Delhi

First time to Delhi, didn't start on a high note. After trying hard to avoid taking a cab to airport in Bangalore, I finally decided to go by BMTC bus. Some foreigner shouted at me for not following the queue at food court(I thought I had to pay the bill first and then order, so finally ended up moving opposite to the queue). Finally while going for the interview, I was almost hit by an auto. What was I doing? I walked on the road for some time whether I should walk, or should I take the human drawn riksha to the nearest metro station. I struggled for sometime, between the inhumanness of sitting on a three wheeler with thin tyres and asking the other person to pull it for a kilometre, and the alternative of being a source of livelihood for the puller. There are too many people, than what I expected inside. There was no place to stand on the first train. It felt like Bombay local train. My thoughts drifted to what would Delhi govt do after finding that the much touted metro too is unable to take the ocean of people after a few years. Another thing I observed while waiting outside the UPSC building was the funny caps on the DTC buses.

Officials were too cordial inside the building, to write even a word against them here. CISF guard checked my pockets before taking me to the interview room, so that I am not carrying any cellphones to influence the interviewers inside(Phone call is an infamous instrument of influence in India). I waited for 10 mins outside the interview room, before the final call to come inside came. I could clearly hear my heartbeat. There were five people including an imposing figure of the chairman. I said "May I come in" but I couldn't wish 'Good evening' everyone, it seemed too artificial. The chairman said something about if I am working or not, I couldn't get it properly, made the optimum choice, and replied,
Me: Yes sir, I am working right now
Chairman: Where are you working?
Me: Sir, I am working for Google
Member 4: So, you worked for Microsoft and then shifted to Google?
Me: Yes Sir
Thats all, questions about my background
Chairman: You mentioned, you are interested in reading books especially on history and political science.
Me: Yes Sir
Chairman: What is the book that influenced you most in the last few years.
I took the 'last few years' generously and said
Me: Glimpses of World History.
Chairman: Glimpses of World History? When did you read it?
Me: When I was in 12th class sir.
Chairman: No, No, in the last few years
Me: Fatal Purity
Chairman: What is it about?
Me: Its biography of Maximilian Robespierre, french revolutionary
Member 2: Robespierre? (she spelled it differently)
Me: Yes Ma'am
It seems chairman probably wanted to make sure I am not bluffing
Chairman: Who wrote it?
Me: Ruth Scurr
Chairman: Who??
Me: Sir, Ruth Scurr, it is the author's name
Chairman: Ok. Why did the author called it as fatal purity
Hard to remember what exactly I said there, so writing in my own words (especially, my English was quite bad when I spoke there)
Me: Robespierre, was a strange personality, being called as incorruptible by some and blood thirsty dictator by others. It was all because, he tried to be true to what he believed in till the end, without any compromise at any point of time. Whatever he believed in, he tried to follow it and he was ultimately executed for that same reason.
The above thing I probably didn't say in one go, probably said after he interrupted me to say "No, what is the importance of purity there."
Some member said something about Jacobins.
Chairman: Who are Jacobins?
Me: Jacobins are revolutionaries who participated in french revolution
Chairman: Why are they called as Jacobins?
Me: Because they assembled in St. Jacobin's church for the first time.
Chairman: Now tell me what is the Jacobin's idea of purity?
I said something similar to what I said above. Chairman made it very serious,
Chairman: See, don't give me abstract answers like this. Be serious. This is important for both your career and my job. Now tell me what is the Jacobin's idea of purity. Thats all.
I said something. The chairman didn't look satisfied. He probably expected me to say the phrase 'ideological purity', but I tried to say the same in my own words :(.
In fact he actually looked like completely pissed off and pointed his hand to other member to take over.

The other member had a rough book in front of him, and he said word by word slowly looking from it "FDI....in......higher......education,..........." made some statement, without a clue about what is the question. I had no clue whether he is asking me to support it, or oppose it, or to comment on it. I started with something, but quickly said, I am sorry sir, I didn't get the question, Could you please repeat it. The chairman took over and gave a long talk on how primary education is important, and we cannot divert funds from primary to higher education. So long that I started feeling bad for allowing the interviewer to clarify the question for such long time. I said,
Me: Yes sir, primary education is important, we have invested heavily on primary education in the last few years.....
Interrupting me,
Member 3: But there is nothing there, there is a room and a roof, no board, no teacher, no toilets
Me(continuing from where I was interrupted): Yes sir, but we have reached near universal levels in enrollment in primary education and the students who were enrolled in primary education in last few years will come for higher education in next 5-6 years and there will be huge demand for higher education
Member 3 again interrupted me of course. Even now, neither he have a clue that I am not opposing FDI in Higher Education, nor I have a clue that he thinks I am opposing it.
Member 3: Yes that is why we need more investments in Higher Education
Now, I thought I am supposed to oppose it
Me: But they come for profits, they don't come with a mission to educate us. Also higher education is not just about merely acquiring knowledge, but it is about imparting right national ethos into the students. So, foreign universities who come only for profits......
Member 3(Interrupted again) So what? Let them make profits. Our students are going en mass to other countries, Harvard etc to study. Why not we allow them in our country itself.
By now, I realized I have to make clear my stand
I probably said something else also, but finally said,
Me: Yes sir, I am also in support of FDI in higher education.
Member 3: Ok
In the meantime chairman went to bathroom and as soon as he returned, Member 3 told him, "He finally said he supports it"
I couldn't make out what it means on me. There was lot of confusion, and I really don't know what they expected from me. But whatever it is I should have given a more elaborate justification about why I finally chose to support it.
Member 3 asked some small questions
Member 3: Where does earthquakes occur in the world?
Me: They occur mostly at the plate boundaries, which means mostly around pacific ocean, Himalayas, (about to say alps, but my mind was so much in mess that I doubted whether alps really are in Europe, in which case should I say it or limit at Himalayas, but finally said) and alps chain
Member 3: What is Richter scale?
Me: Sir, It is used to measure intensity of earthquakes.
(I was worried I chose wrong definition out of those of the two scales related to eathquake)
But that was correct.
Member 3: What is the difference between 6 and 7 on it?
Now, this was too easy,
Me: Its a logarithmic scale, so earthquake measuring  7 on Richter scale will be 10 times more effective than that with 6
I don't know why he asked again. He didn't seem like he heard my answer properly
Member 3: How many times?
Me: 10 times sir. Its a logarithmic scale with base 10
By this time, other members were telling Member 3, that "it is 10 times". Everybody know it and they were helping Member 3
Member 3: What is a Tsunami?
Me; Tsunami is a huge sea wave generated by under sea earthquakes or some plate readjustments
I was worried how he would take the 'some plate readjustments' part in the above answer. But he seem to accepted it.
Now, Member1's turn
Member 1: You seem to have read about french revolution(I was happy inside. This should be easy, I thought). Can you tell me some parallels between french revolution and India's struggle for independence.
Me: Sir, it is hard to find parallels between French revolution and India's struggle for independence, because french revolution happened abruptly and it was very violent, but India's independence movement is 'mostly' non-violent, and happened over a long time.
Chairman nodded in agreement and I was more than happy
Me (continuing): But, we can find some parallels, in some of the events, especially events like Civil disobedience movement had witnessed large mass of people coming onto the street protesting in large numbers against government and violating the laws en masse. Other such events like those happened during quit India movement, world war II resembled events in french revolution.

