On the anniversary of 26/11, I got enlightened by seeing' Targetting Osama Bin Laden' on History channel. Was surprised to see that the US president authorized the hit despite only 40 % assurance level that the guy in the house was Osama. That means they themselves saw a 60% chance of things going horribly wrong. The 60% error rate was exclusively on the possibility of hitting the wrong guy. Other factors that could have led to operational failure were over and above these 60%. I would put the likelihood of failure due to a combination of all factors at 80%. President Obama knew it and still accepted it. Vow! That's some country.
The US raid was made possible not because of their technical superiority but their steely commitment to avenge killing of their people. Period.
At the same time, I also happened to be watching other TV channels where Indian leaders and TV anchors were merrily lambasting Pak and US ( Headley connection ) for the 26/11 in Mumbai. No one was talking of why Indian heads did not roll after the shocking negligence of our people at all levels. No one was talking of the fact that we always had 100 % confirmation of where the Pak handlers were staying for last 3 years, not just 40%! We have been telling the whole world that we know where these guys are. I think we would have done better to say that we do not know where these bums are and hence we are not able to take action against them but then, Indians never consider losing honour as a loss. The only loss we know happens on the Sensex.
Am absolutely ashamed of how my country refuses to stand by its people. If you ask for examples, a book can be written. It will have to start with the way we kept quiet when our BSF men were slaughtered on Bangladesh border and strung up on poles like animals. Years later, Lt Kalia tortured in Kargil and we just sent some letters of protest to Pak. Or did we? Am not too sure whether even that much happened. Those were not the days of Chidambaram's dossier wars, which came much later.
One more thing. Our people themselves do not complain unless something affects them personally. Honour in India only means killing our daughters who marry inside the community. No wonder, we have got the government we deserve.
Forget about avenging those who wee killed on 26/11, how about those who were wounded and expected the government to look after them? Read Indian Express Nov 26 Mumbai Newsline and you find examples of lack of govt support for future surgical operations, lack of follow up services leading to worsening of condition, private hospitals refusing to provide follow up treatment and other difficulties for wounded survivors. One concrete example - After being turned away from several hospitals and despite spending loads of money on travel and treatment, 26/11 victim, Fakir Mohd died of severe infection in his leg.
His only fault? Not having being born an American.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Parliamentarians represent their party or the parliament?
I have been thinking of the actions of the PM in which he clearly sought to be useful to his party at the expense of his country. I am referring to his decision to accept a lot of nonsense from ministers from the UPA alliance parties, only to prevent the UPA coalition from disintegrating and thus being of use to his party i.e. Congress. He is on record to mention 'coalitional dharma/politics'.
Was he right? Why fault him for being of use to his party? After all, he was put on this chair by his party!
No, he was wrong to have done what he did. Once placed on the PMs chair, he no longer represented the party. He only represented the nation.
In this debate, I'd like to quote Right Hon Edmund Berke in his speech to the electors of Bristol. Here goes -
'Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament.'
Speech to the Electors of Bristol (1774-11-03); as published in The Works of the Right Hon. Edmund Burke (1834)
What do you say?
Was he right? Why fault him for being of use to his party? After all, he was put on this chair by his party!
No, he was wrong to have done what he did. Once placed on the PMs chair, he no longer represented the party. He only represented the nation.
In this debate, I'd like to quote Right Hon Edmund Berke in his speech to the electors of Bristol. Here goes -
'Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament.'
Speech to the Electors of Bristol (1774-11-03); as published in The Works of the Right Hon. Edmund Burke (1834)
What do you say?
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Can thieves not complain against theft?
The recent allegations of corruption against team Anna have got me thinking. The trigger was Shekhar Gupta’s ( Indian Express ) editorial. It made the point that those who are themselves corrupt have no right to spearhead any anti-corruption campaign.
I think Shekhar is mixing issues. One is the accountability of corrupt people for their act of corruption. The other is their right to seek a just system, regardless of their own proclivities.
I do not agree that thieves do not have a right to register a complaint against theft or seek to protect their houses against possible theft. The state can not restrict dispensation of justice only to the untarnished.
In the legal system, an attack on the reputation of the accused is NOT permitted, at least till the point where the law declares the accused to be guilty or not guilty. This provision is specifically to keep the issue of crime and reputation of the accused separate from each other.
During the team Anna campaign at Hissar, people quizzed them as to why they were indirectly campaigning for those who themselves had corruption cases pending against them. The reply was instant and clear. It was because those candidates had publicly backed the Lokpal bill. That means that they were willing to bring in a legislation which, if they continue with their corrupt ways in future too, will trap them viciously. So is the case with team Anna too. They are working to usher in a system which can punish them severely.
If team Anna had been seeking pardon for their alleged corrupt acts only because they are champions of the Jan Lokpal Bill, I would find fault with them. But not in this case. The good that can come out of their campaign can not be sacrificed just to smite them. Also, it would be illegal.
