A grim harvest

India’s success with agriculture and food security is probably the last nail in the coffin for Malthusian theories. We are a living refutation of the rather prudish argument that population growth will be limited by the availability of food and resources. Agricultural productivity has grown exponentially despite India’s lagging farm mechanisation, while population growth shows signs of tapering off. Yet, there is something deeply unsustainable about the agricultural economy in India. 

One of the most basic limitations that we are running up against is the availability of freshwater resources. Agriculture consumes 80% of freshwater in India and there is no abatement in sight for its ravenous appetite for water. Perverse incentives have encouraged the cultivation of water intensive crops like Rice in Punjab - a state that is running out of groundwater, or Sugarcane in Maharashtra, a state that faces acute water scarcity every summer. A system of MSPs (Minimum support price) and powerful interest groups has captured the sector and has forced successive governments to keep supporting these disastrous practices.

For a tropical country that is likely to face the brunt of global warming, India seems oblivious to the contribution of agriculture to greenhouse emissions. While a large part of the emissions are generated by livestock (India has the world’s largest livestock population at 500m+), methane emissions from rice cultivation are a key culprit. Add to that the emissions from the unchecked use of nitrogenous fertilisers (caused by the skewed subsidies for urea over Phosphatic or Potassium) and you have a festering threat on your hands.

The Food Corporation of India (FCI) is symbolic of the mess. Every year, the FCI is forced to procure millions of tonnes of food grain - mainly from rich farmers. Since procurement is usually well in excess of actual demand for this foodgrain (for Public distribution and maintaining food security stocks), there is widespread pilferage and rotting of foodgrain every year. India spends billions of dollars from its already stretched budget in procuring these crops. Is this a welfare scheme guised as an economic model? Perhaps, but it is clearly not sustainable. Surely there are better ways to transfer benefits to deserving small & medium scale farmers - especially given the direct benefit transfer technology that India has pioneered in other areas.

A glaring example of how interest groups have captured agriculture is the annual burning of crop residue in the northern plains - an exercise that converts our cities and towns into gas chambers every winter. The incentives and cropping patterns favour farmers who choose to burn the residue rather than leave it on their fields as ‘mulch’, i.e. natural fertiliser for the next crop. Despite a ban by the National Green Tribunal and a crackdown from the courts, no government has the stomach to take on the powerful farmer groups of Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh who continue to adopt these pernicious practices.

It doesn’t have to be this way. With shifting consumption patterns, there is a possible win-win situation where farmers can adopt ecologically friendly patterns that are also remunerative. As income levels across the country rise, consumers have begun to demand diverse diets. There is an increasing focus on quality rather than quantity of calories, and a slow realisation that eating what grows locally and sustainably is also better for human health. Organic farming also holds promise - both for farmer incomes as well as ecological outcomes. A combination of deft policy making and market friendly approaches can defuse the ticking time bomb that we have on our hands. 

Age is just a number….or is it?

There is no certainty in the world, they say, except taxes, and death. Yet, that has not stopped people from trying to escape both. There is no dearth of tax avoidance, fraud and related litigation - tax ‘advisory’ and law are fields brimming with activity and make for lucrative careers too! 

What about death though? There has indeed been a constant striving in medicine and science towards increasing lifespan. At the most fundamental level, there is much to cheer about. The last century has seen a significant increase in life expectancy due to a reduction in infant mortality, vaccines and antibiotics. This has helped tremendously by reducing the probability of death before old age. However, treating diseases related to old age and ‘senescence’ has proved far less tractable. Modern medicine has found ways to treat heart ailments once discovered - but cardiac diseases are still among the largest killers globally. Similarly, cancer has proved a holy grail, though many drugs have been able to ‘manage’ the disease better. 

Significantly, there is a large difference between lifespan and health-span. While a lot of research has focused on extending life itself, the same may not be said about health-span. The challenge before us to help people live healthier lives in their final years, rather than under constant medical care.

So what do we really know about ageing, and how it can be delayed? There are many theories and almost none of them have incontrovertible evidence to back them up. One of the most prominent theories is that ageing involves the process of damage to our DNA. This damage, it would seem, prevents the reproduction of healthy cells in the body and therefore causes ageing. One of the suspected methods of reducing DNA damage is caloric restriction - a lower intake of food and periodic starvation is believed to produce DNA repair and therefore a delay in ageing. This, of course, is easier said than done and the degree of caloric restriction that is needed to prevent or reverse ageing could well be severely inconvenient and unacceptable to humans.

Second, is the role of ‘senescent cells’ in the human body. This theory postulates that as we age, there are some cells in the human body that get stressed and decide to opt out of the cycle of cell division. Not only do they count themselves out, but also secrete a certain substance that accelerates the senescence of other cells in the human body, leading to ageing diseases such as osteoarthritis, cancer and atherosclerosis. As per some studies, each cell in the human body is limited to 50 cell division cycles. However, we now hear about a new class of drugs - senolytics, that are being tested for their ability to disrupt these senescent cells and prevent the ageing process.

One of the most popular explanations of ageing is oxidative stress. This is a process that causes damage to tissues through the accumulation of chemicals called ROS (Oxygen reactive species) in the body. There is a related issue called inflammation which is caused by oxidative stress. Many of our ageing related diseases including cancer are also suspected to be caused by chronic inflammation. What causes oxidative stress? While no one knows for sure, the usual suspects are pollutants, smoking, and high sugar-containing foods. On the other end of the spectrum are the anti-oxidants and foods with supposed anti-inflammatory properties - berries, turmeric and green tea to name some ‘super-foods’. Consumption of these are possibly linked to the reversal of oxidative stress and ageing.

The larger question is this - can humans manage ageing better, if not stall it completely? There are significant implications here - not just scientific, but also social (think demographics and polity) as well as economic (think healthcare costs, government finances and pension systems). As individuals - what perhaps matters most are the takeaways for healthy living - not just longer lifespans but longer health-spans. What started as a quest for immortality and the Elixir of life must get down to more mundane questions of diet, biology and lifestyle - the devil always lies in the details!

Of Life, Living & Jean-Baptiste Say

In many ways 2021 was a year defined by supply shortages. Whether it was life-saving vaccines at the beginning of the year, or more mundane things like coal, steel and semiconductor chips - supply chains around the world were caught unaware by a sudden surge in demand - led by re-openings and fiscal stimulus checks. In this backdrop, I found myself contemplating the relevance of a classic economic theory proposed by a certain Jean-Bapitste Say - and a rather controversial one at that.

Say argued that Supply creates its own demand. And while there have been many economists who have disagreed with what he had to say, his point was rather simple - that in order to be able to demand and purchase a good, an individual should first create something of value and offer it for exchange. 

Of course, one can puncture a few holes into this theory - First, modern economies use money as a medium of exchange rather than barter - so money supply can have its own effect on supply and demand for goods - e.g. tighter monetary conditions can cause individuals to hoard money rather than spending it on goods and services. Second, producing a good that is not of value (at any price) may not create any demand - e.g. a producer who manufactures a black & white CRT television today is unlikely to be compensated for his efforts - even though he/she may have been handsomely rewarded for the same good 50 years ago. But I do not intend to wade into this debate for now. 

What I find quite relevant about Say’s law today is its applicability to the process of innovation. What drives a significant amount of economic growth (and demand) around the world today is the act of creating new goods and services which did not exist previously. Supply of innovations creates demand for them. For instance, the act of inventing the smartphone has fostered a whole éco-system of component suppliers, app developers and online sellers. This has possibly created employment for millions around the world, and those individuals with their earnings have in turn created demand for new goods and services. 

