Tag: Freedom Team of India

20th December 2010

Shantanu Bhagwat’s interview in the League of India

For those who do not subscribe to Shantanu's blog (which I thoroughly recommend), I'm reproducing his 16 December 2010 interview in the League of India – directly copying the material on his blog – so as to radiate it just a little bit further. Let me also take this opportunity to invite you once again to join the Freedom Team – if you've not already done so.

An earnest “endeavour of heart”

*** Interview Begins ***

1. When and why did you decide to cut down on your life of a global business professional and immerse yourself into ideas aimed at improving political systems and governance in India? At the same time, talking in management terms, does this earnest endeavour-of-heart include an intrinsic exit plan too?

The change happened in the early months of 2008. There were several triggers…

The first was probably the shameful perversion of democracy on the floor of the house on 22nd July. In response to my post on this subject, Sanjeev Sabhlok challenged everyone to either rise and do something about it or shut up.

That shook me to the core….it hurt..but it probably hurt even more because it was true…

The second trigger were the blasts in Bangalore and Ahmedabad…Ironically, I had been to both these cities just a few days before…But strangely it did not feel like I had cheated death.

Other events and things happening around me, helped make the decision…I watched with awe and fascination as the Obama campaign changed the paradigm of fund-raising in the US by reaching out at the grassroots…and I began to read about interesting experiments that were happening around “crowd-funding”.

The process was more complex and not quite as straight-forward as what I have outlined above. And of course NONE of this would have been possible without the whole-hearted support and commitment from my wife and family. Without her support, this would have been impossible to do. The whole story is here, for those of your readers who wish to read more about the background to this transformation.

As for an exit plan, there is no exit plan here.

The only exit is a better India – far better than what we have today – a better country with a healthy, prosperous populace that has its basic necessities covered and provides equal opportunities to progress to all its citizens. An India, where in the words of Rabindranath Tagore, “the mind is without fear and the head is held high...”

2. How far is the political activist in you from becoming an active politician, one who fights elections i.e.? Or, do you believe that it is not necessary for the former to evolve in to the latter?

I believe the transition from being an “activist” into electoral politics is not a sharp, linear process (after all candidates fighting at elections are activists too).

I believe standing (up) for an election should be a carefully thought-through move and the culmination of a process that necessarily includes developing at least a basic understanding of the issues that plague us, developing an ideological paradigm to frame the issues and having some thoughts on how to confront the major challenges that face our nation.

I wish I could give you a time-frame for the transition but I am unable to.

***

3. A lot of, what seems to be, your angst and earnestness comes out clearly in your blog Satyameva Jayate. Tell us a little about it, especially about its origin and the place it holds in your overall road-map of life from here on?

The story of the blog’s origin is here but very briefly it was a reaction to the feelings and emotions I felt following the attack on Indian Parliament in 2001 and several acts of terrorism since then.

I became convinced that we were fighting an enemy so deadly and so ruthless that our whole value system and the fundamental principles of humanity were at stake. My early posts led some to the conclusion that I was a “Hindu fascist” – or more charitably, a “neo-conservative”. I am actually neither. I would like to think of myself as a liberal who is prepared to fight to defend his ideals, his beliefs and his principles.

The blog remains my main method of communication. It is my preferred medium for having a dialogue with my readers and expressing my opinion…I have learnt from it enormously…It has been a very rich, intellectually rewarding and deeply satisfying experience. It has also taught me a lot of things – such as patience and being careful with words. You can read more on my lessons from blogging here.

The blog continues to evolve but I believe it will remain an important part of my activities in the years to come.

***

4. Apart from exchanging thoughts via Satyameva Jayate, what are the various ways in which someone can become an active part of your battle against status-quo– both on and offline?

The best way to engage online and become more active is to participate in the Skype conference calls, Live Chats and various events that I host and coordinate periodically.

A lot of events and meetings happen offline too (such as recent meetings in Thiruvananthapuram and Chennai in early December). Almost all of them find a mention on the Facebook page – under the eventstab (Those of you reading this in Bengaluru, please join us for a discussion on North-East India tomorrow, 21st Dec).

Separately, I am working on an offline initiative that should help us get more active on the ground and increase our sphere of activities. Please stay tuned.

***

5. In your lecture series, you have said that “the root cause of all problems in India is its dysfunctional middle class”. Can you please elaborate on that?

