Where Capitalism wins...Part-II

Disinvestment/Privatisation:

For all kinds of development that a government undertakes, money comes out to be the main motive force. Now, how do they get this money? They may of course increase the taxes, or lower subsidies, both of which cannot be implemented in a major way because of round-the-year elections in our country for fear of facing the public's ire. The government has some Public Sector undertakings, whose revenues and dividends can partly fuel the country's development needs. But the performance of PSUs is often found to be less than satisfactory than their private sector counterparts. So, as we enter a more globalised world with our age-old static institutions, who have never been competitive due to support from government, we end up loosing precious business to the more efficient private players of other countries. For example, in the private sector, bankruptcy is taken seriously. In contrast, public sector managers tend to be relatively relaxed about the prospect. Drastic adjustments do not take place, as the managers know that there is no real danger of extinction. The answer to these problems is Privatisation, where government gives up the majority stake to a private enterprise. This is a win-win situation for both the parties involved as it provides the government with huge funds, that may be used to build critical infrastructure ( in India's case) for accelerating growth while enhancing the performance of the formar PSU. The best example is of Maruti whose privatisation brought more than 2000 crores to the government kitty while visibly improving its performance after privatisation. Privatisation, however, cannot be implemented everywhere. There is afterall a chance of greed coming over national interest. So, the best course is Disinvestment, where the government sells some equity to private stakeholders, while retaining the majority share, to maintain its hold over the industries that are critical for the country.

To give you a better idea, while the sale of 25% stake in Maruti fetched the government 2000 crores back then, a miniscule disinvestment of 5% in NTPC (from 89.5% to 84.5%) will fetch a handsome 8100 crores, and there is scope for at least 10-15% more divestment!

Though it was claimed to be a victim of coalition politics in the UPA's previous term, there is no such compulsion now, with Left no longer a stakeholder in the government. Still, the process of disinvestment has been slow and dismal, compared to the time of NDA 10 years ago, when there was a separate disinvestment ministry for this purpose, which more than anything else shows the difference in econmic policies of the BJP and Congress.

Where Capitalism wins...Part-I

The western world (which by extension refers to the whole world) classifies politics as left and right (curiously based on the sitting tendencies of certain leaders with communist beliefs to the left of the French president). Of course, there are sub-divisions like center-left, far-left, center-right, far-right, etc.

The politics on the left of the spectrum generally opposes the forces of globalisation, capitalism, and root for public and government control over most or critical installations in the country. They hope for equitable and horizontal development of the society.

The politics on the right generally, favours limited state control, and greater liberalization as regards the businesses in the country. They instead of going for horizontal development believe in the trickle-down effect which basically means, that even if the rich do get richer, the benefits of any sort of development will eventually trickle down to the poorest sections of the society.

By now, you must have understood that both the systems have there own advantages and disadvantages. While, under socialism or communism the rich and the middle class is made to suffer or for want of a more polite description made to shoulder the burden of the predominantly rural and pro-poor reforms, a right wing political party's ideology though favouring equal development opportunities to all, has mostly been found to be negligent towards the poor in the society.

So, logically, India, being a mixed economy must be the best and most balanced case for development with the best of both worlds approach. Alas, we have a tendency to screw up even the best scenarios.

For the past 6 years we have had a center-left government at the center.

It is an irony that the country that is most set to gain from globalisation is having a center-left government at the center. Now, in the next few articles, I will share a few examples that I can think of where right wing politics would have made a better case for both governance and development.

Not so excited about Hockey...

When India won a hockey match against Pakistan recently, everyone was very gung-ho about hockey's renewed prospects in India. The news was everywhere on TV, people had started updating their status messages on facebook, orkut and the new Buzz.

Though I am not very expectant when it comes to news channels, even they had conjured Hockey experts out of nowhere! There were endless discussions about the state of Indian Hockey, how in spite of being the national game, it doesn't get the same eyeballs and the same enthusiasm as cricket. The anchors and TV experts alike proclaimed that this victory has signaled a new beginning for hockey in our country.

I hardly think so!

