Social Media and the Illusion of a New Dynamic in Elections

The general elections that will be held soon has an interesting syncretism. It is the most scrutinised, followed and debated general elections till date for obvious non-political reasons. The age of social media has meant that a large section of the population who already had an opinion now have the means to express, debate and discuss these opinions. This should have meant better focus on priority areas, better questioning of candidates and political parties thus calling their bluff and separating facts from rhetoric.

This brings me to the second element of this mixture- greater discussion and scrutiny has not lead to better questioning but only blind gobbling up of rhetoric and vitriol dished out by politicians from every side. An honest analysis of their actions till date is completely absent, they are not asked any questions and so they control the narrative while social media merely becomes a platform for propaganda and campaigning. Although technology has provided us the means to change the entire process, we are only using it to follow the old process of one-way communication. Television and Newspaper outlets are only interested in endless debate amongst themselves on pointless poll predictions, catchphrases and anchor-led outrage. But it clearly satisfies our desperate need to participate, engage and express our opinion even if it makes little difference in what policies are pursued by the next government.

The elections are less than two months away and no party has a clear road map for the country in any area. Apart from broad and vague terms like empowerment, strong leadership, unity, inclusive growth etc I have not heard of a clear plan. I hear about visions and goals but that too in vague terms. I have not heard anyone speak of improving learning outcomes in schools, no one speaks of improving India's abysmal performance in Research and Development. How do they intend to balance environment protection & economic growth? What are the plans for increasing agricultural productivity, wages and addressing deterioration of land and water quality? What is the stand on climate change? What to do about infrastructure bottlenecks that is the obvious reason for India's failing growth miracle? Foreign affairs has never been an election issue in India and so those who speak about a vision for India have nothing to say on India's relations with China, USA, Latin America and multilateral bodies. Skill development is fine but how to achieve it when existing schools, colleges and universities are badly managed, seen as only cash cows by private owners and students pass out with degrees that have less value than the paper on which their certificates are printed?

A popular area of "vision" is governance with each party claiming governance as its own great strength. But I do not hear anything on devolution of powers to urban local bodies, improving their funding and functioning, I hear nothing about solving the conflict of authority in each urban area that has a municipality, a district administration, a development authority, state government control and on top of it all dependent on central government for funds, permission and development activities! A case in point is my own district of Ernakulam where constructing the Metro required permission from the centre- a permission that came almost immediately after the Congress led government came to power in the state although the project was being mooted for over 4 years during which the estimated cost almost doubled- funds from the state, centre and external loans. Right now, traffic congestion is worse than ever but alternate routes have not been developed or are under developed since no one knows who should do it- DMRC the metro constructors, state government, development authority or the municipality!

Of course, these are not stuff that a single legislator can deal with and will require the government to do it. So shouldn't atleast parties come out with answers for these issues? Shouldn't those hoping to and with highest probability of forming the next government take the initiative in addressing these concerns? The funniest thing is that it is not clear whether this is an issue for municipal, state or central elections. This election is supposed to be one where urban and young voters will make a difference. How is their participation supposed to make a difference when the vote is not a well-considered decision but one based on a lot of misinformation, rhetoric, vitriol and obfuscation?

Elections used to be and will continue to be decided on the basis of old allegiances to caste, religion and rhetoric because we have not found any other grounds to "fight" an election. Money and muscle power will still be decisive factors while social media's role, no matter how far it is hyped up by technocrats or aspiring leaders, will be limited to mere one-way channels. Politician's are not willing to layout a set of goals, plans to achieve them, measurement criteria and guarantee that if they fail due to lack of effort, they will resign. The clear map, objectives and guidelines laid down by the Millennium Development Goals prove that it is possible to back up a vision with clearly defined objectives, intermediate targets and measurement criteria. But our politician are asking us to trust them blindly on hollow words like empowerment, inclusion, vision, secularism and transparency. So let us take part in this exercise, let us be proud of our democracy, our vote and our government without having a clear idea what this vote means, what the government intends to and what the government can and should do- something which those intending to form the government too are not quite sure of.

Environment-Industry Debate: A Much Needed Balance

Every country needs to create jobs, produce essential raw materials like iron and steel, mine minerals and petrochemicals. It is not just about economic growth numbers but about fulfilling our infrastructure, employment, transport, electricity and construction needs. How should this be carried out? Common sense dictates that this process benefit the highest number of people, it be sustainable, it should not destroy our environment, health and long term availability of resources. However, the blame for low economic growth over the last few years is being placed on environment activists and regulations to protect the environment. This forgets the fact huge areas under forests have been cleared for industrial projects (a) over the last 10 years and these industries have also caused harm to local communities by destroying their livelihoods, polluting the environment and causing huge revenue (b) and resource loss to the state as a lot of the minerals are exported without proper records and revenue collection.

