Small Man, Big World

  The futility of life is difficult to accept. Many of us are troubled by the fact that our actions and our very existence is meaningless in the bigger scheme of things. We turn to creative ways to mollify our bruised egos and battered souls. Some of us turn to religion, an archaic institution that should find no place in a rational scientific society. Religion helps us feel that each life has a direct connection with a supreme being, and is therefore part of a cosmic plan. Others turn to little acts of kindness, and try to make a difference in the lives of those immediately around us - friends, family, the downtrodden etc.

The latter path is certainly appealing, but it runs into a dead-end when one realises that the primary determinants of their lives are systemic issues like the economic models countries follow, or the level of freedom and liberties it guarantees to its citizens. Of course, little act of kindness can make a material difference to the lives of the beneficiary, but can individual action ever fully compensate for systemic failures or oppression?

My profession takes me to the core of the problem. For years now, I have been working on social protection and digital rights. The very foundation of these issue is the nature of the citizen-state covenant. Both are determined by the nature of government we created, how this government views its citizens, whether it trusts and empowers them, and how it deals with perceived threats to its existence.

When working on these issues, I cannot but feel overwhelmed by the enormity of the forces I'm encountered with. Let's take the example of India. The nature of the Indian state was determined by the cataclysmic events during partition, and the need felt by our founding fathers to create a strong government to hold the country together. Therefore, they created a constitutional architecture that borrowed heavily from colonial-era laws, and which provided the government significant freedom to impinge on human rights. This led some like Constituent Assembly member Somnath Lahiri to remark that the fundamental rights have been 'framed from the point of view of a police constable.'

Over the years, there has been a steady and gradual accretion in the power of the state. This process has been further accelerated by the advent of technology and the ability to place digital leashes on an individual's behaviour and even thoughts.

Therefore, every time I think of where my work is really headed, I experience feelings of despondency and anxiety. Despondency because I feel that my work cannot really make a difference, and that forces that are exponentially larger than me are at play. Anxiety because of the fear that those who feel threatened or offended by my thoughts might retaliate.

Quite ironically, then, I think I might find refuge in what the Bhagwat Gita says - "कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन, or that you have the rights over your actions, but never over its results. Therefore, perhaps my limited role in all of this is to keep doing what I think is the right thing, without worrying about whether it leads to anything at all.

Perhaps the collective strength of thousands like me, each chipping away at that elusive goal, might mean something substantial in the larger scheme of things. And even if it doesn't, perhaps I will end this lifetime with the satisfaction that I tried my best.

I worry about the state of liberal democracy.

As 2019 draws to an end, I can only look back and be thankful for a year where I learnt a lot. But, like for many of you, these past few weeks of the year have been an emotional roller-coaster. Many of us found ourselves questioning the direction of our country and the values of those around us. Many of us realise that this is the beginning of issues that will polarise our society in year to come. As preparation for that long haul, two reflections stood out for me.

First, there is an urgent need to defend the right to protest peacefully, even of people that you disagree with. On 16 December, I took a major step in my journey to be a responsible member of society when I showed up at Town Hall in Bangalore to join a peaceful protest. While I certainly had a view on the merits or demerits of the CAA, that wasn't the point. I was protesting to protect the right to protest peacefully. That week was an eye-opener for me! The police repeatedly created impediments for the peaceful protests I joined, first by detaining and threatening some of us, and finally by taking away the fundamental right to assembly by imposing Section 144 in Bangalore. There have been many other instances of disproportionate use of state power to quash protests - bones broken, libraries tear-gassed, private property damaged, and families separated.

At the macro level, I believe that creating an outlet for citizens to voice their discontent is good for the stability of the country. If such outlets are not created, the discontent will brew within individuals and then find more extreme manifestations later.

Closer home, I have taken many decisions in my life where I respectfully disagreed with someone in power, and am much better off as a result. Right from the job I chose, the MBA I didn't do, or the relationships I engaged in - I have been fiercely independent in each of these decisions. Of course, many of these decisions turn out to be wrong. But the very act of standing up, taking ownership, and being able to speak truth to power has helped me grow. To me, this freedom is the foundation of my life.

Therefore, I want each of us to be able to experience that freedom. It could be something as banal as the freedom to hang out with your friends, to choose what you wear, to stay out as late as you want, to study what you want, to take up the job you like, or to love and marry whoever you want. Or it could be something as consequential as the kind of government you want or the policies you think it should follow. It all really boils down to the same fundamental concept - should you have the right to live your life without being unduly restricted by those in power - family, society, businesses, or governments - as long as you don't harm others? I believe yes, and which is why I was on the streets protesting the disproportionate use of force on protestors and to protect the right to protest.

Second, I have also realised that there's so much misinformation and hate circulating on social media platforms like twitter, and communications platforms like WhatsApp. And as Amber Sinha rightly points out in his book 'The Networked Public', this issue cannot be addressed simply by providing the right information. Such misinformation campaigns work because they exploit underlying social and cultural factors to drive hate and outrage. Moreover, the sheer volume of misinformation will likely make constant fact-checking difficult. In fact, Gartner has said that by 2022, we will be exposed to more incorrect than correct information.

I am still very overwhelmed by the complexity and scale of the issue at hand. Societies are complex structures, and therefore require careful and thoughtful application of mind in order to succeed. But misinformation and inciteful content are like termites eating away at the foundations of modern society. Over the past few weeks, I have seen it play out both on mainstream news channels, as well as WhatsApp groups. It is a different experience to read about it, and quite another to see it play out on an issue that you care about.

Put together, these two issues threaten the very basis of liberal democracies. It's not just an Indian problem - the world over, we are seeing the gradual slide of democracies. For years, I have grown up under the assumption that liberal democracies are the 'steady state' of humankind. But let's be honest - these are very new forms of governance that have gained traction only over the past seventy years or so. It is fairly possible that democracy as we knew it will soon die.

That worries me because freedom has meant so much to me. With it, I have everything; without it, I am nothing.

-------
* - I saw commentators and acquaintances speak about how the violent crackdown was an appropriate justification to damage to public property. But that's looking at this all wrong. In my work on privacy, we often talk about 'proportionality', and these incidents brought the concept to life. Should police break your car if you jumped a traffic signal? If someone from your neighborhood murders someone, should the entire neighborhood be lobbed with tear gas to find that one person?

