ख़ालीपन

लबों पर मुस्कान, आँखों में गीलापन है

सीने में जलन, पर दिल में एक अपनापन है।

ये कैसी याद है तेरी, मेरे साथी?

कि बाहर भीड़, पर अन्दर ख़ालीपन है।

जानता हूँ कि परे हो मेरे छुअन से

दिखते हो पास पर हो दूर कितने मन से

एहसास तो है होने का हम दोनों को एक दूजे का

पर दोनों के मन में एक सूनापन है

ये कैसी याद है तेरी, मेरे साथी?

कि बाहर भीड़ पर अन्दर ख़ालीपन है।

जी चाहता है लपक कर ले लूँ बाहों में तुम्हें

चुरा लूँ जग से और उड़ जाऊँ लेकर तुम्हें

पर कुछ तो है जो रोक रहा है हम दोनों को

वरना दिल में तो दोनों के बेहिसाब पागलपन है।

ये कैसी याद है तेरी, मेरे साथी?

कि बाहर भीड़ पर अन्दर ख़ालीपन है।

उलझे हो तुम भी दुनिया के झमेलों में

खोया हूँ मैं भी बेकार की बातों और मसलों में

न तुम ही निकलते हो इस उलझन से न मुझे ही राह दिखाते हो

ये कैसी बेचैनी, ये कैसा सूखापन है?

ये कैसी याद है तेरी, मेरे साथी?

कि बाहर भीड़, पर अन्दर ख़ालीपन है।

लबों पर मुस्कान, आँखों में गीलापन है

सीने में जलन, पर दिल में एक अपनापन है।

ये कैसी याद है तेरी, मेरे साथी?

कि बाहर भीड़, पर अन्दर ख़ालीपन है।

Education Priorities

Yesterday I was reading an article on how the new government should 'correct' the history syllabus of our schools and why secularists are scared of this move. As I am in the government service, so am not supposed to comment on government policies, yet as a citizen who has benefitted most out of government subsidised education I would like to express my personal views on the things that should be prioritised in the sector of education.

In the field of primary education, the issue is not of content but of quality of dissemination. In a country where a class 5 student is not able to divide 27 by 5 and find the remainder, (ASER report), I don't think it will matter whether she grows up thinking that Aryans invaded India or otherwise. When a bright student of a remote village lands up at IIT because of his sheer talent but feels cheated when the entire course is in English, he really doesn't care if Akbar was a bigger hero or his rival Rana Pratap. I come from a typical middle class family and all that my parents wanted out of my education was to ensure a job for me. Most middle class and lower middle class parents in India still send their kids to school in the hope that they will become employable in future and will be able to earn for themselves. Our education system must cater to that need without taking any moral high ground. 

I was always interested in history and my father never discouraged from spending time on it. My grandfather was a Gandhian freedom fighter, my father is a communist trade union leader and my brother and I have attended 'shakhas' run by RSS in our localities as kids. I have heard different versions of history from these different sources. Even now I keep re-reading history books to know more about India and love reading books which contradict each other. That is what makes history interesting- it changes depending on who is narrating it.

But that is not the case with Mathematics and Science. They do not change with the educator. And hence the scope of improvement in dissemination of maths and science becomes so much easier to implement.  Our existing economic setup is hugely biased towards students of Mathematics and Science. A science student has a much higher probability of employment than a commerce or humanities student and hence the rising madness for engineering colleges. So if you want to change history in school books, first change the economic setup where history students can get a good employment.

