A Fable For Our Times

1988 was one of the very bad years from the point of view of my seasonal discomfitures and crises. It was also the most productive in terms of the trivia that I keep churning out. Since blog had not come into being then, most of it disappeared or was destroyed because it could not survive periodic post production scrutiny. Some did survive. Friends, Foes and Faceless Jokers is one such piece. Many others though not destroyed, went out of sight. The post that follows belongs to this category.

Like everyone else I also was bitten by the bug of   getting published  and I remember having fallen for an offer made by my classmate, who was then teaching in Patna University, that he would see to it that I achieved authorship.  After he collected the copy, he never quite mentioned anything about it.  I thought I had lost out the rhymes as well as the opportunity of  seeing it published, because on the few occasions I met him I was too shy to ask.  But one of my periodic bonfires of old papers which have  outlived their utility, brought to light not only this, but many longer rhymes and other doggerel verse.

The Fable for our Times was scribbled when my children were in the primary section (if I remember correctly, one of them was in the KG) and they were required to write something on their visit to the zoo  for their  class assignment.  This piece  grew out of that  collective  effort and  is dedicated to those innocent uncomplicated years of their childhood which dispelled the  officially incurred gloom in our lives and kept us going.

              A FABLE FOR OUR TIMES

The caged animals of Sanjay Gandhi Zoo

Had enough of the veritable hell

That they were living through.

They had overheard their keepers,

Game wardens and lion tamers,

Talk of kindness to animals, but alas!

For this story there were no takers.

For in their hearts, they all knew

That all the talk of preserving the species

Was nothing more than a diversion

With which man himself amuses.

The most disgruntled of the whole lot of beasts

Were none other than the monkeys, apes and Chimpanzees.

The word spread through the underground channels.

(To such silent communication systems there are no human parallels!)

The time and venue for the meeting was published in

Zoo times-the animal samizdat

The zookeepers were unfortunately unaware of this

Coup de etat.

The meeting began on a very acrimonious note.

A lot of fire was breathed,

In danger stood many a throat.

But as the day wore on,

The deliberations assumed

A somber tone.

From some weak livered member in the crowd

Escaped a piteous moan.

The wizened sage, hirsute and shaggy

But taking a distinctly biped stance,

“Gentlemen and ladies, no hypocrisies here,

We are animals please”.

And shot a meaningful glance.

“Why have we been deprived of our liberty?

Not to speak of our property.

Separated from friends,

Plucked away from our habitat

And forced to live on human charity?

Why is it that what is sauce for the human goose,

Is not sauce for the animal gander?

The humans may the outer space colonize

But we can’t even at our pleasure wander.

The jungles here on our terra firma.

You must excuse me my meandering discourse.

But for describing our suffering and their wickedness,

One must perforce to metaphors and allegories take recourse.

Even then I wonder

Full justice could be done to their cursedness.

So I’ll do no better than introduce,

My dear friend, who is part clown, part impresario

For our benefit here, he will reduce,

His vast experience of the human inferno and purgatorio.”

A monkey gets up with great distaste

“Gentlemen! I am not keen on polemical debate.

Especially, if it is directed towards our closest mate.

Even though they may disown us for their own reasons.

If you ask me I am always at a loss,

When I watch my cage keeper speak to his boss.

He shivers before him in season and out of season.

He sniggers and he twitters

And engages in meaningless chatter.

He keeps devising ingenious ways to flatter.

Why, his antics and his chatter

His acrobatic and his natter,

Would put many of our less endowed colleagues to shame.”

A hyena could no more contain himself.

“My experience of the human species, stated precisely

Explains why our kind avoids them - and wisely.

They are cunning and deceitful, opportunists and slimy

Self serving, egotistical, hypocritical and wily

I shall illustrate the above generalization with a pointed tale.

Of how two close friends were trying to grab

An opportunity with mutual blackmail”.

A pig who might have been sleeping but now looked interested

Drew a deep yawn as a prelude and this is what he narrated.

“I saw a fat khadi clad man talk to his minions, bless our hearts!

And now I am convinced that a man is made of many parts.

(The fatso was holding his court, according to the latest report.

Discussing the state of things and what to report,

To the court of the highest resort.)

The worthy in white grunted and growled,

He put on a most becoming scowl.

The minions and lackeys shivered and whimpered,

Licked, lowed and ceaselessly kowtowed.

When the worthy grunted I thought he was one of our kind.

When, he growled of the big cat did he remind.

The lackeys in turn made me think of the skunk,

Of the louse who crawls on to your shirt and the lowest punk.

And my considered opinion may be reiterated

That man has complete affinity with us - some stated, some unstated.

How! Oh! How highly is his worth overrated”?

A peacock in the backbenches was dying to have his say.

“Ladies, gentleman and friends I would like to continue this tale, if I may.

I saw this same worthy pay court and obeisance to his big daddy in New Delhi.

When he strutted out of his house with lackeys in tow.

Proud as a peacock, bold as a lion,

So sure of himself everyone was forced to bow.

But no sooner than he reached his Mecca, the Jerusalem of Power.

He shrank in size: he almost cringed in craven terror.

The presiding deity proved to be more than his match

He called the likes of our hero in one single batch.

Our pilgrim’s aura left him, he couldn’t articulate,

Left destitute of words, he was in a terrible state.

How sad to say, the peacock, the lion of pedigree pure,

Was suddenly reduced to a rabbit, a mole who couldn’t the daylights endure”

The terrestrial animals had until now held complete sway,

The marine mammals it was thought had nothing to say.

But for a dolphin known for his linguistic abilities.

He had made a special study of governments and hermeneutics.

“Gentleman, you are all aware of the human aural deficiencies.

They can pick up sounds only of limited frequencies,

But they have devised words, sentence, syntax and grammar.

In short language to the world of phenomena acts as their primer.

However, their language bears only a very rough approximation to the picture of reality,

These imprecise tools constantly deteriorate with use and are witness to their brutality.

When the humans say ‘Peace’ the wiser amongst them promptly prepare for war

If they say ‘accord’ people apprehensively look for signs of discord,

All the nations have ministries of defence,

Ever ready to invade and attack

But defence is always the pretense.

The ministry of employment ensures unemployment,

The ministry of education assiduously shuts out enlightenment.

Some of us still remember the dawn of human civilization.

Many of our kind actively participated in its celebration.

Language was hailed as a gift of the gods.

