Save India

The U.Penn. study referred to in the NY Times

Weekend in Review article may be (guess):

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/casi/page30.html

Francine R. Frankel, Arora, Balveer, Bhargava,

Rajeev, and Hasan, Zoya, editors,

Contextual Democracy: Society, Culture and Politics in India (in preparation).

-arun gupta

After my brief foray into chawwanni-class poetry, let me return to the real world.

Ashish:

I absolutely loved the idea of ``motion to replace`` instead of ``motion of no-confidence``. As an aside, our President distorted ``motion of no-confidence`` into ``motion of confidence``. Of course, if ``motion to dissolve`` is still preserved, you could end up with mid-term polls. Still, I like, like, love ``motion to replace``.

Now as far as two-round voting is concerned, there is a more fundamental problem. We have approximately 1 billion people and lets say approx 500 MPs. That means each MP is representing 2 million people. That is often the total population of small countries like Cyprus or Albania. So in our case, a person who can get say 35% of the electorate in a multi-party face-off and win (but cannot get 50% in a two-candidate run-off) is still representing 700,000 people. 700,000 people is not fringe. How do we make sure that those 700,000 people have their voice heard? Do we have more MPs, do we reduce the power of the Lok Sabha that it resembles Brussels more than Westminister (that is only very few very important decisions would be made in the Lok Sabha, eg maximum size of state deficits, upholding freedom of religion, freedom of language, defence, foreign affairs etc, while most decisions would be made at the State Assembly level, eg schools, roads, electricity, railways, police, irrigation, ration shops, union policy)? I dont have the answer but it is clear that enough people in India believe the constitutional system is unresponsive, eg Bodos, Assamese, Nagas, Kashmiris. Any change that moves to stability by eliminating ``fringe`` voices will have to address this matter.

I have some constitutional suggestions to make regarding state creation within a united India. I think we could benefit from that. Maybe I`ll write an article and post it.

Deconstructing Mr. Veer Kumar and those that agree with him :

A New York Times Weekend in Review article in April addressed the issue of participation in India`s democracy. Since NYTimes archives have to be purchased, I cannot be sure that the reference

below is correct :

April 25, 1999, Sunday

Ideas & Trends: Why Governments Tumble; India`s

Poorest Are Becoming Its Loudest

Week in Review Desk

1156 words

By CELIA W. DUGGER

The article cites research conducted in India by the University of Pennsylvania that shows that over the past twenty years, political participation by India`s poorest and lower classes has sharply increased, along with their confidence in democracy. At the same time political participation from the upper classes has declined slightly. The poor see government as their path out of poverty.

One could therefore cynically infer that the Veer Kumars of India are losing faith in democracy precisely because the political control of their class is eroding rapidly. It is not as though corruption did not exist before; only now its beneficiaries are not only people of Veer Kumar`s class. It used to take high credentials in order to be able to rob the country. Now politically organized illiterates can do it, and that is unacceptable. Bring along the martial administration (which would be run by commissioned officers, products of exclusive schools and more to Veer Kumars` liking).

What offends these people is that a Laloo is not their uncle`s classmate or a friend of their third cousin`s brother-in-law or some other connection. Their implicit assumption of entitlement to goodies is rudely shaken by that.

Likewise, the new faith in liberalization of the economy is not due to any new found understanding of economics. As control of government slips away from the upper classes, they want the government to have less control over the economy, otherwise their jig is up. Socialism, which practically speaking meant government largess to the upper classes, is now a no-no, even as control over government slowly and inexorably slips away from these classes.

Now that India`s weakest are getting organized, the Veer Kumar brigade is shifting goalposts.

As long as they voted for the upper class, the Indian voters were miraculously responsible and politcally savvy despite their illiteracy. Now, of course, as the voters begin to tend to their real self interest, we need a benevolent dictatorship ( the dictator will obviously be from Veer Kumar`s brigade) until literacy reachs 70%.

I would like to remind the protesting reader that the stories of Indian democracy in decay, of things being much worse than they were twenty or thirty years ago, etc., also emanate, mostly, from the Veer Kumars, who are still substantially in control. But Indian democracy has never been in better shape. There is little threat that any one family or any one party will be able to dominate the way the Nehrus and Congress did. The problem really is that the newly emerging power blocs are openly adopting the values that the former rulers practiced in secret. But eventually openness and democracy will cause the dirt to be flushed away.

