Everything Else

Standard Operating Procedure: An 18-Step Success Guide for Politicians

by
Standard Operating Procedures used in service industries like technology and healthcare bring in standardization, process orientation and overall efficiency, and are increasingly bringing the same benefits to politics.
  1. Politician comes to position of power and sets in place a proper system to implement corrupt practices. Initially he makes sure everyone in the chain is satisfied and gets his due, so the system runs smoothly.
  2. After a while, he gets a bit insecure and realizes that he has limited time to ensure his life time needs are met. So he gets a bit greedy, and in the process misses to give someone their due.
  3. If the politician is highly experienced, go back to Step 1 and keep continuing the iterations. He is then on his way to political superstardom. Else Go to Step 4.
  4. Somehow word gets out, and a press article appears on how the politician is corrupt and has used his position of power for personal gains.
  5. Politician reacts and says that he is being victimized by the opposition. Politician and his party continue to say that character assassination is politically motivated
  6. Opposition says that they need an independent inquiry into the issue.
  7. In case he is truly a big fish or on the way to become one, go back to Step 5. The arguments continue and eventually die out. Most ambitious politicians should aspire to stay in this loop for most of their lives. In majority of the cases, there is an agreement between the party in power and the opposition and the issue is settled. Only if things get serious or out of hand, Go to Step 8.
  8. Forced by something which could be anything from not getting a share of the corruption money to taking advantage of the public mood, an inquiry has to be set up in excruciating circumstances – headed, in most cases, by a former, retired judge.
  9. The opposition rejects the formation of the inquiry commission saying that the character of the person who heads it as well as the members is not spotless, and hence this is an eyewash.
  10. Then after some time which could be a few months to many years, the inquiry gets done and a report is submitted, which finds some elements of wrong doing but no conclusive evidence. At this point, things generally close on the topic, or there is a demand for another investigation, in which case go back to Step 8 and repeat. Only if there is some serious suspicion, go to Step 11.
  11. The original politician’s party, senses that it is time to distance themselves from the politician – and so says that the legal process will take its due course and they believe that our judicial system will mete out punishment to the offenders in case of any wrong doing.
  12. As part of this process, someone from the opposition co-incidentally gets caught in an act of corruption. The opposition claims this is political vendetta. Go to step 11 and repeat for a few months and then go to step 13.
  13. Finally the court hearing the inquiry commission asks them why they did such a shoddy job, and why a case was not registered, and then, due to this kind of embarrassment at the hands of the judiciary, some proof is quickly gathered, and perhaps a case is registered.
  14. Hearings go on from lower court to upper court, Go back to step 13 for a few months, and then something happens and it looks like the politician may be cornered. Now go to step 15.
  15. A bail application is then made by the politician’s lawyers, and it is mostly rejected.
  16. The politician then falls ill and seeks bail on medical grounds – which is granted. Go back to step 13 through 16 and the process repeats. Finally in the rarest of the rare cases, in case he truly has no political utility for anyone, he has to resign.
  17. If it is really bad with seriously bad media coverage, he may lose the election next time. If it is not that bad, and some damage control has been done, he may win or someone else from his party will win in his place.
  18. A new politician comes to a position of power. Go to step 1 and repeat.

What is better in dealing with terror? To remember or To forget

by

A lot of people I met or spoke to on Sunday 9/11 told me exactly where they were and what they were doing when the two planes crashed into the Twin Towers 10 years back. I too remember what I was doing at that time. I don’t know why people remember that, but this was one of those events that I classify as “Do you remember?” events.

For example, a lot of people in the United Stated also remember what they were doing when Kennedy was shot.

I, for one, remember being woken up close to the middle of the night when Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated. My South Indian friend Swami remembers exactly what he was doing when Indira Gandhi was killed.

There are a few happy moments too. Like many Indians remember where they were when Mohinder Amarnath trapped Holding leg before and took India to World Cup victory in 1983. Similarly even 20 years from now, those who saw the six that Dhoni hit to give us the World Cup in 2011 will remember where they were then.

