Some steps the government should take to protect woman!

I have been reading different stories and perspective on the rape case and the reactions. What amazes me is that the government is so slow on its response and the inefficiency with which the concerned senior most bureaucrats are working.

The government should bring in some immediate plans and then others should be worked upon over a period of time.

Short-term & Immediate Actions: 

1. Get officers like IPS offers' like SP Shivdeep Waman Lande in Delhi who give absolute result.

You can read about Lande here

2. Few possible options

(a)  Bring the entire NCR area under the control of Delhi police and make them responsible for crime in all of these areas.

Or

Additional paper work will not be required to pursue criminal perpetrator across any state, jurisdictional police have to help on a priority basis in order to apprehend  such criminals.

(The state's ruling parties would oppose it, in which case they should either improve their police response system in their cities and prioritize nabbing inter-state criminals)

(b) Also the police department in Delhi will report to the Delhi CM (under current arrangement the Police Department reports to the Home Ministry, Central Government. These officials can look into how NYPD handles the city and the the flurry of UN officials in New York.)

3. Irrespective of the status of the person start pronouncing strong verdicts against such criminals. Send such criminals to prisons in other states, not their home states nor in states where they grew up, rather in places where they would be ineffectual behind prisons. This should also be followed in other states.

4. Any officer not able to attend to his duty in future in accordance with the constitution will be prosecuted. For non-cooperation their photographs should be placed online. When such officers are under review for promotions the incidents of not fulfilling their duty should be taken seriously.

Long-Term and continuous effort

1. Leaders need to stand-up and change the current notion of treatment of women in states bordering Delhi -- UP & Haryana. These two states by its culture do not have high regards for the ladies of their states. This should also extend to other parts of the country where there are similar problems. Therefore, its a cultural problem and this can be resolved only when leaders' rise to the call of leadership. Rather than cowing out as most of the MPs did on the Khap tragedy, the leaders need to learn from Raja Ram Mohan, Gandhi, Nehru, Mandela and the likes who convinced people to change their outlook over years. They were not successful immediately but retrospect their work was for the better of their country.

2. A simple act that can give more teeth to vigilance department. Rooting out corruption is important because even crimes are also associated with corruption. Corrupt officers will definitely let go of criminals. Therefore, the effort to go after corruption is imperative in order to make it safe for all.

Censor Board for awareness

Few days ago I was having a conversation with my friends. And I made a remark that the govt's idea of placing a tobacco warning ad is not important in movies, in the way its being made, because it doesn't look good aesthetically. And to an extent the visual appeal can be lost as well. My friend's argument was these advertisements' are necessary as they are for awareness so that people would take care of themselves.

So this actually got me thinking. Does it actually change behavior of individuals? I don't know. But if that is the line of idea then I have many suggestion that the govt of India should do.

In all movies, they should put up a disclaimer that giving and taking bribe is a criminal offence, in the same way as they do for tobacco smoking! That will bring awareness regarding bribes.

All movies do take a certification in terms of the violence and parental guidance, which is fine, honestly its a good thing. But then if the censor board wants to take this influencing the people seriously then I believe they should also take some measure in the do the same for TV news channels. That would be essential, like a little disclaimer running under all News Anchor's who are over enthusiastic during debates. The disclaimer should be something on the lines stating: "He is shouting to gain TRPs, please read and understand the issue at discussion before forming your opinion."

In fact all TV news channels should state a disclaimer, and this should be stated by the person conducting the debate or reporter who is reporting, something on the lines 'Please read up on the issue before coming out with your opinion. We are merely trying to build your interest.' Or at least this should run as a ticker at the bottom!!

My view is that the best way of awareness is to make a sensible advertisement and playing it between breaks or before the actual commencement of the movie. An advertisement like this -- click here --could have more impact than putting up the disclaimers that they are doing as of now. If the idea is awareness then perhaps this is a better option. If the idea to actually lookout for the benefit of the people then the other way around it would be to increase the excise duty every year by 10 per cent and see the result at the end of five years.

As far as the news channels are concerned, I am pretty serious over there. They should run a disclaimer. If they can't keep up with journalism then they might rescue themselves with disclaimers.

MBA

The following comments were made on The Economist over the "Would the economy be better off without MBA students?"

guest-isoswwj wrote:

MBAs are strewn along the hallways of banks and consulting companies like litter along the roadside. They contend that they bring value to business, and to some extent they do. They remind us that there ought to be cooperative connections between departments in a company that contend against each other for precious resources. They are able to tell us that by moving the sorting table closer to the conveyor belt, we can box our products more quickly and boost our daily output by 2 percent. That's wonderful, but to be honest, they do what anyone would or could do if he were willing to stop thinking according to the party line and to think for himself.

