A lesson in democracy

The 2008 US presidential campaign is a lesson in democracy. It showcased the best and the worst that can be seen in a democracy. The Republicans went full out with their attempts at fear mongering, identity politics, and divisiveness. On the other hand, Obama’s team concentrated on engaging the public, and enlisted their help by laying the best political groundwork the country’s ever seen. Obama’s victory meant that the better side of their democracy triumphed. As a result, not only can the country breathe in peace knowing that their leader has their best interests at heart but also they are assured that someone extremely competent is at the helm.

I have been wondering for a long time now (ever since I began to learn about Obama) whether such a thing (or person) is possible in India. In Obama’s victory speech, the line that struck me most was “This victory alone is not the change we seek — it is only the chance for us to make that change.” Contrast this to the Indian case, where winning elections is the only goal. Where gaining public office represents the opportunity to enrich bank accounts. Where vote banks and not issues take precedence, in policy making, in governance, and in pretty much every aspect of public work.

Comparisons have already begun in India. MJ Akbar (who I can only assume is a well-respected and experienced journalist, judging by his Wikipedia profile) wrote an article entitled “Two of a kind: Shades of Maya in Obama’s rise” in the Times of India. Ignoring the title’s implication that Obama learned tricks of the trade from Mayawati, I read through the article out of curiosity—perhaps I had underestimated Mayawati. The author’s first point of contention was that both Mayawati and Obama transcended their communities and reached out to others: “Her future…will depend on how sustainable her alliance with others is. Muslims will be the hinge to her future.” (Emphasis added.) Except Obama didn’t go through it like that, he didn’t say “Ok, got the blacks in the bag, now let’s move on to the Hispanics, and then let’s see if we can ally with the women.” Instead, he stuck to a message of bringing about change, laid out specific goals, and offered a plan. Those who liked the message and the plans voted for him.

The author’s second argument was that Mayawati, like Obama, got her money from the masses and not from rich businessmen or special interest groups. This may be true, and good for her if she did. The point I had issue with was: “Mayawati of course has exploited power to add to her stash, but in this she is no more culpable than any other Indian politician. You cannot hold her to different standards just because she is a Dalit.” Excuse me? Does the author mean to say that the public doesn’t mind politicians embezzling funds as long as they’re from the right caste? Flabbergasting, is what this argument is. This is the kind of rationalization that made the political machinery in India what it is.

However, as tempting as it is to blame the politicians and babus and others for the state of our democracy, it is we the electorate who are the most to blame. This is where my admiration of the American electorate rises above everything else. Sure, they elected an incompetent for president (Bush) and voted a visibly corrupt administration (Cheney and gang) for a second time. And yes, they did allow divisive issues to rule for 8 years and voted against their own interests. But they realized their mistake. They weren’t fooled this time. The McCain campaign had plenty of ammo. Obama is, after all, a black man—there’s no denying the racism that is rampant in many parts of that country. Sarah Palin, intellectually vacuous as she is, is the very picture of small-town American middle class. But not enough people bought it. They chose to send the message that they weren’t happy with what their government was doing.

Obama has shown the true meaning of patriotism. It is a love of your country and a belief in the inherent goodness of your countrymen. It is a desire to give a little of your time and effort into making your nation a better place. In a democracy, politics can apply to the basest feelings of its citizens. Or it can appeal to the goodwill of its citizens and enlist them to participate in the democracy and invest themselves in the country’s well-being. India has proved that it can do this. When fighting for independence, the country came together in a way it hadn’t before and hasn’t since.

The world has indeed learned a lot from the US presidential campaign: electioneering techniques, how to garner votes, how to create a message. Hopefully, it has also learned what the power of the people can look like and what an uplifting feeling it can give ordinary citizens when they know that their voice is heard.

Email This Article

15 Comments

My Very Own Political Party

I feel left out—there is no ideological, sectarian, or factional group that I can sympathize with. This is especially sad because India offers such a rich array of choices when it comes to choosing a side, but none inspire me.

