The Rant about Bleeding Hearts

A friend and I were ranting yesterday about all the privileged leftists with their corporate salaries, preaching equal distribution of wealth. Why don’t you queue up to spread yours around first? Quoting Che Guevara, wearing tattered clothes, and travelling like a hippie doesn’t make you a committed leftist. Oh and if you were to actually go live in one of the communist countries, they would ask you to shut the hell up. So please be thankful for the freedom you have, be critical of governments and policies by all means but do NOT go spouting ideologies that you don’t understand the first thing about and that you personally, would not want to live by if it meant giving up that little silver spoon sticking out of your mouth. 

The true meaning of "The Right"

As Donald Trump gets ready to take the Oath of Office, The Right will once again be maligned for producing a man as incompetent as Trump. But as a proud Right winger myself I want to set the record straight as to what “Right” really means. In the times that we live in, The Right has become, unfortunately, almost exclusively identified with the conservative agenda. Nothing could be farther from the truth when one examines the origins of the economic position of free-trade and free-markets. 

Milton Friedman rightly pointed out, more than 50 years ago, that the Right was and in many ways remains the original bastion of liberal ideas and showed how economic freedom is a necessary (although not sufficient) condition for political and personal freedom. The system that we find so easy to deride is the very one that gives us the freedom to dissent, even if it is against the system itself. Yes, not all who hold a right wing position on economy support gay marriage or democracy or abortion. But name me one true communist system that is also a democracy!

What most people fail to understand is that right-left is but one axis of political views. Then there is the Liberal-Conservative axis that defines our views on subjects like gender, sexuality, marriage, reproductive rights, and religion. A third axis is the Hawks-Doves that pertains to views on relations between nations, diplomacy, and the use of force beyond ones’ own borders. There are probably others as well if one were to think on it hard enough. It is possible to be a right wing-conservative-dove just as much as it is to be a right wing-liberal-hawk. Ironically, though, today the term “Right-wing” has come to signify, at least in the popular consciousness, the definition of only a Right-wing conservative. The term Liberal has been appropriated almost entirely by the intellectual Left (who would actually shudder to actually live in a Leftist economy) and so I find myself in the position of forever having to explain the concept of a Right-wing Liberal. 

That Trump has been elected is in large part a reaction to the free market and consequences of globalisation, and a sexist vote in other ways. And hence, it is doubly ironical if the right as a whole were to be derided. A true economic right-winger would not support the restriction of global trade, or outsourcing. Restricting economic freedom and competition are both ideologies that stand at odds with the bedrock of the economic right. 

Today, with the complexities of the economic system having increased manifold, there is confusion on positions that were once as clear as night and day. Today, the same economic freedom that promoted competition domestically is being played out on a  scale where, through the lens of national borders, an entire nation of people feels cheated of their “dream” and so we have swathes of Britain voting for a “Brexit” and an even larger swathe of America voting Trump for President. So, let us not blame the ideal of economic freedom, or The Right, for what is, irrespective of political ideology, a recipe for disaster.

And Trump is a disaster not because of his ideals but because of his lack of them, because of his ignorance, for his vitriolic diatribes, and because of his lack of common decency.

Politics and Morality

The verdict is out and it is decisive. But it still begs an answer to a question that I have often been asked by friends and family as a staunch BJP supporter (with or without NaMo, just to clarify). Are the riots of 2002 so easily forgotten? How can you vote for a party and a man known to be responsible for genocide? After all, Hitler promised to pull Germany out of an economic quagmire too, did he not? Look where that got the world!

Completely valid questions. But here’s my thinking.