That was bad answer. I should have drawn parallals in ideology. Member 1 was quick.

Member 1: But what about the ideals? Tell me the ideals of French Revolution.
Me: Sir, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
Never been more proud to say something.
Member 1: Now compare with Independence struggle.
I started saying something, but he started to talk about something else. I tried to compete but gave up, and he said something about something else.

Another question,
Member 1: Coming to Indian software industry, Why are Indian companies doing good only in services. Why we don't have good product companies.
Frankly, I don't know a lot about it. I said what came to my mind at that time
Me: Its is mostly because product segment usually need lot of investment at the start and the returns on it takes a long time to come. Our companies, having scarce resources find it hard to make such long term investments. Where as in services, the money invested start giving returns in a very short duration. That is why products' segment is still dominated by MNCs.
Member 1 then said something like '..but why is it so.....', I couldn't make out correctly
But I already answered it :(
Then I made a general statemet about how we have huge market especially in government sector and also in private sector, and there is alot of scope for product companies, we already have some. In  the end added, yeah, as of now, MNCs like Microsoft, Google dominate the market.
Again no idea whether he was satisfied with my answer or, thought I was just trynig to make sweeping generalizations

Then Member 2 took over.
Member 2: Anil, you studied in Kanpur. So, though your institute is located outside it, you must have visited the interior city. So, tell me the most visible thing in Kanpur that needs reform(She probably didn't say reform. I don't remember what exactly she said).
Me: Roads
I was so quick, other members started laughing
Member 2: Roads?
Me: Yes, they are very narrow. Nothing fits into them, even the buses introduced have to be....
Member 2(Interrupting me) What about traffic?
Me: But traffic problem is basically because of Roads
Chairman: Yeah
He was too generous for me
Member 2: What is the role played by Kanpur in freedom struggle.
Me: Kanpur played very important role, especially during the 1857 revolution, and also many grassroots level movements at the time of freedom struggle have their roots in Kanpur and surrounding areas, for example Kisan sabha movement...
Interrupted me again,
I should have been more specific,
But nevertheless they didn't give me that much time
Member 2: name 2 important leaders from Kanpur
Me: I had put a clueless expression
Chairman: You said you read history, tell us two important leaders from kanpur.
I was frank
Me: Specifically from Kanpur, I don't know sir
Chairman gave two names.
First one, I said I don't know
Second one was SM Banerjee
I confused it with Surendranath Banerjee.
Also there were many banerjees in 1880's INC's sessions. So I said I know,
He was to quick to allow me to realize my mistake.
Chairman: Who was He?
Me: Sir He participated in 1885 Indian National Congress session
Chairman: No, that was WC Banerjee. This is 'S' 'M' Banerjee
Me: I don't know sir
That was quite ad
Member 2: What are national awards?
I was confused, whether I am supposed to define 'national awards' or am supposed to list them.
I hesitated for a moment and started,
Me: Padma shri, Padma bhushan..
I was little hesitant and slow.
Member 2 had sensed the opportunity, probably thought I don't know what are the padma awards
Member 2: What are the padma awards
Me: Padma shri, padma bhushan, padma vibhushan and bharata ratna
I was thinking all the time, while answering, about the possible reasons for asking such silly questions. Probably I looked very dumb, I thought
Member 2: What is the highest among them
Me: Bharata ratna
Member 2: Who is given bharat ratha?
Me: People who excel in art, literature, public service or science
they looked ok with the answer, but that was actually wrong. I found later that govt recently modified the criteria.

The last member asked some thing about national knowledge question. Both question and answer were too dumb to reproduce here.
I might have missed few other smaller questions.

In the end Chairman said, 'You may go now'.
I don't know how long it went on. Probably 20-25 mins.
I felt very bad after coming out. I put a forcible smile on my face so as not to dishearten the next and last guy sitting outside the room.

I came to the waiting hall, and the last 2-3 guys sitting there observed me and tried to console me, 'You look very serieous man. Its alright. Don't worry'

Everybody looked calm, coming back from the interview. Only I was sad it seems.

