A lesson in democracy

The 2008 US presidential campaign is a lesson in democracy. It showcased the best and the worst that can be seen in a democracy. The Republicans went full out with their attempts at fear mongering, identity politics, and divisiveness. On the other hand, Obama’s team concentrated on engaging the public, and enlisted their help by laying the best political groundwork the country’s ever seen. Obama’s victory meant that the better side of their democracy triumphed. As a result, not only can the country breathe in peace knowing that their leader has their best interests at heart but also they are assured that someone extremely competent is at the helm.

I have been wondering for a long time now (ever since I began to learn about Obama) whether such a thing (or person) is possible in India. In Obama’s victory speech, the line that struck me most was “This victory alone is not the change we seek — it is only the chance for us to make that change.” Contrast this to the Indian case, where winning elections is the only goal. Where gaining public office represents the opportunity to enrich bank accounts. Where vote banks and not issues take precedence, in policy making, in governance, and in pretty much every aspect of public work.

Comparisons have already begun in India. MJ Akbar (who I can only assume is a well-respected and experienced journalist, judging by his Wikipedia profile) wrote an article entitled “Two of a kind: Shades of Maya in Obama’s rise” in the Times of India. Ignoring the title’s implication that Obama learned tricks of the trade from Mayawati, I read through the article out of curiosity—perhaps I had underestimated Mayawati. The author’s first point of contention was that both Mayawati and Obama transcended their communities and reached out to others: “Her future…will depend on how sustainable her alliance with others is. Muslims will be the hinge to her future.” (Emphasis added.) Except Obama didn’t go through it like that, he didn’t say “Ok, got the blacks in the bag, now let’s move on to the Hispanics, and then let’s see if we can ally with the women.” Instead, he stuck to a message of bringing about change, laid out specific goals, and offered a plan. Those who liked the message and the plans voted for him.

The author’s second argument was that Mayawati, like Obama, got her money from the masses and not from rich businessmen or special interest groups. This may be true, and good for her if she did. The point I had issue with was: “Mayawati of course has exploited power to add to her stash, but in this she is no more culpable than any other Indian politician. You cannot hold her to different standards just because she is a Dalit.” Excuse me? Does the author mean to say that the public doesn’t mind politicians embezzling funds as long as they’re from the right caste? Flabbergasting, is what this argument is. This is the kind of rationalization that made the political machinery in India what it is.

However, as tempting as it is to blame the politicians and babus and others for the state of our democracy, it is we the electorate who are the most to blame. This is where my admiration of the American electorate rises above everything else. Sure, they elected an incompetent for president (Bush) and voted a visibly corrupt administration (Cheney and gang) for a second time. And yes, they did allow divisive issues to rule for 8 years and voted against their own interests. But they realized their mistake. They weren’t fooled this time. The McCain campaign had plenty of ammo. Obama is, after all, a black man—there’s no denying the racism that is rampant in many parts of that country. Sarah Palin, intellectually vacuous as she is, is the very picture of small-town American middle class. But not enough people bought it. They chose to send the message that they weren’t happy with what their government was doing.

Obama has shown the true meaning of patriotism. It is a love of your country and a belief in the inherent goodness of your countrymen. It is a desire to give a little of your time and effort into making your nation a better place. In a democracy, politics can apply to the basest feelings of its citizens. Or it can appeal to the goodwill of its citizens and enlist them to participate in the democracy and invest themselves in the country’s well-being. India has proved that it can do this. When fighting for independence, the country came together in a way it hadn’t before and hasn’t since.

The world has indeed learned a lot from the US presidential campaign: electioneering techniques, how to garner votes, how to create a message. Hopefully, it has also learned what the power of the people can look like and what an uplifting feeling it can give ordinary citizens when they know that their voice is heard.

Email This Article

15 Comments

Jago.in - The next wave of Mutiny in India?

Is India rising? Yes I think. The 1857 mutiny was India’s first rising against the oppression of the British. In the 21st Century I think India is rising again. Not with a big bang. Not with an armed rebellion, but trust me when I say this, India is awakeining.

