The Naxalite & Maoist Masquerade

Oppression is alive and well!

Despite the economic gains Bharat has made in the last decade, there is a significant prevalence of human rights violation, more so in Rural Bharat than in Urban Bharat. Exploitation and oppression exists despite efforts to eliminate it through law and order, judicial, and social means.The parties involved are the oppressed, and the oppressors comprising of – Zamindars, upper-castes, thugs, bandits, law and order forces, Naxalites and Maoists.

Naxalites and Maoists; is there a difference?

The Naxalites and Maoists label themselves as revolutionaries and the champion of the down trodden. The Naxalites and Maoists may claim ideological differences. To the public at large, it is not clear who is fighting for what and against whom, except that the oppressed remain oppressed.

Blowing up infrastructure is an act of Idiocy!

Blowing up of railway tracks, mobile transmission towers, machinery and setting fire to buses, by Naxalites and Maoists serve no purpose. They are acts of terror and idiocy. Their justification that these actions are reactions to corruption and oppression, is a futile attempt to bring justice to the down trodden.

Eradication of Corruption and Oppression is the answer

Corruption and Oppression are viruses and have to be eradicated. It is understandable that without recourse to expedient justice, that allow perpetrators to flagrantly break the law, citizens out of desperation will take the law into their own hands. The law and order personnel are supposed to uphold the law. At times, it is not clear whose interests they are upholding.Two wrongs don’t make a right, but if one party can break the law and get away with it, what is to stop another to take the law into their own hands? 

What about the Naxalites and Maoists? Both are engaged in acts of violence against the “establishment” – consisting of commercial enterprises (both government and private sector) and law and order forces. Maoists are resorting to acts of terror and intimidation of villagers as well. Instead of standing up for the exploited, they are exploiting the exploited. From a Law and Order perspective, anyone who bears arms and chooses to use weapons to break the law is at risk of arms being used against them. As the saying goes, those who live by the sword, die by the sword. What about the oppressed? Much has been said about eliminating exploitation and oppression through law and  order, judicial, and social means. These efforts are of no avail, if the rural poor have no jobs and are at the mercy of others who take advantage of their predicament.

What the Rural poor need are jobs and opportunity

Regardless of the circumstances and situation, the most effective method is to provide any individual who is willing to work, the opportunity to generate a sustainable income stream and use that to work themselves out of their predicament. The only viable “rapid jobs and "opportunity" creation for the Rural poor. This is accomplished by growing the Organized Sector comprising of medium to large-scale undertakings, including agro-based industries, and Special Economic Zones (SEZs). It is easier for a villager to move to where a job is, than to bring jobs to them. The organized Sector is the economic engine that promotes unorganized sector jobs that out number the organized sector jobs. The Naxalites and Maoists, by fighting the Organized Sector are simply playing into the hands of the local oppressors i.e. the Zamindars, who would prefer status quo in order to perpetuate the current environment and maintain their hold.. Anything that results in rural job creation should be promoted and anything that inhibits rural job creation such as corrupt practices, oppression, exploitation, and bureaucratic hurdles should be eliminated.

Naxalites and Maoists can play a positive proactive role

By promoting progress, exposing oppression and corruption, rather than destroying public/private property and inconveniencing citizens. Resorting to knee jerk reactive responses only adds to the problem rather than being part of the solution. It is the government’s responsibility to prosecute the oppressors and the corrupt and bring about justice, expediently and efficiently. In Bharat today, the government is clearly delinquent.

Naxalites and Maoists can be our modern day Pandavas

Naxalites and Maoists need to reinvent themselves. Rather than adhere to a foreign ideology that was proposed at a different time and a different place and irrelevant to today’s environment. They ought to look into our Hindu scriptures and derive their ideology from the richness we have in Hindu philosophy.The corrupt and the oppressors are modern day Kauravas. They embody the “Duryodhana Complex” of not being satisfied with what they have and taking what is not theirs. The Bhagavat Gita clearly outlines the fate of the Kauravas that results from Duryodhana’s greed, pride and obstinacy.

Who will restore Dharma?

Bhagwan Parashuram annihilated the wrong doers and fought for the oppressed. He slew King Krutavirya for stealing a cow! Krutavirya’s sons beheaded Parashuram’s father rishi Jamadagni, in retaliation. Parashuram hunted down all of Krutavirya sons and killed them. But Bhagwan Parashuram did not stop at that. He vowed to wipe out 21 generations of Kshatriyas to remove evil from Earth and re-established Dharma. The frustrations experienced, by the Naxalites, Maoists and well minded citizens due to the government’s inability to deal with our modern day Duryodhanas and Krutaviryas is understandable. If Naxalites and Maoists were to take on the role of modern day Pandavas or Bhagwan Parashuram, and their response is to strike the fear of life among the corrupt and the oppressors so be it! Someone has to restore Dharma to Glorious Bharat.

Disclaimer: The author does not condone the destruction of property and assets by the Maoists or Naxalites. Nor does the author condone the flagrant Human Rights violations of innocent parties taking place. The author is a proponent of “Inclusive Growth”, wherein in the pursuit of progress, reasonable and valid expectations of all stakeholders are taken into consideration and addressed, along with adherence to pragmatic environmental guidelines.

The author is a sympathizer of the oppressed. People have a right to bear arms and fight Human Rights Violations that are taking place, some in the absence of governmental intervention, some sanctioned by the “establishment”, some undertaken by the Naxalites and Maoists.

Bhawalkar’s Bogus Biosanitizer

Dealing with Uday Bhawalkar is difficult. He makes tall claims about his Biosanitizer and has no data to back it up. He will bandy about statements like he has “millions” of satisfied customers, that his Biosanitizer works like a “neutron” bomb in removing odours from effluents.

Before you do business with him ask for the following:

• The scientific reason behind Biosanitizer – he will tell you it is proprietary and hides behind secrecy.
• A Technical Overview – There is none that is credible.
• What Quantitative Indicators can be measured – You won’t get a satisfactory answer
• Technical papers that substantiate the claim – There are none.
• Reports from Independent Testing Labs – None available
• Why has the product not been tested at NCL, Pune?
• References? – No credible references, just anecdotal information

A contact of mine was keen on taking Biosanitizer to treat odours from a Sewage Treatment Plant in Hawaii. I must say I was taken in by Bhawalkar’s claim and put down Rs. 16,000 for 500mg of Biosanitizer and sent it to Hawaii for testing. It failed miserably. They said it was, “snake oil”. Their words.

Let's face it, the Biosanitizer crystals are inert and insoluble. The crystals don't react, it is supposed to act like a catalyst. There is absolutely no scientific basis for this to work. It is a lot of hand waving and using the "nose" as the basis to prove that this works.

I told him Biosanitizer was rejected and requested a refund. He said return it and he would refund the money. After receiving the product, he reneged and asked for a Lab Report. This was provided. Then it became very apparent that he was not going to return the money, I asked for the Product. He refused to send it until I provided a project overview! Not delivering a product that is paid for is most unscrupulous and un-professional.

This individual is unethical, a charlatan and a person of questionable character. Do a thorough due diligence before you do business with him. I for one, am glad that things didn’t work out and my losses are curtailed to Rs. 16,000/-. I shudder to think what would have happened if I entered into a business agreement with him.

The simple response ought to have been a refund, no questions asked. But this is not in the Indian gene.

Another example is Kumaraswamy reneging on the transfer of power to the BJP in Karnataka. People don’t want to keep their word and then concoct all kinds of excuses to renege their commitment.

A Review of Singapore Story 1965 - 2000

From Third World to First
Memoirs of Lee Kuan

INTRODUCTION
This is the second of Lee Kuan Yew's books that covers the post independence era of Singapore. In his first book he talks of his childhood, under British rule, the pre-World War II era, a brief period of Japanese occupation (1942-1945), followed by British taking control again. He briefly mentions the atrocities committed by the Japanese in this book. This is a long memoir, 763 pages long - a heavy hard cover book! It covers the total spectrum of challenges faced by Singapore.

It gives a different perspective from the anti-Singaporean propaganda that we have been fed, that Singapore is/was a draconian state, where the government interfered with your personal freedom. But the fact of the matter is that if one is a law-abiding citizen, one doesn't have anything to worry.

Part I of the book, "Getting the Basics Right" is really interesting and covers the early days when Singapore had to make it as an island country with practically scant resources of its own.

Part II is his dealings with various governments and administrations. The chapters that delve into his opinions and dealings with the USA, Japan and China are interesting. Unless one is really interested in the regional politics most of Part II can be skimmed.