In spite of large scale damage- economic, environment and social- caused by mines and possibility of damage from new ones, hydel projects and thermal power plants, economists and industrialists (some in government too) are harping on about reducing or doing away with even the bare minimum protection provided to our environment and people. All they care about is the economic growth figure- either to boost their profits, prospects in elections or to gain support of industrialists.

Even a large scale mine that causes severe environment and health damage or a hydroelectric dam that displaces people will boost GDP since the increased expenditure on health by the people, attempts to relocate, clean up the environment damage and pollution will count towards economic activity. However, the cost of damages caused to the environment, people's lives are borne by the people which is not reflected in the economic growth rates.  A legislation to replace the colonial era land acquisition law that was highly exploitative and patently unjust was passed recently. But this too was criticised as anti-industry although it was much needed to prevent displacement, exploitation and unjust treatment of land owners, especially tribals who have been suffering for years under the previous draconian legislation.

But we only hear about investments and economic growth lagging (c) due to environment hawks and courts putting in place a blanket ban on mining sand or iron ore. Nobody identifies the real cause of the problem- mismanagement and discretion caused by corruption in government over the process environment clearances. But if the finger is pointed to this, then vested interests- industrialists, government and economists tied to corporates- won't be able to enjoy a free ride. They had used a broken system to their fullest advantage- they want to keep the system broken so that they can benefit from its weaknesses.

It is this system and its implementation that needs to be fixed. It is this broken system that forced judicial intervention and so called judicial over-activism into the domain of the executive. But judiciary is being derided since it stepped in to fill a void deliberately left or sometimes even created by the executive. It is the same system that encouraged left-wing extremism and popular protests against large scale industries and factories.

We obviously cannot have a system where every case goes to court, every investment project is held up for years or decades for want of environment clearance (the mere uncertainty and dilly-dallying creates disincentives for investment and reduces economic growth), reduces employment opportunities and sets back our infrastructure. What we need to do is to follow the existing laws- Environment Protection Act, Pollution Control Board rules, Forest Conservation Act etc- clearly, implement them properly and transparently and complete the decision making process in a time-bound manner and also establish a mechanism to ensure that there is continued adherence to environment protection norms. This would mean proper regulatory institutions that are not politically manipulated but act in public interest, independent of the government. Here too a middle ground is required, one that balances needs of industry and economy with sustainability, environment protection and rights of the people dependent on the land.

AAP and Schroedinger's Cat- Good and Bad

When I learned electronics, I dealt with ones and zeroes. Something in that concept deeply disturbed me and this was the absolute lack of middle ground. Of course, in technology this greatly simplifies our working and has lead to the information and computer revolution. We represent everything in ones and zeroes and with larger number of ones and zeroes for greater clarity which takes less space and effort than a continuous analog signal.

We do the same in life. We define everything as white or black and then pick one over the other. We do not think of a middle ground, the grey area which usually signifies doubt and uncertainty is left unexplored. This is because we prefer simpler choices and it is easier to gain followers if the choices and alternates are simple, clear and easily distinguishable. Whether it be in politics, economics or environment we choose between left or rightist policies, socialism or capitalism, industries or forests.

This sort of polarisation is unfair and even evil because-
1) It makes us adamant and adhere to one side strictly without any scope for compromise
2) It blinds us to alternates that are somewhere in between
3) The result is a decision that could be disastrous since it is not the best choice

But to me, the worst result is when those who advocate the middle ground- the saner and yet more complex but infinitely better and logical solutions- are thrashed by both sides. The only way to be heard is to take extreme positions, it becomes a shouting match and the original message is lost. Pragmatism and solutions that can work are rarely considered and so we are reduced to "either with us or against us" type of situation.

It is this polarisation that has depressingly afflicted our debate, thinking and decision on almost every issue- environment versus industries, one religion against another, socialism versus capitalism and activists against politicians. It has to be either fully good or fully bad and this was most felt in the opinions expressed over the functioning of the Aam Admi Party.

It was a refreshing change to see an outsider earn the trust of the people, form a government, consult the people on significant issues and work for the people with a clear local level agenda. But it definitely has its own drawbacks- public protests by the government, signs of populism and theatricality etc. However, the discussion is never about what the AAP should do or what it can do to improve itself but only about how it is doomed to fail and how unfair and undemocratic its functioning is. No one mentions the fact that they have been in government for less than a month and all those who blame this party are willing to turn a blind eye to graver sins of all other political outfits. The new kid on the block is being thrashed by everyone and the media has been unforgiving in its attempts to discredit this young outfit.

