Category: POLITICS

OUR WORST INSTINCTS

For the rich, national borders are irrelevant and for the poor they are inconsequential. To both these classes, they are but imaginary lines on a map, albeit for different reasons. Hence, a lot of store is set by the middle class. The rich have vested interests and the poor are desperate. It is the middle class who is to be level headed and set the right political and social narrative. It is also the educated middle classes that lend ‘legitimacy’ to any ruling class or leader. Every leader realizes that mere popularity won’t do without legitimacy – that veneer of acceptance and respectability. In our country too, it has been the educated middle classes that have proudly held aloft the flag of legitimacy for the current central ruling dispensation. It is not an exaggeration to say that no leader in recent Indian political history has enjoyed the levels of popularity and legitimacy as does the Supreme Leader.

In the context of the pandemic, some questions, however, have begun to emerge. The horrible human tragedy that continues to unfold, is perhaps forcing some to reevaluate. Questions have begun to emerge on inefficiency, on how science was ignored, on how things were not thought through and the like. The one thing that perhaps is being given the short shrift is that the ruling dispensation was always like this. The tragedy of the pandemic has just brought this starkly into view.

The Supreme Leader had taken a short cut to our hearts and gained legitimacy by sufficiently reflecting our worst instincts and hypocrisies and giving them legitimacy. To that extent it is a recursive, reciprocal process, a virtuous cycle of reinforcement if you will. Here I attempt to recount some of those worse instincts that we are possessed of. I am a constituent myself of the educated middle classes and some of the things that I am recounting are stuff that I observed growing up in a tier 3 town and that I continue to observe. These are not scholarly or analytical observations, just anecdotal ones. And they are not blanket observations, just general ones. Many honorable exceptions exist. Also the list is neither complete nor comprehensive.

So in no particular order, some of our worst instincts are:

  1. A ‘Father knows Best’ Attitude: Right from the beginning and through the entire arc of our life –as we grow up , in school , college and to some extent in our jobs-we are not exactly encouraged to ask questions. If anything, we are either subtly or even overtly discouraged. True , lip service , is paid in schools to the importance of asking and clarifying ‘doubts’ ,but God forbid we ask uncomfortable questions and questions that the teachers can’t answer. There is always a right and wrong set of questions. The authority figures know best – be it your parents, your teachers and then your bosses. We essentially engage in a life –long search for and submission to authority figures, hoping that one day we become authority figures ourselves. And then we perpetuate the cycle. Not rocking the boat and not asking ‘too many’ or ‘too uncomfortable’ questions become internalized behaviors and the norm. Free discourse be damned. Perhaps that is why you hear the common refrain “India needs a dictator”, particularly among many in the middle class. You are not particularly afraid of or worried about dictatorships, when your entire life has been about living under a series of dictators with the eventual hope that you will become one yourself. So when along comes a leader who is able to elevate himself to the status of the ‘Supreme Patriarch’ and promptly proceeds to behave like a dictator – it doesn’t feel frustrating, it feels familiar.
  2. Technology literate but unscientific in temper: We are ‘tool’ obsessed. We are good at employing tools and the tools become ends in themselves. We are not particularly bothered about what the tool means. We are perfectly comfortable in situations that would otherwise have been considered paradoxical. For instance, we find no contradiction in being adept at using a laptop as also worshiping it on a few occasions. We know that the Sun is but an inanimate star but have no problem paying obeisance to it should the occasion so demand. Our education seems to do little to change our practices. It is a scathing indictment of our education system –in that education has become a ‘tool’ and seems to do little for either our outlooks or our belief systems. We love technology, without setting much store by the scientific temper that created it in the first place. Confusing myth for history, not asking enough questions, not revaluating beliefs are all byproducts of this. Combine this with an enduring belief that we are THE greatest civilizations on earth, and you have some unsavory results. So, when a leader claims that plastic surgery and unmanned flight always existed in India and cites Ganesa and the Pushpaka Vimana , we don’t find it ridiculous – we say “of course”.
  3.  ‘Casually’ Bigoted: Casual Bigotry abounds. Stereotypes rule. We don’t think much about it. The very many artificial divisions in our society only add to our bigotry. The trouble is we are quite casual about it and don’t think of ourselves as being bigoted for holding on to certain stereotypes. We perhaps don’t even think along those lines. The number of times I would have heard statements like ‘He is of so and so religion, but he is a god guy’ is not funny. It is a matter, of course, that people of certain religions and castes find it difficult to rent houses. It is matter, of course, that people of only certain castes get to buy or rent houses in certain localities. These things don’t even register, let alone cause any outrage. We don’t realize our own bigotry. People belonging to certain religions and castes are ‘aggressive’, some are ‘soft’. These stereotypes and attitudes are symptoms of a deeper problem, a deeper rot. A rot whose full stench stays hidden in normal times, but takes only a few determined scratches on the surface for it to start manifesting itself. So when a leader deliberately and cleverly stokes divisions by appealing to our innate bigotry – it doesn’t cause outrage but occasions agreement.
  4. Oversimplification and lack of nuance: May be because the problems facing us are so complex, we have a tendency to oversimplify. Solve xx and everything else will be solved, is a common refrain. Replace xx with corruption, population –take your pick. And our solutions are also quite simplistic. Popular cinema has been exploiting this attitude of ours for a long time to reap rewards at the box office. Murdering the corrupt is a popular theme. So is the theme of a strong willed leader. We set much store by intent and will than expertise. I have written about it elsewhere. We assume that there are simple, straightforward solutions to mind bogglingly complex problems and we also conveniently forget that any solution could have several downstream implications and these also need to be accounted for. This disdain for expertise and an overreliance on ‘intent’ and ‘will’ combine with a condescension for the social sciences- the realm of solutions for many problems that face us. The ‘arch problems’ that we identify like population for instance, also are pressed into the service of justifying the ruler’s failures. “Oh, but we are a 130 crore people, not like Europe”. Well, it did not so happen that the population exploded overnight, because people suddenly decided to do it like bunnies. Instead of demanding from our rulers that they build solutions that scale for our size, we let them offer up it up as an excuse and even join in the chorus. Many movies, unfortunately, have also taught us that getting 15 lacs into the bank account of every citizen is not only possible but also very straightforward. So when a leader displays disdain for expertise and steamrolls on ahead with simplistic solutions even when they threaten widespread hardships, we don’t feel worried, we feel vindicated.
  5. Privilege unconscious: We have the uncanny ability to recognize everyone else’s privilege, but our own. A martyr/victim complex lurks just beneath the surface. This typically translates into 1) a self-imposed feeling that each one is on their own 2) a shameful lack of compassion. When the migrant crisis had struck last year, I heard many who are close to me ask “if the migrants were stupid”. “But where are they going? Shouldn’t they just stay where they are? This is just stupid baba”. That a young man -who is away from his family, who just lost his livelihood and who is hearing of a deadly pandemic – would want to be near his family and would crave a support system , did not occur to these people. Interestingly, many employees moved bases back to their hometown when indefinite WFH was announced by many companies last year. They moved for very valid reasons. Trouble is, we are unable to see the parallels between the two –that this is just a difference of economic means and not intentions.  So when our leaders conveniently ignore these tragedies that affect those that are less fortunate than us, we do not flinch, because we had ignored those tragedies long before the leaders did.

We could go on. But the larger point is our leaders reflect who we are. As the philosopher Joseph De Maistre said – In a democracy, people get the leaders that they deserve. The tragedy of the pandemic has been personal to many of us. The bigger tragedy is that it takes a tragedy of these proportions for us to start demanding accountability and start asking questions. The biggest tragedy of them all is that, it is quite likely that we will forget all of this and slip back to our old ways.

We need better leaders. But for that we need to be better ourselves. We will do well to remember that.

WANTED : ‘WEAK’ LEADERS

I have written elsewhere about our obsession with ‘Strong’ leaders. As a people we seem to deliberately seek out certain qualities in our leaders. Perhaps it is an unconscious expression of the desire for a ‘parent figure’. And when we do find such a leader who conforms to our image of being ‘strong’ , our devotion to such a figure is almost religious and our adoration borders on the mystical. We seem to be in possession of a huge capacity to give up our own agency, in a sense, to follow said leader. We attribute superhuman qualities to the leader. He /she attains omnipotence in our collective psyche. In that respect, this reflects the worst aspects of religious experience because this seems to parallel how many of us look to God.

