Anti-Harassment Law in Indian Government? Would it ease the burden all round?

India is at the bottom of the heap (or close to it) when Transparency International measures corruption in countries across the globe. Having taken a closer look at the issue, I know that bribery is a two way street. There are a number of people in India who believe that good service is not possible without bribery BY DEFINITION. I think we are now learning otherwise. Time and time again, I have visited government offices to get work done... where most people pay bribes I don’t… yet my work gets done. I suspect if you actually did NOT pay the bribe most of your work would get done anyway. The same would work with those who think they don’t get the best treatment at Govt. Hospitals unless /until they bribe the doctor… a common perception in my home state at least.

These perceptions really begin to bite when you take examples like the Income Tax Office. When I made my first taxable income, I felt PROUD to pay my taxes, but surprisingly I found a LARGE number of my well-wishers asking me NOT to pay tax on a one off income, where there was no Tax Deduction at Source. They said that once I am in the scanner of the Income Tax department, they would now begin to harass me. I went ahead and paid my taxes nevertheless, and in over a decade since, I have never been harassed in any way. I also hear that you never get a TAX REFUND unless you pay a bribe equal to 10% of the refund amount. I know of people who have not collected or filed for a refund because they don’t want to pay 10%. On the other hand, I do know that my father, who would never pay a bribe to anyone recently got a refund BY POST!
There is one way in which this whole thing could be settled more amicably all round. Its likely to kick up some dust initially. Here is what I propose: an Anti-Harassment Law which guarantees every citizen the right NOT to be harassed by any Government Department or Government Employee. This means that even if a citizen has committed a minor transgression of the law, he or she will not be harassed for it, provided that (1) it was not committed with the intention to defraud or misrepresent intentionally, or was committed on the basis of incorrect information perception, including fear of subsequent harassment by an agent of the government (2) he is willing to correct the error. Since the right to be free from harassment is a right of the citizen, the Government itself will take up cases of harassment for prosecution, wherever necessary.

Such a law will quite obviously create anxiety among public servants, especially those who do indulge in such unethical practices. It will even create anxiety among those who do their work contentiously, wondering if their normal work could be misconstrued as “harassment”. These issues need to be addressed. However I am of the honest opinion the Anti-Harassment Law would go a long way in healing the rift between the Indian Government and the Indian people.

Justice: the victory of good over evil? Lessons from Guantanamo Bay

Good and Evil locked in an eternal struggle for supremacy, is one of the deep rooted myths of modern society. How many times have we enjoyed watching our favourite hero smash the face of a heinous villain, with a deep satisfaction? Our children play cops and robbers, and in a more politically incorrect era, the game was cowboys and Indians (thankfully not Asian Indians, but Native Americans).

Somehow, we believe that if we can clearly distinguish between good and evil, then all is forgiven as long as we are on the side of GOOD! To my mind, the idea of good and evil lies at the root of violence in modern day society. Worse still, violence done in the name of "Good" is not even recognized as such. Obviously I am not the only one to ask this question, Michel Foucault, beat (pun?) me to the post. Erich Fromm, in his book, "Anatomy of Human Destructiveness" states a fact that most of us can identify with: In the history of human civilization, more people have been killed for an ideology than for greed or other forms of passion.

At one time, Adolf Hitler was the villain of the world. Then it was Osama Bin Laden, more recently Iraq had to be invaded because Sadam had "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and because his was an "Evil Regime" that had to be brought down. Since America was fighting the war against evil (a.k.a "War Against Terror".. not a war against "Terrorism"..against whose Terror?.. is Terror a state of mind, or an external act?), prisoners were no longer subject to the Geneva Convention, as long as they are held and tortured in countries outside US. The champion of human rights themselves were immune to accountability on this point. Admittedly not ALL Americans think alike, and to say that would be to commit the mistake of holding a large population accountable for the acts of a few, in a sense it allows the few to get away with murder (pun again?). Yesterday's ruling of the American Supreme Court regarding the detainees at Guantanamo Bay finally acknowledges that these people are human beings too.

Today there is a growing world coalition against Terror. I would like to know who the enemy is. What does he or she think? What battles do they fight? What do they fight for? Or, perhaps the enemy is faceless, sub-human that is to human society what malignancy is to the human body. Only one problem though, malignant cells spawn, excising the most visible site doesn't mean you have gotten rid of the disease. That requires a more systemic perpsective.

Indian mythology on the other hand (not withstanding the right wing fanatics) does not seem to have a clear separation between good and evil. Karna, The Just, who had more honour than Yudhishdra himself was on the side of the "empire of evil", Kauravas, simply because he was born out of wedlock. Yudhishtra himself is far from flawless, having used his own wife (dharma patni) as property to gamble with. In another epic, Ravana, the ten headed demon "rakshas" kidnaps Sita, yet treats her with honour befitting a lady, while her own husband, the exalted rama refuses to accept her back, even after she undergoes a trial of fire..literally (Agni Pravesh), on the grounds that she is tainted goods. It appears that good and evil depends on (1) luck and on (2) which side you are on.

Yet in India too, the rhetoric of good and evil is fast gaining ground, with politicians now clamouring for the DEATH SENTENCE for rape!

Story Telling

When I was working at forefront advertising agency, someone asked my boss, Mr. Raj Supe, what does Mathai Fenn do? He replied its difficult to say exactly what he does, but if I had to explain it, I would say that he collects stories! Several years later, Prof. Premarajan of XLRI asked me "I know stories are important to you, and I am sure they important, can you explain just WHY stories are important? I decided to put the answer here.

Yesterday I was teaching Organizational Theory to students of the PGCHRM via satellite link, and I told them that stories have a special place in structuring data. If someone asked me " What is 2+2?" or "What is the speed of light?" or even "How does nuclear fission take place?" Science helps me to find answers to these questions. However when someone asks "What is the purpose of life?" or "What is heaven (..or enlightenment, or moksha, or Ananda) like?" often the answer comes in the form of a story or an anology.

Stories are very good in communicating the relationship between facts. Good at showing what is right and wrong, what is good and evil, and for communicating values of all sorts. Interestingly, this is what theory also tries to do. To build relationships between facts and observations. Unlike stories, theories are designed NOT TO communicate any emotional content. The language of scientific theory is often mathematics a set of abstract relationships. Stories on the hand, communicate not just the relationship between things, but also communicate evaluative and emotional content. Stories tell us who is friend who is foe. Stories also tell us what life is all about and how to approach death.

However unlike theory, there is not just one story available to explain a set of phenomena. More than one story is available and often they are the same as far as facts are concerned. What this means is that we have to choose OUR story (OUR TRUTH?) based on, not just the facts... but also based on what sounds APPEALING. This largely depends on our immediate context, including our personality too.

Interestingly stories are the building blocks of our personality. Psychoanalysis makes heavy use of stories and myths to dig the foundations of personality. Though most serious researchers like joseph campbell , prefer the word MYTH, I prefer the word STORY, since its much more commonly used.

A Change of Heart

Social and Cultural Critique? Who am I kidding? I must say sometimes I do get carried away by myself and my academic background. What I dislike is not so much the activity of criticism, but the assumption that criticism somehow places one outside, or even worse above the very thing that one is criticizing. In my mind, criticism has two functions, neither of them require this assumption. First, I often use criticism as a way of understanding. Even when I am sympathetic to an idea, I often critically examine it, and this helps me understand it better. An idea that I have spent hours or even days analyzing and criticizing is closer to my heart than another which I have just read without thinking about it too much. There is also a public function of criticism

It seems to me that there is another function of criticism, to provide different views and point-of-views for those who make decisions. However this, I am beginning to learn, doesn't always work so well. Many decision makers act defensively when they see criticism, not realizing that when I make a suggestion, implicit in it, is an offer to help set things right.

Well, there I go again. I think the problem with me is that I often exist on two levels. On the one hand I live in a world of ideas, often thinking, analyzing and in general, trying to understand the world around me. On the other hand, I also enjoy living life "close to the ground", taking in as many diverse and vibrant experiences as possible, in an open (as much as possible) way.

Under the circumstances, I have decided that I will write anything I feel like writing about. Some of them maybe social criticism, many of them not.

A critique on society

One of the things I enjoy reflecting on is what is popularly known as "society". A critique of institutions and life I find around me. What gives me the authority to make such a critique? The same reason why Scott Adams has become my favourite "Management Guru", the simple reason that I live in it. In a sense its strange how so many of us individuals can live together, work together and communicate with each other, when each of us believes that we are unique individual selves.

My critique comes, not necessarily from critical theory, rather its an amalgamation of many unique circumstances which I would like to call my CON-text!