|
A response to a comment on the Freedom Team and the book (February 2008)
I am responding below to a comment I received recently re: the Freedom Team effort and my book. I am making this response public after having obtained permission from the commentator.
The comment I have received Assuming it is on the lines of "Improving the Indian Scene" in all aspects, these are my frank thoughts:
1. Gurucharandas is a good writer and I read his column on internet - Times News. Shashi Tharoor has also written on this subject-recently one on the "Paradox in India" and done justice (Dec 07).
2. We have many eminent personalities esp. Dr. A.P.J.Kalaam working on this project, all in different ways. I sincerely believe they are doing a great job.
3. Personally I feel an NRIs' observations and comments and a flood of books really do not help.
Also views get slanted when Indians leave "Bharat-varsha" and the term NRI is usually seen as non-returning Indian.
We have a global net work of batchmates and Community people who are NRIs do ack that NRIs do contribute financially and it is significant & helps in many Projects. However it still needs a Man on the spot.
I much prefer the simple unseen "helping hand" of so many ordinary people in towns & rural sectors doing their extra-ordinary best and remaining silent and unsung. Please read "The Third Power"- by Acharya Vinoba Bhave, written nearly 50 years ago; the basic ideas are still valid today.
The Week magazine featured many such cases a few years ago. Then we have that brilliant film "Swades" & earlier Manthan (forerunner of AMUL) which really tells us what it is all about. What needs to be done, can be, should be.. etc and DOING IT are two different things... - not just talking about.
Earlier on in our exchange, I did visit the blog /site of the concerned person you have referred to and quite agree on the scholastic merit and wisdom but "turning around conditions" in India and the use of the term "Freeing India Group" raises a question - Free from what ? -
Economic deprivation or the various social ills; We can start with freeing ourselves of time & energy wasted on the ridiculous controversies on which we waste so much.... which continues being sparked by media. Refer recent flare ups inc. Sethu Samudram,Bhajji & Symonds, now Raj Thackeray, and whatever next----, which just wastes time.
Change needs the man on the spot. ...i.e. All hand on Deck style. No doubt, the pen was mightier than the sword a century ago, but today with media and internet, this is all changing.
Have a sensible agenda and work on it calls for the local man with zeal and passion for India..
viz Managing Change needs sincere hands-on Workers -the most.
My response
I would first like to thank the commentator for taking the time to send me these comments. All perspectives are welcome as they may provoke thought. As the preface of my book covers most of the issues raised in this comment, and the rest of the book cover most other concerns, so I will only make a few comments here.
A) Yes, I am now a ‘non-returning Indian’ having taken Australian citizenship in 2005. Why I decided to move on is also made clear in my book. Please note that as an overseas Indian citizen (OCI) I retain the option of resuming my Indian citizenship in one year. If full dual citizenship is made available in India then that one year is also not needed. But that is entirely secondary to the key issues I raise in my book and for which the Freedom Team is being established. When I was a citizen and tried to implement reform with great vigour I wasn’t heard then. People have to at least consider what I am trying to say! Citizenship is surely no magic bullet. India has 1 billion citizens and things are a mess! If things were that easy, then just put any citizen as a PM of India and things should work. They don’t, because citizenship without clarity of vision and strategy is meaningless.
I am seriously concerned that a new weapon has been found to reject my suggestions outright , namely that I am not a citizen of India. May I suggest that if my suggestions are not worth reading, then India should first throw out and burn all its science books written by foreign authors, all its books on economics (including on the communism and socialism that it avidly follows), all books on medicine, and so on. And empty its brain as well!
Not more than a tiny fraction of the major scientific discoveries in the world and major advances in political thought and economic principles were made in India, so let India be a land of frogs in a well which should not read the suggestions of everybody who is not an Indian citizen. Or is the prejudice against Indians who are no longer Indian citizens greater than the prejudice against Western science and economics? Most Indians fawn on ‘white-skinned’ non-Indian origin foreigners and are thrilled at their attention towards India. Are non-citizens of Indian origin the scheduled castes and pariahs among foreign nationals?
