R-Day Ruminations-I: Crime & Politics

Two stories in today’s Times of India need some kind of response.

The first one is about Sonia Gandhi voicing her desire (read original story here) to keep criminals out of politics. She said this at a function to celebrate the diamond jubilee of the Election Commission. At the same event, prime minister Manmohan Singh rued the fact that the best minds don’t want to join politics because of the unruly elements who populate this space. Both – including many others at the celebrations -- have a point and it is interesting to see how they translate this thought into action.

But, just banning criminals might not cleanse the system of its venality. The rot begins with the way the profession is financed. With little or no accountability, most political parties depend on business for their financing. And, a large part of this is in cash. An accountant recently told me that even new generation entrepreneurs who wanted to run transparent and well-governed businesses – especially in manufacturing -- couldn’t help dipping into the shadowy cash economy once in a while to keep greedy politicians and bureaucrats at bay. Pay-offs are hard-wired into the system of approvals, clearances and licences; denial only begets reprisal and redressal mechanisms are way too effete to deliver timely and meaningful justice.

It all starts here. Untrammelled access to such large pools of cash naturally draws in all kinds. One consequence is the large percentage of political sons and daughters inheriting their parents’ mantle. When large sums of money – held through a web of shell companies in India and abroad – are at stake, most politicians are loath to leave this fortune to a political party or to other political (essentially non-family) successors. Merging the political heir and family heir into the same person is a neat arrangement. Here’s another pointer: nobody seems to bat an eyelid when politicians disclose large increases in their wealth despite not having any disclosed sources of income. One politician even ingeniously explained it as gifts from fans!

If they are indeed serious about ridding politics of its goonda elements, then Sonia Gandhi – and hopefully Rahul Gandhi – will have to bring the broom to campaign finance first. The Election Commission has been trying to introduce a semblance of accountability to campaign finance by putting a ceiling on how much each candidate can spend on his or her election campaign. But, this ceiling is observed more in breach for two reasons – one, the candidate’s campaign bills are mostly picked up by someone else and, two, because nobody monitors how much each political party spends at a broader, national level.

The problem that then arises is this: campaign financing doesn’t stop once the election results are announced because election funding is inextricably linked to post-electoral favours in the form of sweetheart deals, land allocation and lopsided government contracts, which then provides a platform for additional future funding. Perhaps, the EC should also play a role in reducing the size of the government and its capacity to influence business investment decisions. I know this is asking the EC to go way beyond its constitutional remit. Plus, one can’t overlook the additional danger of a megalomaniac EC wreaking havoc. But, some institutional mechanism can be devised in conjunction with other constitutional offices (such as the Comptroller and Auditor General of India) that works to reduce the multiple government approvals – both at the Centre and the states -- that force businesses to generate unaccounted cash.

Many authors and historians have written that the politics of Sixties and Seventies marked the end of numerous Indian institutions. I hope we are able to witness the rebuilding of some of them in this new decade. That’s also a necessary and sufficient condition to end criminalisation of politics.

R-Day Ruminations–II: Cricket and Not-So-Cordial-Entente

Speaking of institutions, there is a danger when organisations with a limited role – particularly in sports and entertainment – go beyond their ken and meddle in unrelated fields. The conduct by Indian Premier League (IPL) is not only most curious but borders on the dangerous.

If reports are indeed true, then home minister P Chidambaram’s outburst (read here) at the wilful boycotting of Pakistani players by the IPL franchisees adds a new layer to this fetid mess. PC denies that there was any nudge-nudge, wink-wink from the government, or any signalling to IPL franchisees to snub Pakistani players. Interestingly, and somewhat inexplicably, filmstar Shah Rukh Khan has also suddenly emerged out of the woodwork to voice his displeasure at the turn of events.

But, IPL is playing an extremely hazardous game if it is indeed over-estimating its clout and trying to use that to influence the country’s foreign policy. Last year, it locked horns with the authorities by shifting the IPL matches to South Africa because the government said it could not provide adequate security for players in view of the impending general elections. What was appalling was IPL’s intractable stand.

First, it refused to pay for and provide private security. Strange as it might sound, here was a private enterprise (admittedly with a sound business model) which wanted the government to spend tax-payers’ money to help it carry on its private business. Cute. But, what was even more worrisome was the fact that it refused to pay heed to the government’s legitimate reason for its inability to provide security: general elections across the country with a gruelling schedule spread over 30 days. The message from IPL was posed like a question: what’s more important, IPL matches or elections?

