That's me money # 1

The Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan Singh, is a man I generally hold in high regard, regardless of what I think of the effectiveness of his government or of his party's ideology. But a rash and stupid statement by him today has made me really rethink about my views and made me ponder if I should call him Dr. Manmoron Singh instead, as I've read in some other blogs.

Read about how Dr. Singh is offering to 'fly in doctors' to treat a 95 year old man who is probably single handedly responsible for transforming West Bengal from a highly effective, competitive and industrialized state to an economically and socially 'sick' state today. Tell me, Dr. Singh, who will pay for this treatment? Don't you think it is a bit rash on your side to commit millions of taxpayers' money for what is near certainly a lost cause? If you feel that strongly about it, why not spend your own money? Maybe some of the prize money that your daughter won will help to contribute to Jyoti Basu's wellbeing.

Have you no shame, Dr. Singh?

Yes, hon'ble minister

One (of the many) of the things that does get my gall up is the fact that elected representatives in India, such as MPs and the like are addressed by the prefix 'Honourable', usually shortened in print to Hon'ble. I cannot reconcile as to why this is. It is obviously some sort of colonial hangover madness, akin to lawyers being dressed in ridiculous outfits. Can you imagine having to wear that silly black outfit in a place like Madras in the heat of summer? No wonder they start beating up all and sundry!

Definitely, there's nothing honorable in India about being a member of Parliament. Many have criminal backgrounds. In spite of being fully aware that the cost of running the Lok Sabha for 1 minute is enough money to feed a family of 4 in rural India for half a year, few choose to attend Parliament. Bills get signed into law with hardly any deliberation or debate. Especially when it comes to rewarding themselves. Taxpayers like you and I are now paying for the air travel of such 'honorable' folks and their entire extended medical family. Outraged? Read about it here.

The Indian code prohibits any sort of titles bestowed by a foreign power. Hence, we do not see any Indian citizens being knighted and the like. While this is admirable in the fact that we do not want to seem to be under the colonial thumb by lending credence to their silly titles, why adopt a half-hearted approach and provide such elected representatives a title?

And of course, lest I forget, this does extend to members of the legislative assembly as well.

Gubernatorial chutzpah

You've probably heard or read of the sensational sex scandal that's hit the headlines this morning. 84 year old, Governor of Andhra Pradesh, N.D. Tiwari being caught on tape cavorting in bed with 3 lovely luscious ladies.

You can watch the YouTube version here. There are shorter versions on YouTube, one actually posted by someone called 'pornvideozone'.



I must say, I'm inclined to tip me hat to him. For the following reasons:

• Sex with a beautiful woman - regardless of whether you're paying for it or not - is a nice thing to have. To get it on with 3 women at the same time is definitely beyond any straight man's fantasy. But to do that at age 84, is simply extraordinary!
• Assuming this is true, he probably did not even have to pay for the women. Most likely, it's the tax-paying suckers (yes, mate, you and I again) who were stiffed (pun intentional).
• And suckering poor Ms. Radhika into believing you'd grant her a mining license takes the cake.

Too bad you've got caught out, Mr. Tiwari. Of course, politicians and sex scandals are nothing new or noteworthy. But are excellent fodder for tabloid gossip.

It's probably bad enough even to visualize in your mind but the actual video of an 84-year old man lying semi-comatose while being fondled by 3 really lovely ladies is definitely not something you want to see while slurping down your cereal (bad timing by the news channel, I'd say). But that apart, why bother if someone pays money if they want sexual pleasure? As long as of course it isn't taxpayers' money. That does piss me off. Apart from that, is this guy not allowed to use 'hired help' to get what he wants? Of course, prostitution is illegal in India and given that he shouldn't have done it. However given that Ms. Radhika 'supplied' him the girls, it's probably not even illegal given that there's no proven financial transaction that's occurred. But then criminalizing prostitution is another archaic law that I do not see the value of. Even the supreme court has suggested it. Read about that here.

It's a bad mess you've gotten yourself into, Mr. Tiwari. My sympathies lie with you. Just so long as you pay from your own pocket.

Compulsory voting?

I am a big fan of democracy. Of course, alternative forms of government have their own merits. Usually, the entertainment value of a monarchy is incredible. But let's park that aside for now.

We technically are 'the world's largest democracy'. Only largest because we've got over a billion folks. Certainly not the world's best or most effective or most legitimate. But maybe it is better than our neighbors to the north.

