to keep up with the Joneses' is less to do with what the Joneses have achieved. It has to do with a belief of being at par with them in the ability, opportunity and situational section. So, the resentment is of not being able to achieve what the other has achieved, of falling short and being embarrassed when they compare themselves to others.

It is human nature to build on small successes. It is also human to inflate ability and therefore be ambitious and so reach for the stars. A taste of economic growth whets our appetite for more. That we have learned to 'walk' gives rise to our belief that there is an untapped potential to immediately be able to leap. This supposed ability is made all the more real when comparisons are made with those who we think have grown out of the same miasma as we and who are now fleet-footed.

People accept arguments that make initial superficial sense

I came to realise the potency of such arguments when discussing the healthcare system in India. The person said that the healthcare system immediately post independence was far better than what it is today. Who would argue with such an observation when debating India's sixty years? On the face of it, it sounds true; not only because I wasnt there to experience the healthcare system then, but also because this statement was coming from an expert . Not to mention the constant news of the floundering public health care system in the country adding a ring of truth to the possibility that the past was rosier. After having recovered from this googly, the unspoken truth emerges, the population was less, the variety of diseases were fewer, the avenues for disease were less - there was no such thing as 'lifestyle diseases'. But the life expectancy then was around 32 years, children died of small pox and thousands were infected with guinea worm while polio marred the future of millions.

Hmmmm! The fact that life expectancy has increased to 65 if not more today, or that polio and small pox have been eradicated suggests something; doesn't it?

There is no doubt that much has yet to be done, but just because much has to be done one cant ignore what has been accomplished.

Historical grandiosity and loss of traditional class structures

Some Indians love to live and promote the historical past, because there is no way to corroborate it. It gives those expounding on it limitless liberty to wax eloquent. It is easy to enchant people with the spell of the past and of regaining this lands lost 'glory' because there is no set definition of it. There is no list of requirements that have to be ticked to arrive to the conclusion and certify that the glory of the past has now been achieved. So people are sucked into one large amorphous “the ruler was just and kind, the subjects were good and fair, the economy was rich, the population was skilled and happy and there was peace and contentment.”

This seems to be a wonderland when compared to today -where people oppose dynastic politics, where the hold of the oppressive and rigid caste system has been shattered through education, where people demand their rights and more, where the poor can become rich, where the seemingly powerless have a hold on the powerful, where there are no subjects but citizens.

There is little wonder that the progress of the 60 years leaves some disconcerted and they wish to sell a version of history where they will be safe.

Can we deny how feudal our democratic country is? It is not only seen by the swords given to our politicians during public rallies, but also in how we address citizens whose forefathers belonged to the feudal set, even if these citizens are democratically elected representatives today.

The past which we are so proud of and cling so dearly to because our ancestors held positions of status is no longer relevant today. Democracy is giving everybody equal rights, today we are all accountable to somebody, we can no longer dictate terms and expect servility in response. The class system that held back people while ensuring others remained in positions of power is being broken.

The stranglehold of lineage is being demolished, and therefore the angst of 'even after 60 years'. Equality does not bring with it equanimity of acceptance of a new social order.

Economic growth leads to a churning of the social order, it will make the past seem more enchanting to some. The truth is if the past, sold disingenuously to generate disaffection, were so rosy it would have remained with us in the present as a reality and not as a construct of someone's uncorroborated memory.

 -------------------------------------

Look out for my soon to be published travelogue ’1400 bananas, 76 towns and 1 million people'

Narendra Modi, Rahul Gandhi, Arvind Kejriwal.. 3 leaders... what morals?

India's moral compass swings widely

In the 66 years of independence, India has lived with a certain set of moral codes that called for respect of regulation, sacrifice for a greater good, duty towards society, accountability. An accepted definition of what was expected from members of society and from those in power gave the country its navigational apparatus and heroes. That definition allowed heirs to rise from the miasma to take over the reins when those in positions of authority stepped down. It also marked the scales on which people were measured and judgments passed. It is difficult to deny that moral codes were the cornerstone of trust between all parts of society, and the grease that allowed society to function.

There is a need for a new morality in India today, or at least for a call to recognize the new morals we live with compared with those of six decades ago. One may ask why, and the answer is simple, if we don't recognize new morals and spread them, the result can be unrest. Things are already changing in India - look at who we consider our leaders, look at who we put in jail. We get affronted when our film stars are held up at foreign airports and derive a sense of pride when citizens of other nations though of Indian ancestry achieve recognition in their country.