No Tears for Indians

The story of famines in India starts and ends with British rule. The Great Bengal famine of 1770 was the first famine in India in the 18th century. Occurring merely six years after British rule commenced in India, it is estimated to have killed 10 million people in Bengal, nearly a third of the population of the province. Nearly two centuries later, the Bengal famine of 1943 took a toll of about 4 million, even while Indian foodgrain was sent to fuel the British war effort. Between 1770 and 1943, it is estimated that 30 to 35 million Indians perished in famines. No famine has ever taken place in independent India. The British Government's response ranged from the indifferent to the contemptuous. The 'temple wage' offered to famine victims during the Great Famine of 1876-78 provided less sustenance for hard labour than that received by Buchenwald concentration camp victims. On being told about the horrors of the 1943 famine, Churchill caustically remarked 'why hasn't Gandhi died yet?' 

I've been reading Shashi Tharoor's latest book, An Era of Darkness, and even though the general contours of British exploitation of India were known to me, the book presents a moving picture of the horrors that this land has seen. He does a great job of taking each argument given in favour of British rule in India, some of which (eg. railways) I also grudgingly acknowledged, and presents evidence to discredit it. Yes, the British laid out an expansive railway network in India. But these lines did not just serve as a medium of British economic exploitation, but were built at a much higher price than elsewhere in the world. British investors, who formed over 99 percent of the funders of the projects, were guaranteed a 5% rate of return, all of it subsidised by taxes in India. This added to a massive drain of wealth already occurring from India to Britain.

Yet, in conversations I've heard abroad, I do not see an acknowledgement of what Indians went through. There is a general acknowledgement of colonial rule and that it was bad. But the details are either unknown or ignored. We are talking about a highly evolved civilisation, an economic powerhouse with the largest economy in 17001 - bigger than China's, more than all of West Europe and 3.5x bigger than all of Africa. The silence on India violated every democratic norm - at 16% of the world population, the issues of this country, past and present, should get more representation in the global discourse. At the other extreme, this is outright contempt towards Indians. For example, a few weeks back, I saw a South African Rhodes Scholar, an activist for black rights, incite hatred against Indians on Facebook.

I've struggled to understand what causes this indifference. Perhaps it is the fact that we as a country have done reasonably well after independence. Perhaps it is the fact that, in keeping with our 'live and let live' philosophy (Indian has not invaded another country in its entire history), we do not create a noise about the past injustices. Perhaps it is the fact that, unlike other non-Asian people of colour, we do not live among our past subjugators in enough numbers to merit their attention. Sometimes, I feel defeated when I think that recent moves against racism are also being run on the whims and fancies of people from former colonising nations, representing their preferences more than anything else. On the other hand, and less flatteringly, it may just be that we've kept ourselves so busy in our raucous democracy and (still) arguing with each other that we haven't formed a unified voice globally.

But what does all of this mean for us as Indians today? It is obviously not about reparations, which in any case our former colonial masters will be unable to pay us. Some may seek an apology, but I am sceptical whether that will ever come. We've been waiting for years for an apology for the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, but British PMs come and leave the memorial without an outright apology. What I think we should take away is to resist any move to exploit us in future.

The last book I read before Tharoor was Michael Oren's Ally. Keeping aside my views on the Israel issue, the one thing I took away from the book was the Israel Government's thinking of 'never again' being vulnerable to something like the Holocaust. Similarly, we as Indians must resist the same old colonial arguments being presented in new bottles.

To me, the most obvious example is climate change. At a time when nearly 300 million Indians do not have any electricity access, India cannot afford to and must not accept any climate change agreement that doesn't recognise our right to energy. I was talking to a friend at Rhodes House once, a climate change activist, who put the blame squarely on India's 'population problem.' It was heartbreaking to see this friend repeat what used to be a British excuse for the famine deaths. Churchill, whose bust now sits proudly in the White House, said that famine would do nothing because 'indians breed like rabbits.' The context might have changed, the causes might have changed, but some biases are hard to get rid of. Even in the enlightened atmosphere of our left-liberal echo chambers.

-----------

1 - Sourced from Contours of the World Economy, 1-2030 AD by Angus Maddison

It only takes a few lightbulbs!

On a mid-summer visit to Bihar two years back, I stopped for lunch at the best restaurant in Araria city. I had only a day to spend in this remote part of Bihar before heading off to the capital, Patna. One of the best ways to learn is to talk to people — with that in mind, I asked the chauffeur if he would like to have lunch with me. While talking about his life, the people, language and the villages we had visited earlier in the day, the electricity went off and came back at least three-four times in an hours' time. I asked him if this was routine. He said it was.

While the number of Indians without access to electricity (250M+) is gaining recognition, we must also keep in mind that even those with electricity most often face very poor supply. As a child, I used to go every year to Gorakhpur in eastern Uttar Pradesh. The 6-8 hours of power cuts everyday would frustrate me. But I now realise that there are a large number of people, in the hundreds of millions, who receive electricity for less than 4 hours a day. Of course, basic access to electricity is very important. But just like we focus on quality healthcare and quality education, we should also focus on quality electricity access. Just like an empty hospital brings no benefit, electricity access only till before sunset has less practical use as well.

Much has been written about the Modi Government's claims about electrifying a certain number of villages and whether those numbers are made-up. That is completely missing the point, in my opinion. There is a systemic failure here, one that wasn't invented by the Modi government. The norms for declaring a village as 'electrified' as really low. A village with as few as 10% of the houses electrified can be declared 'electrified' by the Government. Such a low bar also results in equity issues, because one can easily imagine what kind of households get electricity first.

I wouldn't want to go into why this situation has come to be, except to point out that there is a typical in-group/out-group problem here. Those who do have access to electricity tend to misuse it so much that it becomes economically unviable for the government to extend access. For example, widespread theft results in T&D losses of 40-50% in many states. The extent of this problem can easily be understated. I have heard from peers coming from economically privileged backgrounds mention how they were party to power theft by their parents. In retrospect, one of the moments in life that I am most proud of is when I took a principled stand against power theft happening around me and was thereby able to prevent it. We must not be mute spectators!

However, this is a massive public goods problem that will take a lot of effort to solve. What do we do before that? How do we bring energy access to the millions without it? Thankfully, the high T&D losses make localised and renewable solutions cost-competitive! Ranging from solar lanterns to 40-50 kW plants, there are a whole host of commercial and scaleable options out there. Companies like d.light have gained significant traction and have provided access to tens of millions of people. The problem is too big for a handful of companies to handle and therefore, organisations such as the Rockefeller Foundation have taken on the task of creating an entire ecosystem of companies.

But what I want to come back to is the power of the individual - of you and me! After having moved to the west, I was appalled by the energy intensity of life here. The average Indian household consumes less than 20% of what an average British household does and less than 10% of what an average American or Canadian household does. Part of it is driven by need — colder countries need more energy! But part of it is availability. However, the complacency of affluence that I encountered among richer Indians, and now among people in the west, is distressing. Saving energy where it is not required is possibly the first step — even if of little practical use to an energy-starved Indian, it is a great moral signal! Sometimes, I go around in office switching off lights in unoccupied rooms.

