Politics
Economic development and social welfare…among other things…
Yet again, I am going to talk about two different things. But, this time around, the two are not entirely unrelated to one another. First, Amalia sent me a link a couple of days ago that spoke of the OECD report on India. It is an article of Le Monde, that says India can reduce its poverty levels to half the current level by 2015. The Policy Brief released by the OECD can be accessed in PDF format here. The report simply confirms what economist have been saying for years; that economic liberalisation has benefited large sections of society, but that further reforms are needed if we want the growth to be sustainable and more inclusive. The Policy Brief puts it rather succinctly when it says, “Reform must continue if government is to achieve its growth targets.” I am happy to learn that India is on the right track with liberalisation, no matter what the Left says or wants to believe. It is, of course, evident that there are several sectors that need to be reformed if the phenomenal growth rate of the past two decades is to be sustained.
Of them, the most important is education. In a way, the report vindicated my post of July 22, that creativity is becoming a bad word for most schools, given the national obsession with grades. There are many things wrong with our educational system. The first is that we still pride ourselves on a system created to school a nation of clerks. The second problem is that a government that is so keen on making out IITs and IIMs as good as Harvard spends next to nothing on primary education. I repeat the question I asked some time back on the same blog. How does one get to the IITs or the IIMs when he does not know how to gain access to kindergarten? The government must now concentrate on enabling students from less privileged backgrounds, notably girls, to get at least primary education. Otherwise, we are closing the doors to sustainable development, both economic and human.
That said, I also think the government is doing its best, given the circumstances, to improve the situation. As the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission, Montek Singh Ahluwalia said on a programme on BBC today, we are an open society. It is easy to find weaknesses in the system. That is a good thing. But, we must also document the successes and find encouragement for further reforms in them. A second statement by Ahluwalia reassured me that our fate is in the right hands. To a question on whether development would ‘trickle down’ to the bottom, he said that he did not like the expression. As he put it, it implies that development takes place at the top and is distributed to the lower levels. He added that for growth to be inclusive, development must start from the lowest levels. I completely agree. And I hope he stays put at the Planning Commission long enough to ensure that he implements the policies he creates.
Ok…now, moving on. This article of the International Herald Tribune caught my attention this morning. It made me wonder whether the world would have taken such a death in India so lightly. One case of a farmer committing suicide in India hits the headlines and everyone, including starving African nations start talking about how economic growth in India is not inclusive. A case of double standards? I certainly think so. Also, I think such a situation is practically impossible in India. Indian society is too close-knit, even in urban centres, to completely ignore a person like this for months. I only hope that, in the euphoria of economic development, we do not lose sight of the social support system that makes India so special. To me, it is something that must be preserved.
Politics, security and technology…
Here is a post, once again, that talks of things that are unrelated to one another. Let me start with politics, security and armed political opposition. Yesterday, I was at the CSA seminar on Civil Society in Conflict situations. (will link to the report on it once it is up.) There, one of the speakers, a distinguished and retired army officer analysed some of the characteristics of violence-ridden and conflict-torn societies. He said, in his rather interesting presentation, that conflict situations are often characterised by a lack of basic amenities, poverty, high levels of unemployment and absence of infrastructure. That reminded me of the fabled robbers of Chambal Valley, so famously characterised by Phoolan Devi. But, these factors do not always lead to conflict. Or inversely, all conflict situations are not necessarily characterised by the above problems. In fact, some of the most violent armed struggles of the world have been started and sustained by the prosperous.
Take, for example, the secessionist violence that the Democratic Republic of Congo suffered for decades. The province that wanted to secede, Katanga possesses practically 90% of DRC’s natural resources. The same is the case with insurgency in Punjab. Punjab is one of India’s richest states, in terms of agricultural produce. As I said some time back in my post on Bihar, the desire to secede or rise in arms against the state comes, not only from the poorest, but also from the richest states. Was Tamil Nadu ever as backward as the Northeast? Why then, did the campaign for a separate Tamil nation catch the people’s imagination in the 1960s? Armed political resistance only starts where the insurgents are sure of carrying it on successfully. Insurgency will hardly work in a place where the common man is too worried about his next meal to support insurgent groups. What creates problems and incites insurgency is economic development and influx of money in the absence of good governance. That said, there is no linear relationship between poverty, unemployment and violence. the relationship is much more complex and merits a more detailed study then is possible on a simple blog. So, I will leave that to someone else.