Our "philosopher kings" are businessmen who equate foreign investment with national prosperity, who see environmental protection and concern for the marginalized as being bad for the country. They decry government expenditure on the economically bereft while seeking tax breaks for themselves. We find solace in the deep voice of a septuagenarian who made his mark in the country's dream factory. We seek the counsel of the glitterati who tweet from their ivory towers and from TV studios far removed from the humdrum of daily existence. For what we value to change, wouldn't our moral scales have to change too?

The fallout
As citizens of a democracy, Indians have become inured with our choice of electoral candidates. They swing between brilliant home-economists whose assets magically increase annually and Houdini like magicians who can't be confined within the thick walls of a prison cell.

Though most citizens' views have gone beyond contempt for the politician, there is a burgeoning group who are now involved and committed. This is a class of people who not only have ideas on who should be in power but also do what they can to get these people in power. There is a meeting of minds here; the dreams of the common person and the politician merge. There is also a belief that these chosen ones can make such common dreams come true.

The triumvirate
Let's narrow down to three people on whom many pin their hopes in this year's general election: Narendra Modi, Rahul Gandhi and Arvind Kejriwal. The three are very different politicians, heir socio-economic backgrounds, political philosophy, manner of functioning and experience all dissimilar. But they have one thing in common as the first surfers riding a new wave of morality.

Narendra Modi became the prime ministerial candidate of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) after stomping all over the patriarch of the party, Lal Krishna Advani. The very same person who stood by Modi after the 2002 religious riots, where many allege Modi played a role in the what can only be called a state-sponsored pogrom. His form of governance is held up as the way ahead.

For a party whose philosophical fountainhead is the desire to bring back Ram Rajya (something everyone is unsure what that connotes) and which speaks about Raj Dharma (rule based on spirituality and positivity), the Machiavellian machinations that went to create Modi were the very antithesis of their foundation. That the patriarch was discarded and shouted at goes against the Hindu dharm (respect for elders) that the party wishes to preserve and promote.

Then there is the whole idea of protecting the weak and the helpless, which is part of Raj Dharma. In the case of Modi, this was tossed out in the 2002 riots and continues to be ignored, with economic policies that has led to increased state debt, child malnourishment and low wages in Gujarat, where he is chief minister. Given all this, Modi is still a darling of the many. The very same people who espouse respect for the elderly and speak in glowing terms of India's past - and even the need to protect the weak - say goodbye to all this when it comes to bringing Modi as the nation's leader.

Is the new morality that allows support for Modi based on less concern for our elders and the weak? And if so, wouldn't this go against the many tenets of Hinduism, a religion (or way of life) that the BJP wishes all Indians to convert to?

Then we turn to Rahul Gandhi, the scion of a dynasty. While many of us speak against dynastic politics, we have no qualms in ensuring that wealth and power remain within the confines of our family. Most marriages in business families are fixed on the basis of love - a love of money and finding ways to increase it. Marriage ceremonies are a time to repay or exact debts. The power that congregates in one location during such occasions could create a new industry, light a city, bring down a government or even create a new one.

Given this state of affairs one wonders why many think awry of the "dynastic politics" of the Congress Party. How different is that from Narayan Murthy of Infosys bringing his son into the company as his executive assistant and then promoting him to a vice president? There was hardly a peep from the business community after this action from a man many consider to have sound ethics. Why shouldn't sauce for the goose be sauce for the gander?

So the second moral dilemma is the support by many for Rahul Gandhi as India's future prime minister. Proponents of that cause choose to ignore that Rahul, whose candidacy has yet to be declared but is widely regarded as a shoe-in, has absolutely no experience in politics or in working in government. The political statecraft that goes with such a position, along with the knowledge of the workings of the government and the country, is not easily acquired. It could be argued that his name and the experience of those working with him would pave the way for a successful stint as premier. One wonders, why is such an opportunity not given to others of the same age and similarly haloed backgrounds but of more experience?

The pertinent question here concerns the differing moral scales used by those opposing the Congress, but silent on other similar issues, and by those within the Congress who promote Rahul on the one hand and on the other do not give Rahul's party members similar opportunities.

Arvind Kejriwal, chief minister of Delhi and the force behind the Aam Admi Party (AAP), is a different kettle of fish. The reasons for his rise to power range from public disaffection with entrenched politics to a collective victimhood that is finally raising its head. During his journey to power he tarred all government institutions with the same brush - everything was dirty - and promised to clean up their mess. Having achieved power, he seems to have gone a step further and is now living by the "heads I win, tails you lose" philosophy.

Kejriwal seems unable to work with the power given to him by the people but undermines it by sitting in protest, a protest which has led to no resolution and instead is converting an inability to channel powers to make change into a form of martyrdom which allows him to continue functioning by attracting people's sympathy and even admiration.