The big problem I have with MBAs is that they are in love with their own set of buzzwords, those words that are either invented (so they can be "branded") or redefined and imparted with specially nuanced meanings that only the cognoscenti would understand, unless of course they stoop to the level of the hoi polloi where we usually reside to explain in the most patronizing way what they mean to say in plain English.

MBAs are not risk takers. They would be scared to death to be exposed to the capital risks of business ownership, to stake the welfare of their families on the outcomes of their decisions to go with this product or that service, and to trust one's inner hunches as we, who actually run businesses, do. They are quite comfortable doling out advice at exorbitant rates, knowing full well that whether or not their advice bears any fruit is completely disconnected from the "value" that they assess for an hour of their time.

I am not opposed to education. I spent 11 years in higher education accumulating degrees, taking extra courses to puff up my resume like the Pillsbury Doughboy. Did it make me smarter? No, but it made me sound smarter to those who had not willingly subjected themselves to the same rigors. It is odd to see how people with sound judgment defer to someone else with a degree. It is as if adding some alphabet soup to the end of one's name is the same as throwing dust into someone's eyes: he has to beg for assistance to navigate a path he has trod many times before.

MBAs do have their place, and my feeling is that their first stopping place should be in the mailroom. From there they could start to climb the ladder, eventually moving into sales where they have to learn the very visceral lessons about what it takes to produce a dollar of real revenue, what it takes to listen to "No" said a thousand times before a "Yes" is uttered, and what it takes to sell an product that is imperfectly aligned with highly moveable public tastes. Finally, when he has mastered sales, he can move into compliance where he can learn what it is to keep a company in the good graces of government regulation whose scope and reach change more frequently than women’s fashions.

Once the MBA has had that kind of "street" education, the combination of what he has learned in class and what he has learned on the job becomes truly valuable...if he has something different to say from what those of us who slug it out on a daily basis already are thinking. There is an old adage in the computer programming business that goes, "If it were so easy, everyone would be doing it." Owning and running a business is not for sissies. It requires a personality that can deal with uncertainty, economic hazards, potential litigation from employees and customers alike, and worst of all, the deeply rooted inner sense that perhaps one cannot endure the costs of perpetually trying to outmaneuver his competition.

If MBAs want to find a real market for what they offer, they should get into the business of building courage and inner strength in business executives who burn out in their late forties, who are doomed to have heart attacks before they are sixty, and who will likely die an early death from the stress of running businesses upon which their employees and their families depend. I think more than ever, what the economy needs are businesses and business leaders who have a conscience and a sense of the debt they owe to society for patronizing their businesses. Instead of the current crop of business leaders, advisors, MBAs, and the rest of the hangers on that are in constant pursuit of "monetizing" essentially worthless endeavors, we need new blood that understands that the most important objective of business leaders is to enhance the lives of those, who by dedicating one-third or more of every working day of their lives to the goals of their employers, make business success a conceivable outcome. Those same business leaders need also to adopt the view that their second and inferior objective should be to enhance shareholder value. If that were to happen, society would truly be different, and the MBAs that emerge from their schools with their faces all scrubbed clean, their hair parted, and their shoes shined like bowling balls would probably be different, too.

posted on 28/11/2012 01:10:19 amRecommended (59)Report abuse

CnKQ7pSia6 wrote:

Dear Sir,

I'm applying for an MBA degree right now. And I've been a management consultant for 6 years.

To see what value MBAs add you have to ask which are the most common sectors/employers that MBAs go into. The answer is unanimous - management consulting and investment banking.

Not to say that these two fields add no value to the economy, but having been a management consultant I can tell you first hand, one doesn't know much at all about a sector at least for the first 2-3 years. Worse still, many of my colleagues don't even know what they don't know. Having the name McKinsey or Bain on your business card doesn't transform you overnight into an insightful visionary (in many cases it makes you obnoxious but just as dumb as you were yesterday). When I first entered the field I was amazed how much crap gets passed around as "business knowledge" and the word I probably hate the most - business "learnings" (I used to angrily say there was a word in the English language - LESSONS - so there's no need to make up nonsensical words). I learned that the clients I was supposed to "advise" had been working in that industry for decades - and me, a come-in-yesterday Johnny is going to advise them on how to do their job better? What a joke. It taught me to listen carefully to the men who actual had their feet on and ears to the ground... you know, the people that my fellow consultants think are not worth listening to... the accountant in that X office who knows how the company negotiates with its suppliers, the field manager who knows how the product actually gets sold and so on.