I used to have distinct memories of where I was and what I was doing in the month or so of the Mumbai riots of Dec-Jan 1992-93, and I also used to remember what I was doing when the Mumbai blasts that happened after that in 1993. That in some sense was India’s 9/11. At that time those were genuinely significant events. Now after so many blasts and riots, it is a bit confusing. Like 9/11, we have started naming them 7/11 and 26/11, may be we will have more. Not quite sure whether to remember or forget.

That gets me back to 9/11. Americans chose to remember it. Perhaps because it was the only major terrorist attack on their soil, and they did not quite understand how to handle it. It is not 9/11 the event itself, but remembering 9/11 that actually caused harm to the US, I think. That led to Americans living in constant fear, whereas actually they were still living in one of the safest countries in the world. That led to the pointless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and led to a total disproportionate increase in defense spending – thinking that these measures will help prevent further attacks. That also led to racial profiling. Americans started thinking of every minor thing in terms of a terror attack.

Of course, there were no further attacks, but that was because the US was always difficult to attack. Before or after 9/11, it was always difficult to attack the US, specially at that scale. 9/11 was an exception. So while it was a “Do you remember?” event, the world and the US would, perhaps, have been better off if the US had forgotten about it over time.

In the 10 years after that, while nothing of anything close to that scale happened in the US, 38 blasts of some kind happened in India. And we are not counting the ones before 2001. The ones between the original Mumbai blasts and the Twin Tower attacks. I am sure the total will exceed 50 at least. And Indians chose to forget those blasts, more or less.

Hence, we did not have citizens living in fear (in fact life resumed in most cases in a day), perhaps there were other things to be afraid of. Nor did we have increase in defense spend, perhaps there were other things to spend on. While we reached close to war once (in 1999 after the nuclear tests), we did not have a war due to this – apparently we could not afford a war. But the attacks continued, spurring us on. In trains, in buses, in markets wherever. We chose to forget the attacks, and good harmless people continued to die. Eventually we were told to live with it as we were in a troubled neighbourhood. And we started thinking of even major blasts like road accidents. They happen.

So the US had one 9/11 and major wars after that, huge defense spends leading mostly nowhere. But they had no other attacks after that. And India had 50+ attacks, no wars, even arrests of the terrorists in some cases, but still leading more or less nowhere. But the attacks continued.

Our responses to “Do you remember?” events have been different. India’s approach has been to forget, while the US approach has been to remember. I am not sure which is better eventually.

God no.1: Celebrating Ganesha Festival in Mumbai and Bangalore

by

The festival of Gowri-Ganesha in Bangalore has quite a few differences from the festival of Ganpati in Mumbai.

gowriganeshabloreIn Bangalore, it is a private festival while in Mumbai it is a public festival. Almost everyone in Bangalore gets a ‘मूर्ति’ at home. While in Mumbai it is generally restricted to the eldest member of the extended family, though that is changing too with shrinking families, I think.

Everyone goes to everyone’s home for ‘दर्शन’ and ‘प्रसाद’ and some gossip-gupshup in Mumbai. Once they know you have an idol at home, you get on to their annual visit list. No one does that unless invited in Bangalore – partly also because it is a private festival, partly because everyone has their own idol at home.

Also, while I was in Mumbai, I thought Ganesha idols are to be kept for a pre-determined number of days and that is to be followed every year. So you have 1.5, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 11 as the common number of days that idols are kept for in Mumbai. Most public idols and a lot of ‘serious’ private idols are kept for the entire period. In Bangalore it is relatively flexible. Most people do the immersion on the first day, and very few have it for all 10 or 11 days. Some people immerse the idol on weekends as it is convenient. Some people start initially with the intention of immersing in 1-2 days, and then think that maybe couple of days more will do no harm, so let’s extend. So that way it is quite flexible in Bangalore.

In Mumbai, the ‘प्रसाद’ is generally sweet – with ‘मोदक’ leading, but supported by a whole lot of others – almost everyday a new sweet makes its appearance. In Bangalore, it is mostly not sweet – generally rice and ‘चना’, sometimes ‘वडा’, sometimes fruit salad maybe.

