I am not sure about the nuclear deal. Well, as per most polls, more than 70% Indians are giving me company. I am BJP's middle class vote-bank and I not ditching them anytime soon (not after I stuck with them even through Gujarat riots).
While there are substantial reasons for my ambivalence, one is sheer loyalty - not to BJP but to Arun Shourie. Arun Shourie, for me, is the leading conservative thinker in India, and one with unquetionable integrity (when was the last time a Ministry was involved in deals worth billions of dollars, and even opposition acknowledged that Minister is clean?). He differs with BJP's public stand on reservations and I agree with him; he differs with BJP's public stand on Ambedkar and I agree with him. So I agree with him more than I agree with BJP. In the case of nuclear deal I was willing to listen to BJP, because he has articulated BJP's line of thought (though Yashwant Sinha's active advocacy of the same line pushes me the other way) - unfortunate but when I don't understand a issue much, I look at the people on either side!
So much for my ambivalence, but I want this deal to happen. I wish those in favour of the deal had more honest arguments. For me an honest argument in favour of the deal is 'Yes, US will not act against their own law - the Hyde Act; while as a sovereign nation we can conduct a nuclear test, all that is gained through this deal will go down the drains if we do so; yes, the agreement does not consider us a Nuclear Weapons State' BUT ' deal or no-deal, we will have to suffer isolation if we conduct a nuclear test; deal or no deal, there is no international agreement now or possible in near future which will acknowledge us to be a nuclear weapons state; and while USA views the 123 Agreement in the light of Hyde Act, we are not bound by it and we will act accordingly, and have accounted for US acting according to Hyde Act'. In a nutshell, this is the best we could have got, and tell us if NDA could have done better? Tell us if these benefits are not worth the costs?
Nick Burns, one of the key architects of the deal, has spoken about many of these issues and he almost endorses every objection that NDA has to the deal . It is difficult for the government, even through legal luminaries like Manu Singhvi, to argue that opposition's objections are against national interest because the person who negotiated the deal on US' behalf has publicly stated that "When this agreement was negotiated, it was fully consistent with the provisions of the Hyde Act. So we have the right to terminate it if India tests." He further adds that," "No aspect of this deal recognises India as a nuclear weapons state." What would the Government have to say about it?
In this context I would reiterate the need for a more honest argument in favour of the deal, which while acknowledging all that Nick Burns says (the 'Cost'), talks about the 'benefits. Currently the government is busy denying that there are any costs - a debate that they are not going to win other than in the Indian Express editorials.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
RBI is a communal and anti-poor organisation!
While most news channels spent a lot of time talking about hike in CRR and repo rates, they ignored an equally important part of RBI announcement. As per RBI, "Early fiscal indicators point to some strains on the Centre's fiscal position which has worsened somewhat in relation to Budget estimates.” It further noted that in view of the growing off-budget liabilities and enhanced expenditures on subsidies, loan waivers and salaries in the rest of the year, fiscal deficit may go up. Consequently, fiscal developments warranted “close and careful monitoring” as it would have implications on inflation and external sector management, the report said.
Now when the Finance Minister announced this 60,000 Crore loan waiver in his budget speech without really budgeting for it, opposition parties were critical of this fudging. Arun Shourie in his piece in The Indian Express, quoted Manmohan Singh's 1991 speech about VP Singh Government's loan waiver, "There is one large component of non-plan expenditure that is a burden on the exchequer... I refer to the Government’s obligation under the Rural Debt Relief Scheme. Unfortunately, there was a gross under-estimation of the total fiscal liability under this scheme which was introduced last year. In addition to the sum of Rs. 1500 crores provided in the revised estimates for last year, we have to provide Rs. 1500 crores in the current year. But this is not all. We may need a similar provision in the next year". Now the Congress government was doing the same thing.
Chidambaram rather than assuring the nation and the parliament about where the money will come from, was stating that 'Trust me' - Shourie called it 'Main Hoon Na' budgeting. Congress spokesmen in debates in TV studios went on offensive proclaiming Congress to be the party of poor and BJP anti-poor, and some debates digressed into routine rants about the 'communal' BJP. No one ever told where would the money come from, and what would be the impact on the economy.
Now that RBI's assessment echoes the same things that the opposition had said about the FM's sleight of hand in budgeting, what would the Congress spokesmen say in a TV debate? 'Communal' and anti-poor' RBI?
Now when the Finance Minister announced this 60,000 Crore loan waiver in his budget speech without really budgeting for it, opposition parties were critical of this fudging. Arun Shourie in his piece in The Indian Express, quoted Manmohan Singh's 1991 speech about VP Singh Government's loan waiver, "There is one large component of non-plan expenditure that is a burden on the exchequer... I refer to the Government’s obligation under the Rural Debt Relief Scheme. Unfortunately, there was a gross under-estimation of the total fiscal liability under this scheme which was introduced last year. In addition to the sum of Rs. 1500 crores provided in the revised estimates for last year, we have to provide Rs. 1500 crores in the current year. But this is not all. We may need a similar provision in the next year". Now the Congress government was doing the same thing.
Chidambaram rather than assuring the nation and the parliament about where the money will come from, was stating that 'Trust me' - Shourie called it 'Main Hoon Na' budgeting. Congress spokesmen in debates in TV studios went on offensive proclaiming Congress to be the party of poor and BJP anti-poor, and some debates digressed into routine rants about the 'communal' BJP. No one ever told where would the money come from, and what would be the impact on the economy.
Now that RBI's assessment echoes the same things that the opposition had said about the FM's sleight of hand in budgeting, what would the Congress spokesmen say in a TV debate? 'Communal' and anti-poor' RBI?
Monday, July 28, 2008
Samajwadi Party's Parliamentary Commerce
There is enough evidence in 'cash-for-vote' scandal to implicate a Samajwadi Party MP in the Rajya Sabha and another in the Lok Sabha. But Samajwadi Party's shameless commercial dealings had started before the trust vote and have continued even after that. CBI's 'go slow' on Mulayam investigations and 'move fast' on Mayawati's investigations is well documented. But the biggest shock was Samajwadi Party's political resolution on Monday, 28th July.
"There are certain provisions in the Hyde Act passed by the US Congress which will create hindrance in going ahead with the nuclear deal. We request the Centre to press the USfor making certain amendments in the Hyde Act before finalising the deal or present a bill in Parliament to make an Act in India also" said the resolution.
Is this not a verbatim endorsement of BJP and NDA's stand on the deal. NDA has supported the strategic partnership with the USA and a Civil Nuclear Cooperation as well, but has expressed concerns about clauses of Hyde Act. Since it was more realistic about chances of US ammeding the Hyde Act (even SP is just playing to the gallery here), they suggested a possible act or ammendment to curent Atomic Energy Act in India to negate the impact of Hyde Act.
Samajwadi Party and, backed by its support, Congress has called NDA all sorts of names. 'Lack of confidence in India's standing', 'frivolous objections to create a roadblock in India's energy security' and many such! Now would Congress say exactly the same charges against Samajwadi Party for having made the same objection and suggested the same remedy? As it turns out it was all about Manmohan Singh saving his chair by winning the trust vote and not about an honest debate on the Nuclear deal - an subject on which, as it turns out, Congress' most numerous and vocal supporters are speaking BJP's language Ctrl+C & Ctrl+v
"There are certain provisions in the Hyde Act passed by the US Congress which will create hindrance in going ahead with the nuclear deal. We request the Centre to press the USfor making certain amendments in the Hyde Act before finalising the deal or present a bill in Parliament to make an Act in India also" said the resolution.
Is this not a verbatim endorsement of BJP and NDA's stand on the deal. NDA has supported the strategic partnership with the USA and a Civil Nuclear Cooperation as well, but has expressed concerns about clauses of Hyde Act. Since it was more realistic about chances of US ammeding the Hyde Act (even SP is just playing to the gallery here), they suggested a possible act or ammendment to curent Atomic Energy Act in India to negate the impact of Hyde Act.
Samajwadi Party and, backed by its support, Congress has called NDA all sorts of names. 'Lack of confidence in India's standing', 'frivolous objections to create a roadblock in India's energy security' and many such! Now would Congress say exactly the same charges against Samajwadi Party for having made the same objection and suggested the same remedy? As it turns out it was all about Manmohan Singh saving his chair by winning the trust vote and not about an honest debate on the Nuclear deal - an subject on which, as it turns out, Congress' most numerous and vocal supporters are speaking BJP's language Ctrl+C & Ctrl+v
Sunday, July 27, 2008
With the benefit of hindsight, should we not hail Advani’s ‘Judgement’?
