Of Trysts and All That is Indian

As I begin to write this piece I realize that the “clock has struck the midnight hour” back home, and we are about to celebrate independence once again. Numerous sarkari peons are prepping the famed ramparts of the Red Fort. The Prime Minister is going over his speech with a tooth comb, making last minute tweaks that will ever so slightly refine the rhetoric he wishes to deliver. Crowds are beginning to flock to get a glimpse of the leader of the largest democracy on earth. India has awakened. But here, it is the dead of the night, only to be broken by busy crickets and the occasional rumble of an eighteen wheeler.

There is a reason I bring up the contrasts between the two worlds. Now, more than ever, India is making its effect felt across the globe. And the globe is making its presence felt in India. The world has turned flat, indeed. India is no more a concept to the West. It is no more a place where snake charmers abound, Maharajas fly on magic carpets and lovelorn kings build pointy marble shrines for their dead wives. India is now a country on the map. A real place with real people - a place that can save and make you real dollars. Ka-ching!

Ten years ago, if you asked an American CEO what three words come to mind when you mention India, I’d be willing to bet a chunk of change that the answer would revolve around, “Elephants”, “Gandhi” and “Kama Sutra”. Today, that answer could well be, “IT”, “Outsourcing”, “Engineering”. That is the difference. We are making that difference happen day by day, outsourcing project by outsourcing project, engineer by engineer, doctor by doctor, Indian by Indian.

As the West grows more aware of our land, we now have added responsibility to be ambassadors to the land that immortals like Patel and Tilak left us. We have to adopt a Japanese-like staunchness about our national image. We have to realize that the India we show our Western friends is the closest many of them will ever get to see of it. Be it manners, empathy, gratitude, love, respect or chivalry, we must put our best foot forward and showcase our great nation in the right light. We owe it to everyone who built a dream and then built a nation from that dream.

We are at a crossroads. The last decade has been a blur. Starting with the big IT houses setting up camp in major Indian cities in the late nineties, to the proliferation of call centers and BPO’s in India later in the decade, things have moved so fast and so mercurially that those of us who visit India every few years can feel the changed landscape. However, great progress brings with it a slew of problems – economic, political and social. We need to be wary that we don’t go through the cultural churning that the US went through in the seventies and eighties. We need to hold on to traditional Indian values as we attempt to survive this juggernaut. Economic progress and social progress have an inverse relationship. Luckily we have a better chance of surviving the economic boom than our European or American counterparts because we may enjoy the wonderful side-effects of frog leaping. Allow me to explain.

The West had to work through the transition from LP records, cassette tapes, and then onto CDs and DVDs, whereas there are many second and third world countries that skipped one or more of these steps because technology took so long to reach them that they were hurried onto the next generation of music storage. In a similar vein, we may well have leap-frogged a few generations of decadence and moral breakdown, and be closer to coming around full circle, as the West is currently. Let us hope our economic progress doesn’t inadvertently lead us to be an unhappy or morose people. After all, we are the land that has taught the West for ages, how to be gratified with all that you have. It would be a shame if the progress fueled by Western interests would rob us of that contentment. Time will tell but we can make a difference.

We’ve just begun. We have a long way to go. If we took a Gandhian view on progress, our work would be done only when every Indian village has electricity and running water, every child vaccinated and everyone has enough to eat. A Nehruvian angle would ensure that every IIT has only the best brains in the country, every soldier has the best possible equipment they can rely on and every Indian business house forms a considerable portion of the wealth of the world. We need to work bottom up and top down. Neither one approach by itself will work. This is a perfect opportunity for us to make a difference. Come join hands with us at http://www.silentchange.org and start to make a difference today. We have set upon a long journey and have set our sights high.

Sing our anthem with us…

Now, you are not alone
India is my life
I have come here to change her destiny
Come... walk with me my friend
Now, you are not alone

Let us surpass Pandit Nehru’s expectations when, on this day sixty years ago, he stood on the same ramparts that Dr. Singh will visit today, and told us about the tryst we had made as a nation. He had implored us to “redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially”. Let us make him proud and redeem our pledge not substantially, but wholly and in full measure.

We have that chance. Very few generations get the chance to matter. We are fortunate that we were given a free country, rich with diversity, wealth and intellect, all of which have led us to be recognized by the world again. We haven’t been this high in the food chain for a few centuries now. Join us on our journey of silent change and give back to the land that has given us all. To paraphrase a great leader’s words, we needn’t ask what India can do for us. She already has – life, freedom and the sense to know right from wrong. It is time to ask what we can do for our country.

I leave you with Panditji’s words that are every bit true today as they were sixty years ago: “A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance.”

Jai Hind!

