Closure : Curb Government Expenditure on Advertising

Last year, in the run up to the Delhi Elections, the entire NCT was bombarded with advertisements of the then government glorifying their own actions (though the campaign failed to deliver any results). Disturbed by this rampant waste of public money, I had started a petition and a Facebook war to get followers (that campaign also failed - there were less than 100 signatories). I had also written to the then Hon'ble CJI P. Sathasivam to expedite a PIL which dealt with the above cause (it's a different matter that I got the case number wrong in my letter).

Disappointed by the dismal response and no reply from the Hon'ble CJI, I did not pursue the matter and returned to working  from 11am to 8pm. Today, I saw tweet for an article that dealt roughly with the same matter. There was an itch and I figured out what happened :

Hon'ble CJI P. Sathasivam did preside over the said matter in April 2014. In his judgement, he directed that a committee be formed to suggest best practices with respect public advertisements (Para 25). In the past, the matter had come up before the SC in different shapes and forms, but not in a way that the current petition could be dismissed as "already decided" (Para 7).

The said committee submitted its report and the same was covered by the press in October 2014. The recommendations include single advertisement on birth/death anniversaries, severe restrictions before elections, audit of advertising budgets etc. The committee was set up to provide for the lack of government policy/legislative guidelines on public advertisements.

Today's article states that the government is looking to review its advertisement policy (and thus removing the above limitation in government policy). It is curious to see that the recommendations that are doing the rounds are in fact ideas of the SC committee (above paragraph). Whatever be the motivation, I am glad that we are forming policy/guidelines on this.

I had buyers remorse with respect to quitting my job and studying law. Much of that was driven by the upcoming exams (in 3 days!). Seeing this, there are no regrets. Instead, there is a goal.

Unsaid and Unwritten

To my Hindi Teachers - thank you,

Song : Pancham Se Gara - Anoushka Shankar

After hours of not studying, I decided to do something productive with my day - though I am not sure if this will count as that.

The post is recommended for readers fluent in English and Hindi.

Disclaimer : I am not a linguist. I am not a student of linguistics. These are my observations. They could be wrong. Your opinion would be helpful.

*

Years ago, in one my Hindi grammar classes in school, my teacher remarked that Hindi was a scientific language. She gave the example of the words भरत (as in Ram's brother) and भारत (as in India). While the two words have different spellings in Hindi, they have the same spelling in English - "Bharat".

On the contrary, no two words in English (with different pronunciations) have the same spelling in Hindi. I never asked my teacher why that was the case (probably a function of my low powers of reasoning and disinterest in the language). Years later, I discovered the reason. I use the word discovered, not in the sense of discovery for humanity, but discovery for the self.

Hindi words are written in the same fashion as they are pronounced (a fancier term would be that they are spelt phonetically). Hindi (to be precise, Devanagari) alphabets are sounds and they produce the same sound when they are used in words. The following example will clear the confusion :

The alphabet "B" is pronounced as "Bee"
In words, "B" is hardly pronounced like that
The word "brother" is rarely pronounced as "bee-rother"
The correct pronunciation is "bruh-dar"
Thus, the alphabet "B" is different from the sound "B"

The above is not true for Hindi
The alphabet "ब" is pronounced as "ब" (as in the sound B, not bee)
There is no difference in the pronunciation of "ब" in words or as an alphabet
Take for example the word "बंदर"

Thus, unique pronunciations have unique spellings in Hindi. The alphabet spells the word according to the pronunciation. This is not true for English, as you saw with the "Bharat" example (there are examples for this in English too - the word "minute" has two pronunciations, two meanings and one spelling)

*

Along with the above epiphany, came another example. My name is an easier version of the word "रोहण" ; the easier form being "रोहन" (notice the difference in pronunciation). The former is a challenge to spell in English as there is no alphabet to denote the pronunciation of "ण". You may spell my name as Rohand, but I am sure it'll be pronounced as "Ro-hand".

You can see a similar limitation in the words "गणेश" and "गनेश" both of which are written as "Ganesh" in English. Thus, there are some sounds that cannot be spelt in English (without the help of a transliteration table).

