Opposition Days

[This piece originally appeared on Logos]

Let the Opposition set the agenda for a few days every session, so that it does not disrupt the whole of it.

Democracy is majority rule. Whoever has the majority in the Parliament forms the Government. If all key decisions are taken by a majority vote, how is the Parliament (which the Government controls) supposed to provide oversight and reprimand the Government for its excess and wrongdoings? The Government can sit smug on its benches and tell the Opposition to first 'go get the votes' and then we will talk. 

This, like most introductions, is an over simplification of facts (done to grab attention, mostly by less accomplished writers like myself). But we have to concede that in a system based on majority vote, the parties in minority find it very difficult to get their voice heard, let alone getting their demands met.

Opposition Day is a day when the opposition parties in the Parliament, set the agenda. Any session of the UK Parliament has at least 20 Opposition days. In Canada the number is 22. It might seem a procedural thing at first, but it is so much more than that. Being able to control the agenda gives the Opposition a much better shot at cornering the Government into discussions and debates that it is trying to avoid. If these days are divided up amongst the Opposition parties, even smaller parties will get a chance to make the Government answer its concerns. In a media driven democracy like ours, the Opposition needs to also 'look' like it is opposing the Government. Routine protocols like Question Hour, Calling Attention Motions and raising motions under Rule 377, though important, are not very effective tools to play to the gallery. And let us be clear, playing to the gallery is not some superfluous thing which can be ignored, it is a necessary and critical part of a politicians job profile.

There are other interesting customs like Questions to the Prime Minister, where the PM is required to answer the questions himself (Tony Blair is said to have feared the House of Commons, thanks to it). The effectiveness of such conventions is difficult to ascertain, but without a doubt they provide the Opposition with a legitimate way, if nothing else, to vent its anger. And who knows? Maybe this can lead to a little less chaos and adjournments and little more of sane debates on critical legislations.

(This line of thought came about in a post-lecture discussion about the workings of the Indian Parliament with MR Madhavan of PRS Legislative Research)

Will you help improve traffic in Pune?

We often say that people in Pune have no traffic sense. We do not follow even the most simple rules like stopping behind the white line at a traffic signal. But this is not entirely true. There are people trying to improve the situation. I have seen them stopping behind the white line, directing traffic at congested intersections, helping the traffic police. These people understand the advantage, benefit and the critical need of having a disciplined traffic. The problem is that they do not have any authority. They cannot effectively nudge others into becoming more sensible drivers. This policy aims at, among other things, enabling such people.

Remember, crowd behavior (which includes traffic)  is about critical mass. You do not need to convert everyone on the road. Most people will do what the guy next to them is doing. Currently this critical mass is tilted towards aggressiveness on the road. But if it sways towards more responsible behavior, that will quickly become the default and there will be a drastic improvement in the driving conditions in the city of Pune.

Background
The Pune Traffic Police facebook page has close to 30,000 subscribers. People used to report traffic violations and the Traffic Police would respond with the action taken. This received extremely enthusiastic response from the people initially. But the Traffic Police could not keep up with the reported violations and it eventually lost momentum.
The critical time for a new rule, is the 'breaking in' period. Some rules like P1/P2 parking, wearing seat belts, were monitored and violators fined effectively when they came into effect. Now they have become second nature to most people and do not receive a lot of oversight.

Policy Goals
It aims at making the general public a participating entity in the implementation of traffic laws, as opposed to be being just the affected party.
It aims at lessening the burden of commissioning and managing the non-capital aspects of traffic management by providing a mechanism to involve private players and volunteers in checking traffic violations.

How it works
This policy applies to traffic laws like, stopping at red light (behind the white line), not parking in no-parking zones, not going the wrong way, etc.
City will be divided into number of sectors (by clubbing together electoral wards or some order more sensible way).
Private agency (or private citizens) will have to collect photographic proof of vehicle breaking a law.
A central database (website) will be provided to upload the photographs and other details like Date, Time and Location. A Phone Application (Android/iPhone) can also be developed, which will make this whole process very fast and simple.
Chief responsibility of traffic police will be to recover the dues.
The dues will be adjusted according to number of violations in that sector. Higher dues for sectors with higher violations. (This will give an incentive for private agency to record more cases of violations, and for public to violate less.)
People will be given a chance to contest the fines in a special tribunal, comprising of Traffic Police, Corporators and NGOs. Basic verification of photographs is not very costly (softwares are available). The fixed cost of verification will be borne by the losing party.
Private agency will get an assured sum plus a commission on dues collected.
Contracts will be for a limited period (say 2 years) and bids will be called for each sector separately.

