Nations become great not because of some predisposed alignment of stars that makes them so, but because of a set of factors, the propitious combination of which if achieved serves as a base for all further growth. These principles need to be so solidly built that it can take the weight of the nation. It’s disappointing so see that India is yet to evolve this sort of an ideology. If you ask an average citizen of the goals of his nation, he/she would stare at you in stolid silence of his own misery.
These goals should be so commonly known and imbibed so deeply, that their fulfilment becomes indispensable. The saddest aspect that a nation could experience is when it’s own people feel isolated in the milieu, as if there was no purpose for them to exist and neither any agency that could help them. The bloated pyramid of the Indian society puts extensive pressure at the bottom. Deprived, poor and dispossessed, for a significant part of the population, independence is yet to come. For them, the reigns of the nations have been passed from the hands of the British to the educated classes, that continued in the same vein, albeit not as efficiently.
None of us can claim to have been brought in this world automatically. Parents make the child happen, for which they spend resources, time and take pains. Even parents aren’t solely responsible for upbringing of a person completely. There’s a group of people, from the farmer who grew food for you, the tailor who gave you clothes to the scientist who enabled you to enjoy technological benefits, we’re all indebted to the wider world for our own existence, thought process and the successes that we vainly claim to be only our own. Even the person who feels most wronged by the society is able to say so precisely because the society has nurtured him, at least to that level.
Country is the manageable level of society with which we interact, to the people of which we are dependent to a greater level, thus owing it our reciprocal services. As has the society nurtured us, without our inputs for the greater benefit, we cannot progress. Whenever a group of people realises that their own good lies in the greater common good, that group progresses. India has stagnated because so far it hasn’t been able to find the very definition of the common good. What must it do to redeem its destiny? The answers aren’t too difficult, arriving at the same ones is.
Nehru and Co. thought of peace, scientific progress, democracy as the values that would propel the young nation forward. However, he forgot that the basic structure of the nation had yet to be built before he could erect his industrial edifice on it. On one hand, Nehru-Mahanalobis plan wanted to industrialise India and on the other, by cutting it off the world, it deprived the nation of the capital, expertise, competition required to excel. True, a number of Industrialists would’ve taken advantage of the cheap labour of the nation and flooded markets with cheap goods, but ultimately that would’ve given employment and entrepreneurial agency for the nation to advance. Or, maybe, we would’ve become beholden to foreign powers and lost our sovereignty.
Rather than debate endlessly on the issue, we have to take lessons from our experience. One that we cannot expect to emerge as a power without having sufficient productivity to enable post farm sector activities. Secondly, without administrative reforms, the state parasites who derive their interests in a backward state of the nation can’t be tackled and hence, there’s a need to start from the very basic level. Third, the need of a concrete direction to make our policies synchronous with the overall good of the nation, which had been missing for so many years. Last, the need to awaken the people with the help of these practical and understandable goals, which would serve to empower them further.
The simplest reason for one nation progressing and the other destroying itself is the quality of the institutions that it has. For an "Extractive Institution" would cause a momentary growth, but long term losses, inequity and societal upheaval. Any one philosophy that seeks to exclude a certain group of people, for the reasons beyond their control like birth, colour of their skins, religion etc. is mostly about diverting attention from these underlying extractive institutions on to irrelevant issues. A stepwise change in the individual towards increased compassion, justice and courage would change the culture and ultimately the nation, if it wants to have the "Inclusive Institutes", the only kind that promote long term, equitable, sustainable growth.
The simplest reason for one nation progressing and the other destroying itself is the quality of the institutions that it has. For an "Extractive Institution" would cause a momentary growth, but long term losses, inequity and societal upheaval. Any one philosophy that seeks to exclude a certain group of people, for the reasons beyond their control like birth, colour of their skins, religion etc. is mostly about diverting attention from these underlying extractive institutions on to irrelevant issues. A stepwise change in the individual towards increased compassion, justice and courage would change the culture and ultimately the nation, if it wants to have the "Inclusive Institutes", the only kind that promote long term, equitable, sustainable growth.
These goals are meant to be realised progressively for the future stages depend on the completion of the former. Moreover, the completion of one stage naturally leads to the other, making it a concise guide to uplift a nation. I am just one faceless individual, giving my views and would update the blog as I get suggestions and criticisms.
At the end of the project the suggestions can be sent to the government as the part of groundswell legislative reforms. I have no doubts that even if there are a few dedicated individuals committed to making these changes, then surely, the changes would come.
X COMMANDMENTS
- Reform of political system by banning donation to political parties and making elections based solely on state grant to each party.
- Making administration merit based and accountable to people. Removal of seniority system, regular performance appraisals and peoples feedback taken in account.
- Making agriculture productive through investments in R&D, infrastructure and reforming of agriculture markets.
- Reform of education by orienting it towards research, creativity, making students feel part of society.
- Modernise the constitution.
- Reorganising the law system from lawyer centric to people centric.
- Formation of an independent, constitutionally created, National investigative authority .
- Mandatory electronic payment system linked to biometrics of every individual with a lower limit of credit availability and a maximum level of wealth/inheritance.
- Standardisation of every good in terms of its environmental impact through a proper system and imposition of corresponding costs.
- Cultural, Moral and Social Reforms, with respect to the self and the Nations at large
1. POLITICAL REFORMS
Years ago, when the system of modern polity started, theories of thinkers like Montesquie were applied in the governance, to provide for a more balanced distribution of powers and hence insuring a longer period of stability. The judiciary, executive and the legislature were supposed to be the three governing organs of the state and the interplay of these was thought to be the pillars for the societal structure.
Now however things have taken a turn. No longer is the separation of power completely valid. This is because there are now new forces in the arena, forces that possess more power than any of the other arms ever did. Not only do they possess more power, but their office isn’t question to the kinds of checks and balances that their authority would warrant.
This new pillar of power, which has increasingly consolidated its hold on all the other spheres of polity, society and even on individuals personal space is the big business. These are the giant multinational companies, the banks that dominate our wealth, the massive retail companies that force us to consume what it thinks fit ( or profitable ). All of them in an endless pursuit of the mythical profits, enough of which is never achieved, yet at the altar of their market value, our earth is being ripped at the seams.
Democracy becomes hollow when advanced tools of public opinion manipulation are used to benefit certain corporations. Unknowingly, we are made to like certain products and then support the parties that support these companies. The entire labour of our society is being channeled through efficient channels of management, into the pockets of a handful of individuals which control these vast empires world over. The debts that sovereign nations suffer, the anti poor treaties that developing nations are forced to sign, the massive subsidy support to the giant corporations are all a facet of the warping of public opinion to the will of a few.
Democracy becomes hollow when advanced tools of public opinion manipulation are used to benefit certain corporations. Unknowingly, we are made to like certain products and then support the parties that support these companies. The entire labour of our society is being channeled through efficient channels of management, into the pockets of a handful of individuals which control these vast empires world over. The debts that sovereign nations suffer, the anti poor treaties that developing nations are forced to sign, the massive subsidy support to the giant corporations are all a facet of the warping of public opinion to the will of a few.
It doesn’t take much genius to realise that the root of corruption in our system is the fundamental flaw in our polity. Since elections have more or less become a sort of propaganda where the resources of the winning party matter more than its inherent merits, it would be foolish to think that honest politicians have a chance of getting elected.
The token donation amount system, through which the parties can accept amounts upto 20000, doesn’t provide cover for multiple donations of the same amount. Further, the system being opaque provides for a convenient method for channelling of black money, which might be 75% of the real money.
Further, by giving so much of our societies resources to only a few individuals, not only are we depriving millions of poor of what should rightfully be the product of their hard work, but also relegating them to perpetual poverty by making sure that their skills are forever limited by the assembly line mentality. Even the aspirational middle class that works the hardest to reach the next step in status, is being worked remorselessly, with the proverbial carrot hung in front of it, even though the value that a white collar employee generates is far more than the companies pay.
The poor can be easily persuaded through doling of resources, the middle class through the promise of development, the rich through allurements and thus the super rich are able to have their say in the future course of the country. To ensure that democracy doesn’t falter, we have to ensure that wealth isn’t obscenely concentrated into the hands of only a few. The business class forms the fourth pillar of a democracy now and we can’t deny the fact.
Without making the parties independent, we can never expect the politician to listen truly to the people he represents. The expenditure in doing so would be nominal as compared to the amounts saved in efficiency gains and the prevention of diversion of the resources.
This is also the preliminary step, that would allow a marked change in the way politics has so far been conducted in the nation. A politician would be able to win without the support of real estate barons, without the black money that they offer, without the muscle of the goons that they require to keep the former in check and without the know-tow with criminals of the business world, who are really the ones who need a political connection to prosper in their shady deals.
Any further reform of the administration, agricultural system, economy and even education depends on this particular one. For even if the rest are somehow implemented, they too would in time be warped horribly to suit the needs of the corrupt polity. Education of the economics in the western world has been influenced so much by the barons of the financial sector, that despite the obvious faults of an unregulated financial markets, the same is perpetuating because all the dissenting voices have been bought or disposed off.
The era of internet promises a hope that people would see through the entire facade on which the modern society has been built and would use the power of their votes for pushing through this radical reform.
In defence
People would argue that the dynamics of the political systems requires the energy of business, to push forward the economy and deliver greater prosperity to the masses, that the businesses working for their own profits ultimately ensure the efficient utilisation of resources, that the society would be stuck in the morasses of its own ineptitude and baser feelings, if it hadn’t been for the uplifting spirit of the businesses.
All of these arguments and many more can be devised for defending what has been the greatest vice of the modern society. We didn’t need to spend so many resources for things that we didn’t require, which we were emotionally blackmailed into buying, which even shaped the modern culture into a consumerist one, without even our realising.