Not being a religious zealot (as in more spiritual than religious type), I’m not motivated by the Hindu-Muslim divide. In the same vein, I see nothing wrong with tribal folk converting to Christianity after being “bribed with food and healthcare.” So whether it’s Hindu men raping nuns or Muslim extremists bombing the hell out of everybody, I want them all to burn in hell.

I don’t live in a border state, so the border conflicts bore me. In fact, given India’s growth and Pakistan’s descent into near anarchy and bankruptcy, if Kashmiris still want to be a part of Pakistan, then all the power to them. Enjoy!

I’m not a Marathi Manoos, nor a UPite or Bihari. So I can’t even immerse myself in the current rage. Being India’s financial capital and with all the foreigners and all, I always thought English would be the most useful language to know for Mumbaikers. In any case, the whole thing is a blatant, in-your-face political ploy. And if thugs are to rule the city, what does it matter which group they belong to? Thugs will be thugs.

I can’t even fall back on the age-old traditional divide that consumes most Indians to this day, my caste. My mom has a fuzzy idea that we’re kayasts (spelling guesstimated), though she has no clue where that puts us, except that it won’t qualify me for any reservations. Anyway, my parents are more concerned about whether my (future) husband will be able to cope with my temper tantrums than about matching horoscopes (or however they compare castes), so the question is kinda moot.

But I have found a cause! I don’t know why I didn’t see it before, it’s something that has bothered me for ages, ever since I stopped growing vertically. At a mere 5 foot 1, I belong to the group known as “short people.” And living, as it were, in a world full of tall people, I have been oppressed and disadvantaged to no end. As a child, I dreamed of being a model or airline pilot. But short people are virtually banned from these professions—a socioeconomic issue close to my heart. Whether I’m at a movie theater, church, or temple, there’s always some tall guy (or girl) blocking my view. This is blatantly unfair. They should have some kind of reservation or something that’ll allow short people to always get the best seats or stand at the front of the pack. Short people are discriminated against: the mindset is that being tall means being beautiful; well, I say only short people are beautiful. And unlike my taller counterparts, who get to wear those wonderfully comfortable-looking flat shoes, I have had to wear shoes with high heels my whole life just to be on par, causing me no end of physical agony.

So this is a call to arms to all you short people out there in the world. Our time has come! I propose to form a political party for the short-females under 5 foot 3 and males under 5 foot 6 are welcome. We will beat the shit out of those not like us and who do not immediately fall to their feet in front of us so that they are no longer taller, to show thier respect for our shortness. Our long-term goal will be to carve out our very own state, “Shortistaan”.

Email This Article

9 Comments

Security in the Hands of Headless Chickens?

There was an interesting debate being shown on TV today. Karan Thapar was holding a discussion with three (presumably) constitutional scholars/lawyers on whether the central government has the right to interfere in the states’ law and order duties when it comes to terrorism. Their argument revolved around the fact that the constitution places the right to control matters related to law and order within the purview of individual states.

Two things struck me about this debate. First, the debate was labeled ‘Does India needs tougher anti-terror laws?’. There is no doubt that anti-terror laws may help police forces, anti-terrorist teams, and intelligence agencies gather useful information. However, to me, this seemed to be jumping the gun just a bit. Because the first thing that occurred to me was where the hell are our police forces, anti-terrorist teams, and intelligence agencies? Some of them are doing good work to keep us safe, and I appreciate that very much. But for the most part, (a) the police is too busy making money through bribes to spend time on much else (according to a study by Transparency International India, the police is the most corrupt public service in India, and that’s saying a lot! And there’s no guarantee that they refuse take bribes from terrorists or terrorist-helpers), (b) it needs to be verified whether there really is an effective, coordinated and generally on-top-of-things anti-terror team apart from those shown in fictional hindi movies, and (c) our much touted CBI seems to spends way too much time prosecuting people at the government’s will, so we never really hear what they’ve done on the terror front. In fact, just a couple of days ago, we were regaled with news of how the state and national security teams are not even coordinated enough to get together for a team meeting. So to talk about whether we need tougher anti-terror laws when we don’t even have anyone to make use of them (and make sure they’re not misused) is kinda like trying to hit the bull’s eye on a dartboard without a dart. The fact that bombs are being strewn happily all over the place does not increase my confidence one teensy little bit.