I think Kanchan Gupta put it best. In his article on “Three Myths and an Election”, he wrote about a middle class that is: “least bothered about corruption in high places, the relentless loot of public money, the sagging physical infrastructure …the repeated terrorist attacks…”

I labelled it as “dysfunctional”. I could not think of a more apt description.

The middle class needs to be at the forefront of this process of change and reform…and I can see some signs of that happening around me. I am optimistic and I remain hopeful.

***

6. Assuming that the rich have got no stake in changing the status quo and agreeing that it is unreasonable to expect empty stomachs to start a revolution, don’t you think that expecting the middle class to shoulder ALL is akin to making a general quota student sit for an examination not just for his own self, but also on behalf of the one who gets his seat on account of reservation and the one who wrests his seat via capitation money?

The analogy is compelling but not accurate. This is not an examination.

What we are attempting could make the difference between a country that survives, prospers & becomes a model for heterogeneous societies around the world and a country that is breaking apart, in the throes of a civil war, with woeful infrastructure and extremely restive population.

I am afraid that we really have no choice. As my friend Surendra Shrivastava of Loksatta mentioned in an email some days back: “We are not born politicians like many, we are in politics not by choice but because of compulsion”

***

7. How do you see the make-up and the present state of the Indian democratic landscape – both from the perspective of governance and the various political players?

It is depressing, to be honest – both from the perspective of governance as well as the various entities.

The Congress is a party run by a single family, that is increasingly devoid of any ideology and moving from one populist measure to the next. The “Left” are on their way to becoming a footnote in India’s political system. And the BJP – although strongly differentiated on policies with the Congress – is unfortunately a confused organization that appears to be unwilling to focus and cannot make up its mind on priorities. It does not help that its leadership appears increasingly bereft of any moral superiority. That said, this is the group that appears to be most amenable to change. The “Left” will find it hard to jettison their ideology – it is their raison d-etre after all and the Congress (I) will find it next to impossible to become a more “normal” party of several leaders, rather than just one unchallenged head.

About governance, the less said the better…Everything you see around you – everything that is broken, leaking or does not work – is the result of poor governance – a large part of which is due to ineffectual leadership and bad choices (in terms of polices).

***

8. Which aspects of the present political system, in your opinion, require urgent revision? How can that be brought about by people like you and me?

Let me briefly enumerate the aspects that need urgent revision and are do-able provided there is sufficient political will:

Stricter monitoring of election expenses and make false declaration a cause for debarring from contesting for 6 years
Mandatory disclosure of source(s) of income of candidates standing for elections
Allowing citizens to vote anywhere in the country (not just permanent place of residence) – with appropriate identification
Mandatory disclosure of audited accounts of political parties and expenses
Constitutional amendment to remove clause demanding adherence to socialism

People like you and me can help create pressure for these changes – by talking about this, discussing these points and writing to their local newspapers, demanding these moves. There are a few other things that people like you and me can do:

Demand accountability from our candidates (by evaluating them against the promises made in their election manifestos)
Vote en-bloc for credible and transparent candidates
Create pressure groups for campaign financing reforms and to reveal source(s) of income of candidates
Push for the “Right to Recall”

***

9. Do you believe that rabid rise of language-induced regionalism (or sub-nationalism) in various Indian states stands endangers the very idea of India? In any scenario, in your opinion, how should we address the issue?

Yes it does. This worries me deeply although I sometimes feel I am in a minority who worry about the “Idea of India”.

I think this notion of identity – what it means to be an Indian – is a question we have never answered satisfactorily. And this is something that we grapple with even today, 60+ years after independence. This is the reason why the havoc caused by rains in TamilNadu does not find any mention in New Delhi just as the news about blockade of Manipur is hidden somewhere in the last pages of a “national” newspaper in Mumbai.

How does one address this issue?

The main thrust has to be on creating a sense of national identity – and promoting shared history through a national curriculum in history and the social sciences. There are a couple of other things that we should consider: Rigorous implementation of the three language formula and promotion and encouragement (including subsidies) to educational exchanges. This topic is far too complex to be dealt with in a few paragraphs though. I hope to have a online discussion on this soon.

***

10. Finally, all the four pillars of Indian democracy seem to be facing credibility crisis owing to corruption scandals of varied nature. How can a ‘non-aligned’ (to any ‘pillar’ or security net) Indian citizen ever believe that he can not only survive the – often fatal – ‘chakraavyuh’ laid by the poisonous concoction of state & non-state actors, but also bring about a change?

We need to believe we can win this battle.

The road we are on is not for the faint-hearted. This is going to be a long battle.

