OMG, What have they done!

 

In 2002, when I visited the National Police Academy (NPA) at Hyderabad to attend a seminar on National Security, we were taken to see the sound and light show at Golconda fort. This was started in 1993, much after we had passed out from NPA. It was the first sound and light show I’d ever seen. I was stunned! 

It started with a mesmerising ghazal by Jagjit Singh: 

एक गुलशन था जलवानुमां इस जगह,

रंग-ओ-बू जिसकी दुनिया में मशहूर थी,

बेग़मों की हँसी गूँजती थी यहीं,

शाह की शानोशौकत में भरपूर थी … 

There was a beauty of splendour here

Its fame enthralled many all over the world

The place used to echo with the laughter of queens and princesses

It bore witness to the kings’ pomp and pageantry … 

[Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vTT-EucsqA] 

Then, Amitabh Bachchan’s voice took over, “Come, friends, come this way please …” 

The show was for one hour. With questions and answers, Amitabh Bachchan took us through the entire history of the fort from the time Prataprudra built the fort in the 1t^th Century through its development by the Kakatiyas, Bahmani Sultans, Sultan Quli and so on. The narration included reenacted conversations between certain key personae in history and with tremendous sound effects like that of horses galloping and neighing, war drums and so on and differential lighting focusing on different parts of the fort at different levels in sync with the events being described, it transported us to the bygone eras which we felt we were ourselves inhabiting during that hour. The coloured lighting focused in turns on Diwan-e-khas, Rani Mahal, Sultan’s chambers and while being narrated, a lit-up fountain suddenly sprang to life. So did a beam highlighting the Koh-i-Noor diamond which is supposed to have either originated in the Golconda mines or adorned the Golconda vaults initially. 

When the one and a half month siege of the fort by Aurangzeb was depicted we felt we were inside the fort with the vast Mughal army barracked outside. When the negotiation between the queen and Aurangzeb happened and Aurangzeb extracted a heavy price for lifting the siege, we were flies on the wall watching and listening to the exchanges. 

The romance between Sultan Qutb Shah and Bhagmati and the risks the former took to meet her, defying royal edict against it, was poignantly portrayed with great sound effects and exchanges. 

Golconda fort has a unique architecture and built on several tiers/ levels. This made for riveting details in the narration. It has a seven kilometer surrounding wall, four drawbridges, eight gates and 87 bastions. The fort has an amazing acoustic system which is a technical and engineering marvel. It was designed in such a way that a clap at the entrance is transmitted a kilometer away to the main fort three levels up but could not be heard a meter away. This was for announcing arrivals and warning against attacks. The gates were designed in such a way with narrow entrances and giant iron spikes that the elephants couldn’t charge and bring them down. That is why Aurangzeb resorted to sorrrounding the fort for one and half months in the first instance and later, for eight months. 

When the show ended after an hour, each one in the packed audience burst into spontaneous applause. 

Later I saw the sound and light shows at the cellular jail in Port Blair and Lal Qila in Delhi but those were just not a patch on the one at Golconda fort. Whenever anyone I knew was visiting Hyderabad, I used to urge him to make it a point to catch the show at Golconda. It truly showcased the brilliant talent of India in art and music, its famed "soft" power. I wanted to see it again too. The opportunity came during a recent visit and the experience was heart-breaking. 

For reasons completely unknown, the authorities have taken something utterly brilliant and replaced it with a tedious, almost unwatchable excretion of half an hour duration. My first indication came when I saw most of the chairs empty – it used to get really crowded earlier. Gone are the music and the Jagjit Singh ghazals. Gone also is the highlighting of the fort and its different aspects. The drama is missing in the narration which is now a flat reading. Some pictures are shown on a single wall – one may as well see it on a computer screen at home. The exquisite sound effects are all gone. There is nothing in the depiction about the technical and engineering marvel that is Golconda fort. And, for some reason, Shivaji Maharaj has entered the narration. 

