Category: Nationalism and Motivation

Events that have unfolded over the past few days with regard to Centre-State relations in the fight against COVID 19 have raised some human questions. I will steer clear of any opinion on constitutional provisions or policy as I am not an expert on these matters. Therefore, I will restrict myself to basic school-level facts. The Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution divides the responsibilities of the Centre and States into three lists, namely, the Union List, the State List and the Concurrent List. As the names suggest, the Centre and the States are charged with responsibilities laid down in the Union and State lists respectively including lawmaking on those subjects. The Concurrent List empowers both the Centre and the States to execute functions and enact legislation in respect of the listed functions. It therefore goes without saying that close coordination between the Centre and the States is critical to the effective working of our democracy.

Issues of public order (other than use of armed forces of the Union), public health and sanitation, hospitals and dispensaries, burials and burial grounds, cremation and cremation grounds, state public services and all other functions that ordinarily concern the handling of any epidemic fall clearly in the State List. Therefore, under normal conditions, the State is fully empowered to handle such eventualities. However, the COVID 19 situation is not normal and has necessitated invoking of the National Disaster Management Act 2005 for the first time since the Act came into being. The National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) is headed by the Prime Minister and invocation of the Act empowers the Centre to take whatever action it deems fit to deal with a disaster situation. The visits of the Inter-ministerial Central Teams (IMCT) to certain severely COVID- affected states may be seen in this backdrop.

The State Government, led by a popularly elected Chief Minister, is still squarely responsible for delivering results on ground. The Centre can do its bit in terms of funding, advice, oversight and support of different kinds but the duty and responsibility of the State Government cannot be taken away from them. My point in writing this piece is to focus attention to human aspects that govern Centre-State relations and eventually impact lives and livelihood. These include transparency, honesty, mutual trust, even handedness, rising above narrow considerations, respecting the law and concern for humanity. The intelligent reader will quite easily understand why public spectacles took place over one of the IMCT visits. This is a nation-wide emergency. Individuals and parties that rise above narrow ends will emerge stronger when this is over. The truth may be more complicated than what is reported in the media but all I know is that it takes two sides to misunderstand each other and two parties to fight.

Those in trouble need assistance and must seek help without hesitation. Helping others calls for large-heartedness and grace on the part of the giver, humility and gratitude on the part of the seeker and most importantly, suppression of ego on both sides in deference to the common good. These apply not only to individuals but to every organisation and entity including governments. Otherwise, HELP is just a four-letter word.

25 Apr 20

Thirty days of lockdown in our attempt to control the COVID 19 pandemic have driven home some tough lessons. Just to mention a few, it has taught us how vulnerable we all are. We are not as superior as we think we might be. It has also shown us the limits of our knowledge and clearly demonstrated that we will never have all the answers. It has also indicated the futility of spending millions of dollars on needless things. High technology is of little use if it does not serve the needs of humanity. It has also clearly signalled to us the great fragility of man-made systems – economies in particular. Further, it has pointed out the mean, selfish and irresponsible sides of human behaviour at a time when we needed to act as one. The flip side of globalisation has also been starkly apparent. Incontestably, the spread of the virus has been due to this. The Internet and social media, which are perhaps the most palpable representation of globalisation have been full of cyber-crime, fake news and financial fraud. The inadequacies of global governance have distinctly come to the fore. Money and muscle of a few rich nations are obviously not enough for a just world. In India, we have learnt a hard lesson about the lopsidedness of development. We have neglected semi-urban and rural areas in favour of metros, creating a mess of labour utilisation, apart from creation of slums and ghettos that have caused much of the virus spread and overloaded our inadequate healthcare system.