If Advani had Barack Obama’s marketing machinery at his disposal, he should have used it to tell the country, specially in the light of the recent blasts, how his judgment was superior to everyone else’s. Obama key election plank has been ‘judgement’ that he demonstrated by giving a speech against Iraq war when even most Democrats were for the war – John Kerry and Hillary Clinton included – how he has been proven right.
Mulayam Singh in July,2006, “There have been two major terrorist strikes in Uttar Pradesh ever since we formed the government; and be it Ayodhya or the Varanasi blasts, SIMI was not remotely involved”. His brother went further in defending SIMI saying that even he had been accused of being a SIMI agent! Governor of UP, TV Rajeswar Rao, took a serious note of this statement. Had he been from BJP he would have been branded communal but he happens to be a UPA appointed Governor, who was senior intelligence official who ought to know more about security threats to the country than Mulayam.
Defending a terrorist organization is a criminal offence in many countries in the world. It is so in many states in India. What would you say about a person who has gone on defending a terrorist organization just to garner votes? While Mulayam Singh tried to backtrack, but that would have been possible only if this was his one-off defense of SIMI. But he has been a pro-SIMI activist for a long a time. Milli Gazzette dated Oct. 15, 2001 writes, ‘Other organizations including Jamiatul Ulama, Milli Council and Majlis-e-Mushawarat have also criticized the move. Mulayam Singh Yadav of Samajwadi Party has come forward and criticized the ban on SIMI.’ It further adds, ‘Samajwadi Party’s general secretary and Rajya Sabha MP Azam Khan told MG that the move smacks of political vendetta against the Muslims of the country.’
Secular UPA’s, Minister of State for Home Affairs Sriprakash Jaiswal had this to say in the Lok Sabha in April 2008, “The banned Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) has links with terrorist groups, including Lashker-e-Toiba”. ’ He further added that links have been revealed in investigations into a number of cases.
When SIMI was banned by the NDA government in 2001, Advani and the BJP drew flak from all and sundry. Today with arrest of top SIMI leadership, it nefarious designs have been exposed. Primary investigations into recent blats show that Indian Mujahideen which has claimed responsibility for the Ahmadabad blasts on July 26th, could be SIMI v2.0. It is too much to expect the UPA and its supporting leaders to acknowledge that Advani was right and they were wrong; but at least they would not be so shameless to side with a blatantly anti-national terrorist organization. That they are still in politics is unfortunate and can happen only in India where we forgave those who supported China in the Indo-China war of 1962!
Post Script: If I have desired politics being purged of anti-national, pro-terrorist leaders like Mulayam Singh; let me also make another wish. The biggest achievement of the trust vote on April 22nd was that UPA brilliantly leveraged leaders like Omar Abdullah to demonstrate that what is pro-India cannot be anti-Indian Muslim, and that problems that afflict Muslims of India are the problem that afflict all Indians. This ensured that in spite of earlier attempts the Nuclear Agreement never became a communal issue. The welcome that Omar received even in the Kashmir valley proves that it is an insult to the Muslim voters that being pro-SIMI, exonerating Afzal Guru, siding with Iran come what may, would get their votes. I wish people like Omar (who I think hid behind rhetoric on the land transfer issue, but that was a minor point of his speech) and others like him would do the same in delinking a ruthless anti-terrorist operation from an anti-Muslim operation. It will strengthen those who want to deal with it strongly and weaken those who are playing on those fears. For once even BJP would be grateful to Omar.
Mulayam Singh in July,2006, “There have been two major terrorist strikes in Uttar Pradesh ever since we formed the government; and be it Ayodhya or the Varanasi blasts, SIMI was not remotely involved”. His brother went further in defending SIMI saying that even he had been accused of being a SIMI agent! Governor of UP, TV Rajeswar Rao, took a serious note of this statement. Had he been from BJP he would have been branded communal but he happens to be a UPA appointed Governor, who was senior intelligence official who ought to know more about security threats to the country than Mulayam.
Defending a terrorist organization is a criminal offence in many countries in the world. It is so in many states in India. What would you say about a person who has gone on defending a terrorist organization just to garner votes? While Mulayam Singh tried to backtrack, but that would have been possible only if this was his one-off defense of SIMI. But he has been a pro-SIMI activist for a long a time. Milli Gazzette dated Oct. 15, 2001 writes, ‘Other organizations including Jamiatul Ulama, Milli Council and Majlis-e-Mushawarat have also criticized the move. Mulayam Singh Yadav of Samajwadi Party has come forward and criticized the ban on SIMI.’ It further adds, ‘Samajwadi Party’s general secretary and Rajya Sabha MP Azam Khan told MG that the move smacks of political vendetta against the Muslims of the country.’
Secular UPA’s, Minister of State for Home Affairs Sriprakash Jaiswal had this to say in the Lok Sabha in April 2008, “The banned Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) has links with terrorist groups, including Lashker-e-Toiba”. ’ He further added that links have been revealed in investigations into a number of cases.
When SIMI was banned by the NDA government in 2001, Advani and the BJP drew flak from all and sundry. Today with arrest of top SIMI leadership, it nefarious designs have been exposed. Primary investigations into recent blats show that Indian Mujahideen which has claimed responsibility for the Ahmadabad blasts on July 26th, could be SIMI v2.0. It is too much to expect the UPA and its supporting leaders to acknowledge that Advani was right and they were wrong; but at least they would not be so shameless to side with a blatantly anti-national terrorist organization. That they are still in politics is unfortunate and can happen only in India where we forgave those who supported China in the Indo-China war of 1962!
Post Script: If I have desired politics being purged of anti-national, pro-terrorist leaders like Mulayam Singh; let me also make another wish. The biggest achievement of the trust vote on April 22nd was that UPA brilliantly leveraged leaders like Omar Abdullah to demonstrate that what is pro-India cannot be anti-Indian Muslim, and that problems that afflict Muslims of India are the problem that afflict all Indians. This ensured that in spite of earlier attempts the Nuclear Agreement never became a communal issue. The welcome that Omar received even in the Kashmir valley proves that it is an insult to the Muslim voters that being pro-SIMI, exonerating Afzal Guru, siding with Iran come what may, would get their votes. I wish people like Omar (who I think hid behind rhetoric on the land transfer issue, but that was a minor point of his speech) and others like him would do the same in delinking a ruthless anti-terrorist operation from an anti-Muslim operation. It will strengthen those who want to deal with it strongly and weaken those who are playing on those fears. For once even BJP would be grateful to Omar.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Status of Indian Railways (2) - Tale of Three Train Jurneys
Last month I had the chance to travel by train in India through its length (Bangalore – Nizamuddin by Rajdhani Express) and tiny part of its breadth (Delhi – Haridwar by Mussorrie Express and Haridwar – New Delhi by Shatabdi Express).
Two of these trains, Rajdhani and Shatabdi, are considered Indian Railways’ pride. The Bangalore Rajdhani covered the distance of 2454 kms in 33.5 hours. This is an average speed of 72 kms/hr and even with this comfortable speed required to be on schedule, we arrived 30 minutes late. Food served in the train is ordinary, with the catering company more interested in complying with tender specifications than client taste. So for three consecutive meals you will be served paneer (cottage cheese) curry or chicken curry depending on veg/non-veg choice. On being told that it is due to tender requirement that we have to eat the same curry for three meals, we decided to demand things as per rules. “Why was the ‘juice in tetra-pack’ (even the packaging is specified so that fraudulent caterers have no leeway) not served?” we complained. It was only after we demanded the complaint book that the juice was served. The waiter wasn’t even ashamed of the whole affair that he went around demanding tips with an aggressiveness only seen in some American restaurants. I did not complain about the large hole in my hand-towel as it only helped to distinguish mine from others’. There was no water in the train for a while, and after authorities at Nagpur station expressed inability to supply additional water. It was assumed that people can live without using washroom facilities for next 5 hours till the train reached Bhopal. Or it was assumed that you can use the facilities and leave the mess behind. Fortunately, the train was reasonably clean, thanks not only to bowel control of passengers but also due to cleaning staff in Airtel uniform. Incidentally, this train is Airtel Rajdhani having been painted to look like this mobile service provider’s billboard than India’s pride. Can you imagine a TGV being a Carrefour Train or ICE being a Siemens Train painted across the length of the train reducing the visibility for travelers sitting inside? I make my living in the private sector and hence have some appreciation of market and marketing but this is just shameful – more so when this train is run by an organization which made 25,000 Crore rupees last year.