Pondering over it, I don't regret not being able to answer the questions on history of kanpur or some stupid unclear questions from some members, who are themselves not clear of what to ask and merely throwing topics onto me. But I regret something, probably for the rest of my life, that I could not satisfy the chairman on jacobin's idea of purity. It is something I so identify as an insiration, but I still could not say it when I needed to say it. I thought of asking the chairman, what is the jacobin idea of purity, that I failed to answer. But by the time I decided to ask, I was outside the room.

This could very well be a template for all the bad things that could happen in upsc interview. For any prospective candidate reading this,
1. There will be all kinds of men in the panel. People who are admirable scholars whom we have never met outside and also people who just want to ask something and complete their responsibility. Sometimes I felt like out of words to answer some pointless questions from some members.
2. Nobody can remember what exactly they answered in the interview room. Things will be very messy inside with random questions being shooted from all directions. All the transcipts published in blogs/magazines can only be refined versions with clear language and perfect order of expression

Robespierre

"That man will go far, he believes everything he says." ---Comte de Mirabeau

"I doubt that man has the sense to boil an egg" ---Georges Danton

A long time ago when I was much younger and had just started reading books other than text books; I came across Robespierre. What remained in my memory was the name “Incorruptible” given to him. I have rarely heard it being attached to politicians. Yet, I didn’t have enough resources (time and information) to find a biography of the man who appeared to be nothing less than a mystery to me. I read about him in Glimpses of World History and A People’s History of the World. It was a wiki article that I went through many times to understand the character of this individual who made a vain attempt to hold on to his ideals and principles, without any sign of compromise till his end. Politics without compromises is hard to imagine(See this article of  Isaiah Berlin). But how was it possible for a politician who rose to such prominence during such turbulent times of great French revolution, to push through his ideology, without caring for self. Or was he really a politician or some eccentric man charmed by the ideal society envisioned by Rousseau? Why is it that many still call him a blood thirsty dictator? These are the questions that pushed me to read Fatal Purity as soon as I came across it. Also I wanted to find the truth in the way people ridicule the utopian way of living as impractical. The hope that intellectuals of 20^th century had put on the evolution of utopian society has been fading in recent times  due to persistence of corrupt society around us. So it is interesting to see how people two centuries ago tried to build a just society.

Born to estranged parents, he lacked the benefit of proper parentage. Being the eldest among his siblings, he also had the additional burden to take care of his siblings. Attracted at a very young age to the writings of Rousseau, he used to read Rousseau’s banned writings secretly in the college run by Jesuit missionaries(There was a legend that he even undertook a personal visit to the ailing Rousseau). It was this association with Rousseau, whose effect was visible in his every action of in the future. During the course of revolution, almost all the major initiatives of Robespierre have their roots in the ideas espoused by The Social Contract.

A man of high principle, unconstrained by the need for pursuing self-interest and self-preservation, he always believed, “A man of high principle will be ready to sacrifice to the state his wealth, his life, his very nature - everything, indeed, except his honour". He envisaged a close connection between politics and morality. Indeed he always believed that an ideal society is formed only by association of virtuous citizens. Like Rousseau, he laid great emphasis on virtue, as a guiding principle for a happy life. He was intrigued by the idea of a virtuous man, who stands alone supported only by his conscience. He always tried to see himself as one such man. He believed in what Rousseau said, "…the laws of god need no other sanction than the natural consequences he himself has attached to, the audacity of those who infringe them and the fidelity of those who respect them. Virtue produces happiness as sun produces light. Crime results in unhappiness as certainly as filthy issue from the heart of corruption.” 

Robespierre advocated freedom of conscience and unlimited freedom of press. In times, when, even in contemporary democracies, proscribing and banning books was common, this was unprecedented. His views on why a public servant should not be deterred by constraints put by unlimited press freedom are interesting, and are relevant today when higher level of accountability and transparency is demanded from public servants. Thus he says, “Incorruptible men, who have no other passion besides the wellbeing and glory of their country, do not dread the public expression of the sentiments of their fellow citizens. They know only too well that it is not easy to lose their esteem, when one can counter calumny with an irreproachable life and proof of disinterested zeal; if they are sometimes victims of a passing persecution, this is, for them, the badge of their glory, the brilliant testimony of their virtue; they rest assured with gentle confidence in the suffering of a pure conscience and the force of truth which will soon reconcile them with their fellow citizens”. 

He was alone in advocating universal adult franchise in the first National assembly. Even the so called progressive revolutionaries of the time were unwilling to trust the poor and underprivileged people to give them the right to vote. His faith in people was immense, again an idea directly drawn from Rousseau’s social contract. To quote Rousseau, “It is the people that are good, patient and generous; the people ask for nothing but peace, justice and the right to live”. Thus Robespierre says, “It is not enough to have overturned the throne: our concern is to erect upon his remains holy equality and the imprescriptible Rights of Man. It is not in the empty word itself that a republic consists, but in the character of the citizens. The soul of a republic is vertu – that is love of la patrie, and the high-minded devotion that resolves all private interests into the general interest. The enemies of the republic are those dastardly egoists, those ambitious and corrupt men. You have hunted down kings, but have you hunted out the vices that their deadly domination has engendered among you? Taken together, you are the most generous, the most moral of all peoples…but a people that nurtures within itself a multitude of adroit rogues and political charlatans, skilled at usurpation and the betrayal of trust.”