The AAP leader, whom the party has yet to declare as its prime ministerial candidate, is a dream come true for Indians who in general have no love for authority or social order. Here is a man after their own heart, a man who though in a position of authority does everything to undermine it. The protest warms the cockles of the common person because they see a man with immense power acting as if helpless. So they believe he is still like them - an outsider fighting a firmly dug-in cabal.

No one questions the fallout of such actions - if people in power begin to protest in this way then what will the common person do? Kejriwal is destroying institutions without providing an alternative while also usurping public space used by the truly powerless to make themselves heard.

His code of conduct has not only diminished the office he holds by portraying it as one without power but has also left the common person bereft of means of communicating with higher-ups. Kejriwal has not shared his idea of what a leader should be and for what he should be held accountable, while he is simultaneously laying to waste institutions that have been the bulwark of society. So he has given himself an open canvas to do what he imagines to be right, which may soon inspire the common person to imitate him.

Though Kejriwal calls himself an anarchist he cannot absolve himself of the trust and the mantle of leadership that people have reposed in him through an institutionalized election process that he was part of, and which people believe in. Can an anarchist be a leader? It goes against the very grain of anarchic philosophy. Or is he using the term because he realizes that today most Indians don't know what it takes to be a leader and are quite happy with someone who can destabilize the establishment?

Society becomes redundant and dysfunctional in two instances - when it has no morals or when society's thoughts and actions far outpace its moral strictures. With Narendra Modi, Rahul Gandhi and Arvind Kejriwal we seem to have arrived at the latter. Their presence and their impact indicates that subliminally moral codes in India have changed. Isn't it time therefore that we shout it out from the roof tops and get everybody on the same page?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/SOU-01-290114.html

Look out for my soon to be published travelogue '1400 bananas, 76 towns and 1 million people'

Can India learn from the 2000 US Presidential elections?

India's new party brings hope and danger

With Arvind Kejriwal of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) assuming office as New Delhi's chief minister, political pundits are recalibrating poll equations as India heads into national elections this year. Arvind Kejriwal and his fledgling party have barged onto the political stage that up to now had only two principal actors - Narendra Modi of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and Rahul Gandhi, of the Congress-I.

Not a day goes by in the Indian national media where AAP, Congress-I and the BJP are not mentioned in one breath, and there couldn't be a greater indication of India being in the throes of political and social upheaval than this. However, even in this state of flux, when Narendra Modi becomes prime minister later this year, as at present seems inevitable, the face of the country will change, to the point where the country's Hindu majority may once more find its voice.

Modi, the new face of Hindu revivalism, is seen as an answer to the socio-economic secularism of the Congress-I fronted political coalition because this revivalism also has an economic facet to it which has found resonance in many quarters. There is another aspect to this surge - the alleged mis-governance and corruption of the Congress and its allies in central government that has tainted the party's performance and fortunes in the state elections, as seen most starkly in the recent defeat of the Congress and its stalwart who headed the government in Delhi.

This mis-governance has also given rise to a new political party which in its electoral debut won the second highest number of seats in the Delhi state elections. In fact Kejriwal, the leader of AAP, stood against and defeated the incumbent chief minister, Shiela Dixit in her own constituency, by a huge margin of 25,864 votes.

From this and the coming electoral battle there is a lesson from the United States for those concerned with the future of India under Modi or Rahul Gandhi. Modi is a political leader known for his alleged involvement and handling of the 2002 riots in Gujarat, which many see as an instance of a state-sponsored pogrom, while his claims of success in bringing Gujarat economic progress hides a big socio-economic travesty.

While Rahul Gandhi is an almost unknown political entity, he was born into a political family that not only worked for India's freedom and has lead India almost entirely since independence and is now hobbled with allegations of corruption. Rahul is trying to change the party's functioning to get the party back on its feet.
Learning from America
When George W Bush became the US president, one of the cries that went across the US was "Hail to the Thief", a rephrasing of "Hail to the Chief", with many arguing that Bush stole the presidential elections.

The 2000 election in the US was one of the few instances where a third party was involved at the hustings, with Ralph Nader running as the presidential nominee of the Green Party. It was argued that Ralph Nader split the Democrat vote, causing Al Gore to lose to Bush by 537 votes. There was also the contentious Supreme Court ruling that stopped a recount in Florida, which undoubtedly helped Bush. Though later electoral studies were in two minds on the impact of Nader in Gore's defeat, what is certain is that a new entrant can change the dynamics of elections.

The reasons include "the-new-kid-in-town" effect - that is, the attraction of a fresh, unsullied face entering the political arena. Fresh faces not only attract a whole set of new people who may have been disillusioned with politics but also bring new issues for the electorate to mull over. This naturally leads to a churning within the population, which brings in more people to vote and a shift in political allegiance.

