Things I think I think – Bloody corrupt politicians edition

• Before we start, let's do a small role play

Think for a moment, that I am in a decision making position for the company that deals with the Government of India for something new. The first question I would have to answer on is the profitability for the company. Profitability (crudely) is the total income less the total investment, such that the return on investment is higher than what would normally accrue if we did nothing.

Regardless of which way you dice it, if there is "bribe" that I may have to pay, is something that goes in my "investment" column. The investment is made on the assumption of a certain amount of future income that would make my entire set of investments worthwhile. If that income doesn't accumulate as expected, my entire investment (legal or otherwise) is not worthwhile. Thus, the only way I would encourage this corruption is if the end income justifies the investment.

Now who provides me the income? In most cases, it would be end user. If the end user were to decide that they would not want to do business with my company, my entire business model on this project collapses.

• I often think about this model, when people use their Reliance 3G connection at 1p/min to register their protest against corruption on my Facebook wall.

• I don't think corruption is the biggest threat to India at the moment. Nor is communal violence, Sensex tanking, rising, or whatever it is that we feel right now.

 The biggest immediate threat to India is Anna Hazare believing his own hype.

 There, I said it.

• I would like to meet the following people asking them what they are smoking:

• The people who termed Anna as a Gandhian considering he advocates the death penalty for people guilty of corruption.  
• The people who believe that it was Gandhi's hunger strikes that made the British leave India. My understanding of history, weak as it has always been, was that Gandhi undertook hunger strikes as a way for penance for the ills in our own society. What got the British out of India was more economics, where the benefits of running India wasn't quite worth the hassles given the income drop thanks to the Swadeshi movements and World War II. But then, I may be wrong, as in most cases
• The people who sincerely believe that getting rid of corrupt politicians will turn India into a Utopia of sorts. 
• The people who believe that Utopia is a fun place to be in.

• I found it a bit strange that for all the history that was supposedly being created, and all the protests against elected representatives who take our taxes and do nothing for us in return, there wasn't much representation from the demographic which returns the highest voter turnout (rural / urban poor) and the demographic that pays the largest percentage of taxes (corporate types). Aamir Khan was there, but I also read somewhere that he's in discussions for a talk show that would highlight such issues, so let's discount that for a while. 

• Maybe that's a story somewhere. Those who vote don't pay taxes. Those who do pay the taxes, don't really vote. A friend of mine, Adi Garg, whose thoughts I value tremendously once gave me this gem:

 "Middle class values are like a crutch that people like you and me use to justify why we are the way we are. The poor are too busy trying to survive to worry about shit like this and the rich really don't need to make any excuses"

…Or words to that effect.

         

• I also think that given the constraints he faces, Manmohan Singh has not done a bad job as PM. "Given the constraints he faces" is the operative phrase here. For all chatter about "how weak he is, how he takes directions from a higher authority, how he is keeping the chair warm for Rahul baba, has been weak on corruption, etc.", the basic scorecard is that the matter is in the courts, with suspects (across the political spectrum) currently in jail. To me, Manmohan Singh's troubles are more related to bad PR than anything else. For those of you who believe that the Congress is the root of all evil in this country, the question you need also answer is this:

Would you rather have Sushma Swaraj as your PM?  

• You might say that Narendra Modi has a great chance of being PM, should the BJP come to power. And he will use some Sudarshan Chakra to rid us of all our ills. We'll be number one in the world, and then all will be well. You'll then wake up, brush your teeth and then go back to work.  

• It's a sad commentary on where we are as a society that the urban middle classes of India do not trust the political class. It is not personal issue against Manmohan Singh or Rahul Gandhi, but when there have been years of complete neglect, mistrust develops. Not really Rahul Gandhi at fault here, more his grandmother. But that most people would rather trust a random comment on their Facebook wall rather than the public utterances of their elected leaders' means there's some problem somewhere.

• So, where does the problem lie? Electoral reforms for sure. So I am very interested to see what are the reforms that Anna Hazare's bunch comes up with next for him to fast for. That said, I don't think that given his past track record of "everything-is-black-and-white, I-am-right-and-you-bloody-politician-who-is-not-fit-to-be-in-my-celestial-presence-is-wrong-as-hell" hunger fasts I really don't think it amounts to much. His method is too much dependent on an idealism and then barring people who do not amount to that ideal state.

Kinda like Kelvin's absolute zero. We know it's there, but no one has actually seen it.

• I wish I could say I knew what the problem was. I wish I could say that there's a quick switch that we need to flip and everything will be ok. But that's not how things work. But I do have some ideas, which even though I believe might help I am not going to go on hunger strikes for.

• For example, I do believe that the stupidest thing that our leaders have done, is created states based on languages and cultural identities, rather than on administrative manageability. I also believe that the metros of India, and the larger cities, have no business being state capitals. I also think that electoral redistribution should happen on the basis of some formula of population and tax receipts, with a review every decade.

• For this and many more, please let me know if you'd like to hear more. We can indulge in a debate online over email.

But let's keep it civil.

Let's consider both of us have the best interests of the country in our minds, and we only differ in our means of reaching that end.

Let's keep it such that we don't have to call each other names.

Let's doubt each others' philosophies, but not intent or competence.

Let's agree to disagree.

Let's not gloat in our victories.

Let's not call milestones as victories.

Promise me this, and then we'll talk.