Next, let’s take the world of pharmaceuticals and healthcare for example - there are lifesaving drugs today that did not exist a mere decade ago - treatments that help ameliorate (though not yet fully cure) cancer, manage diabetes and cardiac ailments. Within months of the outbreak of COVID, our scientists were ready with multiple vaccines and therapeutic drugs to fight the epidemic. There are nutritional supplements in existence today - for humans as well as animals - that money could not buy when our ancestors were around.

Look at the world of video games - an industry that did not even exist half a century ago is a thriving economic engine today and one that is growing increasingly sophisticated. You can now purchase in-game items with virtual currency, attend a concert within a game and create NFTs that sell for millions within a ‘metaverse’. I find this a fascinating corroboration of Say’s Law - supply creating demand where none existed.

This also creates a whole new dilemma for policymakers. Are we adequately measuring the cost of living and inflation? Most measures of inflation today capture prices of a fixed basket of goods over time. To be fair, this is perhaps the most scientific approach and one that captures what is relevant to the vast majority of citizens - basic necessities of life. But I would argue that a discretionary good of today may be a staple, a necessity of tomorrow. Try going a day or two without a smartphone and an internet connection and you will realise what I am talking about - connectivity is to our lives and times what electricity was to that of our parents. While policymakers may base their decisions on a basic cost of living, life has moved well beyond that. 

This also has massive implications for wealth and savings - what you deem a satisfactory nest egg today may prove grossly inadequate tomorrow. Who knows what fantastic new contraptions you may feel the need to purchase 30 years from today! It’s a brave new world indeed.

Cooking it up

I was watching the news. A very erudite-looking gentleman from Calcutta was polled by a journalist - asking him whether he would voluntarily give up his LPG subsidy (something the government has recently been exhorting all financially capable Indians to do). With an air of know-it-all conceit, this person goes on to say that he most definitely would not give up his subsidy - because, "Crude prices have fallen so much. At current levels, an LPG cylinder should cost Rs200, not Rs450."

It amuses me no end when such pseudo-intellectuals claim expertise on subjects that they actually know so little about. To set the record straight, at "current crude prices", the government loses almost Rs150 for every cylinder that it supplies to you through HPCL, BPCL or IOCL. And no, the government does not earn ANY taxes on LPG sales. Customs duty? Zero. Excise Duty? Zero. VAT? Zero. The government has essentially waived off all these levies to ensure that middle class consumers like you and me do not overpay on LPG.

If you are looking for an excuse to not give up the subsidy, you will find many -

1) I pay taxes, that's enough for the government.
2) The government is corrupt, it siphons off my money.
3) Politicians subsidise their own luxuries on taxpayer money. Chicken curry costs Rs27 in the parliament canteen. Let them give THAT up first.

This can go on and on.

The question is, what can you do, that is beyond what you are REQUIRED to do? As Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

The same individuals who, today, are finding it difficult to give up their LPG subsidy, wouldn't so much as bat an eyelid before spending Rs200 on a cup of coffee at a plush cafe. It is important to put these numbers in perspective. A household of 2-3 individuals barely consumes a cylinder a month. The Rs150 that you are loath to shell out for a cylinder that lasts you more than 40 meals a month, is a fraction of the amount you spend ordering a pizza on a whim one weekend. So if you decide not to give up your LPG subsidy, be honest enough to admit that it's a decision that is driven by purely selfish motives rather than any rational ones.

PS. This is the exact calculation of what LPG should cost at current crude prices, vs. what it actually costs consumers -

http://www.hindustanpetroleum.com/documents/pdf/pb/pricebuildup_LPG.pdf

A Minority of One

'Any man, more right than his neighbours, constitutes a majority of one' - Henry David Thoreau.

The times have changed, and the tables have turned. We have taken this beautiful idea, articulated by Thoreau in praise of independent thought and civil disobedience, and flipped it on its head. Far from having to deal with the lack of independent thought, we are now plagued by the other extreme: a cacophony of disparate voices. Identities, as they stand today, are so fragmented, that every man, for himself, constitutes a minority of one. There seems to be a strange fissiparous tendency that divides Indian society into tiny fractions, each claiming to possess an independent, authentic identity.

We have been reminded, time and again, by the great intellectuals in our midst, that India is a mere 'idea', whose very existence is a miracle - we are an improbable nation that must be grateful for the fact that we have been brought together in an accident of history, probably apt enough to be called the greatest socio-cultural experiment of modern civilisation. We are actively encouraged to 'celebrate our diversity', our leaders and administrators are exhorted to govern with sensitivity, with compassion and discretion, and appreciate the fact that India is a heterogeneous, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious society of sharp contrasts, juxtapositions and multiple, alternate realities, only coincidentally co-existing in a perverse twist of fate. Sounds like a lot of poppycock? Well, apparently not: these are not mere incoherent ideas, these are the basic axiomatic principles which have crept into the discourse of governance in this country.

We are not just 'Indians', we are Hindus and Muslims, men and women, upper and lower castes, haves and have-nots. But that is not enough. We must also be tribals and peasants, capitalists and communists, conservatives and liberals, literates and illiterates, billionaires and the homeless, public servants and private masters, possessed and dispossessed, landed and landless, gay and straight, sane and insane. No other country, no other society, seems as eager to fragment itself into individual constituencies. With every passing year, a new 'idea of India' seems to emerge, one that was born from a parent 'idea' that divided itself into many new wholes - each one of which is only destined to undergo another socio-cultural mitosis to emerge unrecognized as multiple identities.

To be able to think about why this is so unnatural, let us only contrast ourselves with the other great society of our times, our accomplices in keeping that flickering flame of democracy alive: The United States of America. In some senses, America is an even more unlikely social experiment - a nation that did not exist for much of human history, one that had only started learning to walk, when we in India were well into a ripe old age of civilisational existence. The Americans are a country of immigrants - born out of not just multiple nationalities and ethnicities, but multiple streams of thought and principles of existence. They came in as Germans and Brits, Poles and Czechs, Sicilians and Africans (the latter being brought in forcibly). But one would be hard put today, to find any distinct cultural remnants of their immigrant past, in our American brothers. Instead, what has emerged, is a rather homogeneous American way of life. In fact, it has metamorphosed into a culture so alluring that the whole world appears to be in the throes of their allegedly crass, debauched 'culture' of pop music, fast food, corporate zeal and war mongering.

Of course, the debate on which of these two separate 'models' of civilisation will triumph in the long run, is an open one - when you are in the middle of an experiment, you are powerless to obtain any foresight into its result, or to course-correct. But as Keynes would have said, we are all dead in the long run - and what this experiment with celebrating diversity and distinct identities is doing to us in the meanwhile is dangerous, to put it mildly. Under the guise of empowering multiple constituencies and granting them special rights and privileges, we in India are only incentivising further fractious tendencies in society. In acknowledging the right to special treatment of any one section, we are playing with fire, encouraging the emergence of more such demands.

So does that mean we should discard the process of empowering our people, of reversing the injustice and neglect that they have suffered through history? Absolutely not. But two wrongs never made a right either. The solution to these problems, the salvation of  the downtrodden, heathen peoples of this country, lies not in the myriad 'schemes', 'programmes', 'missions', 'reservations', or 'reports' that the state so condescendingly doles in their name, but in the unglamorous process of everyday governance. Put simply, the state just needs to do its job. It doesn't necessarily need to do it better for some people and less diligently for the rest, in order for the wounds to heal and for 'development' to ensue.

