Abki baar, questions to Modi sir-kar!

After having put forward my concerns to Arvind Kejriwal and Rahul Gandhi, I now want to put forward my concerns to Shri Narendra Modi of the BJP, the only officially declared prime ministerial candidate. Modi sarkar, in all probability yours will be the alliance with the highest number of seats and you may form the government after 16th May, when the President invites you to do so. But, before that if you could answer a few of my concerns, then it would be nice.

1. Why is your party against foreign direct investment in multi-brand retail?
   
   Your party's ideology (when it was formed) was to promote free-market practices, where the market forces decide who does business and who doesn't. To a certain extent, this still happens. That is why one mom-and-pop shop runs better than another, even when both are within half a kilometer's distance of each other. But then, why not extend this to multi-brand retail? Its advantages to consumers are well known and producers are well known. And why fear Walmart's entry? It may be an intimidating organisation, whose practices have partly been responsible for relocation of production sites to China, but then the same Walmart has failed in Germany. It wound up from there within ten years of first setting shop. So, there isn't too much to worry, they will succeed if we Indians allow them to succeed, else they will fail. By not supporting FDI in multi-brand retail, you are not only deviating from the stated ideology of your party, but also pandering to the small time traders, many of whom have cheated this country in millions of rupees in income taxes. Extremely few of them issue proper receipts. Most do not have a return policy in place.


2. Why do you always sound "Me, myself and Irene" (although not in a comic, but a worrying way)?
   In all your interviews, you have been saying "I have done this in Gujarat", "in my Gujarat, I won't want this or that to happen", etc. I have rarely found you giving credit to the team that you lead. Yes, as a leader you are expected to be strong, clear and decisive, but then you bring yourself out as Superman, who is capable of performing difficult and multiple tasks single-handedly and successfully. But, people should understand that all the work is, at the very least, executed by a team (if not conceived in part or whole). Of course, your attitude, perhaps, helps them in performing their tasks without fear of interference, but without them none of your ideas would be executed. So, please show us that you have been successful in building a lean-mean poverty, corruption and many other evil fighting machine. Your interviews and speeches make you appear a Hulk, rather than a Eisenhower or Roosevelt.


3. What is the obsession with the Ram Mandir programme?
   Your party couldn't resist putting the Ram Mandir programme in its manifesto. This, despite knowing that the matter is sub-judice. Of course, you did put in a rider saying that it would be through constitutional means, but then what is not revealed is most vital! Your party's plan to keep the Ram Mandir issue in the spotlight. This at a time when there are a large number of people who can barely eke a living out of their present occupations. Wouldn't it be more prudent to first work on development projects, like infrastructure, sanitation, encouraging industries boosting income, etc. before putting forth the Mandir agenda? I'm not speaking as a middle-class person who wants a job-security, but even those staying in Ayodhya (and Faizabad) are more worried about their current state of existence and end up looking at places out of their towns for employment, because of lack of opportunities there. The only ones successfully managing are the Mahants, the Hindu and Muslim organisations who solicit donations in the temple/mosque's name from tourists and pilgrims who come to visit Ayodhya and of course, the shopkeepers outside the temples. I would love to see Ayodhya developed as a centre of pilgrimage, but not when the centrepiece of all that matters is sub-judice.


4. What is your stand on vigilance organs of the administration?
   The promise to fight against corruption has been a big trump card of your election campaign. But, in your own state the post of the Lokayukta has been vacant for quite some time and your government is in constant clashes with the governor on various issues regarding appointing a new Lokayukta. If this is your enthusiasm about the vigilance organs of the state administration, then how are we supposed to believe in your dedication to fight corruption? Indira Gandhi had once talked about having a "committed bureaucracy". Are you also looking forward to the same?


5. Why don't you acknowledge the chinks in the Gujarat model?
   No model or government can be perfect. And, of course, in today's 27x7 media world governance is a game, more about perception than reality. But still, why have you not acknowledged that there are some goals still to be achieved. E.g. the water of the Narmada not yet reaching quite a few farmers. Or absence of properly functioning schools in some districts. The people of Gujarat are happy with the BJP government and hence have voted you to power twice over. But a lot still has to be achieved and you have to at the very least acknowledge that. And of course, there are unhappy people. It isn't without reason that the strength of the BJP hasn't been able to cross its tally of seats that it held in the previous assembly.

Sir, I sincerely hope that you will address some of these concerns of mine. Since your party hasn't been in power in the Centre, I can't ask you the questions that I put forward to Rahul Gandhi. But still, I hope I don't have to put those questions to you some time down the line.

And now, something for Rahul Gandhi

A friend of mine pointed to me that I should ask questions, not only to Arvind Kejriwal, but also Rahul Gandhi and Narendra Modi. Well, I want to, because no party is perfect, nor has any party in India provided a sustainable plan for India's development and progress. So, I decided let's start with the Grand Old Party of India's youth icon, Shri Rahul Gandhi.

Dear Shri Rahul Gandhi,
 With you being the Indian National Congress' de-facto nominee for the Prime Minister's post, the voice of the youth, the one bestowing the 9 rights, lone fighter of corruption I have a few questions for you. My only worry is the reply to most of my questions being "RTI and women's (or womens') empowerment." Or you lobbing the question back to me an asking me "what would you do about it?" But please, since your party aspires you to be the PM, I hope you will answer the questions of a concerned citizen of India.

1. What is it with you being called "youth icon"?
   You were born in 1970. And you are being called a youth icon! Isn't that ironic? Don't you feel embarrassed by this? I mean, Sachin Tendulkar, who is three years younger than you has already retired from his primary occupation of playing cricket. And he is called a "senior sportsperson", an idol to be emulated and a role model. But where are you? I agree that the Indian constitution didn't allow you to debut before the age of 25, which gave Sachin a head-start of 5 years (he debuted in international cricket at just under 17), but then you were never seen involved with the students' wing of the Congress or its branch in Cambridge.  So, would mind shedding off the "youth icon" tag?


2. Aren't you imposing a state's will onto people through the Right-to-food act?
   I agree that the intentions of such an act are noble. That those who aren't in a position to buy food for themselves, should receive the state's help. But then, isn't a better way of implementing this programme? By saying that we will give wheat, rice and millets at a cheap rate, aren't you imposing the state's will on to people, which goes completely against the tenets of a free democracy? There are areas where people rarely eat wheat or rice or coarse grains. E.g., Marathwada region in Maharashtra prefers to eat jowar and bajra, over wheat and rice. Or those in Konkan eat more of rice than wheat and millets. But then, because of the limits imposed by the food act, they would be forced to either buy the remaining from the open market or change their food habits. Is it morally correct to force people to alter their food habits? Moreover, by this act, you are also distorting the dynamics of agriculture, where you have ended up converting India into a wheat and rice country. Because farmers know that the government will buy their wheat and rice and hence aim to grow no other crop. Do you know edible oil is India's single largest agriculture import? An ingredient, without which no Indian dish can be cooked. That too, at a time when the FCI godowns are overflowing with wheat. With the government's procurements of wheat, rice and millets set to further rise, didn't you and your mother add another disturbance in the dynamics of the agriculture industry?


