Lokpal Bill: We need to think and debate not just march out on streets

At least those of us who have been trained to think should really try to think various issues related to the ongoing clamor about the Lokpal bill in India, instead of just blindly supporting a bunch of self-proclaimed representatives of the 'civil-society'.

While it is great that some people in India are taking interest in they way the politicians and the bureaucrats have been running the country and are willing to sacrifice their life for the cause.  But we should ask ourselves if this is the way we want to run the country where laws are made because some one (Anna Hazare) is threatening to kill himself? If so then why we are ignoring so many others who are protesting in the similar vain? Media is completely devoted to the cause now and Anna Hazare is projected as the savior the country and as if there is no other news. But clearly Anna Hazare is not India and India is much bigger than that?

We should once really think about the following:

• What this Lokpal bill is and why since its inception in 1969 it is still not implemented? Is it only the political unwillingness or are their some inherent problems with this concept which are specific to the Indian context?
  
• Is it going to solve the problem India as a country is facing?
  
• Is it the kind of beginning we want to (re)solve national issues?
  
• How correct Anna Hazare's methods are?
  
• To what extent we are ready to compromise democracy and the institution of parliament?
  
• Are we really ready for the meritocracy that the so called 'civil society' is trying to introduce in name of the Lokpal?
  
• Can Lokpal really change things on small time scales when this new institution is expected to work with the existing police and judiciary? If not how are we going to change the executive arms of the Lokpal?

There are many similar and pertinent questions and instead of just sitting with a man who is really low of glucose and is certainly not in a position to think for himself, or agreeing to the ideas and fancies of some self-proclaimed representatives of the 'civil-society', we would do better service to the cause by thinking about the associated issue and contributed to a better Lokpal bill. Those of us who have read various versions of this bill understand its shortcoming and more brains can only help us better structure the bill.

Why Indians Like Cricket

There are two things all Indians usually agree to -- English the language and Cricket the game. Its rather easy to understand why Indians like to learn and use English as mode of communication -- in a country of hundreds of languages its easier to agree on a neutral language as a mode of communication.

After the World Cup victory in 1983 Cricket has seen an exponential increase in its popularity in India (also in the sub-continent) and emergence of Indian Premier League is a clear sign of Cricket's popularity and emergence of India as a powerhouse of Cricket.

Why Indians started to like Cricket so much? Somehow it does not make sense? A colonial game becoming such a huge success, maybe it has something to do with having a chance to defeat England (particularly in England). But is that all? Most people will agree on it. There is one problem though. Before a population, a country realizes that Cricket is an opportunity to defeat England, the game of Cricket must exist in the public imagination, i.e. a large population should find interest in the game and appreciate it.

Why Indians or for that matter the sub-continent chose Cricket over Soccer? Why a game which potentially takes up days (in its most traditional sense), whose rules (actually they are called Laws) no average person can really fathom. How difficult Cricket is, becomes very evident when you try to explain the game to someone not already familiar with it, say to the Germans. After explaining the basic idea of Cricket, its not easy to find people who would like to know and follow cricket. You essentially have to grow up into an atmosphere filled with it to really appreciate it.

In the following I propose my conjecture why Cricket could capture the imagination of a huge population in India and in the sub-continent and why other sports such as soccer failed to find a niche in the sub-continent. In fact I will use the example of soccer to make the case for the popularity of Cricket.

India is a country of a huge middle class and a equally large number of people live below the poverty line. Those in the middle class are in a strange state, in fact they are in a transition state, as all factors indicate that are just one step before making it to the so called upper-class. So, all their efforts are directed to achieve something in their life, make it big and complete the transition to upper class. Education is traditionally seen as a means to complete the transition.

Kids are asked "what did they do?" instead of "how did they do?" in any thing they do.

If a kid comes home after a game of soccer, his parents and other elders would ask him what did he do in the game? Not all players can score a goal in soccer. But how will you tell this to your parents, for them running around after the soccer ball with other 21, is an utter wasteful activity. It appears that Indian parents want a quantitative measure of the performance of their kids.

Cricket provided them exactly that. After the game of cricket, you can tell your performance in number, 10-2-28-3 or 32 runs, two catches or a run out, or even more mundane but hugely appreciated 3- fours or 2 sixes.