And this time it’s not religious apprehensions of biting off cartridges laced with cow or pig fat. This one is all about feelings of nationality. Feelings of being a proud Indian. An overwhelming desire to make India a better place to live in is what is driving this second wave of “mutiny”. And a huge part of it is happening here, our very own solace - The Internet.

Browsing certain articles on Google, I came across this political party called “Jago”. The party has been started by people by a group of people with non political background. Businessmen, Lawyers and ex-IAS officers have come together to make “Jago”, the existence of which is purely for the purpose of making India better.

The mission of the party is to make India a very safe, strong and rich country.  The party has a great online presence. A slick website that clearly lists it’s mission / manifesto, links for citizens to post incidents of corruption, gives details of the RTI act and how it can be used and an appeal to join
either for active or passive membership. It’s no wonder that 200,000 people have already signed up.

Jago’s manifesto:

1. Reservation for none, jobs for everyone through free english education
2. Improvement in Law and Order
3. Elimination of Corruption
4. Financial Aid of Rs 600 to every voter per month
5. Creation of Wealth
6. Checking Population Growth
7. Reducing Pollution
8. Strenthening Secularism
9. Strengthening Democracy
10. Promoting Individual Freedom
11. Human Rights across the world

Most of their maniufesto items are applaudable. However there were a few of them which I was a little apprehensive about. I am not sure what the Rs 600 will achieve? Sounds like a bribe to voters to vote? Also I was a little apprehensive about the “creation of wealth bit”. Though I am not a communist, the party does seem to lean a wee bit towards capitalism.

Doubts aside, I appreciate their effort and and I think in a small but significant way the Jago Party doing it’s bit in bringing about the next wave of Mutiny in India. Check them out at http://jago.in 

Email This Article

6 Comments

Political Morality and CPIM - Excuse me?

Funny, I always thought the words “politics” and “moralily” though not tangential, can definitely not be considered candidates for best buddies.

I gave a quick glance at all the sore-loser talk that the CPIM has given after losing the trust vote in the Indian parliament. Amongst expulsion of Somnath Chatterjee and criticism of the IAEA (I am not even sure they know what the abbreviation is for), something that stuck out was their statement made on “political morality”

A statement issued by the CPIM Polit Bureau:

While I definitely don’t extoll the election of these ruffians to power, hearing the CPIM talk about political morality and “goondaism” is nothing but amusing. For close to three decades the party has gone ahead with their “goondaism” in the state of West Bengal. I remember stories from my parents on how the CPIM used ingenious methods of rigging the elections in the state and practically beaten to death any voice of dissent. A very close family friend lost his ancestral home in the outskirts of Kolkata, to the CPIM whose workers made the place their “party office” while the family was vacationing in Delhi. Whatever they say, talk of goons getting to vote shouldn’t be one of the topics that come out of their mouth.

Sorry CPIM dudes, looks like you got beaten at your own game by bigger goons.

Email This Article

Comment

Communist Ideology above Nationality - Part 1

The CPIM (Communist Party of India – Marxist) has been threatening to back out of its support to the UPA government if the government decides to go ahead with the Nuclear Deal. The CPIM has been against the nuclear deal ever since it was announced. Let’s get into some details of this deal to have a better understanding of why the left parties are completely against it.

So what is this Nuclear deal?
In August 2007, India and the United States reached an agreement on civilian nuclear cooperation as mentioned in the joint statement released by President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh on July 18, 2005.

According to this deal,
• India agrees to allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), the United Nations’ nuclear group, to access India’s civilian nuclear program (read nuclear reactors that produce energy)
• India agrees to continue its current delay on nuclear weapons testing.
• India commits to strengthening the security of its nuclear arsenals.
• India works toward negotiating a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) with the United States banning the production of fissile material for weapons purposes.
• U.S. companies will be allowed to build nuclear reactors in India and provide nuclear fuel for its civilian energy program

What are the benefits?

