If you live in India, or indeed anywhere in the world, and are a regular consumer of news – it would be easy to believe that the only thing that will solve the world’s problems is a giant meteor crashing into earth and wiping out much of humanity. According to the news media – there are politicians and political parties who are so busy posturing and advancing their own agenda that their party or country comes a distant second. There are corporations that rape and pillage the environment, in connivance with politicians, till there is nothing left to sustain us. There are men so foul and so vile that they pick up random women, batter, brutalise, rape and kill them. There are people so terrible that they see nothing wrong in trading children for sex. There are mothers-in-law who burn their daughters-in-law, mothers who kill their daughters and parents who torture their children. There are leaders who use religion to divide the people, there are God Men who use the name of the almighty to con the faithful and there are priests who use religion to keep people subjugated. Villages are dismal, tribal areas without hope, and the nation plummeting towards ruination. It is a world where terrorists have the upper hand with a bomb likely to go off anytime. It is a country with regions like Bastar and Poonch where no normal life is possible; everyone who is a Muslim is against the Uniform Civil Code, and everyone who is a Haryanvi Hindu supports the Khap. In this world, Maharashtra and Maharashtrians hate outsiders, UP and Bihar full of murderers and everyone in Tamil Nadu hates Hindi. This is the world as brought to you by the news media. In short, it is a world without hope, without decency, without the desire for consensus and living in peace. But, is only this our world?
In reality, the world is a nicer and safer place than this. It is a world where more good things happen than bad. Yet, the bad makes the news and the good ignored.
Some points to ponder on:
• There is development – it may not be as much or as fast as we want it to be, but it would be erroneous to say that it is not there. It is not just big cities like Mumbai and Delhi where this is visible, but in smaller towns, in villages and remote tribal areas. There are young entrepreneurs who are coming up with innovative solutions to change the lives of ordinary people – bringing in electricity, water, education. And the State is also doing a lot more than it is given credit for. Ignoring development – be it villages powered by Solar energy in Gujarat or Self Help Group successes in Maharashtra or growing education in Tamil Nadu – to keep outraging about only the negatives does neither the media nor the audience any good.

• Most parents are trying their best to educate their daughters – if you remember the Nirbhaya case, what was striking was the father of the girl who worked over time to ensure that his daughter got a professional education. The patriarchy that wants to keep girls barefoot and pregnant and indoors exists – as is their attempt to curtail the rights of women. But, they are growing smaller in number by the day as millions of parents across the nation do their best for their girls. It is important that these parents become the norm and the role model, not the medievalists
• Politicians, across parties, work together to get things done – The last five years has possibly been the most combative period in modern India. Parliamentary walkouts, deadlock, and general posturing by both sides has been the norm. Yet, legislation has passed, work has progressed, and in cases public agreement with each other. While it is important to show the Opposition taking the Government to task, and the Government defending it’s stand, it is also important – for democracy – to show the points of agreement, of collaboration of co-operation. Where parties put aside their differences to work towards a greater good.
• Police and Intelligence Agencies stop most terrorist attacks – do a simple exercise. Log on to the internet and do a simple search with the following terms arms, explosives seized in India. Most of these will be small news reports. Yet, they tell you something very important – the police and intelligence agencies are not napping at the wheel between terror attacks. While it is important that one reports and analyses terror strikes, it is equally important one looks at foiled terror strikes. Simply because it creates confidence in the population.
It is the media’s role to point out the warts in society and one is not suggesting that the media abandon this to whitewash news and present a Pollyanna version of the world. Nor is one asking for the media to conduct a propaganda exercise that tells us that “all is well”. What one is suggesting is a balance. Some rays of sunshine, some crumbs of hope in a scenario that is filled with doom and gloom. A man who saves a child from abduction, a village that is fully literate, a tribal area connected by road for the first time in history, a child from a remote village who has aimed for and reached the stars. It is not that these stories have to be made up, they exist all around us.
There is a lot that is good about India. There is a number of individual achievements and state intervention that is transforming society. There is hope for a better tomorrow. Bad news may attract instant audiences, but there is only so much bad news most of us can digest. For long term audience engagement, maybe a bit of hope and sunshine is needed.

Environmental Docus

It is clear to most people that the world weather patterns are changing–and human activity is one of the contributory factors to pollution, global warming and climate change. In the last two decades, there has been greater public awareness than ever before on nature, its diversity, human impact on nature, and use and conservation of Natural Resources. A number of feature films, documentaries and TV shows have been made to increase environmental awareness and create an appreciation about nature and its diversity. Here is a list of themes and films that are must-watch to gain a greater appreciation of the world around us.