When everything is fine and things are going smooth, such an attitude towards leaders-while not ideal, may be doesn’t do much harm. The trouble begins when trouble begins (pun intended). Because even in a crisis, we find it difficult to criticize someone whom we had put on a pedestal and worshiped. We find it difficult to ask questions, because so far, we never asked questions. The entire basis for our adoration was the omnipotence of said leader. In the process of following the leader and raising him/her to superhuman status, we gave up our rationality and agency. This person was our panacea to everything and our final hope. This person was supposed to lead us into utopia and we had all packed our bags to follow him there to take up permanent residence. But when all this person does is lead us from crisis to crisis, what do we do? We cannot start questioning, because that muscle atrophied hopelessly a long time back. How do we criticize someone we had raised to the status of a ‘God’? I guess we cannot, short of admitting that we have been worshiping a false god till now. That our superhero turned out to have feet of clay. The trouble with such an admission – it is more an indictment of ourselves than it is of the leader. We are admitting to a horrible error in judgement, which a lot of us are loath to do.

The second problem to such an admission – a God/hero has to be replaced by another God/hero-surely humans can’t seat themselves on the vacated throne. So before admitting to have been worshiping a false God, we have to identify a new God to take that place. And gods of course are hard to find. It may have something to do with the fact that they don’t exist. So in the absence of a new hero/God we continue worshiping the old God. True, we are a bit cross with said God and not happy, but it is God after all and whatever God does, it is always for our good.

Perhaps such is the dilemma that many ‘Bhakts’ find themselves in. Despite finding ourselves in the midst of a horrible, avoidable human tragedy –may be that is why many supporters of the current ruling dispensation, find it difficult to criticize and withdraw their support. Now I am not talking about the people and institutions with a vested interest who support the administration for obvious, self-serving reasons. I am talking about ordinary supporters, as ordinary as you and me. We are afraid of losing hope and the vacuum that a vacated throne creates. And perhaps this is what is behind refrains like –“but what is the alternative” and “whatever is being done, must have been fully thought through”.

In a sense, the problem is not the leader per se, but us. And the qualities that we seek from leaders. And this desire for a strong leader and the willingness to give up our own agency is not limited to the political realm. I have seen it multiple times in the relatively boring environs of the corporate world also. We have very specific definitions for ‘Strength’ as well. We typically look for charisma, decisiveness and the ability to brook no dissent. In that sense we seem to revel in being steamrolled ourselves. We also end up making certain assumptions – that this person can solve all problems and as an extension solving for problems requires only a strong will. We typically tend to underestimate complexity of the problems being solved and conveniently ignore the fact that the problems facing us are far too complex and have far too many implications for one person with a strong will to satisfactorily solve for. The ancient shibboleth – Where there is a will –there is a way- needs revisiting. Having a will is a necessary condition but not always a sufficient one.

In our search for strength, we also unconsciously define a ‘negative’ list. We don’t say or admit to this openly or even consciously but it is tacit. We frown upon a consultative leader. We frown upon anyone who displays even an iota of self-doubt. We neither look for empathy nor set too much store by kindness. We elevate our search for strength to such heights that ‘Will’ replaces expertise. We perversely revel in ‘one person’ shows and do not give too much thought to what it does to the culture of the organization or society. We enjoy ‘displays of strength’ – the no brooking of any dissent and the active discouragement of ‘questioning’. Everything becomes ad- hominem. And when questioning dies- with it die scientific temper and rationality.

By defining leadership so narrowly and by elevating our leaders to such stratospheric heights, we do ourselves disservice. Despite being disappointed we keep setting store by this. In fact disappointments seem to strengthen this behavior further.

May be what we need today across the corporate and political realms are ‘weak’ leaders. Leaders who understand that the problems they are solving are far too complex for any one person to solve. Leaders who set store by expertise, who consult widely and who, once in a while, display self-doubt. Leaders who encourage questioning and see that as a sign of their strength. Leaders who are human.

We need such ‘weak’ leaders who can build strong institutions and processes. We hanker after ‘strong’ leaders and weak institutions.

To get there we need to give up seeking certain qualities in our leaders to the exclusion of everything else and take back the agency that we have so willingly given up.

 In a sense, it is like giving up religion. Difficult at first, but liberating once done.