Our next journey started at Delhi Railway station with an altercation with porters. This is a common feature as official porter rates carry no meaning. Thank God for that as in the same period in which my wages would have tripled in corporate sector, the government rates for porters have remained unchanged. But it also results in unseemly arguments all around as passengers haggle with porters. The train arrived half an hour late even though it originates at Sarai Rohilla, 5 kms away. It beggars belief that a train can fall 30 mins behind schedule covering a 5 km distance. The next morning we arrived about an hour late in Hridwar covering 282 kms in nine and a half hours – traveling at under 30 kms/hr an average speed which might have been acceptable for the first Mumbai –Thane train in 19th century. But that wont stop our Cabinet Minister responsible for Railways bask in adulation at B-Schools for his great management of the Railways.
Our Haridwar – Delhi journey by Shatabdi was a better experience due to very courteous service staff and tasty food. Possibly the only Shatabdi or Rajdhani journey in my life where the meal service was not followed by the service staff aggressively soliciting tips. I am not sure how Railways would manage to differentiate between catering contractors for this Shatabdi from the one for the Bangalore Rajdhani but they certainly need to find a way. But this four and a half hour journey took more than five hours, this time the train averaging 55 kms/hr (just to put this speed in context – Shatabdi’s are short-distance premium service of Indian railways, as Rajdhani’s are for long distance connecting Delhi to State Capitals).
Two fundamental problems are evident – one is Indian Railways being run like personal fiefdoms of successive ministers with sole intention of currying favor with their local constituencies. Much has been written about this issue, but there is a wider question of Public-Private Partnership in areas in which it creates private monopolies. In some of outsourcing decisions about railway services like catering, station up-keep, we lose out on ‘not for profit’ motive of a public utility and also the 'market forces' getting out the best of a private player. Corruption thrives, service quality remains poor, and the minister continues to celebrate his success as the media plays the band!
Two of these trains, Rajdhani and Shatabdi, are considered Indian Railways’ pride. The Bangalore Rajdhani covered the distance of 2454 kms in 33.5 hours. This is an average speed of 72 kms/hr and even with this comfortable speed required to be on schedule, we arrived 30 minutes late. Food served in the train is ordinary, with the catering company more interested in complying with tender specifications than client taste. So for three consecutive meals you will be served paneer (cottage cheese) curry or chicken curry depending on veg/non-veg choice. On being told that it is due to tender requirement that we have to eat the same curry for three meals, we decided to demand things as per rules. “Why was the ‘juice in tetra-pack’ (even the packaging is specified so that fraudulent caterers have no leeway) not served?” we complained. It was only after we demanded the complaint book that the juice was served. The waiter wasn’t even ashamed of the whole affair that he went around demanding tips with an aggressiveness only seen in some American restaurants. I did not complain about the large hole in my hand-towel as it only helped to distinguish mine from others’. There was no water in the train for a while, and after authorities at Nagpur station expressed inability to supply additional water. It was assumed that people can live without using washroom facilities for next 5 hours till the train reached Bhopal. Or it was assumed that you can use the facilities and leave the mess behind. Fortunately, the train was reasonably clean, thanks not only to bowel control of passengers but also due to cleaning staff in Airtel uniform. Incidentally, this train is Airtel Rajdhani having been painted to look like this mobile service provider’s billboard than India’s pride. Can you imagine a TGV being a Carrefour Train or ICE being a Siemens Train painted across the length of the train reducing the visibility for travelers sitting inside? I make my living in the private sector and hence have some appreciation of market and marketing but this is just shameful – more so when this train is run by an organization which made 25,000 Crore rupees last year.
Our next journey started at Delhi Railway station with an altercation with porters. This is a common feature as official porter rates carry no meaning. Thank God for that as in the same period in which my wages would have tripled in corporate sector, the government rates for porters have remained unchanged. But it also results in unseemly arguments all around as passengers haggle with porters. The train arrived half an hour late even though it originates at Sarai Rohilla, 5 kms away. It beggars belief that a train can fall 30 mins behind schedule covering a 5 km distance. The next morning we arrived about an hour late in Hridwar covering 282 kms in nine and a half hours – traveling at under 30 kms/hr an average speed which might have been acceptable for the first Mumbai –Thane train in 19th century. But that wont stop our Cabinet Minister responsible for Railways bask in adulation at B-Schools for his great management of the Railways.
Our Haridwar – Delhi journey by Shatabdi was a better experience due to very courteous service staff and tasty food. Possibly the only Shatabdi or Rajdhani journey in my life where the meal service was not followed by the service staff aggressively soliciting tips. I am not sure how Railways would manage to differentiate between catering contractors for this Shatabdi from the one for the Bangalore Rajdhani but they certainly need to find a way. But this four and a half hour journey took more than five hours, this time the train averaging 55 kms/hr (just to put this speed in context – Shatabdi’s are short-distance premium service of Indian railways, as Rajdhani’s are for long distance connecting Delhi to State Capitals).
Two fundamental problems are evident – one is Indian Railways being run like personal fiefdoms of successive ministers with sole intention of currying favor with their local constituencies. Much has been written about this issue, but there is a wider question of Public-Private Partnership in areas in which it creates private monopolies. In some of outsourcing decisions about railway services like catering, station up-keep, we lose out on ‘not for profit’ motive of a public utility and also the 'market forces' getting out the best of a private player. Corruption thrives, service quality remains poor, and the minister continues to celebrate his success as the media plays the band!
Status of Indian Railways (1) - Calling Lalu's Bluff!
I personally love train journeys – As a resident of Sultanpur in UP who studied in Warangal in Andhra Pradesh and Mumbai in Maharashtra and worked in Bangalore, I have been an Indian Railways’ frequent traveler. It helps that I not only love train journeys but also the food, both inside the trains and on the platforms. Moreover, having travelled by best railways in developed world (Japan, France, Germany), ordinary railways in developed world (US, UK), fast improving railways (Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary) and others (Egypt), I have some benchmarks to evaluate Laloo Yadav’s claim of Indian Railways being amongst the best.
Consider this hypothetical situation - at the Annual General Meeting of a reputed a $ 1000 Million (4000 Crores) publicly listed corporation, the CEO announced that the corporation had made a loss of $250 Million (1000 Crores) but the corporation has done immense public good through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) projects. CSR projects have been unprecedented, appreciated by one and all and the CEO has been felicitated by various social organizations for the company’s efforts. It is not difficult to imagine the fury among the shareholders for the company’s performance, as CSR becomes a mere footnote to the discussions. The CEO would most probably lose his job.
If the CEO of a private enterprise is fired for poor profitability in spite of great public good; should not the leader of public utility be fired for pathetic public service in spite of high profitability? CEOs act would sound preposterous to business commentators for he got his objective completely wrong. Why then has the media joined Lalu Yadav’s bandwagon in tom-tomming 68,000 Crores in reserves when trains are dirty, delays prevalent and basic comforts missing? Think of this statement, “benchmark of net surplus before Dividend makes us
better than most of the Fortune 500 companies in the world” while traveling by a train through Gangetic plains, and you would acknowledge that place of such statements in the context of reality of quality of Railways is trashcan and not B-school case studies. "Sab kah rahe hain hum ne gazab kiya hai. Karodon ka munafa har ek sham diya hai”, (Everyone is saying that I have done wonders. I have delivered millions in profits every evening), he said. The objective of a public utility or a service run by the government is to do maximum public good, while maintaining financial prudence. Would a Health Minister be rewarded for running profitable hospitals, when people are dying of disease? Or Education Minister for running profitable schools when significant part of the population is uneducated?
Traveling by ‘Passenger Trains’ (not as different from ‘Goods Trains’ but slower trains called thus to differentiate from ‘Express Trains) or most trains which ferry seasonal immigrants from Bengal and Bihar to Punjab have conditions which any western observer would consider sub-human. Stand on any platform of Varanasi Railway Station, entry point to what can potentially be India’s leading tourist destination (only city other than Jerusalem which is the leading pilgrimage for two religions – Hinduism and Buddhism) and the filth would tell you the story of all that’s wrong with Indian Railways and tourism.
It was Lalu Yadav’s Railway Budget speech which filled me with rage and prompted this blog-post. I held on awaiting a more objective analysis from the commentators – appreciation of the financial turnaround, credited both to the general economic growth and ability of the managers to leverage that for Indian Railways’ income, along criticism of abysmal service levels at which the Railways operate. This was not to come as ‘Lalu at a B-School’ is too good a TRP boost for any scope for objectivity, and Lalu himself too smart to miss out on the opportunity. It is high time we called Laloo’s bluff, and let him know that frequent visits to business schools have muddled his brain about his primary objective!
Consider this hypothetical situation - at the Annual General Meeting of a reputed a $ 1000 Million (4000 Crores) publicly listed corporation, the CEO announced that the corporation had made a loss of $250 Million (1000 Crores) but the corporation has done immense public good through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) projects. CSR projects have been unprecedented, appreciated by one and all and the CEO has been felicitated by various social organizations for the company’s efforts. It is not difficult to imagine the fury among the shareholders for the company’s performance, as CSR becomes a mere footnote to the discussions. The CEO would most probably lose his job.