In the words of Shri Chandra Prakash Dwivedi (Director of Chanakya, the serial):

…पर ध्यान रहे,

स्वतंत्रता का यह यज्ञ यौवन का बलिदान मांगेगा, स्वार्थ का बलिदान मांगेगा…

और तो और, जागृत हो रही रण-चंडिका जीवन का बलिदान मांगेगी |

…the “yagya” of independence will demand sacrifices, it will demand the sacrifice of our selfish desires…And the fierce “Ran-Chandi” that is being aroused will demand we sacrifice our lives. (loose translation)

But we need to believe we can win…And I firmly believe, we can.

Jai Hind, Jai Bharat!

*** End ***

19th December 2010

FTI is a journey of intellectual leadership, not just political representation

One other reasons why FTI is not meant for everyone is that FTI is a philosophy-based organisation. It is founded on the principle of classical liberalism, and not, say, on the idea of communism or socialism. That means a lot. It means a fundamentally different way of looking at the world.

The idea of freedom underpins the Freedom Team. That is crucial point. The word "freedom" is not used in an idle sense. It is used in the sense that is underpinned by centuries of discovery and conceptual evolution.

It is crucial that all FTI members (and potential FTI members) fully understand the foundational principles of classical liberalism.

They must actively seek to read and understand the work of the thinkers of liberty – thinkers such as Locke, Adam Smith and Hayek. Not actively reading up these thinkers would amount to being a communist who refuses to read Marx or refer to Marx. Not having a very sound understanding of the foundational ideas will ultimately lead to severe policy disagreements, and diminish the potential of FTI. By all means customise and tailor these fundamental ideas to India's needs, but without a rigorous understanding of the meaning of freedom, we will lurch across self-contradictory policy positions. We will then be asked to take resort to our "gut feelings" and that will lead us to 1500 different world-views on every topic under the

I've written BFN to elaborate the policy impacts of this ideas. I'm now writing an entire book, DOF, to explain this idea. If I had ever thought that "everything goes" and that my intuitive thought is enough for India then I would not have bothered to do a PhD and thereafter read up hundreds of books and articles to understand the functioning of the world at a level of detail needed to offer a well-considered opinion.

Learning is a lifelong process, and we should not offer India half-baked ideas. Being masters of the philosophy of freedom is our first obligation. We must build on what has been achieved. Surely we have value to add, but we can't be presumptuous enough to claim that we know intuitively whatever there is to be known on this topic.

FTI is above all an intellectual movement for freedom.

It is not a reckless unthinking effort to impose our "views" of the world on others – or even to adjust our views to the demands of the people of India.

We are here as friends, philosophers and guides to India, not merely persons wanting to be its political representatives. A true leader guides the entire nation. We are not aiming to be mere representatives. We offer India a totally new vision for its future: and that can't be articulated by repeating what the people say. We have to raise their vision about India as well.

There is a huge risk that without obtaining personal clarity on fundamentals, many FTI members will leave after years of working on FTI – when they find that classical liberalism is not what they thought it is. For instance, those who want to impose their religious views on others, should not join FTI in the first place. FTI is not for them.

FTI members must use a trained and tutored mind, not an intuitive mind, to drive policy.

We should each be reading at least 20 books on freedom and related topics each year. Without that we'll face the problem that Swatantra Party soon faced: that except for a couple of people, no one knew what it stood for. When Rajaji died the effort collapsed, since he had not built strong theoretical foundations among his party members.

I've provided a starting point for the resources on freedom through a link at the top of this page. Please explore these initial resources, and then go well beyond them. Good libraries are our dearest friend.

Let us FULLY UNDERSTAND the concept of freedom. We owe it to ourselves and to India to offer it the best ideas.

12th December 2010

The Freedom Team of India is not for everyone

Each month the Freedom Team of India receives a handful of applications for membership. Despite that FTI only has a little over 100 members so far, out of which not everyone is active. This is far less than what is needed to offer India a viable political alternative in 2014.

In addition, there is some turnover. Around two members formally resign their FTI membership each year. This loss, howsoever small, should give pause to FTI to ask: Why do people leave FTI, – particularly those who have participated in the discussions and debates, and contributed to a range of FTI efforts?

In my view there have been essentially three reasons why people have left FTI so far. Without naming anyone, let me summarise the reasons below. This will show that FTI is not for everyone. The standards of citizenship, openness, and collaboration required to be an FTI member are extremely high.

