Jaimini Bhagwati: The blame game

The only remedy is to have a wider cross-section of well-meaning, educated Indians enter electoral politics

India’s achievements in the first decade of the 21st century leading up to the 64th anniversary of its Independence on August 15, 2010 leave a warm after-glow in their wake. At the same time, it is apparent from our writings and pronouncements that Indians are prone to playing the blame game. Namely, we tend to look for someone else to blame for our collective failures. For instance, there is a lot of self-indulgence in the sweeping vilification of the Indian “establishment”, i.e. anyone holding an executive position at a political, civil service or public sector level. The corporate sector is also subject to criticism, although less frequently than the establishment, and the media and judiciary appear to be relatively less targeted.

A random sample from the litany of grief and gossip in living rooms, street corners and media around the country would include comments which can be broadly classified as: (a) outrageous rent-seeking behaviour in decision-making circles in government and regulatory bodies; (b) helplessness of the average citizen, particularly the poor, in the face of the multiple day-to-day difficulties caused by shortcomings in affordable health care, infrastructure and primary education; and, (c) indifference of the government and corporate elites. It is curious that the more affluent among our chattering classes are vehement that the hand that steals should be exposed and punished but are less concerned about excoriating and prosecuting the hand that bribes.

Among the accused, politicians complain about the arbitrary manner in which electoral constituencies are redrawn and how caste and other partisan considerations rather than hard work determine their re-election prospects. Civil servants are forever complaining about arbitrary transfers and postings which have little to do with their competence and are motivated by nepotism and on and on. Corporate biggies and their acolytes protest loudly against any vestige of “command and control” and “licence and permit raj”, and also protest when there is a push towards enhancing domestic and particularly global competition. Academics justifiably complain that they are poorly paid. However, most of them seem averse to any linkage between security of tenure and the quality/number of their research publications. In rural and urban areas, high-value real-estate deals are often concluded through a varying mix of payments by cheque and cash. Despite the improvements resulting from electronic record-keeping, touts and middlemen can be easily spotted at most public-dealing offices. It is difficult for most of us to resist paying speed or convenience money.

The media’s favourite whipping boys are the softer targets who cannot hit back. Since the sponsors of listed and private firms in India own significant proportions of equity in print media and television companies and vice versa, and media is dependent on advertisement revenue, the larger corporate houses are treated with diffidence. There are many honourable exceptions but it is often clear from the nature of the coverage that it is driven by specific corporate interests. It is indeed rare for the media or even the judiciary to pursue a scandal when it involves a combination of political and business clout. The exception seems to be media companies belonging to political families, which tend to go after political opponents blatantly.

Who is a representative and average Indian: the hard-working landless farmer or tribal who may be illiterate and insecure about the future; an outraged English-medium television programme moderator who is shrill on demand; perpetrators of the so-called honour killings; the new strains of mining mafia dons who also double as political leaders; those who murder people or destroy property in the name of religion; the educated and dedicated professionals who work diligently and honestly; the obviously corrupt public officials living extravagantly; or the acquiescing politicians or civil servants who are personally scrupulously honest? This list is endless. In a large country such as ours with very disparate levels of education and standards of living, civic consciousness necessarily varies enormously. However, even with this caveat, is the dispersion of “usual” behaviour across India excessive? It can be demoralising at times to witness the arrogance with which self-interest is promoted using caste or religious arguments and the intemperate outbursts in state assemblies or Parliament.

Are we regressing in critical areas of public and social responsibility? In remembering our national leaders at the time of Independence, it strikes me that most were relatively liberal, well-educated, with their integrity always beyond doubt even though many may not have been competent in a managerial or technical sense. It is unfortunate that after more than 60 years of Independence, the level of responsibility among some of our elected representatives seems to be lower. Maybe this was inevitable since the leaders at the time of Independence were from a self-selected group and could relate better to each other through the bonds formed during the freedom struggle. Has self-esteem among our educated, professional and political classes become brittle, aggravated by caste, income and other factors, making it difficult for us to function well as teams?

Well, I have fallen squarely into the trap of the blame game, that is, I am blaming the blame gamers. To change tack and make a few constructive suggestions, even if these are woefully naïve, we could try to: (a) set up not-for-profit public television channels at the national and regional levels which are not significantly dependent on advertisement revenue and which rely more on individual donations; (b) socially ostracise the blatantly corrupt (since the wheels of justice grind so very slowly); and most importantly, (c) find ways to lower the currently almost insuperable barriers to entry into electoral politics for an average Indian. A well-known Indian sociologist has commented that it is difficult for those without “muscle or money power” to be elected because it is physically dangerous, particularly outside the major metropolitan areas.

To summarise, if we want to progress faster towards meritocracy with social justice, there is no alternative to a wider cross-section of Indians, including the educated and well-meaning, participating directly and personally in electoral politics. Alternatively, we are likely to periodically hear from columnists about how “Nehruvian policies” continue to be at the root of our current difficulties (Jawaharlal Nehru passed away on May 27, 1964, more than 46 years ago).

j.bhagwati@gmail.com

The author is India's ambassador to the European Union, Belgium and Luxembourg. The views expressed are personal