Appreciating the Natural World: A great documentary series as a starting point is David Attenborough’s Life on Earth. The series travels across the globe to look at the evolution and growth of life on earth. A companion series to this The Living Planet is also a must-watch. Together, they tell you the diversity of life forms and the need to conserve. Other films that create an immense love for other inhabitants of the planet (apart from humans) is the Oscar Award Winning March of the Penguins, The Truth about Tigers—made by Shekar Dattatri, which looks at the magnificent cat, how it is in danger of disappearing, and finally what we can do to save it.

Dams: In the debate between those who take absolute positions on Environment and Development, there is nothing more polarising than the Dam–a wall that impedes the natural flow of water, diverts rivers, and changes lives. It impacts the world around it both in positive and negative ways. There have been many films made on this issue. Here are some that are definitely worth seeing. Anant Patwardhan’s A Narmada Diary made in 1997–discusses some of the more human aspects. It tells the story of people to be displaced by the coming of the Dam. Damocracy is another good documentary in this space that looks at the issue of dams and its impact on the environment worldwide.

Food: How we grow food that we eat, and what is the impact of this on the environment is another important issue that is worth considering. There have been a number of documentaries on this topic in the last 5 years. Food Inc–looks at the corporatization of the food chain and tells us how it impacts us as consumers. Poison on our Platter, made by Mahesh Bhatt & Ajay Kanchan, looks at the impact of chemical fertilizers in the food chain, and how it is poisoning us slowly. Bitter Seeds is a film that looks at the impact of companies like Monsanto on the marginal farmer, and relates it to a spike in farmer suicides.

Water: Without water none of us will last too long. Yet, for many on earth access to clean drinking water has become an issue. With an increasing trend towards privatisation of water, there are water riots in many parts of the world. There are some great documentaries in this space. One must watch film is Flow–for the love of water that looks at the issues regarding water, and some of the possible solutions. Another great documentary is Blue Gold–World Water Wars that looks at how clean fresh water is getting more and more scarce, and carterlised. It also asks if future wars will be fought for water.

Corporatisation: Mahatma Gandhi once said that “The world has enough for everyone”s need, but not enough for everyone”s greed”. The view that a Corporate entity is focused on profit maximisation to the exclusion of everything else, and that this has adverse effects on the environment, is a running theme in many documentaries on the environment. One film that looks at this in great detail, and provides capitalist solutions to the problem is The Corporation. While the focus of the film is not exclusively environmental, it covers a number of aspects that impact the world around us. Also worth watching is The Story of Bottled Water.
The environment is too important to be left to government. It concerns all of us, and our descendants. You too can highlight issues regarding the environment in your area–it could be the way garbage is dumped, to a hill that has disappeared, to a lake that has been polluted. The technology is available – all that it requires is your commitment.

Last week, the UPA government turned four.  Racked by allegations of corruption, with tainted ministers and MP’s, with a power tussle between the Government and the Congress Party, with a revolving door approach to allies, at combat with the remaining institutions of State – the UPA has lurched from crisis to crisis. As it approaches the last year of the current Parliament (and the current Government) an A to Z of UPA 2.

A for Allies – The A in UPA stands for Alliance. The last four years has seen the most dreadful mismanagement of this alliance. Apart from the NCP there seems to be no one left whom the Government can call ally – in the true sense of the word.

B Bharat Nirman – the Government’s massive publicity campaign highlighting achievements.  It would be great for an audience that has never heard of this Government or the scandals that have marked the last 4 years.

C– it seems that most of the Government’s nightmares begin with C – from the Congress Party trying to undermine the authority of the Government, to Coalition (a)Dharma, to the Comptroller and Auditor General of India who has called into question processes, procedures and even policies practised by the Government, and of course Corruption.

D for Deadlock – It is estimated that this current parliament has lost over 75% of working time due to a deadlock between the Government and the Opposition. While the Government has used bluster and legalese to get its way, the opposition has behaved like a spoilt child in a play ground – If we can’t have our way we will let no one play.

E for Executive – supposedly the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. Unfortunately the role of the executive, in general, and the Prime Minister in particular has been systematically weakened in the last four years.

F for Food , the Right to – The Government’s Flag Ship programme. A bit late in terms of introduction, but bang in time for the next elections. The Intentions are laudable – no Indian will go hungry – but the economics and the processes of delivering food to the bulk of India still has to be worked out.

G for Governance – there is a huge Governance deficit and that can be seen in terms of roads not built, skills not developed, budgets not spent, deals not struck, work stuck in bureaucratic limbo – and it impacts the system top down.