Our socities have moved forward when interests of all of its comprising groups has been taken care of. If the poorest are forced to a subsistence on the edge of existence and the rich are privledged to a pan generational extent, then what kind of development are we talking of? Here, in name of efficiency, we are merely snatching away the livelihoods of the poor and taking the gains to the rich! We are forcing an ineptitude in a vast class of the underprivileged to ensure that we have a working population with no skills, thus no job security and thus easy profits.
Such a system ensures the criminalisation of the frustrated youth, promotes conflicts in deprived areas, helps the growth of extremist philosophy for it offers a semblance of hope and such a system roots out God from our hearts, if there ever was one.
2. Administration
If polity is the soul of the government, then administration is its body. It is that part which interacts with the people and reiterates their belief in an organised society and in living amicably with each other. The face that the administrative machinery shows to the people, becomes the basis for their self determination and how they see themselves with respect to rest of the world. For an average Somalian, it would not augur well to help a fellow in conflict with a bandit, but then a citizen of western Europe can expect quick and just retribution and thus would be motivated to positively reach out to others. This is just one of the ways in which the administrative system affects the lives of the common people.
No doubt, the poorest nations have the weakest administrative systems. The revenue generated by the state are not only diverted for corrupt purposes, but whatever part of it does go to the proper programme, is misutilised because the skills for doing so haven’t been created in the first place. The same perverted cycle of lack of a proper skill set amongst the general population and their inability to improve their life due to this lack continues. Unfortunately, international help inadvertently works towards the ends of geopolitics and leaves the roots of the malaise untreated.
Good administration on the other hand has a remarkable effect. It delivers to the citizens, the services and the tools through which they can progress further. It listens to them and solves their problems. Over and above all, the people feel that they have a stake in the progress of the country, through their positive experience at the hand of the administration.
India has a unique problem of having skilled and talented pool of people sitting in its administrative arsenal and yet because of their very talent being used for nefarious purposes, we see our country sliding down into the morasses of backwardness. Every innovative scheme, programme and solution that is proffered by the government, finds itself distorted in the hands of these deft administrators. The bureaucracy, along with their political overlord are some of the most despised figures of modern India and in that at least, they have managed to unite the nation.
India has a unique problem of having skilled and talented pool of people sitting in its administrative arsenal and yet because of their very talent being used for nefarious purposes, we see our country sliding down into the morasses of backwardness. Every innovative scheme, programme and solution that is proffered by the government, finds itself distorted in the hands of these deft administrators. The bureaucracy, along with their political overlord are some of the most despised figures of modern India and in that at least, they have managed to unite the nation.
A true separation of the executive and the legislature is not present in our system. However, whatever semblance of that division was present, has been deliberately and slowly been wreaked at the hands of our nepotistic leaders. Bureaucrats lament that they are punished for their ‘good’ efforts and ‘punished’ for their evil ones.
If the political system has been cleaned through the first commandment, then the second one would be implementable in spirit. The merit based system needs to be free from the invisible hands of the political overlords to de-politicise the entire administrative machinery of our country. For this to happen, it would be necessary to devise clear cut, criterion of merit and selection of officials purely on that basis.
Populating the positions of power with cronies has long been the standard practise of the politicians. But then, should we restrict the power of the representative of the people themselves to choose their lieutenants and to function as they see fit? In the hands of a good leader, this power has the potential to transform the lives of the people and the land. But, since the process of election itself serves to filter out people who aren’t corrupted, the power inevitably comes into the hands of the some of the worst people of the society.
It is necessary to reduce the arbitrary powers of the bureaucracy and wherever possible, include private endeavours as well to limit the scope of over concentration of powers. Service exit models for bureaucrats is necessary, where after a 20 year service review, and a consequent decadal one, the non performing officers are weeded out of the system. The inability to fire incompetent officers might have produced stability, but more than that, it has led to a complete halt in any improvements of our system. The same situation cannot continue.
The powers of an officer is due to the lack of accountability of his actions and the certainty of the job. These conditions have to be diluted to the extent that the administration works, for at the present it certainly underperforms. Mid career exams can be instituted, both to increase the knowledge, specialisation and to set definite criterions for progression. Instead of postings dependent purely on whims of politicians, the specific knowledge of an area would become the criterion for advancement. Weightage would be give also to the experience and the performance of the officer, and only then a pool ‘selectable’ candidates for higher posts be made available to the politicians, who can then hold consultations, interviews etc. for the final choice. This system will preserve both the aspect of merit and give the elected representatives of the people a choice in the kind of officials they want. But, at the lower levels, only the criterion of merit can be used, for the bulwark of running the nation must rest on capable shoulders.
Making the bureaucracy responsible only to the minister incharge and thus only indirectly to the people has made the system opaque and unresponsive. To bring a whiff of freshness into it, the mandate of the people must now expand and reach those who are directly responsible for their welfare, ie. the bureaucracy.
It would not be difficult to create an online rating system for the general public to assess the public officers. This rating should then form a component in the overall career advancement of the officers, so that the officers responsive to public needs are rewarded and those averse to it are punished. Since not all officials come into contact with the public, the senior ones would thus get the cumulative scores that their juniors get and thus would feel the responsibility of the position that they hold. This rating would be linked to Aadhar card and would be anonymous. Further, those offices which don’t come into contact with the public directly, would be judged on the basis of their performance, to be rated by the public, for example the levels of crime for CBI, the civil infrastructure for the engineers.
A more radical solution could be the virtualisation of the office of the President. The rubber stamp body that we have today, isn’t befitting the status that should be accorded to the position. One might just as well have converted the Raj Bhawan into a Museum and accorded all the powers to the cabinet. The cabinet has for all purposes taken that power out of presidents hand in any case. Traditions might prevent a complete removal of the elected president in any case.
A different approach calls for virtualisation of the office, wherein a web based mass system of bill approval is set up for the bills that go to the president. A certain number of people would need to approve the bill before it is passed ( verified citizens of the nation ). The number should be such that while retaining the spirit of the act, it doesn’t add too much delay in the process. A graphical user interface would enable people to know the various angles related to the bill, the views of eminent experts would be displayed and thus critical thinking would be promoted in people, instead of following herd mentality by only casting votes in election and then never participating in the democratic process for the rest of the term of the government.
The virtualisation of the president would reinvigorate this important constitutional position. This is a way in which power is given right back to those who are at the bottom, by giving them a role at the going ons at the top. In a massive democracy, this is perhaps the only effective way of including people in decision making, raising awareness about various issues facing the country as well as making the government more responsive to the needs of people.
The overall score would be reflected by the Prime Ministers score at the end of the term, thus giving him an objective marking that can enable people to judge the term. The initial focus being on the offices that come directly into contact with the public, the system can be expanded later on as the effects of performance of each office is traced and weightage assigned to their role ( in order to be marked indirectly). HDI rankings are a sort of measure of this sort only, but they function externally and thus deprive people of expressing their choices.
Mandatory codes for transparency, publishing information online and making the countersigning of the departmental decisions by the head or on the national level, by a minster would go a long way in assigning the responsibility of the decisions taken. These decisions, rather than being taken on paper, must be taken digitally and then be accessible to the public. Most of the decisions can be laid in the public domain or rather absolutely should be laid in the public domain, for what are ministers if not our chosen candidates, representing our will? If ministers can’t show us what their decisions are, then the public would never be kept in the loop.
Unless it is of secretive nature, the decisions, discussions, proceedings of every public body should be available online. The civil society doesn’t only serve as the conscience keeper of the society, but then also give valuable suggestions that a limited pool of manpower cannot.
Perhaps an even more important requirement is to make the investigation department of the police different from the administrative one. The director of the major sleuth organisations should have the same privileges as a judge does and be chosen by a committee comprising of ex-judges, senior officials, members of opposition and the ministers themselves. The criterion for choosing the officials should also be laid down, so that scope for malafide selections is lowered. An independent and impartial investigative agency will go a long way in rooting our the inherent corruption in the system and make the administration responsive.
The minimum that can be done is to institute personality tests at the entry stage ( like MMPI ) which enable selection of candidates who are naturally inclined towards public service. Certain bureaucrats perform well despite all the oppositions that they face and stand firm in face of all the pressure for corruption. What sort of characteristics enable them to do that? Can such characteristics be fostered? What are the characteristics that makes people to indulge in corruption? Are there some red markers in someones personality that can be flagged off at the entry stage itself? I believe the answer to all of these questions can be in affirmative, if a proper test is constructed.
For the past centuries, the evolution of our societies has really been the evolution of the way the people are governed. Technology might have changed the way that we lead our lives, but the difference made by the administrative systems is even greater.
IN DEFENCE
It can be argued that the inserting the role of public rankings would make the system overly complicated, include interference, decrease the speed of decision making, deprive officials of their legitimate rights and powers or even create an added onus on the administration, the benefits of which can only go to the urban middle classes.
Considering the prevailing status of the administrative machinery of India, it might not even be possible to slow it down further or to make it more inefficient. Knowledge has never been the problem, lack of it has been. We cannot do without an open accountable system, but we also must know that there the nature of public works demands a certain level of piety for the people or selflessness. Since not everyone can be a saint, peoples ratings would serve to provide a system of indirect rewards in terms of prestige, fame and public approval, the power of which shouldn’t be under estimated.
The powers of the officials would only be enhanced by this, for if they’re taking a decision in good faith and the people know why and how the decision was taken and they’ve also contributed themselves in the process, then no doubt the implementation would be far smoother than the dictatorial commands out of the shadows. The level of exposure should be optimised for efficiency, but not compromised, especially in departments dealing directly with public.
The most difficult part is in the implementation of the system itself. There is bound to be considerable opposition, for opening up the chests to public scrutiny would expose the dark secrets as well, something that the corrupt system depends on.
3. AGRICULTURE
Ever since the birth of our civilisation, man has consistently sought to improve the productivity of agriculture. If an acre of land could support perhaps three or four hunters, it could do so for 5-6 pastrolists and 19-20 early farmers. A modern farm can enable an acre to be utilised for upto a 100 people. This ratio means that now the rest of the hands are free to pursue some other kinds of works, to contribute in other areas and make the economy grow. Higher productivity in short is a pre requisite for higher levels of sophistication of a society.