Not only that no one clapped at the end, people had started leaving much before the whittled-down half-an-hour tedium ended. 

I came away utterly dejected and googled to learn why. Apparently, the change was done to incorporate 3D mapping projection with high-resolution projectors, laser lights and moving heads. Why it couldn’t have been done while retaining the earlier out-of-the-world narration, music and highlighting is one question I couldn’t find an answer to. What upset me the most was that the change came about just 3-4 months back. Had I visited just a few months back, I could have re-lived that beautiful experience all over again. 

I wonder why there hasn’t been any protest against this mindless modification. There should have been. There should be. For those who might like to get somewhat reminded of the old glorious thing, here are the links to what someone has posted on YouTube in three parts. The experience of sitting at the fort and the audio quality can’t be there but one gets the idea of how much better the old version was. As the saying goes, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!” 

Part 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2Lelmz3JS0 

Part 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfiSufcer3Y 

Part 3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIv3ykTaRoU

[Queen Bhagmati entering the fort]

A perfect Tsunami

 

Back in 2008, a raging storm happened to people’s consciousness in the form of one Sarah Palin. She ran for Vice Presidency of the US and the world was never the same again. For a while. After calling herself a “typical hockey Mom,” she blithely went about mixing her geography, history and language as carelessly as some others mix their drinks but passed out a tad too soon on the couch of political life (this phrase was originally used by Kamala Das in a different context). 

In her great geography knowledge, she put Russia adjacent to Alaska: 

“As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where – where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border.” [This was to explain how she had great foreign policy experience because her state of Alaska was right next door to Russia.] 

“You can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.”

She had to put Afghanistan in close proximity to the US: 

“They are also building schools for Afghan children so that there is hope and opportunity in our neighbouring country of Afghanistan.”

Then there was her vast erudition in history: 

“We’ve got to stand with our North Korean allies.” 

When asked to name a(ny) Supreme Court decision she disagreed with, thus spake she: 

“Well, let’s see. There’s, of course, in the great history of America rulings, there have been … rulings.” 

As far as current affairs were concerned, she claimed to be very engaged with those things. When asked to name a single newspaper or magazine she read, this was her reply: 

“All of ‘em, any of ‘em that have been in front of me all these years.” 

Then, she gave unto the English language a unique word, “Refudiate.” When trolled, she compared herself to Shakespeare: 

“‘Refudiate,’ ‘misunderestimate,’ ‘wee-wee’d up.’ English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!’’’

This was the original quote on her Twitter account: 

“Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn’t it really stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate.” 

After the storm called Palin disappeared from the firmament, politics and life was dull and boring. For a good decade and a half, I’ve wondered, “After Palin, who?” Now we have the answer. I’m grateful to the BJP for unleashing one Kangana Ranaut who is threatening to become a perfect Tsunami. 

She started well in terms of history. 

“India gained Independence in 2014.” 

“Bheekh mein mili hui azadi koi azadi nahi hoti.” 

That was a while back. This has now been followed through with: 

“Pehle mujhe yeh baat aaj clear karne dijiye. Jab hume azaadi mili toh the first Prime Minister of India, Subhash Chandra Bose, woh kahan gaye? [Let me clear this first. When we gained Independence, where did the first Prime Minister of India, Subhas Chandra Bose go?]” 

Was Subhash Bose alive in 2014 – remember that year of our Independence? 

She is also a champion of women’s causes. 

“The Women’s Reservation Bill that grants 30 % reservation to women (in the Lok Sabha) is the reason why I have this stage today. Because of that, your daughter from Mandi has this stage.” – recent public address in Mandi’s Balh village. [It’s another matter that the bill has not been brought into effect yet.] 

Another sample. 

Regarding Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Bill, 2024: 

“The women in the country should thank the government for introducing the bill. I further request this government that no man should be able to abandon a woman after dating her for long. If he does so, he must pay for her maintenance and give her alimony and casual hook ups and polygamy should be banned as well. Also, sexual intercourse should be banned for school-going children … The bill is important for the safety of young vulnerable women.” 