-arun gupta

Self-development:

If people want, this discussion forum can enable a group of people to sincerely engage in a process of self-awareness and self-development, as the most direct means of social re-construction.

Each individual has to be continuously lifting himself or herself up: psychologically; in knowledge terms; and in terms of social ethics or morality. The second is significantly dependent upon one`s circumstances; however, everyone, even the person in the most humble circumstances, can be ever-learning. So for a democracy, or any human community, to be successful, very many people have to be engaged in such self-perfection, and when this is happening, obviously such persons will be doing various things that directly or indirectly affect and influence other people. Hence a continuous widening of the circle of perfection.

Is this not what Mahatma Gandhi`s SWARAJ meant?

On responding:

What are the ghosts and demons swimming in our mind, so that certain outward signs and expressions immediately trigger perceptions which are really mind-projected, rather than objectively seen?

What is somebody`s motivation, really, when he or she responds to this article? Some clue about that could be found in what is being said, the way it is being said. And does the person care to place him/her-self within the critical gaze - or are we merely playing a detached, intellectual role, assuming that one is only the neutral observer and commentator, and implicitly, entirely free of all the contaminants pointed out in others?

Polarisation exists first and foremost inside the mind. Hence the assumption of the necessarily inimical relationship between different social groups or classes. One could instead have the notion of one-ness, and personally strive to discern and bypass the various apparent barriers that divide people.

The challenge of tolerance and harmonious co-existence also bears reflection. When confronted with a view that we are unable to accept, how do we react? Do we see that someone else may also be viewing us in that manner? And is that itself not a microcosm of the conflicts and polarisations in larger society? And is intolerance intellectually derived?

We all talk about PEOPLE. But again we keep pinpointing particular kind of people whom we detest. Often there is a kind of presumption that wealthy people are BAD PEOPLE, and the poor are GOOD PEOPLE. This then creates its own spin-offs, in terms of attitudes and behaviour. Sometimes the good and bad are on the basis of thinking. Hence, old-worldly versus modern, to give one example. But one`s own grandmother is / was also old-worldly? Do we want to annihilate her too? Is she not also a source of one`s strength?

In this light, I have been most gratified by some of the responses, though disturbed and saddened by some others. Intolerance, contempt, rancour, dismissal, ridicule etc - are the fundamental poisons of genuine democracy.

Self-examination:

All people, together, including the Indian participants in this discussion, make up India. So when we say everyone, you and I, must change, what does this mean in concrete terms? We cannot be held accountable for our birth, our social circumstances, upbringing, education etc. But once we are adults, and especially after having been exposed to things outside our own sheltered backgrounds, and are in a position to assess things personally and take decisions accordingly - how do we decide and conduct ourselves? Do we just move along, through inertia, without looking critically at more and more aspects of our personal situation, in terms of how it relates - whether ethically, or unethically, or neutrally (?) - to others in society? How conditioned are we in our thinking, behaviour, responses and conduct? And how rational or ethical or constructive is this?

How minutely have we bothered to examine our circumstances? Do we discern that many things that we simply take for granted - e.g. our water supply - involve a direct conflict of interests, and are we aware that we are on one side of an objective polarisation, as a result of social structuring, but also re-inforced by the conscious or unconscious acquiescence of each of us?

One would say, sincerely, that if someone made it their business to actually probe into any everyday, common difficulty - take water supply - and followed the matter on and on, deeper, and laterally, exhaustively, until there is nothing further to ask or know or say -then they would be utterly aghast at what exists. They would want to scream from the rooftops - there`s a scandal going on out here, and no one knows; worse, so many know, and couldn`t give a bl---- damn.

Do we have the courage to want to be better than we are? And must that not express itself in a humility, and an open-ness to learning? Do we personally desire an unimpeachable SOCIAL CONSCIENCE - or merely status quo for ourselves as we are?

An English-knowing, computer-using person is not a bas----. The existing social structuring, which makes an unwitting person a bas----, is something dehumanising. Would that person like to become aware of this? Does he feel sullied by his being compromised ethically, not through his conscious choice, but just his social coordinates? And out of this sensitivity, does there arise a growing consciousness of inequities, and other people`s pain, and hence a personal commitment, a vision of a future that is rich and fulfilling for all and not just a few? Does the polarised social situation grieve and pain him? Does he feel the desire for open, convivial, pleasant and mutually beneficial relationships with a much wider field of people than the very narrow pool one`s circumstances throws one into truck with? And does he seek such relationships? And does he grieve the apparent impossibility of this on account of lines of social class and so on?

In the existing situation, it is not PEOPLE (whatever that wonderful vague word means) who decide things. But a few people. People not unlike you and me. And upon our decisions does the fate of millions depend. Our decisions on what WE want. Which also translated into what THEY can have (or not have). The tragedy is that many of us do not really consciously choose our way of life. Almost through a process of inertia and momentum, it is chosen for us. But as the basic laws of economics tells us, in a context of scarcity, if someone gets, someone else does not get. We are often not even aware that we are actually making a decision, which has serious implications for others. Or even that life is this kind of getting versus losing game. But unless the realisation and questioning comes from within, if one is made aware externally, the person is usually reduced to fiercely defending his interests, his innocence. Of course he is innocent. But he is innocent in a socially unequal inequitous society. Everyone has to become aware as quickly as possible about the social ramifications of their own life.

The article presents a point of view which, notwithstanding all its weaknesses and limitations, is actually held by many people in India - in terms of perception of the rot prevailing, disgust and despair at this, and analysis of what should be done.

Many, many people in the country would express their support for the idea of a benevolent military adminsitration. Some people here too have said so. Now some critics would immediately react, to this support, see gross and terrifying tendencies underlying this and so on. People should observe their own responses and try to see why they arise, without necessarily adhering to views that they somehow come to possess.

Why would people support a military regime? What is their aspiration? Is this necessarily base? Surely, in this day and age, no one in their senses would advocate authoritarianism. So should that not make one think about why people think this way? And for thinking so, do they become the principal problem - or is their thinking along such lines merely a symptom of a social malady that someone has to work to rectify?

Corruption is institutionalised all over the world, but surely that does not mean one comes to accept it, and accept especially the extreme, survival-endangering level it seems to have grown to, in India. Is this an exaggeration, or are people missing something?

We might think about Indira Gandhi`s emergency. What happened? Who protested? Why? Who was affected? How?

Will people agree that the democracy that exists in India today is something that is beneficial largely to the educated, professional and intellectual classes, but substantively non-existent for the rural and urban masses? That what exists as their living reality is the antithesis of democracy, and for the English-language media this living reality is virtually non-existent? Does this not disgrace our democracy? Does it not create false poles - DEMOCRATS versus PEOPLE?

Do people agree that that there are millions of Indians, at this very moment, who have never even heard of the name KARGIL. Woh kis mooli ka naam hai?

Could a suspension of some or all of the democratic privileges the fortunate enjoy today be accompanied by an improvement in the living conditions and quality of life of those currently deprived? And then how would we judge that regime?

Is it not the case that for the overwhelming majority of people in the country, things could hardly get worse. Democracy as it exists does not substantively empower them, rather the travesty of democracy that exists is the means for their continuing social oppression. But this travesty of democracy does work well for a not insubstantial number of people, and the threat of this privilege coming to an end must worry them. But surely, unless there is a conscious harmonising of interests, sooner or later the arrangement is bound to collapse.

If many people have no idea about what is good for them, surely that is a symptom of their social oppression, which keeps them in such a life-situation, rather than one of ever unfolding critical awareness. Rather than viewing them as idiots, there should therefore be an attempt to understand the factors that severely impinge upon and circumscribe their actions; there should be empathy and compassion for them in their situation; and some commitment to enabling a better alternative.

Meanwhile, what about real democracy? Us ke liye kaun bhookha hai? Are there people who deeply suffer conflict, and fervently desire harmony?

Is it not time that this precious thing called democracy, a little bit of which is being enjoyed by a few, comes alive, in full bloom? What do the beneficiaries of our democracy do to ensure that many others who are currently outside of the privileges we enjoy, can also come within its fold?

In a similar vein, can one not be full of indignation at is seen as caste inequity and consequent stagnation, and yet have a different personal notion of what upper caste capability and responsibility is or should be? Under a different set of circumstances, could one not have been lauding the positive, historic role played by the upper castes? But sadly, that has not been the case.

There was surely am immense social duty and responsibility on the part of upper caste Hindus in building the nation. Will people not agree with the assessment that this responsibility was not even perceived let alone fulfilled?

It is in the light of the immense heterogeneity in our society and the perspective that involving multiple sections is only likely to enrich and strengthen the system in the long run that the exclusivity is all the more painful.

Is democracy synonymous with some civil and political rights, meaningful to those socially and economically empowered, or is democracy something with the help of which the quality of life - basic needs, livelihood, life security - of deprived millions can be improved and the humanisation of the society as a whole be progressively achieved?

There are many people who on account of their far better circumstances are in a position to be more discerning, and are empowered enough to act in this regard. Society is made up all people together. If some have had the privilege to avail of better opportunities and benefit thereby, that should also be reflected in how they in turn seek to make good their debt to society. But first of all, such people would need to educate themselves, through exposure, interaction, communication, sensitivity, about how the other half lives. Educated, middle-class people, and the vulnerable in urban and or rural areas, inhabit quite different universes altogether - though this may never be discerned by most (educated) people. Intervening on behalf of the vulnerable may also become yet another form of self-empowerment for the more privileged. On the other hand, it is also possible to think about a process of coming together, across class lines, involving mutual learning, mutual respect and empowerment, accountability, capacity building and institution development. Therein lies hope.

The article touches upon the viciously trapped state people are in, as a result of the way the system has come to be shaped. And it is the people whose survival is ultimately affected by that. In villages and towns across the country, people have come to become extremely dependent, for basic survival needs, on wielders and brokers of power. That makes it rather difficult for most to even conceive of a way out of that situation. Obviously, no magic fix is going to work, and people will ultimately survive or sink according to their own consciousness and actions, but that is something that is necessarily a long process - if worked upon. Meanwhile, the situation would simply further worsen. It is a tragedy and calamity if even a single child suffers and dies. Today, thousands upon thousands of children are dying across the country, because of lack of access to clean, drinking water, among other reasons. And when that is largely avoidable, such circumstances tend to lend a sense of urgency to the desire for improvement. For genuine democrats too, there needs to an awakening to a sense of urgency.

About Veer Kumar:

It was rewarding for the author to see the various responses to the article. In my last reply, I stated the objectives and perspective underlying the writing of the piece.

In a nutshell, the piece presents a picture of a character, ``Veer Kumar`` - a brave youth.

Here I might mention that some years ago, a study on Youth in India was undertaken for the defence establishment. Here, youth were classified into 4 categories: those actively engaged in extremist, violent actions; those not directly engaged in such actions, but supportive of this; those engaged in peaceful, constructive actions; and those who were apathetic and unconcerned about social issues.



Veer Kumar is implicitly committed to a range of concerns and goals, which are only laudable. However, there is an impatience with the way things are, and hence a prescription - that is vague, not well-thought out, naïve, and does give the impression of being a quick fix. This also raises the question of ENDS and MEANS. But there are also other things introduced into the piece - of a spiritual bent, through various references; calling for total integrity at an individual level; and also for transcending of hate-filled discourse. Thus we have a complex kind of person - presented to try to bring out the kind of complexity to be found among people at large.

Veer Kumar`s impatience could provide a cue for serious reflection by concerned people. Why the impatience? Is such impatience an indicator of the persistence of not-so-admirable tendencies within the otherwise admirable person? The conclusion of such thinking would only be - as some have pointed out - self perfection. The enemy is within. And through history, prophets and sages have said: perfect yourself first, and the rest will follow.

The focus of the article was on system degeneration in India, and the Gordian`s knot - of institutionalised corrruption, married to electoral representation - that keeps this in place. But does this only mirror a Gordian`s know within each of us?

In that light, the article tries to lay out the terrain for such self-perfection. It seeks to enable an active engagement on ``How to Save India.``

I could not see any particular direction in this article. The suggestion of a dictatorship is outrageous. The idea of a benevolent dictator solving all problems is escapist. I do not know of any ``benevolent`` dictators. The closest we can get is Saddam, Pinochet, Suharto, Franco... (each did give his people ``prosperity`` and ``stability`` but I do not think the people are very satisfied with that). Here are two suggestions (in the political arena- though this is not the only area where change is necessary, a fact quite often overlooked in ivory tower discussions in India) that I believe can lead to substantial gains for India over a short period of time.

1) Two round elections: tried and tested in various countries- and also in intra-party elections in the US.

Supported by: K.P.S. Gill, Chief Election Commissioner

Two leading candidates in each constituency go to the second round. Advantage: Winning candidate has greater than 50% votes. Purely sectarian agenda currently aimed at getting somewhere around 20% cannot win the second round. The candidates have to appeal to a majority of voters in their constituency who may have voted for other parties in the first round. This keeps politics in the center and reduces the fringe elements in Parliament. Also, brings in more people interested in increasing the pie rather than the share of the small sections they represent. Over time number of parties represented in Parliament will reduce even without limitations on the number of parties or candidates at the local level. So good candidates with new ideas can always start new parties and enter Parliament as long as they have majority support in their constituencies. Representation of minorities may be affected in the short term but most parties will find other ways (like the current Rajya Sabha route) and with better politics overall the candidates merit will be more important leading to improvement in the long term. The Rajya Sabha will be an important safety mechanism (unlike the US senate with its direct election system which has lead to it becoming just another House with similar minority representation) and with India`s diverse political equations(manifested by the scramble for the elusive ``muslim vote`` in the current system) this problem might not arise at all. Increased cost will not be substantially more than at present especially with EVM`s.

2) For ``Sthirta`` (stability): (If you can`t fix it or replace it don`t break it.) Motion of No Confidence is changed to Motion to Replace.

Supported by: Nani Palkhiwala. Currently a similar system is in use in Germany. A government is voted out only if a replacement is already in the wings. A simple majority vote on the motion will simultaneously replace the govt and put in place a new one. An alternative coalition needs to be worked out beforehand - a powerful disincentive for any party that decides to switch sides for trivial reasons. So if the members are not really interested in facing elections they wouldn`t be able to bring down the govt and then start their machinations. The option of dissolution can be retained and improved by taking it out of the hands of the govt (which may have lost its majority) and given to the house through a Motion to Dissolve. The final decision on this can be kept with the president as at present.

Both these changes are not drastic but can improve the political, social and economic environment in a big way. The need is for the public to demand such changes rather than hope for some miracle worker to cure all that ails the nation.

Ashish

Your article is well written, and if its goal was to incite a discussion you have certainly successed.

What critics on your artilce should reaslise is that democracy means a government in which the people actively participate. A government will only become accountable when the people, the voters demand accountability.

Now if you agree with the fact the democracy is by of, by and for the people, then how can democracy work, when the people are missing. In this case ``missing`` means their intellect is missing. 40% of people in India are illiterate. And about 60% are functionally illiterate (meaning that they can read and write docuemets) without grasping the implications of them.

In this environment, they put into power losers of the first order (like Laloo and party) to mix ang govern this country, sitting next to such Intellectuals like Mr. Vajpayee, Manmohan Singh, Mr. Sangma, Mr. KumarMangalam etc.

If over 60 % of these Laloo types are elected in each election, it is little wonder that India, is not progressing as fast as it should.

In this environment, we are causing irreversible damage to the ecosystem. We are loosing treasures that cannot be replaced (such as our waters, and air).

So I am all for some sort of dictatorship. Some one mentioned that benevolent dictatorship before, and I think that would work just fine in India.

Once the country reaches a point where the progess in education of the masses has reached over 70% then we could revert back to democracy.

If this suggestion is too extreme for the people who love this `pseudo-democracy` then we might want to change our govt to a Presedential form of govt like, the USA.

Something, anything.... that what we have.... (the only condition being that whoever comes into power has a honest rep... like Lal Bahudur Shastri, etc)

Ad

It is much easier to die for one`s country than to live for it. This was demonstrated by the courage of those who died in the Kargil fighting, on either side.

Each side can certainly say that it had at least 600 men who would give up everything for the native land. Each side can certainly say that there are at least 600 more such, actually thousands and thousands more such.

Imagine, such a group of 600, each standing for member of Parliament. Each accepting initial political failure. Each refusing to be corrupted or bought and fighting on. Together building an organization, a political party, a platform for the honest governance of the country. All this with the same courage and dedication that they faced bullets in the mountains. What will they not be able to achieve ?

Why does it not happen ? This is because fighting for a cause like throwing out the aggressors is a relatively simple one with few possible disagreements. What is the right thing to do in innumerable other circumstances is never as clear-cut, and there will be innumerable legitimate differences of opinion. If 600 men of the caliber that died in Kargil organized, it is likely that after some time, the organization would split over philosophical, ideological, operational differences. What someone will see as a legitimate compromise on some issue, someone else will see as a betrayal of principles. In contrast, a military operation does not tolerate differences of opinions or objectives; one must do as one`s commander has ordered.