But AAP should do well to realise a few things. Their strengths lie in their idealism, transparency, citizen engagement and local level manifestos. But a general election could stretch their resources thin, their message and attempts could get drowned out, manipulated or completely destroyed by the politics of an election campaign which involves slander, unfair criticism and relentless scrutiny along with the advantages that big parties have.

People's desire for change and urban support, several social movements and prominent individuals from industry and academia joining them provides an opportunity for AAP to provide a good government to the people. But they must be aware of the threat posed by populism, opportunists and getting carried away with the trappings, perks and power of position and do their best to counter these. Media visibility is both a strength as well as a threat and so they must be very careful in their public statements, public programs and image.

Such an analysis has not appeared and it has broad and generalised sweeping statements putting them in either the good or bad basket. We do not know what course the AAP experiment will take let alone its final result. But its novelty, challenge to established political realities and methods make it difficult for us to understand it properly since it has not fully taken shape. This irritates us, especially in a hyper-charged environment fed by the media, since we need an answer now.

Is the AAP then good or bad? Where electronics fails, let us use quantum theory and the famous Schroedinger's cat which provides us a middle ground. We do not know whether the cat is alive or dead. There is equal probability and so the cat is both alive and dead at the same time. This is the middle ground as far as AAP is concerned- we simply do not know where it will go, what it will do and what its priorities and policies are. We should give them time, give the new political idea time to develop and allow them to develop a national agenda before fully judging them.

In Need of Detoxification

The first step to solving a problem is to recognise what the problem is. It has been nearly forty days since Civil Service Mains exam concluded and I need to understand what the impact has been in order to begin a repair process. I do not want to do an analysis of the exams. This is not just because I do not know how to analyse it but I think it is also a pointless exercise. I have done what I could have, and nearly everything I had to. But the results will be the same and my analysis will have no impact on that. Next year is going to be a completely different ballgame and so there is no point in learning from my mistakes.

The most visible impact has been the sight of me- I have gained weight and expanded while repairing the damage is proving frustratingly and imperceptibly slow. I hope things pick up speed or at least results are visible in a few weeks, just like my exam result. Another impact has been in the way I am writing now and I do mean write! Until a few months ago, it was easier and first nature for me to type out what I thought and wanted to publish. But several mock tests, practice and deliberate measures to gain writing speed later, I find it slightly awkward to type it out like before. I had to exert myself to write and so I had decided not to type but write whatever I felt like. Thus, most of what would have been blog posts where put down on paper and that is why there haven't been any posts for the last few months.

Before writing became a habit, I just used to type without thinking and make corrections later. But this cannot be done on paper for an examination and so I had to prepare a rough draft either in my mind or on paper for very long essays. This was new for me but I was able to make the shift without much difficulty. Trouble began when I tried to get back to the old style of impulsive, instinctive and emotional writing where I could just turn on the computer and type what I felt like. This is not possible anymore since I had to actually write on paper an outline of what I wanted to post here.

Another problem is that posts appear like answers to a specific question and even worst of all, the title is actually the question! This post initially had the title Exam Impact Assessment (EIA) as a tribute to Environment Impact Assessment and various ongoing issues on the matter. I hope this title is better but the previous post, highly unlikely that you have read it, has been the victim of a highly exam oriented answer and then a pathetic attempt at retro-fitting to make it more human friendly. Although these two recent posts are not anywhere my previous attempts, I had to somehow begin the process of getting out of the exam mindset in writing and expressing myself.

There are several other issues relating to my personality that the exam and post exam emptiness have thrown up. I am trying to tackle them but it is becoming too much of a task. I have the time but this is one occasion when having time on my side is not really a blessing since it gives me too much time to think what if and all those negativities come out as real possibilities. I hope these can all be dealt with effectively and there is light at the end of the process.

New Generation Only, Kids and Elderly Keep Out

I recently bought a VCD of the new Malayalam movie called North 24 Kaatham and thought of watching it with my parents. Although on the lighter side of the so called "new generation" movies, after watching it for 10 minutes on my computer, I realised that just like other movies of the same genre, it is not something that can be enjoyed with the entire family. Perhaps that would be the best and simplest definition of "new generation" Malayalam movies- movies that would be too embarrassing to watch with the entire family.