It held out promise of an era of peace, of cordiality and accord.

But great expectations have gone wry.

On the list of potentially threatened animals,

He himself ranks high.

Standing in the shadow of nuclear doom.

Haunted by the fear of ecological blight and population boom.

The human race displays a remarkable sense of humour

He creates funds for this or that extinct species

And revives an extinct tuber.

But at his back he fails to hear.

The great Mushroom cloud hurrying near”.

The congregation was silent; the atmosphere took an eerie tinge.

The portents of doom were enough to unsettle and unhinge

For what seemed like eons no one spoke,

Except a twittering sparrow, the silly bloke,

Everyone looked to the aged eagle, apparently distraught.

For comfort, for solace for sobering thought.

Could silence be jarring, could sheer emptiness have weight?

The eagle’s long, silent, world-weary look accelerated their pulse rate.

The winged ancestor, the solemn sage, of greater disasters did presage,

“There is no disputing our affinity, our resemblance and common lineage.

But why make an issue of it!

Let the humans think they are different, damn it!

Let us look back a little to the beginning of Time.

When the cosmos was taking shape, the fireball was in its prime.

There was only the indeterminate, undifferentiated primeval soup.

You couldn’t get anything out of it,

How hard or how long you did scoop.

Then rose the anaerobic forms (of shall we say life)

Setting some criteria.

Paving the way for the rise of many strains of bacteria.

From bacteria to unicellular creatures.

To amoeba with shapeless features.

From reptiles to winged beast that nightly feasts.

From Dinosaurs to the fleet footed arboreal beasts.

Ladder upon ladder, brick by brick.

The evolutionary strategy unfolded its trick.

(Only partly discovered by Watson & Crick)

Till the creation of our cousin - Man

At this point it seems, the unforeseen fingerers

On further innovations put a ban,

But of all the species the most selfish is man.

His altruism has different meanings in different contexts.

So that he can kill sperm whales and his own infants on various pretexts.

The other species enriched the genetic pool furthering the evolutionary end.

But if things are left to man himself he will to himself and to evolution itself put an end.

In his moment of glory unfolds his tragic story.

He has measured the interstellar spaces, propounded the relativity theory.

He has delved into the heart of the atom and mapped the subfor nical region.

He has listened to the music of spheres, the call of the

Men of vision.

But alas! Is his mind within the governance of his reason?

There is the other strain - The Siren’s song.

The one that urges them on to suicide and swan’s song.

The Pied piper comes in every age - only the disguise varies

He plays a tune which urges them to give in to irrational vagaries.

In the days of yore it was the sea-deep and blue

In our times they are the Perishings, the Cruise and the Tridents - in steel grey hue.

The ozone layer depletion, the urban chaos,

The population boom, the superpower fracas,

The scourge of AIDS, the deadly plague.

The endless hedonism, the death wish vague.

Drugs, psychiatric abuse, mass manipulation.

Funless fornication and instant gratification.

It is the tragic flaw of which the Greek playwrights warned.

And how would the world end?

Not in the manner one of their kind suggested,

Not with a ‘whimper’; not in a calculated cataclysmic upheaval as predicted.

It will go up in smoke overtaken by the Mushroom cloud.

Not precipitated by some superpower mighty and proud.

Some faceless, depersonalized creature, part man part computer,

To the question whether the human race has a right to survive,

Will be the final adjudicator.

Bored by his enforced loneliness, ennui

Or the sheer metaphysical horror.

Of the awareness of the enormity of his diabolical role,

Sitting in fear and trembling at the nuclear control,

May press the button without waiting for orders,

It would be as if the entire house were to be blown up

While the evening was still young and the revelers keyed up,

For a long night’s carousal and a bomb were to go off;

Leaving the house in shambles,

No trace of anything left off.

No culprits, victims, survivors, nor adjudicators,

No media men, T.V. Crews, antinuke demonstrators.

None left to lament or investigate

No historians, reporters or parliamentarians to debate.

Reptiles, bulls, lions or tigers,

Fish, mammals, predaters or primates.

Genes, chromosomes, DNA and gametes

Blood, marrow, arteries and bone

Beans, peas, cornflower or stone.

Man, mineral, reinforced concrete,

Underground shelter or nuclear silo.

The Colorado Desert or the Assam Rhino.

They will all merge and intermingle.

The barriers will melt and species commingle.

The fever of the vein, the ague of the bones,

The serotonin in blood , the secretion of the hormones.

All will have settled down in the planetary soup,

Where nothing into nothing from nothing recoup.

No blame will be apportioned, no credit sought,

No wars over the wording of obituaries fought.

The ghost of Mark Twain will join the Satan to  grin with

An evil chuckle.

“What is left of what it was?

Nothing, nothing, nothing

At all”.

Kaushik Basu, Again.

Some of the comments on my post, Thanks, but no thanks Mr. Kaushik Basu, have focused more on the scholarly eminence of the author of the idea of “harassment bribe”, than on the practicability of its implementation. In an unstated manner, it is also a soft impeachment of my credentials to join issues. I am not surprised that my venturing an opinion on his proposal, in itself, has been taken to be an act of intellectual impertinence.

No one can question the formidable academic achievements of Mr. Kaushik Basu.He is one of the leading economists of our time. Cornell University does not offer a professorship to any Tom, Dick or Harry. To boot the government of India has chosen him to be the chief Economic advisor. But having said that, are we to believe that the expertise and insight gained in one academic field is transferable to other messier domains of law making, crime and criminality. Shall we take Mr. Basu on trust, just for his eminence and applaud a proposal which is against plain common sense? Just because I am not a professor of economics at Cornell should I forsake my right to an honest opinion? Must not a cat look at the king?

To accept conclusions arrived at from an intellectual model, howsoever elegant, as an exemplar of human behaviour, would be a little like, Arthur Koestler’s “ratomorphic fallacy”- applying the results obtained by experimenting with  animals( rats) to the sphere of human experience? Nor is the experience of several decades at the actual job of investigating instances of “harassment bribe” and corruption, something to be dismissed out of hand . In my earlier post, to the examples generated in the realm of abstract thought I had counter posed three scenarios, rooted in empirical experience, for the possible misuse by the more crooked. Is the idea likely to fare any better as a helpful tool for the really needy- the poor- as advocated by Basu and promoted by his acolytes?