Benefits
Economic incentives will bring in a lot of manpower and resources into traffic management.
Adaptive pricing of fines will give people an incentive to follow the rules and urge other people to do the same.
As collection of dues is strictly out of private hands, there is no danger of misuse of power.
A basic fixed remuneration will ensure that private agencies can maintain operations even when violations are low.
Because there is a price for false appeals, appeals will be less hence process will be more efficient and fast.

Limitations
This policy does not help with immediate resolution of traffic jams, parking violations, etc.
If the values of fines and also the fixed benefit to private agencies is not proper, it can lead to non-profitability for private agencies or extortion for violators.
If the tendering process is not open and transparent, it can lead to cartelization and corruption.
Not effective for violations which are difficult to record (like honking, etc.)
If people feel animosity towards the private agencies, it might lead to clashes.

Sunset Clause
This can be implemented for a period of 6 years. It can be scrapped if the overall traffic sense and discipline has improved to a sustainable level.

In Conclusion
Though this is not the solution to all traffic problems, if implemented properly, this can lead to improvement of conditions for all the stakeholders.

(This was originally written as an assignment for the GCPP course.)

विश्वविजेत्यांना 'इनाम ' देण्याच्या विरोधात

[Cross-posting my translation which originally appeared on the Indian National Interest. Thanks ashlya for correcting the शुद्धलेखन]

ही राजामहाराजांच्या जमान्यातील पद्धत करदात्यांच्या जीवावर चालू ठेवावी का?

एक बलाढ्य राजा त्याच्या रत्नजडीत सिंहासनावर बसला आहे. कवी, कलावंत, खेळाडू त्या भव्य दरबारात आपापले कौशल्य दाखवून राजाचे मनोरंजन करत आहेत. राजा खूष होऊन कधी सोन्याची नाणी, कधी जहागीर तर कधी चक्क राजकन्येचा हात दान म्हणून देतोय. गळ्यातील मोत्यांची माळ काढून एखाद्या गरजू माणसाला देताना आपण अनेक चित्रपटांमधून बघत आलोय.

काळ बदलला आहे. भारत आता एक घटनात्मक लोकतंत्र आहे. पूर्वीच्या राजामहाराजांचे होते तसे आता आपल्यावर कुठल्या नेत्याचे अथवा पुढार्‍याचे राज्य नाहीये. आपल्या अनुमतीने बनलेल्या नियमांनुसार ह्या देशाचं कामकाज चालवण्यासाठी निवडलेले ते केवळ आपले प्रतिनिधी आहेत. मन मानेल तसा खर्च करायला देशाचा खजिना ही काही त्यांची वैयक्तिक मालमत्ता नाही. आपल्या कराचा निधी हा फक्त आपण मान्य केलेल्या गोष्टींसाठी वापरण्याची त्यांनी जबाबदारी स्वीकारलेली असते. हे सगळं बरोबर असलं तरी फक्त कागदोपत्री आहे. सत्यपरिस्थिती अशी आहे की सरकार आणि नागरिक यांचे घटनात्मक लोकतंत्र आणि स्वतंत्र नागरिकाचे नाते नसून ते राजा आणि त्याची प्रजा असेच आहे.