Although there are broadly three types "new generation" movies, the common thread could be the depiction of sex, language and lifestyle- use of abusive language, drinking, vulgarity and at least in the silver screen more freedom, low inhibition and liberation for women while taking place in mostly an urban setting. The three types of this genre-

1) A movie that tells a story different from the traditional topics of Malayalam cinema and malayali life while partly describing a new normal of life in Kerala- these include movies like Diamond Necklace, Ritu, Cocktail  etc. The difference lies not in the story but in what the story depicts as life, events, language and
lifestyles.

2) In this category lie movies that present a different type of movie making. It is experimentalisation in what a movie is and what it should convey. Here, an obvious beginning, plot and conclusion or usual melodrama and fuss of popular routines are sometimes absent. Examples include Kerala Cafe, Anchu Sundarikal (anthology movies), North 24 Kaatham, Annayum Rasoolum, Traffic, Thirakkadha and Amen.

3) This is perhaps the most extreme or radical version of new generation movies where the themes and style of movie making is new. These include Trivandrum Lodge, Chappa Kurishe, 22 Female Kottayam etc.

They were welcomed because they came at a time when we were fully fed up of the antics of relics who were playing ridiculous roles that were an insult to their previous accomplishments, to Malayalam movies themselves and to us the audience who were used to much better acting, stories and depictions. Things got to such a low that we even cheered for, accepted and made a celebrity out of the totally outrageous and ridiculous creations of Santosh Pandit.

Before "new generation" movies arrived and was accepted as a new genre, there were movies like Thirakkadha, Pakalnakshathrangal, Ritu, Traffic etc that provived much needed relief, quality and was a sign of things to come. It is perhaps with the return of Fahadh Fasil that "new generation" in Malayalam cinema got a clear- cut identity as a genre of movies. Movies like Chappa Kurishe, 22 Female Kottayam and Diamond Necklace being the actor's major successes.

"New generation" movies have not completely replaced regular movies and both of them have had equal measures of good and bad movies,  horrible failures and remarkable successes. Even in this era, movies that tell a simple yet lovable family story, comedies, dramas etc are succeeding.  These include Celluloid, Beautiful, Ayalum Njanum Thammil, Indian Rupee, Passenger, Grandmaster, Ordinary, Romans, Robinhood, Arabi Ottakam P. Madhavan Nair some of which are obvious recycles of old banal stories and yet can be enjoyed without shame, apprehension about the next embarrassing scene which will make us dread the moment we have to face the elders or kids.

I do not hold a puritanical view of movies and so a change in attitude, openness and liberalism must be welcomed as long it does not become ridiculous and tries to make a mockery of the viewer's intellect like what was in attempted in "Bachelor Party" and "Casanova".

In the end, it does not matter whether it is a new or old generation movie- if it is good, people will watch, appreciate and remember it. But one thing is for certain, "new generation" movies have a connotation about age, they are not for children, middle-aged and the elderly, they cannot understand it since it is not from their time. So watching these movies is an awkward experience for everyone in a family setting. It is more suited for hanging out with friends, a sign of changing times in Kerala.

Whither Demographic Dividend

India's relatively benign and voluntary family planning approach is lauded for its expected demographic dividend, when the nation is relatively young with an average age around 25 and almost half the population below the age of 25. At first glance, this is a major advantage as other nations age, India's young work force will be welcomed and even required across the world and pension funds across the world will have to invest in a growing market like India which will lead to an economic boom. At least this is what Nandan Nilekani and most India- optimists and members of emerging India bandwagon are talking about. There are a few minor issues for this vision-

1) Firstly, the symbolic aspect- the youngest nation in the world has an 80 year old PM whose glory days came almost 20 years ago. The council of ministers is relatively younger at around 64 years of age (a). This statistic is brushed by bringing up the names of Jyotiraditya Scindia, Sachin Pilot or Murli Deora. Agatha Sangma was also in the list, but where have I heard these names before? Oh yes, they are second generation immigrants in Parliament. So this is the message we get- you are either THE old guard itself or you can succeed someone in the old guard.

2) We talk about demographic dividend, but apart from a plethora of schemes or ideas on Public Private Partnership and a lot of empty rhetoric on skill development, nothing has been done on this. One can talk of 17 new IITS, NITs in every state and over 10 IIMs, but they are struggling to find faculty and quality of academic work happening there is questionable. Credit should be given where due, IIST, IISER are doing a decent job, I hope they can increase scientific research in the country. There is little being done for Post Graduate courses, research and little to integrate industry and education and research. Vocation skills are seen as an inferior choice and so is learning by doing. Even primary education is a mess as report after report indicate pathetic learning outcomes and widespread teacher absenteeism in schools.