But now its too much for me. I've come to think that consultants are just smooth slick snake oil salesmen with no real skin in the game. Same goes for investment bankers. Both sets collect their fat fee, no matter what the result.

As for the bankers, I love finance. I really do and that's why I want to study that in business school having never had any formal education in economics or finance (I was a scientist and physician). But I see finance as a critical but support function. I once said to a couple of fellow consultants that our kind and bankers were at best like midwives and it was the entrepreneurs and actual business managers that gave birth to actual value. They looked at me as if I were from another planet.

But you know what the biggest tragedy of it all is? Its that these kids are the brightest and best. The ones sitting around me graduated from universities like Harvard and MIT in subjects like math, physics, economics and chemistry. You know, those old fashioned fields where you need to REALLY think and analyze. Not just make pretty slides. And I used to think at least half a dozen times each day "What a waste!"

There is such a ridiculous echo chamber in these groups that everyone will parrot the latest mantra. I'll conclude with two examples -

1. Teamwork - whatever one can do, a team can do better! Or at least that's what's drilled into you. One of my favorite questions when interviewing candidates for my firm was "Tell me two examples of something that are better done individually than in a team" I can count on the fingers of one hand, the number of candidates that could even attempt a decent answer (among dozens of candidates).

2. Another mantra is "leadership" - but what exactly does that mean? Are the qualities required of the US Army Chief of Staff the same as those needed by the head of Amnesty Int'l? Would a great CEO also be a great president? Is there some formulaic design for leadership? You'd be astounded at how many of the MBA types think so.

I hate to say it but I wouldn't put most of my colleagues in charge of managing a corner grocery store, let alone a large organization.

And yeah - I'd wish they stop using all that stupid jargon! In my experience, the more a person uses big important words to explain something, the less he actual understands the subject. A genius can explain a concept in a way that even a fool would understand. But a fool will explain the same in a way that even a genius would not understand.

Thanks.


My personal views are also similar. And hence wouldnt like to add anything more.

Changing Education Sector

I have just typed some of my thought. My views are not very concrete, its changing based on new input that I come across with time. Anyways read ahead and share your opinion.

There has been a new dawn in the education sector or segment what ever may please you. Its called open online education system.

The reason for writing it down is to clear my own head about my understanding. For last few months I have been following the stories of MOOC (Massive Open Online Courses). The concept is simple while education is being given to people in schools/colleges for paid. Make everything available to those who would like to learn, have the capacity, patience and all other virtues etc etc but cannot afford it.

The classes are put up by some of the best faculties in the world for free. Anyone can learn from it. The downside is they will not be given any certification from the university or by the professor, this is because it will remain free.

What is more important to understand is that the world's education system might change. There are few things that may actually take place over the next few years, 5 or less is my guess.

During my father's time. being a graduate was a big deal. Over the last few years, I see that most people are doing and Masters and its becoming mandatory to hold some Master's degree. Fancy names are also good but better brands have an edge. A generation ago bachelors degree was good. Now a masters is considered as essential. And then PhD will become a norm..

In the next few years what will become more important is the practical or real life implementation of the course and how fast can you implement your learning. Innovation will be paid more focus that making things lean and being bothered about lean. Flux management and change management will see more role being played. Educational qualification will not be a problem then usability of learning, and understanding what Steve jobs meant by "Stay hungry, Stay foolish" will become the new mantra.

Or my entire understanding could be wrong. In which case. I think there would be more jobless people.

Anyways things either change too soon or too slow. It will be interesting to see what changes shall take place.

'Ode to Nice Guys'

This is one of the best piece in my list of suggested essays' because its stereotypical. Before going further, let me set on record, my view on this article: "I don't agree with the logic of this essay." You will find my full view at the end of the essay. **

Ode to the Nice Guys 

This rant was written for the Wharton Undergraduate Journal

This is a tribute to the nice guys. The nice guys that finish last, that never become more than friends, that endure hours of whining and bitching about what assholes guys are, while disproving the very point. This is dedicated to those guys who always provide a shoulder to lean on but restrain themselves to tentative hugs, those guys who hold open doors and give reassuring pats on the back and sit patiently outside the changing room at department stores. This is in honor of the guys that obligingly reiterate how cute/ beautiful/ smart/ funny /sexy their female friends are at the appropriate moment, because they know most girls need that litany of support. This is in honor of the guys with open minds, with laid-back attitudes, with honest concern. This is in honor of the guys who respect a girl’s every facet, from her privacy to her theology to her clothing style.

