http://freedomteam.in/
ECONOMICS
Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2012 Sanjeev Sabhlok's revolutionary blog
I keep getting asked by a lot of people about Lok Satta and why I don't join it. I have often replied this one-on-one, but it is impossible for me to keep repeating the information each time. So I'm going to publish this response here and refer people to this response the next time I'm asked the following question:
On Facebook: "Sanjeev, I am sure you know about the efforts of Lok Satta party by Dr Jayaprakash Narayan. Do you believe in the thought of this party ?? If so why don't you be part of this movement instead of starting new one ? We are building infrastructure and organization building to support it in US and other countries too."
My response
1. Note that I was into politics WELL BEFORE JP conceptualised (or at least publicly disclosed) his political goals. My methods have been highly collaborative and focused on gaining agreement. I have NEVER sought to impose my personal views on anyone but have asked people to first work towards an agreed platform. Thus, the India Policy Institute's Peoples Manifesto effort of 1998-99, for instance, was a highly collaborative effort.
2. I made three efforts to form a political party WELL BEFORE JP's Lok Satta entered politics in Oct 2006. These were in 2000, 2004 and 2005. One of these efforts (Swatantra Bharat Party) did lead to a real party and it still exits – with one seat in the Rajya Sabha and a seat in the Maharashstra Assembly.
3. I FAILED three times to reform India, and learnt from these failures – well before JP's foray into politics. Therefore I can quickly recognise what will work and what will not.
4. Note that I know JP from quite a long time ago. His cadre mate – CVSK Sarma – was a colleague of mine who completed his PhD along with me at USC (94-99), and briefed me extensively about JP. Later, a friend brought JP's brochures from Hyderabad to me in LA. I also think I exchanged a few emails with JP where I kept suggesting he should join politics and stop his NGO work. I later met him personally (along with CVSK) in 2000 in Hyderabad and tried to persuade him once again to start a liberal party in India. He refused point blank. He did not believe politics was the solution. He finally came to that conclusion 8 1/2 years after I had come to that conclusion (I arrived at this view in February 1998 and immediately started VIP and IPI).
Undaunted by his reluctance, I invited him to a 5 day workshop and seminar that I organised in 2004, in which he agreed that the Swatantra Bharat Party should be pushed as India's national liberal party but he refused to join it. That I resigned my life membership of the Swantantra Bharat Party 18 months later is a different matter, but one thing was increasingly clear: JP was NOT into politics till October 2006, well after I had clearly articulated a liberal political solution for India.
5. But – and here's the twist to the story! – by the time JP finally come to the view that politics is necessary, in October 2006 (and I personally sent him an email congratulating him at that stage), I knew that his method couldn't work.
By then I had framed a completely different strategy towards politics. By December 2006, I sent a very early draft of Breaking Free of Nehru (BFN) to Penguin for early comment (Penguin decided, on the basis of this very early draft , not to pursue it further, which is a shame, since they formed their opinion so pre-maturely). That draft articulated a very clear strategy for the process that underpins FTI. While I had not yet arrived at the title, "Freedom Team of India", all the ideas that underpin FTI were in place there by then.
By early 2007 I found the name Freedom Team of India. Since April 2007, the draft of BFN has been in the public domain, and I've benefited from much public comment. In December 2007 I launched FTI.
6. I had invited JP to join FTI in that initial email of 23 December 2007, as well. On receiving no response, I contacted him later – in early-2009 – and spoke to him at length over the phone explaining this idea. I provided moral support for fund-raising for Lok Satta in London. He knows I've been supportive of his new work (I was NOT as supportive of his NGO work) and have often recommended his work.
In any event, JP knows exactly what FTI is. Many Lok Sata members have come across FTI by now and know exactly what FTI is. FTI is NOT a competitor of Lok Satta. It complements the work of Lok Satta. It can help it rapidly grow.
In 2009, FTI members in Mumbai made it a point to meet JP and explain FTI to him, but apart from asking them to join and fund LS, he was completely unresponsive to FTI's strategy of first finding leaders (and gaining agreement) and then entering politics. He asked one of FTI's members (a Lead India finalist) to nominate on behalf of Lok Satta, but that member is simply not interested in losing elections. He refused.
7. JP could have easily joined FTI and the effort of a national liberal movement would have gained tremendous momentum by now. But he chose not to. He knows that I was open, and still am – but much less than before (given the lack of reponsiveness from LS) – to the idea of the future national liberal party being called Lok Satta. But JP has deliberately chosen not to communicate with FTI. He prefers to ply his "own" boat, as if resolving India's problems is his personal 'theka' or contract, not India's shared problem, our joint responsibility.
The impression gaining ground among FTI members is that he is interested in his 'position' and 'authority', not in India. That kind of an impression would be fatal to his political career. But that's what is happening, I can tell you that. It could have been different. It can still be different, if he joins FTI. He could easily join FTI AND continue to operate Lok Satta. But he chooses to ignore FTI.
8. FTI has, however, not given up hope on Lok Satta. Shantanu Bhagwat of FTI has been trying to bring together people from PPI, LS, etc. in a Hope Summit to discuss and debate strategies. That summit had to be cancelled twice for unforseen reasons, and will one day happen. That is the plan.
9. I remain open and welcoming to the idea of JP joining FTI. I believe he runs an ethical operation. He has somewhat liberal inclinations. So there is at least some common ground. But there are many policy differences to be resolved between what JP advocates and what at least some members of FTI believe in – at the level of detail. There are many organisational matters to be resolved, as well. These require openness. FTI is a platform for such discussion and agreement. It needs top quality leader who will discuss and persuade. That is a crucial characteristic of FTI leaders.
On openness and debate, JP needs to raise the bar. He CANNOT expect to attract good leaders to Lok Satta if he effectively gives people a fixed structure and manifesto and says, "take it or leave it". And India needs thousands of top quality leaders. Not just one or two. That is the challenge here, not to form a party (which is easy) but to REFORM India.
10. JP will surely arrive at the same strategy that I have outlined in BFN (namely, a common platform of leaders BEFORE thinking of political party) one fine day (as he did with the need to join politics). I had hoped that his abject failure at the 2009 elections (obtaining a tiny proportion of the votes for Lok Satta, excluding his one seat), would have made him realise that his approach can't work.