ह्याच 'इनाम' देण्याच्या मनोवृत्तीमुळे आपले राज्यसरकार विश्वविजेत्या क्रिकेट संघावर रोख बक्षिसे आणि जमिनींचा पाऊस पाडतंय. कुठल्याही क्षेत्रातील विलक्षण कामगिरीची नोंद घेऊन त्याचा पुरस्कार सरकारने केलाच पाहिजे, पण तो रास्त पद्धतीने करायला हवा. विश्वचषक विजयानिमित्त भारतीय क्रिकेट संघाच्या बक्षिसासाठी भारतीय करदात्याचा एक पैसासुद्धा खर्च व्हायचे काही कारण नाही. इतर अनेक महत्वाच्या कामांसाठी त्या पैशांची निकड आहे.
अशा बक्षिसांची एकूण रक्कम ही राज्यकोषाच्या तुलनेत नगण्य आहे असा युक्तीवाद ह्यावर करता येईल. हजारो कोटींच्या व्यवहारात काही कोटींचं काय कौतुक? पण असा विचार करणे म्हणजे मूळ मुद्द्याला बगल देण्यासारखे आहे. जो नेता असे पैसे वाटून भारताच्या विश्वचषक विजयाचे चार शिंतोडे स्वतःवर उडवून घेतोय, मुळात हे पैसे त्याचे नाहीत. ते पैसे जनतेचे आहेत आणि तो केवळ त्या निधीचा विश्वस्त आहे. हे पैसे मुख्यमंत्र्यांच्या स्वेच्छानिधीतून येतात ह्या विधानाला काही अर्थ नाही. कारण स्वेच्छानिधीतील खर्चदेखील सार्वजनिक हिताचा असणे गरजेचे आहे.

कर्तृत्ववान नागरिकांना पुरस्कृत करायची आपल्या गणराज्यात काही सोयच नाही असं मुळीच नाही. खेळाडूंसाठी अर्जुन पुरस्कार आहेत. जर क्रिकेटपटूंना असेच करोडो रुपये वाटायचे असतील तर हे पुरस्कार कशाला? आणि अर्जुन पुरस्कार असतील तर हे करोडो का?

खेळाडूंना गौरवायचे इतरही काही मार्ग आहेत. देशातील अनेक क्रीडांगणांना जवाहरलाल नेहरूंचे नाव देण्यात आले आहे. ते महान होते यात काही शंकाच नाही पण त्यांची क्रीडा क्षेत्रातील कामगिरी फारशी उल्लेखनीय नव्हती. अशा क्रीडांगणांची नावे बदलून त्यांना देशाचा गौरव वाढवणाऱ्या खेळाडूंची नावे दिली तर? पाटीवर नवीन नाव रंगवायला जितके पैसे लागतात तितकाच खर्च होईल. बंगळूरू येथील 'अनिल कुंबळे सर्कल' हे ह्याच दिशेने टाकलेले पाऊल आहे. शहरातील नवीन प्रमुख सार्वजनिक बांधकामांचे असे नामांकन का करू नये (अर्थातच शहरात नवीन सार्वजनिक बांधकामे झाली तरच हे शक्य आहे)?

असे इनाम देणे चुकीचे असण्यामागे अजून एक कारण आहे. ते देण्यात सरकार प्रशासक आणि जनता स्वतंत्र असण्याऐवजी सरकारचे राज्य आहे आणि जनता ही त्यांची आश्रित आहे अशी भावना व्यक्त होते. इनाम घेणार्‍याला आश्रिताची भावना येते म्हणून त्याचा स्वाभिमान दुखावला जातो.  ही विचारसरणी रुजली की अशी बक्षीसं वाटून लोकांची ताकद लुबाडता येते. बक्षिसांचे हे अर्थकारण भारताला असा देश बनवू पहात आहे जिथे वस्तू मोफत आहेत पण लोक मुक्त नाहीत. रमेश श्रीवत्स म्हणतात "लॅपटॉप फुकट मिळेल पण तो वापरून तुमचे मत मांडण्यावर बंधने येतील. टी.व्ही. फुकट मिळेल पण त्यावर तुम्हाला हवे ते बघण्याचे स्वातंत्र्य नसेल." त्यांना ज्या वेबसाईट्स तुम्ही बघू नये असे वाटते त्यावर ते बंदी आणतात. जी पुस्तके तुम्ही वाचू नयेत असे वाटते त्यावर बंदी आणतात. तुम्हाला शिक्षणाचा अधिकार मिळतो पण तुमच्या जवळच्या शाळेवर पटांगण नाही हे कारण देऊन बंदी आणली जाते. 

जावेद अख्तर ह्यांच्या दुर्दैवी विधानावरून लक्षात येते की इनामांचे राजकारण लोकांमध्ये कसे फूट पाडते आणि समाजाला प्रतिद्वंद्वी असहिष्णुतेच्या मार्गावर घेऊन जाते.