H for Hangings – After years of doing nothing, suddenly a spate of executions. A New President, and a change in policy. Pranab Mukherjee is possibly going to go down in history as the Hanging President. Midnight hangings, media blank outs, and people who have been on death row executed.

I for Indian National Congress (INC) – The grand old party of India and the main constituent of the UPA. With elections looming, the party seems to be ready to jettison the Prime Minister and his Cabinet, and replace it with a more saleable face – Rahul Gandhi.

Jobs – Job creation has suffered, partly because of a worldwide downturn, and partly because of wonky economics.

Kingmakers – trouble with the allies (both Congress and BJP) is that instead of being kingmakers they all want to be kings.

Line of Control – The Line of Control that demarcates the Party from the Government has been breached. That is going to have serious implications in the years to come.

Manmohan Singh – The Prime Minister. The man most tarnished by the scandals in the last four years. It is tragic that a man who represented so much of middle class’ aspirations in the last general elections, has become a figure for ridicule all around.

National Advisory Council – less advisory and more dictatorial. The shadow cabinet with seemingly more power than the actual cabinet. A council with neither accountability nor responsibility to Parliament

Opposition – The opposition to the UPA has come from its allies, from the CAG, from the anti corruption movement, and the NAC. Unfortunately the largest opposition party is still trying to figure what its stand on any issue is – apart from the resignation of the Prime Minister.

Parliament – given this Parliament and its lockjams, the Congress Party (and indeed the BJP) ought to ask themselves whether they want to contest more seats on their own

Quandary – facing the Government and the Party, go to the polls now or later. Will 12 months really make a big difference to the electoral outcome?

Reforms – The political class seems to have a general purpose anathema towards reforms of any nature. The economy, law and order, judiciary all need reforms – but little is forthcoming. New laws seem to be the answer, not reforming the system. This Government  has managed to push through some reforms, but not enough, and not fast enough

Sonia Gandhi –  has successfully lead the Congress Party to two General Election victories. Will be interesting to see if she leads the party for the next elections or hands the baton to Rahul Gandhi

Telengana – a totally mishandled situation.  Do not promise anything – especially a State – if you don’t have intentions to deliver.

UIDAI – Unique Identification Authority of India that is supposed to issue the Aadhar card that would be used to deliver welfare services, including cash, to the citizen. On the face of it  laudable- but implementation has been all over the place

Voters – we the people who decide the next Government of India. Whom do we vote for ?

Water – potable water , a major issue to be addressed for both urban and rural India.

X – factor – is sorely needed. Currently this government looks tired and weary. .

Youth – it is estimated that around 110 million first time voters, with no interest in legacy or dynasty, will be voting next election. How will the UPA attract them ?

Zero Loss – the legalese used to describe the loss in 2G. Hubris.

 