But so far, 14 months after this massive electoral ROUT, he still hasn't arrived at the approach that I have been advocating publicly since mid-2007. One day, he will. When that happens, he (and his leadership team) will join FTI, and then FTI and Lok Satta will both be one step closer towards the goal of reform.
Till he realises that his current approach CAN'T work, I'm afraid I can't chase him every day of my life! The day he realises he has nothing to lose by joining FTI and everything to gain, he will join FTI. He must now make the approach to FTI. I will not chase after him or Lok Satta or anyone else. It is very easy. He just needs to apply at http://freedomteam.in/blog/content/who-should-join-freedom-team-india.
MAJORITY OF SEATS IN PARLIAMENT OR NOTHING
I want the mandate to reform India. Nothing less will do. I DON'T CARE FOR LOSING, OR FOR WINNING ONE OR TWO OR 200 SEATS.
I MUST WIN and the platform I work with must form government OR I'm not interested in politics. The strategy I work towards must be capable of delivering at least 300 parliamentary seats or I'm not going to waste time returning to India on a full time basis. That is the line I've drawn in the sand. 300 seats. Everyone knows it. It is clear. It has a logic to it. It is hard to achieve, but if good people come together, it is doable. That, if you wish to so call it, is the FIRST STEP of my dream for India. Many other steps exist, but NONE can be achieved without that first step.
If JP wants anything less, I'm NOT interested. Let this be very clear.
I have a strategy to REFORM India's governance. Not to merely become a politician. That is the possible gulf that divides FTI and Lok Satta. Perhaps our dreams are different. But only time will tell.
I wait for JP and Lok Satta to join FTI but I will NOT chase after them. I will continue to write my books and articles, and do a few things for FTI, and leave it at that. I've got to live a life. That's far more important than India or anything else in the universe.
If you found this post useful, then consider subscribing to my blog by email:
Join the Freedom Team of India or become a Freedom Partner.
Related posts:
- A suggestion to Lok Satta
- Lok Satta preparing for 2014
- Lok Satta should promote liberty, not dependency
- Lok Satta must press the “Pause” button and re-think its strategy
- Good work but not good enough (Lok Satta)
- My father’s compilation of views on the IAS
- My initial views on Baba Ramdev's movement
- Please provide your views on FTI’s draft position on the Lokpal issue
- “Smart” people never tire from asking me to join an “existing” party
- Research into Gandhi’s views on suicide #1
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
JP has a very strong following here in US. He did a one month tour couple of months back which was very successful. But his target seems to be Andhra. I have not seen much support form him outside Andhra. He has some very dedicated volunteers. I think FTI should definitely partner with LS but LS has to show some inclination as well. I had attended one of the LS meeting few days before AP assembly elections. Volunteers were very dedicated, mostly young IT professionals. They had no interest in understanding FTI philosophy( it was not the right time to talk about it anyways as they were busy raising funds for JP ). They did not want to wait to find leaders. They were yearning for action on ground. When I said that winning one seat will not change anything, they replied that winning one seat without breaking laws an on the platform of clean politics is an achievement in itself. I think we have to agree with that. They wanted to prove that seats can be won on the basis of clean politics and I think they have done that. Question is – what now ?
One swallow doesn't make the summer. One seat won't make a dent on India. There was NO need to prove that point. It has been proven time and again in the past, indeed as recently as in 2004 when SBP led by Sharad Joshi won a seat in Maharashtra.
You ask the good question: What now? And I think JP must decide if he wants to be a small town politician or a big country reformer.
Sir with all due respect, do you really believe the chances of a classical liberal party becoming mainstream in India, let alone govern the country? Doesn't the fundamental world view of our culture contradict the notions of individual liberty? Are you not more western in outlook rather than Indian? I strongly believe that ideas of free trade and individual liberty took root and flourished in the west, mainly due to the Protestant emphasis on family, thrift, and more importantly separation of state and the church. Doesn't the eastern world view on the other hand condemn prosperity? Don't people fear liberty here? Without such a solid bedrock of cultural values, I think countries like India and China should reconcile to state dominated capitalism as the least of all evils.
And finally wouldn't it be prudent for people who believe in free trade to join a mainstream party like BJP or Congress and form a camp within? Rajaji stayed within Congress for a long time, even though his political beliefs were different and managed to gain a considerable following for his ideas. Even in the US, tea partiers are staying within the confines of the Republican party and forcing the Republicans to accept a part of their ideas at least.
I appreciate the efforts you are putting though. I want to see a Reagan or a Thatcher at the helm in India too.
Two good people…
Both claim they know…
Human ego ..
…KYA Hoga.. Pata nahi..
Probably history will tell..
I am not pessimistic .. but as I see it .. India is on the verge of collapse..!!!
I do not know why people can not see this ..
1. Every pillar of our democracy i.e. Legislature, Judiciary, Administration, and media has deteriorated, and I do not know how can all these be repaired in India
2. Eventhough we claim India economy is in good shape, we are behind many developing countries when in comes to per capita GDP
3. Indian government could invest in building roads, power plants and other infrastructure programs, but today nothing is possible without BOT concept..
4. All economists agree that Crude petroleum is going to cross $150/- in next five years, and there is no clarity on how we are going to face its consequences ..
Milind Kotwal
@Milind, you are entitled to your pessimistic views. I'm not pessimistic about India, just want it get better. It can get much better. That is within our power as citizens. No one else but Indians are responsible for India today.
Note that India is perfectly fine. No country can dream of invading India in the next 50 years. No part of India can dream of splitting (and why should they want to, anyway). Democracy, even though in a highly corrupt form, is well established. The economy has been freed beyond what was imaginable just a few years ago. India is almost a libertarian anarchy.
All I'm preparing for the day when Indians will be SICK TO THEIR TEETH with the rotten governance they have, and when they will demand real change. That day, if 1500 outstanding leaders are ready, they will be voted to power.