Silent Change, August 15, 2007

A lot of the progress India has experienced is because of the loosening of policies that Pandit Nehru had tied like a noose around India's neck under the garb of socialism. Which is why, we might want to start by selecting the right leaders and making sure that they have the vision, the character and the courage to come up with policies which work in the long run and not be short-sighted and have not been created with an eye on the vote bank or for personal gain.

Re: The right leadership? August 15, 2007
Author: Author-Silent Change

Thanks. We always appreciate responses to our articles. I agree that we truly got out of economic shackles when we opened the country to foreign investors and companies in the early nineties. However at the time of independence, we needed a socialist structure to even out the vast disparity between the classes that the feudal system introduced into our society. In addition, if we had opened markets at that point, we would have been succeptible to selling out to the capitalistic forces of the world. And we know what caustic damage that can do to a fledgling third world country. By being socialist, we were also able to take a strong non-aligned stand and built a reputation of being a tough cookie in foreign policy. To your point, it is true that that the Babu era completely exploited the tight trade restrictions Nehru built into the system. And you're right again about having the right leadership, which is exactly what we had when Narasimha Rao had faith in Manmohan Singh's policies and gave free markets a shot. It's all about the right leadership at the right time. We've had a slew of undeserving leaders after that but I can't think of a better person for the job than our current PM. Let's hope that endeavors such as these revive interest in politics among the educated youth. Our government has taken a turn for the better in the recent past. We have a lot more educated under-45's than ever before. You are right - it's all about the right leaders and this is a step in the right direction. Keep 'em coming.

Re:,Re: The right leadership? August 15, 2007
Author: Anonymous

I think that socialism, that is the manner in which it was set up - by using license raj - did more harm to the country than good. Many countries were building themselves at the same time we were, but did much better in terms of infrastructure than we did. It also brought into the country, corruption at a scale that is absolutely horrifying - beyond economic and into moral. I would like to believe that we should have been better than that. That a leadership that cared should have spent some thought into building a system where people are rewarded for doing the right thing. Having said that, I understand that is my opinion and opinions differ. What is key is to learn from the past and move towards building a better future.

Re:,Re; Re: The right leadership? August 15, 2007
Author: Author-Silent Change

While I agree that we would have certainly done better without the vice-like grip that the license raj brought with it, I think we had a lot more to struggle with than those nations who got freedom and were building from scratch around the same time. First off, you have to realize we had to deal with the heavy bureaucratic baggage the Brits left us. Secondly, our infractions were so divided, a lot of energy went into getting people used to the concept of one nation with multiple personalities. Thirdly, we didn't have the most co-operative neighbors and the top priority then was the secure our borders. In an ideal world, our leaders would have had the time to prioritize this one point on the agenda over others. But given the pressures of the time, and personal egos, I'd say we didn't completely embarrass ourselves. It's easy for us to be armchair experts half a century later but it's important to recognize the pressures that our leaders were under when they had to make these tough decisions. I don't disagree that Nehru may not have been the ideal choice for PM at the point. Other than being supremely articulate, charismatic and a perfect ambassador for us abroad, he didn't bring all that much to the table. Patel, Kripalani, even Ambedkar, were more popular and were probably more equipped to handle the pressures better. However I doubt that they would have acted differently in the socialist aspect. That was our destiny no matter what. Patel would have probably made a difference in my third point above, in handling the Kashmir matter a little more sensibly but other than that I doubt we'd have done anything much different.

Re:,Re:, Re:,Re: The right leadership? August 15, 2007
Author: Anonymous

I wouldn't undermine the pressures of the leadership at that point of time, and yes we had a unique set of problems. And yes, its probably arm-chair wisdom, but that does not mean it is inaccurate to point out that we made some serious set of mistakes. No matter whose decision it was to go with the systems we chose, a whole country paid for it. That is a big price by any standards. Lets look at the issues you have highlighted - the British and their bureaucratic baggage - they occupied around 50 countries or more including the US & Canada - not all in that list did too badly. Maybe we just blame the British because its convenient to. About your point on people being divided - We all gained our freedom together. We stood as a united whole in front of the British. We might have had differences during the partition, but post partition we fought numerous wars together. I find it hard to believe that divided people would lay down their lives and protect those things they do not believe in. To use that as an excuse is to deny the politics of division that goes into the power struggle that makes politics the dirty game it si. I am not sure how security of the borders relates to internal policies, but whether it be leading a house, an organization or a country, you never focus on just one aspect. Because there is no single factor that makes a successful organization. Whoever uses that as an excuse is just saying they are not fit to be leaders. I think admission of mistakes is the first step in resolving them and never repeating them again. To believe that certain things that were implemented were the only way to go, even though we know they have had serious repercussions, might be a mindset that we need to challenge.

