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

Guide to Delhi Assembly Elections 2013

Yo Delhi! Elections are 3 days away and this weekend is a good time to decide who you will vote for on 4th December.

Now historically, most of us have voted based on the party we like (or the parties we don't - it's always a lack of choice), the CM candidate, family loyalties, the candidate who folded hands and asked for our votes et al. But this time around lets use a combination of everything - the manifesto, the qualifications, their track record as a MLA and their criminal record (if any).

The Manifesto

Now most of the manifestos look all the same - we will make Delhi a world class city. But I would still recommend reading them - you will know what promises are being made and that will provide a good base to judge performance in the next elections.

BJP : http://delhideservesbetter.com/bjp-manifesto.aspx
AAP : http://delhi.aamaadmiparty.org/ (The Promise of AAP)
Congress : https://www.facebook.com/sheiladikshit.official (This is the only electronic copy of the manifesto available, if you find anything else - please tell me!)


The Candidates

Be aware of the candidates in your constituency. At the end of day, these are the people that will hear your voice - the CM will be far away. Make sure it someone you can trust, someone you think is relatively reachable and someone you believe can uphold the promises being made. Additionally, a good way to judge the re-contesting candidate is to see if they have delivered anything in the last 5 years. Ask yourself - did they reach out to you? Did they make your area a better place than before? If not, don't vote for them. Look at the last link below and see the delta in the assets of re-contesting MLAs.

The affidavits contain a whole lot information - complete details of their assets, their investments, their insurance policies. Have a look!

Candidates contesting in your constituency : http://www.ceodelhi.gov.in/OnlineERMS/Form7A.aspx
Candidate assets/criminal record/their affidavits : http://myneta.info/delhi2013/
Re-contesting MLAs and how much money they made in 5 years : http://myneta.info/delhi2013/index.php?action=recontestAssetsComparison


Your Expectations

What should you expect from the candidates and this election? I think historically we have had very little expectation from our politicians and elections. I think it's time we changed that. Your expectations from a contesting politician should be the expectations that you have from a MLA. Your boss doesn't relax expectations from you just because you are lazy. If you are lazy, inefficient and incompetent you either get fired or don't move forward. And that is exactly what we should be expecting from our MLAs. If they don't perform - they need to go.


NOTA

And thankfully this time around we have NOTA. So if you don't like anyone, you don't have to vote for them. Vote "None of the above". It won't cancel the election or reject the candidates; but it will record your opinion of none of the above. And sometimes that goes a long way.


So come rain, fire,worsening health, aging, bad hair day, running late for work, traffic or whatever - be there and make sure you vote!

Godspeed.

Image : http://kaw.stb.s-msn.com/i/E2/B34F926DF8B7C47625E9D41D5C2B9.jpg

Taxpayers' Money

Before I file a RTI, need your opinion on this. There is something terribly wrong with the following advertisements.

1) Your success is my success :

Why is Ministry of Information and Broadcasting celebrating the success of the "UPA". It would have been an altogether different thing if the advertisement had said Government of India.

 2) We miss you :

The Ministry of Commerce and Industry remembers the "enduring contribution and supreme sacrifice" of Rajiv Gandhi - which I am supposed to know by staring at his face.

WHERE IS THE TAXPAYERS' MONEY GOING?

I don't care what the message of these advertisements is - this is a free country. I have a problem with the message being spread from the money I earned! Why should the UPA be applauded or Rajiv Gandhi be remembered through expensive newspaper advertisements that are paid from the money I give as tax?

Must file RTI/PIL. But need your opinions/advice first. What do you think about these advertisements?

Addendum

A PIL regarding government expenditure on self-glorifying advertisements has been filed twice, once in 2007 and once again in 2012. In 2007 it was filed by Manzoor Ali Khan and in 2012 by the Foundation for Restoration of Nation Values. Given their similar nature, the latter case was clubbed with 2007 case (see here). The 2007 PIL is still pending. In these 6 years affidavits have been filed by each state government. and the union government. WB is yet to file an affidavit I think (The last order was on 18th February 2013 see here). The next hearing is due on 7th October 2013.