The deal has been cited as an unprecedented one for India. It which marks a notable warming of U.S.-India relations, would lift the U.S. imposed delay on nuclear trade with India, provide U.S. assistance to India’s civilian nuclear energy program, and expand U.S.-Indian cooperation in energy and satellite technology.
India, on signing this deal would become eligible to by dual-use nuclear technology from the US. This would include material and equipment that can be used to enrich uranium & plutonium as well as import fuel for the nuclear reactors. Other than bringing in better technology that would allow India to create cheap electricity and power from its nuclear reactors, this would open other doors in the Indo-US relationships.

What are the caveats?

The CPIM has been harping on about how this would make India a slave of the US and how we would not be able to continue our nuclear program, thus putting India into a vulnerable position in the event of a nuclear threat from Pakistan or China. Global experts however say that the nuclear deal is considered overtly beneficial for India. They say that the deal lacks safeguards to prevent India from continuing to produce a fresh stock of nuclear weapons and in essence enable India to produce more nuclear firepower by now “legalizing” the inflow of uranium into India.

It is primarily the US which has been criticized for going ahead with this deal. Other than the CPIM, the whole world understands how this deal will benefit India. It is claimed that the US in an attempt to keep China under check, is forming a strategic relationship with India. There have been rumors that this alignment with the US, will actually lead to a situation of tension between India-Pakistan and India-China. The Musharraf lead Pakistan government has been the US government’s baby for a while, yet Washington offered no such deal to Islamabad. This might cause Pakistan to get jittery. China on the other hand may feel threatened of a “US ally” so close to their territory. However, the days of the cold war are over. Indo-China relations on the economic front are prospering and China can be assured by the fact that historically India has not been the aggressive kind and would ensure that the economic relations between the country are not being hampered in any manner.

Email This Article

Comment

The Petroleum Freak Show

While it grants a temporary relief to the government’s and oil companies’ treasure chests, it is only the beginning of a long road of suffering for the aam admi. But I get ahead of myself. For those with a passion for details and expert opinion, there are numerous blogs and articles scattered throughout the Web from where the below facts have been gathered. I merely offer a very brief summary, in laymen’s terms, of the government’s current failed policies (like simultaneously taxing and subsidizing oil companies—huh?) and how they affect the common man.

· By keeping fuel prices artificially low, the government is failing to prepare India for the future. First, it does nothing toward decreasing the demand for a rapidly diminishing fuel source that the entire world is scrambling for. Second, the common man would benefit much more from the creation of cleaner and more sustainable sources of energy that will support the economy for a longer period of time, like wind energy and investment in research for alternative energy sources. Surely, India has not shortage of these resources—it is abundant in deserts and oceans and brilliant minds. In short, these low prices quietly absolve the government from having to seek alternative sources of energy or come up with a viable plan for our long-term energy needs.

· The people who really need fuel subsidies don’t get it. Subsidies for kerosene, this being the poor man’s fuel, could still be justified if so much of it wasn’t stolen and sold in the black market or misused for adulterating petrol and diesel. On the other hand, as much as 75% of LGP subsidies go to the richer sections of urban dwellers. Moreover, the poorest of the poor are still stuck with having to make cakes out of cow shit or cut down precious trees for its energy needs, or in many extreme cases, not use energy at all and starve in medieval-like darkness.

· Pushing subsidies that are in any case so inefficiently utilized creates a moral dilemma. This is especially true when the oil cess is considered. There are so few taxpayers in India, and what’s more, the average middle-class taxpayer is usually the last beneficiary, if at all, of the taxes he/she pays. For example, not owning a car myself, I resent the fact that a fraction of my salary will be garnished to pay for someone else’s comfortable air-conditioned ride through the city while I bump along in a sweltering bus or auto.