It doesn't matter that the bill was about cheating in examinations and not cheating on female partners and wives. 

Now she is delving into the metaphysical too. 

“It can be said that Narendra Modiji is an ‘ansh’ of Lord Ram and Lord Vishnu who takes care of us.” 

I do sincerely hope that she wins from Mandi and gets to adorn our Lok Sabha. There will never be a dull moment thereafter … This is a GUARANTEE – mine!

Vasudhaiva kutumbakam

After traversing through the “entire linguistic science” of Vikash, Atmanirbhar, Vishwaguru, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, Anusandhan and Tushtikaran, now we’re asked to deal with Parivarvad. In India, unlike in some countries, family plays the central fulcrum around which the society revolves. Suddenly, in poll season, family has become a pejorative term. “Parivarvad” is supposed to be what the 2024 elections are to be fought over, not electoral bonds, nor economics, foreign policy, social inclusion, social justice, etc.. Apparently, parivarvad or dynastism is the biggest evil plaguing India. While this might mean someone getting too many chances without having the merit, what I gather from the utterings is that if someone is in politics, no one from his immediate or distant family should enter politics for seven generations or so. Let’s see whether either of the connotations holds water. 

First, the prevalence. Possibly, during the hunter-gatherer phase of human evolution, leadership was based purely on ability and not on genealogy. However, the moment people specialised in different aspects of life, dynastism came into the specialised field of security and governance. The children of the tribal chief and later, those of the king, started training in governance from birth. 

This was not merely a tribal or ancient situation either. As per a 2018 study, political dynasties are present in over 145 countries including in more than half of the democratic countries. In the US, the Kennedy family is considered royalty. On my first day of orientation in Harvard University, our guide who was taking us around suddenly burst our crying saying that was a sad day for America because one of the Kennedy clan had died that day. The country also saw Prescott Bush legacy through Geroge Bush Sr., George Bush Jr and Jeb Bush. Myanmar has had Aung San and his daughter Aung San Suu Kui. In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak was succeeded by his son, Gamal Mubarak. Despite loud posturing by some parties in India, ALL the parties (yes, including BJP) with the possible exception of the Left parties have seen dynastic politics. Studies have shown that a full 25 % of the MPs in the current Lok Sabha are dynastic MPs. Congress has 44 % MPs with dynastic background but even BJP has 20 % such MPs. The renomination of dynastic candidates for the 2019 general elections stood at 67 % for JD (S), 50 % for SAD, 29 % for BJD and so on. Also, a full 35 % of the villages in India have been “ruled” by some dynasty in the entire post-Independence period. Parties themselves like to nominate and renominate dynastic politicians because of winnability due to name recognition, local networks and access to resources. 

Secondly, is it such a bad thing to have dynastic politics? Why should someone who has a parent or a close relative in politics be deprived of joining the profession? We don’t bother too much if a lawyer’s son or daughter chooses to or is forced to become a lawyer. Similarly for doctors, civil servants, bankers, teachers and so on. In fact, we find it quite logical. Further, there are a lot of things going for it also. 

A teacher’s son grows up with books around him all the time. A doctor’s daughter grows up listening to medical stuff around the dinner table and may also develop deep empathy for the patients. Similarly, a politician’s offspring trains for politics from birth, even if unconsciously. He also develops the close connections and access to the resources so necessary in the field. Further, dynastic politics can also be a way out of patriarchal pitfalls. With the Indian society being as patriarchal as it is even today, it could not have produced a female prime minister in its independent infancy if not for dynastic politics. Even so, she was dubbed as “Gungi Gudiya” then but turned out to be anything but. Similarly, other marginalised sections and minorities have found a way in and stayed on through dynastic politics. Dynastic politics also makes for a certain amount of stability, a quality much in requirement in the growing stages of a democracy. Further, a dynastic politician is more likely to be in for the long haul and would have a time horizon longer than the five years because he would be looking out for his descendants in the process. In contrast to this “stationary bandit,” the “roving bandit” in the form of the career politician would be averse to long-term development at the cost of immediate political gains. 