3. Do you really, sincerely think that those nine weapons of yours will ease people's lives?
   You either tend to think or want people to believe that legislation is the best treatment for the malaise in public life. But, tell you what, once there is a system, there are loop holes. Everyone will exploit the loop holes in the system for his/her own benefits, thereby derailing the overall objective of the democracy. Please wake up from this day dream of yours, where you believe that legislation will cure the country of all ills caused by corruption. There is need for deterrence through prosecution and conviction of the accused, which the entire political spectrum in India today doesn't want to create. Even the Bofors case hasn't received closure and Sukh Ram got convicted by a lower court after fifteen years of trial! By contrast, Rajat Gupta's trial in the United States was over within 3-4 years right up to the Supreme Court.


4.  You really feel that "Congress does not talk about one individual"?
   Yours is a party, whose president, D. K. Baruah, once said, "India is Indira and Indira is India." Now, you would say, that is history and the Congress has changed. That is difficult to understand. At least your grandmother had worked at various lower levels in the original Congress before she rebelled against that party and formed her own Congress(R), which was known as Congress(I), with I for Indira for quite a long time. And you have become the party's vice-president, before proving your mettle at lower or state levels, which many of the current AICC members have done. Do you still feel that Congress doesn't talk about an individual.


5. For empowerment of women, will you do anything to undo the constitutional amendment emanating from the Shah Bano judgement?
   How about beginning from there. Your father had created this amendment, perhaps under pressure or wrong advice. His government overturned the judgement of the Supreme Court. If you want to empower women, can you begin from there. You will receive the BJP's support for that very easily. And your party will not go against what you say. So why not restore the rights of Muslim women for an alimony after divorce as per provisions of the civil law? This would be a great example of women empowerment that you keep repeating.

Sir, I sincerely hope that you will find the time to answer the questions.  They aren't  too many, because you are a busy person, but I would be grateful if you can answer them.

Political fever catches me: My questions to Arvind Kejriwal

Dear Arvind Kejriwal. You have got me in the game. Since every body is asking politicians questions, I felt like asking you as well. I hope you will find the time to address those. Here are my questions. They are not too many in number, like those you submitted to the Chief Minister of Gujarat. So, I hope they won't take too much of your precious time.

1. Why did you resign as the Chief Minister of Delhi?
   Only 48 days into the government, you gave up! In the drama of a resignation speech that you gave outside your party office, you claimed that it was because the Congress and BJP ganged up against you on the behest of Mukesh Ambani. But, you didn't bother to present any proof of that. We were supposed to believe that since the opposition put hurdles in passing an anti-corruption law, you resigned. And also because you filed an FIR against their (according to you) super boss, Mukesh Ambani. Then, you said that you didn't flee the responsiblities, and again repeated that they were colluding and not allowing the government to function. But pray, would you tell us what activities of the government were they stalling? Only the introduction of an anti-corruption bill, for which you too weren't following the procedures requested by the LG of Delhi! You haven't bothered to tell us what other activities were stalled! At least, the UPA claims that the opposition didn't allow passing of key bills, which is a valid point, doesn't matter what those bills were.
   
   Do you want to know what is not quitting and fleeing? Sachin Tendulkar batting in the second innings of the 1999 test match against Pakistan in Chennai, despite an aching back. He would have got his match fees even if he retired hurt, but he gave his best and though India lost, he didn't give up! Or fours years later, Anil Kumble bowling in a test match in West Indies, with a broken jaw. And claiming Lara's wicket. You know why they are considered role models? Because they didn't give when they felt things were going against them.


2. Why weren't people consulted before you resigned as Delhi CM?Before forming the government in Delhi, you claimed to ask the opinion of the citizens of Delhi whether they wanted you to form the government. Then, you said that since there is an overwhelming majority of people wanting you to form a government, you are doing so. But then, what happened to the people's desires when you resigned? In my opinion, you have gone against the people's desire to withdraw from governing Delhi. You didn't ask for their opinion before resigning. You simply wanted them to believe that you resigned because the Congress and BJP were colluding to not allow the AAP government to function. Again, without a proof to back your statement.


3. How did you determine that the KG-D6 gas costs US$ 1.00 to be extracted and hence shouldn't be priced at more than US$ 1.20?What is the basis of these figures? You are an IIT engineer. You must have done some project costing and analysis to come up with this figure. Why haven't you presented your analysis to the people? You are quoting final results without showing your procedure of calculations. Remember, as engineers we used to ask the professors about partial credit for correct procedure? Even the letter where you claimed that Narendra Modi himself wrote a letter to the centre to hike gas prices, turned out to be one written by the chairman of the Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation (GSPC), and not by the Modi government. Sir, the GSPC is a listed company, headed by a civil services (IAS) officer. How do you say that the chairman of a listed PSU is same as the government?


4. Why are Delhi MLAs being given Lok Sabha tickets?
   You mentioned in the end of February that no sitting MLAs of the AAP will receive a ticket for the 214 Lok Sabha elections. But then, as of March end, Rakhi Bidlan is your candidate from a seat in Delhi, you are contesting against Narendra Modi in Varanasi. Pray, why this change in stance and why is there no explanation for this change? What if the Delhi LG invites the AAP to form a government in Delhi? Surely, Somnath Bharati can't become the CM!


5. How are corruption and communalism two sides of the same coin?
   You said this in your speech, didn't you? But how did you reach to this conclusion? Are you saying that a corrupt person is communal and vice versa? Or that communalism leads to corruption? And corruption leads to communalism? Pray, how? I am at a loss to understand this!


6. Is a letter signed by a PSU chairman an order of the government?
   You released a letter, written by the chairman of the Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation, which is a public sector undertaking, claiming that it was a Gujarat government letter. Is it true that all PSUs are a part of the cabinet of any government? You were in the Income Tax department. Can you tell me then, is it possible that the profits that the PSU earns can be claimed as income by the government to which the PSU belongs? If yes, then fine. But if no, then how come a PSU chairman's letter becomes the letter of the government. No, if you say that the Gujarat government didn't stop the GSPC chairman from writing such a letter, then you are saying that governments should interfere with the business matters of the PSU. If you say, the government is forcing the PSU chairman to write such a letter, then please prove that. Further, the gas price that has been sought is for the GSPC's gas field, which will earn "windfall profits" for the PSU itself, not Mukesh Ambani!!

