The Juvenile Manifesto

The future of this country should be decided by the youth.

Where are they?

The recent protests of the young against sexual violence and corruption raised much hope. Do you remember their faces now? Have the young masses gone home happy with quick-fix solutions like fast-track courts, commissions, ordinances or Lokpal Bill?

The year is 2013 but it could be 1913 or 1813. Old faces rule with old principles and old systems. It is not clear if the youth of today want anything more than a good job, comfortable standard of living, sufficient security and half-decent governance. If that is all that they need, society can trudge forward with the system created by the old of yesteryears.

Instead, do they have new ideas to change the future of this country?

Do they have ideas that sound juvenile?

When Spartacus rose with an army of slaves, his purpose must have seemed juvenile even to the enslaved. When workers clashed with the bourgeois in class struggles, were they not dismissed at first as juvenile? A fine social reformer suggested about a century back that there is ‘one God, one religion and one caste for man’. He said that no two people could have the same God, but added that any faith and the underlying principles would be the same. People prefer to make such thinkers a god and use their thoughts for nothing but fine speeches. And, let the idea remain unaccepted. People prefer to be with little faith and few principles, ready to think that their God cannot bear criticism or insult from without. Most find the idea too disturbing, too simple and too juvenile to accept.

Every struggle and every change has its roots in some juvenile but logical thought which gained respectability only much later, sometimes never.

What is the Juvenile Manifesto of the youth of today?

I am too old to be young but I am young enough to be juvenile. I know that my thoughts are not profound and that they will not cause a paradigm shift. Even if it is a fool who starts a discussion, the discussion need not be foolish. So, let me voice some of my juvenile thoughts while I wait for the young to rise. 

Democracy:

·         Fact: There are too many old male politicians.

Let us change that.

·         50% of politicians at every level (the Center, the State and even the panchayats) should be reserved for those below the age of 55.

·         50% of politicians at every level should be women.

This has to be followed by every political party contesting elections. Hopefully, with time, it will get reflected in the final composition of elected bodies too. In due course, it might even cure society of the ills caused by excessive male chauvinism.

·         Fact: The current system of elections is mostly decided on the basis of religion, caste and class.

It is a pseudo-democracy if it seems like a fixed match. Democracy is supposed to be of the people, for the people and by the people; but, in a pseudo-democracy, we get something short of that: of some majority, for some majority and by some majority. How do we change that?

·         Let each political party decide its candidates and their own political manifesto. But, let the Election Commission decide the candidate’s constituency by a lottery system.

Politicians are after all supposed to be true leaders and not just leaders of a particular segment of society. Even with the current system, politicians once elected represent all and they work as MPs or Ministers for all. Then, it seems logical that politicians should be ready to represent any group even before election. Wouldn’t it be lovely if communist leaders have to seek votes in traditionally non-communist states; or if Narendra Modi, Mamata Banerjee, Mayawati, Rahul Gandhi and the Thackerays have to stand for election in Trivandrum, Bangalore, Jaipur, Chennai and Patna respectively? Brahmin, Tamilian, forward caste/class, Jat, OBC, Bengali, Dalit, Bihari, Muslim, Punjabi, Christian, the middle-class, Marathi and every other section of society will then have to vote for a leader from outside their own comfort group. This might make the disenchanted and the ignored curious enough to cast their vote for change. Then, politicians might talk about what society needs rather than what society likes to hear, if they hear at all.

V.I.P.:

·         Fact: We still hang on to the stupid policy of considering some to be more important than others, even though this is the twenty-first century.

·         Fact: Politicians and government officials seem to need police escort and diesel-guzzling SUVs. It seems that they cannot go to office like others. When their job demands travel, small and fuel-efficient cars do not seem to be sufficient.

·         Fact: Some need wasteful and terribly expensive security. The death of a common hawker does not seem to be as important as the death of a famous personality. In a country with more than a billion people, there seems to be a dearth of politicians or public figures. It does not seem sufficient if equal and ample security is given to every citizen.

The way forward and the solutions seem clear. But even the common masses seem to be stuck in some time-warp, ever-willing to line streets, wave flags and cheer their elected representatives as if they are royalty of some bygone era.

Taxes:

·         Fact: In ancient days, rulers were allowed to collect taxes to live luxuriously and to rule the land and people according to their whim and fancy. In modern society, every penny of tax collected should be for the benefit of the country and not select individuals.

·         Fact: It is not clear how much of tax collected is properly utilized for the benefit of the taxpayer or allowed to trickle down to the poor and the needy. There is corruption. There is wasteful spending. There are people misusing subsidies.

In countries like India, with a high proportion of disgruntled taxpayers and happy crooks, the government should plug the holes in the piggybank before putting in more coins.

·         Before increasing tax on any segment of society, reduce unnecessary spending.

Though it might seem like being penny-wise and pound-foolish, it should be the duty of every modern government to reduce unnecessary and wasteful expenditure before increasing taxes. Consider the developed European country which plans to impose 75% tax on the rich. It is rather ironic that taxpayers pay about two billion dollars (if my Google search can be believed) to cover the expenses of that country’s socialist President’s office. The President of India takes home a monthly salary of hundred and fifty thousand rupees. The actual expenditure in keeping that official position is many times that amount. It is the same story with every politician and most high-ranking government officials. It is even considered improper to question the system within the armed services even though it might resemble some colonial era rather than a modern egalitarian society.