इतर कुठलाही बाह्य धोका किंवा आंतरिक समस्येपेक्षा ही विचारसरणी आपल्याला मागे खेचत आहे. इनाम देणाऱ्या व्यक्तीला जर तो राजा आहे असं वाटत असेल तर इनाम घेणाऱ्याला आपण आधीन आणि आश्रित असल्याची जाणीव होणारच. मग असा माणूस स्वतंत्र नागरिक होऊ शकत नाही.

The original post in english at: http://acorn.nationalinterest.in/2011/04/04/against-cash-rewards-for-our-world-champions/

Two Laws

Law and economics go hand in hand and both affect our lives tremendously. So much so that the basic principles of both these subjects should be mandatory, if not in school, then at least for graduation. (I am one of those unfortunate ones who is close to illiterate in both these life sciences.)

The Political Brain mentions two very interesting laws. Both are mentioned in the American context but can very well apply to India as well. As a novice reader i thought both the laws made sense (one more so than the other). Of course, the devil is in the details. But do you think these laws make sense, at least in principle? Will there be any improvement due to them? Do they break any key economic principles? Would you support these laws if they ever reach the Parliament? What riders, safeguards, improvements would you suggest?

Speak up people!

A Parent's Bill of Rights. When a corporate executive flies his private jet to meet with a client, that's a business expense, and it's a tax deduction. But when working parents take their children to day care, or when they invest in their children - and their country - by paying school or college tuition, that's their problem. That isn't right.

Child care expenses, tuition for children with working parents who are trying to get the best education for their children, and college expenses are not disposable income, and they should not be taxed. At all. We don't tax business expenses, and putting your children in day care so you can go to work is a business expense.

The Fair Salaries Act. The average income, bonus, and retirement packages of CEOs have skyrocketed in the last decade. CEOs are receiving annual pay increases of 15 percent on top of additional perks, whereas their workers are receiving salary increases averaging about 3 percent a year, which doesn't even keep up with inflation.

Corporations can't simultaneously argue that they don't have the resources to pay workers a higher wage or as much of their health benefits while lavishing huge salaries and bonuses on their executives. The performance of CEOs is directly related to the performance of those who work for them.

So we will reward companies that close the income gap between workers - from the assembly line up to the middle managers - and senior management with tax breaks, and will impose strict tax penalties on companies that continue to escalate the size of the packages they give their CEOs. 

  

जास्तीची majority

Democracy is not a perfect system. But, it is better than any other form of government known to man. Many people equate democracy with freedom and liberty. This is a wrong notion. Democracy by itself does not guarantee freedom or liberty or even equality. What guarantees these very very important and essential values is how a democratic government functions. What guiding principles it follows. How it decides and executes policy.

So what would you like the government to do? Would you like it to give free food to all those who are hungry, or shelter to everyone who wants it? Free education, free electricity, free medical care? All these seem like nice things to do, but just remember that a government does not produce anything. So everything it does is at an expense of somebody else. Almost every policy decision involves two things, whom do we take it from? and who do we give it to?

So do we really need a government? Can't we just take care of ourselves? The answer is no. We need a government to protect our liberty. That is it's only and most essential function. We need it to ensure "fair play" in all our social and economic transactions, everything else can be taken care of by individuals, like you and me.

In India, we are used to the idea of a माय-बाप सरकार. We expect it to solve any and every problem. That will not work. The government is unfit and dangerous at solving any other problem, than the problem of liberty.

Hawkers Plaza

There are some places in Pune that people from outside Pune love to hate. Like the पेठ areas. सोमवार, मंगळवार, बुधवार, ..., रविवार, गंज, नारायण, सदाशिव (Yes, the last name is in bold. This will suffice.). Why? The roads are too small, the people are too many, its all just too chaotic. The अस्सल पुणेकर on the other hand, not only loves these areas, but does not consider anything else as the real Pune (खरं पुणं लकडी पुलापाशी सुरु होऊन तळ्यातल्या गणपतीपाशी संपते ! कसे?).

The critique of these non-resident Punekars (:P) is not entirely incorrect. Yes the roads are too narrow (Not much we can do about them. Unless you want to tear down Vishrambaug Wada to widen Bajirao Road. Not a good idea.). Yes the traffic is utterly chaotic (this, we can certainly improve). Hence i was elated when i read that they are planning to implement a 'No Vehicle' zone and one-ways on few of the roads, in this central business district (seems more stylish now, don't it?) of Pune.