You misunderstand the underlying issue with Lok Satta. It is, I think, about different strategic understanding, not egos. The day JP understands he can't reform India alone, his strategy will change. Presently he is trying one strategy. He will need to change the failed strategy and then he will find FTI as the only viable model. Please let him go through his own thinking processes before he arrives at that conclusion. Don't label things prematurely. Once he does get it, it will be wonderful for India. He is on the right track since 2006 (before that he was on the wrong track). Now he needs to shift strategy, and he will succeed.
@Surya: Thanks for your advice about joining BJP or Congress, but I'm NOT INTERESTED in being a supplicant of the BIG GOONDAS of India. One of India's top IT billionaires asked me recently the same thing – and I said that I have self respect. To be precise I value myself BEYOND THE WHOLE OF INDIA, INDEED BEYOND THE WHOLE UNIVERSE, if I may say so without any arrogance. Indeed, I'd like EVERY Indian to hold himself or herself in the same super-inestimable self-esteem. Then they will stop begging rascals for favours. India will change.
Whether other Indians have self-respect or not, I do. I don't demean myself by serving rascals. If I could, I'd crush them below my foot, but they are too dirty for me to even crush under my feet. These people have looted India. They ask UK for the Kohinoor diamond but they have looted India and placed 1000 times more wealth in Swiss banks. They must shown no mercy, not raised to a pedestal by joining their parties.
When I left the IAS I was finally a very happy man. Finally, I had found the courage to LEAVE. To go without any job, without any savings, and without any pension or anything to an unknown future, far away. And with such acute physical problems (RSI) that only I know how I did this.
Once I have found that courage within myself, and I have somehow defeated RSI (http://www.rsicure.sabhlokcity.com/), I am now no longer capable of compromising with SUBSTANDARD options in life.
And so I will CHANGE India or I will die a commoner – both would give me great peace and happiness. I cannot compromise my soul even for the "sake" of India. Whether India wants a liberal party or not is NOT my problem. It is India's problem. That's all I have to offer.
I am not forcing my ideas on anyone. I'm trying to explain why they are good for India and why India should go for a classical liberal model. If India doesn't want it, do I care? No!
I don't need anyone's approbation nor charity. I live a self-contained life that no one can take away from me. In other words, I speak the truth as I see it and then I care two hoots about what happens.
I am sorry. It was wrong of me to discourage your initiative. Every thousand mile journey starts with a single step and your effort will return yields at some point in the future. You are making youngsters like me think for ourselves which in itself is a great thing. Real change might actually happen outside the political frameworks. Private entities are beginning to grow in power and stature in India. The rural people are still unruly and resent control. Establishing a stagnant social democratic state will be tough in India.
But having said all that I would not expect India to ever establish itself as a nation governed by liberal principles in its original 19th century meaning. It just seems an impossible thing to believe.
Dear Surya
I'm glad that according to you the youngsters of India are starting to think for themselves. It would be wonderful when people everywhere start thinking for themselves and TRUST NO ONE ELSE, i.e. they discard almost EVERYTHING that was taught to them, and find the truth of everything for themselves. What a fantastic place the world would become when we acknowledge our deep ignorance and therefore listen to each other, and yet do not rush to conclusion.
Btw you can never discourage my initiative! Rest assured, I'm too thick skinned for anyone to stop me from saying what I want!
Note that your interpretation of classical liberalism seems to be flawed. It has roots in ancient Indian thought (through the Greek pathway), and later in many 12th century thinkers, then the Renaissance, Reformation, and Locke among others. I am talking of just ONE WORD: freedom. That is not a 19th century foreign discovery. It is a deep part of Indian culture. Read DOF (http://discovery.sabhlokcity.com/)
When you say that rural people are unruly and resent control, you make a self-contradictory statement about the difficulty of liberalism succeeding in India. Note that these unruly rural people are actually the ones who appreciate freedom the most. Indeed, the greatest grassroots liberal movement in India (Shetkari sangathan) was a rural movement. They HATE the controls the government imposes on trade and movement.
If only I can find 1500 leaders, I GUARANTEE the unruly rural people will be the first to vote for liberalism. The problem is we need 1500 leaders first, who will contest elections under the banner of liberty. Help me find them, and I'll prove you WRONG! Btw, I'm looking for well settled young people, highly competent. Genuine leaders. You could be one of them if you allow yourself to become a true citizen and not the typical middle-class sheep.
I think I did not make myself clear there. When I said that rural people were unruly and resent control, I meant it in the same way as you do. I meant to say that they would not easily submit to a Social Democratic state. In the same way as American heartland continues to be conservative. But again I do not say this because I think they are angels. These people demand free power, government procurement of grains at artificial prices etc. But they have not yet been bitten with that social democratic bug that makes people want cradle to grave security.
I have just finished college and am yet to find my place in the world. And I believe that I can have a more fulfilling life, if I manage to stay industrious and honest through out my life. I believe that an entrepreneur brings on table, what a 1000 bureaucrats cannot even fathom. I do not want any part of other people's money. And this makes me distrust politics. But I will definitely support efforts like yours in every way I can.
This is my problem with smart, educated and intelligent people, they do very Dumb things.
Lok Satta has wealth of talent, I have read a lot of Research by them on many topics and at the end, it is all about my way or the highway.
The reason why a credible political alternative is not found is because we all fall in love with our strategies and most of them involve landing 747's on someone's forehead. Any strategy that does not involve connecting with the voters at the ground level is a theory, which is likely will never to be tested. We need to know how do you really win an election.
To all my friends who are looking for a political change in this country, I am not sure if you have any concept of what it takes to win a single election. Let me share some numbers with you.
To fight A Lok Sabha Election you need about 4,500 – 5,000 Volunteers.
To fight a State Legislature election you will require about 650 – 900 Volunteers.
To fight a corporator orPanchayat Election you will need about 60 – 100 volunteers.
And yes most of them will have to be paid. (There is no free Lunch) and you will need them about 6 months before the election to start campaigning.
And then there is the media, manipulation from the Executive, Bribes, threats etc… And of course seat reservation, so what do you do if your candidate is not from the same caste or tribe or gender as the reservation for that seat. To the best of my knowledge reservations are declared just a month before the election.