First of all, I would confess that I am perhaps the most anti-sports kind of guy you will ever come across. Not because I think that it is worthless, I am a hardcore cricket fan, but for me gaming and sports will always be a secondary activity, a hobby at the most. I am not fiercely competitive, so it is really difficult for me to get excited about any game. Add to that my priority about the well-being of my bones and limbs, the idea of playing even cricket with anything harder than a rubber ball is out of question.

I don't even understand the fuss about excelling in sports, getting Olympic medals, etc. I mean do we have any justification for starting a new programme for the development of sporting skills in the country, when we have a very high percentage of children dropping out of schools, and even those, who do complete their studies, are not good enough to be employed. Whenever, India performs miserably in some International games, everyone from media to politicians to eminent personalities, ask the same question "Why can't a country of a billion people not secure a single Gold medal?" I ask them, wouldn't it be better, if we educate these billion people to become good engineers and managers, and outsource them to those countries (like Australia) where people happily grow up to become sportsmen. Afterall, for all our investment on infrastructure and coaching, only 10-11 people who go on to become international sportsmen will have an actual chance to improve their lifestyle. I believe that sports can become a valid career option only in a financially secure society; otherwise, even the great Dhyan Chand was impoverished in his last days!

And lastly, I think that the golden days of hockey are long gone, now we should let this burden of history slip away from our already over-burdened shoulders and let future take its course.

Instead, we know we are very good at cricket, so we should go all out and publicize it in other countries, provide more options and opportunities to domestic cricketers. If we are not good at something, why lament about it, just publicize aggressively what we are good at. Make cricket so big that hockey dies a slow death elsewhere in the world too.

Note: This article has been betaed by agamemnon

Why India needed British rule...

2-3 years ago, such a thought would have been preposterous to me. But now that I think about it, India would have been only slightly better than Africa, had there not been British rule.

When the British started expanding in India, it was being ruled by the later mughals whose vision for the country was clouded by their own lust for power and royalty. India had lost the momentum that the Mauryas, the Guptas, and other such dynasties had created over the years in terms of scientific innovations. Though one can counter that Mughals gave India excellent architecture, and perhaps had the best taxing system of their time and may be even afterwards, but culture can only take you so far. If it is not backed by constant innovation and allowed to stagnate, it serves no one.

Actually, the only thing that the Mughals did well was to make the Indian economy attractive enough for the Europeans to be interested in. Otherwise, India with its vast natural resources was no better than Africa.

Now, let us move further, if India were to participate in the World wars, which they would have under the Mughals (though, as a faithful believer in the chaos theory, I don't think world wars would even have happened, had India not been a colony under the British), imagine the state of affairs, though India would have had a very substantial army, we should remember that we were able to get past the two world wars unscathed largely due to the military supremacy of the British and the allied forces.

On the technology front, British gave us modern infrastructure, in the form of railways, the expertise for which we would not have had. Railways, perhaps are the single largest contributor to the national GDP of our country even today, just think, we are still using British infrastructure, whose cost would have been enormous if we had attempted that on our own. They erected factories working on the latest technologies, made roads and bridges, and developed infrastructure in Indian cities, comparable to the best in the world at that time.


And now the most important point, when the British came to India, the influence of the Mughals had already started to vain. The British united the whole sub-continent against one common enemy, which had not been possible for centuries of other foreign invasions. What Ghazni couldn't do in 6 invasions, British were able to do, by simply trying to "civilize" us! Had it not been for them, the Indian sub-continent with such varied cultures, and languages, would have been the next Europe!

Yes, they did oppress our ancestors; they sowed the seeds of the Hindu-Muslim hatred that still mars the peace between two nuclear capable neighbors. But it should be noted that India had always been on the radar of foreign powers, and had been invaded by many other powers throughout its history. The British didn't come here to spend their resources and technology for the welfare of a people halfway across the world, they wanted Gold, and they took it, again like many others had done in the history, it is just that something clicked in the Indian psyche that propelled a whole nation to march against them.

The crust of the matter is that knowingly or unknowingly, the British did do some good for us.

It is time we come to terms...with our history...

Regionalism in India

How does one define regionalism? It is roughly an ideology that centers on the interests of a particular region, which may be a geographical area, or a cultural entity belonging to people, majority of whom speak a common language, follow a common religion, etc.

Unlike the conventional negative portrayal reinforced by the myopic media, I believe regionalism is essential for the said region to progress continuously and evenly. Without regionalism, people would be content with whatever small resources they have and won't yearn for more. They won't associate their ambitions with the place they live in, and thus, will be complacent towards development of the region.

Everyone needs a driving force to work beyond one's comfort zone; after all it was the idea of independence from the British rule that served as a passion that brought millions of Indians together. It is the government's apathy towards the poor and down-trodden in the eastern states that has made people passionate about their rights, and this is what created and sustained the Naxal movement in our country.

Thus, the idea of regionalism works differently for different regions of our country. While in places like Mumbai, where regionalism has become such an obsession, at least to some people (but sadly, they call the shots there), that they would rather think of the city as a city-state, independent of the country where it lies. Here, many natives have inferred that their city is being pulled back due to the large inflow of people from other parts of the country, and that some of these people have also stolen the jobs, that might have been theirs.

This same idea has done wonders in the states like Gujarat and Karnataka, where it has propagated regional nationalism or rather stateism. People of Gujarat have welcomed the participation of people of other states to the development of the state wholeheartedly, and that’s the whole point of the concept of India. If we were meant to be born and spend the rest of our lives at a single place, then, these states would rather have been separate countries. Regionalism in Gujarat has made the inhabitants, whether the natives or the migrants, passionate about the development of their state, and they all contribute towards that goal. This is most evident in the fact that Gujarat has the least labor (who, like in Mumbai, largely come from other states) unrest, if at all, in the country. Similarly, Bangalore in Karnataka has become the IT capital of India, attracting youngsters from all parts of the country to work in the booming sector.

Having lived my whole life in Gujarat, I would go as far as to say, that Gujarat has evolved a unique system, where there are multiple levels of regionalism operating simultaneously, and harmoniously, thus, fostering a healthy competition that drives people to excel. For example, I would like my city, Surat, to be the most developed city of the country, but would still be joyous when Ahmadabad BRTS gets international recognition, and would still wish for Delhi to be better than other major cities of the world.

So, it comes down to the people at the helm of affairs. Both The Senas in Mumbai are in essence using regionalism as a way of strengthening the cause of natives, while disrupting national integration, while Mr. Modi the and previous governments, have used regionalism to motivate the populace towards inclusive development, which ultimately does help India.

It is for the people of Mumbai, and the rest of the country to decide which kind of regionalism they would like to see in their state.

Villains are Heroes???

Recently, I started thinking about the actions and psychology of a villain.

The villains are, or coincidentally happen to be, the most practical characters off all the other characters in any story. Their thoughts always seem to be much ahead of their time, where they can bend or mould their conscience to suit their interests. They have no set ideologies, and are extremely open-minded. You see, every classic villain has some justification for his actions, it's not like “I know that the hero is always right but I am doing this because I am a bad and cruel guy”. No, that's not how things go in the mind of a villain. At least I think so. Even when they try to take over the world, they want to change the world order, for the better, by being the change they want. They do not sit ideally waiting for change to occur by some divine intervention, or through some "Knight in shining armour". They are their own means.

Everyone has some or other justification for each and every action of their's. It’s just that the villain's idea of good/bad and right/wrong does not coincide with the sentiment of the majority and the general psyche of the society. These are path breaking people who in spite of knowing that the society doesn't approve of their actions, think the other way, somehow justify it to their mind (excellent arguing skills), and do it (the guts!!!). A villain doesn't worry about the afterlife, about other people's thoughts over his actions; about morality and ethics in general; he just lives in the moment and makes the most of it.

Think of Galileo for example. Had science not evolved the way it has, if in the minds of people like us, earth was still in the centre of the universe. What, then, would have been our impression of Galileo? He would have been documented, if at all, as a traitor, a mad man of sorts, who propagated false beliefs and questioned the divine authority. Very close to a bad man, who challenges the heroes -- the God people, the Church. In short, a villain.

Which brings us to the question of good/bad and right/wrong. What may be treated as right/ good in one context may become wrong/bad for the other. Nothing in this world can be said to be truly good/right. For us maybe, but there is always a villain out there to challenge our view.

