Who, the People?

The preamble to the Indian Constitution begins with the words, "WE, THE PEOPLE of India" and goes on to say that we resolve to constitute India into a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular Democratic Republic and secure to its citizens various rights. Later in the Constitution, various Fundamental Rights are provided to all the people of India and some even to others visiting or residing in India. Still later, the Constitution gives every adult citizen of the country the right to vote and also to contest elections and become a part of the government.

Vaguely speaking it does appear that the Indian state and the Indian government is for The People. Abraham Lincoln said, "of the people, by the people, for the people". But what does 'People' really mean? It appears so simple yet I find it utterly difficult to comprehend. As a civil servant am I supposed to serve all the people? Does it mean EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL? Is it possible? Is it practical? Is it justified?

I have loads of doubts. When some 'people' want to make a nuclear power factory on a place that would benefit some 'people' by providing them jobs and providing electricity to a lot more 'people', but displace some 'people' who had their homes there, which 'people' should I support? When some 'people' who rape a girl are very poor, are they victims or attackers? When parents want the best groom for their bride and are willing to spend lakhs of rupees to get a good groom, are the parents right or wrong? When two 'people' from different castes or religion want to get married, they offend the religious/social sentiments of a lot of 'people', which one should the government support?

When a riot breaks out, it is some 'people' killing some other 'people', so whom should the government protect and whom should it punish? Weren't the people who are killing are also kin of some other people who got killed? When an upper caste official feels that he is being discriminated because he is not promoted despite merit, is he right? When a tribal official is always discriminated that he has reached the post by reservation and not by merit, he is a gainer or a loser? When some 'people' want to preserve the Indian culture and so prevent other 'people' from wearing some particular costume, which 'people' is more important? Doubts galore.

Are 'women' people? Are 'tribes' people? Are 'businessmen' people? Are 'government officials' people? Are 'politicians' people? If they are all people, then how does one decide the State is for which people?

When a woman who has done well in education and earns a good salary in a good job, expects her maid servant to do all the household job for a petty sum, who is the woman who is being exploited? When a mother-in-law tortures the newly arrived daughter-in-law, who is the woman that one should support? When a newly arrived daughter-in-law refuses to take care of the old and sick mother-in-law, which woman should one listen to?

When a student of upper caste says that he thinks that he could not get into a job because people with inferior intellect got into job as they had 'reservations? and when a tribal boy says that he cannot get a job because everyone doubts his ability as he has come through 'reservations', whom should I support? When parents love their kids so much that they want to select their kid's marriage partners or when kids love someone so much that they want to run away from their parents, whom should one support? 

When an enterprising man who understands all the tax laws, forest laws, mining laws etc and  'manages' to make a lot of money but another man who doesn't understand many laws and is forced to pay a lot of fees and taxes to the government, who is the right 'people' here? When a boy goes and slashes the girl's neck and drinks poison himself, who is more guilty? 

Are the people who feel proud of being a Hindu or a Muslim more important? Or the ones who do not care at all provided they can lead a happy life? When a Hindu boy wants to marry a Muslim girl, is he bringing communal harmony or disturbing it? When a poor tribal kills a rich and enterprising business man, is he a poor tribal or a murderer? When the people who hate corruption in the country fabricate 'rent receipts' to claim HRA benefits in Income tax returns, are they against corruption or for it? When the same 'people' bribe the traffic policeman for not wearing a helmet or jumping a red light, is the traffic police corrupt or the 'people'?

I am very confused as to Who is the People that the government is accountable for? In a village, some people complained that the tap water promised has not begun as the motor has not been installed. On asking the sub-engineer, he said that attempts to install the motor has been hindered by tribal women beating officials with lathis. Which people should the government listen to? The ones who want tap water or the ones who don't want it?

Should one listen to the people who protest with candles near India Gate against corruption but think that giving poor food at cheap rates is a waste of money or should one listen to the poor who do not know where India Gate is but want cheaper food?

Doubts like these confuse me everyday. The government has to choose between two sets of people everyday and one is never sure if it is actually working 'for the people' or against it?

