I once asked a question about the role of civil servants to Mr. Jayaprakash Narayan, leader of Lok Satta Party. He told me that the civil servants are like a well bred horse but they are only as good or as bad as their jockey who happens to be the elected representative. There is a lot of truth associated with this statement. Of course, some of you may question about the cases of good jockeys and bad horses but good jockeys often select the ‘right’ horse. There are tainted ministers and tainted legislators. It sends chills across my spline that someday I will have to work with such rogue elements.

But a new sense of courage has overcome my fears. The recent cases of IAS officers being hunted by the Central Bureau of Investigation for making blatantly wrong decisions has reinforced the rule of law. Though the law can be selectively or randomly applied, there is at least a chance of  the law taking its course and punishing the guilty. The Andhra Pradesh IAS officer’s association shamelessly passed a resolution that the ministers and politicians should also be held accountable. The answer is: Yes, even they will be held accountable some day if the arrested officers have the guts to name the politicians who coaxed them to do wrong acts. If you are wondering how these cases have provided me courage. Simple, they tell me that budging under political pressure can land me in jail and that corruption is no longer a low risk, high profit activity.

If the jockey commands the horse to cross a deep river, will the horse jump into the river? The same question was being asked in a crude manner by the Chief Minister of Karnataka who seems to have summoned the District Commissioner of Udupi district where a rave party was being organized recently by the district administration. The District Commissioner seems to have explained his helplessness to obey the order of the local Member of Legislative Assembly. The Chief Minister seems to have asked him the following question: The local MLA will ask you to eat ‘shit‘. Will you eat? (Sorry for using a profane word but I am in no mood of following all the niceties of English language). The same kind of explanation seems to hold good for Siddharth Behura, the former telecom secretary who is lodged in Tihar Jail along with the infamous ‘Raja’. His fault lies in signing the controversial licenses of 2008 2G scam. This he did inspite of his predecessor not signing those licenses and recording his disagreement with the policies of the minister in the file notings. Behura seems to have told the court that  the principle of ministerial responsibility requires that only the minister be responsible for all the policy decisions which the court promply rejected and denied him a bail. It is common sense that one cannot hide under the garb of ministerial responsibility by aiding in making illegal and unconstitutional decisions.

Some day if I happen to be such a horse and if my jockey asks me to perform some unconstitutional move, then this horse will surely teach its jockey a lesson because this is a horse with ‘conscience’ and a horse which understands the ‘Constitution of India‘.

GDP is an aggregate indicator that may help us in the rat race of this globalized world where having the highest GDP has become a sacred goal. This is definitely a race to the bottom. Many of us see our political leaders who cherish talking about 9% growth in 2006-07, a near 8% growth last year and a growth of around 7% in 2011-12. This is not just it. Different organisations are burning the midnight oil just to be sure that they give the exact ‘number’ for this growth.

To secure the citizens of this nation JUSTICE – Social, Economic and Political says our Preamble to the Constitution. It is exactly this economic justice that the obsession with GDP is not going to provide. I made it clear in the beginning of this article that my aim is not to the critique GDP as such. I am just not comfortable with the interpretation of this single number as signifying the welfare of the people of this nation. I am not comfortable with the fact that this single number is the bedrock on which we want to build our policies. It is my guess that the obsession of GDP is based on the tacit approval of the ‘trickle down theory’, a theory which has long ago been disproved.

This obsession with GDP has grown so much that recently, the president of France Mr. Nicholas Sarkozy appointed a commission to look into it. MIS-measuring our lives – why GDP does not add up is a book which is the first report of this commission. This book is authored by the ‘real’ economists, Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen and Jean-Paul Fitoussi. This book is a good read for understanding the ill effects of using GDP as an indicator of social progress. The book also provides ways of measuring the welfare. It is high time that the leaders of our nation take a cue from a developed country like France which does not hesitate in finding new ways instead of being complacent with the ‘GDP Progress’.

