Floating bodies and floods

“Oh, you have floods every year with millions of refugees.” “In India, dead bodies float in the rivers.” “How can you talk about democracy when your military has massacred Kashmiris every day for the last 70 years.” “You don’t work at all because all you are interested in is the next life.”

We have to hear things like this all the time in France. Well, they are true, aren’t they? That depends on what you mean by truth. If you ask whether these things happen, then the answer is that they do. India has floods, there are often reports of dead bodies in sacred rivers, and of killings, rape, and torture by the armed forces in Kashmir. And rebirth is a part of Hinduism.

However, if truth means anecdotal evidence or representations of some larger truth, then where do these facts fit? Do they explain India? If there is more to a country of 1.1 billion than ugliness and irrationality. (I cannot understand why rebirth is irrational while heaven and hell are sane – but then I’m an atheist.)  Why do Westerners and Arabs go on and on about how backward and ugly India is to Indians who are their equals in every way? Does it never strike them that if all that there was to India was poverty and depravity, the Indians they are talking to couldn’t have existed?

Will a Frenchman believe that all Americans are 7-foot-tall? If not, why does he believe that all girls in India are destroyed in the foetus? More interestingly, what does he get by believing it?

Brains leaking

In an article titled, Rahul Gandhi warned U.S. of growth of extremist Hindu groups: WikiLeaks on leaked cables from American diplomats in India published by WikiLeaks, the Hindu writes: "Their (American diplomats') view of Indian politicians is variable, however. The failure of Sonia Gandhi, who chairs the ruling United Progressive Alliance coalition, to overcome opposition to a nuclear power agreement is criticised heavily.

A deal would see, the U.S. diplomats said, a big boost for clean energy in India and a market worth $150bn for American companies. 'Mrs Gandhi never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity,' one cable sent in November 2007 said."

There is something very disturbing about this, a typical sample of what's been coming out in the press thanks to the WikiLeaks. It's the childishness of the remarks. 'Mrs Gandhi never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity… 'raucous democracy' of India… "If you want to end malaria you have to get rid of the swamp," the Indian national security adviser told the FBI director last year.

The picture that emerges from embassies and government offices across the world is not of sage statesmen or sly scoundrels, but of mediocre people who haven't outgrown the editorship their class magazines. Too clever by half, yet unwilling or unable to cope with complexities, and seeking comfort in cynicism. Was diplomacy and international relations always like this?

Broken families and rich individuals

In the video RSA Animate - Crises of Capitalism, David Harvey, a Marxist says that the present crisis has everything to do with fall in real income per family in the Western world; in this one, Crisis of Capitalism, The Critique,  someone debunks Harvey by pointing out that income per capita has increased and that the fall in income per family is simply because there are more families now, that is, if a population of 100 were split into 25 families of average size 4 (persons per family) 30 years ago, now that same population is divided into, say, 50 families of average size 2.

I have heard the same explanation from the Kublai Khan of capitalism, Jack Welch.

It looks too easy to be right.

First, where is the data? Let’s say fewer people are getting married in the West these days. Does that also mean that the size or nature of the family unit, on average, has changed drastically?

Second, if the income per family has dropped, why should one not worry about it? Doesn’t the amount a person spends, and saves, depend enormously on whether he or she is in a family?

Just take rent or mortgage. Suppose a family of four spends x by living under one roof (average spend per person = 0.25x); and a pair of divorced parents with the two children living with their mother spend 1.2x (father’s rent = 0.4x; mother and children’s rent = 0.8x; average spend per person = 0.3x, 20% more than the average for a 4-member family). Does that not make a significant difference?

Plus, the mother’s income may be less than her married counterpart’s because she has more on her plate (no-one to share her load with).

The father, on the other hand, may be spending more on conspicuous consumption than his married counterpart does.

In fact, both parents may be spending more on sex (wining, dining, gifting, grooming to entice mates, or straight cash) than they would have had they been in a family, where sex it is essentially a bonus (free gift?) of family life.

And while married parents (or parents who operate as a family in spite of not being married) may save to provide for the future, parents who do not operate as a family may, for financial and psychological reasons, save little.  

I mean, the word income has very different meaning when applied to a person than when it is applied to a company (where it means profit). So why don’t Western commentators take that into account?