One of Oscar Wilde’s most famous plays was the Importance of Being Earnest, A Trivial Comedy for Serious People. A hilarious farce, it tells the journey of people who cover up their follies and foibles with assumed persona and nifty wordplay. The play revolves around John Worthing, a sort of staid and boring man, and his alter ego — the fun-loving Earnest and his wooing of a young lady. When asked about his parentage, Earnest tells the girl’s mother that he lost both of them, as an infant. The mother, Lady Bracknell, then goes on to utter one of the most famous lines in English Drama “To lose one parent, Mr Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness. “
These were the lines that came to mind on Friday, when the prime minister lost not just one, but two ministers to growing public pressure. Pawan Bansal stepped down after his nephew Vijay Singla was arrested red-handed taking a bribe of Rs90 lakh to fix a railway board appointment. Bansal, at first denied, then blustered, then fattened a goat (we still don’t know if it was sacrificed), and then when all else failed went to the prime minister’s office and resigned. He, of course, denied that he had any business dealings with his nephew. While Bansal’s case was clear cut, nephew caught with hand in the till — the case of the second sacrificial goat, law minister Ashwani Kumar, was much more complex. He made changes to the CBI report on coal allocation and told the courts that he merely acted as copy editor, correcting grammar. The supreme court took a dim view of the verbal jugglery and spanked the government, in public, for changing the “heart of the report”. The government got upbraided further for keeping the CBI caged like a “parrot with many masters”. An untenable position for a law minister to be publicly reprimanded by the highest court in the country. After much dithering he too went. In both cases the Congress party chief Sonia Gandhi and the newly anointed general secretary Rahul Gandhi were supposed to have played a key role in ensuring their exit — or so the media leaks said. No one in the media sought to ask, why the party chief is taking a call on the cabinet that ought to be the sole purview of the prime minister.
UPA II reminds one of the Oscar Wilde play beyond the Lady Bracknell quote. It is the very adoption of the dual persona — that tries to balance an out-dated concept of hereditary leadership with much more modern concepts of constitutional institutions, checks and balances and separation of powers. It is the portrayal of a façade of ‘all is well’ when it is not. Add to this, the sophisticated nifty wordplay that seeks to put out fires — “zero loss”, “grammar changes” for example. And, while both the dual persona and catchy sound bytes are great to watch as entertainment, they erode credibility.
If anything has been the hallmark of the current government, it is the violation of procedures and processes, leading to favours for friends and family — also known as cronies. In earlier years of this government, the spokespeople could get away by saying “coalition dharma”, but with the coalition itself in tatters there is no one left to blame. While individual ministers have taken decisions that have bent the rules, the trail seems to stop with them. In an ideal world the prime minister is first amongst equals and has the authority to get his team, the cabinet, to deliver; he takes credit when it does, and is accountable and responsible when it does not. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case with this government. And, that is for one very good reason — authority and responsibility have been split. Authority seems to rest with Ms Gandhi and accountability with Singh. The prime minister’s office ought to be the epicentre of decision-making in India. But, the current regime has seen a tremendous whittling down of the institution of the prime minister and his office. The strategy of a dual power centre might have done the party good, but in turn it has damaged the process of decision making, and the office of the prime minister. And, now the tussle between the government of India and the largest political party that controls it for power, has spilled out into the open.
In a world where 24-hour instant media dominates, having a reticent, media-shy PM does not help. While one does not expect the prime minister of India to be conducting affairs of the State under the arc lights of television studios, periodic interaction with the voter would have gone some way in restoring some of the credibility of the office of the prime minister. The key points to remember are that parliament represents India and makes laws for India; the cabinet or the executive executes or implements the law for all India. While members may belong to different political parties, they work for India. The prime minister of India is not a party post; it is the post of the actual (as opposed to nominal) head of government. And that authority of the office, of decision making, is what needs to be restored. The principle of unity of command — where one person only reports to one boss — has to be restored. While in a complex organisation such as government, there may be many who choose to influence, but decision-making has to be left at one point to the cabinet led by the prime minister. This diarchy — of having two heads of government — is costing the country dear by decimating the command structure of the executive. It needs to end for the good of the country.

When Rahul Gandhi addressed the CII conference, those who oppose him and his party, got #PappuCII (stupid) to trend on Twitter. A few days later when Narendra Modi addressed the FICCI conference, Congress supporters on Twitter got #Feku (someone who makes tall claims) to trend. (Hashtags are a useful way of classifying and searching for data on the internet. Twitter’s hashtags are explained here) You would think that this little tu tu mein mein would be the end of the matter. A bit of playground fun and humour by over-enthusiastic supporters on both sides, who are willing to rain on the other party. But no, this was just the beginning. The mainstream media –TV and print – jumped onto the bandwagon, at first by the use of the hashtags – either deliberately or inadvertently – and then by devoting space and time to the so called “Twitter wars”. Which is all fine in itself, after all it is their space and their time and they can fill it with anything they want. But for one problem – they make the issue seem bigger than it is, and more important that it should be.

Everyone on Twitter does not have the humour of a 13-year-old on the playground, busy dreaming up names for authority figures. What you have is a small, vocal, motivated, active and dedicated minority on both sides, who thrive on polarising the issue. The type for whom the dictum ‘if you aren’t for us, you are against us’ holds true. The real life equivalent of people on the streets taking out a morcha and shouting hai hai. The only reason it is interesting is because you see this on your screens wherever you are, it is in English, and journalists and influencers of the mainstream media are on the same platform.

While the mainstream media is a closed clique, Twitter can be an echo chamber – and it is this echo that makes events seem more important than they are. However, to give it its due, Twitter also allows more diverse voices to echo, more diverse opinion to gain shape. The echo can become noise, all sides screaming simultaneously, or agitating against the other, but it is by no means the only expression on the medium. The noise is possibly a fraction of the conversations that take place across the spectrum on a daily basis. But the mainstream media tends to reduce issues to a yes or no, oppose or support. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that instead of looking at diversity and plurality of views – even within the so called left or right online – the focus is on those who choose to polarise. This is also pretty much the way the real world is covered.

