The World is Burning

As an individual, one can’t be concerned about everything in the world. It’s impossible to understand all burning political or social issues and have an intelligent viewpoint on it. But we can make an honest attempt whenever possible.

The Palestine conflict which caught global headlines since October 2024 was one of those issues where I couldn’t really understand why things had to be so bad.

On one hand nobody can justify the murder of children, bombing of schools, destruction of hospitals. But the attacking side cited that their aim was to end terrorism, which made no sense.

The alternative model for fighting terrorism is visible in the Indian Army’s approach of not hurting any civilians in their targeted attacks.

Even then, I was unsure what impact common citizens could have in ending the conflict or ensuring peace in Palestine. Does the Instagram activity on part of a Delhi resident have any impact?

In fact, even the Indian government and the entire United Nations have been incapable of doing anything. I felt that the people suffering over there and other humanitarian organisations had no hope.

Though I don’t want to get into the solution for this entire conflict, a two-state solution seems to be ideal. But all these scattered opinions gained a new dimension when I attended an event suggest by my friend who’s a passionate supporter of the Palestinian cause.

The Ambassador and the Refugee Camp

One can see lot of content related to the Palestine issue on the internet. But it is quite a different experience when you hear the story from the horse’s mouth. I didn’t expect the Palestinian Ambassador to be at the event in support of Palestine.

I was kinda impressed to know that he had managed to make something of himself in spite of growing up in a refuge camp where he survived on rations from United Nations.

He indicated that the world should recognise the colonial nature of the occupation of Palestine and understand that their rights had been violated by the infamous Balfour Declaration. To give away their land without their consent was a basic violation of their rights.

The Ambassador used a term that I had never heard before. “Khazarian Jew”. He said that the people who claim Israel were not the original Jews of the land but converted Jews who were not originally from present-day Israel. I’m surprised that mainstream media has never mentioned this, though I am unsure what political and legal ramifications this would have on the issue.

In addition to this, he said that the terrorist attack on October 7 was not well-investigated and there was a possibility of this being a false flag attack to justify military action on the people of Palestine.

Colonialism and Communalism

There were several pro-Palestine people in the list of performers. They read their poems, snippets and explained why they support the Palestinian people.

One of the key arguments was that India, a nation which had fought colonialism and emerged as an independent nation could never abandon another nation fighting the same struggle. This makes sense as India had always supported Palestinian people in the past.

The pattern of dividing people on communal lines to benefit from the conflict had already been seen in pre-independence India. The same modus operandi was deployed in the middle-east to control oil resources. This has been quite obvious, especially after the infamous Joe Biden clip that went viral last year.

But social divisions do exist. Managing them within the precincts of a democratic constitution should serve as a bulwark against colonial power-play.

It is therefore important to understand the obvious, though I’m unclear how individuals can fight colonial powers at a global level.

Swara Bhaskar’s Travel Experience

The actress Swara Bhaskar shared pictures from her visit to Palestine couple of decades ago and recalled that it was a vibrant place in spite of restrictions on all sides. She said that the people who lived there thrived in spite of being in an “open-air prison”.

The media reports might paint different kinds of pictures but hearing the human stories of individuals puts things in perspective.

I don’t understand how these things continue even in the 21st century. But surely, we must ignore the loud TV anchors, manipulated social media and go back to the ground level. Talking to real people and knowing their story could be a much better way to understand the world.

What Next?

As a citizen, I am still skeptical about my voice having any significant impact on a global issue. But at least now, I understand some critical perspectives and implications of the Palestinian issue.

I can understand that social media campaigns can put pressure on governments. But I believe it has little impact on games played by big powers and don’t see that as a viable long term solution.

The proceeds of the event were being donated to a child requiring expensive treatment. Maybe, helping the victims of bombings with donations could be a starting point.

Major change and progress often starts with understanding and awareness. Our understanding of Palestinian conflict is kinda muddled given the nature of media and propaganda. Hopefully, a better awareness about the Palestinian struggle could eventually impact politics, policy and generate global pressure to do the right thing.

People never change, but I will
‘cause I never give a fuck, that I’ll never be enough
I have washed away, my sins
So I never gotta face, consequences, consequences

People so afraid, they’re mindless
They don’t wanna see you learn
They just wanna see you burn
They don’t wanna see the world turn

Lyrics of the song People Never Change, by PeterCat Recording Co

Aamir Khan tried to imitate Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan when he made a 200 crore-budget movie Laal Singh Chadda. Apparently the movie was a commercial flop and Aamir admitted that he was overconfident.

Though one can’t compare political phenomena to a flop cinema, one can clearly see that overconfidence can sometimes disappoint even the sharpest minds.

A cinematic election season has concluded recently in the state of Bihar, where Prashant Kishor’s Jan Suraj Party got a big zero in spite of massive buzz and progressive agenda.

Prashant was quite right when he said that no individual could change Bihar unless people of Bihar chose to change. And he claimed that the response to his padyatra and rallies was a strong indicator of change.

The outcome shows that the people of Bihar said “no thanks” to his efforts and indirectly said that they don’t want to change (at least for now).

Having spent considerable amount of time following this entertaining, but critical election for one of the poorest states in India, I felt like sharing a few thoughts.

Future of Children vs ₹ 10,000

People of Bihar were not unaware of Prashant’s pitch to vote for their children’s future rather than caste or freebies. Political Pundits often say that the electorate is wise and their decision is often wise.

Of course, they can be gaslighted at times. But after twenty years of having the same establishment (with brief break of one or two years), they chose the same set of leaders who had failed on key areas like education and jobs.

In a state where the bare minimum (like electricity, law and order and roads) was being seen as an achievement, the electorate failed to take a ‘leap of faith’ ( a phrase used by Prashant Kishor during his interviews).

TV anchors say that the ‘mahila’ voter gave a thumbs up to the good work done by Nitish Kumar. But don’t they see the value in improving education and creation of jobs through credit disbursal (as proposed by Prashant Kishor)?

The claim that ‘democracy delivers’ and ‘voter is wise’ has been reduced to rubble. A ₹10,000 cash transfer seems to have swayed a large chunk of women voters.

In addition, the Jan Suraj Party leaders claim that a loan from the World Bank was rerouted to fund this scheme. Even if this proven to be true, the election outcome can’t be reversed.

One wonders if ₹10,000 is the price at which a common voter (a large chunk if not all) can be persuaded to sell their future (and by extension their state’s future).

In spite of this pathetic state of affairs, people can also claim that the funds given to these women would spur economic activity, though one doesn’t know how to measure the outcome.

