Unraveling the AAP

The AAP has come under a lot of fire recently for their high handed, uncouth and racists statements and, in general, not behaving like a 'normal' political party should. Kejriwal has slept on the pavement in freezing rain and has shouted himself hoarse while condemning the Delhi police for not doing their duty. Various members of the party are making contradictory statements and there is no attempt to forge a common agenda. This blog will not attempt to justify their actions but rather to understand the ethos and motivation that goes behind all this.

I would like to make 3 points:

1. The AAP today resembles the Congress in pre-independence days. The Congress had a single point programme and that was Swarajya. Apart from that, it had a lot of conflicting ideologies. Nehru and Jinnah, Tilak and Gokhale did not see eye to eye on almost everything and the differences between Sardar Patel and Nehru were all too clear in the immediate aftermath of independence. Similarly, the AAP has started out with a single point agenda, Stated narrowly it is the elimination of corruption in the body politic and stated broadly it is an attempt to reform democratic institutions in India. This idea appeals to a very broad sweep of people. It has definite appeal to the educated middle class (the sort of people who will read this blog) and equally it will appeal to the rehri wallah who has to pay a hafta to the beat constable. Corruption in India is a universal subject. From the so called 'transactional' corruption faced by the rehri wallah to the institutionalized corruption of the 2G scam. It is therefore natural that a movement or party whose main plank is anti-corruption will appeal to all types of people. And therein lies the problem! A Meera Sanyal from an MNC bank may feel just as strongly about corruption as Somnath Bharti who is a street smart lawyer. However on most other matters they are unlikely to agree. This is what is creating the dissonance between statements of various members of the AAP. Eventually, as the party matures it will have to resolve these contradictions. As of now the media and the PR machinery of the established parties is having a field day with attacks on the AAP about these issues. I feel that this is an essential maturing phase for the AAP and they will learn how to handle internal contradictions. It is not a major priority as of now.
   
2. The second point is about methods. Strictly constitutional and conventional methods are rarely successful in solving intractable problems. The established political parties have virtually institutionalized corruption and the attendant issue of shiftless public servants who are unwilling to do their duty. As per the AAP, 70% of the complaints that they have received on the anti-corruption helpline are about the Police. All of us have experienced this even it is a small matter of paying off a traffic policeman for a speeding offence. The fact is that the Delhi police IS corrupt and nobody can deny that. The AAPs approach is based on two premises. One, approach the problem from the bottom upwards and try to address the Aam Aadmi's problems first and two, use direct public action rather than strictly conventional means to solve the issues. According to the Press, Somnath Bharti has become a hero of sorts in Khirki Extension. Whether you like it or not drugs and prostitution were serious problems there and they were being practiced by African residents. It is also true that several complaints by the local residents had not achieved anything. The conclusion, therefore, that the police were being paid off is difficult to escape. Bharti's methods, however crude and unpalatable they are to the educated middle class is the only thing that has worked after years of inaction. Kejriwal is not the first Chief Minister of Delhi to demand that the Police should report to him. Shiela Dixit had the same demand for the last 15 years. She also had the advantage of having the Congress in power at the Centre. However, her gentle, constitutional protests fell on deaf ears. It may need the junoon of a 'mad' chief minister to actually make it happen.
   
3. My last point is about who exactly are the Aam Aadmi? They are hardly the sort of people who will read this blog. They are not the educated, genteel folk who inhabit the corridors of power whether it be in public life or in the private sector. The Aam Aadmi are rough, crude, basic people with all the prejudices and problems that such people have. They have patriarchal attitudes towards women and think that Africans are 'habshis' who eat children. This, whether you like it or not, is the Aam Aadmi. Unfortunately, they don't understand gentle discourse. Rather they are attracted to the crude humour of a Kumar Vishwas. The AAP reflects this reality. Kejriwal and some of his team such as Yogendra Yadav and Bhushan are able to provide a bridge of some sort between what the AAP is really like and what the educated middle class wants them to be. The BJP has handled this by putting a lid on the more radical elements of the Sangh Pariwar - some of their utterances would be a serious embarrassment to the urbane Mr. Jaitley and even Mr. LK Advani. Mr. Modi himself is almost too radical for most of them. It would be a real pity if the AAP retreated from the freshness of their approach. They run the risk of losing their connect with the real Aam Aadmi if they tried to mould themselves in the same way as the established political parties. At best they need to curb vigilantism and expressions of rank prejudice. Other than that if they lose the support of opportunists like Chetan Bhagat and their ilk, it's actually better for them.