For all the alarm raised against the tyranny of the majority, today there is none left in India. There is no one section of our country that can count itself as a numerically superior group anymore - we have all reduced ourselves into minorities, with the population of each tending towards one.

National Integrity - Looking Beyond the Obvious

I often hear the platitudinal cry for "National Integration" repeated in the mainstream media - usually uttered by some pseudo-secular politician canvassing for votes. More often than not, the notion of the nation, and its integrity is narrowly confined to the idea of religious unity. We are repeatedly reminded of the dangers of religious nationalism, as if nation-building is the exclusive domain of the self-proclaimed secularists. I often wonder - how much of the hate-mongering that takes place in the name of religion is actually a reaction to obsessive secularism? Could it be, that by harping on the religious fault-lines in the Indian nation, by actively classifying sections of the population as "religious minorities", our 'secular' leaders consciously (and shamelessly) accentuate those rifts? Is true secularism not meant to be defined by the complete abstinence, on the part of the state, from the proclamation of any sort of religious identity, be it that of the minority or the majority?

I do not seek to deny the very existence of religious divisions in the Indian nation - that would be presumptuous, even foolhardy. Yes, we have stood divided at multiple points of our history. But I beg to ask - which modern society has not lived through checkered chapters in its history? The Americans had Slavery, the British had Colonialism, the Europeans had Fascism/Nazism, the South Africans had Apartheid. Most major modern civilisations have skeletons up their cupboards - but no country seeks to make those apparitions the centre-pieces of political debate. One simply moves on. Wounds heal, sins are atoned for, reconciliation follows. Keeping the bogeyman of religious division alive - through discrimination, appeasement and false sympathy - is regressive thinking at best; and a dangerous, debilitating threat to nationhood at its worst.

Amidst the din of religious-identity politics (masquerading as secularism), what tends to get lost is a threat which, I believe, is far more potent in its 'nation-breaking' ability: Racism. I dither to classify regionalism (or at least separatism) in the same bracket - for in my opinion, that devil lies interred in the cemeteries of India's twentieth-century-past (the recent bout of peace in Kashmir could be evidence?). Racism, however, is alive and kicking in twenty-first century India. Episodes such as the recent murder in Delhi of a young student from Arunachal Pradesh, and the assault on Ugandan women in the same state, only underscore the point - that Indians are a deeply racist people. That we, as a civilisation, have extremely debauched, depraved notions of race, skin-colour and genealogical superiority. And, sadly, these racist notions are furthered by our politicians (people like AAP leader Somnath Bharti), our movie stars (who shamelessly endorse skin-lightening products) and I dare say, our parents and community-elders. The latter's greatest failure lies in bringing up an entire generation, reinforcing in them an 'Us' vs. Them' mentality.

What has been systematically ingrained, must also be systematically purged from the psyche of a nation - we must stop indoctrinating our children into believing that people from North Eastern India, are in any way, different from the rest of us. We, as a society, must learn to celebrate duskier role models, not seek to bleach them in inane television commercials. The tacit, slow subversion of India's National Integrity is progressing through these, outrageously well-accepted notions of race and colour. The greater enemy, they say, is not one who is visible - rather, the one who is hidden, ensconced in the deepest corners of our social consciousness - it is about time that we hunt it out and exterminate it from this country. 

Perspectives on the Aam Aadmi Party

There's a new kid on the block. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), suddenly, is the most talked-about political movement in the country. While the party itself has been in existence for over a year, this is the first time it has captured the collective imagination of millions of Indians. And this has happened by virtue of their sterling performance in the Delhi State Assembly elections. It has been interesting to watch the ebb and flow of popular perception about the party over the last one year - and I have tried hard to maintain a liberally impartial view of the AAP brand of politics over this period. Here is an honest account of my views about the AAP movement, and how they have evolved with time.

I must confess - I started out as an ardent supporter, not of the AAP itself, but of the IAC (India Against Corruption) movement - the larger umbrella organization which fathered the AAP (and which included stalwarts like Anna Hazare and Kiran Bedi). But as I have come to ponder a little deeper, the issues and ideologies espoused by the AAP, I have certainly vacillated. As things stand today, I am rather middle-of-the-road in my assessment of the party (as well as the larger political movement it epitomizes). My own opinions on the issues raised by them are neatly split - between enthusiastic admiration and cynical disapproval.

What I appreciate:

1) Commitment to grassroot issues -

What the AAP has proposed to tackle head-on, are the quotidian, almost unromantic issues that face the ordinary Indian. Problems like water, public toilets, environment, health centres and public schools. These issues, while often part of 'electoral promises', rarely occupy centre-stage in a party's ideology. Sadly, voters in India, contrary to their demands in public, have privately almost never voted on developmental lines (except in recent rare cases where leaders like Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Nitish Kumar have been voted back into power solely on the basis of their delivery on the developmental agenda): there have been umpteen instances where narrow considerations like caste and favours/handouts have defined electoral arithmetic.

2) The promise of transparently funded politics -

Nearly all political parties, cutting across the ideological left and right have resorted to inscrutable sources of funding. The AAP is the first platform that transparently declares their funding sources and maintains accounts. The campaign funding for the State Assembly elections in Delhi seemed to be largely crowd-sourced, with a scientific efficiency of allocation aided by some savvy analytics and social media/telecom use.

3) A thus-far principled stand on issues - 

How many times have we seen parties prevaricate on important issues and stances? The AAP has thus-far stuck to their principled stand of not soliciting support from either of the two national political parties to form a cobbled-coalition government in Delhi.

What I don't appreciate:

1) Luddite promises - 

AAP promises to cut electricity tariffs by 50%. In a state that already has one of the lowest tariffs across urban centres in India! (funnily, they are the highest in the avowedly populist Mamata Banerjee's Kolkata) If power generators/discoms were making 50% margins, India wouldn't be an power-deficit nation. Corporates would be falling over themselves to set up power plants and distribution companies. Instead, power producers are among the financially sorriest companies in the country today, with a large number of generators making a beeline before banks for restructuring their loans. What AAP fails to realize is that India is a fuel-deficient nation (despite having the highest reserves of coal in the world, but that is a debate for another day), and must pay a price for not encouraging cheaper sources like nuclear and hydroelectric energy. The real scandal in electricity distribution is in leakages, a problem which is largely far removed from Delhi - there are entire industries in other parts of India whose business model depends on free electricity - which is either stolen or siphoned off in the name of agricultural use (electricity is free or subsidised for most farmers in India).

2) Mob justice masquerading as 'decentralisation of democracy' - 

One of the AAP's marquee ideologies is 'decentralisation of democracy' - they radically propose that most decisions would be made by 'Mohalla sabhas' or neighbourhood gatherings, which would have the power to delay payments to contractors and would 'vote' for which public facilities would/would not be constructed in the neighbourhood. If decision-making could so easily be outsourced to crowds, why would we need leaders in a democracy in any case? Why not have public gatherings to try criminals and pass laws too? What the enthusiastic supporters of such Mohalla sabhas fail to realize is that crowds are not equipped to take unpopular decisions that might actually benefit them in the longer term or even benefit a collective that is larger than the individual neighbourhood which votes on the issue concerned. Oddly enough, such ideas remind of the kangaroo courts which the Scarecrow (Crane) runs in the epic move, The Dark Knight Rises. Yes, our leaders do not always take decisions which are in the best interest of the public, but the solution is not to crowd-source their decisions. It is to elect better leaders.