If the CEO of a private enterprise is fired for poor profitability in spite of great public good; should not the leader of public utility be fired for pathetic public service in spite of high profitability? CEOs act would sound preposterous to business commentators for he got his objective completely wrong. Why then has the media joined Lalu Yadav’s bandwagon in tom-tomming 68,000 Crores in reserves when trains are dirty, delays prevalent and basic comforts missing? Think of this statement, “benchmark of net surplus before Dividend makes us
better than most of the Fortune 500 companies in the world” while traveling by a train through Gangetic plains, and you would acknowledge that place of such statements in the context of reality of quality of Railways is trashcan and not B-school case studies. "Sab kah rahe hain hum ne gazab kiya hai. Karodon ka munafa har ek sham diya hai”, (Everyone is saying that I have done wonders. I have delivered millions in profits every evening), he said. The objective of a public utility or a service run by the government is to do maximum public good, while maintaining financial prudence. Would a Health Minister be rewarded for running profitable hospitals, when people are dying of disease? Or Education Minister for running profitable schools when significant part of the population is uneducated?
Traveling by ‘Passenger Trains’ (not as different from ‘Goods Trains’ but slower trains called thus to differentiate from ‘Express Trains) or most trains which ferry seasonal immigrants from Bengal and Bihar to Punjab have conditions which any western observer would consider sub-human. Stand on any platform of Varanasi Railway Station, entry point to what can potentially be India’s leading tourist destination (only city other than Jerusalem which is the leading pilgrimage for two religions – Hinduism and Buddhism) and the filth would tell you the story of all that’s wrong with Indian Railways and tourism.
It was Lalu Yadav’s Railway Budget speech which filled me with rage and prompted this blog-post. I held on awaiting a more objective analysis from the commentators – appreciation of the financial turnaround, credited both to the general economic growth and ability of the managers to leverage that for Indian Railways’ income, along criticism of abysmal service levels at which the Railways operate. This was not to come as ‘Lalu at a B-School’ is too good a TRP boost for any scope for objectivity, and Lalu himself too smart to miss out on the opportunity. It is high time we called Laloo’s bluff, and let him know that frequent visits to business schools have muddled his brain about his primary objective!
Saturday, July 5, 2008
The Idea of Europe
Over last couple of months, I had an opportunity to meet two leaders – one a right wing former Presidential candidate in Poland (right wing in the true sense that he supports free trade, lower taxes, reduced role of Government to the extent that you do not know who your President is, along with conservative views on social and religious issues) and another a left-of-center Member of European Parliament who has an important position on its Foreign Affairs Committee. Since these were ‘closed to Press’ private gatherings, I would not identify them, but I thought it was worth mentioning some eye-opening perspectives on the ‘idea of Europe’
The first challenge is deciding whether Europe is a geographical, political or a cultural concept. If it is a geographical entity then what are its boundaries? If Ural Mountains and Ural River define its eastern boundaries, then would the political Europe (EU) accept Kazakhstan as part of Europe? If Caucasus defines its southern boundary between Caspian Sea and Black Sea, the why is Mount Elbrus (5,621 m) not the highest mountain but the Mont Blanc (4,810 m) as most books say? (It took me 15 precious years to figure out why Kanchenjunga was called the highest Indian mountain peak, when on all maps K2 was shown to be higher – so disputed political boundaries have cost many a student precious marks in Geography examinations for decades!). So both eastern and southern geographical boundaries are disputed, and hence geography does not provide an answer.
Then is Europe a political entity? Or should it be a political entity? Conservative politicians in many European countries would prefer Europe to be a free trade bloc, with their nation states being sovereign entities with no decision making devolved to Brussels. This in essence means Europe should not envision being a political entity - with no desire of a common domestic policy (abortion allowed in liberal France and Netherlands, but abhorred in Poland; welfare state bordering socialism in France but a different structure in post-Thatcher Britain; strong stand of Czech President against stiff European targets regarding climate change etc.) or a common foreign policy (pro-America/pro-Iraq war policy of Britain and anti-war stance of France and Germany). But why should a free trade bloc be restricted to contiguous geographies? It may as well include any other country in Africa or Asia or Latin America whose participation in this trade bloc makes economic sense. But then this will defeat the whole idea of Europe. Thus, Europe just as free trade bloc without a common political character, however low the denominator might be, would not be considered a power along the lines of US, Russia and China, or emerging powers like India.
But even if Europe were to have some political identity, would this identity survive without a military might to defend it? An issue that came up during the discussions was that in case of a threat will anyone in Europe be as willing to die for ‘Europe’ as they would be for Germany or France or Britain or Poland or Italy? This is well articulated rhetorical question by opponents of political Europe, as everyone finds the idea of ‘dying for Europe’ almost laughable! It is argued that NATO will defend Europe, but what if Finland, which is not a member of NATO, is attacked?
And then the most debated issue of all – Turkey! A very pertinent point made was that desire for Turkey not being in EU is Europe’s acknowledgement of Turkey being a secular progressive state. With the status quo, EU has boundaries with a state which shares some of the western ideas (secularism, democracy), in spite of being different (Muslim-majority). If Turkey were to be a part of EU, then EU will have boundaries with Iran, Iraq and Syria – a foreign policy and security challenge that no European policy maker even comprehends. So many European liberals who consider Turkey to be more like them (Europeans), and conservatives who consider Turkey to be an alien culture – both see benefits in Turkey not being a part of EU.
So many perspectives, but no prescriptions for what Europe is or ought to be!
The first challenge is deciding whether Europe is a geographical, political or a cultural concept. If it is a geographical entity then what are its boundaries? If Ural Mountains and Ural River define its eastern boundaries, then would the political Europe (EU) accept Kazakhstan as part of Europe? If Caucasus defines its southern boundary between Caspian Sea and Black Sea, the why is Mount Elbrus (5,621 m) not the highest mountain but the Mont Blanc (4,810 m) as most books say? (It took me 15 precious years to figure out why Kanchenjunga was called the highest Indian mountain peak, when on all maps K2 was shown to be higher – so disputed political boundaries have cost many a student precious marks in Geography examinations for decades!). So both eastern and southern geographical boundaries are disputed, and hence geography does not provide an answer.
Then is Europe a political entity? Or should it be a political entity? Conservative politicians in many European countries would prefer Europe to be a free trade bloc, with their nation states being sovereign entities with no decision making devolved to Brussels. This in essence means Europe should not envision being a political entity - with no desire of a common domestic policy (abortion allowed in liberal France and Netherlands, but abhorred in Poland; welfare state bordering socialism in France but a different structure in post-Thatcher Britain; strong stand of Czech President against stiff European targets regarding climate change etc.) or a common foreign policy (pro-America/pro-Iraq war policy of Britain and anti-war stance of France and Germany). But why should a free trade bloc be restricted to contiguous geographies? It may as well include any other country in Africa or Asia or Latin America whose participation in this trade bloc makes economic sense. But then this will defeat the whole idea of Europe. Thus, Europe just as free trade bloc without a common political character, however low the denominator might be, would not be considered a power along the lines of US, Russia and China, or emerging powers like India.
But even if Europe were to have some political identity, would this identity survive without a military might to defend it? An issue that came up during the discussions was that in case of a threat will anyone in Europe be as willing to die for ‘Europe’ as they would be for Germany or France or Britain or Poland or Italy? This is well articulated rhetorical question by opponents of political Europe, as everyone finds the idea of ‘dying for Europe’ almost laughable! It is argued that NATO will defend Europe, but what if Finland, which is not a member of NATO, is attacked?
And then the most debated issue of all – Turkey! A very pertinent point made was that desire for Turkey not being in EU is Europe’s acknowledgement of Turkey being a secular progressive state. With the status quo, EU has boundaries with a state which shares some of the western ideas (secularism, democracy), in spite of being different (Muslim-majority). If Turkey were to be a part of EU, then EU will have boundaries with Iran, Iraq and Syria – a foreign policy and security challenge that no European policy maker even comprehends. So many European liberals who consider Turkey to be more like them (Europeans), and conservatives who consider Turkey to be an alien culture – both see benefits in Turkey not being a part of EU.
So many perspectives, but no prescriptions for what Europe is or ought to be!