Second, terror has been recognized as a worldwide phenomenon. Countries are forming partnerships to tackle this threat, and some are even speaking at how to strike at the root of terrorism by addressing what breeds extreme Islamism, which requires coordinated efforts by all countries. And we’re still stuck debating on whether this is a national-level or state-level concern? In fact, one panelist in the show was arguing heatedly that the constitution needs to be amended before the center can get involved. Red tape alert! This guy is actually suggesting that a bill be proposed, introduced, haggled over, and voted on (most probably, in several recurring cycles) before the center puts its might and resources behind keeping Indian citizens safe. With intellectuals like these, who needs politicians and enemies? Just the FACT that several dozen bombs have exploded or been found in three different states within the space of a week should be enough to convince anyone that this is an immediate threat that needs all the resources it can get.

Its not just this past week with all the bomb scares that this issue has arisen. Our country has been under near continuous terrorist attacks for the past several years. By now, there should be some viable force in full readiness to immediately tackle the recent threats. Instead, we have a bunch of headless chickens running around blaming everyone but themselves for this mess. All I know is that given the current circumstances, the last thing if I get is a feeling of protection from our government.

Email This Article

3 Comments

Take a walk on the wild side

Indians are not known for their risk-taking behavior. We are generally thought to be cautious, plodding and safe. But any foreigner (or Indian) has only to look to our streets to see the wild side of the true Indian.

In most other parts of the world, crossing a busy Indian street is considered a brave feat. And so it is. We dodge megaton buses and trucks, leap out of the way of speeding cars, smartly step around uncountable bikes and bicycles, and navigate our way through sundry animals (buffaloes, cows, goats, chickens, dogs, boars, etc…).

While it is a life-threatening exercise for pedestrians and bike riders, car owners have to be made of a different caliber, i.e., the alert marine. They have to constantly keep an eye out for darting children, animals and people, vehicles that suddenly cut across their path, vehicles that suddenly stop dead in front of them, vehicles that come out of invisible side streets, and pretty much any and all movement around them.

Perhaps the most courageous breed of us all is the bike rider. Formula one MotoGP riders could not compete with our fine fellows. A sidewalk? A puddle? A bus? These aren’t even obstacles worthy of their skills. They need at least a foot high road divider to consider it a challenge.

But the Indian is made of stern stuff. These things faze us not at all. Pedestrians don’t need to look both ways before crossing the street. They can easily outrun the vehicle bearing down on them at full speed. And if they don’t, then it’ll be the vehicle’s fault, not theirs. Drivers don’t need to slow down when someone is crossing the street. They can easily outrun the person or animal, they just need to step on the gas. In the mean time, why should that always important phone call go unanswered just because we’re driving a car or crossing the street?

Foreigners coming in from orderly city streets are at first bewildered. Other cities throughout the world are just as populated, and many have even more vehicles on the streets. They don’t know that they have rules, and we don’t. Apart from the recent crackdown on drunk drivers, our one and only law for cars is wearing a seatbelt on streets where going at the speed at which seatbelts are even required is but a fantasy. A license is only required because otherwise the police can charge more moolah. Our roads are so flexible that the right of way is on both sides of the street. Europeans, who occasionally struggle when required to switch between driving on the left-hand side and right-hand side, could learn a thing or two from us. As for traffic lights, they’re for wimps, which is why we don’t see many of them on our brave Indian streets. Stopping at the rare traffic light is just a waste of the extremely busy Indian’s time.

