An ePal to go with the Lokpal?

Corruption manifests itself in many forms. From its plain-vanilla version of straight-out 'compensation for execution' to more diaphanous methods like sponsoring an event, paying for services as a cover or exchanging favors. Today, even anti-corruption movements are tainted by allegations of quid pro quo!

In India, there have been various attempts to tackle this issue. Some governments have automated their processes and filing systems so that the opportunities for gaming the system are reduced; others have taken a legislative route, sometimes in addition to the aforementioned e-Governance systems. Unfortunately, the threats have not been transformed into guarantees yet - a guarantee that corruption will be discovered and its participants punished. 

To expect corruption to be tackled by ill-equipped and untrained enforcement agencies (often compromised by their political masters' priorities) is nothing short of naivete. You cannot legislate out corruption... it has to happen at a much deeper, much more fundamental level.

When the disease stems from our DNA, so too must be the cure.

We have often been so focused on big-ticket corruption - the kind with oodles of zeroes - that we have rarely taken a step back to see the picture in its entirety. Dotted around big-ticket corruption, like fleas on a dog, is small-ticket corruption. It is this category, the one where you pay a few rupees to get out of a ticket or to get something done faster (or at all), that the average citizen encounters but never questions.

For every Bofors or CWG, there are millions of below-the-table transactions taking place at registrars' offices, utility boards, recruitment divisions, RTOs and other government offices. The sum total of these little thefts - for they are not taxed, never regularized - might perhaps eclipse some of the UPA government's 'proud' achievements... but for once, they are not to blame.

We are. 

The aam aadmi who robs from Peter to pay Paul. We may have our reasons, but every time we excuse ourselves, every time we force Peter to cough up when he shouldn't have to, we make him a Paul to someone else. And that creates another Peter somewhere else...

Myths about small-ticket corruption:

• Big-ticket corruption excuses small-ticket corruption because it creates it as a trickle-down effect
• Proponents of the latter are justified when they point to their masters' big-ticket deals and ask for these to be prosecuted first.

An effective anti-corruption stance requires a zero-tolerance approach (not a zero-loss one!). It must treat a five-rupee violation as seriously as a five-thousand-crore one.

You cannot be any 'less' corrupt or any 'more' corrupt - you are either corrupt, or you aren't

The challenges

• Investigating the trail of one million-dollar scam is far easier (forensically speaking; the political interference is another issue altogether) than the ten-thousand hundred-dollar deals that happen at government offices every day. 
• A one-size-fits-all approach will not work. Solutions such as (Jan) Lok Pal are either overwhelmed to the point of impotence against the scale of small-ticket corruption - because it happens in more places than can be tackled effectively without having charges of bias or persecution levelled against it. 

(This is not to say that Lokpals or Jan Lokpals are useless - in the right way, used in conjunction with other anti-corruption measures, these Acts may indeed make a huge difference to crime-fighting)

So what is the solution?

To tackle the ubiquitous small-ticket corruption, a two-pronged approach is neded. There should be both negative and positive reinforcements.

• Negative reinforcements, obviously, include legislation and enforcement of tough, speedy justice, demotions, threat of exposure, etc. But in a country where being a 'rebel' or 'very smart' is sometimes a sought-after label, this might not always work. 
• Positive reinforcements such as recognition of and rewarding those government employees who are a credit to their job and their department by virtue of their efficiency, integrity and effectiveness. 

But how will we implement this?

This sounds, as you've probably guessed, easier than it is. How do we do it, you ask, given the lakhs of employees, the multitude of tasks they execute, the unorganized way in which government offices often keep track of work, the biases that creep into any system private or public?

Perhaps a solution would be to have an ePal - an online portal where citizens can rate government employees, departments, etc. on how satisfied they are with the efforts and outcome, and if, at all, any baksheesh was sought, provide an easy workflow to report such approaches.

Every citizen armed with a mobile phone (smart/dumb - the phone, that is!) and/or an internet connection can sign into the portal, pull up the details of the staff member who was assigned the citizen's task and rate them on multiple parameters (importantly, on integrity, efficiency and effectiveness); if the staff member is not in the database, there can be a provision for a citizen to add the employee.

Can a solution like ePal make a difference?

How will this help? 

• Over a period of time, as the volume of feedback grows, it can provide an objective and real-time measure of the quality of (administrative) governance. 
• Since it would be a public list, people would be less likely to be corrupt as it would eventually be tracked by the system for the world (and their own families) to see... 
• Additionally, it becomes a valuable resource for a citizen clueless about a particular task - he/she can log into the portal, pull up the task and be informed of the process and the personnel to approach for redressal. 
• Most importantly, as a third-party-driven and -audited engagement, it can be an objective and acceptable standard for benchmarking performance, as well as be a Key Result Area when it comes to assessing government employees. High-scoring employees can then be incentivised (given that most people who are corrupt are forced to be because of commitments like fees, EMIs, etc., the incentives can take the form of increased benefits, allowances or subsidies)

The path towards such a system is surely not easy - not only can we anticipate opposition from those whose activities will be monitored, but also does the success of this program depend on continuous public participation. It will be the public's feedback that will keep the scoreboards ticking over, the players competitive and the system on an inertial pull to clean itself up...  

There is every risk that such a venture could end up adopted by a few activists and ignored by the rest of the populace, but that seems to be a worthy risk. By giving the opportunity to the public to act against corruption and for clean employees, we lose maybe a bit of time and effort - but the payoffs, if it does work, could be a future generation where a visit to a government office is not something we dread.  

India has spent too much time as a kleptocracy - can we, the aam aadmi, the unwitting kleptocrats, now turn things around? Or will we continue to hold up the bogey of political big-ticket corruption so that we may not see us for what we are?

You tell me...

Why I won't vote for Feku... the real Feku...

Dear ArKe,

• When you announced shelters for the homeless, you earned my respect.
• When you approved free water/subsidized electricity with riders and deadlines (31st March, 2014), I hoped it was a deliberate attempt not to overburden a system that's already tottering.

And...