Country to the DOGS?

Most people in my Facebook friend list, whom I know from school or college, are working or studying somewhere in North America or Europe. I assume that they must have made a conscious career choice to go abroad and pursue education or job there because they did not find such interesting opportunities in India. It is not needed to mention that India is far behind US or any European nation and probably cannot absorb all the talent that it produces. I also assume that they must be liking their life out there. I can see pictures of their cycling trips and hikings etc. and also their cars that they bought and the holiday spots that they visited. It does show that they are happy being there.

However, what strikes me is that they often share cynical and skeptic status messages or articles about how India is doomed. They are worried about the depreciation of Indian rupee, but somehow they also find a perverse pleasure in telling their Indian cousins that their package has increased in Indian rupee equivalent. They have an opinion on everything that is happening in India. Whether it is the food security bill, the land acquisition bill, or rapes in the cities or anything that is happening in Indian politics. And if I were to believe my friends staying abroad and the newscasters in India, we are a doomed nation and we have never been worse and the country has gone to dogs.

But it does not skip my attention that elections are coming nearer and in a well-functioning democracy, issues shall start burning when elections come closer and I am fine with it. If government policies are not criticized, how will improvements happen? But to make comments like "Kuch nahi hoga is desh ka" is too simplistic to digest. Most of my friends are children of Liberalization. We were toddlers during the License Raj and know about it only as history. We have grown up in an India where we walk into malls, eat burgers, sip coffee at CCD and feel happy watching cinema in a multiplex. We are also living in an era where a manual worker in some construction project puts on music on his cellphone while he is loading and unloading bricks, to keep him entertained. 

We are also living in an era where we are no longer talking about having schools in every village but talking about the quality of education. Kids of today, when they grow up, will not be able to say that we walked 20 miles to go to school, the way our parents did. But yes, they would crib that their school didn't have computers to study. Ten years down the line, kids won't be able to say that too.

I am living in a district that I had not even heard about before I got posted here and I am still in the process of knowing the place. But when we go to villages and a tribal woman comes and complaints to us that the Aanganwadi worker is not giving food according to the menu, I think that we are moving ahead. She demands it as a right and she wants her kid to get the food that government suggests. When I meet few tribal men and women who have formed a Producer company, got it registered under Companies Act and happily tell me that they have 533 shareholders and 15 members on the Board of the Company and they would like our help in hiring a CEO, I feel that we have moved ahead.

When a village that is so remote that India would not even care that it existed, has a road till its entrance and when we drive there and ask if there is a school there, they say yes, but only till 5th class, we know that we have moved ahead but need to do a lot more.

To all those who think that nothing can happen in India, I want to say that come and see India, go to places by cycling and hiking and trekking. These would be as much fun in India as they are in the forests of Europe or Alaska. Knowing your own country is as much fun as knowing Europe or America. 

I am not saying that there are no problems in India, but then are there no problems in US or France or UK? Or are there no problems in Singapore, Brazil or South Africa? There is nothing wrong in having a country with problems. All countries have problems and in all countries people come on streets and criticize governments and change their governments. And no country changes government as smoothly as India does. But only those countries come out of their problems and become better whose countrymen keep striving to do that. France was made by French and Germany by Germans. India has come this far by the efforts of millions of Indians and shall move further ahead. We will be slow at times and also falter. No one promised a ready-made solution anyways. The anger in people was always this strong and that is what keeps the pressure on the country to move ahead. Let the anger stay but do not let it turn into skepticism, cynicism or hopelessness. The problems were always like this and we have always come out triumphed. Channelize your anger in finding solutions. 

The country has not gone to dogs, it never had. Change your government, if you will. That is the beauty of democracy. But the nation shall keep moving ahead, because there are still millions who believe in it and spend their day and night trying.

