“There are various ways of looking at it”, said a friend who had recently become the Asia-Pacific chief of the world’s second largest investment firm. He shifted from his New York office to BKC, much to the chagrin of his wife. But his trepidation didn’t end there. The brazen sweet-heart deals across real estate sector, Indian bureaucracy and its attendant cost and the kick-backs while buying office equipment in private companies stun him. Need to say here that his insight into the world of glitz and glory are beyond reproach. When watching the footage of P.R. Swarup’s address at the North India Offices 2010-12 conference organised by Property World in Delhi, he exulted in disbelief. Swarup, who was the chief guest at our conference, said in his inimitable way that government and Planning Commission figures are usual a matter of theatrics.

 What an office clerk presupposes as Rs10,000 would rise to $1-trillion by the time the estimates reach the Prime Minister.“The bureaucrats don’t understand that there can be a flip side to the story. When the government estimates $1-trillion to flow in by way of investments, from domestic as well as foreign direct investors, the spin-off effect on the economy can be humungous”, my friend said leaning back on his swivel chair. I kept munching the chapattis from his lunch box in mute acquiescence.

“Don’t you understand the government should never be taken at its word? The figures are all a matter of indication; if the same was done by E&Y or McKinsey the real figures would have come out. The government is always given to underplaying the causes as well as the effects”, my friend explained without prompting. “I am getting the drift”, I said again, just to let the conversation flow. “But why don’t people, especially the bureaucrats realize that there is going to be stupendous growth and economic activity directly related to these investments around the country. The aggregate investments and the growth in industrial activity around the infrastructure projects of $1-trillion would anywhere be about $4-5-trillion”.I looked at my friend agape. “That’s so bloody true”, I said adding, “and this kind of money is easy to raise from international players”. The debate went on, with me using all my professional acumen to keep it on even keel.

The evening ended with ice cubes in Budweiser at a pub near Kala Nagar.Two days later I took off with my friend from Schindler elevators for a drive through the old Mumbai-Pune highway. He has a rickety old Fiat Uno, which by comfort levels can compare with a Mercedes. But the ten year-old car had a telling effect on the ride through the tortuous and winding road that once was known for its day-long traffic jams. When we reached a place some ten kilometers away from Lonavla he swerved the car into a narrow muddy road. Minutes later he parked the car on the edge of a cliff.

We got down from the car and spread newspapers on the ground and squatted before they could fly away. I didn't notice my friend had a couple of beer cans with him taken from an ice box in the boot. But before he could stave the cans open I made a rider that he will not be driving back home.“Then who will do it?” he asked.“I will take the wheel”.“But you will be just as drunk as I am”.“Well, don’t be so presumptuous. I am not drinking if I am going to drive”.To cut a long story short, the day didn’t end in a damp squib even after the liquor cans were stuffed away ingloriously. By late evening I drove back to Mumbai and we were both at a former highly placed WTC official’s residence, sober and hearty.

The WTC official's son, who is known for his peccadilloes more than anything else, came inebriated and swaying. I always suspected most of his savings went in bottom-fishing United Breweries stocks. After delving into each other's sex life when we finally ensconced on bean chairs in his room, the WTC official's son talked about the grueling interview sessions he had with foreign players who were out to pitch for infrastructure investments through the IPC he was working for.The US-based global player had too many questions for the WTC official’s son about transparency and delinquency among their Indian counterparts.

Finally, the US based investment firm decided after confabulations with its US counterparts that it was not worth the while to get into major infrastructure deals in India, until they could see a modicum of cleanliness in transactions.“After all, it is illegal for US companies to be caught with their hand in the till in a third country”, said the former WTC official's son. “Sad, India lost another big player from the race. Do you think many will stay out because of India’s record in transparency?

Will we be able to get $-1trillion?” I asked still slightly unsure of the drift.“Naah, impossible. We should be happy if we manage to mobilize even half of that”, he replied promptly.“Who did you talk to in the US investment firm and where was this meeting?”“ His name is Ratish Jyoti, and is vice president. We met at his office at BKC”.Small world.

(As usual, this story though is true, the characters are chosenly part-fictional)

Posted by Anil Nair at 12:01 AM

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  d'oh

This article from DNA has been forwarded to me by many friends who think equally strongly about the shrinking civil society. But Jaggi always writes with aplomb and candour, rarely seen in today's journalists. Enjoy!