Sir, I know you are an extremely busy person, since you have to expose a lot of corrupt activities of politicians and business persons. However, I would be extremely grateful if you could answer these questions. 

India After Gandhi: Ramchandra Guha

After a pretty long time I am writing about a book. India After Gandhi, by Ramchandra Guha, takes us in the era, which history books in school end at. For most of us, India's history ends with Nehru's famous tryst with destiny speech and the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. But, in reality India's history as a nation, begins from 1947, when her existing boundaries and shape came into being.

The book talks about all the major events that have shaped the present situations in the country since 1947.

The enormous tasks and challenges presented by the independence, partition and the British mandate to the princely states of being free to join either union or declare independence from both. The country's first cabinet faced challenges from different directions at the same time. These ranged from rehabilitation of those displaced by the partition; uniting people who were divided along all imaginable lines like religion, caste, language, territory, etc.; presenting to the country a set of rules and regulations that would govern them with fairness and most important of all, food and shelter. 

The book very nicely describes the way Nehru's cabinet negotiated through the amazingly complex maze and labyrinth. Negotiations, persuasions and debates were the only ways used in resolving almost all disputes. Guha describes the challenges faced by the constitutional assembly and the bureaucracy in turning the nation into a democratic society based on universal adult franchise. With the benefit of hindsight that we now have, the book makes us realise how fortunate we were to have leaders of the calibre of Nehru, Ambedkar, S. P. Mookerjee, J. B. Kriplani and others. Nehru's staunch belief in democratic process meant that many of his favourite ideas and views were critically debated and he was constantly ready to accommodate the concerns of the opposition too. Several proposals of his were modified and watered down but each was fiercely debated in Parliament.

The country has never been without challenges. Right from independence, there have been movements aimed at seceding from India, external invasions and internal troubles. The book talks about some of the successes and failures that the nation has seen in this regard. It also talks about the way India went on to build its economy and the push and pull from within about the direction of the development. As we read the book, we realise how leaders with strong grass root connections can actually give a good shape to discussions and debates on various issues. Of course, this has its pitfalls, like Indira Gandhi responding to the masses' disappointment with her infamous garibi hatao slogan. One of the most glaring examples of not being connected to the masses and acting on suggestions of coterie is that of Rajiv Gandhi reversing the Shah Bano judgement and then opening the locks of the Ram temple/Babri masjid in Ayodhya.

Guha also talks about the statesmanship of opposition leaders like J. B. Kriplani, A. B. Vajpayee amongst various others, which sort of makes the reader a little sad when compared to the politicians of the present. He talks of the deterioration in the democratic processes since Indira Gandhi's time, which has continued till date. Increased instances of governments trying to become more populist and trying to enforce their mandates (and views) without thorough discussion in the legislative platforms provided by the constitution. A very pertinent point, which stands out till date, was made by Nehru and is quoted in Guha's book, which sums up the democracy that we are:

 The quality of men who are selected by these modern democratic methods of adult franchise gradually deteriorates because of lack of thinking and the noise of propaganda... He [the voter] reacts to sound and to the din, he reacts to repetition and produces either a dictator or a dumb politician who is insensitive. Such a politician can stand all the din in the world and still remain standing on his two feet and, therefore, he gets selected in the end because the others have collapsed because of the din.

The book ends with the results of the 2004 elections, considering the fact that since 2004 till date it was a contemporary period for Ramchandra Guha, rather than a history. The book is a great reading for those who want to understand the country and its political and economic discourse since 1948. It definitely helps in reshaping our views about the decisions that were taken at that time, which of course continue to affect us till date.

The mockery of sentiments

Our elected representatives were at it again. What would have remained confined to the eyes of a few, had they not raked it up, came out in the open for every one to see. And why did they rake it up? Because, they felt that the incident would hurt sentiments of certain people.

The cartoon of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar and Jawaharlal Nehru, sketched by Shankar in 1949, would have remained confined to the field of political science. But, our MPs didn't realise this and raked up the issue in the Parliament, saying that sentiments would be hurt. Thus, with the widespread reach of electronic media, the cartoon was now known to all and sundry, including those, who would have never even thought about the relations between Nehru and Ambedkar. Bowing to 'popular pressure', the government decided to withdraw circulation of the books that contained the cartoons. And going overboard, they decided to remove all political cartoons in NCERT textbooks!! 

Where is our society headed? A cartoon hurts the sentiments of people. But, failed promises by politicians don't!! Election after election, politicians have failed to live up to the promises made in their election manifestos. Till date, they have failed in ensuring the implementation of the most important functions of the government. But, this doesn't hurt peoples' sentiments. The Parliament is disrupted at will, bills are past without engaging debates. But this doesn't hurt peoples' sentiments.

This year, many parts of the nation are staring at a drought. This has led to migration of the village folks to cities in search of work and water. The nation has spent crores of rupees on sold called irrigation projects. But we haven't been able to guarantee adequate year-round supply of potable water. Forget the national level, even at city level there is no guarantee of adequate supply of potable water. This, doesn't hurt peoples' sentiments. Scam after scam is being unearthed. But those accused in such scams do not display any guilt. Instead some are promoted and most are backed by their respective parties. Such acts, do not hurt the sentiments of the people.

What hurts people is a cartoon, which was symbolic of the situation in 1949!! That's the claim of our elected representatives. But respected sirs and madams, what about you hurting our sentiments, when the government has failed to provide even the basic needs of millions of ordinary citizens across the country? Will Parliament be ever disrupted on this issue? Will crowds need to vandalise offices of MPs because manifesto promises were not fulfilled? Or have the MPs not yet understood what our true sentiments are!!

Team Anna has to be like Caesar's wife

 That the government would strike back at Team Anna members was a forgone conclusion when the anti-corruption movement gathered steam. And especially after Anna Hazare's super successful fast in Delhi. The government, and especially the Congress, feels embarrassed and lame as a perception was built that Team Anna brought the government to its knees and that without them, the government would have never passed a strong Lokpal bill.

Moreover, Anna Hazare and his team members were trying to take every opportunity to strike at the government. With the people supporting them and having created a favourable environment for themselves, Team Anna had tasted its success in the limelight. The Congress had to do something about it and show them, who's the boss. The Congress had a perception that it was cornered. And it decided to strike back with every weapon possible. Remember the Hindi idiom डूबते हुए को तिनके का सहारा. 

