Anna Hazare, Ramdev, et al : What Are We Fighting For?

Somewhere, I don't believe that its corruption per se that bothers us so much. Its existed forever. We've participated in it, willingly or otherwise. At the very least, we're desensitized to the whole thing.

So why have these fasts and protests resonated so much, especially amidst the GIMC ?

I think we're feeling left out, and reasonably helpless. The dialogue between us and the ever-aligned politicians has completely broken down over the last couple of decades. And we hardly vote, in any case. The political class has freely "participated" in the growing GDP with no checks and balances, and the excesses, brazenness of it all, coupled with the current lack of even a semblance of any counterbalance that we might be able to provide to this has finally gotten to us.

I think, despite the very very naive and sometimes even dangerous thinking thats trying to fill up this vacuum, that this is a good thing to happen. Our overall cynicism levels might actually drop. The best case outcome will be a process that starts and sustains an issue based dialogue between legislators, administrators and the citizenry. Of course, this'll need "them" to re-establish some credence and us to be less suspicious of everything political (in itself not a dirty word, its only muddied as practiced, quite like religion).

Engagement, and not hostility and antagonism, will be the right way forward and hopefully we'll get there as the current flare-ups settle.

The really really big question is - do we have the sustained enthusiasm and interest in a functioning democracy and dialogue? Or will a short term assertion of citizen power satiate our collective egos ? Many in the classes that stand to benefit from our lack of involvement will be counting on us to run out of breath and soon get caught up again in upgrading our lives as dictated by the glossies and the idiot box.

The Education Bill and the need for Democratic Debates

[ Had posted this on my other blog by mistake. ]

Parliament just enacted this.

There are some goos intentions and clauses in there to ensure free minimum education levels. But, I have reservations. I do not understand the full implications of this yet, but a quick read did sound like one of those overarching policies that seeks to overhaul and pretend that things have improved because of it, rather than figure out what the problems are. As usual, its not the policy or the "system" but the execution that bears fruit.

The one big issue that I did get a sense of from this document is about bringing under excessive governmental purview the running and operational aspects of private schools. Sure there are problems there that needed fixing, and sure, some of those need legislation - but wouldn't it be the smart thing to first fix the delivery and operational problems at government run or aided schools rather than bring wholesale changes to those which are at least partly working well ? In many instances, I see the more enlightened schools lose a lot of creativity and freedom. It doesn't always have to be brought down to a common denominator, does it ?

Its rarely one size/one price/one set of books/one method. That cannot be healthy. I'm hoping - since I haven't yet understood the full implications of this yet - thats it not so.

The councils that schools currently sign up with (ICSE, CBSE) already dictate too much - even for the lower grades where, ideally, the schools and the teachers are more suited for crafting a course and materials that fit the needs of the immediate social circumstances they're working in. A bunch of guys sitting in Delhi trying to create a one-size-fits-all set of syllabi and courseware is - well - again likely to achieve nothing beyond the common denominator. To add to that, the council now wants schools to first get certification and then open up. A lot many schools founded on alternative education methods have not, and probably cannot afford taken this route on day-zero. Of course, fly-by-night operators use this too - but should one punish those trying to take education forward to curb those unscrupulously trying to make a quick buck ? That sounds dumb. The clause reeks of the slowly ebbing license raj, honestly.

Most critically, while some of the goals are lofty and noble, it'll all depend on execution even more - without which all thats likely is more corruption, shadowy deals and arragements to "meet this condition" or that - and less progressive thinking in education.

Finally, whatever happened to democracy ?

I did not hear of a discussion on this around here, forget participating in one. Exactly what is my elected representative for ? I'm really getting pi**ed with this get-out-and-vote noise - what for ? So someone can claim to speak on my behalf and help enact such legislation without me having the slightest clue to the whats, whys and whens ?

Its signed "ARJUN SINGH" so I'm assuming its some bureaucrats unfinished agenda since the miniter's gone. This urge to "leave a lasting legacy" come what may will cost us a lot, like @rameshsrivats observed wryly.

The Valley of no hope ?

I've been having similar thoughts to those that Vir Sanghvi expresses. Its only with a heavy heart, and despair, that one is forced to say this. I've always believed no problem is big enough if people are rational, open minded and fair. Sorry, those have turned out to be big ifs.

If we cannot own a people, there's no point owning the land. Tactical superiority and all that be damned - armed defense no longer depends on who owns the higher hill. And our false machismo about "how can we give away even an inch of our land" needs to be relooked at - since the Kashmiris do not consider their place part of "our land", who are we to ?

I'd love to be friends with the Valley and its people, but like Sanghvi, it looks like its gone beyond the point of no-hope. As he points out, plenty and more has been done. In fact I suspect that the special status might be one reason for Kashmiris thinking of themselves as a different country altogether. Bihar has had rigged elections, and pretty much every other state to some extent. A lot many places have less progress, more poverty. Yet you do not see this degree of a desire for secession, and at this scale.

If indeed most Kashmiris want to join Pakistan, or be an independent country, let them. ONLY the valley, of course. Not Ladakh, not Jammu.

And then, make sure we have NOTHING to do with them. Economically, politically, from the tourism point of view, whatever. Let's see how well they do without the larger embracing idea that India is. Let's see if narrow parochial, diehard ethnicity does better than what India's been managing to do. Even if the Valley then runs into problems, or needs help, sorry, you asked for it, idiots. You think we're out to get you ? Wait till you do it to yourself, or worse, the mess that Pakistan is happens to you. Alvida, guys.

I suspect the resilient Pundits have already kind of given up on the Valley, and in fact, many have done well in other parts of India. I have friends amongst them, and think we should do our all to ensure they are well settled in India. [ Or at least as well settled as the rest of us are :) ]

I hate thinking in terms of a "them", but in case, to hell with them, and good riddance.

Update:

Just came across a similar thought expressed by Swami Ankesaria Aiyer too. Reproducing the conclusion of his point of view :

India has sought integration with Kashmir, not colonial rule. But Kashmiris nevertheless demand azaadi. And ruling over those who resent it so strongly for so long is quasi-colonialism, regardless of our intentions. We promised Kashmiris a plebiscite six decades ago. Let us hold one now, and give them three choices: independence, union with Pakistan, and union with India. Almost certainly the Valley will opt for independence. Jammu will opt to stay with India, and probably Ladakh too. Let Kashmiris decide the outcome, not the politicians and armies of India and Pakistan.

So its definitely not an isolated thought. Its not gained political currency yet, but I guess as a first step, someone needs to make the thought of making this outcome an acceptable possibility - and to ensure this is presented as an extreme one-off step, with disastrous consequences for those who want it - but alas, we cannot really help them if they want out of a nation on the path of greatness. We had promised a plebiscite, so we're just making good on a promise.