An Out-of-Touch-Opposition

The opposition’s big idea to sway votes is funny and delusional.

A government job for every family?

Did they use common sense before arriving at this decision? Even a lay man can understand that every family can’t get a government job in any state of India.

It seems that the leader of opposition lacked the intellectual heft to craft an idea good enough to capture the imagination of voters.

Though it seems easy to comment, shirking off the historical albatross over the neck i.e. ‘Jungle Raj’ would have required a rebranding exercise by the key opposition party RJD.

Lack of forethought and imagination compounded in ways that no pollster would have predicted.

One can understand the importance of electoral malpractices like ‘Vote Chori’ can muddy the democratic process. But does merely screaming about this issue mean anything substantial to a voter?

The common man would look for some positive agenda as well. Even if people did vote on this matter, the opposition didn’t have any concrete solutions to end ‘Vote Chori’.

The opposition which could have been an alternative in the election turned out to be a lazy bunch of parties which had very little imagination or ability to turn the tide.

A Cruel Joke

Even if you set aside these issues, one can see that the vote shares of all major parties hasn’t changed much. These are ossified vote banks as Shekhar Gupta puts it. The better social/political alliance managed to secure votes.

One would wish that the people of the poorest state of Bihar would take a quantum leap to improve their lives by voting for a better brand of politics. But, then the results seem to be a cruel joke on the calibre of the electorate.

After documenting these rather gloomy thoughts, I get back to the song that I quoted in the beginning. Maybe, you should also listen to it.

The Movie

Kantara Chapter 1 goes back in time to figure out the history of the sacred forest and gods. It makes sense to note that there was already a backstory in the original movie as well. But now it turns out there’s another backstory. All of this is connected to the location where the person carrying the divine spirit had disappeared.

One would have expected another backstory to be tedious and drawn out. But the grand visuals and well-structured story with interesting characters holds the audience. Innovation on several fronts of the movie have made the sequel as good as the first if not better.

Themes — Old and New

The depiction of tribal communities and their beliefs was a refreshing change in Indian cinema (at least in a big hit). This theme is kept alive, but it adds another dimension. Historical enslavement of tribes by more advanced communities has been added to the mix.

There are quite interesting explorations of the evolution of communities via trade and commerce. The idea of self-sufficiency via controlling desires has been touched upon. But this aspect doesn’t sound preachy. One would be tempted to expound the theory that greed is the cause of all damage. But, the movie deals with it from a power-struggle POV.

It’s ok to depict the magical aspect of divine. This is something that made the first Kantara movie popular or even ‘respected’ if one might use that adjective. But this one ventures into black magic. I hope that the black magic industry doesn’t get a fillip in coming times.

The movie also depicts the usage of drugs/substances which might have been the case with tribal communities. Also, isolation of different tribes giving way to diseases and death has also touched upon the idea of crude biological warfare that might have occurred in the past.

Innovation

The use of graphics and drones in cinematography has been done seamlessly. It doesn’t feel forced or out of place. The war scenes kinda remind you of Bahubali movies. But this one feels a bit more real though one might say that a large part of it is still unreal.

The finesse of the production team comes through as the movie turns out to be a visual treat. At the outset, this is the biggest area of growth and improvement when compared to the first Kantara movie.

Of course the lead actor Rishabh Shetty has a better body (in my own mind). The costume design has levelled up and acting remains top notch. I don’t want to get into those details as I’m not an expert.

Predictable Stuff

There are a few predictable templates in this movie (or any movie for that matter). If you have thirty minutes left in the show and the story feels like it’s ending, then you have to brace yourself for another twist.

If there’s a fight scene, then the hero tends to face losses initially and reaches a point where it feels like he might just lose. But then you have to expect a twist that gives him an unexpected edge which eventually makes him win.

The amount of joy and aha moment experienced by the viewer is directly proportional to how naive and open-minded he or she is.

Final Thoughts

The movie must be watched on the big screen. And it ends with some reference to part 3 coming in future. One can only imagine how many threads or directions that the next movie could take.

I would caution non-Kannada viewers about the quality of translations though I’ve not watched Hindi or other versions of the movie.

Since Rishab Shetty thinks and breathes in Kannada, the translated versions might have diluted in poetic/literary value. So only a Kannada speaking viewer can get the maximum juice out of this movie though one can contend that others will enjoy the story and visuals in equal measure.

But till then, one can say that this is a big win for Kannada Cinema and it will bring truckloads of money to the industry which has hitherto had very small dreams on the national/international stage.

In spite of knowing the futility and war as an intellectual concept we must also understand that human emotions are raw and irrational. Everyone knows war is bad and peace is good. But how can you make an army defeated in 1971 forget the humiliation of the past?

You can say that a failed toxic relationship was an aberration that happened due to your childhood insecurities. But in reality you still have sweet memories and anger about the person you once loved. It is quite hard to deal with such emotions.

We (Indians) have avoided conflict with Pakistan for almost two decades fearing nuclear catastrophe and have not retaliated against terror attacks sponsored by them. The fear remains, but we do have a malicious neighbour in Pakistan which uses nuclear cover to wage a proxy war.

Omission and Commission

I have many thoughts about Op Sindoor. Firstly, the security failure in a sensitive state receiving a lot of tourists is a big mistake. One should not forget that. But it is quite difficult to manage huge systems and the tendency to be complacent during good times is kinda natural. So, only a proper investigation can help us understand who failed.

At the same time, it is equally unacceptable for a nation to fund terror activities and train terrorists so that they can dispatch them to kill citizens of another nation. Among these two mistakes the latter is far worse because it is premeditated and conscious. It should have been punished long back, but we were not adequately prepared for the fight that would ensue.

My philosophy, hitherto undocumented is worth writing down.

I as an individual will always try to be good and nice to others. But if that goodwill is misused and I know that there was a malicious intent, then I would ensure that the person or group responsible for it pays.

The damage inflicted should be so huge that they would really find it hard to think of doing something similar again. Of course, one would have to acquire the physical, economic and emotional strength to carry out the punishment. If the end goal is defined, anyone can work on acquiring the capabilities.

Ruthless retribution should be the approach of every capable, strong individual or nation. I am glad that India is now in a position where it can hit back its enemies and defend itself simultaneously.

The Problem of the Rabid Dog

If there is a rabid dog in your neighbourhood and you try to handle it with humane ways by allowing it to walk around freely, mauling kids and old people, then you are clearly a fool.

But you would also be a fool if you violently kill it in front of everyone and be seen with blood on your hands. If at all you want to do it professionally, you can contact authorities who sedate it before injecting sodium pentobarbital intravenously. This kills the rabid dog silently.