Despite the fractious last four years in politics, legislations have been passed, committees have met, work has taken place, and representatives across parties in Parliament and in state legislatures, have contributed to this. Yet, all that is seen is the dissent, the walk-outs, the screaming at each other in TV studios, the grandstanding, the nautanki- essentially sound byte politics. In a broadcast world where sound bytes rule, it is hardly surprising that Twitter is the chosen medium. Everything is reduced to 140 characters – that is great for headlines, great for fuelling more conflict, and great for projecting a world that is intrinsically polarised. That polarised world does not exist outside the TV studios and those who get hashtags to trend. News channels are happy because they get instant conflict ridden content; those who trend hashtags are happy because their view is presented as the only world view. And as always, the middle ground is left out. Most of the world is rather fuzzy in its choices, with neither committed party members nor haters.

The fact that Mr Gandhi & Mr Modi are talking to the people on vision and issues, and how they see the world is a great start. After a long time we are hearing content beyond caste, community and magic wands. What ought to be discussed is not the antics of activist supporters on social media, but the policy and vision of the two individuals. In focusing on the trivial and the banal, the really important is left out. Messrs Gandhi and Modi, whether we like them or not, are two individuals whose vision is going to shape public policy and the direction India takes both internally and on the world stage, depending on whose alliance comes to power in 2014. It is time that that vision is discussed beyond Twitter.

The 2008 American elections — also called the Facebook elections — were different from any other that was held before it. It was the first time that candidates across the board attempted to connect directly with the voter-using technology. Facebook, Myspace and email — twitter was not that popular — were all brought into play in the attempt to woo the voter. None of the candidates used the technology as well as Barack Obama did in connecting with the young, technology-savvy demographic. Obama, then an unknown minor representative from Chicago, used the power and ubiquitous nature of social media to interact, to put out messages, to raise funds, to organise and to campaign to an audience that did not watch television, and was not interested in the discourse of the older generation. That audience — the under-25 American voter — in turn voted overwhelmingly for him. The rest, as they say, was history.

Since the 2008 US elections, the promise of social media impacting elections has been held out in India. But, a parliamentary election is different from a Presidential one. Mr Advani tried to use social media in 2009, but internet participation was still at a nascent stage, and it really did not make any difference in the elections. Since then the Indian-right has effectively used social media to counter views, put forth opinion, and build credibility. The Indian National Congress has woken up to the fact that there is a social media audience that speaks a very different language from those of traditional campaigns, and has begun participating in the discourse. It seems like there is a battle on for the hearts and minds — not to mention votes — of those who inhabit cyberspace. But, unlike the US, the internet is neither as pervasive, nor as well utilised.

There are approximately 140 million internet users in India — about 11% of the total population. Facebook is increasingly popular with the Indian audience. Most of us have a story of an office boy or a grocer who has a Facebook page and has sent us an invite. According to leading social media monitoring agency, Social Bakers, Indians are the third most populous nationality on social media — the US is number one, and Brazil is number 2. In March this year, there were 61.5 million Facebook accounts out of India. By April this figure jumped to almost 64 million accounts — 76% between the ages of 18 & 34, and 75% male. While the numbers in absolute terms are impressive, this represents 5.44% of the total Indian population.

In the last general elections, there were 716 million registered voters and 417 million of these (58%) chose to exercise their right to franchise; 28% (200 million) were below the age of 25. In the coming elections, it is estimated that there will be approximately 800 million voters. It is also estimated that 110 million will be first-time voters — for whom old equations of caste, class and community do not matter, and who are more worried about jobs and law and order than labels. These statistics are what are going to make a major difference to elections — because no one knows how the young voter born in a liberalised India is going to vote.

So will social media make a difference in the 2014 general elections? A recent report seems to think so. A study carried out by the Iris Knowledge Foundation and the Internet and Mobile Users association seems to think that the 64 million Facebook users (who will swell to approximately 80 million by 2014) will have a considerable impact on key constituencies — 160 of them — across the country. They study has an interesting methodology and that is to look at victory margins in the last general elections and correlate it to the number of Facebook users from that constituency. They call those constituencies in which the number of Facebook Users is greater than the victory margin, or where the number of Facebook users is over 10% of the registered voters as High Impact constituencies. Medium impact constituencies are those where ‘a Facebook user can influence one other voter who may not be on Facebook” and more than 5% of registered voters are Facebook users a — 67 constituencies fall under this category. The rest are low or no impact –where social media will have little or no impact.