Arguably, cricket is one of the most democratic of all team sports. Physical strength is a not such an important parameter, if you can manage to stand and run every now and then, over five days, it will do. If you cannot bowl fast, you can become a spinner; if you cant hit big shots, you can still be a very effective accumulator of runs. In fact, no other team sport can show so many physically unfit sports-persons in their hall-of-fame. For a country like India, where middle class does not only refer to economical status but it also conforms with the standards of physical strength (excluding perhaps the farmers), cricket emerged as the perfect game for the middle class.

Further, in Cricket when your turn comes to play your part, no one is allowed to disturb you. In soccer for example as soon as you get the ball, at least four other player will come around you to snatch the ball and of course, besides skills, physical strength of the players does influence the outcome. In Cricket on the contrary when you are on the wicket, batting, the laws prohibit even a small whisper from other players. Similarly when you are about to bowl, the opposition players dont come around and distract you right when you are about to release the ball. Ok, sledging happens. This feature necessarily makes it a popular choice among kids who are not physically strong and need to mentally focus to apply their skills.

Sports are traditionally thought to be for the those physically strong. Cricket removes this bias and still provides a quantitative way to measure up the performance. I think these are most defining aspects of Cricket. In my opinion, these two aspects of cricket contributed to the popularity of cricket in middle class and it was a matter of time (about a generation) when India came out of age and is on its way to become a super-power of Cricket.

I think that similar reasons exist for other countries such as Pakistan, Sri-Lanka, Bangladesh and perhaps even in the West-Indies.

-----------
PS: Scalability and flexibility are two necessary things a game needs to become a popular sport. As far as the rule (or Laws) of the game go, they may appear very complicated in an MCC manual. In practice the game is amazingly scalable to any arbitrary number of players and amazingly flexible to bend the laws without altering the spirit of the game.

Pseudo Democracy in India

India is going for another election and as always Indian politicians and journalists would remind the Indians and the rest of the world about the strength and deep roots of democracy. It is true that in the 60 years of history of local rule (I would not say independent), democracy was never really threatened unlike several other countries of about same or lesser age.

Aristotle thought that in a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme.
In India it is still true but in a bit convoluted manner. In India the majority of the poor votes can be easily purchased but the power of money or shear strength. So even when Aristotle is still right, in India, still the rich have the power. Yet another paradox in a truly Incredible country.

In a democratic process, all individuals are given a single and equal vote. For the success of democracy it is important that each voter realizes the worth of its own vote and the candidates who are seeking the public mandate respect the idea of individual vote and do not demean the vote by offering some monetary or personal favor in return.

In India, whether we accept it or not there none of the above holds on average. A randomly chosen citizen (irrespective of a his/her education or geographical location) would not be able to explain you the worth of his vote in an election comprising of several million voters. An average voter who can never understand the meaning of his one vote among the other several million votes is very likely to sell off his/her vote for small benefits. A large fraction of politicians exploit this ignorance and offer monetary or other kinds of benefits in return of a single vote.

In a slightly remote village (where most of the votes reside), the early birds get the worms i.e. the candidate who is the first to send some money and means of transport to take the votes to the polling station, is more likely to get the votes of that group of people. On top of this physically or economically strong candidates are more likely to get the votes, irrespective their agenda. To put it in other words, in India a candidate without money to buy votes or gain favor of a political party is unlikely to win in any election, no matter how strong development agenda that person has? It is not a hidden knowledge but it appears that as a country India accepts these non-democratic practices as a part of democracy.

So even after India has seen some 15 or so general elections and numerous by-elections, voters dont understand the worth of their vote and anyone can purchase votes and in turn the public mandate. Given this situation can we say that there exists democracy in India?

So long as individual voters do not understand the meaning of their vote, we cannot say that democracy is successful and is flourishing in India. Indian system of governance may be based on democracy but it is a very degenerated kind of democracy that they practice in India.

Should we blame the average voter for his/her ignorance about his vote? I do not think so. As country India has completely failed to educate its votes about the process of democracy and thus, there is no mutual respect between voter and vote and between candidates contesting in the election and the voters.

How do we educate a poor voter that his vote is worth more than some money or a small favor the politician has promised him? I dont know if there is an easy solution but unless that happens we cannot say that Indian rules are determined by a process of democracy. At best it is a pseudo-democracy.

Disclaimer: On a personal level I do not agree with the idea of democracy, because it gives equal vote to all the citizen. When citizens are not equal in their knowledge and understanding, they all should not have equal vote. More on this later...