I think Shekhar is mixing issues. One is the accountability of corrupt people for their act of corruption. The other is their right to seek a just system, regardless of their own proclivities.
I do not agree that thieves do not have a right to register a complaint against theft or seek to protect their houses against possible theft. The state can not restrict dispensation of justice only to the untarnished.
In the legal system, an attack on the reputation of the accused is NOT permitted, at least till the point where the law declares the accused to be guilty or not guilty. This provision is specifically to keep the issue of crime and reputation of the accused separate from each other.
During the team Anna campaign at Hissar, people quizzed them as to why they were indirectly campaigning for those who themselves had corruption cases pending against them. The reply was instant and clear. It was because those candidates had publicly backed the Lokpal bill. That means that they were willing to bring in a legislation which, if they continue with their corrupt ways in future too, will trap them viciously. So is the case with team Anna too. They are working to usher in a system which can punish them severely.
If team Anna had been seeking pardon for their alleged corrupt acts only because they are champions of the Jan Lokpal Bill, I would find fault with them. But not in this case. The good that can come out of their campaign can not be sacrificed just to smite them. Also, it would be illegal.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Do not bail out the bums
There is a great post in DNA newspaper of 19 Oct 11. It is ' Yellowstone effect; Let's put our hands together and welcome crisis' by Chandni Burman ( chandniburman@yahoo.com). The article emphasizes - do not fight small fires. They are nature's way of eliminating rubbish and creating stability in systems. When you interfere with this system of natural selection, you may temporarily be able to put off fires but soon the whole system would blow up in your face.
The context is about should we bail out those financial institutions around the world ( mostly in Europe ) that seem to be doing badly, or should we let them die? More than the specifics, the philosophy propounded in the article is a great one.
The example given in the DNA lost goes like this.
In California, they strictly follow a 'zero-tolerance' approach towards forest fires. The moment even a small fire is sighted, someone rushes in to put it out. The result is that for long periods, there are no fire losses. On the contrary, neighbouring Baja California ( Mexico, I think ) has no such policy. So, every now and then, there are fire hazards and losses. But what is interesting is what matters in these two Californias, in the long run. In Baja California, there never is a really bad fire incident. In California, however, there are occasional major catastrophic fires, though few and far between.
The reason is that fires are an indispensable component of the natural dynamics that keep forests in that shape. Suppression of the periodic small fires drives the forests in an unnatural unstable state .... with high density of inflammable material (twigs, bark, leaves etc) strewn around ..... a single lightening strike or cigarette can make it explode in a mass fire.
Avoiding small problems creates greater systemic problems.
So, give disaster a chance. Don't bail out the bums.
The context is about should we bail out those financial institutions around the world ( mostly in Europe ) that seem to be doing badly, or should we let them die? More than the specifics, the philosophy propounded in the article is a great one.
The example given in the DNA lost goes like this.
In California, they strictly follow a 'zero-tolerance' approach towards forest fires. The moment even a small fire is sighted, someone rushes in to put it out. The result is that for long periods, there are no fire losses. On the contrary, neighbouring Baja California ( Mexico, I think ) has no such policy. So, every now and then, there are fire hazards and losses. But what is interesting is what matters in these two Californias, in the long run. In Baja California, there never is a really bad fire incident. In California, however, there are occasional major catastrophic fires, though few and far between.
The reason is that fires are an indispensable component of the natural dynamics that keep forests in that shape. Suppression of the periodic small fires drives the forests in an unnatural unstable state .... with high density of inflammable material (twigs, bark, leaves etc) strewn around ..... a single lightening strike or cigarette can make it explode in a mass fire.
Avoiding small problems creates greater systemic problems.
So, give disaster a chance. Don't bail out the bums.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
No institutional capacity with government
Just been seeing an NDTV program in which the phrase'Institutional capacity' was used by some speaker. This phrase is exactly what I had been looking for. Heard it by mere coincidence, serendipity maybe.
Most of the times, the govt is quite indifferent towards the needs of the people, particularly the poor. However, in times of crises when terrorism, civil unrest, Naxalism, poverty etc become too pronounced, the govt does announce measures to tackle them. Still nothing works. This is so because over a period of time, the govt has not developed institutional capacity. The type of people they have placed in the govt machinery and the internal processes of the departments are so rotten that nothing works.
Once a footballer told me a story which can serve as an illustration of 'poor institutional capacity thwarting good intentions'. He told me, 'I saw the ball curving towards the goal while I was dashing across two defenders. My mind chalked out a perfect strategy and sent command to the brain - Dash a little faster for 3-4 seconds more, leap over the second defender, swerve violently to the right and slam the ball'. The tired body exclaimed, 'Who? Me?'
The govt is reaping the effects of a half century inaction towards building institutional capacity.