Our government schools are hiring the worst talent in the society. Anybody who is a an above average student either makes a career in the private sector or at least ends up as a clerk in the public sector. The leftovers are the ones who apply for government teacher jobs. So the worst student in the class ends up becoming a primary school teacher in a government school. Yet we find some exceptional teachers in the government setup and people like me are the handiwork of such brilliant government teachers. There is a lot of improvement that needs to be done in the way we teach our kids. Recent experiments in primary school have really deteriorated the quality standards. Recently I was appointed observer for evaluation of answer sheets of state board examinations of 10th and 12tn standard and some of the random copies that I checked were very disturbing. The quality of answers were so pathetic that it made me cry. Not to mention that my job was to ensure that the teachers who were empolyed as examiners did their job well, and that too wasn't easy. They were the least motivated lot that I had ever witnessed.

Teachers, especially primary teachers are the most neglected as well as the most politicised group. Neglected because they are given no inputs to teach more qualitatively and are mostly busy with the administrative work like distribution of school uniforms, free textbooks, mid day meals, and minor construction works in their schools. They are also the most politicised as they are the largest number of workforce in any state government and hence their postings and transfers etc are highly influenced by local politicians. I remember that in Bihar and Jharkhand there was always a flood of teacher recruitment so just before assembly elections, just to gain votes. This is not to say that our primary teachers are good for nothing. They excel in all the non-teaching jobs that they are assigned. Census of India and Election Commission of India claim to be the most efficient of the public organisations and both of them hire teachers as the field workers. Sadly, no thought is spared for the kids who are rendered teacher less during census and elections.

A lot has been tried in training the teachers but hasn't given us expected results. And when we are hiring a very poor student as a teacher, we should not expect miracles at his/her hands. Thankfully technology is at our aid now. Smart classes like educomp, virtual classrooms like Khan academy are making primary education more interesting and dissemination of knowledge more efficient. The MHRD needs to focus on scaling up the inputs in these directions. Our existing school systems can only produce clerks and that is why coaching institutes produce doctors, engineers and managers. The way science, mathematics, technology (including computers) and English (to enable global employability) is taught in government schools needs a total overhauling. Things like biometric attendance of teachers, GPS enabled apps to track presence of teachers in schools, optical fibre connectivity to all villages are things that should be on the minds of the people dealing with education policy.

History is,and has always been, an important subject of interest for mankind. It is taught in schools only to give a cursory view of how the country and the world came into being in its present form. Out of the same school syllabus that has been taught over years, we have produced intellectuals from the extreme right to the extreme left in our country. So for heaven's sake, let's not waste our energy and resources on rewriting history or in 'correcting' it. People who are interested in knowing the counterview shall know them later (provided books are not banned for providing counter views). Let us focus on quality of the various other subjects that are taught very poorly at our primary schools today, namely Mathematics, Science, English and Computers. 

Afterword- my constant emphasis on English is also because all technological higher education institutes of engineering, law, medicine, management as well as commerce and chartered accountancy are i. English only and we should not be unjust to students who aspire to do big in life but are forced to compromise because their school education in English was not of a good quality.

False Gender Consciousness

In my present charge in a remote block of a backward district in the state of Madhya Pradesh, I received a complaint from a woman. The complaint pertained to a sexual assault done on her by a man who is presently in jail and there is a compensation amount that he is to pay her. The woman carried a letter from the Jail which required her to furnish her a few documents to claim that money. One of the documents that she was required to produce was a certification of her Photo Identity card by the Gram Panchayat. I had no jurisdiction over either the case of sexual assault nor over the payment of the compensation. The complaint also did not pertain to either of them. The complaint was against the Sarpanch of the village for denying to certify the Photo Idenitification card. I, in my present role, looking after village panchayats, was expected to ask the Sarpanch to do what he is obliged to do.

In an attempt to provide speedy relief to the aggrieved woman, I decided that rather than writing a letter to the concerned Sarpanch or the Panchayat Secretary, I would rather talk to the Sarpanch and get done with the issue. I had my office call up the Sarpanch who turned out to be a lady. I thought my job would be easier as a female Sarpanch would understand the agony of another woman. I thought that probably the husband of the Sarpanch may have denied signing the certificate, assuming, that like many other villages, the lady Sarpanch must have become a rubber stamp in front of her husband. I saw this as an opportunity to help two women simultaneously; helping one get a certificate and helping the other assert her political power to help a fellow woman.