Contrary to the bloodthirsty dictator as some call him, he actually spoke against death penalty before and even during the initial years of the revolution. As the author (of this book Fatal Purity) says, “He opposed it[death penalty] for two reasons: first its injustice; second its ineffectiveness as a deterrent. He thought it unjust because society could not have rights that individuals lacked, and individuals only have the right to kill in cases of self-defense”. But the society, as Robespierre himself says, “..which is capable of holding the culprit in chains, judge him peacefully, and use its limitless authority to chastise him and make it impossible for him to make himself feared in the future”, has no such right to kill a person. Robespierre further adds, “A conqueror that butchers his captives is called barbaric. Someone who butchers a perverse child that he could disarm and punish seems monstrous”. It was not deterrent because, “according to him, pride was the most dominant of human passions, stronger even than the desire to live”. Hence death penalty can hardly be a deterrent to a good citizen.

It is interesting to note that Robespierre was not an atheist (The concept of civil faith as a religion managed by state, as propounded first by Rousseau and later by other revolutionaries like Robespierre is in itself of remarkable interest today, especially when the Reason failed to occupy the vacuum created by the retreat of traditional religions). He recognized the immense social power of religion. He tried to use God as a tool to promote virtue in the society. He supported some kind of state managed civil religion. He quoted Voltaire, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to create one”, in his speeches in National convention. While defending his conception of state managed religion, he said, “The French people pins its faith, not on its priests, nor on any superstition, or any ceremony, but on worship of such – that is to say, upon the conception of an incomprehensible power, which is at once a source of confidence to the virtuous and of terror to the criminal”.  While argueing against atheism as state policy, as was proposed by some Jacobins, he said, “Who commissioned you to announce to the people that God does not exist??  Oh you, who are so passionate about this arid doctrine, yet have no passion for your country! How does it help a man if you persuade him that blind force presides over his destiny and strikes at random, now at virtuous, now at criminal? Does it help him to believe that his soul is nothing but a thin vapor that is dissipated at the mouth of the tomb? Will the idea of annihilation inspire him with purer and higher sentiments than that of immortality? Will it give him more respect for himself than his fellow men, more devotion to his country, a braver face against tyranny, or a deeper disdain either for pleasure or for death? No…the dying breath of those poor people who die beneath the blows of an assassin is an appeal to the eternal justice! The innocent on the scaffold make tyrants pale in their triumphal chariots: would they have such ascendency if the tomb made the oppressor and the oppressed equal?...If the existence of god and the immortality of the soul were nothing but dreams, they would still be the most beautiful conceptions of the human spirit”.

More important is his advocacy of use of reason as the guiding principle to solve all the problems of the society. This conception also has its roots in the writings of age of enlightenment and particularly Rousseau’s social contract. To quote Robespierre, “It is not merely patriotism, or enthusiasm, or an ingrained love of freedom that sustains our efforts; it is reason, which will make the republic immortal; where reason reigns, the people is sovereign; and such an empire is indestructible”. When members of national convention accused him of tyranny, Danton got up and said, “M. Robespierre has never used any tyranny in this house, unless it is the tyranny of the reason”. But it is unfortunate to see that even after more than two centuries after the revolution which tried in vain to install ‘reason’ as guiding principle for the realization of a just society, most people still believe in regressive(and dumb) ideas like Astrology, Numerology etc. More importantly, reason failed to fill the vacuum created by the retreat of religion and there seems to be some kind of de-socialization, where members of society no longer respect their responsibility towards the society.

There is a similarity between Gandhi and him, in their passionate adherence to their principles and what they believed in, without compromise, and use of reason as guiding principle in all their decisions. But there is a fundamental difference between them. It is the same difference that Gandhi came to be identified with. Perhaps it is the same difference that made Gandhi successful in realizing Swaraj, and that killed Robespierre, before the establishment the ideal society envisioned by Rousseau. Robespierre believed that ends justify means, while Gandhi never did so. Robespierre, who, alone, vehemently opposed death penalty during the initial years of revolution, later supported organized state terror as a means to suppress aristocrats and the enemies of revolution. Thus he became part of the age of terror with which (with lot of injustice to him), the world came to identify him. Thus he claimed, “If the basis of popular government in peacetime is virtue, its basis in a time of revolution is both virtue and terror – virtue without which terror is disastrous, and terror, without which virtue has no power…Terror is merely justice, prompt, severe, and inflexible, It is therefore an emanation of virtue, and results from the application of democracy to the most pressing needs of the country”. As the author of Fatal Purity adds, “In the hands of despots, Robespierre argued, terror was a weapon of oppression. But terror wielded by virtue was the refuge of the poor”. Thus Robespierre didn’t hesitate in using most repressive means to justify the ends he tried to achieve, to establish his vision of France, “…a prim society of patriotic, uncorrupted, serious equals. …and there would be only innocent pleasures, no frivolous distractions, no debauchery. No one would value money above honour, and honour itself would be defined as personal integrity just as Rousseau said it should be long before 1789”. Lot of ideological transformation took place between the days he rejected death penalty and the days when he justified state terror, which I do not wish to dwell on right now.

Finally, for a person like me, who holds Rousseau’s Social Contract in high regard, Robespierre’s idea of his nation is very inspiring. He says, “In our country we want to substitute morality for egoism, honesty for love of honour, principles for conventions, duties for decorum, the empire of reason for the tyranny of fashion, the fear of vice for the dread of unimportance; we want to substitute pride for insolence, magnanimity for vanity, the love of glory for the love of gold: we want to replace good company by good  character, intrigue by merit, wit by genius, brilliance by truth, dull debauchery by the charm of happiness. For the pettiness of the so-called great we would substitute the full stature of humanity; in place of an easy going, frivolous and discontented people we would create one that is happy, powerful and stout hearted, and replace the vices and follies of monarchy by the virtues and astounding achievements of the republic”.