Additional Links :
The 2007 PIL : http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2007-02-25/india/27871959_1_wasteful-expenditure-guidelines-advertisements
The 2012 PIL : http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/marketing/apex-court-to-hear-pil-seeking-check-on-govt-achievement-ads/article3764309.ece
The 2007 PIL History [Go to Case Number on the left and enter these details : Case Type - WP(civil), Case Number - 305, Year - 2007] : http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/casestatus_new/caseno_new_alt.asp

Don'ts & Don'ts

I have seen all sorts of Indians do these things. Rich or poor. Uneducated or educated. Here or abroad. I am no one to tell you what to do or not to do; it is not my place. But I can hog cyber space to spread this message. Please keep in mind the following :

1. Public spaces are not garbage bins. Don't litter.
2. We are all one people. Men and Women are equals. Don't give dowry. Especially willingly.
3. There are things you want more than others. Earn it. Don't bribe.
4. All governments are corrupt. Go vote. Read the constitution. Don't complain.
5. It could be deadly. Don't drink and drive.

Thank you.

What is a Republic?

Disclaimer : I am not a political scientist. Nor a legal expert.

What does a Republic mean? I tried remembering the definition from my grade 9 political science/civics book, but failed. All I could remember was the preamble : WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA. So I decided to go on a mission to understand the term and its implications.

After many articles, trash videos and wikipedia readings later, I understand that the concept of a republic came into inception as an alternative to a monarchy. That the business of running a country/nation/whatever have you cannot be vested with a particular individual (or family) and it cannot be passed down from one generation to another. Governance is a public issue.

In more tangible terms, a republic usually has a head of state. She is either directly or indirectly elected and in some cases nominated to the post; but people usually have a say in it and its not by the virtue of blood.

But the most crucial finding is that a republic is rule by law. That law is supreme and nothing can override it. The governing body must comply with the law and function within the limits set by it. This law is usually enshrined in a charter, declaration and in India's case the Constitution. The bodies/arms of the government are bound by these laws and cannot perform an ultra vires act.

A republic is different from a democracy. In a democracy, the rule of the majority is supreme - whatever the majority decides is final. This is what the people want and this what they will get; or a more correct representation would be : this is what the elected representatives decided and this is what will be done. In a republic, however, there are certain principles that cannot be violated. For example, you cannot enact laws that violate the fundamental rights. I am not sure of this, but I hope that you cannot transform India into a Hindu nation, because the constitution upholds the ideals of a secular nation.

In a more spiritual sense, a democracy can be seen as the mind. The mind drives you to fulfill the greatest of your desires, whatever your mind wants the most you chase for it. But it is the intellect that tames the mind. Informs the mind of the pros and cons of the action and at times stops us from doing some things. That is a republic. While our intellect is guided by our principles, morals and information available; a republic is guided by a set of laws - the constitution, the guardian of which is the judiciary.

A democratic republic can be a very tricky place. The two have been and will always be in conflict; however that does not mean that they are antithetical. India has seen tons of constitutional amendments (and even one successful attempt to modify the preamble) and tussles between the judiciary and legislative.  But the Supreme Court of India has correctly remarked that not all amendments are valid, especially if they go against the "basic structure" of the Constitution. So even if you have majority in parliament but try and fiddle with the basic structure - you are doomed.

That is what republic means. I regret that till  now I was ignorant about this. That the constitution guaranteed me this and I didn't know. Know your rights, that's what I say on all days - republic, independence, consumer, voters etc.

On a completely different note, I was listening to a particular address this morning and I couldn't bear the disconnect between our elected representatives and us. Before he had even started speaking, I refused to believe him or his words. And it pains me to think that these people run our country. How can you allow someone who you don't trust to govern you? How can you?


Think beyond yourself.

Boys Keep Swinging

This post has a fictional prologue, which you may want to read here : http://rohan-chawla.blogspot.in/2012/11/from-me-to-you.html?m=1

Apologies first for making you travel between blogs. This is the first time I have made an inter-blog connection. But the reason is simple. The post had two distinct parts - the fictional and the critical, and it would've been exceptionally long if it were clubbed into one.