Most elections are right now won on local issues yet we fight on issues that are all high philosophy. Last time I checked Aristotle, Socrates and Plato were not registered to vote.
We are all so caught up by the process that we forget the purpose. The idea is to get a better governance for our country irrespective of wether we come to power or not.
There are so many bright, hard working activists in our country yet you do even see a dent in the system. We Indians will have to learn how to work together for a positive cause, we need learn how to work as a team. There is a reason why the present political class is always in power. They are united by the single idea of power for their own personal greed.
We have structural problems with our institutions of democracy and we cannot wait for ever to get everything to be right before we make our move. This needs to be a more dynamic process. Start fighting any elections you can understand the process, try out all your strategies see what works then and abandon what doesn't only and only then you might have something worth while.
P.S.: If I have hurt anyone's feelings I apologise.
Thanks for your comment, Abhijit. I'm glad to hear that Lok Satta has a lot of talent, for that means there is great hope, if only that talent (and all other talent in India) can be pooled together.
I also fully agree that "We Indians will have to learn how to work together for a positive cause, we need learn how to work as a team". That is the underlying reason why FTI exists, as you well know.
On the third point, though, I must disagree, namely: "Start fighting any elections you can understand the process, try out all your strategies see what works then and abandon what doesn't only and only then you might have something worth while." This is a really bad strategy.
There is no lesson to be learnt in losing badly. All the lessons we need are visible ALREADY, waiting to be learnt with a bit of thought.
Note that people like JP and I have actually organised (as Returning Officers, and in my case as Additional Chief Electoral Officer) and observed (e.g. in my case as State Observer and Central Observer) numerous elections. There is virtually nothing about the process that we need to learn. There is also virtually nothing about the 'dirty tricks' departments of corrupt political outfits that we haven't seen during our intensive work life in the IAS. So any lesson on process is redundant, or of extremely limited value.
The other part, namely the need for volunteers, etc., is well known as well. But from what you say, you seem to be comfortable with paid volunteers. I'm not. I want citizens to participate as Freedom Partners, to put in their Rs.50, or a bit of their time. I don't see FTI (or even Lok Satta) paying for power. NEVER. I'm not into power nor is JP. We are into citizenship. If you are into power, so be it, but I could never join such an outfit. Others may.
The ONLY logical, ethical, workable strategy is staring us in the eye: The one at http://freedomteam.in/blog/content/ftis-strategy. It involves coming together as a team and AGREEING on policies and detailed tactics.
I am confident that once sufficient leaders (say 100) assemble, a formidable force will have formed, and momentum will be generated for the remainder of the journey. Therefore finding the first 100 top quality leaders is the ONLY obstacle to India's reform. Once we find them, the next 100, then the next 100 and so on, will become increasingly easier.
Finally, the volunteers (Freedom Partners) will need to be found. And funds.
That is going to be a very big ask. But I'm afraid unless India as a whole WANTS to change, even these outstanding leaders won't be able to change things This is a democracy we are talking about, and the people must vote for change.
FTI is committed to its members NOT contesting elections unless the basics are all organised AND the people of India are desperately running after FTI members, asking them to contest elections.
@Sanjeev
What you wrote is too complex for me to understand. But a few things I understand is you want to waiting to find the leaders and Dr JP is on the field working to build leaders.
You seem to say either complete power or no politics.. and Dr JP seems to say lets start winning seats and build confidence.
I am not sure if there was any other party which created a ray hope in middle class that change is possible who are otherwise just dont care about politics except for gossip. Lok Satta created that ray of hope after jumping into political process and communicating various issues. If not I would have never cared either JP or LSP. There 1000's like me.
The task in front of LSP is build belief and confidence in people that change is possible. Honest people can win seats. What Sanjeev says its building confidence which is important.
Let me frank and blunt, @Sanjeev, you seem to be in some wonderland and not among the people from whom you intend to seek votes.
Having said that I want FTI to succeed and make a change.
For others LSP has inspired many pockets of India. There is Banglore chapter which started and you can check the quality of people contested at http://www.loksattakarnataka.org/elections.htm
Tamilnadu chapter is in formation and a like minded party already merged into LSP.
There is a team UP working hard on forming chapter there.
Dear Kapil
Yes, LS has some people of high calibre. Yes, it is on the right track compared with its NGO avataar from 1996-2006. Yes, it is starting to expand beyond AP. Excellent stuff. No problems with that.
It is crucial to understand that FTI is NOT competing with LS. It is in a complementary space. JP's greatest problem has been finding good leaders who are capable of winning elections. FTI is focused solely on that activity. FTI is NOT a political party. That too should be clearly understood. So people can be members of FTI and LS. There is no conflict between them.
But FTI argues this: First have a team of leaders, have them agree on a policy platform, then find supporters and funds and THEN start contesting elections.
Why does LS expect people to run after it when its current strategy is not delivering electoral victory and can't? Let's first find the leaders, then ensure they agree on policies. That step cannot be avoided if results are to be achieved.
Why does LS expect people to contest elections so they will be routed and lose their election deposit? What purpose is served by wasting good people's time and money on losing elections? The whole thing needs to be reviewed. There is NO OPTION but to first find the leaders. I can't see any other way to succeed.
If you can prove to me that LS strategy will win it 300 parliamentary seats in 2014, I'll reconsider. Else let LS leaders join FTI and expand both the leadership team and arrive at agreements on policy. Let the mindless rush to contest elections be stopped, and a stocktake of strategy and achievements undertaken.
Regards
Sanjeev
It is sad to have a line like "I'm not going to waste time returning to India on a full time basis"
and having such a ambitious goal as reforming India. It is difficult to digest that an intiative headed by someone unwilling even to base hmself in India will end up with 300 LS seats. SOmething is amiss here..Would love to be enlightened on this
Dear Vivek,
I was in India in 2000 and it did not matter because there was no demand from Indians for change. No belief in themselves. I was in India in 2004 and despite a small demand for change, no one stepped forward to contest elections, INCLUDING JP OF LOK SATTA.
I was in India in Feb-March this year and except in Delhi where a few people turned up to listen, no one was clamouring to listen to my message of change.