The problem with dynastic politics occurs when the designated successor is incompetent or corrupt directly as a result of being born with a silver spoon in the mouth and a sense of massive entitlement. This also leads to a disconnect with the masses, lack of resourcefulness and worldliness. However, if the person wins elections on merit or because the electorate prefers a dynast with all his flaws, where is the problem? 

It is seen that a large number of the dynastic candidates in India successfully win the democratic elections again and again. A survey by ToI indicated that 46 % of Indians don’t see a problem with supporting a dynastic candidate and, pressed for a reason, 45 % of them said that such candidates are “better at politics as it is their family profession.” The other problem of dynastic politics which is politics of largesse, patronage and crony capitalism is seen to apply equally to so-called non-dynastic politics. 

When our deep-rooted philosophy of “Vasudhaiva kutumbakam” is referenced with family, it should be a non-issue to put the family connection to the sword in an election. What should be more important is accountability. The ancestry shouldn’t matter.

Not a drop to drink

 

“Don’t Work-From-Home, Go Home,” “India’s IT capital high and dry,” “Southern metropolis heading towards Day Zero” … are some of the headlines the media screamed about the current water crisis in Bengaluru. If reports are to be believed, people have been reduced to a bath once a week, using disposable cutlery, ordering out instead of cooking, using aerators on taps and cans for washing hands, lining up for water tankers and being fined for washing cars or sprinkling the gardens. IPL matches in the city scheduled shortly have come under uncertainty. How did a premium city come to this? 

The two primary sources of water for Bengaluru, the Cauvery river and ground water have been stretched beyond the limit. Against around 3,000 million litres required per day, the supply is around 1,500 million litres. The rapid urbanisation of the city and its surroundings meant that its lakes turned dry and toxic, gardens gave way to concrete jungles and water consumption grew by leaps and bounds. Lands reserved for green cover, wetlands, urban forests and river courses were rapidly de-notified. Its 262 lakes (around when I studied there in 1984) have come down to 81 now. 90 % of even these 81 are on the verge of extinction, as per Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. 

We shall be extremely myopic if we think this is a problem of Bengaluru alone and that too for a short while. India has been witnessing extremely rapid urbanisation. As per census data, 28.53 % of India’s population resided in urban areas in 2001. By 2017, this had grown to 34 % as per World Bank which estimates that, by 2030, 40.76 % of the country’s population will be in urban areas (400 persons/sq km). Slowly, all cities and later, all urban areas in India may attain Bengaluru’s “water-loo.” 

What’s the way out, then? Let’s take a look at Singapore. 

Compared to other colonised countries, Singapore got its independence from British rule very late, in 1965. One of the reasons was that the British didn’t think it could survive as an independent nation because it had serious inadequacy of water. It was only after a water agreement was signed with Malaysia in 1962 that an independent nation could be thought of. The Malaysian Constitution was also amended in 1965 to provide for an assured quantity of water supplied to Singapore. 

Singapore went on to become a thriving nation but at the back of the policy maker’s mind, its water conundrum has always occupied pride of place and apprehension. While grandstanding against Malaysia which was trying to negotiate a revised price and revised water treaty (“The day Malaysia stops water supply, my tanks will be on Malaysia border” ~ Lee Kuan Yew), Singapore did a few things. 

On the supply side, Singapore extended its available sources by desalination of sea water and reuse of waste water and stormwater. Wastewater discharge into streams is not permitted in 95 % of the area and in the remaining 5 %, it requires prior treatment. This is enforced strictly. The recycling of waste water has been so successful that it (called NEWater) is actually purer than tap water. However, so as not to affect sentiments, it is being used primarily for industrial purposes although part of it is blended into the domestic supply reservoirs also. Singapore identified “four taps” of its water supply, Water from local catchment areas, Imported water from Malaysia, NEWater and Desalinated water. Since one of the taps, Imports from Malaysia is uncertain, it has continuously tried to improve the other three taps, calling it the “Three-Tap-Strategy.” This was coupled with ABC – Active, Beautiful, Clean waters programme. [Acronyms have been around for a while!] 