More practical would be to support organisations that go out there and support electricity access. One way that I find quite convenient is to find an organisation on Milaap and donate a part of my income to it. The capital intensity of off-grid solutions can be quite discouraging, but crowdfunding might be a solution.

I go back to what I wrote during my Rhodes application. I said emphatically that 'equal opportunity for all' was my aspiration in life. Equal opportunity cannot even be imagined in the absence of unequal access to energy. Because climate crusaders risk inadvertently locking energy-starved people in Asia and Africa in a state of perennial deprivation, it is incumbent on us to both push back on that and also to seek a middle ground via commercial and scaleable renewable energy. For the 1.2 billion without electricity and the several more with poor quality access, the flickering bulb at night can be the light that guides them to join the rising tide of globalisation and prosperity.

Change-makers from Uganda

A dramatic moment during my Rhodes scholarship interview makes so much more sense now. Towards the end of the interview that had moved from the Sen-Bhagwati debate to the Food Security Act, the panel asked me "We can see that you've done great things academically. But what have you done for others?" In a moment of minor bravado, I got agitated and said "There has not been a single day in my life when I have not tried to help someone. If my fault is that I have not built a nice NGO around it, then I am at fault and a part of me regrets it. But I refuse to be a one-man show."

My thinking has changed much since then. The bitterness of peers getting ahead in life because they had more to show for "social service" is now gone. Having reached a comfortable position in my career, I feel answerable only to myself and that has allowed me to be free from having to position myself in a certain way. I have now started thinking actively about how I can contribute to the world sustainably and with high impact.

One such way that I found very rewarding was pro-bono consulting. It started off as a stint with the Oxford Microfinance Initiative, consulting for a handicrafts NGO in Cambodia. Later, I found myself busy as a Project Lead for a months-long effort with New Generation Thinkers' Foundation (now Saint Ann Foundation) in Kampala, Uganda. From March to May 2015, I led a team that worked with SAF to define themselves and to think through meaningful changes that they could make to their organisation. At the end of the project, much like regular consulting, we handed them a powerpoint with our key recommendations.

To me, that was obviously not enough. Saint Ann Foundation works in a very difficult environment. The average Ugandan earns almost a third of what an average India does, and India is a very poor country to start with. While working for RSSAF, I also realised that the challenges faced by the NGO sector in Uganda are quite large, with a very massive skill gap and weaker financial linkages, even compared to India. The 'barriers to entry' for new NGOs are immense. This is where something like Saint Ann Foundation comes in. They are a group of young, motivated Ugandans who are doing all they can to bring change in their community. As a privileged member of the global youth community, I believed that it was imperative on my part to help them in any way I could. Therefore, even after the project ended, I have been in touch with SAF and working with them intermittently. SAF has now reached an inflection point - they have acted on most of the recommendations that we gave them, and the biggest barrier they now face is one of capital. Much like other NGOs in Uganda. This could be my, and your, chance to pitch in.

It is difficult for Ugandan NGOs to raise funding internationally due to the large transaction costs. After spending weeks evaluating the cheapest method, SAF and I have summarised some of the methods on this page. It is quite easy, especially on World Remit, and takes only a few minutes. For friends in India and UK, I will be happy to make the transaction on your behalf so that we can reduce transaction costs incurred.

I also completely understand if donating money is not top of agenda for you right now. However, you can still help! Start-up NGOs like SAF face more issues than just financial, and one of them is visibility. SAF is applying to a number of international partnerships (eg. GlobalGiving). It will therefore be great for them to have a large(r) social media presence. Please do like their facebook page, and share this post so that more people globally can hear about them.

At some point in the past, I would think a lot about why a particular organsation, why not others etcetera etcetera. However, I now realise that it is more important to take the first step, even in it is an inaccurate and tentative one, than to think too much before taking that first step. I have found a productive outlet, and hopefully a sustainable one, for the social worker within me. I hope that I can use my social networks to be of some use to these young change-makers from Uganda.

Racism

Yesterday, I watched a video about the idea of India, partition and the history of Balochistan. It made me think more about something I've been pondering about, i.e. India as a nation versus India as a culture, and how I should deal with the two. However, there was an off-hand comment he made at the end which caught my attention - 'in the two months I have lived in India, I have seen every man who can shout at a poor man exercise his power.' This is something I have encountered repeatedly. The stereotype of Asian hierarchy apart, our society has so many layers - economic, caste, linguistic, racial - that slice and dice our population in different ways. There have been times when I have, in fact, felt castigated by my colleagues due to my refusal (or inability?) to exercise that power to shout at those 'poorer' than me. Not to say that I'm free of this ill - while I probably do not let economic status dictate my behaviour towards another individual, I probably let academic and intellectual  differences (both a function of my parents' economic status) thrive. But the more I think about it, the more it seems to me that these are all excuses to protect status quo. To protect the privileges that we have come to accumulate.

This phenomenon can also be seen when we talk about racism. It is easy for us to say "we're not racist" when we are encountered with people who talk like us, wear clothes like we do, listen to the same music, think similarly about issues - basically they're our reflection in another skin. However, how many of us are willing to embrace the cultural and social differences between countries and races? How many are willing to un-learn what they've been taught so that they can fully understand another culture? How many are willing to display the level of humility required to engage in an honest conversation about things that cultures and races do not agree about?

Racism, to me, is born out of two primitive human needs - the self-preservation I talked about earlier, and ambiguity aversion. We tend to feel more comfortable around things that look and sound like us. Therefore, to an extent it is 'natural' and some may argue even 'justified.' After all, by increasing 'trust' between members of the same community/race, it may help increase economic opportunities within that group that then spill over to another group. However, the flipside is that people outside the group that started out with privileges will almost certainly have access to only a limited set of economic and social opportunities. The question I struggle with is this - do we spend our energy fighting something that is natural (and therefore requires more energy to keep away from this 'natural equilibrium') or do we use our energy to improve what is the second-best outcome in this context?

I tend to lean towards the second, because I view racism in this bigger context of the 'tyranny of the privileged.' Also, economic deprivation resonates more strongly with me than racial discrimination. I wrote my Rhodes application on the idea of 'equality of opportunities', and I still view that as something I need to work towards. Of course, race and other factors are correlated with access to opportunities, but I want to look at the structural problems causing accumulation within one group, rather than ascribing it to simply racism. I end by remembering Gandhi's talisman, which was the target of many jokes when we were in school. However, as one of Gandhi's last notes, it reflects the crystallisation of his thoughts. My actions need to be driven by how they affect the poor, because as the winner of a lottery, I see little reason to make decisions in a vacuum.