LKY- THE MANLee Kuan Yew (LKY), born on September 16th 1923, is the founding father of independent Singapore. He read law in Cambridge University, England from 1946 to 1950. He returned to Singapore in 1950. He was a Labor Lawyer prior to entering politics. In 1954 he formed the People's Action Party (PAP), which has dominated Singapore's politics since 1959. He became Prime Minister at the age of 35. He initially formed a united front with the communists. Later the PAP parted ways with the communists. In November 1990, he stepped down as PM and handed over the reigns to the current PM. LKY is a brilliant individual who catapulted Singapore from a Third World British colony to the first world in a span of thirty years. Granted Singapore is an island country and had just over 2 million people at the time of independence.

THE MEDIA LED PERCEPTIONThe Western has been very critical of LKY and portrays many of his policiesas "high handed". But the fact is he operated under the principles of democracy. Again the Western media has portrayed democracy in Singapore as a sham with the opposition parties being marginalized and permitted a handicapped namesake existence. However, the reality is that the PAP took a "market" approach to democracy, wherein their strategy was one of dominance and obliteration of the "competition" by serving the public. If he was that far off base, the people could have voted the PAP out, but they didn't'. People exercised their "purchasing power" by voting for their choice of party.

THE EARLY CHALLENGESAt the very beginning the emphasis was on survival. Singapore as originally part of Malaysia for the first few years after Malaysia gained independence. Singapore had independence thrust on them when they were expelled from Malaysia. Singapore being an island country, had no natural resources, was dependent on Malaysia for water. They relied on the presence of the British armed forces, both for protection and money. Besides having a tenuous relationship with Malaysia, they were faced with the economic fallout of theBritish pulling out. Singapore needed jobs fast. They bet on the West and rather than be skeptical of Multi-National Corporations (MNCs) they went out of their way to attract MNCs that resulted in an economic boom. Their rationale was brilliant, they had no resources, nor were they a major market. The MNC's only viable option was to make things in Singapore and export the goods to the West.

Early in his tenure as the PM, LKY busted the Public Daily Rated Cleansing Workers led by Suppiah, a Tamil immigrant. That set the stage for a better relationship with the Unions. Similar to Reagan, who was active in the Actors Union, prior to becoming the President, who took on the Air Traffic Control Union. Barring fighting the exceptional cases of oppression and exploitation, he observes, "Unions primarily serve a small group of privileged members getting high pay while there is a growing band of underpaid, under-employed workers. Moreover, rising wages force employers to become capital intensive, investing in expensive machines to get donewith fewer workers". He set out to transform Union-Management relations from "being militant and confrontational to a cooperative and partnership model".

The government played a key role in attracting Foreign Investments. They built the infrastructure and provided well-planned industrial estates, equity participation in industry, fiscal incentives and export promotion. He notes, "Most important, we established good labour relations and sound macro-economic policies, the fundamentals that enable private enterprise to operate successfully". Their largest infrastructure development was Jurong Industrial Estate, built in 1960, which eventually covered 9,000 acres, with roads, sewers, drainage, power, gas and water all laid out. When Jurong lay largely vacant in the 60's, people called it "Goh's Folly". Their break came in 1968, when TI came and started production 50 days after they decided to go ahead. National Semiconductor, HP, GE and a host of other high tech companies followed.

UNIQUE THINKING FOR A UNIQUE ENVIRONMENTUnlike India, that took a laisez fare approach after Independence by retaining the bureaucracy that the British left behind. LKY really thought through what Singapore needed and his rationale is convincing. He started from the premise that Singapore was unique with a multi racial community of Chinese, Malays and Indians. None of the models of the developing countries were applicable to Singapore and he literally had to invent on the run. He established the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) that functioned as a Central Reserve Bank, except for the printing of money. The Monetary Policy is the jurisdiction of the Currency Board, and completely out of reach of politicians.

He was very protective of Singapore and did not allow any foreign influence be it from China, Russia or the US. LKY took some bold and controversial decisions. Banning of long hair and Playboy seems extreme. But it makes sense to enforce stopping things like chewing gum, littering, smoking in buildings, and spitting. He mentions how chewing gum caused a problem by blocking the coin slot of a turnstile to enter the train platform and banning chewing gum got rid of the problem! Independent Singapore was a young island-city country and his approach to social issues is that of a strict father. Quite a few people in the States thought the whipping of the American boy was well deserved and wished the US had something like that! Which is an artifact of the old British Law.

He also pushed for the Greening of Singapore and the cleaning up of the environment.

DEALING WITH COMMUNISTSThe initial united front with the communists was one of convenience and he knew well from the start that they had to part ways. He saw through the insidious ideology and treated them as a virus. He is brazenly anti-communist and instituted laws that prevented them from propagating their subversive and coercive propaganda. Criticism based on facts was permitted, but any propaganda that maligned the government on emotional grounds or incited unrest or violence was punished. Call for strikes had to be made through secret ballot to eliminate the intimidation and coercion of a show of hands. The parting of ways with the communists was bitter and resulted in them being decimated. India can learn from this. Any individual who publicly makes threats and insights violence, should be put in jail with no hearing or bail for a period of time.

LEVERAGING THE CHINESE MAJORITYHe was fortunate that Singapore had a Chinese majority ( 75.4% Chinese, 14.6%Malay, 8.6% Indian) and by performing and delivering results to all the citizens, the PAP party was able to retain majority ever since Singapore gained Independence. Using this mandate, he was able to provide low cost housing, start the Central Provident Fund (CPF) for people to fund their own retirement - "A Fair, Not Welfare Society". He goes on to comment on the failure of the European welfare model, where the state takes on a major role in providing a "Safety Net". He delves into weeding out corruption.

Throughout the book he refers to Confucian principles and pretty much refers to Singapore as a Chinese State that is secular and allows the practice of any religion. His approach is one of ensuring that the minority communities are served and given equal opportunities. He talks about preserving the Chinese Culture and is concerned about the youth being influenced by Western ways. He ignores the Tamil and Malay issues regarding retaining their cultures, leaving it up to the respective communities.

Adjusting to low cost housing was not easy for some of the peasantry. Some of them moved in with their pigs into high rises! Some raised chickens in their flats!

He extols Confucian Values – filial to one's parents, honest, upright, hardworking, thrifty, sincere to one's friends and loyal. He also admits the dark side of Chinese Confucianism – nepotism, favouritism and corruption.

He enforced the good Chinese Confucian values, which he believed were consistent with the attributes needed for rapid growth. We on the other hand denigrate our "Hinduness" by referring to our previous slow rate of growth as "the Hindu Rate" of growth. Besides Indian Values are pretty much the same as the Chinese Confucian Values.

SEEKING AND REWARDING TALENTTalent in Singapore is sought after and rewarded. They have nurtured a meritocracy, wherein talent is welcomed regardless of ethnic background. He points out that most of his colleagues, including himself, who took part in the early days of independent Singapore were immigrants and not natives. As a result, Singapore like the US, attracts talent from all over the world. While the majority of the politicians, bureaucrats and officials were Chinese, there are a few people of Indian and Malay origin.

MANAGING GOVERNMENT LIKE A BUSINESSHe meticulously sought after competent people to join the party and stand for elections. At a later stage, he instituted a selection process for political and administration candidates which included exhaustive psychological tests. They asked MNC's how they went about recruiting talent. He quotes the system developed by Shell. Shell "concentrated on what they termed a man's "currently estimated potential". This was determined by three qualities – a person's power of analysis, his imagination and sense of reality. Together they made up an overarching attribute that Shell called "helicopter quality", the ability to see facts or problems in a larger context and to identify and zoom in on critical details. A panel of assessors, at least two of whom must know the candidate being assessed, would accurately rank executives of broadly similar quality. After trying this system out, finding it practical they adopted it and ABANDONED THE BRITISH SYSTEM THEY HAD INHERITED.

They constantly scanned the top echelons of all sectors in Singapore – the professions, commerce, manufacturing and trade unions – to look for men and women in their 30's and 40's, whom they would persuade to stand as their candidate. He found that ability can be assessed fairly accurately by aperson's academic record and achievement in work. Character is not so easily measured. After some successes and too many failures he concluded that it was more important, though more difficult to assess a person'scharacter. So he decided to have a psychiatrist and a psychologist test the candidate. They put prospective PAP election candidates who had the potential to be ministers through psychological tests designed to define their character profile, intelligence, personal background and values. While these test were not conclusive, they helped to eliminate the obviously unsuitable and was used for an ensuing face to face interview. Public sector companies were put on notice to be profitable or face the consequences of being shut down.

PRESERVING CHINESE CULTUREOne of issues LKY wrestled with was the conflicting aspects of the medium of education. Education in Chinese was seen as necessary to preserve Chinese culture, whereas education in English resulted in the youth adopting western ways which were seen as being in conflict with Chinese values. At the same time, the English educated had excellent employment opportunities while the Chinese educated languished. While he and his wife were educated in English medium schools, they sent their children to a Chinese school and spoke to them in English at home. They tinkered with the secondary education system to preserve the Chinese traditions and at the same time ensure proficiency in English as well.