Public sector hotels and private hospitals

What are more important, hotels or hospitals? I’d say hospitals. But the government, which is supposedly incapable of efficiency or honesty, should be in defence, education and health and leave everything else to the private sector, whereby market forces will ensure efficiency and fairness.

But if we had to choose, wouldn’t we take efficient hospitals over efficient hotels every time?

Well, we use hotels every year, but hospitals very seldom. So maybe… Besides, if I die, it won’t matter if the operation succeeded or not. But I will probably survive dinner and so it does matter that it is good.

Anyway, Nehru was a fool. that much is sure. So if he got the satte into anything, it shouldn’t have been there. Because no fool can do wise things.

It doesn’t matter where India started from. It doesn’t matter where it reached under him and how much his daughter and grandson screwed up. It doesn’t matter that there are no parallels with which we can make a comparison. If India 1962 wasn’t UK 1962 or even China 2010, Nehru’s stupidity is self-evident.

The point isn’t whether Nehru was a fool or not. The point is getting the diagnosis right, because while Nehru is dead, I’m alive, and my future depends on fixing what’s wrong, not propaganda.

Western Democracy?

Salazar, Franco, Mussolini, Zog, Metaxas, Horthy, Piłsudski, Antonescu, Hitler, Dollfuss, Stalin... plus two enormous empires, French and British, with zero rights for darkies and yellows. So what is the democracy we must learn from them? 

Hindus won in India

Subramanium Swamy says here that Hindus did not lose to Muslims because in spite of 1,000 years of Muslim rule, India is still 80% Hindu. He also says Indian heritage is mainly Hindu. 

First, you’d need a very special reading of history to get those 1,ooo years because it forgets all Hindu and Sikh kingdoms existent when the British created their Indian empire. Those 1,000 years should be in mad heads like Zaid Hamid’s and Pravin Tagodia’s. Strangely, it is in almost all our heads’. In this video, a medieval historian repeats it, and I suppose he is typical. I have heard it more times than I can count.

Second, Dr Swamy gets his demographics wrong, which is strange and perhaps not an altogether innocent mistake considering he teaches economics. While my country is 4/5 Hindu, the Indian subcontinent (India + Pakistan + Bangladesh) is 3/5 Muslim. So, Hindus can still be ‘congratulated’, if they must be, but the ‘margin’ doesn’t look so impressive any more.

If we could wish away religion, I wouldn’t care about the margin either ways. We can’t. Also, we cannot wish away the role of religion in shaping our thinking, even if we may be atheists. 

Which means whether it is 4/5 or 3/5 perhaps does matter in understanding ourselves. To use Indian as synonymous for Hindu is not only dangerous but stupid (unless one is doing it deliberately to incite hate).

I would be very surprised if you found only Hindu beliefs if you somehow dag into my mind; and not at all surprised if you found Muslim and Christian beliefs as well.  If our language, clothes, architecture and food were ‘polluted’, should we not expect that our minds were polluted too?

I am not saying Hindu-Muslim bhai-bhai or that the Christian English civilised us or that everyone except Communist historians are communalists . I am saying we Indians have at least three religions in our heads. That’s all.

But do Swamy & Co mean that since Hinduism has been around much longer than Islam and Christianity, India is mainly Hindu? By that logic, Western Europe must look for all answers in Athens and Rome and none in Jerusalem. And Indonesia, Thailand and Cambodia must find their history in Ajodhya. Can they?    

One word definition

India = corrupt; China = communism; Africa = cannibals; Muslims = terrorists. 

How far do we want to go with definitions like this? “These people don’t integrate.” How will they? People integrate with people. Words can’t.

And by the way, do you integrate? Or do you live by yourself, in white expat communities. And believe wholeheartedly that you should not be subject to laws of brown people’s countries.

Let’s get human, man. Please.    

Palestines and Poles

When one read the FT’s reports and editorials on Israel’s attack on the high seas on the Turkish ships headed for Gaza, one is reminded of another mercy mission to a besieged population: The airdrop of arms and supplies to Warsaw when the city rose against the Nazis in the final months of the Second World War.