3) Major effort at labour reform is related to bringing down regulations and protection, which is fine since trade unions and employees unions focus only protecting permanent employees which has lead to the informalisation of formal sector where contract labourers outnumber permanent workers. Even the state is doing the same through recruiting and paying less than minimum wages for ASHA (Accredited Social Health Activists) and Anganwadi workers, Mid-day Meal cooks and even school teachers. This is where the reforms must happen by restricting the number of people who can be employed as contract labour and when employed for more than a specified period of time, making them permanent employees mandatory. The purpose of contract labour is to overcome short- term labour crunch and training, not to replace permanent employees. Even trade unions are in the clutches of permanent employees.

4) Demographic dividend will not come on the back of an empty stomach and a disease ravaged body. Infant and child mortality, low immunisation, undernutrition and almost non-existent health facilities in the government sector are not being addressed at the higher levels.

5) We will not have a young forever population and so no one is talking about what happens when this population gets old. In all probability, we will get old before we get rich.

Add to this disadvantages of caste and gender to which our political parties have no response except blaming each other or pandering to caste panchayats that restrict rights of women.

It is NGOs, citizen's groups and some committed government employees that are fighting the battle against these, not the political class or upper bureaucracy. We have enough and more economic and social experts, Amartya Sen, Aruna Roy and thousands of others are working on this field. It is time we listened to them rather than the blatantly open but stupid propaganda of religious leaders (leaders of all religious factions, I can't accept them as leaders of religion) who are not focused on demographic dividend but on demographic division where they exhort us to raise more children either to address population imbalance or to see everyone as children of god while resisting contraception and family planning.

Emerging Trend of Conservatism in India

During a quiz in college in 2011, my team was leading towards the end of a quiz and the quizmaster was informed by the organisers that there is a lack of time. I jumped at hearing that and suggested we don't mind stopping it then. But he said we could quickly finish off one more round of questions and finally we ended up second by a margin of 2 points (102 to 100 I think). I love quizzing, more the questions the better and I simply love answering them. But I wanted to end while I was ahead, while the result was in my favour, but it definitely would have been unfair to stop before completing all the rounds and I knew it well.

When we are leading, when we have what we want, we want things to stay the same. Any change could threaten our existence or hegemony and could even end it. We become conservatives in order to preserve the status quo. The more a society progresses and private capital expands its profits, the more it will want things to stay the same. It will only want change to advance itself or retain the conditions which promoted its growth. It is either advancement based on my terms or conservatism.

The 91 reforms did bring about an increase in economic activity, more jobs, foreign investment, better pay for an educated section, increase in informal employment which is the only reason why the situation has not exploded, technology, internet and more lifestyle choices for a large section of our population. There are those who were genuinely benefited by these reforms, we learned the taste of economic freedom due to these reforms. But the current direction is towards the promise of self- preservation for those who have benefited from these reforms, domination for those who have exploited the reforms through cronyism and corruption and utter neglect, apathy and continued exploitation for those who have been left out. Those who want to protect their modest gains are wary of anything and everything that could threaten their well-being and this is exploited by those who want to preserve their current domination.

We have economists and corporates trying to scare the public by blaming the Food Security Bill for a fall in the value of the rupee, we blame an overambitious CAG (doing the right job honestly is overambition in government service), over-reaching judiciary (trying to right a blatant wrong to ensure justice by cancelling spectrum licenses gained through not so honest methods is over reach) and environmentalism for policy paralysis. Conservatives are trying to build a strong base for conservative opinion in this country that uses the smokescreen of minimal governance that promotes entrepreneurs and reduce government inefficiency to actually promote a state that favours corporates and designs policies for them while ending all expenditure and its role towards a fair and just society. They are trying to curb government spending in health, education, infrastructure and regulation so that the only organisation that can represent the people and stand up to the combined might of corporates is either too defanged to work even with a set of idealists or too corrupted to bother about the people.

The rupee fell because of the mishandling of the economy by the government, global factors, unbalanced economy post 91 (chasing easy profit) and policy paralysis. It is not just because of a widening fiscal deficit but also the widening current account deficit created by rising purchases of gold, luxury cars, consumer goods and petroleum products, the benefit of which are mostly exploited by the middle and upper classes. Even if it is because of a widening fiscal deficit, no one bothers to take a look at the section in our budget on revenue foregone as a result of excise, tax and duty cuts to corporates, on luxury items and jewellery. Policy paralysis was created by the prevalence of cronyism and corruption in the system which went roughshod over legitimate environment and sustainability concerns.