Now for my thoughts. I don't know if you noticed, but that love filled letter was from Carol to Susan (No originality, I know). It was between a homosexual couple. The reason why I wrote that was because I felt that there is something wrong in the way we perceive the world. I don't know if it is just me, but if I read a love letter that was addressed to Susan, I would think automatically that her lover is a guy and its his wonderful words that are written there.

Disclaimer : Please note that this post has been written under the premise that homosexuality is okay and acceptable. If you have an issue with that, this is not the post you are looking for.

So many times I have been asked, if I have a girl-friend. I don't have a problem with that question, because my life is an open blog, which a few people read. But my problem is that you completely ignore the possibility of me being a homosexual. You would now say, that sometimes people ask the wrong question (they might ask you what your parents do, but what if you are an orphan); so this whole thing is just making a mountain out of a molehill. The issue is not of the wrong question. You assumed that I had a partner, that's fine. But after that you made a second assumption. The more accepted one - that my partner is a woman.

But the bias is worse in certain cases. While the former mistake is made under the assumption that you are straight (and not "crooked"?), sometimes you're assumed to be gay. And that assumption is based on your voice (shriek-y or hoarse), the way you dress (colourful or plain), what you decide to talk about (gossip or politics), your nature (kind or indifferent) and what you like to do (blog or wrestle). There are no behavioural characteristics of being a homosexual. Neil Harris from How I Met Your Mother is homosexual. Jane Lynch from Glee is homosexual. Faces don't have homo written on them.

But the worst bias comes when you stand up for homosexual rights. If you support gay rights, then you are definitely gay. If you are homophobic, then you are a closet homosexual. Heads you win, Tails you win. Some of us after reading this post, will think at least once if the author is a homosexual or not? That's probably the greatest reason why heterosexuals don't fully support homosexuals; they don't want to be thought of as homosexual, as if they are one of "them".

And that is the real tragedy. That somehow being gay is something to be ashamed of. That if someone thought you were gay, it was in someway a bad thing. Like it was an insult thrown at you. Something that you had to defend and clear up for. That being homosexual was just not acceptable. All this, despite the fact that you're well read, that homosexuality is no longer a crime and that more and more people around you are coming out of the closet.

I think I need to calm down. So here is the peaceful part of me. Times are changing and we need to pause for a while, and think how we see this world. Do we see it from our eyes, from our parents eyes, from the society's eyes? Why do we judge people and what criteria do we use? Are we fair in our approach? Do we just say things in jest but believe them sub-consciously?

When you see someone who is different - by race, by gender, by built, by sexuality, by name, by thoughts, by speech, by faith - do you get repulsed? Do you change in someway? And, is that change for the better? Is it the right thing to do?

Are we one people deserving one treatment?

Since my life is an open blog, I'll start the answering. I'm not too sure how liberal I am to people's choices, but I believe that people are indeed not very smart but they aren't always sheep either. They have reasons for what they do, even if it takes them time to find those reasons. And I think I am no one to question them, as long as they have a reason. Think before you act.

We are one people. I hope we can give ourselves one treatment.

Thank you for listening.

Here listen to this wonderful song and cheer up (first time on Jibber Jabber) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWzeInQaUk4

Thank you Bowie for the wonderful title.

The greatest problem of the world..

What is the biggest and most important problem of the world? What is the deepest and most disturbing issue, one that requires immediate action and everyone's attention and effort? But that's a loaded question. The real question should be - can there be a single major problem of the world?

For economists, one would remark that the greatest problem would be that of the current global financial/economic crisis and maybe somewhere about resource allocation and efficiency. After all, money runs the world today.

For geographers, the problem would be that of climate change and the way the earth's complex system is changing. From melting ice caps, to changed current directions and hotter summers and colder winters, in 2050.

For the theological, the problem would be of religious conflict and tensions in the name of God. Be it Jerusalem, Kashmir or the increased hatred towards Islam, religion today is no longer a simple path to God.

For the doctors, the greatest trouble is that of cancer, AIDS and other terrible terrible diseases that plague our home today. Finding a cost efficient and sustainable cure for these evils, and making sure they reach everyone that matters, is their top priority.

