We Are All One....Inhabiting Different Worlds

The last post I wrote was on the last day of last month for the Tehelka Thinkfest. While the week which followed Thinkfest was spent in relaxing in Goa, two weeks after that were spent in paying back for these holidays at office. But as I went about my usual work and also while I was taking in Goa, the conversations that happened over three days lingered in my head. Over three days, I heard a lot of people - most of them well known, some of them not so well known and a few of them not known at all; coming from backgrounds that were not even remotely connected unless you invoke the whole "we are all related in some way or the other" theory. I could write a post on each of the sessions - such were the quality of discussions. And, for all we know, I may do it, at least for some of them.

But this post is about an overarching thought. A thought that is so simple yet so profound. And, mind you, a thought, the meaning and relevance of which, I have not yet realized. The thought that "We are all one, but living in different worlds". On one side we were listening to Gregory Stock who said how science will help us decide what qualities our offspring will possess; how the weak would be weeded out by this process of (un)natural selection. On the other side, we heard Himanshu Kumar and Kopa Kunjam talk (in Hindi) about how a (hopefully) duly elected state government was "undermining" (and I cannot overlook the fact that undermining has the word mining in it) the rights of its its own people to achieve larger objective of progress. On one side we listened to Chitrangada Sigh discussing the subject of "Love, its meaning and its powers" and on the other hand we heard the fiery Dayamani Barla defending (in Hindi again - which for some strange reason was a relief to hear on stage and even sounded like music) the rights of the tribals to the earth, mountains, rivers, air.

Many times, I feel confused. Is our progress akin to that of stretching a chewing gum. One end stuck to one finger while the other keeps on going further away and ultimately making a mess of everything. It was shocking for most people (including myself) to hear the contents of Soni Sori's heart-rending letter to Himanshu Ji. But what beyond this shock. Isn't this shock similar to the shock you got when you first witnessed an accident on the road and now laugh about as you drive past to your destination. And when I say this, I have not hidden the needle of guilt to poke you. Because many times we have the best of intentions but a lack of motivation.

And so while we shared the roof for three days and ate together, most of us went back to our daily routine. Living in a city like Hyderabad, while I crib of hundreds of things, I also take for granted thousands of things that are a dream for many living in this very country and many times living only a few hundred kilometers away. Have we thought of what can happen to us if we choose to take on the state? Have we thought of what will be the compensation you will seek when your government comes tomorrow and asks you to sacrifice that flat and job which you were so sure about till yesterday. And how would you feel if after promising to help you pick up the pieces, it left you in the lurch. A la Lawaris. Honestly, I do not know.

It is understandable to live in worlds that are separated by culture, geography and ,to an extent, financial status. But it is not understandable when our worlds are separated by ignorance.

What will work for our media - Carrot or stick?

[This is the 7th post in a series that I am writing in the run up to Goa Thinkfest organized by Tehelka]

“Supreme Court Judge says that her daughters are liabilities”. 

This is what a respected judge of the Supreme Court, while declaring her assets and liabilities said, or at least a leading newspaper thought she said. Markandey Katju, retired judge of the Supreme Court of India and now the Chairman of Press Council of India cited this example in a speech at a get-together with mediapersons at his residence in New Delhi. The speech is available on The Hindu and is definitely something to read.

While ending his speech, Mr Katju, talked about the two paths facing the media today

There are two ways to remove these defects in the media. One is the democratic way, that is, through discussions, consultations and persuasion — which is the method I prefer. The other way is by using harsh measures against the media, for example, by imposing heavy fines on defaulters, stopping government advertisements to them, suspending their licences, and so on.

He cited his preference for the former and going for the latter only if self-regulatory methods fail to deliver. In his speech, he talked about the media's propensity to sensationalize issues, cover events which are trivial at best (he mentioned Aishwarya Rai's baby shower as an example), sidelining the real issues and taking money to create favorable news, a la paid news.

But do you think self-regulation will work for the corporatised media which has tasted the blood of TRPs. Can a baby raised on the milk of Bollywood, Cricket, Reality Shows wean itself away and become Shiva - ready to drink the poison that is human rights, poverty, naxalism, a lopsided development agenda, environmental degradation. I hope it does because even though the stick works it is not as effective when used in a democracy. What do you think?

I think this is an important question that speakers from the media and members of the civil society should devote time to when they talk.

Will the real journalists please stand up and with them, raise the level of debate in our society?

Rethinking poverty - again!

[This is the 5th post in a series that I am writing in the run up to the Goa Thinkfest organized by Tehelka]


Before you read this, think for a moment. If I were to ask you "What do you think is poverty", what would your reply be? This is not a rhetorical question to provide an interesting start to my post. I really want you to think. This is what I think - or rather thought almost 3 years back - "Poverty is the lack of opportunity". Mahatma Gandhi, understandably, had a more profound outlook and said "Poverty is the worst form of violence".

When I first read about Poor Economics, my first reaction - and reaction would be the right word because it was not well thought out - was "Not another theoretical literature on how (amazingly) the poor go about their daily business". I have to confess I have not read the book yet but I do intend to after reading some great reviews and feedback. I guess, the scepticism was more pronounced because Abhijit and Esther are both economists. And I feel that this world suffers from over-theorizing. If you remember, some years back we made a big deal of BoP - oh, you are one those who has not heard of BoP. Bottom of the Pyramid - duh!! Even I made a big deal of it. Writing about it in blogs and throwing the word around in discussions.

But, how much of these discussions have changed the situation on the ground for the poor (remember, I am still waiting for your answer on what you think poverty is). I mean despite the existence of reams of knowledge (which I believe is more of information and less of knowledge), we would have expected the poor to have got a much better deal in our country. But sadly that is not the case. Our own Planning Commission and its beautiful conclusion of "anyone earning above Rs 32 is not poor" are proof. Not to mention that babus (many times well-meaning ones) take decisions which are nothing but modern day versions of "Let them have cake".

Having said this, I should say that the approach taken by Abhijit and Esther - conducting randomized trials - is definitely interesting. And as the Economist review notes, at the least, it makes the economists go out among the people they write about. Theirs is one talk that I am eagerly looking forward to. Here is an excerpt from their book Poor Economics. 

This urge to reduce the poor to a set of clichés has been with us for as long as there has been poverty: The poor appear, in social theory as much as in literature, by turns lazy or enterprising, noble or thievish, angry or passive, helpless or self-sufficient. It is no surprise that the policy stances that correspond to these views of the poor also tend to be captured in simple formulas: “Free markets for the poor,” “Make human rights substantial,” “Deal with conflict first,” “Give more money to the poorest,” “Foreign aid kills development,” and the like. These big ideas all have important elements of truth, but they rarely have much space for average poor women or men, with their hopes and doubts, limitations and aspirations, beliefs and confusion. If the poor appear at all, it is usually as the dramatis personae of some uplifting anecdote or tragic episode, to be admired or pitied, but not as a source of knowledge, not as people to be consulted about what they think or want or do.

I think they would be most well-placed to answer my question. First one being (remember!) - who is poor? Do the goals of a free economy and poverty alleviation have common ground? Are we as individuals capable of doing simple things to contribute towards poverty alleviation? Is poverty normal? And last but not the least, what do they think of a defining poverty lines based on daily earnings like "Living on a dollar a day" or "Rs 32 a day".