A New Year

A friend wished me yesterday  - "advance wishes for arbitrary day on roman calendar." The thought had occupied my mind for some time - that we celebrate what is an absolutely arbitrary day of the year. However, extend that thought and any day that is celebrated would seem arbitrary. The point, therefore, would be to celebrate a year gone by. Be it new years', birthdays or religious festivals. It is a time to look back and reflect. Also a time, perhaps, to look forward and plan.

The year gone by has, again, been very eventful. I started the year spending a lot of time in the gym and doing my now notorious '100 surya namaskars each day.'  March was the time of travel - Israel, Turkey, Athens and Budapest. The summer was a glorious one spent in London, with more travel - North Italy, Brussels, Lyon, and Copenhangen. There was love, visits by family and friends, getting back to Oxford and all of that. Through all of this, I have been moving towards a holistic idea of who I am, and what I want to do in life. It has been challenging because I haven't looked back and asked such fundamental questions. I have followed an idea of success - primarily academic success - that took me to the places I went to. Simultaneously, I have been exposed to a certain idea of morality, to a certain notion of right and wrong. The idea, therefore, of finding the 'true self' becomes complicated. Is the 'true self' dependent on my history, and dependent on the ideas society has instilled in me? Or is it more innate - was I born with certain strengths and weaknesses that I can use to live a happy, purposeful life.

I suppose answers will come in due course of time, but I also want to have the process move a little faster. Therefore, I reflected on the two things that reflect what I want to do this coming year. One could call them a type of new year resolution. The two works I came up with are empathy and action. These two works, I hope, will serve as reminders of what I seek to achieve this year. The two also encompass a lot of other traits I thought desirable. For example, empathy includes humility and patience. Action includes discipline and perseverence. I want to move towards my goals this coming year, but always keep the good of other people at heart.

To start things off, I also made a more pragmatic new year resolution - to give a part of my scholarship money to those in need. Today I made another contribution to Milaap, this time for a village electrification program. For long, I thought that giving money was a lazy way to contribute. However, I now view it as a great commitment device that will help shape my non - monetary work, and be shaped by it. It is about putting my money where my mouth is. Plus, the Rhodes Scholarship is far too generous, and one that I received due to my extreme privilege. Like capitalism itself, I need to turn this scholarship and the associated opportunities into a machine to create greater surplus, and then send it back to the country and society I come from. A bit like the conscientous capitalists that Gandhi envisaged.

Communal Violence and Politics in India

The discussion about communalism has come to the centre stage in national discourse once again. The allegedly beef-related lynching in Dadri, followed by the protest by writers, has raised fears of a saffron - induced surged in communal incidents. The fact that communal riots are driven by political considerations is well - understood. However, there is a large number of bbooks about what increases the probability of communal riots. The book 'Votes and Violence' by Wilkinson was one such book that I happened to read. It is a painstakingly put together econometric analysis of communal incidents in India since independence. The results, while reinforcing certain widely-held beliefs, also discredits other notions that we have.

While researching for my article on Islam for The Indian Opinion, my focus was very much on the question of law and order. Wilkinson's book helped me think through many such issues. Some facts were validated - for example, that communal incidents saw a major spike in the 1990s (coincident with the rapid rise of the BJP). Wilkinson set up several different specifications of his basic model with the probability of riots as the dependent variable. In each such specification, whether there were elections in the next 6 months was a statistically significant independent variable. Using instrumental variables, Wilkinson also argued that economic competition between Hindus and Muslims does not impact communal incidents at all. Evidently, the premiss for a communal conflagration has to be conjured up from nothingness. Hence the freak incidents of the kind we saw in Dadri are either engineered or exploited to create communal tension.

What is interesting, however, is the role of caste - based politics in containing communal riots. When Lalu Prasad talks about 'mandal' (caste) versus 'kamandal' (communal) politics, he is (intentionally or unintentionally) making a very valid point. Communal riots are seen to be more likely in bi-polar states, where political consolidation between two parties reduces the importance of the muslim vote. Caste politics, by fragmenting the Hindu vote, makes the muslim voters more important at the margin, and therefore reduces the likelihood of communal incidents. Law and order is a state subject, but communal riots are no less likely to happen in Congress-ruled states than in other states. There are many other such findings that Wilkinson presents; I would therefore strongly recommend the book to anyone interested in this topic.

Question of technology

Modi's visit to the facebook headquarters generated much debate in India regarding net neutrality in general and facebook's intentions behind the tricoloured display pictures in particular. This subsequently spilled over into an access vs. neutrality debate, and a few branches of the debate reached the technology vs. basic services debate. It is the last one that I seek to talk about in this post.

The trouble with evaluating the impact of most technology - based products is that the major impact happens through externalities. Therefore, if we try to measure the outcomes by the impact on individual households, we will always underestimate the impact of such products. There are also other issues. For example, increased attendance in couchsurfing gatherings has been observed to be positively related to a sense of belonging to the community; and hosting a guest shown to have a positive relationship with trust. However, in case the causal relationship runs in the opposite direction, could products like couchsurfing be making society worse off by segregating between two sections? Ignoring questions about negative consequences, let us focus on the more positive aspects. For example, independent media has often been shown to lead to many positive societal outcomes. However, the impact on the life of the marginal consumer would be quite low due to the externality problem. To add to that, because the consumer may not fully internalise the long - term benefits of these products, making fair comparisons inherently a difficult task.

If we narrow down to products which have immediate returns to consumers, we run into many that impact the middle segments of the population - ones who are significantly more prosperous than the BOP populations, but not wealthy enough to be excluded from other things. Take credit, for instance. Due to asymmetric information (and general risk aversion on the part of lenders), markets left to themselves lead to under-provisioning of credit. Technology, therefore, turns out to be an excellent tool to remove informational barriers. One might argue that access to facebook doesn't have any benefits (thought many will disagree). However, when social media activity becomes a gateway to credit access, facebook can turn into a tool for social empowerment. Companies such as Lenddo are creating a new industry where big data can be unsed to create the next wave of financial inclusion. Removal of informational barriers can also lead to benefits in more traditional goods markets. This is especially true for small producers and traders, for whom access to information (and storage) can often be prohibility expensive. For example, the introduction of mobile phones in the early 2000s was seen to lead to an increase of 8% in the profits of fishermen in Kerala[1]. There were also more wide - ranging benefits, including a 4% reduction in the average price of fish in these areas.