I've been reading that Narendra Modi of Gujarat CM fame is trying to make voting compulsory in Gujarat. Hmm. I've mulled over this for a bit. For too long have ordinary citizens complained that 'Gorment is useless. What good will voting do?'. And I do share some of their skepticism. Also, given the fact that good candidates are usually hard to come by, is it any use voting for just another elected representative? But then, I also believe that it is much easier to complain rather than to do something about it. If we really are seeking change, shouldn't we initiate the same? Shouldn't we actually try to become part of the whole political process? And where better to start than to actually go out and vote.

But the government forcing us to vote also seems rather a contradictory stance in a democracy. Honestly, I believe government shouldn't be telling us what to do or what not to do. Like telling us if we can dance in nightclubs or not. Or if women can drink beer at a pub in Mangalore. Sorry, Mr. Muthalik, but that's none of your business, either. If a citizen chooses not to vote, s/he must be given that option as well. Of course, I'd expect that they then shut up about the whole process and not complain. Just pay your taxes and be done with it.

I do know that in places where voting has been made compulsory (usually if you don't vote, you end up paying a fine), voter turnouts have been boosted. Whether that has made a difference to the quality of candidates or government remains to be seen.

It'd be interesting to see what would happen if voting were made compulsory in urban centers of India. For a fact, most of the upper middle-class and the affluent couldn't be bothered to vote. It's either too hot, or too rainy, or too damned long a line. And the cynicism that no government would cater to their needs also is a leading cause of their indifference to the whole electoral process. I mean, yeah, I'll give you free electricity, but only if you're poor and don't pay any taxes. And I'll keep the prices of kerosene low, so that the people who pay taxes can pay more for their petrol.

It's an interesting conundrum. If the middle-class were forced to vote, would our politicians be forced to consider what they can do for them? Like improving public transport? (Or actually building one where it fails to exist?) And if the we know that they'll be so many people of a hitherto largely untapped economic demographic will that be a factor in more (better?) people contesting elections? If I know that 80% of the South Bangalore constituents will be voting, and knowing that I can reach out to the 50% of them who are my 'electoral base', will the fact that 40% of the voters might be inclined to vote for me cause me to stand for elections? Because, I know what that 40% wants. Better urban infrastructure. Period. They couldn't be bothered with subsidized electricity or kerosene. Again, very interesting.

I'm still sitting on the fence on this one. Inclined to move towards compulsory voting, but my left-leaning liberal views cause a visceral reaction in me whenever the government forces me to do anything. Maybe compulsory voting with negative voting allowed would be a nice one. Hah!

Toiletgate?

Have you read about how the Public Works' Department (PWD) in Bangalore has spent staggering sums of money in doing up the toilets (yes, toilets) for various places in Karnataka? Read about it at the TOI website (link here).

Yes, everyone likes to take a shit now and then. And they'd rather in a nice and clean place than in a toilet like the one in Trainspotting. But in a state where 72 percent of the rural folks have no access to even a basic toilet, how does the government justify spending millions of taxpayers' money (yes, that's money from suckers like you and I) on building ultra-posh toilets? Led from the front by our honorable Chief Minister, I suppose. Who incidentally was actually topped in this pissing competition (pun unintended) by a lowly college professor. Surely, you know how much we've paid for renovating Yeddy's private residence?

P.S.: Usually I hate it when some rather uncreative journo resorts to appending 'gate' to any piece of news. Unfortunately, Toiletgate is the first thought that came to mine. Bizzarely, Google has over 26,000 results for 'Toiletgate'. My favorite is Nipplegate, though.

Is that all you want, more direct taxes? And would you like chips with that?

One of the things that I like to do on a dull day at work is scan the news. Google News is incredibly useful for someone who is a news junkie like I. Today, was a hectic day at work though. But I did indulge in some post-lunch browsing. Gotta get my fix.

One of the things that caught my eye was the Fin-Min proposing to tax the perks on the salaried class. Seriously, Mr. Mukherjee? I, along with millions of other usually honest, mostly hard-working people who might be eligible for any sort of official perks in this country pay 34% or more direct taxes already. Yet, we get little or nothing as direct and tangible benefits for parting with our money. And you have the gall to ask for more! You're lucky I don't have a soup ladle.

And tell me, Mr. Mukherjee, you being a minister in the government, and all. Surely, you must be having one of them official cars. And a lovely house. And servants, peons and the like. Will you consider that as 'perks' and levy this same tax on it as well? Or will you exempt yourself and your brethren and tax only the people who actually create value in this country?