It is tantamount to falling into a propagandist trap to accuse ONLY the BJP+RSS of Communalism. They have been communal, no doubt. But a closer look at history would show that the Congress is equally responsible for playing the Communal card. The only difference is this - the Congress has played it in favour of communities with small numbers while the BJP+RSS has played it in favour of the larger community. The Congress has played the communal card under the garb of secularism and the BJP+RSS combine has played it openly. Fear has been created because of the presence of numbers on one side. Ideally in a secular state, religion is a personal matter, to be observed in the privacy of the home. In India, in the name of protection of minorities, we have made religion an issue of state. We have different laws for different communities, creating systemic discrimination. For the state, all citizens should be subject to the same law on matters concerning civil society. But what we have been running is a protection racket. The Congress created the fear and then the “solution” to that fear as well. If Polygamy is a matter of religious freedom, so is Sati (I don’t condone either, for the record). Why is it “secular” to allow one but regressive to allow the other? If the state must interfere, let us allow it to interfere equally in all communities. Let us have an uniform civil code (something the BJP has always championed, by the way). Let us make marriage and other social contracts a civil matter and not a religious matter (as far as the law is concerned. Feel free to have your ceremonies!).

On the accusation of violence, why is okay to forgive something that happened 67 years ago or 30 years go but not forgive something that happened 12 years ago or 22 years ago? Has not the Congress had a hand in the post-partition carnage or the 1984 anti-Sikh riots? Has not the Congress violated the letter and spirit of Democracy by imposing emergency and steering India towards dictatorship in 1975? So, how is all that okay while it is not okay to move beyond the 1992 or 2002 riots? When we question or critique we must do so objectively, in a non-partisan manner. And if our answer is that it is not Okay, then it must be so for the BJP and the Congress equally. And I unequivocally say that Violence against the Citizenry is NOT Okay. Irrespective of the guise in which it is practised. I say it was wrong of Narendra Modi to stand by and allow the Gujarat Carnage (even if he did not play an active role in it). But at the same time, I also say that it was wrong of the Congress to field candidates who actively participated in the 1984 riots in Delhi.

Both of India’s two large national parties are Communal. Just in different ways. If I have to pick between the two, I would always pick the one that was openly communal as against the one that acts on the sly. That way, I at least know what I am picking. An Honest Thief is better than a Dishonest Thief. Only slightly, but still better.

Oh but, there is an alternative you say. Why not NOTA (none of the above) or the AAP. Here I’ll be honest. I was enthusiastic about the AAP. Till the Delhi elections. A party that cannot provide governance in a state the size of city, albeit a large one, is not one I would trust with the reigns of the country. Neither AAP nor NOTA are credible options for governance. Voting NOTA is akin to voting for anarchy. Voting AAP is to beg an election within 6 months with huge cost to the exchequer and therefore, the taxpayer a.k.a Me and You. Thank you, but No Thanks.

I won’t even get into corruption because everyone, including the AAP, yes them of the broomsticks of cleanliness, is corrupt. If you disagree, please go do your research on some of the candidates that the AAP fielded in the State and National elections. No points to anyone there.

If not the Congress and AAP, why the BJP specifically? Well, economics is one compelling reason. I would rather vote for a party with a right-of-center approach to economics. I am an unabashed capitalist and believe it is the only economic structure that supports both prosperity and freedom. How and why is another discussion for another time. Less government and more governance would be reason number two. And finally, unlike Rahul Gandhi or Arvind Kejriwal, Narendra Modi at least has a demonstrated ability to govern, govern well at that and bring development. In the last 12 years, he has also shown the willingness to put aside the communal aspect of his party’s ideology and focus instead on economics and prosperity. It allows me to hope that he will do the same at the national stage as against an inept Rahul Gandhi whose priority would have been to fill his already burgeoning Swiss Bank Accounts.

Elections are about governance. And in a  scenario where there is no single completely Moral Candidate or Party, I believe it my responsibility to vote for someone who will bring good governance to the country. I reiterate that in my scheme of things NOTA is not an option for if everyone were to vote NOTA, we would be left with no government. Anarchy might work in a small limited community of 1 but it is not an option in a country of 1.3 billion people.

And so, for all of the above, it seems to me that Morality lies in voting for someone who promises governance, stability, security and development. Morality lies in voting for the party that is at least willing to talk about what matters most to the citizenry.