• If you'd suspended Bharti after Khirki, I'd have applauded your sense of fairness.
• If you'd moved a bill to bring the Delhi police under the Delhi govt and sat on a dharna for that, I'd have welcomed your sense of action.
• If you hadn't called off your Dharna to protect your and Bharti's image, but continued until the stated aim - Delhi police under Delhi govt - had been achieved, I'd have grudgingly agreed that your style of anarchy works.
• If you had acted against Dixit and others without asking for evidence from Dr. Harshavardhan, I'd have been happy that you are at least fighting corruption.
• If you had taken the effort to see at least one prosecution of a corrupt official getting off the ground, I'd have had the hope that things are moving in the right direction.
• If you'd been able to take your opponents along as well as your unquestioning fans, I'd have respected your consensus-evolving skills - because our nation needs leaders to talk to each other, not just to us all the time.
• If you had gone through the Constitution you claim to respect and not created the excuse you did for scuttling the JLP, I'd have found nothing wrong with trusting your words.
• If you hadn't written to Tauqeer Raza or pulled up Bhushan or called Batla encounter fake, I'd have been happy that you, at least, are not pseudo-secular.
• If you had not withdrawn money earmarked for infrastructure and used it to pay for subsidies (to Ambani's discoms), I might have even granted that your 49-day reign was indeed hampered.
• If you had moved out - or explained how a family earning Rs.11L per annum can afford a rented house at Rs.2.5L per month - I'd have believed that you could set an example for our politicians who live off public money.
• If you hadn't forgotten that Congress ruled this country for 60+ years while Vajpayee's term (as even his worst detractors now agree) was among the best, I'd have believed that you'd make a good party to invest in at the national level.
• If you hadn't turned to drama at every turn because you can't pay the news channels for coverage, I'd have respected you as a decent human being.
• If you could be as unforgiving to your supporters when they are wrong as you are to those who criticize you, I'd have believed that you were, indeed, conscientious.
• If you had been more mature in your efforts to weed out #paidmedia instead of threatening to arrest them, I'd have been less apprehensive of your dictatorial approach.
• And if you had surrounded yourself with less obnoxious characters than Ashutosh, Khetan or Sisodia, I'd have taken your #paidMedia allegations more seriously.
• And if you hadn't tried to adjust an interview with a two-faced lackey (who pretends to be an impartial journalist to this day), I'd not have scoffed at your media-bashing.
• If you had asked us to trust in your abilities rather than to fear Modi (and I do not see you taking anyone else's name with such frequency or rabid rhetoric), I could have eventually shared your confidence.
• If you had spoken against Sahara... if you'd spoken against Sarada... if you had been able to reconcile your 'findings' about Gujarat and your colleagues' before they joined you... I could have believed that your attack on crony capitalism was not compromised.
• And if you'd said something and stuck to it, I would not be thinking disparagingly of you.

If you had, at least for once in these past few months, displayed a desire to be anything other than an anarchist... 
If at least once you could have shown me why I should not fear you running away again on another made-up pretext... 
If you could have handled things with at least as much class as we want to see in our politicians... 

I'd not have woken up today worrying for a nation that might just give you enough votes for UPAAP.

If only...

The Rise of the Nouveau Politique

Being a rebel is fun.

It's trendy. 

It's even cooler when it is in the 'best interests of the society.'

And one way or another, often short-lived. Either the rebel dies, or the rebellion dies within.

Pragmatism eventually recovers the part of the brain that works according to Darwin instead of Creation. Demands of living, of supporting dependents, of fulfilling duties closer to the hearth than perhaps the heart... compromises that try to bridge the life you wanted to lead with the one you have to, sometimes leaving you right in the middle and unable to enjoy the thought of choosing either bank.

But sometimes, with the same odds as the current Indian bowling attack rolling over an opposition with cunning or pace, you get lucky. You come across a movement that satisfies the Robin-hood within, needs sufficient investment - time, money, emotional attachment, faith, whatchamacallits - to make you feel good but not so much that it seems like work. You get to sit in judgment of others, discuss vehemently, include yourself in the millions who are ushering in the change and revel in the anonymity that being one in a million offers.

I know how that feels. I sit in front of a laptop, pontificating on the rights and the wrongs of the world as I see it, hoping that at least some of the people passing by the window pause, maybe even come into the shop and browse through stuff. On Facebook, I 'like' pictures of cute dogs and show them to my wife, promising her that one day, we'll adopt at least a couple of them. I whizz by streetkids peddling stickers, thinking I'll do something to get them off the streets and somewhere safe; I look at families balancing themselves on two-wheelers and imagine ways to get our traffic etiquette on track.

And I'll do all this tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after...

My solace? I am not alone. I am one of those millions that dream of making a difference in one way or another. I am anonymous, and I like it that way because I don't want a disgruntled mob, the target of my righteousness, showing up on my doorstep or painting J'Accuse on my nameplate.

The rise of the Aam Aadmi Party must seem like water to a rebel parched for action. Like the youth who step into the campuses in Kerala or West Bengal or JNU and are immediately assaulted by the glories of revolution of the working classes, of the privileged getting their kneecaps dirty as they bend by the sides of their less fortunate counterparts and give them a stronger voice, of the indoctrination at that age that immediately pegs narrow, communal feelings as unbecoming of a young life that wants to change the world, the aam aadmi's imagination has been captured by the panacea for all the ills of this nation, the AAP.

"They are just like us," the Aam Aadmi's aam aadmi gushes. "Until now, we thought politics was only for the dirty or the criminal. But they have shown us that even decent people like us have a chance."

And like any good story, there has to be a strong Evil that has to be beaten back by the morally-superior Good. That Evil, in the current narrative, takes the form of mainstream parties, established players in the order of St.Politique, and come in clever disguises that are, nonetheless, too easy to spot - they are not us. How could they be? Because we are not them.

It's a truth that is. Because it is. No uncomfortable questions, please. We are the nouveau politique. 