IN SEARCH OF BIG BROTHER

I have had this conversation so many times with so many different people. Some among them good friends whom I respect.

The premise of the topic of the conversation is quite simple. Given the state of affairs in our country , are we not better off with a dictatorship for a while? Sounds like a topic for group discussion during one of those horrid selection processes in a B school/company recruitment eh? But it is fascinating how many people seemingly agree with this. I have heard many educated , intelligent , informed people state this. There are of course variations on this theme. The dictator becomes a “strong leader” who does not brook any dissent. The dictator sometimes gets replaced by a “committee” , so it is not a dictatorship of one but dictatorship by a committee. Whatever , the variations on the theme -there are two undercurrents that seem to be common to all the themes:-

1) A wish or desire -even a sort of wistful longing for a leader with almost unbridled powers – this leader would need those powers to set everything right but he would not misuse those powers – a “benign”/”benevolent” dictator he is called. A variation on the Lee hypothesis.

2) A general disdain for the democratic process as being too slow , messy and prone to manipulation. Coupled with this a tendency to blame a lot of our ills on our slow moving democratic machinery. Politicians are blamed and democracy is blamed too for giving them too much leeway and opportunity to manipulate the system.

Let us consider the second undercurrent first. But before I begin be advised that I have libertarian tendencies and have a pathological disdain for anything remotely authoritarian. However , I shall try and restrain myself from quoting such advantages of democracies like “free speech”,”civil liberties” etc. I gather they are not too important these days as long as we are “reforming” the economy.

Is democracy bad for development?

Is there a link between democracy and development in general? Are the slow , ponderous processes that are inherent to a democracy inimical to development? There are three favorite examples of the dictator lovers . They talk of China . They talk of Singapore . And when it comes to law and order they talk of the UAE. Specifically there is talk of the huge strides China and Singapore have made in a very short period of time. There is also talk of the fear of God (God here is of course Allah – there is no God but Allah),that UAE has been able to inspire in the minds of wrongdoers. People think twice before even running a red light.

To be fair , it is difficult to argue with that.Undoubtedly , China and Singapore have done well for themselves . And UAE definitely has very low crime rates.

But are these the only countries that have done well? Let us take a larger view. Consider the top 30 developed countries in the world. And the usual measure for this is the HDI – the human development index – a sort of composite to measure how well off a country’s citizens are with respect to health,education and income.( One could have looked at GDP but that is not exactly a comprehensive indicator of development.)

Interestingly , almost all of them are democracies. In fact most countries which have done well for themselves over the past 50 years seem to be democracies. The usual refrain is that these countries are largely homogeneous with none of the pressures that a large , diverse ,hugely populous country like ours would have. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the United States , unless of course you think of the President of the United States as a quasi -dictator of sorts. If you ,in fact do, it is good to have known you.

On the other hand , most countries which have had dictators or authoritarian forms of government -think of most of the African countries or a few Islamic states – one sees they haven’t done too well for themselves.

Ofocurse , one needs to be careful and not read too much into this. There needs to be a statistical study that needs to be made to understand the relationship between democracy and development.

But upon a cursory examination ,it does look like democracy in itself does not seem to be inimical to development , if anything it is the democratic countries that ,on a balance, seemed to have done well.

So next time ,when we are tempted to think of China , I wish we would also think about the US ,UK or Germany and remind ourselves that among the well off countries in the world , there seems to be a preponderance of democracies.

Let us consider the first undercurrent now.

The “Benevolent” dictator:

It is an oxymoron if I have heard one. A “benevolent” dictator. One who would be hard nosed enough to use his unbridled power unhesitatingly for the good of the people , yet who would be noble enough not to misuse these powers that we trust him/her/it with. Even forgetting the ethical implications for a minute – it looks like a logical impossibility.

However , let us assume for a moment that this is indeed possible. Let us consider the ways in which this could come to be , since we seem to be on an unbridled flight of fantasy anyways.

1) The dictator/group of elite people / committee/ sentient robots grab power , through violent revolution.Having grabbed power they establish themselves firmly in it’s seat and claim to represent the will of the people. The dictator/group of elite people/committee/sentient robots then rule by fiat. Clearly , the public in general would not have a role or say in this. And a dictatorship/robot rule that has been established this way seems too risky. We do not really know , if the dictator who has come to power this way ,would be too benevolent.