However, we are still talking in the realm of the middle class. What has technology got for the people at the bottom of the pyramid? Can technology reasonably impact the lives of those struggling for food, energy and shelter? Once again, technology as a medium for spreading information can help address some of the very basic issues of survival for large swathes of the population. The Chhattisgarh PDS turnaround was aided by technology, albeit alongside other systemic changes. Something as simple as sending SMS notification to villagers when the PDS truck leaves for the fair price shop can reduce pilferage and increase foodgrain availability to the poor. Having reduced wastage and pilferage from 40-50% to less than 10% in a short span of time, Chhattisgarh has shown that technology can help address the needs of the poor.

In conclusion, if one views technology as an end in itself, the impact may be too diffused and long - term to care about, especially for a country like India with more pressing concerns. However, if one looks at technology as an enabler, and as a disruptor of non - tech sectors, then one can start seeing some of the benefits of technology vis-a-vis other more traditional interventions. At the end of the day, few interventions - including technology - would be effective in a vacuum. It needs to be supported by government will and space for innovation.

---------------------------------
1 - The Digital Provide: Information (Technology), Market Performance and Welfare in South Indian Fisheries Sector - Robert Jensen (The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 122, No. 3 - Aug 2007)

A bit of giving

Two weeks back, my Nico and I were dining at a Syrian restaurant in London. When the bill came, he being American wanted to tip 10%. For me, however, tipping was always a bit of an elite game - an act of charity for people who weren't as well of. Coming from India, I have probably been exposed to far more of those who would be called 'Bottom of the Pyramid.' I argued, therefore, that I couldn't tip waiters in London while I know there are people in much worse conditions in India who could probably make much better use of that money. Nico, unfortunately, isn't one to give in so easily. He refused to see the link between the money I saved by not tipping and the money I would give other 'more needy' people. My 'trickle - down' arguments failed to cut much ice either.

After over an hour of arguing over this, Nico proposed a solution - he would pay the entire tip whenever we ate out, and I would have to contribute 50% of that amount to charity at the end of his stay in London. So, from Oxford to Copenhagen, we kept the 'tip tracker' ticking, and by the end of it I owed £14.5 to those in need. Over the last one month of working at an Impact Investing fund, I came across several Kiva - like models, and decided that I was most comfortable and content lending to such a place. So, I decided to contribute a small sum to a group on the website Milaap. The amount will help fund a loan for a group of women in Aizawl, Mizoram, who are seeking to expand their business.

This experiment has forced me to think more actively about transitioning from the world of thoughts and ideas to the world of action. I see three types of giving back to society - money, time and intellect. Money has ranked lowest in my priority because I have always doubted its efficacy at low scale. But then, its a great starting point, and a good way to put your money where your heart (or mouth) is. It's been a great half - year of learning and thinking about social change. Here's hoping I'd be able to do more as the year progresses.

The Labour Conundrum

The condition of labourers in India is often used to drive home the image of the exploitative corporate. There is, of course, a modicum of truth to this generalisation. Private enterprise does respond only to profit, and therefore the condition of labour would not be their primary concern. However, what is also undeniable is the ability of private enterprise to stir growth in the economy and hence drive people out of poverty - either directly through employment or through increase in government tax revenue that can then be spent on provision of basic services. Therefore, the question becomes - under what conditions is private incentive incompatible with social good? This will guide us to the answer.

There are nuances, and we must be cognisant of these nuances before making policy recommendations. I am not an expert in this field, and therefore do not claim to have the definitive answer. However, there are a few observations I have that I believe might be useful to put out in the public domain. I worked with a lot of data while working on McKinsey's 'India's Path from Poverty to Empowerment' report. While this wasn't directly a part of my workstream, Chapter 2 of the report is a great summary of what might be wrong with India's economy, and does talk a lot about labour.

My opinion on this question of labour, however, was shaped by the time I spent at a factory in rural Gujarat. Every day over seven months, I interacted with a cross section of employees at this factory and understood the dynamic of unemployment. Two things were most clear - one, that both the contract labourers and the factory wanted to convert contract labourers into permanent employees; and secondly, labour laws designed to 'protect' labour were, in fact, doing them the most harm. Let me elucidate on both.

Contract labour markets are extremely chaotic and unreliable. To understand this, one should literally imagine a truck leaving the factory in the morning, stopping by in the nearby villages and picking up labourers to work at the factory for the next eight hours. The reality is somewhat more nuanced, but not drastically different. Workers are paid day-by-day, and therefore have no long-term contracts and basic employee protection. They can be barred from work at the whim of the corporate. There is bare minimum protection against accidents at work. That is the nature of such contract employment that is seem to be the most exploitative of employment opportunities. On the other end, corporates are not very happy with this set-up either. Something as trivial as a marriage in the village or rains can cause massive productivity losses in the factory. The worker cannot be trained to improve productivity, since there is no guarantee that he will turn up the next day. Factory owners would prefer to have a greater commitment from the worker but usually isn't able to receive it.

What is the villain in the story? The very same labour laws that were once meant to protect labour. The cost of employment for the factory owner increases dramatically at certain numbers. For example, above 100 employees, the cost of firing employees increases substantially and factories are therefore loathe to increase the number of (permanent) employees unless the benefits are high too. Therefore, Indian manufacturing displays the phenomenon of the 'missing middle' wherein workers are employed either in small - scale enterprises or really large ones; and there is a large number of workers who are in contract employment. For example, employees in large scale enterprises (greater than 200 employees) are 8 times as productive and earn 4.5 times as much as workers in small scale enterprises (less than 49 workers). The following exhibit from the McKinsey report is enlightening:

Labour laws can also easily become a way for corrupt bureaucrats to extract 'quasi - rents' from corporates. Transparent and secular labour laws can dramatically improve employment generation in a state. For example, the share of the organised sector in overall employment is 21 to 22 percent in 'labour-friendly' states such as Gujarat, Karnataka and Maharashtra, as compared to an all - India average of 14 percent. Organised sector workers get many of the benefits that one would believe that workers should have. Moreover, one can see that the relatively less 'pro-employer' states such as Bihar, Assam and West Bengal are also the laggards in economic growth.

In a country at India's stage of development, where there is massive disguised unemployment in agriculture that is waiting to be released, labour protection is extremely important. However, in trying to protect the labour that is already employed, we might fall prey to the typical 'insider-outsider bargaining problem,' where protecting the already employed might harm the interests of those who could be potentially employed. A thorough re-look at labour laws is required if India wants to pull its citizens out of poverty quicker.

A response to this article that was circulated on the Rhodes Scholars google group:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/city-corporates-destroy-best-minds

---------------------------------------------

Thanks for sending this article, Vivek, and for recently encouraging me to reply on this thread. As someone who already worked at McKinseybefore getting the scholarship, I have been amused at how the firm has, within the Rhodes community here, come to represent a particular kind of corporate culture. We are supposed to 'fight the world's fight', and that might explain our discomfort with these firms.

