I’ve never quite managed to make Sunday join seamlessly with the rest of my week and even now, Sunday is often more a hurdle than a pause between two workweeks.
If you really enjoy work (or if you have nothing better to do, as the case may be!), taking a forced break after every six days can remain a challenge. I felt like this even when I lived in Mumbai for many years, so it’s not the city… it’s me. I am not from the tribe that dreads Mondays!
Come Sunday, I have to face the challenge to engage myself in an interesting activity, especially between noon and five (my ‘graveyard shift’). I enjoy being by myself and I don’t have to worry about anyone else, yet it’s a chore to come up with an idea for one. The rest of the day is a greatly anticipated with lazy breakfast, catching up on reading, online social networking and playing with the dogs and evenings at the gym followed by a book/DVD ensconced in my favourite sofa or the occasional social/family gathering.
Motorbike ride in the old city, driving off to Thol lake with the dogs, personal pampering at a salon, attending a book reading at Crossword, spending contemplative time at the sites of my restoration projects, sipping tea at The Green House and chatting with hotel guests, exploring the world on Google Earth, searching for adventure travel options on the Net… these are some of the things I did the past few Sundays in the graveyard shift.
So long as the answer to that one question I like to ask myself before I go to sleep…. ‘When was the last time did I do something for the first time?’.. is ‘Today’, I rest easy… till the next Sunday!
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Affluence and empathy
Affluence and empathy are not inversely proportional. Jawaharlal Nehru was affluent and so was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. This perhaps hightened their sense of empathy towards the poor in India and strengthened their resolve to work towards their upliftment.
Maybe there is also a higher probability that affluent people join politics with the right motivations. In my case, my relative affluence has allowed me an excellent education and the option to choose any field of work. My choice of career, of trying to revitalise the heritage of the old city of Ahmedabad, was possible only because I enjoyed financial security. If I get a broader platform through Lead India, I can expand my scope of rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure and disappearing heritage of not only the historic old city of Ahmedabad but of other cities as well and in the process, make a small contribution to the lower middle class and poor people who reside in them.
Maybe there is also a higher probability that affluent people join politics with the right motivations. In my case, my relative affluence has allowed me an excellent education and the option to choose any field of work. My choice of career, of trying to revitalise the heritage of the old city of Ahmedabad, was possible only because I enjoyed financial security. If I get a broader platform through Lead India, I can expand my scope of rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure and disappearing heritage of not only the historic old city of Ahmedabad but of other cities as well and in the process, make a small contribution to the lower middle class and poor people who reside in them.
‘Friends of BJP’ meeting in Ahmedabad, March 28, 2009, Another party plank or a non-partisan effort?
It is true that politicians come to power on the back of ‘vote banks’ that do not contribute in commiserate measure to India’s economy. Educated urban professionals and businessmen, by and large, tend to shy away from participating in the electoral process. It is essential that this segment stand up to be counted even during elections. The idea of a forum to bring this target vote bank to interact with politicians in familiar environs of a drawing room or a comfortable hall is, therefore, an excellent one.
Even the charter of ‘Friends of BJP’ handed out to the people who streamed in to the Thakorebhai Hall in Ahmedabad on Saturday, March 28, 2009 was logical and non-partisan. Except the name ‘Friends of BJP’. ‘Friends of Democracy’ may have been more appropriate. There was nothing in the audio-visual presentation or the introduction given by the founding members to suggest that they lean towards the ideology of any particular political party. The tagline, ‘India deserves better’, was perhaps better coined.
The audio-visual presentation at the start of the program was, unfortunately, completely clichéd. It could have been made for any period in history of our democracy that has been dotted with similar manmade disasters and not just the last five years. Were we better off when BJP was in power between 1999 and 2004. Did India not deserve better then?
Also, what was the need for the fawning introductions (bordering on sycophantic in case of Mr. Jaitley) of the people on the dais by the compeer? It served no purpose other than to massage the egos of those present on the stage, if even that and it took away from objectivity of the forum.
Most disappointing of all was Mr. Jaitley himself. We had gathered to hear him speak about the lessons that his party had learnt during its own tenure at the centre. To explain how it had introspected and come out stronger so that now they were in a better position than before to run the country. But instead, we had to sit through his entire speech only to hear him run down the ruling party, its prominent members and mocked its electoral complacency that had come to haunt it. In any case, here he miscalculated badly because, as individuals, Dr. Manmohan Singh Mr. Chidambaram and Mr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia belong to the very class of people that he was addressing. They are held in the highest regard and their integrity remains beyond question. Their role and competency in bringing India out of the License Raj to its present free market economy will never be forgotten. Had he followed it up with the credentials of members of his own party who were qualified and capable of doing a better job, it may have seemed less of rhetoric.