How would you define "good"? I believe it is a moral belief or action that is subscribed to by the majority (at least 95%) of the society. The people who go against this are thought to be immoral, when they have only set another set of standards for their idea of morality that is different from ours.

Heroes on the other hand, seem always to be prudish in their thoughts and approach towards life. They would always do or think the same way as the society, will never think out of its domain. They will go down in history for their ultimate closeness to a society's highest moral standard, but, will they ever question their actions? Will they ever look at things from the villain’s point of view or confront their own morals, the way a villain has to do every now and then? The hero, thus, will never be able to think out of the box. He will never discover something new. If by thinking out of the box, a villain finds a new idea, a new, may be better concept of life for the future, that either instinctively becomes good in the eyes of society, or even blurs the difference between good and bad, then this villain will become a far greater hero. He will become the greatest of his age. Like Columbus, who is more famous and has far more reputation than the lesser Vasco De Gama. So, to become the greatest of the heroes, you first have to question the existing, become a villain.

The classical example, in case, can be Ravana, the ultimate bad man. But on a closer look, visualize him in the following way:

A Brahmin, the son of a sage who went on to rule a large country on his own (in the story, they say, he conquered even the planets), took on the dominance of the powerful Aryans. It was only after he became a hero towards the cause of his race, that he made some foolish decisions.

Compare this with Ram, son of a king with a vast empire in Ayodhya, so he already had some power and influence and didn't have to start from scratch as Ravana. If you subtract the menacing moustache, and the maniacal laugh as has been carved in our minds by the TV serials, Ravana was a learned man.

At last, I found out something much more important than all this. Trying to justify a villain is the best way of approaching impartiality, which I have always believed is the greatest virtue, above good or bad. After all, rejecting and being critical of long held beliefs, drives people to inventions and discoveries. And that's what drives a civilization out of stagnation.

Unfogging the future!!!

Disclaimer: Read the following article at your own risk. The author won't be held responsible and won't refund your expenses for yourself using disprin after reading this one. This is not meant for the faint hearted. It might get very confusing from the beginning itself, and will be the ultimate test of your patience, well except if you have previously been exposed to my killer pjs :D

So let’s start.

I have been thinking for quite some time, the basis of predicting the future, and if it is at all possible, and if possible, of any use at all. Let us say, I go to an astrologer, and he predicts something undesirable happening to me, say a road accident. For the time being, let us also believe that whatever he has predicted must come true. Naturally, over the next few days, I would try to keep away from the roads and lock myself at my home, but that would lead to the future foretold by the astrologer to be false. So, in effect, by warning me of an imminent danger, the future as predicted by the astrologer wouldn’t happen.

Also, if the future predicted, is like the writing on the wall, and will have to happen in spite of anything and everything I do, then, what's the use of me knowing the inevitable future and fretting about it until the time that it actually happens?

So, my point is, if someone or something were ever able to predict future, they should only be able to predict various, actually, hundreds of different realities that could have existed that would depend on the different reactions of a person to a single action. And now comes the chaos theory (I won't define it, coz even if I do; you are going to look it up for yourself).

For a very crude understanding, from an oft sited illustration: A butterfly's wings might create tiny changes in the atmosphere that may ultimately alter the path of a tornado or delay, accelerate or even prevent the occurrence of a tornado in a certain location...That's chaos theory for u...When we apply the chaos theory in this context, we can conclude that the farther the future predicted, the lesser is the probability of it happening, as it would get influenced by a million actions of a million people!

So, instead of predicting an accident in the next few days, the astrologer should have told me, that if you are out on a bike on the wrong side of the road at 9 in the morning near adajan circle on a weekday, the chances of an accident are very high, they decrease if you are at the right side, if you are in a bus they will be even less, finally if you are at home due to a bunk, no probs dude!

On a lighter note, a person or machine that could somehow predict accurate future should be able to predict different scenarios on how I will fare in my test, if I ate khaman in my breakfast, or dosa, or patra, or just corn flakes!

Random thought: Would the world have been the same if Alexander the great, had had a bad stomach just before he attacked India or is it possible that different sneezing patterns of the Mahatma, could alter the course of history?