So, the next time you hear someone say that Indians are not aggressive enough or are too safe, please direct their attention to the daily heroic deeds that can be seen on any busy city street. They are truly unparalleled.

Email This Article

2 Comments

Reservation - The Four dimensions of Reality

What is reality? This is a much debated philosophical and psychological topic. We accept it as a fact that reality is really just a perception and that reality is all in our heads. But reality in India, to be rather scientific, occupies whole new dimensions unknown to man, and maybe even to God. Take, for example, our reservation policies.



First dimension of reality in India: We hear from our political leaders that reservations will correct all the ills of our social history. That the caste system, which has denied a good life to so many for so long, needs to be abolished. The downtrodden turn their faces up to these great people, who give them hope that they will get to lead a better life because they have the unprecedented opportunity of getting into university, of getting respectable jobs that take out of the thankless and grueling cleaning and serving that is currently their only means of obtaining a livelihood. They are told that they will now have an equal place in society, next to the great Brahmins and the rich industrialists. And they believe it.

Second dimension of reality : Despite the fact that most people see reservations for what it is, political bribing, these politicians continue getting elected. While most of the people who are actually backward, the ones who need the reservations, hardly even get the chance to get educated enough to sit for an exam or apply for a job, the children of babus, politicians, and rich shopkeepers who go to expensive private schools are the beneficiaries. So, poor Brahmins continue to starve. Rich folks continue to be the primary beneficiaries. Meanwhile, everyone seems to ignore the fact that the government is doing nothing to establish good-quality schools and universities. Consequently, the majority of Indians, regardless of caste, cannot get a decent education.

Third dimension of reality: There is caste segregation wherever there are reservations. At the IITs and IIMs, the students who got through reservations are looked down upon. A doctor who is known to belong to a SC/ST/OBC is immediately viewed with suspicion. The first thing that comes to mind when we see an incompetent person is “must’ve gotten through because of reservations, saala.” So there’s now a growing social stigma around those who get a college seat or job through reservations. The only result is that the caste system is growing stronger, not weaker.

Fourth dimension of reality: We have people actually wanting to become a backward class. Most recently, we saw the Gujjars destroy 50 crores worth of public property to force their way into being listed as a backward class. Being of “a higher class” is seen as a disadvantage. So have Brahmins become the new Dalits, and Dalits become the new Brahmins? This could be considered as a kind of poetic justice, so maybe the reservations have resulted in justice, albeit in a twisted, mind-boggling way.

This is the summary. We have politicians promising to grant everyone equality and abolish the caste system through reservation policies. We have the not-background classes growing more class-conscious, not less, due to reservation policies. We have people who lobby and become violent so that they are regarded as a backward class. Finally, we have everyone completely ignoring the fact there are very few good-quality schools and colleges in India, limiting the number of people who can actually get a decent education in the first place, reservations or no.

Einstein figured out the space-time dimension. We need another such genius to figure out these brand-new dimensions created by our reservation policies. I, for one, have given up. But I continue to hope. Maybe one day, we will all be a backward class. And then India will have equality.

Email This Article

Comment

Probability of Death

Here’s a question I found myself asking today. How is a Mumbaiker more likely to die? By falling off a local train or from cell phone radiation?

These questions stemmed from two very interesting news items in today’s newspaper. The first was that a 29-year-old woman had fallen off a Mumbai local train and died. Now, it is amazing to me that there aren’t riots on the street whenever this happens. Millions of Mumbaikers ride these trains every day, and it could be any one of them next. Sadly though, this has become more or less common incident. Another one bites the dust. According to the Times of India, on average, 8 people die every day on the Mumbai tracks. Eight. Everyday. That makes 20,700 deaths over the last 5 years alone.