The questions the occupied my mind before reading the book, some of which I mentioned in the first paragraph are still unanswered. But I got a new perspective to look at things after reading the book. I still do not know if it is right to be uncompromising in following what one believes in. But I at least know that it is possible, and it needs strength, a strength that the weak cannot afford, and that often takes one to tomb as Saint-Just a close associate of Robespierre and also a very interesting personality of revolution who achieved so much in just 26 years.

Napoleon

"Our age has produced nothing great. I want to set an example"
                                                                       -Napoleon to Marmont during Italian Campaign

My imagination about Napoleon was fired after reading about him in Nehru's letters to Indira Gandhi(Published as Glimpses of World History) a few years ago. Nehru dedicated two letters completely to Napoleon among his 196 letters that presented an account of the most important phenomena in the history of the world.

 A product of the Revolution, Napoleon was a mixture of a statesman, soldier, scientist, mathematician, and a great lover. Above all he was soldier, the finest of the children of revolution. As a soldier he saved the republic from counter revolutionary forces both from internal and external enemies.

He tried to build a bridge between the old and the new, the old aristocratic tradition (that still had support among vast masses) and the new ideas that were brought about by the Revolution. Revolution presented a sudden break from the old and this friction caused by the sudden break had caused great distress to the people of France. Napoleon tried to smoothen the transition from old to new. In the end, he succumbed to the lure of traditions while trying to be realistic. He betrayed the very revolution that produced and nurtured him. He reintroduced nobility, installed his incompetent brothers as kings, tried to secure matrimonial alliances with old aristocratic families in a vain attempt to legitimize his rule. Instead of deriving the legitimacy of his rule from the people, he tried to create a dynasty of his own.

Hailed as the first modern European he realised the potential of science to change the world and gave complete support as an army general and an emperor, to it. He instituted merit as the sole criteria for positions of authority in public. He started Legion of Honour to encourage men of excellence.

About religion, he understood it as a social system that helps preserve social order. He said "What I see in religion is, not the mystery of the incarnation, but social order. It associates with heaven an idea of equality, which prevents the poor from massacring the rich. Religion has the same sort of value as vaccination. It gratifies our taste for the miraculous, but protects us from quacks; for the priests are worth more than the Cagliostros, the Kants, and all the German dreamers...Society cannot exist without inequality of property; but this latter cannot exist without religion. One who is dying of hunger when the man next to him is feasting on dainties, can only be sustained by a belief in a higher power, and by the conviction that in another world there will be different distribution of goods."

If we remove the veil of Gods, myths, and messiahs, isn't this what religion actually is, a political system consisting of  a set of principles, that make and protect a social system by demanding faithful adherence from its believers?

History and imagination were the two things that fired his confidence. They made him look upon himself as a man of destiny, a man who is destined to conquer the whole world like Alexander. He tried to draw a parallel to his empire with the mighty Roman Empire.

Yet with all the genius he had, he did not believe in ideal motives. As Nehru says, "...he was elemental almost, like a force of nature. Full of ideas and imagination he was, yet blind to the values of ideals and unselfish motives...", he considered self interest in the form of money and glory to be the only motive for everyone's actions. To quote Goethe, a contemporary of Napoleon and also a great admirer of him said, "Napoleon, who lived wholly for ideas, was nevertheless unable to grasp the nature of ideal motives; he repudiated the ideal, denied that there was any such thing, at the very time when he himself was eagerly trying to realise the ideal". He tried to secure the allegiance of his subordinates by the use of money and titles instead of using the ideas of the revolution to create a set of committed people around him. Ultimately he ended up having around him, people whose sole aim was self interest and self glory, who deserted him whenever it appeared like he was on the verge of losing power. They weren't bound by an idea that could endure the ups and downs of his personal glory. Finally it was the treachery of his own people around him that brought him down.

Until his last battle at Waterloo, no single commander could claim to have defeated Napoleon on the battleground. Europe trembled under his feet. But the grand army was completely destroyed in the harsh climatic conditions during the Russian campaign. It was the Russian climate that destroyed his military machine, and not the enemy empires. Coincidentally, though not surprisingly, it was the Russian campaign that spelt doom for Hitler too.

Being a great statesman and diplomat, his ideas on diplomacy where deception and cunning are still part of the game, are interesting. Thus he says, "Tact, and putting all the cards on the table, will do better service in diplomacy than cunning. The tricks of the diplomats of the old school are out of date; all their rogueries have been exposed long since....Nothing betrays weakness more than the attempt to deceive"

Europe saw the revolution and him, with contempt. Kings of other kingdoms did not like the existence of this ‘son of people’ on the throne, for it discredited their own claim to power, as a divine right. They waited for opportunities to dethrone him. They forced him to engage in constant battles to survive. The Kings of Europe forced France to expand beyond the natural boundaries.

The French empire created by him collapsed as soon as he abdicated the throne. But the ideas he had sown on European soil found resonance across the 19th century Europe. He shattered the myth of the divine right of kings. Though not as successful as in the hey-days of the revolution, he did establish a kingdom of Reason. Demands for popular sovereignty, German and Italian nationalism in later years of Europe, all find their origin in the ideas sown by Napoleon in the lands conquered by him. Thus his thoughts after the exile run as.... "There are in Europe more than thirty million Frenchmen, fifteen million Italians, thirty million Germans . . .Out of each of these peoples, I wanted to make a united national whole . . .That would have supplied the best chance of establishing a general unity of laws; a unity of principles and thoughts and feelings, of outlooks and interests. . .Then it would have been possible to think of founding the United States of Europe after the model of the United States of America. . .What perspectives of strength, greatness, and prosperity this opens up! ...... At the same time, I wanted to pave the way for the unification of the great interests of Europe, just as I had unified the parties in France . . . The transient mutterings of the people troubled me little; they would have been reconciled to me by the results . . .Europe would soon have become one nation, and any who traveled in it would always have been in a common fatherland. . .Sooner or later, this union will be brought about by the force of events. The first impetus has been given; and, after the fall and disappearance of my system, it seems to me that the only way in which equilibrium can be achieved in Europe is through a league of nations."