The poor – an unconscionably large number of them have always been with us, no matter how much growth we may experience, and economists have somehow always felt a little shame faced about the “trickle down” effect failing to explain the appalling poverty amidst areas of unimaginable wealth. The issue of poverty has been at the centre of their concern, especially, since after our country gained independence. Poverty estimation has become a self augmenting exercise as newer issues are included under the self propelled process of rising expectations and widening equality gap. Newer and more targeted programmes based on these estimations, however, have failed to ensure that the sums marked for the poor reach its destination.

There are more than 12 million BPL families in Bihar. They are the potential candidates who may be compelled to offer “harassment bribe” to access their limited entitlement, their quota of red card ration, or K.oil or the first installment of the subsidy of Indira Awas Yojana. Having paid their bribe they line up before the police stations to lodge their complaint of “harassment bribe”, as also to claim the reimbursement of the bribe, which is now a legal entitlement. The Basu thesis would work only if the Police functioned at hundred percent efficiency to lodge the complaints and see them successfully through the court.( I am even prepared to release the police from their more onerous duties of attending to murder, dacoity, kidnapping and instances of terrorism.) For the Basu thesis to function properly it would be desirable that the conviction and reimbursement take place before the next installment of the dole or subsidy falls due to the complainant. Otherwise even “harassment bribe”, which earlier was one of the modes of seeking opportunities to those who were otherwise excluded, will also not be available. (As an economist, Mr. Basu, would he not consider it a better idea for the poor to be directly reimbursed their Rs 50, 100, 500, and 10,000 by the state itself and separate budgetary provisions made under the heading, “harassment bribe”, given the much greater cost of the delivery of the justice, and the cost of lost opportunity in terms of missed wages for the days the ‘harassed” poor will have to attend courts?)

My hunch is that people- at least the poor for whom even a fraction of their entitlement matters, because they have not learnt to claim it as a matter of right, would rather pay up and remain quiet. No point in annoying the system or the functionaries so much. You can’t live with them but you can’t live without them, either! But on the other hand the public servant would begin to entertain more urgent expectation of the “harassment bribe” as his legal entitlement. The neat division of an intrinsically immoral and illegal act into two distinct acts of civic and criminal nature- will end up emptying the whole act of the element of moral debasement, in practice making bribe more acceptable.

The root cause of corruption – corruption on a gigantic, unconscionable scale is the direct product of the current financial order, but no neo-liberal economist worth his name will repudiate this order. Unable to address the root cause of the disease, he finds it convenient to tinker with the symptoms. David Harvey, (I must enlist some authority or the other henceforth!)one of the more reliable interpreters of capitalist maladies locates its crisis in what Marx said, its desire to accumulate for “accumulation sake”, capital as the sole good thing, without reference to any particular end. The over accumulated profit must be invested to earn ever more profit. In earlier times it fuelled imperialist expeditions and conquests .In the famous words of General Smedley Butler, “The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.”

Finding that the world is long past the age of colonization and annexation for capital to indulge its urge for lebensraum, it takes recourse to the credit system, the creation of “fictitious capital”, where the gap between asset and value is bridged by the credit system. The subprime experiment was an emblematic example where “more building and selling of houses had been financed than could be paid for by with income deriving.” It led the world to the brink of financial ruin. The entire subprime crisis, it is sobering to realize, was ignited by brilliant outsized minds with deep scholarship and impressive CV who claimed to create wealth ex nihilo.

Recent history shows  that there is something demiurgic about the advance of Indian capital. It also does not recognize the colour of money; it is indifferent as to the source of its origin. If it had its way it would make money, every bit of it - colourless, odorless, and anonymous. Reduced to pure value and recognizable as such demanding free access to the financial system solely on this strength. What is a little corruption, fraud or nepotism  thrown in to facilitate its triumphal march? At its worst it will be termed as “unaudited business expenses,” at its most euphemistic “education expenses.”

(Does anyone remember bribery being described as such in a defence deal?)

The world however does not appear to be entirely ripe for financial capitalism. The various laws and regulations, formulated from time to time, still make a distinction like ill gotten, tainted and unaccounted money. This regime would like money to be legible, traceable, and indelibly stamped with the identity of the owner. Every bit of it. This  clash of cultures  led to the mother of all, the 2G scam. Money as pure value- as almost always- won and the battle left behind the wrecked debris of political bigwigs, media moralists, civil servants and a shattered moral universe where Premchnad’s Namak Ka Daroga would be unthinkable.

Human beings are after all fragile creatures; they can withstand pressure only up to a point, whether of the physical kind or others. The  temptation that the buccaneering capital can bring to bear on mere mortals is of a superhuman nature. 3000 crores as bribe? Ministerial berth as reward for expected favours? Isn’t that too much of a price for any individuals conscience; one could buy a whole community for it. Truly, we have created a monster that has run out of control!

So while we are at it, and while Mr. Kaushik Basu and his distinguished ilk have turned their gaze towards the problem of bribery and corruption, would they not be better engaged thinking about self limitation, limits to growth , limits to capital , which taken together would mean reining in the monster which feeds on our greed. Or is it more urgent to legitimize “harassment bribe” to facilitate things  for the poor a bit , because corruption at the lowest level creates the shrillest noise attracting attention to the peacefully profitable exchange of “sweeteners”, “business expenses”or the activity of PR firms trying to canvass important public appointments for the smooth functioning of the capitalist enterprise at the highest level.

A Letter from God

Dear Children,
I have thought long and hard before addressing this letter to you.  The protocol department has warned me that it is of utmost importance to be politically correct while speaking to “your children”.  They are no respecters of persons – especially if that person happens to be their own father.  Thus forewarned, I approach the subject that I am going to speak to you about today with great trepidation.  Believe me, it is furthest from my intention to be either rude or disrespectful, and should someone notice the slightest deviation from political correctness, it should not be attributed to a culpable mens rea; blame it on my ignorance of facts or the inadequacy of my communicative skill. 

I understand that some of you - the likes of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hutchinson, Daniel Dennett and their ilk - have disowned me, disowned your own loving father, who has begotten you, created this world for you to act out your silly and sentimental drama.  (Pardon me; the alliterative impulse carried me away.  I do not how to strike out the offending words typed on a laptop, but treat it as hereby cancelled).  First they make the suggestion that I, their father do not exist.  Dawkins went on to squarely abuse me (misogynist, vengeful, control freak etc.) and then impute many of the miseries of mankind to me, even in face of irrefutable alibis.  Dawkins has proceeded to insinuate that those of my children who still believe in me are deluded.  But it does not behove a father to trade abuses with his children.  Or, for that matter, indulge in a blame game.  So I would let it pass.  I would only place facts.  I have laughed off such vituperations in the past, but the use of the word “delusion” makes me very apprehensive. 

