30 March 2014

Say what?

Over the last few weeks, I have been talking to a lot of people. By talking I mean I retweeting, sharing stuff on Facebook and spaming my Gmail contacts with "Fwd: Fwd: Re: This is SO COOL" emails. Not to forget the nights spent staring at "last seen today at 23:59". Conversation that actually involves using the voice box has substantially declined - maybe for the better, maybe for the worse; I don't want to get into that. I will leave that one for you to debate with your parents.

I have noticed somethings about the conversations we have. Either these things were always there and I was too stupid to not see them or I just have had more time lately (a declining number of party invitations?). I feel that we have lost the will to appreciate what someone else is saying. Take for example this :

Bobo 1 : Dude, look at the cool stuff I bought! I got a shoe freshener!
Bobo 2 : Oh nice, but you know what the purpose of shopping is, right? It is to buy things you will use and not just collect

This is of course a terrible example, but explains the point - people are waiting to burst your bubble. Off with their tongues they go prick prick prick! I am guilty too - there is a certain thrill in this. But I am trying to change. Trying to appreciate what the other person is saying and not give automated, tangential and opposing answers. Take another example :

Bobo 1 : Hey! This is a cool place - it must be so beautiful to vacation here!
Bobo 2 : It would be so expensive

While I agree that everything has pros and cons, I dislike it when people just hang on to one problem and ignore the good points. They don't appreciate the good. It makes the other person feel insignificant.

But this is not limited to people talking. Take a look at the articles that are trending on social media. A person would blink and there will be blogs for and against their blinking. "Why the world will miss Khushwant Singh?" "The Khushwant Singh they will never tell you about" "Khushwant Singh - The Sikh" et al. At some point you won't know what to think about anything. I love freedom of speech - it allows me to trash talk and get away with it. But I think at some point in this race to be noticed, to be liked and to be retweeted, we oppose for the sake of being different. I could be wrong and I hope I am.

But that doesn't conclude my whining. A lot of our Facebook feed has stuff from 9GAG, Buzzfeed, Thought Catalog and the others. And when you see something funny or something interesting you might want to share it - either to spread the knowledge/laughter or to get the likes/retweets. Either case is justified. But what really annoys me is when someone says - "Oh! I have seen this!"

So you've seen this before and it's not surprising, right? I mean, this stuff is trending and from the many sources that exist, it is possible that you have seen this. But that's not why someone shared this in the first place. The reason why someone shared something was not because they wanted to be the first person to share it (or is it?) or to show you something novel and rare; but something that they found funny/interesting and thought you might like it too. We never appreciate their thought of sharing, do we? Ever say thanks? We just say "Is this the one with...? Hahahaha" or "I've seen this hahahhahaa"

This meme (which you might have seen before) sums it up well :



Be nice to people. Appreciate the good things. Criticise where necessary. But don't forget the good things.

Song : Moora -- Gangs of Wassepur 2

16 March 2014

Yet another perspective on Elections 2014

If there is a difference in fact, please tell me and I will verify. If there is a difference in opinion, please also share that - it's always nice to discuss.




Is this necessary?

For the first time in India, the trade off in an election is between selecting a candidate/party versus a none of the above (NOTA) option. The case for candidate/party evaluation is self-evident for the former. In respect to the latter it helps justify the rejection of all the candidates/parties. Hence, there is fruit in candidate/party evaluation irrespective of your final choice.

Is this a Modi vs Rahul election?

Most cab ride small talk, dinner discussions and smoking breaks over the past few months have been around Modi vs Rahul. (never have I seen so many ad hominem fallacies) But these two are only cogs in the broader machine. Indians elect members of parliament (MPs) from their constituency. They in turn form the government and the prime minister (PM) is their head. While the MP is not as powerful as the PM, he/she enjoys the same amount of weight when it comes to voting for bills in parliament.

Thus, your voice gets translated into your MPs vote in parliament. The question then is, what makes an MP say aye or nay during the bill discussions. Much depends on their political affiliation (BJP, Congress, Left, BSP etc.). Anti-defection laws in India provide for disqualification of an MP if he/she voluntarily gives up his/her membership of a political party or votes or abstains from voting in the house contrary to any direction of the party. Hence most elected representatives vote where their party decides to, unless they are badass like Kejriwal. Thus, it is political parties that govern most of the policy making.

The next logical question is who decides policy positions in political parties? If you are to believe that it is Modi and Rahul that decide party positions, then this a Modi vs Rahul election. If you believe that there are other factors that influence party positions (such as Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Sonia Gandhi, Naxals, Italian mafia, Mukesh Ambani et al), then this is cannot be a Modi vs Rahul fight. They are then just posters of different ideologies/thinking (assuming the Congress and BJP have different ideologies). Hence, the important thing to consider when deciding your vote should be which political party is closest to your beliefs/idea of the country.

Finally, this does not mean that your local MP is useless. He may become a minister if he's smart and well connected and thus must still meet the bar. He will also controlling a bunch of bureaucrats and act as custodian to large amounts of taxpayers money. He should be well equipped to do that.

