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.

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.

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'.

Do not help the government abdicate their responsibility

These days, the NDTV-Cocacola - Support my School campaign is pretty much on the air. While the idea of private parties pitching-in for development purposes is good, the methods adopted are not. Approach the beneficiaries but through the government, not directly.If you wish to give money, do so but route it through the govt.
Oh yes, I know that had the govt worked satisfactorily, there might be no need for private parties to pitch in. However, it would be better for the schools ( in the long run ) to have the govt work even if a bit better, than by getting one time doles.
Teach a hungry man to fish, rather than handing him a fish. How many times will you give him a fish?
A one percentage increase in the govt's ability/desire to improve schools will be more beneficial than 500 bathrooms created one time in schools by Cococola.Seeing someone else take over the duties legitimately theirs, the govt happily pulls out whatever little they were doing. Public private partnership projects should strengthen the public( and govt ) sector,not weaken it. At this rate, the people will soon be making roads, policing themselves and having armies of their own. Do you notice that most of these activities are increasingly coming under private domain in India. Is it happening like this in the US too? No, they force their govts to do the jobs assigned to them, rather than facilitate them getting off the hook.
If high profile guys like Sachin Tendulkar who support the NDTV-Cocacola campaign get after the govt to improve its functioning, it will get better.
But, then, the real aim of such campaigns is publicity and not improvement in schools!

Crorepati netas representing BPL janta?

The eligibility criterion to become an MP or MLA in India are clearly based on the need that they must fully identify with the constituency they represent.
There are two problems with the system created to opertionalise this need -
1. Our system for checking their 'identification' factor is inadequate. It considers only two parameters - residency within that constituency for a certain length of time and popularity. The raison-de-etre for checking the identification with your voters is surely to ensure that the legislator should truly understand the problems and aspirations of the constituency.If this be true,my question is this - how can our crorepati legislators understand the problems and aspirations of their voters when over 70% of voters live below poverty line? Can those with assets worth 260 crores really identify with the daily travails of those who subsist on Rs 20 per day? Jaake payar ne phati biwai, woh kya jaane pir parayi ( He who never felt a wound jeers at scars ). We in the army had a saying to describe such imposters,' far from the battlefield makes great soldiers'.
2. Besides the identification factor, there is a crying need for another ensuring factor too i.e. capability to discharge the functions of the job. Understanding the problems and aspirations of your voters is one part of the job. Being able to lead commitees/ projects and functioning as Heads of Ministries require more than the ability to identify with your voters. Among other things, it calls for intellectual ability, project management ability, strategic thinking ability etc. Get a novice HR manager t work on this and he will create a suitable competency list within a day. However, we do not have any such eligibility criterion. You may not have such criterion for purely the role of raising issues in the parliament/assembly but at least enforce it for those who get to become ministers.
Is it asking for too much?

Bad roads are a must for democracy to survive?

I am occasionally told that 'democracy is the worst form of government, except when compared to all others'. When I lament about anything even as non-controversial as potholes in Mumbai, I'm reminded mostly of two things -
1. Things move slowly in a democracy.
2. Thank democracy for giving you the right to even air your lament.
The upshot clearly is - roads will always be bad in a democracy. You need to choose between good roads and democracy. They are mutual exclusives. Also the Indian Catch 22 - 'You have right to complaint against bad roads. However, the government's answer to that complaint is that this is intentionally so, just to preserve your right to complaint against bad roads. So, just shut up. Look out for the next pothole on the road'.
Not only is the argument untrue, it is a churlish insult to my intelligence and powers of reasoning.
If bad roads and democracy are so inextricably interlinked, why are there good roads in the US? Do people in the US not get to complain?
Their next argument my well be - But US is not democracy!
I roll my eyes in exasperation ( is there some emoticon for that expression?)

The defence minister versus the army chief

I have already written that the most potent enemy the Indian army faces is the Indian defence ministry. The ministry is hell bent on destroying its own army. The defence minister's ruling to change the official age of the army chief is a case in point. Now that the army chief has filed a statutory complaint against the defence minister's decision, the point has been proved.
Do we even appreciate what has happened? The chief of Indian army has felt aggrieved enough by the decision of the defence minister to raise it officially! Could there be a worse situation than this? It is like the home minister revolting against the PM on a trivial issue and filing a case in the Supreme court!
Yes, the official age of an army official, irrespective of the rank of the official,is a trivial issue on the radar of the defence ministry. What was the need for the defence minister to give it so much importance? Why did the defence minister make his own army chief look like a liar and manipulator? Did he really expect the chief to take this insult lying down? If he had, he would have belied the army code of personal honour. After all, the army officers do not live by the code of the politicians and thank the good lord for that.
Before you argue that technically the defence minister is correct, let me add that my objection is not that his action is illegal. That question will be answered by the courts. I am questioning the wisdom of the action.
It is unwise to create a situation where you may have to publicly cross swords with your army chief. Would you much rather be right or useful ( to the country and army )? Does the defence minister not have even one sensible advisor who could foresee that the action of the defence ministry will force the army chief to go public. And what after that? Strategic sagacity largely depends on your ability to look three moves ahead. What moves did the defence minister envisage after making their own army chief look like a Mr 420?
Can the 'honest' defence minister not think beyond his nose? If so, how will he take strategic decisions in war? If he can't control even a simple interaction like this, how will he steer war scenarios to India's benefit?
If I were to choose between an honest but ineffective civil servant or politician, and a dishonest but effective one, I'd unhesitatingly choose the latter.
Reminds me of an episode of the American civil war. There was a general who was very effective but an alchoholic. His detractors complained of his drinking habits to the chief, who made this classic reply, ' Find out what brand of whiskey he drinks. I want to send several cartons of same to those who just sit on their backsides, drinking pure water.'
Get the point?