India Positive Read online

  Of course, they may have been foolish to believe that the Indian government and legal system will protect businesses. Because while we may make ads about ‘Make in India’, once a businessman actually invests his money, the policy often changes to ‘make life hell’ for him.

  However, the only apparent casualty so far seems to be people who sell and consume alcohol. And since they are seen as participating in a business that only creates ‘pleasure’ or ‘fun’, we seem to think it is morally okay to bash them. Of course, we are not interested in the damage it causes us.

  One, it harms India’s business-friendly image abroad. It shows foreign investors that we are a banana republic which changes rules on a weekly basis and that we cannot protect our investments. Two, it hits the economy of states which rely on tax revenues from alcohol to finance welfare sectors such as education and healthcare (yes, this sinful alcohol pays for many Indians’ healthcare).

  Three, it encourages an illicit liquor economy to crop up, because those who want alcohol will find a way to get it. Prohibition, or even restricted sales, has always failed worldwide. It only encourages bribes, corruption and under-the-counter alcohol-selling dhabas on the highway.

  The funny part is, this 500 metre measure will not achieve its desired goal—to prevent people from drinking and driving on the state highways. If I have a vehicle, it will take me less than two minutes to take a 500 metre detour to get my fix of alcohol for the road. You really think this rule would deter anyone?

  Another pointless add-on to the rule is there can be no signs pointing to liquor shops on the highway. Whoever thought of this idea has clearly never heard of Google Maps. Wherever you may happen to be, it will give you the location of every shop in the vicinity, not to mention helping you navigate the shortest route to get there.

  Yes, drivers will soon have apps on their phones with signs that will say ‘Refreshment Centre, wink, wink’ all over the highway. They won’t mention alcohol, but they will ensure you get to the right place.

  Of course, the fact that state highways now pass through densely populated cities like Mumbai, and hundreds of establishments in malls and 5-star hotels had to close down for no reason, shows that the rule wasn’t well drafted. It harms tourism, local economies, revenue collection and employment prospects on the one hand, and doesn’t reduce the number of drunk drivers on the other. Pretty pointless, isn’t it?

  The only ways to keep drunk drivers off the road is by imposing heavy penalties and punishments on offenders, and to design an effective nationwide campaign highlighting the dangers of drunk driving. This is what is done all over the civilised world and there is no reason we shouldn’t try the same approach.

  Which brings us to the overall issue of the blanket bans and restrictions that India tends to announce every few weeks. Shouldn’t we also consider, before we announce a draconian rule, the global standard? If India aspires to be one of the modern, developed and civilised nations of the world, can we adopt and adhere to some enlightened practices followed in other such countries? Alcohol sale is not restricted at all in many countries, and yet they have managed to reduce drunk driving to a large extent.

  Rules of the 500 metre type only create chaos and damage the economy, while offenders can easily find ways to circumvent the new arbitrariness. Former US President Barack Obama used to meet people over a beer in the presence of the media. Achievers in every field, including CEOs of multinational companies, occasionally have a drink or two and still function pretty well. To judge alcohol only by its abusers seems pretty narrow-minded, at least so far as modern lifestyles and habits go. It is time India grew up and took notice of these changing attitudes and global standards.

  Alcohol use should be moderate, of course, and drunk driving is a serious offence. While measures should exist to curb it, they should be sensible and directed towards solving the problem. In short, laws should not be arbitrary and pointless, and drafted so hastily that people might suspect the lawmakers themselves were under the influence.

  @chetan_bhagat

  You can’t ban your way to a better society. Change is slow, and requires consensus, empathy towards the other side, education and love.

  261 replies/ 564 retweets/ 4,363 likes

  @chetan_bhagat

  The Sikh police officer who saved the Muslim man. I don’t care who’s in power or what is your politics. That’s the India I want and ever will want. Even if I am the only one left wanting it.

  996 replies/ 1,634 retweets/ 11,340 likes

  Fifty Shades of Intolerance

  Too bad if you don’t like something; you can’t let go of civil behaviour

  One of the most misunderstood, out of control and inconclusive debates we have had in recent times in India is on tolerance. A section of people are concerned, and many have returned awards and made statements in the media, citing specific incidents including the Dadri killing and the Kalburgi murder. Others feel India is a tolerant place.

  The fact remains that we can freely discuss rising intolerance, or even attack the government for it. That a billion-plus people with tremendous differences in culture go about their daily lives in the same country shows that we are, in fact, a tolerant nation.

  Yet, people on both sides of the debate make their point vehemently and are unwilling to listen to the other side. This alone is a kind of intolerance.

  The question remains. Is India tolerant or intolerant? Can we be tolerant enough to say both the statements are true at the same time?

  The confusion comes from the question itself. There is no one kind of tolerance. There can be religious intolerance, caste intolerance, intolerance of economic inequality, the internet trolls’ variety of intolerance, political intolerance, traffic intolerance, and intolerance of alternate opinions.