Preserving Indian Culture is an issue that is relevant to India today. It is clear that a mixed medium of instructions is the solution, wherein the quantitative subjects (math, physics, chemistry) could be taught in English and the Social Sciences could be taught in the Regional Language. Furthermore, students in non-Hindi speaking states should be given the option of learning either Hindi or Sanskrit. The advantage of learning Sanskrit is that students will learn to read and write Devnagiri script (can read Hindi) and we will revive a language that is part of India's heritage.

PASSING THE BATONUnlike in India where people hold onto power until they are kicked out, or reach a comatose state, LKY groomed a successor and handed over the Prime Ministers post to Chok Tong in 1990 after 31 years in power. He encouraged and prodded other senior members to do the same. Chok Tong appointed LKY's son Loong as Deputy Prime Minister. LKY says, "Many of my critics thought this smacked of nepotism, that he was unduly favoured because he was my son. On the contrary, as I told the party conference in 1989, the year before I resigned, it would not be good for Singapore for Loong to succeed me. be seen as having inherited the office from me when he should deserve the position on his own merit." He jokes that for several years Chok had to endure the jeers of foreign critics that he was a seat warmer for his son – Loong. But the fact is, Loong is an intelligent accomplished person in his own right. Even though he benefited by being LKY's son, he has earned his own stripes by proving himself.

ABOUT THE FUTURELKY muses about the survivability of Singapore as an island country. Over the years they have transitioned from a low cost provider of goods to aprovider of high value goods and services. Many of the early assembly plants have been shifted to Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. As the standard of living and wages increases, there is a constant out flow of the non-competitive activities to neighbouring countries. The question he poses is whether Singapore can survive as a purely service oriented economy.

LESSONS FOR INDIAWhile the Singapore phenomena (over 3 million people) is not entirely relevant to India, what is relevant is that India needs to build 100 plus Singapores! Even if the Indian equivalent of a Singapore were to accommodate 6 million people, that would only serve less than half of India's projected population of 1.5 Billion by 2050!

The migration of activities out of Singapore is an opportunity for India to be on the receiving end. India can be the world's lowest cost producer of goods and services. What China can produce, India ought to be able to produce cheaper and better.

Ever since independence, the Congress Party in particular has been handing out platitudes and concessions to minorities. Good for politics, bad for the country. It is not clear their fortunes have changed. Current events indicate it has worsened. What is needed are opportunities, by way of jobs.

Maintaining India's cultural heritage is not to be taken lightly. Rather than debating whether primary and secondary education should be in English or the Regional language, what India should embark on, is a dual-medium of instruction.

Nuclear Deal Bad for India

On this one I agree with the Left. But the they are not framing it in the right way. To put it bluntly, the deal trades off long-term interests of India for short term business interests. Let me explain.

India is running low on Uranium. All India needs is high grade Uranium for the existing Nuclear Power Plants. The outputs of these plants have and continue to provide weapons grade nuclear material. India is self-sufficient regarding everything else to build Nuclear Power Plants and develop what is needed for National Security. India can build an International Grade Nuclear Power Plant in 5 yrs that runs more efficiently than western designed power plants. The Tarapore plant was built using US technology and is riddled with problems. The US has not built a power plant in 20 years!

The nuclear deal is positioned as a panacea for power. And understandably there is a strong business lobby to accept the deal. P.K. Iyengar in his op-ed in The Asian Age (Friday Aug 17th) calls it a "Guilded Cage". He also goes onto explain that the price of Uranium is high and it is not clear that Nuclear Power would be cheap. "Cheap" is a relevant term and it could be that Nuclear Power has a viable price point in India. Auditing the current Nuclear Power Plants and determining if they are providing power at an economically viable rate can validate this assumption.

Arun Shourie has written a three part article in the Indian Express (Part III, Sunday, Aug 19th) where he expands upon the Power dilemma.

From the long term perspective, the Nuclear Deal has the potential to thwart India’s national security! Currently, if India does something that violates the US National Laws, not only supplies can be stopped, there could be a potential recall.

It also requires India to open up its commercial reactors to IAEA inspection, which would be an expensive and cumbersome undertaking in itself. Why should India agree to any guidelines that the major powers themselves are not adopting. India should not open ourselves to any formal inspection of any plants. Any visits should be conducted bilaterally and in the spirit of cooperation not conformance.

The bottom line is that India is going about this issue in the wrong way. Every rational critique of this deal reports that it is bad for India. It's not just the deal, it is India’s "Subservient Attitude" that is a major problem. There are two role models that Indians can look to, to get things done...the Nehruvian way, which is the way India is currently approaching this issue and the Tata way. During the British Rule, there was a hotel near Kala Ghoda that the Brits used exclusively for themselves. J.N. Tata took offense and said he will build a better hotel that will welcome Indians and went on the build the Taj. Taj now owns the most prestigious hotel in Boston. That is how India should approach International Politics. India should take the, "Moral High Ground", in that India has been conducting a Nuclear Program responsibly, unlike other countries, and India will continue to behave responsibly. Indians have to realize that they we are now Big Boys and they can acquire their Big Toys in a manner that does not entail the "Club" dictating what India can and cannot do. It really boils down to the issue of whether India wants to be treated as an equal or subordinate! STAND UP INDIA! India should not agree to take on a "Second or Third Class Country" status. India’s standpoint should be India needs Uranium and India will acquire it from the "Club" or obtain it through alliances with “non-Club” countries.

There was a time when India was dependent on Western technology and India had to "bow down" to their demands. Now India is ahead! There is no need to prostrate in front of each of the 45 members of the Nuclear Club to obtain their approval AND prostrate in front of the IAEA for their blessings. There are other ways to obtain the Uranium that India needs.

This is an International natak of, “we have the stick and you don't”. India ought to change the rules of the game and diplomatically disengage or get unconditional terms. India should say, "Thank You, but no Thank You, there is tremendous opposition to the deal within”, and go on to form a club of their own.

The Irrelevance of Marxism Today

Marx (1818-1883) lived during the height of the Industrial Revolution during which there were many injustices brought upon laborers. Also in this era, many landowners grabbed land from lesser owners who owed them money and were unable to pay. During this era there was no effective method of communication other than by print media and local meetings. Radio was invented in 1895 and broadcast radio came about in the early 1900s. Consequently the oppressed were poor, illiterate, ignorant and ill informed. Marxist ideology in this context prescribed a centralized mode of authority and control. Things changed much slowly those days and it appealed to the anti-capitalist intellectual. It was possible to rouse the “oppressed” and wrest control and power from the “oppressor”.

Marx's intentions were noble. The “capitalists” were enriching themselves while oppressing the ones who toiled at making them richer. The poor remained poor. The wealth was not being shared. It is interesting to note that during a period in the first half of the 1850’s, Marx’s major source of income was from Engels whose source of wealth was from his family’s cotton spinning interest in Manchester. Marx supplemented his income by writing weekly articles for the New York Daily Tribune, as a foreign correspondent. The father of Marxism was supported by “capitalist” endeavors. What would have happened to Marx, if Engels hadn’t bank rolled him?

Today too, there is a huge "Gap" between the "Haves" and "Have Nots" in Developing and Under-developed Countries. And the stats show that this "Gap" is increasing even in the Developed countries. By and large, a progressive individual would agree that all who are responsible for creating wealth ought to have a share in it. The argument between the Left and the Right now centers around the proportion of sharing. The Left typically expects the Capitalists to absorb all the downside and force them to part with a bigger portion of the upside. The Right fights for more deregulation and more freedom for the Capitalist to do whatever they like.

If you consider the illiterate, ignorant and ill informed oppressed as sheep, then it could be argued that a centralized form of command and control is relevant. That they will be better off being told what is good for them for, if left to themselves to choose, they will not make the right choices.

That was then. This is a different era, where there are many modes of communication. People are not as ignorant as they were then. Wealth creation and sharing is possible through stock options and profit sharing. The environment is changing rapidly, and holding on to a philosophy that is over a hundred years old is absurd.

Oppression does exist it is primarily due to Human Greed and inherent social practices. The former needs to be reined in by Governance and Appropriate regulation. The latter can only be overcome by economically uplifting the oppressed. The communists in India are doing nothing to overcome the latter. Instead they woo the unions in protecting the entitlements of the few, while a larger population of unemployed, unskilled, uneducated labor force is ignored.

There is one basic human trait and that is each individual would like to be better off than they are. Some work for it, others rely on entitlements, which is a euphemism for handouts. The Public Sector companies incurring losses is an example of the latter which the Communists support. The true capitalist approach taken by the likes of Intel, Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Infosys et al provides opportunities for those who work for it and as a result there is a rising tide that lifts everyone. The communist approach imposes an ideology that is supposed to uplift the poor, but does nothing in reality for them. Instead it woos the Unions, who do not represent the poor by any means.

