Be Careful With Those Scissors

I've really had it with these politicians. What in the name of god's heaven do we elect them for? To take care of our needs, right? To ensure that every one gets food, clothing, shelter, education and a good standard of living, no? Did we elect politicians to yell insults at each other? Did we elect them to get offended at anything and everything that happens within 7000 kilometres of the Parliament? Did we elect them so that they can go and fill up our already overburdened courtrooms with stupid Public Interest Litigations on how their honour and integrity has been insulted?

Yeah, you read that right. I've just read a news article about some Congress Party worker in Tamil Nadu filed a case against Rajnikant and Adlabs. What for? He claims that the recent Rajnikant blockbuster Sivaji (produced by Adlabs) insults Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh. I had recently seen Sivaji myself and had thoroughly enjoyed watching Rajni being the Bachelor of Social Service (The BOSS) and beating up goons twice his size in abandoned godowns. Neither Sonia Gandhi nor Manmohan Singh made a surprise guest appearance. In fact, the Congress's haath was never seen waving a hello in this movie for the aam aadmi.

OR DID IT? This Congress Worker who I was talking about claims that both Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi could be seen in the film. I was astonished. "Where? Where?" I yelled, frantically digging into my memory for a glimpse of this exalted pair. There cried the agonized social servant, pushing his Congress ka Haath out of the newspaper and pointing at the scene in the villian's office. Ah, yes, there they were, standing next to the villian himself in teeniest of desk photographs on the villian's desk that appeared in the film for about seven seconds.

Blast them. They file a case in court for seven seconds of film? And that too, because of an insignificant photograph that I would have never remembered if it hadn't been for this Congress Worker? Let me see. The villian's office was in a hospital called Adi Hospital but which was clearly recognisable (to me at least) as M S Ramaiah Medical College in Bangalore. Did any student of this college file a case saying Rajnikant and Adlabs were insulting his college and his own college board should be pulled up for portraying M S Ramaiah as a criminal's establishment? Should the people who built that table in his office file a case because the film makers portrayed their product as a villian's table? Should cleanliness inspectors file a case saying that the film is making a mockery of their job because the villian's office looked clean?

I actually did notice that photograph but completely forgot about it later. I wonder what the congress worker will think if I tell him that the first impression I got was that that the villian had just doctored that photo so that he can portray himself as a good guy. In other words, the first thing that occurred to me was that the photograph was fake and I was applauding the director for his attention to such detail. But obviously I was wrong. I'm not supposed to think like that. Shame on me.

I think these self-styled censors and activists are the worst thing that is happening to society. They find fault with anything. The Shiv Sena did just that when they demanded a ban on Orkut. They claimed that all Orkut had was 'I Hate India' groups that were 'dangerous to the nation'. Firstly, making cheap remarks about India on an online forum isn't dangerous, it's just cheap. And secondly, for god's sake, there are plenty of 'I Love India' and 'Jai Maharashtra!' groups as well. There are even some pro-Shiv Sena groups on Orkut. Why must they only look at the 'I hate India' groups? Some claimed that Orkut corrupts young people. On the contrary, I've never seen a better platform for people residing in different parts of the country to come together and discuss relevant issues like reservation and communalism - topics that need to be discussed. Of course, there are some sad, twisted individuals who seem to get a sadistic pleasure out of misusing Orkut. But for every one of these sorry people, there are two others who use Orkut positively. Should you deny the latter a chance to interact with people like themselves?

As far as I'm concerned, such demands for banning or litigations against a few seconds of film isn't social activism. These so-called activists claim to represent the wishes of Indian society and the Indian public. They don't. All they represent are their own wishes and their own feelings. And I think it's time they admit it. It's time they realized that not everyone in society agrees with them on what constitutes insult and slander. Face it, there are people who don't like Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh. There are people who are both sadistic and bored, so they make caustic comments on whatever they want. Banning them won't get rid of their attitude. Besides, you can't deny Indian citizens the right to insult who they want to insult because it's a free country and they have a right to express their feelings about something or somebody. If you really want them to go, engage in a discussion with them and make them see your point of view. Don't take the easy way out, you'll only end up tripping yourself.