If this facility is not available, you can shoot it in the head precisely and kill it instantly, preferably at a time when all others in the street are sleeping or on vacation. Right now, the Pakistani army establishment is a rabid dog in the neighbourhood. It has to be killed silently and professionally, preferably by its own people.

I don’t feel that any other solution is suitable for such a rogue entity.

I was sorta disillusioned by the options offered to the electorate and had a moment of real self-awareness regarding the flaws in my past beliefs. However, the election season has brought back some lost interest in politics. Thanks to the subscription, I have started watching hour-long videos/interviews on YouTube (without ads).

Prashant Kishor’s Biggest Fear

One of the audience members in the video above asked Prashant Kishor about the biggest hope and source of despair in the Indian political landscape.

He said that the source of despair is the lack of empathy of the Indian middle class towards the have-nots. This seems like a non-sexy remark, but you can feel it only when you see it.

Though his thoughts have been running in the back of my mind, I saw them come alive when I went to have lunch at Carnatic Cafe in Lodhi Colony. Several underprivileged kids asked everyone waiting outside Carnatic Cafe to buy them something.

Due to my casual dressing style, these kids did not approach me for help. Maybe they thought that I could not pay for stuff. If I do a rough calculation, my expenses on that particular day could have fed them well for a few days.

No amount of sloganeering or statistics will account for the desperation of these kids. No international summit or Ram Mandir can quench the thirst or satiate these kids' hunger loitering around during the most important years of their lives.

But I stood there and watched how others were responding. A family man decided to buy something for these kids. However, the women of his family resisted and discouraged the man from buying things for them. A well-dressed couple tried to get involved in the situation. But soon, the dude backed off after realising he didn’t have much money.

Of course, allocation of personal resources is sometimes a zero-sum game. Money lost to charity reduces the financial potential to nurture a relationship or a family. And those are the hard, cold facts. And we need to live with these facts.

Was there a need to put these flags everywhere without the consent of the individuals who own these properties? Why should this be a national celebration that forces everyone to clap to this event?

There's a distinction between devotion and frenzy, and you can see it. Those resisting electoral pressures and the force of majority opinion and taunts should be lauded. Lord Ram himself would not have approved of this frenzy around me.

In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. - Friedrich Nietzsche

There are good reasons to argue in favour or against the temple construction. In a country with multiple religions and faiths, I don't think this ugly celebration bodes well for harmony among its citizens. No one should be made to feel small in this country for whatever reason.

Those who are true bhakts of Ram would try not to cause any mental or physical harm to a fellow human. Clearly, one can see hooliganism traits in certain crowds celebrating this temple inauguration.

Obviously, this event is a political tamasha rather than an act of faith. And the rulers might reap the benefits of this inauguration. My current political position still holds. These stories and subscriptions to ideologies are for the sole purpose of acquiring and keeping power. Those favouring the mosque, hospital, or university were also seeking power and not striving to heal any historical wound.

Of course, a broken temple might have caused a wound. But hundreds of dilapidated temples in this country still need attention. Shouldn't they also be causing a similar wound? Apparently, not.

I see hundreds of Instagram influencers performing my favourite song, "Sri Ramachandra Kripalu". But do they understand the damage this ugly display of raw power is causing their fellow citizens? I don't think so. I hope someday we can soothe this wound caused to millions of fellow Indians.

One can only feel that the ugly instincts of millions of people slowly dilute and disappear over some time.

Ever since I read 'The Fountainhead' by Ayn Rand, I realise socialism has its own flaws. The political climate of the country was also changing in 2013, and I got swayed by some of the right-leaning ideas. Though free market, low taxes and freedom to do business are flagship concerns of the right wing, I was also introduced to the idea of Hindutva and the political forces that had lead to the formation of an Islamic state in our neighbourhood. At some point I was convinced that a counterforce for Islamic aggression was necessary to keep the balance.

This effectively moulded me into some sort of 'Sanghi', if you wanna call it. I also considered being a journalist and thought leader who could flip the 'liberal' narrative. It was a very enticing idea before I realised the kind of pathetic life led by 'journalists'. Thankfully, career issues took front seat, and I didn't pursue it too far. The whole phase made me realise that economics always trumps ideology.

Then, the pandemic hit, and I was heartbroken when I saw huge swathes of people rendered helpless and mauled by forces that were out of human control. I wondered whether politics makes a difference at all. Or is it just a tool for the elite to divide and control people? Is it an illogical profession that demands loyalty and penalises logic? It seems so. We're living in times of unprecedented inflation, global uncertainty about economy and simmering social fault-lines. Everything is seen from the political lens.

I am glad that I am privileged enough to be unaffected by politics in any way throughout my life. It makes no sense to invest my time or intellectual bandwidth to support or oppose any party or persona. I think it's time for me to simply shut myself from any sort of political news and focus on my career alone. I have been doing that for the past year or so. You might call me an irresponsible citizen. But when I see my income tax deductions, I would like to feel that I've done my share for the country.

If possible, I would like to eliminate political discussions from my life entirely and be a nice person who treats everyone equally, without prejudice and judgement. I know it's impossible. But, for the past six months, I have shut myself from the world of politics and controversies entirely. I have chosen not to be part of such discussions at all. And it seems to be fine, though it's not something that's ideal.

But, again I am not gonna consider myself apolitical. If someone were to put a gun to my head and force me to make a choice, I would opt for free-market economics, personal freedom, an efficient and targeted welfare system and a state which is truly secular (and not perverted in the way the current Indian state is). No political party of India meets all of these pointers, but I hope someday, people will realise the importance of these things.

I am amused whenever a non-resident Indian (NRI) speaks about issues related to India. In my humble opinion, most NRIs, irrespective of their political inclination have already drifted away from India and moved to a different nation.

They have indirectly decided that India will not offer them a bright future (at least not as bright as one available abroad). And probably, they are right. Most of the NRIs are in search of a permanent residence status or US green card. There is nothing wrong in having such a goal!

In some parts of the country, the craze to leave India is insane! I was amused to know that Sikhs in Punjab offer a toy plane as an offering at Baba Nihal Singhji Shaheed Gurudwara (Talhan, Punjab), to go abroad. And the toy is given out as 'prasad' to kids at the end of the day! I mean, what's up with Sikh NRIs protesting against farm laws in India?

An average NRI's interest in India is more of a pastime or a titillating hobby rather than a sincere commitment. A typical NRI reads a lot of news related to India and shit-posts on Twitter or WhatsApp groups. He or she doesn't bother much about India during his or her productive hours of the day (unless he or she is running a team of backend slaves in Bengaluru).