“Whatever gets measured, gets done.” Singapore aggressively chased a metric called UfW to minimise. This is Unaccounted for Water, the difference between the quantity of water supplied to a city's network and the metered quantity of water used by the customers. It has two components -- physical losses due to leakage from pipes and administrative losses due to illegal connections and under-registration of water meters. This stands at 40 % for Delhi and 31 % for Bengaluru at present, against an internationally permissible level of 20 %. UfW in most Asian urban centres range between 40 % to 60 %. For London, it is 24 %. Singapore managed to plug almost all the leaks in the pipes and the systems and eliminated any illegal connections. It has achieved an astounding UfW below 5 %. 

However, it was on the demand side that Singapore wrought a miracle. 

Most countries charge higher for industrial and commercial use of water compared to domestic use. Singapore changed that and charged the same rate for both domestic and commercial use up to a reasonable amount of use per household (40 cubic metres per month). Beyond this, the rates go up steeply for the domestic consumption. Thus, industrial/ commercial users do not subsidise domestic users. [In India, domestic consumers use 90 % of the water but account for only 20 % of the revenues. Source: Asian Development Bank]. 

Instead of providing for lower “lifeline” tariff for poor households on humanitarian grounds, the tariff is kept the same for all but cash benefit transfer is given to the poor households. 

There are Water Conservation Tax, Water-borne fee (for treatment of effluents) and Sanitary appliance Fee. These make the water management financially self-sufficient. 

The water management staff remuneration is benchmarked on the Civil Service and corruption is met with exemplary punishment. 

The biggest enabler in Singapore has probably been taking the politicians out of the equation while setting tariffs. Politicians would necessarily have a vote-centric 5-year horizon which would keep tariffs artificially low or very sticky upwards. Let them play around with targeted subsidy through cashbacks (Direct Benefit Transfer) and let the tariff be on long-term considerations of water conservation and economising its use, and you have a winner. 

Singapore is not necessarily perfect. Although it has reduced its dependence on Malaysia for its water, even now 40 % of its water supply depends on the imports (down from 50 % earlier). However, let’s target a few things amongst what Singapore achieved more than a decade back: 100 % population having access to safe drinking water and sanitation; less than 5 % UfW; every drop of supplied water accounted for; an extraordinarily high water account/employee ratio (376); 99 % water bill collection efficiency; and a financially self-sufficient water management authority. 

The alternative is the doomsday Bengaluru forecast of “No water anywhere, let alone a drop to drink.” Replicated across the country.

Hubris

West Bengal has always had very long periods of continuous reign by a party, once for above three decades. Sometimes the reign becomes so prolonged and the ruling party becomes so entrenched that many of us bureaucrats and the general populace don’t believe that another party might ever come to power. Problem is, the ruling party of the time also believes so. 

One such party was winning every election hands down. There was a certain amount of popular support when they came to power. Then, some popular support was manufactured through massive social engineering so much so that the party affiliation became the person’s main identity. Many times, marriages were solemnised only when the party affiliations matched. Admissions to schools and colleges, getting a job, living in peace, everything revolved around the party. As someone quipped, “The state had withered away.” 

Further, being the ruling party, they could get away with certain things which would perpetuate their rule. The Panchayat elections were the highest-stakes elections. In one particular election, the word was that, if any one stood for elections against the ruling party candidate, the big leaders would visit his house and politely give him long, involved lectures on high Economics, Philosophy, Current Affairs and so on and try to convince him to withdraw his little candidature when such weighty issues were at stake. If he got convinced, well and good. Otherwise, they would just go away quietly, catch hold of a small child in the village and send a white saree (mark of a widow) through him to the wife of the adamant candidate. In sheer terror, many such people withdrew their candidature post-haste. 