The nouveau politique are the newest revolutionaries on the block. They observe divisions of neither caste nor community, neither education nor social standing. These are men and women (and, to be PC, persons of the neutral gender) who want the system to be cleansed and are willing to wield the broom that will sweep the deritus away. They have discovered the call of politics within their hearts and have embraced it with a passion that is equalled only by their loathing of the established order.

But the road to hell, as the saying goes, is often paved with good intentions.

Our typical reaction to anyone challenging our beliefs.

Indians are like tortoises - slow off the blocks, and a preference to get back into our shells when challenged. The established political parties and their followers are perfect examples: challenge a Congress or a BJP supporter and watch them fall back on oft-repeated defenses against corruption, appeasement and the 'acceptable' way of living. The Nouveau Politique are no different. Ask an aam aadmi about the compromises that have been made and watch him/her fall back on the "better-than-yours" defense. Or the increasingly-popular "internally cleared" label.

That is my problem with the Nouveau Politique. Not their aspirations - for we have that - but for allowing it to blind them to the dangers of supporting an institution whose sense of direction is akin to "somewhere... north. Maybe northeast, or northwest, but... north." And where, in the blinding light and deafening noise of the rhetoric, no one is actually able to paint a true picture of the elephant. No one has any idea what the AAP will mutate into once it starts to feed on power and the demands of multiple constituents, each with its own set of demands.

The AAPmoeba. Scientists place bets on how it will mutate...

A party like the Congress or the BJP, for all its faults, has a compass that's largely static. If it's welfare and more welfare for the Congress, it's development and uniform civil codes for the BJP. The regional satraps have their own priorities, hammered into their constituents for years. You know what they stand for, and when you vote for them, you know what you could be voting in.

The AAP, on the other hand, is an amalgamation of differences against a singular, overarching objective - an overthrow of the establishment as they see it. If you are not with them, you are against them - and therefore, you are corrupt, communal and against the interests of the nation. It's a murder case where there is no chance to defend yourself against the claims of the prosecution. What should have been a diplomatic, ends-driven exercise is now a jingoistic, means-driven rebellion.

One of the biggest problems with Kejriwal - as I see it - was his shoot-and-scoot press conferences that made allegations of corruption without actually doing anything about it. Contrast this with Subramanian Swamy, a man often dismissed for his windvane-headedness, who took the 2G scam to the courts and actually brought down a minister. Making allegations is easy, proving them is not. I cannot reconcile the man who once stood on a podium claiming to have a 370-page report that 'proved' Sheila Dixit's corruption with the one who wants an MLA to provide him with this 'proof' again.

And that is where I am disturbed by the trending political conversation in the country. Supporters of the AAP are no less intolerant of others' views than the ones they accuse of being trolls. A man with very little experience (and when you are on the cusp of a crisis, experience should feature at the top of your wishlist) is now being hailed as the Messiah of the middle class, as if the flourish of his signature on a piece of paper is enough to wipe off the ills that face this country. To believe that is the height of naivete - optimism, yes, but naivete nonetheless.

We seem to be far more demanding of a CxO than of a CM or a PM. Priorities?

For nothing of what we have seen of Kejriwal suggests that he has answers to the needs of this nation that go beyond, "Give it to them for free. The Government can afford it." Arvind-saab, the government cannot afford it. It prints money, but the more it prints, the less valuable that money is. Surely, as an IT officer so fed up with the system you relied on a technicality to get out of your promised service, you must know how sorrily our treasuries are being managed.

His heart is in the right place. #AllThatMatters

Yet, in the din of populism - and he just needs to keep it going for six months before we vote for the broom in the general elections, after which *Conditions Apply will come into effect - such hard questions are not being asked. An image beyond reproach has automatically translated into the blind faith that he will be the one to lead the nation out of the doldrums. No roadmap is sought. No long-term policies are required to be drafted. No one questions the irony of closed-door "internal Lokpals" or paranoia that sees death in the shape of cricket balls. 

A manifesto that panders to the short-term desires (couched in the language of perpetuity) is all that it takes to woo the nouveau politique over to the side of the 'angels.' And of course, if you face an uncertain situation, you can always throw the decision back to the people and ask them to vote. (without a Captcha, of course)

Make no mistake - I am all for the principles that created the AAP. I want probity from my representatives. I want government servants to execute their jobs as laid down by law, without having to be compensated additionally for their service efforts. I want the natural resources of my nation to be utilized for the utilitarian good.

I am also for the principles that created the Congress. Freedom and sovereignty. 

I am also for the principles of the BJP. I want development, tolerance (Loka samastha sukhino bavandhu) and a Uniform Civil Code that would be the hallmark of a truly secular government.

I am also for the principles of the Marxist parties (except the ones that prefer violence). The society needs to take care of its weaker sections. Appreciation of merit has to be blind of caste or communal considerations.

And I have a problem when the nouveau politique or the fanboys in the media see every expression of support for the AAP's principles as an extension of support for the AAP itself. No one is going to say, "I hope the movement fails!" Not even Lalu or Mulayam, or even Diggy! 

Whose fault is this?

But that doesn't mean that you believe, with the blind fervor of the converted, that our problems will be solved by voting the AAP into power. That level of a change will not happen until the day we stop at a red light not out of fear of being caught but because it is the right, legal thing to do. It will not happen until the day we become intelligent enough to question, question and question until we are informed enough to take a decision. It will not happen until the day our sense of individual identities is so strong that we do not have to see ourselves as a rebel to make a difference to the society.

Question. Understand. Decide.

Because right now, we aren't rebels, not in the true sense of the word. We aren't Bose, Rajguru or CheG. We aren't leading because we understand - we are followers because the AAP promises us answers we want to hear, and not always the right ones. That's the betrayal to the movement that wants to create an enlightened citizenry, not merely an aroused one.

And until such time, you, my friend, if you are part of the Nouveau Politique that has the politics but not the maturity, if you are a rebel who's not really questioned his/her faith, you are a far bigger danger to this country's future than the dark side you are trying to fight.

Jaago re...

Why should we be more unforgiving of AAP's compromises

Everyone loves a winner. 

And when it's an underdog that wins, the romanticism just goes through the roof.