The AAP is in the news today. The English media has already started turning against them if Arnab Goswami's News Hour is any indication. However, the real Aam Aadmi has a lot riding on the success of the AAP. They represent the first hope of real change that we have seen in years. The educated middle class may be repelled by some of their tactics but we need to see beyond the obvious. As I said in my previous blog the philosophy that the AAP needs to adopt is of Nishkam Karam. They have to do their duty without thinking of the outcome and the reward. 

Nishkam Karam and the AAP

Nishkam Karam is an action performed according to one's sense of duty without the expectation of results. The opposite of Nishkam Karam is Sakam Karam which pertains to actions undertaken with an end objective in mind and is based on selfish motivation.

Most thinkers in the West and especially those who work with companies are strong advocates of Sakam Karam. Phrases like 'Management by Objectives' and 'Key Result Areas' and so forth are results of this kind of thinking. Performance bonuses and incentives are also an outcome of Sakam Karam thinking. On the other hand Indian philosophy focuses more on Nishkam Karam and indeed our most profound philosophical work, the Geeta is entirely based on this thinking. I feel that Sakam Karam has had a profoundly negative impact on commercial enterprises. It is outside the scope of this post to dwell on how short term, result oriented management ignores value creation in the long term. How 'quarter on quarter' growth has destroyed the core of otherwise well managed corporations. The purpose here is to look for a parallel in the political arena especially with reference to the fledgling AAP.

One of the strongest criticisms of the AAP is that they are politically inexperienced and unproven. This is of course true and is applicable to any young person at the start of their career. In my view this is a non issue. The fact is that both the established national parties in India (not to mention a slew of regional ones) have made a spectacular hash of governance. Even Modi's Gujarat has chinks in its armour and as for West Bengal and UP the less said the better. Hence, there is every reason to look for something new and not keep harking back to the lack of administrative experience of the AAP.

The second criticism about the AAP stems from the seemingly unconventional methods that they adopt. Yesterday I watched an extremely amusing (to me) debate on NDTV in which both the BJP and the Congress tried to belittle the anti corruption helpline that has been started in Delhi by the AAP. While the major parties went all out to criticize this initiative the fact was that the first day got as many as 25,000 calls about corruption! The political establishment is missing the main point. The fact is that our country is simply steeped in corruption and that the Aam Aadmi is just waiting to find a way of expressing his frustration. The Congress in its years of governance in Delhi did not do anything about it and the BJP is not much better. The AAP is at least providing a way forward. It may be imperfect but there is a willingness and desire to do something. One may argue that the multi thousand crore scams that one has got so used to hearing about are not going to be addressed by this help line. That is obviously true, but at least the 'transactional corruption' that Sanjay Jha referred to in the NDTV programme so glibly will get impacted to some extent.

Finally coming to the real purpose of writing this post. The fact of the matter is that corruption cannot be removed by waving a magic wand. Good governance will not descend from heaven. The corrupt edifice that has been created in Indian politics due to years of apathy and neglect will not go away in a hurry. The main thing is for the AAP to follow through diligently on what they undertake. There is no need to worry about results. Results will take care of themselves if they remain true to their ethical and moral philosophy. Most politicians are obsessed with re-election. The AAP should make the most of the time they have got to institute real, sincere and long lasting changes in the body politic. Re election will follow.

The Aam Aadmi Rises

A lot has been written about the Aam Aadmi Party and there will be a lot more in the coming weeks and months. Comments range from the fatuously feminist Sagarika Ghosh who questions why they call themselves 'Aadmi' to more evolved analysis about their aims and objectives.

In 2011 I had written about the Anna Hazare movement. The crux of the matter was that Kejriwal and his team had their eyes on a cleansing of the body politic. Or in a more gory analogy, thrusting a stake into the corrupt edifice that democracy has become in India. These objectives do not sound like evolution. They are revolutionary in intent and scope and that is the purpose of this post.

It is unfortunate that the major political parties have almost become clones of each other. The BJP may have a somewhat more right wing, Hindu supremacist agenda but its modus operandi is no different from the Congress. It was a telling moment when the political class closed ranks against Anna Hazare's movement. None of them really wanted an effective Lok Pal. It is another matter that the bill has now been passed to chalk up a few brownie points for the Government but I am prepared to wager that the effectiveness will be next to nil. The fact is that corruption and the related ills of inefficiency, wastefulness and lavish display have become part of our national culture. The shenanigans at Saifai conducted by the Yadav clan are a case in point.