In the halcyon days of its rule, the Party didn’t believe that there could ever come a day when they might be out of power in the state. In the West Bengal Panchayat Elections Act passed by them, there was an innocuous looking clause 42 which read: 

“The State Government shall, in consultation with the Commission, by notification, appoint the date or dates and hour or hours of poll for any election or bye-election.” 

The clause was anything but innocuous. This one sentence completely obviated the autonomy of the State Election Commission (SEC). As the ruling party could mobilise far more manpower and resources across the state for election related intimidation, rigging, manipulation and so on, it was advantageous for them to have the elections in one phase so regardless of the recommendation of the State Election Commission, they would go ahead with declaring the election on one date or some staggered dates as per what suited them. In the Centre, the Election Commission of India decides on the timelines and phases of polling depending on the threat situation, manpower availability and so on. They pump in extra security forces through such staggered dates or arrange the dates towards targeted security enhancement in certain areas. 

The other part was that the state would supply the security forces for the Panchayat elections. Hence, the state had the power not to supply enough so that unfair practices could have a field day. 

Ever since, except on one occasion when the matter went right up to the Supreme Court which intervened, the State Government has practically always decided on the date/s of the Panchayat election or the SEC has acquiesced. Coupled with the force situation, this has tilted the outcome very heavily in favour of the party in power. The same party which was being too clever by half in putting in the clause is now in opposition, ruing its own past machination and is bitterly protesting against the fallout of the clause. 

The same situation is now obtaining with the appointment of the members of the Election Commission of India (ECI). The Supreme Court had given a great formula of a Committee comprising the Prime Minister, Leader of the single largest opposition Party and the Chief Justice of India to select the members of ECI. This would have led to added credibility of the institution, its autonomy and its functioning. It would also have guarded against the ruling party of the day enjoying any unfair advantage or being seen to so enjoy it. Rather than staying with or improving upon it, the judgement has been scuppered through the latest Act which has made the selection process of the ECI members a farcical formality. The point is, neither any ruling party nor any leader will be there for ever. No party in power later would bother to change it as the current Act would be seen as advantageous to them. It is quite possible that this Act might come back to bite the same people who have brought it in, à la West Bengal. 

Why do parties and leaders think that they will reign for ever? I think, there is a word for it. Hubris.

The Talwar Amendment

 

The State Bank of India Act, 1955, as it originally stood, contained a clause in terms of which the Chairman of the Bank could not be removed before the expiry of the term of office unless there was misconduct on his part as proven through an elaborate Proceeding Enquiry. It was amended in 1976 to provide for termination of the Chairman without any cause, by giving him a three months’ notice. In the banking circles, the Amendment is known as the Talwar Amendment or Talwar Hatao Amendment. The Amendment was introduced with the single purpose of removing the then chairperson of the bank, R.K. Talwar from the office of the Chairman. 

What did Talwar do to merit this extreme measure? 

One of the borrowers of SBI, a cement company, became sick with mounting losses and approached the bank for “restructuring assistance,” a phrase made immensely popular later by a gentleman called Vijay Mallya. The bank assessed that the difficulties of the company were due to gross mismanagement and insisted that, as a pre-condition for the restructuring package, the Chairman of the company who was also the CEO should step down from the management and a professional management should take over the Company’s reins. The promoter of the sick company was a friend of the Prime Minister’s son and approached him for intervention. For the latter, who was grappling with more serious affairs of the country, this was a minor irritant. He called the Finance Minister and asked him to direct the bank to waive this requirement. The Finance Minister telephoned Talwar and asked him not to insist on a change in management as a condition precedent to restructuring. Talwar called for the details from the department and having satisfied himself with the merits of the case, informed the Finance Minister that it would not be possible for the Bank to waive the requirement of change in management. 