For the politicians, the worry is that we no longer participate in the political process. That the citizenry is not involved and no longer bothers to care about who rules them and how they rule. They must be motivated. Somehow.

For the academicians, its a matter of deep concern that there aren't enough schools and places for us to study. We can't read and write, and therefore are unable to think rationally. An education gives you wings.

For the philosophers, the question is more subtle. Are we fulfilling the purpose of life? Loaded question again. Does life have a purpose? Is there life beyond death? Is suicide okay? All these problems are relevant only if life is relevant. Must find the relevance of life.

For the activists, the problem is of equality and justice. That men and women, homos and hetros, human and animals, animals and plants, black and white etc. should all be treated equally. Not just physically, but in movies, in literature, in posters, in cartoons and all manifestations of this world.

For the minimalists, the problem is of food and water. That not all of us get enough good quality food and even when we do, there isn't good enough water to digest it. We must do something about these brothers and sisters of ours. Some Ghana Coco and Brazilian Soya?

For the douchebags, the problem is that we have so many problems that we are unable to resolve. Must be such a shock to know.

So, we now have a bunch of problems. How do we know which one of them is the single greatest? What yardstick should we judge them by? What characteristics would the single greatest problem of the world have? If and when it is solved, it should bring maximum relief. But what kind of maximum relief? Quantitative or Qualitative? Or a Weighted relief? Maybe, it should also have an element of urgency. So our factors are Time, Reach and Utility. Anything else?

No, the greatest problem is not that we cannot find the greatest problem.

That done. Think of the greatest problem of the world and measure it by those three factors. And see if you can find a single great problem of the world.

I am still thinking.  

Why Aamir Khan Should Not Apologize

Disclaimer : 
1. I am not a legal or medical expert. So if you spot any legal or medical flaw in the following piece, please do comment, so that I can incorporate the same.
2. This piece is focused on the Healthcare episode of Satyamev Jayate. It does not comment on whether or not the show should be there in the first place, but focuses on the backlash that particular episode faced from the Healthcare Professionals.

Most of you would have seen the Satyamev Jayate Episode on Healthcare aired on 27th may 2012. It dealt with the misdeeds of doctors and pharmaceutical companies, and the general lack of healthcare facilities in India. That got many people angry and a particular group of people are demanding an apology (Read Here). Here is my take.

Before answering any of the concerns that the aggrieved party have highlighted, I would like to probe if there is any basis for that episode. I know, Disclaimer # 2 says I will not probe into that, but this is brief. Medical Fraud (For the lack of another word) is not alien to us. There were genuine stories on the show that proved that yes, some doctors do cheat their patients (Click here). We've all gone to doctors to give us "medical certificates" in exchange for their "consultation" fees. One may not even see this as a violation, but the point I am trying to make is that they aren't God sent Angels and there are some black sheep. Thus, the show had a sound basis. It was made in good faith.

Someone told me, that sometimes patients are the cause of trouble. They insist on certain medications, operations, procedures etc. They read newspapers and Google diseases on the internet and demand "that" treatment. Some go to Singapore to get pre-natal sex determination. I agree, there are some idiotic patients. But that does not mean there are no cheating doctors. There is still scope for blame to be attached purely to some doctors.

But then not all doctors are hungry beasts. That is true. My family doctor is amazing, I truly love her. But did the show say that all doctors are hungry beats? In fact I remember seeing a story of a gentleman from Rajasthan  who started a chain of generic medicine chemists in alliance with the State Government. And of another gentleman who started a cardiac hospital that did operations at extremely subsidized costs. So the show wasn't an all out Nazi attack on all doctors. 

On another level, doctors are like any other profession - Politicians, Management Professionals, Policemen, Journalists, Flimstars, Writers etc. And time and again, news channels and media houses have conducted investigations and sting operations on them. We are all okay with stories that show them in bad light - some bank executive that pulled a multi-crore scam, or R. Raju sweeping all the money out, or some land deal of a politician, or the casting couch of Flimstars. All of them are aired on TV. It does not mean that all others are bad. The truth is, that some doctors cheat on their patients and if you are to maintain consistency, then these stories of those frauds should be aired on TV. Else, there is some solid hypocrisy by the aggrieved parties, because I did not see them coming out when the others were allegedly slandered. 