*

My best friend once remarked that there is no "w" in the Hindi language. In translation, both "v" and "w" are denoted by the alphabet "व". In English, the two alphabets have different pronunciations - "w" is more "waaa" and "v" is more "way" (yet sometimes you have horribly similar pronunciations, and different spellings - worse/verse; focus on how the first letter is pronounced).

Anyway, the lack of "w" is of little impact on Hindi. As long as a distinct pronunciation exists, the same can be incorporated in Hindi. However, if the pronunciation is the same and yet there are two spellings, the same cannot be incorporated in Hindi. Thus, "there" and "their" will have the spelling in Hindi (Two spellings, one pronunciation and two meanings sounds like a recipe for confusion and 3 multiple choice questions in an entrance exam).

*

Hindi has similar sounding alphabets too. "ष" and  "श" are classic examples. While theoretically there is a difference, practically there is none. Thus, for practical purposes "भाषा" and "भाशा" will be pronounced the same, but strictly speaking, there is a difference. "ष" is present mostly in words derived from Sanskrit and is something called "retroflex fricative". So you have to roll your tongue a certain way to pronounce it. Thus, in Hindi there are subtle differences in matters of superficial similarity.

*

Why bother with spellings and sounds?

If a particular language cannot spell a particular sound, then I think that it can safely be implied, that the said sound does not exist in that language. There must be an alphabet or a combination of alphabets that would represent the sound. If that combination does not exist, then the sound does not exist. The underlying assumption is the one to one mapping between spoken and written language.

Thus when in English you have :

• One spelling, two pronunciations and two meanings (minute)
• Two spellings, one pronunciation and two meanings (their/there)

You realise that the written form has a disconnect with the oral form. When the same combination of words can lead to different sounds, then it cannot be said that in English particular alphabets lead to particular sounds. Similarly, when different combination of words lead to the same sound; the previous statement is reenforced.

By abstraction, there is no certain cause and effect relationship between spellings and pronunciation in English.

But there is one in Hindi. And hence the "scientific language"

*

After my Class X board exams, the joke around town was "Burn your Hindi Books! No more Hindi studies!"

Today, I feel stupid for being a party to that joke.

And glad, that I did not burn them.

Image : http://dreamlandpublications.com/images/81-7301-317-9-img.jpg

National Anthem and Cinema Halls

Read about recent incidents regarding the disrespect of the national anthem by movie goers. Following are quick thoughts on the relevant issues :

• Should the national anthem be played in a cinema hall before the start of a movie?

My personal opinion is in the negative - I do not find any link between a movie and/or the space of a cinema hall and the national anthem. Nor do I see a need for the national anthem to play. The cinema hall is a place of entertainment and thus does not require the rekindling of the national/patriotic spirit.

However, the movie owner cannot be stopped from playing the national anthem before a movie. If the owner of a private enterprise deems it fit (and not indiscriminate), then he can in his right as a citizen play/sing the national anthem. Legally, the Home Ministry's directions are as follows :

"As in the case of the flying of the National Flag, it has been left to the good sense of the people not to indulge in indiscriminate singing or playing of the Anthem."

• As movie goers, are we supposed to sing the national anthem when it plays?

I do not think that it should be necessary for you to sing the national anthem.  However, that does not imply that you don't stand in attention. When the national anthem plays, you should stand in attention - not as a sign of allegiance or patriotic fervour, but as a courtesy that is extended to national anthems across the world. Take for example, sporting events or international conferences. Audiences/Participants in those forums are expected to stand in attention irrespective of nationality. That is the decorum.

This position is made amply clear in Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala.  Here the Supreme Court of India held as follows :

"There is no  provision of law which obliges anyone to sing the National  Anthem nor is it disrespectful to the National Anthem if a person who stands up respectfully when the National  Anthem is sung does  not join  the  singing. Proper respect is shown  to the National Anthem by standing up when the National Anthem is sung. It will not be right to say that disrespect is shown by not joining in the singing. Standing up  respectfully when the National Anthem is sung but not singing oneself clearly does not either prevent the singing of  the National Anthem or  cause disturbance to an assembly engaged  in such  singing so as to constitute the offence mentioned  in s.  3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act."

However, even standing up is now exempt. In 2002, two political leaders sat through the national anthem during the Republic Day parade. A case was brought against them and the lower court held that being seated during a national anthem, however seemingly repugnant, is not a crime against the law. (I do not have access to this judgement). Thus, it seems like sitting peacefully is also okay.