And then you have Indian academics like Amartya Sen or Jagdish Bhagwati in Ivy league schools of the USA. For them, India and its issues are essential for their career! I do admit that India doesn't encourage research or academia the way the US does. They do have the right to study issues which interest them. But I am appalled when I see these personalities driving the narrative in India.

Do Indians chilling in US have the right to run propaganda in a country they don't live in? I think the answer is a resounding no! I mean, they have no skin in the game. These academics don't have to worry about the effect of their statements!

Let's say that Professor A, based in the USA, supports more welfare policies in India and the media popularises this theory. Political parties adopt the policy and raise taxes to fund the scheme.

The professor who suggested this theory would not be paying those taxes. If Professor B, a permanent resident of Canada, proposes tax cuts; and the Indian government adopts it; he would not be affected by its negative impact in India.

In my opinion, Indian academics who live in India must be given a larger voice in deciding the country's policies. Visiting technocrats like Raghuram Rajan, Arvind Subramaniam and others are probably looking to add a high-profile government job to their illustrious CVs. They don't have a real stake in India's long term success because they don't live in India.

I am not saying that NRI contribution to India is zero. NRIs send money to their families and often cared for people back in India. We can not rule out their emotions towards India.

Their contribution to foreign societies has some impact on India's image abroad. So, I often suppress my negative opinions about NRIs. Many of my close friends and relatives live abroad. I don't want to offend them.

However, I decided to write this post after reading NRI noise during the second wave of the COVID pandemic in India. Do they have the right to jump into this debate? Probably yes, because their families are still in India. And some of them are raising funds for Indian NGOs.

But, I do want to question their commitment to the country. Half of them would have stayed back abroad during elections. The other half are those who visit India once in a year. If they had a choice, they would have preferred not to enter India during this crisis.

Inspite of lacklustre track record, NRIs have truckloads of criticism and suggestions to the government. Some of these nincompoops have the gumption to say that Leader X should go or Leader Y should win power from their comfortable couches abroad. Why should they have a say in Indian affairs? Why should they whine about the affairs of a country they don't plan to live in?

Almost 90 percent of NRIs who comment about India on a regular basis have no idea about the facts or ground reality in India. Let's forget my random complaints. I will share real arguments posed by an NRI on the COVID crisis in India.

Reasonable statement: Sure, the government didn't plan well. But citizens are equally responsible for the second wave of infections as they didn't wear a mask and didn't follow social distancing rules between November 2020 and March 2021.

NRI Intellectual: Average citizen has 4 hours to buy milk. [These restrictions kicked in after lockdown announcement]. Average citizen dies on the road trying to get oxygen. Was there a cash relief asking average citizen to stay home? No.

Reasonable statement: People didn't wear the mask properly in public places. They often wore it on their neck or chin. This could have contributed to a deadly second wave in India.

NRI Intellectual: It can come even if you are wearing a mask. You could get it while buying vegetables. India's population density is such. One person can get it and then after he/she's home whole family is infected. Crime to get vegetable eh? Solutions designed by India's elite was bullshit. They impose lockdown. Farmer is given ₹6000. Throw some rice/wheat and make PPT under the guidance of Honourable Shri Narendra Modi.

Reasonable statement: Many people chose not to get vaccine when it was available.

NRI Intellectual: If govt had Vaccinated 60% of population, there wouldn't be any such scene. [As if vaccines can be manufactured like popcorn]. It is 100% govt fault , honourable PM deserves to lose in 2024.

Reasonable statement: It's hard to vaccinate a population of our size.

NRI Intellectual: Yes India has more population, duh.

Well, I am not sure if NRIs are an asset or a liability to India. But I can surely say that some of them are a pain in the ass. They don't deserve the attention they get.

Some day, some of these NRIs will return to India when the white man refuses to give them a work visa or a permanent resident's status. Probably, they will continue to complain about India's problems, from their gated communities which are immune to the changes happening in dustier and rustier corners of India.

I would assign greater weight to comments coming from such voices, because they have some stake in ensuring that affairs are in order outside their palatial walls.

We met for dinner and had a chat. Everything was going fine till she discovered that my political ideology was different from hers and decided to end things. Later I discovered the reason for her choice through her Instagram!

This is a global phenomenon. People who subscribe to pro-Marxist ideology are ganging up against those who are not. The malaise has entered the corridors of top universities of the world.

Steven Pinker and many other intellectuals came out with a letter against this phenomenon when the USA was witnessing a rampage and chaos in 2020. One of the most important parts of the letter said:

The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.

A Letter on Justice and Open Debate (Harper's Magazine)

It is quite possible that people who are pro-Marxist are being shunned by certain sections of the population. But, I have not seen a large-scale phenomenon that can confirm this possibility.

Why is this happening? It is hard to come up with a theory without data. But, I have come up with a theory based on my experience. Of course, it is just a 'theory', not the 'truth'. Other people may have already expressed similar ideas before me. So don't accuse me of plagiarism.

A society goes through four steps before political ideology can influence personal lives. What are these steps?

Step 1: Formation of Strong Political Opinions: Thanks to frequent exposure to news and political opinions, we are forming strong political opinions and expressing them regularly.

Social media and the internet have made it easier for an average person to access news updates as soon as events happen. You might argue that this is a privileged person's problem. But this trend will spread to the entire society as more people start using a smartphones with the internet. Mere access to news is not enough. Frequency of exposure matters.

An average citizen with a smartphone is exposed to political developments in the country at least a dozen times a day. There are several channels where this can happen (Twitter feed, Instagram stories or Facebook posts).

Thanks to regular exposure, the level of political awareness of a citizen in 2020 is probably higher than that of a person in the pre-smartphone era. So, access to content that shapes an individual's political ideology has become easier and cheaper.

A person's ideological orientation is shaped by the regularity of news updates he or she receives. Of course, we are assuming that people draw rational or reasonable conclusions from factual news items.

We are also assuming that the media houses are often associated with a particular political ideology. I am not commenting on the complex interaction between ideologically hyphenated news and a person's ability to analyse it rationally.

Most of the individuals of the pre-smartphone era would have either ignored the news or consumed it in smaller doses. They would probably read the newspaper once a day or watch one news program per day. Since the amount of information that reaches an average person is less, he or she would not form strong political opinions during his or her lifetime.

If the inputs that shape a person's ideological orientation are injected regularly, then it becomes stronger over some time (as is happening in recent times).

Many individuals start expressing their views and ideas on their social media profiles. Very often they are passionate about the ideas and causes they support. Thanks to technology, an individual has the means to reach a large audience, including his or her social circle without a degree in logic or journalism. This leads us to the second step.

