So the fat may grow fatter and the thin, perish away

This has been annoying me for a few days now and as usual, my 'busy schedule' has prevented me from typing my ire out. But finally, in between pandering to my first world existence, here goes.

Arvind Kejriwal and the newly formed India Against Corruption (IAC) party have raised a few issues over the last couple of weeks. These issues focus on corruption related to various members of the ruling political establishment as well as those connected closely to the establishment, and Kejriwal seems to be pricking the tough hides of the accused. Just the other day, one headline quoted a politician saying that it was a daily thing for Mr. Kejriwal to accuse members of the ruling UPA. You know, like a common housefly, just buzzing around and being a nuisance.

And that headline brought home to me the point once again--that my country's leaders have institutionalized corruption. They, with our hapless and not-so-hapless aid, have injected it so completely into our bloodstream that there is no escape now. In fact, the joke is on anyone who points out that corruption exists. Corruption is one with the system and one does not exist without the other.

For some strange reason, the cavalier attitude and the media photos of the political establishment over the past few days, make me think of Mr. India, a 1980s children's movie with a common-man turned super hero (minus the underwear on the outside), who fights corruption. In particular, I keep remembering the scene where members of the mafia that siphon off food grains from India's Public Distribution System, are forced to eat the little pebbles that they use to adulterate rice and dal (lentils), while scrawny beggars get to feast on the mafia's lavish dinner. And how similar real-life smug Salman Khurshid and his fat wife, Louise Khurshid, accused of siphoning funds from an NGO that they run, are to these fictional characters.

It says something about how India has changed that most of our indie cinema today is about the lives of the urban upper middle-class youth and their supposedly rampant extra-marital affairs. While popular cinema celebrates the exploits of corrupt Chulbul Pandey in the super hit Dabaang, the rulers of our country raise the price of cooking gas and severely limit access to this basic requirement. While the Khurshids and the rest of the political establishment take trips abroad (the Assam chief minister was in Japan while millions of people in his state were left homeless by unprecedented floods), the aam aadmi (common man), also referred to jokingly by our rulers as the mango people (aam is hindi for mango), is left to fend against the wolves of inflation, FDI and most importantly, the kings and queens he 'voted' to power.

The poor don't count and we are civilized

I am sure I have said this before and I am probably far from doing anything significant to change things, but it still makes me tear up. When atrocities against poor people don't even bother those who have the power to change things. When corporate entities take precedence over human life or death.

This week a judge in Manhattan dismissed the case against Union Carbide (UCC) in the Bhopal gas tragedy, the world's worst industrial disaster. The reason? UCC only consulted on the strategic direction but had no direct approval power over UCIL (the Indian subsidiary)'s operational decisions. Legal minutia, no doubt. Exactly the kind of stuff that overpaid lawyers craft so that those who sign their cheques will be covered, come what may. Whether they maim and kill thousands of human beings or completely devastate natural resource by setting up faulty industrial plants. Whether they force governments in poorer countries to agree to strategic policies that benefit these international conglomerates, all the while backed by their kind and loving home base countries.

When did things get this way? When did we become so inhuman and develop such myopic vision that only the green pastures we live in, as denizens of rich countries or rich parts of town, became the only reality for us. Why is it that the parts of town or the parts of the world where our 'servants' or the scores of unseen hands that clean our cities and sewers come from, are almost alien planets to us? And even with that, why do we call ourselves civilized? Is appreciating classical music and art the only kind of culture and civilization that matters? Why doesn't it matter that someone who had no fault other than that they could only afford to live next to the UCIL plant in Bhopal, was crippled and turned into a monstrous looking being or died a violent death? Why doesn't it matter that the suffering continues?

I wonder when this happened. Did we not want a world that was fair and good? What happened? When did we grow up into these semi-human self-serving beings? 

Taxi drivers enroute to the American Dream?

Again it's taken me ages to write. But here I am.

Sometimes one comes across the strangest statistics. What are the chances that the three taxis you take in a row (well almost), will be driven by some of the most educated people around? One getting an M.A. in International Relations with a focus on South Asia. One who had finished his M.S. in Information Technology. And it gets better. One who was in the third year of his PhD. in Nursing. Three taxi drivers who had three things in common. All of them driving cabs to support the costs of their education. All of them immigrants from developing countries. And all of them pursuing the American dream.


Since I am nothing if not curious, I got into conversations with each one of them. 

The one who wanted to make a career in International Relations was from Bangladesh and had migrated with his parents and most of his siblings. We discussed applying to Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs and internships at the UN. From my sister's experience in the international development sector, I had some real pointers for him. All the while, feeling amazed and intimidated by his passion and drive.


The second one, from India, had graduated and also just had a child and needed to support his family while applying for jobs. We talked about the recruitment process at Accenture and other big name firms because those were the ones he was applying to. Having gone through the throes of application pain recently, I could empathize and exchange notes in great detail!

The doctoral student was from Ethiopia and told me that he just wanted to have a better job once he finished school. He was in the U.S. with his dad while most of his siblings had moved to different parts of the developed world and only his mother was still in Ethiopia. When I asked him if it was difficult to be so scattered (again something that I had experience with), he said that they all wanted to have a better life. And then we commiserated about the endless tunnel that is a PhD since my husband is currently in the midst of one, too :)

Each one wanted a better life--the American dream--and seemed to have the drive to get there. But I wonder how high the cost is and if it is worth all the sacrifices people make.

I have no clue what background these three taxi drivers come from, socially and economically. I don't know what kind of a life they left behind. Or family. But I do know that each time I convince myself that the world is my oyster, I feel like too many pieces are concentrated in one spot and that spot is very far away.