I believe, however, that if we end up believing that there is a set path to create a better world, and that these jobs are far removed from that path, then we risk falling prey to the kind of dogma that will prevent us from reaching that aim. There are different ways and approaches to improving the world, and people can and should be free to contribute in ways they want to. When we stop making sweeping generalisations and look within these firms to find individuals, I think we will realise that it is the individual who decides what to do with their life, and finds the best way to do it. 

1. Is consulting 'pointless', 'destructive', 'soul sucker' and 'useless': These are some of the adjectives Monbiot uses for jobs such as management consulting. Many Rhodes scholars have also expressed such apprehensions, albeit in more polite ways. Now, there are things that one would universally consider 'useful' or 'constructive', and then there are things that would may find useful depending on their values. I worked for several months on a report* that advised the government, among other things, to have a re-look at the abysmally low official poverty numbers, to increase spending on basic services such as healthcare and sanitation, to keep a strong role for the public sector and to improve governance to enable the poor to participate more fully. I also remember the days I spent in one of the poorest districts of India, working on a project that would bring electricity to a fraction of the ~ 400 million people in India living without any access to electricity. I fail to see what is 'pointless' or 'destructive' in what I did. Working in a plant to increase output might not seem like it contributes to making the world a better place, but then when I interacted with the (contracted) labourers, it was most obvious to me that what the economically weaker sections want is growth and jobs and all of that. Management consulting firms, therefore, are a pareto improvement over status quo.
   
   
2. We have but one life. However much money we make, we cannot buy it back: Firstly, I might not agree with someone who seeks to make lots of money, but that doesn't in any way make me right and him wrong. Just makes us different. Simple. The good thing about places like McKinsey is that they are secular. For thousands of people in countries such as India, they provide us an opportunity to live the life that we could never dream of. For example, it might be easy for scholars from first-world countries to imagine just packing their bags and leaving for foreign shores, but for me, McKinsey was the first time I stepped outside India. The entry barriers (visa procedures) set up for us are rather high, and take a lot of money (and time) to scale. And to be honest, I probably wouldn't be a Rhodes Scholar if it wasn't for my time at McKinsey. Because the lavish settings in which the Rhodes interviews are conducted intimidate anyone who isn't born into a modicum of privilege. We need to reflect on how many of our institutions, including our scholarship, are truly secular in the way a McKinsey is. Like those organisations, do we create opportunities based purely on merit (however it may be defined), or do we reward privilege with even more privilege? One needs only to go to Gurgaon, once a dusty suburb of Delhi but today the richest district in India, to witness this story of hope. Hope that isn't restricted to the corridors of privilege.
   
   
3. Is consulting a 'cult': Monbiot starts with saying that the purposes of humankind is to seek enlightenment, intellectual or spiritual; to do good; to love and be loved and to teach. I completely agree, but I fail to see what about management consulting prevents one from doing that. I found lots of love from people at McKinsey when I was there; some of them have, in fact, contributed to making me whatever I am today (for good or for bad). When I had typed out the email withdrawing my Rhodes Application after clearing the first round, it was a McKinsey Associate who prevented me from doing so by writing to the Partner on the study who convinced me over the next several interactions to give this experience a chance over the private equity offer I had. An Engagement Manager at McKinsey taught me to stand up for what I believe in, and to not mince words, in the face of disagreement from those 'senior' to me. These are skills one can also learn outside McKinsey - which is my point. These firms are reflections of the world. One will find the good, the bad and the ugly. Just need to learn how to deal with it. It isn't a 'cult' and certainly didn't trap me, neither did it try to.
   
   

The point around recruitment practices is one, as Natalya pointed out, something that is the most worthwhile to discuss. Some of it is justified because these occupations are unknown commodities and hence these firms need to make an effort to make themselves visible in a way academia or civil services don't need to. Where do we draw the line? How do we redistribute resources? And if we make an effort to level the playing field at university recruitment, what about later in life? Certainly those willing to 'sell out' to these firms after University would also tend to 'sell out' to them later in life? Brings me to my final question - are these students really our best graduates?

Regards,

SB

----------------------------------
* India's Path from Poverty to Empowerment: http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/asia-pacific/indias_path_from_poverty_to_empowerment

Gandhi Must Fall

On 13 April this year, a statue of Gandhi in Johannesberg was defaced and protesters raised placards reading 'Gandhi must fall.'  I see around me an attempt to discredit the Mahatma due to the racism he displayed towards black South Africans. Yet, in ignoring Gandhi's journey from Man to Mahatma, these 'activists' display a violence of thought that would make their quest for equality more difficult.*

For an Indian citizen, I am embarrassingly ignorant about Gandhi. I never needed to know more about him than I already knew. After all, those who seek to discredit Gandhi within India have had to resort to the most banal of arguments - the muslim-appeasing, weak, megalomaniacal Mahatma; the one who caused the partition, the one who left us with the Nehru-Gandhi family et al. A few months after I came to Oxford, I was jolted out of this complacence by a Rhodes Scholar, who called the Mahatma a 'nappy-wearing racist' on facebook. This was my first incentive to know more about Gandhi, and I picked up his autobiography. The next was another Rhodes Scholar who said 'but he beat his wife!' I kept reading, because I cannot talk about something I do not know. Most recently, when I quoted what Gandhi wrote about Israel in 1939, a Rhodes Scholar commented 'given how problematic Gandhi's remarks on apartheid in South Africa were (often full of anti-black sentiment), I don't see how his view is at all relevant.' I was hurt, not because I believe Gandhi was the perfect human being, but because I view this as symptomatic of a tendency to discredit all of Gandhi because of sensitivities around racism. Putting my reading on hold for a moment, I am compelled to put together my thoughts on this issue. For the record, I disagree vehemently with him, but more on that later.

• General disdain for blacks or 'Kaffirs' (1894 - 1911): Gandhi's writings from the time he spent in South Africa reflect a desire to, rather than attain equality with the whites, distinguish the Indians or Asiatics from the natives or 'Kaffirs' as he called them. Click here for a collection of quotes attributed to Gandhi. It is difficult for me to comment on the issue without having read precisely the texts that are quoted here**, but a few comments are in order. Firstly, Gandhi's thoughts and actions underwent a transformation over his life, and it seems that they began to distil into 'Gandhiism' only by the late 1910s. For example, Gandhi in the 1920s himself regretted his behaviour with his wife during their time in South Africa. If there is any truth in the allegations against Gandhi here, I am certain that he would have regretted them later in life***. Secondly, the complexity of this relationship is borne by this quote - "We may entertain no aversion to Kaffirs, but we cannot ignore the fact that there is no common ground between them and us in the daily affairs of life." Evidently, Gandhi believed that there is no intinsic reason to distinguish between the natives and Indians. He refers to the cultural differences that make assimilation untenable. Where Gandhi of this time may be found lacking is in accepting these differences and not wanting to bridge them. Gandhi's later actions in India, w.r.t. the Harijans or untouchables, a class of people who suffered discrimination perhaps unfathomable in any other part of the world, are testimony to his egalitarian nature. Gandhi's vision of India as a united state, where every citizen irrespective of religion, race or gender, had equal rights, is testimony to the fact that (the later) Gandhi can be called anything but racist.