The way forward is to learn to work together despite our differences, to learn not to destroy those we do not agree with. There is no group of people, e.g., a martial adminstration, who can impose this. This quality can probably be taught and can be learned, by example. If this is learned, then there are sufficient people of honesty and ability and dedication that can rescue the country. This hypothetical group of 600 should not lose their effectiveness because of their diversity any more than they did when fighting.

* * *

Incidentally, there are movements that stiffen the spine, teach people to walk upright, to work with others, to shed despair and cynicism. I am only recently aware of one such. It eschews publicity, does not ask for hand-outs, does not give charity.

It does not seek to change people`s religions, rather to reestablish them in it. Very little attention is paid to it in the media. You will find virtually nothing about it on the internet. Yet it has touched the lives of millions of Indians. Out of respect for its values, I will not name it here; but I assure you, it exists. Seek and you will find it.

-arun gupta

Yeh Pakistan

Yeh Hindustan

Yeh Kashmir

Yeh Sindh

Yeh Punjab

Yeh Bangla

Yeh Eelam

Yeh Lanka

Yeh dil ki deewaren

Uththi Bhi Naheen

Girti Bhi Naheen

Todo Todo Todo

Girti Hui Deewar Ko

Ek dhakka Aur Do

(last two lines are a popular slogan in India)

Na Hindu, Na Mussulmaan

Na Hoon Paki, Na Hindi

Siraf Chowkee, Siraf Chowkee

Veer:

Yes, you certainly opened up a much needed discussion. Perhaps a little digression. I am always a little amused when I read analytical or rhetorical pieces about India or Pakistan, Bombay...er Mumbai or Karachj, New Delhi or Islamabad, Calcutta or Lahore, or about Jains, Hindus, Sikhs, Sunnis, Shias etc. Amused, because whatever the main thrust of the article, I find similarities with the other city, country, culture not directly mentioned.

That is why the ``India`` in Save India can easliy be changed to Pakistan, Sri Lanka or Bangladesh with some minor and insignificant changes.

As some interacts here, and some in the Dushman Kaun piece have suggested the enemy is within. That has to be tackled. Change has to come from within. I wish I had a poem by Fahmeeda Reyaz, a Pakistani poet, in which lamenting about the rise of fanaticism/fundamentalism first in Pakistan and a bit later in India she rhetorically asks the Indians, ``Have you not learned anything from our experiences?``

Regarding your conclusion to invite the (Indian) Army to participate in stabilising the ship of the state, it would have been easy for me to quote Fahmeeda Reyaz. But I suspect you have just thrown a curve ball to intitate a discussion.

I do beleive the enemy is within us. Our unique demons have to be conquered first. How to do it is the question.

regards

Explanation:

Some explanation is called for.

Veer Kumar is a fictional name, used by the author of this piece. The objective of the author was to initiate a serious discussion on `Saving India`.

The immediate context of the author`s concern was the Kargil conflict. With large-scale military operations having been launched by the Indian armed forces, and the mass media providing extensive coverage, a charged climate had built up.

It was felt that this was something that should compell citizens to think deeply - in their own and the country`s interest. The events highlighted the crucial importance of achieving enduring peace in the region, which would also directly enable India, and Pakistan, to better address their internal socio-economic problems, which in turn would provide the strongest foundation for genuine peace.

The war in Kargil expectedly led to a wave of patriotic fervour, both in India and in Pakistan. And a highly polarised, hysterical, hostile, rage and hatred filled environment was building up. Newspapers even carried reports of senior persons in Pakistan and India advocating use of nuclear weapons.

But citizens should in any case be thinking seriously, and doing something as well, before and after Kargil, to achieve the goal of peace and improved living standards. Kargil brought this into sharp focus.

But prior to Kargil too, citizens should have been thinking, and acting, on purely internal socio-economic and political matters as well - for comprehensive system change, as many had already been advocating. That in itself would also have directly lead to a comprehension of the link between security, defense and development.

After Kargil, it seemed that we have actually regressed considerably, in the movement towards peace and development. It also brought into sharp focus the questions: What is the role of ordinary, decent citizens in achieving peace and development? Will the political rulers ever be able to address citizens` aspirations? And would the kind of major changes that are needed ever happen unless there was a very active involvement of a large number of people in this process? And since there are two parties here, India and Pakistan, such a goal cannot be attained unilaterally. Both countries affect one another. Hence, this is something that ought to happen at a sub-continental scale. Any attempt at civic action for system change would necessarily require at least some understanding and clarity on problems, issues and priorities, with this being shared by as many people as possible.