Too poor for school?

The first one this year...

I was really happy this week when I saw an Indian Express news story about the Indian Supreme Court making it mandatory for most private schools to ensure that up to 25% of their students came from poorer neighborhoods around the school. Except of course unaided minority schools, very strange that.

And since I was happy, I launched into one of my stream of consciousness rants to my unsuspecting husband. About just the unfairness of it all (yet another favourite theme). Apparently, private schools claim that their fundamental rights are denied if they are forced to admit students who do not meet the financial standards of the school. In straight speak, you don't enter our gates if you can't pay our fees. To a merchant, that makes good sense. But are schools merchants too?

Because what else could explain a school turning away a child who wants to study but cannot afford it? And admitting those who do not value education but can pay for it? I remember seeing student after student that looked like they had stepped out of a Hollywood high school movie, stream out of Delhi's prestigious (read expensive) schools and shoo away scrawny street children who came running up to beg. I remember a scandal not so far back involving similar high school kids sharing videos of their classmates having sex at school. Not that every student in an expensive school is wayward but the scandal was just the tip of a far deeper iceberg. Full of those who can buy all the education in the world, without really wanting any of it.

While right outside those hallowed gates stand millions who will never be allowed entry even if they desperately want it. Just because they are too poor for school.

I think I am right. Expensive schools are no more and no less than merchants.

Racism--an official policy?

Most civilized countries will tell you they do not discriminate (in any capacity) between people on the basis of their race, ethnicity or national origin, in addition to a whole slew of other factors. I applaud that. In fact that is exactly what I hope for every society on earth, someday. A perfect, non-discriminatory world, where our language, the colour of our skin and our socio-economic class does not determine the treatment we receive from anybody.

But waking up in one of those perfect societies today, I read about India's former President, APJ Abdul Kalam being frisked by security twice at one of New York City's airports. According to the Indian Express, he was made to give up his jacket and shoes after he had boarded the aircraft. The reason? Security had not checked them thoroughly enough the first time.

Dr. Abdul Kalam, in addition to being an ex-Indian President, is also a renowned scientist, a prominent face in India's indigenous nuclear program. Extremely popular with children across the country, he takes every opportunity to encourage kids to explore science (and knowledge in general) and to strive to do their best. And unlike most people who have made it big, he doesn't just talk. Someone who was born in a poor family, Kalam understands perfectly the trials associated with overcoming poverty to realize one's wildest dreams.

In short, this is someone who inspires most Indians. Logically, this is probably someone who can inspire most people across the world. This is also someone who is encased in brown skin and practices Islam. Probably not the best attributes to have when you are walking through security at an airport in a country that discriminates between people of different races and religions.

But the country where Dr. Abdul Kalam was frisked does not discriminate on the basis of race. Or most other factors. Maybe this was after all, just annoying ole' human error.

Or maybe it's just time to rewrite official policy.

Academia and capitalism

Many (sometimes too many) academic campuses even in the most fervently capitalistic societies proudly fly the flag of the Left. They seem to take it almost as a matter of pride a need to rip the capitalistic enterprise that seeks to dominate the world, apart. After all (they tend to say), someone has to stand up for the people and collaboration and all the other good things that capitalism seeks to obliterate with its mass-produced goods. And who qualifies better than enlightened academic souls.

But academia, if nothing else, is also about sheer individualism. Publishing like crazy, and establishing oneself as a force in the microscopic field that one seeks to make a name in, is one of the accepted paths toward academic success. Of course, collaboration is encouraged, but everyone knows that on a paper with multiple authors there is always a lead scholar, the individual.

And isn't that what capitalism is about? Each individual forging her/his path and contributing to economy and society. So common sensically, that's exactly how capitalistic enterprises should be. Each individual trying to establish and fortify her/his own position. But my experience in corporations says otherwise.

Without arguing that companies operate as altruistic beings where everyone works to achieve the larger goal, I have seen much more team work in companies than in academia. I have always been dependent on others to achieve my work goals and have been responsible for deliveries that impact others' goals. So, in an odd way, there is a certain kind of symbiosis that modern enterprises seem to exude (though I guess factory lines did exactly that, too). And maybe the C-suite does walk away with much of the reward in the end.

But so do the star tenured academics that each budding academic aspires to be.

Capitalism and communism, synonyms?

Antonyms clearly, right? I mean the Cold War was fought precisely because capitalism stood right across the battlefield from communism. How on earth could they be the same or even similar? Wars, even fools would agree, are not fought by folks who stand on the same side of the fence.

But recent events, including my sister's stint in Nordic land have confused me a little. We have had conversations about Finland, a prime example of the resounding success of capitalism, which is also an extremely egalitarian society. On one hand, private enterprise is the norm in this tiny country and on the other, state welfare is each citizen's birthright. State welfare includes everything from free education through subsidized transport and meals to an allowance for just being alive (the last is not a joke).

And this makes me think of communism, the red dream of a society where each person gives according to her/his capacity and receives according to her/his need. Where one is not penalized for being old or infirm but instead receives care. And where the strong are expected to work and effectively cover the gap. Finland, where efficient private industry coexists with state sponsored old-age care, seems to be a perfect example of the red dream. But Finland is unabashedly capitalist and nothing else.

Or is it that the end goal of the ideal forms of capitalism and communism are exactly the same? A society that holds social justice as its guiding light but expects honest hard work from its people? Is it that only the steps to achieve this goal are different? And could it have been that the economists and world leaders got it all wrong?

That the ultimate result of capitalism is what Marx always dreamed of. Maybe the Cold War was avoidable, after all.