Step 2: Easy Access To The Political Ideology Of Our Social Circle (and society in general): It is easier for us to know the political ideologies of our friends and relatives. Before the social media era, the political mood of the nation was on display only through the ballot box (or through letters to the editor). Today, hashtags and internet trends can help us to monitor the political mood almost every day.

Before the era of social media and the internet, it was difficult for people to know a person's political ideology. Very few people discussed such things over a coffee or dinner (especially during a date). Today, you can look up someone's Facebook or Twitter timeline and immediately find out his or her ideological leanings.

Individuals comment on social media posts and expose their ideologies on public platforms. Gradually, individuals acquire a political ideology and identify with a particular set of people who share similar ideas. A sort of community takes shape. This community eventually results in an echo chamber.

Step 3. Formation of Echo Chambers: Not everyone decides to be a part of an echo chamber consciously. But it is a lot easier to be in one when an individual has a strong political preference. People see those who disagree with them as threats or people with bad personalities and hence avoid interacting with them.

Slowly, an average individual would seek to reinforce his or her ideological biases over time. Finally, individuals become a part of an ideological echo chamber where debate and discussion are absent or minimal. Thanks to the echo chamber effect, people can easily reject a new person in their social circles.

Step 4: We start judging people based on their political ideology and actively eliminate those who disagree with our preferred ideology.

Once a society or group of people pass through Step 3, it creates perfect conditions for political ideology to play a key role in our relationships. People in an echo chamber assume that an individual's persona is closely linked to his or her ideology and ignore all other aspects of the other person's life.

Even minor differences or a desire to remain politically neutral are unacceptable within these political echo chambers. At this stage, you have a society where political ideology is affecting day to day lives and personal relationships of average individuals.

P.S. This is a theory. It may be juvenile or even wrong. Let me know your opinions in the comment section.

"The need was to adopt the Sanghi label"

~Rahul Roushan in 'Sanghi Who Never Went To A Shakha'

For those who are unaware, the term 'Sanghi' is often used as an abuse against supporters of 'Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS)', a cultural organisation. RSS is considered the parent organisation of the ruling Bharatiya Janata party. And the term 'Shakha' refers to a regular gathering of the members of the RSS.

The book tells the story of the author's ideological journey, which is apparently similar to that of many BJP voters. Rahul Roushan explains how he was angered by the 'Sanghi' abuse at first, but eventually went on to adopt the label voluntarily.

Before I delve into the details of the book, I must mention a thing or two about the prevailing political environment in India right now. The word 'polarised' would accurately describe the scenario. Pro-Modi and anti-Modi citizens are at each others' necks. Neutral guys are often branded as closet-Modi supporters. But there is more to it.

I have seen people ending friendships because of their political differences. Terms like 'fascist', 'bhakt', 'liberandu' (liberal gandu), 'sickular' (a person who supports a contorted, pro-minority version of secularism) etc are thrown around while having heated debates on politics. All of this has affected nearly everyone, unless they are lucky enough to have pragmatic or apolitical friends.

Much of the hatred directed at BJP supporting Hindus stems from a distorted interpretation of 'Hindutva', the ideology espoused by the RSS. Hindutva has been branded as a fascist ideology, while in reality, Hindutva's definition of citizenship is very similar to that of American value based citizenship. It demands Indians to subscribe pluralistic and liberal values that have been a part of India's ethos, irrespective of the religion being followed by them today. Let me quote the FAQs section of the RSS website.

Why does RSS always talk only about Hindus? Is it a religious organisation?

In the RSS, we do not use the word "Hindu" in the context of a worshiping deity or as a religion. Hindus have a "View of Life" and a "Way of Life".

In the RSS we use the word Hindu in this context. In a landmark judgement the country"s Supreme Court has also said that Hinduism is not a religion but a way of life. For instance, Truth is one but there may be several ways to look at it, describe it, and also to attain and realize this truth. Yet all these several forms are similar.

This unity in diversity is Bharat's world view and also the Hindu's world view. All those who share this world view, accept and honour Bharat"s history, nurture the country through their own social values and make sacrifices to protect these value systems are "Hindus" despite having different religious moorings or following a separate religion.

However, there is a pushback to this proposition from from followers of Abrahamic faiths, especially those who subscribe to a pan-Islamic identity, in spite of being citizens of India.

Rahul Roushan's Ideological Journey

In the first two chapters, Rahul recounts his childhood and explains how his family brought him up as a 'Congressi Hindu' , i.e. Congress supporters who were not very assertive about their identity as Hindus. He explains why such a phenomenon was possible in the first place. The Congress party was able to send different messages to different communities without sounding incoherent. However, such a strategy included encouragement of anti-Hindu leftist intelligentsia in academic circles and media. Thus, Rahul says that Congressi Hindus lived a blissful life while their cultural heritage was being silently destroyed in important spaces like media and academia.

Later on, in the third and fourth chapters, the author explains his life in IIMC (Indian Institute of Mass Communication), where he hoped to build the foundation of his career in media. He tells us the fascinating story where he came face to face with a terrorist-batchmate , Shahbaz, but could not identify Shahbaz's true nature inspite of obvious clues in the worldview he espoused. He coins the term 'casual Islamism' to describe the attitude of such undercover terrorists. Rahul says:

"Just like liberals call out causal sexism, casual racism and casual casteism in daily behaviour and lexicon of people, one should be free to call out casual communalism, or casual Islamism to be precise, by highlighting certain beliefs or manners of the Muslim community. And Islamism has to be called out because it is solely responsible for the partition of the country and for the millions of deaths, not only in India but worldwide."

Later on, Rahul narrates his experience while working in the media. At this juncture, the author admits that he didn't even understand the term 'vicharadhaara' or ideology. He learns that 'responsible journalism' in India was hell bent on protecting reputation of Muslims even if they were perpetrators of a crime.

Rahul figures out that something is wrong, but he doesn't turn into a 'Sanghi' yet. The author focuses on getting into a B-school and further his career. After getting into IIM-Ahmedabad, Rahul learns about the other stories related to the 2002-Gujarat riots from people in the city. He cites some of the factors that ensured successive victories of Narendra Modi. Till the fifth chapter, the book documents Rahul's journey as a 'Congressi Hindu' who is not ideologically committed.

But things change after the Anna movement and corruption within the media establishment comes to his attention. He documents the popular narrative in the run-up to 2014 Lok Sabha elections. A major churn happens in the mind of the author. He questions the narrative of the leftist establishment and feels that Modi deserves a chance. However, he says that he didn't even have a voter ID when the elections happened. And he was not a 'Sanghi' even after the BJP swept 2014 elections.