• Participation in the war with the Zulus, 1906: After his participation in the Second Boer War as the leader of the Indian volunteer medics, Gandhi was once again on the side of the British during the Zulu rebellion. Gandhi's willingness to side with the British has not only been used to prove his antipathy towards the native black populations, but also to discredit him as a messiah of peace (click here). A few comments must be made. Firstly, Gandhi in 1906 was a supporter of the British empire; in fact, he envisaged a role for India within this empire and had not even thought of independence. As a faithful subject of the British empire, Gandhi felt duty-bound to come to the assistance of his nation. He said - "It is not for us to say whether the revolt of the Kaffirs is justified or not.. We re in natal by virtue of British power. Our very existence depends upon it. It is therefore our duty to render whatever help we can" Gandhi's repeated participation on the side of the British was driven by his duty towards his 'nation'. The same Gandhi sided with the British during the First World War, this time against 'white' enemies. On the second point, it seems that Gandhi's thoughts around war and violence were yet to fully develop. In any case, (the later) Gandhi would not have approved of a violent struggle for freedom as mounted by the Zulus in 1906, not would he have approved of the brutal British response. One must remember than in 1922, Gandhi called off a successful non-cooperation movement against British rule in India after a single incident of violence.

In conclusion, the sensitivity of the 'activists' towards racism is understandable. However, the hurry in knocking off the Mahatma from the pedestal he currently occupies is unwarranted. We are increasingly a generation of the impatient, and our activism and our ideals are also coloured by this impatience. Our ability to see things in the wider context has consequently suffered. There is certain merit in gradualism and patience. Gandhi needs a careful reading, one that I am still in the process of making. But more importantly, understanding Gandhi needs a clear mind. Trying to think from the Mahatma's perspective is difficult, but an attempt must be made. For me, Gandhi is the Mahatma or the 'Great Soul', not because I agree with him (which I do not), but I agree with how he reached the conclusions he did and what he did once he reached them. Gandhi's life was one big experiment, a continuous learning curve. He made mistakes on the way, as he admits himself. But if the 'activists' use these mistakes to denigrate an icon, I believe it will only do great disservice to their cause. Peace and love are powerful weapons. They may be advised to use them more. 

-------------------------

* - all quotes attributed to Gandhi in this article are from secondary sources. I would request the readers to let me know if any mistakes so that I may correct them.

** - having read his autobiography, there is little reference, derogatory or otherwise, to the black population of South Africa. Gandhi comments intensely on the state of the Indian community and their relationship with the (white) administration

*** - if anyone has come across any comments that Gandhi makes about black Africans post - 1920, would be very grateful if you could send those to me

Comments on the Palestinian issue

I recently visited Israel as part of a trip organised by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) for Rhodes Scholars. Over about a week, we criss-crossed the country and met several people from different walks of life. We did not, however, visit the West Bank. With that in mind, here are my thoughts about the issue.

The Palestinian question has so many connotations that it is difficult for any country to be truly neutral. It has a 'Christianity/Judaism v/s. Islam', 'West V/s. East', 'Capitalism V/s. Socialism/Non-Aligned' and may I say even 'Rich V/s. Poor' tinge to it. Reality is often distorted by fanaticism on both sides. The Middle East is such a unique place that it is often difficult, if not impossible, for someone sitting in the sub continent to grasp fully the issues plaguing the region.

This trip therefore made me think about this festering issue in a way I haven't thought before. The desire of the nation to maintain a semblance of normalcy is commendable; and yet, the manifestations of the conflict are highly visible. Outside of the official program, I met several people who introduced themselves to me in ethnic or religious terms - Arab, Jew or Druze. It is a challenge the like of which would be hard to find elsewhere. Yet, after days of merely listening to speaker after speaker, the contours of the solution became most obvious to me. I believe most of these would be least surprising to anyone who has thought about this previously.

• Forget: The global discourse of the conflict seems to focus on what is 'right.' Is it, for example, right for the Jewish people to return to (or occupy) a land that they last held as a political unit some 2000 years back, and one that has since then been populated by other people, most recently the Muslim Palestinians*? Can that be a basis for other ethno-religious claims of a displaced people, like that of the Zoroastrians on Iran? Was the partition plan feasible? Were the Muslims made to pay the price for a (Christian country's) Holocaust? I believe that answering these questions is futile - firstly, because there never is a 'right' or 'wrong'; akin to the fact that different ways of aggregating utilities yields different results in economics. Secondly, the last sixty-seventy years are also now a part of history. The inescapable truth is that over six million Jewish people now reside in Israel. Any future solution has to start today, with this fact in mind. Even if one believes that the creation of Israel was unfair, one cannot argue in favour of undoing the 'wrong' by removing the state - because that leaves the six million people vulnerable. Discussions about resolving the conflict needs to focus on (a) what is the status quo (b) what is the ideal solution (c) how can we get closest to this solution.

• Grow and Govern: The Israeli occupation of Palestine is an inescapable truth. Israel as a nation and the Jewish people as a community place a lot of importance on their safety, as exemplified in the motto 'never again.' Israeli occupation of the West Bank is important from a security point of view. If the West Bank goes the Gaza way, or if it becomes a breeding ground for terrorist organisations, that could seriously test the existence of the Jewish state. With the addition of the Yemen conflict, the entire region seems to be in a state of conflict. The military differential between Israel and its antagonistic neighbours is currently substantial, but will probably be blunted over time. Where does that leave us? It seemed to me that the two-nation solution is accepted as the only solution. When the state of Palestine will finally be created, it is in Israel's best interest that the state be strong, and a strong nation needs to have strong institutions. Hence, it is in Israel's best interest that the Palestinian people be guided, encouraged and even forced to have world-class institutions**. Actions such as withholding tax receipts from the Palestinian Authority because the latter joined the ICC do not create much confidence. The basic feature of institutions is that they are stable; Israel cannot have 'institutions' that are provided or withdrawn as per convenience. Israel must help create an independent, efficient and able judiciary, must help empower local governing bodies, and must lay the foundations of economic growth. So that when the day comes to hand over the reins to the Palestinian people, the Israeli state can be at peace.