In such a backdrop, the objective of the author was to try to initiate a serious discussion among many thinking people about such matters, as a civic act. Given the outreach, accessibility, and transcending of distance and time enabled by the Internet, this medium was chosen, though one is aware that Internet users in India and Pakistan come from a limited socio-economic band. But they are also full citizens, and more importantly, many are capable, empowered, involved in various processes etc.

While there are very major differences between life, circumstances and the situation in Pakistan and that in India, there are also many underlying commonalities. Hence, the issues being discussed could be of interest and relevance to Pakistanis as well, and perhaps the discussion could come to dwell upon Saving India and Pakistan (without the AND, either is impossible).

It was felt that an article was posted on chowk would generate some discussion. But how is one to ensure this outcome? How would one make people think, respond, hear, reflect? And how would one bring quite a large number of people into this discussion, so that all could benefit from the likely multiplicity of view-points and experience?

So the key task was to make a noise so as to attract people. Like the peddlers and performing artists on the streets of the subcontinent. So if a piece could succeed in drawing many people, a good discussion could perhaps then take place, with a trajectory of its own. If one posted a piece, which was very sober, well-argued, evaluative, reflective kind of piece, most people would fall asleep reading it, that is if they cared to read such a ponderous piece at all, rather than think of joining a discussion. Some scholarly types would read through, appreciate all or some or perhaps none of it, make some dignified comments. But civic action cannot be restricted to scholars. Everyone has a stake in the matter, and is entitled to think and act.

So it seemed that the best `strategy` would be just to make a noise, make a noise and raise some issues, LOUDLY. And the real serious ideas could be taken up in the ensuing discussion. For the effectiveness of this strategy, obviously one could not say, look I am going to make a noise. That itself would produce a kind of conditioned reaction, detrimental to the objective of having a solid discussion.

But that is not all. If a stranger stands on the street and makes a loud noise, then many people will turn to look, hear, but they would eventually go away if this was only an idiot trying to attract attention. So something has to be said as well, that would make them stay, and engage. What? In the existing spectrum of views held by people, many lines of thinking have been broadcast ad nauseum. So some deeper thinking was needed. The answer was provided by the post-Kargil situation itself.

Being concerned and anxious about the charged environment, the author had discussions with a number of people, within the range of what may be labelled as progressive thinking. Through this survey, a view began to emerge: angry, enraged, desperate, confused, simplistic, yet earnest, considerably advanced in terms of adherence to various principles, emotive, forceful, compelling even. The discussions were free of any rancour, since it was among colleagues, friends and acquaintances. Some of the people talking about violent solutions were themselves quite simple, harmless persons, and one could not even get exercised through the discussion. This was an educative, but a disturbing process for the author. It also led one to try to understand the roots of this rage. It became clear that for many, the existing Gordian`s knot of corruption and criminalised electoral politics had become a thing in itself, to demolish, by any means. It was depressing, in bringing to light the immense contradictions and limitations inherent in our democratic process.

This reminded the author of other earlier encounters, with decent young people, educated, fairly idealistic even, and of a do-gooding bent, who were moving towards violent extremism.

Disturbing also the implication, that the rage engendered by the corruption and criminalised politics may well erupt is localised uprisings, but largely of a violent and destructive nature. The alternative, of a movement for and based on the inviolability of truth and integrity, was obviously waiting for a scapegoat. Under existing circumstances, the one making such a call - and if that call has to have any meaning for people at large, it can`t be an vague, general statement, rather it has to focus on specific issues and persons - would be risking his or her life. Which is why most people simply remain quiet and put up with things. Or do things that help to give them a sense of purpose even as they are unable to reach out to a wider section of people. They value their lives. So the one making the call would be pretty much isolated, a sitting duck. But one can also see that once this crazy, superhuman initiative is actually made, and is followed-up by an attack on that person or persons, a huge supportive reaction could well arise. Given that the mass support would also involve all kinds of shades of tendencies, the tragic outcome could also be a means to highlight the genuinely constructive thinking and vision of the enlightened leader/s, and thus lay the foundation of a large people`s movement, around integrity, with integrity. Someone has to bell the cat, and thus also start educating the mice; and they must to be prepared to pay the price. They may even lose their lives. That maybe this is tragically necessary.