I was at the breakfast table reading this news and my Dad walks in. He has been working in this area all his life so i quickly splurt out the good news. His exact response being "Pedestrian Plaza कसला, Hawkers Plaza करून ठेवतील लेकाचे ! Scheme बंद पडेल थोड्या दिवसात आणि hawkers तसेच राहातील. मं आत्ता आहे ते काय वाईट आहे?" I was a bit stunned and very much dismayed by his cynicism. Why can't he be a little more optimistic? After all this is the corruption-fighting, formula 1-racing, 8% growth-maintaining young new India that we are talking about here.

But he is most probably right. Look at what happened to MG Road back then (when i was in school perhaps). Look at what is happening to FC Road right now, as we speak.

The road was turned into a one-way street. Good thing. The footpaths were widened. Excellent thing. One enterprising young fella thought of selling pani-puri on this nice big footpath. He did brisk business. When the police, anti-encroachment guys came along, he didn't mind sharing his profit. A hundred more book-sellers, chocolate toast vendors and juice sellers joined him. Now, good thing or bad thing?

If you ask me, i enjoy the tasty (and unhygienic) food and the cheap books they sell. As long as they sell, most people will buy. Plus i am young enough to dodge cars and jump over pot holes when the footpaths are occupied by these stalls. But what about my आजोबा and आजी? Well, who cares :(

It also seems a bit unfair to evict the street vendors once they are entrenched (not that its possible anyways). So the solution is not to allow any encroachment of footpaths in the first place. But are the authorities serious enough about this? Ofcourse not!

Update: Not sure if this is good news or bad news, but the thing is cancelled for now.

Alcohol and Minority Rights

Everyone has habits they can't change. Everyone is addicted to something.

Is it fair to ban someone else's habits when you are free to practice your own? Yes, if somebody's habit is to beat his wife then by all means he should be stopped and punished. But what if he is a responsible drinker? What if he goes out with his friends, drinks, has a merry time, designates a driver, comes home and sleeps in peace? Why should he pay the price for the other guy?

Government used the big hammer approach in raising the age limit of buying/consuming alcohol to 25. Firstly, this won't change much.We used to buy alcohol when we were in school. Sometime when we were in actual school uniforms :P (btw, this is wrong and should be discouraged). But nobody bothers. Perhaps now they will make them shell out some more bucks for their booze, but it won't stop them for sure.
Secondly, either you say a person is legally an adult or he/she is not. The age-limits are anyways arbitrary, at least, make them consistent. I can vote but I can't marry? Can get hitched but can't watch 'A' movies? Can watch those but can't drink alcohol? It's already a very confusing age, don't confuse them further.

Having said that, I have seen villages where most men folk drink silly and beat/create nuisance for their wives/families. Perhaps a big hammer like a complete alcohol ban might be the only practical solution in such cases (Education and Women Empowerment are the long term solutions, but you need to stop the violence till that takes effect). But then what about the guy who drinks for his enjoyment and troubles no one? Agreed, he is a minority. But does that mean he doesn't have rights?
When you implement a ban, you have to be very careful. Because you are restricting the legitimate freedoms of some very responsible and good people. The ban should be time bound perhaps. Perhaps tied to some parameters like education, sex-ratio, women employment, etc.

For me, my college years wouldn't have been the same without the parties, and perhaps the parties wouldn't have been the same without the alcohol.

If this ban is ever implemented? My sympathies.

road rage

" पुणेकर होण्यासाठी cycle चालवणं हि क्रिया एक खास कला म्हणून शिकायला हवी. चालवणं हे क्रियापद इथे, हत्त्यार चालवणं किंव्हा एखादी चळवळ चालवणं ह्या अर्थानी वापरलं पाहिजे." - पु. ल. 