I would have thought that every time such an incident occurred, politicians would come out screaming to stop these meaningless deaths. Is it such a very hard proposition? If Mumbai can spare 200 crore for a statue, it should be able to spare a few crores on extra trains (yes, I heard about the large order they placed and the delays. Sigh Excuses, excuses). Surely Raj Thackeray can use some of his passion for Mumbai to make sure people aren’t falling off its trains and dying every day. Or maybe the city could implement laws that would allow only a certain number of people in a compartment at a time (or they could try putting doors on the train…just a suggestion). The delays alone that such a law would create would provide a great impetus for the people to demand a more effective solution.

The other interesting bit of news was that the central government has decided to implement laws to make sure, through a system of self-certification for cell phone companies, that the radiation from cell phones doesn’t kill us. The last time I checked, people weren’t dying every day from using cell phones. In fact, scientists aren’t even sure that they ever will. No doubt cell phones give off radiation, and it bears looking into just how harmful it is. But we Indians, who have grown up in smog-choked, garbage-ridden, diesel fumes-spewing cities, can endure a little radiation I’m sure.

My point here is that with all these pressing problems that daily threaten the well-being and even the lives of so many Indians, where and how does the government find time to deal with the dubious threat of cell phone radiation? This might be a stupid question, but doesn’t the government feel a bit silly?

One conclusion I can draw is that money has a stronger lure than self-respect. The only way I can figure this out is that government officials love enacting laws that have the potential to put money in their pockets. Perhaps they don’t get that large a cut from ordering trains. Though, I do find this kinda hard to believe because while most of the officials are highly ineffective in government, they’re incredibly resourceful, efficient, and creative when it comes to extortion. But there’s probably a lot more cash flow to be gained from cell phone companies that are minting money.

Or perhaps this law was just borne out our government’s love of bureaucracy. It is happily getting ready to set up a myriad of regulations and whatnot to make sure that the cell phone companies “self-certify” themselves appropriately. The most laughable part of the report was the statement from an official: “Exposure beyond a certain level can be a health hazard so we are going to use the precautionary principle.” I would say falling off a train is a pretty big health hazard. I would even say that the precautionary principle would be very wisely used if applied toward preventing people from dying needlessly.

Countries like Europe, Australia, and the US can afford to spend time and resources on deep research on cell phone radiation and how a healthy sex life can prolong life. But India has so much to do. And, for what its worth, though I would love to be protected from the hazards of my cell phone, past experience with the government does not inspire the greatest confidence in me that its law will keep me safe. Phony certifications are a way of life rather than crime in India. Self-certification is a joke.

Finally, we can choose not to use a cell phone often or to use a headpiece. But choice doesn’t play much of a part when you lose your hold and fall off a jam-packed local train.

Email This Article

5 Comments

A Statuesque Conundrum

We Indians set a lot of store by statues. We create them with such loving care and inaugurate them with much fanfare. Yet, after the celebrations are over, for the most part, they’re just objects to navigate around while driving on the road or to pee behind in the park. Have we ever thought about exactly why we fight and die for statues and what exactly would the statued leaders say if they had been alive to see them?

Of any Indian, Gandhi is the most deserving of having millions of statues ennobling him in every nook and corner of the country. Yet, if someone had told Gandhi that a Rs. 100 crore statue would be built in his honor, would he have given a pleased grin and said “Awww, shucks”? Or would he have said “What??? Are you crazy? There are impoverished millions starving every day, unable to buy a full bowl of rice for their young children, and you want to build a friggin’ statue?” He probably would have expressed this more eloquently, but I think I have captured the gist of his reaction. So, by the very act of building a statue of Gandhi, are we not going against everything he taught and fought for? Are we not dishonoring his memory by completely ignoring or disregarding the personal value that Gandhi prized most—modesty?