This period has also been witness to some great positives. Among the many happy stories, the world got an opportunity to regenerate by just keeping human beings closeted at home. Many organisations would have realised that much of what they do may be superfluous and will find more focus as they re-assemble after things normalise. People have discovered their talents and creative abilities and rediscovered many interests and passions that were blown away by the need to run the rat-race. The world has, hopefully, realised the value of people who ‘man the frontline’, so to say, in a pandemic situation. Hopefully, these categories of people would be valued much more in a post-COVID world. It has brought in a realisation that ‘need’ is but a very small sub-set of ‘greed’ and that we can all do very well with a fraction of our normal consumption. Personally, I have learnt that I can live out of a suitcase for more than a month without working up a sweat. This period has also taught us that vulnerable sections of society need to be cared for and their lot improved. It has also brought forth wonderful stories of human compassion for fellow beings  that bring us hope of humankind making amends and returning to a better world.

In 1933, US President Franklin D Roosevelt, in his inaugural address had famously remarked “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” In these last thirty days, our inability to deal with the virus has relentlessly stirred what is perhaps the strongest emotion of the human race – fear, and more specifically, the fear of death.  Fear has been all-pervasive during this pandemic. It started with the ‘fear of the unknown’ – fuelled by suppression of critical information which would have effectively contained the spread of the virus. Then, there was ‘fear of economies going bust‘ and ‘fear of suppression of liberties’ which led to international business, travel and tourism continuing as usual; merrily spreading the virus across the globe. This was followed by ‘fear of the international traveller’ causing countries to stop international movement. By this time, the threat was real and present – the developed world was reeling under the attack and ‘fear of inadequate healthcare and municipal infrastructure‘ had governments worried. The  exponentially spreading virus caused the ‘fear of community spread’. Almost the entire globe went into lockdowns of different descriptions. With people restrained in their homes and businesses at a standstill, ‘fear of an economic recession’ now looms large. There are other fears too – ‘fear of employment losses’, fear of suicides’, ‘fear of hunger’, ‘fear of continued separation from families’, ‘fear of a lack of cure or vaccine’, ‘fear of denial in other areas of healthcare’, ‘fear of uncertainty’ and ‘fear of isolation‘.

Governments worldwide have taken steps to contain the spread as best as they could. It is now time to make a more practical assessment of the situation. The lockdown has had its benefits but the virus is not going away in a hurry. We may have reached the stage where any more dithering or harsh restriction may hurt us more than the virus itself. Life must go on. We must take precautions and bring back normalcy. Whatever lessons we have learnt about incubation period of the virus, infectivity vs fatality, containment of hotspots, testing methodologies, safeguarding vulnerable sections of society, addressing inadequacies in our healthcare systems, disinfecting procedures, finding a cure or vaccine, hygiene norms, physical distancing and responsible behaviour must be ingrained into our livelihoods. There are also crucial policy takeaways from this pandemic. Countries would do well to reflect upon what course they wish to take in the overall well-being of their citizens and in the interest of enlightened global governance – in that order.

Reverting to normalcy will mean the supervised implementation of a well thought out plan while taking the downsides in our stride. And most importantly, getting rid of fear. As Chief Vitalstatistix of the indomitable Gauls would say in his rallying war cry “We have nothing to fear but the sky falling on our heads.”

24 Apr 20

A mental model is often used to make sense of our world. Such models are useful because many real-world issues are incredibly complex – to a degree that our brains find difficult to comprehend. Hence these models are like tool-boxes and help in simplifying our understanding of complex issues. Mental models are of many kinds and their application ranges from philosophy to marketing and military matters to human nature – over almost all disciplines of human endeavour. There are thousands of such models that could apply individually or in combination to a situation. Common examples are ‘The Butterfly Effect’, ‘Natural Selection’, ‘Mutually Assured Destruction’, ‘Zero Tolerance’, ‘Regression to the Mean’ and ‘The Peter Principle’ – just to give the reader an idea of how commonly we use them without even thinking of them as mental models.