Yet we do not want to counter these factors but we want the food security bill and such social interventions to be extinguished (I do agree that it was just a vote grabbing gimmick), reduce corporate taxes so that there is better compliance while there is no equivalent call for reducing income tax (not suggesting a policy measure, just saying that the objectives show the source of these arguments), curb all regulations since they are a barrier to business and remove constitutional authorities like CAG that point out government misdoings and curb the judiciary's role  in order to protect cronies and politicians that favour them.

Conservatism is gaining foothold in India and its vanguard are those who have exploited the system so far to reach dominant positions. They do not want any new players and challengers, they want to preserve their domination and manipulate the system for that while maintaining the label of a democracy which is why it tries to incite the middle class against government spending and welfare measures. The cure definitely is not in curbing the income of corporates and middle classes and overburdening people with taxes and redistribution of wealth, it is not about a reversion to a state controlled economy and no one is against plugging leakages in our social sector interventions. But by deliberately corrupting the government, introducing and forcing more and more leakages in order to discredit social sector interventions as wasteful expenditure (but at the same time chase favourable policies and allotments from the government), people are turned against their own interests and plays straight into the hands of the corrupt and corporates.

There are no simple explanations

We are all curious, we ask questions and we want to know why things are the way they are. We look for explanations and try to understand them. We want to know how things work, how people think and act and why they do so, we want to know how universe and space was created. But when I was asked at the age of 13 whether I knew what caused thunder, I confidently said I had read that it was caused by the sudden expansion and contraction of air by high temperature caused by the lightning. Too many heavy words there isn't it? So a relative of mine who was over sixty gently corrected me saying it was caused by collision of clouds.

I refused to accept that answer and it was a good decision since it prevented me from making a mistake at this year's Civil Service Prelims. But I was not confident enough about my answer which was in fact right. Why do most of us still think and accept that very simple explanation of clouds colliding against each other to cause thunder? We like explanations, but we prefer them to be simple ones which are easy to understand.

The same tendency characterises our debate on why there are sexual assaults in India- Indian men are sexually repressed, it is the caste system and poverty. I guess there are no rapes in USA (a) and rest of the world. No doubts that it is a crime and it reeks of inequality and a superiority complex of men, but it is also a worldwide problem. Simplistic explanations mean we do not address the real issue- the inability to respect equality! The solution should begin at home and like in all crimes, better policing can only deter such crimes, not prevent them physically. Majority of such crimes are perpetrated by individuals known to the victim and that too in a place generally considered safe. So policing has little role here. One thing that we must stop is blaming the victim and further traumatising the person.

The simple explanation for India's economic trouble is conveniently heaped on a socialistic pattern. Only the completely ignorant would call India a socialist nation now. We needed the initial socialism which was also supported by the corporates of the time and it was the dominant worldview. But we went too far with it and did not make necessary corrections while running the course. We persisted with a good idea to turn sour and saw it become a villain (reminiscent of The Dark Knight- you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain). Socialism is not the issue, but is a convenient scapegoat.

We then blame democracy for India's perils while we praise and aspire for an American Dream and superpower status, forgetting that it is a democracy. We say our government has too much power while forgetting that it is even bigger a government in the USA with the state hand in glove with corporate interests, violating human rights at every turn, perpetuating racism and killing with impunity.

Combined with the need for a simple explanation is the need to appear knowledgable and intellectually superior and so we gobble up these simplistic theories to satiate our appetite and to appear healthy. A little knowledge though is a dangerous and a simple explanation will do more harm than good.

Learning History and its Lessons

The job of a historian is to record events, analyse them and produce an objective version of what happened, how and why. Some also offer versions different from recorded and accepted history while others probe the 'what if' angle and how things would have turned out so different, so well and so pleasant if it hadn't been for a minor mistake, grudge or oversight. But these offer us academic closure and explain things neatly to be stored and retreived to analyse the present through the past or in my case currently, to answer questions for an exam. The reasons can be numbered, the events dated and the aftermath judged through influence of these events on the future.

Of late I have read books dealing with historical events, but viewed through the life of people. The fact that the movie 'Titanic' became a super-hit and won 11 academy awards proves the impact of telling a story through the lives of people which makes it different from a historical documentary. 'Saving Private Ryan', 'Schindler's List', 'Mother India' are among the long list of movies that recount real history through the life of people. Sometimes they are fictional characters, like in 'Titanic' and 'Saving Private Ryan', made to give order, structure and the human element to complex events which when viewed only objectively will mean something to us who are far away from them. Sometimes they are real, like in 'Schindler's List' or 'Gandhi'.

The fact remains, history through the life of people allows for better understanding and emotions than any objective work. It allows us to relive the pain, agony, joys, relief and hopes of the characters thus leaving a deeper and clearer impact on us than pure academic history. Whether books or movies, stories of people allow us to relate to events and emotions and get a clearer understanding. My sojourn through 'Unheard Voices' by Harsh Mander, 'Poor Little Rich Slum' by Rashmi Bansal and Deepak Gandhi (both non-fiction), 'Long Walk Home' by Manreet Sodhi Someshwar and 'Winter Nights' by Navtej Sarna (fiction) told me about incidents and realities in India- omnipresent injustice perpetuated on lower castes, tribals, women, farmers and apathy of state to their plight, communal riots, our prejudice and ignorance on issues of poverty, our snobbery and indifference towards urban poverty, our obsession towards a glitzy, glamorous model of development, partition and its violence, the loss of sons and daughters to wanton violence- all these were presented through the lives of people.

This is why artists, writers and performers require the freedom to express their views- to bring out the real human stories behind events and not be circumscribed by the need to present everything in a neatly written plot having a clear beginning and end with lot of song and dance and cliches thrown in. They need to write these so that those far away in time and space understand these events. We need to understand them because we have to learn to overcome our differences, live in peace and harmony with ourselves and the world and realise that to forget is to repeat. Human emotions and feelings are the same everywhere and although we cannot experience the same events, learning about the lives of others we relive it and it teaches us a lot more than objective history. There is no better way to learn the lessons of history than the words of those who lived it. This is why 'Anne Frank, The Diary of a Young Girl' is read across the world in dozens of languages even 70 years after the author's death and remains a defiance and defence against despotism, hate and violence.

Pointless Debates, Face Saving Distractions

Democracy is about debate, discussion and governance by consent of the people. In that view, arguing over policy or what is the right way to develop or how best to utilise government revenue is a good sign that this is still a democracy. But then the debate should not be about proving my side right and the other wrong, but understanding what the other side has to say, taking the right points from it and then coming up with a policy. I do not see such a step in the recent debate between Jagdish Bhagwati and his supporters and the supporters of Amartya Sen.

Before getting into what each side has to say, there are a few points which we must understand. India is not an equal country and this is not about everyone having the same amount of assets or income, leave that aside. But it is about availability of opportunity- women, lower castes and tribals suffer from severe social disabilities. If they attempt to own a motorbike or show signs of prosperity, they are attacked and assets destroyed (a), if landless farmers try to seek more rent, they are met with militias of landlords (b).

Imagine living in your home, going to your office on your car/bike, working on a computer. What if the government decides one fine day that your home, your bike, the road you travel on and the computer belongs to the state? What gives the state the power to take away my livelihood? Well, this has been the reality for ALL of India's tribals for over a century, a grievous injustice that was never rectified on independence but was only exacerbated. Earlier, it was only contractors, forest department and multi-purpose projects going after forests. Now, mining and steel plants seek the areas too. The people in these areas have little or no access to health, education and their livelihoods are being threatened.

Perhaps the situation of women in this country require a little less explanation since the nation has awakened post the protests in Delhi in Dec2012. Rightly so, but there are women in other lesser known parts of the country who still continue to suffer in silence and sometimes, not so silently but not loud enough for most of us to hear (c)

There are more MPI poor people in eight Indian states than in the 26 poorest African countries combined. 421 million people in the Indian States of Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal, the 26 poorest African countries are home to 410 million MPI poor people. India has experienced strong economic growth in recent
years, yet the MPI reveals that extensive acute multidimensional poverty persists. (Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, Multi-Dimensional Poverty Index, 2010, Sabina Elkire & Maria Emma Santos). Add to this how the recent poverty figures from the government is just a gimmick (d) and you get a picture of how the state has failed.

Even if this inequality or discrimination did not exist, let us assume the poor are poor because of their own fault (that it most definitely is not so has been proved). What of their children? By what fault of theirs are they denied what we take for granted- education, health and three meals a day. How can we forget the fact that we were born lucky and that is why we can know of Sen and Bhagwati let alone discuss who is right? There are definitely individuals who have overcome their hurdles and gone on to a better life. But in a nation where opportunities are limited, the number of people fighting for IIT, IIM, Medical seats and government jobs alone will tell you that it is a struggle every step of the way. There are many who miss out on it narrowly in spite of the average or above average facilities, then how can we expect the poor to completely overcome their state without any external intervention?

