Appeal to the Indian Prime Minister

You have served the country to the best of the abilities and I believe with its best interest at heart. Now that you know that something that you worked very hard for and know is in India's best interest, is being killed by ignorance, malice and incompetence. You also know that the same chance may never come again to allow gaining fuel, technology and strategic ties with those who matter.
Then is it worth to be remembered by posterity as someone who oversaw and tolerated the murder of a one in many lifetimes chance? Resign and retire gracefully. Let those who snatched defeat from jaws of victory to quote a cliche be the ones burdened by it in history.
After all national interest cannot be smaller than short term political interest, or is it?

Moments taken in

Buckling steel, sparks flying inches away from your face, countours of the road, maniac screaches of brake on wheels, the snap of muscles, rebounds of helmet off the road, horror on the face of the lady on sidewalk, dazzling circles of traffic lights.
Moments away from death, you feel so alive.

Getting books to pupil

Recently watched a debate on CNN-IBN about effectiveness of government programs on the state of social sector in India. In the midst of all the usual politicians calling for caste based quotas in private sector, Industry complaining about governmental restrictions, government quoting %age increases in budget as proof of progress came something that I think is one step that can actually help
Sunil Mittal of Bharti was mentioning that his firm is opening 200000 schools across India in mostly villages. While our SUV riding poor politicians might claim otherwise the fact is that most of the caste related distinctions are real issues in villages where group have to fight for meager resources. What can lift people out of the misery called villages is good educations and as survey after surveys indicate, government schools are simply not delivering.
If private firms can ensure that they have quality schools at village levels we can see that in another 10 years a lot more trained talent is available to industry. Agriculture simply cannot provide living to 60% of our billion strong population so this is an urgent demand of times. What can put a spanner is if government insists on quotas in teacher recruitments. If the argument of quota demanding segment is correct that the lower castes are not getting education because of bias or whatever we evidently cannot have enough trained teachers from the disadvantaged sections (if we don't have students from those sections how will we have teachers? ).
So if we don't get so shortsighted to put such spanners I can see maybe a million schools opening that provide quality education where the real disadvantaged sections of population lives and is denied opportunities. Modern education will not only provide job skills but can transform attitudes. I suggest the government gives incentives to industry to set up such schools. Something like if you spend 5% of your income to setup and operate schools you can deduct 5% from your taxes. Since the government will have to spend money on schools anyway and money comes from taxes, such an arrangement will not lead to any net revenue loss in long term. However what will happen is that instead of government directly running schools where as per an earlier PM's own admission only a meager portion of actual spend reaches the intended poor, the private sector can be held to a lot more stringent criteria.
Let their be a committee of educationists/NGOs/private sector participants who can evaluate the schools as some sort of a board. Only those schools which pass a certain level of quality accredition can claim tax exemption. Industry will have a stake in ensuring that the output of schools is good because we do have a severe talent crunch. The courses can be more vocational which should work for a large majority of rural families.
Its only by such direct action that we can achieve our potential. Let the work begin.

Murdering Mahatma?

I wanted the sesquicentennial post to be some light/frothy piece but alas no inspiration. Meanwhile the theme of increasing violence as a social phenomena has been making rounds to TV too. CNN IBN recently did a feature called "Murdering Mahatma". Since its the month of Mahatma Gandhi's birthday, I thought it appropriate to blog on the same.
First I think the program got it wrong. While Gandhian nonviolence credo I think refers more to non violence as a political tool i.e. the political approach should be non-violent and I do not think its really that much on the crime side which is what the program focussed on. Sure there should not be any crime and Mahatma emphasized on virtuous living. But surely a rape victim taking a knife and attacking the rapist in the act cannot be termed as Murdering the Mahatma which I thought the program argued!
So is non-violence really a philosophy when faced with a violent crime? Sure, when British army fired on peaceful assembly in a stadium (after sealing on exit routes) as far as I know, no one really turned and attacked the soldiers. Its a crime but again the soldiers were really following orders howsoever wrong. I think its again political violence countered with non-violence. But should I follow the same philosophy if a gang of dacoits enter my house, brandishing weapons with intent to hurt. If I have a loaded gun in hand and decide to use it, is it really murdering Mahatma?
While there might not be easy answers, I believe non violence is not about not offering violent resistance in face of hostile bodily harm. It is about not making violence a tool to achieve political or personal goals. And to a large extent Indians have followed the logic. Many of our protests while not being completely free from violence by and large do not make violence the center piece of policy.
What then explains the rise of violence which I paradoxically agree to in the beginning paragraph? I again come back to the theory of a failing state. The program interviews people who said that if they catch a thief they will beat him up. The reason was in the interview itself. Many said they will resort to violence because the culprit will not be otherwise punished. And its a very valid fear. As an ex Supreme court chief justice said once - justice late is justice denied. We had this case where an IAS official was killed by a mob supposedly incited by the sitting MP of the area. The court recently pronounced death verdict on the MP for the crime. And it came after 13 years of the act. 13 years when life imprisonment in India is of 14 years duration! When such a high profile, widely covered in media case takes 13 years to settle just think of a poor helpless person trying to get justice.
I've heard opinions that sometimes lawyers decided among themselves to drag a case longer since that gets more fees. And its not hard to imagine. So we can easily assume that if its a poor person, justice will not come easily to him or her within the span of a life sentence! Is it wonder that the people will want to settle scores on streets at the moment of crime itself. Combine the delay with so many cases (I covered em in some earlier posts) where the courts have pulled up prosecution agencies for botched probes - often deliberately botched posts and its even easier to assume that justice may not always come and when it comes its usually very late.
For me, the fundamental reason for a state to exist is that it provides guarantee of life and liberty. So if the same is not being made available to all, then is state really relevant? If not then why should i play by its rules? That I think is what is prompting so many cases of public taking law into its own hands. Its a telling point that most of such cases occur in places where its generally acknowledged that the state has not done well to keep its promises of crime control and safe life.
What then is the solution? One which come to my mind is to set up more courts. But merely setting courts will not help if the mechanism to administer justice is not improved and is perceived to have improved. And a key to improving the trust is to restore confidence in authorities. It doesnt help when sitting or ex MPs and sometimes cabinet ministers are convicted by courts for extremely serious crimes. Therefore I suggest we have special fast track courts specifically setup to handle cases against senior government official and all elected/nominated members of various legislative bodies. There should also be a separate investigative and prosecuting agency not under direct control of executive but maybe under a parliamentary committee along with maybe some public citizens (a judge/bar council/press council/ etc). Make it mandatory to wrap up a case within 6 months. All cases against such people and found to be prima facie admissible by a magistrate be mandatory referred to these.
All it proceedings should be in public domain and not hidden behind officials secrecy acts.
Once the custodians of public trusts are swiftly punished for any shortcomings public confidence will trickle back.
Next step, reform of criminal justice system for all. Only once the justice becomes really impartial and very swift will the state again become relevant. Only once that happens will public stop acting its own judge, jury and executioner.