Dawkins is very clever with words.  I am saying that on the evidence of some of his earlier books - The Selfish Gene, The Devil’s Chaplain etc., and even his short and crisp introduction to John Diamond’s “Snake Oil and Other Remedies”, wherein he takes on the proponents of alternative medicine – they are masterpieces of lucid and cogent writing.  (I am sorry to say that this one, I mean, The God Delusion, is ninety nine per cent vituperation and one per cent perspiration).  But the worth of the book apart, the use of the word delusion does not bode well for all of you, my children, whose consciousness has not been raised to the appropriate level of “brightness.”

Delusion is a form of mental sickness, and mental sickness is something no one admits to.  Any other form of physical sickness is immediately recognized and the help of a doctor is sought.  It is the decision of the patient.  But in case of mental illness, the right of the individuals stands abrogated - it is the society which judges his condition and takes medical measures on behalf of the individual.  The brightest children of Enlightenment – the leaders of the Soviet Russia – had mastered this technique, by consigning to the mental asylum its dissenters.  They killed many millions, but killing some proved inconvenient, or unfeasible in some cases, so they turned them in as psychiatric cases, thus effectively putting them into the memory hole.  To declare someone deluded or deranged is the greatest articulation of power, and to treat him for it is the worst from of subjugation.  Sakharaov was only the best-known case of hundreds of thousands of “deluded” people subjected to psychiatric abuse.  These were people who believed in a reality other than the one prescribed by the official Soviet state.  I wish I was being paranoid, but to label those who do not measure up to Dawkins standard of brightness – that is not an atheist – as being in need of institutional help looks to me, ominous. 

I have another reason to fear for you, because I can never get out of my mind a hypothetical scenario posited by one of my perceptive children, Edward J Mishan.  Now, Mishan is, in a sense, a heretic of his sect.  He is an economist who is aware of the limits to economic growth, and a votary of self-limitation.  He posits a scary scenario sometime in the distant future, when the Scientific establishment has become so powerful that pioneers like Dawkins do not have to lobby the Guardian for their “consciousness raising” drive.   

It is then that –

“the temptation to get rid of them (the masses of ordinary human beings) will grow strong.  Moral objections may no longer prevail: and political expediency can hardly act as a check once power has shifted irrevocably to the controllers of the scientific establishment.  Of course the means may not be cruel.  Water supplies, for instance, could be doctored so as to make human reproduction physically impossible… …Within a couple of generations, only a select group of a few thousand beings, part man part computers, will be left to inherit the planet earth.” 

The God Delusion has not been able to make a very convincing or compelling draft for a legislative agenda to exclude the “non-brights”, but you can depend on the pugnacity of Dawkins.  He will come up with something more clear cut, more persuasive which can carry even his moderate scientist colleagues like Steven Weinberg and others.

This is all within the family, my children, so I can speak to you without reserve.  I have observed Dawkins from his early childhood.  He had a habit of inventing grievances in order to fight with other children.  He was a sharp student but he would spend considerable time grinding his intellectual axe or pumping intellectual irons.  He is a very convincing validation of the dictum cogito ergo sum – I have intellectual muscles therefore, I will flex it.  A great shadow-boxer, he liked nothing better than debates, at times futile debates, and debates long since settled, because he was very keen to show off the athletic musculature of his mind. 

Consider the instant case.

The Enlightenment had firmly put reason on a pedestal and faith had abdicated the position it had held for centuries.  Darwin’s theory of evolution had convincingly debunked the various creationist myths.  Absorbing the impressions, as if by a process of osmosis, writers and men of letters like Voltaire, Dostoevsky etc. proclaimed my death!  Not many mourned it, but some of my children, like Dostoevsky, rued it for purely pragmatic reasons.  He feared moral anarchy.  “Since God is dead everything is permissible”.  Voltaire insisted that a God had to be resurrected, I did not plead for it.   Now you would see that he is flogging a dead horse for the fun of it, out of sheer meanness and spite.  I was happy with my situation - suspended between being and nothingness.  But intellectual quarrels are what sustain Dawkins, and he would not only shame his adversary to the roots of his intelligence, he would ram his own point of view as the universal rule of perception.  Sir Toby Belch, though not as brainy as Dawkins, even though he rarely strayed into sobriety, made a very valid point. “Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shalt not be any more cakes and ale?”  

But Dawkins will have none of it.  Now he struts into areas like theology and philosophy, wearing his plumes of different feather.  Terry Eagleton – I simply adore him for his linguistic quibbling, and his capacity to mass-produce theories – informs me that Dawkins has not changed one bit.  ”Imagine someone holding forth on biology”, he says of God Delusion, “whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.” Or for that matter, I should add, philosophy. 

But now I must address the main charge that my beloved child, Dawkins, has made against me – that I have incited people to murder and mayhem.  To this I can only say alas!  Only if he could care to read carefully what I have said in several languages and different cultural contexts.  It is my lasting regret that the sins of fanaticism, which is a form of cultivated blindness, are laid at my door. 

Dear children, I shall not argue my case any more in the arid language of logic and scientific method.  Some of the scientists themselves have taken good care of it, and showed Dawkins’ claim for what it is worth.  I dwell in your hearts.  That is, and has been, our favourite meeting ground, where I have been present and worshipped in some form or the other in every society, from the most primitive to the most advanced, much to the astonishment of the anthropologists and scientists who have been diligently stripping me to layers and layers of illusion.  So I’ll rest my case here.  I shall get back to you soon with a more reasoned critique. 

Till then, bless you all. 

GOD HIMSELF

Thank You, but No, Thank You, Mr Kaushik Basu.

Kaushik Basu is so much in awe of his “novel” and “radical” idea to stop corrupt behaviour of public servants, that one does not have the heart to administer even a small dose of pragmatic reality.  Intellectuals tend to be simple-minded folks locating their premises and theses in a world which readily agrees to be quantified and categorised, where human beings behave according to the rules of game theory etc.  But ordinary people know that much of human behaviour is resistant to such predictive models. 

