Narendra Modi's Fatwa

It is no less than an edict, one which has prompted me to say, "yes, Prime Minister, but..."

Narendra Modi's advise to the ministers sounds school-marmish. Do they have any merit? Some do, some don't. His media-related comments are more important than the rest. Here are two quotes from separate reports:

• Sources said the Prime Minister also asked the MPs not to talk to the media as spokespersons of the party but raise the issues of their own area and constituency with them instead.

• The Prime Minister also advised the parliamentarians to refrain from giving comments to media on national issues. He said they should be polite while dealing with the media.

I completely agree. In the past few years, ministers have struck out on their own during primetime and hurt the party they represent. The ill-timed sound bytes have only given anchors a 'debate', and the issue those remarks are for is soon forgotten. The cacophony coterie thrived in this environment, and became known for outspokenness or idiocy, depending on which side they were on.

The fallout was retraction the morning after. More debates on being misquoted. More TV and print time. It did not matter what the subject was. From coal to land sharks to rape, these made up the rogues gallery. Other panelists, mainly from the media, shared a camaraderie with them. This ensured both got what they wanted — a story.

Most of them lacked expertise in the subject, and were there only due to their availability on speed dial. Why did they come to the studios night after night to be shouted down by anchors? And what did they do? It invariably ended up with the spokespersons protecting their leaders. A Catch-22 situation, no doubt.

It served no purpose. Even offending ministers were back, smiling or sneering, after being anointed/insulted by a media person whose own expertise came from the research done by her/his team. People elect leaders, not journalists. The former owes them responsibility and self-respect. They represent us.

In sensitive cases, there is also the danger of a preemptive remark interfering in a judicial probe. Not everybody is in a position to discuss national or international issues with any degree of conviction, unless they are directly handling that portfolio and have hands-on experience or have worked in the department.

What we know now is which party members are the favoured ones on what channel, which ought to be anathema for freedom of the press. We recall their quotes. Let us not forget how Mani Shankar Aiyer's "chaiwalla" comment gave the BJP and its then PM candidate a new identity, an emotional handle. The quotable quoters are elitist, as is the media that projects them.

Is there a flipside to this? Yes. Since the media is not terribly interested in work done in constituencies, for want of ministers to pin down they might not cover issue-based controversial news as much. Or, if they do, it might become a free-for-all with decoys speaking on behalf of the party. This will provide an easy exit for the head office. A shrug will suffice. If the PM is serious, he should have a team of dedicated spokespersons who do as much homework as he expects from Parliamentarians.

Another reason I welcome this media 'layoff' is that the ball will be in the court of the PM. It is his diktat, his choice to stay away, his ministers are responsible for everything they say.

The media, in fact, has the upper hand here. For every Giriraj Singh utterance, they can go straight to the PMO.

Is the directive dictatorial? No. It would be if there is a complete disconnect between the media and ministers. The media is not being muzzled. As someone who has been right in there, as also an avid objective and, need I emphasise, cynical observer, newspaper and TV journalists will have to rely on independently-investigated stories. It is no secret that 'sources' are often dissenters or opponents. The information is fed to the media, and that becomes a 'scoop'.

Is there a flipside to this too? Yes. The ministers who won't talk about national issues might try and whitewash a few glaring stains in order to please their leader. They might then not feel the need to address the problem because it is not visible, and there are no checks on it.

This does not sound simple because it is not. Therefore, I've tried to give two arguments.

Regarding the other diktats, they are self-evident. Except that doing away with sycophancy is not restricted to dissuading feet-touching. It is good as symbolism, though. We did see Modi during his campaigns touching the feet of elderly voters, and on his first day in Parliament touching the steps of the "temple of democracy". Such gestures are unnecessary, precisely because of the nature of our democracy.

His comment on 'service providers' is interesting: "Before you know it you will find yourself beholden to these people. And it will be difficult to shake them off even if you want to."

Is this restricted only to the ministers in his cabinet? What about the industrialists? He does know there is no free lunch, right?

One cannot also ignore the fact that his short lecture to the ministers came after he superseded them to meet the bureaucrats alone. It is one thing to help streamline procedure and quite another to be the sole authority. I am afraid, but a mindset cannot alter overnight. Bureaucrats are accustomed to pretending to take orders. You give them a carte blanche to handle things and they might change, but only superficially. Instead of going through a layer of benefactors, they will now feel empowered to be answerable only to one.

Narendra Modi is a man in a hurry. That is the problem. He is too busy cutting off branches and painting flowers on the trunks of trees.

© Farzana Versey

---

Image: TOI

Report sources:
Indian Express and IBN

Singapore Sting

Remember the time every Indian politician promised that India would be like Singapore? Remember how its former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew was idolised for the very things that Indians cannot do – be disciplined? Remember the shoppers glowingly talk about walking down Orchard Street, which had a better ring to it than London’s Oxford Street, teeming with its migrants?

Migrants. Yes. There is not much noise about the report that Indians are finding it increasingly difficult to rent houses in that country.

If you are an Indian in Singapore and looking for a house on rent, it is highly likely that you won't get one. Most Singaporean landlords don't rent their house to Indians and people from mainland China. According to local media reports, many landlords are open about it. The moment they realize that the tenant is an Indian, they say sorry and slam the door. According to a report by the BBC, a quick glance at online rental listings shows many that include the words 'no Indians, no PRCs (People's Republic of China)', sometimes followed by the word "sorry".