AAP should not consider themselves to be a part of the political establishment just because they have won the Delhi elections. There is a charming naivete and idealism about the way they have started work in Delhi. This is as it should be. They are more of a people's movement rather than a political party. If they remain true to their original ethos they will achieve great things. A parallel is best drawn with the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. Originally idealistic, it degenerated into totalitarianism in the Stalin era. Kejriwal runs the risk of becoming a fat cat complete with designer kurta pyjamas, SUV and gun toting guards if he decides to compromise on his principles. There will be strong temptation for him to do so especially in the heady aftermath of the Delhi elections.

For his sake and for the country's I wish that he continues to tread the straight, narrow and difficult path for it is the only path that can rescue our country from the morass that it has sunk into. Tagore's inspirational poem about constant, solitary endeavour 'Ekla Chalo Re' should be a beacon light for the organisation:

If they answer not to thy call walk alone

If they are afraid and cower mutely facing the wall,

O thou unlucky one,

open thy mind and speak out alone.

If they turn away, and desert you when crossing the wilderness,

O thou unlucky one,

trample the thorns under thy tread,

and along the blood-lined track travel alone.

If they do not hold up the light when the night is troubled with storm,

O thou unlucky one,

with the thunder flame of pain ignite thy own heart,

and let it burn alone.

The Business of Business is Business

There has always been a debate on whether art depicts life as it is now or whether it influences the way that life will be in future. The former presupposes a static view of art as a reflection of current reality while the latter places it on a much higher plane. In India today as I see it, there are 5 major ‘art’ forms that have a bearing on our society. Regrettably, none of them are related to true creativity for the sake of it. Unfortunately for us, we are a mundane society that is far more influenced by materialistic creative renditions than by poetry, literature or painting. These 5 commercial art forms, for want of a better word are:

·        Advertising

·        Television serials and shows

·        Movies

·        Television news

·        Newspapers

While each of these has the power to influence society and public behaviour in varying ways, the purpose of this blog post is to focus on the first only i.e. Advertising and it's bearing on business.

There are several features about Advertising as a medium of expression. However, the critical point is that someone pays for it. It has a commercial objective as indeed most of the others referred to above also have. There is one important difference, however. Advertising is usually paid for by commercial enterprises. There is a direct and straightforward linkage between the medium and the fact that someone is using it to further his commercial objectives. Newspapers and some of the other media have at least a semblance of a social objective. “All the news that’s fit to print” implies a degree of selectivity (whether that is good or bad may be debated) that may have some bearing on what is good for society. Movies and serials have a creative life of their own. They may be produced for making a profit but the act of production itself has a creative genesis. Somewhere, somehow the writer, director or producer may be doing it as he genuinely wishes to showcase his creative skills rather than to just make money.

Advertising has none of these covers. It exists to sell products, services or create an image. It has no pretences of having a social objective. In the ‘70s when Hindustan Lever first came up with Fair and Lovely it was initially sold as a technically advanced cream that could incidentally make you fairer. The campaign had little impact and for several years the brand languished with poor sales. Subsequently Hindustan Lever management realised that Fair and Lovely was selling very well in UP and Bihar and the reason appeared to be that parents of prospective brides realised that the product could help in getting better bridegrooms for their daughters. Levers ran a cinema campaign (there was no TV then) with this theme delivered in a hard hitting commercial and sales zoomed. There was also a public outcry against the advertising by women’s groups and other concerned people which only helped to accelerate sales further. The ethical question that arises about whether Fair and Lovely was right in doing what they did still rages. The marketing man’s argument is straightforward. The desire to be fair or to marry a fair bride is deeply ingrained in our society. Levers only produced a product (Fair and Lovely) that met that requirement and was able to market it very effectively. That is the cornerstone of every marketing strategy taught in every textbook. What did they do wrong? Why should Levers be responsible for shaping social attitudes? What is the business of business?

The aftermath is even more interesting. Hindustan Lever pioneered the development of fairness creams and developed the technology in-house. A lot of marketing Gurus in India and overseas felt that the need for fairness was uniquely Indian and that there would never be a demand for such a product from Asia or anywhere outside the subcontinent. The fact is that as of now every major multinational company including L’Oreal, Nivea, P&G and a host of others markets fairness products all over Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Clearly the product fulfils a deep-seated need not only in India.