The first target was Anna Hazare himself. Digvijay Singh, who is inflicted by a perpetual foot-in-the-mouth disease constantly tried to prove that the anti-corruption movement is nothing but a front for the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). And he used very lame evidences, such as RSS chief's letter of support to justify his statements. However, the people are reluctant to believe this. Even if RSS was with Anna Hazare on the issue of corruption, people will not mind because they are heavily affected by corruption and would want to see it finished once and for all.

The second case, which was presented was against Arvind Kejriwal. The RTI activist had applied for voluntary retirement from his services and perhaps left the job. The IT department, which was his former employer, refused to accept his application on account of some bond being broken by Kejriwal. The question is, why did the IT department take so long to give its decision. Moreover, how was Kejriwal  so careless in not realising that he hadn't fulfilled the conditions for retirement? After that, he first made a statement that he had not broken any bond. Then, after a few days, he said he will take a loan from a friend to repay the claims made by his department so that he can be released from service. These flip-flops strengthen the notion that he indeed was involved in procedural lapses and his employer was correct in dismissing his application.

And Kiran Bedi takes the cake of all. This was with evidence. She claimed business class air-fare for travelling to deliver talks, while she actually travelled economy class, whose fare too was discounted for her as she was a gallantry medal winner. If she had requested her hosts (some of which were NGOs) to pay her business class fare and she would divert the excess amount to the NGO, then it would have been completely acceptable. After all, the hosts had a choice in saying whether their money should be used in such a manner. Moreover, she could have requested the hosts to give the excess fare as donation to her NGO, which would have also resulted in further tax benefit for the hosts. But by not doing this, she has damaged her credibility to a certain extent. Although she says, there was no mala fide intent in claiming excess fare, as it was her entitlement, she is not supposed to submit false bills to claim the fare. Remember, those NGOs are many times funded by the government, through taxpayers' money and also through donations that individuals make out of their hard earned money. Bedi has no right to claim that money through submission of inflated bills.

Reputation is like glassware. One crack and it is almost impossible to restore it. Integrity of the character is what made the people of India place their faith in Team Anna. Moreover, the media has placed them on a high pedestal, which the people view as worthy for only those with an impeccable character. Team Anna, therefore, has to be like Caesar's wife- above suspicion. Caesar divorced his wife, Pompeia, just because she was suspected of having an affair with Clodius. He did this to indicate that only a woman who is above any kind of suspicion is fit to be his wife. Will Anna Hazare become Julius Caesar? Strong character itself can earn you a place in history.

Don't want India, but want luxurious treatment by India

On very rare occasions, tabloids print useful news in their papers. And their reputation is what makes sure that such items are read by few amongst the serious newspaper readers. E.g., today's Mumbai Mirror carried a piece of news that should rattle every patriotic Indian and ask the government some serious questions. But, I'm doubtful about how many would ever read that.

Hurriyat chairman wants stylish jeep

This is the headline carried by MM. Now, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq has allegedly asked for a swanky bullet proof jeep to go around in the Kashmir valley and rejected the government-offered bullet proof vehicle. So, Mr. Farooq wants to enjoy the hospitality of India and at the same time rant about separating from India. No country would have allowed this. In U.P., if you do anything against Mayawati, by word or action, your security is reduced to a lower grade with immediate effect. But, these separatist leaders have received threats from militants and infact Fazal Haq Qureshi was even shot at. So, our generous government decided to protect the very men who wanted to separate J&K from us. And these people have shamelessly accepted the security of that very establishment against whom they are agitating from autonomy, independence, etc. How can these people even dare to betray their morals? If they want to separate from India, they shouldn't accept the country's security measures. Let Mirwaiz buy his own bullet-proof vehicle. Since he is fighting the state, let him also arrange for his own security and not use the state's forces. How can they fight for independence from India and at the same time, enjoy luxuries bought and paid for by the Indian taxpayers' money?

Do we still respect our teachers?

The last few weeks had a sad series of events, which went unnoticed in the mayhem of the swine flu scare, the euphoria of the Ganesh Utsav. Faculty from all the IITs resorted to an unprecedented action which, till now, has been attributed only to unionised employees and many government employees only. In order to get a fair deal in terms of pay and career benefits from the Sixth Pay Commission, they first went on a mass casual leave. This was a huge event in itself. Never in the history of IITs have classes been cancelled except under extreme emergencies, like the swine flu scare. In IIT Bombay, classes were running even in the immediate aftermath of 26th July 2005. Such has been the dedication of faculty towards maintaining the teaching schedule.

Considering the wealth of knowledge and understanding of a subject that a IIT faculty has, he/she can get a corporate job easily, which would pay much more than IIT does. But, they have taken it onto themselves to work for the advancement of their field and develop the next generation of engineers, researchers and scientists. They are not those people who couldn't get any other job and hence took the IIT job. While they are not demanding astronomical salaries, like IIM-A faculty, they should be treated with dignity. The Sixth Pay Commission has inflicted huge blows to their career path in terms of growth and monetary compensation, as well as robbed them of their status of "national importance". More details of how the Pay Commission has degraded the IIT faculty's position can be found here.

The Ministry of HRD is on a path that would lead to sequential erosion of quality of faculty at IIT. Suddenly, out of the blue, they have accepted a report which states that Assistant Professors should have a work experience of atleast 3 years, which does not include the experience gained during their Ph.D. Now, how many would want to join IIT after 3 years of working elsewhere? If that was not enough, IITs have been asked to hire people with Masters' degree at Lecturer positions. IITs have long ago scrapped the Lecturer position and have hired only Ph.D. holders directly at Assistant Professor level. Instead of raising the bar to improve quality, why is the government hell bent on lowering it? In a knee-jerk reaction, it has already ordered to increase the number of students (through reservations), without caring to improve the infrastructure in the IITs. Even the basic facilities like hostel and messes are already overloaded due to lack of construction of new ones.

The government's continuous negligence of this matter forced the IIT staff to go on a one-day fast, that too on Teacher's Day! What appalled me is that this is the same government and Parliament which passed an enormous increase in the salaries and facilities of its MPs in a jiffy. But is reluctant to give the IIT professors their due. The previous Speaker Mr. Somnath Chatterejee had correctly mentioned that it is not correct for MPs to appraise themselves about their salaries. Is this the way we treat our teachers? And that too, in the country's advanced and coveted places of learning and development. IITs have been one of the most impartial institutes when it comes to admitting and grading students. That is the reason for their ability to produce technology greats who have proved their talent not only in India, but around the world too! If this is the way IIT teachers are treated, I shudder to think of the treatment meted out to primary and secondary school teachers.