The Red Army was, as every Western commentator faithfully repeats, at the doorsteps of city, but did nothing to help the Poles. Nor did it allow the Americans and English to use airfields under its control to drop supplies.

In fact, one account has a Red fighter attacking an English plane, flying all the way from Africa to help the Poles.

The obvious is never mentioned. Like, being on the doors of a city is not the same as having it. Now knew the difference better than the Reds. The Nazis were on the doors of Leningrad for 900 days. And were kept out of Moscow and Stalingrad too.

Like, the Russians were at the end of their tether and were in no position to attack an entrenched German citadel.

Like, they had refused help to the Poles before they rose.

Like, everyone knew those airdrops were worth only propaganda, which the Russians could not have wanted.

Like, no matter how despotic and terrible Stalin & Co were morally, they were militarily right on this one.

The parallels with Gaza are obvious (the Reds are the Israelis, Hamas the Nazis, the Palestines are the Poles and the English speaking nations, Turks), except the ready sympathy and pragmatism the Israelis enjoy has been conspicuous by its absence on Warsaw over the last 70 years.

Why are the Greeks protesting?

Daddy’s partners have done him in. So daddy has two options. Declare bankruptcy, and perhaps never get another chance, or to pay off his debts, penny by penny, through hard work and harder living.

He chooses the latter. This means no more chauffeured cars and new clothes for you, but it does mean you will grow up in honour and when you enter the cruel world, you will not be burdened with a stigma.

If you are good boy, you bring your little toys to daddy and ask him to sell them off. And he’ll weep and kiss you. And go back to his backbreaking labours. And you’ll never never complain.

But the Greeks are complaining. Why?

Perhaps because there is more to it than meets the eye.

The Greeks must be thrown out of the EU to teach them and the other PIIGS a lesson they’ll never forget. Very well.

Liar Liar
Pants on fire
Your nose is longer that a telephone wire

But what were they doing in the EU in the first place if they were such a financial risk? If the Greeks were pulling figures out of their hats, did no one notice that those figures belied reality? If yes, European economists are not fit to be described as such. If no, then Germany and France deliberately turned a Nelson’s eye to skullduggery and the rest.

Why? Some say it was because they needed growth figures ‘maturing’ economies could ‘credibly’ provide the EU. In which case, there must have been an pact, explicit or implicit, that when the bubble bursts (inevitable), there would be no punishment.

The Greeks don’t see the other side of the pact being kept, and are understandably furious.

So why is Merkel being so difficult? A godfather who doesn’t take care of his jailed hoodlums’ families will soon find himself in trouble. Why does the Chancellor of Germany not get that simple thing?

Well, one reason can be that the indignation could be window dressing for domestic consumption. The other could be that the Greeks, like the Icelanders, over stepped. The latter took Englishmen for a ride. Surely Tony wasn’t going to put up with that. Maybe the Greeks were over-naughty too.

But who has the bigger economy?

“This Chinese girl says, ‘China will come apart if we have democracy.’ But India is a democracy, and probably far more diverse then China. In spite of our many separatist movements, we have managed to find solutions without breaking up.”

“But, help me on this, who is economically better off?”

“They are, undoubtedly. But many democracies in the West have much higher per-capita incomes than the Chinese. Besides, why should there be a trade-off? Would you agree to a trade-off in England?”

Unsaid: “Don’t be silly. How can you compare Chinese and Indians to white men? We can have democracy and good economies; you can’t. You have to choose.

And while we worship in the church of free trade, our high priest and intellectual forefather is Marx. As he proved, only money matters. So make some money, you beggar, before you open your mouth about sacred ideas like democracy.

At the end of the day (as in its beginning and high noon) men live by bread alone, more so if he is yellow, black or brown.”

Unsaid on my part: “There may be more democracy in certain countries than outsiders think. In fact, those unanimous votes may be targeted at outsiders.

If you know that your opposite party in a negotiation is over eager to exploit any disagreement within your ranks, what would you do? Surely, you will work out compromises internally and present an united front.

It may be the same with China and some Arab countries.

When the usual causes of change (elections, free press) are absent, we must play sleuth every time something changes.

Remember, the market is free because customers can vote with their feet. You don’t always need secret ballots.”  

Progress or democracy?