This is for the guys who escort their drunk, bewildered female friends back from parties and never take advantage once they’re at her door, for the guys who accompany girls to bars as buffers against the rest of the creepy male population, for the guys who know a girl is fishing for compliments but give them out anyway, for the guys who always play by the rules in a game where the rules favor cheaters, for the guys who are accredited as boyfriend material but somehow don’t end up being boyfriends, for all the nice guys who are overlooked, underestimated, and unappreciated, for all the nice guys who are manipulated, misled, and unjustly abandoned, this is for you.

This is for that time she left 40 urgent messages on your cell phone, and when you called her back, she spent three hours painstakingly dissecting two sentences her boyfriend said to her over dinner. And even though you thought her boyfriend was a chump and a jerk, you assured her that it was all ok and she shouldn’t worry about it. This is for that time she interrupted the best killing spree you’d ever orchestrated in GTA3 to rant about a rumor that romantically linked her and the guy she thinks is the most repulsive person in the world. And even though you thought it was immature and you had nothing against the guy, you paused the game for two hours and helped her concoct a counter-rumor to spread around the floor. This is also for that time she didn’t have a date, so after numerous vows that there was nothing “serious” between the two of you, she dragged you to a party where you knew nobody, the beer was awful, and she flirted shamelessly with you, justifying each fit of reckless teasing by announcing to everyone: “oh, but we’re just friends!” And even though you were invited purely as a symbolic warm body for her ego, you went anyways. Because you’re nice like that.

The nice guys don’t often get credit where credit is due. And perhaps more disturbing, the nice guys don’t seem to get laid as often as they should. And I wish I could logically explain this trend, but I can’t. From what I have observed on campus and what I have learned from talking to friends at other schools and in the workplace, the only conclusion I can form is that many girls are just illogical, manipulative bitches. Many of them claim they just want to date a nice guy, but when presented with such a specimen, they say irrational, confusing things such as “oh, he’s too nice to date” or “he would be a good boyfriend but he’s not for me” or “he already puts up with so much from me, I couldn’t possibly ask him out!” or the most frustrating of all: “no, it would ruin our friendship.” Yet, they continue to lament the lack of datable men in the world, and they expect their too-nice-to-date male friends to sympathize and apologize for the men that are jerks. Sorry, guys, girls like that are beyond my ability to fathom. I can’t figure out why the connection breaks down between what they say (I want a nice guy!) and what they do (I’m going to sleep with this complete ass now!). But one thing I can do, is say that the nice-guy-finishes-last phenomenon doesn’t last forever. There are definitely many girls who grow out of that train of thought and realize they should be dating the nice guys, not taking them for granted. The tricky part is finding those girls, and even trickier, finding the ones that are single.

So, until those girls are found, I propose a toast to all the nice guys. You know who you are, and I know you’re sick of hearing yourself described as ubiquitously nice. But the truth of the matter is, the world needs your patience in the department store, your holding open of doors, your party escorting services, your propensity to be a sucker for a pretty smile. For all the crazy, inane, absurd things you tolerate, for all the situations where you are the faceless, nameless hero, my accolades, my acknowledgement, and my gratitude go out to you. You do have credibility in this society, and your well deserved vindication is coming.

Fu-zu Jen, SEAS/WH, 2003



**As I have stated at the beginning, I don't agree with the view of the author but its good dark humor.

The truth is most of the girls and guys end up finishing last, or lets say get treated harshly despite not deserving so. The biggest recent example would be the case of 'Amanda Todd'.  

So to say that only one gender or kind of human being always get the wrong end of the line, is a sign of "victim's mentality". It can happen to anyone irrespective of their gender, looks etc.

Now coming back to this essay "Ode to the Nice Guys". The reason I find it excellent or insightful is that it reflects a bias for those guys who are not interactive and they tend to live away from the limelight. Lack of skills in social interaction and with limited friend circle its difficult to get through to many people.

Who has not heard of Warren Buffet? If you haven't then search about him online.

In one of the articles that Warren Buffet has written "The super-investors of Graham-and-Doddsville", he has mentioned 10 names in it. All of these gentleman were students of Graham, same as Warren Buffett.

Now Buffett's went on telling about people making a case that he, Warren Buffett, is not the only one to have grown rich by investing (in a particular style). But if you try and search their photographs or media interaction or anything about them, you will not have similar success as in finding about Buffett.

One of the major difference between Buffett and other 10 students of Graham is that they have stayed away from limelight, from being popular. Being rich is contributory, another successful money manager is Peter Lynch (google him as well and there is plethora of article on this guy).

The differentiation between Buffett, Lynch and others equally successful but not so famous is the difference between how often they had been in media or communicating en-masse.