What are the voting issues in this election?

Now we know that political parties should be an important factor in voter decisions. But on what categories should you judge the manifesto/party positions. At an elementary level, the central government should do everything on the Union List and have at least something to say on everything that is on the Concurrent List. These areas range from defense (war, peace, foreign relations, army, Kashmir etc.) to economy (RBI, Planning Commission, stock exchanges, public debt etc.) and to operations (UPSC, CBI, railways, highways).

It is crucial to know what the political parties have to say on these issues and what is their plan forward. In my reading of twitter trending articles and streaming of Arnab Goswami interviews, I have not seen any concrete policy by the leading parties. The only two things that come to my mind are homosexuality (which the BJP opposes) and the Gujrat model of development (which looks like BJPs model of development). There is also that Arthkranti proposal of no taxes/transaction tax, the real implications of which are unknown. There is also the women empowerment of the Congress.

I have not gone through the election promises, the rallies or the recent book launches (Modinomics, Moditva, Swaraj etc.) and I doubt I will go through all in a month. I will in all probability ogle at some Twitterati article that would read - "17 things you need to know before you vote tomorrow" . But I will do some research and I hope you will too. This is the most important factor in your voting decision - give it more time than what you spend selecting a suit.

Secularism vs Hinduism?

This election, unlike most, concentrates  around Hindutva and whether Modi is the chariot of death for Muslims in India. I don't know what Hindutva means. Some say it's a conservative interpretation of Hindu texts and some say it's a way of life. I am not sure if you can contain Hindutva to a specific definition. To me, Hindutva invokes hues of saffron; but that is the same sort of stereotyping as people with beards are terrorists. But is a national party based on a religion a bad thing? Only if it threatens the secular fabric of India.

And will BJP coming to power do that? I don't think so. I have great faith in the constitution of this country and the judicial process and I doubt that there will be state sponsored neglect of a particular community/religion. You cannot tailor with the basic nature of the constitution and hence no government can enforce a policy that is not secular.  But then again, in India you have communal riots all the time and there is some or the other government involvement in most. And no one has acted to stop these/punish the guilty.

Finally, I don't think Indians care as much. Nothing seems to shock us. Even if the Gujrat CM was not guilty in the 2002 riots, Indians did not demand any moral responsibility for the thousands of people that lost their lives in the riots. Politicians across the board stole crores and crores of hard earned tax payers money and we don't even flinch. Nothing seems to send a chill down our spine and we continue to elect the same people . Though to be fair, I don't think Indians have had much choice but to elect corrupt, criminal and kaam chor politicians. Which brings me to my final question.

Where am I going to vote?

I am not going to vote for the Congress, that is certain. They've had enough years of governance. I am not going to vote for AAP. They are noble and might just be a virtuous party, but they lack experience. The 40+ day government in Delhi did not have an impact great enough to suggest that they will do a spectacular show at the national level. They need to clean up their act, do well at state elections and then proceed to national elections. You don't give candy to a child, you make them earn it.

That leaves BJP and NOTA (disregarding regional parties). While NOTA is a wonderful gift by the election commission (more like toy without batteries), it is not my preferred option. I fear (based on my paranoia) that voters will pick NOTA because it is an easier alternative. It's easier to say "All politicians are corrupt" than to say "I am convinced that the Congress Party will empower women".

A dear friend of mine once told me that in life it is always a lack of choice. That the perfect is never available and we always have to settle. If I do vote BJP, it would be because of that. But then again NOTA is the true reflection of my opinion ie: a lack of choice.

The last time I voted, I changed my decision while standing in the queue. Elections are a month away. There is ample time.

Respect the Verdict

No matter what the outcome of this election is, I would urge you to respect the verdict of the people. I think that the one man one vote idea is unfair because it gives the same amount of power to a dumb and an intelligent person. But it is the way things are and irrespective who wins, fulfill your role. Support decisions that you think are right and oppose those which you think are wrong.

And don't trust opinion polls. Never trust a chart for which the backup is unavailable.

Jai Hind

Picture : http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/tag/connaught-place/

Addendum

I think democracy is a utilitarian idea. That the will of the greatest number be executed. If we are to assume that individual voters are selfish and will act in their own interest and that religion has some bearing on their vote, then it would be safe to imply that democracy will always favour a party that is aligned with the largest religion in the country.

Unless of course, individual voters begin to think of minorities - interest of people other than themselves. While I believe in the altruistic nature of people, I think the source of this is not selflessness but instead a sense of fear. That these minorities will be thrown out, crushed and packed off to concentration camps.

In my opinion this has two implications :

1) Given how low the expectations are, a ruling party/government doesn't have to actually improve the conditions of the minorities. All they have to do is show that they are living or are being provided some freebies

2) In its raw form democracy is anti-minority. Being a republic/having a constitution provides safeguards against this; that there are some things that cannot happen, even if the majority agrees. I would always bet my money on a constitution than on a political party