The report is excessively optimistic about the role of social media transforming electoral apathy into involvement. There are two major issues. The first is that not everyone who has a Facebook account and is eligible to vote is registered as a voter. The second is that not everyone who is registered to vote exercises their franchise. What is not evident in the study is whether there is a correlation between Facebook users in a given “High Impact” constituency, and whether they are even registered voters in that constituency, or even interested in voting and politics. Also important is that a large proportion of this Facebook population lives outside the constituency in which they may be registered. Furthermore, the view that one politically motivated person on Facebook will influence another — as suggested in the study — is far-fetched. They may act that way on issues that directly impact them — jobs, careers, security — but there is no evidence to show that it translates to voting for one candidate or the other at a constituency level.
Is there a role for social media in the forthcoming elections? In a roundabout manner, yes. It is possible to use the power of social media for two very important things. The first is a campaign to get voters to register and the second is to get them to vote on election day. It is only when GenNext registers and participates in the voting process that it can impact elections.

Maybe that should be the focus of social media — to motivate GenNext to participate. Because without their participation there can be no change.

]]> http://calamur.org/gargi/2013/04/13/remembering-jallianwalla-94th-anniversary/feed/ 0 http://calamur.org/gargi/2013/04/13/remembering-jallianwalla-94th-anniversary/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=remembering-jallianwalla-94th-anniversary http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/calamur/orXD/~3/jlYcKfaTsc4/ http://calamur.org/gargi/2013/04/05/tehelka-blog-dissecting-the-gandhi-speech/#comments Fri, 05 Apr 2013 17:11:59 +0000 calamur http://calamur.org/gargi/?p=4087 [...]]]> My blog for Tehelka

Jane Wyman, the first wife of the late US President Ronald Reagan was once asked how it was being married to him. She answered that he was a great guy, but had only one shortcoming, “Ask him the time and he’ll tell you how the watch was made.”

In the second half of his CII speech, Rahul Gandhi was asked about the centre-state relationship based on the constitution and how the tussle between rules at the state and Centre hampers economic development. But the Gandhi scion began discussing the 73^rd and 74^th amendment and the need for decentralisation. For him, it was a structural issue. If he was a professor in a university, and the audience his students, it would have been a way of getting the students to think about the problem differently – the need to devolve power to the local elected representative and letting them deal with “lower level policy”, leavi

ng members of the state and Central legislature to deal with “higher level policy”. But in a CII meeting, maybe something more specific was needed – issues relating to GST, FDI in retail, issues of domestic agenda spilling into international relations and impacting business. Instead, business leaders got a lecture on the constitutional issues at the core of the Centre-state tussles. If you tell people who run multi-crore companies, spread over distinct geographies, that the system cannot get work done because the “organisation structure” was flawed and “roles and responsibilities” were wrongly designed, they will tell you how to fix it.

The question and answer session, in which Mr. Gandhi gave tangential answers to rather straight questions (the second was on water and waste water management and his response was on how complexity makes India competitive) was preceded by a speech.

It was a speech that was great on homilies and metaphors, great on intentions and adjectives, great on laying out the problems and rather short and vague on specifics. It was a speech that was really all over the place, was difficult to get a strand or focused agenda or a vision. It had some great words such as compassion, harmony and optimism, but overall it did not seem to have a direction. It sounded more like a US campaign stump speech than an address to a room full of high powered business leaders. You could almost close your eyes and hear a Clinton or a Bush or an Obama deliver this line with great gravitas. “We are now sitting on an unstoppable tide of human aspiration. A tide so great, that it is going to move forward regardless of what we do. But for this massive movement of people and ideas to be truly transformational we need to nurture it. We need to make it harmonious; we need to make it happen smoothly.”

That gravitas was lacking. He came across better in the Q & A session than he did in the speech.

If you left aside the fact that his party has been in power for the last nine years on a trot, and a good 40+ years immediately after independence, Mr. Gandhi made good points and observations about the system and its flaws. His points on the optimism of Indians, the need for infrastructure, the need to not leave people behind, the need for harmony – most will be hard-pressed to argue against these. But the speech was incomplete. The problems he discussed, the concerns he raised are all very real. But there were no solutions, nor was there direction. For example, his arguments in building structures between academia and industry, converting the closed university silos to open networked systems – were great, but it was incomplete. What was needed was a single line that told us the thought process in getting it off the ground. A single line that said this is what needs to be done, and this is how the Government is going to act as a catalyst or an enabler. The solutions cannot be ours alone. How does he, or his party, plan to change the situation? There had to be a vision, a leadership, which was evidently lacking.

Rahul’s mangled metaphors:

• India actually is energy, it is a force.

• We are now sitting on an unstoppable tide of human aspiration.

• Democracy and technology have triggered a non-reversible chain reaction in India.

• We have to provide the roads on which our dreams are paved.

• They (women) are not only building boats, they’re the waves

Dune, by Frank Herbert, is one of the most fascinating science fiction books of all time. Set in a galaxy far away, it combines themes of religion, metaphysics, space travel, feudal behaviour, and a messiah who will lead a proud, yet exiled, race to greatness. At the core of the story is the desert planet Arrakis. Inhabitants of the planet, nomads called Fremen, live in caves which offer them protection from the elements. The Freman wears body armour called the Stillsuit. It not just prevents them from being harmed by the hostile ecosystem, but also allows them to recycle every little bit of water given out by the body. The idea was that water was so rare on that world, wasting it was unthinkable. Although Arrakis is a fictitious planet, and the Fremen a fictitious race, their issues of water and water conservation are very real.
As the world’s population increases, as demands for a better life grow, the pressure on the world’s water resources are increasing. Many parts of the world face an acute shortage of water. According to the UN, 700 million people in 43 countries suffer from water scarcity. In a 2010 report, the Centre for Strategic and International Studies predicted that in two decades, it won’t be terrorism or war that would change the equation in the Middle East — it would be acute scarcity of water.
India has a water crisis looming. Large swathes of western and central India are water scarce regions. With the current drought in parts of Maharashtra, there are areas that have not received water for weeks. About 4,000 villages in Saurashtra are in the same situation. Migration from rural to urban India has begun. There is nothing more desperate than leaving one’s home to search for one of the most fundamental requirements of life — water. And there is nothing more shameful for a country than coming to a situation where its people cannot access water, not because of poor rainfall or dried up rivers but because of greed, corruption, and lack of policy.
India is home to around 18% of the world’s population that lives in approximately 2.6% (China is 6%) of the total land mass of the earth, with a population density of 350 people per square kilometre. There is a tremendous pressure on all resources, none more so than that which sustains life itself — water. According to the Ministry of Water Resources, India has just 4% of the world’s renewable water resources. In 1951, there was a per capita availability of 5177 cubic metres of water; in 2001 that figure reduced to 1820 m3, and in 2011 that had dropped to 1545 m3. Unless someone figures out a way of making water in a laboratory, or a cost efficient way of desalinating large amounts of sea water, without disturbing the marine eco system, there is a disaster just around the corner, and there seems to be no urgency to tackle it. There is going to be, sooner or later, a massive shortage of water.
If water cannot be ‘created’ then people and policies have to be geared to save, conserve, recycle and optimise water utilisation. This cannot be achieved unless all parts of the system work in tandem: citizens, industry, and government.
At the level of the household it is changes in lifestyle. Use a bucket of water rather than showering, shut the tap while brushing teeth, check for leakages and plug them; shut all taps tightly. While the water saved by an individual might not be much, practised across millions, it does make a difference. More importantly, it becomes part of a conservation mind-set. Equally important is building societies and housing associations investing in rain water harvesting. Even if the space is too little for them to build tanks that store this water and use it later, it is a worthwhile exercise, because it recharges the rapidly-decreasing ground water levels. It is also important that citizens and the media become more politically aware and keep an eye on proposed projects, so that delays and corruption are discovered and dealt with before it becomes a crisis.
A second option that needs to be looked at, on a priority basis, is recycling of water, by both households and industry. This is a process where sewage water is treated and purified and put to use again. While it may not be used for drinking or bathing, it can definitely be used for cleaning, irrigation, and keeping parks, golf courses and IPL pitches green. This would especially be useful in urban localities where there is a tremendous concentration of population, and the disparity between the water-rich and the water-poor is stark. In a predominantly agrarian country, water recycling can also ease the pressure on rapid ground water depletion.
The third is to look at incentivizing farmers in water scarce areas from growing water intensive crops such as sugar cane and cotton. Just as the EU and the US pay farmers not to produce, India may want to look at subsidizing the move away from water intensive cash crops to crops that do not need so much water. It should come as no surprise that the bulk of farmer suicides are from water scarce regions that are growing water intensive crops.
Also, maybe it is time that the powers that be revive the National River Linking project that has been on the backburner for the last decade or so. It is estimated that this would generate around 175 trillion litres of water. Not to mention other benefits.
Finally, we need to get the next generation, who are going to live with the consequences of our consumption, to think out of the box and come up with solutions. For it is they who will inherit this water-scarce world.

Ajmal Kasab had just turned 21 when he and his fellow band of terrorists attacked India on 26 November 2008. He was 18, when he began his descent into crime and terror.