The Left’s preoccupation with “Job Protectionism” often results in an excessive and inefficient payroll. It also prevents the downsizing or closing down of enterprises in the absence of a viable economic environment. Doing so transfers the burden of supporting the losses of a public enterprise to the taxpayer. It protects the entitlements of a select few at the expense of the society at large. Only 1.7% (18 million people) of Indians are the employees of the State and Union Government. Along with the employees of the organized private sector, (9 million people) represent a total of 2.6% (27 million people) of the population of India. Source: India 1st www.wakeupcall.org. Only 27 Million of a population over 1 Billion! The facts speak for themselves! The communists in India are obstructionists who throttle industry, productivity and job creation.

Why is it that the Indian Communists are hanging on to an ideology that was proposed during the later part of 1800's by a man who lived in a different time, in a different place and under different circumstances? Why are Indian Communists hanging on to this archaic ideology?

The “communists” of India in particular should ask themselves whether they are so intellectually challenged, that they have to follow an ideology proposed by a European who lived two centuries ago or are they capable of re-inventing and re-branding themselves to a more relevant time and context? Particularly, since this ideology has been discredited and abandoned by the most ardent supporters of it namely the Soviet Union and China? Are the communists of India that backward and intellectually bankrupt that they cannot formulate an ideology that is relevant to the cultural and social diversity of India? Is calling oneself a Marxist even relevant in today's context? Look at Kerala, there is no industry there. It is reported that Kerala has the third highest farmer suicide rate in India. West Bengal is struggling to attract industry. The only reason Kerala is surviving is because of the influx of Gulf money. Why are Keralites migrating to other parts of the country? If Kerala is such a great state why aren’t people migrating there from other parts of the country? Ditto for West Bengal. West Bengal has an influx of Bangladeshis only because they are worse off there than in West Bengal.

The writing is on the wall. There is a role for the Left in balancing the initiatives of the Right. Not through militancy and confrontation but through cooperation and partnership. If the Communists don't reinvent themselves and position themselves as worthy proponents of the poor, and the truly oppressed, they will be marginalized. The era of Union Power is over. Companies can just relocate and leave the workers stranded. In the end everyone will be worse off.

The debate now is between "State Capitalism" and "Democratic Capitalism" or some other form of Capitalism. The question is which is the preferred system?

Review of Musharraf's - In the Line of Fire

In the Line of Fire, by Pervez Musharraf is an easy to read book that is written in plain and simple "high school" English. That is in fact a plus point. It is direct, devoid of any obfuscation and "pseudo intellectual" jargon. His anti-India stance is understandable and one might question his interpretation of facts and skewing them to his advantage. But the fact remains, it is his book and he is entitled to his opinion. One thing comes through in that he is an extremely capable bold, gutsy leader and a shrewd politician as well. He has "Balls" and Gall. His book has ruffled feathers everywhere, in India, in the US and in Pakistan as well. He does not spare anyone. He just states his point of view, as he sees it. For instance, he blames India for the creation of Bangladesh. Incidentally, Rajeev Gandhi made a statement that his mother was responsible for the creation of Bangladesh. That only validates Musharraf’s statement. Musharraf goes onto say that Pakistan’s friend, the US did nothing to help Pakistan, during the Bangladesh war, while India was helped by USSR. The fact is that the US sent the 7th Fleet to the Bay of Bengal. What they intended to do is anybody’s guess. Russian subs surfaced to stave of any US involvement. So according to him, the US stood by doing nothing and the Russians helped India. And because India was involved, it is India’s fault according to him, not withstanding, the situation would have probably played out with the same result with unnecessary bloodshed, if India did not get involved.

The accomplishments he mentions, if verifiable are laudable. His intentions and objectives assuming he "walks his talk" are noble. It is true he inherited a basket case and the fact that he has held Pakistan together is a major achievement in itself. There are lessons to glean for India’s Left and Muslims. For instance he chronicles the devastation Bhutto’s nationalization brought upon Pakistan’s economy and the impact of Madrassas on fundamentalism and terrorism. How he has and is undoing the follies of the past is very relevant to influence the thoughts of the Indian Left and the Indian clerics of Islam.

The book is an excellent attempt to lift the "veil of darkness" from Pakistan and promote it as a country that is an international player and not a gadfly, rogue, Islamic country. His responses to the crisis he has to confront, brings out his military training and but for Pakistan’s reputation, they could be excellent case studies for management, assuming they are verifiable.

He does acknowledge some of the deep-rooted problems Pakistan is facing. In the interest of maintaining an upbeat, positive outlook, he does not dwell too deep into the negative. He even acknowledges that there are terrorist activities being conducted by the mujahadeens against India, in the name of "Azad Kashmir" while acknowledging that their "Azad Kashmir" activities are legit. India claims that the ISI is helping these terrorists. Quite naturally, there is no mention of ISI propagated terrorist activities against India. Whether he knew of A.Q. Khan’s dealing with Korea and Libya, we can only speculate. It is highly unlikely that a leader who is in the process of legitimizing his country would allow such blatant infractions if he had knowledge of what was going on. And to his credit, even after the exposé, he has been able to maintain good relations with the West and is using the "War on Terror" to his advantage. Despite his India bashing, there is an under current of respect for India. It is clear, despite the internal troubles of Pakistan, of which he is quite candid about, Musharraf is good for Pakistan, good for India and good for the US.

Kashmir is the only sore point between India and Pakistan. This is the best opportune moment India has to address this issue, while Musharraf is in power. India is not blameless in this. No Indian is allowed to own land or property in Kashmir and no Indian can do business there unless he/she has a Kashmiri partner. What was intended to protect Kashmir has actually hurt it. India has treated Kashmir as a stepchild and the military intervention has decimated its economy. At the 10,000 feet level, there are parallels to US involvement in Iraq and India’s involvement in Kashmir. In our case it has been going on since the Hindu Raja capitulated a majority Muslim state to India.

There is a solution to the Kashmir problem and that is giving partial autonomy and self-governance to Kashmir. Also make Kashmir a full-fledged state under the Indian Constitution. This is not just a solution for Kashmir. It is a solution for all of India. It is time India matures as a country and starts decentralizing power. A lot of the programs Musharraf outlines in his book along with his goals and objectives are very relevant to the backward states of India. Each of these states can be looked at as a mini-Pakistan. The Center can act as a benevolent "entity" that works with the States in establishing goals, objectives and performance metrics. All the functions of the World Bank, IMF, Asian Development Bank can be integrated into this Central Entity. The role of the Center is to ensure consistency, compliance and good governance across the country. We should move to a model where the State "proposes" and the Center "disposes". In instances where the State is not performing, the Center brings on pressure, much like the developed countries bring pressure on "closed" and unregulated economies to open up and conform. And if a State is able to launch an activity without the Center’s help, then it should be allowed to do so, provided it follows environmental guidelines and is compliant with the laws of the country.

Musharraf mentions the setting up of a number of autonomous bodies to promote social issues, sports and for education in particular. These issues are all relevant to India. We need to de-politicize education, sports, the bureaucracy and the administration of essential services. There has to be a clear separation of the administration (bureaucracy) arm, judicial arm and the executive (elected) arm along with the appropriate checks and balances to ensure consistency, compliance, governance, performance and transparency. This is the time for India to mature and take the next leap. We can’t hide behind our "democracy veil" and accept our "laisez faire" approach. Look what a gutsy, bold George Bush did in the US within the context of Democracy? What we need is competent, gutsy, bold leadership for India.

Finally, I wish there were books written by the major parties of India, in clear and simple English as well as regional languages, endorsed by their respective leaderships that enunciate their intent, goals and strategies. This would serve as a reference to measure the ruling parties performance i.e. the walk behind their talk.

All in all, "In the Line of Fire" is a must read for all concerned Indian Citizens, OCI’s, NRI’S and PIO’s.

NRI – Non Resident Indian, having Indian Passport, living overseas.
PIO – Person of Indian Origin, anyone who can trace their lineage to India.
OCI – Overseas Citizen of India, a phoren national who obtains OCI.

World Cup Cricket Perspective

World Cricket Cup was a wash and a big scam. Tickets were over priced, stadiums were never full. The impact of India losing out early, and the resulting cancellations of people coming from India was huge. A testament to the financial impact India has on this game. Tickets were freely available and I landed up giving away tickets. Tickets were given away free to locals just to fill up the seats. Games were uninteresting. The WCC presumably destroyed the local economy of Barbados since all the regular tourists stayed away.

But despite all of that, one thing shone through...Desi Power. The Indian Diaspora has established a bed rock foundation that is bolstering India's Global stature and interests.

Everyone was mentioning that the loss of India from the Super 8 stage resulted in a huge drop in attendance. The economic clout of Desi's from India was evident. The cruise ship bookings were dismal and they had to give away tickets at a fraction of the price. A cruise that I paid $2000 for was being sold for $200 to fill up the ship! There was a fairly sizeable ship in port and I was told that it was chartered by L.N. Mittal.