People ask what have the IITs done for the nation, so that the government should extend and continue its largesse towards them. Well, there can be counter questions to this. What has the DRDO done till date, that the government should continue supporting it? For the past 25 years, they couldn't build an effective tank. Time and again, their tank has been rejected by the army. None of DRDO's projects have been completed without a huge time and cost overrun. So, is the case with the GTRE. They haven't been able to develop the engine for the LCA since the inception of the LCA project. Same with BARC and AERB. Where are those fast breeder reactors that use thorium and could free India from dependence on foreign technology? Nobody asks the effectiveness of these organisations. But still, the government has increased the grade of scientists in these organisations as compared to IIT professors. The only successful organisation that comes to my mind is the ISRO, which has fulfilled India's programme of space technology.

When will this country give the teachers their due? They are the true builders of society. When our parents are at their work place or mothers take care of our homes, these teachers are the ones who develop and blend our personalities. They are the ones who can ignite our interests in various subjects. They have the greatest impact on the development of our thought process. A teacher with highest regard for ethics and greatest interest in teaching is an asset which needs to be nurtured with care, so that he/she can positively influence the lives of generations to come. Why did the situation come to such a level where IIT teachers had to protest? Even before that, there were protests by college teachers in Maharashtra, demanding implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission for them too. Why can't they get their dues, without having to resort to such protests?

We always recite the prayer

गुरु: ब्रम्हा, गुरुर्विष्णु, गुरुर्देवो महेश्वरः|
गुरुः साक्षात परब्रम्ह: तस्मै श्री गुरवे नमः ||

But, do we realise the disservice we are doing to these teachers, who will be shaping the future of this country? How many times, do we look back to our school or college days and say, "Yes, it was because of these teachers, that I am what I am!" And when we realise this, will we force the government not to rob the teachers of their dignity.

Anil Ambani, fight your own war

People fond of the limelight can never stay away from it. Anil Ambani was always Reliance's media man. He is very comfortable with the media and for very long, people didn't know how Mukesh looks like. All the while, Mukesh stayed back in the field quietly building the Reliance businesses. Of course, Anil too contributed, otherwise Dhirubhai would have booted him out. But Anil was very comfortable and fond of the limelight.

Even during the split of the Reliance empire in 2005, it was Anil who was ranting off statements in the media, while Mukesh kept silent all through out. Of course, it was a casual statement by Mukesh that triggered the entire chain of events. Even now, both Mukesh's and Anil's companies are taking pot-shots at each other. Things like blocking Reliance Communications' MTN bid, or Anil's infrastructure company disputing the allotment of the Sewri-Navi Mumbai sea link have been happening. At the receiving end has been the customer, the shareholder and in some cases, the general public. But while Mukesh's companies have stuck to legal arguments, Anil, the lime-light seeker has tried all weapons in his armour. He has used emotional arguments, allegations, and now, he has begun to play with public emotions. Check the latest series of advertisements that his company is issuing in newspapers, albeit on behalf of its shareholders. Well, the largest of all shareholders happens to be Anil himself. The company is trying to do a Ram Jethmalani on the Government of India. During the Bofors' scandal, Ram Jethmalani sent a similar series of questions, published through newspapers, that he wanted the government to answer. But, while Ram Jethmalani didn't have any business interests, ADAG certainly stands to benefit if the government forces RIL to change its decision.

While the advertisement shown here doesn't mention NTPC directly, tDAG is definitely using it for its purpose. That is because like ADAG, RIL is charging higher gas prices to NTPC too. The question is formulated to strike an emotional appeal with the readers. Who would want a higher power tariff? Readers are bound to react against RIL. But, why is ADAG using NTPC as a proxy to fight its war? Like Arjun used Shikhandi to defeat Bhishma in the Mahabharat war. But, ADAG is not Arjun, neither is NTPC Shikhandi, nor is RIL like Bhishma.

But here is another side of the coin, which might not see the light of the day, given the poor circulation of my blog. If gas prices had fallen to below $2.5 per mmBTU, which was promised to ADAG and NTPC, Anil would again have cried the same way, asking prices to be lowered and brought in sync with the global prices. At that time, RIL would have fought to maintain the sanctity of the contract. Then too, ADAG would have come out with advertisements, asking people to vote in national interest. Then Anil would have said that family MoU should not come in the way of national interest. All arguments that ADAG is making can be turned around to suit their interests if gas prices fall below $2.5. To sum it up, this isn't a case of national interest at all. If ADAG were to import the gas, they would pay the price that was asked for. It all boils down to economics and profits that companies stand to lose or gain depending on the pricing of the gas. The common man is again a pawn in the hands of the power-players.

But Anil can surely be man enough to fight his war, not relying on NTPC, which along with profits also has social objectives, because of it being a PSU. Nor should he play with human emotions and manipulate them to get them on his side.

Leaderless India?

The Bandra-Worli Sea Link has been thrown open to use for the general public. On 30th June 2009, Sonia Gandhi found time to do the honours. A good question to be asked is, what post does Sonia Gandhi hold? She is free of all constitutional responsibilities (except those that are thrust upon her while she is an M.P.) and hence not liable to any actions in case of government failure. But, the Congress likes to give her the credit of every "success" that either the central government or a Congress-ruled state government achieves.

An engineering marvel like the Sea Link should have been inaugurated by someone who holds a Constitutional post. The President was in Mumbai two days ago, she could have done the honours. Or the Prime Minister, who is the captain of the team that shapes the nation's future. But no, the government of Maharashtra felt that Sonia Gandhi has a standing that is higher than the President or Prime Minister. But, we have not protested against this. We are silently accepting all this. Why is there no protest? Why aren't there any protests visible? If the BJP would have called the RSS chief to inaugurate such a facility like this, imagine the uproar that would have taken place. But then, Congress is secular, while BJP is communal.

And the old wily fox, Sharad Pawar, also an off-shoot of the Congress culture sucked up to Sonia Gandhi and requested Chief Minister Ashok Chavan to name the bridge after Rajiv Gandhi. The CM, being a second generation Congressman, promptly agreed to the suggestion, in a bid to please his 'high-command'. The arguments put forward by Sharad Pawar to support his request were equally ridiculous. He said that Rajiv Gandhi was a 'son-of-the-soil' as he was born in Mumbai. Rubbish!! Mr. Pawar, are you forgetting the other leaders who have worked tirelessly for the benefit of the state of Maharashtra. Those 105 people who were killed when this very Congress wanted a bilingual state of Gujarat and Maharashtra have contributed more than Rajiv Gandhi. The only thing that I agree about Rajiv Gandhi was that he ushered in a technological revolution and had recognised the necessity of modern technology. But, he is the same Rajiv Gandhi who infamously agreed to amend the constitution to annul the Supreme Court's judgement in the Shah Bano case. He is the one who made the statement 'when a big tree falls, the earth shakes', thus backing those Congressmen involved in the anti-Sikh riots.