  The fact that we blare horns in traffic shows clearly who we are as a society (all developed and most other Asian countries don’t have horn-blarers on their roads). If you have a Twitter account, then the crude, insensitive comments that rule Twitter clearly suggest we are unwilling to treat differing opinions with dignity.

  At the same time, it is unfair to suggest we are all intolerant.

  Many Indians do not blare horns (a few idiots are enough to make the roads intolerably noisy). Most people on Twitter have a positive attitude. The same goes for religious intolerance. Most Indians may not believe in every religion, but they are happy to co-exist with people of other faiths.

  Should we label such a society ‘intolerant’? Should we blindly defend it as tolerant, despite being aware of the unpleasant things that are happening in our country? Or should we simply call it a real society where all shades exist, one that could work on being better? It is funny how neither side in the debate wants to come to a real conclusion.

  How do we make India more tolerant? To answer this, it is important to understand the psychology of tolerance and keep it as independent of politics as possible. The dictionary defines tolerance as ‘the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with’.

  Tolerance or intolerance in a society unfolds in a three-step process. One, there are things that bother us. Two, we choose to react to these bothersome things in specific ways. Three, these reactions can create certain perceptions and fears in society.

  The first step, what bothers us, is most important. It’s also the hardest to fix. We don’t have to become a society where nothing bothers us. Bad roads, corruption, inefficiency, mediocrity and poverty should bother us. However, in these areas, we seem to be quite tolerant. We often elect corrupt or inept leaders.

  What shouldn’t bother you are people whose belief systems are different from yours—those who don’t believe in your religion, culture, politics, and so on. You don’t have to love them. However, you have to learn to live and let live. If our differences didn’t bother us so much in the first place, intolerance would be nipped in the bud.

  The only way this can happen, however, is
through a long process of educating and exposing society to the various belief systems and cultures of the world. While that is happening in India with increased media exposure and migration of people, change will be slow.

  This is why the second step, how we react to what bothers us, becomes important. Do we scream? Do we hit someone who doesn’t agree with us? Do we abuse those who are different? Or can we control our emotions? Can we learn to take a deep breath and say, I don’t like what the other person is saying or doing at all, but I will not react in a violent or uncivil manner?

  It seems that many Indians have a hard time doing that. Here, it is almost culturally acceptable to be ill-mannered when you are upset. This needs to change. Too bad if you don’t like something, you simply can’t let go of civil behaviour.

  The last step is illustrated by what violent or abusive reactions stemming from intolerance can do to society. For one, they create massive amounts of fear. A single incident of communal conflict or violence will create fear in the minds of millions of others. Add to that the over-eager and ever-present media of today, and fear spreads faster than ever before.

  It is here that the top leadership can play a role. While the government doesn’t need to comment on everything that happens, if an incident has the potential to frighten millions and make them insecure, it needs to be addressed at the top. And fast.

  Ultimately, we hope to reach a day where Indians get bothered for the right reasons. Until then, we simply need to be well-mannered in our reactions. Those in power as well as the media should ensure that ill-conceived actions don’t create fear in the minds of the people. We are a mixed society, tolerant and intolerant at the same time. Let us be tolerant enough to accept that for now and strive to make things better.

  Will You Spend ₹80 to See India Win a Dozen Olympic Golds?

  A professionally managed Olympics fund, supported by the Indian public, will guarantee at least a dozen golds for India at the next event

  Every four years, a nation of over a billion people struggles to win medals at the Olympics. Some unfairly lash out at the sportspersons on social media. Other self-righteous types talk about how we should encourage them, how participation counts for something, and how that is what finally matters. Frankly, none of this is relevant to the country’s sports scene. Nor will it help us win medals. So what will it take for India to win not just a bronze and a silver but a dozen golds, even three dozen medals in all (yes, it is possible!) at the Olympics?

  Let’s start by looking at some of the reasons commonly cited for our poor performance (and why they don’t make sense). These are: one, we don’t have money for sports (we actually don’t need to spend that much on a per capita basis to make a difference); two, we don’t have good sporting genes (a bizarre argument, as Indians are a very large and diverse gene pool); and three, parents don’t encourage their kids to play sports in this country because it has no future as a career choice (partly true, but the same is the case abroad; for instance, silver-medallist rowers can’t really have a lavish future awaiting them anywhere in the world).

  In reality, there are three main reasons why we suck at the Olympics…

  We just don’t care much about Olympic sports (except when the Olympics is on and that is the cool thing to do).

  We don’t really value excellence in any field. Jugaad and mediocrity often work just fine, though they can’t get us medals.

  We don’t spend enough on sports, or rather, channel funds in the right direction.

  The first two are societal attitudes and values. They will change slowly, over time. The third, how we spend on sports, is the focus here. We have to understand the difference between spending on competitive sports and on sports in general. Sports is not all competition; it is also for recreation and exercise, which is important. For instance, we need to have more jogging tracks in our parks. These may not yield world-class athletes, but they will certainly raise the level of fitness in the neighbourhood. On the other hand, it also costs a lot to train athletes to win medals in competitive sports on the world stage. What should we do? There is no easy answer. You need a bit of both.

