PRE CONDITION FOR POLITICAL REFORMS IN INDIA

In his budget speeches more than 13 years back, Mr. Chidambaram identified the need for "deepening and widening" of reforms initiated in 1990 by Mr. P V Narsimha Rao govt and implemented by Dr. Manmohan singh. Judiciary, police and executive were identified as the core candidates.
Yet, more than decade down the line, we are still groping... why?

Have no illusions, Governance is the most complicated activity in the society. Politicians, at least the best of them, can at most identify societal problems and their "immediate" causes.(And Mr. Chidambaram ought to get credit for it). But to give more fundamental causes, and concrete, comprehensive solutions... we need rational, competent and visionary intellectuals.(John Locke from Enlightenment era is the only person that comes to mind).
However, what we see is the intellectual brigade leaning left in various forms. Socialism and communism earlier.... Environmentalism and Maoism are their staple diet now. So to bring back the focus to real issues therefore, cleansing humanities deptts in universities and colleges from the stranglehold of communist/socialist curriculum is the pre-condition to any genuine political reform.
....For those aspiring new intellectuals, genuinely interested in improving the quality of politics, and therefore society at large. Long neglected in country, humanities subjects are the place to begin.

Judgment and Public figures

In response to the following

The Angry Old Man vs Jackass Journalist
http://bit.ly/bAfVQ2

Well, leaving aside verbiage and trivia, what is the fundamental theme of the blog.
Media figures like Mr. Bachchan and Rajeev Masand ought to do what the public wants. Whether its Mr Bachchan's movie preferences or Masand's tweets.

If they consistently follow this approach, What shall become of these people. They will become like Robots in the hands of majority; or more specifically, those who claim to represent public opinion. Their own values and judgments therefore becomes irrelevant.

In a free country I am yet to encounter such consistent beings(SRK does it most of the times).... maybe somebody here can help??

Maoists, Anti-Statism and Indian State

Do we need Government? Why do we need Government?
If the answer is NO, that is a society can exist without ANY kind of Governance, then it would have been OK for me to get on with my life without paying any heed to the Maoists and their ideology.

But the facts of reality point otherwise. Government in any geographical area is an inescapable part of social life. That is, if an individual is not a cast away in desert island. Three fold functions being - protection from foreign attack, inland policing, resolution of civil disputes. If it were not so, each individual would have to fortress his house and initiate a gang-war in case of any threat(apparent or actual).

So the question comes down to, what kind of government. And currently we have 2 options, Indian state or Maoists. So what does each bring to the table, IDEOLOGICALLY - for ideology drives the action.

Whatever be the failings in its part, Indian state has a constitution which defines certain rights protecting individual's life, liberty and pursuit of his goals(albeit only to a certain extent). And there are mechanisms defined to enforce these rights. The principles have worked in certain parts of the country, and there is no reason to believe why it wont succeed in other parts(including Maoists infected areas), if value oriented administration can be instituted. And Liberalization bears testimony that it is possible to reform the system bloodlessly. Though I don't see the most challenging part - Judicial, Executive and police reforms in near or medium term future. But then, its the university rooms of humanities departments and NOT militant camps in jungles where such battles ought to be fought.

Alternative, New Delhi sees a China like communist coup, and we have our own variant of Mao. Given their ideology, what are the actions we can accept from such a dictator. American revolution had American Declaration of Independence based on the principle of Individual rights, Indian Freedom struggle had principle of swaraj. No such positive code of action in case of Maoists. They have no empathy even for their comrades in CPI(M) or Trinamool. The only glue that binds them is the intense hatred for the state in ANY form.
So lets project a scenario where they occupy Delhi. If their current actions are any indication, slaughter of anybody and everybody, PRESUMED to be linked(howsoever loosely) to state.
(For Mao enemy was anything and anybody connected to Chinese religion and culture. For Khymer Rouge in Cambodia, anybody and everybody educated). Here, they start from police and defense services, and go down to Bureaucrats. Of course, given their roots, Industry is their next scapegoat. So have no illusion, intention is to take India down to the level of tribals they claim to fight for.