Kaushik Basu’s idea is very simple.  Allow the bribe-taker to accept his bribe.  After the criminal act has been accomplished and the objective of the bribe-giver has been achieved, the state, which will henceforth be in a perpetual state of conspiracy with every bribe-giver of the land (only “harassment bribe” givers) will immediately don the role of the avenger and not only prosecute the bribe-taker on the bribe-givers testimony, but will also recover the bribe paid and restore it to the bribe-giver.  An all-encompassing gigantic trap shall be in place for the public servants of all shades and in all situations all the year round.  Kaushik Basu’s idea does indeed revolutionise the delivery of public service and henceforth the burden of harassment shall be carried by the hapless public servant instead of the honest citizen, as it would be evident presently.  “Revolution”, says Bernard Shaw, “does not end tyranny; it merely shifts the burden to other shoulders.”

From illustrations given in his paper it appears that when a citizen is compelled to give bribe to the public servant who is withholding to deliver something which by rights should be delivered unto him, this qualifies to be called a “harassment bribe”.  A relationship of trust and mutuality comes in to play out of sheer necessity, because the law as it exists now makes both the parties to the transaction equally culpable.  The proposed legislation, says Basu, will break this relation of trust and set up a relation of sheer opportunism - an “orthogonal” one - where the bribe-giver will be at the taker’s throat after his objective has been achieved.  The all important distinction between harassment and non-harassment bribe has been only touched upon and, as of now, constitutes bribe given for securing development contracts etc. 

The other very important fact which has not been specified is this – does the bribe-giver get to retain the fruits of his bribe-giving, or is that nullified, once a claim is made about the fruits of bribery?Considering Basu is so enamoured of the idea, by implication, it would seem that the the bribe-giver gets to retain it, or else why should he collaborate so enthusiastically.  We also presume that suitable amendments shall be made in respect of the offences of criminal conspiracy and abetment so that the act of “harassment bribe” and “bribe-taking” fall into two distinct discursive worlds of responsible civic behaviour and criminal conduct respectively.  Some tweaking of the provisions of chapter on “general exception” in the Indian Penal Code will also be in order and the current legal provision of punishing malicious complaints and laws relating to the seizure, forfeiture and confiscation of property will have to be suitably updated . 

Now let us imagine some scenarios in a real world situation where the anti-corruption law as proposed by Basu has come into force. 

Scenario I

A, a casual labour, complains that he paid a bribe of `100 to the public servant to release his wages amounting to `1000.  This complaint makes the authorised public servant liable to be imprisoned for bribe-taking, and the bribe-giver entitled for being restored the `100 which he paid as bribe after confiscating it from the public servant.  The enquiry reveals that A had been employed in some activity in the town but decided to take advantage of the fact that his name appears in the muster roll of his panchayat etc.  He paid a bribe of `100 to get `1000 for no work at all. 

Generally, a significant percentage of illegal gratification especially in activities like MNREGA belongs to this category. 

It is the state which is very often at the receiving end of such commerce because nowhere is there such a thing as a free lunch.  Incentivised by this law A may like to get back the initial investment made by way of bribe as well.  It also opens the way for overcompensation, using it as a weapon of black mail. 

Scenario II

A, an aspirant for some appointment, lodges a complaint that he has been forced to pay a harassment bribe of `100,000 to the concerned authority to issue his appointment letter which he had unauthorisedly held up.  On enquiry it turns out that A was actually nowhere in the list and he paid a bribe to get his name fraudulently included.  Taking advantage of this law now he wants his “seed money” back. 

In a variation on this theme, immediately on appointment, he uses it as a weapon of blackmail to escape some disciplinary proceeding, enquiry, punishment etc.  In another weirder scenario a group of cadets decide to have fun with the concerned authority and collectively allege that they had paid harassment bribe to get in.  The bribe-giver, we must remember is free from any liability and the police are duty bound to institute a cognizable case. 

Scenario III

A, the CEO of a telecom company, decides to buy his way through spectrum bidding.  He makes an irresistible offer of bribe to the competent authority thus making himself guilty of an offence under Sec.  13 (1) d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as it exists today.  In the new regime, he files a complaint pleading harassment bribe, making a fool proof case for why he was compelled to do so.  The chartered accountants, investment bankers etc.  can always make a case that such crippling financial commitments had been made in the firm belief that he will win the bid in a transparent bidding.  But sensing that the decision may unfairly go against him, he had been compelled to pay a heavy bribe.  By merely registering the complaint he secures exoneration from any future enquiry under criminal misconduct.  He gets to retain his illegally secured contract.  At the same time, he has made a strong claim for the recovery of initial investment that he made in the form of bribe to the concerned public servant.  In the hands of a competent lawyer the most impregnable wall of distinction between harassment bribe and non harassment bribe will collapse like a house of cards. 

Even if he does not win the contract, he could use the complaint of harassment bribe to indemnify him for the lost opportunity and to punish the public servant for not having obliged him, because nowhere does Basu suggest that unhonoured commitments in a bribery deal shall not be treated as harassment bribe.  This is the paradigm and any commercial deal can be fitted neatly into it. 

Those of us who have any experience of dealing with corruption and vigilance complaints can vouch that the greatest drain on any such organisation is by way of the unconscionably large number of bogus, mischievous and motivated complaints which have to be dealt with nevertheless.  In many organisations, it is now mandatory for the complainant to file an affidavit and also give an undertaking that he would produce material evidence to prove his charges once the enquiry is afoot.  But in practice, in the majority of cases, all that the complainant is interested in is the initiation of the enquiry which discomfits the public servant.  Such a measure will effectively bring to a halt not only commercial decision making, but decision-making of any kind where an accusation of bribery can be credibly raised.  Those in the know will tell you that after the investigation into animal husbandry scam, public spending in Bihar plummeted because any one who had so much as put pen to paper in concerned files raised presumptions of bribe-taking in the mind of investigator.  Post-scam, except for the barest housekeeping expenses, nothing much was spent and a large number of civil servants evaded taking any financial decision.  How much more difficult the situation would be in the new regime where public servants can be exposed to the charge of bribe-taking involving compulsory investigation and at no cost to the accuser. 

Mr Kaushik Basu is doing a good job in his area of expertise.  There is still a lot of scope for more good work and his being distracted to fields of drafting new laws will be a great loss to the common weal. 

The Battle against Corruption - Part II

This is the second part of the article: The Battle against Corruption.