The Finance Minister sent for Talwar and told him that he had received instructions from “the highest authority” in the country who expected him to carry out the orders without demur. Talwar stood his ground and told the Finance Minister that there was no way for him to waive this requirement and the bank’s position would remain unchanged. The Prime Minister’s son decided to send for Talwar to “personally talk to him” and was shocked to hear from his minions that Talwar refused to come and see him on the ground that he held no constitutional authority and Talwar was accountable only to the Finance Minister. The Finance Minister was then asked to sack Talwar. 

During the seven years he was the Chairman of the Bank, Talwar had achieved a high degree of personal reputation and his removal from the office for what could be called a trivial issue would send shock waves in the industry. Secondly, when the matter was referred to the Legal department, the Legal department pointed out to the specific provision in the State Bank of India Act which guaranteed the Chairman the special protection against removal without sufficient cause. The Finance Minister sent for Talwar again and told him that the Government was planning to set up a Banking Commission to make recommendations with regard to the restructuring of the functioning of the banking system and asked whether he would be willing to accept the Chairmanship of the Commission. This was his way of easing Talwar out of the Chairmanship with a face-saver. Without batting an eyelid, Talwar told the Finance Minister that he would indeed be happy to head the Commission and he could carry out this job simultaneously with his existing assignment as Chairman of SBI. When the Finance Minister looked uncomfortable with this suggestion, Talwar asked him, “Mr. Minister, you seem to be very particular that I should not continue as the Chairman of the State Bank of India, is that correct?” The Finance Minister replied. “Yes Mr. Talwar, you know what the problem is. We all have the highest regard for your abilities but unfortunately you do not seem to be very flexible on this one issue which is of great importance to the highest authority in the country. If you do not want to accept any other position, I may have no option but to seek your resignation or in the alternative, to dismiss you from service.” Talwar replied, “Mr. Minister, I have no intention of resigning from my position. It is entirely up to you to decide whether you want to dismiss me.” 

CBI started investigating into any wrongdoings on the part of Talwar. They zeroed in on two things; Talwar’s monthly visits to Pondicherry and his appeal to some industrialist clients of the bank seeking donations for the Auroville project. Talwar’s attachment to The Mother and the Aurobindo Ashram was well known and he claimed that he needed these visits for what he called “recharging his batteries.” In any case, this could not be construed as a cause for his dismissal in terms of the Act. Secondly, not a single industrialist was willing to say that Talwar either spoke to him or in any way tried to persuade him to make the donation. All Talwar did was to forward to these clients an appeal signed by the Prime Minister of India and the Secretary General of the United Nations commending the Auroville project for support. CBI had to close the enquiry. 

The Legislation amending the State Bank of India Act to provide for summary dismissal of the Chairman was passed in record time and received the assent of the President without any delay. Armed with the new provision in the Act, the Finance Minister summoned Talwar once again and told him that if he did not resign from the service, there was no alternative but to remove him in terms of the new provision. Talwar told the Finance Minister that he had no intention of resigning and the Finance Minister could take whatever action he deemed appropriate. On the evening of the 4th of August, 1976 Talwar received a fax message from the Finance Minister sanctioning him 13 months leave (which he had not asked for!). Talwar left the Bank promptly at 5.30 PM which was his usual time of departure. There was hardly anybody to see him off. Everyone was scared even to be seen to be associated with him. 

[Source: Vaghul N., “R.K. Talwar Values in Leadership” accessed at https://11740092596917189242.googlegroups.com/attach/fcc91e7c041409f7/RK%20Talwar%20-%20Man%20of%20Admiration-2012.pdf?part=0.1&view=1&vt=ANaJVrHK9vAo_X1FgT8JTbi6RddDuCeDssxMjP8Qc0xzhx3tvM7n35nf2GcN1YBjphmV3cJnv1daqC1KVzNR2eGkOc8DC7ww7rUOGemoL5-Ht8qUq7ChCu0]

