The Rhetoric Of Inequality

It’s poverty and lack of opportunity that we need to obsess about more

Inequality has again been in the news. Thomas Piketty was in India and he spoke eloquently about inequality in the world. The French economist’s answer is a progressive global tax on the ultra-rich.

Then came a report on the growing compensation gap in Indian companies, and it set off the usual outrage over `vulgar CEO salaries’. TV channels went berserk over the lifestyle of Vijay Mallya, a big debtor to our perilous banks. And far away in America, Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the presidency is in trouble partially because of the rhetoric of inequality .

Our desire for equality is a natural human impulse, but we ought to resist the temptation to react in a knee-jerk manner. At India’s stage of development, we should focus on creating opportunities and reducing extreme poverty and not obsess over inequality .

I have always believed that it is none of my business how much the Ambanis earn as long as they create lots of jobs, pay their taxes and produce wealth for society . The aam admi cares mostly about how he is faring; he sometimes compares himself to his friends but never to the filthy rich.

Judging the lifestyle of others tempts one to want to control other things, and this is a short step to becoming a command society . Not to live ostentatiously is a call of dharma, not a legal duty .

India elected Narendra Modi in 2014 because he changed the rhetoric of the country from inequality to opportunity .Sick and tired of the politics of give-aways, the Indian voter was charmed by Modi’s fresh appeal to the aspirational impulse within us. He promised real jobs ­ rather than bogus, NREGA `make-work jobs’.

Unfortunately , the economy remains in the doldrums and he has not delivered on this promise. And so, the approaching budget should pre-eminently address job creation and this is how we should evaluate it.

The government can create jobs by investing in infrastructure, and the big question is whether finance minister Arun Jaitley should invest massively in infrastructure at the expense of breaking his promise to meet a fiscal deficit target. Since India has recently lost its reputation for reliability, i would vote for keeping his promise.

Instead, he should raise funds for infrastructure by an equally massive sale of shares held by the government in private companies (SUUTI) and its own public sector companies. The shockingly unhealthy public sector banks should be the first candidates for disinvestment.

Opportunity also comes from having a good start in life. If absolute equality is an unrealistic goal ­ the human ego will not shrink that far ­ equality of opportunity is achievable through education and health care.

Clearly, India needs to invest more in health and pay greater attention to improving the quality of student outcomes in education. The state does not have to run schools and hospitals but it needs to provide for them. We should assess the coming budget on this criterion as well.

Many of us are revolted by the vast differences in life prospects of our citizens. We are even uneasy about nature’s unfairness ­ why should a handsomer face earn more in the job and marriage markets rather than a person who works hard or contributes more to society? We are offended by the hierarchical mind-set at the workplace: `What is right is what the boss wants.’ Or in politics: `Touch my feet, my son, and I will protect you.’ Rohith Vemula’s suicide resonated across the country because his university failed to deliver what he deserved.We may not be able to correct all the unfairnesses of nature and society , but we can make a difference if we keep the doors open to upward mobility ­ for people to rise above their lot by giving them opportunities.

We accept inequalities if we believe them to be fair. If the average person is rising, he or she will not mind if inequality is growing. A well ordered society designs institutions in such a way that advantages of the affluent are perceived to be a reward for improving the situation of the worst off; then people will not regard inequality as being unjust.

If the lowest worker in a company thinks that he will gain because the CEO is performing brilliantly , he will not resent him earning hundred times more. The American thinker, John Rawls, elaborated this idea elegantly in his famous book, The Theory of Justice.

The past month’s carping over inequality had a déjà vu feeling of our pre-1991 days. We seemed to be debating what was settled long ago ­ you don’t make the poor rich by making the rich poor. The idea of a world in which there is equality of result is not only unattainable but it is dangerous, as we know from Soviet Russia and Mao’s China. Certainly our path of democratic capitalism leaves much to be desired.

Yes, inequality has become a problem in the developed West, where jobs have been lost and the middle class hollowed.But in India we should not mind if a few become filthy rich, increase society’s wealth, and help raise our economy’s investible surplus. We should keep fighting for equality of opportunity and do everything we can to create jobs, improve our schools and provide everyone access to good health.