Subsequent behaviour of the media and the partisan campaign that was launched by the Congress-Left establishment converts him into a 'Sanghi who never went to a Shakha'. Rahul realises that much of the narrative that goes in the name of 'secularism', 'human rights' and 'equality' in India is actually inspired by an anti-Hindu ideology. The double standards adopted when analysing events related to Hindus and minorities disturbs the author. The author finally makes an ideological leap when he can't tolerate the status quo anymore. He declares:

"The need was not to be neutral and balanced, but to balance this lopsided narrative by bringing in counter-arguments. The need was not to respect the boundaries of political correctness but to push the boundaries to show why political correctness was hiding the truth. [..] The need was to stand up for my identity, by not surrendering and seeking liberal validation."

In the last few chapters, Roushan tries to deconstruct the term 'ecosystem' (referring to the leftist ecosystem which includes media, academia, judicial setup and non-BJP politicians) and the manner in which it has been functioning over the decades. The author explains how exclusivist terms like 'Bhakt', 'Sanghi' and other pejorative terms are invented and stuck on people by the leftist-establishment. He admits that pejoratives 'anti-national' and 'urban naxal' have been coined to described the left-establishment.

Rahul expresses fears about a second partition and draws parallels between events that occurred during anti-CAA protests and events that happened in the run-up to partition. However, he asks 'Sanghis' not to turn into a replica of 'secular-liberal' gang and remain open to conversation with reasonable people.

This is a fascinating read for anyone who wants to understand the nature of political changes happening in the country since 2014. It demonstrates how a tolerant majority (which is still tolerant) which earlier voted for the Congress party has made a decisive shift, possibly a permanent shift, towards BJP. 

One of the most controversial words in modern-day politics is 'majoritarianism’. How it is perceived could very well define your political ideology today. Therefore, I needed to deconstruct and redefine this word from a different vantage point.

A certain essay written by a popular ‘journalist’ in ORF caught my eye when I was trying to write something about majoritarianism. According to liberal political philosophy, majoritarianism is abhorrent for any political system. But I'm afraid I have to disagree. Majoritarianism can be either good or bad for a democracy, depending on the values the majority supports. But things don’t work straightforwardly in the real world.

You Can’t Have Your Cake And Eat It Too

‘Intellectuals’ in India prefer democracy, a political system based on majority rule. Despite knowing the basic premises of democracy, they seek to fight ‘majoritarianism’. If they offered a credible alternative to the democratic system to fight majoritarianism — a benign dictatorship or an oligarchy of intellectuals. It would be worthwhile to listen to their arguments against majoritarianism.

These intellectuals misused the concept of majority rule as per political requirements. Let’s say that an intellectual is speaking on reservations. He or she will talk about the rights of poor Dalits, OBCs, Muslims and Adivasis to justify his or her support for the reservation policy. Further, the intellectual will highlight that these groups form the majority in this country and, therefore, such a policy is justified. Similarly, a socialist politician who supports high taxes for the rich will justify the policy by saying that the poor are in the majority. Therefore, the decision to impose a 40% tax on the minority is warranted.

But the same individuals will deny the majority's right in this country, i.e. the Hindu majority, to assert its political rights. The liberal intelligentsia is hell-bent on shaming and cursing the voters of this country if they vote for any ideology opposed to theirs. A popular ‘psephologist’ proclaimed that he wanted to hold the voters ‘by their collars’ and call them ‘idiots’ for defeating him in a Lok Sabha election. The fundamental contradiction in the stance of our ‘intellectual’ class is the most profound joke of our times.

Dubious Claims

The author of the ORF article I mentioned above claims that violence and illiberal ideas have gained the upper hand under the current Prime Minister. According to her, every avenue for liberal ideology is being squeezed by those in power. This complaint is in line with her ‘band of intellectuals’. The article says:

The repeated signaling against Muslims and their ‘inability to assimilate’ with the majority either in India or elsewhere in the world is communicated in several ways. Legitimate conversations around Pakistan sponsored terrorism against India, especially in the wake of the Pulwama attack, turn insidiously to question the patriotism of Indian Muslims.

When I read these lines from the article, I was immediately reminded of the shameless support given to Muslim extremists in the Shah Bano case by the premier secular party of India. I am reminded of hundreds of secular-liberal intellectuals who support regressive practices like triple talaq and nikah-halala in an age where gender-equality has been the norm worldwide. I cannot forget dozens of instances where Kashmiri Muslims celebrated the Pulwama attack in urban centers like Bengaluru! Let us not mince any words on the matter in question. Yes, the illiberal minority has to embrace the liberal progressive majority on the issues of gender justice and human rights.

Further, the author of the ORF article claims that the judiciary has been a saviour in during these testing times. She says

India’s courts have thus far proven to be the only resilient caretakers of this representation. Through recent judgements on the right to privacy, the right to worship, the right to love freely, the highest judiciary has expanded our notions of rights and upheld the primacy of the rule of law.

While she is partially right, I have serious doubts about the ‘bravery’ of our judiciary. The top court of this country has failed several times to uphold liberal values whenever the issue is concerned with ‘secularism’ or the ‘minority’ religions of India.

When the case on triple talaq was being heard, it refused to deal with the issue of polygamy and Nikah Halala. On one occasion, the top court asked a BJP worker to apologize for her meme on the West Bengal chief minister. If not for the outrage on social media, the regressive judgment would not have been questioned by our ‘liberal’ media. The Supreme Court has dragged the issue of Ram Mandir for decades now. I have serious doubts over the courage, liberalism and political/ideological leanings of India’s top court.

The Majority Can’t Be Held Responsible For Every Single Crime

Can majoritarianism be a problem? Yes. If it results in a system where the majority-administered government is murdering a single ethnic group, then it is something that must be stopped at any cost. If it leads to systematic racism as it happened in the USA, majoritarianism has to be fought tooth and nail.

Has the majority supported large-scale bigotry and discrimination in India? No. But an intellectual will stop you and say — it has. “Cow lynchings are happening every day, and therefore, the current dispensation and the Hindu majority of India is to be blamed for all these crimes”, he says. Every week, one or two crimes of this sort are dug up to justify this claim.

The double standard in this rhetoric is blatant. Whenever there is a terror attack by an Islamic group in the world, the same ‘liberal’ intellectual will scream that a large majority of Muslims in the world are peaceful. Similar treatment is somehow denied to the quiet majority of Hindus when commenting on cow lynchings.