Hutch and Hero Honda had private boxes in Grenada. No one was in there so a few of us took advantage of it and watched the Grenada matches in style.

The Desi's were from all over the world. I asked a few PIO's (Person of Indian Origin) who would they root for if India was playing against the country of their residence. The answer was India of course. These were kids born in that country! Desi sentiment runs deep! The Desi's by and large were professionals. The whites were mostly "blue collar". As one "white" American CEO, who we met at the game, characterized it for his wife as...sense and sensibilities Vs. brawn.

India's standing and stature in the world forum is a matter of pride for the Indian Diaspora around the world. Likewise, so is the Diaspora's world accomplishments and stature, a source of pride for India.

There is a symbiotic relationship that exists that we can leverage to TIE it all together.

Time for a new Right & Left Agenda

The New World needs a New Agenda
There is vast difference in the Global Economic environment that exists today and the early 1900’s. Despite these differences, the agenda of the Right and Left in India continue to cling onto the past “Classical” practices and ideologies. The Right applies macro economic solutions unsuccessfully to alleviate poverty, while the Left fights for Unionized Labor and protects the entitlements of this workforce even at the expense and detriment of the businesses that provide employment. And in the case of Public Enterprises the expense of the Left’s “Job Protectionism” agenda is borne by the taxpayer. The practices, agenda and ideology of the Classical Right and Classical Left are outmoded, outdated, regressive and oppressive! It has been the battle between Profit and Wages. The Right is perceived as focusing on Profit at the expense of Wages. The Left is focused on Wages with no regards to the viability of the enterprise. The Left’s agenda for the most part, has a cancerous effect on our economy, while the Right’s agenda, is perceived to be one of dismembering the body and ignoring the amputated parts. There is a positive note though, Educated Workers are faring well and organized Blue Collar Workers are receiving their fare share for the most part. The positive effects of liberalization and the resulting economic growth are evident. The middle class has benefited tremendously in the last two decades. India is a Power House in IT and BPO. We are poised for a boom in Medical Tourism. The building construction industry is booming. The stock market is at an all time high and rising. Aside from the effects of liberalization, Bollywood is producing “slick” films. We have a thriving dairy sector. We are self sufficient in food.

The Working Poor are stuck in the Old World
Despite the progress made, the plight of the non-organized labor - the “Working Poor”, continues to be deplorable. The “Working Poor” consisting of construction workers, laborers (urban, rural & migrant), small business/retail employees constitute an “invisible segment” in that they are “intellectualized” and seen through as if they don’t exist. Both the Right and the Left pay lip service to the Working Poor while ignoring their plight. What is needed is an environment where both Capital and Wages flow freely resulting in the overall increase in the “Shared Wealth” of our economy. The goal is to continue expanding the economy, build and expand upon our successes and at the same time, drive the resulting benefits deeper and wider into the rest of the population.

The Sustainable Cure for Poverty is Jobs and Opportunities for the Willing
At the very discreet, “micro” level, what is required for individuals and families is the opportunity to earn a living, attain an adequate Quality of Life, put aside some savings for emergencies and discretionary expenses and build a “nest egg” for retirement. People at the very bottom of the economic ladder should be given opportunities to bootstrap themselves out of poverty. The solution is Jobs and Entrepreneurial opportunities for the Rural poor, Low Cost Housing for Urban slum dwellers and temporary facilities for the migrant construction worker.

Focus on Affordability
The focus ought to be to enable the poor to establish an acceptable Quality of Life. For Urban India this translates to a roof, sanitation facilities and discretionary income. i.e. provide Hostels, Low Cost Housing for the working poor, and temporary housing for migrant construction workers. For Rural India this translates to providing gainful sustained employment and entrepreneurial opportunities beyond the agriculture sector. In both cases there ought to be programs for the uneducated, unskilled, unemployed. This translates to Shelters in Urban India and Infrastructural Work projects in Rural India. Low cost Housing does not mean FREE housing! The poor should be provided means to earn and afford rent controlled housing. Ownership is a desired goal.

Establishing Minimum Wage and Guidelines for Living wages
Disregarding sound fiscal policy cannot provide jobs, nor should they be allowed at the expense of proper governance and environmental guidelines. Both the Right and the Left should pursue establishing these guidelines and facilitate the creation of jobs. After all, any income is better than no income for the uneducated, unskilled, and unemployed. Wage negotiations ought to be the purview of the Unions devoid of partisan politics. While "Minimum Wages" are established as mandatory for employers to pay, “Living Wages” calibrated to the “Cost of Living” for each demographic region could be published by independent third party organizations as recommendations and guidelines for employers and workers on what is fair. Living Wages is a floor and a measure of income required by an individual to support oneself adequately.

Balancing Profits, Wages and Sharing the Wealth
The Right is perceived as letting businesses maximize profit with little or no concern for the betterment of its workers. This results in the widening of the economic gap between the “Rich” and the “Poor”. In the current context the appropriate response is to share the wealth with those who helped create it in the form of profit sharing and co-ownership. In order for this to happen, the capitalization of the business should be allowed to increase without any artificial or unreasonable constraints, subject to proper governance and environmental guidelines.

The Downside of "Job Protectionism"
The Left’s preoccupation with “Job Protectionism” often results in an excessive and inefficient payroll. It also prevents the downsizing or closing down of enterprises in the absence of a viable economic environment. Doing so transfers the burden of supporting the losses of a public enterprise to the taxpayer. It protects the entitlements of a select few at the expense of the society at large. Only 1.7 % (18 million people) of Indians are the employees of the State and Union Government. Along with the employees of the organized private sector, (9 million people) represent a total of 2.6% (27 million people) of the population of India. Source: India 1st www.wakeupcall.org. The facts speak for themselves!

Increase the Economic Pie, Increase Everyone's Share
In the current context, the appropriate response is to provide the displaced worker with some assistance by way of retraining and/or job/relocation assistance at the taxpayer’s expense. Also, facilitating the formation of new enterprises would absorb the displaced worker, thereby eliminating the trauma of lost wages.
If one were to compare the country’s economic environment to a train, the ideal environment is to accelerate the train while adding more compartments to it. The ideal situation is to enable more and more people hop on board without slowing the train or over crowding it. Today the Left is clearly perceived as the brakeman of this train and taking more of an obstructionist role. The Right is accused of letting the train move faster without any regards to the people stranded on the platform and ignoring those who fall off.
The Classical Left approach is to curb and tax the rich to alleviate the poor. The Classical Right approach has been to let the rich flourish with meager handouts and lip service to the poor. While “Trickle Down Economics” has garnered ill repute, if you ignore the rhetoric of Tax Cuts and favouring the Rich, the fact of the matter is; as consumer spending increases, service jobs are created. Not only do we need to improve the money flow to the lower economic segment, we also need to focus on “Pick Up Economics” that gives the lower segments of society an opportunity to earn decent wages to overcome their predicament and climb on to the ladder of upward mobility, which then contributes to the overall economy.

What is needed is a mechanism for wealth generation wherein the rich and the poor reap the rewards of the increasing wealth. Urban and Rural India are two disparate environments that require different solutions. For Urban India, it translates to providing Low Cost Housing for the Working Poor. At a minimum, everyone should have access to a bed and sanitation facilities. For example the cost of providing temporary on-site housing and sanitation facilities for building construction and road (both urban and rural) construction workers should be included in the cost of construction. For Rural India, housing is less of an issue. Expanding the economy rapidly beyond the agriculture sector is the answer. Land reforms that enable this to happen is a necessary factor as well.

Ownership is Desirable, Jobs, Opportunity, Affordable Rentals, Affordable Living is EssentialThe Left’s preoccupation with ownership, ceilings of housing and agricultural land is detrimental to the respective Urban and Rural environments. Ownership ought to be regarded as a desirable end-point of an individual’s life as opposed to an entitlement. For instance, in Urban India, the limitations imposed, results in fewer Rental properties. What is required is to provide appropriate incentives to the business community to provide low cost rental housing for slum dwellers. It is far better to be able to afford to rent than live in sub-human and squalid conditions. In Rural India, land is being divided and sub-divided over successive generations, such that it is often impossible to sustain one’s family on the land owned. Programs geared towards the “marginal farmer” are an exercise in futility. What the “marginal farmer” needs is a viable exit strategy whereby he can trade his land for sustainable income. What is required is the lifting of these land ceilings along with incentives to promote agro-industry and manufacturing in rural areas, and in the process provide jobs and entrepreneurial opportunities to the “marginal farmers” and landless. It is far better to have a job that sustains one’s living than to own a piece of land that does not provide adequate income.