Of course, simply because there is precedence for Media Houses wrecking with alleged wrongdoers' reputations, it does not mean that they should be allowed to do so in the future. But then the problem is a greater one, not limited to Aamir Khan, or Healthcare or IMA. And for the retrospective actions of a collective media, Aamir Khan should not apologize.

A common Freedom of Speech argument applies here too. The show had a plethora of reactions. Some people were crying. Some people snubbed it. Some people threatened to file a lawsuit. Some people blogged about it. So there was no universal reaction of Doctors are Devils. People did not stop going to doctors. And in the absence of direct harm caused, you cannot claim that the show producers are guilty. Even if, some people (IQ level in question), thought all doctors are rascals, then again the fault is not of the producers. It is of the viewer. Because different viewers got different messages from the same show. So what you get from the show, is accountable to you. Not to the makers of the show.

The worst the show could've done is created a trust deficit between Doctors and Patients. And as much as I believe that Faith in your doctor is important for healing, I think that in a situation where you have cheating docs in the pool, such an attitude can only save you. Doctors and Patients enjoy a very fiduciary relationship. And some doctors have taken advantage of that. In a situation, where you cannot trust the doctor (because he isn't your family doctor, or is a new one), it is always better to be vary. Take second opinions. I am 20 years old and I go to a Child Specialist for treatment, because she's treated me since I was 0. I trust her fully. But it does not mean I extend that trust to every doctor.

Another idea that circulated through Social Networking websites was that Doctors spend large amounts of time studying and doing rural internships. Yes, they are very hardworking. Does not give them a licence to cheat. Or to escape slander when they cheat. The show said they should be charitable. Now that's just pushing it. Like I said, they are like any other profession and thus are allowed to make lots of money. From what I know, there is no cap on consultation fees. But, if you make money at the cost of someone else, you are liable for Consumer Court action, like any other profession. As for the rural internships, maybe its time we extend the same to lawyers, engineers, MBAs etc or scarp it altogether. Hypocrisy is not nice. 

Even though the charitable remark is incorrect, an apology is still not in order. That's not defamation. If I have to make a show on some doctors committing wrong actions, and I cannot name the doctors, because the matter is sub judice, what am I to call doctors other than doctors. The underlining idea was talking about "bad" guys.

One thing I'd like to say very much. Please do not bring Aamir Khan, his salary, his illegitimate children or his brother into this. A college going student of Logic would tell you that it is called an ad hominem fallcy. It's as bad as saying Jimi Hendrix died of drug overdose, so his music is useless (From Wikipedia). You should look for merit and demerits in what he is saying and not merits and demerits in him. If he says doctors should be charitable, look for merits and demerits in that, and not "He's not charitable, he is asking 3 crores, so I will not be charitable!" You do your bit.

Just two more things, be patient. Everyone knows that there are some bad doctors. And they shouldn't really be doing the bad things. Maybe they are pressured by inflation and rising family demands, but the brunt of that cannot be borne by the life of a patient. My personal belief is that when they asked for that apology, they sent out the message that No, all doctors are very fine. So what they ended up doing was, putting up this huge cloak on the bad ones. Well in fact what they should've been doing was developing a mechanism to weed out the bad ones. We can't continue like this - his fault, your fault, you apologize. There is no difference between the politicians we so dislike and this. There are some bad people, we don't want to cover them. Must "do" something.

Finally. Doctors are special people. Some even treat them like God. And that is perhaps more of an occupational hazard, than a compliment. It puts them in sticky situations with moral dilemmas and confusions. People expect charitable behaviour from everyone (except themselves), and more so from doctors. That is unfair and incorrect. So when they aren't charitable, it hurts a little. But that's manageable - people get charity rejections all the time. But expecting ethical behaviour is important. And when that gets breached it hurts a lot. And that is not specific to doctors. When you violate your ethics, other people get hurt. So if you have a standard to expect of others, apply that to yourself. But, in a case they falter on their ethics, does not mean you give up yours.

