Saturday, June 27, 2009

General Elections 2009- An appraisal

It is probably too late to give my 2 cents on the outcome of the Indian General Elections. But it is never late to do a post mortem on the epic event. First of all , I humbly admit that my prediction in a previous blog ( June 6,2008 , " Some politics") that the NDA would return to power has proved wrong. While I admit that I went off the mark, I would defend that my predictions were atleast 9 months before the first votes were cast. A lot of things changed between June 2008 and April of 2009 and I was presumably wrong in a predicting the outcome of such a complex political excercise so early in the game when even the best psephologists are left scrambling for answers. I am not claiming that NDA would have returned to power if the elections were held in August of last year. I am just suggesting that the NDA lost its track running into 2009.
The absence of a core identity was the biggest handicap for the coalition. To be fair to the UPA, they won mainly due to the absence of a viable alternative at the Center. True, the UPA did some good things during their tenure. But, did they do anything substantial that India could be proud of. I would rather say that UPA was a one man army with Manmohan Singh proving to be the biggest " batsman" for them. Be it the Nuclear deal, the way he dealth with Pakistan post the Mumbai attacks, Manmohan was seen as delivering. The middle class India could relate to Manmohan as one among them and as a person who had the best interests of the nation in mind. The left parties did a grave mistake by attacking Dr. Singh on the nuclear deal issue and withdrawing support on this. ( Even the CPI leader A.B Bardhan admitted the folly the left parties made with respect to the deal. The CPI(M) could not even earn the trust of the leftist voters on this issue. When the Prime Minister repeatedy assured the nation that the nuclear partership is hugely beneficial to India , everyone except some left leaders believed him. Though the nuclear deal was not a decisive issue for this elections ( thanks to the illiteracy of a large section of the populace), I would say that this episode was the game changer. This proved to the educated Indian middle class neutral voter that Manmohan is for real and that he is a true and decisive leader.
The BJP , on the other hand, was left without any strategies. Have realized the limitations of playing the Hindutva card, the part chose the worst strategy they could ever adopt- that of attacking the personal integrity and leadership skills of Dr. Singh. That would have perhaps eliminated even the slightest chances of a BJP revival. Be it the Varun Gandhi episode or the BJP/BJD clashes in Orissa, BJP was largely seen as a party with " no difference"- that of internal squabbles and age old " ideologies". Moreover they were considered as favoring only a certain section of the population. They proved too much of a burden for a young, vibrant, secular, democratic India. Apart from Karnataka, BJP was seen as losing ground everywhere.

Now where does this end up to..? Well, I won't commit the same folly of giving exact predictions. However, I feel that the Congress will regain its past glory under Rahul Gandhi. The future of India belongs to the Congress party. As for the opposition parties, the BJP might meet the fate of the erstwhile JanataDal of the late 1980s. It might splinter into different groups and in the absence of a young, charismatic leader it could well be curtains for the party. Regional parties would still play their part, but none will have the ability to pose a threat to the Congress for a long time to come. Rahul Gandhi is the trump card for the Congress now and it may not be surprising if the party on its own reaches 300+ seats in 2014.
Again, a week in politics is more than a lifetime- goes the old adage and I have five solid years to defend my territory......

Human and Happiness Indices-Some Thoughts

(A long time since my last blog. My classes are taking away a significant amount of time but I really enjoy those. Some recent events have instigated me to comment on two indices that have confused social and financial scientists the world over). The first is the Human Development Index ( HDI) and the second is the Happiness Index ( HI). For those who are not that familiar with HDI- It is the score of a section of the population ( mostly nation based) that considers various factors like the (GDP) per capita income, the level of unemployment, literacy and educational attainment. The nations are then ranked based on their respective scores. To give some hindsight into the 2008 rankings, Iceland was the # 1 pushing Norway onto the # 2 position. The United States is at # 15, not too bad considering the relative size it has, Canada at # 3, India unsurprisingly at # 132 and Bhutan at # 131 ( http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/). These statistics are annually compiled by the UNDP and have been met with euphoria and skepticism. The basic objective , it may seem, is to classify countries as developed, developing and underdeveloped. Some people might be curious as to why Iceland is 14 ranks ahead of the United States. This could be attributed partly to the country's low size and population. The African countries , plagued by internal strifes, high levels of illiteracy and abject poverty are lower down the order.
The second index ( arguably no so popular one) is the Human Happiness Index ( HHI). Accrording to the 2006 statistics, Denmark tops the list with U.S at a reasonable 23 and India at 125 (http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/oct2006/gb20061011_072596.htm). While this is a highly subjective measure, there seems to be quite a bit of correlation between the HDI and HHI. But there is no 100% positive correlation. Why is this? Most of us work hard to maximize our wealth. Most of us believe that wealth translates directly to happiness. Statistics show that people are reasonably happy when they earn a moderate income ( I mean less than $ 150,000 a year). Increased income after that level does not result in any increase in happiness. To me, the rationale is simple. The higher you go ( be it the corporate world, the murky world of poilitics or entrepreneurship), it is increasingly difficult to balance your personal and professional priorities. We all know that this is the very key to a happy and prosperous life. The hardest part in a man's ( woman's) life is to decide and draw the limits. Peer pressure is a difficult one to handle.
Whilst we all believe that one of the purposes in life is to garner more and more wealth , we all should take a break and ponder as to what we would really like to achieve. Assuming we live upto 75 years of age and assuming that we have earned a million + dollars savings for our families and assuming that they are happy with our contribution, is this really what you strived so hard for. Maybe, maybe not. I would think that unless we create an atmosphere of distribution of wealth , we have not done anything meaningful to the society. At our deathbeds, we may not be too concerned about the extra dollars in hand ( if we have a reasonable amount of savings). Instead, we might be thinking about our purpose in life and whether we have done full justice to these. Now, distribution of wealth is not blindly giving away large sums of money . That would defeat the whole purpose. As one my teachers, the late Fr. Puilckal in my high school said, charity is to " help someone to help themselves". There are certainly people who are not in positions to help themselves. We should be more considerate to these people. If we are in a position to create job opportunities to deserving people, if we are in a position to help send the poorest of the poor children to schools, if we are in a position to play our part to uplift the society ( of which our family is a part), then do so- for that is the best thing you can do for one's country and for humanity.
In my mind, India is already a superpower. A country that is spiritually and culturally superior than most nations of the world. A country that is beset with many economic and social problems, but which has the raw talent and potential to tackle all this effectively. To me , the notion of a superpower is 50% culture + 50% materialism. Others may feel it differently. Based on that, India scores 75%. Some other countries that are materially well off get scores less than 75. While we increase our scores for materialsm , we should not forget our cultural roots and our rich heritage. I would rather prefer my country to be only 70% as developed as the first world countries but can still boast of superior cultural and moral standards.
Recently, the monarch of Bhutan ( a reformer and a a great patriot) shifted his nation's goals from Human development index to Human happiness index. Though Bhutan ranks no.131 in HDI, the tiny Himalayan kingdom has its task cut out to reach the top rankings due to its low population. But the monarch chose happiness as the criteria for success. He believes that the goal in a man's life is to achieve happiness. And believe me the people in this nation are said to lead relatively stress-free lives. Perhaps India should take a cue from its tiny neighbor and implement some of their policies.