On the day (April 7 2010) FT reported Naxals had killed more than six dozen soldiers in Jharkhand, it ran a piece titled Progress and democracy collide in India by David Pilling. It was a shoddy piece which said no more that what readers could easily find out by Googling.

The title was the worst part.

How is taking away aboriginal land for mines without consent or compensation ‘progress’? If the government is forced to rethink on such evictions, why is that a  collision between democracy and progress? Cannot progress happen with a fair deal?

Singur is repeated ad nauseam. Does anyone in the West, or even in India, bother to explain what the rabble who threw away the gift of industrialisation from the heavenly Tatas want?

I am not saying the farmers were right. I am not saying the Tatas and the state government were wrong. I am not saying the farmers would have acted as they did even if Mamata Bannerjee & Co hadn’t muddied waters. I’m saying readers don’t know what happened and commentators cannot keep on repeating Singur without telling them.  

Or must capitalism take the form of slavery in the Third World? And anything remotely different should be condemned as indulgence in the luxury of democracy, one brown and black people cannot afford.   

Far away, in a strange land

Yesterday, I was listening to Dinesh D'Souza (DD) debating whether Socialism is still Relevant. DD is all free market, of course, and probably got there by growing up in’ soft socialist India’.

Among other things, socialism kills freedom of press. How? Well, in India (the debate was in 1990 or thereabouts), the government owned the TV channels and was the major advertiser in press, besides being the monopoly supplier of newsprint (all of which was imported from Canada). Naturally, it showed only ministers on TV. Predictably, the press, though theoretically free, toed the government line.

Or so DD says.

Is he right? I don’t know. I haven’t got any data except my own experience. My memory says that both the Anand Bazaar and The Telegraph, the two newspapers we took, lost no opportunity of criticising either state or central governments. They had plenty of private sector advertisers to rely on.

And there were quite a few news programmes critical of the government on TV.

But my memory doesn’t matter. What mattered was DD’s audience’s gullibility.

Did anyone ask how the Congress had lost power in Delhi in 1989 if it decided what the public knew. Or how there were Congress governments in states in spite of the party being out of power in the centre. Did anyone go home and check? Did anyone ask an Indian acquaintance or write to the embassy? Did anyone know anything about the case DD was holding up as proof (actually, ridiculing) of the evil of socialism?

I don’t imagine anyone bothered. DD said it was so. He had grown up in India. Surely he was right. Had he not been, Indians couldn’t have been so poor.

We have 7 billion caricatures around, and ideologies and propagandists use us as to prove anything.

Why not Marathi for CEOs?

Chief Minister Chauvan has made it mandatory for Bombay cabbies to pass a Marathi test. Why not make that test compulsory for all Indian immigrants to Bombay? Or take it a step further. Make it compulsory for foreigners who want to do business there. Surely they will only gain by learning Marathi.

Chauvan needs to wake up, fast. And get real. 

My ears have gone sore hearing about the income tax Bombay pays to India. Let India boycott goods made by companies headquartered in Bombay for half an hour. That’ll tell them where that income, so cruelly and ungratefully taxed, comes from.

Minarets in Switzerland

This poster was part of a national campaign in Switzerland, leading to a referendum on whether minarets should be banned. 3 in 5 Swiss voted for a ban.

Direct? Yes. Democracy? No. Dangerous? The Swiss, with a cross on their flag, must be cuckoo to send out a message as communal as this.

PS: Neither of my three Muslim women classmates observe purdah, though one wears the hijab. Wonder how many Muslim ladies in Switzerland observe the purdah. More importantly, why are some Swiss so bothered about what other Swiss wear? I thought only religious fundamentalists bothered about those things, not secular citizens.

PPS: Sarkozy, in a front-page editorial in Le Monde, said, "Instead of condemning the Swiss, we should try to understand what they meant to express and what so many people in Europe feel, including people in France. Nothing could be worse than denial."

Well, I can think of one thing that's worse. Not condemning the Swiss for gross religious rights violation. Why should understanding them prevent anyone from condemning them? If a policeman understands why a thief is stealing, does he have to let the crime continue?