No one hates corruption

Till the time I was staying with aspirants of civil service in Rajendra Nagar, New Delhi, I thought that corruption is the biggest problem of the Indian government and the country is boiling in anger against it. It appeared that it is just a matter of time when the government will start feeling the pressure of public angst and things would begin to reform. It was also the time when Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal were leading fierce protests in Ramlila Maidan and India Gate, and I, like many other middle class urban youth, thought the tide of change has arrived.

But before Anna could push the Lokpal Bill down the throat of the government, I joined the government. And this, I thought, was the best opportunity to kill the demon from within. I haven't had any practical experience in the government yet and I have just had an extended college life in the academy, so all that I comment is still from an outsider citizen's point of view and not an insider's opinion. 

The UPSC results are portrayed by the media and the society, especially in Bihar, Jharkhand, UP etc, in great pomp. When the results arrive, photos, interviews and special features galore. One reason for such glamour attached to it is that it is considered a tough and a fair exam and one who qualifies can boast that he/she has made it purely on his own merit irrespective of his/her background. It is on this logic that I enjoyed the attention that I got after qualifying the exam. Till then, I had zero interaction with any IAS or any government setup at all.

But gradually, I realized that IAS is not the best paid job in the country anymore. There was a time when it was, but not anymore. The IIT's, IIM's, opening of the economy, globalization, new entrepreneurs and many such developments have rendered IAS as one of the many good career opportunities that a meritorious student has. And that is a jolly good sign for Indian Society. In no developed society, the bureaucracy is seen as the best job. In less developed societies, army is the best place for a youngster, in semi-developed societies, it is civil service and in purely developed society, it is big corporate firms or starting firms of their own that attracts the best minds. Yet IAS continues to attract a lot of people in India today.

The sad realization, however, is that nobody agrees to the fact that it is not the best paid job in the country. I agree that an IAS gets paid enough for one's needs and housing and commuting is highly subsidized so it makes up for a moderate salary. But when compared to what similarly able persons get in the private sector, the IAS salaries do look modest. When I discuss these things with family and friends, I have two kinds of consolations that I get. One set of people tell me that it is power and not money that is an IAS's remuneration. This is an argument I have never been able to appreciate. The other set of people say that you shall have so much 'outy' income that you won't need to touch your salary. 'Outy', by the way, is an indigenous Bihari word derived from the english word out. Roughly it connotes the income that is not your official due but what you get as gifts, or share, or commissions from various people that you deal with, in other words, 'outside' your normal salary. This argument is more outrageous that the first one. And this forces me to think if people are against corruption or for it. If I say that this is suggestive of corruption, people smile at me and pity my innocence.

Some people tell me that I shall never be required to ask for a bribe. It shall be taken by the junior staff in my office and I shall 'automatically' get my 'share' at the end of the month. When I contest that why should I let such a thing happen, I am told of stories of people who have 'done well' by staying in the government. The stories of such people are not from very far away. One of my relatives is an accountant in a state treasury. He is one of the most educated and well-behaved persons in our fraternity. Earlier he was in a sick state PSU and was struggling for daily needs. Being good at academics, he managed life by doing tuition. In his forties, he heard about an opening in the treasury and he got the job because of his brilliant merit. The entire extended family was full of praise for him and happy to see the change of fate. I was in school then and I thought that this treasury job must be a far better one than the sick PSU one, but I was corrected. Though both the jobs were roughly at the same grade, the new one had an assured salary while the older one was devoid of any pay. More significantly, 'treasury is a very 'earning' place.

Today that relative has been in the treasury for about 15-18 years and shall retire in two years. He has now a four-floor house built in the city and has happily married off his daughter to another 'well-paid' government servant. Our entire family adores his success. When I confronted him recently about his salaries and his 'other' sources of income, he candidly accepted that 'everyone in the treasury makes money.' 

One of my more destitute relatives is a widow who lost her husband when her kids were only of three years and one year each. The brothers of her husband tried their best to get her a job. After bribing a CDPO of the district, they could get her recruited as an Aanganwadi worker. After about ten years in that job, it is said that she has managed to make a good amount of money and that her kids can now have a good future. The brothers of her husband are respected by the society for 'helping' her get a 'good' government job.