Nader's plank in 2000 touched on problems of a two party system, affordable housing, universal health-care - issues that were close to some voters. Being new, what the AAP did in Delhi was something Ralph Nader-esque - they chose issues that directly affect people, including demands for cheaper electricity and a regular supply of water, all neatly packed in a corruption-free governance package. The party also created election manifestos for each constituency.

In 2000, Ralph Nader spoke of his candidacy as an alternative to both the Democrats and Republicans, stating they were indistinguishable from each other as they now drank from a common economic and philosophic wellspring. AAP came out with a similar statement in 2013; Kejriwal said that the BJP and the Congress were clones of each other with their politics of caste, riots, handouts to the corporate sector and corrupt leaders.

Being a new kid in town naturally drew people's attention. Thus there were more than the usual ears; what the kid was saying was very different from what had been said before. Importantly what was being said was also said by someone who had their own ear to the ground, something that had not happened for a very long time.

Nader's campaign resulted in an increase in the voter turn; at 50.3%, it was higher than the preceding 1996 election, when only 49% voted, though in the following election the turnout was again higher.

A similar scenario played out in the recent elections in Delhi. The voter turnout of 65.8% was well up on the previous election, when 57.58% of the eligible population voted. BJP, the right wing party, won 31 seats, the AAP in its first electoral secured 28 seats and the Congress Party lost all but eight seats. Two seats went to smaller parties.

While Nader came nowhere close to winning the US presidency, voters acknowledged the issues he raised, indicated their disillusionment with the current political system and their desire for change; but in voting for Nader, did those supporters lose the long-term perspective and not realize that they could be unleashing a far more dangerous beast?

Nader realized that he was muddying the waters by running, but did he realize also that by teaching the Democrat leadership a lesson) he would in the end punish the country? One cannot blame Nader for what followed, but one surely can find fault with an electorate who donned a restricting, self-righteous world view that the power of their vote could change the world for good - but instead harvested something much worse, witness the damage that election winner Bush did to the world.

Anti-incumbency?
The anti-incumbency factor in politics is borne by the perception, real or otherwise, that those in power are no longer listening to the people and this unresponsiveness is because politicians build themselves ivory towers. One could argue that the AAP reaped this anti-incumbency factor.

But if this were all, it would be the known entity - the BJP with Modi as its well-marketed figurehead - that would have won a clean mandate, leaving the unknown AAP and the ruling Congress to share the dregs.

This did not happen. Instead, the spoils of vanquishing the incumbent were divided between the neophyte and the veteran.

Learnings
Ralph Nader is not a politician, although he is known for his left-liberal stance and for his fight for the common US citizen. That he did not win the 2000 presidential elections is irrelevant; that he could have been the cause of a larger voter turn-out is something that needs to be taken into consideration.

Political parties need to keep re-inventing themselves because the society they wish to represent politically is always in the throes of change. This change is tangible in its cultural and socio-economic connotations and also through the intangible -the philosophical discourse - which colors the former two.

Nader touched on issues that directly impacted Americans, as the AAP did with Delhi voters in through constituency-based manifestos. The underlying message in such a move was that the AAP would constantly gauge the pulse of the electorate. More importantly, the candidates for this political party were common individuals, with no history of political work and with whom people in society could identify themselves - the party couldn't have found a better way to communicate "of the people, by the people and for the people".

The results of the Delhi elections could be the beginning of a trend of the electorate no longer identifying with a political party but with an individual from within the community. Thus political parties would need to involve the community in formulating manifestos and in choosing candidates for elections. This is real democracy - representation that rises from the people and not parachuted down from a central authority, which is how candidates are chosen in the BJP, Congress and other parties.

Nader's 2000 presidential attempt also begs a bigger question - should leadership be of the "Charge of the Light Brigade" kind, resulting in consequences far greater than what an individual can imagine; or should it be one where a leader is able to acquiesce and form partnerships with others to ensure a far greater danger is met? Even as one wishes AAP to do well in the 2014 national elections, it needs to be aware of this pitfall.

Today, the Congress and BJP seem to be of the same genetic stock. The fact remains that one party can be induced to change and the other cannot because the foundations of the latter, its roots in the Hindu past, are based on a regressive ideology that needs to interpret history in an exclusionist manner to further its political ambitions.

The current political and electoral catharsis initiated by the AAP may benefit the country in the long run. However, if in the meanwhile the process allows a divisive figure who represents an exclusionist religio-right-wing ethos to come to power, one wonders whether the means can really justify the end. 

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/SOU-01-070114.html

 

The music of peace and love

The Financial World 12th September 2013