Everyone wants to be a part of it. It resonates at some atavistic level in the human psyche that wants to be a part of the strongest pack, to be at the apex of the food chain. 

It helps when your conscience is constantly nudged in that direction. "We can change the world. We are the change. We can help those who need it, and steamroll those who stand, immorally, against us. Because we are right."

AAP is the latest revolution in our land. A party that was born of the marriage of frustration and anti-corruption, a party without a dynasty or a climb through the ranks, transparent and well-intentioned, an antithesis to every other entity in the establishment... it's easy to see how the Aam Aadmi Party has captured the imagination of the aam aadmi.

You do not need to be a Gandhi - or be on sycophantic terms with one - to have a shot at representing your ward. You do not need to have spent years with a grassroots organization like the RSS or the Youth Congress to be heard by the higher-ups. And best of all, the left-leaning ideals - subsidies at government expenditure, giving people what they need at no personal cost, the automatic imprint of secularism because the AAP is not the brainchild of any particular community - assuage your own ideals for living a socialist, value-to-society life without compromising on any of the comforts you can't live without.

And with the zeal of the converted, the neophytes end up being more loyal to the king than the royalty itself. Indians have a tendency to move from condemnation or indifference to worship without bothering themselves with too much introspection or uncomfortable questions. Thus, an on-screen persona tranlsates into a Puratchi Thalaivar or a larger-than-life NTR without being troubled by the understanding of the differences between the reel and the real. Icons take the place of ideologies, and in the process cost us the intellectual cynicism that should guard us against the trap of falling in blindly.

We never seem to learn that lesson.

Of late, I've been getting into arguments with my wife, normally an apolitical person, whenever I criticize AAP. That - making a person care about the political setup in the country once again - is perhaps AAP's greatest success. That, and the fact that you do not need a filmi-flashback to be in politics or make an impact.

But reducing AAP to just another party is to make a mockery of the hope that they've held out to those who are looking up to them. And excusing their compromises as 'necessities' or 'naivete' is perhaps the biggest danger to the chance that India has in its grip right now.

Why should we be far more unforgiving of AAP than any other party?

Because AAP is supposed to be the party with a difference. And that difference is not in the absence of a dynastic following or a Bhakti cult or the specter of communalism, but in the principled stand - of austerity, level-headedness, honesty, a non-pseudo brand of secularism and a desire to clean up the system by breaking the insiders' club - that catapulted AAP from an extra in an anti-corruption crusade to the superstar of the day. And any chip off this stand, any dilution of these standards, is a betrayal of those who subscribed to it.

Like a hard rock that gets pounded by running water into a pebble without even realizing it, AAP's compromises have the potential to reduce it to another aspirant to the corridors of power and its abuse - and a traitor to the promises it once held out.

While I am impressed with the way that the AAP has gone about its business in the last four days, I also have my reservations.

One, while the promise of 700L of water was delivered in the letter of the law, the spirit was found lacking. The supply is only for piped connections to houses - covering about 40% of Delhi's populace - and comes with a sensible rider of penalties for misusing that privilege. So far, so good. What troubles me is that there are no apolitical voices asking for the government to push through connections for the remaining citizenry. No one from the AAP has come forward so far with a blueprint for increasing the water connectivity to houses (something that's pretty basic for anyone who's played SimCity!) One measure without the other is not good governance - like the FSB, it's merely tokenism.

Socialism aside, one also has to wonder where the money is going to come from. Subsidising water and power are short-term solutions that might take them to a stronger position after LS 2014, but how are they going to make the system more efficient? Auditing discoms and reducing the guaranteed margins of 16% (one wonders at the naivete that assumed that one govt is free to overturn/cancel arbitrarily the contracts entered into by its predecessor) to lower levels might work to please the voters for now, but what if the coffers run out some time later? What if the cost of these populist subsidies bankrupt the utilities? Who ends up paying for it then?

The media went ga-ga over Arvind Kejriwal and his cabinet's aam aadmi approach to their swearing-in ceremony, but lost in the din of 'change' was that it had all been done before by people who'd been similar lanterns of hope. Mamata Banerjee, AK Antony, Manohar Parrikar, Raman Singh... yet, no one spoke of them. No one seemed to want to remember anyone from the 'establishment' because to do so would be to be disloyal to the moment and the movement. The perspective that should have been in place was lost in the excitement.

The governance-by-poll is a great concept that has found traction in Western countries - and it is great only as long as it is done in a transparent, foolproof manner. AAP's surveys have always been couched in non-specifics; if their 'Congress-support' poll is any indication, flawed in accounting for selection bias as well. Ironic, given that one of their leading lights is a man who's considered to be a psephologist.

We are used to the you-are-with-us-or-against-us that most parties tout (especially when they are in power or think they would be) and the AAP, sadly, has fallen into the same mindset. Kamal Farooqui becomes secular the moment he embraces the AAP, as does Tauqeer Rana - but everyone arrayed against them, irrespective of what they stand for, are branded 'corrupt', tarred with feathers and railed against with the rancour of a neophyte. This is not AAP's failing as much as it is its followers', but the disturbing fact here is that they have done little to stop this or set some expectations regarding the language they would prefer.

When Yogendra Yadav talks about Anna Hazare's movement being a Hindu movement and it was therefore AAP's responsibilities to bring in Muslims with direct appeals, he reduces AAP to another votebank parasite that has displayed political cunning that it claims to stay above of. The presence of people such as Yogendra Yadav (a member of Sonia Gandhi's NAC until he was 'booted' out for joining the AAP) and the Bhushans (who were held guilty of undervaluing a property for tax evasion) has to be guarded against - perhaps acceptable in 'yet another party' but definitely not in one that claims to be different.

Leakages and theft are common and it doesn't help when Kejriwal suddenly becomes amnesiac about his 2010-speech and the 370-page report that have suddenly vanished from his desk and the AAP website alike. 

AAP is acting like a runner who was the slowest off the blocks but has now overtaken the runner ahead and has its sights on the leader - and has, therefore, trained its sights on overtaking the leader. But what it fails to realize is that it is a marathon, not a sprint, and a short burst that robs it - and the one ahead - of the energy to last the entire distance would be playing right into the hands of the third-place they both started out competing against. 