Technology depends on the availability of the surplus produce. For it is only when a sufficiently large number of men and women can give time and energy to study, that they would be able to advance the course of knowledge.
Agriculture is hard work at the end of the day, especially if it is being done manually. It is here that one is reminded of Rabindranath Tagore’s line that even though man is free, everywhere he’s in chains. The amount of hardship that one has to undergo in order to cultivate and raise crops is tougher than several types of punishments. The drudgery of work, the uncertainty of reward, the unerring duty to return to it all, requires man to quieten his natural curiosity and playfulness. The regimen and the discipline breaks some part of his soul. This is perhaps why the rural societies still practise harsh punishments and rigid laws. The work and surroundings hardens the men.
For all the research budgets spent, Indian agriculture yields lower output than many underdeveloped African countries. Perhaps its the entrenched culture of growing crops, perhaps its the lack of a sustained effort to pursue higher productivity options, perhaps it is the lack of non farm jobs that keeps underemployed men and women dependent on smaller patches of land or perhaps it is peculiar effect of monsoon that our efforts to raise productivity haven’t succeeded as much as we would’ve wanted to.
The transition of man from hunting to agriculture was a critical moment in our history, for it allowed the population to rise in several orders. Back then, it was a revolution that enabled us to settle down into one place and consolidate our knowledge and culture, to develop religions to control the expanding society, to develop trade in order to fulfil shortfalls, to develop writing to facilitate trade and exchange, to develop kings and kingdoms in order to defend the agriculturists and then perhaps to develop democracy as a way to express the opinions of the workers who wanted a right to the produce that they had worked for. We owe a lot to agriculture for the way our modern society has developed and are dependent on it for our future growth as well.
This process has had its repercussions as well. Perhaps we are not as free as the wild men, nor can we live in harmony with nature as they did, but for everything that can be said against it, we have to consider that our very survival now depends on it. The process of creative destruction that changed the way that we lead our lives has also made the lifestyle of the tribals extinct. A radical advance in agriculture would mean the same thing for many of the marginal farmers, but then even if the reform isn’t undertaken, they would go extinct at some point of time, only the hardship would increase.
In modern terms, the increasing of productivity of farms means directly increasing the machinery employed, improving the agricultural infrastructure, investing in research for better quality crops, using better methods of irrigation and climate friendly and sustainable practices. The level of capital required for the same isn’t available with the poor farmers and since they cannot have those facilities, they cannot generate enough money to invest in the land further.
Small loans generate just enough momentum to carry the farmer through his previous debts and then any variability in weather or price fluctuation puts him back just where he previously was. The system is inherently unstable, unless the skill levels of farmers is increased, capital is pumped into the sector, infrastructure is ramped up dramatically, overnight research breakthroughs achieved.
Our sense of justice favours this approach as being the most equitable. There is no doubt that a widespread, remunerative and equitable system of agricultural production is the one most suited for a country as dependent on agriculture as ours. If the corporate sector, with its ‘efficient’ system dominates the agro industry, then no longer would there be variety and nor in the longer run would the people have the choice in what they want to consume. On the other hand, the fragmented cropland would in time be no longer able to support the food demands, if dramatic changes aren’t affected.
Keeping in mind our burgeoning population and its increasing nutritional demands, it is a matter of strategic importance to be self sufficient in the agricultural sector. The failure of our past schemes has much to do with administrative failures. Japan has shown that the productivity of small farms can also match or even exceed that of the giant corporate farms. Further, individual owners are likely to pay more attention to the welfare of their own lands and utilise their surrounding resources in a way which is sustainable and doesn’t create toxic aftermaths. A corporate doesn’t have to worry about the consequences beyond the strictly legal ones, and many a times not even that.
But then, we have no choice but to accept that we’re now in the age of globalisation. The highways of development would eventually come through the most distant parts of the planet and if we’re not ready for it, then we would become roadkill. Dumping of products, market fluctuations, integrated supply chains and MNCs threaten the very basis of profitable agriculture in our country. The need of the hour is to get ready for the coming tide.
For all the benefits of a decentralised agricultural practise, without the proper use of implements, processing technology and linkage, it wouldn’t work. What stops us from linking the performance of the bureaucrats to the productivity of the farms they ought to work for improving. The entire edifice of agricultural ministry could have its officials presented with individual targets in their area of work and then rewarded too, in proportion of the increases achieved. That should serve as a motivation for trying to help the farmers. In the current scenario, the officials are only concerned about how to ‘pass’ their time and which link or person to approach in order to get a better posting or rather a promotion. The same person in any private job might’ve functioned differently, showing that the reward and punishment scheme is at the core of any change in administrative attitude and thus agriculture too.
Innovative use of private sector resources could be achieved by denitrifying waste lands under the land ceiling rules and rewarding officials who can help in the turn around. Unless SMART targets are given to the officials and then rewards and punishments are linked to them, we wouldn’t be able to inspire them to undertake the superhuman effort required to reform our agricultural sector.
Cooperatives tend to function the best when there is a paucity of labour. Farmers wouldn’t want to share their land and resources with the community, unless they are sure that it would have overwhelming benefits. Setting up of local markets to take up local produce and processing facilities would be far more helpful. If the farmer can get a good price for his produce and if they are employed ( or even set up ) processing facilities, it is only then that they would start getting proper renumeration for their hard work. Good transport and storage facilities are critical for this purpose.
An inherent huge problem with our agriculture has been the lack of strong land holding framework, wherein, the land leases take an eternity to materialise and even then the legal infrastructure isn’t strong enough to give confidence to the farmers to freely lease their lands. Courts are often prone with delays and hassles. The common man feels alienated with the judicial system due to his lack of awareness of its nitty gritties and the indifference shown to the non moneyed otherwise. Thus, speedy completion of the National Land Records Modernisation Programme would be a fine start. Under this programme, digital landholdings are to be established. Easy transfer of land holdings, leasing and non requirement of mediators would go a long way in allowing land based industries to grow, efficient farmers to take over non productive farms and give a smooth passage to industrialisation of our country.
Every country has a particular limit of people that it can support on its own at a particular lifestyle. The ecosystem has a particular biocapacity, within the limits of which it can sustain itself, otherwise the result is long term deterioration. Diamond Jared in his masterful book “How the civilisations end” presented astounding facts relating to the rise and fall of various civilisations over the course of the humanity. These were isolated people, who by the virtue of their isolation couldn’t make up for the shortfall that resulted from their excesses and had to pay the price for it. There also were stories of people who did correct their course midway and were able to sustain their growth.
The paradox is that the very people who are the most deprived in the world are the ones who depend on the most primitive agricultural methodology. Pumping their markets with cheap products will destroy their indigenous production capability and render people unemployed and thereofre unable to leverage the benefits of the cheap products. On the other hand, the traditional agricultural methods cannot sustain a very large population, which has expanded due to availability of modern medicine. The need of the hour is therefore to modernise the agricultural framework, but in a manner that causes ‘creative destruction’ and not ‘annihilation’.
In context of Indian agricultural scenario, the related historical case is that of Greenland. Motivated, perhaps by the name, people of Denmark migrated to this barren island, bringing with them all the implements and means that they had used in their native country. Soon they started a prosperous colony out of farming and dairying. But there was a catch in the scenario. The country in which they had settled was really a barren desert with poor top soil. This top soil is the very sustenance of our being, without which we can’t grow crops and thus the entire edifice of our society comes crumbling down. The Greenlanders overgrazed, over grew and ultimately exhausted the limited fertility of their soil within a few generations.
What followed was an agonising death of a society. The people had cultural reservations about eating fish and seal meat which was the locally available food supply. Their cultural ethos made them dependent on beef overwhelmingly. This non native addition proved to be disastrous as the population expanded. When suddenly they found that they couldn’t grow any more crops and that there was no more grass left for their animals, the people revolted against the local elites. The brutal revolt proved to be their end as people looted all the food that had been stored. Hungry, divided and without any effective contact to the outside world, the people ultimately persihed.
India wouldn’t perish so soon. But what is worrying is that the world in general has after globalisation taken to a particular lifestyle that is at odds with majority of the earths ecosystems. The mind numbing advertisements and commercialising forces have made people consume with impunity. What we don’t realise is that all of us could collectively run our of the fertility boom that has supported our growth so far.
As a pillar of our national security, as the very sustenance of the people of our country, as the livelihood of the millions of our farmer, agriculture is far too important to be ignored and the dangers that surround it not be properly evaluated. Our top soil has been eroding at horrifying rates, both due to overuse of chemicals and bad agricultural practises. Climate change isn’t going to make stuff any easier. What we have to now understand is that we have already exceeded our biocapacity and we’re living off the fertility of the earth, consuming it at rapid rates, without adding back anything to it.
The sooner we realise that there is an end to the supporting power of the earth, the sooner would we take measures for correction. Our earth as a whole cannot support 10-20 billion people without being irrevocably destroyed. Technological interventions can only postpone the inevitable if there aren’t any proper controls, both to limiting the population and to reducing our wants.
In this context, we have to evolve ways to make agriculture sustainable, even if it lowers the yields, for in the longer run, we’d be better off with something on our plates, rather than scorched earth and profits in our banks.
It seems that the know how for improving agriculture is lying un-utilised in millions of files in the thousands of government offices around the country. What is lacking is the energy to open them and implement the schemes. The requisite governmental support will come only after the administrative reforms have been undertaken.
4. EDUCATIONAL REFORMS
India has been called a lot of things, the golden bird, the land of treasures, the land of religions and nowadays the land of worthless engineers. It should come as no shock to the majority of people that the quality of higher education of our country is horrendous. Barring a few top institutes, the general level of education, awareness and orientation towards a scientific/rational line of thought has generally been found to be absent.