His plans of conquering India and the East are interesting. In his own words "Europe is a mole hill. It is only in the East that, great empires and revolutions are possible, where there are six hundred millions of men". He started Egyptian campaign with a view to contact and form an alliance with Tipu Sultan to overthrow the British rule in India. Had the fort of Acre fallen, had the battle of Nile not occurred, India's history would indeed have been much different.

Lokpal

A few years ago, during the UPA-1's initial years, a cabinet meeting was convened by Manmohan Singh, to discuss the introduction of Lokpal bill in the parliament(Few remember that Manmohan Singh and other like minded people did try hard to make lokpal a reality during UPA-1). Mr. Lalu Prasad Yadav, after having exhausted all other ways of engineering obstacles to it, finally said "Do what ever you want to do" and walked out of the cabinet meeting, with a clear expression on face that he is not going to remain a mute spectator if the congress party try to go against his wishes. Ultimately the government abandoned the attempt due to coalition compulsions, besides lacking political will due to lack of immediate pressure on it to go with it. It was the day one could easily make out, how every politician(or so called representative) become, apathetic to the needs and aspirations of the people, once they get elected.

It is indeed true that corruption is one of the root causes of almost every malady that this country is facing. But, still our representatives showed little concern to it. It is a shame on Indian democracy that it took more than 40 years(the idea of a Lokpal to investigate higher public officials was first mooted by first Administrative Reforms Commission in late 1960s), to seriously make an effort to address the issue of corruption at higher public offices. Even now, if it is not the pressure from some apolitical organisations, it wouldn't have come this close to reality.

With this background, it is really heartening to have a look at the government draft of Lokpal bill. Though there are lot of deficiencies , it still is a bill that is unimaginable to think it will become a law, even an year ago. After all the embarrassment that the constitutionally independent institutions like Supreme court, Election commission, Comptroller and Auditor General, brought to politicians, I never expected politicians to be willing to create another independent institution whose chairman has powers equivalent to Chief justice of India and whose members equivalent to judges of supreme court, and has powers to strike at their very sources of survival(read as ill gotten wealth).

The Government's bill is weak in many respects. Especially it didn't have provisions to create similar institutions at state level. I don't know if this is a political strategy to muster enough support from regional parties to get the bill passed, or to leave it to state governments under the cover of some constitutional niceties. Corruption at state level is much more rampant than at central level. Small political parties and the opportunist politicians are using every opportunity, to amass as much wealth as possible, as soon as they get any close to position of influence. Also State level bureaucracy is much larger than central bureaucracy. Common man rarely comes in contact with central government, rather it is the state government where there are more avenues for corruption. Hence Lokpal's objectives will not be fulfilled without Lokayukta at state level.

The procedure of removal of members of Lokpal are also diluted compared to that of judges of supreme court. Although the committee that appoints Lokpal seems more balanced compared to that in Janlokpal bill, majority (6 out of 10) are still directly part of central government or are nominated by central government. Lack of more judicial members is clearly visible(only 3 judicial members). Also making the chairperson necessarily from supreme court, it is providing dangerous inducement to supreme court judges to act in favour of government so that they can secure a lokpal membership in future, as the govt is holding majority in selection committee. This will have serious repercussions on the functioning of Supreme court, one of the few institutions that still enjoys public confidence.

Another major issue lacking int the bill is related to whistle blower protection. The system, in many cases has become so much rotten that it is easy to corroborate with the corrupt individuals than to act against the corrupt, as part of their duty, for the public good. Hence it is very much necessary to reverse this trend, if we want more dynamic and vibrant public institutions. Whistle blower protection is very much essential in the context in which Lokpal goes after big fish who think they are above the law..

The maximum punishment is only 10 years. Corruption when it affects the livelihood and the very existence of millions of people, is nothing short of a crime against humanity. A person who amasses crores of rupees and curses millions to chronic poverty is very much waging war on the people of the country for his personal benefits. The maximum punishment needs to be enhanced to life imprisonment or capital punishment.

The bill has some interesting provisions, like making it mandatory for the public servants to declare their assets every year. But, it must have made it mandatory to make it public.

Also the Lokpal should be made designated authority under Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 so that it can have powers to put suspected individuals under electronic surveillance. In today's world, the corruption, especially big ticket corruption is no longer a simple give and take affair. The unaccounted wealth is transferred to the beneficiary through a network of trusts, fictitious bank accounts, mis-invoicing and mis-pricing at multiple levels etc often across multiple countries, thus making it hard to trace the wealth to original beneficiary and prove it in a court of law. Hence it is necessary that Lokpal be empowered with every modern technology available to effectively perform its functions.


Most of the above mentioned corrections needed to Lokpal, are there in Janlokpal bill. But Janlokpal does have its own set of issues, often peculiar ones. The big issue is the very conception and philosophy behind it, in its complete distrust towards politicians, and in its envisioning of a gigantic bureaucratic organisation that is answerable to none but itself. For good or bad we chose, parliamentary democracy, which as it evolved from Magna Carta, puts a lot of faith on elected representatives and the executive. The duty of formulating laws and other major legislative functions, is essentially performed by the executive. Hence it is impossible to evolve a working model for democracy, within the confines of parliamentary democracy, without having faith in elected representatives. Also concentrating so much power in Lokpal will only give more incentive for politicians to subvert the institution. We may rather have multiple organisations with a little lesser power, than one single organisation enjoying such wide ranging powers. The inclusion of lower bureaucracy under it will only increase the burden. Corruption essentially starts at higher levels, then only it percolates down to lower levels. So if it is controlled at higher levels, it will automatically disappear at lower levels. In fact it looks like janlokpal envisages an institution that can work as a pseudo-god that can come and rescue a citizen whenever he/she face any problem. While the intention is good, it may not be easy to put in practice such a god-ly institution.