3) Right to Recall - 

The AAP intends to implement a system where a government (or an individual representative) is recalled or dismissed by the electorate before the end of its stipulated five year term if it disagrees with its policies or is dissatisfied with its performance. Again, one must remember that the policies of governments seldom see immediate results. In their quest for immediate gratification, people could well end up recalling well-meaning governments every time an unpopular decision is taken. Let me give you an example. Every time fuel prices are hiked in India, we see large-scale protests and collective crying-foul. Almost no one realises that these are tough decisions which must be taken in an oil-importing nation exposed to the vagaries of international oil prices and a floating exchange rate. In the absence of price hikes, India would have continued to consume larger quantities of oil, importing more of it and hence fueling even more inflation because of higher current account and fiscal deficits. So in the longer-run, these price hikes are a bitter pill, which must be taken to prevent uglier ailments. Electorates, unfortunately, do not find long-run economic decision making palatable.

So, on balance, I remain equivocal in my assessment of the AAP. My views, like the party itself, are rather nascent and in a state of flux - I would rather wait to see the AAP tested out in the grind of daily governance before passing judgment. It is easy to oppose - but rather difficult to face the music on the hot seat of government. Having said that, I sincerely wish and pray for the success of movements like the AAP - it is not often that a political party reinstates our faith in Indian democracy.

     

A foot in the door...

As the country heads into parliamentary elections, the political scene has certainly heated up. A number of issues are being debated in newsrooms and living rooms across the nation. While politics takes the limelight (and almost every event in the country these days assumes, or is given, a political overtone), one must remember that at the centre of most of these debates lies an ideological divergence. 

At the risk of oversimplification, the most fundamental question at the heart of these debates is one that concerns the direction that the country now needs to take. And the multitudinous schools of thought eventually end up draining into one of two major streams: the ideological left or the ideological right. I am not in any way claiming that India votes on the basis of these ideologies - no, there are hundreds of other, more petty, considerations of caste, religion, lobbies - the works. My point concerns the broader debate around the policies that each constituency wants its government, once elected, to follow. On the one hand, there is the school of thought that firmly believes that India was better off following the Nehruvian socialist route, that we have been led astray by ideological Satans of the right. On the other, there is the school which believes that India has over-experimented with half-baked socialism. They believe that what India needs is more openness to market oriented growth, and that any growth and concomitant development that has come about in the past couple of decades is by virtue of this unshackling of policy.

This debate is important because the stakes have never been higher. 

Almost everyone agrees that India seems to have lost the plot. The socialists bemoan the entrenched inflation that has hit the average Indian hard and eroded real incomes. The capitalists argue that we have gone back to the days of lethargic decision making and protectionist policy-making that serves no one's interests (not even those of the poor in whose name these policies are embraced). Both agree that India needs change. While the former are baying for a return to state control and subsidy-economics, the latter are crying hoarse that the economy needs to be rescued from government and bureaucratic control, that the 'animal spirits' need to be unleashed.

Before taking one or the other side, I believe that every self-respecting Indian must give reason a chance - and decide his/her loyalties based on facts. And the facts are that neither Nehruvian socialism nor crony capitalism have got India anywhere. Yes, it is true that we have made remarkable progress since the opening up of the economy in 1991. It is also true that a concern for the poorest of the poor should be the moral compass for any government of the day. However, the governance that we have received for most of our existence since 1947 neither champions the cause of the poor nor truly unleashes the entrepreneurial spirit of the economy. 

The funny thing is, depsite all the bickering in pseudo-intellectual debates, these two schools of thought can and must co-exist. For that to happen, government needs to exit the sectors where its presence is superfluous and increase its presence in those where its absence is conspicuous - yes, the government has no business running corporations or holding stakes in them. It has no business controlling the natural resources in this country that are desperately required for growth, and which it hasn't been able to supply in the quantities that get anywhere close to real demand. One of the biggest reasons why we have a shamefully high current account deficit today, is because the government has run coal and oil production into the ground - state oil and coal companies are among the most inefficient state-owned entities in the free world. In an energy-deficient nation which desperate needs fuel to power economic growth that will both alleviate poverty and improve standards of living, being unable to mine natural resources that one possesses in abundance (and therefore having to import them) is criminal.

At the same time, government needs to increase its presence in sectors where no private corporation has been able to deliver the goods to the farthest reaches of this country. Sectors like education and healthcare have seen great stories in entrepreneurship but the truth remains that the private sector will only serve those sections of society that it finds economically viable to serve. There are millions in our villages and in the forsaken slums of our cities who do not have money to pay for their food, leave alone their medicines or for their children's education.

The government will only find funds to serve the poorest of the poor if it stops subsidizing the middle class and the rich farmers, who are the real beneficiaries of the egregious subsidy policies of the government. The food security bill, while excellent in its intentions, will never be able to serve the truly deserving sections of our society in whose name it is being championed. We just do not have the adequate infrastructure and the delivery systems to reach those people or to ensure that the benefits that are meant for them do not end up in the hands of middlemen or undeserving vote-banks.

I wish that the people of this country would see through the real issues behind these debates and vote wisely in the upcoming polls.  The current parliamentary elections will be one of our most critical ever, given that the nation has a lot to lose from losing its way - we have a foot in the door when it comes to raising India into the league of developed nations, and doing justice to our billion-plus citizens. We can either barge in and claim what is rightfully ours or allow the doors of prosperity to be shut in our face forever.

Not all those who wander are lost...

As I found the last dregs of energy to clamber up the final leg of my climb up the mountain, I was greeted by a truly remarkable sight. Through the fleeting white clouds on the horizon, rose tall and mighty, the Annapurna Himalayas. It was a cold, damp evening and we were not really expecting to get the fabulous views of the peaks that the early morning climbers are known to be welcomed to. We had finished our trek for the day ahead of time and we did not really have much else to do - other than to climb further. And climb we did. Up the side of the famed Poon Hill, a feature that lends its name to many an adventurous trek in the kingdom of Nepal. Travellers and trekkers from every corner of the world, like streams rushing to a river, find their ways to Poon Hill from different points in the Pokhara trekking circuit. So did we. We wound our way up from Kathmandu to Pokhara on a rickety old Toyota car. And trekked from there to Poon Hill, via Ghorepani and Ulleri.

There was nothing much to do at the summit of Poon Hill if you got there in the evening. Devoid of the splendid views of a cloudless dawn, Poon Hill seemed abandoned, almost unwelcoming, and we loitered around and waited for the sun to set. There was a watchtower, for those looking for unhindered panoramas of the 7000m plus Himalayan peaks. Even in the evening sun, whenever you could catch a glimpse of the snow-capped mounts, they seemed majestic - towering above everything else and staring back benevolently like a protective sentry.

That's when I met him. I walked up to the edge of the cliff and stared out into the horizon, as if wondering if this was indeed the end of the world. I was giddy with mirth, a feeling of footloose pleasure having crept into my spirit after the picturesque trek up to the hill. As I looked far and wide across to the other end of the open expanse, I noticed him standing on the edge and clicking away with his SLR camera. His tent was pitched just a few yards off the spot where he stood and he seemed like he was cold and would step back in soon enough. I waited a few moments and then stepped up to him and said hello. As we talked and got to know more about each other, I realized I had met a man who was truly 'free' - His name was Christian and he was from a small town in Sweden.