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
How Right is Obama…about BJP in UP
"..I think it's fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government…..And they fell through the BJP (Clinton) administration, and the Mulayam Singh (Bush) administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to caste (guns) or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-Brahmin (anti-immigrant) sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
This is from Barrack Obama’s speech at a fund-raiser in San Fancisco. The words in parentheses are the original words of Obama which I have replaced with words that reflect the reality of UP. In the 36 years since 1972, Democratic party has been in power (President’s post) for only 12 years. It is lucky that there is a two party system in the US, and with the Iraq war and looming recession it may win the November election. There won’t be any such luck for BJP (or for that matter Congress) in UP, which is far the largest state of Indian union (no other state has even 50 Lok Sabha seats compared to the 80 from UP). And Obama’s statement above explains much of the reason for BJP’s plight in UP. Being more right of center than left, I am more worried about BJP’s fortunes than Congress, so the BJP perspective here.
Many in BJP presumably feel, after being stung by 2004 defeat, that ‘governance’ or ‘development’ does not make good policy and hence activist Hinduism (and I use it here to mean all the negatives of this movement which has many positives as well – but that’s a topic for another blogpost) is important to create a core votebank. This is where BJP needs to look at UP and listen to Obama. All this ‘core votebank’ has slipped away in UP to the extent that only one of the 5 party candidates who saved his deposit in recent bypolls is a history-sheeter who defected on the eve of the election. The Hindu votebank did not exist as it has not existed in most elections in UP during this decade.
People vote based on caste or religion when they lose faith in Government – this becomes identity politics. BJP benefited by the affirmation of religious identity in 1990s is now being hurt by the reaffirmation of caste identity. The people cannot be blamed when they did not see the neighboring primary school get teachers or District hospital provide the promised free healthcare or new jobs created. So development becomes a non-issue. As does corruption, when BJP politicians are also not seen to be any different.
So what can BJP do then to make development an issue? First get its Obama in UP. A person with charisma to make people believe that there is ‘hope’ for their fortunes to ‘change’ – it isn’t for no reason that his campaign has been called a campaign in poetry rather than prose. Before you say ‘but this isn’t America’, let me remind you that VP Singh made people ‘hope’ that there will ‘change’ in corruption in government, at a time when all of us had accepted corruption to be integral to the system. So it can happen – it requires a mascot (Obama) to carry the message (Hope and Change).
Second, to fight skepticism and create a platform for this mascot to work from, they need to leverage their peer-less grassroots cadre to provide glimpses of what is possible. Fight for the teacher appointed to the primary school to come to the school – village level workers can do it. Attempt something similar with Primary Health Centers. Once on a visit with my son to a private Clinic of a Government pediatrician in my hometown of Sultanpur, I found that most people whose daily wage would by no means be more than Rs. 50 were paying that amount to the doctor for consultation. Is that a very difficult situation for a grassroots organization to redress by creating some kind of vigilance mechanism at hospitals? Ensure that mid-day meals are provided to all children – here the starting point is zero, so anything will be an improvement - Ananth Kumar and his wife’s work in Bangalore is an amazing success story for other BJP district units to learn from (about mid-day meals as public service and way to connect with people).
To some it may sound Utopian, but achieving 5-10% success in two or three such initiatives may not be impossible. In any case it is a more achievable Utopia than BJP winning next elections in UP by working out caste combinations right in the state. A party in as hopeless a state as BJP in UP can only attempt something so unlikely. Barack Obama, ‘the black guy with a name rhyming with Osama’ had no chance of competing with the Clintons had he not campaigned for ‘Hope’ and ‘Change’. He may not even realize that only hope for a right-wing party in a BIMARU state in India, is to emulate him!
This is from Barrack Obama’s speech at a fund-raiser in San Fancisco. The words in parentheses are the original words of Obama which I have replaced with words that reflect the reality of UP. In the 36 years since 1972, Democratic party has been in power (President’s post) for only 12 years. It is lucky that there is a two party system in the US, and with the Iraq war and looming recession it may win the November election. There won’t be any such luck for BJP (or for that matter Congress) in UP, which is far the largest state of Indian union (no other state has even 50 Lok Sabha seats compared to the 80 from UP). And Obama’s statement above explains much of the reason for BJP’s plight in UP. Being more right of center than left, I am more worried about BJP’s fortunes than Congress, so the BJP perspective here.
Many in BJP presumably feel, after being stung by 2004 defeat, that ‘governance’ or ‘development’ does not make good policy and hence activist Hinduism (and I use it here to mean all the negatives of this movement which has many positives as well – but that’s a topic for another blogpost) is important to create a core votebank. This is where BJP needs to look at UP and listen to Obama. All this ‘core votebank’ has slipped away in UP to the extent that only one of the 5 party candidates who saved his deposit in recent bypolls is a history-sheeter who defected on the eve of the election. The Hindu votebank did not exist as it has not existed in most elections in UP during this decade.
People vote based on caste or religion when they lose faith in Government – this becomes identity politics. BJP benefited by the affirmation of religious identity in 1990s is now being hurt by the reaffirmation of caste identity. The people cannot be blamed when they did not see the neighboring primary school get teachers or District hospital provide the promised free healthcare or new jobs created. So development becomes a non-issue. As does corruption, when BJP politicians are also not seen to be any different.
So what can BJP do then to make development an issue? First get its Obama in UP. A person with charisma to make people believe that there is ‘hope’ for their fortunes to ‘change’ – it isn’t for no reason that his campaign has been called a campaign in poetry rather than prose. Before you say ‘but this isn’t America’, let me remind you that VP Singh made people ‘hope’ that there will ‘change’ in corruption in government, at a time when all of us had accepted corruption to be integral to the system. So it can happen – it requires a mascot (Obama) to carry the message (Hope and Change).
Second, to fight skepticism and create a platform for this mascot to work from, they need to leverage their peer-less grassroots cadre to provide glimpses of what is possible. Fight for the teacher appointed to the primary school to come to the school – village level workers can do it. Attempt something similar with Primary Health Centers. Once on a visit with my son to a private Clinic of a Government pediatrician in my hometown of Sultanpur, I found that most people whose daily wage would by no means be more than Rs. 50 were paying that amount to the doctor for consultation. Is that a very difficult situation for a grassroots organization to redress by creating some kind of vigilance mechanism at hospitals? Ensure that mid-day meals are provided to all children – here the starting point is zero, so anything will be an improvement - Ananth Kumar and his wife’s work in Bangalore is an amazing success story for other BJP district units to learn from (about mid-day meals as public service and way to connect with people).
To some it may sound Utopian, but achieving 5-10% success in two or three such initiatives may not be impossible. In any case it is a more achievable Utopia than BJP winning next elections in UP by working out caste combinations right in the state. A party in as hopeless a state as BJP in UP can only attempt something so unlikely. Barack Obama, ‘the black guy with a name rhyming with Osama’ had no chance of competing with the Clintons had he not campaigned for ‘Hope’ and ‘Change’. He may not even realize that only hope for a right-wing party in a BIMARU state in India, is to emulate him!
Monday, April 21, 2008
Freedom of Expression – Does it have limits depending on context? (2)
Part (2) of the Post. Part 1 Covers the issue freedom of expression restricted due to religious intolerance
It is my belief that in India intolerance of political expression is a bigger problem than anything which hurts religious sentiments. This also undermines the role of the media and weakens the democratic set-up. As I mentioned in the part (1) of this post, we have lived with what is written about Lord Ram in Kanchi. Arun Shourie’s commentaries about Islam and prophet (which include references to the age of his wives at marriage and consummation) have also survived. It can be argued, though, that many people do not even know about it. Then politicians should be credited for not having used these to create a wedge.
But compare this political intolerance in the two instances I have listed earlier:
1. Forced closure of Francois Gautier’s exhibition on Aurangzeb at Lalit Kala Academi, Chennai, supposedly most civilized of Indian metros
2. Dismissal of MJ Akbar as the Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper he founded a few months after it merged with Deccan Chronicle, by its new proprietors arguably seeking Rajya Sabha seat from the Congress
The exhibition on Aurangzeb was based on facts, albeit a parochial view of facts. The intervention was by the government was not based on a public outcry but based on political expediency. DMK government was pandering to a influential supporter (Nawab of Arcot) and a votebank (muslims). Same attitude was evident when the UPA government at the center blamed the Ram Sethu affidavit by ASI on a official making it almost sound like a clerical error. It failed to stand by the affidavit which is based at least on partial evidence. This also happened when UPA felt the heat from the BJP, was afraid of being branded anti-hindu. Both these instances have nothing to do with religion but with politics. Moral of the story being that you can say anything about any religion, hurt anyone’s sentiments but the government would act only if it has electoral implications. So within the same state, no freedom of expression if it is politically convenient (Francois Gautier exhibition) and unlimited freedom with use of whatever language if it is politically convenient (Periyar statue). Intellectual dishonesty on these issues makes it even easier for the Government’s because even a layman like me knows whose freedom Praful Bidwai and Arundhati Roy will fight for (Hussain), and whose freedom BJP idealogues will fight for (Taslima Nasreen). So it leaves us with intellectuals with political agendas, but none with ‘responsible freedom of expression’ as their agenda.