2) Non violent revolution- we rally behind a leader ,who would lead us through a revolution . This revolution would overturn all the existing systems/players within the existing systems. Having done this we establish this leader in the seat of power and hand over our asses to him/her/it. This leader would have unbridled power and would use it for the good of the people. A variation on this theme is that this leader would give up his dictatorship and establish a democracy after a stipulated “n” number of years. n usually is greater than 10. Simple and elegant ,right? Except for a few problems:-

1) We assume that this leader knows best. Apart from being a great revolutionary , he would be a great administrator , a great visionary and knows exactly what needs to be done and how to get it done. And more importantly , all of us will be happy with most of what he is doing. What if a section of us do not agree with a particular step? Or steps? Who gets to decide which section’s opinion to consider on a particular matter? Running a country is an intricate , complex business and it will happen many times that there will be disagreements. Now the only way out of this seems to be trusting in the Great Leader.Which leaves us with the little problem of finding a trustworthy leader?How does one choose such a leader? Who gets to decide? A democratic process to choose a dictator?I invite you to examine the sheer absurdity of this.

2) There is a supposedly neat solution to this. Give the Great Leader a charter.This charter would lay out what the leader is supposed to do. It is kind of a road map. It would also contain solutions for possible contingencies. Neat eh? May be , except -consider this- we are a people who are capable of getting together for a total revolution , we also have the ability to write a charter that foresees all possible contingencies . Along with it , we have the ability to pick out a trustworthy leader from a population of a billion. Why the hell do we need a dictatorship? Cant we use all these wonderful abilities to make the current system work? We must be high or masochistic or both.

And I am not even getting into things like , how do we know this Great Leader will not become a tyrant or how do we know he will give up power when he is supposed to etc. I am assuming if we are able to deal with the above mentioned problems , these smaller problems will take care of themselves.

Philosopher Kings 

Plato started it all with his vision of Philosopher Kings. He was disillusioned with the democratic process existing in Athens during that time and was also a little too enamored of militaristic Sparta. His Republic is, at some points ,evocative of an Orwellian nightmare. However , there is one significant argument that he makes . When for the execution of a job , for example carpentry or let us say gardening , we tend to look for people who are skilled at that particular job -why is it that we do not demand that the people who govern us be skilled at governance. During that time , public offices were decided by lot. So , anybody , actually anybody could hold any office. And that is the context in which we should see his point. He then goes on to expound on his idea of an ideal society , a school for future leaders , the modus operandi of selecting such leaders etc. He gets fairly nutty at some points -suggesting communal living and censorship of music and poetry. He has grand ideas on engineering the perfect society. One sees echoes of this in the Ubermench of Nietzsche , whose philosophy is said to have inspired Nazism.

The appeal of the philosopher -king ,remains. “Philosophers should become Kings and those who are now Kings must start to philosophize” . And over the ages we have seen ,people attributing to themselves these qualities. Adolf Hitler saw himself as a visionary. So did Stalin. But to be fair to Plato , he did lay stringent rules for who could be this philosopher king and how one would go about earning the right to be called one. And while many dictators naturally skip the stringent procedures , they see themselves in their mind’s eye as philosopher kings. As great visionaries on whom this huge responsibility is thrust upon and which they will fulfill for the sake of their countrymen. Hitler, at least , was brimming with such thoughts. And that is how their countrymen also see them ,when these dictators first ascend to power- as saviors. The Germans saw strength in Hitler. But eventually ,their hollowness is exposed and we realize it was a bubble all along puffed up with megalomania.

Democracy has come a long way from Athens. Public office is no longer decided by lot. There is an entire machinery in place for governance. Every philosopher’s philosophy must also be seen in the context of his life and times. I am not sure how relevant Plato is to us today. But surely our longing for the equivalent of a philosopher king remains. We want a leader who is a visionary ,who is a great administrator and knows how to get things done. There is nothing wrong per se with that desire. But in a democracy ,the citizens typically end up getting the leaders that they deserve -not the leaders that they desire.