• Is there any peculiarity when it comes to the national anthem in a video or as a part of movie?

Indeed there is. Take a look :

"Whenever the Anthem is sung or played, the audience shall stand to attention. However, when in the course of a newsreel or documentary the Anthem is played as a part of the film, it is not expected of the audience to stand as standing is bound to interrupt the exhibition of the film and would create disorder and confusion rather than add to the dignity of the Anthem. "

However I am not sure if this refers to situations where the national anthem is the  whole visual/video (like the ones played at the beginning of the movie) or if it's talking about situations where the national anthem is a part of set of visuals (like a documentary). 

In times of ambiguity, err on the side of caution. Or file a PIL and figure out.

• If one refuses to sing or stand or peacefully sit, can a fellow movie goer throw him/her out of the cinema hall?

Batman is my favourite superhero, but vigilante justice is not for everyone; especially for those who are looking for a fight. Hence, from a boarder law and order point of view, I do not think that fellow movie goers should take justice in their hands.

The erring movie goer cannot be thrown out because the fellow movie goer lacks the authority to take appropriate action. It is not because there is an implicit right or freedom to not sing/stand up during the national anthem.

• So what are the consequences if one does not sing or stand or sit peacefully during the national anthem?

I believe these are relatively trivial matters. I am certain that nations across the world, especially our own, are faced with greater and more important issues. Thus, I would ideally never bring this to the courts; but we do have some extra enthusiastic vigilantes who would pursue this.

The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, says the following regarding the national anthem :

"Whoever intentionally prevents the singing of the Indian National Anthem or causes disturbances to any assembly engaged in such singing shall be punished with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."

Common sense dictates that if you peacefully laze around when the national anthem plays, you have done no wrong within the meaning of the above clause. You have neither prevented the singing nor have you disturbed the assembly. Consequently, you are safe. But remember, that the standing up is a courtesy (it does not imply allegiance or respect).

Next time you face the dilemma, just stand. You are not required by law, but it's just good decorum. Probably the same way you offer your seat to an elderly person or you give pedestrians right of way or that you don't use cartridges laced with beef and pig fat when your soldiers are Hindus and Muslims. It's good decorum.

References :

Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act : http://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mha/files/pdf/Prevention_Insults_National_Honour_Act1971.pdf

Rules with respect to National Anthem : http://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mha/files/pdf/NationalAnthem(E).pdf

Other resources from MHA website : http://mha.nic.in/national

Kerala incident (2014) : http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/09/07/student-in-kerala-india-arrested-for-insulting-national-anthem/

Preity Zinta playing Batman (2014) : http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/preity-zinta-throws-boy-out-of-theatre/

Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala (1986) : http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1508089/

Sitting down during Republic Day (2002) : http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/feb/05anthem.htm

Image : https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_fmHEpaYbmMKDSWS5x5YJkKrjxQqsBwnytfL05L2EG2GINQJ29kddhP2EmeY37_7nczlrBqed6b9ReBm4bLvwiEWTsxENOdV3Cc24fvTKqSTo0oDCI86uXR2ChkoyrOtYbN5d0fdlXs4/s1600/003.JPG

Patriotism, Modi and Clean India

I have never been a fan of patriotism. I think it restricts our love (there are my people and then there are other people), doubts our actions (how can I leave my country for better economic prospects) and questions our judgement (supporting your country's decisions simply because it is your country and not because its right/rational).

I also believe that Indians have a strange sense of patriotism. We take pride in everything and everyone that is Indian - the Mars mission, jugaad, Bollywood, Gandhi, Nobel laureates of Indian origin and basically everything that has a connection to India. But I suppose, that's where our patriotism stops.

Loyalists to a country would be expected to service the country when the call of duty comes. While this is true for India in times of natural calamities and days of war; the same is kind of patchy in everyday life. Without hesitation, we pollute our community, bribe our government officials, discriminate on the basis of caste and maintain our apathy to governance in general. The question regarding what we owe to the country and what the country owes us, is rarely answered.

