Conversations about Corruption - Anna and JP

Book excerpt from my book "Aap & Down"



I was fortunate to have learnt my concepts of democracy and reform while working with the highly organized and introspective JP. He was a brilliant IAS officer from Andhra Pradesh, who had worked in high position within the system. After many years of service, he realized that it was better to be outside the system and act as a pressure point for government reforms. I was heavily influenced by his deeply researched, rational solutions to improve the country.

Sometimes, I used to think: if only JP’s understanding of governance could be downloaded and transferred to Anna’s brain, the nation would really benefit! To make this fantasy a reality, I brought together Anna and JP. On my request, JP stayed back in Mumbai for many days to support Anna and his demands. For hours, the two would talk about the state of the nation, and I would listen to their fascinating conversations, feeling some proprietorial pride.

There was one particularly interesting conversation between Anna and JP that gave an insight into the way they thought.

JP said, ‘Annaji, people like you are born but rarely. Instead of working in one village, if you were to take up 100 villages, would it not be better?’

Anna replied, ‘I want to make one village 100 per cent, rather than spreading myself too thin and not doing complete justice to my work.’

‘But, Annaji, if you contribute 100 per cent to one village, your net value is 100. While if you contribute even 60 per cent across 100 villages, your value is close 6,000—sixty times more,’ JP reasoned.

These were captivating perspectives coming from two great leaders. Over time, I came to realize that there were two different schools of thought in civil society. On one hand was the Anna school of thought which proposed that to change the nation, one had to change people. The belief was this: because systems are made and run by individuals, if people change, then the systems that run the country will change, too.

On the other hand, there was JP’s school of thought—he (and others like him) suggested that systemic reforms were the only way to improve the nation. The system had to be designed such that there was an incentive for good behaviour and a strong disincentive to bad/corrupt behaviour. It wasn’t civil society’s role to change the character of people—that was best left to religion and parents. Civil society’s role was to force the system to reform.

I found merit in JP’s stance. In my view, India has some of the most wonderful individuals; offers excellent upbringing; and is spiritually inclined. If, in spite of this, our society as a whole is degenerating, perhaps it is because a solid system of checks and balances is not in place.We have easy proof that this is the missing link. Consider Indians in the Western world: they have been very successful and ethical in nations that come with strong administrative and judicial systems. If Indians were fundamentally flawed, and/or if systems had no influence on behaviour, this stark difference in approach wouldn’t emerge.

The fact is that robust systems make people behave in a moral and ethical manner. In any society, no matter the setup, 10 per cent of the population is generally honest, and 10 per cent is dishonest. The remaining 80 per cent behave as per the incentive and disincentive mechanism in place. If success is guaranteed when behaviour is upright, this 80 per cent segment will choose honesty. If the system offers an advantage to those who are unscrupulous, again, this 80 per cent segment will be immoral.

Thus it is my view that "instead of changing players, it is important to change the rules of the game". It is a view that JP cherishes, too, and it is entirely possible that Anna’s support for the Lokpal Bill, a form of institutional reform, became doubly emphatic after his discussions with JP. ‘We are a first class nation with a third class government,’ was a slogan Arvind picked up from one of my speeches during the IAC days.

Electoral system - FPTP or Proportional Representation

My belief remains that incremental or cosmetic alterations in the system of elections are insufficient; there has to be a significant shift.

While ‘none of the above’ (NOTA) or the right to recall could have some impact, transformative reforms need to be addressed. For instance, there must be a serious debate about whether the existing model of first past the post (FPTP) can be replaced by proportional representation (PR). Let’s understand these terms:

PR is the idea that seats in Parliament should be allocated so that they are in proportion to the votes cast; FPTP, on the other hand, aligns itself with the rather simple principle that the candidate with the maximum number of votes wins.

Clearly, FPTP comes with its share of problems. For one, it disregards a sizeable number of votes. Think about it: if one candidate wins 3,50,000 votes and the other gets 3,50,001 votes, then there is little regard for 3,50,000 votes and voters.