The question that arises is that should marketers attempt to lead social change? Tata Tea came up with a social awareness campaign: ‘Jago Re’ that talks about the responsibility of voters to exercise their franchise. In the same vein Tata Steel ran a campaign of how much they do for their employees and the community ‘We also make steel’ Is this sort of advertising useful and effective? Shareholders of these companies may argue that money is being wasted as a direct correlation between such campaigns and sales is difficult to establish. Whereas Tata loyalists will see the campaign as strengthening the brand image of the Tatas as ethical and socially responsible industrialists. But does that help to sell more tea or steel? What is the business of their business?

My own take on this is perfectly clear. Commercial enterprises exist to meet the objectives of their shareholders. In most cases this would translate into being profitable over the long haul. It is necessary for them to remain within the legal frameworks of where they operate. They should pay their taxes and treat all stakeholders as the law of the land requires. It is not incumbent on them to change, modify or ‘help’ society. Their contribution rests in providing employment and income for their direct and indirect employees. Anything else is presumptuous and a waste of time and money. In that context I question the recent legislation that requires companies to spend a percentage of their income on CSR. Such a law will only spawn a legion of freebooters as companies look for ways to spend the enormous sums involved. The Government cannot outsource their social responsibilities to the Private Sector. They should focus on governance and leave the business of business to business.

  

Patriotism

In a general sense, patriotism refers to a "cultural attachment to one's homeland" - Wikipedia or simply put "a devotion to one's country"

In 1995, a research project called the World Values project ranked India No 4 amongst several countries on a patriotism score that basically comprised of a graded response to the question "Are you proud to be an Indian" or American etc as the case may be. As an aside, in this survey, Germany was near the bottom of the list in spite of the obvious progress made by the German economy and their excellent quality of life. Germany stood near the top before World War 1 in patriotism surveys but has declined steadily since then. In an emotional sense, Germany never really recovered from the reverses of World Wars. Equally, material prosperity does not equate to pride in one's country.

So Indians are proud of their country. Most people would be justified in wondering why. After all, on many parameters such as economic development, civic consciousness, honesty and integrity, the physical quality of life and so on India would be ranked close to the bottom of the heap. Yet it would be a rare Indian who does not get a lump in the throat when Lata Mangeshkar sings 'Ai mere watan ke logon' or share a blissful moment of pride when you see a patriotic film like 'Border' or 'Haqeeqat'

So is our patriotism linked to a military ideal? India is generally a pacifist country with non-violence enshrined in our creed and constitution. Why then do we get moved by militarism? Or is it the mythical ideal of a self sacrificing hero, who lays down his life for the motherland that moves us? The idea of sacrifice is deeply embedded in the Indian psyche. Starting with Ram, there are dozens of heroes in Hindi movies who are ready to sacrifice everything for a friend. Is patriotism therefore really defined by sacrifice and military jingoism? If so, the spurt of feeling and the the unforced tears that accompany it are very transitory. Perhaps we reserve them for the two days in the year when it is permissible to wear your patriotic heart on your sleeve.

And yet perhaps our patriotism has a deeper shade than the obvious strains of military jingoism. Perhaps is stems from the comforting knowledge that we belong to what is arguably the oldest civilization in the world. Who gave mankind some of its most profound and uplifting spiritual thought. Who in spite of years of enslavement as a colonial underdog today aspires to regain its rightful place amongst the leaders of the world. We can be justifiably proud of what we were and what we can become.

It is very easy to get bogged down with fragmentary thinking in India. To give in to despair that the Indian ideal of unity in diversity is lost forever in the fractious politics of everyday life. It is in this context that Tagore's uplifting poem is so relevant today.

Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high 
Where knowledge is free 
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments 
By narrow domestic walls 
Where words come out from the depth of truth 
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection 
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way 
Into the dreary desert sand of dead habit 
Where the mind is led forward by thee 
Into ever-widening thought and action 
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake 

Benign Neglect

The British had a phrase for their strategy in Afghanistan in the 19th Century during the time of the 'Great Game'. They called it 'Masterly Inactivity'

There are many other phrases that express similar sentiments. The thought is not new. It centres around the view that active intervention is not always the best policy. The Indian Government has, of course, mastered the art perfectly. The only question is whether it is by accident or by design.