It is important to build statues to commemorate important leaders. They can be used to represent and illustrate the attributes that the leaders embodied or the ideals that they fought for. But for these representations to remain a rallying point and exemplify such qualities, we must be careful not to overdo ourselves, and thus, dilute their power. Numerous statues gracing the middle of our roads really don’t accomplish much apart from adorning our roundabouts. Instead, a single magnificent museum for Gandhi, where children and adults alike can visit to learn about Gandhi and his leadership, the struggles he endured and how he united the country, a place that passes on his wisdom to future generations and thus keeps alive for time immemorial, would be so much more useful. It could organize workshops on the non-violent movement, conduct research on current affairs from the perspective of satyagraha (which incidentally, is done in the US by Gandhi’s grandson, not in India), educate the future leaders of India. And, for those who cannot survive without their statues, place a nice big one on the front lawn.

Shivaji was a great ruler who fought for the freedom of his empire. He refused to allow his subjects to be dominated by external political forces that would not care for the welfare of his people. He was religiously tolerant and known for his fair treatment toward women. He was a sharp leader who employed intelligent tactics. He always showed respect toward and protected the places and worship of all religions, and by extension, the people themselves. Unfortunately, the very people who worship him blindly appear to have no clue what they worship him for. Otherwise, the Mumbai riots may never have happened in a state in which he is regarded with such awe and respect. In fact, according to Wikipedia, he himself did not spend any resources for self-aggrandizement—“His legacy was heroism, selflessness, freedom, independence, brotherhood and unwavering courage.” Therefore, again, it would appear that building a great big statue without following the values that he held dear would go against his own personal wishes.

In short, there are so many ways to commemorate our great leaders and keep the memories of them and their battles alive, as they should be. But mere statues are so inadequate for this purpose. There are many people in this world who love building or having others build statues of themselves. A very prominent figure of this kind is Saddam Hussein. His 40-foot statue towering in the center of Baghdad was a testament to his own vanity. The greatest leaders of the world (of which Hussein is NOT one), the ones who were the most respected, left legacies that must be kept alive. Building an infinite number of statues cannot do this. In fact, it appears as though those most worthy of our veneration would have shunned these idle displays that serve to aggrandize them rather than accomplish anything useful. Imagine if time travel had been invented and Gandhi took a little trip to the present for a stroll through the park. He probably would’ve blinked in confusion at his likenesses in stone and muttered to himself, “Don’t they remember anything about me?”

I leave you with this conundrum. Statues are built to honor great leaders. Yet, those leaders worthy of noble and glorious statues would be the most outraged at having them built. Thus, by continuing to build them, aren’t we in fact dishonoring their memories?

Email This Article

3 Comments

The Petroleum Freak Show

While it grants a temporary relief to the government’s and oil companies’ treasure chests, it is only the beginning of a long road of suffering for the aam admi. But I get ahead of myself. For those with a passion for details and expert opinion, there are numerous blogs and articles scattered throughout the Web from where the below facts have been gathered. I merely offer a very brief summary, in laymen’s terms, of the government’s current failed policies (like simultaneously taxing and subsidizing oil companies—huh?) and how they affect the common man.

· By keeping fuel prices artificially low, the government is failing to prepare India for the future. First, it does nothing toward decreasing the demand for a rapidly diminishing fuel source that the entire world is scrambling for. Second, the common man would benefit much more from the creation of cleaner and more sustainable sources of energy that will support the economy for a longer period of time, like wind energy and investment in research for alternative energy sources. Surely, India has not shortage of these resources—it is abundant in deserts and oceans and brilliant minds. In short, these low prices quietly absolve the government from having to seek alternative sources of energy or come up with a viable plan for our long-term energy needs.

· The people who really need fuel subsidies don’t get it. Subsidies for kerosene, this being the poor man’s fuel, could still be justified if so much of it wasn’t stolen and sold in the black market or misused for adulterating petrol and diesel. On the other hand, as much as 75% of LGP subsidies go to the richer sections of urban dwellers. Moreover, the poorest of the poor are still stuck with having to make cakes out of cow shit or cut down precious trees for its energy needs, or in many extreme cases, not use energy at all and starve in medieval-like darkness.