The wrong debate

The last week-10 days has seen huge debates following the brutal Gang rape in Delhi. However, as usual, what our media and our leaders seem to be focussed on is where to accord blame and responsibility. There was, on the news today, much talk of how society has "commoditized" and "objectified" women and the steps we need to take to sensitise society and ensure the dignity and respect of women.

To be sure we could do with greater levels of sensitivity and respect towards women in society at large. But in this case, the larger problem, to me at least, is the establishment. Civil society has, in fact, reacted to the incident with a sense of outrage that definitely shows concern for women's safety and a desire to treat them with respect.

The establishment, and by this I mean our politicians, our police force and even our media, has on the other hand, been arrogant, callous and cavalier in its attitude towards Crime, especially Sexual Crimes, against women. From comments by Sheila Dikshit, the Chief Minister of Delhi, that women not step out alone at night to Abhijit Mukherjee's (MP and son of President Pranab Mukherjee's son) comment today that alluded that protests by women who went to discotheques have little value, the leadership of this country has only been dismissive of the situation.

A situation that should have united the citizenry and leadership of India to take positive action against violence and crimes against women has instead degenerated into a debate that blames every thing from western dresses to bollywood item numbers for the rape of women.

The argument being made in the case of rape today is akin to saying "if you wear a gold chain and step out and a thief snatches it, you are responsible for wearing the chain and tempting him in the first place. Therefore, it is you and not the thief who is responsible for the theft." Does that even sound logical?

Preventing crime against women is not about asking women to "behave". It is about sending out a strong message to criminals that they will not be allowed to go unpunished. It is about the system putting it's weight behind the victim and not looking for their faults or flaws. No matter how provocatively dressed a woman may be, it is not license to rape or eve tease or even make lewd remarks about her. And it is our leadership and our law enforcement agencies that seem to be more in need of this lesson today than civil society.

While crime and criminals arise from society, it is the state that has the power to keep them in check. That is the first and most important function that a state must perform - use the force relegated to it by its citizenry to keep them safe. And that is the function that this debate has conveniently pushed under the carpet. That is the question that the government refuses to take forward. 

The next age of participation

Democracy, the haloed form of government championed by the 20th century, has developed a few dark spots lately. World over, we have seen citizens stand up demanding accountability from their representatives - whether it's the Occupy movements or wikileaks that call the actions of public officials to scrutiny. 

India itself saw an awakening of sorts with Anna Hazare making a stand against corruption, Jaago re calling for more people to vote and so on. Most of these movements have reached a sort of plateau, a place where a few "faces" speak on behalf of the movement and the common man has gone back to being a mute spectator. This is chiefly because it is expensive in terms of time and effort for the common man to participate, to seek information - the key enabler of direct participation. While laws such as the Right to information exist, they are wrapped in bureaucracy making it lengthy, cumbersome and painful for the common man to have direct access to government departments, debates and documents.

Technology however, now enables us to tackle the problem of information in a democracy in innovative manners. One such example is Nulpunt - an app that makes available all documents under discussion or scrutiny by the Dutch government. it even allows people to highlight and mark comments and share it on social networks. As a developing country, it is innovative solutions such as this that we must look to to enable and empower our people and to make politicians and politics more answerable.

↬ Fast co design

PS: Also check out this TED talk by Clay Shirky on how social media can change government and organisation structures

All is fair in Love, War and Indian Elections

The campaigning for the UP elections would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that we are talking about the governing of a nation here and for the fact that India's economic growth has been slowing down over the last 3 years, enough to make Standard and Poor sit up and warn India that it's rating is under threat. 

The latest promise by the Congress in UP says it will give out a mobile bill subsidy to the tune of 20% in the rural areas of that state. I have two objections here - the first is the giving of a subsidy itself, irrespective of which commodity it is for. Any government, if it genuinely wants its people to progress, should focus on creating infrastructure and employment instead of wasting it's budgets on subsidies. The former has a far more long lasting impact on the lives of people and is sustainable as the government can slowly withdraw (after creating basic infrastructure) and let the private sector take over. Given India's precarious fiscal situation, committing budgets to subsidies is foolish and possibly economically suicidal. 

My second objection is that mobile connections are hardly an essential service that they should be subsidised. If there is a market for mobile services in rural UP, market forces will ensure that services are provided at a rate that is affordable to the people. If not, mobile services are not the first priority for government intervention. It is useful technology no doubt but schools, roads, electricity, sanitation, good hospitals etc are far more useful and would go a long way towards improving the standard of living of the people. If the Congress party HAS to talk about subsidies, I'd rather it subsidise good quality education or health care. A mobile subsidy is merely a placebo for the populace and an avenue for dozens of middlemen to make profits.

But then the Congress is not alone. Parties have talked everything from subsidised laptops to erection of statues this election season. A clear sign that governance is no longer a question to be raised in election campaigning. In the aftermath of scams and corruption allegations, political parties continue to insult the electorate by talking handouts and subsidies making beggars of us instead of creating opportunity for production and productivity to thrive.

We, the electorate, are unfortunately foolish enough to fall for it. We forget that these benefits will disappear, like the smoke after the fire. We forget that we ARE paying for it - in the form of taxes, in the form of inflation, in the form of poor economic growth. The only people getting anything for free are the corrupt politicians and middlemen. Such is the state of Indian democracy today - touted as the world's largest democracy, we are nothing but a sham. Some day, the free lunches will come to an end.

Protest

I got a forward from my dad the other day asking all of us to bring the government to account on rising fuel prices. As comparison, the forward offered a comparison of fuel prices in Malaysia and Pakistan. It's an email that made me seethe quite a bit.

To my mind, the argument offered in that mail is not only flawed, but it is this expectation that price must be artificially controlled without finding solutions to the root problem that is dangerous. Asking the government to intervene and set an artificial price sends a clear signal to the government that it can get away with populist measures which have no long term sustainability. India saw the result of a highly controlled and subsidized economy in 1991 when we had foreign exchange reserves enough to afford only two weeks of imports. And it seems to me that we haven't learnt.

Yes, fuel prices impact a lot more than just the cost of driving your car around. They affect some of the most basic things such as food prices and the cost of public transport. It is an all round pain to have fuel prices go up repeatedly. But there is a reason that fuel prices are going up around the world consistently. The reason is the way we consume energy, especially energy generated out of fossil fuels. It would serve us better to look at how we as individuals consume energy and ask for the government to invest in infrastructure and public transport development and into research on cleaner, more efficient utilization of fuels rather than asking for price subsidies. Yes, it doesn't have the immediate impact of reducing one's expenses and hence, may seem "impractical" or "unattractive" as a solution but what about the fact that government investment in infrastructure and R&D will create new jobs, increase per capita GDP, make current fuel prices more affordable and in the longer run, reduce fuel prices as well.

So, yes I wish we'd think about the things we ask for when we protest, the results we want to see and spend our energies in getting lasting results as opposed to sending mass mailers asking for a price cut!

PS: a friend raised a valid question about taxes and the fact that the government could easily reduce those to cut fuel prices without giving a subsidy. I admit I hadn't researched that. And the conversation with him has made me start reading a fair bit on taxes. So post on that coming up soon. Hopefully, better researched this time :)

Oh, but of course, we must prove we are secular!

The recent Allahabad High Court judgement on the land dispute at Ayodhya is to be commended (I refuse to call it the Babri Masjid case because this is NOT the criminal trial associated with the demolition of the mosque. This case was concerned with determining the ownership of the land on which the Mosque stood). It is to be commended because it does the only sensible thing that any court of law, that has the interest of the majority of this nation, can do. It split the land three ways between all the contenders and expressed its opinion on the numerous evidences present before it.