Now, over to technology. The other day, I saw the brand new Lenovo with an in-built face recognition system. Now, that is the kind of computer I would like to buy. But, the said laptop had many more features and weighed just 900 grams. And, cost a whopping 120,000 rupees (about $3000.) So, I contented myself with just looking. The way technology has evolved over the last ten years is amazing. Using fingerprint identification or face recognition to access your computer would have been unthinkable at the turn of the century. At least, for us non-techies. Today, biometric identification for security had permeated every aspect of life. The French Government’s decision to include biometric identifiers in all passports issued after September 2006, is symbolic of the change that is sweeping Europe and the rest of the world. It will perhaps take a few more years to get to India, not because we are far behind technologically, but because the Indian government takes a lot longer to act that the EU does. Not to mention that decisions are implemented a decade after they are actually taken, by which time they become redundant. Let us hope we get biometric passports soon. At least before my passport is due for renewal in 2014!
The Great Indian Novel
That’s right. It is the famous book by Shashi Tharoor I am talking about. I know it’s a bit late to review that book on this blog, but what can I do? I bought myself a copy just a week ago, and finished reading it just a couple of hours ago. But, I can say this confidently. I regret having taken so long to read a book that is so delightfully irreverent and astonishingly well-informed. Now, where do I start? Before I say anything else, let me state that I always knew that Tharoor was a prolific writer. But, this one exceeded my expectations. To cut a long story short, I loved the book. There were many things that I liked about the book. The first, and most important: the treatment of the fictional Gangaji, (the real-life Gandhi) as a master tactician, an expert politician, and sometimes, a biased moralist. The portrayal must have ruffled quite a few Congress feathers when it was first published. It makes me wonder if the current generation of Congress-walahs have even read the book. After all, Tharoor does not exactly flatter them by labelling their ‘Goddess Indira’ as Priya Duryodhani. Or is the allusion too subtle for the videshi mind of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi to grasp? Do the apologists of the Dynasty even have the brains required to understand Tharoor’s satire? I highly doubt they do. For if they had, they would not have nominated him as India’s candidate for the position of Secretary General of the United Nations. Congratulations Mr. Tharoor! You have made your point quite clearly.
The second positive aspect, perhaps as important as the first is our beloved first Prime Minister as Dritarashtra. Oh yes, Dritarashtra was blind, literally. That is not his fault. But, Nehru was blind in the metaphorical sense. And, as Tharoor puts it, chose to see the world as he wanted to see it and not as it really was. The analogy, I must say, is quite apt. The references to Draupadi Mokrasi puzzled me, until the very end. Until about an hour after I finished the book. The brilliance of it all hit me on the face as suddenly as a flash of sunlight in a dull, dreary day. Draupadi Mokrasi is precisely that, De-mocracy!! Wow!
Anyway, with that, I will end this eulogy of Tharoor and his book. I do, however, have something to say about Nita’s latest blogpost. She has finally completed an incomplete post on NRIs and dollar-earning desis. It was published, if I remember right, way back in October 2006. Wow Nita! Your posts certainly have a long gestation period. Her objections to Rashmi Bansal’s article on Rediff are certainly valid. When I first read the said article a year ago, I wasn’t as offended as Nita. In fact, I even questioned her defensiveness. But today, I bear testimony to the fact that attitudes evolve. I am just as bugged as Nita by the way Bansal portrays all Indians working abroad as those who are not good enough to make it to top-of-the-rung institutions in India.
Secondly, Nita’s feelings about nostalgia are quite valid too. Not everyone feels the need to wax eloquent about crowded sabzi mandis and traffic jams and mum’s cooking. We must accept that some people are decidedly happier in their First-World homes with 52-inch televisions and three cars. That doesn’t mean they are not Indian. Why do we, as Indians, feel the need to be so judgemental about those who choose to make a foreign land their home despite what Bansal calls cold reception? Do they not have the right to choose the way they want to live? Do we seriously think our NRI cousins or American-born nephews are out to make us jealous and plant diffidence and wistfulness in our desi heads? If we do, we are simply too naive for the world…and lack greatly in entrepreneurship and confidence. If some of us want to chase dollar dreams, so be it? Why is the rest of the world so bothered about that? We may or not may not be good Indians, but we are certainly successful and happy, albeit in an alien land.
Randomness… and the Ram debate too!
Yay!! India are the new Twenty20 World Champions! It’s unbelievable… I was crossing my fingers and hoping they don’t go and mess this up. It seems my wishes do come true sometimes. 🙂 Anyway, what I really wanted to write about is rather more serious than India becoming World Champions. The ruckus at the BJP’s Tamil Nadu office yesterday is condemnable. I said, in a post a few days ago, that mixing up faith, fact, myth, economics and politics is just plain dirty. While I still stick to that statement, I feel that politicians would do well to refrain from commenting on things they don’t understand. Yes, I am talking about our esteemed Chief Minister’s comments that Ram is as imaginary a character as those in his novels, and that he was a drunkard. While myth and legend can certainly not be proved or disproved by historians and archaeologists, we would do well to remember that people do not simply cease to believe in the myth one day.