Do we need regulation of the content on the internet? Probably, even the benevolent creator of this man-made wonder, Tim-Berners-Lee, who chose not to patent this creation would not have imagined the ‘internet’ being used to circulate videos of men and women having sex with animals, son having sex with mother, brother having sex with sister (known as incest videos). Recently, a 19 year old boy in Delhi took a 80 year old woman into the bushes and inserted a stick into her vagina (Read the article here). The judge of the court was forced to ask the government to define ‘digital rape’ which is at present not explicitly spelt out in the Indian Penal Code. There are internet cafes in this country that are virtually acting as brothels. Opponents of internet regulation may quip these incidents as ‘one-off’, but these one-off incidents are a precursor to the destruction of civilization. This destruction has already begun in our metropolitan cities and bringing up children in these cities has become a challenge.

While every human invention has its advantages, it also comes with its own set of disadvantages. These disadvantages are difficult to be envisaged by the creator of the invention at the time of invention. The genius ‘human’ then starts making use or misusing this invention. Thus, there is no doubt that the content on the internet needs to be regulated to prevent the moral decline of our society, to protect the sovereignty of our country and to prevent offensive material that may create ill will between the communities and destroy the secular fabric of this nation.

The only questions that intelligent people of this country and elsewhere have to ask are: Who will regulate the content? What is the procedure that they would use? What are the actions that they would take? As far as the first question is concerned, an independent authority consisting of eminent citizens of the country including some eminent ‘young’ leaders can decide. This body should be independent of the executive. The answer to the second question will be specific to every nation and the kind of jurisprudence they have. At a minimum level, the procedure has to stand the test as required by the principles of natural justice. The actions to be taken will also be nation specific but it is common sense that the first thing required to be done is to devoid the internet of such ‘offensive’ material. The ‘Web Entrepreneurs’ have to cooperate with the public authorities to make this internet a safe place. The State at the same time instead of being hegemonic will have to follow a consultative role and bring about this regulation.

Ask yourself the basic question: What is religion? It is a belief system and there is nothing good or bad about a particular religion. Of course, each and every belief system is unique and there could be a lag between any two belief systems in terms of their maturity with respect to a particular reference of a ‘civilized’ or an ideal belief system if at all we can find one. A devout Hindu does not question the existence of Shri Ram, Goddess Lakshmi, or Lord Hanuman. Similarly, monotheism is a given for a devout Muslim. I view religion and God as a concept which may have been conceived to bound man’s actions to reasonable limits. This is the concept that is responsible for the society’s existence. If every individual would have been allowed to think and act in his own ways, then such a proposition is a perfect recipe for anarchy.

Do you have the right to hurt others’ sentiments while you co-exist in a society? Do you have the right to paint the Hindu Goddesses naked as an artist? Do you have the right to question the monotheistic principles of Islam? You would have all these rights in your private sphere. You could have all these rights as a ‘Robinson Crusoe’ living on an inhabited island. You loose all these rights when you want yourself to be a part of the society. You need to honor the sentiments of the people who are a part of that society.

I feel pity on the intellectuals who support such a blatant expression of feelings in the name of freedom of expression. These intellectuals are only contributing in undermining the concept of freedom of expression. One thing that is objective in this subjective world is that freedom of an individual is not absolute and it comes with reasonable qualifications.

Someone described the paintings of M.F. Hussain as creativity. Creativity, my foot! If this is creativity, then I thank God for not making me so creative.

However, there were some areas of life which were too difficult to be separated from the social realm of religion. These are areas like marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc. Thus, these areas are still governed by various statutes which are applicable selectively on particular religions. For example, we have a Hindu Marriage Act 1955 which forbids an individual from having a second wife while the first wife is still alive who has not been divorced yet. In the same country, we have laws that do not make any such restrictions for followers of certain other religions.

We Indians have believed in the concept of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam which states that the world is one single family. It is but natural that we evolve certain minimum common standards of life if we are on the right path of civilization. This calls for a uniform civil code, an issue that is the bread and butter of many political parties of India. It is more or less certain that once an issue gets politicized, a solution to the problem will hardly see the light of the day. Article 44 of the constitution of India which is a part of the Directive Principles of State Policy  asks the State to endeavor to provide a uniform civil code for its citizens. The fact that the makers of the Constitution added such a provision in the Directive principles and not in the fundamental rights itself is a testimony to the complexity of the issue.