Fair and Equitable Compensation for Eminent Domain AcquisitionsThe Left can also play a constructive role in ensuring proper compensation and rehabilitation assistance is provided to individuals whose land is “solicited” for urbanization or industrialization. The current situation where the government is involved in the land acquisition is not working. In addition to the exploitative forces the villager faces, they face yet another exploiter, the Indian government. The land is being acquired way below the open market price based on the “market rate” established in the records. Both citizens and the government are responsible for this problem. Citizens record the purchase price at below open market values to avoid paying stamp duty and taxes. The government turns a blind eye to this practice. Instead the government should establish policies and practices that can be administered locally, to ensure the true value of the land is recorded by allowing market forces come into play. A January 2007 article by Swaminathan, “Case for community-led land acquisition”, provides some very practical suggestions. India needs to progress rapidly, but this progress cannot come at the expense of, and exploiting rural landowners.

So the ideal situation is for both the Right and the Left to focus on increasing the “shared wealth” of India. The Right ought to focus on “Capital Flow Economic” programs, by promoting policies and incentives for businesses to provide opportunities and amenities for the poor. i.e. facilitate the flow of Capital. The Left ought to focus on the “ Wage Flow Economic” programs, by promoting policies that ensure the ensuing wealth flows to meet the needs of the lowest segments of our society. i.e. facilitate the flow of Wages.

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage
http://www.grameenfoundation.org/
http://www.investorwords.com/5075/trickle_down_theory.html
http://www.swaminomics.org/

What is India's Agricultural Policy?

India’s overall agricultural output has shown sub optimal growth and unless there are significant changes to land ownership policy and appropriate assistance to farmers, India is headed for a major disaster. Furthermore, lack of jobs in rural India is further exasperating the problem. The current agricultural land policy that limits acquisition of farmland to agriculturalists and the ceiling on agricultural land ownership is the single most deciding factor, creating an increasing number of Marginal Farmers who are unable to survive as costs rise and net income declines.

In today’s environment, farming is an entrepreneurial activity and not everyone is cut out to be an entrepreneur.

Programs geared towards the “marginal farmer” are an exercise in futility. What the “marginal farmer” needs is a viable exit strategy whereby he can trade his land for sustainable income. The very laws intended to protect the farmer is working against the farmer’s interest. Instead of focusing on farm ownership, the focus ought to be on jobs. It is better to be employed and make a living than to own and not be able to make ends meet. It is easier for a person to relocate to a job, provided housing is taken care of, than bringing job opportunities to the person.

The emphasis ought to be in regulating what can be done on the land as opposed to who can own it. Agricultural land should remain agricultural regardless of whether it is owned by a company or individual. Conversion to non-agricultural activity should be strictly regulated and permitted on a case by case basis.

A major factor contributing to farmer suicides is due to the fact that the land gets divided over successive generations and with escalating costs, a point is reached when the land is no longer able to sustain the family that owns and tills the land. The Yield Ratio; defined as net income divided by the cost declines for crops such as rice and wheat as the size of the farm decreases. Given the size of the farm, the Yield Ratio may or may not realize the necessary income to support the farmer’s family. Making the situation worse is the exploitation the farmer experiences from traders, moneylenders, government employees and other nefarious agents. Fighting the exploitative forces is a major battle. Providing the farmer with easy access to information on spot and future prices will at least give the farmer an opportunity to make an informed decision and fight the exploitative forces.

To increase or maintain the Yield Ratio adjusted for inflation, farming techniques would have to change. This often means mechanization and changes to the irrigation methodology. Raising prices is an option, but that just shifts the burden of bearing the farmer’s inefficiency to the consumer. In order to introduce mechanization and other necessary changes, there is a minimum farm size requirement, which could be accomplished by collective/co-operative farming. The co-operative could then raise the requisite capital to make the transition. The Farm Development Programme under the auspices of the National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (NABARD) has piloted such a program in Vidharba district at villages in Wardha and Amravati successfully. The added benefit of such a co-operative, is collective bargaining by which farmers are able to obtain better pricing from traders. Providing incentives by way of low interest loans and assistance would expedite the formation of co-operatives. Allowing the financial institution to take an equity position in the co-operative and/or allowing outside parties to partner with the farmers is something that could be explored. But with prevailing attitudes and issues of trust, this is a long shot.

Aside from forming and joining a co-operative the farmer has basically three options:

1. Switch to a different crop that provides an adequate Yield Ratio
2. Lease the land or
3. Sell Out

Leasing:
Leasing is an option, however it requires a certain level of understanding in both the lesser and the lessee. Leasing is a desirable option since the farmer is guaranteed an income, provided the lessee is a solvent party. And the farmer retains the farm assets and benefits from its appreciation over time.
Jobs will give immediate relief to the landless, and provide options for the marginal farmer. Accelerated job creation in rural India can be achieved by allowing manufacturing and agro-industries to negotiate directly with rural land owners to acquire the necessary land to establish their operations. Zoning guidelines can be established to ensure fertile land cannot be converted for non-agricultural use. An option is to promote the leasing of the property to the incoming party. Companies entering into rural areas will be naturally motivated to hire locally and this would present a viable option to the farmer, provided he/she performs to the satisfaction of the employer.

• Removing the land ceiling and make it easier to acquire agriculture land for agriculture

• Encouraging co-operative farming

• Facilitating crop diversification

• Providing access to spot and futures pricing to enable the farmer to battle the exploitive forces

• Allowing companies with agro-initiatives and urbanites wishing to establish farm houses to buy agricultural land

Switching to cash crops:

There are cash crops that are labor intensive by definition and do not require heavy investments by way of mechanization. This would extend the sustainability of the land holding. Switching over to a new crop is also easier said than done. The farmer is ill equipped to evaluate viable options, let alone implement them. The farmer will need assistance in the form of advice and hand holding to make this transition. Farmers in Punjab have successfully implemented a crop diversification program wherein they have switched to karif maize from rice and wheat. Allowing farmers to farm what is best for them is fine even if it means India has to import staples such as rice and wheat. As long as India exports alternative farm produce to offset these imports, this would not pose a problem. And if wheat is cheaper to import even if subsidized by someone else’s taxes, that would just be an added benefit to India.

Selling Out: 

Selling out has its inherent problems. The proceeds is often frittered away resulting in neither land or money. Social engineering is not recommended. Instead providing an alternate source of income by way of job opportunities is the preferred solution.

The current situation where the government is involved in the land acquisition is not working. The land is being acquired way below the open market price based on the “rate” established in the records. In addition to the exploitative forces the farmer faces, the farmer faces yet another exploiter, the Indian government. Instead the government should establish policies and practices that can be administered locally, to ensure the true value of the land is recorded by allowing market forces come into play. Reducing the registration stamp duty would be one solution.

The impending disaster can be prevented provided rapid changes in the agriculture sector are pursued such as:

• Removing the land ceiling and make it easier to acquire agriculture land for agriculture
• Encouraging co-operative farming
• Facilitating crop diversification
• Providing access to spot and futures pricing to enable the farmer to battle the exploitative forces
• Allowing companies with agro-initiatives and urbanites wishing to establish farm houses to buy agricultural land

Rang De Basanti & Lage Raho Munabhai

Rang De Basanti (pronounced Rung Day Bus-unthi) is a must see movie. It is excellently produced and very well done. A little far fetched but rings true and hits home. It really shows some wonderful scenes of India and the colors are gorgeous. It mirrors the life of Bhagat Singh and his cohorts, who fought valiantly for India’s freedom. While it is about the making of a film that depicts the life of Bhagat Singh, it surreptitiously draws parallels between the situation that exists then during Bhagat Singh’s time and a controversial issue of contemporary India – the many MIG crashes and fatalities. It features a Defense Minister named Shastri who profits from supplying the air force with faulty parts. No semblance to any known person living or dead. Blatant parallels are drawn to some of the heavy-handed tactics of the British and that of the “Indian Government”. It portrays the youth of India as an effective change agent to counter the corruption prevalent in India. The ending is a little over dramatized. However, it very cleverly ties the end of Bhagat Singh’s life to the modern day saga depicted in the movie. As in any Hindi film, it does follow the Bollywood formula: boy-girl romance, emotional scenes, good guys, bad guys, violence, comedy, songs and dance. The Bollywood formula is very tastefully adhered to without detracting from the main storyline. The usual sentimental soppy scenes are absent, thankfully. The subtle message in the story line questions whether Baghat Singh’s sacrifice was worth it. It leaves the viewer with the notion that the efforts of the current day heroes appear to be futile as well. The audience reaction has been one of anger and frustration. Whether the youth of India takes in the message of this film and does something about it is to be seen.

Lage Raho Munabhai (pronounced Lug Aye Ra-Ho Moonah-bhai) is a wonderful feel-good comedy with a powerful message. It frames the political activism espoused by Mahatma Gandhi by introducing the notion of Gandhigiri, a very pertinent Moniker. It packages and conveys the essence of Gandhi’s non-violence principals in a remarkable manner. It portrays Gandhigiri as an antidote to Goondagiri (thuggery – for lack of a better term). Hopefully, this movie too will have an effect on India’s citizens and will give a boost to grass roots activism.