With all these deficiencies in janlokpal bill, I still support Anna Hazare's movement. For it made the politicians from the whole spectrum realise that they can no longer control the minds of the people for their narrow political goals. People showed them that they can not be taken for granted. In fact politicians are so much dumbstruck over the public outcry on such a usual thing as corruption(after all it is common, isn't it?), that nobody dare to speak about the undemocratic and blackmailing nature of Anna Hazare's fast. Those who say, that the fast is undemocratic should only need to realise the real status of democracy in India. India in reality is democratic only once in five years. After that one fateful day on which people have the opportunity to choose their so called representatives, it exists only on paper. Representatives elected once in five years, cannot claim to be the only people who can speak about and fight for people's issues.

After all, what united the people from all over the nation so much, other than wars with neighbours and terrorist attacks, if not movements like these, occurring whenever there is a looming crisis in Indian democracy.
May be Anna Hazare's fast and the public support to it and media enthusiasm is just about aspirations of a rising middle class, with its indifference to the plight of those facing the brunt of development at places far from cities. But, still India after Anna Hazare this year, will be better that what it was before it.

Posted from Windows phone

My first post from phone :-) . I am liking this app.
Due to a technical glitch, I didn't get my Driving Licence. Been to two RTA offices today. I never expected them to be so Cooperative. :-)

Posted from WordPress for Windows Phone

Popular Revolutions

"As a shepherd is of a nature superior to that of his flock, the shepherds of men, i.e., their rulers, are of a nature superior to that of the peoples under them. Thus, Philo tells us, the Emperor Caligula reasoned, concluding equally well either that kings were gods, or that men were beasts."

--The Social Contract

The story of revolutions is of profound significance in the historical narrative. The evolution of man started a million years ago. Man has adapted to changing surrounding unlike most other living organisms. He survived adverse climate changes. In his quest for survival, he gradually acquired capacity to outmatch the pace at which nature is changing. Indeed, the story of man is the most interesting story in the world. It is the same story which we study as history. In this story, there are moments, which defined the course of humanity in the subsequent times. These are the moments, when man has undergone far reaching changes. These changes more often were a necessity and were not voluntary. Some of these moments are the moments of revolution.

A revolution is a change which is perceptible, often spanning a time less than the average life span of a human being. Thus unlike slow changes like growth of settled agriculture, or cities, or modern democracy, the changes brought by revolutions can be perceived by a contemporary observer. That makes them special, since the changes are essentially brought about by contemporary society with due knowledge of consequences. Ideas form the basis of any revolution. As said by a great revolutionary, the sword of revolution is sharpened on the whetting stone of ideas. Unlike slow changes, which are mostly caused by natural evolution, revolutions are brought about by people’s deliberate actions to change the way they face the nature. Things like invention of wheel, discovery of rice, invention of iron tipped plough, smelting of iron, printing press, first computer all are moments of revolution. Revolution is often the beginning of a change than the change itself.

The new type of revolution that is being observed in the last few centuries was the so called popular revolution, which is basically a sudden change in the way people organize themselves.  For long the discourse on how people should organize themselves was monopolized by a few elite sections of the society. But, with the spread of literacy and education after the invention of printing press, when people started looking beyond their earlier confined boundaries, the magic and mysticism surrounding the kings and ruling classes disappeared.

A popular revolution always involves a conflict. A conflict between the old order and the new envisioned order. The beneficiaries of old order put up a fierce fight to preserve the status quo. They become part of what is called as a counter revolution. A popular revolution cannot succeed unless the people who are part of it have an alternative vision for organizing the society. Without an alternative vision, if the struggle is for just restoring a more justified version of the old order or for meeting few immediate grievances of its participants, the revolution will easily get crushed by the spectre of counter revolution. Also important is an organization to lead the revolution, to sustain the revolution in its infant stages and to spread the ideas among vast number of people who desire change but are not yet ready to accept it. The people leading the counter revolution exhibit astonishing unity when trying to suppress the revolution. It is the organizations like that of Jacobins, sans culottes, that made the French revolution possible. Even the way of organizing a revolution has to be new. It has to be unforeseen to the existing ruling elite. It is because of this new way of organizing a revolution that the peasant revolution in China in the mid 20^th century succeeded. One cannot imitate a revolution, for the force of counter revolution can easily suppress known phenomena. It was the new model army that defeated the English king and not the traditional army.

The advent of modern democracy had in a way made the popular revolution rare. At the same time it is the democracy which legitimized that change is not only natural but also necessary in any society. Democracies have an amazing accommodative power. This removes the possibilities of a sudden change. The changes always happen over a period of time, at such a slow pace that they no longer symbolize a revolution. It is the democracy because of which, most of the western European countries never become truly socialist nations even though there was every reason for them to be so during the first half of the 20^th century. In a representative democracy the balance between political liberty and economic equality is always in favor of the former, but is never so distorted that there is a possibility of a major upheaval and then a revolution. A democratic system no matter how corrupt it is, may never give rise to so much instability in the society so that a new order that is more justified can replace the old order. The present form of representative democracy is designed to kill the revolutionary enthusiasm. The democracy always creates an atmosphere that most people feel that a little change in the existing system is enough to attain a more just society. More importantly it makes the majority of people feel that it is the best possible solution for a just society. Another important aspect of democracy is that it always evolves. What were the fallacies of democracy a 10 years ago are not the same of today's democracy. A, representative Democracy, though at a very slow pace, always tries to correct its defects. So, to expose the fallacies of a democracy one had to think ahead of his/her time and the reasoning has to evolve at a much faster speed than the speed at which democracy tries to correct itself. Otherwise, it just becomes an exercise of raising serious problem with the system, only to be found that the problem had disappeared in an year and which makes it hard to convince the people.