Such discrimination is not legally permissible. As this report says, Singapore is only about migrants. So, choosing to segregate one or two groups is racist in the extreme and shows how certain nationalities are seen as better or superior.

Among the reasons cited are smelly curries and lack of hygiene. Were one to accept these as flaws if viewed from another cultural perspective, then all ethnic groups can have similar problems. Besides, these are properties to be rented, not shared. The landlord can always add a clause that after the lease period the property should be returned in the condition it was rented out in.


I have visited several parts of Singapore and there are different smells and sights, some of which I found revolting. The residents might feel the same. ‘Little India’ is not a ghetto, but a hub of activity. And there is a growing clientele for smelly curries. I did not see much hygiene in other areas, too.

Except for the main boulevards, and their antiseptic streets and obedient flowerbeds, there are patches of a grim controlled environment, with drab beige buildings where the majority of the middle-class lives. The markets are piled with natural cures in the form of walking and flying little creatures. At dinner one night at the famed Harbour Front, a congregation of restaurants from different regions, all I recall was a woman throwing up, her indulgence a murky pool on the pavement.

I know this has nothing to do with segregation; I just wanted to recount what memories can do. Should I judge a person’s nationality by a natural occurrence such as vomiting?

As almost everyone is a migrant there is no pressure to be nationalistic in the narrow sense. I read that Indians are identified as a race, too. The product of cultural synergy would be properly referred to with a hybrid term, e.g. the child of an Indian and a Chinese would be a Chindian.

Does this complicate issues for renting out houses? Would a Chindian be turned away twice, because of the Indian and the Chinese connection, both ‘not allowed’? And would a Eurasian be more acceptable, because the ‘euro’ factor would take away the curry smell?

There are indeed some Indians who have done well for themselves, and many are second and third generation. Their legacy includes contributing to the country. But, then, can any society survive without its labour and its white collar workers? They may not live in homes where the spluttering seeds in oil reach out, but each day they keep the wheels lubricated for things to function. Denying them space merely for their origin does not reveal a modern attitude that Singapore prides itself in.

This is a silent sort of discrimination, its impact no less damning than the violent ones in other countries.

© Farzana Versey

Sunday ka Funda

"Democracy divides people into workers and loafers. It makes no provision for those who have no time to work."

- Karl Kraus
 ---

Salt of the earth - Rolling Stones

and


She works hard for the money - Donna Summer

Harvard Terrorism

A tony university will naturally have its eyes on the swish. Yet, there is something unnerving about a case study at Harvard Business School on the role of the employees at the five-star Taj Hotel during the Mumbai attacks of November 26, 2008.

The multimedia case study ‘Terror at Taj Bombay: Customer-Centric Leadership’ by HBS professor Rohit Deshpande documents “the bravery and resourcefulness shown by employees” during the attack.

The study focuses on why Taj employees stayed at their posts, jeopardizing their personal safety, in order to save the hotel guests. It also tries to study how that level of loyalty and dedication can be replicated elsewhere. A dozen Taj employees died trying to save the lives of the hotel guests, during the attacks. “Even senior managers couldn’t explain the behaviour of the employees,” Deshpande said.

He added, “Even though the employees knew all the exits in the hotel and could have easily fled the hotel building, some stayed back to help the guests. These people instinctively did the right thing. In the process, some of them, gave up their lives to save the guests.”

While there is no dispute over the bravery, has any study been done about the saviours at other places where these attacks took place and where several others occur on an almost daily basis? What about flight attendants who help out passengers when there is an air calamity? What about the guards who are routinely killed trying to save people? Would HBS bother about smaller establishments and countries that are quite ‘under the radar’? And what about the several problems of labour: from fighting for wages to safety measures in the work area to being unceremoniously thrown out to having to run about to claim pension?

I do not wish to sound callous, but in this particular case it was difficult to figure out what exactly was happening. It is a huge hotel and all employees do not know about all exits. Besides, given the nature of the attack – guests taken hostage and much exchange of gunfire – was there any guarantee that using any exit would save them?

Why is the management surprised? Don’t they train their employees about service? In the hospitality industry, more than anywhere else, this is an important component. They have, at best, done a job in the most humane manner possible.

The fact that this study explores the need for a replication of such loyalty and dedication begs the question about how indepth the research has been. Are there no other examples? Have you heard of caretakers of places of worship running away when there are bomb blasts? Have you known of junior employees leaving the premises of big enterprises when they are under any sort of attack? Don’t the guards at banks get killed during a heist?

I find it extremely patronising when the HBS team claims under camouflage of romanticisation:

Another key concept of the study is that in India, “there is a paternalistic equation between an employer and employee that creates kinship”.

This is merely pushing the agenda of the ruling class. The equation is feudalistic in all sectors – of benign master and slave. The kinship is one where the employee swears to do anything beyond the call of duty. It is a gentleman’s unspoken word of honour that only those in the lower hierarchy can keep because they have no choice.

The employer may most certainly look after the interests of the employees, and there may be the annual general body meeting where there is a mention of “we are one big family”. Don’t forget, this includes the shareholders who need to be reassured that the company is doing great and it has a loyal staff. Such loyalty is bought with an unwritten agreement that implies there won’t be any special sops or protection. Compensatory packages are part of the contract. The courage displayed by workers helps build the brand of the master. What loyalty are the employers showing towards their workers?

Why does it have to be a one-way street?