PPPS: On 15 December, Haig Simonian wrote in the FT (in an article titled Swiss way of life no longer offers passport to harmony), "Last month's referendum to ban minarets was a classic own goal: the country only has four such buildings, and the small and unzealous Muslim community is hardly clamouring for more." (Emphasis mine.) The author is well-meaning, but either completely ignorant or unconsciously racist. Otherwise why does he think only zealous Muslims want minarets in their mosques? Do you have to be a fundamentalist Christian to have a belfry in your church?

Still more: On 16^th December, this letter appeared in the FT. I have highlighted the portions I want to discuss: " Sir, Haig Simonian eloquently analyses some of the problems that Switzerland has recently grappled with, including the "own goal" of the recent ban on minaret construction ("Swiss way of life no longer offers passport to harmony", December 15).

Politicians and commentators across Europe and beyond have widely bashed the Swiss for taking the decision, which is indeed regrettable and inconsistent with the long-standing humanitarian values of our country. Muslim leaders have also condemned the Swiss verdict, despite incomparably more constraint personal and religious freedoms in their own countries.

However, rather than a weakness of our political system, as Mr Simonian argues, I think that voters having a chance to express their frustrations – whatever they may be – should be seen as a strength. We may not like the outcome and some damage to Switzerland's image may have been done, but at least Swiss voters feel that their views are taken seriously and actually make an impact, even if giving the government a massive headache.

In the longer term, it may well prove healthier and more productive to discuss openly and address anti-Muslim feelings rather than deny they may be present in a large part of the population, as is the practice in most of Europe.

Longer-term social harmony does not mean always just being nice to each other, but instead occasionally requires addressing any ill feelings, however embarrassing they may be. It was unfortunate that the discussion could take place only on the back of a regrettable decision.

However, at the risk of being called naive, I think that following a largely fair and constructive discussion, social harmony in Switzerland will ultimately be strengthened – and the minaret construction ban be scrapped.

Beat Siegenthaler, London SW11, UK

Mr Siegenthaler is surely a fellow liberal, so I do not want to be harsh to him, but two points are worth making.

First, he assumes 'anti-Muslim feelings are present in a large part of the (white) population' all over Europe. As per him, it is impossible that people may just keep their noses out of each other's lives. There has to be ill will for the 'other'. There is no smoke, but there must be a fire, because I believe there is one.

Second, he assumes that occasionally addressing ill feeling will lead to social harmony. Does it? If it does, such discussion has to be infinitely more civilised and open-minded than this indefensible ban. This ban doesn't invite dialogue; it signals the rejection of any possibility of dialogue.

Besides, is social harmony so desirable a thing that we must quarrel for it? Won't social neutrality do? Do we have to understand and appreciate each other? Can't we just let people be?

And is it not possible that my hate for a person has nothing to do with him and everything to do with me? Shouldn't I get my head checked?

Third, I'm most interested in knowing which Muslim leaders from regressive countries criticised the Swiss decision. My guess is that Mr Siegenthaler has got countries and religions muddled up. A Muslim leader in, say, UK, cannot be held responsible for lack of religious freedom in, say, Saudi Arabia, can he? In his country, UK, there is religious freedom, and he has every right to shame the Swiss for their bigotry.

Thank heavens we have elections

A professor was comparing India’s reluctance to allow foreign direct investment in retail beyond a certain limit with China’s enthusiasm for FDI. “We have elections, sir, and they don’t,” I said. He smiled and that was the end of it.

Except that I fear he thought I was among the many Indians who think democracy is holding India back. I don’t.

Votes are poor people’s currency. They are the only way they can outbid the monetarily rich and economically powerful. Those who blame politicians for doing this and that economic blunder for political reasons fail to see this simple thing.

For instance, unrestricted FDI in retail may lead to huge mega-marts, jobs and much needed efficiency in supply chains. But if they harm local groceries, they’d endanger millions of jobs, not only in retail but in tiny manufacturing units, who can never fulfil supermarkets’ orders.

Also, there is no guarantee that organised retailers will treat the farmer any better than the middlemen do. 

Also, I don’t see how organised retail can do anything for the vast majority of Indian consumers who are too poor to buy the SKUs that big stores must stock.

Even the so-called middle class cannot shop as much in a trip as its counterparts in the West do. Besides, prices of staples will be much lower than in the West (for instance, a litre of milk costs more than a euro here [in France]; it costs, at most, one-third that in India).  