·         These days, it is fashionable and even proper to talk about higher tax rates for the rich.

A respected Indian businessman has recently supported the plan to increase taxes on the rich. He says that the spending of the rich is appalling and that it would be better if they are taxed to bridge the divide between the rich and the poor. That suits that businessman because it does not affect his frugal ways. But he has no right to impose his frugal ways on others. The right to choose one’s living and expenditure is more important than any saintly penitence.

·         Before increasing taxes on the rich, explore all other avenues to increase revenue.

Sell lottery tickets to collect cash for welfare schemes (Kerala government does that); encourage gambling industry for foreigners and the rich (if I am not mistaken, Sri Lanka promotes gambling industry for foreign passport holders); encourage the trade of exotic derivative products amongst the rich (like clever investment banks that survive well, the government should facilitate such trades and collect fees without taking risky bets themselves); encourage consumer spending of the rich; and, the list can go on with even better schemes to increase revenue.

·         In modern societies, high tax rates are effective only where people are happy to pay high taxes. For example, northern European countries seem to be happy with high tax rates because the available benefits are visible and the expenditure by the state is transparent.

Tax should be the last resort of a government in need of money. Before taxing citizens, try every legal way to increase revenue and reduce spending. In fact, leaving money untaxed in the hands of citizens might encourage entrepreneurial spirit and increased revenues. (Disclaimer: I used to be part of the middle class but with recent inflation, I am steadily moving towards the non-taxpaying lower class. Taxes bother me mainly as a matter of principle.)

Free choice & Standard of Life:

What type of world will the youth inherit? What type of future will they build for their children? Going by current trends, they will not be able to do much.

·         Smoking, drinking, parties, junk food and such activities will have to go.

·         Sex will once again be a dirty word and rationed conservatively.

·         Creative artists will not be able to offend anyone. Ideas that disturb others will be banned. Can you write a book or make a movie or sing a song without disturbing someone?

·         Freedom of speech and expression will be a very subjective issue. It will be fine for political organizations to shut down cities as and when they feel like it. The taxpayer will have to pay for the damage they cause.

·         There will be wooly-headed swamis to follow. Religious leaders will continue to educate masses that religion is not just a personal affair but a first class public exhibit.

·         Water, fuel and power will be scarce. Smoking and alcohol will be considered bad and face discriminatory tax but not congestion causing traffic. Cities will have highways and high-rises but remain without trees or waste-disposal plants. Traffic rules will become stringent and illegal parking will receive hefty fines but there will not be any car-parking centers.

·         Internet will be for very correct social networking rather than be a platform for largely anonymous free exchange of ideas. Loose friendships, connections and links and meaningless updates will have more meaning than ideas.

·         News will continue to be just conjecture and fanciful opinion rather than a report of events. It will be fine to take matter out of context and blow an issue out of proportion.

·         And, of course, Big Brother will scan and monitor every action, every byte and every thought.  

Is that the future the youth want? If they do not rise against censorship and thought control, they will soon be brain-dead.

Reforms & King makers:

·         Recently, the Planning Commission put forward a proposal to offer lucrative stints for top Indian scientists working abroad. A scientist correctly pointed out that it was a flawed plan, “The selection would be dictated by a clique controlling the operations. What happens here is that there are king makers who consider themselves experts in everything.” (http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-kerala/sudarshan-against-plan-panel-proposal/article4338764.ece)

Have these king makers done enough to make education and research institutions in the country capable of creating teachers and producing world-class research on their own? My Ph.D. supervisor referred to these king makers as ‘old goofies’.

·         India loves panels with ‘old goofies’.

When there is talk of corruption, what is usually put forward as the best suggestion? A retired judge in placed in charge of the investigation; or, a new office is created with supposedly eminent, retired people.

·         Retired people deserve respect for what they have done but they should not have any role in government institutions after retirement. Exceptions should be made only for those with a caliber that is rarest of the rare.

·         If their expertise and know-how are to be utilized properly and profitably, let it be in the private sector which is less likely to mollycoddle them.

Apart from being past their prime, there are other reasons not to involve them in matters involving taxpayers’ money. Three obvious reasons are: most often they have a false sense of infallibility; most live with the dangerous belief that they have nothing much to lose in the time left; and, they usually have a dangerous sycophantic following or coterie or feudal system around them. That is less likely with the youth.

·         Currently, reforms are decided by panels of experts with a clear conflict of interest. Most sensible reforms would reduce their importance and increase their workload.

How can scientific institutions be reformed if the panel involves mainly the king makers in science? How can we believe in judicial reforms formulated by a panel of legal practitioners, that is, judges and lawyers? Will judges and lawyers allow an impartial external system look into grievances about judicial officers and cases?

·         Panels should have sufficient multidisciplinary representation so as to break down any nexus of king makers in that field.

Panels and councils of ministers might function better if they had a proper mixture of the young and the old, of men and women…I am back to square one, I think. My list of juvenile thoughts can go on. What are yours? Till the youth of this country come out with their Juvenile Manifesto, I can only ask:

who cares?