In our Bharat Darshan trip of the training, we met a DM who was impressive beyond description and we felt that we have found a role model. He had received awards from the PM as well as the State's CM for his excellent works in various fields. He also organized one of the best dinners we had in our Bharat Darshan. When I discussed about him with a friend of mine who is still an SDM in that same cadre, I was aghast to know that the DM is known to be very corrupt and makes a lot of money. When I argued that he appeared so efficient, my friend agreed. He said that the DM is brilliant in his work, but he is making good amount of money as well and everyone loves him.

I have been in this job for less than a year and friends of my brother call me to get their kids admitted in the most prestigious school of the city. When I tell them that there is nothing I can do, they taunt that I have become a 'big and haughty person' and forgotten my roots. When I succumb to their pressure and call up the school Principal, he laughs at me and says, "Now your transformation to an officer is complete." No one sees anything wrong in what I do. My only face saving is that the school doesn't listen to me. But rather than it making the school upright, it reduces my stature in my city.

A young officer who is an SDM now mailed his senior colleagues that he should be allowed to use his official vehicle for personal use, though he could be charged for it. He found it impractical to keep a personal vehicle  for personal jobs. The very senior officers blasted him for asking such a lewd favour. He was reminded that it is a poor country and he should learn to live in limited resources. He was also reminded that he earns well enough to buy his own vehicle for personal use. When depressed by such remarks, he went to his DM, he was told, "Why do you need to explicitly ask for it? You use the vehicle as you wish. No one shall stop you. That is how every one does it." The officer, still in his third year in the government was taught that if you ask for a personal favour from your official perks and pay for it, you shall be seen as corrupt, but if you use the official perk for personal use and say nothing about it, no one shall bother.

In a very short span I have seen a lot of examples of how neither the people in the government or out of it have any disregard for corrupt people. Money is a far more worthy value than honesty. But honest means of making money are very limited. An officer who does brilliantly in a government scheme gets the same pay as the one who does nothing in that scheme. He also gets his promotions at a fixed time. But an officer who makes more money from a scheme than one who makes none is someone who gets instant reward for his innovative ways. 

"The Prince" by Machiavelli - a book review

To review a book that was written in the early sixteenth century and has been read and reviewed by hundreds of scholars over five centuries is a daunting task as there isn’t much to be said that hasn’t already been said. Machiavelli, a political scholar as well as a politician and historian, has written in his book “The Prince” such guiding principles that startle everyone who reads it. It is no wonder then that Machiavellian is an adjective today and connotes self-interest guided by disregard for morality and sanction of manipulation and exploitation.

Niccolό Machiavelli grew up in the Italy of the late 15^th and early 16^th century which was a tumultuous era in terms of politics. City states and Popes were fighting each other for political control and republics and monarchy were replacing each other again and again. Being a member of the Florence republic and responsible for negotiation and military affairs, Machiavelli was involved first hand in the Italian politics. After the fall of the Florence republic and coming back of the Medici prince, he withdrew from active politics and spent more time in scholarly work. And it was during those times that he produced his most eternal work in “The Prince”.

Written in the form of an advisory to a monarch, the book falls under the broad category of ‘mirrors for princes’ genre, although it departs far away from all other books written in that genre except for Kautilya’s Arthashastra with which it shares a lot of similarities. While most other books are written for hereditary princes, Machiavelli’s book is more of a guide for a new prince who establishes power either through his own arms and merit, or by good fortune or by crimes. More importantly while several other books in this genre talk about highly placed morals and ethics and tend to be idealistic, Machiavelli’s Prince is realistic and is instinctive. The ends justify the means in case of Machiavelli and there are no value judgments about right or wrong when it comes to establishing and preserving one’s rule.