This political intolerance becomes worse in more political matters. MJ Akbar’s dismissal is a case in point. It seems the UPA government was unhappy with his newspaper’s consistent stand against the government on foreign and economic policy. And Deccan Chronicle owner, Mr. Reddy’s attempts to get a Congress Rajya Sabha ticket was being hampered. So the solution was to fire the founder-editor (of Asian Age which merged with Deccan Chronicle). Counter-allegation include MJ Akbar’s attempt to get NDA backing for a Bihar Rajya Sabha seat. Even if this is true, it is immaterial. As is the fact that MJ Akbar participated in a UNPA rally a couple of days back or was Congress MP two decades back. Everyone, including all the editors, have political viewpoints – some are explicit about it others are not. This is not simply a termination of an employment contract as it is a blatantly political act of intolerance of a viewpoint. In a hypothetical situation, if we had BJP government and The Hindu had new owners who decided to fire N Ram for being left leaning, would it not amount muzzling a viewpoint? This happened during emergency and was considered an aberration. It happened with Tehelka, and we forgot about it. It has happened with another newspaper and media has not even raised the issue. Don’t LK Advani’s words about media during emergency ‘began to crawl when they were only asked to bend’ ring true at a time when no such draconian law is in place.
The situation is even worse towns and villages. The local reporters have turned into PR Agencies forwarding to their bureau’s what was dictated to them. Only the really pugnacious one’s are able to risk their lives to publish any news against powerful local politicians. Many have been bought over, in some cases in an institutional way e.g. Patrakarpuram (Journalists Colony) in Lucknow is one such exercise. This is the reason that no issues related to corruption are being fought at a local level, and only cases getting reported these days is when national media runs a ‘sting’. This is making grassroots democracy effete, when vigilance at village, tehsil and district level would have saved so much grief for so many including the Government. UPA’s guarantee card to poll success, its Employment Guarantee Scheme has failed due to corruption and Prime Minister is calling for strengthening an independent audit mechanism. Wasn’t media supposed to play this role at the local level?
Media’s reasons, though unfortunate, are understandable. With lessons from Emergency and Tehelka, they want to play safe. With the objective of ‘maximizing shareholder value’, it is not surprising that public good is compromised. That is the nature of the beast. But political parties have no compulsions – positive media coverage may boost a politician’s ego but doesn’t change electoral fortunes. Had the case been otherwise, Mayawati would not have won in UP or NDA would not have lost in 2004. The evidence from other democracies is also in line. Except for Fox News, every single news channel in the US is left leaning, but all the media together could not prevent George Bush from reelection. So the politicians have an easier solution – let media have a free run. The media, meanwhile, considering political and business reality will have to find an answer to a tougher question – how to run free?
To appreciate what freedom of political expression means, and how a politician, however powerful, needs to grin and bear an uncomfortable commentary, watch this video
Steven Colbert at White House Correspondent’s Dinner
It is my belief that in India intolerance of political expression is a bigger problem than anything which hurts religious sentiments. This also undermines the role of the media and weakens the democratic set-up. As I mentioned in the part (1) of this post, we have lived with what is written about Lord Ram in Kanchi. Arun Shourie’s commentaries about Islam and prophet (which include references to the age of his wives at marriage and consummation) have also survived. It can be argued, though, that many people do not even know about it. Then politicians should be credited for not having used these to create a wedge.
But compare this political intolerance in the two instances I have listed earlier:
1. Forced closure of Francois Gautier’s exhibition on Aurangzeb at Lalit Kala Academi, Chennai, supposedly most civilized of Indian metros
2. Dismissal of MJ Akbar as the Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper he founded a few months after it merged with Deccan Chronicle, by its new proprietors arguably seeking Rajya Sabha seat from the Congress
The exhibition on Aurangzeb was based on facts, albeit a parochial view of facts. The intervention was by the government was not based on a public outcry but based on political expediency. DMK government was pandering to a influential supporter (Nawab of Arcot) and a votebank (muslims). Same attitude was evident when the UPA government at the center blamed the Ram Sethu affidavit by ASI on a official making it almost sound like a clerical error. It failed to stand by the affidavit which is based at least on partial evidence. This also happened when UPA felt the heat from the BJP, was afraid of being branded anti-hindu. Both these instances have nothing to do with religion but with politics. Moral of the story being that you can say anything about any religion, hurt anyone’s sentiments but the government would act only if it has electoral implications. So within the same state, no freedom of expression if it is politically convenient (Francois Gautier exhibition) and unlimited freedom with use of whatever language if it is politically convenient (Periyar statue). Intellectual dishonesty on these issues makes it even easier for the Government’s because even a layman like me knows whose freedom Praful Bidwai and Arundhati Roy will fight for (Hussain), and whose freedom BJP idealogues will fight for (Taslima Nasreen). So it leaves us with intellectuals with political agendas, but none with ‘responsible freedom of expression’ as their agenda.
This political intolerance becomes worse in more political matters. MJ Akbar’s dismissal is a case in point. It seems the UPA government was unhappy with his newspaper’s consistent stand against the government on foreign and economic policy. And Deccan Chronicle owner, Mr. Reddy’s attempts to get a Congress Rajya Sabha ticket was being hampered. So the solution was to fire the founder-editor (of Asian Age which merged with Deccan Chronicle). Counter-allegation include MJ Akbar’s attempt to get NDA backing for a Bihar Rajya Sabha seat. Even if this is true, it is immaterial. As is the fact that MJ Akbar participated in a UNPA rally a couple of days back or was Congress MP two decades back. Everyone, including all the editors, have political viewpoints – some are explicit about it others are not. This is not simply a termination of an employment contract as it is a blatantly political act of intolerance of a viewpoint. In a hypothetical situation, if we had BJP government and The Hindu had new owners who decided to fire N Ram for being left leaning, would it not amount muzzling a viewpoint? This happened during emergency and was considered an aberration. It happened with Tehelka, and we forgot about it. It has happened with another newspaper and media has not even raised the issue. Don’t LK Advani’s words about media during emergency ‘began to crawl when they were only asked to bend’ ring true at a time when no such draconian law is in place.
The situation is even worse towns and villages. The local reporters have turned into PR Agencies forwarding to their bureau’s what was dictated to them. Only the really pugnacious one’s are able to risk their lives to publish any news against powerful local politicians. Many have been bought over, in some cases in an institutional way e.g. Patrakarpuram (Journalists Colony) in Lucknow is one such exercise. This is the reason that no issues related to corruption are being fought at a local level, and only cases getting reported these days is when national media runs a ‘sting’. This is making grassroots democracy effete, when vigilance at village, tehsil and district level would have saved so much grief for so many including the Government. UPA’s guarantee card to poll success, its Employment Guarantee Scheme has failed due to corruption and Prime Minister is calling for strengthening an independent audit mechanism. Wasn’t media supposed to play this role at the local level?
Media’s reasons, though unfortunate, are understandable. With lessons from Emergency and Tehelka, they want to play safe. With the objective of ‘maximizing shareholder value’, it is not surprising that public good is compromised. That is the nature of the beast. But political parties have no compulsions – positive media coverage may boost a politician’s ego but doesn’t change electoral fortunes. Had the case been otherwise, Mayawati would not have won in UP or NDA would not have lost in 2004. The evidence from other democracies is also in line. Except for Fox News, every single news channel in the US is left leaning, but all the media together could not prevent George Bush from reelection. So the politicians have an easier solution – let media have a free run. The media, meanwhile, considering political and business reality will have to find an answer to a tougher question – how to run free?
To appreciate what freedom of political expression means, and how a politician, however powerful, needs to grin and bear an uncomfortable commentary, watch this video
Steven Colbert at White House Correspondent’s Dinner
Freedom of Expression – Does it have limits depending on the context? (1)
Two incidents happened recently which, while central to the argument about freedom of expression, did not manage to make headlines or initiate a necessary debate about Freedom of Expression:
1. Forced closure of Francois Gautier’s exhibition on Aurangzeb at Lalit Kala Academi, Chennai, supposedly most civilized of Indian metros
2. Dismissal of MJ Akbar as the Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper he founded a few months after it merged with Deccan Chronicle, by its new proprietors arguably seeking Rajya Sabha seat from the Congress
Compare these with the hue and cry over Prophet Mohammad’s cartoons by Danish Cartoonist and MF Hussain’s self-imposed exile in relation of his painting Hindu Goddesses in the nude. If debate about freedom of expression takes place when public property is damaged and hooligans take charge then mainstream media and intellectuals are certainly abdicating responsibility. Is is also because some expressions should be defended but others not? Who decides that? On what basis? Does media respond only to controversies as it is linked to TRPs and political expressions (Aurangzeb exhibition and MJ Akbar issue) are not as controversial as those about religion/religious symbols?