The idols are also different. In Mumbai, you have all shapes and sizes, with various contemporary events unfolding on stage as well as in the idol. This year I was told the main ‘themes’ are the World Cup and Anna Hazare. Even small home idols come in all avatars with the Lord sometimes taking forms ranging from the funny to the outrageous. They make them with all materials from clay, plaster-of-paris to whatever. In Bangalore, all idols are more or less standardized, mostly made of mud, and look more or less similar. All you can choose is height that works for you, and maybe the color at best. They are quite understated definitely.

ganeshmumbaiPeople in Mumbai immerse the idols in the sea. So, everyone from the smallest home idols to the largest public idols go to the nearest sea-shore on the west, and make a beeline. That way, Mumbai is lucky that it has a sea – difficult to imagine which other water body could absorb so much, and what a ruckus it would be without the sea-shore (not that it is any lesser now). In Bangalore, it is the lakes with specific designated areas for immersion – it is quite a disciplined affair. People also immerse their idols in buckets or tanks in their homes, and use the water for gardening. Initially, I used to find it awkward, but now I think it is a great idea that everyone should adopt.

Honestly when I look at another year of the Ganpati festival, these differences do not matter much. The styles, rituals, methods may be different, but I think the underlying emotion, perhaps, is more or less the same. Just the scale and grandeur may be different. I also think what a wonderful festival it is, during which people actually bring God to their homes and public places, worship him and then give him a sendoff. And what an idea it was that Tilak came up with, when he decided to literally ‘take it public’.

Therefore, despite the fact that we bring ‘God no.1’ into our homes every year for this period, it is quite ironical that when my son cries as we immerse Ganpati with slogans of ‘पुढच्या वर्षी लवकर या’ every year, I have to tell him, “God is not in that idol, he is in your heart”. He does not seem convinced. He will wait for next year.

The “In-between” Generation of Indians: Caught in Two Worlds or the Best of Both?

by

One of the things that I learnt from the recent anti-corruption movement is that I think there is a generation of Indians who are the ‘in-between’ generation. People from the older generation were generally initially quite cynical, the ones from the newer generation were generally quite positive from the start, and a large part of the in-between generation were quite literally ‘in-between’. I may be wrong here, but this is just a point of view.

Generally, people talk of the Indian economy in two parts – the pre-1991 license and government raj and the post 1991 liberalization era. By way of distinct ways of thinking, I think there are three Indian generations. The pre 1991 generation that was born, and more or less done with a major part of their working life by the 1980’s and 1990’s.  Then there is a post 1991 generation, those who were born in the 80’s and 90’s, and who generally cannot quite imagine how life was before the 1990’s. And then there is the ‘in-between’ generation – people born in the late 60’s and 70’s, who grew up in the ‘government era’ and even, perhaps, started working in that era, but who were positioned to be the early beneficiaries of the economic changes happening right under their nose.

Not quite from the old era, not quite fully from the new era. Not quite held back, not quite breaking free, but caught ‘in-between’.

rockandahardplaceLike many of them never went outside India till they finished their education, and still a lot of them have seen the world. So a lot of them are caught between whether they like to stay in India and abroad.

Like many of them have seen job security in the early part of their careers, and then with increasing opportunities, have taken advantage of them, but have also seen the pressure that comes with it, and the demise of guaranteed employment. So a lot of them are stuck between whether it is a ‘me first’ or the ’employer first’.

Like the women in this generation are neither ambitious enough to clearly go for their career over family; nor are they willing to compromise on either one. So they are caught between ‘family first’ or ‘career first’.

Like the men in this generation want to have a life with their wife and kids, but they also think taking care of their parents is their responsibility. So the men are caught between their own family or their parents.

They want the good things that life offers, but have also seen what life used to be and could have been. So they are caught between chasing what is possible and being happy with what they have.

Look at it one way, this generation has been caught between a rock and a hard place. Look at it another way, this generation has got the best of both worlds.

May be there is some sense in this, may be this is fully my imagination. Perhaps the reality is somewhere ‘in between’.

बैठ जाइये: Takeaways from Parliament’s Lokpal Debate

by

‘All of humanity’s problems stem from man’s inability to sit quietly in a room alone’ – said Blaise Pascal.

On those lines, there might be some truth in extending it a bit – ‘All of a nation’s problems perhaps stem from their parliamentarians’ inability to sit quietly and agree in a room together.’ If only more of our parliamentarians could agree on solutions to more of our nation’s problems more frequently, a lot of our problems would perhaps be non-existent, or definitely solved faster.