And to excuse the AAP's excesses, or to prevent them from burning-bright-too-soon, it requires not the blind exuberance of a kid with a new toy. It needs the cold, guiding hands of a coach who might not applaud a wild slog as much as a consistent, unbreakable defense. It needs us to be vigilant in ensuring that AAP delivers on each and every ground it claims to be different in, instead of excusing it under the guise of necessity or naivete. 

Remember, that's the same excuse our beloved PM used when he spoke of 'political compulsions.'

Sunsigns for 2013

The world is changing, and so is the sun. New signs have emerged out of the brightest star in the Solar system that have necessitated the addition of new sun-signs to account for, and predict the future of (thereby enabling 231 starving astrologers to avail of the benefits of the Food Security Bill through the NREGA scheme by presenting the Aadhar card to the local bank at the time of loan application/waivers) Following the latest Goldman-Sacks report that C-PAIR (China-Pakistan-America-India-Russia) is the new BRIC, the new sun-signs have been modified to cover multiple nationalities.

• Modeo
  

  

  A Modeo as he sees himself.

  Modeos are typically identified by others' reactions to them - an aversion to enter into discussions relating to the present, a prefunctory dismissal of opinions as biased or a labeling as being part of an online legion of trollers who pray on the weak, ill-informed or at times, a male chauvinist (since the lion usually leaves the dirty work to the lionesses), often leading to frustrated roars that can be heard all the way from Gir to Kuno. A Modeo will find comfort chiefly with other Modeos, although they continue to be hounded about the Year of the Fire by the Mediacorns who also expect them to answer every question from the starvation of arctic wolves to the mating habits of common slugs holistically and inclusively.

• Mediacorns
  

  

  A typical Mediacorn.

  The Mediacorns are often loud, pre-occupied and stubborn, and cannot resist butting horns with Modeos the moment they see them. Mediacorns are proud of their trade and will invoke its name at the slightest provocation, and they can be easily provoked by questions of facts, motives, alternatives or traffic tickets. A typical Mediacorn loves a good rough-up as long as he/she is not physically involved but can witness it or use it later. There are Mediacorns who are exceptions, but prophecies foretell that an alpha Mediacorn will soon emerge to recreate every Mediacorn in his image with his quest for needing to know what everybody else already knows. Despite their aggressive and temperamental nature, Mediacorns can be easily domesticated by Concerians who take advantage of the constant struggle between the Modeos and the Mediacorns.
  
  
• Concerians

  

  The Concerian Symbol.

  Concerians make good matches for Mediacorns due a symbiotic relationship and are excellent deal-makers. Concerians get along with everyone except Modeos because their existences are mutually exclusionary - a Concerian is most likely to be replaced at the workplace or at home by a Modeo, and vice versa. Concerians are fond of hand gestures and can often be seen holding it out for no reason other than to admire their own handiwork. They are also partial to the color green and black. Concerians are always concerned about other Concerians and will therefore always stick to queues and a rigid sense of self-disciple, but are often good enough athletes to make rapid U-turns without breaking into a sweat. Concerians typically prefer a Maiden as their boss especially as Concerians have an automatic urge to pull down another Concerian.
  
  
• Maiden

  

  A Maiden in cricket. You tell me.

  A Maiden is one of the rarest sunsigns, since it happens only when a great tree falls heavily enough to shake the earth. It is named after a cricket term that signifies an over of Zeros in T20 cricket, but most Maidens are actually fans of football and volleyball. Maidens are often considered to be readymade leaders in any sphere they walk into and can often hit self-goals or the official captains without being suspended or red-carded, unless they red-card themselves. Maidens are also highly unpredictable and have great capacity for greatness and giving up their own dreams, although their reliance on Mediacorns and Concerians for the actual execution leaves them vulnerable and confused. Most Maidens have a Taurijay as their closest bodyguard due to the instinctive connection between their intellects.
  
  
• Taurijay

  

  In front of The Taurijay Club

  A Taurijay is often characterised by a bull-headedness that is immune to reason and a marked antagonism to red, saffron, orange or pink. Taurijays are also loners, but make excellent bodyguards once their loyalty has been earned. Taurijays also get along with Mediacorns and Concerians to a certain extent, but the friendship rarely extends beyond a certain level due to mutual suspicion and discomfort. Taurijays typically do not make good family men, due to their paranoia, but despite their nature, are often the show-stealers at parties, press conferences and Youtube. There are aspects of Taurijay that resonate with the Geminiam, but there have not been enough Taurijays or Geminiam to study the inter-relationship in detail.
  
  
• Geminiam

  

  Known for speaking out of
  both sides of their mouth.

  Unlike a Taurijay, Geminiams are extremely agile where their principles are concerned, often within the same sentence. Geminiams are also family-oriented and may marry more than once if allowed to do so, unafraid of the risks of managing the ambitions of their offspring from different mothers. Studies have shown that Geminians also make good fathers materialistically, often leading to their children getting plum posts and rewards, but can also scar their children with their confusing critiques. Geminians are also fond of green color sleeves and are physically very active, unlike the Aryamys.
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Aryam/Aryamy

  

  An Aryam-Aryamy

  Aryamys are often armchair theoreticians known for their imagination and ability to alienate a large section of the people with a few choice remarks. Most Aryamys spend their younger days in youthful indiscretions, pursuit of higher educations on foreign shores or both, before returning to their hometowns and invading the quiet peace there. They are persistent Romeos and will keep ramming their heads against the wall until they get what they want. Aryamys may be intellectuals of top order but not everything that comes out of an Aryamy factory is top-notch. Aryamys may get along with Modeans, although disagreements are not unheard of, but are always at loggerheads with the Anti-Aryamys, the Pissesists.
  