Management of dilemmas is something that continuously engages our attention. From individuals to corporations to governments, a large portion of our energies are focussed towards managing dilemmas of various kinds. Whether to send a child to a convent school or a public school, whether to buy this house or that, whether to marry this girl or that, whether to ask for a raise or not, whether to build a spaceship or not, whether to have a nuclear progamme or not and whether to impose international sanctions or not – we are constantly resolving dilemmas. Dilemmas are loaded differently in terms of consequences for choosing among available options and solutions could sometimes be a compromise in certain areas with gains in others. We would be lucky if we were faced with only such dilemmas in life. That, however, is not to be. Some difficult dilemmas have even been given names with which many of us are familiar.

The first is the Hobson’s Choice. This is a free choice in which only one option is offered. The phrase is said to have originated with Thomas Hobson (1544-1631), a livery stable owner in Cambridge, England who offered customers the choice of either taking the horse in his stall closest to the door or taking none at all. This is a ‘take it or leave it’ situation in which the choice is really made in the offer and just needs a ‘Yes or No’ answer. The second is known as the Morton’s Fork. This is a type of false dilemma in which contradictory observations lead to the same conclusion. Under Henry VII, John Morton was made Archbishop of Canterbury in 1486 and Lord Chancellor in 1487. He rationalised a benevolence (tax) of Henry’s by holding that someone living modestly must be saving money and, therefore, could afford the benevolence, whereas someone living extravagantly obviously was rich and, therefore, could afford the benevolence as well. The third is called the Buridan’s Ass. Named after the French philosopher, Jean Buridan, this is an illustration of a paradox in philosophy in the conception of free will. It refers to a hypothetical situation where an ass is placed precisely midway between a stack of hay and a pail of water Since the paradox assumes that the ass will go to whichever is closer, it will die of both hunger and thirst since it cannot think rationally. (Source: Wikipedia).

The COVID 19 pandemic raises a very different dilemma that has an all-encompassing canvas. The outbreak of the virus is extremely difficult to control and has sent individual countries and the world into shutdown. There is no cure and there is no vaccine. Nobody knows very much and even the best of medical and health professionals are groping in the dark and hoping for an early breakthrough. Contagion is rife and people are dying by the thousands every day. India too, is  under shutdown for 24 days on the trot. Now, lifting of the lockdown poses a serious dilemma. Life versus livelihood. Economy versus ethics. And all this in the overarching environment of incomplete information. Lift the lockdown and allow huge numbers to die or stay locked in and kill the economy and livelihood of people.

This is what I would like to call ‘Dasu’s Quandary’ (named after me, of course). Some may argue that it is a variation of  ‘Buridan’s Ass’ but I would strongly contend that the fundamental parameters are very different. This is an of economic and ethical dilemma monstrous proportions in which we have two different kinds of certain catastrophes staring us in the face and a rational decision has to be made under conditions of incomplete information and inadequate wherewithal. This will also call for Probabilistic Thinking (another mental model) with ‘Bayesian Updating’ (named after Thomas Bayes) where all prior relevant probabilities are incrementally updated as newer information arrives – and perhaps many more.

Easier said than done but decide we must. We will need all our wisdom and intelligence to make the right decision.

17 Apr 20

This piece is intended for the Indian public at large. Before setting off, let me remind the reader that the armed forces belong to the nation – they belong as much to you as they belong to those who wear the olive greens, whites or sky blues. They are as much in the fight against the Coronavirus as are several other medical, humanitarian, paramilitary, police and civil services. ‘Aid to civil authorities’ is one of their constitutionally mandated roles which they perform through the year in different forms ranging from providing relief during natural disasters (along with other agencies), pulling children out of wells and recovering dead bodies from the sea. Discipline and efficiency characterise the working of the armed forces and it is no surprise therefore, that they deliver well beyond expectations.