Prima facie it appears important to separate the political and religious issues related to freedom of expression. While both are interlinked many a times, towards seeking some of these answers I would prefer to deconstruct and separate the two.
First the expressions linked to religious issues/symbols. Let me hypothesize. It is a rudimentary argument, and will never achieve consensus but may lead to a healthy debate. I believe that ‘freedom of expression’ cannot be a right without limits. There would some expressions which would test these limits. In such cases a cost-benefit analysis, not of money but of individual and social good, should determine which side of the boundary that expression falls. What would this cost-benefit analysis be? Let me try some such issues.
Anything which is a scientific or historical fact or viewpoint, howsoever arguable, is within limits even if it causes public disturbance (cost), because it would stall the process of learning and evolution (benefit). Copernicus’ contention about revolution of earth around the sun falls in this category. So is the recent debate in India about Lord Ram being a historical figure or mythological character. In both these cases the side being accused of hurting sentiments (and by extension creating unrest (cost)), have some scientific evidence to stand on. You can argue with them but not shut them up. For me Bill Maher’s (liberal commentator and host of Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO) repeated expression of Old Testament being a book Jewish folk tales would fall in this category as well. Thankfully, even in the Bible-belt of the US, he has not received death threats, yet! In all such cases, it is the duty of the state to protect the ‘right to freedom of expression’. If such expressions are muzzled, our future generations would not know better than we do – as we know better than our ancestors about so many things in the world.
So what about paintings by Hussain and Prophet’s cartoons? What public good do they serve? What scientific evidence are they based on? Fine, a painting is not a science but a piece of art. What does it endeavor to achieve (benefit) that the cost (compromising peace and harmony) should be accepted? Why should it endeavor to achieve anything at all? Ideally there should be tolerance of such expressions as well, and that is what should be propagated and hoped for in the long-term. But in the short-term state should not be held responsible to protect the right of such an expression, ignoring the costs. Intellectuals can debate and probably that is only way a climate of greater tolerance would be created. You can create a caricature of Christ in many western European countries and it will not create any unrest. Bill Maher himself pokes fun at Christ and still continues to host a popular TV show.
There are some expressions that I am more ambivalent about. Expressions on the base of a Periyar statue in Kanchipuram which are insulting towards Lord Ram, are one such example. The phrases used are in bad taste and if you were to say same thing about the Prophet it woukd certainly invite a death warrant! But it is expression of anger as part of a movement against Brahminical hegemony which brought about a social change in Tamil Nadu. Cost-benefit? I throw my hands up. I have no idea!
1. Forced closure of Francois Gautier’s exhibition on Aurangzeb at Lalit Kala Academi, Chennai, supposedly most civilized of Indian metros
2. Dismissal of MJ Akbar as the Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper he founded a few months after it merged with Deccan Chronicle, by its new proprietors arguably seeking Rajya Sabha seat from the Congress
Compare these with the hue and cry over Prophet Mohammad’s cartoons by Danish Cartoonist and MF Hussain’s self-imposed exile in relation of his painting Hindu Goddesses in the nude. If debate about freedom of expression takes place when public property is damaged and hooligans take charge then mainstream media and intellectuals are certainly abdicating responsibility. Is is also because some expressions should be defended but others not? Who decides that? On what basis? Does media respond only to controversies as it is linked to TRPs and political expressions (Aurangzeb exhibition and MJ Akbar issue) are not as controversial as those about religion/religious symbols?
Prima facie it appears important to separate the political and religious issues related to freedom of expression. While both are interlinked many a times, towards seeking some of these answers I would prefer to deconstruct and separate the two.
First the expressions linked to religious issues/symbols. Let me hypothesize. It is a rudimentary argument, and will never achieve consensus but may lead to a healthy debate. I believe that ‘freedom of expression’ cannot be a right without limits. There would some expressions which would test these limits. In such cases a cost-benefit analysis, not of money but of individual and social good, should determine which side of the boundary that expression falls. What would this cost-benefit analysis be? Let me try some such issues.
Anything which is a scientific or historical fact or viewpoint, howsoever arguable, is within limits even if it causes public disturbance (cost), because it would stall the process of learning and evolution (benefit). Copernicus’ contention about revolution of earth around the sun falls in this category. So is the recent debate in India about Lord Ram being a historical figure or mythological character. In both these cases the side being accused of hurting sentiments (and by extension creating unrest (cost)), have some scientific evidence to stand on. You can argue with them but not shut them up. For me Bill Maher’s (liberal commentator and host of Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO) repeated expression of Old Testament being a book Jewish folk tales would fall in this category as well. Thankfully, even in the Bible-belt of the US, he has not received death threats, yet! In all such cases, it is the duty of the state to protect the ‘right to freedom of expression’. If such expressions are muzzled, our future generations would not know better than we do – as we know better than our ancestors about so many things in the world.
So what about paintings by Hussain and Prophet’s cartoons? What public good do they serve? What scientific evidence are they based on? Fine, a painting is not a science but a piece of art. What does it endeavor to achieve (benefit) that the cost (compromising peace and harmony) should be accepted? Why should it endeavor to achieve anything at all? Ideally there should be tolerance of such expressions as well, and that is what should be propagated and hoped for in the long-term. But in the short-term state should not be held responsible to protect the right of such an expression, ignoring the costs. Intellectuals can debate and probably that is only way a climate of greater tolerance would be created. You can create a caricature of Christ in many western European countries and it will not create any unrest. Bill Maher himself pokes fun at Christ and still continues to host a popular TV show.
There are some expressions that I am more ambivalent about. Expressions on the base of a Periyar statue in Kanchipuram which are insulting towards Lord Ram, are one such example. The phrases used are in bad taste and if you were to say same thing about the Prophet it woukd certainly invite a death warrant! But it is expression of anger as part of a movement against Brahminical hegemony which brought about a social change in Tamil Nadu. Cost-benefit? I throw my hands up. I have no idea!
Monday, January 7, 2008
Harbhajan guilty of racial abuse – Ignorance raises the temperature
1. Did Harbhajan call, Andrew Symonds a ‘monkey’ at Sydney?
2. Did Harbhajan call Andrew Symonds a ‘monkey’ at Mumbai and thereafter apologize?
3. Was it clarified to the Indian team the word ‘monkey’ would be considered a racial abuse?
4. Is Harbhajan guilty of racist abuse?
5. Is the punishment meted out to Harbhajan justified?
Too many questions and as many passionate answers on the web. But are there enough voices of sanity? Questions 1, 2 and 3 are questions of fact and there cannot be a debate about them. Now if I take the Ricky Ponting’s version on these facts, then Harbhajan is guilty of ‘using a phrase the second time after he was told that the specific phrase is offensive in nature, moreso when directed at Andrew Symonds’. This is boorish behaviour and has no place on the field of cricket. Hence, IF the facts mentioned by Ricky Ponting are right, then the punishment is justified.
Boorish behavior on cricket field by likes of Harbhajan and Sreesanth, and Andre Nel, and many in this Australian team should not be tolerated and it should be dealt with strongly and on that ground Harbhajan has no defense. Slater should have been banned for his altercation with Dravid and so should Mcgrath for taking matters too far with Sarwan. ‘Sledging is part of cricket’ is non-sense which if a necessary trait would have made Kapil Dev and Sachin Tendulkar and Curtly Ambrose and Courtney Walsh and Adam Gilchrist refreshment peddlers in the stands rather than stalwarts on the ground.Yes, it is important to have characters on the ground as it is important to have them in the society, but we dont tolerate miscreants in the society for this reason, do we?