Christian had a fantastic story - he travelled the world like this, for six months every year, while he waited tables at a small restaurant back at home for the other six. He earned just enough to pay for his travels on a shoestring budget. I had a minor epiphany at that moment. I realized that life is far simpler than we choose to believe it is. That the truest experiences are the ones which involve the simplest of pleasures - travelling, walking, running, climbing, singing, spending time with your family or simply enjoying a book or an engaging conversation over a cup of hot coffee. Everything else is an unnecessary complication that we invent to make ourselves feel important. I realized that the greatest insights in life come from within - that it is important, once in a while, to spend time with oneself and travel alone - to wander aimlessly and see the greatest sights and sounds the world has to offer. For, as Tolkien once said, not all those who wander, are lost...

Shifting the Debate

The last one month has been interesting, to put it mildly. We have seen major political upheaval in the country just when most people thought we were about to drift aimlessly through the rest of the UPA government's second term. And I would say it was about time that these events transpired - the way things were going, something had to give. For a country that was touted to be an economic superpower by the end of the decade, economic stultification loomed large, potentially dashing the hopes and dreams of millions who had dared to expect more than subsistence in a country that was used to defeatism and poverty-mongering.

There are those who have looked at the course of events over the last month (and to put the last month in perspective, over the last 2-3 years), through the prism of an ongoing politics vs. economics debate. The rationale of their argument goes something like - Indian politicians need votes and are obsessed with staying in power, so choosing to take reform-oriented, economically sound decisions must necessarily mean going against conventional political wisdom. Well, interestingly enough, those that have been making this argument seem to have missed the shift in the debate.

If some recent accounts of major national commentators are to be believed, the politics vs. economics debate has been already been consigned to the dustbin of modern Indian history. Through anecdotal accounts as well as intensive data collection and analysis, many are now saying that the dichotomy between good economics and good politics seems to be blurring away into oblivion. In a phase shift of historic socio-political proportions (and implications), the divergence between the two is about to be decimated forever in this country. Indian people, cutting across economic and social strata have perhaps discarded the 'dole' mentality where they voted into power the political party that gave away freebies and subsidies to a narrowly defined electorate that was often defined by lines of caste or religion. That age, good morning, is over.

Instead, what seems to be emerging is an epoch in Indian political history where reforms constitute the mainstream in the electoral agenda. In spite of what some political dinosaurs like Mamata Banerjee would like to believe, the people of this country have already moved on to a growth and development based debate. Her brand of 'povertarian' politics is obsolete. Consider this - in a thought provoking article wittily titled 'The Meena Kumari Politics', Indian Express editor Shekhar Gupta claims, "An important and powerful Congress MP.... made a confession that....the party made a suicidal blunder by brainwashing itself that the 2009 victory had come because of NREGA when it had, in fact, come from growth." Even discounting for any personal biases that Mr. Gupta may have, this is an important claim, coming ostensibly from people who are grassroot politicians, not opinion-wielding intellectuals.

In yet another account published in the New York Times, called 'Reformers Do Win Elections in India', hard evidence is cited, based on the work done by economists Jagdish Bhagwati and Arvind Panagariya, "from the 2009 national elections to bust a standing myth in India’s power corridors – that pro-growth economic reforms equals to political suicide." On the NDA's loss in 2004, which is often incorrectly attributed to the rejection by India's poor masses of the reform agenda, the article substantiates how "the 2004 mandate was not for anti-growth, socialist policies of the past.... In fact, it was the opposite: Voters wanted more meaningful, high-growth reforms, not fewer."

There seems to be an increasingly stark realisation among the avant garde Indian intelligentsia that the argumentative transformation on the Indian political stage is now complete - voters have now begun expecting more than just the consistently disingenuous electoral promises of 'bijli, sadak aur paani'. Inspired by cases of model governance in states like Bihar, Gujarat, Delhi and Uttaranchal, they have begun to expect local leaders to actually deliver on these promises in substantial measure. In fact, they have gone further and have now begun to expect private-sector employment generation as a result of government policy. As someone recently pointed out, the difference between 5% and 8% growth is a difference between comfort and more comfort for someone who belongs to the middle-class or the affluent class, but for the economically weak, it constitutes the difference between unemployment and subsistence (or even aspirational upward mobility).

In a timely move, the Economist has published a special cover edition on India this week, aptly called, "India, In Search of a Dream". The publication comments, with typical trenchant criticism, that India's leaders have done a shoddy job of convincing the masses on the need for reform. They have been guilty of perpetuating a regressive pseudo-socialist regime of quotas, subsidies and inefficient government control on the 'commanding heights' of the economy. But perhaps for the first time, voters seem to be taking the initiative to bypass the politicians' restrictive agenda - matters have come to a head and the electorate has suo motu decided that growth and reform is non-negotiable and in doing so has shifted the course of this debate forever. Old fogy politicians and tantrum-throwing dinosaurs will ignore this at their own peril.

The long arm of the welfare state

In a country that has been stung by experiments with race-to-the-bottom socialism for decades, advocating a greater presence for the state can be a lonely cause. Yet, in my view, perhaps in a country like India that is making the transition from socialist poverty to capitalist nouveau riche prosperity (for a few), the role of the state becomes ever more important. Not least because the state then becomes the only benefactor of those disenfranchised by the process of development (which, even in the most benign, inclusive of models can often be skewed). Ironically, then, socialist welfare policies must be perpetuated, even expanded, not culled in the name of 'less government is good government'.

First, the rise in individual wealth in a nation also often comes with a concomitant bulge in state coffers. Even with a 5% fiscal deficit, the Indian government today is far richer in both absolute and relative terms than it was as in its socialist heyday. This gives the government a far greater ability (and responsibility) to spend more and to spend on more causes. Agreed that this model has gone horribly wrong in Europe and America - but that is only the other extreme. The 'reform-minded' economists and right-leaning policy hawks will cry foul and say that the profligate Indian state already spends far too much. Wrong. The Indian state wastes too much. Subsidies are large, not because they are unnecessary, but because they are targeted ineffectively. The poor still need cheap kerosene and rice. It is electoral calculations that hold the government back from targeted subsidies. It is often said that a 'benefit' once doled out in India, can never be revoked - be that a subsidy, a reservation or an entitlement. However, it is easier to refine a benefit by targeting it correctly than to rescind it completely.

The vastness and sheer socio-cultural diversity of India necessitates a state that reaches out to parts of the country and to people that corporations would never find economical to serve. There is either no money to be made in these transactions, or the wait for returns can be longer than a for-profit entity can be answerable to shareholders for. In all such cases and more, the state must step in and provide. It has a moral duty and responsibility to, irrespective of the economic policies that it espouses. In the farthest corners of the Himalaya mountains in Kashmir, the remotest villages of the North-Eastern states and in the densest jungles of central India, the state must extend its arms and reach out - build schools, roads, provide medicines for free and transport services for cheap. Because someone has to, and no one else will. What every newspaper in the country will tell you is the story of mainstream India. Either the India that is in the thick of the action on growth, or the India that is poor but has a political voice to matter enough. There are hundreds of untold stories from another India that a welfare state does reach out to, but one that is never heard by the rest of its fellow-countrymen for the simple reason that it does not pay anyone to hear it. This is where the state must step in and hand-hold the development process to mainstream entire populations. Even if there is no economic or electoral reward to be reaped.