My book has been out since mid-2007 on the internet. Barely a soul interested in reforms. No one is jumping up and down to consider implementing reforms outlined in http://bfn.sabhlokcity.com/. Have you read the book? You can take a horse to the water but can't make it drink, they say.
Since 1999 I have also met and been in touch many 'big guns' of industry (particularly IT) asking them to fund an expansion of this effort. No one is interested. NOT ONE PAISA, but they'll happily support corrupt parties in their self-interest.
So Vivek, unless you show me 1500 top quality leaders first, then show me 2 lakh supporters, my going is pointless. But once these things happen, people will stop wasting time thinking about me. It is themselves they need to change first, not ask for a 'savior' to drop from heaven on their heads.
I'm therefore happy to live out my life out here and learn new things everyday about good governance. And write a few things in my spare time.
When you will become interested in reform (assuming you are in India), and others like you too, then things could change.
Note that things are not that bleak any longer as they were till 2005. I'm more optimistic now. FTI membership is wide and comes mostly from India (see: http://freedomteam.in/blog/all-members). But very few active members yet (http://freedomteam.in/blog/members). Most people who join FTI wither away. They are not leaders. Of no use to the cause of reforming India. We need genuine leaders who will lead.
So let me live in peace here, Vivek, while India "burns" (in a sense).
Let Indians first want the change. Then let them stand up and be counted.
Till the so-called "educated" Indians are happy with socialism and happy to serve the corrupt nothing will change. The middle class must rise. Changing India is not a one-man job. I hope that is clarifies.
Regards
Sanjeev
Sanjeev,
I have followed JP and LSP closely for the past 3 years. I have understood and started appreciating what JP is embarking on. What Assembly elections in AP and GHMC elections in Hyd have proved is that changing the language and culture of politics to revolve around the basic needs of common man, is complex and arduous task. You can spend years assembling great leaders with honesty and integrity but that is much simpler than changing the way people perceive politics and elections. JP always mentions that people vote for 2nd worst candidate in the elections and unless this mindset is changed to revolve around what is best for my family and society, things would not improve. I commend what you guys are undertaking but public participation, awareness and education regarding local governance are paramount and JP and LSP are focusing more on it. I do hope he works with FTI at the national level. Is FTI centre-right or more towards left in terms of economic policy and national security?
Dear Aravind,
FTI is PURE (100%) classical liberal. A liberal group of leaders. Its supporters (Freedom Partners) are also liberal except they won’t contest elections.
I respectfully differ from with some of your views. The problem is NOT the voter who is stupid and votes for the second worst. That is wrong. The voter ALWAYS votes for the best. If your leaders are second best, there is no chance of getting voted. So the focus in FTI is on leaders. Once we do find the right number (they could well be from LS, since FTI is NOT a political party), and the are genuinely good leaders, and fully understand key policies, there will be no stopping them.
FTI believes that voters are rational and strategic. You can’t fool voters with half-baked efforts.
Regards
Sanjeev
Sanjeev,
Appreciate your response. What we have seen over the years is electorate has been tuned into this mindset over 50+ years that you need to vote only for 'winnable' candidates. Otherwise, they think their vote is waste or of no use. So, they push themselves into cong or BJP, cong or TDP etc corner, based on regional strengths. LSP gave ward level manifestos for municipal elections and other parties did NOT care about these elections though they contested and used money, muscle and liquor. People could not be mould into thinking that local govt (municipality for city) is more essential and capable of solving local problems in providing basic necessities. They just saw who is strong and those who cared to vote, they voted looking at who is winnable.
Voters are not fools but they are gullible, skeptical and difficult to believe something different. Good leaders is just one part of the equation. Other major part is building ground-level leaders and volunteers who believe in the leaders and are effective communicators.
Dear Aravind
Without good leaders who AGREE on policies, there is going to be a cacophony. We need an orchestra: same story repeated in all corners of India. Ground activity can occur in MANY ways: TV ads, newspaper ads, media coverage, public speeches (FTI members are already doing some of this), door to door campaigns, etc. It is the last thing one does after organising the basics.
LS has not done its basics, and many of its policies are not acceptable to FTI members. It is also a closed organisation, without any aim of opening up. It does not discuss with others and work as an equal. It preaches a particular approach. It is not going to be able to assemble an orchestra. It will therefore fail. Ground work is of no use, as has been proven conclusively 100s of times in India. Most people who win elections do so because of a party machine, and because they are selected to the party because of their leadership skills. And people like Sharad Joshi who led mass movements (1000s of times bigger than Lok Satta) failed to win seats in elections – because leaders didn’t join them.
To operate on a disease, you need a doctor. To operate on India’s diseases you need a team of 1500 outstanding ‘doctors’ or leaders. And they must all agree on how to perform the ‘operation’. LS is not interested in doing that so it will go nowhere. I’m NOT interested in a few seats here or there. Parliamentary majority or nothing.
Regards
Sanjeev
I've been dipping in and out of this blog over the last 20 hours while trying to meet a deadline occassioning a lot of hanging around waiting for video to render.
Reading this post, I was reminded of what Graham Greene said of Papa Doc Duvalier- he started of as a good guy, a doctor who did good work during a cholera epidemic or something similar. But, since he reckoned he was way smarter than anyone else (a syndrome that I.A.S guys suffer from) he ruined his country.
At face value this Lok Satta crap is Social Entrepreurialism/ Adventurism at its worst. A guy like Dr.JP is gonna legitimate the absurd and corrupt sanctioning of discretionary use of large sums of money by both I.A.S officers and M.LA and M.Ps. That's bad political economics. Even assuming this gentleman has not suffered the mental foot-binding that Govt. of India insists on in its meretricious Mandarins, he must be pretty bad- maybe not Vikram Akula bad- but still pretty bad simply on the basis of his C.V and sources of support.
1500 leaders? No. Persuade 15,000 leaders that they have no business leading and you are getting somewhere. The whole point about classical liberalism is that it is a waste of resources for people with any sort of transfer earnings to go into politics. Corruption was what made India manageable, a livable enough place- not the lack of bloody I.A.S prigs raising their snouts above their ecologically sustainable trough.
Dear Vivek
[This is a general comment relating to a number of your other comments, not just the one here on LS.]