The problem is not new. Every culture has their own way of investment. When our ancestors decided that they’d rather build temples than universities, then the resources and the labour of the people went towards creating those monuments, which no doubt are wondrous but are also representative of a failure to invest in the people and instead spend on ego aggrandisement or placation of religious heads. Grand temples and mosques ultimately don’t build a nation, period.
The line of thought has continued to this day. We are building grand cities and infrastructure projects, but the level of attention that is required for a society wide educational reform is missing. In rural areas, where the majority of the population lies, only about 3% of people are graduates. This when the standard of a graduates education itself is questionable.
The lack of degree holders shouldn’t by default mean that there is no innovation in the society or there is no thought process going on in philosophical and social spheres, but rather that the haphazard and often random process doesn’t lead to any durable gain. The tools that are required for a man to pursue independent scientific query is a result of both the cultural setup and the educational resources; the combination of which moulds a mind.
We have a dithering social system in terms of what people seek from their education. A surface level interest in knowledge is overwhelmed by the deep seated desire for security and jobs. This has made education a tool of acquisition of the appropriate certificates, marks and recommendations to get a specific job. This isn’t purely an Indian phenomenon, but perhaps the levels of corruption inherent in the system, the flawed mentality of competition wary parents and a general lack of respect for the intellectuals in the society has paved a way for the ‘rote’ education system.
Primary school
The first step into the world of education must not be the most horrible experience for a child. If we don’t nurture our young with sufficient resources, administration and knowledge, how would they bear the future of our nation? This area MUST be prioritised in our annual budgets. This is what we elect governments for and not to support corporates who in turn may dole out a few rupees for the children of our nation.
The primary syllabus must be taught in a language that the kids understand. The contents, rather than focussing on giving facts and figures, must acquaint the child with the world of education in which he/she is about to step in. There must be efforts to stroke the creativity, by involving children in classroom exercises, interactive sessions. As far as possible, the system should allow pupils to become self sufficient in their academics, for the millions who cannot afford tuitions or other supplementary trainings must not be left out at the first stage itself.
Secondary School
When the child passes into the secondary school, it is here that the education in real sense begins. If the earlier phase was about acquisition of tools, this phase gives a chance to employ them.
The reason for the broken primary education system is lack of proper support for the basic infrastructural requirements. Beyond that, the teachers aren’t accountable or at least the poor performers not weeded out regularly to allow the requisite quality standards to be upheld. An education inspector must have the power to remove a teacher not worthy of teaching or to send them to remedial training programmes. An independent team should judge the merit of the education being provided in an area (district) by random checks and tests for the schoolchildren. The Education Inspector should be held accountable for repeated poor performance or gross neglect in infrastructural domain.
Outcome based rewards for teachers brings with it a new set of problems, like rendering teaching a robotic exercise without 'heart'. This kind of technique is at best an outside imposition of accountability, without really solving the problems underlying the poor state of our schools. Our country doesn't count teaching a 'prestigious' profession. It's only when the jobs of engineers and doctors have been filled does the student start looking for teaching job. This esteem would come with the love for learning in the populace, making teaching an aspirational choice, which would draw the best talent, the most dedicated people and with it the rewards to the nation.
Jyotiba Phule had written about the falling teaching standards a century ago. He had wanted the teachers to be taken from lower classes, so that the students would take up values of entrepreneurship and 'work with their hands' rather than endlessly hankering after government jobs.
Even now, the standards of education haven't increased to a level that the student after his 10-12 years of education feels as though he has the tools to take on the world and pursue the line of work that would reward his innate ability and talent the most. Is the institutional failing larger than the cultural one?
Outcome based rewards for teachers brings with it a new set of problems, like rendering teaching a robotic exercise without 'heart'. This kind of technique is at best an outside imposition of accountability, without really solving the problems underlying the poor state of our schools. Our country doesn't count teaching a 'prestigious' profession. It's only when the jobs of engineers and doctors have been filled does the student start looking for teaching job. This esteem would come with the love for learning in the populace, making teaching an aspirational choice, which would draw the best talent, the most dedicated people and with it the rewards to the nation.
Jyotiba Phule had written about the falling teaching standards a century ago. He had wanted the teachers to be taken from lower classes, so that the students would take up values of entrepreneurship and 'work with their hands' rather than endlessly hankering after government jobs.
Even now, the standards of education haven't increased to a level that the student after his 10-12 years of education feels as though he has the tools to take on the world and pursue the line of work that would reward his innate ability and talent the most. Is the institutional failing larger than the cultural one?
Higher Education
It is here that the failings of the state become the most acute. Higher education requires a mix of high level of knowledge/skill acquisition along with the requisite amount of freedom to put those learnings into practise. Without the development of critical thought in our students, the nation would be deprived of the 'soul' of it's people, for if students aren't given the opportunity to think and rather the criterions of exams, rat race and endless chasing of scores is the only thing that they are supposed to chase, then the product would be similarly banal.
College education requires a level of specialised skill that the low grade private education services aren't keen to provide. Even though many of accredited colleges of India propose to provide the requisite skills, there is simply too much corruption to hold them true to their word.
To reform the Institution of education, we need to provide Independence to the education institutions in order that meritocracy ascends in ranks. Government would have the critical role of evaluating the output produced and then giving relevant ratings.
- Private players giving for profit education should be allowed to cleanse the system of the hidden loopholes that simultaneously allow the Education Trusts to charge high fee and then not provide quality services. Unless there is competition in the market and an objectively rated system to classify colleges, the students would have to rely on limited number of state colleges or never get a good education at all.
- The ecosystem of setting up high quality colleges would require adequate compensations and bestowing status on the professionals.
-Local councils could have positions reserved for professors and teachers so that education gets it's due in administration.
- Vouchers could be given to parents, redeemable at any school whether private or public of their choice. This would incentivise the public schools to perform or to risk loosing it's students to the private schools .
- Ultimately, a greater proportion of funds need be allocated to the education sector so that proper infrastructure, pay and R&D be carried out. Our human resource is our greatest asset, let's develop it before its too late.
There's no single way to immediately reform our entire educational infrastructure and bring it up to date with the countries that have been incrementally improving it for several years longer. Yet, as the Chinese have shown, if there's a will, then certainly there will be a way.
5. Reforming our Constitution
India is unreasonably poor. The 2015 International Monetary Fund ranking of countries places India at the 140th position with an annual per capita gross domestic product of only $1,600. For China the figures are 73rd and $8,000. India had the potential to be at least a middle-income country with negligible poverty by the turn of the century. Why has India failed to realize that potential despite the fact that Indians are as capable of creating wealth as any other people.
A country would have reason to be poor if it suffered adverse conditions such as periodic devastating natural disasters, protracted civil strife and foreign wars, or insufficient human and natural resource endowment—none of which is true for India. Assuming that the gods are not maliciously inclined towards India, we can rule out divine decree as the cause of India’s poverty.
That leaves us with economic policy as a proximate cause. Centuries of economic history teaches us that bad policies fail to produce economic growth. The claim here is that India’s lack of progress is due to the Constitution since that determines the nature of the government, which in turn dictates those policies.
India’s Constitution has the dubious distinction of being the largest in the world and consequently unreadable, and largely unread. It gives the government enormous powers to intervene in the economy, to enact laws that discriminate among citizens based on attributes such as religion and caste, restricts freedom of speech, and limits the right to property. In short, it allows deliberate political and economic exploitation.
Undue government interference in the economy politicizes the economy, which in turn leads to the corruption of politics. By contrast, the US Constitution is short, guarantees the freedom of speech, protects property rights, prohibits discrimination among citizens, and limits the power of the government.
The most salient distinction between the US and Indian Constitutions lies in the relationship between the people and the government the Constitutions define. The US Constitution places the people as the principal and the government as its agent. This is evidenced in the limits that the Constitution imposes on the government. The Indian Constitution places the government as the master and people as its servants—as can be expected of an essentially colonial government. Like the British government before it, post-1947 Indian governments took on the role of the master and imposed limits on the economic and civic freedoms of Indians.
India is a functioning democracy with routine peaceful transfer of power following elections. Each election raises the hope that with different political leaders, governance would improve. Sadly, regardless of which party or leaders are in power, the policies hardly change.
Nobel laureate economist James Buchanan wrote, “It is folly to think that ‘better men’ elected to office will help us much, that ‘better policy’ will turn things around here. We need, and must have, basic constitutional reform, which must, of course, be preceded by basic constitutional discourse and discussion.”
Constitutions provide the structure of rules and constraints within which political decisions are made. Very large constitutions encoding a vast set of rules point to a “low trust” society. India is not inherently a low trust society but it became so because of the adversarial relationship between the government and the people, established by the British and continued post independence.
The British government was not popularly chosen but was imposed by force on an unwilling population. The laws, rules, regulations were all designed to have comprehensive, oppressive control over the people. There cannot be a relationship of trust between oppressor and oppressed. The seeds of mistrust sowed by the colonial British Raj have led to a paternalistic government which treats citizens as irresponsible, immature children.
The Constitution’s colonial origins give the government near omnipotent powers that are not consistent with a free society. It allows the government to interfere and restrict economic and civic freedoms. India needs a new Constitution that constrains governmental power and restricts it to the proper role of the government in a free society, namely to protect life, liberty and property of the citizens. The new Constitution must prohibit discrimination and must guarantee that all laws follow a generality norm that apply equally to all regardless of sex, religion, group affiliation or origin.
The legitimacy of the government of a free society depends on the consent of the governed. Consent by the people even in principle is meaningless if the Constitution is a mysterious document revered by all but understood by few. The new Constitution must be readable and be read by all. Therefore it must be in plain language and not in legalese.
For India’s trajectory to change towards prosperity that has been denied to it for so long, India needs a new Constitution that rolls back the power of the state and vests power in its people where it rightfully belongs in a constitutional republic.