The book shocks a first time reader with its candid use of expressions like tyranny, torture, crime, destruction etc. It is very clear that Machiavelli’s objective is to tell the prince how should he be successful in establishing his rule without the risk of being ousted and in this, he openly advises to crush the adversaries, that too, brutally. In the Third Chapter, he says that men should be either kindly treated or utterly crushed as they can revenge lighter injuries, but not grave ones. Such remarks are scary at times and give the impression of Machiavelli being a very sinister and shrewd politician. However, Machiavelli also makes the point that while the prince may slaughter people and gain power, such means shall not lead to glory. Instead, he suggests that the Prince should be on a friendly footing with his people or else, he shall not survive in adversity.

Machiavelli has seen the times when princes were using mercenaries in war and he has a strong view against it. He exhorts princes to have their own army and never hire mercenaries. Even when seeking help from allies, he asks not to take help from an ally who is too powerful as that could endanger the sovereignty of self. He also is of the view that a Prince may arm his people and keep them loyal to himself as well as capable of fighting for him.

On various ethical issues, Machiavelli takes very practical, albeit, unpopular stands. While he agrees that a Prince should not be hated by its people, he prefers being feared by people than being loved. He says that since love and fear cannot co-exist so it is far better to be feared than to be loved.  By such an advice he means to say that one’s wish to be popular should not make one weak and people should not dare disobey him. Undoubtedly Machiavelli belongs to the school of thought which prefers toughness over participative management. To take analogy from modern day administrative theories, it would appear that Machiavelli supports the task-oriented leader more than the people-oriented one.

This also brings home the point that Machiavelli’s principles on Prince are not merely political principles applicable in a monarchy. Within political sphere, these principles apply to modern day leaders as well who wish to have a supreme control over their polity. Though the guidelines suit the dictatorial and totalitarian form of government more, we do find examples of leaders in democratic form of governments as well. Many present and past political leaders have shown the adherence to Machiavellian principles and have been successful, though not so much loved by people. The working styles of leaders like Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher, George Bush, Indira Gandhi, Narendra Modi etc show traces of Machiavellian style of ruling, though none can be said to be totally Machiavellian.

Apart from politics, Machiavelli’s principles are also seen to be applicable to management scenarios in the corporate and private sector. A new manager who needs to establish himself in an organization or a new entrepreneur who wants to dominate the market may find recourse in “The Prince”. The principles of not using mercenaries and avoiding allies who are more powerful than self can be extended to the realm of mergers and acquisitions in the private sector. Corporate tycoons like Dhirubhai Ambani or Bill Gates do reflect using some of the Machiavellian principles when they became giants in their own markets. Similar examples can also be found in smaller organizations.

The reason that the book is being read and reviewed even after about 600 years of its publication is that the book is not about just Italy or about a Prince. Its influence is not limited to Italy, but to the entire world, neither to monarchy but to the entire arena of politics, nay, to the entire gamut of social organizations. One can disagree and criticize various elements of Machiavelli’s “The Prince” as cunning and immoral but one cannot deny the authenticity of the instinctive realism that the book has. One can praise the book or hate the book, but one just cannot ignore Machiavelli’s masterpiece.

--------------x---------------

Honesty begets poverty

Someone just shared a picture of Arvind Kejriwal on Facebook, probably to show that he/she was influential  enough to get a picture of himself clicked with Arvind or just in praise of the new icon of democratic protests in India. Another someone commented that he was impressed to see the simplicity of Arvind and his home. And I found that disturbing. Why should simplicity be impressive? And why should we loathe something that is rich and grand?

India, having its roots in religion and philosophy very deep, has always marvelled at the image of the reunciator, or the Sanyasi. The four ashrams of a human life culminate into Sanyaas where one is supposed to give up all that one has earned in his life. We have also held in great respect people who do not earn anything at all and just live on begging and alms. Not only did Brahmins glorified living on alms but Buddha took it to a much higher level. The simplicity of food and clothing also gave Mahatma Gandhi the respect of the people. We get amused to see that men who could have made millions have actually decided to lead a simple life.