But first let me make my position absolutely clear. I am wholeheartedly in favour of this movement that Anna Hazare jee has launched. As the right person to lead this movement, he brings up the third element in the triad - the man, the moment and the milieu.  But we are aware of another movement dissipate itself without achieving most of its objectives, and many stringent remedial legislations have proved worse than the disease.  This, as well as the other parts that will follow,will elucidate what was contained as brief remarks in the introductory piece. It would be impertinent of me to offer suggestions where the best minds of the country are at work but in the last installment I do intend to offer some practical suggestions.

How does one view the present movement against corruption?  As a symptom of a deep systemic crisis?  As a diffuse longing, on a societal scale, for redemption from our current problems by a mythical messianic character?  As a supreme example of the laziness and evasion of individual responsibility?  As the ultimate triumph of what Umberto Eco calls “Event as Mise en scene and Life as Scene - settings?  Is it a populist movement or a highly elitist one, run by a collectivism?  Or is it a little of both - a movement which feeds at the populist spring but is deeply elitist in its aspirations.  In this post, and the others that will follow, I will try to come to grips with my own confused and muddled thinking on these issues.

Seeking an analogy from the field of philosophy of science, it can be said that any system is designed to cope with all manners of situations that arise on a daily basis.  But there comes a time when the system finds it difficult to cope with arising challenges.  No matter how you tweak it, the problem remains insoluble.  This is the sign that we are now colliding against the boundaries; signal to make a paradigm shift, to abandon the theory and adopt a new and more capacious hypothesis.  Our political crisis in wake of pervasive and ubiquitous corruption in public life is more or less headed for this trajectory.

Democratic traditions are not native to our culture - I know Vaishali and Licchavi etc would be flung in my face.  It is not rooted in history or tradition.  Nevertheless, democracy did not evolve here by a process of trial and error, experiments and conventions as it did in Britain.  We have not grown with democracy; there is no evidence of sustained engagement of our society and democratic institutions.  We are not citizens by a natural process of  political evolution.  Ours – We the People of India – was a conscious and deliberate act of choice to be governed by an agreed set of political institutions.  Our national identification was with the constitution itself and it sought to generalize, diffuse and sublimate what was once held as an obligation to God and other narrow and sectarian loyalties that divide us, into an obligation to our secular republic.  The covenant between the Citizen and the Nation was direct; unmediated by the facts of religion, caste, creed or gender and it was expected that, in the conduct of the public affairs, the nation must survive as the principal object of affection and despair, and no new allegiance must be formed to replace it.  It is a debatable statement to make, but it does not detract from its validity to say that Indian nationalism was a concept which was alien to many of us, and inadequately developed at best.  The Indian constitution is what provides us our self definition.

The Lokpal bill is a tacit suggestion that we are now colliding against the boundary, that the potential of the system has been exhausted and we are approaching the conditions of political entropy.  Perhaps it is a time to make a move on, and the Lokpal Bill is the answer.  The Lokpal Bill is daring in its conception and there are no precedents to it.  But one may like to know why  have the legislations designed to cope with corruption in the public sphere have been found to be inadequate.

In my humble opinion, it is not the inadequacy of the legislation; the problem has been the lack of uniform application because, faced with the mighty economic offender, those charged to apply it develop cold feet, distort it or simply play truant.  To quote just one pithy example:  During the course of the investigation of an offence, the arrest of the local chief minister became necessary but the State Police could not be relied upon to affect it.  As a result, the Army had to be summoned by the High Court, leading to unavoidable controversy?  All because the then DGP could not be trusted to get the warrant of arrest executed.  Institutions have to be vested with authority and it is for the powerful who consecrate it and uphold its writ, whatever the consequence.  Stories abound in the Indian tradition where Gods have voluntarily surrendered to the power of supposedly invincible weapons.

While intellectuals and political pundits may debate the abstract questions   of political theory, I shall limit myself to my own area of experience. It will bear reiteration that nothing on as grand a scale as the Lokpal Bill has ever been attempted before but   let us consider some issues   on the diminutive scale. The   Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 was supposed to be a revolutionary improvement on the PC Act 1947; the definition of public servant was made so capacious as to include almost every one – persons associated with co operative bodies, universities, educational, scientific, cultural educational institutions receiving public funds, UPSC state PSCs banks, MLAs, MPs., whoever was being paid out of or handling public funds. The mere possession of assets disproportionate to known sources   was an offence, without any need to establish a specific act of bribery or corruption. The explanation added to the new section 13 (1) e requires only that income which has been declared according to the prescribed rules etc to qualify as known sources of income.   Income derived legally but undeclared, undervalued income, assets acquired but without prior permission or subsequent intimation became outlawed. It was considered   revolutionary in its scope, reach and ambit, the authentic thunderbolt of gods. Twenty three years down the line it is just another provision, which neither deters nor is as widely used as it should have been, given that amassing   of disproportionate asset by public servants is a rule rather than exception.

Now we have just about everybody declaring his property but not one has been challenged  in the absence of an adequate vigilance machinery.  The idea behind the move may have been that if only the ill-gotten worth of the corrupt were known, it would prove a detterent?  If citizens know that one of their favourite leaders, who was worth 10 lacs in 2004, is worth 500 crores today, or a public figure who is believed to have taken a few thousand crores in one deal is only worth a few crores, does that make the masses pour out into the streets?  Nobody to my knowledge has been prosecuted on the basis of these disclosures.  Does not it mean, then, that each one of us public servants is living within one’s means?  The task of bringing disproportionate wealth to light has been democratized and it is the duty of every citizen to scan the property of the public servant and discover undeclared wealth and unmask him.  This has not been done either.  Are we a less corrupt society merely because a more draconian law has been put in place?   In the absence of wide ranging popular support    merely criminalizing  a conduct or prescribing more deterrent punishment can not  ensure socially useful behaviour.

Another spectacular example would be the Dowry Act, legislated under tremendous media coverage of dowry deaths and activism by pressure groups.  This was a time when dowry was jogging the conscience like nothing else.  It was the number one social evil; therefore, the full might of law - civil, criminal and special legislative acts - was deployed against it.  The act casts the burden of proof on to the accused.   It can be confidently said that the society did not change its mind about the giving and taking of dowry because of the multiplicity of legal remedies, but to our misplaced reformist zeal we owe the incarceration of innumerable innocent old and decrepit men and women, landing up in jail.  The Dowry Act - dowry was as much of a social evil in the eyes of the community as corruption is today - is the most misused act in the history of Indian jurisprudence.  Incidentally, this is the only crime in which the police can claim bribe not only with impunity but with honour - to arrest those who stand even falsely accused at the behest of the complainant.  The new leniency in granting anticipatory bail in many courts is a judicial recognition of this fact.  What is being emphasized is that, try as we might, we cannot run a society by decrees alone.  The excess can only inure us against the evil, even inculcate a sense of fatalism.