I would say, there were more worthy leaders than Rajiv Gandhi after whom the bridge could be named. Going back in history, there is Kanhoji Angre, the famous commander of the Maratha fleet. He tormented the English and Portuguese with his attacks on their ships. Since this bridge crosses the sea, his name should have been a favourite. Then there were Lokmanya Tilak, Acharya Atre, Shankarrao Chavan, Yashwantrao Chavan, Ahilyabai Rangekar, C.D. Deshmukh, and many more from politics. J.R.D. Tata from business. Homi Bhabha from science. Tata and Bhabha have been pioneers in their fields. Air India was Tata's baby. Homi Bhabha kick started atomic energy research. Both were Mumbaikars. There are many more social activists, famous cricket personalities, litterateurs who have contributed to the well-being of the people of Maharshtra. Anyone of them could be chosen. But no, the Congress doesn't know anybody beyond Nerhu and Gandhi. Thankfully, they aren't naming anything after Sanjay Gandhi now-a-days.

An India that dreams of becoming a super power, doesn't look at leaders apart from the Nehru-Gandhi family as worthy to be remembered through engineering and technology marvels. This picture doesn't look good. Though, it would have been nice if the sea-link was simply called Bandra-Worli Sea Link.

India's election methods: Is there an alternate method?

All through our life, we have to make choices. We make these choices based on certain needs and desires that we have. From small things like buying a toothpaste to larger things like picking up a job or buying a house for ourselves. But everytime we set out to exercise our choice, we have a backup plan, an alternative. With the toothpaste, it can be choice of brand or size of the tube, etc. With jobs, it can be choice of location, variation in job profile, salary, etc. The bottom line is that we always have a plan laid out- if this isn't available, then I'll settle for that.

In my previous post, I mentioned how candidates who have secured around 33% votes have been declared winners. Despite the fact that around 67% of the people who cast their votes, have done so against the winning candidate. This scenario should actually call for a tweak in the election system that is being followed currently. There are suggestions of a US-style run-off, but this would mean conducting two elections and it would happen across many constituencies. This, would further increase the expenditure towards elections and the already low turnout, would reduce further if there are back-to-back elections.

Another option, that is being used in Australia and in some cities in the US, is called the instant run-off. This option is similar to the scenario I mentioned in the first paragraph. In this scenario, people would indicate a preference of candidates in decreasing order. Instead of having to indicate preferences for all candidates, it can be restricted to indicating three preferences. In some constituencies of India, there are more than forty candidates contesting, which would turn off people from voting as they would have to indicate those many preferences. Suppose there are four candidates in the fray for a particular seat. This indication of preferences can be optional if needed. So, if a voter need not indicate his/her 2nd or 3rd preference. A voter's voting preference can be as seen in the table below.

Candidate	Choice 1	Choice 2	Choice 3
A	Y	N	N
B	N	Y	N
C	N	N	N
D	N	N	Y

Thus, the voter indicates that A is his 1st choice, B his 2nd and D his 3rd.

When the results are being processed, it can be done in the following manner. First look at the number of votes, each candidate has received as first preference. If any candidate has received more than 50% of the votes polled, he/she can be straight away declared as the winner. If any candidate does not secure more than 50% votes, then the top three candidates are taken and then count the number of votes each received as 2nd preference. Now, add the votes each of these received as 1st preference and 2nd preference in the following manner-

votes for a candidate = (votes as 1st choice) + m*(votes as 2nd choice)

where, 0.5<m<1. A reasonable choice can be m=0.75.

total votes = total votes as 1st choice + m*(total votes as 2nd choice)

Total votes as 2nd choice imply the number of voters who have polled for a candidate as their 2nd choice. This candidate need not be amongst the top three. This choice would eliminate those voters who haven't indicated a 2nd or 3rd choice of candidates. Fractional votes, if any, should be rounded off to the next highest integer.

At the end of this round, if a candidate secures more than 50% votes, he/she should be declared winner. If not, again take the first two and add the votes each secured as 3rd choice in the following manner-

votes for a candidate = (votes as 1st choice) + m*(votes as 2nd choice) + n*(votes as 3rd choice)

where, n=0.5. At this point, the person with the maximum number of votes will have to be declared winner. No matter if he/she has secured more than 50% votes. This is one of the flaws of the system. But, this would still reduce the instances where the winner is the person who has secured just 33% of the votes. There would be more people who would have the winning candidate as one of their preferred choice, rather than having nothing more than a yes/no to say.

A question that may arise here is the difficulty in asking people to do so. Many people may frown at the need to indicate three choices. In every system, a change from status-quo meets some resistance. But, educating the masses can certainly help us overcome this hurdle. It happened when EVMs were introduced. It will happen again if a new system is introduced. But, if the benefits exceed the troubles taken, then time and efforts should definitely be involved in this. As for the technology, we have a large pool of engineers who can be employed on developing systems that can handle such algorithms. Like the EVMs, this to can be developed with indigenous technology and manpower.

Caution: This is a proposed system or process. Like every man-made system or process, this too may have its faults. And like every other system or process, it can be improved till the point it is replaced by a better one.

Elections 2009: Do results really reflect ground reality?

The Great Indian Political League 2009 threw a lot of surprises. These surprises surprised even those who caused the surprises. Before and during the elections every analyst was describing the kind of surprise that will be witnessed in these elections. After the results, they are now trying to explain why those surprises didn't occur. In this era of "breaking news" syndrome, the media tries to keep churning stories upon stories. The constant bombarding of varied news content doesn't leave time for the common man to sit back and analyse the data peacefully. And therefore, we believe the media most of the time. Being a Ph.D. student most people, from my relatives, friends and even people who do not know what a Ph.D. is, believe that I have all the time in the world. So, it doesn't do harm to keep that belief intact. Just as we like to believe that the Congress, SP and RJD are secular, but BJP is communal. So, I took some time off and decide to dig a little bit about the result. This is my analysis of the election results.

Let us accept one fact that most of the media in India is pro-Congress, rather anti-BJP. That is why the media kept playing about Narendra Modi and his connection with the Gujarat riots. I remember a news channel advertisement, where it was providing snippets of an interview with NaMo, that was to be broadcast later. The snippets kept repeating the interviewer's question on the riots to NaMo and NaMo's brushing aside the question. Now, if this snippet is shown in every break up to hours before the full telecast, imagine the effect it will have on the viewer. Remember, till now no court has ever proved that NaMo is guilty, nor is there any judgement which states that NaMo is hindering the investigations. But, NaMo is guilty until proven innocent. On the other hand, the Congress is treated softly by the media. No demolishing of the Congress for giving tickets to Sajjan Kumar and Jagadish Tytler. Just see how softly Barkha Dutt interviewed Priyanka Gandhi. Nor did the Prime Minister's statement about Ottavio Quattrochi receive enough coverage and demolition that it deserved. So, the media was involved in biased reporting.