In this latest display of audacity, there are rumours that the government might have conveyed to the IPL franchisees that the responsibility of ensuring players’ security lay with the League. And, if reports are to be believed, it is this that might have prompted franchisees to give the Pakistani players a miss. Whatever the reason might be, IPL needs to get some reality check. Celebrity status for some of its members doesn’t guarantee immunity from national priorities.

Build Me A Rainbow

If I were a rich man,
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.
All day long I'd biddy biddy bum.
If I were a wealthy man.
I wouldn't have to work hard.
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.
If I were a biddy biddy rich,
Yidle-diddle-didle-didle man.

I'd build a big tall house with rooms by the dozen,
Right in the middle of the town.
A fine tin roof with real wooden floors below.
There would be one long staircase just going up,
And one even longer coming down,
And one more leading nowhere, just for show.

I'd fill my yard with chicks and turkeys and geese and ducks
For the town to see and hear.
Squawking just as noisily as they can.
With each loud "cheep" "swaqwk" "honk" "quack"
Would land like a trumpet on the ear,
As if to say "Here lives a wealthy man."

If I were a rich man,
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.
All day long I'd biddy biddy bum.
If I were a wealthy man.
I wouldn't have to work hard.
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.
If I were a biddy biddy rich,
Yidle-diddle-didle-didle man.

-- From the musical Fiddler On The Roof

Had Topol known the extent of extra-constitutional powers enjoyed by builders in modern India’s cities, he would have probably sung a slightly different set of words for this famous musical. Attacking women, defenceless men, elderly citizens keen on preserving the ecological balance is the only vocabulary builders use to counter dissent. But, how come they’ve got away each time?

Obviously, the political apparatus has been co-opted full time. In Bombay, the builder-politician-mafia nexus has been thriving for years. But, earlier, builders knew how to keep their distance, and rarely got into the public spotlight. They were seldom seen, never heard. But, today they want their pictures printed, aspire to celebrity status and even crave for recognition. Their daughters and sons want a piece of the Bollywood action too. Any dissenting voice is seen as a threat to this sublime equilibrium and needs to be silenced, even if it is with brutal force.

Their deep pockets have ensured a safe passage every time. One builder, accused of short-changing the state revenue department by deliberately mis-stating the area of the apartments he’s been selling for years, even crowed to fellow builders that the hullabaloo would quieten down soon after some money was spent – on politicians and on newspaper advertisements! Like the famous playwright Noel Coward said so fittingly: “The higher the buildings, the lower the morals.”

Idiots vs The Book

The “3 Idiots” controversy seems to be dying down – this is evident from the declining column centimetres devoted to the issue and the reduced decibel levels in the television channels. So, in keeping with my predilection for lagged responses, I have decided to wade in when the brouhaha seems to be fading.

First, a disclosure. I have seen the movie but haven’t read the book. I don’t particularly admire Chetan Bhagat or his style of writing or even some of his ideas that seem to appeal to some youngsters. A recent piece he wrote for the Sunday Times of India (Don’t Fix History, Look At The Future, August 30) seemed particularly strange. Anyway, Bhagat cannot be denied his share of adulation. He has many fans across the country and, like every citizen in this country, he too is entitled to his views. And, if he finds support – as well as admiration for his work – then he is jolly well entitled to it too.
But, to come back to “3 Idiots”, my daughter has both read the book and seen the movie. She seems to think that the book is indeed the launch pad for large chunks in the movie. Sure, there are some dissimilarities and some deviations, but that’s cinematic licence. She seems to be convinced that the movie is based on the book “Five Points Someone”, and there’s very little chance that you can use ‘technicalese’ (such as, the legal agreement brandished by the movie director and purported to have been signed by Chetan Bhagat) or spin to persuade a 15-year-old to change her opinions.
Assuming that the book has indeed laid the foundation stone for the movie, then a larger Bollywood malaise seems to be rearing its head again – scant regard for intellectual property. The issue has plagued most musicians and producers over many decades now but Bollywood seems unable to shake off the indolent habit of copy-paste. Sure, there are directors like Vishal Bharadwaj who have juxtaposed famous plays from Shakespeare into a contemporary Indian setting, and acknowledged their true source of inspiration. But, as an industry, by indulging in its addiction for a regular fix of “lifted” tunes, plots and scripts, Bollywood is doing itself great disservice.
If Chetan Bhagat’s claim is indeed true, then it once again shows up a twin-faced Bollywood -- which doesn’t respect intellectual property rights but immediately gets into a huff when pirates hawk a copy of the latest release. If the makers of “3 Idiots” are indeed in the clear, then society should reflect whether it should continue endorsing a revolting persona who has been weaned on easy publicity.