At the very least, the problem that our speaker faces daily of having to repeatedly keep saying “बैठ जाइये” so often would definitely go away. Pity the speaker of the house trying to control the proceedings of the house – specially on days like Friday of last week, which is, perhaps, more like a normal working day for Parliament. It was evident that whenever someone would stand up to ‘make a respectful submission’ or a ‘humble point’, all it would result in would be noise from some section of the house, followed by a different version of “बैठ जाइये” from the speaker. Honestly, how many different ways can you say “बैठ जाइये” after all? It seems that there is an inverse relation between the number of “बैठ जाइये” pleas made by the speaker and the quality of output from the house. One could see that on Friday, after all the constant “बैठ जाइये” pleas, finally the house was adjourned, and on Saturday, with only a few intermittent “बैठ जाइये” pleas, the house achieved some meaningful debate and reasonable output. How I wish we had more such occasions where parliamentarians could sit in peace and agree more!

For the past two weeks, common citizens – led by an uncommon man – have found it much easier to follow “बैठ जाइये” instructions. They have all been ‘sitting in peace’, in protest silently, non-violently – all agreeing on the common need to root out corruption at all levels in the country. Somehow, they have also presented a solution to the problem in the form of a bill, that some agreed on, some did not, but everyone felt was on the right lines at least. And if a whole country, well almost, but a significant part of it could do so, it was high time that a set of 540-odd elected representatives could find a way of sitting quietly and agreeing in a room.

Well – it looks like they did achieve a way of doing that on Saturday. But the people outside are still not convinced that this is real. “यह तो कमाल कर दिया” – said my broker friend Jigneshbhai, also a supporter of the India against Corruption movement, just returning yesterday from one of the rallies. May be it was a one-time miracle, may be it was not. Perhaps the ones outside the house will agree, sit and protest again, maybe when they realise that the ones inside are not able to sit and agree again.

And then, unfortunately, the problems for the speaker are sure to start again. She will have to find new ways of saying “बैठ जाइये”. I have a suggestion. May be she should change it, and say “बैठ जाइये नहीं तो अन्ना हजारे को बोलूंगी”! Who knows – maybe that will work and we will have miracles like Saturday again!

The Government on Lokpal: Giving Precedence to Form over Substance

by

A few observations I made over the past few days, since Anna Hazare went on a fast for a strong anti-corruption law.

That the government’s recent responses to Team Anna and the public demand for a strong anti-corruption law seems to be like that of someone asking a dying man to fill a form at the hospital.

That someone needs to ask the government, similar to the way Munnabhai asked Dr Asthana in the movie “Woh casualty ke bahar aadmi mar raha hota hai, to usko form bharna zaroori hai kya?”

That the government still does not get it that it must give precedence to substance over form, intent over procedure, at least for something as important as setting up a strong Lokpal.

That saying that ‘the Delhi Police is following procedures to maintain order’ and ‘Parliament should be allowed to make laws’ look like giving more priority to procedure over intent.

And responses like ‘present your views to the standing committee for consideration’, or ‘a private member bill cannot be introduced when there is already a government bill introduced’, or ‘the legislative procedure will not allow the bill to be passed in this session of parliament’ – all of these are akin to asking people who are already desperate for change and action – ‘to fill forms’.

Like the government is looking more and more like Dr Asthana from the movie, bashing its head over how to handle the non-violent rebellion from a group of  ‘common citizens’ who have garnered the support of thousands more.

That the government still does not understand that decent, law-abiding, normal citizens of society generally do not join protests spontaneously on roads. That despite fully knowing that it is not the ‘proper’ thing to do, there must a strong reason for their doing so, which the government needs to fix.

That it is a clear problem of giving precedence to form rather than substance, and procedure rather than intent.

And that the more the government focuses on procedure, the more its intent will be doubted.

That this is not the time to think about vote banks, urban versus rural, communal versus secular for the government. The people who are fasting, joining the protests and supporting the movement do not seem to be thinking about it.

That while some people may think Anna’s procedure is not right, most people are not questioning his intent.

That while some people may think the government’s procedure is right, most people are questioning their intent. Which is not good news.

Ranjit’s Newsletter