Now, coming to the analysis of the results. First, the voter turnout was around 58% over India as a whole. So, let us forget the other 42%. Most of them deserve to be stuck with the MPs that came through. But, as the media claims, have people really elected for stability? Recounting Navjyot Singh Sidhu's Sidhuism, "Statistics are like bikinis, what they reveal is interesting, what they conceal is vital." To support this, I'm now giving the case of two constituencies here, one where the Congress was elected and the other where its ally the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) was elected.

The first one is Mumbai North. Sanjay Nirupam of the Indian National Congress (INC) defeated Shri Ram Naik of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Mr. Nirupam polled 255157 votes, whereas Mr. Naik polled 249378 votes. The difference between the winning and losing candidate: a mere 5779 votes. The total votes polled in Mumbai North were 683975. So, percentage-wise Mr. Nirupam got 37.31% of the votes. Which means, a whopping 62.69% of the voters rejected Mr. Sanjay Nirupam.

The second is Mumbai North East. Mr. Sanjay Patil of the NCP polled 213505 votes, while the runner up, Mr. Kirit Somaiyya of the BJP polled 210572 votes. The difference: a mere 2933 votes. Here, the total votes polled were 667904. Percentage-wise, Mr. Patil got 31.96% votes, lesser vote percentage than Mr. Nirupam. In this case, 68.03% of the voters rejected Mr. Patil.

These may appear selective statistics, but then all over India, there have been many constituencies, even the prestigious Sivganga constituency, where such close contests have been witnessed. So, how much value does statements "Mandate rejection of caste politics" and "A vote in favour of a new dawn" or "A thoughtful verdict for stability" hold? Since India's election is about first past the pole, there will be a large number of people who will reject this statement. At least those who voted against Messrs Nirupam and Patil would do so.

In this election the Indian voter has just showed how many choices they have and that few candidates enjoy the support of the majority. If this was a mandate for the UPA, at least half of their elected MPs should have had secured more than 50% votes in their constituencies. But this is not the case as we see from the two examples above. I am sure that many of the elected MPs have come to the Parliament with similar vote shares. This is the flaw in our democratic system and we have to live with it until someone comes across with a better alternative.

P.S. All figures for votes and voting percentages have been compiled from the Election Commission of India's website.

Missing Raj Thackeray's main message

Everytime the media reports about Raj Thackeray's speeches, it doesn't forget to highlight his "tirade" against the UPites and Biharis. Everybody, whether they are print, news, or other electronic ones. The other parties, like the Congress, RJD, SP, BSP, etc. too point out at the "danger" Raj Thackeray poses and asks the UPites and Biharis to unite against him. Congress goes a step ahead and asks the nation to unite against his "regionalism".

What nobody tries to address is the serious issues that he has raised. One is about bogus ration cards. He displayed those in Pune, and again in Mumbai. Yet, no party is saying anything about tackling this issue seriously. In Pune, he reeled off statistics obtained from the employment exchange, from where less than 10% of the applicants had got jobs during the period 2006-2008. This was a period of economic boom. What was the employment exchange doing? Most of those who apply to the employment exchange are locals. Why didn't they get jobs? I'm not asking for a success rate of 90% for the employment exchange, but isn't < 10% an abysmal figure? Why has nobody in the media given this any importance? He is taking the governments of the day and previous ones to task with data obtained from government sources and what is available in public domain. Yet, this received nothing more than a passing mention.

About his tirade against UPites and Biharis. Please give it a thought. Mulayam Singh, Mayawati and Amar Singh come down to Maharshtra and say that they will fight it out for the "north-Indians". Laloo says some arbit stuff against the people of Maharashtra. But back home, in their state, they do nothing to generate employment for these people. Mayawati, instead of spearheading industrial development, proposes reservation in the private sector too. She goes on building some parks with giant sized statues of Ambedkar, Kanshiram and herself. She blocks the rail-coach factory, just because it is located in Rae-Bareli, a rival's constituency. Laloo Yadav has been of no good for Bihar. 15 years of his misrule has brought Bihar down to its knees. It is only with Nitish Kumar that Bihar is slowly recovering. So, this asymmetrical development has led to large scale urban migration. This is the hidden message that Raj is trying to give. And we are missing it and getting lost in his theatrics.

The Samajwadi Party Manifesto: A joke or opportunity

I haven't been able to read the Samajwadi Party's manifesto. Whatever I could gather is from reading about it on various news websites. What I gather from there, is that they are against use of English language, machines and computers. With an after thought, Mulayam Singh added that the party will push for use of regional language in education, administration and judiciary.

It is nice to know if they are going to seriously try to do that. We need to promote use of regional languages in education atleast at primary level. Even administrative and government activities should make use of functional regional language. I mean, if words need to be borrowed from English, do that, but write those in regional script. We tend to idealise the West in everything. Even there, their primary and secondary education is in the native language. Germans, French, Italians, Spaniards, they all take their primary education in their native language. Towards the east, Japanese and Koreans to learn their elementary science in their native language. Nothing has stopped them from becoming scientific and engineering superpowers. The Japanese cars and electronics, German engineering and efficiency, Italian designs, Korean electronics are admired world over, even as they fumble with their English language.

Some other parts of the manifesto (e.g. avoiding mechanisation, removing computers) are objectionable, but this one is surely worth giving a try.

As I said, I have not read the manifesto and I wrote this article based on what was available in the media. Now, Indian media is definitely not famous for its neutral reporting!

Economist Manmohan to politician Manmohan

The Finance Minister, Mr. P. Chidambaram, has, in consultation with the Agricultural Minister (plus cricket mal-administrator) Mr. Sharad Pawar, decided to waive of Rs. 60,000 crore of bad farm loans. This is applicable for those who have borrowed from government banking institutions. This move is absolutely acceptable considering the amount of distress farmers are facing. Some of this distress is because of the government's own policies. Changes in such policies are time-to-time scuttled by powerful lobbies, thus depriving the farmer of any reform. For e.g. the Agricultural Market Produce Committee (APMC) act says that the farmers can sell their produce only through the APMC of the city. This virtually creates a monopoly and hence denies farmers a fair price that gets decided by open competition.