Atanu Dey
India is unreasonably poor. The 2015 International Monetary Fund ranking of countries places India at the 140th position with an annual per capita gross domestic product of only $1,600. For China the figures are 73rd and $8,000. India had the potential to be at least a middle-income country with negligible poverty by the turn of the century. Why has India failed to realize that potential despite the fact that Indians are as capable of creating wealth as any other people.
A country would have reason to be poor if it suffered adverse conditions such as periodic devastating natural disasters, protracted civil strife and foreign wars, or insufficient human and natural resource endowment—none of which is true for India. Assuming that the gods are not maliciously inclined towards India, we can rule out divine decree as the cause of India’s poverty.
That leaves us with economic policy as a proximate cause. Centuries of economic history teaches us that bad policies fail to produce economic growth. The claim here is that India’s lack of progress is due to the Constitution since that determines the nature of the government, which in turn dictates those policies.
India’s Constitution has the dubious distinction of being the largest in the world and consequently unreadable, and largely unread. It gives the government enormous powers to intervene in the economy, to enact laws that discriminate among citizens based on attributes such as religion and caste, restricts freedom of speech, and limits the right to property. In short, it allows deliberate political and economic exploitation.
Undue government interference in the economy politicizes the economy, which in turn leads to the corruption of politics. By contrast, the US Constitution is short, guarantees the freedom of speech, protects property rights, prohibits discrimination among citizens, and limits the power of the government.
The most salient distinction between the US and Indian Constitutions lies in the relationship between the people and the government the Constitutions define. The US Constitution places the people as the principal and the government as its agent. This is evidenced in the limits that the Constitution imposes on the government. The Indian Constitution places the government as the master and people as its servants—as can be expected of an essentially colonial government. Like the British government before it, post-1947 Indian governments took on the role of the master and imposed limits on the economic and civic freedoms of Indians.
India is a functioning democracy with routine peaceful transfer of power following elections. Each election raises the hope that with different political leaders, governance would improve. Sadly, regardless of which party or leaders are in power, the policies hardly change.
Nobel laureate economist James Buchanan wrote, “It is folly to think that ‘better men’ elected to office will help us much, that ‘better policy’ will turn things around here. We need, and must have, basic constitutional reform, which must, of course, be preceded by basic constitutional discourse and discussion.”
Constitutions provide the structure of rules and constraints within which political decisions are made. Very large constitutions encoding a vast set of rules point to a “low trust” society. India is not inherently a low trust society but it became so because of the adversarial relationship between the government and the people, established by the British and continued post independence.
The British government was not popularly chosen but was imposed by force on an unwilling population. The laws, rules, regulations were all designed to have comprehensive, oppressive control over the people. There cannot be a relationship of trust between oppressor and oppressed. The seeds of mistrust sowed by the colonial British Raj have led to a paternalistic government which treats citizens as irresponsible, immature children.
The Constitution’s colonial origins give the government near omnipotent powers that are not consistent with a free society. It allows the government to interfere and restrict economic and civic freedoms. India needs a new Constitution that constrains governmental power and restricts it to the proper role of the government in a free society, namely to protect life, liberty and property of the citizens. The new Constitution must prohibit discrimination and must guarantee that all laws follow a generality norm that apply equally to all regardless of sex, religion, group affiliation or origin.
The legitimacy of the government of a free society depends on the consent of the governed. Consent by the people even in principle is meaningless if the Constitution is a mysterious document revered by all but understood by few. The new Constitution must be readable and be read by all. Therefore it must be in plain language and not in legalese.
For India’s trajectory to change towards prosperity that has been denied to it for so long, India needs a new Constitution that rolls back the power of the state and vests power in its people where it rightfully belongs in a constitutional republic.
Atanu Dey
Sixty years since we gave ourselves the document of our governance, the world has moved on. We face massive challenges and need a overhaul of our present approach, if we want to succeed in tackling them.
The parliamentary system was a masterpiece of its time, for the barons who wanted to wrest control from the hands of a tyrant. It supported small states with a few ruling elites. The parliament has been the backbone of democratic polity, a materialisation of the aspirations of the millions which are represented through its constituent members. But, it is no longer so.
As the population has grown, the parliament has shrunk in its representative powers. Also, the calibre of the men who enter the foyers of the esteemed house has seen a dip over the years. No longer do we see idealogical leaders ready to throw away their seats for the sake of their views. The debates are increasingly about the powers of the legislature vis a vis the other arms of governance and the perks and salaries that the members should get for the ridiculously small time actually spent working.
Neither does the parliament have the time and nor the expertise to deal with the upcoming issues. Most of the ministers are laymen that cannot be expected to hold the reins of a complex and an ever expanding country. It is the bureaucracy that actually controls, guides and writes down the actual policies and laws. Ministers concern themselves with the polity.
Even the tools that are available within the parliament are no longer effective. Majority support of the ruling party insulates it from any sort of formal criticism. The discussions and detailed understanding of laws is often skipped through guillotine motion… raising hands in support or opposition of the bills that determine the course of our nations millions and all that without ever reading what might be written underneath the provisions.
COMMITTEE SYSTEM
The committees are an exercise in postmortem reportage. The opposition leaders have been found lacking in verve, drive and capability to take on the powerful ruling party. The issues that are eventually raised are those with political ramifications. Working for the benefit of the country takes a backseat, making it impossible to run an efficient administration.
For most of the time, the parliament doesn’t even know what is going on in the country. Their main focus is on their interpersonal rivalries and political one manship. Hereditary leadership saps the already dying breed of independent minded, intelligent politicians. In such a system, the flowers of our progress cannot take seed.
What is needed is an overhaul in the way that the country is governed. A parliament responsible to uninterested people isn’t a responsible parliament at all. Our administrative needs are fulfilled by the bureaucrats as the political heads bob around trying to find ways of getting elected. To give an analogy, if a company was run by electing the most popular employees, the ones who’d get elected would be the smooth talkers, the moneyed ones who can influence others and the cleverest scoundrels that there ever were. None of them however would have any idea of how to run the nation.
This leads us to the primary paradox in deciding the people who’d lead our country. There’s a Singaporean model that emphasises on efficiency, merit and acumen of the person to be selected. But then, this is achieved at the cost of practically depriving people of a chance to express their say in the administration.
ALTERNATIVES
The CEO approach to economy in China has led to an environmental catastrophe out of the overexploitation that is rampant there. Also, corruption has become intrinsic to the system whenever it becomes unaccountable. At the national level, we can’t have an even more powerful institution than the parliament to keep an eye on it. This time though, the dimensions of corruption change and the economic heft starts counting more than the political one. This is a mere change of the facade and wouldn’t serve us much. Perhaps the Singaporean model can work well only for a small state, which can actually be run like a company for which the business methodolgies apply on the ground.
Another thing that has to be kept in the mind is that our voters are predominantly rural, not well educated, biased and in many cases deprived of proper opportunities in their own lives. This makes them unwittingly pick dishonest candidates that can fulfill atleast some of their immediate needs, rather than a true reformist that would usher in difficult, long term changes.
For most of their careers and their time, the people sitting in the parliament are slaves under the directions of the whips. The independents can hardly get their voice through. Considerations of the party and petty politics dominates the august house.
Thus, respecting the wisdom of our founding fathers and yet adhering to a new age managemental perspective would lead us to the following solution. The election of the representatives must be done through universal franchise. However, there must be a change in the way that the parliament itself is organised. We can’t realistically expect 550 people to speak in one voice all at once.
So, instead of allowing only a select cabinet to do all the thinking for a billion plus people, we have to allow the billion plus people to do the thinking for themselves.
REORGANISING PARLIAMENT
The parliament would be divided into round table committees. These committees would be different from the normal ones as they are the ‘thinking engines’ of parliament. Groups of 12 people would be picked according to their previous work, interest and the number of ‘effective hours’ that they’ve given to the parliament. From the second time onwards, selections would be based on their ratings as determined by public voting.
These round table committees would now meet after or before the parliamentary hours ( which can be suitably adjusted ) and during the recess periods. The membership here would cut across the party lines and would form a mini parliament of sorts where the voice of each and every member can be heard, because of the smaller size of the groups. Each committee would have a speaker chosen amongst themselves. Ministers wouldn’t be a part of these committees.
These commitees would be divided on the lines of domain specialisation. Members would fill their choices and based on their suitability for a particular domain in terms of their experience, qualifications, work done, effective hours of parliament, they’d be allotted a particular committee. Here they would discuss the issues that lie within their specific domains. Their discussions would be aired live on the internet for every citizen to take part in, through suggestions, voting on particular issues and airing their specific grievances. The citizens in turn can also get organised into groups or blogs and then form a deliberated opinion to give to the members and the opinions of a group above a particular size would have to be read. Since they are publicly elected representatives, discussing on topics that will affect the lives of people on ground, there seems to be no plausible objection to airing their discussions online.
There’d be fifty such groups, which can cover amongst themselves perhaps all of the areas of public interest. These groups would be allowed to invite specialists in their specific areas to get inputs and expert suggestions. Thus, well rounded laws would be made that represent the real will of the people.
Next, the parliament would sit. Ordinary parliament would comprise only of the committee leaders and the ministers. The working of the government would still be supervised by the ministers, but for the passing of the laws, only the votes of the committee leaders and the ministers would be taken into account. The vote of the committee leader wouldn’t be their own. Instead the votes that they give would be on behalf of their committee, a majority vote on the basis of the discussions carried on in there. This vote would be cast automatically in the online system. Round Table Committee leaders would be able to explain the reasons behind their vote and also discuss the bill and the changes they propose or oppose.
The physical presence of the ministers wouldn’t be necessary and the voting would be enabled through online method. This allows for the small parliament to function effectively and all of its members to know what they are doing. The individual comes to fore in this system, rather than only the leader of the party.
The ordinary parliamentary vote is determined by the party whip, a name as repugnant as the function. In the name of good governance, this whip ensures that the will of the party’s high command is propagated. The individual views of the minister is not taken into account. The voting by committee leaders would be done taking into account the fact that the yearly rotating leadership would depend on the maximum ratings achieved by each minster. If the committee is unsatisfied with the votes that he/she gave, then they’d be downgraded and a new minster elected as the leader. This gives accountability to every action by the member voting in the house.
