IPL--The most explicit exercise in consumerism in India

The yearly celebration of cricket in India is finally over, but IPL continues to be in headlines courtesy those disgruntled politicians and ex-cricketers, who weren't able to profit from this cash-spinning extravaganza.

But these people, along with the media have failed to recognise the true nature of IPL. It was never about cricket. Had it been, then they could have as easily changed the name of the Ranji trophy and be done with. It is about the rise of Capitalism in India. While the early intentions of Lalit Modi and co. might have been towards betterment of cricket and domestic ranji players, they were quick and smart to realise that, had IPL been promoted on the lines of the Ranji trophy it would never have worked. The support and ownership of Bollywood as well as corporates lended not only the much-needed glamour, but a large infinite market to the advertisers, not to mention huge money.

Unlike many of my friends, when I watch an IPL match, I do not care who is playing and who is winning. There is no point in spoiling my day over something that at the end of the day is still domestic cricket. I instead see giant hoardings and an MRF airship floating over the stadium. I see how every decision of the third umpire is preceded and succeeded by the Kingfisher ad. I notice how, almost every match completes its full quota of 40 overs even if initially the batting team was in tatters and how the bowler seems to wait for the ad on the scoreboard to end before bowling the fourth bowl of every over. I can cite many more such instances.

In a nutshell, IPL is about the rise of consumerism in India. It tells you that there is such a large domestic market out there that Pepsi, Coca-cola, Sprite and Maaza, all can sponsor the same match and get more eyeballs and publicity than all of Ekta Kapur's soaps combined.

Governments around the world including India, took various measures to increase domestic demand in order to sustain growth in view of depreciating global demand during the recession; If IPL is fueling domestic demand, thus helping our economy expand, then why cry over morality, as was witnessed in the Indian parliament which is convened by ancient(both in age and their outlook) ministers who have redefined morality and decency in their political lives. Needless to say, almost all parties and senior leaders were in favour of scrapping IPL on the grounds of morality and explicity, and sacking Lalit Modi for causing financial irregularities. Wherever huge money is involved, irregularities are bound to happen, and sometimes, such irregularities even make for good business sense; and the kind of financial irregularities our leaders have shown in whatever they do over the past 60 years, they do not qualify to comment on the IPL or Modi.

So, my message to our leaders and the media would be--By all means, sack Modi for whatever rigging he has done, but recognise his invaluable contribution to the rise of Consumerism in our country and don't even in your wildest dreams, think of scrapping or modifying IPL for the sake of morality.

Where Capitalism wins...Part-III

The Concept of Horizontal development:

Highly industrialised and urbanised states like Maharashtra and Gujarat do not get sufficient funds from the centre because of the stupid (at least I think so) ideology of the UPA --that of horizontal development (If some region or some set of demographics are somehow benefitting more, from the existing policies or by virtue of their skill or profession, or availability of resources, then no more resources need be allocated for their further development, and the money meant for these affluent regions be diverted to the unprivileged regions, whose standard of living has been stagnant, be it due to lack of skills among the workforce, poor policies or poor implemetation, non-availability of resources, etc. Mostly, such a policy is backed by stating the chances of social unrest in the poor sections due to lack of resources).

So they siphon off the money from higher GDP and well developed states like Gujarat and Maharashtra, and fund the inefficient states like U.P., orissa, etc. In essence, we are being punished both for the inefficiency of the bimaru states and being a well developed state. Such problems do not arise in a capitalist society, where the development of the developed is not sacrificed for the needs of the under-developed. As Capitalism provides equal development opportunities to all, it comes down to the regional governments of the undeveloped states to be more efficient, and the industry in that region to be more competitive. Instead, the government should find ways to better frame and implement its policies. It will be better to plug the holes before pumping huge amounts of cash down the drain.

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.