So my understanding is that these good guys and girls are shy, and sometimes they also have bad luck, doesn't mean they should consider themselves as 'Victims'. I was once told by one of elders in the family, 'In life every moment is unique, and as humans we will make mistakes. The important point is to learn from them and not repeating them and learning from them.'

Human beings greatest gift is that they can change and there is always someone kind enough to help you: family, friends, counselors, sometimes random strangers but don't take it for granted and don't expect them to be always there.

The Noon-light robbery: LIC

There is a lot of coverage to the LIC's investment in ONGC's share auction. So I thought will just explain it in the simplest possible way.

*What was reported/what happened
ONGC was auctioning its shares. Since the oil marketing company is in losses and is expected to remain in losses, so the investor community didn't show enthusiasm. The government sprang in action and called the LIC's big boss. The boss (at LIC) told his minions to buy ONGC in the auction. The minions also followed their orders.

Now the investment has been screwed: LIC bought the share around either INR 392 or INR 303.67 (this is a new controversy, I havent fig out the discreparency either), but the current price of the ONGC Share is INR 282. So either way the company LIC has made poor investment.

*Insurance?
The idea of insurance is to protect one self against an unforeseen problem. Most of the time the company takes into account that only 10-20% of the people taking out an insurance will file claim. If there is a risk of more people filing for claims then the premium amount will rise.

*Business model for an insurance company
Roughly, the insurance company invests 60-80% of the money collected in business from where it can get higher returns. Only a part of the money is kept with the insurance company so that it can give out claims and run its day-to-day activity. For this the company claims a service charge and all money made out of the investment remains with the company/shareholders.

(The exact business is more complicated but in simple terms we can state as above)

*The twist
In India LIC sells insurance product which guarantees a return at the end of the tenure. This return is linked to the performance of stock market, which is based on the number of units. So if LIC makes a bad investment then it is the policy bearer who will register the losses.

*The noon robbery
LIC is making poor investment knowingly because the Govt has directed its Chairman to do so. This hurts the company from a business sense but also because it is doing against the best interest of its policy investors.

*The biggest problem
Years ago, there was a mammoth company called UTI which used to collect money and invest. But it failed because it came out with a product with guaranteed return and it invested in stocks but around the same time stock market collapsed and hence it didnt had enough money to meet its obligation.

LIC may not have to share the fate of a govt bail-out now but if its decision making is not give the due freedom then it will go the Air India way and face the prospect of being bankrupt.

Democracy & Crony Capitalism -- III (The Debate)

Continued from 


Critic – Anonymous ‘M’

To respond to your suggestions/comments, while they sound pretty logical and even achievable, I am afraid in reality it is a lot more complex than what they seem on paper. For instance, 'When the Enforcement Directorate, Income Tax and CBI are run by the right people" is a huge challenge that can take decades although at this point, to me, a century seems like a realistic time! How Shoaib, are the 'right people' to be identified? Is 'efficiency' or 'honesty' going to be the hallmark of the 'right people'? If you say both, is it realistic to expect such people to entangle themselves in the web of bureaucracy? I for one, think I am efficient and sure I am honest, but whatever the incentive I would never get into a government establishment, although my parents and extended family are entrenched in the government!

Now, if bureaucracy is simplified and cleaned up, perhaps. But it is a chicken and egg situation. It is not possible to get rid of the people now manning the government organisations and appoint people with a different mindset and unless there are people with a different mindset, things are not going to change! So, frankly I do not see a way out. And no, I am not willing to blame the politicians for the entire mess. I think the bureaucrats are also responsible for it, and in a major way.

As for the TN politicians, the problem is not one of unity. I do not want them to stick together. I think democracy is all about diversity and that includes diversity in ideas/thoughts as well. But what pains me is their ineptitude and inability to make the right choices. When democracy is about short-term populism, then there is little that can be done. What is required is statesmanship and leaders with foresight which Indian democracy does not allow. 

Now to 'functioning democracy', I disagree with the definition. I think it is too simplistic. Yes, I have the right to vote out Karunanidhi but if all I can do is opt for Jayalalithaa (who won by an incredible margin), then it is not democracy in the true sense. To choose one rogue over another is no choice at all. You are basing the definition on the process and ignoring the many complexities that renders the process superficial. And we are still electing a person rejected by the majority of the electorate. I brought in Kashmir merely as an example of how just because a method is followed we beat our breasts and claim to be a great democracy. Agreed Kashmir is a festering wound and needs a lot more thought. But there are many places in which elections are just that, a mere process that is held to signal democracy. I do not see any merit in this.

My grouse is with the understanding of democracy as the Westminster model and transposing it onto countries like India and expecting it to work. While I would not support the regressive policies of Singapore, what I would like is to adapt the Westminster model taking into account the peculiarities of India and then implementing it. That requires intellectual discussion which I do not think we are capable of now. May be, after my lifetime. But frankly Shoaib, looking at the new generation, I have lost hope. When they are bred on populism and learn to appreciate and come to expect it then intellectual deliberation is never going to happen!

Sorry to end this on such a hopeless note!

-------------------------

I completely agree with the fact that they will not be easy to achieve. The barriers would be numerous.    

The first problem would be to establish who would be the right person; this is next to impossible in daily life. And many times our conclusions are proved wrong in hindsight. Everyone thought Manmohan Singh would be a great Prime Minister but he is highly disappointing, as he has no idea of politics. He is a successful technocrat and a failed politician. 

Before getting to the response, allow me to first explain about my perceptions and things that we will have to agree to irrespective of our liking. My perception is that there are three fold problems that we need to correct. 

1. Problem of not being a citizen 

Unless we do not participate, how can the country be fixed? It is fine that I don’t want to be a politician but then do I try and support the candidates that are good enough for the job? Did I try and help them? 

If we ask ourselves such kind of questions then the answer is usually negative. I hardly get time to meet people but after online search and talking to some people while in Bangalore, I found that Loksatta party is good. And talking with some of my friends who are aware of Telegu politics it seems that the founder of the party JP Narayan is a genuine person. So I make my political donations to his party. Though I agree that there presence is limited, but at least there is a reason to have hope that it can grow. Similarly I find Navin Jindal a decent politician, although the same opinion is not there for the congress party. 

If there are no candidates then we should either get into it or find someone to enter it, again not an easy task nonetheless it is fairly possible.  

Individuals' will need to show that they have a stake in the country. Authority and privileges are derived by fulfilling the responsibilities. 

2. The problem of incentives. The question of efficiency, honesty etc.  

I completely agree with you, that there is no way of finding the right person. 

Recently, Patna had a new SP, Shivdeep Lande. Now this gentleman took a measure that in a short period the crime rate and problem of eve-teasing in the city came down. Therefore, he is being transferred! This is atrocious. There are at least a dozen senior officials about whom I have read, they were transferred because they did the job in the right way. Else, the government created special posts with no powers, no specific work and then transferred these people there. A politician once talking to his friend admitted that many officers are given quick promotions and then placed behind desks so that they can be less harmful to the ‘usual’ business.

Then there was a report that some IAS officer's name was suggested to be on the board of SEBI. Later it came to light that this IAS was a relative of the Finance Secretary that is why other officials who had more experience and precise expertise were not favored by the ministry. 

To stop such transfers and promotions, some sort of check and balances needs to be built in the system. I did think of few things but there could be practical problems there. Besides I have not had the opportunity to see these institutions from close quarters therefore it is extremely difficult to suggest anything as of now. 

I did come across a report few months back that was prepared by some government committee. They had suggested reviewing the achievements and policy making of all IAS and IPS on completion of 20 years of service. Based on which their retirement or further promotion be assessed. I liked this idea. Because 20 years a long time. It’s easy to judge policies that may have been unpopular at the time but did great work over the years. 

Therefore, it is my view that to some extent we can find the right people. Not always, maybe not even most of the times but definitely enough times to make sure that the country manages to do well and not reach the precipice of abyss. 

One interesting article written by an IAS on what to change in the system -- http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-04-17/all-that-matters/29427639_1_ias-officers-civil-service-evaluation

Future saviour or savor finder

Once this is achieved then, miscreants should be dissuaded from joining the system by changing the incentive methodologies. 

Few of my school friends are preparing for Civil Services in Delhi. So, once I met them and they introduced me to other aspirants as well. After listening to them for few hours, the conclusion was some of these people are preparing and intend to join the system to exploit only! 

Why? Because they all know people who exploit it and nothing happens to such officers. This attitude needs to change. 

To clean up bureaucracy, the politics needs to change. Because that is how corruption came. Inefficient and dishonest people were promoted, the people who have the power to make such changes need to change else it is difficult to correct. That is the way it will go. (Rather than Lokpal bill if Anna and team can fix this then it’s worth it else it’s just another bureaucratic layer.)

3.  The problem of Patience 

Looking at history closely reveals that corruption at the state and higher level took roots around late 1960s' and 1970s' in politics and bureaucracy. Then it was in 1980s and 1990s when it became a common phenomenon. After 2000 it has been rampant, very much a part of our lives, and we have all accepted it. It took us approximately 30 years to become blatantly corrupt. That is roughly a time-frame when a new officer would have risen to the very top of the system and perhaps retired or would be nearing retirement. We are now living in an era where people who will be taking over the reins of the country, at top level, were born around the time when corruption at high places started blooming. 