After this, I don't think an apology is needed. But of course,

Truth alone Triumphs.

Are you listening?

People value their opinions. We think our thoughts are important. And we like being heard. It hurts us when someone dismisses our thoughts or refuses to listen or disobeys us. We like our view of the world and wish that it was in fact the only view of the world.


There has been lots of debate on Anna Hazzare's fasts and the methodologies of India Against Corruption. There have been even more debates on the Lokpal Bill. And far too many on the Prime Minister's Faggot-ry. But what are the outcomes of these debates? Do people grasp the concepts and ideas exchanged/written? Do they make for good tea time bragging? Or are they meant to appreciate the speaker/writer's oratory/writing? What are we thinking when Prime Time Debate is aired? "Kya badiya sawaal poocha Barkha ne" "Kya jawaab diya Kapil Sibal Ne" Is it a Game of Chess? Or Age of Empires?


There is nothing that you can do that will force people to think objectively about an issue. Even at crucial points like elections, we just vote. No Manifestos. No Past Record. No Personal Details. We just land up at the booth to ink our fingers. Because we like our opinion being recorded. Do we like being held accountable for it?


Due to some freak of nature, I live in Kapil Sibal's constituency. Now, the Anna Gang decided that we'll hold a door to door referendum in the households of Kapil's constituency. The questionnaire (Click to See) contains almost all the conflict areas of the Two versions of the Lokpal Bill. After the survey, they are going to shove the results in Kapil Sibal's Face and say, "Now tell us, will you vote in Parliament on the basis of what your people have decided in this survey (Refer Ques 8) or on what Madame President (not Patil) tells you to. Check (Chess wala).


Are they going to ask poor people or rich people, I don't know. I know that they came to my home and all the three adults filled in their answers. My Mother had some trouble filling it coz well she's never filled an OMR sheet. I observed two things. She was sentimental about some answers. But that's true for almost everything else, including voting. (This is a logical fallacy. You can't justify a wrong by simply saying that other similar wrongs exist. Sophistry) The other thing was that she asked me things she didn't understand. How reliable a source I am, is out of the question, but the point is that she asked. I think that the referendum at least made us think once as to what really the issue is and that do we really have an opinion on it. Nothing else has ever had that effect on People.


As much as we like being heard, we are also afraid of being judged. This is the answer to the question I asked before. We don't like being held accountable for our opinions. We don't like being told we made the wrong choices. This is why, even I flinched twice. I don't know if this referendum will be used or misused. But for once, people will be held accountable for their opinion. If the proposed Anna Lokpal goes through, and God forbid it turns out to be a monster, we can finally BLAME the people. It would be their fault. Akal thikane aa jaayegi. And if it does not turn into a Frankenstein, well wo-ho! Bye Bye Corruption!


All Democratic Institutions have an exit route. You can collectively decide to no longer obey the collective. The most fundamental principle of a democracy is people's opinion. And if people decide, for whatever reason (rational or crap), that they want to give up their opinion, this has to be upheld. As much as any hero would like to fight against such a rogue idea, which would kill a democracy, he cannot. He would be fighting for people's opinion in general which is against the current opinion of the people. You can only pray. And do good. What is Good? People's Good. Opinion or No Opinion, people are still hungry and dying. Help them?


A democracy collectively decided to appoint a dictator.


Look around carefully and you'll realize that the above is very likely.


Opinions are important. Welcome to Jibber Jabber.

Addendum : This came with the newspaper on July 31st 2011.

Scope of Public-Private Partnership in Education

Vasudha once asked me to write on a Current Issue. I don't know if this counts as one, but I have read it and think its worth more than an Archive file at CCS Applicant Essays. To the Future CCS Applicant, I hope they're not as uptight and stuck up as they were this time. I can be vindictive.


