India is Not Magic. It's Chance.

There is nothing unique about the Maoist insurgency. It is a natural consequence of a haphazard nation-building process. In the last 60 years, the modern nation-state of India has been very lucky. It has not fractured due to its numerous resistance movements, many of them fueled by separatist ambitions. Attributing this to a greater sense of purpose is akin to citing supernatural reasons. India is not magic. It is chance.

Statesmen like Nehru painted a picture of India which was far from the truth. As many, far more clear-sighted thinkers have pointed out, there is nothing immemorial or predestined about India's borders. The territorial identity we came to recognize as our own was a mixture of British administrative convenience and post-Independence military might. The territories we ended up losing - a source of great nationalist trauma - were never 'ours'. The very notion of 'we' is stretched. As has been pointed out many times, the Punjabi in Amritsar understands the Punjabi in Lahore, and not the Tamilian down South. The power of consumerist-Nationalism is such that it overwhelms ingrained historical differences to uphold an artificial construct. Most of the Media have worked very hard to present a cohesive picture of the nation. When saffronized history hasn't helped, they have turned to the last refuge of militarist behavior - Sport. But such is the nature of human society, that you cannot suppress genuine discontent for long. It is interesting thus, that in recent times, in spite of raging separatist movements across the land, the Media finds itself unable to come to the most obvious conclusion. India is not magic. Its chance.

It is understandable that Nehru's generation would have the picture of an inevitable India. The notion of a collective identity was essential in sustaining the Independence movement. What is sad is that the generations after his were unable to tear themselves away from Nehruvian hope and idealism to a more pragmatic position. The generation of men like Amartya Sen and Amitabh Bachhan continued to seek refuge in a flawed conception of this land. In a mirage of collective denial. What this generation did, is damage further the remote possibility of keeping this bundle of regions together.

It is natural thus, that resistance movements have claimed large parts of the land. These are not movements driven by coherent ideologies, like those of the twentieth century. These are resource based, thriving on decades of neglect and discrimination, and thus far more dangerous. The Maoist insurgency is a wild, and by now rather widespread, effort to reclaim the shreds of dignity still left, towering over mineral-filled hills. To think it will subside is folly. The same goes for the Kashmiri liberation movement and insurgent groups in the North-East. Everywhere, is a combination of scarcity, neglect, and often straightforward abuse. These are not, as aging liberal patriots would like to believe, exceptions. Neither are these regions 'left behind', as the saying goes. These are populations for whom history now has a different meaning. Most of them have diverged to such an extent that they make moderate and sensible strategies like 'greater dialogue' seem impotent. They don't just want to get away from 'us', but crave a radical rupture from their pain-filled pasts. Extremist groups offer that dream. We can do nothing to make it better.

Many think the solution lies in military action. But violence legitimizes their struggle. It gives a sense of meaning previously unknown. It united people in their hatred of the aggressor. That is not a feature of these examples alone, but a permanent one of the human landscape. Military action will make matters infinitely worse. It is not a matter of whether military action is justified, as many spend their hours deliberating, but of the simple fact that it doesn't work.

India may not fracture. Military might, after all, can force people in and out of homes. But parts may cease to function. Like a body some of whose organs fail. It may not be these very movements or extremist groups. But similar such uprisings, feeding on a tradition of pain. Many parts will continue to thrive of course, moving intolerably towards Western riches. Celebrate that. And prepare for more extremist attacks. Safety is an ephemeral concept, one we should be ready to abjure.

But if one thinks that that is not a great way to live, then one will have to face, and acknowledge, the naivety and cowardice of earlier generations. And then one will have to deal with his own illusions. We will have to face a spectrum which ranges from the fresh-faced MBA to an insurgent hiding in the mountains. We will have to look at this nation-state for what it really is - not magic, but chance.