So, it takes lot of effort to overthrow a democracy than a dictatorship. Our Maoist friends can never succeed in overthrowing the Indian state with techniques which are mere imitations of what happened elsewhere. Moreover a popular revolution has to be popular; they cannot expect to conquer Delhi with the help of few discontented individuals living in the forest whose vision of a better society is limited to what was existing since centuries or what has failed elsewhere. If they want to succeed they have to invent new ways of organizing the Revolution. Armed struggle is counterproductive in an accommodative democracy. Independent Indian state had amazingly managed to suppress all the armed struggles against it with increasing precision and popularity among the masses. If they want to succeed they have to reach out to the newly emerging classes of the society who are not part of the elite in the society and can feel the unjust nature of this system and also have time to think and dream of a better society. If they do so, change, in this corrupt system is inevitable.

Laugh Laugh Laugh !!!

"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."
--Gandhi

Laugh is just an increased smile. For those(like me :P) who always keep a smiling face laughing is similar to smiling for those who keep a normal face.

The world is such a wonderful place that it always offers a reason to smile at any point of time. I find it odd that people laugh at incidents in so called comedy movies and if a similar event happened in real life, they find it not so funny. It just takes one to visualize the real life characters as funny as those in movies.

The easiest way to laugh at small things is by remembering a similar funniest incident in the past. It can be a movie scene, or own experience or someone else's experience.

The most valuable asset to acquire the art of laughing even to small things and even when nothing has happened is Imagination. There may not be any funny incidents in the past for some events. When there are no such incidents one has to create their own incidents to be able to laugh. Also when nothing happened, there obviously cannot be any funny incident in the past similar to nothing. Imagination is nothing different from what we see in movies. Movies are nothing but imagination of the director, depicted in such a way as to make the audience forget the fact that it is not real, while watching the movie. So if one could enjoy comedy in movies, it shouldn’t be hard to enjoy an imagined act. There could be a million examples for fun with imagination. Every event in the world can be extended by imagination to make it a funny incident. That is what I call imagining the funny side of the incident. One can imagine things according to his/her sense of humour, that is what makes him/her laugh. Also when you are free, may be while traveling in a bus, just think about weird things, such as what would have happened if man had brain in the foot, or how the shape of cycle would be if man had four legs.

Be your own Joker. You may not always find others who are ready to make you smile/laugh(I feel that, making others smile is one of the greatest things in this world). Just try to remember all the funny things you have done in the past, may be when you are a child. It is said that the most exciting story in the world is that of evolution of Man. But before that, the most interesting story for me is the story that is formed by accumulating all my experiences. When I was in my 8th class, I asked my schools principal that, which tree gives bombs(Before that a friend(as**le) of me told me that there is a tree from which one can get bombs just like mango tree gives mangoes and I believed that :( ). There are many many incidents like these for me and I am sure everyone will have some such things which make him/her smile no matter how much serious work he/she is involved in.

Of course in the end, the ability to laugh is not just an art that can be acquired by following some rules. It reflects one’s inner self. It is the result of one’s outlook towards events in the external world. It is very much influenced by his/her personal experiences, the kind of mentors/teachers/role-models he/she had. A serious man who always is worried about something, of course neither looks into past for fun nor is willing to imagine fun. One cannot laugh when he/she is not happy with the way things are going on in his/her life. The state of being happy or unhappy is a direct consequence of one’s personality. So in the end being able to smile or not able to smile is just another attribute for a bigger thing called as personality.

To be able to make others laugh is a completely different art at which I am not as good as laughing (at :D)myself. It is true that those who are in a prolonged contact with me automatically comes into tune with me and laugh just like me. I am lucky to have friends who laugh more than me :).

Some say that I laugh for small things. Some say that I laugh for no reason(which is not quite true :)). I must add that recent comments from my friends made me doubt myself on the assertion that there is nothing wrong in smiling/laughing a lot. They made me look into the past to trace the origins of the laughing Anil. The thing is that it is only in group(where I will have enough characters to be imagined as being funny. Of course I can imagine the characters also, but that is not so funny :D :D) that I laugh a lot. I spend most of my time alone, so people get a wrong impression that I laugh a lot, but the fact is that when alone I don't laugh much :D.

It is only from 11th class that I used to hear comments that I laugh a lot. There are many reasons for this. First of all there is an incident in my 10th class which changed me so much that I consider I entered into a new life after that. Another reason is the influence of our beloved UV Koteswara Rao Sir(though physically he left this world, he is still alive in the form of us). Another reason is that I spent two important years, the years in which everyone gets to form a opinion of the external world, of my life alone. I can undoubtedly say that my present sense of humour and way of looking at the events in the world in such a way to maximize the possibility to smile/laugh is inspired from the Koteswara Rao sir’s comments.

I never tried to laugh more. I only try to remain happy for longer durations of time. And being able to smile/laugh is a consequence of it. The level of expectation greatly affects the level of satisfaction which ultimately defines whether he/she is Happy.

Just imagine that the world is filled with funny characters, then you can have fun everywhere :D.