Most of the times, the govt is quite indifferent towards the needs of the people, particularly the poor. However, in times of crises when terrorism, civil unrest, Naxalism, poverty etc become too pronounced, the govt does announce measures to tackle them. Still nothing works. This is so because over a period of time, the govt has not developed institutional capacity. The type of people they have placed in the govt machinery and the internal processes of the departments are so rotten that nothing works.
Once a footballer told me a story which can serve as an illustration of 'poor institutional capacity thwarting good intentions'. He told me, 'I saw the ball curving towards the goal while I was dashing across two defenders. My mind chalked out a perfect strategy and sent command to the brain - Dash a little faster for 3-4 seconds more, leap over the second defender, swerve violently to the right and slam the ball'. The tired body exclaimed, 'Who? Me?'
The govt is reaping the effects of a half century inaction towards building institutional capacity.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Who is the real king of India
Once again, Anna's fresh approach has made me think.
A TV reporter recently asked him, 'If you are so keen on national issues, why don't you join politics and win an election. Then you can push your agenda legally'.
Anna corrected him none too gently. He said,' Obviously you believe that the 545 odd MPs are the only guys who control what laws must be made. The other 120 million or so Indians, busy in their daily chores, have no stakes in the country? Arre, we the 120 millions are the kings and we sent our 545 servants to sit as our spokesmen in parliament and do our bidding. It is not that we must do as they tell us to. They must say and do as we tell them. Don't get the pyramid wrong. Do you really want 120 millions to leave their jobs and join politics?'
Turns the present thinking on its head, no?
Most of us take the democratic system to be a modified version of the raja-praja ( ruler-ruled) system in which the MPs have replaced the rajas. Not so. The constitution starts with these words, 'We the people of India, give to ourselves this constitution -----'. It doesn't start as follows, 'We, the MPs of India give to the commoners this constitution ----'. On 15 Aug 1947, we all became kings of India. People alone are supreme.
Amazing guy,this Anna.
A TV reporter recently asked him, 'If you are so keen on national issues, why don't you join politics and win an election. Then you can push your agenda legally'.
Anna corrected him none too gently. He said,' Obviously you believe that the 545 odd MPs are the only guys who control what laws must be made. The other 120 million or so Indians, busy in their daily chores, have no stakes in the country? Arre, we the 120 millions are the kings and we sent our 545 servants to sit as our spokesmen in parliament and do our bidding. It is not that we must do as they tell us to. They must say and do as we tell them. Don't get the pyramid wrong. Do you really want 120 millions to leave their jobs and join politics?'
Turns the present thinking on its head, no?
Most of us take the democratic system to be a modified version of the raja-praja ( ruler-ruled) system in which the MPs have replaced the rajas. Not so. The constitution starts with these words, 'We the people of India, give to ourselves this constitution -----'. It doesn't start as follows, 'We, the MPs of India give to the commoners this constitution ----'. On 15 Aug 1947, we all became kings of India. People alone are supreme.
Amazing guy,this Anna.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Indian parliamentary democracy- systematically defiled
Why do I maintain that our much hyped parliamentary democracy is a colossal failure?
Well, today I have been hearing news of the recent SC verdict in Narendra Modi case ( Gulbarga society genocide ). In the debate on TV, I heard things that renewed two memories for me.
After/during the Sikh massacre post Indira Gandhi assassination, a Cong Leader quipped, ' When a big tree falls, the earth will tremble'
After/during the massacre of muslims post the Godhra massacre, Narendra Modi quipped, ' For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction'.
Great leader exist in both major parties of India!
And both parties are doing well since these massacres and statements.Those who made these statements were neither lynched nor legally punished.If you ask these parties to justify the comments made by their leaders, they will undoubtedly say, 'Oh, he was only explaining a law of physics.'
Indian parliamentary democracy has given us no option but to select a ruler from either of these two parties.
Do you get it now?
Anna's movement may appear to be pro' anti-corruption' but it actually is anti ' Indian parliamentary democracy system'.
Well, today I have been hearing news of the recent SC verdict in Narendra Modi case ( Gulbarga society genocide ). In the debate on TV, I heard things that renewed two memories for me.
After/during the Sikh massacre post Indira Gandhi assassination, a Cong Leader quipped, ' When a big tree falls, the earth will tremble'
After/during the massacre of muslims post the Godhra massacre, Narendra Modi quipped, ' For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction'.
Great leader exist in both major parties of India!
And both parties are doing well since these massacres and statements.Those who made these statements were neither lynched nor legally punished.If you ask these parties to justify the comments made by their leaders, they will undoubtedly say, 'Oh, he was only explaining a law of physics.'
Indian parliamentary democracy has given us no option but to select a ruler from either of these two parties.
Do you get it now?
Anna's movement may appear to be pro' anti-corruption' but it actually is anti ' Indian parliamentary democracy system'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