· The losses incurred by fuel-supplying companies will ultimately harm the economy. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not one of those fervent capitalists who think obscene profits for private corporations are the only way to create a happy and wholesome economy. However, losses by such companies result in three evils. First, with such huge losses, they are more vulnerable to calls for the privatization of oil companies. Since private oil companies, by principle, cannot be burdened with social obligations by the government, they would feel no compunction in halting their operations in the remoter regions, where the cost of transporting oil reduces profitability. Second, it leads pump owners to adulterate their supplies with cheaper alternatives like kerosene and naptha. Third, cash-strapped companies cannot buy inventory. This recently led to a barely-averted disaster in Maharashtra, where the plan to ration fuel was scrapped on account of the panic it threatened to create.

· Currently, as much as 2% of the GDP is being utilized for subsidizing fuel, which could be better invested in for creating infrastructure for education, transportation and agriculture. The primary argument of the government for the subsidies—higher fuel prices leads to higher commodity prices—completely ignores the fact that we need more sustainable solutions for the economy such as a social security net and equal opportunities (no, I don’t mean the pandering educational quotas). Yes, we Indians have resignedly accepted the short-sighted and narrow focus (getting elected) of the government (irrespective of party) in every aspect of its policy-making. But this does not mean that it should be allowed to continue.

There are no easy solutions to the oncoming fuel crisis. The entire world is reeling under it. It has caused wars, discontent among the masses, worries about the future generations, and on and on and on. Many solutions have been proposed and even adopted by the developed countries. Many of the solutions may be painful, but this ain’t no Utopia. With regard to India, the government, whosoever is in charge, will have to give serious thought to implementing effective solutions. Investment in creating alternative forms of energy and decreasing consumption should be priority number one for everyone. However, we also require short-term solutions to tide us over until we create a sustainable energy infrastructure. For instance, they could reinstate and enhance the administered price mechanism (APM) for petroleum, by which certain products like kerosene (used by poorer people) were subsidized by petroleum products (used by richer people). This could be enlarged to encompass diesel and CNG in an efficient manner, so that commodity prices can be stabilized and inflation controlled. They could create a proportionate yearly fuel tax for those who own less energy-efficient cars, which will create demand for hybrids as well as penalize those who use the most fuel. In the same vein, they could provide incentives for companies to manufacture and consumers to buy more energy-efficient products.

But most of all, as is true in every aspect of the Indian bureaucracy, we need to curb corruption and political opportunism. Even the gas-guzzling U.S. has proved its maturity by rejecting the political stunt of establishing a summer gas tax holiday. Given the above facts, it is amazing that in India, the opposition parties can so loudly and stupidly make claims that fly in the face of deductive economic reasoning. But then, these parties stand to gain because the present government, despite its very best efforts, was finally forced to take a decision that doesn’t benefit it politically. Our political process being a zero-sum game, parties like the BJP will of course take full advantage of the hikes, with cries like “economic terror” and other such fallacious slogans (This is discounting those like the Communist parties and RJD, whose competitive advantage lies in being as disruptive and backward as possible). Instead of rallying around and discussing what our next steps should be, they create as much ruckus as possible for the sole benefit of their fate in the upcoming elections. Meanwhile, we will just have t
o wait until someone who really cares for the common man comes along and takes our energy needs in hand and until the common man starts to care enough to take to the streets themselves.

Email This Article

2 Comments

Aryan Invasion of India – The oldest racial-divide game played by politicians

Did Raj Thackeray make a breakthrough in the game of playing to racial sentiments? No, this is actually an older, much older game played by politicians. I tried to look back at our history and it all led to the very first documented fact that seems to have been exploited by politicians for political gain.

Aryan Invasion of India has been the most accepted “historical fact” that has found its place in textbooks not only across India, but also all over the world. Over the years there have been many discussions on the validity of this theory. The theory goes to say that the Aryans, an ancient civilization came from Central Asia and invaded the Indian sub continent around 1000 BC and destroyed the existing Harappa civilization. It is the Aryans, it is claimed who have been the authors of the Rig Veda and the other Vedas as well.

However, scientific evidence that disproves the theory is much more prominent and vast in number than the scientific theory that supports the theory.

It is now known that this Aryan invasion theory was hypothesized in the nineteenth century to explain the similarities found in Sanskrit and the languages of Europe. However it remained nothing more than a hypothesis.