Thus, the desired discussion, as a civic act, cannot merely be about change, or how such change may be brought about. It has to be something that is able to clarify, for individuals, what CHANGE means, at a personal level, in terms of thinking, attitudes, conduct etc. The discussion itself could help people make the change.

Hence the article. Through this piece, therefore, a view has been held up for people to react to as they consider appropriate. Even if someone concludes that what is written is ridiculous, at least this enables them to clarify their own thinking on this matter, and if they so choose, express this so that others may be helped by the discussion to come to their own conclusions, or to attempt or seek further clarification etc. A piece of engineered prose, to make a noise, to elicit engagement. But also touching, in various ways, this dilemma of means and ends, change, changing, changers.

I am grateful to readers for having taken the trouble of reading the article and responded.

About communication:

Notwithstanding this explanation, the responses also enable an observation of different people`s make-up. And that is the real subject.

Much the same content could have been presented in a completely different manner; for instance, in a very sedate fashion, exploring various issues, pointing out trends and tendencies, raising rhetorical questions etc. That would have led to another kind of discussion as well. But the underlying message emerging from that discussion would be about the persons participating, and the boundaries of their purely intellectual being. Raising the issues in this polemical manner also brings its own results.

As a student of human psychology and behaviour, I have found that when one`s own values, ethics, conduct, role, actions, position in life etc are implicitly also thrown into the subject, then one`s intellect works over-time towards self-justification, protecting one`s sense of self, reinstate a sense of personal stability, self-worthiness. The discussion could become shrill, hostile and accusatory, vindictive. People begin to lose control over themselves and even start becoming like animals, snarling, because the ego, formed through and around one`s life circumstances, is a pathetic creature that cannot tolerate its rocking or puncturing. People then have vested interest in arriving at a legitimisation of a hardened status quo of the self, rather than arriving at possibly self-transforming TRUTH. And for the discerning observer and learner, such a communication process reveals the real underlying human problems about the issue.

TRUTH, SATYA, HAQ - is not an intellectual formulation. Injustice in any form is equivalent to a departure from truth. What is the cause of this departure from truth - and what is the meaning of truth in the matter of justice - have to be understood personally. Truth is something integrating knower-knowing-known. Hence, in terms of revealing, more important than what is said is the fact that something is being said, how it is being said. This enables someone interested in studying the real problems to read and intuit from a process of communication.

Therefore some of the responses to the article say a lot about what that person has assumed, imagined, inferred; about the person`s not being conscious of his thought process functioning in this manner; of his being overwhelmed not by reason but vindictiveness; and therefore, his ethically compromised position, and thus, of course, also a microcosmic illustration of the operation of social power.

The apparently polemical style itself could also appear very sedate to some. (Rather like a tiny tiger cub throwing himself with all his might at his languid mother, who is entirely unfazed by junior`s antics.) Because nothing sticks on them, everything bounces off (or sinks in, for some, like into quicksand). There is no disquiet from a threatened ego. One man`s polemic, is another man`s ... yawn?

But it must be conceded that a polemical style was chosen. Simply because of the facts of life. We are all ignorant, in varying degrees. Our sense of self is built around this ignorance. Ignorance reacts with fear and hence violence when confronted with knowledge (i.e. self-knowledge). But if that is the outcome of reporting objective reality, then so it must be. And it provides an opportunity to the person to have observed his response, his uneasiness, and if he is so inclined, probing into that could be the beginning of a process of growing self-awareness.

This kind of indirect, intuited reading and communication and possibility of self-observation appears called for in the light of the subject being discussed, India, its problems, and what is to be one. India is its people. And people cannot merely have an intellectual discussion about this. They are in one or other situation to begin with, which goes towards making up the composite picture, and they go on from there, and so therefore does the country.

I shall be back again, with my replies to the comments made by readers.

Thanks,

Veer Kumar

Veeresh:

You think I`m Gunga! Toba Toba. On the forum, I sometimes used the not-too-original pseudonym of ``Indian``. Gunga Din was a Hindu bigot and I detested his views. I`m a secular fundamentalist. I hate the two-nation theory, hate the Hindu right-wing, think liberal principles with regard to individual rights are pretty decent in the west and therefore refrain from the white-baiting you indulge in. As for meeting directly, abhi purde mein rehne do. I find it easier to jab at you. Thoda sa darpok hoon.