परवा उत्साहाच्या भरात मी sptm च्या mission 10vi pass साठी volunteer केलं. काम असं होत कि १ तासासाठी बालगंधर्व च्या चौकात उभं राहून तिथल्या traffic पोलिसांची मदत करायची. ती लोकं "signal ला पांढऱ्या line च्या मागे वाहने थांबवण्याचा नियम" enforce करत होती. एखादा माणूस खूपच भांडायला लागला तर त्याला समजवायचा प्रयत्न करणे, इतकीच काय ती मदत.

honestly, i did not expect it to be such fun! people fought with me like their lives were at stake (when the actual stakes were just Rs. 100 and possibly some embarrassment). but there was so much hostility and anger, that it was almost funny. मी, असा-असा नियम आहे, तो मोडला तर असा-असा दंड आहे, वगेरे सांगायचा प्रयत्न करत होतो. पण फारसं कोणी त्याला भिक घालत नव्हतं. काही लोकं कोणाचं लक्ष नाहीये असं पाहून हळूच पळून गेली, काही "तुम्ही जबरदस्ती करताय म्हणून भरतो, पण खरा तर माझी काहीही चूक नाहीये" असं म्हणून गेली, तर काहींनी, "सगळेच मोडतायेत नियम, आम्हालाच का दंड?" किंव्हा "signal फार पटकन पडला, आम्हाला दिसलाच नाही." अशी करणं दिली. but the one common thing for all of them was the question they were asking themselves.

and it was not "why did i have to break the law?" but "why did i have to get caught?"

पुलंनी लिहून ठेवलेलं वाक्य आजही इतकं खरं का आहे? पुणे शहराला संस्कृतीचा प्रचंड मोठा वारसा मिळालाय असं म्हणतात. मग इथला traffic इतका असंस्कृत का? i left feeling all superior and proud for doing my bit for the city. but i knew i would be no different than them, as soon as i get behind the wheel of my own car. all of us think we are better drivers than most others on the road. that myth was broken, atleast for me. and it got me thinking.

why is there so much anger and impatience on our roads? why do i keep inching forward while waiting for the signal to turn green? why do i hit the gas and push my nose in just enough so that the other guy can't pass and i get to go first? why do i have to fight my way through a traffic jam? can't i extend some courtesy _even_ if others are not reciprocating? do these things really gain me any significant time advantage? 

dude, don't get emotional, get scientific instead. how about doing an experiment?

if you start following all the rules at once you might never reach your destination (e.g. lane discipline, there is simply not enough space on most roads). so i made a list of some rules and niceties to follow while diving. i know the avg. time it takes my commute everyday. so i would measure how much time i lose if i abide by this list:

1. if its working, stop at a red light. yes, even if its very long and boring and there is no policeman around

2. look for the white stop line at every signal. if there is one, stop before that line. if not, enjoy the freedom and revert to your old self :P

3. do not honk at the guy in front of you a split second after the signal turns green. (basically stop showing off your dhoni like reflexes)

4. do not honk if you can see that the obstructing vehicles are trying to un-obstruct, but there is some genuine problem holding them up and do not honk if you can't see what the problem is.

5. honk only when you need to alert someone in order to avert a collision with you. or any other time, if you feel you are not contributing enough to the noise pollution :P

6. slow down when signal turns yellow (contrary to the popular belief that yellow is a signal to stand on your gas pedal and zoom through like a 100 meter sprinter)

7. in a traffic jam, let atleast 2 cars pass, before you surge forward and join the battle to prove your mettle

well it turns out all these things added 2 mins to my commute. that is a trade off i can live with :)

i would suggest you try this out. use this list or make up your own standards. and live up to them. i can assure you it will make your daily commute more interesting and you will be among the very few drivers who look happy at 7pm on nalstop.

if nothing else, the utterly confused look on an irritated driver's face when you smile and let him pass in front of you, will make it worth it :P

india verses forest people

NOTE: No, these are not two new IPL franchises. No, this is not even about a cricket match (damn! i lost most of my readership right there).

Now generally I wouldn't have dared to read an 8 page essay in one of those flashy magazines you only see in a doctor's waiting room. and if the author's name sounded like arundhati roy? i would probably have spent my time staring aimlessly at the mosaic tiles on the floor, than flip through it. but when so many articles are written with the sole intention of bashing the living hell out of it, the urge to read the original piece became irresistible.

surprisingly the facts are not what is disputed in this debate. everyone agrees that the mining lobby started exploiting the locals (tribals), the government (politicians + forest/police department officials) being hand in glove with the mining companies (for obvious reasons) did not do much to stop this exploitation, in fact they aided it. at some point in time the tribals took to violence, and became the maoists/naxalits that we hear of in the news everyday. now whether the maoists/naxalists of today represent the majority of tribal people is obviously debatable. but it is pretty clear that the movement started off from among the people.

if these are really the facts (and correct me if I am wrong) then they are believable. what other reason can there be for a people to rise up in arms against an obviously and significantly powerful adversary? other than the possibility of them having gone stark raving mad, that is.

in a democracy everyone has a right to property. but the thing is, they are sitting on a shit load of minerals, which we want. the problem is, they think they don't need anything we can offer. so here is a strong guy who desperately needs something that a weak guy has and is not ready to part with. you only need to remember high school to know what happens next.