(Disclaimer: Before going further let me make clear that the following cases are generalisations and extrapolations, hence do not aim to precisely represent any real individual. While not entirely fictitious, these three cases should be considered as 'markers' for three potential categories: not a precise summarisation of any particular individual's opinions. )

1) Some are aggressive and impatient, and cannot debate issues

There are a few who want things done their way (for instance on some technical matter) and are shocked by dissenting voices or questions being asked of them. They leave FTI in a huff. Indeed, one of India’s well known IT “activist” (if one can use this word) found the idea of discussion quite difficult to stomach, and left FTI promptly after joining. Such people with potentially good ideas but who don’t have the patience to persuade others on the team, are not suited for FTI.

2) Some want to impose their religious views on society

There have been a couple of instances where FTI members with extremely strong views on religious matters have wanted to impose their views on society, and when FTI members were not supportive of that, left FTI.

Consider the matter of Hindutva. I personally hold a dim view about this concept (as often practised) which I blame (equally with fanatic Islam and geopolitical gaming by the British) for precipitating India's partition. I have explained the detailed reasons in my draft manuscript DOF. I've also collected extensive material re: RSS through a quick scan of the academic literature, and published on my blog.

In my (personal) view, the Hindutva concept mixes the state with religion. BJP is therefore unsuitable to govern India because (among other things) it takes recourse to this ideology which is incompatible with freedom. Of course, BJP is not the only political party in India that mixes religion with the state.

But both Hindutva and RSS mean different things to different people. Some FTI members believe that RSS is a social service organisation. However, such members continue on FTI because they are not fanatic about their ideas and are open to a discussion that leads to the truth. Indeed, my views overlap with a moderate approach to the underlying idea of Hindutva, for India does have a fundamental character that is unique amongst all world civilisations. This fundamental character is based on the concept of tolerance and open-mindedness. The idea of Hindutva, however, as commonly used in political discourse, demeans this beautiful civilising idea that first arose in India, and narrows Indian civilisation to a particular view about a particular religion. India's is a vision of the globally peaceful state, a vision of our shared humanity, a vision for liberty, a vision for the truth. Let's not diminish this vision through narrow ideas that impose particular religious views on others.

We have resolved this matter by agreeing that no FTI member will be affiliated with any organisation that partakes of violent activities. This is the only open-minded approach to take. Let the truth prevail. So long as RSS remains non-violent, its members can join FTI. The moment it reverts to its reputation for violence, such FTI members – who are members of RSS (there are none at the moment) – would have broken their commitment and will need to leave.

I continue to hold the right to publicly oppose the Hindutva concept equally as others on FTI continue to hold the right to support it – so long as they don't start imposing religious views (e.g. bans on cow slaughter or bans on proselytisation) on the rest of society (noting that there are differing views on these matters among the great proponents of Hinduism itself) . If that happens, India will get further divided and become further illiberal. India can then never claim to be a place that discovered tolerance. Thus, FTI members can talk against cow slaughter (and should, if they believe it is something to be avoided) and persuade others against it, but they can’t support government policy or legislation on this matter.

If religion is allowed by FTI to intervene in matters of governance or social policy, there will remain little to distinguish a Taliban or Iran dictator from an FTI member. It is fortunate that those FTI members who are religious fanatics and have little understanding of the concept of freedom tend to leave FTI. And indeed they must. Classical liberalism is based entirely on the concept of LIBERTY, of freedom of thought and belief – and liberty cannot be ensured if the state imposes the will of a few (or even of the majority) on the others. Indeed, Vivekanda himself reminded us clearly: "Liberty in thought and action is the only condition of life, growth and well-being: Where it does not exist, the man, the race, and the nation must go down".

3) Some want to impose non-religious views on society

Just as it is inappropriate to impose one’s religious views on the society, it is inappropriate to impose one’s non-religious views. One of FTI's members found it difficult to co-exist with those who hold strong religious beliefs (but are willing to not impose them on society). He effectively wanted everyone to forego their religious beliefs. Classical liberalism does not dispute religious belief. It only disputes the imposition of belief (or non-belief) on others using the instruments of the state. Hence that member left, and so he should have.

FTI members who are inactive

In addition to those who have left FTI there are those who have faded away. Such members receive all FTI communication but rarely participate in any discussion or activity. I have a feeling that some of these members have found themselves to be in one or more of the three categories outlined above, and are unwilling or incapable of debating the issues and resolving the matter collaboratively. Such members need to put more focus on working in teams, and persuading others about their views. That is never easy, but that is precisely why India has suffered so far – because of the inability of its educated people to work together.