It appears that you have found a way to criticise everyone – and sometimes below the belt (although I’ve edited some comments out). So why don’t we flip this whole thing around now: What do you stand FOR (not against)?
It would appear in places you stand for classical liberalism (of some form and shape) but then back off from public vigilance and participation (“1500 leaders? No. Persuade 15,000 leaders that they have no business leading and you are getting somewhere. The whole point about classical liberalism is that it is a waste of resources for people with any sort of transfer earnings to go into politics”).
In my view the liberal is committed to freedom and is willing to put in the relevant hard work to share the responsibility of governance with others.
You seem to imply (correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s the impression I’ve built) that politics is about power (“Indian politics is a higly selective fitness landscape such that all viable political forms are going to show high morphological similarity”). I couldn’t care less for power. I think of politics as a joint responsibility. I think JP has displayed considerable sense of responsibility and there is much to commend in his work. Indeed, I look forward to the day when he will change his (in my view) flawed strategy and re-organise.
I think of Hobbes, Locke, Jefferson, Burke, Mill and other activist thinkers as classical liberals – involved in the affairs of their nations: none asked their citizens to avoid politics.
My hope would be that India’s educated liberals will one day drop their armchair stance and at least become desktop liberals (like me), before morphing, when ready, into MPs who will lead India to a far better future. 1500 is a bare minimum. 15,000 would be even better (to represent in all Assemblies as well, and then lower below in the local government).
I believe the liberals must take the battle for freedom and reform to the head: the liberals must come together to offer India to offer a genuine alternative as government.
If this doesn’t work out (i.e. if India simply doesn’t have the requisite leadership) I’m happy to switch to painting and gardening – my abiding passions.
Regards
Sanjeev
Dear Sanjeev,
My view is that liberalism is about accepting that Politics is a dirty business centered on elite competition and rent seeking by vested interest groups with a deeply disingenuous rhetoric. Our job is simply to ensure that that sewage stays separated from the water supply of public discourse.
Towards this end intellectuals might usefully re-examine hermeneutics, especially legal hermeneutics, as well as seek to work out a comprehensive ‘nueroeconomic’ theory of social choice such that the fallacies of composition that characterize political discourse are laid bare and the set of incentive compatible e.s.s is elucidated as a sort of menu of opportunity.
In positive terms, I’m for subsidiarity and competition less by voice than exit- people move from the municipality that is badly run to one that is better run.
Activism and consciousness raising and voluntarism and so on sound great- but my own experience is that stuff I tended to be enthusiastic for as a young man is precisely the stuff that has worked the worst damage. That said, if you genuinely have that sort of thing as part of your makeup- your svadharma so to speak- then you not only have a right to take that road but a duty to yourself as a Utility maximizer to do so.
History is and ought to be stochastic. So one can’t say in advance whether a particular initiative will have a huge impact or very little. It is entirely praiseworthy for people like yourself to devote their leisure to this sort of activity. However, the very fact that both I.A.S district officers and legislators have discretionary funds at their disposal and operate in a jajmani fashion, poses a moral hazard and is likely to be adversely selective. Classical liberalism is about people who gain absolutely nothing but lose a little of their time deliberating on the issues of the day. No British M.P has a discretionary fund. Even in the bad old days of Walpole, though M.P’s could enrich themselves- they could not use public funds to build client bases.
I saw a picture you did of Mrs. Gandhi when you were 16. Great talent.
Best wishes.
Dear Vivek
Let’s just say that after reading up your comments over the past couple of days, I’m now coming to the view that your views about classical liberalism belong to a species of ‘liberalism’ that I don’t recognize (because I’ve not seen it anywhere; because I don’t think that’s what classical liberalism is).
You know how many books are there in the Harvard University library – 15 million. And how many books in all in the world? Perhaps 15 billion titles – possibly more? Don’t know. The point I’m making is that books and intellectual work is meaningless. No one can possibly read/understand everything. We operate on very crude rules of thumb.
Governments (even the best) operate at very simplistic and crude levels. They display zero intellectual influence. Some fashionable buzz words come and go, but at their core they are intellectual pygmies. Nothing complex like social choice theory works there. Not even simple cost-benefit works there.
So I avoid intellectual theorising. I am amused (as a trained economist) at the absurd number of ‘models’ out there: people spend lifetimes building strange models, and when the GFC hit them, they simply went back to their hunch and bailed out everyone. All economics went out of the window.
There is a place for intellectual theorising and a place for understanding how the world actually runs. I don’t believe in stochasticism (do nothing implication). Even laissez faire is an interventionist philosophy, for it requires an intervention to get the mandate of the people for laissez faire. Else you’ll invariably be swept off by communists and communalists, and worse. There is constant pressure to do the wrong thing (because it does suit some people!). The defence against bad ideas is action. It can’t be done by sitting one one’s chair and theorising.
I therefore believe in translating things for the people, and that means respecting them and explaining things to them: giving them an opportunity to react. Ultimately the difference between the living standards of the West and India boils down to a state of mind. That state of mind is what I want to change. That is what education does. That is how your mind has been formed. It was imprinted by ideas not all created within your own mind.
Recall that Hitler’s intellectual capability was nor merely zero, it was negative! But thousands of high falutin intellectuals grovelled at his feet and praised him to the skies including the famous Heidegger. Intellectual theorising is mostly irrelevant, after the fact; reconstruction of the truth. Wasted human energy. Intellectuals are still struggling to understand Hitler. They’ll spend MANY lifetimes searching within his droppings (papers/ conversations) to figure out what made him Hitler. But they’ll fail. And so will people fail to understand Gandhi, no matter how many tomes they write about him.
No individual, no circumstance is repeated twice. The giver (Gandhi/Hitler) or the receiver (Indians/Germans) – all unique. One off. Everything one off.
Were social change stochastic everything would equalise (entropy, Brownian motion). Instead, it is ENTIRELY driven by individuals (in their local circumstances: cf. Hayek). Subaltern views follow, like the grass sways to a breeze and increases its intensity; but does not create the wind. Hence leadership if vital. The lead has ALWAYS come from a few thinkers who are also doers.