Just a reminder, the political system, the public administration system and the economic ideology that India currently follows were almost entirely designed by non-Indians (by the British, and Marx or the Fabians – who invented the socialism that India so fondly follows).
Let me assure the commentator that the analysis and policy prescriptions in my book are informed by the best that political philosophy, public administration, and economics have to offer in the world today. I suggest that the commentator at least read my book before jumping to conclusions. Even the best of us can make serious errors of judgments by allowing prejudice to rule us.
B) Assuming that the commentator will now read my book with the same interest as he would read a book written by anyone in general, I’d like to add a key point. Jumping into the area of reform without a clear vision is futile in a land of one billion people. Clarity must come first. Then action. There is nothing more futile than a life led in the wrong direction.
India will get its workers in due course. What India needs now is 1500 leaders who share an understanding of what India needs, ie, more freedom. The reason why I stopped political work in India in 2005 is because India doesn’t yet have 1500 people who understand what is wrong in India – and are willing to stand up and lead. My book’s goal is to create these 1500 people first. I would like 1500 top quality leaders to assemble first, and only then can action be commenced through the democratic processes of India.
It may be worthwhile reading my notes at: http://satyameva-jayate.org/2008/01/09/freedom-team-for-india/
C) Why is freedom so important? That is the main theme of my book. Freedom (with accountability) is the policy principle which drives good governance and wealth generation across the modern world. Reading the book will address that question in detail.
I trust the commentator will read the book with an open mind and continue seeking the truth.
If the commentator is convinced (after critical examination) of the suggestions I make, it may be time for him to become a true worker (for a worker and leader are in the end the same thing) and join the Freedom Team to contest elections and lead India to the change it needs. I would most gladly welcome aboard a ‘convert’ to the ideas of freedom; no questions asked.
If India has to move into the future, the process of winning the minds of people must be undertaken first. I must find or create 1500 outstanding leaders first; else I cannot return to India.
Thanks again, for taking the time to send me these comments.
Regards 8 February 2008 |
|
Shantanu has added to my response – I am grateful to him for taking the time out to comment: Sanjeev: You have written an excellent riposte to the comment and covered most of the points. I would like to add a few thoughts. 1. ALL views are slanted – whether they are indigenous or "from abroad" – so that "criticism" (if it was one), does not hold. 2. A man on the spot is a great idea – both in theory and in practice… and no doubt we have many such "men" - and "women" on the spot – all doing excellent, commendable work – for the most part selfless and unsung. However, there are two fundamental issues with this: a] There are limits to what people/individuals/small groups can achieve. These limits are normal – they exist because individuals or small groups will rarely have a cause that needs a million people. Normally the "cause" would be very specific (for that is what an individual or a small group can do best) and hence something as ambitious as "reforming" the system is inherently difficult – if not impossible – for an individual or a small group to focus on – or to attempt. Viewed in this context, one can easily understand why it needs 1500 people and not 15 people to make any difference. b] I have not read Acharya Bhave's book so I am not able to comment on it. No doubt it has some excellent ideas and no doubt the silent/invisible "helping hand" does do a huge amount of social good. Unfortunately that does not even get us close to fixing what is wrong with out system at a higher level of abstraction. At best it finds a "way out" of the system (- as in "build your own canal") or finds a way to happily "co-exist" with it (- as in let us start a school for children from slums). No one dares question why is that the State has failed in its duty, in the first place, to provide water for irrigation and adequate schools for every child of school-going age in independent India While I agree that "What needs to be done, can be, should be.. etc and DOING IT are indeed two different things… " – it does not mean that there is no place for "talking about it". As Sanjeev has said, a earnest (wo)man without a vision can, at best, be a hard-working, well-meaning individual – but he or she will not be able to fundamentally alter things. For that you need vision, and you need the authority/power to take hard decisions and bold steps – and in a system lime ours that only comes through political power…So you need a cadre of committed people who are willing to take their "fight" one level up…and challenge the "system" through the electoral process, by getting involved in setting the agenda – rather than reacting to it. Shantanu P.S. I strongly disagree that the pen is any less mightier than the sword today – if anything, "with media and internet" – it is more powerful than ever before. 8 February 2008 |