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?

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. 

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.

Dilemma of Honesty

The villagers of Bihar are caught in a weird dilemma this year. As it always happens, the monsoon caused floods again in Bihar this year, and my parents' native district of Bihar also got affected, though after a gap of about 13 years. The major damage was to the agricultural produce which completely drowned in the floodwaters.

To compensate for the loss of the farmers, the state government announced compensation to be given to the affected farmers basis the size of the land that got affected in the floods. Surprisingly, the government put a simple condition that has become that albatross around the neck of the villagers. In order to ascertain the size of the land that needs to be compensated, the villagers need to produce the receipts of the fees they would have paid when getting the land registration renewed in their names. This makes logical sense.

But the irony is that, honest that people of my district are, have never bothered to pay that fees and hence do not have any receipts. In fact, most of them also didn't know when is such a fees due. They have managed to claim their lands by bribing the local amil whenever he used to come for a land measurement. Now that the government has announced compensation in lieu of the production of the receipts, the 'honest' villagers tried finding out about the payment of the fees. They surprised themselves when they found out that they owe the government at least ten times the amount that they are about to get in compensation. For example, one of my uncles (Mamaji) shall get a compensation of around Rs.15,000 for his land that was drowned. To show the receipts, however, he needs to pay fees of about Rs.1 lakh as the fees have never been paid in probably the last 50-60 years, or probably even before that.

The villagers are in a real dilemma. If they want the compensation, they will have to rather pay a heavy amount from their pocket. If they don't, they are not eligible for a compensation. The bigger fear is that the 'anti-corruption' Nitish Kumar government might actually use this situation to gauge legitimate rights over land and many people might be trapped in this. They won't be able to claim those lands as their leases would have expired ages ago because of not being renewed. 

Was the fees really high that the villagers never paid them. My mother tells me that it used to be Rs.1 per year in 1970s. I guess it must be around Rs.1000 or so nowadays. I am not sure, but I can't see the value of the fees as being the reason for not paying them. Why did no one pay the fees, I ask my mother.

She very convincingly tells me, "Because no one pays. It is not one or two people. It is the entire village." 

In the village, no one even pays for the electricity that is supplied there. There are absolutely no electric meters in the entire village. The villagers have managed to have all the electricity for free and also legitimately complain for power cuts which occur for about 12 hours or more everyday. My uncle says, "Not everything that is there in law can be implemented. You can't put the entire village in jail!!. After all there are laws against dowry also. Does that mean we don't take dowry?"

I see. So it is the government who must be blamed every time a Kalmadi or a Raja is caught. But when we are small Kalmadis and Rajas in our own right, it is justified. Because that's the way it has always been.

However, what is interesting is that the Bihar government, if it goes ahead with the payment of this compensation, might actually fund the entire compensation from the fees that people shall pay to show their receipts, to claim the compensation and in fact also have a surplus at the end. 

If it is an irony of fate, I am amused. If it is a deliberate attempt by Nitish Kumar to let everyone comply to law, I salute him for his wisdom.

My suggestion is, "Mamaji, forget the compensation or else you'll lose more money than you'll make"

Honesty??? My Foot

I am sitting in front of the TV. All news channels are bubbling with pictures of people coming on roads with candles and placards and shouting slogans against corruption. I am reminded of my school days. I have won quite a lot of essays and debates on 'honesty', 'corruption' and the like. I remember that in one of such debates, where I was supporting that 'honesty is still the best policy', someone asked me from the audience, "it is easy to say all this on a stage, but will you go on the streets and take the pain to set things right?" I passionately replied, "Sure, I will. I am saying what I believe in. If need be, I won't shy away from going to the streets for the cause of honesty."

I won the debate. I was in Standard 8 then. I really did believe in what I said those days. In fact, I did believe in everything that was taught to us when I was in Standard 8. 'Always speak the truth'. 'Respect your elders'. 'Never steal'. 'Love thy neighbour'.'Honesty is the best policy' etcetra etcetra. I tend to think that I still believe in them but somehow I am not ready to go to the streets for honesty. Why? I don't know. May be I am just too lazy now. However, a lot of my friends and neighbours did go there. They asked me, "You didn't come? It was so much fun. There were so many people. This time the government is really on back foot. Corruption would definitely end."

I am delighted. There are people who still believe in things they learned at school. I invite these enthusiasts for a tea and chit-chat begins. "So what do you do?", someone asks me. "Well, I have just cleared my Civil Services exam and am waiting to join the government." I felt that I must have disappointed the gathering by letting them know that I was soon to be part of the 'rotten, corrupt system' that they were just protesting against. But they say "Wow. So where will you be posted? aapse to touch mein rehna chahiye bhai, bade aadmi ho aap to." I grin and say, "No no. It's nothing like that." Their excitement doesn't die though. I am faced with a volley of questions.

"How much do you get paid? What are your powers? You must be getting very good marriage proposals. You aren't married, are you? Now even your dowry rates would also cross a crore, nahi?" I grin again and say, "Well, they pay around 25k during training and around 35k after confirmation. And I don't know much about the powers. I think, post liberalization, a lot has changed and the Civil Servants are no longer what they used to be twenty years ago."

"Arre. Ye kya bol rahe hain aap. Even now there are huge powers. And don't worry about the salary. You will get so many other benefits, gaadi bangla naukar, sab milta hai. Plus, there are so many other ways of cash inflow." Other ways? I am a little confused. "Arre, aapko to gifts hi bahut milenge. You will get so much of cash even without doing anything for anybody. Poora system hota hai. Everyone has their shares fixed. You wouldn't even know where is it all coming from."

"But I won't take all that. I plan to stay honest and live in the salary that I shall get", I say, to everyone's disappointment. It is the group of people who are full praise for Anna Hazare and it is the same group which almost felt heart-broken when I said the word 'honest'. 

An elderly man, almost in a fatherly tone, tried to convince me, "Dekho bete! It is not corruption to accept gifts. You see, you will be at such a position that people will gift you out of respect. Also, you will have the power to 'help' them when you want. After all, you are supposed to help people." I ask for elaboration of the word, 'help'. "You know, for example, you will have the power to appoint some people in the government jobs. You can use that power to help the needy." I again ask for elaboration of the word 'needy'. And then he explains, "Your family, for instance, or may be someone of your acquaintance who is unemployed." 

But isn't that nepotism, I ask? "That's the problem with you 'bookworms'. You take everything at face value. It is also your duty to 'use' your power and position to 'help' people who have a contribution in making you what you are. All this is not corruption. This is how it works." I show indifference to the discussion and turn to some other topic.

"So how was it at the India Gate? I heard there was a lot of enthusiasm?"

"Yeah, you should have come. All these Kalmadis and Rajas need to be taught a lesson. They have been eating country's wealth. And there's so much black money parked abroad. All that needs to come back. You see this Anna Hazare will really change things."

"Oh that's not good then. Because if Anna is successful, how shall I be able to 'help' the 'needy' and receive the 'gifts' that people give me out of 'respect'." I say and everyone chuckles.