Both these movies should be screened in the high schools of India every year. Such movies and others that portray civic mindedness and a respect for the environment will result in raising a better generation of Indians.

Mahabaratha - A Hot, Spicy, Zesty Epic

The Mahabaratha is a wonderful "soap opera" that highlights deceit, deception, jealousy and depicts everything that demonstrates the failings of humankind. It glorifies war and portrays how the Kshatriya's act in the name of honor and bring about death and destruction by retaliation. It describes acts of trickery, manipulation, granting of boons (with strings attached), and the casting of curses.

The epic covers a gamut of interesting socially taboo behaviour such as pre-marital sex, polygamy, polyandry. It also mentions cannibalism - human eating rakshasas. It includes advanced sci-fi concepts such as shape shifters/changelings, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that can be willed by reciting mantras, and hyper-transportation. Also mentioned are surrogate parenthood, and the fact that Duryodhna had a hundred identical brothers suggests cloning. The very fact that this epic was conceived so many years ago and handed down by word of mouth is a miracle in itself.

The book by Rajagopalachari is a popular G version. It is a toned down narration suitable for children. One must read the 850 page Mahabharata by Kamala Subramaniam for a detailed treatise on this Epic. 

Duryodhana, the son of blind Dhritarashtra, is a jealous, dissatisfied zealot who is always unhappy with what he has and covets what is not his. Not only is he an extortionist, he is an oppressor as well. In spite of grabbing what he covets, he wishes ill and hardships on the people he vanquishes. It is not surprising, that with the way in which the Mahabaratha is revered, that the "Duryodhana Complex" is pervasive in India. The lack of dysfunctional characters does not stop with Duryodhana. 

The Pandavas, the sons of the Pandu (the albino) are rife with flaws as well. Yudhishthira is a vain and compulsive gambler who twice gambles away his kingdom. He also dishonors his wife by offering her as collateral, even after he has lost his kingdom. He is forgiven once by the intervention of Dhritarashtra, but that doesn't stop him from gambling again. Arjuna is a trigger-happy warrior, who does not have a mind of his own. He constantly relegates his thinking to Krishna. When he comes across Ekalavya who demonstrated better skills than him, he exhorts Drona to keep his promise that no one will surpass him. Ekalavya had approached Drona to learn Archery. But Drona says he cannot do so because Ekalavya is of a lower caste. Nevertheless, Ekalavya makes a statue of Drona and reveres Drona as his guru. When Ekalavya recounts this to Drona, Drona asks for “guru dakshina”. When Ekalavya replies that he is willing to give anything, Drona asks for his right thumb, which Ekalavya cuts off immediately and gives to Drona. This is great drama. But is this for real? Bhima is a strong man with more brawn than brains. Nakula and Sahadeva are portrayed as simple-minded innocent bystanders who go with the flow, wherever it takes them. Krishna, the all powerful, is a trickster and in many ways a con-artist who is good at finding loop holes in prevailing customs to manipulate situations to further his agenda.The Mahabaratha describes all sorts of behavior that is looked down upon in all major religions, such as pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, adultery, polygamy, deception, jealousy, etc. etc. 

Take the case of Satyavati. Satyavati was born inside a fish. A fishermen chief, caught this fish, found her in it and adopted her as his own daughter, as he had no children. Since she was born inside a fish, she had an odor of fish about her. As a youngster, she assisted her father by running a ferry service across the river. One day the great sage Parasara wanted to cross the river and availed himself of her services. Midway through the crossing, the sage was seized with a longing for this girl. He expressed this to her. She was flattered but frightened. At last she consented to his request, with the condition that no one should no of this escapade. By his yogic powers, the sage created an island in the middle of the river and surrounded it with mist, hiding it from prying eyes. In this island they consummated their relationship. The sage also granted her a boon and turned the fish-aroma into a divine fragrance. After this a miracle happened, within minutes Satyavati gave birth to a son. What is more, the son grew right away and attained adulthood. This was none other than the sage Vyaasa, who would compose the Mahabharata later. He saluted his mother and said that he would go his own way, but she only needed to think of him to command his presence. Satyavati continued her ferry service even after this incident. No one knew about her indiscretion, as her virginity had been restored by a boon from the sage. Later, the king Santanu came to visit her father. He saw Satyavati and was smitten by her beauty. Her father imposed a condition that Santanu must disinherit his only son Devavrata or the marriage would not take place. The King could not agree to this and went away in sorrow. His son however, after finding out the cause for his father's sorrow, met the chief-fisherman and renounced his claim to the throne and also took a vow of celibacy, so that he would sire no children that might pose a threat to Satyavati's children. For this terrible vow, he became known as Bishma from that point onwards. 

Satyavati married Santanu and had two children named Chitrangada and Vichitraveerya. There was a Gandharva king called Chitrangada. He did not relish a mortal having his name and challenged his human namesake to a duel. The Gandharva killed Chitrangada. Vichitraveerya died of illness without leaving behind a heir. Faced with no heir to the throne, Satyavati implores Bishma, her step son to have sex with her two daughter-in-laws, who are sisters, namely Ambika and Ambalika but he balks for he took a vow not to marry, and be celibate so that her sons could become king. He suggests she adopt a son to have sex with her daughter-in-laws to sire a heir. Finally, Satyavati confesses that she had a pre-marital affair and Vyaasa is her illegitimate son. Vyaasa is a very learned sage, but very ugly. She calls upon Vyaasa and implores him to have sex with her daughter-in-laws. Vyaasa is reluctant (yeah really), and says he is ugly and it will not be a pleasant experience for the women, but finally agrees. The first women is so taken aback by his ugliness that she keeps her eyes shut all night while Vyaasa does his thing. Vyaasa reports to Satyavati that a son will be born, but he will be born blind. And so Dhritarashtra is born blind. Satyavati implores Vyaasa to sleep with the other daughter-in-law. Vyaasa protests, but agrees in the end. She is so taken aback by his ugliness that she blanches. Vyaasa reports to Satyavati that her daughter-in-law blanched and so a "pale" son will be born. And so Pandava, the son of the heroes of Mahabaratha is born an albino. Satyavati is aghast and asks Vyaasa to do the deed again. He protests and says this is the last and final effort. The chosen daughter-in-law sends her maid to have sex with Vyaasa. The maid and Vyaasa have a good time together. Vyaasa reports that a wise son will be born, but he will be ineligible for the throne. And so Vidura is born, who is wise, respected and can tell the future when he comes of age.

Pandu grows up to be an able and accomplished adult and rules the kingdom on behalf of Dhritarashtra. He takes two wives, Kunti and Maadri. When Kunti was a child, she took care of sage Durvasa, who was so pleased with her, that he taught her a Mantra. If she recited it, any Deva whom she thought of would “come to her”. She was a child and she did not understand the true implication of this Mantra. One day she was taken in by the Sun and recited the Mantra and the Sun materialized beside her. Having appeared he said he had to do his deed. Little did she know that “Come to her” actually meant that he would “Come in to her”. And so Karuna was born, who she put in a box and let it float down the river. One day Pandu was hunting in the forest and he killed a dear while it was making love to its doe. There was an understanding that hunters never killed animals in the act of love. The dear turned out to be a Sage who had taken the form a dear with his wife so that they could enjoy the joys of love. Apparently Sages were forbidden to have sex while in their human form. The dying Sage cursed Pandu, saying that he would die if and when he had sex. Poor Pandu was aghast and he left Hastinapura (the capital) to live in the forest with his wives. Many years passed and he bemoaned the fact that he had no sons. One day Kunti mentioned this Mantra of hers to Pandu and he asked her to invoke Dharma. So she did and Dharma appeared, did his deed and Yudhishthira was born to Kunti. A year later he asked Kunti to invoke Vayu. She did, he appeared, did his deed and Arjuna was born. Pandu was not satisfied he wanted another son. This time he asked Kunti to invoke Indra. She did, Indra appeared, did his deed and Bhima was born. Pandu was still not satisfied. This time Kunti suggested that she teach Maadri the mantra, since Maadri had no sons. Maadri invoked Asvini Kumara, the heavenly twins. Two of them showed up, (a two for one deal) and Nakula and Sahadeva were born to Maadri.

In addition to polygamy, polyandry is also depicted in this story. When Arjuna proudly announces to his mother Kunti, “Mother, we have brought a Bhiksha” Without seeing and assuming it is a donation she replies, “All of you can share the Bhiksha you have brought”. And so Draupadi, whose hand Arjuna won in a contest, is a shared wife amongst the five Pandava brothers.The Mahabharata does not portray a single icon that one can emulate. Surely one does not want to emulate Krishna or Yudhishthira. Bishma (the uncle) who took a vow of celibacy is the closest one could look up to but he is marginalized.