To expect that it will get solved in a year or within a decade is wrong.  I wouldn't say that in such a short time a change so radical is not possible but the stakes will be too high. It requires a major catalyst for results in short period, usually what historians later label as revolution. We will have to wait for a generation to grow with the determination to bring about changes.     

     

Response

Finding the right people: Addressed in "2. The problem of incentives. The question of efficiency, honesty etc"

Getting into government establishment: Participate. I can think of two ways for now -

1. You can also work for the government on a consultation basis. Planning commission regularly has openings regarding consultants across various fields. Perhaps other government organization will also be looking for consultation services. If you have friends and family then through them participate.

2. Also think of a pioneering service like: http://www.prsindia.org/ .

One of the founders of PRS Legislative comes from Bank of America. http://www.livemint.com/2011/12/04201606/Switcheroo.html

Responsibility of bureaucrats or politicians: They are both responsible. But the onus shall lay with the law framer more than the implementer.

Diversity, Democracy and Statesmanship: I agree with you completely. Democracy is diversity. But in the name of diversity it does not mean we become a nuisance instigator. That is something that politicians will need to take care of more than normal people. Statesmanship is a difficult job and looking over a long period is not easy for most people. It is complex. To create statesman will require change of perception by the people, who choose them. And those who are able to see and bring change will have to come forward. 

The problem of choice: Participate or find someone worthy and ask him/her to participate. There is no way around it. Agreed in some places it may not work. Then change places. If Azharuddin can move from Hyderabad to UP, Karan Singh can come down from J&K to Lucknow, then why not move away for the moment and the come back. For the sake of argument I will agree the process is flawed in 60 percent of the places. But 40 per cent is an open and fair ground where changes can be brought about.

What Next?

If you still think none of this will work, then what is the other option? American System is also flawed. The population is too huge to put in place the mandatory participation or the systems followed in most of the Europe. Massive changes are not possible under current circumstances. So we don't have much of a chance to get away from the Westminster model.

But I am not hopeless; sometimes the reaction of my peers does dampen hope. But I have come to understand that the lack of intellectual capacity is because of media and lifestyle (My brother was in US, his narration of interaction with the locals does not show a pretty picture. They are good in their field of choice but a day in a life covers beyond professional hours). It is my understanding that this problem with modern generation is there all over the world. And given time and experience we will grow.

Critic – Anonymous ‘M’

Second, I like your optimism and I wish you all the best, although I do not share it. Shoaib, in my previous avatar (centuries ago) I was an idealist who even wanted to be the President of India in order to set it right! I find it so laughable because that is really what I would repeat to everyone in all seriousness in school and college. But what I am impressed with is that I used to say I will rule the country like Hitler!!!

I think that is really what we need. Not Hitler perhaps, but a benevolent despot. This democracy, people's verdict whatever, does not work for us. I think it was Rajaretnam in Singapore who said that South Asia has been ruled by monarchies for centuries and centuries and that is what people understand and appreciate. This Westminster type of democracy (which incidentally the British have changed and we hold on to its ruins, much like the education system we inherited) is not for us. I think there is something there, although as I said in the earlier mail, I do find Singapore policies too repressive and the people automatons!

I repose faith in a few who are keen on changing the society etc., but I am also anxious that they will be defeated by the system. At times I must own I have been defeated by the system and felt absolutely wretched. 

So for your sake and the sake of your generation I shall hope and pray things change.

Democracy & Crony Capitalism -- II (The Debate)

Continued from


Critic – Anonymous ‘M’

Interesting! And good methodology too. 

But I have some issues: now '(1) On bio and financial info of its elected leaders available to the public' does not signal anything. There is this whole system of 'benami' where someone totally unrelated can hold the person's assets. Almost all politicians resort to this and just knowing what organisations that relatives are associated with, will not solve the prob.

Step 3 will indicate connections to corporate houses or interests. But problems with democracy are more than just crony capitalism, isn't it? For instance, take the TN politicians' skewed arguments on backing the rebels in SL. That is detrimental to democracy but how do you explain their affinities by looking at just their corporate associations.

I also have a more fundamental problem: seriously how would you define a working democracy? Would simply holding elections periodically and getting people to cast their vote at gun point, like is done in Kashmir, suffice?

I do not think transparency amounts to anything much in countries in South Asia as we have a different idea of private life etc.

--------------

Response

"There is this whole system of 'Benami' where someone totally unrelated can hold the person's assets. Almost all politicians resort to this and just knowing what organisations that relatives are associated with, will not solve the prob."