A Fragile Peace

Over the last month, I have come to realize that 'peace' in India can be a very fickle state of existence. In a country with more than  a billion people with a million identities of religion, caste and creed each, fault lines can be exposed with the slightest scratch on the surface. It also makes me marvel sometimes at the chaotic fabric of society in India - perhaps chaos is the equilibrium state of this country and its people. I do not mean that to be derogatory - it is merely my assessment of our reality and perhaps something that is essential to appreciate before anyone can set about understanding, surviving in and even attempting to govern this country.

The speed with which hatred and violence spreads in India never ceases to amaze me. In the case of the recent episodes of violence in the North East, followed by the exodus of people ethnic to the North Eastern region from some major cities in India, technology became a medium for perpetrating hatred and fear. I believe that at the center of the process of creating such mass hysteria, lies the inherent gullibility of the Indian mind. You need only look at the number of 'chain emails' that regularly spam your inbox to figure out the very minimal levels of discretion that Indians exercise before passing on a viral message.

What is surprising, and to some extent disturbing, is that I have more than occasionally seen otherwise sane, 'educated' people falling prey to such instances of hysteria. The same goes for people 'sharing' meaningless viral messages on facebook - it takes almost nothing to get the most rational Indians to begin 'sharing' hateful, derogatory and frankly absurd ideas on social media. People deride and personally attack politicians, celebrities, sportsmen, countries, races and religions at the drop of a hat. They do not think twice before participating in the process of creating 'popular delusions' (a phrase that I shall borrow from the title of a brilliant and very topical book: Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds).

To cite an (admittedly tangentially related) instance, when the government sharply hiked prices of petrol a few months ago, I saw even some of the most intelligent and economically literate friends of mine crying foul on social media. As if low fuel prices, even in the face of global spikes in crude, is a birthright of every citizen in this country. Bafflingly, some of the people most actively deriding the price hike by 'sharing' the most number of such facebook messages/jokes/pictures did not even own vehicles of their own. At the heart of such behaviour lies a tendency to let the mob think for you. It has happened so frequently in this country that it is almost disturbing how we can lay claim to being part of a civilized society - the Godhra riots, the Babri mosque demolition, Delhi's anti-Sikh riots, a mob molesting a teenager in Guwahati; all of these are instances of the worst kind of mob behaviour in Indian society.

I think understanding the basic nature of the Indian socio-cultural make-up will serve any individual/government well before an attempt to censor or regulate online media is made. Even if the internet is sparingly used by the most affluent few millions out of a billion odd people, sometimes the social structures that they are part of and the identities that they represent remain largely the same as the teeming masses of the most backward hinterlands. Consumption patterns and the adoption of pseudo-liberal urban mannerisms does not change the biases, delusions and hysterias that are deeply ingrained in our multidimensional identities. Addressing these regressive tendencies should be as much an integral part of the agenda for the 'development' of modern India. Economic progress without the concomitant liberalisation of ideas and cultures is meaningless and to some extent dangerous. We are in the midst of a fragile peace that needs to be buttressed with stronger foundations, lest we should relapse into the chaos that is ingrained in our social DNA.

Black and White

Too many people have told me too often that life throws up shades of grey more often that it does black or white. "Nothing is for certain"; "It's not as simple as it seems";"There are always exceptions" - these are only some of the excuses of an explanation that have been offered by way of justification for a compulsive indecisiveness that I have so often found inexcusable. Try offering these excuses to the widow of Avneesh Kumar Dev, a senior HR manager at Maruti Suzuki, who was murdered by a mob of workers in the Manesar plant of his company. Try telling her that punishing her husband's murderers is not a simple matter - that there are many shades of grey involved since the violence that was perpetrated this July at Maruti is the manifestation of deeper malaise which has something to do with socio-economic divide and class struggle between the haves and the have nots. Try telling her that her husband's death was collateral damage in a centuries old process of giving voice to industrial workers, the poor and the downtrodden. Try explaining that he is not the first or the only casualty in the struggle for achieving the socialist ideals that our economy and our country has been founded on - that his death is a sacrifice towards a larger cause. Try telling her that in this instance too, one is being too harsh and too judgmental by pronouncing the mob of workers guilty before conducting a "thorough investigation into the matter, at the end of which, rest assured. none of the guilty shall be allowed to go scot free". Try by starting your story with how workers at Manesar were never allowed to form a trade union, were never given a voice and were not given the wage hikes that they had been demanding for so long; tell her this is why things came to a head and got out of control; this is why someone broke her husband's bones and set him on fire while he was still alive.

Perhaps you won't. Perhaps these excuses are easier to proffer on televised national prime time debates. Perhaps deep inside someone knows the truth - that sometimes, perhaps more often than not, it is as simple as black or white. That this was murder. Not class struggle, not a manifestation of socio-economic divide, not an 'unfortunate accident'. This was murder which should be avenged - by awarding the most stringent punishment that the law of the land allows: the death penalty. Let us not glorify this instance by giving it the name of industrial strife. Let us learn to identify the black from the white before we permanently delude ourselves with grey.

On brands and conspicuous consumption

I have had this debate on many an occasion with different people, and never seemed to be satisfied with any of the explanations/arguments I heard - Why is a brand so important? Especially when it comes to articles of consumption. At some level, I believe that advertising/branding often ceases to be what it is supposed to be - informative and begins to encroach upon the territory of mental subversion and manipulation. I have seen a number of instances where products brazenly appeal to a subconscious vulnerability that people might have and feed on their weakness. Some societies even regulate advertising to vulnerable groups like children and rightly so. But it is surprisingly easy to influence the minds of some adults too. Personally, I deem falling for such machinations as an insult to one's intelligence.

I have seen a number of instances where an individual chooses Product X over Product Y simply because he (often she) wants to be seen using the former, not because it ranks higher on utility in the pure sense of the term. If, therefore, the same person were to objectively evaluate the 2 products in terms of their utilitarian aspects - any or more of the qualities such as effectiveness, durability, ease of use and then also include cost into the equation, the choice would seem obvious. Instead, I see many otherwise perfectly rational individuals assigning an overwhelmingly large weight to a fuzzy criterion called 'brand' in their decision making, which then distorts the entire process of choice. The reason I have a problem with that - such irrational impulsiveness is meant for lesser mortals. Those of us who have been endowed with the ability to reason, go beyond image management and choose objectively, have the responsibility of putting such faculties to good use, not fall for clever tricks called brands.

Perhaps brands are meant to serve the need for conspicuous consumption. People say things such as 'the ownership of this product makes you part of a select group.' Of fools, I often think. Each of whom is falling prey to mass-hysteria and collective ignorance. Rich people often find innovative ways of cheating each other by inventing such things as 'labels' and segments such as 'premium' and 'ultra'. I don't really have a problem with that. More money changing hands is good for economic activity (can't say the same for economic progress). When the bourgeois begins to behave with such aspirational impetuosity, it pains me. If only we thought for ourselves before giving in to such depravity.

Why Pranab Mukherjee is one of the worst FMs in recent history

With GDP growth at 5.3%, one would expect panic, firefighting, or at the very least, concern from the highest echelons of government. Not so in India. It is almost as if in its quest for political posturing, our government would be more concerned because this is now being referred to as the 'Hindu' rate of growth. Sacrilege for those who swear by secularism. Pranab Mukherjee, the man at the helm of affairs in the Finance Ministry (and some say the whole government), is, I think, one of the worst FMs India has seen in recent history. Not only  did he deliver a toothless budget when a bold one was expected, he is also personally responsible for the deteriorating investment climate in India.