Re:,Re:, Re:,Re:,Re: The right leadership? August 15, 2007
Author: Author-Silent Change

Fair Enough. I don't justify all our decisions from back then. Every government has its fair share of illogical decisions, which in hindsight look pretty senseless. I also agree that sweeping such decisions under the carpet only means we are bound to commit the same mistakes again. We need to learn with our mistakes. Point taken. I think it's healthy for us to have this discussion. That is the idea behind this web site and our effort - gainful stimulation through healthy debate that leads to results. Having said that, I beg to differ on the point about India being worse off than other British colonies who gained independence at the same time. It's unfair to lump the US in this category because they got independence at the time the East India Company was starting to claw at India. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the like are still very much affiliated to the Empire. They answer to the Queen, so they can't be compared to India. To make it simpler, here's a map of the British Empire (marked in pink) in 1921. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/BritishEmpire1921.png With the exception of Malaysia and Hong Kong, I don't really see which other countries we can say have done better than India after their independence. Neither of them had to contend with the nature or scale of social, economic and political that we did. The "progress" in the Middle East isn't real progress - it's a temporary collusion between the nobles and the oil companies until the crude that fuels that unholy marriage of convenience runs out. As a side note, I'd like to clarify my point about India being a divided country when we gained independence. Had it not been for Patel, we wouldn't have been one country in the first place. Hyderabad, Kashmir and a bunch of Nawabs didn't want anything to do with this new country created by the British. They didn't believe in it and didn't want to answer to a higher authority. Not to mention that Hindu-Muslim rioting was at its worst. Isn't it ironic that the same people, as you mentioned, who "stood as a united whole in front of the British" were so quick to disburse into communal groups given the first chance? Partition was ugly. It had made the Punjab region, on both sides, into a unstable, violent mess. Calcutta was in tatters. It's hard to swallow that Gandhi was fasting as a revolt to the violence in Calcutta when our sovereign flag was being hoisted for the first time. I think it's fair to say that communal violence was a big hitting issue to contend with after independence.

Informed decisions? August 16, 2007
Author: Anonymous

I believe people are becoming more aware, as I saw in a debate on TV, people question politicians more. People are setting the priorities and we can see the effect in near future in the form of improved infrastructure - good roads, electricity, water, sanitation and health. But then I look a the surprise, one off, somewhat stupid stand, our PM on Independence day remarking that 8 new IIMs will be opened. Now, IIM is not a building, but people who are there, the atmosphere, how will we get good faculty, when we have so much nose poking by government. Well said, we are at crossroads and we need to take informed decisions. As we have the say today, we must speak out! Thanks for this great forum, good luck!

Re:The right leadership? August 16, 2007
Author: Silent Change

In the comments above, it seems like the nature of government/economy, socialist or capitalist, is the one determining factor that steers a country/economy. It is my view that this is not the only factor. While it is good to reflect on the past and learn from it, it might also help to look at other factors that might be a critical in hindering our progress as a nation. A couple of articles below speak of such issues. http://www.silentchange.org/articles/html/passivity.html http://www.silentchange.org/articles/html/problem.html

Yes, I agree. While there are a number of factors that go into determining the fate of country, there are some that are more pivotal than others. I believe the choice of judicial, legislative and economic structure, foreign policy, civil rights and voting franchise are among those decisions. We need to have a healthy mix of learning from the past and identifying key issues that we could have tackled better; looking at the present and identifying patterns and problems; and looking to the future to avoid the same mistakes. They say when you lose don't lose the lesson. On the whole, I think given the circumstances and resources we had at the time of independence, our report card is nothing to be embarrassed about. That we could have done a lot better in specific areas is beyond doubt. I agree with your comment about identifying issues that hinder our progress currently and thinking of solutions through the Silent Change effort. Thanks for your comments. They offer much needed stimulation that can spur constructive thoughts toward our aim of silent change. Jai Hind!

Thanks for joining in the discussion. Yes, we agree there is a concern about faculty. However, we equally believe Dr. Singh is also not naive to just consider IIMs as buildings. I am sure he has at least a plan for providing right infrastructure, funding and faculty for these new IIMs, and 30 or so new Universities. But, you are correct. We have a right to ask and get answers to our questions, and make sure that our leaders are thinking and acting right. These links may be useful in general, http://planningcommission.nic.in/ http://pmindia.nic.in/ http://www.ndtv.com/rti/default.asp

In the larger scheme of things, I don't think the opening of new IIMs is a big deal. The Right to Information is a step in the right direction. But we all know what happens to policies when they are not backed by a political will. I think in general a more valid step would be to explain why a particular measure is being taken and what are the short and long term visions that are associated for it. I understand that it might not be possible for everything, but for most policy decisions, transparency is a good thing.