  The need of the hour, however, is to end this humiliation. If India wins a dozen golds at the Olympics, there will be huge benefits. It will finally put the country on the sports map. It will motivate millions of youth to pursue excellence. It will invoke a stronger sense of national identity in us. This is one way of making India glorious, as political leaders like Narendra Modi aspire to do.

  It is important at this stage to look at some numbers. Australia, with a population of just 20 million, averages around 50 medals in every Olympics. The total amount the country spends on sports is around ₹700 crore, of which 80 per cent (₹560 crore) goes into Olympic sports. India, on the other hand, has averaged around two medals per Olympics over the last two decades. The amount we spend? Well, the carve-out for sports in the Youth Affairs and Sports ministry budget is about ₹900 crore. Of this, over two-thirds goes into organising local-level tournaments (not likely to yield Olympic winners), prize money, upgrading stadiums, and schemes to uplift the Northeast.

  This means only around ₹300 crore is available for actually improving the standard of sports in the country. And it isn’t clear how much of that is invested in Olympic-level training. The talent search budget for the entire nation, for instance, is a mere ₹5 crore. Either way, even at a grossly overestimated ₹300 crore, the amount allocated on a per sport basis for the twenty-odd Olympic sports is only ₹15 crore. So we have a national budget of ₹15 crore for, say, swimming—a sport which could bring us a ton of medals. That probably just pays for the salaries of babus associated with the sport. Hence, the amount left over, to find and train new talent with, is nothing. Good luck making Olympic champions with that!

  Australia, on the other hand, spends a far smaller amount in total on sports, but has lower overheads, less corruption, and absolute clarity about its goal—excellence in the Olympics.

  India can do the same. For one, we need a separate budget—call it, say, the Indian Olympics Fund—for talent scouting and training for the event, apart from funds for promoting sports in general. This budget should be at least ₹10,000 crore per year. It may sound like a lot, but only amounts to ₹80 per Indian on a per capita basis.

  Something like Nandan Nilekani’s Aadhaar proposal, where the Olympics fund is entirely managed by external professionals, would keep things more honest and efficient. The money would be spent in three parts: one, to identify and maintain a talent pool of around 5,000 elite sportspersons (called Elite5000) in the country, preferably in medal-heavy events (such as swimming and cycling); two, on Elite5000 scholarships which will ensure an allowance for the education of these athletes so they don’t have to worry about money or jobs later; and three, to give world-class training to Elite5000, of which around 300 will make up the Indian contingent at the Olympics. Such a setup will certainly win us a dozen golds at each event.

  Medals do not just come from a fighting spirit fired by patriotic emotion, nor even from cheering our players on social media or turning individual sporting heroes into media stars. These things help, but they are and should be a given. Medals will come if we set up an Indian Olympics Fund along the lines suggested above. Now tell me, are you ready to pay ₹80 per year and feel the pride of India winning a dozen gold medals at every Olympics?

  P OLITICS , I NDIA-STYLE

  O ver the last ten years, we’ve tried various types of governments. Tired of the last scam-ridden government, people finally voted in a majority government in 2014. What has that meant for us? And, as we go into another general election, what should we, as individuals, be looking at?

  The Modi government has been criticised for cultivating an atmosphere that has stoked communalism. ‘We are All Anti-nationals’ talks about why we need to move beyond our religious affiliations. The section also includes essays that look at what the BJP needs to do to win elections; on why the party’s self-goals are mor
e dangerous than Rahul; how they can get their poll maths right; and the lessons they and the Congress can learn from the 2017 Gujarat elections. ‘In These San-sad Times, Call a Virtual Session of Parliament’ suggests ways by which politicians can be made more responsible, and how the functioning of Parliament can be improved. The damaging culture of ‘favours’ is addressed in ‘Netas, Do Us a Favour: Don’t Swap Favours’. Considering the RSS’s influence over the government, ways in which they should change and thereby play a greater role in our society are brought up in ‘Shorts First, Soul Next?’.

  As is the rest of the world, India is also currently faced with crises related to terrorism and refugees seeking asylum. ‘Rohingya Are Human, Too’ talks about how—despite the accusations of their links with terrorist organisations—India needs to be more humane; we can tackle the problem without endangering ourselves and lift our image as a serious power and problem-solver in the region. ‘Terrorism and Extremitis’ asks that we stop getting polarised over the question of terrorism. It is not a right-wing or a left-wing issue, but one that affects us all.

  Our relations with Pakistan are addressed in ‘Uri Changed One Thing’ and the essay explains why it does more damage than good to compare ourselves with them. ‘The Parable of PK’ talks about the need for out-of-box solutions, despite the international community’s resistance to this.