Second, it encourages candidate-centred voting. The politician who gets just one more vote wields
disproportionate power. Consequently, FPTP brings with it a desperation to win elections, using all means, fair or foul.

Last, parties win a disproportionate number of seats under FPTP, which is detrimental to the interests of a democracy. In 2014, the BJP swept to power with 28 seats (out of 543), i.e., 52 per cent of seats with only 31.3 per cent of the votes. In 2004, the Congress came to power with just 26.5 per cent of the votes; and most ironically in 1999, the BJP came to power despite getting a vote share five percentage points lower than that of the Congress. This is an insult to the Indian voter and
detrimental to a democracy.

Now, unlike FPTP, Proportional Representation (now adopted by over 90 democracies in the world) recognizes every vote. In multi-lingual, multi-religious countries like India, it is sensitive to diversity, ensuring that all sections are fairly represented in the election. It has the potential to reduce the impact of money, caste and communal politics, as candidates cease having constituencies where they can purchase votes. Last, parties gain seats in proportion to the number of votes cast for them.



Let’s consider this through a hypothetical example. Let us assume that the Congress, the BJP, the
Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), and the Trinamool Congress stand for elections. Depending on the number of seats they contest, they make a list of their own candidates, all selected democratically by the party members. Voters will vote for a party, and based on the percentage of votes gathered, candidates are selected on a priority basis for Parliament.

In the 16th Lok Sabha elections, let’s compare how parties were represented under the FPTP model, and how Parliament would have looked if PR had been adopted.

The results are startling!


16th LOK SABHA (AS PER FIRST PAST THE POST)

Bharatiya Janata Party                                       31.3% votes - seats 282
Indian National Congress                                  19.5% - seats 44
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam    3.3% - seats 37
All India Trinamool Congress                            3.8% - seats 34
Biju Janata Dal                                                   1.7% - seats 20
Shiv Sena                                                            1.9% - seats 18
Telugu Desam Party                                           2.5% - seats 16
Telangana Rashtra Samithi                                 1.6% - seats 11
Communist Party of India (Marxist)                  3.2% - seats 9
Others                                                                31.2% - seats 63

16th LOK SABHA (AS PER PROPORTIONAL PRESENTATION)

Bharatiya Janata Party                                       31.3% - seats 169
Indian National Congress                                  19.5% - seats 105
Bahujan Samaj Party                                           4.3% - seats  23
All India Trinamool Congress                             3.8% - seats 21
Samajwadi Party                                                  3.4% - seats 19
Communist Party of India (Marxist)                   3.2% - seats 18
Telugu Desam Party                                            2.5% - seats 14
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam    3.3% - seats 13
Aam Aadmi Party                                               2.0% - seats 12
Others                                                                26.7% - seats 135

This is not to say that PR does not come with its complications and limitations. But a debate regarding its merits and demerits will ensure that we, as a nation, will arrive at the best possible set of electoral practices. Similar debates need to be had about the advantages of having a presidential form of government as against the Westminster model, and the direct election of the chief minister by the
general public rather than by the elected MLAs.

But the most important reform that has to be undertaken is the democratization of all political parties.
Internal elections supervised by the Election Commission should be compulsory. The account details and the sources of funds should be made available.

I learnt about these subjects from Dr Jayaprakash Narayan of Loksatta movement of AP. You might like to hear him a remarkable lecture on political system of India at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HghqICCty6M

Politics and Religion - No to separation

Secular India - an oxymoron

I am not advocating a theological state, just advocating removal of this artificial separation between religion and political discourse.

Gandhi, “Those who think religion has nothing to do with politics understand neither religion nor politics”.  As per Gandhi, " Indeed religion should pervade every one of our actions. Here, the religion does not mean sectarianism. It means a belief in ordered moral Govt. of the universe. This religion transcends Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity etc. It does not supersede them. It harmonizes them and gives them reality."

We are unlike any western or Islamic country, we are different and unique. Someone had said that in US for any social or religious reforms, one needs to use political route; in Europe, for political or religious changes, we need to use social route; but, in India, for any social or political transformation, we need to use the religious channels. The music running through our spine is religion.