Of Presidents, Elections and Woman's Rights

I have made my views clear about how much I loathe the current presidential elections. There is only one word for it - fiasco. I don't know (and I don't care) who's comparatively better but I do know (and care) that whether it's Shekhawat or Patil, this country is doomed. Neither of them seem to fit in Rashtrapathi Bhavan. Do we want a president who claims to channel spirits? A president who seems to have scammed several account holders in her co-operative bank? Or do we want a president who's so cheap that the first image that comes to your mind is that of some sort of political lackey, looking adoringly at fellow politicians while taking the vilest potshots at his rivals?

But what infuriated me the most is how everyone went agog about the fact that Patil might be the first female President of the country. What of it? Are people really such fools to believe Woman's Rights are going to be uplifted the moment Patil assumes office (if she does get elected that is)? Please. When Indira Gandhi became Prime Minister (which is a realistically more powerful office than that of the President), Woman's Rights hardly went anywhere. On the contrary, the much broader concept of Human Rights went down the drain with the imposition of the Emergency. At the risk of sounding misogynist, we don't necessarily need a woman to improve the quality of life for women. We need concerned people who are conscientious about what they do, regardless of their gender. Frankly speaking, I cannot see Patil in that position.

Feminism has always been a hotly debated topic. While it is generally agreed that discrimination against women exists in many societies in the world, a lot of people in a particular society often disagree as to what constitutes discrimination. For instance, when voting rights to women was granted in western countries during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, most opponents to this act did not consider Denial of Voting Rights as a form of discrimination.

Similarly, in India, subtler forms of discrimination still exist. The concept of a Woman Staying At Home was so firmly embedded in social consciousness that when women first started working at offices, most people, including other women, labelled them as impertinent, ultra-rebellious or even unfaithful to their husbands. That image of a working woman thankfully no longer exists in most urban areas of India today but it seems to be still rooted in rural and semi-urban parts of the country.

Apart from this particular idea, there seems to be a lot of opinion on what a Good Indian Woman should be like. Good Indian Women are often expected to be submissive, to never disobey their husbands or parents and to keep a low profile. Relatively backward areas of the country still practice that outrageous act of Sati, forcing unwilling wives to join their husbands on the funeral pyre. And of course, a lot of times, women are considered a burden to the family. Many couples still curse their luck when the wife gives birth to a girl and the dowry system is exploited very badly in India.

Comparatively liberal workplaces and a recognition of gender equality in urban areas has helped. But a lot of credit goes to Woman's Rights Organizations and other NGOs for improving the status of women in this country. It takes courage to stand up and speak about any social issue but Woman's Rights (along with Caste Rights and health issues like AIDS) is probably one of the toughest challenges to face due to the strong stereotypical mindsets of most members of society, including women themselves.

Having said that, I think it's important to point out that just because you take a woman out of her home and put her in office, you don't necessarily 'liberate' her. If society can accused of stereotyping women one way, many Woman's Rights Activists can be accused of stereotyping women another way and failing to recognize the fact that every woman is different (indeed every individual is different). If some women feel great being independent and not being confined at home, there are others who'd love nothing more than being a good housewife and taking care of their husbands. It's like remembering that all people who wear skimpy clothes probably have a liberal outlook but not all those who are liberal wear skimpy clothes.

I have quite often witnessed both men and women make statements like "Oh, when all women go to work, society is truly liberated". I have also read reports of how Woman's Rights Activists go on what are called 'liberation drives' where they claim to have freed several women from the clutches of conservative husbands. These reports often make me wonder if among every fifty such freed women, there are at least one or two who stayed at home not because they were forced to, but because they chose to. Does this mean I support Sati if the woman goes willingly to a pyre and isn't forced into it? No, because of the simple fact that death is irreversible and you're denying the woman a chance to change her mind. That chance should always be there.

I'm all in favour of gender equality and I'd love to be in a society where equality is so obvious that there is no debate about the matter. But I also wish and hope that activists are careful enough to ascertain what each woman wants. By all means, please make sure that every woman is aware of the opportunities she has and the rights she deserves. But at the same time, leave the ultimate decision to her.


Meanwhile, I'm getting ready for four years of torture under either Patil or Shekhawat.

We, The Great Indians

The Great Indian. Now I'm normally against stereotyping of any sort but I just couldn't resist this. As a member of the breed that I'm about to condemn, what better group of people to criticize than my own, the Great Indians themselves?