DYNAMIC PARLIAMENT
The extraordinary sessions for constitutional amendments, impeachments, setting up of new services etc. would include the vote of each member present and voting. But for ordinary legislative businesses, this sort of an arrangement would allow for a greater control and direction to the house.
Currently, the parliament has a number of standing committees including the departmental ones which are charged to look into the functioning of each of the ministries and to bring our reports on their findings. But, their suggestions are not binding and beyond a certain limit, their virtue is only for bringing out reports that remain as stale copies in the archives.
Instead a dynamic system would utilise the MPs of both the houses to deliberate on each and every law and to discuss in depth its implications and the various clauses that it entails. People would be engaged in such discussions too and would be able to offer valuable suggestions. Then the entire process of voting would be justified, for now the layman MP would have extensive knowledge on the subject he/she is dealing with. The particular categories of committees are there to provide a certain depth in certain subjects.
The committees would share between them, according to their specialisation the load of the existing committees according to their respective specialisation. Since the membership to these committees isn’t based on being part of any party and is based on merit, they can get work done far quicker than before. The executive part of the parliament would have a force to reckon with in terms of control on its extraordinary powers and scrutiny of its decisions.
The cabinet and the PMO can function therefore as the executive arm of the government and the parliament as the deliberative and the legislative one. The ultimate goal is to construct a system wherein the people are masters of their own destiny. Technology of tommorow would allow far more intense connectivity and we would be able to implement systems of organisation at individual level.
TYRANNY OF MAJORITY
Democracy as a system of governance has evolved as the most preferred system by the people around the world. There are however problems in it that cannot easily be reconciled with a free, liberal and equal nation.
The majority of the people voting on an issue are assumed to be right. But, sometimes the majority interest might act against the minorities and impose a homogenous ideology upon them. There are problems of use of excessive money power in the elections, with the result that the entire edifice of the democratically elected government might be reduced to the extended hand of the corporate world. The challenges of globalisation, that makes people feel disconnected from their own country and yet others feel a part of a global community other than that of their nation, undermines the foundation upon which the nation states have been erected.
To provide wisdom to the legislature, the system of upper house has been instituted. The members of this house are given a 6 years tenure and are elected indirectly, so as to allow the learned members of the society to make a more mature decision in electing their representatives.The President is given powers to select the outstanding members of the society to be represented in the upper house. But, despite these measures, the upper house has failed to do its duty and is fully immersed in the political battles that marr the lower house.
To make democracy more inclusive, equitable and just, we have to change the composition of the house. Certain seats can be reserved especially for the minority communities, from all across the spectrum of religion, caste, gender, region etc. The idea is to give a voice to the most disempowered citizens of our country.
Moreover, to prevent the house from becoming a political appendage, the election of previous Lok Sabha MPs should be limited to one-third. Mandatory provision to RESIGN from the elected party would be put. Further, the terms could be limited to two at the maximum and post retirement cool off period of 3 years could be put, where no other office could be held by the incumbent.
This would, in contrast to the Lok Sabha, enable to build a house of integrity, dedicated mainly to the well being of the nation, in contrast to the lower house which swings with the public opinion. The career politicians would find this point hard to swallow, as it makes their job opportunities limited. But, of course the parliaments main duty is not in providing employment to some of the wealthiest citizens of our country.
6. JUDICIAL SYSTEM
The coming of the english law system changed the landscape of our country with equal treatment of all, in spite of their birth, the system of presumed innocence unless proven guilty, of the rule of law, of opportunity for defence with a lawyer and the onus on the prosecution to establish guilt.
English law thus believes in giving the ‘best’ justice and in not giving the ‘wrong’ man the punishment unless there is an absolute guarantee of his established guilt.
However, the system has failed to provide effective justice to a vast majority of the people. There is an inherent duality in the system. The main task of the prosecution is not to give the truth, but to be able to establish what it can with the help of the ‘proofs’ available. This means that the quantum of punishment depends on how much of the crime can be established as opposed to what crime has been done in reality. This means therefore, the person with the better lawyer, more resources to game the system and more power to influence the investigation usually ends up winning.
The lawyers make a killing out of delaying justice as their fees depends on the number of hearings that they are able to secure. The defence of the client, even if he’s wrong is the professional ethic of a lawyer, which makes their job inherently immoral. Further, there’s no regulation of the bad lawyers, those who take their clients on the ride, for they are the one’s doing all the cases.
One of the innovative solutions that was used for some time consumer court was to ban the lawyer there. This drove the pendency of cases down and reduced the ability of the pocket heavy firms to get away with innovative legal loopholes. It was shot down by the lawyers claiming the right to livelihood. But, then what about the right to justice for the rest? Can intermediaries call for this right and then intervene in every transaction taking place in the country?
24*7 COURTS
To reduce the pendency of the cases, round the clock courts can be established, which are closed only from 12 am to 4 am. Triple shifts for court staff could be instituted and the available infrastructure can be utilised 3 times more.
An option for an informal first hearing could be instituted for the civil suits, where the judge merely tries to make the parties come to terms with each other and informally proposes a mutually agreeable judgement. This could help solve millions of petty cases at the first hearing to the satisfaction of both the parties.
The lack of evidence is the biggest problem in any case and takes the maximum amount of court time in collection, establishment, refuting etc. A separate investigation branch should be established at the police level, which doesn’t have to deal with the administrative side of the job. The specialised agency could then develop expertise in solving cases and energising the dead art of police-work in the country.
A nation wide judicial exam could be conducted to select the judges and the system of temporary judges could be done away with, for it makes them vulnerable to political influence. There should be a cool off period for the judges post retirement of at least 3 years.
Judges have to be incentivised to give judgements on their cases and those who don’t give their judgements at all are to be punished. This of course doesn’t mean that the quality of the judgement has to suffer, for the promotion of the judges could be made dependent on the quality and the quantity of their judgements.
The Indian courts play the dual role of acting as the bullwark against the rest of the corrupt government machinery and then also to provide justice. It has more powers than most of the courts of the other countries have and has also used it to good effect a number of times in the past. However, the power has also made it immune to reforms, transparency and conviction of the members of judiciary; for if you are the judge of your own crime, then who can convict you? There has to be a balance between its role as the protector of the nation and accountability.
In the light of the failed Judicial Accountability Bill, the judges are keen to institute their own mechanism to regulate the judicial system. We’d have to wait and watch for the developments for now.
- Private law firms can be allowed to set up business in India, in order that inefficient lawyers be weeded out.
- Cases can be tied to particular judges, rather than benches so that every time a shuffle happens, the case would not have to start all over again.
- SC could adopt the US Supreme court system of weeding out cases for which precedent has already been established and only dealing cases which have substantial question of law involved, which hasn't been addressed by a bench earlier.
- Consumer courts can be made lawyer free again and the plea of the lawyers that by depriving courts of lawyers, their right to work was being stalled, one could always present the same argument vis a vis the army and wars.
- Cases can be tied to particular judges, rather than benches so that every time a shuffle happens, the case would not have to start all over again.
- SC could adopt the US Supreme court system of weeding out cases for which precedent has already been established and only dealing cases which have substantial question of law involved, which hasn't been addressed by a bench earlier.
- Consumer courts can be made lawyer free again and the plea of the lawyers that by depriving courts of lawyers, their right to work was being stalled, one could always present the same argument vis a vis the army and wars.
Independent National Investigative Authority
Our country has not been able to distill the products of it's growth to the lowest stratum in the past several decades. Was it due to the lack of resources, ability of administrators or simply a strange case of post colonial loot, by the brown men in white shoes? Or was it due to systemic leakages that no one bothered or even wanted to shut, that fattened the ones on top and starved those at the bottom?
The multitude of agencies created to solve the problem of corruption have only added to the chaos, for the basic organisational structure in any of these agencies doesn't seem to differ too much. External pressure can be brought in, the officers can be lured, the posts can be sold off for pliable heads and so on.
The Central Vigilance Commission is a case in point. According to wikipedia," CVC has a staff strength of between 200 and 250 employees.[13] If one went by international standards, India needs 28,500 anti-corruption staff in CVC to check corruption of 5.7 million employees.[14]
There has been considerable delay in many cases for grant of sanction for prosecution against corrupt government officials. The permission to prosecute such officials acts as a deterrent in the drive to eradicate corruption and bring transparency in the system.[15]"
The syncretic relationship between those responsible for preventing corruption and those actually doing it aren't unknown. Assets disproportionate to the sources of income is common in India. However, we must realise that if an officer has disproportionate assets, then several times the amount of the bribe would have been lost to the person who gave that bribe. Overall, the systemic corruption prevents the country from even taking some logical steps that would benefit everyone, but for the insidious nature of bribe giving, allowing certain individuals to flout the law and inconvenience everyone, except the person whose bribe successfully goes through.
The elaborate hoax of creating an investigative agency and then depriving it of the requisite number of staff, powers and especially the
powers to prosecute those found guilty is akin to setting up a court in the land of the guilty. No one is likely to ever be held. Then, what could be way out of this quagmire?
Even the CBI, which has a director chosen by the PM, the opposition leader and the Chief of SC, has been blamed for malpractices.
How many corrupt ministers have been successfully been prosecuted by the agency?
Regarding the Lokpal which was supposed to be the solution, there are some glaring problems, like the search committee being only from the DoPT list and of the selection committee having a free hand in picking up it's candidates. Here, the conflict of interests seems to take a malicious shape. Where does the independence remain, if the people who are picked by the government are cronies of the corrupt?
Adding to the cake, is the topping of biased media. Information barons with political connections can have the power to shape the very discourse of the country, selecting their politicians through a money fuelled media campaign ( thus leaving ruins of democracy) and then by setting up their own cronies in powerful positions through the same politicians that they selected, our country could be under the threat of a veiled dictatorship.
The question is no longer whether such a thing happens or not. The question is how extensive is the problem, the question is what can we do to counter it?
For several months, the LOKPAL bill hasn't been voiced by the media as vociferously as it was when the elections were upon us. Constantly, the focus of the media is on highly emotional events like death of army jawans or stone pelting in Kashmir, but at the same time those events which are unlikely to have long term political consequences, news make people think rationally and a critical yet detached voice that was supposed to be the tone of a journalist.
On page, the credentials of the ideal Lokpal seem to fit the bill of the required independent and yet powerful, self regulating agency that can stem the political rot. How far the reality differs, would depend on the silence of the people.
Mandatory electronic payment system linked to biometrics of every individual with a lower limit of credit availability and a maximum level of wealth/inheritance.
Our Government has already started on Jan Dhan Universal bank accounts. By linking those accounts to the Aadhar Biometrics, we already have a system of leak proof accounts. On one hand, a vast amount of money is spent on giving subsidies to people indirectly, via the fertilisers or the petroleum products. Both these subsidies incidentally favour the moneyed, for they are the one who ulitmately consume more. But, these leakages are going to be there for whichever method that we try.
Biometric linked accounts would at least give traceability of the money spent on welfare by the government. The farmers would benefit if the fertiliser subsidy amount is paid into their account and the poor who need the kerosene would be able to select their choice of fuel if they had the choice to do so. Similarly, if the sum of the welfare measures were to be paid in terms of money directly into the accounts of the people, then the problems of leakages and those of the diversions would be potentially be solved, or would they be?
Social programmes by their very nature aren't ammenable to the incentive system that we traditionally know of. Hospitals, if they function in terms of the treatment given out to the patients, would make a killing out of killing the patients with excess of treatment. But, on the other side of the coin is a modified version of the philosophy of healthcare, the philosophy of linking the success of the system with the outcomes of the programme and not in terms of the inputs that the system has sucked into itself.
The social welfare programmes use the input based parameters most of the times, with the result that the objective of attaining excellence gets tied up intricately with the achievement of increased inputs, an inherently wrong assumption about the requirement of the people for whom the system was supposed to be designed.
A minimum balance in the accounts of the people who haven't earned the money can work in two contrary ways. A positive vision is that of the people being able to take control of their lives, being able to control their lives and find ways to substantially improve their situation by attaining greater skills. If people are wise, they would save and then use the capital to invest their money and be able to attain a greater return.
A negative view would have the country suffer from people who don't want to work, tehreby pushing up labour costs and shunting growth to other countries. Further, there would be problems of inflation, spending by poor on wine, drugs, weapons and luxuries that don't end up improving their prospects.
Money is merely the representation of the credit that the society gives to the things people do, at it's most basic level. Interest towards an activity, desire to do it, competition to attain what others want as well and then instead of fighting for it, you give them the credit that society has given to you, for some other activity that you had set up for others. In this sense, we can imagine money as being a part of the stream that gets concentrated like lakes with those who have the ability to harness it and with the power of the same flow go about achieving the goals that they had wanted to achieve. Those who can't harness the stream see moneys floating by in front of their eyes without being able to take up a single drop.
This dichotomy is the basis of the economic system. Unless there are people who are deprived of the stream, they won't give any imoportance to those who have lots of moneys. This importance provides the motivation to keep on hoarding. Recently we saw that inequity related protests breaking out in various parts of country ( pattidars, Kashmir, Reservation protests) and even in foreign nations ( Black Lives Matter). The issues that expressed the pain of inequity were different, sublimated versions and yet they were caused by the same underlying factors.
If too much of the flow is 'captured' in this sense, we would find that the entire system comes to a standstill because of the certain individuals who have 'blocked' this flow with the help of their massive capacity to store the money. The ability to earn money improves more, the more you have, thereby eternally concentrating the money with the rich. This phenomenon is bad for the entire economic system, as the flow was determined in the first place by the importance that the people themselves gave to the scraps of paper that we call notes. If 99% people were to be deprived of money, then they do better than slave for the other 1%, by giving the pretence all together.
Wars are generally preceded by this dissatisfaction of not being able to thrive in an unequal society. The upper limit on inheritance, on the maximum absolute limits on earnings can cut down 'supertankers' of the money and spread it more evenly. Minimal account balances can give a level of security to the people who constitute the society, give them the dignity of being part of the great human civilisation, a recognition of their humanity.
According to UNRISD paper,
According to UNRISD paper,
The links between inequality and violent conflict are among the oldest concerns in political
economy. It is almost a universal assumption that an inequitable distribution of resources and
wealth will provoke violent rebellion. And yet it is just as obvious and historically established
that sharply skewed income and wealth distribution does not always or even usually lead to
rebellion. Usually, this is taken to mean that the inequality is legitimized in one way or another;
that the inequality comes with a degree of power and repression that are simply too great to
overcome; or that there are various obstacles preventing collective action.
With all the economic ramification of such a move, the fears of useless men running freely about must give jitters to those who think only in economic terminology, however, this issue should be tried more in the philosophical plane of thought. The previous accumulations caused emergence of extreme idealogies, wars and destruction. Can we at lest try something different this time round?
CREDIT NEUTRAL SOCIETY
The developments of past few hundred years have had a monumental impact vis a vis the overall development of our human race. Our innate nature revolts against the shackles of a society that is set upon commercialisation of every aspect of the life of a human. So far, food, water, health, communication, transport and pleasures etc. are commodified, it seems the commodification of air, of right to family, to be a part of society itself is going to be set in terms of capacity to pay.
There's an agony in modern life, which links intractably the social life of an individual to the acquisition of material things. The range of relationships that a primitive human had, that sustained his various needs no longer exist. IN that vacuum, things enter and for that reason, for that reason we become attached to them, but they are substitutes at best for the visceral human emotions.
The communists and the socialists wanted to tap the anger that existed in people against the process that divides people on basis of this very artificiality. They didn't succeed because inspite of the innate dislike of the humanity against this 'system', it provides us with a way to motivate people to work hard, innovate, create - the values that were cornerstone of the civilising mission of the colonists. In the process however, our environment has been irrevocably been damaged, with the result that we have lost several species forever, millions of people have died in wars, slavery camps, bombings and organised killings by those who want to maintain their position in the system they created.
It might be very nearly impossible to change the entire system, what we can do is to provide a cushion against it's worst brutalities so that the society as a whole has the liberty to think about the direction that it is taking and is able to come to terms with its future. Man as a man had some rights. The right to air, water, to common pastures, to the floral and faunal wealth of the land and to the company of those around him. It is only now that the price tags on every conceivable part of our life has made a significant part of our populace 'disenfranchised' from the wider society and made them beggars in comparison to some other humans. In between these two types of humans, there is not so much a difference of skill, hard work or merit as there is of the hereditary advantages of facilities, learning, money and all the things that money alone can give.
In more practical terms, the analysis of inequity by Thomas Piketty is an eyeopener in the sense that the wealth of the rich quintile would outpace the net value generated by growth, unless there is a strategic intervention. This intervention would happen automatically via societal disruption/wars/strife if no steps are taken by government strategically.
The cornerstone of our modern world is democracy. The cornerstone of the democracy are the people who choose candidates, answerable to the electorate and therefore performing for the greater good of the society. If these people aren't given even the basic tools for such an analysis, then we're negating the very root of democracy. Indian populace has been swayed by caste, by religion and by every all other non merit based criterions that could've been invented. Underlying reason isn't the fickleness of our culture, rather it is the poverty that blinded men and women to their long term good and forces them to focus only on their shortest term, yet surest term gains. Freebies, which border on virtual bribes are therefore rampant, these token sums are able to convince the voters to support their corrupt representative.
What if, everyone and I mean everyone was allowed a certain minimum credit balance at the start of every month? The issue has endlessly been debated, with the overall consensus being reached that a well implemented, fair and politically unbiased programme has the capability of changing the lives of the many millions of poor toiling under one or the other master, from the Moghul to the British to the Corporate-Babu of today.
But, would the success of such a programme mean that the poor would simply fritter away all their money down the drain and it would cause huge losses to the nation? Paradoxically, the richest consider themselves the hardest working, so the extra income to the poor would only increase their productivity by that measure. And isn't the modern code of capitalism beg, borrow and buy? The money in individual accounts won't be too big to cause inflation, but big enough to at least to fulfil their basic needs.
In the same vein, does the government have any responsibility towards the rich? There are people who have earned enough for themselves, for their children and so on for several of their generations. The degree of concentration of wealth that they have been able to achieve has made them go after meaningless 'more' wealth, for there's a limit to how much you can materially better you life or how much happiness you can have even if you keep on increasing the money you earn. The global engine of growth works on the basic premise of having customers to sell stuff to in the first place, if only the rich remain, who would buy their stuff? IF such a point si reached, then people would no longer value the oppressive system that deprives them of their rights while amply rewarding others. The redistribution is important for everyone, even if our current socio-economic setup is totally against such an argument.
It won't be fair to put the burden of the entire programme on the government. The wealthy would need to be progressively taxed, with biometric based tracking of the money that flows in the system to ensure compliance. Geo Spatial real estate mapping would enable land to be taxed on inheritance and physical assets like gold would have no meaning if they cannot be exchanged except by a biometric based system of exchange. IN theory, we can fairly and automatically redistribute wealth, so that there is no major leakage and adverse reaction.
IF people realise that they cannot earn more than a particular limit, if their efforts to pass on their property to their children would only be nominally be successful, then their interest would shift to other means of gaining power, for that is one of the most important functionalities of money- to give one individual power over another. So complementing this kind of redistribution, we would require deep institutional reforms in the political and social sector so that the purpose of redistributing power to people is realised as the outcome and not of handling them over worthless scraps of paper.