No expert in military strategy, but here are the few tips. Robotics is not as big a challenge as in previous century. Do invest best minds in stripped down versions of Drones or any non-human tracking devices like satellites. In short term, do audit the air requirements, and reallocate some based on threat assessment. If explicit usage is too risky, at least surveillance to prevent another Dantewada.

A word on the lobby of intellectuals, who see development as a solution. History bears testimony, a sufficient period of peace is necessary for any investment to begin. And Afghanistan a negative barometer to problems of jumping into the latter, without wiping out the menace of former. Therefore I disagree that development can go on side by side with the operation of such a scale. All it does is distract the already lacking security apparatus.

Liberty from force by other men, is a necessary precondition, though not sufficient cause for an individual to excel. And government with a positive legal code, necessary to protect Liberty. Therefore, from intellectuals to media to politicians to administrators to foot soldiers, ought to fight Maoists in our respective battleground.
The current post is my retaliatory ambush...!

CRITIQUE OF KHAN, AND THEREFORE PRAGMATISM

Severe intellectual condemnation corners Sena, and therefore threats are withdrawn.
What does the Khan do.... Tones down and speaks conciliatory.

Does this one arbitrary reversal change history. From digging Kotla to IBN attack to zillion others, violence and threats are embedded in the very identity of Sena. To pragmatically reconcile to Sena for current gains, would be to concede that principles and values DO NOT MATTER.

When a serial killer leaves one victim, it does not change its nature; so is true for Sena. Therefore, Mr Khan is acting unethically in diluting his stand. This also demonstrates whats most important for Mr Khan, what drives him into action. Is it money; not really, though for him its the reflection of that.

"Greatest (blind) adulation of Greatest many." And you are prepared to say anything, do anything, manipulate and twist events (from Mumbai for Indians to IPL to frisking at US airport) for expanding your cult.Day before yesterday it was right for your team to ignore Pak players in auction. Yesterday it was righteous to condemn actions of that very auction. It was convenient to use Indian card for garnering support. And now a tone-down amounting to the betrayal of very cause you apparently embraced.

Those who are disappointed, don't be. Instead understand the nature of dystopia called SR KHAN.

Parallels between Pakistan Taliban and Indian Maoists

- Their cause is the most fundamental part of constitutions of their respective countries. (Pakistan an Islamic Republic, India a socialist republic).
This gets them massive tacit support and also some vehement support among country's intellectuals.
"To quote Ayn Rand: Whenever there is a conflict between 2 parties sharing same basic premise(rational or irrational), the most consistent party wins."
Here, premises are economic equality and Islamic totalitarianism. Inconsistent parties are respective governments.

- Both started in respective tribal regions of their country.(Red districts of central-east India are India's Waziristan).
Former has spread to major Pakistani cities, the latter is spreading.

- For both, compromise talks were planned and with former it failed.
Philosophical implications: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html

"A Wednesday" : Movie analysis

What is the nature of man? Not particular man, but essence of man as distinguished from animals.
There are mystical, social and individual philosophies that have different denotations. 'Bhagwad Geeta' depicts a being torn apart between soul and body. Soul seeking salvation after death, and body a materialistic heap of dust imprisoning the soul. For Karl Marx, man is a disposable cog in an eternal societal machine of class struggle. For Niezetche, he is power luster born to rule or be ruled. Kant will call for a being constantly doomed irreconcilably among Analytic-Synthetic, OR more commonly theory-practice. Ayn Rand and Aristotle define man as rational animal having free will, who consistently has to make a choice whether to seek life(and all that it stands for), or choose its anti-thesis(destructive policies included).