Yet Western investors will have high expectations from India’s middle class, not realising that the phrase means a much ill-off population. In no time, we’ll have a royal mess. 

If votes prevent the politician from robbing Peter to pay Paul, and keeps Western investors from taking miscalculated risks, thank god we have votes.

Singur is political…

But it’s fine not to pay income tax.

It’s ok to say, “All politicians are thieves, and if they want my money to use for the general good, they are lying. I want to do my bit (give back), but I’ll do it by spending on things I want and need, with the certainty that doing so will lead to good tickling down, etc. I decide how every penny I own and earn should be used.”

“But Singur is political. If a farmer says, ‘I want my land to stay mine, and I don’t care if any company or government thinks it will help society, including me and my progeny, if it becomes a factory plot instead,’ he’s short-sighted, selfish and silly.”

“It’s perfectly fine to reason that a factory must come up near a big city primarily because no executive will work in a place without good schools nearby. It’s fascist to suggest that executives should be made to shift wherever they need to be for the long-term good of society (never mind if their own children grow up illiterate and unemployable). But farmers shouldn’t have that choice.

If one must suffer for the good of all, so be it.” 

The point isn’t whether Singur was political – and I just don’t see what’s so horrible in anything being political; it’s that if we are so hell-bent on never putting ourselves in the other person’s shoes, we shouldn’t expect any solution.

Why is the US scared of Dr Kalam?

Our ex-president was frisked while boarding a plane for the US. By way of explanation, the airline, Continental, said, “TSA (Transportation Security Administration of US Department of Homeland Security) requirements impose a final security check in the aero-bridge just before boarding the aircraft. This procedure is followed by all carriers flying to the US from most of the countries in the world and there is no exemption to this rule.”

That coloured phrase (‘most’ but not ‘all’) gives all away. Entire (white) countries can be exempted, but not India’s ex-president.

PS: The TSA put out a press release saying, “On 21 April 2009, former President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam was traveling aboard Continental Airlines flight 083 from Delhi to Newark. Dr. Kalam was required to undergo pre-board screening in accordance with the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) regulatory requirements immediately prior to boarding the aircraft. TSA requires that all passengers and their accessible property are screened for any items listed on the prohibited items list.

There are reports that the government of India has an official list of VIP’s and their spouses that are exempt from pre-board screening procedures. However, such a list does not mirror U.S. requirements for passengers that are exempted from pre-board screening when traveling aboard U.S. commercial aircraft. While traveling from an international location to the U.S. on an U.S. commercial aircraft, former Heads of State, and other VIPs, are screened according to the same screening procedures as for any other passenger. If requested, private screening can be provided.

TSA has reviewed the circumstances of Dr. Kalam’s travel and confirms that Continental Airlines implemented security measures in compliance with TSA regulations. TSA regrets any inconvenience that Dr. Kalam may have experienced as a result of our standard security requirements. TSA works closely with our international counterparts and our stakeholder air carriers to ensure a safe and secure transportation network.”

On reading this, I wrote to TSA asking exactly which regulations required Dr Kalam’s frisking. I strongly suspect they have recommendations but no regulations at all.

Here’s what they wrote back: “Thank you for your email message. 

Because this is beyond TSA jurisdiction we encourage you to contact your airline to obtain information regarding policies on this matter.

Please visit our website at www.tsa.gov for additional information about TSA.  We continue to add new information and encourage you to check the website frequently for updated information.

TSA Contact Center” (Emphasis mine)

Aren’t I glad these guys aren’t protecting me!

If Ahmadinejad won hands down why didn’t he count the votes?

Apparently, Ahmadinejad’s victory in the presidential polls in Iran was a surprise only to Western columnists, who had taken Tehran, the capital, for Iran, the country. While Ahmadinejad isn’t popular in Tehran – and didn’t get votes there – he did well everywhere else.