A politician’s claim that a revered Hindu God is both imaginary and a drunkard is condemnable. I believe in Ram. Not in his existence as an individual, but in the sway he holds over millions of devout Hindus across the world. If I choose to believe that Ram existed in the Treta Yuga and that he was of divine descent, so be it. Who is a State Chief Minister, who owes both his position and his authority to the millions of believers like me who elected him to call me an idiot? I agree that the right to free speech is fundamental in any democracy. But, my freedom of expression only goes as far as my neighbour’s ear. If my statement hurts another in any way, or strikes at the root of his religious belief, I automatically lose the right to free speech. If this holds true for a normal citizen like me, it should rightfully hold true for the Chief Minister too. After all, in a democracy, all are equal.
The question now, is one of economics, not religion or politics. Will the Sethusamudram Project benefit India in the long run? If so, there is no question that it must continue. The existence of Ram or our belief in it is not the Chief Minister’s business. That said, I also came across a news item (I can’t find the link now…), where a senior DMK leader has exhorted his party men to behead anyone who dares to talk about Ram or his existence. Now, I will say exactly what I please. Why the hell should anyone kill me for expressing my religious beliefs? Are we really living in a democracy. Yesterday’s television images of DMK party men vandalising the BJP office and declaring to kill anyone who believes in Ram on camera was shocking. These scenes remind me of Poet Subramanya Bharati’s statement, “Pey aatchi seythaal pinam thinnum saathirangal.” A bad translation of the line would be “When demons rule, the law eats corpses.” That seems to be an apt description of what is going on with the Ram debate in Tamil Nadu. Why must I fear for my life if I am a believing Hindu? Isn’t India supposed to be a secular state? Or is secularism just symbolic? I don’t know. I have many questions…and no answers…
Politicising religion
They are at it again! Yes, you guessed it right. Our esteemed representatives in and out of Parliament are fighting again. Making a mountain out of a molehill and inciting communal tension. With the Left politicising the US-India Nuclear Deal, the Congress government already had enough on its plate. Now, the BJP and its cronies are politicising what should be a normal development activity. And yes, I am talking about the much-delayed Sethusamudram Project. The BJP is up in arms, yet again, against the affidavit filed before the Supreme Court by the Archaeological Survey of India on behalf of the government yesterday. In the affidavit, the ASI has said that there is no historical or archaeological evidence that the Ram Sethu Bridge (Adam’s Bridge) was man-made, or more specifically, built by Lord Ram. The BJP, in its protests against the affidavit says that the ASI, and by consequence, the Central Government, has “hurt the sentiments of Hindus worldwide” by doubting the veracity of the Valmiki Ramayan and other Hindu scriptures.
Now, this is getting ridiculous. The ASI has said that the said Bridge is simply a natural formation of shoals and sand dunes that have assumed the form of a bridge over the millennia. Should the ASI be made to back-track and apologise for stating an archaeological fact simply because the BJP thinks it hurts the sentiments of pious Hindus across the globe? Apparently, the ASI’s statement that there is no archaeological evidence for the existence of Lord Rama is blasphemous too. So what if there is no archaeological evidence? Are we going to believe any less in God because the ASI doubts its veracity. The Ram Sethu is a tricky situation. We leave the well-knows realms of history and travel into the hazy world of myths and legends. How can the ASI be blamed for wanting to stick to established fact? The ASI is called the archaeological survey for a reason, it relies on archaeological data and not on theology. How can the nation’s best historians be expected to accept the word of a centuries-old story of Ram, handed down to us through oral tradition, until it was finally written down by Valmiki, without question or concrete evidence? Being a historian is tough. Say it and you are damned; and don’t say it, and you are damned anyway.
As for the BJP and its entourage, less said the better. I was once a sympathiser of the party, but now, am ashamed to admit I ever was one. Ram is not a national idol as Advani makes it his business to claim. He is simply another God in the Hindu pantheon. He is, no doubt, venerated and worshipped by Hindus across the world, but that does not mean a project as important as Sethusamudram can be stalled for him. It is time we learnt to distinguish myth from reality.
That Ram built the Adam’s bridge is myth. That he defeated Ravan who has ten heads, is myth too. Well, maybe he defeated Ravan. But the said Ravan certainly did not have ten heads. That millions of Hindus across the world venerate and worship him as God is faith. That the BJP and Co. is mixing up faith, myth, reality, history, legend, development economics and politics is just plain dirty.