At a time when growth is collapsing, the current account deficit is running high, one would at least expect the FM to support Balance of Payments by encouraging capital flows. His conjuring of the Vodafone tax specter to haunt investors (past, present and future) has been particularly damaging. In his desperate quest for bridging a fiscal deficit (which by the way is his own government's creation, thanks to Sonia Gandhi's pseudo socialist policies a la NREGS), he seems to have unleashed his sniffing taxman on all unsuspecting corporates.

"We cannot declare India a tax haven to attract FDI," he said. Very soon, Mr Mukherjee, you may not have any FDI left to tax. In your gold-rush, you have killed the goose that laid the golden eggs. Good luck with your revenue targets. 

What scares me most, is that Pranab Mukherjee, at some level, also refuses to acknowledge the situation that his government has created - time and again, when he would have been expected to stand up and take responsibility, he has instead conveniently passed the buck to the Europe crisis, coalition compulsions and market volatility. In other words, to anything but his own incompetence and apathy.

The arrogance of entitlement is apparent, when your Finance Minister claims in Parliament that "When we had no FDI, we did not eat lizards." Nice to know what your worst case scenario is, Mr FM. We shall be prepared. Even now, after the latest GDP figures have been released, a number of government advisers are choosing to hide behind a paltry Fixed Capital Formation growth (which some people have already claimed is due to a one-off).

Pranab Mukherjee is touted to be the next President of India. I think that would do just as well - it could offer some much needed relief and a welcome change in the Finance Ministry. Only, I wish this was applicable with retrospective effect.

Neither here nor there

Watching Pranab Mukherjee deliver his budget speech on Friday was like watching a thriller - except that you kept waiting for a climax that never came. He started off well enough, with rhetoric on how fiscal responsibility is dear to the government and how he will return the country to a respectable rate of growth next year. So he led his audience on, having captivated them into believing that there is excitement ahead. But like a badly written script, his movie only disappointed and exasperated thence. The initial promise of a blockbuster, therefore, faded quickly after a well-made trailer, albeit with some comic relief afforded by the good-humoured quoting of Shakespeare and by the minister likening himself to a medic, called upon to administer a bitter pill to the ailing patient which is our nation. (I personally believe an enema would have been in order; pills are for milder afflictions).

Many went on to describe this budget as 'middle of the road' - perhaps delightfully oblivious of the heavy haulers hurtling towards us at 100 kmph (alliteration unintended!). But I think this accurately describes policy under the current government: neither here nor there. Ultimately, it all seems to be an exercise in clinging on to that chair (never mind if it increasingly resembles an electric one).

I thought the 'retrospective amendment' business on the Vodafone deal was an absolute stinker. The Indian government seems to have pioneered a new form of time travel. We are increasingly witnessing instances where actions are taken retroactively. I would say arbitrarily. Taxman needs money? Amend laws and enforce them with retrospective effect. Supreme Court must deliver justice in 2G scam? Cancel allotment of licences done years ago. Why, it must a popular joke in the galleries of power these days. Be kind to me, or I will go back in time and screw your happiness. Why should anyone be made to suffer because you had not put your house in order? If there was mischief involved in the distribution of 2G licences, too bad. Punish the criminals, hang them if you like, but how can you go back in time and cancel licences because YOU botched the process? Foreign investors must be pissing in their pants thinking about putting their money in India. And yet we have ambitious capital account targets.

I watched the Finance Minister being interviewed by a TV-channel post the budget. The interviewer pointed out bluntly to the FM that some of the acts in the budget could actually constitute criminal offences on the part of the government. Case in point is the additional cess introduced on crude oil production by companies like ONGC. The government only just concluded an auction of shares for that company days ago (botched that too). If a private company's promoters were to act the way the government has, they would have been subject to strict action by SEBI. The government has essentially hoodwinked minority shareholders into buying shares at high prices, knowing fully well that this additional cess is going to hurt the company. Why disinvest at all in that case, if every action that you take as a promoter is meant to transfer wealth out of the pockets of minority shareholders including the general public? Similarly, issuing tacit directives to oil retailers not to raise prices before elections must certainly constitute a violation of the model code of conduct - you are using state machinery to advance your own ends only because you are the party in power at the center. How is that not illegal?

What the government is trying to put up is a depraved act of trying to please everyone for all time. You want disinvestment, double digit growth, price stability and fiscal responsibility and yet you won't budge on reforms. I think the finance minister did well to concede in his budget speech that most of India's inflation is driven by supply side constraints. He has the uphill task of removing these structural bottlenecks. Perhaps the government needs to realize that it need not dilly-dally on reforms in order to seem populist. The status quo only benefits certain vested interests which most definitely do not constitute the poorest of the poor whose cause the government claims to have taken up. Multi-brand retail will not hurt the farmer, it will hurt the middlemen. Disinvestment does not hurt the country, it hurts trade unions that represent inefficient workers. Substitution of subsidies with direct cash transfers does not hurt the poor, it hurts the black marketeers who divert PDS supplies for personal gain. Sooner, rather than later, we will have to choose sides. The funny thing is, the choice might be easier than the government likes to think it is.

Midnight's Children.... and still living in the dark

With every passing year, there are recurring suspicions that Indian democracy is growing stronger. Countless newspaper articles and television debates periodically seek to remind us that the times are finally changing and so is the level of political debate in this country. Analysts wax lyrical at how the average voter these days has astutely started focusing on issues like development. I say rubbish. Every year a new ilk of politicians comes along and reminds us that we, as an electorate, are still the evolutionary equivalent of dinosaurs. The latest spate of events on the Indian political landscape, precipitated by the advent of that terrible quinquennial feature called elections, has proven just that. For instance, the government of the day believes that it will clinch the minority vote by narrowly appealing to that section's sentiment in preventing Salman
Rushdie from attending the Jaipur Literature festival (presumably inspired by the same logic that had driven another political outfit into preventing Maqbul Fida Hussain from living freely in this country). It is perhaps the same wisdom that has guided our leaders into outbidding each other to unconstitutionally guarantee a quota on the basis of religion in Uttar Pradesh.


Now I wouldn't be so naive as to assume that the very able politicians who constitute our government are out of touch with reality. If they have decided to deny a man of the stature of Mr. Rushdie (can there ever be a better poster boy for Indian literature than someone who has won the Booker of Bookers?) entry into India, they must have done so after rigorous political calculations and after having concluded that we as an electorate are indeed a sorry enough bunch of dolts to fall for such moves. So let's not get all excited and begin to blame the politicians - they are merely doing their jobs (which I presume, is to engage in politics, the worst kind of it). No, this is an indictment of Indian society. We get the governments we deserve. As long as we continue to pander to this rabble rousing and bigotry, there will be politicians falling over themselves to spin votes out of non-issues. It is perhaps the easiest way for them to get elected - without performing on the real issues that a mature democracy should actually be voting on. Shame on US!

Racist Europe?