Incidents of lynching happening around India are tragic and regrettable. They should not have happened. But this does not prevent logical people from calling out the fraud in the propaganda spread by our media's so-called ‘intellectuals’.

If supporters of the right-wing scan all crimes that happened in a particular week, they too can find a list of incidents where the minority community committed hate crimes against the ‘helpless’ majority. Such lists have been prepared in the recent past. One of them carries a list of disturbing crimes which include forced conversions, riots and rapes of minor Hindu girls.

When ‘liberal intellectuals’ are presented with this evidence, they prefer to shoot the messenger. They call the right-wing media persons hatemongers and avoid any serious debate.

The Larger Question

But the larger question remains. Can individual instances of crime/violence be used as a propaganda tool to fuel more violence in society? The answer is a big NO. Vicious cycles of violence are never-ending.

Mob violence and hate crimes must be reported without any political agenda. And the cases must be disposed of by the country's legal system. Guilty must be punished. Nothing short of this can be morally/ethically acceptable. But that does not seem to be happening. If news reports are to be trusted, the one-sided propaganda on cow lynchings is already leading to mob violence in several cities.

Instead of finding common ground where all citizens can work together and live harmoniously, the media (especially the left-leaning media) is hell-bent on furthering divisive propaganda targeted at the peaceful majority of this country. The majority of this country seeks to live harmoniously. But the left-leaning media is targeting this constituency as an ego-project to justify the validity of its intellectual posturings.

This propaganda is not likely to sustain the test of time because it is based on flimsy grounds. Creating a counter-propaganda based on the same illogical premises would not be hard. I hope that better sense will prevail in media organisations that command a large audience. They have the maximum potential to damage the current peace in the country. Of all options, the media has the least credibility and moral authority to lecture the public about good and bad.

In conclusion, I reject all conspiracy theories on majoritarianism in India and the taboo attached to BJP. I support the right of a liberal majority to impose its will on an illiberal and medieval minority. And I support the right of India’s Hindus who seek to submerge caste/ language barriers and vote for a regime that is preferable to them.

The Historical Relationship Between Technology and Jobs

Once man learnt to grow crops and settle in a single place, and civilization took birth, the number of occupations have multiplied continuously over the years. This multiplication of occupations grew with the technological innovations. Number of jobs that became irrelevant were usually less than the number of new jobs that came into existence in developed world. This statement is supported by the rising incomes and GDP of the world after World War II in the industrial world.

Simultaneously, manual jobs were lost in the developing world and colonies of western nations. Technology was the key factor that created and destroyed jobs in the past . This pattern has continued for a long time.

This fact has resulted in opposition to technology and also some serious thinking in socio -political circles to evolve alternate strategies of economic development.

Opposition to technology for the sake of saving jobs is not a new story. Luddites in Britain ransacked the spinning jenny when Britain took the path of industrialization. Mahatma Gandhi opposed big industries and preferred village industries. The Charkha and Khadi were presented as symbols of nationalism in spite of their inefficiency from the production point of view.

However, the march of technology seems to be unstoppable. Email reduced the relevance of letters to a large extent. Computers made typewriters irrelevant. telegram became obsolete after mobile phones became affordable.

Now SMS is on the verge of being irrelevant with the advent of messaging apps like Whatsapp. However, electronics and internet technology revolution created new sectors like e-commerce and IT services where new jobs were created. This has more or less compensated for the jobs lost to telegrams and typewriters.

Impact of Technology on Job Creation

The next technology revolution might not be so generous. Artificial intelligence, self driven cars, robotics in manufacturing will lead to massive loss of jobs that employ a large section of middle class in urban areas around the world.

The importance of human labor is reducing at a mind boggling pace. The march of technology and its impact on jobs will result in tectonic shifts in our societies and economics. Without doubt it will also affect the politics of nation states and its political class in a big way.

The next technology revolution will not only impact urban family incomes but also the pressure on rural jobs and earnings. If machines take over roads and manufacturing plants, a large number of laborers will have to migrate back to villages in developing nations like India.

The situation is even worse in industrialized countries as agriculture is already mechanized. The world is unprepared to tackle issues that might crop up in future.

Initially , in the early twentieth century, the primary sector lost jobs to the secondary sector. With advent of IT services, most of the businesses are now dependent on internet and allied services.

Secondary sector lost jobs to the tertiary sector. If IT services and automobiles are taken over by computers or new technologies, the economy might not have new jobs to offer to a growing population. This would force nations to revamp their labor policy in future.

Technology and Labour Force

NBER ( National Board of Economic Research), USA feels that technology can impact labor force in three ways.

1. Retirement decisions of older workers

2. Skill acquisition of young workers

3. Inter- industry wage workers

Once jobs are independent of physical stress and bodily strength, workers are automatically capable of working for longer years. If manual labour is eliminated through automation, governments , employers and employees will have to revamp retirement policies to make way for younger blood in the workforce

Secondly, the kind of skills needed for the new era is totally different from that of the 20th century. Workers will have to let go outdated knowledge and acquire new information at a fast pace. University curricula must take note of the changes happening in the job market and respond swiftly to bridge the skill gap.

Government schemes like Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana will have to realign their course content for the new era. Spending on skills that are likely to be automated will not yield results in future. Companies will also have to spend a larger amount of money towards on-job training to ensure that their human capital doesn’t depreciate.

Thirdly, the demand for manual labor will reduce in future. As per the fundamental law of economics, price of any commodity will reduce if the demand falls.

This could lead to lesser wages for the manual workers and higher wages for those who are involved in technology intensive jobs. The gap between these two sectors exists already. But , it might widen further with the advent of automation.

As we are aware, large gaps in lifestyle of the rich and the poor are bound to cause social unrest. Governments and societies will have an additional challenge to confront.

The Silver Lining

With the automation of manual or repetitive jobs because of technology, humans might come up with creative solutions to existing and new problems emanating from technology and job losses. Government might reduce work hours , redistribute wealth and improve lives with the help of new technologies.

This assumptions finds validation from the recent UN sponsored summit “AI for Good” , held in Geneva which held discussions on using AI for achieving sustainable development goals.

With AI , data driven sectors like health care, education and public service delivery can be made more effective. The benefits of better human development indices might affect the availability of skilled workforce that could contribute in sectors that are not labor intensive.

As technology changes dynamically, so will the kind of jobs on offer for future generations. The human mind and not computers will hold the key to creation of technology and handling consequences of the same. No matter how the future shapes up , the innovative spirit of humans will play a key role in reinventing the concept of ‘employment’ in coming days.