This brings me to the most debated and pointless intervention of all- reservation. Yes it is necessary to rectify past disabilities. But right now reservation benefits the same person twice or thrice- to get into an engineering college, to get into B-School and then to get a job. Is that fair? Their children too will continue to get reservation, is it fair? Right now the benefits of reservation are accessed by those relatively well-off among OBC,SCs and STs. It does not benefit the community and the well off have a stake in keeping the community backward since they have benefited most from it and will continue to benefit.

What this proves is that-
1) There is widespread poverty and this in spite of massive economic development over the last twenty years.
2) There is social inequality that prevent individuals from being able to take control of their own lives and grow out of poverty
3) There have been massive failures from the government side in eliminating economic and social inequalities

I am not saying that the Food Security Ordinance or NREGA will change their plight. Relegating the entire Sen-Bhagwati debate to that is ridiculous though. It is more like who is for what- Bhagwati is for no state interference and free run of capital and markets and Sen is purported to be for government control. Amartya Sen has not been debating, he simply expressed his opinions on why we need a food security bill, but he has regularly spoken about how the state has failed its people and what development should mean. His welfare economics does not mean government taxing the rich to satisfy the never ending needs of the infinite number of poor as is being suggested by many who debate on Bhagwati's side. His idea is that due to widespread inequalities, we require state intervention to set things right and that too mostly in the arena of health, education and infrastructure.

Why these three sectors?

 1)These are absolutely essential for the people
2) long gestation period which means there are no immediate returns and immediate returns are the ONLY concern of private capital (anyone who thinks who private capital or market mechanisms reward long-term view need only to look at Global Financial Crisis of 2008 and how a small bunch of speculators held the world economy to ransom and threatened US government with dire consequence if the government does not cover its losses)
3) Huge need of capital

Government or state intervention is also required in ensuring environmental laws are implemented, public interest is protected, to ensure fair competition and to prevent swindling like that of 2008. This means independent regulatory set-up for different sectors to determines ground rules and to ensure the players abide by them. This definitely should not be a method of control for the government which it can milk to obtain benefits and disburse favours.

Sen also said that pure economic growth is not an indicator of well-being of the people and obsession with that number is purely a trick to make us blind to reality. He never says that there should be no economic growth and he never asks for state control of the economy, all Sen says is that growth in economy should be used for well-being of the people or 'growth-mediated' development. What is so wrong or offensive about this?

A similar debate happened between Keynes and Hayek almost 60 years ago. Although not on the same scale, there certainly are lessons for us to learn. A free reign to market mechanisms will not address the issues since it is always on the look out for short term profits alone and people and environment do not figure in their list of priorities unless they are a good source of publicity through catchy slogans or glamorous Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives. We know this from experience. But private enterprise and market mechanisms do have a role- in producing goods and services and ensuring economic growth. It is the job of the government to ensure this goes on subject to some conditions and it would be prudent for the government to stay away from these activities as past experience has taught us this can only lead to stagnation. This is where Mr.Bhagwati is right, allow market mechanisms to run its course to a large extent, reduce red tape and eliminate government discretion over allocation of resources and reduce the size of government which interferes every step of the way. Here too past experience teaches us that the elimination of the License-Permit raj freed our entrepreneurs from being lost in the corridors of power and made the playing field level since until now those who could manipulate the bureaucracy could do what they pleased and got exceedingly good at it. They still exist and use their old contacts to win favours, contracts, resources- this is what we must eliminate.

Therefore, a large section of the population still requires government intervention- since they cannot possibly do it own their own and private capital has little interest in aiding them- to climb out of poverty and social inequality and in spite of various attempts by the government over the last 60 years, nothing has happened and this is due to state failure. We need the state or its regulators to make sure the environment is protected and there is fair competition. This is where we must unite and debate how this state failure can be addressed and rectified.

Then who is right? I would begin with an opinion that I have read -'why should my hard-earned money be used to feed the poor?'. This is the wrong question to ask since they are not poor by choice and most of them are poor due to historical inequalities and forces beyond their control and we are well-off due to the fact that we did not suffer from these inequalities every step of the way. We are also perhaps one step away from their situation- disease, accident, natural disaster or war can erase all our wealth and then what? We have already decided and put in stone that state intervention is unnecessary and hard earned tax payers money should not be spend on the poor. The discourse in the debate and what Mr.Sen and Mr.Bhagwati has important points for us to learn and implement.

The question we should ask then is 'why should my hard-earned money be used to garner votes by implementing a scheme full of holes and brings no benefit to my fellow citizens?'. Of course this requires more than just clamouring for attention on the internet and debating on the internet over RG-NaMo, it requires serious thinking and action rather than just listening to opinions of experts and vomiting it out. All this debate does is to give fuel for political eye-wash and distract us from the real issues.