Coming back to the loan waiver. Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh said that the loan waiver was necessitated by the distress created due to the previous government's anti-farmer policies. Did the government notice the effect of the anti-farmer policies in the last year of its term? If yes, it is guilty of sleeping over such an important issue and should be promptly punished for doing so. If no, then the farm-loan waiver is nothing short of a political gimmick. But then why did Dr. Manmohan Singh have to say this? Most of the country (and this includes those who are anti-Congress and the mass voters) respects him because of his honesty. Why did he have to stoop to such low-level accusations? Even the farmers who are really going to benefit from the loan waiver are intelligent enough to realise that Dr. Singh's statement is nothing but pure politics. The question that should be asked to the UPA government is why did they take around four years to announce the waiver of farmers' loans, if they feel that this was necessitated because of the flawed policies of the previous regime. The UPA government did know the NDA government's policies, so there arises no question of ignorance. For the sake of a few votes, a person of the PM's stature should not make statements which can be doubted by even an 18-year old person.

Dr. Singh, India would be more happy if you can achieve more inclusive growth without getting involved in any kind of mud slinging. Also, please do something for those farmers who were honest enough to repay their loans in time. Please do not falsify the adage- "Honesty is the best policy".

ITC or DOW Chemicals: The bigger picture

Disclaimer: I am not an advocate for Dow Chemicals. I hold Union Carbide solely responsible for the Bhopal Gas Disaster and support all efforts to persuade Dow Chemicals, the current owner of Union Carbide, to clean up the entire area in and around the site of disaster and make it a safe place for the future generations. However, in this process, we must not forget the people who are dying daily due to consumption of tobacco in any form.

Tobacco related deaths in India for citizens between the age group of 25-69 hovered around the 600,000 mark in 2006. In the cigarette market of India, ITC has a 70% share by volume. Thus, out of every 100 cigarettes sold in India, 70 are manufactured by ITC.

Now let us look at the Bhopal Gas Disaster. The worst of all claims put the number of deaths due to the gas leakage and in the aftermath at 20,000. The number of chronically ill and suffering due to disorder is around 150,000. These deaths have happened over a period of more than 20 years. The owner of the factory, Union Carbide India Ltd. sold its assets to Eveready and part of the proceedings from the sale were pocketed by Union Carbide, the parent company of UCIL. In 2001, Union Carbide was taken over by Dow Chemicals.

Now that Dow Chemicals has setup its shop in India, it wants to tie up with local academic institutes for recruitment purpose as well as for carrying out research work. Many people associated with the Bhopal Disaster movement, plus IIT faculty, students and alumni are opposing these tie-ups, on the grounds that Dow Chemicals should first, own up for the mess in Bhopal and second, either clean up the existing mess or pay for cleaning the site and decontaminating the ground water. Some groups have been successful in stalling Dow's efforts of campus recruitment.

At this juncture, I would like to pose the following question to people who claim to be fighting for justice to the humankind of Bhopal. If Dow Chemicals is being banned from recruiting people from IIT campuses because it is responsible for the death of more than 20,000 people and the injury and illness of more than 150,000; why isn't the same law applicable to companies like ITC? ITC has a major cigarette business. It earns a lot of revenue from sale of various kind of cigarettes. Cigarette smoking has killed and is killing a lot more people than those who died in the Bhopal Tragedy. Yet, we see IITs welcoming ITC with open hands for placements. ITC recruits talented young B.Tech./Dual Degree students from IITs who might someday end up working to increase profit from cigarette sales. The company usually gets a slot in the first two days of placement, which indicates the kind of pay it offers to the students.

Do we fail to realise that ITC is as big (if not more) a killer as Dow Chemicals? Or as Freakonomist Steven D. Levitt says, our reaction is based more on the perception of threat rather than its actual impact. We do not feel threatened when someone smokes a cigarette standing next to us. But just the very idea of MIC hanging around our neck makes us feel that Dow is threatening to human kind. Can we get beyond the perception of threat and see the actual one? Also, can we evolve a sustainable path (the golden-middle path) so that all parties involved get maximum benefit at least costs to them? Is the government willing enough? Are the people willing enough? What is the golden-middle? These are the questions that need to be answered by the stakeholders- the people, the activists, the industry and above all, the government.

Who rules this country?

"Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people"

-Abraham Lincoln

This is what everybody was brought up to believe. However, an interview by the Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh might change the definition of democracy. In India, especially in the Congress ruled states, democracy is the government of Sonia Gandhi, by Sonia Gandhi and for Sonia Gandhi. It is she, who chooses the Chief Ministers, she who dictates state policies and she who decides which projects a state should undertake. A few excerpts from the interview of the Arunachal CM would reveal how the Congress-men (and women) strive just to keep 'Madam' pleased and remain in her good books.

"Q: Strange things are happening in Arunachal. The whole cabinet recently shifted its loyalties to you.

A: It happened due to the allegations of huge corruption charges against the former government.........

..................

..................

Hence, the MLAs were unhappy and chose me as their leader. (Congress president) Soniaji (Gandhi) is completely against corruption and wanted a clean and result oriented Congress government. "

So, the people of independent India will get a corruption free government only if Sonia Gandhi wishes so. Couldn't the MLAs of the Arunachal Pradesh Congress Party change the government because the people desire a result oriented and corruption free government? What is the CM trying to convey? That he headed the cabinet only because it was Sonia's wish to have a clean and result oriented government. Isn't the CM and every MLA answerable to the people of the state?

"Q: What have you done so far?

A: My first priority is to improve the Public Distribution System.........

..........

..........

With Soniaji's blessings we have also started a mid day meal scheme for poor tribal students.

.........."

The mid-day meals scheme was an initiative taken by the central government way back in 1995, when Sonia Gandhi was not even participating in active politics. Providing mid day meals to poor children in school is the responsibility of every government. Why, then, does Mr. CM require Sonia's blessings to start this programme, which is not her initiative at all. And if she does not 'bless' this project, it means that it will not be implemented. This means that the state government has to seek Sonia's permission for implementing projects. Is the approval of the state legislature not enough to implement programmes? If Sonia's 'blessings' are sought on implementing projects, this means that extra-constitutional powers are governing the country rather than the people who have been elected to do so.

Sonia's high-handedness is well known. In Maharashtra, she directed Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh to not demolish the hutments that had come up between 1995-2000. This is a straight violation of the court order that has declared the cut-off date for rehabilitation as 1995. Are the governments of the day supposed to take directions and 'blessings' from the lady at 10 Janpath, who does not even hold a constitutional position, so that she can issue 'orders' and 'bless' projects. Or are the governments supposed to implement what has been decided by the law of the land? While suggestions are always welcome, and should be encouraged, why is Sonia trying to govern the country as if it is her fiefdom? Political parties are known to indulge in glorifying a particular person and worshipping him/her. The Congress has this culture right since Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. So, the Congress cadre always looks up to Sonia as their queen and saviour. Why can't these 'leaders' take their own decisions and act as per the law of the land? If this continues unabated, tomorrow we might have Sonia deciding the number of acres that should be allotted to a particular crop.