I called up the Sarpanch and was shocked when the lady on the phone told me that the complainant is characterless and is wrongly implicating the man, who turned out to be a member of the Sarpanch's family. Between choosing to side with an assaulted woman and a man of her family, her choice was natural. She pleaded that I should ask the complainant to settle the matter out of legal boundaries. I denied doing any of those and told the Sarpanch that neither I nor she has the jurisdiction of deciding the case of sexual assault on its merits. All she has to do is to certifiy the Photo Identity or else I shall be forced to take action against her for misusing her political authority to favour or deny rights to individuals. Despite my initial reluctance to do paper work on such a minor issue as to get a signature, I was compelled to issue a show cause notice to the Sarpanch to do her duty or to face legal expulsion by the competent authority.

What left me disturbed was that our understanding of women and villages is so distant and unrealistic. I have often been criticised as a chauvinist when I point out that most cases of physical and mental torture against women in their home is done by a woman of the husband's family and that there is no such thing as women solidarity in our existing society. Most of the abuses of being characterless are being hurled upon women from fellow women. The hatred that sex workers face mostly come from house wives. Despite being given political power in form of reservations and local governance, women are not able to think beyond the boundaries of family, clan, caste etc and their decisions are marked by these prejudices. 

For a brief time that I had to take statements of rape victims in my earlier assignment, I saw that while the mother of the victim was mostly the person who gave her courage to file a complaint, I also saw that the accused was either from the victim's family or a known person and in almost all cases, the wife or mother of the accused blamed the victim to be characterless and wrongly accusing the man. At these times, one gets confused when all women are termed as victims of violence or assault by men. That is too simplistic an understanding of the problem. Women are segmented into as many divisions as men are. The economic and physical exploitation of domestic servants (mostly women) also happen at the hands of women home owners. 

This is not to say that patriarchal mindset is not the root cause of women related problems. It definitely is. And the prime reason of a woman's exploitation in most of the cases is a man. What is disturbing is that patriarchy is not being kept in operation just by men alone. The women too have a 'false gender consciousness' and are as much a carrier of patriarchy as men are. The cases of mother-in-laws torturing daughter-in-laws are so common that the television is full of soap operas on the subject. The cases of female foeticide and female infanticide are also mostly occurring either with the will of or due to silence of the grandmothers of the babies. The fact that the power of mother-in-laws over their daughter-in-laws is mostly exercised through the 'man-in-between' speaks about an undisclosed facet of Indian patriarchal family.

Thankfully the tribal societies fare well when it comes to gender equality, at least statistically. The block that I am posted in, has a Sex ratio of 1000 plus as the societal culture of the tribes in this area does not differentiate much between men and women. Drinking is common between both genders but the problem of drunkardness is predominantly male. Similarly, the gender ratio in schools is again in favour of girls. In most of the political bodies at the village or the block level, women have started exercising their powers themselves, not asking their husbands anymore. Yet I do find incidents of sexual assault on women and in such cases the victimised woman is mostly left alone to fend for herself, the rest of the women immediately blaming her as characterless. It is no wonder that in urban educated class as well, the moment a woman complaints of sexual harassment in office, 'slut' is the first remark that fellow female workers pass on that woman. Most women refrain from complaining just because they are too scared to face the judgemental looks of the fellow female employees.

I know I am soundning chauvinist again, but that's not the point. The solution to women's problems can never be found with men. They have to be found with women. Women need to feel more connected to other women. From a 'false gender consciousness' of beauty, 'laaj-sharam' and family duties, women need to gain a 'true gender consciousness' of their real existence and the reasons for their exploitation. Or else a man will always exploit the animosity of a woman against the other. 

Afterword: apologies in advance for simplistic and sweeping arguements.

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---------------