• Integrate: Finally, something must be said about Israeli Arabs, as distinct from the Palestinians. I was recently reading about communal conflict in India, and Israel's case is eerily similar - a majority religion with about 80% of the population, an Islamic minority and a long history of conflict. With all its flaws, it seems to me that India has done better in addressing this problem. As an example, the Muslim community in India holds a 'political veto' - (with the possible exception of the Modi dispensation,) they are organised politically such that they can block any proposal detrimental to their society. In contract, the Arab parties in Israel are almost political pariahs for any government. I could see that efforts are being made to bridge the gap between Arabs and Jews, and I would like to study that further before making any further comment. Also germane to the discussion is the engagement of Israel with the Islamic world. With nearly half of the global Islamic population, the countries east of Pakistan could serve as Israel's gateway to the Muslim world. Many of these countries, in fact, recognise Israel. Israel, a country this is shrouded in myth and mystery for many of us in this part of the world, can do better to present itself in a different light.

In conclusion, what has happened in the region is a tragedy not just for the Arabs but for Jewish people too. While nobody deserves to live under foreign occupation, nobody deserves to live under existential threats either. Those who think about a solution to the issue need to imbibe a lot of pragmatism and long-term thinking. 

--------------------------------

* - Gandhi for example, sympathised with the Jewish people, before and after the Holocaust. However, he was against the idea of creating Israel by displacing the Palestinians. Click here for Gandhi's opinion about the Jewish people on the eve of the Holocaust.

** - There are two obvious counter - arguments to this. One, why should Israel pay the cost of developing institutions in Palestine? During the trip, the notion of a 'Security Tax' particularly appealed to me. Israel occupies Palestine for the sake of its security, and hence it is obligatory on Israel to pay for this added security (or compensate Palestinians for the lack of agency over their lives) through a (substantial) transfer of resources. The second counter - argument is why the Palestinians shouldn't be the ones building institutions? Of course they should, and they will need to be part of the process. But it would be impractical to imagine that the Palestinian leadership could do this all by itself. As the occupier, Israel will have to be part of the process.

Facets of Independence: The absurdity of penalising homosexuality

When I woke up this morning with patriotic songs blaring from the neighbourhood, and when I opened facebook to see praises of Mr. Modi's speech; I thought of how lucky we are to be in a country that has withstood grave challenges and defied history to remain a largely liberal and democratic country. Over the past few months, reading numerous books about India, my respect for our immediate post-independence leaders such as Pandit Nehru, Sardar Patel and Dr. Ambedkar has only grown. Not only did they succeed in creating institutions and laws that inculcated the ethos of individual freedom and equality, but also largely drilled these values down to the common man.

However, none would argue against the fact that India is, at best, an imperfectly liberal and democratic nation. Not every citizen of India has all the freedoms that he should; in fact, some have very few, if you think of it. This morning, sipping my cup of warm milk, I was making a laundry list in my head. I was thinking about how so many of my female friends do not have the freedom to be out at night. I was recollecting how many people I know did not have the freedom to pursue higher education because economic conditions did not permit it. I reflected on how poverty itself is the lack of economic freedom, and how a large (and debatable) number of our countrymen still do not have that freedom. Then there is political freedom - of course, we have almost complete voting freedom *, but what about other political freedoms? As the AAP experiment in Delhi showed, there are significant entry barriers to new political entities. Then I thought about the one freedom that I must confess I have usually been dismissive of - the freedom of sexual choice.

It is a futile exercise to compare 'injustices' - for example, is lack of women safety a greater injustice than Section 377? However, what struck me was that the lack of sexual freedom is quite unique in that it is neither an outcome of a patently unjust but natural system (capitalism -> economic inequality) nor the effect of extra-constitutional and outlawed elements of society (a la rape). Our country does not permit homosexuality ** even on paper. This should make our response to homosexuality unique.

The origins of homosexuality are irrelevant - whether it is genetic, acquired or an illness does not matter as long as it exists, and as long as no scientifically sound way to 'cure' it has been found ***. Given that homosexuality is something that exists in our society, why we as a nation would become ostriches with our heads in the sand escapes me. It helps nobody - gay men are married to women and neither partner ever lives a happy married life, homosexual children are threatened by parents due to fear of societal 'shame', the suppressed sexuality exhibits itself in very unhealthy ways and, most importantly, I feel that living two parallel lives helps nobody. For most gay men and women in India, the sexual aspect of their life is a parallel universe where they have a different set of friends, a different mindset, mostly no family and are vulnerable, both physically and emotionally. To put it in perspective, it is estimated that 2 to 13 percent of the world's population is homosexual; even at the lower end of the range, the number of homosexuals in India would be larger than the second-largest minority community in India - hence, if secularism is numerically justifiable in India, so is homosexuality ****.

It is therefore surprising why as a society and as a country, we should inflict this damage on people. I wonder what harm can homosexuals do to the 'rest of society'? I believe it is fear. Fear that if law were to accept homosexuality, the children would accept it and somehow turn homosexual. There can also be a bit of economic thinking behind this - if the son were to be homosexual, he would have no children, and hence no 'social security' when he grows old. There is also the fear of promiscuity among homosexuals, and hence that the homosexual daughter would not have a long-term partner. Even if one were to accept these arguments (and I certainly do not), all of them fall within the domain of an individual's right. Whether the individual needs social security or not, whether he wants to be with someone or alone for the rest of his life - are all things that he must decide for himself. I am not, and have never been, a very vocal advocate of gay rights, but I am very sure that an individual must do whatever it takes for him/her to live a happy and productive life, and if having sex or being in love with a person of the same gender is part of it, then so be it!

At this stage, I must confess my own indifference to the Section 377 judgment. I had argued that since most Indians do not have access to judicial recourse, any 'judicial' intervention would not impact the lives of the majority of homosexuals in India, and hence the Section 377 judgment was as good as irrelevant. I still stand by the first argument, that the impact of Section 377 on the ground would not be very significant. However, the symbolic weight of the move cannot be underestimated. Removal of Section 377 would, in my opinion, remove this glaring lack of independence in our laws. 

As a country that wants to be liberal and a beacon of progressive forces in the world, we must ensure that we try our best to provide equal rights to all our citizens. For most of our citizens, we have the laws in place, and it is a matter of implementation. But for those among us who are homosexuals, it is a matter of being an outlaw in one's own country; and I hope this will be remedied very soon.

----------------------------

* - which itself is debatable, as many people in states such as West Bengal will tell you

** - for the sake of brevity, I will continue to use homosexuality in this article, but I intend it to be about any type of 'alternate sexuality'

*** - I do not agree to it being an illness or being curable; but for the sake of making this argument more realistic, I'll keep all possibilities open

**** - The NACO's estimate is 2.5 million homosexual men in India.