One would argue that this matrix of rights and duties is a question of morality and law and there is little that patriotism can do over here. However, my belief is that some morality can also stem from the State. Take for example civic sense (don't pee in public, don't through garbage in the open, give pedestrians a right of way etc.). Why do some communities have high civic sense vs others? While the natural answer is education, there are instances (especially in India) where educated people also pollute. Also, I don't believe that civic sense is a function of education. These things are so obvious, that you really have to be super-apathetic to falter on civic sense (try asking someone why they throw garbage on the road or why they pee on the pavement - there cannot be a rational explanation to this; alternatively ask if they are aware of the benefits of civic sense).

Hence, when the benefits are so elementary and even then you fail to perform the act, the natural conclusion is that you are apathetic. Failure of civic sense is because of gross apathy - that you really don't care about your community (and by extension your country). Therefore, for morals like civic sense, you do need a sense of patriotism or love for your country/fellow mates/community. It is not the only source of morality, but one of the sources.

Devil's advocate might argue that while Indians pollute in India, they don't pollute when they travel abroad and that is not because they change the locus of their patriotism; but because good civic sense is the norm/law outside. I completely agree. The reason why Indians pollute in India is also because it is the norm. But the question we were trying to answer was why is this the norm in India?

Having said this, I will spend a few words on the cause of this apathy (previous posts describe this in detail). The first cause is the British Raj. The birth of Indian nationalism was during the independence movement, but I believe it was restricted to only that. The nationalism represented freedom from the British and not a nationalism of an ideal State with ideal citizens. Post independence, we got a robust constitution with great many rights, but not necessarily rights that people understood or reflected with/demanded. Hence, Indian nationalism in the beginning did not indulge in the rights-duty matrix.

The second cause (which maybe an effect of the first), are regular failed governments in India; none of which have inspired the people. Most were seen through the lens of doubt, corruption and inefficiency. Hence, there is a general feeling of apathy towards governance and law and order. This has further skewed the rights-duty matrix.

Now finally coming to Modi. What can be undoubtedly agreed upon is that since his tenure he has created an atmosphere of enthusiasm and patriotic spirit. Whether through the independence day address, the grand spectacle at Madison Square Garden or the huge hypes around his foreign visits. He has tried to invoke the "duty" spirit in Indians (resident or otherwise).

This is especially true with his "Clean India" campaign. Calling on the nation on a national holiday to come out and clean is a great way to instill duty and care for the nation (while there are problems with that as well, the larger call to duty is important).  If Modi is able to instil patriotism and this duty to care among Indians, then my belief is that the going will be a lot easier.

Finally, my scepticism of patriotism has not reduced in anyway. I had once remarked to a friend that nationalism is a weapon of mass destruction, and I still hold that view. I just hope that the current use of patriotism is for the good.

The one about the country

Earlier this month, I had a fantastic conversation with a dear friend on how messed up India is. Here are 3 tiny bits from that conversation which might have some relevance around Independence Day :

• The Partition - One People, Two Nations

Many parliamentary debates and history lectures have argued over the pros/cons of partitioning British India. My personal belief is that undivided India would have been a logistical/administrative nightmare. Current day India is exhausting to manage and I can't imagine how more territories would in anyway be of help.

Yet, that does not mean that the partition on the grounds of religion was the most effective one. I think that created issues for both nations - on one side we had a theocracy aiming to become a democracy and on the other a democracy which had bouts of the idea of Hindustan.

Perhaps, a divide on the lines of language would have worked better. From the little they teach us about the history of our neighbors, I believe the idea of a particular nation was around language. However, a division on the lines of language doesn't imply fair distribution of resources. Nor does it guarantee administrative efficiency; which is the original aim of the division.

What is done is done. Perhaps, it is the destiny of these two (later three) nations, to be divided. But as many Google and Coca-Cola initiatives have shown, we have a common history and a somewhat similar culture.  The common Indian and Pakistani does not hate the other; they just both want Kashmir. The misfortune is that we can never resolve Kashmir and hence this mystery and love/hate of the other will always remain.

A strange thought enters the mind. What if we were not partitioned? What would that mean for South Asia? What would that mean for Afghanistan/Taliban? Or this global war on terror - would Osama still be in Abbottabad? Or would the Hindus and Muslims of undivided India have killed each other off? I don't know what to imagine, but I know that the world would have been a different place.