There are people in the world so hungry, that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread.”
― Mahatma Gandhi

Poverty is a key challenge to humanity. The word poverty originated from the French world ‘poverte’ meaning misery or wretched condition somewhere in 12th century.

Though the world has always seen inequality in terms of wealth or power, the concept of poverty has come to the forefront only after the formation of modern nation states were formed in late 17th and early 18th century. Until then , poor , hungry or homeless were the general terms used to describe symptoms of poverty.

To call poverty as a state of mind might sound as a politically incorrect statement at first glance. Yes, to mock impoverished people by reducing it to a figment of imagination is cruel.

But, attitudes of recipients of poverty alleviation schemes can play a decisive role in its success or failure. Enterprising and optimistic communities might solve poverty faster than those that prefer freebies and fatalism.

Causes of poverty are not restricted to the domain of economics, social conditions and politics , though external conditions. We will have to pay attention to the psychological aspect as well to solve the problem.

Evolution of our understanding of poverty

With the intellectual awakening of colonized peoples and nationalist independence movements, people realized that poverty was one of the ugliest consequence of foreign powers ruling over them.

Nations like India were prosperous before they were colonized . Tribal societies of Africa and Americas had not heard of poverty before they were subjugated by ‘civilization’, slavery and diseases.

Though the term poverty can be used to describe poor in a general way, there was a need to quantify the parameters to identify individuals suffering from the phenomenon.

Dadhabhai Naoroji was perhaps the first to come up with the concept of poverty line. He came up with term called ‘prison cost of living’ which was equivalent to three fourth of the money spent by government for feeding an adult inmate in jail.

Nationalists in late 19th century and early 20th century were able to articulate the reasons for poverty in colonies. The macro economic exploitation by colonizing nations were cited as the key reasons for poverty.

Individual abilities of the native people had been inhibited by colonial regulations, laws, heavy taxation and economic policies. Though early nationalists were able to define poverty and identify its causes, they did not make attempts to calculate what percent of population was living in poverty.

With the expansion of cities and industries, poverty as a phenomenon was recognized in western powers as well. However, no significant study was done on poverty till 20th century. Poverty and hunger were abstract terms that were not quantified by the academia or the state.

Seminal Work of Seebom Rowntree on Poverty

Seebom Rowntree, a British national was perhaps one of the first researchers who did a survey to find out about the percentage of people living in poverty.

He conducted his study in the city of York and collected data of 46,000 peoples income. People who were capable of hiring a domestic servant were excluded from the study. Rowntree found that 20000 people were earning below a minimum limit that he had calculated. That accounted for 28% of the population of York .Rowntree was the first person to coin the term ‘poverty line.’

Poverty, A Study of City Life was published by Rowntree in 1901. It carried details and conclusions of his study. According to him , there were two main causes of poverty. The first was absence of regular employment due to disability or lack of wage earners in a family. The other reason was low wages paid to workers.

Wages paid were insufficient to lead a decent life. Basic necessities like food, clothing and fuel could not be purchased with many laborers.

The public was shocked by the work of Rowntree. Public opinion turned in favor of the poor as Rowntree went around England giving lectures. The media covered this enthusiastically. People in general and those in power could not sit back and blame the poor for their poverty.

Government and policymakers were forced to take a sympathetic view of the impoverished people in Britain. Free school meals, state pensions , health insurance and unemployment insurance for working men were some of the measures taken to alleviate poverty.

At the start of 20th century , the world had succeed in defining poverty and acknowledging that the poor required state support. The tendency to fault the poor for their poverty was dropped in Britain. Rowntree’s work proved to be a milestone in study of poverty and policy making .

Simultaneously, intelligentsia in colonies attributed the poverty of their peoples to the macroeconomic exploitation by colonizing nations . Further they argued that self rule and socialism as the key solutions for the same. Most of the prevailing ideas in 20th century attributed the cause of poverty to external factors alone.

Statistical Jugglery and Poverty

Though the concept of poverty line was useful to quantify poverty and identify eligible persons for state support, it later became a plaything in the hands of bureaucrats and governments.

It was used to suppress the actual poverty levels in order to display a palatable situation to the larger public. In India, several methods have been employed to calculate poverty figures. Some of them are listed below.

The Rangarajan panel adopted the calorie method wherein an urban person is considered to be above poverty line if he is able to consume 2155 calories per day in rural areas and 2040 calories per day in urban areas .

This is lower than 2,400 kcal in rural areas and 2,100 kcal in urban areas suggested by earlier panel headed by Lakdawala.

Tendulkar methodology takes into account the spending capacity as a reference to find poverty levels. The government embarrassed itself when the number was put at 26 rupees per day. This is much lesser than UN designated minimum income of $2 per day.

Any sane person would agree that the methodologies suggested above do not consider the life of a person from the point of view of housing, education and health perspectives.

These are also important for a dignified life. The exercise of finding poverty levels has been made a statistical exercise rather than a humanistic endeavor to understand poverty. The spirit that Rowntree had while conducting his survey is missing in modern surveyors.

After studying this change in approach, one can say that poverty is a manifestation of the state of mind of the government which is trying to address the problem. Is the government honest in its intentions to provide a decent life for all its citizens ? Or is it interested in statistical jugglery ?

The way in which a government deals with the question of poverty alleviation, reflects the state of mind of the authorities and politicians who are elected to solve the problem.

Psychology and Poverty

Poverty has a psychological dimension as well. Studies have proven that poverty or hunger can force people to take bad decisions that further worsen their situation. Alcoholism is one such example.

In my opinion , the approach of the state and policy makers must involve the psychological aspect of poverty without brushing away the harsh and inhuman condition in which the poor are forced to live in.

Several studies have proven that sudden fall or rise in incomes makes poor families prone to bad decisions. Poverty brings with it great amount of stress economically as well emotionally.

This inhibits the ability of those stuck in poverty to take good life decisions ( like saving or providing education to kids). In addition to this , a positive impression of oneself and determination on part of those stuck in poverty is also essential.

State sponsored schemes like a Jan Dhan Yojana (zero balance bank account for every household in the country) can lead to a positive habit of saving money in poor households. In addition to this skill training, encouragement to labor intensive industries can help in increasing family incomes.

In addition to this , micro credit schemes like MUDRA can also aid poor to start small businesses and encourage self employment among poor. Instilling confidence in the poor and changing their attitude towards their poor livelihood is also a part of the poverty alleviation agenda.

Conclusion

Hence, one can conclude that the state of mind of all stakeholders is an important factor in combating poverty. Shifting the entire blame on poor for their poverty is not a solution for the problem. Acknowledging economic and social disabilities and helping poor to defeat poverty is the only long term solution.