  
  
  
• Pisses

  

  A Piss

  The Pisses sun-sign is derived from the hinterland name for 'fish.' Most Pissesists often find their way to a coastal area, or at the very least a salt-water lake, and are not be mistaken for pacifists. Pissessists are principle-driven and immune to reason or objection where that principle is concerned, and often prefer their left side to the right. They are creative individuals who are characterized more by what they don't create than what they actually do, and can be found in groups near a watering hole. Pissesists hate Modeos, barely tolerate Concerians, disregard Taurijayans and Geminiams, but the one sign that can get under their horn is the Aryans. Pissesists are notorious for interfering in neighbors' affairs when their own house is burning, much like another arch-enemy, the Aquarius.
  
  
• Aquarius 

  

  A Typical Aquarican

  An Aquarican's first reaction in any new place is to barricade himself within walls, scare people off with muscle and machine, piss in the local swimming pool and then interfere in his/her neighbor's affairs in their best interests. Aquaricans are characterized by a their fondness for cows, dead or alive, and the legal system, and will find any excuse to test the latter a worthy expenditure of time. Aquaricans have a tendency never to learn from the past and therefore end up repeating the same mistakes, much to the delight of the Pissesists and Modeos. They are also the self-appointed Conscience-keeper, Banker, Producer, Middleman, Seller and Sheriff of the World, an attitude that often irks the Scorpsians.
  
  
• Scorpions

  

  A Scorpsian in action

  The Scorpsians consider themselves the intellectual forefathers of the Pissesists and hold the belief that they could have been the Sheriff if only they hadn't run out of cash fighting amongst themselves during the Ice Age. Scorpsians are quite insular and couldn't really care what happens to the Modeos, Mediacorns, Maidens or the others as long as the trash isn't dumped into their yard, but lose no chance to turn an Aquarican's misadventure over to the Mediacorns for free delight.  Despite the often indifferent nature, a Scorpsio can scuttle well-laid plans simply by baring their chest and revealing dirty tales.  Their only real beef is with Libranis, the only group continuously Chechmating them.
  
  
• Librani
  A Librani cannot get along with his/her spouse, neighbor, parent, child or pet due to a high level of cultivated intolerance. Libranis are often extremely fussy and prefer overkill where not even a single kill is preferred, and are happiest when they can spread their values to others. Their humor is often considered to be gallows/guillotine humor and the only ones even fleetingly able to bear with them are the Aquaricans, with whom they share a love-hate relationship, and so the only possible short-term partners for a Librani are another Librani or an Aquaricus who falls in between. Libranis are also known to work well with the Sagittese, although their over-insistence on doing everything by the book often spoils the relationship.
  
  
• Sagita
  The symbol of a Sagita is an archer who's screwed his eyes so that he can see the whole world, and like the symbol suggests, Sagittese are characterized by a narrow view of the world around them. The Sagittese often look to a particular Sagittese for leadership and the strongest contender for this is often called the Secret Chair. The Sagittese are as unwelcoming of criticism or differences as the Librani but are often more sophisticated in their approach, preferring to act without announcing their intentions to the whole world. Sagittese are also extremely calculating and manipulative and may often take-over homes of the docile Concerians if invited in as a brother. Their perspectives may be narrow, but they are often willing to take long-term risks that pay off. Only another Sagittese will be good enough for a Sagittese, although Pissesists have been known to make good spouses from time to time.
  
  
  *Applications submitted to the Govt under the Rajiv Gandhi Scheme of Registration of New Symbols, Indira Gandhi National Starvation Hatao Yojana, Rajiv Gandhi Scheme for New Son Signs (sic) and Sonia Gandhi National Disclaimer Scheme

Abuse of Freedom vs Freedom to Abuse

One of my favourite quotes has always been Voltaire’s, “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to death your right to say it.” That one line, to me, is the fine line that separates true civilization from the laws of the jungle. That one, undeniable principle should be the bedrock of any system that aspires to be truly democratic.

Why, you might ask, am I worried? The very fact that I can sit in my armchair and comment on everything from the government to Google Maps proves, if proof is needed, that my right to free speech is being upheld. Right?

Wrong.

Freedom of speech these days comes with an asterisk next to it. Conditions apply. As long as what I say is not a threat either to national security, a blanket that covers everything unpopular with the ruling dispensation, or to local peace (covering everything under the rather broad ambit of ‘hurting the sentiments of the community’) – as adjudged not by qualified Solomons but by politicians and untrained keepers of the law – I am free to speak.

Ah, but unfettered speech is harmful, right? It needs to be curbed, na?

Let me take a step back here before I answer that question. Not as a retreat, but as an attempt to trace recent history back to the time when freedom meant something less... conditional. On a global level, that turning point was America bringing in the ‘draconian’ Patriot Act in 2001 – justified as it might have been in the backdrop of the 9/11 attacks, the Act still empowered officials to track and flag you as a possible enemy of the state on the basis of your thoughts, becoming the free world’s precedent for curbing your freedom on the pretext of assuring someone else's. 

There is an interesting remark that Manoj Bajpai’s character makes in Special Chabbis – “Saza jurm sochne ke liye nahin, jurm karne ke liye milti hai. Aur wo bhi, jab unke khilaaf sabooth ho.” You do not get punished for thinking of a crime, but for its execution – and even then, only with proof. It is perhaps telling that the movie was a throwback to the 80s and a world that seemed a lot safer for the law-abiding citizen – except, perhaps, in Punjab.

In India, the Shah Bano case and its handling by the then Congress government was perhaps the first instance of the central Government buckling under organized pressure from a particular community, setting back perhaps decades of progressive reforms towards equality in caste, creed and gender. Though this had very little to do with free speech, it set the precedent for what followed: the attacks on MF Hussain (1996) and the protests against the movies ‘Hey Ram’ (2000) and ‘the Da Vinci Code’ (2006).

I know that as a Hindu, any defence I make of the protest against Hussain’s painting will be viewed with coloured lenses. But I am only quoting a contemporary of Hussain’s by repeating the same question many Hindus had at the same time – would Hussain have dared to depict any of Islam’s or Christianity’s icons thus? Would he have faced as much vitriol from those communities if he had?

The later years provide the answer. 