If Talwar was Chairman of SBI today, would he have signed on for the egregious petition before the Supreme Court seeking a three-month leeway (till after the election) to disclose who paid what to which party through Electoral Bonds? My sense is, No, not Talwar. This country has been built upon the spines of honourable people like Talwar. Politicians come. And then, they go away …

[R.K. Talwar, 1922-2002]

Stop whining, start shining II

 

I wonder if any cop at the senior level realises how troublesome being a victim of a crime is. When I was in Sierra Leone, after the hectic elections were over (one of the rare African elections where the government changed without a bloodbath), some of us UN mentors and the Senior Police Advisor got together in our house (it was called the India House) for a celebratory do. It was a rollicking party and, after the guests left, we, the inmates, went off to sleep blissfully. One of us received a call at around 3 AM from the landlord, who stayed in an adjacent house, saying he feared there were some intruders in the house. Our friend woke up to find that most of the things in the drawing room and living room including the TV set, music system, etc. had been taken away by the robbers. He woke all of us up and we saw that there was an armed gang who had come in and some of them were standing guard with knives outside each of the bedroom in case any of us woke up or disturbed them. Some of the knives were left behind. Luckily, none of us woke up suddenly, else, there might have been bloodshed that night and I wouldn’t be around to pontificate. 

We lodged a complaint but, for a few days, every night, we used to go to bed fearful that we might be set upon during the night. It wasn’t a happy existence for those days, despite our being cops and the local cops visiting regularly and putting in an armed guard for the nights also. 

In India, just lodging a complaint is a Herculean task. A victim going to a police station is already under severe stress. Then, there is utter insensitivity at the Police station which treats him as the problem and a nuisance. The default option of the Police officer is to prove that the complaint is false. At the end of the experience, the complainant feels more like the accused than the victim. Then, there are those interminable summons to the Police station on the pretext of recording of statements, examination by supervising officers, and so on. 

If we take ourselves away from the colonial mindset and think of Policing as a service, what would we focus on? A victim of a crime is less interested in the detection than in someone promptly attending to his distress call or his complaint. Just the fact that people in uniform land up at the scene of crime and start investigation quickly reassures him and his neighbourhood. We should concentrate on that and on how to minimise the inconvenience to the victim. That would mean recording the complaint at the scene of crime and taking all other steps like recording the statements, seizures, examination of witnesses, identifications, etc. all in one go and at one place. One-stop policing, in a nutshell. 

A member in my IIMB alumni group once contacted me. He had started a high-end café and the business was picking up. There was a burglary in the café and he lodged a complaint. There was no peace for him thereafter. Every day, the Police station started summoning his key personnel so that the café came to a standstill. In his desperation, he approached the SHO for withdrawing/ closing the case but the demand for doing so was so extortionate that he was cursing his “misadventure” in lodging a police complaint in the first place. He contacted me in utter desperation and was most grateful just because I helped him in closing the case. Imagine! With this kind of extreme victimisation of the victim himself, what legitimacy can the Police have? Is there a way out? Yes, very much. All cases should be reviewed on a monthly basis and there should be no non-Special Report cases pending for more than three months. This is easy to achieve. In case a case has been closed due to lack of evidence, it can be revived later if fresh evidence is forthcoming. 

Every single day, we wake up to news that such and such person has been denied bail on flimsy grounds. Even though he was arrested on cooked-up charges. That is between the Courts and the arrested person. Police can’t so anything about it. What the Police can do is, avoid wrongful arrest. How? Penalise it. 

Unlike in the US and elsewhere, there is no penalty mandated for wrongful arrest in India and the police and the politicians have had a free pass to do a lot of reprehensible things for too long, taking advantage of this. The cop leadership can do it internally and mete out exemplary punishment. The SP or DCP knows when a wrongful arrest has happened. Instead of turning a blind eye to it or starting a Departmental Enquiry, he can arrest the offender and put him behind bars. In a Police lock-up. I did just that when I was SP so I know how extraordinarily effective that is, to restore public confidence in “the system.”