Firstly, most of the Great Indians always think that they are the best. In my earlier posts, I have often commented on how these Great Indians tend to divide themselves as much as possible - regionally, communally, linguistically, racially, on the basis of caste and of course, on the basis of which house your great-grandfather's mother's brother used to occupy in a native place that you have never visited. And after the Great Indian Divide has been created, the Great Indians then claim that their group is the best. ("What you saying, I say? My great-grandfather's mother's brother lived in a house twice as big as your great-grandfather's mother's brother's."). Russell Peters put it nicely "Americans have got to understand the difference between terrorists and Indians, WE ARE NOT THE SAME!!......terrorists hate Americans,Indians hate EACH OTHER!!" *

If a student from Haryana and a student from Tamil Nadu ended up in the same class in a school in Bombay, be assured that both their families will tell their sons "Don't mix with him! He's from the North/South!". If a mallu ends up doing something wrong, north Indian observers would probably say "Madrassi hain na...isliye..." (This in spite of the fact that Madras or Chennai is hundreds of kilometres from Kerala). Of course, the same thing happens, only in reverse, if some guy from Delhi lands up in Bangalore ("These Northies are invading us!").

Secondly, no matter what people say, the phrase "Unity in Diversity" is still going strong today. Indians may hate each other a lot, but when it comes to disliking foreigners, they forget all their differences and stand together. Those damn Pakis! Those useless Bangladeshis! Those filthy goras! Those bloody chinks! The only foreign breed that isn't commonly insulted in India is the South American. But that's probably because Indians haven't had much contact with them. South Americans are too far off and relatively unimportant to insult.

But a weird fact is that no matter how much Indians hate foreigners, they love to be recognized and appreciated by them. Indians went super-mad when news went around that that Taj Mahal might not make it to the new list of the Wonders of the World. How can this be? How can the world not recognize our greatness? Vote for Taj! Vote for Taj! Show your patriotism! Great Indians also go crazy if an Indian does the teeniest, most insignificant thing abroad. Mallika Sherawat was given a guest role which lasted about ten minutes in Jackie Chan's The Myth but the hype that it generated lasted for ten months. She herself was surprisingly sensible about it ("You have to start small if you're aiming for the big") but the Indian media couldn't stop raving about how Indians are finally going places. Sania Mirza, admittedly, was promising in the beginning but not so much that every government body in the country from Parliament to Gram Panchayat felt justified in "recognizing her" in some way. Sunita Williams is only half-Indian in origin but that didn't stop her samosas from becoming Great Indian celebrities.

Thirdly, the Great Indian doesn't like being deprived of his or her Great Indian Character. The Great Indian Family always sticks together while going on a Great Indian Trip abroad. They play Great Indian Games, do Great Indian Shopping, gape at things in a Great Indian Way, give Great Indian Comments and show the world our Great Indian Pride - the Great Indian Rudeness and the Great Indian Sloppiness. I have personally never been abroad but I have heard from a lot of Great Indian Trusted Sources about the Great Indian Stories abroad. The story of how a kid who wants to take a leak on a plane is told "Yahi kar do beta". The story of how an angry American who complained about 20 year old Indians running up and down hotel corridors was given a "Bacche hain...how can you stop children from playing?" statement from a hurt mother. Oh yeah, Bharat Mata ki jai.

But once again, a weird contradiction somehow makes Great Indians imitate everything they see abroad. If an Indian city has 25 malls in one road then hell yeah, we're cosmopolitan. If software companies in Silicon Valley work from plastic and glass buildings, then hell yeah, Bangalorean companies must do the same (No one cares about how much energy is being wasted with such buildings in an equatorial climate - after all, one must be progressive). Mumbai wants to be like Shanghai and Bangalore like Singapore. What about vada pav and bisi bele baath? Get rid of them, they're traditional and old - they have no place in a modern society.

Ah, the Great Indian is such a bunch of contradictions. But does this mean we should change? Should we pull up our socks and button up our shirts? Should we be careful and politically correct whenever we refer to someone other than ourselves? No. Atleast, not to such a drastic extent that the Great Indian loses his greatness. Half the fun of being an Indian is leading such a moronic lifestyle. But we can try and change a bit. Maybe we can stop attributing every defect in a person to his or her ancestral lineage. Perhaps we can be a little cleaner both at home and abroad. Maybe we can be a little prouder of our roots but at the same time be sensible enough to acknowledge our inabilities.