Introduction


Once upon a time in a land not far away, the government was facing lots of problems, one of them being Education. The government created lots of schools and universities to help deal with the problem. However, they were so overworked that they were unable to provide quality education. They then resolved to encourage other people to set up institutes, by the way of tax subsidies, free land etc. This led to a huge spurt in the education sector. Despite this growth and the government’s affirmative action for the underprivileged, quality education for everyone is still a problem in India.


Issue


There are four primary factor inputs in education--management, teachers, curriculum and infrastructure. These factors have longed favoured the private sector. Teachers in India are mostly middle-class and they prefer a higher salary. Those who don’t, choose their employer based on reputation, which under status quo, government schools lack. The management (i.e. Principal, Managers, and Directors) in Government aided institutions take their position like an ordinary job. They are often transferred from one school to another, as if the operations of both are synonymous. The problem with infrastructure is directly linked with funding. India has never explicitly received any loan/aid from international sources for the purpose of building educational infrastructure. Finally, curriculum is the same in both areas but what differs is its implementation, a by-product of the above three factors.


Possible Solutions


Privatisation is not just big companies with lots of capital. The first step should be a change in the management of educational institutes. The management of private schools are mostly composed of individuals who were related to the founding of the school. More simply put, if I purchased a franchise of the Delhi Public School, then by the virtue of my investment, I would be a part of that franchise’s management body. Similarly, the public school management must now have a stake in the school. This private partnership can be from a company, individual, partnership etc. Again, whoever makes this investment, by the virtue of the return will be involved in the activities of the school. Based on the profit and performance, give a return on investment/interest on capital to the investor.


The next step should be upgradation of infrastructure-technology, furniture, walls etc. If there is a shortage of funds, then one can invite funds from the public via infrastructure bonds, just like we have bonds in the name of farmers, bridges and dams. How will we redeem them? An educated workforce in the long run leads to inflow of income, by the virtue of their employment and intellect. Think of the reduced corruption and the increased tax assesses. Lets have a voluntary disclosure of income, the last one got is 7800 Crores. Let a tender be published for a mass infrastructure improvement in all schools, invite private companies and then offer it to the lowest bidder. And Kalmadi will not handle this.


Teacher training and curriculum are fundamental aspects of education and allowing the private sector to handle them should be avoided. Privatising infrastructure and management alone will improve the quality of education manifold.


Analysis


The potency of the government functioning is the biggest challenge in the implementation. Moreover, a person who has a direct stake in the school functioning might go out of the way to show good results, sometimes fudging records. The same however cannot be eliminated in status quo. Further, a public school still faces competition from its private counterparts. Seeing the above two plans implemented, their response will be of bettering their services (and consequently increasing their fees); making them an elitist group for the rich, much like in the USA. This sort of division is not to be encouraged in the field of education.


Privatisation should be an upward process. The first beneficiaries of the moves must be the youngest children. Just like how schools are formed, one class at a time, similarly, this move must be in phases, from bottom to top. This way when they enter a new class, they’re equipped with skills to deal with good infrastructure. However this means that under status quo, we consider the elder students as a sunk cost.


Conclusion


Is there an alternative? There could be many. Perhaps privatising the whole unit could do more good. Is the investment worth it, in terms of a return? In monetary terms, one can never assess the true benefits of education. Can you measure the life skills one learns? That you no longer have to ask someone else to fill your bank slip? Education is the escape route to a better standard of living. But is that the government’s burden? Should the private players agree to not make profits? One can only wonder. Until then, there is a long way for our happily ever after.


There are some spelling/grammar errors. I didn't bother to check again. Sorry. They are minute.


Song : Every Teardrop is a Waterfall by Coldplay It's their NEW SONG. I don't like it a smuch, got a Techno feel to it. But EEEE! It's a New Song! :D :D


I hope you like it. The Song :P

Now-- They will decide what we do in our beds, what we have in our glasses and how and when we shake to the music...!

Would you like to be Bilawal Bhutto??

The first thoughts that came to my mind when I read the title were- Death & Responsibility. Bilawal Bhutto Zadari, a youth who is seen as the future of Pakistan, today is entrusted with great responsibility. He stands confused between the criticism he faces & also his due course of action. Bilawal is at a crossroad, which few are encountered with or in fact few want to get encountered with.