I was going through the papers yesterday and I observed something strikingly odd - there were not one, not two but three major stories on racism in Europe. The first one, of course, is the Sarkozy drama. Being in France, one realizes how politically active these people are. I was talking about this to a fellow Canadian student the other day - I think a nation's character is shaped by the writers it produces, and France, being home to giants like Rousseau and Voltaire, is therefore a society that has strong points of view on politics and public life. Mr. Sarkozy is an unpopular man right now. He is under fire from various quarters for his deportation drive for 'Romas' - the so called gypsies who hail from Romania. Mr. Sarkozy believes that this race is a criminal one and that the French people do not need to put up with the dark face of a multicultural Europe.

The second story comes from the far north - an extremist anti immigrant group called the Sweden Democrats is likely to define the balance of power after elections in that country. This is a group that openly campaigns against the Muslim immigrants of Sweden. They are ranting against the "economic problems" due to Muslims that Sweden is facing. Now think about this for a moment. Sweden is historically one of the most liberal countries in the world. A country that is almost at the far end of the earth and has thus far almost remained cut off from the turmoil and chaos of more centrally located societies. And now Sweden is turning racist. A party like the Sweden democrats gaining popular support is bad news - for Europe, for multiculturalism and for tolerance across the world.

The third story comes from Germany. A former German government official and one of the top shots at the Bundesbank, Thilo Sarazin has stirred up a hornet's nest by writing a book that is openly anti-Semitic and anti-Islam. He talks about something called a "Jewish gene" and claims that Muslims are a severe impediment to growth and prosperity in Germany. His employers have rightly asked him to quit, but it remains to be seen whether he will be asked to step down from his political posts as well.

All this is part of a story that is playing out right here, right now. It's both sad and unfortunate - because I came to Europe believing that it is almost the last bastion of multiculturalism and tolerance after America turned radical in the wake of 9/11. These are stories that are coming from the mainstream of political thought in their respective countries. The people who are part of the drama are respected men in their countries - they hold positions of power and responsibility and it would not be a misstatement to claim that these people influence public opinion. Or worse still, that they reflect public opinion.

No mean achievement!

I was in Hyderabad for the whole of last year. Working at Deloitte was an absolutely amazing experience. What this also meant is that for the whole of last year I was living at a place that is culturally very different from the part of the country that I hail from. Having spent a couple of decades in the eastern part of India I was pretty used to red tape and a slow-paced life. You always expected that your work would never get done on time. Deadlines were never met - neither by you nor by the people that you dealt with. Promises were never kept and no one ever put a premium on anyone's time. Things, however, turned out to be very different in Hyderabad and especially in a firm like Deloitte. Meetings always started on time and people expected that when you made a commitment, you would keep it! So when I quit my job at Hyderabad to head off to IIM Lucknow, I decided to spend a couple of weeks at home. And that's where I am right now.

So yesterday, I had to pay a visit to a government office in order to get a certificate which I need during the admission process at IIM. The official that I visited is called the 'Civil Surgeon' and it seems it really is a big deal to be a 'Civil Surgeon' in this part of the country. The eastern part of India has a huge obsession with government jobs. These jobs are certainly the most sought after. Probably because the private sector is not very active in this region. Also because a government job translates into millions in bribes that these officials pocket while making an example of the inefficiency and nepotism that the innards of India are known for. So off I went into the hellish confines of this dingy government office, hardly aware that the 'Civil Surgeon' in Jamshedpur would turn out to be anything but civil.

What i needed was a fitness certificate which stated that I am fit and healthy enough to be admitted into IIM. So I came armed with all my medical reports, brandishing them like an accomplishment that I was mighty proud of. Being used to getting things done super quick at a private firm, I thought the whole process would take me no longer than a few minutes. I was in for a rude shock. Well as soon as I went in, I realized that there was an army of subordinates sitting around and guarding the holy office of the big official. To my surprise I was told that the Civil Surgeon was a woman. I was happy to hear that, since I had heard a lot about how women in administration are far more efficient and far less corrupt. Little did I know that this view was to change.

So I was asked, rather curtly, by one of the many 'peons' at her majesty's beck and call what I was doing lingering around the office of his boss. I politely replied that I had come to get a certificate of fitness that was needed at IIM for the admission process. While I am pretty sure he did not understand 'IIM', the word 'certificate' thankfully registered with the blockhead and he ushered me into an ante room to speak with a certain clerk who transacted all the paperwork for her highness. The clerk examined my documents, contorted his dumb face into the most bewildering expression and then asked me to wait in front of the office to speak to 'madam'.

It's interesting how time slows down in these places. And time really is at a standstill in the millions of government offices in our great nation. While I testily waited for my turn to be called in, I ran my eyes around the office - stacks of papers and files everywhere, their pages gone yellow and the dog's ears at their corners bearing testimony to the decades they had spent within the sacred walls of this 'Sarkari' office. A number of trunks and rickety cupboards fit for the antique shop punctutated the rather depressing scene before me. There was no sign of a computer anywhere and the only electric equipment around the place was a bulb and a rusty ceiling fan that made a din as it miraculously rotated overhead without falling off. I was finally called in. Madam was busy scrutinizing papers related to God-knows-what. She didn't even look up through her glasses as the peon introduced me by mentioning the reason why I had ventured into her sacrosanct premises. Without flinching for a split-second she banished me back to her clerk. I had no idea why. Being used to treated with dignity and respect at a 'foreign' firm, I was visibly disappointed at being accorded this stepmotherly treatment.

However, I made my way back to the clerk and asked him what on earth I was supposed to do now. After endless prodding and pleading he revealed to me that I was supposed to write an application stating that I needed a fitness certificate. I was also to mention the purpose for which I required it and I needed to attach the documents that would support my (now failing) case. Of course. The application! How did I even expect to get anything done at The Government of India without a darned application! I cursed my naivete and sat down to do the needful. Then I waited.

After an hour of waiting and fretting, I finally decided to speak to the clerk. He frowned, probably amused by my impatience. I mean, who did I think I was, blundering into a holy government office expecting work to get done on time? Huh! After another round of prodding and pleading, he finally said something that made things a little clearer to me. Obviously I hadn't been watching enough of 'Office Office'. Her highness' hands needed lubrication. A crisp 500 Rs note always does the trick I was told. I was stumped.

Now all those Moral Science classes and long lectures by the morality brigade came flooding back into my mind. Wasn't I supposed to be an ideal citizen of this country and stop the bribe culture? For a moment I thought, who cares! Let all those high ideals go for a toss as long as I got my work done. In any case, I had waited enough. What difference could a single righteous action by a midget in the system like myself make? But then I thought, why not? What is the worst that could happen? These people could make me wait for an obscenely long time? I am jobless in any case. They can't beat me on patience. So I politely stepped away from the clerk's office and waited outside the surgeon's.

After another hour of cribbing, cursing and staring at the ceiling, I was finally invited inside. This time Madam had the grace to look me in the face. She got down to business immediately. She pointed out 10 different loopholes in my application and the supporting documents. She almost made me feel like a fraudster who was out to dupe her holy office. Then she said something to the effect of - 'Standing like a fool outside my office won't help'. Obviously I could do better. I could offer her a bribe. A bribe that she had almost asked for directly now. I was castled. Her highness had said it herself now. So I did the best thing that I could have done in that hellbender of a situation that I had been put into. I smiled.

I think that put her off really bad. Because then she signed my documents immediately. The dismayed clerk then had no option but to stamp the seal of the Civil Surgeon's office on my documents. I felt like a hero. I had got my work done. The Government of India had functioned without a bribe, albeit a little late. No mean achievement.