There are several good examples of the great Indian art of 'taloing' if I might use a Hinglish expression. In the '60s, the Indian Government had sparked violent protests in South India because of their insistence on the primacy of Hindi. There was deep and widespread dissatisfaction in South India and for a while it looked as if the policy could actually lead to secession (or something close to it). Fortunately the Government backed off under pressure and gradually the threat abated. In the interim years great changes have occurred. There is far greater social mobility these days, communications have improved to an unimaginable extent and most of all the universal appeal of Bollywood has led to a revolution of sorts. On a recent visit to rural Tamil Nadu, the changes were apparent. Most of the younger women and girls were dressed in salwar kameez and almost everyone spoke a smattering of Hindi. A good example of 'Benign Neglect' if I ever saw one!

A related concept is of  'Time the great Healer'. In the '90s, the Khalistan problem in Punjab looked like spinning out of control. Here again, the Government chose to view it as a law and order problem rather than a significant political statement. I feel that that approach was beneficial in the long run. By containing the violence and the rhetoric, the core of the movement eventually fizzled out. Over time the immediacy and anguish also fade. This is not to minimise the horrific actions that occurred as a fall out of the Khalistan movement but only to comment on a strategy that knowingly or otherwise was adopted by the Indian Government. The fact that it does not always work is exemplified by Kashmir where the fire of militancy is stoked by external elements. I have a strong feeling that left to themselves the valley would have settled down and integrated better with the Indian mainstream. Indeed the North East is a case in point. Today there are literally thousands of North Eastern youngsters who study, live and work in all parts of India even in the smaller cities. This interaction ultimately leads to better understanding and a softening of attitudes.

In the main, the aggregate behaviour of any population is not extreme. By definition, extremist elements get weeded out and what remains is the moderate majority. Their views may get coloured by extraneous factors as in the case of Kashmir but eventually pacifist and middle of the road behavior will win through. In our pluralistic, chaotic country where the idea of democracy is only 60 years old a pacifist non-confrontational approach is indeed the best. If this is perceived to be an overly optimistic view about Indian governance so be it. As I said earlier, whether by accident or design, our rulers have stumbled upon the happy mean.

Check out my book - Journey to the Hills and other Stories

"An absolutely charming read. Takes you into a bygone era that the heart aches for. The story of Ida Villa and Miss Johnson are my favourites. Strongly recommended reading for all who love the hill stations of India. May even persuade those of you who don't go there!"  Arvind Bugga

Buy from Flipkart or Amazon

Democracy Quo Vadis?

Wikipedia defines democracy as "a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows eligible citizens to participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination."

Many countries that follow a democratic form of government feel that they are innately superior to more autocratic or totalitarian regimes. India is no exception. Indians are inordinately proud of their colourful, noisy, pluralistic and generally chaotic democracy.

The fact is that in reality, most Indians live in systems that are anything but democratic.

At birth, Indians step into their place into the 'Indian Family'. This is hardly democratic! There is either a stern, old fashioned father who is a terror and a domestic despot or a mother whose word is law. The child's first exposure to the world is to an autocratic system which has strict rules of precedence, respect and obedience.

At around 5 or 6 years of age he enters school. Again a totalitarian state to say the least! The Principal is God incarnate and the teachers enforce discipline with an iron hand. The class prefect or monitor represents authority that cannot be transgressed. He has to conform to the rules and has very little control over his own destiny. A far cry from democracy!

After school there is a faint glimmer of hope. He goes to college where discipline and enforcement are relatively lax. Here is is first chance to 'rebel' and to look for opportunities where he can express himself. Unfortunately the respite is all to short.

Within a few years, he takes up a job. Whether it is in the Public Sector, Private Sector or even the Government, there is a strict hierarchical system. Rules of procedure, convention and deference to one's seniors have to be followed diligently. Deviation is frowned upon. Again the environment is hardly democratic.

Given this structure, it is perhaps surprising that there is such a maudlin longing for democracy in public affairs. In reality, elections and the will of the people are just a means to the end. Politicians, power brokers and others in the murky world of public governance use democracy only as a cover. Vote banks are bought and sold and the final structure that emerges is just as autocratic and centrally driven as any totalitarian regime.

The fact is that Indians are uncomfortable with true democracy. We have not lived in democratic structures and it is unlikely that a cleansing of the political system will happen anytime soon. We are searching for a 'strong' leader - is that merely a euphemism for an authoritarian set up?