Key to understanding as to why this theory still finds a place in our History books, it is crucial to understand the word Aryan.

The word Aryan comes from the word Arya – which means a noble person who is gentle in behavior, good natured and has righteous conduct. Hence, the Arya was never supposed to be a race, it was simply an adjective. So one could be living in those times and be either an Aryan or not depending upon their qualities.

Why this fact has been kept from us while the there are documented evidence in the Vedas is actually quite interesting. It is actually scenario in which people from different times in the history of the world have colluded to keep this theory alive. To start with, the Germans probably re-discovered the theory to assert themselves as a superior race. It is only with deep pride about their superiority that men could be motivated enough to go into battle with the rest of the world and perform atrocities on others. But of course, the Germans could not accept the fact that while being a superior race, they were in effect migrants from India. So to give justification and weight to their theory of superiority they began the propaganda that Aryans were the one who had invaded India and civilized them, wrote the Vedas. All this they claim happened around 1000 BC. We now know that the Vedas are at least 5000 years old, which means they were written around 3100 BC. So if the Aryans actually came from Europe and Central Asia, who wrote the Vedas? The British, of course loved the theory as it sided with their theory of the white man’s superiority over the white.

Why the current genre of politicians continue to support this theory and not take it out of the text books is only because of one aspect of the theory- namely the Aryan-Dravidian racial divide. Traditionally, Aryans are supposed to have “invaded” India and stayed in the northern region. South India at that time was supposed to have been occupied by people known as Dravidians. This probably wonderfully suited politicians as it helped them create the North-South divide and they continue this practice till date. If you disprove the Invasion theory, it would mean the North and South Indian people were part of one common culture which was India. On my last Article, “Mumbai Indians Show the Way”, a reader had commented:

“You talk about support a legislation which would ban the usage of words like Gujrati and Marathi . What about banning the term North Indian and South Indian ? I think they are much more offensive. Is there a nation called North India or South India ?”

To the reader I would reply that North & South India are not nations, but are a concept that have been kept alive in our heads by politicians through the usage of a false and disproved theory of Aryan Invasion of India. People like Thackeray (Raj) are probably inventing newer ways of doing this by answering the question -How to divide a nation that has already been divided?

Email This Article

16 Comments

Maybe Raj Thackeray is Right - Part 1

Raj Thackeray has been in news for his anti-north Indian statements. For the uninitiated, Raj Thackeray is the chief of a political party in Maharashtra called the “Maharashtra Navanirman Sena”. I had written an article a few days back on why I thought Raj Thackeray should be condemned. You can read it here. In the post, I had analyzed the situation and thought I had come up with an objective opinion on the matter.

However after going through a similar discussion on Mutiny.in, reading some of the feedback I recieved both for my article and my comments on Mutiny, and going through a few Orkut communities, I did find a lot of people concurring with Raj’s statements and in many cases found outright supporters who considered him a God. Now these people were not the usual “party workers “that you expect. Rather they were educated engineers, doctors and MBAs, people you expect to have sound judgment and objectivity of thought. This made me wonder if I had been too hasty in jumping to a conclusion on what Raj Thackeray intended to say.

Before analyzing the thoughts of people on the various blogs I’d visited as well as what people had to say on Orkut, I started with first the statements that Raj had made. Raj Thackeray had accused North Indians of encroaching, hawking and essentially ruining the infrastructure of the city of Mumbai. Party workers of the MNS went all around Mumbai, Nagpur, Pune, Nashik threatening and beating up North Indian hawkers, rickshaw and taxi drivers thus creating a public nuisance.

The inquisitive Indian I am, I decided to verify for myself if there was any truth to the statements made by Raj Thackeray. I started with the area around Andheri station. For the uninitiated, Andheri is a western suburb of Mumbai and probably the most crowded and busiest part of Mumbai. All around the station, encroachers and hawkers line the pavements and there is hardly any space for commuters to move around. Add to it the continuous movement of vehicles in the narrow roads and the honking , make the area around the station no less habitable than a war zone. My intention was to talk to as many of these hawkers that I could.