For this reason, there is often an early clamour to deploy the armed forces during every difficult situation. The COVID 19 pandemic is no exception. There are people who think, including some in the military, that the armed forces should be called in for tasks ranging from medical to administrative to law and order. The armed forces are deeply involved in several ways already like creation of field hospitals, supporting medical research, producing innovative solutions in support of medicare, manufacturing masks and protective equipment, caring for daily wage earners in certain areas, creation of quarantine facilities, assisting civil administration with human resource, training non-medical personnel on essential paramedical care for COVID 19 and looking after its own personnel, veterans and their dependents in addition to keeping its own vast geographical areas sanitised. While doing this, the country expects them to perform their primary role as well – in which failure is just not an option.

We must know whom we are fighting other than the Coronavirus. There is an internal battle and an external battle. We will be totally deaf, dumb and blind if we have not yet realised who our enemies are – both internally and externally. These enemies do not always wear uniform, carry arms or follow the laws of armed conflict. They are individuals, countries and interest groups which are inimical to the Indian state. They will use asymmetry, disruption and pressure tactics as their weapons at a time when we are acutely vulnerable. The police and paramilitary forces are professionals trained in the mechanics of internal battle. They are trained and equipped for internal security tasks involving our own citizens. The armed forces, on the other hand, are trained to fight an external aggressor and defeat it by all means at their disposal – shoot to kill, in other words. Ordinarily therefore, they do not exercise policing powers and require invoking the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act 1958 when deployed to maintain public order. While the country battles the virus, the armed forces continue their vigil over the land borders, maritime areas and national airspace. This is the time for adventurism by inimical forces and the armed forces must ensure no such attempt succeeds.

That notwithstanding, the armed forces will do everything in their power to support, bolster and enhance the national effort against the pandemic. If necessary and as the very last resort, they could be called in for maintaining public order. If that happens, expect no niceties because it would mean that internal security mechanisms have failed and desperate times will then call for desperate measures.

Let us all be soldiers in the internal battle. Leave the armed forces to do what they know best in the confidence that they will appear whenever called in to assist the civil administration – like the proverbial ‘Genie of the Lamp’.

08 Apr 20

Tonight’s nine-minute *’lamp and torchlight parade’* call by the Prime Minister has given some individuals an opportunity to question his (ir)rationality. Some are his political rivals, others who are ideologically opposed to him and yet others who simply hate the man’s guts. But by and large, the PM’s call will be heeded and people will light their lamps and rekindle their hopes for a better tomorrow. Here are my nine thoughts about this symbolic (in)activity.

#1. One of the primary jobs of any leader is to rally people around an emotionally compelling cause. What can be more compelling than battling a common threat to life, for which there is no vaccine or cure yet?

#2. It is a strong message to essential service providers, victims of the disease and the hugely inconvenienced public. The PM’s stated aim has been the collective expression of solidarity and that ‘Nobody is Alone’ in this fight.

#3. The element of Mystery. Get people wondering what this is all about. Something may just happen. We believe in miracles.

#4. Indians are ardent believers of astrology, numerology, palmistry, the occult and every other kind of traditional practice or wisdom. There is a large component of some of these concepts in play too.

#5. The PM personally believes in spiritualism, yoga and traditional wisdom.

#6. Every minute of our day is overwhelmed with negativity, bad news, destructive behaviour, doomsday speculations, mindless whatsapp forwards and other time-wasters. This exercise may help in creating an environment of peace and quiet, if even just for nine minutes, for people to ponder and reflect on the positives, declutter their minds and focus on the spiritual.

#7. It will create a visual spectacle. A satellite photograph and drone-captured images may fire the imagination of the world and create a notion of global solidarity. This is important as addressing future crises will require committed global responses.

#8. Science does not have all the answers anyway and will never have all the answers. So why not invoke the forces of Nature? Nature has shown us who is boss. So let us pay her the obeisance she commands.

#9. Could the PM be trying to soften the blow that he may have to deliver? What if circumstances demand an extension of lockdown? This is not going to be taken kindly by the population. Can this exercise in solidarity keep the people in check for another week or two of deprivation of their basic liberties? It is a tough game.

Whatever, the future holds, there is no harm investing nine minutes in solitude, peace and hope.

05 Apr 20