Pragmatism will arrive at a conclusion of eternal skeptic only capable of action without thought, for truth is unknowable. Never taking a principled stand or dealing with abstractions. Always concrete bound, perceptual and caught in ever changing anti-visionary now(kal ho na ho)..... A subjective emotional hedonist, having right to do whatever one pleases irrespective of the consequences to himself or others - most consistent liberterians and existentialists should conclude.(see "Kaminey")

Lets come to objectification of Philosophies(explicitly or implicitly), ART that is. Movies in this case.
For Madhur Bhandarkar, man seeks glory which turns out to be just a mirage. In showbiz to be a top model like Meghna Mathur or to seek a decent living in Chandini Bar. He is doomed to fail, as according to him there is no such thing as a non-contradictory state of happiness on achieving one's goals. Only narcissist escapes rich can engage in.

For Imtiaz Ali, emotions are sufficient guide to man's life. Whether Geet's marraige plan or Aditya running a corporation in JWM. Subjective emotional hedonism may lead to occasional setbacks, but as even Richard Boyle through Slumdog millionaire would agree; Mind is disposable, your emotions are sufficient guide to your life!

Well, Neeraj Pandey boldly differs in "A Wednesday".
Here is a man taking control of his life. Refusing to be pushed around. Here is a man capable of independent action, based on rational thought process and clearly defined goal.

Lets examine the virtues movie embodies and perceptualizes.

Rationality: You are free to evade reality, but not escape the consequences of evading it. Thats why rationality, a full, conscious state of awareness of surroundings and self is a virtue. Therefore, I applaud the meticulous planning with which the whole operation was carried out. Every detail was looked into. Whether its assembling untrackable cellular system, procuring bomb material, actions to dodge possibility of discovery, food during operation and life as usual after completion.

Assertion of Right to self-defence: Man has an inalienable right to Life, therefore he has a right to self-defence. But if the men are to peacefully co-exist in a society, initiation of physical force(includes frauds and breaches of legal contracts as well) ought to be barred. And in a civil society the self-defence mechanism too cannot be ruled by individual whims(as in tribal rules). Therefore, a citizen delegates the right of self-defence to the government, which then acquires the legal monopoly over the use of physical force(not initiation but appropriate retaliation). And therefore, to protect citizens from each other and also from government itself, there ought to be clearly demarcated laws. Laws that define force and how it should be used by the government. Upholding individual rights all the time..!
But when laws that are supposed to protect, end up becoming mechanism that hinders basic duty of the government, its right for man to take responsibility for self defence.(Though, this cannot be a long-term solution. Reforms based on the ethical code and principle of Individual rights is the only long-term solution).

Coming back to movie, here we see a common man acting to destroy terrorists who have committed heinous crimes in his city. When all other institutions fail him, he acts as a reasonable man ought to act in face of threat(howsoever untangible).

Virtue of Selfishness: What propels a man into action. Whether its duty towards others, or concern for one's own values. Here too, the stand is definitive. The motif action is based on the will to create harmonious atmosphere for oneself, one's family and the loved ones(including valued acquaintances in day-to-day workings).

Justice: Right to self defence covers the social aspect of Justice. Here I confine myself to the concept of judging people in one's own mind and then acting based on the judgement one arrives at. The corresponding interaction should not amount to my compromising on my principles though.

To conclude, "A Wednesday" reaffirms my belief in man as a heroic being, capable of acting rationally, decisively and independently.

CRITIQUE OF VIOLENCE

Studying causes of surge in violence in India recently

Lalgargh seige, Punjab burns over Vienna shootout, Jammu/Kashmir Amarnath land row, Lawyers violence in Chennai court, Nandigram, B'lore mob-stoning over Rajkumar's death, JP cement factory in my village smashed after people had conflict with the management.
Issues are not new, response in the form of mob-violence is.
Whats the fundamental cause?

Liberalization: No doubt 1990 was a +ve turn of events. Congress is still reaping middle class votes. But how did it have the other side-effect and why?
In socialist India, state was the only provider. Of jobs, infrastructure, even bread and ration, education and so on. Inefficient,yes.
....and also it was the occasional oppressor. But coercive monopolies and limited exposure to the western world did not allow any substantial comparison. Therefore, common man was grateful for whatever little he was provided for. And ignored long term grudge of some spurts in state oppression like emergency. Then there was more subtle and brutal oppression in the form of huge taxes on businesses and license-kota raj.

What happened post 1990? Legacy PSUs remained, but were competing with more efficient private players.
So what was the interpretation by the contemporary intellectuals, of the prosperity private players brought....
Lack of state interference brings freedom, they said. Freedom equates to efficiency. Efficiency brings productivity and eventual prosperity.
Why a set of individuals with similar intelligence succeeded spectacularly in private enterprises, while government enterprises faded?
They never tried to answer basic question, what makes a free enterprise efficient?

As there was this doubt, that grew into uneasiness and further into the feeling of antagonism. Also, the intellectuals never answered another fundamental question, if private enterprise is efficient, why we need government?
Therefore, what we see today is increasingly violent culture that refuses to distinguish between state and statism. Infact, it refuses to recognize reason for laws and rules. These to them are arbitrary whims. And since ethical roots to political freedom(liberty that is) were never provided...
Lack of respect for even genuine rules in the name of freedom is now impacting private sector as well. Corporate scams like Satyam and breaches involving delay or suspension of payroll by mid-sized companies. Also there is a culture - from teenage to adolescence - that considers any attempt to penalize the irrational behavior(howsoever erratic) as an attack on his/ her freedom.
Therefore, lets try to understand why we need Government and Laws.

Man, unlike animals, to survive and excel requires long term planning.
At any given day, his current state is the condensation of what he has done in all preceding days. He may have spent energy in earning savings and investing it on property. Learning skills for the project he is doing now. Courtship of his current spouse. These achievements through years of industriousness, require unflinching mental and physical effort. Effort that identifies, creates and sustains value.
Therefore, physical force ought to be disallowed from his interactions with other people. Physical force leading into direct threat to life, liberty, property and pursuit of ones goals. And a single breach can ruin years of work he has put in. Naturally therefore, everybody has a right to self-defense.
But such right cannot be governed by individual's opinion(correct or mistaken). If it were so, anyone against whom injustice has been done, will acquire right to punish anybody and everybody he suspects, rightly or wrongly. Anarchy, as is seen these days, will be the consequence.

Therefore, there is a need for a SINGLE AUTHORITY, to which individuals living in a geographical location delegate their right to self-defence.(Having no single authority in a given area will again cause mob-rule of "might is right" and anarchy). That authority needs to have an objective criteria for defining breaches to individual freedom, and a clear definition of actions to be taken(Including clauses limiting its own powers to breach individual rights by initiating force or unpropotional response). That authority is what we call government. And the objective criteria containing corresponding actions is constitution and laws. Integrated to this setup is the mechanism of review of non-objective legislations.

In the economic activities of the contemporary complex society like ours, often the individuals need to enter into a contract to protect their interests in mutual trade. In such a situation, its in individual's interest to get the contract enforced. Then in case of breach(or wrong interpretations) by one of the party, appropriate proceedings can be initiated. Government, for the reasons mentioned, is an institution that has legal monopoly over the use of force.(Not initiation, but its appropriate retaliatory use in case defined individual rights are violated). Therefore its the only agency that can enforce the contract legally. But since it CANNOT INITIATE FORCE, therefore it cannot force individuals to get the contract registered for enforcement. Hence, it should be left upto the individuals to get the contract enforced legally. Enforcement of contract is the only link between government and Economic activity in a lassie-faire Capitalist society.

Capitalism is a system that upholds reason, rationality and individual ability. Therefore fundamental elements of religion(faith and irrationalism) and socialism(altruistic ideal of using individual for collective good against his choice) are incompatible with such a society. But removing these elements, without providing a correct substitute has only resulted in a culture dominated by irrational emotionalism and anything goes subjectivist mentality.
Right is NOT ABSENCE OF wrong. Discovery of Right system required Huge intellectual effort through tri-millenia and bloody wars last century. So lets endeavor to identify, recognize, value, create, uphold and strengthen a political system that subordinates RIGHT TO MIGHT.