This fortnight’s Frontline writes, “From the outset, it was only the Western media pundits who were predicting a victory for Mousavi. There was no doubt that he swept the poll in northern Teheran and other affluent suburbs in various Iranian cities. But the majority of Iranians, who continue to be poor, obviously preferred to renew their trust in the incumbent President…

…Most of the pre-election opinion polls conducted since March showed that Ahmadinejad was a clear front runner. The only poll conducted by a Western agency, on behalf of the BBC and the NBC, predicted an 89 per cent voter turnout. The poll conducted by the independent Centre of Public Opinion (CPO), which is backed by the Rockefeller Foundation, a few weeks before the election revealed that Ahmadinejad had a nation-wide advantage of two to one against his closest rival, Mousavi.

In the actual election, the turnout was 85 per cent, with Ahmadinejad getting 66.2 per cent of the votes polled and Mousavi 33.8 per cent. The Western media mainly covered the big rallies addressed by Mousavi in Teheran and other cities. Ahmadinejad criss-crossed the country addressing hundreds of equally well-attended rallies. In the 2005 presidential election, too, Ahmadinejad got almost the same percentage of votes. His rival, Rafsanjani, secured 35 per cent of the votes.”

Some people of Tehran have made the same mistake as Western commentators. They keep asking, “Where’s my vote?” Ahmadinejad’s answer should be: “Your vote’s been counted and your candidate lost.”

Fair enough. Only, it’s not so easy. Because last fortnight’s Frontline wrote, “Mousavi’s camp knew that it would have to fight hard to get as many votes as possible from the 46 million voters that comprise Iran’s electorate. Ahmadinejad was declared winner after only 20 million of the ballots had been counted.”

In other words, Ahmadinejad was declared the winner prematurely. We cannot say whether he had an insurmountable lead unless we know where his opponents stood (at the point when results were declared). Why did their election commission declare the results before counting all the votes, more so because pre-poll surveys showed the result to be a foregone conclusion? Very strange… 

South Bombay gets its comeuppance

Our princesses and nobobs were delighted when The Decent Papaji made it on his own, under madam's guidance, and without the left. We'd turn right, but without paan-chewing knickerwallas. Bombay will be Big Apple; Sanghai is too small a dream for the i-generation.

Well, Congress ka haath, aam admi ke saath. And baba saw that only too well. So dada and didi were told to go socialist with a vengeance. And South Bombay's princesses and their stockbroker husbands got aam admis' jhapad in the form of two budgets, one for railways and the other for the country.

Why are they complaining now?

And why is this not a 'reform budget'? You had free market since 1991. Going back to socialism is reform, isn't it. We got to lose our 'pro-poor = sop, pro-rich = reform' glasses once in a while.

However, dada is wiser than he seems. How does one pay back the contributions made by big money during the pools? Simple. Make infrastructure, mostly in backwaters (anything outside South Bombay, New Delhi and Infosys Campus, Bangalore). Which means no journalist, leave alone any columnist, will bother to bother the big money contractors while costs quadruple on bridges and flyovers.

So everyone is happy, except poor rich South Bombay.

Why the surveys were all wrong

Apparently the Congress win in the recent was not predicted by any pre-pool or exit survey. I find that rather difficult to digest. However, let's say that is indeed the case. How can it be possible? Two possibilities come to mind:
All the surveys were badly done. They didn't go for representative samples; instead they just interviewed people near their homes and hotels.

Many seats were decided by the narrowest of margins. This was reflected in the surveys, but was left of by the publications. The newspapers and news channels left out the uncertainty so that the innumerate millions are not confused.

Also, the Congress, because it contested more seats this time (thanks to Ekla Cholo), won more of those marginal seats. A person who calls many tosses is almost sure to win more (numbers, not percentage) than one who calls few.

And, hey, where's the landslide? Congress & Co are 11 short of getting a simple Vote of Confidence. We don't have a hung parliament, but Vajpayee's and Dr Singh's terms show that that doesn't necessarily mean fatal crisis. Let's get real for once.

PS: One thing I heard no commentator talk about was the inordinate length of this election, the consequent presence of central security throughout the country, leading to free and fair (one assumes and hopes) voting. We all agree that corruption is a great ill, yet discuss matters as if it is not even a factor!

Second, I am sure someone has tried to find the role of luck in elections in our country. Very simply, we may look at the correlation between vote shares and seats, after adjusting for state size (In a state with one or two seats, the correlation will probably be weak). Do political parties employ statisticians? Shouldn't they?