I have thought a lot about 'Benami' problem though in an entirely different context. My understanding is that it will get solved with digitization and changes in election process procedure. The problem of 'benami' will be sorted when the parallel economy of black money is reined in. And that will happen over a period of time. There is no instant solution and this one requires a more top-bottom approach. When the Enforcement Directorate, Income Tax and CBI are run by the right people or let us say procedures are followed and Ministers do not have the authority to change the course of investigation. Current organization structure gives the ministers too much of power, the departments are run more at the mercy of politicians, hence making it difficult to curb the Benami and the black money problem.

I will make no claim that these measures will end the corruption but definitely compared to current levels it can be curbed by 90 per cent or more with just tweaking the reporting and appointment structure. This is why I am not for the lokpal bill for now but rather a tweak in the system for better authority and responsibility. 

"....For instance, take the TN politicians' skewed arguments on backing the rebels in SL. That is detrimental to democracy but how do you explain their affinities by looking at just their corporate associations."

This is a problem of power play and aspirations. There is a famous story that we all have been told: There was a farmer. He had five sons. They were always fighting. To teach them to stick together he gave each one of them a stick and asked them to break it. And they all managed to do so. Then he bundled the sticks together and asked his each one of his sons to try and break it. None of his sons' were successful at the task. Hence, the moral that if you stick together then no one will be able to break it. 

Now our dear politicians/leaders have taken this story to their heart and have re-written it the other way round. So they try and break the society on any possible ground and keep people in the dark in any way possible. This helps them keep in power. The part that is upsetting is that media, the fourth estate or the watchdog of democracy, is actually colluding with these politicians. While it is easy to break, compartmentalize and rule its tough to build a nation. For now I am short on ideas, on how can we fix this problem. Ultimately it will come down to people who choose and to those who decide to serve the nation as its leader. 

"I also have a more fundamental problem: seriously how would you define a working democracy? Would simply holding elections periodically and getting people to cast their vote at gun point, like is done in Kashmir, suffice?"

Actually this is a very good question but few, to my knowledge perhaps no one asks this question. But its simple: 

Any country where a government can be changed by means of non-violence and consensus building through voting fulfills the basic criteria of "democracy". 

A "functioning democracy" will be the one where the elected government has the authority to frame the laws of the land and the only way to challenge them should by either changing the government or by challenging it in the court of law that the new law is against the basic tenets of the country's foundation. This little criterion is important because though Pakistan and Thailand are democratic country but there governments are weak and hence they do not qualify for functioning democracy. With its last election Turkey will qualify for a functioning democracy before that they had a huge issue with the military as a major player in the politics. 

There are three prime examples good elections are: During the General Election in India, when Dr Karan Singh fought an election with AB Vajpayee in Lucknow, which though Vajpayee won but the margins were too narrow despite Lucknow being a safe constituency for Vajpayee. In the same General Elections Sushma Swaraj was fielded against Sonia Gandhi in Bellary (if I remember correct) and there too the margins were too narrow for Gandhi despite the constituency being considered safe for her. And on the state level when Shibhu Soren fought from a so called safe constituency to retain his position as the CM but he lost out to Raja Peters. (link: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2009-01-08/news/27634178_1_shibu-soren-raja-peter-jharkhand-chief-minister )

Now comes the Kashmir part. To allow secession, is out of the question its like removing the stick from the bundle. Everyone has too much to lose in such a situation. There are no gainers except the person who appoints himself or herself as the ruler/leader etc.

As for the state itself, there are two levels of problem there. One a consistent external fuel and second that our leaders don't accept mistakes and then try to correct them. 

Omar Abdullah's point that Army should be kept to barracks or their authority should be curbed in places where they do not have any operations is correct by all standards but that is the problem no one is listening. I think a similar step of limiting the Army's role in north-east is also important. For such situations, I think it all comes down to leadership and how the states are being handled. Too many mistakes were done at the time of Independence 1. The partition 2. The formula of sharing lands/states during partition 3. The formation of states 4. By not disbanding the congress 5. Currently by not heeding to the CM. Since when did the Defence Minister and the Generals gain so much power to decide the administration capacity in a state? This is a blunder in making. (These are at the top of my list). 

"I do not think transparency amounts to anything much in countries in South Asia as we have a different idea of private life etc."

Agreed. But we did change a lot. And this concept will also change albeit with a lot of time. One of the disadvantage of being in the public life and being given the responsibility of using power is that there cannot be any of a private life and one shall always be under scrutiny. The politicians can accept it now else they will have to accept it 50 years later, provided democracy remains and the country does not disband itself. 


Continued to