Critics can put forth a variety of arguments ranging from inability of the poor to decide their future, to the cost of the scheme and to the effects on the economy. These aren't the real questions, they are the operational, implementation and methodological hiccups. The real question underlying all of these issues is whether our philosophy of a society also includes the recognition of the right of the individual to choose and then to give him/her the tools to be able to establish that goal. Are we ready to even live in a society where there are no absolute poor, people who haven't been snatched of their self respect so that the functioning of the society has to be done on fraternal basis, where the people would have finally with them 'real' power in their hands and with that the ability to choose the sort of future that they want and not what was forced on them?
There's an agony in modern life, which links intractably the social life of an individual to the acquisition of material things. The range of relationships that a primitive human had, that sustained his various needs no longer exist. IN that vacuum, things enter and for that reason, for that reason we become attached to them, but they are substitutes at best for the visceral human emotions.
The communists and the socialists wanted to tap the anger that existed in people against the process that divides people on basis of this very artificiality. They didn't succeed because inspite of the innate dislike of the humanity against this 'system', it provides us with a way to motivate people to work hard, innovate, create - the values that were cornerstone of the civilising mission of the colonists. In the process however, our environment has been irrevocably been damaged, with the result that we have lost several species forever, millions of people have died in wars, slavery camps, bombings and organised killings by those who want to maintain their position in the system they created.
It might be very nearly impossible to change the entire system, what we can do is to provide a cushion against it's worst brutalities so that the society as a whole has the liberty to think about the direction that it is taking and is able to come to terms with its future. Man as a man had some rights. The right to air, water, to common pastures, to the floral and faunal wealth of the land and to the company of those around him. It is only now that the price tags on every conceivable part of our life has made a significant part of our populace 'disenfranchised' from the wider society and made them beggars in comparison to some other humans. In between these two types of humans, there is not so much a difference of skill, hard work or merit as there is of the hereditary advantages of facilities, learning, money and all the things that money alone can give.
In more practical terms, the analysis of inequity by Thomas Piketty is an eyeopener in the sense that the wealth of the rich quintile would outpace the net value generated by growth, unless there is a strategic intervention. This intervention would happen automatically via societal disruption/wars/strife if no steps are taken by government strategically.
The cornerstone of our modern world is democracy. The cornerstone of the democracy are the people who choose candidates, answerable to the electorate and therefore performing for the greater good of the society. If these people aren't given even the basic tools for such an analysis, then we're negating the very root of democracy. Indian populace has been swayed by caste, by religion and by every all other non merit based criterions that could've been invented. Underlying reason isn't the fickleness of our culture, rather it is the poverty that blinded men and women to their long term good and forces them to focus only on their shortest term, yet surest term gains. Freebies, which border on virtual bribes are therefore rampant, these token sums are able to convince the voters to support their corrupt representative.
What if, everyone and I mean everyone was allowed a certain minimum credit balance at the start of every month? The issue has endlessly been debated, with the overall consensus being reached that a well implemented, fair and politically unbiased programme has the capability of changing the lives of the many millions of poor toiling under one or the other master, from the Moghul to the British to the Corporate-Babu of today.
But, would the success of such a programme mean that the poor would simply fritter away all their money down the drain and it would cause huge losses to the nation? Paradoxically, the richest consider themselves the hardest working, so the extra income to the poor would only increase their productivity by that measure. And isn't the modern code of capitalism beg, borrow and buy? The money in individual accounts won't be too big to cause inflation, but big enough to at least to fulfil their basic needs.
In the same vein, does the government have any responsibility towards the rich? There are people who have earned enough for themselves, for their children and so on for several of their generations. The degree of concentration of wealth that they have been able to achieve has made them go after meaningless 'more' wealth, for there's a limit to how much you can materially better you life or how much happiness you can have even if you keep on increasing the money you earn. The global engine of growth works on the basic premise of having customers to sell stuff to in the first place, if only the rich remain, who would buy their stuff? IF such a point si reached, then people would no longer value the oppressive system that deprives them of their rights while amply rewarding others. The redistribution is important for everyone, even if our current socio-economic setup is totally against such an argument.
It won't be fair to put the burden of the entire programme on the government. The wealthy would need to be progressively taxed, with biometric based tracking of the money that flows in the system to ensure compliance. Geo Spatial real estate mapping would enable land to be taxed on inheritance and physical assets like gold would have no meaning if they cannot be exchanged except by a biometric based system of exchange. IN theory, we can fairly and automatically redistribute wealth, so that there is no major leakage and adverse reaction.
IF people realise that they cannot earn more than a particular limit, if their efforts to pass on their property to their children would only be nominally be successful, then their interest would shift to other means of gaining power, for that is one of the most important functionalities of money- to give one individual power over another. So complementing this kind of redistribution, we would require deep institutional reforms in the political and social sector so that the purpose of redistributing power to people is realised as the outcome and not of handling them over worthless scraps of paper.
Critics can put forth a variety of arguments ranging from inability of the poor to decide their future, to the cost of the scheme and to the effects on the economy. These aren't the real questions, they are the operational, implementation and methodological hiccups. The real question underlying all of these issues is whether our philosophy of a society also includes the recognition of the right of the individual to choose and then to give him/her the tools to be able to establish that goal. Are we ready to even live in a society where there are no absolute poor, people who haven't been snatched of their self respect so that the functioning of the society has to be done on fraternal basis, where the people would have finally with them 'real' power in their hands and with that the ability to choose the sort of future that they want and not what was forced on them?
CULTURAL, SOCIAL AND MORAL REFORMS
IN ALL OF THE HISTORY OF THE MANKIND, IT IS PERHAPS THE WAY THAT PEOPLE DID THINGS, RATHER THAN WHAT THEY DID WAS TO DETERMINE HOW THEIR FUTURE TURNED OUT.
Several years before the concept of Nations and people came about, there were two contenders for the throne of the world, the Homo Homo Sapiens and the Homo Neanderthalensis and the one with the bigger brain lost.
Neanderthals had bigger brains, however even with their extra capacity, they did not have the kind of social cooperation and bonding that the humans had. They had that extra capacity to probably control their own musculature and to take care of their other needs, but not for the purpose of social development.
The reason that humans have survived is more to do with how we functioned as a group. The way of life can also be called our morals our ethics, our philosophy, our religion and so. These things take a more important role than we imagine in the story of our life so far.
For any nation to become 'great', simply does not mean that it should have the most amount of steel and most amount of GDP. Yes, that is the external measure, but when you compare the life in an oppressive USSR state or the eternally suspecting North Korean dictatorship, then you come to realise that inspite of the comforts that these states could offer, what is more essential is how the people of that country are.
Japan was able to rebuild itself post world war 2 in a few decades. What was it that the people of that co0untry had that led them to the single minded pursuit of their collective growth? Did they do it as individuals, all of them doing their own respective jobs or did they arrive at some collective mechanism?
The great debate between socialism and the captilism can be articulated in so many words as the perspective of the individuals vs the socialist. But how these things played out in history is instructive of the 'gap' that exists between theory and practice. Unless, the individuals themselves beleive in the destiny of their country and asociate their personal gains with that of the nation, you cannot have a prosperous future for the collective.
In the intermix of these philosophies, the only solid ground is in the values that the populace feels and then follows. Their faith in these collective values makes them real. For far too long and for far too many people around us, the entire concept of morals has been related to the hypocrisy of the powerful to enforce an essentially unequal structure. If the people themselves have no faith in their collective goodness, then no external power, least of all their own elected representatives would be able to make it otherwise.
The REAL question is that why are some nations more moral than the other?
Behaviour is reinforced if what you do consistently is rewarded and the opposite is punished. Indian example shows that undertaking corrupt/illegal/selfish behaviour has more often than not no real/social punishment, while the undertaking of good behaviour isn't met with adequate rewards.
If we had perfect instittutions, then such a situation wouldn't have taken place. When we don't have perfect institutions, then the opposite is required, to develop morality first and then expect the institutions to reform.
HONESTY, Courage, selflessness, discipline, hygiene... some of the basic kindergarten values that Indians ignore forever. We can blame the education system, the politicians, the administrators, but when the time comes to pay a fine or to admit to a flaw, it is the people who back down with their reasings, with their parochial viewpoints, with their superstitions, enmities. Constant striving of an individual against the petty forces of short term gain can transform the persons life and on a large scale, that of the nation. Playing fair is however going to be tough.
At an individual level, this task is very difficult, alsmot impossible. But, the solution flows from the people and only from the people. I know it is difficult, but it is also the only way. A movement, a mass movement towards the truth inside each one of us would produce a sizeable number of people.
Not everyone would come or is even required. Theives, crooks and 'evil' peopepl would still be there to take advantage of the comparitive goodness of the people, but when a society undergoes a positive change, the criminal too would be shifted a few notches up on the scale of goodness. The important point is to not be disappointed when others don't want to be a part of the movement for universal happiness. WE can only do so much as to control our own selves, and then what happens is immaterial, for a victory over personal evil is far greater than the mastery of the universe.
This blog aims only to chronicle the wisdom of that collective struggle. The realisations that had been shared in the past became real, in religions, in social setups and the same process takes place now, mostly without our knowledge. To consciously make a society that we'd like to live in ourselves, sacrifice of our personal good to an extent is required, for even if a selfish individual reaches alone at the top, the entire trip would become meaningless, simply because there's no one around him to give meaning to the experience, we need people for reflecting our souls.
No single religion, philosophy, creed is wrong, as long as it isn't derived from hate, enmity, anger. The touchstone of the heart can provide everyone with the faculty of values they require for their own betterment and that of those around them. Search inside and try to become the best versions of your own selves, that is my only prayer and hope.
Schools can become the medium for propagation of morality, civil societies can do it. In earlier times, people used the method of discussions in forests to collect their wisdom in the form of Upanishads, and we can do it again. The modern time requires a wisdom to deal with the crisis with our present age and none of us in our isolated silos can solve them. Write, read, discuss, share and most of all think with your own critical mind what comes to you- for by doing this we are creating the history of our times, let it be a good one.