____________________________________________

By R Jagannathan

Every thinking person knows that the secular-liberal space is shrinking. It is shrinking not only in India, but in the whole subcontinent, and possibly all over the world. Secular liberalism will take root only when like-minded people from all communities condemn the same things and talk the same language.Even in the stoutly secular European Union, growing Islamophobia has sharpened religious antagonisms within. This is evidence of the hidden threat to liberalism.

The various anti-terror laws enacted in Europe, the violent responses to the Danish cartoons, the French opposition to the hijab, the German angst about Turkish immigrants' refusal to integrate, and the subtle Europe-wide opposition to Islamic Turkey's entry into the EU are signs that a religious divide is opening up on the continent.

It's only a matter of time before liberalism and secularism shrivel under these pressures.

In and around India, various extremisms are taking root. The Taliban have arrived a few miles from our borders in Pakistan's Swat Valley. The Naxals are running riot in a huge north-south corridor from the Nepal border to Maharashtra and AP. The various Hindu senas are raising their ugly heads from Orissa to Karnataka. Muslim zealots are taking to the streets at the slightest provocation, real or imagined.

Where are the secular-liberals in all this? They are ineffective because they are confused and divided. Secular liberalism will take root only when like-minded people from all communities condemn the same things and talk the same language.

As things stand now, liberals defend only half the turf, while maintaining a deadly silence about the other half. In India, they tend to be vociferous in condemning Hindu communalism but look the other way when minority communalism rears its head.

We don't have to look too far for such examples. When the Sri Rama Sene decided to defend its version of 'Hindu culture', the entire liberal establishment pounced on it. A pink chaddi campaign was launched.

Around the time when we liberals were teaching the Sene's cohorts a lesson, an editor in Kolkata was fending off a Muslim mob that took offence over an article written by an atheist religion-baiter.

Thanks to our one-sided secularism, this editor had almost no liberal defenders. He was arrested for disturbing communal harmony before being let off on bail. No secularist thought it fit to send coloured undergarments to that riotous mob outside his office. Is this even-handed secularism?

If the same crime by different communities merits different responses, our secularism is fake. If liberals gather only to attack majority communalism, they are effectively encouraging minority communalism through silent eloquence. They take refuge under the weak argument that majority communalism is more dangerous than its minority counterpart.

Is it? I don't think so. First, the number of communalists among Hindus is very tiny. What we are fighting is a minority in the so-called majority.

Second, every time we raise our voices against Hindu communalism but mute the criticism for minority communalism, Hindu communalists recruit more to their cause. The Sangh Parivar has grown many radical new arms not because the RSS is so powerful but because it is perceived as weak by more and more Hindu youths.

Third, the idea of a Hindu majority is a partial myth. If you take the 25-30% of SC/ST population out of the head count, Hindus are not a clear majority even in India. This is particularly true in the context of efforts to give Dalits a different religious identity under Ambedkarite Buddhism.

We also need to look at Hindu numbers from a subcontinental perspective, given our porous borders with Bangladesh and Pakistan. Large parts of eastern India have already been inundated by Bangladeshis. But liberals don't want to take note.

If you take South Asia's demographics as a whole, upper caste and OBC Hindus -- who form the real Hindu core -- are merely the largest single minority. So when we talk of majority communalism, we are quite wrong. There is no such thing.

To expand the secular-liberal space in India we have to battle all kinds of communalism. This means liberals from all communities must band together. I find no sense in banners such as Muslims for Secular Democracy. If Muslims are secular, are they really espousing a different type of secularism compared to non-Muslims?

Liberals cannot have dual yardsticks on this. The world is one village, and the concept of majority and minority is a self-limiting one.

If secularism is worth fighting for, it is worth fighting for in all communities. If it is good for India, it is good for Pakistan, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, and China. India cannot be the only liberal-secular island in a sea of communal or autocratic states.

Even as Hindu liberals fight for secularism in India, liberal Muslims must take this idea to all Muslim fora everywhere in the world. It is difficult to rubbish the idea of a Hindu Rashtra when Muslim liberals choose to keep quiet on non-secular societies in our neighbourhood.

*********

Posted by Anil Nair at 2:08 AM

Updated: Sunday, 22 February 2009 10:38 AM

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink