It's so difficult, complicated and almost impossible to get some of the basic things done in the 'right' way in India, that it doesn't take long for one to conclude that 'right' is actually terribly 'wrong' here. Registering a marriage, registering a vehicle in a state different from the one where it was bought or paying the corresponding road tax, getting one's name in the right voter list, police verification for passport, getting a postpaid mobile connection if you are not married or home-owner, not having an electricity bill, gas bill, ration card, aadhaar card, or some such shit with your name on it - are just a few examples.
The past few years, I have suffered a lot of inconvenience because of one document that everyone seems to want and for which I am always forced to resort to crazy meaningless workarounds - it's the 'local address proof'. It's insane to expect everyone to own a house in the present times, and that too in the city/state one is living in, when a lot of guys and gals in cities are originally from somewhere else and live in rented apartments, which most even share with others. Given that, a rent agreement should be accepted, but it's not accepted, probably coz it's easy to create an agreement when none exists. There is something called a 'registered' agreement, which is hardly accepted anywhere; not even by government agencies. Workarounds exist, most of which are just acceptable documents not really proving what they are accepted for but actually standing for something else - bank statement as proof of address, for example.
Why can't we have a rule that is relevant, convenient and meaningful, so that we don't have people lying about something that could be so simple and transparent? That India is large, crowded and complex is not an excuse. We have made India 100 times (or 100x100 times or whatever) more complicated than it should have been. And this is true even about the way India's private service companies work. Political parties' election promises still include things like water in taps and electricity connections to homes. And that reflects the fact that for a country that still doesn't have the basic things in place, nor a strong will to do so, talking of processes, imperfect procedures and fraudulent paperwork is too much ahead of its time.
As Manis and I were discussing about how pathetic the state of affairs is in India and how badly we have failed to manage this Country, an analogy occurred to me as to what we do with a company with lot of valuable assets yet unable to do profitable business - either the company is sold or its assets are sold.
Our cultures have groomed our minds to develop a lot of emotion for one's country. Whereas, except for a few individuals, those associated with a company are largely motivated by what they earn out of being related. And will be open to moving out if the company is not fulfilling enough - financially or psychologically. The same does not happen so easily when it comes to one's country. Even those who move out for a better life, do cling on to their nationalities and cultures, which they try to protect with all sincerity. Proves that fight for money, and thereby one's claim over earth's resources, makes people behave far more sensibly and practically. And in all this they manage to ignore the hollow words of employers who try to invoke emotions and try to trap employees through drawing connect beyond money and work. Whereas in a country, leaders manage to trap people by invoking emotions, even if they don't really do what they can to ensure people get their fair share of resources.
Just like the fact that a company is much more than its assets, a country is much more than its resources. Ownership of all assets in a country, even land, does not amount to ownership of the country. A company is owned by definite individuals, and they can be paid and parts of the company be bought. A country is not owned by individuals. Individuals only own assets of a country. Even the Government does not own the country. It only governs. Probably nobody 'owns' a country, because none of us 'created' it. Let's say God created this earth. So the country, being a part, is created by God. Whoever played a role in carving out a specific region and defining it as an entity called country can be credited with playing the biggest managerial or leadership role in that country's history. Even that individual would not be the owner of the country because he has his importance and draws his power only from the ideological support of the subjects. If he deviates, he's gone. Probably am thinking in a democratic framework.
A dictator is also not an owner, he just imposes himself on the masses. Same is the case with a king. But with a king, the rule has elements of ownership in the kind of decisions he takes and the hereditary passing of control. And at the root of it is power and might. And a more powerful and mighty can uproot the king and take control. It is therefore 'control' rather than 'ownership'. And power and might, drawn from whatever sources, is at the heart of all forms of control - governments - democratic, dictatorial, monarchial, communist, military, etc. etc.
I could still not answer the ownership question. Probably coz it's unknown. We humans, even the powerful ones, wud be stupid to think we own the world or a country. A few of us just manage to be powerful enough to control stuff somewhere. But that's temporary, in the overall scheme of things. Those few are just more powerful in comparison - to other humans and other living beings.
For the ownership - I guess we should stick to the thing we call God. But then a country cannot be sold, coz God is simply non-existent in the form that is of any use for us to make a transaction. But then, I wonder what would selling a country really mean for us, given that I tried to justify above that a country cannot be owned by an earthly being. In fact, an actual sale would happen between Gods in that case, if there are many. I realize this is a totally useless line of analysis of ownership, as this has no practical significance for us.
What really matters for us is 'control', not 'ownership'. Control can be structured in the right manner so as to ensure that whoever is best suited for a specific task holds the reins for that task, although the ultimate control over everything can lie with some governing idiot. And then, an incentive & penalty model can be designed to further ensure that people incharge are doing their jobs. But who is going to design these models, systems and institutions in the right manner? In a democracy, the ultimate controller is theoretically people, which is not a singular entity, nor has a unique point of view. It's a game of simple majorities, which often means a system with consent of a minority, which itself neither understasnds much nor cares much nor is allowed to participate much to affect things in any significant way. Many sensible people fight for changes which they believe in. Many selfish people also fight to screw up systems in ways that would benefit them. May be we must just hope 'evolution' is the answer over the long term. But I don't have so much faith in evolution, when it comes to our own systems. Rather, not so much faith that things will evolve in ways that are best and right for us humans, at least a large majority of us.
Evolution is a frustratingly slow process. And I am not sure whether there are mini-evolutions happening to ensure right configurations for all systems in the universe. Possibly evolution is 'one' universal phenomenon to maintain a balance and beauty across the universe; and doesn't really care how humans share resources or discipline themselves or treat eachother. May be that's not the case. Who knows. And in any case, it apparently happens over generations. And what excitement would I have in trying to change anything if the change is not likely to happen to a significant extent in my lifetime? I believe those who still fight for changing the system do so not for the end but for the means - they really enjoy fight for change. It's like enjoying a job. It's in such people among us that we rest our hopes, and live with what we've got, that's constantly changing, hopefully for the better. Hopefully for the better of us.
The past few years, I have suffered a lot of inconvenience because of one document that everyone seems to want and for which I am always forced to resort to crazy meaningless workarounds - it's the 'local address proof'. It's insane to expect everyone to own a house in the present times, and that too in the city/state one is living in, when a lot of guys and gals in cities are originally from somewhere else and live in rented apartments, which most even share with others. Given that, a rent agreement should be accepted, but it's not accepted, probably coz it's easy to create an agreement when none exists. There is something called a 'registered' agreement, which is hardly accepted anywhere; not even by government agencies. Workarounds exist, most of which are just acceptable documents not really proving what they are accepted for but actually standing for something else - bank statement as proof of address, for example.
Why can't we have a rule that is relevant, convenient and meaningful, so that we don't have people lying about something that could be so simple and transparent? That India is large, crowded and complex is not an excuse. We have made India 100 times (or 100x100 times or whatever) more complicated than it should have been. And this is true even about the way India's private service companies work. Political parties' election promises still include things like water in taps and electricity connections to homes. And that reflects the fact that for a country that still doesn't have the basic things in place, nor a strong will to do so, talking of processes, imperfect procedures and fraudulent paperwork is too much ahead of its time.
As Manis and I were discussing about how pathetic the state of affairs is in India and how badly we have failed to manage this Country, an analogy occurred to me as to what we do with a company with lot of valuable assets yet unable to do profitable business - either the company is sold or its assets are sold.