But knowing the Great Indian, I doubt it.




* However, with the recent Glasgow attack, the difference between Indians and terrorists seems to be dissolving. Indians now hate the west AND each other.

The Government And The Free Market

Free market theories are full of explanations and reasons for their pushing forward the statement that direct government involvement in the economy retards development. One of their biggest arguments is actually a reply that is given to economists who fear the emergence of monopolies in a free market. Free Market Theorists argue that governments are monopolies themselves and an economy controlled by the state is just a politically veiled monopoly. So ultimately, one has to choose between the chance emergence of a monopoly from the private sector or a certain presence of a monopoly in the form of the government. Obviously, the better choice is the private sector where a monopoly need not occur.

A counter-argument by socialists in reply to this statement was that since the private sector is uncontrolled, a monopoly firm can rise unchecked and will be perhaps unstoppable. On the other hand, if consumers are not satisfied with a State monopoly, they can always vote the ruling government out of power and install somebody else at the head instead (this was an argument that I heard at a debate last year). But of course, history shows us different results. When the public sector started to fail in India, no new government could save it. Instead, it was the private sector that came to India's rescue with liberalisation in the 1990's.

More importantly, the private sector is not really uncontrolled. In a free market, consumers have the power to show who's boss. If they don't like the products of one particular company, they'll simply switch over to another, causing losses to the offending company and forcing it to either improve its products or face closure. Therefore, the argument that public sector companies are actually safer does not hold much water and the risks of a strong private sector don't seem to be any greater than the risks of a strong public sector.

But does this make the government redundant? Should economies do away with governments completely? Perhaps, the government should be thrown out of any economic enterprise altogether and let the more reliable private sector handle everything. But I'd like to disagree. No economy can do away with the government completely. The fact that most government enterprises are usually inefficient does not make any difference. The government cannot be wished away simply because the government does not want to be wished away.

A basic rule that most economists follow is "eliminate what is inefficient". The Public Sector with its sick industries and bloated labour just reeks of inefficiency and therefore must be eliminated according to this rule. But something that a lot of economists overlook is who the Public Sector is providing for. Public Sector Units (PSUs) are theoretically set up to provide services and products to those people who are, for some reason, unable to access such products and services from the private sector.

Admittedly, this wasn't really the norm in India. Most Indian PSUs were set up to fulfill grand agendas of nationalistic governments whose eyes were so set on the future that they ignored the demands of the present. But this is not always the rule. A lot of African economies depend heavily upon their Public Enterprises because the governments are the only bodies that are organised well enough to provide such services.

Joseph Stiglitz, in his book Globalisation and its Discontents gives one such example. A certain African country approached the IMF for funds. As is normal with IMF policy, the country received a number of conditions that it must fulfill before it could receive any aid. That particular African government was in the practice of assisting the country's poultry farmers by providing transportation services through which eggs and chickens could be sent to markets across the country, thereby reducing costs for the farmer. The IMF demanded that the government stop these services and let the private sector take over. Desperate for funds, the government complied and everyone waited for the private sector to magnificently sweep in and reorganize the entire transportation industry. It never happened. Why? Because there was no private sector at all. No one but the government had the resources and organization to conduct such services. And no private party had the initiative to start such a business because of lack of funding. The IMF funds didn't count since the government had never planned to use them for the transportation industry in the first place. They had borrowed those funds for an entirely different area of development. The result? The poultry industry started to collapse. Poor farmers were forced to pay steep prices to get their produce somehow to the markets. Those who could not do so, were forced to go out of business.

The government service provided to those farmers was nothing great. The trucks were old, the drivers corrupt and the roads extremely bad. But there was no alternative. It was government or nothing. Free Market Theorists would probably say that the Private Sector was weak because the government did not encourage investment. But tell me, which investor would want to pour his money into a poor Sub-Saharan African country with no prospects of development in the first place? Which domestic investor would have the means to do so? The way the government so willingly stopped operations proves that it wasn't really interested in providing these services anyway. It wasn't as if they were clutching the transportation industry with a tight fist and refusing to let any one else near them.