Consider the state of affairs in our country today. There are many who feel that , now that Modi has been elected all our troubles are at an end. He is going to find the perfect solutions to all our problems. This optimism was an at all high time high a year or so back. While it has abated a bit now , it is also surprising how lenient the media has been with him and how in general too , the refrain has been that we need to give him more time. Again nothing wrong with that. In some ways it also shows a certain level of maturity on the part of the electorate. However , Modi and adequate time seem to be our only answers to the problems at hand. He is a “strong” leader , people say. And that seems to be enough. There is even a sneaking and many times an open admiration for his authoritarian tendencies. Allow me to point out that having a “strong” leader has never been a problem -except for the years under Manmohan Singh. Indira Gandhi was a strong ,authoritarian leader. She was equally lauded and adulated during her time. She was “Durga Maa” ,after the war with Pakistan was won on the Eastern Front. Her Garibi Hatao had in many ways captured the imagination of the electorate. Modi is also charismatic , has captured our imagination like few leaders in the recent past have been able to. But the only qualitative difference that I see is it was Socialism then -it is Capitalism now. There is a different economic coin. And that seems to be it.

No, I am not a Modi baiter. I am not necessarily a fan of his style of functioning ,or the ideology of his party. But I must say , that he has taken some delightful if unexpected agendas. And that is commendable. I am talking here about , this tendency on our part to see this single person as a savior of sorts. This amounts to an abdication of our own responsibilities as citizens. It is almost reminiscent of the monarchies of old, where the King would make all the difference. The citizens in general are helpless and powerless. We have replaced monarchies with electoral democracy. But the way we idolize our leaders still reflects the old spirit. We have had a long history in this country of personality cults and perhaps this reflects the fact that while we are a democracy in the letter , we are not really a democracy in spirit. True , we have voted out certain leaders in the past , but the phenomenon of personality cult remains strong , and seems to have come back with a vengeance with Modi.

There are obvious dangers to a culture of leader worship and personality cults. Sooner or later it leads to authoritarian tendencies and an acquiescence on the part of the general public , further emboldening the leader and so forth like a vicious cycle. And then when the breaking point comes we would vote this leader out. For a while , such a “strong” leader would not emerge. The citizens start feeling direction less.A need again is felt for a strong leader and another would emerge and the cycle would repeat itself. The leader gets adulated , the leader turns megalomaniacal and then he is discredited. And nothing would change in real terms.

All the while we miss the real problem. A successful democracy demands from it’s citizens far more civil vibrancy than has existed in our country for long. True , it is changing now. And that is a good thing. But for us to be a successful democracy we need to operate at far higher levels of awareness and at much lower levels of apathy. Unless and until we are more informed ,more active as citizens , much more demanding of our representatives ,I do not see much hope for change. We are our biggest hope but we do not see it that way. We see hope in our leaders and express disappointment in them. We tend to blame politicians and democracy for all our ills. But then , we are getting the leaders that we deserve. We blame our politicians for playing caste based politics – yet in a lot of places in the country for a lot of people caste plays a very important role in their lives. We bemoan the communalization of politics , yet we need only to look at the prejudices of an average Indian to guess as to it’s source. We don’t want people to run red lights , yet we do that at every opportunity when we know we can get away with it.

It is convenient to blame our problems on the lack of leadership. But when this leadership emerges from amongst us and when we have a chance to select who our leaders should be , we have little excuse. Our longing for a leader who would lead us out of this mess is only a reflection of how little responsibility that we as citizens want to take for our conditions. True , leadership is important, there is no denying that but leadership is not the only or even the biggest solution to our problems. Can we be more informed ? Can we be less apathetic? Can we take up certain responsibilities in whatever little way each of us can? Only when we are able to answer these questions in the affirmative , will the solutions to our problems begin to emerge.

We can continue to blame democracy. We can continue to see our savior in one single person. However , till the time we become worthy of the progress that we want our leaders to magically deliver to us ,I dont see real change happening.

The day is not far when we will be disillusioned with Modi too. And it wont be his fault. Democracy is not the problem. A strong leader who brooks no dissent is not the solution. We can provide solutions ourselves by being more demanding , by changing the discourse , by being informed .Hard work? Yes. Worth it? We all need to answer that for ourselves.

Successful democracies seem to have worked this way. I guess we can too. Denying that we can make this work is almost tantamount to saying we are not fit for self rule. If that’s the case , somebody should have alerted our freedom fighters to that fact. We seem to have wasted our time winning our freedom. After all , could there be a “stronger” leader than the Monarch?