Unlike other major religions, a person did not found Hinduism. It evolved as a philosophy that was handed down from generation to generation by word of mouth. Consequently one has to realize that perfection is an ideal notion and one has to look beyond an icon’s failing and celebrate the goodness in them.

Friday August 18, 2006

The Brits taught us well

In order for anyone to move ahead, maybe, just maybe, it is relevant to know how one got to the present. We can then determine what decisions and actions need to be taken so that the past does not hamper the present.  And more importantly, by being aware of the current situation we should not look back in the future and say to ourselves we wish we had done something about what we knew, when we knew it.  After Sixty Years of Independence, India has made tremendous progress.  However, there are some dysfunctional vestiges of the past that we inherited that if remedied would catapult us even faster for a better Quality of Life for all.

The British set up an elaborate bureaucracy implemented using Indians, designed to protect Britain’s interests, to enrich their coffers at the expense of India.  It included a web of procedures and rules that enabled a few, the rulers to oversee an organization involving many, the ruled, who could not be trusted.  And then when they left, we Indians perpetuated the bureaucracy they established, the ruled became the ruler, and the Naukar became the Sarkar.  The once obedient “civil servant” came into power and the system that was designed to enrich the British, was quickly transformed to enrich the “new rulers” of India, namely the “Brown Sahibs”.  The British did a lot of good for India, whose benefits are discernable today.  They left a legacy of education, transportation and communication etc. At the same time they oppressed, exploited, exhorted and controlled India as well.  And when they left, the loyal bureaucracy they established quickly adopted all of these traits.  There were a few good Britishers who were concerned about the welfare of the Indians, and there were a few corrupt and conniving individuals amongst them as well.  The same can be said of our bureaucracy today. And it is this system that we adopted blindly that has resulted in the situation we are in.

In order to maintain control, the British established many departments often with over lapping authority.  Getting things done required the approval of multiple departments, which results in no clear authority or accountability. This is a classic case of divide and rule.  By pushing an issue through multiple departments many angles of an issue are gleaned and an overseer can then determine and approve what is the best approach that protects and enhances their agenda. Now this same scenario results in grid lock and promotes corruption.

The typical bureaucrat’s approach is no different from the British. They use their position to serve themselves and protect their interests first before serving their constituents. They hinder legitimate initiatives and allow illegal initiatives to enrich themselves. Unfortunately, this malaise spread to all levels of our Government. Now even a clerk or a peon uses their level of control to their benefit. It starts with requesting “Bakshish” to supplement their meager pay to survive. Then, greed sets in and it moves to an entirely new level.  Now there is a “capitation” bribe to secure a position.

This malaise prevalent everywhere, besides the the government and corrupt politicians, we have corrupt business men. Zamindars who oppress the poor, and village upper classes prey upon the lower classes and so on. 

Unlike the British, who had a steadfast allegiance to the crown that brought about justice whenever there were major infractions, Indians have allegiance only to themselves and in some areas there is a total breakdown of law and order. The British adhered to a set of rules that Gandhi exploited to their disadvantage. Today our justice system is stacked in favour of the lawbreaker.  Another big difference is that the amounts being stolen now is staggering.  It would be interesting to find out if adjusted for inflation, who stole more, the British or the Indians themselves?

The British collaborated with local rulers and businessmen when it suited them and served their interests.  They established monopolies like the making of Salt; they taxed locally produced goods heavily to encourage imported material like textiles.  In some ways they operated like the mafia, the only difference was it was on a larger scale and it was legitimized, simply because they could.  And when they left, they left the reins with a new class of rulers, namely us and it has been a constant struggle of Indians Vs Indians ever since.  The legacy of oppression, exploitation, extortion and control left by the British continues to manifest itself today in many ways.  Our government too in some ways (even today, more so in the past) operates as a Mafia by maintaining control over areas that are best left to private enterprise. 

Despite all of the setbacks of the bureaucracy established by the British, India (urban) and Bharat (rural) have made great strides and has catapulted itself as a rapidly emerging world economic power.  The challenge now is to increase the pace of economic growth along with making sure the ensuing tide lifts the fortunes of the lowest rung of our society as well.

All is not bad about the bureaucracy.  It is a classic command and control system that does perform when commanded.  Also it goes by “the book” that spells out the rules and regulations that exist.  If the book is changed, the bureaucracy will follow and implement it.  Change is difficult to assimilate and granted the changes should be debated and refined and implemented with the interest of the country in mind.  There will be missteps and mistakes and corrective action can and should be taken to either reverse or modify these missteps.  At the same time, we cannot afford not to act and take a laise-fare approach to change.  We must rapidly implement ethical and rational rules, laws and policy that unleash the entrepreneurial talent of Indians.  Ultimately, everyone will agree that inarguably, the solution to deal with a huge human pool of un-educated, un-skilled, un-employed residing in Bharat and the slums of India, is to enable individuals and families find a sustainable source of income by which they can survive and progress.  This will require the cooperation of the Government, Industry, NGOs, businesses and entrepreneurs.  For instance the current labour laws are skewed towards protecting the interests of the labourer at the detriment of companies that hire large number of unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled workers.  While it is important to provide workers with a safe environment and prevent exploitation it is also imperative to be able to weed out incompetent and un-productive workers that are currently protected by the labyrinth of labour laws.  Our experience shows that the knowledge sector is unbridled with these handicaps and is thriving.  We need to pay heed to the manufacturing sector if it is to thrive.  The current labor laws are curtailing the establishment of labor-intensive industries in rural areas where the bulk of the uneducated, unskilled and unemployed reside.  This is just one of the many changes that need to be implemented.

To increase the rate of change, we have to accelerate a top’s down approach that involve changes in policy that transition the role of the bureaucrats from one of control to one of governance.  Besides changing the “book”, we need to establish clear lines of separation between the Politician, the Bureaucracy and the Judicial Branch.  This is a topic that requires an in-depth analysis.

After gaining independence from the British, the citizens of India were lulled into a false sense of security and allowed the malaise to perpetuate and take root.  In many ways, the citizens of India have themselves to blame for, by perpetuating a general sense of apathy and blaming it all on the government.  What citizens can do and are pursuing, is a bottom’s up approach of activism wherein the people assert their rights and demand from the bureaucrats what they are entitled to. 

The need of the hour is a second Independence Struggle, this one from the surrogate “rulers” the British left behind.  We must “push” change through Tops Down Policy and “pull” change through Bottums Up citizens involvement and Activism. In doing so, we can raise the Standard of Living and Quality of Life of Indians and Bharathvasis. 

Jai Hind,

http://www.mbapursuit.com/erosion-and-corrosion-of-corruption-in-india

http://www.hindu.com/af/india60/index.htm

The Indian Mystique

Indians are a study in contrasts. On an individual level Indians are very gracious, caring and sentimental. On a collective level they are divisive, undisciplined, non-cooperative and difficult to deal with. This is the mystique of India. People you've just met, welcome you wholeheartedly with genuine openness which engulfs you in a current of acceptance. You are swept away in a tide that makes you feel you belong.

In India you are defined by your associations. India is a highly networked society. One is born into a network. Whose child you are, who you are related to is the network one acquires at birth along with where you stay, what you do for a living becomes an integral part of who you are. The warmth that was showered on your associations and relatives is showered on you and often times one is taken aback by the intensity of the warmth and welcome that one receive. If one is meeting for the first time, new relations are created and existing associations are strengthened. Indians embrace foreigners readily. The associations applied to foreigners are that they are from a far away place. Indians are a curious lot. Many questions are asked. Some very probing. All of this information becomes part of the persons definition.

Foreigners may find this questioning and curiosity somewhat invasive. However, these questions are asked due to genuine curiosity and there is no malice intended. Gossip is always welcomed. One of Indians favorite pastimes is to relay and exchange gossip amongst their friends and relatives. This preoccupation with gossip can work to one’s advantage or disadvantage. If one wishes some sensitive information to be conveyed, one can utilize this phenomena effectively. On the other hand if one wants to be secretive about something one has to hold the information extremely close to one’s chest.

Recently, I went on a hike in a rural part of Karnataka. I followed a dirt road that gently inclined upwards and passed by many farm houses and fields. I took a fork which led to a small clearing in which there was a lean to, which consisted of four poles and a sloped thatched roof. I was examining its construction and taking a few pictures when two young men approached me. They asked me where I was from, and what I was doing there, what it is that I was looking for, how did I get here etc.. These questions were asked in what would seem in an interrogative fashion. They were satisfied once I answered their questions and mentioned to them that I enjoyed to walk/hike. Then I asked them where the path led to. They answered that one path led back to town and the other went on into the forest. They also mentioned that there was a cave nearby. I asked if they could take me there and they readily agreed. We had a great hike to the cave and on returning they invited me to their house, gave me chilled water and some lemon juice. When we met we were all strangers to each other, and then we shared a memorable experience that we will look back on fondly. This is an example of the Indian mystique.
February 7th 2006