After being ignored by the hawkers and jostled around by the crowd for thirty minutes, I got around to actually speaking to a few of them. My initial questions on their place of origin made them skeptical, some even looked scared. After I assured them that I was not part of the MNS or for that matter any political party they started talking.

Raj’s claims that North Indians are encroaching and hawking on the streets of Mumbai seem to have some truth.

Most of the people I talked to were from UP, Bihar, West Bengal, Rajasthan and Delhi. Out of the fifty two hawkers I talked to both on the west and east side of the station, thirty seven were from North India. Twelve of them were Marathis while three from Karnataka. Given below is a diagrammatic representation of the same. North Indians (represented in blue) refer to people from UP, Bihar, West Bengal, Rajasthan and Delhi.

Next Post -> An interview with a hawker
My name is not relevant and I am the Angry Indian

Email This Article

44 Comments

Bhaiyya to Raj Thackeray - Is your festival more pious than mine?

Email This Article

13 Comments

Indian Coalition politics - The dirtiest game ever played by politicians.

I have a simple question. Why do we allow political parties to ally AFTER the national elections have taken place? With all due respect to our Constitution and the Election commission, I see no reason for it happening. The reason is simple. I, as a voter, have the constitutional right to vote. However, I am left in a dilemma when I am casting that vote. I simply do not know who will be making policy decisions that will affect my life in so many ways, even if the party I voted for comes to power.

India’s general elections in 1996 brought about a ridiculous verdict. With the Bharatiya Janata Party emerging as the largest party, with 161 seats, it was invited first to form a government. The 13 days that followed is history. After Vajpayee’s government fell, other parties met to come up with “a solution”. The Congress, with 140 seats, declined to head the government and along with the Communist Party of India (Marxist), agreed to extend “outside support” to a coalition with the Janata Dal at its head, named the “United Front”. There were other parties that formed a part of this government. They were Samajwadi Party, DMK, Assam Gana Parishad, TMC & the CPI. Let’s say I had voted for the Congress. Their “support” to the United Front gave me a Prime Minister, Devi Gowda, whose biggest achievement has been being the CM of Karnataka in some distant past. An on what basis did they choose to ally with the CPM or the Samajwadi Party? Wasn’t this misrepresentation of my vote?

In 2004, our current finance minister, P Chidambaram appealed to the people not to ignore alliances and coalition politics as “opportunism” as otherwise “complete instability” will prevail in the country. Coalition politics should be “welcomed and encouraged” as “India’s political system is maturing.” He went ahead to say that “In a coalition, no party has given up its principles. But in a pluralistic country, which has given rise to so many parties and where voters are divided, such a situation is inevitable.” With all due respect, Mr C, I don’t vote you to power because of your principles. I vote you and others like you to power because your past achievements give me confidence on your future capabilities as a leader. When you ally with a BSP or a Samajwadi party after elections, I am not sure what your intentions are. Please let me know your intentions upfront. Voters are divided because you choose to keep them divided. Instead of admitting upfront who their ally will be, the Congress slammed the BSP and “hinted” (sic!) at an alliance with the Samajwadi party (see http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2911988.cms). Come the day of election results, they might conveniently ally with the BSP again and make heroic statements like “We overcame our differences and will work together for the upliftment of the backward classes” For lack of a better word, I would call it bullshit.

That brings me back to my question, why do we allow political parties to ally after elections. And why do we have so many political parties in the first place? And for that matter, why do I need to vote for a party at all? Why can’t I vote for a Prime minister and a Finance minister? I consider the rest insignificant, but then that’s me.

Renowned economists have gone ahead and stated that coalition politics has slowed the reforms in India (see http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2005/01/31/stories/2005013101620900.htm).

Can’t we do away with this dirty business? Can’t we have a simpler system in place?

My name is not relevant and I am the Angry Indian

Email This Article

5 Comments

Reservation in Indian Private Sector - Are you kidding me?

Email This Article

1 Comment