• All rights and no duties, makes Indians Indians

My long standing belief is that British rule really messed up the development of political thought in the country. My hypothesis is that the masses during the freedom struggle desired only independence and nothing else. But what they got in return was independence and a lot of other goodies.

And that's where I think the Founding Parents of this nation went wrong. They did too good a job at framing the constitution. They picked the best from the world and gave it to us on a golden platter. They made sure we had rights, that the judiciary was independent, that minorities were taken good care of, a quasi-federal structure et al.

But the masses did not want that. I mean, if you would ask them of course they would say yes! However, it wasn't like they demanded it, fought for it or understood its real value (or the lack thereof).

Not to say that people know the value now or that elsewhere in the world, development of political thought was better. I feel that the freedom struggle was a fight for independence and not a fight for political rights/duties. So, the significance of these rights was undervalued over most of our history; almost taken for granted.

I think the latter fight is happening now (about 70 years later) with the India Against Corruption movement translating into something bigger; all from the support of the people (fingers crossed)!

Again, a strange thought comes to mind. Would India have been better if we had followed the China model? I think I like the Indian inefficiency. I like the dissent, even though it comes at the cost of delay and the loss of life/property. But maybe that's just sour grapes. Or that I am blessed with economic resources and hence for me political rights are more valuable.

• But beta, why spend so much?

(Does not apply to all Indians, focused on a specific section)

My gut says that Indians are the biggest kanjoos (miserly) people in the whole damn universe. They don't spend. And when they decide to, they will think ten times. And when they finally do, there is a good chance they will regret it.

The fountainhead of this behaviour is unknown. But as always, I have a theory. It might not be true, but it might convince you. I think it all started with the Hindu idea of desires are bad. Or more like, materialism is bad and you should lead a simple life of minimal needs. Or that the value of a person is measured in his spiritual wealth and not material wealth. None of us actually think like that, but that's how all psychology works - you just blame the subconscious.

Irrespective, I think Indians are poor spenders. Or at least, they are not like the Western consumer who would borrow to buy. We like to earn the money first and then spend it on alcohol (and maybe beat up the spouse alongside). Perhaps, the only time Indians borrow to spend (not including house, car and education loans - those are investments) is on their child's marriage. Because that is the only time we allow ourselves to be judged for our material possessions.

It could also be that the consumerist generation has not arrived (or maybe I am the anomaly). I spend in a more liberal way compared to my mother and perhaps the next generation will go a step further (not my kids!). The previous generations focused on setting up the economy after the British robbed us and hence were miser spenders. The newer generation has greater access to goods and has no pressure to save (other than the wise words of their parents); consequently will spend more.

Either way, an attitude to spending is crucial for India's economic growth. We talk of more industries, more jobs and more goods and services. But the crucial thing here is demand.  If you don't desire things, supply will go waste, businesses will lose money and people will lose jobs. The workers will have no money to buy goods and hence will starve. But theoretically, there will be no goods because there will be no businesses. It's a complex cycle, but you get the drift. If you don't spend, GDP does not increase. Hence, our economic growth depends not only on the efficiency of the government and the enthusiasm of the entrepreneurs but also on our desire to spend.

The tragedy of the whole equation is that Indians are not good savers either. The money they so diligently save, they invest in the least profitable areas. A large pie they will spend on the wedding. The other part they will invest in gold, fixed deposits and real estate (in that  order). It is rare that they will invest in good business (via the stock market) - neither directly nor through a mutual fund. And when they do invest in the stock market, they will do it with the mind of a gambler, the skills of Yudhisthir and with the dream of doubling money in a month. And while they lose heavily in this pursuit, they wreck the game for the others; because now the stock market is this dangerous place that breeds greed and not an avenue to invest in good business.

Would I trade greater saving for greater spending? I don't think greater material possessions guarantee greater happiness; the rich and poor are both unhappy. But then nor does greater saving. The more you save, the more you deny yourself the world's pleasures and the harder it is to guard your wealth. We are in a strange middle ground, but I hope we pick sides soon. Travelling in two boats cannot be good for anyone.

With that, I conclude my rant and customary post for Independence Day. I am a sporadic patriot, with pangs of hating and loving this country. But unchanged is my view of our quirks. I always find them strange and unique. Perhaps, that's true for every nationality.

And maybe on their national holiday they remember their quirks too.

You might like to listen to this.

Image Source : http://www.journeymart.com/gifs/holidays-ideas/festivals/independence-day-india.jpg

13 generic news articles/headlines you will see on Budget day

Arun Jaitley will present the NDA's maiden budget on 10 July. Like every year the contents of the budget are super secret. While many are trying to predict the new policies, I decided to be a troll and do something different. Here is my prediction of the news articles/headlines you will read tomorrow :

1. Budget 2014 : What's in it for you?
2. Was this Jaitley's budget or Modi's?
3. Sonia Gandhi : The UPA has presented stronger budgets
4. Modinomics : Market rallies on higher FDI, simpler tax procedure & new infra projects
5. India Inc disappointed at new budget; calls it all glitter, no gold
6. The budget effect : Adani, Reliance stocks sky-rocket
7. Tobacco, alcohol, cars dearer; mobile phones, medicines cheaper
8. Big relief for middle class : Tax slabs raised! OR Tax slabs remain unchanged; middle class disappointed
9. Anti-poor budget : Who are the real beneficiaries of this budget?
10. GST/DTC delayed for the 5 consecutive year : Jaitley complicates existing tax menace
11. The tool you've been waiting for - Calculate your tax NOW!
12. Raghuram Rajan : Positive budget for economy; will help control inflation
13. Shobhaa De calls Budget 2014 "the sexiest ever" 

If you have some in mind, do add them in the comments section!

Good luck India!

The World Supermarket

Once upon a time there was a big sale at the World Supermarket. The World Supermarket is a huge supermarket, several miles in length and breadth; with hundreds of floors in height. It has every object in the world - all at a discounted price. There is always a long queue at the Supermarket, but because of the big sale there was an even longer line that day.

Everyone was going to be at the Supermarket that day and so I decided to go too. It would have been very strange if I had not gone. So I entered the queue and patiently waited for my turn. I could see my uncles, my cousins, my friends, my neighbors and almost everyone I knew. They were all there - it was a huge festival.

After some time, I got the chance to enter the building. Oh boy, the Supermarket was endless. It had very long alleys stocked with everything one could dream of. Food, houses, clothes, education, careers, vacations, old age homes - you name it, and you could buy it. Different prices, different qualities, different "made in", different colours, different sizes - everything was available.

And so I started shopping. I started with the food line and bought a large supply of food. No matter how much food you buy, it is always less. I have noticed that when I am hungry and I open the fridge, there doesn't seem to be anything that I think will satiate my hunger. And so I bought lots of food.

Next I went to the clothing section. I bought lots of shirts, jeans, shoes and undergarments. The question was what to buy - the clothes that looked nice on me or the clothes that were in fashion or the clothes that were comfortable. For some strange reason, there were never any clothes that would fit all three. I wondered why.

And then I stopped wondering and bought a house. It had everything I would possibly want or need. A beautiful garden, a fully equipped kitchen, enough rooms and you wouldn't believe this - it came with nice neighbours. I happily bought it. I was convinced that nothing could ever go wrong with this house.

After one has crossed these three sections, every shopper has to go to the Education & Career section. This is because your future education and career will decide if you can pay for all this or not; and if yes, then how long it will take to pay. One has to be very cautious in this section, they say much of your happiness depends on it.

So I entered this section and went straight to one of the counters.

Counter : Please provide your shopping list
Me : Here you go
Counter : Given your preferences, we believe you should become a doctor. You will have to study for 10 years and after that work for 40 years to pay

I thought to myself. This wasn't a bad deal. 50 years and I would be free. I knew people who could not pay and either their things were taken away or their family had to pay for them. What terrible unhappiness. At least in my case that would not happen. Thinking this, I agreed with the counter and collected my acknowledgement.

I was almost set. Of course, now all I needed was a spouse. It is very important that one get married; life can be very lonely without someone special. Family is the most important thing in life. And that is why in the World Supermarket it comes towards the end. Though it is quite strange to imagine that the World Supermarket would ever end.

The matrimonial section is very different from all the other sections. Over here, you just stand and look around. Soon enough, someone will poke you or you will poke someone. And if you like them or they like you, then you are all set. When liking someone, you should look at their purchase list - you can't like someone who doesn't buy like you.

That day was a good day and I was able to find someone very special. They were just like me and it was like at first sight. Their purchases were quite decent and they were slated to become a lawyer. How wonderful, I thought to myself.

It was time to checkout. I submitted my purchase list and went to my new home. My spouse also moved to my new home, because it was bigger than the home she purchased. We unpacked all our things and were so happy. We were finally settled. Everything we wanted or needed was with us. What more could we ask for.

That night, while lying in bed, I mentally ran through the list of things I bought. I joyfully admired their features and felt content with my choices. I motivated myself to work very hard for the next 50 years. After all, this was happiness. With this thought at the back of mind, I went to sleep.

*

50 years later, I went again to the World Supermarket. This time I skipped all the sections and went straight to the "new enquirers" desk. There I requested for "death" options. I claimed that I had paid all my dues, I had everything I wanted, had done everything I liked, was married for as long as I wanted and now had no reason to live. I told them that there was nothing in life that I looked forward to and wanted to die now.

They said that this was not possible. First, they showed me some new vacation plans, old age homes, retirement specials and even new spouse options! I staunchly refused each of them, saying I did not want anything more. I wanted to die. That is when they opened my file.

They claimed that there was an error on my part and that I had misrepresented by purchases. I cross checked each of them and there seemed to be some confusion. I was certain I had not misrepresented, but the papers read a different story. I could not do much. This meant that I had dues to pay and that I had to work some more.

That night, while lying in bed, I mentally ran through the number of days I had to work. I planned what I will do on each of those days. I motivated myself to work very hard for the next few days. Maybe, this was unhappiness. With that thought at the back of mind, I tried to sleep.

*

The Burden of NOTA

Last year the Supreme Court of India ruled in favour of a None of the Above (NOTA) option for voters. When the verdict came out, I was filled with joy. It meant the country had started a journey towards electoral reforms. General Elections in India begin in April-May this year and I am due to vote tomorrow. NOTA does not seem like my preferred choice now.

In essence I agree with NOTA - there should be an option to reject all the candidates. However, it must be coupled with an understanding of "what else?". Take for example the current election, you might reject Congress because of its corruption, BJP for its Hindutva, AAP for its lack of experience and everyone else for not being big enough; but at the end you must ask yourself - if not them then what else? What is my ideology and what is my preferred electoral candidate?

You might say its a combination of Congress's secularism, BJP's administration, Left's compassion and AAP's honesty. That's not too much to ask. You just want a clean candidate that will work for the people. I hate saying this - but it will never happen. And I am afraid, this is not a problem linked with politics. Look at the people around you - in business, in religious bodies, on Tinder and even in NGOs - you never find the perfect. It is always a lack of choice.

Our life is plagued by a lack of choice. I am in no way advocating that you resign to that idea. But the blame for a lack of choice should not shift to the world. The world does not exist to provide you choices. If you don't get your choice, too bad - (wo)man up and create that alternative. In its present form, NOTA is no better than the old example of sitting at home and drinking tea and saying the world sucks.

One must consider the practical implications of NOTA. Unfortunately, it is of little consequence in this election. Any number of NOTA votes would not translate to the candidates being rejected. A candidate will still be a winner. By implication, the NOTA vote translates into a vote of indifference. A NOTA vote implies that you are as okay with a corrupt Congress, as you are with a communal BJP, an inexperienced AAP or even a broken Third Front. While the motivation for the NOTA is a rejection of all, the implication is an acceptance of any. It is as good as not voting (actually not, it takes care of fake votes).

That I am not okay with. Among the three alternatives I do have a preference and I would like that to be recorded. You might argue that the NOTA will never get weight unless we show large numbers. That could be true. But I would not risk that - I think one can pursue that via the judiciary. I also think it might not be as important as issues of national importance (which this election seems to answer). But we can disagree.

This election is by no means an easy one for the voter. There is guilt in voting for anyone. I would urge you to work with the hand you have been dealt with. At the end of the day, this is India and this is what it is. You might hate it or be pissed of, but these are the alternatives that exist. Until the time you create an alternative that works for you, you have to deal with this.

May the best (wo)man win. May India get what it truly deserves.

Godspeed.

Image : http://www.ndtv.com/news/images/story_page/NOTA_295x200.jpg

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

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