   

a country needs to do whatever it needs to do to maintain law and order throughout its territory. if that means indulging in violence against its own people then as unfortunate as it is, it needs to be done. but lets stop being hypocritical about it. we are _not_ doing any of this (the so called development, getting them into the mainstream, etc.) for the betterment of their lives. we are doing it for our own sakes. they are different and weak. and they are paying the price for that. it is times like these when you really appreciate being in the powerful majority, dont you? :D 

so i do the needful. loathe the AK47 slinging maoist, feel sorry for the war ravaged tribal and immediately cuddle up in the snug feeling of power and invincibility that the Constitution of India with all its armies and police provide me. all the while oblivious to the fact that if tomorrow they find a huge oil reserve under my property, and if the country needs oil, i will have a choice to make. either accept the compensation they give and abandon ship or hold my ground and get run over by a tank :P

some choice that !

I A(m) S(uperior) :P

NOTE: this is a gross generalization based on my very limited interaction with the administrative services in India (specifically the police commissionerate in Pune). take it with a pinch of whatever you like.

The Scene: lok sabha election time. a doctor and a software engineer have gone to the police commissionerate to get permission for an election rally. everyone is looking at them as if they missed an exit and walked into the wrong neighborhood.

मी: अरुण भाटियांच्या rally ची permission काढायला दिली होती. ती तयार झाली का?
कुंजीर साहेब: अरुण भाटिया?
मी: हो
कुंजीर साहेब: चांगला माणूस
मी: (smile)
कुंजीर साहेब: आम्ही register पाटील madam कड़े पाठवलय
मी: त्या कुठे असतात?
कुंजीर साहेब: आतल्या office मधे
मी: मी भेटू का जाउन त्यांना?
कुंजीर साहेब: तुम्हीच बघा काय ते. त्यांच्या मनात असेल तर होईल तुमचं काम आज
मी: (same q. to patil female)
पाटील madam: तुमचं नाव काय?
मी: सिद्धार्थ गोरे
(पाटील madam starts humming गोरे गोरे ओ बाके छोरे..)
मी: (मनातल्या मनात) खतरनाक
पाटील madam: तुमच्या सारखी educated लोकं अशी कामं करतात?
मी: (smile)
पाटील madam: ते permission चं सरपोतदार सरांच्या हातात आहे अता
मी: ते कुठे बसतात?
पाटील madam: cabin मधे. पण बोलावल्या शिवाय जाऊ नका. त्यांना राग येइल.
मी: ते मला का बोलवतील?
पाटील madam: फार प्रश्न विचारता तुम्ही गोरे.
मी: (barging into sarpotdar dude's cabin) rally ची permission तुम्ही देता का तुमचा पण कोणी साहेब आहे, जो सगळं ठरवतो?


our government offices/bureaucracy are not exactly known for their efficiency or customer service (??), so this was to be expected. i always thought that this inefficiency is because govern is welfare based, unlike the corporate world which is merit based (in theory at least :P). i was so wrong.

the problem is not with the people or their merit. people are alright, just like you and me. what is horribly wrong is the environment that they are made to work in. by environment i mean protocols, procedures and systems. the hierarchy is in the air, and its an extremely rigid one. each rung in this ladder hates but fears the one above it and has no mercy/respect when it comes to treating the one below.

i hear such hierarchy exists even in some industries (mechanical i guess) and on assembly lines where humans are used as just hands and legs to perform a repetitive task (which eventually a sophisticated machine can takeover). but a place like police commissionerate or a municipal corporation is as far from an assembly line as it gets. each person walking through that front door has a unique set of problems. mere processes and registers _cannot_ solve these problems efficiently. what it needs is a person with experience, knowledge and authority. kunjir saheb, patil madam et al. had no derth of experience or knowledge. but authority? they just pointed to the guy, one up.