I had the privilege of hearing/listening to some high profile speakers of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) who provided very true facts about the need for a uniform civil code. These are facts that no one can deny. But the path taken by the organization in demanding a uniform civil code poses a threat to the secular fabric of this nation. Any demand for a uniform civil code should come from within the so called ‘oppressed’ parties of  those religions. It is the women of a particular faith who should come to fore if they feel that an instant divorce in the form of triple ‘talaaq‘ is inhuman and against their rights. It is not for the RSS to point to such oppression. More vocal the demand from RSS, more resistant will be the followers of other faith because the issue being debated takes a back seat when it comes to upheld the self-respect of the followers of a particular faith.

The tone in which we put a demand for the uniform civil code should be such that it does not hurt the sentiments of the followers of a certain faith. It will take wide ranging discussions and debate among the citizens of this country for implementing a uniform civil code and less of politics.

‘The village is a cesspool, a den of ignorance, narrow-mindedness, and communalism’ said Dr. Ambedkar which many urban dwellers who never had an opportunity of being a part of the village will hardly understand. To make villages self-sufficient and the basic unit in our governance structure was the dream of our father of the nation. To reconcile such extreme perspectives about the village and take governance to the grass roots of this country was a challenge. Challenges can be handled in various ways. One way of handling challenges by the rulers of this country is analogous to thrusting a lollipop in the mouth of a crying child. The problem remains unsolved but a cosmetic surgery at least reduces the symptoms for a  while. The same strategy was used to take democratic decentralization to its next level. The 73rd and 74th amendments to the constitution are the results of such an endeavor, something that most of us celebrate. The time for celebration is over and it is time to rethink and make further adjustments to make democratic decentralization more successful.

As the population increases, the number of levels between the Parliament of India, which is the ultimate legislative body and the citizen have to increase. The state ‘Vidhan Sabhas’ can be considered as the level immediately below the Parliament of India. A glance at the constitution of India makes it clear that the structures at the centre and the state are a kind of replica of each other. There may however be a change in the nomenclature of the various institutes. An extension of this principle required a ‘District Assembly’ to be set up, which is a view proscribed by the Second Administrative Reforms Commission also. Villages make up taluks, taluks make up districts, districts make up state, and states make our nation.

While it may not be feasible for every gram panchayat to have a legislative assembly, it is not a possibility that can be ruled out for the future if our democracy really succeeds. What is feasible now is the setting up of ‘District Sabhas’ comprising of legislators elected directly by the members of the ‘district constituencies’. Three to four district constituencies should form a constituency for a single state constituency. Three to four state constituencies should form a constituency for a member of parliament. Thus, one can visualize a team of legislators from the national level to the district level who should work for the development of that particular region. This will also make it more easy for the citizens of a particular region to take their grievances to the local leader who can then either dispose off at his level or take it to higher levels until the grievance is attended to.

A governance structure as envisaged in the previous paragraph coupled with electoral reforms can actually take governance to the door steps of every citizen of this country. With the increase in literacy and civic sense of the citizens, every citizen will contribute in the making of policies which will shape the life of every citizen of this country.

In this ‘Mahabharata‘, we now have individuals who have forgotten their ‘Dharma‘. Greed, lust, hypocrisy, wickedness and many other ills plague the individual today and this has been internalized in our society as well. For a person born into such a society, the society is a given: a kind of ‘mayaajaal’ and to get out of such a ‘mayajaal’ without hurting his prospects of survival is ‘salvation’ or ‘enlightenment’ in a true sense according to me.

The above proposition is not an easy task. I am not able to accept till date Gandhiji’s advice that if someone slaps on one cheek of yours, you should present another cheek of yours What kind of individual values can you expect in a place where law and order are antiquated words found only in the lifeless statutes. How can you do business honestly in an unfair environment? How can you speak the truth when you know that you will be ‘witchhunted’? (Refer to Sanjiv Bhatt’s case).

Should we adapt ourselves to the ‘society of the day? By ‘society of the day’, I mean the major values that are in currency at that point of time. Media is the barometer of public sentiments and when you see the news of some bollywood star getting into a brawl with some person, when we hear about which stars insured which body parts of theirs, when we are given a glimpse of the wealth of some person, etc, it tells us about the kind of things that the society values most.