Our cultures have groomed our minds to develop a lot of emotion for one's country. Whereas, except for a few individuals, those associated with a company are largely motivated by what they earn out of being related. And will be open to moving out if the company is not fulfilling enough - financially or psychologically. The same does not happen so easily when it comes to one's country. Even those who move out for a better life, do cling on to their nationalities and cultures, which they try to protect with all sincerity. Proves that fight for money, and thereby one's claim over earth's resources, makes people behave far more sensibly and practically. And in all this they manage to ignore the hollow words of employers who try to invoke emotions and try to trap employees through drawing connect beyond money and work. Whereas in a country, leaders manage to trap people by invoking emotions, even if they don't really do what they can to ensure people get their fair share of resources.
Just like the fact that a company is much more than its assets, a country is much more than its resources. Ownership of all assets in a country, even land, does not amount to ownership of the country. A company is owned by definite individuals, and they can be paid and parts of the company be bought. A country is not owned by individuals. Individuals only own assets of a country. Even the Government does not own the country. It only governs. Probably nobody 'owns' a country, because none of us 'created' it. Let's say God created this earth. So the country, being a part, is created by God. Whoever played a role in carving out a specific region and defining it as an entity called country can be credited with playing the biggest managerial or leadership role in that country's history. Even that individual would not be the owner of the country because he has his importance and draws his power only from the ideological support of the subjects. If he deviates, he's gone. Probably am thinking in a democratic framework.
A dictator is also not an owner, he just imposes himself on the masses. Same is the case with a king. But with a king, the rule has elements of ownership in the kind of decisions he takes and the hereditary passing of control. And at the root of it is power and might. And a more powerful and mighty can uproot the king and take control. It is therefore 'control' rather than 'ownership'. And power and might, drawn from whatever sources, is at the heart of all forms of control - governments - democratic, dictatorial, monarchial, communist, military, etc. etc.
I could still not answer the ownership question. Probably coz it's unknown. We humans, even the powerful ones, wud be stupid to think we own the world or a country. A few of us just manage to be powerful enough to control stuff somewhere. But that's temporary, in the overall scheme of things. Those few are just more powerful in comparison - to other humans and other living beings.
For the ownership - I guess we should stick to the thing we call God. But then a country cannot be sold, coz God is simply non-existent in the form that is of any use for us to make a transaction. But then, I wonder what would selling a country really mean for us, given that I tried to justify above that a country cannot be owned by an earthly being. In fact, an actual sale would happen between Gods in that case, if there are many. I realize this is a totally useless line of analysis of ownership, as this has no practical significance for us.
What really matters for us is 'control', not 'ownership'. Control can be structured in the right manner so as to ensure that whoever is best suited for a specific task holds the reins for that task, although the ultimate control over everything can lie with some governing idiot. And then, an incentive & penalty model can be designed to further ensure that people incharge are doing their jobs. But who is going to design these models, systems and institutions in the right manner? In a democracy, the ultimate controller is theoretically people, which is not a singular entity, nor has a unique point of view. It's a game of simple majorities, which often means a system with consent of a minority, which itself neither understasnds much nor cares much nor is allowed to participate much to affect things in any significant way. Many sensible people fight for changes which they believe in. Many selfish people also fight to screw up systems in ways that would benefit them. May be we must just hope 'evolution' is the answer over the long term. But I don't have so much faith in evolution, when it comes to our own systems. Rather, not so much faith that things will evolve in ways that are best and right for us humans, at least a large majority of us.
Evolution is a frustratingly slow process. And I am not sure whether there are mini-evolutions happening to ensure right configurations for all systems in the universe. Possibly evolution is 'one' universal phenomenon to maintain a balance and beauty across the universe; and doesn't really care how humans share resources or discipline themselves or treat eachother. May be that's not the case. Who knows. And in any case, it apparently happens over generations. And what excitement would I have in trying to change anything if the change is not likely to happen to a significant extent in my lifetime? I believe those who still fight for changing the system do so not for the end but for the means - they really enjoy fight for change. It's like enjoying a job. It's in such people among us that we rest our hopes, and live with what we've got, that's constantly changing, hopefully for the better. Hopefully for the better of us.