In my view no one is liberal unless he/she is a doer. Else one is a semi-liberal – at best. I have written thus in many places but also in these two:
a) http://sabhlokcity.com/2010/08/preachers-teachers-doers-a-theory-of-leadership/
and
b) http://liberalpartyofindia.sabhlokcity.com/writers/sanjeev4.html
The liberal is an advocate, not a ‘receiver’. He changes, doesn’t accept. He is a mover of reality, not a cobblestone.
Regards
Sanjeev
Dear Sanjeev,
Couldn't agree more about the fatuous and self serving theorizing of academics and public intellectuals. In practice, we use heuristics (rules of thumb) and rhetoric rather than fully specified models and rigorous reasoning. This does not mean that the heuristic is not simply a special case of a more general model- and that specifying that model can't show how and when the heuristic will be pathological. Nor does it mean that the effort to analyze rhetorical devices into a model of deontic logic is wasted, on the contrary it is the key to improving legal and administrative hermeneutics for better outcomes.
I think classical liberalism has the following features
- 1) it is knowledge based and blind to the source of new information/ models. In other words it wouldn't reject information based on the class or color or creed of the informant. It does not privilege one discourse over another- e.g. it wouldn't reject insights from Socio-biology out of hand because it (initially) appears Politically incorrect.
2) It acknowledges that group formation has its own dynamics and that group interests can and should be represented politically but under the rubric of transparency and countervailing power. Now, from Mathematical politics- stuff like Shapley indexes and so on- we have a theory of relative power under different voting systems. This translates into a heuristic- In India, sadly, this is caste based- which everybody uses and which has been politically and legally instrumentalized. Now Classical Liberalism (as opposed to our highly interventionist, preachy and Politically Correct, Liberalism as gesture politics) simply say- that's not how the world ought to work so lets pretend that such things don't exist. On the contrary, what Classical Liberalism can do is to show how things like caste and creed are bad proxies for the what we really do want to measure and ameliorate. As Putnam and others have suggested, Liberalism can do a lot to facillitate and catalyze novel linkages and multiple group membership- i.e. make Identity more plural. In the process, by all means, let 'sunset clauses' be placed on legislation of whatever sort which is Identity based (as Ambedkar wished)- whether it is putting a sunset clause on affirmative action or whom an agriculturalist can sell his land and so on.
3) Classical Liberalism had roots in a much older folk hermeneutics which stood in opposition to that of the Academy or the State. One of its notable features is its understanding of satire as a countervailing power. Satire was a great tool in the hands of the Celtic bards. It is no accident that the Irish made a huge contribution to the language and atmosphere in which Classical Liberalism developed. For me, one pithy couplet of Akbar Illahabadi weighs more than the collected works of Aurobindo. Indeed, my complaint against the Indian liberals is that they tended to be humorless- Sikhaya Mashahir-e-Azadi ko Maikhana-e-Angrez/ Saqigari mush'tahar ho par kajdaar-o-marez! (of Liberation, our leaders learnt, at the English wine shop/ to most nobly tilt the bottle but let fall not a drop!)
4) Classical Liberalism is not so committed to methodological individualism as to be insensible to the appeal of Romantic movements- indeed, one positive aspect we can take away from Kant's silly Ethical cogitations is the notion of recasting an Ethical idea in a prescriptive form such that a psychic benefit is received and an incentive to act in accordance with it is established simply from the manner in which it is expressed and the horizon expanding idealism it induces. Again a value free, non historicist, hermeneutics especially of folk texts, presents a way forward.
In your view 'no one is liberal unless he/she is a doer. Else one is a semi-liberal – at best.' There is much to recommend this view. However, in the Indian case, we find that the doers destroy Liberalism precisely because they feel they are superior to 'the masses'. They become an agent of intimidation and a destabilizing force.
Still, if that indeed is their svadharma or prarabdha karma then that is their right or perhaps duty.
My own 'Liberalism' arises purely from considerations of symmetry. Yes, I believe in 'Daridra Narayan' but I must also keep in mind Brahma Sutra 3.3.37 'Scripture prescribes reciprocity between worshiper and worshiped'. Since, I feel, as you say, 'the difference between the living standards of the West and India boils down to a difference in the state of mind'- I start to realize that I'm quite mentally and emotionally impoverished- not just a matter of I.Q and not having studied important subjects like agronomy- but also some spiritual lack or loss of essence.
One thought occurred to me, with respect to your efforts- viz. an internship program for young people such that specific skills are acquired or enhanced. At later points in their career, perhaps they can take a sabbatical from their employment to come back to projects or areas on which they previously interned and thus build up a local knowledge base. Not that old fogeys like me should be left out. Perhaps I too can come doddering along. Maybe I'll learn something!
Best wishes.
Dear Vivek
Sorry I’m replying very hurriedly. Need to finish up now. We need to wind up these theoretical debates/discussions. It is not that I’m humourless or not interested in learning more (I do cite the role of liberal satire/humour in DOF – in particular Voltaire, Jonathan Swift, and Mark Twain), but I need to get to work. Theoretical discussion unattached to outcomes is not within my time capacity. I need to either get you to join FTI or support it actively, or confirm that you are an incorrigible armchair spectator who won’t step out of his chair by making one excuse or other (now apparently you need some spiritual arrangements that for some reason can’t be done as a routine part of life).
Re: classical liberalism, yes, I do agree with most of what you’ve written. So we are broadly on the same page. Some not. Kant is not silly! I admire his work. Indeed, as I was reading his political writings (Ed. Hans Reiss, Cambridge) some time ago I was gratified to find much of my thought reflected in his words. Someone who thinks like me must be good! Tick. I’ve simplified and outlined some of this in DOF. Comments on the book will be particularly appreciated even if you decide to remain an armchair spectator. But those comments should be provided on the relevant blog: http://discovery.sabhlokcity.com/. Thanks!
A few comments before I close (close close, not just close):
a) Re: “we find that the doers destroy Liberalism precisely because they feel they are superior to ‘the masses’.”
I know very few Indian liberals, and even fewer liberal doers. But in my view none has displayed this characteristic and no, they haven’t destroyed liberalism. I did find a few rough edges in a couple, but none assumed omniscience. The fundamental premise of liberalism is that everyone knows best their local circumstance hence must be allowed to choose. We can’t outguess others. Happy to know a few names of liberals who have displayed arrogance. In particular, I don’t think Rajaji, Minoo Masani or Sharad Joshi were (are) in that group. And they are the major doers. So you’re perhaps referring to armchair ‘liberals’. They don’t count, ghosts and shadows they are. Their arrogance, if any, is shrugged off by India as irrelevant. I don’t think liberals have harmed India. It has ONLY been the collectivists.
b) Internship program. FTI has (virtually) no resources and no office. It can’t provide internship. As this thing develops (basically IF leaders are found else if everyone makes excuses to avoid joining FTI then I can pack up this blog, shut down my books as well and ignore India (I did that from 2005-2007 end)) – that idea will re-emerge. Let’s wait and see.
Btw if you wish to meet FTI members in London (I checked through your blog and found on google that you are in London) please write to me separately.
Regards
Sanjeev
Dear Sanjeev ,
Any answer to this .
I think Obama has better economist then BABA ji has..
most of the good economists are in America ..
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/US-House-passes-Made-in-America-bill/articleshow/6564703.cms
Regards,
Vijay
Dear Vijay
The Democrats are going crazy. Don’t ask me to explain the violation of economics 101 by Obama to you. Business lobbies are making USA a mercantalist nation, a sure recipe for its long term economic decline.
I’ve written about the severe decline of US policy in a number of places (e.g. http://sabhlokcity.com/2010/08/socialist-usa-lessons-for-the-world/ and linked articles (in the categories section)). Even Keynesians won’t advocate such nonsense as ‘made in America’ bill.
If India copies such policies, India will be totally finished. On its knees.
Regards
Sanjeev
Sanjeev,
Can you advice me in choosing a right-liberal group to join and a right-liberal party to support?
i know you would say Freedom Team India and Freedom Party of India!! but i would like you to explain a little more!
my views are right-liberal (classical liberal). i run http://rightnews.in. i live in Bangalore. i used to be a member of the right-conservative BJP's IT cell in Karnataka but resigned in August 2009 after over-interference by the RSS. I consider RSS, a fascist (left-conservative) organization. and now that RSS is officially involved in terrorism (graduating from rioting), there is no scope of supporting BJP anymore.
i'm also a member of a non-partisan citizen's group in Bangalore. so i'm somewhat reluctant to join a political party now but can be a supporter.
now,
1. Indian Liberal Group:
what is your view on the Indian Liberal Group? they are holding their national convention starting today (Oct 8-9, 2010). are you a member? would you recommend right-liberals to join the group? i have friends in the Indian Liberal Group but the group is not active in Bangalore.
2. Lok Satta:
i have lots of friends in Lok Satta, Bangalore. but i'm finding it hard to believe they are a right-liberal party. infact they come across as "no ideology, we are not politicians" political party. Rampant JP bhajan i hear from Lok Satta members instead of policy positions makes me sceptical of their ideology and intelligence.
3. SBP:
if Swantantra Bharat Paksha was present in Bangalore, i would gladly join.
4. FTI/FPI
as for your FTI, is it active in Bangalore? Is Captain Gopinath part of FTI? is the reluctance to contest elections finally over with the formation of FPI? or is it a merely to challenge the socialism requirement to form a party in India? i mean, will it ever actually contest elections or will it be only a litigant in the supreme court? what is your role in FTI/FPI. is it similar to JPs in Lok Satta.
Dear Balaji
POLITICAL PARTIES
I was life member of SBP when it went national (indeed, the workshop I organised was instrumental in moving SBP to the national scene), but I left it for reasons not relevant here. Unfortunately SBP is not the answer.
LS might be the suitable one, but it is important that LS work as a team not as a one-man show which seems to be your impression (and also that of many others I know). I still believe LS has potential.
CONCEPTUAL POLITICAL PARTY
FPI is not a political party but a hypothetical entity that was dependent on Barun Mitra's efforts, but given I haven't heard further from him for quite a while now, I think that will remain defunct. In any event it is NOT a political party but a concept.
ASSOCIATIONS
Indian Liberal Group. You should join it and work with it although one of my recent experiences with a particular member of the group was very bizarre and I'd urge some caution to ensure that it doesn't become a talk-fest or a one-man show its new avataar. See also:http://sabhlokcity.com/2010/10/one-more-useless-liberal-talk-fest/
FTI. You are probably aware that this is not a political party but a trust. To join FTI, however, you must in-principle not only agree with classical liberal principles but be committed to contest elections when suitable agreement is achieved amongst the relevant number of leaders. If you feel you fit the bill, you can apply to join FTI.
FTI has members across India, including Bangalore. If you wish to contact them first you can do so. Some telephone numbers are available at: http://freedomteam.in/blog/contacts
My role on FTI. I'm an Honorary Member with one vote. Everyone (who is a full member) has one vote.
Regards
Sanjeev
oh, thanks for the links. missed ur post on ILG Symposium. will read.
Sanjeev,
Comparing FTI strategy & Lok Satta Strategy:
Both Implemented together would work wonders. Only one would not give any result.
LSP is very very slow in building Leaders ( or volunteers), but is working on that.
Blog Leaders/ Internet leaders cannot win elections.
Every Leader is a volunteer & Every Volunteer is a leader.
A MP constituency has 1000 – 1500 pooling booths. One Needs to develop at least 543 x 1500 volunteer leaders & for that I believe Blogs/ internet is not sufficien
There can’t be even the SLIGHTEST progress without the relevant leaders first coming together and agreeing to a policy platform. LS ideology is not moving in the right direction. See:
http://sabhlokcity.com/2011/06/lok-satta-should-promote-liberty-not-dependency/
I believe that LS can’t deliver results, with this ideology, even if it gets elected.
It is crucial to not go to the booth level till leaders have agreed, after intensive discussion and debate, on what needs to be done.
So FTI must come first (i.e. leaders and policy agreement). Efforts like LS will automatically follow.
The cart (party) can’t be put before the horse (leaders). It won’t move.