Taken From : The Times of India, Jaipur
Dated : February 24, 2016
Written By : Gurcharan Das
The writer is an author and former CEO, Procter & Gamble India

We Are All Anti-Nationals

The equation D+M>H explains Indian politics, but D+M+H is a better combo

Whoa, what’s happening? It used to be BJP versus the rest.Then the tolerant fought pitched battles with the intolerant. How did it become nationalists versus anti-nationals now?
A couple of kids protested at JNU. No big deal there, as JNU probably has more protests than classroom lectures.However, this article is not a judgment on JNU ­ though it is about time that university began to behave like one.

This article aims to examine why there is so much labelling of people as “anti-India“ or “anti-national“ going round. From award wapsi to the JNU protests, someone is always being asked to go to Pakistan. In asking why , this article will not take sides. When both sides behave stupidly , it is just best to watch.

So, what is going on? Essentially , Indian politics is governed by the equation: D+M>H.

Sorry to be nerdy , but let me explain.D refers to Dalits, or rather all lower caste voters (including SCs STs BCs OBCs). You can even call it the Downtrodden vote. M refers to the Muslim vote. Again, if you prefer political correctness, you can call it the Minority vote. H refers to the upper caste Hindu vote. The greater than sign means that the Downtrodden plus Minority vote is always greater than the upper caste Hindu vote.

D is roughly at 40%, M is 20% and H is 40%. Of course, those numbers are vastly oversimplified. But they help understand the political dynamic in the country today .

The equation means that under normal circumstances, BJP can almost never be in power. It isn’t surprising that out of nearly 70 years since Independence, BJP has been in power for less than seven.

The only way BJP can be in power is when one or more of the following happen. One, the D+M vote gets divided due to multiple parties competing for the same vote. Two, D and M separate from each other in a particular election.Three, BJP projects a charismatic candidate who woos some of the D and even a few M votes to the H side.

In the 2014 Lok Sabha election all of this happened, propelling Modi to victory . In the recent Bihar election, parties opposing the BJP ensured D+M did not split, and they won. In Delhi in 2015, AAP not only took the D+M vote but also managed to slice out a fair chunk of H.

Why does D+M vote in constant opposition to H? Well, D and M both feel persecuted by upper class Hindus, who they feel have denied them opportunity .D+M is such a sizeable chunk of the vote that many political parties woo them.They feed the victimisation theory to do so.

The eventual solution for uplifting D and M lies in their focussing on educating and modernising themselves.Since that is too difficult, the political parties representing them often stick to agendas of attacking the H, and H’s aspirations.

Congress has always enjoyed the D and M vote. SP, BSP, TMC, RJD and JD(U) are other parties who seek this vote.Even AAP realises the value of this vote, hence its constant attacks on Modi.

Meanwhile, the H vote sees things differently. It doesn’t feel like a victim, hence there is no inherent need for retribution. In fact H can even dream of a better India. It aspires to a nation that is prosperous, free and respected in the world. Since D+M wants to annoy H, it often enjoys seeing H aspirations being punctured.

This is where the “anti-national“ narrative is born. H wonders why can’t D+M, already appeased and given reservations, move along and share its aspirations? Aren’t they anti-national in not dreaming big like itself ?
Meanwhile D+M thinks, how dare H dream big while we are suffering? India owes us first. How dare H impose its aspirations on us?
This fundamental tussle is what generates our daily politics. Sadly , it also allows true anti-nationals to divide us. A terrorist group infiltrates and attacks India. D+M vote seeking parties do not condemn it enough, fearing to upset the M vote. Similarly , a fringe H group makes an outrageous Hindutva statement. BJP doesn’t condemn it enough, so as not to antagonise the H vote.

In this constant D-M-H conflict there is one casualty ­ India. But the equation doesn’t have to be this way . D+M+H is a better combo, and it can decide who to vote for based on real issues rather than merely settle scores.

The politicians like this divide. It allows them to be relevant just by feeding the conflict, rather than focussing on real work. And we citizens can’t seem to get past it either. But if we don’t all come together as a nation, aren’t we all anti-nationals?
D has to integrate and engage with H, and come up with a better plan than perennial reservations ­ which only maintains the divide. M has to realise India comes first, religion later. H has to stop imposing its culture and views on others as not everyone thinks the same way as them.

We need to come together, listen to all sides and fix our differences. There is no D, M or H. All of us need only I, which stands for India. And that is when we no longer deserve the “anti-national“ label.

Taken From : The Times of India, Jaipur
Dated : Febrauary 20, 2016
Written By : Chetan Bhagat
The author is a Fiction Writer.