The youngest unnamed accused in the horrific Delhi gangrape case was just a shade under 18, when he participated, willingly, in the rape and murder of a young physiotherapist. He was supposedly the most brutal of all the rapists on the bus, that fateful night. While the system calls him a ‘juvenile’ and in all likelihood will set him free, there is general revulsion at the thought of someone like him being free to walk around to commit the same crime again.

Both Kasab and the unnamed juvenile were born in poor families, grew up in a world where others took to petty and not-so-petty crimes, and were exposed to influences that could lead them astray – yet most people do not use their age, their background or reduced circumstances as an excuse for their horrific behavior.

Sanjay Dutt was 33 years old when the Mumbai Police discovered that “the actor had acquired AK-56s from Dawood Ibrahim’s brother Anees Ibrahim, and had even had one destroyed after the serial blasts in Bombay that left 257 people dead.”

Yet it seems like a large part of the film and political fraternity are calling for him to be pardoned. Here is a man who willingly took possession of arms that would be used against his fellow citizens. He tried to cover this up, and yet people are calling for his pardon. There is a very sophisticated publicity exercise in place that wants to make Dutt seem like a poor little lost boy, entrapped by circumstances and an unwilling participant in an escapade that went wrong. The truth is different. He was a grown up, who knew what he was doing, and kept quiet when a single phone call (even an anonymous one) could have saved over 250 lives.

So, what makes Sanjay Dutt special?

Born to Bollywood nobility – his mother was Nargis, father Sunil Dutt – brought up in the lap of privilege and wealth, Sanjay Dutt could have been anyone. He was given a dream film debut by his father in the film Rocky, he worked with the biggest directors in Bollywood, his friends were the A-list in tinsel town, fans loved him, the box office welcomed him and he had the world at his feet. You would think that a man born into such a background and who achieved success would do something useful and meaningful with his life. He didn’t. His early career in Bollywood was marked by absences, late coming and general bad behavior. So much so that he began losing out roles to relatively unknown actors (Sanjay Dutt was the first choice for the film Hero, that later propelled Jackie Shroff to stardom. The story goes that Subhash Ghai was so put off with the unprofessional behavior of Sanjay Dutt that he had him replaced). All this changed with the 1993 Mumbai blasts and the subsequent arrest of Sanjay Dutt under TADA.

Unlike the West where people, even stars, are penalised for their bad behavior, India seems to love its bad boys. Robert Downie Jr, Mel Gibson, and a host of others have lost roles, lost endorsements when they got embroiled in controversy. Mel Gibson for being a drunk racist, Downie Jr for a drug habit that led him to serve jail time – there was punishment beyond what the legal system mandated. There was ostracisation and a loss in earnings. But over here, the moment a star gets into trouble, he becomes more salable. Sanjay Dutt got better roles after his arrest,  and he is not the only one. It is almost as though advertisers and film financiers believe that sleaze will sell.

Today, when people who should know better are appealing the Governor to pardon Sanjay Dutt, they need to understand that they are giving their blessing to delinquency, to irresponsibility, to acting in an anti-social manner and a support of terror.

“He is a nice man” goes the refrain. How many nice people do you know who store automatic weapons and grenades capable of causing carnage? Then there is the refrain that says he was too young. At 33? When leaders like Digvijaya Singh put out statements that say, “Sanjay Dutt is not a criminal, he is not a terrorist. Sanjay Dutt, at a young age, in the atmosphere of that time, thought that perhaps the way Sunil Dutt had been raising his voice against communalism and favoured the minorities, then perhaps he could be attacked,” they are making excuses for terror.

What do you say to all those people who are minorities, or favour minority rights and would never think of going down the path of violence or terror? Indeed, what do you tell people whose family members have been arrested and convicted for terror – that it is excusable because they thought they were in danger? Is this the same approach to dealing with Maoists who believe that the only way they can get heard by the State is by committing acts of terror?

The last excuse is that Nargis and Sunil Dutt were patriots and deserve better. The head of the Press Council of India and former Supreme Court judge Markanday Katju says, on why Sanjay Dutt deserves a pardon: “His parents Sunil Dutt and Nargis worked for the good of society and the nation. Sunil Dutt and Nargis often went to border areas to give moral support to our brave jawans and did other social work for the society.”

This is an easy statement to agree with. Sunil Dutt and Nargis Dutt did deserve better, and their son let them down. Not the system. It is because he is their son that he is only facing just 5 years in prison, not a lifetime. Imagine if an ordinary boy named Sanjay Dutt, whose parents were not popular film stars, had been found with the weapons cache. Would the outcry be the same?