I would like to draw upon my experience - banal and exercised in unspectacular setting, in comparison to the grandness of the theme envisaged in the Lokpal Bill, to reinforce this point.  I had been directed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court to investigate a case of academic fraud, which the the normal hierarchy of police was not able to undertake, maybe, because the accused persons were powerful persons.  The investigation led us to the academic underworld, and several Vice-Chancellors, a retired High Court judge, an IPS officer and others were arraigned.  Encouraged by the investigation, the Hon’ble High Court directed me to broad-base the investigation.  Having gained a valuable insight, we proceeded confidently but we hit a tunnel at the end of the light.  What we came up against was not an evidence of random deviant behaviour, but academic irregularity and illegality on an insurrectionary scale.  And you certainly cannot deal with an insurrection with normal laws.  “Should we go about registering cases in their hundreds”, my report to the High Court wondered “maybe in their hundreds of thousands, considering that other universities are waiting to reveal their priceless quota of well known secrets.  Such an enterprise would nullify the very concept of investigation and fair trial because the sheer volume of work which no agency, however diligent can perform.” Then, “there is another problem - and it is no moral quibbling; it is a purely juridical issue.  In what order shall the potential delinquents be called to account … given the various limitations of human resources…  those involved in matters taken up first are likely to be disadvantaged compared to those who are taken up later” etc.  To the best of my knowledge, the matter is still pending and, on a regular basis, crimes with the same modus operandi are revealed and investigated, and the high hopes, fuelled by media hype, of a clean-up of the campuses has gone sour.  Nobody in Bihar, I think, takes the issues of academic fraud seriously, now.

This brings me to my next worry.  The leadership of the movement is in very competent hands - as of now.  Any one of them can do full justice to the office of Lokpal.  But while one legislates and brings into being such agencies, omnipotent in their sway, one has to ask God or Nature - take your pick - to keep us supplied on a regular basis  with such emnent figures.  The matter does not end there.  For the Lokpal to be effective and credible, it has to have an apparatus of investigation commensurate to the task.  But what if nature defaults or God fails to execute the orders on time?  What if we are saddled with another Thomas?  The experience with many of the occupants of high constitutional posts appears to have validated the Peter Principle – sooner or later we will arrive at the Thomas level.  Thomas on a puny symbolic scale was a parlour farce; Thomas on a grand scale would be a national catastrophe.  

My worry is that the grander the ambition, the more spectacular the failures, leading to massive withdrawal symptoms.  In a democracy, critical debate is of the essence.  In this case, that opportunity has been lost, because Television arrived here before everyone else did, banishing  good sense and rational debate.  Therefore, the issue must be put to much wider consultation, more extensive debate, keeping in mind the history of earlier initiatives and the fears expressed in many quarters. We must not be afraid of failure, but at the same time, we must not be oblivious of the grave consequences of failure.

The Battle Against Corruption: How many divisions do we have?

Both hands are skilled in doing evil, the ruler demands gifts, the judge accepts bribes, the        powerful dictate what they desire - they all conspire together”. 

The Book of Micah 7:3 The Old Testament

Anna Hazare Jee’s indefinite fast on the issue of the Lokpal bill underlines the starkness of the situation.  There is a growing perception that despite the urgency of the situation the institutional response to the problem of all pervasive corruption has been inadequate.  Instead of a grim determination to fight corruption or a cogent strategy to contain it, what has been in evidence is  brazen compromise for survival.  Corruption in public life, we may recall, was one of the main planks of the bloodier, longer lasting JP movement.  Regimes have changed several times and yet decades later the same issues are being revisited and the malady if anything has become more virulent.  So while discussing the current crisis one must constantly be aware of the historicity of the problem. 

Anna Hazare Jee is galvanizing public opinion not only on the immediate issue of the Lokpal Bill, but against corruption in public life in general.  The response has been overwhelming and everybody seems to be in a great hurry to come on board.  It is a little surprising, considering the fact that  everyone is with Hazare Jee- politicians of all hues, film stars, merchant bankers and corporate leaders, social activists, civil servants, academicians ,  and yet  the enemy is still looming large.  Therefore, one must take stock of our strengths and weaknesses recognise our friends from enemies and beware of opportunists and fifth columnists, carnival lovers and the feisty publicity seekers. 

Democracy attributes good sense and judgment to its citizenry at large and it is supposed to exercise its control over the day to day functioning of the government through public opinion,(as if there is a body of opinion, fully formed, ubiquitous and all knowing, which once alerted to wrongdoing, will come down like a ton of bricks and ensure immediate remedial measures. ) That, alas! is not true.  Generally speaking people are ignorant and indifferent, people are resistant to mobilization and sustained activism.  Wrapped in their own petty little concerns and anxieties they are easily satisfied with cosmetic changes.  As a worst case they get used to everything – just about everything.  This is where the charismatic leader comes in. 

The fourth estate is one of the seminal institutions of an open society.  As its watchdog, it guards our interest by keeping an alert and ever watchful eye on the functioning of the three estates.  Its criticism has no coercive, corrective function but it creates a climate of opinion in which the government decisions could be tested on the touchstone of legitimacy and public interest.  The nature of its job demands that while holding a mirror to the other three estates it must subject to the public scrutiny because its moral authority depends on the basis of the impartiality and public spiritedness of its stance.

A society can never be – has never been – run by decrees.  To enforce the obedience of its constituents to a certain conduct, the appeal of “unwritten laws” is more important than the coercive powers of law.  Many of us have violent quarrel with our spouses but very few resort to violence, not because they are afraid of the police, but because they fear what their neighbours will say.  Public stigmatization, branding and ostracism are time honoured methods of enforcing socially useful behaviour.  Sustained campaign of exposure in the media, highlighting their wrong doing is very useful deterrent against white collar offenders and other wrong doers.  But the stereotype of the untidy, unshaven, journalist unmindful of threats and impervious to the lure of profit, reinforced through countless films and folklore has now been replaced with the “Radia Tapes” variety of wheeler-dealer.  Never since our independence has media been the target of such generalized distrust. 