Undoubtedly, society values ‘money’ the most. A person riding a Rolls Royce car with diamonds studded on it steering wheel is definitely given utmost respect though the money to buy such a car came from ‘ill gotten’ wealth. A chief executive officer of a private company is valued more than a ‘sarkaari babu’. Many such examples can follow. The point that I am trying to make here is that an individual trying to be upright has to wage a war against the ‘current’ values that are trending in the society and should not give up his values or values that he thinks are worth emulating. An individual is required to learn how not to get muddled by the ‘populist’ values circulating in the society and made credible by a media which again has forgotten its ‘Dharma’.

We cannot keep blaming our ancestors for the society that we have bequeathed from them.    All that we can do is to be on the path of righteousness ourselves and be the change that we want to see in this world. Such a mindset by a majority of souls comprising this society will ultimately transform this society.

Here’s an excerpt:

A New York City subway train holds 1,200 people. This blog was viewed about 4,900 times in 2011. If it were a NYC subway train, it would take about 4 trips to carry that many people.

Click here to see the complete report.

The profession of lawyers is also one where a great deal of an asymmetry of information exists. Many a times, you do not have any options but to believe your lawyer as second opinions only add to your expenses. Justice since time immemorial was being administered by the Kings who ruled the state. It was but natural that in a democracy, the government should have administered justice instead of people buying justice through middlemen called lawyers.

Critics of my thought would strike back citing free legal assistance provided by various governments according to the Directives Principles of State Policy. My experience and understanding of government provided services are bad in general to an extent that I have come to believe that anything that comes for free particularly with a government tag comes with a dilution in quality. If my loved ones fall sick, I would think twice to admit them in a government hospital (AIIMS like institutes are exceptions). I would think twice before admitting my children to a government school (Navodayas and IIT like institutes are exceptions). Public prosecution and free legal aid are also fraught with such risks of not getting a quality service.

Now wait a minute, why am I targeting the lawyers only among all professions. Should health also not be provided by the State? Should shelter also not be provided by the State? Should education also not be provided by the State? When I put all these items on a priority list, I feel justice is something that is more a prerogative of a state that ought to be provided by the state and hence my attack on lawyers.

We could have a separate cadre of Indian Judicial Service, absorb all the existing lawyers into government occupation and bar private practice (Of course, this has to be supplemented by a monitoring mechanism). The law commission reports are also to be taken more seriously and over a period of time, people will be civilized and the notion that anyone can get away just by hiring a lawyer will go. Time bound delivery of justice will further discourage frivolous claims. Law universities and a career wide training program should be able to give India its officers meant to provide justice and ensure peace leading to a liberal and civilized Indian society that can no longer be exploited as a ‘lawyer’s paradise’.

So, what is all the din about  FDI in multi brand retail in India which has paralyzed the parliament. Until now, FDI upto a certain limit was allowed only on single brand products and that is the reason why you see branded stores like Nike, Reebok, Wrangler cropping up in most of the cities of India. FDI in multi brand would lead to setting up of stores like More, Reliance Fresh, Big Bazaar, etc. The difference would be that these stores would have some part of their investment through FDI. The government of India has taken a conscious decision of allowing the FDI in multi brand retail with many reasonable strings attached which are conveniently left out of the discussion by the opposition parties. The conditions levied include limits on investment in front-end and back-end, deposits to be made, etc and there is also a scope of adding other conditions to protect the interests of stakeholders like farmers, petty shop owners, etc but the call for a blanket ban on FDI in multi brand retail per se is not justified for the following reasons.

Setting up of such stores like Wal-mart would mean more competition and more buyers for the farmer’s produce leading to the bourgeoisation of the farmers. It is but obvious that the powerful middle class ‘baniya’ community which buys vegetables at 2 rupees per kilogram and sells at 8 rupees per kilogram will revolt. At present, the standards of the products sold by these petty shops are also not standard which could change with the decision on FDI. The Manmohan Singh government has taken a bold decision and has to fight this struggle intellectually in the parliament though democracy and ‘rationality’ may not go together.

The customers will also benefit from such a competition in multi brand retailing as more and more shops would start selling the same products at competitive rates. On the downside, though FDI is considered a stable source of capital, there may be externalities which the economic policy makers of the nation have to handle. Nevertheless, a blanket ban on development is uncalled for.