Now that we have set aside the issue of Harbhajan’s behaviour and the punishment, we can focus on (4), which in my view is far more complex. I believe there is substance in the argument that Indians do not understand racism or its symbols as it is appreciated in the west. Not until I started following European football and all the related issues and gossip, did I know about ‘monkey chants’ and their racial connotation. My wife has traveled all over the world, and has lived in Europe, and till last evening she did not know that calling someone a ‘monkey’ would be considered a racial abuse – in India we have a ‘Monkey God’ who is worshipped everywhere and many temples are havens for monkeys who are lovingly fed by devotees! You can jump to call her ignorant, but so would I term more than half a trillion people in the world who wouldn’t know that calling someone ‘Chamaar’ is casteist which can land you in jail in India under a non-bailable offence. India hasn’t been witness to ‘racism’ as the west hasn’t known ‘casteism’. Indian has not been associated with or witness to (a) Slavery, other than Indians themselves having been taken to Caribbean, Malaysia, Phiji etc. as farm labourers (b) Holocaust or (c) immigrant population taking over land and resources from aborginines, as we are the aborigines of our land1. Call us ignorant again, but no Indian would understand the stigma or (in some countries) legal implications of being a ‘holocaust denier’. Since these are three ethnic groups which form the target of most race related issues in the west (and forgive me for clubbing Australia with the west), most Indians lack an appreciation of what comprises racism in the western context. I did a dipstick among half a dozen Indians with post-graduate degree, but those who haven’t traveled abroad – not one knew that calling an African American a ‘Negro’ is racist. You call them ignorant, and I will again give you the ‘Chamaar’ example. Why talk about common man, when even Aussie media has shown complete ignorance of the subject? Andrew Stevensen in Sydeny Morning Herald has written an article about caste as a factor in Indian team composition – while his hypotheses and postulations can be debated – he has got his facts completely wrong. He calls RP Singh a Brahmin (upper caste) while he is Kshatriya, and says Dhoni is from a lower caste while the fact is that Dhoni is from the same caste as RP Singh. – though Dhoni lives in Jharkhand, he comes from Uttarakhand which has amongst the highest percentage of ‘upper class’ population in the country. There more factual errors, which provide enough proof that Mr. Stevensen wouldn’t even know who could be the target of a casteist jibe which could land you in the jail! This ignorance is not only limited to caste (which many Indian commentators with urban backgrounds don’t understand any better) but even regions. David Sygall in the same newspaper quotes an Indian journalist to explain how Harbhajan’s attitude is linked to his being from north without realizing that the enfant terrible in Indian cricket for last eighteen months is Sreesant, a south Indian. So much for complete lack of understanding even amongst journalists, so why act so incredulous when it is mentioned that Indians do not understand racism as Australians do.
Most bloggers have linked the Harbhajan issue to crowd behavior in Mumbai where members of the public were caught on camera making ‘monkey gestures’. I believe that Indian crowd behaviour at many ODIs is appaling that is because most of them are there for a false sense of patriotism rather than any appreciation of cricket. These are people who wouldn’t be at a cricket match if India was not playing and would not be at a match if it wasn’t a Twenty20 or an ODI. SCG had 30,000 in attendance even on week days, and most Indian grounds don’t manage even half that number during test matches which to my mind is benchmark of cricket appreciation. Such hooligans in involved in Mumbai incident should be punished severely, as they are no 'cricket lovers' – they are ‘cricket dumb’ who don’t know the difference between a googly and Chinaman; make Yuvraj and Dhoni bigger cricketers than VVS Laxman – just idiots but no racists. Ask any West Indian team that has visited India? If none of them have faced racist abuse then Andrew Symonds and Australian team need to introspect before making such accusations. Some Aussies say that since they dominate world cricket, hence this different attitude towards them – but so did West Indies during 70s and 80s and they were almost all men of colour (maybe with the exception of Lary Gomes), but did not face such crowd behavior.
1 All Dravidians are certainly the original inhabitants of this land, and many historians argue that even Aryans are.
2. Did Harbhajan call Andrew Symonds a ‘monkey’ at Mumbai and thereafter apologize?
3. Was it clarified to the Indian team the word ‘monkey’ would be considered a racial abuse?
4. Is Harbhajan guilty of racist abuse?
5. Is the punishment meted out to Harbhajan justified?
Too many questions and as many passionate answers on the web. But are there enough voices of sanity? Questions 1, 2 and 3 are questions of fact and there cannot be a debate about them. Now if I take the Ricky Ponting’s version on these facts, then Harbhajan is guilty of ‘using a phrase the second time after he was told that the specific phrase is offensive in nature, moreso when directed at Andrew Symonds’. This is boorish behaviour and has no place on the field of cricket. Hence, IF the facts mentioned by Ricky Ponting are right, then the punishment is justified.
Boorish behavior on cricket field by likes of Harbhajan and Sreesanth, and Andre Nel, and many in this Australian team should not be tolerated and it should be dealt with strongly and on that ground Harbhajan has no defense. Slater should have been banned for his altercation with Dravid and so should Mcgrath for taking matters too far with Sarwan. ‘Sledging is part of cricket’ is non-sense which if a necessary trait would have made Kapil Dev and Sachin Tendulkar and Curtly Ambrose and Courtney Walsh and Adam Gilchrist refreshment peddlers in the stands rather than stalwarts on the ground.Yes, it is important to have characters on the ground as it is important to have them in the society, but we dont tolerate miscreants in the society for this reason, do we?
Now that we have set aside the issue of Harbhajan’s behaviour and the punishment, we can focus on (4), which in my view is far more complex. I believe there is substance in the argument that Indians do not understand racism or its symbols as it is appreciated in the west. Not until I started following European football and all the related issues and gossip, did I know about ‘monkey chants’ and their racial connotation. My wife has traveled all over the world, and has lived in Europe, and till last evening she did not know that calling someone a ‘monkey’ would be considered a racial abuse – in India we have a ‘Monkey God’ who is worshipped everywhere and many temples are havens for monkeys who are lovingly fed by devotees! You can jump to call her ignorant, but so would I term more than half a trillion people in the world who wouldn’t know that calling someone ‘Chamaar’ is casteist which can land you in jail in India under a non-bailable offence. India hasn’t been witness to ‘racism’ as the west hasn’t known ‘casteism’. Indian has not been associated with or witness to (a) Slavery, other than Indians themselves having been taken to Caribbean, Malaysia, Phiji etc. as farm labourers (b) Holocaust or (c) immigrant population taking over land and resources from aborginines, as we are the aborigines of our land1. Call us ignorant again, but no Indian would understand the stigma or (in some countries) legal implications of being a ‘holocaust denier’. Since these are three ethnic groups which form the target of most race related issues in the west (and forgive me for clubbing Australia with the west), most Indians lack an appreciation of what comprises racism in the western context. I did a dipstick among half a dozen Indians with post-graduate degree, but those who haven’t traveled abroad – not one knew that calling an African American a ‘Negro’ is racist. You call them ignorant, and I will again give you the ‘Chamaar’ example. Why talk about common man, when even Aussie media has shown complete ignorance of the subject? Andrew Stevensen in Sydeny Morning Herald has written an article about caste as a factor in Indian team composition – while his hypotheses and postulations can be debated – he has got his facts completely wrong. He calls RP Singh a Brahmin (upper caste) while he is Kshatriya, and says Dhoni is from a lower caste while the fact is that Dhoni is from the same caste as RP Singh. – though Dhoni lives in Jharkhand, he comes from Uttarakhand which has amongst the highest percentage of ‘upper class’ population in the country. There more factual errors, which provide enough proof that Mr. Stevensen wouldn’t even know who could be the target of a casteist jibe which could land you in the jail! This ignorance is not only limited to caste (which many Indian commentators with urban backgrounds don’t understand any better) but even regions. David Sygall in the same newspaper quotes an Indian journalist to explain how Harbhajan’s attitude is linked to his being from north without realizing that the enfant terrible in Indian cricket for last eighteen months is Sreesant, a south Indian. So much for complete lack of understanding even amongst journalists, so why act so incredulous when it is mentioned that Indians do not understand racism as Australians do.
Most bloggers have linked the Harbhajan issue to crowd behavior in Mumbai where members of the public were caught on camera making ‘monkey gestures’. I believe that Indian crowd behaviour at many ODIs is appaling that is because most of them are there for a false sense of patriotism rather than any appreciation of cricket. These are people who wouldn’t be at a cricket match if India was not playing and would not be at a match if it wasn’t a Twenty20 or an ODI. SCG had 30,000 in attendance even on week days, and most Indian grounds don’t manage even half that number during test matches which to my mind is benchmark of cricket appreciation. Such hooligans in involved in Mumbai incident should be punished severely, as they are no 'cricket lovers' – they are ‘cricket dumb’ who don’t know the difference between a googly and Chinaman; make Yuvraj and Dhoni bigger cricketers than VVS Laxman – just idiots but no racists. Ask any West Indian team that has visited India? If none of them have faced racist abuse then Andrew Symonds and Australian team need to introspect before making such accusations. Some Aussies say that since they dominate world cricket, hence this different attitude towards them – but so did West Indies during 70s and 80s and they were almost all men of colour (maybe with the exception of Lary Gomes), but did not face such crowd behavior.
1 All Dravidians are certainly the original inhabitants of this land, and many historians argue that even Aryans are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