Mr. Jaitley did not even mention the core issue. The educated electorate has already figured out that that biggest ailment of our democracy is not any political party or its members. It is our political system. Is it not true that unless the System itself is reformed, no party in power will be able get away from horse trading and vote bank politics? That a hybrid model that adopts the best of both the Presidential and the Parliamentarian system is the need of the hour? On what basis does he proclaim that the BJP, which has no other unique differentiator for its party’s ideology beyond ‘Hindutva’ (itself is a vote bank agenda) will not fall pray to the System again, as it did in the past? How does he or his party intend to remain relevant and yet hold a high moral ground in a system where the end justify the means? Why did he not even mention the need for electoral reform or his party’s commitment to bring it about? If anywhere, this was the platform to share his party’s views on such issues because the audience would have understood.
In conclusion, the central idea of the organizers of this meeting is very relevant, their ability to attract a good audience is commendable and their personal commitment to it is laudable but unless they keep the forum neutral, they will alienate their target audience. We are concerned with burning issues and not with a political party. We want to get to know our candidates and their views on these issues to gauge their ability to solve them when we cast our vote. I hope that with time and experience, this movement will tweak this anomaly and play a more significant role in bringing the educated urban citizen of India closer to the electoral process.
Even the charter of ‘Friends of BJP’ handed out to the people who streamed in to the Thakorebhai Hall in Ahmedabad on Saturday, March 28, 2009 was logical and non-partisan. Except the name ‘Friends of BJP’. ‘Friends of Democracy’ may have been more appropriate. There was nothing in the audio-visual presentation or the introduction given by the founding members to suggest that they lean towards the ideology of any particular political party. The tagline, ‘India deserves better’, was perhaps better coined.
The audio-visual presentation at the start of the program was, unfortunately, completely clichéd. It could have been made for any period in history of our democracy that has been dotted with similar manmade disasters and not just the last five years. Were we better off when BJP was in power between 1999 and 2004. Did India not deserve better then?
Also, what was the need for the fawning introductions (bordering on sycophantic in case of Mr. Jaitley) of the people on the dais by the compeer? It served no purpose other than to massage the egos of those present on the stage, if even that and it took away from objectivity of the forum.
Most disappointing of all was Mr. Jaitley himself. We had gathered to hear him speak about the lessons that his party had learnt during its own tenure at the centre. To explain how it had introspected and come out stronger so that now they were in a better position than before to run the country. But instead, we had to sit through his entire speech only to hear him run down the ruling party, its prominent members and mocked its electoral complacency that had come to haunt it. In any case, here he miscalculated badly because, as individuals, Dr. Manmohan Singh Mr. Chidambaram and Mr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia belong to the very class of people that he was addressing. They are held in the highest regard and their integrity remains beyond question. Their role and competency in bringing India out of the License Raj to its present free market economy will never be forgotten. Had he followed it up with the credentials of members of his own party who were qualified and capable of doing a better job, it may have seemed less of rhetoric.
Mr. Jaitley did not even mention the core issue. The educated electorate has already figured out that that biggest ailment of our democracy is not any political party or its members. It is our political system. Is it not true that unless the System itself is reformed, no party in power will be able get away from horse trading and vote bank politics? That a hybrid model that adopts the best of both the Presidential and the Parliamentarian system is the need of the hour? On what basis does he proclaim that the BJP, which has no other unique differentiator for its party’s ideology beyond ‘Hindutva’ (itself is a vote bank agenda) will not fall pray to the System again, as it did in the past? How does he or his party intend to remain relevant and yet hold a high moral ground in a system where the end justify the means? Why did he not even mention the need for electoral reform or his party’s commitment to bring it about? If anywhere, this was the platform to share his party’s views on such issues because the audience would have understood.
In conclusion, the central idea of the organizers of this meeting is very relevant, their ability to attract a good audience is commendable and their personal commitment to it is laudable but unless they keep the forum neutral, they will alienate their target audience. We are concerned with burning issues and not with a political party. We want to get to know our candidates and their views on these issues to gauge their ability to solve them when we cast our vote. I hope that with time and experience, this movement will tweak this anomaly and play a more significant role in bringing the educated urban citizen of India closer to the electoral process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