But, then, do we not also accept that it is a great deal to be able to make a lot of money and hence a greater deal to have voluntarily quit such wealth. In a country which is primarily poor, placing a higher value on renunciation and simplicity than on affluence and wealth is paradoxical. We marvel at Gandhi and Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal but we want our kids to get the best education and get a very good job, the "good" directly meaning well paid. In fact, for ourselves also we want good money and all the comforts of life. But why feel guilty about it? There is nothing wrong in being able to lead a life of comfort and richness and one should strive to reach that. My present economic situation is better than my father's and his was better than his father's. That is a development. I would want my offspring's economic condition to be better than mine. I wouldn't rejoice that my offspring should not get the affluence that he/she deserves.

Renunciation, however, is different from poverty as the former is voluntary and the latter a destiny. Through out my childhood days, I have heard from my parents how they only had one pair of clothes when they were kids and how they got their first shoes after coming to the city. And they saw a pride in the fact that they were able to give to their children much more than their parents could do. I am sure most parents feel this way in our country. But when it comes to political or business icons, our value system changes. We want our politicians to lead a very simple life and not be a rich man. And if one is rich, our first assumption is that one is corrupt. A similar value system exists for a civil servant as well. Even businessmen, who are in the profession of making money, are ridiculed if they show off too much affluence. We, however, fail to acknowledge that in our country, the fair means of making money are limited while the desire to make money is as normally present as in any other society.

In such scenario, we train our kids to be good in academics so that they get a good job and lead an affluent life. But we do not want them to become politicians or entrepreneurs, mostly because of the risks involved. Though most of us want our kids to become civil servants, it is mostly because of the non-monetary perks that the job provides which shall ensure an affluent lifestyle. So, in a world, where everyone wants to be richer than they already are, we are no different. But we don't want our leaders to be so.

One of the arguments is about empathy. Only a leader who leads a simple life can understand the problems of the poor and then find solutions to them. Apparently such a value drove Gandhi too to adopt the lifestyle of an ascetic. But do we want our rich to live like the poor or the poor to live like rich. The government spends lakhs of crores to ensure that the poor rise in the socio-economic hierarchy, but if that rise is too much for us to digest, we find his methods corrupt and wrong. 

Arvind Kejriwal is a brilliant example of what our families want their kids to be. He qualified the JEE and entered IIT Kharagpur. Then he qualified the UPSC and entered the IRS. His wife is still in the IRS. He did not do IIT and IRS because he wanted to lead a simple life and work for the poor. He did this because he was a good student and wanted to do best in all fields. It is sad to see that such a sucess icon of the socity should also fall prey to the populism of leading a frugal life to get public acceptability. His wife should be an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax or would be soon becoming a Commissioner of Income Tax. Both of Kejriwal's kids are in schools, I suppose. They must get good schools and leading a simple life should not force them to get into an inefficient government school. They should also be able to crack IIT and UPSC and become successful in their lives. And we should be happy if Arvind's son becomes a great engineer and an entrepreneur and makes huge money for himself. I would consider him a success then.We would want our kids to do the same. Gandhiji, in his own obstinacy to lead a simple life did not give his children the best education and guidance, of which we have read a lot, especially about his eldest son. None of us wants to become a Father like Gandhiji, irrespective of how much respect we have for the Father of the Nation.

Let us praise the likes of Dhiru Bahi, for fighting against all odds because he wanted to make money albeit using methods not completely legal in those times. (with change in govt policies now, those methods are totally legal now) Let us also praise owners of Flipkart.com for making so much money so quickly and also praise all those individuals who have done extremely well in their life in terms of material terms. It is because of these people that we feel that we are moving ahead. We do not want a society where providing primary education and a rudimentary primary health centre should be the maximum that a citizen should expect. We want a society where every kid should be healthy like hell and should have an education to get through institutes like IIT's. We should have more rich people in this country and less reunuciators. We should have role models who inpsire us to do better in life than to give up on things. 

Let us not assume that honest people should lead a poor life. Let us not idolize Anna and Kejriwal and compel our young generation to lead a simple life. Let us create opportunities so that honest people can become rich and create a value system where richness does not connote corruption and dishonesty. Let the desire to make money be a valid desire and let us equip every single individual in our country to live up to his/her own desires.