Such conditions exist even in India, in spite of a booming private sector. A lot of villages still depend upon the local Community Health Centre for its health care services because these areas don't attract private medical institutions. Most village children who do get an education do so because of a nearby government school. Most private schools do not find such areas economically viable to operate in (not that it is any fault of theirs).

What I believe is that the Private Sector should supply goods and services wherever there is an economic demand (i.e. demand backed with adequate purchasing power) for such goods and the Public Sector should provide the same to those who wish for such but are unable to afford the price. This is not easy of course. There are always rich consumers who try and get the product for a lesser price. But as I have noted before, PSU products are usually (usually!) of lesser quality than those provided by the Private Sector and if the quality gap is sufficiently large, it's highly unlikely that those who can pay for better quality will not do so. Such a quality gap will also motivate poorer sections of society to rise above their current income levels so that they can afford the same quality.

Of course, another point to note is that the government doesn't like being out of the spotlight! I have often noticed Free Market Theorists give an impression (probably unintentional) that one should ignore the government completely - a dangerous thing to do. If a vibrant economy ignores the government altogether, then an impoverished government with a bloated bureaucracy will sometime in the future, try and interfere in the working of this economy. Politicians and bureaucrats are usually attracted to money like moths to a candle flame. We have already seen politicians targeting IT firms in Bangalore, bureaucrats clamping down projects in Gurgaon and netas interfering in private projects in Mumbai and many of these people are obviously looking for some monetary gain. This means that the economy can never ignore the government altogether. Its presence in the economy is assured and if an economy hopes to thrive, it must ensure that a reasonably responsible government is in charge of the administration of the country, regardless of how strong the private sector is.

Some Stupid Statements

Here are some things said by people, both famous and not-so-famous, that when looked at in retrospect, seem extremely stupid.


1. "Peace for our time"

Neville Chamberlain , Prime Minister of England, 1938, made this extremely ironic statement in defence of the Munich Agreement that was designed to pacify Hitler's European ambitions. A year later, Hitler invaded Poland and started World War II.


2. "It is my opinion that guitar groups are on their way out"

An employee of Dacca Records said this to the manager of a four-member band at an audition as an excuse for not signing the group on. A few years later, The Beatles became a household name in the west.

3. "It will be over before Christmas"

A popular statement that circulated in 1914 regarding the new war that had just begun. Instead, World War I would drag on for four long years resulting in thousands of deaths.

4. "You will never understand mathematics. You're hopeless."

A German schoolmaster made this caustic comment to a young boy in his class. In 1905, that same young boy would formulate the Special Theory of Relativity (along with other pioneering works) under the name of Albert Einstein.

5. "You're addled."

The Reverend Engle said this to another young boy. This boy would go on to become one of history's greatest inventors. His name was Thomas Alva Edison.

6. "64 KB of RAM is enough for everyone."

Bill Gates made this statement. In a world where computers are quickly exceeding this limit and people still want more.

7. "Spam will be gone in two years."

Bill Gates again, in 2004. Spam only seems to have increased in the last three years.

8. "Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai"

A statement that went around after the signing of the Panchsheel between India and China in the late 1950's. A few years later, the countries were at war with each other and Nehru died a disillusioned man. The statement instead became "Hindi-Chini Bye Bye"

9. "The English are a nation of shopkeepers."

Though it's not certain if Napolean Bonaparte ever made this statement, it certainly reflected his attitude towards England. A shopkeeper named Nelson however defeated his forces at sea while another shopkeeper addressed as the Duke of Wellington saw him fall at Waterloo. Never underestimate market forces.

10. "The Second Five Year Plan will be a Great Leap Forward"

Chairman Mao of the People's Republic of China advocating massive industrialization in 1958 in order to convert China into an industrial powerhouse. The Great Leap Forward (as the plan came to be known) is now acknowledged by many as an economic disaster. China's current industrial dominance came into being only decades later due to different economic plans.

There are several other statements that escape my memory. However, these ten statements show how careful one must be while making predictions about the future. Often, we underestimate an opponent's greed (as Chamberlain did with Hitler) or have too much confidence in our own evaluations (as the German schoolmaster regarding Einstein). Often, we would just be victims of fate but many times, we have the opportunity to set things right.