The judgement however, has come in for much criticism from some noted intellectuals of Indian society. Two in particular stand out in my mind and I find them very problematic. The first was a criticism made by lawyer Rajeev Dhawan on NDTV on the day the judgement was announced. According to him, the judgement is panchayati because the judges acknowledge the historical veracity (in the face of evidence presented by the Archeological Survey of India) of the Hindu claim that a temple once stood in the place where the Mosque was. He also has a problem with the fact that the court accepts the Hindu belief that Ayodhya is indeed the birthplace of Lord Ram. Today, a friend sent me a link that led me to this article. Historian Romila Thapar, in an op-ed article in The Hindu, criticises the court judgement stating that the ASI evidence is faulty (without once saying why it is faulty) and that while the Mosque is an integral part of Indian culture, the beliefs and historicity of India's largest religious community has no bearing on Indian culture.

I find the grounds on which these two criticisms have been made worrisome because it seems to me that the intellectuals of the country are in a constant effort to prove that they are "secular" and "broad minded" by siding with the party that has the fewer numbers. The idea of being secular is not the unquestioned protection of the miniority but the acceptance that all communities (including the majority community) have equal rights. It saddens me that in the name of secularism, we have made the majority discourse of this country the minority discourse; that people are afraid to stand up for the Hindu faith for fear of being called fascist or non secular. Why are we so belligerent in our secularism and in our stand on equality? Why can we not be broad minded enough to give the majority its due as well? Why must that always be branded as Hindutva or fascism? It is this pandering to the minority that has, in my view, caused a certain section of the majority to rise up in violent protest. While this does not make their protest right, it should give us cause to think about how we approach notions of secularism.

The land dispute in Ayodhya is first and foremost, a religious one and secondly a historical one. In a religious dispute, faith must be taken into account for the simple reason that none of us can prove or disprove the existence of God. God is a notion we subscribe to on faith and so the historical belief in Rama and Krishna too is based on faith. Second, from a historical point of view, the court only says that a temple once stood on the land where the Mosque was. No where in its judgement does the court say that the Hindus must build a temple in that spot. It only allocates one third of the disputed land to the Hindus. The claim to build a temple has been made by political leaders. It does not augur well for a noted historian to discredit the judgement of the court based on a factually incorrect and biased reading of the judgement.

Lastly, the court is not condoning the act of demolishing the mosque. There is a separate criminal trial pending in court for that. It is only sorting out a civil dispute over the ownership of land. To tie the two issues to each other is to take away from the mandate of the court in this particular case and discredit its prudence. The court has, in my opinion, done admirably in ensuring that Ayodhya does not once again become the cause for a blood bath. It has, in its judgement, upheld the essential equality of all communities in a secular state and has accepted and given legitimacy to two historical facts: that a temple existed in that spot and that a mosque existed in that spot.

In terms of upholding religious faith, perhaps Romila Thapar and Rajeev Dhawan and anyone else who feels the court has been one sided should consider this - only one of the parties has a religious culture and mythology associated with Ayodhya. That community happens to be The Hindus. It is right that their faith should be upheld. The Muslims built a mosque there. That is a historical fact which has not just been recognised but also awarded. However, they do not have any religio-cultural mythology associated with Ayodhya. And therefore, try as the court may, it will find no faith to uphold. These are things we should recognise before we cry foul and rail eloquent about minorities being wronged and secularism being cast aside. Given the tensions and diversity of our society, we cannot afford to be so insecure and defensive about what it means to be secular.

Loaded Dice

I was reading an Economist article yesterday about the Greek economic debacle. After looking at the declining investor confidence in Greek bonds and the likely repercussions of the IMF rescue package, the article went on to talk about the generally dismal state of Euro-zone economies and the impending crisis that may strike Spain and Portugal. There was an interesting statistic at the end of that article – the average Euro-zone public debt is 68% of GDP. That of the US of A is 70%. Still it is only Europe that is in crisis and not America. 