The ‘Da Vinci Code’ was banned in many countries because it hurt the sentiments of Christians, but surprisingly, the Christian West, despite its protests, allowed it to be shown with only a disclaimer; the more diverse East was ironically the more restrictive, banning the movie outright in several countries and states and buckling under organized pressure. 

When a Danish paper published cartoons depicting the Prophet, Islamic sentiments were hurt. The protests turned violent in many places and degenerated into an us-vs-them mentality in many parts of the world, further isolating the communities and fostering the air of distrust and disrespect.

Where – and it is the benefit of hindsight to be so judgmental – the world went wrong was in giving in to these voices of emotion. The government should have ensured a level playing field to the two sides and left it at that, instead of silencing one voice on the pretext of avoiding violence. That is the fundamental problem when it comes to protectionist censorship – there will always be a bias, for the simple reason that it will be human beings operating that censorship.

It is perhaps symbolic of how much we have fallen when I receive a petition on Change.org against Shah Rukh Khan’s promotion of ‘fair skin.’ 

Really, that’s your concern right now? was my first thought. 

The second was more introspective and led to this article. What right do I have to dictate Shah Rukh Khan’s endorsements? Why should I intervene on decisions that are purely personal, either at the advertiser’s end or at the buyer’s? Who am I to presume that I should educate the rest of the world on the (non-)interrelationship between fairness and success in life?

And that is where we are now. We took the step from defending our sentiments to promoting our sentiments under the same disguise – and took that step back from being understanding creatures to those that thrive on strength and numbers. We lose our individual identities because that identity is carved into, and the property of, so many emotional communities at so many levels. We care not about other individuals but the communities that we are aligned with or against; we devolve our understanding back to stererotypes and prejudices.

I am a dark-skinned, Tamil-speaking, MBA-holding, ex-software-engineer, a Hindu, a Brahmin and a resident of Bengaluru, Karnataka. But if I am to rise to every slight, imagined or otherwise, to any dark-skinned OR a Tamilian OR an MBA grad OR IT professional OR Hindus OR Brahmins OR Kannadigas OR Bangalore-ian, I won’t have time being who I am - an individual with my own opinions, and asking for the right to express them. I will only have time protesting against others’.

And then... the more I win, the more I lose.

Captaincy... oppa Clarkan style!

Two events in recent cricketing history compel me to draw their parallels to typical corporate circumstances.

One was the re-emergence of Dhoni as India's blue-eyed captain, the Midas of the Men in Blue whose faith in his players are being seen as prophetic with each passing day of the tour.

The other - perhaps more in the limelight for all the wrong reasons - the Australian captain Michael Clarke's tribulations on and off the field.

Personally, I have to admit that for the first time since the 1996 World Cup finals, I find myself willing to root for an Australian team (in their next challenge - the Ashes - and not for the current series!) And much of that has to do with Clarke's conduct on and off the field - a true example of the 'Halo' effect, perhaps. He's a refreshing change from those who excused excessive aggression (and spitting into one's hands) as a symbol of Aussie-ism, from those who would rather blame themselves or the pitch than the fact that they were as clueless in India as our team has been on their pitches. And of course, there's the small fact that he didn't 'Mankad' Dhawan's debut - a rare display of sportsmanship from a team that has long excused its absence without any shame.

And to top it off, he's actually handled the 'HomeworkGate' saga pretty... neatly.

Assuming, of course, that he was as sure about the decision as his coach Mickey Arthur, Clarke deserves to be patted on the back for arresting the slide in discipline. Whether it is 3 points or 30, irrespective of whether the coach needed it in Powerpoint, toilet paper or a ballet with Watson leading the pirouettes, there is nothing ambiguous about the fact that every member of the team was asked to ponder over their role in the larger scheme of things - and if anyone objects, it should be to the fact that the coach had to hand this out as an assignment, instead of the 'boys' dwelling on it 24x7 themselves, as they should have been at this juncture of a tour that is going very badly for them.

That the four failed to hand in such an assignment therefore smacks of an abject disregard of their responsibilities towards the team, and an attitude that is dismissive of their captain's/coach's inputs. None of the four are kids, each having spent close to a decade in the much-vaunted Australian sporting setup, and must surely have been indoctrinated on what it means to be part of a team. To excuse poor attitude citing personal excellence in other areas is a mistake that Ponting committed with Symonds - Clarke, at least, has sent out the right message not only to his current team-mates, but also to any other hopeful waiting for a chance at national duty.

Maybe I am imagining it, but the Australian players have shown much more application, put a heavier price on their wicket, for the first time in the series - despite Clarke's stumping off the first ball he faced. Perhaps that rush of blood itself was occasioned by the brickbats he was receiving from myopic former players who did not realize that they had always been kept in line off the glare of the media. People like Damien Martyn, who remains in my memory for claiming a bump-catch off Dravid and then arguing with Venkatraghavan (and going off scot-free in the days before BCCI started 'to flex its muscles') and Warne, whose uncertain (in)discipline was definitely one of the reasons he'd never asked to take the toss for the Green Caps, are not really the best advocates for knowing what's best for the team in the long run. Barring his one magical season during the inaugural IPL, Warne's never really been able to prove that his management style rocks. Clarke may still have to bat again in Mohali, and it will be easier for him to play knowing that he has nothing to answer for.

Clarke aside, it is an encouraging sign that there are finally other players putting up their hands to be counted. Cowan, Starc and Smith have helped Australia claim some legitimacy from this test and at lease ensure that India will have to approach Day 4 as an ODI to force a result in the rain-curtailed third test. To extend the popular joke these days, these three must have definitely done their 'homework.'

It's also an interesting question from a management's perspective - does the punishment fit the crime? In these days of zero-tolerance corporates and a looming/existing/emerging recession, one would be accurate in supposing that similar conduct in a professional organization would see you bouncing on your backside on the street faster than Clarke's latest innings (for posterity's sake, recording it here - st Dhoni b Jadeja 0(1) - third test @ Mohali) - and no one would have blinked. If this had happened in Australia, Glenn Maxwell might have at least escaped the ignominy of being the only member dropped, and that too when you had Phil Hughes (67 balls, 2 runs, 5 dismissals) as one of the chosen 11 - at least Clarke could have called on further resources from the Sheffield games, or at the very least, persuaded Punter Ponting for one more hurrah.