Swami Vivekanand says "Here in India, it is religion that forms the very core of the national heart. It is the backbone, the bed-rock, the foundation upon which the national edifice has been built. Politics, power, and even intellect form a secondary consideration here. Religion, therefore, is the one consideration in India". His definition of religion was that any sect that may help you to realise God is religion"

The Indian world view emphasises the basic unity of all existence and its interrelation and connectivity, whether it be an individual, family, society, nation or universe in all its dimension - religion, politics, science, social, psychological, physiological or legal framework in all its dynamic and fluid format.

Look at the constitution of an average Indian - we see a very different species from the western piece. A religious, god-fearing, spiritual based mind set - praying every day, having a temple or more in the house, using god and religion in every second sentence and in general using religion or its symbolism in his entire life. Serials like Ramayana, Mahabharat and Mahadeva are watched avidly. Millions do roza and pray five times a day. Religion is all pervading except in the most important thing – politics.

It is unfortunate and short-sighted that we have adopted the European governance structure for a population that is different from any other nation. We, Indians are deeply questioning, profoundly chaotic and introspective. And without understanding the soul and ethos of the nation, we have been saddled with a European governance model that might be more suitable for a small, western country. When I go to Haridwar or the Kumbh and see the millions of people – am sure that neither do the people understand the administration structure, nor does governing institutions understand the common people. This is the main reason that there is so much social unrest and disconnect between people and government.

That has been a historic blunder created seven decades ago, but one that we may have to live with.

More than ever, there is a vitiated atmosphere and mutual distrusts between different religions and caste. Is it time to rediscover the principles of unity of all aspects of thought in private and public life.

o   Isn't it time to abandon this artificial and foreign infection ailing the nation?

o   Isn't it time to abandon the separation of private and public life and embrace the holistic and completeness of mind and action like Gandhiji?

o   Is India diseased?

Disease - a harmful deviation from the normal structural or functional state of an organism. A diseased organism commonly exhibits signs or symptoms indicative of its abnormal state. Thus, the normal condition of an organism must be understood in order to recognize the hallmarks of disease

Anyone understanding the ethos and the soul of India should realise that the division of public life and religion is an unnatural and artificial boundary. Gandhiji who travelled through the nation to comprehend its heart, used symbolisms and processes from all religions starting from the Bhajans, the Ashrams, the quotes from all religions, sects and bringing moral and religious values into the nation. He created potent and unique weapons based on the Indian ethos like Non-violence, truth, renunciation, dharma etc., which found such outstanding response from the millions of his countrymen.

Secularism is a Western graft unsuitable and unnecessary here as diverse communities here have been living together peacefully in the same geographical area.

A few years back, I had gone to a Congress party felicitation meeting, where they gave a Bhagwada Gita and Koran to each of the audience and every speech was laced with God, religion and culture.

Once in a citizen movement meeting, the priest of the local church made a very pertinent point saying that " While we start every good event by invoking God, why should we not invoke God for every political meeting / event / issue for a cause which is meant to serve society?"

Since Independence, the leftists have tried to take to set the educational curriculum setting for the school, colleges and overall public debates in the nation and their viewpoint of anti-religion, anti-God has been pervading in the body polity. The anti-religion based sociologists and philosophers have been occupying the public mind space with their western based ideology of separating religion and politics. Anyone who speaks of religion, God and values is branded as communal and rabid. The space for sensible, middle-of-the-road Indian leadership is reduced leaving in its place - extremists on all sides, using the politics of hatred and vote bank driven religious platforms to vitiate the peace and growth..

Today, we have a nation torn apart from its roots, its moral and cultural heritage, its tremendous science and knowledge - we have a nation that is in a stage of disease, of imbalance and one of the thing that we need to do is to throw away this aspect of secularism which seeks to create this unnatural division, to bring back balance and health to this great unique nation.

So, what is my premise?
1. Democracy is the best political system - as it allows freedom and air.
2. Non -religious governance system is the only process appropriate.
3. Allow religious symbolism in public life.
4. Remove the artificial barriers created within public discourse
5. Create middle ground side-lining parties using religious and casteist platforms