In its conclusion, the article also gives a brief answer to the reason for this discrimination between Europe and America – the world’s reserve currency is the US dollar. In effect, what this means is that the rest of the world cannot allow America to be in crisis for very long. It is in the interest of the global economy to ensure that America is always bailed out on soft terms, at least for now.

At the time of the 2008 Crisis, there was a lot of debate on the larger, global implications of the kind of global financial system that has been created over the years. One of the arguments, that has existed for a while, and came to the fore in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 crisis runs thus (and here I am paraphrasing from several sources): One of the primary reasons that we are a skewed global economy is that we do not have an objective international currency that penalises excess debt and credit both. We have created a system whereby, one side (in this case America) is always rewarded, regardless of debt or credit and the other side is always punished simply because, the international currency is the American Dollar. All economies hold their surpluses in dollar terms thus, making it in everyone’s self interest to ensure at the well being of the dollar by hook or by crook.  This has led to the creation of a financial system that is benchmarked on nothing, whose value is based on biased speculation and not the fundamental value of the resource.

Yesterday’s Economist article brought this to the fore again, albeit in a very subtle manner. And to me it is unjust indeed that some countries should suffer and others not simply because the dice has been loaded since the beginning. I wonder if any generation, in the near or far future, will have the courage to dismantle this unequal system and create a level playing field. 

Prejudice

Discussion over lunch with boss and colleagues and much of the prejudice I've seen over the last one and half years in my time here resurfaced. A blanket injunction against Muslims without a sense of history, assuming that religion is to blame and not more human qualities of conquest, desire and greed.

Every time I hear a conversation like this, I think of the damage our education system and politics have done to the teeming multitude that constitutes this nation. How many of us pause to question, find out, read? Somewhere (and I don't know whether to blame the system or each individual who chooses to accept without thinking), we have become creatures of rote as opposed to creatures of curiosity. Politics has exploited this amply, feeding the frenzy. Each time such conversations happen, it disgusts me. I want to sit them all down and give them a crash course and a reading list.

Prejudice has become a way of co-opting dissent in the public space. Of creating a populace that fulfills the agenda of un-enlightenment, of unquestioning obedience in a democracy. No wonder Indian democracy is a success!

I am reminded of a dialogue from the Fountainhead. Toohey says to Dominique(paraphrasing): If you fight a man on the basis of his capability and achievement alone, he can fight back. But prove that he is against religion or god and you've got a case that cannot be fought. Not with logic. Not with the mind.

That seems to be, to me, the main problem here. We've all been made to believe in the non-issues, leaving the issues that really matter to each and everyone of us unscrutinized. Power has used prejudice, not just in India but across the world, to create a self-sustaining cycle where the dominated live under the illusion that the power is actually in their hands. In the mire of prejudice, we forget fact, causality and the things that actually affect us. Potent potent tool to divide and rule.

PS: Reading list (Thanks to Rehab for the suggestion): 

Disclaimer: Am sticking to books I've found useful and enlightening on Indian history else the list is endless. A lot of this also concentrates on the Partition and subsequent Kashmir conflict (on which I did my dissertation in college) but I think Kashmir, like no other issue in modern India, illustrates the point of prejudice and warped sense of history that "Indians" have.

Also, the idea behind this list is to put together books that differ in perspective and none or all together lead to any one definite conclusion. So it includes both non-fiction and fiction that has been spun around India's recent past.

Okay, too many disclaimers. I will get on with the list.

1. Revenge & Reconciliation by Rajmohan Gandhi
2. Freedom at Midnight by Larry Collins and Dominique Lappierre
3. The future of freedom: Illiberal democracy at home and abroad by Fareed Zakaria
4. Kashmir: behind the vale by M.J Akbar
5. Kashmir: a tragedy of errors by Tavleen Singh
6. The Ice Candyman by Bapsi Sidhwa
7. Midnight's Children by Salman Rushdie

Okay, that's all I can think of now. Will add to this list if I think of any more books.