· Pushing subsidies that are in any case so inefficiently utilized creates a moral dilemma. This is especially true when the oil cess is considered. There are so few taxpayers in India, and what’s more, the average middle-class taxpayer is usually the last beneficiary, if at all, of the taxes he/she pays. For example, not owning a car myself, I resent the fact that a fraction of my salary will be garnished to pay for someone else’s comfortable air-conditioned ride through the city while I bump along in a sweltering bus or auto.

· The losses incurred by fuel-supplying companies will ultimately harm the economy. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not one of those fervent capitalists who think obscene profits for private corporations are the only way to create a happy and wholesome economy. However, losses by such companies result in three evils. First, with such huge losses, they are more vulnerable to calls for the privatization of oil companies. Since private oil companies, by principle, cannot be burdened with social obligations by the government, they would feel no compunction in halting their operations in the remoter regions, where the cost of transporting oil reduces profitability. Second, it leads pump owners to adulterate their supplies with cheaper alternatives like kerosene and naptha. Third, cash-strapped companies cannot buy inventory. This recently led to a barely-averted disaster in Maharashtra, where the plan to ration fuel was scrapped on account of the panic it threatened to create.

· Currently, as much as 2% of the GDP is being utilized for subsidizing fuel, which could be better invested in for creating infrastructure for education, transportation and agriculture. The primary argument of the government for the subsidies—higher fuel prices leads to higher commodity prices—completely ignores the fact that we need more sustainable solutions for the economy such as a social security net and equal opportunities (no, I don’t mean the pandering educational quotas). Yes, we Indians have resignedly accepted the short-sighted and narrow focus (getting elected) of the government (irrespective of party) in every aspect of its policy-making. But this does not mean that it should be allowed to continue.

There are no easy solutions to the oncoming fuel crisis. The entire world is reeling under it. It has caused wars, discontent among the masses, worries about the future generations, and on and on and on. Many solutions have been proposed and even adopted by the developed countries. Many of the solutions may be painful, but this ain’t no Utopia. With regard to India, the government, whosoever is in charge, will have to give serious thought to implementing effective solutions. Investment in creating alternative forms of energy and decreasing consumption should be priority number one for everyone. However, we also require short-term solutions to tide us over until we create a sustainable energy infrastructure. For instance, they could reinstate and enhance the administered price mechanism (APM) for petroleum, by which certain products like kerosene (used by poorer people) were subsidized by petroleum products (used by richer people). This could be enlarged to encompass diesel and CNG in an efficient manner, so that commodity prices can be stabilized and inflation controlled. They could create a proportionate yearly fuel tax for those who own less energy-efficient cars, which will create demand for hybrids as well as penalize those who use the most fuel. In the same vein, they could provide incentives for companies to manufacture and consumers to buy more energy-efficient products.

But most of all, as is true in every aspect of the Indian bureaucracy, we need to curb corruption and political opportunism. Even the gas-guzzling U.S. has proved its maturity by rejecting the political stunt of establishing a summer gas tax holiday. Given the above facts, it is amazing that in India, the opposition parties can so loudly and stupidly make claims that fly in the face of deductive economic reasoning. But then, these parties stand to gain because the present government, despite its very best efforts, was finally forced to take a decision that doesn’t benefit it politically. Our political process being a zero-sum game, parties like the BJP will of course take full advantage of the hikes, with cries like “economic terror” and other such fallacious slogans (This is discounting those like the Communist parties and RJD, whose competitive advantage lies in being as disruptive and backward as possible). Instead of rallying around and discussing what our next steps should be, they create as much ruckus as possible for the sole benefit of their fate in the upcoming elections. Meanwhile, we will just have t
o wait until someone who really cares for the common man comes along and takes our energy needs in hand and until the common man starts to care enough to take to the streets themselves.

Email This Article

2 Comments