It is not just good people that India needs, but those who understand the concept of liberty (with accountability) and are willing to work as members of a team to resolve their differences.

If you can rise to the challenge of being a citizen-leader then please step forward to join FTI.

I also invite those who have left FTI to reflect on why they did so, to then consider the needs of India and the demands of freedom, and to then re-apply to join. I'm sure they will gladly be welcomed back with open arms.

9th December 2010

The Swatantra Party – Victory in Defeat

Many years ago I had made some notes about why Swatantra Party failed (it only got 44 seats in the Parliament), based primarily on Col. H.R.Pasricha’s book, The Swatantra Party – Victory in Defeat. These notes were first published in 2003 by the India Policy Institute as part of a strategy pack for a 2004 workshop, and later in Towards a Great India 15 September 2009. (To understand these notes better, please read the book.)

Lesson No.1 : Liberals are no different to other human beings, and we should be humble and accept our individual limitations

Gandhi too had many preconceived notions; the one difference was that he had less of them than others and was willing to continuously learn. He wrote in Community Service News, September — October, 1946, "I have great concern about introducing machine industry. The machine produces too much too fast, and brings with it a sort of economic system which I cannot grasp. … as we grow in understanding, if we feel the need of machines, will certainly have them. … we shall introduce machines if and when we need them." He kept saying that he was a seeker for the Truth and was happy to be corrected. Obviously one man can only learn so much in one lifetime so we can understand why he could not understand the capitalist system of Adam Smith. If he could find the time to understand it, he would have surely changed his views.

Liberals will need to build a political organisation that is based entirely on rigorous thinking, and complete equality.

Lesson No. 2: Never tolerate a person on the Executive Council who does not challenge any view that the person does not agree with. Just because someone says so, does not make a thing true. Even Masani made such an appeal, that eventually destroyed the party. At page 79 Pasricha says, "Mariswamy, the general secretary of the Madras party, was arguing against the alliance [Grand Alliance of 1971] fairly cogently, when Masani interrupted with the remark that Rajaji was in favour of the alliance. A sudden, dramatic change came over Mariswamy. He stopped in midstream and abjectly announced that he withdrew his remarks unreservedly and totally. It struck me as extremely peculiar that the leader of the National Executive level should so abjectly withdraw his considered opinion merely at the mention of Rajaji's opinion. This is a small illustration of the type of leadership the Swatantra party was able to scrounge. Subservience to autocratic "rule", real or perceived, is a more natural state of man than democracy, particularly in India. Never accept a sheep or 'yes men'.

Lesson 3: Nip the evil in the bud

At page 130, Pasricha talks of Masani being "fed up with the state of indiscipline in the party." At page 36, Pasricha points out how the Jan Sangh nipped in the bud any deviationist by expelling him from the party. People who discriminate against women, Harijans, Muslims, etc., etc., need to be blocked at the doorstep, but if they manage to infiltrate, they need to be expelled at the first opportunity.

Lesson 4: Build party workers

Nobody in the party seemed to be bothered about building a set of workers who would proselytise. Apostles were in very short supply. A corps of trained, devoted workers, functioning under the direct control of a centre, could have sown the gospel far and wide and counteracted the prevailing socialistic rhetoric." "No attempt was made to formulate a detailed scheme for the training of cadres." (p.115) The party clearly did not have a strategy for the long-term. It was dependent on Rajaji in more ways than one.

Lesson 5: Do not contest elections until fully ready

Repeatedly, Pasricha shows the ill-judged keenness of state leaders as well as National leaders to contest elections well beyond the capacity of the party to organise. Resources need to be spent strategically and very prudently. Recklessness and haste can only destroy. That is one more reason to have ‘big picture’ strategy to be continuously reviewed.

Lesson 6: Never consort with parties the do not have the same principles

The moment the party compromises its fundamental principles, it is as good as dead. We are liberals. We do not provide Indian citizens with a hodge podge of policies – strictly liberal only.

Lesson 7: Ensure rigorous audit of the party

Tendency of state units to be highly factionalised, based on feudal or caste principles. All the demerits of existing political parties began to rapidly emerge in the State units of the Swatantra party including financial irregularities. A rigorous audit of party membership, funds, processes, etc., is essential for the party to not deteriorate "around the fringes".

Lesson 8 : Place a significant membership fee

By putting a low membership fee, wealthier individuals with political ambitions are able to enroll a significant number of dumb followers by paying for their fees.

Lesson 9: The importance of allowing joint stock companies to fund political parties.