i can understand strict hierarchy on a nuclear submarine. the captain never mixes with his crew, dines separate, sleeps separate, lives separate. this separation is valid, even necessary here because the captain can ask someone in his crew to carry out a task which can potentially endanger his life. to do that task without a seconds hesitation the crew needs to _always_ look up to that post of the captain. would you risk your life because one of your colleague's asks you to, i think not.
but why the hell is, say a municipal commissioner supposed to call a clerk by his first name (even if he is his old man's age) but the clerk has to respond with 'yes Sir'? are millions of lives going to be lost if he treats the clerk with a little more respect?

when the british left this country in 1947, they left behind a system of governance which they had perfected over the last 200 odd yrs to govern a _foreign_ land. the working principle of that system had to be a very strict separation, both physical and psychological, between the ruling (decision making) class and the subordinate staff. how much did we change that system after independence? didn't it occur to our leaders that we need not minor amendments but a total and fundamental overhaul of the entire system?

i guess when the british left, people who took over the administrative services must have said to themselves - dude, we can either dismantle this and create a new, more democratic system or, or we can keep everything exactly the way it is and just slide into all the places where the british used to be. that way _we_ get to rule this country from now on. we just need to keep acting like the british officers and nobody will even notice.

i think they chose option 2 :D

dont blame pakistan..try blaming the washing machine

NOTE: i dont have a solution to the problem of terrorism. if you are looking for something concrete to do, read no further :)

dont blame pakistan...

mostly 'cause it is not a country. just like india is not a country.

pak is looking like it is taken over by extremists (read ISI/Army/JeM/LeT) and india is most definitely taken over by corruption. a nation is some place where the will of the common people is expressed, atleast to a certain measure in the will of the administration. is this true about our two countries? i.e. does the pak govt look serious in its efforts to curb terrorism, and does the indian govt look serious in its efforts to curb corruption? and these are not some fringe issues. they are central to the safety and well being of commoners in both countries.

i would say the US is a country. most of its citizens were against the war in iraq and that has cost its president and his party dearly. there is atleast a hope that the new guy will deliver closer to the peoples expectations.

so if we are not a country then what are we? just a billion people without an identity? what happens to our patriotism. what happens to all those songs and speeches that we were made to recite as kids and are imprinted on our minds? this whole idea of belonging to a "country" 'cause you were born in it, feels much like the caste system. you get your nationality by birth, you are taught that your country is the greatest and that all others are fine but not as great as yours. so when there is a conflict of interests, anything (even killing!) is fair if it is done in the name of your country (replace country with god and you have..viola jihad!).

believing in god and country is great, do it by all means. maybe a long long time ago these institutions were really unadulterated, so people got used to believing them easily. but in todays day and age are priests and politicians the most charitable people around?
problem here is that we outsource our thinking. i dont want to get into the nitty-gritties of issues. i just want a notion which everyone accepts to be sacred so that i can make my peace with the stupid questions (how can we help end terrorism) and merrily focus on the important ones (how will i get a pay hike :P).

we need to move from geographical location based loyalties to value based loyalties. it would mean a paradigm shift in todays political order. and i dont see it coming any time soon, 'cause for that to happen most humans will have to think for themselves :P

gandhiji once said "the only tyrant i accept in this world is the still small voice within me" :)


try blaming the washing machine....

"we accept the reality of the world that we are presented with" - The Truman Show

brainwashing is not very hard. all it takes is a clever and systematic control of information. you take away that control and the machine stops. if we want to stop this hate between india and pakistan and the grass root level, all that needs to be done is let the media in. allow all indian channels private and public to be seen in pakistan and vica-versa. i am sure there will be a lot of propaganda channels too, but who cares? most extremists are that way because they have never seen the other side. you show them that and you give them atleast something to think about.

it is hard to believe that whole of pakistan hates india and visa-versa. sure we are not the best of allies but the khunnas sud be limited to cricket matches and hockey games. i dont think the common man is really very different in the two countries. so when there are blasts in mumbai why do we feel that we should retaliate against pakistan? its because its engraved in our brains that the basic unit for war is a country. and that is the exact wrong assumption on which terrorism thrives. we need to change the unit of war to organizations, not countries.

once pakistanis realize that most hindus are peaceful and do not hate muslims, and indians see that most pakistanis are peaceful too, then we will we able to focus on the real enemy

until then...ignorance will take its toll