Which brings us back to the question - what's next for Clarke? As a batsman, he has nothing to prove; as a captain, however, he needs to prove a point. Not to the media, or to the rest of his country, but to the four 'boys' who have been sent a message. That they need the team more than the team needs them.

Captaincy... 'oppa Dhoni style!

One of my favorite scenes in the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' series is when Capt. Norrington's aide remarks to him, "That has to be the worst pirate I've ever seen." (for those of you who want to see it again - the Youtube clip) - a few minutes before he utters, equally automatically, "that has to be best pirate I've ever seen!"

Watching Captain MS Dhoni, on and off the field, evokes similar reactions. The man's decisions seems maddeningly counter-intuitive, making you go - why oh why oh why - until, sometime later, he somehow manages to just pull it off. A lot of examples abound of his successes and his failures, but when you hit a good streak, it's the former that people remember more easily (and the reverse holds true, as well!)

Case in point: Shikhar Dhawan's scintillating debut today (185* off 168 balls)

Why am I giving credit to Dhoni for selecting Dhawan when he was practically forced to do, given Sehwag's consistent struggle in the past few months?

Call me an optimist, but the way the newcomers - and the come-back'ers - have performed with an intensity and a hunger is a reflection of the leadership that they are operating under. It is indeed a struggle for any up-and-coming cricketer to break into the Indian team - just as it would be for any Tom, Dick and Harry to get into a world-class company - despite being the smartest fish in a smaller pond. At the same time, it is not unheard of for someone to be put on the fast-track on the basis of a couple of tearaway performances - nor unusual for that shining star to turn into a shooting star that fades away just as you catch sight of it. Too much, too soon...

Yet, when one is rewarded for perseverance over (just a few) performances, there is a hunger that makes you clutch each opportunity in a vise-like grip, not willing to slack off or even take the slightest chance of losing it all. Dhawan's innings - or Pujara's or Vijay's, from Hyderabad, or Harbhajan Singh's desperate dive to save a number-10 batsman's boundary even with a lead of 135+ runs - has been characterized by that hunger, of realizing that each and every aspect of their commitment was precious. Of remembering the promises (uttered and implied) that they would have made to their captain.

What has the captain offered in return?

If one goes by the usual reports in the media, preference for selection, despite the risk to the team's successes, on grounds of personal relationships.

There is another interpretation (not expressed as stridently, perhaps, as the obvious motive of favoritism) for Dhoni's persisting with out-of-form players - something that he himself has taken pains to drive home to a largely stubborn opinion-community - that players needed to know that they can make mistakes as long as they learn from it, that the cushion of continued faith in one's abilities is better than a sword hanging over your head if you want to bring out the best in someone. Kudos to the selectors and the rest of the management for falling in with this philosophy, a rare marriage of mixing ground realities with the responsibilities of ensuring a team's future. Thus, a battered Ashwin has fought back in this series. An almost-written-off Jadeja has rediscovered his mojo.

In a corporate world, we leave this too often to the immediate manager's responsibility - as if motivating an employee to go that extra step, to take that extra leap, is not the responsibility of anyone else within the organization. True, employees leave managers, not companies - but that does not absolve each and every cog of the leadership chain from having to feel responsible for the morale of their employees. 

A friend of mine recently complained that his company was finding it difficult to service even the most basic commitments to its customers and its employees - yet, when he put in his papers, he was wined and dined by the CEO at a posh hotel in Bangalore, a call was put through to his manager to clear every single bill of his and he was offered a raise on the spot. On the face of it, one would call it smart people management from the CEO to keep from losing one of his top revenue generators. Yet, peeling the surface, you realize that these promises, toothless and perhaps insincere out of the CEO's inability to hold to them, were nothing more than a cosmetic adherence to a common management philosophy that believes in muting the symptoms, not curing them.

For a company to transform from a transactional existence to a truly great place to work in, there has to be a sensitization that each and every person who impacts the internal stakeholders is as critical to the success as the ones who face the external stakeholders. A checker in the finance team has to do his work as diligently as the sales rep whose bills he is auditing. The guy in the warehouse has to realize that there is a downside to sending the wrong components, even if it means that his dispatch metrics are less than optimal. 

And that is where the sub-captains step in. To ensure that in the midst of carrying on his/her division's goals, you do not lose track of the big picture that you are painting. 

And that is where the management - mid-, top-, bottom-, whatchamacallit-levels - need to ensure that the silos dissolve and that you do not create an unhealthily competitive atmosphere between people who have to be in synergy. In a lot of sales-driven companies, the traditional style of checks-and-balances has been to let the individual divisions fight it out. (Marketing vs sales, sales vs service, service vs branding, branding vs finance, etc) - that needs to change. When you spend millions of dollars on setting up a unified IT architecture, and yet fail to see the significance of gelling your divisions together in mind more than silicon, it makes you one of the worst captains ever. If you prefer internal competitiveness to competing efficiently against your competitors, you've already lost the market before you've set foot in it. That's the shortest route to mediocrity, to the footnotes of history as a company that just could not hack it.

On the other hand, if you truly believe in employee motivation, stop wasting time on trying to motivate them with empty pep-talks and outsourced mind-altering (or -numbing, depending on the outcome) seminars. It might soothe the corporate conscience and give you the chance to chuck out a few "he's just not a team player, doesn't have the right attitude" types, but you've still not understood what is pricking your employees. And understanding that is the first step to being a great place to work in.

Internal competitiveness, like stomach acid, can be corrosive if that is what the organizational culture degenerates to. So can a Stalinistic attitude to mistakes. If you've hired an employee believing in his/her potential, then you have an obligation to realize that potential - and make them feel more comfortable than if they had jumped into the midst of malnourished sharks - as a mark of respect to the time and effort that has gone into that recruitment. 

Take a leaf out of Dhoni's book. Make your employees hunger for your success. And then make sure they know they have your faith in getting it.