I tried to reach out to Bilawal’s state of mind. The gossip that surrounds his “cute” looks, the expectations that people have from him & the trust that he has been endowed in him, clearly leaves him in a state of bewilderment. The post on which he sits today may or may not be of his own choice, but seeing the larger picture, I feel this was to happen now or later. As Mr. Asif Zadari rightly said that politics in the sub continent has a dynastical element to it & people often have a relatively high degree of faith in the members of these families (Referring to Nehru-Gandhi & the Bhutto Family). Bilawal had to make this choice sometime & I believe he made it appropriately. If I were he, I would have done the same, but the question is- Do I want to be him?


I always thought of being a statesman or a leader of my nation. But after that thought, I got puzzled with the magnitude of my ambition. Was I ready dor what Bilawal might have to face as a politician? Was I ready for the righteous path that I had carved for myself? Was I ready to follow my dream at the risk of my life? The answers I found were in shades of grey. I could understand the trauma Bilawal was facing but failed to accept the same for myself.


Being in Bilawal’s position is a hard job, but that still doesn’t answer the initial question. I think- yes I want to be Bilawal. Not because of the power & position or because I want to impress the readers but due to the fact that it gives me the opportunity to serve the people, the ability to make the change I want see & the strength to drive a nation into a new horizon. All this may sound superficial or fake, but truth is often less understood.


But how is Bilawal going to go about it? What should be or would be or could be his strategy or for that matter mine if I were he?


I have a reservation with the choice of Bilawal’s to return to Oxford so soon. He is the Pakistan Political Party’s new face & therefore it was his endeavor to campaign for the upcoming elections. (I must add, campaigning does not mean going on the streets & giving the devils another chance to assassinate a Bhutto, but it is propagation of the cause of the party you are heading)


Out of the many challenges Bilawal has to face an important one is the lack of political experience. Bilawal might have theoretical knowledge of political sciences & international relations, but its practicality in the sub continent may vary. After a certain level of education & learning, Bilawal could return to Pakistan with new ideas of modernization & governance. Besides he is always in the guidance & support of the party elders & his own father.


A key obstruction in his path could be the widespread corruption in the governing system. Bilawal must (I use this verb because I feel he has no other choice) ensure that he keeps away from this social malaise/malice & retain his individuality. He may see corruption in his own party members & thus he must have the courage to tell them what is right. There is after all a difference between diplomacy & corruption.


Bilawal is often looked upon as the symbol of democracy in Pakistan. He is seen as the same messenger of public power as his mother. Amartya Sen rightly puts it that Democracy is not all about voting for your leaders, it is about public reasoning & discussion; about questioning government measures & policies. This by & large is going to be the toughest & the most important task of Bilawal’s future political career.


One of the key troublemakers in the entire revival & development process would be The Terrorist Groups. It has been long speculated that these organizations have found a place in Pakistan’s Governance. To completely eliminate them is a Herculean task. Terrorism as a social evil was not made in a day nor can it be ended in a day. Terrorism exists the minds of these individuals, which ultimately transforms into guns & arms. Fighting them is not a solution to the problem, only a defense. One cannot achieve a consensus with them but one can understand their demands, the reason for the demands & why they choose a radical way of achieving them. This perhaps will enable Bilawal to curb terrorism & make Pakistan more secure & less defamed.


The above-elaborated plan, if I may say so, seems to be a lot for a nineteen year old teenager. But the start has to be made sometime soon. It may take more than one lifetime to achieve all this, but a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Bilawal Bhutto Zadari has a lot to see & learn (and so do I) but the fact that he accepted the responsibility of leading the party & sometime later the country, inspires me a lot. I don’t have pity for him, but I have respect & wishes to give him.


It isn’t easy being a member of the governing system of a nation. It isn’t easy being a statesman or politician. It isn’t easy being a teenager & having dreams of leading the country.
On a lighter note,
It might be very difficult to be Bilawal Bhutto, but after writing this essay & thinking so much about my ambition & being in Bilawal’s shoes, I can say, it isn’t very easy being Rohan Chawla either.