The Anna Scam

Centralization/Top down decision making increases chances of corruption and malpractice. Decentralization/Bottom-up decision making reduces them. That is because 1) There is greater chance of moral hazard within a centralized system. Too much power in too few hands. 2) In a centralized system there is insufficient information. In small systems e.g. Municipalities, informational problems are not that big. 3) Centralized systems, rigid and goal oriented that they are, suppress errors. That makes them fragile. They remain calm till wild variations fracture them. Thus centralized systems, in the present complex and uncertain world, are dangerous (e.g. Soviet Russia, Maoist China, American foreign policy, Jan Lokpal) (e.g. of small & decentralized – Switzerland, Muhammad Yunus, Esther Dufflo) (You can find the original arguments in Nassim Nicholas Taleb's writings)

The entire Lokpal deal reeks of top-down centralized imposition of justice. That is naive utopia. At that level, two authorities will turn out the same as one. What any such movement requires is a bottom-up approach. Many small and autonomous units. But that is not the lokpal movement. On the contrary it prides itself on presenting one coherent approach to a deep-set problem like corruption. That is folly. There is greater chance that if implemented, the Jan Lokpal bill will increase corruption in the long run. It will put to much power into too few hands. It is also the most impractical, given its judgement time-frames, and will have to make decisions with incomplete information and will suppress discontent as the failure begins to show. The Lokpal will not only damage, it wont even know it is damaging.

India is a messy land. And no amount of pretend-coherence or centralization will help. It will just repress further. Anna is projecting, in a more secular fashion, his old RSS ideas of 'one central solution' (maybe unaware all the time). And a mostly consumerist middle class is embracing it. It shows, at best, a simplified and flawed conception of the complexity of this land. In his arrogance, he thinks that he can conceive of one solution (however geographically spread out) for this deep-set malaise affecting 1.2 billion people who mostly do not identify with each other, except for a conception of nation-state only 60 years old. And so he creates a media event out of it, waves the flag, and we run to change the world! Had Gandhi been buried, he'd be rolling in his grave.

I fully agree that we have to 'do' things. Yes to positive change too. But it is essential to know what change we are talking about. It cannot be this top-down imposition. It has to be bottom-up. Please refer to the work of Esther Duflo, the development economist, and her approach. They are called the ‘randomistas’. They follow a system of randomized trials similar to the ones followed for medicine/pharma. They do small things for a group and then observe whether it is working compared to another group, which is the placebo group. Then they widen it a little to see if it is still working. I hope you can see what I mean by bottom-up tinkering. I think these more humble and cleverer methods are a way better choice. They have their shortcomings, like how to set up a fair trial. But those shortcomings are nothing compared to Lokpal’s punish-the-kid-if-he-misbehaves.

Most people do not know that before Grameen Bank, Muhammad Yunus had tried out another project (original story in Tim Harford's Adapt). I think he borrowed money for farmers to buy high-yield seeds. It failed. Then he came up with the idea of giving these small loans to women in villages. And it worked. Yunus, through simple bottom-up experimentation was able to transform the lives of so many poor Bangladeshi women, and thus families. He was experimenting. And his model may not work equally effectively everywhere (Afghanistan), but what he has done for the poor in Bangladesh, and other impoverished countries, cannot be questioned. All through small, grassroots trial and error. He did not assume he knew how to solve the problem. He experimented.

The important thing here, as you can see, is that Yunus failed once. But it didn't hurt the system as a whole. It hurt only him and a few businessmen. And he was there to try again. But if the Lokpal fails, it will hurt millions. Most importantly, once instituted, you wont be able to do away with it. For it will simply be too powerful. Do you think, if it is not performing well, those who are running it will stand up, put up their hands and walk out? No. They will keep trying. And covering up. That is the way large institutions work.

We need hundreds of Muhammad Yunuses and Esther Duflos out there trying and failing for a better life for the impoverished. Not some rigid, naive, media-savvy, pseudo-revolutionary like Hazare. I too would like to believe that it is possible to bring slightly greater well-being to this cluttered and complicated land. But I cannot, for that very reason, let my emotions get the better of me.