It is the political class which is finally responsible for the institutional remedies.  It is they who feed the agenda in legislative forum.  Their attitude can be best summed up by the draft Lokpal Bill.  It has been more than forty years and more in the making and when finally it does arrive, it is a case of too little too late, as Anna Hazare ji would have us believe, and the tokenism of the gesture is in an appallingly cynical disregard of public aspirations. 

 As far as one can remember, in its battle against corruption, the political class always frames the issue in polemical rather than constructive, moral terms.  It is always –“worse immoralities have been seen in your regime”;”My corruption is good, yours is bad.” The issue has never been couched in simple terms – that all corruption is venal and equally reprehensible.  There is no scope for moral relativism or comparative, competitive excuses. 

Needless to say the political class has been so deeply mired in corruption that if it were to fight its battle seriously, it would be equivalent to the mythical bard sawing off the branch he was sitting on.  Therefore, its phony battles are staged, to the accompaniment of the necessary sound and fury, more in order to distract the mildly inquisitive public.  The cut and thrust in the debating forum are in the nature of a highly stylized form of combat which in Mark Danner’s vivid imagery is , “….  like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are set at such an angle that they are incapable of hurting one another.  But though it is unreal it is not meaningless….” 

The quota of public servants arrested “red handed” for accepting bribe, or unearthing of the disproportionate assets of the occasional civil servant, measured in terms of flats jewellery and bank balance helps to keep the constituents peaceful and pacified.  But when it comes to the full scale depredations of robber barons in cahoots with the political elite, investigation is hard pressed to find by ways and blind alleys to hide in. 

All these decorous gestures are part of what Leo Strauss would call the “necessary lie”.  Democratic elites are aware of the actual state of things but they are obliged to keep the people in a state of blessed ignorance.  But truth has a way of getting out and the public odium that renowned political leaders were heaped upon the moment they tried to hitch their wagon to the cause is proof enough that the political class also stands thoroughly discredited.  Its minion the bureaucracy, never the darling of the people, has been given up on, long ago. 

The response of people at large is even more ambiguous because it is rooted in the fact that they are themselves “half victims, half accomplice, like everyone.”   Their lack of combativeness and venom, the extraordinary passivity of the people stems from the fact that they tend to be comfortable with the idea that corruption is an inescapable fact of governance and political morality. 

Hoederer’s admonition to Hugo (who refuses to “dirty” his hands) in Jean Paul Sartre’s play Dirty Hands would induce a curious sense of déjà vu in those of us who have tried to take a stand against the contemporary wisdom:

“You cling so tightly to your purity, my lad!   How terrified you are of sullying your hands.  Well, go ahead then, stay pure!   What good will it do, and why even bother coming here among us?  Purity is a concept of fakirs and friars.  But you, the intellectuals, the bourgeois anarchists, you invoke purity as your rationalization for doing nothing.  Do nothing, don’t move, and wrap your arms tight around your body, put on your gloves.  As for myself, my hands are dirty.  I have plunged my arms up to the elbows in excrement and blood.  And what else should one do?  Do you suppose that it is possible to govern innocently?”   

The ambiguity in the public attitude towards ill-gotten money is the result of our peculiar situation.  Our economy is half white and half black, half over-ground and half underground.  We condemn black money but deal in it, nevertheless.  Under our very eyes, criminals and gangsters acquire wealth, then political power, then more wealth and with it acceptability and social esteem.  Political banditry as a mode of creation of surplus value has long been accepted as a legitimate vocation.  To displace the awareness of these contradictions, we have devised various overt and covert strategies to acknowledge and accommodate the criminality with in our midst.  Lawyers, chartered accountants, investment advisors, honestly work for the legitimization of dishonest earnings by politicians, government officials, corporate CEOs, etc.  Dirty money courses through our formal and informal financial system in different ways, with different consequences.  We do not seek to know hard enough about the offshore funds being routed in our economy for fear of discovering their actual provenance.  We are so enamoured, even over awed with power and manipulation that we tend to ignore what David Bell calls “the economic fulcrum underneath”. 

But these are truths not revealed to us.  In an age when God has abdicated in favour of 24/7 cable TV, we live in presence of media rather than in presence of God, and truth or fact-hood is not an independently verifiable, objective state of being.  Fact-hood has to be conferred.  Even gossip, when aired by the media, commands greater credibility than established fact.  Criminals are being revealed as the conduits for the ill-gotten funds of political stalwarts; political stalwarts are being unmasked as the source of strength and immunity that they enjoyed in the eyes of the enforcement agencies but the media presentation of the issue lends to the whole issue a stance of moral neutrality. 

 To  intensify the asymmetry further  forces larger than all of us taken together – the forces of history- seem to have overtaken us.  Bukharin’s premonitory fears of the development of "state capitalist trusts”, where the state bureaucracy is reduced to being an agent of capital accumulation may  be on its way to being fulfilled.   The 2G scam is the most compelling and detailed validation of this thesis.  To lend a dramatic irony  to the desperate nature of the battle against corruption now that it has been joined in right earnest, some of the best lawyers, the sword arm of the civil society, have been claimed by the  other side and a lawyer of right credentials and requisite merit is hard to come by for prosecuting an important scam! 

Leviathan lives in a state of sin, rulers are by nature profligate and rakish.  Corruption has been a trapping of power, regrettable but unavoidable, throughout the ages.  In the days before media saturation, the distant rumours of corruption in high places never got beyond rumour.  But now the high and mighty are in the open glare of publicity thanks to cable TV.  The current crisis is that all the people, even the poor to whom traditionally the role of remaining honest has been assigned, have lost their purity.  A corrosive cynicism has eroded not only their self belief, but their faith in the entire array of institutions.  All that they are left with is their cold unfocussed anger.  Their helplessness or lack of belief is not as much a cause for worry as the fact that “when people stop trusting the elites, they perceive that the throne is empty, that the decision is now theirs.”  I heard   Jasmine Revolution and Tahrir Square mentioned in this context because they have now become the staple of public discourse.  The radicalization of the masses is a good thing, provided the issues are clearly formulated, achievable and as free of rhetoric and ethical absolutes as possible.  Tahrir Square is not an unmitigated blessing. 

To Be Continued…